Comic Book Resources

And so Conway continued to change things. Not much, by today’s standards: Peter moving to a new apartment, finding feelings for Mary Jane, having to deal with Harry’s nervous breakdown and decision to become the new Green Goblin…these were changes, but for every big event like this, you got a lot of stories that aspired to be nothing more than entertaining Spider-Man tales.

I realize a problem with a lot of comics fans when examining things in retrospect...when something had a monumental effect, especially when they experienced it firsthand, they think that the majorness of the event makes it incredibly good. While I do agree that the Gwen Stacy death is major, I think it was not good. Rather, it was a horrible misstep. Maybe as an isolated story it was touching, memorable and well-written, but for the ongoing open-ended title it sucked a lot of the innocence and charm out of the title and created a specter of depression that never fully left. Lee/Ditko/ROmita had a perfect balance of black humor, mirth, depression and hope, and Gwen's death (and to a lesser degree George Stacy's) tipped the scales in the direction of depressing.

And it's flawed on many levels. Spider-Man fights crime because his inaction led to his family member's death, a death that would have happened regardless of whether he was Spider-Man. With George and Gwen Stacy, his being Spider-Man now has directly lead to the death of two loved ones, two deaths that ONLY HAPPENED BECAUSE OF SPIDER-MAN'S EXISTENCE! Think about this...now Spider-Man has officially done more harm to his loved ones that it has done to help them.

It messes up the whole premise: "I am Spider-Man because with great power comes great responsibility...by not acting, I allowed someone to go free who eventually killed my uncle...although when I DID act and help people, my girlfriend and her father died...so I guess with great responsibility comes great pain to innocents? Uhhh...why am I doing this again?"

The sad thing is that these major "events", while they can drastically alter the tone of a book, are almost always reversed in such a way as to make the actual events null and void. This gives us the worst of both worlds: a loss of innocence combined with a feeling that we've seen all this before, and seen it done better.

Stan Lee has often spoken of comics fans wanting the "illusion of change". I for one would prefer to drop the illusion. CHANGE something for real, for once. Stop catering to incresingly older fans who want everything like it was thirty years ago, only "mature". By all means, kill Captain America -- and replace him with a new one. Retire Spider-Man. Shuffle some of those X-Men off to the old folks' home and bring in some new kids (and NOT just children of the old characters,you lazy #%^$@).

Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe a writer's job is to maintain a franchise or explain obscure subplots from the sixties. A writer's job is to create something, or at least to make a definite mark on a character. In these days of the movies driving the comics, though, I know that's just a pipe dream. You can get as crazy as you want with a character, but by God you'd better leave him how you found him after 6-12 issues.

Here ends the rant.

It messes up the whole premise: “I am Spider-Man because with great power comes great responsibility…by not acting, I allowed someone to go free who eventually killed my uncle…although when I DID act and help people, my girlfriend and her father died…so I guess with great responsibility comes great pain to innocents? Uhhh…why am I doing this again?”

I've got mixed feelings about the whole thing. It was really well handled, and good comics are worth something in and of themselves. And I can totally see why Conway/et.al wanted to ditch Gwen for Mary Jane.

On the other hand: Now that I think about it, you're absolutely right. It does kind of call the whole premise of the Spider-mythos into question.

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t believe a writer’s job is to maintain a franchise or explain obscure subplots from the sixties.

Pretty sure it's just you. At least if we look at this from a buisiness standpoint.

Three points:

(A) If you change the premise of a character TOO much,
there's always a chance you lose what attracted the audience to the character in the first place.

(B) It's not like there aren't hundreds of comics that do allow for actual character change and greater creative freedom.

Virtually all of them are creator owned.

I don't think that it's unfair to say that the audience for more challenging work is buying more independent/Vertigo types of comics, and the audience for superheroes prefers less challenging material.

Why drive away your current audience in hopes of attracting people who are already happily buying Eightball or Fables?

Likewise, the people who are attracted to writing corporate superhero books are probably gonna be less- well... creative than the people doing creator owned work. The lack of change is a reflection of the writers and artists as well as the editors and fans.

(C) The idea of continuity makes it tough to "fix" what's broken without the fans feeling cheated. (I'd be totally fine with relaxing continuity in the interest of creative freedom, on a case-by-case basis. If the creators want to do an in-continuity book, fine. If not, fine, too.)

It messes up the whole premise: “I am Spider-Man because with great power comes great responsibility…by not acting, I allowed someone to go free who eventually killed my uncle…although when I DID act and help people, my girlfriend and her father died…so I guess with great responsibility comes great pain to innocents? Uhhh…why am I doing this again?”

