Spidertalk podcast interview with Tom Brevoort

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Some people are clearly very over-sensitive to the term "screw-up" and perceive it as some horrible, slanderous term. It isn't. No one uses it in regards to Peter as a put down. If anything it's a term of affection, as in he's " a lovable screw-up." Maybe calling him an underdog would work better for some fans.

Again words mean something.
-- The word screwup as per dictionaries formal and informal is always intended negatively and it has a consistent negative connotation.
-- The word underdog means as clearly and perfectly stated: "a person or group of people with less power, money, etc. than the rest of society". Underdog yeah defines Spider-Man and Peter...but screwup doesn't. And underdog=/=screwup. I mean it's not even in the same ballpark of synonyms.

Sure among people and in some quarters, a word can take on a private definition but people not part of that, cannot be expected to accept this as anything outside of "face value", nor can they be expected to give people a pass if they don't qualify what they mean. Of course, when good writers write dialogue well, they can convey that private meaning clearly...and Slott, as even his admirers point out, doesn't have a good ear for dialogue. For instance, take this moment from a comic written by Gerry Conway:

Mary Jane Watson: You're the tensest person I've ever met, Pete. I think that's what makes you so loveable. You always look like you're going to fall apart — like a Charlie Brown who's just had the football jerked away from him.
Peter Parker: That's the strangest compliment I've ever received, MJ. If it was a compliment.
MJ: Oh, it was, baby. It was.
— The Amazing Spider-Man Vol. 1, #141, dialogue by Gerry Conway (1975)

Elegant, funny, sweet, and touching, a lot of complicated character stuff put across there in a few words. Writing needs to rise to this level for Slott to be allowed a pass for his personalized redefinition of slang. But this is not achieved once by Slott in his works.

[Prof. Warren]

Because a lot of those justifications are based on misinformation, fabrication, deception, and denial. Speaking as a consumer, in all my years as a comics fan, I have never experienced any moment where a publisher outright lied to the extent Marvel Editorial and Marvel Corporate did over OMD and BND where they and others actively spread misinformation to A) justify what they did, B) slander the entire era before so they can frame what they are doing as a rescue.

If you have to lie so much to get what you want, then what you want is probably not something worth having, or something good to start with. They wouldn't have had to lie if they had a good story and a good product to offer. If OMD and BND were genuinely good to great, none of this would be needed. After all whenever Peter grew up and had a major change, you immediately had a great story.
-- The first story after Peter graduated high school...the Master Planner Saga.
-- The first story after Peter and MJ got married...Kraven's Last Hunt.

Both of which would never have been possible in the shape they now exist had Peter remained in high school. And yet it is these stories that even Brevoort, completely lacking in self-awareness, considers the best Spider-Man stories.

When Brevoort says that Spider-Man is about youth and he states that Ditko wanted to keep Peter in high school, he isn't saying that the only good Spider-Man stories were the ones set in high school or that he should have never left high school, he's simply saying that keeping Peter at an age where he's still growing and learning is always going to be the engine that drives the book, that you can't age him out of that and still have the character work in the same way.

[Spider-Tiger]

Some people are clearly very over-sensitive to the term "screw-up" and perceive it as some horrible, slanderous term. It isn't. No one uses it in regards to Peter as a put down. If anything it's a term of affection, as in he's " a lovable screw-up." Maybe calling him an underdog would work better for some fans.

I mean I always thought of it as a pejorative for someone who consistently messes up. Even if taken in a more affectionate context, I don't think it accurately describes Peter because I don't think of him as a character who "consistently messes up", but to each their own.

[Prof. Warren]

Again words mean something.
-- The word screwup as per dictionaries formal and informal is always intended negatively and it has a consistent negative connotation.
-- The word underdog means as clearly and perfectly stated: "a person or group of people with less power, money, etc. than the rest of society". Underdog yeah defines Spider-Man and Peter...but screwup doesn't. And underdog=/=screwup. I mean it's not even in the same ballpark of synonyms.

Sure among people and in some quarters, a word can take on a private definition but people not part of that, cannot be expected to accept this as anything outside of "face value", nor can they be expected to give people a pass if they don't qualify what they mean.

You are free to get as upset as you want about Slott's word choice but I get what Slott was trying to say. If you didn't at first, you certainly do now. To continue arguing so intensely about the specific manner in which he said it is just way too silly for me.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

...

If I want to be open about why I take this personally. The reasons why I have always taken this personally, is that Brevoort's idea amounts to insulting the readers who bought and appreciated the grown-up version of Spider-Man. It amounted to rewriting history and shuffling the actual classic and mainstream Spider-Man out of the spotlight. It's an essentially a form of gaslighting at the publishing level, astro-turfing on the corporate level, where they basically lab-create a new version of Spider-Man and pretend this is the real deal. And I did feel hurt and insulted when that happened and when I heard these justifications. I just find the idea that people can't relate to Spider-Man if he's old absurd and basically Kafkaesque. It's insulting because when I was 8 years old, I did relate to the adult Spider-Man and obviously given how successful the character was and always has been, I can't have been the only one and in fact I probably numbered among the majority. Brevoort is basically saying that a reader like the eight-year old me was never their intended audience or that I simply didn't exist in their considerations. That didn't mean that I didn't like reading old adventures of the Ditko era, or that I didn't like Ultimate Spider-Man, or the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon (whose creator wanted to age Peter up anyway)...but I never once wanted that to be the only version of the character. In the same way I like reading and seeing multiple versions of James Bond, Batman, Superman.

I have a pretty good memory, and I can tell you that until OMD and BND, the idea that Spider-Man was about youth was just absurd. The truth is that the notion that Spider-Man should be in high school or never graduate, or never grow-up is an entirely recent thing cooked up in the '90s and was never a real aspect of the character in the classic period (let's say, the first 25 years from 1962-1987).
-- There are far more Spider-Man stories in high school from the 90s and 2000s (starting with Untold Tales of Spider-Man on which Brevoort worked as an editor, to Bendis' Ultimate Spider-Man) than in all that came before. Go back to the original Lee-Ditko run, and you will find that most of it isn't set in high school, the main setting is the Daily Bugle office. There are more high school moments in Untold Tales than in the original run of the character.
-- Until 2008, every single cartoon, without exception was set in college or graduate level. Since 2008's The Spectacular Spider-Man, every single cartoon features Spider-Man in high school. Every video-game, with the exception of the Ultimate Spider-Man video-game, features Peter Parker older and an adult, and not as a teenager. Stan Lee's newspaper strip, which until the 2002 movie, was the primary exposure for most civilians to Spider-Man, a version that Lee had full creative control over, and contributed more regularly than he did on the 616 book, likewise features an older Peter Parker. That was the version I was exposed to as a kid (at 8 years old).

Brevoort says that it's selfish for one generation to lay claim on Spider-Man...but that applies far more so to him and Quesada and others. The truth is Spider-Man had his highest period of sales in the classic period, and far more eyeballs have seen and read a married Spider-Man than ever will gaze at BND and Slott's stuff. Only a small handful of people cared or was invested in the idea of "the classic version of Spider-Man which readers aren't introduced to" and their selfish claim over that (and utterly misinformed, deceitful, and wrong notion of that claim) now actively limits and prevents new readers from seeing the actual classic Spider-Man.

[Prof. Warren]

If I want to be open about why I take this personally. The reasons why I have always taken this personally, is that Brevoort's idea amounts to insulting the readers who bought and appreciated the grown-up version of Spider-Man. It amounted to rewriting history and shuffling the actual classic and mainstream Spider-Man out of the spotlight. It's an essentially a form of gaslighting at the publishing level, astro-turfing on the corporate level, where they basically lab-create a new version of Spider-Man and pretend this is the real deal. And I did feel hurt and insulted when that happened and when I heard these justifications. I just find the idea that people can't relate to Spider-Man if he's old absurd and basically Kafkaesque. It's insulting because when I was 8 years old, I did relate to the adult Spider-Man and obviously given how successful the character was and always has been, I can't have been the only one and in fact I probably numbered among the majority. Brevoort is basically saying that a reader like the eight-year old me was never their intended audience or that I simply didn't exist in their considerations. That didn't mean that I didn't like reading old adventures of the Ditko era, or that I didn't like Ultimate Spider-Man, or the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon (whose creator wanted to age Peter up anyway)...but I never once wanted that to be the only version of the character. In the same way I like reading and seeing multiple versions of James Bond, Batman, Superman.

I have a pretty good memory, and I can tell you that until OMD and BND, the idea that Spider-Man was about youth was just absurd. The truth is that the notion that Spider-Man should be in high school or never graduate, or never grow-up is an entirely recent thing cooked up in the '90s and was never a real aspect of the character in the classic period (let's say, the first 25 years from 1962-1987).
-- There are far more Spider-Man stories in high school from the 90s and 2000s (starting with Untold Tales of Spider-Man on which Brevoort worked as an editor, to Bendis' Ultimate Spider-Man) than in all that came before. Go back to the original Lee-Ditko run, and you will find that most of it isn't set in high school, the main setting is the Daily Bugle office. There are more high school moments in Untold Tales than in the original run of the character.
-- Until 2008, every single cartoon, without exception was set in college or graduate level. Since 2008's The Spectacular Spider-Man, every single cartoon features Spider-Man in high school. Every video-game, with the exception of the Ultimate Spider-Man video-game, features Peter Parker older and an adult, and not as a teenager. Stan Lee's newspaper strip, which until the 2002 movie, was the primary exposure for most civilians to Spider-Man, a version that Lee had full creative control over, and contributed more regularly than he did on the 616 book, likewise features an older Peter Parker. That was the version I was exposed to as a kid (at 8 years old).

