Top Ten Times Marvel Destroyed It's Own History: Spider-Man Rankings

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Ehh. Given a choice between Lee-Romita stories and later stories, if they don't match up, I think Stan and John got it right and the later guys got it wrong.

kdb

The fact is that Lee-Romita only gave, I believe just one thought bubble to MJ in that entire period. I think it's in Issue #93 or #94, right after Gwen goes to London, but before Peter follows her. So there was never any real sense of who she was inside in that period, all there was is her external behavior, and when Gerry Conway wrote that Epilogue of The Night Gwen Stacy Died, he used that to build on and show something deeper inside.

And in any case, Lee-Romita never really explained how the Gwen Stacy of the Lee-Ditko era who was this utterly unlikable person became the character they made her out to be. In that case, Lee-Ditko and Lee-Romita are in conflict with each other, and even then they kept saying Gwen was likable even when she did plainly unlikable things, like joining a white nationalist or talking back at Aunt May, and telling her to get lost.

[WebLurker]

Ehh. Given a choice between Lee-Romita stories and later stories, if they don't match up, I think Stan and John got it right and the later guys got it wrong.

kdb

Hasn't pretty much everything moving forward confirmed the latter, though?

[Kurt Busiek]

The fact is that Lee-Romita only gave, I believe just one thought bubble to MJ in that entire period. I think it's in Issue #93 or #94, right after Gwen goes to London, but before Peter follows her. So there was never any real sense of who she was inside in that period, all there was is her external behavior, and when Gerry Conway wrote that Epilogue of The Night Gwen Stacy Died, he used that to build on and show something deeper inside.

Behavior reveals character.

And in any case, Lee-Romita never really explained how the Gwen Stacy of the Lee-Ditko era who was this utterly unlikable person became the character they made her out to be.

That really doesn't have anything to do with whether MJ's behavior becomes cruel if she knows Peter's secret rather than acting out of ignorance.

But if someone wrote a story saying that when Peter first met Gwen, she was friendly and welcoming, I'd assume it was a mistake, that they had it wrong and Stan and Steve had it right. If they wrote a story saying that the Romita era Gwen was a stuck-up snob (after the issue where she did the sudden turnaround), I'd similarly think they'd messed up.

The idea that they got it right isn't me saying that the characters must act as they did when they first appeared forever, but that they acted as they did then, and attempts to claim they didn't don't win me over.

So sure, Gwen was a a snob when they first met, and warmed up and got friendlier over time. They didn't really say why, just as they didn't say how Aunt May reacted when Peter stopped wearing his glasses -- in that case, I got an untold tale out of it, exploring that untold part. If I'd gotten to the college years, then telling the story of how Gwen developed and changed and why would be fertile territory for untold tales.

I would probably work with the idea that (a) Gwen is generally more reserved than MJ, so even after she's warmed up to the crowd, she'd tend to be frostier and less gregarious with newcomers than MJ is, as a nice way of exploring what makes them different, and (b) I'd probably figure out some incident (a kidnapping? an attack on her father? a betrayal by friends at Standard High?) that caused her to be even more reserved and defensive when college began, so those stories would be seen as a temporary condition -- she was more sheltered and reserved than MJ in general, but she was even moreso right around then for specific reasons, and as she got more used to college she relaxed and opened up.

That would preserve what we saw in both the Ditko and Romita issues, and it wouldn't involve saying any of them were wrong or didn't happen that way. It'd be a fleshing-out, not a retcon, additional information and context rather than contradiction.

That's how I tend to like it -- I want to work with what's there rather than overthrow it. And while the real reason Gwen started acting more like MJ was that Stan wanted Gwen to be more popular so he pushed Romita to change her, it still creates opportunity to create in-story explorations of the change while keeping the events of the original issues just as they are.

So yeah, if later stories come along and say MJ wasn't bubbly and out for fun in the Romita years, or that Gwen wasn't a snot to Peter when they met and changed later, then I'm going to think it's the later guy who got it wrong, not that Stan, Steve and John's portrayal didn't happen, that it's been overwritten.

Hasn't pretty much everything moving forward confirmed the latter, though?

Not to me.

I may be old-fashioned, though.

kdb

[Miles To Go]

a betrayal by friends at Standard High?)

I'd go with this one. There's too many instances of going to the well with Gwen's dad being the cataclyst for her changes.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Behavior reveals character.

Yes, but isn't a big part of Spider-Man, in terms of its overall literary themes (if it can be said to have any) are that people aren't what they seem? That there's more to people and as much as the world misunderstands Peter, Peter himself misunderstands and underestimates other people in his life.

That really doesn't have anything to do with whether MJ's behavior becomes cruel if she knows Peter's secret rather than acting out of ignorance.

How exactly does it come across as cruel?

That's how I tend to like it -- I want to work with what's there rather than overthrow it. And while the real reason Gwen started acting more like MJ was that Stan wanted Gwen to be more popular so he pushed Romita to change her, it still creates opportunity to create in-story explorations of the change while keeping the events of the original issues just as they are.

So yeah, if later stories come along and say MJ wasn't bubbly and out for fun in the Romita years, or that Gwen wasn't a snot to Peter when they met and changed later, then I'm going to think it's the later guy who got it wrong, not that Stan, Steve and John's portrayal didn't happen, that it's been overwritten.

All the retcon was say that the MJ in the Lee-Romita era was an affect and a front she put to hide her real self and that she has done that for most of her adult life. Since that entire time we see MJ from other's people point of view, all of that is still true. Just like Peter Parker being an aloof friend who always runs off at odd moments and seems like he's overly stressed and worried is true in terms of how other people see him. In the case of MJ's background it developed organically...like Marv Wolfman first said in a though bubble that her parents were divorced in I think Issue #191 or #192 when they had their first break up and she was written out of the books for some 40 issues. And then Roger Stern developed her background and introduced the trauma and guilt of her sister Gayle (#246) before Tom Defalco introduced the idea that she had discovered his identity (#259) until Parallel Lives in an effort to bridge all the later development with the first, simply inserted that from the very beginning.

[Inversed]

So sure, Gwen was a a snob when they first met, and warmed up and got friendlier over time. They didn't really say why, just as they didn't say how Aunt May reacted when Peter stopped wearing his glasses -- in that case, I got an untold tale out of it, exploring that untold part. If I'd gotten to the college years, then telling the story of how Gwen developed and changed and why would be fertile territory for untold tales.

I would probably work with the idea that (a) Gwen is generally more reserved than MJ, so even after she's warmed up to the crowd, she'd tend to be frostier and less gregarious with newcomers than MJ is, as a nice way of exploring what makes them different, and (b) I'd probably figure out some incident (a kidnapping? an attack on her father? a betrayal by friends at Standard High?) that caused her to be even more reserved and defensive when college began, so those stories would be seen as a temporary condition -- she was more sheltered and reserved than MJ in general, but she was even moreso right around then for specific reasons, and as she got more used to college she relaxed and opened up.

That would preserve what we saw in both the Ditko and Romita issues, and it wouldn't involve saying any of them were wrong or didn't happen that way. It'd be a fleshing-out, not a retcon, additional information and context rather than contradiction.

That's how I tend to like it -- I want to work with what's there rather than overthrow it. And while the real reason Gwen started acting more like MJ was that Stan wanted Gwen to be more popular so he pushed Romita to change her, it still creates opportunity to create in-story explorations of the change while keeping the events of the original issues just as they are.

So yeah, if later stories come along and say MJ wasn't bubbly and out for fun in the Romita years, or that Gwen wasn't a snot to Peter when they met and changed later, then I'm going to think it's the later guy who got it wrong, not that Stan, Steve and John's portrayal didn't happen, that it's been overwritten.

That's what I like most, if there's a story or character decision that I, or others, may not like, I wouldn't want them to completely ignore it and just change it like nothing happened, but instead work around it, whether its through some sort of retcon or late explanation, because alot of time those decisions can be greatly enhanced through the additions.

So like you mentioned, a story about seeing what made Gwen act so snobby at the beginning of her first appearances, rather than just ignoring she ever acted that way is much more interesting and has loads of potential to be a great story in its own way.

[WebLurker]

Not to me.

I may be old-fashioned, though.

kdb

Fair enough; it's not like I'm an expert on how the Parallel Lives retcon was handled after the fact, given that i'm still catching up on the ASM stuff from that era.

Personally, I tend to take it on a case-by-case basis whether the older or newer version should have priority (but then again, I've kinda come to the conclusion that continuity in comics is really only honored in the breach). That said, I can relate to being old-fashioned in that regard, as someone who opposes and refuses to have anything to do with OMD and sundry.

[Kurt Busiek]

How exactly does it come across as cruel?

If she doesn't know he's Spider-Man, and says something that makes life more difficult for him, then that's not her fault; she doesn't know.

If she knows, then she's doing it on purpose.

I haven't gone over those issues recently, but when I was doing my research read for UNTOLD TALES, I ran across various scenes that struck me as working if she doesn't know his identity, but not so much if she does. There were times you could read her as secretly helping him, but then other times when she seemed cruel, if she knows.

I remember there was at least one scene where Peter wasn't around, and she kind of giddily talks about the latest news of Spidey being a crook in some way in front of his closest relative. She didn't know if May knew, and she didn't know if Peter would survive, so it seems kind of mean to do that. And there were other scenes where Peter was there where if she doesn't know, her reactions seem normal and if she does, then she's pretending not to in a way that seemed cruel.

Much like, say, if May knows, then every time she guilts Peter for not making it home when he said, when Spider-Man was in the news saving lives, seems like she's just tormenting him. Or going on about how awful Spider-Man is in front of him.

It's not about secret depths, it's about what the dialogue reveals being different if there's knowledge behind it.

I can relate to being old-fashioned in that regard, as someone who opposes and refuses to have anything to do with OMD and sundry.

OMD doesn't bother me that much -- or at least, the repercussions of it; I've never actually read the OMD story. But what it does is make a change that -- while it affects everyone's memories -- mostly sets up a new status quo going forward. It magically changed things. So if they then show an earlier story and they show Peter and MJ living together but not being married, I know that's because magic happened at this particular point, and things were specifically altered.

But if I'm told that, say, Peter Parker went to high school in Manhattan, and Gwen was a student in his classes (which happened in the JMS run), then I'm going to assume that was a mistake; Peter went to high school in Queens, and Gwen went to Standard High in Manhattan. That's what Stan, Steve and John established, and without some actual event altering that history, then someone saying different is, to my mind, making a mistake. If I were ever to write more UNTOLD TALES, then Peter goes to Midtown High in Queens and Gwen's not there.

If a cosmic being alters reality so that Peter and Gwen were in high school together, then I won't like it, but if that's what happened, there it is. But without it it just seems like a mistake.

I tend to think that the people who established the characters provided the foundation, and later writers can build on or enhance that foundation, but my sense of who the characters are is going to be rooted in that foundation (with additions) rather than overwritten by the later stuff.

I think that makes things stronger -- when I wrote THUNDERBOLTS, I didn't just use the most recent take on the characters, I went back to their early appearances to see what made them tick, and integrated that into their modern portrayals.

kdb

[Miles To Go]

It's not about secret depths, it's about what the dialogue reveals being different if there's knowledge behind it.

Working out the kinks are the best part of the creative process, as I think you have to remove one's self from the context of history at the time and fold it more neatly into the context of overall history. A lot of marriage critics unfortunately can't divorce themselves from certain experiences with the characters and seem to think these moments of cruelty define them. It's been said Joe Quesada's first impression of MJ came from the way she treated Harry in Stan's drug addiction trilogy, and she was pretty harsh to him there also. This behaviour from her is not limited to Peter.

MJ is the Helga Pataki of comic book characters. I don't know if you've ever watched the 90s animated show Hey Arnold!, but Helga there is the show's lead female, she's Arnold's love interest, but she also has a secret...though rather than know something about an identity, it's simply that she never told Arnold she loves him, and actually covers it up by being an antagonist and inflicting cruelty on him as a coping mechanism. She also comes from a fairly abusive family life. Arnold learned her feelings in the first movie and in the recent 2017 sequel, finally reciprocated them, although the creator of the show has said their relationship going forward would still have great complications because Helga cannot immediately, nor necessarily ever, detach herself from how she's coped with rejection, setbacks, and her past actions. Even if she loves Arnold with all her heart and understands him better than most, she's not going to sugercoat things for him either. That may be harsh, but it's also very real. In a world outside our window, we need to see the characters as human beings, flaws and all.

I'm reading the CBR "Hair Was Still Red" articles and MJ's way of dealing with her and Peter's initial dating relationship is very complex, she sort of dumps him for Flash at one point because he puts web slinging before her but she still wants to be around him and when Peter asks if she wants to be friends "again", she doesn't think she's done anything wrong and is still his friend. Peter cannot make sense of their relationship at the time and it's very interesting.

OMD doesn't bother me that much -- or at least, the repercussions of it; I've never actually read the OMD story. But what it does is make a change that -- while it affects everyone's memories -- mostly sets up a new status quo going forward. It magically changed things. So if they then show an earlier story and they show Peter and MJ living together but not being married, I know that's because magic happened at this particular point, and things were specifically altered.

Marvel have never really looked back much on stories that specifically require Peter and MJ's marriage to exist though. When they revived Ben Reily, they ignored the fact MJ was pregnant (due to the events of OMIT, the sequel to OMD, it's implied MJ never desired Peter to give her a child), which is why I will always have a tough time accepting the post-OMD world as legitimate even as Peter and MJ are reunited...it's wilfully negligent of more in-depth continuity that strengthens their bond.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

If she doesn't know he's Spider-Man, and says something that makes life more difficult for him, then that's not her fault; she doesn't know.

If she knows, then she's doing it on purpose.

I haven't gone over those issues recently, but when I was doing my research read for UNTOLD TALES, I ran across various scenes that struck me as working if she doesn't know his identity, but not so much if she does. There were times you could read her as secretly helping him, but then other times when she seemed cruel, if she knows.

I remember there was at least one scene where Peter wasn't around, and she kind of giddily talks about the latest news of Spidey being a crook in some way in front of his closest relative. She didn't know if May knew, and she didn't know if Peter would survive, so it seems kind of mean to do that. And there were other scenes where Peter was there where if she doesn't know, her reactions seem normal and if she does, then she's pretending not to in a way that seemed cruel.

Much like, say, if May knows, then every time she guilts Peter for not making it home when he said, when Spider-Man was in the news saving lives, seems like she's just tormenting him. Or going on about how awful Spider-Man is in front of him.

It's not about secret depths, it's about what the dialogue reveals being different if there's knowledge behind it.

Thanks for your response. I definitely agree that the Parallel Lives retcon doesn't stick the landing for each and every story and point along the way. It does work for me in the big major scenes, like her first two appearances with the Rhino, ASM #87, and the Epilogue of #122. Fundamentally I like the Parallel Lives because its a good story, and Mary Jane becomes Peter's equal and foil, and on top of that the audience surrogate, a role that she originally incarnated. She was the first character to really represent the 60s or Lee's version of it, and she liked both Peter and thought Spider-Man was cool I felt Untold Tales #16 really captured that, where MJ's uncertainty about Peter and Spider-Man becomes one way readers debate about his double life.

[Inversed]

Marvel have never really looked back much on stories that specifically require Peter and MJ's marriage to exist though. When they revived Ben Reily, they ignored the fact MJ was pregnant (due to the events of OMIT, the sequel to OMD, it's implied MJ never desired Peter to give her a child), which is why I will always have a tough time accepting the post-OMD world as legitimate even as Peter and MJ are reunited...it's wilfully negligent of more in-depth continuity that strengthens their bond.

I could be wrong, but while they have done several different flashback stories throughout the past 10 years, I don't think any of them have been during the period when they would have been married. And I wonder if that was a deliberate decision, so as not to cause any more problems.

The closest I can think of is the novel version of Kraven's Last Hunt which got rid of any references to them being married, and even then that's an example no one really cares about anyway.

[WebLurker]

OMD doesn't bother me that much -- or at least, the repercussions of it; I've never actually read the OMD story. But what it does is make a change that -- while it affects everyone's memories -- mostly sets up a new status quo going forward. It magically changed things. So if they then show an earlier story and they show Peter and MJ living together but not being married, I know that's because magic happened at this particular point, and things were specifically altered.

Fair enough. Granted, I was opposed to the new status quo in that I don't want to read that kind of story in ASM (Raimi movies and Ultimate were my Spider-Man gateways, so, for me, Peter and Mary Jane being a couple is kinda in the source code of the mythos, hence OMD felt like it was not only changing a fundamental, but also removing something I really liked about the characters). That sounds a bit different then what you're saying.

But if I'm told that, say, Peter Parker went to high school in Manhattan, and Gwen was a student in his classes (which happened in the JMS run), then I'm going to assume that was a mistake; Peter went to high school in Queens, and Gwen went to Standard High in Manhattan. That's what Stan, Steve and John established, and without some actual event altering that history, then someone saying different is, to my mind, making a mistake. If I were ever to write more UNTOLD TALES, then Peter goes to Midtown High in Queens and Gwen's not there.

If a cosmic being alters reality so that Peter and Gwen were in high school together, then I won't like it, but if that's what happened, there it is. But without it it just seems like a mistake.

Have not read JMS's stuff (I should, though), so I did not know that he put Gwen in Peter's high school a la a lot of adaptations. Does remind me of that short-lived Spidey series that we were never sure was an ASM prequel or a AU, with Gwen being a high school classmate cited as evidence for the latter.

I tend to think that the people who established the characters provided the foundation, and later writers can build on or enhance that foundation, but my sense of who the characters are is going to be rooted in that foundation (with additions) rather than overwritten by the later stuff.

I think that makes things stronger -- when I wrote THUNDERBOLTS, I didn't just use the most recent take on the characters, I went back to their early appearances to see what made them tick, and integrated that into their modern portrayals.

kdb

Interesting.

I could be wrong, but while they have done several different flashback stories throughout the past 10 years, I don't think any of them have been during the period when they would have been married. And I wonder if that was a deliberate decision, so as not to cause any more problems.

The closest I can think of is the novel version of Kraven's Last Hunt which got rid of any references to them being married, and even then that's an example no one really cares about anyway.

Got the impression the novel wasn't considered very good in and of itself, either. (Also, didn't they do a Civil War novelization written to take OMD into account?)

[Miles To Go]

(Also, didn't they do a Civil War novelization written to take OMD into account?)

The Civil War novel paints the relationship, and MJ, in a fairly ugly light.

[Huntsman Spider]

The Civil War novel paints the relationship, and MJ, in a fairly ugly light.

I haven't read that novel since it first came out in hardcover. What specifically happened in the novelization of Civil War that maligned Mary Jane's character and relationship with Peter?

[Kurt Busiek]

I definitely agree that the Parallel Lives retcon doesn't stick the landing for each and every story and point along the way. It does work for me in the big major scenes, like her first two appearances with the Rhino, ASM #87, and the Epilogue of #122.

Well, I think I got a good story out of it, even if I wouldn't have gone with that idea if I was in charge. That's part of the deal of working with these characters.

If I'd continued writing UNTOLD TALES beyond the point where MJ and Peter met, and I had to juggle the Stan-John stuff with the PARALLEL LIVES retcon, I'm not sure how I'd have handled it, but I'd probably have figured out something.

Have not read JMS's stuff (I should, though), so I did not know that he put Gwen in Peter's high school a la a lot of adaptations.

I think it was in just one panel (at least in what I read), but it was wrong. Just as JMS deciding to change the name and location of the school was wrong.

But I'd say that yeah, it's worth reading the JMS run, or at least the issues drawn by JRJr -- he made a bunch of choices I wouldn't have made, but he wrote them well and they were dramatic, satisfying stories. I stopped cold once Mike Deodato came on the book, but not because of Deodato -- that was where the story started with Gwen having Norman's babies, and I just didn't care whether it was well-crafted or not, I wasn't interested in reading that. So I didn't; there was plenty of other stuff to read.

But up until that point, it was an engaging, well-crafted series, even if it did things I wouldn't have done.

kdb