InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "there is trouble in the forest"

cyberghostface (cyberghostface) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-09-13 00:02:00

Entry tags:

char: green goblin/norman osborn, creator: mark buckingham, creator: paul jenkins, title: peter parker spider-man

Norman Osborn's Childhood

I figured with Norman's current status as Official Bastard of the Marvel Universe, it might be time to take a trip down memory lane...

This one comes from Peter Parker Spider-Man #25. I may post the larger story later as it's pretty good IMO.

(Post a new comment)

crinosg
2009-09-13 04:20 am UTC (link)

So...he's crazy and evil because his old man made him spend the night in a creepy old house?

Fing Fang Fuck you Norman Osborne, you think this is supposed to make me feel even a shred of sympathy or empathy for you, against all you've done to Peter and everyone he cares about?

You know, having a crappy childhood is all well and good, and it can inspire sympathy for a villain, but only to a fucking point. I don't care if Hitler's dad ran out on him, he was still the sick fuck who committed genocide and tried to conquer the world.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2009-09-13 04:27 am UTC (link)
	The physical and emotional abuse plus the death of his wife and a mind altering formula though he wads a bastard long before the last. But, yes Norman has done far too much evil to Peter,Harry,and the rest for me to feel even slightly sympathetic towards him. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	cyberghostface 2009-09-13 04:28 am UTC (link)
	Well, this memory is only the tip of the iceberg. Also, in a story I'll be posting later, Spider-Man literally lives through Norman's childhood memories thanks to some futuristic device, and it almost drives him crazy seeing all the pain and anger Norman had built up inside him as a kid. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

crinosg
2009-09-13 05:03 am UTC (link)

Well see, Bruce Banner had the same type of childhood; abusive as fuck dad and all that. And while he does have his own issues, at least Bruce is trying to do the right thing, trying to rein in the Hulk and get rid of him (or at least redirect him into a force of good).

So no, having a crappy childhood is not a "get out of responsibility for your actions: free card. I can name at least five super heroes who have had childhoods just as crappy who didn't turn bad.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	cyberghostface 2009-09-13 01:30 pm UTC (link)
	So no, having a crappy childhood is not a "get out of responsibility for your actions: free card. I never said it was? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	crinosg 2009-09-13 02:04 pm UTC (link)
	I know, I was just referring to the writers of this comic, not you. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	cyberghostface 2009-09-13 02:12 pm UTC (link)
	Sorry for misunderstanding you. That being said, the writer Paul Jenkins has consistently written Norman as a bastard. (He was the one who had Norman put Flash into a coma). I think Jenkins was trying to flesh out Norman and make him a little more human, but not say "Poor guy, it's not his fault." (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

felinephoenix
2009-09-13 04:49 pm UTC (link)

This. Hell, just what Norman does in this story arc is screwed up and unforgiveable - basically brainwashing Peter - let alone what he's done before. I don't think Jenkins is trying to say "oh poor Norman let's all forgive him because of the abuse", and frankly I have no idea where people are getting that, but I appreciate the attempt to flesh out Norman's backstory.

After all, things must have happened to make him the maniac he is today. (I have never bought "oh it was just the Goblin forumla" -- THAT is a copout.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	mullon 2009-09-13 04:30 am UTC (link)
	Indeed. I always hate it when a villain is shown doing ton of evil stuff, and then we are shown that they had some crappy childhood so we'll go "Oh, I guess he dosn't deserve the blame for all the terrible things they've done." I tinhk that's why I like villains that are just nuts so much. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	starwolf_oakley 2009-09-13 04:49 am UTC (link)
	A lot of people do "exposure therapy" to get over their fears. You can see it on A&E's "Obsessed" reality show. Of course, that's done voluntarily without getting locked in a mansion. I still don't get how anyone goes from "I had a fear of the dark" to "KillKILLkill." (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

cyberghostface
2009-09-13 04:53 am UTC (link)

I still don't get how anyone goes from "I had a fear of the dark" to "KillKILLkill."

Again, this isn't so much A to B as it is D to L. This was one moment in Osborn's childhood, and was referenced because he was trying to get Peter to accept the darkness, but it was never intended to be the defining moment for Norman's psychosis (although it probably didn't help much).

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

jlroberson
2009-09-13 08:54 am UTC (link)

But in no way does it excuse, nor is it sufficient to explain, anything he is as an adult. And increasingly I do not care that he is mentally ill--so was Manson, so was Richard Speck, and so forth. The question is not whether he is mad, it's a question of whether he understands he's doing harm to others or not.

He does, and he enjoys it. So insanity and abuse count for nothing in the face of what he does, and has done.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	janegray 2009-09-13 11:46 am UTC (link)
	Motto. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	cyberghostface 2009-09-13 01:32 pm UTC (link)
	I've never 'excused' his actions here--all I've said is that this one moment isn't the one moment that made Norman who he is. (Reply to this) (Parent)

felinephoenix
2009-09-13 04:53 pm UTC (link)

No one's saying it forgives Norman for anything. Sure, that's a big problem in storytelling, giving the villain a bad childhood in order to let them off the hook, but that's not what this story was about.

It was about seeing what makes Norman tick and whether he could get Peter to embrace his ideals (spoiler: he doesn't, but he comes far too close for Pete's comfort). Maybe this humanises Norman a bit, but I don't think humanising = forgiving. If anything, I find Norman the most frightening when he's like this, a more human sort of evil than the way he's normally written.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

cleome45
2009-09-13 06:16 pm UTC (link)

I don't know where people are getting "explanation" = "excuse," either. Then again, I haven't read the whole story line.

