Is liking Slott's work a generational thing?

[Phantom Roxas]

I doubt a criticism of Slott's work is to just enjoy the ride.

I got mixed up between two different ways of phrasing that. Either that's the RESPONSE to criticism, or criticism *is usually shut down with* that phrase.

Though I still think Slott's work is too quirky to be a pure roller coaster.

"Quirky" is one way of putting it. More like the slapstick is just too embarrassing to be a roller coaster.

I wasn't referring to stupid pills, but Slott's habit of not explaining details about why Mysterio is back, or why Daniel Kingsley was dressed as his brother, or how Jackal keeps surviving. His response seems to be to expect readers to connect the same dots he did.

I know that's not what you were referring to, but I cited it to show that his approach is not a good one. He can connect the dots because he's the writer, but you still need to be able to convey those dots to the reader, since they are not coming at this from the same perspective as the writer. To assume that the reader can make sense of something you did not explain simply because you could is just lazy storytelling. What explanation is there for Mysterio being dead? Is it like the Jackal, and we're to assume that when Mysterio committed suicide, it was only an illusion? If so, then why is that not clarified?

[nose norton]

Re: Black Cat, of course early on they could have made it work, but them making it work would have made Felicia a different character. Like how Mary Jane DIDN'T work in the Lee era until other writers gave her depth and changed her later on. Or even the smaller but also notable shift in perspective from Ditko Gwen to Romita Gwen (I still think there's a story to be told there about Gwen losing her attitude and growing up. A parallel lives type deal).

No, please. Many characters experienced a change going from Ditko to Romita, we don't need a PL type of story for every one of them. In Gwen's case, I think the easiest explanation would work best, she fell for Peter right away, and being ignored made her deviate her behaviour. Later on, she was portrayed as someone quite different because she was invested in a very serious relationship. My bet would be that the "real" Gwen was somewhere in between, like in SM:Blue.

Well it wasn't but it's more like we know that more now than we did back then.

Back then, the things that happened later and led us to "know" it wasn't possible, had not happened yet. They need not happen. That was the writers choice, you seem convinced they couldn't have gone anywhere else with the narrative. I do. This is clearly an impasse.

I've read Lost Years a few times, so I wouldn't expect to change my mind on it. It seems to be a rare widely acclaimed Spider-Man comic that I just don't care for, although I can appreciate that others see something else in the story.

I don't recall even finishing it.

[Xenon]

Well MJ worked back then just not as a truly realistically beleivable long term love interest for Peter.

Right. She worked as a character, certainly, but she was the temptress. The shallow have fun girl. It's probably no surprise that the teenage Gerry Conway saw more appeal in her than Gwen.

Ironically later on Black Cat played somewhat the same role to MJ as MJ did to Gwen, which is probably why she's so popular as a love interest (even though at this point she's been passed around to basically every one of Spider-Man's friends).

Criticism of Slott's work usually amounts to "Just enjoy the ride!", which is what I felt matched Mets's example of how Bay is primarily about spectacle. "Roller coaster" is another phrase I see for Slott's work. Slott certainly has momentum in his work, but that's not enough to me. Comparing his writing to a roller coaster ride doesn't sound like it explains why his work is so exciting. It just sounds like how you're supposed to enjoy a Michael Bay movie because you "Turn your brain off."

Of course the trouble is that a comic book, where there are static images on a page, can get away with a lot lesss turn your brain off than a movie with explosions and car chases. The visual spectacle can let you forgive some of the more idiotic beats in a movie. Not as much in a comic book.

I wasn't referring to stupid pills, but Slott's habit of not explaining details about why Mysterio is back, or why Daniel Kingsley was dressed as his brother, or how Jackal keeps surviving. His response seems to be to expect readers to connect the same dots he did.

It's a careless attitude towards details that leads to plot holes and poor characterization. There's not enough thought put into whether things make sense.

No, please. Many characters experienced a change going from Ditko to Romita, we don't need a PL type of story for every one of them. In Gwen's case, I think the easiest explanation would work best, she fell for Peter right away, and being ignored made her deviate her behaviour. Later on, she was portrayed as someone quite different because she was invested in a very serious relationship. My bet would be that the "real" Gwen was somewhere in between, like in SM:Blue.

There are like....5 characters that actually made that transition. Flash was still a jerk. MJ wasn't introduced yet. Betty didn't go full ***** for another 150 issues. Aunt May was still old and decrepit. And Peter was still Peter. I'm not sure your assertion is true, in other words.

[Phantom Roxas]

Of course the trouble is that a comic book, where there are static images on a page, can get away with a lot lesss turn your brain off than a movie with explosions and car chases. The visual spectacle can let you forgive some of the more idiotic beats in a movie. Not as much in a comic book.

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.

It's a careless attitude towards details that leads to plot holes and poor characterization. There's not enough thought put into whether things make sense.

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.

