ASM #26 Preview

[jwatson]

I think what matters is whether her character and her relationship with Peter is being written consistently and...it just doesn't feel like it is.

But that isn't what matters. The spiderman office chose to give them a divorce. Once they were no longer married MJ doesn't owe peter anything or vice versa and for the most part he has lived his life like he doesn't. Editorial can't have it both ways otherwise they are holding mj hostage and that takes her agency away.

[Mercwmouth12]

I think what matters is whether her character and her relationship with Peter is being written consistently and...it just doesn't feel like it is.

So big thing is people need to differentiate is this is a fictional character as well and not look at how they are currently, but how they have been in consistent runs and see that this isn't who the character is and then step because you're getting yourself caught in narrative that is nowhere near how a character should be portrayed, but how the individual writing the character at the current time is

[Frontier]

But that isn't what matters. The spiderman office chose to give them a divorce. Once they were no longer married MJ doesn't owe peter anything or vice versa and for the most part he has lived his life like he doesn't. Editorial can't have it both ways otherwise they are holding mj hostage and that takes her agency away.

I don't think it's a matter of who owes what it's whether Wells is writing the characters well and I just don't see that on the page.

He's taken the crown from Slott as probably the most inconsistent Mary Jane writer.

[Kevinroc]

But that isn't what matters. The spiderman office chose to give them a divorce. Once they were no longer married MJ doesn't owe peter anything or vice versa and for the most part he has lived his life like he doesn't. Editorial can't have it both ways otherwise they are holding mj hostage and that takes her agency away.

They want it both ways, and that's where the problems come in.

[Toonstrack]

so consistent that once peter is gone she cries and begs peter to come back save her? and then out of nowhere she thinks he won't come to save her anymore? the same peter who seriously sacrificed his life for her... and i'm not talking about the hospital scene which completely ruins mj's character.

she cheats on peter with paul just because they are the last humans there is no logic it's just cliché and ridiculous just to be able to separate them again since OMD was implemented.

She defends Paul and stays with him knowing the truth about him, that he helped his father genocided everyone and he's sorry for that lol because where a genocide is comparable to the death of uncle ben so paul reminded him of peter...

She didn't cheat lol. They arent even married. She didn't even know if Peter was alive or what happened to him. Of course she wanted to be saved, that doesnt contrsdict her act. But she moved on because she obviously relaxed this was going to be a long haul and possibly permanent and she had people to protect.

Paul never said he helped genocide anyone. He said he helped build the machines and tech, not knowing what his father wanted to do with them.

[Frontier]

And how is this a good death for Kamala?

- Stabbed in the back so she doesn't even go down fighting and stops the villain because the villain is kind of dumb.

- Her death relies on powers she hasn't used or relied on in years and she moved on from for characterization reasons only for this to fly completely in the face of that.

- Dying as a character who was pretty irrelevant to this run and never really fit in to where it's obvious she was only in it to die. And that's not even getting into the marketing reasons why they're killing her off.

- Her family, friends, anyone she is actually close to...none of them are involved in this. They're killing off Ms. Marvel but this is not a Ms. Marvel story, and that's a travesty.

She didn't cheat lol. They arent even married. She didn't even know if Peter was alive or what happened to him. Of course she wanted to be saved, that doesnt contrsdict her act. But she moved on because she obviously relaxed this was going to be a long haul and possibly permanent and she had people to protect.

Paul never said he helped genocide anyone. He said he helped build the machines and tech, not knowing what his father wanted to do with them.

We don't even know if they're actually in a relationship because of how non-committal everything in this run is. And even that doesn't excuse how she's treated Peter at times in this run.

Even if he didn't know what they were being used for...it's still pretty serious what stuff he made for his father was used for. And not really comparable to Peter's situation.

[Inversed]

My initial theory still works. She loves him too much to be his friend and not be with him. So she pushes him a away to not break up the family and cause the kids more trauma. She treats him like dirt to try and convince him to move on, then is angry with him for still loving her and ruining her plan. That's why she almost breaks at the end of 9, she's too emotionally drained to keep up the facade. Easiest route to go, you never have to use Paul again, it gives her an ok but not amazing excuse for acting bad. Gets them back together fast if Felicia is not in the way.

And while i'm hesitant to put any meaning behind any subtle cues in this book, the scene at the end of 9 is not subtle and makes no sense unless MJ is not happy with her situation. And her face in both 1 and 19 are clearly meant to imply conflict and unhappiness seeing Peter. It's all right there for them to do, they just have to do it instead of BSing us for another year.

Her writing has been incredibly wishy-washy which again, I have to assume is all based on the mystery box and wanting to keep the readers guessing. She completely shuts him down in the flashback after rescuing her, then distant in Issue 1, awkwardly friendly when they meet at Osborns, conflictingly distant during the Hellfire Gala stuff, openly friendly during Harry's birthday, doesn't want to talk about him at all during Dark Web, very sour during the trip with Felicia, and now here.

The writing is purposefully trying to keep it vague how much she wants to be with him, and how much she wants to deal with her own "responsibility", which could work, but it's all over the place we pretty much won't know what the true intention is supposed to be until the literal ending.

I think the thing is for fans is it feels so artificial and forced just to break them up that it's extremely hard to buy into or accept. Especially with Wells' writing.

I think that's the major point of contention that keeps getting lumped in with all the bad faith criticism that the writers and editors can then easily rebuff. "MJ is dating someone other than Peter" isn't the problem. "MJ is dating someone who transparently only exists so she isn't with Peter" is the problem. If it was actually about her moving on, than her new relationship should actually be better written and more developed.

[jwatson]

I don't think it's a matter of who owes what it's whether Wells is writing the characters well and I just don't see that on the page.

He's taken the crown from Slott as probably the most inconsistent Mary Jane writer.

If the whole point is they belong together and the story is about them and that is the problem, i don't see how Wells can be worse than the writer who severed that bond. How should a MJ be written consistent as the love of Peter's life when the fans were told that wasn't it and it was erased from existence. The culmination of that, their marriage.

Before anything between them can even be real imo it has to be done because no one has any agency if that's the case because no one is operating in the real space they should be in. That's not on wells.

[Majesty]

I think the thing is for fans is it feels so artificial and forced just to break them up that it's extremely hard to buy into or accept. Especially with Wells' writing.

It's definitely fair to say that it's not written well or critique the writing. Or that the story should have been told in a different order of events as opposed to starting us at a certain point without any clarity, etc etc etc.

There is a difference between saying "It's written poorly" and going "That didn't happen". Essentially.

[Toonstrack]

The story removed her choices, and you pretending it didn't is straight up gaslighting. She literally got stranded in another dimension with the son of her captor and the story gave her a couple of kids to look after even though we know this is not the life MJ wanted. And the kids were so inconsequential that they were just removed without a second thought.

MJ was reduced to an object to make Peter sad. Felicia was reduced to an object to try to cheer Peter up. Kamala was reduced to a corpse just so they could fake out the audience into thinking MJ had died.

That is how this run has depicted the women who have appeared in it.

The story didn't remove her choices. You are.

The story didn't give her those kids, Rabin did to trick her. She is the one who chose to take care of them. She didn't have to do that. You're removing that choice.

MJ is not an object, you just don't like that her character exists outside of Peter's. They arent attached at the hip. Thats what makes her not an object. You want her to be an accessory.

Felicia also is not an accessory. Shes loved peter for a while and their bond has grown over the years. She definitely does help him cope; but thats no different than what MJ did a lot of their stories even when they were married. Her and oeter make a good couple.

Kamala made a heroes sacrifice to save people as many others before her have done. She had full agency in that choice and its ones here's make all the time make and female.

You trying to make this about all women or some nonsense is all your own interjection. And the very logic betrays itself.

So if a woman isn't attached to a man for any sort of character that's bad. If she IS attached to a man for the character its bad. Abd if a character makes a choice that leads to them beingharmed that's also bad.

What exactly do you think these women characters are here to do other than be accessories for peter because that's about the only option you're allowing them.

[Knightsilver]

And how is this a good death for Kamala?

- Stabbed in the back so she doesn't even go down fighting and stops the villain because the villain is kind of dumb.

- Her death relies on powers she hasn't used or relied on in years and she moved on from for characterization reasons only for this to fly completely in the face of that.

- Dying as a character who was pretty irrelevant to this run and never really fit in to where it's obvious she was only in it to die. And that's not even getting into the marketing reasons why they're killing her off.

- Her family, friends, anyone she is actually close to...none of them are involved in this. They're killing off Ms. Marvel but this is not a Ms. Marvel story, and that's a travesty.

Seriously...why is Kamala who is only barely connected with Spider-Man...killed off in his book? It would've made more sense to kill off May,Betty,Jonah,or literally anyone who was a Spider-Man character.

[Frontier]

If the whole point is they belong together and the story is about them and that is the problem, i don't see how Wells can be worse than the writer who severed that bond. How should a MJ be written consistent as the love of Peter's life when the fans were told that wasn't it and it was erased from existence. The culmination of that, their marriage.

Spencer made it work.

It's definitely fair to say that it's not written well or critique the writing. Or that the story should have been told in a different order of events as opposed to starting us at a certain point without any clarity, etc etc etc.

There is a difference between saying "It's written poorly" and going "That didn't happen". Essentially.

Ultimately I just think it comes down to the issue with the writing and editorial's forced direction for the book. Nothing feels like it's firing on all cylinders at this point.

[Toonstrack]

Is there any choice they can publish that's too far? Like If next Issue MJ picked up a machine gun and murdered a bunch of innocent bystanders would it be ok to call that out of character?

You are comparing her self sacrificing acts to murdering innocent bystanders and pretending those are both equivalent for this character is kinda telling.

[jwatson]

Spencer made it work.

Ultimately I just think it comes down to the issue with the writing and editorial's forced direction for the book. Nothing feels like it's firing on all cylinders at this point.

I did not read his run to be honest but again marvel has a fudamental issue here. you can't marry a couple, erase it, and then expect people to go on buying them as now boyfriend and girlfriend dealing with the same side pieces. you just can't stuff the genie back in the bottle. And apparently it was because it aged the character so now they are essentially saying unitil that is broken that Peter is essentially Peter Pan. Even wendy didn't want to stay in neverland and went on to have a family.

[Brian B]

I don't think it's a matter of who owes what it's whether Wells is writing the characters well and I just don't see that on the page.

He's taken the crown from Slott as probably the most inconsistent Mary Jane writer.

It’s not just the characters. The plot is flipping stupid as all get out, too. The whole thing is just awful.