How many romantic relationships could/should Peter have?

[Vixx]

Yes this!!!
And that's what a majority of these women have been for Peter since BND...sexual fantasies and eye candy with no real substance! If Peter really loved any of these women he would have gone after them and fought for them to stay in his life and told them how much they meant to him...but he did none of these things and just moved on to the next "hot" chick. And so it goes...BND continuity has done nothing but present the image of Peter Parker as a Playboy moving from one empty relationship to the next! The real issue here is not MJ is too "attractive"...it's MJ herself they despise and hate.

Wanted to add -

As far as "normal" female charectors go - MJs core elements are well defined, and what makes her so endearing.

Yea she's a model .. But that's not the reason we like her...

It's the female equivalent of bald = super villain ... You can't be loved primarily for something other than being hot unless you are 1) too old to be attractive 2) married or in a relationship with a superhero forever 3) so one dimensional all it hurts or 4) been in universe so long you either picked up a personality by osmosis, were a villain at some point or your background, are a short timer created in a lab specifically to be this type ( the cubic zirconia of dating) ... But we know your destined to leave, die, be evil, be crazy, need help from some hidden secret or wind up with Flash ( supporting cast)

Even when they throw a shitload of damsel BS and rocket strapped to the coyotes ass stories at her; they don't stick to her charector... She's playing a part. They can retcon the pages, but not wipe out people's memories - especially when anything remotely resembling a new romantic entanglement is about as authentic as meeting a real girl doll on Tinder.

If you had the Xmen wipe out the Crayola people so we ended up MJ looked like a frumpy Midwestern housewife - she'd still be very attractive - because of so much charectors development (especially as an interesting married woman) made her that way. That's a hell of a thing in comics.

Black Cat - as written doesn't work - because two people acting single drawn in the same panel for a few issues doesn't make a good couple... Even in the adventures of the spider kitty porno.

[Timmyb52]

Marvel are fine with Peter being in a committed relationship, just not being married.

Whether or not that will happen is all dependent on whether the writer and editor at the time think that a committed long term relationship makes the stories more dramatic and exciting.

These are not real "committed relationships" if they are not allowed to grow and mature, as this would "age" the character of Peter Parker...it is only the illusion of a "committed relationship" that Marvel allows.Ten years of BND status quo has resulted in no long term "committed relationships" whatsoever...any relationship Peter has is editorially mandated by Marvel to fail and go absolutely nowhere but the bedroom {if you look at it openly and honestly it is sexist and projects the image of women as nothing more than sex objects for Peter to conquer}! Marvel has editorially mandated itself into a corner as it relates to Peter and him having any semblance of an adult and mature relationship with the opposite sex. Sure, Peter can have as many "new" girlfriends as he wants...but they are just empty plot devices which serve no purpose whatsoever other than to create the illusion of change.

[Spidercide]

Yes, Spidercide.




Cool. And while I see validity in your perspective, I don't hold to it more than to my own position.

It's almost like we're experiencing subjective perspectives - each true in its own way - regarding the same topic of discussion!

Weird.




And what happens when someone argues for an opposing theory and has just as much supporting evidence?

How can contradictory theories about a text, each with the necessary amount of textual and contextual evidence, be true unless the very act of interpretation is inherently subjective?



There are theories that are stronger or weaker, and there are some interpretations of a text that are incredibly weak to the point of essentially being complete misinterpretations, yes. But when you're holding a discussion in class, telling students their ideas are complete misinterpretations is neither helpful nor conducive to the learning goals and objectives. If a student reads William Carlos Williams' "Red Wheelbarrow" and thinks that it's about Santa Claus and can explain their thinking, it's not for me to say that their interpretation is useless; instead, I would continue to point out that there may be even stronger interpretations that make use of more evidence than that student did. From my perspective, there is no absolute right nor wrong: there are only degrees of right and wrong, and to say that someone's interpretation is actually a misinterpretation seems to me disingenuous. I may not agree with how they see it, and in fact their position may be much weaker than my own, but to label it as flat-out wrong is something only a shitty teacher would do. There is potential value to be found in even the weakest of interpretations.




Wrong according to whom? To you? Are you the foremost authority on Macbeth?

To Shakespeare? He's dead. There's no asking him.

To Shakespearean scholars? They contradict each other all the time.

You might be squashing a new, intriguing interpretation of the play by automatically labeling it as a misinterpretation. And you might be squashing the enthusiasm of the reader.

Is it worth it so that you can tell someone their interpretation is wrong?

