Do you think Peter is really “Emotionally, 15”?

[Prof. Warren]

Yea...that's kind of how reviews work.

Yes, a fact that some people fail to grasp.

Some reviewers seem think that their critiques represent an unbiased analysis of a book and therefore if they deem it to be "bad", then it must be so.

Saying "We give the good book good marks" ignores the fact that "good" is in the eye of the beholder.

[Spiderfang]

Yes, a fact that some people fail to grasp.

Some reviewers seem think that their critiques represent an unbiased analysis of a book and therefore if they deem it to be "bad", then it must be so.

Saying "We give the good book good marks" ignores the fact that "good" is in the eye of the beholder.

I think most people (hopefully) go into an online review with a "buyer beware" mindset or with a grain of salt, and knows to check multiple reviews before making a decision and doesn't let other people's opinions cloud their own judgment.

[ViewtifulJC]

By that metric, ViewtifulJC, all the Stan Lee/John Romita Sr. issues of Spider-Man fail your test.
Maybe by your standards Spider-Man isn't a viable character for you anymore.

In my mind, there are two different Spider-Man characters. There's THE Spider-Man, created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, and then there's A Spider-Man that was continued after the natural end point by Lee/Romita, Conway/Kane, etc because money. Kinda like how they kept making Die Hard sequels for over 20 years even if the story ended after the first one. Financially viable, some of em are even good, but you're dealing with two different versions of a similar character at this point. Thats my way of rationalizing how a normal cop in a once in a lifetime situation can keep getting into increasingly convoluted and ridiculous situations, or how a Coming of Age character can still be written like a failed man-child despite 50 years of narrative continuity across thousands of comics.

The story must go on. Our accountants demand it.

[theoneandonly]

hmm strict neutral reviews based on objective parameters is a fiction as there are no parameters set in stone to jugdge a story so different reviewers will have different critiques or parameters for analysing a book or story. As such the majority of reviews on sites can be written by professionals or fans which creates more disparate reviews so it should be kept in mind that you should read minimum number of reviews which may indicate whether a story is good or fails but ultimately use your own judgement ad you are the best judge of whether you will or will not like a story.

[ViewtifulJC]

A 100% objective review wouldn't even be a review. Just some statements lol.

Amazing Spider-man #598 is a comic book. It had over 20 pages in between its front and back covers. The pages have drawings of characters. There are English words inside white circles.

Rating: ???/10

[Prof. Warren]

In my mind, there are two different Spider-Man characters. There's THE Spider-Man, created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, and then there's A Spider-Man that was continued after the natural end point by Lee/Romita, Conway/Kane, etc because money. Kinda like how they kept making Die Hard sequels for over 20 years even if the story ended after the first one. Financially viable, some of em are even good, but you're dealing with two different versions of a similar character at this point. Thats my way of rationalizing how a normal cop in a once in a lifetime situation can keep getting into increasingly convoluted and ridiculous situations, or how a Coming of Age character can still be written like a failed man-child despite 50 years of narrative continuity across thousands of comics.

The story must go on. Our accountants demand it.

I agree with this - but with a good deal less cynicism.

I agree that the Spider-Man that continued on after the Lee/Ditko era is more a Spider-Man rather than THE Spider-Man. Last year I re-read the Ditko run and then continued on a bit into the Romita Sr. run and it was a shock to be reminded of what a jarring shift it was going from Ditko to Romita. Not just in art style but in tone and direction. Going to Romita Sr., you feel the moment where the book becomes more polished, more mindful of formula and more of a "product." That's not to say it isn't a completely magnificent, entertaining product but that it is very clear going from that initial era to the next that we're not dealing with quite the same character anymore.

That said, as most readers on this board weren't around for Amazing Fantasy #15 and came to Spider-Man well into his publishing history, let's not be so fast to knock the ongoing tapestry that is mainstream comics. There is something magical about the baton race of serialized fiction and how creators continually hand off the reigns of a character and become the new, temporary custodians while adding their own bits to the mythos.

