Spider-Man scribe Dan Slott took a break from bullying random women on Twitter this week to demonstrate a new an improved way of showing how clownish and immature he could be — he painted anyone who thinks “Peter Parker is a white character who believes ‘With great power comes great responsibility,'” as racist.
Yes, that’s right, in Dan Slott’s world, if you describe the white character you’ve read for decades as “white” when someone asks you, then you “don’t get” him.
This is the man who is Marvel’s ambassador to Spider-Man fans. This is the man who, ideally, would unite Peter Parker fans of all ages. This is the man whose argument (by his own admission) boils down to: “Would you go up to a [non-white child] and say ‘You can’t be Spider-Man’?”
Notice what Dan Slott has done — he conflates the idea of a “Spider-Man” with the character millions of people around the world recognize as Peter Parker.
When Dan Slott started this weird conversation Feb. 12, I put it this way:
I understand that it is the essence of a man that is important (e.g., “The Phantom” lives forever as different men who embody his noble spirit), but once you essentially start going down the, “Let’s just arbitrarily make Peter Parker black tomorrow and if you get annoyed, then you’re a racist” road, then that’s where you’ve lost me.
Marvel successfully pulled that off with Nick Fury. That makes sense because he was never a figure with national/world-wide recognition. It’s a different thing when basically the entire world has a vision of what “Peter Parker” looks like and guys like Dan Slott start screwing with it.
It would be like if Nintendo suddenly made Mario and Luigi black and said, “What? What? There are black Italians. What are you, racist?” to people who started rolling their eyes.
Well, no. I’m not racist, Nintendo executives, but I think you’re just taking the racial sensitivity thing to an absurd level.
If someone asked me to describe Blade, one of my “thousand” adjectives used to describe him would be “black.” The same goes for James Rhodes. Or “Robbie” Robertson. Or any number of black characters. But perhaps in Dan Slott’s world, Marvel fans are allowed to describe long-established black characters as black and that doesn’t have an effect of their understanding of the character.
As I said Feb. 14 in the comments section of a previous post (I was hoping Mr Slott wouldn’t continue to belabor this conversation and prompt me to expand it into a full-blown blog post):
I’m not sure if Dan Slott is just a giant troll, or a complete doofus. He starts a conversation that he knows is going to annoy people by insinuating that maybe it might be a good decision to arbitrarily make Peter Parker black or Hispanic or Asian — when generations of people associate Peter Parker with a very specific look — and then he acts incredulous when people start talking about doing the exact same thing to other characters.
If Charles M. Schulz were still alive and he randomly changed Snoopy from a beagle to a golden retriever, would it matter? A dog is a dog, right? Yes, it would matter for many Peanuts fans because the world fell in love with a very specific Snoopy.
I wouldn’t want Marvel randomly making Blade a white guy, and I wouldn’t want Marvel randomly making Peter Parker a black guy. In both instances, it would be a weird editorial move.
Sounds reasonable, right? Not to Dan Slott. Here is how he responds to other reasonable Spider-Man fans (great customer relations, Marvel): “My grandma knew Jim Crow laws. Didn’t make ’em right.”
Some random Peter Parker fan essentially says, “Even my grandma would be able to describe Peter Parker to forensic sketch artist, and he’d be white. That’s pretty iconic. I think it would probably be odd to randomly make Peter Parker black.”
Dan Slott’s reaction is to start talking about Jim Crow laws. Seriously. You, dear reader, are apparently the type of person who would tell a little black child he couldn’t be Spider-Man and you would probably admit to supporting Jim Crow laws if it was just you and Dan Slott drinking alone at the bar one night.
In his never-ending quest to fish for compliments in his Twitter feed while also putting himself up on a gigantic moral pedestal, Dan Slott is now resorting to needless race-baiting conversations with Peter Parker fans. Does it get any worse than this? Why does Marvel let him get away with acting like a petulant man-boy with a penchant for burning bridges? Since when did Marvel decide that its business model for attracting attention to Spider-Man comic books was to hire a writer who invents ways to slime customers?
The ironic thing about all of this is that if Dan Slott were to magically make Peter Parker black tomorrow, then he could very well be fending off racial conspiracy theory charges soon afterward — Peter Parker is a shell of the character he once was thanks to Dan Slott, so making him black at this stage in the game would actually be an insult to race-goggle wearing comic book readers everywhere.
One day a writer will take on Spider-Man who will bring together fans from a variety different backgrounds, ages, and political persuasions. He or she will do it without all the unnecessary antics, and when that happens Dan Slott’s legacy will sink even lower than it already has up to now.
Update: No amount of race-baiting would be complete without Dan Slott referring to “white history months.” This is the man who writes The Amazing Spider-Man, ladies and gentlemen. Pathetic.
It may have taken 20 issues and $80, but Dan Slott’s Spider-Verse is finally over. Unfortunately for Peter Parker fans, the writer was able to get in one last parting shot by making his sex-crazed concubine Cindy Moon (Can anyone deny that’s how she comes across?) try yet again to get into the pants of Peter Parker. Our hero then takes their relationship to another level by calling her “honey.” Shouldn’t feminist comic book fans be raging over this bizarre and puerile treatment of Silk? The muted criticism is rather strange, but I digress.
