b5jms-admin at cs.columbia.edu b5jms-admin at cs.columbia.edu
Thu Feb 21 04:29:10 EST 2002

From: "Brett Todd" <btoddNOSPAM at recorder.ca>
Lines: 50
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 22:32:37 -0500

Again, I don't think this qualifies as change. JMS is rewriting stuff from
the past. Change is great as long as it looks forward. Going back and
"fixing" the things that you don't like, that's what bothers me in this
case. And most of all, I don't think that these things are necessary. You
could've had the Ezekiel/Morlun arc without getting into the ridiculous
dime-store philosophy questioning the nature of Spider-Man's powers. The
Aunt May discovery could have been handled without rewriting how Uncle Ben

Glad that you're enjoying the issues, though. You're probably right that for
everyone who bails somebody new will sign up. Though I don't think you can
replace the hardcore fans that will be lost with new hardcore types. Those
that show up will mostly be flavor of the month types who will stick around
for JMS's 30 issues or so and then move on. Why you always get these spikes
in circulation when a new writer revitalizes a title, and why it soon dies
back down to standard levels.


"Glenn Simpson" <gls3609479 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1287ea8f.0202181842.1cd671 at posting.google.com...
> I'll jump in here while the water's warm...
> Sure, JMS is changing things. Maybe he's even changing things farther
> than anyone else is changing things. That doesn't make it a bad thing.
> You're a long-time reader who doesn't like these changes. I'm a long
> time reader who does - or to be more specific, I don't mind them. I
> see it as just the next progression in the evolution of the character.
>  I'd rather have the characters change and evolve as I do - not just
> be stagnant.  Can good stories be told using the usual setting? Sure.
> But why bother, when it's more interesting for the writer (who's the
> one doing all the work here) to change things up a bit?
> I believe that for every reader who leaves because of the changes, at
> least one will come on. Maybe even two.
> Sure, Peter now knows that his Aunt feels just as guilty, and that she
> also had an opportunity to stop Uncle Ben from dying. That doesn't
> mean he's going to chuck the whole thing. He's tried to quit plenty of
> times before. What brings him back is his inability to stand by and
> let other people get hurt. That's what makes him a hero.
> So, while I'm sorry you're unhappy with the changes, I have to
> disagree that it's going to lead to the downfall of mankind as we know
> it. Life is change. Everybody's just trying to make a buck and tell an
> interesting story along the way.  And you don't have to work for
> Marvel to feel that way.

Lines: 63
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 19 Feb 2002 05:11:32 GMT

If I may be so bold....

>Going back and
>"fixing" the things that you don't like, that's what bothers me in this

There was nothing there that I didn't like, that I would therefore want to
change...and, in fact, I didn't change it, as will be noted in a moment.

>could've had the Ezekiel/Morlun arc without getting into the ridiculous
>dime-store philosophy questioning the nature of Spider-Man's powers.

What's wrong with asking questions?  It was never resolved that Ezekiel was
right.  He just raised the question and set up a possible context.  If you
recall what was actually written in the issue, Spidey finally comes out to say
he doesn't know if Ezekiel's right or wrong because (and this is a direct
quote) "it doesn't matter to who I am."

Peter got his powers through the bite of a radioactive spider.  That is
unchanged.  I asked a question about the nature of the spider in the Marvel
universe which is full of amazing creatures -- thunder gods, gamma irradiated
people, other guys who can talk to ants, sorcerers and sorceresses and Lokis --
so within that context, how improbable is that question, really?  

But having said that, at the end of the day, I did not resolve the question in
Ezekiel's favor.  I left it open.  You're certainly free to dismiss it, because
for the most part Peter did.  

So that changes nothing in who he is, only asks a question about context.

>Aunt May discovery could have been handled without rewriting how Uncle Ben

In the original story, Ben died at the hands of the man Peter Parker set free. 
In this story, that still happens.  That has not in any way, manner, shape or
form been changed.

What has been added was that May and Ben had an argument that night.  It's
never been said that they *didn't* argue.  She said she never saw him alive
again.  In continuity, Ben surprised the guy in the house, as I recall.  She
could well have gone up to bed after the argument, he came back in...whammo.

Either way you look at it, however, in not one lick of this is Ben's death
rewritten.  Not anywhere.  It adds an outside context, because I like playing
with context, but it doesn't change the details one bit.

Anyway, I just wanted to jump in because while I don't mind being pilloried for
things I have done -- sometimes it's warranted, sometimes it ain't, those are
the breaks -- I do kinda mind being pilloried for things I *didn't* do.

And your statement is factually incorrect.


(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2001 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)

More information about the B5JMS mailing list