I agree to this to a certain point but it doesn't really change the core premise. When bad things happen to people and Peter believes that he can use his powers to help he feels compelled to do so for fear that his inaction will cause someone to be hurt.

He is still to this day driven by his feeling of responsibility for every disaster he has the power to avert. Every time he fails he takes the responsibility of those who were hurt or could be hurt onto himself.

Every time he has had doubts, worried that he does more harm than good or even quit altogether things that are out of his hands have always spurred him into action because he's incapable of sitting on the sidelines.

So I think despite the deaths his existence 'caused' the great responsibility premise still holds up. It's Peter's responsibility to ensure such deaths never happen again. Sure it's been done badly a few times over the years but it's still there and it still works.

For me at least

But to me, here's the problem as to why Gwen and George Stacy's death are so much more powerful arguments than Ben Parker's death: Ben Parker would have died that night even if Spider-Man didn't exist. Gwen and George Stacy, on the other hand, would not have died when they did but for the existence of Spider-Man. I think that's why JMS did his misguided Sins Past storyline, he realized that if he could make Gwen's death have a motive other than revenge against Spider-Man, it would fix this problem. Of course, he made the problem worse by now ruining the Gwen character.

As far as Mary Jane being a more interesting character for Gwen, I really don't think that was Conway's real motivation. If you look at where the series was headed, Conway was in a real writing bind. Peter Parker has been dating this girl for a while and has been blatantly deceiving her to her face about a major part of his life. The longer the deception goes on, the worse Peter seems. (DC had this same problem with the Flash, where he was almost near his wedding day and still hadn't told Iris his secret. It made the character seem really jerky.) But Stan threw an extra wrinkle in the equation by having George Stacy die as a result of Spider-Man's negligence. So now, not only has Peter been lying to Gwen repeatedly about who he really is, now he's basically killed her dad and went back to Gwen and simply resumed his lying pattern. Hypocritically went to George Stacy's funeral and consoled Gwen even though he was the man Gwen considered responsible for her father's death.

I don't think Stan himself knew how to resolve this bind he wrote himself into, and left without wrapping it up. Picture you're the teenage writer given the reins of Marvel's top character and you have this intimidating proble to write your way out of? I think that when you think of it this way, it becomes pretty obvious that Conway must have killed Gwen simply because it was easier than dealing with the problem of what to do about Peter's ongoing deception and responsibility for George Stacy's death.

If Mary Jane was so inherently more interesting than Gwen, we have to ask ourselves why Mary Jane has been slowly turned into a Gwen stand-in from the moment Gwen died. Gwen dies and suddenly Mary Jane starts showing depth. By the 80s, we discover the party girl thing was just an act. Nowadays she is nothing like the classic Mary Jane, but instead is a Gwen Stacy that acts for a living. In Ultimate Spider-Man the love interest is called Mary Jane but she basically fills the Gwen Stacy role. In the movies, Kirsten Dunst is basically playing Gwen Stacy with red hair. In every medium now, Mary Jane has been transformed into a Gwen stand-in, but with one major difference: she KNOWS PETER IS SPIDER-MAN. The real Mary Jane, crazy spunky party girl, has not truly appeared in decades.

I think the "new" Mary Jane is a chance for modern writers to "redo" the Gwen Stacy relationship the right way by having Peter be honest instead of deceitful (without killing any of her family members in the process).

Wowww. OK, really good points. It kind of freaks me out that someone else is thinking about Spider-man as much as I've been lately.

Only two disagreements with the whole thing, both in defense of m'girl MJ.

Unless I'm misremebering (And I could be. I've read 200 + issues of Spider-man in the past couple weeks. Unemployment rules!) there was a sequence pre-death of Gwen Stacy where we saw MJ put on her party girl act. She was on the phone with Peter, he ditches her, her Aunt Anna asks what's wrong... And she says "Nothing! What could be wrong with groovy Mary Jane?"

That established that a lot of her persona was an act, and at least hinted at unforseen depths.

Second: I don't remember the Gwen Stacy-ing of Mary Jane being THAT immediate and total. I absolutely agree that it did happen,

(and I don't like it. Oh nononononono. Too this day it rankles.)

but the two were distinct enough long enough under Conway that I don't think he was trying for Gwen Stacy 2.0. There's a really very effective introvert/extrovert dynamic between Peter and Mary Jane 1.0, which it seemed like Conway wanted to explore.

