InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "When Avery cries, we all cry."

Doop (xdoop) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-08-22 17:24:00

Entry tags:

char: ben parker, char: may parker, char: nathan lubensky, char: spider-man/peter parker, creator: al milgrom, creator: bill mantlo, creator: kerry gammill, creator: sal buscema, publisher: marvel comics, title: spectacular spider-man

Aunt May, in "Memory Lane"

This is from Spectacular Spider-Man Annual #4. It's written by Bill Mantlo and illustrated by Kerry Gammill and Sal Buscema. The cover is by Al Milgrom.

Just a head's up: the "if he can't have her-- no one will!" stuff is totally misleading.

Nathan Lubensky, May's fiancé, calls Peter for help.

However, Peter and Nathan both eventually fall asleep looking out for May.

Peter wakes up and sees May take a taxi to Coney Island.

Later...

After May returns home (with Nathan worrying that she may be going senile), Peter tries finding out more about the letters.

Peter remembers the photo and realizes May is returning to her childhood home.

Peter sees some thugs start to follow May in after they notice her purse, and decides to go in and deal with them.

Peter attacks the thugs before they can get to May.

The issue ends with May returning home to Nathan.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	box_in_the_box 2009-08-23 04:45 am UTC (link)
	There was actually a recently posted set of scans, from one of the Dark Reign tie-ins, in which Norman's hair was actually drawn as it should be, and it was unfortunate how odd it seemed, to see an artist capturing Ditko's INTENT, rather than just aping his STYLE. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	psychop_rex 2009-08-23 07:25 am UTC (link)
	The thing is, at this point what Ditko INTENDED is almost irrelevant - both his artwork and that of several generations of artists succeeding him have established what the 'Osborn haircut' IS. It's an iconic part of the character's look - it's not surprising that it being drawn differently at this point would look somewhat peculiar. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

box_in_the_box
2009-08-23 07:40 am UTC (link)

When the comic is willing to shitcan a 20-year-old MAJOR point of continuity, supposedly to appeal to newer and younger readers, anybody who cries that the Osborn hair needs to be preserved BECAUSE IT'S TRADITION needs to sit the fuck down, because newer and younger readers are going to be even LESS indulgent of supposedly "iconic" idiosyncrasies like the Osborn hair than even the most anal-retentive fanboy. Even defenders of the marriage retcon have more valid grounds than defenders of the Osborn haircut, because while a single Peter Parker is indeed featured in the vast majority of other media adaptations of Spider-Man, the Osborn hair almost NEVER is (the closest anyone has come has been the current Spectactular Spider-Man cartoon, which actually gives the Osborns a hairstyle that's more Hardin/Cotten than Ditko).

If Jonah can quit the Daily Bugle to be mayor, or May can be married to Jonah's dad, or Flash can have no legs, or Peter can have his marriage of 20 years undone, then there really is absolutely no valid or defensible reason whatsoever why the Osborns have to look like fucking hair freaks, other than the Silver Age nostalgia of people who - as with every other aspect of the current Spider-Man status quo - would rather ape the style than reflect the intent of its creators.

FUCK the Osborn hair.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

psychop_rex
2009-08-23 07:53 am UTC (link)

I believe you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that the Osborn haircut is an important or necessary part of the character - it's just a haircut - I was saying that, due to the fact that artists have been drawing it the same way for decades now, it IS a part of the character's visual look - those cornrows are immediately recognizable - and as such, seeing the character drawn in a different way would naturally be a bit of a jolt. It's like if you saw J. Jonah Jameson with a droopy mustache and sideburns - sure, it'd still be him, but it wouldn't LOOK like him until you got used to it. I personally like the Osborn haircut, but I wasn't saying that it was an integral part of the character - just that, after all these years, seeing him without it requires a bit of a mental adjustment.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

box_in_the_box
2009-08-23 08:07 am UTC (link)

The problem being that, unlike J. Jonah's Hitler moustache and R. Lee Ermey brush-cut, there's absolutely no consistency in how the Osborn cornrows are drawn - seriously, look at the hair as drawn by JRjr, Deodato, Jiminez or any number of other artists, and other than the fact that it looks like lines instead of actual human hair, there isn't even any internally consistent pattern in HOW the cornrows go, which is yet another reason to shitcan it (see also: Hank McCoy's lion-esque appearance, which absolutely no one other than Frank Quitely knows how to draw, and since Quitely is long gone from the books ...). Yes, it'd be an adjustment at first, but once again, no more so than any number of other sweeping changes that Marvel seems perfectly comfortable with disposing of, and (unlike the marriage retcon) in the long run, it'd be a change for the benefit of the characters.

