We're invested in Peter's success and want him content, but it seems unfair to Spencer when fans criticize him for addressing the giant polka-dotted Heffalump that stampeded into the room when Slott made Peter a Science editor:
How can Peter be expected to keep a job that expects him to maintain journalistic integrity when enforcing it makes him a hypocrite? Part of that job is ensuring authors did not commit plagiarism! He works with an editor, Spencer would have more awareness than I do that Peter did not legally deserve the position. Slott mentions plagiarism after Otto delivered the thesis, so it's not like Spencer created the idea wholesale.
I've read science editors have an unfair reputation among academic circles as "failed scientists." I'd enjoy the commentary on whatever could be mined from that idea once Pete deserves that diploma.
I'd have preferred it if he hadn't made Peter do things that made the above panel sequence make sense. In his defense, Slott assumed that Spider-Man deserved the job because Pete is a knowledgeable science whiz. There is something to be said for relying on a document to evaluate a person's worth, but that isn't how the law works. We saw with Otto that Slott didn't always consider what he was demonstrating within his comics. I cannot agree with people who say Spencer did not have a reason to address it or that Robbie was mistaken when he fired Peter. I frequently criticize Spencer, but IMO this is one of the author's good choices. He usually did right by Peter and MJ. It's the "others" category that he struggled with. Spider-Man received little more than a finger waggle and an affectionately exasperated "Oh, you~" from the narrative when he could have gotten handcuffs and jail time, and that's cool with me. Nihilism is for villains and anti-heroes. Spider-Man is an optimistic dude, and his narrative should reflect that when it's inflicting reprisals.
****
Hyperintelligent and experienced people are not always the wisest when dealing with people and situations. For example, many scam victims have above-average intelligence or have experience in a related field. They just thought they were too smart to fall for a dumb scam … while falling for a dumb scam that any other person would have seen straight through. So, yeah, to reiterate what I said in the last issue, I'm okay with mistakes, but…
Wells is made this too one-sided. Writing is a balancing act. Authors must strike a good balance between dialogue, thought, and action. An action-heavy scene will go by fast, so they need to balance that out with dialogue and exposition. We need to know why, even if we can probably guess the reasons. Describing things, and talking about what characters think and feel helps strengthen the scenes. Including relevant memories, and back story details are a good idea, but they need to be used to establish information that may be vital to understanding the scene or scenes that are coming… Hopefully, there will be a purpose.
The mystery box sheds necessary structure, and Wells doesn't refill the cracks to clarify anything else. The author has the villain lie to the audience about his motivations. This is usually fine, but not when the author asks us to rely exclusively on the dialogue to give us an idea of where the plot is headed. Slott is a controversial figure among fans, but he still explained why Peter was entangled in some plight (even if we disagreed with him). When Tombstone defeated and captured Spider-Man, I debated with other fans who had sensible opinions for why they were against it. The writing may have been lacking, but I found the results credible. Wells doesn't quit there. Peter can't escape his bonds and isn't jimmying the lock. This highlights that Tombstone has our hero conquered. Then the villain aggresses the tar out of the protagonist when he's helpless. Fine, says I, I'm displeased that Wells is making the man beg for the lives of Tombstone's targets like… that, but there might be a proper justification, and Peter can still escape, right? Right??? *dissappointed sigh* Tombstone successfully lies to Peter, so he calls Randy in alarm. This means the two pals will be having a conversation on overactive imaginations, at the least. That's another score for Tombstone. Then Peter discovers he wasn't where he had been told he was and has avenged the destruction of Tombstone's home for him.
Any of this is fine if taken individually, in a pick-two combination, or if we captured Peter and split these losses up among the rest of the spider "family". There should be narrative reasons for more than one hero team beyond just employing the franchise to make more money, after all. It permits villains to look like credible threats without incurring the audience's wrath. Batman books do it all the time, and this is the wrong time to forget that New York has a friendly neighborhood Spider infestation or justify why they're not supporting him. Putting Peter through a team's worth of loss is not sporting. Rn Peter has undergone a surfeit of defeats (not merely by Tombstone), so the readers feel the unbalance. Readers' reactions are already confused to enraged because of the MJ situation. I disagree with the assessment that the title has become "The Terrific Tombstone" because evildoers always briefly take over a plot when they're used. The current antagonist's story is more straightforward because he doesn't have mystery box gift wrapping encased all over the plot threads, so it's easier to follow. Peter is still the protagonist that weaves together everyone both in and out of the story. It's just…become a drag. The Mystery Box is exhaustingly incoherent. Observing a hero get whipped while he's down? It's not fun. Being lied to when context clues are among the only things allowing them to follow a disjointed plot? Even less so. Maintaining balance is crucial to preserving investment and when that fails its difficult to care about the story at all