Comic Book Resources

I've got to diagree with this. The main reason you can't have MJ in the picture is that a hard-luck Peter Parker just doesn't work with her around. The idea that MJ can't make money just always comes off as contrived, since a women that attractive should easily be able to make money modeling. Remember in the late 80's earily 90's when they had that silly Johnothan Caesar story-arc where MJ had pissed off a man who was so powerful as to get her completely blacklisted? Kind of ridiculous.

And, even if you get past the financial issue, it's hard to see Peter as unlucky when he's married to a kind, loving, and amazingly attractive super model. I love the character, but I can see why you need to remove her from the picture.

Maybe Peter wouldn't want to live off his wife's earnings. Just saying.

I think Colin nailed it on the head. The marriage to MJ really destroys the "down on his luck" Peter Parker. Plus, the whole Peter Parker centered plot in Brand New Day has been centered on him being broke, pathetic, and lonely. The superhero stuff could have happened with MJ, even the chemistry with Jackpot, but the Peter stuff could not happen in this form with the marriage.

I think the "is Jackpot Mary Jane?" thing wouldn't have worked with a married Peter, but they didn't drag it out as long as I would have thought.

How to have a "hard luck Peter" married to Mary Jane? Give her a tragic illness that's not fatal, or at least very long-term. I could see financial problems and pathos aplenty if she had MS. Her modeling career would be gone. You could focus attention on the disease (but not to a morbid degree), show dignity and perseverance of both MJ and Peter under trial, and basically show what happens to real people in real life.

Us Gregs have got to stick together, so I'm siding with Mr. Burgas.

I haven't been buying "Brand New Day," because I am simply opposed to how this status quo has been forced onto the Spider-Man mythos. And I'm not going get into how strongly opposed I am to the concept of a perpetually "down on his luck" Peter Parker, or this myth of Mary Jane being somehow out of Peter's league, because she's supposedly a supermodel or whatever. But from what I've read in my LCS - the buyout of The Daily Bugle, the Negative Man, the Spider-Tracer murders, Menace (even if I find him to be a gross ripoff of the Hobgoblin saga), Jackpot...all of it could've been done with a married Peter Parker.

Naturally, the execution would've had to have been adjusted here and there, but this could've all worked without "One More Day."

Marvel will come to rue the day Joe Q insisted on OMD.

How divorce is more "palatable" to him than "dealing with the Devil" I'll never know.

Guy must have issues.

And, playing Mephisto's advocate here, does PP ALWAYS have to be a down-on-his-luck character?

"Hard luck Peter married to a supermodel" doesn't HAVE to be that hard. With the number of reality shows dedicated to the exploits of D-list celebrities, we see that achieving fame can be easier than maintaining it. Yes, MJ is still attractive by normal standards, but what if the fashion industry has moved beyond her "look," and she finds it harder to secure decent gigs?

Or, what if Marvel did a storyline where MJ starts to realize what the fashion industry does to women and their self-esteem, so she voluntarily leaves it or starts speaking out against their practices, which leads to the fashion elite being less willing to hire her? (Imagine the mainstream press if a Spider-man comic devoted a storyline to bulimia or anorexia!)

What if MJ turns the de facto blacklist into a positive and decides to return to school to earn a post-grad degree in counseling to increase her knowledge of the issue. It is noble, but even after getting the degree, it wouldn't pay particularly well.

Now, we have a married, twenty-something couple making it in New York on one income, as they burn through their savings to put one of them through school. They are not slackers, but career-minded, and focused on making the world a better place. Unfortunately, their aspirations put them behind the 8-ball financially. Also, with MJ's studies and Peter's job, and crimefighting, there's less time to spend with one another, and their marriage goes through certain rough patches.

That scenario is real, dramatic, puts both Mary Jane and Peter in a positive light, doesn't break up the marriage, but adds credible strain to it, doesn't age them too much, and doesn't make Peter look like a tool by having him live with his elderly aunt begging for wheatcakes!

