AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #23: Not wanting to be happy.

[starwolf_oakley]

In BATMAN #50, there is the idea Bruce Wayne can't be happy because then Batman isn't as effective.

During "The Clone Conspiracy," I speculated Dan Slott was doing his own "Peter Parker is just as messed up as Bruce Wayne" thing.

After seeing some of the current AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #1, I am looking back at AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #23, set during "The Clone Conspiracy."



Peter Parker is talking to a Gwen Stacy clone who insists she isn't a clone, but the real Gwen with ALL of Gwen's memories up to the moment of her death. So, lots of existential angst as well as the normal angst.





Peter and MJ were happy... to a point.

Actually, OMIT revealed MJ said she wishes she never knew Peter Parker was Spider-Man. And then they broke up... because. And then MJ said she wanted Peter to be happy with Carlie Cooper. Ha ha ha?





So, Gwen thinks Peter Parker can't let himself be happy. Is there some truth to that?
I used to think it was just Peter didn't want a full time girlfriend/wife because saving lives as Spider0Man was more important. And he's terrible at managing money because Aunt May and Uncle Ben were also terrible at managing money. But is the truth "Peter Parker's life is awash with misery and dispair so he can be more effective at being Spider-Man"?

I get a little morose about the life of Peter Parker, I have to admit. A few stories over the years, like CIVIL WAR flashback issues, say the reason Peter didn't have any friends (until he got to college) was because Aunt May didn't want him to.

Comments

[deathcrist2000]

As one of the two people who has written a massive project on Spider-Man, Bullshit. Spider-Man is not Batman. Spider-Man isn't some angsty loner who's miserable all the time. Spider-Man is Bugs Bunny. Peter Parker has some issues, but Spider-Man isn't how he deals with them (his character arc in the second DeMatteis era is realizing that his method of bottling up his emotions until they explode isn't a healthy way to cope and starts seeing a therapist and talks to his wife about what's going on). The writers just want an excuse to write Spider-Man as if his teenage whining about how he doesn't need friends is something that would continue on into his adult years (it didn't as evidenced by his relationship with MJ, Gwen, Harry, and Flash).

TL;DR? Peter Parker isn't Batman, he's Prince Lir from The Last Unicorn.

[crinos]

The idea that heroes have to be unhappy to be effective is A) Bullshit, and B) Lazy writing.

Cause Heaven fucking forbid you think outside the box for a character interpretation, heaven forbid you take a character in a new direction.

You know one more day things were going well for Spider-man: He had a job as a teacher, he was married, his wife and his Grandmother knew who he was and acted accordingly, He was an Avenger, things were good, and it didn't make Spidey any less effective.

Hell, chronologically speaking, Batman as the brooding grim Emo guy is kind of a recent development. Batman spent the entirety of the Golden and Silver age as a lighter character and it didn't hurt his standing at all. I wouldn't mind seeing a Batman who was less of a brooding jerk than he's usually depicted.

If you say "This character only works if they're miserable" What you are really saying is "I don't know how to write this character in any way except to heap misery and misfortune on them." You wanna write Whump fics for a super hero arc, just be honest and say you want to write a Whump fic. Don't try and go on this thing that your interpretation is the only way these characters work, because that's bullshit.

[deathcrist2000]

At least with Batman "seeing your parents shot before your eyes when you're 8" is a coherent reason to have some issues in adult life. And at least with Tom King's Batman (the text as opposed to authorial statements), there's the possibility that said line of thinking is bullshit.

[akodo_rokku]

I do think there's a grain of truth to the idea that due to his guilt complex, Peter believes deep down that he doesn't *deserve* to be happy.

[owlbrigade1]

I don't think it is that he doesn't think he deserves to be happy, more that he knows that he made a bad decision once and wants to keep on making right ones in future. And he has the power to do more, so he feels he should do more, because with great power comes great responsibility.

[janegray]

Responsibility should include responsibility to yourself, though. If you give every piece of yourself until you are left wallowing in misery, you failed yourself.

[arilou_skiff]

I do think Peter has a guilt complex that makes him think he doesen't deserve to be happy, and that whenever he is he expects something to come along and ruin it (and is perhaps too willing to let things go when things get rough because of that)

But he isn't Batman in that sense, he's not *driven* by this in the same way.

[owlbrigade1]

I'm just looking at that and thinking that Peter needs a shave. Why does angst always equal stubble (and vice versa)?

[crimsonmoonmist]

Personal hygiene gets easier to overlook when one is depressed, especially as shaving isn't seen as essential to begin with. Plus it's a strong visual indicator to the audience that something is up with the character's mental state without actually making them look downright unattractive.

[tcampbell1000]

Superheroes do not need their misery. Their publishers do.

Because of the nature of ongoing superheroes' quasi-immortal existence, they can never move beyond the one defining set of moments that's generally considered their "origin story." I enjoy arcs where it looks like they can for a while, because I think they're good models of personal growth, but on some level I know they're castles in the sand (grumble grumble Matt Murdock mumble).

Superman doesn't have to be miserable, but that's because he never WAS: at most a little anxious about his outsider status, he helps because it's a moral imperative and he can't not. He's not shaped by loss.

Batman is. But only in Batman's most irrational moments does he treat his own loss as his own fault ("I asked Mom to wear the pearls that night! Aaagh, the robber wanted the pearls!"), whereas "it's all my fault" is Peter's default setting. In Slott's telling at least, this leads him to all sorts of self-perpetuating behaviors that are at best going to put him into constant emotional whitewater, and at worst are going to create disasters for him which he'll then blame on "the Parker luck."

That's why I was actually pretty interested in The Superior Spider-Man, where Otto actually is better than Peter at being Spidey (for a while) because he doesn't have the same issues. Otto has his own self-defeating behaviors, but they're less obvious and take longer to mature.

By the bye, I don't EVER remember it being said that Aunt May didn't want Peter to have friends. IIRC, she worried that he didn't have more. The closest she came to trying to isolate him was to warn him not to talk to those vicious bullies who must have been beating him up all the time, since he was always coming home with bruises.

[starwolf_oakley]

The "Aunt May didn't want Peter to have friends" theory comes from Sensational Spider-Man (2006 2nd Series) #33, a CIVIL WAR tie-in. Flashbacks in that story has 11-year-old Peter breaking his arm while climbing a tree with another boy named Tommy. May explains to Ben that Peter isn't like other boys because he's sensitive.

Yes, that is just one story. But there has to be something to "Peter didn't have any friends in high school" than "Everyone would rather be friends with Flash Thompson."

[silverhammerman]

Since Slott's already been mentioned, I'll note that is that the ASM: Learning to Crawl flashback miniseries did provide a bit of an explanation for why Peter wasn't just friends with the other nerds in high school: He was caught stealing equipment from the AV Club to use in putting together some superheroic gadget or another, and subsequently got kicked out of the club, labelled a bit of a scumbag, and ostracized by the friends he'd made. I thought the mini was kind of a shaggy dog story for that, but it did give something of an explanation for what you mention.

Personally though my reading for a long time now is that Peter's kind of a prick before becoming Spider-Man. I mean looking at that Ditko/Lee origin story he's one "I'll show all those fools!" speech away from being a standard issue supervillain. Sure he's an outcast, but he's also just a touch full of himself, if not without reason. That plus the desperate need for validation suggested by him deciding to become a performer after he gets his powers, it doesn't seem that off base to suggest that other kids might find Peter obnoxious on top of being weird. And then once he becomes Spider-Man he's always wrapped up in his own issues to the point that other characters think he's purposely aloof.

[starwolf_oakley]

That's explained by Gwen in the pages right before these.

"You were aloof when we first met at ESU."
"Concerned over Spider-Man stuff."

[tcampbell1000]

This is a really good point (he literally DOES SAY "I'll show them all," just not out loud!), and it casts Peter's persistent guilt complex in a bit of a new light. Letting the mugger go is often shown as an uncharacteristic moment for Peter, either because his head is swimming with fame or because he just got cheated. But it's very much in character with the angry guy seen in those first few pages.

"No, you don't GET it. I've been taking shit from the jocks and populars for years even though I was the nice kid who always did everything right. Now I got the power and the fame and you STILL want me to be the nice guy? I GET TO BE FLASH THOMSON NOW. THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. Go bug some other loser for charity work, I'm BETTER than that now."

Sure, he never stopped doing right by his uncle and aunt, but they were the ones who were nice to him, and taking care only of your own is only a little better than taking care only of yourself.

Not to contradict the rest of the lore, but maybe ONE reason Peter clings to that guilt is that on some level he worries that without it, he'll revert back to being a prick. It's not like he ever lost his love of showboating.

[tcampbell1000]

Well, sure there's more to it, but the reason for it is given in the VERY FIRST PANEL IN WHICH PETER APPEARS: He was a huge nerdlinger. I realize that nerd chic became a thing sometime between 1962 and now, but that just means that now there are cool nerds and uncool nerds, and it doesn't take a lot of imagination to guess which group Peter fell into. More recent portrayals (Bendis' Ultimate Spider-Man, Tom Holland) have given Peter a little more of a social circle in high school, but even then, there's kind of an "us few outcasts against the hierarchy" vibe.

I'm not gonna pretend to have read the story you're talking about, but May saying Peter is "sensitive" does track with other portrayals. Still, it seems like that's not wanting him to have no friends, that's wanting him to avoid the wrong KIND of "friends," the sort that'll take advantage of him and leave him more isolated than before, in the end.

[sean_613]

His guilt-complex is definitely preventing Peter from being happy.

[oakie620]

It's not that Peter won't let himself be happy, but Spider-Man invariably sabotages his personal life. If there are crimes to be stopped and lives to be saved, he will suit up at the expense of himself. He will skip class, bail during work hours and stand up friends if Spider-Man is needed. That's who Peter Parker is. He doesn't want to be miserable, and the consequences from being Spider-Man have gotten to him more than once. But he'd rather live with that instead of letting a burglar shoot someone's uncle ever again.

[shakalooloo]

When was the last time Carly Cooper was seen?

[lordultimus]

End of Superior Spider-Man, she got transformed into a Goblin during the Goblin King arc and left New York out of trauma.

[remial]

So, Gwen thinks Peter Parker can't let himself be happy. Is there some truth to that?
yes and no. It isn't Peter that won;t let himself be happy it is editorial at Marvel that won't let him be happy.

[toby_wan_kenobi]

There was a blog post I read many years ago that tried to define superheroes in one word, and the only one I remember now is the one they gave to Spider-Man.

Sacrifice.

Peter wants to be happy. But he'll always sacrifice his happiness to save others. He let that one dude skate by when he had the power to stop him and BOOM OH NO UNCLE BEN NOOOOOOOOO

His life is defined by something he didn't do, and so his core drive is to do everything he can to help others.

Batman is defined by something that happened to him; it can be argued that his core drive is to *prevent* that something from happening to others.