USA Today writes a weak article on the dissolving of the Spider-Marriage
USA Today has written about Marvel editorial's destruction of Spider-Man and Mary Jane's marriage, and makes no better an impression than the New York Post did when they sensationalized the case. I don't think the following is very accurate or convincing:
And I don't think their saying that MJ miscarried is particularly accurate either - that's what Quesada would've liked people to think at the time that they were married.
The following quote is almost impressive...but not quite:
This whole article is almost entirely tailored to be just as Quesada would want it to be. Or, put another way, I'd say the paper is on his side. Thumbs down to them for this one.
"I remember editors and editors in chief lamenting that a married Spider-Man was not where we want to be," Quesada says. "A married Peter Parker makes for a less interesting soap opera than a single Peter Parker going about his nerdy kind of life."Wow. They completely disregard the time of 1987-1994, when stories were being pretty well written at the time. It was only when the Clone Saga surfaced in late 1994 that Spider-Man went downhill, but NOT because of the marriage. It was because of the tiresome emphasis on Peter's clone, and because even the action-oriented storylines became weaker and weaker.
Writers tried everything: The couple separated for a while. She miscarried. And in a much-criticized story line, Marvel tried to convince readers that Peter Parker had not gotten married, but his clone. That didn't stick, either. Then Quesada took over and insisted the marriage just couldn't continue.
And I don't think their saying that MJ miscarried is particularly accurate either - that's what Quesada would've liked people to think at the time that they were married.
The following quote is almost impressive...but not quite:
"Nobody wants to read about a married Spider-Man," says Craig Shutt, a columnist for Comics Buyers Guide. "But in the short run, it's a terrible idea. It disrespects the readers by saying everything they read is wrong."Thanks to what that CBG columnist said for starters, I'm not sure I can credit him for the latter - because he's just parroting the PC-line that nobody wants to read about a married Peter. Gee, did the marriage really prove a burden when, say, the story with Tombstone was being told in Spectacular Spider-Man during 1988-89? I don't think so. And I've never heard anyone complain about Peter and MJ's marriage in the Spider-Man comic strip produced by King Features Syndicate for a little over 3 decades now.
At DC Comics, Superman is married to Lois Lane, disrupting that title's long-standing tensions. DC declined to comment for this story.None but the most cynical have ever disliked the Super-marriage, and the tension they speak of gets tired after awhile. I see nothing wrong with Clark and Lois' marriage; it's worked just fine for me.
Quesada is steadfast that for Spider-Man, the move is the right one: "Ultimately we have to do this to keep this character fresh for this generation and generations to come."Really? How? With the way things are going, it looks to be deja vu in the worst ways possible. Not to mention that, with Harry Osborn suddenly back, they have embarrassed and destroyed some of the best storytelling ever done.
This whole article is almost entirely tailored to be just as Quesada would want it to be. Or, put another way, I'd say the paper is on his side. Thumbs down to them for this one.
Labels: bad editors, dreadful artists, marvel comics, msm propaganda, Spider-Man, women of marvel
