ASM #26 Preview

[Knightsilver]

To be fair the mini with Felicia wasn't all that great compared to the one-shot where MJ was with Peter...

I don't think they were being intentionally racist but there were a lot of bad optics to how they handled it if you look at the execution.

Even if the traits you listed could have worked on paper, I don't think Wells has executed any of it well. I just don't think he has a strong sense or care for MJ's character or personality.

Wells might have had better luck writing a creator owned project with his own OC's. Writing characters with decades long established histories and personalities like Peter and MJ don't lend themselves well to his "anything goes" approach.

[Kevinroc]

Paul didn't wanna take them in because he suspected, correctly, that it was a trick. Lets be consistent here. In fact I'm pretty sure he voices that specially.

To MJ, you agree, that wouldn't be enough to let them sit there. So yes, that was still her choice. Her agency. She didn't have to do that. She chose to.

Felicia has a mini with MJ did she not? You can't say she's just there for Peter's well being when she's gotten her own stories outside of Peter during this same run. That'd dishonest critique. She is a character you just don't like the primary role she plays in the main book. That doesnt mean she doesn't have characterization here.

You're reaching with the racist angle lmfao. It was supposed to trick the bad guy, not readers. We all knew who was dying going into this because they revealed it. Nowhere in the story is the fact that kamala is the one dying treated to be a relief as opposed to MJ. You're just being completely disingenuous.

You dont even have a better idea of what they should do with MJ, you just don't want it to be this, where she *checks notes* makes a heroic sacrifice that leads to her being trapped, becoming a badass fighter in a post apocalyptic wasteland, taking on children of her own concern and compassion, taking part in fighting the villain and, all because she didn't offer her vagina to one single man, that means all of those choices are nullified on your eyes.

Its not a great argument.

Like I said, if you only attach value to mj if she's with Peter then you dont value MJ. You just value peter.

The fact that Paul would leave random children to die paints him as a bad person. In stories, no character can claim to have morals if they are willing to leave random children to die. And yet we are to believe MJ may have fallen in love with this man and chosen this man over Peter. MJ wasn't given agency because she would never choose to be with such a person over Peter Parker. She was robbed of her agency and reduced to an item to make Peter feel sad. This is what character assassination looks like.

Felicia's characterization and motivations in even her spin-off (that she shared with MJ) were all about Peter. She checks in on MJ for Peter's sake, not because MJ is her friend. She's nervous about talking to MJ about Peter. She subconsciously sees MJ as an enemy because she is threatened by MJ's relationship to Peter. Her life is all about Peter. Even in a story that is ostensibly supposed to be about her and MJ.

And yes, Kamala's death is racist. That's why she was reduced to bait to make the reader think that MJ was killed, but instead the reader is relieved that it's just the brown girl.

I'm sorry that you clearly hate MJ, and the idea of Peter being with MJ, so much that you can look at this story and not see it for the racist and sexist crap that it is.

If this were about me not liking stories that go in tragic directions, that is untrue. I will state that I am a huge fan of the manga series Bokurano. A series about dying children coming to grips with their own mortality. It's incredibly tragic, but incredibly poignant. (The story was told through the fantastical element of giant robot battles because of course it was. But it is no less poignant and no less tragic.)

[Toonstrack]

People are arguing from a character perspective, so I'll argue this from a storytelling perspective. If the story is truly supposed to be about her moving on from Peter after being separated for so long and proving that she can be a character on her own not, why is it constantly so vague about what their relationship is?

It's because they're intentionally not committing to the bit. They still want to keep it vague how much she still loves/wants to be with Peter, and how cryptic her feelings for Paul are beyond their family relationship to the kids. Because this uncertainty still leaves open the plausibility this run just ends with Peter and MJ back together again, and that being able to be considered kind of destroys that perspective.

Does it? Or does it add another layer to their relationship that, based on the resposns here is clearly needed?

Its pretty much unquestionably the case, now, they a lot of folks simply don't see what MJs purpose is if she isn't Peter's main squeeze. If they choose to have them be together now, it will be not because there's nothing else for them to do with her, but because she truly wants that and she COULD be with others but she wants to be with Peter. Thats much for depthful and a much stronger foundation.

[spiderlink]

People are arguing from a character perspective, so I'll argue this from a storytelling perspective. If the story is truly supposed to be about her moving on from Peter after being separated for so long and proving that she can be a character on her own not, why is it constantly so vague about what their relationship is?

It's because they're intentionally not committing to the bit. They still want to keep it vague how much she still loves/wants to be with Peter, and how cryptic her feelings for Paul are beyond their family relationship to the kids. Because this uncertainty still leaves open the plausibility this run just ends with Peter and MJ back together again, and that being able to be considered kind of destroys that perspective.

Is there really anything vague anymore?
Like in ASM 3, we have Paul saying I love you too in the phone talking to MJ
ASM 7 MJ cling into Paul arms in Oscorp and they had a sitter to take care of the kids so they can celebrate the deal with Norman
Then we have the spa date
Or MJ saying that she won’t leave Paul in ASM 25, she could have said I’m not leaving him and my kids or something like that but she didn’t say that, why lied to Peter if that wasn’t the case? Some people thought she was protecting him but we know now that is not the case

[Garlador]

You're speculating on that though. That's something you're inserting in to the story based on commonalities that doesnt mean its factually the case. Thisbos the problem with psychoanalysis of fictional characters and why the very trope of Stockholm syndrome has its origins questioned.

I’m diagnosing. And I would be happy to go over what I was taught for Stockholm Syndrome PROFESSIONALLY.

If we can’t analyze these characters based on real-world psychology, then they aren’t character worth substance, and that leaves nothing but a vapid book where readers can excuse any poor decision or problematic action.

[Toonstrack]

The fact that Paul would leave random children to die paints him as a bad person. In stories, no character can claim to have morals if they are willing to leave random children to die. And yet we are to believe MJ may have fallen in love with this man and chosen this man over Peter. MJ wasn't given agency because she would never choose to be with such a person over Peter Parker. She was robbed of her agency and reduced to an item to make Peter feel sad. This is what character assassination looks like.

Felicia's characterization and motivations in even her spin-off (that she shared with MJ) were all about Peter. She checks in on MJ for Peter's sake, not because MJ is her friend. She's nervous about talking to MJ about Peter. She subconsciously sees MJ as an enemy because she is threatened by MJ's relationship to Peter. Her life is all about Peter. Even in a story that is ostensibly supposed to be about her and MJ.

And yes, Kamala's death is racist. That's why she was reduced to bait to make the reader think that MJ was killed, but instead the reader is relieved that it's just the brown girl.

I'm sorry that you clearly hate MJ, and the idea of Peter being with MJ, so much that you can look at this story and not see it for the racist and sexist crap that it is.

If this were about me not liking stories that go in tragic directions, that is untrue. I will state that I am a huge fan of the manga series Bokurano. A series about dying children coming to grips with their own mortality. It's incredibly tragic, but incredibly poignant. (The story was told through the fantastical element of giant robot battles because of course it was. But it is no less poignant and no less tragic.)

The fact that Paul would leave random children to die paints him as a bad person

Oh spare me. Most of yall agve been begging for these kids to be brutally killed since the run started back when you actually thought they could be MJs. Now who's gaslighting?

MJ wasn't given agency because she would never choose to be with such a person over Peter Parker.


There it is. The root problem. You're mistaking your desires for the character for her having choice. Those two arent the same thing. And yes, she absolutely would because Paul is a good guy. He was wary and paranoid, and coreect, but he had a good heart and we've seen that throughout the run. He saved MJs life. Hes paid Peter's medical bills, and helped his aunt may too iirc.

Felicia's characterization and motivations in even her spin-off (that she shared with MJ) were all about Peter

Which is what you want for MJ. So... whats the problem?

instead the reader is relieved that it's just the brown girl.

You're projecting.

Don't throw your own conclusions on reading this onto the rest of us my guy. It doesn't make you morally correct, it actually makes you look worse that you are choosing to read the book this way but you do you.

