Monday, July 10, 2017


"When I break My Silence, the impact of My Love will be universal and all life in creation will know, feel and receive of it. It will help every individual to break himself free from his own bondage in his own way. I am the Divine Beloved who loves you more than you can ever love yourself. The breaking of My Silence will help you to help yourself in knowing your real Self."—Avatar Meher Baba


  1. Here is something peculiar I noticed:


    1. Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

    2. It is interesting, however clearly not done by a comic reader. Given how closely some of the economic ideas mirrored the comics it is probably a better look at the socioeconomic climate of 1962 than 2002.

      However it does open up something I thought about typing here for a while.

      You have often called Spider-Man the most complex superhero around (or some similar language). I think I have figured out both why that is and why recent views on the wall-crawler have gotten more... complicated.

      Basic point of fact: In High School, Peter Parker was a nerd. Outside of dress however, he was not a stereotypical nerd.

      He was not awkward or shy, on the second page of Amazing Fantasy 1 he is asking out a girl (bonus points if you can name her without looking it up). He is articulate and confident, she just wasn't interested.

      He may have been picked on, but Flash Thompson was less his tormentor than rival and sparring partner. He gave as good as he got.

      Even removing the Spider-man persona, which does awaken a different side of his personality, Peter is a dichotomy.

      He may be a loner, angry, and introverted, BUT he is also, charismatic, easy to talk to, and even charming. And all of this is established by the end of Lee's tenure (Hell, by the end of Ditko's).

      This is no doubt why his every-man character worked so well, everyone could identify with him in some way. Like parts and hate parts (people forget Pete was kind of a jerk).

      BUT, a lot of superheroes are dichotomous (it is a reflection of the American psyche), why does the wall-crawling weirdo do it so much better.

      Because writers could write him different ways and still have it make sense.

      Gerry Conway (and please speak up if you think I am off please on any of these) played more on the charismatic side. Wein had his duty bound side take over. Wolfman, the somewhat lost youth. Over in Spectacular Mantlo excelled at the lone man of honor and passion. O'Neil the working man, and Stern the bookish nerd.

      From that point on, the gates were open to pull from. And the claim staking became more..interesting. Defalco wrote the man trying to make the complicated world manageable. Peter David a n every man cast against a bizarre background. Dematteis, the Self Reflective, thoughtful soul. Michiline the young man who tries more than anything to prove he is an adult... even to himself. Then for a while Mackie the Man with a job to do, but one he truly enjoys.

      Some problems FORCED on Mackie.

      Then Jenkins returns to the lost man, but now adds the idea that Peter feels he should have figured it out... and perhaps that he never will. Straczynski, had a focus on Peter's desire for a small basic life with loved ones.

      All accurate. All able to be drawn to that first 110 issues by THE MAN, and company.

      SO that explains that. But what about the.. complicated... view from after JMS's run?

      Well, the back to basics idea didn't help. Mackie learned that the hard way. I STILL say it is unfair his good work from before the corporate planned volume 2 is forgotten.

      However, this time they learned. They decided to separate as much as possible. No time on emotional resinence from the shift.

      Unfortunately that meant to bring Peter back to basics, they needed a new idea from go. They rebuilt Peter Parker.

      They went all the way back to the most basic basics of the character... a nerd.

      Now, I am NOT making a judgement call on this. And trends and views on what words mean shift and change over time, from generation to generation, and even person to person.

      This Peter got a new character trace... awkwardness. A trait Peter never had before. He seemed more like a character on the Big Bang Theory than he had before. He seemed like what Stan had not made him, a steroe type.


    3. Now I said this isn't an comment, and it isn't. To be fair, many writers had painted Peter in his youth to be more nerdy than he had been in those issues. Even Spider-Man:Redemption (a comic series I love) had Flash Thompson having a slightly skewed, albeit not entirely inaccurate, take on Pete's High School years. Many great runs by writers I really enjoy did this in flashbacks and comments.

      It became a semi-common tool. It was as a way to embrace the late-bloomer idea more fully, I believe. That's the thing... it was to embrae an idea that he had blossomed more.

      Also in defense of this idea I am not fond of, I think all the ways I noted were reflective of Each writer. Again, feel free to speak u if I am wrong. And if some of the architects of the post-OMD Spider-man connected with That IDEA, and felt that a way to tap into something... it isn't that foolish.

      So there you have it, my view on Why Peter is called a complex character and why fans say the modern Spider-Man feels different.

      It was also embraced quite heavily in the Ultimate universe for the Web-Head. So, it probably seemed to track just fine on paper, and probably did in real life for some. That was a really popular comic.

      Thoughts and opinions? Don't be afraid to go in depth or say I'm full of horse sh....uh...crap.


    4. Great thoughts and wonderful insights, Jack. I've said just about everything I can about Peter Parker in my various stories and essays, Jack—but I invite anyone reading this to chime in because I would LOVE to follow this discussion.