Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler investigate the curious case of Dr. Essex and Mr. Sinister in Immortal X-Men #8, written by Kieron Gillen, drawn by Michele Bandini, colored by David Curiel, lettered by Clayton Cowles and designed by Tom Muller, Jay Bowen and Kieron Gillen.
Austin Gorton: Judgment Day is over, but there remains a mystery. Before plunging ahead into the brave new post-judgment world (and back into the series’ swirling eddies of secrets, conspiracies and power plays), Immortal X-Men #8 journeys into a Victorian past for Sherlock Holmes’ Mystique’s spotlight issue. Mark, it appears the game is afoot!
Mark Turetsky: Kevin O’Neill has been dead for less than two weeks, and here’s a new pan-Victorian comic to fill League of Extraordinary Gentlemen’s mighty boots. Can we count this as another victim of Gillen’s curse (alongside Bowie and Prince)?
Austin: I got definite League vibes from this story as well, and the flashback nature of it is a smart way for Gillen to give himself some breathing room before diving into the status quo.
Trinity
Mark: Before we explore the Victorian section of the comic, let’s take a moment to look at the prologue, where Mystique breaks into a secret facility in 1943 in Alamogordo, New Mexico, where the U.S. government is designing the atom bomb experimenting on mutant children. Now, I know the X-Men’s history of being referred to as “The Children of the Atom,” presumably because the nuclear age brought about the increase in mutants in the population. But here, we’re given a notion that the development of The Bomb and the proliferation of mutantkind are likely much more closely connected, and less accidental, than we had known. Is this entirely new continuity here?
Austin: Yes and no. The Xavier family’s connection to the Manhattan Project and Alamogordo dates to the Silver Age; Fabian Nicieza’s first solo X-Men story after Jim Lee left added to it in the ’90s. But most of what is being referenced here (particularly the experimentation and stuff about Sinister burying his psyche in the minds of other people to activate upon his death) comes from Mike Carey’s X-Men Legacy run coming out of “Messiah Complex,” when Bishop had seemed to “kill” Professor X. It’s a somewhat overlooked bit of continuity that is having something of a moment of late. The role of Destiny in all this, however, is new, as far as I can recall.
Mark: Also, looking briefly at Sinister’s wiki entry, the business where he was working with Dr. Mengele happened in 1944, and as this prologue is set a year earlier, I think the timeline here more or less confirms that these were separate Sinisters, unless he was particularly deft at switching sides repeatedly. Which isn’t out of the question.
Austin: It’s not, an idea certainly reinforced later in this issue.
I like the way Gillen presents the Mystique/Destiny relationship in this prologue, as a sort of series of cat-and-mouse games in which their foreplay is basically presented as Mystique trying to suss out the secrets Destiny is keeping from her. It builds on their history as Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler, and makes that bit of role playing more than just the cutesy wink at Destiny’s real name it was initially.
The talk of Sinister preparing for his death (a method Destiny, who has already read those comics, rightly points out doesn’t ultimately work, but does lead to Miss Sinister for a time) sets up the main body of the issue, as Mystique begins to muse on the OTHER time Sinister escaped death, and how she was never able to figure out how he did it.
A Lucky Survivor
Austin: As the story casts us back to Victorian London (1895, specifically), we see a bit of Mystique-as-Holmes, and the coloring from David Curriel does a great job of making Mystique’s vibrant blue skin and red hair pop amid the drab, brown trappings of her lodgings. Her appearance is almost jarringly modern, but it works to underscore just how much Mystique is playing a role, far more so than when we later see her operating as a white male in the deerstalker hat.
Mark: We compared this section to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen above, and while the comparison is there, Gillen and Bandini don’t need to do as much as Moore and O’Neill did. What I mean is that Moore and O’Neill treated Victorian (and later all of) literature as comics continuity and created an epic crossover event. But in the world of Marvel Comics, the work is already done for you. There’s already a Dracula, there’s already a Sherlock Holmes (though that name is never mentioned in this story). It goes even further than that: Marvel Comics exists in the 616, starring the superheroes we’re familiar with. So why not take elements from each story, mix them in with some Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and do a lovely retcon of some character origins?
Austin: I love how the story dances around the name “Sherlock Holmes” even though I don’t think it really has to. And remixing the established origin of Mister Sinister — a grieving geneticist manipulated by Apocalypse into giving up his humanity in the interest of science — into the Jekyll and Hyde story is another fun way to riff on the story’s LoEG vibes. That bit of it is, as far as I know, all new, as is the concept of “Essex-Men,” Sinister’s term for mutants, which seems like another effort to make the name “X-Men” be inspired by something other than Charles Xavier’s ego.
Mark: And don’t forget “Essex Factor!” And, along with Sinister railing against the establishment science of “Charles” (Darwin, in this case), this is, overall, a fun entr’acte of a story, placed as it is between the apocalyptic Judgment Day and the upcoming Sins of Sinister. It moves the story along, it ties in Sinister and Destiny’s multi-century dance with Powers of X (look at all the talk of “the clockwork minds” [see Sentinels, Nimrod, the Phalanx and their Dominions]), but in a way that is fairly lighthearted, despite dealing in bleak concepts.
Austin: I wouldn’t characterize this as a “Post-Crossover Quiet Issue” for a variety of reasons, but it does represent a refreshing downshift from the last several issues. There’s still stakes, but they’re of a lower consequence than “the existence of all humanity.” While Gillen was careful to maintain the character-first perspective of the tie-in issues, there was still a lot of sturm-und-drang happening there. This is much quieter, and more focused on the interplay between Mystique and Destiny.