If there are objective truths to a text, who decides what is true and what isn't? Who has the authority? Who has the final say?

(I say: there is no final say.)



You point to something about which people would likely not disagree and say that it's objective. I say that, despite garnering little to no debate, it's still subjective. It's subjective because it's an objective fact that people CAN choose to read it differently. The very fact that people CAN interpret something differently means it HAS to be subjective.

You remind me of Harold Bloom.




This really is funny to me, because generally speaking I am on your side regarding this. I'm someone who doesn't watch a lot of movies anymore because they seem so redundant, and too often I know how a movie is going to end from the get-go. I've, unfortunately, had the salty reputation of being a "hater" regarding movies and pop music. (I like to think I've eased up.) Yet I have a friend who loves just about every movie he's ever seen, and I tease him a bit about that.

If I watch a movie and think it's got objectively poor writing, and my friend thinks it was enjoyable movie and found no fault with the writing, then who am I to say that it's objectively bad? The fact that he likes it means that my stance is not the only stance to be taken, even if I feel I have all the evidence on my side.



Why would someone enjoy something that is objectively bad? If it's objectively bad, then nobody has the opportunity to think otherwise.

Because it seems like what you're saying, then, is that that student has poor taste.




I appreciate everything you've said. It's my job to listen, to understand, to appreciate the literary theories of others.

I just don't agree with your notion of objective standards.




Ah. Here we go.

You're biased against postmodernist theory and/or pretentious bullshit.

I'm not biased against postmodernism - I find it unbelievably intriguing and useful - and I'm certainly not immune to pretension, which is why I used to be someone who would put down other people's taste in music or movies or whatever. But I didn't like being that way, so I've done my best to change my attitude. And I've done it by remembering that there are no objective interpretations, no real difference between "high" and "low" art, no people who have better taste than others.

To me, this is our debate in a nutshell: You're telling me my perspective is wrong, and I'm telling you both our perspectives are valid - that there are degrees of truth in what each of us is saying.

I think it's logical to hold the position you do.

But I don't think it contains all the truth, and I think my position has more evidence than yours

But I'm okay with you sticking to your guns.

Are you okay with me sticking to mine?




Postmodernism debunks the idea that there is fixed truth or meaning in a text - that all meaning is contextual and changes as the onlooker changes.

There is some scientific evidence that suggests that reality itself is contextual and relies on the onlooker! (I'm thinking of the double-slit experiment.)

The universe is weird.

-Pav, who had his life changed by reading Jacques Derrida's "On Hospitality"...

If an opposing theory has just as much supporting evidence THEN it becomes a case of an unknown. It would be unknown which one is right or wrong. E.g. This character with a twin brother died. Around the same time the twin brother disappeared claiming he went on holiday upon their return. Did one brother fake their death using the other? Or is the identity of the deceased person completely true and no such illegality took place. If there is equal evidence for both theories neither one trumps the other. That however does not render it subjective. Merely objectively ambiguous and undetermined. Cold case.

[Spidercide]

Typically though such scenarios usually are the intention of a work. Case in point the film Doubt.



But it is not a case of every solitary theory ever regardless of the extent of evidence one way or the other.


A reader could choose at that point which of those equally supported theories of a text they wish to personally beelive at THAT point. But only at that point.



We aren’t discussing the best way to teach children or how belittling their beleifs is unhelpful.



And yeah an interpretation with little or no supportive evidence would be a misinterpretation and essentially useless outside of a laugh. You don’t have to be blunt about it to children but it’s the truth nevertheless.


E.g. Paul Jenkins said Spider-Man is about being a child of divorce which is nonsense. There is nothing to indicate that in the text or Spider-Man’s real life history nor as far as we know the history of his creators. It is objectively not true.


Another example. Repeatedly when I was being taught Hamlet in school a frequent theory told to me by my teacher to the point where it was like understood to legitimately part of the story was the idea that Claudius’ killing his brother was ambiguous. From like a whole year before studying it I heard that idea repeatedly and how a poignant concept in the play was asking the audience the question of whether or not Claudisu was truly guilty or not.


Until you actually read the play and yes he 100% is. He states as much and he acts in ways which would have no meaning if he was not otherwise guilty.



So in fact my teacher was utterly misinterpreting the play itself. Something which I gently pointed out and corroborated with other English teachers.


She was in fact, flat-out wrong.


So yes, there isn’t merely degrees of right.



I don’t need to be the wor’ds most authority on Macbeth or Shakespeare in general.


It isn’t merely a case of ‘this interpretation is wrong because I say so’ its wrong because there is contradictory evidence/a lack of supportive evidence.


