Anonymous asked:
brevoortformspring answered:
Well, that’s a little bit extreme, i think. At most, it only means that he’s sympathetic to Al Qaeda…
Hmmm. I left a snarky comment on Mr. Marvel’s Tumblr page, and look at that response!
Let me address this. I (used to) read Spider-Man comics because they can be appealing stories about Peter Parker coming to terms with amazing circumstances. Even though gifted with a genius intellect, he functions as the sympathetic everyman with otherwise relatable problems. Improbably before the Superior arc, Peter was handily defeated by Dr. Octopus on all fronts and even died. Peter spectacularly fumbled every attempt to counter Otto’s nefarious plans, hardly a character worth rooting for.
When the Doctor Octopus story arc began, I was primarily uninterested because Otto simply bores me. The movie did more with his character, but the only portrayal I remember liking in comics was a story Frank Miller wrote back in 1980.
Good narrative dictates conflict, so I’m willing to ride along, even in the case of implausible circumstances, as long as there’s character development or some sort of progression. For Peter’s repeated failures and for raising Doc Ock to World-Beater status, I just couldn’t suspend disbelief and disliked the story from the very start. For a hero who has risked all and saved countless lives throughout his career, Peter’s death struck me as disrespectful, both to the character and to the legion of fans that pay to keep Marvel in the black.
So there it was, with Doc Ock as the Superior Spider-Man, the new normal. Except it was really a gimmick all along. When ghost Peter showed up to fight Otto’s control, I laughed at the inanity. Dan Slott was given more time than originally allotted for the concept, but sure enough, it wasn’t meant to be permanent, and eventually everything goes back to the way it was.
Maybe that’s what really bothers me, the precarious state of the status quo. There are two pieces to that I’d like to discuss.
- a writer can create a story with unfortunate repercussions for years to come. The immediate examples that come to mind are the clone stories and Gwen Stacy fornicating with Norman Osborn.
- the powers-that-be decide that a continuity wipe is required to keep the character relevant. This happened with One More Day. Up until the preposterous Mephisto stratagem, it was a powerful story, but ultimately it was quite damaging to the mythos themselves.
Retcons can be a slap in the face to the reader. The investment of time and money are invalidated, memories are tainted, and the accumulation of in-universe knowledge is useless. This is a big deal to loyal fans. Their entire user experience is cheapened by royal decree. I can understand why retcons sometimes seem necessary. Look at the first Crisis at DC. There were too many parallel realities with too many incongruities and too much universe hopping. A cohesive, unified DC universe made total sense and was a laudable goal. On the other hand, New 52 was a perfect slap.
If a retcon erased the mistakes of the Spider-Man continuity, then it would have been fine. Clone nonsense? Good, no more problem, go for it. Peter’s and Mary Jane’s marriage? Hold on a minute now. How was twenty five years worth of stories and character development a mistake? This one boils down to writer laziness or a money grab. The retroactive dissolution of Peter’s marriage was cheap and didn’t play fair with the reader. Maybe the movies dictated a young, unattached Peter.
Let’s discuss the character whose stories are being sold. Is it Peter Parker or is it Spider-Man? If the story is Peter Parker’s, then what’s the point of Superior Spider-Man? If Spider-Man is the real draw, then go ahead, let Peter die. Or retire. Or even hopefully mature. Let Doc Ock take over. Or, as in the Ultimate Universe, someone else could pick up the mantle and carry on. Since Peter is back as Spider-Man, obviously it’s Peter that matters, so the Superior run and its undoing smack of the same insincerity as a retcon reset.
So, back to my main point. When I called Dan Slott the devil, I should have realized that it doesn’t mean the same thing in Jewish lore. From now on, I shall refer to him as Peter Parker’s dybbuk-inflicting sadist. I really haven’t liked any of his stories. That may not be totally his fault if he’s forced to accommodate corporate edicts, but I feel he disregarded the entirety of what Peter Parker is all about. I stopped feeling any excitement at each issue’s release. Instead, I’d dread reading how Slott botched it for me this time. ”For me” is the key phrase. I guess there are people that like these stories, but I don’t, and I stopped buying his work.
I don’t think that makes me a terrorist sympathizer.
There are some things to be said about this
I’d disagree about how the clone stories. When the clone saga was over with the ‘clone nonsense’ was settled and finished. Even if you didn’t like it erasing it was a pointless and unnecessary gesture. It’d been put to bed and already firmly resolved and it’s affect upon the narrative going forward were in the long run minimal at best (and that’s apart from the fact that it was actually very beneficial in many ways). Then again there is automatic prejudice against that which I’ve never understood.
Also I disagree that that One More Day was ever a powerful story (seriously no one can help Aunt May at all is ridiculous).
I also feel retcons are merely a tool and can be used to good or bad effect. Retconning MJ to know Peter was Spider-Man was immensely beneficial and enriched the narrative as did resurrecting Norman and retconning that Ben Reilly was alive.
I don’t see how the Raimi films dictated a young and unattached Spider-Man. He looked like a mid 20s-early 30 year old which was the age he was in the comics. He was also either attached to Mary Jane or WANTED to be to the point where he didn’t seek other romantic relationships. If anything the marriage status quo would make all the sense for readers if the goal was to chase asinine ‘synergy’. All readers would do is assume in the comics Spider-Man and MJ did wind up together and did get married.
I also feel that it’s not so much a case of the narrative being about Spider-Man or Peter Parker because Peter IS Spider-Man. the Spider-Man mantle isn’t the point, it’s the person and the person is Spider-Man if you get me.
Apart from the above, there is so much the above gets right….and seriously…comparing him to a terrorist sympathiser because he doesn’t like a comic book run?
Grow up people
