How House of X #1 is Challenging the Status Quo

House of X #1 might be the single most-hyped superhero issue of 2019. Since the announcement that writer Jonathan Hickman would be revamping the entirety of Marvel Comics’ X-Men line, increasing interest and speculation have swirled around the previously mentioned miniseries and its intertwining partner, Powers of X. The debut of this project last week (along with a slew of San Diego Comic Con announcements for upcoming X-Men series) have shown the hype to be very real. Most critics and fans, including our very own Jamie Lovett, have showered the debut with rave reviews and rabid anticipation of whatever might come next.

One of the most interesting threads to emerge from this story is the notion that Hickman and his collaborators are reinventing the X-Men for a new era. Even the marketing from Marvel Comics have claimed that House of X marks the start of only the fourth notable period for X-comics (along with Giant-Sized X-Men, X-Men, Age of Apocalypse, and New X-Men). The critical response appears to support this advertising gesture, though, with many reviews and analyses pointing out how the first issue alone reframes the entire concept of mutants, individually and within the context of the Marvel Universe. So how exactly is House of X challenging the mutant status quo?

What Makes a Mutant?

Before examining how Hickman and his collaborators appear to be overturning norms, it’s worth assessing what exactly it means to be normal within a story filled with superpowered mutants or within the superhero genre as a whole. Superhero comics are, broadly read, a conservative genre. The stories told with caped crusaders are reactive in nature. They explore a threat to the world as it exists and then end that threat, allowing the world to continue existing as it does. While the universes carefully crafted by creators at Marvel and DC have many superficial differences (e.g. colorful costumed vigilantes), they are typically presented as simulacra of our own. Despite the enormous powers possessed on Earth, international and national structures are reflective of the world in each year of publication, whether that refers to politics, science, or another essential facet of human existence. After all, no matter how advanced Stark Industries may appear in its manufacturing of super suits, most bystanders still possess what is essentially an iPhone, iPad, or laptop with standard wi-fi connections as their go-to devices.

Within that conservative worldview, mutants have been utilized as a metaphor for oppression. Racism, homophobia, islamophobia, and other forms of systemic hatred still exist and are explored in these comics. Mutants have been placed in an analog role to some of these systems in the past, but taken as a whole are a very broad metaphor for general oppression. History and other factors make it impossible for them to be a clear representation of any single group.

Their status as the oppressed class seeking to protect both themselves and “a world that hates and fears them” provides a conervative take on how oppressed classes should act. The goal of the X-Men is generally to earn acceptance by acting as paragons, representatives of a class that has been the victim of genocide, concentration camps, slavery, and various other atrocities in living memory. That approach is easily recognized in modern interpretations of past approaches to harmony, including W.E.B. DuBois’ emphasis on the “talented tenth” (i.e. training the most-talented Black Americans to act as leaders and representatives) or Gandhi’s belief in civil disobedience that did not support violent resistance against oppressive institutions. Removing these narratives from history and projecting them onto fictional mutants does more to confuse than clarify. It has distorted and simplified the work of DuBois, Gandhi, and King beyond recognition leading to decades of stories about an oppressed and brutalized class of people seeking to serve their oppressors in order to gain acceptance.

Welcome to the House of Hickman

House of X appears to outright reject this focus on peaceful coexistence and acceptance as a primary goal in its first issue. Even in its oversized format, the issue delivers a least a half dozen ideas, each of which would be considered revolutionary in nature and that would undoubtedly make the Earth of Marvel Comics’ unrecognizable from our own if allowed to exist for any notable period of time.

The very formation of Krakoa in House of X #1 is revolutionary in nature. Krakoa is a new nation-state formed by mutants with its own set of laws, culture, and language. It is not simply redrawn territorial lines as those seen in past X-stories, like “Utopia,” either. Krakoa’s culture is entirely new, separated from the cultures that perpetuated mutant oppression. Krakoan is a language with a unique alphabet that is only provided to mutants (via psychic implant). Krakoa itself has also been clarified as being a nation without borders, a truly radical (and divisive) concept within current politics. It is a place that can be reached seemingly from any other location on or off of Earth, and one that overs absolute amnesty for its mutant population.

This foundation alone runs contrary to almost all of the previous X-Men stories touted by Marvel Comics, even most of New X-Men. When you also consider the production of mind-altering, body-enhancing drugs provided for free, the absolute assertion of an expansive set of mutant rights, and an unwillingness to negotiate with existing power structures (e.g. the United Nation Security Council), the result is a setting and story that feels revolutionary from its very start.

New X-Men World Order

It’s not surprising that the mountain of ideas revealed in House of X #1 has begun an excited conversation across comics. While the notion of alternate realities or fake nation-states are nothing new to comics, they are rarely posed as being heroic or necessary. Age of Apocalypse and its many spiritual successors reveal realities where the world is different, but rarely better. Superhero comics are not opposed to imaginary worlds, but they don’t generally support them being better than our own. This is what House of X appears to be opening itself for, and why it feels different than so many predecessors. While there are certainly ominous elements (Xavier’s concealed eyes don’t evoke much trust), the concepts and changes being posed by mutants are revealed with a tone that suggests things genuinely can (and should) be better than they are. That humanity is already building massive, Sentinel-based projects in response to free healthcare, open borders, and fair treatment of mutants suggests that the status quo is what’s truly frightening.

As with all serialized stories, the ending matters a great deal and Hickman has suggested this stories ending is years (if not decades) away. It is already building upon ten years of ideas in the Fantastic Four and Avengers comics franchises. What House of X #1 does make clear is that it is unwilling to accept Earth as it is as a good, or even acceptable, outcome. While the changes being posed are dressed in the grandeur of the superhero genre, they do mirror modern policies and the changes presented are nothing short of radical. That makes House of X more than an exciting set of new ideas; it makes this new era of X-Men one in which the oppressed appear to have a greater voice than their oppressors for once.