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

[Lee]

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.

20 isn't an important milestone. I never asserted that it was. You asked "Has teenaged Peter Parker ever endured?". In order to know how long teenage Spider-Man lasted in Amazing Spider-Man we need to know when he turned 20. There isn't a definitive answer for that. But the first 100 or so issues, maybe even 125, can be categorized as the "teenaged Peter Parker" era.

That's not only a long run, but the most important run, the one that most informed the entire Spider-Man franchise.

It's not always the first run that does that. For Daredevil it was Frank Miller. For Titans it was Wolfman and Perez. For X-Men it was Wein/Cockrum/Claremont/Byrne.

[TinkerSpider]

AF 15 and the first 125 issues is a massive period of growth for Peter, beginning with his first loss of innocence in Amazing Fantasy 15, meeting and losing his first love Betty, graduating high school, meeting Harry Osborn, Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane Watson, Flash going off to war (another marker that this story is about young adults), moving out his childhood home and into his first apartment, falling deeply in love with Gwen to the point of wanting to marry her, losing another figure figure in George Stacy, and the death of Gwen which marks the loss of any remaining childish innocence and Peter is fully a grown up by the end.

Therefore, if anything, the lesson of the first 125 issues is to continue growing and progressing Peter Parker as a fully human character. Because he was far from stuck in amber during that period.

While I agree it is a seminal run, I believe there is a danger in believing there can only be one seminal run per franchise.

First, it discounts any creativity or freshness a new creative team may bring. Originality is stifled if the seminal run can't be breached or changed, but can only be repeated, homaged or pastiched. It also leads to diminishing returns as the same stories get put on repeat over and over again, much like how in the olden days each time an analog copy was made, it degraded.

Second, every generation has its own values, zeitgeist and culture. An argument for OMD was that the marriage prevented new generations from discovering Spider-Man. Well, no, it didn't; those issues still very much exist and are now more accessible than ever before.What OMD really did was preserve a Boomer/GenX ideal of Spider-Man and not allow GenZ/GenAlpha to have their own ideal Spider-Man, whatever that might look like (and it might look like USM, who knows)(much like how Bendis's Ultimate is probably the Millennial Spider-Man).

Keeping Spider-Man locked in the amber of his first 125 or so issues is preserving him for a previous generation, not a future one.

[Xix25]

It's hard to make a good point for Peter being stuck in a place forever when you rely on internally inconsistent arguments all the time. We have history telling us how that's not really a good thing sales and quality wise but for some reason people think that's a good thing to do to Peter?

[WebLurker]

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.

IMHO r.e. the professionals, a lot of the pro-OMD ones have explained their viewpoint enough that I think we have a pretty good idea of why, to quote the MCU, is Gamorra. Not saying one has to agree that OMD should've happened and needs to be the only status quo (heck, I sure don't think it holds up under any kind of logic or quality of craftsmanship), but I think we have a pretty good model from the horse's mouth.

Frankly, at this point, I less interested in why creators/fans like OMD and don't want to bring the marriage back, but why OMD remains such a sacred cow when it's antithetical to the brand as a whole. IMHO, that's the next puzzle in a situation that I think becomes more and more absurd the longer it goes on.

[Kevinroc]

It’s clear that the BND mentality has just been about regurgitating the same stories over and over again to ever diminishing returns.

[Huntsman Spider]

It’s clear that the BND mentality has just been about regurgitating the same stories over and over again to ever diminishing returns.

Chasing the dragon, as it were, and without understanding why those original stories worked in the first place.

[Knightsilver]

Chasing the dragon, as it were, and without understanding why those original stories worked in the first place.

Honestly...they may as well just put out a reprint book of stories from the 70's. That's the era that they're (badly) trying to copy anyway...so they may as well just go all the way with it.

[KurtW95]

He shouldn't be in high school or college anymore, but it should be vague. But people who want to spin his life to become unrecognizable are very wrong.

[Kevinroc]

He shouldn't be in high school or college anymore, but it should be vague. But people who want to spin his life to become unrecognizable are very wrong.

What does Peter's life being "unrecognizable" mean?

[bat39]

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.)

It's also worth remembering that the comics today (particularly the 'mainstream universe' comics like Marvel's 616 or DC's Earth 0) are only a very tiny part of the franchise. In a purely business sense, to put it coldly, their function is to provide source material for more high-profile adaptations - movies of course, but also TV shows, animated series, games etc. And for the most part, the comics that provide source material for adaptations, that truly fuel the brand, are not really anything published within the past decade or two (with some exceptions).

In Spider-Man's case, its mostly still the Lee/Dikto/Romita runs that serve as the lynchpin for the franchise, along with some later developments like the Alien Costume Saga and the marriage. This is what the cartoons and the movies draw from while shaping the iterations of our favorite webhead that wider audiences will become familiar with.

The Spider-Man movies have just been re-released. Let's say some kid watches the 2002 Raimi film and decides he wants to check out the comics. What is he more likely to end up reading? The latest issue of ASM? Or a collected edition of 60's Spider-Man? Or Bendis' Ultimate Spider-Man?

Potential new comic fans who're exposed to Spider-Man media aren't going to be recommended the latest issues off the shelf unless there's some really exceptional and stand-out work being done that's almost on par with the classics. The question is, can you do such exceptional and stand-out work if your only goal is to tread water and regurgitate the classic in new variations?

AF 15 and the first 125 issues is a massive period of growth for Peter, beginning with his first loss of innocence in Amazing Fantasy 15, meeting and losing his first love Betty, graduating high school, meeting Harry Osborn, Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane Watson, Flash going off to war (another marker that this story is about young adults), moving out his childhood home and into his first apartment, falling deeply in love with Gwen to the point of wanting to marry her, losing another figure figure in George Stacy, and the death of Gwen which marks the loss of any remaining childish innocence and Peter is fully a grown up by the end.

Therefore, if anything, the lesson of the first 125 issues is to continue growing and progressing Peter Parker as a fully human character. Because he was far from stuck in amber during that period.

While I agree it is a seminal run, I believe there is a danger in believing there can only be one seminal run per franchise.

First, it discounts any creativity or freshness a new creative team may bring. Originality is stifled if the seminal run can't be breached or changed, but can only be repeated, homaged or pastiched. It also leads to diminishing returns as the same stories get put on repeat over and over again, much like how in the olden days each time an analog copy was made, it degraded.

Second, every generation has its own values, zeitgeist and culture. An argument for OMD was that the marriage prevented new generations from discovering Spider-Man. Well, no, it didn't; those issues still very much exist and are now more accessible than ever before.What OMD really did was preserve a Boomer/GenX ideal of Spider-Man and not allow GenZ/GenAlpha to have their own ideal Spider-Man, whatever that might look like (and it might look like USM, who knows)(much like how Bendis's Ultimate is probably the Millennial Spider-Man).

Keeping Spider-Man locked in the amber of his first 125 or so issues is preserving him for a previous generation, not a future one.

Totally agree with you on Bendis' Ultimate being the "Millennial Spider-Man'

When it comes to new generations of fans, they're more likely than not to discover Spider-Man through adaptations. What're the big adaptations of the day? Well, its the MCU Spider-Man films (and through NWH, as well as the recent re-releases, the earlier Sony films as well, possibly). The films which foreground the Peter-MJ relationship. The films that may depict Peter as a teenager, but also show him wanting to grow up and join the big leagues.

And then there's Spider-Verse which will make them fans of Miles Morales of course, but as far as Peter Parker is concerned, it introduces them to an older, married Peter who's a veteran hero and a dad.

The question is, are the current books catering to the expectations of these fans? Or will they be drawn to other books, like the new Ultimate Spider-Man? Or the old Ultimate Spider-Man? Or decades-old back issues of 616 Spider-Man? In which case, what exactly is the current 616 Spider-Man status quo seeking to accomplish? What purpose do they serve if they are neither synergizing with the larger franchise, nor are they producing any groundbreaking new original material?

[Daibhidh]

20 isn't an important milestone. I never asserted that it was. You asked "Has teenaged Peter Parker ever endured?". In order to know how long teenage Spider-Man lasted in Amazing Spider-Man we need to know when he turned 20. There isn't a definitive answer for that. But the first 100 or so issues, maybe even 125, can be categorized as the "teenaged Peter Parker" era.

You were talking about Peter being a teenager long before I asked whether teenaged Peter Parker had ever endured. You're asserting that 20 is the important milestone right now.

I notice that the term 'teenager' is being used to hand wave away the huge change in status quo towards the end of Ditko's run; and its end point as you note is vague, which allows for it to be defined selectively to suit the preferred status quo of the person using it.

[Daibhidh]

On the subject of what is foundational to a franchise.

In a healthy franchise the writers are constantly introducing new concepts many of which are worth reusing. That means that the number of concepts worth reusing will be rising steadily. That means that the number of new concepts worth reusing will fall. (A crude mathematical model suggests that the number of new worthwhile concepts introduced in any period should fall in proportion to the square root of the franchise's duration.) One would expect therefore that more of the reusable and important concepts were introduced earlier in the franchise than later. That doesn't impose any normative valuation on concepts from earlier portion of the franchise as such.

