Category: Comics

Dan Slott, absent a superior argument, now sics Twitter followers on critics

September 30, 2013October 28, 2014by Douglas Ernst125 Comments

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.

Big Bang Theory delivers punishing blow to Superior Spider-Man; Dan Slott feigns delight

September 28, 2013September 30, 2013by Douglas Ernst49 Comments

Do the writers of The Big Bang Theory read this blog? If not, it appears as though we’re on the exact same wavelength when it comes to Dan Slott’s Superior Spider-Man.

Here is what I said on February 1st after Dan Slott stalked “The Main Event” and got intellectually body slammed:

“It was only a few weeks ago that Dan Slott thought long-time Spider-Man fans would be okay reading a rip-off of 2003′s “Freaky Friday” starring Jamie Lee Curtis and Lindsay Lohan — only with Spider-Man and Doctor Octopus. (Or was that 1988′s “Vice Versa” starring Judge Reinhold and Fred Savage?)“

Dan Slott’s general response to me over the course of Superior Spider-Man has been to call me an idiot multiple times while abusing the caps-lock button, to call me a “bad person,” and to try and link me with some guy I don’t even know who writes fan fiction Spider-Man porn.

Now, take the most recent episode of The Big Bang Theory:

Howard: What were they thinking putting Doctor Octopus’ mind in Peter Parker’s body?

Raj: I’ve been quite enjoying that. It combines all the superhero fun of Spider-Man with all the body-switching shenanigans of ‘Freaky Friday.’

Dan Slott’s reaction? Feigned joy.

Let me spell it out for Mr. Slott and everyone else who keeps saying “Raj likes the Superior Spider-Man”: The reality is that the writers just made a joke that cut deep — at Dan Slott’s expense.

When a character on a television says he loves Superior Spider-Man because it reminds him of the “shenanigans of ‘Freaky Friday,” it is the equivalent of a Little Mac power punch to Mike Tyson on the old school NES. Correction: a Little Mac power punch to Glass Joe.

Howard asks “What were they thinking?” and the response — accentuated by the laugh track — was that Marvel killed off Peter Parker for what is essentially a rehashed version of Freaky Friday. Congratulations. Freaky Friday grossed $110 million dollars, so using the ‘Slott Rule’ for success, we only have to wait a few more decades before people realize the genius of Lindsay Lohan’s portrayal of Anna Coleman.

As I’ve said before, I believe there is room in the Marvel Universe for Doctor Octopus to play the “Superior Freaky Friday Spider-Man.” I am not opposed to having a megalomaniac running around New York with spider-powers. I just think that executing Peter Parker (twice) so that Dan Slott could make Jamie Lee Octavius everyone’s favorite wall crawler was an error of monumental proportions.

Ask yourself this question, Spider-Man fans: Knowing what you know about how Dan Slott conducts himself on message boards, how would he respond if someone said that they hated Superior Spider-Man because it was little more than ‘Freaky Friday’ with Marvel characters? Now ask yourself why he took to Twitter to feign admiration for a joke told at his expense. Perhaps because it’s a little more dangerous to mock and ridicule the writers of The Big Bang Theory than it is to personally attack the average fan? Hmmm.

Thank you, writers of The Big Bang Theory, for delivering a KNOCK OUT blow to this abomination.

Update: Someone over at ComicVine shared my blog post. Dan Slott has decided that personal attacks and weird discussions on Trayvon Martain and Ben Shapiro would be appropriate instead of actually discussing Superior Spider-Man.

“Douglas Ernst was clearly in the wrong– and horribly offensive– in the WORST way a human being could possibly be. He has NEVER apologized for that BASELESS, DISGUSTING, and REPREHENSIBLE attack. He has stuck to his guns that he was in the right for doing this TERRIBLE and ATROCIOUS thing. Douglas Ernst is a bad person. Plain and simple. Why you people give him the time of day here I’ll never know,” (Dan Slott).

It’s good to know “All-Caps” Dan Slott dislikes me so much that he … reads my commentary on legal cases like the Trayvon Martin case.

Speaking of legal issues, Dan Slott is now making weirdly veiled legal threats in my direction. Dan Slott stifles debate? Who would ever get that idea?

“If someone, like you, who is in the habit of spreading gross falsehoods about me online, I am interested to see if any of them rise to the level of being liable and actionable,” (Dan Slott).

Side note: Here’s Slott’s tweet after (one would assume, given the timing) reading this post. All press is good press, right? Even if writers are mocking your product, who cares if the attention will bring in more sales. Sad.

‘The Wolverine’ does Logan proud: Hugh Jackman atones for ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’

July 28, 2013July 28, 2013by Douglas Ernst24 Comments

Logan may not rest easy at night, but Hugh Jackman can. It’s official: He has now atoned for 2009’s ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine.’

In 2009, the brilliant minds at Fox decided to put Deadpool, “the merc with a mouth,” into a Wolverine movie … only they sewed his mouth shut and did away with one of the coolest uniforms in comics. The movie was a letdown, so one can’t blame an American audience for being coy on the opening weekend of ‘The Wolverine.’ Regardless, it still did pretty darn well; fans have been given a quality product.

Hollywood’s summer tentpole strategy continued to suffer in North America with the muted debut of The Wolverine, but the X-Men spin-off more than made up for it overseas.

The 20th Century Fox pic opened to $55 million domestically and roughly $86.1 million internationally for a worldwide total of $141.1 million — easily covering the film’s $120 million production budget. Internationally, it posted the strongest opening ever for an X-Men title.

Wolverine certainly isn’t a dud in North America and still claimed the No. 1 position, but came in at least $10 million behind expectations and well behind the $85.1 million opening of X-Men Origins: Wolverine in early May 2009. It opened on par with last summer’s X-Men: First Class, an origins pic versus a sequel.

Word of mouth will help ‘The Wolverine’ out, which is a good thing because it’s obvious that Mr. Jackman loves the character. He’s not getting any younger — a bitter pill to swallow when playing a guy who doesn’t age — but at least the success of this film will guarantee him a few more times running around on screen as the mutant.

Perhaps the smartest move director James Mangold did was to scale everything down into something that wasn’t a typical “superhero” movie. It’s a Samurai flick. It’s a Japanese mob story. It’s a character study. And yes, it just so happens to have super-powered mutants doing what you expect super-powered mutants to do. There’s a crisscrossing of genres that really works, which is impressive because it could have gone horribly wrong.

In short, Wolverine has retreated into the forest after the events depicted in ‘X-Men: The Last Stand.’ Having killed the woman he loved, Jean Grey, he attempts to deny who (and what) he is — a soldier. The result? He’s a man without a purpose. He wants to die — or so he thinks.

Logan is eventually tracked down by a mutant named Yukio (Rila Fukushima). She tells him that a man he saved during World War II, Yashida (Haruhiko Yamanouchi), is dying and would like to see him one last time. Logan relents, and the two are off to Japan. From there the plot unfolds with Wolverine having to play protector for Yashida’s granddaughter Mariko (Tao Okamoto), all while trying to keep himself alive; his healing powers have mysteriously been suppressed and the bullet holes and blood loss take a toll on his body in ways he’s never experienced.

