Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 178
  1. #16
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    What exactly is no longer acceptable?
    Mileage would vary on that, of course, but I think if Marvel was telling stories about a fortysomething Peter Parker who still couldn't get his act together, that would just not be a good look for the character.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Peter in the classic era struggled to balance being a superhero and being a working-class guy at the same time without the resources of Bruce Wayne, or Clark Kent's Kansas and Antarctic getaways which facilitated those balances and prevented the double-life from being an actual issue in the story.

    There's nothing to suggest that anyone else in Peter's given situation would handle his situation better than he does. Ergo he isn't a screwup.

    Being a screw-up, which Peter wasn't, not in the Ditko era anyway has nothing to do with that.
    No, he is a screw-up, just in a way that is very relatable. Readers understand that they likely would make many of the same mistakes if they were in Peter's shoes.

    Being a screw-up doesn't make Peter a bad guy. It makes him human. But at a certain point, if he becomes too old to keep giving him passes, then you're telling a different kind of story with a different kind of character.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    It's sadder when you do endless stories of him being and remaining juvenile as he has been in BND and for most of Slott's run.
    It's an overblown misreading of Slott's run to perceive it as making Peter juvenile.

    But point being, no matter who's writing him, Peter is always going to be making mistakes. He's never going to "grow up" in the way that same readers might want him to.

  2. #17
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    Again, a co-plotting credit doesn't tell the whole story. It just doesn't.
    Well, what story does it tell? The story that it tells is that Ditko got a major concession, that Ditko's contribution to the plotting of Spider-Man was of such a nature that Lee (and the publisher, and Lee's Uncle, Martin Goodman) had to give him something. That story is significant because nobody else at Marvel, not even Kirby, got that.

    As for taking Brevoort's word even though he never worked with Ditko - I would simply say that there's as much credence to whatever he's heard as an industry professional, whether it be second hand gossip or not, than there is to most other rumors that are attached to the early days of Marvel.
    Why? You don't automatically change as a person the minute you get hired by Marvel or accept any position in any company. If you operated on wrong assumptions and never took time to re-examine them or take a second look at them, getting a job isn't going to change that. The wrong assumptions you continue to make late into your career do not become more correct the longer you occupy a post. Candidate Trump didn't automatically have his viewpoints validated when he became President Trump.

    Ok. We all know that Stan and Steve regularly butted heads on ASM. That doesn't mean that every single dispute that they had is documented in interviews. If anything, it's very likely that what we know is only the tip of the iceberg.
    The fact is that given Ditko consistently spoke about a lot of issues in his collaboration with Stan Lee, if he had issues with Peter going to college or that if Peter graduating was an idea he opposed or fought against, he would have said as much. It's simply too big of an event or story for him to have had an issue over and remain silent about, especially given that he has discussed his real issues fairly consistently.

    Except that your refutation of his facts with your facts can be equally refuted. See how that works?
    I agree. So please refute away. So far your attempt seems to be conducting some amount of character assassination on Ditko, and claiming that he's not a valid source. I invite you to offer genuine proof and evidence as to why Ditko is unreliable, aside from you having personal doubts and claiming that the origins of Marvel are 'murky'. I invite you to provide a genuine claim of evidence that Ditko has been contradictory or inconsistent on this front.

    When it comes to the early days of Marvel - and with most creative endeavors in general - the "truth" is often a murky proposition.
    If I were to grant that, then it would still be fair to take Brevoort to task for putting words in Ditko's mouth to justify his agenda. If there is a legitimate dispute and disagreement about Ditko's opinion on a story change, then the right thing is to qualify that and simply assert their point of view without making any claims to objectivity.

    When Brevoort said that Ditko said this and Ditko fought hard for this...he's making a definite truth claim. He's not saying "I believe" or any such thing. He's making a truth claim. By your own standards, Brevoort should have qualified this and words to the extent of, "There's this debate whether Ditko was for or against Peter going to college. I tend to believe, or I want to believe, he was against that".

    As I said in a post above, it's easier to forgive the mistakes of a young man. Once you get older and keep making mistakes, or worse, the same mistakes - you're just an idiot.
    Okay what mistakes does Peter keep making that is unforgivable if he's older?


    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    But at a certain point, if he becomes too old to keep giving him passes, then you're telling a different kind of story with a different kind of character.
    Alright, answer this question. If Bruce Wayne were born poor and raised by Aunt May and Uncle Ben, and had the same personal history that Peter did, and then got bitten by a spider...would he live Peter's life differently and be better?

    It's a thought experiment. Not a simple question. The simpler one is how much is Peter's perception of being a screwup tied to him coming from a poor background (which is the core of Ditko's character - a self-made working-class hero) and how much is that tied to him being young.

    But point being, no matter who's writing him, Peter is always going to be making mistakes.
    "making mistakes" and tying that to youth is a vague phrase with nothing to ground it in. You have to be specific as to what mistakes Peter makes that is tied to youth, and not tied to him being born poor.

    And in the context of the Marvel universe, if Tony Stark who made weapons till he turned 40 and then became a superhero and still did stupid stuff after that is forgivable and heroic...then I don't get this weird (and made-up) moral argument that somehow Peter would not be forgivable if he was older. Does being rich somehow make it easier for you to forgive their mistakes? Because again, the current POTUS is rich and people don't forgive his mistakes.
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 04-02-2020 at 05:14 PM.

  3. #18
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Well, what story does it tell?
    Not the whole one?

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    The story that it tells is that Ditko got a major concession, that Ditko's contribution to the plotting of Spider-Man was of such a nature that Lee (and the publisher, and Lee's Uncle, Martin Goodman) had to give him something. That story is significant because nobody else at Marvel, not even Kirby, got that.
    Again, Ditko having a co-plotting credit says absolutely nothing about what came from Steve and what came from Stan in each issue, what discussions they had, who had greater say over the direction of the book and what specific battles were fought.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Why? You don't automatically change as a person the minute you get hired by Marvel or accept any position in any company. If you operated on wrong assumptions and never took time to re-examine them or take a second look at them, getting a job isn't going to change that. The wrong assumptions you continue to make late into your career do not become more correct the longer you occupy a post. Candidate Trump didn't automatically have his viewpoints validated when he became President Trump.
    Well, working in an industry as long as Brevoort has, I'm inclined to believe that he's been privy to more inside info than the average fan.

    If you work in any industry long enough, you automatically know more about it than people on the outside.

    And why are his assumptions wrong? Because they don't agree with yours?

    You see how the arrogance of that puts you in the wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    The fact is that given Ditko consistently spoke about a lot of issues in his collaboration with Stan Lee, if he had issues with Peter going to college or that if Peter graduating was an idea he opposed or fought against, he would have said as much. It's simply too big of an event or story for him to have had an issue over and remain silent about, especially given that he has discussed his real issues fairly consistently.
    I'm sure there's a lot Ditko didn't say about his time on Spider-Man. This is someone who was largely content to let the work speak for itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    I agree. So please refute away. So far your attempt seems to be conducting some amount of character assassination on Ditko, and claiming that he's not a valid source.
    No character assassination. I would just not automatically take statements he made in his final years as 100% accurate.

    It's not disparaging towards Ditko personally. I just find that recollections that date back fifty years or more are not always spot on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    I invite you to offer genuine proof and evidence as to why Ditko is unreliable, aside from you having personal doubts and claiming that the origins of Marvel are 'murky'. I invite you to provide a genuine claim of evidence that Ditko has been contradictory or inconsistent on this front.
    I have none, nor do I care to seek one out. This is not a court of law. I'm not trying to prove a case in front of a judge.

    As someone who has read many, many interviews on comic book history I find that accounts from various players frequently tend to differ and sometimes outright contradict each other. So when I say the truth is murky, I mean that not everyone can agree on what the truth is. Doesn't mean that people are lying, it means that people often remember things differently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    If I were to grant that, then it would still be fair to take Brevoort to task for putting words in Ditko's mouth to justify his agenda. If there is a legitimate dispute and disagreement about Ditko's opinion on a story change, then the right thing is to qualify that and simply assert their point of view without making any claims to objectivity.
    I guess the counter to that would be "whatever, man."

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    When Brevoort said that Ditko said this and Ditko fought hard for this...he's making a definite truth claim. He's not saying "I believe" or any such thing. He's making a truth claim. By your own standards, Brevoort should have qualified this and words to the extent of, "There's this debate whether Ditko was for or against Peter going to college. I tend to believe, or I want to believe, he was against that".
    This will probably be news to you but a lot of fans and pros just like comics and have many opinions concerning them and feel like they can have casual, loose - even fun! - conversations with other fans and pros about comics and, whether they agree or disagree, not feel like every word has to be treated like a loaded gun.

    Brevoort clearly feels like he knows what he's talking about when he discusses Ditko. Maybe he has good reason to. But he shouldn't have to cite specific interviews and call in witnesses to back up every thing he says. Feel free to not believe him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Okay what mistakes does Peter keep making that is unforgivable if he's older?
    Whatever mistakes he's been making. When he trips in his career or love life or school. And it's not so much that these mistakes become "unforgivable" but they become less ok. As I said earlier, the mistakes of a thirty or fortysomething man as opposed to one in his teens or twenties is a whole different book.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Alright, answer this question. If Bruce Wayne were born poor and raised by Aunt May and Uncle Ben, and had the same personal history that Peter did, and then got bitten by a spider...would he live Peter's life differently and be better?
    He'd be different, for sure. And probably not as funny.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    It's a thought experiment. Not a simple question. The simpler one is how much is Peter's perception of being a screwup tied to him coming from a poor background (which is the core of Ditko's character - a self-made working-class hero) and how much is that tied to him being young.
    It's about him being young. I can't think of any actual mistakes he's made as a result of being poor.

    He's faced more difficulties as a result of being perpetually strapped for cash but those don't rate as mistakes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    "making mistakes" and tying that to youth is a vague phrase with nothing to ground it in. You have to be specific as to what mistakes Peter makes that is tied to youth, and not tied to him being born poor.
    If Peter bungles a job or mishandles a personal situation like a date or a roommate conflict or something with Aunt May, it has nothing to do with his financial situation.

    Surely you've heard that young people frequently make mistakes and learn from them, right?

    People don't just say that only poor people make mistakes and rich people don't. They say that kids screw up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    And in the context of the Marvel universe, if Tony Stark who made weapons till he turned 40 and then became a superhero and still did stupid stuff after that is forgivable and heroic...then I don't get this weird (and made-up) moral argument that somehow Peter would not be forgivable if he was older. Does being rich somehow make it easier for you to forgive their mistakes? Because again, the current POTUS is rich and people don't forgive his mistakes.
    Generally, Tony is shown as someone who is on top of things. Peter is not.

    Every character has to make some amount of mistakes in order to supply drama but it's not as intrinsic to others as it is to Peter.

  4. #19
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    If you work in any industry long enough, you automatically know more about it than people on the outside.
    You would know more about the making and publication of comics you were directly involved in certainly, but as far as stuff from before your time is concerned, probably not. In fact, like most fans turned comics insiders who came of age in a pre-internet era, and especially for someone who started as a collector filling gaps methodically by tracing back issues (as Brevoort discusses in Part 1) they would be far more handicapped and far more susceptible to rumor than people who start now and have the internet and its wonderful resources at hand. Rumor-mongering and tall tales often colored the memories and impressions of fans of that time after all...where the time they spent tracking an issue and the legends they hear of it, fills the gaps of what they missed out on, and which still inform the recollections far more than the issues they read upon tracking it down. Like for instance Marv Wolfman often claimed that his run was restoring Peter to his roots and he explored Peter and Betty having an adulterous romance as a way to return to what he saw as Peter's first and true love. He based that on his impressions reading a part of the original Spider-Man run, and ignorant of the fact that Ditko didn't like Betty and campaigned to kill her off.

    Wolfman acted on a set of assumptions, on partial impressions, and he made a gamble that didn't pay off...which proves the danger of thinking "I am true to the creator's intentions so that justifies anything and everything I do" at any rate.

    I'm sure there's a lot Ditko didn't say about his time on Spider-Man. This is someone who was largely content to let the work speak for itself.
    You are absolutely correct that Ditko preferred to let the work speak for itself but Brevoort isn't content to respect that, he is putting words into Ditko's mouth. He's actively insisting that Spider-Man is about youth is the only conclusion you can take from his work.If Ditko's work is allowed to speak for itself, you can go back to his original run and point out that most of the issues doesn't deal with, nor is set very often in high school. Most of Ditko's run deals with Peter working for Jonah at the Daily Bugle. His first relationship is an office romance with Betty. Lee-Ditko Peter dislikes high school in fact, and is happy to graduate.

    SO the engine of Spider-Man originally was that he was a character who grew and changed. The fact is you can back to Lee-Ditko's run and find a lot of original stuff and a lot of things that aren't tied down or set in stone, and a lot of stuff that retain freshness. Claiming as Brevoort does that the only takeaway is "Spider-Man is about youth" actively restricts and constricts that.

    This will probably be news to you but a lot of fans and pros just likoe comics and have many opinions concerning them and feel like they can have casual, loose - even fun! - conversations with other fans and pros about comics and, whether they agree or disagree, not feel like every word has to be treated like a loaded gun.
    Brevoort in that interview is repeating and rephrasing stuff from his manifesto published more than a decade ago and as he said in that interview that manifesto was something that set the tone for and guided the approach of the BND team to write Spider-Man, all of whom as Brevoort claims in this interview were picked and put together by him (and so would obviously feel some amount of indebtedness to stick with his version and take).

    So this isn't a casual conversation at all, it's about how one guy's idea of the character and its impact on comics, and his attempt to justify that, essentially his legacy as far as Spider-Man is concerned. So it's more than fair to contest that, especially if you think, as I do, that his legacy as far as Spider-Man is concerned, has been negative.

    If Peter bungles a job or mishandles a personal situation like a date or a roommate conflict or something with Aunt May, it has nothing to do with his financial situation.
    It has to do with him being in a poor financial situation while also being a superhero who goes out and saves lives regularly.

    Batman and Superman and Iron Man aren't in a comparable situation.

    Generally, Tony is shown as someone who is on top of things. Peter is not.
    But again this is basically masking an assumption of class underneath an assumption of youth. The fact is Tony can only be "shown as someone on top of things" because he's rich and so he's created for himself a big safety net whereas Peter has to operate without one.
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 04-02-2020 at 07:54 PM.

  5. #20
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,924

    Default

    Listening to the first part.

    They do spend a lot of time talking about collecting, and reminiscences of finding old comics, which makes sense since the website started with a guy talking about his process in collecting every issue of Amazing Spider-Man.

    29 minutes in, the main parts about Spider-Man are a point that Giant-Sized Spider-Man #1 was more of an adjunct for Marvel Team Up than a true Amazing Spider-Man issue and a story of how he and a friend both wanted a comic store's issue of Amazing Spider-Man #25.

    * Edit. About 29 minutes, 30 seconds in, they shift to a topic about Brevoort's current job, asking about how COVID-19 may be reflected in the stories and what Marvel may do as part of relief efforts for local stores.

    38 minutes in, they're asking about the 9/11 issue. 41 minutes in, he promotes JMS' autobiography Becoming Superman. He has a good point on how difficult it must have been for John Romita Jr to spend the time drawing a tragedy in the city he's lived in all his life.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  6. #21
    Incredible Member Spidey_62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    884

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post



    It's an overblown misreading of Slott's run to perceive it as making Peter juvenile.

    But point being, no matter who's writing him, Peter is always going to be making mistakes. He's never going to "grow up" in the way that same readers might want him to.
    I think one of the main ideas of Slott's run was evolving Peter, pretty clearly so since there was a real steady scientist job for the first time, more Spidey gadgets and suits than ever before, becoming a member of the FF full time, Avengers member full time, Otto taking over his life and trying to actually improve over what Peter accomplished, the illegitimate doctorate from Doc Ock, Parker Industries and global hero Spidey, to back to basics Spidey (but a higher position at the Bugle). A problem with Slott's run for me as it went on was I started to become more annoyed with his Peter Parker voice, to me it started to become more juvenile sounding than he usually sounded before as an adult. I guess that's part of holding the youth, but still didn't always work for me. Currently Nick Spencer's voice for Peter has been feeling more balanced for the whole run so far.

  7. #22
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    You would know more about the making and publication of comics you were directly involved in certainly, but as far as stuff from before your time is concerned, probably not. In fact, like most fans turned comics insiders who came of age in a pre-internet era, and especially for someone who started as a collector filling gaps methodically by tracing back issues (as Brevoort discusses in Part 1) they would be far more handicapped and far more susceptible to rumor than people who start now and have the internet and its wonderful resources at hand. Rumor-mongering and tall tales often colored the memories and impressions of fans of that time after all...where the time they spent tracking an issue and the legends they hear of it, fills the gaps of what they missed out on, and which still inform the recollections far more than the issues they read upon tracking it down.
    At the end of the day, the facts of the nuts and bolts of how comics are made matter less than how the stories themselves impact the readers.

    Any fan or pro's impressions of the actual comics, their emotional reactions to them and their sometimes faulty memories of them are ultimately more important than their specific knowledge of how those books came to be and who did what on them.

    Aside from that, how insulting is it of you to assume that Brevoort is incapable of knowing anything better than you. That somehow, you are an infallible researcher, led only by the most diligent attention to detail while Brevoort is some hapless schmuck who never bothered to double check a single fact once he became a comics pro.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Like for instance Marv Wolfman often claimed that his run was restoring Peter to his roots and he explored Peter and Betty having an adulterous romance as a way to return to what he saw as Peter's first and true love. He based that on his impressions reading a part of the original Spider-Man run, and ignorant of the fact that Ditko didn't like Betty and campaigned to kill her off.
    Ditko's feelings towards Betty are irrelevant. What matters is what made it into the books. That's what Wolfman was reacting to and, from that standpoint, Betty was absolutely Peter's first love interest. Many readers have fond memories of Betty because of how she was handled during the Lee/Ditko era. Any animosity Ditko may have held towards the character didn't affect how the character and her relationship with Peter impacted readers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Wolfman acted on a set of assumptions, on partial impressions, and he made a gamble that didn't pay off...which proves the danger of thinking "I am true to the creator's intentions so that justifies anything and everything I do" at any rate.
    Every writer makes choices. I'm very sure that Wolfman's attitude was not even close to that of "I am true to the creator's intentions so that justifies anything and everything I do." More like he wanted to recapture the feeling the book had for him when he was initially a reader. He didn't have a great run but some of it was quite good. Whatever ups or downs he had were nothing to do with how much or little he knew of Ditko's intentions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    You are absolutely correct that Ditko preferred to let the work speak for itself but Brevoort isn't content to respect that, he is putting words into Ditko's mouth. He's actively insisting that Spider-Man is about youth is the only conclusion you can take from his work.If Ditko's work is allowed to speak for itself, you can go back to his original run and point out that most of the issues doesn't deal with, nor is set very often in high school. Most of Ditko's run deals with Peter working for Jonah at the Daily Bugle. His first relationship is an office romance with Betty. Lee-Ditko Peter dislikes high school in fact, and is happy to graduate.
    Now you're putting words into Brevoort's mouth. He doesn't say that youth being key to Spider-Man is the only conclusion that you can take from Ditko.

    He certainly believes it's an important aspect but is it the only thing you can take from Ditko? I doubt if he would fully agree with that. You're overstating just for the sake of making a stronger disagreement.

    And Ditko's run does crucially involve aspects of youth - Peter's first job, Peter's first love. These are key elements of a young person's development. And of course he hates high school - what teenager doesn't?

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    SO the engine of Spider-Man originally was that he was a character who grew and changed. The fact is you can back to Lee-Ditko's run and find a lot of original stuff and a lot of things that aren't tied down or set in stone, and a lot of stuff that retain freshness. Claiming as Brevoort does that the only takeaway is "Spider-Man is about youth" actively restricts and constricts that.
    No, it doesn't. The engine that makes Spider-Man works is that, because of his youth, his experiences and missteps are more relatable to the reader.

    That, as we've seen, can be the source of endless amounts of stories. It doesn't mean everything in Peter's world is set in stone. It just means that that core aspect shouldn't be removed. He can change jobs, have different love interests, get new roommates, etc., but through all of that he himself has to maintain a youthful quality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Brevoort in that interview is repeating and rephrasing stuff from his manifesto published more than a decade ago and as he said in that interview that manifesto was something that set the tone for and guided the approach of the BND team to write Spider-Man, all of whom as Brevoort claims in this interview were picked and put together by him (and so would obviously feel some amount of indebtedness to stick with his version and take).

    So this isn't a casual conversation at all, it's about how one guy's idea of the character and its impact on comics, and his attempt to justify that, essentially his legacy as far as Spider-Man is concerned. So it's more than fair to contest that, especially if you think, as I do, that his legacy as far as Spider-Man is concerned, has been negative.
    Well, everybody had their detractors. But this is a casual conversation. He's on a Spider-Man podcast, something that is only listened to by a small subset of an already small subset of particular fans. He's talking about his thoughts on the characters because, well, he's had a hand in where the character's gone. By his own admission, not a very large hand. He doesn't have to justify anything, nor does he seem to be trying to. You're free to dislike or disagree with his take on the character.

    That's kind of the end of it. I don't have to agree with his every thought on the character to be interested in hearing his take on him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    It has to do with him being in a poor financial situation while also being a superhero who goes out and saves lives regularly.

    Batman and Superman and Iron Man aren't in a comparable situation.
    Batman and Superman and Iron Man are very different characters who hold a very different appeal than Peter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    But again this is basically masking an assumption of class underneath an assumption of youth. The fact is Tony can only be "shown as someone on top of things" because he's rich and so he's created for himself a big safety net whereas Peter has to operate without one.
    It's not about money. Why you want to turn this into some dissertation on class, I don't know. No one - certainly no reader - looks down on Peter because he's so often broke or struggling. Tony is shown to be on top of things because he runs a global empire. He's a bit further along in life than Peter living at his Aunt's house or working as a part time photographer. Peter is someone starting out in life, making his own way and figuring things out. That's what readers like about him. Whereas fans of Tony tend to like the fact that he's the epitome of cool, kind of James Bond and Q wrapped up into one. They're two very different characters.

  8. #23
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    At the end of the day, the facts of the nuts and bolts of how comics are made matter less than how the stories themselves impact the readers.
    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.

    Aside from that, how insulting is it of you to assume that Brevoort is incapable of knowing anything better than you.
    No more than you assuming that Ditko around 2002-03 was senile just because he was old, which is actually an ageist statement.

    I'm very sure that Wolfman's attitude was not even close to that of "I am true to the creator's intentions so that justifies anything and everything I do."
    He actually did say that was his attitude. Read any interview where he talks about his run on Spider-Man. He keeps saying that how writers before him went astray with the character and that he brought the character to the roots.

    Batman and Superman and Iron Man are very different characters who hold a very different appeal than Peter.
    What makes them different is that Peter Parker operates without the safety net that they and other solo heroes do. So everything that Peter does has higher stakes, and consequently when Peter marches forth, he's more heroic than all of them.

    It's not about money. Why you want to turn this into some dissertation on class, I don't know.
    Because that's what it comes down to, at least from the way I see things.

    No one - certainly no reader - looks down on Peter because he's so often broke or struggling. Tony is shown to be on top of things because he runs a global empire.
    So if you don't run a global empire you cannot be on "top of things"?

    He's a bit further along in life than Peter living at his Aunt's house or working as a part time photographer.
    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.

  9. #24
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,339

    Default

    Peter being a screw-up is really only the perception of characters in the story that aren't aware of his dual identity. As a reader, we aren't supposed to think of Peter as a screw-up because all of his supposed "mistakes" (ie: missing work or a date) are really just part of the sacrifices that he makes to be a hero. Like he misses an important job interview because he instead chose to save a bunch of people from a burning building (not because he went out drinking the night before with his buddies like a normal teenager or twenty-something might do.) That would be admirable regardless of his age.

  10. #25
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    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.
    Spider-Man wise, sure. And I'm sure he completely stands by his thoughts on Spider-Man. Certainly BND was a success, even though he attributes the lion's share of what BND was to Wacker.

    But aside from OMD, which is really the only story in Spider-Man's history where the nuts and bolts of its creation are key to understanding it and more interesting than the actual story itself (save perhaps for the anti-drug trilogy), what ultimately matters is the story.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    No more than you assuming that Ditko around 2002-03 was senile just because he was old, which is actually an ageist statement.
    No, actually it is different. I think it's fair to question the fifty year plus recollections of anybody. Especially as, even when it comes to more recent events, when it comes to recounting the hows and whys of comic book creation, we frequently see conflicting testimonies in which each interviewee is certain of the veracity of their claims and yet clearly someone is remembering things wrong.

    That's a bit different than thinking a working comic professional of 20 years doesn't have the same rigorous intellect as you and is lost in a morass of rumor, too lazy and stupid to discern fact from fiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    He actually did say that was his attitude. Read any interview where he talks about his run on Spider-Man. He keeps saying that how writers before him went astray with the character and that he brought the character to the roots.
    His perception of the roots of the character are founded in his memories of reading the book. So it's what's on the page that influenced his thinking and his run.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    What makes them different is that Peter Parker operates without the safety net that they and other solo heroes do. So everything that Peter does has higher stakes, and consequently when Peter marches forth, he's more heroic than all of them.
    Yes. That would be the obvious fact that everyone knows.

    Peter's triumphs feel more heroic because he is a common man who has to struggle across every aspect of his life.

    No one every feels that bad for Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark. At the end of the day, they can just kick back in their mansions and play with their toys.

    It's fun to fantasize about being those guys with their lifestyles but people are more deeply attached to Peter because they see themselves in him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Because that's what it comes down to, at least from the way I see things.
    Clearly you're looking at this through a highly distorted lens. No one is bringing up issues of class and wealth except you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    So if you don't run a global empire you cannot be on "top of things"?
    No, but if you are it's fairly certain you aren't fumbling your way through life. At least not in the same way as someone struggling to make ends meet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    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.
    No, it isn't. The vast majority of people never become rich.

    However, many of them do decide on a career path eventually and find some stability in their life by the time they're in their 30s.

    It's not about becoming wealthy. It's about figuring out what you want to do with your life, about having goals and achieving them.

    For a lot of people, they're still working through all that in their 20s. So it's ok for Peter to be in that boat. Past that it becomes less ok.

    Everybody knows people who never quite pull it together and spend their whole lives bouncing from job to job while the people around them gradually figure their sh*t out as they get older. We can assume that, in time, things will work out ok for Peter but at the age that we follow him it's fine that they haven't yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    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.
    Yes, Tony had it very easy in many ways. Which is why most people identify with Peter as a person more. His struggles are more relatable.

    Tony's wealth and privilege don't make him a better person. They simply make him a different type of character than Peter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    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.
    There was no contempt or dislike of poor people in Slott's run, nor in the MCU.
    Last edited by Prof. Warren; 04-03-2020 at 07:52 AM.

  11. #26
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider-Tiger View Post
    Peter being a screw-up is really only the perception of characters in the story that aren't aware of his dual identity. As a reader, we aren't supposed to think of Peter as a screw-up because all of his supposed "mistakes" (ie: missing work or a date) are really just part of the sacrifices that he makes to be a hero. Like he misses an important job interview because he instead chose to save a bunch of people from a burning building (not because he went out drinking the night before with his buddies like a normal teenager or twenty-something might do.) That would be admirable regardless of his age.
    We understand why he screws up, and why he often fails one side of his life because he's living up to his responsibilities of the other.

    When he goofs up, it's usually always for a good reason. But yet the end result is that he falls down a rung in some way.

  12. #27
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    Peter's triumphs feel more heroic because he is a common man who has to struggle across every aspect of his life.
    Great that we agree on this. Especially the 'common man' part and not 'common youth', or 'common teenager', or 'common boy'.


    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    We understand why he screws up, and why he often fails one side of his life because he's living up to his responsibilities of the other.

    When he goofs up, it's usually always for a good reason. But yet the end result is that he falls down a rung in some way.
    You are conflating two very different and very separate things.

    - Peter's difficulty in maintaining a double life. Which is an actual legit problem owing to his circumstances.
    - Peter's competence in either of those lives.

    You are making Peter's struggles between his duties and wider responsibilities which was intended by Ditko-Lee, in AF#15 and after that as a statement about how hard it is to be good, and how little real goodness is rewarded into making a general claim that Peter suffers because he's incompetent and incapable.

    This is something Slott also did by the way, he kept claiming multiple times that Peter Parker was self-destructive both in interviews and in the comics, and what it amounts to is saying that "poor people who risk their lives selflessly are self-destructive".

  13. #28
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    You are making Peter's struggles between his duties and wider responsibilities which was intended by Ditko-Lee, in AF#15 and after that as a statement about how hard it is to be good, and how little real goodness is rewarded into making a general claim that Peter suffers because he's incompetent and incapable.
    No, not at all. He's fallible. Being fallible and making hard choices or sometimes the wrong choices does not make someone incompetent and incapable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    This is something Slott also did by the way, he kept claiming multiple times that Peter Parker was self-destructive both in interviews and in the comics, and what it amounts to is saying that "poor people who risk their lives selflessly are self-destructive".
    No, it's not saying that at all. You're conflating Slott's statement into something else entirely.

  14. #29
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    No, not at all. He's fallible. Being fallible and making hard choices or sometimes the wrong choices does not make someone incompetent and incapable.
    You are saying that Peter's struggles wouldn't be forgivable if he was older. In other words, his mistakes are down to youth and inexperience...ergo competence and capability.

    I agree with you that making hard choices or sometimes the wrong choices does not make someone incompetence and incapable. My point is that situation is universal and not tied to Peter being young or teenage.

    No, it's not saying that at all. You're conflating Slott's statement into something else entirely.
    Do you agree with Slott then that Peter is self-destructive? Because he actually has said that.


    INTERVIEWER:And then you have fans complaining that you don't "know" Spider-Man.

    SLOTT: Despite the fact that I've written one out of every five issues of Amazing Spider-Man, which is kind of scary. But, to me, the fun of it is, at his basic core, even if you strip away "with great power must come great responsibility," what makes Peter Parker this character that resonates with all of us is that he's really the first character who's you. He's the guy you know. He's not a wealthy billionaire playboy, he's not an alien from another planet, he's not a god from a pantheon. He's the guy down the block who trips and falls, who screws up in every way that you screw up. All the self-destructive traits that you have, and your friends have, he has.

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/he...-parker-937669
    Unpacking this quote, Slott's statement operates on multiple false assumptions
    -- Slott basically says that if you are "a wealthy billionaire playboy...an alien from another planet, a god from a pantheon" then you don't have self-destructive traits.
    -- Peter Parker being "you" doesn't mean coming from everyday common background, from the working-class world, it means Peter is "the guy down the block who trips and falls". I.e. coming from a poor background makes you self-destructive.

    And I don't have too many friends who risk their lives to save other people...if I did, I damn sure wouldn't call them self-destructive.
    Last edited by Revolutionary_Jack; 04-03-2020 at 09:03 AM.

  15. #30
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    You are saying that Peter's struggles wouldn't be forgivable if he was older. In other words, his mistakes are down to youth and inexperience...ergo competence and capability.
    People tend to become more competent and learn to make wiser choices as they get older.

    It doesn't mean that they were incompetent or incapable people when they were younger, only that they needed experiences to learn from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    I agree with you that making hard choices or sometimes the wrong choices does not make someone incompetence and incapable. My point is that situation is universal and not tied to Peter being young or teenage.
    Telling stories about a guy struggling as a teen or twentysomething is different than telling stories about a guy struggling when he's in his 30s or 40s.

    There's something romantic and exciting about that time in your youth when things haven't quite fallen into place yet.

    It isn't so romantic when you're older. It's a lot sadder and scarier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Do you agree with Slott then that Peter is self-destructive? Because he actually has said that.
    I would agree to the point that most costumed vigilantes have a slightly self-destructive streak.

    Especially ones like Peter or Matt Murdock who really put every part of their lives in peril on a regular basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Unpacking this quote, Slott's statement operates on multiple false assumptions
    -- Slott basically says that if you are "a wealthy billionaire playboy...an alien from another planet, a god from a pantheon" then you don't have self-destructive traits.
    -- Peter Parker being "you" doesn't mean coming from everyday common background, from the working-class world, it means Peter is "the guy down the block who trips and falls". I.e. coming from a poor background makes you self-destructive.
    No, that's not what he's saying. You're so eager to jump on Slott that you're making his statements into something else entirely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    And I don't have too many friends who risk their lives to save other people...if I did, I damn sure wouldn't call them self-destructive.
    Saying Peter has self-destructive aspects is not an insult. Slott is not saying that Peter is wrong or a horrible person.

    He's saying that Peter's sense of responsibility and his concern for others is so great that he is willing to continually put himself in harm's way in order to do good.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •