Well, the New York Post blew the reveal of the end of Civil War #2 before the book was on the stands. Then again, I suppose anyone who actually reads that rag deserves what they get so, y’know, that’ll teach ya.
We, however, will allow those who don’t know what’s going down with Spider-Man to frequent the board without having it ruined for them. For those who do want to discuss it–and you know you do–I provide the space below. Have at it.
PAD
• 
I am just too tired/drunk to read all these comments. So, could someone please tell me when Wanda-Scarlet Witch/Dr. Strange/Watcher/whoever….changes everything back to the status quo?
PP reveals his ID “not bloody likely”
“But frankly, whether it stays or not, it should be fun. At the very least, Peter Parker would have one hëll of a tell-all book. He could embarass Jameson out of the business. And for once, if he wrote about his heartbreak, lonliness and outright despair, he might engender some of the public sympathy and support he’s needed all these years.”
Petyer and Mary Jane Parker tonight on Oprah, discussing his book ‘My secreet Identity.’?
Posted by: spiderrob8 at June 17, 2006 10:47 PM
He didn’t say it vilated a genre convention-he explained exactly why the super hero secret identity was vital to the genre, and why people respond, as well as gave a couple of other reasons.
You know, this morning I re-read Andy’s post, and remembered that he in fact said almost exactly that:
“Also it rather violates the rules of the genre.”
I merely substituted the word “conventions” for “rules.” But the meaning is virtually the same. Asserting that he didn’t say what he said is like asserting that day is night, or asserting 2 + 2 is 5.
And how about this little gem from you:
“So what? because one person at one time thought an idea was dumb, no one else can say an idea is dumb, there are no dumb ideas?”
That rhetorical question is a non-sequitur, pure and simple. It’s a paralogistic inference that has no basis in anything that I wrote.
My observation is simple:
1. Martin Goodman initially rejected Stan Lee’s Spider-Man proposal with a knee-jerk response of different=bad.
2. Some fans are reacting to Spider-Man’s unmasking with a knee-jerk reaction of different=bad.
3. This is ironic.
The above is not a distortion of anyone’s argument. The assertion that Spider-Man’s unmasking “violates rules of the genre” is tantamount to saying different=bad. Denying that is, again, like adding 2 + 2 and coming up with 5.
I never said the unmasking was going to be a commercial or creative success. There is no logical reason to draw that inference.
You can attempt to dismiss my observation by asking, “So what?” But, frankly, I believe the significance of some fans are using the same argument that Martin Goodman once used to nix Spider-Man is self-evident, and a worthwhile observation. As Peter pointed out, many fans will tell you that they don’t want anything different. Except that they often do want something different, as the success of Spider-Man proved.
Again, I’m not saying that something is good just because it’s different. I’m just saying it isn’t automatically bad. And I have no idea why the hëll that’s proving to be such a controversial thing to say.
1So, no, “realism” doesn’t apply.
****
It’s the people in favor of him revealing his identity, many of them, who say it does.
The above is not a distortion of anyone’s argument. The assertion that Spider-Man’s unmasking “violates rules of the genre” is tantamount to saying different=bad.
****
No it isn’t. I left out the word “just”. He isn;t just saying “because it violates this genre convention” it is bad and virtually no one else is either-they are specifically given their reasons why in general, and most of them to this specific case, why such violation is bad. Not just it is different so it is bad, but it is different and this is why in this case that is bad. Martin Goodman may or may not have meant it is bad just because it is different-he had specific reasons too. His reasons were wrong-because he had false assumptions about kids in relation to young heroes and spiders. The arguments as to why it is bad for heroes in general and Spider-man in particular to reveal his identity may be right or wrong, but they are right or wrong based on the arguments made, as they are not simply saying “anything different is bad” but giving a reason why this genre convention’s violation in this case is wrong (depending on the poster how specific to Spider-man this is). martin goodman has nothing to do with it. His reasons stood or feel on their own merits, as do these arguments. Their response isn’t knee-jerk. and even Goodman’s wasn’t necessarily knee-jerk. It was wrong, it was based on wrong assumptions, it was based on his experience in the business for 20 years, but it may, or may not have been knee-jerk. We simply do not have the information from Stan’s stories. But here, we do have people setting forth reasons for why they feel what they do beyong just “it is different so it is bad.” it is a distortion of their arguements and intellectually dishonest. They aren’t saying they don’t want anything different-but saying, we don’t want this specific difference, and here is why
The more obnoxious your posts get doesn’t make it any more right.
Bill Myers wrote: Saying that Spider-Man’s unmasking will remove something “vital to the genre” is the same as saying it “violates a genre convention.” The wording is slightly different, but the underlying meaning is the same.
English is a second language for me, so maybe something was off, for which I apologize.
Just a few words:
“Individual story arcs within super-hero comic book series end all the time. You’re confusing the idea of an “ending” with complete closure, which isn’t possible or even desirable in serialized fiction like this.”
No, I am not confusing this. Unfortunatly in serial fiction story arcs ends more often than not badly. (Which is a matter of taste, I know.) But the inability of serial fiction – especially in comics – to deliver closure, to go through with the consequences, is a problem both for readers – who I guess often feel cheated – and writers.
