Thread Drift: Does Superior Spider-Man Show A Preference For Doctor Octopus?

[CrimsonEchidna]

I haven't been a fan of his post-Superior work, but outside of that I have no feelings on him as a person. Never met him and I don't pay attention to any of his twitter beefs.

You know, continually trying to pass off Superior as some kind of love letter to Peter Parker doesn't make it true, the more it's said.

I think it's a good Otto Octavious story, but I never got a love letter to Pete out of it.

[Pav]

You know, continually trying to pass off Superior as some kind of love letter to Peter Parker doesn't make it true, the more it's said.

Pots and kettles.

I think it's a good Otto Octavious story, but I never got a love letter to Pete out of it.

Oh, it's a fantastic Otto Octavius story. If it's not the best one ever, it's top two.

The exploration of the characters' psyche has been fascinating for me to read, but I clearly also see how it is a love letter to Peter Parker: the whole point is that, try as he might, Otto Octavius isn't superior. And it's not because he's a bad Spider-Man. Some might have a strong rationalization in favor of him being a GREAT Spider-Man. The case can certainly be made, I think.

The problem is that he's a terrible Peter Parker. And no matter how logical his decision making, he doesn't have the heart of a hero.

And Peter has, arguable, the "best" heart in comic books.

I definitely see it.

-Pav, who can imagine youngsters marveling over this run like a certain fella did during the Clone Saga...

[Zeitgeist]

You know, continually trying to pass off Superior as some kind of love letter to Peter Parker doesn't make it true, the more it's said.

Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.

I think it's a good Otto Octavious story, but I never got a love letter to Pete out of it.

The whole subtext (barely even subtext at that) of the storyline (and many others by Slott like Spider Island and Spider-Verse which is the proof in the pudding) is that it's Parker's heart and sense of responsibility which separates and elevates him beyond, in this case compared to a "superior" Spider-Man who values himself as more intelligent and pragmatic than his predecessor but completely lacks the key aspect of self-sacrifice and humanity. It's a remarkably clever deconstruction by way of using Otto as a proxy, while at the same time being a nice character piece on Otto himself.

Edit: Pav beat me to it.

Oh, Zeit - whether it be a blessing or a curse, or a bit of both, I rarely lack for things to say.

-Pav, who prefers something benign-sounding like "shtick" to the much uglier "gimmick"...

Haha, we can go with shtick.

[Metamorphosis]

Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.

Just because some have a desire to attach a deeper meaning or significance to something doesn't mean it's there, either.

I think it's a good Otto Octavious story, but I never got a love letter to Pete out of it.

If it was meant to be some kind of "love letter" to Peter Parker, I don't think I'd like to see what a hate screed to him would look like.

[Mister Mets]

Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.



The whole subtext (barely even subtext at that) of the storyline (and many others by Slott like Spider Island and Spider-Verse which is the proof in the pudding) is that it's Parker's heart and sense of responsibility which separates and elevates him beyond, in this case compared to a "superior" Spider-Man who values himself as more intelligent and pragmatic than his predecessor but completely lacks the key aspect of self-sacrifice and humanity. It's a remarkably clever deconstruction by way of using Otto as a proxy, while at the same time being a nice character piece on Otto himself.

Edit: Pav beat me to it.



Haha, we can go with shtick.

How could anyone think Superior Spider-Man is pro Peter Parker?

[Pav]

Just because some have a desire to attach a deeper meaning or significance to something doesn't mean it's there, either..

If they see it, then it's probably there to some degree - especially if the analyst can point to specific elements of the text and explain how they add up to the overall interpretation.

Zeitgeist and I (and Mets! nice choice, Mets!) have, in pretty simplistic terms, explained how it's possible to see Superior Spider-Man as a love-letter to Peter Parker. We've explained our rationale and have textual support.

That's literary analysis, holmes.

Your refusal and/or inability to see what we see does not invalidate our positions.

That's the beauty of literary analysis! Multiple interpretations CAN be correct, as long as the textual support is there.

-Pav, who suggests you read Parker Palmer's The Courage to Teach and especially his thoughts on "The Community of Truth"...

[Zeitgeist]

I love you guys.

[Metamorphosis]

How could anyone think Superior Spider-Man is pro Peter Parker?

If they see it, then it's probably there to some degree - especially if the analyst can point to specific elements of the text and explain how they add up to the overall interpretation.

Zeitgeist and I (and Mets! nice choice, Mets!) have, in pretty simplistic terms, explained how it's possible to see Superior Spider-Man as a love-letter to Peter Parker. We've explained our rationale and have textual support.

That's literary analysis, holmes.

Your refusal and/or inability to see what we see does not invalidate our positions.

That's the beauty of literary analysis! Multiple interpretations CAN be correct, as long as the textual support is there.

-Pav, who suggests you read Parker Palmer's The Courage to Teach and especially his thoughts on "The Community of Truth"...

So, I guess all it takes is to evoke “If This Be My Destiny” and the ‘Spider-Man lifts something heavy’ trope for the nth time, as well as having Peter announce and explain to the reader why he’s the better Spider-Man. This is what constitutes a love letter to some.

There’s possibly a good message in there somewhere, Peter got his body back because Otto gave up, and Peter never does. But it’s cloying and obvious, Slott has to explain it all in dialogue in case someone might not get his point. I think a better approach would have been show more instead of telling (and plugging in scenes from classic comics of the past doesn’t automatically legitimize the proceedings).

In “Kraven’s Last Hunt”, what Kraven thought of as his victory over Peter had weight, since Kraven came off as a lightweight villain before the story, and there was a lot of backstory and exploration into Kraven’s psychology outside of just another abusive father trope like they employed with Otto in Superior. Kraven thought he won, but his victory was arguably a pyrrhic one, since he chose to take his own life, and suggests that his campaign against Peter was ultimately a delusional one (compared to Otto simply ceding control back to Peter, because he can’t find a way to save the girl on the subway tracks and Anna Maria, despite being portrayed as hyper-competent for the entirety of the story up to that point).

In KLH, there was a lot more subtext, and a lot more subtlety there. The reader didn’t have to be bashed over the head or spoon-fed these themes, including Peter’s journey in KLH back out of the grave, since they came through in the telling of the story and the actions of the characters.

You want to play the academic card, that’s fine, but some of us have spent time doing literary analysis too, even in an academic setting. Some of us do our own writing, and do find Slott’s approach to things heavy handed and over-obvious.

[Moral_Gutpunch]

Although I also think that Superior was in no way intended as a "love letter" to Peter (nothing wrong with that), I must point out that the abusive father trope was Zeb Well's doing. That is, unless someone brought it up before Year One.

My problem wasn't the abuse. My problem was how much focus it had in Superior, yet Doc Ock did exactly that, yet there was no pointing out the hypocrisy of the situation. If that was the point, shouldn't there be a slide into such behavior ala Citzen Cane? Or an attempt at circumventing violence as a whole only to see the entire plan destroyed, alone with the emotional stability and pride he took from it, making him turn violent to purge his feelings of loss and hopelessness?

There was so much emphasis on the abuse, yet the only impact that it had was SpOck dating someone.

[Mister Mets]

Although I also think that Superior was in no way intended as a "love letter" to Peter (nothing wrong with that), I must point out that the abusive father trope was Zeb Well's doing. That is, unless someone brought it up before Year One.



Precisely because I enjoyed that story, I hope the character isn't brought back, unless it can be done in a way that plays to her uniqueness. That's probably a difficult thing to do.

DeFalco focused on Otto's upbringing in two issues of Spider-Man Unlimited. That's where the abusive father, and overbearing mother, came from.

[nose norton]

DeFalco focused on Otto's upbringing in two issues of Spider-Man Unlimited. That's where the abusive father, and overbearing mother, came from.

If that happened in the 90's, I'm not surprised I missed it. Any good?

[JTait]

If that happened in the 90's, I'm not surprised I missed it. Any good?

It's a lost classic. Easily in my top five Doc Ock stories of all time. Defalco's script tugs at the heartstrings without being too over the top and Doc Ock's characterisation is spot on. Definitely one to check out.

[Mister Mets]

If that happened in the 90's, I'm not surprised I missed it. Any good?

Both issues (I think it's #3 and #17 are worth checking out in dollar bins.)

[Metamorphosis]

I'm not playing a card: I'm explaining my perspective on the text, and I'm validating my perspective by describing my experience to strengthen my position and show that it has merit. I suppose that could be construed as an "appeal to authority" fallacy, and I plan on reflecting on that.

I have no problem with you finding Slott's approach to be be heavy-handed. In fact, I tend to agree with you - though it doesn't generally lessen my enjoyment of the story. That's not the issue. The issue is that you said this:

"You know, continually trying to pass off Superior as some kind of love letter to Peter Parker doesn't make it true, the more it's said."

And then you said this:

"Just because some have a desire to attach a deeper meaning or significance to something doesn't mean it's there, either."

IT IS THERE. We have explained our perspective, and we've given textual evidence. So IT IS THERE. That's how literary analysis works: if you have evidence, your perspective is valid; the more evidence you have, the more validity your interpretation has.

(If you'd like further evidence, I suggest checking out my thread about Slott's run.)

You can disagree with our perspective, but I can't help but feel that your responses seek to invalidate our interpretation. And you can't, in good faith, do that. You can't tell us the story isn't a certain way when we have provided evidence for why it is. All you can do is disagree and say you see it differently - because literary analysis allows for even contradictory interpretations to have validity.

And, frankly, I find that the "playing the _____ card" thing is - in just about any context - a way to invalidate the person you're speaking about. "Oh, don't listen to that guy; he's just playing the _______ card."

Will you consider my words? Do you understand where I'm coming from? Do you see how your responses to our interpretations can be see as not constructive or even respectful?

-Pav, who prefers a respectful exchange of ideas...

Then Slott must have done too good a job making Otto sympathetic.

As Peter, Otto:

- fixed Aunt May’s physical disability
- got his doctorate,
- took over Horizon labs and expanded it into Parker Industries
- rejected Mary Jane as no good for him (another thing Peter couldn’t bring himself to do)
- got romantic with Anna Maria (an unconventional love interest which Slott himself proclaimed Peter was too shallow for)

Compare this to what Peter has done since he’s been back, which includes carelessly freeing Silk from her bunker (awakening Morlun and leading to many deaths), fighting with Tony Stark like a 5th grader, and blowing off the shareholders of his company.

Under Slott’s pen, Otto was arguably a better Peter than Peter is. Therein lies the problem.

Peter was supposed to be such an integral part of Spider-Verse, but it’s Otto that gets to deliver the big motivating speech to Uncle Ben. Spider-Verse as a story probably would have played out much the same with or without Peter involved. While Peter ultimately won the day in Spider-Island, it was with the help of a cast of dozen other characters, including the Avengers and Venom.

So please don’t take so much offense that I poke holes in your little analysis, that simply recycling old Lee / Ditko stories and dialogue wholesale into a comic doesn’t instantly translate to “love letter” to the character (likewise, please don’t take offense when I say that you also can come across a little condescending in your assertions). And that simply stating Peter is better doesn’t make it so when the actual output and comments of the writer himself prove otherwise.

You can make a case one way for something, but a strong case can also be made for another way. Your’s (or Mets, or Zeitgeist’s) is not the only analysis that counts.

[boots]

Then Slott must have done too good a job making Otto sympathetic.

As Peter, Otto:

- fixed Aunt May’s physical disability
- got his doctorate,
- took over Horizon labs and expanded it into Parker Industries
- rejected Mary Jane as no good for him (another thing Peter couldn’t bring himself to do)
- got romantic with Anna Maria (an unconventional love interest which Slott himself proclaimed Peter was too shallow for)

Compare this to what Peter has done since he’s been back, which includes carelessly freeing Silk from her bunker (awakening Morlun and leading to many deaths), fighting with Tony Stark like a 5th grader, and blowing off the shareholders of his company.

Under Slott’s pen, Otto was arguably a better Peter than Peter is. Therein lies the problem.

Peter was supposed to be such an integral part of Spider-Verse, but it’s Otto that gets to deliver the big motivating speech to Uncle Ben. Spider-Verse as a story probably would have played out much the same with or without Peter involved. While Peter ultimately won the day in Spider-Island, it was with the help of a cast of dozen other characters, including the Avengers and Venom.

So please don’t take so much offense that I poke holes in your little analysis, that simply recycling old Lee / Ditko stories and dialogue wholesale into a comic doesn’t instantly translate to “love letter” to the character (likewise, please don’t take offense when I say that you also can come across a little condescending in your assertions). And that simply stating Peter is better doesn’t make it so when the actual output and comments of the writer himself prove otherwise.

You can make a case one way for something, but a strong case can also be made for another way. Your’s (or Mets, or Zeitgeist’s) is not the only analysis that counts.

i was reading a thread on the flat earth society site where a pilot states that he can see the curvature of the earth each time he flies. the reply he got was that he needed to look again, because it was obviously flat.