EVERYTHING YOU THOUGHT YOU KNEW ABOUT SPIDER-MAN IS WRONG...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Y'know, something about SPIDER-MAN's origin that never really gelled with me was the idea that he had the proportionate powers of a spider - simply because he was bitten by a radioactive one.  Sure, he certainly manifested similar abilities, though didn't possess the natural physical 'equipment' to produce his own webbing, making the first movie ridiculous in that respect, despite STAN LEE saying that he thought it was an improvement.

Therefore, if (for the sake of discussion) we accept the original notion that he got his powers from the spider, he could obviously only replicate its abilities in as much as his own human make-up would allow him to.  But if that's true, then how did he manage to walk up walls while wearing gloves and (originally) thick-treaded boots?

Furthermore, whenever he was crawling on a ceiling, wouldn't his weight have brought it down, especially in offices where polystyrene ceiling tiles hid the electrical wires for air-conditioning and overhead lighting?  It doesn't really make much sense.  (I hear you - does any superhero concept?)  But we're not stuck with the 'official' explanation if we don't want to be.

My own opinion (despite what the comics may now suggest) is that it was simply the radiation that imbued PETER with enhanced powers, not the spider - it was merely the 'messenger'.  The radiation allowed him to transcend his human limitations and do things that he otherwise wouldn't be able to.  Walking up walls?  That was as a result of Peter having some kind of 'psionic' force that allowed him to defy gravity to a limited extent.

You see, in my view, because Peter saw the spider, it had a psychological influence on the way he understood and 'rationalised' his enhanced abilities.  Potentially, if he hadn't been limited by his own perceptions of what a spider can do (disproportionate strength and speed, the ability to cling to surfaces), he might have manifested even greater powers - like being able to fly for example.  (Even his so-called 'spider-sense' is merely a form of ESP.)  

What I'm suggesting is that the spider was merely the conduit for the radiation that gave him his powers, not the source itself.  The radiation affected his metabolism, increased his strength and speed, and also imbued him with the ability to develop just about whatever enhanced attributes he could imagine (within reason).  Now, though, his powers have become established and can't evolve further.

Anyway, I think there's great story potential in my idea.  I'd love to see a tale where Peter discovers he's a 'child of the atom', not the spider, and that the arachnid merely influenced how he interpreted his radiation-induced powers, and wasn't the genetic source of them itself.  What say the rest of you Criv-ites?  Let loose the dogs of dissent in the comments section.

WHEN JACK KIRBY GOT IT WRONG...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

JACK KIRBY, for all his strengths as an artist, also had quite a few weaknesses.  His covers had impact, but sometimes they weren't that well-drawn and didn't always bear scrutiny.  Jack was a lazy artist in some ways - not that he didn't put a lot of 'detail' into his pencils (or a lot of hours in at the drawing board), but he often never took the time to draw things properly.  (Leaving out fingernails for example - it was usually the inker who added them.)

Controversial you think?  Well, consider the facts.  Was it really beyond Jack's skill as an artist to look at how STEVE DITKO drew SPIDER-MAN and reproduce Spidey's webbing in his own drawings?  Was he really incapable of looking at how SUPERMAN's hair and 'S' symbol were drawn by CURT SWAN and replicate them in his own strips?  I don't think so, he merely couldn't be bothered trying.  That's certainly a form of laziness.

But look at all the detail in surviving stats of his pencils, you say.  Yeah, but some of it was 'pseudo-detail', intended just to fill space - dashed off with the broad end of a pencil with no finesse.  A lot of the time it worked, but, also, a lot of the time it didn't.  Generic squiggly lines to denote the gleam of armour or metal, areas of abstract shapes to denote shadows, but bearing no relation to what cast them.

Take a look at the cover of AMAZING FANTASY #15 (above) for example.  Spidey's mask looks okay, but that's down to Ditko inking Jack's pencils.  However, that left arm and hand are far too long, and the webbing on the sleeve is in the wrong place.  Also, his right leg (even allowing for foreshortening) is too thin compared to his left, his boots appear to be of different lengths, and the guy tucked under his arm is a dwarf, whose legs look as if they're growing out the front of his lower abdomen.

So bad is that KARLOFF-faced figure, that I've often wondered whether that was the way Jack drew him; could Steve have redrawn the legs under instruction from Stan?  Surely he'd have done a better job?  Yeah, the cover has impact, but it's very far from being one of Jack's better drawings.  What say the rest of you?

Kirby pencilled Supe's face okay - it was the hair that never looked
right, and the parting sometimes jumped from one side to the other