amazing spider-man: sins past & in general

[Jan]

Originally posted by iamsheridan
I'm sorry to barge in on this, since I haven't read the stories you talk about (but I have read JMS's comments to the comments), but I have a question:
how easily DID Gwen jump into bed with Norman? On the first date? After a week? A month?
And what amount of time would have been ok with you, Slither?

It was a one-night stand portrayed as just having happened at a vulnerable time for both Gwen and Norman. Never planned on either of their parts and never repeated but as can often happen, there was a pregnancy.

Anyway, the arc is now finished so it's probably time to move on. Those who think Gwen's now 'soiled goods' will never accept that some don't agree. And vice-versa.

Oh, and welcome, Slither! Forgot to say that earlier.

Jan

[iamsheridan]

Originally posted by Jan
It was a one-night stand portrayed as just having happened at a vulnerable time for both Gwen and Norman. Never planned on either of their parts and never repeated but as can often happen, there was a pregnancy.

Ok. Hmmmm

I can't believe he did that! I remember Norman (the head of that newspaper, right? With the crew-cut (I think it's called)?

He seemed so correct and strict, if a little hot-tempered, but from the Spiderman I read 20-25 years ago I would never have thought that he would -uck any girl who happened to pass by. And moreover Peter's ex (?) !?

I'm horrified!

Oh, and welcome, Slither! Forgot to say that earlier.

Jan

Yeah, me too!

/IamS

[Jan]

Originally posted by iamsheridan
Ok. Hmmmm

I can't believe he did that! I remember Norman (the head of that newspaper, right? With the crew-cut (I think it's called)?

Nonono! You're thinking of J. Jonah Jameson. The one Gwen was with was Norman Osborne who (unbeknownst to him at the time) was also the Green Goblin. At the time it (allegedly-there's some question) happened, Gwen's father had recently died and Norman's son Harry was into drugs. The entire scenario wasn't spelled out, but from what MJ told Peter, there was a sudden magnetism between Norman and Gwen resulting in one incident of passion. Later apparently, Norman tried to get control of the children and Gwen fought him. Some readers think that that now means that Gwen had some culpability in her own death now rather than being a pure innocent.

Jan

[iamsheridan]

Originally posted by Jan
Nonono! You're thinking of J. Jonah Jameson. The one Gwen was with was Norman Osborne who (unbeknownst to him at the time) was also the Green Goblin. At the time it (allegedly-there's some question) happened, Gwen's father had recently died and Norman's son Harry was into drugs. The entire scenario wasn't spelled out, but from what MJ told Peter, there was a sudden magnetism between Norman and Gwen resulting in one incident of passion. Later apparently, Norman tried to get control of the children and Gwen fought him. Some readers think that that now means that Gwen had some culpability in her own death now rather than being a pure innocent.

Jan

Ah, sorry. Of course it's Jameson. How could I mix them up?? I have to blame the amount of time since I read Spiderman (and I haven't seen the movies :-( ). I was more into The Phantom in those days...

Do you think Norman could have been around "in my days"?

I'll stay quiet now...
/IamS

[Jan]

Originally posted by iamsheridan
Do you think Norman could have been around "in my days"?

Dunno, do 'your days' encompass the late 60s/early 70s?

Slither's reaction that the Sins Past story has tarnished Gwen is fairly common, I'm afraid but some of the vehemence has been...shocking to say the least. The vitriol directed at JMS has seemed more like he'd been saying bad things about their mother rather than a fictional character.

Jan

[iamsheridan]

Originally posted by Jan
Dunno, do 'your days' encompass the late 60s/early 70s?
Jan

Could be, but in this case I'd say more like the late 70s.

/IamS

[manwithnoname]

thank you, jan for seeing jms' story for what it is, a great story. Gwen's character is not sullied. although i'm not advocating one-night stands, the Gwen/Norman relationship is highly plausible. Men have many female partners (some more than others) before marriage, but men expect to marry only virgins. come on, get real. i whole-heartedly love and support jms' handling of the whole spidey universe.
you probably think i'm crazy: i finally watched spider-man 2 dvd movie the other day. when aunt may was explaining to peter why spider-man needs to come out of retirement...i got emotional. her words, to me, is the essence of peter/spidey.
good night to everyone.

[Slither]

Gwen is NOT sullied? How?

