Thread Drift: Is Peter Parker a pathetic loser?

[Spidercide]

To an extent, Gerry Conway's run is a continuation of Lee's with major developments for the character (although Lee's run started shaking up the status quo less and less often.)

Len Wein's run was interesting, in that nothing happened to Peter Parker, but his supporting cast hit several milestones.

That argument is objectively untrue. Marvel might've said they had a policy of the illusion of change but apparently they didn't stick or apply it much. Wolfman on Spider-Man wasn't into crafting the illusion of change because it was policy. Be personally beleived in it and also felt it was what should happen to 'fix' Spider-Man (which was BS though his run is good, especially with Felicia's debut and ASM #200).

Furthermore Roger Stern, Michelinie, Peter David, Chris Claremont, I believe John Byrne and Will Simonson and hell the Jim Shooter era generally had runs which didn't simply shake up the status quo in ways which were illusionary but clear and definite changes, many of which have remained to this day.

And there is a difference between a writer regressing or changing the status quo back just because they want to and the true illusion of change where within the story or run itself all changes are either moot or reversed. For instance Peter Parker was in full time education in Wolfman and O'Neil's runs. He left in Stern's run after apparently the illusion of change policy was in full effect and has outside of 2 occasions never gone back to being a student as the primary backdrop to his status quo. Equally his marriage lasted for almost half his existence. That was clear genuine change. If the change was truly an illusion Peter would've gone back to high school.

A loser? No. He's just unlucky.

He's not even that. His 'bad luck' comes from the ramifications of him being Spider-Man. Something he chooses to do. Luck good or bad would involve the absence of the ability to affect the outcome. Yes SOME bad stuff happens outside of his control. But some good stuff happens too.

Aunt May got sick in ASM #17. But in ASM #18 she luckily recovered.

Because of the Master Planner trilogy everyone at ESU (stupidly) hated Peter and thought he was stuck up because he ignored them. Luckily for some inexplicable reason (*coughDitkoleavingcough*) in ASM #39 everyone at ESU suddenly decided to be nice to him.

Unfortunately for Peter in ASM volume 2 #49 he went all the way to California to try and get back together with Mary Jane. At the same time though she happened to be in NYC looking for him so they missed each other. Very luckily for him though they both had stop overs in the same airport and consequently met one another and got back together.

Peter honestly has no more good or bad luck than anyone else. Shit just happens. The really unfortunate stuff we see are simply the ramifications of his life as Spider-Man. ASM #50 and Raimi’s Spider-Man 2 beautifully illustrate this by having Peter give up being Spider-Man and surprise surprise his life takes a major upswing.

His loses are more significant as a story focus than his victories, which by his own admission is always brushed off as nothing special compared to other heroes despite the tounge in cheekness we as fans discredit. Peter may be be normal rooted towards real life, but he's still by comicbook standards a guy who gets hell for the simplest choices in a cost of his own personal happiness and takes every single loss close to home till someone has to soothe his ego. And unlike normal people, It's his thing to reset the cycle back to the begining when the damage is done, because Peter unlike most real life humans has comicbook heroic resolve, normal people in real life would go mad from the trauma Peter has seen and have killed themselves from the despair.


They are both the same idealisc mold and paragons, Steve is the normal guy of unconditional justice, Peter is the normal guy of unconditional justice. ONly difference is one is a solider, has no superpowers and has a better conviction based on his own country, the other has and instinct and impulse to do the right thing, and validates his worth from the mistakes he made.

Yes, but not the only one, and certainly not the most flawed and unconventional of all the marvel heroes, take the xmen for example. But his bad luck keeps making him regress further from learning from the choices he has made and literally loops back to the same basic shit where his bad luck first started, but with a different scenario. He's known to self sabotage his own fortunes to keep from being a traditional staple superhero with nothing but achievements, which is why he's a textbook loser. TOns of writers have deconstructed Peter's situations with poor outcomes as self intentional than sheer coincidence, even in his own title #661, Spidey teaches teenagers about what responsibilty is only to have the kids heckle his failure to act on other solutions when he was their age. Daredevil is a sadder character than Spider-Man, but Peter is literally the most known screw up in the Marvel U(I apologize if I exaggerate this), and writers glorify on those aspects of his character like it's a good thing. Where as, people who similarly like Peter screw up, the pull off the win in the end looking like total badasses and manly paragons(Wolverine, Magneto, Punisher, Moon Knight, Hercules, Daredevil, etc)

