How Flawed Should Peter Parker Be?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

As flawed as serves the story.

Vince Lombardi said "its not whether you get knocked down, its whether you get up again." To me, Peter can fail quite miserably. But what differentiates him is that he makes it right, he always goes back and makes it right.

So I have a very high tolerance for his failure levels, so long as the story is still good and he recognizes and fixes them. The only exception should be the rare thing that he can't fix, like if a loved one dies (Gwen or Uncle Ben come to mind). But those exceptions only work if they serve a very good story. Most of what makes Spider-Man work, for me, is seeing how he reacts to failure rather than seeing him not fail in the first place.

The question is how we define that failure. There is a difference between doing good and doing all he can and still coming short vs. ******* hit by a truck. In Slott's run it often felt like the latter. And in any case Spider-Man is supposed to be a capable functional and effective hero. He should earn his victories. Not be incapable of doing anything.

[Scott Taylor]

The question is how we define that failure. There is a difference between doing good and doing all he can and still coming short vs. ******* hit by a truck. In Slott's run it often felt like the latter. And in any case Spider-Man is supposed to be a capable functional and effective hero. He should earn his victories. Not be incapable of doing anything.

Failure can be defined by character or circumstances. For me, its rarely the former with Peter. Most of the time its not that he's blowing people off or being irresponsible, but rather its that he has very little room for error in what he tries to pull off or he just kind of believes things will work out as long as he has good intentions. He's capable and effective, regardless of his flaws. And the way that plays out is that most of his failures are, indeed, relatively minor and fixable.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Failure can be defined by character or circumstances. For me, its rarely the former with Peter. Most of the time its not that he's blowing people off or being irresponsible, but rather its that he has very little room for error in what he tries to pull off or he just kind of believes things will work out as long as he has good intentions. He's capable and effective, regardless of his flaws. And the way that plays out is that most of his failures are, indeed, relatively minor and fixable.

Yeah, it should like the everyday unresolved things we all deal with. Peter's inherently a sensitive soul. So he tends to feel stuff intensely and it doesn't take a lot to put a reader in his headspace. It's a very delicate balancing act. Inwardly, Peter thinks he's a wreck and a mess, but outwardly he is doing quite alright. Slott at one point got that right in the Pre-OMD days.

Johnny Storm: I don't believe it. How is it possible?
Peter Parker: Well there was this radioactive spider, and—-
Johnny Storm Not that. I mean, how can just one guy have it all? To grow up and have someone like your Aunt May there...to be this big hotshot photographer...to have a brain the size of Mr. Fantastic's...and the babes! Man, the girls I've seen you with! God, how I envied you. You always had everything going for you!
Peter Parker: What?!
Johnny Storm: Over the years, I even came up with a term for it. I called it 'the Parker luck'.
— Spider-Man/Human Torch, Issue #5 "I'm With Stupid", written by Dan Slott.

Likewise, in Zdarsky's Eisner nominated Spectacular #310:

Spider-Man's a hero. I understand a lot of people are put off by his mask, and his...comedic sensibilities...but in my opinion? He's one of the greatest men I've ever known.
— Captain America, Peter Parker: The Spectacular Spider-Man #310 written by Chip Zdarsky.

[Mister Mets]

As flawed as serves the story.

Vince Lombardi said "its not whether you get knocked down, its whether you get up again." To me, Peter can fail quite miserably. But what differentiates him is that he makes it right, he always goes back and makes it right.

So I have a very high tolerance for his failure levels, so long as the story is still good and he recognizes and fixes them. The only exception should be the rare thing that he can't fix, like if a loved one dies (Gwen or Uncle Ben come to mind). But those exceptions only work if they serve a very good story. Most of what makes Spider-Man work, for me, is seeing how he reacts to failure rather than seeing him not fail in the first place.

There is a distinction between losing and making mistakes. Flaws fall in the second category and are seen as less forgivable.

A benchmark I'm thinking about is that readers shouldn't recognize that Peter is making a bad decision when he's making it. That makes him seem dumber than they are.

[Celgress]

There is a distinction between losing and making mistakes. Flaws fall in the second category and are seen as less forgivable.

A benchmark I'm thinking about is that readers shouldn't recognize that Peter is making a bad decision when he's making it. That makes him seem dumber than they are.

An excellent point. I believe many people and even some writers frequently lose sight of the above.

[Decoy]

I’m all for keeping him humble and relatable , but he should also have a few wins (steady employment, something resembling a love life, etc)

He was happier when he was married (and remembered......) which is why I pray they eventually undo that somehow (they can’t have it reversed, or Harry May die again, unless his survival could have happened in the unaltered reality......). Yes, I ship Peter and Mary Jane, only because when I started reading, they where married, and the reasons for One More Day where BS

[Scott Taylor]

There is a distinction between losing and making mistakes. Flaws fall in the second category and are seen as less forgivable.

A benchmark I'm thinking about is that readers shouldn't recognize that Peter is making a bad decision when he's making it. That makes him seem dumber than they are.

Thats a good benchmark for Peter. He also doesn't know when its a bad decision, which keeps him relatable.

[Mister Mets]

Thats a good benchmark for Peter. He also doesn't know when its a bad decision, which keeps him relatable.

In most cases, it's better if he doesn't consider the consequences, and if the readers are unaware of it at the time.