Spidertalk podcast interview with Tom Brevoort

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I do understand where you're coming from and hearing an actual personal, emotional response was appreciated.

However, when you go right back to essentially trying to gaslight the boards by claiming things that were never said were said, it's maddening.

For my part, though, I'll try to be less abrasive/dismissive.

Thank you. I didn't express myself well at that time. I will try better again.

But as we're ten years plus past it, I don't feel like there's much to say about it at this that isn't just regurgitating the same old, same old.

Would you have said this, or did you say this, to the anti-marriage people pre-OMD? Like when the marriage was around, did you tell them to accept it and deal with it, and stop complaining all the time. Because I remember that they sure didn't stop complaining. The internet was primitive in the early 2000s and I didn't post online at the time (mostly because I didn't feel I knew enough to post and I felt intimidated by other posters) but I did read the message boards. These anti-marriage people kept going on about how Spider-Man was ruined by the marriage, and went up and down complaining about it, and if one defender said that it's lasted for more than 14 years or so, and they should accept it, they went after them with...well let's say moderators then weren't what they are now. The people were real misogynists as well, saying nasty stuff about MJ and other girls and love-interests in general.

I knew Joe Quesada said that he felt the marriage was a mistake but he did allow JMS free reign (in general I feel that Quesada's tenure at EIC was best until 2004, a period where he was just taking over and had to restore some order after Harras stepped down, rather than shake stuff right away and put his own ideas in place, which he did moreso in the second part). I remember people reacting poorly to JMS' (now-classic) ASM#50 V.2 (an issue I bought then which I still have). And then when OMD happened, all I could think was that those people got what they wanted and believe me the gloating was insufferable. On top of everything else that happened, I had this sentiment that Marvel had rewarded the wrong set of fans. Not everyone who supported OMD are in that bracket of course, but the ones I came across did. So over and above my disgust, there's that.

In short, to reiterate what I said to Mister Mets...given that anti-marriage people didn't shut up and be respectful during the 20 years of the marriage, and complained till they could wish what they wanted into existence...why do people expect anti-OMD people will not respond in kind? You can't say complaining about something that happened ten years ago is pointless, not when complaining and kvetching over 20 years bore fruit with OMD.

In comparison, I felt that the anti-marriage crowd had a fair shot to make their case that the books would be better without the marriage. They had it with the clone saga, they had it with the post-clone saga where MJ "died". All that had to be done was to prove that the books and its readers would inherently prefer a Peter who wasn't married to one who wasn't (i.e. "Lame-Married-Peter was the clone, but relax the real Peter is young and single...and where are you going") that the books would be better without MJ ("Ding dong the B-Word is Dead...now we are back to the classices, and where are you going"). In both cases, it failed. That's different from Post-OMD where Marvel is actively forbidding the marriage, and insist Peter will never grow up and set up impossible moving goalposts. In the marriage era, those who had issues against it, got a fair chance to make their case...whereas Post-OMD people are more privileged.

[Lee]

In the same way I don't see how Peter aging puts Reed and Tony out to pasture, I don't see how the existence of characters younger than Peter means he exists in a lasting time bubble. I find this counter-argument baffling.

Marvel wants to keep Iron Heart, Ms Marvel, Runaways and co as teenage characters. They exist in the same universe as Peter Parker. If Peter Parker is aged up to 35 or 40 or 50 then the teenage characters would have to be aged into their 20s and 30s.

When I mentioned that the existence of these younger characters, I meant that Peter can't really be about youth anymore

20s is young these days. People are staying in school longer, staying at home longer, renting longer, marrying later, having kids later.

I've not kept up with the recent comics, but last I looked Peter was living with roommates and working on getting his doctorate again. Not all that different from where he was in 1997, or 1982, or 1967.

One of the ways many young people try to find their place is by getting married. Which is why a lot of people get married at that age.

Marvel did that already, and regretted it.

When there's a TV show about 20-somethings, getting married is the season 5 plot, having kids is the cancellation season plot. It's what they do to wrap things up, they settle the characters down, give everyone happy endings.

Some people in their 20s might be fortunate enough to find and marry the love of their life, settle down in the home they'll spend the rest of their lives in, get a career they'll have until retirement - arrive at all those comforts of middle age early. But that's not the image people typically have of 20-somethings in New York City in the year 2020, and doesn't lend itself well to the kind of drama young people tend to consume. It's just not the direction Marvel want to take the character in.

Marvel's job is to keep the plates spinning, decade after decade. They can't afford to close too many doors, to have too many resolutions, to let too many characters drift toward comfortable lives.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Marvel did that already, and regretted it.

I think you need to qualify this statement. The correct statement is

A lot of people at Marvel did that, and some of them (but not all) regretted it, and 20 years later, entirely new people who weren't around retconned it.

This notion that everyone at Marvel (which is not a sentient being but filled with staff that change and go over the years) regretted it or that everyone at Marvel from Day 1 wanted to end the marriage isn't true. If it was the marriage would have been removed in three-four years tops.

When there's a TV show about 20-somethings, getting married is the season 5 plot, having kids is the cancellation season plot.

The real season-cancellation plot is when the lead lands a movie role and trails off.

Not sure what this analogy means.

[Lee]

--

I think you need to qualify this statement. The correct statement is

A lot of people at Marvel did that, and some of them (but not all) regretted it, and 20 years later, entirely new people who weren't around retconned it.

This notion that everyone at Marvel (which is not a sentient being but filled with staff that change and go over the years) regretted it or that everyone at Marvel from Day 1 wanted to end the marriage isn't true. If it was the marriage would have been removed in three-four years tops.

Brevity.

[Prof. Warren]

Would you have said this, or did you say this, to the anti-marriage people pre-OMD? Like when the marriage was around, did you tell them to accept it and deal with it, and stop complaining all the time.

Yes, I would have. I was not a fan of the marriage, as a regular reader I felt it was shoehorned into the book (let's not bother with a debate on that), and dropped ASM when it happened, dipping back in and out occasionally during the '90s and then getting back in with JMS (who, as we know, wrote the marriage very well) and sticking around for good. But if the marriage was working for the readership at the time, through whatever creative teams were on the books, I didn't have a problem with other people enjoying it and if the book was solid overall (as with JMS), the marriage wasn't a deal breaker for me.

Ultimately, I'm a big believer in simply voting with your dollar. Spider-Man doesn't belong to me. I'm free to stop reading if I want.

Because I remember that they sure didn't stop complaining. The internet was primitive in the early 2000s and I didn't post online at the time (mostly because I didn't feel I knew enough to post and I felt intimidated by other posters) but I did read the message boards. These anti-marriage people kept going on about how Spider-Man was ruined by the marriage, and went up and down complaining about it, and if one defender said that it's lasted for more than 14 years or so, and they should accept it, they went after them with...well let's say moderators then weren't what they are now. The people were real misogynists as well, saying nasty stuff about MJ and other girls and love-interests in general.

Saying that some anti-marriage fans were a**holes means what, exactly? Some pro-marriage fans are also a**holes.

I think any group of fans who are completely intolerant in their views are being idiots. I think that comprises a small amount of actual fans, they just happen to make the most noise.

I knew Joe Quesada said that he felt the marriage was a mistake but he did allow JMS free reign (in general I feel that Quesada's tenure at EIC was best until 2004, a period where he was just taking over and had to restore some order after Harras stepped down, rather than shake stuff right away and put his own ideas in place, which he did moreso in the second part). I remember people reacting poorly to JMS' (now-classic) ASM#50 V.2 (an issue I bought then which I still have). And then when OMD happened, all I could think was that those people got what they wanted and believe me the gloating was insufferable. On top of everything else that happened, I had this sentiment that Marvel had rewarded the wrong set of fans. Not everyone who supported OMD are in that bracket of course, but the ones I came across did. So over and above my disgust, there's that.

I think fandom was a lot better before we had too much access to other fans. I think there are too many toxic fans that poison the waters for others.

When OMD happened, I felt it was a correct move (albeit an abysmally executed one) but I didn't feel vindicated, simply pleased in believing that it was right for the long term health of the character. Again, this is not worth getting into a debate about. Not trying to say that is the correct opinion, just my opinion.

In short, to reiterate what I said to Mister Mets...given that anti-marriage people didn't shut up and be respectful during the 20 years of the marriage, and complained till they could wish what they wanted into existence...why do people expect anti-OMD people will not respond in kind? You can't say complaining about something that happened ten years ago is pointless, not when complaining and kvetching over 20 years bore fruit with OMD.

For what it's worth, I don't think that the decisions by Quesada or others involved in OMD were in the least bit influenced by these anti-marriage fans so I don't think that their complaining bore any actual fruit, even though they might wrongly believe it did.

In comparison, I felt that the anti-marriage crowd had a fair shot to make their case that the books would be better without the marriage. They had it with the clone saga, they had it with the post-clone saga where MJ "died". All that had to be done was to prove that the books and its readers would inherently prefer a Peter who wasn't married to one who wasn't (i.e. "Lame-Married-Peter was the clone, but relax the real Peter is young and single...and where are you going") that the books would be better without MJ ("Ding dong the B-Word is Dead...now we are back to the classices, and where are you going"). In both cases, it failed. That's different from Post-OMD where Marvel is actively forbidding the marriage, and insist Peter will never grow up and set up impossible moving goalposts. In the marriage era, those who had issues against it, got a fair chance to make their case...whereas Post-OMD people are more privileged.