Brevoort says that it's selfish for one generation to lay claim on Spider-Man...but that applies far more so to him and Quesada and others. The truth is Spider-Man had his highest period of sales in the classic period, and far more eyeballs have seen and read a married Spider-Man than ever will gaze at BND and Slott's stuff. Only a small handful of people cared or was invested in the idea of "the classic version of Spider-Man which readers aren't introduced to" and their selfish claim over that (and utterly misinformed, deceitful, and wrong notion of that claim) now actively limits and prevents new readers from seeing the actual classic Spider-Man.

Well, nothing prevents new readers from enjoying the Spider-Man of any era. It's all out there to be discovered. BND didn't destroy all copies of the marriage era Spidey.

To tout the fact that Spidey enjoyed his highest period of sales in the married era is slightly disingenuous. A lot of books had their highest sales in the '90s, after all, and it had little to do with the quality of the books oftentimes. And it would probably be true to say the actual readership was higher in the '60s, even as the lower cover price meant that the revenue wasn't as high as in the '90s.

So, you know, there's many ways to look at things and many ways to justify whatever perception one holds. The bottom line, though, is that the people in charge are the ones who get to make the calls.

While you may perceive the decisions made by Brevoort, Quesada, and co. to be dishonest and/or malicious, I think they are just acting on their best instincts both as fans and as the temporary custodians of these characters.

Fans can - and will - argue endlessly over what version of Spider-Man is best but on the publishing side of things, firm decisions have to be made. It's just inevitable that those decisions will put some noses out of joint.

It's a bummer and I get that but maybe it's best to try not to take it personally.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The bottom line, though, is that the people in charge are the ones who get to make the calls.

The only bottom line is the stories. There are stories which were controversial when it came out only to eventually be revalued, like The Night Gwen Stacy Died which eventually came to be seen as a good story even by people who have issues with Gwen dying. At the time that OMD and its backlash came back, Brevoort said that there was controversy about Gwen's death too pretending that the story is of the same level. But that hasn't happened with OMD/BND, both remain as polarizing, unpopular, controversial as ever...the controversy hasn't died and will never die. It was an open wound that has basically become a gaping lasting scar. And part of that can definitely be credited to the arrogance and entitlement that is self-evident in the pronouncements made by Marvel at the time, and by Brevoort especially.

I mean take me. I dropped out of reading Spider-Man right when OMD was announced (I guessed what it was and simply followed the press rather than read it at the time), and I actually dropped out of mainstream comics entirely. I expected as time passed, that my anger would dry up. But when I came back, the anger was as fresh and hot as it was in 2007. I did try and get over this, 10 years or so...it hasn't worked. I gave them the benefit of the doubt, I waited and saw, and I re-read with wisdom of age and life experiences...still angry.

To tout the fact that Spidey enjoyed his highest period of sales in the married era is slightly disingenuous. A lot of books had their highest sales in the '90s, after all, and it had little to do with the quality of the books oftentimes. And it would probably be true to say the actual readership was higher in the '60s, even as the lower cover price meant that the revenue wasn't as high as in the '90s.

The point is it was greater than BND and the Slott era, and that will be forever. The readership of Spider-Man hasn't gone up significanlty since BND, and definitely, the readership hasn't increased among the youth demographic, so-called, that this 'Spider-Man is about youth' nonsense is supposed to target. For the most part the general readership of Spider-Man is the same crowd of older readers and collectors that the industry is peddling its wares to. So even from a fiscal perspective, or a marketing perspective (expanding the demographic), BND has nothing to show for it. The most important characters in Spider-Man since then came from Alternate Universes - Miles Morales in Bendis'-Pichelli Ultimate Spider-Man, and also Spider-Gwen by Latour and Rodriquez. Those characters were the ones who resonated with the youth, not BND Peter Parker. I mean what reason is there for Peter Parker to be about youth when you have Miles Morales who will always and forever speak to more people of 21st Century youth then behind-the-curve-even-during-the-60s Peter Parker?

I think they are just acting on their best instincts both as fans and as the temporary custodians of these characters.

IF only they accepted the meaning of the word "temporary", alas. Unfortunately both of them have stuck around at Marvel since 2007, ensuring that interns and others who get hired or promoted have to follow and accept their views and beliefs. That makes it all the more important to do whatever one can, no matter how small the effort, to correct and challenge their statements and ideas.

It's a bummer and I get that but maybe it's best to try not to take it personally.