If a reader can read the play find something in it and then present an argument with sufficient evidence to prove their point/disprove another point then that’s one thing.


In Macbeth’s case it is literally physically IMPOSSIBLE for everything that happened to be in his head. There were multiple scenes where he was not present and there is no indication in the play that what he sees and experiences takes place solely within the confines of his own mind. In fact the play outright distinguishes something that is exclusively in his head from reality. Macbeth sees a phantom dagger before him but the Witches appeared in his absence and to both him and Banquo together.


This and more disprove the idea that everything is in his head.

What would be ambiguous though is whether the dagger was merely a manifestation of his mind or if the Witches themselves made it appear. That would be an area and example wherein you could present about equal proof either way and where there is no objective answer.

Understand me. I am saying objectivity exists, not that there is a 100% success rate to objectively proving everything. Some things can be proven others are more ambigious. You are saying it is ALL ambiguous which is not true.

[Spidercide]

I do not AUTOMATICALLY label everything a misinterpretation. I hear interpretations but I am saying they could be mistaken or incorrect in what they say. You can take someone’s argument and pick it apart much as I did on another thread wherein the argument presented was that Spider-Man was incompetent by virtue of basically not being like Batman. That was their interpretation but there was a lack of supportive evidence of that argument, a wealth of contradictory evidence and the framework of the argument was simply illogical. I heard their perspective and I examined it and found debilitating flaws in it which rendered it redundant. I didn’t dismiss it after a quick glance at the core point.


The example I gave with Macbeth is an example of such a phenomenon. Another interpretation though could be on the mark.


If two people are having a conversation about Macbeth and one person enjoys it but is saying it’s an allegory for World War II and that is why they love it the other person doesn’t HAVE to tell them they are misinterpreting the play because they know it will crush their enthusiasm. At the same time though they are not unjustified in conveying the misinterpretation because it is at the end of the day the truth.


I really do not understand what on Earth you mean by who decides what is true and what is not true. Harry Potter wears glasses. Voldemort killed his parents. That isn’t subjectively true. That isn’t true because someone says so. The TEXT itself says so. There is a presence of confirming and corroborating evidence within the text proving those things.


You can say that garnering little to no debate something is subjective. You would however be wrong. As I said there is a presence of confirming evidence. This is a practice which applies to various other aspects of life. Indeed daily life. A letter from the bank reads that I have X amount of money. This is present evidence which confirms and corroborates a fact. It isn’t an interpretation of mine that I might have more in fact in that bank.


People can CHOOSE to read it differently but that doesn’t render it subjective. In life people choose to take things differently despite the facts all the time. Vaccinations are necessary. Homosexuality is natural. Dinosaurs existed.


These are all facts which do not stop being facts merely because some people choose to disbelieve them or see them differently.

So no. People in the world seeing things differently doesn’t thereby prove that those things are merely subjective.

You are in a position to say its objectively bad compared to your friend if you have supporting evidence to corroborate your point. You do not however have to choose to present that to your friend if it will upset them. T doesn’t mean your friend is not wrong though.


See above. The presence of alternate viewpoints doesn’t validate said viewpoints by their mere existence.


When I studies Religious Studies (and aced it for the record) I was presented two theories about why God had to exist.


a) the Paley’s watch argument that something as complicated as life could only have come from the mind of a divine designer and
b) If sooooooooooooo many people believe in God they cannot be wrong


But the existence of those arguments doesn’t validate them. Evolution disproves the Paley’s watch argument completely and the ‘so many people believe this’ argument is debunked by virtue of literally everyone who believed the world was flat when it never was.



Another example in a court of law someone might feel someone else is innocent and someone else is guilty. Whilst those people can be swayed at the end of the day in reality that accused person objectively in reality is either innocent of guilty of the crime they committed. If they are innocent they don’t ever actually in any sense become guilty by virtue of some people happening to think otherwise. Those people are merely wrong.



Why would someone enjoy something which is objectively bad?


Because they do not know better?


Because there is something in it which emotionally resonates strongly with their specific life experience?


Nostalgia?


They are enjoying it ironically?


Because of the company in which they are seeing it with?


Because they are indulging in chemical substances at that time?


Because it is reminding them of something else?


Because they are not paying full attention to it?


Because of some random variables in their life which has shaped them in such a way that something is stimulating to them in ways that go beyond the quality of the work.


Because they are foolish?


Sadism?



Take your pick.

[Spidercide]

I LOVE the 1995 Power Rangers movie. Maybe it is my all time favourite movie. I loved it as a 4 year old and as an adult. But I am not about to say its actually a good movie. I enjoy it out of nostalgia.



TASTE and objective quality are NOT the same thing. I’ve explained that to you multiple times too.


Someone can enjoy a Big Mac more than a gourmet steak. Someone can enjoy a Skovia car more than a VolksWagon.



I’ve explained this to you multiple times too.


Did I say I was biased against post-modernist theory?


I think you will find I said:


“. Frankly a lot of postmodernism history is pretentious bullshit.”



I didn’t say ALL of post-modernism is pretentious bullshit, and more specifically I was referring to post-modernist history.



If changing your way of life has made you personally feel better good for you. That doesn’t mean the attitude you have adopted is true however.



There is such a thing as not high art in a sense of mediums. But in a sense of is this movie a lowly piece of garbage or is it the Godfather? Then yes that is a thing.


You don’t have to actively put someone down. But you also are not in the wrong for speaking the truth if you back yourself up.



You say your position holds more evidence than mine. Yet there is little proof of that given how I’ve cited more examples and debunked your claims multiple times.



As for sticking to guns, you must do what you wish with your own life.



Post modernism theory claims to debunk that. Their reasonings however are flawed and often times neglects a certain degree of logic and more poignantly psychological understanding.


You say your POV is that we are both right yet this is illogical. Our views are by their very natures anethma to one another.

[boots]

.........wow

[Pav]

Wow is right.

Nice essay, Spidercide.

You make plenty of good points and only seem condescending a little bit! Not bad!

Still: I'm not convinced that you are more right than I am.

But that's okay.

-Pav, who doesn't need agreement...

[Spidercide]

Wow is right.

Nice essay, Spidercide.

You make plenty of good points and only seem condescending a little bit! Not bad!

Still: I'm not convinced that you are more right than I am.

But that's okay.

-Pav, who doesn't need agreement...

I was not trying to convince. Mewrely state the lay of the land

[Sardorim]

Look, all im saying is that with Rachel going Prestige nowadays that a fling with Peter would be very interesting


I'm bias, yes, as I like Spider-Man and X-Men but their butting heads and differing personalities would be fun.

[Lee]

These are not real "committed relationships" if they are not allowed to grow and mature

None of it is real, so it's whatever the story says it is.

Marvel Comics' goal is to keep publishing their comics properties for as long as possible, so it's not in their best interest to write themselves into a corner or an end point.

[Spidercide]

None of it is real, so it's whatever the story says it is.

Marvel Comics' goal is to keep publishing their comics properties for as long as possible, so it's not in their best interest to write themselves into a corner or an end point.

He is obviously not saying 'real' in a strictly literal sense.

Marvel's goal should be to make a quality product not milk something to the breaking point. The Japanese manga market does not operate that way and it makes more money and has a higher readership. Toei owners of Godzilla also do not do this. They use the character in moderation allowing stories to end before resting the character and bringing back a new version.

This is especially true of the Marvel characters who literally do NOT work in open ended never ending narratives. Writign them in such a way wherein they are spinning their wheels indefinitely doesn't help Marvel or the characters it breaks them.

Marvel could go legacy with Spider-Man. They could allow him to reach a natural conclusion then do what Archie has done and just without erasing the old version start over with a new one. They could do what James Bond novels have done and just tell out of continuity stories if they want to keep publishing for the sake of publishing Spider-Man.

Allowing the character to go FORWARD towards an eventual conclusion someday decades from now would make the stories BETTER which is the damn point and thereby increase readership by virtue of the character not being a rotating museum piece.

****, outside of video games the telenovella has proven to be the most popular and successful form of storytelling in the 20th century. TV is ridonkulously better today than it ever was. And they all hinge upon not telling forever narratives, especially not which characters who expereince character development and in fact were defined as such early on as part of their appeal and the advertised philosophy of their series and company as a whole.

They want **** to sell, get the train moving again. Because right now all that's happening is that they are pretending like the titanic ain't sinking when they are treading water hard.

[suemorphplus209]

None of it is real, so it's whatever the story says it is.

Marvel Comics' goal is to keep publishing their comics properties for as long as possible, so it's not in their best interest to write themselves into a corner or an end point.

Emphasis on the bolded phrase.

[suemorphplus209]

Look, all im saying is that with Rachel going Prestige nowadays that a fling with Peter would be very interesting


I'm bias, yes, as I like Spider-Man and X-Men but their butting heads and differing personalities would be fun.

Rachel LOL, that's funny! Quite a personality clash too!