It's like this - if you have a character that you're insisting that your audience take deadly seriously, but one of their minor traits is so stupid that even other characters comment on how stupid it is, in the story itself (see also: every character from Deadpool forward noting that the Osborn hair exists absolutely nowhere in nature), then it's a good sign that it needs to be dispensed with. If a character is so inextricably associated with such an absurd trait that you can't risk changing the trait without people feeling like you've "ruined the character" (I know you're not saying this, but still), then the character itself has become nothing more than a nostalgia object (see also: Archie and his waffle-hair, or Jughead and his nowhere-outside-the-1950s headgear).

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

psychop_rex
2009-08-23 08:32 am UTC (link)

But, see, I don't think that IS the case with Norman. The whole haircut thing is really only an object of debate amongst serious fans - for the general public, Norman Osborn is not 'inextricably associated' with his hairdo, he's inextricably associated with his alter ego - the Green Goblin is far more iconic than Norman himself could ever hope to be. Especially since the movies came out, I think the general non-comics reading public thinks of Norman Osborn as Willem Dafoe.
And yes, the hairdo is certainly inconsistently drawn, but any comic that lasts for more than a few years and is worked on by more than one artist will have problems like that. Look at Superman's spitcurl - one could argue that that distinctive hairdo is an iconic part of the character, yet it's been drawn in about a million different ways, from a subtle thing that's barely noticeable to a great big honkin' twist of hair dangling down between his eyes. The fact remains that, however it's handled, if something in comics remains drawn a certain way for long enough, that depiction of it becomes canon, of a sort - not because it's a necessary part of the character, but because the artists think of the character that way when they're drawing him. In short, I don't think that Marvel is keeping the Osborn cornrows because of some greater purpose, they're keeping them because, after all this time, everyone is simply used to doing them that way.
(Anyway, I could be wrong, but I think that the Osborn haircut IS possible in real life - it's just something that would be difficult to maintain on any sort of long-term basis. You'd need a hell of a lot of styling gel and a sympathetic barber.)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	box_in_the_box 2009-08-23 08:41 am UTC (link)
	I think that the Osborn haircut IS possible in real life [...] Only if you're black. And yes, making sweeping racially-based pronouncements like that makes even ME cringe, but, no, seriously, that's really the only way it would work. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

jlroberson
2009-08-23 02:51 pm UTC (link)

Only if you're black and have a conk. Which involves straightening. Which means once it's straightened, anyone can theoretically get it, so in fact that makes no sense. Cotten above seemed to manage, and there's lots of white people with kinky hair. Many Jewish guys, for instance. I'd mention Matt Stone as just one easy example, at least before he cut it off.

And need I mention that one reason black guys in the 30s and 40s got it, at least according to Malcolm X(who famously once sported one, when he was a hoodlum), was to seem closer to white? If your skin was light, you might be able to pass for Latino, some thought. And from many photos I've seen on graduations from the 20s and 30s, it was a pretty popular look at one time anyway. What was strange about Osborn was that it was a dated look by then. The fact Nixon had it was an indication.

That's the trouble with sweeping racial generalizations. It only takes one example to screw it up.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	jlbarnett 2009-08-23 08:38 pm UTC (link)
	WWE SMackdown recently had a white guy do cornrows. THough not side to side. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	jlbarnett 2009-08-23 06:30 pm UTC (link)
	I don;t think they have. They've established it looks weird as shit, but there's no explantion for it. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	psychop_rex 2009-08-23 08:28 pm UTC (link)
	I didn't say they'd EXPLAINED it; I said they'd established it. No one has ever explained why Galactus feels the need to wear a cylindrical purple helmet with metal wingy-thingies on the sides, either, but it's pretty well established that he does. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -