TrueMarvel

I don't know if it's really ON PAR with the flash, just comparable. Plus, aside from the DCAU, I don't recall a mainstream continuity where Supes WASN'T really really smart, though it was down played a lot.

Also, you take that back about Wonder Woman right now.

Was away at a con so didn't see this thread until today. Thought I'd toss in my $0.02.

I can't truly say that Slott is a bad writer, because I enjoyed Big Time a lot as well as Spider Island. But, just because you write some good stories, that doesn't mean you

only

write good stories. Quite the contrary, evidently.

The problem, for me, actually starts WAY before ASM 700, back in ASM 655. In the end of that issue Peter Parker makes the most annoyingly naive, stupid and completely unrealistic vow ever: ".. Whenever I'm around, wherever I am... ... no one dies!". Leading up to that we have an issue largely consisting of a dreamscape/mindscape checklist of events gone by and oh I wonder if we will ever see

that

again

.

The vow is stupid because it's completely unrealistic. After a lifetime of being Spider-Man, Peter would know this. Of course it's up to interpretation how far reaching the creed of "With great power... etc" reaches, but if you ask me, the vow Peter makes is something a child would say. Someone who doesn't yet understand that the unpredictable nature of life can cut anyone down at any time. Peter is far too intelligent to not see the flaw in that sort of vow. Sure, he was wrought with emotion at the time, but that's not an excuse. There's a reason I called "With great power..." a creed. That saying has guided almost everything Spider-Man has done and lived through. A vow is something you say, a creed is something you live.

Jumping forward to ASM 698-700 and "Superior". I'm not sure where to start really. Upon reflection I think the best place to start is at the end of 700, where Octopus lives through Peter's life as if it was his.

It's not just that Peter died. It's

how

he died and

why

. His death was nothing more than just another step in the plan for Slott to get to write the character he wanted to write, with no respect for the legacy of the character. Some may snort at the use of the word legacy, but think about it. Spider-Man MADE Marvel. He's the flagship character of the company, or at least was. With so many years worth of stories under his belt, so many peoples lives touched in whichever ways, calling it anything but a legacy is unfair. And how does he leave? Beaten, broken, knowing that no one he loves is aware he's dying and alone. You ask why a fictional characters death upsets people so much. I have answered that partly, but before I continue doing so, I want to ask. If a characters death means so little, why should you even read comics or stories? Is it because it's a comic? Is it fine for people to get emotionally attached to characters in books and films, but not comics?

But, it's not just that he died, he is replaced with a contemptible asshole. Yeah, that's awesome. Octopus didn't earn his stripes. He took a uniform from the laundry and wrestled his gut into it, and it hardly fits.

The showing ofOctopus living through Peter's memories isn't just borderline offensive (for perspective, I try to avoid using the word offensive because it's often used far too loosely imho) it's also a rehash of Slott falling back on story mechanics he's used far too often, as well as just ridiculous because in the end, it doesn't fucking stick. Sure, say what you want to say. Octopus is still Octopus, and I agree with you. But if you're going to go as far as using Peter's past to influence Octopus, at least make it fucking stick somewhere. Not that it'd matter really, because I felt disgusted enough to drop everything Spider-Man related after 700, at least in terms of giving the fuckers my money for shit I don't want.

As for this stupid damn argument: "We all know he'll be back."

Sure yeah, Peter'll be back sometime. So? Does that magically make Slott's assholery okay? Does it negate the ridiculous story choices? Three words. "No", and "hell no".

My reaction to it is similar to the question about why a fictional characters death bothers people. If my reaction to a bad story should be "I'll just wait till they reset the mythos and start fucking things up again. Then repeat."

Why would I want to keep reading? Well the answer is "I don't." I can't take this argument seriously, because it shows such a lack of standards, and again, the issue isn't that Peter died. If you (this is a general use of "you" btw) can't grasp that then I can't help you. To me, this argument is akin to the beaten housewife who defends their abusive husband.

Moving on to Slott's trolling of the fans. It wasn't enough that he writes something that made people furious, he had to pour gasoline on the fire. Why? Sales? Probably.

It's just mean spirited and unnecessary. Which brings me to my closing thoughts. Slott does not understand "With great power comes great responsibility." He may have used it in his writing, but he sure as fuck don't understand the meaning behind the words. Let's take his little trolling foray as an example, because it fits perfectly. Slott has the power to write Spider-Man the way he wants. He has the power to say what he wants about it. What does he do with that power? He points and laughs at people who have a legitimate beef with him. He points and laughs at people that are upset that a character that they have looked up to for so long, has been treated in the worst possible way. He laughs, and that's what sends me up a fucking wall.

The idea that this mean spirited asshole is in creative control of the character that almost singlehandedly made me choose to become an artist, it makes me sick.

Sorry for the rant, but you wanted to know. Now you do.

What FlashDamn says strikes a chord with me as well. Aside from anything else, Peter Parker stood for something, not just within Spider-Man but within comics and the whole Marvel world in general. His death may be fictional, but so was his life, and that never stopped him from making a tangible impact on lives. To kill Peter Parker -- and in such an, as you put it, undignified way at that -- signifies the death not just of a character but of many things that Pete alone stood for, and things which Marvel as a whole once represented. As FlashDamn notes, Peter was a relatable character for many young people. Reading a Spider-Man comic gave them hope and inspiration to be something bigger and better, not out of hubris or a desire for power or dominance, but simply because the capacity to be good and to help people was itself a charge to do that good -- with great power, comes great responsibility.

No kid can pick up today's Spider-Man comic and be imbued with that lesson. It has been robbed from them, not merely by the absence of Peter but by the way in which that absence was achieved: by Peter himself being declared inferior to Otto, by his entire past and legacy literally being killed to make way for an ostensibly "better" way of being a hero -- one which is all about hubris and ego, one which paints good not as a goal in and of itself, but as a side effect of displaying power, even if the means to achieving that greater good are themselves not. It's bad enough to have Otto proclaiming himself the superior Spider-Man, but to have Peter more or less concede it as he's eradicated is so much worse.

Look at the way Slott interacts with readers and fans (someone posted videos recently, and his Twitter account is an open book) versus the way Lee has and does. The "torch" has been passed, but it's in a completely different kind of race. Lee's legacy was about inspiring young people and making the world a better place; what lessons or greatness or responsibility is Slott passing on to the current generation of young readers? And along that line of thinking, what is today's Marvel in general speaking into society, compared with what they were speaking, say, thirty years ago?

Peter Parker's death may be fictional, but it is also a perfect, tragic metaphor for how Marvel as a whole has died to what it originally stood for. And perhaps that's why I hate this so-called "Superior" Spider-Man, because it gives me a clear, immediate example of the less tangible, but equally loathesome attitude of the entire company that produces it: a company which, like Otto, believes that its new face is superior to the old one. They may call their fans "True Believers" but given what the company's become I can't help but see a lot of bad faith.