QUOTE: At the very least, it would have left no doubt that SINS PAST had never happened.

I wouldn't be too sure about that...  Maybe it wouldn't come up during Brand New Day, but that crew won't be on the books forever.  Best to leave well enough alone.

Greg Kirkman wrote: Matt's comments raise a very valid question...do the ends justify the means?

Depends on the ends and means, natch.  Never being bothered by the marriage and thinking that the storyline involving Harry's death was the last "great" Spider-Man storyline, I obviously think no.  Someone who hates all of that stuff will likely think differently.  (Hi Matt!)  I'm not thrilled that it appears that virtually every Spider-Man story that's come out since I was alive has just been invalidated, even if I haven't cared for the last few years' worth of JMS' run.  Now if JMS had just negated his own run and left everything else alone, I'd probably be less cranky. :)

But one thing I've found interesting is to see the number of people in Matt's camp as far as the actual changes go who would be all for a partial reboot but are still against BND because of this whole "deal with the devil" thing.

For those guys, I wonder if it would have been more palatable if Mephisto had been disguised at the time, not mentioned the price and had simply offered to help Aunt May.  Peter's desperate enough to give it a shot, but then discovers Mephisto's true id and the true price too late to do any good.  Still "un Spider-Man like," but at least he's not knowingly "dealing with the devil."

I haven't read every post in this thread, far from it, but from the several pages I have read, reactions seem to be split down generational lines.  Those of you who got into ASM 'round about the time Peter was dating and ultimately married MJ in the mid-late '80s are pissed.  Those of us who had gotten into ASM a decade or so earlier, who were pissed about the change in status quo from a single Peter to a married one, are now happy that he's single (plus some) again. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  Y'all had a married Peter Parker for 20 years.  Me, I think it's about time to have the mainstream, flagship title be about the character most people can readily identify with.  I'm back on board.

***

I must have just missed that generational line. I discovered Spider-Man in 1985-86, and much prefer the unmarried Spider-Man. Of course, this probably has to do with the fact that I've read most of the Lee/Ditko and Lee/Romita stories as well. Looking back at the 60s, and seeing what originally made these characters tick (and that goes for a lot of characters, not just Spider-Man) really demonstrates how the core of the characters made them last as long, and as succesfully, as they have. A married, older, succesful Peter Parker was not part of that formula, so I'm glad to see it gone, and have high hopes for whatever comes next.

Michael Roberts wrote: If One More Day were completely forgotten about from this point on, I'd agree. But if the rumors about the Jackpot character introduced in the FCBD Spider-Man issue pan out, I don't think this will be the case.

Even if Jackpot really does turn out to be MJ, you might not have anything to worry about.  In current continuity, MJ found out Peter was Spider-Man really early on.  Assuming that that hasn't changed, in all likelihood the "divergence" means that she never told Peter she knew.  But that would be why she'd be acting funny around him rather than residual marriage memories.

My personal BND prediction is that they have a set plan in place with two endings, both involving MJ reuniting with Peter by #600.  If sales and fan reaction are positive, then they leave the reboot alone, Peter and MJ date, and go from there.  If sales take a nosedive and show no indications of coming up again, then they'll tie in the Mephisto stuff and partially undo the reboot.  Peter and MJ will be married again, but stuff like the id reveal and May's gunshot wound will still be undone.  Wait and see I guess.

I liked the marriage. I'm gonna miss it.  Spider-Man got married right about the time I got my first job in order to afford comic books on a regular basis. To me, he has always been married and that is the Spider-Man i have grown up with. 

I wish some people would consider that "he has always been that way" to many of us. We didn't demand he get married.  He just was, and he was still our hero.

Here's your basic problem. As EiC, Quesada approved the stuff he is now supposedly undoing. If he thought the spider-totem and Norman boinking Gwen were good ideas, why should any hope be held out that what happens "from this point on" has a chance of being any better?
******

Because that is how life works.  We try something, if it doesn't work, we try soemthing else.  Sometimes we make mistakes and don't realize it till after the fact.  Not everybody is perfect.

QUOTE: I must have just missed that generational line. I discovered Spider-Man in 1985-86, and much prefer the unmarried Spider-Man.

Eh, exceptions to every rule.  I've seen readers in their 40s swearing off the book forever because the marriage is gone and readers in their 30s lauding the return of the "real" Spider-Man.