Revisiting the Clone Saga for its 25th Anniversary

[Revolutionary_Jack]

No, the quality of that period doesn't matter - it's the amount of time.

It's actually both. The Captain America of the 40s and 50s was nullified into "Not the real Steve Rogers" despite there being about 20 years between the end of World War II and Avengers #4 (published in 1964). So 20 years of readers were told that the Cap they remembered or read in-between wasn't the real Cap i.e. the one who punched Hitler on the cover. The reason Kirby and Lee felt they could do that was because those stories were widely seen as not especially good and the readership and fandom for that version of Cap wasn't sizable enough to count. So they introduced Cap in a block of ice whose last memory was a mission near the end of the war, nullified those interim stories, and then Englehart and others came in and made that Cap into a villain knockoff.

The quality of the story always does matter in such situations as these.

Is there any comic where the very best work - work that vaulted over the impact of its most iconic eras - came four or five decades in?

Arguably Batman. Since the 70s is widely considered the start of his best period in overall terms of comics writing. And since the 70s, Batman in the comics hasn't really had a bad decade. That's fifty years of consistency. Wonder Woman's a character whose iconic run, George Perez's came in the 80s. Overall Marvel Comics as a brand is 60 years old. Spider-Man is a new character who in less than 15 years (1962-1975) closed the gap between him, Superman, and Batman to become a zeitgeist hero. Superman vs. The Amazing Spider-Man, the first Marvel-DC crossover published in 1975 was Peter's coronation in that regard.

Your analogy frames the actions of the creators involved in the Clone Saga as terrorists deliberately visiting harm on a character and a comic.

My analogy framed your defense and excuse of shoddy writing as ridiculous via reductio ad absurdum. Saying that we can't criticize the Clone Saga for wrecking the continuity because "If they didn't do it someone else will" is utterly illogical. If you apply that in a real-world context then virtually every bad action by humans done to other people can be justified by that excuse.

The Clone Saga wasn't necessary, it wasn't inevitable, it wasn't willed by the stars, nor was it driven by any real concerns and fears. When Kirby and Lee brought back Cap and nullified the continuity it was driven by real concerns throughout. They got back one of their most iconic characters, they freed him of continuity and baggage that they no longer wanted to deal with and that had become embarrassing, and it was justified by lack of sales and interest. Nothing of a similar nature was the case with Spider-Man at the time of the second.

They simply told a story that got away from them and, in the end, just didn't work.

The story didn't get away from them. It was bad in conception and ill in intention from the very beginning. It should never have been allowed.

Once enough stories have accumulated and the continuity is so top-heavy, it's going to become harder to keep telling satisfying stories that also maintain continuity while also keeping a desired status quo.

For bad writers undoubtedly it would be hard. It wouldn't have been hard for writers of the other kind.

We didn't see Uncle Ben or Bucky die on page and panel.

In the case of Bucky, well that's the pudding in the proof since that was a backdoor which allowed Ed Brubaker to bring him back and work with that.

In the case of Ben, there's a funeral and gravestone. There are multiple comics showing Peter and Aunt May visiting his grave, even in the Lee-Romita era. There's also a narrative reason for why we don't see Ben's death. Peter wasn't there when it happened and the story of AF#15 demands that we stay with Peter's POV as he learns of his Uncle's death and finds out the twist at the end about the Burglar. There's a narrative and emotional reason why the defining memory for Peter of his Uncle's death is the panel where he lets the burglar pass him by (as confirmed in stuff like No One Dies) rather than the Burglar shooting Ben. To do a panel where we see Ben shot from say Aunt May's POV, would upset that connection and the impact of that moment.

[Lee]

In the case of Bucky, well that's the pudding in the proof since that was a backdoor which allowed Ed Brubaker to bring him back and work with that.

Sure. But Bucky's death was still written as a death and his return was therefore a retcon. Same as Vulture.

In the case of Ben, there's a funeral and gravestone. There are multiple comics showing Peter and Aunt May visiting his grave, even in the Lee-Romita era. There's also a narrative reason for why we don't see Ben's death. Peter wasn't there when it happened and the story of AF#15 demands that we stay with Peter's POV as he learns of his Uncle's death and finds out the twist at the end about the Burglar. There's a narrative and emotional reason why the defining memory for Peter of his Uncle's death is the panel where he lets the burglar pass him by (as confirmed in stuff like No One Dies) rather than the Burglar shooting Ben. To do a panel where we see Ben shot from say Aunt May's POV, would upset that connection and the impact of that moment.