When you are indifferent to the existence and feelings of the people who you want to more or less eject out of the fandom, then it's not you who made it personal. Look obviously I prefer the marriage continuing and staying, because it was a distinct and unique thing that Spider-Man had at the time...but in theory there was a way for Marvel to get over and win over people like me. If people at Marvel were compassionate and actually not filled with the Kool-Aid of '60s Biker Gangs (which was mostly the attitude that Quesada cultivated), then that would have inspired an attempt to provide an actually good story that didn't make people feel so disgusted. Like for instance, OMD had to do for Spider-man fans what Alan Moore did with Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow which was basically a goodbye to the Silver-Bronze Age Superman that didn't make people feel too bitter that the version was going away for the Byrne reboot. That story (edited by Julius Schwartz, art by Curt Swan, written by Moore) was written with care and loyalty to the readership which had sustained that version of the character. Obviously circumstances are different from DC and Marvel, and the multiverse in DC and the 616 continuity in Marvel, but it was still possible to do a legit great story that accomplished that level of catharsis that did justice to the old and provided excitement for the new.

People at Marvel didn't care enough to do that because at heart, they didn't value, understand, or care about the stuff before or the people who liked that version of the character. That level of thoughtlessness is the reason why this debate and issue never gets resolved.

[Prof. Warren]

The only bottom line is the stories. There are stories which were controversial when it came out only to eventually be revalued, like The Night Gwen Stacy Died which eventually came to be seen as a good story even by people who have issues with Gwen dying. At the time that OMD and its backlash came back, Brevoort said that there was controversy about Gwen's death too pretending that the story is of the same level. But that hasn't happened with OMD/BND, both remain as polarizing, unpopular, controversial as ever...the controversy hasn't died and will never die. It was an open wound that has basically become a gaping lasting scar. And part of that can definitely be credited to the arrogance and entitlement that is self-evident in the pronouncements made by Marvel at the time, and by Brevoort especially.

OMD isn't polarizing as a story. Nobody likes it. Even people who are fine with the goals it was meant to achieve don't bother to defend it as an actual story.

BND, on the other hand, is seen by many as a fun era. As much as OMD was a clumsy tool, BND has a lot to recommend it. The unevenness that often came from having so many creators in an endless baton race also led to a new energy to the title.

As for OMD being a "lasting scar" for some fans, well, them's the breaks. Clearly it hasn't derailed Spider-Man. I sympathize to a point with fans who still find it to be a sore spot but there's real problems in the world, you know. Being bent out of joint about how a comic character is portrayed just doesn't rate as terribly important. There are many characters who I love that I feel are mishandled and that I just can't read their current stories but yet I don't think the writers and editors are deliberately doing wrong by me.

And no one at Marvel is "entitled." It's their job to make decisions regarding these characters. That may come across as arrogant to some but it's just a fact that these people are paid to guide these characters in whatever way they think is best. Every fan has their opinions and if they were in the editor's shoes they'd be making their own unpopular decisions.

I mean take me. I dropped out of reading Spider-Man right when OMD was announced (I guessed what it was and simply followed the press rather than read it at the time), and I actually dropped out of mainstream comics entirely. I expected as time passed, that my anger would dry up. But when I came back, the anger was as fresh and hot as it was in 2007. I did try and get over this, 10 years or so...it hasn't worked. I gave them the benefit of the doubt, I waited and saw, and I re-read with wisdom of age and life experiences...still angry.

If you're still angry about a comic book ten years on...well, I don't know what to say. Not liking it, sure. That's fair. But actually angry?

That says that you might be in more need of bit more wisdom, age and life experience to put it all in perspective.

The point is it was greater than BND and the Slott era, and that will be forever. The readership of Spider-Man hasn't gone up significanlty since BND, and definitely, the readership hasn't increased among the youth demographic, so-called, that this 'Spider-Man is about youth' nonsense is supposed to target. For the most part the general readership of Spider-Man is the same crowd of older readers and collectors that the industry is peddling its wares to. So even from a fiscal perspective, or a marketing perspective (expanding the demographic), BND has nothing to show for it. The most important characters in Spider-Man since then came from Alternate Universes - Miles Morales in Bendis'-Pichelli Ultimate Spider-Man, and also Spider-Gwen by Latour and Rodriquez. Those characters were the ones who resonated with the youth, not BND Peter Parker. I mean what reason is there for Peter Parker to be about youth when you have Miles Morales who will always and forever speak to more people of 21st Century youth then behind-the-curve-even-during-the-60s Peter Parker?

The readership hasn't gone up anywhere, on any title, and won't. That's the nature of the changing culture. You can't blame that on OMD anymore than you can attribute the size of the audience in the '90s to any special quality of the books themselves.

And it's probably not good to speak in unfounded generalities about characters who "will always and forever speak to more people of 21st century youth." That's not a claim that has any means to be substantiated. Nor is the claim that "BND has nothing to show for it." You're speaking as a self-admitted bitter, angry fan so your claims reflect a personal need to believe that the things you hate have failed and will forever be failures.

IF only they accepted the meaning of the word "temporary", alas. Unfortunately both of them have stuck around at Marvel since 2007, ensuring that interns and others who get hired or promoted have to follow and accept their views and beliefs. That makes it all the more important to do whatever one can, no matter how small the effort, to correct and challenge their statements and ideas.