Peter gets away with alot of stuff due to protagonist power, it never sticks though. You see Tony Starrk build a armor that contains the pheonix and saves the universe, it sticks. You see Daredevil go around
whooping on street gangs, yakuza, and getting Captain Freakin America as a fanboy, it sticks. Peter never sets the bar where he makes good on a good situation, and from most of his perspective he never notices the bright side of things he's been given because he's to self loathing. And eventually he gets them taken away,
Because thats his angle, like Charlie Brown and Touma, only he's beloved because he stands for conviction and drive through constant failure and despair, when written well.

And he was still in high school. Kids his age don't worry about the harshness of life until after they grow into thier adult instincts. Peter in the show was about his life with friends, spiderman and aunt may. Not about his job, his money problems, his guilt nor misery about failing to make a difference.


Who the hell is more rightous and self sacraficing than Peter Parker other than Cap. Peter always puts himself before others and never lets up in making justice stand tall for his own beliefs. He never wants money or even the promotions he gets for being Spider-man, he just wants to save lifes and beat up bad guys for free, while constantly complaining about it.

Peter doesn't think so, but we as readers and other character don't. The reader is supposed to see Spidey's true heroic testament of goodwill through the eyes of other people, not from the character himself. Peter is so heroically good, he was one to lead the spider totems to victory because Ben thinks of him as the paragon, Thor and T'challa hold high respect for him, anti heroes like Deadpool and Wolverine look up to him and respect him, and finally Cable says he's going to be the greatest of all of marvel u in the future. What so Peter doesn't have tons of friends and surrogate families other than his typical supporting cast? Johnny won't be there for him? Matt won't be there for him? Kaine? Steve and Clint? Logan and yes even Wade won't be there for him? I'll leave the romance arguement alone, but you wanting to impose Peter as being in love/having a supporting love interest is a top priority to his character than actual being a good friend and loyal superhero is just wrong. Peter is sane because he's a indomitable ideal of heroic willpower, not because of a red head. Peter always comes back as Spidey because "Great Power, comes Great Responsibility" is embedded mark to Peter more than anything from his love life and especially from Mary Jane.

[Spidercide]

Have you counted up the number of wins vs. the number of losses in his 50 year history? What about those times it’s straddled the line? Or had stories which were neither wins nor losses

Do you see how flawed that logic is?

But you know what buddy? Just for kicks and just for little old you I actually DID go through the entire Ditko run. I excluded his origin because most hero origins are tragic so it’s not really fair to count that as an example that proves Spider-Man is a ‘loser’.

In total there are 38 Ditko issues and 2 annuals. ASM #26 is a cliffhanger that leads into the next issue. The same is true of ASM #31-32. So ASM #26-27 count as one story as does ASM #31-33. That equals 37 stories.

In examining all of that I actually marked out the examples of when a story ended negatively (seemingly asserting Peter as a loser, or unlucky or otherwise hard done by), when a story ended positively and went against all that, when a story could on face value be seen as good or bad or a mixture of the two, and when a story ended in a way which was neither positive nor negative for Peter Parker.

In total there were approximately 14/37 stories which ended more or less unequivocally badly for Peter (mostly grouped towards the end of Ditko’s run when he himself was clearly dissatisfied with working on the series). There were also 10 stories which more or less ended with a win and a positive note for Peter Parker. Everything else was either neither positive nor negative, could be seen either way or could be seen as a mixture of both.

If we take the Ditko run (which I think we can all agree was over all harsher and harder edged than the Romita run) as definitely being Spider-Man at a fundamental level you are right the losses ARE a bigger story focus...by an incredibly slim margin. 14 out of 37 losses means that Peter was undeniably losing less than 50% of the time. And 13/37 times he was either neither winning or losing or DEBATABLY winning or losing.

