Where is JMS? In the past he defended Sins Past
kevin perkins
story line, like previous issues? I know he took a beating on some
points earlier. But it was his claimed that this would not be some kind
of strange, unbelievable event. That everything would fit together.
Based on what most people have mention, this was far worst than the
clones and very unbelievable based on previous Spider-man issues and the
fact that Norman could past aging genes but not contain the same genes
(Ok that may be explained). But the fact that Norman would kill Gwen
without knowing whereabouts of those kids. This goes against everything
that pervious writers have done with the development of Norman.
I will give him a chance to see if he fixes this mess in the next few
issues. But, if it stays the course, then "kathy bar the door". This may
make the clone mess seem like a Sunday picnic. This mess is made worst
by JMS own statements.
I was not expecting this development. But, I'm not shocked by it. More
disappointed because it changes effort of pervious writers, which I feel
is a problem in comics today. The fact that some writers have no problem
discarding the effort of previous writers. Kind like Aunt May still
being alive. Makes ASM 400 a wasted effect, which was highly praised at
the time.
KLP
SmileOfTheShadow
something that misrepresents what he wrote.
Ken from Chicago
"kevin perkins" <klper...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1rL8d.11785$RB2....@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Joe has annoying habit of many writers: wanting to let the story, the whole
story, speak for itself.
Clearly he's in need of mental medical attention.
-- Ken from Chicago
Nathan P. Mahney
news:eLydnUgNrI7...@comcast.com...
Clearly he is if he's writing in a serial medium.
--
- Nathan P. Mahney -
Writing:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/index.html
The Whole Story Comic Reviews:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/ReviewIndex.html
Gamebook Scenic Solutions:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/SSIndex.html
Shawn H
: > Clearly he's in need of mental medical attention.
: Clearly he is if he's writing in a serial medium.
And if we're used to his comments here, you can't blame us for wanting
more.
Though I also can't blame him for hiding in a bunker as the bullets fly
right now, either.
Shawn
Paul O'Brien
perkins <klper...@netscape.net> writes
>Has anyone noticed that JMS has not been defending the latest Sins Past
>story line, like previous issues?
To be fair, according to www.jmsnews.com (which archives all his Usenet
posts, believe it or not), he's only posted once since 26 September, and
that was in a thread about Star Wars on
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated. So he doesn't seem to have been
active on any of his usual haunts.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
LIVEJOURNAL - http://www.livejournal.com/~paulobrien
Captain Omega
says...
>
>JMS doesn't respond to all criticism, but when someone flagrantly writes
>something that misrepresents what he wrote.
Then I guess by his silence he's conceding that the criticism he's received on
this arc is representative, reasonable, and accurate.
Jim
> Has anyone noticed that JMS has not been defending the latest
> Sins Past story line, like previous issues?
Ah, maybe it's a *clone* of JMS that's writing "Sins Past"...
Jim
SmileOfTheShadow
>on
>this arc is representative, reasonable, and accurate.
>
reasonable doesn't always mean representative or accurate.
Sean Thomas
> > Sins Past story line, like previous issues?
Hopefully hes hunched over a script board re-writing it as we speak :-)
Sean
--
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think
sardines will be thrown into the sea" - Eric Cantona
Jon J. Yeager
news:20041006154955...@mb-m14.aol.com...
What Usenet needs is more people like you, willing to turn ANY passing
sentence into a duel of wits.
Jon J. Yeager
"Shave Tony Stark!"
Martin Feller
"Paul O'Brien" <pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j5DCWWEP...@esoterica.demon.co.uk...
> In message <1rL8d.11785$RB2....@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>, kevin
> perkins <klper...@netscape.net> writes
> >Has anyone noticed that JMS has not been defending the latest Sins Past
> >story line, like previous issues?
>
> To be fair, according to www.jmsnews.com (which archives all his Usenet
> posts, believe it or not), he's only posted once since 26 September, and
> that was in a thread about Star Wars on
> rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated. So he doesn't seem to have been
> active on any of his usual haunts.
He & Bendis went in on a tandem together.
Jms at B5
>>something that misrepresents what he wrote.
>
>Then I guess by his silence he's conceding that the criticism he's received
>on
>this arc is representative, reasonable, and accurate.
>
One doesn't prove the other. As I've always said...whether someone likes or
doesn't like my work, that's as it should be. I don't argue the validity of
opinions. Matters of fact, sure, but not taste. Some people like white
chocolate. Some people, like me, know it's an offense in the eyes of god.
There are some who don't like the Gwen aspect of this story, and some who think
it's deepened the character in a positive way. Why would I want to weigh in on
that? Arguing is good. For the first time in a very long time, people are
getting passionate enough about the title to have arguments on this scale, and
that's good.
If I stay out of the way, it's to allow the dialogue to continue unimpeded,
whether the book is being praised or raked over the coals. As a long time fan,
I remember almost the identical reactions when it was decided to kill Gwen off,
so I knew I'd be walking into a firestorm here.
To write is to take chances. Sometimes you succeed, sometimes you don't,
because the measure of success is in the eyes of the reader. And a subjective
opinion is always right for that reader, always true for that person.
So yeah, I've kept low to watch the arguing and see where the bodies land.
The only thing I will mention, the only thing that did surprise me, was the
degree to which some folks have turned on *Gwen*. I've heard of the
madonna/whore dynamic, but I've never actually seen it played out this
strenously.
I can't even begin to count the number of posts I've seen from folks who are
calling Gwen a slut, a whore, and a tramp...that this destroys her as a
person...that it would be better if she had been raped than having had
consensual sex.
Better to be *raped*? Having sex with someone makes that person a *whore*?
I'll admit it, *that* flummoxed me. Because I've known plenty of women who,
young and naive and foolish, found themselves caught up with an older guy, even
if only for a moment, because they are drawn in by them...especially if that
someone is as powerful and manipulative an older figure as Norman Osborn.
Maybe because I've known so many of them, all of whom are fine people, I've
never once thought of them in those admittedly ugly terms. We all make
mistakes in our lives. You who are without sin, throw the first stone, right?
Gwen made a mistake. But she took responsibility for it, had the kids when
there were other options (I don't want this to turn into a debate on those
options, I'm just saying), and was prepared to go toe-to-toe with Norman, who
on some level she had to be afraid of, and to raise those children, even if it
meant screwing up her career, and marrying Peter.
Now, to *me*, that is a person of immense personal strength and integrity. It
gives her a spine and a conscience and a will that we really haven't seen in
her before.
To me, Gwen is a person...and like all people, she has good and bad, makes
mistakes and adjusts for them. Always tries to do the right thing. And when
cornered, she'll fight, not just for herself, but for other people.
To other people, this seems to make her a slut.
This aspect of it isn't a writing thing, isn't a storytelling thing, it's a
matter of how one views people who have sex in this world.
And you'll note that at no time does Peter ever say or think these things about
her. Because Peter understands. Peter loves her even though she made a
mistake.
Given the ferocity with which some have turned on a dime and attacked Gwen --
calling someone they say they respected a whore and turning their backs on her
character, damning her as a slut and a tramp -- it seems that I may write the
comics, but a few other people have the issues....
But that's just my opinion.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
Ken from Chicago
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041006210203...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> >>JMS doesn't respond to all criticism, but when someone flagrantly writes
> >>something that misrepresents what he wrote.
> >
> >Then I guess by his silence he's conceding that the criticism he's
received
> >on
> >this arc is representative, reasonable, and accurate.
> >
>
> One doesn't prove the other. As I've always said...whether someone likes
or
> doesn't like my work, that's as it should be. I don't argue the validity
of
> opinions. Matters of fact, sure, but not taste. Some people like white
> chocolate. Some people, like me, know it's an offense in the eyes of god.
And unsweetened chocolate is clearly the work of the Devil--and I'll have no
part of it.
Ah, but with choice comes responsibility or at least accountability, which
is a fancy word for blame. Look at how people react to choices made about
drugs, religion, politics, how one acted during the Vietnam war, many wars,
or during a stick-up, or a bankruptcy, or hurricane,
Peter David's recent "But I Digress" column had a column on the subject of
writers making characters "real", be it their religion, their stand on
abortion, their love of Oreo cookies--and how readers react. Sure our
superheroes save the world, the universe, the space time continuum everyday,
but make em Cubs fans and there are parts of the South side of Chicago
that'll burn the pages before buying another comic.
-- Ken from Chicago
zildjean
JMS represents an enormous, loyal and well-deserved fan base for his efforts
in many storytelling media. We all love him to bits. However...
My problem with the Gwen twins storyline is that is seems like a cheap
attention-getting stunt. It seems forced, awkward, and silly.
I have no emotional involvement in Gwen Stacy. I didn't start reading
comics until some time after her death. (Wasn't that in 1968 or so? Can
somebody tell me?)
I'm looking forward to the next story arc, when Marvel will be relaunching
an "All New! Collector's Issue Number 1!" of Amazing Spiderman, where Aunt
May will tearfully reveal to peter and MJ that she was Mussolini's secret
mistress.
Jonathan M
>
>
> JMS represents an enormous, loyal and well-deserved fan base for his
efforts
> in many storytelling media. We all love him to bits. However...
>
> My problem with the Gwen twins storyline is that is seems like a cheap
> attention-getting stunt. It seems forced, awkward, and silly.
It worked surprisingly well for me considering I never cared much about
Gwen. To me, she was a bland character who was memorable only because of her
death but here she was strong yet vulnerable.
>
> I have no emotional involvement in Gwen Stacy. I didn't start reading
> comics until some time after her death. (Wasn't that in 1968 or so? Can
> somebody tell me?)
>
ASM #121, 1973.
kevin perkins
writer, did become part of the discussion at the beginning. I know you
had taken some heat and at times seem unreal. My only problem, as I
state originally, this mistake Gwen made, distorted what previous
writers had done with the characters of Gwen and Norman. Even the clone
story never changed the perception of Spider-man characters. And there
is that time-line/pregnant issue. Of course they could had been
test-tube twins from Gwen and Norman (oh my, not clones, but test-tube
babies, I better stop now).
But, I also said I wait to see how this turns out. Do I agree with this?
No. Will I stop reading Spider-man because of this story line, like
others have said? No. (After reading every Amazing Spider-man comic
every created, why stop now. Just wish I was old enough to override my
mother request that I could not save them all, but I did save enough).
Will people go easy on you? No, but hopefully it will be civil. Will
this be worst then the clone story line, it maybe but I will and see
(based on B5, and I saw every show, you have a way of presenting some
interesting endings).
KLP
Captain Omega
In article <20041006210203...@mb-m28.aol.com>, Jms at B5 says...
>The only thing I will mention, the only thing that did surprise me, was the
>degree to which some folks have turned on *Gwen*. I've heard of the
>madonna/whore dynamic, but I've never actually seen it played out this
>strenously.
I find it odd that you're disturbed by fans' reactions to Gwen when it's the arc
you're writing that's making her look bad and therefore causing those reactions.
Unless you plan on pulling a rabbit out of your hat and something drastically
changes, these are the facts as they currently stand, according to this
storyline:
Peter and Gwen never had sex. While Peter was in Canada, Gwen willingly slept
with Norman Osborne behind Peter's back-- slept with Norman Osborne when she
somehow had not, or refused, to sleep with Peter. Then she runs away and hides
the pregnancy from him.
This is supposed to make Gwen look good? I mean, how do you expect fans to react
to her in light of all this?
I'm not even getting into the myriad number of timeline problems that should
make all of this impossible; on top of the ludicrous premise of kids magically
growing to maturation within five years of birth; on top of all the ridiculous
mischaracterizations present that basically make a mockery of everything Stan
Lee ever wrote. What is the purpose of this storyline, exactly? Why the need to
go back and totally rearrange someone else's characters and stories? Why don't
you write your own stories and just let the work of others be? I'm sure you
would not appreciate it if some guy 20 years from now went back and totally
rewrote and rearranged Babylon 5, would you?
