Various
The current story in Amazing Spider-Man, written by J. Michael Straczynski (the creator of Babylon 5, as well as a major contributor to a dozen above-par cartoons from the 80's and 90's, and a variety of comic books), has raised a lot of fuss in the online comics forums. The new story, "Sins Past", adds a whopper of a retcon to the single most
( Read more... )
Until very recently, I had trouble figuring out what it was that bothered me about it so much beyond, "It just doesn't feel right." I think it boils down to the following:
1. I'm absolutely sick of reading about Gwen Stacy. She's been dead longer than most of the book's readers have been alive and she's mentioned more often than characters who have recently had their own titles. A similar phenomenon is going on over at DC with Jason Todd. So much focus on long dead characters just reminds me that Marvel and DC haven't really created any honestly brand new characters in decades, which is kind of sad when you think about it. Marvel calls itself the "House of Ideas." Other than Runaways, what was the last new concept they created? Sleepwalker?
2. Changing the circumstances behind Normon killing Gwen changes what the incident means for Peter. To me, the significance of that story is that even when he's out being a hero, someone close to him is dead, and this time, he's even more responsible. This isn't just a fluke like Uncle Ben. Normon has specifically targeted Gwen because of her relationship to Peter. With this new wrinkle, Normon's motivations had as much to do with Gwen as they did with Peter. It's not his fault anymore, at least not as clearly as it had been (really, it's the Goblin's fault, but Peter obviously doesn't see it that way or he wouldn't have spent the last thirty years agonizing over it).
3. I can't shake the feeling that this is being done for shock value. The story is well-written, but the whole thing just feels unnecessary. It feels like a stunt. I don't think this whole thing really adds anything to Peter's character. Rather, for the reasons I outlined in #2, it detracts a bit from his character. I can't tell you whether it "ruins" Gwen's character or not because I'm not, nor have I ever been, a Gwen fan. I'm not a big fan of altering characters retroactively like this. Another example of this kind of thing is the Trouble mini-series. Someone thought it would be a good idea to imply that Spider-Man is a bastard (and I mean that in the literal sense). It doesn't add anything to his character or to the characters of his aunt, uncle, and parents. All it does it give you an uneasy feeling when you read older stories.
Fortunately, Marvel seems to have swept Trouble under the rug and I don't think it's even considered canon. "Sins Past" will always be canon, though, and when people read old issues where these characters are used, they'll seem a little bit different. That can be good if what's added to the character is interesting and explains an existing character trait, but if the only thing added is a sense of unease, I'm not sure it's worthwhile. And for what? A short-term sales boost? Some buzz? Why not create some new characters instead? Why not go in a different direction? Why dredge up a thirty-year-old story and muck around with the character motivations? It feels hackish, no matter how well-written it is.
This isn't the most egregious sin ever committed by Marvel or any other such nonsense, but at the same time, I can see why people would be upset. It has nothing to do with what Gwen "would" or "would not" do.
I'm glad you're enjoying the story, though. I'd hate for this change to occur without anyone at least getting something out of it.
Reply
Anyway, your objection #2 is largely along the lines of what I said about Osborn's motives for killing her. I prefer the original on that note, myself. It just doesn't stop me from enjoying the current story for what it is.
Reply
As for Baby May, that's hardly a story to be held up as an example of Marvel's standard operating practices. :) I'd rather they not have to do this at all. Comicbookresources.com has a great piece about this story in their Pipeline column that articulates better than I did what's wrong with the story.
Reply
Leave a comment