“How can you not see the irony of your argument? Martin Goodman told Stan Lee that Spider-Man would never work because it violated conventions of the genre that were vital”
Sorry, but these are different things. Lee never proposed a hero without the superhero-trademarks, i.e. some sort of super-abilities, a mask, a secret identity. All within the established genre-parameters. He never said lets make, say, a western without horses and guns. That Goodman couldn´t see the appeal of a superhero-comic with soap-opera elements was short-sighted, yes.
Of course you can change the status quo. But only up to a point. Then the character will become indeed something other (no pun intended) and you risk that the audience is leaving the house.
It’s been said (elsewhere) that readers can identify with Spiderman, among other reasons, because under the mask Spiderman could be anybody.
The secret identity has benefits: no-one identified Parker as being Spiderman, so he got to live a life where his powers weren’t a big deal, and so his family wouldn’t be identified with anything Spiderman did.
On the other hand, he’s unable to take credit for his successes, and there’s the general awkwardness when he has to try and explain away his absences.
Now, Parker is known to be Spiderman. He doesn’t have to hide what he’s been doing while New York was in danger, his family get to support him publicly, he doesn’t get to hide the costume when Spiderman’s unpopular any more – he’s come out.
I think a coming out story is still entirely everyman, it’s well within the Spiderman concept, it’d be a shame if it didn’t get told.
It’s been said (elsewhere) that readers can identify with Spiderman, among other reasons, because under the mask Spiderman could be anybody.
The secret identity has benefits: no-one identified Parker as being Spiderman, so he got to live a life where his powers weren’t a big deal, and so his family wouldn’t be identified with anything Spiderman did.
On the other hand, he’s unable to take credit for his successes, and there’s the general awkwardness when he has to try and explain away his absences.
Now, Parker is known to be Spiderman. He doesn’t have to hide what he’s been doing while New York was in danger, his family get to support him publicly, he doesn’t get to hide the costume when Spiderman’s unpopular any more – he’s come out.
I think a coming out story is still entirely everyman, it’s well within the Spiderman concept, it’d be a shame if it didn’t get told.
It’s been said (elsewhere) that readers can identify with Spiderman, among other reasons, because under the mask Spiderman could be anybody.
The secret identity has benefits: no-one identified Parker as being Spiderman, so he got to live a life where his powers weren’t a big deal, and so his family wouldn’t be identified with anything Spiderman did.
On the other hand, he’s unable to take credit for his successes, and there’s the general awkwardness when he has to try and explain away his absences.
Now, Parker is known to be Spiderman. He doesn’t have to hide what he’s been doing while New York was in danger, his family get to support him publicly, he doesn’t get to hide the costume when Spiderman’s unpopular any more – he’s come out.
I think a coming out story is still entirely everyman, it’s well within the Spiderman concept, it’d be a shame if it didn’t get told.
Posted by: Andy at June 18, 2006 09:02 AM
English is a second language for me, so maybe something was off, for which I apologize.
Actually, I think you use the English language very well. If you hadn’t told me it was a second language for you, I’d not have known. There are people who grew up with English as their first language who don’t write as well as you.
No, I am not confusing this. Unfortunatly in serial fiction story arcs ends more often than not badly. (Which is a matter of taste, I know.) But the inability of serial fiction – especially in comics – to deliver closure, to go through with the consequences, is a problem both for readers – who I guess often feel cheated – and writers.
I see your point. And you’re right, some of it does come down to individual tastes. As I said, the world’s big enough for us all.
Sorry, but these are different things. Lee never proposed a hero without the superhero-trademarks, i.e. some sort of super-abilities, a mask, a secret identity. All within the established genre-parameters. He never said lets make, say, a western without horses and guns. That Goodman couldn´t see the appeal of a superhero-comic with soap-opera elements was short-sighted, yes.
I’m afraid you’re wrong. These are the same things.
Goodman asserted (according to Stan Lee) that there were certain elements of the super-hero genre that mustn’t be violated: that a super-hero had to be an adult and couldn’t have real-world problems. You are saying that there are certain elements of the super-hero genre that mustn’t be violated: that super-heroes have secret identities. It doesn’t matter that the genre conventions being discussed in each case are different. The underlying reasoning is the same.
Of course you can change the status quo. But only up to a point. Then the character will become indeed something other (no pun intended) and you risk that the audience is leaving the house.
Well, yeah, but at the same time, if you are too afraid to alter a character’s status quo, readers will become bored. Why read another Spider-Man story if it’s exactly like every other one you’ve ever read?
Peter was right. Spider-Man succeeded because he was different. But Spidey’s been around for a few decades. He’s no longer “different.” He’s now the “old guard.” If Marvel is afraid to try to refresh the character a bit, they risk him becoming uninteresting and irrelevant to many of today’s readers.
Posted by: spiderrob8 at June 18, 2006 08:50 AM
The more obnoxious your posts get doesn’t make it any more right.
spiderrob8, I almost fell into your trap. I wrote a very lengthy post responding to you, only to realize that I’d be giving you the satisfaction of engaging in the very fights that you so crave to provoke.
During my days as the worst kind of troll, I’d’ve taken the bait in a heartbeat. But I now realize life is too short.