Yes, it's troubling when professionals thrive at their place of employment and become fixtures there.

As a fan, you can continue to rail against what you dislike but it's kind of an empty pursuit.

There are a lot of DC who were ecstatic when Dan DiDio got booted but are these fans going to suddenly get what they want out of DC? Probably not.

When you are indifferent to the existence and feelings of the people who you want to more or less eject out of the fandom, then it's not you who made it personal. Look obviously I prefer the marriage continuing and staying, because it was a distinct and unique thing that Spider-Man had at the time...but in theory there was a way for Marvel to get over and win over people like me. If people at Marvel were compassionate and actually not filled with the Kool-Aid of '60s Biker Gangs (which was mostly the attitude that Quesada cultivated), then that would have inspired an attempt to provide an actually good story that didn't make people feel so disgusted. Like for instance, OMD had to do for Spider-man fans what Alan Moore did with Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow which was basically a goodbye to the Silver-Bronze Age Superman that didn't make people feel too bitter that the version was going away for the Byrne reboot. That story (edited by Julius Schwartz, art by Curt Swan, written by Moore) was written with care and loyalty to the readership which had sustained that version of the character. Obviously circumstances are different from DC and Marvel, and the multiverse in DC and the 616 continuity in Marvel, but it was still possible to do a legit great story that accomplished that level of catharsis that did justice to the old and provided excitement for the new.

Nobody wants to eject anybody out of fandom. You're taking this from a far more personal perspective than anyone at Marvel intends.

You're imagining a vitriol that just doesn't exist.

And while I wish OMD had been a better story it wasn't. You know, they can't all be winners.

People at Marvel didn't care enough to do that because at heart, they didn't value, understand, or care about the stuff before or the people who liked that version of the character. That level of thoughtlessness is the reason why this debate and issue never gets resolved.

Again, you're imaging that people at Marvel are mean-spirited, malicious people who have deliberately inflicted harm on you but that's just not reality.

They have taken the character in a direction you're not happy with but that does not equate to some kind of hate crime against a segment of fandom.

This issue will never be resolved for some people because they can't stop imaging this to be a vindictive, personal attack rather than an editorial choice.

I've wondered for awhile now whether Nick Spencer is setting up some kind of return to OMD, having concocted some way to thread that needle of preserving what OMD was meant to accomplish and yet undo the aspects of the story that make it unpalatable to many.

That may be what he has in mind. Or maybe it will all just be left well enough alone. Time will tell.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That may come across as arrogant to some but it's just a fact that these people are paid to guide these characters in whatever way they think is best. Every fan has their opinions and if they were in the editor's shoes they'd be making their own unpopular decisions.

I have no doubt that if I were an editor at Marvel I'd be bad at the job. Just as I think that I would be a bad comic writer and worse artist. That doesn't deprive me of any right to criticize anyone nor does it endow the people who hold those positions any special favors. Your ability to hold a position doesn't validate your actions. Both Jim Shooter and Tom Defalco were great EIC, both were removed from their positions unceremoniously, does that mean both of them are bad EIC while Quesada is somehow better than them? Absolutely not. You mention Dan Dio? My issues with DC are more with Geoff Johns than him, but Dan DiDio wouldn't automatically be a bad editor/publisher or a good editor/publisher simply because he got fired. Because in that case, the actual firing had nothing to do with the stuff in the pages.

If you're still angry about a comic book ten years on...well, I don't know what to say. Not liking it, sure. That's fair. But actually angry?

Oh I get angry about a lot of real things too. It's just that when I read stuff for entertainment or fluff, seeing the same stupidity, low cunning, faux-populist mendacity bleed through even there tends to be even more aggravating.

The readership hasn't gone up anywhere, on any title, and won't.

So that means that OMD-BND were nihilistic ventures that weren't about growing or expanding the readership. Glad to have that confirmed. If it's not about good storytelling (which it isn't), if it's not about sales (which it isn't), if it's not about targeting the actual youth (which it's not) then what we are left with is basically an editorial policy that's about settling scores with one section of the fanbase and enforcing a rigid and more narrow view on the character going forward.

And while I wish OMD had been a better story it wasn't. You know, they can't all be winners.

OMD as a concept is intended to be the last important story in Spider-Man, that going forward there will be no more meaningful changes. It's the founding stone of BND, Slott's run and all that came afterwards, far more important and consequential than anything published in those runs. So it absolutely had to be a winner. It needed to be one. At the very least it needed to be better than the Wedding Annual (ASM Annual #21) and it isn't. I mean it's pretty obvious when you look at OMIT which splices in the better art and dialogue of the actual annual next to Quesada's marrow-chilling dreck.

I've wondered for awhile now whether Nick Spencer is setting up some kind of return to OMD, having concocted some way to thread that needle of preserving what OMD was meant to accomplish and yet undo the aspects of the story that make it unpalatable to many.

The fact that Spencer's run has to address OMD in some way, more than ten years later, points out that OMD is in fact a lasting scar on Spider-Man's publication history. If OMD were executed well then obviously nobody would feel need to tug at it since the story would have settled or resolved that issue and make it easier for writers who come afterwards. Since it didn't, and it needs to be addressed, then that means it failed big time. I mean Mark Waid in 2018 said that the marriage was still the elephant in the room, and the debate of whether the character should be married/unmarried is far from settled.

The reason is again the entire project was founded on a story so bad that it could never justify its concept, and yet the nature of that story is such that it's basically as important as AF#15 for the continuity that came afterwards. That means that all sorts of absurd tactics and damage control had to be done, such as publishing an inter-office memo rife with inaccuracies and so on. From reading Marvel, DC and superhero stories, "the ends justify the means" was always an attitude of the bad guys in those stories. For publishers and editors to voice that opinion themselves to justify terrible storytelling is nothing short of high hypocrisy over and above everything.

[Lee]

Peter is really both Bugs and Daffy. When he's Spider-Man, we laugh with him. When he's Peter's his misfortunes are often the source of humor.

Even as Spider-Man he's sometimes the butt of the joke - not being able to cash a cheque, his store-bought costume falling apart on him, and so on.

He's a hard-luck hero and it's sometimes played for comedy, for drama, or both at the same time.

[Prof. Warren]

I have no doubt that if I were an editor at Marvel I'd be bad at the job. Just as I think that I would be a bad comic writer and worse artist. That doesn't deprive me of any right to criticize anyone nor does it endow the people who hold those positions any special favors. Your ability to hold a position doesn't validate your actions. Both Jim Shooter and Tom Defalco were great EIC, both were removed from their positions unceremoniously, does that mean both of them are bad EIC while Quesada is somehow better than them? Absolutely not. You mention Dan Dio? My issues with DC are more with Geoff Johns than him, but Dan DiDio wouldn't automatically be a bad editor/publisher or a good editor/publisher simply because he got fired. Because in that case, the actual firing had nothing to do with the stuff in the pages.

Having and keeping a high level position usually involves making decisions that validate your continued employment.

Not everyone can hang in there for the long run so when they do, I have to credit their skill and tenacity.

Oh I get angry about a lot of real things too. It's just that when I read stuff for entertainment or fluff, seeing the same stupidity, low cunning, faux-populist mendacity bleed through even there tends to be even more aggravating.

Just a suggestion but a good place to start in changing your attitude for the better would be not portraying people who happen to have opposing viewpoints as you as stupid, cunning, etc.. You're locked in on the idea that people who simply have a different idea of what works best for Spider-Man are evil morons out to purposely do you emotional harm. They aren't.

So that means that OMD-BND were nihilistic ventures that weren't about growing or expanding the readership. Glad to have that confirmed. If it's not about good storytelling (which it isn't), if it's not about sales (which it isn't), if it's not about targeting the actual youth (which it's not) then what we are left with is basically an editorial policy that's about settling scores with one section of the fanbase and enforcing a rigid and more narrow view on the character going forward.

That would be a completely distorted attitude.

That sales are never going to be what they were in the '90s doesn't mean that the goals isn't still to sell comics, tell good stories, reach new readers, and to do well in the current marketplace.

The goal can't be "if we're not selling '90s level numbers, we're a failure." Because that's simply not realistic.

And again, in looking at OMD/BND you're falsely perceiving a personal attack.

People aren't so petty, venal and small-minded that the need to "settle a score" with a segment of the readership would drive their editorial decisions.

That's entirely in your own imagination.

OMD as a concept is intended to be the last important story in Spider-Man, that going forward there will be no more meaningful changes.

The idea that there were "meaningful changes" before OMD is false.

Events in the lives of comic book characters are only there to foster the illusion of change, not to actually progress the character.

Which is a large part of why the marriage had to go.

It's easier to manage that perpetual illusion of change with an unmarried Peter than it is when he's been a married man for decades in the comic.

It's the founding stone of BND, Slott's run and all that came afterwards, far more important and consequential than anything published in those runs. So it absolutely had to be a winner. It needed to be one. At the very least it needed to be better than the Wedding Annual (ASM Annual #21) and it isn't. I mean it's pretty obvious when you look at OMIT which splices in the better art and dialogue of the actual annual next to Quesada's marrow-chilling dreck.

The hope with every story is that it comes out well. Maybe even great. OMD didn't hit that mark.

But the fact that it didn't hasn't stopped good stories from coming afterwards and hasn't deterred me from appreciating those stories.

The fact that Spencer's run has to address OMD in some way, more than ten years later, points out that OMD is in fact a lasting scar on Spider-Man's publication history. If OMD were executed well then obviously nobody would feel need to tug at it since the story would have settled or resolved that issue and make it easier for writers who come afterwards. Since it didn't, and it needs to be addressed, then that means it failed big time. I mean Mark Waid in 2018 said that the marriage was still the elephant in the room, and the debate of whether the character should be married/unmarried is far from settled.

Writers feel the need to revisit past stories all the time. It's part of the appeal of continuity.

It's why we go back to the Lifeline Tablet saga, why we go back to the Clone Saga, back to Peter's parents and their spy background, and so on and so on.

The fact that the debate as to whether Peter should be married or not is unsettled simply makes it a generator of stories. I've said previously that taking the marriage away made it more relevant and interesting than when it was around. Writers can't help but to pull on that string and readers can't help but wonder what's going to happen every time they do.

The reason is again the entire project was founded on a story so bad that it could never justify its concept, and yet the nature of that story is such that it's basically as important as AF#15 for the continuity that came afterwards. That means that all sorts of absurd tactics and damage control had to be done, such as publishing an inter-office memo rife with inaccuracies and so on. From reading Marvel, DC and superhero stories, "the ends justify the means" was always an attitude of the bad guys in those stories. For publishers and editors to voice that opinion themselves to justify terrible storytelling is nothing short of high hypocrisy over and above everything.

One of the interesting aspects of comics and serialized storytelling is the ability to constantly course correct.

When a fictional universe is constantly turning out stories for decades, there's no way that every story, every decision is going to land well.

Editors and writers just have to move past it and go on to tell the next story and the one after that.

There's no bad story that can't be recovered from because the wheels on the bus never stop turning.

If some individual fans want to stay hung up on a particular story that sticks in their craw, that's their prerogative, of course.

Others will simply choose to shrug it off and move on.

[Alan2099]

OMD as a concept is intended to be the last important story in Spider-Man, that going forward there will be no more meaningful changes.

This is yet another thing you seems to be making up just so you can have something to be mad at.

I'd suggest you stop trying to think of the story as a personal attack where they went in with the intention of ruining the character specifically for you and just think of it as them trying out a story that you happened to not like. I'm sure whatever other comic series you've read of TV series you've watched has sometimes had bad issues/episodes and sometimes they changed things in ways you don't like. Do you always take such stories as personal attacks attributed soley to malice?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Having and keeping a high level position usually involves making decisions that validate your continued employment.

So Dan DiDio is a bad publisher or lesser than Quesada and others simply because he got fired? Come on, that's just absurd. The ability to retain a post doesn't mean you are doing something right in-and-of-itself and it doesn't validate your actions and decisions. What validates a person's actions are those actions themselves.

The goal can't be "if we're not selling '90s level numbers, we're a failure." Because that's simply not realistic.

If you say "Spider-Man is about youth" and that you are trying to protect the character as Quesada and others said, then that means in the context of publishing, that this change will bring in and even expand the readership. That there needs to be a significant change and increase in the readership to justify it. If there isn't, and there isn't, then it simply means that the endeavor was pointless.

The idea that there were "meaningful changes" before OMD is false.

Please tell Brevoort that. He's the one making a big deal about Peter "should never have left high school". Obviously he sees that as a meaningful change and wishes he could undo it somehow since his imaginary version of Ditko apparently wanted to do so.

I've said previously that taking the marriage away made it more relevant and interesting than when it was around.

That's not true. The marriage was at the center of JMS' run and JMS' run which came in after the mess of the clone saga and post-clone saga, was the one that revived Spider-Man after a major slump caused by boneheaded editorials creating the clone saga and then its aftermath to get past the marriage. The marriage was always interesting right from Michelinie's run onwards, and JMS' run always. And of course Matt Fraction first got attention in Marvel with To Have and to Hold, a story by one of Marvel's best young writers making his preference for a married Spider-Man loud and clear. Removing the marriage did not make the marriage more interesting than it would have been, just as Spider-Man becoming single did not make him inherently more interesting in BND.

I'm sure whatever other comic series you've read of TV series you've watched has sometimes had bad issues/episodes and sometimes they changed things in ways you don't like.

Well the reaction to Game of Thrones and its awful final season is certainly comparable to OMD in that regard...I am not too chuffed about that as others because I kind of went in with lowered expectations (it's been downhill since S5) and mostly because everyone involved with that, has the right appropriate level of shame (the showrunners became hermits for instance) as opposed to the shamelessness of Brevoort and Co. But again when things are exceptionally bad, whether it's the final season of GOT, Zack Snyder's BVS, or OMD, they are bad for exceptional reasons and are distinct and unique for that reason.

In general no...there isn't a single comic I read in any publication that is as bad as OMD.

[Prof. Warren]

So Dan DiDio is a bad publisher or lesser than Quesada and others simply because he got fired? Come on, that's just absurd. The ability to retain a post doesn't mean you are doing something right in-and-of-itself and it doesn't validate your actions and decisions. What validates a person's actions are those actions themselves.

I didn't make any judgement as to whether DiDio was as good or bad as Quesada - I only said that if someone manages to stay at a high position for a length of time, I feel like we have to accept that they must be doing something right, even if only in the eyes of their employers.

If you say "Spider-Man is about youth" and that you are trying to protect the character as Quesada and others said, then that means in the context of publishing, that this change will bring in and even expand the readership. That there needs to be a significant change and increase in the readership to justify it. If there isn't, and there isn't, then it simply means that the endeavor was pointless.

No, it doesn't. By your logic, unless every kid around the world is reading Spider-Man, any attempt to attract readers that doesn't accomplish that is a failure.

Please tell Brevoort that. He's the one making a big deal about Peter "should never have left high school". Obviously he sees that as a meaningful change and wishes he could undo it somehow since his imaginary version of Ditko apparently wanted to do so.

You're falsely putting words into people's mouths. Brevoort never said that Peter should have "never" left high school.

He said that Ditko felt that way. And he doesn't even say that it was wrong to have Peter graduate or that it should have been undone - or that Ditko himself felt it should have been undone. That's you twisting someone's words into something else entirely just to be argumentative. Brevoort is only making a point about how important it is in maintaining the underlying engine that drives Spider-Man to keep Peter young as possible for as long as possible.

That's not true. The marriage was at the center of JMS' run and JMS' run which came in after the mess of the clone saga and post-clone saga, was the one that revived Spider-Man after a major slump caused by boneheaded editorials creating the clone saga and then its aftermath to get past the marriage. The marriage was always interesting right from Michelinie's run onwards, and JMS' run always. And of course Matt Fraction first got attention in Marvel with To Have and to Hold, a story by one of Marvel's best young writers making his preference for a married Spider-Man loud and clear. Removing the marriage did not make the marriage more interesting than it would have been, just as Spider-Man becoming single did not make him inherently more interesting in BND.

If the marriage was still intact, I'm sure there would still be good stories being told in that context.

But it also would be largely taken for granted, with some periodic drama brought in to try and keep it fresh.

Having it gone leaves an ongoing tension as to whether it will return or not or simply whether it will be remembered in continuity.

Well the reaction to Game of Thrones and its awful final season is certainly comparable to OMD in that regard...I am not too chuffed about that as others because I kind of went in with lowered expectations (it's been downhill since S5) and mostly because everyone involved with that, has the right appropriate level of shame (the showrunners became hermits for instance) as opposed to the shamelessness of Brevoort and Co. But again when things are exceptionally bad, whether it's the final season of GOT, Zack Snyder's BVS, or OMD, they are bad for exceptional reasons and are distinct and unique for that reason.

Bad stories happen. Disappointing stories happen. Mediocre stories happen. So what?

Especially in comics where the volume of stories is so enormous and is constantly being added to week by week, month by month.

As I said, they can't all be winners. It's unreasonable to expect them to be.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

No, it doesn't. By your logic, unless every kid around the world is reading Spider-Man, any attempt to attract readers that doesn't accomplish that is a failure.

For an editorial policy that says "Spider-Man is about youth", yeah. In the same way, to speak of someone I generally respect, Bernie Sanders' idea that he can increase youth turnout is weakened by the absence of said turnout in large numbers as voters in the primary. If you are saying that Spider-Man is about youth and that the version you promote doesn't seem to have had much increase in support from said youth...then that does question at the very least your entire project. I agree with Dan Slott when he said at the time that Spider-Man fans will read Spider-Man married or not. That argument though, that people like Spider-Man at any age because he's a transcendent character, rests on accepting that at heart Spider-Man is about more than youth and it weakens BND more than it strengthens it.

Having it gone leaves an ongoing tension as to whether it will return or not or simply whether it will be remembered in continuity.

So the most interesting element of BND Spider-Man is "Will they or won't they undo it?" It's not inherently interesting on its own? It's got no appeal by itself? That's fine with me. I can live with that.

As I said, they can't all be winners. It's unreasonable to expect them to be.

A major storyline that defines and alters the community like OMD does have higher expectations than the average filler issue, just like the final season of a major TV show has high expectations. Even in serialized storyline, one which is ongoing, there are major moments whose occasion demands that you step up and measure to. For instance, Crisis on infinite earths's value lies in the fact that it's at heart a good story, a great story and also a major altering event. Sure it's got it's flaws (Wolfman's dialogue is weak as always) but it's a great story regardless. When DC Comics says Post-Crisis, they can say so with a certain confidence even pride...whereas Post-OMD doesn't give anyone any pride. COIE is filled with affection and respect for the version of the characters that came before and respect for the loyalty of its readers, even if it's created by Wolfman who had major issues with the continuity and versions of those characters that came before.