Spider-Man (of the Peter Parker variety) is by far my favorite comic book character. I have read the first 7 volumes of Marvel Masterworks: The Amazing Spider-Man and many more comics from a bunch of different runs. Peter Parker is a great character and I enjoy reading ASM.

But I'm having a hard time understanding all the vitriol about Superior Spider-Man that I've seen in my months lurking here. I will say that I do enjoy reading Superior Spider-Man and I think the writing is normally great. I understand the problems people have with the writing. I agree that Mary Jane has become quite stupid. Ock can be exaggeratedly pompous. I do think that Peter's death (not the one in ASM 700, the one in SSM 9) should have been a bit more dignified. But what I don't understand is why everyone is so attached to a fictional character that this much emotion is shown when the fictional character fictionally (and reversibly...) dies. It seems very irrational to me, so I know there must be more to it. I have a genuine desire to understand this sentiment in the context of the individual.

So please tell me: why has a fictional character's "death" elicited this emotional response from you, personally?

It is because this fictional character was a part of their personality. I will elaborate more on that because when I was a kid I was kind of Like peter the whole not popular high school thing but what he does gave me confidence, strength, and willpower that even a guy like him or me can do something great and so losing him isn't that end of the world deal but it is still a big deal as you can feel a part of your soul ripped apart. So I hope that explains your question

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.

Please tell me you're not getting Stan Lee being disgusted from that Twitter exchange where he jokes with Slott about having only one good piece of writing in his house...

@impy: Grew up with this character, he was the first super hero I ever found interesting, He was the first one that stood out to me when I was 3 years old and yes I remember the first time I saw him perfectly.

It's not the costume that I found cool, it's the man, the personality behind the mask I enjoyed. If you get rid of that then why would I like him, so there's one reason it bugged me.

I don't HATE superior with a passion, but like I said in another thread, it's just Otto blabbing on how perfect he is, his ego getting in the way, and then the situation blows up in his face or he is humbled some how, and then next issue he is back to blabbing on how great he is.

Don't get me wrong some of the stuff Pete tried to do annoyed me as well, but not having him as spider-man is something I miss.


I admit when I first heard the news I was upset, but I didn't take it to insane levels like other people, and after reading a few "rude" posts Slott said to people, they didn't turn out to be that rude at all. One fan said he would boycott spider-man now,

Slott replied with something along the lines of in order for your boycott to work you would have to stop associating yourself with marvel altogether, which is now owned by Disney so they would have to boycott Disney as well, which you all know Disney owns a heck of a lot.

Was it polite, no not at all, but it was accurate. The "fan" proceeded to argue, and then slot also pointed out they were arguing on a marvel board, with advertisements so logging on to the board to argue only harmed his point further.

As I read on it was just fans like this who didn't do any research but going on how everyone should boycott or protest and give up all things marvel, but they picked and chose what to give up. In all honesty some of the things the upset fans say are stupid as hell.

Stories from 30 years don't work today, I tried reading them they bored me, it was basically fighting for truth and justice in every issue narrating literally every move they make. Mono-logging like no tomorrow. Do I like the idea of Peter being dead, no I hate it, but I would be lying if I said this octo spidey wasn't something new and interesting at times.

I'm liking SSM the people who have such blind hatred for it are just being butt hurt over nothing, we all know Peter is coming back eventually.

Hey, if you'd ever like to address, specifically, the specific points presented by people in this thread, that'd be cool.

Because last I checked, no one who hates this series has claimed to hate it because they view Peter's death as permanent. But that (imaginary) reason is the only one you addressed.

We know that peter will be back but, these series of books are s**ting on peter himself and his supporting cast just to make Doc Ock look good.

@akbogert: I was talking in general about the people I've seen in other threads who seemed to have biased hatred for it, I didn't really read the posts in this thread because they are really long and I just woke up.

