Is Spider-Man supposed to be an unbroken story?

[Mister Mets]

One criticism I've heard of the current Spider-Man comics is that the series was one big story until One More Day.

Do you agree with this take? Do you think Spider-Man is supposed to be an unbroken story?

And are there other "breaks" in the narrative?

[clonegeek]

One criticism I've heard of the current Spider-Man comics is that the series was one big story until One More Day.

Do you agree with this take? Do you think Spider-Man is supposed to be an unbroken story?

And are there other "breaks" in the narrative?

Reading the older issues of ASM it does feel like one long story with episodes that make up the issues. Even Spectacular and Web felt like the same story just more of it. OMD and Marvels constant relaunches of the book just makes everything just feel so broken from a reader stand point

[Jekyll]

One criticism I've heard of the current Spider-Man comics is that the series was one big story until One More Day.

Do you agree with this take? Do you think Spider-Man is supposed to be an unbroken story?

And are there other "breaks" in the narrative?

Again, marvel would have to allow Peter to grow as a character. I feel like OMD did break that story and now we've been spinning our wheels since then.

[wleakr]

Nope, not anymore.

There was a time, as others mentioned (back in the day), when it felt that way.

But Marvel has been around too long and the characters have been touched by too many creative hands to feel that wy anymore (this applies to all characters, not just Spiderman).

I now view each new volume has separate "chunks", where the character starts a relatively clean slate, but the creators are more than welcome to bring in other components from previous volumes if they wish. So if a character seems to be "out of character", it's ok - new volume, new rules.

[godisawesome]

He *was* intially portrayed as part of a single, unbroken story - with stuff like the Year One semi-reboot kicked out in part because of that alongside One More Day.

…And I’d argue that for all the word salad excuses some editorial types will make, I’d also argue a majority part of him still *is* part of an unbroken story, even in the attempt to “hybridize” that with an unending episodic status quo - which is why he feels out of funk to many right now, and why even people who love the current arc are somewhat guilty of underselling how important continuity and progress still is to the current book. OMD, after all, was not supposed to really change anything outside of Harry being back, the web shooters returning, and Peter and MJ just being (editorial-won’t-let-you-say) common law married instead of officially married.

Like, we all know that editorial’s current desire is for creators to have a long, unbroken story for their run right now, with an encouragement to reset most things back to whatever arbitrary status quo editorial thinks Spider-Man “is” once they’re done…

…but even the modern, most OMD-friendly creators still rely heavily on the past for much of the conflict and for what is supposed to make their “temporary new spins” work.

Slott’s Clone Conspiracy has no meaning without the vast history of the characters being resurrected and re-killed off, as would his Kraven resurrection story and the assorted stuff Spencer did with that, while even Nick Lowe’s run right now is entirely dependent on Norman’s vicious history to sell why him being good means something - not to mention his troll-based storytelling style is a sort of parasitic storyline that needs the audience’s investment and long term understanding of Mary Jane to create the outrage he’s entirely dependent on. Meanwhile, the Venom stories still depend sharply upon keeping track of what’s going on with the symbiote, while all the rest of the civilian supporting cats is openly acknowledged as having grown and progressed as before.

The current editorial status quo is really more about trying to preserve Peter in an un-aging reflection of what editorial believes he was during their childhoods… but not only is their view both flawed and still heavily shaped by better writers working under a healthier editorial system they’re not living up to, but they also want the cast and setting around him to continue to grow anyways.

Editorial’s double speak would probably be more accurately summarized as “Progress is the bane of Peter, but the key to EVERYTHING ELSE”.

It’s just that’s also a good, lazy excuse for writing other characters out of character whenever editorial is lazy.

[charliehustle415]

I think yes but you pick and choose, similar to pick your adventure books.

But you don't start from the beginning you start from the end

And you choose where you want to begin and all of Peter's important moments.

[Mister Mets]

It seems to me the more I read older comics, the more I get a sense that it's not an unbroken story.

During the Lee/ Ditko run, appearances in other titles were rarely mentioned. There's two different versions of his first encounter with the Fantastic Four in Amazing Spider-Man #1 and a back-up in Fantastic Four Annual #1.

There are periods in the later Lee run when it's more about other people's stories. Amazing Spider-Man #73-75 is more about rival mobsters; it could easily be a Tangled Web type story. Amazing Spider-Man #78-79 is about Hobie Brown. Amazing Spider-Man #83-85 is largely a conflict between the Kingpin's family. Sometimes there's clear issue to issue continuity, but we also go a long time without plot points being advanced. Mary Jane just disappeared for the title from Amazing Spider-Man #67-81.

Events in Marvel Team-Up were rarely referenced in the main title.

When the Len Wein run started, Peter's status quo didn't change much. His supporting cast developed.

In the middle of that Peter Parker the Spectacular Spider-Man debuted, and there were initial creative team issues with a lot of writers trying out (Conway for #1-3 and a reprint in #6, Goodwin in #4-5, 7-8, Mantlo in #9-10, 12-15, Claremont in #11, Maggin in #16) before they settled on Mantlo. The idea was that Amazing Spider-Man would focus on the Daily Bugle, and Spectacular would focus on Peter's college issues, and I think that's a big change for Amazing Spider-Man where there's no longer one main title. The awkward start didn't help.

Peter finishes his graduate studies and gets a new supporting cast in Spectacular Spider-Man #32, and characters like Flash, Harry & MJ depart from the series. When Peter drops out of grad school, that cast is largely dropped.

There are ocassional stretched when all the titles are good, like when Roger Stern and John Romita Jr were on Amazing Spider-Man, Bill Mantlo & Ed Hannigan were on Peter Parker the Spectacular Spider-Man, and JM DeMatteis & Kerry Gammill were on Marvel Team-Up, but this was not the norm.

And there's a lot of stuff that could be skipped over.

There are also some comics that make it clear that these are not meant for people who have read the earlier stories like a Spectacular Spider-Man that repeats a lot of elements of Amazing Spider-Man #12.

The wedding was an editorially mandated change that didn't really fit where the characters were at the end of Amazing Spider-Man #289.

The clone saga is an obvious retcon.

The efforts to undo problems in the clone saga led to two more retcons with the returns of Norman Osborn & Aunt May.

JMS's run references other titles so rarely it's weird to think of it as part of an unbroken run. He's not exactly continuing Howard Mackie or Paul Jenkins' stories.

This title hasn't had the narrative fidelity of something like Cerebus or Lone Wolf & Cub for a long time.

[evolutionaryFan]

I==

Peter finishes his graduate studies and gets a new supporting cast in Spectacular Spider-Man #32, and characters like Flash, Harry & MJ depart from the series. When Peter drops out of grad school, that cast is largely dropped.

You mean "started" his graduate studies right? He's never finished I don't think.

[Daibhidh]

In the sense of a story by a single author with a single shaped plot roughly planned out by the author then it's not a single unbroken story.
In the sense that it's a mostly coherent series of events that happen to one person in the course of his life, then yes. It's an unbroken story in the sense that most people's lives are an unbroken story. Time passes a lot quicker while he's a teenager, and maybe a bit slower while he's an undergraduate, but basically there's an underlying progression. It's not plotted out, but then real people's lives aren't plotted out. Actually, I've seen defenders of One More Day argue that it was a coherent narrative until after he got married: they just think that the coherent narrative was a Bildungsroman, the story of how a boy grows into an adult, a genre that is often a bit loose and rambling, and they think it necessarily had to stop and be rewound once it reached its end. (I don't buy the argument: you can't retell that story, and the current editorial status quo isn't trying to, since they'd have to rewind again when they reach the end.)

[Alex_Of_X]

Nope, not anymore.

There was a time, as others mentioned (back in the day), when it felt that way.

But Marvel has been around too long and the characters have been touched by too many creative hands to feel that wy anymore (this applies to all characters, not just Spiderman).

I now view each new volume has separate "chunks", where the character starts a relatively clean slate, but the creators are more than welcome to bring in other components from previous volumes if they wish. So if a character seems to be "out of character", it's ok - new volume, new rules.

yeah, pretty much

you can make a case it was until OMD, and it would hold water, but idk if anyone can claim it is anymore. And i don't mean to demonize OMD here--every major marvel series had it's own OMD moment where it changed completely and irrevocably. X-men comics in the 90s were doing Claremont-pastische until Grant Morrison who basically thanos-snapped those comics and took over, brand new tone, scale, symbology, with a wanton disregard for what came before. And it was badass!

Same thing happened to Daredevil when Frank Miller got his mitts on the character. Bendis redefined a franchise with New Avengers (or Millar with Ultimates, really). Kelly Sue completely revamped Carol Danvers. Warren Ellis reforged Iron Man for the modern age. Thor might never be the same, now that Jason Aaron has redefined him.

[Vegan]

Interesting that all of those examples moved the characters forward in new and exciting ways except OMD, which put Spider-Man in tread water mode for the last 15 years

[clonegeek]

It seems to me the more I read older comics, the more I get a sense that it's not an unbroken story.

During the Lee/ Ditko run, appearances in other titles were rarely mentioned. There's two different versions of his first encounter with the Fantastic Four in Amazing Spider-Man #1 and a back-up in Fantastic Four Annual #1.

There are periods in the later Lee run when it's more about other people's stories. Amazing Spider-Man #73-75 is more about rival mobsters; it could easily be a Tangled Web type story. Amazing Spider-Man #78-79 is about Hobie Brown. Amazing Spider-Man #83-85 is largely a conflict between the Kingpin's family. Sometimes there's clear issue to issue continuity, but we also go a long time without plot points being advanced. Mary Jane just disappeared for the title from Amazing Spider-Man #67-81.

Events in Marvel Team-Up were rarely referenced in the main title.

When the Len Wein run started, Peter's status quo didn't change much. His supporting cast developed.

In the middle of that Peter Parker the Spectacular Spider-Man debuted, and there were initial creative team issues with a lot of writers trying out (Conway for #1-3 and a reprint in #6, Goodwin in #4-5, 7-8, Mantlo in #9-10, 12-15, Claremont in #11, Maggin in #16) before they settled on Mantlo. The idea was that Amazing Spider-Man would focus on the Daily Bugle, and Spectacular would focus on Peter's college issues, and I think that's a big change for Amazing Spider-Man where there's no longer one main title. The awkward start didn't help.

Peter finishes his graduate studies and gets a new supporting cast in Spectacular Spider-Man #32, and characters like Flash, Harry & MJ depart from the series. When Peter drops out of grad school, that cast is largely dropped.

There are ocassional stretched when all the titles are good, like when Roger Stern and John Romita Jr were on Amazing Spider-Man, Bill Mantlo & Ed Hannigan were on Peter Parker the Spectacular Spider-Man, and JM DeMatteis & Kerry Gammill were on Marvel Team-Up, but this was not the norm.

And there's a lot of stuff that could be skipped over.

There are also some comics that make it clear that these are not meant for people who have read the earlier stories like a Spectacular Spider-Man that repeats a lot of elements of Amazing Spider-Man #12.

The wedding was an editorially mandated change that didn't really fit where the characters were at the end of Amazing Spider-Man #289.

The clone saga is an obvious retcon.

The efforts to undo problems in the clone saga led to two more retcons with the returns of Norman Osborn & Aunt May.

JMS's run references other titles so rarely it's weird to think of it as part of an unbroken run. He's not exactly continuing Howard Mackie or Paul Jenkins' stories.

This title hasn't had the narrative fidelity of something like Cerebus or Lone Wolf & Cub for a long time.

The wedding being sudden oddly works considering the death of Ned Leeds, the husband of Peter's first girlfriend. It's a reminder of their mortality and perhaps the marriage was a part of Peter/MJ how they coped from it

[Mister Mets]

In the sense of a story by a single author with a single shaped plot roughly planned out by the author then it's not a single unbroken story.
In the sense that it's a mostly coherent series of events that happen to one person in the course of his life, then yes. It's an unbroken story in the sense that most people's lives are an unbroken story. Time passes a lot quicker while he's a teenager, and maybe a bit slower while he's an undergraduate, but basically there's an underlying progression. It's not plotted out, but then real people's lives aren't plotted out. Actually, I've seen defenders of One More Day argue that it was a coherent narrative until after he got married: they just think that the coherent narrative was a Bildungsroman, the story of how a boy grows into an adult, a genre that is often a bit loose and rambling, and they think it necessarily had to stop and be rewound once it reached its end. (I don't buy the argument: you can't retell that story, and the current editorial status quo isn't trying to, since they'd have to rewind again when they reach the end.)

I don't necessarily think it needs one writer.

TV series like Succession and The Wire had an unbroken story with multiple writers.

You mean "started" his graduate studies right? He's never finished I don't think.

I meant that he became a college grad.

[Alex_Of_X]

Interesting that all of those examples moved the characters forward in new and exciting ways except OMD, which put Spider-Man in tread water mode for the last 15 years

Pre-2012 Thor Fans seething at what you said lmao

no one status quo is universally beloved imho. Even with Daredevil, Mark Waid very much went against the grain on that one, harkening back to kooky 60s-early 70s era stories to find "his" DD. His DD and say, Zdarsky's are two completely incongruent characters. Is one better than the other? That's down to any reader's personal preference imho. Both have the same trace amount of the character introduced in "Daredevil #1" in them.

Same with Married spidey and unmarried spidey--both cut from the same lee\ditko cloth

[Spider-Tiger]

If we want to get technical, Spider-man isn’t supposed to be anything. This is a fictional character handled by multiple creative teams and operated by multiple editors. Many of whom disagreed as to the creative direction of the series. Spider-man will continue to outlive any one vision or editorial direction for the character.

Ultimately, Spider-man did age and grow in a story that unfolded with subplots that were developed over decades. This, I think, has been part of the appeal of the comics for some. Because a medium this long can do and tell far more with its characters than most other mediums.

After a certain point, editorial decided that this progression was a mistake in that they had lost some of the more "classic" elements of the character. Too many characters had died, too many subplots had been resolved, etc. that the series no longer resembled what it used to be. And so they altered the creative direction of the franchise so that it would reflect a better representation of what they think it should have been from day one: a series in which the status quo basically resets itself at the beginning of each run. This is what the series has mostly been for the last 15 years.

However, I think we’re starting to move away from that creative direction to some degree. They went to great lengths to revive Harry and Kraven with OMD/BND, but they have recently put both characters back in the grave. And the story of Jameson discovering Peter’s identity is likely not something that would have been approved several years ago because it requires a retcon to go back to the original status quo. I think the only thing holding back marriage at this point (aside from the ongoing tensions with fans) is that this editorial still seems to want the option to use other love interests in the main book.

I don't necessarily think it needs one writer.

TV series like Succession and The Wire had an unbroken story with multiple writers.

If I'm not mistaken, shows like Succession had a single showrunner or head writer for the course of the series to move the series in a consistent direction. Spider-man has seen numerous editors or "showrunners" including two that thought that marriage was a viable direction for the franchise.