Gold Goblin#1 Spoilers & Discussion

[Refrax5]

Especially at the end when Norman "finally" twigged onto the fact that he never had to just go after Peter's friends and family and other loved ones to make him suffer; all he ever had to do was just glide into the city and start massacring random people out of nowhere, because Peter was just that compassionate and heroic. Granted, Go Down Swinging did end with Peter literally taking a bullet so Jonah couldn't kill a seemingly defeated and disoriented Norman after losing the Carnage symbiote, so there might be precedent for Peter's (somewhat wasted) compassion regarding Norman there.

Peter has frequently been willing to die to save even the worst people, so there's a lot of precedent.

[Tendrin]

Really, it depends what you're looking for.

Version one, you have the story of a mentally ill and suicidal man who self-destructs so badly, and gives into his addictions so violently, that he almost takes all his loved ones down with him. However he manages to avoid that come the very end and throws off the influence of his abusive father and all of the other factors that made him like that. Love wins in the end. It's a really good story.

Version two, said man still does all that but lives and has a normal life. That is not as good a story, probably not by a long shot, but it is a better Something To Aspire To.

As someone who suffers from mental illness, I don't think stories that end with 'and then he dies because he self destructed because he's mentally ill' are necessarily 'better' when they die at the end. There's something to be said for living with your illness, and more often than not writers really don't know how to handle what happens next. Harry's first death wasn't 'poorly' written, but it was another example of how characters with mental illness are seen as discardable after their break downs go 'too far', something that is treated as an inevitability rather than a preventable tragedy.

I am very, very tired of it.

[PanicPixieDreamGirl]

As someone who suffers from mental illness, I don't think stories that end with 'and then he dies because he self destructed because he's mentally ill' are necessarily 'better' when they die at the end. There's something to be said for living with your illness, and more often than not writers really don't know how to handle what happens next. Harry's first death wasn't 'poorly' written, but it was another example of how characters with mental illness are seen as discardable after their break downs go 'too far', something that is treated as an inevitability rather than a preventable tragedy.

I am very, very tired of it.

That is exactly what I think. Especially the bit at the end.

Can I interest you in one of my few actually decent published articles, written pre-end of the Kindred Nonsense?

[Tendrin]

That is exactly what I think. Especially the bit at the end.

Can I interest you in one of my few actually decent published articles, written pre-end of the Kindred Nonsense?

A nice article. It also shares my frustration with how Sentry got treated by Bendis, especially in the end.

[PanicPixieDreamGirl]

A nice article. It also shares my frustration with how Sentry got treated by Bendis, especially in the end.

Thanks!

I saw someone point out in another thread that Janine becoming a supervillain is also pretty icky given her history, and I agree with that as well. We appear to be in an era of Spider-Man where the abused are supervillains and the abusers are superheroes. No wonder nobody likes it.

[Lunala]

an era... where the abused are supervillains

Aren't we always here?

[Tendrin]

Thanks!

I saw someone point out in another thread that Janine becoming a supervillain is also pretty icky given her history, and I agree with that as well. We appear to be in an era of Spider-Man where the abused are supervillains and the abusers are superheroes. No wonder nobody likes it.

In fairness, the Gold Goblin mini doesn't really portray Norman in a positive light at all, but I do believe that it's important within the mythos of Spidey that even his worst villains be shown to be capable of change.

[babyblob]

In fairness, the Gold Goblin mini doesn't really portray Norman in a positive light at all, but I do believe that it's important within the mythos of Spidey that even his worst villains be shown to be capable of change.

I am not a big fan of some villains changing and becoming good. Some have just too much blood on their hands. Doc Ock and Normal are two that I dont think should get a pass from heroes after everything they have done. I enjoyed Superior Spiderman but Dock Ock should always be a villain. And Norman has just done too much to be a good guy. Not only is Spiderman giving him a pass but Law Enforcement also? He had his sins taken away great, he feels guilt fine, he should still be locked up for the rest of his life.

What next are we going to get the Carnage redemption arc?

And villains turning into heroes or trying to be better has been done so much it has gotten a bit boring. Even more so with Spiderman.

[Huntsman Spider]

Thanks!

I saw someone point out in another thread that Janine becoming a supervillain is also pretty icky given her history, and I agree with that as well. We appear to be in an era of Spider-Man where the abused are supervillains and the abusers are superheroes. No wonder nobody likes it.

Aren't we always here?

Unfortunately, yes. My Hero Academia has a lot of examples on the other side of the Pacific, where the villains, by and large, are the byproducts of a so-called "hero society" that failed to protect and nurture its most vulnerable and marginalized citizens, many of whom were rejected for having powers/abilities/appearances that frightened and unsettled the general public, and for lashing out because of that rejection, they're further scorned by society. Hell, the current #1 "Pro Hero" is someone who ran roughshod over his own family in a kind of eugenicist quest to make a hero that could surpass the previous #1 "Pro Hero," only for the son that he dumped all his hopes and ambitions and frustrations on to reemerge as a rather vicious and unrepentant villain after being presumed dead by his father on account of his powers flaring out of control. That said, the superhero genre has been quite unfriendly, even unsympathetic, to abuse and trauma survivors who don't deal with said abuse and trauma in "the right way" over the years, so . . .

[Daibhidh]

I am not a big fan of some villains changing and becoming good. Some have just too much blood on their hands. Doc Ock and Normal are two that I dont think should get a pass from heroes after everything they have done.

I like to think that nobody is beyond redemption, and I don't like the crude 80s Secret Wars premise (*) of good guys vs evil guys dynamic where good is good and evil is evil. But I do think that there are too many heroic characters for the comic buying public to support, especially at current prices, and for the comic writing profession to write. And every redeemed villain is a character that can't be used to tell stories in which they're the villain. I particularly dislike it when the redemption arc doesn't take.
Still I think it's not really a redemption arc, because all Norman's sins are still hanging around in Ashley Kafka like Chekov's Gun above the mantelpiece, and the question hanging over the narrative is clearly when and how they're going to end up back in Norman (with a good chance that the answer to 'when' is 'at the worst possible time').

(*) Although one of the fun things about the 80s Secret Wars series itself is that it goes out of its way to disturb the good vs evil dynamic in a way that is actually an implicit criticism of the whole premise. None of the other heroes quite trust the X-men and the X-men don't think they can rely on anyone to trust them at all. Magneto is put on the good guys' side (despite at that point still being mostly a villain). The Lizard is a bad guy, but just wants to hang out in a swamp, and play pat a cake with Hawkeye. The Enchantress thinks she and Thor have more in common with each other than with their respective sides, and Thor doesn't entirely disagree. Ultron just tries to kill all the other villains. Galactus just wants to stop eating planets. The funniest potshot at the premise is that the Beyonder has created a wheelchair for Charles Xavier and put him in it, because Charles Xavier is iconically a wheelchair user, despite the fact that at that particular point in continuity Charles Xavier has the use of his legs.

[Refrax5]

A nice article. It also shares my frustration with how Sentry got treated by Bendis, especially in the end.

It really bothered me how they treated Sentry, a deeply unwell man that had been manipulated by Osborn, like he was a monster that deserved execution at the end of Siege. It's like, "This is your friend and he's sick. What the hell?!"

[Tendrin]

It really bothered me how they treated Sentry, a deeply unwell man that had been manipulated by Osborn, like he was a monster that deserved execution at the end of Siege. It's like, "This is your friend and he's sick. What the hell?!"

"We helped the delusional guy high on drugs commit suicide by Avenger. Welp, time for the heroic age!"

It was *very* bad, insultingly so, and it has ever left a really sour taste in my mouth. Not just because of how a character who could've meant a lot to people like me wound up being used and discarded (hey, what did I say earlier about the way mentally ill characters are treated?) but of *how* he was discarded, effectively using the 'suicide by cop death' which has been repeated ad nauseum in stories about people having mental health crises over and over again in popular media to lend it an aura of 'tragedy'.

Of course, we know cops tend to kill mentally ill people at an alarming rate, so maybe it works... just not how they intended.

Anyway, just insultingly bad, and that's before we get into Bendis' general depicitions of mental illness having huge problems. D-Man, Moon Knight, and Sentry really do not owe him any thanks. "D-Man smells! Boy, this sure is funny! Mentally ill people don't bathe hrr hrr."

[Agent Z]

Thanks!

I saw someone point out in another thread that Janine becoming a supervillain is also pretty icky given her history, and I agree with that as well. We appear to be in an era of Spider-Man where the abused are supervillains and the abusers are superheroes. No wonder nobody likes it.

How so? I'm not that familiar with Janine.

[Agent Z]

Unfortunately, yes. My Hero Academia has a lot of examples on the other side of the Pacific, where the villains, by and large, are the byproducts of a so-called "hero society" that failed to protect and nurture its most vulnerable and marginalized citizens, many of whom were rejected for having powers/abilities/appearances that frightened and unsettled the general public, and for lashing out because of that rejection, they're further scorned by society. Hell, the current #1 "Pro Hero" is someone who ran roughshod over his own family in a kind of eugenicist quest to make a hero that could surpass the previous #1 "Pro Hero," only for the son that he dumped all his hopes and ambitions and frustrations on to reemerge as a rather vicious and unrepentant villain after being presumed dead by his father on account of his powers flaring out of control. That said, the superhero genre has been quite unfriendly, even unsympathetic, to abuse and trauma survivors who don't deal with said abuse and trauma in "the right way" over the years, so . . .

The superhero genre has pretty much always been like that, pretty much ever since Arkham Asylum was first established. At this rate, I'm not sure if that can ever change.

[Agent Z]

I like to think that nobody is beyond redemption, and I don't like the crude 80s Secret Wars premise (*) of good guys vs evil guys dynamic where good is good and evil is evil. But I do think that there are too many heroic characters for the comic buying public to support, especially at current prices, and for the comic writing profession to write. And every redeemed villain is a character that can't be used to tell stories in which they're the villain. I particularly dislike it when the redemption arc doesn't take.
Still I think it's not really a redemption arc, because all Norman's sins are still hanging around in Ashley Kafka like Chekov's Gun above the mantelpiece, and the question hanging over the narrative is clearly when and how they're going to end up back in Norman (with a good chance that the answer to 'when' is 'at the worst possible time').

(*) Although one of the fun things about the 80s Secret Wars series itself is that it goes out of its way to disturb the good vs evil dynamic in a way that is actually an implicit criticism of the whole premise. None of the other heroes quite trust the X-men and the X-men don't think they can rely on anyone to trust them at all. Magneto is put on the good guys' side (despite at that point still being mostly a villain). The Lizard is a bad guy, but just wants to hang out in a swamp, and play pat a cake with Hawkeye. The Enchantress thinks she and Thor have more in common with each other than with their respective sides, and Thor doesn't entirely disagree. Ultron just tries to kill all the other villains. Galactus just wants to stop eating planets. The funniest potshot at the premise is that the Beyonder has created a wheelchair for Charles Xavier and put him in it, because Charles Xavier is iconically a wheelchair user, despite the fact that at that particular point in continuity Charles Xavier has the use of his legs.

Even with all the redemption arcs, there are still more villains than heroes (the average solo hero has at least ten villains in their rogues gallery). It's just that people prefer the "iconic" villains.