I recently read the Stan Lee- Steve Ditko Spider-Man for the first time. It was an interesting exercise, to say the least. This is one of the revered hallmarks of comic books, the foundation of Marvel and the beginning of modern storytelling. At times, I caught glimpses of the greatness everyone else had seen at the time. I appreciated the way in which Peter Parker’s personal life and Spider-Man’s exploits intersected with each other. But, for the most part, I was underwhelmed. For every classic villain like Kraven the Hunter or the Green Goblin, there was a generic bad-guy like the Crime-Master or the Molten Man. Character motivation tended to be paper-thin.
However, my biggest problem was with Peter Parker himself.
Allow me to explain.
Years ago, I was assigned the task of mentoring a young man who was serving as a chaplain to several local high schools. I approved of his mandate, advocated on his behalf with local churches and looked in on his finances. Before our official relationship, I considered him a friend. I was happy to be the person he would turn to for encouragement and advice. But my estimation of him dwindled the more I became involved in his life.
This young man experienced a run of misfortune. At first, I was inclined to agree with him that he was the victim of bad luck. Yet as unfortunate events piled up, I had second thoughts about the original diagnosis. A lot of this misfortune was easily preventable. For example, he ran out of gas and had to pay for a tow truck to bring him back to town. Then he couldn’t afford groceries because he had spent his money on a tow truck. When someone gave him food, half of the groceries spoiled because he forgot to put them away.
We’ve all been in similar situations. When I was in college, I needed a tow truck after my car battery died. So I don’t want to sound unsympathetic. We’re forgetful people sometimes and accidents happen. But when the same kind of misfortune keeps happening to the same person, you begin to wonder if it’s not bad luck. Maybe, that person makes his own bad luck through a lack of planning or some other fault. In this case, I tried to be as encouraging as I could, to offer advice about planning ahead (and having insurance that offers free towing). But I was relieved when my term was over.
That’s kind of the way I felt about the infamous Parker luck. Sure, bad things happen to Peter Parker beyond his control. He’s late for dinner with Aunt May because a super-villain is tearing up midtown. He has to borrow a Spider-Man suit from a costume shop because his regular duds were ripped in a battle. However, a lot of the bad things that happen to Peter Parker are well within his control, especially in social situations.
Peter repeatedly complains about his money problems but he also admits that J. Jonah Jameson only pays him half of what his pictures are worth. Yet for some reason- his lack of initiative, his fear of inconvenience or some other issue- Peter never follows through on his threat to take his pictures elsewhere.
Peter is rude on a regular basis to people who are supposed to be his friends. He often has an ulterior motive that he considers altruistic. For example, he wants to get Betty out of the Daily Bugle building before a villain attacks. But there are other ways to achieve the same goal- methods that don’t involve browbeating and belittling the woman you supposedly love. Later, Peter is befuddled that Betty is mad at him and chalks it up to his typically bad Parker luck. Uh, no, Peter. That wasn’t bad luck. That was you being rude.
Peter also has problems with his classmates at Empire State University. They consider him standoffish, stuck-up and, once again, rude. Now, this is partially attributable to bad luck. Peter’s Aunt May is in the hospital when he starts a new semester and he’s consumed by his family concerns. That’s understandable. One of my college friends lost her father to cancer while we were in school and pretty much lost a semester out of the ordeal as well. But Peter compounds the problem of bad timing with his own bad manners. When Peter discovers his classmate’s poor impression of him, he doesn’t apologize or explain his personal situation. Instead, he lashes out at them, insulting them and accusing them of perfidy. Uh, Peter. That’s not the way to win friends and influence people. If you told them that you were distracted because your aunt was in the hospital, they would be a lot more sympathetic. They’d probably apologize and maybe even offer to help you out.
For a guy whose motto is “with great power comes great responsibility,” Peter regularly fails to take responsibility for his actions and their impact on other people.
I can understand how this wasn’t a problem at the time. For one thing, Peter Parker’s travails were a step forward from the bland personalities of prior superheroes. Despite his own flaws- and maybe even because of them- Peter’s travails are often as interesting as Spider-Man’s exploits. There’s a soap opera element to his home life that is as intriguing as any mystery villain. It’s a big reason why we come back issue after issue. We aren’t as concerned about Spider-Man beating the Scorpion as we are about Peter winning Betty back.
Secondly, Peter’s main audience at the time was made up of teenagers. They would typically share his self-centeredness, attributing misfortune to outside influences and bad luck rather than his own prickly personality and poor planning. Believe me, I’ve been there. I wince when I recall long rants to my friends about the problems caused by other people. Peter’s original audience might not have noticed this peculiar quirk or hold it against him.
Yet with the perspective of adulthood and of history, I found myself disappointed in Peter Parker. Sure, he’s the everyman of comics. But he’s not the heroic ideal that he’s often touted to be.
