Reasons To Keep Peter Parker Single

[Chris S.]

I don't think I can read this thread. I about Hulk'd out after the first 4 or 5 posts…

[Aruran.]

Peter just doesn't seem like the guy who should have a lot of love interest. I'll be honest, him dating over 4 girls seriously really takes away from the everyman aspect more than anything else IMO. Like do you remember more than 2 relationships that were important and mattered at the end of the day for you?

Gwen works cause she's the one that died because of Spider-Man. Interesting
Black Cat works cause she's the one that loved one side more than the other. Interesting
Mary Jane works cause she's either the one that got away or the one. Interesting
Carlie works cause she's the one who didn't.....umm still trying to figure this one out

And that's really the problem when he's single. There seems to be a lot of potential with him dating a lot of people, but there really isn't. Like other than the super heroine story, there isn't one that could fit in a role. So while there could be more reasons, it doesn't mean they would lead to somewhere positive.

But at the same time it means not every story has to be a romance story. And that out weights anything when your writer can't write those sort of stories on a consistent basis.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

Peter just doesn't seem like the guy who should have a lot of love interest. I'll be honest, him dating over 4 girls seriously really takes away from the everyman aspect more than anything else IMO. Like do you remember more than 2 relationships that were important and mattered at the end of the day for you?

Gwen works cause she's the one that died because of Spider-Man. Interesting
Black Cat works cause she's the one that loved one side more than the other. Interesting
Mary Jane works cause she's either the one that got away or the one. Interesting
Carlie works cause she's the one who didn't.....umm still trying to figure this one out

And that's really the problem when he's single. There seems to be a lot of potential with him dating a lot of people, but there really isn't. Like other than the super heroine story, there isn't one that could fit in a role. So while there could be more reasons, it doesn't mean they would lead to somewhere positive.

But at the same time it means not every story has to be a romance story. And that out ways anything when your writer can't write those sort of stories on a consistent basis.

Excellent points.

I think you make an interesting point, is that not every story has to be a romance. And, if you think about it, how many stories since BND have been romances? Or have had serious romantic overtones? Yes, there have been aspects regarding Peter's love life, but that's not necessarily romance. That's just an aspect of the series.

That's something that I've mentioned before- The romantic aspect of Peter's life is emphasized as being one of if not the most important aspect of the mythos. Yet when writers are vetted, they are never vetted on how well they can write romance. More emphasis is put on whether or not they can write a funny Spidey rather than if they can write a romantic Spidey. And that's a bit of a troubling thought. Writers emphasize his romantic problems, but we never ask whether or not they are skilled enough to write the romantic side of his life. They just assume that they write some boyfriend/girlfriend stuff, and it's the same thing.

Which is where we get into trouble. Which is where we get into the notion of "Get rid of the marriage, because it creates more options." But more options don't lead to better stories. There's no guarantee that they will be entertaining, and if the writer is focusing more on taking the easy way out than crafting a decent story that truly is romantic, then that's not a good way to get an entertaining story.

[Aruran.]

Excellent points.

I think you make an interesting point, is that not every story has to be a romance. And, if you think about it, how many stories since BND have been romances? Or have had serious romantic overtones? Yes, there have been aspects regarding Peter's love life, but that's not necessarily romance. That's just an aspect of the series.

I think 90% of BND wasn't romantic, but the attempts at it hurt those stories.
Like Kraven's First Hunt, Unschedule Stop, American Son did not revolve around Peter's love life, but the people around him who needed his help.

That's something that I've mentioned before- The romantic aspect of Peter's life is emphasized as being one of if not the most important aspect of the mythos. Yet when writers are vetted, they are never vetted on how well they can write romance. More emphasis is put on whether or not they can write a funny Spidey rather than if they can write a romantic Spidey. And that's a bit of a troubling thought. Writers emphasize his romantic problems, but we never ask whether or not they are skilled enough to write the romantic side of his life. They just assume that they write some boyfriend/girlfriend stuff, and it's the same thing.

Which is where we get into trouble. Which is where we get into the notion of "Get rid of the marriage, because it creates more options." But more options don't lead to better stories. There's no guarantee that they will be entertaining, and if the writer is focusing more on taking the easy way out than crafting a decent story that truly is romantic, then that's not a good way to get an entertaining story.

