The Case for Ben Reilly, Part 2
Written by Gerard Delatour II
“Redundant.” “Unnecessary.” “A slap in the face to the fans.”
The preceding three statements are all phrases I have heard describing Ben Reilly. To many people, Ben is symbolic of Marvel “losing their way” in the mid-1990s – ignoring the fact, of course, that the Clone Saga almost singlehandedly kept Marvel operating during this period.
But was Ben Reilly necessary? Let’s try to figure that out together!
Continuing our examination (heh) from last time …
Case #4: Ben Reilly had a lackluster supporting cast.
Boy, this is a tough one.
When the braintrust behind the Clone Saga decided to go ahead and perform this dubious (though interesting) concept, they had to come up with a new supporting cast with which to surround Ben. After all, he couldn’t simply pal around with the same friends and co-workers that Peter did, because (a) it would be weird if Peter left town and his identical cousin nobody had ever heard of despite knowing Peter for years suddenly took his place, and (b) that would be repetitive, and the whole point of the switch was to (allegedly) break new and interesting ground. So, they came up with a whole new supporting cast, including such lasting fan-favorites as Gabrielle Greer.
Gabrielle was some kind of artist (I can tell from the portfolio, and the fact that she’s dressed like some kind of bag lady) that lived in Ben’s building. Sparks flew, though mostly off-camera I guess, because we barely see her for about 3-4 issues before she disappears for good. Yes, Gabrielle was introduced as a love interest for Ben, and then disappears for the rest of the Clone Saga! They clearly had this thing planned out months ahead. Oh well, at least she gave us something while she was around …
Other cast members made a more lasting impression, like Shirley Lewis and her son Devon, who ran the Daily Grind coffeehouse that Ben worked at. There was also some creepy newspaper-reading guy that never seemed to leave the store. I actually liked them a lot – for one thing, it was great to add more diversity to the cast. Shirley was a fairly realistic single mother trying to make ends meet and raise her son. In fact, they were two of the only characters to “escape” the Clone Saga and appear in the Spider-Man books later, after the storyline was disowned – Howard Mackie used them during his underrated run on Peter Parker: Spider-Man between the Clone Saga and the reboot.
The villains? Mostly forgettable. There was a second Doctor Octopus that everyone tries to forget, the Jason Macendale Hobgoblin, and that tool Wild Lash or Wild Whip or whatever the hell his name was. Some were offensively bad, some were dumb but not insultingly so, and others made you shrug and go “eh.” However, one story that I love was the crime arc that Mackie and John Romita Jr. did on Spider-Man, featuring Don Fortunato and Jimmy-6, another one of the characters that appeared after the Clone Saga.
Of course, there’s one bad mother that was introduced as a foil to Ben that was featured recently in issues of Amazing Spider-Man … Kaine. He inspires almost as much debate as Ben Reilly, and I come out on the side that likes the character a lot. Kaine is basically Ben’s Venom – a dude that is bigger, badder, and possesses more of a killer instinct than his heroic counterpart. Not surprisingly, they at one point considered giving him a Lethal Protector-esque series in which he is a hero. Thankfully, that never happened, and we got to see a lot more of this:
Noticing a pattern? The few characters I liked were held and used after the Clone Saga ended, so I clearly wasn’t the only one fond of them. That alone seems like an endorsement of a few strong characters. And let’s be honest, that’s a pretty good ratio compared to Peter Parker – most of his supporting cast was introduced in the 1960s! Almost all of the characters added since have been completely discarded. So, I say that Ben’s supporting cast was worthwhile if only for Kaine, Shirley, Devon, and Jimmy-6.
Case #5: There was only room for one Spider-Man.
This is, of course, “the big one.” One of the reasons that Ben Reilly was ultimately killed off at the end of the Clone Saga – besides being made the scapegoat of the entire ordeal – was the persistent belief that there wasn’t room for more than one Spider-Man.
But is this true?
As we’ve previously established, Ben and Peter were distinct personalities in completely different places in life. One of the main reasons the Clone Saga existed in the first place was to be able to go back to telling stories of a swinging single Spidey. However, one of the reasons they went back on that and restored Peter as Spider-Man was because of backlash and fear of more to come – the older fans were steamed that “their” Spider-Man had been replaced.
Now let’s put on our thinking caps. In the red corner, we have a faction of rabid fans that wants to return to the established, married Spider-Man. In the blue corner, we have a faction of rabid fans that loves the new, single Spider-Man. Think about this for a second. Isn’t there some way that both factions could have been appeased?
HELL YES! Split the Spider-Man books so that there are two Spideys!
You could have had Peter as the classic Spider-Man in Amazing Spider-Man and Spectacular Spider-Man, with Ben taking the guise of the Scarlet Spider in Spider-Man and Sensational Spider-Man (albeit with new titles). If they weren’t comfortable with giving the Scarlet Spider that many books, they could have cancelled one and stick to two titles for Peter and one title for Ben. It seems so simple, but like so many other things, it was probably killed by politics. The scapegoating of Ben, the changes at the top of the ladder, and the whims of a new wave of writers all conspired to wipe Ben out.
The Verdict: Ben Reilly deserved to exist. And to live!
So there you have it – in my unauthorized, legally impotent opinion, Ben Reilly was a positive addition to Spider-Man’s long history, and one who deserved to live on much longer than he did. Do you agree? Disagree? Duke it out in the comments section!






Mystery-Man
on January 19th, 2010
Ben could have never replaced Peter Parker as Spider-Man for one simple reason: Peter Parker’s story of how he became Spider-Man is brilliant! It’s a story that can survive the test of time. A story of love, misfortune, power and responsibility. Ben origin’s story is lame and cheap (copies are cheap. Be original and you will find out). That is not how cloning works anyways! Even kids today know that. The writers should have read about cloning before writing about…sigh…
But yes, they could have existed together and they did. The 90’s were not lame with “holographic covers”. They were great and I (The Mystery Man) was there, as I was in the 80’s, 70’s and from the beginning…just lurking in the shadows.
The Mystery Man
Nova#1
on January 20th, 2010
They should’ve kept Ben around. What I always wanted to happen was for Ben to just be moved to another city…with the occasional cross-over story with Peter.
spidertour02
on January 20th, 2010
@Mystery-Man: Ben’s origin IS a little silly, but it’s not like it has to be brought up all that much.
@Nova#1: That’s a great point, and one that I never considered. Ben operating out of another large city could have been very interesting. The key would be that it would require a legitimate reason for him to be in that other city.
Aspman
on January 21st, 2010
Could that be Ben on the cover of this solit for April????
http://marvel.com/catalog/?id=14676
No description, but, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
spidertour02
on January 21st, 2010
@Aspman: Yes, it is … but perhaps more symbolically than anything else. The Kravinoffs are killing all the spider-based characters, so they threw as many as they could fit on the cover.
I’m more annoyed with the fact they they seem to be bringing Kraven back from the dead, which will annoy the hell out of me if it happens … but that’s not a rant that belongs on this site.
David Blyth
on January 25th, 2010
>Ben could have never replaced Peter Parker as Spider-Man for one simple reason: Peter Parker’s story of how he became Spider-Man is brilliant<
But Peter's story isnt completly defined by his origin, indeed it's only a couple of pages in a 1962 comic, everything else dropped into his lap was the everyman journey of optimisum and hope. Yes, Peter's story is the most inspirational of all comic book plotlines, but Ben is the hard-to-fit-in morality play that Marvel have been wanting to give Spidey since the 1990s and havent suceeded in applying to Peter because his character reallisticly can't be a hard luck hero, he's too good for that…the guy appeared on JOHNNY FRICKIN' CARSON FOR GOD'S SAKE
Kirr
on February 5th, 2010
I totally agree with most everything you’re saying – Ben and Peter’s interaction in the opening of Revelation alone was such a nice hint of what could have been if Ben had been allowed to live.
But I maintain to this day, the main problem wasn’t really anything you talked about (you only hinted at it in one of your points, but didn’t really tackle it head on) – the problem was the people behind this saga had to insist that Ben was the original. That the Peter we had been reading about for years was in fact the clone. That was the galling part – and the only way to reverse that stupid decision was to kill Ben and show him as a clone falling apart. Had they been willing to call Ben the clone from day one, accept that and then have him work on his own for awhile – you could have had a nice set up for some future return of Peter to the role of Spidey, advisor to Ben for some time, multiple books that feature one or the other – stories of a single spidey like they seemed intent on doing (by eventually forcing it through BND)…
all because they had to claim Peter was the clone and Ben was the original. Worked out well, didn’t it.