Comments
Like you, Chris, I didn't read any of the Ditko stories, nor for that matter, the Romita stories, when they were "live"; I've seen them only in reprints. So your analysis rings very true to me.
The whole thing about Peter Parker selling his photos to the Daily Bugle only always struck me as a little thin; it was always too hard for me to believe there's no other place where he could take his wares, not in New York City, the media capital of the world! And the episode Commander Benson helpfully points out, where Peter goes to the Daily Globe for once, only to face more questions than he was willing to answer, doesn't solve the problem for me. There's still The New York Times, the Daily News, the New York Post, Newsday, the Associated Press, Reuters, UPI, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc., etc., and so forth.
In this day and age, when anybody can establish a website or a Facebook page or a blog, it really doesn't fly at all. I'm glad they left that entirely out of the recent Amazing Spider-Man movie.
As noted by others, there is an interesting take on the Lee/Ditko era. While I do agree with some of it, I have to say that I disagree with a lot of it. Before I get into that, let me say I can relate to being underwhelmed by something that seems to be universally loved. You've been a comics fan for many years Chris, and I believe you've mentioned on a number of occasions that you've read and enjoyed many Spider-Man comics. So if you're reading the comics from this era for the first time, you go into it with all of the hype it gets as one of the Holy Grails of comics running through your mind ... and I can see why for some, it just doesn't live up to the hype.
First, I agree with the notion that Peter was too quick to blame "the Parker luck" on all of his misfortunes. It's easy for anyone (and hey, not just teenagers) to blame outside forces seemingly beyond our control - or other people - when really we sometimes just need to take a look in the mirror first. Sometimes it was valid, and sometimes it was a crutch.
I was a little surprised at your take on the villains. Sure, there's a few clunkers and losers there, but you can say that about any rogues gallery. Imo, Spidey has one of the best of all time, and Ditko and Lee deserve about 85% of the credit as far as I'm concerned. Sure, there's a noticeable drop off in quality after the Scorpion debuts in ASM 20, but that's after they gave the readers the Vulture, Dr. Octopus, the Sandman, the Lizard, Electro, Mysterio, the Green Goblin, and Kraven beforehand. Imo, other rogues galleries at Marvel, especially in this era, don't even come close to Spidey's. One further thing I'll note; most of the second raters - like Crime-Master and Molten Man, as you mention - show up in Ditko's last year, and he and Lee were supposedly barely speaking at that point. I hate to say it, but aside from the classic Master Planner story in #31-33, it shows.
Commander Benson already addressed the point about taking photos to a rival paper. I'm certain the scene with Bushkin exists because fans of the day wrote in with the same concern you express. Also, I think Peter took a lot of satisfaction out of the fact that Jonah hated Spider-Man and unknowingly had Spidey on the payroll. And JJJ was the first of his tormentors he could actually get back at - not physically of course, but there were times when Spidey webbed his mouth shut, webbed him to his chair, etc. At school, he was bullied because he was "Puny Parker", so he (presumably) wasn't able to fight back, and once he became Spider-Man, he didn't dare, because he would have easily injured the other kids! Remember, Jonah tried to turn the public against Spider-Man from the beginning, calling him a threat, menace, etc. and at last, here was a tormentor he could (verbally) turn the tables on and do the other things I mentioned.
I won't say you're wrong about Peter being rude to others or having ulterior motives only he thinks are altruistic. I don't remember too many scenes like that, but it's been a few years since I re-read the Ditko era. I do recall the scene you mentioned, and maybe I'm wrong but I think that was played for laughs, as in, "here's Peter Parker, Boy Genius, who is completely clueless when it comes to women." It's not typical of how he treated Betty Brant 95% of the time. He mooned over her, and bemoaned the fact, just like many Silver Age heroes, "I don't dare tell her I'm Spider-Man", but again (and here's another thing that made ASM stand out) at no time was Betty in love with Spidey and in fact blamed him for her brother's death (ASM 12). As for Peter being rude to his other friends, I have to ask, which friends? Because he didn't seem to have any in high school. These were kids who were pretty rotten to him before his uncle was murdered, and they didn't let up after that. Think about that for a second.
As for being rude to the other students at ESU, you left out who they were: new characters named Harry Osborn and Gwen Stacy, and their new BFF Flash Thompson. Considering that Flash was his chief tormentor from high school and he didn't know Harry and Gwen, no one could blame him for not giving them the time of day. He probably figured if no one cared when Uncle Ben was murdered, why would they care that his aunt was ill?
