X-Men Annual #14 - Proof of Gambit's 1st published appearance within 3 3

[RockMyAmadeus]

As such, since Gambit is obviously and clearly portrayed in the Annual, and the readers don't know who this character is, and since he is central to the story that is being referred to in X-Men #265-267, the footnote is, in fact, about Gambit, because it is not an "either/or" situation...it is all-inclusive.

 

Is X-Men #265-267 about Ororo's adventures with Nanny? Yes.

 

Is X-Men #265-267 about the introduction to Gambit's character? Yes.

 

Is Gambit the most integral character of X-Men #265-267 after Storm? Most certainly.

 

Is it therefore reasonable to state that the footnote is just as much about Gambit as it is about Storm? Eminently. It's a completely logical conclusion.

 

And we have gone very, very, very far afield.

 

We have not gone far afield.

 

When talking about what and who is "steering" a conversation, or discussing how different definitions of words leads to miscommunication, among many other such tangents, none of which have anything to do with the X-Men, Storm, Gambit, et al, we have, in fact, gone very, very far afield.

 

Say what you want to make your point. But please stop trying to make it look like only you and people that support your thinking are the only folks that have a grip on the situation.

 

Whose posts are you reading...? I haven't said anything like that at all.

 

 

That never contributes to a respectful, healthy conversation.

 

I agree, which is why I haven't done it. You're reading things that aren't there.

 

Although you are stretching the reference quite a bit what Ororo is discussing in a panel that clearly states what she shares with the New Mutants Team, some of your points are valid. Though it is more accurate the way you are summarizing it versus earlier the 'flashback'/footnote was all about knowing more about Gambit. And if you are going to call something a 'flashback', then what does that term mean?

 

a device in the narrative of a motion picture, novel, etc., by which an event or scene taking place before the present time in the narrative is inserted into the chronological structure of the work

 

Now are UXM 265-267 true flashbacks? They are actually taking place at the same time as the release of X-Men Annual #14. So the footnote is tying together the stories from both runs (Shadow King adventures and Days of Future Present), though more to link up the experiences of the characters than any relations between the stories.

 

All interesting, but ultimately not relevant. Whether the footnote is a "flashback", a "flash forward", or a "flash sideways", the point is that it references another story, one that hadn't (completely) appeared yet.

 

Being different than other character releases that have been brought up here (Venom/black suit, Wolverine), these books were right on top of one another.

 

So was ASM #252/MTU #141/PPSPM #90.

 

So again, it is clear how the release of one before the other could cause the story not to flow 100% in chronological order.

 

Of course, which is why the footnote was necessary in the first place. The story doesn't flow in chronological order at all at the time the Annual came out.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Should I read through all this?!

no

[Bosco685]

Not at all. In fact, the gap between Amazing Spiderman #252 and MTU #141/PPSPM #90 is LESS THAN the gap between X-Men Annual #14 and X-Men #266 by a week, and no one seriously considers either MTU #141 nor PPSPM #90 as the "true" first appearance of the symbiote.

 

So, not unique.

You do realize someone brought up that example earlier, which again is a unique situation.

 

Just so there is clarity, 'unique' is 'something limited in occurrence' and not a 'once and never again' situation. Better to realize that in advance so there is no misundestanding between us on these events.

 

Most footnoted stories have "some flow from one to the other"...that's why they are footnoted.

 

You're making a point here. But I am not sure if you are assuming I didn't realize what a footnote is (that really wouldn't be necessary), or that something unique happened with this footnote other than your mistaken assumption it was all about Gambit's appearance in UXM #266-267. I think by now with the photo that clearly shows what Ororo was sharing, that is not the case.

 

But I do agree. The overall timeline as a reference (which is not what this is about) would be quite the challenge.

 

I'm curious...if the "overall timeframe as a reference" is not what this is about...what IS it about...?

 

Context - remember?

 

'overall timeframe as a reference'

 

Ant-Man had mentioned the timeline of events in the Marvel 616 dictating a 1st appearance. We are talking about two books that were published at around the same time, which had a partial link between them. Not something published months or years previously.

 

Is that clear? I just wanted to check.

[porcupine48]

Should I read through all this?!

no

Okay.Rock on!

[Bosco685]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Maybe reword...?

 

Sure thing. I'll keep it straightforward for you. I see how it confused you.

 

You called something a tangent because it did not fit your flow of thought when it wasn't. Like a proud father watching the growth of twins in the womb, no matter which came first for whatever reason, it is clear which was Twin A - which was Twin B. Since you felt the twin analogy fit, I was adding more of the details what goes into multiples birth that helped clarify the opposite point of you that was something you were not agreeing to.