But I will say this, I think its better to judge something after its happened when you can look back on it to see if it was really that bad or good.

omg the hero is losing in a story

this has never happened before ever in history

@tacos_kickass: Well, posting in a thread you haven't read isn't usually a good thing. Particularly if what you say is going to be seen as dismissive of the majority of things said in the thread. And if you read what people wrote, most of them are upset about what has already happened, not where the story is eventually going. Their reason for hatred is reasonable and based on concrete things, not on their fear of what's to come.

@flashdamn: That certainly helps. Thanks for your post.

Thanks a lot for taking the time to make that long reply. I read it all.

I disagree with your statement that what Marvel once stood for is dead. I don't think an entire company can be represented by the individual characters it publishes or owns. Just because Marvel publishes the Punisher, does that mean they promote killing as a way of purifying the world of evil? Just because they publish Deadpool, does that mean they advocate insane jokesters slicing people to pieces without scruples? No. Therefore, just because Marvel publishes Superior Spider-Man, or Avengers Arena, or Age of Ultron, or Thanos Rising doesn't mean that they advocate the behaviors exhibited by the protagonists in those series.

I do agree that Peter's death should have been handled better. BUT there is still time for his legacy to be recognized. It hasn't even been one issue since his memories were wiped. Who can say yet whether or not Peter will still matter in the series or not? I sure hope he will. He needs to be recognized for who he was: a hero.

The message I get from Dan Slott is not that he thinks Otto is a betterhero than Peter, but that he believes him to be a more efficient hero. I think in order to properly recognize Peter's comic book legacy, Slott needs to gradually make Octavius see things Pete's way more and more. If he became a Peter Parker clone, that wouldn't be interesting at all, so there still needs to be a halfway-reformed-villain element. If that happens, he will, in my eyes, truly become the Superior Spider-Man.

@innervenom123: After review of Lee's Twitter feed, I stand corrected. I apologize for my misinformation. OP edited.

Spider-Man was also my first superhero. I always found him particularly compelling because of his powers, costume, wit, that immortal mantra, and mental problems. Just like nearly any other character, he is very flawed. Towards the end of ASM, we saw him being very aggressive and stressed-out. Even when Stan Lee was writing him, he killed a guy. (Spectacular Spider-Man Vol. 1 #1)

I do miss Pete as Spider-Man. I really hope that he will get a new body and can fight crime alongside Otto. I get the warm fuzzies just thinking about that.

Like I said in another thread, the haters on those Marvel forums are just plain stupid. Thank God there are actually intelligent people on here who don't like SSM to answer my question.

I suppose the key to my perspective is that Marvel publishes all of those books -- they make up a major portion of what they're selling and focusing on (advertising-wise) right now. They make up a major core of Marvel's current business plan and I hate them all. And it's that big picture, far more than any one book, which leads me to say what I say. And while the X-books which I read aren't inherently bad, if you consider the events (like Schism and AvX) which made them possible, again, Marvel has come a long way, where its primary foci are death and hero-v-hero rather than hope and hero-v-evil. If you read 8 issues of, say, Ultimate Spider-Man, and 8 issues of Superior Spider-Man, you would get vastly different messages from the two of them. Both were series ostensibly created for new readers, but only one of them provides a positive, affirming message to young people. You may argue that SSM represents a trough in the life of Spider-Man which will eventually be overcome, but as a Marvel NOW flagship Spider-Man title, this could well be many people's first Spider-Man story, and its messaging is terrible from that perspective.

Added to that, you have Slott's behavior (highlighted elsewhere) and his pseudo-mockery of the people who were upset when he proposed killing Parker in the first place, and yeah, it's a bit grating. If Parker had simply died in ASM 700, I wouldn't hate SSM half as much as I do. So like I said, it's not just that Peter is dead, but the way he was killed (and issue 9 in particular) which truly made me hate this book.

A post by dan, responding to people asking why he hates Peter/Spider-man

"Hi, Spider-f.

Good first post! To answer your question, this is a story I seeded for 100 issues (starting back in ASM #600). It's one I feel very passionate about-- because I think it's going to lead to interesting developments. End of the day, that's why any writer makes the choices that they do.