[Spidercide]

I've read Lost Years a few times, so I wouldn't expect to change my mind on it. It seems to be a rare widely acclaimed Spider-Man comic that I just don't care for, although I can appreciate that others see something else in the story.

As for how significant Ben should be to Peter, I think you could read No One Dies without thinking Ben got slighted, but there remain many reasons not to focus on him, including the poor reputation of the clone saga.

Again though, within the realism of what the No One Dies story was going for Ben’s acknowledgment was called for if you are going to acknowledge other family members or lesser characters.

Good writing demands you follow the organic results of the situation you create. Ben’s sidelining went against that.

At the same time, not only had the generation who had nostalgia for the saga come of age by 2011 but there had been revived interest in it via trades and mini-series in addition to the fact that newer fans wouldn’t know about it.

Plus few fans who disliked the Saga actively disliked Ben as an individual character or else didn’t mind/appreciated his relationship with Peter in the first place.

No, please. Many characters experienced a change going from Ditko to Romita, we don't need a PL type of story for every one of them. In Gwen's case, I think the easiest explanation would work best, she fell for Peter right away, and being ignored made her deviate her behaviour. Later on, she was portrayed as someone quite different because she was invested in a very serious relationship. My bet would be that the "real" Gwen was somewhere in between, like in SM:Blue.


Back then, the things that happened later and led us to "know" it wasn't possible, had not happened yet. They need not happen. That was the writers choice, you seem convinced they couldn't have gone anywhere else with the narrative. I do. This is clearly an impasse.

Or she acted weird because she was pregnant :P

In all seriousness, the real Gwen wouldn't be like the one from Blue. Blue was a non-continuity falnderization of Gwen that portrayed her the way people have romantacized her to be rather than what she was actually like.

You miunderstand.

I'm saying back then things could've panned out differently at the time we were reading. But over time we've learned more of who these characetrs are and thus know that retroactively such directions were places they were never going to go.

At the end of the day though Peter wouldn't have compromized his morality and Felicia would've not been the character we loved if she changed into someone who could've been with him.

[boots]

generational mindset would have something to do with it (and i say mindset because there are plenty of old dudes who listen to edm and enough young kids who prefer the beatles) and it might be an important factor, but it will never be the sole reason. the relationship between creator and audience is way more complex.

that being said, i found the humour slott uses to be very current. the hero not always winning the day solely based on his abilities (often through chance or luck or assistance or the enemy failing) is also a pretty current trend.

[nose norton]

Ironically later on Black Cat played somewhat the same role to MJ as MJ did to Gwen

There are like....5 characters that actually made that transition. Flash was still a jerk. MJ wasn't introduced yet. Betty didn't go full ***** for another 150 issues. Aunt May was still old and decrepit. And Peter was still Peter. I'm not sure your assertion is true, in other words.

The Black Cat was introduced under Wolfman's run, who's first order of business was writing MJ off the book, so I don't see how you can reproduce Gwen and MJ's dynamic, with an absent character. She came back during Stern's tenure as writer, well after he'd used the Black Cat for all he wanted to use her for. The Black Cat only reappeared in ASM as a continuity necessity, it was Mantlo who decided to bring her back in PPSSM, and he had no role at all for MJ. The only issue they even were in the same issue, was ASM #246, and they don't interact at all. The first one to actually have a use for both characters, was PAD, but that happened 7 years after Felicia's introduction, and wouldn't label the resulting triangle as a reedition of the Betty & Veronica era.

In all seriousness, the real Gwen wouldn't be like the one from Blue. Blue was a non-continuity falnderization of Gwen that portrayed her the way people have romantacized her to be rather than what she was actually like.

You miunderstand.

I'm saying back then things could've panned out differently at the time we were reading. But over time we've learned more of who these characetrs are and thus know that retroactively such directions were places they were never going to go.

How would you reconcile Ditko and Romita's take on the character?

Says you.

You talked about them as if they really existed. They are written.

[Xenon]

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.

I miss Marvel's Style guide, but some things we have to let go. =p

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.

The wrench I think in this is that the idea of an ongoing series is that each book is merely a part of the overall story. ASM 121-122 is great because of the fifty issues that preceded it, at least in part, and you can't ignore what happened in the twenty that followed. I don't have a problem with Slott relying on you knowing what happened IN THIS STORY as a part of the part he's tellling.

But I'm not sure the things we're complaining about have much to do with that. The past stories left characters in a certain place that doesn't obviously conclude itself. When you leave them thre, you have to explain what happened, or we feel like we're missing a part of the story.

[Mauled]

The Black Cat was introduced under Wolfman's run, who's first order of business was writing MJ off the book, so I don't see how you can reproduce Gwen and MJ's dynamic, with an absent character. She came back during Stern's tenure as writer, well after he'd used the Black Cat for all he wanted to use her for. The Black Cat only reappeared in ASM as a continuity necessity, it was Mantlo who decided to bring her back in PPSSM, and he had no role at all for MJ. The only issue they even were in the same issue, was ASM #246, and they don't interact at all. The first one to actually have a use for both characters, was PAD, but that happened 7 years after Felicia's introduction, and wouldn't label the resulting triangle as a reedition of the Betty & Veronica era.