Look maybe in TODAY'S world what Gwen did is more acceptable, but not in the day she died. And pardon me for being overly protective of a character, but MAYBE it was due to her being so well written and her death having such an impact on me as a child.

I was QUITE young when I read that story. To me, it was the heighth of villainy that Norman did what he did to Gwen back then, kidnapping her, threatening to kill her, callously knocking her off the bridge. And I cheered when I saw that Spidey's speed and webbing saved her. And I CRIED when I saw he had actually failed.

Why? Because Peter loved her, she loved him, and their love was PURE! It was one of the classic love stories of comics in the day, along with Reed/Sue, Superman/Lois, and many others.

It saddens me to no end that not only is "true love" being demeaned in comics, but that classic lovers like Scott and Jean are being severed in an effort to add "realism" to comics. Is it any LESS realistic for true love to exist? Given the love of my life who is my wife, I argue that it isn't.

So now, in an EFFORT (and I capitalize EFFORT due to it FAILING) to add a "new" spin on the GWen/Peter history and to TRY to add a further note of villain to Norman's character, JMS did this. And I am deeply disappointed. JMS' run had not stooped to this level prior to this story. And frankly, given Quesada's apparent plan to shock the readers as much as possible (Bendis' Avengers Disassembled anyone?), maybe the blame doesn't strictly lie in JMS' lap.

As I've said before on other boards, this reworking of Peter and Gwen's past was NOT needed. It was a classic story that stood the test of time just fine and was lauded by many as a pivotal part of Peter's character development not only as Spidey, but as a person.

And angel or not, Gwen was a nice person with morals and she LOVED Peter. The EXCUSES made for why she jumped in bed with Norman are shallow and rather disturbing, IMO. She bedded Nomran due to a father struggling with his son's problems and due to her losing her own father?

Think on that and tell me you don't shudder.

JMS' run has been stellar.... up to this point.

[Jan]

Originally posted by Slither
And angel or not, Gwen was a nice person with morals and she LOVED Peter. The EXCUSES made for why she jumped in bed with Norman are shallow and rather disturbing, IMO. She bedded Nomran due to a father struggling with his son's problems and due to her losing her own father?

Think on that and tell me you don't shudder.

Sorry, but I don't...not at all. And when I read the original story I wasn't much younger than Gwen. If she'd been shown to have an affair, that would be a different story but that's not what JMS showed. It was a moment that got out of hand, wasn't planned and was never repeated.

People can do very uncharacteristic things when grieving. It's an incredibly strong set of emotions, often conflicting and usually confusing.

Jan

[Radhil]

I have not read these issues, nor am I actually at all familiar with the whole Spidey mythology beyond the bruhaha I've seen through this site and on this thread.

There, disclaimed. Now:

It saddens me to no end that not only is "true love" being demeaned in comics.

I don't know what the actual usage of "true love" is in comics. But the way you write, there's a better fit, that you used a sentence earlier. "Perfect love" or "pure love" would serve your meaning better probably. It fits the rest of your thoughts. And to me, expecting perfection - even in love, even in true love - is expecting just a little too much.

It was a classic story that stood the test of time just fine and was lauded by many as a pivotal part of Peter's character development not only as Spidey, but as a person.

So... it's not pivotal or classic now? I would think that "classics" could stand up to a little more than a bit of controversy. So it either was classic and is now, or everyone just calls it classic and never really understood why.

There, my only thoughts said. I fade back into shadows of this thread now.

[Jan]

Originally posted by Radhil
I don't know what the actual usage of "true love" is in comics. But the way you write, there's a better fit, that you used a sentence earlier. "Perfect love" or "pure love" would serve your meaning better probably. It fits the rest of your thoughts. And to me, expecting perfection - even in love, even in true love - is expecting just a little too much.

I tend to agree. In fact I'm much more interested in what this means for Peter's relationship with MJ. There's definitely some ambiguity, particularly in this latest issue but I don't doubt their love for each other. IMO, he just needs to finally put Gwen behind him.

Jan

[Slither]

Originally posted by Jan
Sorry, but I don't...not at all. And when I read the original story I wasn't much younger than Gwen. If she'd been shown to have an affair, that would be a different story but that's not what JMS showed. It was a moment that got out of hand, wasn't planned and was never repeated.