I've got to tell you, in all candor, that this storyline of yours is the worst
stuff I've ever read in comics BY FAR. It is strictly cheap and sensational,
making no sense within the larger context of the series and possessing no
artistic value at all. I can only hope your stint on ASM is mercifully
short-lived.
Cap
mariocq
listen what I think about your job:
RUBBISH.
We needn´t sci-fi freaks, please follow making plots for TV series and
things like that and leave Spiderman in the hands of a good writer.
Narshal
> I find it odd that you're disturbed by fans' reactions to Gwen when it's the arc
> you're writing that's making her look bad and therefore causing those reactions.
> Unless you plan on pulling a rabbit out of your hat and something drastically
> changes, these are the facts as they currently stand, according to this
> storyline:
>
that Gwen is a slut? I've yet to read that specifically in the arc.
I've only read interpretations of that over here (and some other
places).
> Peter and Gwen never had sex. While Peter was in Canada, Gwen willingly slept
> with Norman Osborne behind Peter's back-- slept with Norman Osborne when she
> somehow had not, or refused, to sleep with Peter. Then she runs away and hides
> the pregnancy from him.
If you had a one-night stand and slept with someone, would you go and
tell your significant other? If it got you pregnant, would you tell
your boyfriend right then and there? I find Gwen's reaction quite
realistic. Admitting to Peter that she slept with another man and had
a child with him while he was in Canada might have hurt her
relationship. She didn't want to do that at the time. She needed to
think what she'll do. That's why she instantly doesn't tell Peter but
later on writes a letter since she thought about it. As for why she
hid her pregnancy, she might have thought of abortion but by the time
she had decided to do it, it was too late due to the rapid aging of
the twins.
Gwen made a mistake. Every human does it. I've done mistakes. Have I
admitted all my mistakes? Hell no! Very few people admit all their
mistakes even to themselves.
> I'm not even getting into the myriad number of timeline problems that should
> make all of this impossible; on top of the ludicrous premise of kids magically
> growing to maturation within five years of birth; on top of all the ridiculous
> mischaracterizations present that basically make a mockery of everything Stan
> Lee ever wrote. What is the purpose of this storyline, exactly? Why the need to
> go back and totally rearrange someone else's characters and stories? Why don't
> you write your own stories and just let the work of others be? I'm sure you
> would not appreciate it if some guy 20 years from now went back and totally
> rewrote and rearranged Babylon 5, would you?
>
If that were the case, we wouldn't have any Spider-Man comics since
Stan Lee would have stopped writing a log time ago.
Matt Shepherd
> (all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
> permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
> and don't send me story ideas)
>
I think that's my favourite .sig ever.
Tom Galloway
Captain Omega <Captain...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Spoilers for AS-M #512
>Unless you plan on pulling a rabbit out of your hat and something drastically
>changes, these are the facts as they currently stand, according to this
>storyline:
>
>Peter and Gwen never had sex. While Peter was in Canada, Gwen willingly slept
>with Norman Osborne behind Peter's back-- slept with Norman Osborne when she
>somehow had not, or refused, to sleep with Peter. Then she runs away and hides
>the pregnancy from him.
Minor correction to the above fact. Peter went to Canada just before the
Gwen/Norman confrontation scene shown in AS-M #512, which was inserted into
AS-M #121's timeframe. Gwen had sex with Norman around 8 months previous at
a minimum to account for a 7 month pregnancy and time to lose weight. And
since Gwen was constantly onscreen from AS-M #98 to her death in #121, at
least to where there's no point you can drop in her disappearing for 4-5
months, it has to have been in the book's timeline prior to that (and I'm
still not convinced there's any point in the timeline it can be dropped in
unless you go clear back to prior to her meeting Peter on their first day
of college when she wasn't in the book.
tyg t...@panix.com
--
--Yes, the .sig has changed
Captain Omega
In article <945bb517.04100...@posting.google.com>, Narshal says...
>>
>Did JMS actually write in the arc that Gwen is bad, that Gwen is evil,
>that Gwen is a slut? I've yet to read that specifically in the arc.
>I've only read interpretations of that over here (and some other
>places).
When did I say that Gwen was being portrayed as evil? My assertion was (and
remains) that JMS’s portrayal of Gwen contradicts everything that went before.
The Gwen that Stan Lee portrayed simply would not ever cheat on Peter. Not with
_anyone_ else, let alone Norman Osborn.
>If you had a one-night stand and slept with someone, would you go and
>tell your significant other? If it got you pregnant, would you tell
>your boyfriend right then and there? I find Gwen's reaction quite
>realistic. Admitting to Peter that she slept with another man and had
>a child with him while he was in Canada might have hurt her
>relationship. She didn't want to do that at the time. She needed to
>think what she'll do. That's why she instantly doesn't tell Peter but
>later on writes a letter since she thought about it. As for why she
>hid her pregnancy, she might have thought of abortion but by the time
>she had decided to do it, it was too late due to the rapid aging of
>the twins.
>
>Gwen made a mistake. Every human does it. I've done mistakes. Have I
>admitted all my mistakes? Hell no! Very few people admit all their
>mistakes even to themselves.
Gwen was certainly capable of mistakes, but this is one of ridiculous
proportions that I don’t believe she would have made. Besides, you missed my
original point entirely, which was: how was all this deceit supposed to make
Gwen look good?
Btw, your response only addressed the very last part of my criticism, which was:
>> she runs away and hides the pregnancy from him.
You have rather conveniently ignored the larger part of my criticism, which
included:
>> Peter and Gwen never had sex. While Peter was in Canada, Gwen willingly slept
>> with Norman Osborne behind Peter's back-- slept with Norman Osborne when she
>> somehow had not, or refused, to sleep with Peter.
I find this key premise ludicrous. Gwen and Peter were very much in love—- I
would hope we can all agree on at least *this* much. Now I think it reasonable
to assume that since they were in love and of college age and in a committed
relationship of some length, they had sex. JMS’s assertion that they did not
seems silly to me-- but this wouldn’t be half as terrible an error if he did not
then compounds things by creating the sexual relationship with Norman Osborn.
JMS wants us to believe Gwen never had sex with Peter—- whom she loved-—but
*did* have casual sex with Norman Osborn? This is just plain stupid.
I then said:
>> I'm not even getting into the myriad number of timeline problems that should
>>make all of this impossible; on top of the ludicrous premise of kids magically
>>growing to maturation within five years of birth; on top of all the ridiculous
>> mischaracterizations present that basically make a mockery of everything Stan
>>Lee ever wrote. What is the purpose of this storyline, exactly? Why the need to
>>go back and totally rearrange someone else's characters and stories? Why don't
>> you write your own stories and just let the work of others be? I'm sure you
>> would not appreciate it if some guy 20 years from now went back and totally
>> rewrote and rearranged Babylon 5, would you?
>>
Your response was:
>If that were the case, we wouldn't have any Spider-Man comics since
>Stan Lee would have stopped writing a log time ago.
There are plenty of writers over the years who have written excellent Spider-Man
stories and done so without radically altering his history. By any standard,
this is a radical alteration of both Stan’s and Gerry Conway’s work.
When I wrote my original response to JMS’s post, I tried to be as polite as
possible while still honestly representing my viewpoint. In hindsight, I think I
erred on the side of politeness. There’s a lot that JMS said that bugged the
hell out of me... I’ve been doing a slow burn over it since last night and now
feel the need to get it off my chest.
First, it angers me that the only thing JMS addressed was the way he saw Gwen
being “attacked” here. The only reference I’ve seen like this was one guy who
made a joke about Gwen being “damaged goods” after sleeping with Norman Osborn.
This was nothing more than a joke, and a rather funny one, I thought. If anyone
else seriously characterized Gwen as a “slut,” then they’re idiots not worth
responding to. If you’re going to take the time to post here, then why not
respond to legitimate criticism and/ or questions? There’s certainly no shortage
of them.
JMS then mentioned that there were some who thought that this arc somehow
“deepened the [Gwen] character in a positive way.” Why is it that when a writer
tries to “deepen” a character or make them more realistic, this more often than
not means making the character look like either a jerk or an idiot? I realize
that jerks and/or idiots may make up the majority of people in this world, but
there are *some* good, intelligent people. And yes, there are some young women
who in this world become seduced by rich, older creeps like Norman Osborn--but
why would Gwen be one of them? How does that make any sense in the context of
what went before?
As I stated in a previous thread, if there was one trait Gwen demonstrated in
abundance in her comic appearances, it was loyalty. How many times did she stand
by Peter on the basis of pure faith alone--usually because Peter could not/
would not share his deepest secret with her? This does not match the portrayal
we’re seeing here at all. When Gwen was in England in issues 96-98, Mary Jane
threw herself at Peter and he flatly rebuffed her advances. It always seemed
implicit to me that if the situation were reversed, Gwen would prove just as
faithful to Peter.
If there are any doubters who still don’t buy this, then take it from Stan Lee
himself, who stated plainly: “I always wanted her [Gwen] to marry Peter Parker.”
Do you think Stan would ever portray the girl he wanted Peter to marry as an
unfaithful partner? Particularly with Norman-frickin-Osborn?
And this may be the worst aspect of the premise. When Gwen was introduced into
the series, she was introduced along with Harry Osborn. The two apparently
attended “Standard High School” together and were friends (ASM # 31). Norman
Osborn, as we know, was often a neglectful and even abusive parent. Gwen would
have known this as well, if not moreso, than anyone else in the strip, since her
relationship with Harry went back further than anyone else’s. Why then would she
ever be attracted to the man she’s watched abuse her friend—- his son and only
child? That she could be seduced into having sex with Norman Osborn in light of
all this does not make her a more complex character or more realistic; it makes
her seem like a weak-willed simpleton.
Again: Are there women who get seduced by rich and powerful assholes because
they get taken in by their wealth and power? Sure. Does this mean *any or *all
women could be? Of course not. And given the circumstances, I find it highly
implausible (to say the least) that Gwen would be. In my view, it's willfully
ignoring what went before.
Cap
Menshevik
>When I wrote my original response to JMS’s post, I tried to be as polite as
>possible while still honestly representing my viewpoint. In hindsight, I
>think I
>erred on the side of politeness. There’s a lot that JMS said that bugged the
>hell out of me... I’ve been doing a slow burn over it since last night and
>now
>feel the need to get it off my chest.
>
>First, it angers me that the only thing JMS addressed was the way he saw Gwen
>being “attacked” here. The only reference I’ve seen like this was one
guy who
>made a joke about Gwen being “damaged goods” after sleeping with Norman
>Osborn.
>This was nothing more than a joke, and a rather funny one, I thought. If
>anyone
>else seriously characterized Gwen as a “slut,” then they’re idiots not
worth
>responding to. If you’re going to take the time to post here, then why not
>respond to legitimate criticism and/ or questions? There’s certainly no
>shortage
>of them.
Well, as I read his post, the main purpose was to state that he
was not going to be drawn into this debate (in spite of attempts
to "shame" him into joining it by things like this threads or
jumping-to-conclusion statements like your own
"Then I guess by his silence he's conceding that the criticism he's received on
this arc is representative, reasonable, and accurate."
He then made a few observation about the debates so far,
noting that so far the reactions were very much as he had
expected them to be with that single exception.
And I can testify that I've seen quite a lot of statements very
harsh on Gwen as she appeared in "Sins Past" (on the lines
of "slut", "whore" etc.). So maybe JMS has followed a bit more
of the debate here and in other forums than you did. I have
to say that considering the time he probably spent on that
last debate he got involved in on RACMU, I would find it
understandable that he would feel reluctant about getting
bogged down in another one if he can help it.
Tilman
"Who wants to read something about this subject will find it in a book, the
title of which I've forgotten. But it's the 42nd chapter."
Professor Johann Georg August Galletti (1750-1828)
Dreighton
> stuff I've ever read in comics BY FAR. It is strictly cheap and sensational,
> making no sense within the larger context of the series and possessing no
> artistic value at all. I can only hope your stint on ASM is mercifully
> short-lived.
What he said.
And I hope you are fired as soon as possible. I would rather have
Mackie/Byrne back. They look like Shakespere compared to this
ill-thought out, nonsensical crap that you have put out. And, I'm
doing the only thing I can do...not buy anything with your name on
it...ever again. I've been disappointed with comics, even offended
before, but not like this. I'm dam straight pi$$ed.
Please resign if you are not fired for the sake of the Spider-man
mythos, before you destroy all of them.
Whats next?:?: Was MJ a hooker? Did Aunt May do donkey shows in
Mexico? Was Peter raped by Uncle Ben? Did Gwen WILLINGLY screw the
most evil man in Spiderman's world, who was old enough to be her
father, but not sleep with her love Peter? How far will you go? Wait,
you already did the last one....And you wonder why we are upset.
(words edited cause I've had some posts bounce)
Dreighton
Sean Thomas
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
> Gwen made a mistake. But she took responsibility for it, had the kids when
> there were other options (I don't want this to turn into a debate on those
> options, I'm just saying), and was prepared to go toe-to-toe with Norman, who
> on some level she had to be afraid of, and to raise those children, even if it
> meant screwing up her career, and marrying Peter.
>
> Now, to *me*, that is a person of immense personal strength and integrity. It
> gives her a spine and a conscience and a will that we really haven't seen in
> her before.
>
> To me, Gwen is a person...and like all people, she has good and bad, makes
> mistakes and adjusts for them. Always tries to do the right thing. And when
> cornered, she'll fight, not just for herself, but for other people.
>
> To other people, this seems to make her a slut.
But i dont understand the point of the story.
Gwen's been dead for a NUMBER of years, why was there this need to
desecrate her memory?
Surely theres plenty of NEW stories you can tell without having to go
back and 'fix' classic stories which were perfectly fine in the first
place.
I was not a fan of all the stuff about PP's powers being mystical either.
I've enjoyed MOST of your run so far, but this story is really something
that that has turned me against one of the few comics that i've
consistently collected over the last 20 years (even when i've at times
dropped the Fantastic Four and the X-men).
--
Sean
Sean Thomas
"Matt Shepherd" <matthew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Interesting isnt it :-)
I wonder what SFX did to piss him off ...
Christian Smith
<coldfus...@gmail.com> wrote
>In article <kRc9d.5106$pF5....@wagner.videotron.net>,
> "Matt Shepherd" <matthew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:20041006210203...@mb-m28.aol.com...
>>
>> > (all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
>> > permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
>> > and don't send me story ideas)
>> >
>> I think that's my favourite .sig ever.
>
>
>Interesting isnt it :-)
>I wonder what SFX did to piss him off ...
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=Re:+SFX+Magazine,+JMS+and+Double+Standards&hl=en&lr=&selm=38405b81.496905766%40news.demon.co.uk&rnum=1
gives an excellent summary ;-))
Christian
--
"The Dark Phoenix may have been a threat to all life in the universe...
But she had great taste in costumes." (Rachel Summers Excalibur #65)
Sean Thomas
eric.p...@sdc-dsc.gc.ca (Narshal) wrote:
> If you had a one-night stand and slept with someone, would you go and
> tell your significant other? If it got you pregnant, would you tell
> your boyfriend right then and there? I find Gwen's reaction quite
> realistic. Admitting to Peter that she slept with another man and had
> a child with him while he was in Canada might have hurt her
> relationship. She didn't want to do that at the time. She needed to
> think what she'll do. That's why she instantly doesn't tell Peter but
> later on writes a letter since she thought about it. As for why she
> hid her pregnancy, she might have thought of abortion but by the time
> she had decided to do it, it was too late due to the rapid aging of
> the twins.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
How could ANYONE who says that they love someone, NOT tell them that
they've slept with another man if they're pregnant with that persons
babies.
Thats is just TOO big an indiscretion to keep to yourself.
Especially if you're planning on marrying your significant other.
Jms at B5
>
>Gwen's been dead for a NUMBER of years, why was there this need to
>desecrate her memory?
I guess I just don't see it as a desecration. I like the character a lot. For
me, this just makes her a stronger person. But opinions can differ.
jms
Sean Thomas
Christian Smith <chri...@jasdigital.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:30:42 +0100,Sean Thomas
> <coldfus...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >In article <kRc9d.5106$pF5....@wagner.videotron.net>,
> > "Matt Shepherd" <matthew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:20041006210203...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> >>
> >> > (all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
> >> > permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
> >> > and don't send me story ideas)
> >> >
> >> I think that's my favourite .sig ever.
> >
> >
> >Interesting isnt it :-)
> >I wonder what SFX did to piss him off ...
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=Re:+SFX+Magazine,+JMS+and+Double+Standards
> &hl=en&lr=&selm=38405b81.496905766%40news.demon.co.uk&rnum=1
> gives an excellent summary ;-))
>
> Christian
Cheers Christian, its all a lot bit clearer now.
Damn, I'm quite sad i gave up reading SFX all those years ago. it looked
like good fun was had by all during the course of the brouhaha :-)
Jms at B5
>Gwen
>>being “attacked” here. The only reference I’ve seen like this was one
>guy who
>>made a joke about Gwen being “damaged goods” after sleeping with Norman
>>Osborn.
>>This was nothing more than a joke, and a rather funny one, I thought. If
>>anyone
>>else seriously characterized Gwen as a “slut,” then they’re idiots not
>worth
>>responding to. If you’re going to take the time to post here, then why not
>>respond to legitimate criticism and/ or questions? There’s certainly no
>>shortage
>>of them.
Except of course that's not what I said What I said was this:
"The only thing I will mention, the only thing that did surprise me, was the
degree to which some folks have turned on *Gwen*. I've heard of the
madonna/whore dynamic, but I've never actually seen it played out this
strenously. I can't even begin to count the number of posts I've seen from
folks who are
calling Gwen a slut, a whore, and a tramp...that this destroys her as a
person...that it would be better if she had been raped than having had
consensual sex."
My comments were meant to be general in nature. You are trying to change them
into a specific rap against this newsgroup.
If you want to get an eyeful, go over to newsarama.com and do a search for gwen
and slut, tramp or whore. Or just read through the threads there in the
talkback and review sections. Go on over to comicboards.com or the
insidepulse.com forums the comicbookresources forums...you'll get more than
enough of this.
Go take a look for yourself, don't take my word for it. Or just do a google
search with those terms.
It's not like I'm making this shit up, you know.
jms
Jms at B5
>Mackie/Byrne back. They look like Shakespere compared to this
>ill-thought out, nonsensical crap that you have put out.
I just renewed my contract through 2006, but I'll put in a word with the
editors and see if they can be convinced to oblige your request.
Jonathan M
> >But i dont understand the point of the story.
> >
> >Gwen's been dead for a NUMBER of years, why was there this need to
> >desecrate her memory?
>
> I guess I just don't see it as a desecration. I like the character a lot.
For
> me, this just makes her a stronger person. But opinions can differ.
>
I won't argue that, I agree. MJ's secret keeping is the only part I have
problems with. I could understand it if she had stayed silent about Gwen but
she knew about the kids too, that makes it much more difficult to
understand.
I'm hoping it won't lead to any unnecessary drama between the couple, that's
something I saw enough of in the 90's.
Scott Dubin
> First, it angers me that the only thing JMS addressed was the way he saw Gwen
> being ?attacked? here. The only reference I?ve seen like this was one guy who
> made a joke about Gwen being ?damaged goods? after sleeping with Norman Osborn.
> This was nothing more than a joke, and a rather funny one, I thought. If anyone
> else seriously characterized Gwen as a ?slut,? then they?re idiots not worth
> responding to.
Then you have a short memory, or you haven't been paying attention.
Between this newsgroup and comicboards, I've seen tons of people who
think recent plot revelations make Gwen the scum of the earth instead
of angelic perfection.
R. Tang
Truly. LOTS of that. And LOTS of really stupid comments,
bordering on sexist (no matter how bad the story, the text really didn't
support the Gwen as Madonna/Whore meme that many posters were ranting
about).
Theoretically, back in the 60s and 70s, a scummy older businessman
seducing a younger girl wasn't that unusual (which is what made the role
reversal in THE GRADUATE memorable). Of course, the fact of the floating
10 year Marvel Universe history really hurts the believability of this
circa the 1990s....
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
Narshal
> When did I say that Gwen was being portrayed as evil? My assertion was (and
> The Gwen that Stan Lee portrayed simply would not ever cheat on Peter. Not with
> _anyone_ else, let alone Norman Osborn.
>
Well, you did say in a previous post and I quote: "I find it odd that
you're disturbed by fans' reactions to Gwen when it's the arc
you're writing that's making her look bad and therefore causing those
reactions."
Since you believe JMS is writing her to look bad, thus you believe
that Gwen is bad in the "Sins Past" storyline. Bad is another word for
evil thus by logic you stated that you feel Gwen was portrayed as
evil.
> Gwen was certainly capable of mistakes, but this is one of ridiculous
> proportions that I don?t believe she would have made. Besides, you missed my
> original point entirely, which was: how was all this deceit supposed to make
> Gwen look good?
>
It doesn't. It makes look more human. It makes her look more 3
dimensional. No relationship survives without mistakes happening and
the couple working it out.
> Btw, your response only addressed the very last part of my criticism, which was:
>
Maybe because I felt the rest was fluff or covered by other people and
thus commenting on it would be wasting bandwith.
> I find this key premise ludicrous. Gwen and Peter were very much in love?- I
> would hope we can all agree on at least *this* much. Now I think it reasonable
> to assume that since they were in love and of college age and in a committed
> relationship of some length, they had sex. JMS?s assertion that they did not
> seems silly to me-- but this wouldn?t be half as terrible an error if he did not
> then compounds things by creating the sexual relationship with Norman Osborn.
> JMS wants us to believe Gwen never had sex with Peter?- whom she loved-?but
> *did* have casual sex with Norman Osborn? This is just plain stupid.
>
She didn't have casual sex with Normal Osborn. She had one evening
with it where she had sexual intercourse. It was basically pity sex
for Norman Osborn. Not all couples in college have sex. I've known
college (and university) couples who have never had sex and they've
been together for 3-4 years. With Peter's busy schedule, I'm sure he
couldn't get the time. Maybe Gwen was hoping that the night refered to
in ASM 512 when she had come back and confronted Peter, maybe she
wished to have sex with Peter. It's unfortunate that she died though.
> >>go back and totally rearrange someone else's characters and stories? Why don't
> >> you write your own stories and just let the work of others be? I'm sure you
> >> would not appreciate it if some guy 20 years from now went back and totally
> >> rewrote and rearranged Babylon 5, would you?
> >>
>
> >If that were the case, we wouldn't have any Spider-Man comics since
> >Stan Lee would have stopped writing a log time ago.
>
> There are plenty of writers over the years who have written excellent Spider-Man
> stories and done so without radically altering his history. By any standard,
> this is a radical alteration of both Stan?s and Gerry Conway?s work.
>
Yes but you asked JMS to write his own stories and let the work of
others be. Spiderman is Stan Lee's work. If you fully believe that
writers should work on their own stories and let other's work be then
once Stan Lee stopped writing Spiderman, we wouldn't have any more
issues, we wouldn't had all the wonderful among of issues and stories
(some good and some terrible as per the opinion of readers). You
comment about Babylon 5 added more to your stated belief in writers.
That's what I was commenting on.
> When I wrote my original response to JMS?s post, I tried to be as polite as
> possible while still honestly representing my viewpoint. In hindsight, I think I
> erred on the side of politeness. There?s a lot that JMS said that bugged the
> hell out of me... I?ve been doing a slow burn over it since last night and now
> feel the need to get it off my chest.
