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

[TinkerSpider]

If you think Spider-Man must be just a coming of age drama, then you should just stick him in high school forever, and either you just never get him out of it, or you reboot it whenever he gets ready to graduate.

...But every major version of Spider-Man that has reached the end of his high school years just transitioned to a new “learning to adult” phase, followed by a “being an adult” phase of it got further then that - and of course, the original creative team moved him out of high school very quickly, and they continued telling medium-changing stories long after he exited high school.

For the record, I think thereÂ’s some merit to wanting a hero in a status quo, though most proponents of it are foolish in their insistence on trying to dictate it rather than allow great runs to modify and progress it only when itÂ’s successful (which I would regard as the accidental secret that the Batman franchise discovered.)

The thing for me that personally exasperates me is that I donÂ’t get why anyone would want Joe Quesada and co.Â’s particular status quo; if people think that Spider-Man should be in a permanent stay quo, who the hell wants it to be as a sad sack late-20Â’s to early 30Â’s loser?

I mean, late-20’s to early-30’s superheroes are a dime a dozen, and a lot of the ones in that age range are cooler than “Loser Peter”, and people have naturally less patience for grown-ass men acting like man-children than they do for teenagers learning to grow up.

I’d argue that sticking Peter perpetually in high school is still not coming of age. That’s just an animated sitcom like The Simpsons. Or classic Archie (and even Archie has grown up and even died).

Coming of age is about firsts - as firsts are usually integral to loss of innocence. First kiss, first falling in love, first break up, first real experience with death, first loss of someone important, first real adult responsibility, first job, first time having sex, etc.

The thing about firsts is that there are only one. Once the first is over…it’s over. And can’t be repeated or recovered.

That’s why stories set in high school inevitably move beyond high school if they want to have any verisimilitude and real life resonance. Or they remain sitcoms where the situation is what matters, not the characters who are just archetypes/stereotypes.

It’s so funny - both haha and head scratching - that Spider-Man has his premier place in the pantheon of pop culture heroes BECAUSE he was allowed to have his firsts, learn from them, and grow. The classic stories everyone points to are all about Peter learning from and being affected by his experiences: AF 15, Death of Gwen Stacy, KLH, The Conversation, The Child Within/Death of Harry Osborn, If This Be My Destiny, even the Clone Saga - and yet there is this school of thought that this has harmed the character and therefore should never be allowed to occur moving forward?! It’s so unfathomable to me. And it’s led to the character completely spinning his wheels and an ever increasing tendency to just homage classic stories with ever diminishing results and ever more audience ennui. No wonder USM is outperforming - it allows its Peter Parker to be a person first, not a two dimensional cartoon mascot like current 616.

[Kurus]

What exactly is it about Spider-man where people feel the need to call him a sad sack loser when he makes mistakes while Daredevil and Ironman can have their lives completely collapse around them multiple times by making the exact same mistakes and why is he a manchild when other heroes, even older ones, get away with making decisions that are a lot more immature than his?

More people read Spider-Man than those two. And in the case of daredevil, at least his book never really stays in the same status quo for long. He’s been a lawyer, fry cook, drifter and even leader of the hand. It also helps that daredevil is one of the most consistently well written characters at marvel.

[Lee]

If you think Spider-Man must be just a coming of age drama, then you should just stick him in high school forever, and either you just never get him out of it, or you reboot it whenever he gets ready to graduate.

...But every major version of Spider-Man that has reached the end of his high school years just transitioned to a new “learning to adult” phase, followed by a “being an adult” phase of it got further then that - and of course, the original creative team moved him out of high school very quickly, and they continued telling medium-changing stories long after he exited high school.

It was still a coming of age story when he was a teenager in college.

[TinkerSpider]

It was still a coming of age story when he was a teenager in college.

Not really. AF 15 is Peter's coming of age. Peter was a child, was selfish like a child, lost his uncle and thus his childish innocence, and learned he had adult power and adult responsibility. That's a classic coming of age story. You can't get more coming of age.

In fact, after AF 15 Peter became head of household and went to work for the Bugle, with Aunt May depicted more as his dependent than she was depicted as his guardian. He had adult responsibilities.

(And just because you’re an adult, it doesn’t mean you stop growing and learning and making new friends and having new experiences. That’s what Peter did in college. And after, until OMD.)