When reviewing Spider-Verse Part 6 there is much to cover because it became a giant discombobulated mess. Perhaps one of the main takeaways is that the final battle ends — fast. In fact, the whole final battle is wrapped up so quickly that one of the main villains understands that something does not add up. It’s almost like Dan Slott subconsciously knew what readers would be thinking. He seemed to think that by having Morlun draw attention to the villains’ rapid downfall that readers would believe Spider-Man’s answer: “Everything is going according to my plan.”
What plan? There never really was a plan. For a good portion of Spider-Verse, Otto was in charge. When Peter was nominally the leader, he couldn’t even control his own team members.
Kaine took off to do his own thing, which prompted a “son of a…” response. Cindy took off as well (twice), which prompted a “@#$%! She took off again, didn’t she?!” response, and Dan Slott literally inserted a deus ex machina into the tale, which gave Peter’s team “everything” they needed to prevail. When it all spun out of control, his response was “Whatever you’re doing — drop it! We’re going to Loomworld.”
That doesn’t sound like a plan. That sounds like, “Charge!” (and hope for the best).
Perhaps one of the biggest problems with Spider-Verse is that there is no intellectual consistency. The Inheritors are built up to be almost unstoppable enemies, who then essentially collapse like a house of cards.
In one instance, Solus defeats a version Cosmic Spider-Man in the blink of an eye, but in the next he is effortlessly impaled to death by Kaine. The Inheritors have survived for time eternal, have the ability to clone themselves and insert their life force into crystals, but yet they can’t figure out how to clone a body that is resistant to radiation. The Inheritors feed off the life force of men and women powered by the bite of radioactive spiders, but a landscape with nuclear fallout in the air sucks the life out of them.
Spider-Verse seems as though it was born out of a stream-of-consciousness writing exercise that never had an editor take the time to go over it with a fine-toothed comb.
And what of Superior Spider-Man, you ask? Answer: Dan Slott has him kill Master Weaver — the character who controls “the nature of reality itself,” and the “god in the machine” who gave the spider-team “everything” they needed to be victorious. Yes, in that situation Dan Slott wants readers to believe that Otto would have applied Occam’s Razor to the idea of killing Master Weaver and followed through. I’m inclined to think Otto would be smart enough to know that killing a being that is literally tasked with weaving together space and time would not be wise; he would have found a different (evil) path to victory, but we can always debate that in the comments section. (Luckily for him, Master Weaver’s death seems to have no immediate consequences. How convenient.)
Whether you’re a fan of Spider-Verse or not, let me know what you think in the comments section below. As long as you keep it respectful and don’t start soliciting people for sex like Dan Slott’s Silk, we should get along just fine.
Spider-Man fans are rejoicing today because Sony finally admitted that it has no idea what it’s doing with the world’s most famous wall-crawler. A deal was struck between Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios that will allow Spider-Man to appear in Marvel’s cinematic universe, but it also forces Kevin Feige to produce Sony’s next installment with Amy Pascal.
Question: Will Amy Pascal become Kevin Feige’s Mephisto?
Under the deal, the new Spider-Man will first appear in a Marvel film from Marvel’s Cinematic Universe (MCU). Sony Pictures will thereafter release the next installment of its $4 billion Spider-Man franchise, on July 28, 2017, in a film that will be co-produced by Kevin Feige and his expert team at Marvel and Amy Pascal, who oversaw the franchise launch for the studio 13 years ago. Together, they will collaborate on a new creative direction for the web slinger. Sony Pictures will continue to finance, distribute, own and have final creative control of the Spider-Man films.
Marvel and Sony Pictures are also exploring opportunities to integrate characters from the MCU into future Spider-Man films.
In the short run, this is great for Marvel. Kevin Feige has done a wonderful job bringing the Marvel universe to the big screen, and there is no reason to believe that he will screw it up with Spider-Man. However, in the long run Sony still has creative control over the character and now the company must deal with Amy Pascal. Sony’s S.S. Spider-Man was foundering and in many ways Marvel may have just come to the rescue of drunk captains who deserved to lose it all.
It will be a sad day if Kevin Feige’s name is attached to future Spider-Man failures because of Amy Pascal’s intransigence. While Spider-Man fans should be thrilled that the character will show up in future Marvel Studios movies, they should seriously ask themselves if Marvel made a deal with the devil when total victory was within reach.
If comic book industry journalists did their job, then they would take Dan Slott to task for behaving like an immature clown on social media. The appropriate websites have abdicated their responsibility to discuss what it means to be a professional, so douglasernstblog.com will fill the void.
Those who follow The Amazing Spider-Man scribe probably remember the time he stalked The Main Event and got smacked down via YouTube. Readers of this blog will remember the time he tried to sic his Twitter followers on yours truly. Fans of Spider-Man Crawlspace and a host of other message boards undoubtedly have their own tales to tell. Now comes the time when Dan Slott tracked down and trolled a random woman on Twitter who said that The Superior Spider-Man sounded lame, and then afterwards he had the gall to bash GamerGate supporters.
