Is the Zeb Wells run on Amazing Spider-Man the worst run in the history of ASM?

[Garlador]

Are you routinely posting on their boards/threads about how much you love them?

Of course. I’ve been advocating for books I love strongly wherever I go.

Pretty sure I’ve commented in almost every respective board here expressing my satisfaction with those titles and giving them a strong recommendation.

But even books I haven’t read yet (like World’s Finest and Daredevil) are books I’ve heard nothing but positive things about through the grapevine.

I enjoy promoting stuff I enjoy. So… yeah, read Flash!

Just got my TPB of Sword of Azrael yesterday too. It’s great.

[DT Winslow]

Of course. I’ve been advocating for books I love strongly wherever I go.

Pretty sure I’ve commented in almost every respective board here expressing my satisfaction with those titles and giving them a strong recommendation.

But even books I haven’t read yet (like World’s Finest and Daredevil) are books I’ve heard nothing but positive things about through the grapevine.

I enjoy promoting stuff I enjoy. So… yeah, read Flash!

Just got my TPB of Sword of Azrael yesterday too. It’s great.

That's fantastic!

Sadly, Adams has been booted off of Flash for Spurrier, whom I don't generally care for.

[godisawesome]

I think I’d argue the biggest problems of the run in terms of writing style and quality (to sort of revisit that for a bit) is that, like much of the post-OND era and as a common problem that all franchises have at some point, the book has very inconsistent characterization choices in regards to the books past… but more importantly, this particular run also suffers severely from a lack of “literary empathy.”

“Literary empathy” is what I would use to describe both a writer’s ability to place themselves in all characters’ emotional states equally, *and* an ability to understand how the overall audience connects with the art emotionally and to harmoniously use that in constructing the story.

Wells’s run isn’t completely incapable of positively connecting emotionally with an audience, mind you; almost all art, no matter how good or bad, will connect with someone. Nor is he incapable of some characterization consistency…

…But overall, he is forcing characters to fit a plot more than growing a plot from the characters, but worse, he seems incapable of adjusting to all his characters’ POV in alignment with both their past and their current POV, and especially incapable of understanding why many people *want* to read Spider-Man, and instead seems to be largely dependent on leeching off previous investments in the cast and on his main artist and editorial ramping up marketing gimmicks.

His dialogue and other writing skills can be (and probably are) competent; but his concept for the current arc is driven by authorial fiat and deliberate aggravation of the audience rather than skillful character or emotional writing.

[Garlador]

That's fantastic!

Sadly, Adams has been booted off of Flash for Spurrier, whom I don't generally care for.

I’ll definitely miss Adams. Run ended on a high note though, and I’ve followed him to Green Lantern, which is delivering so far.

[Xenon]

1) It seems pretty clear that Wells meant to use Rabin as the explanation for what happened. A glowing man shows up at the end of Beyond and it's a villain from Wells' first arc on Amazing Spider-Man.
I think he knew the gist of the backstory in the most recent Amazing Spider-Man #1. Mary Jane & Peter were sent to a previously established alternate universe, where they meet Paul. Peter is forced out. He alienates his allies in the Marvel Universe to get the supplies needed to get her out. Time moved differently there, and while he was moving as intensely as he could, Mary Jane & Paul spend years together. They were the only people who could take care of two children, and Mary Jane doesn't want to break up the family. Readers won't know about this when they're reading the first few stories of the run, but I don't see any indication that Wells didn't.

I never thought Peter was going to do anything horrifying, especially if Aunt May knew the full context. But in superhero stories, the supporting cast often doesn't know the full context.

THere's literally nothing that Peter did that would cause Aunt May to have negative feelings towards him in the final version.

2) I'm in the MJ didn't do anything wrong camp. Absurd things happened, but she's not heartless or selfish. People prefer the character they know and who they know to be a decent human being to a new character.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...ary-Jane-wrong

I think giving up on your committed partner is selfish, you're putting your own desires ahead of your commitments. That hospital scene is 100% heartless. I don't know how you can read it any other way without just assuming stuff that hasn't been in the book happened. And I want those things that aren’t in the book yet to be true, but what’s on the page makes her a bad person on multiple levels.

[Daibhidh]

There seems to be stuff that happened off-panel, including the main conversation right after MJ gets back to her dimension where she tells Peter what happened.

So I have no reason to assume she handled this with an uncharacteristic lack of tact.

I think that assuming that the character was characteristically tactful off panel when her behaviour is explicitly described as brutal on panel is headcanon. You can't justify apparently bad writing on the page by saying that the writing off the page was brilliant.

From the perspective of a new reader, Kamala Khan existed mainly as a supporting character who got killed off. She's like Frederick Foswell or Don Lamanze. People die in a series that's about dangerous things.

Frederick Foswell's death wasn't pitched as the most shocking death for fifty years. His death is alluded to on the cover of the issue, but 'this issue somebody dies' iF not the focus of the cover. From looking at plot summaries online, Foswell gets a lot more to do in the issues running up to his death; he gets a lot more to do in his final issue; and he is briefly mentioned by Jonah in the next issue rather than treated as a tragic loss whom all the characters grieve over. Readers were not expected to care more about Foswell than they actually did.

I think it's interesting to make readers think one character is going to die, and then kill off someone else. It puts them in an uncomfortable position of being happy about something tragic.

That's an opinion. I'm struggling to think of any generally acknowledged good story that does that. I'd also say that if you're going to do that in your writing, then you want to explore that conflict of emotions properly, rather than just raise it and do nothing with it.

Although I'll note that we're going to be significantly more likely to criticize good work than to defend bad work.

That is not my experience.

[Vegan]

Not my experience as well. I’ve seen quite a bit of defending bad work on this board recently and in the past.

[IamnotJudasTraveller]

I think it's interesting to make readers think one character is going to die, and then kill off someone else. It puts them in an uncomfortable position of being happy about something tragic.

That's an interesting point of view, but the problem is when the switcheroo happens in such a hap-hazard fashion such as this. If Wells put in the time to give Kamala more screen-time (because I think in ASM proper you manage to count how many panels she's in using just your hands, really), so that when she ends up dying, instead of Mary Jane, it's still earned. It's not out of character for her, she's a heroine. It's not out of character for Peter to grieve her, he's a good person. We weren't shown what'd make that death so impactful, though. Kamala stuck around for a few panels, then was killed. It really just feels gimmicky, for want of a better word.

It ends up feeling as if Wells is basically skipping steps in what builds a strong story. The framing of it ("the most shocking issue in 50 years!", probable synergy, a death that is not sticking, etc) only makes a lackluster execution worse. Which is a shame, really, you can see how it could lead to something good, but the steps skipped are required (if anything, for a good payoff) for a reason.

[Mister Mets]

That's fantastic!

Sadly, Adams has been booted off of Flash for Spurrier, whom I don't generally care for.

Er, this might indicate potential problems with your taste if the writer you like got fired.

In fairness, it happens. I was a fan of Waid and Wieringo's Fantastic Four when they were pushed out, and Tom King's Batman.

THere's literally nothing that Peter did that would cause Aunt May to have negative feelings towards him in the final version.



I think giving up on your committed partner is selfish, you're putting your own desires ahead of your commitments. That hospital scene is 100% heartless. I don't know how you can read it any other way without just assuming stuff that hasn't been in the book happened. And I want those things that aren’t in the book yet to be true, but what’s on the page makes her a bad person on multiple levels.

I don't think Aunt May was that weird when the run started.



Peter needed money, and he couldn't explain all of it. He's also been in a funk. This is not their worst estrangement (that would probably be after he dropped out of grad school) and she still loves him.

The sections we see of the end of Peter and MJ's conversation don't seem that bad.




From her perspective it's not about picking her desires over commitment (if it was, the break-up would be easier) because her family has valid concerns as well.

[Mister Mets]

I think that assuming that the character was characteristically tactful off panel when her behaviour is explicitly described as brutal on panel is headcanon. You can't justify apparently bad writing on the page by saying that the writing off the page was brilliant.

In this case, we know that there were big sections of this conversation off-panel. There are various reasons not to include a dialogue scene of one character catching up on another on things that at this point the reader knows.

Frederick Foswell's death wasn't pitched as the most shocking death for fifty years. His death is alluded to on the cover of the issue, but 'this issue somebody dies' iF not the focus of the cover. From looking at plot summaries online, Foswell gets a lot more to do in the issues running up to his death; he gets a lot more to do in his final issue; and he is briefly mentioned by Jonah in the next issue rather than treated as a tragic loss whom all the characters grieve over. Readers were not expected to care more about Foswell than they actually did.


That's an opinion. I'm struggling to think of any generally acknowledged good story that does that. I'd also say that if you're going to do that in your writing, then you want to explore that conflict of emotions properly, rather than just raise it and do nothing with it.

Plenty of stories suggest one character is in danger, and then kill off another.

Age of Ultron did this with Hawkeye and Quicksilver.

That is not my experience.

This requires significant self-awareness. But how would you recognize the difference between someone defending a competent work that you don't appreciate versus someone defending poorly made dreck?

Not my experience as well. I’ve seen quite a bit of defending bad work on this board recently and in the past.

When have you defended bad work?

I think I’d argue the biggest problems of the run in terms of writing style and quality (to sort of revisit that for a bit) is that, like much of the post-OND era and as a common problem that all franchises have at some point, the book has very inconsistent characterization choices in regards to the books past… but more importantly, this particular run also suffers severely from a lack of “literary empathy.”

“Literary empathy” is what I would use to describe both a writer’s ability to place themselves in all characters’ emotional states equally, *and* an ability to understand how the overall audience connects with the art emotionally and to harmoniously use that in constructing the story.

Wells’s run isn’t completely incapable of positively connecting emotionally with an audience, mind you; almost all art, no matter how good or bad, will connect with someone. Nor is he incapable of some characterization consistency…

…But overall, he is forcing characters to fit a plot more than growing a plot from the characters, but worse, he seems incapable of adjusting to all his characters’ POV in alignment with both their past and their current POV, and especially incapable of understanding why many people *want* to read Spider-Man, and instead seems to be largely dependent on leeching off previous investments in the cast and on his main artist and editorial ramping up marketing gimmicks.

His dialogue and other writing skills can be (and probably are) competent; but his concept for the current arc is driven by authorial fiat and deliberate aggravation of the audience rather than skillful character or emotional writing.

This is an interesting point, although audiences will differ in their emotional reactions to a work. The idea of considering how a writer understands their audience's emotional reaction to a work also seems more like an explanation of why some audience members won't be able to appreciate a work, rather than the work being bad.

[Garlador]

Er, this might indicate potential problems with your taste if the writer you like got fired.

I’ll readily vouch for Adam’s Flash too. I’m reading it now. It’s fantastic.

They hit #800 and DC just decided it was a good stopping point for his run. Adams was moved to Green Lantern instead.

[Coop]

I’ll readily vouch for Adam’s Flash too. I’m reading it now. It’s fantastic.

They hit #800 and DC just decided it was a good stopping point for his run. Adams was moved to Green Lantern instead.

It's hilarious to me that people who like writers that have gotten fired off books have "problems with their taste" and people who think this run is a contender for worst of the franchise are "suspicious"

Really poor way to frame a discussion

[DT Winslow]

Er, this might indicate potential problems with your taste if the writer you like got fired.

In fairness, it happens. I was a fan of Waid and Wieringo's Fantastic Four when they were pushed out, and Tom King's Batman.

Insert obligatory internet BS about how sales don’t equal quality.

[blank]

Er, this might indicate potential problems with your taste if the writer you like got fired.
The sections we see of the end of Peter and MJ's conversation don't seem that bad.




From her perspective it's not about picking her desires over commitment (if it was, the break-up would be easier) because her family has valid concerns as well.

Also this doesn't really show the problem with their interactions throughout the run but it does show a clear lack of guilt or even empathy in her expression(hell it looks like she's avoiding eye contact despite the gravity of what she is saying), but that may just be Romita Jr.'s art. But lets take a look a every time they've interacted during this run, starting with the call its alleged that Peter continues to call her and clearly wants to ask her something but she completely shuts him out. The next time they really speak is Oscorp, where she intentionally brings up the fact her and Paul(the lying prick) are doing well, despite knowing for a fact that Peter literally couldn't be, considering the heavy medical debt he was left in due to Beyond(something she had offered to help with by letting him move in, so she clearly was aware the state of his finances). If were to add the whole Paul going to visit Peter, to stop the calls she knows for a fact Paul didn't have a reason to punch Peter, more that he hated be confronted for lying. Then their next big interaction is the Hellfire Gala, in which MJ blew up on Peter for asking to get coffee because of Paul and responsibility so they can't talk, which is frankly extremely hypocritical considering she began her relationship with Paul despite knowing Peter would be looking for her, where the f*ck was that responsibility then. The next interaction is during the Dark Web arc where they meet at the deceased Harry Osborn's Birthday celebration, and this is a outlier in their interactions because MJ doesn't really do or say anything but her hostilities towards Peter only cease for the issue. As when we next see them in the same room, MJ's extremely vitriolic towards Peter for his actions during the last few months and was completely unwilling to acknowledge her actions being responsible for the way he's been acting(the whole lying about the lying f*ck, revealing she was in a relationship with the lying f*ck, and choosing the lying f*ck over him). After that their next important interaction is the 'Rabin's back' arc, then we begin a shitload of flashback, starting with where they went as I like to call the bullshit dimension, in which for some insane reason MJ doesn't see the problem with a civilian staying vs a man with literal danger sense and super strength and is led to believe by the lying f*ck that Peter should be the one to leave the dimension(not the person who you know doesn't have powers until later in the flashback). And that she called him that he's back(this is before the flashback), and then its revealed how she knew Paul had been lying and had taken him at his word but she isn't angry at Paul at all for punching Peter, she for some reason is more angry at Peter for confronting someone that to him has been lying the whole time and proceeds to compare an adults' genocidal support and guilt who literally does nothing good save for the children to a teenagers' mistake and the guilt that caused him to risk his life everyday stopping crime(its not remotely comparable), going as far to call Paul a good man for literally doing almost nothing despite having literally good(without her provoking it, I doubt he would have taken the children if it weren't for her) provided the literal trigger to the power that killed his bloody world. I should note she only apologises at the very end, when she's effectively saying I'm picking the guy who I know helped kill a world over you, it should be noted its not a apology for her giving up or her entering a relationship with Paul in the first place, its an apology that she is choosing the lying pr*ck(I'm praying that its not a romantic relationship, because ffs its bloody gross, the whole lying for years about his assistance and relationship to Rabin, effectively suggesting that Peter should exit instead of MJ, and the whole only other adult that isn't trying to kill them). There still is no reason for MJ having given up on Peter coming back entirely, and even if she did why didn't she mourn him or the life they could of had because for all she knows Peter could have died upon reentry to the 616(or blame herself for possibly killing him), also she's known him for so long, what the hell would make her think that he'd give up on rescuing her even if its been over a year.

