Dave Galanter
December 1st 1969 - December 12th 2020
He was loved.

Amazing Spider-Man Message Board >> View Post
·
Post By
Menshevik

In Reply To
PDT

Subj: Re: Would resurrecting Harry Osborn be a good idea?
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 07:54:24 pm EDT
Reply Subj: Re: Would resurrecting Harry Osborn be a good idea?
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 06:37:27 pm EDT

Previous Post

> That's a poor excuse for an excuse. As Mr. Honey Bunny said, all it would have taken would have been a line here and there, Flash needn't even have appeared on-panel. And even accepting for argument's sake that there was an overarching need for #14 and the final issue not to further Flash's subplot, that still leaves 9 other issues. if he "needed" to move things at his own pace, he should not have written within the framework of a franchise like Spider-Man, where one title is always affected by the others (and Spectacular was not the flagship Spider-book) and a professional writer has to roll with the punches handed to him by editorial and the creators of related titles. Lord knows that Peter David, who over the years has had a lot to suffer in this respect is much more of a pro in this respect and usually can be relied up to tie up the loose ends, even when a title's run is cut ended abruptly (vide Captain Marvel vol. 3 and 4, Supergirl and Young Justice).

ALL writers move at their own pace, buddy. It's the way EVERYONE writes comic books. Writers aren't usually told what to write, they're just put on a title and told to run with it. Which is as it should be. The only circumstances when writers are told what to do on titles is when there's editorial interference, such as when editors ask a writer to write a specific story, or when what they're writing ties into another story (usually seen in the form of a big crossover event). Which is fine and all, and a lot of writers might be good at doing that, but it's not an ideal state for writing and creativity, and it doesn't create adequate work conditions. Which is why so very often you hear about writers (or less commonly, artists) leaving books because they don't like having stories or story concepts forced on them. Writers are not mouthpieces for editors. Simply put, it's not a writer's job to write what editors tell them to write, beyond creating on the foundations of the book they are given (such as Spider-Man).

Furthermore, the Flash subplot is not something that was editorially forced on Jenkins. He's the one that wrote Peter and Flash's friendship in Peter Parker: Spider-Man, he's the one who wrote the story where Flash is crippled, and he's the one who was writing the story of Flash's recovery. It was his baby, his thing, and you gotta let the man work it the way he intended to work it from the beginning.

> > That's a poor excuse for an excuse. As Mr. Honey Bunny said, all it would have taken would have been a line here and there, Flash needn't even have appeared on-panel. And even accepting for argument's sake that there was an overarching need for #14 and the final issue not to further Flash's subplot, that still leaves 9 other issues. if he "needed" to move things at his own pace, he should not have written within the framework of a franchise like Spider-Man, where one title is always affected by the others (and Spectacular was not the flagship Spider-book) and a professional writer has to roll with the punches handed to him by editorial and the creators of related titles. Lord knows that Peter David, who over the years has had a lot to suffer in this respect is much more of a pro in this respect and usually can be relied up to tie up the loose ends, even when a title's run is cut ended abruptly (vide Captain Marvel vol. 3 and 4, Supergirl and Young Justice).
>
> ALL writers move at their own pace, buddy. It's the way EVERYONE writes comic books. Writers aren't usually told what to write, they're just put on a title and told to run with it. Which is as it should be. The only circumstances when writers are told what to do on titles is when there's editorial interference, such as when editors ask a writer to write a specific story, or when what they're writing ties into another story (usually seen in the form of a big crossover event). Which is fine and all, and a lot of writers might be good at doing that, but it's not an ideal state for writing and creativity, and it doesn't create adequate work conditions. Which is why so very often you hear about writers (or less commonly, artists) leaving books because they don't like having stories or story concepts forced on them. Writers are not mouthpieces for editors. Simply put, it's not a writer's job to write what editors tell them to write, beyond creating on the foundations of the book they are given (such as Spider-Man).

You wishing this was the case does not make it so. The fact is that there is quite a range of possible relationships between writers and editors etc., from one person doing both jobs to a very hands-on editor putting very strict limits on a writer's scope to be creative. Former DC editor Mort Weisinger for instance was known for ordering his writers and artists to do stories to fit existing covers. In general writers had to conform to very rigid guidelines in the so-called Golden and Silver Ages, and these days writers still often have to take into account limitations imposed on them (e.g. these days it is customary that stories have to combine into arcs of a certain size so that they can later be collected into trade paperbacks). And as in many creative processes, egos can collide (not all creators leave because of differences with their editors, some quite well-known conflicts were between co-plotting writers and artists, e.g. Lee/Ditko and Claremont/Byrne).
And please let's not go overboard as far as creativity goes - Jenkins created neither Spider-Man nor Flash Thompson nor was his treatment of their relationship an innovative or even all that noticeable departure from what had gone on before.
>
> Furthermore, the Flash subplot is not something that was editorially forced on Jenkins. He's the one that wrote Peter and Flash's friendship in Peter Parker: Spider-Man, he's the one who wrote the story where Flash is crippled, and he's the one who was writing the story of Flash's recovery. It was his baby, his thing, and you gotta let the man work it the way he intended to work it from the beginning.

It is not Marvel's or the editor's job to provide a writer with employment for as long as he wants or "feels" he needs to get on with a plot. As far as I can judge, Jenkins had time enough to deal with Flash's recovery and as far as I know he was not actively prevented from continuing to use Flash by his editor. Was the story in which Flash was crippled and put into a coma worthwhile despite being abandoned unfinished? You may think so, I'm skeptical.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows 98
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2021 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2021 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2021 Powermad Software