Spidertalk podcast interview with Tom Brevoort

[Revolutionary_Jack]

...

To reiterate:

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.

[Mister Mets]

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.

You suggested it was a Freudian slip to refer to him as middle-class when working class is widely seen as a subset of middle-class.

There is a complex question of how a working class (parents didn't go to college) background in 1962 translates in the modern era, where more people have gone to college, and where job prospects are worse for people who went to college. But that's a different argument.

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.

This is getting further from anything Brevoort said. The pre-clone saga sales occurred during the speculator bubble. Sales under JMS started declining when the book wasn't tied to major events, and it also marked a time when the satellites got much less attention.

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.

Within seven years, Marvel had the clone saga, the first effort to get rid of the marriage.

Ten years after the marriage was a relatively meh period, so I doubt most people were thinking that everything should stay the same as it was.

https://www.comichron.com/monthlycom...7/1997-10.html

The focus on crowds is a little bit misleading. Fans aren't really thinking about the long-term, about whether something can work decades from now. That's the job of the professionals.

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.



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

The colloquial definitions of self-sabotage can include procrastination, trouble stating your needs, negative self-talk and any behavior that holds you back from reaching your goals, as well as more extreme forms like drug dependency.

I'm noticing a tendency to pick on one word as very revealing, and then insist that it comes imbued with all sorts of baggage. In message board conversations, twitter or interviews, people aren't always able going to be at their most articulate. This isn't the equivalent of analyzing sworn deposition. And that's before we consider more generous interpretations of things that are a little bit ambiguous.

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

By hobby, I just mean it's not part of his professional life or his home life.

Some hobbies have been quite useful, although we can also substitute another word like "calling" to avoid the implications of something just being a hobby.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Within seven years, Marvel had the clone saga, the first effort to get rid of the marriage.

Which only means that editorial were for more tolerant and encouraging of people with different views than they are now. EIC Tom Defalco for instance absolutely wanted the marriage to continue, and disagreed with the Clone Saga, but since Marvel writers liked the idea, he reluctantly agreed, albeit with a backdoor, to undo it. Clonistas were allowed to make their case for the single, hip, Peter. They didn't make a good case, but Defalco allowed them a chance to make it. Whereas now it doesn't matter what anyone says on the matter.

Now we have a more restrictive editorial in place meant to enforce the lasting legacy of the worst comics storyline in the last twenty years.

And the clone saga does not in any way validate any attempt to remove the marriage. It's kind of bizarre that people are pretending that it is.

Ten years after the marriage was a relatively meh period, so I doubt most people were thinking that everything should stay the same as it was.

So it's okay, ten years after the marriage for fans to call for its removal, but it's not okay to do that after OMD, is that what you are saying?

By hobby, I just mean it's not part of his professional life or his home life.

Technically Albert Einstein was doing a hobby when he wrote the papers of the annus mirabilis. He had a day job working in a patent office in a dead-end bureaucratic gig that had nothing to do with his field.

Are you going to call physics Einstein's hobby?

Or you know any struggling poet/novelist who works small gigs or corporate level jobs to support themselves?

And in any case, it's dubious to say being a superhero is not part of Peter's home life. A good part of that home life is dedicated to repairing suits, making web-fluid and so on.

[Rincewind]

Which only means that editorial were for more tolerant and encouraging of people with different views than they are now.

Really, that is the only thing it could mean? Are you sure? Have you given it any extra thought at all?

Unless you have talked in depth with the editorial and creative team during that time, you can't say that. This is another example of you presenting your own opinions and preferences as fact.

From the Life of Reilly: http://lifeofreillyarchives.blogspot.com/2008/

From Mark Bernardo, an assistant editor of the Spider-Man titles during the Clone Saga Mark:

The whole idea was almost instantly shot down the next day by Tom DeFalco, then Editor in Chief, until he too started getting excited about it from a writer's standpoint. That's how Tom ended up writing SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN, and Tom is also the man who sealed the deal on the Clone Saga. The whole storyline was planned to end in AMAZING #400. As we all know, it didn't quite work out that way.

The whole arc was supposed to end in AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #400, and leave "Ben Reilly" as the one and only "original Peter Parker" and forge a new beginning. Ironically, the whole storyline, which was supposed to simplify Spider-Man's mythos and ultimately bring him "back to basics" ended up complicating everything beyond what anyone imagined!

These are the words of someone who, to quote Hamilton, was in the room where it happened. He is very clear that the objective of the story was to get to the point with a single Spider-Man.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Unless you have talked in depth with the editorial and creative team during that time, you can't say that.

Tom Defalco said that he saw the proposal of the clone saga as a temporary gimmick, and one that would be undone by the end.

He did think the idea was quite bad in and of itself, but he was a hands-off editor by and large, so he stifled his first (and correct) instinct. And of course once he agreed he decided to give it the old college try.

As for Glenn Greenberg and his Life of Reilly.

"I do believe that the memories of the original writers are all over the place. It’s the Rashomon Effect… if you asked any one, two or three of the original writers to tell you what was supposed to happen in the Clone story.... You would have an ongoing "The Clone Saga" series."
HOWARD MACKIE

https://www.newsarama.com/48385-spid...-turns-25.html

Defalco has been consistent more than most. And the "Life of Reilly" blog is again too full of holes to entirely buy and accept as it is.

[Rincewind]

Tom Defalco said that he saw the proposal of the clone saga as a temporary gimmick, and one that would be undone by the end.

He did think the idea was quite bad in and of itself, but he was a hands-off editor by and large, so he stifled his first (and correct) instinct. And of course once he agreed he decided to give it the old college try.

As for Glenn Greenberg and his Life of Reilly.



Defalco has been consistent more than most. And the "Life of Reilly" blog is again too full of holes to entirely buy and accept as it is.

It's really amazing how the only accounts you find credible are the accounts that reinforce your own preferences. I believe the word for that is cherry picking.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

It's really amazing how the only accounts you find credible are the accounts that reinforce your own preferences. I believe the word for that is cherry picking.

In my defense, I am not really interested in going all that deep into the Clone Saga right this second. So yes I was being dismissive. For that I apologize.

It wasn't a good response on my part. I discussed the Clone Saga and its issues more at length at this thread here. https://community.cbr.com/showthread...th-Anniversary

So maybe move it there?

[Prof. Warren]

To reiterate:

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.

Again, this is just an act of deflection and not worth answering.

This thread hasn't about you respectfully responding to Brevoort's manifesto with your own take and then being bullied for it.

It was about you taking personal affront to Brevoort's take on Spidey and denying its validity to the point of accusing him of not just being wrong about what drives Spider-Man but acting out of selfish intent and falsely putting words into Ditko's mouth (either out of malicious deception, pure ignorance, or a little of both) in order to advance and legitimize his own agenda, one that - according to you - was not borne out of any genuine interest in or knowledge of the character but was simply an act of spite towards a segment of fandom.

That's just one of a string of outright falsehoods, from misquoting Slott to misinterpreting and misrepresenting the statements of other posters, that you've perpetrated on this thread.

So now, when directly confronted with that, to try and back pedal this into a Yes/No question of "wait, can't you concede that I have a valid claim too?" is pure bs.

Hard pass on that.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

This thread hasn't about you respectfully responding to Brevoort's manifesto with your own take and then being bullied for it.

It kind of has from your side of things at least. I admit I have been excessive but it does feel like anytime someone criticizes anyone at Marvel for their handling of OMD, your response is "I know some people dislike it but that's what Marvel says deal with it" (or words to that effect). It might not be your intent, but that does make people feel their opinions are worthless or what their arguing, so long as it isn't blind acceptance of whatever Marvel does currently, doesn't count. Which okay it doesn't, but it counts as much as anything you say here.

I said in one of the earlier posts that I was expressing how I felt personally. I opened up because I wanted you to realize that I wasn't stirring stuff up for no reason. I really did feel and believe that deeply. I thought if I said that maybe you'd understand where I was coming from. Anyway, it's not important nor your job to understand of course. You have every right to take it however you please.

It was about you taking personal affront to Brevoort's take on Spidey and denying its validity to the point of accusing him of not just being wrong about what drives Spider-Man but acting out of selfish intent and falsely putting words into Ditko's mouth (either out of malicious deception, pure ignorance, or a little of both) in order to advance and legitimize his own agenda, one that - according to you - was not borne out of any genuine interest in or knowledge of the character but was simply an act of spite towards a segment of fandom.

I agree that Brevoort believes he's doing what he thinks and knows is right. That he loves comics. Same is true for Joe Quesada.

You can love comics and believe and know a great deal and still be wrong and misguided, and criticized for doing so is my point. That was what I was trying to say. I didn't say that well.

I apologize for not saying that as clearly, and for my rhetoric. I've spent the last two years scouring for information and stuff mostly to see how much Pro-OMD people say is valid and not. In general, I find that a lot of that is based more on their opinions and subjective tastes, same as me, and same as you, than on any real truth about the character and the way it should be. So that has made me zealous.

[Spider-Tiger]

The colloquial definitions of self-sabotage can include procrastination, trouble stating your needs, negative self-talk and any behavior that holds you back from reaching your goals, as well as more extreme forms like drug dependency.

I thought I wouldn't jump back in, but the temptation is real (especially with the quarantine )

I can't speak for Revolutionary Jack, but I understood these to be forms of self-sabotage as well. I wasn't speaking of mental illness alone. However, none of these traits equate to the sacrifice of altruism (the man who risks his life to save another for no tangible benefit) or of living by a strict moral/ethical code (like nuns, monks, the Amish, etc.)

Having trouble stating your needs can lead to unfulfilling relationships. Procrastination and negative self-talk can lead to poor outcomes in a variety of contexts. As opposed to altruistic or ethical behaviors, there are no positive outcomes to be gained from any of these qualities. They are all purely maladaptive/harmful to varying degrees. They all inhibit people from achieving their fullest potential.

The point here is that Peter using his powers to save lives (and sacrificing some degree of success financially/occupationally/relationally to do so) IS him achieving his fullest potential. It gives him a level of emotional fulfillment and satisfaction that the alternative (not intervening and allowing someone to die for a tangible benefit) would not. The positive outweighs the negative. Therefore, it cannot be called self-sabotage.

This isn't splitting hairs either. To label Peter's sacrifice as self-sabotaging is to imply that the outcomes are generally negative, that Peter is generally unhappy, and that he would be more fulfilled if he gave up being a superhero. I understand that sometimes people misspeak and convey messages that aren't intended. But there definitely seems to be a defense of the specific term as being accurate in this thread. Hence, the rebuttal.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The point here is that Peter using his powers to save lives (and sacrificing some degree of success financially/occupationally/relationally to do so) IS him achieving his fullest potential. It gives him a level of emotional fulfillment and satisfaction that the alternative (not intervening and allowing someone to die for a tangiable benefit) would not. The positive outweighs the negative. Therefore, it cannot be called self-sabotage.

This isn't splitting hairs either. To label Peter's sacrifice as self-sabotaging is to imply that the outcomes are generally negative, that Peter is generally unhappy, and that he would be more fulfilled if he gave up being a superhero. I understand that sometimes people misspeak and convey messages that aren't intended. But there definitely seems to be a defense of the specific term as being accurate in this thread. Hence, the rebuttal.

Thanks, you are a most genial and capable poster. Something I have not been to my regret.

This sentiment is reflected from one of my favorite Spider-Man comics, and writers, and also the defining line in Michelinie's run:

"To the rest of the world, I was a loser today. Just a clown in a costume. I should be angry, frustrated, smashing my fists into walls! But...I don't feel that way. I did what I had to do. I know that. And somehow, that's enough. Well, I'll be. Take yourself a bow, Peter Parker. I think you just became an adult."
— Closing thought bubbles. Amazing Spider-Man #297, written by David Michelinie. (1988)

[Lee]

You are aware that applies to Miles Morales, Spider-Gwen and Kamala Khan too, right? Peter must always hover a significant age above them. I mean those characters are here to stay, Miles above all. The more you make Spider-Man about youth, the less Miles and others get to embody that. It makes sense to slot Peter in that niche of adult between Reed and Tony on one side, and Miles on the side below him. So that way you get a multi-generational layer.

Those characters keep Peter's age even more static. In the core Marvel Universe we'll never see a 40 year old Peter Parker, or a Peter Parker with a 6 year old daughter or anything like that, because it would mean aging Ms. Marvel, Iron Heart, Nova, Miles Morales, the Runaways and the rest into their 20s.

At this point, Peter is locked into his 20s, a perpetual young adult trying to find his place in the world.

[Prof. Warren]

It kind of has from your side of things at least. I admit I have been excessive but it does feel like anytime someone criticizes anyone at Marvel for their handling of OMD, your response is "I know some people dislike it but that's what Marvel says deal with it" (or words to that effect). It might not be your intent, but that does make people feel their opinions are worthless or what their arguing, so long as it isn't blind acceptance of whatever Marvel does currently, doesn't count. Which okay it doesn't, but it counts as much as anything you say here.

I admit I can come across as dismissive towards others in my arguments so for that I apologize.

I fully get that OMD is a sore spot with a lot of fans.

But as we're ten years plus past it, I don't feel like there's much to say about it at this that isn't just regurgitating the same old, same old.

So my patience for discussions about it tends to be thin, especially when OMD/BND becomes characterized as a personal vendetta against the fanbase.

Then all objectivity is out the window and we're not just talking about comics but we're slandering real people and indulging in conspiracies.

I said in one of the earlier posts that I was expressing how I felt personally. I opened up because I wanted you to realize that I wasn't stirring stuff up for no reason. I really did feel and believe that deeply. I thought if I said that maybe you'd understand where I was coming from. Anyway, it's not important nor your job to understand of course. You have every right to take it however you please.

I do understand where you're coming from and hearing an actual personal, emotional response was appreciated.

However, when you go right back to essentially trying to gaslight the boards by claiming things that were never said were said, it's maddening.

For my part, though, I'll try to be less abrasive/dismissive.

[Spider-Tiger]

Thanks, you are a most genial and capable poster. Something I have not been to my regret.

This sentiment is reflected from one of my favorite Spider-Man comics, and writers, and also the defining line in Michelinie's run:

"To the rest of the world, I was a loser today. Just a clown in a costume. I should be angry, frustrated, smashing my fists into walls! But...I don't feel that way. I did what I had to do. I know that. And somehow, that's enough. Well, I'll be. Take yourself a bow, Peter Parker. I think you just became an adult."
— Closing thought bubbles. Amazing Spider-Man #297, written by David Michelinie. (1988)

Thank you. It's easy for anyone to get caught up in the heat of the moment. It's clear that everyone on this board is passionate about and appreciates the character in their own way.

I love that quote from Michelinie as well

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Those characters keep Peter's age even more static.

In the same way I don't see how Peter aging puts Reed and Tony out to pasture, I don't see how the existence of characters younger than Peter means he exists in a lasting time bubble. I find this counter-argument baffling.

When I mentioned that the existence of these younger characters, I meant that Peter can't really be about youth anymore when you have young established heroes who are far more the embodiment of teenage superhero than even he was during the Lee-Ditko era. (For one thing there's more issues with Miles and Kamala as a teenage high-schooler than 616 Peter).

In the core Marvel Universe we'll never see a 40 year old Peter Parker, or a Peter Parker with a 6 year old daughter or anything like that,

Again this needs a separate thread ("If Peter ages, how much should he age?") to reiterate my earlier comments to Mister Mets and Prof. Warren. Being as succinct as I can.

There's this assumption among Pro-OMD folks, that people who want Peter married want Peter to age rapidly, or that Peter marrying automatically would mean he ages rapidly in the course of ten issues or so into a ripe old age with a grand lineage of great grand-kids. I regret to inform you that's not so. As the adage goes, "Hard cases make poor laws". What made the marriage fun, and grand is that it gave meaning to everything that came before and derives meaning from the same. And the soap opera twists and turns, that unintentionally and accidentally, led up to it. Without that organic buildup, the marriage of Peter and Mary Jane would not have been the great event it was, and genuine authentic surprise in comics history. So any other big change and movement should happen at a similar curve and for similar reasons...coming from the place of accident, luck, and the unexpected and not merely because Peter's grown up now. The marriage doesn't mean that Peter has to or will have to age rapidly. In fact the period where Peter aged rapidly was the Second Clone Saga and it was done as a self-justifying prophecy by writers who worried that Peter aged too much and so they aged him far more rapidly than anyone ever did, exemplifying again, the general lack of self-awareness and self-reflection shown by everyone involved there. We got hard numbers for time passage in the Clone Saga which we didn't get before. This of course is separate from the question of should there be a thirty year old Peter, which again requires a different thread to fully go more in detail. But the short answer is that just because Peter and MJ get married doesn't mean that Peter has to by necessity see 40 or become a dad any time soon.

If you want to discuss this further, i.e. whether Peter should age into the 40s or 30s and so on, and what that means and so forth, and how it can be done...again start a separate thread. Because it goes fully off-topic.

At this point, Peter is locked into his 20s, a perpetual young adult trying to find his place in the world.

One of the ways many young people try to find their place is by getting married. Which is why a lot of people get married at that age.

Having Peter and MJ be a young married couple also distinguishes them from others in addition to already being an example of a civilain-superhero marriage (of which they are Marvel's only major example). The other Marvel married couples are all old and so on, and represent marriages in different stages, which again separates Peter and MJ and makes them distinct and unique...which again they were when they were married.