Spidertalk podcast interview with Tom Brevoort

[Alan2099]

For an editorial policy that says "Spider-Man is about youth", yeah.

There you go making up things just so you can be angry about them again. That's not a policy. It's an opinion.

So the most interesting element of BND Spider-Man is "Will they or won't they undo it?" It's not inherently interesting on its own? It's got no appeal by itself? That's fine with me. I can live with that.

I'm glad you can admit that you can live with that. Please do so and stop complaining about it.

For instance, Crisis on infinite earths's value lies in the fact that it's at heart a good story, a great story and also a major altering event. Sure it's got it's flaws (Wolfman's dialogue is weak as always) but it's a great story regardless. When DC Comics says Post-Crisis, they can say so with a certain confidence even pride...whereas Post-OMD doesn't give anyone any pride.

This isn't Crisis.

This is more like Parralax being a Yellow fear bug in Green Lantern. The story itself wasn't that great but it swept away a lot of unwanted baggage and set up a new more desirable status quo, or if you want to stick with marvel, there's Avengers Dissembled. Even most of the people that enjoyed what followed have a hard time saying goof things about those stories. In that regards, at least OMD makes a certain amount of sense both in continuity and with characters established personalities.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

There you go making up things just so you can be angry about them again. That's not a policy. It's an opinion.

Opinions printed in manifestos published in a new line of comics are policies. It's something you don't mind sharing with the public and informing them what the story is about going forward.

I'm glad you can admit that you can live with that.

Just to be clear, what I can live with is people admitting that BND's status-quo is inherently without interest and value except for the possibility that it can be overturned.

This isn't Crisis.

Obviously the continuity and nature of DC and Marvel is different, but it's analogous to most respects. Even Mark Waid who worked on BND, admitted that while he supported it, he did admit that he could relate to the backlash since it was comparable to his reaction with CRISIS and John Byrne's reboot.

[Prof. Warren]

For an editorial policy that says "Spider-Man is about youth", yeah. In the same way, to speak of someone I generally respect, Bernie Sanders' idea that he can increase youth turnout is weakened by the absence of said turnout in large numbers as voters in the primary. If you are saying that Spider-Man is about youth and that the version you promote doesn't seem to have had much increase in support from said youth...then that does question at the very least your entire project. I agree with Dan Slott when he said at the time that Spider-Man fans will read Spider-Man married or not. That argument though, that people like Spider-Man at any age because he's a transcendent character, rests on accepting that at heart Spider-Man is about more than youth and it weakens BND more than it strengthens it.

But it doesn't. And you have to realize that it's not just about sales, it's also about acting to preserve what is unique about Spider-Man within the MU itself.

You don't want to turn Spider-Man into a different character and, if you age him too much, you eventually will.

So the most interesting element of BND Spider-Man is "Will they or won't they undo it?" It's not inherently interesting on its own? It's got no appeal by itself? That's fine with me. I can live with that.

Well, you like to put take what people say, distort it, and then pretend that's what somebody actually said in order to make an argument.

Suggesting that the marriage remains interesting in its absence is not saying it's "the most interesting element of BND Spider-Man."

It's saying that the absent marriage being a thread that is periodically pulled on arguably generates as much or more interest than whatever soap opera drama the marriage itself would be fuel for after twenty years plus.

For someone who is so hung up on picking apart what people say and demanding that statements be qualified and proven, it's telling that your number #1 habit on these boards is to misinterpret words either deliberately or through inattention.

A major storyline that defines and alters the community like OMD does have higher expectations than the average filler issue, just like the final season of a major TV show has high expectations. Even in serialized storyline, one which is ongoing, there are major moments whose occasion demands that you step up and measure to. For instance, Crisis on infinite earths's value lies in the fact that it's at heart a good story, a great story and also a major altering event. Sure it's got it's flaws (Wolfman's dialogue is weak as always) but it's a great story regardless. When DC Comics says Post-Crisis, they can say so with a certain confidence even pride...whereas Post-OMD doesn't give anyone any pride. COIE is filled with affection and respect for the version of the characters that came before and respect for the loyalty of its readers, even if it's created by Wolfman who had major issues with the continuity and versions of those characters that came before.

