Mother Teresa of Calcutta #1 (1984)

[vanhornluke]

Yeah, like accounts Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, or various battles in the Revolutionary War.

[Russ Chappell]

I'm asking what STORIES are you referring to?

Yeah, like accounts Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo

Are you talking about Man Comics?

various battles in the Revolutionary War.

You gotta give me more to go on than that. What books? What issues?

[ShadZ]

616 stories are intended to be fiction. These two books are intended to be factual.

This is a good argument for excluding them. The are non-fiction, so including them in the fictional Marvel Universe is weird, and sort of disrespectful to the creators.

[vanhornluke]

Oh, okay. Here are just small sampling of examples (taken from work I did for the Complete Marvel Reading Order):

Ideal #3a (Nov 1948); “Joan of Arc”
Ideal #4a (Jan 1949); Richard the Lionheart; note that this one is already included in MCP
Best Western #59b (Aug 1949); “Remember the Alamo!”; Davey Crockett
Tex Taylor #7e (Oct 1949); “‘Kit’ Carson” Handbook
All True Crime #39e (Jul 1950); “Lucrezia Borgia. Duchess. Wife. Art Patron. Murderess”
All True Crime #42c (Jan 1951); “The Kid from Brooklyn”; Billy the Kid
War Comics #3d (Apr 1951); “Death in the Desert”; Rommel
Black Rider #14f (May 1951); “Custer’s Last Stand!”
War Adventures on the Battlefield #2c (Jun 1952); “Atrocity Story”; Goerring
War Adventures on the Battlefield #2h; “They Shall Not Pass”; Hitler, Genghis Khan; these two stories from this issue were also included in MCP
Man Comics #22b (Jan 1953); “Bonaparte!”; also in MCP
Battle #17d (Feb 1953); “1776”; George Washington
Battlefield #8a (Feb 1953); “Il Duce, the Leader”; Mussolini
War Comics #16a (Feb 1953); “The Kaiser!”
War Comics #17e (Mar 1953); “Remember the Alamo”
Battle Action #12c (May 1953); “Bastogne”; Gen. Patton
Battle #21b (Jul 1953); “Rough Riders”; Teddy Roosevelt
Battle #21d; “To the Shores of Tripoli”; Stephen Decatur
Battlefront #17e (Mar 1954); “Lafayette!”; George Washington, Pershing
Marines in Battle #1d (Aug 1954); “The History of the U.S. Marine Corps”; Benjamin Franklin; this is the first in a series of stories in this title about the history of the marines, all of which are retellings of historical events

[Russ Chappell]

Well, let's review.

You asked me for the reasoning behind the decision not to include the Mother Teresa and John Paul books. I gave you the reason, that they were intended as factual accounts. You replied that there were plenty of factual accounts that were already 616. When you said that, I assumed you were talking about "factual account that had made their way into the MCP," thereby attempting to show we weren't consistent. We do try to be consistent, so that's why I asked for more specific information.

Naming a dozen or so stories that AREN'T in the MCP doesn't support your premise; it supports mine.

Now, unless I'm misreading, you mention two instances where so-called historically factual books have made it into the MCP, Napoleon from Man Comics, and Richard the Lion Hearted, from Ideal Comics.

Keep in mind that I don't have these books, while it appears you do, so I'm responding based on what others have said.

For Napoleon, his chronology includes Man Comics based on a post that you yourself made. But in your own analysis, you contended that the Napoleon in Man Comics is NOT the Napoleon from our history, but the 616 version of Napoleon. So again, this seems to be supporting my premise.

As for Richard, his entry is based on an analysis by Wolframbane here. In his analysis, he points out several places where the Ideal story varies from historical accounts, thereby leading a casual reader to believe that Ideal is telling the 616 version of events, not intended to be a factual account.

If further analysis shows that I'm mistaken, and that these stories of Napoleon or Richard are in fact intended to tell events as they REALLY happened, rather than just telling a good story, then I'll be glad to remove the listing from the Project, thereby keeping our policy consistent.

[Russ Chappell]

Upon reflection, it appears there may be some confusion over the distinction between "historically accurate" and "intended to be factual."

Does a story about the Bay of Pigs accurately reflect the CIA's involvement in instigating Cuban nationals to perform a raid on Cuba? In telling that story, does the writer create a "non-historical" (fictional) character to show the impact that events have? Is there dialogue or sub-events, for which no historical record exists? Does the writer use his imagination, in order to add element to the story? If so, it may be historically accurate, but it is not intended to be factual.

Herman Wouk's "Winds of War" and "War and Remembrance" are historically accurate, but also entirely fictional. If Marvel published an adaptation of these books, we could consider them for inclusion in the MCP, as long as they didn't contradict established Marvel history.

