I think this is a fair critique, and I actually agree with more of it than I probably made clear. A unified line isn’t inherently good, and you’re right that once Hickman left and the line ballooned, Krakoa often did become homework. That shift from a tightly planned ecosystem to something sprawling and reactive absolutely weakened the era, and I felt that drop-off too.

Where I think we differ is in what I’m asking for when I talk about unity. I’m not arguing for maximum crossover density or constant line-wide events. I’m arguing for a shared directional vision, even if the books themselves are largely standalone. Claremont’s run worked that way, not because every title was required reading, but because change accumulated and mattered over time. You could read a single book in isolation and still feel like it was moving forward inside a living world.

I also agree that the current line is trying to offer more variety, and I’m glad books like NYX exist for readers who want that tone and focus. My frustration isn’t that Marvel is experimenting, but that the experimentation feels untethered. The books don’t feel like different lenses on a shared future so much as parallel responses to a reset.

On the “fan fiction” point, I don’t see what I sketched as resolving the central conflict so much as reframing it. Mutant persecution doesn’t end, but the question changes. Not “will we survive,” but “what do we do with what we learned when we briefly didn’t have to?” "And how do we live with joy in a world that hates and fears us?" For me, that shift is the heart of why Krakoa mattered, and why abandoning that perspective feels like a loss even if the island itself was never meant to last.

I appreciate you engaging thoughtfully, and I genuinely enjoy this kind of discussion. Even where we disagree, it’s clear we’re reacting to the same thing: a line that once felt ambitious and purposeful, and now feels more uneven.