How do we know it was Ben's body in the casket? How do we know there wasn't a switcheroo? People can survive gunshot wounds. Lots of wiggle room for Ben to have survived.

And what of Tim Harrison? We never saw maggots eating his corpse. Who are we to trust that he truly did die off panel?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

How do we know it was Ben's body in the casket? How do we know there wasn't a switcheroo? With who exactly?

Here's the thing, why don't you cite continuity trivia dots like this to a Marvel editor and pitch a story for Ben's return on the grounds that there isn't a panel showing Ben getting shot, and so it's possible that it wasn't him who got shot?

Go ahead, take your shot. If the story gets published, well enjoy the cash, save it, store it, spend it, whatever...it's your advance, and your payday. Get that bread.

As a reader, I'll just add it on the pile of further rotten stories published by Marvel that ignore emotional truth and real values for the sake of minute continuity stuff.

And what of Tim Harrison? We never saw maggots eating his corpse. Who are we to trust that he truly did die off panel?

While you are at it, go ahead and pitch a story undoing Roger Stern's masterpiece. If it gets published by an editor, the blame would lie at the editor for not vetoing your work, rather than you.

[Lee]

As a reader, I'll just add it on the pile of further rotten stories published by Marvel that ignore emotional truth and real values for the sake of minute continuity stuff.

What was the emotional truth of the scene in Amazing Spider-Man #48 in which the omniscient narrator says that the Vulture is near death, the doctor says that the Vulture has less than an hour to live, and the Vulture passes his wings on to a successor, while sorrowful that his chance to defeat Spider-Man is lost forever?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

What was the emotional truth of the scene in Amazing Spider-Man #48 in which the omniscient narrator says that the Vulture is near death, the doctor says that the Vulture has less than an hour to live, and the Vulture passes his wings on to a successor, while sorrowful that his chance to defeat Spider-Man is lost forever?

There is none there. Or at least nothing of any comparable nature to AF#15 or any other instance. That's my point.

An old villain whining in the hospital about not getting another chance to kill someone is not something that works on any human level especially in the way it's presented in the book, not as a serious emotional moment but as a way to build up and set up Drago as a new deadly Vulture.

We don't see Vulture die in the comics, the narrator doesn't mention at any point that the Vulture died. So it doesn't count as a real death.

The overall intent is try and bring a new character as Vulture and see if it sticks, but obviously Romita by refusing to draw Toomes' actual death left open a backdoor.

[Prof. Warren]

My analogy framed your defense and excuse of shoddy writing as ridiculous via reductio ad absurdum. Saying that we can't criticize the Clone Saga for wrecking the continuity because "If they didn't do it someone else will" is utterly illogical. If you apply that in a real-world context then virtually every bad action by humans done to other people can be justified by that excuse.

Your analogy is stupid and gross because it posits a bad comic book storyline as being equivalent to a malicious criminal act, which it isn't.

No one is saying you can't criticize the Clone Saga. But to compare it to an actual act of terrorism is asinine.

In a "real world conext", you can't put terrorism that results in real-world deaths on par to a comic book storyline that upsets continuity. Does this seem clear to you now?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

No one is saying you can't criticize the Clone Saga.

Saying that it would have happened anyway frames it as if it was necessary or inevitable. Which amounts to saying criticism is irrelevant because it's something that was always gonna happen or such things like that.

There's no evidence that the Clone Saga was the inevitable best case scenario, to the extent it's possible to arrive at such a case (and it isn't).

[Prof. Warren]

Saying that it would have happened anyway frames it as if it was necessary or inevitable. Which amounts to saying criticism is irrelevant because it's something that was always gonna happen or such things like that.

There's no evidence that the Clone Saga was the inevitable best case scenario, to the extent it's possible to arrive at such a case (and it isn't).

The correct response from you in this case is "I'm sorry for comparing something as trivial as a comic book storyline that rubbied me the wrong way with a real life terrorist attack in which thousands of people died and countless lives were destroyed forever. I'll try and keep a more humane perspective in the future. Bad comic book storylines don't rise to the level of criminal acts. I understand that now."

[Prof. Warren]

It's actually both. The Captain America of the 40s and 50s was nullified into "Not the real Steve Rogers" despite there being about 20 years between the end of World War II and Avengers #4 (published in 1964). So 20 years of readers were told that the Cap they remembered or read in-between wasn't the real Cap i.e. the one who punched Hitler on the cover. The reason Kirby and Lee felt they could do that was because those stories were widely seen as not especially good and the readership and fandom for that version of Cap wasn't sizable enough to count. So they introduced Cap in a block of ice whose last memory was a mission near the end of the war, nullified those interim stories, and then Englehart and others came in and made that Cap into a villain knockoff.

The quality of the story always does matter in such situations as these.

The Cap era you're referencing is from a time when no one gave a fig about continuity. Is there any block of stories from after the start of the Marvel Universe that would be jettisoned with no regard to its place in continuity? No.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The Cap era you're referencing is from a time when no one gave a fig about continuity.

My point exactly. The nature of stories, content of stories, and the kind of continuity matters a great deal. It does count and add up.

The Cap era of the 40s and 50s, is a time nobody gave a fig about continuity. But Marvel Comics from the Lee-Kirby era was a period where Lee especially gave a fig, and expected readers to also give a fig, about continuity. Marvel differed entirely from DC and others for introducing and creating a strongly serialized continuity. They differed too from other comics publishers of that era and before. I mean serialized continuity was practised by Fawcett Comics in the Billy Batson Marvel stories so it wasn't unknown entirely but it was still rare.

The continuity of Spider-Man from 1962-1994 mattered a great deal and it did not deserve a story like The Second Clone Saga. This was the most consistently maintained Marvel character, more than 30 years old, and whose last 20 years was his best selling period. For the Second Clone Saga to try and negate that was unjustifiable from a commercial, creative, and editorial point of view.

Is there any block of stories from after the start of the Marvel Universe that would be jettisoned with no regard to its place in continuity?

Alicia's marriage to Johnny Storm was nullified by making her not the real Alicia but a Skrull. That happened around the same time that the Second Saga did. 10 years worth of subplots nullified. The reason they did that was because it was not a very popular development.

[Pav]

Ben Reilly is great.
His costumes are great.
Webshooters on the outside? Great.

His main antagonist was so great that now he's a protagonist. (Sounds familiar.)

Ben as Spider-Carnage? Great.
Ben's gf THE BURGLAR'S DAUGHTER. Great.

Lots of great things about 'ole Benjamin Reilly.

Hooray for the Scarlet Spider! Hooray for Spider-Clones!

-Pav, who isn't bothered by clones in stories involving spider-powers and goblin formulas...

[Prof. Warren]

Alicia's marriage to Johnny Storm was nullified by making her not the real Alicia but a Skrull. That happened around the same time that the Second Saga did. 10 years worth of subplots nullified. The reason they did that was because it was not a very popular development.

The solution to nullify Johnny's marriage didn't make those stories with them as a couple not happen, they just gave them a different meaning. Continuity wasn't wiped out. Stories weren't removed. It was an in-story way to maintain continuity while getting out of an unpopular story thread.

[Huntsman Spider]

The solution to nullify Johnny's marriage didn't make those stories with them as a couple not happen, they just gave them a different meaning. Continuity wasn't wiped out. Stories weren't removed. It was an in-story way to maintain continuity while getting out of an unpopular story thread.

Unpopular with whom, may I ask? Because if we apply the same logic to The Clone Saga . . .

[Prof. Warren]

The continuity of Spider-Man from 1962-1994 mattered a great deal and it did not deserve a story like The Second Clone Saga. This was the most consistently maintained Marvel character, more than 30 years old, and whose last 20 years was his best selling period. For the Second Clone Saga to try and negate that was unjustifiable from a commercial, creative, and editorial point of view.

Sure. And that's something the creative teams at the time figured out midway through. It's unfortunate they couldn't see they were headed down the wrong road well before the tires even hit the road but oh well. Spidey survived the experience. And for some fans, the Clone Saga is a slice of sweet nostalgia rather than just a train wreck.

[Prof. Warren]

Unpopular with whom, may I ask? Because if we apply the same logic to The Clone Saga . . .

You'd have to ask someone else. I have no feelings on Johnny's marriage. Obviously there was enough people unhappy with it that Marvel felt the need to "fix" it.