With all of this going on,’The Wolverine’ is at its best when it’s getting inside Logan’s head. I always pictured a Wolverine film to be reminiscent of ‘Rambo: First Blood’ instead of fare meant for “pop-corn” sensibilities, (e.g., ‘Iron Man 3’). Wolverine is a tortured soul, and it was nice to see him in a film that slowed things down to explore the mind of a soldier who is struggling to find peace. In between satisfying action scenes (the bullet-train fight in particular), fans finally get to see Logan’s psychology explored in ways that do him justice.

‘The Wolverine’ is not without its flaws, but it’s hard to deny that Hugh Jackman worked overtime (physically and mentally) to make up for ‘X-Men Origins.’ Fans might not have a healing factor like Wolverine, but this latest effort will rebuild a lot of trust with skeptical moviegoers.

Dan Slott and Marvel’s Orwellian message boards can’t hide the truth: Fans want Peter Parker

July 26, 2013April 22, 2014by Douglas Ernst167 Comments

Anyone who has read George Orwell’s ‘1984’ is familiar with the Ministry of Truth and its “memory holes,” those fabulous tubes that get rid of pesky realities for the good of The Party. Anyone who has ever frequented the Spider-Man section of the Marvel message boards for any length of time knows that Ministry of Truth is alive and well, deleting comments that draw metaphorical blood from the monster that is Superior Spider-Man — or its creator Dan Slott.

Lucky, the Brotherhood exists … and proof of it can been seen in the search engine terms being used online each day by countless Peter Parker fans.

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Doctor Octopus is Spider-Man. It doesn’t have to be that way.

This blog is on pace to have roughly 25,000 page views for the month of July. The individuals who get here search any number of topics, from liquid fluoride thorium reactors to Navy SEALS, weightlifting advice to the national debt. However, readers also get here because they care about the character Spider-Man. I have taken one search result from each day this month in order to highlight what many Spider-Man fans are thinking:

July 31: “Is Peter Parker coming back?”

July 30: “When will Superior Spider-Man end?”

July 29: “Dan Slott should be fired”

July 28: “Will Peter Parker return?”

July 27: “Superior Spider-Man ending”

July 26: “Dan Slott is an asshole”

July 25: “Why Dan Slott ruined Spider-Man”

July 24: “Dan Slott is an asshole”

July 23: “Bring back Peter Parker”

July 22: “Will Peter Parker return as Spider-Man?”

July 21: “Dan Slott sucks”

July 20: “Fire Dan Slott Superior Spider-Man”

July 19: “Superior Spider-Man people are pissed”

July 18: “Can Marvel make Spider-Man good again?”

July 17: “Bring back Peter Parker”

July 16: “Why Dan Slott doesn’t want Peter Parker returns?”

July 15: “Dan Slott hates Peter Parker”

July 14: “Bring back Peter Parker”

July 13: “Dan Slott sucks”

July 12: “Why does everyone hate Dan Slott now?”

July 11: “When is Superior Spider-Man ending?”

July 10: “Bring back Peter Parker”

July 09: “I hate the Superior Spider-Man”

July 08: “When is superior spider-man going to end?”

July 07: “Idiots killed off Spider-Man”

July 06: “Sick of Superior Spider-Man”

July 05: “The Superior Spider-Man sucks ass”

July 04: “Will Peter Parker come back?”

July 03: “When is Peter Parker coming back?”

July 02: “Will Peter Parker come back?”

July 01: “I hate Dan Slott”

Here is a screenshot from the July 21 to give you an idea of what WordPress bloggers see on the back end. (Side note: I love that people are now searching ‘Harold and Kumar Get Droned’ because it was a piece of satire I wrote on Kal Penn’s hypocrisy that appears to have taken on a life of its own).

These are only a fraction of the search terms available, but even if I included the others a pattern becomes clear: There are a lot of dissatisfied fans out there who want Peter Parker back and many of them are not happy with Dan Slott.

Search Engine stats tell us exactly why the moderator for the Marvel boards has a penchant for deleting posts when they come from someone who might be perceived as Dan Slott’s intellectual “superior.” Search engine stats tell us why Dan Slott must turn to the moderators at Comic Book Resources and ask them to shut down the debate when he can’t goad guys like me into saying something that would get us banned.

“This whole topic has become abhorrent. Can the mods please close this thread? This has already gotten far more attention than it deserves,” (Dan Slott)

Search Engines stats are why the moderator at Newsarama shut me down — and then shut down all comments when strangers came to my defense.

And finally, search engines give us a clue as to why, perhaps, Dan Slott was a no-show at the San Diego Comic-Con for the Superior-Spider-Man panel. I suggest you watch it, if only to see 33 minutes of pure awkwardness. (At one point fans had to be asked to show their excitement for the book three times because the first two efforts sounded like a room full of kids being told to eat re-fried beans out of the can.) Dan Slott “phoned in” his participation towards the end, and when someone said they couldn’t relate to the Superior Spider-Man because Otto was essentially “Jerk Spider-Man,” the response by Mr. Slott and Steve Wacker was essentially: “The book is awesome! … Want to hear Dan Slott’s impression of J. Jonah Jameson?”

In the end, there will always be many more comic book fans than there are Peter Parker fans. That is why Dan Slott likes to talk about sales. And that is why when intelligent people start mulling over the actual merits of the book (e.g., How is this any different from turning the Red Skull into Captain America and then trying to pass it off as creative genius?) their comments go down the Mighty Marvel Memory Hole.

Rolling Stone put a real terrorist on the cover of its magazine, a lot of people got upset, and sales went up 20 percent. Dan Slott turned a fictional terrorist into Spider-Man, a lot of people got upset, and sales are up. Sales are not the sole litmus test for success, and they certainly aren’t the litmus test for decency. Hopefully, by offering you a glimpse into the search terms people use to get to this blog, your confidence will be renewed that there are plenty of fans out there who are not happy with the state of Spider-Man in 2013.

History will not judge this era of Spider-Man comic books kindly. In time a writer with true vision will come along who will unite ardent fans of Peter Parker, those with no particular loyalties who are just looking for an interesting tale — and yes, the lowest common denominator — who will buy anything as long as it says Spider-Man on the cover. And when that happens and sales skyrocket the world will see Dan Slott for what what he truly was, which was certainly not a good steward of one of the greatest characters of all time: Peter Parker.

Dan Slott was a no-show at the San Diego Comic-Con. Maybe when you mouth off to countless fans online you get worried that they might show up to confront you about it. Internet tough guys ... usually aren't in real life. — Dan Slott was a no-show at the San Diego Comic-Con. Maybe when you mouth off to countless fans online you get worried that they might show up to confront you about it. Internet tough guys … usually aren’t in real life.

The universe is an amazing place. Like I said: Dan Slott, internet tough guy. — Dan Slott, Internet tough guy. He talks about giving someone the “Jay and Silent Bob” treatment when the truth is, he’s scared someone is going to do that to him for all the jerky things he’s said behind a computer screen.

Dan Slott’s ‘Superior Spider-Man’: Genocidal ‘Peter Parker’ is really just like Hawkeye

May 15, 2013April 24, 2014by Douglas Ernst39 Comments

Update: The title of this has been changed after a civil conversation with reader xmenexpert. To see the conversation, click here.

