AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #512: Most disgusting comic of the year
Stephen
from characters getting raped and brutally murdered in IDENTITY CRISIS
to characters acting illogically and blowing themselves up for no
apparent reason in "Avengers Disassembled" but the events in the
latest issue of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN truly wins the "Most Disgusting
Comic Event of the Year" hands down.
SPOILERS
In this issue, Mary Jane reveals to Peter that the father of Gwen's
children was NORMAN OSBORN. The children are imbued with the Osborn
Goblin-blood which explains their unnaturally rapid maturation rate.
Turns out, back when Harry was going through drug addiction withdrawl,
Gwen went to visit Norman to console him, and while doing so felt
compassion towards Norman and felt drawn to "something powerful inside
him" that overwhelmed her. No, this wasn't mind control or some mind
gas Norman used on Gwen: Gwen actually had sex with Norman because she
felt so compassionate towards him and so overpowered by the sense of
masculine power she felt emanating from him that, in a moment of
weakness, she felt compelled to have sex with Norman Osborn. It was
Gwen's shame at this, and her subsequent preganancy, which is why she
never told Peter.
Afterward, in a separate conversation, when Gwen told Norman she was
pregnant (in a conversation overheard by MJ), Gwen told NOrman that
she would never allow Norman to have custody of their children.
Norman wanted to have custody so that he could have "real" children,
children worthy of the Osborn legacy, not a disappointment like Harry.
Gwen knew that Norman couldn't blackmail Gwen about her children
without implicating himself and ruining his own good name. When
Norman realized that couldn't have the children himself, he decided to
get revenge on Gwen. This is why when Norman became the Green Goblin
again, in ASM #121, he decided to kidnap Gwen, instead of Aunt May or
any of Peter's other loved ones, and set up the conditions for her to
be killed.
This is by the far the most disgusting comic book story I have read
this year, perhaps the most disgusting comic book story I have ever read.
Not because Norman Osborn is a disgusting person, although he is, and
the thought of Gwen Stacy having sex with him is disgusting. I find
J. Michael Straczynski's entire plot and reasoning for this story
disgusting. I would much rather have had Gwen raped by Norman, or put
under mind control and forced to have sex with him, than to have the
reason be that she *willingly* slept with NOrman because she was drawn
to him by his raw masculine power.
And then to have perhaps the most classic Spider-Man story of all time
-- the death of Gwen Stacy in ASM #121-122 ruined because of this
backstory -- is just as equally disgusting. I don't think I'll ever
now to re-read this story without now knowing the "real" motivation
for the events that happen in that issue.
So now I've done you all a favor and you can flip through this garbage
in the comic shop today to see the damage for yourself, then put it
back up on the shelf and refuse to reward Marvel and JMS financially
for this egregious piece of shit.
-Stephen
Christian Smith
>
>So now I've done you all a favor and you can flip through this garbage
>in the comic shop today to see the damage for yourself, then put it
>back up on the shelf and refuse to reward Marvel and JMS financially
>for this egregious piece of shit.
So...not a fan then??
;-))
Christian
--
"The Dark Phoenix may have been a threat to all life in the universe...
But she had great taste in costumes." (Rachel Summers Excalibur #65)
James
know most of hte "key" stories.
James
"Stephen" <sba...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message
news:734d239f.04092...@posting.google.com...
teepee
> from characters getting raped and brutally murdered in IDENTITY CRISIS
> to characters acting illogically and blowing themselves up for no
> apparent reason in "Avengers Disassembled" but the events in the
> latest issue of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN truly wins the "Most Disgusting
> Comic Event of the Year" hands down.
>
> SPOILERS
Sounds appalling. Now I'm gonna have to buy it just to see how bad it really
is. Damn.
Jonathan M
> It's been a banner year for disgusting stupidity in comics this year,
> from characters getting raped and brutally murdered in IDENTITY CRISIS
> to characters acting illogically and blowing themselves up for no
> apparent reason in "Avengers Disassembled" but the events in the
> latest issue of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN truly wins the "Most Disgusting
> Comic Event of the Year" hands down.
>
At this point I'm inclined to think that what we saw in ASM #512 was
somekind of a hoax-- in one issue JMS made MJ look bad and Gwen even worse.
The whole issue was obviously designed to piss fans off. :-)
I'd like to think JMS is smart enough not to make MJ do something that
stupid, at some messageboards he's being compared to Howard Mackie and John
Byrne right now.
Despite all this ASM #512 was still nicely written and had beautiful art,
JMS has certainly earned the benefit of the doubt in my eyes.
Adam Evans
>It's been a banner year for disgusting stupidity in comics this year,
>from characters getting raped and brutally murdered in IDENTITY CRISIS
>to characters acting illogically and blowing themselves up for no
>apparent reason in "Avengers Disassembled" but the events in the
>latest issue of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN truly wins the "Most Disgusting
>Comic Event of the Year" hands down.
I'm with you, man. I have never wanted the Reset Buttom to be hit on
on a storyline SO badly. I'm praying this just ends up be some sort
of "screwing with Peter's mind" fake-out by a baddie. Cause if it's
true, it STINKS.
--AE
rezist.com
> children was NORMAN OSBORN.
Bwahah! I knew it! I knew it!
I even wrote about it about one month ago :D
Looks like a little bit of sarcasm sometimes helps :>
--
tomek nowak
http://rezist.com
Mathew Krull
>
> So now I've done you all a favor and you can flip through this garbage
> in the comic shop today to see the damage for yourself, then put it
> back up on the shelf and refuse to reward Marvel and JMS financially
> for this egregious piece of shit.
>
Marvel has already made all of the money they are going to make off an
issue when it hits the shelves (barring reprints). The only people you
are hurting are the retailers.
Aaron Malchow
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Stephen wrote:
"Turns out, back when Harry was going through drug addiction withdrawl, Gwen
went to visit Norman to console him, and while doing so felt compassion
towards Norman and felt drawn to "something powerful inside him" that
Gwen: Gwen actually had sex with Norman because she felt so compassionate
towards him and so overpowered by the sense of masculine power she felt
emanating from him that, in a moment of weakness, she felt compelled to have
sex with Norman Osborn. It was Gwen's shame at this, and her subsequent
preganancy, which is why she never told Peter."
A minor correction to your summary: Gwen didn't visit Osborn while his son
was going through withdrawal. MJ notes that Gwen said it was seven months
earlier to the flashbacks we see in 512.
For my part, I'm interested as to when Gwen had this affair with Osborn, as
she might not have been dating Peter at the time. Or it could have occurred
during a terrible moment in her life, like around the time her father died.
Even with MJ's explanation, there is a great deal we don't know about their
sexual encounter.
Stephen wrote:
"This is by the far the most disgusting comic book story I have read this
year, perhaps the most disgusting comic book story I have ever read.
"Not because Norman Osborn is a disgusting person, although he is, and the
thought of Gwen Stacy having sex with him is disgusting. I find J. Michael
Straczynski's entire plot and reasoning for this story disgusting. I would
much rather have had Gwen raped by Norman, or put under mind control and
forced to have sex with him, than to have the reason be that she *willingly*
slept with NOrman because she was drawn to him by his raw masculine power."
I find it more disturbing that reading a story about Gwen being raped could
be considered much more preferable to a story of her having consensual sex
out of genuine compassion and attraction for another person. Why prefer her
to be a rape victim rather than a woman who makes her own decisions and
tries to be responsible for their outcome?
For some readers, Gwen has been idolized. The events of Amazing Spider-Man
121-122 have crystallized the memory of her around that storyline, so that
she becomes this perfect, loyal girlfriend of Peter's who died tragically.
As a result, the rest of her prior characterization is barely ever
referenced.
Remember how angry she was that Peter Parker was the only man on campus who
wasn't attracted to her (circa Amazing Spider-Man 31-37)? Remember the times
she broke off her relationship with Peter (such as in Amazing Spider-Man
issues 72, 86, 94-99 to name a few)? Remember when she took Aunt May to task
for being too maternal towards Peter (circa issue 110)? Gwen was not a
completely loyal girlfriend to Peter. In being idolized, much of her
personality was rounded out. I think this current storyline fleshes her out
again, and portrays her as a human being with flaws and strengths, rather
than some idolized virginal girlfriend who never makes mistakes.
Likewise, some readers tend to forget that this is not the first time MJ has
kept important secrets from Peter, such as how long she knew his secret
identity, much less her tragic family history.
Sincerely,
Aaron Malchow
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Adam Evans <adam...@noway.com> wrote:
Yep, I'm with you, too. I just finished the issue, and it really does
seem like an exercise in pointlessly pissing on a much-beloved, long-dead
character from a great height.
On the one hand, I suppose it was a well-written story - I really, truly
FELT Peter's pain, as the whole thing evoked memories from my own
past all too effectively.
On the other hand, it's a completely horrible story that never should
have been written, and if there was ever a story that I'd love to see
expunged from history, it's this one.
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"
Stephen Bayer
"Aaron Malchow" <aema...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:zQI6d.7625$Ki1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> First, some handy-dandy Spoiler Space
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Stephen wrote:
>
>
> Stephen wrote:
> "This is by the far the most disgusting comic book story I have read this
> year, perhaps the most disgusting comic book story I have ever read.
>
> "Not because Norman Osborn is a disgusting person, although he is, and the
> thought of Gwen Stacy having sex with him is disgusting. I find J. Michael
> Straczynski's entire plot and reasoning for this story disgusting. I would
> much rather have had Gwen raped by Norman, or put under mind control and
> forced to have sex with him, than to have the reason be that she
> *willingly*
> slept with NOrman because she was drawn to him by his raw masculine
> power."
>
>
> I find it more disturbing that reading a story about Gwen being raped
> could
> be considered much more preferable to a story of her having consensual sex
> out of genuine compassion and attraction for another person. Why prefer
> her
> to be a rape victim rather than a woman who makes her own decisions and
> tries to be responsible for their outcome?
Let me try to rephrase or explain what I originally said so there is no
misunderstanding. I would not have *preferred* to see Gwen raped. What I
was saying was that, in terms of the plot, if JMS wanted to have Norman be
the father of Gwen's children, it would have made a lot more sense for her
to have been sexually assualted by her rather to have somehow given in to
some kind of compelling animal magnetism to Norman, which made so sense to
me at all.
>
>
> For some readers, Gwen has been idolized. The events of Amazing Spider-Man
> 121-122 have crystallized the memory of her around that storyline, so that
> she becomes this perfect, loyal girlfriend of Peter's who died tragically.
> As a result, the rest of her prior characterization is barely ever
> referenced.
>
This isn't about me idolozing Gwen. (Maybe other fans do, but I don't).
This is about a ridiculous and contrived plot element that makes no sense
within the context of the relationship between Gwen and Norman Osborn during
the time period in which JMS is trying to say seamlessly fits within this
period of Peter's life. Gwen has had very little to no interaction with
Norman Osborn and then *wham!* all of a sudden while consoling him, she
falls for him, and so deeply that she has sex with him? Makes no sense.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that JMS is the
one who seems obsessed with Gwen's apparent "idolization" and wants to sully
her image in fans' minds, as if to say, "See, now you fans no longer have to
pine over Gwen as Peter's late great true lost love because, you see, she
wasn't even faithful to him, and she had these kids out of wedlock, and now
you can truly accept MJ as the #1 woman in Peter's life."
-Stephen
Ken from Chicago
chri...@jasdigital.com says...