I’m not sure when a man’s behavior qualifies him to be labeled a “douche canoe,” but it seems as though Dan Slott’s online impulse control problems can serve as a sound litmus test.
Ami Angelwings took the high road and simply pointed out how ridiculous and weird it is for the Marvel comic books writer of The Amazing Spider-Man to be manically searching through Twitter streams for criticism that he can use as an excuse to lash out at young women in front of his 65,000 + Twitter followers.
Slott, rightfully feeling shame, apologized. Then, without even picking up on the irony, he soon was bashing GamerGate supporters.
Despite the fact that GamerGate supporters are both men and women from a variety of different backgrounds, and despite the fact that many of them — including the Main Event — have very legitimate gripes about the gaming industry and the journalists who cover it, Dan Slott then goes on to slime all of them. Dan Slott — the man who just moments before found a random woman online and made jokes about the value of her life — said he will block people who merely defend guys like The Main Event. Telling.
Luckily, guys like Raúl get it: “She didn’t even tag you. You actually searched for people to bully. How is that okay?”
It’s not okay, Raúl. You are 100 percent correct. The problem is that Dan Slott — the guy who complains about deadlines — is busy finding random women on the internet to spout off to because they didn’t like the premise of The Superior Spider-Man.
The next time you read The Amazing Spider-Man and ask, “Isn’t that sort of lazy for a writer to literally insert a deus ex machina into his big Spider-Man project,” you can now say “Yes” without skipping a beat.
The reason is simple: Thin-skinned writers who feel the need to sift through Twitter streams looking for women to troll are not very efficient with their time.
In the future, Dan Slott can go back to stalking random Twitter users and then mocking them in his own Twitter feed without identifying them by name. The thing is, he doesn’t even realize that such a bizarre way of fishing for compliments is just as sad.
Exit question: What are the chances that “Mister Mets” over at Comic Book Resources will ever take Dan Slott to task over his online behavior? And if you talk with Mister Mets, ask him what I’ve done on Twitter that comes remotely close to Dan Slott’s behavior. I’d really like to know. Please, go through my feed. All of it. Or not, because I don’t act like Dan Slott.
Notice that Cameron Samuri was banned? Why do I think it has more to do with him not adhering to Orwellian message boards rules than actually speaking out of line?
Part 5 of Spider-Verse is out, and Dan Slott has reminded Peter Parker fans once again just how much he must truly despise the character.
Only in a Spider-Man comic written by Dan Slott will you see Peter Parker intellectually flail about as he attempts to inspire an alternate universe Uncle Ben into battle. Only in a Spider-Man comic written by Dan Slott will Uncle Ben receive the shot in the arm he needs to realize greatness — from Doctor Octopus. And only in a Spider-Man comic written by Dan Slott will his feckless Peter Parker then have the temerity to say “I’m running the show.”
Long story short, thanks to Dan Slott’s deus ex machina from Spider-Verse Part 4 (i.e., Master Weaver’s scrolls) and the sheer coincidence that a member of the team can read spider-totem hieroglyphics (Anya Corazon says it’s a “long story” — probably the kind that you can find out if you shell out another $4.00 for one of the ancillary books), the stage is set for everyone to head to Loomworld for a final showdown with The Inheritors. The entire cast is ready to go except Uncle Spider-Ben, who gave up the webs when “The Emerald Elf” killed his wife and nephew.
Peter’s response is to plead with Ben to put the suit on “one more time” — and he is rejected. Uncle Ben says, “No. A man with great power is still just a man. And men…men have feet of clay. They make mistakes. Great mistakes at great costs. I…I can’t fail again.”
Otto then steps up to the plate, and his response is to call Ben out for acting, ironically, like a mealy-mouthed Peter Parker written by Dan Slott.
“You’re pathetic, old man! … You’re afraid to fail again? Tough! I’ve lost more times than I’ve ever won, and every damn time I got back up. That’s all that matters! When victory is easy, it’s cheap. Every fight that’s ever been worth fighting has been against adversity! Against a so-called ‘unbeatable foe!’ But there is no such thing! Every enemy has a weakness! You just have to find it! Once! You just have to win one time! Say it!”
Ben is moved, agrees to say “One time,” and before long he is ready and willing to fight. Inexplicably, he thanks both Otto and Peter for the help, even though it was clearly Otto who roused him from his cowardly stupor.
Peter’s response to Doctor Octopus’ speech: “I don’t believe it.”
Fans of Peter Parker don’t believe it, either. That’s because any other writer of The Amazing Spider-Man would not have allowed Doctor Octopus to steal Peter Parker’s one chance to inspire Uncle Ben — even an alternate universe version of the man — to greatness.
Even worse, the whole ordeal only reminds fans that Doctor Octopus is performing an inverse-Winston Churchill; Doc Ock’s many failures weren’t rooted in a desire to save humanity, but to commit world-wide genocide on levels that surpassed “Pol Pot, Hitler, and Genghis Khan combined.”
