In the middle of the 90’s, DC made a fevered pitch to boost sales by killing of their arguably most famous character, The Man of Steel, Superman.In a supposedly climactic battle with Doomsday, The Man of Steel is left broken and dead in the street, to the horror of onlookers everywhere. It was on the news, it was referenced in other comics, even Marvel shouted out to it once or twice. Superman, like Captain America after him, and dozens of other characters, eventually came back.When Superman was brought back to life though, it kind of raised the question that if Superman can come back to life, why can’t anyone else? Death became a permanent part of comic books shortly afterwards. A tool used to boost sales, to create an ultimate point of drama in a series that may not have enough, the perfect end cap to a character’s legacy. Comic book fans in particular have very interesting opinions on the idea of a character dying, even if they do pass on the mantle; it’s less about whether or not they do, but to who they pass it onto. Since the Death of Superman, it's impossible to count how many characters have cocked up, even in their own books and bit the big one, more so to count how many of them have come back. In the Ultimate Comics line, Peter Parker died and Miles Morales took up the mantle.Though Miles is a lot younger than Peter was, there are a lot of similar things about both characters, such as dealing with the responsibility of their powers. Miles Morales proves that comic fans are okay with heroes dying as long as the person that picks up that legacy are similar; the character doesn’t necessarily die so much as the essence Is passed onto another character. It doesn’t help Miles’ case that no matter how good his comic is, Brian Michael Bendis will always write every character with the same voice.
Can death be prevalent in mainstream superhero comics ever again? It’s not likely, but Dan Slott’s The Superior Spider-Man is a wonderful take on the concept, and a brilliant take-that against whiny nerds who want the status quo to change but only so much as to still be comfortable.
The Superior Spider-Man arc doesn't change too much; it keeps the core parts of the character intact but filters them through questions about how much pro-activeness is too much when it comes to crime? where does a hero end and the villain begin?
Yes, Amazing Spider-Man #700 let the villain win, but in achieving his ultimate victory, Doctor Ock or “Spock” (short for Spidey-Ock) also met his greatest defeat: He had to play by Spider-Man’s rules, and those rules exist independent of Peter Parker.
What I mean is Spock had every chance to ruin Peter Parker’s life and reputation, even with having his conscience and memories. He can’t do it though, because this series also deals with the conscience of the villain, and how heroes are made, not born with inherent qualities.
What I like about Superior Spider-Man is seeing someone else struggle with the idea of having power. Spock goes off the deep end with the gadgetry and inventions, but it also rouses a particular notion that comics have juggled for years, and one of the biggest criticisms of other characters.
"Why doesn’t Batman fund the police?” Is one of those questions, in asking that but with Spider-Man The Superior Spider-Man does something mature. Why hasn’t Peter Parker invented more than just webshooters to compliment his crime fighting? Invisible costumes notwithstanding, why try to juggle protecting the entire island of Manhattan when he could have easily made Spider-Drones ten years ago?
Those little robots are a neat addition to Spock’s pool of resources, because it ties thematically in with his very active assault on crime. If you’re not “there yet” in the story or aren’t reading, Spider-Drones which use the very ugly connotation of the word “Drone” to it’s full effect are little robots that Spider-Man has flooded the city with, to go on patrol when he doesn’t feel like it. They tie very well with the idea of ‘Spock’ being more pursuant towards crime like going right to the source, trying to predict the movements of villains. Judging from the general fan reaction, Dan Slott has succeeded in juxtaposing the idea that we don’t want superheroes to be active pursuers of justice and make harsh decisions, we want them to be passive defenders against injustice and crime that wait and then strike. Even Superman has been guilty of it, how many times has he waited until Lex Luthor has the giant power-armor on, instead of just dragging him out of his penthouse condo and throwing him in a box somewhere? The Superman comics have always played the notion that that’s not his duty, and that’s sort of been the stance of superhero comics for the last seventy years or so, barring deconstructions and The Nineties. The Superior-Spiderman entertains the idea of a Superhero who honestly believes that is his duty, he’s not above leveling an entire city block to get at The Kingpin, or breaking a neck to ensure that a certain Goblin won’t bother him anymore. Is there a merit to a superhero who doesn’t hold back against his villains? More importantly, is there merit to a superhero who doesn’t turn his persona “off” even when putting up the facade of his secret identity? More importantly The Superior Spider-Man asks what the role of things like legacies are, should we be allowed to choose who should inherit our legacy? can a legacy be taken from someone?
The way The Superior Spider-Man asks those questions may be in a more upfront comic-bookish manner, filled with a lot more of Spock ogling Black Cat’s chest, they’re still a central part of the character. After dealing with the famous ex-girlfriend, goblin-based villains, if you’ll notice The Superior Spider-Man has started to fold characters like Scarlet Spider and Agent Venom into the current mythos, culminating soon in including even Spider-Man 2099. These are all different takes on the same theme of responsibility/power. Red-Flag or Flagship, as a character Peter Parker and Spider-Mans influence on comics has only grown since the “good old days” (whichever days those are to you)
One of the best things about Superior Spider-Man is that the character of ‘Spock’ embodies traits were generally conditioned by a culture of passive males to see as immoral. Spock is aggressive, pursuant of things he’s actually interested in to a sort of metaphorical dying breath but he still ultimately has a resolve to do good even if his idea of doing good is driven by those obsessive traits. ‘Spock’ is written to have traits that we, as nerds, see in ourselves as negative. He’s obsessive, driven, incredibly critical of his perceived small failings and even more critical of those around him. ‘Spock’ reminds us of the people we are, the kinds of people we would be with super powers. The Superior Spider-Man has, in a way, turned the character into a brilliantly written take that against other modern comic heroes, and that’s why The Superior Spider-Man is the best thing to happen to Spider-Man in comics in quite awhile. Spider-Man has never had a comic that takes a closer look on his character and legacy, he’s never received his The Killing Joke or Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? Attempts like Reign were critically dried or plagued by horrible choices in judgement (let’s not mention radioactive sperm)and failed to deliver on their intended promise. The Superior Spider-Man is Dan Slott and Marvel’s way of asking about the legacy of Spider-Man, and it couldn’t come at a more important time.
The biggest problem with the Superior Spider-Man? Nobody seems to be in on the joke besides Dan Slott.