Is liking Slott's work a generational thing?

[Xenon]

She mentioned she was a science major once IIRC, and that was to get Peter to spend time with her "studying." We're never told Gwen's goals. We never learned what Gwen wanted to do with the science major. We never found out if she wanted a career. We never really see her pursue an interest outside of dating boys. Gwen pretty much seemed to be in college only to get her MRS degree.

In comparison, Mary Jane announced her aspirations in her first full appearance: she's an actress, and it's only a matter of time before the big bouncy world discovers that fact. I don't understand why people call Mary Jane just a shallow party girl. Even during the Silver Age MJ had a career goal and she worked at it, appearing in plays and taking dancing gigs.

If you want to complain that Gwen wasn't givne proper development outside of her relationship, I'll agree with you. But this is par for the course For Marvel from 1962-1980.

That said, denying that Mary Jane was that shallow party girl ignores a lot of what's there. 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, it's her obliviousness to the lives of the people around her and the complete disregard for other people's feelings. She hops along with whatever group is fun and doesn't really give a damn if she hurts the feelings of those around her. She repeatedly openly hits on Peter while he's dating Gwen AND WHILE SHE'S DATING HARRY. And not just "don't you look cute!?" but "Ditch her and get with me, baby!", almost word for word. Lee Mary Jane is not a nice person.

Spidey is no adulterer either.

That depends on what you think happened in that apartment with Betty Brant.

But it’s not who Gwen was in those issues Blue was adapting. Spider-Man: Blue churned out a Gwen who wasn’t much like any version of Gwen from life.

Put aside how egregiously it doesn’t fit into continuity, Gwen of ASM #39-49 (which is what Blue was based on) wasn’t as smart as the Gwen we saw, she wasn’t as lovely either. Mostly Loeb just invented a new character and gifted her with nuggets of original recipe Gwen. Which is what Webb did. So maybe that was a better character but it still shouldn’t be counted as the legit Gwen.

Part of the reason Gwen sucks as a character is due to her inconsistencies and that none of those varying versions amount to all that great of a character together or individually. I refer to this as the Five Stages f Gwen:

Ditko Gwen: Fun and spikey, redundant in the narrative as we already had a bully for Peter and if she was going to be his girlfriend she was never going to work unless she changed her personality, thus losing her edge which made her interesting. She was basically an intesrting character out of place within the narrative.

Early Romita Gwen: She was nicer and more pleasant than Ditko Gwen but had lost the edge that made her interesting. Consequently she began appropriating traits from Mary Jane who was far more interesting. Hence she got the dance moves, the hairstyle, etc whilst MJ lost the latter and appeared less and less. If you can only stand out by borrown traits from another character from the same story you are interesting how again?

Later Romita Gwen: Standard Silver Age girlfriend archetype model #479427247-924798-2480329-3290-65. A character who existed to make life hard for the protagonist, eek out melodrama, cry and be unreasonable a lot. Now, Peter was also unreasonable too absolutely but we’re not talking about him right now. Basically a crappy character though she wasn’t the worst example from the era.

Post-Mortem Gwen: The bestest Disney Princess evah. Perfect in every way, so smart, so sweet, so kind, so loving and her tears could cure cancer too. Oh cruel fate why did you have to rob her from the world and Spider-Man so soon!!!! She and Peter were going to be married and live happily ever after for they had a romance of the ages!!!!!!!!!! Basically a character only worthwhile as a prop used to inject tragedy and pathos into the narrative, if she was ever a flesh and blood on the page character she’d be the definition of a Mary Sue.

AU Gwen: Emma Stone, Lacey Chabert and Spider-Gwen’s versions who borrow nuggets whilst creating wholly original characters to varying degrees. These characters can be interesting (still waiting for Spider-Gwen to be though) but they are so different from the real deal it’s not worth counting them.