People can do very uncharacteristic things when grieving. It's an incredibly strong set of emotions, often conflicting and usually confusing.

Jan

Sigh..... I guess the question I'm asking isn't clear....

WAS THIS NECESSARY?!?!?! Was anything GREAT gained frmo this ASIDE from shock value and maudlin soap opera storylines concerning:

1) Peter's old feelings for Gwen?

2) Gwen's kids' feelings towards Peter?

And could the Spideyverse have kept sailing along WITHOUT this story being done?

Was Spidey TRULY lacking in villains and emotion WITHOUT this being brought up?

Did Gwen have to be shown in this light?

[Slither]

In other words, was what was gained = or > what was lost, IE Gwen's "role" and the continued support and happiness of many long-term fans?

I feel the answer is "NO!"

[Jan]

Originally posted by Slither
Sigh..... I guess the question I'm asking isn't clear....

WAS THIS NECESSARY?!?!?! Was anything GREAT gained frmo this ASIDE from shock value and maudlin soap opera storylines concerning:

1) Peter's old feelings for Gwen?

In my opinion, it's really important for Peter to put his old feelings behind him, so for me that answer is yes.

2) Gwen's kids' feelings towards Peter?

A little more complicated since without the story they wouldn't exist. Could other kids be Normans and have that driving hatred for Peter/Spidey? I don't think so but it's possible.

And could the Spideyverse have kept sailing along WITHOUT this story being done?

Absolutely. But that could be said about any story.

Was Spidey TRULY lacking in villains and emotion WITHOUT this being brought up?

I can't have a real opinion on this item since it's literally been decades since I read any of Spiderman until JMS took it over.

Did Gwen have to be shown in this light?

Only if you think the story has worth or if the story has consequences in the future that we don't know yet. Since I don't have any emotional ties to Gwen, I'll say yes. But then, I don't think she's been damaged.

Jan

[Capt.Montoya]

Originally posted by Slither
Gwen is NOT sullied? How?

Look maybe in TODAY'S world what Gwen did is more acceptable, but not in the day she died. And pardon me for being overly protective of a character, but MAYBE it was due to her being so well written and her death having such an impact on me as a child.

As someone else mentioned, this was written in the 1960s, the age of the sexual revolution, but due to the hypocritical morals of the day that couldn't be featured in the comics. The changing morals of the days convinced many young women to explore their sexuality more openly, and to recognize that it was OK for them to be sexual beings. Why deny the possibilty that Gwen was in tune and comfortable with her sexuality?

I was QUITE young when I read that story. To me, it was the heighth of villainy that Norman did what he did to Gwen back then, kidnapping her, threatening to kill her, callously knocking her off the bridge. And I cheered when I saw that Spidey's speed and webbing saved her. And I CRIED when I saw he had actually failed.

Not only he failed... there was that subtle "crack" sound when her fall stopped suddenly "thanks" to the web.
Too subtle that I didn't notice it (but too obvious for me once it's pointed out), JMS did hint at that interpretation.

As I've said before on other boards, this reworking of Peter and Gwen's past was NOT needed. It was a classic story that stood the test of time just fine and was lauded by many as a pivotal part of Peter's character development not only as Spidey, but as a person.

And angel or not, Gwen was a nice person with morals and she LOVED Peter. The EXCUSES made for why she jumped in bed with Norman are shallow and rather disturbing, IMO. She bedded Nomran due to a father struggling with his son's problems and due to her losing her own father?

Think on that and tell me you don't shudder.

JMS' run has been stellar.... up to this point.

I don't shudder, I know that lust is a powerful force, and that any woman of Gwen's age would have known lust.
She was in a vulnerable moment, couldn't turn to Peter, didn't have a father figure to turn to, found a father figure and friend to turn to in Norman Osborne.
I also know that any hot-blooded male would have found Gwen appealing, I'm not surprised Osborne was tempted to seduce her. Given her circumstances and the aforementioned power of lust I can believe that she allowed herself to be seduced.
It's obvious that this didn't turn her into a sex-crazed woman, and it's quite likely she had some regret because of what happened.

For all we know she might have been extremely regretful.

And for all we know she might not even have been a virgin before her one-night stand with Osborne...

To me the important question isn't "was this necessary" the question is "is this a good story?"
To me the answer is yes.

But here's another question:
Why when two people lay together once is it called a one-night stand?