Yes, Doctor Octopus failed many times — at killing Peter Parker for good. Unfortunately, writers like Dan Slott are doing more damage to Peter Parker than any super villain ever could.
At this point, if you’re a Peter Parker fan, you can only sit back and wonder what Dan Slott’s coup de grace will be in terms of castrating your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man in his own book.
After months of lead-up to Spider-Verse, the actual series, and its tie-in material, fans of Peter Parker may find themselves suffering from a form of Spider-Diabetes due to Dan Slott’s Spider-Gluttony. Part 4 of Spider-Verse hit stores on Wednesday, but on some level it seems like Part 14. Even staunch supporters of the tale may be asking themselves: Are 20 issues really necessary to do this justice?
Spider-totems being destroyed. Again. Where have I seen that before?
Those who have followed Spider-Verse from the beginning can expect more of the same; throngs of spider-totems die; The Inheritors chase spider-totems around different dimensions; a few “whacky” panels are thrown in; Peter Parker needs help, and the issue ends with a big tease to generate buzz for future installments. On the cliff hanger, however, Mr. Slott does not disappoint. More on that later.
The ongoing problem with Spider-Verse is that any story that involves an army of spider-heroes (many who are just different versions of Peter Parker) will obscure those leadership skills that prove he is a cut above all the rest.
Dan Slott’s Spider-Man is confused. He needs help! Good thing Dan Slott’s creation, Silk, is there to get him where he needs to be. Whew. That was a close one.
“I asked for this. The others are counting on me, and I don’t know what to do! I need help! I need…” Dan Slott’s Spider-Man says just before he is saved by Dan Slott’s creation, Silk. What a coincidence.
“Peter, it’s Cindy. … Earth-3145! Trust me…” says Silk, which then prompts Peter to bring his team to her location. Moments earlier, Peter was sent scrolls from Spider-Woman — provided by Master Weaver — spelling out “everything” he would need to know about The Other, The Bride, The Scion, and more.
It is hard to conclude that Peter Parker is the one essential hero in his own book when he depends on so many others to secure victory, let alone the assistance that comes from some Deus ex Machina action (i.e., Master Weaver).
Hmmm. How do we move this along? I suppose there isn’t any problem that is too big for Master Weaver to handle… Thanks for the scrolls, buddy!
The best part about Spider-Verse Part 4 is the last panel.
** Warning: Spoiler Alert. **
There is a special spider-totem who has been waiting inside a fall-out shelter on Earth-3145. Alone amongst the rubble of a post-apocalyptic New York City teeming with deadly radiation is … Uncle Spider-Ben. What role he will play as the story unfolds is still unclear, but it’s a sure-fire way to generate sales for Part 5.
The problem with the Uncle Spider-Ben reveal is that it reminds Peter Parker fans that it wasn’t too long ago that Peter died … or became Ghost Peter … or Memory Fragment Peter or some other kind of Phantasm Peter that hasn’t been clarified by Dan Slott or Marvel.
Given that The Amazing Spider-Man #700 indicated that Peter would die and reunite with Uncle Ben — the real Uncle Ben — in heaven, the appearance of an Uncle Spider-Ben isn’t particularly earth shattering. Peter and his real uncle would have had time to talk at length and untangle any unresolved issues associated with his untimely death. Besides, if there are spider-monkeys, spider-lizards, Spider-Hams and a whole host of other weird incarnations, it’s actually more bizarre that there hasn’t been Spider-Jonah or Aunt Spider-May. In fact, why has there not been a Spider-Mary Jane?
In the end, Spider-Verse is a little like one of those Brazilian steakhouses where they endlessly bring out meat, but instead of massive amounts of protein Dan Slott serves up Spider-totems. Even those who love meat and Spider-Man can reach a saturation point. For readers who can digest another eight issues and take a $32 hit to their wallets, kudos. For those hard-core fans who started out strong but are beginning to feel nauseous, at least you can get by with only purchasing ASM issues 13 and 14.
And finally, if you’re screaming “No mas! No mas!,” then save yourself the cash, read my next reviews, and share your opinions in the comments section below.
Exit Question: Is it possible for beings that can consume the life force of Captain Universe to be adversely affected by the fallout from a nuclear blast? Bonus: Here is an excerpt from the feedback that makes it into the Letters to the Editor section of The Amazing Spider-Man:
“Dear Spidey editors, artists, and everyone else related to making The Amazing Spider-Man comic book… You all are gods! Only someone with such power could have the responsibility (see what I did there?) to make something with so much beautiful artistry.”
Now you can see why modern creators swear off message boards — they’re so used to cherry picking the kind of feedback they receive that they can’t professionally handle unfiltered criticism.
There’s a line from 2004’s “The Incredibles” where the villain Syndrome says, “When everyone’s super, no one will be.” Dan Slott’s “Spider-Verse” tale operates on many of the same levels — when the Marvel Universe is filled within an infinite amount of “Spider-Men,” it becomes much harder to distinguish why Peter Parker is special.
Those who have read The Amazing Spider-Man since its relaunch have seen Peter Parker take a back seat in his own title for much of the lead-up to Spider-Verse, and now that it’s here the trend continues. Readers are told he’s some sort of Harry Potter-ish “Chosen One,” but the evidence as presented — up to this point — doesn’t support the claims. Peter comes across as just one of many heroic “spiders” throughout multiple dimensions, each doing his or her own part to protect the “spider-totem” from falling to “The Inheritors” — a dysfunctional family of beings that like to dine on “spiders.” When Peter Parker gives off a “Where’s Waldo” vibe in his own book, something is wrong.
Dan Slott’s “Spider-Verse” generally reads like a convoluted mess from the mind of a man who still goes to fast food restaurants and fills his glass with a little bit of each kind of soda without realizing that the end result isn’t all that special and usually tastes gross.
Spider-Verse’s saving grace appears to be the artwork by Olivier Coipel — it really is quite beautiful, and he’s able to organize Dan Slott’s clutter like a mother who picks up after her son when he’s old enough to know better.
To make matters worse, the commanding presence of Doctor Octopus (aka: “The Superior Spider-Man”) provides another example of just how diminished Peter Parker is in his own book. Readers know that as “The Chosen One” Peter will play a crucial role in defeating The Inheritors, but up until this point — ten issues into the relaunch of The Amazing Spider-Man — one has to imagine that many Peter Parker fans are asking: “Why?”
Peter Parker should be a shining star in his own book, but these days he is little more than a polished cog in Marvel’s “Spider-Verse” machinery.
Marvel Comics allowed writer Dan Slott to essentially kill off Peter Parker for over a year. While everyone’s favorite wall crawler was in limbo, a megalomaniac prone to “Nazi-like torture” experiments on his victims was in control of Peter’s body. Fans knew that one day the real hero would return, and some of them actually thought that his time away would give Dan Slott an opportunity to conceive of fresh new ideas for the title. They were wrong.
Six issues into The Amazing Spider-Man, it may as well be called The Emasculated Spider-Man or The Superficial Spider-Man. It is painful to see Spider-Man become a supporting character in his own book, and that pain is exacerbated by Peter’s lack of character development.
Take the new character Silk, for example. She shows up and it is immediately established that she is faster than Peter, she has webbing skills he doesn’t possess, her spider-sense is more acute and her command and control in the heat of battle matches or surpasses his — despite being locked up in a cell for 13 years. (Credibility points if you’re also annoyed at a character without a resume who lands an internship at a major cable news network.)
Is Silk a supporting character, or is Dan Slott using The Amazing Spider-Man as a vehicle to propel his creations onto bigger and better things? Why should fans who plunk down $4.00 to enjoy The Amazing Spider-Man be made to feel as if they’re reading The Sensational Silk? They shouldn’t.
Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of Dan Slott’s work is his penchant for making characters behave in incongruous ways with their established personality when the means serve his ends. While I am no Black Cat historian, I can’t help but think that her transformation into a bloodless killer has been handled with the finesse one would see if the Rhino waltzed down a supermodel runway. It’s jarring, it makes readers scratch their head when they’re supposed to be immersed in the book, and it reeks of a writer who is either a.) sloppy, b.) taking creative shortcuts because he thinks he can get away with it, c.) indifferent to what fans of that mistreated character think, or d.) all of the above.
Readers might be able to deal with Spider-Man repeatedly getting saved by a brand new hero in his own book if, as Peter Parker, there were sufficient character development. One would think that the six months after Peter Parker essentially returned from the dead would warrant considerable time for soul-searching introspection between action sequences. Instead, Peter Parker goes about his life as if nothing of much significance has happened; he has an “I sorta-kinda died — moving on,” mentality. Meanwhile, Silk comes to his aid, Black Cat embarrasses him, and Anna Maria Marconi runs his company. The Emasculated Spider-Man bumbles around on the battlefield and in his personal life, and at the end of the day fans are left hoping the upcoming Spider-Verse — where the original Spider-Man will likely take a bigger back seat in his own book — offers something more.
If you thought The Amazing Spider-Man would improve with its relaunch, then you were wrong. At this rate, the next time six months of strong Spider-Man stories take place will be when Dan Slott finally passes the torch to a new creative team.
Update: Alpha Game was kind enough to read and share my post. Head on over there if you get a chance and return the kindness.
“Goo-goo. Gaa-gaa. I’m Dan Slott’s Peter Parker and I need the women in my life to save me and heal my wounds after I make a fool of myself in battle. And then I need them to run my company because I’m an incompetent hero in my own book.”
Peter Parker went out like a punk — twice — by writer Dan Slott, so it’s only fitting that he would get a punk homecoming. If you’re an Amazing Spider-Man fan who has been waiting for over a year to get a steroidal cheese-ball version of of Peter Parker back in tights, prepare to give Mr. Slott a pat on the back.
