New Goblin to be born in ‘Amazing Spider-Man’ #51 and #52

[wleakr]

We’ve literally had Lowe put in retractions and corrections as well as reprints fix errors and oversights. The complaints that led to those actions sure seem like admission of “mistakes” to me.

Beyond that, I’ve noticed Lowe has repeatedly responded to readers with some variance of the phrase “I disagree with your assessments” and “you’re reading it wrong”, usually without offering a clarification on how it’s supposed to be interpreted. But that’s also not the responsibility of the readers. “Death of the Author” has been at play with this run repeatedly, and if so many people are “reading it wrong” then that’s a failure on the author’s part to properly provide the correct reading.

It’s far more than just a few voicing their concerns at problematic elements.

You guys REALLY love comics!

I can't summon the intestinal fortitude to read into all those various elements.

I'm aware of a few of the items you mention, particularly the letter page stuff. I don't really believe Lowe is being totally dismissive in those cases - sometimes, that reader IS reading things into something that is NOT there. Or they may be trying to connect something now to something that occurred 10 or 20 years ago.

It's not healthy to read comics that way, IMHO.

I'm reading the same story that the person in the letter is commenting on and end up scratching my head like "Huh, where'd they get that from?".

But maybe it's because I just don't love comics as hard as that person. I like them, but it ain't THAT serious...

[Xix25]

You mean the premise of folks finding, reading and enjoying books they like?

If there are truly mistakes in this run, you should run it by Marvel and request a No-Prize!

So if we decide to ignore what's being stated in front of you then, sure, ASM currently has no mistakes. Does that mean that you have no real value in this conversation since you have no real opinion worth engaging? If so, then I don't see the point in you continually posting here if you can't be bothered to engage properly.

[Garlador]

You guys REALLY love comics!

I can't summon the intestinal fortitude to read into all those various elements.

I'm aware of a few of the items you mention, particularly the letter page stuff. I don't really believe Lowe is being totally dismissive in those cases - sometimes, that reader IS reading things into something that is NOT there. Or they may be trying to connect something now to something that occurred 10 or 20 years ago.

It's not healthy to read comics that way, IMHO.

I'm reading the same story that the person in the letter is commenting on and end up scratching my head like "Huh, where'd they get that from?".

But maybe it's because I just don't love comics as hard as that person. I like them, but it ain't THAT serious...

To be frank, most problems with most media go away if you don't really care that much about them. Star Wars is full of continuity errors and mistakes, but we love it anyway.

However, I actually find it to be HEALTHY to read comics, come away with a conclusion, and then reach out to the author with concerns or to request clarity. That is the signs of an active, healthy mind that shows they've paid attention, have strong pattern recognition, and good memories.

To paraphrase one fan in my group, a good comic is one that recognizes these fans that have kept up and paid attention and REWARDS their commitment and love by enhancing the experience the more they know their lore and history. Wells' run, by this person's admission, is the opposite, where a reader is actively penalize the MORE they know their Spider-Man history, because so many problematic things have readily available counterexamples discrediting and disproving certain story beats and character behavior.

I've largely been roped into the Spider-Man community the past year and have had to do my research to validate these claims. Spider-Man isn't remotely my favorite hero, but I created a community based on Dan Slott's recommendation to petition for improvement, and that's driven me to revisit these older stories. And through that research, I've very much come to agree with the fan above, that the more you read into Spider-Man history, the less the current run feels authentic and cohesive to our understanding of these people and the world they inhabit.

Marvel's desire to "preserve" Peter and his cast in amber has them currently inhabiting a status quo that feels largely foreign and jarring to me as I go back and refamiliarize myself with the classics. They are, effectively, so far removed from those older stories as to be entirely different people. And, unfortunately, I really don't like these new people nearly as much.

I can see how someone with no history with the book, concern for continuity, or knowledge of the past would find the current books more palatable. But I don't think that's necessarily a good thing.

[Coop]

Not worth it. Deleted

[Lee]

I don't think a Spider-Man comic should be so bad that it's not worth re-reading ever again though. We can and should expect better from the creative team to make comics worth re-reading even if they're not incredible works of art.

I said: "I've never found a Spider-Man comic to be so complex, nuanced and deeply layered that it demands multiple careful re-reads to fully grasp."

I did not say that Spider-Man comics should be bad. I did not say that Spider-Man comics should not be worth re-reading ever again. You have misunderstood what I thought was a clear statement.

I have re-read "The Kid Who Collects Spider-Man" multiple times. Not because it was complex. Not because I found it challenging. Not because it was so nuanced and deeply layered that I needed to re-read it to fully grasp its meaning. I understood it the first time. I re-read it because I find it to be an entertaining, moving, well crafted story. It takes great skill to tell a story that simple and effective.

"I like pancakes."

"So you hate waffles?"

"I don't find Spider-Man comics challenging."

"So you think Spider-Man comics are bad and you like bad things?"

[Xix25]

I said: "I've never found a Spider-Man comic to be so complex, nuanced and deeply layered that it demands multiple careful re-reads to fully grasp."

I did not say that Spider-Man comics should be bad. I did not say that Spider-Man comics should not be worth re-reading ever again. You have misunderstood what I thought was a clear statement.

I have re-read "The Kid Who Collects Spider-Man" multiple times. Not because it was complex. Not because I found it challenging. Not because it was so nuanced and deeply layered that I needed to re-read it to fully grasp its meaning. I understood it the first time. I re-read it because I find it to be an entertaining, moving, well crafted story. It takes great skill to tell a story that simple and effective.

"I like pancakes."

"So you hate waffles?"

"I don't find Spider-Man comics challenging."

"So you think Spider-Man comics are bad and you like bad things?"

So then why are you saying this run isn't bad? Because of sales? I thought it was clear that sales did not reflect general quality of the work. I mean if you wanted to properly address my point this was not the way to go.

[Lee]

So then why are you saying this run isn't bad? Because of sales? I thought it was clear that sales did not reflect general quality of the work. I mean if you wanted to properly address my point this was not the way to go.

Sorry, but you're arguing against things you think I've said, and not things I've actually said.

[Xix25]

Sorry, but you're arguing against things you think I've said, and not things I've actually said.

I don't think you've done the same for me either, to be honest. Or anyone else who's engaged with me from your side of the river.

[Lee]

I've had no direct interactions with you in this thread, other than correcting your misreading/misunderstanding of my post just then.

[Alex_Of_X]

I would argue it's better executed and feel more cohesive compared to Wells' attempts with ASM.

I respect that, but I dig most of what Wells is putting down, both the sillies (Rek-Rap) and the less-so (World Without Love).

Does it feel like two books smooshed into one? Yeah, more than most big 2 stuff, but there was that New Mutants run where Hickman did half the issues and Brisson did the other half, which was more jarring. There, I just skipped the Brisson issues. With Wells, I'm happy to read regardless of tone.

Also I'd say that post-OMD spidey is by design slightly incongruent with what came before, much in the same manner as Avengers post-Bendis are with the classic stuff, or post-Claremont X-Men with the Lee/Kirby originals

[Xix25]

I've had no direct interactions with you in this thread, other than correcting your misreading/misunderstanding of my post just then.

I read you correctly, you've not read me correctly.

[Tuck]

“you’re reading it wrong”, usually without offering a clarification on how it’s supposed to be interpreted.

I have mixed feelings on this.

On the one hand, telling readers/viewers/players they're engaging with the work wrong is . . . just not how it works.

But on the other hand, there are some utterly wild, often motivated, reads on stories. It can even get conspiratorial.

[Garlador]

I have mixed feelings on this.

On the one hand, telling readers/viewers/players they're engaging with the work wrong is . . . just not how it works.

But on the other hand, there are some utterly wild, often motivated, reads on stories. It can even get conspiratorial.

True, but to use a recent example, a female reader expressed concerns about how MJ has been handled in the run thus far and basically listed out the factual series of events in order to support her concerns. Lowe responded that he “didn’t agree with her characterization of events and handling” but said that she was entitled to her opinion… but others pointed out that the reader merely went over the factual events we saw and read in the printed page, and Lowe failed to set the record straight.

So it begs the question, how was she mischaracterizing the events? What happened and what she wrote in about is nearly verbatim what’s stated on every wiki page and story summary. If all of this is misinformation (again, it’s everywhere and it’s MY reading of events as well), then failing to address it is a colossal failure on the writer and editor that hobbles the book. It would behoove them to correct the record.

[Captain Craig]

This thread been locked yet? Just checking.
It has been tilting that way for a few pages now at times.

[marhawkman]

True, but to use a recent example, a female reader expressed concerns about how MJ has been handled in the run thus far and basically listed out the factual series of events in order to support her concerns. Lowe responded that he “didn’t agree with her characterization of events and handling” but said that she was entitled to her opinion… but others pointed out that the reader merely went over the factual events we saw and read in the printed page, and Lowe failed to set the record straight.

So it begs the question, how was she mischaracterizing the events? What happened and what she wrote in about is nearly verbatim what’s stated on every wiki page and story summary. If all of this is misinformation (again, it’s everywhere and it’s MY reading of events as well), then failing to address it is a colossal failure on the writer and editor that hobbles the book. It would behoove them to correct the record.

As someone who has done amateur writing work... the BIGGEST fear I have is that I will leave out a major plot point and have the reader fail to understand the plot because I took the plot for granted because the plot lives in my head and I already know what it is. I've caught myself doing it several times, and it's always a huge concern I have. One of my maxims I use when writing is that it's better to say it twice, then not say it at all.

And that beign said.... I would definitely start a discussion by explaining what I had in my head when writing. I wouldn't say "nuh uh" and leave it at that.