"Sins Past" No More

I haven't seen any mention of this (mostly because I'm way behind on my spoiler-thread reading) but Amazing Spider-Man #599 has ret-conned away Sins Past. How? (here comes the spoiler) In #599, Norman Osborn mentions that he thought he was sterile because of side-effects of the goblin serum. After all, he hadn't been able to have children since he started in on the serum (Harry was born years before Norman became the Green Goblin). Which means that Gwen's kids from "Sins Past" were not Osborn's. What's left unchanged? Well, it's still theoretically possible that Gwen slept with the "sad, but powerful" Osborn even if he didn't impregnate her. And it's theoretically possible that Osborn convinced Gwen that the children were his, even if he knew full well that they weren't (he's sneaky enough to do something like that). Even so, the fundamentals behind the story (Gwen had Osborn's children) are negated. The broadest possible reading (#599 fully negates "Sins Past") preserves Gwen's innocence. The narrowest reading (#599 simply negates Osborn's paternity) at least puts the onus on the villainous Osborn, who obviously manipulated and lied to Gwen. Either way, Gwen's famous innocence is restored to some degree .

You need to be a member of Captain Comics to add comments!

Join Captain Comics

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Yep, I definitely read that as a confirmation of the Mopeeing of that particular EYKIW (pronounded "ick-you", in this case.)
  • Well.. unless she slept with Osborne AND Doc Ock...

    ew... and the Vulture...
  • Rob Staeger said:
    Well.. unless she slept with Osborne AND Doc Ock...

    ew... and the Vulture...

    And...

    Wi' Bill Brewer, Jan Stewer
    Peter Gurney, Peter Davey
    Dan'l Whiddon, Harry Hawke
    Old Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all
    Old Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all
  • I got it from Agnes,
    she got it from Jim.
    We all agree it must've been
    Louise who gave it to him...
  • Does this mean that the kids really could be Peter's--which was the original direction the story was supposed to go?
  • Hurm. I guess it could.

    (Hey Rich, since you're on smiley duty today, could you add the scratching chin smiley, too? And while you're there, Yikes, Sky is falling, idea, and coffee? Thanks, man!)
  • Jeff Alan "Cavalier" Polier said:
    Does this mean that the kids really could be Peter's--which was the original direction the story was supposed to go?

    I get the feeling that the whole shebang has been Mopeed. Nothing mindwipe or Mephisto-related, mind you. Just an old-fashioned editorial decision to never speak of a story again.
  • Which would be a fine, fine thing, I think. Out of all the ways to retcon, the Mopee is my favorite.
  • First Baby May, then the Stacey twins. Spider-Man continuity is not good for its main characters' offspring.

    Little Normie Osborn better watch out!
  • I think I mentioned this in one of the other Spidey-threads...there was someone...or something...shown growing in a tube in the Avengers Tower lab during the American Son storyline and, although it was a bit obscured, it sure looked like the name of the male in the tube was Stacy.
This reply was deleted.