I think the mindset was when they did OMD, they would test the waters but not focus on an romance stories right away. But I think with everything that has happened since then, Dan Slott wouldn't want to address those stories unless he absolutely has to. There is never gonna be anything new with that section unless it's the super heroine, so unless you can make the journey from the start to break-up interesting, it's not gonna happen.

Like in BND I thought Norah would make a better girlfriend for Peter then Carlie, because Norah is someone who is reactive and causes problems on her own while Carlie tends to solve them. Neither one would last, but Norah would've been more entertaining. Even now, if Peter dates someone who shares interests with him, there is gonna be a problem on how to break them up. If he dates someone who doesn't, then you can expand on why Peter wants to be with someone who seems so different from him.

At the end of the day, I don't think Slott will add a new love interest other than Silk. Its lost its element in Spider-Man, cause there is just such a small percentage of fans who want a new love interest and believe it will last and go all the way. Like there is a majority that would want Peter and MJ together again, but I don't think it's 50% or over of the fans, more like 40-49%. And all the others are smaller than that. So they have to wait until the opportunity presents itself to introduce someone who will last and be meaningful, if it ever happens.

[Zeitgeist]

But that is only one aspect of his personal life, which is one aspect of his larger narrative.

There are so many other avenues to explore, that aren't inhibited or affected in any way by who he is with, that focusing on that one aspect seems a bit narrow minded.

A) Ignoring an element doesn't mean it's not there.
B) I'm well aware there's many things you can do with Spider-Man that doesn't involve his romantic life (hardly an argument for the marriage, mind you). However, this thread is specifically about his romantic life, which is exactly why we're focusing on that one aspect.
If you think focusing on just that is narrow-minded, that's more an issue with the genesis of the two threads at play here.

Except Carlie's now out of the book, sharing the same fate that a lot of female love interests shared once they stopped being romantically involved with Peter. Much like Deb Whitman, Joy Mercado and Jill Stacy before her.

History doesn't really bear this out. If the character is conceived to be a love interest, there isn't much incentive to keep them around. And if they aren't being used as a love interest, then there's not much reason to break Peter up with anyone else.

History =/= Future.

Also again, you're ignoring the journey of each character. While you may conclude the destination was the same, the stories told were unequivocally different. Carlie Cooper is not Deb Whitman is not Joy Mercado is not Jill Stacy. I don't recall any of the others begrudgingly help Peter as Spider-Man while operating as a police officer, or being one of the few people to fight for the fact that Doctor Octopus was in control of Peter's mind/body, or being turned into a Goblin henchman, etc etc.

Furthermore, Carlie has only just exited the supporting cast, 3 years after she was done being a love interest. 3 added years as a supporting character past her supposed due-by date would say there was some incentive at play to keep her around as more than just a one-time romantic interest.

But she wasn't conceived as just a love interest.

Storytelling in comics is not rigid. Flash Thompson wasn't conceived as a super hero, now he is. The function and purpose of any character can change.

No, but there is a greater history that shows him being married isn't a detriment to good stories from being told, good creators from working on the title, or fans turning away.

There's a "greater history" because it was the status quo for 20 years. Again, that shouldn't dictate the possibility of future storytelling, at all.
Currently there are still good stories being told (as proven by critic reception and generally great sales), great creators working on the Spider family titles, and Brand New Day onwards has seemed to have brought in/back as many readers that "turned away".

I'm paying money to be entertained now, not later. I'm not paying money to maximize possibilities for entertainment, I'm paying money to be entertained now. If the creators can't do that with what they've got, then that's their problem, not mine. Because plenty of other creators were able to tell entertaining stories with the previous status quo, and didn't promise that they'd tell better stories later, you just have to sit through bad ones now.

As you just admitted, there is absolutely no guarantee of being entertained, at any point, regarding any story - regarding any medium at that. So why would you demand as such?
Did Amazing Spider-Man just magically arrive at the point you prefer in it's life, with Mary Jane installed as his wife? No, it was a winding road to that point. Would you say everything before that point was a "bad story" that people had to sit through?

Also needless to say, when it comes to long form story telling, you don't always get what you want right away. And this is all ignoring the inherent subjectivity at play at what you think is entertaining and what you think is a bad story.

Lastly, it's obvious the creators felt they did have a problem, and they did do something about it, which now seems to make it your problem.

I don't know how much time was left. But neither does anyone else. And just because you or someone else can't perceive of there being new stories to be told doesn't mean that there was no more stories to be told. Saying that you cannot perceive of new stories to come down the line says nothing about the material. It just says that you, individually, don't have the imagination to perceive it, or you are biased to a particular narrative and don't want to entertain the possibilities that there is more to the other side of the issue.

If you are going to argue there wasn't much time left, then prove it. Prove to me, and to others, using facts, figures and cited examples, beyond personal hyperbole and biased opinions, that there was a finite limit on the time involved.

Nothing of what I said was based on the notion that time was finite. In fact, my point was based around the fact that the most tent-pole mainstream comic series are built to have no end.
You can have all the imagination in the world and you would absolutely be scraping the bottom of the barrel after another 20 years of more of the same.
Sure, there may be a few more good stories that could be told out of Spider-Man being married. But they are undoubtedly far fewer after two decades of the same status-quo. You, individually, seem to skirt around that fact by talking about there not being any guarantees - while simultaneously stating that you demand guarantees of being entertained. And you would want Peter Parker to be married from now until an undisclosed future point that we can't even discern, because it's easier.

This is all obviously very much your prerogative, which you're welcome to, but obviously better suited to the thread about why Peter should be married.

Who people are still asking to come back, and who people still have a problem with how their relationship ended.

Some people still want D-Man to be an Avenger. You obviously can't please everyone, to assume anything else in an argument would be a bandwagon fallacy. That doesn't make the pairing of Scott and Emma any less a success.

Emma Frost has yet to eclipse Jean Grey's importance in the books.

That's subjective.

And just because Cyclops and Emma happened to be moderately successful doesn't mean that Peter will face the same situation. In fact, the point you lead off with proves it- Carlie was a misfire. How many more misfires do we have to put up with under the auspices of a better story might come out of it, instead of focusing on what would make a good story now?

It also doesn't mean that Peter won't face the same situation, either. Moreover, life is full of misfires. Maybe Carlie was never meant to have been a successful girlfriend? Who's to say a story about a failed relationship and the intriguing positions it puts both parties in afterwards isn't a "good story" in itself? I personally didn't care much about Carlie Cooper the girlfriend, but I was very intrigued by Carlie the ex.

Then that's your problem, not a problem with the book.

Having an issue with creative stagnation regarding storytelling absolutely is a problem with the book.

Which in no way means "Keep Peter single." That mandate can also lead to stagnation.

That would be valid if Peter had been single for the last two decades - but he wasn't. He was married.

And unless you can prove that him being married does lead to stagnation- again, beyond just using personal opinion or hyperbole, and using real, cited facts and examples- then we can't just assume that because you personally don't see a future in it, that there is no future in it.

I've already said there could potentially more positive stories regarding the marriage, and I'd also be repeating myself to say that the feeling obviously was by the Powers That Be that there was little left to mine in the marriage after 20 years of storytelling compared to a "single" Parker, to which I firmly agree.

The thing is, I wasn't asking people to subscribe specifically to my opinion or rationale. I could possibly Post Hoc up some kind of statistics in my favour, but I don't feel the need to one-sidedly defend what I believe any further in a thread called "Reasons To Keep Peter Parker Single", where as the first post states: "Let's focus on the advantages of Peter Parker single, even if you don't believe these particular gains are worthwhile" - not "demand burden of proof as a pro-marriage stalwart to absolutely every member that posts in the thread". I'm all for a little bit of healthy debate but like the Spider Marriage, I know when there's not much left to say; and I doubt other people are enthralled with getting a repeated third degree in the thread that's meant to be in line with their leanings. Not to mention, for all the demanding of real cited facts you've been making, it seems a bit unfair that you don't offer up any with your own arguments.

Quite simply, we're at an impasse. You're welcome to want Peter to be married but this thread is generally against that. To sum it all up:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

[Aruran.]

Not every story where he's married had to have the romantic aspect either, it just ended up being that way. That's really what hurt the marriage, there was no real structure for pacing. The stories are better now because they have learned from past mistakes, simple as that.

The easier answer to why him being single is better is because it's easier to switch Peter's status quo when it's just Peter.
And it still stands out that 5 years after OMD they "killed off" Peter, cause if your saying that him being single is easier he should've lasted longer than 5 years before killing him off. Or the fact 3 years after OMD he entered a new relationship that lasted a year.

I have no problem keeping Peter single when he's still in school, cause it works and having him in a relationship makes it really dull. It's the version that everyone knows in the world too.
But when he's an adult your just saying you don't like who he's dating, that why you don't want him married.

Him being single doesn't make him be any younger, cause it never affects his age. But everything they did in the marriage did age him, so it's fair game to move past it. The problem is, when you keep him as a adult and single, he's at that point where theres no real reason why he isn't just sticking to one life.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

I think 90% of BND wasn't romantic, but the attempts at it hurt those stories.
Like Kraven's First Hunt, Unschedule Stop, American Son did not revolve around Peter's love life, but the people around him who needed his help.

And those were the most well received stories, but they didn't require him to be single.

[Qute] I think the mindset was when they did OMD, they would test the waters but not focus on an romance stories right away. But I think with everything that has happened since then, Dan Slott wouldn't want to address those stories unless he absolutely has to. There is never gonna be anything new with that section unless it's the super heroine, so unless you can make the journey from the start to break-up interesting, it's not gonna happen.

Like in BND I thought Norah would make a better girlfriend for Peter then Carlie, because Norah is someone who is reactive and causes problems on her own while Carlie tends to solve them. Neither one would last, but Norah would've been more entertaining. Even now, if Peter dates someone who shares interests with him, there is gonna be a problem on how to break them up. If he dates someone who doesn't, then you can expand on why Peter wants to be with someone who seems so different from him.

At the end of the day, I don't think Slott will add a new love interest other than Silk. Its lost its element in Spider-Man, cause there is just such a small percentage of fans who want a new love interest and believe it will last and go all the way. Like there is a majority that would want Peter and MJ together again, but I don't think it's 50% or over of the fans, more like 40-49%. And all the others are smaller than that. So they have to wait until the opportunity presents itself to introduce someone who will last and be meaningful, if it ever happens.[/QUOTE]

I don't think Silk is a love interest. Slott has made it clear, he doesn't want Peter to date someone with powers.

From his statements and his attitude, I think Slott fully intended Carlie to be the love interest of his run, with no one else in the running. I think that his attitude wasn't "Test the waters to see what worked, and eventually set things up for multiple love interests." It was "Break Peter and MJ up, wait a bit, then hook Peter up with the love interest I approve of and created." Problem was that things didn't proceed to his plans and now he's working on crafting a story featuring a love interest he's not entirely interested in.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

A) Ignoring an element doesn't mean it's not there.

And pretending a problem exists doesn't make it so.

History =/= Future.

But history does show that complaints that there is a limit to a story, or that people will be turned off, or that creators won't be attracted to the series, or that returning the single status will automatically improve the quality of the series, are largely untrue.

Also again, you're ignoring the journey of each character. While you may conclude the destination was the same, the stories told were unequivocally different. Carlie Cooper is not Deb Whitman is not Joy Mercado is not Jill Stacy. I don't recall any of the others begrudgingly help Peter as Spider-Man while operating as a police officer, or being one of the few people to fight for the fact that Doctor Octopus was in control of Peter's mind/body, or being turned into a Goblin henchman, etc etc.

But if the journey is boring, I don't care. It's just wasting time.

Storytelling in comics is not rigid. Flash Thompson wasn't conceived as a super hero, now he is. The function and purpose of any character can change.

Just as MJ wasn't conceived as being Peter's one true love, or Peter being a married man. Like you said, things can change.

There's a "greater history" because it was the status quo for 20 years. Again, that shouldn't dictate the possibility of future storytelling, at all.

Neither should unproven statements.

Currently there are still good stories being told (as proven by critic reception and generally great sales), great creators working on the Spider family titles, and Brand New Day onwards has seemed to have brought in/back as many readers that "turned away".

And the same thing happened when he was married.

As you just admitted, there is absolutely no guarantee of being entertained, at any point, regarding any story - regarding any medium at that. So why would you demand as such?

Because I'm paying good money to be entertained. If you can't guarantee that, don't waste my time.