Well, I will simply say that the perception that Peter was ever going to "grow up," marriage or no, is false.

"Growth" in comics is an ongoing game of smoke and mirrors.

As I said earlier in this thread, those smoke and mirrors were simply easier to employ with Peter for many years.

But the truth of it is that there is a ceiling to how much Peter will ever age and the marriage only makes it all the more difficult to manage that illusion.

Peter and MJ as a married couple were never going to really have the full experiences of a married couple. They were always going to be a young married couple in their mid - maybe late, at best - 20s.

But anyhow, your perception that the books post-OMD have failed is your opinion and perfectly valid, of course, but others will not share that view.

I'll take the post-OMD Spidey books over pretty much anything in the '90s and put it favorably on par with much of the '80s and '70s.

You may continue to think the wrong side "won" and maybe nothing will deter you from that but I do think that the people who work on the books are acting in good faith on behalf of the character.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I think fandom was a lot better before we had too much access to other fans.

Marvel printed actual death threats to Gerry Conway in the letters pages (this was Pre-Lennon's murder where people might have been alarmed at fans behavior but nobody felt it would be serious, so no actual criminal charges were filed) after The Night Gwen Stacy Died, so fans were as toxic then as now, and I don't think any period of fandom is better.

When OMD happened, I felt it was a correct move (albeit an abysmally executed one) but I didn't feel vindicated, simply pleased in believing that it was right for the long term health of the character. Again, this is not worth getting into a debate about. Not trying to say that is the correct opinion, just my opinion.

There were people who were like that back then, and I remember some of them saying they wished OMD was a better story so they didn't feel like s--t defending the new status-quo.

For what it's worth, I don't think that the decisions by Quesada or others involved in OMD were in the least bit influenced by these anti-marriage fans so I don't think that their complaining bore any actual fruit, even though they might wrongly believe it did.

From what I read, the now defunct Wizard magazine, which was a comic fanzine regularly ran editorials slamming the marriage and so on, and Quesada when he was young and starting out often gave interviews and corresponded with them and so forth. At that time comics fandom was concentrated in smaller places so a minority of voices could be heard even louder than when the internet came. Quesada said that he was against the marriage from when he was in college, and I believe him, but obviously interacting with loud voices in fandom might have validated him and made him believe that it would be a popular move to get rid of the marriage any which way. And of course when the marriage was removed there would be posters at certain places who you could take screenshots of show as supporters and so on. So in that way, fandom does have an effect.

Fact is, that you can't say it's wrong to complain about OMD after all these years, when so many people complained about the marriage non-stop during the entire period...and kept at it even when any attempt to remove it just brought bad stories (The Clone Saga, Post-Clone Saga). Obviously I am under no illusions that my individual effort alone will have an effect, but who knows, keeping the flame alive in some way might contribute to a general sentiment someday. At the very least it's a form of protest.

[Prof. Warren]

Marvel printed actual death threats to Gerry Conway in the letters pages (this was Pre-Lennon's murder where people might have been alarmed at fans behavior but nobody felt it would be serious, so no actual criminal charges were filed) after The Night Gwen Stacy Died, so fans were as toxic then as now, and I don't think any period of fandom is better.

No, but back in the days of letter pages, it was easy to believe that the toxic fringe was just a few isolated nuts.

I still think that is actually the case but the internet just makes them more visible. And rather than just reading a select letter from these people here and there, they're online day and night being a**holes. It creates a very different, far more hostile, vibe than what fans used to have.

Fact is, that you can't say it's wrong to complain about OMD after all these years, when so many people complained about the marriage non-stop during the entire period...and kept at it even when any attempt to remove it just brought bad stories (The Clone Saga, Post-Clone Saga). Obviously I am under no illusions that my individual effort alone will have an effect, but who knows, keeping the flame alive in some way might contribute to a general sentiment someday. At the very least it's a form of protest.

Like I said, I never agreed with all the complaining about the marriage either. So I'm not especially sympathetic to either side when it comes to that.

But, you know, people have to do what they have to do.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Like I said, I never agreed with all the complaining about the marriage either. So I'm not especially sympathetic to either side when it comes to that.

But, you know, people have to do what they have to do.

If I have to speak outside the lasting dislike and anger, I do think feeling outraged about OMD had upsides.

