The Problem With Paul

[Daibhidh]

I posted these thoughts on a different thread, which seems to have got deleted. So I'm reposting.

Mary Jane is a character who has pretty much always been written as a rounded character by writers who want her to be a love interest for Peter and has pretty much always been flanderised and flattened by writers who don't want her to be a love interest.
I've said before (and will say again) that Mary Jane was Stan Lee's one success at writing a young female character. And what is particularly successful is that she is both obviously attracted to Peter and that does not dominate her character. Later on when Lee made Gwen the love interest he wrote MJ as a shallow party girl.
In the eighties Mary Jane's character arc was learning to overcome the fear of commitment created in her by her abusive father and learning that she could trust and rely on Peter and that he could trust and rely on her.
It's unusual for a female character to be more well-rounded when written as the love interest for a male protagonist.
But it's important that it is done. Because real people fall in love and have real relationships, and so writing rounded relationships between two characters who are both rounded is good for representation of rounded relationships.
And that is why it is better for MJ as a character to be with Peter.

People advocating that MJ is better off as not the love interest are ignoring the history of her character. In universe, her character development is learning that she can commit to Peter. Out of universe, writers who want her to not be the love interest have hardly ever written her as a rounded character. Saying that she's better off as a result of this run, which has shown no interest in her interiority or in any aspect of her established character that's not relevant to being separated from Peter, is pretty much calling white black.

[blank]

Anyone who thinks a writer is attacking them because a comic book has relationship drama in it needs to grow up.

People are not intrinsically logical, look at any major change in any tv show, movie series or book series; there is almost always backlash because frankly people can feel attacked for the dumbest of reasons, look at Jon Kent, Miles Morales and even Kamala Khan. Do I think that the outrage that each of these stories faced was justified? Ultimately NO. But anyways my point about being "attacked" wasn't that people should feel attacked but more that people do and are free to feel that way. And that your comparison to marginalised groups wasn't something that anyone in here was really comparing to (although some do believe that the fridging of Kamala Khan and the treatment of MJ in this run are clear examples of treating characters from marginalised groups poorly, to further the plot of a straight white male character). Furthermore you are not the arbiter on whether someone needs to grow up based on how their reactions to a comic book

[marhawkman]

They want the audience outraged. They are trying to trigger outrage in people. And that is what led to the racist and misogynistic story that was the death of Ms. Marvel.

Thing is... mild annoyance gets people talking.... but remain interested. True outrage? mmmm... not so much. people lose interest.

[Xenon]

See, this is why so many people LOVED the marriage. They (mostly) answered the question, finished the wishy-washy commitment issues (with both of them), and officially moved forward to the next phase of their lives without all that mess and indecision. They made their decision. They locked it in. It was done.

And it was good, because without that stagnant cycle of "will they, won't they", they could just focus on having a life together and navigating their relationship's ups and downs.

This is what's so frustrating. MARY JANE MADE HER CHOICE. She had thousands of reasons and excuses - many that nobody would blame her for - for ending her relationship with Peter, but she loved him as much as he loved her and she MADE HER CHOICE. Over and over and over.





"I made my choice, a long time ago."

Precisely.


The biggest takeaway I have from this run is that, people really do, at least inadvertently, ignore Mary Jane's character and just look at her from Peter's perspective. Like it's normal to look at her from Peter's perspective, and as a supporting character she exists in relation to him just as a part of the story. But that doesn't mean she doesn't have her own moments of growth and characterization. that she doesn't have her own desires and goals and such. One of the reasons that I've always maintained that no one was ever gonna be able to compete with her was that she had this crazy long history that no one else was ever going to be able to have. But it's not just about time, it's about how because she has been in the book so long and the roles she's played within the book that it makes breaking them up and/or replacing her so unbelievable. For every situation you can think of regarding relationship issues, they've tackled it. Bad habits, affairs, double lives, secrets, dangers, disruptions, careers, separation, the loss of a child, it's been thrown at them and overcome (as is proper, they are heroes, after all). And not just when they were married either. The Path both Peter and Mary Jane took to get married is a factor here as well. Of course PEter's journey of realizing what he wanted is well known, but they took Mary Jane on that same journey. They had her run away, scared of commitment. They had her come back, they had her face her trauma and deal with it.

To tie this back to the topic, what I said before about Paul is true. But what's also true is this. The problem with Paul, at least when it comes to Mary Jane, is that he's not Peter Parker. And Peter Parker is, no matter how frustrated she is by this fact, the one and only one for her. As much as she is his "wife and one true love", he is her "husband and one true love". Not because it's what Peter wants. But because time and again, by word and deed, it's what SHE Wants. It's disrespectful to ignore it. That's the problem with Paul. It's not overcomable. It's why the story falls flat. And perhaps the worst part is that I think they know that, which is why they didn't try to give her a reason. They know he's just a roadblock, a waste of time, but a waste of time they want to engage in, so they just phoned it in and pretended. The more I think about it the more the Sins Past Paralells just keep lining up. This really is Sins Past II: Sins Now, but longer and somehow even dumber.

And she has the right to change her mind if she gains a different perspective that gives her a broader perspective on other things.

What broader perspective did she get? Nothing. She was just hanging around some people for a period of time. SHe's been away from Peter before. There's no jusitifcation for the change. That's the whole problem. If you want he to change her mind, you need to give her a belivable reason. But they don't.

But the story’s not finished yet

I mean Lowe would disagree based on the letters page of 26. Where he says that "'the story has been told. The secrets revealed and then some.".

That isn't attacking people.



You said that Zeb Wells wrote something to attack the readers. You also accused him of lying about his motivations. You said that Dan Slott wrote something to attack the readers. They didn't attack anyone. You're ascribing malicious intent to two people who just wrote stories to engage and entertain people. The fact that you didn't care for the stories is irrelevant.

The writers are human beings. Would you say these things to their face at a comic convention?

There's a lot of anti-transgender rhetoric in the media right now. People accusing me and people like me of awful things, fanning the flames of hatred. When those things are published hate crimes go up, bullying goes up, politicians strip away rights, innocent people have to live in fear. The same thing happens with gay people, Muslims, immigrants, the homeless, etc.

That is writers attacking people.

When Spider-Man's girlfriend breaks up with him in a comic book, nobody is being targeted, nobody is being attacked. Nobody is being hurt. Nobody is having their rights taken away. Nobody has to live in fear.

Get some perspective.

You engage in a lot of ad hominem for a guy complaining about respect. No one is saying these people should be tried for war crimes. We're saying they should stop being allowed to do a job they're doing a bad job at.

[Xenon]

Duplicate.

[Majesty]

What broader perspective did she get? Nothing.

Raising a family and having as best a version of a civilian life as you can make of the situation(building a home, having a farm, raising the children) is perspective. Again, 4 years is a long period of time. 4 years ago a Billion Dollars looked like the new norm at the box office and people weren't terrified of not washing their hands. 4 years is the difference between being 36 and being 40.

A lot can change in four years and I wish people would stop acting like MJ went off for a weekend at Bernies.

[Garlador]

Raising a family and having as best a version of a civilian life as you can make of the situation(building a home, having a farm, raising the children) is perspective. Again, 4 years is a long period of time. 4 years ago a Billion Dollars looked like the new norm at the box office and people weren't terrified of not washing their hands. 4 years is the difference between being 36 and being 40.

A lot can change in four years and I wish people would stop acting like MJ went off for a weekend at Bernies.

I've said it before, but having a family forced upon her is literally stated to be her greatest fear, the bedrock of her entire history as a character, and informed every single decision she made with her relationship with others, especially Peter. It informed their dating life, their engagement, their marriage, their plans for kids. Her history of family abuse and trauma is as foundational to her as Peter's loss of Uncle Ben. It defines their entire worldview.

So if ANYONE is going to tell a story of her popping up with a family that was forced upon her against her will, they have to address this history head-on, because to ignore that contradiction is an insane disservice to her character and the readers. I truly don't think Wells thought that deeply about her outside of "how can we use her to hurt Peter".

[SUPERECWFAN1]

There used to be a character on SNL who would say..."Who was the ad wizards who came up with this crap ?"

Imagine in months apart not only ruining Mary Jane who would win favorite supporting character in polls for years from readers. But deciding to kill off your big minority character who is gonna be in a movie soon.

I'm glad I stopped reading modern comics. Saved myself money and more. I do have to laugh at the editors approving this in some silly way thinking Peter Parker needs to be a swinging single....again.

But hey ....we have Paul.

What a clown show.

[Garlador]

I'm glad I stopped reading modern comics. Saved myself money and more. I do have to laugh at the editors approving this in some silly way thinking Peter Parker needs to be a swinging single....again.

I actually think the quality of most books I follow are hitting some amazing highs right now!... but that just showcases how poorly ASM has been handled. I love "Nightwing" as much as I dislike the current ASM run. I love Jed MacKay's handling of Moon Knight so much. World's Finest gives me the joy that Spider-Man doesn't. The Flash just concluded a legendarily well-received run. From Superman to Poison Ivy to Daredevil and She-Hulk, many books are having some masterclass writing on them worth checking out.

ASM is NOT part of that conversation.

[Xenon]

Raising a family and having as best a version of a civilian life as you can make of the situation(building a home, having a farm, raising the children) is perspective. Again, 4 years is a long period of time. 4 years ago a Billion Dollars looked like the new norm at the box office and people weren't terrified of not washing their hands. 4 years is the difference between being 36 and being 40.

A lot can change in four years and I wish people would stop acting like MJ went off for a weekend at Bernies.

Barely surviving a monster world somehow makes her stop loving Peter? 4 years apart after seeking him out for last ten years of her life make her stop loving Peter? What? These aren't really even new perspectives. She left new York and had a "civlian" life several times in the past, and at least those times she was still pursuing her dreams of acting and modeling. She and peter moved to Oregon while she was pregnant and enjoyed a civilian life for months. True, her only child was not yet born, but it's aver close scenario only it's really her kid and her husband's kid. And most importnatly, what does any of that have to do with loving Peter? What does being away four years have to do with her being committed to him, with her wanting him, with her pursuing him for the last ten years of her life? Why would having a family cause her to stop loving the man she's always loved? It doesn't make sense. If she had gotten out of that dimension and been like 'hey we have kids now sorry" no one would hav ebatted an eye. This isn't just some flight of fancy. Peter's not just some guy she just met. This has ben one of the goals of her entire life that she just abandons because of a short time away.

You focus on the 4 years thing, but not only is that just not that long, (I know multiple couples who went ot seperate colleges and got married afterwards)...it also wasn't that long. She says it's nearly four years she was in the other dimension total (putting aside, again, how contrived it is that four years passed when the time scale was different while Peter was there). The first6 months she's camping out waiting for Peter to return, so it's less than three and half years. Then we don't find the kids for antoehr 5 months. . So we're really dealing with 3 years there, and then you hav eto ask, ok, when did she just dump Peter in her heart? Was 1 year enough? 2 years? The problem with 4 years, even if you think it's that long, is that it inherently can't be four years. Because she's with Paul and the kids seemingly immediately after they find them. At most it's like, 14 months. So the book isn't telling us she stopped loving Peter after four years. It's saying she betrayed him after about 1.

And alterntive timelines don't really help here. If she held out for two years that means she was bieng "faithful" to Peter less than a year before he found them. Three years and it's all new for her. So it had to be very early in the four years to support the idea that she's moved on. As though you could get over the love of your life in four years.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Solution.... this Mary Jane is a clone created by the Jackel. Its a game to f-ck with Peter. He has the real Mary Jane prisoner. There we go.

[CaptainUniverse]

The problem with Paul Rabin...is that his beard seems to be growing at an alarming rate. If he isn't stopped, his beard could consume the entire Multiverse.

[NC_Yankee]

People are not intrinsically logical, look at any major change in any tv show, movie series or book series; there is almost always backlash because frankly people can feel attacked for the dumbest of reasons, look at Jon Kent, Miles Morales and even Kamala Khan. Do I think that the outrage that each of these stories faced was justified? Ultimately NO. But anyways my point about being "attacked" wasn't that people should feel attacked but more that people do and are free to feel that way. And that your comparison to marginalised groups wasn't something that anyone in here was really comparing to (although some do believe that the fridging of Kamala Khan and the treatment of MJ in this run are clear examples of treating characters from marginalised groups poorly, to further the plot of a straight white male character). Furthermore you are not the arbiter on whether someone needs to grow up based on how their reactions to a comic book

The problem with this argument is Lowe has not exactly been honest with the audience, nor did Wells “Stick The Landing.” Comparing the death of Kamala with the death of Gwen Stacy for example. The comparison between Ben and Peter for Beyond is another ( especially claiming Ben is better and then turning him into a villain). In neither case, did the results come close to the promise. If the change compares favorably to the previous story the complaints after the initial outcry would lessen to a large extent. Take the replacement of Gwen for MJ for example, or the reverse in the movies, where Kirsten Dunst’s MJ is traded for Emma Stone’s Gwen, in those two cases this is exactly what happened. There are also no lasting complaints about Nick Fury being changed from white to black, and the same applied to McCall ( The Equalizer) from British Edward Woodward to Denzel Washington. Why? The quality of the stories and the acting performances of Washington and Samuel L Jackson’s Nick Fury.

[Xenon]

Solution.... this Mary Jane is a clone created by the Jackel. Its a game to f-ck with Peter. He has the real Mary Jane prisoner. There we go.

It's real sad when this would be an improvement.

I'm also willing to accept it was all a dream. Kamala died by defeating a weird mayan god that tried to invade but she stood alone and defiant and defeated his hordes of enemies but succumbed to her wounds after defeating him. In a special one-shot call "we're very sorry".

The problem with Paul Rabin...is that his beard seems to be growing at an alarming rate. If he isn't stopped, his beard could consume the entire Multiverse.

Man's a monster in disguise. He's never been a threat to Peter because he never found human women appealing, lol.

The problem with this argument is Lowe has not exactly been honest with the audience, nor did Wells “Stick The Landing.” Comparing the death of Kamala with the death of Gwen Stacy for example. The comparison between Ben and Peter for Beyond is another ( especially claiming Ben is better and then turning him into a villain). In neither case, did the results come close to the promise. If the change compares favorably to the previous story the complaints after the initial outcry would lessen to a large extent. Take the replacement of Gwen for MJ for example, or the reverse in the movies, where Kirsten Dunst’s MJ is traded for Emma Stone’s Gwen, in those two cases this is exactly what happened. There are also no lasting complaints about Nick Fury being changed from white to black, and the same applied to McCall ( The Equalizer) from British Edward Woodward to Denzel Washington. Why? The quality of the stories and the acting performances of Washington and Samuel L Jackson’s Nick Fury.

People will accept a lot of things if the quality of something is good. This has been the furthest thing from good.

[NC_Yankee]

It's real sad when this would be an improvement.

I'm also willing to accept it was all a dream. Kamala died by defeating a weird mayan god that tried to invade but she stood alone and defiant and defeated his hordes of enemies but succumbed to her wounds after defeating him. In a special one-shot call "we're very sorry".



Man's a monster in disguise. He's never been a threat to Peter because he never found human women appealing, lol.



People will accept a lot of things if the quality of something is good. This has been the furthest thing from good.

100% correct: What makes the Spider office so bad is they go from bad to worse. For example OMD was bad enough but justifying the logic for it saying Mayday must die. Quit with the game playing if they do not want MJ in the book then send her away like Michelle Rodriguez and don’t bring her back and do not do stuff like reprint the marriage issue. Why don’t they? Fear they will lose readers and of course $. If no marriage is so important then put principle over profit and do it.