what made Marvel great

To be fair, Stan then broke the costume and secret identity rule for Spiderman, but this was because readers can relate to a teenager who wants to hide. Just as they can relate to a successful heroes who want the whole world to know!

Readers can relate to a familiar world

This is from salon.com:

"It was important that Lee's heroes lived in the real world, and not in Gotham City or Metropolis, because they were real people. That is, Marvel Comics imagined how real people might act if they suddenly gained superpowers -- confused, conflicted and not necessarily eager for the responsibility. They were a departure from that straight-arrow hero of the Golden Age, Superman. The next age belonged to Marvel. And Stan Lee ushered it in with his creations."

Even the cosmic stories had real world touches. Dr Strange is often seen walking down ordinary streets, and didn't even wear a costume for much of the first story. Galactus came to an ordinary building in New York. The Skrulls modeled their world on 1930s America, and so on.

"[Realism is] ESSENTIAL to escapist literature ... Take JURASSIC PARK for instance. Sure, they used state-of-the-art CGI for dinosaur animation... But it was the entire realistic context which made those dinosaurs ‘live.’ They were authentic representations of the species based on current scientific knowledge; their presence was explained by a plausible scientific means and with a plausible motive for cloning them. The characters in the story were credible representations of mankind. All of these efforts towards authenticity helped to ‘sell’ the dinosaurs as real, right down to the fog left on windows by dino-breath." - Realism in Comics

Readers can relate to the writers

Lee made the readers feel that their opinions mattered. The stories spoke directly to the readers, and on letters pages the readers and editors would talk in a familiar chatty way. All of this connected the readers to the comics. They felt intimate.

More than that, readers felt they really mattered! Editors did not talk down to them, as modern editors do. Editors treated the readers like kings! They were personally grateful for every cent the readers spent! Readers felt they were part of the tribe! Steven Grant wrote:

"I've said this before but it fits here: Stan Lee's real gift wasn't his writing, though he was a good comic book writer, but his ability to get the audience to buy into the illusion of them as his collaborators. For all that Stan's ego seemed to run amok in '60s Marvels, that was a key to the trick he pulled off, one that nobody has successfully pulled off since. Maybe it's time superhero comics stopped trying to outbluff their audience -- or, worse, treat them like sinful penitents there to receive holy communion from God's representative -- and start encouraging them to collaborate in the illusion again."

Readers can relate to the characters' lives

This is from a CNET business network article:

"When Lee's heroes are not defending the earth from weird menaces, however, they lead lives much like other New Yorkers (Lee's stories were set in the real world, not fictional cities such as Metropolis). They have trouble hailing cabs, get razzed by teenage toughs, chat with the mailman, and even lose money on the stock market--and young Peter Parker has to juggle typical teen problems with fighting super villains"

Readers can relate to their problems

This is from one of the first newspaper articles about Marvel, from the Herald Tribune back in 1966:

"Comic book super beings had mighty powers but no personality—not until Stan Lee tried out the Fantastic Four in October, 1961. The whole new tone of Lee's vision to bring human reality into comic books was set in an early F.F. appearance. (All Marvel characters quickly pick up affectionate nicknames.) This super crime-fighting team was evicted from their Manhattan skyscraper HQ because they couldn't get up the rent. The stock market investments that paid their laboratory bills had temporarily failed. The Fantastic Four, who appear in their own comic book and guest star in other Marvel publications, are beset as much by interpersonal conflicts as by super villains."

Readers can relate to news and celebrities

This is from the Zone:

"..as if they were happening in the same world inhabited by the readers. This is underlined by Lee and Kirby's introduction of the real world into their fantasies. In #9 the F4 go to Hollywood and the issue features guest spots from, among other, Dean Martin, Bing Crosby and Bob Hope. The dialogue is peppered with contemporary references and Kirby and Lee themselves turn up..."

The myth of the 'defining element'

Relevance is hard to achieve. Relationships take effort. It is much easier to success hinges on a character's age, or personality, or shoe size. Tom Brevoort imagines some "defining elements" in his blog, from Jan 2008:

"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."

Let's ignore the fundamental marketing error here, focusing on the magic product instead of customer needs. Let's assume that there really is a 'defining element' that must never be sacrificed. One problem is that this 'defining element' can change. Let's look at his three examples: Batman (revenge), Fantastic Four (family), and Spider-Man (youth).

Batman's defining element?

Batman was wildly successful in the 1960s due to the famous Adam West TV series. That had nothing to do with revenge! It was just camp fun. Kids loved it because they could relate to the simple plots and they could button their coats at the neck to make capes, and run around the playground singing "dinna-dinna-dinna-dinna-Bat-Maaaan!" The 'defining element' can obviously change. What matters is that people can relate.

The Fantastic Four's defining element?

What about the Fantastic Four? Family is certainly important, but Reed and Sue didn't marry until four years into their run, when they were already very popular. people didn't talk about the family element until later. What people liked was that they were fresh and different and relevent. The family idea became central only when the freshness wore off.

Spider-Man's defining element?

And what about Spider-Man? Brevoort continues:

"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.)"

It sounds like Spider-Man should be de-aged to High School! Clearly when he graduated college, and sales went up, this was some huge error, and the fans did not realize that the defining element had been destroyed.

Actually, some people remember Ditko differently :

"(word is that, rather than be suspended in his permanent state of angst and semi-sophomoric uncertainty, Spider-Man under Ditko would have matured into a confident hero with a firm grasp of right and wrong)"

This seems to fit better with Disko's Objectivist views, but he never gives interviews so maybe we'll never know

Anyway, the only real "defining element" in a successful character is relevance. That is what made Marvel great. If the characters are relevant to what we think and what we want then we care. If not, we don't. If we decide that some other feature is the "defining element" then the character risks becoming predictable and dull.

Brevoort's confession

In the same article, Brevoort admits that many people want Spider-man to grow up. Clearly they do not agree with his assessment of the 'defining element.'

"I know this is upsetting to a lot of people, especially those who have invested in Spider-Man's life over the last twenty years or so. But when I hear the arguments for why a married Spider-Man works from people, my mind inevitably casts back to a conversation I had with my friend Doug Peacock almost twenty-five years ago. A huge Spidey fan, Doug had been reading Spider-Man for years, and was lamenting its lack of forward movement. And his specific quote was, "The day I'm older than Peter Parker is the day I stop reading the book." By that logic, Doug hasn't read a Spider-Man comic for longer than many of our current readers have been alive--but there's a core of truth to what he was getting at. The heart wants what it wants, but it's a bit self-centered to expect these characters to all grow up with the audience"

(How self-centered! To want your own comics! I am glad that Marvel is taking the moral high ground and not giving readers what they want. /sarcasm)

"As one of the custodians of the character, I want a Spider-Man that can continue to attract new readers, new audiences, well into the future and beyond the point where I'm around. Doesn't mean that I don't like the readers who've been with the book through thick or thin--but only servicing that readership's desires is a road of inevitable diminishing returns."

So Brevoort admits there are two groups of readers: old and new. That's a coincidence! because there are two different versions of Spider-Man: old (the thirty year old in the book that's been published since 1963) and 'Ultimate' (the teenager in the new book). One can grow up with his readers, the other can stay forever a kid. Problem solved!

Someone suggested this, and Brevoort replied, "Youth is the core, so that should be in the core book. Maybe aging should be in the spider-girl book." The core book? If youth is the core, then the core book is the young book, not the old book. But he then said that all the important books should have a young Spider-man because "Spider-Man is about youth, about growing up" despite admitting that many long-term customers do not agree.

As for sending long-time readers to Spider-Girl, they are long time readers of the main title. That's the whole point. They have followed the main title for years. They pay Tom Brevoort's wages. They want the old stories to be respected. And Brevoort's solution is to go and find some other title instead.

PS. Spidey was never young

Plenty of fans have rebuffed the idea that Spidey must stay young. But J.R.Fettinger points out something even more interesting: Spider-Man was NEVER young in the first place. Fettinger runs the huge "spideykicksbutt" site, so he knows what he's talking about. Sure, Peter Parker was technically a teenager for a few years, but right from the start he was the breadwinner, the head of the household, one of the top photographers of a major newspaper, and he wisecracked and acted like an older guy. It's all there in Fettinger's excellent essay.

How to lose readers

All this relating to the readers builds a relationship. Over time that relationship becomes very strong, and these loyal readers buy lots of comics every month They form the backbone of the comic business. If you stop providing comics they relate to they will gradually drift away.

Some stubborn fans will not get the message and will continue to buy, out of fond memories of the past. If you want to get rid of these, you must destroy those memories, and tell them that the past does not matter. Perhaps imply that they are selfish or stupid for caring about continuity.

Here are some examples. This was written in the 1990s, by 'Mike':

"Marvel comics, since its inception with FF#1 has been about telling an ongoing story. Each issue of Spider-Man is an individual story but they are also part of the overall, ongoing story of Peter Parker the Amazing Spider-Man. The events that occur in one issue transcend the pages of that specific book and have effects on the series as a whole. In other words... they have CONSEQUENCE.

"This is what make issues such as the Death of Gwen Stacy so powerful and so desirable to collectors. Not only did this story have a great individual story but it had immense impact upon the overall story of Spider-Man. It was a cornerstone of what has come to be termed is "continuity". ...

"I may have read my first few issues of Spider-Man because they contained interesting individual stories but what hooked me was that I wanted to follow the overall story and that is still what draws me to the comic book store today. To be honest Spidey has rarely had any interesting individual stories - what was so interesting was watching Peter, his villains, and his supporting characters grow and move forward. To me that has always been the true essence of "story" in Spider-Man.
...
"To [remove the bigger ongoing story] would be a horrible mistake because it would eliminate the fundamental difference that originally made Marvel so successful. Furthermore, I (and I'm certain tens of thousands of others) would stop reading Spider-Man.

Mike wrote that in the 1990s. At that time the great soap opera called continuity was being destroyed. Just as Mike predicted, thousands of fans stopped buying Spiderman and the other comics. Sales collapsed, and have never fully recovered. Eric Larsen writes:

"I guess that’s part of the reason I stopped caring. It wasn’t just that every character seemed to get a new voice and personality and face and physique when handed from one creative team to the next, but often everything that came before was ignored, contradicted or written off as somehow not real. It’s at a point where I can no longer believe that these characters are the same people anymore and it’s to a point where I can’t get caught up in their adventures because I know that somewhere down the line, whatever had happened will be tossed out the window just as everything else had been countless times before. "

Other fans say similar things. Nana Yaw Ofori wrote:

"[Spiderman is] a series that professes to be about a reasonable facsimile of a real person, living what is to him, a real life. If Peter Parker doesn't grow, if he doesn't change, then he loses what little semblance of reality he has. He becomes a caricature, a forever locked-in-time icon that's quite a bit harder to empathize with. And that's the last thing I'd want to see happen in any series I read or watch. Any drama series, at any rate."

skullduggery wrote:

"when someone dies and then suddenly shows up again a couple of years later and everything is returned to status quo, then it just doesn't mean anything. As a reader, you feel ripped off. Someone initiated an emotional reaction in you (if you had any sort of connection to the character), and suddenly they invalidate that by making the reason for the reaction no longer true. It has been done so much that now you don't even believe it anymore, hence no reaction. And by losing that, they've killed the goose."

The easy way to greatness

I noted earlier that Marvel's greatness was based on comics being relevant to the reader's world. The obvious way to do that is do what Stan Lee did in the early 1960s: Place the characters directly in the reader's world! Let them face the same real world challenges that the reader faces, and naturally the stories will be revelant.

But that is easier said than done. Every comic writer must set out to be relevant, but pretty soon they end up with Superman in Metropolis battling Bizzaro Superman. These may be entertaining stories, but why should non-Superman fans care? Or they end up repeating the "cutting edge" stories that were they remember from their childhood, twenty or thirty years ago.

You need something, a constant reminder to keep you always on track. Something that guarantees fresh stories and up to date ideas. Something that ensures the stories always make sense in the real world.

Well why not take the easy route. Do what Stan and Jack did.

Set the stories in the real world, in real time!

This guarantees that readers can relate. It is their familiar world. With their familiar challenges and problems. The stories almost write themselves! Just set up an interesting situation and ask "what would happen next in the real world?" If the writer ever runs short of ideas that are relevant to readers, just pick up a magazine or turn on the news! See how many classic 1960s Marvel stories were obviously inspired by the cold war, monster movies, social issues, or whatever else was going on.

This guarantees that you will respect your readers, as they understand the rules of the real world. They can make suggestions and demand that you fix mistakes! So they have ownership! Publishers may not like it, but customers will. It's basic marketing. Get the customers involved. Give them what they want and they will give you money.

For more details, please choose a topic: