Is liking Slott's work a generational thing?

[Kevinroc]

I think I am taking it more seriously than she did, which is kind of my point. Harry took it seriously, and I think she knew that, and I think she just used him as a result. In the end the decision is still Harry's. no one can decide on your behavior except you.

MJ made it clear that Harry shouldn't have taken it as seriously as he did. She didn't handle it in the nicest way possible, but she was under no obligation to.

MJ saved her "you should dump Gwen and get with me" statements for when they were alone. And that's not even an exaggeration, but an almost verbatim statement from her.

So are you arguing that Gwen was completely unaware that the red haired tag-along to their group was flirting with her boyfriend?

It's a good stinger. It's also literally her last appearance for several years.

Since that came from the same writer who had MJ reject Peter's marriage proposal, I'd argue that he had a bit more depth to the character in mind than what appeared on the surface. It was said, clear as day, that she rejected Peter's proposal because she didn't want to deal with a nasty break-up like what she thought Betty and Ned were going through at the time, and what her parents went through.

It's not a lot of depth. But it's not no depth either. But it's par for the course when the comic relief character (which is how Romita described her in those early days) gets bumped up to a more prominent character.

[MJS]

I think I am taking it more seriously than she did, which is kind of my point. Harry took it seriously, and I think she knew that, and I think she just used him as a result. In the end the decision is still Harry's. no one can decide on your behavior except you.

Harry was overly possessive and on drugs. That's on panel. There's a suggestion he was even abusive, whether emotionally or physically, when Peter says, "You know how Harry feels about you! What's the bit?" and she says, "It's a long story. Wanna hear it?"

If Mary Jane just used him, then why didn't she cater to him? If she's a shallow golddigger, then she threw away her chance by telling Harry, "I'm nobody's girl but my own and that's the way I like it."

Talk to a psychologist and they will tell you young women should break off relationships with men who act overly possessive and are on drugs. Mary Jane did the healthy thing for her. But I guess women should always stay in relationships so as not to hurt the male egos.

MJ saved her "you should dump Gwen and get with me" statements for when they were alone. And that's not even an exaggeration, but an almost verbatim statement from her.

And in ASM 62, when Peter tells her he's not in the mood for her, MJ says, "Well pierce my ears and call me drafty! He really does miss her!" This suggests she finally did clue in and started to pay attention to other people's emotions

That is absolutely the general assumption about beautiful teenage girls who say they want to be actors.

Then the general assumption is sexist at best, misogynist at worst. Luckily it's not the general assumption in my experience.

Of course, then she gets a job as a Go go dancer, not exactly high art, and one could argue that a lot of girls take acting lessons that don't amount to anything. It's not exactly the same as going to college for it.

So people aren't allowed to take jobs to pay the bills in their chosen profession and also to get some professional experience unless the job meets some mythical standard of approval?

Going to a school strictly for performance is in fact what a lot of performers do. I guess a musician who goes to a conservancy instead of college isn't a real musician? A filmmaker who goes to AFI instead of college isn't a real filmmaker? MJ later does attend ESU.

A lot of people study a lot of subjects and their studies don't amount to anything later, even if they go to college. In MJ's case she does later take acting jobs.

The point is that you can't complain about people not saying that stuff about Flash because we're not talking about Flash. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Exactly. We're not talking about Flash so why would we say anything about Flash?

People who are lazy in one area tend to be lazy in other areas, and vice versa. More importantly, this implies that her goals are somehow less important than career goals, which I find to be a foolish implication.

You're implying MJ's career goals are less than Gwen's relationship goals, so...

So by what you're asserting, since we see in the comics Mary Jane applies herself to her career, she would apply herself in other areas, too,

A Ballet dancer is hired because of her great skill in the art of dance. A go go dancer is hired because she looks good in a short dress. Tha'ts the difference. There are reasons for her behavior, certainly, but that doesn't stop it from being her behavior.

Mary Jane treats it like an audition, showing off her dance skills. She takes the job seriously, even if the men who objectify women do not.

Gwen even agrees her dancing was great:

[boots]

It takes talent, craft and the ability to do your job correctly. Falling back on "But it's too personally hard to imagine what a character might be like so I must rely on lazy stereotypes that I can't sustain for long" seems more like professional dishonesty and a clear sign not to hire that writer in my experience. Your experiences may vary.

well, yes, that does sound like professional dishonesty. i'm not arguing in favour of that particular distortion of the point.

tell me more about what you look for when hiring creatives and specifically what causes you to pass or fire them. i imagine that even amongst your shit-hot creatives, there might have been one instance where you forgave weaker points in their work in light of their stronger ones.

If the writer is influenced to portray the character in the least interesting and most stereotypical manner, then that is the #1 sign the writer is a hack and should not be a writer.

it might be one sign, but many great writers have created successful work despite weaknesses.

not to mention that character design is a thing. each element is thought out and chosen for a reason. it's why i have some sympathy for people who don't believe peter parker can (or should) be written as a successful tech millionaire.

i think you place a disproportionate amount of responsibility solely on a writer's shoulders, when s/he is only a systemic element in the creative process.

"Actor" is not a character. However, "Vince" in Entourage is a character. "Ari" is a character. "Johnny Drama" is a character. "E" is a character. "Turtle" is a character. Vince and Johnny Drama were both actors, but had vastly different experiences, approaches, goals and successes because of who they are as characters. Ari and E were both employed on the business negotiation end, but were vastly different. Entourage worked because it was an exploration of four male friends plus a business associate and their bromances with each other. Acting and Hollywood were just the backdrop and setting for the characters' stories.

no, "actor" is not a character but it is an element of the character.

a job usually informs the character as much as any other aspect. actors, writers and directors all know this (it's one of the first things you learn). vince would have been written differently if he were a reporter or a priest or a politician. everything informs the character- there is no such thing as "backdrop" in good writing (unless you're a brechtian playwright).

[MJS]

well, yes, that does sound like professional dishonesty. i don't know why you would imply my experiences would involve that sort of thing? i'm certainly not arguing in favour of it.

You're not arguing in favor of it? Because you wrote: "i’m sure it’s different for every professional, but when we have previously designed characters the profession was carefully considered for what it will say to the audience but also for our ability to write/sustain it over a season. it takes a lot of personal honesty to tackle the latter."

And

"If the chosen career influences the writers to portray the character in the least interesting (and possibly most stereotypical) manner, that can be argued to be a poor reflection on the character conceptually. writing an acting career is generally difficult and lends itself to the worst stereotypes"

it might be one sign, but many great writers have created successful work with weaknesses. alan moore's plotting in "watchmen" left a lot to be desired, but he still crafted a seminal story that changed the industry.

And that applies to writers who fall back on lazy stereotypes and take the least interesting route because they can't be concerned with building an individual, original character how?

mary jane's less than stellar depiction throughout the 80s and 90s wasn't a deal breaker. i ignored her fairly easily, as long as other elements kept me buying the books.

Good on you, I guess?

professional work often comes with constraints. most entertainment is a collaborative effort. struggling with an exec producer, editor, client, studio or publisher brings a range of challenges. even jms, someone who by all reports did a fantastic job with the marriage and mj, lays a lot of blame for the poorer elements of his stories at editorial's feet. or maybe he's just a bad writer.

And that applies to writers who fall back on lazy stereotypes and take the least interesting route because they can't be concerned with building an individual, original character how?

pinpointing why an element of a published work is weak might be the writer's fault. it can come also be heavily influenced by character on the conceptual level. or editorial direction. i think you place a disproportionate amount of responsibility squarely on a writer's shoulders, when s/he is only a systemic element in the creative process.

Again, I quote you:
"If the chosen career influences the writers to portray the character in the least interesting (and possibly most stereotypical) manner, that can be argued to be a poor reflection on the character conceptually. writing an acting career is generally difficult and lends itself to the worst stereotypes."

I'm following your lead. If you'd like to change your opinion and place less responsibility on the writer go ahead.

no, "actor" is not a character but it is an element of the character.

a job can inform the character as much as any other aspect. actors, writers and directors all know this (it's one of the first things you learn). vince would have been written differently if he were a reporter or a priest or a politician. everything informs the character- there is no such thing as "backdrop" in good writing (unless you're a brechtian playwright).

Oxford Dictionaries says this regarding backdrop: "The setting or background for a scene, event, or situation; 'the conference took place against a backdrop of increasing diplomatic activity.'" in other words Entourage takes place against the backdrop of Hollywood. A quick Google search shows many writers refer to backdrop when talking about writing craft

This conversation started because you asserted "If the chosen career influences the writers to portray the character in the least interesting (and possibly most stereotypical) manner, that can be argued to be a poor reflection on the character conceptually. writing an acting career is generally difficult and lends itself to the worst stereotypes."

Of course career choices is one of many aspects that inform characters. But you seem to insisting the career choice influences the writer to such a degree that the writer cannot help but use the worst stereotypes and portray the character in the least interesting manner possible. Because apparently it's just too difficult especially if the character's career was chosen "poorly" to look at all the character's aspects and build a three dimensional, individual and original character.

Going back to Entourage. Johnny Drama and Vince are both actors. Both have the same mother. Both grew up in Queens. Both live in Los Angeles. But they are very different characters. Vince is the baby, attractive, confident, charming, selfish, loyal, optimistic, sexist, laid back but the alpha of the group; don't challenge him. Drama is the older brother, not as attractive, insecure, pushes too hard, mothering, also loyal, also sexist, pessimistic, quick tempered, a beta who tries to pretend he's alpha but can't always hide his soft center. And since Entourage is comedy, the aspects are exaggerated for effect.

Take out Hollywood and the Vince and Drama characters could be two pharmacists, with Vince the charming younger brother who owns the place and chats up the cute female customers while his frustrated older brother does a slow burn behind the counter. Acting is their career and it informs the characters' choices and goals in the series, but it's not the end all of who they are. Remove acting careers and they could still be recognizable.

In my experience, one of the first things you would learn is stereotypes are lazy, hackneyed writing and should be avoided or subverted at all costs.

Again, your experiences may vary.

[boots]

You're not arguing in favor of it? Because you wrote: "i’m sure it’s different for every professional, but when we have previously designed characters the profession was carefully considered for what it will say to the audience but also for our ability to write/sustain it over a season. it takes a lot of personal honesty to tackle the latter."

And

"If the chosen career influences the writers to portray the character in the least interesting (and possibly most stereotypical) manner, that can be argued to be a poor reflection on the character conceptually. writing an acting career is generally difficult and lends itself to the worst stereotypes"




And that applies to writers who fall back on lazy stereotypes and take the least interesting route because they can't be concerned with building an individual, original character how?



Good on you, I guess?



And that applies to writers who fall back on lazy stereotypes and take the least interesting route because they can't be concerned with building an individual, original character how?



Again, I quote you:
"If the chosen career influences the writers to portray the character in the least interesting (and possibly most stereotypical) manner, that can be argued to be a poor reflection on the character conceptually. writing an acting career is generally difficult and lends itself to the worst stereotypes."

I'm following your lead. If you'd like to change your opinion and place less responsibility on the writer go ahead.



Oxford Dictionaries says this regarding backdrop: "The setting or background for a scene, event, or situation; 'the conference took place against a backdrop of increasing diplomatic activity.'" in other words Entourage takes place against the backdrop of Hollywood. A quick Google search shows many writers refer to backdrop when talking about writing craft

This conversation started because you asserted "If the chosen career influences the writers to portray the character in the least interesting (and possibly most stereotypical) manner, that can be argued to be a poor reflection on the character conceptually. writing an acting career is generally difficult and lends itself to the worst stereotypes."

Of course career choices is one of many aspects that inform characters. But you seem to insisting the career choice influences the writer to such a degree that the writer cannot help but use the worst stereotypes and portray the character in the least interesting manner possible. Because apparently it's just too difficult especially if the character's career was chosen "poorly" to look at all the character's aspects and build a three dimensional, individual and original character.

Going back to Entourage. Johnny Drama and Vince are both actors. Both have the same mother. Both grew up in Queens. Both live in Los Angeles. But they are very different characters. Vince is the baby, attractive, confident, charming, selfish, loyal, optimistic, sexist, laid back but the alpha of the group; don't challenge him. Drama is the older brother, not as attractive, insecure, pushes too hard, mothering, also loyal, also sexist, pessimistic, quick tempered, a beta who tries to pretend he's alpha but can't always hide his soft center. And since Entourage is comedy, the aspects are exaggerated for effect.

Take out Hollywood and the Vince and Drama characters could be two pharmacists, with Vince the charming younger brother who owns the place and chats up the cute female customers while his frustrated older brother does a slow burn behind the counter. Acting is their career and it informs the characters' choices and goals in the series, but it's not the end all of who they are. Remove acting careers and they could still be recognizable.

In my experience, one of the first things you would learn is stereotypes are lazy, hackneyed writing and should be avoided or subverted at all costs.

Again, your experiences may vary.

the easy and corect answer to your essay is nope. you've quoted me twice, so now would be a good time to retread the quote for what i was saying (which was really very middle of the road) and not for what seems to have triggered you.

and you keep bringing up your experience, please feel free to expand on it in detail. i'm genuinely interested in other takes on the entertainment industry; looks like it taught us different things. you can pm me if you'd prefer to keep your professional career private.

[MJS]

the easy and corect answer to your essay is nope. you've quoted me twice, so now would be a good time to retread the quote for what i was saying (which was really very middle of the road) and not for what seems to have triggered you.

C'mon, I quoted you more than twice, because you seemed to forget your own words and went off on tangents that had nothing to do with them.

The answer is "nope?" So using the worst stereotypes = good writing; Vince and Drama are the same character because they are actors and that career choice forces the writer to write them in the least interesting way possible; and Oxford Dictionaries are wrong. Glad you cleared that up. I don't think you are as correct as you think you are, however.

Good luck with your career.

[Dr. Jay]

I'm 45...I think Slott has very interesting ideas and storylines, but they never seem to have satisfying resolutions. Its always like he's setting up for the next storyline and the current storyline's ending always feels rushed. Even the Superior Spider-man storyline which went on for about six months too long (IMO) when it went into resolution mode, it was so unsatisfying.

I don't like his dialogue or his use of supporting characters. Bendis and Slott have really changed the way Spider-man jokes---now he makes the same jokes as everyone else, just sarcastic after the fact commentary.

Should he leave? Well, his sales are still pretty damn good. He's certainly a team player--I don't think I've ever read a critical word of Marvel---so he's probably on the book as long as he wants to be.

[nose norton]

Are you inferring that MJ never grew up?

Why is Mary Jane not warranted the same?

Was it her job as a 19 year old girl to rescue a 20 year old Harry from making his own mistakes?

Is Harry being held under the same judgmental microscope that MJ is?

That's why I think age matters in this discussion. I'm not gonna hold it against MJ's character. I'm not gonna hold it against Harry's character. It happened and they both moved on and grew from it.

Blaming MJ or placing any sort of blame on MJ-especially when you're not gonna hold other characters accountable-is definitely sexist.

Nope. Although personally, I don't understand why anyone would spend the money or time to go to college to pursue a career they're not passionate about or at the very least not all that interested in. Especially if you're a privileged, rich, white person like Gwen was. College is expensive and time consuming. But hey! I'm not anyone's life manager, that's a personal decision to make. But LOL at the sexism accusation. Adding the word woman into a sentence doesn't make something sexist. Directly suggesting that a female character should be held to a different or higher standard, is sexism. I did not suggest she had to be passionate. I never suggested that she NEEDS TO PURSUE ALL HER PASSIONS TO EXTREME LEVELS. I said that there's not a lot of evidence to suggest that she was passionate about science. Like people were suggesting. I said that (based on what's presented on the page) her true passions rested on her relationships with her father and boyfriend. AND THAT THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

Conway didn't kill Gwen because of favoritism, and yet he's accused of that all the time because he's vocal about the fact that he didn't like her...at all. John Romita Sr. (who loved Gwen) suggested it to shake up the title.

Go Go Dancers aren't dancers, because? Why? Because it's sexual, sometimes? MJ didn't bounce around in her underwear or a bikini. She moved to the rhythm of music. She hyped up crowds at hang outs. Which is the job of a Go Go dancer. They aren't strippers. They're kind of like cheerleaders, they rally up crowds except it's not for a specific team.

To be frank, it just seems like you don't like MJ.

I’m not, or where you asking if I’m implying it?

I think Peter treated Gwen even worse, if that’s any consolation.

Of course it wasn’t her job to rescue/save Harry, that doesn’t mean it’s ok to hammer the final nail in the coffin. At leat, not in my book.

Abusing drugs was his problem… until his altered mental state, brought upon the second GG. That’s on him.

That’s true for the character, as she was shaped afterwards. But was it plausible, that she would evolve the way she did? Possible yes, but it feels fabricated to me.

Blame is such a Judeo-Christian concept. I’m not in that trade.

You answer “no”, but then it gets confusing, I still don’t know if you are saying that, because you can’t imagine of a good reason, to attend college if you aren’t passionate about your career, she was actually pursuing another goal (a relationship). Saying that is prejudicious, and since it’s gender based, is sexism.

I seem to remember it was Aunt May, he wanted to kill. Conway suggested Gwen instead, because he didn’t like her (he said as much in a podcast). That’s favouritism.

You said it, they “rally up crowds”. Dancing is part of the equation, but physical appeal is even more important. So no, it’s not dancing because dance isn’t what the audience craves.

Lee’s version? No, she wasn’t someone you’d want around, unless you’re partying.

Do you have the psychological studies to back up your assertions?

What we are saying is while Gwen said she was a science major and went to maybe two exhibitions

Third: if men persist in objectifying women, then good on the women for making money off the sexism, whether as a stripper or go go dancer.

Yeah, people never ever transfer into college from another school. So unlikely. And she is studying at a perfomers school when introduced.

Do you have any to the contrary?

Was she a science major or not? She went to science related events, at least two. How many did Harry, Flash or MJ attend?

Is that set in stone? Is there unanimous consensus among feminist that is an acceptable role for women, to exploit their bodies? I was under the impression that two opposing views were conflicted, on this matter.

It’s unlikely something like that went down, when not even the one who shoehorned the character into college, thought about it. She just magically appeared there.

[Xenon]

[QUOTE=Kevinroc;2108634]MJ made it clear that Harry shouldn't have taken it as seriously as he did. She didn't handle it in the nicest way possible, but she was under no obligation to.[QUOTE]

She makes it clear after they've been dating for thirty issues, yeah. But that's WAY too late. We also see evidence that she considers him her boyfriend thirty issues after that, in the issue he dumps her when she tries to pay attention to him again after ignoring him for ten issues.

So are you arguing that Gwen was completely unaware that the red haired tag-along to their group was flirting with her boyfriend?

Honestly I haven't really thought about it. We never really see Gwen address the idea of other women. I would buy a lot of different reactions. Confidence seems unlikely. It could just be a world view thing. She's shown to have been friends with Harry Osborn for some time and at least went on a couple of dates with him, but they all still hung around him. Again, this is just an area largely unexplored by the story.

Since that came from the same writer who had MJ reject Peter's marriage proposal, I'd argue that he had a bit more depth to the character in mind than what appeared on the surface. It was said, clear as day, that she rejected Peter's proposal because she didn't want to deal with a nasty break-up like what she thought Betty and Ned were going through at the time, and what her parents went through.

It's not a lot of depth. But it's not no depth either. But it's par for the course when the comic relief character (which is how Romita described her in those early days) gets bumped up to a more prominent character.

It's a reason. And that's fine. We might simply be having a language issue.

Harry was overly possessive and on drugs. That's on panel. There's a suggestion he was even abusive, whether emotionally or physically, when Peter says, "You know how Harry feels about you! What's the bit?" and she says, "It's a long story. Wanna hear it?"

If Mary Jane just used him, then why didn't she cater to him? If she's a shallow golddigger, then she threw away her chance by telling Harry, "I'm nobody's girl but my own and that's the way I like it."

Talk to a psychologist and they will tell you young women should break off relationships with men who act overly possessive and are on drugs. Mary Jane did the healthy thing for her. But I guess women should always stay in relationships so as not to hurt the male egos.

Mary Jane is telling Peter to dump Gwen and get with her long before the drug problem came up. And while she may be shallow and self-serving in the Lee era, that doesn't mean she's only interested in money. Again, that's just a straw man. She's using him for company and for an excuse to stay in the circle and get after her real target, Peter Parker.

And in ASM 62, when Peter tells her he's not in the mood for her, MJ says, "Well pierce my ears and call me drafty! He really does miss her!" This suggests she finally did clue in and started to pay attention to other people's emotions

She's shown to be AWARE of other people's emotions much earlier than that, when she burns Harry by pointing out Gwen only went to the Bean with him because Peter didn't ask her. But being AWARE of emotions doesn't mean you care about them. Part of the reason why the ending of 122 is such a big deal is because it's not to type for her. Peter is completely dismissive of her because in his experience she doesn't give a damn about other people, and her staying defies that expectation. It's a moment of her growing up. And it's a great moment that you want to rob from her by insisting she's been perfect from the get go.

Then the general assumption is sexist at best, misogynist at worst. Luckily it's not the general assumption in my experience.

Young Men are far less likely to express such an opinion but they'd get the same general reaction.

So people aren't allowed to take jobs to pay the bills in their chosen profession and also to get some professional experience unless the job meets some mythical standard of approval?

Going to a school strictly for performance is in fact what a lot of performers do. I guess a musician who goes to a conservancy instead of college isn't a real musician? A filmmaker who goes to AFI instead of college isn't a real filmmaker? MJ later does attend ESU.

A lot of people study a lot of subjects and their studies don't amount to anything later, even if they go to college. In MJ's case she does later take acting jobs.

Part of writing is using contextual clues to convey characteristics of characters that you don't outright say. It's not that any of what you're saying here is strictly incorrect, it's that it misses the point and subtext of what's happeneing. Being a go go dancer suggests things about that characters standards and goals and motivations. When you combine that with her other comments and actions, it suggests a certain personality. At least, at the time. Later writers have done a lot to retcon a lot of her early behavior, but my point has always been about that Lee era version and nothing else.

[QUOTE]Exactly. We're not talking about Flash so why would we say anything about Flash? [/QUOTE

-_- Other people said things about Flash. But that was Spidercide complaining, not you. I had lost the thread, but so have you in this case.

You're implying MJ's career goals are less than Gwen's relationship goals, so...

So by what you're asserting, since we see in the comics Mary Jane applies herself to her career, she would apply herself in other areas, too,

I'm not categorically dismissing having career goals. I'm dismissing her specific career goals because they're fanciful and unrealistic. Of course it's a comic book so they actually come true, but statistically her odds of succeeding were infinitesimal at best, as any waiter or waitress in LA will tell you. I'm not even really dismissing them. I'm saying they imply certain things about her character. You're categorically dismissing Gwen's prioritization of love and family over career, which is a completely different thing.

And no one said she wouldn't apply herself. You keep arguing against points that weren't made. She applies herself fine. That was never a criticism.

I'm 45...I think Slott has very interesting ideas and storylines, but they never seem to have satisfying resolutions. Its always like he's setting up for the next storyline and the current storyline's ending always feels rushed. Even the Superior Spider-man storyline which went on for about six months too long (IMO) when it went into resolution mode, it was so unsatisfying.

I don't like his dialogue or his use of supporting characters. Bendis and Slott have really changed the way Spider-man jokes---now he makes the same jokes as everyone else, just sarcastic after the fact commentary.

Should he leave? Well, his sales are still pretty damn good. He's certainly a team player--I don't think I've ever read a critical word of Marvel---so he's probably on the book as long as he wants to be.

To be fair, part of the similarity is everyone becoming more like Spider-Man, but generally I agree with all of this.

[Aura Blaize]

I'm 34. Started reading around clone saga and I absolutely love slott's work. He has some issues with endings in some cases, but I'm a big fan

[boots]

C'mon, I quoted you more than twice, because you seemed to forget your own words and went off on tangents that had nothing to do with them.

The answer is "nope?" So using the worst stereotypes = good writing; Vince and Drama are the same character because they are actors and that career choice forces the writer to write them in the least interesting way possible; and Oxford Dictionaries are wrong. Glad you cleared that up. I don't think you are as correct as you think you are, however.

Good luck with your career.

ha, you're right about the tangents.

you get a nope because i realised what had happened. it's funny you said that you were following my lead when i was actually following yours. you'd distorted my original comment into an either or proposition and put me in a position where i was trying to defend something an extreme point of view that i never expressed.

by quoting me back, you reminded me of the original context. my point stands.

and i think i used up all that luck at the beginning of the ol' career as the youngest series producer in the country on a national broadcaster. we also managed to create an internationally successful cartoon character during that time. currently acting in one of the most critically acclaimed local tv series to date... but the well wishes are appreciated, i could always use a top up.

as always, happy to talk about your experiences in more detail. It sounds like your work environment was a lot less flexible than mine.

[MJS]

Mary Jane is telling Peter to dump Gwen and get with her long before the drug problem came up. And while she may be shallow and self-serving in the Lee era, that doesn't mean she's only interested in money. Again, that's just a straw man. She's using him for company and for an excuse to stay in the circle and get after her real target, Peter Parker.

You seem to be forgetting that if she wanted Peter, she could have had Peter. SHE turned HIM down when he asked for a second date.

MJ liked being the center of attention and flirting with Peter, and every other boy in the vicinity, got her attention. But when a boy got too serious, like Harry, she ran the other way. She flirted with Peter because he was safe. Gwen knew Peter was safe from MJ, too, which is why she tolerated it.

She's shown to be AWARE of other people's emotions much earlier than that, when she burns Harry by pointing out Gwen only went to the Bean with him because Peter didn't ask her. But being AWARE of emotions doesn't mean you care about them. Part of the reason why the ending of 122 is such a big deal is because it's not to type for her. Peter is completely dismissive of her because in his experience she doesn't give a damn about other people, and her staying defies that expectation. It's a moment of her growing up. And it's a great moment that you want to rob from her by insisting she's been perfect from the get go.

When did I say she was perfect? I said she wasn't shallow because the character is nowhere near as one note as you keep trying to make her out to be. By definition, perfect characters ARE shallow. Imperfect characters are NOT shallow because they have different facets.

I just realized, I think the problem may be we are using two different meanings of "shallow." You mean how she treated others. I mean as a character.

Part of writing is using contextual clues to convey characteristics of characters that you don't outright say. It's not that any of what you're saying here is strictly incorrect, it's that it misses the point and subtext of what's happeneing.

If poeple think dancing in a night club means a women is immoral, that's their personal prejudices and biases. They're not everyone's.

Being a go go dancer suggests things about that characters standards and goals and motivations. When you combine that with her other comments and actions, it suggests a certain personality. At least, at the time. Later writers have done a lot to retcon a lot of her early behavior, but my point has always been about that Lee era version and nothing else.

Again, that's a personal prejudice and bias. It's not everyone's.

I'm not categorically dismissing having career goals. I'm dismissing her specific career goals because they're fanciful and unrealistic.

So...people shouldn't attempt to chase their dreams?!

Of course it's a comic book so they actually come true, but statistically her odds of succeeding were infinitesimal at best, as any waiter or waitress in LA will tell you.

Since I happen to know many working actors who live off their acting paychecks, I'm going to take a different view. One doesn't have to be a movie star. One can live a nice middle class life off commercials and TV guest roles and other gigs.

I'm not even really dismissing them. I'm saying they imply certain things about her character.

That the character is creative, imaginative, extroverted, hard working and projects self-confidence, like some but not all actors? Sure.

You're categorically dismissing Gwen's prioritization of love and family over career, which is a completely different thing.

No. I said Gwen didn't prioritize career, so the revisionist version of Gwen the super smart intellectual equal of Peter who studied science in order to pursue a career is wrong.

And no one said she wouldn't apply herself. You keep arguing against points that weren't made. She applies herself fine. That was never a criticism.

No? You've said:

"It's not just her career choice being reflective of a career that used her body instead of her mind that gets her pegged that way"

and

"Presentation also matters. Mary Jane wasn't presented as some serious theater student who wanted to do some serious acting, she was presented as the hot girl who wants to be a model. They're implying things."

If I misinterpreted, I apologize.

[MJS]

by quoting me back, you reminded me of the original context. my point stands.

Your point stands that if a character is given a certain career, that forces the poor little writer into using the worst stereotypes and to write the least interesting character? And that because the character has a certain career, the stereotypes and least interesting writing is the fault of the character?

and i think i used up all that luck at the beginning of the ol' career as the youngest series producer in the country on a national broadcaster. we also managed to create an internationally successful cartoon character during that time. currently acting in one of the most critically acclaimed local tv series to date... but the well wishes are appreciated, i could always use a top up.

as always, happy to talk about your experiences in more detail. It sounds like your work environment was a lot less flexible than mine.

My colleagues would probably rather give up their WGA/DGA benefits than say "if the chosen career influences the writers to portray the character in the least interesting (and possibly most stereotypical) manner, that can be argued to be a poor reflection on the character conceptually. writing an acting career is generally difficult and lends itself to the worst stereotypes" so yeah, we probably have very different experiences. Sorry to keep quoting, but I admit to being triggered by sheer incredulity that anyone claiming to be involved in content creation would say such a thing.

Anyone can be anyone on the internet. I'll let my opinions speak for my knowledge and experience and/or lack thereof.

Good luck!

[boots]

I'm 45...I think Slott has very interesting ideas and storylines, but they never seem to have satisfying resolutions. Its always like he's setting up for the next storyline and the current storyline's ending always feels rushed. Even the Superior Spider-man storyline which went on for about six months too long (IMO) when it went into resolution mode, it was so unsatisfying.

I don't like his dialogue or his use of supporting characters. Bendis and Slott have really changed the way Spider-man jokes---now he makes the same jokes as everyone else, just sarcastic after the fact commentary.

Should he leave? Well, his sales are still pretty damn good. He's certainly a team player--I don't think I've ever read a critical word of Marvel---so he's probably on the book as long as he wants to be.

i’ve only read one of slott’s arcs in full so far and i had a similar reaction, though i i enjoyed quite a bit of it despite my issues. I can see why he has a strong readership, even if i’m not one of them.

the humour was ok, tad ruder than i remember as a kid.

that said, i’ll give clone-spiracy a go.

[ShaggyB]

Let's keep on topic and take personal things to pm