>
You got this from reading only 3 issues of JMS's ASM. Since I remember
you stating you had stopping reading ASM for a while and came back due
to Sins Past. Have you read other JMS comics (either ASM, Rising
Stars, Midnight Nation, Strange)?
> First, it angers me that the only thing JMS addressed was the way he saw Gwen
> being ?attacked? here. The only reference I?ve seen like this was one guy who
> made a joke about Gwen being ?damaged goods? after sleeping with Norman Osborn.
> This was nothing more than a joke, and a rather funny one, I thought. If anyone
> else seriously characterized Gwen as a ?slut,? then they?re idiots not worth
> responding to. If you?re going to take the time to post here, then why not
> respond to legitimate criticism and/ or questions? There?s certainly no shortage
> of them.
>
This isn't the only forum that is discussing about ASM 512. The
Internet is a big world with lots of forums. There is a good chance
that JMS was making reference to comments made here and in other
forums. You should expand your limited view of the internet.
> JMS then mentioned that there were some who thought that this arc somehow
> ?deepened the [Gwen] character in a positive way.? Why is it that when a writer
> tries to ?deepen? a character or make them more realistic, this more often than
> not means making the character look like either a jerk or an idiot? I realize
> that jerks and/or idiots may make up the majority of people in this world, but
> there are *some* good, intelligent people. And yes, there are some young women
> who in this world become seduced by rich, older creeps like Norman Osborn--but
> why would Gwen be one of them? How does that make any sense in the context of
> what went before?
>
I never felt that Gwen was being stupid in ASM 512 nor was she a jerk.
She made a mistake then made smart decisions about her child (i.e.
wanting Peter to raise her kids instead of Osborn). Unless you are
saying that was stupid. Unless you are saying that the smart thing to
do was have Norman Osborn raise the twins? As for having slept with
Norman Osborn, feelings does very interesting things and if her body
was ovulating then her body wanted sex. Peter wasn't there, Norman
Osborn was powerful and had this mysterious magnetism that she only
felt in someone else before (i.e. Peter). So she felt something
familiar and her body wanted sex so she had 2 choices, be a vulcan
and ingnore her emotions or follow her emotions. I guess emotions won
because she's not a vulcan, she's human (unless I missed the last
memo).
> If there are any doubters who still don?t buy this, then take it from Stan Lee
> himself, who stated plainly: ?I always wanted her [Gwen] to marry Peter Parker.?
> Do you think Stan would ever portray the girl he wanted Peter to marry as an
> unfaithful partner? Particularly with Norman-frickin-Osborn?
>
Then why did Stan didn't insist on it? Why did he let Gwen die?
> And this may be the worst aspect of the premise. When Gwen was introduced into
> the series, she was introduced along with Harry Osborn. The two apparently
> attended ?Standard High School? together and were friends (ASM # 31). Norman
> Osborn, as we know, was often a neglectful and even abusive parent. Gwen would
> have known this as well, if not moreso, than anyone else in the strip, since her
> relationship with Harry went back further than anyone else?s. Why then would she
> ever be attracted to the man she?s watched abuse her friend?- his son and only
> child? That she could be seduced into having sex with Norman Osborn in light of
> all this does not make her a more complex character or more realistic; it makes
> her seem like a weak-willed simpleton.
>
Because he's powerful.
Why is it that in domestic dispute of a man beating on his wife, when
the police arrive and they stop the man, the wife starts attacking the
police to protect her husband who has been beating her? Why is she
protecting a man who hurts her?
Emotions haveweird effects on people. People never do the logical
things. I'm a role-player and I made scenarios which I ran through
groups of smart people (some were even in mensa) but constantly I get
stupid mistakes or stupid actions.
~consul
> (words edited cause I've had some posts bounce)
While I disagree somewhat with your request for Mackie and Byrne, :) , your posts wouldn't
bounce because of content, at least not on this unmoderated newsgroup.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
-till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
con...@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com ((remove the INVALID to email))
Captain Omega
>And I can testify that I've seen quite a lot of statements very
>harsh on Gwen as she appeared in "Sins Past" (on the lines
>of "slut", "whore" etc.). So maybe JMS has followed a bit more
>of the debate here and in other forums than you did. I have
>to say that considering the time he probably spent on that
>last debate he got involved in on RACMU, I would find it
>understandable that he would feel reluctant about getting
>bogged down in another one if he can help it.
I certainly give JMS credit for speaking up at all here. If I were a Marvel
writer, I would never even *read* this newsgroup, let alone post to it.
I’m also glad to see that we can all finally (apparently) agree on something:
that anyone seriously characterizing the Gwen character as a “slut” or a “tramp”
as a result of this storyline is an idiot. So since we all agree they’re idiots,
why waste time responding to them? Why lend their stupidity any credence at all
by answering it? If you don’t want to post here at all, that’s fine—as I said, I
certainly wouldn’t if I was in his position. But if you *are* going to post, why
not respond to legitimate criticism? He wrote a dozen paragraphs responding to a
bunch of morons and ignored the rest of us. I just don’t see the point of
speaking up, then.
The more hours that pass, the more frustrated I get. JMS is no naïve babe in the
woods—he knows he set out to write a story that would shock us. It’s not like he
read his back issues and saw hints of this—you’d have to be deranged to ever
infer a sexual relationship between Gwen and Norman based on what was there. He
created it out of thin air and awkwardly tried to squeeze it into Spidey’s
history like a square peg in a round hole. He did all this to create a
titillating story that would sell. When your aim as a writer is to shock, it’s
not art. That’s crass. That’s the work of a hack.
While I disagree with the original decision to kill off the Gwen character, “The
Night Gwen Stacy Died” is still a favorite story. Despite a couple serious
glitches (chief among them the nebulous cause of Gwen’s death), the story
remains gripping and emotionally powerful. As if Gwen dying wasn’t enough, the
Goblin’s motive for killing her make it even more compelling. That motive was,
simply, that he killed her to hurt Peter—no more, no less. That’s about as
hateful and as evil as it gets.
Now, if we’re to accept this “Sins Past” stuff, key character motivations in
that original classic story become muddled with inane soap opera twists. The
story is left, at best, severely compromised or, at worst, completely destroyed.
Also, instead of Pete suffering the tragic loss of his one true love, he now has
lost a girl he never really knew—a girl who lied to him and cheated on him.
And that’s another aspect of this that’s driving me crazy… when JMS said that
Gwen “made a mistake” but “took responsibility for it,” and that this made her
“a person of immense personal strength and integrity,” he conveniently failed to
address a key issue: SHE CHEATED ON PETER. Merely having sex with someone is not
what’s wrong; it’s having sex with one person when you’re supposed to be in a
committed relationship with another that’s wrong. From his tone, JMS makes it
sound like his Gwen should get a medal for fucking another guy behind Peter’s
back. It’s also ridiculous that he would be shocked by fans’ reaction to the
character in light of this. Well, let this be a lesson: when someone is revealed
to be a cheater and a liar, people tend to react negatively to that person. Some
less-than-polite guys have even been known to call a girl a “slut” (and worse)
under such circumstances.
Again, JMS is no babe in the woods. Coming on here and defending Gwen’s honor as
he did makes him sound like a sweetheart of a guy, but it’s a dodge. He’s
refusing to defend the quality of this arc because it has no quality. Any
positive portrayal of Gwen in this storyline comes in the wake of the revelation
of a huge act of betrayal. Nothing else Gwen says or does can make up for this
or erase it.
Cap
Dreighton
> >
> >Gwen's been dead for a NUMBER of years, why was there this need to
> >desecrate her memory?
>
character a lot. For
> me, this just makes her a stronger person. But opinions can differ.
Wow, we live in two different worlds. In mine, a young
(possibly/probably virginal) girl) having consentual sex with a much,
much older man (Who happens to be an evil super-villian) but who
hadn't had sex with her real love....doesn't make her a "stronger
person". It makes her poorly written and totally out of character.
The more I hear from you, and read your comics...the more I can't wait
for your replacement to fix all this mess, as I come to the conclusion
you are a very lost cause.
Dreighton
Daniel Dayton
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>I guess I just don't see it as a desecration. I like the character a lot. For
>me, this just makes her a stronger person. But opinions can differ.
You don't see digging up the fondly-remembered, long gone corpse of
Gwen Stacy and shoehorning in, against all evidence available on the
printed page, a new revelation that, while she never had sex with her
boyfriend of some years who she was very committed to, she DID cheat
on him and lose her virginity to a man she barely knew, who was twice
her age and the father of her boyfriend's best friend, as a desecration?
Are you blind? I'm sincerely flabbergasted.
Does all this lower my opinion of Gwen? No - she's a fictional character.
My disgust at these developments is directed at the direspectful pervert
who thought this would make a good plot.
The only thing that rings true about the whole thing is Peter's reaction.
That part was indeed well written. But the plot itself is one of the
most shoddily researched, ill-conceived, insulting to the characters and
to the readers, plots I've ever seen come out of Marvel, and any halfway
decent writer would have realized that before it ever made it to the page.
JRjr
--
%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%% www.prism.gatech.edu/~jr70 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Some will shake off the sloth of faithlessness
While others simply languish in their sleep
Me, I just fight to stay awake..." -- VOL, "Black Cloud O'er Me"
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>If you want to get an eyeful, go over to newsarama.com and do a search for gwen
>and slut, tramp or whore. Or just read through the threads there in the
>talkback and review sections. Go on over to comicboards.com or the
>insidepulse.com forums the comicbookresources forums...you'll get more than
>enough of this.
That's all well and good, but what about all of the legitimate comments
that don't attack Gwen's character, from reasonable people who still
think this story is an abomination for any number of reasons that have
been well documented in recent days? Don't spend your time hiding behind
a strawman made out of the arguments of a bunch of misogynistic jerks,
how about actually addressing the questions like how you thought this
would possibly fit into established continuity, and how in the HELL it
actualy seemed like a good idea to piss on some folks' fond memories of
a departed character.
Seamus Iea
I have to say I completely disagree with you. The cool thing about art is
that it changes over time. Even something static, like a painting or
sculpture changes by virtue of the fact that we (the viewer) change. For
example, most Monet contemporaries didn't like Monet's work and now...
Comics are even better in this regard, especially long lived ones.
Different authors can give the same old character new flavor because they
look at old things in new ways. We may not always like it, just like we may
wince every time we hear a new cover of an old favorite song, but at the
same time we're wincing, someone out there is saying, 'Wow! That's really
cool!'
So, you don't like JMS's take and that's allright. It's your right and
privlige and cudos for speaking your mind. I, however, find the whole arc
to be facinating and I'm hoping that JMS is just starting to get good and
warmed up. One way or another, Spidy, like the art that he is, will evolve
and we should all thank our lucky stars that someone as capable as JMS is
here to lead him.
Steve-o Stonebraker
> Ha ha ha ha ha.
>
> How could ANYONE who says that they love someone, NOT tell them that
> they've slept with another man if they're pregnant with that persons
> babies.
>
> Thats is just TOO big an indiscretion to keep to yourself.
>
> Especially if you're planning on marrying your significant other.
Perhaps she ran off out of shame? And later decided to try coming clean
anyway? Thus writing the letter?
--Steve-o
--
Steve Stonebraker | http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~sstoneb/
sst...@yahoo.com | Transformers, astrophysics, comics, games, cartoons.
Tom Galloway
Jerry B. Ray, Jr. <jr...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>>insidepulse.com forums the comicbookresources forums...you'll get more than
>>enough of this.
>That's all well and good, but what about all of the legitimate comments
>that don't attack Gwen's character, from reasonable people who still
>think this story is an abomination for any number of reasons that have
>been well documented in recent days? Don't spend your time hiding behind
>a strawman made out of the arguments of a bunch of misogynistic jerks,
>how about actually addressing the questions like how you thought this
>would possibly fit into established continuity, and how in the HELL it
>actualy seemed like a good idea to piss on some folks' fond memories of
>a departed character.
In fairness, since the story isn't over yet it's hardly unreasonable to wait
until that point to address those comments. I'm admittedly not seeing how,
but since so far we've only got Mary Jane's very limited secondhand
knowledge/viewpoint (although, as I've noted, there are problems with that
too) on what happened there is still the possibility of a
Re-Everything-You-Thought-You-Knew-Is-Wrong twist.
Steve-o Stonebraker
> And that's another aspect of this that's driving me crazy... when JMS
> that this made her "a person of immense personal strength and
> integrity," he conveniently failed to address a key issue: SHE CHEATED
> ON PETER. Merely having sex with someone is not what's wrong; it's
> having sex with one person when you're supposed to be in a committed
> relationship with another that's wrong. From his tone, JMS makes it
> sound like his Gwen should get a medal for fucking another guy behind
> Peter's back.
Actually, he explicitly described her tryst with Norman as a mistake, so
your comment about getting a medal is either a willful misrepresentation,
or a sign that you didn't read his response to you very carefully.
Yes, Gwen did something wrong. Everyone in these discussions is well
aware of that. There have been no denials. There is no need for you to
emphasize it. Even JMS has agreed with you. He *did* address that key
issue when he used the word "mistake". One of the differences that seems
to exist between people that view this story as a "desecration" and those
that don't is their stance as to whether or not good people can make
serious mistakes or not and still be considered good people. To me,
although infidelity is a very, very bad thing, it is not something that
would immediately change my entire view of somebody. Especially when I
can see that the person who was unfaithful wants to take steps to attone
for their betrayal of trust.
I think that love, sex, and human relationships are too complicated for a
black and white declaration like "if you cheat, you are simply a terrible
person". Cheating is not a trivial matter, and it can easily destroy a
relationship. It can be a sign of fundamental character traits. But it's
not always. Sometimes it's just a sign of a moment of weakness, or
sadness, or loneliness, or a dozen other things. Based on what we already
know about Gwen -- that she is a good person -- I immediately filed this
infidelity away into one of the latter categories. It never occured to me
for a moment that she might not be as good of a person as I had thought.
It's easy to say something like, "Gwen would never do something like
that," but that sort of statement just sounds really hollow to me. Even
if Gwen were a real person who we both knew and not a construct, I would
still be skeptical of a statement like that. People say that sort of
thing about *themselves* all the time, and sometimes those people end up
not making the mistake they're decrying, and sometimes they do. If real
people can be unaware enough of *themselves* as to say things like that
and turn out wrong, then I put very little weight in it when people say it
about fictional characters.
It's fine for your vision of Gwen to be incapable of doing this, as
everyone fills in the gaps in their own way, but you seem to be making a
much stronger statement than that, along the lines of "any other
interpratation of Gwen is objectively invalid". I think you are failing to
recognize where those gaps are, and which parts of your vision of Gwen are
universal and which are subjective.
Incidentally, there's something very wonky about the formatting of your
posts. The number of columns is way off, making the lines wrap strangely,
and there are nonstandard characters like "fancy" quotes and ellipses.
(I corrected them in the above quote.) Are you writing them in a word
processor and then pasting them into your newsreader?
TheWrathOfKhan
(Jms at B5)
Date: 10/7/04 11:05 PM
<<I just renewed my contract through 2006, but I'll put in a word with the
editors and see if they can be convinced to oblige your request.>>
Anyone besides me disturbed that JMS has time to post flip little comments like
this, yet still fails to respond to any of the legitimite concerns voiced by
longtime fans about this storyline?
Khan
Steve-o Stonebraker
> Anyone besides me disturbed that JMS has time to post flip little
> comments like this, yet still fails to respond to any of the legitimite
> concerns voiced by longtime fans about this storyline?
He already *explicitly said* that he doesn't want to get in the way of the
discussions fans are already having. He is intentionally not responding
to those concerns because he prefers, for now at least, to watch. I would
have thought that the people who were so anxious for him to post would
have actually read what he said rather than making new posts that say
"why doesn't he respond to my criticisms?"
Why is it so important to you that he respond directly to your concerns
anyway? Do you really think it's possible that he could say anything that
would satisfy you? When people ask him questions like "why did you decide
to write something that is so stupid and ruins Spider-Man forever? do you
hate the comics industry?" I can't help but think they don't really care
what his answer is.
R. Tang
No.
But then, I deal with writers and playwrights all the time. Hed
CAN'T and SHOULDN'T respond to the concerns...the works should stand on
its own merit, without the writer constantly defending it.
This works for the lowliest hack writer and for Pulitzer Prize
winning authors. The work, as written, either works or doesn't work--and
obviously it didn't work for many, many people.
David the brave
> > But that's just my opinion.
> >
> > jms
> >
> > (jms...@aol.com)
> Ok, so you are expressing your opinion well I must respect it. Please
> listen what I think about your job:
> RUBBISH.
Good idea, why don´t we resume JMS job it one word?
STINKS!!!!!!!
Gary Lightfoot
> The only thing I will mention, the only thing that did surprise me,
> was the degree to which some folks have turned on *Gwen*. I've
heard
> of the madonna/whore dynamic, but I've never actually seen it played
> out this strenously.
>
> I can't even begin to count the number of posts I've seen from folks
> who are calling Gwen a slut, a whore, and a tramp...that this
> destroys her as a person...that it would be better if she had been
> raped than having had consensual sex.
>
> Better to be *raped*? Having sex with someone makes that person a
> *whore*?
>
> I'll admit it, *that* flummoxed me. Because I've known plenty of
> women who, young and naive and foolish, found themselves caught up
> with an older guy, even if only for a moment, because they are drawn
> in by them...especially if that someone is as powerful and
> manipulative an older figure as Norman Osborn.
I'm even more surprised that you're flummoxed. In the real world, that
would be an obvious and expected reaction in many cases, so it seems
that you've been very naive in your writing here. Check-out the back
story of Webspinners No1. That's a fantastic Gwen story that can fit
into continuity and is believable. What you've written (thus far)
isn't.
> Maybe because I've known so many of them, all of whom are fine
> people, I've never once thought of them in those admittedly ugly
> terms. We all make mistakes in our lives. You who are without sin,
> throw the first stone, right?
That would be almost be Gwen, but you've single handedly destroyed
that. Well done.
> Gwen made a mistake. But she took responsibility for it, had the
> kids when there were other options (I don't want this to turn into a
> debate on those options, I'm just saying), and was prepared to go
> toe-to-toe with Norman, who on some level she had to be afraid of,
> and to raise those children, even if it meant screwing up her
career,
> and marrying Peter.
>
> Now, to *me*, that is a person of immense personal strength and
> integrity. It gives her a spine and a conscience and a will that we
> really haven't seen in her before.
That may be the case with some people, but the situation you've
written wouldn't apply to Gwen. It's far too out of character and
unbelievable on most levels. You should have read the comics (ASM 31 -
121) properly before deciding on this sensationalism.
> To me, Gwen is a person...and like all people, she has good and bad,
> makes mistakes and adjusts for them. Always tries to do the right
> thing. And when cornered, she'll fight, not just for herself, but
> for other people.
>
> To other people, this seems to make her a slut.
Not because of the above paragraph, but because of the actions you've
written her to make. Totally out of character and of course they have
consequences.
> This aspect of it isn't a writing thing, isn't a storytelling thing,
> it's a matter of how one views people who have sex in this world.
And Gwen obviously had views which unfortunately didn't fit in to what
you've written. Bad storytelling.
> And you'll note that at no time does Peter ever say or think these
> things about her. Because Peter understands. Peter loves her even
> though she made a mistake.
Those are your opinions, not Peters. Writing it doesn't make it so I'm
afraid.
> Given the ferocity with which some have turned on a dime and
attacked
> Gwen -- calling someone they say they respected a whore and turning
> their backs on her character, damning her as a slut and a tramp --
it
> seems that I may write the comics, but a few other people have the
> issues....
When someone's actions are so out of character that they themselves
have 'turned on a dime', don't be surprised people's reactions mirror
that.
> But that's just my opinion.
And not a very well considered one at that.
Please do something to put this mess right. The clone saga had a
similar effect on the readers, and that was eventually put right. You
really have to do the same here. Of course, as Tom Galloway has
already said, it's still early days yet and that may be your
intention, in which case you can say 'Gotcha' to all of those you've
upset, but I'd rather that than you continue with this mess and then
decide to leave it for someone else to clean up later. Either way, I
can almost guarantee it will be changed back.
Not impressed so far I have to say.
Is anyone?
Gary.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: I just renewed my contract through 2006, ...
I'm eagerly awaiting the storyline which tells us more about Mary Parker's days
with that ring of organ-smugglers run by the Kingpin, then.
--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
POPP'D! >> http://poppd.blogspot.com/
COMIKADO >> http://comikado.blogspot.com/
"Shut up!" --Fair & Balanced
--
[This is a Usenet message, posted to the rec.arts.comics.* groups.]
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: Anyone besides me disturbed that JMS has time to post flip little comments
like
: this, yet still fails to respond to any of the legitimite concerns voiced by
: longtime fans about this storyline?
Erm, no, not really.
Even presuming that Straczynski agrees with you on which concerns are legitimate
(which I think is quite a stretch, considering that even I don't think that a
lot of "concerns" voiced here are legitimate, although I tend to agree in
principle that it's an awful idea), why should he have to respond? And why to
long-term fans, in particular?
NedLeedsjr
><<I just renewed my contract through 2006, but I'll put in a word with the
>editors and see if they can be convinced to oblige your request.>>
>
>Anyone besides me disturbed that JMS has time to post flip little comments
>like
>this, yet still fails to respond to any of the legitimite concerns voiced by
>longtime fans about this storyline?
Not nearly as concerned as I am that someone would wish another person fired
from his job.
Narshal
> Wow, we live in two different worlds. In mine, a young
> (possibly/probably virginal) girl) having consentual sex with a much,
> much older man (Who happens to be an evil super-villian) but who
> hadn't had sex with her real love....doesn't make her a "stronger
> person". It makes her poorly written and totally out of character.
>
was a stronger person due to her actions afterwards.
Here's the quoted section I refer to:
"Gwen made a mistake. But she took responsibility for it, had the
kids when
there were other options (I don't want this to turn into a debate on
those
options, I'm just saying), and was prepared to go toe-to-toe with
Norman, who
on some level she had to be afraid of, and to raise those children,
even if it
meant screwing up her career, and marrying Peter.
Now, to *me*, that is a person of immense personal strength and
integrity. It
gives her a spine and a conscience and a will that we really haven't
seen in
her before."
So having sex was a mistake but taking responsibility for it, having
the kids and having that argument with Norman takes guts. You'd need a
strong person to accomplish that.
Yes, the sex was bad but does that one mention undermine all the good
of the character? But even having sex with another man while dating
Peter (was she ever engaged to Peter?), can be viewed as not so bad
since there's a variety of cultures where polygamy is encouraged.
Matt Shepherd
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041007190528...@mb-m20.aol.com...
> >And I hope you are fired as soon as possible. I would rather have
> >Mackie/Byrne back. They look like Shakespere compared to this
> >ill-thought out, nonsensical crap that you have put out.
>
> I just renewed my contract through 2006, but I'll put in a word with the
> editors and see if they can be convinced to oblige your request.
>
> jms
>
replacement for you. He apparently comes recommended by the fans.
Dreighton
> jms: I just renewed my contract through 2006, but I'll put in a word with the
> editors and see if they can be convinced to oblige your request.
That's too bad really. Guess I'll be not buying Amazing Spider-man
longer then I thought. I always wondered what would finally drive me
away from my most loved comic character.
And if I thought the editors were doing there job at all, they
wouldn't have allowed this script to be published. At the very,
least, they would have raised some of the same concerns that the fans
have in the continuity, time-line, etc problems. But actually I
haven't thought the Editors actually edited anything at Marvel in a
long, long time.
So I will vote with the ONLY thing they care about: Sales
Dreighton
Daniel Dayton
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Seamus Iea <send...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I have to say I completely disagree with you. The cool thing about art is
>that it changes over time. Even something static, like a painting or
>sculpture changes by virtue of the fact that we (the viewer) change. For
>example, most Monet contemporaries didn't like Monet's work and now...
Well, we better make sure JMS doesn't go near any art museums with a
paintbrush, then, or he might decide to start making some revisions. :-)
Seriously, it's one thing to say that art changes over time because what
we bring to it changes, and quite another to actively revise it. Why
not paint bunny ears on the Mona Lisa, y'know?
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Narshal <eric.p...@sdc-dsc.gc.ca> wrote:
>Yes, the sex was bad but does that one mention undermine all the good
>of the character? But even having sex with another man while dating
>Peter (was she ever engaged to Peter?), can be viewed as not so bad
>since there's a variety of cultures where polygamy is encouraged.
That is, seriously, about the weakest argument I've ever heard. :-)
The more I think about it, what really pisses me off about the story as
it currently stands is just what a blatant puerile shock tactic the whole
thing is.
If Gwen had gotten pregnant by Harry? Not that big of a deal. If it had
been some random middle-aged guy she met at a coffeehouse? Still not that
big of a deal.
It's the fact that, unbeknownst to Gwen but known by everybody else
involved at this point (MJ, Peter, JMS, the readers), Gwen was actually
knocking boots with the single most evil guy in the universe, who had
nothing but hatred for Peter and has devoted his live to wrecking Peter's,
that puts this story into the utterly disrespectful, completely
craptacular category. If there was one person in the WORLD that JMS
could have picked for Gwen to have sex with to wring the most pain out
of Peter and the most anger and disgust out of the readers (at least
those who are fans of the characters and not in it simply for the
writer), it's Norman. That, IMHO, is what makes this story so
terrible - it's lazy writing, geared only toward shock value, with
no redeeming qualities. I really hope that somehow it gets reversed
by JMS in upcoming issues, and if not, I hope that some other writer
excises it with the same amount of respect and care that JMS has shown
toward the works of Lee, Conway, and others (that is, absolutely none
at all).
George Alexander Jr.
Stars,Strange and his EARLIER Spider-Man work(with the exception of his
portrayals of Dr.Doom).That being said,I would also like to say how much
I DO NOT like the recent events in Sins Past about Gwen and Osborn.When
Peter says(I'm paraphrasing),"It all makes sense now.Why he went after
Gwen instead of any of my other loved ones." What was wrong with the
fact that Norman Osborn was a crazed psychopath who hated Peter
Parker/Spider-Man and thought that his goblin glider was worth more than
her life?Gwen was a good enough character.I just don't feel that this
added to her character at all,in a positive manner.It ruined it.Not that
I'm a Mary Jane fan but it doesn't make her character look that much
better keeping the kid's existence a secret either.Also,the question of
them originally being Peter's kids was somewhat misleading,at least from
the artist's renderings because one looks just like Gwen and the other
like Peter.This IS actually to date the WORST Spider-Man arc by
far,IMHO.Hopefully,this will soon be retconned away like Byrne's Chapter
One.I'll still read the other books I mentioned earlier but this Gwen
arc is no longer on my want list.Unlike other posters here,I won't say
JMS is a hack or any other deragatory statement like that,because he
isn't.He's done quite well with other stories and has established his
own place in the space saga/sci-fi pantheon.He just missed the mark
entirely with this one to the point where I wish I could get a
refund.Again,IMHO.
Captain Omega
>In fairness, since the story isn't over yet it's hardly unreasonable to wait
>until that point to address those comments. I'm admittedly not seeing how,
>but since so far we've only got Mary Jane's very limited secondhand
>knowledge/viewpoint (although, as I've noted, there are problems with that
>too) on what happened there is still the possibility of a
>Re-Everything-You-Thought-You-Knew-Is-Wrong twist.
>
>tyg t...@panix.com
>
I've qualified my criticism with "unless you pull a major rabbit out of your
hat." There's a chance this is all smoke and mirrors, of course, but I don't
hold out much hope. If this were the case, I imagine JMS would have told us
"wait to see how it comes out," or other words to that effect. He did not do
this.
Cap
Jim Wilkerson
>
> "The only thing I will mention, the only thing that did surprise me, was
the
> degree to which some folks have turned on *Gwen*. I've heard of the
> madonna/whore dynamic, but I've never actually seen it played out this
> strenously. I can't even begin to count the number of posts I've seen
from
> folks who are
> calling Gwen a slut, a whore, and a tramp...that this destroys her as a
> person...that it would be better if she had been raped than having had
> consensual sex."
Listen buddy...first off, you should never have contemplated using Gwen in
this way. There was no reason for putting her in the position where people
are making a determination of whether she's a tramp in the first place.
There was no reason to write this story, and lessen one of the greatest
stories told in Marvel's history by making Gwen less "virginal" in the eyes
of the readership, other than for the shock value. Maybe it's some adult
fetish of yours of a grown man taking advantage of a younger woman. I don't
know. Regardless, it's sad. Especially from someone who was previously
regarded as one of the better writers working in the hobby.
You mentioned in another interview that you were going nowhere near the
"clone saga". Well congratulations. You have a new story all your own to
be derided about by the readership and stain your future writings in this
hobby. Not an easy task for sure...
Jim Wilkerson
Jim Wilkerson
"Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> ...
> I just renewed my contract through 2006, but I'll put in a word with the
> editors and see if they can be convinced to oblige your request.
You don't get it do you. You've, in one fell swoop, alienated the majority
of your ASM readership. I'd be surprised if you last until 2006 when the
readers bail the title due to your ill-advised revision.
Maybe you can get some work with Top Cow...
Jim
Jonathan M
> >And I hope you are fired as soon as possible. I would rather have
> >Mackie/Byrne back. They look like Shakespere compared to this
> >ill-thought out, nonsensical crap that you have put out.
>
> editors and see if they can be convinced to oblige your request.
>
>
I for one am happy to hear that. I remember reading from Hawthorne High
Comic Con transcript that you could continue writing Spidey for 2-4 years,
hopefully it's closer to four years. :-)
Captain Omega
> Not impressed so far I have to say.
>
> Is anyone?
>
> Gary.
I'm certainly not. In fact, the more I go over JMS's statement, the more
insulted I become. For example:
> Better to be *raped*? Having sex with someone makes that person a
> *whore*?
>
> I'll admit it, *that* flummoxed me.
Reading this again, I get the impression JMS is being a smartass. The intent of
the guy who said he'd rather see Gwen raped was obvious: he meant that the idea
of Gwen having consensual sex with Norman Osborn was ridiculous and that it
would have been better if Osborn had raped her because this would have at least
made *slightly* more sense. JMS isn't that dumb-- he knew what the guy meant.
And even if he somehow didn't, the guy later amended his post to make it crystal
clear for all the morons who didn't get it the first time. JMS comes off like a
slick politician here, raising a completely hollow, diversionary issue to
distract us from the real ones.
It's amazing to me that Marvel failed to learn any lessons from the Clone mess
of ten years ago. For God's sake, just write good, entertaining stories without
trying to shock us all the time. The shocking stuff might give a quick sales
bump, but it will kill the book long term. And I really do blame Marvel for this
moreso than the writer-- someone in editorial should have taken a stand against
this non-sensical storyline long ago and stopped it from ever seeing print.
...I know I've been posting like mad here the past few days, and when I started
I honestly thought I'd be a loud minority of one. It has encouraged me
tremendously to see that there are other readers out there whose feelings agree
with my own and that you have spoken up and given voice to those feelings. For
what little it's worth, thanks guys.
Cap
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 08/10/04 14:49 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id: <ck65tm$k41$1...@news-int.gatech.edu>
>In article <945bb517.04100...@posting.google.com>,
>Narshal <eric.p...@sdc-dsc.gc.ca> wrote:
>
>>Yes, the sex was bad but does that one mention undermine all the good
>>of the character? But even having sex with another man while dating
>>Peter (was she ever engaged to Peter?), can be viewed as not so bad
>>since there's a variety of cultures where polygamy is encouraged.
>
>That is, seriously, about the weakest argument I've ever heard. :-)
Agreed. If Gwen was a member of one of those cultures, or had even discussed an
affinity with them with Peter, then maybe, but she didn't.
I agree with Narshall's first point, though.
>The more I think about it, what really pisses me off about the story as
>it currently stands is just what a blatant puerile shock tactic the whole
>thing is.
>
>If Gwen had gotten pregnant by Harry? Not that big of a deal. If it had
>been some random middle-aged guy she met at a coffeehouse? Still not that
>big of a deal.
>
>It's the fact that, unbeknownst to Gwen but known by everybody else
>involved at this point (MJ, Peter, JMS, the readers), Gwen was actually
>knocking boots with the single most evil guy in the universe,
I don't disagree, but...
The single most evil guy in the universe? Over the Red Skull? Over Kang? Over
whoever's behind "Disassembled"?
Norm's in the big leagues, sure, but only just.
--
Dave
The Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
In life, as in breakfast cereal, it is always best to read the instructions on
the box.
-Thief of Time, Terry Pratchett
Paul O'Brien
<jwilk...@t-online.de> writes
>
>You don't get it do you. You've, in one fell swoop, alienated the
>majority of your ASM readership. I'd be surprised if you last until
>2006 when the readers bail the title due to your ill-advised revision.
You're being a bit premature there. While I can certainly see this as a
shark-jumping point where the readers turn on the book and start to
drift away (as happened with Bruce Jones' HULK), I wouldn't place money
on it. Hardcore fans have an unfortunate habit of buying the title even
if they hate it.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
LIVEJOURNAL - http://www.livejournal.com/~paulobrien
Steve-o Stonebraker
>> This aspect of it isn't a writing thing, isn't a storytelling thing,
>> it's a matter of how one views people who have sex in this world.
>
> And Gwen obviously had views which unfortunately didn't fit in to what
> you've written. Bad storytelling.
I must have missed the issue in which Gwen spelled out the details of her
views on sex. Could you give me a reference?
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Daibhid Ceannaideach <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>It's the fact that, unbeknownst to Gwen but known by everybody else
>>involved at this point (MJ, Peter, JMS, the readers), Gwen was actually
>>knocking boots with the single most evil guy in the universe,
>The single most evil guy in the universe? Over the Red Skull? Over Kang? Over
>whoever's behind "Disassembled"?
>Norm's in the big leagues, sure, but only just.
In the realm of Spider-Man's foes, then, which is what I had in mind but
not what I actually wrote. Particularly since his return from the dead,
he's been written as such an evil psychopath with a mad-on toward Peter
that it's hard to imagine somebody not just taking him out for good, if
not Peter then the Punisher or Cage or somebody. (I did greatly enjoy
seeing him get a beatdown from Cage in that recent issue of _The Pulse_.)
Jim Wilkerson
"Paul O'Brien" <pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote
> You're being a bit premature there. While I can certainly see this as a
> shark-jumping point where the readers turn on the book and start to
> drift away (as happened with Bruce Jones' HULK), I wouldn't place money
> on it. Hardcore fans have an unfortunate habit of buying the title even
> if they hate it.
Tell that to all the readers who bailed after the Clone Saga. This crap
trumps that in my opinion...
Jim Wilkerson
Captain Omega
says...
>
>On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:07:39 +0100, Gary Lightfoot wrote:
>>> This aspect of it isn't a writing thing, isn't a storytelling thing,
>>> it's a matter of how one views people who have sex in this world.
>>
>> And Gwen obviously had views which unfortunately didn't fit in to what
>> you've written. Bad storytelling.