 

I don't see how that is disputable. "What came first?" is a matter of fact, and has been proven. I mean, I understand that you think X-Men #266 should be considered first, on a philosophical basis, but it didn't come out first.

 

Actually, UXM #266 has been considered the 1st appearance of Gambit since it was published. So to use the word 'considered' as if this was a new concept, I think it doesn't fit the situation.

 

You are just set on the new thinking X-Men Annual #14 is the actual 1st appearance just based on it hit the market first. And it did reach the market first. But the thinking in the hobby for a very long time has been some production confusion most probably because of the (1) footnote and (2) the flow of the story.

 

That's what I think you may be experiencing a hard time with because you want some form of published, official document that clearly states there was a mixup. Honestly, I don't think we will ever see anything resembling that letter. It is just not going to happen.

 

But we do have the books and content that opens that door. What someone believes as the final answer is their personal stance on the matter.

 

Correct, and I didn't say it was (although your analogy is getting fairly tortured by now.)

 

Tortured? Not really. You just want to keep this conversation going concerning the analogy when by now it is very clear what the meaning was.

 

That is incorrect. I am disagreeing with your view. Your view doesn't encompass every other view on the subject; it's simply your view. Naturally, I'm going to "stick to my thinking", as you stick to yours, and everyone else sticks to theirs, until something comes along to change our minds. That's basic reason. If someone comes along with a different view than yours AND mine, and it is compelling, I am certainly willing to consider it.

 

Now THAT I am agreeing with, as earlier you had stated an individual collector can't have the flexibility to determine for themselves which book is Gambit's 1st appearance.

 

Except, in this case, we know what "THE TRUE 1ST APPEARANCE" is. It is the myth that X-Men #266 was "actually first" and that "really, the annual *may* have technically come first, but it was a mistake" which has been thoroughly debunked in this thread.

 

Scratch my previous statement. Now you are saying something different.

 

So an individual collector can't have their own opinion which book is the 1st appearance of Gambit?

 

I don't know if I would go down that path that strongly. And especially after much of what we have discussed here that is unique to the situation. If someone is a fan of Gambit, and still feels due to the non-prominent appearances of Gambit in X-Men Annual #14 he still fully appeared in UXM #266 1st, then who are we to tell them otherwise?

 

But in the case of my Hellboy example, that is one that has caused much confusion for such collectors. All we can do is provide them the information necessary to make them aware of the three books and what the significance may be. Then it is on the collector to make the jump which book fits their need.

[Bosco685]

Should I read through all this?!

no

Okay.Rock on!

 

PM sent, you wonderful animal lover you.

 

[porcupine48]

I've lots of both books!

[Lazyboy]

So an individual collector can't have their own opinion which book is the 1st appearance of Gambit?

No, you can't have an "opinion" that contradicts facts. Well, I guess you can, it just makes you an insufficiently_thoughtful_person.

 

What an individual collector can do is decide which book they like better or think is more important.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Maybe reword...?

 

Sure thing. I'll keep it straightforward for you. I see how it confused you.

 

Well, to be frankly honest, I think what you wrote would have confused most of the people on this board.

 

You called something a tangent

 

Still not correct. Your "twins analogy" was not one of the (multiple) tangents I was referring to.

 

because it did not fit your flow of thought when it wasn't.

 

"You called something a tangent because it did not fit your flow of thought when it wasn't."

 

 

Nope, still not getting it. There seems to be some parts of that sentence that are missing.

 

Like a proud father watching the growth of twins in the womb, no matter which came first for whatever reason, it is clear which was Twin A - which was Twin B. Since you felt the twin analogy fit, I was adding more of the details what goes into multiples birth that helped clarify the opposite point of you that was something you were not agreeing to.

 

Right...except that the analogy stopped making sense.

 

And...."I was adding more of the details what goes into multiples birth that helped clarify the opposite point of you that was something you were not agreeing to."

 

....huh?

 

:shrug:

 

I don't see how that is disputable. "What came first?" is a matter of fact, and has been proven. I mean, I understand that you think X-Men #266 should be considered first, on a philosophical basis, but it didn't come out first.

 

Actually, UXM #266 has been considered the 1st appearance of Gambit since it was published. So to use the word 'considered' as if this was a new concept, I think it doesn't fit the situation.

 

As I said...I understand that you think X-Men #266 should be considered first, on a philosophical basis, but it didn't come out first. There wasn't anything in that statement that might lead someone into thinking this was a new concept.

 

You are just set on the new thinking X-Men Annual #14 is the actual 1st appearance just based on it hit the market first.

 

Since, of course, that's how the hobby has defined "first appearance" since the beginning of comics, for literally every single character that has ever existed, it seems within reason to apply that same standard to Gambit.

 

I mean, as novel as it is to consider books that came out SECOND as FIRST appearances, I don't know that you're going to be able to overcome basic reason and common sense.

 

You can imagine the scenarios:

 

"So, what issue did Gambit first appear in?"

 

"That depends, do you mean the book he first appeared in, or what most of the market thought was his first appearance, but really wasn't, but some people think still is?"

 

"Um."

 

PS. Personally, since I bought both of those books brand spankin' new, and knew that Annual #14 came out first, though the mists of time obscured my being able to prove it, I have always considered #14 to be the actual first appearance. There's nothing new about that.

 

And it did reach the market first. But the thinking in the hobby for a very long time has been some production confusion most probably because of the (1) footnote and (2) the flow of the story.

 

Oh, granted, I have no doubt there was confusion because of the way the story was presented, and the footnote that referred to it. But anyone with a brain would have realized that X-Men #267 clearly came out after Annual #14, so the footnote was clearly not to be understood as referring to a story that had already been published, at least not in its entirety.

 

See, the REAL thinking in the hobby (and I can add my direct experience to this) is that "hey..we understand that the Annual came out first, but it's really more of a cameo appearance, and he's not even on the cover, and hey, look at #266, he's right there, gorgeous Kubert cover and all, and really, this should be THE book, and we'll make up a story about there being some "error in distribution" or somesuch if anyone questions how the Annual came out first, so that it looks like #266 really WAS supposed to be out first...I mean, who's ever going to find out, right...?"

 

And, because there was no internet to challenge them, it stuck.

 

That's what REALLY happened.

 

That's what I think you may be experiencing a hard time

 

Nope. No hard time experiencing on this end. You?

 

with because you want some form of published, official document that clearly states there was a mixup. Honestly, I don't think we will ever see anything resembling that letter. It is just not going to happen.

 

Well of course. How can you provide documentation for an event that never occurred?

 

:shrug:

 

But we do have the books and content that opens that door.

 

It only "opens that door" if you're willing to suspend disbelief and believe things *might* have happened, or *could* have happened, that clearly belong in the realm of fiction.

 

And, considering what we're discussing, such a response isn't surprising.

 

The good news, of course, is that, rationally, the books and the footnote is not evidence that "proves" a mixup. It actually proves the opposite: that Marvel was completely aware of the continuity issue, and added the note to make sure readers understood.

 

We have the publication dates from the US Copyright office. We have the "coming soon" flyer from Marvel that gives the same exact dates for all the issues in contention (which, by the way, are all Tuesdays...isn't THAT interesting?), and we have an unbroken record of publication for many years from Marvel production.

 

What someone believes as the final answer is their personal stance on the matter.

 

Unless we're talking about the actual first appearance of Gambit, which is not in dispute. It's Annual #14. Like I said before, people are free to believe whatever they wish...but believing something doesn't make it true.

 

Correct, and I didn't say it was (although your analogy is getting fairly tortured by now.)

 

Tortured? Not really. You just want to keep this conversation going concerning the analogy when by now it is very clear what the meaning was.

 

No, not at all. It's a bad analogy; hopefully it's done. It's not clear at all.

 

That is incorrect. I am disagreeing with your view. Your view doesn't encompass every other view on the subject; it's simply your view. Naturally, I'm going to "stick to my thinking", as you stick to yours, and everyone else sticks to theirs, until something comes along to change our minds. That's basic reason. If someone comes along with a different view than yours AND mine, and it is compelling, I am certainly willing to consider it.

 

Now THAT I am agreeing with, as earlier you had stated an individual collector can't have the flexibility to determine for themselves which book is Gambit's 1st appearance.

 

Nope, not what I said. I wouldn't say someone can't "determine for themselves which book is Gambit's first appearance." They clearly can. If they determine that it's not Annual #14, they'll be wrong, but like I said...they're free to believe anything they want, including wrong things.

 

I have been logically consistent this conversation.

 

Except, in this case, we know what "THE TRUE 1ST APPEARANCE" is. It is the myth that X-Men #266 was "actually first" and that "really, the annual *may* have technically come first, but it was a mistake" which has been thoroughly debunked in this thread.

 

Scratch my previous statement. Now you are saying something different.

 

So an individual collector can't have their own opinion which book is the 1st appearance of Gambit?

 

Of course they can. As I have said many, many times on this board, all opinions are not created equal. I can be of the opinion that the earth is a flat square, around which the sun, moon, and stars rotate. I'd be wrong, but I can still have that opinion. I'd expect others to correct me, but that doesn't mean I can't still believe things that are wrong. I'm free to do that.

 

There is no inconsistency here. I am not saying anything different, at any time.

 

I don't know if I would go down that path that strongly.

 

I understand why you think this (as in, I comprehend the reasons you think this way, that I agree with you.) It is consistent with many other things you've said on this board.

 

And especially after much of what we have discussed here that is unique to the situation. If someone is a fan of Gambit, and still feels due to the non-prominent appearances of Gambit in X-Men Annual #14 he still fully appeared in UXM #266 1st, then who are we to tell them otherwise?

 

You are playing with the language. "Fully appeared 1st" is not the same thing as "first appearance." "First appearance" has a specific, defined meaning. "Fully appeared 1st" does not. If you want to fiddle with the language, that's fine, but you can't fiddle with it, and then claim that's what I say or advocate.

 

If someone wants to call the Annual a cameo, and #266 1st full appearance, what's the problem? The FIRST APPEARANCE, however, is the Annual. And if someone is going

 

After all...who are we to tell anyone that the earth ISN'T a flat square, around which the sun, moon, and stars revolve...?

 

 

But in the case of my Hellboy example, that is one that has caused much confusion for such collectors. All we can do is provide them the information necessary to make them aware of the three books and what the significance may be. Then it is on the collector to make the jump which book fits their need.

 

Don't disagree with any of that.

[RockMyAmadeus]

So an individual collector can't have their own opinion which book is the 1st appearance of Gambit?

No, you can't have an "opinion" that contradicts facts. Well, I guess you can, it just makes you an insufficiently_thoughtful_person.

 

What an individual collector can do is decide which book they like better or think is more important.

 

[Bosco685]

No, you can't have an "opinion" that contradicts facts. Well, I guess you can, it just makes you an insufficiently_thoughtful_person.

 

What an individual collector can do is decide which book they like better or think is more important.

 

There is no contradiction of facts. The stance that UXM #266 is the 1st full appearance of Gambit has been around since its publication (1990). The perception that X-Men Annual #14 was just a cameo has been the point of confusion for the same length of time. But the latter's contents is still such it leads to the individual collector making up their own mind which matters most as a 1st full appearance.

 

Assuming someone is an insufficiently_thoughtful_person because they disagree with one or the other is behavior I am glad gets called out from time to time.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion about their comics

 

 

 

So if someone presents their opinion on a topic - no matter the images and details - you agree with calling them an insufficiently_thoughtful_person? I guess that is an approach.

 

[Logan510]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion ( hopefully it's an educated one ), but that doesn't mean an opinion can't be wrong.

[jsilverjanet]

i read 3-4 posts and i got a headache

 

 

[Bosco685]

i read 3-4 posts and i got a headache

 

Better to start a thread about a collection purchase, asking for help to identify the money books?

 

Or is that too passive-aggressive to your passive-aggressive?

[Bosco685]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion ( hopefully it's an educated one ), but that doesn't mean an opinion can't be wrong.

 

On that we can agree that someone's assumptions or understanding of facts may be in error, or misinformed.

 

Assuming someone is an insufficiently_thoughtful_person because they see things differently based on other facts seems very close-minded.

[Broke as a Joke]

I think the market has addressed the question on this topic. People knew Annual 14 came out first over 20 years ago and it never made a difference to the value of 266.

[jsilverjanet]

i read 3-4 posts and i got a headache

 

Better to start a thread about a collection purchase, asking for help to identify the money books?

 

Or is that too passive-aggressive to your passive-aggressive?

 

i don't recall asking for help :shrug:

[Bosco685]

i read 3-4 posts and i got a headache

 

Better to start a thread about a collection purchase, asking for help to identify the money books?

 

Or is that too passive-aggressive to your passive-aggressive?

 

i don't recall asking for help :shrug:

 

You very well know as soon as you start posting a collection not only do the PM's start flowing in, but also the information. Comic collectors can't help themselves.

 

Meanwhile, your passive-aggressive previous concerns were fully realized with your post in here. You've achieved much!

 

[jsilverjanet]

You are assuming a bit much

 

Have you seen the books?

 

Despite what you may think, I have a pretty good idea of what's worth money and what's not. A quick eBay search helps with the unknown.

 

But you are entitled to your opinion so believe what you want

 

 

[Logan510]