amazing spider-man: sins past & in general

Great information

[Harrdy]

Regarding the giving up of the secret identity, I found that comic mildly amusing: http://yirmumah.net/strips/spidey20060616.gif

I feel for poor Peter 8o)

PeAcE

[phazedout]

I liked sins past, but then again I haven't read spider-man in 20 years and most of what I know of continuity comes from the animated series.
I'm reading it for the writing, I haven't read any of the Civil War stuff or got around to reading best of spider man volume 5 but I'm trying to see each story on it's own rather than in the wider sense of spider-man.
My only criticism of sins past as story was the whodunnit side of things was easily guessable. I figured thye were Gwen's kids waaaaaaay before the reveal.
I suppose a lack of familiarity with the overl spidey continuity helps me accept the retcons in a way that more long-term fans are unable (or unwilling) to.
So be it, as Jope says it is up to each person to ejoy or not, purchase or not and such disagreements (as I've said elsewhere in this froum) are the cut and thrust of debate.
Phaze
on the "got midnight nation yesterday, may read post next podcast" ID

[Dr Maturin]

I don't read Marvel, but from what I've heard versus what I've read of DC's new ventures, such as the fantastic 52, DC is kicking Marvel's ass creatively.

[Joe Nazzaro]

I think as a consumer, we have certain rights but not liking something does not give us license. If I go to a movie and donÆt like it, I can walk out. I can also ask for my money back (which I have on a few occasions) and if I really feel strongly about it, I suppose I could stand outside the theater and tell people that I thought the movie would be a waste of their money, although I suspect most people would prefer to make up their own minds. I do not have the right to stand up in the middle of the movie and shout at the screen, because IÆm now impinging on the enjoyment of other people, all of whom have the same rights as I do.

I didnÆt like the Sins Past storyline at all, mainly because I completely disagreed with its premise. As a Spider-Man fan for more than four decades, I didnÆt buy Gwen StacyÆs actions at all, not did I like the idea of retro-fitting her actions into existing continuity. I actually dropped the book for a few months until I felt it was back on track with what I wanted to read. The good thing about selling oneÆs entire comic book collection some years ago is that you no longer feel the need to buy an issue just to maintain a complete run, so you can dip and out of a book whenever you stop enjoying it. That is my right as a consumer. I donÆt have the right to send hate mail to Marvel or say mean things about JMSÆs mother, or torch my local comic book story. In the end, itÆs just a comic book, nothing more.

And by the way, I completely disagreed with PeterÆs decision to reveal his secret identity. IÆve been picking up the Civil War tie-ins, because I want to see if JMS can justify his approach, but thus far, I donÆt feel heÆs done it, other than suggesting that Peter may have done it because he has a little hero worship/father fixation/male crush on Tony Stark. Frankly, as somebody whoÆs met everybody in the Marvel Universe from Norse Gods to Galactus, IÆm still not sure he would be taken in by StarkÆs line of BS. But in this case, IÆm willing to agree to disagree with JMS and see where he goes with it.

[Harrdy]

Than you have the right to be outraged, pour scorn on his head, and generally shit all over this story, because as the consumer that is YOUR right.

Ah, the "I bought it, therefore I can be an asshole"-remark *g*

Critic can be more sophisticated than "crap", it helps bringing your point to the other side, because the other side will listen longer...

PeAcE

[Karachi Vyce]

nd there you go ... fine, you don't like the story. There are some of JMS's Spider-Man stories that I haven't liked, and thought could have been done better if ... etc. etc. But that doesn't give me the right to be outraged, and pour scorn on his head.

I can either acknowledge that I may not like everything he ever writes and move on to the next story, or I can choose to stop reading because I am not enjoying it anymore.

Are you kidding me?

Did you buy this comic? Or hell, did you just read it?

Than you have the right to be outraged, pour scorn on his head, and generally shit all over this story, because as the consumer that is YOUR right.

What is this horse shit that we have to just accept whatever the writer gives us? If it's shit I'm going to say so. This isn't a one-way relationship. If it's crap, you have the right to bitch about it.

[Garibaldi's Hair]

How can JMS dive into the emotional complexities of Gwen's "relationship" with Norman, when the whole thing is being viewed from the point of view of Peter and MJ who simply could not have known any of that stuff?

The only ways that could have been dealt with would have been if ...

(a) Gwen had turned up alive after all, and been involved in the story, or
(b) the story was being told first hand at the time it happened

I don't have a problem with people not liking the story, personally I liked it a lot, because that is subjective. Everyone is entitled to like something or not. I have just always taken issues with those who use the fact that they didn't like the story as the basis for claiming that it undermines continuity and destroys Gwen as a character.

Regrettably, I am forced to count myself among the number of outraged fans who have lampooned Sins Past.

And there you go ... fine, you don't like the story. There are some of JMS's Spider-Man stories that I haven't liked, and thought could have been done better if ... etc. etc. But that doesn't give me the right to be outraged, and pour scorn on his head.

I can either acknowledge that I may not like everything he ever writes and move on to the next story, or I can choose to stop reading because I am not enjoying it anymore.

[Jan]

I have never cared much for Gwen Stacy - this story didn't change that fact.

As JMS said recently, all Gwen ever did before was flounce. She was a great flouncer but that's all there was to the character.

I suppose had JMS really dove in to the emotional complexities and internal struggles of all involved in the libidinous conquest of the mad Norman the story would have been vastly improved. I think these things should have been explored more thoroughly.

The only quibble I have with this is to ask..."How?" When the only source of information we have is MJ, *and* MJ is justifiably hyper-aware of the lingering feelings her husband still has for Gwen? How can you explore Gwen's emotional complexities? I think JMS did a good job exploring Peter and MJ's feelings. In fact, I still think that Peter's allowing himself to still feel as he does about Gwen is going to cause trouble at some point. Yes, he loves MJ but he's still partly in love with Gwen.

Welcome aboard, BoyWithTheBlues!

Jan

[BoyWithTheBlues]

I finally got around to reading Sins Past, and I must say it is absolutely atrocious.

I'm not criticizing the rewriting or revising of spider-man's mythology; no, I am, of course, approaching it as a particular story concerning spider-man/peter parker. as a story, all of the characters come across as dubious, insincere, dim, and ultimately flat.

However, it is important to recognize that JMS has one thrilling imagination, which is why Sins Past is a devastatingly crushing let-down. It is, like some others have said, contrived.

I have never cared much for Gwen Stacy - this story didn't change that fact. It's odd though, when I think about it. She is the victim of succumbing to impulsive passion and not having a prophylactic around, and having children out of wedlock. yet, somehow she finds time to tell-all to Mary Jane, but doesn't bother doing the same with her "lover," Peter Parker? She has an accelerated birthrate, abandons Europe and consequently her children, pursues Peter Parker, and gets killed. I should feel a great swell of pity in my heart and stomach for her, but don't. I felt detached reading this.

I suppose had JMS really dove in to the emotional complexities and internal struggles of all involved in the libidinous conquest of the mad Norman the story would have been vastly improved. I think these things should have been explored more thoroughly. As it stands, the story (in my mind) is simply too convoluted.

Regrettably, I am forced to count myself among the number of outraged fans who have lampooned Sins Past.

Feel free to disagree (it really isn't that big of a deal; we're all here talking about comics, especially JMS' work, and enjoy doing it), but this is easily the sloppiest and most thoughtless thing JMS has ever written.

Don't hit me.

[naloth]

Hi, Naloth, and welcome!

I guess when it comes to comics I just can't accept that there's any kind of 'canon' at all. That may be because I was away from comics for so many years but it's always seemed to me that there was no requirement for previous events to the held to in current stories-especially considering how many titles there are.

I just enjoyed the story for what it was without worrying about continuity or canonicity.

It seems to be a common view lately. I guess I prefer solid characterization first, entertainment second, and being true to the history third.

A story about tracking down and killing villians might be entertaining, but it isn't something I would consider appropriate (in character) for Spider-man like it would be for the Punisher. It's hard to enjoy the story for the story if the cast isn't behaving appropriately. Entertainment often follows when simply from reading about our characters do what they should be doing. 'Nuff said?

History is important simply to connect the dots. If the last time Doc Ock was left to die in his underground flooding complex, I'ld expect a "how he got from there to here" story. If the Kangaroo (who's an insignicant long dead villian) popped up, I'ld expect much better reason.

The new Norman Osborn isn't the same Norman that died. First, he's like the (original) Hobgoblin instead: a mastermind rather than a star in events. Second, all the subsequent stories he's been in are horribly convoluted. Neither make for good storytelling.

Captain Stacy and Gwen's deaths were important events in both overall history and in Spider-man's characterization. The first clone story was an entertaining "you cannot go home again" story.

Sin's Past certainly didn't add to Gwen's death. It seems to have ridden the coattails of those stories without adding to them. So did Sins Past give us?
1) The children aren't that interesting. The son is rather one-dimensional. Sarah seems interesting, though post Sins Remembered (bad story) they have some salvage work to do.
2) It didn't change Spider-man characterization in any particular way.
3) I had the appropriate "what the?" "could it have happened?" "let me consider this" reactions. Much like the Sixth Sense, it was a good shocker. Unfortunately when I went back and read it in the context of the storyline it's set around (Capt Stacy's death to Gwen's death) it's much *less* entertaining.

Taking the story for what it is, I'ld stand by my original comment: interesting as a hoax, bad idea for the mythology.

I really enjoy the new Supreme Power. I noticed it about issue 4 and scrambled to get all the prior ones. While completely different from the prior Squadron Supreme it doesn't pretend to be the prior Squadron Supreme. The characterizations are new and the story is still self-consistant. The character progressions have been somewhat reasonable - no major leaps of inconsistancy.

OTOH, I didn't particularly like the Supreme Power: Nighthawk. While somewhat entertaining it didn't accomplish much. There's very little character development, a lot of senseless cursing and killing, and apparently nothing that will carry back to the main title... For a while I thought they were leading up to giving him a baby to care for (a ward ala Batman and Robin).

[Jan]

Hi, Naloth, and welcome!

I guess when it comes to comics I just can't accept that there's any kind of 'canon' at all. That may be because I was away from comics for so many years but it's always seemed to me that there was no requirement for previous events to the held to in current stories-especially considering how many titles there are.

I just enjoyed the story for what it was without worrying about continuity or canonicity.

Jan

[naloth]

Odd story, Bad Idea

I don't have a the strong emotions on it that I had for the Clone Saga mess (which actually caused me to leave the series until it was finally sorted out); however, I consider it a poor story.

The old Norman shifted between being an obsessive Spider-man foe and a businessman. Which would have bedded Gwen then hidden the fact? Neither makes sense. It's really only the "new" Norman which is much different from any prior incarnation (another minor peeve) that can be cast in the role that JMS wants.

Gwen was a moral girl that presumably didn't make a habit of sleeping around. It's extremely out of character for her to cheat (without remorse) on her boyfriend.

It's also problematic that this didn't come to light with all the Stacy / Osborn storylines over the years. There's no hint and it requires more than a little suspension of disbelief that it's never come up. It's undoubtly a retcon, and unlike those that connect events which were there to begin with there's no prior hints and plenty of reasons why shouldn't be possible.

As a fan of the original series, I'm a little confused when it could have taken place. Gwen wasn't out of her friends and family's sight for months. The one extensive trip was with to go off with her Uncle and Peter visits midway (looks through window not actually meeting her but there's no big belly on that panel).

As a hoax it's interesting. As a retelling of the past, it's a long stretch that even Mr. Fantastic wouldn't attempt.

[Garibaldi's Hair]

Gwen had sex with Norman. But never with Peter. That sure is a sad statement of their relationship.

Of which relationship? For me, this reinforces the strength of Peter and Gwen's relationship and exposes Norman and Gwen's for what it was.

Peter and Gwen didn't need to have sex in order to have a great relationship, whereas Norman and Gwen didn't really have anything else.

And I hardly think that a single sexual encounter at a vulnerable time constitutes Gwen being turned into a "trollop".

But, as someone whose sexual partners can be counted on one finger, what do I know.

[jondani]

Hi, Jan, Two more years. Thanks. More to blather, I am hurt that Gwen shared herself with Norman, I'm not angry at her (or JMS) , I LOVED Peter's outburst, and the fact that I felt like I could see the bonds between Pete and MJ strengthening. That was a great story!

Mike