>
>I must have missed the issue in which Gwen spelled out the details of her
>views on sex. Could you give me a reference?
>
> --Steve-o
Gwen's views-- that we know-- were that she was in love with Peter Parker,
devoted to him, and wanted to marry him. This was portrayed, implicitly or
explicitly, in nearly every one of her appearances during the Stan Lee tenure of
ASM. As portrayed, this character would not cheat on Peter, and certainly not
with Norman Osborn. Anyone who can't see this is wilfully ignoring what's in
front of them. Mr. Lightfoot's assessment that this constitutes bad storytelling
is more than fair.
Cap
Jeremy Henderson
<klper...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Has anyone noticed that JMS has not been defending the latest Sins Past
>story line, like previous issues? I know he took a beating on some
>points earlier. But it was his claimed that this would not be some kind
>of strange, unbelievable event. That everything would fit together.
>
>Based on what most people have mention, this was far worst than the
>clones and very unbelievable based on previous Spider-man issues and the
>fact that Norman could past aging genes but not contain the same genes
>(Ok that may be explained). But the fact that Norman would kill Gwen
>without knowing whereabouts of those kids. This goes against everything
>that pervious writers have done with the development of Norman.
Not having read the storyline so far, I may be missing something, but
in the past weren't Norman/Green Goblin unaware of each other? Is it
possible that the Goblin killed Gwen not even realizing he had
fathered children with her?
>I will give him a chance to see if he fixes this mess in the next few
>issues. But, if it stays the course, then "kathy bar the door". This may
>make the clone mess seem like a Sunday picnic. This mess is made worst
>by JMS own statements.
Personally, I don't like the notion that writers are answerable to
fans in terms of what they write. The fans make the decisions what
they want to buy and read, and are certainly free to voice their
opinions, and it is nice when some creators make the effort to answer
questions and criticisms in forums such as this, but the idea that JMS
"owes" us anything kind of explanation or even apology because we
dislike his work just seems misguided. And I'm saying this speaking as
someone who isn't a fan of his work (though I just read the first
couple issues of Supreme Power and grudgingly admit that I enjoyed
them a lot) and have disagreed fairly strongly with some statements
he's made here in the past.
______________________________________________
Life's a lot like a freakshow...
nobody laughs when they leave
Scott Dubin
> In article <887734a2.04100...@posting.google.com>,
> Scott Dubin <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Captain Omega <Captain...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<ck3v7...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> >
> >> First, it angers me that the only thing JMS addressed was the way he saw Gwen
> >> being ?attacked? here. The only reference I?ve seen like this was one guy who
> >> made a joke about Gwen being ?damaged goods? after sleeping with Norman Osborn.
> >> This was nothing more than a joke, and a rather funny one, I thought. If anyone
> >> else seriously characterized Gwen as a ?slut,? then they?re idiots not worth
> >> responding to.
> >
> >Then you have a short memory, or you haven't been paying attention.
> >Between this newsgroup and comicboards, I've seen tons of people who
> >think recent plot revelations make Gwen the scum of the earth instead
> >of angelic perfection.
>
> Truly. LOTS of that. And LOTS of really stupid comments,
> bordering on sexist (no matter how bad the story, the text really didn't
> support the Gwen as Madonna/Whore meme that many posters were ranting
> about).
>
> Theoretically, back in the 60s and 70s, a scummy older businessman
> seducing a younger girl wasn't that unusual (which is what made the role
> reversal in THE GRADUATE memorable). Of course, the fact of the floating
> 10 year Marvel Universe history really hurts the believability of this
> circa the 1990s....
I consider this story a product of the late 60s no matter what "Marvel
Time" says. The way the characters were depicted and interpreted is
very much a reflection of their times. I mean, c'mon, you have Harry
tripping on LSD and Norman worred about scandal. Far as I know, the
only business related scandals we have today is ilegal trading and
embezzling funds
Actually, if you do a reverse Marvel Time, assuming that the years
pass as the characters age, this Gwen flashback story would be set in
1968 or 1969. Anyways, I enjoy a healthy dose of Alan Moore style
postmodernism in my comics.
Considering the original context, this story would have been set
before abortion rights, correct? How does that influence it?
Presumably, she could have gotten one in one of her travels, but
still; poor Gwen, she was in a very uncomfortable situation.
Scott Dubin
> > editors and see if they can be convinced to oblige your request.
>
> That's too bad really. Guess I'll be not buying Amazing Spider-man
> longer then I thought. I always wondered what would finally drive me
> away from my most loved comic character.
>
> And if I thought the editors were doing there job at all, they
> wouldn't have allowed this script to be published. At the very,
> least, they would have raised some of the same concerns that the fans
> have in the continuity
Fuck continuity.
That's right, I said it. I'm tired of hearing dweebs every day
talking about continuity, don't even care if a story is good or not,
just think it's good or bad in how it relates to continuity. I'm
tired of hearing about Marvel Time and contiuity being the main duty
of a writer.
I's as if you guys think, if only we could just get the continuity
just right, than maybe Spider-man will be real.
Well, reality check, it's a character written by hundreds of creators
drawn by hundreds of artists over the course of 40+ years, it's not
going to be entirely consistent if he have different creative voices;
and if we don't have different creative voices we have crap.
Fuck continuity.
Scott Dubin
> >And I hope you are fired as soon as possible. I would rather have
> >Mackie/Byrne back. They look like Shakespere compared to this
> >ill-thought out, nonsensical crap that you have put out.
>
> editors and see if they can be convinced to oblige your request.
That's good, but where's that Babylon 5 comic you promised?
Jim Wilkerson
"Scott Dubin" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Fuck continuity.
Ya gotta love the naive ones....
> That's right, I said it. I'm tired of hearing dweebs every day
> talking about continuity, don't even care if a story is good or not,
> just think it's good or bad in how it relates to continuity. I'm
> tired of hearing about Marvel Time and contiuity being the main duty
> of a writer.
It's not the main duty of the writer but should be used as a template when
writing stories. These are serial productions, not singular universes. If
you can't respect what's gone on before, then you have no business writing
it. Or if the urge is too much, write it as a What If? story.
> I's as if you guys think, if only we could just get the continuity
> just right, than maybe Spider-man will be real.
No that's you talking and a entirely moronic statement. What is expected
are writers to follow at least the basic continuity and not throw in crap
from left field. JMS failed miserably by adding crap without a basic
premise in continuity. That's what has pissed off the majority here...
> Well, reality check, it's a character written by hundreds of creators
> drawn by hundreds of artists over the course of 40+ years, it's not
> going to be entirely consistent if he have different creative voices;
> and if we don't have different creative voices we have crap.
Well no shit. Thanks for that pearl of wisdom. JMS's treatment of Gwen is
entirely inconsistent from continuity. That's the problem here...
Jim Wilkerson
Karl Hiller
> eric.p...@sdc-dsc.gc.ca (Narshal) wrote:
> > If you had a one-night stand and slept with someone, would you go and
> > tell your significant other? If it got you pregnant, would you tell
> > your boyfriend right then and there? I find Gwen's reaction quite
> > realistic. Admitting to Peter that she slept with another man and had
> > a child with him while he was in Canada might have hurt her
> > relationship. She didn't want to do that at the time. She needed to
> > think what she'll do. That's why she instantly doesn't tell Peter but
> > later on writes a letter since she thought about it. As for why she
> > hid her pregnancy, she might have thought of abortion but by the time
> > she had decided to do it, it was too late due to the rapid aging of
> > the twins.
> Ha ha ha ha ha.
> How could ANYONE who says that they love someone, NOT tell them that
> they've slept with another man if they're pregnant with that persons
> babies.
> Thats is just TOO big an indiscretion to keep to yourself.
> Especially if you're planning on marrying your significant other.
I don't think it's unrealistic at all for someone to wrestle with this
sort of problem for a long time before deciding to do something about it.
And I guarantee that it happens in real life all the time, and to an even
greater degree in dramatic fiction.
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Scott Dubin <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Well, reality check, it's a character written by hundreds of creators
>drawn by hundreds of artists over the course of 40+ years, it's not
>going to be entirely consistent if he have different creative voices;
>and if we don't have different creative voices we have crap.
Maybe you should direct your ire at JMS himself, who decided to use
his creative voice to dredge up the past to make revisions to 30 year old
stories. Why not just write something NEW and let the past lie?
R. Tang
Yeah, I think that's a good way of looking at it (that may be an
argument against using this story NOW...the attitudes are so different and
folks just don't grok it).
>The way the characters were depicted and interpreted is
>very much a reflection of their times. I mean, c'mon, you have Harry
>tripping on LSD and Norman worred about scandal. Far as I know, the
>only business related scandals we have today is ilegal trading and
>embezzling funds
"Your son is taking drugs? Well, welcome to the club..."
>Actually, if you do a reverse Marvel Time, assuming that the years
>pass as the characters age, this Gwen flashback story would be set in
>1968 or 1969. Anyways, I enjoy a healthy dose of Alan Moore style
>postmodernism in my comics.
>
>Considering the original context, this story would have been set
>before abortion rights, correct? How does that influence it?
>Presumably, she could have gotten one in one of her travels, but
>still; poor Gwen, she was in a very uncomfortable situation.
Well, Roe v. Wade is January 1973. But a lot of states had it
available quite openly in the mid to late 1960s. But abortion is one thing
that Gwen Stacy may not have supported...
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
The Babaloughesian
"TheWrathOfKhan" <thewrat...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041008014448...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> From: jms...@aol.com
> (Jms at B5)
> Date: 10/7/04 11:05 PM
>
> <<I just renewed my contract through 2006, but I'll put in a word with the
> editors and see if they can be convinced to oblige your request.>>
>
like
> this, yet still fails to respond to any of the legitimite concerns voiced
by
> longtime fans about this storyline?
Huh? It takes far less time to post flip little comments than it does to
respond to pages of whiners whining.
Dreighton
> > (possibly/probably virginal) girl) having consentual sex with a much,
> > much older man (Who happens to be an evil super-villian) but who
> > hadn't had sex with her real love....doesn't make her a "stronger
> > person". It makes her poorly written and totally out of character.
> >
> That's strange. When I read JMS's post, I thought he meant that Gwen
> was a stronger person due to her actions afterwards.
Yes, but to do this you assume she had sex with Norman. As writen much
better in other parts of this thread that just is so out of character,
that then implying that what occured after made her a stronger person,
just doesn't fit. He took a girl that was virginal or assumed, and
in a very commited and loyal relationship with Peter, and have her had
consentiual sex with NORMAN FREAKIN OSBORN! Anything that comes after
that is just as wrong, as the point the drama starts is simply wrong.
Destroying her character, to build character doesn't fly.
Dreighton
Paul O'Brien
<jwilk...@t-online.de> writes
>
>Tell that to all the readers who bailed after the Clone Saga.
Well, they're already gone, so they're unlikely to be leaving twice.
Besides, the Clone Saga actually boosted sales at first. It only
started to shed readers when it become excessively protracted and
convoluted.
This story *might* lose readers, but I'm not holding my breath. My
instinct is that the truly outraged readers are generally such hardcore
fans that most of them would keep reading no matter what. I think a
longer term problem is that there may be a larger silent middle ground
who are just not remotely interested in messing around with early-1970s
continuity, and who'll get bored and drift away. Those are the ones to
watch out for.
NedLeedsjr
> they've slept with another man if they're pregnant with that persons
> babies.
Well, as a working counselor who constantly talks about others about their
"secrets", the first two reasons that would come to mind here would be:
1) Fear of hurting that person so deeply that it'd be devestating for both
involved.
2) Fear of losing that person.
Both make a lot of sense to me.
Sanctify
> In message <ck690n$j81$01$1...@news.t-online.com>, Jim Wilkerson
> <jwilk...@t-online.de> writes
>
>>
>> You don't get it do you. You've, in one fell swoop, alienated the
>> majority of your ASM readership. I'd be surprised if you last until
>> 2006 when the readers bail the title due to your ill-advised revision.