William Manchester's "Last Lion" series of biographies of Winston Churchill are historically accurate, and intended to be factual. If Marvel published an accurate adaptation of these books, they would not make it into the MCP.

Now I haven't gone and investigated any of the stories you've mentioned above, but I'd wager that most of them fall into the category of "historically accurate," but fictional, because the writer has inserted elements into the story (whether characters, events, or dialogue) from his imagination, in order to tell a better story. Usually, events that happen decades--or centuries--ago, preclude accurate dialog, and require some writer imagination, because generally, no one knows what words were spoken in private conversation, hundreds of years later.

All of that is to distinguish between many of the stories you mention, and the books that are the topic here. In writing these two books, Marvel strove for complete accuracy. Now I suppose that someone could argue that some segments of the books *aren't* accurate (although I haven't seen any Catholic sources disputing them), it doesn't change the fact that Marvel's *intent* was to be factual, where in most other stories, Marvel's intent is to tell a good story, and they aren't above inserting their own imagination to tell that story.

I hope that accurately sums up the difference.

[vanhornluke]

Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you were asking for examples of stories published by Marvel that are retellings of historical events, not more narrowly such stories that were already in MCP. That's why I listed stories that aren't already in MCP (although I presume the reason they aren't in MCP is because those issues haven't been analyzed yet, not because they've been intentionally excluded). And yes, most of these stories are probably not 100% historically accurate (like the fact that Napoleon in Man Comics is short, which I'm told is a myth rather than what the real Napoleon was like). But those deviations from history tend to be minor, and similar deviations can probably be found in straitforward biographies and such (especially dialogue).

But bringing this back to the Mother Teresa and Pope JPII comics, those are just as fictional as the stories in Man Comics or Ideal. The main character in the Mother Teresa issue is a fictional reporter who travels around to various places she had lived, trying to piece together her history. While her history is accurate (as far as I know), the actual story that is told is purely fiction and would fit fine into 616 continuity. Similarly, the Pope comic follows a fictional reporter who attends a JPII arena appearance and becomes interested in the Pope's personal history, which is told through flashbacks. The actual story is, again, pure fiction, and would fit fine into 616 continuity.

[ShadZ]

But bringing this back to the Mother Teresa and Pope JPII comics, those are just as fictional as the stories in Man Comics or Ideal. The main character in the Mother Teresa issue is a fictional reporter who travels around to various places she had lived, trying to piece together her history. While her history is accurate (as far as I know), the actual story that is told is purely fiction and would fit fine into 616 continuity. Similarly, the Pope comic follows a fictional reporter who attends a JPII arena appearance and becomes interested in the Pope's personal history, which is told through flashbacks. The actual story is, again, pure fiction, and would fit fine into 616 continuity.

Yeah, that does make them fictional (and probably Earth-616). I wonder why Marvel chose to do them that way?

ShadZ

[StrayLamb]

Sorry to butt in, but to quote from the FAQ,

"Has Marvel editorial told us the book is not canon? Yes or No?" If this answer is Yes, Stop. Do not go any further. The book is not canon. If the answer is No, then ask yourself, "Is it possible for the book to be canon? Can this story be placed in each character's chronology?" If the answer is No, Stop. Do not go any further. The book is not canon. If the answer is Yes, then the book is generally considered to be canon.

So, has Marvel actually said the books in question are non-canon? Y/N?

Otherwise, is it possible for the books to be canon? Yes.

Can this story be placed in each character's chronology? Yes.

Oh, and Napoleon was 5' 6-1/2" tall, so taller than Wolverine, but shorter than me.

[Russ Chappell]

Sorry to butt in, but to quote from the FAQ,

"Has Marvel editorial told us the book is not canon? Yes or No?" If this answer is Yes, Stop. Do not go any further. The book is not canon. If the answer is No, then ask yourself, "Is it possible for the book to be canon? Can this story be placed in each character's chronology?" If the answer is No, Stop. Do not go any further. The book is not canon. If the answer is Yes, then the book is generally considered to be canon.

[StrayLamb]

I took the

generally considered to be canon

to be part of the special circumstances quoted afterwards

If the answer is Yes, then the book is generally considered to be canon. There are special circumstances, such as crossover books, and licensed material, that require that further tests be passed (see above), but these are rare.

My bad.

[Russ Chappell]

You took it correctly. It *is* part of the special circumstances, but when we follow that with "such as," those are just examples of possible special circumstances. They were never intended to be the *only* examples of special circumstances.

Having said that, I can understand the argument for the framing sequence to be fictional, but I don't want that to be a wormhole that leads to the part of the book that is intended to be factual to worm its way in.