> On 29 Sep 2004 13:59:25 -0700,sba...@bigplanet.com (Stephen) wrote
>
> >
> >So now I've done you all a favor and you can flip through this garbage
> >in the comic shop today to see the damage for yourself, then put it
> >back up on the shelf and refuse to reward Marvel and JMS financially
> >for this egregious piece of shit.
>
> So...not a fan then??
> ;-))
>
> Christian
>
Mark his a "mixed" review.
-- Ken from Chicago
Steve-o Stonebraker
> On the other hand, it's a completely horrible story that never should
> have been written, and if there was ever a story that I'd love to see
> expunged from history, it's this one.
I thought this issue was fantastic, and I can hardly wait for the next
one.
My only disappointment is that the flashbacks don't really seem to
match the original stories well enough. The scene with Gwen, Peter, and
MJ in the stairwell of the Osborn's place, for example -- it must be
intended to be the opening scene from issue 121, but it unfolds so
differnetly. In 121, Peter goes inside and walks up to Harry's door
without meeting anyone, and then Norman appears and kicks him out. Gwen
and MJ come out of the room, and they all leave together. But in the
flashback, Peter runs into the girls in the hallway (Gwen having just
talked to Norman), says he wants to talk to Norman, but they all leave
instead. Pete and Norman don't even see each other.
I also don't like that the flashbacks make it seem like Harry hasn't
received any medical attention at all, whearas in the original Norman has
his personal physician there.
Regardless, though, I'm riveted by the new story. I'm a huge Gwen fan,
but despite that I don't find these developments the least bit degrading
or what-have-you. It just makes me think she's even more interesting than
before.
--Steve-o
--
Steve Stonebraker | http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~sstoneb/
sst...@yahoo.com | Transformers, astrophysics, comics, games, cartoons.
Scott Dubin
Just keeping tabs here: Consentual sex with Normal Osborn is more
disgusting than non-consentual sex? Okay.....
I enjoyed the last issue and am enjoying "Sin's Past" because
something happened, and something happens in the Spider-man books only
once every ten years or so, (and even then often didn't really happen.
See return of Peter's parents, death of Aunt May, or clone saga)
The introduction of surrogate children for Peter is a great idea. The
superhero genre has always been great for surrogate families and Peter
almost is their dad, if Gwen hadn't died it would have been likely
that he would have raised them.
W. Blaine Dowler
> It's been a banner year for disgusting stupidity in comics this year,
> from characters getting raped and brutally murdered in IDENTITY CRISIS
> to characters acting illogically and blowing themselves up for no
> apparent reason in "Avengers Disassembled" but the events in the
> latest issue of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN truly wins the "Most Disgusting
> Comic Event of the Year" hands down.
>
> SPOILERS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I would much rather have had Gwen raped by Norman, or put
> under mind control and forced to have sex with him, than to have the
> reason be that she *willingly* slept with NOrman because she was drawn
> to him by his raw masculine power.
If it was rape, we'd want to know why she didn't involve the authorities
with it right away. Otherwise, the lack of action would be hard to
explain.
--
- Blaine
http://www.bureau42.com
ICQ: 24893016
"No one will ever consider me a bumbling clown again!"
- Paste Pot Pete, Strange Tales #124
Aaron Malchow
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
Stephen Bayer wrote:
"Let me try to rephrase or explain what I originally said so there is no
misunderstanding. I would not have *preferred* to see Gwen raped. What I
was saying was that, in terms of the plot, if JMS wanted to have Norman be
the father of Gwen's children, it would have made a lot more sense for her
to have been sexually assualted by her rather to have somehow given in to
some kind of compelling animal magnetism to Norman, which made so sense to
me at all."
Stephen, thanks ver much for the polite clarification. And also for
apparently not being insulted by my response, as I wasn't aiming to attack
you, but to attack the notion of rape as a preferable story device.
Stephen added:
"This isn't about me idolozing Gwen. (Maybe other fans do, but I don't).
This is about a ridiculous and contrived plot element that makes no sense
within the context of the relationship between Gwen and Norman Osborn during
the time period in which JMS is trying to say seamlessly fits within this
period of Peter's life. Gwen has had very little to no interaction with
Norman Osborn and then *wham!* all of a sudden while consoling him, she
falls for him, and so deeply that she has sex with him? Makes no sense."
I should clarify, as I didn't mean to specifically suggest that you were
idolizing Gwen, hence my reference to "readers," although I can see how you
could easily read it as referring to you in part.
I think my reaction is somewhat similar to yours in that I'm curious when
Gwen had this sexual encounter with Osborn, as I'd like to see if there are
any hints in Amazing Spider-Man continuity that might allow someone to draw
that conclusion (even if Lee and Ditko or Lee and Romita didn't intend for
such a suggestion).
Stephen wrote:
"In fact, the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that JMS is the
one who seems obsessed with Gwen's apparent 'idolization' and wants to sully
her image in fans' minds, as if to say, 'See, now you fans no longer have to
pine over Gwen as Peter's late great true lost love because, you see, she
wasn't even faithful to him, and she had these kids out of wedlock, and now
you can truly accept MJ as the #1 woman in Peter's life.'"
How people cope with the death of a loved one has been a reoccurring theme
during his run on the book.
JMS has shown how Aunt May initially reacted to Uncle Ben's death. JMS has
had Aunt May and Peter talk about how Peter has reacted to his role in Uncle
Ben's death. JMS has established that Aunt May talks to Uncle Ben and visits
his grave (as well as those of Peter's parents). JMS had Peter donate the
mob money he earned to establish a library in Gwen's memory. And JMS gave
Peter a chance to have a conversation with Uncle Ben.
I think that this sequence is intentional, and that JMS is creating stories
that allow us to consider how we choose to remember people who touched our
lives after they have left them. Sometimes people don't want to face that
loss, and choose to ignore it, which is how many Spider-Man writers treat
Peter's parents and Gwen Stacy, as they aren't often referenced. Sometimes
people choose to be selective in their thoughts about the dead, believing
the motto that "you shouldn't speak ill of the dead." I think Gwen has
definitely been treated that way by those few Spider-Man writers who have
referred to her
Given that MJ has kept this secret from Peter (in order to keep Gwen pure in
Peter's mind), I'm not sure that she isn't also tainted through association
by Gwen's actions. She hardly becomes the perfect love for Peter by keeping
the secret -- unless people think it would have been better that Peter had
never learned about Gwen's affair.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply,
Aaron Malchow
lavar78
I'm pretty sure we're supposed to see Gwen's attraction to the "man
inside" Osborne as a parallel to her attraction to Peter. It's the
age-old "Peter is more like Norman than he wants to believe" thing.
>>
>>
>> For some readers, Gwen has been idolized. The events of Amazing Spider-Man
>> 121-122 have crystallized the memory of her around that storyline, so that
>> she becomes this perfect, loyal girlfriend of Peter's who died tragically.
>> As a result, the rest of her prior characterization is barely ever
>> referenced.
>>
>
> This isn't about me idolozing Gwen. (Maybe other fans do, but I
> don't). This is about a ridiculous and contrived plot element that
> makes no sense within the context of the relationship between Gwen and
> Norman Osborn during the time period in which JMS is trying to say
> seamlessly fits within this period of Peter's life. Gwen has had very
> little to no interaction with Norman Osborn and then *wham!* all of a
> sudden while consoling him, she falls for him, and so deeply that she
> has sex with him? Makes no sense.
>
> In fact, the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that JMS is
> the one who seems obsessed with Gwen's apparent "idolization" and wants
> to sully her image in fans' minds, as if to say, "See, now you fans no
> longer have to pine over Gwen as Peter's late great true lost love
> because, you see, she wasn't even faithful to him, and she had these
> kids out of wedlock, and now you can truly accept MJ as the #1 woman in
> Peter's life."
It's only natural that people idolize Gwen. That's what happens when
someone dies -- especially someone that young. FWIW, a similar
"shocking secret" thing is happening right now with Barry Allen.
--
lavar78
"The eyes are the window to the skull, my friend." -- Bill McNeal, NewsRadio
Stephen Bayer
"Scott Dubin" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:887734a2.04092...@posting.google.com...
> sba...@bigplanet.com (Stephen) wrote in message
> news:<734d239f.04092...@posting.google.com>...
>> It's been a banner year for disgusting stupidity in comics this year,
>> from characters getting raped and brutally murdered in IDENTITY CRISIS
>> to characters acting illogically and blowing themselves up for no
>> apparent reason in "Avengers Disassembled" but the events in the
>> latest issue of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN truly wins the "Most Disgusting
>> Comic Event of the Year" hands down.
>>
>> SPOILERS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Just keeping tabs here: Consentual sex with Normal Osborn is more
> disgusting than non-consentual sex? Okay.....
*sigh* Once again, I'll try to make myself clearer -- as a *storytelling
choice* it would have made more sense for Gwen to have become pregnant as a
result of sexual assault. As it was presented in this issue, it strained my
credibility that Gwen would have somehow willingly fallen for Norman.
Got that?
-Stephen
Aaron Malchow
"My only disappointment is that the flashbacks don't really seem to match
the original stories well enough. The scene with Gwen, Peter, and MJ in the
stairwell of the Osborn's place, for example -- it must be intended to be
the opening scene from issue 121, but it unfolds so differnetly. In 121,
Peter goes inside and walks up to Harry's door without meeting anyone, and
they all leave together. But in the
flashback, Peter runs into the girls in the hallway (Gwen having just talked
to Norman), says he wants to talk to Norman, but they all leave instead.
Pete and Norman don't even see each other."
The flashbacks appear to be broken up, so while MJ is telling the story in
sequential order, she is also jumping ahead, in a few spots, not covering
certain points that Peter is already aware of, or that the readers don't
need to know. Notice how as MJ returns to slap Osborn, Peter mentions that
he did see Osborn as he came in, which is not included in the flashback
sequence, but is clearly a reference to their encounter in issue 121. A bit
of cutting and pasting needs to be done to create a new narrative in one's
mind, but I admire that JMS assumes long-time readers are smart enough to be
do that.
Sincerely,
Aaron Malchow
Aaron Malchow
"*sigh* Once again, I'll try to make myself clearer -- as a *storytelling
choice* it would have made more sense for Gwen to have become pregnant as a
result of sexual assault. As it was presented in this issue, it strained my
credibility that Gwen would have somehow willingly fallen for Norman.
"Got that?"
Stephen, Scott might not have seen your response to me when you first
clarified this. Between the short time that I finally saw your response and
posted back to you, Scott's post popped up. Sometimes I experience a delay
in receiving and sending posts. Perhaps Scott did too.
Sincerely (Honest!)
Aaron Malchow
Aaron Malchow
"I'm pretty sure we're supposed to see Gwen's attraction to the 'man inside'
Osborne as a parallel to her attraction to Peter. It's the age-old 'Peter
is more like Norman than he wants to believe' thing."
Huh. I never would have considered this, but I can see how the current take
on Osborn makes this possible.
lavar78 added:
"FWIW, a similar 'shocking secret' thing is happening right now with Barry
Allen.
What th--? Barry Allen had sex with Norman Osborn too!?! Does Brad Meltzer
know about this? I think I need the JLA to mindwipe me now...
As sincere as can be expected under the circumstances,
Aaron Malchow
Scott Dubin
I'm reminded of a line from American Gods where an elder God in
diguise is hitting on a young waitress who's flattered by the
attention. The narrator describes it as watching a wolf approaching a
buck who didn't know enough to run away.
>
>
> >
> >
> > For some readers, Gwen has been idolized. The events of Amazing Spider-Man
> > 121-122 have crystallized the memory of her around that storyline, so that
> > she becomes this perfect, loyal girlfriend of Peter's who died tragically.
> > As a result, the rest of her prior characterization is barely ever
> > referenced.
> >
>
> This isn't about me idolozing Gwen. (Maybe other fans do, but I don't).
> This is about a ridiculous and contrived plot element that makes no sense
> within the context of the relationship between Gwen and Norman Osborn during
> the time period in which JMS is trying to say seamlessly fits within this
> period of Peter's life. Gwen has had very little to no interaction with
> Norman Osborn and then *wham!* all of a sudden while consoling him, she
> falls for him, and so deeply that she has sex with him? Makes no sense.
>
> In fact, the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that JMS is the
> one who seems obsessed with Gwen's apparent "idolization" and wants to sully
> her image in fans' minds, as if to say, "See, now you fans no longer have to
> pine over Gwen as Peter's late great true lost love because, you see, she
> wasn't even faithful to him, and she had these kids out of wedlock, and now
> you can truly accept MJ as the #1 woman in Peter's life."
That certainly sounds like the reaction of a person who idolized Gwen,
this isn't the theme of the story at all. It's about buried secrets
and lost chances. If only Gwen and Peter has gotten the chance to
talk. If only Peter had known, he could have saved her, hid her. But
he didn't, and the Goblin killed her.
Bill Bickel
"Scott Dubin" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Just keeping tabs here: Consentual sex with Normal Osborn is more
> disgusting than non-consentual sex? Okay.....
I think what he's saying is that Gwen (and his memory of the character)
would be less sullied by her having been raped than by her having had
consensual sex with Osborne.
But moving on... I don't know whether it's just me, but I got a sense from
the story that they were leaving open the possibility that Osborne had some
mesmerizing effect on Gwen.
Bill Bickel
http://www.comicsidontunderstand.com
http://www.missing-kids.us
Bill Bickel
"W. Blaine Dowler" <fiz...@NOSPAMbureau42.com> wrote in message
news:dzL6d.142270$%S.132942@pd7tw2no...
>
> If it was rape, we'd want to know why she didn't involve the authorities
> with it right away. Otherwise, the lack of action would be hard to
> explain.
A teenager who's been raped by a ruthless and powerful man not coming
forward and reporting it? What part of that would be hard to explain?
Hal Shipman
<bill...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>"Scott Dubin" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>> Just keeping tabs here: Consentual sex with Normal Osborn is more
>> disgusting than non-consentual sex? Okay.....
>
>I think what he's saying is that Gwen (and his memory of the character)
>would be less sullied by her having been raped than by her having had
>consensual sex with Osborne.
>
>But moving on... I don't know whether it's just me, but I got a sense from
>the story that they were leaving open the possibility that Osborne had some
>mesmerizing effect on Gwen.
I thought there was an explicit statement that there was no mind
control involved.
Hal.
I don't wear no Stetson
But I'm willing to bet, son
That I'm as big a Texan as you are
- Robert Earl Keen, "Amarillo Highway"
A. Gerard
about having sex with Norman. In her conversation with MJ, Gwen broke
off her explanation too early, stopping after talking about Norman's
magnetism. And the actual sex scene is in Peter's head.
For all we know, Gwen's virtue is intact, and she might have been
artifically inseminated. JMS might be fooling us.
Besides, there is a continuity hole about Norman's disdain for Harry.
He really was worried about his son, and Harry's ordeal was a major
part in restoring his memories of being the Goblin.
Still, what JMS has done changes the reason for Gwen's death. No
longer the innocent victim whose only fault was being Spider-Man's
girlfriend, Gwen was destined to be the Goblin's victim, spidey-girl
or not.
This does give a new meaning to the scene in the "Death in the Family"
saga, where the Goblin is playing with a Gwen Stacy doll, muttering
that she was attracted to him. "A Hunk of Goblin Love."
A.Gerard
Paul O'Brien
<no-e...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Sounds appalling. Now I'm gonna have to buy it just to see how bad it
>really is. Damn.
I wouldn't bother, if that's the only reason you're thinking of buying
it. It's not presented in a particularly egregious way. It's the
concept that will annoy people, if anything.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
LIVEJOURNAL - http://www.livejournal.com/~paulobrien
Paul O'Brien
<jr...@prism.gatech.edu> writes
>
>Yep, I'm with you, too. I just finished the issue, and it really does
>seem like an exercise in pointlessly pissing on a much-beloved,
>long-dead character from a great height.
Tend to agree, from what we've seen so far. Unless Straczynski is
planning to make the kids into regular cast members, I can't see what
the point of all this is meant to be.
Paul O'Brien
<fiz...@NOSPAMbureau42.com> writes
SPOILERS
>
>If it was rape, we'd want to know why she didn't involve the
>authorities with it right away. Otherwise, the lack of action would be
>hard to explain.
The rape reporting rate is notoriously low. That wouldn't be a
credibility problem in itself. If anything, the credibility problem
would be in the fact that the original stories don't show Gwen showing
signs of anything as traumatic as that. (The story as published has a
similar problem, but at a much less serious level.)
Lord Hatred
"Bill Bickel" <bill...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "W. Blaine Dowler" <fiz...@NOSPAMbureau42.com> wrote in message
> news:dzL6d.142270$%S.132942@pd7tw2no...
>
> >
> > If it was rape, we'd want to know why she didn't involve the authorities
> > with it right away. Otherwise, the lack of action would be hard to
> > explain.
>
> A teenager who's been raped by a ruthless and powerful man not coming
> forward and reporting it? What part of that would be hard to explain?
>
Many people think all rapes and molestations are reported.
Unfortunately, that isn't the case at all.
Captain Omega
>In fact, the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that JMS is the
>one who seems obsessed with Gwen's apparent "idolization" and wants to sully
>her image in fans' minds, as if to say, "See, now you fans no longer have to
>pine over Gwen as Peter's late great true lost love because, you see, she
>wasn't even faithful to him, and she had these kids out of wedlock, and now
>you can truly accept MJ as the #1 woman in Peter's life."
>
>-Stephen
Bingo.
You've hit it on the head here Steve-- except that it could be more a case of
JMS idolizing *MJ* and pissing on Gwen in an effort to raise MJ up. Either way,
it's trash. We all know someone will come along and write this swill out of
continuity, eventually, but still-- there can be no excuse for inflicting this
storyline on us.
For the record, someone in my comic shop (thankfully) told me the plot of the
issue and I refused to buy it. I know it will make little difference, but I
would urge anyone who cares to stop buying ASM, at least while JMS is doing the
writing. Personally, I won't be buying *any* Marvel comics again for the
forseeable future... the only way I might return would be if there was a major
shake-up at the top of the company that signalled an overall change in its
creative direction. A direction that respected Marvel's own legacy.
Captain Omega
(fighting for truth and fair play in comics)
Dreighton
controlled. The idea, that she CHOOSE to willingly sleep with Norman
Osborn, a man who was the father of a friend of hers and an ass hole
to that friend is very creepy and not in a good way. I do tend to
idolize Gwen. And this doesn't fit with her and her past/actions at
all. However, one explaination would be that this occured some where
after her own father's death. And I've been around girls that have had
father issues, that have dated/slept with older men/father figures out
of those issues.
If she was raped or mind controlled, it would have made Norman look
even eviler (new word) as he is a villian, and kept Gwen's memory from
being "soiled".
> I'm pretty sure we're supposed to see Gwen's attraction to the "man
> inside" Osborne as a parallel to her attraction to Peter. It's the
> age-old "Peter is more like Norman than he wants to believe" thing.
A far better explaination then any presented by JMS. And a good valid
thought.
> > In fact, the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that JMS is
> > the one who seems obsessed with Gwen's apparent "idolization" and wants
> > to sully her image in fans' minds, as if to say, "See, now you fans no
> > longer have to pine over Gwen as Peter's late great true lost love
> > because, you see, she wasn't even faithful to him, and she had these
> > kids out of wedlock, and now you can truly accept MJ as the #1 woman in
> > Peter's life."
Again, a better explanation of the point/theme of this story line,
then JMS has given us. And if so, then I am the one that this story
was aimed at as I do tend to idolize her. But I really don't need JMS
telling me that a past love needs to sullied. It was a love, but I've
never seen Gwen as Peter's one and only true love. She was a love, and
she died, and people move on, and fall in love again. And the love
with MJ has lasted (well, except when she was killed, and then brought
back and sent to live in LA during a seperation to Peter by the
writers).
I think JMS should have let the dead rest. 121-122 was a great story.
Don't go back and screw it up. If he is such a great writer, he
could tell us a new story that was good and important, with out
screwing with the past.
My other bitch of this story: The kids are dieing! and ageing rapidly.
Ok, if they are ageing now at the same pace they did at birth (which
is not said in the story, and just assumed) , even rounding down to
make the math easier, they are aging at 1/3 faster then the normal age
rate. So at 30 they would be 40. At 60 they would be 80. Given a
normal death age of 75 they would die at about 50 years old. While
this isn't good news, but I don't think this is an "OHMYGOD! I have to
save em NOW!" tragedy.
The Good part of this story: It does do some tie ins with Norman
lived, and was convelesing in Europe all the time we thought he was
dead. It made this make a little more plasable sense.
Dreighton
Daniel Dayton
Captain Omega
Malchow says...
>For some readers, Gwen has been idolized. The events of Amazing Spider-Man
>121-122 have crystallized the memory of her around that storyline, so that
>she becomes this perfect, loyal girlfriend of Peter's who died tragically.
>As a result, the rest of her prior characterization is barely ever
>referenced.
>
>Remember how angry she was that Peter Parker was the only man on campus who
>wasn't attracted to her (circa Amazing Spider-Man 31-37)? Remember the times
>she broke off her relationship with Peter (such as in Amazing Spider-Man
>issues 72, 86, 94-99 to name a few)? Remember when she took Aunt May to task
>for being too maternal towards Peter (circa issue 110)? Gwen was not a
>completely loyal girlfriend to Peter. In being idolized, much of her
>personality was rounded out. I think this current storyline fleshes her out
>again, and portrays her as a human being with flaws and strengths, rather
>than some idolized virginal girlfriend who never makes mistakes.
You're misportraying a hell of a lot here. Every time Gwen broke it off with
Peter she had perfectly good reasons for doing so-- which almost always involved
Pete lying to her (to protect his secret ID). One time for example, her father
(Captain Stacy) was under the hypnotic control of the Kingpin and Pete struck
him in self-defense-- when Gwen walked in and saw this, she was understandably
upset... even so, she *still* offered Pete a chance to explain himself, which he
did not. Another time he ran off and abandoned her when she was taken to the
hospital so he could pursue a villain (the Schemer). Again, Pete refused to
explain his actions to her. It was a plot device Stan revisited many times.
As far as her argument with Aunt May, she was expressing the frustrations nearly
every Spidey fan felt at the time (in fact, most fans wanted to see May killed
off!). Again, she had good reasons to snap at May... and later expressed regret
over doing so. She wasn't a perfect person (which no one is), but she was a very
good person (which is damn rare). Certainly, she was a much better person than
MJ-- who had no moral problem at all playing games with Harry, stringing him
along and basically driving him to drugs, without once displaying an ounce of
conscience.
All things considered, I'd say Gwen was the most loyal girlfriend (and perhaps
overall person) one could ever meet. She stood by Pete based on pure faith
alone-- he never did share his greatest secret with her, after all.
The Captain
Bill Bickel
"Dreighton" <dbda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d41de28c.04093...@posting.google.com...
>
> My other bitch of this story: The kids are dieing! and ageing rapidly.
> Ok, if they are ageing now at the same pace they did at birth (which
> is not said in the story, and just assumed) , even rounding down to
> make the math easier, they are aging at 1/3 faster then the normal age
> rate. So at 30 they would be 40. At 60 they would be 80. Given a
> normal death age of 75 they would die at about 50 years old. While
> this isn't good news, but I don't think this is an "OHMYGOD! I have to
> save em NOW!" tragedy.
Clearly their rate of aging is accellerating, since they seem to be young
adults now: So they started out aging 1/3 faster than normal, and by now
they're agining maybe twice as fast as normal. Presumably Peter worked out
the calculus.
Sean R-B
> It's been a banner year for disgusting stupidity in comics this year,
> from characters getting raped and brutally murdered in IDENTITY CRISIS
> to characters acting illogically and blowing themselves up for no
> apparent reason in "Avengers Disassembled" but the events in the
> latest issue of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN truly wins the "Most Disgusting
> Comic Event of the Year" hands down.
>
> SPOILERS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> children was NORMAN OSBORN. The children are imbued with the Osborn
> Goblin-blood which explains their unnaturally rapid maturation rate.
>
> So now I've done you all a favor and you can flip through this garbage
> in the comic shop today to see the damage for yourself, then put it
> back up on the shelf and refuse to reward Marvel and JMS financially
> for this egregious piece of shit.
>
Interesting that while I was genuinely surprised and shocked by JMS'
revelations in this story about Gwen's affair with Norman Osborne, I
don't think it was the most important or meanigful part of the issue
as most other people seem to. For me, this story is *really* about
Peter's reaction to MJ's narrative. This is another step in JMS'
continuing exploration of what it means to be a hero using Spider-Man
as the vehicle for the exploration. What do I mean? Well at the end of
the issue, Pete doesn't hare off after Normie in a killing rage to
exact vengance and reinstate Gwen's honor.
No.
After venting his anger and hurt and regaining his senses, Peter's
first rational thought is what can he do to help these "children". Not
how can he get back at my enemy, but how can he turn this into
something positive and help the innocent victims of Norman's evil from
suffering further. Folks, *that* is a hero in my book. Congratulations
JMS. You done good.
- Sean R-B
Captain Omega
says...
>The introduction of surrogate children for Peter is a great idea. The
>superhero genre has always been great for surrogate families and Peter
>almost is their dad, if Gwen hadn't died it would have been likely
>that he would have raised them.
What was there to raise, exactly? The kids apparently emerged from the womb as
teenagers.
The Captain
Menshevik
y
o
u
c
a
n
'
t
g
o
h
o
m
e
a
g
a
i
n
>I would say, that I would have preferred Gwen to be raped, or mind
>controlled.
I'm not sure. If Gwen had been raped, there would have
been the question of why she did not report it to the police
or at any rate tell MJ. And even assuming that she would not
have dared to do either, that would still leave the possibility
that she would have gone and had an abortion instead of
going through the trouble of not only going through with the
pregnancy, but apparently also successfully keeping it a secret
from everybody she knew.
> The idea, that she CHOOSE to willingly sleep with Norman
>Osborn, a man who was the father of a friend of hers and an ass hole
>to that friend is very creepy and not in a good way. I do tend to
>idolize Gwen. And this doesn't fit with her and her past/actions at
>all. However, one explaination would be that this occured some where
>after her own father's death. And I've been around girls that have had
>father issues, that have dated/slept with older men/father figures out
>of those issues.
>
>If she was raped or mind controlled, it would have made Norman look
>even eviler (new word) as he is a villian, and kept Gwen's memory from
>being "soiled".
It would not have make Norman look a lot eviler than he
did before now. On the other hand, seducing Gwen (if this is
indeed what happened) can be seen as one of his biggest triumphs
over Peter (note that Sins Past also seems to have established
that Gwen did not live long enough to have sex with Peter),
in an up until now unthinkable way.
As one can gauge from the reactions to ASM #512, JMS has come
up with something that was not expected and caused a bigger
shock than rape or mind-control would have.
>
>> I'm pretty sure we're supposed to see Gwen's attraction to the "man
>> inside" Osborne as a parallel to her attraction to Peter. It's the
>> age-old "Peter is more like Norman than he wants to believe" thing.
>
>A far better explaination then any presented by JMS. And a good valid
>thought.
Actually, I think JMS made it pretty obvious. I caught it the first
Gwen is quoted: "...as though there was the person I knew on the outside,
and deep inside, this other person, so powerful, yet so
mysterious" and we are not shown Gwen's face or (more
obvious) that of Norman and/or the Green Goblin, but Peter's
(and Peter is still dressed in his Spider-Man duds, even if he
has taken off his mask). And for those who didn't catch it the
first time, JMS repeats the phrase a few pages later, again as the
caption to a panel showing Peter.
(What I also got from this part of the story is that Peter must have
wondered if he had been a fool to keep his secret from Gwen.)
>
>The Good part of this story: It does do some tie ins with Norman
>lived, and was convelesing in Europe all the time we thought he was
>dead. It made this make a little more plasable sense.
>
Some parts of the story indeed make sense of a few of the old
stories (in particular those connected to Norman's return),
but as another poster mentioned, the best part may be that at the
end of ASM #512 the thing topmost on Peter's mind is the welfare
of Gwen's children.
Tilman
(reserving final judgment until after part 6)
"Who wants to read something about this subject will find it in a book, the
title of which I've forgotten. But it's the 42nd chapter."
Professor Johann Georg August Galletti (1750-1828)
~consul
She loves the theater, but doesn't come late
She'd never bother, with people she'd hate
That's why the lady is a tramp
Doesn't like crap games, with barons and earls
Won't go to Harlem, in ermine and pearls
Won't dish the dirt, with the rest of those girls
That's why the lady is a tramp
She loves the free, fresh wind in her hair
Life without care
She's broke, but it's o'k
She hates California, it's cold and it's damp
That's why the lady is a tramp
Doesn't like dice games, with sharpies and frauds
Won't go to Harlem, in Lincolns or Fords
Won't dish the dirt, with the rest of those broads
That's why the lady is a tramp
--
"... 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
> Stephen wrote:
>>SPOILERS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I would much rather have had Gwen raped by Norman, or put
>>under mind control and forced to have sex with him, than to have the
>>reason be that she *willingly* slept with NOrman because she was drawn
>>to him by his raw masculine power.
> If it was rape, we'd want to know why she didn't involve the authorities
> with it right away. Otherwise, the lack of action would be hard to
> explain.
Not really hard to explain, as IRL, most rapes and assaults are done by folks people
already know, and aren't reported. And given that if it was Norman, this would be doubly
harder for folks to 'believe' it as actually happening or that it happened as she says it did.
It's getting better at being reported, but the farther back one goes, the less likely it
would have been reported.
Scott Dubin
This is true, as I use google, which is often hours behind the updated news feeds.
Jim
news:2001f124.04093...@posting.google.com:
> sba...@bigplanet.com (Stephen) wrote in message
> news:<734d239f.04092...@posting.google.com>...
>> ...
>> SPOILERS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [...snip...]
> [...snip...]
> ... For me, this
> story is *really* about Peter's reaction to MJ's narrative. This
> is another step in JMS' continuing exploration of what it means
> to be a hero using Spider-Man as the vehicle for the
> exploration. What do I mean? Well at the end of the issue, Pete
> doesn't hare off after Normie in a killing rage to exact
> vengance and reinstate Gwen's honor.
>
> No.
>
> After venting his anger and hurt and regaining his senses,
> Peter's first rational thought is what can he do to help these
> "children". Not how can he get back at my enemy, but how can he
> turn this into something positive and help the innocent victims
> of Norman's evil from suffering further. Folks, *that* is a hero
> in my book. Congratulations JMS. You done good.
I also think this revelation adds to the story and the character as
opposed to being "disgusting".
However, I'm not a long-time Spider-Man fan. I had never heard of
either Gwen Stacy or Osborne/Goblin until this arc (and recent
discussions in racmu).
Jim
Lord Hatred
wrote:
"You're out of your element Donnie!"
Seriously, I'd pick up the Essential Spider-Man TPBs just so you can see
why people are outraged. The writing may be solid, but it isn't
appropriate for the book or its history.
Bill Bickel
"Captain Omega" <Captain...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:cjhid...@drn.newsguy.com...
If they had, I don't think Green Goblin would have had to kill Gwen.
The children were born full-term (as if they'd gestated for 9 months rather
than 7), not full-grown. After that, it took them maybe half a dozen years
to grow to adulthood (depending on how much Marvel time has passed since
Gwen's death).
Jonathan M
"> >
> > However, I'm not a long-time Spider-Man fan. I had never heard of
> > either Gwen Stacy or Osborne/Goblin until this arc (and recent
> > discussions in racmu).
> >
>
>
> "You're out of your element Donnie!"
>
> Seriously, I'd pick up the Essential Spider-Man TPBs just so you can see
> why people are outraged. The writing may be solid, but it isn't
> appropriate for the book or its history.
I'm a longtime Spidey fan and I disagree with that.
Jon J. Yeager
news:lordhatred-CE486...@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "You're out of your element Donnie!"
>
> Seriously, I'd pick up the Essential Spider-Man TPBs just so you can see
> why people are outraged. The writing may be solid, but it isn't
> appropriate for the book or its history.
Isn't the whole point of the Ultimate universe to do away with annoying
things like continuity?
Bendis can present Spidey anyway he wants... it's ULTIMATE Spidey.
Put him in the traditional Marvel U, however, and........
Jon J. Yeager
"Shave Tony Stark!"
Lord Hatred
What does this have to do with Ultimate Spidey...?
Sanctify
> srup...@sbcglobal.net (Sean R-B) wrote in
> news:2001f124.04093...@posting.google.com:
>
>
>>sba...@bigplanet.com (Stephen) wrote in message
>>news:<734d239f.04092...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>>...
>>>SPOILERS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
.
>
>
> I also think this revelation adds to the story and the character as
> opposed to being "disgusting".
Not only disgusting, but pathetic. It's the worst Spidey story I've
ever had the misfortune to read. As it stands this current story-line,
and it's plot, makes the entire Close Saga look like a Shakespeare play.
I doubt I'll be buying the title anymore after that load of crap.
>
> However, I'm not a long-time Spider-Man fan. I had never heard of
> either Gwen Stacy or Osborne/Goblin until this arc (and recent
> discussions in racmu).
You've got some reading to do.
Jon J. Yeager
> In article <s_Z6d.9890$M96.3...@wagner.videotron.net>,
> "Jon J. Yeager" <nos...@please.com> wrote:
>>
>> Isn't the whole point of the Ultimate universe to do away with annoying
>> things like continuity?
>>
>>
> What does this have to do with Ultimate Spidey...?
Sorry, I confused 2 threads. <embarassed look>
Lord Hatred
"Jon J. Yeager" <nos...@please.com> wrote:
> "Lord Hatred" <lordh...@spammelatergmail.com> wrote in message
> news:lordhatred-4226E...@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <s_Z6d.9890$M96.3...@wagner.videotron.net>,
> > "Jon J. Yeager" <nos...@please.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Isn't the whole point of the Ultimate universe to do away with annoying
> >> things like continuity?
> >>
> >> Put him in the traditional Marvel U, however, and........
> >>
> > What does this have to do with Ultimate Spidey...?
>
> Sorry, I confused 2 threads. <embarassed look>
>
:)
Captain Omega
says...
>> What was there to raise, exactly? The kids apparently emerged from the
>womb as
>> teenagers.
>
>If they had, I don't think Green Goblin would have had to kill Gwen.
>
>The children were born full-term (as if they'd gestated for 9 months rather
>than 7), not full-grown. After that, it took them maybe half a dozen years
>to grow to adulthood (depending on how much Marvel time has passed since
>Gwen's death).
I guess emotional maturity, educational knowledge, and articulate speech are
genetic traits and not learned, then? 'Cause they sure don't carry themselves
like 6-year-old mutant entities (or however you choose to classify them).
I think this conversation pretty much proves my point: that this story is
completely retarded, even by comic book standards.... Which is REALLY saying
something.
The Captain
Steve-o Stonebraker
>>The children were born full-term (as if they'd gestated for 9 months rather
>>than 7), not full-grown. After that, it took them maybe half a dozen years
>>to grow to adulthood (depending on how much Marvel time has passed since
>>Gwen's death).
>
> I guess emotional maturity, educational knowledge, and articulate speech are
> genetic traits and not learned, then? 'Cause they sure don't carry themselves
> like 6-year-old mutant entities (or however you choose to classify them).
So... children who develop physically at a greatly enhanced speed can't
also develop intellectually/mentally at a greatly enhanced speed? That's
pretty much what I would *expect* from any story about superpeople aging
at an accelerated rate. I would be surprised if a writer chose to have
such children show their "mental age". Could make an interesting story,
since it's different, but I wouldn't expect it.
> I think this conversation pretty much proves my point: that this story is
> completely retarded, even by comic book standards.... Which is REALLY saying
> something.
Ahhh... yes, good point. Proof it is. QED. Thanks for enlightening me.
;)
--Steve-o
--
Steve Stonebraker | http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~sstoneb/
sst...@yahoo.com | Transformers, astrophysics, comics, games, cartoons.
Steve-o Stonebraker
> True, Gwen was a non-character (more like the archetype of the
> Super-Hero's Oblivious Girlfriend), but this latest plot twist does
> not make her a character. In fact, it blatantly defies the traits of
> her non-character characterization by making her a weak-willed harlot
> who would screw a man who was clearly unbalanced. I'm sickened.
I dunno... one of the first things we learned about Gwen -- something that
was drilled into us through almost nauseating repitition -- was that Gwen
saw something in Peter that the others didn't see that drew her to him.
She didn't even know what it was. I think it was always more or less
meant for the readers to think, "oh, she sees his inner strength because
he's Spider-Man". So... for her to also see Norman's inner strength, and
be drawn to him, and not really be able to explain it... I'd say that's
*very* consistent with her previous characterization.
Also, as I recall at least (I read most of the ESSENTIAL reprints a year
or two ago), Gwen was pretty compassionate. Moreso than most, at least.
That would *also* be consistant with the idea of her taking the time to
try to comfort Norman when she came upon him in a time of vulnerability.
Certainly that doesn't mean she has to have sex with him, but like she
said, it just sort of happened.
Steve-o Stonebraker
>lavar78 wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure we're supposed to see Gwen's attraction to the "man
>> inside" Osborne as a parallel to her attraction to Peter. It's the
>> age-old "Peter is more like Norman than he wants to believe" thing.
Darn it, I guess somebody beat me to that point. Oh well...
> A far better explaination then any presented by JMS. And a good valid
> thought.
You mean, a far better explanation than any presented by JMS in the... uh,
zero new issues since the revelation? I'm remineded of the furor a couple
months ago that "the kids couldn't possibly be Gwen's because they're too
old, and why hasn't Peter realized this?", only to find in the very next
issue that Peter was already thinking about it.
And personally, I would say that JMS *did* present that explanation in
issue 512 anyway. It just wasn't done explicitly. I'd guess that it will
be, though.
grinningdemon
<fiz...@NOSPAMbureau42.com> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>
>> It's been a banner year for disgusting stupidity in comics this year,
>> from characters getting raped and brutally murdered in IDENTITY CRISIS
>> to characters acting illogically and blowing themselves up for no
>> apparent reason in "Avengers Disassembled" but the events in the
>> latest issue of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN truly wins the "Most Disgusting
>> Comic Event of the Year" hands down.
>>
>> SPOILERS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I would much rather have had Gwen raped by Norman, or put
>> under mind control and forced to have sex with him, than to have the
>> reason be that she *willingly* slept with NOrman because she was drawn
>> to him by his raw masculine power.
>
>If it was rape, we'd want to know why she didn't involve the authorities
>with it right away. Otherwise, the lack of action would be hard to
>explain.
See...I had already figured out it was Norman but I figured it would
be rape and that it Gwen had somehow rationalized it and decided it
was better to hide it...I think the story works much better that way.
For one thing, it is, for lack of a better word, icky...I don't buy
it...I can't imagine any circumstances where Gwen would willingly have
sex with Norman Osborn (even if she didn't know he was the Goblin, the
man was always a jerk)...all the while claiming to be in love with
Peter and wanting him to be the father of her children even though she
never had sex with him...the whole thing just seems off...on the other
hand, if insane Norman had raped her and Gwen decided not to do
anything about it so that she could get on with her life and spare
Harry and Peter the pain of finding out about it...I could buy that,
it's still a stretch, but I think it's more believable that way...and
less damaging to the character.
Scott Dubin
Dude, there are real world examples of child prodigies being able to
articulate like adults as ridiculously young ages. I think this is a
clear example of making up any old reason not to like the book
because it brings Gwen into the catagory as flawed human.
Oh, and most of the complaints on this thread make enourmous timeline
assumpions inorder to make the story look as bad as possible.
Nathan P. Mahney
news:6p-dnRUONss...@nildram.net...
>
> "Paul O'Brien" <pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:447UWUHX...@esoterica.demon.co.uk...
> > In message <79mdnSrt569...@nildram.net>, teepee
> > <no-e...@hotmail.com> writes
> > >
> > >Sounds appalling. Now I'm gonna have to buy it just to see how bad it
> > >really is. Damn.
> >
> > I wouldn't bother, if that's the only reason you're thinking of buying
> > it. It's not presented in a particularly egregious way. It's the
> > concept that will annoy people, if anything.
>
> Auurgh too late.
> Actually it wasn't a totally bad bit of writing IMHO if you'd never heard
of
> the characters before, but it smacks of cheap soap. I sort of feel this
> might be a deliberate attempt to imitate that DC story where Plastic Man's
> wife get's raped and murdered. Take a support character and attempt to
> reinterpret her through something fairly shocking.
>
> Let's face it, like anything in the Spiderman Universe that alters the
> status quo, this will be retconned out of existence within a few months.
> IIRC a number of other things have happened in Peter Parker's life over
the
> years that were just an excuse to get all angsty, but then haven't really
> stuck.
That's one of the problems I have with modern Spider-Man. It's always
looking for an excuse to make Spider-Man angst. It completely sucks the fun
out of the book. Sure, Spidey needs to have troubles, but I think they
should lay off the guy for a while. Give him some problems that normal folk
can relate to.
--
- Nathan P. Mahney -
Writing:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/index.html
The Whole Story Comic Reviews:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/ReviewIndex.html
Gamebook Scenic Solutions:
http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney/SSIndex.html
mariocq
> Let's face it, like anything in the Spiderman Universe that alters the
> status quo, this will be retconned out of existence within a few months.
I hope it. I can´t imagine how marvel editors allow things like this
Nathan P. Mahney
news:a70bb551.04100...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Let's face it, like anything in the Spiderman Universe that alters the
> > status quo, this will be retconned out of existence within a few months.
>
> I hope it. I can´t imagine how marvel editors allow things like this
So... Still want Gwen to come back?
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: That's one of the problems I have with modern Spider-Man. It's always
: looking for an excuse to make Spider-Man angst. It completely sucks the fun
: out of the book. Sure, Spidey needs to have troubles, but I think they
: should lay off the guy for a while. Give him some problems that normal folk
: can relate to.
Very good point.
Whatever happened to the rent, girl troubles, Peter's large supporting cast and
the villain of the month? Where are the Daily Bugle staff, Flash Thompson, Liz
Osborn, the Shocker, the Hobgoblin and the Looter?
Maybe that would be something to focus on, instead of creating something that
looks like it's going to top the Clone Saga in terms of awfulness.
--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
POPP'D! >> http://poppd.blogspot.com/
COMIKADO >> http://comikado.blogspot.com/
"Shut up!" --Fair & Balanced
--
[This is a Usenet message, posted to the rec.arts.comics.* groups.]
W. Blaine Dowler
> Many people think all rapes and molestations are reported.
> Unfortunately, that isn't the case at all.
I don't think all are, but Gwen never struck me as the kind of character who
wouldn't report it.
--
- Blaine
http://www.bureau42.com
ICQ: 24893016
"The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has
merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one."
- Albert Einstein.
Menshevik
>: looking for an excuse to make Spider-Man angst. It completely sucks the
>fun
>: out of the book. Sure, Spidey needs to have troubles, but I think they
>: should lay off the guy for a while. Give him some problems that normal
>folk
>: can relate to.
>
>Very good point.
>
>Whatever happened to the rent, girl troubles, Peter's large supporting cast
>and
>the villain of the month? Where are the Daily Bugle staff, Flash Thompson,
>Liz
>Osborn, the Shocker, the Hobgoblin and the Looter?
....the Looter?
BwaHAHAHAHA! For a moment I was taking you seriously there.
BTW, you can see the Bugle Staff very nicely done in
The Pulse. And Peter and MJ are having rent and money problems
in Marvel Knights: Spider-Man. "Sins Past" comes under the
broader heading "girl trouble" and features the Green Goblin,
who is the original inspiration for Hobgoblin (and the latter
character not only is a copy of the Green Goblin, but was also
run down by overuse and Roger Stern's unnecessary "I created
him, so I get to have the last word" Limited Series).
Tilman
Bill Bickel
> In article <VBZ6d.14520$kq6.8...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, Bill Bickel
> says...
> >> What was there to raise, exactly? The kids apparently emerged from the
> >womb as
> >> teenagers.
> >
> >If they had, I don't think Green Goblin would have had to kill Gwen.
> >
> >The children were born full-term (as if they'd gestated for 9 months
rather
> >than 7), not full-grown. After that, it took them maybe half a dozen
years
> >to grow to adulthood (depending on how much Marvel time has passed since
> >Gwen's death).
>
> I guess emotional maturity, educational knowledge, and articulate speech
are
> genetic traits and not learned, then? 'Cause they sure don't carry
themselves
> like 6-year-old mutant entities (or however you choose to classify them).
This just seems to be a comic book /SF convention: How often do you see a
clone grown to adulthood who DOESN'T act essentially as an adult would (with
the occasional exception of not understanding a cultural refernce or a
joke)? It's just one of those things you make a tacit agreement not to think
about.
Bill Bickel
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Nathan P. Mahney <nma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>That's one of the problems I have with modern Spider-Man. It's always
>looking for an excuse to make Spider-Man angst. It completely sucks the fun
>out of the book. Sure, Spidey needs to have troubles, but I think they
>should lay off the guy for a while. Give him some problems that normal folk
>can relate to.
Agreed. I thought "Grim'n'Gritty" had kind of run its course, and I'd much
rather see Spider-Man dealing with girlfriend/wife problems, work problems,
money problems, or whatever, than have his life be this endless series
of unthinkable tragedies (seemlingly all orchestrated by the long-dead
Norman Osborn).
In one sense (and one sense only), the writers back during the Clone Saga
had the right idea - if there was ever a character that could stand to
have his status quo reset to about 20 years ago, it's Spider-Man.
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"
Paul O'Brien
<Dersc...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Whatever happened to the rent, girl troubles, Peter's large supporting
>cast and the villain of the month? Where are the Daily Bugle staff,
>Flash Thompson, Liz Osborn, the Shocker, the Hobgoblin and the Looter?
Well, he can't have recurrent girl troubles because he's happily
married. And he can't hang out much with the Daily Bugle staff because
he doesn't work there. But you're right, the supporting cast has been
largely marginalised over the years. That's been a chronic problem for
quite some time, going back at least to the mid-nineties.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
LIVEJOURNAL - http://www.livejournal.com/~paulobrien
Paul O'Brien
<jr...@prism.gatech.edu> writes
>
>In one sense (and one sense only), the writers back during the Clone
>Saga had the right idea - if there was ever a character that could
>stand to have his status quo reset to about 20 years ago, it's
>Spider-Man.
True, and their error was in how they went about it. All they really
needed to do was get him to cheer the hell up. (The marriage is
effectively irreversible, and they should never have started messing
around with it in the first place - it doesn't make Peter young and
single again, it just makes him miserable and pining.)
Paul O'Brien
Dubin <scott...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>Dude, there are real world examples of child prodigies being able to
>articulate like adults as ridiculously young ages. I think this is a
>clear example of making up any old reason not to like the book because
>it brings Gwen into the catagory as flawed human.
Rewriting history a bit here, aren't we? Plenty of people have been
extremely negative about this storyline for a while now - before this
retcon came out. Seems a bit dubious to try and write off criticism of
the story as pro-Gwen sentiment given that most of these readers were
already being negative about the story before this issue came out. After
all, they're not psychic. There must be something else about the story
that they don't like, over and above the Gwen thing.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> This just seems to be a comic book /SF convention: How often do you see a
> clone grown to adulthood who DOESN'T act essentially as an adult would (with
> the occasional exception of not understanding a cultural refernce or a
> joke)?
For a while, Impulse was being treated this way. He was artificially
aged in a VR environment to the physical age of an early teen, but his
brain didn't always keep up. It mostly was demonstrated in his treating
a girl friend like a friend, and not understanding when she began having
other kinds of feelings.
--
Johanna Draper Carlson
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Blogging at http://www.comicsworthreading.com/blog/cwr.html
R. Tang
Paul O'Brien <pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <2s50rbF...@uni-berlin.de>, Marc-Oliver Frisch
><Dersc...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>Whatever happened to the rent, girl troubles, Peter's large supporting
>>cast and the villain of the month? Where are the Daily Bugle staff,
>>Flash Thompson, Liz Osborn, the Shocker, the Hobgoblin and the Looter?
>
>Well, he can't have recurrent girl troubles because he's happily
>married. And he can't hang out much with the Daily Bugle staff because
>he doesn't work there. But you're right, the supporting cast has been
>largely marginalised over the years. That's been a chronic problem for
>quite some time, going back at least to the mid-nineties.
This sort of thing puzzles me. Can't you have Peter Parker-style
problems as a married man? Not quite having enough to pay the rent, or
mortgage? Fixing the plumbing? Etc.? Even when you're married to a model?
(Not every model makes six figures a year...or she could have been a
trendy model-of-the-moment, and so forth)...
--
-
-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
Menshevik
>>articulate like adults as ridiculously young ages. I think this is a
>>clear example of making up any old reason not to like the book because
>>it brings Gwen into the catagory as flawed human.
>
>Rewriting history a bit here, aren't we? Plenty of people have been
>extremely negative about this storyline for a while now - before this
>retcon came out. Seems a bit dubious to try and write off criticism of
>the story as pro-Gwen sentiment given that most of these readers were
>already being negative about the story before this issue came out. After
>all, they're not psychic. There must be something else about the story
>that they don't like, over and above the Gwen thing.
Yeah, it is not as if Gwen had even been mentioned in this
arc before this issue! (/sarcasm)
As a matter of fact, worries that the memory of Gwen would be
tampered with were expressed right from the beginning, and
IIRC a few of the critics have stated that they only looked at
the issues because they had heard that Gwen was involved in
the story (hence not just threads directly related to "Sins Past",
but also rants on why killing Gwen off was a (rectifiable) mistake
using SP as a springboard).
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: ....the Looter?
: BwaHAHAHAHA! For a moment I was taking you seriously there.
Well, don't let the Looter stop you from doing that. A certain goofiness, and
certainly a whole number of goofy villains, have always been part of
Spider-Man's stable, and I think it's one of the climates the character works
best in.
But I agree the Looter is probably a tough choice if the stories are too busy
being mythical and pretentious.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: Well, he can't have recurrent girl troubles because he's happily
: married. And he can't hang out much with the Daily Bugle staff because
: he doesn't work there.
Well, I know-- it was more of a rhetorical question.
Paul Jenkins seems to make a conscious effort to work with the supporting cast
and introduce new cast members, for that matter, and even Millar is introducing
some financial troubles. But over in AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, I'd much rather read
stories about Peter's job as a teacher, for example, than ones which exhume
thirty year-old stories or try to shoehorn supernatural elements into the
concept.
Gregatron
I will get the remaining issues in the storyline to see how it turns
out. The only ending that will please me is the one where Gwen didn't
have kids and didn't screw Osborn.
JMS' lack of attention to continuity is sad. Uncle Ben didn't just
walk out of the house, never to be seen by Aunt May again. Anyone
knows that. And the whole "mystical" basis for Peter's powers is just
wonky. Spider-Man has *always* been a science-fiction superhero, with
sci-fi origins and villains.
And now, this.
It looks like JMS just took a cursory look at ASM #119-122 and
inserted the retcons accordingly, not thinking about the problems they
would cause.
Now, the whole Richard Raleigh story in ASM # 116-118 is reprinted
from Spectacular Spider-Man (magazine) # 1, a story from years
earlier. The question is, when does that story "really" take place?
Theoretically, the whole Gwen pregnancy could have taken place during
this time, if the original printing is the story's correct place in
the timeline.
Still, every atom of every page of this "Sins Past" story is wrong.
Could this be the *real* reason John Romita Jr. left ASM recently?
Because he refused to play a part in defiling a character his father's
art immortalized?
Now, with Norman Osborn, I still think he should have stayed dead. The
thing that made him great initially was the fact that he was
mysterious, and then he became the only villain to learn Spidey's
secret I.D. But the whole "Osborn regains his memory, becomes the
Goblin again, and then loses his memory deal could only last so long.
So, he was killed off.
This worked well, since Norman now served as a specter, a ghost who
haunted Peter Parker years after his death, since he'd murdered
Peter's girlfriend, turned his son into a drug-addict trying to follow
in daddy's footsteps, and inspired many more Goblins (both Green and
Hob). The original Hobgoblin was set to fill Norman's shoes for good,
but that didn't turn out well.
But of course, the Clone Mess happened, and Spidey's core villain
gallery had been badly weakened. So Norman had to come back. With a
ridiculous healing factor (The Goblin formula only increased his
strength and intellect a bit. Now's it's like water from the Holy
Grail?).
And now, it seems like every stubbed toe Spidey gets is the result of
Norman's (or Harry's) schemes (past or present). I don't think Norman
should have been brought back. I've seen very little good done with
him since his resurrection.
As for poor Gwen, she became a non-character and was killed for it
(Why did Norman kill her? Because she was Peter's girlfriend, and he
wanted to hurt Peter! That's motivation enough!). However, she did
serve as an archetype of the Super-Hero's Oblivious Girlfriend, and
with this pointless (Well, the only point is shock value and character
dessecration...but wait, I figured out that Norman--or Harry---had to
be the father weeks ago! No shock there!) retcon, she's now a flawed
non-character.
Gwen was killed because she had outlived her usefulness. This *gave*
her usefulness because it made her the Dead Sainted Girlfriend Peter
could lament for years and years to come.
Reexamining old issues, it seems clear that Gwen and Norman had only a
superficial relationship. They only knew each other through Harry, and
weren't too close.
This retcon is crap. Someone will come along and fix it someday.
- Greg Kirkman
Menshevik
>
>: ....the Looter?
>: BwaHAHAHAHA! For a moment I was taking you seriously there.
>
>Well, don't let the Looter stop you from doing that. A certain goofiness,
>and
>certainly a whole number of goofy villains, have always been part of
>Spider-Man's stable, and I think it's one of the climates the character works
>best in.
"Goofy" is not a word I would use to sum up the Looter...
>But I agree the Looter is probably a tough choice if the stories are too busy
>being mythical and pretentious.
Actually, I think JMS is quite good at pricking the balloon of
(potential) pretentiousness himself, e.g. in Spider-Man's interaction
with Loki or when MJ referred to the whole totem mess as
"Slappy the Spider Fairy".
And I'd say there was quite a bit of goofiness in a number of stories
this past year (most notably in the one-parter in ASM #502, but also
in other places).
Jonathan M
> >: ....the Looter?
> >: BwaHAHAHAHA! For a moment I was taking you seriously there.
> >
> >Well, don't let the Looter stop you from doing that. A certain
goofiness,
> >and
> >certainly a whole number of goofy villains, have always been part of
> >Spider-Man's stable, and I think it's one of the climates the character
works
> >best in.
>
> "Goofy" is not a word I would use to sum up the Looter...
>
> >But I agree the Looter is probably a tough choice if the stories are too
busy
> >being mythical and pretentious.
>
> Actually, I think JMS is quite good at pricking the balloon of
> (potential) pretentiousness himself, e.g. in Spider-Man's interaction
> with Loki or when MJ referred to the whole totem mess as
> "Slappy the Spider Fairy".
> And I'd say there was quite a bit of goofiness in a number of stories
> this past year (most notably in the one-parter in ASM #502, but also
> in other places).
>
> Tilman
>
I think JMS has a good balance between funny and dark stories, this one is
quite dark but things will get lighter eventually.
Despite all the whining in this news group, #512 has been received
surprisingly well among Spidey fans. The usual JMS critics are vocal but the
rest seem quite enthusiastic and willing to wait for the final revelations
that are sure to come.
Aaron Malchow
"Dude, there are real world examples of child prodigies being able to
articulate like adults as ridiculously young ages. I think this is a clear
example of making up any old reason not to like the book because it brings
Gwen into the catagory as flawed human."
Paul O'Brien responded:
"Rewriting history a bit here, aren't we? Plenty of people have been
extremely negative about this storyline for a while now - before this retcon
came out. Seems a bit dubious to try and write off criticism of the story
as pro-Gwen sentiment given that most of these readers were already being
negative about the story before this issue came out. After all, they're not
psychic. There must be something else about the story that they don't like,
over and above the Gwen thing."
Scott's comments are in response to Captain Omega's comments about how the
conversation on the children's genetic nature seemed pathetic to Capt.,
which he then cited as proof of how poor the current storyline is.
