I disagree, too, Greg. Sure, Gwen and Peter had their problems, but I don't see her simply fading away, the way Betty Brant did.

Despite their problems, Peter and Gwen were head over heels in love. One of the sad aspects of their relationship is that Peter never seemed to fully realize just how much Gwen loved him, while we, the readers, knew all along. He frequently suspected her of seeing other guys (usually Flash Thompson) behind his back, although Gwen never would do such a thing. It's another reason the "Sins Past" storyline makes no sense -- she wouldn't even go on a date with Flash, but she'll sleep with the Green Goblin?!? Blech.

Anyway, I just don't see one of these two ever leaving the other, not for any extended period of time. Peter inadvertently put Gwen through the emotional wringer, yet she stuck with him through it all. I agree that for Mary Jane to enter the picture, Gwen pretty much had to die.

Bringing Gwen back would be the final step in completely destroying the power and meaning of ASM # 121-122.

**********

I couldn't agree more. "The Death of Gwen Stacy" is quite possibly the best Spider-Man story ever written. It's so powerful and poignant, without being cheap or sensationalistic.

Bringing Gwen back just wouldn't be a good idea, although I wouldn't mind seeing her in some flashback/"Untold Tales" stories. That is, as long as those stories are true to the character we saw in the Lee/Romita years. 

<<<Bringing Gwen back would be the final step in completely destroying
the power and meaning of ASM # 121-122.>>>


You know, Greg, I think you just won me over.

+++++++++++

Good!

Seriously, think about it.

Between the clones, Osborn's resurrection, "Sins Past", the constant references to the bridge (and recreations/homages of the death scene), etc., that story has has slowly been gutted. Bringing Gwen back would be the final straw.

The story has power because the deaths therein are depicted as real (and because the permanent deaths of longtime supporting characters was something of a rarity in comics at that point).

And Spider-Man reflects on the meaning of those deaths (or lack thereof) at story's end. Indeed, Norman Osborn's death is just as important as Gwen's, really. It provided an important thematic capper to the story, and it also had a huge impact on what came later.

Personally, I love the first Clone Saga. It was really quite brilliant. Conway showed Peter gradually working through his grief (and building a relationship with Mary Jane), only to then have the Jackal come along and use Gwen's clone as a psychological weapon against Spider-Man. Thus, Conway turned a bad idea (bringing Gwen back--albeit as a clone) into something genuinely interesting and poignant.

The ending of the story shows Peter coming to terms with Gwen's death, and puts him in a place where he's finally ready to move on. Then, he finds Mary Jane waiting for him at his apartment (echoing the end of ASM # 122). The End.

It's a perfect epliogue to the "death of Gwen" story, and in many ways, the end of the epic first chapter of Spider-Man's history (from Amazing Fantasy # 15 to Amazing Spider-Man # 149).

It should have ended there. And it did, for a while. But more and more writers (particularly fan-turned-pro writers) kept referencing Gwen and her death. And, starting in the 90s, especially, it turned into a flood of references, "homages", and retcons.

<<<Bringing Gwen back would be the final step in completely destroying
the power and meaning of ASM # 121-122.>>>

Yeah cause it's been published in what? The ancient 1960s? Why would new readers give a damn, they've never even read it. I didn't even know who Gwen was when I was a kid.

Anyway, I just don't see one of these two ever leaving the other, not for any extended period of time. Peter inadvertently put Gwen through the emotional wringer, yet she stuck with him through it all. I agree that for Mary Jane to enter the picture, Gwen pretty much had to die.

++++++++

The only way that might work is if Gwen discovered that Peter was Spider-Man.

Although it seemed that she was slowly working past her hatred of Spider-Man (and this was also indicated later on in MARVELS), whom she initially blamed for her father's death, that aspect of discovering Peter's secret probably wouldn't be a deal-breaker.

Indeed, in the classic "What if Gwen Stacy had lived?" story, there's a wonderful scene where Gwen discovers the secret, and Peter explains his whole story to her (and they then get married).