Hell, even Emma Stone’s Gwen is a version I strongly believe is only appealing due to Stone herself+her chemistry with Garfield. On paper she was actually a worse written character than Dunst’s MJ.

Properly arguing this requires me to remember timings that I'm not really comfortable trying to peg down right this. What I WILL say is that there's a difference between making things up and drawing inferences based on what we see the character do on the page. Gwen doesn't get a lot of development during her time, simply as a result of the era she's in, but she does have moments that you can extrapolate on and words that you can infer a personality based off of. While she certainly changes from her first appearance and we don't get a lot of insight into those changes, it's not unrealistic for a person to grow up as they reach college and adulthood and their priorities change. Gwen was already softening towards Peter Parker by the end of Ditko's tenure (you can see her telling people to lay off of him), Romita's arrival just accelerated that direction.

[Kevinroc]

If you want to complain that Gwen wasn't givne proper development outside of her relationship, I'll agree with you. But this is par for the course For Marvel from 1962-1980.

That said, denying that Mary Jane was that shallow party girl ignores a lot of what's there. 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, it's her obliviousness to the lives of the people around her and the complete disregard for other people's feelings. She hops along with whatever group is fun and doesn't really give a damn if she hurts the feelings of those around her. She repeatedly openly hits on Peter while he's dating Gwen AND WHILE SHE'S DATING HARRY. And not just "don't you look cute!?" but "Ditch her and get with me, baby!", almost word for word. Lee Mary Jane is not a nice person.

Are you going to blame MJ for Harry's drug problem?

[Spidercide]

If you want to complain that Gwen wasn't givne proper development outside of her relationship, I'll agree with you. But this is par for the course For Marvel from 1962-1980.

That said, denying that Mary Jane was that shallow party girl ignores a lot of what's there. 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, it's her obliviousness to the lives of the people around her and the complete disregard for other people's feelings. She hops along with whatever group is fun and doesn't really give a damn if she hurts the feelings of those around her. She repeatedly openly hits on Peter while he's dating Gwen AND WHILE SHE'S DATING HARRY. And not just "don't you look cute!?" but "Ditch her and get with me, baby!", almost word for word. Lee Mary Jane is not a nice person.



That depends on what you think happened in that apartment with Betty Brant.





Properly arguing this requires me to remember timings that I'm not really comfortable trying to peg down right this. What I WILL say is that there's a difference between making things up and drawing inferences based on what we see the character do on the page. Gwen doesn't get a lot of development during her time, simply as a result of the era she's in, but she does have moments that you can extrapolate on and words that you can infer a personality based off of. While she certainly changes from her first appearance and we don't get a lot of insight into those changes, it's not unrealistic for a person to grow up as they reach college and adulthood and their priorities change. Gwen was already softening towards Peter Parker by the end of Ditko's tenure (you can see her telling people to lay off of him), Romita's arrival just accelerated that direction.

Okay, that is way out of line.

First of all, saying being an actor doesn’t involve using your mind is untrue even putting aside all the ways you need to be savvy enough to get your foot in the industry, same with modelling. If you are doing it yourself you’ve got to have a certain amount of intelligence to know what to say to who at what time and what place and how to sell yourself appropriately.

To be an actor, well a good one, you need to use your mind to get into the head and construct your character. So it is absolutely something you use your head for, just not the same sort of mental skills a mathematician uses.

Second of all if an actor is shallow because they want to go into a field that uses their body then why aren’t we critical of Flash who wanted to be a football star? Or of musicians who use their body (like their hands, arms, fingers, mouth, tongue and lungs when if they are playing windbased instruments)? Why are we slapping ‘shallow’ on actors?

Stan Lee’s Mary Jane was a goddam 18-19 year old girl entering college for the first time. No she didn’t care about the feelings of those around her and hit on the boy she liked, even when she was in the entirely unserious/casual relationship with Harry (lemme repeat that, she and Harry were NEVER serious, ever). And yeah she hit on Peter sometimes when he was with Gwen. How dare a young woman in love for the first time in her life ever do such a thing.

So yeah she was flawed and fucked up. Shittons of people are at that age and we know more about how and why she was like that now, including the fact that she was far from shallow.


a) Betty had separated from Ned by that point and was telling him directly that it was over.
b) Peter wasn’t with anyone at that point in time as he and MJ had fallen apart to the point where there was no problem them seeing other people.
c) If Spider-Man DID sleep with Betty, don’t you think even in the late 1970s comics or later in life we’d have gotten SOME indication of the obvious massive guilt he’d have felt over that. This is Peter Parker for Heaven’s sake. If he did sleep with Betty he’d feel veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery bad about it.

But after that story he didn’t seem all that guilty. He never did in fact. Nothing even remotely hinting at the idea of them sleeping together ever came up in-universe between him, Betty, Ned or other characters. Ned and him and Betty even went back to being friends and hanging out socially with zero awkwardness, Betty even playing matchmaker between him and MJ in the 1980s. Ned and Peter were even friendly in Spider-Man vs. Wolverine.

Given how Peter was best man at Betty and Ned’s wedding if they had slept together, not only would he have felt bad about sleeping with her (and that’s a big line of betrayal for us to presume a heroic/responsible/more wholesome individual like Peter Parker would cross) but they would not be hanging out as casually as they did. If it was me in Peter’s shoes I’d feel uncomfortable and if I was Ned I wouldn’t want to see the guy and if I was Betty I’d feel a bit of both.


Extrapolations can only go so far.

For instance you cannot extrapolate that because she studied science maybe she wanted to go into a career which made use of it. Or maybe she didn’t but took it on just because she was naturally good at it and didn’t know what else to do. We’ve got nothing to indicate it either way.

But similarly we have nothing to indicate as countless people assert that she was Peter’s intellectual equal.

Ultimately we go by what’s on the page as our primary source. On the page Gwen is what I outlined earlier. That’s who she is. That’s what she is judged by. Making allowances for the times only gets you so far, like we can make allowances that Peter was upset by Uncle Ben’s death and grieved him like a normal person would even if on the pages we saw that didn’t happen because it wasn’t done back then in comics. But with Gwen there isn’t enough to her for us to do that and what is left of her thereafter requires us to flanderize and embellish her at which point we are acting as the writers injecting phantom scenes and phantom characterization onto her to make her into this person totally at odds with who was on the page. You can’t do that. That’s not No. Prizing stuff that’s just fanfiction.

I’m not even saying Gwen’s transition was unbelievable, I’m just saying as a character unto herself she was poorly written largely because of these unexplained shifts in her personality. The transition works just about in universe but it serves to make her uneven and more importantly the characters she shifts into aren’t very good ones.

Case in point. It was wholly organic and believable in 1994 when Peter Parker broke down and became THE SPIDER! in the Shrieking arc. That shift was far, far, far better than Gwen’s shifts. Doesn’t change the fact it was a dumb direction to go in though.

[nose norton]

After ASm #183 MJ still appeared a few times under wolfman and also made appearances under Spec and MTU with Claremont and Mantlo.

Dark grey and light grey are not black and white. They are light and dark grey. Other people might see them as black and white, but then they should look closer.

Gwen was not good is my point. Ditko and Romita era Gwen were not ‘good. Ditko Gwen was mean and Romita Gwen was softcore MJ. Meanwhile later Romita Gwen had aspects of the latter but was silver age girlfriend model #479479248942893 that didn’t fit the girl next door archetype.

In PAD’s Spec run, Felicia was a criminal who was manipulating Spider-Man in order to frame him for murder and cheating on him with her co-conspirator to frame him who was a known mercenary, assassin and murderer.

What I am trying to say is that break down who Gwen is, look at what her traits and stories are. And then dismiss the things which are common to the silver age. There isn’t much left of her and what is left isn’t that compelling.

Wanting to be an actress doesn’t make you shallow.

A few appearances, yes. She wasn’t completely out of the picture, but she was practically out and no longer “the girlfriend”.

You misunderstand. Let me phrase it as a question, at what point does light grey become white?

Depends on your definition of “good”.

You have it all wrong, of the two of them, it was Peter who acted the worst, in the Mantlo-Milgrom-David era. She joined him in crime-fighting, accepted his alter-ego, risked it getting powers from the Kingpin, and when she learned those powers were going to hurt him in the long run, she was ready to let him go, for his own good, only he first had a righteousness tantrum and left her instead. Later on, when he removed the spell, he didn’t bother telling her that it might affect her powers, because he thought she had cursed him on purpose. For someone who’s always doing good, he assumed the worst from someone so close to him. He nearly got her killed and didn’t even apologised when he learned about it, just kept assuming she was still lying to him. After all this, she could’ve done much more than staging a frame-up, but the thing is, she was never bad.

I agree with the procedure, but I don’t reach your conclusions.

I wasn’t speaking about the acting profession, but about a character intent on using her looks and social skills, to make a way into show biz, not matter what branch.

Playing football is a goal. People make careers out of it and Flash was supposedly very good.

Wanting to follow in your father's footsteps and prepare to run the family business is definitely a career goal.

Going to science exhibits because boys you are interested in will be there: not a career goal

Going to college to find a husband is pretty much what most women did in the '50s and '60s because society expected it and there weren't a lot of obvious careers open to them. It's not a bias it's knowledge of social history.

But did he ever specifically, talk about his future as a professional football player?

Did he really want to do that, or was he simply coerced by Norman?

She met Peter by chance and was attending alone.

All prejudices are based on something real, that doesn’t mean the person you’re casting your suspicions on, is going to prove then true, just because of a category fit.

Are you going to blame MJ for Harry's drug problem?

Blaming her would be excessive, in the sense that she wasn't his dealer or drugged him without his knowledge. That said, she certainly wasn't part of the solution, more like part of the problem. As surely, she wasn't going to modify her behaviour in the slightest, on account of someone else. Whether you think that's a positive or a negative trait, that's up to each and every reader.

[Mister Mets]

Exactly! The "roller coaster" defense fails when it doesn't have the same kind of "movement" as a movie does. So I think this is why Ramos's rubber cartoon style gets defended as either "manga-inspired" or "fluid", since that ascribes the movement you could expect from anime, where the actual visuals can be more closely compared to film. So Slott relies on Ramos's art to make things look good to maintain the illusion of spectacle… which would only work if Ramos's good was actually good, but it isn't. So you can't even enjoy the spectacle.

I miss Stefano Caselli.



Exactly. A basic rule I learned in creative writing classes is that you have to provide enough context for the readers to understand what you are trying to tell. Expecting readers to be familiar with material vaguely reminds me of how Gerry Conway's criticism of Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice. Although it's a very different subject, I do think that there are some points he make that could be adopted to this conversation. For example, he said "A good writer does not depend on details external to the current narrative to justify character behavior." While this applies to justifying Batman's behavior in the movie, it reminds me of Mets's claim that Slott assumes readers are familiar enough with material that he doesn't need to explain things, expecting readers to connect the same dots, but in Slott's case, he's relying on details external to his own current narrative. Even if it's part of a continued history, when you have something like Darkest Hours, the explanation that Mary Jane could "sense" Peter was only available on the previous version of this forum, before being added in Darkest Hours itself. You do need certain explanations. Knowing that the Jackal uses clones explains how he keeps surviving (Even if it's a lazy copy of "It was just a Doombot"), but why should we accept the lack of explanations for Mysterio's return or Daniel dressing as Roderick? Just because other writers provided explanations does not mean Slott doesn't need to provide his own explanations.

And Mets, you and I have discussed whether or not Peter and Mary Jane's potential child in One More Day was Mayday or someone else. I believe you said it was unlikely to be Mayday, because that would require readers to be familiar with a story that was not referenced throughout JMS's run. So why is it wrong to assume familiarity with a story when it applies to One More Day, but it's perfectly fine for Slott to assume familiarity for stories he doesn't explain? I'll accept that citing Mary Jane's miscarriage makes the same kind of mistake that Gerry Conway describes, but when Slott's stories get a free pass for not explaining plot holes, it suggests that there's a huge double standard that favors Slott.

Several points.

I said it would be uncharacteristic of JMS to have a plot point in One More Day that requires familiarity with an interpretation of a story that wasn't referenced in his run (since it was never explicitly revealed in the clone saga that Baby May is alive, being familiar with the plot point isn't going to be enough for readers.) Other writers might also do things differently. Grant Morrison's Batman run has those kinds of moments.

Slott also does still provide some information in his stories, generally enough to connect the dots. Mysterio is featured faking people's deaths. Roderick references Daniel Kingsley.

[MJS]

If you want to complain that Gwen wasn't givne proper development outside of her relationship, I'll agree with you. But this is par for the course For Marvel from 1962-1980.

Mary Jane being just one of many exceptions.

That said, denying that Mary Jane was that shallow party girl ignores a lot of what's there. 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, it's her obliviousness to the lives of the people around her and the complete disregard for other people's feelings. She hops along with whatever group is fun and doesn't really give a damn if she hurts the feelings of those around her. She repeatedly openly hits on Peter while he's dating Gwen AND WHILE SHE'S DATING HARRY. And not just "don't you look cute!?" but "Ditch her and get with me, baby!", almost word for word. Lee Mary Jane is not a nice person.

A complicated character who is not 100% sweetness and light all the time is the opposite of shallow.

"A career that uses her body instead of her mind": acting requires a lot of thinking. Good dancers are also cerebral as they use dance to interpret stories and emotions. Sounds to me like a lot of people just have prejudices against performers and don't understand the profession.

Also, for Mary Jane to get the gigs, it meant she had to show up at auditions. She had to work at her craft. She had to rehearse and learn. That takes dedication and time. We're supposed to extrapolate Gwen is so smart and so dedicated to science because she mentioned her science major once and showed up at a science exhibition once, maybe twice where she had every anticipation of seeing the boys who share her major there, but Mary Jane is "just a shallow party girl" even though we have more examples that require her to pay serious attention career seriously than we ever do of Gwen.

I think this more speaks to how people think female characters should be portrayed, as sweet nice good girls who put other people first all the time. But Mary Jane puts herself first and uses her agency. Does this make her "nice?" No. But it makes her more like a real person and more interesting than a character who is always sweet and nice and good and self-sacrificing. Mary Jane worked at making her own way in the world and not needing a man to pay her way. A truly shallow person would have latched onto the goldmine that was Harry and never let go. Mary Jane broke off their relationship when she couldn't put up with his over-possessive behavior any more. But I guess since female characters are supposed to be good and sweet and nice and self-sacrificing, Mary Jane should have stayed in a relationship with someone who treated her like a possession even though psychologists will tell you Mary Jane made the emotionally healthy choice.

[Spidercide]

A few appearances, yes. She wasn’t completely out of the picture, but she was practically out and no longer “the girlfriend”.

You misunderstand. Let me phrase it as a question, at what point does light grey become white?

Depends on your definition of “good”.

You have it all wrong, of the two of them, it was Peter who acted the worst, in the Mantlo-Milgrom-David era. She joined him in crime-fighting, accepted his alter-ego, risked it getting powers from the Kingpin, and when she learned those powers were going to hurt him in the long run, she was ready to let him go, for his own good, only he first had a righteousness tantrum and left her instead. Later on, when he removed the spell, he didn’t bother telling her that it might affect her powers, because he thought she had cursed him on purpose. For someone who’s always doing good, he assumed the worst from someone so close to him. He nearly got her killed and didn’t even apologised when he learned about it, just kept assuming she was still lying to him. After all this, she could’ve done much more than staging a frame-up, but the thing is, she was never bad.

I agree with the procedure, but I don’t reach your conclusions.

I wasn’t speaking about the acting profession, but about a character intent on using her looks and social skills, to make a way into show biz, not matter what branch.


But did he ever specifically, talk about his future as a professional football player?

Did he really want to do that, or was he simply coerced by Norman?

She met Peter by chance and was attending alone.

All prejudices are based on something real, that doesn’t mean the person you’re casting your suspicions on, is going to prove then true, just because of a category fit.


Blaming her would be excessive, in the sense that she wasn't his dealer or drugged him without his knowledge. That said, she certainly wasn't part of the solution, more like part of the problem. As surely, she wasn't going to modify her behaviour in the slightest, on account of someone else. Whether you think that's a positive or a negative trait, that's up to each and every reader.

Again, she was in Spec quite a bit and in Spec #21 she admitted to Peter she loved him and they kissed, this was after the rejection.

My light grey never becomes white because it’s light grey. Light grey is light grey, it is not white.

Er....no.

That is not what happened.

She was a criminal. He arranged for her to have her charges cleared but then she tried to frame him for a crime so they could be outlaws together because she couldn’t handle going straight. She seemingly died after betraying him.

She came back and claimed she would go straight this time and he gave her a second chance.

She blew it when he learned she’d lied to him for months, endangered his life and those around him in the process and this happened at the same time he accepted that she wasn’t right for him because she didn’t accept who he was under the mask and was too irresponsible and careless (e.g. being cavalier with his secret identity). She never accepted his alter-ego she just tolerated it, which is why later under PAD a big deal was made of her acceptance of his alter-ego.

Yeah she was prepared to leave Peter upon learning her powers were going to hurt him but the fact is she lied about having them in the first place and about if not doing something illegal then something unethical in making a deal with Kingpin of all people for powers and then not telling Peter that. He wasn’t throwing a tantrum, he just realized she was wrong for him.

Later on he didn’t bother teling Felicia that his actions might’ve potentially removed her powers because

a) That wasn’t guaranteed
b) He was under the not unreasonable impression given her past behaviour that she had deliberately given him bad luck out of spite so he entirely reasonably decided he wasn’t going to give her the courtesy of a heads up right then and there although he did a few hours afterwards. That’s not him being a jerk. That’s him looking after himself instead of looking out for the person he believed had deliberately screwed him over in a non-life or death situation. Because it was far from illogical to presume she had done that and then if she had done that not go looking out for her when he was understandably upset and angry over her doing that to him.

He assumed the worst of Felicia because (apart from not being perfect) Felicia between lying to him and screwing him over in the past had not invited his trust anymore. He did though as I say talk to her later.

It’s true he didn’t apologize to her immediately at the time and although we can understand the mechanics of why he did that, he wasn’t something morally justified, he was 100% to do that. However he did immediately come to help her when she was being attacked by Sabretooth straight after.

However him not apologizing to her for that doesn’t then mean he was honestly the person who was the problem in the relationship. He wasn’t the one who lied to her, he wasn’t the one who tried to frame her or endanger her life (twice) nor was he the one who was unable to refrain from thievery.

At the same time though presuming Felicia was still lying to him after that event was again entirely reasonable. She’d lied to him before more than one over big things. Why should he presume she wasn’t doing it again now? Granted she wasn’t but then when she turned back up in his life that was exactly what she did.

Not only was Felicia completely unjustified in the frame up, but yes framing for someone for murder after manipulating them into a relationship with the intention of delivering them into the hands of an international assassin is definitely bad. Very, very, very bad and illegal.

She redeemed herself later on, but at the time oh, she was bad for him 100%.

Mary Jane wanted to be an actress. To be an actor one needs social skills and looks among other things. That doesn’t make you shallow.



Okay...you are seriously crossing the line by attributing any blame to MJ for Harry’s drug issues. She wasn’t part of the problem, the drugs, his dealer, he and his Dad were. If she was part of the problem then so was Peter and Gwen for not being more supportive of Harry in general or noticing the signs. MJ was entitled to live her life anyway she liked and if Harry’s issues meant he couldn’t handle that, that’s not on her.

[boots]

Boots...superheroes have been perennially popular since 1961. Even lulls in their popularity didn’t render them unpopular.

And what you described can be found in every superhero comic from basically Action Comics #1 onwards.

Superheroes have been winning the day through their skills for decades.

now i remember.

i have no idea what any of this has to do with anything i've written, so i'll bow out here. have a good day mate.

[DCordo74]

Mary Jane being just one of many exceptions.

A complicated character who is not 100% sweetness and light all the time is the opposite of shallow.

"A career that uses her body instead of her mind": acting requires a lot of thinking. Good dancers are also cerebral as they use dance to interpret stories and emotions. Sounds to me like a lot of people just have prejudices against performers and don't understand the profession.

Also, for Mary Jane to get the gigs, it meant she had to show up at auditions. She had to work at her craft. She had to rehearse and learn. That takes dedication and time. We're supposed to extrapolate Gwen is so smart and so dedicated to science because she mentioned her science major once and showed up at a science exhibition once, maybe twice where she had every anticipation of seeing the boys who share her major there, but Mary Jane is "just a shallow party girl" even though we have more examples that require her to pay serious attention career seriously than we ever do of Gwen.

I think this more speaks to how people think female characters should be portrayed, as sweet nice good girls who put other people first all the time. But Mary Jane puts herself first and uses her agency. Does this make her "nice?" No. But it makes her more like a real person and more interesting than a character who is always sweet and nice and good and self-sacrificing. Mary Jane worked at making her own way in the world and not needing a man to pay her way. A truly shallow person would have latched onto the goldmine that was Harry and never let go. Mary Jane broke off their relationship when she couldn't put up with his over-possessive behavior any more. But I guess since female characters are supposed to be good and sweet and nice and self-sacrificing, Mary Jane should have stayed in a relationship with someone who treated her like a possession even though psychologists will tell you Mary Jane made the emotionally healthy choice.

Thank you! I was just about to say this!

A trope that has always plagued female characters; is this idea that they have to be completely understanding and mommy every male character around them. That it's a woman's duty to protect men and save them from themselves. It's a very toxic and nasty message to send young girls. Harry was young, immature, and stupid. MJ was young, immature, and stupid. They were 19/20 years old, a lot of people do stupid things around that age. Why is MJ the only one under pressure to fix herself for Harry? Why is one character warranted our understanding and sympathy, but not the other? MJ was a young woman who wanted to avoid an overbearing and complicated situation, she just wanted to have fun. Harry was a young man in pain and was searching for an escape, he took his relationship with MJ too seriously. Neither character acted perfectly. Neither one of them handled the situation maturely. Because they were young and flawed human beings. Even though I disagreed with MJ's approach it was refreshing to see a female character NOT drop everything and run to save him from his problems. She was being selfish. To me it made her even more interesting than before.

Oh and as an aspiring actress, I'm really offended by some of your guys' perceptions of acting and what it takes to do that job. I dare either one of you to try. Go on. It's easy and requires absolutely no brain power. It's just about looks and shallow entertainment. Not too hard. I'm sure you'll be so kind as to snap chat me your Oscars, in six weeks.

One line and one scene don't do diddly to show us that Gwen was passionate about science. That's not enough for me to take that as a major part of her character, especially if she's not the one to tell us or show us that she cares. If it was a major part of her character, I think it would've been shown more than that, don't ya think? If it was her passion, Stan did a horrible job showing us. From what I gathered her passions were her father and marrying Peter. Ain't nothing wrong with that.


Modern 616 Gwen is so boring to me. I think she's more boring than Silver Age Gwen. At least Silver Age Gwen was a roller coaster of characterizations. Modern 616 Gwen is just this perfect, angelic, scientific, understanding, brave, independent, loving, supportive, sweetheart. She's diet coke MJ with a science degree and no flaws.

I'm always like:
Maybe Gwen had [insert flaws]?
Or maybe she and Peter wouldn't have worked out because [realistic human drama]?
And Marvel's like: NOPE SHE'S JUST HIS SUPER SMART, PERFECT, SCIENCE LOVING SOUL MATE WHO DIED BECAUSE OF FAVORITISM!

Yawn.

[boots]

Oh and as an aspiring actress, I'm really offended by some of your guys' perceptions of acting and what it takes to do that job. I dare either one of you to try. Go on. It's easy and requires absolutely no brain power. It's just about looks and shallow entertainment. Not too hard. I'm sure you'll be so kind as to snap chat me your Oscars, in six weeks.

as someone in "the industry" i'll agree here. though i'll put forward the caveat that to be a successful actor or actress is one of the hardest possible professions available (the unemployment rate is only topped by the sheer amount of competition). and by successful i just mean occasionally working, not even a star.

so being an actress (or even model) is not a minus in mj's character. writers being unable to write that career interestingly might be, though.

[MJS]

so being an actress (or even model) is not a minus in mj's character. writers being unable to write that career interestingly might be, though.

I can see how writing a thcree dimensional female character who has a certain career might be difficult for some comic book writers. After all, that would require creativity and/or imagination, research and empathy to envision that character's life. Not to mention the writer would also need writing talent.

But how is the writer's inability to perform their job correctly a minus in a character?

[Tuck]

JMS did some good things with MJ's acting.

Of course, it probably helps that he's been a showrunner.

[Phantom Roxas]

Several points.

I said it would be uncharacteristic of JMS to have a plot point in One More Day that requires familiarity with an interpretation of a story that wasn't referenced in his run (since it was never explicitly revealed in the clone saga that Baby May is alive, being familiar with the plot point isn't going to be enough for readers.) Other writers might also do things differently. Grant Morrison's Batman run has those kinds of moments.

Slott also does still provide some information in his stories, generally enough to connect the dots. Mysterio is featured faking people's deaths. Roderick references Daniel Kingsley.

It doesn't matter whether or not the baby was alive. Regardless of your interpretation, Mary Jane was pregnant. That is something that would have been negated due to One More Day. Familiarity with an interpretation of a story is not the issue. What the reader would have to be familiar with is the story itself. So my point that there is a double standard remains either way.

Even if Mysterio faked other people's deaths, it does need to be stated that he faked his own death. That's as lazy as "It's magic, we don't have to explain it." Mysterio shot himself in the head. Did he even do anything between Guardian Devil and Mysterioso other than I Hate a Mystery other than coming back from the dead with half of his face blown off? What information is provided that suggests that Mysterio's death in Guardian Devil was faked? I'll grant the reference to Daniel, but that's two against one. So the lack of explanation for plot holes remains lazy storytelling.

[boots]

I can see how writing a thcree dimensional female character who has a certain career might be difficult for some comic book writers. After all, that would require creativity and/or imagination, research and empathy to envision that character's life. Not to mention the writer would also need writing talent.

But how is the writer's inability to perform their job correctly a minus in a character?

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.

research and imagination and empathy certainly go a long way, but despite what they tell the kids, there are limits.

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 (“entourage” essentially worked because of those cliches)

[boots]

JMS did some good things with MJ's acting.

Of course, it probably helps that he's been a showrunner.

“write what you know” is good advice (though generally it refers empathy from your own heart)