I was allowing you to ruin my enjoyment of this forum, until I realized that I could do the same thing Peter has done: ignore you.
Good day.
It’s ok. 2 + 2= 5, said repeatedly, sounded pretty obnoxious to me when it was hardly as clear cut as you said.
When every post of yours is talking down to someone, trying to show “I am so much smarter than you” it is pretty annoying-but thanks for the defintion of straw man by the way.
Do what you want. You ignoring me has no impact on my life whatsoever.
I hold the belief that each readers’ choice of favorite comic book character is a deeply personal one, that mirrors who that reader is. And it also reveals who that person wants to be. Captain America, Superman, and Wonder Woman are icons who represent the best that humanity has to offer. Batman is dark, damaged, and driven. The Green Lanterns are fearless. Hulk is strong enough to never be bullied. The X-men reveal the dangers of prejudice. Spider-man is the determined underdog, the most mainstream “everyman” in the superhero world.
Or at least that is who Spider-man was. I enjoyed reading Spider-man because he had problems I could relate to. Crazy heroics and radiation aside, I could understand who he was. He felt like someone I could have known in high school. He had problems with bills, personal obligations, with being the type of person that would let him sleep at night. Yet he always stood up despite the odds, and gave it his best chance. While I was onboard for most of the changes in recent years, the changes are starting to alter who he is and what he stands for.
Between the suit, joining the avenger, having money, the unmasking, and the possible dissolution of his marriage, he no longer is at the same place I am. I don’t feel the same kinship that I once did. The bottom line is: this is not the Spider-man I wanted to be when I was 10 years old.
Posted by: dan at June 18, 2006 12:10 PM
I hold the belief that each readers’ choice of favorite comic book character is a deeply personal one, that mirrors who that reader is. And it also reveals who that person wants to be. Captain America, Superman, and Wonder Woman are icons who represent the best that humanity has to offer. Batman is dark, damaged, and driven. The Green Lanterns are fearless. Hulk is strong enough to never be bullied. The X-men reveal the dangers of prejudice. Spider-man is the determined underdog, the most mainstream “everyman” in the superhero world.
Wow. You know how to say a lot in very few words. Are you a writer by trade?
Or at least that is who Spider-man was. I enjoyed reading Spider-man because he had problems I could relate to. Crazy heroics and radiation aside, I could understand who he was. He felt like someone I could have known in high school. He had problems with bills, personal obligations, with being the type of person that would let him sleep at night. Yet he always stood up despite the odds, and gave it his best chance. While I was onboard for most of the changes in recent years, the changes are starting to alter who he is and what he stands for.
Between the suit, joining the avenger, having money, the unmasking, and the possible dissolution of his marriage, he no longer is at the same place I am. I don’t feel the same kinship that I once did. The bottom line is: this is not the Spider-man I wanted to be when I was 10 years old.
Believe it or not, I don’t disagree with you. Marvel has been making a lot of changes to Spider-Man: introducing a totemic explanation for his powers, for example. If the unmasking sticks (no pun intended!), it will be another radical departure for the character. I can see how that might alienate someone who fell in love with the character as he was originally portrayed.
That said, only time will tell whether or not these changes will resonate with the fans en masse. I don’t usually put a lot of stock in the Internet buzz, because those of us who post a lot on the Internet are more opinionated than the average reader, IMHO. (And yes, I’m including myself in that super-opinionated crowd.)
The unmasking story did get me to pick up ASM, a book I hadn’t read in years. Whether I’ll stick with it or not is another thing.
But you’re right: what you do or don’t like in entertainment is a deeply personal thing.
How many cops have enemies that go after them personally? I’m betting it happens far less to real-life cops then it does to a fictitious super-hero. So, no, “realism” doesn’t apply.
That’s an interesting point and it could lead to some interesting stories.
When the mob was at its strongest there was no doubt who the good guys and bad guys were but it’s my impression that very few families of honest cops and judges lived in fear of their lives. There was always an unspoken assumption that if anyone were to drag civilians into the conflict the ramifications would be severe.
Suppose a supervillian–most of whom have known identities due to years in prison–DOES go after Spidey’s family. I’m not saying that Peter would retaliate against the bad guy’s kids…but might not the Punisher? Or some low level anti-hero who has a very harsh idea of justice?
In fact, wouldn’t it be likely that the super villians themselves might take care of anyone who strays that far off the resrvation? (The movie M comes to mind.)
It’s a point that movies have explored often–even evil people believe themselves to be honorable, in their own definition of the word. For many, though not all, killing a girlfriend/wife/child or an enemy would be dishonorable. And quite likely counterproductive.
(One of my all time favorite comic book bits was when Joe Chill relaized that HE was the guy who killed Batman’s parents, making him Batman and when he told his criminal buddies about it they shot him dead.)
(And yeah, they realized right after they did it that they should have asked him who Batman was. Criminals are not very bright.)
Wouldn’t Spiderman inherant ‘everyman’ personality remain the same even after being unmasked? Or maybe part of the story wil be keeping the same peronality under new circumstances?
“How many cops have enemies that go after them personally?”
In 21 years as an officer, my father only ever had one small group of people make a court room threat that, when they busted out of jail, anybody took as legit. I’ve never even had the threats made to me in my six years on the force. But I don’t think that it’s quite the same thing.
