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

[Frontier]

I've made the argument before that BND Peter has massive "divorced guy" energy.

I still maintain that to be the case. Especially the current era. Wells Peter feels older than Spencer Peter.

I dunno about that, Spencer's Peter was more mature than Wells Peter and seemed more emotionally rounded.

[Kevinroc]

I dunno about that, Spencer's Peter was more mature than Wells Peter and seemed more emotionally rounded.

Wells' Peter has big "divorced guy" energy, and by definition, "divorced guy" is going to read older than "guy in a relationship."

Think of the Spider-Verse movies. Did Peter B. seem older in Into the Spider-Verse or its sequel?

[Spider-Tiger]

Read it all in context. He said his tenure on the series was about Peter in the process of growing up and learning to be a hero, making mistakes that Superman or Captain America wouldn't.

The TV series The Wonder Years was about Kevin growing up. It wasn't about Kevin being a grown-up.

You're missing my point. He says his work on Spider-man is a story about a teenage protagonist growing up to be a hero. Growing up constitutes an evolving story. Not a static one. Getting married, having kids, etc. are all responsibilities that one faces when growing up. Just as it is to worry about supporting household expenses as Peter did after AF #15.

In contrast, a static forever teenage character like Archie Andrews is not a character that faced those types of challenges or did any growing. His comics were quite literally all about the innocence of teenage life. Likewise, Superman wasn't conceived as an evolving protagonist. That has nothing to do with the protagonist's actual age.

But Ditko says he saw his comics as being about a character who learns and grows. You cease having a character that learns and grows when you attempt to freeze them within a particular era.

[Tuck]

Peter and MJ lived in New York City. They were nowhere near the suburbs except for The Final Adventure during the Clone Saga which was very much a temporary status. They also lived in a variety of places, mostly due to money problems or other issues.

As for the nice house, the only actual house, as in freestanding single family dwelling, that Peter and MJ lived in was Aunt May's. Which Peter lived in as a teenager. So...

Fores Hills is pretty suburban. It's not technically the suburbs because it is inside of Queens. But it is more suburban than parts of Long Island. It's a well-off residential neighborhood with little public transportation.

[TinkerSpider]

Fores Hills is pretty suburban. It's not technically the suburbs because it is inside of Queens. But it is more suburban than parts of Long Island. It's a well-off residential neighborhood with little public transportation.

Queens is still New York City. The other boroughs have some lovely areas as well. They’re still not suburban. IMO Peter “settled down in the ‘burbs” is stretching what is on the page as he’s out swinging on skyscrapers on a daily basis; there’s not a lawn to be mown in sight. That’s also Peter’s childhood home as I earlier pointed out and where he lived during high school, but oddly the objection to him living there only happens when he is married (and the first time he lived there after his marriage it wasn’t his home, it was May’s, he wasn’t settled, he was living there as a stopgap because of money problems).

Changing subjects:

I’ve long thought the true objection to the marriage is having a female deuteragonist in the comic. Because once Peter is married, his partner can’t just be a prize to be won as a reward or a toy to be snatched away to make Peter sad; she has to have a life of her own and be treated as three dimensional character in her own right. And that feels to me to be the actual sticking point.

[Garlador]

I don't think so. It's the difference between finding your place in the world and settling down.

I do think that the premise of a 20-something trying to find their place in the world is more viable in the 2020s than it would have been in previous decades, due to changes in societal expectations, the job market, the housing market, the economy, and so on.

I'm hearing one of the reasons Ultimate Spider-Man is resonating with people - younger and older readers alike - is the themes of trying to find one's place in the world, no matter your age. That the promise of hard work and the American dream has failed multiple generations who were promised the world and wound up struggling, disenfranchised, and trying to find purpose in a world that is routinely trying to replace them, make them obsolete, and leave them behind. As a result, Ultimate Peter Parker does the "finding your place in the world" better than the current 616 Peter, I'd say.

They were married couple with a nice house in the suburbs. Peter had put down those roots.

The grad school setting is good because it puts Peter in a place of learning, and where he hasn't settled into a full-time long-term career. Being settled down in a marriage and being settled down in a nice house have the opposite effect.

I'm going to call this a load of hogwash in regards to the book. They TRIED to put down roots, but I have multiple, MULTIPLE stories of them moving around, changing careers, changing jobs, and changing lifestyles throughout their marriage. The DESIRE to put down roots was there, but the REALITY of it continued to elude them - and that's what made it INTERESTING. The stability they had - even in their home - was always a knife's edge away from going away.

Being married and trying to have a good long-term career? That's MY story. And funny thing about that - since I've been married, I've moved six times and changed careers four times, despite my attempts to "put down roots". Fate and fortune continue to surprise me and direct me down unexplored paths that continue to benefit me and my family but have kept us on our toes and proven to be quite the adventure. Nothing is preventing good writers from making a story that's more exciting than the upheaval of my own married life.

I - yet again - point to Wally West over in the Flash comics. Young family man, has a house, two kids, and his life is in a constant state of change and flux. A whole storyline was dedicated to him (AND his wife) needing a change of careers and looking to find something that fulfilled him and made him happy (and paid the bills). The book remains such a fun, engaging, exciting read, and the fact of the matter is that he's TRYING to put down roots, and the FUN is seeing how his life is steered down unexpected paths.

Teacher and CEO would both have been bad permanent or long-term directions for the series.

Permanent? Maybe. But long-term? Hardly.

Clark Kent's still at the Daily Planet. Bruce will inevitably get Wayne Enterprise back. The X-Men will start teaching classes again. Peter will snap pictures for the Bugle. Life moves on.

By that same logic, Mary Jane should quit being an actress and a model and do something else if she wants. I'm serious; there's nothing wrong with a career change. There was no hard rule that "Peter & MJ need permanent career changes or BUST". I don't recall any readers asking for that. And it was not something that really existed in the marriage era either.

[Lee]

You're missing my point. He says his work on Spider-man is a story about a teenage protagonist growing up to be a hero. Growing up constitutes an evolving story. Not a static one. Getting married, having kids, etc. are all responsibilities that one faces when growing up. Just as it is to worry about supporting household expenses as Peter did after AF #15.

In contrast, a static forever teenage character like Archie Andrews is not a character that faced those types of challenges or did any growing. His comics were quite literally all about the innocence of teenage life. Likewise, Superman wasn't conceived as an evolving protagonist. That has nothing to do with the protagonist's actual age.

But Ditko says he saw his comics as being about a character who learns and grows. You cease having a character that learns and grows when you attempt to freeze them within a particular era.

In Comics Creators on Spider-Man, Marv Wolfman recalled a conversation he had with Steve Ditko when they were working on Machine Man together (1979), in which Ditko said that the best age to freeze Spider-Man would have been 16.

You can have a comic series about a teenager learning life lessons without following them through all the stages of human life.

The approach you're describing isn't viable for a comic designed to run forever while keeping the character recognizable for commercial reasons. Under those conditions there eventually comes a line in the sand.

Permanent? Maybe. But long-term? Hardly.

Clark Kent's still at the Daily Planet. Bruce will inevitably get Wayne Enterprise back. The X-Men will start teaching classes again. Peter will snap pictures for the Bugle. Life moves on.

By that same logic, Mary Jane should quit being an actress and a model and do something else if she wants. I'm serious; there's nothing wrong with a career change. There was no hard rule that "Peter & MJ need permanent career changes or BUST". I don't recall any readers asking for that. And it was not something that really existed in the marriage era either.

I don't know what you're arguing against.

Peter as a CEO would have been a bad long-term job because it gets in the way of him being a hard luck hero. As a finite story arc with a planned ending it was fine, because it was about a temporary reversal of fortunes.

Peter as a high school teacher would have been a bad long-term job because it places Peter as an authority figure to teenagers. It's one of the worst jobs to give to a character you want a teenage and younger audience to relate to.

[Spider-Tiger]

In Comics Creators on Spider-Man, Marv Wolfman recalled a conversation he had with Steve Ditko when they were working on Machine Man together (1979), in which Ditko said that the best age to freeze Spider-Man would have been 16.

You can have a comic series about a teenager learning life lessons without following them through all the stages of human life.

The approach you're describing isn't viable for a comic designed to run forever while keeping the character recognizable for commercial reasons. Under those conditions there eventually comes a line in the sand.

Do you know of any examples in fiction of a never-ending serialized story with a protagonist who "learns and grows up" and is also frozen in time? What you seem to be describing is an impossibility because those two approaches to storytelling directly contradict one another.

You seem to think that the youthfulness of the character is his most important defining trait and that the "growing" element of the story should be sacrificed in favor of preserving the character's youthfulness. But I believe that growing was central to the comic's appeal.

Regardless, where is the line the sand? How does crossing that line affect the commercial viability of the character? Do you have any evidence to support that hypothesis?

[godisawesome]

Not going to lie, a lot of the "appeals to authority" and attempted "this wouldn't work because it makes him feel old" arguments still end up quietly having this weird addendum of "... and as a sign of how much him being a young teenager-feeling dude is important, we have decided to freeze him when he is blatantly too old to be a teacher or student for all time, and given him a 30-year old's characterization" aspect.

It's complete bullshit to try arguing "Well, Ditko thought he shouldn't have left high school!" or "Marv Wolfman hated graduating him from college!"... and then still move heaven and earth to enforce a post-college status quo with a timeline that blatantly makes him no longer passable as a young 20-something.

I don't believe a word said in favor of OMD that involves "youth" or some "conviction" that Peter should have stayed young - because there's no desire among OMD supporters to actually make Peter young or undo that. It makes supporters sound like they *should* be just as miserable with their own status quo as critics of it... and we don't see someone Mr. Slott or Lee lamenting that Peter's out of high school until someone carries the argument for the marriage over to it reflecting Peter's growth, and it's to defend a story where Peter's a 30-something "magic divorcee," so it's clearly just rhetorical maneuvering rather than an actual conviction.

It really does feel like it's more just hatred of the work and standards required to write Peter when he's a growing character rather than any kind of conviction about what he was.

If you seriously think he needs to be young, juts reboot his ass back to high school. Otherwise, I'm going to know "youth" has nothing to do with the argument we're having, and is just obfuscating and goalpost moving out of desperation.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

To sound a bit controversial on the surface (but only on the surface)... I will grant there is a chance that Spidey would have stayed longer in high school if Stan knew how big Marvel would get. But only in the sense that they would start a floating timeline from Day 1.

The same is true for all the other Marvel IP's. I don't think that's at all unique to Spider-Man. The Marvel Universe supposedly existed for 12-15 years, but Franklin Richards was 5 already in like the late 1960's. It's around that time when Marvel drops the real time feeling altogether.

What that probably means is that the Lee/Ditko/Romita run would have more evenly split the high school and college era. I don't even think it means that it would have delayed any other events like Peter graduating college and getting married - part of why the Marvel Universe slowed down as much as it did is to make up for how fast it went in the beginning. With it going slower from the beginning, there is also less of a need for it to slow down.

(That's also why I don't have a problem with adaptations adapting Lee/Romita content from when Peter was 18-19 into the high school years when Peter was 16-17 - not a big deal IMO.)

However, none of that would mean what Quesada and Co. think it means. Both Lee and Ditko made it clear from the beginning they wanted to grow Peter up. The Marvel universe as a whole has grown since then, even after time started "slowing down" in-universe. Like, even after Marvel dropped any resemblance of real time, it's clear that at least 10 years passed in-universe way before we even got to OMD.

Basically, there is a chance that in hindsight, Stan would have made Peter's journey look more like what Greg Weisman planned for Spectacular Spider-Man. Peter stayed longer in high school there but ultimately there was still a plan to age him up. But even if that's somehow true, that's still a far cry from "Spider-Man is about youth" or from OMD having any sort of valid point.

I mean, it's not [that simple. There are other factors why Peter left college so fast, like Ditko wanting to give Peter a character arc and also cultural factors like Spidey becoming more popular with college students. My point though is that in a vacuum, wanting to more evently distribute the stories is the continuity is the only reason you might do things differently in hindsight - which literally has nothing to do with OMD or what Quesada is talking about.

[Daibhidh]

In Comics Creators on Spider-Man, Marv Wolfman recalled a conversation he had with Steve Ditko when they were working on Machine Man together (1979), in which Ditko said that the best age to freeze Spider-Man would have been 16.

As we saw from the Who Killed Kamala controversy just recently, the value of hearsay evidence in this context is lowish.
We know that if Stan Lee didn't want to age Peter up then it must have been Ditko's idea, and vice versa.

The approach you're describing isn't viable for a comic designed to run forever while keeping the character recognizable for commercial reasons. Under those conditions there eventually comes a line in the sand.

If Marvel want to do a hard reboot on their continuity or shift to a there is no continuity model of storytelling then maybe. But they have consistently rejected doing either.
There's a tvtropes page on levels of continuity. No doubt further splitting is possible. Anyway, as I remember, the first two levels are:
1) Looney Tunes. Aside from the basic characters stories may start with a different setting, without explanation, and the ending may change the characters entirely because it will just be ignored.
2) Pre-Babylon-5 genre television. There is an illusion of continuity in that characters revert to the status quo at the end of each episode - they may fall in love or otherwise be emotionally changed but that will just be ignored the next time. The intention was that networks purchasing the series could show the episodes in any order or that viewers who missed several episodes could watch the next one as if nothing had happened.

Received wisdom is that Marvel succeeded in part because Lee broke from those two levels of continuity, and adopted a higher level of continuity where characters did grow up, fall in and out of love, get married, die, and so on. They could shift to a nothing ever happens again model, but they'd be departing from what made Marvel Marvel in the first place.

In any case, it's one thing to say one needs to draw a line in the sand and not go beyond it. It's another to say one needs to draw a line in the sand that one had already crossed with no apparent ill effects some while back.

[fjmac]

There is enough variety of quotes from Stan Lee and Steve Ditko to support any position. Also, I don't see anybody citing Bill Finger and Bob Kane on the Batman section when discussing the character's current direction.

The way I see it (and I have no problem to admit I'm biased and I'm not talking from the unattainable heights of divine enlightenment) is that BND established Peter as twenty-something even though he consistently looks 30, a perpetual bachelor even though he's been married for years and got an express divorce by means of making a deal with the devil, and most of the relevant things that happened to him (Kraven's Last Hunt, Venom, Carnage, Clone Saga, Civil War, Superior, CEO, to name a few) happened while he was already an adult, so... in the span of 2 or 3 years? There's no way to cram all that together in a consistent narrative. Unless... you apply the sliding timescale principle, as pretty much 100% of the rest of the Marvel Universe does.

So, in a universe where most characters evolve and grow slowly in order to give a vague sense of time passing, with occasional huge changes (the Richards kids, anybody?), Peter remains frozen in a state that's impossible to fit in its own continuity? C'mon...

[Lee]

Do you know of any examples in fiction of a never-ending serialized story with a protagonist who "learns and grows up" and is also frozen in time? What you seem to be describing is an impossibility because those two approaches to storytelling directly contradict one another.

There's the rub. Either the story keeps on moving forward and the characters keep getting older and older until the entire Marvel cast dies of old age, or a line is drawn in the sand on a character by character basis.

Marvel doesn't want to do the former, so the latter is the only choice left. All of the characters will get frozen in a certain age range, the only question is what that age range should be.

