ASM #34 Preview

[Garlador]

And she also shouldn't have been so cold and hostile to him when she got back. They've never really justified that.

I’ve already said that if the roles were reversed and Peter came back with a new woman and told Mary Jane to get out of his life and never bother him again, screaming at her if she dared want coffee with him, it would widely be derided as detestable and sexist.

And Marvel would never treat Peter that way… but they’ll treat Mary Jane like that, which says a lot.

[Lairston]

To be fair, she acts as that's what she really thinks.

And for his next action as Spider-goblin, he growls, "Oh so that's what you think?"

Pulls out the spider shaped thing and presses the button so the portal opens, "I won't make the same mistake again."

Shoves her and Paul through back to the hellscape world. "Witch!" and closes the portal.

[Jman27]

I mean I get people want catharsis because they despise Paul but there are also people making justifications for Peter's behavior. Like if you hate what Paul represents and want the character axed from the story then own that. But this still ain't a good characterization of Peter.

But it's not Peter it's a Peter with Goblin Sins

[Lairston]

I’d accept that if she’s still under the influence of symbology or totems or whatever.

Given how crazy this all is, Bailey will have the totem that breaks the spell and Bailey and Pul will square off in a YuGiOh battle with trap cards while Peter cries in the corner.

I can definitely see that with this hideous run.

[hobnob]

And for his next action as Spider-goblin, he growls, "Oh so that's what you think?"

Pulls out the spider shaped thing and presses the button so the portal opens, "I won't make the same mistake again."

Shoves her and Paul through back to the hellscape world. "Witch!" and closes the portal.

And then Gwen Stacy walks in.

[Xenon]

Honestly this is starting to remind me of the Rosenberg X-Men, which felt like a misery parade by a writer who knew a major status quo shift was coming to scrub the whole line clean.

It's a nagging thought in the back of my mind but it gets weaker every time they publish MJ .

After reading the leaks, something tells me I'm going to have nightmares with this.

And you know the creepiest part? I can't blame Peter for his actions, in fact, I agree with everything he's doing. After years and years of being squashed, stomped, humilliated and tormented, he kinda has every single right to let himself go and make everyone who has ever wronged him pay dearly.

I get people thinking this, I do. I think the way they've treated him this run is unfair and I get the need for cathersis, but this is just another trap. In two issues he'll be more **** upon than ever.

Is it because of Rabin that MJ cheated on Peter with Paul when she was stuck? that she treated peter like **** after he brought her back to earth without the slightest explanation? mj is a victim of zeb wells' catastrophic writing like all the characters elsewhere.

Peter can be angry at Rabin for ruining his life but he can be angry at MJ for cheating on him and at Paul for taking MJ from him and I'm not even talking about the fact that MJ is with someone who helped has a genocide and lied to mj from the start.

But for mj written by zeb wells paul who helps in a genocide of a planet, who lied about the time difference it's less serious than peter who hits paul after learning the truth... anyone other than peter would have gone crazy and would get angry after that.

Yep

You're overthinking too much about it. People are encouraging Peter's violent side because everyone hates Paul and want some kind of catharsis. It's just it. That being said, I don't like it either, because I know the next issues will be about MJ choosing this guy again, so she and Peter will be even more distant.

Yep.

I hate this run for many reasons but MJ didn't cheat. I think it's out of character for her to move on in the way she did, and it's certainly OOC for her to stonewall him and treat him so callously, but I disagree that she cheated. I don't think it's a good way to look at it. Has MJ ever been the 'out of sight. out of mind' type? No, which is why it's OOC, but to say that she cheated leans into the idea that she belongs to Peter. How 'in a relationship' are you when you haven't seen each other in a year and you have no prospect of seeing them again?

On a more zoomed out level, it's amazing how Zen Wells has stoked the flames of misogyny among the fan base. Maybe he did that deliberately for his own amusement. Maybe he thinks he's clever by 'calling it out', but I can't see how it's a smart business decision to argue that a massive chunk of your dwindling fanbase are miserable people.

The "no prospect of seeing them again" part is the problem. Peter had finished Paul's portal device and had the resources of the normal Marvel U at his disposal. SHe knows he doesn't give up. There's no point where its reasonable for her to believe he isn't coming back for her. Certainly not in less than a year, which people in the modern world do on a regular basis. THe comparison is to a woman whose husband goes off to WWII. Some of those guys were gone for years. Some couldn't send letters back. THey could have been killed at any time. But until you know they have an obligation to stay true to their word.

And that's the thing, it's not about her being property, it's about making commitments and honoring those commitments. We'd expect the same from Peter. It's just that because they'd treat him like a real character and not an object he wouldn't fail the love test. She shouldn't either. (I mean, she wouldn't and them making her fail it is OOC, not like blaming her, exactly)

I agree. MJ's out of character, but it's implied that she thought she will never see Peter again. She was wrong and should've never lost hope in Peter, but that's what happened. Nevertheless, it sucks.

SHe contradicts herself and says she knows he was working the whole time to save her. She hlso has no reason to believe she would never see him again. And again, if that was the basis for her leaving him, that just means she should feel even more terrible that she gave up on him when he was doing everything to save her. It should be "oh god I'm so sorry I made a terrible mistake" not "Buzz off I'm with this guy now, jerk".

And she also shouldn't have been so cold and hostile to him when she got back. They've never really justified that.

And they never will. ASM9 will never make sense either. Just sloppy poorly edited writing with a bad plan and terrible OOC people. I wish I still believed it would all be wiped away.

[Nightwing96]

I can accept MJ apologising for being cruel, but not for moving on.

I think people need to focus on what the problem is. My beef isn't that she's done the nasty with someone else. She doesn't 'belong' to Peter. But that doesn't change the fact that it's nice to read ASM and follow the through-line of their long and winding road to true love, even if the destination is denied us.

The problem with what's happened to MJ--as simply as I can put it--is that since OMD MJ has always carried a candle for Peter, and Peter has always carried a candle for MJ. Zeb Wells has snuffed out MJ's candle at exactly the moment it was burning brightest. That's why the backlash is what it is. Joe Quesada reassured the fans of the candle in OMIT, and Dan Slott respected the candle. She whispers that she loved him at the end of Spider-Island, she rebuffed Stark's innuendos and kept him at arms length when she worked for him, she felt bad for being Stark's plus one, she allowed her and Peter to get close, she said that they 'were back were [they're] supposed to be' when they hook up at the end of Worldwide. It never went out, even though she'd had a few dates and moved to Chicago. Same with Peter. Peter has never been out of love with MJ.

Wells clearly hasn't respected that. MJ hasn't been OOC so much as she's just been written as moving on from Peter completely. It's also why the 'she's like a sister' line had people screaming like the last seconds of Alderaan. And YOU CAN'T RETCON THE CANDLE BACK TO THE ETERNAL FLAME IT ONCE WAS WHEN IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SNUFFED OUT ONCE BEFORE.

The way out for Wells is

1. Demonstrate beyond all doubt that the candle never went out for MJ (hard but doable)
2. Have MJ realise she never really had feelings for Paul/dump him
3. Move closer to Peter and try to repair things (perhaps including her apologising for being so cruel)

Easiest way to do this IMO is to say she was brainwashed by symbology and Paul was pulling the strings all along. She breaks free through her love for Peter--the spells aren't strong enough to contain her love which was always there. Paul then becomes final boss; fans get catharsis as Peter breaks his face and shoves him into a portal.

Wells said he wanted to tell a story where they want to be together but can't be, and all I can think is, 'Zeb, that's literally the B-side of Slott's 10 years on the book; it's not a novel concept.' If he wants to tell the story of MJ wanting to be with Peter, then he's got to tell it.

Based on these previews I'm not expecting any evidence of MJ wanting to be with Peter any time soon. All I'm seeing is the already-snuffed-out candle being thrown out the window for good. No one can retcon that back to the way it was. He has to clean up his own mess. Otherwise it's clone and cryopod time, which would mean the his run will forever be remembered as the nadir of ASM.

Thank you for articulating how I feel. MJ and Peter have always had a candle for each other which was obvious despite the reasons they could not be together (related to the craziness of Peter being Spider-Man) and now with Zeb writing the book its like he completely snuffed it out and makes Peter feel like the bad guy for not being able to move on (and somehow we are to believe MJ has fallen in love with someone else more than Peter). I have no doubt it will take another writer on the book to course correct and have MJ and Peter reveal they still always loved each other or something to that effect but it really was a slap in the face of us fans after seeing them get stronger together Under the pen of Nick Spencer.

[Nightwing96]

That may have been the attempt at the beginning but now there's clear backtracking. Plus even Wells said he's going to fix it all in year 2. Which isn't much. Norman going green again. Chasm arc. Rek rap appearance. MJ and Peter get back together. That's doable with the remaining arcs

Did Wells actually say that? I thought he just said year two would be a clean slate as the ongoing mystery of what happened between Peter and MJ was resolved (must to our dissatisfaction) at the end of year one.

[Nightwing96]

Like come on man. I'm not reading too much into it. He explicitly writes the sentence "Mary Jane is, as you saw in this issue, still in a romantic relationship with Paul". It's in the book. It's direct. It's over. That's what they're doing.

God willing we'll get a retcon, but that's how it is today.

Idk man. While I'm inclined to agree with you, I do feel the fact that it isn't explicitly stated in any of the issues with them together and only in the letters page gives them an easy way to walk it back. Maybe it is Zeb's intent to have them romantically involved and as long as Nick Lowe is editor and stands by it, it might be a tough pill we need to swallow that they are romantically involved but the fact they keep preventing them from explicitly showing any forms of intimacy (not so much as a kiss or holding hands, going on a date, etc.) reads to me like they wanted to create enough wiggle room to give themselves an out afterwards (in the form of a possible retcon where MJ states she was with him to raise kids or support him since he isn't supposed to exist in this world, etc.). The fact that ppl here are divided based on how its been portrayed gives me confidence in that assumption. Idk if its just because fear of fan backlash but maybe they just wanted to be able to have their cake and eat it too by giving themselves an easy out if they needed to when putting them back together. The big question is how many more years do we need to wait b/c I don't want to wait another decade to see them back together.

Just as an aside, thinking about the fact they could be romantically involved I think that was first implied 11 months into them being stranded together not even after 4 years. This is just sad news all around.

[Tabs]

This is just way too confusing a concept. [/B] Norman is lying to MJ, a sin. Even if Norman is rationalizing that he is protecting Peter, he is being selfish. So did the sin eater just take away his sins or simply take away his aggression and some of his selfishness?

According to traditional moral theological teaching, committing a falsehood is always wrong and never acceptable. However, there are other situations in which keeping a secret is necessary, and there are times when lying or saying something false is the easiest way to honor that responsibility. Authors from both the ancient and modern eras have openly acknowledged this position. Many embrace the idea of the "lie of necessity" and say that, wherever there is a dispute, justice should take precedence above veracity. Given that Norman Osborn is a Catholic and that sins are a theological and spiritual concept, it would seem practical to assess his action in accordance with his religion's moral teachings. The idea of consequentialism, which holds that a decision's morality should be determined entirely by its repercussions, has, however, also been fiercely criticized and is recognized as heresy by Catholic doctrine. Still, the theory of mental reservation has been employed by the Catholic Church as a solution to meet the requirements of both justice and honesty.

In general, unless there is a compelling argument to the contrary, truth requires that all parties speak with integrity and openness in an accessible manner that whoever is being addressed can understand in Catholic doctrine. Making intellectual accommodations without explanation or when a person has an inherent right to the whole truth is sinful.

Lying is by definition a crime against the truth, but in Catholic belief, justice would also determine whether lying is a mortal sin, a venial sin, or whether no sin was committed at all. If someone has no right to know the whole truth, Catholic doctrine would nonetheless apply to them. Since the deception's character is assessed based on another's right to know rather than its consequences, Catholic doctrine would hold that this situation would not count as consequentialism.

Objectively speaking, Paul Rabin and Mary Jane Watson have a right to know if their lives are in danger, and Norman Osborn was obligated to warn them because failing to do so could be considered complicit silence.

However, Osborn didn't yet know with 100% certainty that Parker intended to murder MJ's plot device boyfriend, so by Catholic doctrine...

Inflicting Unjust Injury (2477-2479)
Respect for the reputation of others forbids every attitude or word that inflicts an unjust injury. These include:

Rash judgment: which assumes as true the moral fault of another without sufficient evidence
Detraction, which discloses a person's faults to another without any valid reason
Calumny (slander): which harms another's reputation by saying what is not true
A disciple avoids rash judgment by being careful in interpreting the deeds of another. "Every good Christian must be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to a person's words than to condemn them" (St. Ignatius of Loyola).

If Norman is incorrect, his conjectured disclosure that Peter is determined to kill Paul would be seen as an unjust assassination of Spider-Man's good name. I would presume that, under normal circumstances, Watson would be entitled to the complete facts of Parker's situation. On the other hand, it may be alleged that she relinquished her right to that personal information throughout the length of the series in-universe. To evaluate if Osborn's decision to lie to her constituted a smaller sin than detraction or even if he had sinned at all under Catholic teaching, one must look at what the character would have had to presume about Watson's connection with Parker to support his choice.

If Norman Osborn is justified, Catholic belief would contend that he cannot be defended on the basis that the end justifies the means. He must be defended solely on the principle of mental reservation, his lack of complete certainty of "The Spider who Gobbles'" actions, and whether he determined Paul Rabin and Wells' take on Mary Jane Watson did not have the right to know that Peter Parker was infected with the sins of the Green Goblin. If Norman Osborn is to be condemned, then it must be because mental reservation was practiced, yet the character had no right to deceive in the given context.

Obviously, none of this was written by a Catholic, as

There is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin."

, but mental reservation, lying, and the Catholic Church make for a fun thought experiment.

[Xenon]

Idk man. While I'm inclined to agree with you, I do feel the fact that it isn't explicitly stated in any of the issues with them together and only in the letters page gives them an easy way to walk it back. Maybe it is Zeb's intent to have them romantically involved and as long as Nick Lowe is editor and stands by it, it might be a tough pill we need to swallow that they are romantically involved but the fact they keep preventing them from explicitly showing any forms of intimacy (not so much as a kiss or holding hands, going on a date, etc.) reads to me like they wanted to create enough wiggle room to give themselves an out afterwards (in the form of a possible retcon where MJ states she was with him to raise kids or support him since he isn't supposed to exist in this world, etc.). The fact that ppl here are divided based on how its been portrayed gives me confidence in that assumption. Idk if its just because fear of fan backlash but maybe they just wanted to be able to have their cake and eat it too by giving themselves an easy out if they needed to when putting them back together. The big question is how many more years do we need to wait b/c I don't want to wait another decade to see them back together.

Just as an aside, thinking about the fact they could be romantically involved I think that was first implied 11 months into them being stranded together not even after 4 years. This is just sad news all around.

The double edged sword of comics is that anything is possible. You can write a terrible out of character destructive story about MJ abandoning everything she ever wanted because she lost faith in the man she had absolute faith in, and you can retcon it any number of ways later on. IT took them seventeen years but they undid Sins Past, after all. So yes, there's always a way to undo their garbage story. But that's a future thing . That's what we can hope for one day, like how we've been hoping for sixteen years they'd stop wasting our time and undo One More Day. Heaven willing this will get retconned at the start of the next run. Or maybe I'm wrong about their intentions and they'll retcon it by the end of this one. Who knows. But I'm talking about right now, and I've said it before, the only reason we even question them being a couple is because it's completely out of character for her to be with him. But I think by now it should be clear that they don't care about quality or staying in character. So that's no defense. This is the story they are telling. It's a terrible one that doesn't deserve to be printed. But it's the story they're telling, and there's literally no sign they're reversing course. I wouldn't be surprised if in the next couple issues MJ tells Peter she's engaged to Paul. Honestly at this point I expect it (not sure they'll actually go through with it but I'd believe anything today). We keep hoping that they'll do the right thing,, but if they were going to do the right thing none of this would have made it to print. Maybe they will see reason by the end. Maybe Buckley or Feige will intervene. Maybe they'll all get replaced before the end and the new boss will require changes. Lots of things are possible in the future. But i think we have to confront the thing they are doing that is wrong and expressly say why it is wrong so that it becomes the common belief. And I think we have to recognize that there's no guarantee these people won't do any terrible thing you can think of. They do not care about quality. They aren't accountable for sales. I do not know what motivates them but expecting them to do right just feels like a recipe for disappointment.

Anbd yes, Well's version of MJ gave up on the love of her life, the genius never say die supervillain she's trusted with her life countless times, less than a year after being stranded with some random dude. Just slanderous to the character. Completely disrespectful, no matter what Cebulski promised.

[Mercwmouth12]

The double edged sword of comics is that anything is possible. You can write a terrible out of character destructive story about MJ abandoning everything she ever wanted because she lost faith in the man she had absolute faith in, and you can retcon it any number of ways later on. IT took them seventeen years but they undid Sins Past, after all. So yes, there's always a way to undo their garbage story. But that's a future thing . That's what we can hope for one day, like how we've been hoping for sixteen years they'd stop wasting our time and undo One More Day. Heaven willing this will get retconned at the start of the next run. Or maybe I'm wrong about their intentions and they'll retcon it by the end of this one. Who knows. But I'm talking about right now, and I've said it before, the only reason we even question them being a couple is because it's completely out of character for her to be with him. But I think by now it should be clear that they don't care about quality or staying in character. So that's no defense. This is the story they are telling. It's a terrible one that doesn't deserve to be printed. But it's the story they're telling, and there's literally no sign they're reversing course. I wouldn't be surprised if in the next couple issues MJ tells Peter she's engaged to Paul. Honestly at this point I expect it (not sure they'll actually go through with it but I'd believe anything today). We keep hoping that they'll do the right thing,, but if they were going to do the right thing none of this would have made it to print. Maybe they will see reason by the end. Maybe Buckley or Feige will intervene. Maybe they'll all get replaced before the end and the new boss will require changes. Lots of things are possible in the future. But i think we have to confront the thing they are doing that is wrong and expressly say why it is wrong so that it becomes the common belief. And I think we have to recognize that there's no guarantee these people won't do any terrible thing you can think of. They do not care about quality. They aren't accountable for sales. I do not know what motivates them but expecting them to do right just feels like a recipe for disappointment.

Anbd yes, Well's version of MJ gave up on the love of her life, the genius never say die supervillain she's trusted with her life countless times, less than a year after being stranded with some random dude. Just slanderous to the character. Completely disrespectful, no matter what Cebulski promised.

You're overreacting to nothing dude

[Xenon]

According to traditional moral theological teaching, committing a falsehood is always wrong and never acceptable. However, there are other situations in which keeping a secret is necessary, and there are times when lying or saying something false is the easiest way to honor that responsibility. Authors from both the ancient and modern eras have openly acknowledged this position. Many embrace the idea of the "lie of necessity" and say that, wherever there is a dispute, justice should take precedence above veracity. Given that Norman Osborn is a Catholic and that sins are a theological and spiritual concept, it would seem practical to assess his action in accordance with his religion's moral teachings. The idea of consequentialism, which holds that a decision's morality should be determined entirely by its repercussions, has, however, also been fiercely criticized and is recognized as heresy by Catholic doctrine. Still, the theory of mental reservation has been employed by the Catholic Church as a solution to meet the requirements of both justice and honesty.

In general, unless there is a compelling argument to the contrary, truth requires that all parties speak with integrity and openness in an accessible manner that whoever is being addressed can understand in Catholic doctrine. Making intellectual accommodations without explanation or when a person has an inherent right to the whole truth is sinful.

Lying is by definition a crime against the truth, but in Catholic belief, justice would also determine whether lying is a mortal sin, a venial sin, or whether no sin was committed at all. If someone has no right to know the whole truth, Catholic doctrine would nonetheless apply to them. Since the deception's character is assessed based on another's right to know rather than its consequences, Catholic doctrine would hold that this situation would not count as consequentialism.

Objectively speaking, Paul Rabin and Mary Jane Watson have a right to know if their lives are in danger, and Norman Osborn was obligated to warn them because failing to do so could be considered complicit silence.

However, Osborn didn't yet know with 100% certainty that Parker intended to murder MJ's plot device boyfriend, so by Catholic doctrine...


If Norman is incorrect, his conjectured disclosure that Peter is determined to kill Paul would be seen as an unjust assassination of Spider-Man's good name. I would presume that, under normal circumstances, Watson would be entitled to the complete facts of Parker's situation. On the other hand, it may be alleged that she relinquished her right to that personal information throughout the length of the series in-universe. To evaluate if Osborn's decision to lie to her constituted a smaller sin than detraction or even if he had sinned at all under Catholic teaching, one must look at what the character would have had to presume about Watson's connection with Parker to support his choice.

If Norman Osborn is justified, Catholic belief would contend that he cannot be defended on the basis that the end justifies the means. He must be defended solely on the principle of mental reservation, his lack of complete certainty of "The Spider who Gobbles'" actions, and whether he determined Paul Rabin and Wells' take on Mary Jane Watson did not have the right to know that Peter Parker was infected with the sins of the Green Goblin. If Norman Osborn is to be condemned, then it must be because mental reservation was practiced, yet the character had no right to deceive in the given context.

Obviously, none of this was written by a Catholic, as
, but mental reservation, lying, and the Catholic Church make for a fun thought experiment.

I think it's worth pointing out here, and I'm not sure how i feel about this one way or another, that Peter has explicitly chosen not to kill anyone here. He's definitely put people in situaitons where they COULD die, but for all his talk he hasn't actually killed anyone. The worst thing he's done is the spoilers:

tunnel bombing.

end of spoilers

So it's interesting in the sense that I'm not sure he does have any killing intent deep down. But then again, as someone else mentioned, if I can stop just letting rage fuel me for a second, this entire concept has been fumbled. Norman's sins are different from teh Goblin formula, yet spoilers:

we see the Goblin talking to Peter

end of spoilers. So who is actually diriving is up in the air. Again I jut feel like this whole arc has been wasted. The whole Norman good thing and the Peter getting his sins thing.. THere's no introspection or real character moments. You can tell Well's has screenwriting experience because the book is structured in that way, with huge black pages that just have a few panels in an attempt to be cinematic. But a comic book is not a movie or a TV show and it does the story a disservice.

[Xenon]

You're overreacting to nothing dude

On the one hand I admire your unshakable faith, I truly believe you wouldn't have given up if you were in MJ's place, lol.

On the other hand, i'm not sure what they have to do for you to accept that's what they're doing now, even if it's not what it'll be by the end. I almost hope you're right, except that I want a fake symbology clone so MJ isn't subject to any of this. But I certainly hope I'm wrong about what's coming and you're closer, but I wonder what the reaction will be.

[Mercwmouth12]

On the one hand I admire your unshakable faith, I truly believe you wouldn't have given up if you were in MJ's place, lol.

On the other hand, i'm not sure what they have to do for you to accept that's what they're doing now, even if it's not what it'll be by the end. I almost hope you're right, except that I want a fake symbology clone so MJ isn't subject to any of this. But I certainly hope I'm wrong about what's coming and you're closer, but I wonder what the reaction will be.

This run has done worse to all its characters involved except for Norman