Revisiting the Clone Saga for its 25th Anniversary

[Huntsman Spider]

The Clone Saga was the culmination of a lot of bad editorial decisions over several years with regards to Spider-Man, motivated by a "getting back to the basics" approach but pushed as a clear money-grab to capitalize on all the other character events going on around that time. Either you believe Marvel was simply doing a quick story to create a new Spider-character in Ben Reilly or they were trying to replace current Peter Parker with a new-old Peter Parker that didn't carry with him the "baggage" of the marriage. Either way it was never going to work unless Marvel committed to the idea that new-old Peter was the real Peter Parker and presented him as such, but that's not what happened. Instead they made him blonde, called him "Ben Reilly", and took all the amazing (no pun intended) supporting characters away in the process.

I can look back more fondly on the actual saga itself now because of the benefit of hindsight and that it was such a crazy soap opera. But it was doomed to failure once it became clear no one really knew what to do with Ben & Peter once the latter was revealed (erroneously as it was later written) as the clone. And no, Norman Osborn did not work as the mastermind behind everything.

For those that are interested and have a ton of time on their hands, here's a link to some amazing insight on the behind-the-scenes of the Clone Saga. It's heavy reading but definitely worth the time - I even go back every few years or so to re-read it:

http://lifeofreillyarchives.blogspot.com/2008/03/

Having read it myself years ago, yeah, it was definitely quite the cluster****.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Either way it was never going to work unless Marvel committed to the idea that new-old Peter was the real Peter Parker and presented him as such, but that's not what happened. Instead they made him blonde, called him "Ben Reilly", and took all the amazing (no pun intended) supporting characters away in the process.

Absolutely.

For those that are interested and have a ton of time on their hands, here's a link to some amazing insight on the behind-the-scenes of the Clone Saga. It's heavy reading but definitely worth the time - I even go back every few years or so to re-read it:

http://lifeofreillyarchives.blogspot.com/2008/03/

I have to caution you to take that with a grain of salt. The "Life of Reilly" is treated by some people as the definitive behind-the-scenes guide to the Saga...when in fact it's the only behind-the-scenes guide and Glenn Greenberg is the only one with time and bitterness to actually put pen to paper about these things. The truth is that the Second Clone Saga did not have a single author's voice or editorial throughline so Greenberg's views are just one of many (which yeah he admits a few times) and there are parts of his commentary when he writes that he shows a lack of self-awareness.

It should not in any circumstances be considered an authoritative source.

[HypnoHustler]

Absolutely.



I have to caution you to take that with a grain of salt. The "Life of Reilly" is treated by some people as the definitive behind-the-scenes guide to the Saga...when in fact it's the only behind-the-scenes guide and Glenn Greenberg is the only one with time and bitterness to actually put pen to paper about these things. The truth is that the Second Clone Saga did not have a single author's voice or editorial throughline so Greenberg's views are just one of many (which yeah he admits a few times) and there are parts of his commentary when he writes that he shows a lack of self-awareness.

It should not in any circumstances be considered an authoritative source.

I’ve never thought Greenberg seemed “bitter.” Befuddled, amused, occasionally frustrated. But “bitter” is a very extreme emotion, and while he thought things were messy he didn’t come off as angry or spiteful. In fact, he wrote ‘The Osborn Journal’, the definitive postmortem of the clone saga (and a very underrated one-shot that made everything seem like it made sense). So he obviously cared about the characters who came about through the saga. By all accounts, he’s an honest and good guy and would go on to occasionally write Spidey after the clone saga as well. He didn’t have any axe to grind. Plus, didn’t LoR interview other creators as well? It’s been a while since I read it, but I’m pretty sure it did.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I’ve never thought Greenberg seemed “bitter.” Befuddled, amused, occasionally frustrated. But “bitter” is a very extreme emotion, and while he thought things were messy he didn’t come off as angry or spiteful. In fact, he wrote ‘The Osborn Journal’, the definitive postmortem of the clone saga (and a very underrated one-shot that made everything seem like it made sense). So he obviously cared about the characters who came about through the saga. By all accounts, he’s an honest and good guy and would go on to occasionally write Spidey after the clone saga as well. He didn’t have any axe to grind. Plus, didn’t LoR interview other creators as well? It’s been a while since I read it, but I’m pretty sure it did.