Peter was at times all the things you said, and more. Rude, standoffish, irresponsible, immature. He also had a quick temper during the Ditko era that seemed to ease up later on. He did have some genuine bad luck, and he also threw himself a lot of pity parties. But on balance I think he was pretty heroic even in the early days. He risked his life night after night fighting crime. He soldiered on after his Uncle died, after Doc Ock handed him his first defeat, after the brother of the woman he loved died and she blamed Spider-Man, after briefly losing his powers and still was ready to fight the Sinister Six. He frankly had more motivation to turn bad than several villains did - his parents died when he was young, he gains superpowers thru a freak accident, his Uncle was murdered by a man he could have stopped, the publisher of a major newspaper has an unending campaign to turn the public against while other heroes are loved by the public, he is bullied at school all the time and the only thing we ever saw a teacher do was put him in a boxing ring with Flash Thompson, when he works up the nerve to ask a girl on a date they laugh in his face. On the face of it, he was on paper about one "Bwah hah hah" away from being a super-villain (to steal a line from Big Bang Theory). Just facing off against muggers, bank robbers, and regular crooks was plenty heroic if you ask me.
Whew! Sorry to be so long winded!
Any sort of criticism about the heroism of Spider-Man is bound to ruffle a few feathers as he is the figurehead of the Marvel Universe. The phrase "With great power, comes great responsibility" defines him but let's compare him to two other Marvel teens with great power.
Johnny Storm, the Human Torch: a walking inferno who could maim or kill anyone easily or destroy a city. He was responsible enough not to but he was still immature and obnoxious. But he had no guilt and felt a great deal of entitlement. He had grown-ups to handle the serious aspects of life. He was brave and heroic but hardly a hero. But that changed somewhat when Crystal entered his life and the birth of his nephew Franklin.
Scott Summers, Cyclops who could kill or destroy with a glance. His power was great but he could not turn it off. He was on guard every moment and became very introverted. He was pushed into responsibilty by his mentor, Charles Xavier, who made him leader of the X-Men which made him more morose. It was only through the love of Jean Grey, Marvel Girl, that allowed him to become more assured and independent.
With Peter, it was his relationship with Gwen Stacy to helped him grow into a more rounded person and shake the phobias and neoroses that plagued him. Until she was murdered, of course.
I don't disagree with a word you write, Chris. As a young reader, I was often frustrated at Peter's 'two steps forward, one step back' progress in his life, and it was clear to me even then that it was the decisions Peter made that caused what he called the 'ol Parker luck'. It's frustrating reading a comic where you want to reach into it and give the 'hero' a good shake.
However, I'm not sure I get what you are criticising these issues for. I don't think Lee and Ditko were saying 'this is a real hero', and thus we were expected to admire him at every turn. Rather they were presenting someone pretty much broken, who was trying to go forward despite that.
Peter was an outsider and nerd to begin with, locked out of the cool kids' group. He never knew his real parents. I think that would cause all kinds of problems with someone's developing personality right there. Then he becomes basically a freak overnight, and all of this is before the mind-bogglingly guilt-inducing episode with the guy who would go on to murder his beloved uncle and father-figure.
Peter would have to be deeply neurotic going forward from all that. Ditko and Lee thus provide a very 'truthful' acount of how a deeply hurting and self-loathing individual would try to go forward from that. His heroism is in doing the good he does and making the sacrifices he does despite coming from such an unenviable position.
The Spider-man persona is part of how Peter punishes himself for his failings with the cat-burglar. (Wearing the costume every night in petere's case, is like the Ancient Mariner being forced to wear the albatross around his neck for his sins) Screwing up his relationships is another way Peter unconsciously punishes himself.
I'm sure pointing out to your mentee that he was (for some reason) snaffing up his own life, wouldn't have done much to improve the situation. Whatever was causing him to behave as he did, it was as much unconscious as conscious. Likewise, when we see Peter repeatedly torpedoing his own happiness, it's not just that he is making bad dcisions because he is stupid. There's some kind of partly unconscious rationalising going on in his head. He himself doesn't even know that he's punishing himself.
Yes, I feel/have felt frustrated when reading early Spider-man comics, and was relieved when he started to catch a few breaks in the Romita era. I'm in agreement with you there. Maybe its the reason I wasn't a huge fan of Spider-man until I came back to the comics as an adult. Still, I can't help but think that the neurotic, psychologically complex and deeply flawed portrait of Peter Parker lifts the first 100 or so issues of Amazing Spider-man towards something like art. It's hard to call such depth and richness a fault in the series.
You aren't tarnishing any stirling Spider-Man silver for me, either. I was never drawn toward Spider-Man.
There's much validity in your critique of Peter Parker's "hard luck" and it's nice to see someone raise the point. However, on one of your criticisms . . .
Peter repeatedly complains about his money problems but he also admits that J. Jonah Jameson only pays him half of what his pictures are worth. Yet for some reason---his lack of initiative, his fear of inconvenience or some other issue- Peter never follows through on his threat to take his pictures elsewhere.
. . . the series finally addressed.
