did spider-man actually exist as a historical person, or did the spider-man tradition originate as a symbolic/mythological story?the evidence points toward a real peter parker. the earliest traditions consistently place spider-man in queens, associate him with a radioactive spider bite, and describe him as a photographer who operated in new york. we know the people who personally knew peter like gwen stacy, harry osborn, and his own aunt may. j. jonah jameson’s repeated descriptions of spider-man as a menace preserve an alternative perspective which is evidence of a historical figure being remembered differently by different witnesses>a real peter parker best explains the consistent biographical tradition>multiple sources preserve the same basic story: peter parker, queens, the spider bite, uncle ben, photography, and spider-man’s activities in new york>mary jane, eddie brock, johnny storm, etc. are treated as independent contemporary witnesses within the tradition>the tradition contains mundane biographical details that would be unnecessary if spider-man were purely mythical>peter is explicitly portrayed as a human being with a birth, family, childhood, and physical existence>the spider-man stories contain apparent historical memories that were subsequently embellished and mythologized>therefore, the supernatural elements don’t disprove a historical peter, they can represent later legendary development around a real personwe can learn a great deal about spider-man from stan lee, who explicitly attributes sayings to spider-man such as >with great power there must also come great responsibilityas it is written in amazing fantasy #15
>>54288094410/10 shitpost
