Amazing Spider-Man #510 (SPOILER SPACE--BIG REVELATION)
Kane429
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ok, I can't decide if I am simply not in the know when it comes to how time is
measured in the Marvel universe or if this was a major, major blunder on Spidey
Editorial's part for letting this story proposal go ahead as is. If Gabe and
Sarah are Gwen's kids, how old are they? Hasn't it been established that Peter
is in his late 20s/early 30s in current Marvel timeline? Wouldn't that pretty
much mean that the most we can say Peter and Gwen's relationship took place was
approx. 10 years ago? Gwen's letter states that she had the babies soon before
Peter's trip to Canada, so that would make them....what, 10 years old? Aunt
May describes Gabe as a "young man" but how young are we talking here? Gabe
and Sarah, based on body type, size comparison to Spidey, and basic dalogue
skills have to make them no younger than 20-ish. So what gives? Did Spidey
Editorial goof or will it be revealed that Gabe and Sarah were exposed to some
kind of aging ray (groan)?
Comments/thoughts?
George Alexander Jr.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'm interested in knowing if the twins are not just Gwen's but
Peter's as well. They look like them but that still doesn't explain
their older looks. I always liked Gwen and preferred her over MJ. I just
don't relish the thought that she may have cheated on Peter and then had
kids. I'm gonna wait to pass judgement on this story arc until I start
seeing some answers but, so far I'm not liking it. Of course, this could
all be a foreshadowing of the return of the Jackal. Who knows?
Tom Galloway
Kane429 <kan...@aol.com> wrote:
>SPOILER SPACE
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Gabe and Sarah are Gwen's kids, how old are they?
There's no way they can naturally be the age they're shown. Marvel currently
has a 10 or so year timeline since FF #1, and since Peter started as
Spider-Man shortly after at age 16, and his and Gwen's relationship took
place while he was a college undergrad, at most 6 years have passed since
she died.
>Gwen's letter states that she had the babies soon before Peter's trip to
>Canada,
There's something wrong with this as well, and I'm not sure if it's
significant that Peter's yet to realize it. While Gwen did move to London
for a while after her father's death, it was for a fairly short period.
There's just no place in the timeline where enough time passes for Gwen
to be pregnant without Peter knowing, at least if the pregnancy came to
term/resulted in birth.
tyg t...@panix.com
--
--Yes, the .sig has changed
tphile
Tom Galloway wrote:
> In article <20040728200304...@mb-m03.aol.com>,
> Kane429 <kan...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>SPOILER SPACE
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Gabe and Sarah are Gwen's kids, how old are they?
>
>
> There's no way they can naturally be the age they're shown. Marvel currently
> has a 10 or so year timeline since FF #1, and since Peter started as
> Spider-Man shortly after at age 16, and his and Gwen's relationship took
> place while he was a college undergrad, at most 6 years have passed since
> she died.
>
>
Agreed, they look older than Franklin Richards. Thats Fantastic ;)
but we have seen stories of instant aging before and even an eight
limbed spiderman. but I would hate that solution.
Could it be that she was not showing during the first trimester and with
the births arriving a month early, that cuts down the time drastically
>>Gwen's letter states that she had the babies soon before Peter's trip to
>>Canada,
>
>
> There's something wrong with this as well, and I'm not sure if it's
> significant that Peter's yet to realize it. While Gwen did move to London
> for a while after her father's death, it was for a fairly short period.
> There's just no place in the timeline where enough time passes for Gwen
> to be pregnant without Peter knowing, at least if the pregnancy came to
> term/resulted in birth.
>
> tyg t...@panix.com
The gaps in the letter can be deceptive. It could be saying "a boy and
girl" (I left them with) "Gabriel and Sarah. (whoever they are)
but I simply cannot believe Gwen would abandon any child of hers.
But then I also hate the idea that Gwen might have died a virgin
tphile
Peter Meilinger
Hold on. Is this Gwen Stacy y'all're talking about? She's alive?
What the hell's been going on since I stopped reading Spidey?!
Is anyone still dead?
Pete
Crowmeus
@news3.bu.edu:
> Is anyone still dead?
Uncle Ben.
Kai Hirdt
> Kane429 <kan...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>SPOILER SPACE
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> Hold on. Is this Gwen Stacy y'all're talking about? She's alive?
So far she's pretty dead, unless we are in for another revelation.
Bye
Kai
Alan
be shocked and angry at this storyline, and I'll wager he didn't even
think that it's because Marvel made a huge "Days of Our Lives"-like
screw-up with making Gwen's kids WAY older than they should be...and
it really is even more ridiculous when you compare it to the proper
way in which Franklin Richards has aged. Really, unless there's some
kind of whacko explanation such as these kids either traveling from
the future or having been aged rapidly somehow, there is no way to
accept this as cannon.
t...@panix.com (Tom Galloway) wrote in message news:<cea4m2$s68$1...@panix1.panix.com>...
Selaboc
I suggest you take a look at the Director's cut of 509. The differces
in dialogue on the last couple of pages between the script and the
actual printed comic may be of interest to you.
NedLeedsjr
>I suggest you take a look at the Director's cut of 509. The differces
>in dialogue on the last couple of pages between the script and the
>actual printed comic may be of interest to you.
Two questions:
1) Can you please spoil me on the director's cut version as I have no intention
of paying for the newest Marvel Gimmick.... ugh.
2) Why in the hell would they change the printed copy from the original script?
If the printed version was the decided-upon copy for readers, than why relase
the "original script?
Matt Shepherd
Puh-puh-puh PLEASE!
"Alan" <Kan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2cb79bff.04072...@posting.google.com...
Scott Dubin
> Kane429 <kan...@aol.com> wrote:
> >SPOILER SPACE
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >Gabe and Sarah are Gwen's kids, how old are they?
>
> There's no way they can naturally be the age they're shown. Marvel currently
> has a 10 or so year timeline since FF #1, and since Peter started as
> Spider-Man shortly after at age 16, and his and Gwen's relationship took
> place while he was a college undergrad, at most 6 years have passed since
> she died.
I would prefer that the twins have naturally aged to where they are
today. Comic time is never stable or accurate, the president always
changes to mirror real life, for example. I think its perfectly fine
to say Peter is, say, 35.
People shouldn't think too much about comic time. A good story is
more important. Comics are not realitic at all, so it's sort of an
exercise in stupidity to demand the same from the timeline.
~consul
>>> SPOILER SPACE
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Gabe and Sarah are Gwen's kids, how old are they?
>> There's no way they can naturally be the age they're shown. Marvel
>> currently has a 10 or so year timeline since FF #1, and since Peter started as
>> Spider-Man shortly after at age 16, and his and Gwen's relationship took
>> place while he was a college undergrad, at most 6 years have passed since
>> she died.
> Agreed, they look older than Franklin Richards. Thats Fantastic ;)
> but we have seen stories of instant aging before and even an eight
> limbed spiderman. but I would hate that solution.
Well, they've always played loose with ages wrt Peter. When his 'parents' came back, they
looked pretty young, despite being brother to Aunt May. (Despite being robots) Unless AUnt
May just really aged poorly.
--
"... 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))
justin stewart
REALLY BIG HUGE SPOILERS BELOW DAMN IT!!!
Kan...@aol.com (Alan) wrote in message news:<2cb79bff.04072...@posting.google.com>...
> What I find so ridiculous is that Quesada announced that people would
> be shocked and angry at this storyline, and I'll wager he didn't even
> think that it's because Marvel made a huge "Days of Our Lives"-like
> screw-up with making Gwen's kids WAY older than they should be...and
> it really is even more ridiculous when you compare it to the proper
> way in which Franklin Richards has aged. Really, unless there's some
> kind of whacko explanation such as these kids either traveling from
> the future or having been aged rapidly somehow, there is no way to
> accept this as cannon.
I guess that's one problem with the shared universe; only certain
characters age. I don't have a problem with this story though. It
grabbed more of my attention than any Spider-man comic in a long time.
You could make an arguement that Spider-Man really is way too young.
He debuted in 1962, and the story where Gwen Stacy was published in
what; 1972? That was thirty-two years ago. They contradict themselves
with time constantly.
Just a thought: Maybe if the characters aged on year for every two;
than the kids could be about 18, and Peter Parker could be 36.
I doubt this story will be referred to after JMS leaves the book
though. Barring some serious misdirection, Peter
Parker's illigetimate children are trying to kill him. Remember the
last time they tried to give Peter Parker a kid? Do you think you'll
ever see here in Amazing again?
Only one third of the story has been published, and I'm hooked.
Amazing 510 grabbed my attention like no Spider-man comic in recent
memory. I think the exeution was great, and the cliffhanger had me
stunned. The creative team could still flat on their faces though; I
doubt you could hint at these themes in a story and not have a payoff
without some severe letdown. I'll at least be picking up the next
issue.
-justin
NedLeedsjr
>though. Barring some serious misdirection, Peter
>Parker's illigetimate children are trying to kill him. Remember the
>last time they tried to give Peter Parker a kid? Do you think you'll
>ever see here in Amazing again?
Well, it has been said that this will change everything. True enough that this
is an overused statement used in the industry, but we'll see. Also, there is
certainly a huge number of fans anticipating that they know what is going on
here when it is clearly... well, unclear. It has not been stated that Peter is
the father of these two new characters. My guess is that Gwen may have had
twins, but the two people confronting Peter now played some sort of supportive
role in their care or in Gwen's life at the time. Perhaps, if the kids were
Peter's, they have succumbed to some deadly disease from his irradiated blood,
they died at childbirth, etc. Too early to tell.
Def Scythe
That would be a logical explanation..that they are not her kids but
clones raised to think they are.
Lilith
Clones? What a novel idea.
Lilith
Robert
"Kane429" <kan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040728200304...@mb-m03.aol.com...
here is my $0.02.
From what I read, I think the twins, Sarah and Gabriel, are the children of
Gwen and Harry. In the story gwen write Peter a letter telling him that she
was pregnant and had the kids prematurely in france while he was in canada.
So I guess the reason they aged so fast might be because of the Goblin serum
Harry was using.....not sure if Harry used the serum to become the goblin or
not. Just started collecting spider-man comics.
Ikema
"Robert" <rsa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gdKdnar-mI9...@comcast.com...
>
> "Kane429" <kan...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040728200304...@mb-m03.aol.com...
> > SPOILER SPACE
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
was years (real time) or issues before he actual tried the formula
Jon Clark
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
>Well, they've always played loose with ages wrt Peter. When his 'parents'
>came back, they
>looked pretty young, despite being brother to Aunt May. (Despite being
>robots) Unless AUnt
>May just really aged poorly.
First it was Pete's dad and his Uncle Ben who were blood relatives. And I
always had the impression that Richard Parker was more of a change of life
baby- a decade or more behind Ben. So Figure if May is in her 60's Pete's
parents should be around 50 at this point.
And as for the time passing between the events in this story. The Clone Saga
stated Pete fought his clone originally five years before. Figure maybe a year
or two has passed since then. And that the time from Gwen's death until her
clone showed up and the Spidey-Clone was pry no more than another two years
tops. Get's us close to 10 years but nowhere near the amount of time needed
for these kids to be this old.
This to me is the drawback to continuity in a universe where the characters age
slowly if at all. When you want to show longterm results to events- there will
almost never be enough time passed for them to occur realistically. .
Robert
"Ikema" <mts...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:AoydnTr-M9_...@comcast.com...
ahh ok. thanks for the heads up. :) Now to come up with another theory...
SirSTACK
I got one. They're the children of Gwen's clone, fathered by Ben Reilly.
Instead of crumbling them to dust, the effect of clone degeneration on the
offsprings of two clones ages them quicker than usual.
Otherwise, original Gwen was a mutant, with the useful power of super-fast
pregnancy, and the ability to plop out two fully-grown children.
I'm kidding of course, nobody would ever do either of those things. Most the
readers can expect is Dr Strange will be involved, and the twins will spin-off
into "Amazing Fantasy" to join Spider-Chick as the "Spider Kids"!
Ian Merrithew
(SPOILERS)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
> 1) Can you please spoil me on the director's cut version as I have no
> intention of paying for the newest Marvel Gimmick.... ugh.
Two key lines; paraphrasing here as I don't have the books in front of me.
Original lines:
Sarah: "Yes, it explains a lot, doesn't it?"
Gabriel: "And like I've always said, if you're going to kill a man, you
should have all the reasons you can get."
New lines:
Sarah: "Yes, it explains us, doesn't it?"
Gabriel: "(...) if you're going to kill your father (...)"
> 2) Why in the hell would they change the printed copy from the original
> script? If the printed version was the decided-upon copy for readers,
> than why relase the "original script?
Cash grab, methinks.
--
Ian Merrithew - ADM Systems Engineering
ian.merrithew "at" ieee.org
Selaboc
> >c64fa:
> >I suggest you take a look at the Director's cut of 509. The differces
> >in dialogue on the last couple of pages between the script and the
> >actual printed comic may be of interest to you.
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1) Can you please spoil me on the director's cut version as I have no intention
> of paying for the newest Marvel Gimmick.... ugh.
Well, you could always flip through it at your local comic shop (if
they have any left on the shelf). I don't have the book in front of me
at the moment, but going from memeory
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
I only breifly skimmed the script, but near the end there were a
couple of lines in the script that were more "specific" than the
printed version. The one that stood out the most in regards to the
previous poster's comments, IIRC, was where in the regular book the
mystery male figure says something like "If you're going to kill
someone..." where as in the script his dialogue is something like "If
you're going to kill your father..."
> 2) Why in the hell would they change the printed copy from the original script?
> If the printed version was the decided-upon copy for readers, than why relase
> the "original script?
Well, they call the book a "director's cut" which brings to mind the
"Director's cut" releases of DVDs which contain material that did not
appear (for whatever reason) in the origional release version of the
movie, sometimes completly changing the tone and direction of the
movie.
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 30/07/04 04:34 GMT Daylight Time
>consul mentioned:
>
>s
>p
>o
>i
>l
>e
>r
>
>
>
>>Well, they've always played loose with ages wrt Peter. When his 'parents'
>>came back, they
>>looked pretty young, despite being brother to Aunt May. (Despite being
>>robots) Unless AUnt
>>May just really aged poorly.
>
>First it was Pete's dad and his Uncle Ben who were blood relatives. And I
>always had the impression that Richard Parker was more of a change of life
>baby- a decade or more behind Ben. So Figure if May is in her 60's Pete's
>parents should be around 50 at this point.
Yep, I've got distinct recollections of a back-up story in which a flashback
showed May and Ben on a date, and a six-year-old Richard tagging along.
--
Dave
The Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Egret: An apology sent by computer.
-Andy Hamilton, I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue
NedLeedsjr
>Yep, I've got distinct recollections of a back-up story in which a flashback
>showed May and Ben on a date, and a six-year-old Richard tagging along.
It was a Peter Parker, Spectacular Spider-Man annual.... issue 1, I believe.
George Alexander Jr.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Thanks a LOT Ian for showing the extra lines about what Sarah and
Gabriel said. That does clarify things. I just went over the book and I
just realised another big time change: Peter told the forensics cop that
his webbing lasts for twenty-four hours. Since when??? His webbing
always lasted for an hour. With all of the tests they had to run on the
paper, it had to take longer than an hour so now his webs lasts for a
full day. If this isn't some scheme by the Jackal or just REALLY bad
editing, then MAYBE all of these time changes and Gwen and Peter being
parents of grown children are the results of Spider-Man going back in
time to fight his way back to the present with Dr.Strange's help about a
year ago?
Karl Hiller
> tphile wrote:
> >>> SPOILER SPACE
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Gabe and Sarah are Gwen's kids, how old are they?
> >> There's no way they can naturally be the age they're shown. Marvel
> >> currently has a 10 or so year timeline since FF #1, and since Peter started as
> >> Spider-Man shortly after at age 16, and his and Gwen's relationship took
> >> place while he was a college undergrad, at most 6 years have passed since
> >> she died.
> > Agreed, they look older than Franklin Richards. Thats Fantastic ;)
> > but we have seen stories of instant aging before and even an eight
> > limbed spiderman. but I would hate that solution.
> Well, they've always played loose with ages wrt Peter. When his 'parents' came back, they
> looked pretty young, despite being brother to Aunt May. (Despite being robots) Unless AUnt
> May just really aged poorly.
Wait... I think I have it...
"Sarah and Gabe" are actually CLONES of RICHARD and MARY PARKER!
Think about it, won't you...?
But seriously. I think the time problem is so glaring in this case that I
can't really take this at face value. Something else must be going on.
Problem is, every twist or explanation I can think of is trite or cliche.
I'm not feeling too hopeful about this one.
Paul O'Brien
<kan...@aol.com> writes
SPOILERS
>
>Ok, I can't decide if I am simply not in the know when it comes to how
>time is measured in the Marvel universe or if this was a major, major
>blunder on Spidey Editorial's part for letting this story proposal go
>ahead as is. If Gabe and Sarah are Gwen's kids, how old are they?
Note the deliberate blanks in the text. You're inferring that the
original text said Gabe and Sarah were Gwen's kids, which is presumably
what they'd like you to think. But whenever you get those sorts of
blanks, it's usually a device to misdirect the audience. It'll turn out
that they aren't her kids at all, and she just happened to mention them
a few lines further down in the letter. If they're even the same
people.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
LIVEJOURNAL - http://www.livejournal.com/~paulobrien
Alan
Amazing #509 where Gabe refers to Peter as his and Sarah's
"father"...of course if it turns out the letter is indeed a hoax, then
the whole thing about this being a major, "nothing will ever be the
same again" storyline falls way short...I guess Strazynski has painted
himself into a corner either way...
Paul O'Brien <pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<xxnGULGx...@esoterica.demon.co.uk>...
Jeremy Henderson
wrote:
It could be...ugh...time travel...
______________________________________________
Life's a lot like a freakshow...
nobody laughs when they leave
Paul O'Brien
<Kan...@aol.com> writes
SPOILERS, for god's sake.
>That indeed may be, though it would contradict the Director's Cut of
>Amazing #509 where Gabe refers to Peter as his and Sarah's
>"father"...of course if it turns out the letter is indeed a hoax, then
>the whole thing about this being a major, "nothing will ever be the
>same again" storyline falls way short...
Yes, but if they ARE doing the story where the twins are Peter's adult
kids, then that's just fucking stupid. It's completely out of line with
the age that Peter and Mary Jane are written as being. There's no way
Marvel are going to do that story, not when they've held off on aging
the character for the last thirty years.
Michael Alan Chary
Paul O'Brien <pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <2cb79bff.04073...@posting.google.com>, Alan
><Kan...@aol.com> writes
>
>SPOILERS, for god's sake.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>That indeed may be, though it would contradict the Director's Cut of
>>Amazing #509 where Gabe refers to Peter as his and Sarah's
>>"father"...of course if it turns out the letter is indeed a hoax, then
>>the whole thing about this being a major, "nothing will ever be the
>>same again" storyline falls way short...
>
>Yes, but if they ARE doing the story where the twins are Peter's adult
>kids, then that's just fucking stupid. It's completely out of line with
>the age that Peter and Mary Jane are written as being. There's no way
>Marvel are going to do that story, not when they've held off on aging
>the character for the last thirty years.
Paul, I agree with you, intellectually. I think you absolutely right.
None the less, this is the same company that told us with a straight face
that Ben Reilly was the real, honest to gosh Spider-man, so I have no
doubt at all that they are absolutely capable of doing something as
mindbogglingly stupid asyou suggest.
--
In memoriam Ray Charles, 1918-2004. Hear Brother Ray sing "America:"
http://www.symbolicproductions.com/America/flash/flash.html
The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons
grinningdemon
>That indeed may be, though it would contradict the Director's Cut of
>Amazing #509 where Gabe refers to Peter as his and Sarah's
>"father"...of course if it turns out the letter is indeed a hoax, then
>the whole thing about this being a major, "nothing will ever be the
>same again" storyline falls way short...I guess Strazynski has painted
>himself into a corner either way...
Not really...just because these two may not be Peter's kids doesn't
mean they aren't out there somewhere (or they may be dead, which would
still impact the character greatly, especially if they aren't
pretending Peter and MJ didn't already loose a baby)...i think it fits
(if Gwen was already a few months pregnant when she went off to Europe
and she gave birth a month early like the letter said) and it's very
interesting depending on how he handles it
Jeremy Henderson
wrote:
>In article <3+K3HYEE...@esoterica.demon.co.uk>,
>Paul O'Brien <pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <2cb79bff.04073...@posting.google.com>, Alan
>><Kan...@aol.com> writes
>>
>>SPOILERS, for god's sake.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>That indeed may be, though it would contradict the Director's Cut of
>>>Amazing #509 where Gabe refers to Peter as his and Sarah's
>>>"father"...of course if it turns out the letter is indeed a hoax, then
>>>the whole thing about this being a major, "nothing will ever be the
>>>same again" storyline falls way short...
>>
>>Yes, but if they ARE doing the story where the twins are Peter's adult
>>kids, then that's just fucking stupid. It's completely out of line with
>>the age that Peter and Mary Jane are written as being. There's no way
>>Marvel are going to do that story, not when they've held off on aging
>>the character for the last thirty years.
>
>
>Paul, I agree with you, intellectually. I think you absolutely right.
>
>None the less, this is the same company that told us with a straight face
>that Ben Reilly was the real, honest to gosh Spider-man, so I have no
>doubt at all that they are absolutely capable of doing something as
>mindbogglingly stupid asyou suggest.
It's also the same company that was ready to declare that Aunt May was
Peter's real mother, and only 17 years older than him, when she has
always been portrayed as closer to 50 years his senior. Fortunately
for those of us who prefer a little logic in our comics, Trouble
turned out to be an utterly forgettable miniseries.
Tom Galloway
Rob Hansen <r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>SPOILERS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>Note the deliberate blanks in the text. You're inferring that the
>>original text said Gabe and Sarah were Gwen's kids, which is presumably
>>what they'd like you to think. But whenever you get those sorts of
>>blanks, it's usually a device to misdirect the audience. It'll turn out
>>that they aren't her kids at all, and she just happened to mention them
>>a few lines further down in the letter. If they're even the same
>>people.
>
>and they're allowing themselves to be led up the garden path. Some
Not to mention that JMS used the gimmick of "here's a scene from the
future that strongly implies X...but when the story gets to the point
where you see all the set up and context, it really means Y or even
not-X" several times in Babylon 5. And for all I know, something similar
when writing the mystery series Murder, She Wrote. This isn't exactly
uncharted territory for his work.
Which probably means that this time they are Gwen's kids, just to pull
a psych job on us. [insert Sicilian vs. Westley duel from The Princess Bride]
:-)
>We know Gwen was Harry's girlfriend before she was Peter's. The
Actually, I'm not sure if we do know that. I'd need to check to be 100%
sure, but while Gwen was certainly Harry's friend before she deigned to
give Peter the time of day (and I think Kurt established in Untold Tales
that Gwen and Harry went to the same high school, if it wasn't already
established in a random panel in their first appearance in Amazing), but
I don't recall them ever being a romantic item. Seem to recall Peter was
more jealous with Flash vis a vis Gwen, and Harry was jealous of Peter
having been involved with MJ prior to him, not Peter "stealing" Gwen from
him.
>children in question were her's and Harry's. Gwen and Harry never told
>Norman about the babies. Gwen left New York before she started
>showing, and before becoming Peter's girlfriend, giving birth in
>France.
Nope. Barring JMS taking advantage of that Dr. Strange possible history
rewriting story, this just doesn't sync up with the known timeline at all.
The France trip is being inserted (and I'm not convinced there's enough time
there for the duration needed for Peter not to realize she was showing, but
so far Peter's not gone "Wait a minute...Gwen was never in France for *four
months*") at the time of Peter's trip to Canada circa Spider-Man #118-119,
just prior to Gwen's death. Even if Gwen had been Harry's girlfriend prior
to Peter, that'd compress 70 or so issues of Gwen dating only Peter and
definitely not Harry into a few months. While the floating 10 year timeline
may already have done that :-), it plays hob with the notion of Gwen being
the other great love of Peter's life as their relationship would now go:
1) Gwen and Peter date for 3-4 months at most, including a separation after
her father dies that clearly lasted at least a few weeks when she moved
to London.
2) Gwen leaves for France for 4-5 months (even if the babies came a month
early, I'm assuming she'd need some time to recover).
3) Gwen dies within a few days of her return.
I mean, on this timeline they're barely out of the limerance stage of
a relationship if that, and they've spent much more time apart than together.
On the other hand, it does seem that JMS is inserting a four month trip to
Europe other than the London excursion into the timeline somewhere, even
if I'm not convinced there's any place that can reasonably fit given the
stories published at the time.
Do agree with your point that the Osborns are clearly serving as Chekov
shotguns in this story [Anton, not Pavel. Old line about how if there's
a shotgun shown on stage in Act One of a play, it darn well better go off
by Act Three].
tyg t...@panix.com
--
--Yes, the .sig has changed
TheWrathOfKhan
(Tom Galloway)
Date: 8/2/04 8:47 AM
<<We know Gwen was Harry's girlfriend before she was Peter's>>
<<Actually, I'm not sure if we do know that. I'd need to check to be 100% sure,
but while Gwen was certainly Harry's friend before she deigned to give Peter
the time of day (and I think Kurt established in Untold Tales that Gwen and
Harry went to the same high school, if it wasn't already established in a
random panel in their first appearance in Amazing), but I don't recall them
ever being a romantic item.>>
They weren't. It was established way back in the Ditko issues that Harry and
Gwen had gone to the same high school and were freinds, but there were
certainly never any evidence of a real romance between them (of course, Harry
probably had a crush on her, but there was zero indication Gwen was attracted
to Harry in the slightest).
Khan
Michael Alan Chary
>In article <hl1pg0lo75s1mbmcj...@4ax.com>,
>Rob Hansen <r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>SPOILERS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>Note the deliberate blanks in the text. You're inferring that the
>>>original text said Gabe and Sarah were Gwen's kids, which is presumably
>>>what they'd like you to think. But whenever you get those sorts of
>>>blanks, it's usually a device to misdirect the audience. It'll turn out
>>>that they aren't her kids at all, and she just happened to mention them
>>>a few lines further down in the letter. If they're even the same
>>>people.
>>
>>Yep. I think there are too many people here who don't read mysteries
>>and they're allowing themselves to be led up the garden path. Some
>
>Not to mention that JMS used the gimmick of "here's a scene from the
>future that strongly implies X...but when the story gets to the point
>where you see all the set up and context, it really means Y or even
>not-X" several times in Babylon 5. And for all I know, something similar
>when writing the mystery series Murder, She Wrote. This isn't exactly
>uncharted territory for his work.
>
>Which probably means that this time they are Gwen's kids, just to pull
>a psych job on us. [insert Sicilian vs. Westley duel from The Princess Bride]
>:-)
Remember, please, that this is the same man who had Dr. Doom in tears over
9/11.
>>We know Gwen was Harry's girlfriend before she was Peter's. The
>
>Actually, I'm not sure if we do know that. I'd need to check to be 100%
>sure, but while Gwen was certainly Harry's friend before she deigned to
>give Peter the time of day (and I think Kurt established in Untold Tales
>that Gwen and Harry went to the same high school, if it wasn't already
>established in a random panel in their first appearance in Amazing), but
>I don't recall them ever being a romantic item. Seem to recall Peter was
>more jealous with Flash vis a vis Gwen, and Harry was jealous of Peter
>having been involved with MJ prior to him, not Peter "stealing" Gwen from
>him.
There was some indication that Harry was upset because Peter might have
been smarter than his father. Peter never really seemed jealous of Gwen,
Gwen rather seemed intrigued by Peter. For instance, Peter backs away from
a fight with Flash, and Gwen thinks "I'll bet anything Peter wasn't the
least bit frightened." There's one sort of turning point issue wherein
Harry is upset, and despite having given Peter nothing but problems, Peter
gives him a friendly ear.
Damn, those were some good comics.
>>children in question were her's and Harry's. Gwen and Harry never told
>>Norman about the babies. Gwen left New York before she started
>>showing, and before becoming Peter's girlfriend, giving birth in
>>France.
>
>Nope. Barring JMS taking advantage of that Dr. Strange possible history
>rewriting story, this just doesn't sync up with the known timeline at all.
Which is why I find it all too easy to believe.
>The France trip is being inserted (and I'm not convinced there's enough time
>there for the duration needed for Peter not to realize she was showing, but
He didn't realize she was showing because they had a fill-in
artist.*rimshot*
rezist.com
> has a 10 or so year timeline since FF #1, and since Peter started as
hehe, any1 tried to count, how many times we had X-mass or New year eve
in Spider-Man related books? ;>
--
tomek nowak
http://rezist.com
rezist.com
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
And... how about this....
These are the kids of... Gwen and Norman O. ? :P
Lilith
Maybe they stepped out of the MU into our U and aged like the rest of
us before going back to MU.
Lilith
Dreighton
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
>
> stated Pete fought his clone originally five years before. Figure maybe a year
> or two has passed since then. And that the time from Gwen's death until her
> clone showed up and the Spidey-Clone was pry no more than another two years
> tops. Get's us close to 10 years but nowhere near the amount of time needed
> for these kids to be this old.
>
> This to me is the drawback to continuity in a universe where the characters age
> slowly if at all. When you want to show longterm results to events- there will
> almost never be enough time passed for them to occur realistically.
Yep, that is one of the draw backs, and why for me this story arc in
Amazing simiply isn't working for me. There is no way the kids if they
are Peter's could possible be as old as they are drawn. Now we fans
could debate it, but wouldn't Peter/Spidey...know how old he himself
is? Wouldn't HE know there is no possible way these two weren't his
kids? Wouldn't the 2 kids also know that they couldn't be Peter's
kids as well using that same logic?
The time line at best is along these line: Gwen and Peter and Harry
were in college at the time she went to Paris and Peter was in Canada.
So using youngest age possible, they (Gwen and Peter @ that time)
would be say 18. The clone/Jackel issue of #150 happened late in
their College life (or just after) say, when they were 21. 5 years
was the date given when Ben Reilly shows back up...so about 26-27
would be Peter's age. Give a couple of years since then for Peter's
current age and we are at 28-29 which is how Peter is usually
presented as his current age. But even if he is a few more years
older then that now....say 32. That's only 14 years since Gwen went
off to Paris. And the 2 that beat up on Spidey/Peter certainly don't
look like they 14 (even if you spot some for Bad Artist that can't
draw a young teen body).
If you are 32, and a 20 year old shows up and says, "Hey DAD!" on your
door-step and you didn't have sex until you were say 18..you would
know that things didn't add up, with out thinking about it too long.
Which is why I don't see how Peter could even give pause to the reader
that he actually thinks these 2 could possibly be his kids.
And for this the story doesn't work....so how will the age thing be
explained? the only answers I come up with are lame....Clones, Aging
device, time travel, brains in older bodies. Or they aren't his kids,
they were mistaken, which brings me back to my first
thought...wouldn't the twins figure that out the second they saw him,
and go.."He was only 14 when he Fathered us?!?!?!" (yes it happens in
real life, but not so in Peter's as he wasn't Spidey at 14 and he
hadden met Gwen yet)
Dreighton
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Dreighton <dbda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Spoiler Space, just in case
>And for this the story doesn't work....so how will the age thing be
>explained? the only answers I come up with are lame....Clones, Aging
>device, time travel, brains in older bodies.
The other night, I read the issues leading up to and including Gwen's
death in Essential Spidey Volume 6, right before I went to bed. As
I was falling asleep, the thought occurred to me that maybe the people
currently hunting Peter are some long-lost siblings of Gwen's. I haven't
really thought it all through, but it made a lot of sense when I was only
half awake. :-)
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.
Ken Arromdee <arro...@green.rahul.net> wrote:
>>Spoiler Space, just in case
>>The other night, I read the issues leading up to and including Gwen's
>>death in Essential Spidey Volume 6, right before I went to bed. As
>>I was falling asleep, the thought occurred to me that maybe the people
>>currently hunting Peter are some long-lost siblings of Gwen's. I haven't
>>really thought it all through, but it made a lot of sense when I was only
>>half awake. :-)
>It's possible, but it doesn't explain Peter's reaction on seeing the half-
>visible letter.
Yeah, you're right. And like I said, I haven't gone back to try to see if
all the pieces fit, but as I recall, he didn't explicitly say "OMG, Gwen was
pregnant with my children," so maybe there's still enough wiggle room for
it to all make sense. (Though I am puzzled as to just how this trip to
France fits into the timeline, because the events from the gang war up
through Gwen's death all seemed to be pretty continuous.)
lavar78
Henderson <hel...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
OMG! That is the most fucked up story idea I have ever heard. No,
seriously, that beats Mackie's box that "confirmed" MJ's death and even
Austen's "Holy War" in Uncanny X-Men. Well, maybe not. Anyway, I
missed that somehow. On one hand, I'm thankful. OTOH, that's a train
wreck I think I have to see.
- lavar78
Jms at B5
have to be the sloppiest writer in the history of...well, really sloppy writers
to not take into account the time factor in Spidey chronology, and deal with it
straight-up in the writing. And we do, about two issues down the road, address
this issue in absolutely straightforward terms.
The math not only works, in fact it becomes a major aspect of the story, as you
will see in about two months.
To the broader questions raised here...I don't generally believe in cheats. In
B5, we only did one time-travel story (across two episodes, showing both sides
of that story) and I went clear around the horn to make sure that there were no
cheats in that story.
This isn't a time travel deal, it's not an alternate history story, it's not a
hoax, it's not a clone story, it's not, in short, a *cheat*. I have too much
respect for the readers to do that. Is it what people are assuming it is, with
only part of the information? Yes...and no. All the information isn't out
there yet.
All I can say is...it isn't a throw-away, reset the button story, it's the real
deal.
The amusing thing has been watching some of the online critics who, being
themselves unable to think how it could be done in a way that isn't stupid,
come to the assumption that the story is going to be as stupid as those
assumptions...and go after it as a result, not understanding that it's the
parameters they're seeing inside their own head that they're reacting to, not
what's in the story...because the story hasn't been told in full yet.
There are four more issues to go in this story, and every one of them is a real
toad-strangler.
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)
R. Tang
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>All I can say is...it isn't a throw-away, reset the button story, it's the real
>deal.
>
>The amusing thing has been watching some of the online critics who, being
>themselves unable to think how it could be done in a way that isn't stupid,
>come to the assumption that the story is going to be as stupid as those
>assumptions...and go after it as a result, not understanding that it's the
>parameters they're seeing inside their own head that they're reacting to, not
>what's in the story...because the story hasn't been told in full yet.
You are mean, sadistic SOB to do that. Why, I know some of these
critics and...
Hm. On second thought, they're getting their just desserts.
--
-
-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
Alex Peckover
news:20040805025244...@mb-m01.aol.com
> The amusing thing has been watching some of the online critics who, being
> themselves unable to think how it could be done in a way that isn't
> stupid, come to the assumption that the story is going to be as stupid
> as those assumptions...and go after it as a result, not understanding
> that it's the parameters they're seeing inside their own head that
> they're reacting to, not what's in the story...because the story hasn't
> been told in full yet.
Such is the sad state of the internet. Hearing the exasperated reactions of
fanboys who read small snippets of information about upcoming storylines
can be both amusing, and at times aggravating. As a comics fan, and more
importantly a fairly knowledgable (okay, understatement) Star Trek fan,
these people have become rather tiresome.
While most have reacted well to the little hints Star Trek: Enterprise
producer Manny Coto has given about his plans for season four, for example,
the reactions of some to certain storylines (revolving around the Vulcans)
has been shocking.
Alex
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: To jump in here...as much as I can, I always try to do my homework, and I'd
: have to be the sloppiest writer in the history of...well, really sloppy
writers
: to not take into account the time factor in Spidey chronology, and deal with
it
: straight-up in the writing.
While we're on the subject of homework, I'd like to point out that spiders
aren't insects. The matter most recently came up in SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN, but
I recall that it also played a role back during the Shathra arc in AMAZING
SPIDER-MAN. I don't remember whether it was explicitly stated that spiders ARE
insects, but it was at least strongly implied in both stories.
Little pet peeve of mine, which I think Marvel could be getting right after
forty years.
--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
POPP'D! >> http://poppd.blogspot.com/
COMIKADO >> http://comikado.blogspot.com/
"Lucky for us some idiot thought it would be a great idea to protect the melting
ice caps by coating them with Europe's dark chocolate surplus."
-- Morrison, Seaguy
--
[This is a Usenet message, posted to the rec.arts.comics.* groups.]
Dreighton
> To jump in here...as much as I can, I always try to do my homework, and I'd
> have to be the sloppiest writer in the history of...well, really sloppy writers
> to not take into account the time factor in Spidey chronology, and deal with it
> straight-up in the writing. And we do, about two issues down the road, address
> this issue in absolutely straightforward terms.
D: Well, there HAS been a long line of Sloppy writing on Spidey and
other Marvel comics, so assuming you are sloppy on this one well, can
be justified.
> The math not only works, in fact it becomes a major aspect of the story, as you
> will see in about two months.
D: Now for this one....the math CAN'T work naturally if "the Twins"
are the age they are drawn to be.
Cutin and pastin my own argument from another thread:
There is no way the kids if they
are Peter's could possible be as old as they are drawn. Now we fans
could debate it, but wouldn't Peter/Spidey...know how old he himself
is? Wouldn't HE know there is no possible way these two weren't his
kids? Wouldn't the 2 kids also know that they couldn't be Peter's
kids as well using that same logic?
The time line at best is along these line: Gwen and Peter and Harry
were in college at the time she went to Paris and Peter was in Canada.