The level at which most super hero/super villain feuds are written is so over the top that I don’t think the cop thing really stands up. Most cops don’t have life and death fights with the same guy 10 or 15 times a year. Also, most heroes have at least one story in their book where their main bad guy or new bad guy on the block has learned who they’re close to and kidnapped that person. Hëll, the idea is so mainstream that it only took about five minutes for the Green Goblin to do it in the Spidey film.
When the mob was at its strongest there was no doubt who the good guys and bad guys were but it’s my impression that very few families of honest cops and judges lived in fear of their lives. There was always an unspoken assumption that if anyone were to drag civilians into the conflict the ramifications would be severe.
While that has been historically true in the US, it has not been the case in countries like Colombia, where the drug cartels have routinelly attacked judges and police in their homes.
“Also it rather violates the rules of the genre.”
I don’t understand this statement, since Marvel comics were founded upon superheroes who have no secret identities — the Fantastic Four. And since there pretty much are no secret identities left in the MU, and many DC characters are abandoning them, as well (or else simply not treating it as an issue in the first place, like Hawkman and Hawkgirl, for instance), I’d hardly call it a rule.
You know, I’ve decided that I owe an apology to everyone who’s been reading this thread. I allowed myself to get a bit annoyed by a couple of people and as a result began declaring things to be “self-evident,” “undeniably true,” etc.
I’m sorry.
In my defense, I got quite annoyed when John Seavey responded to my observation by saying, “‘People said Great Idea A was bad, and it was good; people are saying this idea is bad, therefore it must be good.’ It’s an obvious error to anyone who thinks about it for any length of time.”
And John, if my response to you struck you as condescending, I am sorry. But I got irritated by what I perceived to be the condescending tone of your post. That irritation was made all the worse by the fact that I hadn’t said anything remotely like that which you were attributing to me.
That said, I should give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t mean to be condescending. And while I stand by the assertion that you erroneously attributed something to me, well, I’d like to think you did it without malice. And I make errors too.
Point is, I shouldn’t have reacted as I did.
It was that irritation that led me to start slinging about terms like “undeniable” and “self-evident.” So, if anyone read my posts and was offended by the tone I took, I’m sorry.
It’s odd, because as I’ve said before, I used to be a horrible little troll. Now people in Peter’s blog have actually complimented me for my behavior here. I don’t feel like I’ve earned the praise, and every time I let some irritation slip like I did here, I feel like I’m letting someone down.
And this is probably going to sound incredibly petty, but my apology extends to everyone but spiderrob8, who I think of as the new X-Ray. I don’t know if he replied to my last post and I won’t know if he replies to this one; I really am sticking to my vow to ignore him. But I feel a need to explicitly exempt him from the apology. Because, frankly, he came in here with an insulting an arrogant tone, and then childishly pretended to be the wounded party after going out of his way to provoke me into giving that tone right back to him.
That said, I shouldn’t have taken his bait and descended to his level. Because other people besides him are reading my posts and may well have taken offense. If I did offend anyone, I regret it.
While that has been historically true in the US, it has not been the case in countries like Colombia, where the drug cartels have routinelly attacked judges and police in their homes.
True, and it’s the fact that as the Mob got increasingly into the drug trade they began to adopt the methods of the drug lords that ultimately helped destroy the Cosa Nostra as we knew it.
One thing that always got me about Spidey–how really hard would it be for someone to figure out his id? He lives in NYC for heaven’s sake. How easy is it really to find a place to change costumes? Of course, that’s true for all of them, an intrepid reporter could just follow the Batmobile until it either entered the secret cave entrance or ran out of gas. It might take some camping out but they’d catch them all eventually. How many high speed car chases end with the guy getting away?
But if I wanted reality I’d read Newsweek.
Bill, the more you talk about your sordid troll past the more I’m tempted to look it up and see just how bad you really were…but I won’t because I like you and all. It’s just that you seem so non-trollish to me. Maybe a little quick to rise to the bait but, coff, coff, I’m hardly in a position to judge.
And spiderrob8 may not be your favorite posetr but calling him the new x-ray…that’s cold, man. X-ray was in a class all by himself…well, himself and the other identities he/she used. Even other trolls used to read xray and think, “jeeze, get a life.“
Anyway…someone told me that there’s a rumor that the Hatemonger is behind the whole Civil War plotline. The Hatemonger! Adolph Hitler’s clone! God, I hope that’s just famboy wáņkìņg nonsense, it would be the first major crossover to die by Godwin’s Law.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 18, 2006 04:13 PM
Bill, the more you talk about your sordid troll past the more I’m tempted to look it up and see just how bad you really were…but I won’t because I like you and all. It’s just that you seem so non-trollish to me. Maybe a little quick to rise to the bait but, coff, coff, I’m hardly in a position to judge.
Thanks.
And spiderrob8 may not be your favorite posetr but calling him the new x-ray…that’s cold, man. X-ray was in a class all by himself…well, himself and the other identities he/she used. Even other trolls used to read xray and think, “jeeze, get a life.”
I only know X-Ray by reputation. So that may have been unfair.
And you know what? The more I think about it, the more I think my feud with spiderrob8 is petty and stupid. He’s entitled to dislike me if he wishes. A grown man like me should move on.
So, movin’ on…
Anyway…someone told me that there’s a rumor that the Hatemonger is behind the whole Civil War plotline. The Hatemonger! Adolph Hitler’s clone! God, I hope that’s just famboy wáņkìņg nonsense, it would be the first major crossover to die by Godwin’s Law.
Technically, Godwin’s Law doesn’t kill threads. Godwin’s Law simply states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”
So when people say that a poster has violated Godwin’s Law, what they actually mean is that someone has invoked it. The only way to violate Godwin’s Law is with an infinitely long thread that never mentions you-know-what.
I dunno about you, but I don’t want to try to create an infinitely long thread. Getting to infinity would take, like, forever.
Bill, I would like to think that people understand that different people have different temprament at different circumstances, and that even when peopletalk sarcastically, or with irony, or harshness, or in other ways do not talk with complete calm and decorum, it is just because they are only human, and not out of malice. We all have done it. And I also think that the best way to avoid conflict is not to look for malice in the words of others. Sometimes not being offended is the first step to not offending others.
Using phrases like self-evident are, evidently, rhetorical devices. They are not always the best, although I personaly like them, but they are hardly offensive, except for someone who is looking to be offended. If we understand that the issues we discuss are ones that may evoke emotion, but never malice, we can all avoid taking offence when it is not justified, and, you lnow what, even if it is.
A last word of advice. Sometimes you try to correct people who have lost their cool by refering to your alleged days of trolling, (of which I have no corroberation). I suspect some may find it offensive; trolls for example, there is no reason to perpetuate a stereotype against a whole species. I also suspect that the only ones who can really benefit from your advice are those who do not require it. On the others it is probably wasted.
On a partially related topic. Isn’t one of the reasons orgaized crime and criminals in general refrain, in the US, from hitting cops, because they know there will be a harsh retaliation? I don’t know how many comic villeins have a stake in stability the way organized crime does. In general they seem more petty, more emotional, more megalomaniac, and sometimes more crazy. They may resent being opposed by people who volunteer to do it. Maybe, if super villeins know that attacks against family members wil have the whole super hero community after them they will hesitate to overstep the limit?
There have been a few judges targeted recently, but it is still rare. Troublesome enough that some judges have given speeches about it recently but rare.
Anyway, we’ll see how this works out. Have a feeling it isn’t permanent, but who knows.
I think it’s a bad idea. But you can’t blame the writers, you have to blame the editors for going along with it
You know, I can’t believe it: nobody brought up the fact that Reed Richards has a CD on a table labelled “42” and that he tells Sue it’s classified information? 😉
You know, in retrospect, I’d like to apologize to Bill for getting off on the wrong foot with him on two boards. I was more antagonstic than I had to be, and I’d like to wipe the slate clean. THe problem is I am being ignored, but if he does see this, I’ll try to be more civil from now on.
Posted by: Micha at June 18, 2006 07:34 PM
I suspect some may find it offensive; trolls for example, there is no reason to perpetuate a stereotype against a whole species.
Shìŧ, have I offended trolls, now? Man, it was bad enough fielding complaints from Ogres, Living Lawn Gnomes, anthropomorphic trees, and my family.
On a partially related topic. Isn’t one of the reasons orgaized crime and criminals in general refrain, in the US, from hitting cops, because they know there will be a harsh retaliation? I don’t know how many comic villeins have a stake in stability the way organized crime does. In general they seem more petty, more emotional, more megalomaniac, and sometimes more crazy. They may resent being opposed by people who volunteer to do it. Maybe, if super villeins know that attacks against family members wil have the whole super hero community after them they will hesitate to overstep the limit?
On the one hand, I believe the concept of the super-villain with a grudge against a particular super-hero has produced some wonderful stories. As a kid, I remember a chill going up my spine every time the FF went toe-to-toe with Doctor Doom. And Roger Stern’s Hobgoblin story arc was one of the best Spidey stories ever, IMHO.
That said, the device can be, and in my estimation has been, overused. When a hero is nothing more than a target for super-villains wanting revenge, the hero begins to look less heroic to me.
In my own writing (which is admittedly on an amateur level for the time being, though I hope to change that), I find myself preferring to write about villains whose motivations are based in something other than a personal hatred of my protagonist. But those are my sensibilities at work. Your mileage may vary.
Speaking of which, I just read ASM #532, the prelude to Spidey’s unmasking. J. Michael Straczynski has been the target of much Internet trash-talking, and frankly I don’t know why his writing draws so much ire from certain circles.
I mean, Peter Parker’s internal struggle vis-a-vis unmasking was consistent with his character, and deftly written by JMS. I daresay it’s one of the most powerful Spidey stories I’ve ever read. And frankly, if this is a stunt, it’s head-and-shoulders above a lot of the other stunts I’ve seen in the Spidey books in the last 10 years.
I’ve no idea whether this move will resonate well with fandom over the long term. But I do know that I’m intrigued.
