#That's not to go too far the other direction and claim EW tried to dominate and tactlessly exclude others - we know she didn't

[wonder-worker]

"The feast of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist being appointed as the day upon which the coronation of the king [Edward V] would take place without fail, all both hoped for and expected a season of prosperity for the kingdom."

-Excerpt from the Croyland Continuator / David Horspool, "Richard III: A Ruler and Reputation"

Even though Edward IV’s death was unexpected, after twelve years of peace there need not have been too much of a sense of foreboding about the succession. The great dynastic wound from which the Wars of the Roses had grown had not so much been healed as cauterized by the extinction of the House of Lancaster. There was no rush for London, as had happened in earlier, disputed successions. The royal party didn’t set out from Ludlow for ten days after hearing the news of Edward IV’s death, while Richard took his time, too. And the new king had [his mother the dowager queen and] two uncles to support him: his mother’s brother, the sophisticated, cultured, highly experienced Earl Rivers; and his father’s, the loyal and reliable Duke of Gloucester, to whom Edward IV had entrusted unprecedented power and vital military command.

... [Richard of Gloucester] had achieved his goal by a mixture of luck and ruthlessness, and if he made it appear, or even believed himself, that destiny played a part, this only made him a man in step with his times. Modern historians have no time for destiny, but sometimes the more ‘structuralist’ interpretations of the events surrounding the usurpation can come close to it. When we read that ‘the chances of preserving an unchallenged succession were . . . weakened by the estrangement of many of the rank-and-file nobility from . . . high politics, which was partly a consequence of the Wars of the Roses and partly of Edward IV’s own policies’, it is hard not to conclude that an unforeseeable turn of events is being recast as a predictable one. But without one overriding factor – the actions of Richard, Duke of Gloucester after he took the decision to make himself King Richard III – none of this could have happened. That is, when the same author concedes ‘Nor can we discount Richard’s own forceful character’, he is pitching it rather low*.

Edward IV had not left behind a factional fault line waiting to be shaken apart. Richard of Gloucester’s decision to usurp was a political earthquake that could not have been forecast on 9 April, when Edward died. After all, Simon Stallworth did not even anticipate it on 21 June, the day before Richard went public. We should be wary of allowing hindsight to give us more clairvoyance than the well-informed contemporary who had no idea ‘what schall happyne’. This is not to argue that Richard’s will alone allowed him to take the Crown. Clearly, the circumstances of a minority, the existence of powerful magnates with access to private forces, and the reasonably recent examples of resorts to violence and deposition of kings, made Richard’s path a more conceivable one. But Richard’s own tactics, his arrest of Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, the rounding up of Hastings and the bishops, relied on surprise. If men as close as these to the workings of high politics at a delicate juncture had no inkling of what might happen, the least historians can do is to reflect that uncertainty [...].

(*The author who Horspool is referencing and disagreeing with is Charles Ross)

#wars of the roses #edward v #richard iii #edward iv #my post #I'm writing a post on this topic but I have no idea when I'll finish it so I figured I should post Horspool's epic analysis #or should I say epic takedown? <3 #friendly reminder that Richard's usurpation happened primarily and decidedly because of Richard's own decisions and actions #we need to stop downplaying his singular agency and accountability by casting the blame on others #most of all Elizabeth Woodville and her family but also the bizarre interpretation of historians like Ross and Pollard (et al) #who somehow hold Edward more responsible (through a 'structuralist' view as Horspool says) even though that literally makes no sense #also friendly reminder that actual contemporaries did not view Edward V's minority as a sign of worry and potential discontent #quite the opposite - they expected him to have a prosperous reign. which made sense since Edward IV left his son a far more stable #country than any former minor king (and most other adult kings tbh). The irony is that it was his son's usurper who benefitted from it. #also I added Elizabeth Woodville to the list because Edward V himself specifically said that he trusted the governance of the country #'to the peers of the realm and the queen' as quoted by Mancini (likely relayed to him by John Argentine) #and this is supported by evidence. After Edward's death the Croyland Continuator substitutes Elizabeth's role in the council #for that of the King: 'the counsellors of the king now deceased were present with the queen' #we know Elizabeth presided over all the council's decisions and initiated proposals (the size of her son's military escort) on her own #She was clearly the one with the most authority in the council (who were described as being present with *her* not anyone else) #Hastings made demands but he couldn't enforce them at all (and was in fact worried). It was clearly Elizabeth who had that power. #She was likely going to play a very prominent role during her son's minority and imo it's problematic to assume otherwise #(Lynda Pidgeon assumes otherwise but she's based her assumption on objectively false information so I don't think we should take her #seriously)(see: she claims that EW lacked influence compared to her male relatives in royal councils when EW HERSELF WAS IN ROYAL COUNCILS) #That's not to go too far the other direction and claim EW tried to dominate and tactlessly exclude others - we know she didn't #The impression we get by this first council and by Richard's own actions indicates that she Richard and Anthony would likely #work *together* when it came to governing the realm #I do find it frustrating when people disregard the fact that based on the impression we have she would've had a very visible #and powerful role

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

Amazing Spider-Man: Full Circle #1 Thoughts

Well...this was odd.

