Spider-Man: One More Day, One Moment in Time and Joe Q

[coolghoul]

Now that Barry and Hal are back Gwen along with Uncle Ben are two of the longest dead characters out there.
No doubt Marvel will find a way at some point to reverse that. Especially since Gwen is going to be such a big role in the new films. Gwen never made it her college years so its new ground for her in the movies.

Gwen, to me, is a strange anomalous character. I have read some of the Essential Spider-Man series which has Gwen in it and she seems to be the "caring" girl-next-door type as opposed to "party-girl" MJ Watson in the early years. After that, I've only heard mention of her in the comparatively current comics - Spider-Man: Blue, Sins Past and various other references that Spidey/Peter make from time to time.

Based on what little I know of her, I don't have a hard time thinking that she got involved with Norman Osborn - it's the standard cautionary Red Robin Hood and the big bad wolf tale. What I find very incredible is that she was gone for that long a time to have given birth to the twins (in Europe or wherever) and that Green Goblin had so much technology at that point in time as to do weird genetic experiments on the kids and so on. I know time is weird in the Marvel U - How can you have the same folks age only a decade or so while time moved from the 60s to 2010s! - But I just can't get past the fact that she must've been away for at least 8-10 months (give birth, recover her shapely shape and then "come back" and be thrown off the bridge). Is that supposed to have happened?

Btw, one of the things that I heard mention from JMS was that earlier there was a possibility that the kids would be Peter's (before they became Norman's). How would you have felt if the twins had been Peter's kids?

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Based on what little I know of her, I don't have a hard time thinking that she got involved with Norman Osborn - it's the standard cautionary Red Robin Hood and the big bad wolf tale. What I find very incredible is that she was gone for that long a time to have given birth to the twins [...] But I just can't get past the fact that she must've been away for at least 8-10 months (give birth, recover her shapely shape and then "come back" and be thrown off the bridge). Is that supposed to have happened?

This site gives an analysis of how it might have fit into continuity:

http://www.spideykicksbutt.com/GreenwithEvil/DeFloweringGwen.html

And trust me, it's LIGHT YEARS out of character for Gwen to sleep with Norman Osborn. I think that notion bothers me even more than the deal with the devil thing, frankly.

Btw, one of the things that I heard mention from JMS was that earlier there was a possibility that the kids would be Peter's (before they became Norman's). How would you have felt if the twins had been Peter's kids?

Still would've sucked. The entire idea should've been chucked by editorial.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Yes they essentially raped Gwen's character when they wrote that story line.

 

[Mr Light]

BTW having just read One More Day, y'know when the daughter character appears? Was that a reference to the baby that MJ was having but then those evil scientist people stole the baby and told her it died?

 

[coolghoul]

^ Are you talking about the baby stolen by the nurse towards the end of Clone Saga? If so, Marvel has disowned that baby. I don't quite understand why but that baby is never to be mentioned or something. Joe Q says that in one of the interview segments on CBR - that he's not going to talk about *that* baby - the Clone Saga one.

So, presumably, this is a "brand new baby" (if you'll excuse the sorry pun) who could've happened but didn't cos they gave it all up without thinking to their own future.

Btw, is this the first time you read OMD? I also read OMD a year or so later (I choose to believe that my library is a fan of the marriage and refuses to stock this story! ) and I didn't find it to be as abominable a junk-pile as what it's result was. i.e. I still don't like the 'dissolution' of the Spidey-MJ marriage but the books isn't *that* bad. How did you like it?

 

[Admiral_Young]

I can't remember now but I wouldn't be surprise...it wasn't an evil scientist but a nurse that Norman had paid off, the nurse revealed to MJ that it was still born but my feeling was that she just temporarily put a blanket over the mouth to keep it from crying and then delivered it to Norman. Of course though...no marriage though means this never happened.

 

[Mr Light]

Yeah I just read OMD for the very first time just now. I've been reading the BND stuff and enjoying it for the most part. "New Ways to Die" and "Election Day" were both four star stories. I haven't anything between Election Day and OMIT though, it's on my to-read list.

 

[Christopher]

And trust me, it's LIGHT YEARS out of character for Gwen to sleep with Norman Osborn.

I don't understand why people say that. It's not like it was her idea. Norman seduced her. He's a powerful man who's extremely skilled at manipulating or pressuring people into doing what he wants. She was much younger and more innocent. So she made a mistake. She let him push her into doing something she regretted. That's on Norman, not on her.

Personally, I think "Sins Past" was a great story for Gwen. It gave her more nuance and humanity than she'd ever had before -- made her fallible, yes, but fallibility is more human, more real, than the kind of hagiographic ideal that Gwen Stacy has too often been portrayed as since her death. Let's face it, Gwen didn't really have much personality when she was around. She was just The Girl. JMS made her more of a person. And he gave her agency in the story of her death, having it be about her, rather than having her just be a passive object, a pawn sacrificed in a confrontation between two men.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Actually JMS's original idea was that Peter would be the father of the twins but this was vetoed by the editors and Joe Q who felt like this would age Peter (again another reason why Brand New Day would happen), in fact JMS hoped to retcon the story using One More Day (he stated this in an interview with Newsarama shortly after the story arc hit).

The thing is though Gwen was already a pawn...if only a target, there was no reason for the retcon to occur in the first place. Norman specifically chose Gwen because she was Peter's girlfriend and thought that torment enough. Claiming that Gwen felt sorry for Norman and banged him adds nothing more to her death.

 

[coolghoul]

Personally, I think "Sins Past" was a great story for Gwen. It gave her more nuance and humanity than she'd ever had before -- made her fallible, yes, but fallibility is more human, more real, than the kind of hagiographic ideal that Gwen Stacy has too often been portrayed as since her death. Let's face it, Gwen didn't really have much personality when she was around. She was just The Girl. JMS made her more of a person. And he gave her agency in the story of her death, having it be about her, rather than having her just be a passive object, a pawn sacrificed in a confrontation between two men.

I think you're selling stereotyping a little short. Gwen, to me, has meaning (even tho' I've read only a few comics actually featuring her storyline from the original run) in a few important ways. To Peter -She's The Girl that got away, The Girl who never got to fulfill her life as it was cut short so cruelly, and even tho' I truly believe that the MJ-Peter story is better, he will always wonder what-might-have-been. It's the path not taken idea. It means more in it's unfulfilled promise than it would mean in any actually reached promise. The value of such a "trope" is important in storytelling.

Sure - it leaves Gwen herself as a Rorschach character. But not all characters need to have a very fleshed out this-is-it story.

Anyway - is there a what-if story where Peter actually marries Gwen and not MJ? How did it turn out?

Actually JMS's original idea was that Peter would be the father of the twins but this was vetoed by the editors and Joe Q who felt like this would age Peter (again another reason why Brand New Day would happen), in fact JMS hoped to retcon the story using One More Day (he stated this in an interview with Newsarama shortly after the story arc hit).

That could be another reason for consternation for the editors of BND when they were reviewing JMS' drafts for OMD. Doesn't one of the twin appear in the American Son storyline? If Gabriel was slated to appear, then the story editors couldn't let JMS undo the storyline so that Gabriel ceases to exist.

The thing is though Gwen was already a pawn...if only a target, there was no reason for the retcon to occur in the first place. Norman specifically chose Gwen because she was Peter's girlfriend and thought that torment enough. Claiming that Gwen felt sorry for Norman and banged him adds nothing more to her death.

The way I understand it, Norman was the banger and Gwen was the bangee. She was young... in college or something and per the retcon - during a turbulent teenage angst period of her life, made a mistake and slept with a powerful father-figure like character. It's not like *she* seduced *Norman* but the other way around. (tho' Norman's seduction was way more duplicitous than the normal charm-girl-to-get-in-her-pants seduction).

MJ also had an abusive step-father in her backstory, right? Tho' there might not have been sexual abuse there.

Sometimes I think it's more of the "sullying" of "Peter's First Love" that upsets fans. It's not that the character turns into a slut for having had sex with somebody but it's the visceral injustice of it all that she was banged by Norman, Peter's hated enemy, that upsets fans, I think.

Also, this kinda puts a completely different spin on why the Goblin kills Gwen. Prior to Sins Past, the understanding was that he hates Parker and so kills Parker's girlfriend. But after Sins Past, there might have been rejection and betrayal at play within the Goblin too - he might've hated the fact that instead of "remaining loyal" (I don't think Norman wanted Gwen's love) to him, she sided with his enemy and wanted to be with Peter!

 

[Admiral_Young]

Norman was definitely the banger and he took advantage of Gwen too as Christopher points out by seducing her. The thing though is that it seemed forced (the story line) and totally out of the blue and meant to be shocking for no other reason than to be shocking...he also was very aware of her relationship to Peter too (this whole thing takes place during a two week break or something like that where Peter was in France or something I can't remember now). Yes Gabriel was featured in the American Son mini-series.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

And trust me, it's LIGHT YEARS out of character for Gwen to sleep with Norman Osborn.

I don't understand why people say that. It's not like it was her idea. Norman seduced her. He's a powerful man who's extremely skilled at manipulating or pressuring people into doing what he wants. She was much younger and more innocent. So she made a mistake. She let him push her into doing something she regretted. That's on Norman, not on her.