How would you reconcile Ditko and Romita's take on the character?

Says you.

You talked about them as if they really existed. They are written.

Black Cat was originally supposed to be just a villain on the Spider Woman comic. I've also read issues with both her and MJ for that period. The one of MJ talking about her family issues and how she knew Peter was Spider-Man springs to mind, since he was with Felicia at the time. The fact the character was nothing more than an after thought and competing against MJ and all the Cat woman rip-off accusations nonsense is what I like about her. The fact a character grows organic into a story inspite of writer decree/intentions and the under dog status is always great for me. Same with Harley Quinn in Batman, I mean she wasn't even a comic book character.

Which brings me to Slott, you'll never get that with a Slott character. Like with Carlie it's just about forcing that character in or making something happen even if the story around it doesn't work. Well then he makes it work damnit. Using Felicia again. Does he want her as a villain (I really the Queenpin name ), yep, does it make sense with what came before or the reasons for it. Nope but he's gonna do it anyway. It's not organic it's writer decree. Bit rambly but I hope that makes sense

[Xenon]

The Black Cat was introduced under Wolfman's run, who's first order of business was writing MJ off the book, so I don't see how you can reproduce Gwen and MJ's dynamic, with an absent character. She came back during Stern's tenure as writer, well after he'd used the Black Cat for all he wanted to use her for. The Black Cat only reappeared in ASM as a continuity necessity, it was Mantlo who decided to bring her back in PPSSM, and he had no role at all for MJ. The only issue they even were in the same issue, was ASM #246, and they don't interact at all. The first one to actually have a use for both characters, was PAD, but that happened 7 years after Felicia's introduction, and wouldn't label the resulting triangle as a reedition of the Betty & Veronica era.

I'm not suggesting it was a triangle in the traditional story sense, I'm suggesting that nin fan's minds they both end up playing similar roles to what Gwen and Mary Jane played in the Lee stories, only with MJ as the "goog" girl and Felicia as the "bad" one.

How would you reconcile Ditko and Romita's take on the character?

Says you.

You talked about them as if they really existed. They are written.

She got softer to appeal more to a guy she liked. She was already softening even under Ditko. The Romita version just jumps ahead a bit.

[nose norton]

I've also read issues with both her and MJ for that period. The one of MJ talking about her family issues and how she knew Peter was Spider-Man springs to mind, since he was with Felicia at the time.

I forgot about DeFalco, but Felicia didn't play much of a role in his ASM either, it was all about MJ being a better friend, and potentially more. I still don't see a Betty & Veronica dynamic being played.

I'm not suggesting it was a triangle in the traditional story sense, I'm suggesting that win fan's minds they both end up playing similar roles to what Gwen and Mary Jane played in the Lee stories, only with MJ as the "goog" girl and Felicia as the "bad" one.

She got softer to appeal more to a guy she liked. She was already softening even under Ditko. The Romita version just jumps ahead a bit.

I can't speak as to what's is or was, in the minds of the fans.

Every single character softened under Romita, every single one of them. Singling Gwen out seems biased.

[Mauled]

I forgot about DeFalco, but Felicia didn't play much of a role in his ASM either, it was all about MJ being a better friend, and potentially more. I still don't see a Betty & Veronica dynamic being played.


I can't speak as to what's is or was, in the minds of the fans.

Every single character softened under Romita, every single one of them. Singling Gwen out seems biased.

I think it was more a triangle in the sense that MJ was Peters girlfriend and Felicia was Spider-Mans girlfriend and playing up Peters duality as both Peter Parker and Spider-Man

[nose norton]

I think it was more a triangle in the sense that MJ was Peters girlfriend and Felicia was Spider-Mans girlfriend and playing up Peters duality as both Peter Parker and Spider-Man

They were girls and they were friends, but they weren't "girlfriends" at the same time, that I can recall.

[MJS]

I think it was more a triangle in the sense that MJ was Peters girlfriend and Felicia was Spider-Mans girlfriend and playing up Peters duality as both Peter Parker and Spider-Man

It was revealed MJ knew Peter's secret pretty quickly after she returned to the books, so I wouldn't say this is correct. Nor was MJ his girlfriend at the time, just a friend who happened to be female and with whom he had history. There were hints there could be more, but they were both wary, Peter in part because the situation with Felicia was messy at the time while MJ was deciding if she really could handle being fully involved with Peter/Spider-Man.

[Xenon]

I can't speak as to what's is or was, in the minds of the fans.

Every single character softened under Romita, every single one of them. Singling Gwen out seems biased.

Flash didn't soften. JJJ didn't soften. Harry and Gwen did. That's it. We have a LOT of stories about Harry. Almost none about Gwen. At least, normal Gwen and not alternate universe superhero Gwen. Or Clone Gwen.