I’ve never read a Round Robin before, not in comics or any other medium.

I think the first thing to acknowledge is that this wasn’t intended to be taken strictly seriously (let alone canonically) and certainly wasn’t treated as such by the creators. It’s more a creative exercise or experiment, the reading equivalent of a theme park ride I suppose.

That makes critiquing it weird and tricky. Thus I’m going to treat this more like an anthology book than one big story as the creative teams were not put in the best position to make everything hang together. I’m going to briefly talk about if I liked the art, the characterization of Spidey (and any other regular characters who pop up) and really that’s it. I don’t think it’s fair to lambast a this comic for taking Spider-Man into space or into a mystical direction as it’s supposed to be weird, wacky and fun, not taking itself seriously.

Also I’ll be writing about each part immediately after I’ve read it and before I’ve read the next part.

Awaaaaaaaaaaaay we go!

Part 1

Didn’t care for this one. Perhaps it’s because it’s the opening chapter and gets to set the stage, I can’t give it as much slack as everything else.

I’ve never liked Hickman and whilst the stuff about his work that annoys me wasn’t present here, his characterization of Spider-Man was very off. It felt ripped straight out of Brand New Day in how buffoonish and infantilized Spider-Man was (he even unmasks in the corner for no reason), the art not helping in this regard.* The art itself wasn’t very good because...well it’s modern day Bachalo and he’s literally leaving panels blank for no reason. Plus in some scenes I genuinely couldn’t tell what was happening.

The final thing to not about this part is that it might be set in the 1980s as Spider-Man is wearing his black costume and the recap page claims this to be an untold tale for Spider-Man. plus it features Hasslhoff Fury instead of Jackson Fury.

Big take away.

Hickman shouldn’t write Spider-Man in the future.

*Not to mention other people were treating Spider-Man as a joke.

Part 2

I liked this one much better. There was one moment of buffonishness with Spider-Man where he was in his underwear, but the other gags (like Spider-Ham and Fury shooting a ferret) I thought were earned enough. I also liked that Duggan provided a way to allow for the black and the red costumes to appear in the story. I adored the reference to the Florida Spidey theme park ride and the art was beautiful.

The only questionable parts were Spider-Man’s webbing working in space (how, there is no gravity?) and the werewolves kind of coming out of nowhere. Maybe that’s a little too harsh on my part given the nature of this story though.

My takeaway is that Smallwood should draw more Spider-Man and Duggan might deserve another shot at Spider-Man as this wasn’t all that bad.

Part 3

Wow.

In a project that was supposed to just be silly fun Nick Spencer put in way more effort than he had to.

First of all the art is lovely even if the human faces are a tad stiff.

Second of all, if you were in doubt that Spencer is qualified for the job as ASM writer, this should dispel those reservations.

Whilst the story has some wacky comedy ala Superior Foes it also has a dash of depth and plot development too.

In a story that thus far has featured Spider-Ham, falling from space and wacky hijinks, BAM, Spencer organically brings up Spider-Man’s origin in a way that’s logically consistent in a story inherently illogical in the first place.

More than this he throws in another brief yet organic reference to Man-Wolf and even uses the continuity of the book itself by referencing the previous two stories.

He ties this all together with the theme of choice and the random unintended consequences of those choices, thus delivering a meta commentary upon the inherent premise of this comic book. It’s actually rather ingenious and he did it in like 10 pages!*

Also I hope and suspect that werewolf MJ will become a fondly referenced moment in the future of the fandom.

*It also touches upon similar themes of quantum theories present in the current 2099 centric storyline in ASM.

Part 4

Mixed feelings.

I really liked Thompson’s Rogue/Gambit mini-series and whilst I’ve not gotten around to checking out her Mr. And Mrs. X ongoing, I made a point of buying the book.

But she’s never written Spider-Man before to my knowledge and whilst this isn’t awful...my eyebrow was raised.

Putting aside how we’re in Forest Hills when the last story clearly didn’t leave off there, there are some lines early on which don’t ring true to Spider-Man at all.

Case in point.

Spider-Man treats his problems like nails he has to hammer because he’s an Alpha super hero. Um...what character has Thompson been reading for 55 years? How many times has Spider-Man NOT tried t resolve problems via simply punching it, even in the Ditko days?

Peter feels like he’s always been alone? Aunt May and Mary Jane are literally in this story!

And where did the man in the box’s psychoanalysis randomly come from?

A part from that the art was beautiful here and I loved Peter’s upset over werewolf MJ and his consideration in subduing her. I also really liked the ending and the main action set piece.

Maybe Thompson could do better with a second bite at the apple, but this wasn’t a strong first impression for her grasp of the character.

Part 5

Holy shit that was awesome.

Al Ewing to my knowledge has never really written for Spider-Man before but goddam I’d love for him to do it more often!

This was fantastic, the first story in this comic book to dive into who Peter Parker is.

It retained the wacky humour the rest of the comic possesses via the inclusion of the Spider-Hams, but it used them for deeper purposes.

Classic Spider-Ham represented Peter’s more positive impulses, or positive assessments of himself.

Black Spider-Ham represented the more negative impulses, the times Peter has questioned himself and wondered if he’s nuts or doing the right thing.

Bag-Ham represented Peter’s humours side.

Seeing Ham and Black Ham argue over Peter’s nature was rather meta as it has often been debated in fandom about whether Peter’s driven by guilt or by the desire to be good, whether he’s fighting the good fight to make him feel better about Ben’s death because he can’t move on, or if he’d do it regardless. There is an answer to that, but I’d rather not dive into it here.

But it is simply brilliant writing on Ewing’s part to include it at all, and he continues the character exploration in the form of Peter’s conversation with ‘the man in the box’. Apart from some funny dialogue and the further debate about Peter’s life style, the conversation lays new layers of intrigue into the story. Could the Man in the Box be the weapon? Or could it be Peter? What if the Man in the Box isn’t real at all?

Ewing also takes the weird wacky situation thrown to him and actually brings things together a little more with a plan for world domination and world order that, whilst comic book mad science, kind of makes sense. It’s impressive that he made such great lemonade out of the lemons handed to him frankly. I also liked he made the werewolves thinking and rationalizing rather than feral animals, as that’s something you rarely see in werewolf stories.

Aaron again, brings it all back around to Spider-Man’s character though because Peter’s presented with a situation that echos his origin story. He has the chance to stop bad people doing a bad thing, but this time the end result could be something positive.

Like Spencer’s story it’s just brilliant and demonstrates a writer who cares enough to put in way more effort than they had to.

The art was quite nice too.

Part 6

Nice art off the top.

And a funny ending.

Considering this was Zdarsky this wasn’t that bad. The worst stuff I could say involves the idea that Peter was psychoanalyzing and second guessing himself earlier, but of course those stories were not written with the intention of being a future version of Peter.

I guess that makes Zdarsky bad for retroactively screwing stuff up but really I’m not holding that against this type of story.

What did make me confused though was that the idea of Nick Fury being an imposter beginning at the end of Part 3 seems weird because, the story lines up. Fury’s eyepatch was on the wrong eye but does that mean this comic was more planned out that it was letting on??????????

I don’t know.

I do know that I’m not fond of Fury and Logan turning this into a Marvel team-up/Zdarsky Spec Spidey story.

Also I don’t get why Fury was unaffected by the transformation and why Peter randomly reverted to normal.

Finally...fuck...I hate the High Evolutionary in Spider-Man stories. I really do.

Part 7

I don’t know how to feel about this one.

I’ve never been fond of Aaron, and his take on Spider-Man is very much from the BND era of ‘he’s a loser we can trash on’ camp.

He does however embrace the Round Robin nature of this comic book like perhaps no other author before in this story.

He does this by simply upending half of everything up until this point (the man in the box is retconned again and dispatched with little ceremony) and then he throws a hell of a cliffhanger for the next person to resolve.

Essentially he did random stuff that ignored the random stuff before him then did more random stuff to make it harder for whoever to bring it home.

You also got the impression that he was throwing shade at how dumb and insane everything had been up until this point, hence he summed up most of it in the final lines of his story.

All of which can be forgiven due to his utterly hilarious Kraven’s Last Hunt homage.

It totally doesn’t jive with what came before but it’s so great I do not care.

The art though, whilst getting the job done, is the weakest after Bachalo’s.

Part 8

Jesus Christ!

I wasn’t expecting that at all.

Walking into this I thought I might get some good art with some funny moments and wackiness upon wackiness due to everything becoming deliberately convoluted.

I wasn’t expecting great craftsmanship like Spencer’s story or a an outright GEM like Al Ewing’s story.

And I certainly wasn’t expecting a grand summation about Spider-Man as a person or life in general.

Now look...it doesn’t really make sense, let’s not pretend it does. There are plenty of loose ends.

But whilst I was never expecting this story to deliver a coherent narrative (that was if anything the opposite of the point), I was equally not expecting the whole thing to wind up being as good as it was.

Al Ewing’s story set up a debate about the nature of who Spider-Man as a person is and as weird as it is to say once you’ve read through the whole comic book, this final instalment essentially answered it. It folded in the convoluted nature of it’s premise and tied it in with Spider-Man’s origin.

Having read the e-mail chain at the back of the comic the resolution to the story makes a lot of sense.

Essentially Ewing provided the basis for a resolution that Spencer tweaked and then made work via Spider-Man’s character and emotional journey. The hypothetical dialogue he proposes as a resolution is almost identical to the finished product.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the best element of this final part, the part that nails Peter as a person, came from Spencer but there you go.

This story, whilst honestly not worth $10, is very much worth a read.

#spider-man #peter parker #mjwatsonedit #mj watson #Mary Jane Watson #Mary Jane Watson Parker #Aunt May #May Parker #Nick Fury #Spider-Ham #Peter Porker #Nick Spencer #Al Ewing #Gerry Duggan #Mark Bagley