For a mere $5.99 (Can someone tell me why digital copies are just as expensive as buying in-store?), Peter Parker fans get to see the real deal take on some two-bit villains, lose all his clothes, get called an “idiot” by Mary Jane (the same character whose IQ dropped about 50 points in order to make Superior Spider-Man work), and have his secret identity exposed because Doc Ock’s love interest, Anna Maria, has seen him naked. Yes, you read that right. (But hey, “nothing happened” … despite the fact that Doc Ock was going to ask her to marry him after two months.)
Feeling warm and fuzzy now that Peter Parker is back? If not, here’s another one: the radioactive spider that bit Peter and gave him his powers also apparently bit another woman before finally dying. Perhaps if Dan Slott stays on the title long enough we’ll find out that a second radioactive spider was present that day, and it bit two more students, which would fit in nicely with his upcoming “Spider-Verse” plans (i.e., Why waste time exploring Peter Parker when readers can just get lost in countless Spider-Men? Who needs character development when you’ve got tons of spider-powered people swinging around?).
Question for Dan Slott and the editors at Marvel: Why do you hate Mary Jane? Why do you take every opportunity you can to turn her into a dumb b**ch? Why do you take a character who should be Peter Parker’s supermodel Linda Cadwell (i.e. Bruce Lee’s wife) and turn her into a one-dimensional bimbo? Why do you have to rub salt in the wounds of fans who believe Peter and MJ are meant to be together — every chance you get? Are you mean and spiteful man-boys, or just tone deaf morons?
But I digress. Back to Amazing Spider-Man #1, the issue where Dan Slott decided the best way for Peter’s secret identity to be revealed to Anna was through a cheap turn of events that left him naked — and then in a web diaper — in front of the entire world. It’s actually rather fitting I guess, because Dan Slott is once again “exposed” as a writer who lacks the intellectual depth and breadth to take Peter Parker to the heights he truly deserves.
If you’re a fan of Peter Parker, you should cheer because he’s back. If you’re a fan of Peter Parker, you should cringe because Dan Slott is still in control of the character’s short-term destiny. Amazing Spider-Man #1 is an issue that was long overdue, but it also was yet another case of Team Slott over-promising and under-delivering. With six months of issues like this, sales will drop to levels no barrage of variant covers can save. Instead of realizing that a writer who isn’t up to the task of growing and developing Peter Parker is to blame, the same predictable crowd will fault the character. At that time, expect calls for the “return” of Superior Spider-Man.
If you don’t have a lot of disposable income, don’t spend $5.99 on this book. Check out ‘Winter Solider’ while it’s still in theaters, or possibly the new Amazing Spider-Man movie if someone you trust liked it.
Bonus:
Those who follow this blog regularly know that Dan Slott is particularly sensitive about observations of Superior Spider-Man’s affection for genocidal maniacs and their tactics — despite the fact that the character said he wanted to transcend “Hitler, Pol Pot and Khan” in terms of evil perpetrated upon the world — shortly before body-snatching Peter — and despite the “full blown Nazi-like torture/experimentation on his victims,” that predictably took place before the series ended (Bleeding Cool’s words — not mine).
“In today’s Superior Spider-Man, the character goes a little further. Into full blown Nazi-like torture/experimentation on his victims. By ripping out teeth and fingernails,” (Bleeding Cool).
Given that sensitivity, why is it okay for Dan Slott to write Marvel Universe New Yorkers who believe Superior Spider-Man was a “jack-booted thug,” but it’s out of bounds to then talk about the implications of being a “jack-booted thug”? Ask a group of history lovers what group they think of first when they hear the phrase “jack-booted thug,” and nine times out of ten you will get the Nazis. You might even get an embarrassing goose-stepping demonstration.
It is downright strange for Dan Slott to use that phrase — that very loaded phrase, with all the images it conjures up — in his book, especially since he went on a massive YouTube meltdown that he ultimately tried to scrub from existence. It’s almost like he subconsciously knows my criticisms are incredibly accurate, or that he wants me to call him out so he’ll have an excuse to go on more incoherent tirades.
The Marvel Universe has “Damage Control” and so too does Dan Slott, apparently. When Mr. Slott can’t do it himself, the “Dan Slott Damage Control” (D.S.D.C.) is always willing to pick up his mess. Luckily, it has no power here.
If you want honest and frank reviews of Amazing Spider-Man, head back here any time there are major developments. If you want weird rants that will be deleted by Dan Slott or Slott-friendly moderators (e.g., Marvel’s Orwellian message boards) when he refuses to save himself from himself, those sites are readily available as well. More power to you. Either way, I’m happy to spend $5.99 if it will mean some extra cash in your back pocket.
Check the YouTube page ‘Superior Spider-Man Panel SDCC 2013’ so you can see evidence of Dan Slott trying to scrub, scrub, scrub away as much evidence of his recent YouTube meltdown as possible.
For roughly an entire year now Dan Slott has had regular meltdowns directed at yours truly. Last May, I wrote a piece titled: ‘Is Dan Slott’s ‘Superior Spider-Man’ really a Superior anti-Semite?’ The whole point of the article was to show that a villain who came within inches of exterminating 6 billion people was about to be placed in Peter Parker’s body. Marvel’s flagship character was going to be taken over by a genocidal maniac. At a pivotal point in Spider-Man history, one of his greatest villains declared that he would transcend Hitler, Pol Pot, and Genghis Khan in terms of infamy perpetrated upon the world.