Dan Slott is incredibly proud of the Superior Spider-Man, both as a hero and in regards to sales. And why not? It’s his creation. And to top it all off, he has plenty of fans who tell him at comic conventions how much they love the book. But that still doesn’t change the fact that one could arguably call Doc Ock the Superior anti-Semite.

Quite a charge, is it not? Is Doctor Octopus an anti-Semite, or was his actual end game “just” to kill six billion people (all the Jews included)? Let us revisit the “Ends of the Earth” storyline, shall we?

“But the human race is resilient and the first thousand or so who climb out of the wreckage … they’ll rebuild. Life will go on, and they’ll remember me. For that new society I shall live on in infamy — a mass murderer worse than Pol Pot, Hitler, and Genghis Khan combined!” (Doctor Octopus).

Here’s a little history lesson from the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., to demonstrate just how evil of a man Otto would have to be to transcend Hitler, Pol Pot and Ghenghis Khan combined.

German SS and police murdered nearly 2,700,000 Jews in the killing centers either by asphyxiation with poison gas or by shooting. In its entirety, the “Final Solution” called for the murder of all European Jews by gassing, shooting, and other means. Approximately six million Jewish men, women, and children were killed during the Holocaust — two-thirds of the Jews living in Europe before World War II.

Got that? Doc Ock had a “Final Solution,” but it involved being a “superior” version of Hitler; he would implement a plan that would in effect kill all of the Jews instead of just those residing in Europe. And now he’s Spider-Man. In Peter Parker’s body. In fact, he’s Dan Slott’s Spider-Übermensch.

Kind of sick, isn’t it? And the only retort Dan Slott and his fans could possibly have is that 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. And fans “love” the story. It’s what brought them back to the book. Congrats Mr. Slott, those are the kinds of winners I want giving me high fives and pats on the back at comic conventions…

With that said, it is also important to once again revisit how on earth Marvel fans could get a run-of-the mill genocidal maniac swinging around New York City in Peter’s body. Mr. Slott’s recent Newsarama interview gives the answer.

Nrama: With Superior Spider-Man, you’re writing Doc Ock as a lead character for really the first time, and a more long-term Doc Ock story than has really been seen before. We’re seeing the character put in very different situations, interacting with totally different characters. What kind of task has that been — approaching his mindset and his attitude in the position of a lead character?

Slott: He’s trying his best to be a hero, but he’s doing it in a very Doc Ock way. And Doc Ock’s an egotistical, annoying sh*t. It makes him an interesting character. At his core, he’s someone we don’t really think of heroic. But is he any more annoying than [former villain] Hawkeye used to be?

Hmm. Good question. Is Hawkeye “more annoying” than Otto, or has Mr. Slott’s moral relativism inadvertently produced Marvel’s first genocidal maniac superhero? Let me revisit the Holocaust Memorial Museum one more time:

The Nazis frequently used euphemistic language to disguise the true nature of their crimes. They used the term “Final Solution” to refer to their plan to annihilate the Jewish people. It is not known when the leaders of Nazi Germany definitively decided to implement the “Final Solution.” The genocide, or mass destruction, of the Jews was the culmination of a decade of increasingly severe discriminatory measures. …

After the June 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union, SS and police units (acting as mobile killing units) began massive killing operations aimed at entire Jewish communities. By autumn 1941, the SS and police introduced mobile gas vans. These paneled trucks had exhaust pipes reconfigured to pump poisonous carbon monoxide gas into sealed spaces, killing those locked within. They were designed to complement ongoing shooting operations.

Question for Dan Slott: What issue did Hawkeye triumphantly declare that he would be remembered as a worse murderer than the guy who deployed gas vans to exterminate Jews? Just asking. Was that an annual, or a Comic Con exclusive?

Does a character go from wanting to transcend Hitler, Pol Pot, and Genghis Khan in terms of perpetuating pure evil upon the entire world to a “hero” just because a really good guy beamed his life story and “with great power comes great responsibility” into his head? Probably not. And since we’re talking about the Superior Spider-Man — the guy who blew a defenseless criminal’s face off — Magic 8 Ball says “Why would you ask me such a dumb question?”

Superior Spider-Man is an abomination. It’s an insult to Stan Lee, long-time Peter Parker fans and anyone with a shred of respect for the character. Sales may be fine for Superior Spider-Man, but history will not treat the book kindly. One day a group of editors with a working moral compass will be at the helm of the Spider-Man books and they will look back at this era and ask, “What were they thinking?”

The end of the book can not come soon enough, and the ‘Ends of the Earth’ arc tells us why.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Holocaust image that was previously here has been removed after reflecting on the request of a reader named Rogue. You can view her comment here. If Dan Slott had acted like an adult from the very beginning and demonstrated half the intelligence and grace as Rogue, it is very likely the picture would have been removed in May.

Update: Here is an email I received from a reader disagreeing with the decision to remove the photo:

“I think Rogue is way off on the sensationalism and especially the testosterone rationale. It is important to show what Slott so casually put in his dialogue and inside Spider-Man’s head. I agree they are real people with no voice, I agree it was horrible, I agree it’s grisly — but it was Slott who betrayed their legacy — and that needs to be shown. Obviously his own grandfather’s story didn’t keep Slott from writing a tasteless story with an iconic hero, so maybe that image drove it home. I respect Rouge’s opinion, but I wouldn’t have changed it. It was Slott who inserted this awful chapter of history into the comic,” (douglasernstblog.com reader).

Removing the image was an incredibly tough choice for me. The reader accurately sums up my feelings on the issue, but in this instance I think removing the image sends a more important message: How you conduct yourself with those with whom you have fierce disagreements will often determine the amount of progress you make towards finding an amicable solution.

Update: Dan Slott has called me a “bad” person and “immoral” for writing this blog post. He then was so incensed that I’m able to tactfully defend my decision that he requested the moderator close out the thread. In Dan Slott’s mind, asking if 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 Dan Slott of being anti-Semetic. Reasonable people can separate the two, but Dan Slott can’t. That’s why he sticks to forums where he can control the moderators and count on his devoted fans to verbally attack. His moral relativism has warped his mind so badly that he now puts my soul on equal terms with real life dictators and despots. Telling.

Update II: Dan Slott is upset that the moderator at Comic Vine put him in his place, so now he’s trying to send his 39,000 followers here to give me grief. Welcome! Here’s the abridged version for some of you:

What Dan Slott doesn’t get (in some sense because moral relativism has warped his mind), is that this post points out the obvious — it doesn’t matter what Dan Slott’s intentions are if the end result is that a monster worse than Hitler is in Peter Parker’s body.

How fitting that only 48 hours after my "Beautiful Music Monday" on Facebook, featuring Schindler's List, Dan Slott would call me "immoral" for writing this blog post. That's okay, Dan, there are many, many others that can see why making a man who wanted to transcend the world's most notorious dictator the new Spider-Man is so wrong. — How fitting is it that after my June 10 “Beautiful Music Monday” on Facebook, featuring Schindler’s List, that Dan Slott would call me “immoral” on June 13 for writing this blog post. That’s okay, Dan. There are many, many others that can see why making a character who wanted to transcend the world’s most notorious dictator into the new Spider-Man is an abomination.

At one time Marvel had heroes who punched out Hitler on the cover. Now, with Dan Slott's Superior Spider-Man, fans have a "hero" who wanted to transcend Hitler in terms of successfully bringing forth murder and mayhem. Congratulations, Marvel. I'm glad "sales" are doing so well for you. It's just fascinating you can still look at yourself in the mirror. "With great power comes great responsibility." Just because you can write a particular story, it doesn't mean you should. I guess Dan Slott missed that lesson when he was reading Spider-Man as a kid. — At one time Marvel had heroes who punched out Hitler on the cover. Now, with Dan Slott’s Superior Spider-Man, fans have a “hero” who wanted to transcend Hitler in terms of successfully bringing forth murder and mayhem. Congratulations, Marvel. I’m glad “sales” are doing so well for you. It’s just fascinating that you can still look at yourself in the mirror. “With great power comes great responsibility.” Just because you can write a particular story, it doesn’t mean you should. Maybe Dan Slott missed that lesson when he was reading Spider-Man as a kid.

It’s April 18, 2014 — almost a year after this post was written — and Dan Slott is still obsessing over it. That’s what you call hitting a nerve. Deep down, he knows that my reasons for writing this piece were spot on.

Dan Slott YouTube service reply — Dan Slott wants people to believe I’m “deceptive,” a “weasel,” and someone who is an evil master of “semantics,” but yet I’m also “stupid,” “insane” and incapable of capturing nuance. Which is it? The truth is, he knows I’m highly intelligent. He’s admitted as much on CBR, where he said something along the lines of: “You know exactly what you’re doing.” Here’s the truth: Dan Slott does not think I am stupid — he thinks other people are stupid. Follow his Twitter feed and you will soon see evidence of this, as it manifests itself in his political tweets. Essentially, people are so stupid that they need 535 elitist masters in the nation’s capital to control every aspect of their lives.

Iron Man 3: Americans will love it, but so will moviegoers who hate America

May 5, 2013May 5, 2013by Douglas Ernst24 Comments

The good news about Iron Man 3 is that it’s a sharply written, well-directed movie. The bad news is that while some of the messages it conveys to the audience hold incredible truth (e.g., “we create our own demons”), it might just be the conspiracy-theorist must-see blockbuster of the summer.

Do you have any friends who think 9/11 was “an inside job”? Iron Man 3 is the movie for them. (You might want to consider getting new friends if that’s the case, but in the mean time you could still enjoy a solid movie.) Do you have any friends who refer to the “military industrial complex” at parties so they sound smarter than they really are? Iron Man 3 is the movie for them. Do you have friends who hate “Big Oil” and “fat cats”? Iron Man 3 is the movie for them. Director Shane Black ingeniously — or perhaps devilishly? — devised a film that is drenched in anti-Americanism in a way that will leave many Americans exiting the theater not even knowing they’re all wet. At the showing I went to in Tyson’s Corner, Va., many people even burst out clapping twice during the film. On many levels, Mr. Black deserves kudos. That’s not easy to do.

Because so much of the movie focuses on Robert Downey Jr. and the “demons” his actions have brought into his life (his enemies literally breathe fire), and because he owns the role, one could forgive friends and relatives if they don’t leave the theater angry. The “truth” about the Mandarin alone, which I will refrain from disclosing here, is one that will play very well in Muslim nations that actually allow Western movies to be screened — for reasons that have nothing to do with their religion and everything to do with conspiracy theories that run rampant in those parts of the world. Given the fact that the writers and producers created entirely new scenes for the Chinese release, it’s not hard to believe that the endeavor was specifically crafted to maximize both foreign and domestic sales. Again, it is rather awe-inspiring what Mr. Black has pulled off.

Strangely enough, perhaps the group of moviegoers who will be most disappointed in Iron Man 3 will be long time fans of the Iron Man comic book. As already mentioned, the “truth” about the Madarin is something that will drive fans of the character up a wall. They will be livid, and rightly so. However, the average person who knows nothing about the character’s history will not care because within the context of the film, the changes work and that’s all that really matters to people who count box office receipts. It’s sad, but that’s the truth.

Moving forward, it will be hard for figure out how an Iron Man 4 would take shape. Robert Downey Jr’s shtick is enjoyable, but even the great and powerful RDJ gets annoying. It was a wise move to knock the chip off his shoulder in the third installment by stripping everything away from him. He needed to be taken down a notch. He needed the smile wiped off his face. He needed to look lost and confused and panicked because sometimes the rich billionaire guy who mocks everyone and everything just comes across as a jerk. Downey had an incredible balancing act to play between being that witty sarcastic smartass with a smile, and being the vulnerable guy who just recently learned their are forces in the universe that are beyond human comprehension — and he did it almost perfectly.

Perhaps my feelings on Iron Man 3 can be best summed up in response to something the Madarin says midway through the movie. The character, played by Ben Kingsley, says that America is “like a fortune cookie — hollow, and it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.”

Iron Man 3 is definitely not hollow. There are many, many layers to it. The acting, writing, directing and special effects are all top-notch. Iron Man 3 does, however, leave a bitter aftertaste. Shane Black could have written a movie that did not blatantly appeal to large swathes of moviegoers who love nothing more than to blame America for the world’s ills, but he did not. Marvel signed off on it. Disney signed off on it, and so did Robert Downey Jr. And for that, while I thoroughly enjoyed the film, it is not one that I will ever purchase for myself.

Regardless, I’m looking forward to seeing Iron Man fly again when The Avengers 2 hits theaters. See you there.

Dan Slott used anger to sell Superior Spider-Man 9, but people are really just sad — for him

May 3, 2013November 15, 2013by Douglas Ernst175 Comments

Dan Slott and Marvel decided they would fuel sales by tapping into fan anger, which is rather sad. If you read Superior Spider-Man 9 you’ll see just how deeply the sadness runs. It’s Mariana Trench deep.

If you’ve read Spider-Man comics for years, you’ve likely felt as though the character of Peter Parker was growing and maturing with you. Time in a comic book doesn’t correlate to time in the real world, but it was fun to see Peter go from being a naive young kid into a responsible adult. Each stage of life has its own set of challenges and responsibilities we must face up to, and for awhile Peter was hitting his stride. Then, at some point the creators of Spider-Man began to shirk their duties. They were nervous about moving forward with the character, so instead they came up with a laundry list of reasons why the title wasn’t performing and ultimately began moving backwards. With Superior Spider-Man #9, Dan Slott proves that he is the Mole Man of Marvel writers; he can go extremely low. Subterranean low. Congratulations.

Years ago they said Mary Jane was a creative obstacle. Solution? Kill the marriage. The writing still stinks? Make Peter act like a younger dumber version of himself. Still not right? Here’s an idea: Let’s kill Peter Parker. In fact, let’s just kill off The Amazing Spider-Man and ride the gimmick-wave as long as we can (i.e., Doc Ock in Peter’s body), until people get sick of buying a superhero book about a “hero” who tried to kill six billion people and completely flouts the rule of law with impunity (e.g., blowing a defenseless guy’s face off in front of numerous witnesses).

Question: What does it say about a title when people tune in just to see how much damage one man can do to a beloved character? The great thing about comics is that a good writer with enough time could put Humpty Spidey back together again, but the fact remains: instead of uniting Spider-Man fans around a specific direction for Marvel’s flagship character, the Brain Trust has allowed the title to turn into a character study on the inner workings of Dan Slott’s mind. And Mr. Slott does not disappoint. By the end of Superior Spider-Man #9 we know exactly how he defines Peter: a mentally weak man-boy who at his core would allow a deranged psychopath like Doctor Octopus to bring him to his knees and wipe him from existence.

This is Dan Slott's Spider-Man. With decades of experience, at his core he's still just a scared little immature boy. Again: sad. — This is Dan Slott’s Spider-Man. With decades of experience, at his core he’s still just a scared little immature man-boy with tears welling up in his eyes. Sad.

Here’s a quick recap, so you don’t need to purchase the book:

1. Doc Ock figures out that a piece of Peter still remains locked away in his brain.
2. The villain attempts to erase this memory from existence while inside his laboratory and fails. Doc Ock must “go in.”
3. Having physically “killed” Peter in Amazing Spider-Man #700, writer Dan Slott gives Doctor Octopus a chance to “kill” him off psychologically as well. Once again, the true hero goes down in rather embarrassing fashion.
4. Doctor Octopus is triumphant.

Again, Marvel’s promotional campaign for the issue promised readers they would be angry, but why? Dan Slott does the equivalent of a double tap — he killed off Peter in ASM 700, and for all intents and purposes he did it again in SSM 9. Perhaps in a few more issues Doc Ock could make a deal with Mephisto to scatter Peter Parker’s soul into a billion pieces across the universe just to rub it in even further. Maybe Slott wants to go for the mind-body-soul hat trick of destruction. At this point, it’s almost to be expected.

If I was writing the book, I’d have Ock find all the secrets Mephisto locked away of Peter’s life with Mary Jane still inside his head. Ock could tell Peter the truth, undo “the deal,” and in many ways redeem himself by resurrecting true love. In the process, Ock would then create his own new enemy — Mephisto. It would be a great story, it would make fans happy and it would quickly undo a ton of damage done over the years in a plausible way. But hey … I’m just that “crazy conservative blogger” who loves Spider-Man. Who am I to talk? Call me when you want a writer who loves Spider-Man on your payroll, Marvel.

The real questions for Spider-Man fans are as follows:

Do you believe Marvel will bring back Peter Parker? If the answer yes, it will be obvious that he will have his reputation completely ruined and, on some level, be forced to build it back up from scratch. (This is actually a good idea, but the execution of it all — no pun intended — has been horrendous).
Given that, does anyone trust Dan Slott with the rebuilding process?

I’ll leave you with a quote from my brother, who read Amazing Spider-Man to me on his lap when I was a child:

You and Main Event don’t enjoy the story and [Dan Slott] comes back with sales. Let’s see … remember the Sesame Street “which of the 4 don’t belong?” game as a kid? My four are Jimmy Page, Aretha Franklin, Neil Peart, and Justin Bieber. Three are respected musicians with decades-long career success. I’ll say Bieber doesn’t belong in the others’ league. Then again, Bieber did have more “sales” this past year, so by Slottian logic I guess I’m an idiot, too.

Boom. Quality-wise, Superior Spider-Man is the Justin Bieber of Marvel titles. Enjoy those sales while they last. Years from now, it will be the quality that critics talk about, and they will not treat this era of Spider-Man kindly.

Update:

Here’s another question: Where was any meaningful presence of Uncle Ben in SSM #9? In Peter’s mind, Uncle Ben would have towered over Doctor Octopus like a colossus (or was that a Galactus?). In a battle for Peter’s existence, how cool would it have been for Uncle Ben to give Peter the strength and courage to adapt and overcome? How amazing would it have been to see Doctor Octopus quiver in the presence of a real man — Uncle Ben — and melt away like the Wicked Witch? We’ll never know, because Marvel wanted to make readers “angry” instead of inspired.

Fantom Comics, Washington, D.C. Union Station location. Sales are "Going okay. We had a drop off because I think what's going on with a lot of people is that they've shaken up the status quo so much that they're just uncomfortable with it." — Fantom Comics, Washington, D.C. Union Station location. According to the man behind the counter, sales are “Going okay. We had a drop off because I think what’s going on with a lot of people is that they’ve shaken up the status quo so much that they’re just uncomfortable with it.”

Dan Slott’s moral relativism killed Spider-Man: One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter

April 6, 2013April 12, 2017by Douglas Ernst35 Comments

Imagine if you will, a scenario where a thin-skinned comic book writer goes off on a tirade laced with ad hominem attacks on blogger who was simply putting forth a straight-forward critique of his work. Imagine that online outburst setting off a chain of events in which another fan ends up introducing the blogger to a Newsarama interview he was unfamiliar with. The reader says he’d like to see a response to the interview. Does the blogger do it?

Well imagine no longer, because that blogger is me and I intend to do address the issue. The Newsarama interview, in short, perfectly embodies everything that is wrong with Dan Slott’s approach to Spider-Man. As I did in my last piece, I will break it up into smaller sections so readers can see the two different visions side by side.

Nrama: With Superior Spider-Man, you’re writing Doc Ock as a lead character for really the first time, and a more long-term Doc Ock story than has really been seen before. We’re seeing the character put in very different situations, interacting with totally different characters. What kind of task has that been — approaching his mindset and his attitude in the position of a lead character?

Slott: He’s trying his best to be a hero, but he’s doing it in a very Doc Ock way. And Doc Ock’s an egotistical, annoying sh*t. It makes him an interesting character. At his core, he’s someone we don’t really think of heroic. But is he any more annoying than [former villain] Hawkeye used to be?

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but did Hawkeye ever try and put in motion plans to bring about an extinction-level event? If I missed that one, can someone let me know the issue so I can read it tomorrow? I would say that trying to incinerate 6 billion people is slightly more “annoying” than anything Hawkeye could ever dish out.

Slott: Also, when you look at Doc Ock, he was so much like Peter Parker. Peter Parker, if he didn’t know the lessons of power and responsibility, that teenage nerd would have grown up to be an Otto Octavius nerd, with the same kind of, “I’m going to make them pay.” This is the flip of that. This is Doc Ock getting to go back in time and be as young as Peter Parker, and have force-fed into him this sense of power and responsibility. He has that lesson from Uncle Ben in his core. That was Peter Parker’s parting gift to the world — I’m not going to leave the world a villain, I’m going to leave them a hero.

Peter Parker’s “gift” (i.e., Dan Slott’s “gift”) to the world was that he has allowed a character who should be serving 5,000 life sentences for crimes against humanity off the hook. Before redemption can occur on earth a man must pay for his crimes and atone for his sins. Doc Ock has the blood of countless innocents on his hands, but because Peter beamed “with great power comes great responsibility” into the villain’s head moments before he died then it’s somehow all okay? Of course not. And that’s why this current run is so repulsive to anyone with a shred of respect for the character; they would never allow Doctor Octopus to take up the mantle of Spider-Man.