In Spider-man's case, John Jameson is a minor supporting character despite having a prominent role in AMS 1, and 'Sally', one of the few named characters in Amazing Fantasy 15, has never reappeared in contemporary continuity. Meanwhile, Kraven's Last Hunt dominates perceptions of that character.

[bat39]

On the subject of what is foundational to a franchise.

In a healthy franchise the writers are constantly introducing new concepts many of which are worth reusing. That means that the number of concepts worth reusing will be rising steadily. That means that the number of new concepts worth reusing will fall. (A crude mathematical model suggests that the number of new worthwhile concepts introduced in any period should fall in proportion to the square root of the franchise's duration.) One would expect therefore that more of the reusable and important concepts were introduced earlier in the franchise than later. That doesn't impose any normative valuation on concepts from earlier portion of the franchise as such.

In Spider-man's case, John Jameson is a minor supporting character despite having a prominent role in AMS 1, and 'Sally', one of the few named characters in Amazing Fantasy 15, has never reappeared in contemporary continuity. Meanwhile, Kraven's Last Hunt dominates perceptions of that character.

Increasingly I feel a good measure of what is 'foundational' to a comic-book franchise is what tend to make it to adaptations (or serve as a basis for adaptations).

The Lee/Dikto/Romita run, the Death of Gwen Stacy, the Alien Costume Saga and Venom, and more recently Spider-Verse and Miles Morales, are the major inspirations for adaptations. And yes, it does tend to skew earlier in the franchise as opposed to later (which shows you just how big a success Miles Morales has been!) Mind you, this isn't always the case. If you were to consider the Avengers as a franchise for instance, I'd say a lot of the 'foundational' aspects that have shaped adaptations tended to appear relatively later in the franchise's history - as late as the 21st century in fact.

[Lee]

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.

You've said that you want to keep Spider-Man discourse civil and that you want to be a positive voice in the fandom. You're not doing that here.

"Oh, so you want bad comics?" isn't conducive to a civil conversation.

You were talking about Peter being a teenager long before I asked whether teenaged Peter Parker had ever endured. You're asserting that 20 is the important milestone right now.

I'm sorry for answering your question. I won't do so again.

[Mister Mets]

IMHO r.e. the professionals, a lot of the pro-OMD ones have explained their viewpoint enough that I think we have a pretty good idea of why, to quote the MCU, is Gamorra. Not saying one has to agree that OMD should've happened and needs to be the only status quo (heck, I sure don't think it holds up under any kind of logic or quality of craftsmanship), but I think we have a pretty good model from the horse's mouth.

Frankly, at this point, I less interested in why creators/fans like OMD and don't want to bring the marriage back, but why OMD remains such a sacred cow when it's antithetical to the brand as a whole. IMHO, that's the next puzzle in a situation that I think becomes more and more absurd the longer it goes on.

The pros have often explained their views, and that doesn't fit the description of true motives.

On the subject of what is foundational to a franchise.

In a healthy franchise the writers are constantly introducing new concepts many of which are worth reusing. That means that the number of concepts worth reusing will be rising steadily. That means that the number of new concepts worth reusing will fall. (A crude mathematical model suggests that the number of new worthwhile concepts introduced in any period should fall in proportion to the square root of the franchise's duration.) One would expect therefore that more of the reusable and important concepts were introduced earlier in the franchise than later. That doesn't impose any normative valuation on concepts from earlier portion of the franchise as such.

In Spider-man's case, John Jameson is a minor supporting character despite having a prominent role in AMS 1, and 'Sally', one of the few named characters in Amazing Fantasy 15, has never reappeared in contemporary continuity. Meanwhile, Kraven's Last Hunt dominates perceptions of that character.

One important thing about the Spider-Man comics is that the foundational comics are considered quite good. The Lee/ Ditko and Lee/ Romita runs rate among the best in comics.

That's different from Batman and Superman where the original runs aren't as acclaimed.

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.)

If readers go for authentic classic Spider-Man, Marvel's going to notice. If more people read the Todd McFarlane comics or DeM atteis/ Buscema Spectacular Spider-Man than anything by Dan Slott, it's going to show up in the internal figures.

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.

After the clone retcon was retconned, it took three years later for MJ to be killed off.

Peter and MJ didn't reconcile for another three years of comics.

One More Day came within five years of that.