So how can Scott be rewriting history when he is responding to a comment
about information learned in the latest issue?
Sincerely,
Aaron Malchow
Aaron Malchow
"Remember how angry she was that Peter Parker was the only man on campus who
wasn't attracted to her (circa Amazing Spider-Man 31-37)? Remember the times
she broke off her relationship with Peter (such as in Amazing Spider-Man
issues 72, 86, 94-99 to name a few)? Remember when she took Aunt May to task
for being too maternal towards Peter (circa issue 110)? Gwen was not a
completely loyal girlfriend to Peter. In being idolized, much of her
personality was rounded out. I think this current storyline fleshes her out
again, and portrays her as a human being with flaws and strengths, rather
than some idolized virginal girlfriend who never makes mistakes."
Captain Omega responded:
"You're misportraying a hell of a lot here. Every time Gwen broke it off
with Peter she had perfectly good reasons for doing so-- which almost always
involved Pete lying to her (to protect his secret ID). One time for example,
her father (Captain Stacy) was under the hypnotic control of the Kingpin and
Pete struck him in self-defense-- when Gwen walked in and saw this, she was
understandablyupset... even so, she *still* offered Pete a chance to explain
himself, which he did not. Another time he ran off and abandoned her when
she was taken to the hospital so he could pursue a villain (the Schemer).
Again, Pete refused toexplain his actions to her. It was a plot device Stan
revisited many times."
If I really had any intent to misportray the previous characterization of
Gwen Stacy, I certainly wouldn't have provided actual issue numbers to allow
other people to cross reference and double check. I would have been far more
vague. My characterization of her holds in comparison to those specific
references.
If people have different interpretations of those issues I specifically
site, I'm willing to honestly discuss them on those points. But simply
labeling them as misportrayals is name calling rather than debating.
Your examples are selective, as you only site occasions that Peter lied to
Gwen, which are hardly the only time the two had problems in their
relationship. While my examples are by no means exhaustive, one of them
(issue 86) also presents a situation where Peter lies, but after Gwen is
determined to pry into Peter's life. The other examples I offer don't
involve Peter as being as duplicitous as you make him out to be. In many of
those cases, Gwen is as much in the wrong -- if not more so -- than Peter.
If you are inclined, we can address each example point by point in future
posts.
Captain Omega wrote:
"As far as her argument with Aunt May, she was expressing the frustrations
nearly every Spidey fan felt at the time (in fact, most fans wanted to see
May killed off!). Again, she had good reasons to snap at May... and later
expressed regret over doing so. She wasn't a perfect person (which no one
is), but she was a very good person (which is damn rare). Certainly, she was
a much better person than MJ-- who had no moral problem at all playing games
with Harry, stringing him along and basically driving him to drugs, without
once displaying an ounce of conscience."
Given Aunt May's constant health problems and Gwen's own concerns about how
her own father was treated, Gwen's argument with Aunt May is hardly
defensible and is somewhat hypocritical. As soon as Gwen pushed Aunt May
away from Peter, Gwen starts babying him just as she accused Aunt May of
doing.
I agree with you that Gwen was a good person, and better than most
characters, and certainly more moral than MJ was portrayed during Lee's run.
But Gwen has been romanticized to a degree that fails to match up with who
she actually was.
Aaron Malchow
Aaron Malchow
"JMS' lack of attention to continuity is sad. Uncle Ben didn't just walk out
of the house, never to be seen by Aunt May again. Anyone knows that. And the
whole 'mystical' basis for Peter's powers is just wonky. Spider-Man has
*always* been a science-fiction superhero, with sci-fi origins and
villains."
In issue 38, JMS wrote that the last time Aunt May saw Uncle Ben alive was
when he left the house. This does preclude him returning to the house and
being shot as he caught the burglar robbing it. If you can point to a
specific scene or piece of dialogue that JMS wrote where Uncle Ben was
murdered away from the house, I'd appreciate you bringing my attention to
it.
If Dr. Strange isn't sure that Peter's powers come from a mystical source
(as mentioned in issue 46), then I'm not sure that its fair to say that
Spidey's powers have a mystical basis, despite Ezekiel's claims. (And JMS
does portray Ezekiel as unreliable.)
Lee and Ditko had Spidey team up with Dr. Strange in Annual 2 to fight a
mystical threat. Spidey has fought alongside Dr. Strange again several times
since then. Spidey met Dracula, the Wolfman, and Frankenstein's monster
during the 1970s, and he fought the Man-Wolf as well. While not a majority
of his stories involve mystical elements, JMS is hardly the first to use
them in the book.
Gregatron wrote:
"Still, every atom of every page of this 'Sins Past' story is wrong. Could
this be the *real* reason John Romita Jr. left ASM recently? Because he
refused to play a part in defiling a character his father's art
immortalized?"
Ah, nothing like spreading a unsubstantiated rumor to boost one's argument.
Unless you have talked with John Romita Jr., you really don't have any right
to make this claim, much less suggest it. Or is being responsible for one's
actions and words suddenly passe?
In short, if you can't support this claim, why make it?
Aaron Malchow
Aaron Malchow
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Jonathan M <j_moo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Despite all the whining in this news group, #512 has been received
>surprisingly well among Spidey fans. The usual JMS critics are vocal but the
>rest seem quite enthusiastic and willing to wait for the final revelations
>that are sure to come.
Wha? I've been reading the newsgroup and reading various web reviews for
the last couple of days, and it seems to me that the bulk of the reviews
are falling into "this should never have been written and published."
If that's "received surprisingly well," your expectations must have been
quite low. :-)
Jonathan M
>
> >Despite all the whining in this news group, #512 has been received
> >surprisingly well among Spidey fans. The usual JMS critics are vocal but
the
> >rest seem quite enthusiastic and willing to wait for the final
revelations
> >that are sure to come.
>
> Wha? I've been reading the newsgroup and reading various web reviews for
> the last couple of days, and it seems to me that the bulk of the reviews
> are falling into "this should never have been written and published."
> If that's "received surprisingly well," your expectations must have been
> quite low. :-)
>
No, I've had high expectations from the beginning and I haven't been
disappointed.
And I was talking about Spidey fans' reactions, in the end those are what
count. Heck, many people seem to think that this issue gives the final word
on the Gwen Stacy/Norman Osborn thing and they are willing to accept it,
personally I think there are more twists coming.
lavar78
> So Norman had to come back. With a
> ridiculous healing factor (The Goblin formula only increased his
> strength and intellect a bit. Now's it's like water from the Holy
> Grail?).
This might be the most ridiculous thing in the whole story (and that's
saying a lot). If you're keeping score, the Goblin formula now bestows
super strength, super intelligence, and a healing factor that allows
one to take a Goblin glider through the chest. On top of all that, it
makes children age rapidly, which is the most transparent plot device
since Mackie's box. WTF?
> As for poor Gwen, she became a non-character and was killed for it
> (Why did Norman kill her? Because she was Peter's girlfriend, and he
> wanted to hurt Peter! That's motivation enough!).
Agreed.
> This retcon is crap. Someone will come along and fix it someday.
Agreed.
--
lavar78
"The eyes are the window to the skull, my friend." -- Bill McNeal, NewsRadio
lavar78
I still don't see what you're saying. Many/most/all of us "whining in
this news group" *are* Spidey fans. What exactly gives you the
impression that this issue has been well received among Spider-Man fans?
Scott Dubin
> In message <887734a2.04093...@posting.google.com>, Scott
> Dubin <scott...@yahoo.com> writes
> >
> >Dude, there are real world examples of child prodigies being able to
> >articulate like adults as ridiculously young ages. I think this is a
> >clear example of making up any old reason not to like the book because
> >it brings Gwen into the catagory as flawed human.
>
> Rewriting history a bit here, aren't we? Plenty of people have been
> extremely negative about this storyline for a while now - before this
> retcon came out. Seems a bit dubious to try and write off criticism of
> the story as pro-Gwen sentiment given that most of these readers were
> already being negative about the story before this issue came out. After
> all, they're not psychic. There must be something else about the story
> that they don't like, over and above the Gwen thing.
I'm referring to statements such as "Gwen and Peter were dating when
she slept with the Goblin so she cheated on Peter which was out of
character". This makes huge assumptions about the timeline in order
to state that she was dating Peter at the time, to make the story seem
worse, which is disingenuous. I was referencing a specific type of
complaint.
You've also quoted me discussing the child prodigy thing, where
someone stated that it was unbelievable that the kids would develop
that quickly, when there are hard examples in the real world of such a
thing occuring, which makes it more believable than the idea of a
Spider-man.
It's not enough for people to not like the story, they need to slander
it because they can't find many legitimate things to complain about,
other than the fact the subject offends them.
See one of the Avengers Disassembled threads, where someone claimed
Bendis turned a three page script in for the issue. (And was shot
down by Breevort) It wasn't enough to not like the story, they had to
state that Bendis was hacking it in, which is slanderous and untrue.
There have been a laundry list of complaints recently which have been
utter shit.
My favorite was on comicboards.com, where someone stated that J.
Michael Stracynski hates women. You see, the reasoning goes that by
having Gwen do something so flawed, he's saying all women are flawed,
and none as good as the ideal Gwen. Since when is Gwen the archtypal
woman, from which all women are wrought?
(Let's not even start on the gender double standard. Presumably,
Gwen's real crime wasn't sleeping with Osborn, but sleeping with
Osborn and getting pregnent, because if a man had been seduced by a
woman, it would have just been one of those things)
I love how some people complained about the genetics of Osborn's
children aging quickly. One must assume that these people don't read
X-men, since they'd be posting online about the lousy genetics after
every single published issue.
Then there's the people who's hearts went pitter patter before this
issue at the very THOUGHT that JMS wasn't accounting for the kid's age
in his plot, thus violating the deity Continuity, even though there
was no evidence yet to assume that. I seem to recall a very nasty
conversation between you and JMS which resulted from this.
So yes, alot of these complaints are utter crap, and I'm calling it
like it is.
lavar78
> See one of the Avengers Disassembled threads, where someone claimed
> Bendis turned a three page script in for the issue. (And was shot
> down by Breevort) It wasn't enough to not like the story, they had to
> state that Bendis was hacking it in, which is slanderous and untrue.
FWIW, it would be libel and not slander. "Bendis turned a three-page
script in for the issue" is indeed libel (if it actually was a claim
and not just hyperbole). However, there isn't much anyone (other than
Bendis himself) can do to prove "Bendis was hacking it in" is libel,
because he's the only one who can verify that statement.
Mathew Krull
> Gregatron wrote:
> "JMS' lack of attention to continuity is sad. Uncle Ben didn't just walk out
> of the house, never to be seen by Aunt May again. Anyone knows that. And the
> whole 'mystical' basis for Peter's powers is just wonky. Spider-Man has
> *always* been a science-fiction superhero, with sci-fi origins and
> villains."
>
> In issue 38, JMS wrote that the last time Aunt May saw Uncle Ben alive was
> when he left the house. This does preclude him returning to the house and
> being shot as he caught the burglar robbing it. If you can point to a
> specific scene or piece of dialogue that JMS wrote where Uncle Ben was
> murdered away from the house, I'd appreciate you bringing my attention to
> it.
>
> If Dr. Strange isn't sure that Peter's powers come from a mystical source
> (as mentioned in issue 46), then I'm not sure that its fair to say that
> Spidey's powers have a mystical basis, despite Ezekiel's claims. (And JMS
> does portray Ezekiel as unreliable.)
>
origin of Spider-Man. If anything, what JMS added was the origin of the
spider that bit Peter.
Paul O'Brien
<gwan...@u.washington.edu> writes
>
> This sort of thing puzzles me. Can't you have Peter Parker-style
>problems as a married man? Not quite having enough to pay the rent, or
>mortgage? Fixing the plumbing? Etc.? Even when you're married to a
>model? (Not every model makes six figures a year...or she could have
>been a trendy model-of-the-moment, and so forth)...
You can, but nobody seems inclined to bother. I suppose Paul Jenkins
has been leaning in the general direction from time to time.
Mary Jane, Supermodel was a dreadful idea, and that was the point where
it really became untenable to keep doing old Peter Parker-style stories.
He can't be married to a supermodel and still be worried about money. To
be fair, there seems to be a general attempt to get away from that
stuff.
Paul O'Brien
<j_moo...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>And I was talking about Spidey fans' reactions, in the end those are
>what count.
Yes, but where are you actually finding these Spider-Man fans who like
the book? As near as I can make out, Millarworld is the only forum
which has been largely positive about this issue. Everywhere else, the
negative comments outweigh the positive.
Jonathan M
> >what count.
>
> Yes, but where are you actually finding these Spider-Man fans who like
> the book? As near as I can make out, Millarworld is the only forum
> which has been largely positive about this issue. Everywhere else, the
> negative comments outweigh the positive.
>
Millarworld, Superherohype, Comicboards all have lots of positive or at
least cautiously optimistic opinions.
When dealing with a controversial story like this, the amount negative
comments always outweighs positive. Most people get really vocal only when
they dislike something while those who are happy are prone to sit back and
enjoy the story.
Negativity here in racmu doesn't surprise me at all, it comes from the same
people who've been dissing JMS Spidey for a long time.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Negativity here in racmu doesn't surprise me at all, it comes from the same
> people who've been dissing JMS Spidey for a long time.
And it just burns you up that they were right all along, doesn't it?
(I'm joking, just to throw gasoline onto the fire.)
R. Tang
><gwan...@u.washington.edu> writes
>>
>> This sort of thing puzzles me. Can't you have Peter Parker-style
>>problems as a married man? Not quite having enough to pay the rent, or
>>mortgage? Fixing the plumbing? Etc.? Even when you're married to a
>>model? (Not every model makes six figures a year...or she could have
>>been a trendy model-of-the-moment, and so forth)...
>
>You can, but nobody seems inclined to bother. I suppose Paul Jenkins
>has been leaning in the general direction from time to time.
It would fit the target audience better, and fit the character a
whole lot better.
>
>Mary Jane, Supermodel was a dreadful idea, and that was the point where
>it really became untenable to keep doing old Peter Parker-style stories.
>He can't be married to a supermodel and still be worried about money. To
>be fair, there seems to be a general attempt to get away from that
>stuff.
Like I said, Mary Jane Wannabe Supermodel would work. A lower tier
model would be appropriate (or even a good model who left the biz earlier
than she should have would work...or a model who chose not to enter the
top tier for, oh, say, the sake of a new husband...or.....).
Captain Omega
Nathan P. Mahney says...
>
>mariocq <mar...@tiscali.es> wrote in message
>news:a70bb551.04100...@posting.google.com...
>> >
>> > Let's face it, like anything in the Spiderman Universe that alters the
>> > status quo, this will be retconned out of existence within a few months.
>>
>> I hope it. I can´t imagine how marvel editors allow things like this
>
>So... Still want Gwen to come back?
For me the answer is yes-- now more than ever, since bringing back the real Gwen
would probably entail trashing this current storyline.
The Captain
Captain Omega
says...
>This just seems to be a comic book /SF convention: How often do you see a
>clone grown to adulthood who DOESN'T act essentially as an adult would (with
>the occasional exception of not understanding a cultural refernce or a
>about.
>
>Bill Bickel
>
>
But these aren't clones (so we're being told right now, at least). In SF,
accepted convention is that a fully grown and mature clone could be created in a
lab if the genetic source material was harvested from an adult. These are
supposed to be kids carried to (some form of) term by a normal, human mother and
given birth to. JMS wants us to believe that they were born as infants and
somehow grew and received full doctoral educations in a 5-6 year timeframe.
I'm sorry, but anyway you slice it, it's assinine. If you're buying this crap
and convincing yourself it's got any value at all, you're a complete Marvel
zombie and in desperate need of help. The first step toward recovery is
admitting you have a problem.
Cap
Aaron Malchow
"But these aren't clones (so we're being told right now, at least). In SF,
accepted convention is that a fully grown and mature clone could be created
in a lab if the genetic source material was harvested from an adult. These
are supposed to be kids carried to (some form of) term by a normal, human
mother and given birth to. JMS wants us to believe that they were born as
infants and somehow grew and received full doctoral educations in a 5-6 year
timeframe."
We still don't know much about their genetic make-up and abilities as of
yet. If their powers are based on the Goblin formula, then their
intelligence should be heightened, just as Osborn's was.
In telling his origin to Spider-Man, Osborn says: "The fools! They thought
my brain had been damaged! They didn't suspect that the accident made me
more brilliant than I had ever been!" (From Amazing Spider-Man 40)
If you are willing to accept that a chemical explosion can give Osborn
super-intelligence and strength, why is it so difficult to imagine that
those genetically-enhanced traits could be passed onto his children?
Sincerely,
Aaron Malchow
Aaron Malchow
"This might be the most ridiculous thing in the whole story (and that's
saying a lot). If you're keeping score, the Goblin formula now bestows
super strength, super intelligence, and a healing factor that allows one to
take a Goblin glider through the chest. On top of all that, it makes
children age rapidly, which is the most transparent plot device since
Mackie's box. WTF?"
If it was one of the most transparent plot devices of all time, then why did
no one guess it before this issue revealed it? (And yes, I know that some
people predicted that Obsorn was the father, but not that his children would
age faster than normal.)
Sincerely,
Aaron Malchow
lavar78
You misunderstood me. Let's take a step back: you mentioned elsewhere
that the kids should have heightened intelligence because Osbourne does
(a logical assumption). Now turn it around: why are the children aging
rapidly while Osbourne isn't? Because it's the way JMS chose to
explain how these grown kids can possibly belong to Gwen. It's the
reason behind the plot device that's transparent -- they needed to tack
that on to explain the kids' age without resorting to time travel.
Just like they needed to change the goblin formula the last time to
explain how Norman survived. Just like Mackie needed that box so Peter
could accept MJ's "death." This new device also looks like it's going
to be a convenient way to get rid of the kids now that they've shaken
up Pete's world.
Captain Omega
says...
>If I really had any intent to misportray the previous characterization of
>Gwen Stacy, I certainly wouldn't have provided actual issue numbers to allow
>other people to cross reference and double check. I would have been far more
>vague. My characterization of her holds in comparison to those specific
>references.
You threw out issue numbers without going into any detail. One of those issues
(86) came on the heels of the Schemer three-parter I referenced. I could go down
to my basement, pull out my old ASM comics and debate you issue-by-issue, but
would there really be any point? You seem firmly entrenched in your position and
I am certainly firmly entrenched in mine.
>
>If people have different interpretations of those issues I specifically
>site, I'm willing to honestly discuss them on those points. But simply
>labeling them as misportrayals is name calling rather than debating.
Your exact words were that Gwen was "not the most loyal girlfriend." This is
indeed a gross misportrayal. That's not name calling, it's my opinion. Had you
said Gwen was not always the nicest character, that would be hard for anyone to
dispute-- but loyalty was one quality she clearly possessed in abundance. I
already cited numerous examples in support of this in my original response--
which neither you nor anyone else has bothered to refute-- so I see no need to
rehash them.
>
>Your examples are selective, as you only site occasions that Peter lied to
>Gwen, which are hardly the only time the two had problems in their
>relationship. While my examples are by no means exhaustive, one of them
>(issue 86) also presents a situation where Peter lies, but after Gwen is
>determined to pry into Peter's life. The other examples I offer don't
>involve Peter as being as duplicitous as you make him out to be. In many of
>those cases, Gwen is as much in the wrong -- if not more so -- than Peter.
>If you are inclined, we can address each example point by point in future
>posts.
All of Gwen and Pete's problems could indeed be traced back to his
lying-to-protect-the-secret-ID convention. Again, we could fight this out
issue-by-issue, but to what end?
>Given Aunt May's constant health problems and Gwen's own concerns about how
>her own father was treated, Gwen's argument with Aunt May is hardly
>defensible and is somewhat hypocritical. As soon as Gwen pushed Aunt May
>away from Peter, Gwen starts babying him just as she accused Aunt May of
>doing.
Gwen snapped at May. She later expressed regret over this. (For all the MJ
supporters out there, could you remind me when MJ ever expressed regret to Harry
for all the shitty things she did to him?) Again, Gwen wasn't perfect, but I
don't see what this has to with her loyalty.
>I agree with you that Gwen was a good person, and better than most
>characters, and certainly more moral than MJ was portrayed during Lee's run.
>But Gwen has been romanticized to a degree that fails to match up with who
>she actually was.
I don't think that she's being romanticized overly much, but you see it your way
and I see it mine.
Cap
Aaron Malchow
"You misunderstood me. Let's take a step back: you mentioned elsewhere
that the kids should have heightened intelligence because Osbourne does (a
logical assumption). Now turn it around: why are the children aging rapidly
while Osbourne isn't? Because it's the way JMS chose to explain how these
grown kids can possibly belong to Gwen. It's the reason behind the plot
device that's transparent -- they needed to tack that on to explain the
kids' age without resorting to time travel. Just like they needed to change
the goblin formula the last time to explain how Norman survived. Just like
Mackie needed that box so Peter could accept MJ's 'death.' This new device
also looks like it's going to be a convenient way to get rid of the kids now
that they've shaken up Pete's world."
Assuming that we don't discover that Osborn is aging faster than normal,
then I would assume that the difference between him and the children is the
issue of exposure to the Goblin formula. Osborn absorbed it after his DNA
sequence had already formed, while the children had it included in their DNA
sequence from the moment of conception.
This situation would be similar to a pregnant woman taking cocaine and
suffering only the typical side-effects from exposure to the drug vs. her
baby's exposure to that cocaine as it is developing. Unfortunately, babies
born under such circumstances often suffer far more from the effects of
cocaine than their mothers do.
Sincerely,
Aaron Malchow
Captain Omega
>If you are willing to accept that a chemical explosion can give Osborn
>super-intelligence and strength, why is it so difficult to imagine that
>those genetically-enhanced traits could be passed onto his children?
If you're a comics reader, naturally you're conditioned to suspend disbelief
when it comes to things like super-strength, flying, etc. But this storyline is
outrageously stupid and ridiculous even by comic book standards. These
"children" are articulate and seemingly fully educated despite the fact they
were born only 5-6 years ago. If they're clones, that's one thing, but infants
who pysically grow and learn everything they need to learn-- socially,
emotionally, academically-- to pass for adults in just 5 years? Beppo the
super-monkey is more believable.
Captain Omega
>If it was one of the most transparent plot devices of all time, then why did
>no one guess it before this issue revealed it? (And yes, I know that some
>people predicted that Obsorn was the father, but not that his children would
>age faster than normal.)
Because none of us are as stupid or deranged as JMS.