Mark is not John's fanfiction

Fan-fiction is an intertext. Star Wars comics had stories address narrative discrepancies - the fabled Kessel Run, we all remember. There's such a thing as ANTIfan fiction, as well - like Psychohistorical Crisis. Among the children of Israel, Biblical fan-fiction is "Midrash". We have this in Christendom as well.

In John are "anomalies" crossing John 19-20. For one example Mary sees the empty tomb, then reports to Peter "we" saw it. (Thus Francis Watson in "A Gospel of the Eleven".) One can imagine, out of John, a story of Mary bringing in other women to check out her story, and then going to the men.

We don't see these defects in the Gospel Kata-Markon and the "Epistle of the Apostles". Nor do we see midrash upon them. These authors present the rolling stone and and Mary's chaperones, or omit all of it. The EA may involve itself in harmony, as it treated Peter in between Matthew and John 1-20. In Powell's theory, Mark dislikes John; Powell would perhaps argue that Mark aims to fix that narrative, and replace it.

My concern: why should Mark have to? That the Kata-Joannes has discrepancies at all suggests its authors and editors (clumsily) had skipped or censored details along its way to us. Powell finds the intertext in controversy over Peter. These are not John's points of narrative editorial work.

I see in Mark and John 1-20 no hint of direct dependence between them. Mark might still be "The Second Gospel" but John in this form isn't the first, either.