Was Mary Jane a mismatch for Peter Parker?

[stillanerd]

I guess Carlie Cooper IS going to be Peter's new girlfriend after all (and thus back into the old "can't make it for a date because he's Spider-Man and said date gets mad at him" angle as a result). Maybe Roger Stern is going to pass her off as the "romantic interest that could be THE ONE" which he planned to create for Peter back when he wrote for Amazing Spider-Man in the 1980s and never got around to doing (and perhaps the reason why he claims Mary Jane was "wrong" for Peter.)

[Roger Stern]

Also, I guess Carlie Cooper IS going to be Peter's new girlfriend after all (and thus back into the old "can't make it for a date because he's Spider-Man and said date gets mad at him" angle as a result).

I think the story is going to surprise you.

Maybe Roger Stern is going to pass her off as the "romantic interest that could be THE ONE" which he planned to create for Peter back when he wrote for Amazing Spider-Man in the 1980s and never got around to doing (and perhaps the reason why he claims Mary Jane was "wrong" for Peter.)

The reasons why Mary Jane was a mismatch for Peter were pretty obvious... unless we ignore everything known about them prior to their suddenly getting married.

That said, I wish I had created Carlie. I think she's one of the best new additions to the Spider-case in decades. That's why I have her in the story.

[Gitaroo_Dude]

The reasons why Mary Jane was a mismatch for Peter were pretty obvious... unless we ignore everything known about them prior to their suddenly getting married.

Fire in the hole!

[RDMacQ]

The reasons why Mary Jane was a mismatch for Peter were pretty obvious... unless we ignore everything known about them prior to their suddenly getting married.

-- Uncle Rog

While I can understand this mindset, I also don't think we should discount the development MJ's character went through over the years just prior to and after the marriage. She may not have been a "perfect" match- but who in life really is? MJ may not have SEEMED like a good match for Peter, but I think that she has grown into that role over the years and her character has evolved beyond just being a flirty party girl and spoiler for another love interest. We also can't ignore the fact that Peter DID propose to MJ once before, so it wasn't ENTIRELY out of character for Peter to consider MJ someone who he's want to spend the rest of his life with.

[coconutphone]

While I can understand this mindset, I also don't think we should discount the development MJ's character went through over the years just prior to and after the marriage. She may not have been a "perfect" match- but who in life really is? MJ may not have SEEMED like a good match for Peter, but I think that she has grown into that role over the years and her character has evolved beyond just being a flirty party girl and spoiler for another love interest. We also can't ignore the fact that Peter DID propose to MJ once before, so it wasn't ENTIRELY out of character for Peter to consider MJ someone who he's want to spend the rest of his life with.

Exactly. God forbid two people grow into being great matches for each other. Does a character need to be created to be his perfect match? There's no drama, surprise or development there? I always found, that in serialized fiction, that pre-existing characters who find their way to each other, especially ones who are very different but develop bonds over time, to be much more satisfying as couples than when a new character is brought on for the sole purpose of being an existing character's love interest. It's obvious and boring.

[RDMacQ]

Exactly. God forbid two people grow into being great matches for each other. Does a character need to be created to be his perfect match? There's no drama, surprise or development there? I always found, that in serialized fiction, that pre-existing characters who find their way to each other, especially ones who are very different but develop bonds over time, to be much more satisfying as couples than when a new character is brought on for the sole purpose of being an existing character's love interest. It's obvious and boring.

That's what I liked about Peter and MJ's relationship -they WEREN'T a "perfect" match. At least on the surface. They weren't paired together from the very beginning, and MJ wasn't crowned the "one true love" like other love interests (like Lois Lane). The fact that MJ wasn't designed to be the ideal love interest to Peter actually helped her character -in my opinion- since it allowed creators to develop her further than just being someone who was the hero's love interest. It wasn't obvious from the get go- like you pointed out. It was something that was developed over decades. Sure, the marriage ceremony may have come out of left field, but I don't think that MJ was a character that wasn't suited to being a good mate to Peter.

[stillanerd]

I think the story is going to surprise you.

We'll see.

The reasons why Mary Jane was a mismatch for Peter were pretty obvious... unless we ignore everything known about them prior to their suddenly getting married.

Look, I understand your position is that when Peter and MJ got married, the writers changed a lot of their characteristics and therefore it was wrong because it made them "out of character." That's, to me, is more of a sign of writers not understanding who the characters were more than anything else. But I really disagree with the notion they are a "mismatch" romantically just because they had different personalities. Yes, Peter is burdened by his sense of responsibility and obligation to others, while Mary Jane is a happy-go-lucky, free spirit who has anxieties about commitment. But that's what makes their relationship interesting. Also, they compliment each other in that Mary Jane, because of Peter, learned the value of helping out others and Peter, because of MJ, is brought down to earth once in awhile. It's the concept of "opposites attract" which I'm sure your very familiar with. But by your logic, it sounds as if your saying Superman and Lois Lane would also be wrong for each other because they are a "mismatch" too.

And no offense, Uncle Rog, but I think a lot of your rationale for why MJ was "wrong" for Peter, aside from characterization issues, does stem out of the fact that you had this "dream girl" in mind for Peter that you never got a chance to create for him when you were the regular writer for Amazing back in the day.

That said, I wish I had created Carlie. I think she's one of the best new additions to the Spider-case in decades. That's why I have her in the story.

I think she's a nice character as well, as I do like the concept of her being a forensic pathologist. I also understand that the appeal she offers as a potential romantic interest for Peter is that she plays upon the fact that she, like him, is also a brilliant but socially awkward science geek. But based on what I've read of her so far, she's nothing more than a glorified hodge-podge of Gwen Stacy and Debra Whitman. And the thing is, if the braintrust/webhead are planning on pairing the two of them up, I have a feeling it's going to be dull as dishwater for the simple fact that they are too much alike. Of course, I think the prospect of her being Peter's girlfriend pretty much sailed with issue #600, even though I think they're going to try for that yet again, but that's just me.

While I can understand this mindset, I also don't think we should discount the development MJ's character went through over the years just prior to and after the marriage. She may not have been a "perfect" match- but who in life really is? MJ may not have SEEMED like a good match for Peter, but I think that she has grown into that role over the years and her character has evolved beyond just being a flirty party girl and spoiler for another love interest. We also can't ignore the fact that Peter DID propose to MJ once before, so it wasn't ENTIRELY out of character for Peter to consider MJ someone who he's want to spend the rest of his life with.

And let's not forget this scene which was, without question, a turning point for both her and Peter as characters:

[Roger Stern]

...I understand your position is that when Peter and MJ got married, the writers changed a lot of their characteristics and therefore it was wrong because it made them "out of character." That, to me, is more of a sign of writers not understanding who the characters were more than anything else.

I think it was probably more a matter of a whole string or writers doing their best to make a hasty editorial decision work. Let's never forget that the marriage was due to Marvel deciding that the Spider-Man comics match what was going on in the newspaper strip...even though they never had before.

But I really disagree with the notion they are a "mismatch" romantically just because they had different personalities. Yes, Peter is burdened by his sense of responsibility and obligation to others, while Mary Jane is a happy-go-lucky, free spirit who has anxieties about commitment. But that's what makes their relationship interesting. Also, they compliment each other in that Mary Jane, because of Peter, learned the value of helping out others and Peter, because of MJ, is brought down to earth once in awhile. It's the concept of "opposites attract" which I'm sure your very familiar with.

I have no problem with Pete and MJ being good friends. I just don't think they work as a married couple.

But by your logic, it sounds as if you're saying Superman and Lois Lane would also be wrong for each other because they are a "mismatch" too.

Oh, not at all. Clark and Lois are a wonderfully compatible couple, and I thought their marriage was a great idea.

That's why I was happy to write their wedding vows.

And no offense, Uncle Rog, but I think a lot of your rationale for why MJ was "wrong" for Peter, aside from characterization issues, does stem out of the fact that you had this "dream girl" in mind for Peter that you never got a chance to create for him when you were the regular writer for Amazing back in the day.

Uh...no, I had hoped to eventually introduce a young woman into the cast who would be a better match for him than Girfriend-from-Hell Gwen and Fun-but-Commitment-Free MJ. But I didn't have any fantasy "dream girl" in mind for Pete.

I think she[Carlie]'s a nice character as well, as I do like the concept of her being a forensic pathologist. I also understand that the appeal she offers as a potential romantic interest for Peter is that she plays upon the fact that she, like him, is also a brilliant but socially awkward science geek.

???

Carlie doesn't seem socially awkward to me.

But based on what I've read of her so far, she's nothing more than a glorified hodge-podge of Gwen Stacy and Debra Whitman.

Having read all of Gwen's appearances, and written a number of stories featuring Debra, I really don't think that Carlie is anything like either of them. The only thing those three really have in common is that they are -- or were, in Gwen's case -- women in their early twenties who happen to know Peter Parker.

And if we're going to talk about turning points, let's not forget this scene either...



It bears remembering.

-- Uncle Rog

[Jim Thompson]

The reasons why Mary Jane was a mismatch for Peter were pretty obvious... unless we ignore everything known about them prior to their suddenly getting married.

I couldn't disagree with you more here. I think MJ is a perfect match for Peter.

[Roger Stern]

I couldn't disagree with you more here. I think MJ is a perfect match for Peter.

"Perfect"? How so?

[Jim Thompson]

"Perfect"? How so?

She balances the majority of his short-comings, and he hers.

[coconutphone]

I




And if we're going to talk about turning points, let's not forget this scene either...



It bears remembering.

-- Uncle Rog

as part of her character but not the only defining part. I much prefer her (and other characters) growing out of their one note characterisitcs like MJ did. One could easily argue that this was simply resorting to an easy out to get her out of the book for whatever reason not because it made sense for the character.

[spiderman_rj]

as part of her character but not the only defining part. r.

Part ? this was her defining character pre marriege switch when they injected her with some gwen DNA.

[Dan_Slott]

I think it was probably more a matter of a whole string or writers doing their best to make a hasty editorial decision work. Let's never forget that the marriage was due to Marvel deciding that the Spider-Man comics match what was going on in the newspaper strip...even though they never had before.



I have no problem with Pete and MJ being good friends. I just don't think they work as a married couple.



Oh, not at all. Clark and Lois are a wonderfully compatible couple, and I thought their marriage was a great idea.

That's why I was happy to write their wedding vows.



Uh...no, I had hoped to eventually introduce a young woman into the cast who would be a better match for him than Girfriend-from-Hell Gwen and Fun-but-Commitment-Free MJ. But I didn't have any fantasy "dream girl" in mind for Pete.



???

Carlie doesn't seem socially awkward to me.



Having read all of Gwen's appearances, and written a number of stories featuring Debra, I really don't think that Carlie is anything like either of them. The only thing those three really have in common is that they are -- or were, in Gwen's case -- women in their early twenties who happen to know Peter Parker.

And if we're going to talk about turning points, let's not forget this scene either...



It bears remembering.

-- Uncle Rog

as part of her character but not the only defining part. I much prefer her (and other characters) growing out of their one note characterisitcs like MJ did. One could easily argue that this was simply resorting to an easy out to get her out of the book for whatever reason not because it made sense for the character.

WOW! Roger Stern comes in and makes a point about Spider-Man and you gotta refute it. C'mon! I mean COME ON! REALLY?!

You're going for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQnAhSzb4gY

When, in fact, THIS just happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBtXfBdEXEs

:)

I <3 you, Roger Stern!
And I <3 the internet!
ttyl
Dan

[flashdisk]

Part ? this was her defining character pre marriege switch when they injected her with some gwen DNA.

It was just showing more of the character's personality. If you think can understand everything by just outward glances then so be it. But as far as I am concerned more of MJ's inherent character was revealed as more time went by.

Also, the way I see it. Gwen Stacey was made too stereotypical to begin with. A girl who's attracted to Peter Parker and dislikes that fact that Peter Parker had no interest in her in the beginning. Was Gwen Stacey even an independent person?