I really love how Pete keeps coming back for more. No matter how beaten down or how insurmountable the odds he just keeps fighting because that's him....
But every now and then it would be nice if he didn't have to.
Like a story when he is getting the snot beat out of him by the Sinister Six or some other group and he is knocked through the widow of a restaurant...but it just so happens that Luke and Jessica are out to dinner without Danni and are able to step in and let Peter get a break. Or the fight is being broadcast and the FF or Avengers or just a bunch of street level solo heroes come in to back Pete up.
All I wanted was to be unconditionally loved while never having to work on my flaws. Is that so much to ask?
Nothing goes right for him when he's not with Mary Jane.
Petrus Maria Johannaque sunt nubendi
I think that's true to some extent but I think the bad writing for Peter extends beyond his relationship with MJ and I don't think the lack of marriage/relationship is the be all end all of Peter's character.
And I say this as someone who wants nothing more than to have them back together and to have more good MJ content.
I could forgive it almost if I thought that was a deliberate narrative choice to have Peter be actually less competent without Mary Jane in his corner bolstering his spirit, but a decade plus of getting his ass beat embarrassingly every time he turns around is a little too much, either way I’d think.
1312
What's happened to MJ is just a symptom of a much larger problem: the idea from editorial that Peter Parker must be a loser just for the sake of being a loser (as opposed to what the book used to be about: the sacrifices one makes to uphold responsibility)
They think what makes the hamburger good is all the fancy toppings, but in the end have completely forgotten the meat.
Last edited by Spider-Tiger; 02-22-2023 at 01:00 PM.
And it's not just "Peter Parker is a loser" but "Spider-man is about youth", "Spider-man is a soap opera","Mary Jane is a party girl", etc. Editorial has a habbit of latching onto surface details and then making that the basis for characterization and storytelling decisions. It's like saying Romeo and Juliet is about Italians that die young. It's missing the forest for the trees.
All human beings, whether cognizant or not, can be boiled down down to a belief system that guides everything: their behaviors, attitudes, hopes, dreams, choice of occupation, choice of partner etc. And that should be the basis for characterization because it allows for consistency and informs character arcs.
If you were to whittle Peter Parker down to a core belief or fear it would be a fear of replicating the mistakes that resulted in Uncle Ben's death.
If you were to whittle Mary Jane down to a core belief or fear it would be a fear of ending up like her mother and sister.
Once you've established that, you can then take that core belief and apply it to novel situations: How would Peter Parker logically behave or react to situations x, y, and z given this fear? You can't do that with something like "loser" or "youth" or "soap opera" or "party girl." And IMO that's why the characters have felt so hollow and inconsistent for years now.
The only thing I hate more than Spider-Man constantly being unable to win fights is Spider-Man constantly needing help to win said fights.
It was bad enough when the cartoons started doing it to imitate the comics.
I think what bugs me the most about Peter being unable to win fights anymore is that there’s no real precedent for it. Like obviously his capability as a hero would change a bit from run to run, but for the most part, he won the vast majority of his battles in every run prior to OMD. Like, what was the basis for changing that and making him so incapable? What fans were clamoring for that? When reading an action story, do you not want your action hero to on occasion do something cool? Am I alone in wanting to see that somehow?
1312