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

[Metamorphosis]

If you dont see the irony in that statement I dont know what to tell you. You were making unfounded accusations and then now try to play innocent? Funny how you get to that but writers gets a "f. Of" and just have to deal with it.

What unfounded accusations did I make?

Some clearly found the statement "Who's your favorite Spider-Man villain?', my answer is Peter Parker" controversial.

Also, notice I don't resort to personally insulting you or anyone else here.

[Bor]

What unfounded accusations did I make?

Some clearly found the statement "Who's your favorite Spider-Man villain?', my answer is Peter Parker" controversial.

Also, notice I don't resort to personally insulting you or anyone else here.

Towards me? No, but the fact that you dont see how you made assumptions about writers motives and how that could be viewed as insults towards them backs up my earlier statement.

[Metamorphosis]

Towards me? No, but the fact that you dont see how you made assumptions about writers motives and how that could be viewed as insults towards them backs up my earlier statement.

There's observations that could be construed as insults, sure, and then there's the blatantly ad hominem style attack you yourself engaged in.

Also:

I find it funny when fans look for things to get offended by and attribute things to a writer which they have no evidence for at all..

Speaking of evidence, I've yet to see anyone produce a shred of an instance of Stan saying something along the lines of what Slott stated beyond an anecdote.

..just because they dont like a current writer on a comicbook.

So if I liked the current writer, would that make my offense more palatable to you? Would I then have your permission to express what could be deemed controversial?

[Bor]

There's observations that could be construed as insults, sure, and then there's the blatantly ad hominem style attack you yourself engaged in.

So in other words making rude assumptions are fine but me calling it childish is attacking? Okay then great to see you have an adult view on this.


So if I liked the current writer, would that make my offense more palatable to you? Would I then have your permission to express what could be deemed controversial?

No an insult is an insult nomather if you liked the writer or not. What I have a problem with is the hypocracy of you attacking someone for making claims of what someone else would say yet doing that exact same thing yourself. Also this has nothing to do with having my "permission" its about you apperently feeling you can say what you want but when someone calls you out on it you act offended and try to act innocent.

[Metamorphosis]

No an insult is an insult nomather if you liked the writer or not. What I have a problem with is the hypocracy of you attacking someone for making claims of what someone else would say yet doing that exact same thing yourself. Also this has nothing to do with having my "permission" its about you apperently feeling you can say what you want but when someone calls you out on it you act offended and try to act innocent.

People say to me, 'Who's your favorite Spider-Man villain?' and my answer is Peter Parker, because no-one can mess up Spider-Man's life like Peter Parker can.

I find this to be a rather glib answer, a kind of showy way to not answer the question. A typical kind of attention-getting thing people say in interviews.

I just find it funny when writers say something in an interview to try to come off "edgy" and "controversial", and then balk when people react to said controversy.

Does this impugn his motives for his response to said interview question? Yes, but it's not the same thing if I called him a "child" for saying it.

In other words, I'm still addressing the content of what he had to say. But though you impugn my motives yourself (perfectly irrelevant, but fine), what you're also doing here:

I find it funny when fans look for things to get offended by and attribute things to a writer which they have no evidence for at all just because they dont like a current writer on a comicbook. That is usually a good sign to me that some children still reads comics.

is simply hurling around (grammatically incorrect) insults.

[Dan Slott]

I find this to be a rather glib answer, a kind of showy way to not answer the question. A typical kind of attention-getting thing people say in interviews.

Only when you pull it out of context and present it as it's own little blurb.

In the original interview, it was part of a larger answer about how I see a key aspect of Peter Parker/Spider-Man's character being his fallibility & his self-destructive tendencies. Far from "glib", it's actually the summation to something I was building on. And, for something I said-- on my feet-- being interviewed in a crowd of people on the last day of 4 days of New York Comic Con right after a heated Marvel Creative Summit where I had to be mentally on my toes for 3 days straight... I think I did an okay job.

Here's what the interviewer said to me and my response-- in context:

And then you have fans complaining that you don’t "know" Spider-Man.

Despite the fact that I’ve written one out of every five issues of Amazing Spider-Man, which is kind of scary. But, to me, the fun of it is, at his basic core, even if you strip away "with great power must come great responsibility," what makes Peter Parker this character that resonates with all of us is that he’s really the first character who’s you. He’s the guy you know. He’s not a wealthy billionaire playboy, he’s not an alien from another planet, he’s not a god from a pantheon. He’s the guy down the block who trips and falls, who screws up in every way that you screw up. All the self-destructive traits that you have, and your friends have, he has. People say to me, "Who’s your favorite Spider-Man villain?" and my answer is Peter Parker, because no one can mess up Spider-Man’s life like Peter Parker can.

[Metamorphosis]

Only when you pull it out of context and present it as it's own little blurb.

In the original interview, it was part of a larger answer about how I see a key aspect of Peter Parker/Spider-Man's character being his fallibility & his self-destructive tendencies. Far from "glib", it's actually the summation to something I was building on. And, for something I said-- on my feet-- being interviewed in a crowd of people on the last day of 4 days of New York Comic Con right after a heated Marvel Creative Summit where I had to be mentally on my toes for 3 days straight... I think I did an okay job.

Here's what the interviewer said to me and my response-- in context:

And then you have fans complaining that you don’t "know" Spider-Man.

Despite the fact that I’ve written one out of every five issues of Amazing Spider-Man, which is kind of scary. But, to me, the fun of it is, at his basic core, even if you strip away "with great power must come great responsibility," what makes Peter Parker this character that resonates with all of us is that he’s really the first character who’s you. He’s the guy you know. He’s not a wealthy billionaire playboy, he’s not an alien from another planet, he’s not a god from a pantheon. He’s the guy down the block who trips and falls, who screws up in every way that you screw up. All the self-destructive traits that you have, and your friends have, he has. People say to me, "Who’s your favorite Spider-Man villain?" and my answer is Peter Parker, because no one can mess up Spider-Man’s life like Peter Parker can.

I'll have to give you a pass of sorts under those conditions, but if I parse this reply of yours in full:

He’s not a wealthy billionaire playboy

Uh, what's Peter's financial status right now?

All the self-destructive traits that you have, and your friends have, he has.

But he's not an alcoholic, or a sex addict, or a compulsive gambler, or an abuser of women. His worst impulse is to historically do the right thing, even at a cost to himself. Not exactly representative of most people. I can't see where it's even self-destructive. At worst, it's self-debilitating. That was always part of the tension between Peter and Spider-Man.

Despite the fact that I’ve written one out of every five issues of Amazing Spider-Man, which is kind of scary.

We've debated this before, but to me that isn't a gold-seal guarantee that a creator "knows" the character.

Roger Stern probably wrote something like 1 out of every 16 issues of Amazing, and Peter David, a mere 2 out 750-some or more and counting. I wouldn't say because of that they "know" the character any less than you "know" him, or that you know him better because of quantity.

[Dan Slott]

I'll have to give you a pass of sorts under those conditions...

And this is where I choose to stop reading your response. While you're still reasonable.
Happy Halloween.

[boots]

Uh, what's Peter's financial status right now?

the answer to this one is pretty obvious and discussed plenty of times on this board.

But he's not an alcoholic, or a sex addict, or a compulsive gambler, or an abuser of women. His worst impulse is to historically do the right thing, even at a cost to himself. Not exactly representative of most people. I can't see where it's even self-destructive. At worst, it's self-debilitating. That was always part of the tension between Peter and Spider-Man.

self destructive = "alcoholic" or "sex addict" is unimaginative. self sabotage in real life is often much more subtle and nuanced.

[Lee]

Uh, what's Peter's financial status right now?

Peter capped his salary at middle-management level.

[Frontier]

I think looking at Peter Parker as being "self-destructive" is a very negative view of the character.

Obviously being Spider-Man has it's drawbacks on his personal life, and he's not perfect, but I don't think he's on the level of somebody with a really messed up and terrible life.

[Mister Mets]

I think looking at Peter Parker as being "self-destructive" is a very negative view of the character.

Obviously being Spider-Man has it's drawbacks on his personal life, and he's not perfect, but I don't think he's on the level of somebody with a really messed up and terrible life.

His hobby of punching serial killers and career criminals got his girlfriend killed. That's rather messed up.

[Frontier]

His hobby of punching serial killers and career criminals got his girlfriend killed. That's rather messed up.

That's a tragic moment in his life, yes, but I don't think that's evident that his life is terrible given he was able to move on and find happiness after it happened and continue being a hero.

[boots]

I think looking at Peter Parker as being "self-destructive" is a very negative view of the character.

Obviously being Spider-Man has it's drawbacks on his personal life, and he's not perfect, but I don't think he's on the level of somebody with a really messed up and terrible life.

this is straying into reductio ad ridiculum territory. dan slott's comment in context is above. "messing up" from time to time does not mean your life is "messed up", just like it doesn't mean that it's "terrible". it's a (possible chronic) challenge to be faced.

it's a funny little human tendency that we sometimes immediately leap to worst case scenario even when there's no context or evidence to support it.

the character who trips over and messes up the same way we all do seems to me to be the point expressed. bouncing off of that makes me think of how i've lost tens of thousands of dollars in one go or involved in creative disputes with companies like sony or failed to secure ip on concepts that became big. i've been a bad son, and a poor friend and a selfish boyfriend in the past. all of which came back to bite me in the ass. maybe they're examples of self destructiveness or self sabotage, i don't know. i do know they are big mess ups that i'm accountable for, but my life itself is not "messed up".

[boots]

His hobby of punching serial killers and career criminals got his girlfriend killed. That's rather messed up.

all of what i said in the post previous to this one stands true as regards peter's life in the reality of the marvel universe.

though, as discussed previously on this board, if peter's life were anyone's irl...it would be messed up. but that goes for any superhero after the silver age. i mean, the warner bros cartoon characters would be fubar irl.