All of which rather makes your point look incorrect doesn’t it

And besides the number of wins and losses is irrelevant to the fact that when you look at the interaction of how and why those wins and losses happened the pattern reveals itself very clearly and distinctly as him NOT being a loser because his problems stem specifically FROM being Spider-Man. More than that the point has been proven endlessly that he has got a lot of good things in his life. He’s just often too angst ridden to realise it. Hell one Ditko issue LITERALLY has him list off all the good things going for him right now but still has him worried. And then the caption box literally says Peter worries even when there isn’t anything TO worry about. And again, he is hardly the most unlucky hero.

And to top it all off, remember ASM #12, the Ditko issue where Doc Ock famously unmasks Spider-Man because Peter had a cold? It’s the third ever Doc Ock appearance. Yeah, not only does that issue end on a happy note but the caption box literally TELLS you Peter Parker isn’t about having bad luck or being a loser, or suffering. It says, and I quote

“...See, we don’t always have unhappy endings! LIKE ANYONE ELSE OUT WEB-SPINNIN’ HERO HAS HIS UPS AND DOWNS!...”

Wow. It’s almost like a classic and iconic Spider-Man story by Spider-Man’s creators who defined most of what he is and is about is saying Spider-Man isn’t a loser!

You are conflating him dealing with difficulties with him being ‘a loser’. It is a highly oversimplistic and narrow minded conclusion to reach.

A victory need not simply take the form of defeating the villain, it can be any upbeat note he ends his story on. And again Stan goddam Lee TOLD you 50 years ago that the assertion you are making is 100% wrong. Read ASM #12!

But he doesn’t get Hell for his simple choices. He gets Hell for many significant choices, often to do with his life as Spider-Man.

He takes the losses close to home that is often true. That doesn’t make him a loser that makes him angst ridden and neurotic. A classic example is in ASM #46 when he moves outta Aunt May’s house. He wants to do it, she even wants him to do it. He does it. He is happy with the decision later. But the issue ends with him melodramatically feeling down. Not because he’s a loser but because he’s an angst ridden neurotic guilt ridden young man. He isn’t a loser he’s someone who needs a reality slap every now and then. Which people like Mary jane wonderfully provide.

Peter’s heroic resolve is an exaggeration of a rare but indeed real world human inner strength. Much like many personality traits are exaggerated in comic books this too is exaggerated for Peter. But it does exist and is psychologically possible to a point.

IDFK what you are chatting about in regards to the cycle or how that resolve makes him into a loser as opposed to just a guy. Thus far half of what you’ve talked about has been total nonsense and the other half has had ZERO examples backing it up as proof. Meanwhile you’ve casually handwaved all the examples I have provided with ZERO justification.

No they are not. Cap has a stronger moral compass than Peter and doesn’t fuck up as often as he does. Peter is highly moralistic but he isn’t like Cap. And by this logic COUNTLESS other characters across multiple companies are the same as Captain America. All you’ve done is basically say “yeah these super heroes have strong morality and a commitment to justice”. By this logic Superman, Batman, Daredevil, the Fantastic Four, the new Ms. Marvel and other heroes are Captain America 2.0s. That’s just painting all ‘heroic’ people who’ve had normal upbringings with the same brush. It’s one of the minimal requirements to BE a superhero. And for the record BEING a soldier is going to make you different in the first place. Oh, and Cap has got damn super powers.

[Spidercide]

Spider-Man predated the X-Men genius! And frankly NONE of the X-Men were as flawed or as human as Spider-Man. most of them were underdeveloped whilst with Spider-Man we got more into his head and saw what made him tick.

Bollocks. The writers FORCING him to regress or not be the sum of his experiences regresses him. JMS and Dematteis and PAD never did that. they either wrote him progressing or as the sum of his experiences.

He hasn’t got any damn bad luck. His choices which cause bad luck literally equate to “Should I be a superhero and save people or not, cos being a hero comes with hardships”. He chooses to be a hero. That isn’t bad luck that is his CHOICE. The definition of ‘luck’ is something beyond our control. If he DOES control it because he CHOOSES to be Spider-Man it isn’t bad luck. Your logic equates him being Spider-Man as a mistake he shouldn’t commit and doesn’t learn from. Which is asinine. Even when he lies to his girlfriends there is a shitton of valid reasons for that, like idfk, maybe he doesn’t quite trust them?????

