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

[Mister Mets]

Then the story is effectively over. If the character cannot move forward in life like a relatable, flesh-and-blood human being, he's effectively ceased to exist as a compelling, narrative-driven character and is in effect a soulless mascot devoid of any future.

BUT, as has been argued many times before, the rest of the Marvel universe IS AGING. It may be slow, but Jubilee is no longer a plucky teen sidekick; she's a single adult mom. Normie Osborn was conceived, born, and has grown into a 10 year old 5th Grader. Entire younger generations of heroes like The Champions have come along that view heroes YOUNGER than Peter as the "old guys".

If they want a younger Peter, screw it. Reboot the book. Do another Bendis. Do a "Beast grabbed the younger versions from the past" X-Men thing. Do another teen Tony. But they won't, because they know fans would hate it, and they don't want to erase all those beloved adventures the ADULT Peter had (just the marriage he had when all those beloved adult stories happened).

It's as you said, the genie is out of the bottle, and so we're at a state where Marvel really wants him to be this "youthful" hero... but he isn't. He's still listed as nearly-30 and complaining about how badly his adult years have gone with major divorced loser energy. He's older physically than he EVER was in the marriage era. So they fail on that regard. So neither those that want him written more maturely OR those that want him to recapture his youth are really satisfied. He's just stuck in this frustrating limbo that makes NEITHER side happy.


And yet the biggest complaint readers have is the character relationships are evolving BACKWARDS. Character history that is defining and established is being ignored and regressed. A soap opera is fine, but even my grandmother watching her old soaps would say that a long-running season would suck if the characters suddenly started acting like they did 20 years ago. Even those soap operas have characters get married, have children, those children growing up, having their own drama, etc.


Why do we accept that? Raise your standards. Demand better. Demand MORE. You're the customer paying good money for a book.

Why on earth should anyone accept largely repetitive, unoriginal, regressive slop with a smile and thank them for it?

I don't believe in throwing up our hands in apathetic surrender that we have "no choice" but to accept substandard comics as a result.


There has NEVER been a more accessible time for comic readers to catch up than the current modern online age. The entire archive of Spider-Man history can be found for interested readers.

A good example of this is the new X-Men '97, which is a direct continuation of a show that went off the air in 1997, over 27 years ago. My wife wanted to catch up on the original and, wouldn't you know, it's right there on Disney+ for a new fan to experience nearly three decades later, without missing a beat.

The idea that episodic, repetitive stories are the path forward - especially for a comic like Spider-Man that often engaged in years-long serialized storytelling - is laughable.

I may respond to other points here, but the point on the story gets to an important disrtinction.

As far as Marvel's concerned, Spider-Man isn't a story. He's a way to tell many stories.

Blood Hunt is a story. The Zeb Wells run may be considered a story when it's finished. But Spider-Man is not really a complete story, but there's no expectation that anyone will read the whole thing.

The idea that it's a story implies it'll end.

Expect that there's one problem I constantly see and others either don't see or refuses to acknowledge - Spider-Man is a part of the Marvel Universe. He interracts with the characters from the other titles (either they are in his titles or he is in theirs). You cannot have him "frozen" at aspecific age like he's in "The Simpsons", while the rest of the heroes/villians/civilians get to progress their characters - maturing, becoming adults, having families of their own, gaining wisdom, etc. Either everyone stays the same or everyone moves on and progresses their characters. You cannot both have your cake and eat it.

They want to do that.

The idea is that readers shouldn't think too much about how the various young heroes interact. The new mutants were the teen heroes of the 80s. The Runaways were the teen heroes of the 2000s. Ms Marvel and Miles Morales were the teen heroes of the 2010s. Marvel doesn't want you to think about how this means that all the silver age heroes should have the same level of "growth."

This.

Peter is somewhere in his late 20's/early 30's and he's not getting any younger. The question is, does he get to be a married and/or professionally successful 30 year old, or a perpetually single romantically (and financially) unlucky 30 year old.



That's the thing...in a world where you can have endless avenues for a teenage high-school Peter in alternate continuities, alternate timelines, adaptations and what-not, I don't get the insistence on 616 Peter being perpetually young and single forever.

Spider-Man (or any other character) as a franchise/IP and even as a pop-cultural icon, is much bigger than 616 Peter.

About the only thing that makes 616 Peter special is that he's part of the original Marvel Universe that Stan Lee began back in the 60's, which was defined by continuity and heroes being able to progress and evolve over time. So why not stick to that spirit and let 616 Peter progress and evolve?

Peter's not always unlucky.

But Marvel doesn't want the book to be too stable. Because then he is a perpetually lucky 30 year old.

[Lee]

Gwen was revealed to be 20 years old - and just shy of her next birthday - at the time of her death per Spectacular Spider-Man #101. Peter was her age so he’s been at least in his 20s since the mid-to-late-stages of their relationship.

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]

I don't think fans who prefer a single Peter Parker feel that way

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 may respond to other points here, but the point on the story gets to an important disrtinction.

