J. Michael Straczynski sets the record straight
AMAZING SPIDER-MAN writer J. Michael Straczynski has responded to some of the comments made by Marvel Editor-In-Chief Joe Quesada in an ongoing, five-part interview with Comic Book Resources. Straczynski’s response says everything you need to know about the silliness presented in the “One More Day” arc. I think it explains why JMS wanted his named taken off the book. Newsarama received an e-mail from Straczynski explaining his position.
This is what he wrote:
Having seen Joe’s third interview on OMD, I think he raised a lot of fair issues. I think most of it represents accurately our conversations. It does, however, omit some of the main concerns I had with the resolution…concerns not mentioned therein, most probably as an oversight. As you know from my prior email, I was content not to respond to the prior interviews because I don’t need to have the last word. (Newsarama Note: this last was in reference to Straczynski’s earlier e-mail mentioned earlier in which he declined a “One More Day” post mortem conversation.)
But there are some vital omissions in the interview, including the primary reason I finally threw up my hands on the book, which had mainly to do with how the resolution was handled.
To explain, here’s the conversation I had with Marvel, in sum:
“So what does Mephisto do?” I ask.
“He makes everybody forget Peter’s Spider-Man.”
“Uh, huh. So Aunt May’s still in the hospital –”
“No, he saves Aunt May.”
“But if all he does is save her life and make everybody forget he’s Spidey, she still has a scar on her midsection.”
“No, he makes that go away too.”
“Okay…:
“Then he wakes up in her house.”
“The house that was burned down?”
“Right.”
“But how –”
“Mephisto undoes that as well.”
“Okay. And the guys who shot at Peter and May and were killed, they’re alive too? Mephisto can bring guys back from the dead?”
“It’s all part of the spell.”
“And Doc Strange can’t tell?”
“No,”
“And the newspaper articles? News footage?”
“Joe, it’s been forgotten.”
“I’m just asking is that stuff there or not there?”
“Not there. And Peter’s web shooters are back.”
“Is this the same spell or a different spell?”
“Same spell.”
“How does making people forget he’s Spidey bring back his web shooters?”
“It’s magic, okay?”
“I see. And Harry’s back.”
“Right.”
“And Mephisto does this too.”
“Yep.”
“So is Harry back from the dead, or has he been alive? If they ask him, hey Harry, what did you do last summer, will he remember? And the year before? And the year before? If he says they all went on a picnic two years ago, will they remember it?”
“It’s –”
“Because if he now has a life he remembers, if he’s not back from the dead, then you’ve changed the continuity you said you didn’t want to change. Those are your only options: he was brought back from the dead, and there’s a grave, and people remember him dying –”
“Mephisto changes THEIR memories too.”
“– or he’s effectively been alive as far as our characters know, so he’s been alive all along, so either way as far as our characters are concerned, continuity’s been violated going back to 1971.
How do you explain that?”
“It’s magic, we don’t have to explain it.”
And that’s the part I had a real problem with, maybe the single biggest problem. There’s this notion that magic fixes everything. It doesn’t. “It’s magic, we don’t have to explain it.” Well, actually, yes, you do. Magic has to have rules. And this is clearly not just a case of one spell making everybody forget he’s Spidey…suddenly you’re bringing back the dead, undoing wounds, erasing records, reinstating web shooters, on and on and on.
What I wanted to do was to make one small change to history, a tiny thing, whose ripples we could control to only touch what editorial wanted to touch, making changes we could explain logically. I worked for weeks to come up with a timeline that would leave every other bit of continuity in place. It was rigorous, and as logical as I could make it. In the end of OMD as published, Harry is alive and he’s always been alive as far as the characters know…so how is that different than he was alive the whole time?
It made no sense to me.
Still doesn’t. It’s sloppy. It violates every rule of writing fiction of the fantastic that I and every other SF/Fantasy writer knows you can’t violate. It’s fantasy 101.
It troubled me that it’s MJ and not Peter who is the one to actively make the decision.
I’d originally written the first issue of OMD to take place directly after May gets shot, and in fact turned in the first script directly after she gets nailed. Editorial decided to build in a block of issues for One More Day…meaning May would be in that bed for almost a *year* which I thought was just too long to make work.
And yes, I wanted to retcon the Gwen twins out of continuity, which was something I always assumed I could do at the end of my run. I wasn’t allowed to do this, and yes, it pissed me off. I felt I was left holding the bag for something I wanted to get rid of, and taking the rap for a writing lapse that I had never committed. Why this aspect was not brought up in the other interview, you’d have to ask Joe.
Mainly, the book was rewritten in the editorial offices to a degree that the words weren’t mine any longer, to a certain degree in three, and massively in four. If the work represents me, I leave the name there and take the rap; if it doesn’t, then that’s a different situation. There’s just not much of my work there, especially once you get to the last dong of midnight…everything after that was written by editorial.
Whether my work is good or it sucks, it’s mine. What came out of the end of OMD wasn’t, hence my desire to omit the writing credit. Joe graciously offered to share it on the last issue. I think that helped. Credit where credit is due.
What I don’t want is for this to turn into a public pissing match. Joe did what he did because he thought it was the right thing to do, and as EIC that’s his call, not mine. I respect and admire him. I hope this will be the end of the matter.
I just felt that there were some important bits not addressed, that needed to be.
What’s Joe Quesada’s problem with divorced people?
Comic Book Resources continues with part 3 of a 5-part interview with Marvel Editor-In-Chief Joe Quesada concerning the recent storyline involving Spider-Man. Quesada has long made it known that he believes having Peter Parker/Spider-Man married to Mary Jane Watson was a big mistake. He believes that it somehow curtails good story telling by having the character married. Or he thinks that kids can’t relate to a married character. It’s hard to keep track of the many reasons Quesada has for not wanting Spider-Man married.
Quesada’s reasons seem to change a lot.
If the belief that Spider-Man must be a single to craft interesting stories seems silly, the method Quesada uses to achieve this objective seems absolutely insane – Spider-Man makes a deal with the Devil that will save his elderly aunt from dying if he allows the Devil to not only magically undue his marriage, but to make everyone magically forget that they were even married. As though the marriage never happened. Oh, and the Devil also agrees to make everyone magically forget that Peter Parker is Spider-Man. A fact everyone knows ever since he removed his mask on national television and announced that he was Peter Parker (see CIVIL WAR #2).
Needless to say, fans have been critical of this magical storyline.
In the Comic Book Resources interview, Quesada is asked why he didn’t just have Peter and Mary Jane get a divorce. It’s a good question. Here is Quesada’s reply:
Sure, that would have been a very easy solution. However, how would a parent feel when they had to explain to their kid that Spider-Man just got divorced from his wife? How would that headline read across the AP or on USA today? The same can be said with an annulment. Sure, divorce is a reality of life, but Peter Parker and Spider-Man are not the types of characters that would do that. Spider-Man is a worldwide icon and is considered one of the good guys, like Superman.
Not the type of characters that would do that? What is that supposed to mean? I’m sure the people that have gone through a divorce would like to know. Speaking as just such a person, I certainly would like to know.
Someone can’t be considered a good guy if they have been divorced? This hits a nerve with me. Normally one only finds this type of ignorant bigotry at an evangelical church, not in a comic book.
So Peter Parker isn’t the type of character to get a divorce, but he is the type character to enter into a magical arraignment with the Devil? The inference is that it’s better to strike a deal with Satan then it is to get divorced. Either way Peter is breaking his marriage vows. One requires him to enter into an unholy pact with Satan, the other requires him to sign a bunch of paperwork and pay a lawyer.
Joe Quesada picks option number one evidently because it makes him a better person.
Quesada claims parents would have had a hard time explaining Spider-Man getting a divorce. Imagine how hard it will be for them to put a positive spin on Spider-Man entering into an agreement with Satan.
How is that preferable to getting a divorce?
The Sensational Spider-Man #41
Writer J. Michael Straczynski
Pencils: Joe Quesada
Inker: Danny Miki
Colorist: Richard Isanove
This book turned out not to be nearly has bad as I thought it was going to be. My expectations were extremely low. The Internet told me what was supposed to happen in this story. Plus, the cover looks remarkably like a cover of Wizard magazine. I can’t help but think that’s a bad sign.
It really wasn’t that mad. I still don’t agree with the path this story is taking the Spider-Man franchise. I’ve already explained why that is. Straczynski’s writing is up to it’s usual greatness and Quesada certainly knows what to do with the pointy end of a pencil.
This comic cost a whole $3.99 and the story was over before I even hit the staples. The rest of the book contained a long and detailed bio on Mephisto (Satan). Stuff you wont find in the Bible. It also contains a reprint of THE SILVER SURFER #3. It’s the first appearance of the Mephisto.
It wasn’t that bad.
What does Joe Quesada have against marriage?
I don’t normally read Spider-Man comics. That doesn’t mean I don’t recognize the character as one of the most popular characters that Marvel Comics has. He’s a very popular character. Just not with me.
I was surprised to read on the Interents that Marvel Comics is going to do a major change to the character. Spider-Man, aka Peter Parker is married to his high school sweet heart Mary Jane. Marvel’s Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada has never liked the fact that Peter Parker was married. He supposedly thinks it makes the character non-relatable to the younger readers.
Marvel Comics has younger readers? And to think I thought the kids were reading creepy Japanese manga where everyone has the really big eyes.
So Joe Quesada thinks Spider-Man being married makes youthful readers less inclined to relate to him? Never mind the fact that he can shoot web goo from his wrists and that he has superhuman strength and dexterity. It’s the whole “married thing” that confuses the youngsters and makes it so they can’t relate to him.
The most retarded thing about this whole story is how they are going to make him non-married. Instead of just having him divorce Mary Jane, they are going to place him in a situation where his Aunt May is going to die. The Devil (seriously, the Devil) makes a deal with Spider-Man: The Devil will save Aunt May if he agrees that his relationship and his marriage with Mary Jane will have never happened. Aunt May will live, but Peter and Mary Jane will not only not be married, they will have no memories of even knowing each other.
That has got to be the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of.
Who in their right mind would give up the love of their life just so their enfeebled old aunt can defy nature and go on living? Aunt May has lived a full life. It’s time for her to go join Uncle Ben.
Joe Quesada must really hate being married. If this even sounds slightly plausible to him, his wife is in trouble.
I’m willing to bet the TV in Joe Quesada’s bathroom that this has less to do with appealing to youthful readers and more to do with getting publicity in the mainstream press. I think Quesada is addicted to seeing his name in the USA TODAY.
This isn’t tentacle rape, it’s reproduction by means of forcible tentacle infection
Joe Quesada once again touches upon the controversy surrounding the cover of HEROES FOR HIRE #13. Will this be a weekly thing until he admits that it’s wrong and pulls the cover from publication? This from Newsarama:
So once again, no tentacle rape was intended, implied, or even in our thought processes as we were doing this cover nor was it in the thought process of the artist who created the cover. If some have chosen to see it that way there is nothing I can do except to say that I’m sorry.
And yes, if that was indeed what we intended the imagery to be, then shame on us, but that is not what happened and certainly not the case.
What did they intend the imagery to be? Remember, this is a book intended for ages 9 and up. I would love to see what written instructions the cover artist was given when she was assigned the job of painting the cover. That certainly would go a long way in establishing the actual original intent of Marvel Comics. Not that the intent is really all that important. At the end of the day, they still have a cover showing tentacle rape.
Joe Quesada can tell Newsarama each and every week that the cover was never intended to show rape. The problem is that he told Newsarama last week that the creature molesting the women was the Brood. I’ll be honest. I didn’t know what the Brood was. I do know how to use Wikipedia. This is what it says about the Brood:
The Brood possess wings, fanged teeth and a stinging tail. They have a hive mentality and mindlessly follow a queen. To reproduce, they must infect other races with their eggs.
So there you have it. This isn’t rape. This is forcible reproduction by means of tentacle infection.
Joe Quesada weighs in on Marvel’s tentacle rape porn for 9-year olds
Heidi MacDonald from The Beat has been kind enough to post a portion of the weekly question and answer session between comic book website Newsarama and Marvel Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada.
She saved me from having to go and read the sickening love fest passing as comics journalism over at Newsarama.
Quesada weighs (no pun intended) in on the recent controversy over the creepy HEROES FOR HIRE #13 cover that I wrote about here.
When I refer to “controversy”, I am referring to why Marvel Comics would stoop to putting porn on the cover of a comic book intended for 9 year olds.
I don’t care all that much for Joe Quesada. This is a prime example of why:
This one I can answer to. First, I think people are reading way too much into that cover than was ever intended. I heard terms such as “tentacle rape” being thrown around when that in no way is what’s happening, nor does it happen in the book. Those tentacles are the arms of the Brood who appears in the issue and is a major story point, the Brood have tentacles, sorry about that.
Secondly, the concept for that cover, soup to nuts came from a female artist. Thirdly, not being a deep follower of manga, I have no idea what recurring theme people are referring to or concerned with. While I appreciate the sentiment and the feelings that some may have about this, I honestly feel that there is way too much being read into this cover.
Also, HFH is a book that features two strong, lead female protagonist who kick major ass; somehow folks have forgotten to focus on that.
Reading too much into it, huh Joe? Why is the tentacle — you call it an arm — secreting some kind of mystery white goo on the woman’s breasts? The woman with her hands chained above her head to a stone pillar. What is that white goo supposed to be?
Also, just how old is Joe Quesada? When was the last time you heard someone use the phrase, “Soup to Nuts”? Talk about old-man speak.
Chasing the all mighty comic book smut dollar
I don’t understand why Marvel Comics would give the go ahead for something like this. Is this really how they want one of their main properties to be displayed? All sexed up? I was under the impression that they kind of liked Spider-Man and valued the entire Spider-Man property. If that’s true, why resort to making Spider-Man’s wife a bare foot, thong wearing laundry tub slut?
I’m no prude. I’m also not one to get offended. I just think this is stupid and even a little hypocritical. My favorite monthly Marvel comic Alias was supposedly canceled because writer Brian Michael Bendis was not allowed to use top-line Marvel characters such as Spider-Man. Alias dealt with stories more of an adult nature in content.
Just because there are statue companies out there that make sexed up weirdo friendly Japanese anime figurines, doesn’t mean Marvel Comics needs to do it too. They should let other companies, companies not called Marvel Comics corner the creepy pervert adult figurine market.
Marvel Comics should be above this.
Ok, I’m back. After typing the above sentence I broke out in uncontrollable laughter which resulted in me falling down, hitting my head, and blacking out.
I feel much better now. What was I blogging about? Oh yes, the pervert Mary Jane statue. I’ve been reading that people have been letting both Marvel Comics and Sideshow Collectibles (the company that is making the perv statue) know what they think about this statue. People have been leaving comments on both Marvel Comics and Sideshow Collectibles websites detailing their displeasure with this statue. Both Marvel Comics and Sideshow Collectibles have been responding by deleting these comments. They have allowed all the other comments to remains. The comments left by pervy men wanting to buy this statue.
What’s Marvel Comics trying to do, attract even more weirdos to the medium of comic books?
Ragnell over at Written World blogged about someone leaving a comment on Marvel Comics Editor-In-Chief Joe Quesada’s blog asking him if he’d please write about the approval process for this figurine. Regnell writes that two hours later, the person’s comment had been deleted.
Talk about dealing with a problem head on.
I think this statue is disrespectful. Not only to women in general, but to one of their own intellectual properties. So what will Marvel Comics do next, approve the making of a collectible statue showing Spider-Man putting on a condom?
Subscribe
The 


