As a follow up to my initial ‘Gobservations’ article, today we’ll discuss if Norman’s resurrection undermined the relevancy of death in comic books.
I’m sure it’s not necessary for frequent visitors of this site, but for the record let’s provide a little context. In 1973 Gerry Conway and Gil Kane killed off Norman Osborn in ASM #122. The issue concluded the 2-part ‘Death of Gwen Stacy’ storyline, often debated as the greatest Spider-Man story of all time. The story left little ambiguity as to Norman’s fate as he was impaled upon his own rocket-propelled glider.
As if to hammer the point home, in ASM #123 we saw Norman’s body en route to the morgue.
However, in 1996 the conclusion to the infamous ‘Clone Saga’ storyline revealed Norman to be alive and well. To make it clear that this wasn’t anything other than the bona fide article Norman was depicted with the chest scars left behind by his glider.
The decision was, and to an extent still is, divisive within the Spider-Fandom.
One of the most ardent critiques of the decision was that it undermined the weight of death within the comic book genre.
This is both true and untrue.
It’s true in a sense because every time a character comes back to life it undermines the meaning of death in comics.
But detractors hold Norman’s return in particular contempt. On this point though the above statement doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Were we to confine things strictly to the Spider-Man titles there had already been several characters who’d seemingly died and returned.*
One could argue that functionally Gwen Stacy herself had returned from the dead in the original ‘Clone Saga’ from 1975 via cloning. Even if you do not agree there are other examples to be found.
The original Vulture was presumed dead in ASM #48 only to return in issue #63.
Mysterio was also presumed dead back in ASM #141, reappearing in disguise in ASM #193.
In ASM #131 Doctor Octopus and Hammerhead were both killed off in a nuclear explosion!
Yet they both came back between ASM #156-159.
Both Miles Warren and Spider-Man’s clone (later known as Ben Reilly) were believed to have been killed in ASM #149 circa 1975. However, Ben’s survival was confirmed in Web of Spider-Man #117 from 1994 and the Jackal’s in ASM #399 from 1995.
Mendel Stromm died in literally his first appearance way back in 1966 (ASM #37) but his return was confirmed in 1996’s ASM #418 alongside Norman’s. In fact both characters had technically returned prior to that but their identities had been concealed.
Were we to look beyond the Spider books we’d have no end of examples of deaths and returns in comics by 1996. Heck, in the 1992 cartoon ‘Batman the Animated Series’ the Joker often seemingly died only to pop back up with no explanation.
So Norman’s return was far from a new phenomenon within the Spider-Man universe, let alone the wider super hero genre. It was just perceived as such due to the iconic nature of the story he’d died in.
But even then it’s not really a fair point to hinge a critique upon.
Superman himself, the first and most famous of all superheroes, had died in 1993 and returned later that very same year. The story, justifiably or not, had become an instant classic, received tons of media coverage and was entirely promoted upon the fact that Superman was going to die.
Jean Grey had perished in 1980 at the conclusion of the ‘Dark Phoenix Saga’, often regarded as the most iconic X-Men story of all time. The ultimate resolution of the story revolved around Jean’s death.
This went on to be unquestionably the most impactful death in X-Men history. Yet she returned in 1986.
Unlike Superman or Jean’s deaths, Norman’s demise was never the crux upon which the story hung. That was always Gwen’s demise considering it was you know…the literal name of the storyline…
Call me crazy but I do not think bringing back the Green Goblin after he died in a story called the ‘Death of Gwen Stacy’ really undermines the power of death in the Spider-Man universe.
*For the sake of argument, let’s dismiss examples like Spidey’s own apparent death in ‘Kraven’s Last Hunt’ or intentional fake outs. We are talking about the times when a character was intended to be dead but consequent stories back-peddled on that.
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Pandora
Amazon Music
iHeartRadio
Podbean
Amazon Alexa
Player.fm
Listen Notes
Stitcher
As I said, it’s the issue people view as the representation of what the era was typically like. People (not truly correctly) think the Romita era was all parties, double dates, dancing, Gwen vs MJ, a super villain interrupting. That is THE dominate perception of the whole era. Id recommend listening to the ASM Classics episode covering it.
Sorry, I just don’t see anything special about that issue. There are other Lee/Romita issues that have been referenced/followed upon. Besides the reasons I’ve mentioned (i.e. lots of the supporting cast), it definitely would be in the middle of my list if I had to rank “most iconic issues of the Lee/Romita era”.
@hornacek
The story has been revisited more times than just the Deadpool story. ASM Annual 1996 is a spiritual sequel to it, with Romita Sr himself returning to work on it. Spider-Man: Blue rearranged the order of events in order to make ASM #47 the climax of the story. The Eisner nominated Sensational Spider-Man Annual 2007 by Matt Fraction directly referenced the issue by having Larocca homage some of it. It’s also arguably a transitionary issue because it marked the first time Peter met ‘Nice Mr. Osborn’ and recast Gwen as a competitor to MJ, with the pair almost having a dance off. This was notable as it’s been (not exactly fairly) been an important part of collective fandom’s memories of Gwen.
When I say the issue is iconic, it’s not exactly in the same way ASm #39 or #50 are iconic. It’s iconic because, (not entirely justifiably) it’s viewed as the quintessential example of the Romita era status quo. Harry with the bow tie, he and Peter double dating MJ and Gwen, MJ and Gwen competing, Flash in uniform, Norman having forgotten he was evil, parties, soap opera colliding with super heroics, etc.
In essence it’s the issue that’s seen as THE face of the era by the majority of fans. Kraven’s involvement in it by extension ingrained him into the collective memories of fandom, which is one of the reasons Handbooks and anything else requiring a header image use his look from the cover of that issue.
“The issue unto itself is pretty iconic though, hence Deadpool chose to parody it. The story is widely regarded as THE quintessential example of the Romita era. Rightly or wrongly.”
I wouldn’t go that far. ASM #47 is a good issue, but there are better Lee/Romita issues. I’ve never heard it described as “iconic”, before or after the Deadpool issue. Lots of the supporting characters appear, so maybe that’s why Kelly chose it. ASM #50 is iconic. ASM #47 not so much.
