Superior Spider-Man writer Dan Slott has a reputation for not taking criticism well. His online behavior is well known, but now that he has issued marching orders to his followers like Mole Man to his troops, I will calmly and coolly dismantle his online rant for posterity.

An online critic is trying to weasel out of the time he implied that I (a Jew) was adding an antiSemitic element to my book.

Actually, no, I’m not. I’ve always been right here. The problem is that Dan Slott has never commented on my blog, sent me a direct message or asked for my email address to discuss his grievance. Instead, he’s followed me around the Internet demanding that I talk to him to about a blog post I wrote in May titled: Is Dan Slott’s ‘Superior Spider-Man’ really a Superior anti-Semite?

In Dan Slott’s mind, analyzing a character who wanted to transcend Hitler, Pol Pot and Ghengis Khan in terms of evil perpetrated upon the world is the same thing as accusing or implying Dan Slott of being anti-Semetic (as if I knew or even cared about his heritage before he brought it up). Reasonable people can separate the two, but Dan Slott can’t. What Dan Slott doesn’t get — in some sense because moral relativism has warped his mind — is that it doesn’t matter what his intentions are if the end result is that a monster worse than Hitler is in Peter Parker’s body.

His first attempt today: Why was I still talking about it? It was “months ago.”

Seriously, why am I so upset that he took one word balloon out of context and built up an entire FALSE blog entry about it? In his mind It shouldn’t matter to me that he ran that REPREHENSIBLE piece and then punctuated his point with a picture of Jewish remains being removed from a concentration camp oven.

Dan Slott was the one who made Doc Ock say he wanted to transcend Hitler, Pol Pot and Khan — at the exact moment he was on the brink of causing an extinction-level event. Not me. That context is important. There are certain critical moments in history where a man says something that reveals his true character. Doctor Octopus did just that as six billion lives were on the cusp of experiencing the apocalypse, and I wrote about it. I’m sorry if Dan Slott doesn’t like it, or if deep down he knows I’m right.

C’mon. I should drop it. Even though the article is STILL up at his site and he has NEVER apologized for it.

Dan Slott’s demand for an apology is based on the false premise that I thought or wanted people to think he was an anti-Semite.

His latest attempt today: The title of his blog raised a QUESTION. It ended in a question mark. It didn’t say I was promoting antiSemitism in a comic book. It only ASKED if I was. Therefore… It’s okay. I mean, don’t we live in a society where anyone is free to broach ANY question?

I don’t think he understands what the word “implying” means.

Poor Dan, the title was posed as a question — and then I answered the question: “Otto didn’t want to kill millions of Jews — he “merely” wanted to kill six billion people, which would just so happen to include all the Jews. Silly me. The guy who “just” came within inches of an extinction level event because he hated all of humanity is now housed in Peter Parker’s body.”

Yes, it’s pretty clear to everyone but Dan Slott what I did. He just doesn’t like it, so instead he’ll follow me around the internet demanding that I apologize to him. He’ll make it personal by invoking his Jewish faith over and over, and when a moderator doesn’t like what he’s done Mr. Slott will sic his 39K Twitter followers on me.

That blog entry, with the one word balloon taken out of context, the bizarre semantic gymnastics he makes to posit his “question,” and the graphic photo of the remnants of people I share ancestry with being shoveled out of an oven in Dachau– was put together by this unscrupulous person for NO other reason than TO imply I had antiSemitic leanings.

Again, I never did that. “Semantic gymnastics” is Dan Slott’s euphemism for “writing that doesn’t lend itself to Dan Slott’s personal attacks.”

The point of the piece was to show that Dan Slott’s “anti-hero” is in fact a monster worse than Hitler, Pol Pot and Khan. Want proof he doesn’t get it? Dan Slott used a Newsarama interview to compare a character who almost wiped out the entire earth to … Hawkeye.

“At his core, he’s someone we don’t really think of as heroic. But is he any more annoying than [former villain] Hawkeye used to be?” (Dan Slott).

That is how steeped in moral relativism Dan Slott is.

He used Godwin’s Law, the laziest and most offensive “debate” tactic, to compare someone you don’t like to Hitler & the Nazis. Why? Because he’s upset over Spider-Man comic books. IT’S SHAMEFUL. And to try to semantically weasel out of it is DOUBLY SHAMEFUL.

What is more offensive: Dan Slott’s indiscriminate use of incendiary names or my reminder of the implications of his indiscriminate use of incendiary names?

Dan Slott drops the Hitler card in his comic book as a throwaway line, and then gets upset when someone doesn’t take it as a throwaway line. Dan Slott takes his Jewish ancestry seriously, and yet he just casually has Otto say he wants to transcend three of the most reviled men in history? Interesting…

If you follow my feed and wish to show support, please block @douglasernst. And please do not give his blog ANY hits.

If you follow @douglasernst and are offended by this entry, please let me know so I can block you. I don’t want anything to do with anyone who feels fine supporting a person who would do this, leave it up on his site for months– and worse– try to walk it off as nothing wrong.

The internet can be a wonderful tool for meeting people around the world and sharing thoughts and experiences with them. It can also be a way to spread hate and distortions.

Hate? Dan Slott has called me “a bad person” multiple times now. I generally reserve that term for people who abuse their children, rape women and murder people. You know … guys like Hitler. Dan Slott? His moral relativism allows him to put me in the “bad person” category with the rest of them because I wrote a blog post he disagrees with.

Using Dan Slott’s logic, I should go ballistic on all of my friends over the years who have made Catholic jokes. My faith is incredibly important to me, but yet I don’t go around calling people “bad” because they occasionally jabbed at a part of me that I hold dear. I deal with it like an adult. He should try it sometime.

One of my most prized possessions are antique clay pipes from Masada that my uncle, a rabbi, gave me for my Bar Mitzvah. I may not be a diligent or observant Jew as an adult, but I look at those pipes and it reminds me that for the grace of my ancestors overcoming great hardships and prejudices, neither I nor my family would be here today.

That’s touching, but it does nothing to change the fact that one of the most iconic superheroes ever is now a character who wanted to exterminate humanity.

The thought of someone trying to tarnish my reputation by DISTORTING one line of dialogue I’d written– and using it to portray me as someone who would promote antiSemitism SICKENS me. The fact that same person won’t own up to it– and worse– would try to rationalize it away– just fills me with sorrow that someone who could do that even exists. And when it’s all done to score internet-points over a comic book? That just makes it even more pathetic.

Sad? Dan Slott doesn’t realize that a comic book can be much more than a comic book. When I was a kid my brother let me read ‘Maus’ by Art Spiegelman. I suggest giving it a read right now if you’ve never heard of it. Mr. Spiegelman — unlike Dan Slott — would never have Doctor Octopus just casually mention Hitler in one line of dialogue. If Doctor Octopus was moments away from exterminating all of humanity and he uttered Hitler’s name, it would mean something. Every word would be there for a reason.

Dan Slott doesn’t feel sickness and sorrow because I’m wrong; he feels those things because the truth can cut deep. Every word is precious to a good writer, and “one line of dialogue” is never just “one line of dialogue.” It is not my fault that Mr. Slott chose to use Hitler’s name in such a careless and haphazard manner if his ancestry is that important to him.

I’m taking an internet break for a while and talking to real people– people I can look in the eye. Sorry for the long vent. Had to get that off my chest.

Cathartic, isn’t it Mr. Slott? It’s kind of like someone venting after a writer kills off one of the most culturally significant comic book characters of all time and replaces him with a megalomaniac.

Here's a screenshot of Dan's tweet to his 39K followers with his re-tweet of my blog entry (which has since been deleted). But here's the rub: the internet is forever.
Here’s a screenshot of Dan’s tweet to his 39K followers with his re-tweet of my blog entry, which has since been deleted. Here’s the rub: the internet is forever.

And finally:

Dan Slott, the guy who chases people around the internet demanding they apologize for ... an implication ... writes notes to himself that he should never apologize to anyone. Classic.
Dan Slott chases people around the internet, demanding they apologize to him for perceived slights, and never stops to think that maybe (just maybe) the notes he writes to himself are subconscious attempts to clue him in on some serious projection issues.

Now Dan’s fans are taking a cue from him, where they can attack me over at Comic Vine because they don’t want to come here. You’d think if a guy was going to go to all the trouble to Photoshop my name into a panel, then he’d at least spell my name correctly. ‘Doulas’? Seriously?

The poor guy couldn't even spell 'Douglas' in his little personal attack panel that he posted at Comic Vine. Sad.
The poor guy couldn’t even spell ‘Douglas’ in his little personal attack panel that he posted at Comic Vine. Sad.

Dan Slott YouTube


  1. Once again Dan Slott twists the truth and tires to act like a victim. Maybe you should write an article showing all of the mean offensive things he has said and done to anyone that does not agree with him and his “distortions” of the truth.
    Before anyone comments I suggest you read Douglas’s articles you will see that Slott is distorting the facts.

    1. Well, the problem with that is that so many comments have been scrubbed over time (especially at the Marvel boards). Also, it would be a ton of leg work. I like the idea, but I think at this point his online behavior has been pretty well established.

  2. And even though the blog entry in question did not call Slott “anti-Semitic,” he acts as if just because he is Jewish he is somehow beyond reproach when it comes to making the comparison you did. Get real. There are countless Jewish people, for example, whose political beliefs, if implemented, would spell disaster for the state of Israel.

    Grow up, Slott. In your own (constantly advertised) words, you write one of the “hottest” books out there. You were all giddy that one of the most popular TV shows mentioned it. Yet, you spend an inordinate amount of time on peons like us because we what — dare to express an opinion that is contrary to yours?

    You know Doug didn’t call you an anti-Semite. But your ego is so freakin’ fragile that you need to send out a mass tweet encouraging your minions to denounce/ostracize him. Why did you get into this business if you cannot stand that people may not like what you do? Seriously!

    1. That’s a good point on the politics, Hube. I don’t think it would take long for people to figure out where I stand public policy-wise as it pertains to Israel. 😉

      Dan Slott doesn’t like what I say about Superior Spider-Man, and since he doesn’t want to talk about the book, this issue allows him to make it personal and side-track the discussion. Every time I land a blow on the editorial judgement of killing off Peter Parker, Dan Slott throws a pity party about my post (the one that stirs “sickness” and “sorrow” in him). Now he can start talking about his ancestors any time I open my mouth, although I guess on Comic Vine the moderator put a stop to it…

      Here’s what my brother had to say about this whole thing last night. Yes, he was right about the Catholic part:

      What is Slott’s deal with his religion? The only one who brings that up is him. I think he’s trying to make you look anti-Semitic by repeatedly using the WWII oven picture. Nice shell game, but HE wrote the story that would turn humanity into victims of a holocaust; HE wrote Ock’s reference to Hitler; HE had 9 months to discuss this, yet the best he comes up with is that you are picking on him by use of a picture depicting his character’s wish for humanity?

      I’m sure you have discussed the merits of Catholicism with friends, and I’m sure some friends aren’t pro Catholic.

      I’m sure in part of their argument, they bring up the priest scandals or multiple thousands perished in the inquisition. This isn’t about a fictional story you wrote, this is about your own faith.

      Do you get mad and say they are picking on you? No, you address them, because it is part of history that happened and because you are a man and can discuss things. And maybe your friends aren’t convinced but they are still your friends because you can have a rational discussion, and they respect your beliefs. You didn’t start whining and say, “F you guys” because they used a fact/image to make their point.

    2. Hmmm maybe his tweet that is telling people to ignore you and your blog is “actionable”.
      This guy has no class. Everyone should read your article before commenting on them since it is not in any way that Dan Slott claims. For a guy that is a writer you think he would learn to read.
      That is the traditional Slott tactic when he starts something and cannot defend it he will try to change the subject and make the other person out to be “a bad person”.

      Dan Slott needs to get a reality check and grow up.

    3. I’d say that looking at my WordPress stats, perhaps 250 people came over here in conjunction with Mr. Slott’s tweets over the last nine hours since his posting. As I’ve stated before, the real traffic comes from people searching things like ‘When will Peter Parker come back’ or something related to Mr. Slott’s online behavior.

      In the past, Dan Slott has said bloggers like me want him to send his followers are way because we want “attention.” Well, actually, the vast majority of my Spider-Man traffic never came from his rants about the “conservative blogger” who he deems a “bad” person. The bulk of the traffic comes from the drip, drip, drip of concerned fans who consistently search for news on Peter Parker. Over time, that has added up to many page views.

  3. I am not surprised, when will he learn that everyone does not see the world like he does.
    People disagree and debate, that is a good thing.

  4. You should make a tweet thanking Dan Slott for all of the readers now reading your blog. Is that not his style?
    I love how people comment and ban you without ever even reading your post to find the truth.

    1. It’s funny how the guy who makes weird threats of legal action then directs his 39,000 Twitter followers — people I don’t even know — to block me. He can call me an “immoral person,” a “bad” person, and a host of other things, but yet he wonders if he can take legal recourse for “gross falsehoods”? Okay. Have fun with that, Mr. Slott.

  5. Agreed, then he slanders you and asked people to ban you he is a hypocrite to say the least.
    Once again notice that if he cannot control the conversation he will make up lies and try to silence you.
    Clearly if you disagree with him he wants nothing to do with you. He is a classic example of the people who claim everyone should be tolerant being the most intolerant.
    I see that his many followers still have not bothered to comment here….do they even care?

    1. Notice he says that I’m doing “bizarre semantic gymnastics.” Well, I am running rings around him. I’m swinging around on the high bars, and Dan Slott is standing there on the floor throwing a tantrum because he’s too scared to walk into the arena — here — and hash it out. Why? Because he can’t just say random things about Trayvon Martin and Ben Shapirio on my blog without me bringing out the actual quotes. He can’t turn to the mods to have the thread shut down or scrubbed. He doesn’t have a reliable stable of fans who will believe anything he says.

      And yes, you make an astute observation: having a lot of followers on twitter doesn’t necessarily translate into influence.

      Dan Slott should read ‘The Art of War.’ It obvious that he hasn’t.

    2. Yeah, what were the Trayvon (or, as Slott writes, “Treyvon”) and Ben Shapiro bits Slott wouldn’t shut up about? I don’t recall you ever writing that Martin “instigated” the conflict; he certainly started the actual scuffle as shown in the trial. And what did Shapiro say that was “homophobic?” All I recall was him just saying something like the NBA player’s (name escapes me at present) “coming out” was basically a publicity stunt. Correct me if I am wrong.

      So Slott is implying you’re a racist and homophobe because of that?

    3. Here’s a partial transcript of the whole Piers Morgan airing in question:

      SHAPRIO: I’m not sneering at him for coming out, I’m just —

      MORGAN: Aren’t you the one being homophobic?

      SHAPIRO: I don’t think it’s homophobic to simply say that we’re apathetic about people’s personal lives. …

      MORGAN: You think this guy isn’t brave because he came out. …

      SHAPIRO: I understand, I wear a yarmulke on TV, right? There’s a lot of anti-Semitism, there are people who are killed and anti-Semitic attacks. You know, per capita, as many hate crimes against Jews as as against gays in this country. America is not an anti-Semitic country and I’m not a hero for wearing a yarmulke. Being who you are in 2013 America is what America is about. It is not heroic to be who you are publicly. I’m glad for Jason Collins if it makes him feel like he’s going to have a happier life now. But, it does not make him a hero to be who you are because America is not a homophobic country.

      MORGAN: You know what, Ben? Come off it.

      Here is what I said (that I wasn’t about to post on Comic Vine because we were supposed to be talking about SSM):

      Who is more of a jerk: Piers Morgan, who calls you “homophobic” if you’re apathetic about the sexuality of the guy next to you, or Ben Shapiro, who reserves the word ‘hero’ for men and women who remind him of those who would willingly storm the beaches of Normandy? …

      Here’s what Chris Evans and the ideological allies of Piers Morgan don’t like: serious conversations about words and their meanings.

      When someone wants to agree on a definition of “rich” and “poor” before the debate begins, they are a jerk. When someone wants to agree on a definition of “marriage” before discussion starts, they are “homophobic.” When someone wants to define what we mean when we talk about “rights,” that person is considered mean. When someone defines an immigrant who is in the country illegally as an “illegal immigrant” that person is being insensitive. When someone wants to talk about the definition of “fair share,” that person is “greedy.”

      The truth is often uncomfortable, and it’s easy to avoid it if you and the person you’re arguing with are having two totally different conversations — primarily because neither one of you defines a whole slew of words the same way.

      Hmm. Pretty reasonable, right? But if you’re Dan Slott, you can go on message boards and make it sound like I hate gay people, Trayvon Martain and the memory of Dan Slott’s ancestors…

      Again, it’s hard to come on my blog and just spout off without me holding up the actual text to defend myself. That’s why Dan Slott would rather take pot shots from a distance or on a forum where I have both hands tied behind my back.

  6. I might add how was Trayvon innocent? Should he have but he was not innocent.
    If a person comes up and attacks you what will you do? Maybe he was provoked but it does not make him an innocent kid.
    Dan Slott needs to see reality.

    1. Truth: Slott, like many (all?) of his peers in the biz, followed the mainstream media NARRATIVE that stated, in effect, 1) Zimmerman was a racist who profiled Martin, and 2) Zimmerman is to blame for Martin’s death, so shut up.

    2. Exactly.

      What’s annoying is that over at Comic Vine people are trying to talk about Issue 19 of SSM or the book in general, and Dan Slott is basically saying, “Hey, don’t pay attention to Doug because this is what he thought about Trayvon…” Umm, okay. So do I start linking to my blog shamelessly, or do I try and get the conversation back on track? I tried to get the conversation back on track and then the moderator called Slott out. Hours later, we get the Twitter rant to his 39K followers.

    3. The bottom line is this: the jury found that there was “reasonable doubt” in the case brought by state against Mr. Zimmerman. Even Trayvon’s then-girlfriend admitted on Piers Morgan that she believed he threw the first punch… My analysis was spot on.

      “I never said that Zimmerman was innocent. I said that there was “reasonable doubt.” And there is. Whereas you make all sorts of assumptions about what was going on in Mr. Zimmerman’s head in terms of race, I do not. All I do know is that if Trayvon threw the first punch and a fight ensued — and during the course of getting his head bashed in Zimmerman feared for his life and used his weapon in self-defense — he must not be convicted of the charges the state brought against him.”

    1. Entirely up to you, Truth. Attempting the latter will certainly get you called names. It’s all about if you can handle it or not.

    1. Since Dan Slott likes to read this blog in his spare time (despite asking why people give me the time of day), it’s probably only a matter of time before he tells people on comic book websites that I want babies to breath dirty air and drink polluted water. I’ll give you a heads up when it happens. 😉

    2. Slott is so immature that it defies comprehension. If he were a mature adult, he’d know that criticism comes with being a writer, whether you’re writing comics, books, newspaper articles, etc. He needs to grow up and learn that he’s not going to be everyone’s cup of tea. Twitter is his comfort zone because none of the LIV fanboys are going to question anything he does and they just blindly go along with it. If he can’t take criticism, he shouldn’t be a writer, nor should he in the public theater if he can’t handle it.

