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

[Alex_Of_X]

Flash having a girlfriend he canonically met while fighting in 'Nam, then having his legs blown off in the Middle East is an insane backstory for a guy supposedly born in *checks notes* 1995.

He should've been rocking out to Gangnam style!

On topic: every run of spidey should be his greatest adventure yet and dazzle you so hard you quit the book after because nothing can top it. Then the next run should do exactly the same.

[godisawesome]

Flash having a girlfriend he canonically met while fighting in 'Nam, then having his legs blown off in the Middle East is an insane backstory for a guy supposedly born in *checks notes* 1995.

He should've been rocking out to Gangnam style!

On topic: every run of spidey should be his greatest adventure yet and dazzle you so hard you quit the book after because nothing can top it. Then the next run should do exactly the same.

On that topic, a specifically nuanced argument I would make is that this is why the big "formula" mistake of Post-OMD runs is usually having the guy who wrote the run then undo his own run and "put the toys back in the box", instead of leaving that to the next guy to do only if he wants to.

*That's* the thing that makes the current stories run towards the unambitious 90% of the time - most modern writers naturally keep their stuff closer to the status quo so that they can pull back instead of going nuts. Whenever this era *has* tried to go nuts, it tends to work better than when they panic shortly afterwards and undo it.

Contrast that with the sheer ambition of Kraven's Last Hunt and the original Venom Arcs, which likely *are* the type of "dazzling" story you mention, and did that with a married Spider-Man, and they likely fueled the contempt critics have for stuff like the current Wells run and editorial's hatred of progressing some stuff.

[bat39]

I'll bring back a point I've made earlier on this thread on whether it's reasonable to see Spider-Man as one story. Readers with that preference want to see consistent forward momentum, which isn't how serials with no end in sight work.

Thinking about Spider-Man's story is a bit like Sherlock Holmes's story. There is no definitive end. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle died, so the definitive canon is the stories by him but Spider-Man stories have been told by many writers and artists. There have also been many Sherlock Holmes stories purportedly about the original Holmes written by other people and some are quite good, so it's more about what makes sense for one set of stories. For examplem the writer Laurice R King wrote a series of sequels focusing on a love interest for Holmes, so for that series the Doyle stories and King's stories are canon, but it'll be different for another set.

There are still new stories to tell with Spider-Man like Peter learning to forgive Norman Osborn or J Jonah Jameson learning his identity and working with him. That's where it would matter, to say nothing else of the other characters. "The Kid Who Collects Spider-Man" didn't impact Peter's love life, job, family or education prospects, but there was still a point to it.

I get the appeal of letting Peter "grow" so that decisions are made based on a sense of what would happen in real life, which can make things matter in a way they wouldn't otherwise, and whether that's a good thing. Imagine Spider-Man comics where they don't make any compromises to keep the series intact, and no story is written to set up a familiar status quo. If you have a mediocre four-part Hobgoblin story, with some growth (Peter and MJ discuss whether it's the right time to have a third kid, the A-plot intersects with Peter's new responsibilities as science editor at the Bugle, etc.) readers will enjoy it more than a mediocre Hobgoblin story with a more familiar status quo, but it also makes it easier for Marvel to get away with a mediocre Hobgoblin story.

On some level, what you're describing is already the way most DC and Marvel 'runs' work, where writers use a few pivotal past stories/runs/events as the foundation for their own narrative that can otherwise be pretty self-contained.

However, unlike the case with Sherlock Holmes where every continuation author can not only ignore, but even contradict the work of other continuation authors because nothing is truly 'canon' except for Doyle's work (and sometimes, not even that!), when it comes to 616, a writer needs to respect the past continuity of characters, and at least not contradict anything (an explicit retcon or cosmic reset of some sort notwithstanding). A major reason for that of course is that Holmes is now public domain and every author is free to build their own little Holmesian bubble universe, while 'official' Marvel continuity is a going concern that is centrally controlled and everything written within it is technically supposed to be as 'canonical' as what the original creators wrote.

I'm trying to figure this out.

There is the 616 Universe, although that's full of anachronisms because we're pretending comics published in the Silver Age happened about 15 years ago.

I have been thinking that it may be better to consider continuity in the sense of something like a ten year run or looking at interrelated books, like enjoying Hickman's Fantastic Four and Avengers as its own thing.

The Lee/ Ditko comics can't be part of the same continuity as the current Amazing Spider-Man, because it depicts New York City of the 1960s (with high schools depicted through the perspective of white men old enough to be their fathers) rather than the modern era where Peter Parker had to grow up, where everyone has cell phones, real estate prices are very different, Queens is the most racially diverse big county in America, crime statistics are very different, etc. So we read those comics figuring that Peter has very similar adventures (IE- he doesn't meet Rhino or Harry Osborn until he's in college) but in a different setting.

There are multiple divergences from the 616 Universe. You pointed out every What If?, but some are more extensive like the Claremont X-Men Forever run or the MC2 Universe.

The 616 does allow for retcons, so you could say there are resets every time the universe is recreated (I can think of at least four examples- Steve Englehart's Doctor Strange, Peter David's Captain Marvel, Busiek/ Perez's JLA/ Avengers, Hickman's Secret Wars) as a way to explain away contradictions and anachronisms. We can also think of it like a story told through filters, so that 1962 represented the first year of the Fantastic Four as told by people in 1962 and 2024 represents the roughly 15th year of the Fantastic Four as told by people in 2024 where continuity mistakes are transcription errors.

Readers figure out some way to reconcile these kinds of things, but otherwise it is kind of weird that Peter Parker is a guy in his 20s (or even 30s) whose best friend (a guy he's known since middle school) was accused of war crimes in Vietnam.

I mean, that's the sliding timescale in a nutshell. We just accept the fact that the 15-year old Peter Parker who got bitten by the spider in 1962 is the same Peter Parker who's probably around 30 (something Marvel won't even care to admit!) in 2024. There are all kinds of potential in-universe explanations for this, but this is basically how it works.

More to the point, why does Marvel have a sliding timescale? After all, if we were just dealing with episodic adventures with an unchanging status quo (like most Golden Age/early Silver Age DC stories), then there's no need for one - the characters are frozen in one particular age, and nothing ever changes so it doesn't matter what year it is. But Marvel has always had the passage of time - indeed, it was defined by it. Characters experience things, and evolve. Time passes, at a slower rate than the real-world, but it passes. That's what sets 616 apart from other Marvel continuities (and indeed, from DC, which does have a sliding timescale but also relies on periodic reboots).

It doesn't matter if Peter Parker got bitten by the spider in 1962 or 2009. It doesn't even matter exactly how many years have passed since then (though its good to have a ballpark figure that most writers and editors can agree on). What's important is that a substantial amount of time has passed, that Peter has experienced things and changed, and continues to change.

[Lee]

Was Kraven's Last Hunt progress because it killed off a villain?

The original Venom story brought back a dead villain, the alien symbiote. The symbiote, last seen sacrificing its life to save Peter, was brought back and now wanted to kill Peter.

Bringing the symbiote back as Venom was a commercially hugely successful story decision that couldn't have happened without reversing and undermining a very memorable previous story.

[TinkerSpider]

I'll bring back a point I've made earlier on this thread on whether it's reasonable to see Spider-Man as one story.

MARVEL tells us it is one story.

MARVEL, the ones who supposedly "got their continuity right this first time."

This isn't a case of fanon, of readers trying to impose their interpretation on the story,

MARVEL explicitly tells us this is ONE universe, 616. With ONE timeline.

Hence the mess that is the Clone Saga.

Hence juvenile manchild Peter instead of using JMS's original idea of turning back time to the Coffee Bean days (that never were, the flanderization of that era as "Archie" is another bad side effect of the OMD/BND attitude).

Hence why people here argue you can't just de-age Peter, because it would affect the rest of the universe too much.

If Marvel wants to blow up its continuity, awesome. That's very much a solution to the problem.

But no, Marvel wants to eat its cake and have it too, with a deleterious effect on storytelling and the characters.

Readers with that preference want to see consistent forward momentum, which isn't how serials with no end in sight work.

Soap operas say no.

Franchises like Star Trek and Star Wars say no.

Thinking about Spider-Man's story is a bit like Sherlock Holmes's story. There is no definitive end. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle died, so the definitive canon is the stories by him but Spider-Man stories have been told by many writers and artists. There have also been many Sherlock Holmes stories purportedly about the original Holmes written by other people and some are quite good, so it's more about what makes sense for one set of stories. For examplem the writer Laurice R King wrote a series of sequels focusing on a love interest for Holmes, so for that series the Doyle stories and King's stories are canon, but it'll be different for another set.

This is actually an example that argues the opposite of what you are arguing.

Sherlock Holmes progressed. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle originally killed him off, then brought him back for a story set earlier in his life, then finally did resurrect him - but then sent him to his retirement. The Doyle stories are the canon of Sherlock's life (i.e. the timeline that Miguel would protect until death if there were an "Into the Holmesverse" series of films).

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle held the copyright, and after his death the Conan Doyle Estate Ltd. held the copyright. Sherlock Holmes entered the public domain in 2023.

Any other use of the character is basically fanfiction; it's either pure fanfiction (traditionally published by a publisher like Laurie King's novels or not) OR fanfiction licensed by the Conan Doyle Estate Ltd. (BBC's version of Sherlock, CBS's Elementary, the Robert Downey Jr. films, etc.). The estate sued Netflix for the Enola Holmes films and while it lost, the two parties settled.

Conan Doyle Estate Ltd. has only authorized three sequels that I know of: House of Silk, Moriarity, and the upcoming Holmes and Moriarity.

Now, if your argument is that Spider-Man should be in the public domain so anyone can tell his stories and create their own universe for Peter, or that Marvel should turn a blind eye and let the Laurie Kings of the world tell their own stories about Peter Parker (keep in mind that in her novels, Sherlock is in his mid-fifties when he first meets Mary who is fifteen, and later marries her....um....) wthout Marvel enforcing their copyright/trademark rights and/or willingly and for a small fee licensing the rights, that's another solution as well.

But no, Sherlock Holmes is not an analogue to Spider-Man.

Was Kraven's Last Hunt progress because it killed off a villain?

The original Venom story brought back a dead villain, the alien symbiote. The symbiote, last seen sacrificing its life to save Peter, was brought back and now wanted to kill Peter.

Bringing the symbiote back as Venom was a commercially hugely successful story decision that couldn't have happened without reversing and undermining a very memorable previous story.

This is confusing story beats with character growth/learning.

A better analogy would be in the Venom book killing Dylan and in the next issue the symbiote is going about its business with a brand new host as if nothing had happened. That's basically how Peter reacts to events post OMD. He just shrugs them off because he's just an action figure to be put back in his packaging. He has no real emotions, no inner humanity.

KLH deeply affected Peter - we see the emotional effect in the story, and it's why KLH is the classic it is. And we see the continuing effects in Soul of the Hunter. Kraven's Last Hunt also could not have been written with a teenage Peter. And many would argue resurrecting Kraven in the way it happened was a bad story misstep that DID undermine the original classic, with Nick Spencer finally righting that ship and reversing the reverse.

The post OMD version of Peter, however, would probably crawl out of the grave with his only reaction being, "Kraven was a jerk" and then put on a web diaper and cavort.

Flash having a girlfriend he canonically met while fighting in 'Nam, then having his legs blown off in the Middle East is an insane backstory for a guy supposedly born in *checks notes* 1995.

He should've been rocking out to Gangnam style!

I'd love to see where anyone in this thread is arguing that stories need to take place in real time and that the Marvel Universe and the real world are 1:1, when it is understood the reader accepts as part of the storytelling covenant between storyteller and audience that the real world and the fictional world aren't exact analogues and time - while still progressing linearly - moves slower in 616 than real world. Everyone understands that a six-part story that takes place in one week in the world of the story but was published over six months real time did not actually take place in six months.

No one is arguing that Peter needs to age in real time, or even needs to age at a set sliding timescale.

What people ARE arguing is that anyone with Peter's adventures and life experiences - because Marvel tells us this is one continuity and everything matters - should act like those adventures and experiences happened to him and have the resulting growth and depth and maturity because of them.

[Garlador]

Was Kraven's Last Hunt progress because it killed off a villain?

The original Venom story brought back a dead villain, the alien symbiote. The symbiote, last seen sacrificing its life to save Peter, was brought back and now wanted to kill Peter.

Bringing the symbiote back as Venom was a commercially hugely successful story decision that couldn't have happened without reversing and undermining a very memorable previous story.

This is confusing a story beat with character development. Characters “die” and “return” in comics all the time (which can be a problem), but KLH was important in how it developed, was executed, and the repercussions that were felt afterwards. KLH is widely considered a classic because it’s the exploration and culmination of Kraven’s worldview, and Peter’s rejection of it. Kraven’s nihilism and loss of purpose and will to live is directly contrasted with Peter’s optimism and finding his reason to live (his love for Mary Jane). It was a vital and lasting turning point for multiple characters that advanced them forward.

Similarly, the symbiote coming back was an evolution, not a recycle. It was changed and forever altered by its experience and became something fresh and new - it became VENOM. It didn’t “undermine” its prior stories; it leveraged them into a totally new and interesting angle that respected what came before and pushed the story forward. That’s how a good character “return” should work, for the purpose of advancing the narrative, not perpetually regressing it.

[phonogram12]

If that happens, Marvel can just launch a separate continuity, and if the younger Peter sells better and the older Peter has to retire they can fade the older Peter out.

Wow, the credit you give to future for being more accepting of change than current fans is astounding.

Flash having a girlfriend he canonically met while fighting in 'Nam, then having his legs blown off in the Middle East is an insane backstory for a guy supposedly born in *checks notes* 1995.

He should've been rocking out to Gangnam style!

OMG, I would love this so much.

[TinkerSpider]

On that topic, a specifically nuanced argument I would make is that this is why the big "formula" mistake of Post-OMD runs is usually having the guy who wrote the run then undo his own run and "put the toys back in the box", instead of leaving that to the next guy to do only if he wants to.

*That's* the thing that makes the current stories run towards the unambitious 90% of the time - most modern writers naturally keep their stuff closer to the status quo so that they can pull back instead of going nuts. Whenever this era *has* tried to go nuts, it tends to work better than when they panic shortly afterwards and undo it.

Contrast that with the sheer ambition of Kraven's Last Hunt and the original Venom Arcs, which likely *are* the type of "dazzling" story you mention, and did that with a married Spider-Man, and they likely fueled the contempt critics have for stuff like the current Wells run and editorial's hatred of progressing some stuff.

Quoting for truth.

The toy box mentality should be number one on the list of things to eliminate to maintain the life of Peter Parker. It's not preserving him, it's killing him as a viable, relatable and human character.

[Hurricane Billy]

Was Kraven's Last Hunt progress because it killed off a villain?

The original Venom story brought back a dead villain, the alien symbiote. The symbiote, last seen sacrificing its life to save Peter, was brought back and now wanted to kill Peter.

Bringing the symbiote back as Venom was a commercially hugely successful story decision that couldn't have happened without reversing and undermining a very memorable previous story.

Like TinkerSpider and Garlador already pointed out, I think you are confusing story beats with character growth here. While it ended with Kraven's death, the story also did a great deal to elaborate and expand on Kraven as an individual.

Moreover, I would counter that KLH was an example of character progress due to later comics from both DeMatteis and Todd McFarlane that came out in the years after that followed up on Peter's lingering PTSD from the experience of being buried alive, his guilt over being unable to stop Kraven's suicide, responses to his death from new characters who were close to Kraven and perhaps most notably the broader character arc of Vermin. KLH is a narrative lynchpin to stories like Soul of the Hunter, The Child Within, The Death of Vermin, Torment and The Lost Hunt.

Granted, most of those stories were written by DeMatteis. But I think it says a lot that JMD found so much mileage in elaborating and exploring the psychological repercussions of such a traumatic episode from different angles for multiple characters throughout. Honestly it's part of why I argue that his Spectacular Spider-Man run with Sal Buscema is my vote for the gold standard of Spider-Man comics. JMD did the same for Harry Osborn in that run that he did for Kraven in KLH.

[godisawesome]

Was Kraven's Last Hunt progress because it killed off a villain?

The original Venom story brought back a dead villain, the alien symbiote. The symbiote, last seen sacrificing its life to save Peter, was brought back and now wanted to kill Peter.

Bringing the symbiote back as Venom was a commercially hugely successful story decision that couldn't have happened without reversing and undermining a very memorable previous story.

This is confusing a story beat with character development. Characters “die” and “return” in comics all the time (which can be a problem), but KLH was important in how it developed, was executed, and the repercussions that were felt afterwards. KLH is widely considered a classic because it’s the exploration and culmination of Kraven’s worldview, and Peter’s rejection of it. Kraven’s nihilism and loss of purpose and will to live is directly contrasted with Peter’s optimism and finding his reason to live (his love for Mary Jane). It was a vital and lasting turning point for multiple characters that advanced them forward.

Similarly, the symbiote coming back was an evolution, not a recycle. It was changed and forever altered by its experience and became something fresh and new - it became VENOM. It didn’t “undermine” its prior stories; it leveraged them into a totally new and interesting angle that respected what came before and pushed the story forward. That’s how a good character “return” should work, for the purpose of advancing the narrative, not perpetually regressing it.

Like TinkerSpider and Garlador already pointed out, I think you are confusing story beats with character growth here. While it ended with Kraven's death, the story also did a great deal to elaborate and expand on Kraven as an individual.

Moreover, I would counter that KLH was an example of character progress due to later comics from both DeMatteis and Todd McFarlane that came out in the years after that followed up on Peter's lingering PTSD from the experience of being buried alive, his guilt over being unable to stop Kraven's suicide, responses to his death from new characters who were close to Kraven and perhaps most notably the broader character arc of Vermin. KLH is a narrative lynchpin to stories like Soul of the Hunter, The Child Within, The Death of Vermin, Torment and The Lost Hunt.

Granted, most of those stories were written by DeMatteis. But I think it says a lot that JMD found so much mileage in elaborating and exploring the psychological repercussions of such a traumatic episode from different angles for multiple characters throughout. Honestly it's part of why I argue that his Spectacular Spider-Man run with Sal Buscema is my vote for the gold standard of Spider-Man comics. JMD did the same for Harry Osborn in that run that he did for Kraven in KLH.

For the symbiote, I think it's important to note that it's form at its first "death" is totally different form what it became with Eddie as Venom - it was a just a horror creature without a personality, then Venom became a full-blown "anti-Spider-Man" before morphing even further.

I think Lee's right to despise "closing the door" to some extent, albeit some of that comes down to what you want to do by "re-opening the door" - Venom is an example of re-opening the door to create a whole new character that grew into an entire "sub-franchise," whereas Kraven's return was an attempt to just bring him back for classic stories before they inevitably became bored with him and killed him off... just to replace him with another version of him.

Kraven's sort of interesting because they've repeatedly stop-started trying to replace him along two-different lines - the "evolve the character concept further" (a "growth" mindset) and the "Just repeat the original completely" mindset (the "Quesada" version). Grim Hunter and the Kravinoff Family Reunion are all attempts to expand and change the idea; about half of Aloysha's career as Kraven and The Last Son Of Kraven character as a whole are ideas to just replicate the classic; Kraven's own return was arguably a sort of attempt at compromising by making him a "cursed" version of the original.

I don't think Kraven's current status quo is an argument in favor or against either side here, but more an example of how weirdly the "argument" can impact a property.

I would also argue that Harry wound up being a weird "double victim" of the argument - he was killed off by the attempt to change and progress the story, but upon being resurrected just sort of listlessly floated around and then died again because Norman can be more easily configured into the repetitive Big Bad role than Harry.

[Knightsilver]

I would say the biggest issue with the "Quesada" way...is that you eventually run out of stories that can be told. We've seen that throughout the Post-OMD era...where all character development has stalled and you have to resort to more wacky plots involving magical dimensions. In regards to Kraven...his only stories of note involved his death. Any attempts to bring him back fell flat...Harry was in a similar position because his character arc was completed. We saw his tragic story from start to tear jerking finish...so when BND tried to bring him back...it just felt shallow and needless. The books were at their best when we had progression...that meant characters changed...and yes...even died. The Post-OMD era has been an exercise in repetitive "playing it safe" and it's made the book feel shallow as a result. It doesn't matter what happens to Peter anymore...because he'll just end up back in 1970's default at the end of the arc anyway.

[TinkerSpider]

For the symbiote, I think it's important to note that it's form at its first "death" is totally different form what it became with Eddie as Venom - it was a just a horror creature without a personality, then Venom became a full-blown "anti-Spider-Man" before morphing even further.

I think Lee's right to despise "closing the door" to some extent, albeit some of that comes down to what you want to do by "re-opening the door" - Venom is an example of re-opening the door to create a whole new character that grew into an entire "sub-franchise," whereas Kraven's return was an attempt to just bring him back for classic stories before they inevitably became bored with him and killed him off... just to replace him with another version of him.

Kraven's sort of interesting because they've repeatedly stop-started trying to replace him along two-different lines - the "evolve the character concept further" (a "growth" mindset) and the "Just repeat the original completely" mindset (the "Quesada" version). Grim Hunter and the Kravinoff Family Reunion are all attempts to expand and change the idea; about half of Aloysha's career as Kraven and The Last Son Of Kraven character as a whole are ideas to just replicate the classic; Kraven's own return was arguably a sort of attempt at compromising by making him a "cursed" version of the original.

I don't think Kraven's current status quo is an argument in favor or against either side here, but more an example of how weirdly the "argument" can impact a property.

I would also argue that Harry wound up being a weird "double victim" of the argument - he was killed off by the attempt to change and progress the story, but upon being resurrected just sort of listlessly floated around and then died again because Norman can be more easily configured into the repetitive Big Bad role than Harry.

You bring up great points, although I would argue this is still about plot beats instead of the main topic which is character development.

You point to the difference between "but/therefore" storytelling vs. "and then" storytelling, while also pointing to the difference between using past plot beats to be additive to the story vs. using past plot beats simply out of nostalgia rot or to be repetitive and try to reclaim past glories - which usually is unsuccessful and only leads to diminishing returns.

Venom is an example of "but/therefore."

The alien costume appears to be dead.

BUT it is still alive and wants a new host, as it feels rejected by Peter Parker.

THEREFORE it seeks a host with similar feelings about Peter, discovering Eddie Brock.

The story also provides some character motivation/change.

Venom scares MJ. THEREFORE she develops an aversion to the black costume. THEREFORE Peter goes back to his red and blues. THEREFORE whenever Peter wears the black costume, it's a signal to the reader that something more drastic than usual is occurring, for him to cause MJ possible PTS. And Venom is additive. They're a new villain, with a personal motivation to hate Peter (not Spider-Man, a change), and also they know his secret identity, giving an added layer of danger to Peter's life.

But Kraven's resurrection?

That's an "And Then."

Kraven the Hunter takes his life at the end of Kraven's Last Hunt.

AND THEN his family decides to resurrect him out of the blue.

AND THEN he repeats the rinse and repeat cycle of hunting Spider-Man. There's nothing additive. He's just a copy and paste.

Grim Hunt even meta pokes fun at the AND THEN perpetual hamster wheel and trying to recapture past glories.

Harry epitomizes the AND THEN nostalgia rot repetitiveness.

Harry died in a story that was a culmination of the Parker/Osborn feud, redeeming himself at the last minute. The story is regarded as a classic, rightfully so.

AND THEN was resurrected out of the blue with only the most cursory of explanations.

AND THEN floated around, never making an impact on the story. He was brought back for the repetitive hamster wheel, but all the stories in which he played a vital role (Harry on drugs which therefore led to Death of Gwen, Child Within etc) were all additive, But/Therefore stories that moved Peter Parker's life further, and those stories were now apparently verboten so they couldn't even play "Put the Greatest Hits on constant repeat" with him.

[Mister Mets]

On that topic, a specifically nuanced argument I would make is that this is why the big "formula" mistake of Post-OMD runs is usually having the guy who wrote the run then undo his own run and "put the toys back in the box", instead of leaving that to the next guy to do only if he wants to.

*That's* the thing that makes the current stories run towards the unambitious 90% of the time - most modern writers naturally keep their stuff closer to the status quo so that they can pull back instead of going nuts. Whenever this era *has* tried to go nuts, it tends to work better than when they panic shortly afterwards and undo it.

Contrast that with the sheer ambition of Kraven's Last Hunt and the original Venom Arcs, which likely *are* the type of "dazzling" story you mention, and did that with a married Spider-Man, and they likely fueled the contempt critics have for stuff like the current Wells run and editorial's hatred of progressing some stuff.

There is a limit on how often you can go nuts.

In addition, the next writers don't necessarily want to deal with the character their predecessor may have written into a corner.

Kraven's Last Hunt qualifies as a going nuts story. And it's pretty damn good.

So are a few of the other best writers going nuts stories. The Master Planner saga put him in college and immediately had him start on the wrong foot. The Night Gwen Stacy Died killed two supporting characters.

I'm not sure the debut of Venom counts. It's a cool concept, and the execution was solid (though Brock's motives are crazed and it would've been better if he had a connection to Peter Parker before he found the alien costume) but it's not the equivalent of killing off Kraven.

On some level, what you're describing is already the way most DC and Marvel 'runs' work, where writers use a few pivotal past stories/runs/events as the foundation for their own narrative that can otherwise be pretty self-contained.

However, unlike the case with Sherlock Holmes where every continuation author can not only ignore, but even contradict the work of other continuation authors because nothing is truly 'canon' except for Doyle's work (and sometimes, not even that!), when it comes to 616, a writer needs to respect the past continuity of characters, and at least not contradict anything (an explicit retcon or cosmic reset of some sort notwithstanding). A major reason for that of course is that Holmes is now public domain and every author is free to build their own little Holmesian bubble universe, while 'official' Marvel continuity is a going concern that is centrally controlled and everything written within it is technically supposed to be as 'canonical' as what the original creators wrote.

I have realized that it is the way a lot of runs work. I'm reading the Heroes Return era of the Avengers, and appreciating it in that lens.

Holmes is weird for multiple reasons.

So he's been in public domain for some time. The legal issue is that the last few Conan Doyle stories were persistently extended by copyright, but the rest of it was public domain for some time. The Conan Arthur Doyle estate tried to claim that Sherlock Holmes was copyrighted as long as any of the original stories were, but the basic rule was that only the unique elements of those stories were under copyright; the character is public domain (This just happened to Mickey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh; soon it'll happen to Superman and Batman.)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-public-domain

The estate tried to claim that because Holmes was more cheerful in the latter stories, any story in which he smiles features copyrighted elements.

Judges smiled and told them no.

The series is more about his adventures than his "story," which is one reason that judges didn't go with the argument that the character is under copyright until the last short story by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is in public domain.

I mean, that's the sliding timescale in a nutshell. We just accept the fact that the 15-year old Peter Parker who got bitten by the spider in 1962 is the same Peter Parker who's probably around 30 (something Marvel won't even care to admit!) in 2024. There are all kinds of potential in-universe explanations for this, but this is basically how it works.

More to the point, why does Marvel have a sliding timescale? After all, if we were just dealing with episodic adventures with an unchanging status quo (like most Golden Age/early Silver Age DC stories), then there's no need for one - the characters are frozen in one particular age, and nothing ever changes so it doesn't matter what year it is. But Marvel has always had the passage of time - indeed, it was defined by it. Characters experience things, and evolve. Time passes, at a slower rate than the real-world, but it passes. That's what sets 616 apart from other Marvel continuities (and indeed, from DC, which does have a sliding timescale but also relies on periodic reboots).

It doesn't matter if Peter Parker got bitten by the spider in 1962 or 2009. It doesn't even matter exactly how many years have passed since then (though its good to have a ballpark figure that most writers and editors can agree on). What's important is that a substantial amount of time has passed, that Peter has experienced things and changed, and continues to change.

One reason for the sliding timescale is for the characters to be in a world similar the one outside our window.

There is also more storytelling opportunity, because this is something different than the Peter Parker vaguely in his twenties in comics published in 1986. These stories are set in 2024, with different issues and considerations.

There is an increasing problem with pretending that this is a guy a few years older than he was when Reagan was elected President (and at that point, he was like five years older than he was in stories published and set before the Kennedy assassination.)

Marvel had a few lucky breaks on the sliding timescale. They were rarely on the wrong side of history. It's not like Aunt May was a segregationist or that Jonah was openly homophobic. The comics didn't always address relevant topics (It took 51 issues to introduce an African-American supporting character) but it didn't contradict what later readers would expect. So for example Peter did not have any openly gay classmates in the Lee/ Ditko comics, but we could figure he had gay classmates; it just didn't come up in the comics.

But now we seem to be getting to a place where changes are adding up, and/or society is changing so rapidly that stories of a teenager in 1964 don't make sense as recent adventures of a guy who is probably thirty in comics published in 2024. Covid is a big one. It's a year+ disruption, especially to New Yorkers, that doesn't make sense as part of the series' recent history.

[Lee]

This is confusing a story beat with character development. Characters “die” and “return” in comics all the time (which can be a problem), but KLH was important in how it developed, was executed, and the repercussions that were felt afterwards. KLH is widely considered a classic because it’s the exploration and culmination of Kraven’s worldview, and Peter’s rejection of it. Kraven’s nihilism and loss of purpose and will to live is directly contrasted with Peter’s optimism and finding his reason to live (his love for Mary Jane). It was a vital and lasting turning point for multiple characters that advanced them forward.

Everything went back to normal at the end of the story, except for Kraven being dead. There were a bunch of sequels years after the fact, but Kraven's death didn't affect the life of Peter Parker or the immediate soap opera of the strip.

Similarly, the symbiote coming back was an evolution, not a recycle. It was changed and forever altered by its experience and became something fresh and new - it became VENOM. It didn’t “undermine” its prior stories; it leveraged them into a totally new and interesting angle that respected what came before and pushed the story forward. That’s how a good character “return” should work, for the purpose of advancing the narrative, not perpetually regressing it.

The symbiote sacrificed its life to save Peter's life. Bringing the symbiote back, with it wanting to kill Peter, undermines the death, undermines the noble sacrifice, and undermines the character development.

It ended up being the right decision commercially, but Web of Spider-Man #1's ending got trampled in the process. There's a reason none of the adaptations use the symbiote's noble sacrifice, it just doesn't lead into Venom very well at all, the pieces don't fit.

People can like it or dislike it (most like it), but it's an inarguable fact that for Venom to exist a previous story had to be undone.

[Mister Mets]

MARVEL tells us it is one story.

MARVEL, the ones who supposedly "got their continuity right this first time."

This isn't a case of fanon, of readers trying to impose their interpretation on the story,

MARVEL explicitly tells us this is ONE universe, 616. With ONE timeline.

Hence the mess that is the Clone Saga.

Hence juvenile manchild Peter instead of using JMS's original idea of turning back time to the Coffee Bean days (that never were, the flanderization of that era as "Archie" is another bad side effect of the OMD/BND attitude).

Hence why people here argue you can't just de-age Peter, because it would affect the rest of the universe too much.

If Marvel wants to blow up its continuity, awesome. That's very much a solution to the problem.

But no, Marvel wants to eat its cake and have it too, with a deleterious effect on storytelling and the characters.



Soap operas say no.

Franchises like Star Trek and Star Wars say no.




This is actually an example that argues the opposite of what you are arguing.

Sherlock Holmes progressed. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle originally killed him off, then brought him back for a story set earlier in his life, then finally did resurrect him - but then sent him to his retirement. The Doyle stories are the canon of Sherlock's life (i.e. the timeline that Miguel would protect until death if there were an "Into the Holmesverse" series of films).

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle held the copyright, and after his death the Conan Doyle Estate Ltd. held the copyright. Sherlock Holmes entered the public domain in 2023.

Any other use of the character is basically fanfiction; it's either pure fanfiction (traditionally published by a publisher like Laurie King's novels or not) OR fanfiction licensed by the Conan Doyle Estate Ltd. (BBC's version of Sherlock, CBS's Elementary, the Robert Downey Jr. films, etc.). The estate sued Netflix for the Enola Holmes films and while it lost, the two parties settled.

Conan Doyle Estate Ltd. has only authorized three sequels that I know of: House of Silk, Moriarity, and the upcoming Holmes and Moriarity.

Now, if your argument is that Spider-Man should be in the public domain so anyone can tell his stories and create their own universe for Peter, or that Marvel should turn a blind eye and let the Laurie Kings of the world tell their own stories about Peter Parker (keep in mind that in her novels, Sherlock is in his mid-fifties when he first meets Mary who is fifteen, and later marries her....um....) wthout Marvel enforcing their copyright/trademark rights and/or willingly and for a small fee licensing the rights, that's another solution as well.

But no, Sherlock Holmes is not an analogue to Spider-Man.



This is confusing story beats with character growth/learning.

A better analogy would be in the Venom book killing Dylan and in the next issue the symbiote is going about its business with a brand new host as if nothing had happened. That's basically how Peter reacts to events post OMD. He just shrugs them off because he's just an action figure to be put back in his packaging. He has no real emotions, no inner humanity.

KLH deeply affected Peter - we see the emotional effect in the story, and it's why KLH is the classic it is. And we see the continuing effects in Soul of the Hunter. Kraven's Last Hunt also could not have been written with a teenage Peter. And many would argue resurrecting Kraven in the way it happened was a bad story misstep that DID undermine the original classic, with Nick Spencer finally righting that ship and reversing the reverse.

The post OMD version of Peter, however, would probably crawl out of the grave with his only reaction being, "Kraven was a jerk" and then put on a web diaper and cavort.



I'd love to see where anyone in this thread is arguing that stories need to take place in real time and that the Marvel Universe and the real world are 1:1, when it is understood the reader accepts as part of the storytelling covenant between storyteller and audience that the real world and the fictional world aren't exact analogues and time - while still progressing linearly - moves slower in 616 than real world. Everyone understands that a six-part story that takes place in one week in the world of the story but was published over six months real time did not actually take place in six months.

No one is arguing that Peter needs to age in real time, or even needs to age at a set sliding timescale.

What people ARE arguing is that anyone with Peter's adventures and life experiences - because Marvel tells us this is one continuity and everything matters - should act like those adventures and experiences happened to him and have the resulting growth and depth and maturity because of them.

The Marvel Universe can be a story, but that's distinct from Spider-Man.

Of course Marvel wants to have its cake and eat it too. Everyone wants to do that.

A new point is that the way we read comics has changed.

Decades ago, most fans were stuck with what was on the newsstand. This could include select reprints.

A back issue market grew, so that select fans could read more of the back material. And fan publications would praise particular stories.

The expectation was that most readers would cycle out after a few years to be replaced by new readers who wouldn't mind if stories repeated beats from ten years earlier because they're unlikely to be familiar with that.

This is a bit like how soap operas worked. I will note their success has declined, and these are notorious for retcons. Star Wars is different because it had several endpoints. Return of the Jedi was the conclusion in 1983. It took decades to officially continue that saga in the movies, and that was with a new trilogy that was always expected to conclude. Any series with actors also has an obvious end in sight, since it's limited by the health of the cast.

It's very different with a robust Trade Paperback inventory and digital library which mean that most fans could be exposed to older material. In this context, there are different considerations.

If Peter Parker had kept growing, I'm not sure the character would have been as popular. Around Amazing Spider-Man #150, Marvel stopped progressing Spider-Man to the extent they had earlier. Changes were more sporadic than organic. A key factor is that if the character was radically different (IE- If he were a 40 year old family man in 1987, his adventures would be different) fans wouldn't have access to the earlier adventures which would provide helpful context.

It is a different situation now. I suspect we're going to see some kind of splintering of the Marvel Universe.

Even if the series didn't have to change in real time, it would be radically different without editors concerned about factory settings. But if readers can accept that the Marvel Universe is aging at a slower rate, they can also accept other frameworks for understanding the series.