Spider-Man: Webshooters? Mechanical/Organic or Both?

[Nardpuncher]

Let's see if we can help Christopher to post enough that it's book-length.

You know all those "Star Trek & Philosophy" books and such? This is likely how they get made! Just stick together 9 or 10 posts and that's 250,000 words.

 

[Admiral2]

I think both sides need to get off the "science" aspect of the argument since it's not really on anybody's side. Chris, "plausible" explanation does not equal "scientifically accurate" explanation, which means "plausible" is only Politically Correct for "acceptable bullshit."

You're lecturing me on something I already know. I'm a professional science fiction author.

Wow. Thank you for returning the favor by spelling out something I figured out kind of a while ago and my apologies for not genuflecting to your published authorhood as I have other preferences in writers.

I've been working with the nuances between accuracy and plausibility for decades. One of my favorite things to say about my work is that it's more important to sound convincing to the reader than to actually be strictly accurate -- as the saying goes about sincerity, "if you can fake that, you've got it made."

So your criticism is off the mark, because I was never pushing for absolute realism, just for the kind of verisimilitude that has always been a trademark of Stan Lee's style and Marvel Comics's style, right there along with the wildly fanciful elements. It's never been all or nothing.

It should be. We are talking about a comic book character. How that comic book character does what he does is the sole purview of the guys writing the stories. Whether what he does makes any kind of scientific sense should only matter if the stories are hard science fiction. Spider-Man can be called many things, but it's never been hard science fiction.

That's what's so distinctive about Stan Lee's style, the way he blends wild opposites. The characters are believably human with realistic everyday problems, but their dialogue is wildly corny and melodramatic. The stories and concepts are insanely bizarre, but still there's an impressive attention to realistic detail.

The closest Stan Lee has ever gotten to "realistic detail" was setting the bulk of the heroes' stories in and around New York. Past that, I've got a seven-year-old niece with a better eye for realism.

I'm not advocating anything that hasn't been part of the Marvel style for nearly half a century already. There have always been some impressive nods to physics and other sciences if you keep your eye out for them, right alongside all the fantasy stuff.

Are you serious? I've been reading Marvel Comics since I was ten! What nods to physics are you talking about? If the writers gave a tinker's damn about physics The Fantastic Four and Bruce Banner would have died of radiation exposure almost immediately after their "origin" events.

And that helps give it verisimilitude.

Yes, yes...I'm suitably impressed with the use of the Big Writer Word.

That word doesn't mean absolute accuracy -- it literally means "resemblance to truth." Even if you write about something fanciful, you can give it verisimilitude by acknowledging some of its realistic consequences and ramifications. It's not about trying to make it exactly real, it's about selling it, presenting it convincingly enough that the audience will be willing to buy it. Verisimilitude. The semblance, the appearance, of truth. Address a few of the audience's concerns about the credibility of a thing, and they'll be more forgiving about the impossibilities you can't explain away. This is a basic part of how it's done, how I've done it throughout my writing career, how it was done by the writers who inspired me.

Which means it's not a trait unique to Marvels writers, and as one of their readers, I can safely say that they certainly don't apply it the most to their stories. Others do it better, and Stan Lee didn't invent the concept.

So many arguments on the Internet would be resolved so much more easily if only people could break free of this cultural fiction that every issue has to be reduced to a clash of opposite extremes.

Not this one. This is about what the old guys like versus what the new kids want, like Greg figured out. One look at the poll demonstrates that. Look where all the votes are going.

That's just not the way the universe works. The truth is almost always found in the middle ground, in the shades of grey.

According to people who don't like absolutes.

That's what made Marvel so special, the fact that it's long been so firmly rooted in the middle ground between extremes, between goofiness and believability, between fantasy and realism, and has benefitted from the dynamic intermingling of those opposites. There's room in the Marvel Universe for everything, and that includes intelligent science and engineering, when it suits the story.

And I thought I was a Fan Of Ol' Marvel. You obviously get their monthly Kool-Aid subscription.

I'll say this again: science is not on either side of this debate. I will add, neither is realism. In a genre where characters don't age for decades at a time, the notion that its creators deliberately drop in some intelligent science and technology once in a while is delusional. Johnny Storm bursts into flames on regular basis without hurting himself and has been a "young hothead" since 1961, but from what you're telling me his owning an iPad in 2010 gives the Fantastic Four comic more "verisimilitude."

Seriously?

 

[Greg Cox]

Let's see if we can help Christopher to post enough that it's book-length.

You know all those "Star Trek & Philosophy" books and such? This is likely how they get made! Just stick together 9 or 10 posts and that's 250,000 words.

Just as long as I get my share of the royalties!

 

[Christopher]

Admiral2, I started to respond to your post, but it became clear as I read it that you have no interest in open-minded discussion of ideas, merely in the kneejerk rejection and ridicule of any idea that doesn't mesh with your prejudices. So there would be no point in debating with you any more than there would be a point in trying to knock down a brick wall with my fists. My arguments are there in the thread, freely available for anyone with a mind open enough to consider them. So I've said all I need to say.

 

[Peter the Younger]

I'd go with one of two options:

1) Mechanical webshooters, but change Peter Parker's science background to primarily biochemistry, not the all-disciplinary Science! of the old comics.

2) Peter grows a giant spinnerette and shoots webs out of his ass.

 

[Christopher]

I'll concede this: spinnerets are essentially additional limbs that happen to be small and specialized. According to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinneret_(spider)

The discovery of silk-producing organs on the feet of the zebra tarantula (Aphonopelma seemanni) has led to questions about the origins of spinnerets. It has been hypothesised that spinnerets were originally used as climbing aids on the feet and evolved and were used for webmaking at a later time.

So this could be seen as a justification for Peter developing silk-producing glands in his arms -- though having them be in the wrists exactly where his mechanical shooters were worn is a huge coincidence (much more so in the comics continuity where they were supposed to replace the mechanical ones), and I'm not sure the silk would actually be as strong without the actual spinneret "limbs" to wind the basic silk strands together into solid fibers.

On the other hand, the fact that spinnerets are limbs helps answer the question of why he didn't gain them along with his other spider abilities -- or at least, it makes it part and parcel of the question, "Why didn't he grow four extra arms, extra eyes, mandibles, etc.?" The spider bite gave Peter augmented abilities analogous to those of spiders, but did not give him any new anatomical features. Thus, his lack of spinnerets is not an inconsistency after all. Indeed, in the "organic webshooters" scenario, one must ask why he would've gained only that new anatomical feature and none of the others suggested above. That's rather selective. The idea that he was only given such mutations as would not significantly alter his anatomy may be arbitrary, but there's a certain logic to it.

 

[Greg Cox]

He's always been as much gadget-based as power-based. Take away his inventiveness and he's not Spider-Man anymore.

.)

On the other hand, Peter's "inventiveness" occasionally turned into a deux ex machina. Even as a kid, I hated it when Peter whipped up some gadget in the last act that neutralized the Vulture's wings or whatever. "No time to test it! Let's hope that it works!"

Technobabble saves the day!

Granted, Reed Richards was even worse when it came to pulling cheap techno fixes out of nowhere!

 

[Locutus of Bored]

On the other hand, the fact that spinnerets are limbs helps answer the question of why he didn't gain them along with his other spider abilities -- or at least, it makes it part and parcel of the question, "Why didn't he grow four extra arms, extra eyes, mandibles, etc.?" The spider bite gave Peter augmented abilities analogous to those of spiders, but did not give him any new anatomical features.

Are we talking about the movies or the comics when he briefly had the organic webshooters? Because in the movie he had razor sharp retractable "hairs" all over his skin that allowed him to crawl up walls, he gained a ton of muscle mass overnight, and I would imagine the spider-sense significantly altered his brain in some way; physically, chemically, or both.

 

[Christopher]

On the other hand, Peter's "inventiveness" occasionally turned into a deux ex machina. Even as a kid, I hated it when Peter whipped up some gadget in the last act that neutralized the Vulture's wings or whatever. "No time to test it! Let's hope that it works!"

Technobabble saves the day!

Of course, any character trait can be handled poorly on occasion, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of the character.

Are we talking about the movies or the comics when he briefly had the organic webshooters? Because in the movie he had razor sharp retractable "hairs" all over his skin that allowed him to crawl up walls, he gained a ton of muscle mass overnight, and I would imagine the spider-sense significantly altered his brain in some way; physically, chemically, or both.

I am talking about the comics, yes, because of course it's a given that he did grow spinnerets in the movie, so it would be pointless to argue that he couldn't have.

We can assume that similar changes happened to the comics' Peter, but the changes you're talking about are subtler than what I'm discussing. He didn't grow new arms or eyes or mandibles. His anatomy was changed, but it didn't have whole new parts added. And though we tend not to think of them that way, spinnerets are essentially limbs. They aren't just tubes that silk comes out of. There are microscopic tubules that exude the silk fibers, but the spinnerets are essentially tiny arms that "weave" the fibers together into threads. So from an anatomical perspective, they can be treated as additional limbs. And since Peter didn't grow new arms when he gained spider powers, the fact that he did not grow spinnerets either is consistent with that.

 

[Greg Cox]

Of course, any character trait can be handled poorly on occasion, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of the character.

True, but I was just pointing out there are drawbacks to the mechanical genius bit as well as story opportunities.

Nostalgia aside, I suspect this is also partly a matter of aesthetics. You're more of a hard-science guy, so you like figuring out the nuts-and-bolts of how the hardware works. Me, I'm more into the whole pulp mythology of it. A Spider-Man who can spin webs like a spider, and whose origin can be summed up in a single sentence, seems like a purer distillation of the basic concept.

The Human Torch bursts into flames. The Submariner swims like a submarine. The Invisible Girl turns invisible. So Spider-Man should be able to do spider-stuff on his own, without any footnotes or asterisks.

 

[coolghoul]

We can assume that similar changes happened to the comics' Peter, but the changes you're talking about are subtler than what I'm discussing. He didn't grow new arms or eyes or mandibles. His anatomy was changed, but it didn't have whole new parts added. And though we tend not to think of them that way, spinnerets are essentially limbs. They aren't just tubes that silk comes out of. There are microscopic tubules that exude the silk fibers, but the spinnerets are essentially tiny arms that "weave" the fibers together into threads. So from an anatomical perspective, they can be treated as additional limbs. And since Peter didn't grow new arms when he gained spider powers, the fact that he did not grow spinnerets either is consistent with that.

Well my preference for mechanical webshooters is already on record. And I kinda resent people stating that I like em out of nostalgia. I was NOT reading the comics in '61!! I am not that old, guys! Tho' I'm old enough to wish that I was younger... Anyways, back to the topic....

But - we can state that the spinerrets (or whatever those bumps on his wrists were in the movies) are limbs - except that instead of growing from his torso (like any self-respecting limb should), they are growing from his wrist. Kinda like a tree where new branches can start further down (or up) the stem... It could be cause the spider was genetically mutated (with some plant stuff too in it).

But the point is, that the more you try to look into this, the more contorted the reasoning becomes with everything getting bent out of shape.

Btw - there have been several storylines with Peter actually turning into a spider too, Christopher - so your argument about why not more anatomical mutation is only half-valid. Perhaps the spider wasn't irradiated enough

Edit for clarification - In comics, the spider had been irradiated. In the movies, the spider was genetically mutated.

 

[wamdue]

I like organic webshooters. Seems more natural to me.

I agree with this, maybe its becasue ive only really seen the movies, but given that spiders can naturally make there own webbing, im not sure why Peter would not get that ability as well.

My biggest concern with this however, is that it means Peter leaves his Spiderman DNA whenever he disconnects from one web to the next.

Comic book logic most mean thats a bad thing.

If Peter Parker is intellgent he can find other ways to express that, other than making web shooters.

 

[Christopher]

Btw - there have been several storylines with Peter actually turning into a spider too, Christopher - so your argument about why not more anatomical mutation is only half-valid.

I thought it was implicit that I was referring specifically to his original acquisition of powers from the spider bite. Although come to think of it, I realize that contradicts my earlier statement that I was referring to the comics continuity rather than the film continuity, since in the comics he gained the organic shooters later, like the other mutations. I guess that's one point I didn't think through.

Still, as I said, Disassembled was a pretty dire story, unpleasant and rather silly in some of its concepts. (I mean, why would someone with arachnid-based powers be in the sway of an insect queen and gain the ability to communicate with insects? Jenkins blurred together two separate taxonomic categories there.) And the comics authors seemed to retcon it out of existence within a year, since The Other proceeded as though Disassembled had never happened. And now in BND it's definitively retconned away. So I don't exactly feel motivated to extrapolate any further on something the comics seemed to think better of immediately after they did it.


Anyway, all I can say is that when I was developing my Spidey novel, I had the option to set it post-Disassembled and use the organic shooters, but I just didn't want to deprive myself of the potential of the mechanical shooters. I read every Spidey comic I could get my hands on before writing the book, and they did so many different, clever things with the webshooters over the years that it gave me a lot of ideas. I decided I could do more with them than with the organic ones. So that was a factor in my choice to set the book before Disassembled. Sure, that's partly because I like to explore sciencey stuff, but I just felt it had more possibilities in general.

 

[Greg Cox]

And since Peter didn't grow new arms when he gained spider powers, the fact that he did not grow spinnerets either is consistent with that.

Although, way back in SPIDER-MAN #100, Spidey did grow extra arms, so you could argue that the capacity to grow microscopic "limbs" was always there--and just got amped up by that potion in issue #100.

Just to refresh people's memory, Peter whipped up some sort of "cure" that was supposed to remove his powers for good. (He was in a "Spider-Man No More!" mood). But it backfired and gave him four extra arms instead!

Alas, six-armed Spidey was only around for two issues before Curt Connors found a way to reverse the effect . . . .

(Ah, golden memories! I remember biking up to the 7-Eleven to pick up those issues--which also featured the first the first appearance of Morbius the Living Vampire!)

 

[coolghoul]

Anyway, all I can say is that when I was developing my Spidey novel, I had the option to set it post-Disassembled and use the organic shooters, but I just didn't want to deprive myself of the potential of the mechanical shooters. I read every Spidey comic I could get my hands on before writing the book, and they did so many different, clever things with the webshooters over the years that it gave me a lot of ideas. I decided I could do more with them than with the organic ones. So that was a factor in my choice to set the book before Disassembled. Sure, that's partly because I like to explore sciencey stuff, but I just felt it had more possibilities in general.

Actually, maybe you were just being prescient, since it could be thought that you set it up in the post-OMD world where the mechanical webshooters are back!

(unless ... you had Peter still married to MJ in your story - which might mean that you are a few more years into the future post-OMIT too. Things go in cycles in comics - I feel confident that Peter and MJ will get together in the future again).

 

[Nardpuncher]

Alas, six-armed Spidey was only around for two issues before Curt Connors found a way to reverse the effect . . . .

Lemme guess....Connors used a chainsaw to 'reverse' the effect?

 

[Silvercrest]

If he was subject to "arm envy", then probably. "I've got this empty sleeve, and Spidey's got all these extras... I'm sure he won't wind donating...."

 

[Admiral_Young]

I liked the animated series adaption of the Six Armed Spider-Man story along with the original comic story. One of my favorites actually.

 

[Christopher]

Actually, maybe you were just being prescient, since it could be thought that you set it up in the post-OMD world where the mechanical webshooters are back!

(unless ... you had Peter still married to MJ in your story - which might mean that you are a few more years into the future post-OMIT too. Things go in cycles in comics - I feel confident that Peter and MJ will get together in the future again).

No, my novel is very specifically set during the JMS run before Spidey became an Avengers member. To quote my annotations:

To be precise, I assume this novel takes place during the "time passing" montage on p. 18 of Amazing Spider-Man #515 (Feb 2005), "Skin Deep," Part 1. It can't be any earlier, since Mary Jane's theatrical career was only just starting in the previous storyline ("Sins Past"), and ASM 515 explicitly begins only two days after "Sins Past." However, it can't be after the "Skin Deep" storyline, since that ends with the destruction of Aunt May's home and the Parkers moving to Stark Tower. Luckily the story allows for the passage of time in that montage, which was no doubt done intentionally to let it catch up with events in the sister titles. For my purposes, I'm assuming that Spidey joining the Avengers took place during that p. 18 montage as well, sometime after Drowned in Thunder. The opening 12-issue story arc of Marvel Knights: Spider-Man must also follow DIT, since that storyline ends with Jameson believing his son is Spider-Man. This is a bit confusing since the majority of that storyline was published before "Skin Deep," but it's the only way I can see to reconcile the continuities of the various titles.

I am also assuming that this novel takes place not long after the previous two Spidey novels from Pocket Star, Down These Mean Streets by Keith R.A. DeCandido and The Darkest Hours by Jim Butcher.

It's pure coincidence that all three of us chose to set our novels in that same narrow timeframe between the start of MJ's theatrical career and the start of Spidey's Avengers career. I guess that was pretty much the last moment when a book could be set in the JMS era without having to worry about complicated cross-series continuity and format changes like Avengers membership and organic webbing. There was nothing to preclude setting our books even earlier, but I guess we all wanted to be as current with the status quo as we could comfortably be while still telling accessible, standalone Spidey stories.

 

[paudemge]

put me in the mechanical department. But I'm ok with organic in the movies