Hello,

First time poster here.

In his tenure on Spider-Man, since Stan Lee and Ditko moved Peter Parker from high school to college and, through cast additions, diversified and changed the conflicts, couldn't it be argued that the passage of time, the movement of settings, and the shifting of conflicts, are potentially at the core of the way Spider-Man was and has been ideally written?

Also, since the Avengers went from a team of secondary Marvel heroes, those whom appeared in half of a comic as opposed to those capable of, at that point, carrying their own title, to "Cap's Kooky Quartet", that the Marvel Universe is one that has always embraced "wild" shake-ups and the bucking of any status quo?

Since Spider-Man, within five years, moved from high schooler to college student, why is it a surprise that he continued to move through adulthood. If sixteen is the ideal point for the character, why then was he moved to a college setting and, if memory serves, moved out of his aunt's house into a bachelor pad with Harry Osborn. If Spider-Man should always be written as sixteen, why then did Stan Lee not continue with this status quo?

Equally, if comics should remain as true to their inception as possible, was it a misstep for the Avengers to, so early on in its run, to become a team of reformed villains?

It's said that the aging of the character of Peter Parker is one of the things that Ditko disagreed with most strongly. He left the title shortly thereafter.  It's been said by JB, and I agree by reading the stories, that Stan Lee didn't really know that these characters he created would become what they became.  In other words, he didn't realize that they would become so popular and last far longer than a couple of years.  Once he did, and after he had moved Peter from high school to college, he put the breaks on him pretty strongly.  Did the same with the FF.  So I wouldn't say that, at his core, "age" and "growth" is part of how he's always been written.

As far as the "wild shake-ups and bucking any status quo" I'd call that the illusion of change, well played for many years, without any actual change occurring.

I can certainly see the "illusion of change"  as opposed to actual change, and agree that it was, for the most part, initially well played. I guess I'd inquire about whether or not the death of Gwen Stacy was then well-played. I'm not saying that it was a good or bad move, but that it illustrates that Spider-Man has always had a tenuous status quo.

Also, thanks for the information on Ditko's disputes with Lee over the aging of Peter Parker, I knew about their disagreement on the Green Goblin's ID but had never heard about this.

I've heard it said that Ditko believes that Peter Parker should always and forever remain 16 and/or in high school, and I can't say that I disagree with that sentiment.

The Death of Gwen Stacy, to me and many others, was one of those moments in time by which the character is able to mark: it's been X amount of time since Gwen died.  There's a "before Gwen" and an "after Gwen" in the Spider-universe.  I don't think that's a good thing.  Writers have gone to the Gwen death well too many times, most notably and horribly in the recent "Sins Past" arc by JMS.  Better, to my mind, to have had her exit Peter's life like so many of Bruce Wayne's love interests did than to make a demarcation in his history by having her die.

Sorry if I find the "it's just temporary" argument a little specious at best.

Come on Matt, youre going to pretend there haven't been numerous changes to him that have been reversed even after long periods of time? 

And don't be snarky. 

I've heard it said that Ditko believes that Peter Parker should always and forever remain 16 and/or in high school, and I can't say that I disagree with that sentiment.

Maybe, maybe not.  Again, my real point here is that I just don't see a problem have seperate lines with alternative versions of the character designed to appeal to different age groups.  Can one title theoretically have universal appeal?  Maybe, but I sincerely doubt anyone 18+ is going to want to read a title about an eternal 16 year old.  And if M***** could theorectically sell two titles instead of one, then why not?  Who does it hurt?

And with all due respect to all parties involved, who says Ditko is the ultimate authority on what it best for the character?  What does that even mean?  For better or worse, Spider-Man is a product.  What's best for the product is for the product to sell.  There may be many ways to broaden the character's popularity and expand readership, but limiting his presentation to one iteration is probably not one of those ways.

The Death of Gwen Stacy, to me and many others, was one of those moments in time by which the character is able to mark: it's been X amount of time since Gwen died.

I'm honestly, non-snarkily, curious as to what exactly, given this statement, is your opinion on how an eternally 16 yo Spidey title would work, given that you expect it to periodically have events of this nature occur.  Maybe a title in which for 6 years (let's say the average reading life of an indiviual from say 9-15), people die, move, change jobs, make friends, make enemies and go through the natural ups and downs of life ALL WHILE HE'S 16 would be fine for a pre-teen or young teen, but then what? 

Thus again, what's the problem with having the character age etc. in another title meant for older readers who still want Spidey but find the idea of an everlasting 16 yo just too much to swallow.  Or frankly not that interesting.

Remember, we're not talking about a Bugs Bunny type character, who's antic we are involved in 5 min at a time, in disperate episodes.  We're talking about following a character from month to month for years, presumably remembering and being affected by events that occured previously.

Unless you're suggesting that each adventure be slef-contained and only referred back to in the most basic way.  Again, this might be a great approach for a young readers book.

Then again, your contention may be that Spidey et al should only be written for the audience for which they were originally intended, children and young adults.  Maybe so, but if we could get them with one title and adults with another, what's the intrinsic harm?

There's a "before Gwen" and an "after Gwen" in the Spider-universe.  I don't think that's a good thing.  Writers have gone to the Gwen death well too many times, most notably and horribly in the recent "Sins Past" arc by JMS.  Better, to my mind, to have had her exit Peter's life like so many of Bruce Wayne's love interests did than to make a demarcation in his history by having her die.

This is a good and very interesting point.  It does make me wonder how you're supposed to have any sense of real drama if events do not have a lasting effect on the character.  Peter acting the same after Gwen Stacy's death, as if it never happened?  Isn't it better to have the character's CHARACTER be affected by these events?  Doesn't it resonate with us more?  Don't we remember those stories best?

For better or for worse, the death of Gwen Stacy, the death and rebirth and death of Pheonix, there's a reason those stories stay with us, because it was a story in which our favorite characters started out one way and ended up another. 

These are arguably the most important events in these character's lives.  They are important because the character's were changed fundementally forever.

 They CHANGED and without change there is no drama.  Reboots are designed primarily to set the stage for those changes again.

And to all of those who think of me as a hero, I'm no hero, I'm just a guy who happens to look, sound and talk just like a hero.  Yes, I am a hero.

Matt Reed wrote -

"Better...to have had her (Gwen) exit Peter's life...than to make a demarcation in his history by having her die".

I think this sums it up. Once you have a single, recognisable event like this, one that clearly draws attention to the passage of time, things begin to go wrong. Uncle Ben's death is the only defining moment Spider-Man ever needed to make him 'real', as this is what motivates his crime-fighting. Everything that happens to him happens after Ben's death, and this is all we, as readers, need to know.

I'm sorry, I know I'm blabbing, but let me make one more quick tinsy point:

the issue really isn't Peter's AGE or time or whatever.  The issue really seems to be Peter CHANGING due to events in the story.

Dennis - True. But if he's changing due to a certain event which can be pinpointed in time, then this creates the awareness of time passing, which is what has promted writers to cause his 'growth'.  

Perhaps you should learn a little something about the history of the industry? Especially those times when the books have sold the best? (Excluding speculator infestations, of course.)