Has Dan Slott Been Writing Spider-Man Too Long?

[Mister Mets]

A few posts on whether there should be a Spider-Man secondary book were moved to a new thread.

http://community.comicbookresources....der-Man-Titles

[Dragolord09]

Sale numbers aren't everything, its the opinions of the people who bought them that counts.

[mlazic]

Sale numbers aren't everything, its the opinions of the people who bought them that counts.

Though from Marvel's bottom line point of view their opinion counts for less than whether or not they're buying the next issue.

[Thinker4730]

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes Dan Slott has been writing Spider-Man for too long.

[Johnatellodi]

I love Slott's Spider-Man.

He won me over eith "No One Dies", had me by the balls with Superior, and I've already got the "Spider-Verse" hardcover pre ordered.

That being said, I'm definitely ready for a new writer/artist team.

[Cryptid]

Have you guys been complaining about Dan Slott for too long? No writer is going to please everyone, especially on a long-running book like Amazing Spider-Man that inspires strong proprietary feelings in its readership, but Slott has held a steady readership in a tough market. I've enjoyed his work more often than not, and even misfires like "Alpha" show an appealing sense of mischief. That arc threatened to break the book and then quickly changed directions. And his run was probably at its best when he actually did break the book by replacing its hero. I can see why that approach alienates readers who want to see familiar characters in familiar roles, but it works for me. The prankish storytelling wakes me up from genre autopilot.

Also, have some of us been reading Spider-Man for too long? It might sound like an absurd idea when we're more accustomed to demanding writers who will cater to "the fans" (generally defined as a silent majority who conveniently share our personal predilections) but maybe not. If you have reached a point where you have such distinct ideas about a character that the writer and the continuity seem wrong, then perhaps it is time to take a break. Comics readers seem to have a participatory mindset, especially when it comes to resolving new stories with old favorites, so it would not be too surprising if some readers felt the same way as the writers who stay with a character for long enough that the voice never sounds right again when another creator takes over. In those cases, it doesn't matter how good the new writer might be if their take is not just right. And that's not a complicated way of saying that you shouldn't read it if you don't like it, because even negative criticism implies some kind of pleasure in reading and thinking about a comic, enough involvement to justify an articulate response. Instead, you shouldn't read it if you can't like it. When even criticism hardens into stock responses and formula phrases, then one is no longer responding to the object at hand, so why pretend?

[Metamorphosis]

Have you guys been complaining about Dan Slott for too long? No writer is going to please everyone, especially on a long-running book like Amazing Spider-Man that inspires strong proprietary feelings in its readership, but Slott has held a steady readership in a tough market. I've enjoyed his work more often than not, and even misfires like "Alpha" show an appealing sense of mischief. That arc threatened to break the book and then quickly changed directions. And his run was probably at its best when he actually did break the book by replacing its hero. I can see why that approach alienates readers who want to see familiar characters in familiar roles, but it works for me. The prankish storytelling wakes me up from genre autopilot.

Also, have some of us been reading Spider-Man for too long? It might sound like an absurd idea when we're more accustomed to demanding writers who will cater to "the fans" (generally defined as a silent majority who conveniently share our personal predilections) but maybe not. If you have reached a point where you have such distinct ideas about a character that the writer and the continuity seem wrong, then perhaps it is time to take a break. Comics readers seem to have a participatory mindset, especially when it comes to resolving new stories with old favorites, so it would not be too surprising if some readers felt the same way as the writers who stay with a character for long enough that the voice never sounds right again when another creator takes over. In those cases, it doesn't matter how good the new writer might be if their take is not just right. And that's not a complicated way of saying that you shouldn't read it if you don't like it, because even negative criticism implies some kind of pleasure in reading and thinking about a comic, enough involvement to justify an articulate response. Instead, you shouldn't read it if you can't like it. When even criticism hardens into stock responses and formula phrases, then one is no longer responding to the object at hand, so why pretend?

Like I've stated elsewhere, I liked elements of Slott's run. I'll praise "No One Dies" to the skies. Several of the other issues were extremely entertaining (though the events always seemed to fall short). But his run on the character certainly isn't the second coming of Stan or Stern that people tried to make it out to be.

His writing is so typically plot-heavy that I just don't end up caring at all about any of the characters I'm reading, who usually come off like assholes (SpOck was the ultimate culmination of this approach).

Some things don't end up getting explained in comics, and some loose ends will never end up tied off. I accept that. But his writing is frequently not tight in this regard. Why was Kingsley's brother Daniel in the Hobgoblin outfit to be beheaded by Phil Urich? The short answer is "winkler device", but this is not ever addressed or brought up again.

Only reason I even comment on it was because I read it all and I have some opinions on it (really I was just trying to have a complete run of ASM #600 - 700).