That said, as a Mystique spotlight issue, did this feel a bit lacking to you? Last issue was a stunning celebration of what makes Nightcrawler great, the previous issue offered some new insights into Sebastian Shaw, and before that, issue #5 did a lot to make a largely one-note ’90s character feel well-rounded and interesting. This is fun, but it doesn’t really tell us much new about Mystique or underscore any particular defining characteristic, aside from briefly asserting
that she is, first and foremost, an assassin.
Mark: Now that you mention it, it does fall somewhat short as a spotlight issue. The focus seems to be on Mystique being a wife gal, and it really seems to offer insight into Sinister as a character more than it does into Mystique. Part of it is that we see nothing of Mystique right now. So, for instance, while Hickman and Buffagni’s X-Men #6 could give us a spotlight on a Mystique fueled by rage and righteous indignation, we’re denied that sort of intimate look at what makes Mystique tick in the Marvel here and now. Maybe post-Sins of Sinister we might look back at this issue and say, “A-ha! Look at all the dominoes that were set up back in Immortal X-Men #8,” but this does really feel like a setup issue.
Sinisters Galore
Austin: I am, admittedly, a little fuzzy on the Sinister reveal that closes out the issue; it appears that, even back in 1895, he was already experimenting with clones, and had created clones of himself (four of them, one for each of the suits in a deck of cards) and that one of those clones wiped out the Nathaniel Essex who was doing the Jekyll/Hyde thing and whom Mystique and Destiny had institutionalized; is that your read on it as well, or did I miss something?
Mark: Well, we saw the diamond-headed one transform into the Nathaniel Essex who was institutionalized. Crucially, I think, the Essex that Mystique and Destiny meet at the beginning of the issue has his whole forehead on show and doesn’t have any card suit imprinted there. When we see Sinister transform into Essex, his hair is unkempt and covering his forehead. It’s possible that the Essex we see at the beginning is not the same person as the one who transforms into the Hyde-like Sinister. And to complicate matters, we know nothing about Heart and Spade Sinister. We could easily say, “Oh, the one who died in Bedlam stayed dead,” but he’s the Diamond Sinister (we think?!)! He’s the main guy! Color me just as puzzled as Mystique. But of course, this is presented as a mystery, so I don’t think we’re supposed to know quite what happened.
I went back and had a look at the Paris, 1919 section of Immortal X-Men #1, and the Sinister who seems to die there (also repeating “You’re a ghost”) has a diamond on his forehead. At the time, I didn’t think much of it, because that’s just who Sinister is, but looking back on it now, it’s a very deliberate reveal (It’s hidden by his hat for most of the sequence) and is extremely present once he starts having his “episode.”
Austin: So that would imply that the Sinister who dies here isn’t the Diamond-headed one, or else there’s more to the mystery of “how Sinister survived his first death” (presumably the one Mystique witnesses here) beyond “clones.” Which would presumably also mean you’re right that Hyde-Sinister and Institutionalized Sinister are different Sinisters. Nice catch on the “you’re a ghost” repetition; that definitely suggests there’s still more to the mystery to come as well.
Mark: Perhaps he’s tapped into the Green Door mythology of The Immortal Hulk. He can die as much as he wants as Essex, but when the sun goes down, he comes back to life as Sinister. There’s definitely a thematic connection between Hulk and Sinister (a person split between their day and night identities, but that’s also Jekyll/Hyde), but it would be a real power move to bring that whole side of Marvel mythology into this X-Men comic. Then again, this book does share the same adjective in its title. And Immortal Hulk also dealt with a turn-of-the-century scientist …
This mystery would be so much easier to solve if Victorian Sinister would just get a fucking haircut.
Austin: Ha! While the exact nature of Sinister’s survival remains a mystery, I do appreciate the way this flashback still alluded to present day events. You mentioned the references to Sentinels and AI via the “clockwork minds.” Then, when Destiny discovers Essex’s cloning chambers, she hears a recording he left declaring that it would be the way they win the war, which seems like a pretty overt reference to Krakoa and mutant resurrection via cloning. Stuff like that helps keep the overarching narrative of the series in mind even when we’re playing around in the past like this and taking a break from the immediate crises of the moment in the present day.
Mark: Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
X-Traneous Thoughts
- Most of the Essex backstory involving Apocalypse (aka “the Egyptian”) comes from 1996’s The Further Adventures of Cyclops and Phoenix miniseries.
- Mystique’s billowy Victorian flesh dress certainly is an image.
- The opening sequence gives greater context to Destiny’s A-test board in Immortal X-Men #3.
- Mystique’s “can I bribe you? Then I’ll kill you because you can’t be trusted” routine with one of the asylum nurses/guards was amusing.
- Destiny’s “No more will be murdered on the streets of London” is an echo of Prof. X’s emphatic “No more!” in House of X #4.
- A shout-out to Cowles’ lettering: In the opening sequence, when Mystique transforms into a guard, we see her on a reflective surface, and the tails of her word balloons are interrupted as they pass over seams in that surface.
- Essex finds himself repeatedly challenged by Charleses, both Babbage (inventor of the computer) and Darwin (whose evolutionary theories Essex both embraces and rejects to varying degrees). Destiny leaves unstated his future trouble with a third Charles (Xavier).
- Speaking of, both Nazis and Sinister love (their own barbaric misinterpretations of) Darwin and Nietzsche.
- “Abuse me like a French impressionist abuses paints” was the “paint me like one of your French girls” of its day.
- Next month is the Kate Pryde issue, or as presaged in “The Red Diamond,” “Look on the bright side: The council chamber being white means it’s easy to see where you have to mop up the blood stains.”
Austin Gorton also reviews older issues of X-Men at the Real Gentlemen of Leisure website, co-hosts the A Very Special episode podcast, and likes Star Wars. He lives outside Minneapolis, where sometimes, it is not cold. Follow him on Twitter @AustinGorton
