Is Peter Parker truly a loser compared to other heroes?

[Agent Z]

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)

How did Jameson do a bad job with his son?

[Kaitou D. Kid]

In a very real sense, and this applies to Quesada's overall editorial, the Marvel Universe isn't really the house of Stan, Jack and Steve anymore. It's the house Quesada redecorated with his tacky decors and tastes. To me, since OMD, 616 Spider-Man isn't really the character Lee and Ditko created. To me JMS was the last writer of that, while Matt Fraction wrote the last story with those characters but to me BND Spider-Man, Slott's Spider-Man, and despite my liking it, even Spencer's Spider-Man, is not really the original Peter Parker anymore.

There are two problems with Nick Spencer's Spider-Man. The first is that he still writes Peter like the last 2-3 decades prior to OMD didn't happen and that we don't know the answer to questions like "Will Peter and MJ make their relationship work?", "Can Peter balance out school and being Spider-Man?", or "Does Spider-Man screw up no matter what?" This makes Spencer's Peter feel younger and more like a reboot or prequel to the pre-OMD Spider-Man at best even if he doesn't intend for it to come off that way. By contrast, Chip Zdarksy's Spider-Man and even Sean Ryan's feel more like the pre-OMD version in attitude and in how they interact with other characters (Jameson, Morlun, etc.), even with MJ not being around.

The second problem with Spencer's Spider-Man is the same problem with Superman in Man of Steel. The plot is too loose and too focused on supporting characters that the audience doesn't know what to think of the main character. Because of that, the audience doesn't walk away with a new impression of the main character or with a feeling that he changed.

[TheCape]

Spencer take reminds me to Stern and DeMatteis work on the characther, wich are among my favorite runs, so that probably is what is making me bias toward Spencer (thougth i had my problems with his run). Zdarsky stuff reminds me a lot to Paul Jenkins run, wich althougth i enjoyed it, it never did much for me as many other fans, so that's probably why i never quite liked his work.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

There are two problems with Nick Spencer's Spider-Man. The first is that he still writes Peter like the last 2-3 decades prior to OMD didn't happen and that we don't know the answer to questions like "Will Peter and MJ make their relationship work?", "Can Peter balance out school and being Spider-Man?", or "Does Spider-Man screw up no matter what?" This makes Spencer's Peter feel younger and more like a reboot or prequel to the pre-OMD Spider-Man at best even if he doesn't intend for it to come off that way. By contrast, Chip Zdarksy's Spider-Man and even Sean Ryan's feel more like the pre-OMD version in attitude and in how they interact with other characters (Jameson, Morlun, etc.), even with MJ not being around.

That's a smart take. Ultimately it's not the writer's fault, and that even includes Dan Slott, editorial has prevented them from writing the actual Spider-Man organically developed by Lee and Ditko. What they get to write is Quesada's Spider-Man and Tom Brevoort's Spider-Man in fact (Brevoort wrote that manifesto reprinted in the BND paperback which served as a kind of TV Writer's Room Bible for that group and that more or less remains in place today in terms of locking in place a definition of the character).

So long as OMD remains in place, nothing can be done to fix it, and ultimately all writers have to work around that.

The second problem with Spencer's Spider-Man is the same problem with Superman in Man of Steel. The plot is too loose and too focused on supporting characters that the audience doesn't know what to think of the main character. Because of that, the audience doesn't walk away with a new impression of the main character or with a feeling that he changed.

I think it's a condition of the larger problem with OMD. Focusing on supporting characters at the expense of Peter himself was a feature of Dan Slott's run and also BND. The issue with OMD is that it permanently divided the reader from identifying completely and totally with Peter. It created a barrier between the character and the reader. Before OMD, as a reader you read Peter's story and saw the story from his POV, for the most part [This part isn't addressed to you Kaitou: Don't @me about all the many times we see scenes from other character's POV, that's not the issue]. The point as a reader, you generally knew what Peter knew. Sure you knew someone called The Hobgoblin was terrorizing Peter but you never found out who Hobgoblin was until Peter found out on-page (which despite many fakeouts happened in Stern's Hobgoblin Lives mini). With OMD, readers know stuff that the Peter they read the story doesn't know. That has never happened before. The writers know that readers know and they have to write a Peter who continues to be ignorant...and that creates a sense of frustration which has infected 616 Spider-Man and refuses to leave the titles. Post-OMD you no longer have the real link between Peter and the reader. Anytime the story goes "Poor Parker luck, that's what kept MJ away" which is what Slott and others ran with, readers gritted their teeth, "No it wasn't Parker luck, it was freaking Mephisto and Quesada, not anything the character did". .

With Spencer's run, he presents Peter as a good guy who has some kind of mid-20s early life crisis, and it's about Peter trying to "be humble" so to speak, but there's also a kind of personal longing to the character and obviously it's connected to what he had lost with OMD. It works but it's not enough.

Until you get some kind of link between Reader and Peter in terms of information, you aren't really going to have Spider-Man be Spider-Man as he was at his very best.

[Laufeyson]

Spencer take reminds me to Stern and DeMatteis work on the characther, wich are among my favorite runs, so that probably is what is making me bias toward Spencer (thougth i had my problems with his run). Zdarsky stuff reminds me a lot to Paul Jenkins run, wich althougth i enjoyed it, it never did much for me as many other fans, so that's probably why i never quite liked his work.

Reall? I always believe Spencer feels like DeMatteis and Peter David work on Peter, where he always wanted to torment Spider-Man in a certain way and that is psychological. That's not really necessarily a bad thing because we are rarely see something like that in Amazing where usually it's the heroic title of the two. Zdarsky on the other hand reminds of Stern where like Slott focused more Peter Parker aspect of the story where he clearly has more fun writing Peter Parker than Spider-Man and that's shown from his Life Story where it's really just focused on Peter Parker. But, if there is one thing that I like about Zdarsky's Peter Parker is that he is just manifesto of self-guilt and that he made a mistake of Peter Parker while in older time. Peter always can't focus on the bigger picture, he is always chasing after what is in front of his eyes. That's his one of biggest weakness, he can't see what he should do to prevent it.

[PCN24454]

How did Jameson do a bad job with his son?

JJJ's relationship with his son fluctuates in a similar way that his relationships fluctuates with the staff of the Daily Bugle.

The relationship is mired by doubt. John wants to believe that his dad is altruistic, but Jonah's over-the-top nature makes him hard to trust. Jonah threw himself into his work after his first wife died, unintentionally abandoning John.

It's never really portrayed as anything they can't overcome though.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I think it's a condition of the larger problem with OMD. Focusing on supporting characters at the expense of Peter himself was a feature of Dan Slott's run and also BND. The issue with OMD is that it permanently divided the reader from identifying completely and totally with Peter. It created a barrier between the character and the reader. Before OMD, as a reader you read Peter's story and saw the story from his POV, for the most part [This part isn't addressed to you Kaitou: Don't @me about all the many times we see scenes from other character's POV, that's not the issue]. The point as a reader, you generally knew what Peter knew. Sure you knew someone called The Hobgoblin was terrorizing Peter but you never found out who Hobgoblin was until Peter found out on-page (which despite many fakeouts happened in Stern's Hobgoblin Lives mini). With OMD, readers know stuff that the Peter they read the story doesn't know. That has never happened before. The writers know that readers know and they have to write a Peter who continues to be ignorant...and that creates a sense of frustration which has infected 616 Spider-Man and refuses to leave the titles. Post-OMD you no longer have the real link between Peter and the reader. Anytime the story goes "Poor Parker luck, that's what kept MJ away" which is what Slott and others ran with, readers gritted their teeth, "No it wasn't Parker luck, it was freaking Mephisto and Quesada, not anything the character did". .

With Spencer's run, he presents Peter as a good guy who has some kind of mid-20s early life crisis, and it's about Peter trying to "be humble" so to speak, but there's also a kind of personal longing to the character and obviously it's connected to what he had lost with OMD. It works but it's not enough.

Until you get some kind of link between Reader and Peter in terms of information, you aren't really going to have Spider-Man be Spider-Man as he was at his very best.

I haven't thought about it that way, but you're right. This explains why I just couldn't get myself to care about Amazing Spider-Man 29 even though I want to see Peter and MJ together. Post-OMD Spider-Man is worse than even a reboot. A reboot that retreads old ground would be tedious, but the link between Peter and the reader would still be there.

Now that I think about it, Zdarksy's run is also the only post-OMD one where MJ isn't there at all besides making a quick cameo. That might be why it feels closest to pre-OMD Spider-Man. That disconnect between Peter and the reader is stronger the more his relationship with MJ is front-and-center.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I haven't thought about it that way, but you're right. This explains why I just couldn't get myself to care about Amazing Spider-Man 29 even though I want to see Peter and MJ together. Post-OMD Spider-Man is worse than even a reboot. A reboot that retreads old ground would be tedious, but the link between Peter and the reader would still be there.

Same.

Now that I think about it, Zdarksy's run is also the only post-OMD one where MJ isn't there at all besides making a quick cameo. That might be why it feels closest to pre-OMD Spider-Man. That disconnect between Peter and the reader is stronger the more his relationship with MJ is front-and-center.

Hmm. Do you think it would be better to do Spider-Man without MJ or without relationships altogether then?

[PCN24454]

Why would removing OMD suddenly "fix" everything?

[Huntsman Spider]

Why would removing OMD suddenly "fix" everything?

It would be a good start, considering OMD is the root of everything that's gone and been wrong with Spider-Man for a solid decade.

[PCN24454]

It would be a good start, considering OMD is the root of everything that's gone and been wrong with Spider-Man for a solid decade.

You talk as though narrative contrivance isn’t a natural part of fiction in general. I’m not seeing how removing OMD would “fix” anything.

Is it gonna get rid of Boomerang? Get rid of Peter’s stigma of being a plagiarist? Get Kingpin out of office? Kill off Kraven?!

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Is it gonna get rid of Boomerang?

Why would you need to get rid off Boomerang?

And it's not like it's hard. Just write him out of the books. He's currently a good guy. Pardoned and reformed ex-criminal.

Get rid of Peter’s stigma of being a plagiarist?

That's a bit of a tough one, yeah. But exposing Doctor Octopus as a fraud and a liar is a good way to get it done.

Get Kingpin out of office?

This is a weird complaint.

A) Kingpin becoming Mayor was a story that happened in Daredevil titles, put forth by Charles Soule, then Daredevil writer. You make it sound like this is some development in ASM itself.

B) Kingpin will not be Mayor for long but when it happens it will be up to Daredevil's current writer, Chip Zdarsky, to make that call, and see if he wants to make an event out of it.

Kill off Kraven?!

Kraven's already been killed off at the end of HUNTED.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Hmm. Do you think it would be better to do Spider-Man without MJ or without relationships altogether then?

Assuming OMD stays in place for the foreseeable future?

If the only mandate is that Peter can't be married, I would cheat the system and have them live together & be past their 'will-they-won't-they' stage. It's not that uncommon anymore for a couple in the 25-35 range to rent a place together but to have no immediate plans of getting married. I know several couples like that in real life. In such a situation, OMD may not get in the way of the story - at least not in the short term.

If you ask me, Spencer is already cheating the system a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if the status quo after Kindred is Peter and MJ living together.

If Quesada & Co. consider that being "practically married", though...then from a writer's perspective, it may really be best to write MJ out and give Peter a new love interest until a pro-marriage Editor-In-Chief comes along. I was actually invested in seeing Peter go out with that comedian girl from Zdarksy's run only to find out she had a boyfriend, both because it was relatable and because as reader I was back to knowing only what Peter knew. I still wasn't as invested in that as I was with the marriage...still, I was more invested in it than the current "Poor Parker luck, that's what kept MJ away" you mentioned.

So overall from a writer's POV (not necessarily a fan's), not including MJ would be the lesser of two evils if there is no way to cheat the system and tell stories with her that have no elements of Parker Luck or will-they-won't-they in them.

[PCN24454]

It would be a good start, considering OMD is the root of everything that's gone and been wrong with Spider-Man for a solid decade.

What do you expect removing OMD change?

[Huntsman Spider]

What do you expect removing OMD change?

Mostly removing the regressive and retrograde attitudes about marriage and "youth" that were codified by OMD into how Spider-Man as a character and an ongoing story would be handled moving from that point.