I didn't. I LOVED the concept of the Starjammers -- give me Dave Cockrum doing that kind of cosmic STAR TREK meets Sinbad stuff, and, as a fan, I was in puppy heaven -- but I HATED the idea of Corsair being Scott and Alex's father. And I HATED them flying along in their modified Mosquito. And I HATED Scott's mom being raped by D'Kenn. And -- well, I hated everything that took the X-Men away from a solid grounding in Earthly reality. They. after all, were supposed to be the weird ones in their book!

JB, one of my favorite X-Men scenes ever is when, during the Savage Land saga around #115, Cyclops shaves himself and he thinks that he seems very similar to Corsair. So, even if you didn't like the character, thanks for that scene!

(and for the whole storyline, which always been my favorite alongside the Proteus saga).

Haven't read all the posts in this thread, so excuse me if this has already been mentioned, but I think a big reason for why the X-Men were successful is also one of the biggest reasons for the quagmire they are in today: Chris Claremont.  We all know that the Claremont/Byrne run was the best the title had ever seen.  It was spectacular, start to finish, and also due in no small part to Dave Cockrum.  That's a given.  But I personally think that Claremont stayed on the various X-titles far too long and, in the end, made them every bit as convoluted, pretentious, and nearly as unreadable as DC's confusing, convoluted team book, LEGION OF SUPERHEROES.  What was once a very singular vision with a handful of exciting, captivating heroes, became an entire universe of mutants who complained nearly every issue about being "hated and hunted" by normal humans.  Gee, bleak and dire much?  Instead of one team, we got an incalculable number of mutant teams and factions, most of which got face time in the regular X-books or became one in a host of convoluted, forgettable mini-series.  The theme of the X-Men became one of whining, victimization, and oppression.  The fun was sapped out of these characters and their stories...stories that often took the form of long, cross-title, mega events that ultimately ended in death, further oppression, alienation, and not one inch closer to the goal Xavier had in mind, although he'd take, through Claremont's pen, two pages of expository dialog to tell you the "deeper meaning" in any given conflict.

As much as I respect Claremont's work, along with JB and Cockrum, in making the X-Men who they were in the late 70s/early 80s, I'd be remiss if I didn't call it like I see it and lay a big chunk of the blame for the mess the titles have been in for 15 - 20 years squarely at his feet as well.

In many ways, this illustrates why Chris was able to stay with UNCANNY for as long as he did, and why the book, er, mutated in the way it did. Chris is a chameleon. He writes whatever moves him at any particular time, which is why, once Roger Stern and I were no longer pulling him back, UNCANNY went through a whole series of "identities", now a cosmic adventure book, now a magic book, now a black ops book, etc, etc. When people say Chris was on X-MEN for a long time, I usually say he wasn't really, as no one identity for the title really lasted more than a couple of years.

"My ego thanks you, but Captain Reality Check is compelled to disagree.
Tho sales definitely rose during my tenure (continuing the steady climb
begun when Dave Cockrum was artist), the term "meteoric" could not
really be applied until the arrival of Paul Smith."

Yeah, JB, but I'm not talking strictly about sales, though. As you state, sales did go up at the time, quite significantly, if I remember. I'm referring to sales combined with the comic world and even the pop culture world. Uncanny X-Men during the Claremont/Byrne/Austin years became the book to read for those in the know. It was the cynosure of the industry. I know that was the one book I'd wait desperately for each month. And the death of Phoenix actually made news outside of the comics industry. It was a very big deal. Many of us still regard it to this day as the defining run of the X-Men.

And remember that The Monkees outsold The Beatles three years in a row. But who was making a cultural and artistic impact? (BTW, I love The Monkees)

QUOTE: X-Class of 2006

A comment from Mark Brooks, the artist of that piece:

I draw stuff. I think I suck but people give me money to doodle on paper so I keep doing it. Past and current clients that don't yet realize I suck include Marvel Comics, DC Comics, Darkhorse Comics, and Wizard Entertainment. Currently I'm sucking exclusively for Marvel under a 3 year contract having sucked on books like New X-Men, Ultimate Spider-man, Amazing Spider-man, and X-Men. I'm beginning a 3 issue arc sucking on Ulitmate Fantastic Four beginning with February's issue with the amazing writer Mike Carey(who definitely doesn't suck).

I absolutely despised Corsair as Cyclops' father from the outset and I was glad that this fact was pretty much ignored until after JB left the book.

I can't say I think that the entire Claremont/Byrne run was singularly the "best" -- to me, the book started to soar with JB as "co-plotter," and the second half of the run became clearly great. In any event, way back in 1975 I had caught up on the original Lee/Kirby run at the same time I discovered the initial Claremont/Cockrum run, and that was a defining moment for me becasue those first Lee/Kirby issues featuring the original team are still to me what the X-Men are all about. Only Thomas/Adams and Claremont/Byrne could be said to measure up to them -- but for me nothing surpassed Lee/Kirby.

The weird thing about Corsair being Cyclop's father is that it was totally irrelevant.  It was a plot point that went nowhere.  Nothing happened because of it.  Not just plot wise, but character wise.  Can anyone say that it affected (not even change, just affected Cyclops as character?  It just created a bizarre backstory.  Anything that did happen as a result could easily have been introduced another way.  So it added nothing - nothing - to the character.

On the other hand, it did some slight harm especially with some other odd character points.  Originally, Professor X had no children, and Cyclops was an orphan.  And  Cyclops was obviously Professor X's best student.  It was apparent to everyone that Professor X was the father Cyclops didn't have, and that Cyclops was the son Professor X never had, and that Cyclops was the natural heir to Xavier.

Saying that Cyclops now had a living father intruded on it (I won't say ruined or changed or damaged it, but it was a rude intrusion).  Then years later we get a story about a son Professor X had. and we get another intrusion.

Neither of these points ever became important, but it did diminish an important relationship in the comic.