Are we still on the whole 'One More Day' thing?

I've made this comment on a friend's blog, but I think it bears repeating here...

I'm all over the map on this one because I was a fan of the marriage and thought it was retconned out not for any good storytelling reason but to settle the whims of an EiC that wants it to be 1975 again. But...

1) I've loved the past two months of Spider-Man. Dan Slott wrote some brilliant and funny stuff and just when I didn't get any better, Marc Guggenheim had to suddenly write a brilliant one-liner where Spider-Man declared he wouldn't be killed by a falling "U". It's the most entertaining comics I've read in ages. It's humming with excitement. The subplots are awesome. The ongoing story is humming. The new characters are great. Spider-Man is funny again. And the art is gorgeous. I'm thinking of actually buying this regularly.

2) Nothing in what either Guggenheim or Slott are doing couldn't be done with Peter married to Mary Jane. In fact in some of the instances it could make the complications to Peter's life even funnier. (So, in total agreement with Greg here.)

3) I'm starting to realize though... they probably wouldn't have gotten me to read this without the huge eventness of One More Day. Which sort of depresses me. Not that they couldn't have done some other huge eventness thing to lead into it that reasserted the status quo with Peter Parker's secret identity.

4) Christ on a bike, Mark Millar's first issue of Fantastic Four was boring. And talky. And boring. It's as though they think if they have everyone talking earnestly in continuity in-jokes for 22 pages they can create great art. (Hint: No). And this follows up Civil War by demonstrating that Mark Millar does not get Reed Richards at all. And the Thing isn't funny. And I say all of this because the past 6 issues of Amazing Spider-Man which has been funny, fast-paced, characterized perfectly and plotted tighter than a drum. I see with FF what could have happened...and I want more comics like what we got the past two months.

Well, there is one thing that has been done with an unmarried Peter that could never be done with the married one.

Six issues went unsold to me. Never would have happened if Peter was married.

Married Peter had organic webshooters, while Brand New Day Peter has run out of web fluid 672 times already! STORYTELLING! Also, the ingredients for web fluid apparently cost exactly $2,000! I guess Spider-Man never used webs when he was a teenager. He certainly wasn't married as a teen! STORYTELLING!

Divorce would have completely restored the concept of the "old Parker luck": guy gets married to a supermodel, for god's sake, and can't make it work, partly because he's Spider-Man. You can do most of the things with a newly divorced twenty-something that you can do with a single twenty-something as long as they are no kids involved, when I agree it becomes a slightly different kind of story.

My biggest problem with OMD and its aftermath is that it strikes me as lazy storytelling. "Ooh, I don't want Spider-Man to be married. I wish he was still single and a complete loser like he was when I was eleven." Too bad, that's not who he is anymore. And besides, if that's the only kind of Spider-Man that interests you, then you can go buy "Ultimate Spider-Man," which features--wait for it--a single Peter Parker with lots of problems.

Also, I was never a Spider-Man reader when he was still single and a complete loser.

"does PP ALWAYS have to be a down-on-his-luck character? "

yes, comics fans want to read the same old story, over and over again, for the last 40 years.

They dont want characters to evolve.

Re Down-on-luck Pete being impossible with attractive wife:

Seems kinda superficial to me. I have an attractive wife. She loves me. We never fight or have anything resembling marital strife AND YET I still have periods in which I am down on my luck. Having a hot wife does not solve all of life's problems. I've found the only one it does solve is the problem of not having a hot wife (if that is even a problem).

It boggles my mind that people can equate "hard-luck Peter" with "Peter is never happy." The idea isn't that nothing ever goes right for him; if that were the case, he would have drowned under that big pile of machinery lo those many years ago. The idea is that nothing's ever easy. And the thing about marriage is, it's never easy. It takes work, on both sides. Under the hands of a writer who's not lazy, Peter can indeed have a married life that's a constant struggle, but that works out in the end. (That last part is important; Peter may face unending hardship, but the definition of his character is that HE OVERCOMES IT. I'm perpetually flummoxed that so many people fail to see that forest for the trees.)

