Amazing Spider-Man #8 preview, it's the return of the MC-2 Universe Spider-Girl.....

[Pav]

And there's is no meaning here.

Subjective. I see meaning.

It's killing off characters that Slott/Marvel deemed expendable to make the villain look badass, nothing more.

So you'd like to have a villain that doesn't do what villains do? Instead of the Morluns eating Spider-Totems, perhaps you'd rather they eat breakfast cereals and enjoy a story where Spidey has to save the Cinnamon Toast Crunch factory.

And it's no interesting in the slightest, just groan-inducing.

I find Spider-Verse interesting. The only groans I make stem from some of the conversations we have here.

The thing is that saying that a story is a "success" simply because we felt something simplifies all potential reactions. By this logic, it doesn't matter what we felt, because every possible emotion can be twisted to make the writer look like what they told was a good story.

But it's true to an extent, whether you like it or not. A story that makes you upset is more successful than a story that makes you feel nothing, because the whole goal of writing is to make the reader react to the text. Yes, I am simplifying, but that's the point: at a basic level, any text that produces an emotional reaction succeeds on some level.

For example, say a work is trying to make some commentary about an idea, such as women, but instead, we find the story to be sexist. Because the story tried to say something, or at least tell a certain story, but the audience feels that the intention was not conveyed properly, or was outright insulting, then the anger we feel is a direct result of the writer having failed with their story.

Did the writer fail? S/he produced a story that made people emotional; the fact that the intent of the writer and the interpretation of the text by the reader do not match is not as important as you might think. A reader is generally never fully aware of the intent of the author - EDIT: authors aren't conscious of all the choices they make either! - and the reader can only try to understand it as best as s/he can through careful analysis. Many of the great texts were ignored by the public upon their publication and didn't become "important" until years and years and years later; aspects of the text that might have seemed liberally risqué when it was written might be considered mundane or even outdated and offensive today; yet the text might still have important things to say, even if the author didn't purposefully mean to say those things. That's why the written word is so important: the various interpretations that can be gleaned through careful analysis present a wondrous variety of complex and even contradictory ideas, all valuable in their own way.

Mayday might die. If she doesn't, then I will appreciate that she didn't die in the story. However, if she does die, then the criticism becomes that she was brought in simply to die.

But you're neglecting to consider the impact of her potential death. It isn't about her being brought in to die; it's about her being brought into the story to provide ... whatever it is Slott thinks her death might provide: emotion from readers, emotion from the other characters ... there might be any number of things that Slott thinks her death might provide to the story. Obviously some fans will view this potential death differently; some might analyze it and find it lacking; others might analyze it and find it powerful. But without a doubt, I think it's short-sighted to say "she was brought in simply to die." That's just not how a writer's mind works. There are layers of meaning.

it just means that you're taking everything that the character has stood for, and simply sweeping it under the rug with their deaths.

When you die, will everything you stood for no longer matter to anyone?

They had already reached the end of their story. What have you added by killing them off?

There's obviously more story to tell. Her story isn't finished.

And based on what I know about human existence, death is the end of every story. Luckily for the fans who are fretting over the deaths and potential deaths in Spider-Verse, comic books don't have the same standards regarding death. Even if Mayday dies, her story still might not be over. She could fight her way out of the afterlife, for example.

What people are complaining about is how the deaths don't do anything with what made the characters meaningful.

But that is merely a subjective observation, and one that might not be fully rational when carefully considering the history of the character and the death scenes. What if Mayday dies, but her death truly shows us what she stood for? What if she is never more of a hero than in her death scene? It might be written fantastically, but too many fans aren't willing to be patient and actually read the story before making up their minds about it.

the comments at NYCC suggest that Mayday is being brought back simply to take away her happy ending, with her parents being reduced to deaths that will weigh on her mind.

I'd be interested in reading this story. Tom Defalco did such a good job building up her world; other readers might not like it, but I think a story where she watches it all crumble and has to pick up the pieces sounds compelling, as it's such a juxtaposition from her past stories.

MC2 Peter and MJ aren't dying for their sake of their own stories, but for someone else's.

This is called being a supporting character. All of literature has characters who die not for the sake of their own stories, but for someone else's.

-Pav, who has found no better play/movie that deals with this subject than "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead"...

[cyberhubbs]

There's no greater sacrifice than a parent giving their life in the defense of their children.

Well, maybe having to give up your canine companion because of someone's allergies. But I'd have to consider that scenario long and hard.

[Cameron Samurai]

I'd be interested in reading this story. Tom Defalco did such a good job building up her world; other readers might not like it, but I think a story where she watches it all crumble and has to pick up the pieces sounds compelling, as it's such a juxtaposition from her past stories.

But that is not what her character or what her series was remotely meant to be about. Her series subverted expectations by conveying a positive and less bleak message about the Spider-Man universe and concept. This just drags it down and makes it just the same as everything else. That's boring. Are you going to now suggest FEELING BORED/TIRED is a sign of succesful storytelling?

You can argue it could make a compelling story (it's Slott, so it won't be)...but it is'nt Spider-Girl, and from what I've gathered, MOST of her fans are'nt the slightest bit interested in reading it

[Pav]

But that is not what her character or what her series was remotely meant to be about.

And that series has been gone for how long now? Maybe you should continuously read those back issues over and over and over again, if that's all you want.

Her series subverted expectations by conveying a positive and less bleak message about the Spider-Man universe and concept. This just drags it down and makes it just the same as everything else. That's boring. Are you going to now suggest FEELING BORED/TIRED is a sign of succesful storytelling?

What better way to convey a positive, not-bleak message than to take away everything from Mayday and watch her succeed in building her life back up again and not succumbing to despair?

If you're bored, then you're boring.

You can argue it could make a compelling story (it's Slott, so it won't be)...but it is'nt Spider-Girl, and from what I've gathered, MOST of her fans are'nt the slightest bit interested in reading it

I didn't realize you had conducted a nationwide poll. Did you make sure to provide yourself a statistically significant segment of the Spider-Girl fan population?

-Pav, who notices you have some bias on your shirt...

[cyberhubbs]

Peter lost a leg and grew a goatee. You can't get more bleak than that.

And to be fair, the Spider-Girl boards probably are the entire fan population.

[MASTER-OF-SUPRISE]

Pav I have to be honest. You seem to be outright dismissing any of the criticisms. IMO these deaths are over-glorified fridgings. If you're unfamiliar with the term It's a term derived from the trope women in Refrigerators. That was used by Gail Simone about female character who go through a bunch of crap not for their own stories but for the sake of their male counterparts. It of course changed too mean shock deaths in general. That's why people aren't exactly thrilled about an event that promises death.

[Pav]

I've been enjoying the debate we've been having; I appreciate the exchange of ideas.

We're not going to agree, but I understand the perspectives that are different than mine, and I hope those who have disagreed with me overall have been able to find something to connect with.

-Pav, who is flawed in that he isn't good at agreeing to disagree...

[boots]

some responses to what i’ve read

saying that x happened in a story because a writer wants/loves/hates y is an unprovable statement and really nothing more than projecting personal prejudices on to a person that you don’t know. it’s a way of invalidating the writer’s approach by degrading their motivations.

any story that provokes emotion is perhaps successful in a broad sense of “art”, but if a story is turning off the readership then it is not successful in the commercial terms that marvel is aiming for.

death of treasured characters is not lazy or unoriginal, i’ll put money that everyone here has a favourite story (film, novel, comic) where a likeable character dies and it enhances the storyline. it’s a device and it’s a damn powerful one. can it be overused? yes. can an audience experience burn-out from it? of course.

from a pure story telling perspective, all characters should be expendable if the story requires it and is enriched from the process. uncle ben and gwen stacey are great examples of this on a personal level. stories about mass slaughter and genocide (“hotel rwanda”) work well to create a sense of horror and devastation on a huge scale. even ben reilly’s poorly written death made sense from a publishing point of view. marvel zombies seemed like kill-porn (but that was the point). where will spider verse sit on the scale? too early to say.

fan reactions shouldn’t be dismissed, especially in the comic book medium, where the fans are the lifeblood of the industry. comic books will never be truly mainstream, and i doubt they can survive a switch to a mainstream sales methodology. superhero comic fans, more than most other audiences, follow a character not a writer or an artist. they will stick with a character through several creative team changes because of the illusion that they are reading about the same fictional person that they love. asking a fan (and i make a distinction between a fan and a reader) to become less attached and more “reasonable” is asking them to no longer be a fan.

the above is why george rr martin must never be allowed near the marvel universe. ha.

at the same time, i’m sceptical about the reaction to the death of 1983 cartoon spidey. how attached can people be to a character that has not had any new material for 30 years? when was the last time anyone seriously spared one thought on this version? it’s more an objection to the idea of his death, which some people see as a symptom of a bigger overall problem than his actual loss. which means it's not being examined in isolation and on its on merit.

for my money, i’m coming at this from as close to an unbiased point of view as you’re likely to get, and i think spider verse is fine so far. none of it seems like kill-porn to me yet. it has the potential to deliver big and i’m holding out to see whether or not it does.

[Sardorim]

Peter lost a leg and grew a goatee. You can't get more bleak than that.

And to be fair, the Spider-Girl boards probably are the entire fan population.

Eh, I'm a Mayday fan but I don't go to any Spider-Girl boards....