Is Peter Parker truly a loser compared to other heroes?

[Agent Z]

Mostly because any attempts to make a joke about Spider-Man having a secret identity while pointing to Tony as a counter simply brings up the fact that the person making that argument and claim is ignorant of class.

That... is huge leap to say the least. And I didn't use Tony as a direct counter so you're basically arguing against something I never said.

The point is that they wrote the story and character with the intent that of Peter being a rational person and not a case subject for someone with mental issues.

Yeah and I'm saying not all of them succeeded. You argue against the intent of the writer all the time so I don't see why you keep resorting to counter.

It's irrelevant. Nick Spencer is not saying Spider-Man is a loser nor is he saying that he commits self-sabotage.

A loser, not quite. But the self-sabotage thing is said in the issue with the Jonah podcast.

Just because you make mistakes that does not mean you commit self-sabotage, because again - to clarify - smart, normal, and healthy people make mistakes too, all the time.

you know, underlining, italicising and boldening the argument multiple times doesn't mean your argument will be taken more seriously.

The ability to make a mistake does not mean you are insane, as Qui Gonn Jinn would say.

Are you saying that Spider-Man titles have been written like All-Star Batman and Robin?

Is this a troll question?

[Agent Z]

You are 100% correct. Plus who used Scorpion and Smythe against Spider-Man? JJJ. Making JJJ goodie, goodie is even worse then the Gwen Stacy whitewash.

If Spencer is whitewashing Jameson, he wouldn't be the first.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That... is huge leap to say the least. And I didn't use Tony as a direct counter so you're basically arguing against something I never said.

The MK:SM comic panels you shared specifically has Tony Stark making fun of Spider-Man's identity woes.

Yeah and I'm saying not all of them succeeded. You argue against the intent of the writer all the time so I don't see why you keep resorting to counter.

You can argue against the intentions of writers on certain fixed parameters...i.e. how much they succeeded in making a character look cool, how much they succeeded in showing a character a certain way, how well they executed their intended point for the story. Like everything however you can only go up to a certain point, beyond which you are just diving off the cliff.

It used to be "writers intended Peter to be an everyman and yet they had his life look pretty swell" now it's one person declaring writers showed Peter Parker as a basket case all along. The former is reasonable and valid, the latter just isn't.

That's not interpreting the story, that's outright claiming that ASM in the classic era reads like ASBAR. And I bring up All Star Batman and Robin because that's an outstanding example of a writer and artist totally losing control of the tone and meaning of their story and presenting a very extreme and bizarre version of the characters which at the end of the day is still meant to be normative (i.e. big emotional scenes with Batman and Robin are still played straight as are other introspective character beats). And remember again how that story was received...people hated it, sales sunk, and the title has been cancelled essentially. Spider-man would not be as popular as he is, if his stories were the way you claim it to be.

To make the argument that Peter Parker in the classical era was mentally ill and not an average normal person as the writers wrote it and most readers recognized is beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation.

A loser, not quite.

Thank you for finally addressing the actual topic in question. And I agree with this.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Spencer's main point about about Peter's issues with the public and other superheroes were not simply a result of Jameson's vendetta against him. Spencer didn't retcon anything. He admitted Jameson had been wrong but also didn't let Peter off the hook for his own contribution to his bad publicity. The things Spencer stated about Peter being a lone wolf, having a secret identity when most superheroes didn't and antagonizing and threatening Jameson are true.

All the instances Spencer brought up of Peter antagonizing and threatening Jameson happened in the heat of the moment after Jameson would do something seriously messed up to Peter, such as smearing him or causing him great physical pain by proxy through Scorpion and the Spider-Slayers. He also has no choice but to have a secret identity as a working-class American if he wants to continue helping people. All of these examples are textbook examples of Blaming The Victim.

Spencer is right that some writers treat Peter as too much of a lone wolf, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the public distrusting him. This is not exclusive to Peter and not everyone in the MU is part of a team. Also Jameson's smears continued while Peter was a member of the New Avengers.

[NC_Yankee]

All the instances Spencer brought up of Peter antagonizing and threatening Jameson happened in the heat of the moment after Jameson would do something seriously messed up to Peter, such as smearing him or causing him great physical pain by proxy through Scorpion and the Spider-Slayers. He also has no choice but to have a secret identity as a working-class American. This is all Blaming The Victim 101.

Spencer is right that some writers treat Peter as too much of a lone wolf, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the public distrusting him. This is not exclusive to Peter and not everyone in the MU is part of a team. Also Jameson's smears continued while Peter was a member of the New Avengers.

You are exactly right it is “Blame The Victim.” Sad to say it is JJJ is not the only example of this in Spider-Man. Having his webbing being “Responsible” for Gwen’s death is another. Why? It shifts some blame away from the person 100% responsible: Norman Osborn. Speaking of Osborn and Gwen, think back to Sins Past. What happened? A powerful middle aged man took advantage of a young girl. Yet somehow, blame has shifted to Gwen. What to Osborn and JJJ have in common? Wealthy, powerful, unhappy men who did bad jobs with their sons: Harry with Norman and John with Jonah. As far as Peter being a “Lone Wolf” is concerned. There are many reasons for it. One that gets no mention is time. There are only only 24 hours in a day and Peter does not have the time to do everything. Think about it: Work ( he is not Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark), relationship, fight crime ( usually street level) and even sleep. Every time he does a team up or The Avengers he sacrifices one of those 4 other things ( usually it means relationship)

[Steel Inquisitor]

You are exactly right it is “Blame The Victim.” Sad to say it is JJJ is not the only example of this in Spider-Man. Having his webbing being “Responsible” for Gwen’s death is another. Why? It shifts some blame away from the person 100% responsible: Norman Osborn.

This just reinforced his guilt over Uncle Ben IMO. He blames himself for not being able to save her, which is very human and tragic. Its not his fault but this isn't about facts this is about feelings and Peter's been wrecked with guilt since Uncle Ben died. Add in her father later on, George Stacy, within a short time frame.

[Huntsman Spider]

This just reinforced his guilt over Uncle Ben IMO. He blames himself for not being able to save her, which is very human and tragic. Its not his fault but this isn't about facts this is about feelings and Peter's been wrecked with guilt since Uncle Ben died. Add in her father later on, George Stacy, within a short time frame.

And since George Stacy would have been his father-in-law, if not a second father figure, under better circumstances, that just compounded Peter's sense of guilt, the idea that he'd let down yet another man who was like a father to him and played a role in his death.

[SpideyCeo]

Spidey is not a true loser but a loser in a sense he puts himself down to become like one.

[PCN24454]

He's banned from their Poker Games because he always wins.

[Huntsman Spider]

He's banned from their Poker Games because he always wins.

Good old spider-sense, although they let him in on a charity game, and when Kingpin showed up, it was Spider-Man who beat him, thanks to the spider-sense. Fun times.

[NC_Yankee]

Spidey is not a true loser but a loser in a sense he puts himself down to become like one.

I do not agree with this analysis. The very thing that makes Amazing Spider-Man a great comic is Peter is someone that people can relate to. Spider-Man readers are not billionaires like Bruce Wayne. We cannot relate to that. Rather, we like seeing Batman kick ass. In Amazing, Peter has many of the same issues as we do. Girl trouble, financial issues, a job that at times sucks, losing loved ones, and being disrespected to name a few. Yet despite it all, Peter is unwilling to sacrifice who he is: Peter Parker first and Spider-Man second. Spider-Man is a job to him: Not a way of life like Batman is to Bruce Wayne. That is someone who is a loser. He will never be happy and he knows it. Does Peter get down on himself sure? But almost everyone does on occasion. He does not drown himself in a bottle like Tony Stark or abuse women like Hank Pym ( much bigger losers). Perhaps most important, he actually cares about those around him and tries to make life a little better. That is anything but a loser.

[Steel Inquisitor]

The MK:SM comic panels you shared specifically has Tony Stark making fun of Spider-Man's identity woes.

Stark has had trouble with his secret identity before he went public. In the past that's why he deleted that knowledge from everyone, like in Busiek's run.

You can argue against the intentions of writers on certain fixed parameters...i.e. how much they succeeded in making a character look cool, how much they succeeded in showing a character a certain way, how well they executed their intended point for the story. Like everything however you can only go up to a certain point, beyond which you are just diving off the cliff.

It used to be "writers intended Peter to be an everyman and yet they had his life look pretty swell" now it's one person declaring writers showed Peter Parker as a basket case all along. The former is reasonable and valid, the latter just isn't.

Peter's had numerous psychological states that are from "normal" and retained his everyman image. He's tried to kill ninja on a bad day with a train during DeFalco's run, Elektra had to calm him down.

That's not interpreting the story, that's outright claiming that ASM in the classic era reads like ASBAR. And I bring up All Star Batman and Robin because that's an outstanding example of a writer and artist totally losing control of the tone and meaning of their story and presenting a very extreme and bizarre version of the characters which at the end of the day is still meant to be normative (i.e. big emotional scenes with Batman and Robin are still played straight as are other introspective character beats). And remember again how that story was received...people hated it, sales sunk, and the title has been cancelled essentially. Spider-man would not be as popular as he is, if his stories were the way you claim it to be.

To make the argument that Peter Parker in the classical era was mentally ill and not an average normal person as the writers wrote it and most readers recognized is beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation.

ASBAR was a parody from the get-go. Miller wasn't "losing control" of anything.

[scilover]

Tony is a good man. He does things all by himself.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Stark has had trouble with his secret identity before he went public. In the past that's why he deleted that knowledge from everyone, like in Busiek's run.

So how does that counter what I am saying?

ASBAR was a parody from the get-go.

No.

[Agent Z]

So how does that counter what I am saying?

Stark was pointing out how much easier his life was without a secret identity. He wasn't simply making fun of Peter he was just being jokey. It isn't like Peter doesn't give as good as he gets in conversations with other characters.