Yes, the accountants demand it. Yes, for financial reasons above all others, Marvel as a business would never let an intellectual property die. But if that kind of real world cynicism was all creators brought to the book, a bottom line mentality and not a genuine love of the character and a desire to continue that fictional legacy, Spider-Man - and all the other corporate-owned superheroes at the Big Two - would've faded out long ago.

Then you have the issue of evolution and personal growth and, yes, these characters can only advance so much as they have to be kept "evergreen" for the most part. And that's just something that, as a fan, you either accept it or move on. No, Peter Parker will never quite "grow up" like we will. For some that might be unsatisfying. But on the other hand, it's comforting to know that he'll always be there, continuing to have new adventures for whoever wants to experience them.

[WebLurker]

Well, here's the problem:

"We give the good issues good marks"

No, you give the issues you like good marks. Everyone has their own definition of what a "good issue" is.

That's the definition of a review; analyzing the comic, explaining what you think works and doesn't work, a lot of which is subjective. You read to get the opinion of the other readers, so they don't have anything to apologize for if said conclusions are different than the masses'.

For what it's worth, I do look at Crawlspace reviews now and then, and they are more fairly balanced that I think I could be. At any rate, I've found that the reviewers there are generally well explained in their reasoning, so there's no blind hated involved (Also, unless I'm mistaken, one of this forum's managers works the Crawlspace, too).

Also worth keeping in mind, not everyone dislikes Slott's Spider-Man run because they prefer the older settings. Some people simply don't care for the quality of his craftsmanship.

And I'm sorry that no argument is ever good enough for you, even when concrete examples are given.

As someone who was involved in the humor question (laugh at the character or situation), I found Mr. Slott's response less than concrete, given that he simply appealed to a previous author without citing any specific examples, much less explaining why it worked, much less addressing any of the points I had for disagreeing). He may be very well right in this case, but, in comparison to other posters who had similar views, I found it "vague and unconvincing," as a certain Star Wars droid would say. (I have observed a lot of short answers from Mr. Slott in other circumstances on this site, for what it's worth.)

[SpideyCeo]

By that metric, ViewtifulJC, all the Stan Lee/John Romita Sr. issues of Spider-Man fail your test.
Maybe by your standards Spider-Man isn't a viable character for you anymore.
But it's nice to think that new stories and new eras will be there for new fans.
That fans jumped on and discovered Spider-Man in the Lee/Romita age.
Or during Conway's run.
Or Stern's run.
DeFalco.
DeMatteis.
Michelinie.
McFarlane.
JMS.

There's something comforting to know that the character will be there in new stories for every generation.

I just came back from the Emerald City Comic Con this past weekend. I signed books there for four days straight. And during the course of that time I met a LOT of readers who started reading Spidey with Superior Spider-Man. I get that a lot and it's always strange to me-- because it's something I never thought about when I put together the pitch for the storyline. It never occurred to me that that's how some readers would first discover the character. This show added a new wrinkle in that for me. Three different fans had a similar experience they wanted to share. They always knew who Spidey was, but they didn't like him. And they never really wanted to read about him. But they liked the concept of Superior. For them, not only was it their gateway into Spidey, but it was the start of their Spidey obsession. And it was because they'd heard about Superior, jumped on board, and liked it-- that they were driven to go backwards and read everything they could about Spidey to get the whole story. It was because of Superior that they went all the way back to AF #15 and started reading from the beginning.

That's so strange to me. That because of a new take-- a weird, funhouse mirror, 30+ issue run-- they became fans of the character and read Lee/Ditko and Lee/Romita runs that they never intended to read in the first place. Because of a kooky brain swap storyline, they got bitten by the bug and deep dived through Stern and DeMatteis and all the rest.

I somehow agree with this, Peter has different writters with their own take to him. Hes a muse of eras that try to reflect different aspects of a authors personal reflection of Peter that can come and go, after all isnt peter the ultimate everyman. I never pegged him as character who like hamlet has a building drama of self progression in a straight foward sense, he's always been reinvented like all superheroes are through time and generation. Spider-Man is like Dr. WHO in that he has reset himself for new stories with a vague since of consistancy but his character is immutable with newer traits for a new generation.

