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

Amazing Spider-Man Message Board >> View Post
·
Post By
Mr. Knees

In Reply To
Victor

Subj: My take on it... As an old fan from the 70s... [SPOILERS]
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 05:15:38 pm EST
Reply Subj: On the nature of continuity... [SPOILERS]
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:13:01 pm EST

Previous Post

The arguement is one that deserves discussion: "A critical part of Spider-Man is that he developes and evolves over time. That was clear even in Stan's stories. This is a DC-style, step backward, which is achoice that Marvel never used to make. It invalidates 20 years of stories."

Let me offer my perspective on this idea.

Continuity is not a worthwhile goal when it comes at the expense of the character.
There is simply MORE continuity than when Stan was writing and at some point, reconciling it becomes a categorically different challenge. Every issue, every arc, every development, every time marker makes it harder to pretend Parker hasn't aged. Especially when those time markers necessarily indicate a life changing, stage in human development like marriage.

High school and college are more differences in degree, relative to maturity, not differences in the TYPE of maturity one has. Do Spider-Man fans really expect that when we reach issue 10,000, all 10,000 issues will be treated as some sort of canon?

At some point, some of this continuity will have to be shed.

Stan, God bless him, NEVER faced this challenge while writing a major title.

Often times OMD haters try to pretend Parker hasn't aged, but regardless of what number you lable him with, he was being written as a man entering into his 30s if not older.
Ironically, when writers don't do this, marriage fans complain that Peter should know better, should behave better, should have learned...etc...

Its the fans expectations of Peter's behavior given his experiences (along with time markers) that age him.
Imagine, if someone had written a story that played Peter as being a newlywed, or making a decision that someone new to marriage might make. We would have fans up in arms: "They've been married too long for him to do or say that!"

I'm reminded of two reviewers who, in their criticism, revealed that they see Spider-man as older than his BND behavior indicated.

And THAT is the problem. At some point the stories, when full of big time markers, age the character just by their very nature. I argue that marriage is just one marker too many.

Two unavoidable creative realities: We need no more big new time markers that can't be easily undone and continuity will be shed every 15 years or so.

An interesting side-note: whether Slott and Queseda draw attention to it or not, BND is de-aging Parker. Oh they may, for the sake of continuity try to get around this somehow, but they clearly are writing him younger.

Good on them, says I.

Victor



When I was growing up in the 70s, one of the things I LOVED about Marvel was the continuity. Every story mattered. Things were referenced back to with footnotes. They gave the illusion that the characters had a definite timeline of experiences. They remembered things they'd done and it effected their decisions.

With this latest development, I sincerely believe Marvel wants us to completely forget, much in the way the characters in Marvel Universe have forgotten, every story written since ASM #290, the marriage proposal. Quite simply put, they're not going to fill in the blanks for us as to how the absence of the marriage has changed past events. They say so in that two page spread in ASM #546 "Don't dwell in the past, look forward!" As if to say - don't bother racking your brains as to how all your back issues have had their events altered. Continuity, as it has existed in the past, is over. I'm guessing, but they'll never go back and show us how the McFarlane/Micheline's Jonathan Cesar storyline played out without them being married. And I know they'll never dwell on how the clone saga/pregnancy played out without the marriage. Simply put, they want to move on. Those back issues will never be referenced again, I bet.

Does this mean that from this point forward there won't be ANY continuity between the brand new day stories? Absolutely not! I'm pretty sure that from this story on, continuity will
be tight. We might even see footnotes again someday, but I'm sure they'll be related to brand new day stories.

Much as I hate to admit it, the issues between ASM#290-545 will probably never be mentioned again.

Mr. Knees

> The arguement is one that deserves discussion: "A critical part of Spider-Man is that he developes and evolves over time. That was clear even in Stan's stories. This is a DC-style, step backward, which is achoice that Marvel never used to make. It invalidates 20 years of stories."
>
> Let me offer my perspective on this idea.
>
> Continuity is not a worthwhile goal when it comes at the expense of the character.
> There is simply MORE continuity than when Stan was writing and at some point, reconciling it becomes a categorically different challenge. Every issue, every arc, every development, every time marker makes it harder to pretend Parker hasn't aged. Especially when those time markers necessarily indicate a life changing, stage in human development like marriage.
>
> High school and college are more differences in degree, relative to maturity, not differences in the TYPE of maturity one has. Do Spider-Man fans really expect that when we reach issue 10,000, all 10,000 issues will be treated as some sort of canon?
>
> At some point, some of this continuity will have to be shed.
>
> Stan, God bless him, NEVER faced this challenge while writing a major title.
>
> Often times OMD haters try to pretend Parker hasn't aged, but regardless of what number you lable him with, he was being written as a man entering into his 30s if not older.
> Ironically, when writers don't do this, marriage fans complain that Peter should know better, should behave better, should have learned...etc...
>
> Its the fans expectations of Peter's behavior given his experiences (along with time markers) that age him.
> Imagine, if someone had written a story that played Peter as being a newlywed, or making a decision that someone new to marriage might make. We would have fans up in arms: "They've been married too long for him to do or say that!"
>
> I'm reminded of two reviewers who, in their criticism, revealed that they see Spider-man as older than his BND behavior indicated.
>
> And THAT is the problem. At some point the stories, when full of big time markers, age the character just by their very nature. I argue that marriage is just one marker too many.
>
> Two unavoidable creative realities: We need no more big new time markers that can't be easily undone and continuity will be shed every 15 years or so.
>
> An interesting side-note: whether Slott and Queseda draw attention to it or not, BND is de-aging Parker. Oh they may, for the sake of continuity try to get around this somehow, but they clearly are writing him younger.
>
> Good on them, says I.
>
> Victor
>
>


Posted with Apple Safari 3.0.4 on MacOS X
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