Posted by: spiderrob8 at June 18, 2006 09:43 PM
You know, in retrospect, I’d like to apologize to Bill for getting off on the wrong foot with him on two boards. I was more antagonstic than I had to be, and I’d like to wipe the slate clean. THe problem is I am being ignored, but if he does see this, I’ll try to be more civil from now on.
spiderrob8, I accept your apology and offer my own apology in return. It takes two to tango and I certainly could have been less confrontational as well. If you’re willing to try to wipe the slate clean, I’m willing to do the same.
In that spirit, I would mention that you made an observation about Spidey’s unmasking that was, in my view, quite valid. Specifically, the fact that it is hard to get excited about an “earth-shattering” event in Spidey’s life when there have been so many in the last 10-15 years. I can see where you’re coming from.
That said, I find myself far more riveted by this latest ballyhoo than I have about any of the others (the death of Aunt May, the Clone Saga, the revelation of the totemic nature of Spidey’s powers, his organic webshooters, the “Other” saga, etc.). Granted, I haven’t read much of Spider-Man over the last several years, aside from the JMS/JR Jr run and PAD’s wonderful FNSM. But I’m intrigued.
Others think it’s a dumb idea. Personally, I think it’s too early to call it. But, y’know, to each his or her own.
And while I have yet to scarf up a copy of the all-ages Spidey book PAD is writing, I understand that one portrays the “traditional” Spider-Man most of us grew up with. So, to me, we’ve got the best of both worlds. People like me who like to see creators go out on a limb have the option of reading the Spidey portrayed in the “mainstream Marvel U.” Others can read the all-ages book for the Spidey they remember.
Or, if you’re like me, you may read both.
“In my own writing (which is admittedly on an amateur level for the time being, though I hope to change that), I find myself preferring to write about villains whose motivations are based in something other than a personal hatred of my protagonist. But those are my sensibilities at work. Your mileage may vary.”
I agree.
Is it possible to read just one of the spidy titles without reading all the rest? I currently read 7 comics per month and I may add one, but not 4.
Trolls are sensitive, but they have a weak lobby.
“And this is probably going to sound incredibly petty, but my apology extends to everyone but spiderrob8, who I think of as the new X-Ray.”
No way, and I can say that with authority. I simply decided to ignore him because someone whose default position is to cry “Nazis” repeatedly is just not worth my time. But X-Ray was just a whack job.
PAD
A place I used to work had an interesting unofficial rule. The first person to mention Nazis automatically lost any argument.
I think one time I cried “nazi” just so the argument would end sooner.
I sitll don’t understand how a major event like increased strength, organic webbing and hearing insects can be ignored (in Spectacular Spider-man disassembled).I mean, if no one wanted to do it, and the writer was leaving anyway, you’d think that the editor just would have said no.
There’s just this odd dynamic where JMS and others ignore things done in the other book, and everyone else seems to ignore Spider-totem.
I don’t think peter made a decision keeping with himself, but I do agree JMS wrote it well how he deliberated and worried over it. I generally find he writes a good marriage too. I didn’t think Aunt May was paritcularly logical in her thoughts and in her statements, though she has changed a lot under JMS.
I also think that PAD’s spider-man has been very good but I would have liked to have seen 12 issues or so not crossing over into anything else.
PAD pointed out something that everyone has pretty much missed up to this point:
PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT SPIDERMAN!!! NON-COMIC FANS.
My cousins visited today and were all excited, asking me about what was going on in the comic world and why Peter Parker went public. My cousins are teenage girls who don’t read comics. This is a very good thing: its all over the news. Unlike the death of Superman I hope it stays permanent, and I even hope it gets brought into the movie universe. Its time Spidey’s character developed.
Death of Superman is actually a very interesting thing to mention. The Death story itself actually wasn’t a very good story. However, the stories that came after *were* really good. Stories about how the other heroes dealt with his loss, what Superman meant to the DC world, how hard it was to replace him.
The death of Gwen Stacy was hated at the time, but since then it has become beloved by fans. I think that’s also because of the stories that came afterward. Peter thinking about his the girl he lost, Spidey fighting harder sometimes to make sure that he never lost anyone else, the way Gwen’s death affected later romances.
Perhaps that’s the real measure of whether or not an “event” story succeeds. Maybe it’s not the quality of the story itself, but the quality of the stories that come afterwards.
Posted by: Peter David at June 18, 2006 10:52 PM
No way, and I can say that with authority. I simply decided to ignore him because someone whose default position is to cry “Nazis” repeatedly is just not worth my time. But X-Ray was just a whack job.
Yeah. You can say that with authority, and I couldn’t, because X-Ray was before my time here. I spoke out of anger and was reaching for anything I could use as a metaphorical bludgeon. Unfortunately, it seems I chose my foot and then put it in my mouth.
I’m glad I never had the “pleasure” of encountering X-Ray.
Posted by: spiderrob8 at June 19, 2006 12:36 AM
I sitll don’t understand how a major event like increased strength, organic webbing and hearing insects can be ignored (in Spectacular Spider-man disassembled).I mean, if no one wanted to do it, and the writer was leaving anyway, you’d think that the editor just would have said no.
There’s just this odd dynamic where JMS and others ignore things done in the other book, and everyone else seems to ignore Spider-totem.
You have me at a disadvantage here. I was reading ASM, and no other Spidey books, during the JMS/JR Jr run. I dropped it after JR Jr left. Only recently did I re-connect with Spidey when I began reading FNSM.
I don’t think peter made a decision keeping with himself, but I do agree JMS wrote it well how he deliberated and worried over it. I generally find he writes a good marriage too. I didn’t think Aunt May was paritcularly logical in her thoughts and in her statements, though she has changed a lot under JMS.
I’m curious — why don’t you think Peter’s decision was in keeping with his character? (That’s not a challenge, by the way. We’re probably not going to agree on this — it’s a matter of taste, I think — but I’m always interested in learning where other people are coming from.)
I also think that PAD’s spider-man has been very good but I would have liked to have seen 12 issues or so not crossing over into anything else.
And once again, you and I agree. I would love to read a Spidey book by PAD with no cross-overs. But if cross-overs come with the territory, well, it’s a price I’m willing to pay to read PAD’s take on Spidey.
And thanks for being willing to mend fences, spiderrob8. That was real big of you. Seriously.
Bill wrote: J. Michael Straczynski has been the target of much Internet trash-talking, and frankly I don’t know why his writing draws so much ire from certain circles.
I was and still am in parts a big fan of JMS, loved his B5 – except the last season, but that´s another topic – and bought Spider-Man for the first time in years when he became the writer.
And I left the book rather fast when this totem-stuff was developed.
JMS is a terrific writer. But some of his ideas are – IMHO, this IS a matter of taste if there ever was – better than others.
I always came again on board for an issue or two, but no, I just don´t like it. “Sin´s past” was an awful idea, not because the Gwen-has-children stuff, but because the Gwen-has-children-with-old Osborn stuff. Some things I just don´t believe 🙂 I can believe that Galactus eats planets, but I can´t believe that. Lol.
So I can understand why some fans can´t stand his stuff. I cannot understand why they buy it regardless, but that is their problem.
I personally think that JMS would be sometimes better suited working with an good editor. Or an editor who does more than traffic-control. (I don´t of course know how it is at Marvel, so I could be miles off here, but it seems from the outside that he can pretty much do what he wants conceptwise.) In my opinion a writer, who is his own editor, is a bit like the lawyer who defends himself.
Marvel had this time way back when writers were their own editors. It produced some of the most memorable work of its time, but also some terrible misfires. Marv Wolfman comes to mind, his TOD was great reading, maybe even ahead of its time, but some storylines were terrible. And not terrible per se, but terrible in a sense that you as a reader could see where it went on the wrong track.
JMS is – just IMHO – such a writer. Great ideas, but a lot of others which he had better slept a night over it.
Oh, and thanks for the language compliment, Bill. 🙂
I don’t like it.
It’s for good potential on the short run, but on the long run…..
On our board we had a bit of a brainwave. Debra Whitman (waaaay back in the old Peter Parker run: ish 74) had serious problems with her delusions (or so she thought) concerning Peter Parker and Spider-man. We thought it interesting to see a story how she’d react to the fact she was right all along. What’s more, we thought it was the type of story suited for PAD. How say you?
hmmm.. should have read this thread in full as I’m obviously not alone in this train of thought… my apologies.
So, from many people’s comments here, I suppose I’m alone in remembering that ‘Jack of Hearts’ mini, where it was revealed he was half-alien, and Deb Whitman was also an alien, sent to find him to help thier planet, or something. (No, I’m not kidding..)
Yeah, I thought so….
Hi. I’ve never posted here before.
Just wondering: With the Ultimates titles being the “young, new Marvel Universe” and the main Marvel U stories really shaking up or discarding old cliches, do you think we’ll see a DC, pre-Crisis-like “Marvel Earth One/Marvel Earth Two” kind of thing develop?
Like the Ultimates line continuing to be the line they try to draw new readers in with, and the main Marvel U becomes “Earth Two” and our heroes start to grow significantly older, to reflect the passage of time since the Sliver Age?
Quote of Patrick: Deb Whitman was also an alien, sent to find him to help thier planet
You’re confused with another of Peter’s friends: Marcy Kane. She was a Contraxian like Jack of Hearts.
I read the issue the other night.
Unbelievable!
It seems that Marvel as a whole should just do away with the concepts of masks and what they represent.
This irritated me enough that all Spider-Man and Marvel titles are now off the pull list.
By the way, loved your Captain Marvel series. Hated what was done to the character in Thunderbolts for no good reason.
I’ll be back when Captain Marvel comes back and PAD is writing him.
I really liked B5 and the spider-totem storyarc didn’t bother me. It was an interesting story idea, but can be easily discounted by future writers if they didn’t want to reference it.
However, I found his later issues of AMS to be really slow and drawn out and didn’t like the Gwen Stacy’s kids arc at all. I also found Supreme Power to be tedious and a too derivative of Watchmen.
So, eh, I don’t dislike JMS all that much, but his name isn’t going to get me to buy a comic right away they way it might have at one time.
