JMS advice?

[Metamorphosis]

I've finally read the whole run, all out of order and over a number of years.

I found it pretty good to interesting overall. JMS generally has, for lack of a better adjective, an adult style of writing that I find appealing. It's worth reading.

I think the run gets bogged down early on with some of the mystical stuff with Strange and Loki, though.

[Uncanny Mutie]

JMS generally has, for lack of a better adjective, an adult style of writing that I find appealing. It's worth reading.

This is true, but is also part of the reason I think JMS was just a bad fit for Spidey; his style was so "adult" and mature that it kinda made Peter boring and a lot of the stories stale, IMO. I think that's why you had a lot of people complaining that Spider-Man felt "too old" during his run, and for a character that's typically portrayed as young, witty, and light hearted, I think I'd tend to agree.

[Kevinroc]

JMS wanted to erase the marriage. he was just upset because they didn't erase it the way he wanted them to. He wanted them to erase MORE stuff along with it.

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/12/...-steve-wacker/

Considering the rather childish spat he got into with former editor Stephen Wacker a few years ago, I don't think that's exactly true. But this is the relevant part to that, straight from the horse's mouth.

I have always made it very clear that when I came aboard ASM I brought Peter and MJ back together because I liked writing them as a married couple. I made equally clear that the decision to unmarry them and, in the same brushstroke, eliminate virtually every story I’d written during those eight years was an editorial mandate, not my choice. I would’ve been happy to continue writing them married until the sun went out. Marvel wanted to unmarry them. That’s your choice, and your right. At no point did I duck out of anything. If you think I did, back it up: what are you referring to?

(That whole thing was a really childish spat, though. Wacker defending his employees does say a lot about why they always speak so highly of him.)

[Alan2099]

Notice how JMS's story always changes after bad fan reaction?

"Oh no. It wasn't MY idea. I didn't want to do that. I only have good ideas. It was somebody else forcing me to."

[Beacon]

Not to mention that Spider-Man continued his long tradition of leaving in a hissy-fit in the middle of a story. He had already done it on Fantastic Four. Then he went on to do it with Thor, Superman, and Wonder Woman.

[Michael P]

Leave when JRJr. does.

[Metamorphosis]

This is true, but is also part of the reason I think JMS was just a bad fit for Spidey; his style was so "adult" and mature that it kinda made Peter boring and a lot of the stories stale, IMO. I think that's why you had a lot of people complaining that Spider-Man felt "too old" during his run, and for a character that's typically portrayed as young, witty, and light hearted, I think I'd tend to agree.

Not sure I agree, he frequently wrote Peter as slightly immature at times, and there were a lot of moments of humor and brevity.

If he seemed too old, it was because JMS was progressing the story and character, which Marvel backed off of directly after his run. His is the last pure Spider-man run that started with Amazing Fantasy #15.

Typically when writers try to portray Peter / Spidey as "young, witty, and light hearted", he comes off like an annoying ass that I don't want to read about anyway.

[Dexy]

Sins Past aside, I loved the JMS run and would recommend giving it a try.

[Kevinroc]

Notice how JMS's story always changes after bad fan reaction?

"Oh no. It wasn't MY idea. I didn't want to do that. I only have good ideas. It was somebody else forcing me to."

I think what some people want are a "Life of Reilly" style series of essays about One More Day and all that behind-the-scenes drama. There's still too much corporate spin and/or accusations about OMD, even after seven years.

[Mister Mets]

No offense, but if you didn't even read the whole run or admittedly any of the parts of the run that sucked, then how can you fairly label it "one of the best Spidey runs"...?

Part of it depends on a criteria for determining artistic success. I call it the brilliance VS perfection argument.

Those who praise brilliance judge something by the heights. Those who praise perfection judge something by the lack of flaws. One person's favorite actor may be the guy who has given the most interesting performances, while another's may be a guy who has rarely given a bad performance. A focus on brilliance may reward prolific talent who has been responsible for a lot of garbage (IE- A John Wayne whose twenty best movies are pretty damn good) while a focus on perfection may punish risk-taking.

I'd argue for brilliance over perfection, under the logic that if something sucks I can avoid it, and it'll be as if it never existed. There is an alternative argument that if a work of art is poor, it makes things tougher for less savvy fans.

In some cases, later stories can retroactively make earlier stories weaker. This would be true if a long-running subplot has a poor ending, as in Bruce Jones's Incredible Hulk. I don't believe that was a problem with JMS's Spider-Man, since his final arc with John Romita Jr tied up loose ends in a satisfying manner, so a reader who isn't interested in the later stories can just avoid it all.