Forward Progress

[Mr. Noodle]

How much forward progress -- meaning, substantive changes in story structure or characters, changes with weight that last -- has there been in ASM, measured over the entirety of the publication? As opposed to a revolving-door approach -- there goes Betty Brant for a while; oh, here comes Betty Brant!

Part of the recent complaints have been about the retrogressive nature of the Spider-Man revamp. The "Supermanification" thread deals with this. I don't think that the renewed aspects that people like -- the brighter look, more humor, elimination of mysticism (heh) -- don't seem to apply to this question, since those are variable story ingredients that any writer could throw into any stew, without any of it representing actual change.

Is forward progress even possible in an MU? I know others have spoken about the illusion of change, but after a while adult readers get tired of that. The stories just become futility in cycles. I would give the relationship between Chuck Bartowksi and Sarah Walker on Chuck as an example of this. After a while, viewers want resolution. Some of the posters seem OK with only the illusion of change, as if certain readers would get satiated and move on, while new readers hopped on the train. But Marvel can't want that. Surely they want to keep as many readers as posisble.

ISTM that part of Spider-Man's appeal was the ingredient of actual change, not just the illusion of change. He isn't Superman, in that way. But I don't know if it's a curable "problem", in serialized fiction.

[Jim Thompson]

How much forward progress -- meaning, substantive changes in story structure or characters, changes with weight that last -- has there been in ASM, measured over the entirety of the publication? As opposed to a revolving-door approach -- there goes Betty Brant for a while; oh, here comes Betty Brant!

Part of the recent complaints have been about the retrogressive nature of the Spider-Man revamp. The "Supermanification" thread deals with this. I don't think that the renewed aspects that people like -- the brighter look, more humor, elimination of mysticism (heh) -- don't seem to apply to this question, since those are variable story ingredients that any writer could throw into any stew, without any of it representing actual change.

Is forward progress even possible in an MU? I know others have spoken about the illusion of change, but after a while adult readers get tired of that. The stories just become futility in cycles. I would give the relationship between Chuck Bartowksi and Sarah Walker on Chuck as an example of this. After a while, viewers want resolution. Some of the posters seem OK with only the illusion of change, as if certain readers would get satiated and move on, while new readers hopped on the train. But Marvel can't want that. Surely they want to keep as many readers as posisble.

ISTM that part of Spider-Man's appeal was the ingredient of actual change, not just the illusion of change. He isn't Superman, in that way. But I don't know if it's a curable "problem", in serialized fiction.

He went from high-school student to college grad to teacher. He went (in an alternate reality now) from single to married. But beyond that, the progression itself would be, I think, fairly hard to define.

[whiteshark]

Just top of my head.

Peter Parker took driving license lessons and can drive a car now.

Peter Parker got a new job working for the Mayor which is J.J.J.

The creation of a new suporting cast made posible to those same new suporting characters change completely the dynamic of the stories.

Peter Parker shared a apartment with Michelle.

Peter Parker knew a unknow part of Aunt May fammily.

Aunt May got married,which make Peter Parker get a step father so to speak and be half brother of John Jonah Jameson.

Peter Parker restarted his relationship with Black Cat,which was one of the most important relationship of Peter Parker past.

Harry Osborn became Peter Parker best friend,and thanks to Peter help for the first time Harry got out of the shadow of his father so to speak.

For the first time in twenty years the status quo of Peter Parker is not predictable.

Spider-Man re-estabilished his friendship with the Fantastic Four in a great story.

[Mr. Noodle]

And you don't think these things represent the "illusion of change" technique that Mets has talked about?

I would agree that the addition of new support cast is a substance change, as long as a new character isn't a dupe of an old one. E.g., if they introduced another saucy rich girl who likes to commit crimes in her spare time, I wouldn't consider that much of anything.

I think "progress" implies more than change; and I'm inclined to think you can't do any real progress at all, in serialized fiction, since progress implies climax and resolution.

I'm just interested in this because I find the dynamics of writing interesting.

[David Walton]

He went from high-school student to college grad to teacher. He went (in an alternate reality now) from single to married. But beyond that, the progression itself would be, I think, fairly hard to define.

All that's really necessary is that changes, when they happen, stick.

There's no fast and hard rule as to when to move forward, just don't move back.

[Jim Thompson]

I would agree that the addition of new support cast is a substance change, as long as a new character isn't a dupe of an old one. E.g., if they introduced another saucy rich girl who likes to commit crimes in her spare time, I wouldn't consider that much of anything.

I think "progress" implies more than change; and I'm inclined to think you can't do any real progress at all, in serialized fiction, since progress implies climax and resolution.

I agree -- and it's why I said I think it'll be hard to show a lot of real progression for the character. In Spider-Man's case, up until very recently, I think his was a case of very slow progression.

EDIT: Aunt May's death, had it stuck, would have been real progression, I think -- as would May learning his identity, or Peter and MJ having a child.

[Mr. Noodle]

Maybe it's like I'm asking if the Mississippi River ever progresses. Well sure, in a way it does, because it just keeps rolling along. But that's all it ever does -- it just keeps rolling along. It never piles up in a big heap, explodes, and then turns into Lake Junaluska forever.

[StoneGold]

And you don't think these things represent the "illusion of change" technique that Mets has talked about?

I would agree that the addition of new support cast is a substance change, as long as a new character isn't a dupe of an old one. E.g., if they introduced another saucy rich girl who likes to commit crimes in her spare time, I wouldn't consider that much of anything.

I think "progress" implies more than change; and I'm inclined to think you can't do any real progress at all, in serialized fiction, since progress implies climax and resolution.

I'm just interested in this because I find the dynamics of writing interesting.

But it's always been about the illusion of change. Look what happens when Pete graduates from high school - he goes to college, and finds not only his old high school nemesis, but a whole new batch of very similar nemesisesisisis. I don't know how to spell the plural.

[CyberHubbs]

But it's always been about the illusion of change. Look what happens when Pete graduates from high school - he goes to college, and finds not only his old high school nemesis, but a whole new batch of very similar nemesisesisisis. I don't know how to spell the plural.

Nemesi? Nemesites? Nemnems?

[Endless Flight]

It's probably similar to the word moose.

The plural of nemesis is nemesis.

[Jim Thompson]

But it's always been about the illusion of change. Look what happens when Pete graduates from high school - he goes to college, and finds not only his old high school nemesis, but a whole new batch of very similar nemesisesisisis. I don't know how to spell the plural.

Rather like life.

[Farmernudie]

I like some sort of illision of change and forward progress.

Wouldn't like the character getting actually old though.

I like Savage Dragon a lot, but sometimes that comic moves forward a little too fast.

[StoneGold]

Rather like life.

More or less. And when there is actual progress, it's usually something jarring and non-organic, like randomly getting hit by a car and being paralyzed below the waist.

[Jim Thompson]

More or less. And when there is actual progress, it's usually something jarring and non-organic, like randomly getting hit by a car and being paralyzed below the waist.

Or getting married -- or having a kid -- or graduating college. I'm not convinced true progress happens as a result of sudden change -- though sudden change may force someone to start a progression to a different understanding and/or acceptance of life.

[Mister Mets]

How much forward progress -- meaning, substantive changes in story structure or characters, changes with weight that last -- has there been in ASM, measured over the entirety of the publication? As opposed to a revolving-door approach -- there goes Betty Brant for a while; oh, here comes Betty Brant!

Part of the recent complaints have been about the retrogressive nature of the Spider-Man revamp. The "Supermanification" thread deals with this. I don't think that the renewed aspects that people like -- the brighter look, more humor, elimination of mysticism (heh) -- don't seem to apply to this question, since those are variable story ingredients that any writer could throw into any stew, without any of it representing actual change.

Is forward progress even possible in an MU? I know others have spoken about the illusion of change, but after a while adult readers get tired of that. The stories just become futility in cycles. I would give the relationship between Chuck Bartowksi and Sarah Walker on Chuck as an example of this. After a while, viewers want resolution. Some of the posters seem OK with only the illusion of change, as if certain readers would get satiated and move on, while new readers hopped on the train. But Marvel can't want that. Surely they want to keep as many readers as posisble.

ISTM that part of Spider-Man's appeal was the ingredient of actual change, not just the illusion of change. He isn't Superman, in that way. But I don't know if it's a curable "problem", in serialized fiction.

I prefer another approach to "forward progress" or irreversible change, because it seems to restrict the writers too much. Eventually, you just close too many doors.

Irreversible change mostly occurred when Stan Lee was convinced superheroes were a fad, just like western comics, science fiction comics and romance comics before.

It's worth noting that the Illusion of Change (which I consider to be anything other than substantive and irreversible change) was a compromise between two different factions: real, substantive and irreversible change and no change at all (essentially Spider-Archie.) With the Weisinger Superman comics, there was hardly any issue to issue continuity, as nothing changed from issue to issue, so it hardly mattered what order issues were published. This made it a lot easier to commission fill-in work, in case a writer or artist ase late. And it meant that reprints could be used more easily, as it hardly mattered whether an issue was published in 1959 or 1962.

Marvel currently wants to keep as many readers as possible, but it's not productive to lose what made Spider-Man so appealing in the first place. And that's what could happen, if they change too many elements in an irreversible manner.

As a result, I prefer changes that can be reversed (Peter meets a girl, Peter breaks up with a girl, Peter gets fired, etc) or developments that don't really close doors for future writers (new coworker at the Daily Bugle, Peter's mother's family decides to get in touch with him, etc.)