[WebLurker]

Getting back to the OP, I'm frankly not convinced that Slott's depiction of Spider-Man's maturity and the handling of the character is consistent with the rest of the franchise. It doesn't track with what I've observed as fairly consistent characterization over many years and over many different mediums. I can even cite specific examples that I feel support this.

I don't feel that the opposition have offered concrete counterpoints, beyond a few claims without any way to verify and some generalizations. If specific examples that could be verified and would make a case that previous renditions of Spider-Man are consistently in sync with what Slott has done (consistency is important; anyone can have a maturity lapse, but that's different from being the default of a characterization), I would find that a more credible argument.

[WeirdSpider]

Well, to be fair, many adaptations are based on the early years setting of the character, which was high school. Can't really say that I see that as a problem; I do like a lot of the cartoons and comics that do use the high school setting. IMHO, it all boils down to the characterization and stories. I like the Ultimate comics (high school) not because they're set in that era, but because of the writing and whatnot.

Frankly, I think there's room for both.

My problem with all the focus on the high school era of Spider-Man is that I feel it's misleading to new fans. In the original comics Peter was only in high school for 28 issues. The college era of the character is more important to the character then the high school era. The character's been an adult(even if he's not always written that way)for most of his existence.

I also agree with you in the opinion that there's room for both adult Spider-Man and high school age Spider-Man. But I don't think that Marvel feels that way.
Giving how 616 Peter has been written since "Brand New Day" it's quite clear that Marvel deeply wishes that the character was still a teenager in high school.

[WebLurker]

My problem with all the focus on the high school era of Spider-Man is that I feel it's misleading to new fans. In the original comics Peter was only in high school for 28 issues. The college era of the character is more important to the character then the high school era. The character's been an adult(even if he's not always written that way)for most of his existence.

Most adaptations want to start at the beginning, which makes a degree of sense. I think it also depends on the exact series. For example, the USM comics kept Spider-Man in high school, but it was written in such a way that I think people who preferred the adult version could enjoy it as well; it took more from the adult era than the high school era, IMHO.

I also agree with you in the opinion that there's room for both adult Spider-Man and high school age Spider-Man. But I don't think that Marvel feels that way.
Giving how 616 Peter has been written since "Brand New Day" it's quite clear that Marvel deeply wishes that the character was still a teenager in high school.

Probably, but I think the character will survive until a more balanced approach is taken.

[Conn Seanery]

Stay on topic, folks. Keep the off-site gripes or personal dramas to yourselves, or take it to private messages. Be civil.

[Metamorphosis]

I can think of several other past instances where Peter acted immature. A good example is when Peter trolled the snooty waiter while out at dinner with MJ in JMS' run.

As we've had the same writer for 7 or so years, it's kind of hard to find recent story examples not written by Slott.

The Renew Your Vows original mini I believe featured a decidedly more mature take on Peter Parker, to good effect.

In Vol. 4 #1, there was the gag where Peter had his fly open during the Parker Industries press conference.

Then there was the aforementioned Peter vs Tony Stark fight in front of Miles in Vol 4's "Power Play".

I haven't read a lot else of Vol. 4--anyone else want to chime in on how Peter is represented maturity-wise, particularly in this new volume?

[Spidercide]

No Peter is not emotionally 15, except when written badely.

Slott just doesn't understand the character

[Spidercide]

It's a shame Spider-Man writers like Stan Lee and Tom DeFalco got the character so "wrong" then.

Attachment 46408Attachment 46409

Spider-Man can suffer indignities, but not because that's the point of the character.

The Bag man moments were just a bit of light humour at the expense of the character not something truely mean spirited.

More than this though the point with it is that Spider-Man is a NORMAL GUY who happens to be a superhero. the bag man indigities stemmed from the realities of being a superhero.

He wasn't wearing a costume underneath the black suit thus in removing it he had nothign to cover his face. In the Lee run he needed to clean his suit but had no choice but to use a local laundry service and without spares (we all misplace spare items in our lives) he had to wear the paper bag.

Basically it was an insight into laundry day for Spider-Man.

The humour is derived from the realism not from the idea of humiliating or making the character truly suffer.

The point of Spider-Man is both an examination of responsibility and being the )(relatively speaking) everyman superhero.