Spider-Man: Life Story #1

[Prof. Warren]

It's always bothered me that everyone says that Peter's responsible for Gwen's death because of that absurd neck snap/fall debate...to me the real issue is...

spoilers:

Peter let Norman Osborn/Goblin lapse back to civilian life. This guy was a gangster, and a guy who tried to kill him multiple times often giving little care about collateral damage. He learned his secret identity. And when he lapses into amnesia, Peter's decision is to...get close to his son, and allow Norman access to himself, his friends, and everyone he knows? That's not responsible. Peter endangered everyone he knew by that decision. Now okay to some extent, that decision can be understood and even pardoned. Like obviously initially it seemed that Norman had reformed and had become a good dad to Harry (although again letting a guy with obvious mental problems close to your best friend without warning or informing him is what we call "enabling"), but then the drug issue happened and Norman relapsed and while Peter contained that then, after that there's no excuse. Peter's duty as a friend, companion, nephew, and human being was to report Norman, to warn everyone about the danger they were in being close to a guy like that and put them on notice. By sparing Norman, Peter put a time bomb in the lives of his friends. So here Zdarsky has Peter do that. He turns Norman in, amnesiac lame Dad or no. As Cap tells him, you have to follow your heart and do the right thing. For Cap that is going over and defending Vietnamese against American soldiers if necessary, for Peter, it's potentially upsetting and ruining his friendship with Harry and possibly damaging Norman's "redemption". Sure that might still blow up in his face but at least now you get a sense of real tragic inevitability and character dimensions and not because of melodrama where the whole back and forth often distracts you from the fact that Peter in the L-R era was a sh--ty boyfriend to Gwen, a poor friend to Harry, and in a civic sense, guilty of "failure to report a crime"

end of spoilers

While I appreciated the twist that Life Story gave to the Goblin Saga, the fact that the next issue is the '70s and the cover is a disco ball version of a Pumpkin Bomb suggests that the alternate route that Peter takes here in dealing with Norman does not ultimately lead to a better outcome.

Also, let's not be too over the top in calling out Peter's actions (or inactions) in the Lee/Romita Sr. era. He's not a real person making independent choices, after all. When Lee was writing Peter, there was no way that he ever envisioned a day when a future writer would use that dangling threat of Norman Osborn to deliver such a tragedy.

Conway was able to use the relative innocence of the Silver Age to his advantage but that's not a failing of Lee to make Peter more accountable, he was simply writing in a more naive era.

[Kevinroc]

Looking back I didn’t realize how much of a missed opportunity it was for Captain Stacy to not appear in the comic. I hope he shows up later.

Even if he doesn't die in between this issue and the next one, he was a pretty old guy when he first appeared. He probably isn't going to get too many opportunities to show up.

[Prof. Warren]

Even if he doesn't die in between this issue and the next one, he was a pretty old guy when he first appeared. He probably isn't going to get too many opportunities to show up.

If he's in the '70s issue, that'll probably be it.

I just hope Robbie Robertson shows up at some point.

[David Walton]

I like how Zdarsky brought back a tragic (even sympathetic) component to Norman Osborn, who has been arrested for crimes he doesn't remember. Norman and the Green Goblin were almost treated as separate personalities during the Lee/Romita era (even if there was some overlap). Turning Norman in was absolutely the right thing to do, but as is usually the case with Peter, doing the right thing brings him no peace.

And based off the cover I'd say a Green Goblin will play a big role in the 70s chapter, so it remains to be seen how things will play out. It's entirely possible that Gwen will still die (perhaps at Harry's hand?). Or maybe things will spiral off in a completely different direction!

[David Walton]

While I appreciated the twist that Life Story gave to the Goblin Saga, the fact that the next issue is the '70s and the cover is a disco ball version of a Pumpkin Bomb suggests that the alternate route that Peter takes here in dealing with Norman does not ultimately lead to a better outcome.

Also, let's not be too over the top in calling out Peter's actions (or inactions) in the Lee/Romita Sr. era. He's not a real person making independent choices, after all. When Lee was writing Peter, there was no way that he ever envisioned a day when a future writer would use that dangling threat of Norman Osborn to deliver such a tragedy.

Conway was able to use the relative innocence of the Silver Age to his advantage but that's not a failing of Lee to make Peter more accountable, he was simply writing in a more naive era.

Agreed 100%. And let's not forget Norman was actually a sympathetic villain during the Lee/Romita era.

[Kevinroc]

If he's in the '70s issue, that'll probably be it.

I just hope Robbie Robertson shows up at some point.

I could see Robbie playing a bigger part at the Bugle with Jonah's problems. But I question how big a role the Bugle is going to have going forward. Is Peter still going to be a freelance photographer in his 30s? His 40s?

It's a shame that Randy isn't brought up much when people have discussions about Peter's friends.

[David Walton]

If he's in the '70s issue, that'll probably be it.

I just hope Robbie Robertson shows up at some point.

Given that it's the Watergate era, I feel like the Bugle will get more attention in the 70s chapter.

And it remains to be seen what will come of Jonah being investigated for his role in the Scorpion and the Spider-Slayer's creations.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I'm glad that you mentioned that. People often get so obsessed with the minor details that they can often forget the big picture. That being said, it goes into what I said about hindsight earlier. We know that sparing Norman was the wrong choice, but at the time there was nothing to suggest that Norman would ever regain his memories. I honestly though Lee was dropping the character at the time. While I'm glad that Peter turned him in, I can't really blame him for not doing it in the original timeline.

In the Lee-Romita era the fact that Norman used to be the Green Goblin and he has amnesia is a running plot thread throughout that entire run. It was a gun waiting to go off. Lee and Romita never stopped reminding you of that. There was never any attempt to sell Norman as Norman. Peter's thought bubbles often had him worried and tense, and Norman often shifted and sweated about his missing memories and it being connected to Spider-Man. Now whether Lee and Romita would have had Norman blow up and outright kill the love interest you've been prepping up...no that came later. But it was always there waiting to blow up. The Drug Trilogy is one example of it blowing up, and there Norman reformed when he thought of Harry. But since Green Goblin is a popular villain and he was already hyped up in ASM #100 as Spider-Man's deadliest villain on page, you can't keep him in that cycle of amnesia-relapse-amnesia all the time.

Peter's motivations for not turning Norman in in the otl didn't make sense to me. For one thing neither he and Harry were close friends at the time. Heck Peter's reaction on seeing Norman unmasked is, "Oh you're that jerk Harry's dad". It's not the first time someone Peter knew was connected to a crime. You had Betty Brant's brother, you had Frederick Foswell. So it's a little odd for him to do that now. The subtext of that always read to me as Peter wanting to be with the cool rich kids and doing all he can to be part of that set.

Looking back I didn’t realize how much of a missed opportunity it was for Captain Stacy to not appear in the comic. I hope he shows up later.

Gwen actually mentions Captain George Stacy and not in very flattering terms. I was a bit taken aback at that. It's the scene in the bar, between Peter and Flash talking and Norman and Peter talking.

While I appreciated the twist that Life Story gave to the Goblin Saga, the fact that the next issue is the '70s and the cover is a disco ball version of a Pumpkin Bomb suggests that the alternate route that Peter takes here in dealing with Norman does not ultimately lead to a better outcome.

Sure. But at least now it feels tragic. You know Peter did the right thing did all that he humanly could. It's tragic when characters act according to their code and do in a situation what is the best thing in that situation and it still goes belly-up, or as MCU Thanos put it, "To feel so desperately that you're right, yet to fail nonetheless." Whereas before it has that faux-melodramatic thing that makes you neglect the fact that in the real world, not turning a guy like Norman is pretty bad. I mean even on a human level, Norman clearly has problems if he has amnesia and is confused and has difficulties. He's not able to take responsibility for his actions or actually redeem himself.

Also, let's not be too over the top in calling out Peter's actions (or inactions) in the Lee/Romita Sr. era. He's not a real person making independent choices, after all.

If we treat him as a character then you kind of do have to. We talk about the actions and inactions of Hamlet or other characters in stage and books and movies. Stan Lee wanted Marvel characters to be realistic and have serialized continuity, consequences, and stakes. All that means is that what Peter does and does not do as a character counts.

I could see Robbie playing a bigger part at the Bugle with Jonah's problems. But I question how big a role the Bugle is going to have going forward. Is Peter still going to be a freelance photographer in his 30s? His 40s?

It's a shame that Randy isn't brought up much when people have discussions about Peter's friends.

In the L-R era, the big Robbie Robertson story is the Sam Bullitt two-parter right after Captain Stacy dies. So that's ASM#91-92 where Robertson and Spider-Man are aligned in their fight against this white supremacist Bullitt. And I mean actual openly racist, tied to hate groups, in page, in-panel, in-caption racist, and canon. It's a pretty strong issue. Randy Robertson actually was kind of the voice of campus activism in stories in that time. Like that bit in the Drug Trilogy, when he gets in Norman's face about "drugs not being a black problem". The problems with that issue is that Gwen Stacy openly volunteers for Bullitt and basically becomes an early example of the "blonde republican sex kitten", and none of this is ever called out or addressed.

I think the 70s issue will deal with the drug trilogy since Harry's drug issues directly triggered Norman's rampage in The Night Gwen Stacy Died and Robbie Robertson plays a big part in that story. He's the guy who helps Spider-Man track Norman's warehouses, and Peter in his "gone postal" phase is nice only to Robbie.

[Jman27]

I really enjoy this first issue I enjoyed the inclusion of Cap and Iron man which makes me believe if this Life Story of Spiderman is successful it will lead to other versions of the Life Story. Wonder if Gwen is sticking around cause Globin comes back in the next issue?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I really enjoy this first issue I enjoyed the inclusion of Cap and Iron man which makes me believe if this Life Story of Spiderman is successful it will lead to other versions of the Life Story.

On twitter, Zdarsky said he'd love to explore more of this world.

[bat39]

I loved the issue! The earliest Spider-Man comics from the 60's that I actually read were the start of the Lee-Romita run AKA the exact time-frame that this issue covers. So it was nice seeing a new take on the era that was kinda familiar, yet took a few interesting swerves from the expected.

To start with, the issue felt like a retread of the old stories, albeit with a healthy helping of inspiration from the first Raimi film (which, after all, borrowed heavily from those stories too), and with some political commentary that was unlikely to be all too prevalent in the actual comics of the time. But then the twists and turns start coming in the second half of the issue, and the real fun begins...

SPOILERS from this point onwards










Peter deciding to get Osborn put away was an interesting twist. And it made about as much sense as the original decision to let him go free did. Peter initially pitied Norman, probably believed he'd been driven insane by his Goblin formula, and thought that he deserved another chance - especially since he didn't remember anything. I suppose there was another component to it. Unlike most of Spidey's foes, Norman was an upstanding citizen, a well-known scientist and industrialist. So Peter may have been more willing to give this 'upstanding citizen' the benefit of the doubt. It was a very different time...today, someone like Osborn would likely be more scrutinized and treated less sympathetically than back then.

But Peter realizes that its not the right thing to do, and its his responsibility to his friends and family, and to the public at large, to make sure that Norman is no longer in a position to harm anyone. So he decides to turn him in. The key differentiating factor is his chance encounter with Captain America. And it makes sense. Think of how many times you might have decided on a course of action, but just happened to get a fresh perspective on it that changed your mind because of a conversation with someone. If you hadn't had that conversation, you might have stuck to your original decision. That's pretty much what happens here.

Of course, they do make the Peter-Norman relationship a lot more personal here than it was in the original stories - which I again see as the influence of the Raimi movie AND later comics. Back in the 60's, the Goblin was just another villain to Spider-Man - albeit one he later discovered was the father of a classmate. And to the Goblin, Spider-Man was just a threat to his plans. But here, the conflict becomes personal on both sides. Norman has been stalking Peter and is obsessed with him, wanting to make him his heir. And Peter, having seen Norman threaten the lives of all his college classmates, including Gwen and Norman's own son Harry, knows just how sick and twisted Norman truly is. So that also likely plays a part in his final decision.

As far as the war bit is concerned, obviously there's some hindsight there. While the Marvel of the 60's may well have published a comic showing Peter turning Norman in or Gwen learning his identity, they are certainly not going to have published a comic about Captain America going rogue and attacking American soldiers to defend Vietnamese villagers. Or even a comic where Peter spends a whole issue debating whether or not he should be signing up for the war. But hindsight does produce interesting new perspectives. I can actually see 60's Iron Man being all for the Vietnam War, especially considering how he was briefly a hostage of the North Vietnamese. Not really so sure if Captain America would have gone rogue the way we see here, but its not completely out of character either. I wonder if the Captain America subplot is going to continue in future issues. I think its likely, given the continued focus on the Cold War and other real-world events based on the solicits.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Back in the 60's, the Goblin was just another villain to Spider-Man - albeit one he later discovered was the father of a classmate. And to the Goblin, Spider-Man was just a threat to his plans.

That's not exactly true. I keep seeing this misinformed idea that Goblin was some minor figure until he sold a bridge to Gwen Stacy, but the truth is Green Goblin was always intended to be a major threat from the very start. The only rogue in the L-D era who consistently escapes justice and prison time, and who had a big buildup about his identity as planned by both Ditko and Lee. Mysterio, Scorpion, Kraven, Vulture, Chameleon, Dr. Octopus...yeah those can be described as "just another villain to Spider-Man" but Green Goblin was always more than that.

I agree with you about the other stuff. Obviously Zdarsky is bringing a sense of modern judgment to those stories. If you did a story like that today, you couldn't do what Peter did originally in the L-R era and let him go with Norman's sympathy being largely out of some kind of class biases that Stan Lee had (i.e. Norman being an upstanding citizen), he's a Dad (but clearly not a good one) and he can reform and be a better Dad to Harry (even if his amnesia gives him serious issues and prevents him from taking responsibility for his actions and so truly redeem himself). Today we know a lot about enabling, and the danger of not reporting or calling abusive or sick people to authorities or properly protecting the people around them from harm. I had big problems with Spider-Man 1 and the whole "Don't tell Harry" thing which is rooted in the L-R era and Peter's first decision to spare Norman from justice. I mean that was presented by Raimi as this earnest plea from Norm an about not wanting Harry to see him at his worst (which doesn't make sense since he was always a terrible parent to him), but what you forget is the whole bunch of people Norman murdered leading up to that. Including the people at the parade and those kids he likely traumatized for life at the bridge by his terrorist actions. In real-life, if Bin Laden or some school shooter or the Oklahoma bomber said, "Don't tell my son" do you think people will honor that? Why is Harry Osborn's precious feelings more important than justice to the victims of the Green Goblin? The entire emotional center of the trilogy is keyed on you buying that, and I never did, so to me Spider-Man 1 worked until the ending of that film and the later films are crippled by that direction in the story.

Bendis brought that issue in his miniseries The Pulse where Ben Urich called out Peter for not doing enough to bust Norman Osborn or stop him from his seasonal killing sprees. And that led to Norman going to jail for the first time in over 40 real-time years publication history. No other Marvel villain rivals that or any DC villain for that matter. Kingpin's been in jail (and out) Dr. Doom has been deposed time and again, and even jailed I think once (though it might have been a doombot), same with other villains. But Norman Osborn thanks to Peter not wanting to hurt that drug-addled loser Harry Osborn's feelings, never got to see the slammer until Luke, Jessica, the Bugle, made Spidey wise-up and sent Norman to the slammer.

The Cap and Vietnam is similar. Today the version of Captain America that everyone accepts and loves, the one Chris Evans plays is "loyal to nothing, general--except the Dream". That's his character. But obviously the brand of Captain America is different. So if you put Steve Rogers and have him behave in character in Vietnam, that's what he would do. This article talks about that. (https://www.polygon.com/comics/2019/...fe-story-comic)

[Prof. Warren]

Sure. But at least now it feels tragic. You know Peter did the right thing did all that he humanly could.

It still feels tragic. Even if Peter is blindsided by the consequences of his own inactions, it's still tragic - not least of all for the fact that an innocent is the one to pay the price for it.

If we treat him as a character then you kind of do have to. We talk about the actions and inactions of Hamlet or other characters in stage and books and movies. Stan Lee wanted Marvel characters to be realistic and have serialized continuity, consequences, and stakes. All that means is that what Peter does and does not do as a character counts.

It's not the same situation. When you're talking about someone like Hamlet, you're talking about a character in a contained narrative with a beginning, middle and end, written by one writer. Peter Parker is a character that has, and will, pass through multiple creative teams and whose stories span decades in a forever open-ended narrative.

So when talking about Peter's actions, we have to understand that stories that were written in a more naive or innocent era might have consequences years later that the original writers of those stories couldn't have anticipated. Dzarsky, obviously, is writing Life Story with the benefit of having an omniscient view of Peter's history so he can have Peter make choices that show more foresight.

In the L-R era, the big Robbie Robertson story is the Sam Bullitt two-parter right after Captain Stacy dies. So that's ASM#91-92 where Robertson and Spider-Man are aligned in their fight against this white supremacist Bullitt. And I mean actual openly racist, tied to hate groups, in page, in-panel, in-caption racist, and canon. It's a pretty strong issue. Randy Robertson actually was kind of the voice of campus activism in stories in that time. Like that bit in the Drug Trilogy, when he gets in Norman's face about "drugs not being a black problem". The problems with that issue is that Gwen Stacy openly volunteers for Bullitt and basically becomes an early example of the "blonde republican sex kitten", and none of this is ever called out or addressed.

Why would it be addressed? Gwen doesn't know when she volunteers for Bullitt that he's a bad guy. It's not like she stands by him after he's been revealed.

The fact that we see real life women today fit the bill of a pretty blonde mouthpiece for conservative views shouldn't impact a story written many decades earlier.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

It still feels tragic. Even if Peter is blindsided by the consequences of his own inactions, it's still tragic - not least of all for the fact that an innocent is the one to pay the price for it.

It lacks the essential quality of tragedy i.e. recognition. Since Peter in stories after that doesn't recognize or accept or has awareness of why that happened, and since that recognition doesn't lead to change, it doesn't achieve tragedy. I think The Night Gwen Stacy Died two-parter is a great story and melodrama, but I never felt the tragedy of it, because there's no recognition. Gwen dies randomly without knowing Peter's identity, without that sense of justified betrayal and outrage, without any catharsis about her father's death. Dan Slott's Clone Conspiracy tried to retcon that in, but again its via clones and stuff so it's obviously not what really happened. Peter goes nuts and gets postal. The only real recognition is in the Epilogue with Mary Jane where she reveals to herself and the audience a glimpse of her true real self.

Compare that to the Death of Captain Stacy. There Spider-Man and Dr. Octopus battle it out and as a result of collateral damage, Captain Stacy dies. Captain Stacy pushes a child to safety and dies in the line of duty. In other words, he behaves in that circumstances and situation in a way that defines who he is as a character, this exemplary officer of the law. The fight between Spider-Man and Dr. Octopus isn't Peter's fault obviously since Dr. Octopus is a raging megalomaniac and Peter has to stop him and put him down, but even then collateral damage happens, and if not Captain Stacy, some kid would have died. And of course what makes it awful is that Captain Stacy on his deathbed admits knowing Peter is Spider-Man, validates him and approves his relationship with Gwen. And you immediately get a sense of what Peter lost there...he lost his Commissioner Gordon. I mean it's basically like if Uncle Ben on his death forgave Peter but rather than relieving Peter it makes things worse. People blame him for Captain Stacy's death, it ruins his relationship with Gwen. It's this incredible tragic reversal and it happens from a place of love. That's why it's such a great story.

Why would it be addressed? Gwen doesn't know when she volunteers for Bullitt that he's a bad guy. It's not like she stands by him after he's been revealed.

Gwen joins Sam Bullitt despite knowing her father disliked him, and all because Bullitt wants to hunt down Spider-Man. She even says that her father's views got him killed so why not see if someone else is right. So she's quite consciously betraying her father's values when she volunteers with Bullitt, and she is quite open about Bullitt extra-judiciously killing Spider-Man. And more importantly as a political volunteer she would have been exposed to all the stuff in his campaign headquarters and proclamations, being "tough on crime" and so on. What makes it worse, is that in that story, Bullitt somehow tricks Iceman (yes of X-Men fame) into attacking Spider-Man, and even tries to court Jameson. But both Iceman and Jameson see the light and turn on Bullitt but Gwen isn't given that. She just skulks off, and then two issues later goes to London without telling Peter goodbye in person. That's one of the issues with Gwen. She has potential for complexity in the L-R era but at the end of it they forgive that and have everyone say she's nice. She even bullies Aunt May later on, and insults her in a way that's really out of the line. But Peter on hearing that doesn't call her out at all for that. Which is why I love the First Clone Saga, where MJ comes to May for advice on how to deal with the Gwen clone, and May tells MJ to go fight for her man...(and maybe secretly thinking, "no way that rich blonde jerk is sinking her claws in on Peter"). May always favored MJ over Gwen after all.

[Tuck]

I'm enjoying Bagley's art in this. Gotten tighter since Ultimate.