As far as Marvel's concerned, Spider-Man isn't a story. He's a way to tell many stories.

Blood Hunt is a story. The Zeb Wells run may be considered a story when it's finished. But Spider-Man is not really a complete story, but there's no expectation that anyone will read the whole thing.

The idea that it's a story implies it'll end.

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?

[Kevinroc]

I think this being one of the worst creative eras for Spider-Man comics has really showed how limited the BND mentality actually is. But they don't talk about ASM as it exists currently. They'd rather distract by saying how good ASM was in the past and how the comic should never have strayed from what those books were.

[Garlador]

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?

The final shot is Gwen’s grave. My copy has her date of birth and death as “1952-1972”, clear as crystal. Granted, we know the dates are on a sliding timeline, but I doubt the range has changed.

[Lee]

The final shot is Gwen’s grave. My copy has her date of birth and death as “1952-1972”, clear as crystal. Granted, we know the dates are on a sliding timeline, but I doubt the range has changed.

The last two digits of each year are fully legible? Have you got a pic of it? I know print quality wasn't the most consistent thing back then.

Regardless, the start of the issue establishes that the present day story is set a few days before when Gwen's birthday would have been, it doesn't tie her murder to that time of year.

[TinkerSpider]

The final shot is Gwen’s grave. My copy has her date of birth and death as “1952-1972”, clear as crystal. Granted, we know the dates are on a sliding timeline, but I doubt the range has changed.

Another reference is ASM 136, where Peter says he's a college junior. That puts him at age 20. He also says Gwen's death happened months ago, so very conceivably when he was 20.

[Garlador]

The last two digits of each year are fully legible? Have you got a pic of it? I know print quality wasn't the most consistent thing back then.

Regardless, the start of the issue establishes that the present day story is set a few days before when Gwen's birthday would have been, it doesn't tie her murder to that time of year.

Sadly, that old comic of mine is long gone. It was, however, MY FIRST Spider-Man comic (what a COVER!) and I re-read and analyzed every page so many times. Looking online, it seems the only scans I can find are from the same low-quality print scan and the dates are hard to make out. Doing further research, another issue, Spectacular #149, also includes 1952 as her birth year briefly in one shot - and then hilariously is blank entirely near the end (and that story was published 1989, so the sliding timeline doesn't make sense for those dates at this point. Lol). But there's other evidence he was in his 20s by this point.

At this point, it's still a difference of a year at most, conservatively speaking.

[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.

[Daibhidh]

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.

That's not actually what I asked. Just because a character starts as a teenager doesn't make them permanently or essentially a teenager. I also think that 'foundational' here is just a bare fact if it's used in a purely descriptive sense, and question-begging if it's used in any kind of normative sense.
Also, it seems weird to assert that 20 is any kind of important transition in Peter's life when nobody on this thread can even point to when Peter passed it. The Master Planner saga and the subsequent introduction of Harry, Gwen, Norman, and MJ, and Peter's first move out of Aunt May's house are a clear transition in Peter's status quo. Peter's twentieth birthday - nobody noticed. Peter's status quo in AMS 55 is much more like his status quo in AMS 175 than it is like his status quo in AMS 25.

[Daibhidh]

But there's other evidence he was in his 20s by this point.

Peter is thinking about asking Gwen to marry him in AMS 100. People got married younger back then, but I don't think asking your girlfriend to actually marry you was ever an archetypal teenage experience, for as long as teenagerdom has been a named stage in life.

[Daibhidh]

The gap between the marriage and the retcon that the Peter Parker who got married was a clone was shorter than the gap between Ultimate Peter's intro and his death (he did get better.)

The retcon that the Peter who got married was a clone was undone and stories resumed with the previous status quo. Whatever the writers' and editors' intentions, the clone retcon didn't stick any more than Superior Spider-man stuck.
Original Ultimate Peter may have got better, but he had never had any more ongoing stories. I think his only appearance since then has been a cameo at the end of Bendis' second Spider-men mini? Nor have I seen much evidence of people, even advocates of teenaged Peter, campaigning for the return of original Ultimate Peter. It seems to me generally accepted that that teenaged Peter's story has ended.

[godisawesome]

An interesting counter to consider to the “Won't someone think of the hypothetical future audiences!?!” thing here is that any new audience in the marketplace now is far more likely to use digital access to just read the massive amount of Spider-Man material already published than to find a comic shop...

...and they’re still going to be recommended the “authentic” “classic Spider-Man” if they want to read “classic Spider-Man”, rather than this weird post-OMD period. What may or may not help this era with future readers is how good or memorable it is by itself or in concert with the “greatest hits”... which is where Peter and MJ being written more ambitiously and more elegantly pre-OMD might cause problems, and where the desire for ubiquity and a lack of impact is going to work against it.

Like, I don’t think future readers are going to get this era recommended for them for anything beyond the art (nothing wrong with that) or maybe the Superior arc (where they replaced Peter in order to get ambitious again.)