Tag: Spider-Man

Dan Slott: Marvel’s lying scribe attacks critics, then turns to Twitter to massage his fragile ego

April 21, 2014January 30, 2015by Douglas Ernst198 Comments

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.

Here’s the extended tweet:

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. — US Holocaust Memorial Museum — 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.

Time once again for Dan Slott to do his best ‘You Spin Me Round (Like a Record, Baby)’ imitation.

Speaking of Church, here’s how Dan Slott’s tolerant liberal colleague Erik Larsen “celebrated” Easter.

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.

H/T Hube on the Erik Larsen tweet.

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.

Dan Slott’s Superior Spider-Man: Body-snatching rapist confirmed in issue 22

December 4, 2013September 18, 2015by Douglas Ernst78 Comments

In December of 2012 I examined what it would mean if Dan Slott’s body-snatching Spider-Man slept with Mary Jane under false pretenses. If I had a twin brother, pretended to be him in the dark, and slept with his groggy wife I would be a monster. Likewise, if Doctor Octopus — living a lie in Peter Parker’s body — sleeps with a woman, for all intents and purposes he is a rapist. These are uncomfortable truths, but truths we must face because this is the state of the comic book industry in 2013.

With Superior Spider-Man 22, Dan Slott’s creation goes full body-snatching rapist. Didn’t anyone ever tell Mr. Slott and Marvel’s editors never to go full-rapist? (i.e., They could have “merely” kept it to Doctor Octopus pleasuring himself — in Peter’s body — to thoughts of Mary Jane.)

Chris from Spider-Man Crawlspace reviews the issue:

[W]hile I have seen stories in which bad guys have used stolen bodies to get laid (the Buffy-Faith body swap is the example I can think of right now), I don’t think I’ve ever seen a romantic relationship in such a scenario unfold naturally over the long term quite like the relationship between “Peter” and Anna Maria. After months of development, that relationship reaches a new stage in this issue, as the art and dialogue strongly imply that the two began to have sex until they were interrupted by “Peter” being called to action as Spider-Man. Obviously, obtaining consent through deception makes Otto despicable. Earlier in this run, it seemed like practically every online discussion regarding Superior Spider-Man I came across was dominated by anxiety over whether Otto, impersonating Peter, would sleep with Mary Jane, and whether such an event would constitute rape. Curiously, I have not seen the same online fervor now that Otto has actually done this to someone. People in the comments section, can you help me figure out why that is?

Indeed, Chris. Asking: “Here, now? Are you sure?” and then having Anna Maria reply “Yes. I’m not wasting a moment either…” is more than a strong implication. Those two glowing jellyfish attempting to tangle themselves together in the background as Anna says “while we have the chance,” seem to seal the deal.

Sadly, there are readers who just don’t get it. “Hairychap” weighs in to answer Chris’ inquiry — and fails miserably:

“Sleeping with Anna isn’t taking advantage of a pre-existing relationship established by Peter, heck she never even meet Peter before he was Ock.”

It’s a good thing we don’t live in a world where real body-snatchers or telepaths exist because inevitably it would be populated with “Hairychaps”… Regardless, here are a few reasons for Chris why he hasn’t seen the online furor that was displayed at the start of Superior Spider-Man:

Readers have had nearly a year of experience with this “Superior” Spider-Man and aren’t shocked anymore. He blew off a guy’s face at point-blank range, the supporting characters act as if they’ve been lobotomized in order to keep the debacle going, and even Bleeding Cool was forced to call out Marvel on the “nazi-like” torture scene approved for the annual.
Dan Slott has admitted that he turned Peter Parker into a “meat puppet.” There really isn’t much else to say. At some point Mr. Slott (consciously or unconsciously) decided to come clean. Once a writer says that a character is being used as a “meat puppet,” there’s really nothing left for readers to expose. All they can do is reiterate how awful the editorial decisions on the book are.
Dan Slott makes weirdly veiled legal threats when people who give his work hard-nosed critiques, sends his Twitter followers to block people, and generally throws online tantrums where he proclaims that he’s “done” with the internet and message boards — before coming back hours later. One of my favorite Dan Slott memories is when I started talking about Superior Spider-Man at Comicvine and he decided it was the appropriate time to discuss my writings on … Trayvon Martin.
Remember Marvel’s Orwellian comments section, where tactful comments went down the Mighty Marvel Memory Holes when they hit a nerve? I do.
It’s the holiday season. People are spending time with their family, Christmas shopping and eating good food. Most websites see a dip in traffic this time of year. My guess is that the kind of people who understand the moral bankruptcy of Superior Spider-Man are also the kind of people who check out from online message boards during November-December.
Perhaps Crawlspace might have a problem replying to inquiries regarding its comments section? There is one person who would like to comment on the rape situation over at Crawlspace, but can’t — me. I used to be able to comment there, but on July 22 that stopped. Below is a screenshot of my email to the website. (In full disclosure, I haven’t checked since July since there wasn’t a response to my inquiry.)

Dear Sir,

I’ve been trying to post in your comments section, but have been unable to for some reason. I was wondering if there is a glitch in the system or if I’ve been banned for some sort of breach of etiquette I was unaware of (I haven’t used foul language or attacked other individuals in the comments section).

I tried to comment in both Firefox and Safari and neither of those worked. [Any] insight you can give me would be appreciated. I enjoy your podcasts and updates and would like to comment, if possible.

Best,

Doug

It’s interesting that I never received a reply.

Regardless, the reason why Chris sees less “anxiety” these days is because people are resigned to the fact that Dan Slott has done vast amounts of damage to the Spider-Man brand. They’re really just waiting for the day when a new creative team can come in and pick up the pieces.

How much lower can this title go? I’ll let you know in the months ahead.

Marvel: We killed Peter Parker and ruined Tony Stark, but who cares — you now have Muslim Ms. Marvel

November 6, 2013November 6, 2013by Douglas Ernst103 Comments

Marvel comics has some interesting priorities. It allowed Dan Slott to kill one of the most popular characters of all time — Peter Parker — and has been dragging its feet on bringing him back ever since. It recently announced an embarrassing new origin for Tony Stark. Tens-of-thousands of long time readers might be livid, but Marvel wants you to know that it’s all going to be okay because this February they’ll be introducing … a Muslim superhero who has the ability to look a lot like “Cock Knocker” from Kevin Smith’s ‘Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back’? Weird.

The Outhousers reports:

Marvel announced to the New York Times that G Willow Wilson (writer of the short-lived revival of the Crossgen series Mystic) will be writing a new Ms. Marvel series starring Kamala Khan, a Muslim American teenage girl with the ability to shapeshift. According to the Times, Khan idolizes Carol Danvers and takes up her original codename after discovering her powers.

Okay. Fair enough. Marvel gets to put out a press release and pat itself on the back for being “diverse.” Sure. But questions remain: Is this going to be a book on how all Americans are apparently fearful of Muslims, or will the superhero use her powers to save Muslims like Malala Yousafzai before they’re shot in the face and left for dead by Pakistani Taliban psychopaths? Or, will the book primarily just be about the struggles of a teenage girl?

The New York Times sheds some light on the issues:

Kamala will face struggles outside her own head, including conflicts close to home. “Her brother is extremely conservative,” [Marvel editor] Ms. Amanat said. “Her mom is paranoid that she’s going to touch a boy and get pregnant. Her father wants her to concentrate on her studies and become a doctor.” Next to those challenges, fighting supervillains may be a respite.

The creative team is braced for all possible reactions. “I do expect some negativity,” Ms. Amanat said, “not only from people who are anti-Muslim, but people who are Muslim and might want the character portrayed in a particular light.”

But “this is not evangelism,” Ms. Wilson said. “It was really important for me to portray Kamala as someone who is struggling with her faith.” The series, Ms. Wilson said, would deal with how familial and religious edicts mesh with super-heroics, which can require rules to be broken.

It’s really hard to comment on the book before it’s come out. I want to give Marvel the benefit of the doubt, but how can I? History indicates that they’ll go the politically correct route. Remember when Marvel wanted Spider-Man readers to know that Muslims are safer in Iran than New York? I do.

Let me set the stage. Something is very wrong in New York City. Citizens have been taken with fear, and they’re acting out in irrational ways. Spider-Man is working overtime (what else is new?) to keep the city from tearing itself apart. Cue Naveed Moshtaghi, a taxi driver and Iranian immigrant. Naveed’s vehicle is hit by an angry white guy, who then blames the accident on Naveed: ”He’s one of the terrorists. He wants to kill us all!”, says the aggressor. A mob is swarms around Naveed, swallowing him whole until Spider-Man saves the day.

At this point I’m willing to give writer Chris Yost a break. Maybe the “God of Fear” is really behind it all. I’m even willing to shrug off a narrator who begins, “Naveed Moshtaghi is afraid of the same thing he’s been afraid of for ten years,” (i.e., Americans are just itching for an excuse to bum rush Muslims post-9/11 to infinity and beyond), right before the story unfolds that way.

But then something interesting happens. All alone on a rooftop, Spider-Man tells the man he’s dealing with the crisis very well. Naveed responds: “I’m a second generation Iranian in New York City. Living in fear, that’s what I’m used to. What is happening down there, sometimes I think it was only a matter of time.”

Those darn white guys. Indeed, it was all just a “matter of time.” Maybe they were the same white Christian guys the Pentagon fears these days. Who knows.

Regardless, the point is, Marvel wonders why fans roll their eyes every time there is a new character seemingly invented for the sole purpose of throwing a diversity parade. Usually, those creations have less to do with adding an interesting new personality to the universe and more to do with beating readers over the head with a particular worldview. Don’t believe me? See DC’s Muslim Green Lantern.

Will I check out Ms. Marvel when it hits shelves? Perhaps. Although, quite honestly, it seems as though Marvel should get right with Spider-Man and Iron Man fans before it starts asking readers to fork over cash for teenage shapeshifters.

Dan Slott: I love Peter Parker so much I turned him into a ‘meat puppet’

October 13, 2013January 16, 2014by Douglas Ernst122 Comments

The New York Comic Con is on, which means that comic fans get to view internet photo galleries of beautiful Cosplay ladies dressed as Power Girl, and Peter Parker fans get to read Dan Slott interviews where he inadvertently telegraphs to the world what he really thinks of the character.

Caps-lock abusing Dan teased things to come for Superior Spider-Man this weekend, and his state of mind couldn’t be clearer. ‘The Superior Freaky Friday Spider-Man’ takes on the Green Goblin in the months ahead, but before they clash Dan Slott wanted to set the record straight for posterity: He is the guy whose editorial judgment was so sound he decided to let a megalomaniac use Peter Parker as a “meat puppet.”

From CBR News:

CBR: We know what the Green Goblin meant to Peter Parker, but what does he mean to Otto Octavius?

Dan Slott: I don’t want to give stuff away. You’ll have to wait and see, but one thing to keep in mind is Doc Ock killed Spider-Man, took his life, and carried on. So he’s had the ultimate victory over Spider-Man.

When you look at the rankings, I’m sorry but everything he’s done from the “Dying Wish” arc of “Amazing Spider-Man” on moves him up in the rankings. Norman Osborn is like, “Ha! I threw your girlfriend off a bridge.” And Dock Ock could reply, “You know what? I RIPPED HIS BRAIN OUT OF HIS SKULL, PUT MY MIND INSIDE, AND WORE HIM LIKE A MEAT PUPPET! TOP THAT!” [Laughs] So at some point you go, “You know, I think Doc Ock might just be the #1 Spider-Man villain of all time.” It’s like, “Suck it Goblin!”

Slow clap for Dan Slott. He is actually proud of allowing Peter Parker to be treated like a “meat puppet.” If you take to blogs, twitter and other comic forums to voice displeasure with his Peter Parker meat puppetry, he mocks you. Question for long time Peter Parker fans: Did you ever think things would reach this point?

How do you top that? In Dan Slott’s mind, one would assume that making Peter Parker into The Green Goblin might be an option. There are probably all sorts of dastardly things one could do to Aunt May that could “top” it, but do we really want to go there? Anti-heroes are still, on some level, supposed to be heroes, and if Dan Slott thinks Doc Ock can exist as one in Peter Parker’s body for such an extended period of time, what now constitutes a villain?

Read the full interview and you can’t help but notice that Mr. Slott seems to have concluded that if he can’t generate sales by uniting all Spider-Man fans (those who love Peter Parker and those who really just want to see someone in the costume swinging around the city with spider-powers), he’ll do so by creating events that a.) have far-reaching implications for the entire Marvel Universe, and b.) tormenting readers. People filled with anger and people filled with inspiration can be moved to action, but it is much easier to upset readers than to uplift them — hence, Superior Spider-Man.

Again, the question becomes: Where do you go from here? At some point in time Peter Parker will have to come back, and a poor writer will have to figure out a way to undo the damage. Dan Slott’s work on Spider-Man is reminiscent of the woman who tried to restore a 19th-century fresco of Jesus and turned it into an abomination. The finished product isn’t popular because it is beautiful, but because it is so incredibly weird and bizarre.

Dan Slott is the Celia Gimenez of the comic book industry, even if he doesn’t realize it yet.

NPR fresco — Dan Slott’s work on Spider-Man can be compared to the Spanish woman who took the 19th-century fresco of Jesus (Ecce Homo or Behold the Man) and turned it into something so strange people had to notice. How will anyone return the fresco to its original beauty? How will a writer return Peter Parker to his rightful place of glory in the Marvel Universe?

If you are a fan of Peter Parker, I high suggest taking to social media platforms to let your voice be heard. There are few comic book characters that can be considered American cultural icons, but Peter Parker is one of them. When the history books are recorded, it should be a mark of shame upon the creative team that allowed him to be treated like a “meat puppet.”

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.

Dan Slott’s Spider-Man: World’s Dumbest Super Hero

June 23, 2012December 13, 2015by Douglas Ernst11 Comments

The ‘Ends of the Earth’ storyline in Marvel’s Amazing Spider-Man has severely damaged the character’s credibility, due almost entirely to writer Dan Slott. I took flak from fans for mentioning that Spider-Man’s dangerously naive “no one dies” mentality is a war zone liability, and that only a fool would jeopardize a time-sensitive mission by worrying about the well-being of North Korean soldiers — when over six billion lives were on the line. Only a few weeks ago I said: “A hero is still a hero, but some of them are meant for city streets, and some of them are meant to determine the fate of the world.” And now, Dan Slott’s Spider-Man proved it through his own dialogue and actions:

“I’m not used to ‘End of the World’ stuff. Gimme a bank robbery or one of my regular bad guys. Now that I can handle,” (Dan Slott’s Spider-Man, Amazing Spider-Man #687).

Sadly, truer words were never spoken. Only pages later, Spider-Man is put in a situation where he must choose between saving Silver Sable’s life as she is held beneath rising water by the immovable Rhino, or stopping a satellite launch that will doom billions. Our hero feebly pulls at his enemy’s forearm like a little boy who yearns for a toy until Sable uses one of her last breaths to berate his idiocy: “If you don’t go — EVERYONE DIES! GO!”

Spider-Man Silver Sable — Look at Spider-Man with that blank stare on his face. You can almost see the wheels turning as he realizes what a fool his “no one dies” mantra is. Even in the face of death, Silver Sable has a clear enough head to know the correct course of action to take.

As I said before, Dan Slott’s Spider-Man is so myopic that he only sees the lives right there in front of him. He’s like a baby, tricked by peek-a-boo because his mind isn’t fully developed; if there are lives to be saved right in front of him, there’s a good chance he can be distracted.

With the climax of ‘Ends of the Earth’ at hand, Slott delivers — in the wrong way. The blinded fan will only remember Spider-Man finding an inner reserve of strength to break free from his bonds to save billions — again, thanks to the Silver Sable’s clear thinking at death’s door. What they won’t remember is that Doctor Octopus admitted he is pure evil right before Peter decided to save his life — instead of using the opportunity to return to Silver Sable. Doctor Octopus says: “I shall live on in infamy — a mass murderer worse than Pol Pot, Hitler, and Genghis Khan combined.

Only moments later, as Peter attempts to save the genocidal maniac from the crumbling fortress, he says: “I made a promise. As long as I’m around no one — … Come on. I’m getting you out of here.”

Note the pause. Peter obviously thinks of his teammate possibly drowning a few rooms over. I say ‘possibly’ because Spider-Man doesn’t know what happened after he left the room, and neither does the reader. Perhaps Silver Sable had one last trick up her sleeve. Perhaps another hero found a way to come to her aid. In that moment, wouldn’t the true hero have ditched the man who hoped to transcend Hitler, in an effort to check on his ally? In that situation, would it not have been better to at least recover her dead body over saving the man who was willing to subject billions to a burning death just seconds earlier? Let’s not even get into the many people who have been resuscitated after having been submerged in water for lengths of time conventional wisdom says is impossible…

It’s fitting that ‘Ends of the Earth’ would feature a character who (seemingly) died from drowning, because Dan Slott’s Spider-Man walks around like there isn’t enough oxygen going to his brain. Here’s to hoping that one day Spider-Man will come to his (spider) senses.

Spider-Man: War Zone liability thinks small in big situations

May 25, 2012May 25, 2012by Douglas Ernst18 Comments

A week ago I covered Spider-Man, and how liberal writers have turned him into a walking war zone liability. In a situation where 6 billion lives hung in the balance, the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man did the “neighborly” thing and thought to use precious seconds wondering whether a bunch of North Korean soldiers (those same guys overseeing the world’s most notorious gulags) were ushered to safety before explosives took out the weapons … they were guarding. He then saw fit to warn his soldierly teammates “no one dies,” precisely the kind of all-or-nothing delusional thinking that sets the stage for death to occur.

Issue #686 of Amazing Spider-Man takes place right after our heroes believe half the world has been destroyed. With carnage surrounding them, Black Widow tells Spider-Man they must leave immediately, as time is not on their side if they want to save the roughly 3 billion people remaining on earth. Spider-Man’s response? He’s not budging because he has people to save right there. Dan Slott’s Spider-Man is so myopic that he only sees the lives right there in front of him. He’s like a baby, tricked by peek-a-boo because his mind isn’t fully developed; if there are lives to be saved right in front of him, there’s a good chance he can be distracted. The Black Widow knows it and, sadly, his deadliest foes take advantage of it.

Spider-Man Black Widow — With 3 billion lives at stake and with every second counting, Dan Slott’s Spider-Man wanted to play search and rescue. It’s an honorable job, but the problem with that is this: At that moment in time Spidey was the guy who was supposed to be saving the world — not Black Widow.

Mysterio and Chameleon — Even Spider-Man’s deadliest foes know that while his heart is pure, his mind is clouded with the quixotic belief that “no one dies” on his watch. Like a heroic Spider-Man-Pigeon, he’s easily distracted by lives in immediate danger, never acknowledging that by “saving” the few to his front, he may very well condemn 3 billion to his rear. A hero is still a hero, but some of them are meant for city streets, and some of them are meant to determine the fate of the world. Dan Slott’s Spider-Man may save the world, but an honest writer would have penned the more logical conclusion: utter defeat caused by unforced errors.

In the end, Dan Slott gives Spider-Man a reprieve, and the hero is given a chance to save the day by taking advantage of the vanity, greed and hubris of his enemies. The “end of the world” was an illusion meant to distract the heroes and buy time for the machinations of evil men to materialize. It would have worked, but the enemies who literally have the world in their hands want more, overreach and lose it all. Spider-Man takes advantage of his second chance, but it feels like a Deus ex Machina of sorts, freeing the character of the consequences of his short-sighted actions. In the real world we often don’t get second chances.

Even Black Widow can’t resist rubbing Peter Parker’s nose in the evidence of his ignorance — in his own book, no less:

Black Widow Silver Sable Spider-Man — Spider-Man’s complete lack of foresight nearly cost his team the chance to save the world. Black Widow makes sure to let him know it. Lectured by a supposedly-lesser hero in his own title. Sad.

At $4.00 a pop, The Amazing Spider-Man hurts the wallet over the course of a year. These days, it also hurts just to read the title, period. Here’s to hoping Peter learns something from the experience. If not, look for books featuring Black Widow. She deserves it.

The Amazing Spider-Man: Driven by Guilt, but will Garfield Deliver?

February 8, 2012February 9, 2012by Douglas ErnstLeave a comment

Andrew Garfield Amazing Spider-Man — What do you do if you vowed to always do what is right, but also to never to take a man's life, when the right thing in a given situation IS to kill? We probably won't find out with The Amazing Spider-Man, but the trailer is still good.

The new Amazing Spider-Man trailer is out, and I must say that it’s better than expected. In November 2010, I blogged about liberal Hollywood activist Martin Sheen playing the role of Uncle Ben, and whether or not that would change his famous motto to “With great power comes other people’s money.” The message of the movie is still ultimately up for grabs, but at least the cinematography looks slick. While the franchise as a whole probably should have sat on the shelf for a few more years before an attempt at a reboot was made, it looks as if Andrew Garfield might turn out a respectable film after all.

Comic legend Stan Lee always said that Spider-Man was, “the superhero who could be you!” Peter Parker was picked on in high school. He had girl problems. He was skinny. That’s true, but what what was always so powerful about the character was the guilt Peter had to deal with for having let his uncle’s murderer get away when he had a chance to stop him. The message that one should always do the right thing is one that isn’t heard too often these days, in part because moral relativists have convinced large segments of the population that there isn’t a right thing. Because this new movie appears to concentrate on how the disappearance of Peter’s parents affected his life, more so than his culpability in Uncle Ben’s death, your Spider-Sense should be tingling.

Peter Parker has historically been driven by guilt, rightfully manifested when he refuses to so much as lift a finger (with his new super powers) to stop the man that would wind up killing his Uncle. Based solely on the trailer, The Amazing Spider-Man may be driven by guilt of a different kind, when he literally and figuratively gives Doctor Curt Conners a hand and it all goes wrong. It’s tough to say how these changes will impact the film, but the emotional weight of the character might suffer because of it. In one instance Peter must endure sleepless nights ridding the world of evil because he once let evil get away. In the other instance he must rid the world of evil because perhaps he was just too darned nice of guy. Or will he suffer both? It all depends on how much the writers decided to stay faithful to the canon at this point.

Finally, the one weakness Spider-Man stories have always had, and will continue to have for the foreseeable future, is that the character refuses to kill anyone. Anyone. That includes psychopathic nuts with superpowers. He makes a point to always use the minimum amount of force necessary to subdue an opponent, but has always ruled out ending their life (no matter how many times that villain returns to kill innocent victims). Sometimes the responsible thing to do is to take a life—something cops have to deal with every day. I’ve never understood why the writers of Spider-Man didn’t get that.

Regardless, on July 7th, 2012, check out The Amazing Spider-Man and let me know what you think.

Update: Head on over to Hotair to get Allahpundit’s take.