Spidertalk podcast interview with Tom Brevoort

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Had Ditko been the one to reveal her, she would not have had the same seismic impact.

True. Ditko in his pre-appearances had MJ wear a "babushka" and drive a car, which suggests a more middle-class character than the one Lee-Romita went with, a thoroughly modern "with it" girl who lives in an apartment in the city, and works for a living, doesn't have a car (and is impressed with "Petey's bike"). I think Ditko bowed out at the right time, and his silence about Spider-Man and what came after him is truly generous. In general as much as people talk of the rupture between Ditko and Romita Sr, and there is a divergence certainly (going from Ditko's 9-Panels to JRSR's 6-Panel and the shift in style), in broad terms there's definite continuity -- Norman Osborn would be Green Goblin, Mary Jane Watson is supposed to be a scene-stealing charisma machine, Peter needed to go to college. The main changes that happened after he stepped down, are entirely consistent to his vision. The big difference is Gwen and Harry, based on how he portrayed them (as entirely unsympathetic though weirdly compelling). And the fact that his Norman is far more unsympathetic (and far more sane and rational) than the one Romita did. Post-Resurrection Norman who's almost totally evil is much closer to Ditko's original version of him so that's another example of how characters and settings unconsciously return to the creator's original intent even without the direct awareness or knowledge of people involved.

Nothing really tells the "full story." And Ditko's views themselves surely changed in one way or another over time so isolating one thing he said isn't proof of anything - no matter what the quote may be.

Right. So to wrap this up. And I mean this sincerely. Let's do this, one last time...
- 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?

Or to rephrase that,
- If someone says that Lee-Ditko intended Peter to grow up, is their claim as valid as the ones who say "Spider-Man is about youth"?

Yes/no.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I never hinted that it was wrong for fans to call for the return of the marriage.

True, but when you say or others say it's "been ten years" or OMD has been gone for ten years that suggests we should stop complaining. I don't think you can say that when people complained non-stop during the marriage for twenty years and consistently said utterly wrong things like no great stories came from the marriage or that the marriage was chasing away talented writers and so on and so forth, and other stuff that people said at the time.

We're going with memories of old arguments, but the anti-marriage crowd wasn't all that nasty or active.

I will tell you that they were when I came online and they weren't all online you know. Some of them were at Wizard Magazine, which overrepresented and overstated the anti-marriage view over the defenders or bench-sitters.

[Prof. Warren]

Right. So to wrap this up. And I mean this sincerely. Let's do this, one last time...
- 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?

Or to rephrase that,
- If someone says that Lee-Ditko intended Peter to grow up, is their claim as valid as the ones who say "Spider-Man is about youth"?

Yes/no.

Personally, my answer would be no - particularly in regards to whether Lee/Ditko themselves intended Peter to grow up.

That they were fine with him aging somewhat, yes, but I can't see them ever believing that Peter should be more than a young man or that the book would work properly if he wasn't.

Anyone can disagree with that, though, and make a case for an opposing argument. Even if one does believe that the Lee/Ditko era was one fueled by growth and change, though, they have to concede that serialized comic characters aren't built for that, which is why any growth Peter has had has been very front loaded in his history.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Anyone can disagree with that, though, and make a case for an opposing argument.

That's enough for me. I wish you a good day.

[Prof. Warren]

That's enough for me. I wish you a good day.

Same to you.

[Lee]

Ditko actually stayed around longer to finish Doctor Strange, which was on the whole the book he was more interested in (fun fact Stephen Strange has the same first name as Stephen John Ditko).

Ditko didn't stay around longer on Doctor Strange. When he quit Marvel, he quit Marvel.

Seeing as the second ASM annual starred Dr. Strange, I don't think that Ditko was really all that concerned with having Spidey exist in a world where magical concepts were possible - he helped establish that he was!

Ditko thought magic and aliens were outside the scope of Spider-Man's world (he even thought the astronaut/shuttle launch story in #1 was too far removed from a teenager's world). He also disliked guest heroes and villains in general. But he considered annuals to be special events that didn't need to connect to the monthly series. More here: https://nick-caputo.blogspot.com/201...pider-man.html

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Ditko didn't stay around longer on Doctor Strange. When he quit Marvel, he quit Marvel.

You are right. I misread something from Bell's biography. Sorry about that.

[Spider-Tiger]

This gets into some grey areas. It's not always possible to identify what aspects of someone's behavior are self-sabotage and what aspects are ultimately beneficial. Even for Peter Parker, there are potential questions about whether he's going about being a superhero in the most effective way.

"Is Peter effective at being a superhero?" is really just a question of competence. It's not relevant to the discussion at hand, which in my understanding, was specifically about whether Peter using his powers to save lives (and consequently being forced to make some sacrifices) was an act of self-sabotage.

For example, risks he takes to save the life of just one person could render him unable to save anyone else's life later.

Has Peter ever been faced with this dilemma in a concrete manner? As in: act now and save one life vs. act later and save many lives. If so, how did he respond?

The way you seem to be describing it, it's not a concrete dilemma. It's a concrete outcome vs. a hypothetical outcome. The real concrete dilemma for Peter is whether to sacrifice being the perfect friend, employee, student, etc. to save a life.

There are potential drawbacks in being too generous, and not being able to take care of yourself. It's a difficult balance. In some cases, these distinctions are obvious. In some cases, these are not.

I'm not sure what it is you're trying to argue here. Are you saying that Peter is self-sabotaging because he is "risky", "too generous", or that he would achieve his goals more successfully if he used his powers in some other way? Is Peter unable to take care of himself?

[Mister Mets]

Personally, my answer would be no - particularly in regards to whether Lee/Ditko themselves intended Peter to grow up.

That they were fine with him aging somewhat, yes, but I can't see them ever believing that Peter should be more than a young man or that the book would work properly if he wasn't.

Anyone can disagree with that, though, and make a case for an opposing argument. Even if one does believe that the Lee/Ditko era was one fueled by growth and change, though, they have to concede that serialized comic characters aren't built for that, which is why any growth Peter has had has been very front loaded in his history.

Stan Lee has been pretty open about not expecting superheroes to last as long as they did.

He wasn't going to make decisions for the future of the franchise because he didn't think it would matter.

True, but when you say or others say it's "been ten years" or OMD has been gone for ten years that suggests we should stop complaining. I don't think you can say that when people complained non-stop during the marriage for twenty years and consistently said utterly wrong things like no great stories came from the marriage or that the marriage was chasing away talented writers and so on and so forth, and other stuff that people said at the time.



I will tell you that they were when I came online and they weren't all online you know. Some of them were at Wizard Magazine, which over-represented and overstated the anti-marriage view over the defenders or bench-sitters.

I could respond to specific comments in their original context, but I'm not going to argue about the memories of things said a long time ago. I have no idea if a comment was representative or stripped of nuance in summary form.

As for comments in Wizard, it wouldn't have to disprove the idea that the anti-marriage crowd wasn't active or nasty. How often did they complain about Spider-Man's marriage, and what kind of personal comments did they make about people who disagreed with them, be it fans or professionals?

"Is Peter effective at being a superhero?" is really just a question of competence. It's not relevant to the discussion at hand, which in my understanding, was specifically about whether Peter using his powers to save lives (and consequently being forced to make some sacrifices) was an act of self-sabotage.



Has Peter ever been faced with this dilemma in a concrete manner? As in: act now and save one life vs. act later and save many lives. If so, how did he respond?

The way you seem to be describing it, it's not a concrete dilemma. It's a concrete outcome vs. a hypothetical outcome. The real concrete dilemma for Peter is whether to sacrifice being the perfect friend, employee, student, etc. to save a life.



I'm not sure what it is you're trying to argue here. Are you saying that Peter is self-sabotaging because he is "risky", "too generous", or that he would achieve his goals more successfully if he used his powers in some other way? Is Peter unable to take care of himself?

I might have been a bit unclear about the tradeoffs I was thinking of.

The scenario was something we've seen plenty of times in the comics, where Peter risks his own life to save someone else's. I think we can both agree that this is completely in-character for him.

However, he's not just risking his own life, but the lives of everyone else he could save if he keeps on going as a superhero. If he's in a situation where he could save someone else's life and his own odds of survival are 99%, it's not a worthwhile tradeoff because he could be expected to save more than a hundred lives if he keeps functioning as a superhero, albeit a more careful one.

My point wasn't that generosity is self-sabotage, but that excessive generosity can be. The lines between what is self-sabotage and what is productive are sometimes quite obvious, but sometimes fuzzy and impossible to figure out.

[Spider-Tiger]

True. Ditko in his pre-appearances had MJ wear a "babushka" and drive a car, which suggests a more middle-class character than the one Lee-Romita went with, a thoroughly modern "with it" girl who lives in an apartment in the city, and works for a living, doesn't have a car (and is impressed with "Petey's bike").

I think the headscarf ("babushka" ) was Ditko's attempt at conveying glamour as well as concealing her identity. They were considered fashionable in the 50s and early 60s, and you would see several actresses like Audrey Hepburn and Elizabeth Taylor wearing them on film. Romita pushed the character in a more contemporary direction.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Stan Lee has been pretty open about not expecting superheroes to last as long as they did.

Which again doesn't mean a great deal. Siegel and Shuster didn't expect Superman to last...doesn't mean that their early stories were having rapid, or real-time character aging. That has nothing to do with "didn't think it will last". And in any case, Stan Lee on multiple occasions said that he's fine with Peter as a grown man and an adult. Stan Lee himself wrote Peter a few times after he finished his run with Romita Sr., but either in the newspaper strip or elsewhere, he never once wrote a high school version of Peter ever again.

Lee, post-1960s, is generally not a reliable narrator, because him being a spokesman and so on, means that he fell naturally in giving people what they wanted to hear and be everyone's friend. So his actions and his writing make more sense. And Lee's actions consistently situated Peter to a more grown up direction. More importantly, Lee did believe that Spider-Man should have a set supporting cast and certainly a main heroine and leading lady. Initially he believed it should be Gwen, and then it proved that Mary Jane should play that role. And he never looked back. As producer for the Fox Spider-Man cartoon, he insisted that Mary Jane be the leading role, and insisted that she be the only love interest which he had to be cajoled into reconsidering albeit MJ did have a major role.

So Stan Lee even when he was concerned and more cognizant about the long-term growth of the franchise, didn't exactly advertise a teenage Peter.

I think the headscarf ("babushka" ) was Ditko's attempt at conveying glamour as well as concealing her identity. They were considered fashionable in the 50s and early 60s, and you would see several actresses like Audrey Hepburn and Elizabeth Taylor wearing them on film. Romita pushed the character in a more contemporary direction.

I guess you are right. People have told me this before. My feeling was that it seemed more homely and old-fashioned. One weird thing is that there's never a story with MJ's past (and there have been many) which address why she dressed that way on this day. Like the time-travel issue in Defalco's Spider-Girl where Mayday goes back in time and sees her parents as teenagers, does that scene in ASM#25 and shows JRSR's MJ behind the lampshade, but that's not what she wore that day.

[Prof. Warren]

Which again doesn't mean a great deal. Siegel and Shuster didn't expect Superman to last...doesn't mean that their early stories were having rapid, or real-time character aging. That has nothing to do with "didn't think it will last". And in any case, Stan Lee on multiple occasions said that he's fine with Peter as a grown man and an adult. Stan Lee himself wrote Peter a few times after he finished his run with Romita Sr., but either in the newspaper strip or elsewhere, he never once wrote a high school version of Peter ever again.

Point being, he also didn't age him. Lee wrote the newspaper strip for many, many years but never aged Peter past that mid-20s range.

If Marvel wanted Peter to become a teenager again, they would make it happen somehow. No one wants that, though. It's unnecessary.

All they want to do is simply not let him grow old. Or even middle aged. Twenties is fine. Past that, no deal.

[Lee]

People talk about characters ageing in 1960s Marvel comics, but how much of that was on the page?

Peter Parker was aged up once during Stan Lee's run, when he graduated high school and started college.

How much time passed between Amazing Fantasy #15 and Amazing Spider-Man #28?

How much time passed between Amazing Spider-Man #31 and #100?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Point being, he also didn't age him. Lee wrote the newspaper strip for many, many years but never aged Peter past that mid-20s range.

That's not exactly the issue, though. The issue is, if Spider-Man is about youth, and how much of that can be gleaned by Stan Lee's actions. Stan Lee never believed that Spider-Man was simply about youth, is my point.

The issue is merely if Spider-Man should age at all, if even the little he aged should be discounted. Everything else (how much Peter should grow, what changes and milestones he can hit) and all that is secondary.

And in the newspaper strip, Peter is certainly older than his 616 self. No hard numbers were given of course but he definitely seemed like late 20s and early 30s.

[Lee]

And in the newspaper strip, Peter is certainly older than his 616 self. No hard numbers were given of course but he definitely seemed like late 20s and early 30s.

If there's no hard evidence, then it's not a certainty.

It gets back to the idea that a happily married and settled down 25 year old is going to read as "older" than a single 25 year old living in a crappy apartment and going to college.