    3. Not sure, Emmanuel. None in my book. I know he wrote She-Hulk for a while and also did a few Avengers-related titles for Marvel, but that wasn’t anything special. He claims to be a huge fan of Spider-Man, but in my book a true fan (I hate that term, but I think it applies in this case) wouldn’t kill off the hero and put a supervillain in his body. Plus he went along with the One More Day nonsense that erased Peter’s marriage to Mary Jane.

    4. Have you ever had some sort of pain in your arm and then a practical-joker friend came along and punched you in the leg to take the focus off your arm? That’s what it’s like being a Spider-Man fan, accept the editors at Marvel aren’t our friends. They sock you in the gut and then when you’re holding your stomach they knee you in the leg to give you a Charlie Horse. It’s hard to focus on the overall bad treatment when each new sucker punch delivers a very specific sting.

    5. It’s really hard to say, Emmanuel. Some of the indies have good stuff, such as IDW and their licensed comics (Transformers, Doctor Who, TMNT, etc.) and Archie’s New Crusaders comic was surprisingly well-done for a modern comic series. They’re politic-free for the most part, although I have heard that IDW’s Godzilla comic has political themes shoved into the background, even though people read that comic to see monsters beating the crap out of each other.

    6. I don’t think either Marvel or DC are conservative at this moment, and they tend to shun those who are. Chuck Dixon contributed a lot to Batman and the related titles in the 1990s and 2000s but he doesn’t even get honored by them because he’s a conservative. Frank Miller has to go to the indies to publish “Holy Terror” because it made DC executives “squeamish” due to its subject matter involving Batman beating up Islamists. The only conservative who has worked for either company in recent years is probably Ethan van Scrier, who is an artist, not a writer. And I think Dan Jurgens might (might being the key word) be conservative, but I don’t know for sure.

    7. Man, you’re a wealth of knowledge, Carl! Impressive.

      It might be Dan Jurgens who was in an interview I read a long time ago, right when I got out of the military. August, 2000. He was talking about doing research for Captain America and he said that there was a ton of stuff to be proud of in our history — much more than the average person realizes. I think it was him. (I’m showing that my knowledge of comics isn’t very deep.) At the time I read it I thought: “That’s not something most comic book writers would say.”

    8. And I say “might” because he criticized Obamacare on his Twitter not too long ago and made Ron Marz look like a total buffoon (although that’s not too hard to do, if you know anything about Marz). So it’s possible that Jurgens is a conservative.

    9. Thanks! You’re probably right in saying that was Jurgens who said that: he took over writing duties on Cap after Mark Waid (back when he was a good writer and wasn’t an angry political hack who has Daredevil fighting against white supremacists in 21st century New York). I don’t know for sure, but it was probably Jurgens. he wrote Cap for two years after Waid left that title.

      And indeed, it’s nothing something any comic book writers would say, in 2000 or in the present-day, for that matter.

  7. Hi Doug, me again. I haven’t wanted to weigh in on the Holocaust pic because I had hoped it would resolve itself, but it has only escalated, and both you and Slott may benefit from a Catholic NYer’s position on this, who happens to be a really old-time Spidey fan, and a woman with friends who have a personal attachment to those events back in WWII. To the Jews, the Holocaust is yesterday. It brings it home when you see someone on a subway, and the numbers on an arm are there (I saw that reminder on a gentleman, back in the 80s, on the Uptown 6 train). It hits home. It’s visceral, but not half as visceral as knowing your entire family tree has been wiped out. You had many WWII veterans who refused to talk about what they found. The photos and movies were taken for posterity, and to show the absolute and unmitigated horror that was the Holocaust. Not only Jews were wiped out, the Gypsies, the mentally and physically handicapped, and everyone who spoke out against the regime were sent. It was horrible, and it is recent memory. Regarding the blog post: I think the pic was in poor taste. I see your point about taking a fictional character’s frame of reference as being wildly inappropriate. You are absolutely correct about that, it didn’t need that kind of punch. I believe Slott was only trying to maximize the horror and insanity of Ock’s mind. Regardless of his remarkably bad decision, it is still fiction, and the references should have stayed away from real-life mass murderers, unless it was far in the past. Hitler was too recent a reference, and as a Jew, Slott should have had the good taste to stay away from it. Enter Doug Ernst, who not only takes very real umbrage at this reference, but feels the need to one-up it with not only a blog post, but a photo of these poor, massacred souls to make a point. You also overstepped a boundary, Doug, and I still hope you decide to remove it on your own without further prompting. Slott is too full of bile to ask nicely, even if he is the one who instigated this. I then ask you, for the sake of those people who were in those ovens, the descendants of those unknown souls, and the millions who suffered this still-historically-relevant fate to please remove it from that entry. It serves no purpose other than sensationalism, and you don’t strike me as that kind of man who needs to stoop to that level. Take away anything from this comment that you want, I just wanted to add the voice that has no dog in this fight.

    1. Rogue,

      Unlike Dan Slott, you’ve put forth a measured case that I can respect.

      “I believe Slott was only trying to maximize the horror and insanity of Ock’s mind. Regardless of his remarkably bad decision, it is still fiction, and the references should have stayed away from real-life mass murderers, unless it was far in the past. Hitler was too recent a reference, and as a Jew, Slott should have had the good taste to stay away from it. Enter Doug Ernst, who not only takes very real umbrage at this reference, but feels the need to one-up it with not only a blog post, but a photo of these poor, massacred souls to make a point. You also overstepped a boundary, Doug, and I still hope you decide to remove it on your own without further prompting,” (Rogue).

      Had Dan Slott simply come to my blog and conducted himself with the maturity and grace you’ve demonstrated, there is a very good chance I would have taken the picture down.

      I disagree with you that it serves no other purpose other than sensationalism, but I can see where you (and perhaps many others) might interpret it that way.

      Dan Slott has acted like an immature man-boy and a bully. I don’t back down to bullies. He mocks people who disagree with him. He has used his status to get critics he doesn’t like banned from forums or their comments scrubbed. He’s made weird threats of legal action over at Comic Vine, and has now used his Twitter account to try and get people to block me. If I decide to remove the image, it will be because of the level of discourse people like you bring to the table.

    2. Thank you, considering doing this is a start. Personally, I point the finger to testosterone on both sides, and Slott’s overly large abundance of fan-fed ego and chutzpah, along with the after-effects of a bad diet. 🙂 It’s your ball, and your sandbox. I just figured a measured dose of someone who sees both sides without rancor could help this thing slow before it spun out even more. I simply believe the size of the hammer used to pound the nail was overly hammeriferous. These remains were people, and deserve respect. And this will be my last word on this particular subject, as you are the deciding factor, and I respect that also. My name is Vicky.

    3. Thanks again, Doug. It shows you as the bigger man.(I guess my previous post wasn’t the final word, after all!) Lol. -Vicky

    4. No problem at all. Thank YOU for setting the stage for an important lesson to be had. In this case, I hope Dan Slott comes here, reads what you’ve written, and understands the power your words possess. Intelligence, tact, grace and compassion are an awesome combination that can move mountains.

  8. I find this funny, Slott does not want anyone to judge his book yet he can say this in a tweet:
    “So there are these 2 broke girls and they can only talk about sexual innuendo, racial stereotypes, & substance abuse… WHY IS THIS A SHOW?!”

    How is that much different than his book?
    Why is Superior Spider-Man published?
    Dan Slott maybe you just need to watch the show and give it a chance, maybe other people like it?
    I am not saying I am a fan I am just pointing out more of his twisted logic and hypocrisy.

  9. One more thing, if Dan Slott really had such an issue with the pic in question he would not have posted it many times.
    Was the picture in good taste, that is debatable but Slott did take it out of context and twist it as usual.
    Once again if he was so offended would he have posted it MANY times? I doubt it, I think it was the usual change the subject and try to vilify the person who disagrees with him. Slott’s debate style is amateurish and sleazy.
    (Caps was used to make another point about Dan Slott’s debate tactics, just because it is in caps does not make it true, also just because you say FACT does not make it a fact).

    1. You make a very good point. I just think it’s weird for a guy who is perfectly fine writing a character who wanted to “transcend” Hilter, Pol Pot and Khan … a guy who wrote a character who would have created a global Holocaust, to then essentially say that a picture of the real Holocaust is off limits. Where do we stop if any time someone’s sensibilities are affected by painful historical truths that pictures have to be taken down?

      Can I post pictures from Vietnam? Can I use pictures of slaves? Can I use pictures of U.S. troops injured in Afghanistan or Iraq?

      Let this be known: If Dan Slott stalks me around the internet and tries to twist the reason I took down the picture (i.e., I wanted to show that when people act like adults then they can often find workable solutions to their problems), I will put it back up in an instant.

    2. Let this be known: If Dan Slott stalks me around the internet and tries to twist the reason I took down the picture (i.e., I wanted to show that when people act like adults then they can often find workable solutions to their problems), I will put it back up in an instant.

      Heh. Then get ready to re-post it, Doug.

    3. Slott never should have used Hitler as a reference, period. Can a fictional story use hot political or religious topics without the author being blamed as the source? No. Authors have been targeted over the course of history for their words, fictional or not. I won’t give history lessons here, but Slott decided to use a non-fictional, politically monstrous, recent, religiously sensitive reference to further a Spider-Man (HYPHEN!!!) story, and (I’m possibly reaching here), since he is a Jew, decided it was OK for him to use it. Only him. Because he’s a Jew. And he’s sensitive to the plight of the Jews. And his family has personally suffered from the Holocaust, so it was OK. Anyone else using Hitler as a reference is a BAD man, and has taken his “one thought bubble” out of context. What Slott fails to see is the hypocrisy inherent in what he did. You cannot use Hitler as a fictional hot button safely, simply because you are a Jew, then fall back on Jewish outrage to bury it once someone else picked up and expanded upon it. The truly laughable part was the threat to sue. Oy vey. I didn’t like Doug’s use of the pic for reasons stated above, none of which were in any way sympathetic to Slott or his reactions.

    4. “I won’t give history lessons here, but Slott decided to use a non-fictional, politically monstrous, recent, religiously sensitive reference to further a Spider-Man (HYPHEN!!!) story, and (I’m possibly reaching here), since he is a Jew, decided it was OK for him to use it. Only him. Because he’s a Jew. And he’s sensitive to the plight of the Jews. And his family has personally suffered from the Holocaust, so it was OK. Anyone else using Hitler as a reference is a BAD man, and has taken his “one thought bubble” out of context. What Slott fails to see is the hypocrisy inherent in what he did. You cannot use Hitler as a fictional hot button safely, simply because you are a Jew, then fall back on Jewish outrage to bury it once someone else picked up and expanded upon it,” (Rogue).


      You have been scary-good with your analysis. Like I said, even when I disagree with you I can see where you’re coming and I understand how many people would see it your way.

      My brother (who will let me know when I’m off base) was on the same page:

      Did Dan Slott reflect on his family’s heritage when he wrote this story? Is this like the argument that only black guys may call black guys the N-word? Since he is Jewish, he can reference Hitler but you can’t? You wrote, what, under 5% of your posts dealing with comics, yet how many were pro Israel? Probably many, and that is the real world. Who is being more respectful to the memory of Hitler’s victims?

      And your last name is Ernst — quite German. How dare Slott reference Hitler in his story. Only German authors can reference that period of history. That was tongue in cheek, but that is his logic. What a joke that guy is.

    5. Oh, and I double very much Slott wouldn’t have given a fig if it was dead Cambodians or Vietnamese you had shown, or used the word Anti-Asian instead of Anti-Semite. Because Pol Pot was also recent, and had a similar tally in genocide. Hitler is what pushed his button.

    6. Vicky,

      Take a look at the screenshot I have added to the top of the page. Would you call me taking the photo down “cowardly.”

      While I’m not asking you to do it, I think it would be interesting to get your feedback here and on the YouTube page where he made the “coward” remark.

  10. Your brother is correct. You should keep him around. 🙂 Hopefully Slott’s Sheeple-and-Pitchfork crowd will be too apathetic to bother with more than a day or so of “banning” you, you BAD man.

    1. The thing is, I can see through the WordPress stats that he did essentially send over, let’s say, 400 people. They viewed the posts in question, but they didn’t comment, even to say what a “bad” person I was. You would expect some percentage, even if it was a small one, to do that sort of thing. I even picked up a few followers of my own.

      I think objective people can see right through what Mr. Slott was doing.

    2. Very glad to see this has not given him the results he wanted (ie: a cyber-mob). There’s no substitute for logic. And you have to capitalize BAD. It’s the rule. 🙂 Kinda like that hyphen.

    1. Here is what I said earlier in the thread:

      I welcome your contributions Emmanuel, but this is one post I want focused as much as possible on things Dan Slott has done or said involving this (ongoing) story. I don’t mind discussing coal, but it’s probably better suited for posts related to energy.

      I’m not joking: Stick to the topic of the post you’re commenting in. If you can not do that, I will be more proactive in my role as a moderator to make sure it happens.

    2. Yeah yeah, whatever. You’re an objectivist in the sense that you’re highly focused on the objective and ya aren’t one for distracting small talk that shoots the breeze with a cruise missile.

      On that note, to parrot everything that’s already been said and will continue to be said:

      “Dan Slott stinks. He stinks because he’s bad. He stinks. Doug is the bigger man than him because Dan Slott stinks and is bad. Woe to Dan Slott if he comes here and thinks he can take Doug down. I’m hungry. Let’s eat.”

    3. Here’s a “whateever, whatever, whatever” for you: This isn’t the “Emmanuel Mateo-Morales Show.” Your behavior across the blog has annoyed me and it’s annoyed long-time readers. I tried to be nice and work with you, and in response you’ve acted like an immature kid. I will treat you accordingly.

      If you want to shoot the breeze, call people “hypocritical c***ts” and drop random expletives to show how tough you are, I suggest going to The Blaze.

      Take your “whatever” attitude into the professional world. See how far that gets you.

  11. In other news, Amazing Spider-Man books (and Marvel Knights: Spider-Man) starring the ONE AND ONLY Peter Parker are debuting this month and carrying into the New Year. If Dan Slott is THIS hurtful about our opinions and our voices, there is little doubt OTHERS at Marvel are reading this. And while I know for a fact it is a BOY’s club up there, not ALL of them are THAT rock stupid, even if they’re sworn to silence. Something tells me the reason they approved all these Parker books to run parallel to SSM is most definitely a RESPONSE to the lack of true like for the run. AND to throw, even if only a bone, to the Parker fans such as us and telling us “it’s alright. Let him shoot his mouth off, he’s almost done. We can’t flat out call him an a$$hole, I mean he’s our friend and it makes money, but we can make due with it. And if you can buy more of these than SSM, we’ll push Parker’s return plot up the que.”

    Marvel is known for this in the past. Sure it takes them FOREVER to DO it, but they are like a phoenix, whenever they look ready to up and die, they turn right around and give us something great. The Marvel Cinematic Universe, the post-911 stories, Venom and Carnage from back in the early 90s, Secret Invasion, Dark Reign (though that ended shoddily), Fear Itself, the AFTERMATH of Avengers vs. X-Men (because AVX was garbage.)

    The wheels are certainly turning, but like law, due process takes time until justice can be served… Now to Dan Slott.

    So much for taking time away from social media, eh? The pressure is getting to him. First Fuzzball, now you, Truth, Rogue… Me. I mean heck he MADE AN ENTIRE 2 MINUTE DIATRIBE AT FAN EXPO BACK IN AUGUST to try and draw ME out. ME. ONE VOICE. ONE MAN. He even got booed through a chunk of that panel either way and every question was in fear of them getting thrown out so they had to make nice-nice. And he asks why I didn’t go to the panel. Uhh, use your brain Sl-ock! *WHACK*

    1. Something tells me the reason they approved all these Parker books to run parallel to SSM is most definitely a RESPONSE to the lack of true like for the run. AND to throw, even if only a bone, to the Parker fans such as us and telling us “it’s alright. Let him shoot his mouth off, he’s almost done.

      This is why I’m torn about the book. In one sense I want to support it because it’s Peter Parker, but in another I’m kind of annoyed they’re saying, “Eh, let’s throw these guys a bone.” Given that Dan Slott killed Peter Parker (twice), the “bone” metaphor stings a little more…

      You were put in that weird situation where if you confront him at a show, then suddenly he casts you as a potential stalker who is dangerous, but if you just let him do his thing then you’re afraid of him. I don’t mind writing about SSM or Dan Slott here and there, but at the same time I don’t want to get into a screaming match or a fist fight with Dan Slott. That would be rather weird, and considering the guy makes legal threats over blog posts on his book, something tells me a verbal altercation with him in public is a bad idea.

      It’s easy to call out fans and mock them when you’re surrounded by your Marvel buddies, hotel security and “x” number of fans who would buy SSM if an entire issue was dedicated to him playing with belly button lint.

    2. Good point, I feel that if confronted he would make something up and try to have “legal action” over the situation. I wonder how long it will take before Marvel will tire of his behavior.

      Just for fun I would like to point out that Slott has never even once commented on my blog or videos which prove he was wrong, big shock!

    3. That’s his thing: He needs a red herring to use when it’s convenient. If you’re on the Marvel boards or wherever and you comment on SSM #20, then it’s likely that at some point he’ll say, “Oh, you listen to this guy? This is the guy who uses the false numbers about me. Don’t believe him. That tells you everything you need to know about him.”

      Okay, well, your opinion on sales numbers has absolutely nothing to do with your analysis of issue 20. The only reason for bringing it up is to then get the conversation side tracked on a discussion about sales.

    4. I just put up a Twitter account with it I’m aiming mostly to gouge sales I’ve rarely had the opportunity to buy 616 after ASM #500 not that I haven’t wanted to. That doesn’t mean that people can’t simply keep up on Wikipedia. I’ll leave the more personal parts of my ranting to my account Arachnobat but this may be pretty long (and it could be much longer) thank you for giving us all a chance to vent I owe Parker my sanity.

      I don’t mind a Doc Ock redemption story he used to be my favorite villain but that’s not what Superior is. When Ultimate Peter was killed off simply for the purpose of replacing him with the more “politically correct” Morales all the media said was don’t worry that was Ultimate Peter everyone knows that’s just an alternate universe that nobody reads there’s still the original Parker even though his death was handled okay (aside from a teenager getting killed on his front lawn) I somehow didn’t trust what they were saying. Then Dying Wish came and then they had to kill him a second time and now Marvel and Dan have to rub it in fans faces continuously.

      Octavius hasn’t changed he’s not a hero or an anti-hero he’s only trying to be a hero out of his insecure need to defeat an enemy that he’s already killed twice this masquerade is little different from what Kraven, Mysterio, the Chameleon and Venom have done in the past.

      I have never nerd raged anything else before If Otto were done okay and Peter wasn’t killed a second time I could have given him a chance I could have even given him ten years before Peter returns if it weren’t for them using people’s hate to sell mags and repeatedly telling us it’s not going to happen. People are all stop whining about a fictional character if someone sends death threats they need serious help.

      While I agree that it’s not just wrong to send threats but that in this case it’s downright hypocritical it is perfectly appropriate to whine about a fictional character because a person who does appreciates the POWER of fiction. I’ve been a writer for four and a half years. I’ve written many books science, religion, science fiction and young adult fiction. I understand what it’s like to be in the position of “a god” as Slott and his co workers are and it’s hard not to let that power go to your head especially if SOMEONE can identify with and is trying to live vicariously through them. Abraham Lincoln said “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

      Peter Parker was in that situation for fifty years. How did he do compared to his “Superior” successor? How has Slott used his power? For the good of mankind? I value Peter Parker immensely because of his power to shape society the world has declined so much in the past century and Spider-Man was the one thing that always kept me from completely losing faith in humanity, that humans were still cognizant of human decency and responsibility, that the existence of “grey” doesn’t mean there isn’t black and white there is no “relativism” about morality.

      I grew up believing that however far this world goes as long as Parker was out there that is as long as people were capable of writing and promoting a character of that ideal that I could wait till things get better I could stand to live. While it is probably inevitable that he will return (on Slott’s fired body) they will probably regress him as they always do they think no one can stand him as a mature adult over 25.

      I shudder to think what will happen if he does not return twenty years from now when the movies and cartoons are over who will the younger generation look up to especially since everyone to lazy to open a Bible? Dan is wrong Peter is a paragon of humanity he is the most virtuous an imperfect man can be roughly twelve years as a superhero and the power has not corrupted him for a moment. No matter how many problems he faces (500 times as many as a normal person when it should be about double) he perseveres never compromises or loses his sanity. His example politely dares us to do better because or hardships are so petty.

      Day and Night he goes out and risk his own life to help people with no thought of reward not merely from guilt but also because of his love of humanity a love he didn’t lose not even at his last breath that is a love iv had since I was a little child one that like his could have very easily been lost. Slott drives me nuts because in killing Peter twice he did not just kill some beloved character, he didn’t just replace the greatest fictional character of all time with the most absurd role model for our children he didn’t just rape someone’s soul and drag it through the mud, he made me so angry that he almost made me compromise the very principles I’m so ardently fond of as he did with Parker in SSM 8 & 9.

      When the FULL impact of what Slott did, did again, is continuing to do, and what he is doing to his critics hit me I almost renounced most of my species for “a billionth of a second” I questioned the effectiveness of preaching in our era trying to save lives permanently.

      What Slott is doing is something that still consumes my thoughts to this day. A study showed that Ethical thinking no longer enters most people’s minds that is no one can agree any longer that anything is wrong other than Murder, Genocide and Rape which is why the influence of virtue is so important. Octavius has murdered on many occasions pre-meditated even to those who can’t defend themselves.

      I can see him killing anyone who offends him or is any sort of threat to the continued use of Parker’s body. Octavius has already raped a man’s soul twice and he spent several weeks trying to manipulate the man’s girlfriend into getting laid. In addition to all these things Octavius has not once but at Least Twice got a hairs breadth from eradicating nearly all of humanity not to mention any of his criminal activities or earlier attempts to take over the world.

      Unlike Slott’s take on Parker I’m not going to give in I’m not going to let the life I live be threatened by Slott/Spock I’m not going to whatever the intention violate the lessons iv learned again and again. I am not going to stoop to his level. But still with nearly a years past there is an urgent need for him to return and I’m going to do whatever I can to help him like the people of New York have done in every one of the four Spider-Man movies.

      Thanks again Doug for letting me get rid of this anger.

    5. I think Dan Slott’s tweet highlights quite nicely that he doesn’t understand the responsibility he has as a writer who is entrusted with such an important character.

      “Whenever I get a “Think of the children!” argument, it’s always for the sake of a niece, nephew, godchild or friend’s kid. Never their own,” (Dan Slott).

      Interesting how this tweet went out not long after I tweeted my own opinions on the matter. And notice that, as usual, he doesn’t actually address the argument being made. He attacks the person or he makes little wise cracks.

      I’d like to address something here that was said over at Comic Vine.

      Was it worth it? Dan Slott laughs off 9 months without Peter Parker for kids.

      Over at Comic Vine I asked the following question: Was it worth it?

      Was it worth killing Peter Parker (twice) for this length of time so that a glorified version of “Freaky Friday” (as observed by the writers of The Big Bang Theory and myself) could play out? Is it worth it that for a good chunk of time during their formative years, young readers get The Superior Spider-Man to try and set their moral compass to? Is it worth all the damage done to the supporting cast, whose intelligence seems to have been lowered by a good 20 points so that SSM can continue?

      Slott’s response is telling: “The story has been running for 9 months. According to the mind of Douglas Ernst, 9 months equals “a good chunk of time” during a readers formative years. This explains a lot. Like how on the Douglas Ernst clock, taking seconds to save the lives of fallen enemy soldiers is “precious” time that Peter Parker/Spider-Man could’ve spent saving the world,”(Dan Slott)

      Nine months is basically an entire school year. An entire school year. Middle School is a weird time for kids, and somewhere in those two years (and perhaps into freshman year of high school) there comes a point where a kid basically chooses the group he’s going to hang out with. When I was in 7th grade, that’s when kids started dabbling in drugs. 8th grade, even more, and by freshman year you basically put your cards in with a certain group of kids.

      Don’t believe me about the timeline? Ask Brian Holloway about how important 9 months could be to kid.

      Nine months (or more) without Peter Parker is actually a rather long time for kids who are looking for guidance, as their own moral compass is shaky at that point in their life. Kids want to fit in. Their hormones are acting weird. They want to be popular. And yet, consciously or not, they’re looking for role models. The fact that Dan Slott doesn’t realize that is telling.

      When I was a kid, myself and most of my friends were into comics up until freshman year of high school. At that point girls became much more important. However, it can’t be denied that — consciously or not — reading the adventures of Peter Parker helped shape who I am. I can’t quantify it, but I know that “with great power comes great responsibility” stuck with me then and it will carry with me until my dying day.

      Side note: I worked in high schools and middle schools for almost two years after I graduated from undergrad (while I saved money for graduate school). All my beliefs about just how important those two or three years are to a kid were only reinforced during that time.

      I’ve already covered how unrealistic and dumb it was for Spider-Man to freak out over North Korea’s gulag overseers, so I won’t comment on that. People can always read the post or my take down of Slott’s distortions if they wish.

  12. “Take your “whatever” attitude into the professional world. See how far that gets you.”

    Apparently, it might take me to making a highly selling monthly comic book involving one of the most iconic superheroes of all time if I’m anything like Dan Slott. 😛

    In all seriousness though Doug, I am sorry for my behavior. See ya in about two weeks.

    1. This is the last comment that will appear on this subject in this thread: I generally don’t have much interest in speaking online (in two weeks) with someone whose idea of showing contrition is to lead up to an apology with sarcastic jokes.

  13. Dan Slott’s latest idiocy is to anoint himself a political commentator once more:

    So much for “leaving” the internet, Slott.

    1. I’m going to stop smoking…I’m going to stop drinking…I’m going to stop…stop…stop (fill in the blank).

      Didn’t he say he was leaving the internet once before and then came right back?

      I guess I’ll never understand why creators would go out of their way to make dumb political jokes or to take pot shots when roughly half the customer pool isn’t cool with it. Again, great business model, Marvel.

    2. Indeed, the whole “insult the fans” business model is just plain stupid. Remember when they were focused on actually pleasing fans instead of pissing them off and insulting them? When they actually cared about the characters? That seems to be a long-forgotten era.

    3. I actually read an article with Elton John recently where he sort of lamented the modern media environment, Twitter, etc. He was annoyed that stars feel the need to share basically everything about their lives. He said there should be a bit of “mystery” in regards to a star’s persona. To a large extent, I agree. It’s hard to lose yourself in the worlds these people are trying to create when they’re constantly beating us over the head with their political or religious views.

    4. I agree with Elton as well. There used to be an air of mystery to celebrities, writers, etc. Back before social media and the like you simply didn’t know as much about them, which it made it easier to lose yourself in the fictional worlds. It’s hard to nowadays, with stars constantly going off on politics and revealing everything there is to know about their lives.

    5. I find it interesting under Slott logic that the shutdown is only one sides fault, yet they have sent many proposals that were all shot down.
      It takes two to come make a deal.

    6. That’s another tactic he uses: He puts forth a laughably false premise and then argues that. (e.g., You implied I was anti-Semitic! You’re a “bad” person!) Well, actually, no. I didn’t. People who read the piece can see exactly what I was doing, Mr. Slott. Sorry.

      As it pertains to the debt limit in the U.S., there are many, many politicians from both parties who have brought us to the current standoff. This isn’t one administration in the making — it’s decades in the making.

    7. Iv always been friends with Jews but there is something I noticed from history recently that iv just been dying to say. Communism, “rational” atheism and the Holocaust can all be traced to the work of Darwin, Marx and Nietzsche all Jews. While in tyrants have very conveniently forgotten this fact So Much human suffering could have been avoided if they had kept those ideas to themselves.

    8. I think tyranny doesn’t really know a specific race, religion or gender. I think darkness is just one part of human nature. We all have it in us. Tyranny is just repackaged in different ways over the years to try and disguise it. I think you’re going down an incredibly dangerous road with your comment.

    9. I agree that darkness is part of imperfect human nature and is part of all of us. I was just commenting on an irony that saddened me.