Her own creator signed off of this death so, yeah her stance matters way way more than yours. I guess she's a racist too right?

Just laughable stuff.

[The Twilight Mexican]

It is NOT normal, healthy, or acceptable, and it shouldn’t be excused or normalized.

In fairness, that probably applies to most relationships (romantic and otherwise) in this genre, and especially this medium.

For whatever it's worth to Toonstrack and anyone else defending the creative choices made here, I don't believe there's anything wrong with Mary Jane (or anyone in her situation) moving on after whatever length of time feels appropriate to them. At some point, no matter who's involved, it would become illogical to believe her old life was coming back -- and life is still happening in the meantime. It would be unhealthy not to live it.

What's inappropriate here -- and the primary thing those of us who detest what has been written for Mary Jane in this run should be focusing on -- is the crass, transparent maneuvering by the actual people who are making this garbage. Anyone they have managed to get mad at Mary Jane or who they have focusing on whether she should have waited for Pete, how long she should have waited, etc.: You're buying into the narrative goal that Wells, Lowe, et. al. are trying to sell you on.

[Toonstrack]

I’m diagnosing. And I would be happy to go over what I was taught for Stockholm Syndrome PROFESSIONALLY.

If we can’t analyze these characters based on real-world psychology, then they aren’t character worth substance, and that leaves nothing but a vapid book where readers can excuse any poor decision or problematic action.

You're diagnosing based on incomplete evidence.

Which is speculating. Its not necessarily a bad practice but it cannot be treated as infallible.

We didn't even see all the time they had together. We saw a few vignettes.

[Johnny]

I always hate how runs like this divide fans so bad. Spencer's run wasn't universally beloved, particularly the latter part, but it felt there was a lot more unity within the fandom. What we have now is perhaps as bad as I've ever seen, at least within the last 15 years.

[Garlador]

You're diagnosing based on incomplete evidence.

Which is speculating. Its not necessarily a bad practice but it cannot be treated as infallible.

We didn't even see all the time they had together. We saw a few vignettes.

All therapists work with the evidence we are given.

You give me more evidence, my diagnosis could change, sure.

Based on the evidence, this is my verdict.

So the writer better present a better argument, because I would absolutely insist on intervention therapy here.

[lefthanded]

Does it? Or does it add another layer to their relationship that, based on the resposns here is clearly needed?

Its pretty much unquestionably the case, now, they a lot of folks simply don't see what MJs purpose is if she isn't Peter's main squeeze. If they choose to have them be together now, it will be not because there's nothing else for them to do with her, but because she truly wants that and she COULD be with others but she wants to be with Peter. Thats much for depthful and a much stronger foundation.

There definitely is a lot of unwarranted MJ hate here, but setting that aside, the storytelling doesn't do her any favors if they want to keep Peter and MJ apart.
It is fine if the writer wants to make their relationship be a little ambiguous, but it doesn't work since Paul is a non-entity of a character.
And when put up against the long comic book history of MJxPeter, it does seem like a cardboard relationship is stronger than the history of the Peter and MJ.

For example, imagine it was Tony Stark that she was stranded with in the other dimension. Since we know things about Tony Stark, we know the good and bad about Tony. We can see, why someone stranded with Tony Stark for an unending period of time, would start a romantic relationship with him. We don't need to see any more scenes of Tony or Tony x MJ, since the knowledge is already there.

Instead, we have Paul, who (1) wants to abandon children and .... (2) is shown to be physically jacked when MJ begins to have romantic feelings towards him. Readers are supposed to color in all the missing pages that show why Paul is someone worth falling in love with, when those are the only two things we know.

[Kevinroc]

The fact that Paul would leave random children to die paints him as a bad person

Oh spare me. Most of yall agve been begging for these kids to be brutally killed since the run started back when you actually thought they could be MJs. Now who's gaslighting?

We're the audience. We are not fictional characters in the story. There's a difference.

MJ wasn't given agency because she would never choose to be with such a person over Peter Parker.