Frustrated is a better word, you are right. Greenberg also posts a lot on John Byrne's forum, which is basically a magnet for the most bitter people in comics to drop in and give vent to stuff. So I am conflating that.

The Clone Saga remember marked the end of Greenberg's association with Spider-Man, and professionally his time as editor there isn't going to be any high point in the history as with Jim Salicrup or others. So I think that's the emotion that's behind the entire series, an attempt at professional reclamation and recuperation.

[kingaliencracker]

Absolutely.



I have to caution you to take that with a grain of salt. The "Life of Reilly" is treated by some people as the definitive behind-the-scenes guide to the Saga...when in fact it's the only behind-the-scenes guide and Glenn Greenberg is the only one with time and bitterness to actually put pen to paper about these things. The truth is that the Second Clone Saga did not have a single author's voice or editorial throughline so Greenberg's views are just one of many (which yeah he admits a few times) and there are parts of his commentary when he writes that he shows a lack of self-awareness.

It should not in any circumstances be considered an authoritative source.

I take anyone's perspective on things, especially with regards to their involvement in controversial stories or incidents, for what it is - their perspective. I don't doubt that there are those who were involved with Spider-Man at the time who would dispute some of Greenberg's stories or statements with regards to what happened. In fact that pops up at least once with Tom DeFalco as the blog progresses. I find the blog very enjoyable, informative, and entertaining, which is why I've gone back and read it 2 or 3 times now. But it's still just one person's perspective of things.

What I also like about Greenberg's blog is that it's from the perspective from someone who was (seemingly) on-board with replacing Peter with Ben, and it's very unusual to hear that from anyone who was working on the Clone Saga. Tom DeFalco goes out of his way to make sure everyone knows that Ben was only supposed to be a temporary replacement.

[kingaliencracker]

Frustrated is a better word, you are right. Greenberg also posts a lot on John Byrne's forum, which is basically a magnet for the most bitter people in comics to drop in and give vent to stuff. So I am conflating that.

The Clone Saga remember marked the end of Greenberg's association with Spider-Man, and professionally his time as editor there isn't going to be any high point in the history as with Jim Salicrup or others. So I think that's the emotion that's behind the entire series, an attempt at professional reclamation and recuperation.

Side note...I was banned from Byrne's site when Laurence Fishburne was cast as Perry White in MAN OF STEEL. Byrne called it "reverse blackface" and when I disagreed with him on the basis that Perry White was created for radio and therefore no one knew what race he was intended to be, I got banned.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I take anyone's perspective on things, especially with regards to their involvement in controversial stories or incidents, for what it is - their perspective. I don't doubt that there are those who were involved with Spider-Man at the time who would dispute some of Greenberg's stories or statements with regards to what happened. In fact that pops up at least once with Tom DeFalco as the blog progresses. I find the blog very enjoyable, informative, and entertaining, which is why I've gone back and read it 2 or 3 times now. But it's still just one person's perspective of things.

What I also like about Greenberg's blog is that it's from the perspective from someone who was (seemingly) on-board with replacing Peter with Ben, and it's very unusual to hear that from anyone who was working on the Clone Saga. Tom DeFalco goes out of his way to make sure everyone knows that Ben was only supposed to be a temporary replacement.

That's the correct approach.

Side note...I was banned from Byrne's site when Laurence Fishburne was cast as Perry White in MAN OF STEEL. Byrne called it "reverse blackface" and when I disagreed with him on the basis that Perry White was created for radio and therefore no one knew what race he was intended to be, I got banned.

Sport it like a badge of honor, my good sir!