The Lockjaw controversy is based on a story in The Thing (volume 1, issue 3) written by John Byrne. You, gentle reader, may have strong feelings about Byrne. So please choose the section that most closely matches your own view: A, B, or C.
Byrne's early work allegedly makes heroes act out of character to be more violent. "The very first time we ever noticed his input into a plot he was drawing was when he changed things so that a particular, supposedly heroic, character snuck up behind a villainous guard and killed him, rather than just knocking him out, as had been directed by the putative writer of the series."
When Byrne wrote his own series, the Fantastic Four, he had Alicia dump The Thing. personally I didn't like it but it made sense, and weas better than the alternative - a story where nothing ever changes. But Byrne's other changes were more serious.
Byrne's reboot of Spiderman made him less sympathetic character and ignored much of what made him a beloved character. The retcon later had to be reversed by other writers.
Byrne's reboot of Superman turned him "into an arrogant yuppie" and was ignored by later writers.
He turned the Submariner into "a manic-depressive schizoid, instead of just a hot-tempered young mutant with a legitimate grudge against the surface world." Again, this character change seems to have been reversed by later writers. For the record I strongly support changes that stay changed, because that's more realistic. But unexplained or frequent changes in character are not realistic, and in character driven drama that's the greater of the two crimes.
Similar things are said of his Byrne's Batman work, but no clear examples are given.
Some argue that Byrne's greatest crime was what he did to The Vision. The original story was carefully crafted over many years by some of the greatest writers in the business, to show that the machine had a soul, and to follow his life and emotional development through twenty years and popular miniseries. Then Byrne swiftly and systematically reversed it all, which required characters to deny previous statements and act entirely out of character. This was all to say that the Vision had been basically just a "toaster" all along, and the Scarlet Witch must have been mentally disturbed to marry him, their children were not real, etc. The retcon later had to be reversed by other writers.
An even greater crime, according to of The Ever-Lovin' Blue-Eyed Home Page (find the review of MTIO 86) was what Byrne did to the Sandman. Anyone who has followed Marvel since the beginning will know that the Sandman was one of the greatest villains, but after a while his stories were becoming repetitive. Over a period of years he gradually reformed. This made perfect sense, just like a gangster who has nothing more to prove and wants to settle down. The issue where he just talks with Ben (MTIO 86) is remembered frondly by a generation of fans. Byrne just said the whole thing was a joke and had the Sandman carry on as a two dimensional villain.
I'm just reporting what others say (I didn't see this first hand, apart from the Fantastic Four stuff) but you can see how the Lockjaw story appears in this light. "Well loved pet suddenly becomes a talking, deformed inhuman, implying that other Inhumans are immoral." Most comic professionals hated the idea and the story was given a get-out at the first opportunity.
If Byrne was evil, then what?
Let's assume, for sake of argument, that the critics are right. Let's assume that Byrne is Satan in disguise, and planned to destroy Lockjaw as a character. Let's assume that Byrne was rubbing his hands with glee, saying "here is a noble race and a cute dog, how can I turn it all upside down? (evil cackle)" Whatever he may have intended, let's look at the story as it was printed.
Byrne's story never said that Lockjaw was once human.
The Thing drew that conclusion, but the Thing is not omniscient. He can make a mistake - indeed, when characters make mistakes it often leads to a more interesting story. Lockjaw only said that the Terrigen mists could turn a human into something strange. What is controversial about that?
Byrne's revelation "he can talk" is no big deal.
Ant Man's ants can talk as well. So what? In comics, talking is trivial.
Byrne's story did not imply Lockjaw's intelligence had changed.
As indicated on other pages, Lockjaw has always been portrayed as more intelligent than many people, but he likes beinga dog and lets his actions do the talking.
The Inhumans never treated Lockjaw badly.
As I have shown on other pages, the Inhumans always treated Lockjaw well. He was treated as a pet, but has a better life than any of the royal family: Lockjaw is his own boss: he can go anywhere at any time, ignoring commands, and frequently does. He's deeply loved and has friends everywhere. Nobody in the universe has a better life than Lockjaw.
Is there a patten in Byrne's retcons?
Let's play devil's advocate here. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Byrne ruined Superman, shamed the Vision, destroyed Spiderman, and corrupted Batman. But all that happened later than the Lockjaw story, when Byrne was drunk with power. Everyone admits that his early writing, including his writing for the Fantastic Four, were not his worst. (Many of us think those early stories were actually very good indeed).
Would Byrne abuse Lee and Kirby's ideas?
In those early days Byrne showed a great knowledge of and respect for Stan and Jack's Fantastic Four. The single issue stories, the ordinary family touches, the old villains, even the flying bathtub, all show that Byrne's early Fantastic Four showed that he cared about what went before. He could be accused of ignoring the later stories, but nobody can say he ignored the early stories.
So we see that the Lockjaw story came at a time when Byrne was a good enough writer who respected Stan and Jack's work, even if we think he later became corrupted by absolute power. This story (unlike the others) does have a good number of fans who actually like the story. Maybe this was the early retcon, the one accidental success, that inspired him to think he could make a living out of dark dramatic retcons?
My point is, it is possible to see John Byrne as the spawn of Satan yet still have a talking Lockjaw. The two scenarios are not mutually exclusive.
Finally, let me say that the Fantastic Four are my number one favorite comic, and Lockjaw is my number one favorite character. I believe that I have a reasonably good understanding of the FF's and Lockjaw's past and what makes them special. And I really do not like retcons. For me, and for most fans, Byrne's Fantastic Four run (until near the end) was excellent. I cannot speak about his other stories. I don't know if he is good or evil outside of the FF. But for the FF, he was good. Fans generally agree that his run on the FF is second only to Stan and Jack, and has not been surpassed since. If we are looking for patterns, then for early Fantastic Four titles at least, we have to assume that Byrne is innocent.
John Byrne - good or evil?
C. "John Byrne's a good artist but a bad writer."
There is a view, argued by “John Jones” in “Crapping on the Shoulders of Giants” that John Byrne “wrecks the essential qualities of everything he touches.” Let's examine that evidence, focusing only on the retcon examples, to see how they might influence our view of the Lockjaw story.
Here is the case against Byrne's retcons:
B. "Byrne's writing is variable."
Byrne never said Lockjaw was once human: that was just speculation by Ben Grimm. His story simply said that Lockjaw can speak but doesn't like doing it, and the Terrigen mists could turn a human into something like Lockjaw. A lot of people remember this story fondly. Given that even ants can talk (to Ant Man), is that really so hard to accept?
A. "John Byrne is a great writer!”
...and the Lockjaw story was a classic.
Lockjaw can talk!
‘Nuff said.
