Does Peter Parker only succeed when he is a Superhero?

[jimishim12]

I've noticed that Spidey never truly accomplishes anything absolutely when he's outside of his costume, and when he does it is imediately rips back at him in messing up again. I find his world changes more as he starts to having a stable life and then like any change comes chaos which makes his life harder to live as a normal guy, but when he is in the costume doing nothing but pure superheroics and alot of rescuing, the stability is more consistent and it sticks so you could say Spider-Man stays the same more than Peter Parker. Like his normal life and everyone in it, he himself always relies on Spider-Man to fix things and salvage any ties to his normal lifestyle.

So is this true and why should stories connect the two so closely?

[nieman]

I think that it's moreso that when Peter Parker is in costume, he's 100% superhero-ing (or more like 95%). He solely focused on the task at hand, and even his Peter-related issues that can be handled in costume are dealt with. This makes him able to have more success. When he's out of costume, he's never 100% focused because of the constant Spidey stuff. He's always being pulled in different directions, mainly because he allows them to. You could say that he can at times, let any of the 1000 other heroes handle said troubles, but he carries the burden of always having to being the one. Even when Dr. Ock was in the costume, he succeeded on a personal level by letting things go that didn't appear on his importance-radar. It would help if he turned in his A badge though.

Spidey is still one of the very few heroes that has a life separate from it. He probably could succeed by being a part-time Spider-Man, but that wouldn't be the beloved friendly neighborhood guy. Maybe that's what the inclusion of Miles will bring.

[Gnarlly]

I guess it depends on your definition of "success," as everyone's definition may be a little bit different.

Does "success" mean a high-paying job, lots of money in the bank, a nice big house, expensive cars, toys and gadgets, the ability to date supermodels, being able to do whatever you want (and perhaps having the ego to go along with that)? If so, then perhaps Tony Stark/Iron Man is the model of "success" in the Marvel world (Bruce Wayne/Batman in the DC world).

Or does "success" mean knowing wrong vs. right, having a clean conscious with your decision/indecisions, having the ability and willingness to make personal sacrifices to help others, putting others before yourself (selflessness and without ego), having family and friends that care about you and making sacrifices for their well-being? If so, then perhaps Peter Parker/Spider-Man is a model of "success."

With the popularity and success of Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man and Avengers films, the "successful" Iron Man seems to have taken over as the face of Marvel entertainment these days. That's a little sad for me given that Spidey has pretty much been Marvel's flagship character since the 1960's.

Peter Parker's success as a character is primarily because he is a common man (an "everyman" character) that gained super powers. He was not born into wealth (Tony Stark/Bruce Wayne), or even born on another planet for that matter (Clark Kent/Superman). That is what makes him so special, and why comic fans latched onto him so readily. Kids could identify with the nerdy science geek who got picked on, or the more simple guy riding around on a moped and taking pictures for a newspaper to make ends meet. Marvel has tried to keep him "down on his luck" and take away some of his "successes" over the years so that the "common man" can still identify with him. Yes, he did "successfully" date and marry a supermodel, but Marvel of course had to rectify that and take his marriage away . . . (save that discussion for another thread). And while the current storyline has Peter heading a big company, I don't see that storyline lasting too long; if it did, and Marvel tries to turn Peter Parker into Tony Stark, then the "everyman" concept of Peter Parker will be lost and Marvel will lose readership.

Peter Parker will continue to achieve "success," but those successful accomplishments will continue to be stripped from him to keep him "down on his luck" and identifiable to the "common man." They don't call it the "Parker Luck" for nothing.

[jimishim12]

I guess it depends on your definition of "success," as everyone's definition may be a little bit different.

Does "success" mean a high-paying job, lots of money in the bank, a nice big house, expensive cars, toys and gadgets, the ability to date supermodels, being able to do whatever you want (and perhaps having the ego to go along with that)? If so, then perhaps Tony Stark/Iron Man is the model of "success" in the Marvel world (Bruce Wayne/Batman in the DC world).

Or does "success" mean knowing wrong vs. right, having a clean conscious with your decision/indecisions, having the ability and willingness to make personal sacrifices to help others, putting others before yourself (selflessness and without ego), having family and friends that care about you and making sacrifices for their well-being? If so, then perhaps Peter Parker/Spider-Man is a model of "success."

With the popularity and success of Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man and Avengers films, the "successful" Iron Man seems to have taken over as the face of Marvel entertainment these days. That's a little sad for me given that Spidey has pretty much been Marvel's flagship character since the 1960's.

Peter Parker's success as a character is primarily because he is a common man (an "everyman" character) that gained super powers. He was not born into wealth (Tony Stark/Bruce Wayne), or even born on another planet for that matter (Clark Kent/Superman). That is what makes him so special, and why comic fans latched onto him so readily. Kids could identify with the nerdy science geek who got picked on, or the more simple guy riding around on a moped and taking pictures for a newspaper to make ends meet. Marvel has tried to keep him "down on his luck" and take away some of his "successes" over the years so that the "common man" can still identify with him. Yes, he did "successfully" date and marry a supermodel, but Marvel of course had to rectify that and take his marriage away . . . (save that discussion for another thread). And while the current storyline has Peter heading a big company, I don't see that storyline lasting too long; if it did, and Marvel tries to turn Peter Parker into Tony Stark, then the "everyman" concept of Peter Parker will be lost and Marvel will lose readership.

Peter Parker will continue to achieve "success," but those successful accomplishments will continue to be stripped from him to keep him "down on his luck" and identifiable to the "common man." They don't call it the "Parker Luck" for nothing.

Peter isnt common, hes a genius and truly skilled superhero. He jad a few elements of down to earth principles but he was mostly noble and rightoues in his motives making him way to pure for a "common" man. I think the character lives an "everylife" and had real life tasks to het done with such difficulty he was misinterpreted as a guy who os justified in being called a average joe when its just spiderman thats cluttering his hindsight.

[jackolover]

I was reading a Danny Fingeroth book, (he was long time editor of the Spiderman franchise), and Danny saw, because Parker was an outsider in the sense he never fit in, Parker had an insight to society because he looked from the outside in. Even without Spider powers, this insight was always with Parker. Parker wouldn't judge anybody until he could walk in that somebody's shoes.

If Parker never became Spiderman, you could still write a book about Peter Parker doing what he does, just not with the Sandman.