[godisawesome]

I think giving up on your committed partner is selfish, you're putting your own desires ahead of your commitments. That hospital scene is 100% heartless. I don't know how you can read it any other way without just assuming stuff that hasn't been in the book happened. And I want those things that aren’t in the book yet to be true, but what’s on the page makes her a bad person on multiple levels.

I see the hospital scene as “heartless”… but from the POV that Wells isn’t actually thinking through the emotional impact of his fantastical plot device on the characters, preventing MJ from having a human reaction (and thus, no “heart” in *any* emotional or psychological sense).

It *can* be debated how much a simple separation for a prolonged time period would impact MJ’s relationship with Peter - but the fact of the matter is that neither she nor he had any agency in that separation, there was a clear supernatural cause behind it, and there would be an emotional toll and “asterisk” attached to the accompanying journey because of those facts. I’d argue that would likely mitigate any development of a relationship on her part in the first place, in a way that would color the relationship at its core… but I’d insist that it would have radical impact on her behavior and interactions with a Peter upon being reunited in a way that is incompatible with acting like “time passed, get over it” as Wells wants it to.

“This **** is weird!” would be her mildest reaction that she would likely still want to work out with Peter, and that’s if she was magnetically-compatible with Paul (Last Name Not Found). When the intensity of her prior relationship with Peter is taken into account, as well as an actual POV more consistent with her previous portrayals, it gets much more unlikely she wouldn’t on some level consciously regard her relationship with Paul as a circumstantial creation - and that’s if she did form a relationship with him, since the point of Peter’s POV as conveyed by the writer is that he likely wouldn’t have given up, and fans of MJ see her as reflecting that similar dedication thanks to her prior writing.

Wells wrote a scene to create the reaction he desired out of one character - Peter - while ignoring that a great deal of modern Spider-fans connect with MJ as well, and are going to be annoyed or angered that one 9f their favorite POV characters is now reduced to a mere heart-ache-inducer who’s no longer written as a human.

This is an interesting point, although audiences will differ in their emotional reactions to a work. The idea of considering how a writer understands their audience's emotional reaction to a work also seems more like an explanation of why some audience members won't be able to appreciate a work, rather than the work being bad.

I get that… but I also think it should be acknowledged that the “par” for most fictional stories, even franchise ones, *is* consistent and largely universal emotional reactions from the diverse audience, with good and great works of art evoking consistent “harmony” with even larger and more diverse audiences. And it generally emerges from the writer failing to connect to the characters anymore either; it’s frequently best summarized as “The writer no longer connects to a character or characters that the audience still very much does.”

George R. R. Martin is famously deft at compelling the same myriad miasma of complex emotions from a huge audience… and part of the reasons why the TV Game Of Thrones’s ending was so disappointing and infamous was that a disconnection grew between the show and much of the audience in ways that the chaotic, multi-faceted and multi-factioned middle of the show, with stuff like the Red Wedding, never even came close to doing.

Large, continuous franchises are the ones that most infamously can developed this problem of disconnection… but we also have to acknowledge there are such things as scale, ferocity, and how time passes that impacts that disconnections importance or relevance.

Across the Spider-Verse has all but universal acceptance and love from the fandom. No Way Home is similar; the larger MCU Spider-Man, in comparison and contrast, has some disconnect from fans who dislike him starting out as a “client” of Iron Man’s “patronage”… BUT we can also see that dislike was always mild and a strictly background debate. Amazing Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3 are both consensus examples of disconnect being a major feature of dislike for the audience.

In this case, we’re talking about a ferocious reaction at a disconnection from a large selection of Spider-Man fans who keep track of comic events… but with the caveat that the actual monthly market for the books is much, much smaller than those who keep track of comic events, and seems to have an inelastic response to those issues.