Superior’s plot had more holes in it than a Pennsylvania highway. The whole Mason Banks thing was one of those, though that plot-hole had more to do with Liz Allan. [Why would Liz Allan assist, or work with, her FIL for any reason? Why would Liz Allan take a turn to the dark side? Never explained.] But Slott cared little about compelling characterizations, including Peter’s.
@Jack
“P.S. I hated the arch, Tee-Hee Goblin that Slott presented throughout Superior Spider-Man. I think of Goblin as loud, boastful, and hyper-aggressive. The very embodiment of “toxic masculinity”, as a super-villain. Slott’s GG was a lame riff on the Joker.”
I mostly agree with this. I wouldn’t say the Goblin is the ‘embodiment of toxic masculinity’, partially because it opens up a debate about what the term even means. More poignantly though it’s because so many other villains in and out of Spider-Man conform to that descriptor as well. With Norman though there is a undeniably a particular emphasis upon an old fashioned sense of masculinity that he imposes upon Harry. He’s often deriding his son in reference to him not being enough of a man and so on. And of course, as J.R. has pointed out, Norman is definitely a misogynist.
The arc itself was god aweful for multiple reasons. Chief among them was the fact that Slott built up a mystery about the Goblin’s identity only to reveal it was Norman all along. That’s akin to building up the identity of Batman in your Justice League story only to reveal it was Bruce Wayne.
@hornacek
“The only reason I remember the Kraven story in ASM #47 is because that’s the issue that Deadpool “quantum leaps” into Peter’s body during the Joe Kelly run (a hilarious issue). Other than that there’s nothing about the Kraven part of that issue that is particularly memorable – he shows up, fights Spidey, and is once again shocked when Spidey defeats him. There’s lots of other stuff going on with the supporting cast, but as far as Kraven goes it’s just another Kraven story.”
His nipple lasers are kind of memorable.
The issue unto itself is pretty iconic though, hence Deadpool chose to parody it. The story is widely regarded as THE quintessential example of the Romita era. Rightly or wrongly.
Whoops. My previous comment was a response to Jack Brooks so I copied his comment into the form as a reference, then forgot to delete that text before clicking Post. Wish we could edit our own comments here.
@Jack Brooks
.S. I hated the arch, Tee-Hee Goblin that Slott presented throughout Superior Spider-Man. I think of Goblin as loud, boastful, and hyper-aggressive. The very embodiment of “toxic masculinity”, as a super-villain. Slott’s GG was a lame riff on the Joker.
I stopped reading after ASM #700 and didn’t restart until after Peter came back, so I depended on the podcast to let me know what was happening in SSM issues. From what I heard, the only great Goblin moment was when Peter came back, Norman thought it was still Otto, Spidey mentioned “your purple purse”, and Norman paused and said “It’s you.”
@Al
The only reason I remember the Kraven story in ASM #47 is because that’s the issue that Deadpool “quantum leaps” into Peter’s body during the Joe Kelly run (a hilarious issue). Other than that there’s nothing about the Kraven part of that issue that is particularly memorable – he shows up, fights Spidey, and is once again shocked when Spidey defeats him. There’s lots of other stuff going on with the supporting cast, but as far as Kraven goes it’s just another Kraven story.
P.S. I hated the arch, Tee-Hee Goblin that Slott presented throughout Superior Spider-Man. I think of Goblin as loud, boastful, and hyper-aggressive. The very embodiment of “toxic masculinity”, as a super-villain. Slott’s GG was a lame riff on the Joker.
@hornacek
I guess ASM #47 is a memorable and classic Kraven story but moreso for everything else in it. It’s a memorable Kraven story via his association with what was actually good about it. I suppose one might argue the same for Vermin in KLH.
@Thrawn
Excuse me sir. I know what the term objectively means. I’ve demonstrated its use in my arguments in these comments, in the above article and several others. I have a point, I’ve brought evidence to bear to corroborate and support it, I’ve tested it against counter-arguments that I’ve steel manned (the opposite of straw manning an argument) and constructed counter-arguments equally supported by evidence to counter the initial counter-arguments.
Case in point. Hobgoblin could have filled the void left when Venom became an anti-hero. But he couldn’t. At that time Jason Macendale was the Hobgoblin with the original (Ned Leeds at the time) long since dead. Macendale as essentially designed to be a second string loser routinely humiliated, even by non-super powered individuals. An arch nemesis for the hero needs to honestly pose a threat to the hero and present a clearcut ideology that is naturally in conflict with the hero’s. E.g. Batman wants Gotham to have a sense of order, the Joker though desires chaos. Macendale never represented anything, or at least nothing that connected to Peter’s world view, the things that defined him as a person.
If you do not personally enjoy the modern Green Goblin stories, that’s fine. More power to you. But our individual enjoyment is not necessarily reflective of the state of the subject we are discussing. For instance, my favourite Star Wars film is Revenge of the Sith. However, objectively A New Hope and The Empire Stikes Back are better films. I personally enjoy Spider-Man: Torment but think it is objectively bad. By contrast I’ve never been that jazzed about the Death of Jean DeWolff even though I think it is objectively one of the to 10 greatest Spidey stories ever.
P.S. I’ve been calmly and civilly giving my points and making my arguments. So I fail to see where exactly the ‘desperation’ lies.
@Jack Brooks
They were throwing Spidey nostalgia for a particular period of time without truly understanding it.
They were essentially trying to go back to the good old days of Roger Stern. Yet a cursory side-by-side comparison of Stern’s Spidey and BND’s Spidey reveals they are only superficially the same character. In terms of their substance, the actual personality and values that shape and propel the character they are not the same at all. Stern’s Peter was at times on the backfoot and capable of making mistakes. But he was not an incompetent manchild.
I think Felicia might’ve been one of the biggest victims of BND’s nostalgia chasing. It seems that the writers ignored everything that made her who she was and her character development in order to attempt to recreate their faulty childhood memories of what she was like in the Mantlo/Mooney run…which wasn’t even all that great in the first place frankly.
The PS4 game by Insomniac is honestly BND done right and noticeably that included Peter as an elder mentor and in love with Mary Jane.
Going back to Norman though.
”Like I said, a lot of New Norman has been read backward into Old Norman, exaggerating some of his traits while ignoring or erasing others.”
As I outlined below, that was never the case. The new sadistic Norman was formed long before he ever returned in the flesh via stories like Spec Annual 1994, Child Within and Legacy of Evil. In fact we saw shades of that Norman in ASM Annual 1996 which was an untold tale set in the Romita era. Granted they knew Norman was going to return by that point but my point is he had not yet returned in PPSM #75.
So Norman after his resurrection was just the character he’d been post-humurously developed into now physically embodied.
The only traits of the Silver Age Norman that got ignored were the traits of ‘Nice Mr. Osborn’ which were explicitly conveyed as not being his true self even back then. Stan and Conway made it clear in the 1960s and the 1970s that the Green Goblin was Norman’s true self. So it would never have made sense for Norman to have been nice or heroic if was never experiencing amnesia again and always his true self.
“No one is saying Old Norman was a good person. But he had a tragic element to him, a “see glimpses of the man he could have been” thing, that’s been gone since his return.”
It’s less that he wasn’t a good person and more that he was explicitly a bad person. He was a greedy, selfish, disloyal power hungry jerk who valued the pursuit of power over being there for his son. And that was before he got any super powers.
Additionally, unless I’ve forgotten something I just do not know where this tragic elements of the man he could’ve been were presented in the Lee or Conway runs. Norman was a bad person initially, then got far worse when he became the Goblin, then became nice merely because all the memories that shaped him into a bad person got erased and he formed new positive ones with his son.
I guess from a certain POV that is an example of the man he could’ve been. But it’s not exactly an organic example since it is reliant upon Norman losing almost everything that defined him as the man he was and then essentially being reconstructed as someone else. However, the positive experiences that shaped him into a nice person when he had amnesia were still there whenever his memories returned.
Harry was still in his life and still trying to spend time with him. And Norman remembered all the times Harry and he had bonded after his ‘accident’ in ASM #40. Yet when his memories returned Norman wasn’t any nicer, not to Harry nor to anyone else. He went right back to being evil. So ‘positive nurturing’ was unlikely to shape Norman into an ultimately nice person.
“Lee’s version of Norman was more humanistic, for lack of a better term.”
As discussed below a more ‘humanistic’ (read: sympathetic) villain is actually not as effective an opponent for Spider-Man. And whilst Lee rendered Norman more ‘humanistic’ remember Norman was being utilized as primarily a supporting character for most of the time in Lee’s run. In general supporting characters should have at least some kind of humanistic element. Even Flash Thompson under Ditko sincerely revered Spider-Man and even owned up to starting a fight to let Peter off the hook IIRC.
However, Norman was NOT sympathetic when he was the Goblin. He was just a bad guy who genuinely loved his son…but he was still bad and clearly valued his own power over his son. Hence he neglected him for years in pursuit of financial power and later criminal power when he became the Goblin.
@Thrawn — Like I said, a lot of New Norman has been read backward into Old Norman, exaggerating some of his traits while ignoring or erasing others. No one is saying Old Norman was a good person. But he had a tragic element to him, a “see glimpses of the man he could have been” thing, that’s been gone since his return. Lee’s version of Norman was more humanistic, for lack of a better term.
@Hornacek — Wacker threw a giant plate of nostalgia-spaghetti at the wall, in BND. I felt like most of it came off as lukewarm and done-to-death (like Spidey’s web-shooters running out of fluid). Then they tried grim-&-gritty, had Curt Connors kill and eat his son, that sort of thing. (It was like they were cycling stylistically through the decades. I’m surprised they didn’t bring Big Guns Betty Brant back, with pouches). Then we got a decade’s worth of video-game plots from Dan Slott, where Highly Marketable Adventure happened with interchangeable characters.
@Hornacek: Marvel and Wacker at that time were throwing Spidey nostalgia at the wall. It was like Spidey-signalling — “Look, no more JMS mysticism! Look, no more tiny supporting cast! Isn’t it great?” But even if those ideas had merit, it wasn’t because quality lies in the execution.
@Jack Brooks
I agree with a lot of your sentiment.
People can keep desparately stating modern Normal is “better objectively” all they want, because they don’t understand what the word objectively means.
I find the modern Green Goblin lacking in many aspects, even if there have been one or two stories I have enjoyed.
Maybe Wacker’s telling the truth, but if you ask any Spidey fan “What is your favorite Kraven story?” at least 90% of them (probably higher) are going to say “Kraven’s Last Hunt”. None of the previous Kraven stories are that memorable or classic stories – either for the character or just in general. So if you go ahead and bring Kraven back, aren’t you going to get Kraven stories like the pre-KLH kind? So what’s the point of doing that?
And as we saw, Marvel/Wacker wasn’t interested in doing anything with Kraven once they brought him back – they just wanted to bring him back.
@hornacek
Wacker claimed he liked the character because he found the idea of an urban hunter cool. I dunno how much I believe him though given his track record. I know some people enjoy Kraven as jobber, kind of a B-list Shocker kind of thing I suppose. Indeed Kraven being a kind of loser B-lister is what part of what made KLH so impactful.
Frankly the only times a story about a villain who hunts man has ever worked was when it was first invented in 1924 because there was some novelty to it, the first Predator movie because it was an alien doing the hunting and Stalker from batman beyond. Like many characters and concepts from that show Stalker borrowed from Spidey, clearly being reminiscent of Kraven. However, the reason I think Stalker works where Kraven ultimately doesn’t is because he’s an old school safari hunter amidst a futuristic setting, not merely a modern one. It creates a much more potent contrast compared to Kraven hunting Spidey in NYC.
And I agree KLH was likely why Wacker ever liked Kraven and then it coloured his perceptions of Kraven pre-KLH most likely. Its telling that the 2 big Kraven stories he oversaw (Grim Hunt and the arc of Scarlet Spider) were both heavily homaging KLH. Even Slott admitted in his headcanon KLH was the last Kraven story hence he never used him until RYV which was out of continuity anyway.
As for Norman’s arc, that’s exactly my point. ASM 14-39 is a natural arc for the character but if you are integrating it with ASM 40-122 and calling it a complete arc I just don’t see where perfection lies. In fairness they did find ways to use Nice Mr. osborn’ and his time as a nice guy provided a strong foundation for later stories (like Citizen Osborn) to be told. But if we are talking strictly his personal character arc then ASM 14-122 really wasn’t particularly organic as there was far too much back and forth. If anything there is a much more natural arc between his return in 1996 and Jenkins’ A Death in the Family. Even though you had garbage like Gathering of Five in there, on paper it does all form a neat arc. Norman returns seeking revenge for his son’s demise. Infiltrates Peter’s life and escalations the tensions between them with an endgame in mind. He’s ultimately hoisted by his own petard, regroups with the realization that Peter is the heir he always wanted and tries to mold him into that and then when that fails ultimately tries to destroy himself and drag Peter down with him. Then that ultimately fails and he considers just ending his own life.
@Jack Brooks
“a psychopath or a sadist.”
This isn’t exactly true.
Norman 100% intended to murder Mendell Stromm in ASM #37 and that before we learned he was the Goblin. Equally the Goblin was clearly more than willing to kill to reach his goals and his initial motivation for targeting Spidey was to make himself look bad ass to other mobsters. To this end he literally attacked a Spider-Man fan club full of teenagers. If you want to take things at face value we might also argue that his initial Hollywood plot in ASM #14 was pretty insane. But of course that was just a wacky silver age trope at the time, Namor had done something similar in another Stan strip.
My point is Norman was clearly a killer and someone who had anti-social tendencies. And the mental instability was obvious from ASM #40 where he is blatantly delusional about his relationship with his son and clearly wasn’t nice even before the Goblin formula exploded in his face.
As for being a sadist by Silver Age standards, he essentially was. In ASM #39 he pretty much states he doesn’t simply want to kill Spidey he wants to make him suffer first, he wants to humiliate him. To this end he uncovers his identity, stalks him and then abducts him. He could’ve easily just killed the guy on his front lawn then and there or sneak attacked him throughout the issue. But he actively chose to kidnap him and tie him up to a chair where he’d be helpless and at Norman’s mercy. That is pretty sadistic in context.
And it wasn’t even the last time he did such things in the Silver Age. When he first remembers he’s the Goblin Norman doesn’t take logical steps to kill Peter as quickly and efficiently as possible even though he could have. He opts instead to allow Peter to stew, to invite him and his friends over where he gut-punches him when no one is looking and taunts him over his secret over the dinner table. Norman clearly wanted Peter to suffer. I.e. he was being sadistic. Similarly, we might argue that abducting Gwen wasn’t sadistic as Norman was looking for Peter and she happened to be at his apartment at the time. However, Norman did deliberately knock her off the bridge out of pure spite. Even though Spidey was the guy who actually snapped her neck Norman’s intent was to simply kill her to upset Peter (though he blamed her for Harry’s condition too). Again, this is clearly a sadistic thing to do. So later writers were merely building upon what was already there.
The same is true of later interpretations of the Joker or indeed most villains. The more morally grey Magneto might be distinct from the man we meet in Uncanny X-men #1, but it’s still an extrapolation of rudimentary concepts built into the character’s debut. Similarly the Joker of Killing Joke and A Death in the Family might be comparatively darker and more sadistic than the guy from Batman #1, but again the seeds are obviously there in Joker’s debut. He finds death funny, he’s based upon a playing card figure, he is a serial killer.
“he also felt a peculiar fatherly loyalty to Harry. Norman seemed to belong to that generation that felt, “Don’t ever praise him, or else he’ll get a big head”, which was very old-world Catholic, or even Jewish.”
This didn’t truly change much with later takes on Norman. Norman always loved his son deep down. It was a warped and ultimately toxic love but it was there. The Osborn Journal one shot illustrates this well. Norman insulted his son in it but he was also at times impressed and willing to step aside and let his son have a shot at success. He felt his son was a loser, but he was still enraged when he died so much so that he wanted to burn down Peter’s life and even take away his own child.
To paraphrase one of J.R. articles, Norman loved Harry, he just didn’t respect him. This is perfectly in line with how Norman treated Harry when he was in ‘Goblin mode’ during the Silver Age. It’s incredibly telling that he was only nice to Harry when his memories were literally rewritten due to amnesia. Speaking of which…
“Norman was conflicted. He suffered from dissociative disorder, but the Goblin wasn’t all he was. Sometimes Norman even showed occasional heroic , or at least civic-minded, impulses
”
This is a big and very common misconception of the character even in the Silver Age. Even if we were to suspend disbelief and say comic book Disassociate Identity Disorder (aka ‘split personality disorder’) doesn’t need to adhere to realism…Norman simply never had the condition.
The Silver Age stories are very clear and explicit on the subject. The only reason Norman ever vacillated between being good and being evil is because he had amnesia. I.e. his memories got erased and rewritten and so (because we are all the products of our memories) his personality changed. Even ignoring later retcons to Norman’s past it’s clear that ‘Nice Mr. Osborn’ was someone Norman had never been even before his accident. ‘Nice Mr. Osborn’ wasn’t out to seek power, he had time for his son, he wasn’t selfish, he was perfectly willing to lend a helping hand. But this is distinctly NOT the Norman we see in the ASM #40 flashbacks before he became the Goblin. So he wasn’t going back to normal or anything, he was essentially a new man thereafter. But that wasn’t his true self and that wasn’t the intention even in the silver age.
The intention was that he began as a not particularly nice guy (who screwed over and stole from his business partner). Then became worse then had his memories rebooted rendering him a nice person…until he remembered he was evil. Based upon the sheer presentation and narrative presented he clearly wasn’t a Jekyll/Hyde type of character, though I grant you I understand how he might seem to be one at face value.
Let’s also remember that Stan had written/was writing other characters that were explicitly Jekyll/Hyde style characters. Notably the Hulk and the Lizard. So it’s not a case of Stan misunderstanding the distinction or not being able to properly convey a (comic book version of) a split personality disorder. He 100% could but he simply chose not to with Norman because that wasn’t Norman’s character. He wasn’t a man conflicted between his best and worst natures. He was a bad person who nevertheless held genuine affection for his son and sometimes forgot he was bad.
