Interesting in that it demonstrates the degree to which Spider-Man is screwed up. Only a cosmic enema could ever have any chance of restoring the character to what he once was -- and what he was supposed to be.

QUOTE: I still think JMS has handled Peter and MJ well as a married couple--in some areas, he's probably handled them the best.

I disagree.
For me, they don't seem a married couple anymore. I was talking about this with a friend of mine days ago... They don't act like 2 married people. Yes, they live together, but then...? Their relation doesn't seem real, for me. They don't share anything (experiences, good and bad moments...), they don't go anywhere (cinema? theatre? nope), they aren't building their own future. I could say they seem kids, not grown ups. 

Resetting Spider-Man to his "original" state doesn't negate any of the stories written from 1980-whatever onward, any more than the Crisis (and MoS) "erased" Superman stories from the Silver Age or JSA stories from modern continuity. The stories are still there-- they can be collected, read, recommended or disregarded as readers choose-- but a reset has the advantages of getting Peter Parker back to what made the character appealing (and relatable) in the first place, IMHO.

And I reiterate my point from upthread-- the marriage was a terrible idea. Doesn't matter who writes it, it was a mistake and ought to be undone.

I think a reset does negate the stories-becaus to the character, they never happened. and one of the appealing things about Marvel to me growing up was these stories happened, the character had awareness of them, they were history for the character. Heck many people are still sore over Crisis and the new Superman (not me but others).  Their universe ended with Crisis, their Superman was gone.

TO simply tell me that my entire reading of Spider-man "never happened" and was wrong is a big FU to me and I would treat it as such.

"Not saying that sales would be lower if he was single or anything like that, but blaming the marriage on every sales hit the Spider-Man books have taken over the last 20 years is just scapegoating.  Some people like it, some people hate it, and for others it's simply been the reality for as long as they've been alive."

I don't think anyone is blaming the marriage for "every sales hit" and you can write good stories featuring married Peter and MJ.

BUT...there's a whole bunch of stories you could write for single Peter you can't write for married Peter.  AND...there's a whole bunch of marriage appropriate stories you can't write for Peter, either.

Peter and MJ were never supposed to be like Clark Kent and Lois Lane.  When you write them like Clark and Lois, you don't necessarily end up with horrible stories.  You do, however, lose some very important character elements that used to set Peter Parker apart from other super-heroes.

Mike

After the marriage, sales were doing pretty well - heck, Spider-Man wound up with a fourth solo title.  >>>>

That was pure speculator nonsense combined with an ego trip for Todd McFarlane.

*****************

Not like there was a plummeting readership.  What seemed to kill the books was the middle/tail end of the Clone Saga, which basically used "comic book" tropes in an effort to undo the marriage.  Didn't go over well. 

*********************

Again, if the twist in the Clone Saga had been the revelation that Mary Jane was a clone and the real one had been kidnapped, resulting in the real one not being married to Peter and the clone "degenerating," I don't think fans would have reacted as they did. It was the whole "this isn't Peter Parker" that got them. Oh and the story taking FOREVER.

<<< Currently, the situations that seem to be driving Spider-Man readers away have nothing to do with the marriage.  It's having the dead girlfriend sleeping with his arch enemy retroactively, Mystic Warrior Spider-Man, etc.  Those stories would be crap no matter what his marital status was.  >>

Agreed.

However, I think the marriage is a major symptom of the problem with Spider-Man. Spider-Man should be a kid. If he's not, the character is all wrong. Marriage is one of the most adult things someone can do (yes, yes, I know the cynical responses that will be made) and I can't think of anything more inappropriate for Spider-Man.

I don't see how you can dismantle everything unique about a character in the name of "growth" and think that's a good thing.

1963 Spider-Man: Teenage high school student living with his aunt who had money problems. Much like "Buffy," his battles were very much a metaphor for adolesence itself.

2006 Spider-Man: Thirtysomething (!) high school teacher (!) living with his wife (!) in Avengers Mansion.

I agree with Glenn about JMS and the marriage. I frankly think he writes it the best at least in a long time

I take my car to the World's Worst Engine Mechanic. He never fixes the actual problem, but since he does a great job cleaning the windshield, it's OK!

"Spider-Man had one of the best supporting casts in comicdom, but over
the last 15 years or so, the members of that supporting cast have been
woefully neglected--or simply killed off (it pretty much happened right
after Tom DeFalco and Ron Frenz were bounced off AMAZING by "editor"
Jim Owsley)."

I wonder if that isn't one of the observable consequences of the marriage?  If you want a good marriage, your spouse should become the major person in your life, right?  You don't have to become a hermit, but a happily married man should have less time to spend with other people.  It's not even a conscious thing on the part of creators, it's that the book is no longer about Peter Parker.  It's about BOTH Peter and MJ.  That has to change the dynamic.

You also might be able to argue that the Daily Bugle folks were also affected by the marriage because "freelance photographer always short of money" seems like a perfectly fine job for an early 20-something guy.  It can seem a little immature and irresponsible for a pushing-30 married guy.  Immature if his wife makes a lot more money than him.  Irresponsible if she doesn't.

Mike

No wonder this industry is fuct up.

1963 Spider-Man: Teenage high school student living with his aunt who had money problems. Much like "Buffy," his battles were very much a metaphor for adolesence itself.

***

Wasn't his peak popularit the Romita years? When he was in college, living with Harry and had two hot babes around at all times? Still had tons of problems and angst and was still young but these weren't the Ditko years either.

If fans rejected the idea of "this isn't Peter Parker and all of these stories did not happen to the real deal" why would they accept a story invalidating all of those stories.  Instead of the last 20 years didn't happen to Peter Parker, the last 20 years in effect didn't happen.  I don;t think they'd accept that.

Spider-man just needed some good and or fun stories told about him. When he has that, he is popular.  Married or not.