This is only tangentially related to the discussion above, but Civil War writer Mark Millar is starting up a series of auctions to raise money to battle Crohn’s Disease, which is an ailment he himself suffers from. Sounds like a very worthy cause, particularly when according to Millar, they’re actually quite close to a vaccine that could make life so much easier for millions of people. I think the link I’ve provided is correct, and this is going to be an ongoing series of auctions. Millar has basically talked to lots of people from Joss Whedon to folks on Doctor Who and Lost, all of whom are kicking in cool stuff. I love the idea that fandom can actually turn some of that disposable income to a worthy cause and come out of it with something cool.
http://www.newsarama.com/marvelnew/CivilWar/MillarCrohnsAuction.html
Someone asked if I am a writer by trade, and the answer is no. I can’t often say what I want to so I keep going over the words in my head. When I try to write something I end up hating it because the words are never perfect. I don’t really speak my mind, and have never really posted anywhere about anything. This instance just happens to be personal enough that I have something to say.
I guess I am trying to formulate my offical response to Marvel. I don’t want to write an angry rant that will be ignored. I want to be more than a statistical loss in sales. I want them to understand who I am, and why I cannot go where they want to go. I might send a letter to Wizards or Marvel, but I have to get the letter right first. A physical letter has more weight than 100 posts, and I really want them to hear me.
Here is a post that I wrote on the CBG board. It is a more evolved version of my earlier post. I would like to hear everyone’s critiques. I am most worried about my internal logic ::::
I resent the notion that anyone who is not enticed by this new version of Spider-man is a grumpy old man. I’m in my mid-20’s and have been hooked on Spider-man since I was about 9 or 10. I am not into what is going on lately because an increasing number of his core concepts are being rewritten. I do not mind change in comics, but it should not revoke the essence of the character.
This is not the same version of Spider-man that I read after a crappy day at school. When I read him then my problems seemed more universal, and I was less alone. Now I simply cannot relate to his situation in the slightest.
Most of us choose our heros (super or otherwise) early in life, based on who we are. And I also suspect there is a strong element of “who we want to be” involved as well. Superman, Wonder Woman, and Captain America represent the best that humanity has to offer. Batman is dark, damaged, and driven. The Green Lanterns are fearless. Hulk is so strong that no one bullies him. I could have chosen any one of those heroes to be my favorite, because they all represent important ideals. Instead I went with the underdog, who faced his everyday and superhero problems no matter the odds. I went with Spider-man. While I would never suggest that anyone live their life according to a comic book, symbols have power that we all need.
I did not understand it at the time, but I had a relatively mild case of agorophobia when I was younger. To be honest, it has never really left me. Even though I can hold a job that involves working with a crowd, there are always those moments. And it’s in those moments, when there is nothing between me and my inner demons, that I want some reminder of who I can be. Spider-man has long served as one of my reminders.
I have been a huge JMS fan and enjoy much of his writing. I also liked many of the changes that JQ made when he took over at Marvel. Both men have considerable talent, and I am not sure that I would say that I am upset with them directly. I am however saddened that under this new direction I cannot connect to my idol in the same way.
I don’t currently read Spiderman, and I have not read him for long periods of time, so I probably do not have the right and cannot áššëš proparly the effect of this change or the previous changes on Spiderman. It is also partially a subjectuve feeling whether the Spiderman read today is true to the one of your childhood, and whether it is desirable that he should be. But I have to ask, does the recent change really alter the Spiderman character so he is no longer the underdog, everyman you grew up with?
Her is a list of the concerns by Dan:
“Between the suit, joining the avenger, having money, the unmasking, and the possible dissolution of his marriage, he no longer is at the same place I am. I don’t feel the same kinship that I once did. The bottom line is: this is not the Spider-man I wanted to be when I was 10 years old.”
Suit. I understand the suit has some new features. But is it such a drastic change? Has it changed his personality or behavior? The way he moves inside the marvel universe both physically and mentally?
Avenger. I recently started reading New Avengers. I belueve it was partly because of Spiderman. I found that I enjoyed the group dynamic as a result of the interaction between Spiderman’s ironic everyman personality, and the different personalities of Captain America, Iron Man, Wolverine. So to me, with my limited understanding of Spiderman, it seems that his becoming an avenger is only a new take on the same personality.
having money. I can’t comment on that. Although I can’t think of at least one good story that was based on the premise of an everyman coming into money. I don’t know if that is the case here. But again it could be just another take on spiderman’s core personality. Maybe it is not the fact that he had bills to pay that makes Spiderman who he is, as much as the way he payed them, the attitude. Again, ut is subjective, I don’t know. It is also up to the writers to come up with the right way to tell the stories.
possible dissolution of his marriage. I should think that this aspect would be considered the most humanizing story about Spiderman as a regular guy, considering how common divorce is? I can’t judge of course, but I find this direction interesting forthis reason. I briefly read Spiderman at a point when Mary Jane died/vanished, and I didn’t like it very much because it didn’t feel real. But Here it sounds like a very personal story that could be quite interesting and effective [artially because this marriage (like real marriages) has been an important part of his (and our) lives for so long.
I understand there was something about a totem which I’m not clear about.
The unmasking itself offers many opportunities for stories based on the effect it would have on a guy like Spiderman and on his life as Peter. The biggest downside in this idea seem to me to be that it is difficult to revoke if there is a wish to return to exploring Secret Identity based stories. Any change will probably involve a ridiculuos mindsweep that wil reduce readers’ confidence in the integrity of the Marvel Universe. But considering Marvel has been down that road, it might be worth the risk in order to explore new storyline options. Maybe?