[Beacon]

No.

If you’d asked me at the end (or even early into) OMD I would have said he’s overstayed his welcome and lamented that we didn’t get the “good” Dan Slott that wrote great things like She-Hulk and the Spidey/Torch mini. Let’s face it; his contributions to that era were never as good as Joe Kelly’s or Mark Waid’s. Slott – like a lot of the others – just seemed to be treading water.

He really turned things around once he became the solo writer and was allowed to tell his own stories. I don’t agree with everything he’s done but its obvious he still has a lot of ideas. I’d be thrilled if Spider-Verse is half as good as Spider-Island or Superior. I look forward to seeing what comes next.

[Cryptid]

No.

If you’d asked me at the end (or even early into) OMD I would have said he’s overstayed his welcome and lamented that we didn’t get the “good” Dan Slott that wrote great things like She-Hulk and the Spidey/Torch mini. Let’s face it; his contributions to that era were never as good as Joe Kelly’s or Mark Waid’s. Slott – like a lot of the others – just seemed to be treading water.

He really turned things around once he became the solo writer and was allowed to tell his own stories. I don’t agree with everything he’s done but its obvious he still has a lot of ideas. I’d be thrilled if Spider-Verse is half as good as Spider-Island or Superior. I look forward to seeing what comes next.

Mark Waid's two-parter with Shocker and Joe Kelly's stories with the Rhino were both highlights of BND-era Spidey, but so was Dan Slott's Paparazzi arc. And the Mysterio story wasn't bad either.

[Darthfury78]

But, she made that choice with incomplete memories due to Peter not restoring them by re-revealing his identity to her.

That puts a lot of the responsibility on Peter for the actions that Black Cat has done since OMD/OMIT.

The very thing that caused her to reform in the first place was taken away from her.



Perhaps, but I doubt she'd continue to be as she is now. She might be ticked off at Peter for not restoring her memories, but she would stop what she's doing because what she is doing isn't who she is.





That's the sad thing about all this. Slott is destroying a great character when it comes to Black Cat.

And most of the blame story wise can be placed on Peter.

Storywise, the blame should be placed on the editors for allowing it to happen in the first place. We need to remember that the editors in charge of Spider-Man worked at DC Comics in the past. I think that the undoing of Black Cat from Anti-Hero to Crime Boss has more to do with them wanting their own version of Catwoman. If (by the stretch of the imagination) Felicia does get her memories back of Peter as Spider-Man, it might be even worse for him considering that Slott's ruined her character to begin with. If Felicia does return to her Pre-OMD self, it might not happen during Slott's run on the series, which might last until 2016, unless he has a ton of stories that he wants to pitch that Marvel would extend his contract to the 2020's, which might be way too long to bear. The next writer who comes in after Slott will have a very difficult task ahead of them unless Marvel wants to reboot the Earth-616 universe..

[mlazic]

Storywise, the blame should be placed on the editors for allowing it to happen in the first place. We need to remember that the editors in charge of Spider-Man worked at DC Comics in the past. I think that the undoing of Black Cat from Anti-Hero to Crime Boss has more to do with them wanting their own version of Catwoman.

Actually that's no longer true, Nick Lowe was made senior editor of the Spider-Man titles earlier this year and he was in charge of the X-titles and Ultimate universe before that. I'm guessing Dan and the editors feel that Black Cat works better as an antagonistic villain than an morally grey ally.

[Phantom Roxas]

There's also the fact that "storywise" means in the context of the story. From a writing perspective, sure, blame the editors for not telling Slott when he's really gone too far, but the story is written so that Peter takes the blame for the terrible developments Slott makes.

[Darthfury78]

Actually that's no longer true, Nick Lowe was made senior editor of the Spider-Man titles earlier this year and he was in charge of the X-titles and Ultimate universe before that. I'm guessing Dan and the editors feel that Black Cat works better as an antagonistic villain than an morally grey ally.

Felicia works better as a morally grey ally because there's a conflict there. As a straight villain, it really doesn't work out too well because it's just what they're doing with Catwoman over at DC Comics. Even her early history doesn't really support what's being done to character anymore than what they have done with Mary Jane dumping Peter for a fire fighter. If Felicia is to be an antagonistic villain, then her waft should be geared at Spock/Dr. Octopus, the man who outed her in the first place.

[Spider-Brit]

At this moment in time i'm gonna say no as Slott's not produced anything near the levels of insanity that JMS did at times during his run. but I'm waiting till the culmination of Spider-Verse before deciding if Slott's had long enough. until he churns out a Sins Past then I see no reason why he should be replaced.

[Punisher007]

Except that Sin's Past wasn't completely JMS's fault. His originally pitch didn't sound that bad, but then editorial forced him to make changes because of their "Spider Man must be the face of youth" obsession.