Should Norman Osborn Have Stayed Dead?

[Triniking1234]

The memory loss somehow affected how often he Goblin'd so it was kinda the same as a good/bad personality split villain.

[Tuck]

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).

He was a bit sleazy in his business. That's really it. Norman was a pretty normal guy out of the Goblin persona. There really is no distinction between the two post-clone sage.

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.

Why?

[Jman27]

He was a bit sleazy in his business. That's really it. Norman was a pretty normal guy out of the Goblin persona. There really is no distinction between the two post-clone sage.



Why?

cause spiderman represents the poor and the rich are bad

[Tuck]

cause spiderman represents the poor and the rich are bad

Kind of the problem with a 60-year timeline.

The kind of rich Norman was in the 60s is very different than the kind of rich he is now.

[All Star Superman]

Norman should have stayed dead, especially after what he did to Gwen. Their deaths worked together thematically and Harry should have remained alive.

Additionally, Harry should have remained as the string-puller behind the Clone Saga. That made a lot more sense to me than Norman reviving and secretly going off to Europe to screw with Peter's life. Bob Harras felt Harry didn't have it in him to do this, but that's typical small-mindedness from Bob Harras.

I also think Harry should have been the central villain of Raimi's Spider-Man 3, with the Lizard instead of Sandman or Venom.

[Jman27]

Kind of the problem with a 60-year timeline.

The kind of rich Norman was in the 60s is very different than the kind of rich he is now.

yeah when reading the older issue I was surprised to see how rich Jameson made no sense. But I guess in that time period it did

[Kaitou D. Kid]

The memory loss somehow affected how often he Goblin'd so it was kinda the same as a good/bad personality split villain.

Right, but it wasn't an explicit split-personality until TAS.

TAS was the first to do it. Raimi got the idea from there. Then Bendis and Slott brought the idea in the comics.

I met Spider-Man fans who thought that even the Lee/Romita Norman didn't have a split personality. It actually surprised me. Before I got into Lee/Romita, I thought we at least all agreed that 1967-1995 Norman had a split-personality. Guess not.

He was a bit sleazy in his business. That's really it. Norman was a pretty normal guy out of the Goblin persona. There really is no distinction between the two post-clone sage.

He murders Stromm in the Ditko run. That's not "a bit sleazy", or "a normal guy".

He also knocks Spider-Man out with one punch and shoots Stromm from mid-air (obviously from a glider). Those actions only make sense if he knows that he is the Goblin.

Why?

Because Spider-Man is in-part a class metaphor?

That almost goes without saying.

[Triniking1234]

Most of Spider-Man's villains are just as broke as him.
Green Goblin being rich just covers how he has so many toys.

[Tuck]

I met Spider-Man fans who thought that even the Lee/Romita Norman didn't have a split personality. It actually surprised me. Before I got into Lee/Romita, I thought we at least all agreed that 1967-1995 Norman had a split-personality. Guess not.

I've read the run.

Because Spider-Man is in-part a class metaphor?

That almost goes without saying.

Peter is a regular guy who has financial struggles. Which is to make him relatable to most young people reading. I never got Spider-Man as being about class struggle. (I'm sure there are individual stories that go there, but that doesn't make the book about it anymore than Peter and Gwen showing disdain for late 60s protesters meaning that the book is a conservative polemic.)

[Celgress]

OP - Yes, absolutely he should have remained dead. Other than arguably a few mildly interesting gimmicks such as Red Goblin & his recent inversion, his return has contributed nothing of value. Norman is now simply part of the endless Spidey major storyline loop: Kraven's Last Hunt we promise this time for real, Symbiotes & Clones crisis forever!, and the Goblin Strikes Back and Back and Back, and you get the picture.

[Celgress]

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.

very true, I agree

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Peter is a regular guy who has financial struggles. Which is to make him relatable to most young people reading. I never got Spider-Man as being about class struggle. (I'm sure there are individual stories that go there, but that doesn't make the book about it anymore than Peter and Gwen showing disdain for late 60s protesters meaning that the book is a conservative polemic.)

Financial struggles are class struggles.

I think some have this idea that "class struggles = explicit political messaging". That's not true. Class can be a thematic component between Spider-Man and the Goblin without having explicit messaging. Literally most of the stories with Norman do this (even in the Silver Age - When Peter snaps at the Goblin for killing Gwen, he said he hates the Goblin for being elitist). There are many examples like that from the comics that we can point out.

Anytime you read an article about how the appeal of Spider-Man is that he is "an everyman", or "relatable", or "has real problems", all of that is just a non-controversial way of saying he goes through the same problems most of us do because most of us aren't rich. If you want me to use different language, here you go: A big part of Peter and Norman's dynamic is that Norman isn't a regular guy with financial struggles like Peter.

[Frontier]

I think Norman being a scumbag with an evil side is more important than the class differential between him and Peter. It only informs Norman's arrogance and resources.

[Spider-Tiger]

To play devil's advocate, one could also argue that Spider-man is about youth in that his villains are generally older than him (at least old enough to be his father) and that the character is an allegory for puberty and adolescence. And while there are elements of that in certain stories, I probably wouldn't go so far as to say it's about that.

Spider-man is ultimately about using one's powers (abilities or resources) responsibly and the sacrifices that one must make in superficial personal gain and ego driven rewards (this could mean monetarily but also socially such as Peter's popularity amongst his peers) to behave altruistically. To best illustrate this conflict is to show a very concrete and limited sense of power. In other words, Peter doesn't have limitless resources, tech, or financial means to easily bail him out of minor conflicts that arise.

In contrast, villains such as Norman and Octavius are given powers/resources that are more vast and still use those powers irresponsibly and/or selfishly. And in Norman's case, this results in his own demise. In contrast to Peter, whose sense of responsibility -- despite generating more hardship at times -- actually creates a sense of purpose, self-fulfillment, and even happiness (or at least it used to.)

TL;DR idk if Spider-man is necessarily saying being wealthy is bad any more than it is saying being old is bad. More that having access to so much power and not using it to help others is bad. After all of the resurrections and status quo resets that story became muddied.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

To play devil's advocate, one could also argue that Spider-man is about youth in that his villains are generally older than him (at least old enough to be his father) and that the character is an allegory for puberty and adolescence. And while there are elements of that in certain stories, I probably wouldn't go so far as to say it's about that.

Spider-man is ultimately about using one's powers (abilities or resources) responsibly and the sacrifices that one must make in superficial personal gain and ego driven rewards (this could mean monetarily but also socially such as Peter's popularity amongst his peers) to behave altruistically. To best illustrate this conflict is to show a very concrete and limited sense of power. In other words, Peter doesn't have limitless resources, tech, or financial means to easily bail him out of minor conflicts that arise.

In contrast, villains such as Norman and Octavius are given powers/resources that are more vast and still use those powers irresponsibly and/or selfishly. And in Norman's case, this results in his own demise. In contrast to Peter, whose sense of responsibility -- despite generating more hardship at times -- actually creates a sense of purpose, self-fulfillment, and even happiness (or at least it used to.)

TL;DR idk if Spider-man is necessarily saying being wealthy is bad any more than it is saying being old is bad. More that having access to so much power and not using it to help others is bad.

I don't think Spider-Man comics are saying that either.

Everything you said in the paragraph above the bolded one counts as Spider-Man having class subtext. Again, I feel like this thread associates class subtext with "it has to be explicit and say being rich is bad or else it's not subtext". I mean, first of all, it wouldn't be subtext then. And second, we don't use that standard to judge whether or not there is subtext anywhere else.

I agree that a character can be about multiple things. That's part of the strength of Spider-Man. He can be about multiple things all at once. I actually don't even disagree that Spider-Man in the 60s was (partly) about youth, like you pointed out. Most Spider-Man fans probably don't disagree about that, right? Most fans acknowledge that Spidey was a big deal partly because he was the first independent teen superhero, and that a lot of those early comics are a metaphor for teen empowerment. Where they disagree is on whether or not that alone is enough to justify OMD. Like, Quesada and Brevoort are technically right about youth historically being an important part of Spider-Man. But that fact doesn't support their conclusion the way they think it does, IMO. (I realize there are some fans who, ever since OMD, argue that the 60s Spider-Man had nothing to do with "youth", but I think they're making the same mistake a lot of people make: They think that any fact brought up by their "enemies" is wrong just because it was brought up by their enemies).

I think even under the most non-political interpretation, it's undeniable that Spider-Man has a class subtext among many other subtexts. And also, to be honest... and this isn't directed at you, Spider-Tiger... but I feel like there is some strategic ignorance about this coming from this thread (and also whenever the topic of Norman's death comes up). What I mean is that fans will write essays on how Peter Parker is a great character because he is an everyman, because he faces financial problems like everyone else, etc. They'll write essays on how Slott turning Peter into a CEO or the MCU turning him into Iron Man Jr. is wrong because Peter no longer has a financial problems and is no longer working-class, etc. They'll even write essays on how most Spider-Man villains are great because most of them come from a blue-collar family background like Peter but choose to use their powers irresponsibly while Peter chooses to use his powers responsibly. Basically, fans already understand how Spider-Man stories and his characters (including his villains) are full of class subrext... except when the topic of Norman's ressurrection comes up and it's used to justify bringing Norman back. From my experience, that's the only time where you bring up how there's class subtext in Spider-Man and someone goes "Huh? What are you talking about?". It's a little weird and inconsistent, IMO.