Should Norman Osborn Have Stayed Dead?

[Thievery]

Harry's problem is he also had iconic death syndrome.

Nah, Norman's epically iconic death beats Harry's multi death syndrome. Norman's death is the stuff of Shakespearean legends. Homer himself would be amazed by the tragedy Norman's death would leave on the Spider-Man mythos and its characters.

[Frontier]

Nah, Norman's epically iconic death beats Harry's multi death syndrome. Norman's death is the stuff of Shakespearean legends. Homer himself would be amazed by the tragedy Norman's death would leave on the Spider-Man mythos and its characters.

Harry only died iconically once though?

Heck, in the 2017 cartoon they had Harry mimic not only his own death but also his dads (while still surviving).

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I think bringing him back was the correct move.


Reason #1: No one else filled his void.

I think if we accept the premise that archenemies serve a purpose (and their purpose is typically to push the hero to their limits and show a total thematic contrast), then Norman's death left a void that couldn't be filled with anyone else. Norman is a twisted version of Spider-Man in a way Doc Ock and Venom just aren't. He is a rich guy with a midlife crisis and Spider-Man's strength and intellect, who puts on a mask and goes out quipping - except he causes total misery and the concept of responsibility never even entered his ****ing mind.

Sure, other villains have elements that mirror Peter's, but Norman is the only one who mirrors him in every way. The only other one who comes close is maybe Hobgoblin. Even then, not really. Kingsley doesn't have a background in science like Peter and Norman, and it's never been believable that some fashion designer can improve on Norman's formula out of nowhere. A Goblin without a background in science to match Pete's is also less of a perfect foil. Hobgoblin also lacks some subtle things that adds to Spidey and Goblin's dynamics as archenemies, like the fact that Peter is a son without a father and Norman is a father without a son. Or the fact Norman climbed out of his grave after being impaled, similar to Peter in KLH. The depth is just not there with Hobgoblin as it is with Norman's Goblin, IMO.


Reason #2: Norman is too big of a character to stay dead.

Ditko portrayed Spidey and Goblin as evolving characters. As Peter was gradually coming of age into a hero, Norman was gradually growing bigger as a villain in the underworld. Norman's life has the "two steps forward, one step back, repeat" aspect that Peter's life has. The Post-Resurrection years brought this idea back, as did Raimi and Greg Weisman in the adaptations.

Spider-Man is also acknowledged to be a "trickster". JMS even has a story with Spider-Man and Loki where he argues that Spidey is the biggest Trickster in the Marvel universe. (Of course, helps that he is also the company mascot). That would mean Norman's Goblin isn't just the main dark trickster of Spider-Man comics, but of the whole Marvel universe.

I think if we put these two things together, Norman feels like a character too big to die in Peter's teen years. You'd think he'd have some way up his sleeve to escape the death (and the healing factor is a believable way he survived), and that he would continue to evolve "two steps forward, one step back" like Peter into present day. By the time Peter is in his late 20's and considered "the best of us" by Doctor Strange and an Avenger, it makes sense to Norman to be one of the most dangerous villains in the MU and an Avengers villain.


Reason #3: Bringing Norman back didn't ruin or take away from anything.

Norman's death in ASM#122 arguably serves two purposes: to give the reader breathing room after the intense climax, and to set up Harry's eventual demise. Once Harry is dead and 20 years have passed, I don't think Norman's death ruins ASM#122 or Harry's story in Child Within. It also helps that the explanation we got for his resurrection (that the Goblin serum gave him a healing factor) makes sense. If anything, it adds to stories like KLH because Norman had to crawl out of his grave too. It's not the same as Harry's resurrection in BND or the way Flash was brought back.

I think there are two good reasons to bring a character back: if their death filled a void or if you can give them a new role (like how Brubaker brought Bucky back as the Winter Soldier or like how Jason Todd was brought back as the Red Hood). Norman obviously falls into the former category. Someone like Gwen can't be brought back because her role is now occupied by MJ, and no one thought of a new role to give her (and even if they did, Spider-Gwen now has it).

The only problem with how they brought Norman back was his motivation. For a few years, Norman was just focused on hurting Peter and not doing anything else. I would argue this problem has been fixed, though. Marvel Knights, Thunderbolts and Dark Reign reintroduced the idea of Norman having power-hungry goals besides just hurting Spider-Man. As did the Evil Incarcerated mini and Spencer's run where he runs Ravencroft.


Reason #4: Spider-Verse means we can have our cake and eat it too.

The best argument I heard for why Norman should have stayed dead is that the "void" I brought up in Reason #1 was actually a good thing - that Norman functioned as an evil Uncle Ben who corrupts people with his influence from beyond the grave. I'll admit this is a cool take. I don't think it justifies keeping Norman dead 'cause I think Norman makes more sense as a parallel to Peter than to Ben (and therefore he makes more sense alive). Still, there is something to this argument, and I sympathize with fans who feel bringing Norman back came away at a cost.

I think Spider-Verse and the fact we have multiple Spider-People co-existing with Peter is a game changer, though. Peter is alive and active as Spider-Man, and also the Uncle Ben to Miles Morales and others. So I think you can now have a Norman who is alive and active as the Goblin, but also the anti-Uncle Ben influencing others to pick up the Goblin mantle. If anything, it's a logical way to build off the "legacy" theme of Spider-Verse stories and to draw more parallels between Peter and Norman.

[Huntsman Spider]

I think bringing him back was the correct move.


Reason #1: No one else filled his void.

I think if we accept the premise that archenemies serve a purpose (and their purpose is typically to push the hero to their limits and show a total thematic contrast), then Norman's death left a void that couldn't be filled with anyone else. Norman is a twisted version of Spider-Man in a way Doc Ock and Venom just aren't. He is a rich guy with a midlife crisis and Spider-Man's strength and intellect, who puts on a mask and goes out quipping - except he causes total misery and the concept of responsibility never even entered his ****ing mind.

Sure, other villains have elements that mirror Peter's, but Norman is the only one who mirrors him in every way. The only other one who comes close is maybe Hobgoblin. Even then, not really. Kingsley doesn't have a background in science like Peter and Norman, and it's never been believable that some fashion designer can improve on Norman's formula out of nowhere. A Goblin without a background in science to match Pete's is also less of a perfect foil. Hobgoblin also lacks some subtle things that adds to Spidey and Goblin's dynamics as archenemies, like the fact that Peter is a son without a father and Norman is a father without a son. Or the fact Norman climbed out of his grave after being impaled, similar to Peter in KLH. The depth is just not there with Hobgoblin as it is with Norman's Goblin, IMO.


Reason #2: Norman is too big of a character to stay dead.

Ditko portrayed Spidey and Goblin as evolving characters. As Peter was gradually coming of age into a hero, Norman was gradually growing bigger as a villain in the underworld. Norman's life has the "two steps forward, one step back, repeat" aspect that Peter's life has. The Post-Resurrection years brought this idea back, as did Raimi and Greg Weisman in the adaptations.

Spider-Man is also acknowledged to be a "trickster". JMS even has a story with Spider-Man and Loki where he argues that Spidey is the biggest Trickster in the Marvel universe. (Of course, helps that he is also the company mascot). That would mean Norman's Goblin isn't just the main dark trickster of Spider-Man comics, but of the whole Marvel universe.

I think if we put these two things together, Norman feels like a character too big to die in Peter's teen years. You'd think he'd have some way up his sleeve to escape the death (and the healing factor is a believable way he survived), and that he would continue to evolve "two steps forward, one step back" like Peter into present day. By the time Peter is in his late 20's and considered "the best of us" by Doctor Strange and an Avenger, it makes sense to Norman to be one of the most dangerous villains in the MU and an Avengers villain.


Reason #3: Bringing Norman back didn't ruin or take away from anything.

Norman's death in ASM#122 arguably serves two purposes: to give the reader breathing room after the intense climax, and to set up Harry's eventual demise. Once Harry is dead and 20 years have passed, I don't think Norman's death ruins ASM#122 or Harry's story in Child Within. It also helps that the explanation we got for his resurrection (that the Goblin serum gave him a healing factor) makes sense. If anything, it adds to stories like KLH because Norman had to crawl out of his grave too. It's not the same as Harry's resurrection in BND or the way Flash was brought back.

I think there are two good reasons to bring a character back: if their death filled a void or if you can give them a new role (like how Brubaker brought Bucky back as the Winter Soldier or like how Jason Todd was brought back as the Red Hood). Norman obviously falls into the former category. Someone like Gwen can't be brought back because her role is now occupied by MJ, and no one thought of a new role to give her (and even if they did, Spider-Gwen now has it).

The only problem with how they brought Norman back was his motivation. For a few years, Norman was just focused on hurting Peter and not doing anything else. I would argue this problem has been fixed, though. Marvel Knights, Thunderbolts and Dark Reign reintroduced the idea of Norman having power-hungry goals besides just hurting Spider-Man. As did the Evil Incarcerated mini and Spencer's run where he runs Ravencroft.


Reason #4: Spider-Verse means we can have our cake and eat it too.

The best argument I heard for why Norman should have stayed dead is that the "void" I brought up in Reason #1 was actually a good thing - that Norman functioned as an evil Uncle Ben who corrupts people with his influence from beyond the grave. I'll admit this is a cool take. I don't think it justifies keeping Norman dead 'cause I think Norman makes more sense as a parallel to Peter than to Ben (and therefore he makes more sense alive). Still, there is something to this argument, and I sympathize with fans who feel bringing Norman back came away at a cost.

I think Spider-Verse and the fact we have multiple Spider-People co-existing with Peter is a game changer, though. Peter is alive and active as Spider-Man, and also the Uncle Ben to Miles Morales and others. So I think you can now have a Norman who is alive and active as the Goblin, but also the anti-Uncle Ben influencing others to pick up the Goblin mantle. If anything, it's a logical way to build off the "legacy" theme of Spider-Verse stories and to draw more parallels between Peter and Norman.

Those are all rather good and valid points there. I do like the idea of Norman paralleling Uncle Ben, insofar as Uncle Ben's example inspiring Peter (and others in his life like Aunt May) to be their best selves while Norman's example and influence cause people like his own, terribly neglected if not flat-out abused son Harry (among others) to give into the worse demons of their nature. Hell, that also parallels Peter himself, as Peter, whether as himself or as Spider-Man, has inspired a lot of the people around him and otherwise in his life to try to be better, whereas Norman just seems to make everyone around him even worse (and worse off).

[Coop]

I think he should have stayed dead. Aside from Warren Ellis's Thunderbolts I don't think any story about Norman since his return has been particularly incredible. Some I am partial to, like Goblins at the Gate but for the most part there's not much I feel made a massive contribution that I would be too upset to not have

[Thievery]

Harry only died iconically once though?

Heck, in the 2017 cartoon they had Harry mimic not only his own death but also his dads (while still surviving).

I don't watch cartoons so anything iconic that happens there is lost on me. I tried watching the first Spider-Man movie and gave up because I thought it sucked. The Green Goblin character was poor. I haven't tried to watch a Spider movie since then. I'm lost on what people see in them. I'm genuinely sorry to say that to anyone who came to read about Spider-Man because of the films.

The only superhero movies that I have watched are the Thor movie with the stupid ships Malekith and his dark elves flew and a couple of the X-Men movies.

I stand by my opinion that Norman's death by glider impalement was far greater than any of Harry's comic deaths. Sorry Norman fans. And I say that as someone who thinks that Harry's deaths weren't to shabby. Sorry fellow Harry fans.

[Tendrin]

Yes, and Harry should have lived, even if his death was really well-written.

Correct take.

Harry should be alive. His death is an example of the diminishment of Spidey's supporting cast over the years, which is in and of itself part of a broader trend of diminished supporting casts in a lot of comics.

[Frontier]

I don't watch cartoons so anything iconic that happens there is lost on me. I tried watching the first Spider-Man movie and gave up because I thought it sucked. The Green Goblin character was poor. I haven't tried to watch a Spider movie since then. I'm lost on what people see in them. I'm genuinely sorry to say that to anyone who came to read about Spider-Man because of the films.

The only superhero movies that I have watched are the Thor movie with the stupid ships Malekith and his dark elves flew and a couple of the X-Men movies.

I stand by my opinion that Norman's death by glider impalement was far greater than any of Harry's comic deaths. Sorry Norman fans. And I say that as someone who thinks that Harry's deaths weren't to shabby. Sorry fellow Harry fans.

So you haven't read Spectacular Spider-Man #200?

Correct take.

Harry should be alive. His death is an example of the diminishment of Spidey's supporting cast over the years, which is in and of itself part of a broader trend of diminished supporting casts in a lot of comics.

I'm curious how he'd react to Red Goblin Normie or Supervillain Liz though granted a lot of that relies on him being dead.

[Hurricane Billy]

So you haven't read Spectacular Spider-Man #200?

Right? One of the best Spider-Man stories ever right there IMO.

[Toxin45]

Correct take.

Harry should be alive. His death is an example of the diminishment of Spidey's supporting cast over the years, which is in and of itself part of a broader trend of diminished supporting casts in a lot of comics.

Yeah but he dead now along with his clone from brand new day.

[Joe Sidetracked]

Yes, 100%. Norman's return was the start of the book's aggressive position on restoring a status quo.

[DanMad1977]

Yes, should have stayed dead. One of the Best death in comics.

And Harry should live. As a friend of Peter and nothing else.

[Tuck]

Reason #3: Bringing Norman back didn't ruin or take away from anything.

Eh, the post-clone saga version of Norman as evil-because-evil-because-rich-guy is a weaker character than the Jekyll-and-Hyde 60s/70s version.

[Jman27]

he save the clone saga for me so thats a positive for his return but he did revive Aunt May for no reason as well

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Eh, the post-clone saga version of Norman as evil-because-evil-because-rich-guy is a weaker character than the Jekyll-and-Hyde 60s/70s version.

The evil-because-evil-rich-guy take is the original Lee/Ditko take. Even in the Lee/Romita era, it never fully went away (Lee/Romita Norman had memory loss from being hit in the head but that's not the same thing as a split personality).

Also, "evil-because-evil-rich-guy" is thematically appropriate for Spider-Man. Especially if you're supposed to be the archenemy. It's infinitely more appropriate than than the Jekyll/Mr. Hyde thing.