Is liking Slott's work a generational thing?

[Xenon]

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.

I don't remember that, and she very clearly pursues him through her entire appearances. And Peter very clearly seems to be the one backing off with his ol' "Pretty as a Pumpkin Seed and just as shallow" line. Also, while I think your theory is interesting, I don't think it gels with the reality of the page as she pursues him when Gwen is out of the picture. Both during their one break up and during her time when she moved to England to live with her family. If anything that's the most dangerous time to hit on him if she didn't want him, emotionally vulnerable and all that.

And, again, my argument is about Lee era Mary Jane, not "Lee Era Mary Jane as contextualized by writers later on after she became the one".

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.

I actually mean both, again, within the confines of those first 100 issues. She's a shallow person who only cares about herself and feeling good. That's her personality for those 100 issues. I also don't think there's a lot of depth to the character on a writing level for those 100 issues. Stan very much wrote her as that party girl. Later writers gave her excuses and reasons for much her behavior and add depth to those scenes retroactively, but, again, my point was only about how she was as she was originally written. She was the fun girl, and that's all there was to her. Fortunately, because she was Conway's favorite, she got to live and got a bit of depth, and then later on when she was brought back and then married to the man she got complex. As she stands today...well..as she stood ten years ago before all the crap that happened post OMD... she's a complex deep character, and one no other love interest going forward is going to be able to compete with. But my argument has always only been the original appearances, and you have to constrain your mind to those appearances for that argument to happen.

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.

There's a certain personality that will happily be objectified. I'm not sure it's a moral argument though.

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

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.

It is undeniably foolish to pursue a career when you have next to no chance of success. Even as a commercial actor. The decision to do so says something about a person. Or, at least, suggests it. Now, with that said, obviously, some people do make it. And you have to take that risk to ever have a shot. So I think it's a tricky thing. Ten years ago I would have said, no, they should chase something attainable. Now, I'm not so sure. There are two undeniably true things at play. Your chance at success is .0001%. But...SOMEONE does succeed. So, I'm not sure I would tell someone not to try, but I think you have to be foolish to try at the same time.

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

It can't suggest those things unless it's a common trait, which even you're not willing to commit to.

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.

Your conclusion isn't supported by your hypothosis. Dolph Lundgren, famously known as Ivan Drago in Rocky IV or The Punisher in the first Punisher movie of the early 90s (I think...) is a genius (IQ=160) ex-Sweedish Special Forces member with a master's degree in Chemical Engineering who was awarded a Fullbright Scholarship to MIT.....but instead moved in with Grace kelly and became an actor (like you said, not all actors are idiots =p). The point being you can be a genius with tremendous career potential and just not be that interested in it. There's nothing in the book that contradicts the idea that she wanted to pursue a career or that she wasn't smart.

There's also not much there that supports that idea. It's just not covered. Very little of Gwen is. Her personality, her views towards family and loyalty, her major...no, not even that, her major's field (Science isn't a major, Marvel). That leaves her as pretty much a blank slate. I don't think she was a genius, personally, but I have no idea what she intended to do with that degree? Did she want to be a doctor? A nurse? A researcher? Or was she just looking for a husband? It's never really covered at the time.

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.

Those, again, were about her shallow-ness as a person. The only wants to have a good time personality. Nothing about her willingness to try or not try.

[MJS]

I actually mean both, again, within the confines of those first 100 issues. She's a shallow person who only cares about herself and feeling good. That's her personality for those 100 issues. I also don't think there's a lot of depth to the character on a writing level for those 100 issues. Stan very much wrote her as that party girl. Later writers gave her excuses and reasons for much her behavior and add depth to those scenes retroactively, but, again, my point was only about how she was as she was originally written. She was the fun girl, and that's all there was to her.

Except she was also shown working hard at her chosen career, on the page, which suggests there was more to her than that. She had goals and aspirations

It is undeniably foolish to pursue a career when you have next to no chance of success. Even as a commercial actor. The decision to do so says something about a person. Or, at least, suggests it.

Yes, it suggests the person/character is confident, believes in his/herself, believes he/she has talent, and loves to perform.

I agree, if someone thinks they won't succeed, they shouldn't go into any of the arts. If someone is cowed by competition, don't do it. If someone wants an easy path, don't do it. If someone can't handle rejection, don't do it. If someone just wants to take home a steady paycheck, don't do it. This goes for writing, illustrating, dancing, filmmaking, fashion design, etc.

Now, with that said, obviously, some people do make it. And you have to take that risk to ever have a shot. So I think it's a tricky thing. Ten years ago I would have said, no, they should chase something attainable. Now, I'm not so sure. There are two undeniably true things at play. Your chance at success is .0001%. But...SOMEONE does succeed. So, I'm not sure I would tell someone not to try, but I think you have to be foolish to try at the same time.

Lucky for those of us who enjoy the arts, lots of people try anyway. Many of them do it because they can't imagine doing anything else despite the odds. MJ is portrayed that way, especially in the first 100 issues. She is shown working on her career.

Your conclusion isn't supported by your hypothosis. Dolph Lundgren, famously known as Ivan Drago in Rocky IV or The Punisher in the first Punisher movie of the early 90s (I think...) is a genius (IQ=160) ex-Sweedish Special Forces member with a master's degree in Chemical Engineering who was awarded a Fullbright Scholarship to MIT.....but instead moved in with Grace kelly and became an actor (like you said, not all actors are idiots =p). The point being you can be a genius with tremendous career potential and just not be that interested in it. There's nothing in the book that contradicts the idea that she wanted to pursue a career or that she wasn't smart.

This is trying to prove a positive with a negative. The absence of those things is just that, an absence. They do not prove a presence.

The correct answer is there is nothing in the book to suggest Gwen had career goals or was super smart.

There's also not much there that supports that idea. It's just not covered.

Exactly.

However, Mary Jane was given career goals and aspirations. Your personal opinion may be those goals are foolish, but they exist nonetheless.

Unlike Gwen, who wasn't given goals or aspirations. We know she loved her father and Peter. That's about it.

Those, again, were about her shallow-ness as a person. The only wants to have a good time personality. Nothing about her willingness to try or not try.

But she doesn't only want to have a good time. She also wants to succeed as a performer and she works at it.

[8BitRedBeard]

I'm 30. I've been reading regularly since after the clone saga, and I like Slott's take on Spider-Man.

I'm also 30 and have been reading Slott for quite some time. Slott isn't afraid to take a chance, I admire that! Some writers love playing it safe, which is fine, but taking a chance on something is always interesting.