Vestra reboxetine. Reboxetine edronax. Reboxetine....

I think we've come to agree to disagree that a married or unmarried Peter makes for inherrently better Spider-Man stories. And, I can respect that. I don't understand or agree with your position, and you don't understand or agree with mine, but we've both presented our feelings on it.

One thing that I would like to touch on: I said that returning home to MJ made for a happier ending than returning home to what many would consider to be a miserable inappropriate life for an adult. You seemed to think that I meant "ending" as in an ending for the title, and an ending to the Spider-Man story. I meant an ending to the particular chapter, going back to the circular story telling that you mentioned.

The "hero" John Cena defeats Edge, whose story then goes to attack the Undertaker, while Cena gets a new villian in Randy Orton. The story of Cena and Edge is over, with a happy ending. But, the story of Cena isn't over, and the story of Edge isn't over. The series continues.

Similiarly, Spider-Man defeats the Absorbing Man and returns home to MJ. The Absorbing Man goes on to fight the FF. Spider-Man next has to deal with the Green Goblin. The series continues, even though that particular story has ended.

On a side topic, I think that the complaint about the dissolving of the marriage (and stated reasons from Q.) and the complaint about the deal with Mephisto are two different complaints. Basically, I see it as a bad plot device being used for a bad story idea. But, I can see how someone with different expectations from Spider-Man stories could see it as a bad plot device being used to set up potentially good story ideas. I don't think I could understand if anyone were to actually try to defend the deal with Mephisto, but then again I don't think anyone here has tried.

We'll just have to see what comes next. Although, to be honest, I'll be finding out by reading reviews and spoilers because I have no interest in feeding into the idea that Spider-Man must be single, living at home, and have problems with money in order to sell.

Theno

I haven't bought a Spiderman book since the early 90s when I pretty much gave up on my formerly-beloved Marvel Comics. So should I maybe feel somewhat partly guilty, for not supporting/consuming the publications of the character I once felt such affection and admiration for? If the books hadn't got so bad i would have kept buying. But they'll sure never get me back this way.

Whatta revoltin development, as Ben would say, at least before his latest reboot.
Fuck Marvel. Fuck Marvel. Fuck Marvel.

in my opinion

Returning home to a loving wife is, IMHO, a much better happy ending to a chapter of the ongoing story than returning home to Aunt May. In the first, Peter has come of age and succeeded. In the second, Peter is still in many ways an irresponsible child, despite whatever victory Spider-Man may have had.

Exactly. It's both happy and an ending. That is why I don't think it suits Spider-Man. Peter has come of age and succeeded. The End. Well, that was nice.

Regarding "coming of age", I was saying Peter getting married works as a coming of age story, which is what Spider-Man is sometimes mistaken for, but should NOT become. Because a coming of age story necessetates an ending. Peter getting married would be a fabulous way to end the series. It would be a great, satisfying, happy ending. Finally, Peter can rest a bit. He can have something go right. He can get the happiness he deserves. But then the series is over. Why bother reading about someone who has already come of age? A "Came-of-Age" story? It becomes a different story entirely, when the point here it to go on forever, which necessitates the more cyclical, and yes, repetitive storytelling.

What I said regarding why him being single is better is that a single man trying to make it on his own fits better thematically with the idea of doing what is right against adversity.

Anyway, look, it's no big deal. I love Spider-Man, I've been reading him since I was a kid. He's my favourite character. I've been somewhat unhappy with the direction he's gone in the last few years, but I stuck it out. I feel like BND is really promising. We'll see if it is, if it lasts, or if no one buys it... we'll see. I'm not going to try to get anyone to like unmarried Peter. Let's see if the stories are better! Maybe they will surprise me, and they will be terrible. But really, aren't we ALL hoping they'll surpise you?

Only thing that drew me to your comment was the poor logic.

Ha, whatever. If you knew me personally, you'd laugh at yourself for saying that.

I’m entirely disinterested. I don’t even buy this title.

... Then why are you wasting both of our time here? I am spending way too much time arguing with fellow Spider-Man fans to spend time talking to someone who doesn't even care. I'd take time to answer your actual critiques of my logic, but you've already said you don't care, so no point.

Lighten up, and read more posts about comics you actually like. For Pete's sake.

Get it? Pete? Like Peter Parker.

You say, in that post, that the purpose of an ongoing series is to continue the ongoing story forever, or at least as long as possible. And, therefore, Spider-Man needs to be entertaining for as long as possible.

This hints that you find a married Peter to be less entertaining. That's a reasonable opinion. But, an opinion doesn't make something inherrently better than the alternative. You might prefer Ben & Jerry's but that doesn't mean the store should stop carrying Graeter's.

You say that you don't feel this should be an ongoing story, but a story that one can jump into and out of. You compare it to soap operas. I think it can also be compared to WWE. When the character of Hornswaggle was first introduced he was a vicious bad guy who bit people and hit them with sticks. Now, he is shown as an innocent in danger of being corrupted. Doesn't make sense, but they don't mention it and we don't question it.

Kinda like how we really don't question how someone can take a photo of Wolverine.

You say that you feel that the central idea of Spider-Man's ongoing theme is to always do the right thing. But, you never loop this back around to actually say how getting married is the wrong thing to do.

You say that once MJ and Peter were married the two were no longer in opposition to each other. That conflict was resolved. But, you don't say that it is impossible to introduce new conflicts and new characters to have similiar conflicts. Again, comparing to WWE, it is like how Hulk Hogan's tag team partner always turns on him eventually. Or, how HHH will always eventually turn on whomever he calls his "best friend."

You conclude saying that Spider-Man's story is a "coming of age" story about doing what is right against all hardships. But, again, you don't actually say what is wrong about marriage. Isn't getting hunted by practically every known supervillian on this and other planets a hardship to marriage? And, yet, he and MJ made it work.

A final WWE comparison: Vince always wants to "send them (the audience) home happy." The villian may win a battle, but the hero always wins in the end. And, at the end of the night, the last show of the evening, a hero is almost always scheduled to win so that he audience can be happy with their experience.

Returning home to a loving wife is, IMHO, a much better happy ending to a chapter of the ongoing story than returning home to Aunt May. In the first, Peter has come of age and succeeded. In the second, Peter is still in many ways an irresponsible child, despite whatever victory Spider-Man may have had.

Theno

And yes, Peter's story is sad. But the fact that it does not crush him is what makes him inspirational. He ahs it harder than any person can reasonably be expected to bear, yet he does. He always bounces back.

I don't see how Peter being married makes him more identifiable, except to people who are married (like me). As a coming of age story, it works. Spider-Man cannot be a coming of age story, or else it fails at it's primary goal of lasting forever.

"Peter randomly waking up with things changed with no explanation would make no sense."

There's a difference between an assertion and an argument. You have made the former...only the later is compelling. Otherwise it's just "Yes it is" and "No it's not". Which might be stimulating for some but not for me.

However if that's as far as your reasoning goes - and it sounds like it is. Then your argument falls right there and it should be easy for you to accept that you aren't on any better footing than those who call these events discontinuous.

"And I don’t mean ‘makes sense; meaning “Peter making that choice makes no sense”."

Long winded strawman. Not interested. This got truncated and I was too lazy to retype but the only thing that drew me to your comment was the poor logic. Nowhere, not even implicitly am I talking about what I like or don't like about the story. I'm entirely disinterested. I don't even buy this title.

So your "See, to me, your argument is indicative of..." comments were so off-base it was almost funny.

"Well… sure. " Jordan replied, "But, by that logic, there is only one story that can be told with awife that can’t be told single: Peter being married."

That may be true, but that negates your arguement that the single Peter status quo is better than the married Peter status quo.

You simply can't reasonably argue that "X is obviously better than Y" without actually supporting X as being better. What value does the ret-con add to the story? I'm not seeing it. You are, but you don't seem to be sharing.

I feel that the marriage added to the idea of Peter being the Everyman. I feel that it added to the idea of Peter being quickly identifyable to the audience. It was a picture-perfect marriage and union that still had troubles. Just like Spider-Man is a person with Amazing super powers, who still has troubles.

I feel that the marriage sent the message to kids that they can grow up to have problems, and yet still find happiness.

I feel that if the on-going status quo (assuming for a second that this isn't a finite story as I expect it to be) as Quesada says it will be, that it sends the message that no matter how good a person is, fates will always intervene to deprive them of happiness. Bond's girlfriend will always die. And Spider-Man will always go home to Aunt May, the only woman who never leaves him.

It's sad in a way that Batman or the Punisher's tragic story engine can't touch, if you think about it

Theno

There is only one story that could be told without a wife as told with: and that one involves Peter dating.

Well... sure.

But, by that logic, there is only one story that can be told with awife that can't be told single: Peter being married.

I can agree that the story took Quesada to the point he wanted it to be. I disagree that it is a point that is better than where it was pre-Quesada. I disagree that it was the only way to do it. I even disagree that it will in any way make for better stories.

Well, that's fine. I think it will make for better stories, and i have no idea how good BND will be, but I think it's got a better status quo than Spidey has had in a long time.

But I never said this was the only way to do it, nor did I say this was even my preferred way. I just feel that regardless of how it happened, I am glad it's here.

Personally, I would have liked Spidey to fight Galactus, and MJ gets struck with a stray blast from the Ultimate Nullifier. ^_^ I'd miss her, but... it would be cool.

I'm still not seeing the so-called benefit.

How is it easier to write for an unmarried Spider-Man? How is it easier to write for an unmarried Peter Parker?

You gave a great example of how the story needs to have conflict and needs to circle back to a status quo on occasion, or establish new status quos in a moving forward effort. But, you never explain on how it actually affects the story engine of Spider-Man.

Just because the story of Peter keeping his secret safe from MJ is a resolved story doesn't mean that the story of Peter keeping his secret safe from a romantic interest is resolved. A woman could develop an unrequited crush on either Peter or Spider-Man, causing him to have to keep his secret safe from them.

Just because Peter is married does not remove the romantic tension between him and MJ, and also does not prevent a GOOD writer from introducing love interests. In fact, even a decent writer could introduce a love interest for MJ to create such romantic tension and conflict.

Basically, OMD didn't make the story telling engine "better." It didn't even make it "different." What it did was reboot the engine with a poorly executed quick-fix.

I can agree that the story took Quesada to the point he wanted it to be. I disagree that it is a point that is better than where it was pre-Quesada. I disagree that it was the only way to do it. I even disagree that it will in any way make for better stories.

Theno

For example, who actually liked the fact that an entire season of Dallas was a dream? Most fans of the show agree that was the Jump The Shark moment that eventually killed the show.

Also, again, it is entirely unnecessary. There is only one story that could be told without a wife as told with: and that one involves Peter dating. And, even that story could be told if done properly. If the writer/editor didn't want to deal with MJ, they could have written her out the same way that a soap opera writes out an actor that holds out for money and doesn't renew for a season.

This is, I think, why so many people feel that this is a heavy handed, "this is the way it oughta be" action. It is entirely unnecessary from a story telling aspect.

Theno

I'm gonna hazard a guess and say that with Spider-Man living a "Brand New Day", he's not gonna be an Avenger for much longer.

All the talk I have heard about him getting back to his roots, focusing on his supporting cast, and distancing himself from the other MU heroes have led me to believe that he's not gonna fit in at the Avengers anymore.

I've been basically avoiding arguing over the specifics of OMD's actual story, for the most part, in favor of the benefit that the outcome has.

But on this one small point, I would offer that, from a certain point of view, it could be considered 'doing the right thing'. If he looks at it as him giving up happiness in favor of someone else getting to live, then it would be the right thing to do. The fact that Mephisto is thought of as the devil, and he is giving him what he wants does complicate things, but... from a certain point of view, its a good thing to do.

You hit it on the head.

Peter Parker has ALWAYS (for me anyway) been about "doing what is right no matter the personal cost".

That is why I was a fan of Peter Parker much more than one of Spider-Man.

But you hit it all dead on;

Soap-opera cylical nature and all.

I agree 100%.

~P~
P-TOR

Actually, I would say that it is exactly like Peter making a PB&J when it has been established that he is allergic to peanuts. Because, as you, yourself said, one of the prime elements of the Spider-Man story engine is:

"Spider-Man’s struggle to do what is right"

Making a deal with Loki, Dr Strange, Iron Man, etc. I can see and understand. Making a deal with Mephisto, someone who is a devil-figure in the MU and someone who Spider-Man has fought against in the past, goes against the struggle to do what is right.

On another topic, one of the other repliers reminded me that Spider-Man's identity was revealed to other Avengers. Which reminded me of when Rage had to reveal his identity to the Avengers in order to become a member. Now, I also remember an old issue where Captain America offered to waive the identity issue for Spider-Man when he was offered membership back in the 90s. So, my question is:

Is Spider-Man still an Avenger?
If so, did someone waive his requirement to reveal his identity?
If he is still an Avenger, and he didn't get such a waiver, but his fellow Avengers have forgotten who is beneath the mask, then won't they wonder why it is that he's the only member of the team whose name they don't know?
And, most importantly, does anyone expect this to be dealt with, or will it simply never be mentioned?

Theno

Lemma (i) is at best a poor criterion to justify your argument since it can be argued that the events described don’t make sense.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "makes sense".

Aside from the idea of the quality of the story, which of course can be argued about forever, I would say the story made sense. Peter's aunt was dying, Mephisto offered him a deal, Peter took it, and the world was changed as a result. We understand it, and there is a logic to it. Peter randomly waking up with things changed with no explanation would make no sense. What you put as my i and ii were, in my mind, the same thing.

And I don't mean 'makes sense; meaning "Peter making that choice makes no sense". That speaks to saying that you think Peter made the wrong choice. That's fine, if so, then Peter making the wrong choice is part of continuity. And while that choice is not to everyone's taste, it's not as cut and dry as all that. It isn't Peter deciding to make PB&J when it's been established that he's allergic to peanuts, it's him doing something that you feel is unwise, when he has typically done things you feel are wise. And that is a fine judgement to make, but I don't think represents something that actually goes against established continuity.

I'm not sure what you meant by "discontinuity".

So now your definition of discontinuity has to satisfy two previously undisclosed lemmas.

i) It must make sense
ii) There is an in-world explanation.

Let's also cast our minds back into how this came out of you criticizing people who were complaining that this event breaks continuity.

Lemma (i) is at best a poor criterion to justify your argument since it can be argued that the events described don't make sense.

Lemma (ii) is nice but is easily subsumed my lemma (i). Unless 'make sense' is being used to refer to something other than 'make sense given the information within the story'. Some more avant-garde narratives might use "out-of-band" kinds of storytelling but in the case of comics I think this assumption is safe.

Anyway since Lemma (i) can't be shown that it MUST apply then your criticism is unsubstantiated. Nice try though.

>This is what logicians call equivocation. Not so. The definition I am using for....