Spider-Man character growth vs. staying in high school and Joe Quesada

[Mister Mets]

That's retroactive. I'm talking about the first published issue to establish that Peter Parker is no longer a teenager.

Out of curiosity I had quick skim through the issue, and couldn't see the any reference to Gwen being 20 and just shy of her 21st birthday when she was killed. There's a scene early on where Peter is thinking about how it would soon be Gwen's birthday, if she were still alive, reminiscing about how that was their special time of year. Shortly afterwards Peter ends up at the bridge where she was killed, and thinks back to that day. They are presented as two separate things.

I didn't see any reference to Gwen's age, did that come up later in the issue?

Tinkerspider probably has the first comic.

Technically, Peter could still be 19 if it's set late in the year but Peter's birthday is later (I think it's later been suggested that his birthday is in August, so retroactively that's one of the first stories we could now determine has to be about a Peter Parker who is twenty or older.)

Otherwise the Gwen clone made a comment about Gwen dying two years earlier during the original clone saga, so at that point he's gotta be 20.



He also graduated college in Amazing Spider-Man #181.

We’ve seen the idea that Peter should just switch girlfriends like clockwork, that Peter should continue to be portrayed chasing girls even if the relationships can go nowhere because of the insistence that Peter never changes. Which IMO - and I agree it may not be everyone’s - appears to support interchangeable “girlfriends” who have no other function but to a girl-shaped toy on Peter’s arm to either make him happy or sad or motivate him to be a hero, but who have no lives or value in their own right.

Considering that most arguments about youth can be quickly countered with words taken directly from Lee and Ditko, it is not a leap to theorize the true objection to the marriage is having to give Peter’s partner a life of her own or even to include her in the story - how many times have we heard creatives say the marriage had to go because all MJ did was sit by the window and worry? - and having a female deuterogonist would mean the “girl as reward/unobtainable object that makes Peter sad” - which we’re seeing in this run - would be removed from the creators’ toolkit.

I think it's a serious mistake to look into motives for why comics fans or professionals feel a particular way.

People aren't a hivemind. Fans and detractors of the spider-marriage will have different reasons for it, so the suggestion that it's obviously about one thing is likely to be wrong, because what matters to one person may not matter to another.

And it's bad to be obnoxious and wrong. The moment you say something about another person's motives, you've messed up in ways that would disappoint Spider-Man.

It's a story.

And it's going to end.

The sun is going to end. Life on Earth is going to end. The universe might be infinite, true, but it might also be finite. Still, it's highly highly likely the story will end.

I find it odd, this worrying about a future market. For all we know, storytelling is going to transition to VR and we will experience storytelling in an immersive universe where we walk around and what we see determines what part of the story we experience. Or individually we get to decide the direction of the story for ourselves, so my Spider-Man may look incredibly different to yours.

The market Marvel needs to worry about is the market here, now. You cannot 100% future proof yourself against the market. The future of the market cannot be predicted with any pinpoint accuracy, and Marvel will need to respond if it continues to shift. Maybe Marvel will need to reboot. Or move to a graphic novel format where there is no continuity, just one-off stories that have no relation to the other. Maybe they take a manga route and give the character to a creator who will tell a multi-year saga with a beginning and an end. As it is, there are studies (I think Pew?) that show that Gen Z is less interested in superheroes than Millennials, and far less interested in superheroes than Gen X and Boomers.

I'll also point out again that keeping characters static did not work for DC. Where's Superman's Pal, Jimmy Olsen on the shelves now?

I don't think we'll ever know for sure when his "story" would be over.

There are three ways of thinking about this.

1. What will be the last adventure of the original Peter Parker? -It's possible that it won't be announced, because sometimes stories seem to end and then continue.

For example, the Earth-1 Superman's story seemed to end with Crisis on Infinite Earths. But then he came back for Infinite Crisis.

2. What will be the last adventure of anyone in the classic Marvel Universe? -Because Peter Parker is part of a larger story, and even if he gets a definitive ending, if the rest of the universe continues, the story's not over.

3. When will be the last adventure of anyone in the wider Marvel multiverse? -Even if the classic Universe ends, there are a lot of different worlds with continuity that touches on Spider-Man like the Ultimate Universe (either the new or old.)

Worrying about a future market is responsible. It's something companies should do, and that anyone engaging in speculation should take into account.

The better argument than ask why worry would be to consider if the market has changed in ways that did not apply decades ago (IE- Back issues are readily available in many digital formats, Miles Morales took off as a character.)

[Lee]

Technically, Peter could still be 19 if it's set late in the year but Peter's birthday is later

Right. Even if Gwen was 20 when she died (I'm still not convinced that's definitive), we don't know how many months older or younger Peter is.

Regardless, I stand by my earlier statement: "I don't think it was ever clear in Amazing Spider-Man when Peter celebrated his 20th birthday, but he was a teenager for the most foundational stories, the bedrock of the series."

[TinkerSpider]

Most, if not all, people are children/teens where their bedrock foundational experiences take place. That's kinda the definition of bedrock foundational.

That's like saying a building is complete once the bedrock has been identified and the foundation poured.

But then the buildings continue to be built. And children/teens become adults and their stories continue. (Heh, I just realized both buildings and people have stories. It amused me, at least.)

We would never have gotten Kraven's Last Hunt with a teenage Spider-Man.

I don't think we'll ever know for sure when his "story" would be over.

But the story will be over.

I think it's a serious mistake to look into motives for why comics fans or professionals feel a particular way.

People aren't a hivemind. Fans and detractors of the spider-marriage will have different reasons for it, so the suggestion that it's obviously about one thing is likely to be wrong, because what matters to one person may not matter to another.

And it's bad to be obnoxious and wrong. The moment you say something about another person's motives, you've messed up in ways that would disappoint Spider-Man.

First, never said there was a hivemind. But there are statements on record.

Second, he's fictional. So, he can't be disappointed.

Third, I would need to be wrong first.

I would be thrilled if I were proved wrong, however. Thrilled. Open invitation to prove me wrong. Please do, Marvel.

Worrying about a future market is responsible. It's something companies should do, and that anyone engaging in speculation should take into account.

Not to the extent that you worry so much about a mythical future that may or may not appear that you overlook your current market and your current buyer. That's a future fallacy.

Marvel has no idea what future young readers may or may not want to read. They can make educated guesses based on the current market, but again, may I point you to 1965 and the #2 book on the shelf being Superboy, with 650K+ issues sold a month.

If DC had bet heavily on Superboy and strictly followed the thesis that Superboy has to remain exactly as he is to attract new young readers because he's so successful now...well, that's pretty much what they did until Marvel started eating their market by doing the exact opposite. And Superboy isn't published now.

There also seems to be a lot of sunk cost fallacy going around, the belief that one has put so much time and effort into creating/establishing something, are so invested in past effort and spending, one can't switch course or adjust.