And once Gwen Stacy died, there went any pretense of still being a coming of age story.

[Daibhidh]

It was still a coming of age story when he was a teenager in college.

I'd agree. But this is an indefinite ongoing series. A coming of age story has to make progress towards the protagonist coming of age, and once it gets there it ceases to be a coming of age story and has to become something else.
The first Ultimate Spider-man couldn't be a coming of age story, because Peter only did a certain amount of coming of age, and was never going to leave school.

[Lee]

I'd agree. But this is an indefinite ongoing series. A coming of age story has to make progress towards the protagonist coming of age, and once it gets there it ceases to be a coming of age story and has to become something else.

I disagree. If Amazing Spider-Man was cancelled with issue #20, for example, and the character was never heard from again, it would still have been a coming of age series, even though there would have been no definitive conclusion. Series that run indefinitely (and where the characters have to remain recognizable for decades for commercial reasons) have to deal in themes and concepts because they don't have the luxury of a definitive beginning, middle and end.

If it's the phrase "coming of age" that you disagree with, then instead consider the theme "growing pains" or "the trials and tribulations of being a teenager". A comic series can deal in that theme indefinitely just as much as it can any other theme.

As you said, concluding that theme and becoming something else is an option (not a necessity), but there are several questions that should be asked: "Is this new concept as strong as the original concept?", "Was there anything wrong with the original concept?", "Is there a reason this new concept should replace the original concept rather than being a new book?".

If the first concept had a definitive ending, then does the second concept need a definitive ending? Do you then move onto a third concept? A fourth, a fifth, a sixth? At what point is the series no longer recognizable? Or does the series stay locked into the second concept forever? In that case, how is that any different than locking the series into the first concept forever?

[Daibhidh]

I disagree. If Amazing Spider-Man was cancelled with issue #20, for example, and the character was never heard from again, it would still have been a coming of age series, even though there would have been no definitive conclusion. Series that run indefinitely (and where the characters have to remain recognizable for decades for commercial reasons) have to deal in themes and concepts because they don't have the luxury of a definitive beginning, middle and end.

Being incomplete because cancelled is not the same as running indefinitely.
I think that coming of age is an accurate description in hindsight of the cumulative effect of the Spider-man comics up until say they started reversing the Clone Saga. The evidence that Spider-man is a coming of age story is that Peter change and grew and came of age. It's self-contradictory to say that it's a coming of age story therefore it shouldn't have done the things that made it a coming of age story.
Likewise, Marvel wasn't guaranteed commerical success. That wasn't a given. The fact that Peter changed and grew, that Reed and Sue got married and had a baby, that various Avengers fell in love and got married, that the original X-Men graduated; these are factors that are often credited for making Marvel a commercial success.

In any case, you're talking about all this in the abstract as if people are advocating for Peter to grow up and get married while he's still in high school. He's not. The choice isn't Peter still in high school and Peter gets married. It's not even Peter is married and Peter is a young man who has never been married. The choice is Peter is married and Peter is a divorcee who doesn't know he's a divorcee.
The genie did not go back in the bottle.

[Spider-Tiger]

"the trials and tribulations of being a teenager".

If you consider having no parents, a geriatric dependent, a secretary girlfriend, and a job for a major news publication to support a household income the "trials and tribulations of being a teenager."

[godisawesome]

It was still a coming of age story when he was a teenager in college.

I’d have to disagree for a lot of reasons:

- Because college kids *are* young adults; it’s still a time of transition, yes, but you are no longer by any remaining definition a child, and have thus “come of age” to the world.

- Because it clearly *is* a new period in Peters life that is marked by his experience and maturation contrasting with his high school years.

-Because, as TinkerSpider points out, Peter has arguably completed his “growing into an adult” phase before he even leaves high school.

- ...And because what happens when a “coming of age” story “graduates” and keeps going is the thing that truly defined Spider-Man and most of Marvel until some Gen X creators freaked out - you learn that the assignment is no longer “you must come of age into adulthood” but rather “you will never stop growing; there is no end to this process; each phase of life is its own challenge that you will should mature through; you may grow old, gray, and wise... and you will *still* be learning.”

I’d argue that last thing is what makes most alternative versions of “Veteran” Peter come off as more mature and likable than post-OMD Peter; he’s a man-child because editorial hates him learning and growing out of fear it makes him “old”, while someone like Peter B. Parker can go through a midlife crisis but, in spite of his goofiness, isn’t a man-child because he’s sclealry struggling with going form being one type of adult to another rather than being a man child.

What exactly is it about Spider-man where people feel the need to call him a sad sack loser when he makes mistakes while Daredevil and Ironman can have their lives completely collapse around them multiple times by making the exact same mistakes and why is he a manchild when other heroes, even older ones, get away with making decisions that are a lot more immature than his?

Because that’s literally what the OMD and it’s supporters demands he be, and in a completely inorganic, laughably stupid and artificial way that other characters don’t have because of the sheer ridiculousness of the drive to make Peter the Univers’s kicked dog, even by comic standards.

Daredevil, Iron Man, and pretty much anyone who’s where Peter used to be - just letting life come at the characters and exploring the struggles and pitfalls of that, with occasional moments of escapist weirdness where writing the characters competently still requires having them react like human beings - doesn’t have the writer’s “out for them to the degree that Peter (and MJ) have it, and Peter (and MJ) are treated differently because of a fanatical obsession with ensuring he suffers compared to other characters.

There’s some insane stuff in comics - but only Spider-Man fans can claim that writers and editorial literally regard inflicting frustratingly shallow and badly written misfortune onto him as more important than competent writing the characters.

Daredevil and Iron Man go through some weird shit - but Spidey’s had editorial and writer’s go “We will bend the fucking laws of reality and embrace the trashiest out of character writing multiple times to keep at his relationship form happening and keep him suffering! And that's how we know we’re doing it right!”

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Daredevil and Iron Man are also not good examples because they're both darker and more self-destructive characters - Iron Man especially. That's just not who Spider-Man is. There is deliberate color and optimism and growth with Spider-Man that there isn't with those guys. Spider-Man is closer to Superman and Fantastic Four in tone than to those other guys.

[Garlador]

It was still a coming of age story when he was a teenager in college.

Even if we go with this very generous interpretation, then it's still very much a story that quite definitively concluded.


"I'm about to face the realities of the real world. There's NO TURNING BACK. Whatever's in store for me, at least it'll be NEW AND DIFFERENT - and heck - what's life all about if it doesn't have some adventure and uncertainty?"
"And so we close another chapter in the rather tumultuous life of Peter Parker as he moves on from college to ADULTHOOD!"

This was way back in 1978. It is beyond frustrating that the creative heads of Marvel keep trying to put this genie back in the bottle when it was so organically done away with over 46 years ago, back when Christopher Reeve first put on tights as Superman and the Bee Gees were #1 on the radio.

[Daibhidh]

Daredevil and Iron Man are also not good examples because they're both darker and more self-destructive characters - Iron Man especially.

I would have said Daredevil is more self-destructive than Iron Man, at least since Miller and Nocenti.

But I agree. In both cases their self-destructive impulses are grounded in psychological problems that stem from their childhood. Peter's misbehaviour is grounded less in his background than in modern Spider-man writers' notions of how youth behaves (which ends up looking to me more like a middle-aged man trying to relive his fantasy of his youth than actual youth).

Johnny Storm is another character with similar modern treatment. Both Peter and Johnny in the silver and bronze age were often hotheaded. But then so was Captain Kirk(*): I get the impression there was an element that being hotheaded was how a hero was meant to act. But they weren't either of them irresponsible in the way they are often depicted as being now. Peter wasn't always able to meet his responsibilities because he was applying himself to so many, rather than because he wasn't applying himself enough.

(*) I was going to say Kirk is nobody's idea of irresponsibility, but actually there's a parallel in the difference between Shatner's Kirk and Pine's Kirk.

[Lee]

If you consider having no parents, a geriatric dependent, a secretary girlfriend, and a job for a major news publication to support a household income the "trials and tribulations of being a teenager."

Ditko very much considered his run on Spider-Man to be a teen series.

This article contains several excerpts from essays and letters where Ditko touches upon his thoughts on the series: https://comicbookhistorians.com/the-...-rosco-m-2023/

I’d have to disagree for a lot of reasons:

- Because college kids *are* young adults; it’s still a time of transition, yes, but you are no longer by any remaining definition a child, and have thus “come of age” to the world.

