InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "Now I'm shoo shoo shakin'"

Badficwriter (ashtoreth) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-08-23 23:23:00

Entry tags:

char: may parker, char: spider-man/peter parker, creator: roger stern, creator: val semeiks, title: amazing spider-man family

Aunt May and her boyfriends
Doop posted this from Mark Millar's Trouble miniseries. An attempt by Marvel to use modern soap opera in a romance comics way and shoehorn in a shocking twist to the origin of Spider-man. It was received terribly and isn't canon.

I personally believe Roger Stern had in mind a sort-of 'this is how you SHOULD have done it' style retcon when he wrote 'Just A Sweet Old Song' for The Amazing Spider-man Family 7. Because it's still a recent comic, I had to chop up the bits I could show, but it also mentions the events that were originally shown here, also by Doop. As far as we know, this IS current canon.

(Roughly 4 pages worth of scans under the cut)

May is making photo albums of pictures that were conveniently in storage when the old house was burned down. Peter looks at them curiously.

"Say, is this you?"

Peter asks for the story of the time May met Ben.

I'm sure they didn't have sex. I mean, girls didn't have sex with soldiers going off overseas. The alternative is thinking of my grandparents having sex before marriage.

WHORE!

Then we get to see Johnny Jerome, who looks like Rhett Butler. But one night, as the two danced May recognized the voice of the singer of the band...

The amount of guilt May seems to feel, you'd think she was Millar's Trouble girl. She castigates herself some more and tells Peter the story of Why Johnny Was Bad (that you can read the original of in the link above). Peter thinks about his own attraction to bad girl Black Cat and understands why he's never been told.

She makes reference to them deciding to start a nest egg before getting married. Ben went into sales and made a better living than his music made him. May waited tables at Macy's (they had a restaurant?). Then she tells of Ben proposing with his brother's help and how, after Richard and Mary were married and had a child, they accepted care of Peter. May mentions how ashamed they were by the accusations rife at the time of Peter's parent's death that they were traitors. Ben was dead before May found out (with Spider-man's help) that Richard and Mary were American secret agents killed by the 1950's Red Skull.

Then offhand, May mentions...

They wrap up with more reminiscing, and May talking about how happy Jay Jameson made her. It ends with May dancing to Ben's record with his old coat.

(Post a new comment)

	starwolf_oakley 2009-08-24 04:34 am UTC (link)
	I seem to remember that somewhere in an AMAZING issue May said to someone "You didn't lose a child like I..." I don't know the exact issue. Sorry. (Reply to this)

	foxhack 2009-08-24 04:41 am UTC (link)
	This isn't a bad story at all. And it offers a decent backstory, while mentioning a story that's still in continuity. Not bad. Roger Stern, you did well. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	neuhallidae 2009-08-24 04:45 am UTC (link)
	Stern's pretty awesome. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	arilou_skiff 2009-08-24 10:10 am UTC (link)
	Stern was the writer when I read Spidey as a kid. He's still the definite version for me. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	neuhallidae 2009-08-24 04:45 am UTC (link)
	The second to last panel of the last page looks incredibly odd, but for the most part, I love the art on May here. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	felinephoenix 2009-08-24 05:12 am UTC (link)
	Seconded. She and Younger!May are great. (I much prefer her look in this and the other story to Trouble's MJ clone.) (Reply to this) (Parent)

felinephoenix
2009-08-24 05:15 am UTC (link)

Why is it that the good Spidey stories all seem to be happening in Family, anyway? (See: this and the excellent JMD Harry/Peter story.) Seriously.

Anyway, I quite liked this. Props to Stern for being able to elegantly weave something Trouble-esque into continuity without being the... travesty that was Trouble. Plus, I think a miscarriage in May and Ben's past makes a LOT of sense.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

box_in_the_box
2009-08-24 05:57 am UTC (link)

Why is it that the good Spidey stories all seem to be happening in Family, anyway?