>
>
> You're being a bit premature there. While I can certainly see this as a
> shark-jumping point where the readers turn on the book and start to
> drift away (as happened with Bruce Jones' HULK), I wouldn't place money
> on it. Hardcore fans have an unfortunate habit of buying the title even
> if they hate it.
Count me out. I don't care if the art is good on that book - what was
written was totally out of character.
It appears to be written by someone who's not bothered to read any
Spider-man books in the past, and for like minded people. I may very
well be wrong, but that's my opinon.
I'm sure that both JMS and Marvel don't overly give a shit about one
person, but I'm not buying this particular title until JMS has left the
building. And if that means I'll be waiting until the end of 2006 then
so be it. I dropped the book once during the whole Clone Saga mess, but
what's currently being written makes that crap look like a Byron poem.
Jim Wilkerson
> >Tell that to all the readers who bailed after the Clone Saga.
"Paul O'Brien" wrote:
>
> Well, they're already gone, so they're unlikely to be leaving twice.
Actually I think there are people who've gravitated back over the years.
I'm one. So there will be double dipping...
> Besides, the Clone Saga actually boosted sales at first. It only
> started to shed readers when it become excessively protracted and
> convoluted.
This storyline has also boosted sales primarily due to the Gwen teaser. Not
to the degree as "Saga" but boosted nonetheless. And boosted by a group
that's at greatest risk of being soured by this storyline.
> This story *might* lose readers, but I'm not holding my breath. My
> instinct is that the truly outraged readers are generally such hardcore
> fans that most of them would keep reading no matter what. I think a
> longer term problem is that there may be a larger silent middle ground
> who are just not remotely interested in messing around with early-1970s
> continuity, and who'll get bored and drift away. Those are the ones to
> watch out for.
This is the type of creative screw-up that will drive both hardcore and
passive readers away. Both groups will see the storyline for what it is. A
blatant shock factor attempt by Marvel to boost their numbers. I don't
think readers are that "hardcore" anymore to not walk away...
Jim Wilkerson
Tom Galloway
Jeremy Henderson <hel...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>Not having read the storyline so far, I may be missing something, but
>in the past weren't Norman/Green Goblin unaware of each other? Is it
>possible that the Goblin killed Gwen not even realizing he had
>fathered children with her?
It's a bit of a mix. There was certainly a (presumed, since we didn't learn
the Goblin's other id for years after his first appearance, which was also
several years before Harry Osborne showed up, much less Norman) long period
of time when the Goblin was active and Norman was also active. At that
point, while a "Goblin personality" may have been in control, it was
certainly capable of accessing Norman's memories and posing as him for
extended periods.
Then, when the Goblin discovered Spidey was Peter, he ended up suffering
amnesia of his Goblin id. The Goblin persona/memories returned a couple
of times before his death, but in each case it seemed when Norman, he didn't
recall anything about the Goblin until he reached a critical point, but
while as the Goblin he seemed to recall his Goblin memories and his Norman
memories.
The gist is that the Goblin almost certainly would've known about the kids.
Heck, he knew enough about Peter Parker to go to his apartment, which Peter
had moved into when the Goblin was inactive.
tyg t...@Panix.com
--
--Yes, the .sig has changed
Gary Lightfoot
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 12:07:39 +0100, Gary Lightfoot wrote:
>>> This aspect of it isn't a writing thing, isn't a storytelling
thing,
>>> it's a matter of how one views people who have sex in this world.
>>
>> And Gwen obviously had views which unfortunately didn't fit in to
>> what you've written. Bad storytelling.
>
> I must have missed the issue in which Gwen spelled out the details
of
> her views on sex. Could you give me a reference?
Just read the comics and you'll get the idea.
Gary.
Jeremy Henderson
<sst...@fox.mps.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>Yes, Gwen did something wrong. Everyone in these discussions is well
>aware of that. There have been no denials. There is no need for you to
>emphasize it. Even JMS has agreed with you. He *did* address that key
>issue when he used the word "mistake". One of the differences that seems
>to exist between people that view this story as a "desecration" and those
>that don't is their stance as to whether or not good people can make
>serious mistakes or not and still be considered good people. To me,
>although infidelity is a very, very bad thing, it is not something that
>would immediately change my entire view of somebody. Especially when I
>can see that the person who was unfaithful wants to take steps to attone
>for their betrayal of trust.
Personally, I think I'd be more willing to forgive someone who cheated
on their boyfriend one time than some who...ohh, let's say let their
arrogance lead to the indirect death of a beloved family member.
There was an earlier thread about writers projecting their own
feelings onto their characters (implying that JMS had Gwen sleep with
a middle-aged man because he wishes he could be sleeping with
beautiful young women) but I think there's a serious case of reader
projection going on here: readers who've long been in love with Gwen
because of her sweet, virginal nature now someone feel that "she" has
betrayed them.
It's really a bit scary, when you think about it.
Scott Dubin
> In article <887734a2.0410...@posting.google.com>,
> Scott Dubin <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, reality check, it's a character written by hundreds of creators
> >drawn by hundreds of artists over the course of 40+ years, it's not
> >going to be entirely consistent if he have different creative voices;
> >and if we don't have different creative voices we have crap.
>
> Maybe you should direct your ire at JMS himself, who decided to use
> his creative voice to dredge up the past to make revisions to 30 year old
> stories. Why not just write something NEW and let the past lie?
>
> JRjr
He did write something new, that's why the fans are upset. He wrote
something new set during the time period of Amazing Spider-man 120.
"New" doesn't mean "entirely contained in the present"
Gary Lightfoot
>> Better to be *raped*? Having sex with someone makes that person a
>> *whore*?
>>
>> I'll admit it, *that* flummoxed me.
>
> Reading this again, I get the impression JMS is being a smartass.
The
> intent of the guy who said he'd rather see Gwen raped was obvious:
he
> meant that the idea of Gwen having consensual sex with Norman Osborn
> was ridiculous and that it would have been better if Osborn had
raped
> her because this would have at least made *slightly* more sense. JMS
> isn't that dumb-- he knew what the guy meant. And even if he somehow
> didn't, the guy later amended his post to make it crystal clear for
> all the morons who didn't get it the first time. JMS comes off like
a
> slick politician here, raising a completely hollow, diversionary
> issue to distract us from the real ones.
I did edit my post before sending it in some places, but you've said
what I was thinking - being raped by Norman is in context with Normans
character, despite being in bad taste, but Gwen's actions were totally
out of character and unbelievable. It's very disappointing when a
highly paid writer can't come to the very same conclusions and write
accordingly. Why JMS feels he needs to change so much of what is
almost set in stone I don't know. Maybe he feels he has to upset the
apple cart to get some recognition, but who knows.
> It's amazing to me that Marvel failed to learn any lessons from the
> Clone mess of ten years ago. For God's sake, just write good,
> entertaining stories without trying to shock us all the time. The
> shocking stuff might give a quick sales bump, but it will kill the
> book long term. And I really do blame Marvel for this moreso than
the
> writer-- someone in editorial should have taken a stand against this
> non-sensical storyline long ago and stopped it from ever seeing
> print.
Again you've mentioned something which I edited out to retain some
clarity - the Clone saga was 'put right' as it were, and unless JMS
has something up his sleeve, this will be too, either by himself, or
by someone else later. It has to be. Why can't all writers who use old
story lines such as this get the facts and characterisations right? I
guess they can't all be Kurt Busiek.
I also thought of suggesting that he read the Lee/Ditko stuff and try
the early style of humour/drama which made the character popular in
the first place. I don't think many realise the input Ditko had in
those early stories, but if you read them, you can see the change
after he left. JMS would be doing something good if he tried that
instead of this mess.
> ...I know I've been posting like mad here the past few days, and
when
> I started I honestly thought I'd be a loud minority of one. It has
> encouraged me tremendously to see that there are other readers out
> there whose feelings agree with my own and that you have spoken up
> and given voice to those feelings. For what little it's worth,
thanks
> guys.
To some people, they're just comics, but for others who read them as a
youngsters, and then in later years carried on due to nostalgia and
curiosity, it certainly is very dissapointing to read stories like
this. I've read this book since 1972 (reprints of the first 1960s
stuff, then the current strories etc), so it's kinda part of my life
in some respects (32 years worth). Hard to clarify that into words,
but this story line has certainly dropped JMS in my estimations,
though I'm sure he doesn't really care about the readers such as
myself, just his paycheque.
Gary.
Scott Dubin
> In message <ck690n$j81$01$1...@news.t-online.com>, Jim Wilkerson
> <jwilk...@t-online.de> writes
> >
> >You don't get it do you. You've, in one fell swoop, alienated the
> >majority of your ASM readership. I'd be surprised if you last until
> >2006 when the readers bail the title due to your ill-advised revision.
>
> You're being a bit premature there. While I can certainly see this as a
> shark-jumping point where the readers turn on the book and start to
> drift away (as happened with Bruce Jones' HULK), I wouldn't place money
> on it. Hardcore fans have an unfortunate habit of buying the title even
> if they hate it.
This plotline has me buying the book again. I like it. I think if
anything it will pick up new fans.
R. Tang
In other words, you have no idea.
Come now, folks can do better than that. While I'm more inclined
to take your position, it's still evident that this is a very lame
argument.
Jms at B5
>days
>with that ring of organ-smugglers run by the Kingpin, then.
Nuts...clearly there's a leak at the Marvel offices....
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
Jms at B5
>his creative voice to dredge up the past to make revisions to 30 year old
>stories. Why not just write something NEW and let the past lie?
>
>
You do know, of course, that when I spend time with new characters a lot of
people ask why I'm not using the established characters in Spidey's universe,
yes...?
Point being simply...either way you tie the strings, somebody's gonna hang you
with it.
So one may as well just have some fun.
Jms at B5
>of your ASM readership.
So all these other posts are...from my mom?
Damn.
Jms at B5
It's now being written, having waited for some other developments to take
place, and will be turned into Wildstorm in the first part of the year. (It's
a 100 page graphic novel, so that takes a while.)
Jms at B5
>for your replacement to fix all this mess, as I come to the conclusion
>you are a very lost cause.
Yep. I was right.
It's my mom.
Captain Omega
says...
>but I think there's a serious case of reader
>projection going on here: readers who've long been in love with Gwen
>because of her sweet, virginal nature now someone feel that "she" has
>betrayed them.
>
>It's really a bit scary, when you think about it.
This is a cheap swipe that adds nothing to your argument. If you read the early
books, Gwen's character is clearly defined. You can call that characterization
simplistic, bland, whatever-- but the character Stan Lee created would not do
the things JMS is portraying. This is the basis of most of the criticism here
and it is certainly reasonable. If you can't debate this criticism, then don't
resort to mudslinging-- just shut up.
Cap
Gary Lightfoot
>> Just read the comics and you'll get the idea.
>
> In other words, you have no idea.
Let me put it another way - over time, you know how people are and
what is in character, or out of character, so in that respect, I have
a pretty good idea of what Gwen would do, as did the writers of the
day. JMS doesn't.
> Come now, folks can do better than that. While I'm more inclined
> to take your position, it's still evident that this is a very lame
> argument.
It's only lame if you don't understand it.
Gary.
Ralf Haring
<jwilk...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>This is the type of creative screw-up that will drive both hardcore and
>passive readers away. Both groups will see the storyline for what it is. A
>blatant shock factor attempt by Marvel to boost their numbers. I don't
>think readers are that "hardcore" anymore to not walk away...
I think you overestimate most buyers. Many people will "stick it out"
rather than drop a title. They shouldn't and it's their own fault, but
they do it anyway.
-Ralf Haring
"The mind must be the harder, the heart the keener,
the spirit the greater, as our strength grows less."
-Byrhtwold, The Battle of Maldon