Ok, I want Jack Potts to be the next writer for Spider-Man.

The idea of MJ growing disenchanted with modeling and trying to change the negative effect it has on girls is a great hook for her character.

And it would fit with her being the wife of a superhero. I never saw MJ as a shallow model type, so the idea that she would completely ignore her husband trying to make the world a better place without it affecting her attitude is kind of silly.

But I guess we'll never know now...

Or, what if Marvel did a storyline where MJ starts to realize what the fashion industry does to women and their self-esteem, so she voluntarily leaves it or starts speaking out against their practices, which leads to the fashion elite being less willing to hire her? (Imagine the mainstream press if a Spider-man comic devoted a storyline to bulimia or anorexia!)

Oh God no...just...no. I'd puke if I ever saw Ditko's creation being used for such touchy-feely, victimology self-esteem PC claptrap like that. The rest of your post I like though.

Michael: "It boggles my mind that people can equate “hard-luck Peter” with “Peter is never happy.” The idea isn’t that nothing ever goes right for him; if that were the case, he would have drowned under that big pile of machinery lo those many years ago. The idea is that nothing’s ever easy. And the thing about marriage is, it’s never easy. It takes work, on both sides. Under the hands of a writer who’s not lazy, Peter can indeed have a married life that’s a constant struggle, but that works out in the end. (That last part is important; Peter may face unending hardship, but the definition of his character is that HE OVERCOMES IT. I’m perpetually flummoxed that so many people fail to see that forest for the trees.)"

THANK you! (And nice reference to the Master Planner saga!) Do you live in New York? We need to hang out, seriously...lol

Who is this down on his luck Peter I keep hearing about? I've not read about him. Certainly not in the pages of Stan Lee's books where despite some bullying he still had friends at school. Certainly not when he had girlfriends like Betty, Gwen, Mary Jane, etc. Certainly not when he had a loving parental figure. Certainly not when there was food on the table and roofs over his head. Certainly not when, though he had to work for it, had enough money to get by and live decently.

I should be so down on my luck.

Greg - I am indeed in the City So Nice They Named It Twice.

T - And once again, I'm reminded that we are each other's Earth-3 duplicates.

I'm not sure if these specific stories or different stories in the same style could have been effectively told with a married Peter Parker, but I'm fairly certain a (near) weekly Amazing Spider-Man with an awesome set of rotating creative teams telling stories about a married Peter Parker would have netted the same effect: renewed interest and some good comics.

Michael, it's funny you say that because I 100% agreed with your comment #17.

What does the big cheese have against spidy becoming a man. why can't he get over his insecurities and problems i mean for @#$%'s sake the has been a SUPERHERO for so much of his life, even when it doesn't go exactly as he wants he has never been homeless or starved to the point of stealing food, he should realize his life isn't so damn bad and make it all work for him.

let the character evolve, your setting a horrible precedent, what if the next generation decides, no i don't like [spoiler if you haven't read Capitan america] Bucky as the new cap, so lets make bucky sell his soul to bring steve back to life. or you liked it better when Wolverine had no memories... lets have Cyclops be jealous that he gets to be in like 6 books a month and he sells his first born child to have all his memories wiped again. THINK BEFORE YOU MAKE STUPID CONTINUITY CHANGING DECISIONS. it may come back to bite you in the ass.

wow that wasn't suposta be that long kinda got off on a rant

And yet people continue to buy it because everyone is too...I don't know the word, but I don't tihnk "lemming" is an adjective. The sad part is people deluding themselves that it is justified because Dan Slott is writing the story. It is not a good story, itis a decent enough story. That does not make it okay.

Imagine the mainstream press if a Spider-man comic devoted a storyline to bulimia or anorexia!

They actually already did that with MJ's neice or cousin or something (Kristy). She was so bulimic that she had a heart attack. I think that had to have happened in Spectacular. But then, that was in the era when every other comic was a special public service announcement, so it didn't get any press back then.

Just because MJ is hot doesn't mean she could land a job just anywhere. They could've had her losing jobs because her husband is a super hero. Or because she's getting you know, older.

For the record, I've thought it would be cool if the whole Jackpot/MJ thing was a fakeout, and it was actually Kristy. Not likely, but it'd be funny.

But, now that he's not married, he has no-one to turn to. That's a considerable change to how he acts and reacts. He doesn't have someone whom he loves and who is always on his mind for good or bad, and he doesn't have her to go back to every night to help him ground himself. His life as Spider-Man is back to being a hectic and lonely secret.

And I think that's coming through in the background of Brand New Day. He doesn't have anywhere where he can be 'the real him' now... he can only ever be one of his two secret identities, 'harassed Peter Parker' or 'wisecracking Spider-Man'. He can't let his guard down anywhere with anyone and be who he really is.

OMD was BAD
Deal with the Devil = Lazy Storytelling

That said
BND is Not-so-bad But not good.

These stories
Printing 3 times a month
Rotating creative teams
All could have been done

But here's what I want to know...
If Spider-Man is a New Avenger and Danny Rand is rich, wouldn't Danny give Spidey money for web fluid rather than let Spider-Man be a liability to the team because he's not functioning at 100% capacity?

AND

If this story really takes place in 2008 and not in 1978 (which Slott's storyline felt like) wouldn't Photographer Peter Parker be the Ultimate Paparazzi? Able to get a photo of Jenn and Marc Anthony's Twins and be paid $2Million for it? - Money Problems SOLVED!

I’d puke if I ever saw Ditko’s creation being used for such touchy-feely, victimology self-esteem PC claptrap like that.

Aw, and just when I was starting to develop some respect for you, T.

It's called empathy. It's a human trait.

A big part of the problem lies way back in the decision to make MJ a "supermodel", which has given so much fodder to the "Peter can't be down on his luck in this marriage like he should be" argument. I really see no reason why they couldn't have just made her a just-getting-by model and struggling actress in the first place. Going right to "supermodel" like they did was a Bad Idea and a Big Mistake. Anyone know whose fault that one was?

Aw, and just when I was starting to develop some respect for you, T.

It’s called empathy. It’s a human trait.

Let's be real here...how many people in Spider-Man's audience are likely to suffer from anorexia or bulimia? And even if they have family members suffering from it, wouldn't such a message be better found and explored in an in-depth book or magazine article about the topic rather than a "very special issue" of Spider-Man? It's just superficially writing about a trendy issue in order to make the creators look culturally relevant, sensitive and doing their part to spread awareness and for readers to feel like they've somehow done their part to help the issue. It's kind of like those urban people who feel like they've done some vague form of activism just by shopping at Whole Food regularly.

Agree with Gil Jaysmith, and will go one further-- that Peter no longer has a soulmate to fall back on, dramatic tension is much, much more plausible.

And even if they have family members suffering from it, wouldn’t such a message be better found and explored in an in-depth book or magazine article about the topic rather than a “very special issue” of Spider-Man?

Could help some teenage kids realise they shouldn't give a girl shit for not being skinny as a rake, and ggive them an entertaining Spiderman story.

I don't think married Peter tomcatting around night clubs with Harry would go over as well. Not that it's going over well now. But that's something going on.

Either way the only real difference we don't have to pretend to care what's going on in MJs life. Cause we don't, Spider-man 3 taught us that much.

Lionel,
In your last post you wrote:

"If this story really takes place in 2008 and not in 1978 (which Slott’s storyline felt like) wouldn’t Photographer Peter Parker be the Ultimate Paparazzi? Able to get a photo of Jenn and Marc Anthony’s Twins and be paid $2Million for it? - Money Problems SOLVED!"

And to that I say, check out the May solicits for parts 1 & 2 of my next ASM arc:

AMAZING SPIDER-MAN # 559
The Story: Peter Parker: Paparazzi! Part 1 of 3
"The Money Shot"
The DB, New York's trashiest tabloid, has just hired the sleaziest, most muckraking, lowlife paparazzi of them all...PETER PARKER?! Say it ain't so, true believer! Also in this ish, J. Jonah Jameson finds inner peace and harmony...(Hey, it could happen! Maybe.) All this and the first ever livestreaming super-villain: Screwball!
Dan Slott returns to Spidey, and he's bringing Marcos Martin (DOCTOR STRANGE: THE OATH) with him!

AMAZING SPIDER-MAN # 560
The Story: Peter Parker: Paparazzi! Part 2 of 3
"Flat Out Crazy"
Are Pete's paparazzi pics inspiring a super celebrity stalker? Is he responsible for all of her grisly acts? Even if he is, what can Spider-Man do about it? How can anyone stop the flatout freaky powers of Paper Doll? Also: Miss this issue, and you'll miss out on SOMETHING YOU'VE ALL BEEN ASKING FOR!!! Write it down, Spider-fans, ASM #560!!!

And to see the sweet, sweet covers, you can go here:
http://www.marvel.com/catalog/?date=2008-05

See? We're all over it.

Also, the Jackpot subplot couldn't be done with a married Peter Parker. Because... he'd just go home and ask his wife if she was Jackpot.

This whole topic is a bit groundless.

I think the "Could have been done without OMD" refers more to the idea that writing good Spiderman stories involving new villains and interaction with supporting cast could have been done without a deal with Mephisto or any of the rest of OMD.

And I don't find the identity of Jackpot to be all that compelling, as a storyline, really (nor the idea of Pete hanging out with Harry at a club while Harry secretly hates him[!]).

I AM being real, T. Eating disorders affect thousands of people across the world, and the sooner people can hear alternate points of view from "skinny=hot", the better. As Funky points out, the point of speaking out against that mentality is not just to target the people whom it affects directly, but also the people that perpetuate that kind of damaging thinking. Eating disorders come out of the way a person views their self in comparison to others. Therefore, it's simple logic that the message needs to get out to EVERYONE, and not just those with the disorders.

Is it impossible for you to believe that someone might actually engage in activism for the purpose of helping someone, and not to follow some trend? Because from this angle, that looks like you blatantly projecting your own lack of empathy onto others, and refusing to believe that someone could care, when you so clearly don't. I'm sure you would say that you don't feel that way, but I'm telling you that's how you come across.

It's not always wrong to do something that makes you feel better about yourself. Sometimes you feel better about yourself because you're doing something GOOD. And that's a simple recipe for good mental health.

Hold on, wait, whoa. I haven't been reading BND, so I hadn't heard about this: They said that Peter's web fluid is expensive? Like, two thousand dollars expensive?

I call BS. Ben Reilly made up a bunch when he went back to being Spider-Man (in Sensational Spider-Man #0), all out of about ten bucks worth of chemicals he bought with money he'd made panhandling. Unless those chemicals include unleaded gasoline, there's no way the price went up that much in a decade.

I think this is confusing Chris Sims' initial point (which Brad Curran quoted just last week here), which was "As much as I’ve liked both parts of Brand New Day that have hit shelves so far, there’s nothing I like about them that couldn’t have been done with a married Spider-Man"

The stressed part is Sims' point, which I think is being missed here.

Of course this story could not have been told with a married Spider-Man. Peter is single in the comic. You can't do stories about a single guy with a married guy. They are different. A story about a single guy doesn't have a wife, while a story about a married guy has a wife.

What Sims was arguing was that all the good things in the story had nothing to do with Peter being single. That's a fair argument.

Dan Slott,

You win! I didn't like your first 3 (although I AM a fan of your work) but you just got got me back for your next issues!

First off, we're bombarded with body image stories all the time, people are hearing alternate points of view from skinny=hot constantly. It's the issue du jour. But what good is it going to do in a Spider-Man comic? Kids barely read them anymore. The people who do read them are old and set in their ways as far as what attracts them and what they like, a Spider-Man comic is not going to touch on the topic in enough depth to really change any minds on the issue. It'll either preach to the converted or fall on deaf ears.

It's just a trendy issue. Obesity, for example, causes a lot more health problems and is a much more widespread epidemic than bulimia and anorexia. It costs us a lot more in healthcare. Walk around the street and for every underweight person I bet you see tons more overweight. AND unlike with bulimia and anorexia, obesity is probably something that will directly speak to a Spider-Man fan, as I'm sure a lot of them out there are fat or at least chubby. So why are we hearing so much more about eating disorders than fat people? Because it's not as acceptable or trendy to criticize fat people in PC circles the way it is to criticize fashion models and cheerleaders. Plus for a lot of people, the criticize may actually hit too close to home and offend them.

But if it was really about empathy and doing the most good, it'd be a PSA telling people to get off their ass, stop eating taco bell and hit the gym. That would do the most good because it would actually apply to the readers of the comic, AND it is a problem that is actually more widespread and dangerous. But it's not trendy or as socially acceptable and risks making you look like a jerk. So eating disorders it is.

It's not that I lack empathy, it's that I know empty, self-serving gestures when I see them.

Except one is a mental disorder, and the other is just eating too much.

As far as the Jackpot thing goes, sure it couldn't work with them still married, but it would be much more interesting if they were divorced, rather than the OMD retcon/memory-wipe silliness.

I call BS. Ben Reilly made up a bunch when he went back to being Spider-Man (in Sensational Spider-Man #0), all out of about ten bucks worth of chemicals he bought with money he’d made panhandling. Unless those chemicals include unleaded gasoline, there’s no way the price went up that much in a decade

And if memory serves me correctly about that story (and I haven't read it in over a decade) the webbing he made from that was inferior in quality and didn't work.

If Pete's webbing was so expensive, how did he afford it all those years as a struggling high school and college student?

I think it's a bit superficial to blame anorexia and bulimia entirely on the fashion industry (and of course, MJ is not a runway model and so doesn't have to be the waif type anyhow- it's a specific body type for a specific category because it's easier to swap around clothes during a show if you know they'll fit every model about as well.)

Even if MJ started speaking out on body issues, she probably would still be able to find work.

Wait, this was about Spider-Man, right?

Mullon, of course, has yet to learn the whole "different people have differing opinions" business...

If Pete’s webbing was so expensive, how did he afford it all those years as a struggling high school and college student?

Theft.

Seriously, he could afford it because nobody really gave much thought to what chemicals actually cost. So it was effectively free.

Two thousand seems a little on the high side, but I don't think it's completely unrealistic. It'd depend on the specific chemicals, the companies he'd have to deal with, the shipping costs, whatever costs might be involved with obfuscating his purchases, and (most importantly) the quantities involved.

I can see why it might, for continuity's sake, be preferable not to revisit the issue (or visit it in the first place), but if they were to do so . . . I think they could make worse estimates.

you don't need to get rid of MJ to return the parker luck, i think the parker luck returned when he revealed his identity then realised it was the wrong decision which made him a fugitive and let his entire rouges gallery know who he and his family were.

but thats all been negated now so
parker luck = being poor without a wife

I'm no fan of ONE MORE DAY. And I think that some of the writing in BRAND NEW DAY seems very forced. They are trying way too hard to give us the Spidey from the 60's when it shouldn't be quite so obvious. Ideally they would incorporate some of those things in more subtle ways that don't announce themselves and beat us over the head with a hammer every time they come up.

But having said all that -

One change that is reflected in BRAND NEW DAY is that Peter isn't so tied down to one person regarding his supporting cast. When you are dealing with a married Spidey, its hard to justify going multiple issues spanning days without having him (or the reader) checking in with his wife - which often doesn't add much to the story, its just something you are obliged to do with a married character. Without the marriage, Spidey's life seems a lot more dynamic and he is more free to interact with ALL of his supporting cast members, as opposed to being mostly tied to ONE member of his supporting cast.

I can't really say I have missed MJ. I sincerely hope MJ isn't JACKPOT. Geeze, that's dumb. Let her retain some dignity.

Oh, yeah. I also like the return to the basics regarding the types of stories they are telling and the types of villains Spidey is fighting. Please, no more "Spider Totem Gods", organic webbing, and armored battle suits. And for Gods sake...no more clones!

The jury is still out on Harry. I don't think it was a good idea to bring him back. I would have rather seen a new character introduced to fulfill the "best friend" role. I think all the types of Green Goblin stories that can be told with Harry have been pretty much told. They should have let Harry rest in peace.

I agree with Rob's comments. The only amazing thing to me in this whole mess is the amount of people who continue to allow themselves to be pulled along by Marvel playing the role of the Pied Piper to eager to be sperated from their money Spider-groupies.

Support intelligent and creative efforts and save your money for the gas tank.

Graeme Burk said:

"And if memory serves me correctly about that story (and I haven’t read it in over a decade) the webbing he made from that was inferior in quality and didn’t work."

It was inferior in quality, yes, but not drastically so, and he was able to afford "standard-issue" webbing while working at a coffee shop as a barista. Two grand for webbing is an absurd figure, given what we know of Peter's historical income and expenditures. At that rate, he'd never be able to break even taking pictures of himself in action as Spidey, let alone turn a profit.

No, I'm Mopeeing away that whole notion.

"I agree with Rob’s comments. The only amazing thing to me in this whole mess is the amount of people who continue to allow themselves to be pulled along by Marvel playing the role of the Pied Piper to eager to be sperated from their money Spider-groupies.

Support intelligent and creative efforts and save your money for the gas tank. "

Yes, because it obviously coudn´t be so easy that people actually dig the new direction. There simply HAS to be a hivemind at work.

Whats new about attempting to return a character exactly where he was three decades ago?

What would have been new was letting Aunt May die ...for real this time.

But it's a free country. That's what Captain America died for, right?

Until then...keep bopping up to the counter shelling out $3.00 every other week and smiling thinking...man this Jackpot character is really cool while the piper music continues to play.

Who said it was new? I´ll take good over new any day.

You said it was new.

But I have to agree with the point you made...good beats new anyday of the week. We just seem to disagree on what is good.

I meant it was new relative to how the book was some months ago.

So do the Spider-Man writers get a retraction from Greg Burgas concerning his misleading thread title?

I wonder how many people have come to the front page of CBR and seen - and taken as the gospel truth - this lengthy title, which it turns out is making at best an incomplete and at worst a plain incorrect assertion?

I wonder how many people have come to the front page of CBR and seen - and taken as the gospel truth - this lengthy title, which it turns out is making at best an incomplete and at worst a plain incorrect assertion?

It isn't on the front page of CBR, it's on the front page of Comic Should Be Good, a blog hosted by CBR, but a separate entity.
And nothing should be taken as gospel, as it's a collection of the contributers opinions.

The only one making incorrect assertions is... you.

Eh, whatever. Enjoy the righteousness of your clique.

Eh, whatever. Enjoy the righteousness of your clique.

Hey, enjoy the self-righteousness of running from blog to blog, reading one post and judging all with in!

I don't mind the critique, Gil. That said, I don't think it is as notable as you say. While I, too, disagree with Greg's position, it still seems to be firmly in the arena of personal opinion.

An opinion? Strongly voiced? On THE INTERNET?! Unheard of!

My god, what a strange, bleak future we live in...

Hydrocodone....

Hydrocodone....