Everything decent and heroic he did as ‘Nice Mr. Osborn’ was directly the product of his memories being altered. If negative memories shaped him into a negative person then logically the erasure of those memories and new positive ones (centered around his son and his friends) replacing them would naturally turn him into a more positive and heroic person. But that was never his true self. His true self was the Goblin, the natural escalation of the selfish, ruthless, disloyal and power hungry man he was before.
“But resurrected Norman was and is a complete sadist, and a madman. That sadism then got read retroactively back into Norman’s history, but I’ve never liked that revision.”
After his death and before his resurrection we learned more about Norman’s past and discovered the man he was before his accident was even worse than ASM #40 led us to believe. He exhibited psychopathic tendencies as a child. He was abusive of his son. He was in short he was already a sadistic monster; he just became a lot worse when he gained super powers. So the complete sadist and madman take upon Norman was never an invention of the post-resurrection stories. Writers had already logically extrapolated from what had been there in the 60s. All the Clone Saga and post-clone Saga writers did was render Norman ‘in the flesh’ as it were. The post-resurrection stories were never responsible to reading sadism retroactively into the character’s past. *
But these changes to his character long predated the Clone Saga, arguably dating back into Stern’s Hobgoblin stories. Noticably Stern reinforced the idea of Norman being a twisted individual before the accident in his Revenge of the Green Goblin storyline. IIRC he was even the first guy to make it explicit that Norman’s foray into outright villainy was sparked by realizing he had super powers, not the result of the chemicals affecting his mind.
As for Norman being more interesting back then…I dunno about that. I suppose that depends upon your definition of interesting. ‘New Norman’ as you might refer to him unquestionably has more psychological layers to him. I find too often (not that I am saying this is the case with you Jack) that comic book fans confuse moral ambiguity/greyness or sympathy with complexity. In reality a character can be black and white good, bad or anything in between and still be complex. Spidey and Batman are complex character but they are absolutely not morally ambiguous, they are clear cut good guys.
The additions to Norman’s history made him more complex whilst also making him more black and white evil because they neatly explained how and why he became like that, not unlike the way Killing Joke did for the Joker. We might not sympathise with him, but we understand how and why he is the way he is very intimately and can see his viewpoint even if we don’t morally agree with it.
In my book, unless the explicit intention is for the character to be simplistic and one note (like Carnage), when you give a character more depth you innately make them more interesting as you open new avenues for them to connect to other characters and for other writers to explore who they are and why they might do X, Y or Z.
As for making him less human I suppose this again depends upon what we mean by that term. The sad and horrifying reality is that, exempting the super powers and costume, people like Norman Osborn 100% exist in real life and are perhaps all too common (especially in the business world). In this sense Norman is if anything the most human of all Spider-Man’s costumed super villains because he is absolutely the most realistic. Because it’s entirely believable for a human being to be so ruthless, selfish, power hungry and twisted I’d argue this absolutely means he is a very human character. Not Joe Average but human nevertheless. And to be honest far more common than people with amnesia or split personality conditions that render them dangerous anti-social individuals.
However, for the sake of argument lets say we agree that Norman was the way you describe in the Silver Age and also agree that a more human character means someone more common place and sympathetic, more balanced between bad and good tendencies that can occasionally cross into extremes. Then I’d absolutely agree Norman was more heroic back then. The problem then arises from the fact that Norman during that time period was a supporting character as his default setting and not a villain. Were he like that as a villain he’d be a rather ineffective one. In super hero fiction a villain’s role is ultimately to challenge the hero so the hero can look heroic. In essence a villain’s job is to be the darkness that makes the protagonist’s personality traits (especially the heroic ones) shine all the brighter. A more sympathetic, reserved and conflicted villain who can at times be heroic is interesting…short term, but ultimately in effective long term. This was the case with Harry. In DeMatteis and Buscema’s Spec run he was often conflicted about how far he would go to hurt Peter and Harry was unquestionably a sympathetic person and wasn’t regularly displaying a heroic side to himself nor anything particularly sadistic (until later on). He was a fun villain and he pushed Peter, but Peter didn’t look all that heroic dueling him. The traits that fundamentally define Peter as a person weren’t brought out all the brighter in stark contrast to Harry. If anything Harry was far more compelling during their confrontations than Peter was. The same would’ve bee true if the Norman you speak of had been the ongoing villain for Peter.
However, the ‘New Norman’ who is complex yet undeniably evil is far more effective as a villain. Not only does Spidey look as heroic as ever going up against him but the nature of Norman’s personality and relationship with Peter pushes him in such a way that we dig deep into what makes him who he is. We emphasis Peter’s life preserving/‘never say die’/Average Joe/power and responsibility philosophy when he fights an elitist sadist who long ago gave into his demons and constantly covets power whilst poisoning those around him.
In other words even if we agree Silver Age Norman was more human that does not necessarily render him a more effective villain for Spider-Man.
*Plus as I mentioned before, the sadism was already there in the 1960s and 1970s, it was just far more restrained as was all comic book violence and cruelty back then.
I found classic Norman more interesting than later Norman. Classic Norman as shaped by Stan Lee wasn’t a good man by any stretch of the imagination, but he also wasn’t a psychopath or a sadist. He was a harsh businessman and an overly-critical father, yet he also felt a peculiar fatherly loyalty to Harry. Norman seemed to belong to that generation that felt, “Don’t ever praise him, or else he’ll get a big head”, which was very old-world Catholic, or even Jewish. Noman was conflicted. He suffered from dissociative disorder, but the Goblin wasn’t all he was. Sometimes Norman even showed occasional heroic , or at least civic-minded, impulses. But resurrected Norman was and is a complete sadist, and a madman. That sadism then got read retroactively back into Norman’s history, but I’ve never liked that revision. I’m old enough to have read the original Old Norman, and I feel he was more interesting, and human, that way.
“because he was Wacker’s favoruite villain.” If you take away Kraven’s Last Hunt I really find it hard to believe that Kraven is anyone’s favorite villain (although I guess every villain is *someone’s* favorite). Much like the Lizard, any Kraven story (before his death) is pretty much the same as all the rest. Given the wide variety and large number of Spidey’s villain, it would really surprise me if Wacker’s criteria of Kraven being his favorite villain wasn’t heavily influenced by KLH.
At least when Norman was brought back they did stuff with his character. He bought the Bugle, he insinuated himself back into his old life, made plans against Peter, etc. But with Kraven they brought him back, had a new status quo between he and Spidey created (“I want to die, but only you can kill me.”) and then they did *nothing* with it. Like Harry, what was the point of bringing him back if they had no plans to do anything with the character? A big waste.
—
“I think ASM #14-39 is pretty perfect and represents a natural escalation of the rivalry between Spidey and the Goblin.” True, but that was before he was revealed as Norman. At that time he was the only recurring Spidey villain whose identity was a secret, so it was an ongoing mystery (with sporadic appearances of an unnamed Norman in the background). But once he was revealed as the Goblin, learned Spidey’s identity, and then forgot it, what else could you do with the character except have him get his memory back, fight Spidey, and then forget again?
@hornacek
Kraven was essentially brought back for shock value and because he was Wacker’s favoruite villain. Far too many fans and creators fail to realize that, whilst KLH made Kraven compelling, it did so because his character arc hinged upon his impending demise. He states he is going to die soon and that knowledge propels everything else he did in the story.
Bringing him back was misguided because he obviously isn’t going to be in the ‘KLH’ mindset all the time. More poignantly it’s dull if Kraven is constantly just trying to push Spider-Man to the brink so he would kill him in every story. Mercifully we only got two stories like that in Scarlet Spider and Hunted and they were suitably different and told far enough apart to be creatively justified.
Beyond that Kraven’s niche as a hunter villain is more valuable to characters outside the Spider-Man brand. Black Panther or Ka-Zar for example are much more logical characters for him to be an ongoing foe for than Spider-Man. But it’s just not fair nor justified to undo one of the all time great Spider-Man stories just so other characters have a new villain to play with. It’s sort of the inverse of ‘Guardian Devil’ in that sense. It was unjustified to kill off Spider-Man’s villain just so Daredevil could have a big pay off to his storyline.
@ Sthenurus
Whilst that is literally what happened in Blood Brothers there are two points to bear in mind. For starters the writers were knowingly foreshadowing Norman’s return in the stories after Blood Brothers as they were aware Norman was set to return by that point. And more importantly, this opens up a big discussion about the nature of foreshadowing in ongoing comics written by so many people across so much time.
Two notable examples come to mind.
In the 1970s Clone Saga Miles Warren was revealed as the Jackal and his motivations explained as a secret love for Gwen Stacy, and by extension a disdain for Peter Parker. Obviously Stan never intended for Warren to become a villain, but he also never intended Warren to secretly be in love with Gwen. In fact it’s very obvious Conway hadn’t decided Warren was the Jackal when he first introduced the villain in ASM #129 (where he shared a debut with the Punisher). And yet, when you look back at Warren’s character up until ASM #149 (when his identity was revealed) it comes off totally natural. So much so that if you didn’t know better it’d seem like Stan was subtly planting the seeds for Warren’s heel turn years later.
The other more famous example is Peter’s romance with MJ. As many fans (and even Conway himself) have opined when you look back at their relationship up until their wedding it almost seems planned. The girl Peter didn’t want to meet who was foreshadowed heavily before the most memorable entrance in Spider-Man history winds up being the endgame romance for our hero. But it never was intended that way. Roger Stern added things that inadvertently helped lead to their marriage, in spite of him being opposed to that happening. Christopher Priest created a pivotal moment that led to their wedding even though his intention with that moment was to show why they were so wrong for one another.
My point is intentions only matter so much in comic book storytelling. Whether the story beats and ‘seeds’ fit the narrative is ultimately more important. In this case the seeds intended to foreshadow Harry were equally applicable to Norman.
Also I’ve always preferred ASM #400 and May being dead to what JMS did. I still love the latter and find it an equally great direction, just not my preference.
@Thrawn
This is simply not supported by the evidence we have.
I don’t exactly agree Norman had a perfect arc up until ASm 122, but even if I did the stories after his resurrection were an organic extension.
This is because the perception of Norman as he was in the 60s and the 70s had dramatically altered between his death in 1973 and his resurrection in 1996. The Norman of those 20ish years was not a man who was somewhat shady who had a mental issue that made him do terrible things and give free reign to the worst of himself. The Norman of 1973-1996 was essentially a figure of utter evil who’s very legacy was toxic and destructive.
In stories like The Child Within, Spec Annual 1994 and Busiek’s Legacy of Evil one shot the perception of Norman had been dramatically (but organically) altered. He’d gone from someone who was maybe a dick to people, neglectful and insensitive towards his son into an outside sadistic, psychopathic and abusive human being. And it was made explicitly clear those tendencies were always there. No explosion or chemical exposure ‘changed’ him. It was either in him from birth, formed from his upbringing or a bit of both. Norman as anything remotely sympathetic had been well and truly swept away by the time anyone decided he should come back.
When he did come back the writers essentially took that newly formed perception of him and presented it as a physical presence rather than just a metaphorical one. Which is ultimately the better move creatively as Norman could continue to represent what he did before but now Spider-Man and he can actually interact.
As for the Hobgoblin and Venom, Venom never filled the role Norman had and Hobby never could have without being achingly derivative. Norman’s potency as a villain was derived from a lot of things, but among the most crucial was how he directly tapped into many of the defining themes of the series/character.
Whilst Kingsley had financial, social and industrial power like Norman had and sought power too Norman had two important differences. Norman was a true blue power addict whilst Kingsley was essentially in it for fun and profit. And as we later learned he was more than capable of walking away from his power and growing bored of it. Norman would never have done that which more effectively contrasted with Peter, a man who was very far from a power addict. Whilst Norman seeks power, revels in it and constantly wants to gather more, Peter routinely views his powers as a curse and a burden he often wishes to be rid of and has temporally retired to that end. It plays far more into the themes and messages about power built into the character. Our hero is a man who uses power selflessly even though he doesn’t want it and our villain is a man who uses his power selfishly and constantly covets more power.
The other ace in the hole Norman has over Kingsley, Venom and pretty much every other Spidey foe is that he’s a father. Family and fatherhood are blatantly themes in Spider-Man. Peter, MJ, Harry, Flash, Gwen, Jameson, Captain Stacy, John Jameson. Either being fathers or their relationships with their fathers are ultimately critical to who they are as people and what defines them as characters. Not only was Norman himself shaped by his father but Norman was literally formally introduced to us as ‘Harry’s father’, that status is critical to who he is and what he represents. Parenthood (and traditionally fatherhood particularly) is the ultimate power status and the ultimate responsibility as it literally creates and shapes the life of another human being. Even the absence of a parent/father is fundamentally formative to children. This is an element of Norman’s character Kingsley never had and never could because he’s not old enough to be Peter’s father, they’re too close in age.
This is to say nothing of the other things Norman’s got going for him. Kingsley was at best a tertiary supporting character and out of costume had at best tenuous ties to just 3 of Peter’s supporting characters. MJ modeled for him, Harry and Jameson went to the same club as him but there is no indication they socialized beyond that. Norman by contrast had far more direct relationships with far more characters rendering him a supporting character as well as a villain. He wasn’t just Peter’s enemy or Harry’s Dad, but Jonah and Captain Stacy’s friend and club member, he was the father of MJ’s ex, Liz’s father-in-law, Normie’s Godfather and for a time the boss of Betty, Flash, Robbie and ben Urich. Kingsley never held any such status, nor did Venom of course.
Finally you have the simple fact that Norman is an infinitely more layered and psychologically complex character than Kingsley. That was the case before he returned and it became even moreso thereafter with stories like ‘Revenge of the Green Goblin’ and ‘A Death in the Family’. Along with those stories like ‘Marvel Knights: Spider-Man’, PPSM #95, Spec #250 and in fact the majority of his appearances in 1997-1998 before the ‘Gathering of Five’ demonstrate that there were blatantly more than just ONE good story to come out his return.
If Norman’s return was an investment then it’s proven time and again to have rendered a profit for the Spider-Mythos. It’s generated multiple strong stories and delivered a highly effective ongoing villain for Spider-Man with plenty of substance to dig into and tell stories about.
@hornacek
I don’t think there was anything WRONG per se with Norman’s arc before he died because it’s not like there were clear cut plot holes (aside from maybe his first plan being dumb but Norman was hardly alone on that front). However, a good arc for a character has events progressing organically and believably. That’s just not exactly the case with Norman circa ASM #14-122.
I think ASM #14-39 is pretty perfect and represents a natural escalation of the rivalry between Spidey and the Goblin. However, once you have a random accident that effectively rewrites the entire character I really couldn’t call it a perfect arc. Beneficial t the overall series and direction sure, but it’s at the expense of Norman’s personal arc. That’s fine though because the story isn’t about him it’s about Peter at the end of the day. From there Norman randomly ‘relapsed’ no less than 3 times (4 if you want to count Spec Magazine #2 but that was remade into ASM Annual #9) and returned to status quo twice before dying. Thar’s not a perfect arc in my book that’s a ping-pong match.
It wasn’t even like Norman’s temporary ‘relapses’ played into the over all arc inexorably pushing him towards ASM #122. He was bad, then good, then bad, then good, back and forth until it finally killed him. But that’s not the results of his own actions nor even someone else’s. He was just coincidentally triggered into becoming the Goblin again every so often and he forgot again through equally arbitrary methods.
Perhaps we could say that Peter and Norman’s rivalry had a natural arc up to ASM #122, but that’s not the same thing as Norman’s own personal arc.
It’s not that any of the stories where he remembered he was evil are bad per se. It’s just the repetition in the grand scheme of things.
I don’t know if I’d say that Norman had a perfect arc up until his death. After ASM #40 and his memory loss, he was mostly a supporting character who sometimes helped people out. Once Norman learned Peter’s identity, each time he regained his memory and became the Goblin again, you knew that the story was going to end with him forgetting everything again. Back then Marvel wasn’t going to have a villain know the hero’s identity on an ongoing basis. So every time he became the Goblin again you were just counting the pages until he got an electric shock or got exposed to chemicals or something that would make him lose him memory again. It got, if I may say … predictable (although Spec Spidey #2 – the magazine – is great).
Compare all of those pre-death stories to Norman’s post-death stories and for me it’s no contest. Norman buying the Bugle in Spec, the Freefall (?) issue where Peter and Norman are trapped in the elevator together, Death in the Family, and many more … collectively they are a much better use of the character than his pre-death stories, and well worth bringing him back from the dead.
Yes. I maintain that Normal was more effective in death than after his resurrection.
Norman had a perfect arc through AMS #122.
Aside from that, you had Roderick Kingsley as the Hobgoblin who could have easily taken up the spot as the main villain after Venom became the anti-hero.
I still hate that Norman is alive again. I feel the same way about Jason Todd. It was stupid to bring him back too.
You got ONE good story out of it.
@Alex. You are probably right but to.me it really feels like the norman part was intended for harry and they just swapped the two midway through the whole thing (while tryong to figure out the whole gaunt situation)
@hornacek. THANK YOU! I had the exact same discussions about aunt may and Kraven at my lcs last week. How their return just cheapen some of the best stories in spiderman history without ever having much pay off (except for “the conversation” but i always saw it as an inferior asm 400)
At least when Aunt May was brought back, she was involved in Peter’s life. She appeared in most issues interacting with Peter. I can’t remember if she had her own plots or not but at least she was in the book and did stuff. With Harry they brought him back and months (a year?) would go by without him appearing, and even when he did was it anything noteworthy? (again, all I can remember is that he dated Lilly, but that story was all about Lilly, not Harry)
Kraven is another great example. Marvel was determined to bring him back and make it an epic story (Gauntlet, Grim Hunt). After that, when was the next time we saw Kraven? Was it in the Scarlet Spider book when he fought Kaine? I’m having a hard time remembering the first time post-Grim Hunt that Kraven fought Spidey – was it Hunted??? If so that’s a waste of bringing back a villain from the dead.
@Hornacek, to a greater extent the same can be said of Kraven the Hunter and in fact Aunt May prior to Straczynski’s run.
It seems the people in charge of Marvel are adamant DeMatteis’ deaths don’t stick whilst the actual writers employed by them clearly would prefer they did.
It’s very telling that Harry all but vanished after BND aside from a brief cameo in Slott’s pre-Superior run and then I think a handful of appearances during Parker Industries and Red Goblin.
Whilst Harry is a great character you simply can’t go back after Spec #200 and more importantly doing so doesn’t benefit the Big Picture of Spider-Man’s narrative. You undo a great story, the ramifications that came with it, undermine the development of a villain and their enmity with our hero and the role Harry filled as Peter’s best (male) friend could easily have been filled by another character.
Flash would’ve been the obvious candidate, perhaps an even more effective one. Like Harry he has substance abuse issues, an abusive father, a dating history with Peter’s exes (including MJ), personal history with Goblins (Hobgoblin specifically) and he began as a bully for Spidey before befriending him.
I know some people on the site and podcast have argued bringing Harry back was the right move since he was never replaced but I just don’t see how not putting the effort into replacing him for over 10 years dooms us to inevitably NEVER doing that.
@Sthenurus
The decision to have Norman be the Big Bad was made well in advance of the reveal. They knew it was going to be Norman at least 5 months in advance as he appears as a ‘shadowy mastermind’ in ASM #412, the final part of the ‘Blood Brothers’ crossover arc. Originally this was set to end the Clone Saga with the reveal being Harry. However, plans changed and I’m not entirely certain when. Harry was going to be ‘Gaunt’ so the decision was obviously taken before the end of the story as Gaunt is not revealed as Harry and confirmed to merely be working for the real villain in charge.
From then on the Spider books, and even the Phil Urich Green Goblin title, were dropping sporadic hints that the Big Bad was Norman (to say nothing of Revelations parts 1-3 before the last page finally unveiled Norman).
Additionally, whilst it might not have been INTENDED that way, the Clone Saga contained other bits and pieces that, if you were unaware of the behind-the-scenes drama, certainly played into the Norman reveal. ASM #390 begins with Peter addressing Norman’s ‘ghost’. Busiek’s ‘Legacy of Evil’ one shot was released during the Clone Saga. And most of all the build up to ‘Blood Brothers’ were dropping Goblin/Osborn connected hints all over the place. Obviously these were intended to build up to the return of Harry, but they just as effectively fit the return of Norman as well.
So, intended or otherwise, it was objectively not the case that he simply popped out of nowhere in Revelations. The foreshadowing was 100% there to the point where J.R. Fettinger himself deduced Norman’s return in advance back when the Clone Saga was first released.
@Alex – Like you said, bringing Harry back diminishes the rivalry between Peter and Norman. And like I said, I can’t think of anything Harry did of consequence post-OMD during the BND era except date Lilly and (eventually) tell Peter what happened to him after he “died”.
If you’re going to bring a dead character back to life, it better be because you have lots of stories planned to use them in. But they brought Harry back and then for the next year nothing was done with him. It’s like the writers were told to bring Harry back and they said “Why? We have nothing planned for him?” and they were told “Do it anyway!”
Honestly the problem with norman return’s isn’t the revival itself… Its how poorly it was set up. It just came out of nowhere (we all know why it happened in the real world but in comic it didn’t make sense). Had they set it up better, it could have been an amazing come back. But norman just… Pop up randomly at the very end of the clone saga.
There are those who argue Harry was an interesting character and used well upon his return. For the sake of argument even if we agreed with that, the problem is that the points of praise for his post-resurrection stories are inherently connected to his relationship with Norman. In essence Harry was (allegedly) used in interesting new ways and (allegedly) generated interesting new stories because his father was a major super villain, and back then essentially the primary villain of the Avengers/Marvel Universe. Similarly bringing Harry back (allegedly) opened up many new and interesting moments and story dynamics for Norman.
Either way having Norman and Harry both alive maybe did enrich both characters but it came at the expense of their relationships with Peter. Harry was a less effective supporting character because he didn’t ironically idolize an evil man and wasn’t a living time bomb, risking a return to his father’s wicked ways. Naturally this also neutered him as a villain too. Meanwhile Norman’s rivalry with Peter was severely watered down as now Harry’s death wasn’t a mutual point of animosity between them. And as a bonus Harry’s return retroactively undermined stories like ‘Revenge of the Green Goblin’ of some of their impact whilst impressively making the Clone Saga even more confusing in retrospect as Norman initiated it explicitly avenge Harry’s demise.
When they brought back Harry in OMD/BND, they did *nothing* with the character. He barely appeared for months, and even when he did, it wasn’t important. When they finally did the story where he explained how he was still alive, at least it was something (although I seem to recall Kevin on the podcast talking about the long-delayed explanation for how Harry was alive saying “I waited a year and a half … FOR THIS?!?”). But even after that, Harry was alive but it didn’t really matter to Peter or the stories.
Harry dated Lilly Holister (Menace) – that’s all I can remember about him during BND. And even that isn’t about him – that story was about Lilly. Harry was a supporting character to another supporting character’s story. Why did Marvel bother to bring him back at all when they had nothing planned for him to do?
The one undermining deaths is the Comic Book Industry itself. Norman’s death had weight. It stuck for decades before he returned, so it meant something. When he returned it had purpose and they did new things with the character, so his return made sense.
Nowadays they kill a character off and bring him/her back immediately in less than a year. No Impact.
“Face front, True Believers!”
@hornacek
Quite right, although they weren’t the Hand but a similar splinter group called the True Believers associated with the Black Tarantula.
I didn’t list that example or many other notable ones as the subject of the article regarded Norman’s resurrection somehow particularly diminishing the weight of death in comics, so I restricted my examples to ones from before Norman returned in October 1996
Doc Ock killed by Kaine, then resurrected by mystical Hand ninjas.