All Things Spidey #3

I recently took a one day trip to Philadelphia and back. Dude, its Philly, the greatest city in the nation (I don't believe that, but I wrote it for a friend of mine!). On the way back a fellow graduate student and I engaged in a discussion about comics. The discussion quickly turned toward Spider-Man comics. It was one of those eye-opening experiences! I couldn't believe that someone shared almost the exact same opinion about the nature of Spider-Man as I did. This similarity could possibly stem from the fact that we are approximately the same age and started showing a real interest in Spider-Man around the same time. This discussion has given me the resolve and courage to state my views on Spider-Man, views that will be considered heretical by most Spidey fans today. Views that my fellow student will not share completely I'm sure. Well, here goes!

Spider-Man, though still one of the most interesting characters in the world of comics, has been in a decline since the late 1980s. The last great run on Spider-Man was the Tom DeFalco and Ron Frenz issues of Amazing Spider-Man, and since then Old Webhead's adventures have just been a poor reflection of his first 25 years. After DeFalco and Frenz left Amazing at the beginning of the "Gang War" story line, Spidey started on his decline. We soon got the anti-climatic death of the Ned Leeds Hobgoblin in Amazing #289, which was later followed by the ridiculous explanation that Ned Leeds became the Hobgoblin to be a masked vigilante fighting for the good cause of bringing down the Kingpin. Then we were treated to the death of Kraven the Hunter. Though considered by many to be a classic story, the writing and artwork were far too dark and disgusting for Spider-Man. I never again want to be treated to a rat man called Vermin who lives in the sewers, and Kraven blowing his head off with a shotgun--yeeesh!

Around this time was also Peter David's run in Amazing and Peter Parker, the Spectacular Spider-Man. Peter David is a talented writer who knows how to craft a story, but like Kraven's and Ned's death, it was another series of stories that were too violent for the kind of character that Spider-Man is. Jean DeWollf is shotgunned to death in her apartment, as are a priest in the confessional and innocent bystanders by the Sin Eater. Though he can spin a riveting plot, David writes stories that are just too violent for Spider-Man. Case in point is his recent run on Spider-Man 2099, which again were original stories that relied too much on swearing and acts of violence. It's not that I want Spidey to live in a vanilla world, but there was always a fantasy element to the violence in Spider-Man that was lost around the late 1980s. Sure, Stan Lee and Steve Ditko could shock us, but did they ever disturb us on the deep existential level that the brutal deaths of Kraven, Ned Leeds and Jean DeWollf did?

Two other things that have contributed to Spidey's decline since around 1987 are Peter's marriage and the artwork of Todd McFarlane. These are events that are now considered classic moments in the history of Spider-Man, but when examined closely have limited rather than enhanced the character. Peter's marriage never worked for me, because it violated the essence of his character as the loner who is isolated from the world around him. Marriage brings stability and a true partner for life that one shares almost everything with. This is not the way Spider-Man should be. Peter should be a character who is set off from his fellow man because of his unique powers and great responsibility. It also seems that the marriage has limited the once-sassy Mary Jane to being your typical sitcom-like nagging wife. Maybe nothing can be done about this, because the last thing we need is some soap opera-inspired marriage troubles for our couple.

My second complaint that might get me blackballed from the Spidey Club is my dissatisfaction with the influence of Todd McFarlane's art style in the Spider Books (or in all of Marvel, for that matter). Now I will admit that McFarlane's individual drawings of Spidey in the contorted spidery poses are impressive (I have one on my desk, in fact). However, McFarlane has been the great influence for those who want a comic book to emphasize flash over substance and dramatic poses in the art over good solid storytelling. For my money, Frenz is a better artist than McFarlane and was drawing Spider-Man in just as spidery a way during his run on Amazing.

In the end though, I feel like I am just spitting in the wind with this column. McFarlane's art style made Spidey a hit and the young fans seem to want all the violence and flashy artwork they can get from their comic books. I had hoped that the recent "Hobgoblin Lives" storyline would bring back the spirit that Spidey had in the 1980s. Though I enjoyed the three issue series, it was not able to capture that spirit again, because it became bogged down in details and retcons of the Hobgoblin saga. Truth be told, "Hobgoblin Lives" needed about six issues to tell its story.

I have attacked many Spider-Man icons in this essay. I also think that I have clearly stated my preference for good stories and solid artwork that are appropriate for the best character in the history of comic books. I will continue to judge the current happenings in Spider-Man from the best of the first 25 years of Spidey. I don't think that's too shabby a foundation by which to judge the Spider books these days.