In "Bring Back My Goblin to Me", from The Amazing Spider-Man # 27 (Aug., 1965), Parker---as usual, strapped for cash---decides to take his photos of Spidey's lastest crime-busting effort to the Daily Globe, the Bugle's biggest rival. Globe editor Barney Bushkin pays Parker top dollar for the pics. That's the good news for our boy Petey.
The bad news is---unlike Jonah Jameson, who never asked questions as to how Parker obtained his photos of Spider-Man in action---Barney Bushkin presses Peter to reveal how he does it. There is a heavy implication that Bushkin will keep at it until he learns the answer.
Reluctantly, Peter decides that Bushkin is too much an inadvertent threat to his secret identity and takes his business back to the Daily Bugle, where Jameson, at least, won't stick his nose in how Peter does it.
Also, when you get around to reading the early Fantastic Four I hope you enjoy them. The early "damsel in distress" role of the then-under-powered Sue Storm is a little strange to modern sensibilities, but the introductions of Doctor Doom (#5 was my first Marvel superhero book), Mole Man, Puppet Master, and the reintroduction of Submariner are very well-written.
Chris, I can see where you’re coming from on Peter Parker. If you think about it, Peter starts out as a jerk if only because he’s un-athletic, highly intelligent, and therefore unpopular. Being a jerk is his reaction to his ostracism. This angry reaction leads directly to his failure to stop the thief that kills his surrogate father, Uncle Ben. Think about it: Bruce Wayne becomes Batman after watching his parents killed when he was helpless to save them. Peter, on the other hand, already had super-powers and CHOOSES not to stop the criminal who went on to kill Uncle Ben. If he had gone on to kill someone OTHER THAN Uncle Ben, Peter may never have realized his (great) responsibility and may have continued to try to make money from his powers. Peter didn’t instantly become a great hero. He had a long way to go, which is one of the things that makes him interesting. Also, it was pointed out somewhere along the way that working for Jameson was mainly due to his not caring how Peter always was able to get the Spidey pictures. Peter couldn’t afford a lot of questions.
Thanks for the comments, everyone. I was worried that I was going to get reamed for this one but you've all been very respectful.
I can understand how someone's view at the time would be different. I can only share my reaction years after the fact. There are times when it's important to "grade on a curve" or give something "extra credit" for its place in history. But there's also a place to say, "You know, in hindsight, Peter Parker was kind of a jerk who deserved a lot of his misfortune."
Like several of you, I preferred the Lee/Romita issues at the end of the volume and I'll most likely continue on with volumes 3, 4 and 5. I thought the strongest stories were the ones in which the Pete and Spidey stories intersected- the Master Planner saga with Doctor Octopus, the Green Goblin/Norman Osborn story and the Mary Jane Watson/Rhino story. I can see why those villains have become Spidey staples even if writers really have to stretch to make Doc Ock or the Rhino seem threatening nowadays.
Also, I have read plenty of other series from this time period. Amazing Spider-Man is head and shoulders above Justice League of America which was even more simplistic. But I think I'd take Lee's Avengers over his Spider-Man, especially during the Kooky Quartet era.
Some day, I'll probably get around to reading Lee and Kirby's Fantastic Four as well (I've still never read the Galactus story or the introduction of Black Panther).
I first started thing along the lines of Peter Parker being a kind of a jerk after reading a particular letter in Peter Parker, the Spectacular Spider-Man #80. (I think.) I was going to transcribe the letter verbatim here, but I just verified that that issue is no longer in my collection. If it's in yours, you may want to give it a read. And if anyone reading this does have ready access to it and a few minutes to spare, maybe you'd be so kind as to reproduce it here...?
I was able to read most of the Lee/Ditko run while still in elementary school (by trading for backissues of Marvel Tales), and by the tile I was in college, Marvel Tales again began to reprint the series from the beginning, so I was able to read the entire run including all of the issues I previously missed while still at a relatively young age. Like you, I was unimpressed. All my life I have preferred the Lee/Romita issues to the Lee/Ditko ones, but I have come to appreciate the Lee/Ditko ones for what they are.
I grew up reading comics, Marvels in particular, and although I had read about how innovative they were, they never really impressed me as being so because they were all I had ever known. In more recent years, though, I have been able to read more comics of the same period from different publishers and I can see just how inovative those early 1960s Marvels really were.
I last re-read the Lee/Ditko run in its entirety a few years ago when it was collected in an omnibus edition, and the same things that occurred to me then (that didn't necessarily occur to me when I was in my early 20s) are the things that have occurred to you now. So I think we've reached the same conclusions, you and I, but we've reached them in different order because we read the comics at different points in our respective lives. If you try reading some other comics from the same era but from different publishers, I suspect that you might find a new appreciation for how truly innovative those early Marvels were.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next