You seem to think that the youthfulness of the character is his most important defining trait and that the "growing" element of the story should be sacrificed in favor of preserving the character's youthfulness. But I believe that growing was central to the comic's appeal.

I think it's very possible to have a comic series that is perpetually about teenage growing pains. Some of the story ideas will repeat a bit after decades, but that's fine. Once you're 300 stories deep you can't expect every reader to have read all 299 previous stories.

Not going to lie, a lot of the "appeals to authority" and attempted "this wouldn't work because it makes him feel old" arguments still end up quietly having this weird addendum of "... and as a sign of how much him being a young teenager-feeling dude is important, we have decided to freeze him when he is blatantly too old to be a teacher or student for all time, and given him a 30-year old's characterization" aspect.

It's complete bullshit to try arguing "Well, Ditko thought he shouldn't have left high school!" or "Marv Wolfman hated graduating him from college!"... and then still move heaven and earth to enforce a post-college status quo with a timeline that blatantly makes him no longer passable as a young 20-something.

I don't believe a word said in favor of OMD that involves "youth" or some "conviction" that Peter should have stayed young - because there's no desire among OMD supporters to actually make Peter young or undo that. It makes supporters sound like they *should* be just as miserable with their own status quo as critics of it... and we don't see someone Mr. Slott or Lee lamenting that Peter's out of high school until someone carries the argument for the marriage over to it reflecting Peter's growth, and it's to defend a story where Peter's a 30-something "magic divorcee," so it's clearly just rhetorical maneuvering rather than an actual conviction.

It really does feel like it's more just hatred of the work and standards required to write Peter when he's a growing character rather than any kind of conviction about what he was.

If you seriously think he needs to be young, juts reboot his ass back to high school. Otherwise, I'm going to know "youth" has nothing to do with the argument we're having, and is just obfuscating and goalpost moving out of desperation.

That's pretty rude.

I'm expressing my personal opinions on comic stories, nothing else. I'm not hurting anyone, I'm not insulting anyone, I'm not lying about anyone or anything.

I don't need the fictional Spider-Man character to act like a mature adult, but I have no desire to engage in lengthy discussions with comic fans who won't conduct themselves like mature adults.

[Frontier]

Wells' Peter has big "divorced guy" energy, and by definition, "divorced guy" is going to read older than "guy in a relationship."

Think of the Spider-Verse movies. Did Peter B. seem older in Into the Spider-Verse or its sequel?

Both, but I don't really get old dude out of Wells' Peter. More like a spastic, neurotic, 20-something.

[Spider-Tiger]

There's the rub. Either the story keeps on moving forward and the characters keep getting older and older until the entire Marvel cast dies of old age, or a line is drawn in the sand on a character by character basis.

Marvel doesn't want to do the former, so the latter is the only choice left. All of the characters will get frozen in a certain age range, the only question is what that age range should be.

That's quite the slippery slope. Peter is/was a married man nearing his 30s. Nowhere was he or any of the principal cast (aside from May Parker) near death.

I think it's very possible to have a comic series that is perpetually about teenage growing pains. Some of the story ideas will repeat a bit after decades, but that's fine. Once you're 300 stories deep you can't expect every reader to have read all 299 previous stories.

If you are forced to keep regurgitating/ recycling story beats to keep the characters in stasis, then your characters aren't learning and growing. It's simply not possible to achieve both. And you're unlikely to incentivize customers to stick around and continue purchasing books with that degree of repetition. You're basically encouraging them to hop off after some indeterminate amount time. I don't think you can divorce Marvel's success from the serialized evolution that occurred to its principal characters. That type of storytelling encourages long term investment.

Regardless, it seems like the most logical solution for a perpetually teenage Spider-man that also grows is a serialized story that is rebooted every so often when the character reaches graduation or college age. But as it stands, there's a long-winded continuity dating back to the 1960s with a cast perpetually spinning their wheels so as to remain static. Doesn't seem like something that would please the type of crowd to care about continuity nor the supposed new reader that might see that continuity as a barrier to entry.