While the illusion of change approach works well with a flexible status quo, it doesn't really accommodate a stable state of affairs. That represented one of the problems with the spider-marriage.

Marriage removed tension from the series, because readers knew that the relationship will survive conflicts. It also produced stability, as it was difficult to repeatedly convince readers that Peter may not have a loving supportive wife to go home to.

If “growth”isn’t an option but you want to keep the marriage, this means that the comics would have to deal with an eternally childless married couple in their late twenties. If Peter and Mary Jane have a child or find Baby May, that kid’s age will have to remain the same, which makes Peter’s adventures seem more inconsequential, although The Simpsons and Family Guy have conditioned readers to not ask questions about why cartoon babies don’t get older. There are a few problems with these approaches, beginning with the way it seems to freeze the status quo, as you know that no matter what happens Peter will eventually be comfortable in his house with his beautiful and supportive wife.

A writer can't end a story with a married Peter Parker miserable and alone, wondering if that's ever going to change, without doing something bad to Mary Jane. And most of Spider Man’s problems are somehow less significant when he had a beautiful, loving, understanding and supportive wife who he can really confide in. This limited the drama and made him seem like a jerk any time he complained about his life. It also limited the directions the writers can take the story in.

As there will be at least three issues of Spider Man a month for the foreseeable future, I don't think the marriage is the best status quo to keep all those books interesting and compelling in the years and decades to come. Fans of the marriage will maintain that any problems with making that status quo indefinitely compelling are purely the fault of the writer, leading to the “good writers” argument. A perpetually childless couple eternally in their late 20s will become uninteresting faster than a single guy eternally in his late 20s, due to the greater variety of the latter. Peter's life shouldn’t always be miserable, but it's far more interesting when it's not stable.

Given how strong Peter and MJ's relationship has been and the iconic status of both characters, it was difficult for writers to create problems in the relationship without making one (or both) seem unlikable. Mary Jane has the patience of a saint, so Peter can't really be pissed at her, unless she were to do astoundingly stupid, and probably uncharacteristic. Peter Parker's unreliable because of his day job, where he has objectively saved more than ten thousand people. At the same time, Mary Jane should know by now what she's been getting into, so she can't really be mad at the guy considering all the lives he saves. It is possible to give them conflicts, and make both sympathetic. But it's difficult. And it's something that has to be repeated every now and then.

A counter-argument is that not allowing marriage is also a stabilizing force, but there's more variety with that edict. Peter dealing with the aftermath of a kiss from his best friend's girl (whom he considers to be ridiculously attractive) is different from Peter dealing with the aftermath of a one-night stand with his roommate, which is different from Peter having a friends & benefits relationship with an ex who doesn't really love him, which is different from Peter slowly beginning a relationship with someone in his social circle. And so far, this involves four different romantic interests.

In terms of stability, the spider-marriage was equivalent to restricting Peter to one residence (one house in New York City) or one job (a particular employer) in a permanent manner. There can be significant conflict, but the writers would be greatly handicapped. That said, there's no rule saying that he always has to be a photographer. JMS made him a High School Science teacher, followed by a job with Tony Stark. Guggenheim gave him a low-paying job in a comic book store. Zeb Wells had him take a taxi-driving exam. Mark Waid blacklisted him.

One argument against One More Day was that it was a bad idea, just because it was guaranteed to be controversial. Before that point, Spider-Man's marriage had gone from a sudden change to a seemingly permanent part of the status quo, so any change was going to be rocky. There were going to be people emotionally invested in the previous developments for the characters, who were going to be upset, and were going to do what they could to let others know that.

The anti-controversy argument is counterproductive for anyone who wants the marriage to be restored because it focuses on whether a bad decision was made in the past, when the more significant question is about what would be a good decision in the future. At this point, any decision Alonso, Wacker or Slott could make in the future regarding the marriage would be debated. Although the idea that controversy is inherently bad is questionable, considering the other things that happened that could have affected reader interest prior to One More Day (a focus on new villains, new creative teams, departure of JMS and a thrice-monthly schedule.) It's possible that without the attention and new direction of OMD/ BND, sales would have been lower. 


While readers might not have had an obvious reason to drop the title without OMD, there may be a greater danger when there's no obvious reason to buy the title either. It would just be one of those books on the stand that's probably on okay read, but just doesn't interest you enough to buy. Say what you will about controversy, it brings eyeballs to titles.