Dan Slott has obsessed over me for almost a year — even going so far as to sic his Twitter groupies on me — because I had the gall to react to his insertion of a real-world monster into a fictional comic. In response to his attacks I asked: 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? He never answered. All he’s done is engage in online ranting and raving (e.g., I’m a “terrible human being”) that must make consummate professionals within the confines of Marvel’s offices cringe.
For the past year he’s taken to multiple platforms to engage in character assassination. I’m a “terrible” person. I’m a “bad” person. He’s holds that I simultaneously “implied” and “flat-out” said that he — a Jew — was anti-Semitic (as if I even knew or cared about his heritage in 2013).
My response was that it was quite clear in the piece — and in the comments section within an hour of writing the piece, that I did no such thing and that his accusations were false.
From the piece: 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. …
Slott [to Newsarama]: 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?
From the comments section the day it was published: Very well articulated. I agree with you in that I don’t think a hatred of Jews drove him, but I wrote the piece to corner Dan Slott’s fans into admitting just how horrible Otto is.
Rational adults can see that. I even used Dan Slott’s own words to show who and what he believes Otto represents (i.e., a wannabe hero is just kinda-sorta more annoying than Hawkeye before he was an Avenger — never mind that whole extinction-level event plot months earlier). Dan Slott refuses to acknowledge the truth when it’s right in front of his face, so I had to reiterate it for him:
Note that I say that if I had it all to over again I probably would have just used a picture of Hitler, but that it was “the first one that showed up on the Holocaust museum website [as] I was looking for stats, it was late at night, and I write my posts after extremely long days. I used that one. Oh well.” I needed a Nazi picture. There was one on the page I was reading at that moment. I grabbed it. Case closed.
How was I to know that a single blog post — by a random guy Dan Slott doesn’t know and will likely never meet — would cause the Marvel scribe to seethe with “crazy town banana pants” anger for an entire year? Of course I would have picked a different picture if I had it to do over again.
Afterward, Dan Slott started littering up the YouTube page with jokes about how I said I was unable to find a picture of Hitler online. Why would he do that? Because when faced with irrefutable evidence that he is wrong about the objective of my piece — or at a minimum should rethink his knee-jerk reaction to categorize me with real-world rapists, murderers, dictators and despots — he does what he does best: attack. And then, in order to feel even better about himself, he turns to Twitter, where The Dan Slott Ego Massage Squad can go to work. It’s always ready to rub down all those tender areas of his fragile mind.
Today a blogger explained to me why he used a picture of Jewish remains being shoveled out of ovens in his Spider-Man article. And why he left it up on his site for the better part of a year. It was because he couldn’t find a picture of Hitler. There are TWO takeaways here. 1) This guy is the world’s BIGGEST asshole. […] and 2) Apparently it’s REALLY hard to Google a picture of Hitler.
You see, it’s much more soothing for his sensitive psyche to soak in the slobbering Slott-worship of Superior Spider-Man diehards, who will lather him in in praise and confirm his conclusion that detractors are “assholes” and “douches,” than it is to deal with rational people on YouTube:
Dan Slott’s reply? I simultaneously “imply” and “flat-out” call him an anti-Semite. It’s a good thing that Dan Slott covers all his bases. Never mind the quotes above that demonstrate I did no such thing.
The truth of the matter is that Dan Slott didn’t like the way I went about making my point. He didn’t like the fact that I used very real historical pictures to point out that there are implications to what all of us write and say. When you put words in a character’s mouth, those words mean something.Or, as President Obama would say: “words matter.”
Dan Slott now says that Doc Ock citing a desire to surpass Hitler, Pol Pot and Khan’s collective infamy was merely the rhetorical flourish of a “James-Bond”-type villain. Fair enough, but if Dan Slott thinks that Hitler’s name is now merely fodder for James Bond-ish dialogue, some of us think that with that should come a dose of perspective.
And so, at this time, I will include the following image, which I show you with Dan Slott’s blessing.
Human remains found in the Dachau concentration camp crematorium after liberation. Germany, April 1945. — U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
That’s a wake-up call, isn’t it? Given Dan Slott’s reaction over the past year, it appears that he’s gotten the message — when you infuse real-world genocidal maniacs into the pages of Marvel comics, do not act surprised when history lovers take it seriously. Strangely enough, Dan Slott didn’t go into a TwitLonger rage when Bleeding Cool called out his character for “full-blown Nazi-like experimentation/ torture on his victims.” Ouch. How did that scene sneak by Dan Slott before going to print, given how important it is for him to protect the honor of his ancestors?
Being a veteran, whose friend was killed by a sniper in Iraq, I’ve had people say some pretty gruesome things to me, both online and in person. (Try dealing with it when it’s your college professors.) I’ve seen some horrible images that were personal affronts to the experience that probably shaped my life more than any other. However, I never obsessed over the individuals behind those hurtful or offensive acts and I didn’t call them “evil” people because, unlike Dan Slott, I know how to put things in proper perspective. But I digress. Back to the Holocaust image.
