BR:SM #4 Spoilers and Review: Take a Walk on the Spidercide

[Huntsman Spider]

It’s because most of the writers are like post-OMD Peter: non-commital. So many characters and concepts that they’re quick to discard.

Don't think that's the reason. Wells is a happily married man and we all thought (some still think) he'd use that experience to further Peter and MJ's relationship issues.

I don't think Slott is married, but he's probably had girlfriends, and he wrote a great romance arc in Silver Surfer.

It again just goes back to the writers preferring Peter playing the field and screwing his life up through his difficult choices. They feel being married negates the weight and impact of those choices because MJ will always understand and tolerate them. That's also largely why they don't even want to use MJ all that much. They perceive her understandings as an easy fix for whatever problems Peter is facing.

But that's OK, there's a million different ways to tell an everyman's story without relying on soap opera drama, misunderstandings, and failed love lives.

Maybe. That could be it, but that's pretty stupid reasoning, to be honest.

[jda95]

Simpler reason that has nothing to do with the marital status of the writers: editorial mandates.

[Huntsman Spider]

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.

[boots]

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.

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).

[Huntsman Spider]

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).

A fair point as well, and one I would espouse myself, generally speaking.

[TinkerSpider]

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.

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.

[Huntsman Spider]

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.

Yeah, exactly.

[jda95]

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.

[Huntsman Spider]

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.

Hmm, that's a point.

[boots]

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.

[Huntsman Spider]

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.

Yeah, same.

[Refrax5]

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.

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.

[Starrius]

Don't think that's the reason. Wells is a happily married man and we all thought (some still think) he'd use that experience to further Peter and MJ's relationship issues.

I don't think Slott is married, but he's probably had girlfriends, and he wrote a great romance arc in Silver Surfer.

It again just goes back to the writers preferring Peter playing the field and screwing his life up through his difficult choices. They feel being married negates the weight and impact of those choices because MJ will always understand and tolerate them. That's also largely why they don't even want to use MJ all that much. They perceive her understandings as an easy fix for whatever problems Peter is facing.

But that's OK, there's a million different ways to tell an everyman's story without relying on soap opera drama, misunderstandings, and failed love lives.

I liked Silver Surfer/Dawn pairing. I was reading those issues nonstop!

I was surprising that Slott could write a romantic pairing.

[PCN24454]

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.

What character is that supposed to be?

[Refrax5]

What character is that supposed to be?

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.