Did Amazing Spider-Man just magically arrive at the point you prefer in it's life, with Mary Jane installed as his wife? No, it was a winding road to that point. Would you say everything before that point was a "bad story" that people had to sit through?

No. But the good stories were the ones that stayed with people. And if the stories weren't good, we wouldn't have that "winding road."

Also needless to say, when it comes to long form story telling, you don't always get what you want right away. And this is all ignoring the inherent subjectivity at play at what you think is entertaining and what you think is a bad story.

Getting what I want isn't the problem. It's getting what I need, which is to be entertained. If you can't fulfill that need, then nothing else matters.

Lastly, it's obvious the creators felt they did have a problem, and they did do something about it, which now seems to make it your problem.

No, that's still their problem. And if their problem means that they can't tell good stories, then I don't care what their rationale is. I'm paying for good stories, not for them to sort out their own issue.

Nothing of what I said was based on the notion that time was finite. In fact, my point was based around the fact that the most tent-pole mainstream comic series are built to have no end.
You can have all the imagination in the world and you would absolutely be scraping the bottom of the barrel after another 20 years of more of the same.
Sure, there may be a few more good stories that could be told out of Spider-Man being married. But they are undoubtedly far fewer after two decades of the same status-quo. You, individually, seem to skirt around that fact by talking about there not being any guarantees - while simultaneously stating that you demand guarantees of being entertained. And you would want Peter Parker to be married from now until an undisclosed future point that we can't even discern, because it's easier.

Again, prove this.

Prove that this is true.

Asking questions isn't the same as having answers. If you want to say that there are fewer stories with a married Spider-Man, prove it. Otherwise, it's just your lack of imagination. It's a problem you have with the book, not the book's problem.

That's subjective.

Then why do people still ask for Jean to come back?

Having an issue with creative stagnation regarding storytelling absolutely is a problem with the book.

Except you haven't proved that the book was suffering from creative stagnation. All you've said was that you had a problem with it. That's not the same thing. There's nothing about what you've said that proves that it wasn't anything more than your personal bias.

That would be valid if Peter had been single for the last two decades - but he wasn't. He was married.

Which in no way means that the book was creatively stagnant.

Again, you've done nothing to prove that the book was stagnant outside of just you saying it was. Where is your proof? Where is your evidence? Why should I take your word as an unbiaed authority on the quality of the material, and not simply regard it as an argument of fan with a biased narrative?

I've already said there could potentially more positive stories regarding the marriage, and I'd also be repeating myself to say that the feeling obviously was by the Powers That Be that there was little left to mine in the marriage after 20 years of storytelling compared to a "single" Parker, to which I firmly agree.

Agreeing with your own position isn't proof. Provide evidence that shows that, otherwise it's just speculation.

The thing is, I wasn't asking people to subscribe specifically to my opinion or rationale. I could possibly Post Hoc up some kind of statistics in my favour, but I don't feel the need to one-sidedly defend what I believe any further in a thread called "Reasons To Keep Peter Parker Single", where as the first post states: "Let's focus on the advantages of Peter Parker single, even if you don't believe these particular gains are worthwhile" - not "demand burden of proof as a pro-marriage stalwart to absolutely every member that posts in the thread". I'm all for a little bit of healthy debate but like the Spider Marriage, I know when there's not much left to say; and I doubt other people are enthralled with getting a repeated third degree in the thread that's meant to be in line with their leanings. Not to mention, for all the demanding of real cited facts you've been making, it seems a bit unfair that you don't offer up any with your own arguments.

If you don't feel the need to defend your position, or prove anything that you say, then there's no need for me to take anything you say seriously.

As I said, pretty much everything you've said just tells me one thing- you had a problem with the marriage. That's all. But that in no way proves that the marriage was a problem.

[Aruran.]

And those were the most well received stories, but they didn't require him to be single.


I don't think Silk is a love interest. Slott has made it clear, he doesn't want Peter to date someone with powers.

From his statements and his attitude, I think Slott fully intended Carlie to be the love interest of his run, with no one else in the running. I think that his attitude wasn't "Test the waters to see what worked, and eventually set things up for multiple love interests." It was "Break Peter and MJ up, wait a bit, then hook Peter up with the love interest I approve of and created." Problem was that things didn't proceed to his plans and now he's working on crafting a story featuring a love interest he's not entirely interested in.

I think Dan Slott changed his logic. And how he said it was always questionable, cause he didn't want an existing hero to be Peter's girlfriend. He made a new character, just like Black Cat, then it's fair game.

I can't really comment on the Carlie situation, cause I only knew about the relationship after it ended. From my perspective, Carlie was a scapegoat for anyone with anger from OMD to lash out on.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

I think Dan Slott changed his logic. And how he said it was always questionable, cause he didn't want an existing hero to be Peter's girlfriend. He made a new character, just like Black Cat, then it's fair game.

But we really haven't seen anything to suggest that Silk will be a love interest. If anything, from what we've seen, she seems more of an enemy than a love interest.

I can't really comment on the Carlie situation, cause I only knew about the relationship after it ended. From my perspective, Carlie was a scapegoat for anyone with anger from OMD to lash out on.

She was a scapegoat, but my theory is that she was genuinely meant to be a legitimate love interest for Peter, the type of love interest that was deemed more appropriate for Peter than the ones he had before. She may not have been seen by the creators as his one true love, but they may have regarded her as being a character that could make people realize that Peter was better single and that he should be with a character that matches more of his character and personality.

[Alan2099]

It was "Break Peter and MJ up, wait a bit, then hook Peter up with the love interest I approve of and created." Problem was that things didn't proceed to his plans

He's said straight up in the past )in topics that are now sadly long gone) that he knew whoever came after Mary Jane would be hated simply because they weren't Mary Jane and fans needed somebody to lash out at.

[Aruran.]

But we really haven't seen anything to suggest that Silk will be a love interest. If anything, from what we've seen, she seems more of an enemy than a love interest.

If she was an enemy she would've acted on it. (Seriously ignoring the ret-con that Slott added why would she act now out of all the other times she could've?)
She seems more like a stalker, someone who will quickly cling to Peter and be a major part of his life. And Peter won't get a break from it and they will break up as a result and then she becomes a enemy.

She was a scapegoat, but my theory is that she was genuinely meant to be a legitimate love interest for Peter, the type of love interest that was deemed more appropriate for Peter than the ones he had before. She may not have been seen by the creators as his one true love, but they may have regarded her as being a character that could make people realize that Peter was better single and that he should be with a character that matches more of his character and personality.

Going by that logic sure, but I don't think they even thought the relationship would last long, the set-up would be Peter ruins a perfectly fine relationship because he's Peter.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

He's said straight up in the past )in topics that are now sadly long gone) that he knew whoever came after Mary Jane would be hated simply because they weren't Mary Jane and fans needed somebody to lash out at.

Which could just be him trying to save face.

[Pako]

He's said straight up in the past )in topics that are now sadly long gone) that he knew whoever came after Mary Jane would be hated simply because they weren't Mary Jane and fans needed somebody to lash out at.

I believe you're referring to the word balloon interview with Slott.

Though, I'm pretty sure RDMacQ is already aware of that point, since he previously responded to the interview saying Slott was being intellectually dishonest, blaming poor writing ability on MJ. or something.

[RobertMacQuarrie1]

If she was an enemy she would've acted on it. (Seriously ignoring the ret-con that Slott added why would she act now out of all the other times she could've?)

I'm guessing the answer to that has something to do with the chamber that she's in.

I wouldn't be surprised if she's been in there since Peter began his career, since most of the posters on the wall are from the 90's.

She seems more like a stalker, someone who will quickly cling to Peter and be a major part of his life. And Peter won't get a break from it and they will break up as a result and then she becomes a enemy.

But that arc can be done without her being a love interest.

Going by that logic sure, but I don't think they even thought the relationship would last long, the set-up would be Peter ruins a perfectly fine relationship because he's Peter.

True, but I really don't think creators think that far ahead. I think that there was the general impression of "We'll see where this story goes," but with the added caveat of "I hope that this lasts for a good long while and I get a chance to tell the story the way I want it, without having to change it."

The creators may have a tentative plan for Carlie, but with a greater ideal in mind for a larger arc. Sure, they'd be OK with Peter possibly getting back together with MJ at some point. But "At some point" to them could mean ten or twelve years after they left the book, and by then MJ's role and significance in the franchise would be diminished so she wouldn't be seen as "The One and Only."