I don't agree. I think an 18 year old college student has more in common with a 17 year old high school student than they do an older adult with a stable job, a spouse and a mortgage. In the USA a 20 year old college student can't even legally buy a beer.

The college setting works well because college students are still figuring themselves out, they haven't put down roots yet. Those themes carry over from the high school setting.

Even if we go with this very generous interpretation, then it's still very much a story that quite definitively concluded.

Marv Wolfman talked a bit about that story in the book Comic Creators on Spider-Man. Having Peter graduate from college wasn't his decision, and he thought ageing Peter up was a bad idea. He said that at that point we needed to forget how old Peter actually was, and that his plan was to put Peter in graduate school "and just leave him there".

The graduate school setting works fine, though it was inherently a compromise.

[Spider-Tiger]

Ditko very much considered his run on Spider-Man to be a teen series.

This article contains several excerpts from essays and letters where Ditko touches upon his thoughts on the series: https://comicbookhistorians.com/the-...-rosco-m-2023/

There's a difference between a story having a teenage protagonist or written with a teenage audience in mind and being about "the trials and tribulations of being a teenager." I don't think it's particularly common for fifteen year olds to have to worry about providing for their household or having a dependent. That's the point: Amazing Fantasy #15, in and of itself, is a story that forces Peter into adulthood by challenging him with adult responsibility (in contrast to his prior ordinary teenage life in which his most significant worry was being the unpopular kid at school.)

Also, in the context of the comic industry during the Silver Age, describing a book as "teen series" would speak to the story's maturity. As in, something not written solely for little children. But again that doesn't mean it's literally about being a teen.

[TinkerSpider]

Ditko very much considered his run on Spider-Man to be a teen series.

This article contains several excerpts from essays and letters where Ditko touches upon his thoughts on the series: https://comicbookhistorians.com/the-...-rosco-m-2023/

Ditko also said: “Stan’ writing style was completely wrong for Spider-Man. He treated teenage Peter Parker as a seasoned veteran with his nonsensical comic dialogue exchanges between a hero and a villain. Creative ideas are no good if not used in a proper way.”

So, Ditko might have been wrong about a few things.

I do think Ditko had this right:
“Stan’s synopsis for the Green Goblin had a movie crew, on location, finding an Egyptian-like sarcophagus. Inside was an ancient, mythological demon, the Green Goblin. He naturally comes to life.

“I rejected Stan’s idea.

“Why? For the same reason I rejected other ideas of Stan’s on Spider-Man.

“A mythological demon made the whole Peter Parker/Spider-Man world a place where nothing is metaphyscially impossible It would open up the story to anything goes.”

You said it, Steve, demons have no place in Spider-Man! If only Marvel had still listened

But ultimately, the debate can be ended by looking at the name of the character from the very start:

Spider-MAN.

Not Spider-Boy. Not Spider-Teen.

Spider-MAN.

It’s right there, in the name. Stan knew what he was signifying with that name, and why it would appeal to audiences.

I don't agree. I think an 18 year old college student has more in common with a 17 year old high school student than they do an older adult with a stable job, a spouse and a mortgage. In the USA a 20 year old college student can't even legally buy a beer.

College students are young adults.

They are not considered children.

College students typically live away from their childhood home, they deal with paying rent and taking out loans, and they are entering the professional world through internships and jobs.

Coming of age does not mean one’s story stops. Buddha is the only human I know of who is said to have attained full enlightenment. The rest of us are works in progress and we will be works in progress until death.

Appearing to equate adulthood with “the story stops and the character is set” is rather unfathomable to me. Most of literature is about adults. Most comic books are about adults. Most films and TV shows are about adults. And that’s because adult characters are more flexible and much less limited than teenage characters. They aren’t limited by age or lack of knowledge. Which is why nearly every popular teen character in a serial story ultimately turns into an adult. Kitty Pryde, for one. Or gets killed off, like Bendis did to his Ultimate Peter Parker.

Teen characters are still learning. But once they’ve learned, they can’t keep learning again or the characters lose verisimilitude and become just stock types in situations. That’s a cartoon, Bart Simpson trapped in a cycle of learning and then having the slate wiped clean only to learn again. And this is, in fact, the glaring problem with Peter Parker since 2007. As Nick Spencer pointed out in ASM 60, he has been trapped on a hamster wheel, constantly spinning but going absolutely nowhere.