    10. Speaking form experience, Dan Slott is capable of making all sorts of leaps in logic in order to demonize his critics. I wouldn’t be surprised if you find yourself on another comic forum one day, where he will appear and use that comment against you in all sorts of interesting ways. 😉

    11. Of course Slott mocked of “Think of the children.” he hasn’t even pointed out “the North Koreans” (which I’m sure he just wrote for these kinds of discussions) when I asked him to give one example of Otto’s superior moral this is what he said.

      “If U think I condone Ock’s actions, U don’t get “fantasy.” I don’t even condone Peter Parker’s actions of taking the law into his own hands.”

      As condescending as ever. What exactly is he sitting on? Of course he doesn’t like vigilantism it’s practically endorsed by the second amendment militia and all that.

    12. When you’re dealing with people online, you have a responsibility to act professionally. If someone says that Peter Parker is an important role model to kids, perhaps that person has a really good reason for saying that. Maybe that person went through really tough times as a kid. Has Dan Slott ever met someone who struggles with anxiety, depression or PTSD? That’s why mocking strangers online at the drop of a dime is irresponsible.

      The reason why Dan Slott had a hard time writing Peter Parker is because he seems to enjoy behavior that is the directly in conflict with much of what the character stands for.

    13. I apologize the site wouldn’t let me PM because your not following me and I’m fine with that. The very best Octavius story was Web Of Death the first to actually ponder his psychology and it was for all intents the very opposite of Dying Wish/SSM. I think at Otto’s core he has always wanted to be accepted like Norman whose psychosis is partly because he secretly feels like a piece of crap for how he treats Harry. One thing I do know.

      “What a man is sowing this he will also reap.”

    14. Ryan: While that’s true, maybe it’s because Jews are some of the most intelligent people on the planet. Whether that’s due to nature or nurture or a combo of both, who cares. While some of their ideas may have sucked, there’s always a ton more who have contributed to the greater good of humanity.

    15. Okay so here is another SSM rant probably my last log one for some time.

      If Otto for whatever interval of time had Peter’s memories then wouldn’t his relationship with Aunt May be really confusing? He did try to marry her once.

      If dumping MJ (however relieved it made us) make’s Otto ethically superior then why can he pursue even more vulnerable woman like Marconi who don’t have years of experience dating costume types.

      If Otto was struck with Peter’s memories wouldn’t he remember fighting himself? Wouldn’t that have a profound effect on him being able to see his rivalry from both sides? Would he realize what a jerk he’s been (and still is) be genuinely repentant?

      Someone posted on Comicvine I couldn’t agree more.

      It sends out a horrible message for youngsters. “Remember kids even if you slaughter thousands of people you can redeem yourself by killing somebody and taking over their life!”

      Otto isn’t the most consistently written character but his behavior throughout history has always been driven by paranoia and quite a bit of ego but more than anything else a need to be accepted regardless of the means. Did he want to go back to a respectable career in science yes but whenever that seemed the least bit difficult he settled for being a criminal mastermind. And why does he need to be this Superior Spider-Man to carry a title he hasn’t earned and one-up his rival it’s not because of a sense of responsibility, justice, guilt or even revenge any of those would make him an anti-hero even Two Face’s really perverted sense of justice qualifies him as an anti-hero but Ock is not a hero and he is not an anti-hero he remains a villain. If his ego carried with it any self esteem he would have been content with his victory and make use of his body to live his own life his only motive for being a vigilante is to prove his “superiority” to himself which apparently involves fighting every spider left standing. Otto is just being selfish as he’s always been and he has a very good reason to do it as well no one can be consciously evil without repenting, killing themselves or going insane the mind just can’t stand it. To top it all of he’s a coward who relies on whatever crutches he can scrounge up.

      The way Slott has treated fans really reminds me of the trial of Stephen.

      Slott say’s he doesn’t approve of Peter’s vigilantism you know what I’m a pacifist and I do approve. If he’s offended by upright people rising to the occasion give the cops superpowers.

      Slott is wrong that Peter and Otto’s backgrounds are similar. Sure there both smart, sure Peter started out selfish as we learn in ASM #200 however the Burglar had a very specific reason for showing up at the Parker home. The only random thing about Peter becoming a hero was the spider bite. (and even that’s been debated) If Peter had never suffered that tremendous guilt he wouldn’t be as good of a hero but he would still end up a Superior vigilante to Ock iv thought out all the avenues that he could have gone if it worked out differently. If Peter wasn’t there to see the burglar in the first place then that would mean he would be spending his time in a way other than his personal fame and glory his Uncle might have died or he might have been able to intervene either way he would have faced crime and become motivated to make better use of his powers Best case scenario he becomes a good but less motivated hero Worst case scenario he ends up angry but principled like Batman. Or Spider-Man could have stopped the crook Best case scenario he ends up a hero actively involved with the police Worst case scenario he gets his own reality show like the New Warriors.

      Slott is a real fan of no-win situations. Maybe he likes rigged games because he’s as insecure as his protagonist. He has no respect for his audience (if they don’t worship him) like you said with the read it/haven’t read it. All Spider-Man’s ever asked for in his life is some chance of success. He never cared what the odds are so long as it’s not impossible. But both of Peter’s deaths were no win situations. In Dying Wish not only does Sp0ck have a plate on his neck but even if Peter ultimately had a chance to switch there minds back would he? Peter Parker’s life is defined by No One Dies On My Watch it’s the reason he’s a hero he is incapable of letting anyone die if there is anything he can do (with the exception of Ends Of The Earth thanks Dan) and the only beings he has killed are Morlun, Shattra and Digger all nonhuman or gamma zombies and very reluctantly. No ultimately Peter would not have allowed himself to switch minds back if it meant Octavius’s death. Killing may seem “effective” but it’s a sign of weakness not strength sparing your enemies means you won’t cave regardless of what you may have to suffer in the future as a result and it does prove superiority over your less merciful opponents. It’s the same thing with SSM #9 not only is Otto so desperate he has to resort to the guilt trick a move that’s very success demonstrates that Peter hasn’t changed. And of course once again this is a fight to the death Otto does not have another body lying around so Peter ultimately couldn’t let himself win. If Otto truly learned anything from Parker’s memories if he ever truly decided to act as a hero he would have only been able to accept one course of action in either cases he would sacrifice himself so Peter could live and it would have made him an Equal Spider-Man.

      In other news I heard that an Octopus “doppelganger” is going to appear in future comics but with all of the “there is no twist” it’s probably not Parker. I know Dan will get canned and I can wait. I can’t let “grey” gain any more ground in this world.

  14. Thank you for sharing the links Carl. Notice the intolerance once again of the group that says they are for everyone! What they really mean is that they are for everyone that wants things the way they want it. I also love the one sided view that everything is one sides fault…..not the debt has nothing to do with it…..massive overspending has nothing to do with it…….we don’t have the money for this and we know we will have to raise taxes to do this has nothing to do with it.


  15. As a Canadian, I have no stick on the ice, so to speak in the Government shut down, but from a 3rd party observation I don’t think this is anybody’s fault IN the government directly. Obama wanted to stay true to his intentions and he didn’t back down. The Republican party were merely doing their jobs, and that’s also commendable. But Obama DID mention the Tea Party on several occasions, aka. the 1% who want to control their puppet politicians on either side of the argument. With that in mind, I am very affronted how just because a select group of people that have all the money can decide what is best for themselves FIRST and then the people beneath them second. Which makes me wonder who is the REAL people at fault, because it takes two to tango, but what happens when those dancing are being controlled on strings?

    Again this is a 3rd party observation and again I have no real say in this being Canadian, but if one DID look at it that way, how Lex Luthor of them xD

  16. Matt, sometimes an outside observation is needed to look past personal bias. Thank you for sharing your thoughts I know I appreciate it.

  17. Stupid tweet of the day brought to you by no other than Dan slott:
    “It’s a shame he shut the government down… No. Wait. That was the House Republicans.”

    Dan Slott is about as intelligent as flatulence.

    1. It’s a “shame” the government is shut down? It’s a travesty that we’re $17 trillion in debt. Regardless, someone should ask Dan Slott if feels shame for voting for a guy who created the “Disposition Matrix”…

  18. Spider11211, why are you surprised? This seems like normal Slott reactions to me. Also please do not insult flatulence.

    1. I would be willing to bet that even a sentient fart would not have voted to move forward with Superior Spider-Man when it was pitched in a meeting of Marvel power players.

    2. Okay…that was funny! If you look he quoted the president also:

      “”You don’t get a chance to call your bank & say I’m not going to pay my mortgage this month unless you throw in a new car & an XBox.”- Obama”

      Talk about distortion!

    3. Coming from the guy who is the king of promising voters goodies in exchange for more power … that is rich. This is the same man who said on David Letterman that $17 trillion dollars in debt was a “long term problem.” Umm, actually, it’s a “right now” problem, Mr. President. There are only a handful of people in Washington who seem to understand basic math; the president isn’t one of them.

      Stick to comics, Slott.

  19. Slott should get away from politics and also writing. Writing is a powerful tool and it should not be used by people that maintain his level of ignorance.

  20. Seduction Of The Innocent was a terrible piece of work overloaded with false data still it brought the industry to it’s knees. Today however with all the crap coming around with the Big 2 maybe the country needs something like that a valid factual successor focusing on the real issues so that our children aren’t brought up on morally relativistic garbage. If the industry caves in and realizes the validity of “think of the children” good it’s benefitting society this time and an irresponsible generation of writers will have to think about what they’re putting out there if they’re doing their jobs maybe even move the industry back to its pre 90’s standards so that all ages could benefit from them. If not then theirs Disney and Warner Bros who will make sure they “get the message.”

    1. Indeed, it was, but I can understand where its author was coming from and understand why the Comics Code was created in the first place. Companies like EC Comics went way too far in their depiction of gore and violence, and that’s why it was created. They believed to be causing juvenile delinquency, although the reality is that it might’ve been caused by kids having absentee fathers who fought in WWII or absent permanently (those who died fighting the Axis Powers), just as absentee fathers today have contributed to juvenile delinquency. Comics were just an easy scapegoat, like guns and video games are today whenever a mass shooting happens. Although in the latter case, I can see how a video game MIGHT influence a crazy person to go on a shooting spree, but it doesn’t have that affect on me, since I can distinguish between reality and fantasy.

      Ironically, as the Comics Code lost its influence over the years, comics (particularly those published by DC and Marvel) once more have become less kid-friendly and more morally relativistic than ever. As Darwyn Cooke once said, the current comics cater to the needs of “perverted 45-year old men:”

      Interestingly, enough, DC caused a furor over the summer when they claimed they made comics for “45 year olds,” so they just proved Cooke’s statement.

      Comics (especially Marvel and DC) need to go to being all-ages if they want to survive. Do you think a story like SSM would’ve flown in the Silver Age? If it did, it’d be an one-issue affair like when Doctor Doom switched minds with Mr. Fantastic in Fantastic Four #10. It wouldn’t drag on and on like SSM is. Plus it would be better-written than anything by Slott, that’s for sure.

    2. I started collecting comics when I was six years old I was very fortunate and thanks to the GIT Corporations software I saved many thousands of dollars. That being said my industry knowledge is a bit limited by my narrow but exhaustive selections (first 500 issues of ASM, Iron Man Armor Wars Prologue, Armor Wars, Armor Wars II, first 519 issues of Fantastic Four 11 volumes of Spider-Girl and most of Ultimate Spider-Man) while I enjoy the movies and cartoons DC’s multiversal complexity prevented me from ever buying their comics.

      I agree about EC there horror comics are atrocious and no one will miss them while I’m not sure the catastrophic job loss, unrecovered sales collapse and stigma Fredrick’s methods left on the industry were necessarily justified with it. I wholeheartedly agree with your observation on the CC I believe in a strong comic code that allows MARGINALLY more freedom than the 60’s. Cooke is completely right why doesn’t anybody get it! The more I think about a seduction successor the better it sounds if we could get some volunteers and combine the work I’m sure we could make an incredible case for future generations.

    3. I’ve always been a fan of both Marvel and DC myself. Been a comics fans since the late 90s/early 2000s and these days I mostly get trades. I like to have a physical copy of the books in my hands personally.

      Indeed, EC was bad and I agree that there should be a strong Comics Code in place, although without some of the provisions seen in the 1960s and more freedom. I think Marvel and Dc, by ignoring younger readers, are missing out and just dooming themselves in the long-run. s

    4. Carl, thank you for sharing that. I think that should be sent to Slott by thousands of people.

  21. Yeah it all seemed to start in the mid 80’s when graphic novels came out but you can see the signs earlier on. Like when Stan Lee wrote his famous anti drug story in the late 60’s there was nothing wrong with it but it wasn’t approved by the code. Also in 60’s Stan started focusing on writing for college kids rather than all the other demographics that read his books. Once the code discovered that an unapproved product could sell they soon approved a graphic heroin story for DC and so the slow slide began.

    I agree the 60’s limits were to strict and stifled creativity but I believe it was better to have them at pre graphic levels than having an entire decade (the 90’s) where the only theme in comics seemed the ongoing psychological torture of protagonist and twenty five years of sensationalism. Physical copies are a bit better and I have forty trades. In every era the comic industry seems to always have had to justify its existence and for decades they had a good place in the world but now all they do is cater to 45 year old perverts with money to spend and offer inspiration for blockbuster films.

    There are 3 things the Big 2 have to correct if they want to ever get there respect back and get anywhere near the success of the golden or even the silver age.

    1. The comic industry has to write stories that are free of all this graphic language, nudity, rage and moral relativism stories so that it wouldn’t be irresponsible to share then with your child if they wanted you to and they would be allowed to pick them off the stands themselves.

    2. Go back to basics no I don’t mean necessarily cashing in on nostalgia or emulating any era what I mean is dropping all of these long it will never be the same story arcs which amount to almost every issue and focusing on crime fighting and villain of the week stuff you know your writing is strong and readers like you if there consistently eating up single issue or two part stories.

    3. Stop regressing characters superheroes should age with the natural flow of the stories about 1 for every 4 years were not asking for Peter Parker to live the American dream apple pie the white picket fence and all that but every single mistake Marvel’s ever made with the character is an attempt to keep him from aging or replace him with an unmarried version of himself. The death of Gwen, Keeping him in college for so long, The second Clone Saga, the KIDNAPPING of Mayday which was never followed up on in 616, killing/resurrecting Aunt May all the time (PICK ONE!) OMD and Dying Wish if Marvel writers any sense Peter would still be married to MJ his Aunt would still know his secret identity his child would have been recovered years ago life wouldn’t be easy for him but the Marvel “gods” would write great stories not ubersadistic torture. But they think people only want a teenage Parker well guess what a teenage hero was so “implausible” in the 60’s that they shoved Peter out of high school in 28 issues if people want teenage Parker they can read the ultimate books. Peter’s marriage was okay most of the time it was this beautiful underrated thing that was so untapped but it really evolved in J Michael Straczynski’s run (not that I agree with Sins Past) don’t erase the marriage between the greatest superhero and the most complex supporting character in all of literature in OMD you already tried to bomb the marriage twice but fans didn’t want it.

    1. “…greatest superhero…”

      Ummm…no…Superman is the greatest Superhero (especially from an objective stand-point) in the genre, even if writers have a recent track record with him almost as bad as Spider-Man’s recent track record. He did sort of prove the validity of the medium and started the tradition of wearing colorful (if sometimes odd) costumes and having psuedo-science explanations for powers that didn’t involve tech or magic or natural human capabilities. He also proved the validity of Superheroes on the big screen with Superman 1 and 2, even if it did take years for studios to REALLY start pushing for decent adaptations of comics. He’s also a much better representation of ‘hope’ and ‘change’ than Obummer, even if the storytellers go a bit overboard with the Messianic elements a bit.

      “and the most complex supporting character in all of literature…”

      You obviously haven’t read a lot of literature in college then, haven’t you? I can definitely tell you’re a theoretical physicist now. 😛

      Now, I’m not knocking Mary Jane. I like Mary Jane and think her and Peter’s relationship was something special in the medium of comics (even if writers did mess it up a lot) and was UBER pissed when I found out what happened in One More Day…but I mean really, how limited is your pool of literature when you call her the most complex supporting character in ALL literature…Granted, she’s among the better ones in comics and literature in general, but still.

  22. Iv spent something like four hours a day reading books almost every day since i was six when i was in fifth grade my IQ was registered at school as 160, an entire wall of my room was converted into a bookshelf people always spot me reading classics, comedies, sci-fi ecetera and comics only comprise 5% of my fiction reading and i myself have written 35 books 2 published most are long comedy series for teens and science fiction packed with religio-cultural commentary. So yes im an authority when i talk about serialized fiction.

  23. Im sorry if some of my post seem pretty vain. as for what I said about Mary Jane remember for over a decade I was one of her harsher critics I turned around. I admit that most complex supporting character in all literature is not really something even I am entitled to say it would have more appropriate to say that she is one of the best examples in history of a dynamic three dimensional character and people should use her as an example in writing classes. Is Spider-Man a better and more important character yes but when you compare how much shit has been tossed on each of them you find that Peter is a more static character. as for what you said about Superman there are several manners of judging superheroes when using one of those methods potential for good/unrealized power abuse I would say that Superman and Professor X are the best superheroes. But most methods and most people would say that Spider-Man is the best hero. Superman was the first superhero he is the most powerful and he did prove the medium but can you really say that he’s gone anywhere when DC had to publish Whatever Happened To Truth Justice And The American Way and produce Superman VS. The Elite to justify his existence in our modern era? Superman’s immense power level means that he is the very definition of a hero overcoming any obstacle and his stories are so free of dramatic tension that Kryptonite has to show up constantly and so many stories have to be focused not on him saving the day but rather him surviving seemingly foolproof assassination attempts. I applaud Superman for not becoming evil or a benevolent dictator but honestly there is so little depth and motivation for his boyscoutness and Superman is the very best example of an argument that I hate and falls apart for nearly every other hero the argument that a hero’s presence actually brings more suffering to mankind because his existence draws the fire of all these villains and of course as often as he argues against it Superman makes use of might makes right. The thing you have to understand about Superman and Messianic parallels is that the industry was invented by Jews and they continue to have a huge influence on it. While Christian writers, directors and fans Want Superman to be Jesus it never works because as Superman’s creators said his character is a more powerful amalgamation of Moses, Samson and Hercules. I’m sorry but the first isn’t always the best.

  24. “Is Spider-Man a better and more important character yes…”

    I seem to recall him wanting to enact terrible revenge on people before he got his powers in the issue of Amazing Fantasy he was in. BETTER for sure… /Facetiousness.

    Without Superman, there WOULD BE NO long underwear crowd with pseudo-scientific powers prancing around brah and if so, it would be a very fringe market. There’s a difference between breaking into new and not really tested waters and making the shop work then ‘refinement,’ which is what I suppose you’re referring to when you mean Parker is important. Yes, refinement IS important, but without the structure already there, what’s there to refine?

    On the note of importance: who has a symbol that’s up there with the Cross in terms of world wide recognizability again? Who was THE FIRST hero to prove the validity of the Superhero hero movie genre way back in the late 70’s and early 80’s? Who serves as the Blue Print for comparison for the long underwear crowd to follow? Who IS the Superhero? I think you’re confusing Importance with CURRENT Popularity brah. By the same logic you’re using, Jesus wasn’t important even though Christendom has taken a big hit in popularity in recent years in favor of other ideologies and theologies.

  25. “Superman was the first superhero…”


    “…he is the most powerful…”

    Someone didn’t do their research properly…

    1. Sure there may be some cosmic characters in Marvel/DC that are more powerful but in popular conscious does anyone ever think of Superman losing a fight. and Yes there were superheroes before Superman such as Robin Hood, Zorro and the Green Hornet.

  26. “…to justify his existence in our modern era?”

    Sounds like the same logic Atheists use against theology.

  27. “Superman’s immense power level means that he is the very definition of a hero overcoming any obstacle and his stories are so free of dramatic tension…”

    You haven’t really read a lot of Superman, have you?

  28. “…and so many stories have to be focused not on him saving the day but rather him surviving seemingly foolproof assassination attempts…”


  29. “but honestly there is so little depth and motivation for his boyscoutness…”

    He was raised by good people who adopted him as an infant and survivor of a holocaust instilled in him good morals and taught him that, despite his powers, he’s not a god and can’t do everything but that, inspite of this humility, that he shouldn’t stop to strive to succeed and use his immense powers for good since he’s stuck with them as a part of his unusual heritage and should make the most of it by helping people and reminding that yes, there is goodness and hope in the world and in them as well. What the hell about that constitutes “little depth” and “motivation” for his boyscoutness? What? Is it that no one in comics continuity had to actually die in a bit of dramatic irony that he caused for him to learn this good lesson? Is it that otherwise, people lack compassion for cries for help? Newsflash: no one really died for Captain America to be who he was either. Sure, the doctor who made the super soldier serum that turned him into the Red, White, and Blue Avenger died, but Steve Rodgers was ALREADY Captain America before he even underwent the experiment in the first place! All the serum did was give him the tools needed to be who he was for maximum effect! Not EVERY character needs to the death of a loved one to tell them to become a Superhero.

    1. I agree with you look about death not being the only motivation look at Batman sure I like the guy but he admits that he’s damaged and only one step away from his foes and yes your right about Captain America. But is Spider-Man’s virtue based solely around the death of a loved one. On this blog I have expressed how without the death of his Uncle he would have inevitably still become a hero in one of several different ways he just wouldn’t have been as good of one. No when I talk about Spider-Man as the best hero I’m talking about him comprehensively from the vantage point of hundreds of issues. and Yes I know much less about DC than you clearly due what I wrote about Superman is based entirely on the cartoons and films live action or animated. (Though I believe there are millions of people who would be hard pressed to disagree with me)

  30. “and Superman is the very best example of an argument that I hate and falls apart for nearly every other hero the argument that a hero’s presence actually brings more suffering to mankind because his existence draws the fire of all these villains…”

    Someone didn’t see the Spider-Man movie trilogy. I mean, REALLY: this is a potential problem for ALL superheroes and is HARDLY unique to either Superman OR Spider-Man.

    “…and of course as often as he argues against it…”

    He does. Despite being an alien, Superman often acts like a true christian. 😛

    “…Superman makes use of might makes right…”

    Ummm…don’t ALL Superheroes have to, BY DEFINITION, have to use might to make right because their in the right and thus, can use might to make right? I mean: they’re superheroes! You NEED to have far-flung action with them, even if they are on the borderline of Technical and Absolute pacifism like Supes and Spidey often are.

    “The thing you have to understand about Superman and Messianic parallels is that the industry was invented by Jews…”

    Preaching to the choir here (hehehe). I know this full well as well as the fact that Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were both of Jewish decent.

    “…and they continue to have a huge influence on it…”

    Again preaching to the choir.

    “While Christian writers, directors and fans Want Superman to be Jesus it never works because as Superman’s creators said his character is a more powerful amalgamation of Moses, Samson and Hercules…”

    I thought he was an amalgamation of Moses and Jesus, but glad to know that his power set had a lot to do with Samson and Hercules, two of the greatest strong men out there. Not surprising, all things considered.

    Also, on that note: creations often do take on a life of their own despite what the original creators had intended and become something greater (the JARRING evolution (hehe) of the X-Men is proof of this, as Stan Lee’s ORIGINAL run was the definition of ‘meh’ kind of Silver Age fare, yet it was later writers with their own spins and ideas that TRULY made the team interesting and iconic). For example: Superman, as he was created in the 40’s, was also all for ‘Social Justice,’ broke into people’s home to beat up wife-beaters, went WAY overboard with the property damage and going all extra-legal, and was essentially the kind of person who, if Batman as written by Crazy-Frank Miller in All-Star Batman and Robin tried calling out, would choke Bruce like he owed him money.

    “I’m sorry but the first isn’t always the best…”

    Gwen Stacy would disagree. 😉

    In all seriousness though, I think you’re confusing “Best” for “Favorite” when I’m saying neither and am in fact saying, “Greatest.”

    Think of it like this: in Greek Mythology, there were many gods and goddesses. The City States each had their own home slice patron deity that they favored daily like Athena or Ares, but all of them recognized that Zeus, founder of the Olympian Pantheon, father of deities like Athena and Ares, the dude who freed his siblings from Kronos’s belly, defeated him in battle, and dropped SICILY on typhon, was the greatest, even if they didn’t like him or his libido all that much and prefered folks like Athena or Ares.

  31. When I was talking about might makes right I mean that sometimes Superman gets into ethical arguments and he’s probably right but unable to come up with a good answer he resorts to force even borderline tantrums. Iv not been trying to tear Superman at all this whole time merely compare him. And yes I’m a long time Gwen fan as two dimensional as she was I liked her more than MJ and think she was the best person for Peter Parker but I support the later addition the challenger MJ all the way because in a fashion she is superior the only character that can handle both sides of him and the same applies to this the original is often better than what comes later but not always.

  32. Wow first off let me say I love your articles and what brought me to them was to LITERALLY find a person who could relate with how idiotic the Amazing Spider-Man Series is. I’m an on and off comic reader and just have recently been able to actually read comics consistently. I love Spider-Man his story is probably one of the most relate-able in Marvel.

    Now what Mr. Slott has done may seem like a good idea in theory when you want to make sales, but when you want a fan base, when you actually want people to enjoy and respect your work you do not go with what will make you sales. I hope to be able to write for comics one day because incidents like these are saddening. The only reason I can stomach to even read the Superior Spider Man series is because I’m waiting for it’s end.

    To be honest I’d much rather read a review than an issue because most of the plot seems rushed, sloppy, and chaotic. While it’s all fine and good to have sporadic events, maybe it’s just me that feels that these issues have been mediocre. The scores given to them on IGN probably are only given because it has the name “Spider-Man”. It’s sad to read them, I loved Peter Parker as a character. Not for his goofy remarks, not for his times of immaturity, but for his times of growth.

    Parker is what most young males are, a struggling individual trying to find their way in life. Growing up reading his stories over these last few years have been touching to see him grow into what we all thought he should be, a Great Man. However Slott has degraded him to some gimmick, and tried to make him out to be this “Good Thing” for the story… No absolutely not. “Potto” is a joke and should never have been conceived. At issue 9 it would have been an acceptable turn for Peter to come back as it’s been stated before that would have shown us “inspiration” which can sell just as good as tragedy. However he’s drawing this thing out, milking it for what it’s “worth” and the only thing I can hope is that fans will put their money back into their pockets and wait for the final issue so we can laugh when Peter comes back and cheer. Albeit I do think this Goblin Nation will be fun but only for the chaos it will so rightfully reap on the “Potto’s” head.

    I just want to say thank you, I love insight and reading your articles and young Slott’s childish retorts have more than made this ordeal of reading “Superior” Spider-Man worth it.

    1. Wow first off let me say I love your articles and what brought me to them was to LITERALLY find a person who could relate with how idiotic the Amazing Spider-Man Series is. I’m an on and off comic reader and just have recently been able to actually read comics consistently. I love Spider-Man his story is probably one of the most relate-able in Marvel.

      Thank you so much for taking the time to read and comment, Orion Crasher. It brings a smile to my face to know how you found me because one of the main reasons I started this blog was so that people would know that they are not alone. On the subject of Peter Parker, it’s great news that you now have a place where you know you can vent and be among friends. We all know that ultimately this era will end, but in the mean time we still have to deal with it. Sometimes, just having someone you can ping online to say, “Can you believe this…” makes it that much easier.

      The only reason I can stomach to even read the Superior Spider Man series is because I’m waiting for it’s end.

      Again, you’re not alone! I haven’t been buying it, but I’m sure there are a lot of guys like you out there. That’s why I say that in the long run this era is going to get mocked to no end for what it’s done to Peter Parker, the Spider-Man brand, etc.

      The scores given to them on IGN probably are only given because it has the name “Spider-Man”. It’s sad to read them, I loved Peter Parker as a character. Not for his goofy remarks, not for his times of immaturity, but for his times of growth.

      Some of the reviews are…”interesting,” to say the least. As I’ve randomly read reviews on some of the bigger sites, it seems that they tend to sugar coat the worst aspects of the book.

      I believe one of the reason why guys like Dan Slott have a hard time writing Peter is because they are immature, and Peter is about growth. They have done everything within their power to slow down or reverse Peter’s expansion, and when that didn’t work … they killed the marriage and then they killed Peter. Superior Spider-Man’s is, on some level, Dan Slott’s way to get a reprieve from writing a character that he fundamentally doesn’t understand. The task at and is beyond his reach. Indeed, it is possible to like something and not understand why it works.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: