Spidertalk podcast interview with Tom Brevoort

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The Spiderman name was in place back when the idea was a teenager who would turn into an adult hero via a magic ring.

They could have changed the name at any time before publication of AF#15 or the many months between that and the publication of the first issue, and since the title of that is "The Amazing Spider-Man" it doesn't seem anyone ever had issues with the "man" suffix.

[Lee]

I never said they did. I said the premise was always that of a teenager posing as an adult.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I never said they did. I said the premise was always that of a teenager posing as an adult.

Which means that the story isn't really about "youth". It's not about "staying young". For instance, Richie Rich comics, and Archie comics are stories about youth and "staying young". We will obviously argue about this in perpetuity in the way that others before have and others after will. To return to the point, to Brevoort's statement, the fact is there's no concrete evidence from either Lee or Ditko's side, or from the original run itself, that there was ever any hard intent that Spider-Man be a story that's just about youth. As Prof. Warren said, Ditko was content to let the work speak for itself. If the work is allowed to speak for itself (which I don't believe Brevoort is allowing it to do), then you can say that it's about a lot of things and that it can't be, and shouldn't be, reduced to a simple formula. Both Lee and Ditko from the beginning were placing him in a broader milieu than simply high school.

If you look at AF#15, you will find that it shows different aspects of Peter Parker. It shows him as a picked-upon high school student, it shows him as a budding scientist and inventor, it shows him as a TV celebrity, and it finally shows him as a crime fighter. That's basically signalling a very broad world that the character can occupy and inhabit. Peter's main concerns is money, finding a way to pay back his adoptive parents. Within the story, Peter hates high school and aside from the opening panels, doesn't deal with it, or the changes that Peter's powers have on his high-school life (the fact that Untold Tales, and Learning to Crawl did focus on this simply confirms how little interest Ditko and Lee had on that side of things).

Compare that to USM #1-7 by Bendis, which was commissioned by Jemas to be an entirely teenage Spider-Man from start-to-finish. You can see that the story is altered to put Peter in a more teenage milieu than originally envisioned. The bite from the spider happens in front of the entire school at a field-trip to a classmate's dad's factory (where originally Peter was in the corner at a random trip...more anonymous and circumspect) and adds to Peter's social outcast theme, and it raises an issue of whether Ben and May would sue Oscorp or not (more directly highlighting the authority of the guardians over Peter, thus making him feel younger) . Peter after getting powers, uses it to join the basketball team and become super-popular, and that causes a fight between him and Ben (which wasn't there in the original but thanks to USM and the movie, everyone now thinks that there was) over his grades slipping. He runs away from home and crashes at a friend's place. In Ultimate Spider-Man, you have a sense of Peter as teenager, someone who likes high school life and wants to do better in that milieu, which wasn't there oriignally. The fact that Bendis had to change so much, beyond the obvious expansion of a 12 page story to a 6-issue decompressed retelling, does reflect that the original team had a much broader idea for Peter than simply "high school" or teenager.

[Prof. Warren]

The Spiderman name was in place back when the idea was a teenager who would turn into an adult hero via a magic ring.

When Ditko designed his Spider-Man costume, he gave him a full face mask to hide "an obviously boyish face".

In both versions, Spider-Man is assumed to be an adult, with only the reader privy to the fact that he's a teenager. It's part of the secret identity, part of the theme of a character on the cusp of adulthood.

This is actually one of the most genius aspects of the concept of Spider-Man that is seldom mentioned, that it was about a kid who, when he wore a mask, was perceived by others as an adult.

Whereas other kid heroes were not just sidekicks but obviously children - Robin, Bucky, etc. - Spider-Man was, in the eyes of the world, a man.

But that is key to the book's appeal to youth - the idea that you can be a kid and yet magically "become" grown-up. It's almost a variation on the concept of Captain Marvel, where instead of magically transforming into an adult, Peter is simply taken for a grown-up when he's Spidey because no one would think that anyone with his confidence and power could be a kid.

Even Peter's humor was tied into this - how many kids wish they could wise off to the grown-ups in the room? When he was Spider-Man, Peter was free to give grief to JJJ as well as to his villains who were all invariably older (often practically ancient in the eyes of a kid), like Adrian Toomes or Doc Ock. So one of the main themes of the book early on was age vs. youth, with Peter regularly puncturing the arrogance and bluster of the older generation with his wit, or with prank-ish behavior like webbing JJJ to his chair. There was a vicarious thrill that kids had in reading Spider-Man in the early days in that changed when he got older. He was still a wise-cracker, of course, but the humor didn't mean quite the same thing anymore once he became an actual adult.

This is actually a deep part of the initial appeal of Spider-Man that I think has been lost or forgotten over time. By the time Bendis did Ultimate Spider-Man, he made Peter out to clearly be perceived as a kid, right from the the jump, when he was Spider-Man (as opposed to in ASM when the Green Goblin is stunned when he discovers Peter's identity and realizes he's been fighting a kid all this time) and I think that was a mistake that's been carried on since. Miles himself was never mistaken for an adult and Tom Holland's MCU Spider-Man is obviously seen as a kid. I like all these versions for what they are, I think they all have their own charm, but if you're talking about getting back to the roots of the character and how he is tied into the concept of youth, this is one of the key facets that has been long discarded. Every kid hero now, from Miles to Kamala Khan to Sam Alexander, is so clearly perceived as a kid - and treated as a kid - that they might just as well be sidekicks subject to adult supervision.

The magic of Spider-Man in the Lee/Ditko days was that the fact that Spider-Man was actually a kid underneath it all was his (and the reader's) secret. I wish someone would find a way to recreate that, if not in Spider-Man himself than in some other young hero, because I think therein lies a key to success.

[Mister Mets]

Same applies in reverse. If you believe "Spider-Man is about youth" then the opinions of the creators shouldn't factor in that as well. Again, if OMD was a great story, then there would be no need for this. But since it wasn't there was obviously a crisis of legitimacy so Brevoort needed to use the whole "in line with creator's intentions" stuff to make it serviceable.

So anyone who refers to creator intent is responding to a crisis of legitimacy.

The question of how much Peter should age or continue to age was worth having when the marriage was still around (where this question was debated and had comments back then) or if and when it comes back. Right now the question is "if Spider-Man is about youth" and if that's a valid judgment on the publication history of Spider-Man. Taking the debate outside that, well there needs to be a separate thread because that opens a broad array of questions. I said that a Spider-Man who is married, who is grown up is more interesting than the one we have since BND, what that also means is that he's so interesting that there's far too much to talk about even in a single thread.

Brevoort made a few points about youth in the interview, so there is a lot that is on-topic, even if we are currently focusing a lot on a specific element of the conversation.

When that word is thrown around without context, it can only be considered at face-value and the general meaning as deployed by dictionaries and social norms. To reiterate an earlier comment, words can take on a specific context related meaning depending of course on the verisimilitude and emotional texture of that context. I don't think Spider-Man helping people is self-sabotage, and certainly not the case that Spider-Man specifically helping someone is far more distinctly self-sabotage than any other Marvel hero or superhero across all lines. To demonstrate and make the case...you would need to do a story that tackles that, something as weird and outside continuity as Peter S. Bagge's The Megalomanical Spider-Man. For that matter, Mark Waid's AU House of M-- Spider-Man where a successful douchy version of Peter clearly has a breakdown and destroys his "happy life" as a form of rebellion because he knows it's false. But normal 616 Peter isn't self-sabotage.

In general saving people cannot be considered self-sabotage by most norms of current society. And it doesn't make sense in Spider-Man's superhero career. Because most of Spider-Man's villains would still be villains. Most of Spider-Man's villains arrived and originated independently of him. With and without Peter getting the Spider-Bite -- Vulture would be Vulture, Doctor Octavius would be Doctor Octopus, Norman Osborn would be Green Goblin, Max Dillon would be Electro, Marko would be Sandman, and so on and so forth. There are exceptions like maybe Kraven wouldn't be so fixated on being a villain without a Spider-Man to hunt, Gargan wouldn't be Scorpion without Jameson's shenanigans, the Spider-Slayers wouldn't exist. But that's a minority.

One of the distinctions of the Marvel Universe is that heroes do suffer for doing the right thing, so you can make an argument that there is an element of self-sabotage to getting involved. Although even then, Spider-Man tended to face setbacks more than the others.

The argument about whether the phrase self-sabotage is appropriate largely gets into the baggage of the word, and not whether particular decisions are in-character or would have expected consequences.

There are nuances. Peter Parker sometimes suffers in his professional and private life because he has to do the right thing as Spider-Man, but he may also make decisions that aren't perfect that cause greater setbacks, especially when taking into account that his hobby of fighting serial killers leaves him with little margin for error in the rest of his life.

I get that. I have corresponded with the podcast hosts and mentioned that some of their previous interviewees weren't asked for qualification on their comments, they replied saying that they were aware but they didn't feel it was right to mention it, and they just want to record the views of the participants. Which is fair, I mean what they do is like archival work and collecting oral histories.


Brevoort has mentioned this nostrum before, in the manifesto most notably and also in various other forums. And he's not the only one who has repeated this story. It's a common rumor. Not as well known as the "Ditko had issues with Norman being Goblin" (well known enough that Steve debunked it himself) but cut from the same cloth, and like the Norman=Goblin one, it's a rumor that originated decades after the fact and made public during the '90s and '2000s. Fact is people who are smart and "comics nerds" can make mistakes. Mark Waid for instance repeated the debunked Ditko had issues with Norman being Goblin story and he knows a lot about comics too. That's the problem, if you research stuff long enough you don't bother updating your information when new evidence comes in. I am pretty sure that the stuff I know about Spider-Man will be updated by someone who comes after me, and they'll correct and check me in turn.

We still don't know whether he can meet the burden of proof, because this came up in a setting in which he wasn't asked about the proof, and it wouldn't be completely natural for him to bring it back.

The Spiderman name was in place back when the idea was a teenager who would turn into an adult hero via a magic ring.

When Ditko designed his Spider-Man costume, he gave him a full face mask to hide "an obviously boyish face".

In both versions, Spider-Man is assumed to be an adult, with only the reader privy to the fact that he's a teenager. It's part of the secret identity, part of the theme of a character on the cusp of adulthood.

This is an underappreciated element of the character, and it's something that can fit a guy in his early to mid twenties.

That comment was more about suggesting that Brevoort (or anyone with a deferring opinion for that matter) is a bad person. People in general have a tendency to demonize those that disagree with them. That's what I was referring to.

There is some worth in fact-checking authority figures. This discussion was specifically about Brevoort's statements so it does make sense to do so to some degree.

Fact-checking can be fine, although there's enough ambiguity, as well as a lack of clear documentation, that we don't know for sure he's wrong or has come to an umerited conclusion .

I do understand that the subtext of going after someone's character as a reverse appeal to authority (his mistakes mean we must dismiss his views on everything) but that has to be an explicit message.

[Mister Mets]

This is actually one of the most genius aspects of the concept of Spider-Man that is seldom mentioned, that it was about a kid who, when he wore a mask, was perceived by others as an adult.

Whereas other kid heroes were not just sidekicks but obviously children - Robin, Bucky, etc. - Spider-Man was, in the eyes of the world, a man.

But that is key to the book's appeal to youth - the idea that you can be a kid and yet magically "become" grown-up. It's almost a variation on the concept of Captain Marvel, where instead of magically transforming into an adult, Peter is simply taken for a grown-up when he's Spidey because no one would think that anyone with his confidence and power could be a kid.

Even Peter's humor was tied into this - how many kids wish they could wise off to the grown-ups in the room? When he was Spider-Man, Peter was free to give grief to JJJ as well as to his villains who were all invariably older (often practically ancient in the eyes of a kid), like Adrian Toomes or Doc Ock. So one of the main themes of the book early on was age vs. youth, with Peter regularly puncturing the arrogance and bluster of the older generation with his wit, or with prank-ish behavior like webbing JJJ to his chair. There was a vicarious thrill that kids had in reading Spider-Man in the early days in that changed when he got older. He was still a wise-cracker, of course, but the humor didn't mean quite the same thing anymore once he became an actual adult.

This is actually a deep part of the initial appeal of Spider-Man that I think has been lost or forgotten over time. By the time Bendis did Ultimate Spider-Man, he made Peter out to clearly be perceived as a kid, right from the the jump, when he was Spider-Man (as opposed to in ASM when the Green Goblin is stunned when he discovers Peter's identity and realizes he's been fighting a kid all this time) and I think that was a mistake that's been carried on since. Miles himself was never mistaken for an adult and Tom Holland's MCU Spider-Man is obviously seen as a kid. I like all these versions for what they are, I think they all have their own charm, but if you're talking about getting back to the roots of the character and how he is tied into the concept of youth, this is one of the key facets that has been long discarded. Every kid hero now, from Miles to Kamala Khan to Sam Alexander, is so clearly perceived as a kid - and treated as a kid - that they might just as well be sidekicks subject to adult supervision.

The magic of Spider-Man in the Lee/Ditko days was that the fact that Spider-Man was actually a kid underneath it all was his (and the reader's) secret. I wish someone would find a way to recreate that, if not in Spider-Man himself than in some other young hero, because I think therein lies a key to success.

Good point.

Which means that the story isn't really about "youth". It's not about "staying young". For instance, Richie Rich comics, and Archie comics are stories about youth and "staying young". We will obviously argue about this in perpetuity in the way that others before have and others after will. To return to the point, to Brevoort's statement, the fact is there's no concrete evidence from either Lee or Ditko's side, or from the original run itself, that there was ever any hard intent that Spider-Man be a story that's just about youth. As Prof. Warren said, Ditko was content to let the work speak for itself. If the work is allowed to speak for itself (which I don't believe Brevoort is allowing it to do), then you can say that it's about a lot of things and that it can't be, and shouldn't be, reduced to a simple formula. Both Lee and Ditko from the beginning were placing him in a broader milieu than simply high school.

If you look at AF#15, you will find that it shows different aspects of Peter Parker. It shows him as a picked-upon high school student, it shows him as a budding scientist and inventor, it shows him as a TV celebrity, and it finally shows him as a crime fighter. That's basically signalling a very broad world that the character can occupy and inhabit. Peter's main concerns is money, finding a way to pay back his adoptive parents. Within the story, Peter hates high school and aside from the opening panels, doesn't deal with it, or the changes that Peter's powers have on his high-school life (the fact that Untold Tales, and Learning to Crawl did focus on this simply confirms how little interest Ditko and Lee had on that side of things).

Compare that to USM #1-7 by Bendis, which was commissioned by Jemas to be an entirely teenage Spider-Man from start-to-finish. You can see that the story is altered to put Peter in a more teenage milieu than originally envisioned. The bite from the spider happens in front of the entire school at a field-trip to a classmate's dad's factory (where originally Peter was in the corner at a random trip...more anonymous and circumspect) and adds to Peter's social outcast theme, and it raises an issue of whether Ben and May would sue Oscorp or not (more directly highlighting the authority of the guardians over Peter, thus making him feel younger) . Peter after getting powers, uses it to join the basketball team and become super-popular, and that causes a fight between him and Ben (which wasn't there in the original but thanks to USM and the movie, everyone now thinks that there was) over his grades slipping. He runs away from home and crashes at a friend's place. In Ultimate Spider-Man, you have a sense of Peter as teenager, someone who likes high school life and wants to do better in that milieu, which wasn't there oriignally. The fact that Bendis had to change so much, beyond the obvious expansion of a 12 page story to a 6-issue decompressed retelling, does reflect that the original team had a much broader idea for Peter than simply "high school" or teenager.

I don't think Spider-Man or Archie is about staying young. That's more of a behind the scenes decision, and probably the right one.

Interesting point on how Amazing Fantasy #15 showed many sides of Peter Parker. I suspect the differences with Ultimate Spider-Man were largely due to what we would expect with a middle-class teenager in the turn of the century, as well as a desire to build interactions with a supporting cast.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

So anyone who refers to creator intent is responding to a crisis of legitimacy.

In the context of defending a status-quo of such lasting controversy, yes. When Spider-Man got married, nobody had to refer to creator intent, they could just rely on the stories. The Wedding Annual is an excellent story and comic, and the first story after that, KLH is an all-time masterpiece. Brand New Day definitely had a crisis of legitimacy at inception. Marc Guggenheim pointed out that comic book shops were confused by the event and stocking up because they didn't know if it was the real Peter...and the writers themselves had to address their concerns, and it kept cropping up in every interview they did. The defense at the time, was that eventually there would be a story that addresses it (referring to what became OMIT), and then that story came out, and as even most BND defenders point out, it made things even worse, since it was as bad, and for some worse, than OMD. So BND had a crisis because it was founded by a bad story and what followed were largely mediocre rehashes of bygone Spider-Man status-quos past, without anything truly fresh.

Although even then, Spider-Man tended to face setbacks more than the others.

Is that because of his personality quirks, his youth, or is it because of his class? The fact that Peter being poor makes it easier to bring home consequences in a dramatic way then with Bruce Wayne. You could do a story where Batman's crime-fighting causes stock-market rates to drop for his company, but that doesn't have much stakes, because it means that a filthy rich man just got slightly less rich.

The argument about whether the phrase self-sabotage is appropriate largely gets into the baggage of the word, and not whether particular decisions are in-character or would have expected consequences.

The word has baggage because it's a real (and at time stigmatized) psychological disorder, and because it's used in a generally negative connotation in this context. And again making decisions that are in-character which have consequences (intended and unintended) cannot be considered self-sabotage...it's just life. Doing something good and it not being rewarded is life.

Interesting point on how Amazing Fantasy #15 showed many sides of Peter Parker. I suspect the differences with Ultimate Spider-Man were largely due to what we would expect with a middle-class teenager* in the turn of the century, as well as a desire to build interactions with a supporting cast.

*Emphasis added by me

Your little slip there hits the nail on the head. Making Spider-Man about youth means that he's no longer about being poor. And Lee-Ditko's Spider-Man was about being poor, I mean his first instinct as Spider-man is to make money and help with his parents bills, not to get the cheerleader's attention. Focusing on the exclusive teenage element makes Peter Parker a more middle-class character. Which also means lower stakes. In USM, no matter what happens Peter will not be expelled from his high school or chased out and moved out of NYC and go somewhere else for schooling. Same with the MCU.

Whereas you have a lot more stakes when Peter's taken out of that milieu and allowed to grow. Peter at work or seasonal job means he can get fired, miss a rent, fall into debt when a friend bails him out. If he moves into an apartment, he can be thrown into a smaller apartment (like when he went from that loft he shared with Harry to the more low-rent apartment in Chelsea in Conway's run, or when after Caesar blacklisted MJ, she and Peter had to go to smaller dwellings and lodgings). So there's more at stake with a grown-up Peter than one still stuck to Aunt May's apron.

[Mister Mets]

In the context of defending a status-quo of such lasting controversy, yes. When Spider-Man got married, nobody had to refer to creator intent, they could just rely on the stories. The Wedding Annual is an excellent story and comic, and the first story after that, KLH is an all-time masterpiece. Brand New Day definitely had a crisis of legitimacy at inception. Marc Guggenheim pointed out that comic book shops were confused by the event and stocking up because they didn't know if it was the real Peter...and the writers themselves had to address their concerns, and it kept cropping up in every interview they did. The defense at the time, was that eventually there would be a story that addresses it (referring to what became OMIT), and then that story came out, and as even most BND defenders point out, it made things even worse, since it was as bad, and for some worse, than OMD. So BND had a crisis because it was founded by a bad story and what followed were largely mediocre rehashes of bygone Spider-Man status-quos past, without anything truly fresh.



Is that because of his personality quirks, his youth, or is it because of his class? The fact that Peter being poor makes it easier to bring home consequences in a dramatic way then with Bruce Wayne. You could do a story where Batman's crime-fighting causes stock-market rates to drop for his company, but that doesn't have much stakes, because it means that a filthy rich man just got slightly less rich.



The word has baggage because it's a real (and at time stigmatized) psychological disorder, and because it's used in a generally negative connotation in this context. And again making decisions that are in-character which have consequences (intended and unintended) cannot be considered self-sabotage...it's just life. Doing something good and it not being rewarded is life.



*Emphasis added by me

Your little slip there hits the nail on the head. Making Spider-Man about youth means that he's no longer about being poor. And Lee-Ditko's Spider-Man was about being poor, I mean his first instinct as Spider-man is to make money and help with his parents bills, not to get the cheerleader's attention. Focusing on the exclusive teenage element makes Peter Parker a more middle-class character. Which also means lower stakes. In USM, no matter what happens Peter will not be expelled from his high school or chased out and moved out of NYC and go somewhere else for schooling. Same with the MCU.

Whereas you have a lot more stakes when Peter's taken out of that milieu and allowed to grow. Peter at work or seasonal job means he can get fired, miss a rent, fall into debt when a friend bails him out. If he moves into an apartment, he can be thrown into a smaller apartment (like when he went from that loft he shared with Harry to the more low-rent apartment in Chelsea in Conway's run, or when after Caesar blacklisted MJ, she and Peter had to go to smaller dwellings and lodgings). So there's more at stake with a grown-up Peter than one still stuck to Aunt May's apron.

I've generally seen Peter Parker as lower-middle class, rather than lower class.

The modern cutoff for lower class is if the family earns more than $30,000 an year.

https://money.usnews.com/money/perso...c-class-system

When the character was created in 1962, prior to Johnson's great society legislation, the poverty rate was even higher, so the standards for what constituted a lower middle class (AKA "working class"), as opposed to lower class, life were even lower.

Looking up information on income in New York City, I did come across a 1969 article about the working class in New York, which shows how class distinctions were seen at the time.

https://nymag.com/news/features/46801/

But basically, the people I’m speaking about are the working class. That is, they stand somewhere in the economy between the poor—most of whom are the aged, the sick and those unemployable women and children who live on welfare—and the semi-professionals and professionals who earn their way with talents or skills acquired through education. The working class earns its living with its hands or its backs; its members do not exist on welfare payments; they do not live in abject, swinish poverty, nor in safe, remote suburban comfort. They earn between $5,000 and $10,000 a year. And they can no longer make it in New York.

The comparison with the marriage doesn't really work because it's a different media environment. There weren't online interviews to give fans access, and it's also harder to get our hands on contemporary material, so it's harder the reception and conversations about One More Day and the marriage.

Self-sabotage can vary in severity. There is no either/ or situation about whether self-sabotage can be in-character. For many, it is in their character to do things that limit their opportunities and level of professional and private success.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I've generally seen Peter Parker as lower-middle class, rather than lower class.

He's more commonly referred to as working class (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22P...=2133&bih=1009). Even in published comic book essay books.

The comparison with the marriage doesn't really work because it's a different media environment.

Fact is "The Wedding" is still ranked as a classic issue and features on a number of lists of Best Spider-Man stories. OMD is consistently ranked at the top of the Worst lists.

For OMD to have some amount of legitimacy it needed to be a good story, at bare minimum as good or better than the Wedding Annual (which was a reasonable goal and realistic expectation as opposed to being better than KLH or the Master Planner Saga). It isn't. So it's lost the legitimacy argument...i.e. the marriage was bad for Spider-Man and removing it would provide great stories and be true to the character. If the story where you make the case for that proves to be risible and widely seen by a great consensus as a total character assassination and betrayal of the character and setting...then you lost legitimacy for your argument, and you need to get what you want by other means. So you say this is about restoring to creator's intentions...which at least sounds plausible and can travel well. So points for trying. But that doesn't mean someone can't go back to the source and check that.

There is no either/ or situation about whether self-sabotage can be in-character.

Yes there is. Nobody would refer to a person doing good even at a personal cost, as self-sabotage. Words mean something.

Mark Waid even addressed this when talking about a weak issue of his in BND:

"My least favorite Spider-Man story that I did was the two-parter in which Peter blew his photography career. (Issues #623 - 624.) Not because I thought it was a particularly bad story - it was beautifully drawn by Paul Azaceta - but because, in retrospect, I really, really mishandled the whole "Peter faked a photo" plot development, for which I apologize from the bottom of my heart to the other writers and to the fans. I still think at the heart of it was a good, clever, very series - appropriate idea - Spider-Man has to throw Peter Parker under a bus to save J. Jonah Jameson - but I'd give anything to be able to go back and rewrite it to make Pete's moment of sacrifice and choice more dramatic. In my mind, Peter wasn't sloppy or stupid* - he knew what he was doing violated journalistic ethics, but it was either that or let JJJ be criminally framed for something he didn't do - a classic Spider-Man sacrifice play. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, I did a spectacularly crappy job of translating that to the printed page and ended up accomplishing the opposite of what I'd intended. In my failed attempt to make Peter seem supremely responsible, I ended up making him look incredibly irresponsible - which is a mortal sin*."
--MARK WAID
https://www.cbr.com/cci-days-end-the...ng-spider-man/
* Emphasis Added

So we see that Waid understands and accepts that making a sacrifice play does not mean being "sloppy or stupid" and he also understands that it's a needle that needs to be threaded carefully or you achieve the opposite intent.

One thing about Slott defenders or BND defenders I don't get...why can't you accept that your side made blunders? Why is that every word or utterance of Slott needs to be defended and validated? Can't you just say that "Slott is great but he doesn't always explain himself well" which many fans have said at different times about their preferred creators. Why can't you say, "Okay maybe Brevoort is wrong about Ditko wanting Peter to stay in high school and I don't agree with everything in that manifesto but that doesn't mean it's all bad"? Rather than admit that Slott got confused about "self-destruction/selfless" and that this confusion doesn't reflect the content of the work, we instead get people saying at length that no "helping people is self-destructive" and helping people is "self-sabotage". It's unnecessary. Accepting Slott made an error wouldn't mean that I won or anything if that's what you are worried about. It won't really change anything.

[Mister Mets]

He's more commonly referred to as working class (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22P...=2133&bih=1009). Even in published comic book essay books.



Fact is "The Wedding" is still ranked as a classic issue and features on a number of lists of Best Spider-Man stories. OMD is consistently ranked at the top of the Worst lists.

For OMD to have some amount of legitimacy it needed to be a good story, at bare minimum as good or better than the Wedding Annual (which was a reasonable goal and realistic expectation as opposed to being better than KLH or the Master Planner Saga). It isn't. So it's lost the legitimacy argument...i.e. the marriage was bad for Spider-Man and removing it would provide great stories and be true to the character. If the story where you make the case for that proves to be risible and widely seen by a great consensus as a total character assassination and betrayal of the character and setting...then you lost legitimacy for your argument, and you need to get what you want by other means. So you say this is about restoring to creator's intentions...which at least sounds plausible and can travel well. So points for trying. But that doesn't mean someone can't go back to the source and check that.



Yes there is. Nobody would refer to a person doing good even at a personal cost, as self-sabotage. Words mean something.

Mark Waid even addressed this when talking about a weak issue of his in BND:



So we see that Waid understands and accepts that making a sacrifice play does not mean being "sloppy or stupid" and he also understands that it's a needle that needs to be threaded carefully or you achieve the opposite intent.

One thing about Slott defenders or BND defenders I don't get...why can't you accept that your side made blunders? Why is that every word or utterance of Slott needs to be defended and validated? Can't you just say that "Slott is great but he doesn't always explain himself well" which many fans have said at different times about their preferred creators. Why can't you say, "Okay maybe Brevoort is wrong about Ditko wanting Peter to stay in high school and I don't agree with everything in that manifesto but that doesn't mean it's all bad"? Rather than admit that Slott got confused about "self-destruction/selfless" and that this confusion doesn't reflect the content of the work, we instead get people saying at length that no "helping people is self-destructive" and helping people is "self-sabotage". It's unnecessary. Accepting Slott made an error wouldn't mean that I won or anything if that's what you are worried about. It won't really change anything.

You didn't address the part of my post that demonstrated that the working class was seen as part of the middle class since at least 1969, so it wasn't a Freudian slip to refer to Peter Parker as a middle class kid.

"The Wedding" being seen as a classic suggests that a large chunk of fans liked that development, which no one's disputing. It's also not very meaningful for Marvel, since the more important thing isn't to tell one popular story, but to make a decision for the long-term health of the series, and what came about later when an element of the status quo was frozen in place.

I might bump an older thread on the artistic merits of the wedding issue, but that's a different topic.

As for the legitimacy of One More Day, it's been ten years. There have been multiple status quos. Peter hasn't gotten married again.

At no point have I suggested that there haven't been errors in the book, or by the people telling the stories, since One More Day. I have never suggested that execution doesn't matter (although the main argument against the direction of the book would be that the status quo is such that no one could have pulled it off).

When you said "And again making decisions that are in-character which have consequences (intended and unintended) cannot be considered self-sabotage...it's just life." I took that to mean that you were arguing that characters can't do anything that is considered self-sabotage. I'm not looking at self-sabotage as a psychological condition that leads to tremendous harm for anyone who suffers it. There is a matter of degree. Some people have it much worse. In Peter Parker's case, he is very little room for error because of the time, money, risk and energy he puts into what is essentially a hobby.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

You didn't address the part of my post that demonstrated that the working class was seen as part of the middle class since at least 1969,

Mostly because a lot of people would disagree with that, and it's far from universal. And the point is that the comics character Peter Parker is widely seen as working class by many people who study comics, write comics and read comics.

It's also not very meaningful for Marvel, since the more important thing isn't to tell one popular story, but to make a decision for the long-term health of the series,

A 20 year period where they were married with 14 years of high sales when that period was invested in (Michelinie's and JMS' 7 years apiece), and low sales during periods of sabotage (The clone saga and its aftermath) doesn't prove it was damaging to the long-term health of the series at all. Rather the opposite.

It proves that it was healthy for the series, and that removing it was unhealthy.

As for the legitimacy of One More Day, it's been ten years. There have been multiple status quos. Peter hasn't gotten married again.

Tell me when Peter was married, did the anti-marriage crowd rest and go, "Look Peter's been married for ten years, it's popular and here to stay give it up, get with the program"? No they railed against it in Wizard magazine, in whatever newsletter and mini-platform they got hold off, and refused to accept lasting changes. They dug their heels in for twenty years wishing for what they wanted. So how convenient that now when they are on top, they insist that other people be generous to them in a way they never were, that they wish away the consequences of their precedent? Because rest assured, the pro-marriage crowd post-OMD are not even a percent close to toxic as the anti-marriage crowd were Pre-OMD.

At the very least the majority of that era was Pre-Internet so they weren't an issue for the actual readers, and most people were ignorant of them (which must have of course fueled their echo-chamber). I mean the fact is that the actual BTS stuff about the marriage was totally forgotten about by all but a paltry few because it was done so well that most accepted it. In the case of OMD, one it's Post-Internet...and the internet never forgives, and it never forgets. Two, the story is so bad that it permanently obliterated any boundary between editorial and reader. Usually it's supposed to be Editorial-Writer-Reader. Now Post-OMD that's gone, and people have a full view on how the sausage is made and the moment where the chef spits in on the meal and hands it to the consumer.

I took that to mean that you were arguing that characters can't do anything that is considered self-sabotage.

What it means is that self-sabotage is specific enough that people can actually see it. For example, Rorschach from Watchmen is a character who self-sabotages himself. Is Peter Parker like Rorschach? Yes/No question for you.

I'm not looking at self-sabotage as a psychological condition that leads to tremendous harm for anyone who suffers it.

That's what self-sabotage actually is. That's all it is.

In Peter Parker's case, he is very little room for error because of the time, money, risk and energy he puts into what is essentially a hobby.

Collecting butterflies is a hobby...saving people's lives aren't. I get that a lot of people want to treat the superhero stuff as a metaphor or whatever but the fact is Spider-Man is a superhero. When he swings his web and moves and so on, that's meant to be accepted literally. Spider-Man saves lives. He fights and saves people from dangerous criminals who for the most part would have become dangerous criminals with or without him. Without Spider-Man, you would have Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus. You would have Vulture, Sandman, Electro, Chameleon, Mysterio but no Spider-Man to fight them and defeat them and save their victims from them. That's the stories we have

[Prof. Warren]

One thing about Slott defenders or BND defenders I don't get...why can't you accept that your side made blunders?

Well, most people don't look at things as taking "sides." You don't have to unreservedly love something to discuss it or even defend it.

Also, absolutely NO ONE has ever tried to argue that BND was perfect. Never. People who enjoy that era typically admit that it is, in every way, a mixed bag.

Why is that every word or utterance of Slott needs to be defended and validated?

It doesn't. At all.

If someone is referring to something specific that Slott said in a critical way and it is obvious that the criticism lies in a misunderstanding, then of course that will be pointed out.

Can't you just say that "Slott is great but he doesn't always explain himself well" which many fans have said at different times about their preferred creators.

In the case of what's been said on this thread, the problem isn't that Slott doesn't explain himself well but that you, personally, don't comprehend well.

You claimed that Slott said that, at his core, Peter Parker was self-destructive.

You took that as an automatic negative while others reacted to what Slott could have meant by that, pointing out other possible interpretations.

When you supplied the full quote from Slott, however, it was very obvious what he meant and that he didn't at all mean what you took from it.

So if you're going to misinterpret what people say and then try and base an argument on that misinterpretation, expect to have people point out that you are wrong.

That isn't jumping to a creator's personal defense, it's simply noting an error on your part.

Why can't you say, "Okay maybe Brevoort is wrong about Ditko wanting Peter to stay in high school and I don't agree with everything in that manifesto but that doesn't mean it's all bad"?

No one here said that Brevoort was, for sure, factually correct in talking about Ditko. Just the opposite, really.

The consensus was that, well, he could be right and he could also be mistaken but there isn't enough evidence to say for sure either way.

By the same token, why can't you say that maybe Brevoort is right about Ditko wanting to stay in high school, even if you disagree with it?

Is it that hard for you to admit, like the rest of us have, that maybe - just maybe - you really don't know for sure?

Also, absolutely no one has said that they personally agree with everything in Brevoort's manifesto. In actuality we've barely discussed it.

The discussion has been focused on whether one can look at "youth" as a central tenet of Spider-Man.

Rather than admit that Slott got confused about "self-destruction/selfless" and that this confusion doesn't reflect the content of the work, we instead get people saying at length that no "helping people is self-destructive" and helping people is "self-sabotage".

That's not what anyone said.

That's you completely twisting other people's comments to mean something else entirely.

If someone says that Peter is so driven to help others that he often doesn't take his own safety into account, that's not saying "helping people is self-destructive."

Also, statements like that were made in response to your original misreading of Slott's words, when you initially claimed that Slott said outright that one of Peter's main qualities was that he was self-destructive. People were speculating as to what he could have meant by that.

Once you gave the full quote from Slott, though, it was completely obvious what he was saying and it was not as you took it.

Slott was simply expressing the idea that Peter is, like the rest of us, a flawed person - not that he is, at his core, "self-destructive."

You were the one who was confused on this count. Period.

Could Slott have made his point in a different way with different words? Sure. But he expressed himself clearly enough that most people could immediately, when they read his full words, grasp exactly what he meant with no problem. Just because you didn't get it and immediately seized on an incorrect perception of what he said and then ran with it doesn't mean that Slott was wrong.

It's unnecessary.

What's really unnecessary you constantly wanting to foster arguments based on your own misinterpretations.

Just to recap here:

No one has ever said BND was perfect and that it was free of error or missteps. No one.

No one ever said that Slott was perfect. Pointing out that you misinterpreted something he said doesn't mean anyone's saying that he is, in any way, "great," just that you happened to get his meaning wrong.

No one ever said that Brevoort was unequivocally proven in his point about Ditko, or that all of his ideas about Spider-Man are correct across the board.

No one ever said that helping people is "self-destructive." Or, while we're at it, that all self-destructive behavior is borne of mental illness or poverty.

NO ONE IS SAYING ANYTHING OF THESE THINGS.

Accepting Slott made an error wouldn't mean that I won or anything if that's what you are worried about. It won't really change anything.

The actual correct move would be for you to admit, when its pointed out that you misread what Slott said, to simply say "Ok, I get it now. I totally took his statement in a way that wasn't intended."

If you didn't get what Slott said when you first read it, it's been explained to you very clearly by now, no?

The response from you shouldn't be to pull out the dictionary definition of self-destructive or selfless and continue to try and harp on it and keep blaming Slott for you not getting what he was saying in the first place and wondering why people are going out of their way to defend him when they're in fact not doing that at all.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

No one here said that Brevoort was, for sure, factually correct in talking about Ditko. Just the opposite, really.

The consensus was that, well, he could be right and he could also be mistaken but there isn't enough evidence to say for sure either way.

By the same token, why can't you say that maybe Brevoort is right about Ditko wanting to stay in high school, even if you disagree with it?

Alright. To reiterate what you said before, Steve Ditko was absolutely content to let the work speak for itself. I agree with that, and by extension, I agree that we can't know definitely what the creators of Spider-Man felt about the later eras of Spider-Man since both Lee and Ditko in their own way, one an extrovert another an introvert, were content to step back and not interfere or directly comment or critique or undermine the work of writers/artists who followed them. That's to their credit and their generosity, which both shared but expressed differently.

That I accept.

Do you agree then that someone who looks at the original run of Spider-Man and argues that it's about growth and change is valid to do so? That they have just as much claim and foundation for that as the ones who argue otherwise?

Yes/No question.

[Rincewind]

Alright. To reiterate what you said before, Steve Ditko was absolutely content to let the work speak for itself. I agree with that, and by extension, I agree that we can't know definitely what the creators of Spider-Man felt about the later eras of Spider-Man since both Lee and Ditko in their own way, one an extrovert another an introvert, were content to step back and not interfere or directly comment or critique or undermine the work of writers/artists who followed them. That's to their credit and their generosity, which both shared but expressed differently.

That I accept.

Do you agree then that someone who looks at the original run of Spider-Man and argues that it's about growth and change is valid to do so? That they have just as much claim and foundation for that as the ones who argue otherwise?

Yes/No question.

I would argue that it depends on your own personal preference and interpretation. Two people can read the same thing and come to very different conclusions. Neither is definitively right or wrong.

[Prof. Warren]

Alright. To reiterate what you said before, Steve Ditko was absolutely content to let the work speak for itself. I agree with that, and by extension, I agree that we can't we can't know definitely what the creators of Spider-Man felt about the later eras of Spider-Man since both Lee and Ditko in their own way, one an extrovert another an introvert, were content to step back and not interfere or directly comment or critique or undermine the work of writers/artists who followed them. That's to their credit and their generosity, which both shared but expressed differently.

That I accept.

Do you agree then that someone who looks at the original run of Spider-Man and argues that it's about growth and change is valid to do so? That they have just as much claim and foundation for that as the ones who argue otherwise?

Yes/No question.

This is simply you wanting to make it seem like the original argument was about your point of view being denied. It wasn't. It was about you claiming that Brevoort was not only wrong in his interpretation of Lee/Ditko but was outright lying for purely selfish motivations, vindictively forcing his vision of Spidey down fan's throats and using bogus claims on Ditko's behalf to do so.

That's what you claimed, that's what the discussion was about. So don't, at this point, try to play some disingenuous game of asking, when confronted straight-up with a string of your own false assertions, of "well, aren't I entitled to interpret the Lee/Ditko Spider-Man in my own way too?" as though that was ever an issue.

It wasn't.