Would Stan Lee view Peter Parker as "a villain"?

[Metamorphosis]

I think Stan Lee would say, while not as the villain, Peter Parker himself would be the ultimate challenge for Spider-Man and Peter himself as he have to find the balance between his normal life and hero life while being live on the motto "with great power, comes great responsibility."

Exactly--overbalance the scales one way or another too much--Peter is too saintly, or Peter is a sheer villain to himself--and the whole thing tips out of whack.

Time was, it was the public at large and Jonah that viewed Spider-Man as a menace in the comic. Readers were in on the dichotomy.

It's like now we're actually now being instructed to view Peter / Spider-Man as a true menace, but to himself.

[electr1cgoblin]

While not about Stan Lee would say, but it seems Dan Slott seems to view Peter Parker as a someone who is flawed and selfish yet trying to do good stuff only because his guilt and responsibility and not a good-hearted guy as lots of people usually know.

I think Stan Lee would say, while not as the villain, Peter Parker himself would be the ultimate challenge for Spider-Man and Peter himself as he have to find the balance between his normal life and hero life while being live on the motto "with great power, comes great responsibility."

I've no idea who said what about what ultimately, but I do think that anyone who says that Peter Parker, at least the character I grew up with, is "selfish", is about as wrong as you can be.

[Dr Will Hatch]

While not about Stan Lee would say, but it seems Dan Slott seems to view Peter Parker as a someone who is flawed and selfish yet trying to do good stuff only because his guilt and responsibility and not a good-hearted guy as lots of people usually know.

I think Stan Lee would say, while not as the villain, Peter Parker himself would be the ultimate challenge for Spider-Man and Peter himself as he have to find the balance between his normal life and hero life while being live on the motto "with great power, comes great responsibility."

What exactly has Peter done over the years to justify that he isn't ultimately a good hearted person? Being selfish and a bit of a jerk doesn't preclude you from ultimately being good.

[Mister Mets]

He could've addressed it in a way that didn't put his followers on Phantom, though. He could have said "Stan himself would've said the same thing about that thing I said in the interview, you know. #Haters"

That's what I have an issue with.



Right. Because being the bigger person also means having thousands of your Twitter followers (a thousand little bees) fight your battles for you, as well. What a mensch.

The question then isn't whether the specific response was commensurate and justified, but about whether anything he said that names the person who disagreed with him would be acceptable.

My view is that if a statement is made in a public forum (as it the case with a twitter profile that isn't private), others should be free to respond to it.

I'd prefer a comment that names the original critic because it makes it easier for a reader who didn't see the first post to determine whether the interpretation of what was said was a fair one. Too many times we end up having discussions about things people said without it being clear that it's what was actually said.

[Metamorphosis]

The question then isn't whether the specific response was commensurate and justified, but about whether anything he said that names the person who disagreed with him would be acceptable.

My view is that if a statement is made in a public forum (as it the case with a twitter profile that isn't private), others should be free to respond to it.

I'd prefer a comment that names the original critic because it makes it easier for a reader who didn't see the first post to determine whether the interpretation of what was said was a fair one. Too many times we end up having discussions about things people said without it being clear that it's what was actually said.

How is it public to Slott though, when he had this person blocked? That means he would've had to unblock this person to see what they were posting about him to respond. Why would he do that, when the simple act of blocking someone in the first place ensures he wouldn't have to see anything that would disturb him?

Kinda seems like you're bending over backwards here to excuse this.

[Mister Mets]

How is it public to Slott though, when he had this person blocked? That means he would've had to unblock this person to see what they were posting about him to respond. Why would he do that, when the simple act of blocking someone in the first place ensures he wouldn't have to see anything that would disturb him?

Kinda seems like you're bending over backwards here to excuse this.

I don't think the blocking is relevant, unless Slott made a big deal about it in his response.

The main questions for me are whether Slott's response was wrong (and I've explained how I don't think he said anything inappropriate) and whether he should be discouraged from these kinds of comments (and I disagree with that view as well.)

I don't really see anything to excuse on Slott's end.

[Alan2099]

I don't mean for this to sound smart or sarcastic, but is there some unofficial etiquette to blocking that I don't know about?

I've always took blocking somebody as "I'm frustrated/irritated/annoy at you right now and don't want to put up with you at the moment. I'm blocking you so I'm not tempted to actually have to respond." It's not a permanent thing (for me anyway). It could be days, months, heck, I've even blocked ad unblocked people the same day just because while they were frustrating, they were also a huge part of the conversation that was going on at the moment.

Am I the only person that's ever occassionally checked on somebody I had blocked only to try to resond to them again?

[Bor]

All the more reason to give a little care to how a pro conducts oneself, I would think.


I guess I'm having a hard time having sympathy for the pro, then, when the response seemingly far outweighed the original slight. YMMV.

I agree but here I dont really have a problem with how the pro conducted himself. I dont see what he did here as abusive or anything near that.

I dont have particular sympathy either for Slott here, but after all that poster have said about him on this site and others I see no reason to say that his response outweighes the original slight.
That poster have used abusive languge several times and then hid behind his anonymity so I cant blame Slott for what he said here. If someone calls you out as a lier and resort to abusive language then there is nothing wrong it calling that poster out.

[Bor]

I don't mean for this to sound smart or sarcastic, but is there some unofficial etiquette to blocking that I don't know about?

I've always took blocking somebody as "I'm frustrated/irritated/annoy at you right now and don't want to put up with you at the moment. I'm blocking you so I'm not tempted to actually have to respond." It's not a permanent thing (for me anyway). It could be days, months, heck, I've even blocked ad unblocked people the same day just because while they were frustrating, they were also a huge part of the conversation that was going on at the moment.

Am I the only person that's ever occassionally checked on somebody I had blocked only to try to resond to them again?

No you are not. In particular not when that poster keeps refering to something related to you and other posters points that out to you.

[Phantom Roxas]

The question then isn't whether the specific response was commensurate and justified, but about whether anything he said that names the person who disagreed with him would be acceptable.

My view is that if a statement is made in a public forum (as it the case with a twitter profile that isn't private), others should be free to respond to it.

I'd prefer a comment that names the original critic because it makes it easier for a reader who didn't see the first post to determine whether the interpretation of what was said was a fair one. Too many times we end up having discussions about things people said without it being clear that it's what was actually said.

I did make my profile private as a result of this, since I did not want to deal with people who were directed to my profile because they followed his link. Whatever personal issues I have with Slott, those are between him and I. Involving his followers to act on his behalf is what I have an issue with. I'm not saying that what he said to me in his quoted response was inappropriate. I had issue with him quoting me at all because of how it allowed his followers to go after me as a result. That is the exact same kind of behavior that Slott himself has shown to regret.

I agree but here I dont really have a problem with how the pro conducted himself. I dont see what he did here as abusive or anything near that.

I dont have particular sympathy either for Slott here, but after all that poster have said about him on this site and others I see no reason to say that his response outweighes the original slight.
That poster have used abusive languge several times and then hid behind his anonymity so I cant blame Slott for what he said here. If someone calls you out as a lier and resort to abusive language then there is nothing wrong it calling that poster out.

When I've called someone else a liar, usually it's because someone is feigning ignorance in a thread so that they can throw insults at me, but I can point to other posts in that very same thread to indicate that they were not at all ignorant, so their accusations rely on bending the truth. Not to mention that I didn't actually specifically call him a liar here. If anything, he was the one calling me that in this thread with that "blatantly false accusations" comment, which I think is supposed to be in reference to how I was uncomfortable with how he portrayed Silk.

I don't see how I'm hiding behind my anonymity. Is there something that you would like to see done? Some way in wish I should be held accountable, but my accursed anonymity foils that plan? At least when someone disagrees with me, I don't call them crazy, compare their posting habits to a religion, tell them to get out of a fantasy world, insult their reading comprehension, call their Twitter feed an "echo chamber", or accuse the people you're friends with online as being part of some "cyber circle", as if you're plotting some nefarious conspiracy against someone. I don't have the influence to just point at someone and accuse them of being a sock puppet for someone who was banned and then get a moderator to do as I say, causing them to ban the accused before they verify if my accusation had any merit to it. Come to think of it, wouldn't that mean that the claim that someone was a sock puppet was actually a "blatantly false accusation"? Everything I say is in response to something else he's said or done, particularly abusive language that he has also used. However, all that said, I do recognize that my reference to a single individual in this particular instance was not in response to any example of his usual insults.

[BlitheringToot]

Back to the original question, I think it's absolutely fair to say that Peter Parker is his own worst enemy, even if "villain" might be too strong a word. In recent years especially, his own man-baby responses to tragedy have led to disastrous results (hello, "One More Day," "No One Dies," etc.), but Peter has always carried the weight of the world on his shoulders even in cases where he really didn't have to. That's who Peter Parker is--a compulsive apologizer. Someone who feels responsible for EVERYTHING bad that happens to those around him and tries to make amends even to his own detriment. That's how Stan wrote him, that's how Dan writes him (although, admittedly, I vastly prefer Slott's Otto Octavius to his Peter Parker), and that's been a fairly consistent theme over the past 50-plus years.

I don't see what's so controversial about Slott's statement, other than the use of the word "villain."

[theoneandonly]

parker may be viewed as a grey person at times when he pulls childish pranks like webbing somebody to a chair or beating crooks viciously at times or striking out at his pregnant wife unintentionally in a bout of rage and the original act which led to him being a superhero but every real person lives in that grey area as no one is perfect or living in a perfect world so calling him a villain of his own life is coming off as wrong interpretation and will create a false impression of peter. He maybe called a villain if he intentionally harms himself or creates toxic quagmires for himself into which he sinks and drags others along with him but he doesn't so calling him a villain of his own life is unfair as each person ultimately tries to be a hero of his life.

[boots]

I don't mean for this to sound smart or sarcastic, but is there some unofficial etiquette to blocking that I don't know about?

I've always took blocking somebody as "I'm frustrated/irritated/annoy at you right now and don't want to put up with you at the moment. I'm blocking you so I'm not tempted to actually have to respond." It's not a permanent thing (for me anyway). It could be days, months, heck, I've even blocked ad unblocked people the same day just because while they were frustrating, they were also a huge part of the conversation that was going on at the moment.

Am I the only person that's ever occassionally checked on somebody I had blocked only to try to resond to them again?

yeah, this.

i don't care about the specifics of the exchange. fans tend to be petty, that's almost a given. it's sadder when pros display the same attitude.

but unblocking someone does not give them the right to attack you. you don't suddenly become fair game because you reopen the channels of communication. you aren't responsible for someone else's actions.

[Phantom Roxas]

yeah, this.

i don't care about the specifics of the exchange. fans tend to be petty, that's almost a given. it's sadder when pros display the same attitude.

but unblocking someone does not give them the right to attack you. you don't suddenly become fair game because you reopen the channels of communication. you aren't responsible for someone else's actions.

While you said you don't care about the specifics, I don't think I understood the bolded part properly, so I'll try to explain this as best I can to make sure I do understand. For whatever I reason, I had unblocked Slott some time ago. Based on what you're saying, I would take that to mean that me unblocking him did not him the right to attack me. What I was referring to is that I was still blocked by Slott until the whole argument, so my assumption is that Slott unblocking me and that argument had some connection. The way I saw it, I became the "fair game" when Slott reopened the channels of communication. Hopefully that makes sense. Either way, I had first brought it up to both expand on what electr1goblin and Celgress were discussing and to provide some context for the tweet that Cheesedique provided. I made a mistake, and I apologize for derailing the topic.

I agree with BlitheringToot that the use of the word "villain" is controversial. Perhaps there could be a more nuanced way to refer to the dichotomy between "Peter Parker" and "Spider-Man's" lives and how they became an inconvenience to one another, without necessarily describing that dichotomy as an example of a "villain", which has a more evil and malicious connotation.

[boots]

While you said you don't care about the specifics, I don't think I understood the bolded part properly, so I'll try to explain this as best I can to make sure I do understand. For whatever I reason, I had unblocked Slott some time ago. Based on what you're saying, I would take that to mean that me unblocking him did not him the right to attack me. What I was referring to is that I was still blocked by Slott until the whole argument, so my assumption is that Slott unblocking me and that argument had some connection. The way I saw it, I became the "fair game" when Slott reopened the channels of communication. Hopefully that makes sense. Either way, I had first brought it up to both expand on what electr1goblin and Celgress were discussing and to provide some context for the tweet that Cheesedique provided. I made a mistake, and I apologize for derailing the topic.

I agree with BlitheringToot that the use of the word "villain" is controversial. Perhaps there could be a more nuanced way to refer to the dichotomy between "Peter Parker" and "Spider-Man's" lives and how they became an inconvenience to one another, without necessarily describing that dichotomy as an example of a "villain", which has a more evil and malicious connotation.

i really do mean it; the specifics don't matter to me at all. what i skimmed over was a lot of white noise rather than any actual fair discussion. unblocking someone isn't an act of aggression in itself and has little to do with anything. whoever attacked first carries some blame for instigation, but it takes two to tango. criticising someone and not tagging them doesn't not make one's post any more innocent or exempt from response nor does it give the responders the right to bully.

all i'm seeing is a bunch of pots and kettles yelling "black" at each other.

and on the original note- villain is perhaps less precise than antagonist, but that doesn't sound as good now, does it? we live in an age of sound bites and hyperbole, why do people still act shocked by this?