I probably would not have felt as driven as I would have to read basically all of Spider-Man, all titles if not for that. It did light that fire, a sense of wanting to get to know the character first hand to see with my own eyes if I was right or they were right. That also led me to read other Marvel titles and runs. Like it led to me to Stern's Avengers, Ditko's Doctor Strange run, Kirby's stuff for Marvel, and so on. OMD probably did more to make me a fan of Marvel, rather than just Spider-Man, ironically enough. The classic Marvel that is. And you know OMD cheesed me off superhero comics enough that I went to Alan Moore and others, and the alternative stuff...which mostly I still prefer.

It did lead me to make some rediscoveries of my own, stuff that had been forgotten and neglected. Stuff that's off-the-beaten path.

Take The Daydreamers (ASM#246) by Roger Stern, one of my all-time favorite issues. Stern was one of the writers who said that Mary Jane had become an entirely different character when she got married but one fan in a forum (he had the moniker Menshevik and his real name was Tilman Stievie, which he revealed when he put it on a fanzine, a legit German-language historian, if you can believe that, the Spidey fandom has depth) pointed out to me that Stern (and Wolfman before him) were the one who changed Mary Jane the most of any writer, creating her backstory and he pointed out that it happened in a completely forgotten issue. And I was thrilled to find out that this issue is actually Stern's personal favorite of his run. Yet it had been completely forgotten. So many people claimed that MJ's backstory was introduced after her marriage to justify her being Peter's match, and even Wizard magazine claimed it, and yet here it was, so many issues before the marriage originated as a plan...developed quite independeneltly and organically, and separately from it. That made me realize that in some sense these characters are in some sense alive and take a life of its own, and that it's hard for even creators themselves to be fully aware of what's going on.

The fact that Marv Wolfman (who in a thought bubble said that Mary Jane's parents were divorced in #192) and Roger Stern who created her entire family background didn't intend Mary Jane to be with Peter yet did far more than any other writer to make her matched to him, is a good sense of how paradoxical and unconscious comics creation, and all creation in general can be. So on that level, even if Steve Ditko may have consciously not been interested in Peter going to college, unconsciously as an artist, the Master-Planner Saga proves very clearly that Peter should grow up and that he as a character and his world would widen and change with any new changes. The MP Saga is kind of like a valediction of the character. That sense of the unexpected and the unplanned does seem to happen less with the more editorial driven eras we have now, and that I guess is my real issues with the Quesada and Brevoort era. It feels very fenced in. There's less of a chance of characters taking off as they did before, and that sense of the unexpected and the untamed was part of the magic that Marvel once had.

[comicscollector]

Great interview with Tom Brevoort.
I listened to the first part of the interview and was looking forward to the second part.
Always interesting to know the opinion of a Editor about Spider-Man comics.
And the mention to ASM#39-40 is awesome to me.
One of my first comic books i bought with my own money from the allowance when i was a kid was a eighty pages pocket comic book that had ASM#39-40.
And ever since then that story remained as one of my all time favorite Spider-Man story,that i have to say it would be tough to know if it´s nostalgia because it was the first comic book i bought or because it´s really one of the best stories in comic books.
But over time i think that ASM#39-40 is a all around comic book story not just a great comic book story.
Thus why it´s quite cool to know about this mention to ASM#39-40 by Tom Brevoort.

Edit.
Actually the second part of the interview mentions Amazing Spider-Man#31 to 33 and not ASM#38 and 40 as i wrote.
I did not hear that part well and thought was ASM#39 and 40.Even so ASM#31 to 33 are great Spider-Man stories as well.

[Prof. Warren]

The fact that Marv Wolfman (who in a thought bubble said that Mary Jane's parents were divorced in #192) and Roger Stern who created her entire family background didn't intend Mary Jane to be with Peter yet did far more than any other writer to make her matched to him, is a good sense of how paradoxical and unconscious comics creation, and all creation in general can be. So on that level, even if Steve Ditko may have consciously not been interested in Peter going to college, unconsciously as an artist, the Master-Planner Saga proves very clearly that Peter should grow up and that he as a character and his world would widen and change with any new changes. The MP Saga is kind of like a valediction of the character. That sense of the unexpected and the unplanned does seem to happen less with the more editorial driven eras we have now, and that I guess is my real issues with the Quesada and Brevoort era. It feels very fenced in. There's less of a chance of characters taking off as they did before, and that sense of the unexpected and the untamed was part of the magic that Marvel once had.

The MP saga really serves as the finale of Spider-Man.

If not for the still unresolved mystery of the Green Goblin, the curtain could have fell on Spider-Man at the end of ASM #33 and it would have been satisfying.

After #33, there's nothing truly meaningful left to say about the character.

That we've had decades worth of Spider-Man stories afterwards - a great many of them extremely good and entertaining - doesn't change that.

When people say that the recent years, post-OMD, have been more fenced in, I say that the character has been fenced in since 1966 and some fans just haven't realized it.

If Spider-Man was really a character that was meant to legitimately evolve and change, everything would have proceeded differently for Peter after ASM #33.

But it didn't. Peter had the same conflicts, the same struggles, and his "growth" proceeded at an incremental pace.

As I said earlier, growth in comics is a game of smoke and mirrors. These characters aren't meant to ever really change. For a long time it was easy to make it look like Peter Parker, more than other characters, did change because you could have him celebrating certain youthful milestones, like graduations.

But there are milestones that he can never reach like, say, turning 30. That's why it might have become to feel to some readers like he's more fenced in now than before but that's just because he's finally topped out at the age he can't move past. He will forever be 27 or 28 or whatever vague late 20s point they have him set at.

And for anyone who wants to ask "why? why can't he age?" it's because it's an all or none proposition. Either the whole MU ages in a semi-natural fashion or no one does. And, the nature of comics - whether it be Marvel or DC - says that no one does, that these characters have to remain evergreen.

But to me, that is not a detriment to enjoying the stories. As long as you are aware of the nature of the game, as long as you aren't fooled into thinking that real growth was ever a real possibility, then you can enjoy the books and these characters for what they are. The creative challenge of comics is how to create the illusion of having forward motion while still keeping the characters in place.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

If not for the still unresolved mystery of the Green Goblin, the curtain could have fell on Spider-Man at the end of ASM #33 and it would have been satisfying.

You are forgetting the other subplot from Ditko's run - Mary Jane Watson. She was first mentioned in ASM#15 by Aunt May as a girl Peter would some day marry. Her first "pre-appearance" was in ASM#25 (the first issue on which Ditko had plotting credit), and in his final two issues written with full knowledge that he was stepping out, he set up both Norman Osborn (introducing him in ASM#37-38 fully), and the final pages of his run has Mary Jane show up again at the end of ASM #38 (albeit for some reason shown driving a car, which was retconned by Romita Sr) which was his attempt at setting up tracks for however Stan and Romita Sr. might want to go from there. Ditko actually stayed around longer to finish Doctor Strange, which was on the whole the book he was more interested in (fun fact Stephen Strange has the same first name as Stephen John Ditko).

It's funny how Stan Lee and Steve Ditko's run still has this consensus. Practically every major change that happened in Spider-Man (Peter growing up, Peter getting married) can be traced to it. And ever major retcon is trying to get back to it. That explains the overall neurosis of the continuity I think. The marriage certainly. It was set up from Day 1 that she would be the girl Peter would end up with, with Aunt May's recommendation no less. ASM#25 likewise establishes that Betty Brant and Liz Allan took one look at her and gulped (in that hilarious panel with their reaction shots conveying a wealth of detail and them thinking in unison the exact same thing), which makes it clear that no other love interest would ever come near her. And that had an impact...Gerry Conway pointed out that the long-buildup to MJ in the Ditko era was what convinced him that she was to be the leading heroine of the series, and he justified whacking Gwen and giving center stage to MJ based on that. He found it unbelievable that after 25 issues+ of buildup (which no other supporting character got), and an iconic introduction, Mary Jane was supposed to be confined to the status as "the friend's girlfriend". Then later, Wolfman justified writing MJ out by saying he was true to Ditko and that Conway and others got him wrong (again he actually did say that). Roger Stern brought MJ back and also said he was true to Ditko and in the Wedding Annual, Jim Shooter and David Michelinie introduce it by having them say it to Aunt Anna and Aunt May, alluding of course to the original mention of MJ all the way back in ASM#15.

As for OMD...well the Sturdy One did say something once that indirectly, reflects poorly on it.

"Stan's synopsis for the Green Goblin had a movie crew, on location, finding an Egyptian-like sarcophagus. Inside was an ancient, mythological demon, the Green Goblin. He naturally came to life. On my own, I changed Stan's mythological demon into a human villain...I rejected Stan's idea...A mythological demon made the whole Peter Parker/Spider-Man world a place where nothing is metaphysically impossible."
— Steve Ditko, co-creator of Spider-Man, (THE COMICS v12 #7 [2001] - "A Mini-History Part 1 -"The Green Goblin"), describing the origins of the Green Goblin and why magical concepts were antithetical to Spider-Man's story.

I've been accused of cherry picking, well I do think claiming Ditko as an authority on some vague stuff and not giving full attention to his full scope of thoughts, is cherry picking to a greater degree.

[Prof. Warren]

You are forgetting the other subplot from Ditko's run - Mary Jane Watson.

Yes, although that probably could have been left hanging without leaving too many people upset.

Of course that would have robbed readers of her classic intro, courtesy of JRSR.

A better wrap-up to Spider-Man, if you had to pick one, is really ASM #200. It's a satisfying bookend of AF #15 and puts about as neat a cap on Spidey's story as you can find.

Understand that I'm happy to have Peter's story go on forever - but there have been points in time where they could have tied a bow around it and called it a day.

As for OMD...well the Sturdy One did say something once that indirectly, reflects poorly on it.

"Stan's synopsis for the Green Goblin had a movie crew, on location, finding an Egyptian-like sarcophagus. Inside was an ancient, mythological demon, the Green Goblin. He naturally came to life. On my own, I changed Stan's mythological demon into a human villain...I rejected Stan's idea...A mythological demon made the whole Peter Parker/Spider-Man world a place where nothing is metaphysically impossible."
— Steve Ditko, co-creator of Spider-Man, (THE COMICS v12 #7 [2001] - "A Mini-History Part 1 -"The Green Goblin"), describing the origins of the Green Goblin and why magical concepts were antithetical to Spider-Man's story.

I've been accused of cherry picking, well I do think claiming Ditko as an authority on some vague stuff and not giving full attention to his full scope of thoughts, is cherry picking to a greater degree.

Seeing as the second ASM annual starred Dr. Strange, I don't think that Ditko was really all that concerned with having Spidey exist in a world where magical concepts were possible - he helped establish that he was! So I think it's absolutely a stretch to try and apply those words as a criticism to OMD. There are plenty of other ways to knock it without pulling Ditko into the conversation.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Yes, although that probably could have been left hanging without leaving too many people upset.

How can you know that?

Of course that would have robbed readers of her classic intro, courtesy of JRSR.

Do you happen to dislike Mary Jane as a character? When I point out that she's as much right to being part of the Lee-Ditko run, and in line with the developments that came out of it, you just chide or dismiss it or downplay it. You've done this a number of times. I mean as someone who's a fan of Aunt May, I should think you would show interest in the person she loved as a daughter, and who in turn remained friends and in touch with her even when she and Peter weren't dating (like even in the Lee-Romita era, when Peter was living it up in Harry's pad, MJ still found time far more than him, to keep in touch with May in queens). This was another thing which I didn't like in BND, because they tried to spin that May and MJ were estranged somehow, and that was something that just wasn't true at all of their history.

A better wrap-up to Spider-Man, if you had to pick one, is really ASM #200.

That issue hasn't aged well, I think. As with Wolfman, the dialogue is not very good. More than that, I think bringing back the Burglar was a mistake in the same way it's a mistake to bring back Joe Chill or make him a big deal. The basic point is that some random no-name nobody criminal played a part in building up the biggest hero ever. Them being nobodies are the point, because the heroes are against all crime and not just some guy they have a vendetta towards.

Understand that I'm happy to have Peter's story go on forever - but there have been points in time where they could have tied a bow around it and called it a day.

As far as what I consider the true essential Spider-Man, my current finale is "To Have and to Hold" by Fraction. Speaking as a reader there's something cathartic that the last stories with the married Spider-Man are masterpieces ("Back in Black", "To Have and to Hold") and far superior than anything that came out in the three years or so after that. The married Spider-Man started with "The Wedding" and KLH, so it was a high note one end to another. In that way it's like the high school era which also started and closed on a high note (AF#15-ASM#33). Of course, calling Fraction's annual a finale misses the point. He wrote that to insist that the marriage worked and could continue, and it's a kind of a pitch of how Spider-Man should go. It's like a pitch for a run that never happened (Slott alluded at one point that Fraction was courted to write on ASM before he got the gig, but I guess he passed).

There are plenty of other ways to knock it without pulling Ditko into the conversation.

Well that's my point. Obviously simply citing Ditko one thing, without taking into consideration everything else he did and said, doesn't tell the full story.

[Mister Mets]

Which only means that editorial were for more tolerant and encouraging of people with different views than they are now. EIC Tom Defalco for instance absolutely wanted the marriage to continue, and disagreed with the Clone Saga, but since Marvel writers liked the idea, he reluctantly agreed, albeit with a backdoor, to undo it. Clonistas were allowed to make their case for the single, hip, Peter. They didn't make a good case, but Defalco allowed them a chance to make it. Whereas now it doesn't matter what anyone says on the matter.

Now we have a more restrictive editorial in place meant to enforce the lasting legacy of the worst comics storyline in the last twenty years.

And the clone saga does not in any way validate any attempt to remove the marriage. It's kind of bizarre that people are pretending that it is.



So it's okay, ten years after the marriage for fans to call for its removal, but it's not okay to do that after OMD, is that what you are saying?



Technically Albert Einstein was doing a hobby when he wrote the papers of the annus mirabilis. He had a day job working in a patent office in a dead-end bureaucratic gig that had nothing to do with his field.

Are you going to call physics Einstein's hobby?

Or you know any struggling poet/novelist who works small gigs or corporate level jobs to support themselves?

And in any case, it's dubious to say being a superhero is not part of Peter's home life. A good part of that home life is dedicated to repairing suits, making web-fluid and so on.

I'm not sure the Clone Saga means anything about editorial being more tolerant of different ideas.

There is the claim that editorial was trying to find ways to reverse the marriage, so in that case, going for the Clone Saga isn't an example of tolerance, but editorial going for what they wanted to do anyway.

I'm also not sure the Clone Saga is a good argument for a less restrictive editorial.

I never hinted that it was wrong for fans to call for the return of the marriage. Fans can voice whatever opinions they want; I'm not speaking for anyone else here but the main rule would be to disagree without being disagreeable.

In the response to the "hobby" comment, you skipped a portion of my comment that seemed to address your point.

I thought I wouldn't jump back in, but the temptation is real (especially with the quarantine )

I can't speak for Revolutionary Jack, but I understood these to be forms of self-sabotage as well. I wasn't speaking of mental illness alone. However, none of these traits equate to the sacrifice of altruism (the man who risks his life to save another for no tangible benefit) or of living by a strict moral/ethical code (like nuns, monks, the Amish, etc.)

Having trouble stating your needs can lead to unfulfilling relationships. Procrastination and negative self-talk can lead to poor outcomes in a variety of contexts. As opposed to altruistic or ethical behaviors, there are no positive outcomes to be gained from any of these qualities. They are all purely maladaptive/harmful to varying degrees. They all inhibit people from achieving their fullest potential.

The point here is that Peter using his powers to save lives (and sacrificing some degree of success financially/occupationally/relationally to do so) IS him achieving his fullest potential. It gives him a level of emotional fulfillment and satisfaction that the alternative (not intervening and allowing someone to die for a tangible benefit) would not. The positive outweighs the negative. Therefore, it cannot be called self-sabotage.

This isn't splitting hairs either. To label Peter's sacrifice as self-sabotaging is to imply that the outcomes are generally negative, that Peter is generally unhappy, and that he would be more fulfilled if he gave up being a superhero. I understand that sometimes people misspeak and convey messages that aren't intended. But there definitely seems to be a defense of the specific term as being accurate in this thread. Hence, the rebuttal.

This gets into some grey areas. It's not always possible to identify what aspects of someone's behavior are self-sabotage and what aspects are ultimately beneficial. Even for Peter Parker, there are potential questions about whether he's going about being a superhero in the most effective way. For example, risks he takes to save the life of just one person could render him unable to save anyone else's life later.

There are potential drawbacks in being too generous, and not being able to take care of yourself. It's a difficult balance.

In some cases, these distinctions are obvious. In some cases, these are not.

Would you have said this, or did you say this, to the anti-marriage people pre-OMD? Like when the marriage was around, did you tell them to accept it and deal with it, and stop complaining all the time. Because I remember that they sure didn't stop complaining. The internet was primitive in the early 2000s and I didn't post online at the time (mostly because I didn't feel I knew enough to post and I felt intimidated by other posters) but I did read the message boards. These anti-marriage people kept going on about how Spider-Man was ruined by the marriage, and went up and down complaining about it, and if one defender said that it's lasted for more than 14 years or so, and they should accept it, they went after them with...well let's say moderators then weren't what they are now. The people were real misogynists as well, saying nasty stuff about MJ and other girls and love-interests in general.

I knew Joe Quesada said that he felt the marriage was a mistake but he did allow JMS free reign (in general I feel that Quesada's tenure at EIC was best until 2004, a period where he was just taking over and had to restore some order after Harras stepped down, rather than shake stuff right away and put his own ideas in place, which he did moreso in the second part). I remember people reacting poorly to JMS' (now-classic) ASM#50 V.2 (an issue I bought then which I still have). And then when OMD happened, all I could think was that those people got what they wanted and believe me the gloating was insufferable. On top of everything else that happened, I had this sentiment that Marvel had rewarded the wrong set of fans. Not everyone who supported OMD are in that bracket of course, but the ones I came across did. So over and above my disgust, there's that.

In short, to reiterate what I said to Mister Mets...given that anti-marriage people didn't shut up and be respectful during the 20 years of the marriage, and complained till they could wish what they wanted into existence...why do people expect anti-OMD people will not respond in kind? You can't say complaining about something that happened ten years ago is pointless, not when complaining and kvetching over 20 years bore fruit with OMD.

In comparison, I felt that the anti-marriage crowd had a fair shot to make their case that the books would be better without the marriage. They had it with the clone saga, they had it with the post-clone saga where MJ "died". All that had to be done was to prove that the books and its readers would inherently prefer a Peter who wasn't married to one who wasn't (i.e. "Lame-Married-Peter was the clone, but relax the real Peter is young and single...and where are you going") that the books would be better without MJ ("Ding dong the B-Word is Dead...now we are back to the classices, and where are you going"). In both cases, it failed. That's different from Post-OMD where Marvel is actively forbidding the marriage, and insist Peter will never grow up and set up impossible moving goalposts. In the marriage era, those who had issues against it, got a fair chance to make their case...whereas Post-OMD people are more privileged.

We're going with memories of old arguments, but the anti-marriage crowd wasn't all that nasty or active. Every now and then, there were arguments, but it was usually about the merits, as opposed to personal animosity.

There is also a major distinction between fans and pros. The impact of one guy arguing online isn't the same as the impact of one editor.

[Prof. Warren]

How can you know that?

Well I can't, obviously. But if you're talking about what unresolved plotline from Lee/Ditko that would have bothered readers if ASM ended at #33, I think it's fair to say the mystery of the Green Goblin would be far more unsatisfying to more readers than wondering what would have happened if Peter met that girl that Aunt May wanted to set him up with.

MJ may have been set-up in the Ditko years but she became a superstar because of JRSR.

Had Ditko been the one to reveal her, she would not have had the same seismic impact.

Do you happen to dislike Mary Jane as a character? When I point out that she's as much right to being part of the Lee-Ditko run, and in line with the developments that came out of it, you just chide or dismiss it or downplay it. You've done this a number of times. I mean as someone who's a fan of Aunt May, I should think you would show interest in the person she loved as a daughter, and who in turn remained friends and in touch with her even when she and Peter weren't dating (like even in the Lee-Romita era, when Peter was living it up in Harry's pad, MJ still found time far more than him, to keep in touch with May in queens). This was another thing which I didn't like in BND, because they tried to spin that May and MJ were estranged somehow, and that was something that just wasn't true at all of their history.

I think MJ is a great character. As I said above, though, it was her reveal under Lee/Romita Sr - rather than her near miss encounters with Peter during the Ditko years - that caused a sensation.

And when you say Aunt May loved MJ like a daughter and so on, my thought is simply that May didn't do anything of the kind - she's not real, after all. She's just a fictional character, like MJ, like Peter, like all of them. May has no "feelings" for MJ other than the words that writers put into her mouth. Likewise, MJ didn't find time to visit May, again, these are just made up people living made up lives.

So while these fictional characters may seem to come to life under talented writers and artists I think it is a mistake to invest too much in what they've done and act as though these characters have minds of their own somehow. They do what writers dictate and that can change from one writer to the next and from one editorial regime to the next.

I'm interested in MJ as part of Peter's supporting cast and I'm always intrigued as to how she'll be used but May's "feelings" for MJ don't interest me at all because there's no such thing.

That issue hasn't aged well, I think. As with Wolfman, the dialogue is not very good. More than that, I think bringing back the Burglar was a mistake in the same way it's a mistake to bring back Joe Chill or make him a big deal. The basic point is that some random no-name nobody criminal played a part in building up the biggest hero ever. Them being nobodies are the point, because the heroes are against all crime and not just some guy they have a vendetta towards.

I disagree. I think #200 has aged very well. It's definitely the best thing that Wolfman did during his time.

And the point of bringing the burglar back wasn't to build him up to be more than what he was, it was to show how Peter had matured.

The burglar was still a penny ante nobody. But in confronting him again, it gives Peter a new sense of closure.

As far as what I consider the true essential Spider-Man, my current finale is "To Have and to Hold" by Fraction. Speaking as a reader there's something cathartic that the last stories with the married Spider-Man are masterpieces ("Back in Black", "To Have and to Hold") and far superior than anything that came out in the three years or so after that. The married Spider-Man started with "The Wedding" and KLH, so it was a high note one end to another. In that way it's like the high school era which also started and closed on a high note (AF#15-ASM#33). Of course, calling Fraction's annual a finale misses the point. He wrote that to insist that the marriage worked and could continue, and it's a kind of a pitch of how Spider-Man should go. It's like a pitch for a run that never happened (Slott alluded at one point that Fraction was courted to write on ASM before he got the gig, but I guess he passed).

Those are all good stories, sure.

Fraction might have been a good fit for ASM. His time at Marvel was very hit or miss, though. When he connected with a title, it was excellent. When it didn't it was a mess. There was little in-between with him.

Well that's my point. Obviously simply citing Ditko one thing, without taking into consideration everything else he did and said, doesn't tell the full story.

Nothing really tells the "full story." And Ditko's views themselves surely changed in one way or another over time so isolating one thing he said isn't proof of anything - no matter what the quote may be.