Does Spider-Man suffer from too many retcons?

[Spider-Tiger]

Yes. I answered this question in the "when did canon end?" thread, but the comic has been marred by too many retcons since the 90s. Since then, there has been a lot of internal and external conflict over the direction of the series that has dragged the narrative all over the place depending on whoever is at the steering wheel. Just look at Harry Osborn: dead, then alive, and now dead again. This is inevitable with any long running franchise, but is also probably why canon should be rebooted after a certain amount of time.

[FFJamie94]

Honestly, the Character suffers from no one knowing what to do with him.
Editorial, writers, management and the audience all have different ideas on what Spider-Man should be, and I don’t even think the audience knows exactly.

I’ve been thinking about this for a while, but there’s truth to pissing off your audience. It works, we’ve got multiple threads on thos very subject. People are still buying it just to hate on it… or they’ve simply given up.

I’m not trying to say the audience is at fault, I just think the Character is too popular.
You get the Worldwide stuff from the end of Slott’s tenure, and I didn’t like that change. But the question is why? It’s a natural progression of the Character, hell Slott even harkens back to an old issue and May cries saying “He’s done it”.
It makes perfect sense as to why Peter would basically become Tony Stark. Yet I’m just like “That’s npt my Spider-Man”.
Yet I’m just as annoyed to see him jobless and miserable. That’s where he came from, that’s what I grew up reading and I enjoyed it back then, and I still enjoy those comics, but there’s no progression to that.

I liked him when he was married and was a teacher… that stuff was great. But that was 20 years ago, and 20 years worth of those stories would have gotten old.
The comics would just be boring.

I think killing Ms Marvel is gross and insulting, but at least it’s not boring.
I was annoyed… but I still talked about it.

How is anyone supposed to understand that?
I think the problem with Spider-Man isn’t really an issue with editorial or writers or managment, it’s what do you do with him?
One reason why I never put any blame on Lowe or Wells is because I don’t really think they are at fault with this.
I think we see editorial as these monster who just want to spite the fans and have a hatred for Spider-Man, the truth is, I think they are just as clueless as we are.

We can sit there and come up with 100 different ways to “Fix Spider-Man”, but none of us are writers, and it won’t fix it. I’m sorry, but you’re idea to undo One More Day has already been done, it was shot down and it just became a pretty bland run.

The problems have already been done, all we can do is really just ask for good storytelling.
You know when the last time I truly loved the main Spider-Man comic was? Superior. And that’s because it was just a good story telling us why Spider-Man is great.

I’ve heard everyone critque it to high heaven, but at the end of the day, what’s the point?
It’s just a good story.

I’m enjoying the current Slott stuff, I like this Slott who has had a break from Spider-Man and now coming back fully refreshed. It beats having a Slott who I felt had worn out his welcome.

And guys, go easy on these People, they are just People like you and I. There’s no reason to want them to be off a book because they wrote a story you don’t like.
Lowe and Wells have done plenty of great things, it’s just they aren’t doing great right now.

So yeah, that’s my two cents anyway.
I’ve been debating if I even want to come to this part of the forums really, I just find it too depressing.
Every week there’s another “Here’s the problem with Spider-Man” or “Editorial hates Spider-Man”.
It’s getting to the point where coming on here is making me feel more depressed than reading the actual comic.
And I get your frustrations, I really do. I agree with them in fact. But like… Spider-Man won’t progress until we all know what we want to do with him.

[Xenon]

Yeah probably. There was a spree of bad decisions and retcons starting in the clone saga and it has made the product worse. And as much as I enjoyed him cleaning house it's undeniable that the Spencer run was very inside baseball for a lot of it that wouldn't mean much to new people. But he set up the book in such a good place when he left nonetheless. Doesn't feel like it because WElls completely wasted most of it. But that's not a problem of retcons that's a problem of him doing terrible things.

[godisawesome]

I think the current issue with retcons, resurrections, and other re-contextualizations isn’t so much that current Spidey-writers are doing them, but that they’re doing most of them as quick, easy gimmicks rather than as high concept changes to the story.

Gimmicks are shallow and temporary so that it will sell the next issue but not upset a conservative business approach, while high concept storytelling is fleshed out and invested in with the goal of impacting the overall lore. Those two aspects make up 2/3rds of most comic stories on a basic level; the last 1/3rd belongs to comic stories dedicated to trying to execute “perfect” run-of-the-mill adventures. All three story types can be valuable, but all three come with weaknesses: “perfect” run-of-the-mill stories are unambitious in their concepts and so become utterly forgettable without perfect execution, high concept stories take his risks and could cripple a franchise for a while, and gimmicks can, at worst absorb the negative traits of both precious types, running people off by being too different but also not being ambitious enough in the long run.

I’d argue that Superior wound up being mostly a high concept story because of Slott and others all investing in it for so long and clearly wanting to be ambitious with it, even if it’s initial ending reflected some gimmicky qualities to the franchise and context they put it in… and some of that gimmicky nature derives from editorial’s OMD-derived obsession with an unending status quo. As long as OND’s mantra of “Never let a good story get on the way of locking everything into editorial’s idea of a perfect status quo!” then the “snap-back” aspect of gimmicks will keep on leeching into stories, and may even, as it sort of currently seems to do, overwhelm the actual comic.

Stuff like the Kravinoff Family, Kraven’s Return, Kraven’s Next Death, Kraven’s Clone and all that ends up being almost entirely gimmicky instead; there’s no patience to let any one element actually ferment and enjoy long term investment (sort-of outside of Anastasia Lil’ Kraven the Huntress) when anyone idea is crazy enough for ambition, and then before you can blink you’re right back to the previous status quo of a not-Sergei Kraven the Interchangeable Hunter. I’d argue that stuff like Red Goblin, Goblin Kingdom and Harry’s return similarly end up as gimmicks, even if they clearly had some potential as high concept storytelling.

And of course, the current story is pretty much all gimmick.

[Xenon]

And guys, go easy on these People, they are just People like you and I. There’s no reason to want them to be off a book because they wrote a story you don’t like.
Lowe and Wells have done plenty of great things, it’s just they aren’t doing great right now.

Not a chance. I'll empathize with the fact they must be getting a ton of crap, but they earned that crap. Writing the book is a job. Wells has done a terrible job. His ideas are bad and his execution is worse. Yes, he should be off the book if he writes stories I don't like. Because that's the job. Writes stories people want to read. We're talking about Kamala's death, but only in the "man that was awful what are they doing" way. And the editor is even worse. Writers are going to have bad ideas. They're going to make mistakes. The whole point of having an editor above them is to stop stories like Dead Language from ever seeing he light of day. And making sure whatever DOES get printed doesn't have obvious errors like everyone's clothes randomly changing in the middle of the scene. He's doing a bad job. And this isn't just a little bad job, this is literally the worst issues in the course of 922 issues. We're nto asking for this to be Stern or Dematteis quality here.

I think the current issue with retcons, resurrections, and other re-contextualizations isn’t so much that current Spidey-writers are doing them, but that they’re doing most of them as quick, easy gimmicks rather than as high concept changes to the story.

Gimmicks are shallow and temporary so that it will sell the next issue but not upset a conservative business approach, while high concept storytelling is fleshed out and invested in with the goal of impacting the overall lore. Those two aspects make up 2/3rds of most comic stories on a basic level; the last 1/3rd belongs to comic stories dedicated to trying to execute “perfect” run-of-the-mill adventures. All three story types can be valuable, but all three come with weaknesses: “perfect” run-of-the-mill stories are unambitious in their concepts and so become utterly forgettable without perfect execution, high concept stories take his risks and could cripple a franchise for a while, and gimmicks can, at worst absorb the negative traits of both precious types, running people off by being too different but also not being ambitious enough in the long run.

I’d argue that Superior wound up being mostly a high concept story because of Slott and others all investing in it for so long and clearly wanting to be ambitious with it, even if it’s initial ending reflected some gimmicky qualities to the franchise and context they put it in… and some of that gimmicky nature derives from editorial’s OMD-derived obsession with an unending status quo. As long as OND’s mantra of “Never let a good story get on the way of locking everything into editorial’s idea of a perfect status quo!” then the “snap-back” aspect of gimmicks will keep on leeching into stories, and may even, as it sort of currently seems to do, overwhelm the actual comic.

Stuff like the Kravinoff Family, Kraven’s Return, Kraven’s Next Death, Kraven’s Clone and all that ends up being almost entirely gimmicky instead; there’s no patience to let any one element actually ferment and enjoy long term investment (sort-of outside of Anastasia Lil’ Kraven the Huntress) when anyone idea is crazy enough for ambition, and then before you can blink you’re right back to the previous status quo of a not-Sergei Kraven the Interchangeable Hunter. I’d argue that stuff like Red Goblin, Goblin Kingdom and Harry’s return similarly end up as gimmicks, even if they clearly had some potential as high concept storytelling.

And of course, the current story is pretty much all gimmick.

This post got me thinking, and really focusing on retcons is the wrong question, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, no one complains about good retcons. Green Lantern had the mother of all retcons over at DC with the emotional spectrum and not only was it well received but it launched GL to the top of DC's books and gave him a decade of a golden age. In Spider-Man you have bad Retcons like sins Past, and good retcons like the undoing of Sins Past or Mary jane's added depth. On the other hand, Kraven hasn't been retconned. He still died in KLH, he was just revived in Grim Hunt, and then died again in Hunted.

Retcons are neither good nor bad. They aren't even that unrealistic. There are plenty of times in life we think we know everything when we don't. Sometimes you just get more information later on. The issue, as always, is quality and consequence. Sins Past, OMD, OMIT, Dead Language, these are all terrible works. But that 2 or 3 of them are retcons aren't WHY they're terrible. DL certainly proves you can be bad in current continuity just fine. They perhaps make things harder to follow, but I don't think they should shy away from the strength of a serial medium which is the ability to draw on that history. Spider-Man just needs better editors. People who won't let garbage like Dead Language or Sins Past see print and take big life changing moments seriously instead of just letting them happen without a care. When Spidey has that again the quality will step up instantly.

[Venomsaurus]

Retcons are not necessarily a bad thing. They're sort of a nature of the beast in long form storytelling. It's the same with long running TV shows like Docto Who or Star Trek, retcons HAVE to happen to make certain changes or additions work.

Some retcons can be more than good, but fantastic. Like how Alan Moore famously retconned Swamp Thing from a man turned monster, to a monster thinking itself a man and then revealed to be so much more. That's one of the greatest runs of all time. All predicated on massively changing the entire way we look at Swampy, and essentially recreating the standard for all Swamp Thing comics to follow.

I think the main issue here and why we're talking about it with Spider-man is that Spidey seems to attract rather problematic stories that need fixing later down the line. Now not all of them are problematic, mind you, some are just kinda pointless. Like bringing back Kraven. I honestly liked how Nick Spencer undid that, even if we've still got A Kraven around anyway. But Spider-man being a flagship title means it goes through the paces of being facefront and center attention at Marvel. Everyone wanting to make their mark on his legacy like with Batman at DC. So they want to go big or go home, major stories that shift everything we think we know about Peter and his world. Only for us to have to come back on down to the status quo at the end of the day, regardless of how big the shakeup may seem.

So we need retcons. And it feels like the lat 15 years in particular have been retcon-heavy. From BND itself, bringing back Kraven, Ben, killing them off, then back, then villain then good guy then villain again. It's all become a kind of hot mess. Even if they soft reboot, there's nothing to stop the same thing from happening after another couple decades of storytelling. Retcons will alway be around and Spider-man seems to attract them like flies.

Sorry, bad joke.

[Garlador]

I think the main issue here and why we're talking about it with Spider-man is that Spidey seems to attract rather problematic stories that need fixing later down the line. Now not all of them are problematic, mind you, some are just kinda pointless. Like bringing back Kraven. I honestly liked how Nick Spencer undid that, even if we've still got A Kraven around anyway. But Spider-man being a flagship title means it goes through the paces of being facefront and center attention at Marvel. Everyone wanting to make their mark on his legacy like with Batman at DC. So they want to go big or go home, major stories that shift everything we think we know about Peter and his world. Only for us to have to come back on down to the status quo at the end of the day, regardless of how big the shakeup may seem.

I think this is also important, this "return to status quo", because the "status quo" is always changing. Marvel insisted that they wanted OMD to be a "return to the status quo"... of what? The status quo hadn't been "the" status quo for over two decades. The marriage WAS the status quo. And now after OMD, fans ask the marriage to be restored. Is that a "return to the status quo" too? Or is that upsetting the post-OMD "status quo"?

The reality is I think "status quo" is, first off, nebulous and undefined. Everyone's idea of the "ideal" Spider-Man status quo is different. Marvel Editorial clearly thinks THEIR idea of the status quo is different than many other readers.

And, secondly, as others have mentioned, I think the idea of retcons to either "restore" or "change" the status quo are neither good nor bad.

All most people want is a GOOD STORY. If a retcon comes out that enhances the story, fans will accept it. If a retcon comes out that hurts the book, they'll call it out. If the "status quo" we get is undesirable, we'll ask it to be changed. If the "status quo" we get is popular and well-liked, we'll accept a retcon to get there. But ultimately we want a book that feels like it matters with characters that feel like they're growing yet are true to the spirit of who they once were before.

So, call it recency bias, but that's why so many are already ASKING for a retcon of the current Spider-Man book and wondering "how will they fix it?" with stuff like how poorly Mary Jane has been handled. "It was a clone." "It was a Skrull." "It was mind control." "There has to be SOMETHING else going on." Her behavior doesn't make sense, and readers aren't satisfied with the explanations given, so we're already trying to think up ways to retcon the whole ordeal away in a way that's respectful of the characters' history together, because as written it doesn't make sense and isn't palatable.

It's why people who even love MJ and Peter together don't want them to just kiss and move on after the garbage way she was written, because it taints both their characters. A retcon is necessary (or a really well-done surprise reveal from Wells, but I have my doubts).

So much of Spider-Man's problems as a book right now are their inability to address the elephants in the room in a satisfying way. They have multiple albatrosses hanging around its neck and Editorial and Writers keep muddying the narrative. We can clearly see the seams, and the whole book is like a house of cards ready to collapse on itself from haphazard characterization and bogged down narrative anchors.

A slew of positive retcons that washes away the sewage at this point would be a blessing.

[Venomsaurus]

I think this is also important, this "return to status quo", because the "status quo" is always changing. Marvel insisted that they wanted OMD to be a "return to the status quo"... of what? The status quo hadn't been "the" status quo for over two decades. The marriage WAS the status quo. And now after OMD, fans ask the marriage to be restored. Is that a "return to the status quo" too? Or is that upsetting the post-OMD "status quo"?

The reality is I think "status quo" is, first off, nebulous and undefined. Everyone's idea of the "ideal" Spider-Man status quo is different. Marvel Editorial clearly thinks THEIR idea of the status quo is different than many other readers.

And, secondly, as others have mentioned, I think the idea of retcons to either "restore" or "change" the status quo are neither good nor bad.

All most people what is a GOOD STORY. If a retcon comes out that enhances the story, fans will accept it. If a retcon comes out that hurts the book, they'll call it out. If the "status quo" we get is undesirable, we'll ask it to be changed. If the "status quo" we get is popular and well-liked, we'll accept a retcon to get there. But ultimately we want a book that feels like it matters with characters that feel like they're growing yet are true to the spirit of who they once were before.

So, call it recency bias, but that's why so many are already ASKING for a retcon of the current Spider-Man book and wondering "how will they fix it?" with stuff like how poorly Mary Jane has been handled. "It was a clone." "It was a Skrull." "It was mind control." "There has to be SOMETHING else going on." Her behavior doesn't make sense, and readers aren't satisfied with the explanations given, so we're already trying to think up ways to retcon the whole ordeal away in a way that's respectful of the characters' history together, because as written it doesn't make sense and isn't palatable.

It's why people who even love MJ and Peter together don't want them to just kiss and move on after the garbage way she was written, because it taints both their characters. A retcon is necessary (or a really well-done surprise reveal from Wells, but I have my doubts).

So much of Spider-Man's problems as a book right now are their inability to address the elephants in the room in a satisfying way. They have multiple albatrosses hanging around its neck and Editorial and Writers keep muddying the narrative. We can clearly see the seams, and the whole book is like a house of cards ready to collapse on itself from haphazard characterization and bogged down narrative anchors.

A slew of positive retcons that washes away the sewage at this point would be a blessing.

You make an excellent point, the idea itself of status quo is an ever-changing thing. More nebulous than a defined ridged concept. Though I suppose when I refer to it, I mostly refer to this ridiculous 'evergreen' notion we've heard espoused about Pete being a loser being somehow better than married. No matter what happens, brain swap, starting a billion dollar company, actually being happy with MJ, Marvel always wants to get him back to what they see as square one: Loser shmuck. Because for some twisted reason, that's how they view him as relatable and marketable.

But even that still shifts, as you said. Peter may get 'reset' in essence, but all that's come before still occurred. Now it just has to fit an even more convoluted narrative of how he always somehow gets back to being a loser.

I really think this run has pushed the boundaries of just how far they can stretch Loser Peter. Beating him down to the point his greatest love interest hates him and cheated on him with another man, alienating the super hero community, betraying Aunt May. It all feels like the 'status quo' notion of Peter needing to be a loser pushed to its logical extreme. Like an actual check-mark of how to ruin the guy's life beyond repair. Because yes, as you said, as of this point it needs a retcon to fix this hot mess we find ourselves in.

Short of a miracle pull at the last minute where Paul is either gay or never was romantic with MJ in anyway, which seems less and less likely each day, a retcon is really the only fix at this point. There's no simple fogive and forget for a year of terrible behavior that itself is totally unjustifed and wildly out of character for her. There's no "I just wasn't myself today" for the betrayal, cruelty and all around character asssassination.

So yeah, necessary part of comics for sure and a damn essential one if Marvel wants to ever save face with ASM going forward.

[godisawesome]

Spider-Man just needs better editors. People who won't let garbage like Dead Language or Sins Past see print and take big life changing moments seriously instead of just letting them happen without a care. When Spidey has that again the quality will step up instantly.

I tend to think that editors/administration wound up being the part of the industry most adversely effects by the comic crash of the 90’s; writers and artists have maintained similar quality to that of the late Bronze Age through to today because the overall creative marketplace grew even as the comics market shrunk, but editors have been stuck trying to figure out ways to maintain the massively shrunk and shrinking marketplace since then, and rather than simply manage stables of creators and edit their work, they’re now constantly trying out marketing gimmicks, new market books, old variant manipulations, and of the opinion that any publicity is good publicity because of how small the marketplace is.

This is not to say that there aren’t still good editors out there, but more that there’s fewer market pressures to keep them in the business, and more to do stuff that’s crazy from a creative perspective but conservative from a business approach. And that “conservative perspective” plays into the “status quo” thing here:

I think this is also important, this "return to status quo", because the "status quo" is always changing. Marvel insisted that they wanted OMD to be a "return to the status quo"... of what? The status quo hadn't been "the" status quo for over two decades. The marriage WAS the status quo. And now after OMD, fans ask the marriage to be restored. Is that a "return to the status quo" too? Or is that upsetting the post-OMD "status quo"?

The reality is I think "status quo" is, first off, nebulous and undefined. Everyone's idea of the "ideal" Spider-Man status quo is different. Marvel Editorial clearly thinks THEIR idea of the status quo is different than many other readers.

…because I think Marvel editorial’s obsession with a single Peter is an inherently conservative viewpoint and an example of echo-chamber thinking caused by it - as are most administrators of serialized fiction who’ve ever expressed discomfort or distaste with moving characters into a committed relationship.

It was stereotypically the “golden rule” of romantic sitcoms, with administrators often referencing Moonlighting as some iron-clad proof of the idea, rather than Moonlighting being a series where the main stars ran into some real world drama caused by careers on different trajectories. Stuff like Big Bang Theory arguably disproved it pretty hard, and something similar happened in more “serious” romantic drama as well in the last two decades.

Still, there’s a string conviction among marketing types that certain types of progress are verboten… but usually, annoyingly, aligned with a believe that other stuff can change or progress but doesn’t matter, reflecting how unstable and editorially enforced “status quo” is; like how current editorial believes a 30-something single Peter is totally ideal, even though no one’s going to adapt a 30-something single Peter unless it’s to get him reunited with MJ,

[marhawkman]

I want a status quo where you add Sarah Stacy, Lily Hollister and Normie to MC2. :Þ do I know how many retcons would be needed to do THAT?!!? Nope, but the idea amuses me.

[Lee]

The series suffers from retcons, but any series that's been around for so long is going to get that.

The problem isn't the retcons, as much as decisions that close storytelling doors that lead to retcons.

I agree. The more classic character and concepts are killed off or radically changed (without a reset built into the inciting story), the more retcons there will be to restore them.

It seems like only a matter of time until J Jonah Jameson is back to not knowing Spider-Man's secret identity. JJJ's crusade against Spider-Man is too iconic a part of the series to be gone forever.

[Huntsman Spider]

I want a status quo where you add Sarah Stacy, Lily Hollister and Normie to MC2. :Þ do I know how many retcons would be needed to do THAT?!!? Nope, but the idea amuses me.

Normie was already in MC2 as a young adult, though, and initially trying his hand at being the new Green Goblin and living up (or down) to his father's and grandfather's reps, avenging them by killing Spider-Man (or his teenage daughter Spider-Girl). Of course, he then turned over a new leaf after Spider-Girl realized how deeply screwed-up Normie was and gave him a hug instead of the (lethal) beatdown he was anticipating, if not craving. He even became Venom for a while after being forcibly bonded with the symbiote by his would-be fiancee Elan DeJunae, a.k.a. Fury the Goblin Queen, but used its power for good, which ultimately redeemed the symbiote to the point it sacrificed itself to save Spider-Girl when she was fatally injured by Hobgoblin.

[marhawkman]

Normie was already in MC2 as a young adult, though, and initially trying his hand at being the new Green Goblin and living up (or down) to his father's and grandfather's reps, avenging them by killing Spider-Man (or his teenage daughter Spider-Girl). Of course, he then turned over a new leaf after Spider-Girl realized how deeply screwed-up Normie was and gave him a hug instead of the (lethal) beatdown he was anticipating, if not craving. He even became Venom for a while after being forcibly bonded with the symbiote by his would-be fiancee Elan DeJunae, a.k.a. Fury the Goblin Queen, but used its power for good, which ultimately redeemed the symbiote to the point it sacrificed itself to save Spider-Girl when she was fatally injured by Hobgoblin.

Well.. sort of... I just realized I had the wrong name. I was thinking about Lily's son.... Stanley. Lily Hollister wasn't even a character yet when MC2 was ongoing. So Stanley wasn't ever in MC2.

At any rate though, one retcon I loathe almost as much as OMD.... almost.... is Kindred, which probably surprises no one. why? because this was a heartwarming ending that I thought was GREAT!!!! And Kindred lit it on fire and threw it into hell.

Oh also OMD also ruins this because it has Pete and MJ as a couple.

[Alan2099]

I really think this run has pushed the boundaries of just how far they can stretch Loser Peter. Beating him down to the point his greatest love interest hates him and cheated on him with another man, alienating the super hero community, betraying Aunt May. It all feels like the 'status quo' notion of Peter needing to be a loser pushed to its logical extreme. Like an actual check-mark of how to ruin the guy's life beyond repair. Because yes, as you said, as of this point it needs a retcon to fix this hot mess we find ourselves in.

Considering there have been stories were Spider-man was homeless, was being hunted so badly he couldn't even go out in costume, and has been rejected by the Avengers and FF multiple times, I don't see why now is any kind of deal breaker.

Short of a miracle pull at the last minute where Paul is either gay or never was romantic with MJ in anyway, which seems less and less likely each day, a retcon is really the only fix at this point. There's no simple fogive and forget for a year of terrible behavior that itself is totally unjustifed and wildly out of character for her. There's no "I just wasn't myself today" for the betrayal, cruelty and all around character asssassination.

Why? As much as people talk about MJ as a character and how she should have interests and a life of her own outside of sitting by the window waiting for Peter to come home, they're sure quick to throw a fit anytime she does anything that doesn't directly involve Spider-man. There's no problem with Peter having additional love interests, but god forbid MJ show interest in anybody else.

[Venomsaurus]

Considering there have been stories were Spider-man was homeless, was being hunted so badly he couldn't even go out in costume, and has been rejected by the Avengers and FF multiple times, I don't see why now is any kind of deal breaker.


Why? As much as people talk about MJ as a character and how she should have interests and a life of her own outside of sitting by the window waiting for Peter to come home, they're sure quick to throw a fit anytime she does anything that doesn't directly involve Spider-man. There's no problem with Peter having additional love interests, but god forbid MJ show interest in anybody else.

I've made it clear multiple times that MJ dating someone else is not the issue. That how she's being written out of character, treating Peter like garbage for no good reason. Giving up on him less than a year of him being gone. It's not fitting the character, and that's where the problem is. Stop trying to deflect the actual issue with how she's being written and acting like we're all just mad because its not Peter/MJ togetehr. It's been made very clear by multiple people on this forum that the major issue is MJ's character, that all the problems and complaints stem from how she's being written, not who she's with.