You are chatting such shit. EXPLAIN when he ever sabotaged himself. You are just throwing stuff out with NOTHING to back it up. ‘He’s known to do this’ WHEN THOUGH!

His fortunes my ass, he makes money from photography. He can’t go to other people because they ask too many questions. He can’t hold a steady job because he is Spider-Man. he doesn’t want to make money from being Spider-Man outside of extreme circumstances because he sees it as an abuse of his power. how the fuck is any of that sabotage?

“TOns of writers have deconstructed Peter's situations with poor outcomes as self intentional than sheer coincidence, even in his own title #661”

WHO tough? Oh, Dan Slott and Christos Gage? You mean the guy who doesn’t actually fundamentally understand Spider-Man to the point where he had him be a fucking paparazzi photographer less than a year after One More Day? Yeah did you ever goddam consider MAYBE those little examples you are pulling from are when people are writing him out of character and therefore are utterly invalid examples! Like 99% of everything published about Spider-Man since 2007 maybe? Where they’ve pushed really damn hard to make him a loser because THEY don’t get the character maybe??????????

Plus the kids suggestions in that issue are at best demonstrative of something Spider-Man could’ve just honestly never considered which doesn’t make him a loser just not omniscient. And at worst their suggestions wouldn’t even work.

You then have the fact that yeah, there is to a certain extent dramatic convenience to consider. BATMAN could solve all crime in Gotham. Superman could solve all global problems. Spider-Man could be rich. No one wants to read or write that though and as a writer it is asinine to tear down your protagonist to justify that suspension of disbelief

Yeah the writer glorify Peter being a screw up. Correction the BAD writers who don’t GET it do that. and they glorify it unjustifiably. Because again they do.not.get.it! Writers glorifying one thing or another doesn’t necessarily mean a damn thing to what the reality is in the universe of the story. They can tell you Spider-Man gets rejected by women all the time. except that has rarely ever happened. They can tell you he is a lightweight fighter but evidence exists to the contrary.

Hercules is a God, Magneto is usually a bad guy, Punisher is a psychopath, Wolverine is categorically NOT a normal guy with normal concerns. He’s a soldier to all intents and purposes. He doesn’t worry about rent or anything like that.

Even if the narrative tries to TELL you Peter is a bigger screw up than Daredevil or Moon Knight or whoever that doesn’t make him objectively that. the narrative can tell you he lives on the moon. He doesn’t though does he. Daredevil is a bigger screw up with more dead girlfriends and arguably more dysfunctional relationships. This is the dude who helped push his girlfriend to suicide and has had his identity compromised multiple times. It is irrelevant if the narrative tries to tell you he is less of a screw up than Peter Parker. factually speaking he isn’t. Same way the narrative can sell you on the idea that Black Cat having massive cleavage serves a practical purpose and isn’t sexist. It still is though. The Superior Spider-Man tried to sell you on the idea that Doc Ock trying to sleep with Mary Jane was funny. Doesn’t change the fact that it wasn’t, it was in poor taste and was rapey. Batman is codified as the bestest hero evah over at DC. Doesn’t change the fact that Nightwing is probably a better fighter and Superman has a better moral compass than him or indeed the fact that countless other heroes are his equal. The Ultimates 3 tried to portray Captain America’s disapproval of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch’s romance as archaic and if he was of the modern day he’d find no problem with incest but realistically it is still fucked up.

“Manly paragons” Yeah...this is some properly sexist bullshit right here.

Being self-loathing doesn’t make you a loser genius. And as for ‘’it never sticks’ going back to the women thing, he’s had stereotypically attractive women throw themselves at him routinely throughout his history. Oh, and he was married to one of those for 20 years. But because there are times that wasn’t the case, no matter how brief, it negates all those other times. I see. What other goal posts shall we move? How about how Daredevil beats up gangsters and the Kingpin but whoops, they come back. Doesn’t stick. Captain America defeats Nazi fanboys. Whoops they come back it doesn’t stick. Do their victories get taken away too.

Basically Peter’s victories don’t matter because there are times they aren’t there and they are only there because he is a protagonist. Translation: “I will be moving the goal posts to make sure I win this”. If he had Betty and Liz after him for the majority of the Ditko run, then Gwen and MJ after him for the majority of the Romita run and had relationships with those other people too for the majority of the time else where THAT IS THE NORM! Ergo he is not a loser in that regard.

[Spidercide]

He doesn’t make good on a good situation which is why he put the moves on Betty Brant in issue #7, wanted to marry Gwen, tried not to make the same mistake of lying when he was with Black Cat and went ahead and proposed to Mary Jane in the 80s. Peter does make good on his situations when he has the time and isn’t dealing with a crisis as Spider-Man. often he can’t appreciate that because he is often guilt ridden, but that doesn’t make you a loser.

Oh for God’s sake. Charlie Brown is a one note gag character who exists in short form fiction.he is incomparable to a character who appears minimal in 22 pages of a full on comic book every month for decades on end. Charlie Brown is mostly one note. But SHOCKINGLY when you expand Charlie Brown into longer media HE DOES WIN!

And AGAIN, STAN told you “No the angle isn’t that he is a loser, the angle is that he is human and therefore capable of having problems”

Why one person or another loves Spider-Man is individualised.

Spider-Man though is about RESPONSIBILITY.

Er....did you WATCH the fucking cartoon? That was exactly what the show was about. Spider-Man getting a job to help aunt may pay her bills, feeling guilty, feeling misery sometimes. It was the Ditko run on Spider-Man come to life. the fact that he is in High School is fucking irrelevant. His challenges might change as he grows up, but fundamentally the core concept of what Spider-Man was hasn’t changed since the start. And that was never to be a loser. If he can say “You know I am Spider-Man and life isn’t actually that bad because I have this person who loves me”, he can say the same damn thing 15 years later as an adult. And he HAS said that exact same damn thing

Asm #200

Michelinie

Amazing Spiderman 200-37.jpg

ASM_348-22.jpg

As for kids not worrying about the harshness of life...his fucking uncle got MURDERED and he blames himself for it. That shit happens to you , you know a thing or two about the harshness of life. 1960s Spider-Man moreso considering he was the provider for his household

How can one be selfless if they put themselves before others. Surely putting others before yourself would be more appropriate to that.

Yeah you didn’t answer my question about what that has to do with being a loser.

Yeah...Peter doesn’t think he is all that heroic. We readers know he is. Doesn’t make his moral compass as completely right as Cap’s though as the Carnage thing pointed out. You haven’t addressed my point at all

a) For the longest time no one in the super hero community knew his identity
b) Super hero friends are gonna be busy and aren’t going to ground him BECAUSE they are superheroes
c) Spider-Man WANTS normalcy. He doesn’t live to be Spider-Man. he lives to be himself and Spider-Man is a part of that. he has normal friends and WANTS that.
d) His typical supporting cast are first and foremost his closest friends and surrogate family members. He was closer to Harry than he ever was to Matt or Johnny. He went to school with Flash and Liz. He fell in love with Gwen and Mary Jan
e) Kaine is different because Kaine is literally biologically family. But when Peter came back from the dead no one offered him comfort. None of his superhero friends. When MJ died in the 2000s where the Hell was Daredevil? Or Thor? The Hulk offered him more comfort and that was after Peter picked a fight with him
f) He rarely if ever hangs out with those guys in civilian guise. And they don’t do many normal things which is what he wants to do
g) Superpowered friends reduces his normalacy
h) He was never in love with Daredevil, the Torch, Logan, Thor or anyone like that so they can’t offer him human companionship.

Your perception of Spider-Man emphasies the Spider over the man, the man who in your misguided interpretation is a perpetual loser even though he’s not by any objective standard.

Oh get over yourself telling me ‘it’s just wrong’. You are codifying the argument as Peter cannot have a love interest who’s a normal person and be a superhero. But he can. Cops and firefighters do the equivalent all the time. many of them derive support and strength from those relationships.

[Spidercide]

As for kids not worrying about the harshness of life...his fucking uncle got MURDERED and he blames himself for it. That shit happens to you , you know a thing or two about the harshness of life. 1960s Spider-Man moreso considering he was the provider for his household

How can one be selfless if they put themselves before others. Surely putting others before yourself would be more appropriate to that.

Yeah you didn’t answer my question about what that has to do with being a loser.

Yeah...Peter doesn’t think he is all that heroic. We readers know he is. Doesn’t make his moral compass as completely right as Cap’s though as the Carnage thing pointed out. You haven’t addressed my point at all

a) For the longest time no one in the super hero community knew his identity
b) Super hero friends are gonna be busy and aren’t going to ground him BECAUSE they are superheroes
c) Spider-Man WANTS normalcy. He doesn’t live to be Spider-Man. he lives to be himself and Spider-Man is a part of that. he has normal friends and WANTS that.
d) His typical supporting cast are first and foremost his closest friends and surrogate family members. He was closer to Harry than he ever was to Matt or Johnny. He went to school with Flash and Liz. He fell in love with Gwen and Mary Jan
e) Kaine is different because Kaine is literally biologically family. But when Peter came back from the dead no one offered him comfort. None of his superhero friends. When MJ died in the 2000s where the Hell was Daredevil? Or Thor? The Hulk offered him more comfort and that was after Peter picked a fight with him
f) He rarely if ever hangs out with those guys in civilian guise. And they don’t do many normal things which is what he wants to do
g) Superpowered friends reduces his normalacy
h) He was never in love with Daredevil, the Torch, Logan, Thor or anyone like that so they can’t offer him human companionship.

Your perception of Spider-Man emphasies the Spider over the man, the man who in your misguided interpretation is a perpetual loser even though he’s not by any objective standard.

Oh get over yourself telling me ‘it’s just wrong’. You are codifying the argument as Peter cannot have a love interest who’s a normal person and be a superhero. But he can. Cops and firefighters do the equivalent all the time. many of them derive support and strength from those relationships.

You are truly ignorant of Spider-Man canon aren’t you? Everything after Gwen died, ASM #150, a Larsen story, Kraven’s Last Hunt, Shrieking, the Clone Saga, the Mackie/Byrne reboot era even, JMS’ run. MULTIPLE stories have pointed out that Peter would die/go nuts without Mary Jane’s influence.

Amazing Spider-Man 137 - 04.jpg

MCP-50-08.jpg

wos125-03.jpg

[Spidercide]

YOU are the one in the wrong my son. Apart from asserting some kinda sexist shit in regards to Peter being unmanly and submissive you’ve got next to NO examples to back your points up and you’ve demonstrated at best a simplistic understanding of Spider-Man’s mythology and at worst a complete misunderstanding of it.

The ‘especially from MJ’ thing is very stupid because you’ve said his love life has nothing to do with who he is as a person which is canonically a idiotic misunderstanding and more than that you are saying Betty Brant and Deb Whitman in particular matter more than Mary jane which is even more asinine.

Great Power/Great Responsibility does mean he is this wholesale self-sufficient doesn’t nee human companionship/support like 99% of all human beings to do stuff ever. A lot of assertions along those lines come off as incredibly naive.

Spider-Man comics aren't really designed to be read for 22 years consecutively. To an 8 year old in 2015, this is all new.

Once you reach the point of "seen it all before", your best option is to read something else instead.

If they weren't meant to be read for 2 years consecutively why in 1997 did they bother making an entire issue dedicated to explaining continuity surrounding Norman Osborn from 1973-1997? In fact why have continuity at all. Continuity by design encourages people to stay around and value the history. Marvel comics was literally built and constructed in such a way that it wholesale rejected the 'cycle of readers' business model 1950s DC and Marvel had employed. Furthermore apart from the fact that most comic book readers are decidedly not 8 years old the fact is that the nature of comics is that those new readers are in fact encouraged to delve deeper into the mythology if they are hooked. It is why back issues have sold so well and why people who picked up the titles in the 90s and 2000s can know minutia from the 1970s. Furthermore the fact of the matter is things were NOT cycled through as badly for decades on end. New innovations and changes to Spider-Man’s world did indeed happen from time to time without him resetting to default. It was only in the 1990s when the writers pushed (initially unsuccessfully) to undo those innovations and stick Spider-Man on spin cycle.

As for Peter whining, well...that’s a part of the character. And it isn’t like he has unjustifiable reasons to whine 90% of the time. and in real life people whine about the same stuff routinely.

On a final note...what precisely is the benefit of the "Spider-Man is about being a loser/about having hard luck" interpretation of the character? No seriously what is gained from this view of Spider-Man? Why is it a good way or the best way the character should be perceived? Why is it better and more additive interpretation/argument for what the character boils down to than claiming he is about either being a (relatively) normal and relatable person who happens to have super powers (the most human of super humans) and/or that he is about the theme of responsibility? Or the relationship between power and responsibility.

P.S. If Spider-Man is about being a loser and unlucky does this mean that Bendis and DeFalco royally fucked up when they were writing Spider-Girl and Ultimate Spider-Man (both Peter and Miles)?

[jimishim12]

Peter Parker isn't a pathetic loser. He is an ordinary guy, with a life full of problems to solve and trying to do the right thing, and what he sometimes fail to do, but always seeks to fix his mistakes.

Of course he have the famous "Parker's Lucky", but who never had/have bad lucky sometime?

Have a double life is not easy, but he struggles to keep both for being what he believes to be right, and personally, I do not disagree with him.

With a genius level intellect and inhuman heroic will. Peter fails because he holds himself back, he backs off when a situation calls for him to commit to a change that harms his typical "half glass full" guilt complex. And the other reason he's afraid of failing his promise to Ben and the people he loves. Even if he was ordinary, he doesn't have to stay in a mundane area of his life to stay human, even ordinary people can become amazing ideal beings.

[boots]

yes he is, so make him more competent. but don’t give him a company. or a sex life. or a nice car.

[Spidercide]

You are correct that Peter isn’t truly ordinary.

However he is RELATIVELY ordinary and prone to the same problems that plague normal people in addition to the ramifications which result from having and using his super powers.

This was especially true in the 1960s when Peter Parker was probably unequivocally the most different superhero out there precisely because he was so ordinary and normal compared to everyone else. He didn’t always win, and when he did it didn’t mean his life was problem free. He had wins and losses, ups and downs. He failed and succeeded romantically, had to do school work, loved his parent, actually had to go through the trouble of sewing and maintaining his costume in addition to paying for his way in life. He didn’t have a steady job, lots of money or otherwise no need for money. He had to pay bills, maintain relationships and generally live life like most people...except he also had to be a super hero in addition to all that.

Compared to Superman, Batman, the Flash and even the Fantastic Four of the era Spider-Man was utterly revolutionary.

No. Peter fails for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it’s him getting in his own way. Sometimes. Not most of the time though.

Most of the time his ‘failures’ are just either cases of ‘shit happens’ or else the ramifications of being Spider-Man which are technically his fault but not in a way which is condemnatory.

You are so right. Peter never commits to anything which compromises his sense of guilt or his outlook on life which would compromise his very obviously inherently negative outlook on life:

Attachment 24128

No he doesn’t have to stay in a mundane lifestyle to be human...but it would make things more interesting, relatable and innate to his original appeal if he did

[Spidercide]

yes he is, so make him more competent. but don’t give him a company. or a sex life. or a nice car.

He isn't a pathetic loser. Like at all.

He was also once upon time very competent. He still is in stuff like Spyral and Renew Your Vows.

But no he doesn't need a massive company or fancy car or playboy romantic life to counter that misconception.

I mean he could have A car, but what's the point if he can not only web swing but is legit a New Yorker most of whom don't have drivers licences.

I guess you could give him a company for a short period of time or if it was something very small and modest, but really he isn't the type of guy to run a company. Harry, Liz maybe even Mary Jane, they could maybe run a company.

As for a sex life, well he can and has had one of those for decades. What's wrong with that?

[cyberhubbs]

Swings around city with fancy web contraptions on his wrists, but don't he dare have a car that drives on buildings.

[jimishim12]

You are correct that Peter isn’t truly ordinary.

However he is RELATIVELY ordinary and prone to the same problems that plague normal people in addition to the ramifications which result from having and using his super powers.

Aside from the actual super villians and the battles? He is on the surface like us, but so is every other fictional heroic protagonist with life problems, they still take a backseat to his heroic problems and spider life. Mostof his nromal problems happened to be when he was a kid and then he broke the mold starting with that aspect of not only young guys as heroes but realistic life as a crimefighter which was brutally deconstructed in a Spider-Man/New Avenger crossover. Peter is also too damn smart and cunning to live the life he lived as a kid, so by your words Peter is PIS as a everyman despite his on the fly quick thinking and attention to detail .

This was especially true in the 1960s when Peter Parker was probably unequivocally the most different superhero out there precisely because he was so ordinary and normal compared to everyone else.

I'd argue that, there are worser people who don't have a luxury of even living a normal life and the ordinary and normal things he does are hardly ever long lasting since you know he's still a guy who has higher intellgence and better outcomes than normal people.

He didn’t always win, and when he did it didn’t mean his life was problem free. He had wins and losses, ups and downs. He failed and succeeded romantically, had to do school work, loved his parent, actually had to go through the trouble of sewing and maintaining his costume in addition to paying for his way in life. He didn’t have a steady job, lots of money or otherwise no need for money. He had to pay bills, maintain relationships and generally live life like most people...except he also had to be a super hero in addition to all that.

Please, atleast he wasn't blind, or judged unfairly, or deformed, or unhealthy to his friends by touching them, or even dirt poor but has the drive to make money. He didn't win sometimes, but he had lived to go back to his life and win again. Even ideal heroes like Cap and Thor don''t always win, Spider-Man never has a moment where he can lose everything his life and lose his livelyhood, he always comes back strong and better. Some characters don't have that benefit. It doesn't help that Peter was a genius and smarter than any ordinary joe who used his brain to beat adult men and meta humans stronger than him, no one who is that gifted even with super powers can do what Peter does and be a ordinary person. Also I note that Peter was a young dude during those trials and struggles, so he has to be child to have elements of a unique fictional everyman hero.

Compared to Superman, Batman, the Flash and even the Fantastic Four of the era Spider-Man was utterly revolutionary.

And now Spidey is a changed to a point where I feel this would be his natural progression a man with the drive to up hold great responsibilty. He's smart, funny, ambitious, and direct with his intentions. Peter has the natural blood of a CEO.

No. Peter fails for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it’s him getting in his own way. Sometimes. Not most of the time though.

Most of the time his ‘failures’ are just either cases of ‘shit happens’ or else the ramifications of being Spider-Man which are technically his fault but not in a way which is condemnatory.

Your not convinving me that Peter goes through the same shit we do when you look at the fact he's more special than even Pym/Reed was when they were kids his age and invented a gadget that is ingenious for grappling surfaces.

You are so right. Peter never commits to anything which compromises his sense of guilt or his outlook on life which would compromise his very obviously inherently negative outlook on life:

Attachment 24128

No he doesn’t have to stay in a mundane lifestyle to be human...but it would make things more interesting, relatable and innate to his original appeal if he did

No it wouldn't because then he'd sell his soul for the devil again to save a old lady who got ran over by a car and angsts about it.

[Lee]

I think a good way to make Peter Parker more relatable would be to portray him as a Scooby-Doo fan. Each issue could have a scene where he posts 10,000 word essays on forums about why Scooby-Doo has sucked for the past decade and was way better when he was a kid. Then he would call Mary Jane over to read his posts and she'd be all like "You are SO SMART and MATURE!" and blow him.

But later Mary Jane would diss Scrappy-Doo and Peter would tell her to watch her damn mouth because Scrappy-Doo is the heart and soul of the entire Scooby franchise.

[Aruran.]

You lost me on Scrappy-Doo.

[boots]

He isn't a pathetic loser. Like at all.

He was also once upon time very competent. He still is in stuff like Spyral and Renew Your Vows.

But no he doesn't need a massive company or fancy car or playboy romantic life to counter that misconception.

I mean he could have A car, but what's the point if he can not only web swing but is legit a New Yorker most of whom don't have drivers licences.

I guess you could give him a company for a short period of time or if it was something very small and modest, but really he isn't the type of guy to run a company. Harry, Liz maybe even Mary Jane, they could maybe run a company.

As for a sex life, well he can and has had one of those for decades. What's wrong with that?

oh hey spidercide, what’s been going on brother.

also, i was wielding the dark art of sarcasm