Arthur Stacy--waiting for the other shoe to drop...
GQ11479
"Revelations" story that ended the Clone Saga...all throughout the story were
interludes with Arthur Stacy getting ready to come to New York City and
investigate Spider-Man's involvement in the death of Gwen Stacy; he was even
going so far as to harvesting connections in the NYPD. But once he finally
meets with Peter Parker (and Spider-Man) he makes himself his ally. Did I miss
something, or d'you suppose Arthur's original motives have or have not been
forgotten?
Winky®
> All throughout the Clone story were
> interludes with Arthur Stacy getting ready to come to New York City and
> investigate Spider-Man's involvement in the death of Gwen Stacy; he was even
> going so far as to harvesting connections in the NYPD. But once he finally
> meets with Peter Parker (and Spider-Man) he makes himself his ally. Did I miss
> something, or d'you suppose Arthur's original motives have or have not been
> forgotten?
Considering how often the Spider-creators have switched gears in the last 5 years,
I gfind it laughable that anyone would even think it POSSIBLE that the original
motive of ANYTHING could be remembered.
And, were it truly possible, I'd rather know what was the original motive of the
Clone story in the first place? It drew me back to the titles after years away,
but the way Ben Reilly was insultingly shown the door infuriated me and put me off
Spider-Man for good. The occasional sample I have tried of the current titles have
merely confirmed my belief that the franchise has shit the bed, and then some.
Alan
--
Read my reviews, news and essays at the On2TheFuture website:
http://www.angelfire.com/on2/thefuture
Clay Peterson
> I was lookin thru some of my comics, and had decided to freshen up the
> "Revelations" story that ended the Clone Saga...all throughout the story were
> interludes with Arthur Stacy getting ready to come to New York City and
> investigate Spider-Man's involvement in the death of Gwen Stacy; he was even
> going so far as to harvesting connections in the NYPD. But once he finally
> meets with Peter Parker (and Spider-Man) he makes himself his ally. Did I miss
> something, or d'you suppose Arthur's original motives have or have not been
> forgotten?
No, you didn't miss anything. The whole Arthur-investigates-Gwen's-death
thing was forgotten or dropped long ago. In fact, Arthur only seems to
show up when Spider-Man needs a lead on something, or else to get in
danger so Spidey can rescue him (kinda like Betty Brant). Just like Jill
Stacy only seems to show up to give Peter a message from Mary Jane and
remind him what a bad husband he is. Of course, if you point all this
out, you're "nitpicking" or "trying to get the writer fired."
Clay
"At last we will reveal ourselves to the restroom."
-- FoxTrot, by Bill Amend
Mikko Aittola
> I was lookin thru some of my comics, and had decided to freshen
> up the "Revelations" story that ended the Clone Saga...all throughout
> the story were interludes with Arthur Stacy getting ready to come to
> New York City and investigate Spider-Man's involvement in the death
> of Gwen Stacy; he was even going so far as to harvesting connections in
> the NYPD. But once he finally meets with Peter Parker (and Spider-Man)
> he makes himself his ally. Did I miss something, or d'you suppose Arthur's
> original motives have or have not been forgotten?
I wonder, have you read Peter Parker, Spider-Man #88?
There Spider-Man meets Arthur Stacy. On the same page Arthur's
"original motives" are recounted.
The "original motives" from Peter Parker, Spider-Man #77:
PETER: "So, Arthur, I understand you have it in for Spider-Man?
What's THAT all about?
ARTHUR: "I'm afraid, young man, that you understand incorrectly."
"I have NOTHING against Spider-Man per se. While I may not
agree with his methods, I am only interested in truth.
Not about Spider-Man, but my brother and my niece."
And in Spider-Man #88 Arthur gets to hear the "truth" about George
and Gwen from Spider-Man (who, in turn, wants help from Arthur
to clear up his name. Spidey was accused of the murder of Joey Z
at the time.)
/Mikko
Mikko Aittola
> No, you didn't miss anything. The whole
> Arthur-investigates-Gwen's-death thing was forgotten or
> dropped long ago.
It wasn't forgotten. It was resolved in PPSM #88.
> In fact, Arthur only seems to show up when Spider-Man needs
> a lead on something, or else to get in danger so Spidey can rescue
> him (kinda like Betty Brant).
Arthur Stacy is one of world's best private detectives, so of course
Spidey asks for help sometimes. I recall Spidey rescuing him once.
> Just like Jill Stacy only seems to show up to give Peter a message
> from Mary Jane and remind him what a bad husband he is.
You really should READ the books, Clay. And I don't mean just
the last two issues.
> Of course, if you point all this out, you're "nitpicking" or "trying to
> get the writer fired."
No, just "lying".
