Is JMS run actually THAT good?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

For the third time... I NEVER BASHED JMS. If you read my original post I literally said "JMS is a very talented writer",

Your thread title has the phrase "actually-THAT-good" and it has a red exclamation mark next to it, that basically gives an impression of, and expectation of, a thread magnet to attract the most hostile views. I can accept, since you are a new poster, that you did not intend it that way and maybe you can be careful next time but the way it's titled and presented, people have every right to call this a thread dedicated to bashing JMS because of how it comes across.

I just don't think his run is so great as many people say.

Well okay, then. JMS' run has gone up and down in esteem. People liked it when it came out but had issues with it, and then there was a big backlash against him, which started before OMD (with Sins' Past) and then continued after where everyone defended the stories that came after by bashing JMS' stories with the same tired arguments you see here (characters became older and so on). Then the pendulum swung and people remembered the good aspects of JMS' run more than the bad aspects, and writers talked of the influence it has had.

Also, my opinion is the mystic things are out of character.

Since this is the crux of your issues, if you started a thread about having issues with magical or mystic stuff then that would be a thread of a more neutral disposition. And it's a valid perspective on how much is too much. I personally agree with you that "mystic things" shouldn't be involved in Spider-Man too much and yet I have no issues with how JMS tackled the Spider-Totem because at least the way it was done originally, seemed more like magical realism and metaphorical than mysticism.

Furthermore, you seem to outright neglect or ignore the many stories in JMS' run that didn't deal with mystic stuff (the Aunt May issue which you passed in your OP only to acknowledge later, "Doomed Affairs", the silent issue with Peter and MJ, the one with the mutated mob-boss, the Doctor Octopus story) and the fact that most of the subplots dealt with mundane stuff like Peter Parker as a teacher in high school. You also neglect that the entire issue with the Spider-Totem got resolved when JRJR left the title and the stories after that were mostly science-fiction (The exceptions being The Other and OMD both of which were editorial commissions that JMS didn't approve of). The entire Avengers Tower stuff such as Spider-Man versus Hydra, the build-up to Civil War, the Civil War tie-ins, and Back in Black (which like you, I think is great) don't have magical stuff either.

The great majority of JMS' run wasn't mystical or magical at all.

It's not that "I'm misreading things",

Actually I wasn't referring to you in that instance, it was the poster who made it out that Spider-Man destroyed a building with no care about the people living inside when the comic made it clear that it was a condemned building scheduled for demolition the next day.

[RJT]

How about you tell us your opinion on JMS' run?

Like a lot of the people here, I really enjoyed “Coming Home” when it first came out, and enjoyed most of the rest of his run with Jr Jr. But I reread his entire run about six months ago, and I found it interminably bad. Even “Coming Home,”which I had loved at the time, read as ponderous and poorly written. I don’t think the “totem” aspect really works with Spider-man’s character and I don’t buy the readings from other posters here that JMS only meant it as a possible theory—he was very clearly going for an Alan Moore/“Anatomy Lesson”-style twist and whiffed. Peter being a high school teacher is something that makes sense as an idea, but in practice giving him a job that doesn’t really give him co-workers to act as supporting characters or sets up scenarios for Spidey stories (like the Bugle sending Peter on assignment somewhere) is a wasted opportunity. His students really only exist to provide him with “after school special” moments. It also creates a problem because when he was a TA during the early 80s, his role as Spider-man interfering with his job didn’t have the same impact as a teacher at a inner city high school missing an absurd amount of classroom time. The stakes are different—if JMS wants us to care about those kids, he’s also inviting us to think about what it means to have a teacher who cares (and JMS stresses over and over again that Peter is a teacher who cares) but who also is not there most of the time. And I know that he is not there most of the time because the high school secretary chides him for missing so many days—far more than all the other teachers.
(Speaking of the secretary, JMS tries to make her into a nemesis for Peter, which culminates in a scene where she is in danger and he contemplates not rescuing her, and when he does he humiliates her. The reason he is so annoyed by her is that she calls him out for missing so much class time. Spidey webbing Jonah’s mouth shut worked because the power differential between Jonah and Peter was so great. Trying to create the same dynamic with a secretary does not work because now Peter is punching down. It left a bad taste in my mouth.) Peter David mined more out of the teaching job in the short time he dealt with it in Friendly, even addressing the effects that having Spider-Man as a teacher would have on his students. JMS never really did that.
JMS’ use of May and MJ has been cited as a positive of his run, but I found that he wrote characters, and Peter’s relationship with them, wildly inconsistent with how they have been portrayed in the past. He wrote all three of them using the purplest of prose—there is a line in the very first issue where Peter says “there is no sonar on earth that could sound out the depth of (May’s) compassion”-a line that reads like an attempt at JM DeMatteis’ style but is so awkward and heavy handed. JMS also has her engage in small acts of cruelty, like when she intentionally knocks a man’s cellphone on the floor, smashing it, because she thinks he is being too loud. He also falls into the purple prose when talking about Peter and MJ, which feels inappropriate given how grounded their relationship had always been.
JMS also had a propensity for in-jokes. During Coming Home there is a page-long (!) sequence where two security guards talk about how great Babylon 5 is and how you have to watch all five seasons to truly appreciate it. Oh,Babylon 5? You mean that show written by JMS?
These all might seem like nit picky issues dealing with style, but since his plots weren’t great, and there were barely any supporting characters with accompanying subplots to add to the book, that’s all that JMS has left, and while his DeMatteis-lite prose and Peter David-Esque dialogue might work for some, it did not work at all for me.
Reading it again nearly 20 years later, it is clear to me that my initial enjoyment of his run is a direct result of how it followed the end of the reviled Mackie run (which, while still bad, actually was better than I remembered upon rereading.)

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Even “Coming Home,”which I had loved at the time, read as ponderous and poorly written. I don’t think the “totem” aspect really works with Spider-man’s character and I don’t buy the readings from other posters here that JMS only meant it as a possible theory—he was very clearly going for an Alan Moore/“Anatomy Lesson”-style twist and whiffed.

How exactly does the totem resemble "The Anatomy Lesson"?

Peter being a high school teacher is something that makes sense as an idea, but in practice giving him a job that doesn’t really give him co-workers to act as supporting characters or sets up scenarios for Spidey stories (like the Bugle sending Peter on assignment somewhere) is a wasted opportunity. His students really only exist to provide him with “after school special” moments. It also creates a problem because when he was a TA during the early 80s, his role as Spider-man interfering with his job didn’t have the same impact as a teacher at a inner city high school missing an absurd amount of classroom time.

Except Peter didn't miss classroom time in the entire run. His shift is daytime and most of Spider-Man's activity is mid-day to night. He teaches Tuesdays and Thursdays, and he says a few times that he's there "every Tuesday and Thursday". In Bendis' first New Avengers issue, Steve Rogers comes to Peter after class and observes that even after the big rumble in the raft the night before, Peter still made it in time to teach his shift, and Rogers found that impressive.

(Speaking of the secretary, JMS tries to make her into a nemesis for Peter, which culminates in a scene where she is in danger and he contemplates not rescuing her, and when he does he humiliates her. The reason he is so annoyed by her is that she calls him out for missing so much class time. Spidey webbing Jonah’s mouth shut worked because the power differential between Jonah and Peter was so great.

Except JMS clearly presents that secretary as a person trying to gaslight Peter. She later tells her co-workers that "teachers come and go, but admin stays forever". She's not a concerned secretary worried about students. In that scene, Peter comes to her and asks her about the wrong textbooks ordered and distributed in class. She then makes out that Peter doesn't come in, but Peter says clearly, "I'm here every Tuesday and Thursday" and she keeps dodging his point about her incompetence on not getting the texts in class on time and making Peter pay it out from his wages, and then the wrong stuff coming in anyway.

As for "turning her into a nemesis", that's just one issue. The issues right before, Peter is shown getting along well with Maude, the woman in the records who appreciates Peter helping out students. So it's not like JMS made her into a regular foil.

Trying to create the same dynamic with a secretary does not work because now Peter is punching down.

The way it's presented is usual bureaucratic chicanery by incompetents in admin who d--k over people and don't care. That's not really punching down. It's punching sideways lets say.

He wrote all three of them using the purplest of prose

Have you read Stan Lee lately?

JMS also had a propensity for in-jokes. During Coming Home there is a page-long (!) sequence where two security guards talk about how great Babylon 5 is and how you have to watch all five seasons to truly appreciate it. Oh,Babylon 5? You mean that show written by JMS?

It was only one joke early in JMS' run. He hardly did that throughout.

These all might seem like nit picky issues dealing with style,

Self-awareness is a valuable thing.

Most of your criticism seems to be based on Coming Home and not on other issues. It hardly represents everything even in his collaboration with JRJR leave alone the full thing.

[RJT]

How exactly does the totem resemble "The Anatomy Lesson"?

It resembles Anatomy Lesson in that it attempts to subvert the origin of the hero. Instead of is Swamp Thing Alec Holland turned into a swamp monster, it is Swamp Thing is a monster who thinks he is Alec Holland. Similarly, Ezekiel directly poses the question to Peter “Did the radiation enable the spider to give you powers? Or was the spider trying to give you powers before the radiation killed it?” (And for good measure, JMS follows this up with the line “Which came first? The radiation? Or the power? The chicken or the egg or the power?” Which is terrible, cloying dialogue if I ever heard it.)

Except Peter didn't miss classroom time in the entire run. His shift is daytime and most of Spider-Man's activity is mid-day to night. He teaches Tuesdays and Thursdays, and he says a few times that he's there "every Tuesday and Thursday". In Bendis' first New Avengers issue, Steve Rogers comes to Peter after class and observes that even after the big rumble in the raft the night before, Peter still made it in time to teach his shift, and Rogers found that impressive.

From ASM 34 (475): “Oh, I’m sorry you can’t make it in today. Yes, every teacher has four sick days, but usually they save them for after they’ve been teaching a whole...No, I don’t think that was an attempt at commentary. Just an observation. It’s just that most real sicknesses start the night before losing, not an hour before class, so— Thank you for the suggestion, but I don’t think that that’s anatomically possible, Mr. Parker.”

From ASM 57 (498):
“hello, Peter. I didn’t know you were working today.”
“I’m here every Tuesday and Thursday”
“Yes, well, except when you call in sick. Which happens often.”

(This is also the issue in which he humiliates her after saving her as Spider-Man, and this is the interaction that sets him off.)

So I’ll use JMS’ run to comment on facts from JMS’ run, not throwaway comments from Bendis books.

Self-awareness is a valuable thing.

Most of your criticism seems to be based on Coming Home and not on other issues. It hardly represents everything even in his collaboration with JRJR leave alone the full thing.

Well, since people seem to be focusing on Coming Home as the high water mark of JMS’ run, I decided to focus on it, since you have already deemed criticism of Sins Past and the Other and One More Day as unfair.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

It resembles Anatomy Lesson in that it attempts to subvert the origin of the hero.

Except it doesn't. And it didn't. It didn't subtract anything from the origin but added, or suggested rather, another layer to what was there.

Instead of is Swamp Thing Alec Holland turned into a swamp monster, it is Swamp Thing is a monster who thinks he is Alec Holland.

Spider-Man is not a Spider who came to believe he is Peter Parker, and that Peter Parker in fact died in AF#15 when he was bitten. The analogy doesn't fit.

Similarly, Ezekiel directly poses the question to Peter “Did the radiation enable the spider to give you powers? Or was the spider trying to give you powers before the radiation killed it?”

In other words Ezekiel confirms the origin of AF#15, Peter got his powers when a spider bit him. End of discussion. The origin isn't subverted at all.

What Ezekiel draws attention to is that the spider right when it was dying of radiation bit Peter Parker. Ezekiel frames that as a choice by the spider, and introduces the concept of the Spider-Totem by way of that. That adds to what's already there, but does not subtract anything, and Peter himself doesn't buy it, and Ezekiel repeatedly notes Peter's skepticism about the supernatural right through their interactions.

(And for good measure, JMS follows this up with the line “Which came first? The radiation? Or the power? The chicken or the egg or the power?” Which is terrible, cloying dialogue if I ever heard it.)

The dialogue is by a character, Ezekiel, who JMS frames as a kind of smarmy somewhat New Age mystic guy (which is why the title of that issue where they talk is "the Long dark pizza of the soul"), so it's supposed to sound a little cloying.

From ASM 34 (475): “Oh, I’m sorry you can’t make it in today. Yes, every teacher has four sick days, but usually they save them for after they’ve been teaching a whole...No, I don’t think that was an attempt at commentary. Just an observation. It’s just that most real sicknesses start the night before losing, not an hour before class, so— Thank you for the suggestion, but I don’t think that that’s anatomically possible, Mr. Parker.”

From ASM 57 (498):
“hello, Peter. I didn’t know you were working today.”
“I’m here every Tuesday and Thursday”
“Yes, well, except when you call in sick. Which happens often.”

(This is also the issue in which he humiliates her after saving her as Spider-Man, and this is the interaction that sets him off.)

Except you ignore my point that both interactions frame her as a gaslighter who exaggerates Peter and makes him look bad. Peter's interactions with others in the staff are different. Look at that scene in ASM#57 again. She says, "Students and teachers come and go...admins are forever".

Well, since people seem to be focusing on Coming Home as the high water mark of JMS’ run,

And "The Conversation", "Doomed Affairs", "The Book of Ezekiel", the 9/11 issue, "Back in Black"...not to mention the Doctor Octopus story, the Digger story, the 2-Part Loki story co-written by Fiona Avery which I like (and which in a sense is the earliest start of the modern anti-hero Loki). I myself haven't mentioned "Coming Home" all that much. I like that story sure but there are other parts of that run I like more.

I decided to focus on it, since you have already deemed criticism of Sins Past and the Other and One More Day as unfair.

Hold on...I've never defended Sins' Past or claimed that JMS isn't responsible for that. He is. The Other and OMD are entirely editorially-driven and JMS' wasn't behind that at all but Sins' Past is on him.

As I said before, JMS' run has its ups and downs like any run on Spider-Man that goes too long. Ultimately it's great on the strength of its best stories. Grant Morrison's run on X-Men which happened at the same time is also a great run on the strength of its best stories even if its concluding stories (Planet X, Here Comes Tomorrow) are a huge letdown, immensely disappointing and a big "meh". So it's not like separating the good and the bad is a big ask when it comes to assessing someone.

[RJT]

Except it doesn't. And it didn't. It didn't subtract anything from the origin but added, or suggested rather, another layer to what was there.



Spider-Man is not a Spider who came to believe he is Peter Parker, and that Peter Parker in fact died in AF#15 when he was bitten. The analogy doesn't fit.



In other words Ezekiel confirms the origin of AF#15, Peter got his powers when a spider bit him. End of discussion. The origin isn't subverted at all.

What Ezekiel draws attention to is that the spider right when it was dying of radiation bit Peter Parker. Ezekiel frames that as a choice by the spider, and introduces the concept of the Spider-Totem by way of that. That adds to what's already there, but does not subtract anything, and Peter himself doesn't buy it, and Ezekiel repeatedly notes Peter's skepticism about the supernatural right through their interactions.

It establishes that instead of Spider-Man’s origin being a result of science gone awry—which ties him to the origins of many of his greatest foes—it says that he is in fact the latest in a line a Spider-Totems (Which is similar to Moore’s conception of Swamp Thing as the latest in a line of swamp elementals.)

Except you ignore my point that both interactions frame her as a gaslighter who exaggerates Peter and makes him look bad. Peter's interactions with others in the staff are different. Look at that scene in ASM#57 again. She says, "Students and teachers come and go...admins are forever".

Except you’re ignoring the part where you said Peter never missed school because he was Spider-Man and I presented you with two quotes in two separate issues that establishes he misses school A LOT.

As I said before, JMS' run has its ups and downs like any run on Spider-Man that goes too long. Ultimately it's great on the strength of its best stories. Grant Morrison's run on X-Men which happened at the same time is also a great run on the strength of its best stories even if its concluding stories (Planet X, Here Comes Tomorrow) are a huge letdown, immensely disappointing and a big "meh". So it's not like separating the good and the bad is a big ask when it comes to assessing someone.

I happen to like the final two storylines of Morrison’s X-Men run, so I don’t know why you keep bringing them up as evidence that great runs have ups and downs. You need to stop assert your opinion as being definitive fact. I liked New X-Men all the way through, so using it as a justification why JMS’ run shouldn’t be judged by the bad storylines contained therein doesn’t hold water.
You like JMS’ run. So do a lot of others. I don’t. Others don’t. I think we can discuss and debate it without you setting ground rules about what is acceptable for people to criticize or not. If your favorite writer needs so many exceptions made for him (don’t count the Other or OMD against him! He apologized for Sins Past!) maybe your case isn’t that strong.

[NC_Yankee]

Except it doesn't. And it didn't. It didn't subtract anything from the origin but added, or suggested rather, another layer to what was there.



Spider-Man is not a Spider who came to believe he is Peter Parker, and that Peter Parker in fact died in AF#15 when he was bitten. The analogy doesn't fit.



In other words Ezekiel confirms the origin of AF#15, Peter got his powers when a spider bit him. End of discussion. The origin isn't subverted at all.

What Ezekiel draws attention to is that the spider right when it was dying of radiation bit Peter Parker. Ezekiel frames that as a choice by the spider, and introduces the concept of the Spider-Totem by way of that. That adds to what's already there, but does not subtract anything, and Peter himself doesn't buy it, and Ezekiel repeatedly notes Peter's skepticism about the supernatural right through their interactions.



The dialogue is by a character, Ezekiel, who JMS frames as a kind of smarmy somewhat New Age mystic guy (which is why the title of that issue where they talk is "the Long dark pizza of the soul"), so it's supposed to sound a little cloying.



Except you ignore my point that both interactions frame her as a gaslighter who exaggerates Peter and makes him look bad. Peter's interactions with others in the staff are different. Look at that scene in ASM#57 again. She says, "Students and teachers come and go...admins are forever".



And "The Conversation", "Doomed Affairs", "The Book of Ezekiel", the 9/11 issue, "Back in Black"...not to mention the Doctor Octopus story, the Digger story, the 2-Part Loki story co-written by Fiona Avery which I like (and which in a sense is the earliest start of the modern anti-hero Loki). I myself haven't mentioned "Coming Home" all that much. I like that story sure but there are other parts of that run I like more.



Hold on...I've never defended Sins' Past or claimed that JMS isn't responsible for that. He is. The Other and OMD are entirely editorially-driven and JMS' wasn't behind that at all but Sins' Past is on him.

As I said before, JMS' run has its ups and downs like any run on Spider-Man that goes too long. Ultimately it's great on the strength of its best stories. Grant Morrison's run on X-Men which happened at the same time is also a great run on the strength of its best stories even if its concluding stories (Planet X, Here Comes Tomorrow) are a huge letdown, immensely disappointing and a big "meh". So it's not like separating the good and the bad is a big ask when it comes to assessing someone.

We can all agree the longer someone writes stories about a given character the worse they become ( probably because they run out of good ideas). Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s later Sherlock Holmes stories are Exhibit: A of this. But letting JMS off the hook for The Other and OMD is unfair. If you are going to give him credit for Back In Black etc he needs to face demerits for OMD and The Other, just like Sins Past. I have been about the roughest on Dan Slott possible, but I still give him credit for Spider Island and Renew Your Vows. Why? Because lumping them with Silk, Alpha, Jackpot, BND and every story I hated is unfair.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

It establishes that instead of Spider-Man’s origin being a result of science gone awry—which ties him to the origins of many of his greatest foes

That's a weird interpretation. Most of Peter's foes got their powers by experimentation on themselves or creating devices and gadgets to steal stuff. Whereas Peter got his powers as a total accident. Calling it "science gone awry" is also imprecise because Peter becoming Spider-Man doesn't have any downsides unlike say Doc Connors giving himself the Lizard Serum to regrow his hand only to become a Lizard being.

Peter got bitten by the Spider and he won the lottery, immense powers without any real downsides at all. The whole point of his origin is that he had all the power given to him in a silver platter and as such he had no excuse to mess up the way he did. "With Great Power" doesn't work if Spider-Man got the powers and had extra tentacles or something. That by the way is part of what the Spider-Totem was getting at and highlighting, how is it that when Peter got his spider-powers he got no downsides to it.

—it says that he is in fact the latest in a line a Spider-Totems (Which is similar to Moore’s conception of Swamp Thing as the latest in a line of swamp elementals.)

It's closer to the Speed Force, especially with the way the Totem was reinterpreted during Slott's Spider-Verse.

Except you’re ignoring the part where you said Peter never missed school because he was Spider-Man and I presented you with two quotes in two separate issues that establishes he misses school A LOT.

And I pointed out that the narrative establishes the person who points out that as extremely unreliable and not to be taken on face value. She openly gaslights Peter in front of her colleagues.

I happen to like the final two storylines of Morrison’s X-Men run, so I don’t know why you keep bringing them up as evidence that great runs have ups and downs.

The final issues of Morrison's New X-Men are widely considered weak conclusions. It's never been embraced and was universally considered a character assassination of one of the greatest villains in comics. (https://www.cbr.com/grant-morrison-m...rsial-stories/). "Here Comes Tomorrow" got raked over the coals for Scott making out with Emma Frost on Jean's grave (with Future Jean somehow making it happen to try and put it over).

You need to stop assert your opinion as being definitive fact.

I only ever asserted my opinions as opinions. Just because you disagree with it, doesn't mean I am passing them off as fact.

It's a general consensus that Morrison's run became weak in his final storylines and those parts were immediately reversed because they made the characters unusable, and were also seen as a drop in writing quality. The influential stuff of Morrison's run from E is for Extinction to Riot on the X-Mansion (and also the Scott-Logan-Fantomex adventure after that) are acknowledged and valued.

I liked New X-Men all the way through, so using it as a justification why JMS’ run shouldn’t be judged by the bad storylines contained therein doesn’t hold water.

Okay then, how about David Michelinie's Spider-Man? His final issues weren't so great what with the Robotparents stuff. Which Danny Fingeroth as editor forced on him, which Fingeroth admitted to and apologized for later, so if people give David Michelinie a pass for the Robotparents which is (rightly) seen as one of the most reviled subplots in Spider-Man, I don't know how JMS doesn't qualify for similar consideration. The situation is identical. I've seen people here who rake JMS over this stuff giving Michelinie a pass for that, so why is it different?

I think we can discuss and debate it without you setting ground rules about what is acceptable for people to criticize or not.

Merely bringing up and reminding posters again and again that those storylines are editorially driven isn't setting ground rules, my dude. It's simply pointing out facts.

If your favorite writer needs so many exceptions made for him (don’t count the Other or OMD against him! He apologized for Sins Past!) maybe your case isn’t that strong.

If the case against JMS is made on outright misreading, bias, and claiming that because he did bad storylines than he should never be considered as good to start with...then I am not the one who should be worried about the strength of my case.

[RJT]

That's a weird interpretation. Most of Peter's foes got their powers by experimentation on themselves or creating devices and gadgets to steal stuff. Whereas Peter got his powers as a total accident. Calling it "science gone awry" is also imprecise because Peter becoming Spider-Man doesn't have any downsides unlike say Doc Connors giving himself the Lizard Serum to regrow his hand only to become a Lizard being.

Peter got bitten by the Spider and he won the lottery, immense powers without any real downsides at all. The whole point of his origin is that he had all the power given to him in a silver platter and as such he had no excuse to mess up the way he did. "With Great Power" doesn't work if Spider-Man got the powers and had extra tentacles or something. That by the way is part of what the Spider-Totem was getting at and highlighting, how is it that when Peter got his spider-powers he got no downsides to it.



It's closer to the Speed Force, especially with the way the Totem was reinterpreted during Slott's Spider-Verse.



And I pointed out that the narrative establishes the person who points out that as extremely unreliable and not to be taken on face value. She openly gaslights Peter in front of her colleagues.



The final issues of Morrison's New X-Men are widely considered weak conclusions. It's never been embraced and was universally considered a character assassination of one of the greatest villains in comics. (https://www.cbr.com/grant-morrison-m...rsial-stories/). "Here Comes Tomorrow" got raked over the coals for Scott making out with Emma Frost on Jean's grave (with Future Jean somehow making it happen to try and put it over).



I only ever asserted my opinions as opinions. Just because you disagree with it, doesn't mean I am passing them off as fact.

It's a general consensus that Morrison's run became weak in his final storylines and those parts were immediately reversed because they made the characters unusable, and were also seen as a drop in writing quality. The influential stuff of Morrison's run from E is for Extinction to Riot on the X-Mansion (and also the Scott-Logan-Fantomex adventure after that) are acknowledged and valued.



Okay then, how about David Michelinie's Spider-Man? His final issues weren't so great what with the Robotparents stuff. Which Danny Fingeroth as editor forced on him, which Fingeroth admitted to and apologized for later, so if people give David Michelinie a pass for the Robotparents which is (rightly) seen as one of the most reviled subplots in Spider-Man, I don't know how JMS doesn't qualify for similar consideration. The situation is identical. I've seen people here who rake JMS over this stuff giving Michelinie a pass for that, so why is it different?



Merely bringing up and reminding posters again and again that those storylines are editorially driven isn't setting ground rules, my dude. It's simply pointing out facts.



If the case against JMS is made on outright misreading, bias, and claiming that because he did bad storylines than he should never be considered as good to start with...then I am not the one who should be worried about the strength of my case.

First of all, if you think Peter Parker getting spider powers had no downside at all, I’m beginning to doubt you’ve read many Spider-Man comics at all. What was revolution about Spider-Man when he was created was that getting powers made his life more difficult, not easier. It cost him his uncle, Betty, Gwen. He sacrificed his graduate school career because being Spider-man was interfering with his studies. It’s literally the premise of the series—with great power comes great responsibility. Having lots of responsibilities =/= winning the lottery. And it was an accident that gave him his powers, just like an accident gave Dr. Octopus his powers. The idea that both the hero and the villain get their powers in similar circumstances highlights how heroic Spider-man is—he could have easily become a Dr. Octopus figure, but he doesn’t.

And as far as “ground rules”— who says you get to set them? You don’t get to say what rules we need to abide by when discussing JMS anymore than you get to proclaim that Morrison’s final X-Men stories were universally derided. (In fact the Scott Emma relationship is something I see a lot of people who don’t like Here Comes Tomorrow saying was a good story development, so I think you’re letting your bias cloud things there.) if people want to say that OMD or the Other ruins JMS’ run for them, it’s not up to you to tell them they’re wrong.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

First of all, if you think Peter Parker getting spider powers had no downside at all, I’m beginning to doubt you’ve read many Spider-Man comics at all.

The only downsides to being Spider-Man is that Peter Parker is a good person who feels guilt and responsibility for not acting when he could have to save Uncle Ben.

The actual powers didn't have any downsides at all. Peter got super-strength, got his eyesight fixed, became extra good-looking, a spider-sense, and the ability to stick on walls. Seth Brundle he ain't.

What was revolution about Spider-Man when he was created was that getting powers made his life more difficult, not easier.

It's a revolution because the story was about how difficult it was to be a good person and use powers responsibly because the world and society is wired to punish people to do that. That was the realism and social commentary there, and that by the way is what JMS is all about, and what the entire relationship between Peter and Ezekiel is about, and which the final story "The Book of Ezekiel" drives home.

The entire point of the Spider-Totem was to provide a mythical dimension to Peter as the "friendly neighborhood Spider-Man", the little guy who constantly pushes back against a world out to crush him. Against him is Ezekiel a selfish amoral individual who decided to pursue money and fame but hits a late-life crisis and becomes a vampire out to suck out the young, no different from Morlun in the end. Ezekiel's credit is that he realizes this before it's far too late and Peter's life inspires him to do good in the end. JMS' run is unique for the fact that the entire mythical story arc he brought in was in synch with the subplots of Peter and his family, and his work as a high school teacher. All of that added to a vision of Peter as the "friendly-neighborhood Spider-Man" out for the little guy, constantly scraping by, and whose little victories and moments feel very big and grand.

It cost him his uncle, Betty, Gwen.

The spider-bite and powers didn't cost him. His choices and inactions caused that. It wasn't the fault of the powers at all.

Having lots of responsibilities =/= winning the lottery.

My point is "Having Power = Winning the Lottery", what Peter does with them is where responsibility comes in. It's only because Peter chooses to do good that he has responsibilities and difficulties.

And it was an accident that gave him his powers, just like an accident gave Dr. Octopus his powers.

Doctor Octopus created a mechanical harness to handle nuclear elements, out of personal ambitions and careerist greed, and professional enterprise. He wasn't some random nobody. He chose to study and innovate in a dangerous field, he chose to personally take a high risk by creating devices to personally put himself in more danger, all for the sake of power, prestige, status, respect.

He wasn't some innocent bystander on the spot who suddenly got powers. That's why after the accident, he decides to become a gangster. Most of Spider-Man villains aren't comparable at all to Peter.

And as far as “ground rules”— who says you get to set them?

I never did. You are the one making out like I am. I in fact do not do so.

You don’t get to say what rules we need to abide by when discussing JMS

Have I at any time tried to call a moderator to remove posts to diss JMS...no. So quit pretending like I have.

...if people want to say that OMD or the Other ruins JMS’ run for them, it’s not up to you to tell them they’re wrong.

1) I can tell them they are wrong, because it's my counter-argument and I have a right to express that. If someone misinteprets or misreads scenes then I have a right to say that. If people are unfairly expressing dislike, I have a right to express that too.

2) And pointing out that nothing in OMD was JMS' call is a fair call. It wasn't JMS' choice to use Mephisto, it wasn't his choice for the story to be told the way it was. He didn't write the final two issues. So what exactly is to be gained there aside from making him a scapegoat? If you want to use OMD as a reason to dislike JMS, then rationally there's nothing to base that on.

[Alan2099]

Most of Peter's foes got their powers by experimentation on themselves or creating devices and gadgets to steal stuff.

Electro, Dr. Octopus, and Sandman, half of the original Sinister Six were all accidents.

Kraven took a mystic serum, which I suppose might be considered experimenting on himself if you want to take a really loose definition of the term.

Green Goblin's origin would also fall under accident. He certainly didn't MEAN for an untested set of chemicals to explode in his face.

Venom... also neither gadget nor experiment. Carnage has the same deal.

Those are a good hunk of Spider-man's biggest and baddest foes. They really don't seem to fall into the categories you mention.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Electro, Dr. Octopus, and Sandman, half of the original Sinister Six were all accidents.

Doctor Octopus as I mentioned a career scientist who willingly endangered his life to do dangerous experiments and created a harness for the purpose. So it's not like he was a random nobody caught in that accident. He was an arrogant know-it-all who put himself at a potential ground zero and that blew in his face and fused his harness to his brains. Flint Marko was a criminal before he became Sandman.

Green Goblin's origin would also fall under accident. He certainly didn't MEAN for an untested set of chemicals to explode in his face.

He did mean to experiment and tinker with them in the hope of giving himself powers. Norman Osborn wanted to become a superhuman certainly. Why else would he tinker with Stromm's notes?

Those are a good hunk of Spider-man's biggest and baddest foes. They really don't seem to fall into the categories you mention.

Lizard falls under that, as does Scorpion (Mac Gargan certainly volunteered to be tested), so was Rhino, and a lot of others. As does Hobgoblin.

[Spider-Tiger]

Peak JMS for me (Doomed Affairs, the Conversation, the silent issue, etc.) ranks among the best of Spider-man. JMS absolutely excelled at character. His Peter was earnest, compassionate, sensitive, and highly empathetic. He was written to be a truly admirable hero who lived up to the mantra "With Great Power..." in and out of the mask as opposed to the bumbling "Parker Luck" fool that some try to reduce him to.

The same could be said of Mary Jane who was written with a depth of characterization that felt like a progression of the character developed by Conway, DeFalco, etc. (someone who struggled with vulnerability and security in her relationships) instead of reducing her to the tired sexist tropes of party girl, supermodel glamazon, or nagging wife.

His Peter and Mary Jane were given distinctly mature voices, but ones that felt authentic given the multitude of storms that they had weathered together. And the tender character moments between them (such as when they are contemplating when to have sex again after reuniting) actually felt real as opposed to some of the cheesy "I love you, Mr. Parker, man-o-mine" silver age relic dialogue from the 90s.

His May, though a departure from her preceding characterization, was a departure for the better. JMS May actually had agency and personality instead of existing as the sickly old woman for Peter to worry about/care for.

So yeah, despite a couple stinkers, I actually really enjoy his run.

[TheCape]

Doctor Octopus as I mentioned a career scientist who willingly endangered his life to do dangerous experiments and created a harness for the purpose. So it's not like he was a random nobody caught in that accident. He was an arrogant know-it-all who put himself at a potential ground zero and that blew in his face and fused his harness to his brains. Flint Marko was a criminal before he became Sandman.



He did mean to experiment and tinker with them in the hope of giving himself powers. Norman Osborn wanted to become a superhuman certainly. Why else would he tinker with Stromm's notes?



Lizard falls under that, as does Scorpion (Mac Gargan certainly volunteered to be tested), so was Rhino, and a lot of others. As does Hobgoblin.

I always thougth that the conective tissue between Spider-Man villains was "all the power none of the responsability" to different degrees (Norman is certanly the best example of that mindset), some of then were seeking it some of then got it by accident, but ultimately they were people that didn't give a hoot about their fellow man, it's all about what they want screw everyone else.

The only exception to that is the Lizard.

[Alan2099]

Doctor Octopus as I mentioned a career scientist who willingly endangered his life to do dangerous experiments and created a harness for the purpose.

No. he created a harness so he could SAFELY do experiments with dangerous materials. We wasn't out to endanger his life.

Flint Marko was a criminal before he became Sandman.

... and? That still doesn't back up what you say.
Being a criminal doesn't mean he invented things to help steal of experimented on himself.

He did mean to experiment and tinker with them in the hope of giving himself powers. Norman Osborn wanted to become a superhuman certainly. Why else would he tinker with Stromm's notes?

Trying to improve a formula isn't the same as experimenting on yourself. Given the fact that he WASN'T insane back in those days, he more likely than not would have gone though more testing to determine it was safe before use. That's hardly "experimenting on himself." but we'll never know for sure because there was an accident and it exploded.

Hobgoblin

You try to dismiss Sandman because he was already a criminal, then you bring up Hobgoblin? There's some obvious double standards for you.