So using youngest age possible, they (Gwen and Peter @ that time)
would be say 18. The clone/Jackel issue of #150 happened late in
their College life (or just after, ASIR) say, when they were 21-22. 5
years
was the date given when Ben Reilly shows back up...so about 26-27
would be Peter's age. Give a couple of years since then for Peter's
current age and we are at 28-29 which is how Peter is usually
presented as his current age. But even if he is a few more years
older then that now....say 32. That's only 14 years since Gwen went
off to Paris (32-18=14). And the 2 that beat up on Spidey/Peter
certainly don't
look like they 14 (even if you spot some for Bad Artist that can't
draw a young teen body...and I'm thinking this will be the "cheat").
The only way Peter (or Harry) could be their Father is if Peter
suddenly ages to his late/later 30's (10 more years then he's USUALLY
protrayed at) OR the kids aren't as old as they look/drawn.
> The amusing thing has been watching some of the online critics who, being
> themselves unable to think how it could be done in a way that isn't stupid,
> come to the assumption that the story is going to be as stupid as those
> assumptions...and go after it as a result, not understanding that it's the
> parameters they're seeing inside their own head that they're reacting to, not
> what's in the story...because the story hasn't been told in full yet.
Well, there is a reason I'm not getting paid by Marvel to write
Amazing Spider-man. Though, that still doesn't explain how Mackie was
paid to write Spidey.
Dreighton
Daniel Dayton real name
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 05/08/04 16:14 GMT Daylight Time
>jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote in message
>news:<20040805025244...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
>> The math not only works, in fact it becomes a major aspect of the story, as
>you
>> will see in about two months.
>
>D: Now for this one....the math CAN'T work naturally if "the Twins"
>are the age they are drawn to be.
He didn't say it worked "naturally", he just said it worked. *How* it works,
well, that's two months away...
--
Dave
The Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Egret: An apology sent by computer.
-Andy Hamilton, I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue
Ken Arromdee
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>To jump in here...as much as I can, I always try to do my homework, and I'd
>have to be the sloppiest writer in the history of...well, really sloppy writers
>to not take into account the time factor in Spidey chronology, and deal with it
>straight-up in the writing.
I think you underestimate how sloppy the chronology has been in the past.
Look at Trouble, for instance.
>This isn't a time travel deal, it's not an alternate history story, it's not a
>hoax, it's not a clone story, it's not, in short, a *cheat*.
On the other hand, not everyone agrees on what a cheat is. If the missing
words in the letter show that those aren't Gwen's kids, and that Peter's
reaction, which seemed to be about him and Gwen having kids, really was about
something else, would that be a cheat? It's not the kind of cheat you
describe--it doesn't depend on the weirdness of the comic book genre. Yet
many readers would still think of it as one.
>I have too much
>respect for the readers to do that. Is it what people are assuming it is, with
>only part of the information? Yes...and no. All the information isn't out
>there yet.
People are assuming that those are Gwen's kids. It's really hard for that
to be a "yes and no" thing, because Gwen couldn't be just a little bit
pregnant. Maybe the father isn't Peter, which I suppose is a "yes and no",
but that doesn't help the time problem.
>The amusing thing has been watching some of the online critics who, being
>themselves unable to think how it could be done in a way that isn't stupid,
>come to the assumption that the story is going to be as stupid as those
>assumptions...and go after it as a result, not understanding that it's the
>parameters they're seeing inside their own head that they're reacting to, not
>what's in the story...because the story hasn't been told in full yet.
I've heard that before. Usually it turned out the story really was as
stupid as the assumptions.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"One day, I shall come back. Yes, I shall come back! Until that day, there
must be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your
beliefs, and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine..."
"
Michael Alan Chary
>have to be the sloppiest writer in the history of...well, really sloppy writers
>to not take into account the time factor in Spidey chronology, and deal with it
>straight-up in the writing. And we do, about two issues down the road, address
>this issue in absolutely straightforward terms.
You could just let the story speak for itself. From my perspective I have
a couple problems, I trust you as a writer, for the most part, though
there've been times I've wondered why you did stuff, and other times when
I thought you were just wrong about things like Dr. Doom crying or
Garibaldi going off the wagon. Your publisher, otoh, does stuff like this
all the time, and frankly, screws it up.
>This isn't a time travel deal, it's not an alternate history story, it's not a
>hoax, it's not a clone story, it's not, in short, a *cheat*. I have too much
>respect for the readers to do that. Is it what people are assuming it is, with
>only part of the information? Yes...and no. All the information isn't out
>there yet.
I'm not assuming it's a cheat. I mean, Rod Serling gave you his imprimatur
while you were in high school. But Rod Serling was also doing whiskey
commercials at the time. However, I expect it to be painful reading. I
hope I am wrong, but you've already given us the SPider totem stuff which
was, in fact, painful reading. Not the least because it conflicted with a
classic Jim Starlin/Thanos story.
>The amusing thing has been watching some of the online critics who, being
>themselves unable to think how it could be done in a way that isn't stupid,
>come to the assumption that the story is going to be as stupid as those
>assumptions...and go after it as a result, not understanding that it's the
>parameters they're seeing inside their own head that they're reacting to, not
>what's in the story...because the story hasn't been told in full yet.
>
>There are four more issues to go in this story, and every one of them is a real
>toad-strangler.
Well, I paid my money for the comic, so I'll whine if I want to.
Michael Alan Chary
>There is no way the kids if they
>are Peter's could possible be as old as they are drawn. Now we fans
>could debate it, but wouldn't Peter/Spidey...know how old he himself
>is? Wouldn't HE know there is no possible way these two weren't his
>kids? Wouldn't the 2 kids also know that they couldn't be Peter's
>kids as well using that same logic?
>
>The time line at best is along these line: Gwen and Peter and Harry
>were in college at the time she went to Paris and Peter was in Canada.
> So using youngest age possible, they (Gwen and Peter @ that time)
>would be say 18. The clone/Jackel issue of #150 happened late in
>their College life (or just after, ASIR) say, when they were 21-22. 5
>years
>was the date given when Ben Reilly shows back up...so about 26-27
>would be Peter's age. Give a couple of years since then for Peter's
>current age and we are at 28-29 which is how Peter is usually
>presented as his current age. But even if he is a few more years
>older then that now....say 32. That's only 14 years since Gwen went
>off to Paris (32-18=14). And the 2 that beat up on Spidey/Peter
>certainly don't
>look like they 14 (even if you spot some for Bad Artist that can't
>draw a young teen body...and I'm thinking this will be the "cheat").
Well, the only reason I have for assuming he's the father is that Marvel
has done things even dumber than that in the past. Paul and the others are
perfectly correct that this is obviously a case of misdirection.
However, FWIW, the presumed children of Parker might have inherited his
Spider powers to some extent enough to give him a fight, and when I was
14, I was 6'4" 240 with a black belt in karate.
Paul O'Brien
<jms...@aol.com> writes
>To jump in here...as much as I can, I always try to do my homework, and
>I'd have to be the sloppiest writer in the history of...well, really
>sloppy writers to not take into account the time factor in Spidey
>chronology, and deal with it straight-up in the writing.
...?!?
Have you actually READ any of the stuff that's come out of Axel Alonso's
office in the last few years?
The current Spider-Man office is responsible for TROUBLE, a miniseries
that tried to establish Aunt May as Peter's mother, with an 18-year age
gap - manifestly impossible, but that didn't stop them having a go.
This is also the office with an attitude to continuity so relaxed that
they can't even make up their mind whether MARVEL KNIGHTS SPIDER-MAN is
in the Marvel Universe *at all.* (Mark Millar says it is. Axel Alonso
says it isn't.)
Hell, Alonso has given interviews pretty much saying that he doesn't
really care about the subject.
And you're suggesting that readers should give the Spider-Man office the
benefit of the doubt on continuity matters?
Why should they?
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
LIVEJOURNAL - http://www.livejournal.com/~paulobrien
NedLeedsjr
>>To jump in here...as much as I can, I always try to do my homework, and
>>I'd have to be the sloppiest writer in the history of...well, really
>>sloppy writers to not take into account the time factor in Spidey
>>chronology, and deal with it straight-up in the writing.
>
>...?!?
>
>Have you actually READ any of the stuff that's come out of Axel Alonso's
>office in the last few years?
>
>The current Spider-Man office is responsible for TROUBLE, a miniseries
>that tried to establish Aunt May as Peter's mother, with an 18-year age
>gap - manifestly impossible, but that didn't stop them having a go.
>
>This is also the office with an attitude to continuity so relaxed that
>they can't even make up their mind whether MARVEL KNIGHTS SPIDER-MAN is
>in the Marvel Universe *at all.* (Mark Millar says it is. Axel Alonso
>says it isn't.)
>
>Hell, Alonso has given interviews pretty much saying that he doesn't
>really care about the subject.
>
>And you're suggesting that readers should give the Spider-Man office the
>benefit of the doubt on continuity matters?
>
>Why should they?
He was not asking this. He seemed to be asking for the benefit of the doubt for
his own story. I have not enjoyed the heavy magical influence that he has
brought to much of his run, nor does Peter/Spidey seem completely in character
to the Spidey that I've been reading for 35 years.... but JMS does bring a
great deal of original thought, creative energy and obvious thought and energy
into his stories. Since I've never ascribed to the "Gwen/Peter bastard
children/villian" theory, I'll continue to give him the benefit of the doubt
here.
Jms at B5
>benefit of the doubt on continuity matters?
>
>Why should they?
Show me where in my message I mentioned the office. I just said what *I* was
doing, nobody else. And I can tell you that whenever I've gone into Spidey's
past, I've made it a point to research the thing to try and get it right, to
the point of referring to specific panels in previous issues as reference for
the art.
And not one person at the Marvel office has ever said one word to me about not
doing so.
Jms at B5
>other Marvel comics, so assuming you are sloppy on this one well, can
>be justified.
But insofar as I know, not on my watch. One may agree or disagree with a given
tack being taken, but sloppy? I don't feel that's the case.
But then, to be fair, I wouldn't.
>
>D: Now for this one....the math CAN'T work naturally if "the Twins"
>are the age they are drawn to be.
>
Which goes back to what I said...you can't see a way in which that can be the
case.
Different thing.
Scott Dubin
>
> The only way Peter (or Harry) could be their Father is if Peter
> suddenly ages to his late/later 30's (10 more years then he's USUALLY
> protrayed at) OR the kids aren't as old as they look/drawn.
The timeline is always being adjusted. They can always adjust it the
other way, moving the Spider-man timeline forward, instead of the
usual process of moving it back.
Jms at B5
>words in the letter show that those aren't Gwen's kids, and that Peter's
>reaction, which seemed to be about him and Gwen having kids, really was about
>something else, would that be a cheat?
No, it's the same as it is with any good mystery, you layer the clues out
slowly. What comes out will not be inconsistent with what's written. If it
were, then it would be a cheat.
I thin it's important to play fair with the audience, so that at the end of a
given story, if they roll back the film, as it were, all the pieces were there
to figure something out, in plain sight...they may not have known the
implications at that time, but at the end, it all adds up, and you don't change
the rules mid-stream.
Paul O'Brien
<jms...@aol.com> writes
>
>Show me where in my message I mentioned the office. I just said what
>*I* was doing, nobody else.
You said, quote:
>I'd have to be the sloppiest writer in the history of...well, really
>sloppy writers to not take into account the time factor in Spidey
>chronology, and deal with it straight-up in the writing.
That goes beyond "I wouldn't make a mistake like that." What it's
saying is "No competent writer would make a mistake like that. And no
reasonable reader would assume that that was an error."
And I'm saying to you that you're wrong. Competent writers make these
mistakes all the time, particularly so in the Spider-Man office, because
- as Marvel have been pretty open about telling us - they really don't
much care. When Marvel start trying to put TROUBLE about as part of
Spider-Man's origin, it's pretty clear that any pretence of caring about
timeline logic has gone completely out of the window. (And hey, there
are perfectly good creative arguments for doing so.)
Now, maybe you work to higher standards in this regard than the other
books, and maybe you don't. The point is that there is no reason for
readers to give the benefit of the doubt to you on this point when (for
entirely sound reasons) they wouldn't give it to any other writer on the
Spider-Man titles.
NedLeedsjr
> The point is that there is no reason for
>readers to give the benefit of the doubt to you on this point when (for
>entirely sound reasons) they wouldn't give it to any other writer on the
>Spider-Man titles.
Hey Paul, I'm not looking for a fight, really, but there absolutely is a
reason.... his track record. Same as a handful of other writers in the field
that I'd give the benefit of the doubt until a story's conclusion.
W. Blaine Dowler
> You said, quote:
>
>>I'd have to be the sloppiest writer in the history of...well, really
>>sloppy writers to not take into account the time factor in Spidey
>>chronology, and deal with it straight-up in the writing.
>
> That goes beyond "I wouldn't make a mistake like that." What it's
> saying is "No competent writer would make a mistake like that. And no
> reasonable reader would assume that that was an error."
I think he was illustrating the magnitude of that particular mistake. This
isn't a "which class did Peter skip to fight the Rhino twenty years ago"
subtle problem (which I'm sure JMS would research if his story needed that
information), it's a significant "detail" that would be noticed by even the
most casual of readers. It would take an extremely sloppy writer to miss
the timeline, but not much to miss something like the class that was
skipped.
--
- Blaine
http://www.bureau42.com
ICQ: 24893016
Schrodinger's Cat: wanted dead and alive
Jms at B5
I said:
>>I'd have to be the sloppiest writer in the history of...well, really
>>sloppy writers to not take into account the time factor in Spidey
>>chronology, and deal with it straight-up in the writing.
You then took that statement and re-phrased it, taking it to another level of
intention as follows:
>That goes beyond "I wouldn't make a mistake like that." What it's
>saying is "No competent writer would make a mistake like that. And no
>reasonable reader would assume that that was an error."
I will point out that I said nothing of the kind, nor was I generalizing to
other writers, other competent writers, or to what readers should or should not
assume concerning errors. You took my statement and came up with another one,
attributing it to me, and following it with:
>And I'm saying to you that you're wrong.
So the statement you rephrased is wrong, and I don't disagree that it's wrong
because you'd have to be a complete bubble-head to make a statement like that
and mean it. But that has nothing to do with what I actually *said*.
This is called creating a straw-man argument, where you revise the statement to
make it indefensible, and proceed to attack it.
So I'm not going to defend something I didn't say. If you want to take it to
another whole level and argue about things I didn't say, that's fine for a
hobby, but it has nothing to do with this conversation.
>Competent writers make these
>mistakes all the time
Competent and incompetent writers do make mistakes, yes. Perfection, I've
discovered, is a state that some tend to demand in others while excusing it in
themselves. But be that as it may....
>Now, maybe you work to higher standards in this regard than the other
>books, and maybe you don't.
The ASM books are the core books, and have a greater responsibility to be as
accurate in their storytelling as possible. So that is my responsibility. I
don't speak to other people's responsibilities because I can't get inside their
head...something you should try avoiding yourself in future because thus far
you're getting a lot of it wrong.
But mistakes happen, right?
>The point is that there is no reason for
>readers to give the benefit of the doubt to you on this point when (for
>entirely sound reasons) they wouldn't give it to any other writer on the
>Spider-Man titles.
So there is no distinction in your mind between writers? They are all the
same? They should all be treated in exactly the same manner? Do you think
they are all working in lockstep, with no qualitative differences or
distinctions?
Do you really believe this?
If so, may I inquire what the color is on the world where you come from?
Because on Earth (my planet) a writer, any writer, builds his or her reputation
on what he or she does, not on what others do, and is evaluated on a
trustworthiness scale by the degree to which he/she keeps their promises, not
by what other people do or don't do.
So one doesn't judge Bradbury by Heinlein, you don't judge Macy's by Bullock's,
you don't judge broccoli by bananas, and you don't judge me by Bendis, Bendis
by me, me by Waid or Waid by anybody else.
At least, that's how we Earthers do it. I would be very much interested in
hearing how they do it on your world, Ambassador.
Please give my best wishes to the rest of the Martian delegation.
yrs,
The Nuclear Marine
news:d41de28c.04080...@posting.google.com:
> jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote in message
> news:<20040805025244...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
>> To jump in here...as much as I can, I always try to do my homework,
>> and I'd have to be the sloppiest writer in the history of...well,
>> really sloppy writers to not take into account the time factor in
>> Spidey chronology, and deal with it straight-up in the writing. And
>> we do, about two issues down the road, address this issue in
>> absolutely straightforward terms.
>> The math not only works, in fact it becomes a major aspect of the
>> story, as you will see in about two months.
>
> D: Now for this one....the math CAN'T work naturally if "the Twins"
> are the age they are drawn to be.
>
> Cutin and pastin my own argument from another thread:
> There is no way the kids if they
> are Peter's could possible be as old as they are drawn. Now we fans
> could debate it, but wouldn't Peter/Spidey...know how old he himself
> is? Wouldn't HE know there is no possible way these two weren't his
> kids? Wouldn't the 2 kids also know that they couldn't be Peter's
> kids as well using that same logic?
>
Who said Gabrial and Sarah were Peter's kids? All I saw in the letter is
that Gwen was pregant, had twins a month early (a boy and a girl), then
later (at least a line and a half later) she writes the names Gabrial and
Sarah (not necesarily the names of the twins she had). Now, are these
names the names of Gabriel and Sarah? Are the names the two people called
each other actually their names? Basicly, most talk in this thread is
presuming more than AMS 510 has told. Great, now I have to go over older
issues to see if Spidey ran into any 12 year fraternal twins.
Another thing, isn't it odd that only whole words came out on the letter?
If it were a problem with age then you'd have a stray letter all over the
place. Seems Peter's been set up by that letter and the simple thing that
every kid that read Encyclopedia Brown knows, writing imprints. Who are
Gabe and Sarah?
Nuke
The Nuclear Marine
> So one doesn't judge Bradbury by Heinlein, you don't judge Macy's by
> Bullock's, you don't judge broccoli by bananas, and you don't judge me
> by Bendis, Bendis by me, me by Waid or Waid by anybody else.
>
> At least, that's how we Earthers do it. I would be very much
> interested in hearing how they do it on your world, Ambassador.
>
> Please give my best wishes to the rest of the Martian delegation.
>
> yrs,
>
> jms
>
I'm glad you don't drink alcohol cause I'd hate to see what you'd be like
when you're drunk.
Nuke
R. Tang
I suspect he has little patience with fools. Past experience,
doncha know.
It's a wonder he hangs out around here....
HHopk15447
of Rogue instead of Spidey last week to the local shop--and was champing at the
bit to read it after the previous issue. This issue actually sent chills down
my spine. One of the best Spidey's since, well, since the mafia zombie a bit
back. Can't wait for the next.
Howard
THE SILVER MINE SPOOK by Lance Howard (Howard Hopkins)
One bitch, one gypsy and a whole lot of silver just made the west a little more
wild!
