(I promise this is my absolute last word on anything to do with “One More Day” until, I dunno, they make Spidey gay for Harry Osborn or something.)
One of the basic premises of the Spider-Man reboot with “One More Day” is that the marriage of Peter and Mary Jane, as it stands, doesn’t “work” as a storytelling device, that it impedes the natural flow of the character. This is not an unfair criticism, because for a great deal of the lifespan of the marriage, Peter and MJ’s relationship has almost been a chore rather than something that works for telling stories.
However, that’s not something that’s intrinsically the fault of the marriage itself, but rather the fact that most of the Spider-writers haven’t had any clue what to do with it. There are of course notable exceptions. J.M. DeMatteis’ final Harry Osborn as Green Goblin saga is a big one, using MJ and Peter’s relationship as an excellent grounding point for Harry’s insanity. Matt Fraction’s recent annual, positing Spidey and MJ as an unbreakable team, is even better because it gets right of the heart of what a marriage should be.
But I’m getting away from the reason I started writing this, which is Erik Larsen’s most recent column, wherein, discussing recent Spider-events, he raises a point of comparison:
“And that’s what has happened with Superman — with Lois in the know about the Clark and Superman and married to him — the dynamic has changed and the new dynamic simply isn’t as interesting as the old dynamic. The old dynamic worked — the new one doesn’t.”
This is where one has to respectfully point out that Erik Larsen has, I suspect, taken up smoking crack – because the Supermarriage works well. In fact, it works naturally and uniquely well. And there are good reasons for this.
The Supermarriage works, firstly, because it approaches the concept of marriage from the proper perspective for a superhero comic: as a team-up. Because, really, what is marriage if not the ultimate team-up?
Back in the 1970s, the Bronze Age Superman comics made some startling editorial changes. Lois Lane stopped being a fucking idiot and became quite rightly portrayed as a brilliant journalist in her own right – and capable of recognizing that Clark Kent wasn’t half a bad catch on his own. Both of these elements were reinforced by the very strong hints (indeed, often not so much “hints” as “saying it right out”) in the 1970s comics that Lois had already figured out that Clark was Superman, and that the stumbling block for the relationship wasn’t that she could only love Superman and not Clark, but that she couldn’t accept a relationship with someone who was constantly lying to her, even if it were for her own good.
All of this is why Lois works as an equal partner for Superman. In capable hands, she’s portrayed as a bit smarter than Big Blue, which makes sense – she doesn’t have powers to fall back upon when she gets stumped by a problem. She’s definitely ballsier than he is, and entirely too willing to pick up a giant gun from S.T.A.R. Labs if she thinks her husband is in trouble fighting a giant evil baddie villain person. They’re a team, and that’s the storytelling model, even if Superman gets top billing. (Except in a Lois Lane series, which, come on now, is something vitally needed. She had two-hundred-something issues fifty years ago, for crissake; surely we can get her a miniseries or two now?)
I mean, does anybody write in saying that the Fantastic Four just doesn’t work because they’re a family rather than a bunch of friends?
Bringing it back to Spider-Man and MJ now: if we take the rules that make the Supermarriage work, we see that by and large they don’t apply to the Spider-marriage. MJ barely ever gets treated as an equal partner to Spider-Man, and in fact got shoved into a supermodel gimmick that’s not only detrimental to the lovable-loser image of Spider-Man – and if you think a lovable loser can’t have a hot wife in a good ongoing narrative, I’d point out that The King of Queens has been a hit show for how many years again? – but both patronizing and insulting to MJ’s character to boot. “Tee hee I’m a supermodel giggle giggle (*wears lingerie* *makes mock-pouty face*)” isn’t going to win over any new fans, much less bring the old ones on board unless you assume that all the old-school fans are borderline-misogynist losers, which – wait a second…
Seriously, though. If you want the marriage to work as a storytelling device, it’s not hard: you find the strengths Mary Jane has which complement Peter in a team-up sense and allow her to use them. Giving her a job where she makes a lot of money doesn’t count, especially when the job is predicated on her being pretty, because that just implies that Mary Jane is just a set of tits and a nice smile. Besides, MJ being hot doesn’t logically lead to her being rich and successful anyway. There are plenty of hot women who work as bank tellers and Starbucks servers, you know.