There it is. The root problem. You're mistaking your desires for the character for her having choice. Those two arent the same thing. And yes, she absolutely would because Paul is a good guy. He was wary and paranoid, and coreect, but he had a good heart and we've seen that throughout the run. He saved MJs life. Hes paid Peter's medical bills, and helped his aunt may too iirc.

Paul would leave children to die. What kind of "good guy" is he?

Felicia's characterization and motivations in even her spin-off (that she shared with MJ) were all about Peter

Which is what you want for MJ. So... whats the problem?

What I want is to understand why MJ is acting the way she is. The story has not provided an explanation for her, frankly, massively out of character behavior. But it's nice to know you are no longer trying to convince me that Felicia hasn't been reduced to an object to make Peter feel better.

instead the reader is relieved that it's just the brown girl.

You're projecting.

Don't throw your own conclusions on reading this onto the rest of us my guy. It doesn't make you morally correct, it actually makes you look worse that you are choosing to read the book this way but you do you.

Her own creator signed off of this death so, yeah her stance matters way way more than yours. I guess she's a racist too right?

Just laughable stuff.

Her creator had no say in any of this. Her creator agreed to work on a comic memorial for her (before she's inevitably revived). There's a difference. And none of this means the story of her death, a story that wasn't even about her, isn't racist.

[Dark-Jacket]

I think there are a couple things we're looking over as fans.

And one of the reason we're all so passionate about this, is because we love MJ.

One of the main problem with OMD and the almost 20 years since then, is that, no matter how hard they tried (and they tried) they never could create a character and love interest as popular as MJ.

Felicia is a close one, but she has always mainly be a character unhealthy and obsessed with Spiderman (and when I was younger I used to prefer Felicia to MJ since I started reading comics from before the wedding).

People haven't turned the page yet because to put it simply, while MJ's success was an organic and natural one, every other disposable female love interest for Peter since 2007 has been forced and overused MJ to have character shilling (Spiderman has become infamous for this).

There are several other relationship over the years which have had the same issue. You'd think they'd learn. My only hope is that the new spiderman movie will push people to ask for mayday ^^

[Toonstrack]

All therapists work with the evidence we are given.

You give me more evidence, my diagnosis could change, sure.

Based on the evidence, this is my verdict.

So the writer better present a better argument, because I would absolutely insist on intervention therapy here.

You're coming from a place of bias though. Therapists usually don't want their parient to end up with one person over the other. Therapists aren't personally invested with whether their client ends up with one person or the other. At least they arent supposed to be.

So, in most cases your diagnosis would come under question. In this case where we barely have anything to work off of, it could be thrown out entirely.

Besides; we've already seen stability come from the chaos. They made a loving home for two kids, who may have been fake but were real for the time they knew them. They were able to function alongside each other without damaging any of their prior relationships(save for the bitter ex).

And even if none of that was the case, like the other guy said all these folks need therapists anyway and are jacked in the head. There aren't any normal relationships in a traditional sense which is why so few of these characters have lasting ones.

[Toonstrack]

I think there are a couple things we're looking over as fans.

And one of the reason we're all so passionate about this, is because we love MJ.

One of the main problem with OMD and the almost 20 years since then, is that, no matter how hard they tried (and they tried) they never could create a character and love interest as popular as MJ.

Felicia is a close one, but she has always mainly be a character unhealthy and obsessed with Spiderman (and when I was younger I used to prefer Felicia to MJ since I started reading comics from before the wedding).

People haven't turned the page yet because to put it simply, while MJ's success was an organic and natural one, every other disposable female love interest for Peter since 2007 has been forced and overused MJ to have character shilling (Spiderman has become infamous for this).

There are several other relationship over the years which have had the same issue. You'd think they'd learn. My only hope is that the new spiderman movie will push people to ask for mayday ^^

Based on what I've read here Mayday should never happen. At least not for another decade. If she does they should have her already and adult and walk through a portal.

Spidey readers only give af about whT happes to other characters if it affects Peter. If its something that exist outside of Peter's influence or decision making, to hell with them. Even if they are kids.