Second:

T. said:

"If Mary Jane was so inherently more interesting than Gwen, we have to ask ourselves why Mary Jane has been slowly turned into a Gwen stand-in from the moment Gwen died. Gwen dies and suddenly Mary Jane starts showing depth. By the 80s, we discover the party girl thing was just an act. Nowadays she is nothing like the classic Mary Jane, but instead is a Gwen Stacy that acts for a living. In Ultimate Spider-Man the love interest is called Mary Jane but she basically fills the Gwen Stacy role. In the movies, Kirsten Dunst is basically playing Gwen Stacy with red hair. In every medium now, Mary Jane has been transformed into a Gwen stand-in, but with one major difference: she KNOWS PETER IS SPIDER-MAN. The real Mary Jane, crazy spunky party girl, has not truly appeared in decades."

Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree here. Having just read every single appearance of Gwen Stacy ever, I'll say that giving MJ depth pretty much turns her into the opposite of Gwen Stacy, who was the shallowest, most cardboard character ever written (with the possible exception of Betty Ross, but don't get me started on her.) Gwen Stacy is a character whose entire personality can be summed up in the words "Peter Parker is dreeeeamy." She goes to college, yes--it's even mentioned once that she's a science major. But I defy anyone to tell me, without resorting to flashback tales written decades after the fact, exactly what she planned to do with her degree. She never gets a single thought balloon from the time she makes her first appearance right up until her death that isn't about Peter Parker. MJ, even in her party-girl phase, is working towards a career as a professional singer/dancer/actress/model. By 60s Marvel female standards, she's actually ambitious. Gwen? She's just there to be Peter Parker's Stepford Girlfriend.

I believed the line "MJ became more like Gwen after Gwen died" before, because I didn't know any better. But you know what? Now that I've read the issues in question, it's utter bollocks. MJ became deeper and more mature, yes. But she was always a deeper character than Gwen Stacy.

It does seem that Gwen Stacy suddenly became a "deeper" character in death than she ever was in life, for what she came to symbolize. Kinda like Barry Allen, or come to think of it, a lot of people in real life. (For instance, the notion that Anna Nicole Smith somehow Means Something beyond having been a gold-digging floozy.)

I get the feeling that they never quite got a handle on the character, or any good idea of what they wanted to do with her. To me, in her very earliest appearances, it actually looks like they saw her (and/or Ditko drew her) as a little bit of a "bad" girl. Like she would be the Veronica to MJ's Betty. I'd have to re-examine the issues, but it seems that notion went away quickly - by the time Romita started, if not earlier.

Gwen Stacy is a character whose entire personality can be summed up in the words “Peter Parker is dreeeeamy.”

That's so not true. Sometimes she's all "Flash Thompson is dreeeeaaamy" and on at least one occasion "Spider-man is dreeeeeaaamy."

But my overall assessment is less harsh than yours. Her dialogue when she's not simpering after Peter is smart and snappy, and, more importantly, she's DRAWN as a confident an' mature young woman. Can't speak for Stan, but I'd bet that Romita didn't see her as completely dependent on Pete.

David C - Totally see what you're saying, but I think Ditko's always going to put a little fatalle in his femme. - Even Liz Allen had it a little bit. I sorta wish that Romita had stuck with a sultrier Gwen.

Mmmm. Sultry.

Sorry, but I’m going to have to disagree here. Having just read every single appearance of Gwen Stacy ever, I’ll say that giving MJ depth pretty much turns her into the opposite of Gwen Stacy, who was the shallowest, most cardboard character ever written (with the possible exception of Betty Ross, but don’t get me started on her.) Gwen Stacy is a character whose entire personality can be summed up in the words “Peter Parker is dreeeeamy.” She goes to college, yes–it’s even mentioned once that she’s a science major.

See, but you are comparing her to depictions of women in comics today, so of course she will seem shallow. Take any female characters modern incarnation and compare it against their 40s or 60s depiction and the old depiction will seem very shallow by comparison. But if you compare her to the typical female character depictions of the era, both in other comics and within Spider-Man comics, she's the "depth" character. Betty Brant is a sweet but simple high school blue-collar dropout. MJ is a hot and dizzy ditz. Gwen is a confident career-minded science student, loving daughter and supporting girlfriend...for that time it's as deep as a female depiction can be. I'd argue it's even better than Sue Storm's or Janet Van Dyne's typical 60s depiction. If she was allowed to live until the 70s and 80s, she would naturally have grown to have more depth just like every other superhero comic character. But I think to judge her depth by today's character standards gives a false impression of her shallowness. Meanwhile, MJ was shallow by both today AND yesterday's standards.

MarkAndrew: What I mean by MJ "immediately" gaining depth was the scene in the Green Goblin death issue where she quitely shuts the door in the last panel and stays behind to console Peter. For MJ, that was a quantum leap in maturity.

All that seems to boil down to, "Hey, you're judging the character by what you actually read, while I'm judging her based on what I think she would have been if she'd lived another decade and had been written differently!"

And even by those standards, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense as an argument. You mention three other female characters from several different titles who grew depth, maturity and personality as comics writers became more adept at writing female characters who were people in their own right, all as part of a general claim that MJ's gaining of depth, maturity and personality was solely an attempt to "be more like Gwen Stacy". Even if you mentally amend that to "more like Gwen Stacy woulda/coulda/shoulda been like", it still skirts the issue of why MJ isn't allowed to become a more mature character in your mind, and every other female character is.

All that seems to boil down to, “Hey, you’re judging the character by what you actually read, while I’m judging her based on what I think she would have been if she’d lived another decade and had been written differently!”

No, it's way more simple than that. What I'm saying is that you are saying she lacked depth because you are using today's standards. I'm saying that if you judge her by the standards of her era, she didn't lack depth. Look at Lois Lane of that era for example. Her whole reason for living was basically to either emasculate Clark Kent, prove Clark Kent was Superman or get married to Superman. What about Wonder Woman at that time? The premier female superhero and her main motivation was to swoon over Steve Trevor and be his housewife.

And even by those standards, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense as an argument. You mention three other female characters from several different titles who grew depth, maturity and personality as comics writers became more adept at writing female characters who were people in their own right, all as part of a general claim that MJ’s gaining of depth, maturity and personality was solely an attempt to “be more like Gwen Stacy”. Even if you mentally amend that to “more like Gwen Stacy woulda/coulda/shoulda been like”, it still skirts the issue of why MJ isn’t allowed to become a more mature character in your mind, and every other female character is.

It's not just about Mary Jane becoming more mature, it's about fundamentally altering her whole personality. She's not "party girl, now with more depth," there has been an explicit in-story retcon explaining that she was never truly a party girl to begin with. It was all an act we are now told. That's very different than say Lois Lane, who went from spunky reporter obsessed with marrying Superman and being a bitch to Clark Kent to spunky reporter who has more of a sensitive side, a well rounded personality and still wants to marry Superman.

In the case of Ultimate Spider-Man and the Spider-Man movies, they also are not merely presenting a more mature version of party girl MJ, they are removing the party girl elements altogether. In Ultimate Spider-Man they even go so far as to have her be an A-student (like Gwen) and go by the nickname "Brainy Janey." If that's not an effort to make her more into Gwen Stacy, I don't know what is. Traditional Mary Jane had basically no interest in school whatsoever.

Comic book companies just can't seem to learn from their mistakes. The average ANIME/MANGA writer and artist will have their characters CHANGE over time. Grow older. Develop relationships. Even be supplanted eventually by new generations.

Whereas the average american comic book writer reacts to plot and character development the way a vampire reacts to garlic.

For the past umpty years, Spider-Man's writers have been doing nothing but chickening out.

Aunt May passes on, finally going-- peacefully-- the way of all flesh. Her final appearance was a pinnacle of class, drama and style, with a heartfelt revelation that she'd known about Spider-Man all along....
In one page the writers rewrote the entire history of the character-- from a feckless, cookie-cutter "dependent loved one" to a character of surprising depth and fortitude.

In the meanwhile, Mary Jane is pregnant. All new questions, all new challenges for web-head to face, whole new vistas for subsequent authors.

OMG, change!! Get the whiteout and the top secret archive of Insultingly Stupid Plot Copouts!

The whole hideous clone saga wasn't an attempt at change; it was a desperate effort to write Mary Jane and her baby out of the plot by proxy. When the clone saga--- which would have effectively gotten rid of all of Peter Parker's married-with-children "baggage"--- turned out to be an epic serving of FAIL, the writers simply shrugged, used a truly awful shovelful of retcon to undo the whole clone arc ("Wow, Ben Parker just got killed and crumbled to dust, boy howdy HE was the clone after all--- what a relief!") and then killed off the baby and reincarnated Aunt May with the corpse.

The Goblin's dead! No he's not! Now there's a new one! No, he's dead and the old one's back! Now there's a new one who's a hero! No, he's not-- now the first Goblin's back! Mary Jane's pregnant! No, no baby for you! Aunt May's dead! No, she's alive! Mary Jane's dead! She's alive! She's dead again! No wait, I lost count-- she's DIVORCED, that's it! No, they're back together again! Gwen's dead! Gwen's alive! No she's not! Doc Ock is dead! No, he's not! Clones! Regeneration powers! Reincarnation! Actor-doubles! Argh, I give up, let's just rewrite his origin story for the fifth time in a decade! Quick, have Superboy punch the Universe!

This is what you get from the pathological conviction that Comics Shouldn't Change.... 20+ years of trying to plothammer their way back to the status quo of episode one.