No one has a "hold" on the essence of Spider-Man. As a fictional character, he is subject to interpretation and re-interpretation. No one can lay claim to having the one true interpretation of the character. In my view, Peter Parker was all about tragedy and loss. To me, that was central to his character or at least what made him interesting in MY eyes. Pete was never perfect, which is why I can forgive him for saving Aunt May through magic (even though I don't defend what I thought was a truly lame story and a horrible way to do it). Pete was also not a loser. He was a tragic figure who experienced great loss--some of which was his own fault, some of which was the fates playing cruelly with him--but he was not a "lovable loser." In fact, I had a much tougher time with Pete married to what had been written as a shallow super-model. To me, that was less in character than the so-called "deal" with Mephisto. I've been reading ASM and its variants for a long time, and the married Pete never rang true to me, especially being married to an actress model. Or even being married at all, since he knew that anyone he was close to could be a potential target. Part of the "responsibility" that came with the "great power" was that he could not lead a normal life without giving up being Spider-Man. Many times, he sought to rid himself of his powers so that he COULD lead a normal life, and get married, have a family, etc. But he felt obligated to be Spider-Man, which meant he had to sacrifice a normal life. He couldnt be Reed Richards. In all, the marriage was a disaster, it violated the fundamental nature of the character. But that is MY view, and it need not be anyone else's.
Now, in contrast, the essence of Spider-Man, to me, has always been about victory over insurmountable odds and never giving up, no matter what. If the FF, the Avengers, the Sinister 6, the Ringmaster and his Circus of Crime, the Justice League, the Justice Society, and the X-Men all teamed up against Spidey, he would find a way to win. He might get the ever lovin' hell beat out of him in the meantime, but he'd find a way to win.
What makes Pete interesting, in part, is this dicotomy between the tragic Pete and the heroic Spidey. The marriage, in my view, made him both less tragic (we'd all like to be married to MJ) and less heroic (he violated the very notion of WGPCGR).
As for Joe Q, he's faced with the difficulty of a 47 year old character than existed before be was even born, and that will (hopefully) continue on long after he (and us) is dead. Lee & Ditko didn't imagine that SM would go on this long. It was thus easy for them to make a "coming of age" story in which Pete ages pretty rapidly. But at some point, the character's development becomes arrested. He gets married, has kids, gets old? Thats not commercially viable for a key property. He doesn't age, but everyone around him does? That's what Marvel may do with Wolverine (healing factor) Thor (a God), or the Hulk (nearly indestructable). It could happen with Pete as well.
A difficulty we as fans have is that we are time bound. It's cool for us to see Pete go through the same stages of life that we do. High school and college kids dig a high school or college aged Pete. Older dudes like to see him age and mature with marriage and kids. But we are time bound because we're all aging. Do the high school kids now get to have a Pete who ages? Do the old foggys like me get a mature Pete? What about kids just being born now who, in 8 or 10 years may start reading Spider-Man?
Those are the difficulties Marvel faces with each of its characters (as does DC and everyone else). Ditko thinks they should have aged Pete and just killed him off as a hero and created something new. Stan basically thinks they should do whatever keeps the character going. He wanted the marriage as a gimmick. He gave his blessing to the un-marriage. When asked about it he has been both aghast and supportive. But do Stan & Steve have the sole say about what they created? Does Bendis, who's written a version of the character as long, if not longer, than anyone else? And while Bendis, like JMS, is a great writer, neither one of the "got" the version of Spidey that I prefer, nor did they understand the "essence" of Spidey the way I understand it.
But neither I, nor anyone out there, has a monopoly on what Spider-Man means, or who he "is." I have only the right to interpret the character for myself and to buy the comic or not buy the comic as I see fit. But NO ONE lays claim to the exclusive right or interpretation of the character (except maybe Marvel, which owns the character). I have enjoyed BND more than Ive enjoyed ASM in years. I stopped buying for years after the marriage, because like FN and Dragon, and all those OMD/BND haters, I thought the marriage to MJ was a betrayal to all that Spidey stood for and that Pete was. So I feel your collective pain, I just disagree with anyone laying claim to the "exclusive" interpretation of Pete or Spidey. I hope the marriage stays gone. I wish MJ had made the deal with Mephisto by herself, or that Marvel had made a more artful way of ending the marriage and restoring the secret identity, but they didnt. I wish they had done it differntly, but I very much enjoy BND. Finally, Pete is a character I recognize again. Others disagree, that's cool. Read Deadpool or Thor or something else. At some point, Pete's status quo will change (maybe he'll marry Gwen's clone) and the books will interest you again. But maybe not.
t:
