Posted by Anika
For our Revisit Challenge I chose to re-read Civil War, by Mark Millar and Steve McNiven, because whenever it comes up, whatever the topic, I want to jump into the debate. I have Opinions (!) — about the set up, and the secret identity debate, and the Superhuman Registration Act, and the sides, and the characterizations, and the resolution, and the repercussions, and everything else — and I want to share them. I want to discuss them. But I often shy away from it because I worry that my Opinions (!) are based in something other than the material. In earlier debates and discussions, in later character arcs or storylines, in other stories I’ve read, or even in my own contrarian personality. Any of which are valid, but I’d like to know where my arguments came from and why they were formed before I argue them.
Iron Man and Captain America are the leaders in Civil War, but this is a story about Spider-Man.
On paper Civil War seems to be about blurring the line between hero and villain. There are heroes and villains on both sides and no matter who wins, everybody loses. But within the main argument — should super-humans be super-regulated or is that (to steal a line from X-Men) licensing them to live? — is the matter of responsibility. It is a throughline of the story. Here are some examples:
• Tony Stark makes a big show of taking ALL responsibility for EVERYTHING but isn’t he really just taking control?
• Steve Rogers cries Freedom! and fights the Act because he believes he has a responsibility to protect the superhuman community’s civil liberties. Then he surrenders because he realizes what he is actually responsible for.
• Reed Richards spends almost the entirety of Civil War ignoring or debating his responsibilities. Sue Storm abandons her responsibility to her children.
• Hank and Jan Pym are poster-children for failing to take responsibility; Hank’s Get Out of Trouble Free card was maxed out years ago but Jan is always there to hand over a new one. They just have to show up to prove the point. (And isn’t this Skrull!Hank anyway?)
• The Punisher is a poster-child for taking responsibility when it may not be his right; his justice is the only justice. He also merely needs to be a part of it.
• And Peter Parker, THE poster-child for the concept of superpower responsibility, personifies the arc of accountability in Civil War. He proudly unmasks to the world, choosing to side with accountability over freedom because with great power comes great responsibility. But when it becomes clear that another well-known saying about power — that it corrupts — is equally as true he takes responsibility for his choice and his role in the corruption of superheroing and joins the revolution.
Peter spent years alone, being called a public menace as often as a public servant. Being Spider-Man was often a thankless job. It required a level of detachment that was hard on, sometimes deadly to, relationships. It kept him from pursuing other interests: his science, his photography, a family. And (to steal a line from The Incredibles) no matter how often he saved the city, it always required more saving.
Then he joined the Avengers – sorta kinda – and suddenly he had acceptance, mentoring, downtime, equipment he didn’t have to make up and maintain in his living room, and most importantly a buffer between his life as Spider-Man and his reality as Peter Parker. Mary Jane wasn’t his only respite, so their relationship wasn’t as strained. He could relax. He could be himself.
Then the SHRA debate came up. On one side is a return to public distrust and anger, and living a double life in hiding, and on the other side is living and working within the law instead of above it, and public and (presumed) heroic approval. Revealing his secret identity seems an acceptable price when the reward is living up to Uncle Ben’s philosophy about great responsibility. Not revealing it seems an unbearable cost if it means abandoning that philosophy.
I’m disappointed in you, Peter.
Not as disappointed as I am in myself.- Tony Stark and Peter Parker; Civil War 5
But there is more to the equation. Responsibility does not end with making the choice to be responsible. That’s just lip service. Though it takes years for everything to play out, this is where Tony loses and where Peter wins. Tony — and Reed, and Hank, and even Carol later with Mighty Avengers, all of them — had good ideas and ideals alongside the ridiculously bad ones like cloning Thor. Creating a structure for superhuman accountability is not an unreasonable concept. But the Registration Act was poorly conceived and rushed into. The 50 States Initiative was implemented too quickly. The number of rebels was underestimated and frankly, that should have given them pause. Letting known supervillains out of prison to round up known superheroes into prison was a BAD IDEA. The Pro-Registratoin Triumverate were (to steal a quote from Jurassic Park) so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should (In that same rant in the movie, Dr. Malcom accuses Hammond of not taking responsibility for what he’s let loose on the world — i.e. bloodthirsty clones).
Peter saw this. What he signed up for is not what he got. He wasn’t alone in that — there were a bunch of heroes on both sides who switched ships as the War went on — but his is the most revelatory. Cap has an arc and calls an end to the hostilities but he doesn’t change his mind, he just gives in for the greater good. Reed and Sue have an arc but it has little to do with the underlying story. Most everyone else, including Tony, are caught up in the madness for better or worse (mostly worse). Peter is special. Peter’s arc is very clear if you pay attention to his costume changes.
• He wears the Iron Spider suit in the initial set up. He is a team player.
• He wears his classic costume at the press conference when he reveals his secret identity. He is the poster-child for (great) responsibility.
• He wears his Iron Spider suit when fighting on Iron Man’s side, and when he is beaten. Both messages are crystal clear.
• He wears his classic costume when fighting on Captain America’s side. Still the poster-child despite the shift in loyalties.
• He wears his Black Spider suit in the last panels. He is neither the idealistic kid he was nor the shiny new hero he thought he was supposed to be. He has entered a dark time and we are all going with him.
There are a lot of things I could complain about in Civil War. But I don’t read comics to complain about them. And I certainly don’t re-read comics to complain about them. If anyone would like to discuss or debate a particular, I now feel ready. Otherwise I am content with my thesis that it is all about Spider-Man’s clothes.
Posted by Anika
email: anika@fantasticfangirls.org
twitter: magnetgirl
I really like the way you look at this, through the lens of Peter’s choice and the power/responsibility dichotomy. Question: did you reread the CW: Spider-Man tie in or just the main series? I have very mixed feelings about the way Peter’s change of heart is portrayed in the tie-in.
I think the point about Tony’s responsibility dilemma really being about control is a great one. I really honestly LOVE the first issue of Civil War, Miriam Sharpe’s condemnation of Tony and the way he reacts. I think it’s a great portrayal of somebody making a really questionable decision for what he thinks are good reasons (which is sort of the story of Tony’s life, and also plays into the ways that he is and isn’t like Bruce Wayne). There’s a certain point after which I stopped being able to take Civil War seriously, but I think the setup was quite fascinating.
@Caroline – I didn’t read the tie-in, I just really liked the picture.
I love the setup and I am glad they allowed Tony’s side to win so there wasn’t the return to the status quo right away, there was some play. And the ridiculous was easier to ignore in the re-read.
You might be interested in the tie-in, and also the “Road to Civil War” leadup story involving Tony and Peter. It doesn’t make a whole lot of SENSE in some places, but there’s interesting stuff going on with the two of them. (It’s actually also the main reason that I resented ‘One More Day’ because it reset Tony & Peter’s relationship — though at this point Tony’s had a reset or two of his own, so it’s somewhat moot.)
I don’t think the ridiculousness I saw was so much the content of the main miniseries itself (which I think is a little thin in motivation after the first issue but basically structurally sound) so much as the hype with its very strained attempts to correlate directly to political things that were happening at the time, and the volume of tie-ins that did not seem to be on the same page even about what literally was happening, much less why anyone was doing what they were doing. Basically, I think the main series is not fleshed out enough to be satisfying, and if you manage the Herculean task of reading all or even a good percentage of the tie-ins, you’ll find that they’re not necessarily even telling you the same story.
On a purely evil note, I’d recommend the MightyGodKing remix of the series, which actually backs up your view … albeit more snarkily.
@Caroline I don’t think I read any of the tie-ins at the time, except Ms. Marvel. In the main story I remember saying I only cared about Sue Storm and that she should run away with Steve Rogers. There was certainly too much hype and too much politicalization of it — two things that at the time got in the way of my enjoyment of it AND made it hard for me to have anything resembling a civil discussion on the merits of the SHRA, even with my friends.
But I will look up those suggested because I <3 Spidey and I also love/miss the relationship between Tony and Peter.
@Art Haha, I will give it a look later.
I had my friend Kristin make this summary of the Spidey storyline at the the time:
I WISH the story had played out more like you described in the article — I think Peter having a crisis of conscience would be really interesting, but to me he was just too naive at the start and it played more as a weird mind game with him and Tony than it did as using Peter as our POV character for the big issues in the ‘war’ (which is what, as your post suggests, I think they wanted to do).
Though for that reason I really do like the cover with Tony and Steve on either end of the couch watching TV and Peter uncomfortably in the middle.
Great read, your opinion(!) actually brought some new things (for me) to the table. I actually like Civil War, I thought the premise was brilliant, although, yes, at a certain point Millar goes back to being Millar, which is what he always does. But I do think this is one of the moments where he kept it together mostly, along with Red Son, and is my favourite work of his.
I think the pitch is so brilliant, no matter how twisted and how disappointing the ending was, you’d still be hooked. I still have to re-read it, though, and will do as soon as I can.
There’s actually an issue of ASM leading up to this where we see Iron Man paying off a villain – Whiplash, I believe it was – to instigate an easily beaten-down threat in order to sell the case for the SHRA to both Congress and to Peter.
Except that Tony at the time was arguing AGAINST SHRA. He abruptly changed his position after Stamford.
Great article, Anika. I haven’t yet been brave enough to reread Civil War myself again (despite my Q&A answer a few weeks ago!), but I really like your view of this as Peter’s story. I think it definitely has a clearer emotional arc, when you put it this way, than it does if you try to look at all the pieces at once, and though Peter’s story isn’t the one I myself focused on (obviously I was in it for Steve and Tony), I like the idea that he’s the focal point, despite it being a story about a lot of other things — much like House of M is, in between everything else, a great Wolverine story.
Caroline and Boy Named Art: it was Titanium Man he paid, and as Caroline says, it wasn’t in support of SHRA but against it, this being pre-Stamford; also, Peter suspected as much because the timing – comittee argues against superheroes, supervillain shows up, Spider-man and Iron Man fight supervillain off, thus demonstrating superheroes are useful, comittee agrees to delay SHRA for a while longer – was just too convenient.
Annika, great article. I, too, reccomen reading “The Road to Civil War” which has a lot of Peter and Tony (and also an in retrospect rather crucial and highly ironic conversation between Tony and Maria Hill in which she asks him “how long before the Green Goblin is Spider-man’s fault?” when they debate what to do about the Hulk). Peter does have the clearest arc, only I do wish the later part was written more subtly, but what else is new…
An interesting take, but also a very selective, incomplete one. It really is amazing how in discussing Peter’s decision to unmask and the consequences thereof the aspect of how it affected Peter Parker and those who know him is not mentioned and considered at all, even though that was (in)famously used as a lever to get rid of the Spider-Marriage and to make everybody, including most of those who knew before Civil War, forget that Peter is Spider-Man, or even that Peter changed to the black costume because as a direct consequence of his unmasking Aunt May was shot.
Maybe this is because it is an aspect that was downplayed or downright ignored/repressed in the main story and Millar and McNiven wanted to deal with the issues “abstractly”, but the fact of the matter is that Peter behaved incredibly irresponsibly. He debated the matter with his wife and aunt beforehand, but the decision to unmask in public was built on completely unrealistic assumptions as far as the ability of Stark et al. to safeguard their private lives was concerned – within a couple of issues, MJ could kiss her acting career goodbye and both she and Aunt May had to defend themselves against attacks by Spider-Man’s enemies as the bodyguards assigned to them proved unequal to their job. But worse than that, Peter did not think it even necessary to consult or forewarn any of the other members of his family (e.g. MJ’s sister, father and nephews) and circle of friends (the Black Cat certainly was angry when she found out) who were turned into instant targets by the announcement, let alone take steps for their protection. And sure enough, shortly afterwards, a group of villains attacked Liz Osborn and endangered her son Normie (who, as it happens, is Peter and MJ’s godson).
Menshevik, the purpose of the exercise was to re-read and discuss one story. My take may be selective but it is not incomplete as none of the consequences were addressed in the seven issues I re-read (as was pointed out in previous comments I did not even read or address any of the direct Civil War tie-ins).
I don’t speak for Millar and McNiven.
The fact of the matter is your reading and opinion of the text are different from mine. And that’s fine. I personally believe it is an unrealistic assumption to think that any identity could be considered secret from supervillains. I personally believe it is up to Mary Jane to decide if being married to Peter Parker is worth the risk of being Spider-Man’s wife. I personally believe the most responsible thing any superhero can do is treat it like a job and not a title (or entitlement) — whether that means having a secret ID or not. These personal beliefs color my reading of the text and my writing of this post. YMMV.
Millar’s and McNiven’s failure to adress the consequences that Peter had to consider when he decided to unmask in public is not an excuse; it amounts to a huge plot-hole that should have been chalked up as such at least in passing. Even if you choose to ignore the tie-ins it was entirely foreseeable that various supervillains (and even some of the non-powered criminals whom Spider-Man put behind bars by the boatload) would use the information to get their revenge by attacking people connected to him on a personal or even professional level (e.g. the students at Midtown High). On one level this is basic superhero writing, on the other this is what Peter should have known better after being a superhero for at least ten years story time. That this matter was not addressed at all in “Civil War” (or indeed, as far as I am aware, in any of the tie-ins, at least not sufficiently) leaves Peter’s boneheaded, reckless and irresponsible decision insufficiently motivated and we don’t even know if Millar and McNiven wanted to portray Peter as so stupid as to not consider what could go wrong (let alone give a heads up to those who knew him or, perish forbid, initiate measures for the protection of anybody besides Aunt May and MJ) beforehand, whether they wanted to imply that Tony Stark was unscrupulously getting Peter either by persuasion or emotional blackmail to make a decision no matter what the consequences and “collateral damage” or whether Millar and McNiven themselves chose to proceed even though the decision made no sense and did not even bother to think about it. (Millar had himself not that long before written a story in which MJ was taken hostage by the Green Goblin, so he really has no excuse).
You did not have to read the tie-ins to see how wrong the decision was. If nothing actually had happened to people close to Peter during Civil War (which would have been very implausible indeed), then it stood to reason that something similar could and would have happened later, but still as a consequence of the unmasking.
I didn’t read “Civil War” at the time (just some of the tie-ins) and now really have no intention of doing so, so I don’t know if it mentioned that Spider-Man put on his black costume again because Aunt May was shot. If it didn’t, then that would be a good argument for saying that the story is in itself incomplete. But to complete those aspects, it would not have been necessary to read the Spider-Man-related tie-ins, as synopses should be available online and indeed to discover the reason why Spidey put on his black costume all it takes is to look up the wikipedia entry on Civil War.
Whether or not you consider it realistic, at the time most supervillains (to say nothing of the non-powered ones) did not know that Peter Parker is Spider-Man and there really was no way of foretelling what they might do on receiving the information. Millar and McNiven at least could have made a semblance of Peter considering the inherent risks.
Menshevik — I’m not getting into a thing about this — I think you have some good points about the way the unmasking was handled — but I think it’s going a little far to make statements about what Millar & McNiven did in a book you admit you haven’t read. True?
Well, I’m not going to pursue the matter any more. To finish up from my side: all my criticisms about “Civil War” #1-7 are based on your summary and interpretation. If it is true that “none of the consequences were addressed in the seven issues”, then what I said about Millar’s and McNiven’s failure to address these consequences is valid criticism. Where you did not make a definite statement (e.g. as to whether the shooting of Aunt May was mentioned as the reason for putting on the black costume), I couched my points conditionally. You can decide for yourself whether or not they in fact apply based on your knowledge of the story, and indeed you can and may should regard them not as apodictic statements but as questions. I may not know what exactly is in the story, but I do know some points that should have been addressed in it for it to make any sense.
In a maxi-crossover such as Civil War it is not enough for Spider-Man’s unmasking to make some kind of sense within the context of these seven issues but disregarding anything else. It was, after all, a complete break with Spider-Man’s attitude about keeping his identity a secret in his entire existence from 1962 up until then and the concerns that had motivated him to do his best to ensure that it did stay secret were familiar to the readers. So the reasons why he chose to disregard them in order to unmask on TV had to be explained, and did Millar really do that? The argument about responsibility and accountability could have been answered by merely registering, unmasking on TV was an unnecessary step further that Peter had extremely good and urgent reasons to avoid.