I guess I'm of the Joseph Campbell school and feel a need for the heroic characters and stories tradition. I usually respond to virtuous characters like Thor and other Asgardians, or a Tony Stark overcoming impossible odds and handicaps. The X-Men originally were set up to fight on the side of humanity despite some persecution by same and against the extremist supremacists of their 'homo superior' kind, but that got forgotten for periods of time and things could become almost claustrophobicly segregated in it's own increasingly crowded mutantverse. Scott and Xavier have always been the noble overcomers in the X-Men, and then Kurt/Nightcrawler is added in the new squad of the same potential.
It’s a sad commentary—and one for which I must offer at least a partial mea culpa—that the audience that used to think of the likes of Cyclops and the Thing as the “dark but admirable” characters has swung more and more toward wanting the antihero to be the only form. With less and less emphasis on the hero part.
When I first joined the industry there were already grumbling from those aforementioned outliers. “Why doesn’t Batman just KILL the Joker?” To us older fans the answer seemed obvious. But for so many, it was not.
I always thought Cyclops' loyalty to Xavier and the reason for it was simple: Professor X is Scott's surrogate father and Scott is Charles' surrogate son. Scott is an orphan, and Xavier's condition implies he can't have children (symbolically even if not actually biologically). So there should be an emotional connection there not present in the other X-Men. Scott is Charles' natural heir.
That's why I disliked the later introduction of both Corsair and Legion to the X-Men mythos because it damaged that symbolic relationship.
The introduction of Corsair and the Starjammers was a pretty blatant way of hooking some of Dave’s multitude of characters into X-Men mythology. Making Corsair Scott’s father was a demonstration of Chris’ lack (at the time) of established X-Men history/continuity.
Can’t say I approved, as a reader. I don’t care for it much when writers attempt to hook their characters into prior lore. Didn’t like it when the Vision was “revealed” to be the original Human Torch, for instance, or when one DC writer declared his (lame) character would be shown to be the Phantom Stranger.
Professor X suddenly expressing romantic feelings for a young Jean Grey caused me to wonder about the guy.
Her teammate in anguish, Storm saying something shallow and flippant, then walking off leaving him in added confusion is another example of diminishing a character for me.
Kitty telling bedtime stories centered on the recent tragic loss of a team member she herself barely knew, followed by a very unlikely seeming impersonation of same. Most amazingly there are other X-Men fans who say they 'loved' those issue whereas I felt a bit cheated by them.
The victim of bad writing can be irretrievably destroyed to where the reader or a writer coming in later has to forget or undo. Once Batman has changed to where he plainly murders The Joker there isn't all that much room left to continue except to forget or undo.