The Clone Saga which ran through the Spider-Man titles from late 1994 to late 1996 will forever remain one of the most controversial periods in Spider-Man's history. Many say the whole saga should never have taken place (some even say the original clone story from 1975, of which this was a followup, should not have happened). Others say it was a very exciting time for the Spider-books, and the post-clone era is rather dull by comparison.

I didn't really have a problem with the clone saga until it went out of control. Up until SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN #226, it was a good source of intrigue and angst. But with that one issue, the Spider-books were dealt a blow they have yet to recover from (Recent attempts to 'cure' the Spider-books have proven to be even worse than the 'disease').

In 'The Trial of Peter Parker', Part 4, Peter Parker and his clone, Ben Reilly, are subjected to tests by Ben's scientist friend Seward Trainer. The results indicate that Peter is the clone, and Ben is the original Peter Parker. Many fans found this to be unacceptable.
To accept this, we had to accept that for the past 20 years (real time), we hadn't been reading about the adventures of an 'everyman' superhero, but the CLONE of an everyman superhero. It was a clone who first encountered Venom, the Hobgoblin, and Carnage. It was a clone who was buried alive by Kraven the Hunter. It was a clone who married Mary Jane. Meanwhile, the 'original' Peter Parker had been on the road for the last five years comic-book time. The history of Spider-Man was effectively split in half.

Fan outcry (including a Spider-Man Expatriates Web site and an article in the Wall Street Journal) eventually lead to the 'Revelations' storyline, one of the most blatant 'quick-fixes' in comics I have ever seen. Norman Osborn returns from the dead with an explanation that stretches suspension of disbelief to the breaking point; it's revealed HE is the true mastermind behind the clone saga. Peter is revealed to be the original after all, and Ben Reilly is killed off in a horribly undignified manner (it reads like it was written by the founders of alt.spiderclone.die.die.die). After all that time invested in showing us that 'a hero is a hero, regardless of genetic origin', they turn around and give Ben a death that reeks of anti-clone prejudice. But that's a side issue.

The point is, many fans were alienated by the 'Peter is the clone' turn in the clone saga. After all, many started reading years after the original 1975 saga was history, and didn't like the notion that they had never actually read about the 'real' Spider-Man. Even those who had read the pre-1975 stories (original or reprints) were upset over the 'splitting' of Spider-Man's history. I have to give Marvel credit; they had guts to try this stunt, but it blew up in their faces. The Spider-books would have been better off had Ben Reilly been revealed to be the clone in those tests after all.

Or better yet. Where the doctor said "Gentlemen I am quite confused by these results. Peter according to my test you are Peter Parker but not a clone. While my test shows that Ben himself is not a clone but perfectly human. And his dna is so closely related to yours, it could only mean that he is your brother." I know long twin brother story overdone plot line. But it would have been better than Peter being the clone.
My question is how did they explain that the clone susposedly died in the smoke stack and was some college student who's dna was altered to resemble Spiderman. As revealed in one annuals that had the young gods in it and High Evolutionary. (part of the evolutionary war saga).
Because the kid was suspose to be a student of the Jackal's. And in the follow up comics books you saw that the Carrion had left canisters around the college that transformed people into his "clone". Am I the only one who remembers this.

No, you are not. I have this issue, SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN ANNUAL VOL #1, ISSUE #8, Cover date 1988. It was written by Gerry Conway, writer of the original clone story from 1975, and he went to great lengths to explain that the clones created by Miles Warren, the Jackal, were nothing more than people "infected with a 'genetic virus' that transformed (them) on a cellular level into a near duplicate of the original." So in essence, Gerry Conway retconned the events of the original clone story of 1975 only to have his story retconned yet again by the Clone Saga of 1994-1996.

Last year, Marvel released a revised version of this controversial storyline as a six-issue miniseries. Having never read the original, I didn't think that the new version was that bad. Apparently Marvel wanted to show how the Clone Saga really should be been done, and therefore came out with this new series.

Clones and cloning, in general, people seem to have a love/hate thing about it whenever it is used in fiction. Star Wars for example used it extensively in the prequel trilogy, and even Star Trek utilized this angle from time to time, starting with the Mariposans on Next Generation, to the Vorta on Deep Space Nine. There are many other examples of it being used in science fiction, and I tend to have mixed feelings about it whenever it is used. Sometimes I dont mind it and other times I feel that there was really no need for it to be done.

In the case of Spider-Man being cloned by Miles Warren, otherwise known as the supervillian the Jackal, I have to say I don't mind it too much. Like what was said before, a lot of people did not like this story arc. I have to say, I thought Kaine was cool, as he was the first of the Jackal's experiments with cloning that didn't degenerate into genetic waste, and for some reason, he grew bigger and stronger than either Peter Parker or Ben Reilly. And he was a main character in the recent "reimagining" of the Clone Saga that came out last year.

The only example of cloning being used in a DC Comics storyline that I know of is the character of Superboy, or Kon-El, who was created by Project Cadmus in the "Return Of Superman" comic series. He is a teenage clone of Superman, or Kal-El, and is still a primary character in the Superman-related comics in the DC Universe.

I am not aware of any others!

All you'll need to know about the Original Clone Saga. It's a massive blog, but well worth the reading.

The best clone story in DC (that I know of) was Archie Goodwin/Walt Simonson's classic Manhunter series that ran as a back-up feature in Batman's Detective Comics back in the '70s.

If it had been a six-issue miniseries, it might have worked. As it was, it was an ongoing storyline running through all four or five Spider-Man titles with no endpoint spelled out to the reader.

They resurrected a loose end from the 70s which is their right, but clones were old-hat by the time they did so.

Kevin, I agree, that's probably how they should have done it in the first place.

And Benn, once again, thanks for the link, some pretty interesting info about the whole saga in that blog. Like I said, all I know about it comes from the recent Marvel Handbooks and last year's reimagining of the original Clone Saga.

Clone storylines, whether in TV/movies or in comics? Meh, I can either take 'em or leave 'em!