Yes, what a surprise, that a title which now churns out three issues a month, written almost entirely by conference calls, committees and summits, should seem like such shit, compared to one-shots where creators can actually TAKE THEIR FUCKING TIME to tell stories, WITHOUT having to compensate for, and blend seamlessly into, the styles of literally a dozen other writers.

Amazing Spider-Man has been reduced to McDonald's hamburger meat. It is the living embodiment of every reason why writing a regular, non-limited, ongoing series in the same way that 52 was written is an awful fucking mistake, and as much as I used to hate having four or five different Spider-titles a month, better THAT than what the ONE title has become.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	jlroberson 2009-08-24 11:16 am UTC (link)
	I don't know if you know this, but that train left the station decades ago. Spidey has been "McDonald's hamburger meat"(which is mostly soy) ever since at least the late 60s. It's Marvel's commercial cash cow and has been since before even I was born. Great art is not printed on Underoos. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

statham1986
2009-08-24 01:08 pm UTC (link)

There's a difference between using something as a cash-cow, as Marvel have been doing with Spidey for decades and didn't exactly interfere with the storytelling going on in the books at the time (Not once do I remember toys, movies or cartoon shows interfering with the books - Except in instances that were good, like the idea of bringing Firestar into continuity), and effectively churning out crap stories with 'fresh new villains' that're actually based on old ideas, all to appeal to the new generation who should go back and actually read the stories where Peter is a teen, given they're easily accessible.

There's a genuine difference between using a character's image for commerical purposes and having editorial stamp all over creativity. The way you describe it, we'd never have gotten stories like Kraven's Last Hunt or anything along those lines. The way you describe it, you make it sound like comics shouldn't aspire to be anything more than a cheap thrill for kids.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

It's still a banjo.

jlroberson
2009-08-24 02:04 pm UTC (link)

As an indie cartoonist, who doesn't do superheroes and only ever even tried it in an aborted sample once(posted here a while back), I certainly don't think that. I'm saying that SPIDERMAN comics don't aspire to that. Spiderman is not the medium, good Christ. Marvel IS the McDonald's of publishing. You are aware there's more to comics than superheroes. I know it's hard to remember nowadays, but they do exist.

Kraven's Last Hunt? Have you tried maybe AGE OF BRONZE or BERLIN, or TALES DESIGNED TO THRIZZLE. Or Eddie Campbell's new ALEC omnibus? Or even Alan Moore's non-superhero work?

The way you describe it, comics shouldn't aspire to be more than pretentious treatments of the superhero. Which is what's wrong with comics today. Funny how we're right back to where things were till the likes of CEREBUS, AMERICAN FLAGG and LOVE & ROCKETS. But with most of the best creators(including Gilbert Hernandez) having long since channeled themselves into superheroes, I guess one has to settle for what's there. But superheroes are a weak and silly vehicle, WATCHMEN aside, for what is possible to say in comics. As good as a superhero comic is, it's still only a really good superhero comic, it's still, however masterfully done, entertainment. It's like being the best banjo player in the world; it's still a banjo. The problem with mainstream comics, as Grant Morrison(who should know) once said, is that if you show the slightest flair, you seem like a genius. And something that in any other genre would simply be as well-written as it ought to be in the first place is considered a masterpiece, because the general accepted level of craft in the mainstream is set at such a low bar to begin with.

As for editorial stamping all over creativity, I've got news for you: ever since at least the days of Jim Shooter at MArvel, that's ALL mainstream comics. Even Vertigo. (Only Epic ever had anything like a hands-off policy) Editors in mainstream comics are what producers are to TV, and the idea the creators are in control, especially on the big books, is an illusion, only born of the fact that it's not the names of editors that move product.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: It's still a banjo. statham1986 2009-08-24 05:22 pm UTC (link)
	Try telling Mike Mignola working on Hellboy, BPRD and the other books, and Adam Warren working on Empowered, that ALL mainstream comic books are used to sell things and that the editors are totally in control. Explain Bendis' ability to get nearly anything he likes done, or Millar, even when their stories verge on ridiculous and crass. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: It's still a banjo. jlroberson 2009-08-25 02:19 am UTC (link)
	Empowered? You're arguing the seriousness of superhero comics and you mention that repulsive fanservice crap to me? Okay. Whatever. Hoo. (Reply to this) (Parent)

box_in_the_box
2009-08-24 07:32 pm UTC (link)