Of course I'm a big Spider-Man, Peter Parker, and Mary Jane fan. Hopefully if you had a chance to read the 100+ appearances/stories I've written of the Peter Parker version of Spider-Man that comes through. Look at the 5 issues of the SPIDER-MAN/HUMAN TORCH mini-series-- that alone is like one big, long love-letter to the character.

Sometimes these characters go through the proverbial ringer. And it doesn't mean the writer DOESN'T love them. Think of all the times you've had Peter go through scenes where he's Bag-Head Spider-Man, or his costume rips over his butt, or a pigeon poops on him. That's not a writer hating on Spider-Man. Life's a collection of good and bad-- and no character has quite as much bad happen to him as the one who literally coined the phrase "The Parker Luck."

As for Ashley Kafka? Recently a fan at the C2E2 Convention asked the question "Why?! Why did you have to kill Ashley Kafka?" And not 10 minutes went by before Ashley Kafka's creator, J. Marc DeMatteis, sent me a tweet saying, "Tell him I said it was okay!" Marc then went on to list all of the characters he "killed" during his run on Spidey.

Sometimes bad things happen to good people. It's a truth in life and sometimes that gets reflected in comics too.

Hope this answered your question.

ttyl

Dan"


WOW what a JERK! writing stories involving peter having bad luck :P

"Or why should we hate peter being completely erased! IT'S AWESOME RIGHT!????!?!!? no....it isn't."

But if he's going to come back what's the problem with that? If he comes back from not existing this is just another amazing thing Peter would have accomplished.

Its a story. I find it hard to grasp that one can't find anything enjoyable about an obviously temporary story arc.

"Damn that Jean Paul Valley! He's too violent and he disrespects Tim and Alfred! He even kills, something Bruce Wayne would never do! Doug Moench is totally disrepecting Bruce's legacy!"

"Damn that Metropolis Kid, Last Son of Krypton, Man of Steel, and Hero of Tommorrow! Dan Jurgens is totally disrespecting Clark Kent's legacy!"

I'd be a bit less hostile toward it if Slott wasn't being such a dick about it

I don't like the direction the story is going in. I don't like how Slott writes SpOck. I am dismayed at Peter's supporting cast or his fellow superheroes not smelling a rat. And I am livid at Slott for making Peter Parker care more about his life than saving a little girl when time and time again Peter has selflessly acted to prioritise others over himself. If Slott really loved the character, he wouldn't have had Peter behave like this.

#

#

This guys said it beat

Additionally:During an interview, When Slott was rationalizing the aftermatch of SSM #9 it made me realize just how much he didn't understand about spiderman/peter parker as a character and and the reason behind his origins and theme.

I hate the direction of the story and how Slott handles things.The supporting cast is writen really poor and Mary Jane is looking like a real idiot.And also the way Slott actually tries to make Doc Ock the good guy and somehow turning things around and making Pete the douche.

True, and I would be pissed if this was a permanent change. I am honestly happy hating Ock, his plan worked for once, so when spider-man the real spider-man comes back it will be in a glorious manner that will make fans cheer.

Honestly at first I was bothered by it, but now this is nothing more than a villain who's plan worked for once, but in the end he will still lose, it's just a matter of when, I find that better then a 4 part mini with this plot:

"oh no a bad guy is here, better send spider-man in, spider-man is losing, nevermind he won"

spider-man is dead, he is literally coming back from the after life to claim his victory. That to me will be something fantastic to witness

Also this interested me

"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."

Octavious is a bad guy with a big ego, why wouldn't he consider himself to be superior. Should he not act in the manner he always does? Should he act humble now? Should they write him out of character? By making him act the way he always does marvel is being accused of believing this is the new and improved spider-man when technically all they did was write a villain who's plan actually worked for once.

@theacidskull: That's fine, you I understand where you're coming from. Some people just think it's going to be this way forever.

This second post isn't directed towards you but it was interesting, didn't want to make a double post.

"Hi, Spider-f.

Good first post! To answer your question, this is a story I seeded for 100 issues (starting back in ASM #600). It's one I feel very passionate about-- because I think it's going to lead to interesting developments. End of the day, that's why any writer makes the choices that they do.

