screaming again (the loss of the long form serialized storytelling in comics in favour of writing for the trade)
saw someone talk about how as there are so many spider-man comics we can go to any specific era and enjoy whatever ship we want as a defense for the current run and just… you’re missing the point! of spider-man as a comic!
spider-man wasn’t just a superhero comic it was half superhero comic half soap opera! all of his relationships (pre brand new day) were defined by the progression of those characters at the point in time, they were defined by the stages of life and each of his relationships signaled growth in some way.
sure you can go back and enjoy whichever era and whichever romance you want to read (or single pete if that’s your thing) but there’s a key difference between then and now – back then it wasn’t them resetting character progression between each run, it was everything building on top of one another vs now the character perpetually gets reset because every writer has a different take on him and his cast and its just.. then what’s the point of the main universe. why read about the overarching narrative? why not just have these runs all be individual and standalone if that’s the point of the book now. not like any of the previous runs or stories or development matters.
almost like the main universe is meant to be a collaborative front – building on other people’s work instead of ignoring them for your own narrative. quite stupid. t’s why current peterfelicia is bad, it just dunks on mackay’s work and makes her the ‘other’ girl, to the point where even the text recognizes this and it’s sad to read. its misogynistic writing because instead of preserving the character’s growth you’re reducing her to the other love interest AGAIN.
also – the reason why all of those romances worked is because they were a part of the ongoing narrative, because there were years and years of buildup before payoffs (PeterMJ) and that’s why those relationships shine. you couldn’t do that well in today’s comics. they wouldn’t be as iconic through the way comics are told today. the same goes for so many other relationships in comics too (clark and lois from dc).
you can argue that with the way the industry has built itself long form storytelling is impossible and while i do agree it shouldn’t be impossible to atleast be building on other people’s work instead of throwing everything into the toilet and flushing it for your own takes and interpretations.
then again amazing spider-man is marvel’s best seller and people will buy it regardless of quality, and i doubt that will ever change. the book won’t get better until they fire nick lowe anyway.
One of the most important litmus tests for Spider-Man media: When they portray Harry Osborn, do they do a good job?
I’ve seen so many conflicting versions of Harry that I can’t actually tell anymore.
Basically (I’m not sure if you’re familiar with him) I feel it goes something like this:
1. Does your Harry love at least one person, be it Peter or anyone else, in any sense of the word?
NO – you have not written a good Harry
YES – proceed to step 2
2. Does your Harry deal with mental illness/addiction/both, or at the very least deal with a metaphor for them? NO – you have not written a good Harry
YES – proceed to step 3
3. Is your Harry an unrepentant murderer interchangeable with his abusive father? NO – proceed to to step 4 YES – you are the writers of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, things have taken an decidedly problematic turn, and I’m still super mad at you
4. Does Peter Parker actually like your Harry?
NO – you have not written a good Harry. Or, possibly, you have not written a good Peter.
YES – Congratulations!
As always, Sarah explains much better and more concisely.