Or maybe you really HAVE a bad memory.
/Mikko
Sir True
pfst!
put yer little claws away!
Mikko Aittola <mait...@cc.hut.fi> wrote in message
news:7nnfl3$g0uc$3...@midnight.cs.hut.fi...
Clay Peterson
> Clay Peterson wrote:
> > No, you didn't miss anything. The whole
> > Arthur-investigates-Gwen's-death thing was forgotten or
> > dropped long ago.
>
> It wasn't forgotten. It was resolved in PPSM #88.
That means nothing to me. You're going to have to give me a description
of the issue (or, at the very least, the cover) if you want me to have any
hope of remembering this.
> > In fact, Arthur only seems to show up when Spider-Man needs
> > a lead on something, or else to get in danger so Spidey can rescue
> > him (kinda like Betty Brant).
>
> Arthur Stacy is one of world's best private detectives, so of course
> Spidey asks for help sometimes.
One of the world's... Really? Has that actually been stated? He doesn't
seem that great to me. Not good enough, for instance, to find some
concrete evidence against Senator Ward.
> I recall Spidey rescuing him once.
That's all I could remember, but I figured I forgot about one or two.
Plus, I figured if I didn't say it, you would have pointed it out as an
example of how Arthur Stacy does more than just give leads to Spider-Man.
Which is pretty much true, by the way.
> > Just like Jill Stacy only seems to show up to give Peter a message
> > from Mary Jane and remind him what a bad husband he is.
>
> You really should READ the books, Clay. And I don't mean just
> the last two issues.
That's very easy to say, Mikko, and it's kind of insulting to boot.
However, it in no way attempts to explain why I'm wrong. But that's okay,
I really don't expect you to.
As for Jill Stacy, I can't think of any significant scene, post-relaunch,
with her that didn't involve Peter's relationship with Mary Jane -- and
her [Jill's] role therein.
Oh wait. I remember she was in that hotel during that blackout where she
hit on Peter.
Now, pre-relaunch, she did some other things, like get shot and obsess
over Spider-Man, but these were never satisfactorily followed up on.
> > Of course, if you point all this out, you're "nitpicking" or "trying to
> > get the writer fired."
>
> No, just "lying".
>
> Or maybe you really HAVE a bad memory.
More insults? For the record, I have never intentionally stated a
falsehood on these boards to prove a point. As for my memory, well, yes I
sometimes have problems recalling every aspect of every comic I've read --
even the recent ones. Issue numbers, especially, are a problem for me.
If I have misremembered something, I will gladly be corrected.
You, on the other hand, seem to have a photographic memory, judging by the
quotes you provided in another post. Either that, or you have access to
your books when you post. I do not. I post from work (or at school,
during the school year) and generally my employers frown upon people
bringing boxes of comic books into the office in order to discuss them
online. So until that unfortunately situation changes, I will continue to
misremember things -- but probably not as bad as you make it out to be.
Mikko Aittola
> That means nothing to me. You're going to have to
> give me a description of the issue (or, at the very least,
> the cover) if you want me to have any hope of remembering
> this.
Maybe you shouldn't comment on the specific plot points of
stories you don't remember much about?
> One of the world's... Really? Has that actually been stated?
Couple times.
> Not good enough, for instance, to find some concrete evidence
> against Senator Ward.
Well, what has Ward done?
Can you come up with some concrete evidence? :-)
> That's all I could remember, but I figured I forgot about
> one or two.
In such case, maybe you could complain about the incident you
actually remember about instead of generalizing?
> Plus, I figured if I didn't say it, you would have pointed it out as an
> example of how Arthur Stacy does more than just give leads to
> Spider-Man. Which is pretty much true, by the way.
Well, what should he do in your opinion?
> As for Jill Stacy, I can't think of any significant scene,
> post-relaunch, with her that didn't involve Peter's relationship
> with Mary Jane -- and her [Jill's] role therein.
>
> Oh wait. I remember she was in that hotel during that blackout
> where she hit on Peter.
Yeah.
I think the problem here is that you want the book to be about
the life and times of Arthur and Jill Stacy. To me they're
secondary characters in the book, and still fairly new compared
to many that have been in the book since the sixties. I'm not
expecting Mackie to explore their characters in every issue.
I don't really mind that Spidey sometimes asks Arthur's help,
or that he sometimes sells photos to Jonah or that he sometimes
eats wheatcakes made by Aunt May.
But I get your point about the Stacy related plot points being far
too similar in ASM #9 and PPSM #9. I didn't like that either.
> Now, pre-relaunch, she did some other things, like get shot and obsess
> over Spider-Man, but these were never satisfactorily followed up on.
Define "satisfactorily followed up on". Jill got shot. She went to
hospital. She healed over time.
> As for my memory, well, yes I sometimes have problems recalling
> every aspect of every comic I've read -- even the recent ones.
> Issue numbers, especially, are a problem for me. If I have
> misremembered something, I will gladly be corrected.
>
> You, on the other hand, seem to have a photographic memory,
Not really, no.
I just try to make sure that the "facts" I post here are more or
less correct. Especially if I'm posting negative comments
based on those facts.
I apologize for the insults in my previous post.
/Mikko
Deepak Ramani
> Clay Peterson wrote:
>> No, you didn't miss anything. The whole
>> Arthur-investigates-Gwen's-death thing was forgotten or
>> dropped long ago.
> It wasn't forgotten. It was resolved in PPSM #88.
If I remember right, it was "resolved" off-panel with the line "I've
been wanting to speak with you for some time," from Arthur Stacy being
the only acknowledgment of the plot.
You can hardly blame people for being upset that this supposedly major
plot (which got started in PPSM 75) gets resolved after 13 issues
off-panel with a throw-away line.
It was a completely unsatisfactory resolution, as it left a few
important questions unanswered. For example, what convinced Arthur
that Spider-Man was telling the truth both about Capt. Stacy and about
Gwen? What evidence did Spider-Man present? How did Spider-Man
explain what he did with the body of Ben Reilly (I remember Arthur
promising to find out why Spider-Man was taking the body in PPSM 75)?
--
-Deepak
Clay Peterson
> Clay Peterson wrote:
> > That means nothing to me. You're going to have to
> > give me a description of the issue (or, at the very least,
> > the cover) if you want me to have any hope of remembering
> > this.
>
> Maybe you shouldn't comment on the specific plot points of
> stories you don't remember much about?
Well, I probably would remember if you said more than "issue #88." That's
what didn't mean anything to me -- the issue number. I was asking for
more information. You know, so we could talk about the issue you were
referring to. I still have no idea what happened in #88.
> > Not good enough, for instance, to find some concrete evidence
> > against Senator Ward.
>
> Well, what has Ward done?
> Can you come up with some concrete evidence? :-)
Well, I'm not the one calling him the devil and saying he should be
stopped at all costs.
> In such case, maybe you could complain about the incident you
> actually remember about instead of generalizing?
Well, if someone asks a question, I try my best to answer it. If I'm
wrong, I won't lose much sleep over it.
> I think the problem here is that you want the book to be about
> the life and times of Arthur and Jill Stacy. To me they're
> secondary characters in the book, and still fairly new compared
> to many that have been in the book since the sixties. I'm not
> expecting Mackie to explore their characters in every issue.
> I don't really mind that Spidey sometimes asks Arthur's help,
> or that he sometimes sells photos to Jonah or that he sometimes
> eats wheatcakes made by Aunt May.
I don't want "the life and times of Arthur and Jill Stacy." What I would
like to see is them portrayed as characters rather than plot devices.
Which is all that they're doing -- appearing solely to move the plot
forward. I don't want Mackie to explore their characters every issue
(heck, if it were up to me they wouldn't appear at all :) but I would like
them to have some character when they appear. That goes double for
long-time characters like Aunt May, JJJ, or Mary Jane.
> > Now, pre-relaunch, she did some other things, like get shot and obsess
> > over Spider-Man, but these were never satisfactorily followed up on.
>
> Define "satisfactorily followed up on". Jill got shot. She went to
> hospital. She healed over time.
Erm, some kind of inquiry as to why she was shot and by whom would have
been nice.
> > You, on the other hand, seem to have a photographic memory,
>
> Not really, no.
I didn't really think you do. I assume you have your books near you.
> I just try to make sure that the "facts" I post here are more or
> less correct. Especially if I'm posting negative comments
> based on those facts.
I think I do all right on the major details. I remember that Jill was
shot. However, if the only follow-up is one line saying "Jill's in the
hospital, recovering" then, no, I'm not going to remember that two years
later. (Note: I'm not saying that's what the line was, I'm just using it
as a hypothetical example.) A plot point that major needs to have a lot
of follow-up, and I think Mackie has often failed to provide that. Which
is why I might have less patience with a Mackie-written book than I would
with a different writer -- I am not guaranteed that there will be any
conclusion to any given plot point.
> I apologize for the insults in my previous post.
'S alright.
Deepak Ramani
> as a hypothetical example.) A plot point that major needs to have a lot
> of follow-up, and I think Mackie has often failed to provide that. Which
> is why I might have less patience with a Mackie-written book than I would
> with a different writer -- I am not guaranteed that there will be any
> conclusion to any given plot point.
This is basically the same problem I have been having with Mackie's
plots. At least towards the end of PPSM, I'm not really sure that he
was to blame though. For example, I think the "Arthur Stacy wants
closure about the deaths of his brother and niece" plot got finished
up rather abruptly. But, immediately after that issue, Identity
Crisis began and the books got involved in crossovers leading to The
Final Chapter. During that period the whole setup in all the
Spider-Man books seemed to just be dropped in favor of The Gathering
of Five and The Final Chapter.
--
-Deepak
Ricochet
lasted two months concerning the Fantastic Four last January or February
because of his stubborness. I don't really know him all that well, but all
I ever really see him do is pointlessly argue with others and constantly ask
them to back up every single statement of theirs with evidence (oddly
enough, he doesn't always do the same for himself). Honestly, it's all just
a big waste of time.
Clay Peterson wrote in message ...
>as a hypothetical example.) A plot point that major needs to have a lot
>of follow-up, and I think Mackie has often failed to provide that. Which
>is why I might have less patience with a Mackie-written book than I would
>with a different writer -- I am not guaranteed that there will be any
>conclusion to any given plot point.
>
Sir True
that's always right!
we do have our own individual perceptions on things & he's pretty messed up
that I can tell!!!
Ricochet <imr...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:7no31p$hl8$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
Mikko Aittola
> Don't waste your time arguing with Mikko. I remember some thread that
> lasted two months concerning the Fantastic Four last January or February
> because of his stubborness.
Really?
I could've sworn I wasn't debating with myself in that thread.
Which means, that there must've been at least one person as
stubborn as me, right?
But really, if you don't find my posts worth reading, by all
means, stop reading them.
> I ever really see him do is pointlessly argue with others and constantly
ask
> them to back up every single statement of theirs with evidence (oddly
> enough, he doesn't always do the same for himself).
I think you're correct. I don't usually have to ask me for evidence
to back up my own posts after I've posted them. However, If _you_
feel that some of my statements need more proof before _you_ can
accept them, just ask.
/Mikko
PS. Scott Lobdell's and Alan Davis' Johnny Storm was 100%
in character in Fantastic Four vol. 3 #1-3
Mikko Aittola
> Well, if someone asks a question, I try my best to answer it. If I'm
> wrong, I won't lose much sleep over it.
I've noticed.
> I don't want "the life and times of Arthur and Jill Stacy." What I would
> like to see is them portrayed as characters rather than plot devices.
> Which is all that they're doing -- appearing solely to move the plot
> forward. I don't want Mackie to explore their characters every issue
> (heck, if it were up to me they wouldn't appear at all :) but I would like
> them to have some character when they appear. That goes double for
> long-time characters like Aunt May, JJJ, or Mary Jane.
I think they all have characters. And yes, if a character is in the story
it's usually there to move the story to some direction. Otherwise
the character would be useless.
> Erm, some kind of inquiry as to why she was shot and by whom
> would have been nice.
You can find the guy who shot at her in the same issue
where the shooting happened. Based on the tattoo, he
was working for Osborn, which was Peter's guess in
PPSM #91.
> I think I do all right on the major details. I remember that Jill was
> shot. However, if the only follow-up is one line saying "Jill's in the
> hospital, recovering" then, no, I'm not going to remember that two years
> later. (Note: I'm not saying that's what the line was, I'm just using it
> as a hypothetical example.) A plot point that major needs to have a lot
> of follow-up, and I think Mackie has often failed to provide that.
There was a follow-up to Jill's shooting in PPSM #89 and #91.
But it seems that since it wasn't the kind of follow-up you had
been waiting for, those don't count.
/Mikko
Ricochet
Mikko Aittola wrote in message <7nqcvj$g8f9$2...@midnight.cs.hut.fi>...
>I could've sworn I wasn't debating with myself in that thread.
>Which means, that there must've been at least one person as
>stubborn as me, right?
As I recall, people were really just yelling at you, so to speak, because
they found you to be really aggravating.
Most admitted to seeing your point of view, but you didn't seem to be
willing or wanting to see theirs.
>But really, if you don't find my posts worth reading, by all
>means, stop reading them.
Not everything you do on this newsgroup is completely ignorant. I just
personally think you need to see things from the other person's point of
view more often, and to be able to just accept that others will hold
different opinions than yours. Otherwise, I'd ignore you completely.
Still, that's only my opinion. And as I said, I don't really know you that
well anyway.
>I think you're correct. I don't usually have to ask me for evidence
>to back up my own posts after I've posted them. However, If _you_
>feel that some of my statements need more proof before _you_ can
>accept them, just ask.
Don't suck me into one of your idiotic charades. I don't always come on
here to argue with people. I'll give you this much credit, however. You're
far more polite than that weirdo Omar.