Is Peter Parker truly a loser compared to other heroes?

[PCN24454]

"Foundations of the Comic" is a meaningless phrase.

What's not meaningless is the fact that Mary Jane Watson has made more appearances in 616 Marvel than any Spider-Man character aside from Peter himself. She's made more than 1000 appearances making her in addition Marvel's most frequently appearing civilian character (alongside Jonah). As of 2019, she was in the top 10 most frequently appearing female characters, and the only civilian in that list.

The appearances of the character in continuity is real empirical fact. Not subject for debate or quibbling. Since no other supporting character aside from her has comparable real estate and Spider-Man is Marvel's biggest character and his title has been top selling and consistent, then it stands to reason she's a major aspect of Spider-Man, and not extricable. And since that's a reality that endured OMD and Slott, there's no point in trying to beat around the bush and pretend that a fictional version of Spider-Man (i.e. some formula or concept dreamed up by fanboys in the 90s) can be superimposed to the one we actually have had.

This sounds a lot like hindsight bias. You also said that they were also planning on making Green Goblin Peter's archnemesis from the start.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

This sounds a lot like hindsight bias.

A) Define what you mean by "hindsight bias".

B) Explain how my post fits your definition.

You also said that they were also planning on making Green Goblin Peter's archnemesis from the start.

Irrelevant and tangential.

[PCN24454]

A) Define what you mean by "hindsight bias".

B) Explain how my post fits your definition.



Irrelevant and tangential.

I’m saying that you talk as though Peter ending up with MJ was a forgone conclusion. The fact that it wasn’t was what made their relationship so appealing to begin with.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I’m saying that you talk as though Peter ending up with MJ was a forgone conclusion. The fact that it wasn’t was what made their relationship so appealing to begin with.

That's really not what is being discussed in context though.

One poster objected to complaints about "will they or won't they" by invoking vague claims about "foundations of the character" that are far from clear, unambiguous, definite, or agreed on.

I simply pointed out that the "foundations of the character" ultimately do have to give away to the lived experience of the readership and the character's publication history.

[Alan2099]

One poster objected to complaints about "will they or won't they" by invoking vague claims about "foundations of the character" that are far from clear, unambiguous, definite, or agreed on.

I simply pointed out that the "foundations of the character" ultimately do have to give away to the lived experience of the readership and the character's publication history.

No they don't.

You're whole argument is little more than "I like this and don't like that."

You point out MJ has tons of appearances, but neglect to mention that she's had far more appearances as a single person than as a married one.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

You're whole argument is little more than "I like this and don't like that."

Ever heard of projection, my dude.

You point out MJ has tons of appearances, but neglect to mention that she's had far more appearances as a single person than as a married one.

This statement undermines your argument, not mine. My point is that Mary Jane is the second most important character in Spider-Man after Peter Parker. Her being so when they were married could have been explained away by saying that it's because of the status-quo and so on. But if she's still that 10 years Post-OMD, under an editorial regime hostile to her, with her popularity undiminished, with her being written out of the books for some 50 issues, i.e. the majority of BND...then that just confirms her resilience and longevity and fan demand.

All the thumbs were pressed on the scale against her, and she's still at the top.

As for your statistics,
--From ASM#1-ASM#289 (before the proposal issues and the decision by editorial to marry them), Mary Jane appeared in 190 issues across all 616 Marvel. She was third behind Jonah (who had something like 300 odd at the time), and Aunt May (just two or three issues more than her). Which is remarkable for a character who made her on-screen debut 42 issues in, and who was also written out of the books for a huge chunk of issues between Wolfman and Stern. So her frequency of appearances was higher than both of the other characters.
-- After they got married obviously she appeared more and there were more Spider-Man titles and series and so on in the twenty year period or so...So at the time of OMD, MJ made more appearances married than single.
-- Since OMD, ASM was Thrice-A-Month (at first), and then Twice-A-Month to the present day. If Spider-Man stuck to monthly issues (as it did from 1962-2007) in the period from OMD to today, MJ would clock in more appearances married than single.

The more important fact is Mary Jane's resilience and survival as a character.

[Alan2099]

Edit: Never mind.

[Darthfury78]

Is Spider-Man a loser? Let's find out:

[Huntsman Spider]

Is Spider-Man a loser? Let's find out:

Is this from Disk Wars or Future Avengers?

[Agent Z]

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.

I know this response is months old but I'm currently reading volume 3 of Peter David's X-Factor and it looks like Spencer was not the first person to make this observation about Peter. Here's a conversation between Spider-Man and Monet St. Croix from Issue #216.

[PCN24454]

I know this response is months old but I'm currently reading volume 3 of Peter David's X-Factor and it looks like Spencer was not the first person to make this observation about Peter. Here's a conversation between Spider-Man and Monet St. Croix from Issue #216.

It’s arguably the reason why many adaptations trying to emphasize his niceness. It makes it more clear that JJ is over exaggerating.

[Frontier]

I know this response is months old but I'm currently reading volume 3 of Peter David's X-Factor and it looks like Spencer was not the first person to make this observation about Peter. Here's a conversation between Spider-Man and Monet St. Croix from Issue #216.

I mean, to be fair, to some extent she doesn't know what she's talking about thinking Spider-Man doesn't try to take responsibility for his actions when it's basically his whole deal.

I should assume the need for a mask to protect your identity and loved ones should be pretty clear, but maybe I'm just thinking with Superhero logic.

[Lukmendes]

I mean, to be fair, to some extent she doesn't know what she's talking about thinking Spider-Man doesn't try to take responsibility for his actions when it's basically his whole deal.

To be fair, if you put actual logic in this, he really doesn't, how many cars or apartments has he destroyed during a super-hero fight and done nothing to pay back, or even try to fix the damage?

But then again, if you're gonna think like that, then he's not the only one, since even the ones who do have public identities do jack ****, nor there are negative consequences for 'em lol.

I should assume the need for a mask to protect your identity and loved ones should be pretty clear, but maybe I'm just thinking with Superhero logic.

It's also dumb for her to point out that Spidey having a secret identity soon after F4's debut as a point against him when 99% of super-heroes back then had one, even the likes of Hulk (Short lived sure, but he had it), Iron Man, and Thor had one, so F4 were the exception, not the rule.

[Frontier]

To be fair, if you put actual logic in this, he really doesn't, how many cars or apartments has he destroyed during a super-hero fight and done nothing to pay back, or even try to fix the damage?

But then again, if you're gonna think like that, then he's not the only one, since even the ones who do have public identities do jack ****, nor there are negative consequences for 'em lol.

Well, let's just say he takes responsibility for what it is within his responsibility to take care of. With Great Power doesn't necessarily come with Great Financial Obligation unless you're Iron Man .

It's also dumb for her to point out that Spidey having a secret identity soon after F4's debut as a point against him when 99% of super-heroes back then had one, even the likes of Hulk (Short lived sure, but he had it), Iron Man, and Thor had one, so F4 were the exception, not the rule.

This is the same universe where Tony Stark was able to successfully masquerade Iron Man as his bodyguard for years.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I know this response is months old but I'm currently reading volume 3 of Peter David's X-Factor and it looks like Spencer was not the first person to make this observation about Peter. Here's a conversation between Spider-Man and Monet St. Croix from Issue #216.

I prefer Chip Zdarsky's take from Daredevil #11: