Current Spider-Man Sales

[Kevinroc]

Back in the day, yes.

Now all that exposition is captured with that handy synopsis page near the beginning of every book.

Not really. Sure, it captures some exposition, but it hasn't totally replaced all exposition in Marvel Comics. There are still plenty of comics that has one character gives important exposition to another.

[wleakr]

That’s not true. There were plenty of arcs during the marriage or when Peter was dating someone where the love interest wasn’t present. Because the love interest should be a character in her right with a life of her own in her right and it should be presumed the love interest is off, y’know, living that life while Peter is off doing his thing. MJ was out of Spencer’s run for a good chunk because she was off filming a movie/in Amazing Mary Jane.

True. But in almost all those situations the love interest is actively written out for the duration of that arc. At some point, it will have to be picked up on again.

The writer no longer has to think along those lines presently unless they choose to.

That writers in the past had to think of ways to write them out indicates (at least to me) that they prefer the flexibility of not dealing with a love interest for the story they are telling.

[wleakr]

Not really. Sure, it captures some exposition, but it hasn't totally replaced all exposition in Marvel Comics. There are still plenty of comics that has one character gives important exposition to another.

True. But if you missed what that character said, the highlights, if they are necessary, will be updated in the synopsis page.

[Kevinroc]

True. But if you missed what that character said, the highlights, if they are necessary, will be updated in the synopsis page.

Once again, this doesn't handle all exposition. And those recap pages don't exactly do deep dives.

[TinkerSpider]

True. But in almost all those situations the love interest is actively written out for the duration of that arc. At some point, it will have to be picked up on again.

The writer no longer has to think along those lines presently unless they choose to.

That writers in the past had to think of ways to write them out indicates (at least to me) that they prefer the flexibility of not dealing with a love interest for the story they are telling.

They weren’t writing them out. The love interest went off and lived her life because, y’know, she’s a character who has her own life.

Basically, you described serial storytelling.

If a writer is so bothered and upset about having to come up with situations for characters in an established cast in an established book, then perhaps that writer shouldn’t be writing in a serial continuity. Or even writing fiction, period, because obviously their imagination is rather limited :shrug

True. But if you missed what that character said, the highlights, if they are necessary, will be updated in the synopsis page.

No, the synopsis page fills in very broad beats.

Dialogue fulfills so many more functions in storytelling. For example, the love interest can represent the reader and allow the hero to fill in the audience with information the superhero should already know by filling in the love interest. For example, “MJ, I have to run. The Bad Guy is on the loose.” “The Bad Guy? Isn’t he in Ravenscroft” (because as far as the reader knows, that’s the last place Bad Guy was). “No, he was broken out last night by the Other Bad Guy” (information that would be strange for Peter to monologue to himself as he should already know that, but fine for him to tell another character who is standing in for the audience.

A very simplistic example, but hopefully the idea gets across.

[Garlador]

Once again, this doesn't handle all exposition. And those recap pages don't exactly do deep dives.

I’d like to point out that that summary recap pages for the recent ASM run have been criticized for being poorly explained, confusing, misleading, and in some cases actually incorrect. We’ve even gotten retractions (but you need to check the letters pages for those corrections…).

[Daibhidh]

Felicia is like an anti-Mary Jane. In that she's almost always written better when she isn't romantically attached to Spider-Man.

(Apart from the Q- word which we do not mention.)
From what I've read of her initial romantic arc the point of the romance was that Felicia wasn't so much in love with Spider-man as with the idea of being in love with a Hero.
She was in love with a fantasy, and so writing her romantically attached to Spider-man reduces both characters to fantasy versions of themselves if the writer doesn't know what they're doing.

[Frontier]

Felicia is like an anti-Mary Jane. In that she's almost always written better when she isn't romantically attached to Spider-Man.

Setting that aside, her relationship with Spidey/Peter was pretty well-explored/developed, regardless of whether you ship them or not.

[Spider-Tiger]

Setting that aside, her relationship with Spidey/Peter was pretty well-explored/developed, regardless of whether you ship them or not.

I mean... I'd say their 'relationship' was better developed in the early 2000s during the marriage as opposed to when they were actually romantically involved in the 80s. Though the Owl/Octopus war is still a favorite of mine.

[Spider-Tiger]

(Apart from the Q- word which we do not mention.)
From what I've read of her initial romantic arc the point of the romance was that Felicia wasn't so much in love with Spider-man as with the idea of being in love with a Hero.
She was in love with a fantasy, and so writing her romantically attached to Spider-man reduces both characters to fantasy versions of themselves if the writer doesn't know what they're doing.

It's a relationship that fundamentally doesn't work for either character. Felicia is intrinsically a cat burglar and that's never going to change . And Peter Parker of all heroes wouldn't stay in a relationship with a burglar. But beyond that, yeah 80s Felicia was essentially written as having an immature infatuation with the idea of Spider-man. So her development as a character involved her growing beyond that infatuation. Which is something that really didn't happen until the 2000s. Whereas MJ overcame her commitment fears by commiting to Peter in the 80s. MJ grew into the relationship and Felicia grew out of it.

[Frontier]

I mean... I'd say their 'relationship' was better developed in the early 2000s during the marriage as opposed to when they were actually romantically involved in the 80s. Though the Owl/Octopus war is still a favorite of mine.

I mean, they went through ups and downs, learning the ins and outs of their relationship, and whether they actually work well together as partners and lovers...I think that's perfectly valid.

It's a relationship that fundamentally doesn't work for either character. Felicia is intrinsically a cat burglar and that's never going to change . And Peter Parker of all heroes wouldn't stay in a relationship with a burglar. But beyond that, yeah 80s Felicia was essentially written as having an immature infatuation with the idea of Spider-man. So her development as a character involved her growing beyond that infatuation. Which is something that really didn't happen until the 2000s. Whereas MJ overcame her commitment fears by commiting to Peter in the 80s. MJ grew into the relationship and Felicia grew out of it.

There was actually a significant period where she was pretty committed to being a hero.

[Spider-Tiger]

I mean, they went through ups and downs, learning the ins and outs of their relationship, and whether they actually work well together as partners and lovers...I think that's perfectly valid.

Fair enough

There was actually a significant period where she was pretty committed to being a hero.

Stealing is baked into the character's design. She's a cat burglar with the "cat" element made the character's literal animal motif.

She's neither a villain (as portrayed during her Queenpin era) nor a straight hero. She's an antihero.

[Frontier]

Stealing is baked into the character's design. She's a cat burglar with the "cat" element made the character's literal animal motif.

She's neither a villain (as portrayed during her Queenpin era) nor a straight hero. She's an antihero.

I get that. But, again, there was a period of time where she was committed to being a hero or staying on the straight and narrow because of the impact Peter had on her life.

In the last issue of Marvel Divas she was about to steal something again but Puma bringing up Peter was what stopped her from going through with it.

[ARkadelphia]

I’d like to point out that that summary recap pages for the recent ASM run have been criticized for being poorly explained, confusing, misleading, and in some cases actually incorrect. We’ve even gotten retractions (but you need to check the letters pages for those corrections…).

So… what are you saying? Paul and MJ AREN’T actually married?

[Daibhidh]

Stealing is baked into the character's design. She's a cat burglar with the "cat" element made the character's literal animal motif.

She's neither a villain (as portrayed during her Queenpin era) nor a straight hero. She's an antihero.

It's not really defensible that she steals from museums or that Peter turns a blind eye to it when she does.

I think Felicia would work best as a Robin Hood / Leverage / Hustle type character, who is doing something that is ethically defensible according to certain codes of ethics. Peter could disapprove but he wouldn't feel morally obliged to go out of his way to stop her.