Well, you're dead wrong here.

One, you're applying your own personal prejudice in saying "post-OMD doesn't give anyone any pride." That's false.

Again, for someone who likes to put up the pretense of being analytical, your statements are regularly fueled by personal bias rather than objective observation.

Of course the many creators involved in the BND era feel pride in their work, as well they should as that era boasts some really fine stories.

Your personal disdain doesn't have any bearing on either the professional accomplishment of others or other fan's appreciation of work you happen not to like.

The hosts of the podcast that sparked this discussion are themselves huge BND fans.

Also, while the original Crisis mini is well remembered, post-Crisis was a mismanaged shi*t-show. Some good books were produced but as far as accomplishing the primary goal set by Crisis to really realign the DC universe and its continuity into a streamlined, connected whole, it was a botched job.

In comparison, while OMD itself was a sh*t-show, BND essentially turned a sow's ear into a silk purse.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

And you have to realize that it's not just about sales, it's also about acting to preserve what is unique about Spider-Man within the MU itself.

What was once unique about Spider-Man was that his corner of the Marvel universe was on the realistic side compared to others. That it had organic development and growth, characters who died stayed dead and continuity was preserved one writer to another. Peter went to high school graduated, then went to college and then graduated. He grew up as did others. Flash Thompson went from being a bully to a close personal friend to actual best man at his wedding.
-- He also got married which made him unique, because his marriage to Mary Jane is the only real instance of a superhero-civilian marriage in the MU. The other marriages are within teams and among fellow superheroes (Reed-Sue, Viz-Wanda, Hank-Janet, Hawkeye-Mockingbird, Jean-Scott, T'Challa-Storm, Jessica-Luke, and now Rogue-Gambit)...making Peter the only person to revolt against this endogamy (which Tom Beland actually discussed in Web of Romance).
-- And since Peter and MJ got married for nearly a decade before Post-Crisis Lois and Superman did (the first time the default Superman got married), that meant that for a long time, and growing up Peter was "the" example of a married superhero. The marriage made Peter more unique, not less so.
-- I mean as far as teenage hero goes, Peter was never especially unique in regards of that. Because you had Fawcett Captain Marvel and the Captain Marvel family who were closer to that and they came before. And Captain Marvel remember in the 40s was bigger than Superman. In Marvel you had Johnny Storm who was the teenage hero of the fantastic four, the X-men that came afterwards. As far as teenage life goes, the X-Men were always the ones that drew in the young crowd whereas Spider-Man was a character that appealed to a lot of demographics.
-- Post-OMD, Peter is a bachelor living in New York which makes him similar to Johnny Storm (the dynamic used to be that the Torch saw Spider-Man as a more well-adjusted, mature, hero...now that's gone), Daredevil, Hawkeye (eventually), and others. So he's far less unique now than he ever was. Certainly less unique than Miles Morales.

In the process of "restoring Spider-Man" people did stuff like the Clone Saga and OMD as a result of which Spider-man and its continuity is full of holes, sieves, leaks, messes, restarts and resets just like everything else in the industry. Spider-Man was the longest hold out against that enforced silliness. This of course adds greater value to the first 25-30 years of Spider-Man as having more coherence and greater lasting essential value than what came afterwards. Like I said, I have a pretty good memory, and I still remember when stuff like this was still remembered as new and disgraceful, when JMS was credited with restoring Spider-Man from the silliness of the previous era and bringing a lot of dignity to the title that had actually become a joke at that point simply for how thoroughly the clone saga and its aftermath poisoned the well. I also remember how unique Spider-Man was once and what made him distinct and attractive to me as a reader getting in to his stories.

Also, while the original Crisis mini is well remembered, post-Crisis was a mismanaged shi*t-show. Some good books were produced but as far as accomplishing the primary goal set by Crisis to really realign the DC universe and its continuity into a streamlined, connected whole, it was a botched job.

Fact is the main goal, reintroduce characters to a new readership and expand readership was achieved. Byrne's The Man of Steel was a huge success for instance...far moreso than Watchmen, for sake of comparison. Likewise Batman Year One was a big hit. George Perez' Wonder Woman, which inspired the movie. Dematteis-Giffen's Justice League International. BND can't boast comparable success or achievement, leave alone eminence.

[Alan2099]

What was once unique about Spider-Man was that his corner of the Marvel universe was on the realistic side compared to others. That it had organic development and growth, characters who died stayed dead and continuity was preserved one writer to another. Peter went to high school graduated, then went to college and then graduated. He grew up as did others. Flash Thompson went from being a bully to a close personal friend to actual best man at his wedding.

I'm not coincidence that you ever followed any other marvel title based on this statement. Do you think titles like Daredevil, Hulk, Ironman, and Dr. Strange never had consistent continuity, growth, and characters dying and staying dead?

-- He also got married which made him unique, because his marriage to Mary Jane is the only real instance of a superhero-civilian marriage in the MU. The other marriages are within teams and among fellow superheroes (Reed-Sue, Viz-Wanda, Hank-Janet, Hawkeye-Mockingbird, Jean-Scott, T'Challa-Storm, Jessica-Luke, and now Rogue-Gambit)...making Peter the only person to revolt against this endogamy (which Tom Beland actually discussed in Web of Romance).

-- And since Peter and MJ got married for nearly a decade before Post-Crisis Lois and Superman did (the first time the default Superman got married), that meant that for a long time, and growing up Peter was "the" example of a married superhero. The marriage made Peter more unique, not less so.

Hulk and Betty don't count, I see.

-- Post-OMD, Peter is a bachelor living in New York which makes him similar to Johnny Storm (the dynamic used to be that the Torch saw Spider-Man as a more well-adjusted, mature, hero...now that's gone), Daredevil, Hawkeye (eventually), and others. So he's far less unique now than he ever was. Certainly less unique than Miles Morales.

Torch saw Peter as more well adjusted and mature because he WAS. Torch didn't even know he was married for the majority of the time the marriage was around.

And Bachelor in new York covers a LOT of ground. Comparing him to Human Torch in this instance and you'll find they have very few similarities intact. Johnny lives with his family, in a big fancy building and is a huge celebrity. You're going to get a lot different results looking at his single life when you compare it to Peter's. That's not counting the fact that he's part of an ensemble. If you were being honest with yourself instead of looking for things to hate and be angry about, you'd realize this.

Frankly this whole thing comes across as you refusing to admit to the truth because that might mean people actually have different opinions than yours and like different things. You want there to be an enemy that you can point to and say is wrong because otherwise you'll have to accept that not ever one agrees with you. It's just easier for you to think those people are Wrong instead.

Basically you're just going "la-la-la. I can't hear you. I'm being right and you're just wrong."

[Prof. Warren]

What was once unique about Spider-Man was that his corner of the Marvel universe was on the realistic side compared to others. That it had organic development and growth, characters who died stayed dead and continuity was preserved one writer to another.

This is a false perception. What made Spider-Man unique and what made the "illusion of change" easier to achieve with him was his youth.

While characters like Tony Stark were already established adults, Peter's youth made it easy for his progress with life events like graduations, etc., to feel "organic."

The catch is that while Peter seemed to be growing up in a way that other Marvel characters didn't, at the end of the day he is still a character that cannot advance past the point that his role in the larger universe demands he stay at.

Peter as a character is always going to be younger than Tony or Reed Richards or Bruce Banner. As they stay the same general age, so must Peter remain at some general point behind them in years.

If Peter were to keep aging, not only does he become a different character himself but it upsets the larger universe.

In the process of "restoring Spider-Man" people did stuff like the Clone Saga and OMD as a result of which Spider-man and its continuity is full of holes, sieves, leaks, messes, restarts and resets just like everything else in the industry. Spider-Man was the longest hold out against that enforced silliness. This of course adds greater value to the first 25-30 years of Spider-Man as having more coherence than what came afterwards. Like I said, I have a pretty good memory, and I still remember when stuff like this was still remembered as new and disgraceful, when JMS was credited with restoring Spider-Man from the silliness of the previous era and bringing a lot of dignity to the title that had actually become a joke at that point simply for how thoroughly the clone saga and its aftermath poisoned the well.

As explained above, the "illusion of change" was easy to achieve for many years with Peter.

He could seem to age semi-naturally, albeit at a snail's pace, but at a certain point he had to simply stop.

Whereas once he was a teen advancing into his twenties and that could be stretched out into an indeterminate amount of years and then a guy in his early twenties heading into his mid-twenties, which could also be stretched out into an indeterminate number of years, he's been in his late twenties for many years now and will remain there.

And your memory might well be fine but so is mine and I've been reading much, much longer than you and have.

I remember all these eras and the reactions that they elicited from fans.

Fact is the main goal, reintroduce characters to a new readership and expand readership was achieved. Byrne's The Man of Steel was a huge success for instance...far moreso than Watchmen, for sake of comparison. Likewise Batman Year One was a big hit. George Perez' Wonder Woman, which inspired the movie. Dematteis-Giffen's Justice League International. BND can't boast comparable success or achievement, leave alone eminence.

Yes, as I said there were some good books in that time. I know. I was a reader at the time.

But the main goal of any publishing initiative is to expand readership. That is not unique to Crisis.

What Crisis was supposed to do is give DC what Marvel had, a streamlined continuity where everything across the board lined up.

They didn't achieve that. If you read accounts of Crisis, the players involved all say how slapdash it was handled in transitioning from pre to post Crisis DC.

It was an editorial mess with conflicting messaging. That's just the fact of it, no matter whatever good work happened in its wake.

As opposed to that, BND was very focused in what it was meant to achieve post-OMD and did so successfully.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I'm not coincidence that you ever followed any other marvel title based on this statement. Do you think titles like Daredevil, Hulk, Ironman, and Dr. Strange never had consistent continuity, growth, and characters dying and staying dead?

In the case of Iron Man, Tony Stark is a flat character, who is mostly the same guy he has been since his origin, a bachelor in his 40s (or late 30s by some stories) who goes on and off the wagon, can't keep a steady relationship, occasionally comes up with crazy schemes and has a lot of guilt issues and baggage. That was who the character was in the '70s and 80s. In the case of Daredevil, well Elektra came back from the dead didn't she? Doctor Strange likewise is always on-and-off with Clea and in any case he hardly ever had a long period as an ongoing. The Hulk changed drastically from run to run, going from horror origins to a more comedic take in PAD's run.

Hulk and Betty don't count, I see.

As a daughter of a general, Betty is not exactly a civilian, and now as Harpy, she definitely doesn't ("this is me").

[Revolutionary_Jack]

This is a false perception.

So you are saying that in the first 25 years of Spider-Man, Peter and his cast didn't graduate from high school, didn't graduate from college, didn't grow and change, and didn't get married and so on and so forth?

Is that what you are saying?

If Peter were to keep aging, not only does he become a different character himself but it upsets the larger universe.

How exactly? I mean how are Reed Richards and Tony Stark diminished if Peter grows up? That doesn't make a lick of sense.

[Mister Mets]

Jumping into a 40 post argument because why the hell not.

The fact is as he admits on that interview, he only joined Marvel as an intern in 1989...he has never actually been the main editor of Spider-Man titles, and yet somehow mostly for managing to stick around in a company for a decade or more, he's somehow become this respected voice and allowed to have a say, a privileged say, on stuff that he knows nothing about and has little involvement in.

The way Brevoort is trotted out and quoted, you'd think he learned at the feet of Lee and Ditko themselves.

And there's the total lack of irony and self-awareness. Near the end, he talks about top Spider-Man stories -- The master planner saga, KLH, and none of them feature Spider-Man as youthful or in high school and both stories are about him growing up.

It's weird to dismiss someone's opinion because they have only been at a company for thirty years. He had edited Untold Tales of Spider-Man back in 1995.

Funny enough, nobody ever grows up to the point where they stop making mistakes.

This is true, but the reactions to mistakes matter and the specific types of mistakes change.

If Peter Parker makes a mistake because he doesn't understand how his grown daughter is raising her children, it is a different type of series than we have right now.

So we take the word of some guy who Ditko never worked with in any capacity, who came on well after his time, and who's just repeating second-hand information...over the actual co-creator of the story? Is that what we are supposed to do? Ditko is supposed to be held to higher standards than some publisher at Marvel who has never created any character or written a story of note? As per Blake Bell's biography Ditko alone among Marvel Method "co-creators" negotiated a plotting credit (which was still something that didn't satisfy him, he wanted the by-line to read written by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, art by Steve Ditko) which for instance Kirby didn't. And Lee openly said in interviews in the '60s (at a time when Lee was at his most forthright as many commentators noted) that he was following Ditko's plots in both Spider-Man and Doctor Strange.

Furthermore, Ditko in many of his writings has always been open about story disputes with Stan Lee
- The overuse of Fantastic Four cameos.
- Trying to shoehorn more outlandish science fiction and mystical concepts (aliens in Issue 2, Goblin's original concept of a Egyptian demon discovered in a sarcophagus).
- Redoing of covers to cover Spider-Man's butt ordered by Lee over Ditko's objections. No seriously (https://www.cbr.com/knowledge-waits-...er-man-covers/).
- A rejected idea to kill Betty Brant in a common accident which he pitched to Lee early in their collaboration, but the latter rejected and talked him out of it (Ditko is on record for Lee being right on this call, the only time he gives credit to Stan's judgment).

It's kind of bizarre, that when Ditko talks consistently about real issues that bothered him and which he kept writing about in his fanzines and overly long newsletters, people repeat instead made-up easily debunked rumors like "Ditko had problems with Norman being Goblin", or "Ditko didn't want Peter to graduate high school", not one of which has any shred of evidence, documentary or otherwise. Furthermore, as publisher and editor, it is indeed Brevoort's job to know all these exact details and get the facts right. Writers and artists may not know the lore and backstory and inside baseball stff, and they rely on the editors and publishers to school them in on the context. If Brevoort is mistaken, or is actively misleading to push his agenda, then that has consequences in not allowing talent to have a full deck of cards on what to do, where they might go, and whether it's consistent with the original intent of stories.

It is difficult to discern what Ditko believed, because he was rather reclusive, and that his public statements tended to be idiosyncratic, sometimes steeped in objectivist jargon. Much of it gets to be secondhand knowledge.

Brevoort may very well wrong about Ditko's opposition to Spider-Man growing, but it is an opinion he has formed after years of working with people who were there.

It is worth noting that the sources that suggest that Ditko wanted Spider-Man to grow up also suggest he wanted an older Spider-Man who was a flawless, always correct Randian.

https://www.cbr.com/spider-man-stan-...ko-everyman/2/

In both cases, Ditko is okay with younger superheroes making mistakes, but not older heroes.

This may get into a larger argument about whether youth is key to Spider-Man. There seems to be a contrary view is that Spider-Man is the hero who has experienced growth.

These can be radically different viewpoints since both sides would see the other as problematic. If you think youth is important, a Spider-Man who has grown can essentially be a generic superhero with the trappings of Spider-Man. If you think growth is important, you want the lessons Spider-Man has learned in the past to stick.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Jumping into a 40 post argument because why the hell not.

That's the spirit.

It's weird to dismiss someone's opinion because they have only been at a company for thirty years.

As far as picking the brain of Steve Ditko is concerned, tenure of experience doesn't mean he knows more. And certainly as far as knowing or claiming that Ditko had issues with Spider-Man aging in the 60s, which is a real specific allegation and claim, there's zero evidence for that.

It is difficult to discern what Ditko believed, because he was rather reclusive, and that his public statements tended to be idiosyncratic, sometimes steeped in objectivist jargon. Much of it gets to be secondhand knowledge.

Exactly, which is why people need to qualify and be careful when they are using him as an "appeal to authority", and people who do so should be called out especially to defend asinine stories.

These can be radically different viewpoints since both sides would see the other as problematic. If you think youth is important, a Spider-Man who has grown can essentially be a generic superhero with the trappings of Spider-Man. If you think growth is important, you want the lessons Spider-Man has learned in the past to stick.

Mostly yeah. That about sums the divide eloquently.

[Mister Mets]

Except in stories like OMD and BND which is justified entirely by the "facts of the nuts and bolts" since the stories themselves cannot justify the change by itself. That's the reason this Brevoort Manifesto, which would otherwise be an inter-office memo, had to be made public and shared with readers and was widely disseminated. In fact, to the extent Tom Brevoort is known and recognized as a name, it was because of that. It was the most notable thing he was involved in.

I think you exaggerate the significance of the Brevoort memo, if you think sharing it is part of why he is known, or a larger effort to persuade fans of the wisdom of One More Day.

It was shared in the Swing Shift Directors Cut, because it is the type of document that is included in Directors Cuts.

People who have been arguing about One More Day are going to be aware of it, but they represent a small fraction of Spider-Man fans and a smaller subset of Marvel fans.

Brevoort's been active for Marvel for a long time, writing columns, engaging in interviews, and so on.

Which assumes that it's a "natural step" for Peter to become rich, as if it's a natural step for most people to become rich.

I mean Tony Stark didn't grow poor and make everything by himself you know, he was born in privilege and a child of wealth who had his future mapped out for him from his first breath.

This is what I mean when I say that this concern for youth actually disguises a series of dubious assumptions about class. And certainly that was part of the subtext that I disliked in Slott's run, where you had contempt and dislike for poor people reflected across his run. And the end result of that nostrum is definitely there in the MCU Spider-Man.

Most people don't get rich, but Peter Parker doesn't have average intellect. He's genius-level and has friends in high places. The average for people like that isn't a standard middle-class income.

Slott is saying that Peter Parker is more self-destructive than other heroes. He explicitly said that, in comparison to the likes of Superman, Batman, Iron Man, Thor.

That cannot help but become a statement about class, i.e. making out that poor people make for self-destructive superheroes.

The class stuff seems to be a stretch.

I am highlighting the subtext of what he says in that context. He explicitly defines Peter's main trait as being exceptionally self-destructive compared to other heroes.

Arguing with someone else's subtext does increase the possibility of being the toxic combination of toxic and wrong.



Slott is saying that Peter is self-destructive and defines that as someone who "trips and fails" and even says that Spider-Man represents the self-destructive traits of people in your life, and your friends' life.



Slott explicitly says that being self-destructive is more defining for Peter than being responsible.

Yes, but if you take that stance, you should expect to face consequences. And one consequence is that your version or regime over the character will always be controversial, polarizing, and divisive. If you want to make an attempt to rise above that, you need to offer solid and believable reasons. One of those reasons is what Brevoort does - offer a fact claim. If you are offering a fact claim to sell something then it better be backed up by evidence and not be so easily debunked. Since it isn't, then that means that Brevoort and others didn't do enough or didn't care enough about what they were doing and who they were hurting with their project.

Any decision made about a popular character is going to be controversial, polarizing or divisive.

What Slott does is imply that Peter being selfless is sabotage. That's not sabotage at all. Actual self-sabotage behavior involves some form of mental illness, addiction (to alcohol, to drugs), toxic behavior (cheating on your partner, stealing from your friends), depression and so on.

It's one thing to say that Peter is more relatable than other heroes, for all kind of legit reasons, such as him coming from a poor background and having limited resources, but quite another to characterize that as him being some kind of screwup...because that is very much the narrative about poor people having personality disorders and making mistakes (and so their poverty is justified and deserved). Iron Man has always been far more individually self-destructive than Peter Parker ever has been or ever will be, whether it's his alcoholism, his womanizing, his hubristic plans that backfire multiple times (CIVIL WAR, Illuminati, World War Hulk) and yet like all rich people he gets multiple second chances from readers and others, and is still characterized as someone to aspire to.

Slott's run and the BND in general, as can also be seen in Brevoort's manifesto, completely misread the character. Like for instance, Brevoort said that Peter Parker is funny and compared him to Bugs Bunny...well here's the thing, people laugh with Bugs Bunny never at him. Whereas in fact in most of Slott's run, and his description of Peter, applies to Daffy Duck, the character who self-sabotages, overreaches, and is the guy we laugh at.

I think you're arguing with a point Slott hasn't made if you think the only forms of self-sabotage include mental illness.

A refusal to compromise can be self-sabotage. A lawyer who refuses to take clients he or she doesn't like is going to make less money, as will an actor who wants to do prestige films rather than blockbusters, or a scientist researching for the common good rather than for whatever company will pay someone with his expertise doesn't. But it doesn't represent mental illness.

You are free to get as upset as you want about Slott's word choice but I get what Slott was trying to say. If you didn't at first, you certainly do now. To continue arguing so intensely about the specific manner in which he said it is just way too silly for me.

That kind of argument does seem to miss the forest for the trees.

The word choice doesn't affect the decisions made, or the quality of the stories.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Most people don't get rich, but Peter Parker doesn't have average intellect. He's genius-level and has friends in high places. The average for people like that isn't a standard middle-class income.

I doubt you can even measure an average for a highly specific sample like that. The idea people seem to have is "if you're so smart then why aren't you rich" which is a false notion.

Slott is saying that Peter is self-destructive and defines that as someone who "trips and fails" and even says that Spider-Man represents the self-destructive traits of people in your life, and your friends' life.

He's saying the word self-destructive to describe people who are selfless. When those are two different things. That reflects a certain idiosyncratic temperament which explains some weird issues in his run, as well as the accident and unintended subtext of what he says.

A lawyer who refuses to take clients he or she doesn't like is going to make less money, as will an actor who wants to do prestige films rather than blockbusters, or a scientist researching for the common good rather than for whatever company will pay someone with his expertise doesn't.

Having ethics or personal standards doesn't equate to self-sabotage.

[Mister Mets]

If I want to be open about why I take this personally. The reasons why I have always taken this personally, is that Brevoort's idea amounts to insulting the readers who bought and appreciated the grown-up version of Spider-Man. It amounted to rewriting history and shuffling the actual classic and mainstream Spider-Man out of the spotlight. It's an essentially a form of gaslighting at the publishing level, astro-turfing on the corporate level, where they basically lab-create a new version of Spider-Man and pretend this is the real deal. And I did feel hurt and insulted when that happened and when I heard these justifications. I just find the idea that people can't relate to Spider-Man if he's old absurd and basically Kafkaesque. It's insulting because when I was 8 years old, I did relate to the adult Spider-Man and obviously given how successful the character was and always has been, I can't have been the only one and in fact I probably numbered among the majority. Brevoort is basically saying that a reader like the eight-year old me was never their intended audience or that I simply didn't exist in their considerations. That didn't mean that I didn't like reading old adventures of the Ditko era, or that I didn't like Ultimate Spider-Man, or the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon (whose creator wanted to age Peter up anyway)...but I never once wanted that to be the only version of the character. In the same way I like reading and seeing multiple versions of James Bond, Batman, Superman.

I have a pretty good memory, and I can tell you that until OMD and BND, the idea that Spider-Man was about youth was just absurd. The truth is that the notion that Spider-Man should be in high school or never graduate, or never grow-up is an entirely recent thing cooked up in the '90s and was never a real aspect of the character in the classic period (let's say, the first 25 years from 1962-1987).
-- There are far more Spider-Man stories in high school from the 90s and 2000s (starting with Untold Tales of Spider-Man on which Brevoort worked as an editor, to Bendis' Ultimate Spider-Man) than in all that came before. Go back to the original Lee-Ditko run, and you will find that most of it isn't set in high school, the main setting is the Daily Bugle office. There are more high school moments in Untold Tales than in the original run of the character.
-- Until 2008, every single cartoon, without exception was set in college or graduate level. Since 2008's The Spectacular Spider-Man, every single cartoon features Spider-Man in high school. Every video-game, with the exception of the Ultimate Spider-Man video-game, features Peter Parker older and an adult, and not as a teenager. Stan Lee's newspaper strip, which until the 2002 movie, was the primary exposure for most civilians to Spider-Man, a version that Lee had full creative control over, and contributed more regularly than he did on the 616 book, likewise features an older Peter Parker. That was the version I was exposed to as a kid (at 8 years old).

Brevoort says that it's selfish for one generation to lay claim on Spider-Man...but that applies far more so to him and Quesada and others. The truth is Spider-Man had his highest period of sales in the classic period, and far more eyeballs have seen and read a married Spider-Man than ever will gaze at BND and Slott's stuff. Only a small handful of people cared or was invested in the idea of "the classic version of Spider-Man which readers aren't introduced to" and their selfish claim over that (and utterly misinformed, deceitful, and wrong notion of that claim) now actively limits and prevents new readers from seeing the actual classic Spider-Man.

"Gaslighting" suggests someone who knows that they're wrong. It's no longer a legitimate difference of opinion, but maliciousness.

Looking at the idea of whether anyone could think you was essential to Spider-Man, the character was in high school or college until 1978. He dropped out of grad school in a comic published in 1983. Aunt May didn't stop being mad at him until a comic book published in June 1985. Up until that point, there wasn't even an alternative to Spider-Man being a young man.

He went back to school on at least two different occasions, during McFarlane's run and the intermediate era between the clone saga and the late 90s reboot. And someone considering the ideal version of the character circa 2003 would look at acclaimed runs on Untold Tales of Spider-Man, and Ultimate Spider-Man, as well as a massively successful movie about Spider-Man as a teenager, when trying to determine if something is missing in the comics.

I do think you're exaggerating the significance of sales in the 90s given the speculator market.

One question with the selfishness argument is what the people who want to Spider-Man continue to grow want to see in the book going forward. Do they just want a resolution for stories they've enjoyed for a long time?

I'll note that there may be very different viewpoints among the people who think growth is what made Spider-Man special.

That's the spirit.



As far as picking the brain of Steve Ditko is concerned, tenure of experience doesn't mean he knows more. And certainly as far as knowing or claiming that Ditko had issues with Spider-Man aging in the 60s, which is a real specific allegation and claim, there's zero evidence for that.

I get that I responded to a lot of posts at once, but the comment about how long Brevoort had been at Marvel wasn't about Ditko. It was about whether he had any authority to voice an opinion on Spider-Man.

Exactly, which is why people need to qualify and be careful when they are using him as an "appeal to authority", and people who do so should be called out especially to defend asinine stories.



Mostly yeah. That about sums the divide eloquently.

Brevoort wouldn't be the only one to refer to their sense of what Ditko wanted.

I doubt you can even measure an average for a highly specific sample like that. The idea people seem to have is "if you're so smart then why aren't you rich" which is a false notion.

A real-life person with the intelligence of Peter Parker would probably be making a lot of money, especially with the connections Peter has.

There are going to be exceptions, including some noble exceptions (IE- intelligent men and women who work to improve the lives of people who do not have the ability to pay them the way rich clients would) but the question should be considered.

He's saying the word self-destructive to describe people who are selfless. When those are two different things. That reflects a certain idiosyncratic temperament which explains some weird issues in his run, as well as the accident and unintended subtext of what he says.


Having ethics or personal standards doesn't equate to self-sabotage.

It can prevent people from being as financially secure as they otherwise would be.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I get that I responded to a lot of posts at once, but the comment about how long Brevoort had been at Marvel wasn't about Ditko. It was about whether he had any authority to voice an opinion on Spider-Man.

Well when I said that I pointed out specific factual errors that he made in this podcast, which also rephrases factual errors he made in the manifesto. The replies to that was about Brevoort's authority and years occupying a position which automatically allows people to assume that whatever he says is accurate. Brevoort has a right to an opinion, of course but that doesn't mean what he says can't be questioned or corrected or refuted.

One question with the selfishness argument is what the people who want to Spider-Man continue to grow want to see in the book going forward. Do they just want a resolution for stories they've enjoyed for a long time?

A good question but one that's too big and off-topic to go into here.

I'm hoping it was a bad joke.

Couldn't resist low-hanging fruit, I'm afraid.

It can prevent people from being as financially secure as they otherwise would be.

Again...people choosing ethics isn't a form of self-sabotage.

I mean is Alan Moore self-sabotaging himself for turning down doubloons of cash from Hollywood by divesting his names off movie adaptations?

[Prof. Warren]

So you are saying that in the first 25 years of Spider-Man, Peter and his cast didn't graduate from high school, didn't graduate from college, didn't grow and change, and didn't get married and so on and so forth?

Is that what you are saying?

No, not at all. Once again, you're misrepresenting or misunderstanding what was said. I said the illusion of change was easier to have with Peter because of his youth. That means we could see him hit milestones, like HS or college graduation that other characters would have already been past.

But at a certain point, Peter had to "level off" age wise to keep on track with the rest of the MU.