However, given Gwen's characterization, it wouldn't be too hard to say that she simply couldn't deal with the stress of Peter constantly putting his life in danger, and thus she might conceivably leave him as a result.

After all, many times prior to her death, Gwen begged Peter to stay away from trouble and to not get involved with Spider-Man and his adventures. Learning that Peter was putting his life at risk every day, and had kept this a secret from her for a long, long time might have been a deal-breaker.

In the short run, readers would have been deprived of one of the best and most touching Spider-Man stories ever done, but in the long run, Gwen wouldn't have died, and things would probably be very different today.

<<<Bringing Gwen back would be the final step in completely destroying
the power and meaning of ASM # 121-122.>>>

Yeah cause it's been published in what? The ancient 1960s? Why would new readers give a damn, they've never even read it. I didn't even know who Gwen was when I was a kid.

+++++++++

For anyone who does know the story, it would certainly be diminished.

And for any new readers who sought out the story, it would be a very different story thanks to the fact that Gwen secretly had Osborn's kids, and later "got better" and is now running around hale and hearty.

If I'm ever named King of Comics, one of my first decrees will be a moratorium on "Death of Gwen Stacy homage" scenes. I mean, how many times can Peter fight a villain atop a bridge with a young woman's life on the line ("No! Not again! I can't let you die, too!")?

The Jackal saga is a great storyline - the Conway/Andru team at its best. The Jackal should've stayed dead. To me, he was a villain who was created for a specific purpose and when that story was told, he was done. Bringing him back just didn't work for me, although I did like the Carrion storyline in PPTSS #25-31.

The ending of Amazing Spider-Man #149 is great. Peter comes back to his apartment, finds Mary Jane, tells her he's going to show her how much she means to him - and closes the door behind them. Nowadays, I'm afraid that scene would be played out with far less subtlety and tact.

The Jackal saga is a great storyline - the Conway/Andru team at its best. The Jackal should've stayed dead. To me, he was a villain who was created for a specific purpose and when that story was told, he was done. Bringing him back just didn't work for me, although I did like the Carrion storyline in PPTSS #25-31.

++++++++

Agreed.

Regarding the "goodness" of ASM #545:  I thought it was an ok issue in itself in that it was establishing the new direction and was a good jumping on point.  The point is, it was well written because Dan Slott is a talented writer, not because of the reboot.  A good writer can write a good Spider-Man story if Peter is married or not.  Marvel and DC are stuck in a mindset that thinks that they have to set up the shot for the writer using a big event or reboot.  A good writer can hit one out of the ballpark regardless. 

As a "jumping on" point, I jumped on and now I'm jumping off.  I like Dan Slott as a writer but this "new direction" doesn't appeal to me anymore then the other 200 "new directions" Spider-Man has already had in the 21st century.  Peter Parker is now just plain unlikable and is a sad human being to read about.

The earlier quotes from Chad Carter echo my thoughts exactly:

"The Marvel Editorial has shown Peter Parker to be a weak-willed."

"Spider-Man was one of the only true individual superheroes in comics. He grew up before he should have, upon his Uncle Ben's death. He accepted his role as hero because he couldn't shirk his duty to society. He studied hard to get a good job in some indeterminate future, and had Daily Bugle work to support his Aunt's failing health. He did all of this ALONE, accepted all responsibility for his short-comings, and kept going despite everything. Stan Lee's generation understood what that meant...Q's evidently does not. Stan Lee's generation walked on the moon and advanced civil rights; Q's generation advanced selfish choices as paramount and verified the Individual as a shill for higher powers."

I'm hoping that this mess will eventually turn out to be a good thing, despite the controversy over how its been done.

Maybe this will drive away all those fans who are obsessed with growth and change, and will allow for the influx of new readers. Readers who aren't addicts who continue to buy a product they hate, readers who aren't dependent on notions of continuity and "realism", readers who read because it's fun, not because comics are an "investment".

Now, we just need a way to drive away the current Powers-That-Be at M*****, and to bring in some people who truly understand and appreciate the genre and the material.

This OMD thing has really been quite controversial. It's seemed like each successive storyline of the past few years has provoked exactly this sort of reaction, and with increasingly large amounts of anger and outrage. It'll be a while before the jury is in, so to speak. Either sales will drop (old fans quitting), sales will rise (new fans reading), or sales will stay the same (fans keep buying, despite their complaints).

Ideally, characters like Spider-Man should be evergreen, and should last for generations. But could it be that Spider-Man (the original, comic book Spider-Man, that is) is simply a character tied to a specific time and place, one whose day is almost done?

In a world that has changed so much since 1962, can it be that the elements which made Spider-Man so successful are the same elements which prevent him from maintaining popularity with comic readers (his original audience)? Should Spider-Man adapt to meet the needs of today's readers, and risk becoming something alien to longtime fans? Or should he stay true to what he was originally?

If there is still a place for good ol' Spider-Man in today's world, then how can he find it? What needs to be done to make him accessible to all those kids out there?

Or will a day come when the character should be retired (at least in the comics), instead of facing a slow and painful end?

Probably the highest period of critical acclaim was in the 60s. Partially because back then, everything was new and different and partially because (as history has shown), Lee and Ditko (...and Romita and those who came later, to a lesser extent) broke new ground, and told what are quite possibly the best super-hero stories the genre has ever seen.

Of course, the early 1990s brought the highest sales the character has ever seen, due primarily to the speculator boom. But, at the same time, the 90s were a period of major instability and critical failure for the character. And it's seemed like the character has been moving father and farther off the rails since then.

From http://www.comichron.com/Default.aspx?tabid=208

The Amazing Spider-Man:

1963	no data published
1964	no data published
1965	no data published
1966	340,155
1967	361,663
1968	373,303
1969	372,352
1970	322,195
1971	307,550
1972	288,379
1973	273,204
1974	288,232
1975	273,773
1976	282,159
1977	281,860
1978	258,156
1979	no data published
1980	296,712
1981	242,781
1982	240,683
1983	241,762
1984	261,254
1985	326,695
1986	276,064
1987	284,692
1988	271,100
1989	266,100
1990	334,893
1991	340,977
1992	544,900
1993	592,442
1994	353,025
1995	234,290
1996	216,779
1997	159,950
1998	119,547
1999	127,915
2000	113,685
2001	113,557
2002	122,572
2003	122,173
2004	123,540
2005	112,564
2006	no data published

If this sales data is accurate, then the year of highest sales was 1993 (due to the speculators, of course), and the lowest in 2005 (although I believe I've read elsewhere that average sales for 2006 were even lower). On average, the highest recorded sales prior to the speculator boom were in the 60s, when the character was at his creative peak.

After doing some quick math, here are the average sales of Amazing Spider-Man for each decade (which are, of course, skewed a bit by the missing years with no available data):

1960s: 361,868

1970s: 286,168

1980s: 270,784

1990s: 302,472

2000s: 118,015

Currently, sales are holding steady around 100,000-150,000 (not a bad number in today's unhealthy industry), but I must wonder how this latest turn of events will affect that. Will longtime readers, outraged by the dissolution of the marriage, leave in droves?

And, of course, now that Spider-Man has basically transcended his comic roots and become a mulit-media figure, is it possible for him to "make a living", so to speak, in other media? Movies, tv, toys, and so on?

The comic incarnation of the character may be slowly dying on the vine, but the popularity (and financial success) of the movies, toys, and other ancillaries prove that the character is still beloved around the world. A whole heck of a lot of kids have met Spider-Man by way of movies, cartoons, and toys, without ever having even seen a comic book.

All this makes me wonder just what strange future is in store for our favorite web-slinger. 

Thoughts?