She may not have initiated it, but there was no mind control or anything on Osborn's part (unless there's been some later retcon I'm unaware of). So it was still her choice. And what JMS wrote was completely out of sync with everything we'd been shown about Gwen in the decades prior.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Sometimes I think it's more of the "sullying" of "Peter's First Love" that upsets fans.

Nope. Betty Brant is still fine.

Also, this kinda puts a completely different spin on why the Goblin kills Gwen. Prior to Sins Past, the understanding was that he hates Parker and so kills Parker's girlfriend. But after Sins Past, there might have been rejection and betrayal at play within the Goblin too - he might've hated the fact that instead of "remaining loyal" (I don't think Norman wanted Gwen's love) to him, she sided with his enemy and wanted to be with Peter!

See, that's another thing that bothered me about that storyline. The Goblin didn't need any more motivation for killing Gwen! The simple fact that his enemy cared about her was enough. It's scarier, and frankly more villainous, the more random and arbitrary it is. It could have been anyone that Peter Parker cared about. It just happened to be Gwen because that's the first person the Goblin thought of.

 

[Christopher]

She may not have initiated it, but there was no mind control or anything on Osborn's part (unless there's been some later retcon I'm unaware of). So it was still her choice.

Yeah, so she made a bad choice, so what? That's called being human.

And what JMS wrote was completely out of sync with everything we'd been shown about Gwen in the decades prior.

Oh, like no comic book character has ever been portrayed differently by different writers before. And revisionism isn't automatically a bad thing.

The fact is, most stories about Gwen "in the decades prior" have been after her death. She's been this idealized, iconic figure of perfection, which is something living people never are. And when she was alive, Gwen didn't really have that much personality, and what she had was frankly pretty bitchy until she warmed up to Peter. But death tends to put a filter on our memories of people. It's easier to romanticize and idealize characters who aren't still around to show how imperfect and fallible they are. But if you then go back and tell a story about such a character when they were alive, I'd rather see that fallibility honestly represented.

See, that's another thing that bothered me about that storyline. The Goblin didn't need any more motivation for killing Gwen! The simple fact that his enemy cared about her was enough. It's scarier, and frankly more villainous, the more random and arbitrary it is.

But that makes it a story about men, where the woman is nothing more than a prop. She has no identity in the story except as an extension of the men. That's an antiquated, sexist approach to female characterization. What's cool about "Sins Past" is that it redefines the story of Gwen's death so that it's about Gwen herself. It gives the climactic story of her life meaning from her own point of view rather than just some man's point of view.

We've got tons of stories about men fighting men and using women as passive objects of desire or cruelty,of male villains holding female love interests hostage or stuffing them in refrigerators to get at the male heroes. There's far too much of that already in comics. JMS gave us a story that empowered Gwen Stacy and made her the central figure in her own final story -- as well as letting her be a fully realized, fallible human being rather than some idealized male fantasy -- and I find that refreshing.

 

[Admiral_Young]

It's not only just that "Sins Past" sully's fans memory of Gwen, it also did the same thing to Peter and threatened to hurt his relationship with MJ who had carried the secret all of these years. I remember sharing the exact same feelings of shock that Peter had when he was reading Gwen's letter and discovered her secret. Then anger at what had been done to her character.

Christopher you still haven't explained why you think this empowered Gwen. I don't see how it did since ultimately she was still killed and was still a pawn, even more so after giving birth to the twins. The fact is that this story line hasn't had much impact since it was introduced...they attempted a follow up story "Sins Forgotten" but that had no impact and then until recently it was forgotten. Suffice to say that you're pretty much in the minority where it comes to the storyline.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Oh, like no comic book character has ever been portrayed differently by different writers before. And revisionism isn't automatically a bad thing.

Never said it was. But completely changing a character's previously established personality so that you can shoehorn her into your plot idea is just bad writing, IMO.

But if you then go back and tell a story about such a character when they were alive, I'd rather see that fallibility honestly represented.

I'm fine with her being presented as falliable. I'm not OK with her being presented as acting in a manner that's totally inconsistent with her character.

But that makes it a story about men, where the woman is nothing more than a prop. She has no identity in the story except as an extension of the men. That's an antiquated, sexist approach to female characterization. What's cool about "Sins Past" is that it redefines the story of Gwen's death so that it's about Gwen herself. It gives the climactic story of her life meaning from her own point of view rather than just some man's point of view.

But the only reason any of this was done to her character was to see how it would affect Peter Parker. So she's still just a prop in his larger story. And I think her gender was immaterial in this case. At the end of the day, Gwen was a supporting character, the same as Aunt May, Mary Jane, J. Jonah Jameson or Flash Thompson. The main reason they exist is to shed new light on the central character of Peter Parker. Spider-Man has a large cast, but it is not an ensemble drama.

And Gerry Conway's story was regarded as a classic for 30 years before JMS suddenly decided it wasn't up to snuff. I've gotten very sick of comic writers rewriting the previous writers of a series instead of telling their own stories. If this was a story that JMS was burning to tell, I think it could have been much more effectively done as an Elseworlds-equivalent.

 

[Christopher]

Christopher you still haven't explained why you think this empowered Gwen. I don't see how it did since ultimately she was still killed and was still a pawn, even more so after giving birth to the twins.

Empowerment doesn't necessarily mean victory or even survival. It can simply mean having agency, being the person whose choices and character shape the story rather than just being a peripheral object. There are plenty of stories where the hero dies at the end, but that doesn't make the hero powerless if it's his or her choices that shape that outcome. In "Sins Past," yes, Norman still killed Gwen, but he did it because she had defied him, because she was a threat to his plans. It was about her, rather than just being about one man versus another man with the woman reduced to a hapless prop.

Suffice to say that you're pretty much in the minority where it comes to the storyline.

I have no problem with that. As long as I enjoy something, why should other people's preferences have any effect on that?

Never said it was. But completely changing a character's previously established personality so that you can shoehorn her into your plot idea is just bad writing, IMO.

I don't see it as completely changing her personality, just revealing something new about it.

I mean, really, it's not as if Stan Lee or Gerry Conway could write openly about Gwen Stacy's sex life back in the '60s and '70s. So do we really know that her actions in "Sins Past" contradict her past characterization, or is that just an assumption? Heck, she was a college student in the '70s. Of course she was sexually active, and it's unlikely that Peter was her first or only partner.

But the only reason any of this was done to her character was to see how it would affect Peter Parker. So she's still just a prop in his larger story.

No, because like most things in life, it's not all-or-nothing. Yes, it's about the effect on Peter, but unlike the original story, it's not only about that. It's about Peter and Gwen equally, as it should be.

And I think her gender was immaterial in this case.

Easy for a man to say.

And Gerry Conway's story was regarded as a classic for 30 years before JMS suddenly decided it wasn't up to snuff.

Don't be ridiculous. Revisiting a classic story isn't about disapproving of it. It's about respecting it enough to feel there are new insights that can be gained into it. When criticism of a story turns into ad hominem attacks on the storyteller's motives, it becomes simply childish, mean-spirited, and unworthy of a hearing. So I'm walking away from this.

 

[coolghoul]

Christopher you still haven't explained why you think this empowered Gwen. I don't see how it did since ultimately she was still killed and was still a pawn, even more so after giving birth to the twins.

Empowerment doesn't necessarily mean victory or even survival. It can simply mean having agency, being the person whose choices and character shape the story rather than just being a peripheral object. There are plenty of stories where the hero dies at the end, but that doesn't make the hero powerless if it's his or her choices that shape that outcome. In "Sins Past," yes, Norman still killed Gwen, but he did it because she had defied him, because she was a threat to his plans. It was about her, rather than just being about one man versus another man with the woman reduced to a hapless prop.

I *somewhat* disagree, Christopher. Sure there was some agency granted to Gwen in 'Sins Past'. But not much in terms of how it changes The Death of Gwen Stacy. She is still not deciding anything major in that story - It's still the Goblin throwing her over the edge and Peter unable to save her. All it does, is change the reading of the events. Now the Goblin and Gwen aren't disinterested parties wrt each other. And in a way, it makes it more *sexist* - since Goblin has been rejected by the girl in favor of Peter, he's just taking it out on the girl for rejecting him (and in the process hurting Peter, his enemy). In a way, it makes the story more a crime of passion from the Goblin's pov than anything else.

 

[Forbin]

I mean, really, it's not as if Stan Lee or Gerry Conway could write openly about Gwen Stacy's sex life back in the '60s and '70s. So do we really know that her actions in "Sins Past" contradict her past characterization, or is that just an assumption? Heck, she was a college student in the '70s. Of course she was sexually active, and it's unlikely that Peter was her first or only partner.

Ah, but when the twins' existence was revealed, Pete exclaimed "But Gwen and I never --"

Which I frankly find impossible to believe. Especially the way Romita drew her!

 

[Admiral_Young]

Yep it was implied that Peter and Gwen had never slept together with that line of dialogue which really was one of the reasons why it bugged fans so much because it implied that they were waiting and Norman STOLE that moment from Peter. I highly doubt that Gwen was sleeping around a lot, just the way she was written and how she seemed to be brought up, I think she had a different set of values than now, this isn't Bryce Howard Gwen where you would believe that she was mowing through men every chance she got.