Should Norman Osborn Have Stayed Dead?

[Spider-Tiger]

^ that last statement was mainly in response to the " 'evil-because-evil-rich-guy' is thematically appropriate for Spider-Man." comment. But I can understand your argument even though I don't necessarily fully agree.

I know that your comments are more generally directed, but to clarify my views:

Tbh I've been incredibly disengaged from the MCU stuff apart from my piqued interest after NWH. They have been, in general, so far removed from the source material that I really didn't have all that much interest to even comment on issues of class much less analyze them. I was more invested in the Marc Webb films even though I disagreed with their interpretation of the stories they were adapting. But at least they were trying to adapt something from the source material.

I also don't necessarily fully agree with the everyman/relatability ideology even though I understand it. Mainly because I think it has been flanderized to hell and back to the detriment of the character in the wake of OMD. I didn't like the CEO plot but mainly because it read like another shallow high concept plot to showcase the character's ineptitude as opposed to a more meaningful character-driven story to highlight the character's strengths. Peter as an educator felt more character-driven. And not necessarily because of issues of class but because he began his journey as a student learning, growing, etc. So it felt as though the character had come full circle and had evolved from his experiences.

[Daibhidh]

While there is I think a class contrast between Peter and Norman in the Ditko / Romita era, I think it's significant that it happens as Peter is beginning to socialise with people from Norman's class. Peter's just gone to university in an age when it was not unusual to be the first of one's family to go to university, and when going to university was a step to a more wealthy class. I think a lot of Peter's villains up to that point are false father figures or false futures for Peter: in that light Norman and Mendel Stromm are a false future to be avoided for Peter and Harry. Norman is wealthy but he's not so filthy rich that Peter can't aspire to membership of his class.
There's definitely a theme about class going on, but I think it's going on in a context in which social mobility was greater than it is now.
(If you're telling this story, the classic thing to do at this point would be to have a false potential love interest from the new higher class, and then introduce the authentic love interest from Peter's old class.)

Going by Norman's story when he reveals his backstory to Peter, the goblin serum did push him over the edge. Beforehand, he was apparently selfish but law-abiding. The worst thing he does is refusing to pardon Mendel Stromm for his embezzling. Lee and Romita present this as Norman selfishly and unfairly taking advantage of an innocent error, but embezzling is not an innocent error. I suppose the point is that although what Norman does is justifiable he's doing so out of purely selfish motives. It's only after he's taken the goblin serum that he starts thinking that dressing up as a goblin and taking over the New York underworld is a sensible thing to do. I'd say it's a parody of his previous career.

Since Norman's come back: on the one hand, he's now no longer in a class that Peter can realistically aspire to join (unrealistically, Peter can join it simply by being possessed by Otto Octavius). On the other, Norman's evil is now no longer an extension of Norman's financial situation but an extension of Norman's family background.

[Batman Begins 2005]

Yes, Norman Osborn should have stayed dead. Went out in one of the three best Spider-Man stories ever written, The Night Gwen Stacy Died.

[Hypestyle]

he should have. But what's done is done. What I wanted to happen post-resurrection-- and what has never happened, to my knowledge, which is shameful-- was for Norman-as-Goblin to really stick it to Venom in a permanent/memorable way, especially since by the mid-90s, Venom/Eddie had clearly become the most "popular" Spider-Villain (notwithstanding all the "anti-hero" mini-series that had been created for him since 1993).. Norman should really have had a major moment dominating Brock to cement his coming back as the "boss of Villains" in Spider-Man's life.

[Tuck]

Financial struggles are class struggles.

Are you arguing that struggling with the reality of your own class is a class struggle? Or are you arguing that financial struggles are necessarily the result of the actions of higher economic classes?

The first doesn't make sense to me, conceptually. The second one is a sometimes situation.

Norman and Peter's dynamic always centered around their intelligence.

[your_name_here]

We wouldn’t have Dark Reign if he did, and that was great.

[Thievery]

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

I've read Spectacular #200. It is the one where Harry dies in the ambulance, am I correct? I honestly don't find that to be more iconic than Norman's death. Agree to disagree I hope.

I should have been a bit more clear. I don't watch movies or cartoons. So even if the story in that show adapts a story from the comic I can't really offer an opinion on it. The adaptation could be a good or bad one and I wouldn't know as I wouldn't have seen it for myself.

[IamnotJudasTraveller]

I'm surprised "Yes" is winning in the poll (which was also my vote).

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Are you arguing that struggling with the reality of your own class is a class struggle? Or are you arguing that financial struggles are necessarily the result of the actions of higher economic classes?

The first doesn't make sense to me, conceptually. The second one is a sometimes situation.

Norman and Peter's dynamic always centered around their intelligence.

You're overthinking it.

A big part of Peter and Norman's dynamic - not the only part, but one of them - is that Norman isn't a regular guy with financial struggles like Peter, and that Norman is elitist while Peter isn't.

That's what I mean.

While there is I think a class contrast between Peter and Norman in the Ditko / Romita era, I think it's significant that it happens as Peter is beginning to socialise with people from Norman's class. Peter's just gone to university in an age when it was not unusual to be the first of one's family to go to university, and when going to university was a step to a more wealthy class. I think a lot of Peter's villains up to that point are false father figures or false futures for Peter: in that light Norman and Mendel Stromm are a false future to be avoided for Peter and Harry. Norman is wealthy but he's not so filthy rich that Peter can't aspire to membership of his class.
There's definitely a theme about class going on, but I think it's going on in a context in which social mobility was greater than it is now.
(If you're telling this story, the classic thing to do at this point would be to have a false potential love interest from the new higher class, and then introduce the authentic love interest from Peter's old class.)

Going by Norman's story when he reveals his backstory to Peter, the goblin serum did push him over the edge. Beforehand, he was apparently selfish but law-abiding. The worst thing he does is refusing to pardon Mendel Stromm for his embezzling. Lee and Romita present this as Norman selfishly and unfairly taking advantage of an innocent error, but embezzling is not an innocent error. I suppose the point is that although what Norman does is justifiable he's doing so out of purely selfish motives. It's only after he's taken the goblin serum that he starts thinking that dressing up as a goblin and taking over the New York underworld is a sensible thing to do. I'd say it's a parody of his previous career.

Since Norman's come back: on the one hand, he's now no longer in a class that Peter can realistically aspire to join (unrealistically, Peter can join it simply by being possessed by Otto Octavius). On the other, Norman's evil is now no longer an extension of Norman's financial situation but an extension of Norman's family background.

Great breakdown.

^ that last statement was mainly in response to the " 'evil-because-evil-rich-guy' is thematically appropriate for Spider-Man." comment. But I can understand your argument even though I don't necessarily fully agree.

I know that your comments are more generally directed, but to clarify my views:

Tbh I've been incredibly disengaged from the MCU stuff apart from my piqued interest after NWH. They have been, in general, so far removed from the source material that I really didn't have all that much interest to even comment on issues of class much less analyze them. I was more invested in the Marc Webb films even though I disagreed with their interpretation of the stories they were adapting. But at least they were trying to adapt something from the source material.

I also don't necessarily fully agree with the everyman/relatability ideology even though I understand it. Mainly because I think it has been flanderized to hell and back to the detriment of the character in the wake of OMD. I didn't like the CEO plot but mainly because it read like another shallow high concept plot to showcase the character's ineptitude as opposed to a more meaningful character-driven story to highlight the character's strengths. Peter as an educator felt more character-driven. And not necessarily because of issues of class but because he began his journey as a student learning, growing, etc. So it felt as though the character had come full circle and had evolved from his experiences.

IMO, "everyman" should just mean someone who goes through basic day to day struggles like the rest of us (and by rest of us I mean the 90-99% of the population). But yeah, the term is overused to the point it can be confusing and doesn't mean anything anymore. I agree.

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.

He kinda had a point, though.

Harry from his introduction has kinda been presented as the "failson" (for lack of better word) who wasn't as brilliant as Peter and Norman.

There's also a limit to the messed up stuff Harry can do as the Goblin. He isn't a psychopath like his dad, and he can't surpass Norman without losing his sympathetic status from Child Within.

Harry's story works great in JMD's run where he got a tragic ending. But as a long-term archenemy and replacement for Norman? In that role, he would have the same problems as Kingsley (that I brought up on page 1).

[Mister Mets]

I think good stuff has been done with him, but he should have stayed dead. It's a better fit for Spider-Man's story as one in which consequential things happen.

They could've made a villain who was a clone of Osborn, who would serve the same purpose.

[All Star Superman]

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.

Excellent points.

he should have. But what's done is done. What I wanted to happen post-resurrection-- and what has never happened, to my knowledge, which is shameful-- was for Norman-as-Goblin to really stick it to Venom in a permanent/memorable way, especially since by the mid-90s, Venom/Eddie had clearly become the most "popular" Spider-Villain (notwithstanding all the "anti-hero" mini-series that had been created for him since 1993).. Norman should really have had a major moment dominating Brock to cement his coming back as the "boss of Villains" in Spider-Man's life.

I have a feeling Bob Harras wouldn't have wanted to do anything to damage the cash cow that Venom was at the time, especially since Peter Parker himself was seen as "problematic" as a character who was changing and growing over time. That said, I agree with you and would love to have seen Norman take Venom down hard, or even Harry.

I think good stuff has been done with him, but he should have stayed dead. It's a better fit for Spider-Man's story as one in which consequential things happen.

They could've made a villain who was a clone of Osborn, who would serve the same purpose.

Or Bob Harras could have just let the plan to use Harry as the mastermind go through. Harry was always more interesting and despite Harras' contempt for the character, had the mad brilliance to manipulate Peter just as well or even better than Norman ever did.

[Triniking1234]

he should have. But what's done is done. What I wanted to happen post-resurrection-- and what has never happened, to my knowledge, which is shameful-- was for Norman-as-Goblin to really stick it to Venom in a permanent/memorable way, especially since by the mid-90s, Venom/Eddie had clearly become the most "popular" Spider-Villain (notwithstanding all the "anti-hero" mini-series that had been created for him since 1993).. Norman should really have had a major moment dominating Brock to cement his coming back as the "boss of Villains" in Spider-Man's life.

A Venom vs. Green Goblin probably wouldn't work at that time. There were probably more fans of the "hero" Eddie Brock than the " I killed Ben Reilly" Norman so people would flip if a story where Norman kicks Venom's ass for dominance over bullying Peter came out.

[PanicPixieDreamGirl]

Or Bob Harras could have just let the plan to use Harry as the mastermind go through. Harry was always more interesting and despite Harras' contempt for the character, had the mad brilliance to manipulate Peter just as well or even better than Norman ever did.

Surely keeping that very well-written redemption intact is the opposite of having contempt for the character?

[Frontier]

I'm surprised "Yes" is winning in the poll (which was also my vote).

I thought Norman was more popular.

[Huntsman Spider]

I think good stuff has been done with him, but he should have stayed dead. It's a better fit for Spider-Man's story as one in which consequential things happen.

They could've made a villain who was a clone of Osborn, who would serve the same purpose.

A clone of Norman was how they brought Norman back in The "Real" Clone Saga miniseries by Tom DeFalco and Howard Mackie, with Harry turning out to be the mastermind of the Clone Saga and having faked his death in Spectacular 200 all along. Of course, the Norman clone was, to everyone's surprise, sane and moral and thus appalled at what Harry had become and done in his name, which culminated in him sacrificing his own life to save Peter (and Ben) from Harry.