Fleshing out a villain's background is a call for reason, I think. It's the idea that nothing a person does, however heinous and unforgivable, happens "just because."

Some readers like to see that, and some don't, I guess. I probably tend toward liking it because I was raised by a mystery fanatic, and the whole point of most old-school mysteries is to impose order on an otherwise chaotic-looking universe.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Norman Osborn the First? (Anonymous) 2009-09-13 01:37 pm UTC (link)
	Does anyone else think it's a little lazy of the writers to give his pops the same moniker he has? I also seem to remember an earlier comic in which Harry's grandfather (on his dad's side, smart guy!) was called Edward Osborn. Can anyone confirm or deny this? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Norman Osborn the First? cyberghostface 2009-09-13 01:58 pm UTC (link)
	I actually thought it was Amberson? (That's what it was in the Spectacular Annual that delved into his childhood). So I guess calling him Norman the first is a continuity snafu. I remember in Ultimate Spider-Man, that in the span of one arc, Mary Jane's father had three different names. Not joking. (Reply to this) (Parent)

gamerguy
2009-09-13 03:38 pm UTC (link)

See, I wouldn't read that as 'Osborne overcame his fear of the dark'. I read it as 'the experience that actually first drove him insane'. It mentally unbalances him, but he's one of the quiet types of crazy, where it really doesn't start to come out until later triggering events set him off. This dovetails seamlessly into his modern behavior, where he thinks that 'willpower' can cure him from being crazy. He's /still/ just as insane as he ever was, just having suppressed it again.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	felinephoenix 2009-09-13 04:54 pm UTC (link)
	Ditto. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2009-09-13 07:13 pm UTC (link)
	I don't think the purpose of this is to excuse Norman Osbourne as much as it is to explain him. It puzzles me how many people seem to freak out at the possibility that it might excuse him, though. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	suzene 2009-09-13 08:13 pm UTC (link)
	I wonder if it's less a response to the story itself and more a preemptive snarl at the segment of fandom that does tend to go "Oh, poor woobie!" over stories like this. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	silverzeo 2009-09-13 10:30 pm UTC (link)
	Osborn crying reminds of an episode of Home Movies. Here is a link to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhCGKGBrMPI start watching around 3 minute mark. (Reply to this)

	kamikazescot 2009-09-14 05:33 am UTC (link)
	Freudian fail. On another note, he's telling this to Peter Parker, right? Imagine what Peter's thinking. Norman: And then spending the night in the creepy old house drove me BATSHIT. Peter: /slowly inches away (Reply to this) (Thread)

(Anonymous)
2009-09-14 11:39 am UTC (link)

To be fair, I don't think showing a villain having a crappy childhood is meant to "excuse" anything they do. It may humanize them, but it doesn't absolve them. If anything, it makes those heroes that have had crappy childhoods all the more heroic...they faced those same kinds of things (or worse) and overcame them, whereas the villains were too weak in some form or another and let it consume them.

Still, it's pretty clear Norman's shifted a good bit away from where he was originally conceived, from someone that was a ruthless businessman but not altogether evil to...well, someone that was (and bats**t crazy to boot).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

skalja
2009-09-14 04:52 pm UTC (link)

Don't take this as gospel, because it's been years, but I seem to recall Peter being zonked out on a combination of veeeery strange drugs and several weeks of torture-brainwashing by the time Norman told him this story. So it was a bit more like:

Norman: And then spending the night in the creepy old house drove me BATSHIT.
Peter: *terrified drooling*

Same sentiment, though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

halloweenjack
2009-09-14 08:28 pm UTC (link)

This is as disappointing as the "revelation" of Hannibal Lecter's secret origin in Hannibal (expanded on to little effect in Hannibal Rising). You know, sometimes people go crazy just because; the notion that all mental illness stems from some psychological trauma (particularly childhood trauma) has been discarded by all but the most diehard Freudians, and, of course, assemblers of trite psychodrama.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	cyberghostface 2009-09-14 08:58 pm UTC (link)
	Some people go crazy "just because", and some people go crazy because they have fucked up lives. Besides, Jenkins didn't invent the concept of Norman having a traumatic past before becoming the Goblin. He just expanded on it. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	halloweenjack 2009-09-14 09:10 pm UTC (link)
	Which is why I said "the notion that all mental illness". I realize that it's more dramatic to have childhood trauma, but after a few dozen of these stories it turns into "My nightlight burned out early one night, therefore I became the Slashulator." (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

cyberghostface
2009-09-14 10:28 pm UTC (link)

It depends on the character, IMO. If you're going to have a long-term major villain present throughout the series, having them simply being "evil" for the heck of it without any fleshed out motivations or backstory just makes it uninteresting.

If a character's just fodder for Spidey to punch around, that's one thing--you don't necessarily need their life story. But when you're dealing with major characters like Green Goblin or Doctor Octopus, it doesn't hurt to expand their character.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

halloweenjack
2009-09-14 10:51 pm UTC (link)

And I agree with what you say in the second para, as well as that it's good to have a decent backstory for your A-list villains, but having to have some sort of Big Dramatic Psychodrama as an explanation for why they turned to a life of crime leads to unfortunate (if dated) incidents like Young Lex Luthor deciding to become a supervillain because the World's Smartest Teen couldn't figure out, or admit to himself, that Superboy wasn't really to blame for making his hair fall out.

You know what one of the best explanations with regards to villainous motivations was, ever? Supposedly, someone asked Willie "The Actor" Sutton, about as close as the real world has ever come to producing a real supervillain, why he robbed banks, and he said*, "Because that's where the money is."

*Probably not really, but it's still a great line.

(Reply to this) (Parent)