Perhaps we're merely debating a difference in relative degrees, then, because for as many problems as I had with certain aspects of J. Michael Straczynski's run on the title, it's almost impossible to compare his work on Amazing Spider-Man to that of the current "brain trust." Right or wrong (and yes, I do think he got more than a few things wrong), JMS really did have a singular vision and distinctive voice for the characters, right up until "Sins Past," when Quesada Shootered JMS's original plans for Gwen's baby-daddy. By contrast, what strikes me about the "brain trust" is the fact that, in spite of many of these guys previously being recognizable writers whose idiosyncrasies appealed to me, I literally can't tell which ones wrote which stories on this title, just from their writing styles. If you think JMS was already McDonald's (and I'm not going to say you're wrong for saying so), then what I'm saying is that the "brain trust" is so much MORE generic than JMS that they make his McDonald's look like Wolfgang Fucking Puck by comparison.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

jlroberson
2009-08-25 02:18 am UTC (link)

I am indeed speaking in terms of relative degrees, those of "good for a commercial superhero comic" versus "good as a comic." The former, no matter how great, will always be limited by genre; no superhero comic will ever be able to be as good as MAUS(no, not even WATCHMEN; for those heights you'd need to go to FROM HELL or like that), because something profound said about the superhero genre, in the grand scheme, isn't important, whereas something said about real history or real people(even if fictional), can be.

Superheroes are fun, entertaining and can even touch on allegorical truth, but in the end, they're still superheroes. I've been having this debate for over twenty years and in that twenty years the genre has had ample chances to prove what it can do, and all it resulted in was dark dark DARK, and you folks all complain about that, right? I do not think the genre is capable of bearing what non-genre work can.

I'd take an example from another genre and another medium. ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST is a brilliant film. But it's a brilliant autocritique of westerns. It doesn't say anything about true history, it doesn't say anything about America, it just says plenty about westerns. That's fine, but it's limited.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

psychop_rex
2009-08-26 06:52 am UTC (link)

While I agree with you to some degree, I would respectfully point out that saying that something 'will always' be limited by genre, and that 'no superhero comic will ever' be such-and-such is setting yourself up for a fall. Comics are a very new artform, at least as defined by the standards of literature, sculpture, painting, etc., and despite how it seems sometimes, we've only just begun to explore what it's capable of. Those others have been around for millennia; comics as we know them have only been around for roughly a century - and for most of that century, most comics have involved superheroes to some degree. I'm certainly not saying that 'Maus' and 'Bone' and the like are irrelevant - they're brilliant stuff, and we should see more like them - but the fact that superheroes dominate comics at the moment, and that, yes, a lot of them are fairly limited in what they do, does NOT mean that they will not achieve great heights at some point in the future. It's early days yet; you've got to crawl before you can walk, and walk before you can run.
And besides, I would argue that there have already been a number of superhero titles that have achieved a certain greatness which could herald great things in the future. 'Watchmen' is, of course, the obvious example which everyone turns to, but there are others which spring to mind. 'Nexus', by Mike Baron and Steve Rude for example - I don't know whether you've read any of it or not, but that could broadly be defined as a superhero book, and it's brilliant, brilliant stuff. Beautiful artwork, great writing, a storyline that goes from deeply dark and philosophical to sublimely silly at the drop of a hat, memorable characters - it's great. 'Coyote', by Steve Engelhart, has a similar reputation in some circles (although I can't attest to this, as I haven't actually read it - just heard of it). Scott McCloud's 'Zot' is at least nominally a superhero book, and it makes for great reading - none of it is exactly profound (at least not what I've read), but it has some quietly poetic moments that are truly beautiful. And then, of course, you have things like the Morrison run on 'Animal Man', which, while not technically a stand-alone work, has some brilliantly surreal, fourth wall-breaking stuff.
Basically, I'm just saying that, while you have a point, I wouldn't count superheroes out just yet. If nothing else, they're one of the few truly original things that comics have come up with. Fantasy, sci-fi, westerns, crime stories, horror, comedy, jungle adventure - all these things were around before comics. Comics may have helped bring some of them into the limelight, but it didn't invent them. Superheroes, on the other hand, WERE created by the comics - it's debatable as to just who was the first superhero, but every example I've ever heard of originated in the comics. This doesn't mean that they are therefore sacrosanct and untouchable, of course, but the fact that they still hold that position in comics today is at least testament to the fact that they retain power. The future may hold great things for them - we'll have to wait and see. I look forward to the years ahead.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

jlroberson
2009-08-26 07:19 am UTC (link)

Hmm. As far as AM I'd argue that Morrison turned it into something else--and part of his point in his last issue was that he tried to use Buddy to speak about his animal rights concerns but that, in the end, it just wasn't a sufficient framework to build that on, and in the end in some ways it became a metafiction--about those very limitations I mean. (and I'd also argue that Jamie Delano's AM, which stopped being a SH comic after his first issue, in some ways is a more overall solid work) WATCHMEN, too, is really about those limitations. I mean, its point is that the normal way of superheroics is about people who solve only so much but never really solve the real problem. (And what is truly great about WATCHMEN has more to do with its structural brilliance than its genre) Ozymandias himself says that his action makes theirs irrelevant, and he's right. The best superhero comics are generally thought to be so BECAUSE they point out the flaws inherent in the genre and its insufficiencies, whatever form that critique might take. Besides, I think people who think of WATCHMEN as being about superheroes, as such, and as mainly an examination of them, are kind of missing the point. They're really a MacGuffin and the most superficial level of a multilayered work.

ZOT is fun(and makes you wonder just what the hell happened to McCloud's comics sense--oh wait, died of theory), but I wouldn't call it "great" in the same way, just to pull a name from the air, a Kubrick film is great(and Kubrick is very much like Moore in that each of his films is very much genre--SF and war more often than any other--but does them in such a way as it makes others following him look a bit inadequate) So's NEXUS, but that's really SF(or I guess space opera), and SF in general long since proved its capability to say plenty about the world, far beyond what superheroes do--it's a pretty broad genre and sometimes only a nominal one. I name PKD as an example, who should be discussed alongside William Burroughs and it's only the genre label that separates them(increasingly less now). Or perhaps DUNE and the fact it's really just a way of talking about the imperialistic relationship between the West and the Middle East, particularly the events of the Suez Crisis if you're thinking of when it was written. Or even Margaret Atwood or PD James. They speak of real concerns writ large, and I would venture that the true test of the limitations of a genre is: you hand someone the book. Do you have to make excuses for it to get them to open it?

With superhero comics, you ALWAYS, even now, have to do that. "Well, it's got superheroes, but..."

I would also put this test as well. Take what you think is a "great" superhero comic. If you remove the superhero tropes, does it still hold up? Do you need to understand the history of the genre going in to get it?

Just something to consider.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

psychop_rex
2009-08-26 08:57 am UTC (link)

I would argue that, while you're correct about the best superhero comics pointing out the flaws in the genre, that is largely because Watchmen set the standard for such things. It deeply affected a lot of people, including a lot of comics writers, and as a result, we've had a lot of magnum opuses dealing with the deconstruction of the superheroic genre. That's fine, and there's no denying that this has yielded some brilliant results from some talented people, but that's not the only way to go (and I think Moore has stated that he somewhat regrets sending comics down this path). Sooner or later, I think it's inevitable that we get a superhero masterpiece which features the REconstruction of the superheroic genre - that is to say, if Watchmen and its ilk take apart superheroes like a watch to see what makes them run, this one would feature the watch all put back together again, each gear fitting into the next, tightly wound and keeping perfect time. In short, a story that does not dwell on why superheroes do NOT work, but focuses on why they DO work. One can only go so far in one direction before you have to turn around and try a different path.
I haven't read the Jamie Delano Animal Man as of yet - I probably will in the future, because I keep hearing good things about it.
I realize that Zot is hardly in the category of the other examples - it was just an example of an unconventional superhero book that works very well in my opinion. It's not a masterpiece, but it's pretty cool nonetheless.
I admit that Nexus is stretching the definition of a superhero comic a bit, but he fits the basic categories - he serves the cause of justice, wears a distinctive costume, and has incredible powers. I'll certainly admit that the comic itself is much more sci-fi than superheroic, but there's that kernel at the center that I'd say makes it qualify, at least a little.
What's 'PKD'? I fear I don't understand the reference.
And as for your last question - usually, yes. I mean, I DO understand the history of the genre, so it's not a question that I need to ask myself a lot, but a good deal of the stuff that I read and reread is stuff that holds up because the basic story is strong, along with the artwork, etc. Batman, for instance, has had any number of stand-alone stories that would work perfectly well with some other type of hero in his place, but the fact that it IS him there makes the story work that much better.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	jlroberson 2009-08-26 07:23 am UTC (link)
	PS--Don't bother with COYOTE. It's horrible. I might say that just because I find Englehart's writing intensely irritating. But still. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	psychop_rex 2009-08-26 09:03 am UTC (link)
	I'll probably wind up checking it out anyway, due to my 'satiable curtiosity - and the fact that, if he's the guy I'm thinking of who did the 'Laughing Fish' storyline of Batman, I actually like Englehart's writing. But thanks for the warning. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	jlroberson 2009-08-26 09:41 am UTC (link)
	Sadly, Englehart's BATMAN (which I think is really about the genius of the late Marshall Rogers--with whom I appear to share a birthday) is kinda the exception that proves the rule. COYOTE has a serious care of the cutes, that'd be my first problem with it. "PKD" is Philip K. Dick. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

psychop_rex
2009-08-26 08:51 pm UTC (link)

*shrugs* I'm an easy-to-please kinda guy. I appreciate genius, and seek it out, but really, I'll settle for competence. 'Coyote' isn't at the top of my list, anyway - it's one of those get-around-to-buying--some-day-when-you-have-the-extra-cash sort of things - so I doubt I'll be reading it anytime soon. Still, thanks for the warning; I'll take it under account.
*slaps forehead* Philip K. Dick. Of COURSE. So obvious it seems now.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	jlroberson 2009-08-26 08:54 pm UTC (link)
	I think the thing that irritated me most was...geez, how to put this...Englehart's seeming air of "Oh, I'm so innovative! Look, characters having sex! Aren't I daring!" (not to mention really lousy puns) Nobody show him any underground comics. He'll get depressed. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

psychop_rex
2009-08-26 09:21 pm UTC (link)

Well, I can't comment, 'cause I haven't read it - but I will say that, if this was the mid-'80's, such a thing would have still been considered fairly daring in a 'mainstream' comic. I mean, not too long before that, the censors would have eaten their ties at the very thought of such a thing. (And yes, underground comics, of course - but considering that just about ANYTHING went in those, they might not be the best example.) Still, like I said - haven't read it, so can't comment.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	jlroberson 2009-08-26 09:33 pm UTC (link)
	Actually, as I recall, it was mostly just nudity and rolling about in bed. And I can tell you, this 80s teenager was MIGHTY disappointed. But remember, this is the same guy who thought he was breaking ground by having Mantis begin as a Vietnamese prostitute. Wow, Steve! We've been ticking off our stereotype checklist, haven't we? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	psychop_rex 2009-08-26 10:01 pm UTC (link)
	Well, 'from lowly beginnings' and all that. (Reply to this) (Parent)

felinephoenix
2009-08-24 01:35 pm UTC (link)

NEWSFLASH. I don't disagree with you! BND is crap, and that's in no small part due to the half-assed writing and the stupid status quo. I was just expressing disappointment, because as a Spider-Fan, I'm also well aware that just because editorial is being ridiculous doesn't mean the writers have to be.

Even though I hated everything about the retcon, I was open to the possibility of good BND stories. I'm just disappointed I had to wait until Family to get them. (And with Family being cancelled, and Web of Spidey not starting until two months from now, that's going to be an even longer stretch.)

If there can be good stories during the CLONE SAGA and decent moments (I hesitate to say stories) in the FIRST REBOOT, then there's no reason they can't exist here. Other writers have let themselves not be hampered a stupid, stupid status quo before. The "Brain Trust" has and that's a shame.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	kingrockwell 2009-08-24 07:15 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, pretty much the only title that succeeded within the 52 model was, big surprise, 52. (Reply to this) (Parent)

box_in_the_box
2009-08-24 05:52 am UTC (link)

See, THIS is the Roger Stern I used to like.

I love all the in-jokey ways of preserving the aesthetic trimmings from those old stories, while still de-aging the characters through The Marvel Sliding Scale of Real-Life Chronology.

And look at Peter and May, treating each other with love, affection and respect, like two intelligent adults (something that's sorely missing in the hackneyed portrayals of both characters, and their relationship, in the main title).

And yes, I'm going to catch shit for saying this, simply because it's ME saying it, but THIS is how May should be drawn:

What a beautiful woman.

... Okay, that's ONE thing I've liked from the NuSpidey era. ;)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	neuhallidae 2009-08-24 06:16 am UTC (link)
	I still prefer the short hair, but as I said before, this art is still amazing, mostly because of her face. And even though I'm not a fan of the granny-bun, even that's drawn better here than it usually is lately. She looks classy. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	box_in_the_box 2009-08-24 06:44 am UTC (link)
	Yes. To all of this. And she has kissy-lips. Oh, God, I just realized ... May is Judith Ivey: (Reply to this) (Parent)

box_in_the_box
2009-08-24 06:06 am UTC (link)

And if not for his last name of "Goldberg," the colorist's depiction of Shirley's Army beau almost made me think that he was black, and that THAT was the reason why Shirley had to see him on the sly, without letting her parents know.

Am I alone in leaping to that (immediately proven wrong) conclusion?

I'm actually kind of disappointed that this is not the case, because for as much as she gets stereotyped as a frail, worrying old biddy now, I like the idea that, even as a young woman back in the day, May was progressive enough not to care about stuff like that. :)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	fredneil.livejournal.com 2009-08-24 07:36 am UTC (link)
	There are black Jews, you know, although he doesn't look like he's one of them. Still, having a Jewish best friend in the 40s was still fairly progressive. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

box_in_the_box
2009-08-24 07:45 am UTC (link)

There are black Jews, you know [...]

Yes, I was aware of this. :)

That being said, superhero comic books tend not to feature such casual intersectionality of ethnicity, and especially not when they're doing flashbacks to the WWII era.

Still, having a Jewish best friend in the 40s was still fairly progressive.

Maybe my mind is manufacturing things, but I could have sworn that someone who Actually Knows Things alluded to Ben Parker being Jewish? I mean, May is obviously Irish ("Reilly" is a pretty clear giveaway), but I seem to recall there being some debate about whether Peter is Jewish, due to his heritage.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

stratosfyr
2009-08-24 02:13 pm UTC (link)

Basically the argument for Peter being Jewish comes down to "Stan Lee is Jewish, Peter Parker is his best known character, therefore Peter is Jewish." There isn't really any basis for it. They explicitly avoided any mentions of religious stuff for years, and when they started doing them it was all Christmas trees and stuff.

His relatives' names are Parker, Reilly, and Fitzpatrick, which don't really scream Jewish to me. Someone Who Actually Knows Things might have mixed Ben Parker up with Ben Grimm.

Bendis kind of played around with that in Ultimate Spider-Man, having Peter using Yiddish expressions all the time, yet being explicitly not Jewish, in contrast to Kitty Pryde.

Stan & Co. (and I think especially Jack Kirby) went out of their way to include varied characters with a minimum of racial stereotyping, but I think were under some pressure to be subtle about it.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	felinephoenix 2009-08-24 04:19 pm UTC (link)
	This. The Adherents site also has a good overview of Peter's religion. Though I don't always agree with their assessments, Peter as a Protestant makes sense to me. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

fredneil.livejournal.com
2009-08-24 06:07 pm UTC (link)

Is there a reason why he'd be Protestant rather than Catholic? It's possible, but if his relatives are Irish, there's a better chance that they'd be Catholic. I suppose there's even a chance they could be Jewish, though that would be a MUCH, MUCH smaller chance than Protestant, but being Jewish depends on whether or not the mother is. (That was changed recently in Reform Judaism, but not anywhere else)I'm just guessing, but I don't think there have been too many Jewish women named "Mary" for the last 2000 years.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

felinephoenix
2009-08-24 06:26 pm UTC (link)

I considered Peter being Catholic too, because like you said, his relatives seem to be Irish. I think that would sense make too.

But in my opinion, if Peter was a Catholic it would've been made more explicit by now. Sure, it wasn't until the 2000s (I think?) that Ben Grimm was declared 100%-no-denying-it Jewish, but other Marvel Catholic heroes (Kurt, Matt, Eddie if you consider him a hero) have explicitly identified themselves as Catholic at one point or another. Peter hasn't. Hence why I think he's probably Protestant. Or "unindentified denomination that isn't Catholic".

As for Peter being Jewish.... yeahh, it wouldn't really work unless his mother was Jewish. You're right. (If I had a nickel for everytime I had to explain to people why my father having Jewish doesn't make me a Jew... oy.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	box_in_the_box 2009-08-24 11:05 pm UTC (link)
	[...] when they started doing them it was all Christmas trees and stuff. True, but then again, I know a number of non-practicing Jews who basically celebrate Giftmas, complete with all the Christmas trimmings, so I couldn't necessarily assume. (Reply to this) (Parent)

wizardru
2009-08-24 11:56 am UTC (link)

Yes and No. It was partly a sign of the times. When you march to war with another man, you become brothers. For many people, it's hard to hold onto those old predjudices when you've lived through mortal combat with someone. There are tons of examples of this during World War I and II. When you're hunkered down in a foxhole with man, getting ready to run out and attack, little things like religion seem to mean a lot less.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	fredneil.livejournal.com 2009-08-24 06:11 pm UTC (link)
	I was talking about May having a Jewish best friend before she met Ben. It's not out of the realm of possibility in 40s New York, but still somewhat liberal of her. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	jlroberson 2009-08-24 11:13 am UTC (link)
	Okay, this one? This makes sense. (Reply to this)

	ladymirth 2009-08-24 11:38 am UTC (link)
	Why on earth would Marvel wanted to have retconned this beautiful, sensitive, well-characerized story with one about trashy teenage shenanigans? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	404glitch 2009-08-24 12:10 pm UTC (link)
	Because Marvel wants the readers to relate to the Spider-family more, obviously. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	ashtoreth 2009-08-24 12:39 pm UTC (link)
	Trouble came first! We'd heard only bits before that, like the Johnny Jerome story and that Richard was so much younger than Ben. This is the retcon. :) (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	ladymirth 2009-08-24 01:46 pm UTC (link)
	Oh, good for them then. =) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	halloweenjack 2009-08-24 04:41 pm UTC (link)
	I think that Millar was trying to prove that he wasn't just about doing shock-o-rama versions of other peoples' work; unfortunately, Trouble ended up being a third-rate version of a Judy Blume novel. I think that when someone tells Millar that he has no subtlety, he thinks that they mean that he should use a bigger sledgehammer next time. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	ladymirth 2009-08-24 01:49 pm UTC (link)
	Also, GORGEOUS ART! (Reply to this)

ex_agata254
2009-12-08 03:09 pm UTC (link)

Frankly speaking I would like to make a comics devoted just to Aunt May and her boyfriends. I think it's unfair to promote the idea that grannies are asexual! Why do women are portrayed (in many art-forms) as either being completely asexual or or totally opposite, an incredibly sexualized woman? I think it's time to show the middle between two extremes.
signature: sex toy is the most fun you can have without laughing.

(Reply to this)