During the Brand New Day era, I think the brain trust and web-heads did a good job waiting for most of the vocal critics to calm down for a bit. Readers had an year and a half to get used to the absence of the marriage before Peter Parker's one night stand with Michelle Gonzalez, and Mary Jane's return to the supporting cast. It was three years after One More Day that Peter Parker began his first serious relationship with Carlie Cooper. The writers are playing the long game, and tensions do die down with the passage of time.

Some suggested that the marriage shouldn’t have been changed, because many readers just weren't familiar with a period in which the Parkers weren't husband and wife. That wasn't a particularly persuasive argument, as in addition to untold tales, oft-reprinted classics and the various retellings of Spider-Man's story in the Ultimate Comics and in other media, there was the clone saga, the interval  in which Mary Jane was believed dead and the period in which they were legally separated in those twenty years. The latter two were the most obvious ways writers could shake up the status quo, and it can't be used again, which restricts future writers. And it doesn't work when it's been more than four years after One More Day.


The writers will have to continue ignoring some of the most vocal fans, and that's fine. Otherwise, we'd have had a story where Spider-Man found his long-lost baby, and the Aunt May who turned out to be alive was revealed as a Skrull, regardless of whether these would have been good ideas in the long term. If writers decide those are stories that they really want to tell, that would be one thing. But it shouldn't be mandated because some of the fans are calling for it. The people at Marvel shouldn't worry about appeasing the guys calling for their castrations.



Fans in general aren't concerned about the same things which writers and Marvel Editor‑in‑Chiefs worry about. How many of these readers are bothered by whether or not the book will be enjoyable decades down the line? It’s the job of the writers to know when it’s okay to defy the fans, and write stories that some of them will not enjoy no matter how well its told, such as Ultimate Marvel, the resurrection of Bucky, the return of Hal Jordan as the Green Lantern and the addition of Spider‑Man and Wolverine to the Avengers.

Hell, there was a time when Mary Jane was suddenly (and very memorably) introduced to the Spider‑Man books. If there were message boards then, I'm sure fans would have been reacting to the solicitations of Amazing Spider‑Man #43 (which would be available before Amazing Spider‑Man #42 comes out) complaining about how Peter should be with Betty Brant forever. One of the worst things the writers could do with a bachelor Spider‑Man is give him generic romantic interests, and assume that the readers will care about them because they're important to the story. Fortunately, there is the alternative of making romantic interests unique and compelling, even if anything in that department will initially be disputed and some readers will be disappointed in the outcome. There will always be someone who is upset, regardless of what decision the company makes.

The only real indication of whether something is successful is sales. If sales had plummeted (and we'll talk about sales very soon) with the new format, it would have been easy for Marvel to undo the retcon with a stetcon. They can either have a new story in which magic is used to undo the marriage. Or they could have Peter and Mary Jane start dating one another, and see if the fans are happy with that, eventually moving on to an engagement and a marriage. But it would be irresponsible for Marvel to make decisions based solely (or in a large part) on how the message boards will react.


There are ways for writers to avoid controversy. They could preserve as much of the status quo as possible, and quietly focus more on characters who readers aren't as invested in. So the likes of Carlie Cooper, Max Modell and Michelle Gonzalez can make difficult and sometimes poor decisions, while familiar figures will not be put in that position. One problem with that approach is that the new guys will be more interesting than the classics, because their stories will be more compelling. It's what happens when you take the safe approach in fiction. There's also the risk of losing customers to titles where the protagonists do stuff that's worth arguing about.


Controversy suggests that there are people who are passionate on both sides of an issue. And it often pays off. Stan Lee was right to feature drug use in Amazing Spider-Man, Gerry Conway was right to kill off Gwen Stacy and Bendis was probably right to kill off the Ultimate Peter Parker and replace him with Miles Morales, despite the inevitable resentment from some of the consumers.


Contentious outcomes are equated with gimmicks, which aren't automatically bad, but it does suggest a lack of substance and long-term thinking. You can disagree with the decisions involving One More Day, but I don't think that getting rid of the marriage was a gimmick. It's something that Quesada thought about for years, and has discussed in depth numerous times. There's a difference between saying that you didn't find the reasons given adequate and suggesting that no reason was ever given. The latter is absurd, considering how many interviews Quesada and others have made about a change to a fictional character's marital status.


Something can be controversial even if there isn't a parity between the two sides making an argument. What if Marvel chose the wrong side? What if the fans want change?

<<PREVIOUS NEXT >>

When Peter Parker's marriage was erased, this was followed by some changes to the rest of the supporting cast, particularly Harry Osborn, Mary Jane and the Black Cat. One argument in favor of undoing One More Day is that it will allow these characters, along with Peter Parker to be restored to their earlier levels of maturity, thus reversing their regression.

The purpose of the supporting cast is to serve the protagonist's story. So their roles are going to be different when he's single than when he's married, as new storytelling opportunities are open for the writers, and new contrasts become necessary. There's little doubt that many of the changes in portrayal resulted from the removal of the marriage, so it does stand to reason that if Marvel backtracked on that part of One More Day, the supporting cast would be back to where they were prior to that story.

Mary Jane Watson

The last page of Amazing Spider-Man #560 revealed that an actor stalked by a supervillain was dating Mary Jane. This upset some readers. CBR poster Jeffgamer compared it to adultery.

Okay, so the issue, as I understand it (and have seen the scan of the last page), shows that some sleazy celeb named Bobby Carr has been dating a mystery woman who turns out to be Mary Jane. The last page reveals it, showing her response to a question of how she always looks so amazing...MJ is shown laying on his couch reading Faust, and she replies "It's magic, tiger. Come here and let me explain it to you."

If anything, this makes the whole deal even more offensive than before. I'm sorry, but the REAL continuity has Peter and Mary Jane married. This is a BS alternate reality universe manufactured by editorial decree and rubber-cemented by satanic pact. Now they're suggesting that MJ is doin' the nasty with some other guy, calling HIM her pet name for Peter. It's adultery, regardless of what Mr. Quesada wants the readership to accept. I don't give a rat's tuchus about "how it came to be" or what "loose ends" they tie up if those loose ends are dangling from the BND continuity. I KNOW how it really came to be...we ALL do -- by editorial mandate...and it needs to be UNDONE before they take it further, even if it means scrapping plans.*

This scene that is being described, re: the end of #560, is yet another Quesada &  Crew "slap to the face" of the long-time readers who care about the real timeline and the married relationship that is a cornerstone of the REAL life of Peter Parker. Me, I hope that scene knocks another 10,000 readers off the title. It should.
It is pure offensiveness, and Marvel should be called to task for it. Despite the advance solit promos for #560 that were saying "Something happens that YOU'VE BEEN ASKING FOR!!!!!", the fans have most decidedly NOT been demanding that MJ come back to the book in this fashion. A huge number of fans have been demanding that the MARRIAGE and the continuity be restored. I doubt that anyone will be able to even RECOGNIZE the MJ that Marvel is going to be depicting, the one who showed such unwavering loyalty to her husband as recently as Sensational Annual #1, the spotlight-on-MJ Sensational issue, or even the wretched OMD.* 

I'm sorry, Marvel, but you're being despicable.*

*No, my problem is that with this issue and as well as with last week’s, is that by taking Spidey and Felicia’s relationship back to square one, it doesn’t feel the least bit fresh or inspired. And since we are essentially told that it’s not going to be anything more than just sex between them and that it’s going to end badly eventually, there just doesn’t seem to be much emotional investment in them rekindling their “relationship.” Not to mention that Felicia Hardy, despite all the development she’s undergone with Spidey over the years, is now essentially reduced to “Spidey's kinky booty-call.”

A gentler variation of “the good writers argument” suggests that the writers did a good job with Peter Parker/ Spider‑Man, but should have focused more of their energy on making Mary Jane Watson into a more interesting character. She’s been a crucial part of the success of the comic strip, movies and the 90s cartoon, and has been established as a useful part of the supporting cast. She also has a pivotal role in many of the best and most popular Spider‑Man stories. As a result, Marvel has to be careful regarding their approach with the character.

Regarding Spidey/MJ:

People can talk about whether or not Peter and MJ should've been married all they want, but the fact is... they are. And they've been together for far too long to simply divorce and get rid of her. More than any other female character, aside from, say, Sue Storm... MJ has a significant role in the Marvel Universe as Spider-Man's muse. She is the main reason he does what he does.

Get rid of MJ and you lose the heart and soul to Spider-Man. Period. You can bring up all the "What If" scenarios you want, it won't change the fact that when you think of one, you instantly think of the other. They have been created to now fit together.

I think the main problem is, nobody wants to take MJ and create her own personality. In the years she's been around, all she's been used for has been nothing more than a hot chick in a nightie waking up to console Peter in the middle of the night... or a hot chick in a nightie waiting up for Peter to return from a fight. Or someone who has to be saved.

Sean McKeever is the only writer trying to get to the actual heart of MJ.

My take on MJ is a simple one... she digs Peter and Spider-Man. She's lived with this for most of her life and they are both like a drug to her. She rarely gets overly worried about him and, truth be told, she sort of gets off on seeing him in battle. When he returns, she asks him about what he did to defeat the bad guy... she'd even know all his favorite moves.

What are her outside interests?

To me, she'd be a bit of a chocoholic. She never lets anyone have the last piece of chocolate and if someone gets there before she does, it bugs her to no end.

She loves those Macy's Day Parade balloons. She also loves morning cartoons on Saturday.

She'd take up cooking with Jarvis and find out she's very good at it. The kitchen in the Avengers Tower is where the heroes hang out. I think it's like that in everyone's home.

She loves to embarrass men in line at the grocery store by holding up a box of tampons and saying "Mind if I go before you? I need to pay for these." It makes her laugh to no end the way men are freaked out by a tiny box of hygene products. Which makes Peter roll his eyes when he sees her come home laughing.

She can't lie to people. Nobody tells her about surprise parties.

In high school, she beat the crap out of Flash Thompson. They've never discussed it since... but each of them knows it happened.

Words about bodily function make her giggle like a child. "Crap" "Crappola" "Shit" "Pissed".... all of them. And she can't help it.

When she tells someone in the grocery store that you can use salt/pepper/garlic powder on some chicken legs (the cheapest, but best part of the chicken) pan fry skin side down in some olive oil and baked when turned for 40 minutes... and you'll have the greatest first date meal of your lives... she feels like she's Spider-Man.

She loves to carve her initials in wet cement. She's done it all her life and, according to her log book, has 11,015 "MJW's" and 7,342 "MJWP's" across the streets of New York. It's an obsession.

She's afraid to get close to children... because they make her curious about parenthood. And those thoughts make her worry about what type of child you conceive with a man who has radioactive blood. So she stays back, keeping just enough distance to keep safe.

She thinks Bonds did it. He knew it. And she also knows that if steriods could win you a title... and they're willing to do it... do it. Nobody is with her on that point of view.

She sponsors two children via mail. Nobody knows.

Soooooo, maybe some of those work for you, maybe they don't. But I think the more you put into a character, the more endearing that character becomes to the reader. And let's face it, though we don't MIND seeing MJ in lingerie, it's now like.... "okay, she's in a nightie... get to the story." You have to have more than the physical.

The more interesting MJ is, the more interesting Peter and MJ are. So, I'd love to focus on her side of the equation. She'd be the one of the few females in the Marvel Universe who can handle a crisis and not freak out. She's lived with this shit for yeeeeeeears.

You may now bash me.

It's difficult to think of anyone who writes relationships in comics better than Beland, but his argument is flawed, featuring some revisionist history. Let's ignore that Mary Jane and Flash didn't go to high school together. Spider‑Man did not need a muse for the first half of the character's existence, and the absolute best stories of the character come from that period. Getting Peter and Mary Jane to fit together resulted in significant retcons, including the revelation that Mary Jane had always known that Peter Parker was Spider‑Man and a few flashbacks about ten year old Peter crushing on his nine year old neighbor, never mind that he had no idea who she was until her memorable introduction in Amazing Spider‑Man #42.

I don't see any reason to blame the character or how she is written for any problems in the comics, or potential problems in the future. Mary Jane's a great character, and I hope she remains a part of the Spider‑man books. However, the situation in which she was placed was flawed, when dealing with an action serial with no end in sight. Regardless of how well she’s written, she will continue to support her husband and often make his troubles seem less relevant. While she adds to Peter’s responsibilities and often suffers along with her husband whenever the status quo needs a shake-up, that experience will still add up with all the other things the couple has gone through, making them seem older.

There’s no reason to assume that undoing the marriage will prevent anyone from writing Mary Jane well. The current status quo allows the writers to do other types of stories with her. Just as there are stories you can do with a single Peter Parker that you can’t do with a married Peter Parker, there are stories you can do with a single Mary Jane that you just can’t do with a married Mary Jane Watson Parker.

