-Dan

Of course, I am the perfect writer for Dazzler. She, along with Rogue and Psylocke, are my absolute favorite Marvel characters. I would carry out clandestine assassinations for Joey Q if he let me write a book with those three characters.

I think Ali's X-Men membership started out well. She definitely did NOT want to be there...she hated the idea of being forced onto the team. But it seemed this disappeared rather quickly...almost right after the newbies' encounter with the Juggernaut. And once she and Longshot hooked up, which I despised, it was all downhill. She seemed to lose all identity and purpose. Whether that was worse than her disappearance from comics altogether or not, I don't know.

As for the future...hopefully she's put to better use in NEX with the next writer. Or hopefully she's dropped and used elsewhere. I wouldn't even mind her dropping "Dazzler" as her stage name and just going by Alison. It'd certainly be a little more timely. But the argument could be made for owning her past as well.

I would love to see Dazzler revived as superhero media embassador. I liked what Bendis did in HoM (Dazzler talk show), though I would prefer Dazzler more as mutant/superhero activism in the media.

Really. Read Dazzler: The Movie. It's so the perfect Civil War tie-in idea back in 1984. '84 dialogue and kitsch still applies, but the core is there.

I really think having her as an X-Men hanger-on is about the *worst* use of Dazzler, because she's not that kind of character. And her series had a (comparative) "real world" feel to the increasingly insular X-titles, which even then were becoming books where every single character was a good or evil mutant, with little more than the occasional "humans who hate us and fear us" business relating it to the wider world.

But giving her a solo shot might work. I might call it "Whatever Happened to Dazzler?" Alison Blaire as "has-been" on the comeback trail? And you could work in "trendy" bits like reality TV as part of that, but they'd be hit-and-run stories, not the basis for the series.

The thing that does astonish me is that Dazzler is one of the very few Marvel Comics that has never, ever has a volume 2. They've brushed off Ghost Rider and Marvel Team-Up and Nova and Howard the Duck and Man-Thing for more than one series...yet Ms. Blaire remains with only the one book. I'd like to see the character get another shot at solo stardom, although I think with a character like this you need to have a gimmick twist that's dramatically different than what went before to capture people's attentions (i.e., Booster Gold as Policeman of Time, She-Hulk as Lawyer to the Marvel Universe). Just please resist tying her into a fad once again--no "Dazzler as Judge on American Idol" or "Dazzler in a reality series". Since the 1970s, Marvel's never been great at timing tie-ins to pop culture.

Some points on early Dazzler, some directed at the comments:

The disco ties were fully dropped by Dazzler #5, and already dropped off by issue #3 for the most part. Dazz was conceptualized as a disco tie-in, but this was when a record company was funding the thing. When they bailed (bankruptcy!) and Marvel took over, it was dropped.

Dazzler #1-2 was the original script for Casablanca, though, with some minor tweaks. Which is why you get the campy disco dialogue and "LAST STAND IN DISCOLAND!" on the cover of Issue #2. But they knew what was up.

Springer's pencils were a bit old-fashioned and he had some issues with fluid superhero movement, but it was great -- IMO -- for Dazzler. The coloring was dreadful though. His pencils (even with the crazy inks) show much better in the Essential. The colors were horrendous. Nothing illuminating about them for someone with such a visual power.

She had this anti-hero vibe, and I loved the stage outfit. It was perfect for her and made her stand out. Streamline some of the clunkier fare (collar, giant disco necklace) and you get something golden that really works. And the skates? So much hate, but they were a fun plot device in several issues.

Also loved how Ali had the sound limitation on her light powers. The problem with the early series is that Dazzler failed to retain and really develop her own "Spider-Man" like cast -- the friends, bandmates, and family -- before she ditched them. And her unique villains and allies were also underdeveloped (or very unoriginal. Techmaster? Flame? Blargh).

But it DID have good character drama, and so much continuity. The Fingeroth run flowed so well together, IMO.

Have to comment on the latter half, too:

Dazzler lasted 42 issues, but the latter half was mostly bi-monthy -- issues 26-42 were on this schedule. A contibution to killing it, for sure. But in total, the series lasted 5 years.

Frank Springer moved Dazz to the West Coast, not Fingeroth, and then it transitioned to Shooter and the fill-ins. Another big problem was the chronology of "Dazzler: The Movie." While a FANTASTIC story (read that, then you will definitely get the "ahead of it's time" vibe), it was a dead weight anchor on the series.

Dazzler: The Movie was published as Marvel GN #12, but was solicited as Marvel: GN #9 (or #7 -- I have the article, but not on hand). It was supposed to be published right after #31, with Issue #35 to be the next issue (which is why #35 is still drawn by Springer).

Instead it was delayed for MONTHS, causing #32-#34 being fill-in inventory issues. Bi-montly publication? That's EIGHT MONTHS between issues #31-#35, all of which treaded water (there's your Michael Jackson and Millie the Model uber-fill-ins for you!). Not the best way to continue on the "mutants rights" angle that EiC Jim Shooter was pushing for within the title (and which Dazzler: The Movie and #35, both by Shooter, did with aplomb).

Plus, it was hard to push for the mutants rights thing when Dazzler was not really an X-Title. The X-Men sure did never reference Dazzler, nor the movie plot. And Dazzler appeared in New Mutants as -- you guessed it --a cracked out drug addict. Way to go, Claremont. She was forced to fit with what the X-Men were doing, and that meant she wasn't allowed to do too much at all.

So Ali burned most of her MU tricks as X-Men soared in popularity, and then she lost all direction and eventually was forgotten. A shame. Dazzler: The Movie and #35 were pushing her in a very "before her time" Civil War-like direction, but it was kaiboshed for Phoenix Redux and Space Plots.

I think Dazzler could do much better in today's market, but too many people write her off as the joke of her former series, when it was an interesting, different, more free-form angle (as you've said).

Fantastic write-up, though. While I disagree at points, mucho kudos!

Not that I'm trying to use a catch phrase whenever possible. I'd never do that.

Because I'm the best there is at what I do, but what I do isn't nice. By my power, Green Lantern's light, truth, justice, and I'm the God d*** Batman.

Stop me before I hurt myself.

As for "Go For It", I think the problem's not so much the phrase as the way they tried to hammer the reader with it every issue.

You didn't mention the Michael Jackson / THRILLER cover!

When you say: "However, it followed somewhat in the tradition of the 1970s Marvel books, where creators were given a bit more free rein, and therefore Fingeroth, Springer, and the other men who worked on the book (no women worked on the comic, although Mary Wilshire contributed a cover to issue #37) were able to attempt something a little different than the normal superhero book."

You hit the nail right on the head. Take a look at ESSENTIAL WEREWOLF BY NIGHT and you'll see the same apporach. Most of Marvel's 70's (anti/monster) heroes were all about *not* being heroes most of the time and the books flailed around to some degree because of this. Jack Russell was unconsciously going out and tearing people apart at night and, even when he gains control over his werewolf form, he still laughs at the idea of being considered a super hero.

Again, thanks for the interesting write-up.