watchman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> In rec.arts.comics.misc Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > gbostock@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > > Having said that, Gwen Stacy was poorly written too and that was why
> > > they had to kill her off.
> > Nonsense. They killed her off because Gerry Conway's not a good
enough
> > writer to do anything else.
>
> I have to agree. Ascribing any motives as clearly defined and
> deliberate as that to the Marvel editorial staff of 1973 strikes me as
> wildly optimistic at best -- "I'm sorry, this weak ****trayal of Gwen
Stacy
> doesn't meet our artistic requirements, she has to go." Yeah, I don't
> think so.
My point was that there wasn't much for anyone to do with Gwen, that
she was always a very weak character. In Conway's position, I think
most writers would have either (a) killed her off or (b) at least
written her out of the book.
> Not that I have a problem with Gwen being killed off, but there's
> no way it was the result of anything more than what was essentially a
wild
> "aww, hell, let's kill her off, it'll shock the **** out of those
> readers!" romp.
My main disagreement with Anim8rfsk was his knock on Conway's abilities
as a writer. The death of Gwen Stacy, and the Green Goblin were very
powerful and defining moments for Spidey, and ones which sup****t my
main theory that he was a rash, angry, and at times irresponsible young
man striving to be responsible. He could have saved Gwen's life, but
didn't think it through: in the end, he's just as responsible for her
death as the Goblin.
And what Conway did in the aftermath-- the Clone Saga being a unique
outgrowth of Peter's (not to mention the reader's) grief-- is extremely
interesting to me.
> IIRC, a Comic Buyer's Guide interview with Conway made it clear
> that he simply didn't know what else to do with Gwen.
Since I didn't read the interview in question, I'll withdraw my
optimism. :-)
Someone earlier in this thread said that I was seeing character
development in what were really plot devices, which brings up the
entire question of the author's intent. I'm not really trying to look
at that, but rather at what I see in the text. Maybe this is an
inherently flawed approach; I dunno.
Many things in serial literature (and especially superhero comics) are
not planned, but rather improvised month to month. But that doesn't
mean they're not art, and it doesn't mean that-- intentional or not--
there isn't character development.
I think the advantage that comics (and, to a degree, soap operas) have
over short stories or novels is that you can highlight different facets
of a character in different episodes. Each episode ideally (more in
comics than in soap operas) stands alone and yet is a part of the
larger tapestry.
Which is what makes the whole thing so interesting to me.
>
> - Mikki
--Tom
|
