I despised this particular change to the Spider-Man comics and, in fact, it led to me dropping the title even with the great story-teller Dan Slott writing it. I just found the editorial premise behind it appalling.
(That DC decided to trump that whole thing when they launched their New52 reboot was at least two strikes against them.)
Speaking as a (a) comic book fan who is (b) happily married, the idea that interesting stories can't be told about married characters (let alone the implication that they might be actually growing older) is appalling — displaying a paucity of creativity at best, and a fanboish desire to stay forever 12 years old at worst.
Heck, though I won't claim total equivalency, it's in part an upset of representation. I'm married, I love marriage, I love comics, so where are the married super-heroes I can relate to?
Even if this is part of the still-a-bit-sketchy "Secret Wars" Marvel Universe semi-reboot, I welcome it as at least a temporary development. Esp. with Dan Slott writing it.
Originally shared by +Les Jenkins:
Tomorrow’s Spider-Man Comic Undoes One of Marvel’s Stupidest Mistakes
Eight years ago, in a Marvel Universe far, far away, Spider-Man was married. Then Marvel editorial had him make a deal with the devil—a villain called Mephisto—and he wasn’t a husband anymore, like it had never happened. It was stupid. People hated it. This week, Marvel’s teasing fans with the a world where that bonehead move never happened.
Agreed! Though the Silver Age had a few of these actually… Elongated Man & Sue Dibny, Hawkman & Hawkwoman, Mister Fantastic & Invisible Woman.
+Jeff Schiller Yup.
Btw, bought and read and enjoyed.