Simpler reason that has nothing to do with the marital status of the writers: editorial mandates.
But where did those editorial mandates come from in the first place? Joe Quesada, editor-in-chief at the time, preferring an unmarried Spider-Man to the point he'd have Peter make a literal Faustian bargain to undo his marriage. That, to me, also indicates something about how he might view marriage, either personally or generally.
The spider is always on the hunt.
it's possible, some writers use their characters as little more than mouthpieces for their world views.
but my experience as a writer in my industry and with better writers than myself; often a creative is trying to do a service to whatever the circumstance of the story and character is. sometimes writers are employed because of the authenticity of their voice in that circumstance, but just as often they're trying to write from another perspective than their own (with varying success).
troo fan or death
Quesada and Brevoort were thinking of the longterm longeveity of the characters. They wanted Spider-Man to be Mickey Mouse (ironically, before Disney actually bought Marvel). They wanted to wipe the slate clean so Peter could be perpetually locked as a single, sad sack character who tries his best but always fails and never gets to hold on to the brass ring for good. This is why Slott also referred to Spider-Man as Charlie Brown. They felt stasis and removing any appearance of growth was the winning strategy for keeping the intellectual property of Spider-Man evergreen.
They got it wrong - in part because Spider-Man is about living up to responsibility even when it costs you, not "youth," and knowingly and actively selling his marriage to the Devil, thus giving the Devil exactly what he wants, is the height of irresponsibilty. And they were wrong because Spider-Man is a serial story, not an episodic one, so removing growth off the table leads to stale characterization and a poor reader experience instead of revitalizing the character and keeping the readers engaged as they had hoped.
But that was the thinking.
I find it fascinating that the common thread of Spider-Editors over 35 years is a hatred of the marriage, haha, although the initial pushback was because it was forced on them rather than an issue with the actual relationship.
just read this, another enjoyable issue.
it's a weird feeling trying to parse the depiction of ben here and ben in current marvel. makes the character trajectory even more nonsensical.
Last edited by boots; 05-16-2022 at 01:08 AM.
troo fan or death
Yeah, it is very hard to reconcile the Ben from Beyond with his classic characterization. It doesn't feel like the same guy most of the time. Then again, Peter doesn't come across like the character I grew up reading in the 90s either. The characters both don't have the same "voice" that they used to.
I created a thread about Dick Grayson/Nightwing and Koriand'r/Starfire. It is to acknowledge and honor their iconic and popular relationship.
I created a fan page about Peter Parker/Spider-Man and Mary Jane Watson. This page is for all the Spider-Marriage fans.
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. In the case of Ben, it's hard to match this version of Ben, who is troubled, intelligent and accepting of who is he is with the version in Beyond that was a doofy, insecure goofball and corporate stooge that desperately wants to be Peter. The version in this mini feels like the classic Ben. The version in Beyond feels like a different character.
Outside of that, neither Peter nor Ben have the same "voice" they used to have, as in they don't really speak or behave exactly like their pre-OMD selves. Maybe it's the attempt to artificially make them seem youthful and modern, I don't know.