Is he right, Yea Forums?

In principle sure but readers shouldn't have to excuse dumb decisions on the writer's part as good character writing.
Does it make sense for the character to do this?

No because it becomes an excuse to never have to put in the effort advancing the character. Its never just "oh he lost the fight against Scorpion and and to retreat and figure something out" like what would be in character with spidey but "I'M GOING TO SELL MY MARRIAGE TO THE DEVIL TO SAVE MY ELDERLY AUNT BECAUSE I'M BEING WRITTEN AS A FUCKING CHILD"

>taking a man who likes dyke she ra word seriously

Attached: ADFD45D4-9C04-493E-B6F3-E1483786D510.png (614x615, 552K)

The general idea, "people still make mistakes", is okay. What is NOT okay is the massive flanderization he and other writers did with Spider-Man. It went from "Oh, Spider-Man makes mistakes" to "Holy fuck, Spider-Man is an incompetent manchild". As much as Spencer has problems with his writing at times, I never got that feeling from his ASM so far. I did get that feeling from time to time from Slott's run and part of BND.

Also we know he posts here.

Attached: Dan Slott posts on co.jpg (717x668, 97K)

>People want Peter to be a married man who doesn't live with his aunt and has a semi-stable job.
>Things he actually earned because unlike other heroes time has actually passed for him and he is in his late 20s/early 30s
>That's a gary-stu perfect man who makes no mistakes
Man, the bar for perfection is pretty fucking low in burgerland huh? In my coutry, huelandia, we call that "being a grown up"

I'm sure alot of industry people post here. They probably use it as a way to trash talk others in the industry they hate.

I want to see Spencer bring back a bunch of Slott's OC in a competent and entertaining way just to twist the dagger.

He's right that any fan who holds those opinions is wrong. Peter is best when nothing works out for him despite his best efforts. That being said Slott's entire Spider-Man run was a clusterfuck of bad ideas, bad writing, and bad characterization. The only good thing that came out of his run was Superior Spider-Man and Anna Maria Marconi.

>that image
lmao, you know how easy it is to add the symbol in something like MS Paint? I did the same with a tweet by the OK KO creator last year, and it actually made its way to Twitter and the man himself

That’s a difference between being “flawed” and being a retarded manchild that tries to kill kids like Slott’s Spider-Man was.

>Man, the bar for perfection is pretty fucking low in burgerland huh?

No, just Marvel.

And that's how Marvel see Spider-Man, as someone who shouldn't grow up; I think Brevoort or someone was trying to argue that Youth is the core of Spider-Man and not responsibility.

Like others have said, Slott didn’t want Peter to be a grown-up, he wanted him to be a dumb manchild that fucks up everything for easy drama.

This was during his Superior run where Slott had Peter consider MURDERING a child just so he could make Peter look like Hitler and make his precious pet Ock look good and prop him up.

While it's an excellent idea for what he'd do after retiring as Spiderman, High School Teachers just don't have the free time for Superheroics.

Sure, Slott

Found it. This was from the Spider-Manifesto Brevoort wrote up for the Brand New Day writers.

Slott says that it was only a loose rule, but the end results, you can see in a lot of BND and Slott's run.

Attached: ASMSSDC-025.jpg (1280x1998, 1.65M)

whatwouldspideydo.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/youth-vs-power-and-responsibility/

Brevoort on Spider-Man:

>Most of the best comic book series are about something–something that may not factor into every single last adventure, but which is the underpinning of the series as a whole. Fantastic Four is about family. X-Men is about prejudice. Batman is about revenge. And Spider-Man is about youth.

>Youth is the element that defined Spider-Man back in the days when he was created, the thing that separated him from all of the other competing superhuman crime-fighters and made him unique. Whereas up till that time, teen-agers in comics had been relegated to being either junior-sized reflections of their mentors, or simple sidekicks, Spider-Man was the one series in which a teen-ager was the hero, was the lead. And that influenced everything about the series, gave it its heart. As Steve Ditko once pointed out, being High School age meant that it was acceptable for Peter Parker to screw up, to make mistakes and learn from them, in a way that would have been pathetic for more established, more heroic super heroes. (Ditko also lamented having had Peter graduate High School and go onto College.) Unlike other heroes before him, Spider-Man was the audience–so successfully so that the folks working on X-Men in the 60s very quickly lost sight of their own premise, and attempted to turn the team into five Spider-Men, with dismal results.

>Spider-Man is no more about responsibility than Batman is about criminals being a superstitious and cowardly lot. That’s the tagline to the first adventure, and a strong moral message to go out on, but it’s what that story is about, not what the series is about. And in point of fact, it wasn’t until the late 80s/early 90s that you began to see that phrase start to get beaten on like a drum, with story titles like “The Greatest Responsibility” and “Power and Responsibility” and so forth–not coincidentally, a time after Peter had been married, and the creators were looking for some other bedrock to take the place of youth. Responsibility is certainly an element of Spider-Man–but then, show me a hero for whom it’s not an element.

Tom DeFalco, who used to write the book in the 80's and wrote Spider-Girl, had a different opinion in an interview:

Matt Adler: Obviously this is something Marvel has come back to over the years, most recently with “One More Day”. Do you agree with the people who say Peter Parker has to be single?

Tom DeFalco: It depends on how you view Spider-Man. Tom Brevoort recently said that the Spider-Man series is all about youth. And he’s the editor, so he gets to call the shots. Now, when I was the editor of Spider-Man, I thought the series was all about responsibility.

MA: And what greater responsibility could you have then a family?

TD: Right. So I think that if you’re playing that the series is about responsibility, that allows you to have him get married, ultimately allows you to have him have a baby, because the more responsibilities you pile on the character, his life and the series become more interesting.

He's obviously right, but he's focusing on the wrong criticism.
It's like defending the sequels trying to prove that rey isn't a mary sue when the bigger problem is that the scripts achieve nothing.
Peter Parker has to make mistakes, it's a very important part of his character, but another important one is responsibility. His mistakes have to be in character, that's what Slott fails at. You can be responsible and still get too angry, or too scared, or get into a very bad situation... The character must be consistent, that is law, even more so than the status quo.

One thing to add: character development is growth and change, and if you wanna make Peter change into a less responsible version of himself fine, but ask yourself what would that achieve? What would make that a story you wanna tell? Is subversion worth doing for the sake of itself?

And Slott talking about the Spider-Manifesto:

In a CBR post, Dan Slott suggested that the writers still take power and responsibility seriously.

>The “Manifesto” was NEVER hard and fast rules. (It even says that at the beginning!) They were just a bunch of notes and ideas that Tom Brevoort wrote up when he was trying to wrap his head around Spider-Man then & now– examining the sum and total of Spidey before he jumped on as Senior Group Editor. And even THEN he knew that Steve Wacker was sitting in the big chair as editor. He really just wrote those up as a way to start up a conversation at the first BND Spider-Summit.

>There’s a LOT of things in the Spider-Man Manifesto that a LOT of creators at that summit skewed away from. In that Manifesto, Tom wrote down the idea (which is now infamous on the internet) that Spider-Man wasn’t about “Power and Responsibility”, but was instead mainly about “youth.”
>Yet in almost EVERYONE’S first arc of BND, EACH CREATOR hit the Power and Responsibility beat HARD.

Dan is a fucking moron who thinks things going okay for Peter is "unrealistic". People aren't asking for Mister Perfect, they want reasonable ups and downs. Slott on the other hand will shit on Peter at EVERY fucking turn. Remember how THE DAILY FUCKING BUGLE decided to run a piece on how Peter was a monster for shutting down Parker Industries to avoid HYDRA from getting their hands on dangerous resources, but decided to focus on the fact that "muh lost jobs".

Slott is a salty, petty fucker who vents his own frustrations in his work.

Attached: 065465161.jpg (828x1416, 176K)

He would be right if he wasn't such a hack andif his portrayal of Peter wasn't so dogshit.

>And Spider-Man is about youth.
Bullshit, honestly I would say it's more about responsibility and Peter juggling his everyday drama while doing the best he can to make the correct decision even if it doesn't benefit him.

>As Steve Ditko once pointed out, being High School age meant that it was acceptable for Peter Parker to screw up, to make mistakes and learn from them, in a way that would have been pathetic for more established, more heroic super heroes. (Ditko also lamented having had Peter graduate High School and go onto College.)
IIRC Ditko only pointed out that if Peter was going to go to college he couldn't behave a certain way since it would come out as immature and childish so they would have to make the character behave differently. I don't think he was actually opposed to making Peter grow up.

Also Peter wasn't in high school that long and him being in high school was never the most important aspect of the character.

DeFalco gets it.

In general? Yes. People make mistakes, even super heroes.

Making someone literally retarded for matter of plot convenience? Not so much.

youtu.be/AnKpgK3geWA?t=40

I don't know for sure about what Ditko thought because Brevoort was referencing something Marv Wolfman said Ditko told him.

One thing I do know is that back when Ditko and Lee were on speaking terms they did agree to have Peter graduate high school. I think it was on Amazing Spider-Talk where Ron Frenz said that at the time Ditko and Lee weren't talking (and by that point Ditko was plotting), he asked somebody, maybe Sol, or whoever, if Stan still wanted him to go ahead with the graduation story.

It could be possible that Ditko changed his mind decades later, but I haven't unearthed anything else about him saying anything about aging Peter up.

Preaching to the choir, seeing as most fans on Yea Forums seem to prefer a Peter Parker that understands responsibility, but Slott and others regressed Peter as a character. Rather than continue the journey into adulthood that Ditko/Lee started and many others from Conway to Stern to DeFalco continued they chose to retard his growth and thrust him into manchild status.

You can’t write a 20-something Peter when he’s in his mid-30’s with a nearly decrepit Aunt, an ex-wife and an aborted daughter. I’m fine with Peter struggling to overcome bad luck and occasionally making bad choices but constantly willfully choosing the selfish choice or just jumping headlong into mistakes is just too stupid.

Slott's a top 5 Spider-Man writer dead or alive

>Slutt
>right on spider-man
>ever
Take a guess

Not even top 10

I can't claim to be the biggest fan of DeFalco as an editor (he pulled some shifty shit) or a writer but I do think he was earnest not like Brevoort who has always come off as an asshole.