I received two reader comments that nicely summed up the debate about the picture after Dan Slott’s attacks began. They are excerpted here:
Reader #1. 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.
Reader #2. 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.
Two very different points of view, but which one is right? I ended up taking down the photo, even though I agreed with Reader #2.
My rationale:
I have removed the image and added an editor’s note. While I disagree about your conclusion that the only purpose it serves is to be sensationalistic, I think the more important point at this moment in time is that through respectful dialogue adults can work through their issues.
For that, Dan Slott called me a “coward,” proving my point that he is currently incapable of respectful dialogue.
Instead of responding to the coward claim, I will again cite Reader #1, who prompted me to take down the picture:
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.
The point is, this whole debate is actually a lot more complex and nuanced than someone of Dan Slott’s maturity level can handle. It’s easier to call me “evil” and “terrible” and “bad” over and over again. And then, when a guy like me points out — after nearly a year of verbal diarrhea hurled in his direction — that one of the reasons why I enlisted in the armed services was so guys like him would never have to fear being shoved in an oven or shot and killed, he has the nerve to say I have unfairly used my military service as a shield.
A friend of mine put just laughed and mentioned that Dan Slott is pretty good at hiding behind his Jewish heritage (a point that Reader #1 also seems to have noticed).
And with that, I give you one last piece of evidence to show you what an immature and confused man Dan Slott is at this point in his life:
The guy encourages me to use the Holocaust picture for “intellectual honesty,” and then when I tell him I will do just that he again loses it and lashes out at my character. Do you see how it works in Dan Slott’s world? If I use the picture at his request — essentially his dare to provide “intellectual honesty” — I’m a “terrible” person; if I don’t use the picture, I’m a “terrible and dishonest” person. Dan Slott wins every time.
If I put up a picture that offends Dan Slott, I’m a “terrible human” on par with (ironically) Hitler. If I take it down after a reader acts like an adult, I’m a “coward.” While East Ukrainian Jews are being told to register with pro-Russian forces, Dan Slott pats himself on the back at night because he’s identified and attacked the real threat to the Jewish community — me. For days. And weeks. And months.
What courage. What bravery. What sacrifice. Churchill would be proud.
The great thing about Dan Slott calling me a “coward” is that anyone who reads these blog posts will understand that he’s attacked me personally on YouTube, Comic Book Resources, Twitter, TwitLonger, Comic Vine, the Marvel Message Boards and probably a few other places that I don’t even know of for roughly one year — but he hasn’t come here. Maybe now he’ll show his face. Or not. He seems to like the sound his Twitter followers make when he blows the stroke-my-ego dog whistle.
If he does decide to show up, expect him to once again say that I implied that he was anti-Semitic, even though I quite clearly never did such a thing. (Or was that “flat-out” say he was an anti-Semite? I can’t remember because it changes hourly.) No Dan, you did not write a book with an anti-Semitic character — you just wrote one with a man who wanted to kill six billion people because he hated all of humanity. And then, you made him Spider-Man. For an entire year. Again, silly me.
As a practicing Catholic, I find this to be incredibly tasteless (understatement of the year award). Using the Dan Slott litmus test for “bad” and “terrible” people, Erik Larson fits the bill. It’s a good thing I don’t use Slottian methods for judging someone’s character. If I did, then I’d obsess over Mr. Larsen’s single tweet for the next year and abuse the caps-lock button as I proclaim: “I’m Catholic! I’m Catholic! I — a Catholic — am Catholic! I’m Cathooooooooolic! How dare you challenge the Universal Salvific Will of God! RAGE!”
If you enjoyed this post, just know that there will probably be more in the future, as Dan Slott’s obsession with me shows no signs of slowing down. The next time he complains about tight deadlines, take a moment to think about just how much time he wastes attacking his critics.
If you’ve made it this far I now invite you to enjoy Dan Slott’s favorite song: ‘You Spin Me Round’
Exit question: How long will it be before Dan Slott lies to his Twitter groupies and tells them that a.) I picked ‘You Spin Me Round (Like a Record Baby)’ for surreptitiously evil purposes, and b.) I seriously implied/said (pick one … or both) that he enjoys listening to Wagner, even though he’s not supposed to.
Bonus Number 2: Tomorrow Dan Slott tweets to his followers that Francis Ford Coppola may be an anti-Semite.
Yes, that’s right, in Dan Slott’s world, if you describe the white character you’ve read for decades as “white” when someone asks you, then you “don’t get” him.
Notice what Dan Slott has done — he conflates the idea of a “Spider-Man” with the character millions of people around the world recognize as Peter Parker.
Some random Peter Parker fan essentially says, “Even my grandma would be able to describe Peter Parker to forensic sketch artist, and he’d be white. That’s pretty iconic. I think it would probably be odd to randomly make Peter Parker black.”
Related: Check out Hube’s take over at Colossus of Rhodey.
Douglas Ernst Blog 