Please give me your thoughts on the Clone Saga

[bob.schoonover]

Yeah, I think the big difference between the Clone Saga and Death of Superman or Knightfall is that the Clone Saga was never trying to say anything. Death of Superman and Knightfall both were grappling with concepts like the Image-ification of superheroes and the popularity of characters like the Punisher. What does a younger Superman look like? What about one that's tougher on villains? What if Batman was (more) psychotic? The Clone Saga was primarily trying to do something: dump the marriage. That's a shorter story, and I wonder if it'd have been successful if they'd just shunted Peter off around ASM 403 or so like the original plan (I've read the Life of Reilly multiple times and don't see how they could have actually intended to end the saga earlier than after Peter's trial). To be clear, two things are true: (1) there's no guarantee a tighter story that was more ambiguous about who was the clone and who wasn't that just happily sent Peter into retirement would have been well received and (2) it's fair to say that any resolution that put Ben in the suit and left Peter retired might have been undone and made infinitely more complicated later by another editorial regime (e.g. in the place of the Chapter One reboot-let).

The thing that's most interesting to me about the Clone Saga, though, is that even as the wheels were clearly just flinging themselves off the wagon, the creative teams were still putting out quality ideas here and there (even if bringing back Norman at the end is the damn-near apotheosis of bad and lazy story resolutions). A number of the characters and ideas introduced (even from the dumbest stories) still live on today: Mayday got a 100 issue series, Kaine and Ben both had their own two yearlong monthlies, Lady Ock was in Spencer's run, Phil Urich as a goblin was in Slott's, Spidercide has appeared in two different minis(!), Stunner was referenced in the first iteration of Superior, etc., etc.

[Username taken]

I’ve got a bit of a “lateral take” on it - that it’s sort of an evil twin to DC big events for Batman and Superman, the Knightfall Saga and Death of Superman Saga.

All three were triggered by editorial ideas, had a plethora of good writers take a shot at its events, introduced “family” members who could do spin-off books of their own, and had marketing embrace the story…

…But The Clone Saga was driven by bad editorial ideas, overworked and eventually overwhelmed it’s writers, sort of hated the idea of spin-off “family” books as any kind of long term strategy, and allowed marketing to take over at the worst moments.

You could even sort of look at Knightfall versus the Clone Saga as being a case study in “conservative, conventional superhero writing” being smartly defended and reconstructed on one hand and being twisted into a toxic cancer for the other: Denny O’Neil and co. pretty cleanly and effectively eviscerated the 90’s Anti-Hero and proved that “super hero families” were a great idea, while Bob Harras and co. showed how much havoc a fanatical obsession with outdated formula could wreak on a successful story.

The bolded is very important.

Knightfall ended with an unstable crusader as Batman and the entire story through to KnightsEnd was to show much the world needed Bruce Wayne as Batman. It was a thorough rejection of the 90s "dark and gritty era".

The Clone Saga basically did the opposite. The status quo was basically being torn up and thrown away for a sales boost that ultimately faded.

[Mister Mets]

Yeah, I think the big difference between the Clone Saga and Death of Superman or Knightfall is that the Clone Saga was never trying to say anything. Death of Superman and Knightfall both were grappling with concepts like the Image-ification of superheroes and the popularity of characters like the Punisher. What does a younger Superman look like? What about one that's tougher on villains? What if Batman was (more) psychotic? The Clone Saga was primarily trying to do something: dump the marriage. That's a shorter story, and I wonder if it'd have been successful if they'd just shunted Peter off around ASM 403 or so like the original plan (I've read the Life of Reilly multiple times and don't see how they could have actually intended to end the saga earlier than after Peter's trial). To be clear, two things are true: (1) there's no guarantee a tighter story that was more ambiguous about who was the clone and who wasn't that just happily sent Peter into retirement would have been well received and (2) it's fair to say that any resolution that put Ben in the suit and left Peter retired might have been undone and made infinitely more complicated later by another editorial regime (e.g. in the place of the Chapter One reboot-let).