The readers who prefer a married Spider‑Man often suggested that there were plenty of books available about a single Spider‑Man for anyone who preferred that status quo. The list circa-One More Day included Ultimate Spider‑Man, the Marvel Age/ Marvel Adventures line, Spider‑Man Loves Mary Jane, the majority of “Untold Tales” type projects, comics set in the movie or TV show universes and assorted other material. The response that fans of the marriage could read Spider‑Girl, or the Spider‑Man comic strip didn’t go over too well. Each of these books has its flaws, and the proposed solution does not address the more significant issue of what’s best for Amazing Spider-Man, which is often unrelated to what individual fans say they want to see.

Movie/ TV Spinoffs

With any comic books set in the movie and television universes, savvy readers are aware that nothing of consequence will happen. There can’t be anything to disrupt the movies and cartoon, which will reach a significantly larger audience than the number of people who will ever be aware that the comic book exists. The writers can’t introduce villains, because that could eventually end up contradicting the introduction of the villain in the movies or TV show. They could try to sidestep by introducing new versions of really lame villains, but keep in mind that the creators of the 90s Fox Spider‑Man cartoon did use the Spot, the Big Wheel and Rocket Racer.

They can’t do anything of significance to Peter Parker or any of the supporting cast, because that might contradict the main product. The best the writers can hope for is that one of their stories is so good and popular that it gets adapted into an episode of the TV show.

There’s also the question of what to do with the comic series, when the TV show comes to an end, or Sony decides to relaunch the movies. In the regular Marvel Universe, you have more of a guarantee that the characters will continue having adventures for a long time. The average reader’s interest in the Marvel Universe will wane before the Spider‑Man books show hints of ending, and the universe and its characters will be waiting should they ever return.

They could expand on a cancelled TV/ movie series, but what’s the point? Sony and Disney have moved on, and newcomers are prone to be confused.

Untold Tales

Most Untold Tales projects combine the insignificance of the TV show/ movie tie‑ins, with a less accessible world. The stories have to fit in the old framework of the past of the real Marvel Universe, which suggests that nothing significant can happen. There’s less drama than in the regular comics, as the reader will know exactly how things will end for the hero, main villains and most of the supporting cast.

Writers can play around with this, as Kurt Busiek did in his Untold Tales of Spider‑Man run and Brian K Vaughan did in his mini‑series Spider‑Man/ Doctor Octopus: Negative Exposure by focusing on new supporting cast members. They can also try taking advantage of dramatic irony with existing characters as Lee Weeks did in his excellent Death & Destiny mini-series, but many constraints remain. The “dramatic irony” strategy requires a reader to be familiar with the older material.

Long‑term private subplots are also more difficult, as in most cases readers will be convinced that things will work out fine, and decades old comics will usually prove them right. When they show conflict in a relationship, most readers will be aware of how that relationship will eventually come to an end, or that it’ll be strong enough to last into the present day Marvel U. Low sales on a few earlier critically acclaimed projects set in the past might scare away some readers, unwilling to invest in a book more likely than not to be a sales failure, and thus less likely to lead to interesting future stories. This is more of an occasional short-form structure for mini-series and possible OGNs than anything to be relied on for the long-term.

Ultimate Comics

Bendis initially preferred to have the Ultimate Peter Parker age at a very slow rate. He had said in interviews that he may have Peter grow one year older every one hundred issues. An alternative was to have Peter stay in high school forever, as Bendis also said in interviews that there’s nothing wrong with completely freezing the ages of the characters, as in The Simpsons. With either approach, it would be a long time before the character graduates college. That kept the Ultimate books distinct from the regular Marvel Universe, and ensured that these remain unique after the Marvel Universe Spider‑Man became a twenty‑something bachelor.

However, it meant that readers who prefer a single Spider‑Man with the experience and history of the Marvel Universe Spider‑Man would have to look elsewhere. Of course, Bendis later chose to take Ultimate Spider-Man in a radically different direction, bringing the kid's story to an end. Perhaps the development became more likely in the aftermath of One More Day, but Ultimate Spider-Man is no longer a book one can seek out to enjoy the adventures of Peter Parker.


Other Titles

Spider‑Man Loves Mary Jane was another high school series, with most of the disadvantages of the Ultimate books, before you consider that it’s entirely from Mary Jane’s point of view. This was a different type of comic than the one from the superhero’s perspective. As the series is set in its own universe, it can’t really reference events in other books. With MJ single, they are freer to do this type of book in the regular Marvel Universe, though.

The Marvel Adventures books are well‑received, but exist for a different audience than the regular Marvel Universe books, which limits what you can do with them. For these stories accessibility and appeal to younger audiences is more important than greatness. Theoretically there’s nothing preventing the writers from creating truly great stories which could rank with Kraven’s Last Hunt or “Nothing Can Stop the Juggernaut,” but there’s nothing encouraging it either. Many of the issues are good, but there are hundreds of good Spider‑Man stories available, which limits the sense that the series is worth three bucks an issue.

Creating interesting and complex subplots and mysteries is also discouraged, as it goes against the entry level appeal of the series. The stories often have little issue to issue continuity and they aren’t discussed much on either the internet or comic book periodicals, except when mentioned as examples of decent (but never on par with the “Best Ever”) All‑Ages material. As a result, the average reader won’t feel that he or she has missed out on anything by not buying the book.

Events in Amazing Spider-Man can affect how the Spider-Man comics outside of the 616 Universe are perceived. For example, if Peter Parker's not married to MJ, it removes the sense of inevitability from the other renditions of the relationship. So readers won't be certain about where Ultimate Peter & MJ (or movie Peter & MJ, or TV show Peter & MJ)'s relationship will eventually go. So whatever happens to the "real" Spider-Man will have reverberations in other titles.

This does pose one question though. Why do we need a “real” Spider-Man?

<<PREVIOUS NEXT >>

My original title for this essay was "Spider-Man Forever." That was before Marvel announced X-Men Forever, a series in which writer Chris Claremont wrote the franchise as if he had never left the book in the early 1990s. At CBR, I asked if this could be done with the Spider-Man comics, and there was a seemingly obvious divergence point: One More Day.

Projects that are out of continuity generally don't sell well, especially monthlies. X-Men Forever had one of the most prominent X-Men writers ever, and it still got cancelled. Under most circumstances, there isn't much of an indication that a similar Spider-Man title would be financially viable. Work that's not set in the classic Marvel Universe or the Ultimate Universe comes with significant hurdles, as some readers just don't think it "matters." And there have been books featuring a married Peter & MJ that didn't include impressive sales.

Considering this, a Spider-Man Forever book would be unlikely to sell well enough to continue for a long time. And in the likely event that it gets cancelled, you'd have some angry and conspiratorial fans claiming Marvel didn't support it enough, ignoring the fundamental flaws in the concept.

Ron Ferraro, a poster at CBR, former comic book retailer and vocal OMD critic, suggested a variation in which Marvel publishes a second ongoing series in which Peter had rejected Mephisto's offer from One More Day. The difference is that Marvel wouldn't establish which version is "real." While Spider-Man could appear in other titles, his private life would remain ambiguous. So the title with a married Spider-Man would still matter.

Spidey's bachelor status has been referenced in other titles, such as his date with Ms. Marvel and conversation with Spider-Woman in New Avengers over whether he's ever been married. If you suddenly announced a new title which went in a different direction with Peter telling Mephisto to go stuff himself in One More Day, it will seem a little bit less legitimate because it would be outside the regular Marvel Universe, which has gone on since OMD. That could be avoided with the establishment of a new point of divergence. Loose ends from One More Day could be tied up in a new storyline, which then allows for two divergent realities at the end, so both "new" series would start on equal footing.

The differences in the books will be more than just the marital status, as the characters will have different adventures which can have an impact on the rest of the Marvel Universe. This applies even if it's just a minor detail such as whether or not Spider-Man has met the newest members of Avengers Academy, which you would expect to be mentioned in a team-up in that title. If the Marriage Forever Spider-Man teams up with Wolverine's X-Men in his title, and the Post-BND Spider-Man doesn't , Jason Aaron will have to pull off one hell of a tightrope walk should Spidey appear in Wolverine and the X-Men. If Vulture's killed off in one of the titles, he would be off-limits to the entire Marvel Universe. New villains can't appear outside the Spider-Man books, until they've appeared in both titles, which would either require the writers telling redundant stories or requiring readers to be familiar with events in the other title.

Amazing Spider-Man also has two monthly spinoffs: Scarlet Spider andVenom, both of which will build off of storylines from ASM. The parallel titles scenario limits significantly the ability to do that, as you wouldn't be able to reference events from either Spider-Man title (any reference elsewhere has to apply equally to both titles.) Under this approach, something like Spider Island would be borderline impossible.

Such a compromise gives the people who hate the current direction more hope that Marvel fails. And more reasons to be (sometimes irrationally) pissed off if this approach doesn't yield the results they want. Sales discussions will be more chaotic than ever, and the OMD haters would second-guess every creative decision Marvel makes to come up with preemptive excuses if their title is less successful.

People would talk about it online, but it would give ammunition to the people with an agenda against the current status quo at Marvel. It could provide more for the critics to complain about. For example, which series would be Amazing Spider-Man and which series would be something else? Otherwise, there would be a legitimate argument that Marvel's giving Quesada/ Alonso's preferred status quo the more prestigious book. If there's no Amazing Spider-Man, this prevents Marvel from being able to take advantage of the boost the title gets relative to other Spider-Man books.) I guess you could call the married Spider-Man title Amazing Fantasy, as that's a title with some historic significance.

Dan Slott joked about the idea, and the fans who advocated for it, noting the precedent it would set.

In this fantasy scenario it doesn't really seem fair for one of the books to be called just "Spider-Man". To put them on equal footing, shouldn't they both have qualifiers? One could be called, as Farmernudie suggested, Spider-Man BND. And the other could be called, Spider-Man WTF. (Short for Spider-Man Whatever That Farmernudie-guy wants.) And instead of a letter column, there'd be a sign-up sheet asking just ronnieramone and farmernudie what they specifically want in the next issue. And that's what'd get done. Until they started disagreeing with each other. And then we could do 3 books.

As did editor Stephen Wacker.

I represent a secret legion of long-time Spider-Man fans who feel the grave mistake with the character first raised its head in the first panel of the first story where he is rudely awakened by an elderly man! This goes against everything that had been established in the book by that point (for one thing that was HARDLY an "Amazing" Fantasy!) There is NO WAY the Ben Parker I knew from the upper left portion of that panel would viciously tousle a young boy's hair like that. To make matters worse, Peter than compares the elderly man to a CLOCK!! which is something he had never done up to that point (way to twist the character to fit you needs, writer!) And I don't care if I have to post this declaration everyday...I WILL NOT STAND FOR IT! I will gather in the public square--just like the Romans!-- until me and my 299, 935, 000 fellow Americans who aren't reading the book have their calls heeded! Believe me, I have them in my corner, but they fear speaking publicly. If this change were finally dealt with instead of being rudely ignored and mocked, I can guarantee the sales on the would skyrocket to cover every man, woman and child and Marvel wouldn't need variant covers (that clearly no one wants since I don't) to make sales look good. Do it, Wacker, or should I say Wanker for that is what you am?

If Marvel thought there was a way to make money with this, they'd do it. There are significant knocks against the book, though.

Some thought that a "straight to TPB" approach would give the married Spider-Man title more credibility. There's a reason you don't see many straight to trade/ hardcover projects from Marvel and DC. Both companies really like all those readers who pay twice for the same material, in single issue form and in later collections.

In the case of Superman: Earth One, DC aimed for a consumer base outside of typical comic book fans, with a product that's perfect for bookstores and for amazon.com. It went straight to trade, because that's where the majority of the audience was anyway. The customer base of a Spider-Man Forever title would be mostly people who are already reading comic books or at least familiar with the process of buying comics: Spider-Man geeks who will buy almost any Spider-Man product (keep in mind how few Amazing Spider-Man readers picked up stuff like the Extras or the spinoff mini-series), fans of a married Spider-Man and perhaps connoisseurs who buy particular critically acclaimed titles, the guys who will gush over Thor the Mighty Avenger.

You'd get some of the people who left the title after OMD (for argument's sake, I'm looking at the crowd who was reading JMS's Amazing Spider-Man prior to the "The Other" as that storyline marked the point when the title's sales were artificially inflated with 19 consecutive EVENT issues), but not all of them. And if it's straight to trade, you wouldn't have anyone double-dipping.

The idea of having two parallel books set simultaneously within separate universes and the shared Marvel Universe just gets too complicated. But there are a few Marvel published outside the regular Marvel Universe. That raises the question of whether it's even advantageous to have Spider-Man be married in the main title, when there are other places to read about a single Spidey.

The assumption with any hypothetical story in which a married Peter and MJ got divorced was that it would happen fairly quickly, because that's how these things usually work in comics. In a post at CBR, Kurt Busiek suggested that it might have been preferable to do a divorce as a long-term development, having the writers spend years convincingly dismantling Peter and MJ as a couple.