The Problem With Paul

[Xenon]

I'm not discussing the content of the story.

I'm discussing the difference between "Spider-Man's girlfriend broke up with him, that makes me sad" and "Spider-Man's girlfriend broke up with him, I am being attacked".

To be attacked requires an attacker. Zeb Wells has discussed his motivations for writing this story, and they didn't involve attacking people.

I think that if someone feels personally attacked by comic book characters having relationship drama, they need to take a step back and put things into perspective.

This is a misunderstnading of the question and situation.

I wouldn't expect him to admit to trying to hurt people. THey even deny it at the end of the first issue in the letters page. But people lie. And there's a difference between attacking and hurting.

When slott had MJ and Peter laugh at the idea of living together in the first issue of Big Time, that was an attack. It didn't hurt because it was just a stupid scene. Hurting was when they showed MJ going to bed with her actor boyfriend. It's a scene that doesn't need to happen, we know people who are dating have sex in 2010. The point of that scene is to cause hurt. PAIN is the emotional reaction they are trying to cause. That's not ALWAYS a bad thing. PAIN is what ASM 121-122 were trying to cause as well, and that's the best Spider--Man story put to print. Sometimes writers are intentionally trying to hurt the reader. That in and of itself is ok. But if the pain doesn't have a good payoff, you've failed to tell a satisfying story. There's no question, one issue after Mary Jane asks Peter to stay with her from now on, that the scene, on the last two pages, with kids that looked like MJ and Paul, were designed to cause pain. Editorial asked for us to believe them it would be worth it is all. And it wasn't because the story was contrived, out of character garbage.

[Xenon]

Likewise you probably aren't supposed to cheer or feel giddy when Bambi's mom is killed (or children in this case.) This run isn't exactly hitting the emotional beats that the writing seems to be aiming for. It's provoking a reaction based on a meta-disagreement between editorial and the readership.

This is another fine point. They're clearly aware of what they're doing but.....are just doing it anyway? For...no benefit?

What's more incredible here is not the "one true love" bit, but that they call Mary Jane his wife! Are the different Marvel offices really that disconnected? Or maybe.. just maybe... we're getting closer to re-instating the marriage?

THis was my big takeaway too when I saw it in the store the other day and posted it in the MJ thread. That plus the Lost Hunt being printed with the marriage intact are...curious, to say the least.

[clonegeek]

This is another fine point. They're clearly aware of what they're doing but.....are just doing it anyway? For...no benefit?





THis was my big takeaway too when I saw it in the store the other day and posted it in the MJ thread. That plus the Lost Hunt being printed with the marriage intact are...curious, to say the least.

The tides are changing

[MaydayStan]

THis was my big takeaway too when I saw it in the store the other day and posted it in the MJ thread. That plus the Lost Hunt being printed with the marriage intact are...curious, to say the least.

So much so that I had to literally go to my shelve and look to see if that was really in there.

[Garlador]

This is another fine point. They're clearly aware of what they're doing but.....are just doing it anyway? For...no benefit?

THis was my big takeaway too when I saw it in the store the other day and posted it in the MJ thread. That plus the Lost Hunt being printed with the marriage intact are...curious, to say the least.

I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but can I again say how good “Lost Hunt” felt to read? I would read a hundred 616 stories of married Peter and MJ working through things again over a single issue of the current run.

[Astroman]

I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but can I again say how good “Lost Hunt” felt to read? I would read a hundred 616 stories of married Peter and MJ working through things again over a single issue of the current run.

Yup. But I'm also a lifelong JM Dematteis fan.

[clonegeek]

I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but can I again say how good “Lost Hunt” felt to read? I would read a hundred 616 stories of married Peter and MJ working through things again over a single issue of the current run.

It was great, I even had a letter published in it

[Lee]

I wouldn't expect him to admit to trying to hurt people. THey even deny it at the end of the first issue in the letters page. But people lie.

It's not cool to ascribe motivations to people and call them liars without any evidence.

When slott had MJ and Peter laugh at the idea of living together in the first issue of Big Time, that was an attack.

No it wasn't.

Hurting was when they showed MJ going to bed with her actor boyfriend. It's a scene that doesn't need to happen, we know people who are dating have sex in 2010. The point of that scene is to cause hurt.

No it wasn't.

PAIN is the emotional reaction they are trying to cause. That's not ALWAYS a bad thing. PAIN is what ASM 121-122 were trying to cause as well, and that's the best Spider--Man story put to print. Sometimes writers are intentionally trying to hurt the reader.

Gerry Conway wrote a sad story. The intention was that the reader would empathise with what was happening and feel that sadness.

But that's not "attacking" the readers, which is what you've accused Zeb Wells and Dan Slott of.

The CBR forums are supposed to be an environment that's respectful of and welcoming to comic creators. Do you think that ascribing malicious motivations to their creative choices and calling them liars when they've said otherwise is in keeping with those values? Do you think that's a respectful way to talk about people in general, in any setting?

[mugen]

It's not cool to ascribe motivations to people and call them liars without any evidence.



No it wasn't.



No it wasn't.



Gerry Conway wrote a sad story. The intention was that the reader would empathise with what was happening and feel that sadness.

But that's not "attacking" the readers, which is what you've accused Zeb Wells and Dan Slott of.

The CBR forums are supposed to be an environment that's respectful of and welcoming to comic creators. Do you think that ascribing malicious motivations to their creative choices and calling them liars when they've said otherwise is in keeping with those values? Do you think that's a respectful way to talk about people in general, in any setting?

everything is done for clickbait and ragebait in run and it's the same in other comics, they just want to make the fans rage just hear zeb wells who boasted that his run was going to piss them off.
including mj and ms.marvel.

do you think zeb wells and the editorial decided to break up peter and mj when they were going to live together and get married after 15 years of mediocrity and endless stories and then murder mj by turning her into a cold cheating wife who cheat on peter for what reason? you think they killed ms. Why? for a cheap shock value that will piss off fans.

[Kevinroc]

It's not cool to ascribe motivations to people and call them liars without any evidence.



No it wasn't.



No it wasn't.



Gerry Conway wrote a sad story. The intention was that the reader would empathise with what was happening and feel that sadness.

But that's not "attacking" the readers, which is what you've accused Zeb Wells and Dan Slott of.

The CBR forums are supposed to be an environment that's respectful of and welcoming to comic creators. Do you think that ascribing malicious motivations to their creative choices and calling them liars when they've said otherwise is in keeping with those values? Do you think that's a respectful way to talk about people in general, in any setting?

This quote from Marvel Editor Tom Brevoort puts it all in perspective.

[Majesty]

Though Mary Jane doesn't owe anyone any explanation. If Mary Jane told Peter why she wants to stay with Paul, I am fairly certain that many people will just ignore anything she says as they already invalidate her decisions. But if she told Peter that for years (let's say after OMD) they had tried to get back together, but they always wound up breaking apart again. And that she would always wind up getting back with him because she loved him, but the same thing would happen and always for the same reasons.. his life as Spider-Man, her feeling where she is in his life, all of these things that she gets reassured of, which kept pulling her back in, but then they'd always separate again. But that it took actually starting a family that made her realize why it never "stuck" and it wasn't because she didn't love Peter, but that she couldn't pretend that she could deal with the stress of his life as Spider-Man anymore. That it always took a tole on her, and she always took a backseat because she loved Peter but once she allowed herself to move on, she was happier than she'd ever felt. That the life she had/has with Paul and her children was the one she always wanted and it one she was trying to make even in the apocalypse, and back in modern day. That it's why she only uses her powers for survival instead of being a superhero. State that she is willing to fight for her family only, because she doesn't want to, nor wish to fight for an entire city. That she loves Peter, but Spider-Man will always come first and she loves how Peter puts so many people ahead of himself, but she just doesn't want to deal with it anymore. She saw the kind of future she wants and that's what she's going to fight for. Because that future can't be with Peter and Spider-Man and she's finally accepted that, as well as accepting she had to put her own mental health first, no matter how much she wished otherwise and forced herself to endure she realized she couldn't anymore and that was what always separated them no matter how many times they started over again. And she also doesn't want him to stop being Spider-Man in an attempt to "win her back" because that ship has sailed and she knows no matter what, he'll always be Spider-Man and she'll always be his friend because it's all she can offer.

NOW would this be an explanation that people would buy? Some may, and some won't because they'll cite Mary Jane in the past saying she could deal with it but saying she can't now etc etc. But at least it would draw a line in the sand as to why Mary Jane made the decision she did, what insight she gained in the other life she was building and why she doesn't wish to be with Peter. It would be her putting her reasons out there, instead of them having any vagueness to them. Some will accept the answer, some won't. But it will be Mary Jane saying it, and that will help the situation the best. Mary Jane giving the reasons why and setting the boundaries, and Peter respecting them. It's a start, if nothing else.

Those are my two cents.

Anyway randomly my bisexual best friend(truth but also inside joke between us) just walked by, saw the title and said "The problem with Paul is that the attributes given to him, dimension hopping badass, evil backstory, redemption arc, laser gun, scientist." is given to any generic guy with brown hair and blue eyes and feels like he was plucked from a factory of generic molds and is boring and has been given to many male placeholders in comics before that wind up meaning nothing. And that Paul would have been 9001% more interesting if they were a female character instead. Same backstory, same scenario, same trapped in the apocalypse, same family finding, same relationship with Mary Jane, same secret identity, but given to a character type we don't see those kinds of things given too as much when they suddenly appear in a story from out of nowhere. She went more into detail but that's the gist.

Then again she's always wanted to see Mary Jane actually have a bi romance ever since Em Jay in the Spider-Gwen comics. But either way, Paul would bore her a lot less if this was them instead.






Anyway, that was fun. Going to go take a nap now for 5 minutes and thinking it was for an hour.

[Xenon]

So much so that I had to literally go to my shelve and look to see if that was really in there.

It really was surprising. My brain filtered it out the first time and I only remembered teh one true love part.

I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but can I again say how good “Lost Hunt” felt to read? I would read a hundred 616 stories of married Peter and MJ working through things again over a single issue of the current run.

I'm saving it for a rainy day because....yeah.

Yup. But I'm also a lifelong JM Dematteis fan.

IMO he's a top three writer on Spider-Man, just ahead of Stern. He's very introspective and can be a bit wordy so I think if he was ever the only writer on the Spider-Man title it would probably get old, but as one writer he's just fantastic.

It's not cool to ascribe motivations to people and call them liars without any evidence.



No it wasn't.



No it wasn't.



Gerry Conway wrote a sad story. The intention was that the reader would empathise with what was happening and feel that sadness.

But that's not "attacking" the readers, which is what you've accused Zeb Wells and Dan Slott of.

The CBR forums are supposed to be an environment that's respectful of and welcoming to comic creators. Do you think that ascribing malicious motivations to their creative choices and calling them liars when they've said otherwise is in keeping with those values? Do you think that's a respectful way to talk about people in general, in any setting?

You're still missing the point and conflating things.

An attack and hurting people aren't the same thing in this context. The Spider-Man team was absolutley trying to hurt the reader when they wrote Gwen Stacy dying. And that's not a bad thing. It should hurt when a beloved character dies. It should hurt when the hero of the story you're reading hurts. That's POWERFUL. It's drama it's emotional it has resulted in some of the greatest stories of all time. Tragedy has POWER. but only if it hurts. Sometimes you HAVE to hurt the reader. That's what those kids and Paul are supposed to do. They exist to hurt us. And that by itself isn't bad. It only became bad because he coudln't back it up with a satisfying explanation. 25 should have been this dramatic tragedy, but instead it reads like a contrived farce. And all that is different from an "attack"

And that laughing scene was 100% an attack.

Though Mary Jane doesn't owe anyone any explanation. If Mary Jane told Peter why she wants to stay with Paul, I am fairly certain that many people will just ignore anything she says as they already invalidate her decisions.

Yes if they write her out of character we're going to call them on it. If Peter decided in issue 27 he was just going to shoot Doc Ock you would call them on that. It's the same thing and it's just as out of character.

[Celgress]

Paul was created for one reason...and one reason only...to be the obstacle to the popular pairing. He was a plot device and not a genuine character...and as such he was always going to be hated. Literally the only thing he can be described for is being in the way of Peter and MJ.

Yup, he isn't a character so much as a plot device.

[Majesty]

Yes if they write her out of character we're going to call them on it. If Peter decided in issue 27 he was just going to shoot Doc Ock you would call them on that. It's the same thing and it's just as out of character.

Then the answer would be fairly simple. She doesn't want to deal with the stress of Peter being Spider-Man but knows it's his responsibility and she doesn't want him to stop. Essentially the crux of her stress several times in comics, as well as the reason they were "on again-off again" post OMD. If Mary Jane spent so much time trying to make something work but something always didn't feel 'right' about it, her allowing herself to experience something different and being the happiest she ever felt and realizing why it was constant stop-start with Peter again would at least be an explanation.

Mary Jane's had several stories about what the stress of Peter being Spider-Man and all the danger that puts him in did to her and affected her. So it wouldn't be out of the question. They can always retcon it if they want to with a speech. But at the very least it'd be hard to say it's out of character that she'd make such a decision. At the very least it makes sense.

Now I am sure people would have a lot of comics to show her saying "she can handle it" and that she'll "always be there". Have Mary Jane say she will always be there for Peter, but as his friend. Have them hug. At the very least rid this tension to where Mary Jane has set boundaries, Peter respects them and accepts them being friends(if not best friends). At least make that where the holding pattern is for whatever stories they want to continue to tell going forward is.

I think if that moment happens, and Mary Jane and Peter start being cordial again, joking around again, being friends again, it would help a lot with the current situation. It would also make sense Mary Jane saying it was about 'responsibility'. Because she knows if she told Peter that the biggest reason she doesn't want to be with him is because of the stress of Spider-Man that Peter would offer to not be Spider-Man anymore and she doesn't want him to do that.

[marhawkman]

This quote from Marvel Editor Tom Brevoort puts it all in perspective.

Brevoort's quote makes sense, if it's mild annoyance, not genuine anger.