This is it, you know: the reason the pro-marriage fans will never, ever win this argument.

All the people make the books aren’t on their side. I can count the number of current comics professionals on my hand who say, “I’d like to write a married Spider-Man! Why’d they get rid of it?”

We all lose.

Let’s be fair to Karl. Yes…Peter always dated characters that were drawn attractive. But even when he was lucky enough to date such women, there was always the possibility of a breakup hanging over him. You can break up a couple that is dating much more easily than a married couple.

I think that his point on why he works better single is valid, personally. Some others just argue that more interesting stories can be written with a single Peter that can’t be done with a married one. Or that the supporting cast suffered. Those are much less legitimate. I think it is much more difficult to write a loser Peter if he is married (not impossible, though).

” I don’t see his opinion deserves much weight when he says “I don’t read this comic and haven’t done so in years, ”

Actually, I think his comments are valid despite that. If he doesn’t think the character works as well married, that may be part of the reason why he hasn’t read the comic regularly in years.

His comments were based on the core of the character. I don’t think that core has changed in the time that he wasn’t reading as much, so he still understands it just as well. And all he said was that he hasn’t read any Spidey comic “with regularity”, not that he hasn’t read them at all.

I just wish Karl Kesel had a blog.

I think the writers and artists keep forgetting something:

The readers are TIRED of being the character who’s always stepped on and always has perfection be “just out of reach”. This whole “need to raise Peter up just so we can pull the rug out from under him” stuff is over done and no longer needed.

They keep forgetting that part. Peter Parker no longer needs to be a loveable loser. He just has to have the same trial and error as the rest of us with the same sucess/failure rate.

Not this need to constantly keep him down!

Oh my god, its sooooooooooooooo unrealistic that nerdy old Peter Parker married a beautiful woman!

Its soooooooooooooooo much more realistic to imagine that nerdy Peter Parker has Mary Jane, Gwen Stacy, Betty Brant, and whatever random skank happens to show up at a party fighting over him.

“The readers are TIRED of being the character who’s always stepped on and always has perfection be “just out of reach”.”

Are they really? I remember when Aunt May’s house burned down and Peter moved his family into Stark Towers. Readers were posting on Newsarama how they didn’t think having things so nice fit the character.

Kesel’s attitude toward Spider-Man isn’t hard to understand if one thinks of Parker as a “dramatic” version of a comic strip character, e.g., Dagwood Bumstead. Imagine a writer having Bumstead encounter problems at work, disagreements with Blondie over chores, a bad performance review from Mr. Dithers, etc., and having him react in some detail to each problem over the space of a few days. Oh, no. Will poor Dagwood ever find happiness?

Kesel might reject the analogy, but that’s what Marvel’s done by setting limits on Parker’s range of possible experiences. The only major differences between a dramatic comic strip character and Spider-Man as Marvel’s defined him are the format and frequency of publication. It’s (very) easy for Kesel to say why Spider-Man shouldn’t change, but it would be virtually impossible for him to justify anyone older than a teenager paying to read the stories, knowing all the limits beforehand.

The CBR blog has a piece on the OMD controversy that also describes past fandom controversies. What separates this from past controversies, IMO, is Marvel’s stance toward the character versus the character’s potential. Even under the “illusion of change”’ policy in past decades, individual writers (Englehart, Gerber, et al.).could still push the limits with rewarding results. Now, Marvel seems to be making the policy’s limits hard, and junking the continuity (history) that was part of any character’s potential for growth. That, combined with the trend toward emphasis on “events” instead of individual series, and dumbed-down content–any strategy for growth Marvel has seems to consist of trying to attract more short-term readers and selling “events” as hard as they can, because they have to meet quarterly revenue targets. The strategy they’ve chosen, though, makes the editorial personnel from Quesada on down easily replaceable because familiarity with the characters’ histories, genre conventions, etc., isn’t necessary. All an editor needs is recruitment and project coordination skills. If Quesada, et al., falter in meeting their financial targets–so much for them.

SRS

Y’know something? as a (young) married woman, who is going through an incredibly difficult period in her marriage, including thoughts of divorce, and the realization that sometimes love just isn’t enough, I think I resent the implication that once you get married you automatically get a “comfort zone” and “somone to come home to.” Seeing as 1 of 2 marriages in the US end in divorce, I really don’t understand why marriage is considered “safer” then dating. Especially since ending a marriage can be (not always) more difficult to end then a non-officially-committed relationship.

The “expected marital strife” so casually dismissed above can be just as unhappy, just as insecure, and just as loser-y as anything a single person can come up with.

“Always have somone to come home to?” hmmmph. How about Spidet having a hard day battling the villain-of-the-moment, and then NOT WANTING to go home, because what’s waiting there is a fight, or cold silence, or just the misery of looking at someone you really do love (or maybe really used to love) but can’t stand to be around?