Hardcover from http:// www.amazon.co.uk
Homepage:http://www.howardhopkins.com
Graeme
> In article <Xns953CD15BFC...@68.6.19.6>,
> The Nuclear Marine <Nuke-...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote in
>>news:20040805215531...@mb-m05.aol.com:
>>
>>>So one doesn't judge Bradbury by Heinlein, you don't judge Macy's by
>>>Bullock's, you don't judge broccoli by bananas, and you don't judge me
>>>by Bendis, Bendis by me, me by Waid or Waid by anybody else.
>>>
>>>At least, that's how we Earthers do it. I would be very much
>>>interested in hearing how they do it on your world, Ambassador.
>>>
>>>Please give my best wishes to the rest of the Martian delegation.
>>>
>>>yrs,
>>>
>>> jms
>>
>>I'm glad you don't drink alcohol cause I'd hate to see what you'd be like
>>when you're drunk.
>
> I suspect he has little patience with fools. Past experience,
> doncha know.
Paul, however, is far from a fool, and impatience doesn't excuse
calculated rudeness, particularly while purporting to claim the moral
and intellectual highground in an argument.
Graeme
--
http://members.optusnet.com.au/graeme
"We may as well just play out our roles, then.
I'm the devil and you're the sinner. We both
know where we're going now."
(Hellblazer #83)
Jms at B5
>calculated rudeness, particularly while purporting to claim the moral
>and intellectual highground in an argument.
I agree, but I thought I should probably respond to Paul anyway, despite all
that.
Just a charitable kind of guy, I guess....
R. Tang
Graeme <gra...@sodoff.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>R. Tang wrote:
>
>> In article <Xns953CD15BFC...@68.6.19.6>,
>> The Nuclear Marine <Nuke-...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote in
>>>news:20040805215531...@mb-m05.aol.com:
>>>
>>>>So one doesn't judge Bradbury by Heinlein, you don't judge Macy's by
>>>>Bullock's, you don't judge broccoli by bananas, and you don't judge me
>>>>by Bendis, Bendis by me, me by Waid or Waid by anybody else.
>>>>
>>>>At least, that's how we Earthers do it. I would be very much
>>>>interested in hearing how they do it on your world, Ambassador.
>>>>
>>>>Please give my best wishes to the rest of the Martian delegation.
>>>>
>>>>yrs,
>>>>
>>>> jms
>>>
>>>I'm glad you don't drink alcohol cause I'd hate to see what you'd be like
>>>when you're drunk.
>>
>> I suspect he has little patience with fools. Past experience,
>> doncha know.
>
>Paul, however, is far from a fool,
A) We all have our foolish moments.
B) And it sometimes takes prolonged observation to see if the
momentary stretches to the habitual.
>and impatience doesn't excuse
>calculated rudeness, particularly while purporting to claim the moral
>and intellectual highground in an argument.
Yeah, well, then Paul should REALLY wait until the arc is finished
before he pounces.....
Seriously...it IS rude to criticize a work while it's still going
on. Wait till the arc is over before tearing it to bloody shreds. At the
very least, you'll have more ammunition....
Graeme
>>impatience doesn't excuse
>>calculated rudeness, particularly while purporting to claim the moral
>>and intellectual highground in an argument.
>
> I agree, but I thought I should probably respond to Paul anyway, despite all
> that.
>
> Just a charitable kind of guy, I guess....
Hah - such wit! Have you considered a career writing advertising copy?
Graeme
>>R. Tang wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <Xns953CD15BFC...@68.6.19.6>,
>>>The Nuclear Marine <Nuke-...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm glad you don't drink alcohol cause I'd hate to see what you'd be like
>>>>when you're drunk.
>>>
>>> I suspect he has little patience with fools. Past experience,
>>>doncha know.
>>
>>Paul, however, is far from a fool,
>
> A) We all have our foolish moments.
>
> B) And it sometimes takes prolonged observation to see if the
> momentary stretches to the habitual.
So JMS should perhaps have observed Paul's posts over a longer period
before donning the snide cap? That's a fair enough comment.
>>and impatience doesn't excuse
>>calculated rudeness, particularly while purporting to claim the moral
>>and intellectual highground in an argument.
>
> Yeah, well, then Paul should REALLY wait until the arc is finished
> before he pounces.....
>
> Seriously...it IS rude to criticize a work while it's still going
> on. Wait till the arc is over before tearing it to bloody shreds. At the
> very least, you'll have more ammunition....
It's a serial medium where - the nature of the beast is that it will be
criticised as it progresses.
This certainly doesn't mean that it's not worth coming back to a
completed arc and reviewing it in its entirety, but imagine how empty
this branch of Usenet would be if people refrained from commenting on
the progress of a story until its completion.
Jon Clark
>>D: Well, there HAS been a long line of Sloppy writing on Spidey and
>>other Marvel comics, so assuming you are sloppy on this one well, can
>>be justified.
>
>But insofar as I know, not on my watch. One may agree or disagree with a
>given
>tack being taken, but sloppy? I don't feel that's the case.
>
>But then, to be fair, I wouldn't.
A lot of people (myself included) probably did jump the gun.
You stated in another post about how we don't judge Heinlein by Bradbury or
vice versa. I think the difference is that Bradbury works pretty much stand on
their own as Bradbury's and not as part of a collective series that contained
works by Bradbury, Heinlein, Asimov, etc. I might expect as Asimov style to
pop up in someway if Heinlein wrote a story tied to Asimov's Robot stories,
though and approach the story with preconceptions based on that.
In a TV series for example I am more likely to make assumtions based on the
quality of the show as a whole. Having a brilliant writer come in to a
mediocre series might improve the series for a while or from that point on, but
while watching the episodes odds are my expectations remain low at least for a
while. And if the shows are part of a "family" not just things like Star Trek
or Buffy/Angel that share a continuity but even things like Gilligan's Island
and the Brady Bunch or Charlie's Angels and Beverly Hills 90210 where the
producer is the same I am more likely to judge them on that track record than
on the writers at a given time.
As an example while as you point out you have a reputation for details, I would
figure it more likely you'd have overlooked explaing the fate of Tiger on the
Brady Bunch (thus "sinking" to the detail level the show used) than that you'd
be able to "raise" the level of the show so such a detail would be worth
mentioning. So if someone asked me if Tiger would be mentioned in your
episodes, I'd pry think "no" before I even considered your perchant for detail.
In comics particularly over the last decade or so we have had a lot of things
brought in that made no sense based on a character's history but which served a
story being told. Good writers and bad have both been "guilty" of it. Now you
claim to be the exception (or one of them) and I see no reason to doubt you,
but as a comic reader I have a tendency to judge Spider-man (or Superman,
Avengers, X-men, ...) based on what Marvel (or DC) has published more than on
the track record of a given writer. That's what I did here (and i believe a
few others did as well). I apologize for myself.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Seriously...it IS rude to criticize a work while it's still going on.
If Marvel sells me 22 pages of ASM #510, then the work is done when I
hit the last page.
Sure, there's a bigger story, but it's perfectly fine to criticize the
lump I've been sold in the form I've been sold it.
--
Johanna Draper Carlson
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Blogging at http://www.comicsworthreading.com/blog/cwr.html
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: >The point is that there is no reason for
: >readers to give the benefit of the doubt to you on this point when (for
: >entirely sound reasons) they wouldn't give it to any other writer on the
: >Spider-Man titles.
:
: So there is no distinction in your mind between writers? They are all the
: same? They should all be treated in exactly the same manner? Do you think
: they are all working in lockstep, with no qualitative differences or
: distinctions?
That's very dramatic, but maybe Paul's point is simply that such mistakes have
been made (maybe recently) by writers with similar or better track records than
yours (some of them maybe working on the Spider-Man titles), so it doesn't seem
unreasonable for readers to be skeptical whether the case at hand is indeed
conscious misdirection on your part, and not another goof.
--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
POPP'D! >> http://poppd.blogspot.com/
COMIKADO >> http://comikado.blogspot.com/
"Lucky for us some idiot thought it would be a great idea to protect the melting
ice caps by coating them with Europe's dark chocolate surplus."
-- Morrison, Seaguy
--
[This is a Usenet message, posted to the rec.arts.comics.* groups.]
Mark
TROUBLE is not in continuity, it's complete bs. MK Spider-Man is in
continuity, you just misunderstood what Alonso said.
W. Blaine Dowler
> Sure, there's a bigger story, but it's perfectly fine to criticize the
> lump I've been sold in the form I've been sold it.
You can criticize aspects of it, but a lot of the critics have been judging
based on how they think the entire story will end. That's not fair. If
you have a problem with how that piece handled something that was meant to
be done by that piece, go ahead.
R. Tang
Think it's proper to comment as the story goes on, and to express
reservations, but when the author comes on and says that the concerns are
misplaced, it seems to me that it's proper to take him at his word.
Of course that doesn't mean we can't sharpen the knives for
afterwards if he doesn't deliver...
>
>Graeme
>--
>http://members.optusnet.com.au/graeme
>
>"We may as well just play out our roles, then.
>I'm the devil and you're the sinner. We both
>know where we're going now."
> (Hellblazer #83)
bernie...@hotmail.com
> > SPOILER SPACE
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> And... how about this....
>
> These are the kids of... Gwen and Norman O. ? :P
Mmmm...More potential goblins. The dynamic goblin duo !
kingdom
Okay that was funny and well written. Wow. Wish more people that
straight forward. To bad today's sensibilities can't handle it as I
am sure follow-up will show as people getting snippy for being treated
the same way they where treating JMS. Sigh...the world and its many
one way streets.
Dreighton
> that Gwen was pregant, had twins a month early (a boy and a girl), then
> later (at least a line and a half later) she writes the names Gabrial and
> Sarah (not necesarily the names of the twins she had). Now, are these
> names the names of Gabriel and Sarah? Are the names the two people called
> each other actually their names? Basicly, most talk in this thread is
Which are good points that I didn't properly address in my post. Yes,
I think all of this is part of the "it's not what you first think"
idea. It's a miss-lead to the reader to build suspense for us the
reader. "*GASP* Peter and Gwen have TWINS??!?!?!" But their are
certainly enough holes given for a good writer to have an out.
But what got me, is that the people acutally involved would know how
old they are, and they would know how the timeline for bieng their
children actually could be or couldn't be a possibility so *they*
wouldn't have the suspense that appears to be shown to us the
reader...cuase we don't really know their true ages given the way
Marvel time works.
As a kiss ass note, I always appreciate when a busy professional with
the statis of JMS comes on these boards to give his 2 cents worth. It
goes along away in telling me he cares about his work, his subect
matter (Spidey/Peter and gang) and us the fans who spend hard earned
money to keep him playing in the Spidey sandbox.
And I hope I'm wrong in my cynicism of how this will be worked
out...it's just stuff like this is messed up FAR more then done
correctly...even by good writers. (and I still smell time
travel/messed up time-line from issue 500 being involved) But I had
planned on being here for the ride, and the end of the arc. Then I
can either praise the story, or blast it as it turns out.
Dreighton
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Johanna Draper Carlson wrote:
>
> > Sure, there's a bigger story, but it's perfectly fine to criticize the
> > lump I've been sold in the form I've been sold it.
>
> You can criticize aspects of it, but a lot of the critics have been judging
> based on how they think the entire story will end. That's not fair.
Is "I think this story is going to suck and I don't want to read any
more of it" fair?
Is "I think this story is going to be amazing and I want to read every
piece of it" fair?
If your answers differ, then you're buying into corporate brainwashing.
:)
Glenn Simpson
I think the basic problem is, these folks are only about 10 years
younger than Gwen would have been if she'd lived.
~consul
> Who said Gabrial and Sarah were Peter's kids? All I saw in the letter is
> that Gwen was pregant, had twins a month early (a boy and a girl), then
> presuming more than AMS 510 has told. Great, now I have to go over older
> issues to see if Spidey ran into any 12 year fraternal twins.
If they wish to be daring, they could have Gwen being a teenage parent, or maybe even a
victim of assault.
--
"... 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))
~consul
> Johanna Draper Carlson wrote:
>>Sure, there's a bigger story, but it's perfectly fine to criticize the
>>lump I've been sold in the form I've been sold it.
> You can criticize aspects of it, but a lot of the critics have been judging
> based on how they think the entire story will end. That's not fair. If
> you have a problem with how that piece handled something that was meant to
> be done by that piece, go ahead.
... but it's a serial product ... we are criticizing how it will end based on what we've
seen so far. IRL, if you see a car moving along a straight line, and with no means to
turn, it's gonna crash into something along the line. That the car suddenly sprouts
anti-gravity pumps that lets it jump over the obstacle is not a valid expectation.
R. Tang
Johanna Draper Carlson <johann...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
> gwan...@u.washington.edu (R. Tang) wrote:
>
>> Seriously...it IS rude to criticize a work while it's still going on.
>
>If Marvel sells me 22 pages of ASM #510, then the work is done when I
>hit the last page.
>
>Sure, there's a bigger story, but it's perfectly fine to criticize the
>lump I've been sold in the form I've been sold it.
Oh, yeah....but criticizing where you THINK the story is going
when it's not quite supported by the text may be premature.
Paul O'Brien
<Nuke-...@cox.net> writes
>Basicly, most talk in this thread is presuming more than AMS 510 has
>told.
It would be jumping to conclusions to assume that they actually WERE
Peter's kids, but I think it's plainly obvious that this is what readers
are being invited to think. Personally, I think it's misdirection. But
for the misdirection to work, it ALSO has to be something that could
plausibly be true.
If the timeline problem turns out not to be a problem because they
aren't his kids at all, for example, then that alone wouldn't be good
enough for me. Because the plot is proceeding on the basis that the
idea of Peter being their father is PLAUSIBLE. If it's manifestly
implausible on timeline grounds to readers, then logically it should be
likewise implausible to the characters, and they should react
accordingly.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
LIVEJOURNAL - http://www.livejournal.com/~paulobrien
Michael Alan Chary
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>Let's take this one step at a time, shall we?
>
>I said:
>
>>>I'd have to be the sloppiest writer in the history of...well, really
>>>sloppy writers to not take into account the time factor in Spidey
>>>chronology, and deal with it straight-up in the writing.
>
>You then took that statement and re-phrased it, taking it to another level of
>intention as follows:
>
>>That goes beyond "I wouldn't make a mistake like that." What it's
>>saying is "No competent writer would make a mistake like that. And no
>>reasonable reader would assume that that was an error."
>
>I will point out that I said nothing of the kind, nor was I generalizing to
>other writers, other competent writers, or to what readers should or should not
>assume concerning errors. You took my statement and came up with another one,
>attributing it to me, and following it with:
Well, if not other Spidey writers, to whom were you refering as "sloppy
writers?" And I again point out that your own totem story completely
undermined a classic Jim Starlin/Thanos story.
>The ASM books are the core books, and have a greater responsibility to be as
>accurate in their storytelling as possible. So that is my responsibility. I
>don't speak to other people's responsibilities because I can't get inside their
>head...something you should try avoiding yourself in future because thus far
>you're getting a lot of it wrong.
>
>But mistakes happen, right?
Right, like claiming Ezekiel had the same power base as Peter through the
whole totem deal, when in fact, Peter's powers come through the power of
good old-fashioned 1960's Marvel radiation, just like the Hulk and the FF.
>>The point is that there is no reason for
>>readers to give the benefit of the doubt to you on this point when (for
>>entirely sound reasons) they wouldn't give it to any other writer on the
>>Spider-Man titles.
>
>So there is no distinction in your mind between writers? They are all the
>same? They should all be treated in exactly the same manner? Do you think
>they are all working in lockstep, with no qualitative differences or
>distinctions?
>
>Do you really believe this?
For me it depends. If they al have the same editor and editorial policies
backing them, and those particular editorial policies are informing the
aspect of the work I amtalking about, then yes, the writers have it
coming, and I won't expect Cary Bates and Elliot S! Maggin to write a
story where Clark Kent pulls a bankjob and screws Jimmy Olsen without it
turning out to have been a plot to capture some escape alien space monkey.
>If so, may I inquire what the color is on the world where you come from?
Actuall,y a really vibrant blue, which is odd, because I write this in
Gary.
>
>So one doesn't judge Bradbury by Heinlein,
Okay, how about if both are being published and edited by John W.
Campbell, and you want to read a story where humans lose?
>At least, that's how we Earthers do it. I would be very much interested in
>hearing how they do it on your world, Ambassador.
>
>Please give my best wishes to the rest of the Martian delegation.
So, how do you expect the fall line-ups on the entworks to look this year?
--
In memoriam Ray Charles, 1918-2004. Hear Brother Ray sing "America:"
http://www.symbolicproductions.com/America/flash/flash.html
The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons
Michael Alan Chary
R. Tang <gwan...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>and impatience doesn't excuse
>>calculated rudeness, particularly while purporting to claim the moral
>>and intellectual highground in an argument.
>
> Yeah, well, then Paul should REALLY wait until the arc is finished
>before he pounces.....
>
> Seriously...it IS rude to criticize a work while it's still going
>on. Wait till the arc is over before tearing it to bloody shreds. At the
>very least, you'll have more ammunition....
A couple things:
1) They are publishing it monthly. I paid for it. I get to come online and
whine if I so choose.
2) Roger, you and I have been around for longer than most other posters so
I hope you'll agree with me when I say that USENET is generally not a good
place to come if you want your words treated like holy writ.
3) Paul's point isn't about the work. He actually defended the work. *MY*
point was about the work. Paul's point was about the office that produced
the work, which has given us as much reason to trust us as Fox has given
us to believe they'll given new Friday series a chance to find an
audience.
R. Tang
Michael Alan Chary <mch...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <cev7rf$j0s$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu>,
>R. Tang <gwan...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>and impatience doesn't excuse
>>>calculated rudeness, particularly while purporting to claim the moral
>>>and intellectual highground in an argument.
>>
>> Yeah, well, then Paul should REALLY wait until the arc is finished
>>before he pounces.....
>>
>> Seriously...it IS rude to criticize a work while it's still going
>>on. Wait till the arc is over before tearing it to bloody shreds. At the
>>very least, you'll have more ammunition....
>
>A couple things:
>
>1) They are publishing it monthly. I paid for it. I get to come online and
>whine if I so choose.
And folks get to (and will) whine about the whining...
>
>2) Roger, you and I have been around for longer than most other posters so
>I hope you'll agree with me when I say that USENET is generally not a good
>place to come if you want your words treated like holy writ.
>
>3) Paul's point isn't about the work. He actually defended the work. *MY*
>point was about the work. Paul's point was about the office that produced
>the work, which has given us as much reason to trust us as Fox has given
>us to believe they'll given new Friday series a chance to find an
>audience.
Yeah, but in the case of Fox, the complaint is a lot more direct'
it's about Fox's actions on shows; in this case, it's more a case of
something peripheral to the person involved.
>--
>In memoriam Ray Charles, 1918-2004. Hear Brother Ray sing "America:"
>http://www.symbolicproductions.com/America/flash/flash.html
>The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
>http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons
Jms at B5
>of his early issues when he showed Harry and Gwen in high school with
>Peter. As you will recall, Peter actually encountered them for the
>first time in college, not high school.
Actually, the script only said that Peter was there with other guys from his
science class. Just FYI.