Of course I'm a big Spider-Man, Peter Parker, and Mary Jane fan. Hopefully if you had a chance to read the 100+ appearances/stories I've written of the Peter Parker version of Spider-Man that comes through. Look at the 5 issues of the SPIDER-MAN/HUMAN TORCH mini-series-- that alone is like one big, long love-letter to the character.

Sometimes these characters go through the proverbial ringer. And it doesn't mean the writer DOESN'T love them. Think of all the times you've had Peter go through scenes where he's Bag-Head Spider-Man, or his costume rips over his butt, or a pigeon poops on him. That's not a writer hating on Spider-Man. Life's a collection of good and bad-- and no character has quite as much bad happen to him as the one who literally coined the phrase "The Parker Luck."

As for Ashley Kafka? Recently a fan at the C2E2 Convention asked the question "Why?! Why did you have to kill Ashley Kafka?" And not 10 minutes went by before Ashley Kafka's creator, J. Marc DeMatteis, sent me a tweet saying, "Tell him I said it was okay!" Marc then went on to list all of the characters he "killed" during his run on Spidey.

Sometimes bad things happen to good people. It's a truth in life and sometimes that gets reflected in comics too.

Hope this answered your question.

ttyl

Dan"


Dan can be a dick, but when he is treated with respect he shockingly responds politely.

The poster basically asked him why he hates peter parker, that was his response...seems fair.

Please forgive me for replying so late; this damn post limit is killing me.

Marvel is selling and advertising these books because -get this- they SELL. People like to read that kind of stuff. Why? Although I'm sure it's a factor to a degree, it's much deeper than a simple widespread love for wanton violence among comic book consumers today. For example, someone might read Thanos Rising because they want to better understand the character of Thanos. Or someone might read Deadpool because they think he's (or rather, his writer is :P) hilarious. Someone might read Avengers Arena because they like The Hunger Games. The comic book industry is dying slowly, and Marvel (and other companies) are doing what they can to survive. Don't like the death and destruction? They offer plenty of other stuff. Take for example: Indestructible Hulk, Hawkeye, FF, Fantastic Four, X-Men: Legacy, etc. I don't think you're quite seeing the bigger picture of what Marvel offers.

In addition, Superior Spider-Man does not, in my view, promote Octopus' attitude. The way I see it, Slott's writing him as he is: an arrogant a**hole. But the beauty of it is, I somehow have come to like Otto and root for him, while still seeing his attitude as distasteful. That's good writing if I've ever read it.

Slott's behavior doesn't bother me. It's freaking hilarious at times, and logical at others. Think about it: how would you react to receiving DEATH THREATS because of a damn fictional story? Being insulted constantly for writing a story that you believe in? It may be a character flaw of mine, but I'd probably react pretty much like he has. At some point you just have to harden up and quit taking all the s**t, because he's heard it all by now.

@w0nd: That's ComicVine's very own @punyparker who made that post. :D

I really like what Dan Slott has done but not even speaking about Peter getting screwed but Superior is getting harder and harder to stomach. Originally I thought ok a heroic Doc Ock atoning for his past guided by Parker's message (you know the power and responsibility thing) but that is not what we've gotten. We have seen no change in Ock, though cool seeing his plans and gadgets, he is a selfish jerk that treats characters that we (and Peter) care for like crap. His first main goal was to bang MJ (mine would have been too) but really not what I was expecting. There is something in literature called "The Heroes Journey," the idea is based on classic stories and old mythology: a flawed character through trial and tribulations (often a kick ass adventure) learns how to be a real hero and a better person. The hero doesn't always fix their flaw but they become better people and develop a "heart" which defines that character and they become stronger characters that we love. Ock is on a journey but he really isn't learning much or "developing" he is somewhat static as the bullied that has become the villain pretending to play hero. There have only been two occasions where we have seen him show heart but they still ended poorly, he hated seeing kids get hurt so he nearly killed the vulture, he didn't like seeing new friend bullied so he trapped the bullies in their over-turned car and when he operated on a sickly girl who was sick because of him! I just hope to see him developing more in a hero and learning to change his ways.

Like many comments people have made about the other characters not picking up on the change in behaviour, my beef is Parker going out with a whimper in ASM 700. Ultimate spidey went out with a bang and public acknowledgment of his demise. Miles not only knows he has big shoes to fill but he has other people chiding him, saying he's not the real deal. If at least the people close to Parker and his fellow capes knew of his demise, I could tolerate it as I'm sure they would give him a proper memorial service. Also, Ock could still carry on as Spidey and the heroes could still go after him or give him grief saying he'll never be superior to the original.

@w0nd: @impy: Yep....i knew that if i asked him an honest question with respect,he would answer politely.....everyone on that thread were just hating on him,without reading the damn book,and to be fair,thats not cool.....i was the only person that didnt bash him,but asked him some honest (risky) questions......(If he hates Pete,MJ,and if he loves Ock,and just want to make him the protagonist,for once....thats why risky.)

And yes,it is the best selling Marvel book,right now....

P.S. PunyParker was taken.......that bastard,who took it,whoever it is.....i'm gonna find you.

I hate it because I'm not the biggest fan of the direction its going. I am also not the biggest fan of the tone changes between issues, you have a dark issue than you have a goofy issue. Then more goofy oh but its dark know.

I never liked Dan Slott, you can check my "Forums".

see i liked what Dan did for a couple of his books i loved grim hunt. but i can't stomach what he's doing with peter. don't get me wrong i don't hate Oct being spider-man. the gadgets he runs or how he's trying to finish peters doctorate. i just feel that his friends and family are being gimped on this. i mean i still haven't seen Carlie or Mary Jane's reaction to Octavius killing someone. for that matter what did Aunt May believe of this. Or the fact that reading how these are going seems to dismiss or discredit all peter went through. i mean he was supposed to be the moral thread of the web of life. he was told this many times and it was so important. it gave his responsibility form or personification. and what happens when i run into the next book peter trying to stop Oct from saving the girl. i mean what is that, where did that come from. i can't even comprehend on how that's such a betrayal to all that peter has done and believed. what was the point of all of this if the moral fiber can be swapped out or the decision that Dan made to keep peter from going to that future that he once had seen. he has systematically token anyone away that would be able to maybe immediately stop Octavius and lastly Octavius has yet to deal with any of the consequences he created for swapping with peter. i mean sure the evil guy one this time and it may not be permanent but its still a kick in the teeth. i mean everything peter built is now easily being run by Octavius. what about a transition. something like let him be a novice or let us see him screw up a bit. i mean i know that Gobi is coming soon and him destroying Peter's memories might have the desired effect or some kind of unbalance in his steps or something. hell a hang nail or something, i guess the question i'm trying to get is why is it so easy for him? and again I'm not hating on him though some of what i stated above may be good reasons too. cause as a relate able hero he came from high school weak to strong college student to marring his soul-mate; from poor to a good paying job to back to being poor and than his dream job. life is a roller coaster i get it, and how Octavius is relating to people can loosely be for those who make terrible mistakes and than gaining a second chance. i can understand how he relates to everyone, but even though those he relates to made those mistakes he has yet to have any of those mistakes. he kinda just does these things and gets off scot free. its kinda annoying and bland if you think about it. i just can't get behind it knownig that the thing everyone says is so interesting is just this. so much support for just this.

@facemelter88: Good point. Doc isn't really improving his character as the story progresses; he's actually getting worse. But SCREW THE RULES I say! No need for being conventional with SSM! [not sarcasm...]

@captain_oblivious: There is a way to interpret SSM 9 that says that Peter Parker really did die in ASM 700 and that was just his memories in Ock's head. If that's true, then all of Pete's admissions in SSM 9 were really Otto's ego overcoming his doubts, and him telling himself that he IS the Superior Spider-Man. It's like he had a second personality or something and kicked it out. I dunno.

@punyparker: Yeah. That was a great post, and his reply reinforced my opinion that he's really a great guy. I thought Age of Ultron was the best-selling Marvel book right now?

@ninjablade09: Wow. I never thought about it that way. The farthest I went with any thought like that was thinking that Humberto Ramos' art is a terrible fit for the series.

@impy:

@captain_oblivious: There is a way to interpret SSM 9 that says that Peter Parker really did die in ASM 700 and that was just his memories in Ock's head. If that's true, then all of Pete's admissions in SSM 9 were really Otto's ego overcoming his doubts, and him telling himself that he IS the Superior Spider-Man. It's like he had a second personality or something and kicked it out. I dunno.

than are you stating that superior was telling what he thought of peter that he betrayed his ideal of with great power comes responsibility. thats a bit confusing.

@jcolesamuels: A bit confusing, maybe. But that's what I'm inclined to think. You put it better than me.

@impy: That's the thing though with Ramos' art I cant take it seriously which lends it to the goofy tone.

well sir that's it comparable to Banner and Hulk so it's not that hard to believe

I still don't see how anyone could think what Ock did could be justified, he murdered a guy and stole his life and we're supposed to root for this guy?

@impy: I don't hate it, I'm just disappointed by how Dan is making Peter look like an awful Spider-Man and person in general. It would be a lot more respectful to the fans if maybe he let Ock's actions speak for themselves. Instead of having to constantly say: "I did/do this better than Parker!" all of the time. Also, why hasn't he explored the drama that would arise from killing Massacre? That just seems unfair.

QFT. That's exactly the way I feel about it. It's not bad art, but it's just not right for the book.

I think it's part of Otto's character to be constantly saying that he's better, constantly having to reassure himself that the world is now better off with HIM as Spider-Man. He's insecure about it.

That last point is really good. I think the last two pages of SSM #4 probably should have been devoted to the fallout of the death of Marcus Lyman, instead of that really creepy scene (though that was pretty damn awesome).

I'm not sure that anyone's saying that what Ock did IS justified. I'm certainly not.

@impy: Well when you look at it that way, it actually does make sense.

@impy: I appreciate the time you've put into responding to me. At the end of the day, my points about the old Marvel vs. new still stand. You may call it (not inaccurately) a chicken/egg scenario, and blame the readers for guiding Marvel into this bloodier trajectory. But blame is less important to me than the reality; regardless of whose fault it is, Marvel is undeniably a far less pleasant company than it once was, and its main Spider-Man book is undeniably a far less uplifting book than it once was (or could have been, given the soft reboot). Those are not reasons for you to hate SSM, perhaps, but they are for me.

But isn't that how ock acts? Why would he suddenly change his personality? him saying he's better doesn't actually make him better. I think you're supposed to love/hate the guy at the same time. And his actions have blown up in his face once or twice...look at age of Ultron. I am actually enjoying hating him.

I also appreciate your time and effort. As pretentious as it sounds, it has been quite an intellectually stimulating conversation, and I'm glad it was had respectfully.

You're right. Blame is less important than reality. Marvel Comics probably publishes less "pleasant" comics than it used to. Its flagship Spider-Man title is less uplifting than it used to be.

But at the end of the day, I'm personally just glad I don't have to see this on my comics:

@impy: Heheh. Well, much obliged. I'm happy to shake proverbial hands in agreement that the less censorship, the better.

@w0nd: Yeah, I get it. I'll miss Peter and look forward to his eventual triumphant return. In the mean time, i'll try and enjoy SpOck for what he is: a brand new story telling direction.

This. If Ock suddenly had an epiphany, it would come across as really cheesy and cheap. There would be even more fan-hate than there is now, possibly even from me, because it would be just plain bad writing to do it that way.

It actually says a lot to me that Dan Slott isn't making Otto understand "with great power comes great responsibility" the way Peter meant it. It seems to me that Slott is showing the character that is Peter Parker the highest respect by making SpOck's morals highly questionable. Because if you think about it, it would really cheapen Peter's whole philosophy and with it his whole character if even one murderous super villain could reform himself significantly just by knowing what made Spidey tick.

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 thatagain.

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.