This Just In: Hank Pym Not a Wife Beater

[scottharris]

So, Jim Shooter has a new blog where he's been writing about his experiences in comics. Today's entry is all about the Fall of Yellowjacket storyline and in this entry, Jim drops a bombshell: he never intended for Pym to actually punch Jan. According to Jim, his plot just called for Pym to throw his hands up in a moment of frustration and accidentally strike Jan. But thanks to the looser Marvel style of comic creating, artist Bob Hall interpreted it as a full punch and drew it that way. Shooter was dismayed but didn't have time to get the scene redrawn before he sent it to the printers because of their tight deadline:

"In that story (issue 213, I think), there is a scene in which Hank is supposed to have accidentally struck Jan while throwing his hands up in despair and frustration—making a sort of “get away from me” gesture while not looking at her. Bob Hall, who had been taught by John Buscema to always go for the most extreme action, turned that into a right cross! There was no time to have it redrawn, which, to this day has caused the tragic story of Hank Pym to be known as the “wife-beater” story."


That's a pretty major change!

Here's the whole thing:

www.jimshooter.com/2011/03/hank-pym-was-not-wife-beater.html

[humanbelly]

The brief article itself was pretty interesting-- and the generally intelligent commentary afterward was even moreso. It was pointed out that Shooter himself mis-remembered how Bob Hall illustrated the infamous blow-- he recalls it being a right-cross, but another fan points out that it was, in fact, a backhanded slap (which would be a really long stretch to deliver that swollen shiner that Jan received). Regardless of the initial intention (or the confluence of circumstances that brought it about), it was a very, very brave storyline to go ahead with. It was unbearably heartbreaking (with unfortunate resonances in my own family at the time), but it made almost startling sense, given Hank's rather long, strange history. No one wants to see that kind of personal trainwreck-- and the fact that this team of superheroes was at such a loss (and wildly out of their element) in their efforts to deal with it was an enormous reflection on all of them. Heck, I think our local PTA could have done a better job handling this particular crisis.

I do believe Hank has been seriously mis-characterized ever since, though. At the very worst, he is a former wife-beater. It was one horrible incident during a period when he was literally delusional with mental illness. It does not excuse it at all-- but neither does it mean that it's even remotely likely (or even possible?) that it could happen again. Hank has grown, matured, born the consequences of his actions, and found a measure of self-respect and redemption in the many years since. It would seem wise to take a cue from Jan herself, who had long, long, long since forgiven him, and re-established a relationship with him (well, until other stupid writers got involved right before DisAssembled. . . ).

Essaying off the top of my head. . .

HB

(Argh-- have to go make dinner for everyone. MUST THEY EAT EVERY DAY??)

[ultron69]

I discovered this article a few days ago visiting another website. I feel like this has always been overblown by fans, as well as writers, and seeing Shooter's original intent makes me feel that this is even more of a shame. Not that there's any excuse for spousal abuse, of course, but I'm sure Janet, as an Avenger, has faced worse than a backhand slap. I don't mean to sound like I'm coming off light on this sort of thing. If this were real life rather than a comic, I'd be all over the guy, but some people just won't let this one event go. For some reason, I've never thought of Hank as a wife beater, but for many, that term always precedes his name.

[robert]

Interesting posts. I read the article myself a few weeks ago, along with Hall's very honest take on the whole incident.

And while I agree with you in general, Humanbelly, I think "former wife-beater" doesn't quite work. If you murder someone (an admittedly greater crime) you are never referred to as a "former murderer", just a "murderer". So, while I do think Hank has earned a bit more forgiveness than people want to give him, he can't really completely shake off this stigma.

[humanbelly]

May 12, 2011 14:13:06 GMT -5 robert said:

Interesting posts. I read the article myself a few weeks ago, along with Hall's very honest take on the whole incident.

And while I agree with you in general, Humanbelly, I think "former wife-beater" doesn't quite work. If you murder someone (an admittedly greater crime) you are never referred to as a "former murderer", just a "murderer". So, while I do think Hank has earned a bit more forgiveness than people want to give him, he can't really completely shake off this stigma.

You make a very good point, Robert. I think the tag "former" is actually too clumsy, as I reflect on it. Not only because it doesn't address the scope of the offense (a person could, of course, be considered a "former" thief or "former" bookie or "former" tax-cheat, etc-- because those crimes don't do the irreparable harm that murder or domestic violence do, would be one way of looking at it, I suppose), but because it also suggests that the perpetrator's "former" transgression is something that he was wholly & entirely identifiable as. It suggests an established pattern of behavior, in other words, that has now been left behind.
I went and asked my wife about it this morning as we were getting ready for our day, because- believe it or not- she is a nationally recognized authority on crime victims' rights, and domestic violence issues are a major part of their/her particular focus. She took my question seriously (not a comic book fan, she-!), and said that Hank's obvious, deep mental illness during that period in general and at that moment specifically is absolutely a mitigating factor-- especially considering there was no established pattern of physical abuse before that. When families are able to reconcile isolated incidents like this, it's because they're able to recognize that it is, in fact, the illness at work & in control, and take immediate action to address that.
Now, if there had been even a second incident after that, then we'd have a different story.
But her take on Hank's case did kind of surprise me, 'cause her stance on domestic violence is pretty hard-line (and correctly so, IMO). It was heartening to hear from her that, no, forgiveness, redemption, and moving forward is certainly the correct route here. So, to correctly identify Hank, one would have to say that he's an oft-troubled man with an instance of spousal battery that occurred during a nervous breakdown. (My words, not my wife's, mind you) It's a mouthful-- but does that sound correct?

HB

[robert]

Yeh. Looking back, I probably should have outlined my own position more, as I am coming from a similar place to your wife. It's undeniable that Hank was mentally ill and, I believe, not fully responsible for his actions. He deserved to be punished, just not in the same as, say, you or I, who are (I assume!) mentally on an even keel. It's a real shame that this single act of spontaneous violence, reprehensible though it was, seems to loom so large over a long career of heroics. (The creation of Ultron could be considered another blot on his copybook, although that was hardly deliberate.)

Writers and readers are very unforgiving with Hank. You're right that two points need to be remembered.
1. Hank's poor mental health.
2. The unique nature of the incident. Hank has never done anything like that again (and has shown remorse on numerous occasions).

In fact, taking Hank's mental health into account, we should perhaps admire him for what he has achieved with the Avengers.