MJ’s strengths that complement Peter? She’s more socially adept than he is (Peter Parker, when properly written, should always have that slight anxiety that personifies the grown-up nerd), which means she’s ideal for covering his ass when he’s nearly going to get his secret identity exposed or when he needs to make a quick change. She knows people – even if she’s not famous, MJ should be the sort of person who knows somebody everywhere who’s willing to do her a solid just because they like her. And she probably follows cultural news a lot more closely than he does.
And, sincerely – the Jackpot idea (assuming that MJ is Jackpot and it’s not just a huge Marvel swerve, which it of course could be) is actually pretty good, the one redeemable portion of the whole stupid retcon mess. Even if MJ is an inactive super when married to Peter – she’s still a super.
Related Articles
17 users responded in this post
So, on the subject of the Supermarriage, what’s your take on Black Panther and Storm? A lot of the criticism I’ve heard mainly comes out of poor characterization. Do you think their marriage actually has serious storytelling potential and if so, what?
Retconning out the Spidermarriage is right up there with so many of the damn-fool storylines lately. Yes, the characters have to remain baseline so they’re as recognizable your grandkids as they are to your grandparents, but they can and MUST evolve! Otherwise Peter should be back in highschool again which it looks like they almost did – JUST to him, not the other supers he’s interacted with – which is basically ALL of them! (Seriously – anyone that he HASN’T teamed up with at LEAST once?!?!)
MJ is the jackpot for Peter. I predict the sales are going to drop until they either re-ignite them (one”…hit the jackpot, tiger!” image would add a zero to the end of circulation numbers!) or they’re going to do what happened to the Flash (“Oh, turns out we’re idiots! Wally and family are back!”)
I know! Let’s put Peter in Captain America’s uniform and screw up BOTH stories even further! (Steve Rogers IS still dead, right?)
It’s seriously time to re-boot Marvel.
And their storylines.
What Lois needs is a Superhero identity of her own: not for adventuring, which she can do perfectly well by herself, but for social purposes. It became painful during the GA/BC marriage sequence when she was present in her civilian identity, as Superman’s wife. Which pretty much means that every random DC Super now knows that Superman is Clark.
Now it’s not a bad thing that she’s there – she’d have at least a passing acquaintance with Dinah, and the Lois/ Diana relationship is one that needs to be fleshed out. But she needs the tools of the trade – a costume and a mask (maybe even a flight ring) and she could be L-El. Then we have a story where Jimmy is trying to uncover her secret identity (turnabout being fair play) as hilarity ensues.
I really, REALLY fail to see how Erik Larsen can believe the old Superman/Lois/Clark dynamic was more interesting than what we’ve had since Clark let Lois in on the secret. Seriously, even in the Bronze Age setup you describe, it’s just two people endlessly dancing around the same point for decades, bound by storytelling conventions to never reach a resolution.
I don’t agree with the argument that single Spider-Man works better than married Spidey, but I at least understand it–people like seeing Peter struggle with his hard luck on various problems, and romance used to be one of the avenues that angle could take. But a “OMD” style reset on Superman would only return to a direction that’s LESS nuanced, not more. It’s one thing to pine for a return to the Silver Age Spider-Man because that is rightfully considered one of the creative highpoints for the character. But with all due respect to the creators behind the Bronze Age Superman, that era isn’t regarded as the period when DC totally got Clark’s romantic life right.
The bottom line is that Larsen would rather see Spider-Man and Superman the way they were in the ’60s and ’70s because Larsen grew up in the ’60s and ’70s. (And gee, Quesada’s the same age, fancy that.) It’s an easy trap to fall into, to believe that the best direction for comics today is to make your inner twelve-year-old happy. But the goal of the industry ought to be to appeal to the twelve-year-olds of today; trying not to irritate the twelve-year-olds of yesterday is a laudable side goal but not the utmost priority.
Eh, I don’t know if I like Mary Jane or Lois in costume. Frankly, one of my favorite comic characters for years was Mia Dearden, introduced by Kevin Smith in Quiver, who was given AIDS and then suddenly shoehorned into a costume as the new Speedy. She worked already as an ex-prostitute who operated as Oliver Queen’s grounding and daughter. Getting her in costume eventually, sure, maybe an option, but they lost sight of who she was for a while there.
One of my big complaints with the Spider-Man movies was that MJ wasn’t MJ. I mean, neither was Peter, since he rarely if ever wisecracked when in costume (it didn’t feel like the costume empowered him to let loose like it does in the comics). But MJ was turned into a wistful, sexy-yet-unassertive prop. Mary Jane is supposedly to be assertive, strong-willed but not stubborn, not the sort of superhero squeeze who walks into trouble foolishly. She doesn’t need a costume to evidence all of her positive qualities, to be vital to Peter’s life. She doesn’t want the superhero life, she wants Peter Parker, but she knows how important he is to the world.
Likewise, Lois Lane doesn’t want to be a superhero. She’s a journalist, and damn good at it. She’s smart, and can stare down rebel billionaires, heads of state, and costumed sociopaths without losing her cool. If Lois Lane is put into costume, Clark loses his grounding. She represents the humanity he aspires for – to have that part of his life suddenly dolled-up in spandex just doesn’t work. The only path I could see them going with Lois is politics, but I have a thing for noble journalists in comics (Vic Sage, natch, is one of those…or was) that highlight the importance of a free, moral press.
In regards to costumes, I felt the same way about the minor character Renee Montoya. She was great before they made her the new The Question, and fit the DCU perfectly already. I don’t hate what they’re doing with her, but I’m starting to see Rucka making her more Vic Sage than Renee Montoya.
So I think the solution is indeed to play up the fact that Mary Jane completes Peter. You don’t team up with another hero if you can handle the threat on your own, and one expects that sort of betterment from any long-term relationship. She’s usually a model, fine, but that can easily broker into a career as a respected actress on her own terms, or a talk show host (that isn’t a Tyra type), or even the spokesman for a women’s advocacy group that over time expands into a major charity organization.
Lois and Clark work together because they’re two sides to a coin. Clark collars the criminals and uncovers the plot, Lois presents it to the world. If Mary Jane becomes the public face and advocate for a charity organization that ties into Peter’s work, they can complement each other. Perhaps one that aids the families of criminals, even supercriminals, allowing her to deal with the fallout of villains leaving their former lives. Heck, let her organization eventually and permanently reform a second-tier Spider-Man villain to show how effective they are.
Then you can have effective tie-ins that show her as a player in the universe at large. If She-Hulk returns to being a lawyer, have her represent a client reformed by MJ’s organization, or even pit them against each other.
I’ve been horrified by the suggestions that DC is looking to the MJ/Peter retcon as a guide/excuse for doing the same to Lois and Clark. Because I cannot think of anything more idiotic and boring than going back to Lois and Lana catfighting, or Lois reprising all those years of the Clark/Lois/Superman triangle.
Clark is not a dating guy.
I read a monograph about the history of baseball, and in the foreward or the afterward, the author remarked (in more academic prose than I’m going to employ to paraphrase) that he noted many fans of the game felt that baseball sucks today, and that the game was somehow more pure, more innocent, and the players more sportsmanly than they are today. It’s not difficult to see the same sentiment at work here, not just in the mustache twirling editors and writers, but in fans. Every major storyline coming out today is wrong, invariably, because of something that happened in the youth of the objectors, who recall perfectly a halycon era of stories that were somehow utterly without flaw. The heroes were more heroic, the writers more respectful, and the editors out to please the fans rather than play the devil.
Jim Smith, just so understand, are you trying to assert that twelve-year-olds of today find married characters more appealing than single ones?
I started reading Superman comics when I was twelve. The married dynamic worked for me. It added to the urgency of his secret identity. As a kid, I liked that Superman and Spider-Man were married. I also didn’t like the Earth-2 stuff where Batman was married. As a kid, his cat-and-fledermaus game with Catwoman and also his lust softened by understanding with Talia was really appealing. I also really liked Wolverine, so whatever – I was a kid. Good writing and fun stories were more important to me than marital status, and yet the fact Superman and Spider-Man in particular were married made those stories better to me as a pre-teen.
Jim Smith, just so understand, are you trying to assert that twelve-year-olds of today find married characters more appealing than single ones?
I don’t think they’re unusually attracted to a married character, but (-at least in the cases of Superman and Spider-Man) they’re not as averse to marriage as older fans because those marriages have been around longer than today’s 12-year-olds have been alive. Granted, in some media Supes and Spidey aren’t married, but when Peter’s this close to proposing in his last movie and Clark is finding out about his lovechild in his last movie, it’s probably easier for today’s kids to not instantly rule out the possibility. Whereas Erik Larsen and Joe Quesada grew up “knowing” that should never ever happen, because they lived for decades without it ever coming close to happening. (You’ll notice neither of them have a problem with Reed Richards being married. It has nothing to do with Reed being a different kind of character. It’s because Reed got married when Larsen and Quesada were three years old.)
My point is that the general argument that either character should be single usually boils down to “Well, back in the good ol’ days they weren’t married, and I liked those comics better.” But if you’re under 30 “the good ol’ days” were probably only fifteen years ago, so that argument doesn’t wash. Now, there are other arguments to make that Spider-Man shouldn’t be married that might apply to the younger crowd, but I haven’t seen anyone using them. Which makes it clear to me that the entire issue only matters to people (and not even all people) who read comics before 1987. And my reaction is “Why should the publishers cater to those fans until they’re dead, at the expense of the next generation?”
Y’know, I read about Joey Q saying that Captain America was “impossible” to write, because half the fans would complain if the American icon wasn’t on the frontlines killing terrorists, and the other half complained that he wasn’t punching out Bush.
‘Cause, you know, there is no in between.
It strikes me that this man is a professional writer, and so many of his editorial decisions are based on what he says is unwritable.
I’ve wanted a Lois Lane comic for years. Call it “Daily Planet” or something, focus on Lois as the Planet’s star reporter, have the plots focus on investigative journalism, and have the supporting cast as Jimmy, Perry, and Clark–no Superman… except maybe Clark flying into their apartment at the end of the day or something, but no huge fights or superpowered showdowns.
I still insist that the problem with the SpiderMarriage is top down–it’s not that the idea is unworkable, it’s not that the writers don’t know what to do with it, it’s that the editorial staff of ASM, the Spider-Man Group Editor, the Managing Editor, and the Editor-in-Chief have all been saying for the last fifteen years to their writers, “I don’t like the SpiderMarriage. What can we do to get rid of it?” The whole Clone Saga, which lasted for about 2 1/2 years straight, was entirely an attempt to write “married Peter Parker” out of the series and replace him with “single Peter Parker”. After that, MJ was written out in a plane crash, separated, estranged, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. No writer could write a naturalistic portrayal of MJ being a good supporting character, because they were getting their marching orders from the top: Nobody wants to see that, don’t put it in.
They’ve essentially spent about fifteen years sabotaging their own book, then saying, “Well, it doesn’t seem to work!”
I have yet to agree with Erik Larsen on a single column of his. The guy may be able to draw well enough, but he just can’t write worth a shit and his comic opinions make me want to gag.
The one reason I hear over and over and OVER from whiny fanbois about why marriages don’t work in comics is because then “the story is over.” What the hell kind of garbage is that? Like you said, MGK, its not the end of a character, only one conflict in the character’s story. Any good writer should be able to immediately be able to write new conflicts to compensate for this. Unfortunately, most of them can’t.
Personally, I always felt MJ, beyond the tits (which btw, Erik Larsen drew to mammoth proportions back in the ’80’s – so he’s got no business talking about how boring the new dynamic is), was extremely boring to begin with. I always felt Spider-Man would have been better off with Felicia Hardy just because she was a much more interesting character. I wouldn’t have minded a break-up if it had actually been a divorce and not this “Here comes Mephisto to save the day” BS.
Erik Larsen just seems to keep playing apologist every time Marvel screws something up.
“Jim Smith, just so understand, are you trying to assert that twelve-year-olds of today find married characters more appealing than single ones?”
I can’t speak for 12-year-olds, but speaking as a 22-year-old… Spider-marriage has been around for almost as long as I was alive, and it was there when I started reading comics. To me, Spider-Man being married is as natural as Reed Richards being married. While I can understand, at least in theory, where older fans come from, I can’t empathize with their sentiment.
“It strikes me that this man is a professional writer, and so many of his editorial decisions are based on what he says is unwritable.”
Joe Q is an artist, not a writer. He got writing cred for OMD because he made a ton of changes to the story himself (which is a good reason why it sucked. Stick to what you know). Just clarifying.
Peter and Harry have always had that gay-vibe going for them. This is nothing new.
Hey, Randy B., stick to what you know. Quesada has written a lot more than just One More Day: Ash being one and some of the Valiant comics he worked on labeled him as plotter.