Slott: Doc never intended to be on this path, and in his own way he’s very good at it. He’s just doing it differently than Peter would.

Do you see Punisher as a hero? Do you see Wolverine as a hero? If these guys can be heroes, why can’t Doc Ock?

And this is where the moral relativist in Dan Slott exposes himself for all the world to see. It’s the “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” mentality. One man’s Spider-Man is another man’s Doc Ock. One man’s Captain America is another man’s Red Skull. It’s sick.

Since when has the core of Wolverine’s or the Punisher’s character ever been about wanton destruction, innocents be damned? When have they ever took it upon themselves to devise plots and plans that would see countless men, women and innocent children blown to bits?

Do Wolverine and Punisher push the definition of what it means to be a hero to its limits? Yes. But reasonable people know that if they were ever tried and convicted in a court of law for taking matters into their own hands (e.g., tracking down a drug lord and killing him in his sleep) that is the price one must pay for dishing out vigilante justice.

That aside, the philosophical gap between Wolverine and Doctor Octopus is so enormous that to even ask why one can be a hero and the other can’t is ludicrous. When anyone can be a hero — despite a lifetime of evil they have not answered for— then we might as well all be villains.

Slott: Here’s someone as evil as Massacre — if Spider-Man had just captured him and webbed him up, he’d be out six months from now, doing this again. Yeah, sure he was helpless, and his wrist was snapped, and disarmed, but, “If I shoot him in the head, I’ve saved 30 people in the future.” Doc Ock can look at it almost as a math equation, and be very happy with himself, and sleep well at night knowing what he did. For him, that’s power and responsibility.

Again, unless the hero is on a battlefield or working on behalf of a sovereign nation to mitigate threats to national security, the discretion he has as it pertains to the use of deadly force is severely constrained. Cases like Massacre’s are what the criminal justice system is for. Maybe in the Marvel Universe citizens are so dumb that they have done away with the death penalty — I don’t know. But from what I gather, a justice system exists, and a real hero would attempt to work within the confines of the system as much as possible, given how difficult it would be in a world where Galactus could show up at a moment’s notice.

Given that Dan Slott’s Superior Spider-Man simply runs numbers in his head to determine whether or not he’s doing the right thing or not, what would stop him from wiping out an entire city of innocents to “save” lives? Perhaps one day the ‘Superior Spider-Man’ will go all evil Al Gore (is that redundant?) and determine that the only way to stave off global warming is to wipe out Los Angeles, New York and Chicago. If you torture numbers long enough they’ll tell you anything you want to hear, and Dan Slott’s own concept of what a “hero” is allows for megalomaniacs like Doctor Octopus to enter the tent.

Nrama: It might be too probably reading too much into it, but with the cutaway, and only Captain America out and out saying that Spidey killed Massacre, is he definitely dead, or is there some deliberate ambiguity there?

Remember a few years ago, during Marvel’s weird Bush-allegory, whereas the Civil War story line and the events surrounding the Superhero Registration Act gave readers their daily does of social commentary on the Patriot Act? I do. Captain America was fighting for the “rights” of the guy who could walk into his neighbor’s house on a daily basis, rape his wife and kids in front of them, and then mind-wipe the family so no one remembered the gruesome crimes took place.

What does that have to do with Superior Spider-Man? Quite a bit, actually. The liberalism that worked it’s way in to a Marvel event, in such a way that Captain America would be so insane as to oppose a federal registry of citizens in the U.S. with the power to alter space and time, is the same liberalism that allows allows Dan Slott to wonder why Doctor Octopus can’t be a hero — merely months after the character came within inches of triggering the apocalypse.

Slott: Massacre’s dead. I think what people are reading as ambiguous is what we can show you in a Spider-Man comic. We can’t show you brain matter shooting out of the back of a head. … With Massacre we can look at it, and go, “He just saved a lot of lives.”

And with Superior Spider-Man, Marvel is hemorrhaging tens-of-thousands of fans who would be happy to buy a Spider-Man book, if only the men in charge weren’t so morally confused that they would redefine the word ‘hero’ until it permitted Peter Parker to make a deal with the devil and for Doctor Octopus to ultimately don the true hero’s mask.

There’s only one word left to describe the state of Spider-Man today: Sad.

Update: Newsrama has seemingly blocked me from commenting on a blog about … me. I guess when you tactfully defend yourself you’re a troll. Or perhaps if you make Dan Slott look bad the powers that be cut you off. That happens when you’re friends with the writer.

This is why blogs are so important. They can not shut you up on your own blog. Marvel did the very same thing during OMD/BND to anyone who made “the brain trust” look bad. If you’re upset with the status quo, start your own blog.

Also, my traffic spiked again. As usual, that meant that Dan Slott was sending people off to Google search until they found me. But here’s the catch: I did not tweet the story, share it on Tumblr or post it to Facebook or any other social media platform. So that means Dan Slott kept tabs on me or was weirdly looking for stories about himself — and then had the nerve to call me crazy. Remember when he stalked “The Main Event”? I do.

Dan Slott stalked 'The Main Event'. Last night, I posted this piece, but did not share it on Twitter, Tumblr or any other social media platforms. — Dan Slott stalked ‘The Main Event’. Last night I posted this piece, but did not share it on Twitter, Tumblr or any other social media platforms. Slott obviously was keeping tabs on this site or weirdly looking for stories about himself, and then he has the nerve to call me crazy.

Dan Slott goes nuts over sales because he knows Spider-Man fans don’t respect him

April 3, 2013December 27, 2015by Douglas Ernst174 Comments

Dan Slott Captain America shirt — In one corner we have Dan Slott, who thinks that typing insults and using all-caps gives his assertions more validity. In the other we have a comic fan who is willing to debate the issues and stay on point. Is it any wonder why Dan Slott only insults “conservative bloggers” from a distance?

There’s an old saying that goes something like this: “He who thinks one man can’t be effective has never slept in bed with a mosquito.” And so, it is with that mentality that I blog away, whether it’s something as important as exposing the truth behind North Korean gulags or the small stuff like Dan Slott’s treatment of American icons like Spider-Man.

Dan Slott has referred to me multiple times in his Twitter feed, although never by name. It’s always been, pejoratively, “conservative blogger.” And yesterday, after pointing out that everyone but Dan Slott knows Superior Spider-Man is inferior to Amazing Spider-Man, he upped the ante with an extended rant — again not tagging me in the tweet or even linking back to the original post.

Yes, according to Dan, I am an “idiot.” If that’s the case, why would he go off on such a diatribe? And why would he shy away from exposing me as an idiot for all to see on my very own blog? Nothing would be sweeter than to once-and-for-all put that ‘idiot conservative blogger’ in his place, right?

The reason why Dan Slott throws out ad hominem attacks from afar with me is because he knows I’ll tear him to shreds.

So now, I will deconstruct Dan’s drivel for all the world to see — and invite him to exchange in a lively debate in the comments section, where he can pummel me to the ground like Doc Ock in command of Peter’s body.

Dear Conservative Blogger who was upset that Peter Parker/Spider-Man
saved North Korean soldiers instead of LEAVING THEM TO DIE– BECAUSE
HE REVERED ALL LIFE…

False. As I discussed before, the reason why I was upset was that with 6 billion lives on the line, Dan Slott’s Peter Parker took precious time — when every second counted — to lecture his teammates about the sanctity of North Korea’s gulag overseers. Yes, that same North Korean regime that is now threatening to nuke the United States.

My point was that Spider-Man enters war zones, and then refuses to act like a solider because the truth is, sometimes you have to take a life in order to save a life. Or in Spider-Man’s case, six billion. That is real life. That is what law enforcement agencies and soldiers must deal with every day. And that is the kind of moral conundrum that would make for an interesting Spider-Man story, instead of the half-baked ideas Dan Slott dishes out on a regular basis.

Dear Same-Conservative-Blogger who is NOW upset that Otto
Octavius/Spider-Man took out a crazed gunman who killed over 30 people
in a shooting INSTEAD of letting the police cart him away to prison–
BECAUSE Otto thought that man (even though helpless at the time)
deserved to die, might later get out, and kill again…

False. Again, there is a difference between a murderer on the streets of New York — who is due his day in court by a trial of his peers — and the combatant on a battlefield, who does not have the same constitutional rights granted to Americans. Now that it’s obvious that Dan Slott doesn’t know the difference between the two, we can better understand why Marvel spent time sending Captain America after the Tea Party instead of Taliban head-choppers in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

You are an IDIOT.

No, Dan — you appear to be the one without the intellectual chops, as has been demonstrated above. I have calmly shown how the only way you appear remotely intelligent is by misrepresenting what I say on a platform where your drones can not compare our arguments side by side. To top it all off, the only way I know you’re talking about me is because those very same drones are Googling my work, which shows up in my Wordress statistics when they finally land on the site.

I’m not saying that BECAUSE you are a Conservative Blogger.

Everyone is entitled to their own political beliefs.

I’m saying that BECAUSE you, specifically– independent of the fact
you’re a Conservative Blogger– ARE an idiot.

When someone’s beliefs/ideologies/presuppositions BLIND them to their
own hypocrisies– WHEREVER those beliefs/ideologies/presuppositions
lie– CONSERVATIVE, LIBERAL, or WHAT-HAVE-YOU– THOSE PEOPLE (like
yourself) ARE COMPLETE AND UTTER IDIOTS.

Congratulations.

It says something about a guy who thinks because he writes the word ‘idiot’ multiple times and abuses the Caps Lock key that what he’s saying must be true.

You are NOT a rational, thinking human being. You’re an idiot who’s
had their brain removed and filled with the
pap/preconceived-notions/rhetoric/propaganda/talking-points of others.

There is no talking, conversing, or reasoning with you. Enjoy your
idiocy by yourself and those stupid enough to endure it, you brain
dead ideologue.

Again, Dan’s argument boils down to: “idiot-idiot-idiot-idiot-stupid-brain dead.” And yet, I’m supposedly the one who is “not rational”? Good one, Dan.

But it isn’t until the end that we see what really gets Dan’s goat:

And, BTW, it DOESN’T matter how many copies of SUPERIOR SPIDER-MAN are
on the racks of your Barnes & Noble in Lynchburg, Virginia. The book
is doing PHENOMENALLY well.

How does one define “phenomenally well”? (I’m sorry if I don’t use all-caps like Dan. I understand that typing in big letters doesn’t magically give my point more validity.) If we’re talking about the tens-of-thousands of readers like me, who flip through Marvel comics these days only to put them back on the shelf to buy frozen yogurt, then I wouldn’t call that phenomenal. I still buy comics — just rarely anything Marvel.

It works like this: It’s a TOP 10 BOOK– one of Marvel’s BEST
performing titles– hell, one of the BEST performing titles in the
ENTIRE AMERICAN MARKET! Google the sales. THEN, once you see how it’s
ACTUALLY doing nationwide, factor THIS in: EVERY SINGLE ISSUE HAS SOLD
OUT ON THE DISTRIBUTOR LEVEL AND GONE BACK FOR MULTIPLE PRINTINGS– ON
TOP OF THOSE NUMBERS!

What does THAT mean? That means that LOTS of readers ACROSS the
country are buying enough copies that enough retailers are SELLING OUT
and having to place REORDERS– and that those REORDERS are eating
through whatever stock Diamond has. Not all books sell out. SUPERIOR
SPIDER-MAN does. So even though you’d like to paint its sales as “not
superior,” you would be DEMONSTRATIVELY WRONG. IN A VERY EASY TO PROVE
WAY.

Not once in my post did I make an argument for sales of Superior Spider-Man on a national or even a regional level. In fact, 95 percent of my post was about how Slott misses the boat when it comes to telling a compelling story. It has almost nothing to do with sales, except for one sentence about sales in Lynchburg, Va., specifically. Could I have talked about the comic shops in and around Washington, DC — where I actually live? Yes. Could I have talked about The Main Event’s take down of Slott and his on-the-ground experience with large comic shops in Philly? Yes. But I didn’t do that.

Congratulations Dan, for inventing a case I never made about sales and then putting me in my place for it. Here’s what I said:

The bottom line is this: After six issues of the Superior Spider-Man, it is more apparent than ever that the decision to kill off The Amazing Spider-Man in the manner Mr. Slott did was not worth the cost in good will towards Marvel. For every interesting morsel readers are given to chew on, there are mouthfuls of spoiled stale ideas that remind them why “Superior” is vastly inferior to its predecessor.

This morning, a Twitter follower read my post and told me to check out Marvel’s press release for Superior Spider-Man #9. It reads in part: “The hottest comic in comics comes to a turning point that will get you angrier than you were after Spidey #700!” (emphasis added).

Again, Dan Slott’s entire run is fueled on anger. It seems as though everything Marvel has done with Spider-Man over the past handful of years has been predicated on channeling anger to motivate people instead of love for one of the greatest comic book characters ever. And that’s what’s so sad, because it doesn’t have to be that way.

It’s okay to have your own opinions. It’s not okay to make up your own
“facts.” Especially when you’re drawing gross assumptions from small
and biased samplings.

This is coming from a guy who took me to task on a sales argument I never made in the blog post he was referencing.

Also, idiot, no rape took place in the pages of Superior Spider-Man.
And the OTHER idiot who lead you to believe that– the guy who writes
Aunt May fan-fic porn, commissions naked pictures of MaryJane Watson
art from people on DeviantArt, and makes bogus sales charts for
Amazing Spider-Man while purposefully leaving off the TOP THIRD of all
the (inaccurate) data he can find? The SAME idiot who created the
#SuperiorSpiderRapist hash tag? The SAME idiot who tweeted well into
the triple digits how MJ would DEFINITELY be raped in the pages of the
book? Even THAT idiot came out and admitted that he was WRONG and that
no physical rape took place. So congrats on keeping THAT
misinformation flowing, you idiot.

Aaaaand rant over. 😀

Notice how Dan Slott got all Clinton-esque, there? No “physical rape” took place. But we all know that the Superior Spider-Man is for all intents and purposes a wannabe rapist. There’s really no way around it. So instead of actually talking about what it would mean to have Doc Ock misrepresent himself to Mary Jane while trying to get in her pants, Dan Slott tries to insinuate that I somehow frequent fan fiction websites that dabble in Spidey porn.

No dice, Dan. And no amount of all caps or emoticons or ‘idiot’ references can hide the fact that unless you’re attacking me from afar I will nail you to the wall.

If Superior Spider-Man is such a hit, why does Dan Slott scour the internet like he was Scott Bakula in Quantum Leap, trying to right the wrongs of “idiots” like me? He wouldn’t, unless he knew that all the sales in the world won’t translate into respect. That’s why he must use ‘conservative’ as a pejorative instead of referring to me by name. That’s why he resorts to ad hominem attacks. That’s why he lashes out. In the end, all he has left is a desperate attempt to rob his critics of their legitimacy, even if it’s through infantile “rants” that end in smiley faces.

Newsflash: It’s not working.

I bought countless issues of Amazing Spider-Man out of sheer morbid curiosity and at times anger before I gave up on Marvel. And there are many others like me out there. Would Dan Slott like me to run through some of the incredibly crappy titles from the early 90’s that sold more copies than the “Top 10” books in 2013, just to show you how far the industry has fallen?

The real measure of “success” for any creator is what the fans will say about him after he’s gone. And Dan Slott knows that he is seen by throngs of fans as a petulant man-boy who doesn’t take criticism well. Taking to Twitter to call people “idiots” instead of having a measured discussion doesn’t help his case any.

If you thought something was so stupid you had to vent about it on Twitter, wouldn't you direct your followers to it? Of course. That is, unless you know deep down that the object of your anger is actually rather intelligent and capable of drawing intellectual blood. — If you thought something was so stupid you had to vent about it on Twitter, wouldn’t you direct your followers to it? Of course. That is, unless you know deep down that the object of your anger is rather nimble and capable of drawing intellectual blood.

Superior Spider-Man: Everyone but Dan Slott knows it’s inferior to its predecessor

April 3, 2013July 30, 2013by Douglas Ernst20 Comments

It was only months ago that Marvel and Dan Slott gave Amazing Spider-Man fans a radioactive middle finger by giving the iconic character a send off only a villain could love.

As Dan Slott explained to CNN at the time:

For all intents and purposes, [Otto] was the adult Peter could have become, Spider-Man’s dark reflection. So what if we flipped it? What if we gave him a second chance? Peter’s final, heroic act was giving Doc all the memories and experiences that kept him on the right path. But is that enough? Can that overcome Ock’s true nature? (Dan Slott)

The answer is clearly no.

Over Easter weekend my wife and I went to Barnes and Noble for coffee and there were two months’ worth of Superior Spider-Man sitting on the shelves. Apparently, sales are not so “superior” in Lynchburg, Va. And so, I did a quick read, got what I needed to write a review and saved myself roughly $10 — which I promptly spent on Sweet Frog frozen yogurt.

Issues 5 and 6 of Superior show once again why liberal guys like Dan Slott often drop the ball when it comes to weaving a thought-provoking Spider-Man tale. Let us consider the evidence:

1. In Massacre, the audience has a character who has committed mass murder in the past and who is intent on doing so at the first available opportunity.

2. The guy is an expert, going so far as to have an explosive-rigged building filled with hostages as his ace in the hole.

3. Doctor Octopus (in Peter Parker’s body) is a bright guy, and figured out how to save the hostages beforehand and disable the bombs. When Massacre clicks his detonator and nothing happens, it’s game over.

As usual, the criminal (in this case, one who isn’t supposed to be capable of emotions) fears for his life after he has been caught and his hangs in the balance. Funny how those epiphanies happen at just the right moment, isn’t it? And as usual, Dan Slott via Peter Parker tries to make the case that killing is always off limits for the hero because “there’s always hope” … for change. (Think Mr. Slott’s version of Peter voted for President Obama?)

If Peter Parker comes back to life, or takes back control of his mind — or does whatever the heck he needs to since the exact status of his soul is still in question — he should rename himself the Amazing Red-Herring Man, because Doctor Octopus rightly points out that sudden feelings of guilt and remorse changes nothing — particularly for the dozens of lives the murderer extinguished. The innocents are still dead. The family and friends and loved ones still must pick up the pieces while the murderer lives on. Over time the victims are forgotten about, and dupes like Peter Parker feel sympathy for the monster who must atone for his sins.

4. And so, it appears as though Dan Slott took the intellectually lazy way out, having the Superior Spider-Man then play judge, jury and executioner with a suddenly defenseless man.

If Slott wanted readers to wrestle with a moral conundrum, wouldn’t it have been better to have placed the hero in a position where the only way to save a life was to take a life? That’s what law enforcement agencies and military men have to deal with on a daily basis. They are put into situations where they have a split second to act, and the only way to save innocents is to end the life of the men who threaten them.

5. Dan Slott doesn’t get that, and it shows when he fills Wolverine’s mouth with nonsensical, morally-relativistic pap.

Wrong, Wolverine (aka: Dan Slott). Combatants on the battlefield do not have the same rights granted to civilians. That is another complex issue that Marvel readers don’t get to explore because to my knowledge there has never been a run where Captain America’s black ops against the Taliban were told. He was more interested in taking down the Tea Party than the Taliban over the past few years, which should tell you something about the intellectual courage of the writers and editors currently taking up residence at the “House of Ideas.”

Readers could have had an instance where Doc Ock killed while in Peter’s body in a way that left even Peter haunted by the fact that the right thing was done in an impossible situation. Pete would have forever asked himself: “What would I have done?” Instead, everything is clearly spelled out: Doctor Octopus did the wrong thing because he executed a defenseless man without a trial by jury.

6. Fast Forward to the end of Superior Spider-Man #6, and Ghost-like Peter is losing his mind that Doc Ock has beaten a couple of hack villains to a bloody pulp, which begs the question: Shouldn’t Ghost-like Peter have been in total meltdown mode the entire issue since Massacre apparently was executed on live television hours earlier? I guess technically it wasn’t shown, but it would be a rather cheap “out” if Massacre was spared.

Note: For those who take issue with the “live television” phrasing, the issue heavily implied that everyone knew what happened. Jonah knew. The Avengers knew. News reports mentioned that Spider-Man “neutralized” the situation . Massacre went to a place where he would get maximum media coverage. There would have been security cameras everywhere. These little things call “cell phones” exist. There were witnesses. Check out the Spider-Man Crawlspace review of issue #11 for more details.

The bottom line is this: After six issues of the Superior Spider-Man, it is more apparent than ever that the decision to kill off The Amazing Spider-Man in the manner Mr. Slott did was not worth the cost in good will towards Marvel. For every interesting morsel readers are given to chew on, there are mouthfuls of spoiled stale ideas that remind them why “Superior” is vastly inferior to its predecessor.

Although, truthfully, why does Marvel care? These days, the guys in charge know that their Chinese censorship cop overlords will help bring in the cash, provided the artistic integrity is left at the door. I doubt that will be a problem for the guys who are asking you to root for the Superior Spider-wannabe-rapist.