The thing that's most interesting to me about the Clone Saga, though, is that even as the wheels were clearly just flinging themselves off the wagon, the creative teams were still putting out quality ideas here and there (even if bringing back Norman at the end is the damn-near apotheosis of bad and lazy story resolutions). A number of the characters and ideas introduced (even from the dumbest stories) still live on today: Mayday got a 100 issue series, Kaine and Ben both had their own two yearlong monthlies, Lady Ock was in Spencer's run, Phil Urich as a goblin was in Slott's, Spidercide has appeared in two different minis(!), Stunner was referenced in the first iteration of Superior, etc., etc.

I disagree with the idea that the clone saga was never trying to say anything. There were some interesting questions about identity, which writers like J.M. DeMatteis and Dan Jurgens took seriously.

The problem was with the execution. There were also mandates from higher-ups that compromised the series, like last-minute changes which meant filler projects and a lot of spinning wheels.

I wonder if it was too ambitious for its time, given the difficulties in communicating for so many writers and artists if they're telling one big story with a limited cushion before publication.

[bob.schoonover]

I disagree with the idea that the clone saga was never trying to say anything. There were some interesting questions about identity, which writers like J.M. DeMatteis and Dan Jurgens took seriously.

The problem was with the execution. There were also mandates from higher-ups that compromised the series, like last-minute changes which meant filler projects and a lot of spinning wheels.

I wonder if it was too ambitious for its time, given the difficulties in communicating for so many writers and artists if they're telling one big story with a limited cushion before publication.

Sorry, I was perhaps unclear. What I meant to say is that the reason O'Neil wanted to tell Knightfall (if I'm remembering the interview I read in Wizard 30 years ago) was to interrogate the new era of superhero comics and where Batman fit into it. That was the mission statement of the story. The mission statement of the Clone Saga (at least at the outset) was to end the marriage (or, if you prefer, flip-flop the identity of Spider-man). I completely agree that there are very good arcs with very thoughtful storytelling in the Clone Saga, and I think the creative teams definitely punched above their weight as the story bogged down. But I think you can read the whole saga (with or without The Life of Reilly) and see that there was never a guide star that everyone was following and using to help guide the story forwards.

[Ubauba01]

I disagree with the idea that the clone saga was never trying to say anything. There were some interesting questions about identity, which writers like J.M. DeMatteis and Dan Jurgens took seriously.

Yeah, there is an underlying theme of identity and what it means to be human etc.

[Mister Mets]

Sorry, I was perhaps unclear. What I meant to say is that the reason O'Neil wanted to tell Knightfall (if I'm remembering the interview I read in Wizard 30 years ago) was to interrogate the new era of superhero comics and where Batman fit into it. That was the mission statement of the story. The mission statement of the Clone Saga (at least at the outset) was to end the marriage (or, if you prefer, flip-flop the identity of Spider-man). I completely agree that there are very good arcs with very thoughtful storytelling in the Clone Saga, and I think the creative teams definitely punched above their weight as the story bogged down. But I think you can read the whole saga (with or without The Life of Reilly) and see that there was never a guide star that everyone was following and using to help guide the story forwards.

While there was a point when the Clone Saga was supposed to end with Ben Reilly as the lead, that wasn't the genesis. It started as a story. From the Life of Reilly...

Andrew: Who proposed bringing the clone back and how long did it take to agree on this? Any dissenting opinion?

Mark: Now the truth can be told: the first person to bring up the idea of bringing back the Spider-clone, and having him be revealed as the original, was former WEB OF SPIDER-MAN writer Terry Kavanagh. The subject was broached at my first Spider-Man story conference back in '93. I was the new assistant editor, and we'd just finished the somewhat unsatisfying "Return of the Parents" storyline, and the marching orders we were given by upper management was to come up with something similar in scope to DC's "Death of Superman" storyline, which at the time was breaking sales records left and right. Thus, no outrageous idea was out of bounds. Terry was cajoled into blurting out his clone idea, which first met with groans and indifference, until someone (to my recollection, J.M. DeMatteis) suddenly realized the radical possibilities of such a storyline. Soon, all of our freelance writers were getting excited about the idea, while the editorial staff (myself, Danny Fingeroth, Eric Fein, Mark Powers) were still not quite convinced. The whole idea was almost instantly shot down the next day by Tom DeFalco, then Editor in Chief, until he too started getting excited about it from a writer's standpoint. That's how Tom ended up writing SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN, and Tom is also the man who sealed the deal on the Clone Saga. The whole storyline was planned to end in AMAZING #400. As we all know, it didn't quite work out that way.

Andrew: Were there any creators who absolutely loved the idea or was it just another assignment?

Mark: All the creators were into the idea initially, especially the writers. Later on, after the storyline had outlived its original planned length, it was different. But that's a story for future chapters...

Andrew: Who developed the Scarlet Spider alter ego/costume?

Mark: It's funny - the Scarlet Spider name was initially meant to be a running joke. I forget who actually came up with the name, but the point was that Ben Reilly, a serious guy who had no use for super-heroics, was tagged with this moniker by Daily Bugle reporter Ken Ellis, and he HATED it. Every time he saw his name in the Daily Bugle as the Scarlet Spider, he'd cringe. We certainly never thought the name would catch on, or that we'd need a logo for it, or anything like that! The costume (the one out of dozens that we ended up going with) was designed by Tom Lyle, who was then SPIDER-MAN penciler. The "Ben Reilly" alias came out of an editorial meeting. I'm not sure who's directly to credit.

Andrew: Was the story intended to last as long as it did?

Mark: Emphatically, no. The whole arc was supposed to end in AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #400, and leave "Ben Reilly" as the one and only "original Peter Parker" and forge a new beginning. Ironically, the whole storyline, which was supposed to simplify Spider-Man's mythos and ultimately bring him "back to basics" ended up complicating everything beyond what anyone imagined!

The problem wasn't the lack of a guide star, as much as the guide star kept changing.

First the clone saga is supposed to end with ASM 400. Then it keeps getting longer.

Then they want two issue mini-series for Scarlet Spider after he already became the new Spider-Man.

Then it was supposed to end with Blood Brothers, but higher-ups thought it would take away from Heroes Reborn.

With 25+ years of hindsight, the main way to make it work would be to provide writers and artists more time to complete the comics, so they don't have to make last minute changes and transitions can be smoother.

The Beyond run right after Nick Spencer's run shows that it could work. It's much easier for teams to communicate now, but with a small initial investment (at a time when comics companies were rolling in money) they could have given writers and artists the necessary head start to make a weekly series work. And given how often the clone saga had crossovers, they needed something like that.

[boots]

it was mess

but what a beautiful mess

[JT221]

I loved the Clone Saga. I thought then, and still think, having Ben Reilly revealed as the original Peter Parker was the most "Parker luck" thing that ever could happen to the character. It was a fantastic way to reset a character who had been written into a dark corner. They got to have a single Spider-Man again (which seems important to a lot of the creatives.) It opened up some fascinating possibilities about nature vs. nurture...about just how important are our life experiences as opposed to our genetics.

I still look at its "resolution" as a massive missed opportunity.

[Huntsman Spider]

I loved the Clone Saga. I thought then, and still think, having Ben Reilly revealed as the original Peter Parker was the most "Parker luck" thing that ever could happen to the character. It was a fantastic way to reset a character who had been written into a dark corner. They got to have a single Spider-Man again (which seems important to a lot of the creatives.) It opened up some fascinating possibilities about nature vs. nurture...about just how important are our life experiences as opposed to our genetics.

I still look at its "resolution" as a massive missed opportunity.

Indeed, that was probably the best part, philosophically speaking, of the Clone Saga.

[godisawesome]

I wonder if maybe the “Who’s the real Peter, and who’s the clone?” was maybe an example of talented writers accidentally moving a plot point too close to editorial’s meta-narrative desire, and thus helped trigger the backlash.

Ambiguity about who’s the clone and who isn’t still allowed both Peter and Ben to be seen as “real Spider-Men” regardless of who went on what adventure after the first Clone Saga.

Attaching a “Who’s a real boy and who’s not” aspect to the story, even as an organic, character-driven existential query, comes close to asking *and answering* “Who’s the real Spider-Man? …because the other one isn’t Spider-Man.”

Again, it’s a smart question for humans to ponder and worry about, but it also errs close to pointing out how editorial and management saw Spider-Man as assets rather than characters, and sort of highlighted how editorial was at least somewhat willing to reject massively popular adventures and events out of hand.

It might have made fans think something editorial didn’t want - “They want to get rid of MY Spider-Man!” - even just subconsciously.

It might even resemble how some of the writing on the Flash franchise during the New 52 and Rebirth at DC managed to have extra aggravation to Wally West fans, in contrast to how much fewer “trigger” Kyle Rayner fans got during Green Lantern Rebirth. Like keeping your cards close to your chest versus laying them out.

[exile001]

I absolutely love it. These are the comics that got me reading Spider-Man.

Is it a complete mess? Yes! Is it insanely fun? Yes!

[HypnoHustler]

I absolutely love it. These are the comics that got me reading Spider-Man.

Is it a complete mess? Yes! Is it insanely fun? Yes!

My thoughts exactly! There’s many Ben Reilly fans. There’s many Kaine fans.

But the real based fans are those who can admit to loving the Clone Saga itself!

[exile001]

But the real based fans are those who can admit to loving the Clone Saga itself!

During a hiatus from reading Spidey (shortly into BND through Big Time) I did seek out one Spidey story. I read the Raptor arc because a mate told me Kaine was in it. I was delighted to get a little more Ben in the flashbacks. I don't really rate the arc at all, but I was really happy to see my clone boys again.

[Triniking1234]

I wonder if maybe the “Who’s the real Peter, and who’s the clone?” was maybe an example of talented writers accidentally moving a plot point too close to editorial’s meta-narrative desire, and thus helped trigger the backlash.

Ambiguity about who’s the clone and who isn’t still allowed both Peter and Ben to be seen as “real Spider-Men” regardless of who went on what adventure after the first Clone Saga.

Attaching a “Who’s a real boy and who’s not” aspect to the story, even as an organic, character-driven existential query, comes close to asking *and answering* “Who’s the real Spider-Man? …because the other one isn’t Spider-Man.”

Again, it’s a smart question for humans to ponder and worry about, but it also errs close to pointing out how editorial and management saw Spider-Man as assets rather than characters, and sort of highlighted how editorial was at least somewhat willing to reject massively popular adventures and events out of hand.

It might have made fans think something editorial didn’t want - “They want to get rid of MY Spider-Man!” - even just subconsciously.

It might even resemble how some of the writing on the Flash franchise during the New 52 and Rebirth at DC managed to have extra aggravation to Wally West fans, in contrast to how much fewer “trigger” Kyle Rayner fans got during Green Lantern Rebirth. Like keeping your cards close to your chest versus laying them out.

If they needed a pitch like Death of Superman and Knightfall then telling readers that the Spider-Man they've been reading for the last 2 decades (at the time) wasn't the one that Stan Lee created in the 60s is a good pitch.

[HypnoHustler]

During a hiatus from reading Spidey (shortly into BND through Big Time) I did seek out one Spidey story. I read the Raptor arc because a mate told me Kaine was in it. I was delighted to get a little more Ben in the flashbacks. I don't really rate the arc at all, but I was really happy to see my clone boys again.

Yeah. That arc wasn’t bad despite being steeped in early BND continuity. Well, at least Kaine and Ben (in flashback) were depicted pretty faithfully. I remember my biggest issue with it was the art. In the flashbacks it’s very difficult to tell Ben and Damon Ryder (Raptor) apart.