They are A-Changing

So Amazing Spider-Man #700 happened. I wanted to post some thoughts, since I've been seeing a lot of reaction to this on-line. I won't really go into the details of the issue, mainly because I haven't actually read it (I haven't been reading ASM, mainly due to my budget, but I've read the reviews so I know basically what happens). Not having read the issue, I can't really speak to the quality of the writing, but the reviews I've read so far have been largely positive, so I'll just leave it at that. The main thing I wanted to address were the complaints I've been seeing.

And there have been complaints. A lot of people claiming that Marvel and Dan Slott have ruined the character. That it was a terrible way to kill Peter Parker, he deserved better, what a waste, etc. One comment that I keep seeing along the lines of "No wonder no one buys comics anymore."

Now, granted, I haven't really researched the numbers, but it was my understanding that comic sales were in an upswing recently. So I can't help but wonder, when people make this claim, are they referring to comic sales from the 70s? Things have changed quite a bit since then.

And as far as Peter Parker deserving better, that it was a terrible way to kill him, I first want to mention that there is no reasonable person, who is familiar with how mainstream comics work, that could possibly believe that this is the last we'll see of Peter Parker. Beyond that I would suggest that for longtime fans of the character there is no possible death of Peter Parker story that they would accept as worthy of a title that's run for 700 issues.

Which brings me to my larger point (if you haven't figured it out by now, I have a tendency to pick specific events to make much larger, universal, points, because I have too much time on my hands and overthink everything). As I mentioned earlier, things have changed quite a bit since the 70s, or even the 80s or 90s. Status quo is no longer king, and I say good riddance.

ASM 700 marks the end of the Amazing Spider-Man series. There are now only a small handful of titles in 3 digits, and most of them are only a few years old (a la Walking Dead) or books that were dropped decades ago and recently revived with the old numbering (a la Journey Into Mystery). People have been complaining about constantly starting a title with a new #1 issue, to which I respond "Why?" Think of it this way, if I want to read Ed Brubaker's Captain America run in its entirety, I know exactly where to start. If I want to read Jonathan Hickman's Fantastic Four, Grant Morrison's Batman or Dan Slott's ASM run from start to finish, I have to go digging around for the starting points.

As far as I'm concerned, a new #1 can designate a new direction for a character, team, or series in general. New writers, new editorial direction, or just a generally new concept for the character. Ed Brubaker's Cap was largely an espionage-themed series, Rick Remender's Cap is more sci-fi.The new numbering marks the new direction. Having series run into the hundreds just means there's a big number on the cover. Sure, it can show off how long the series has run, but it can also be intimidating to a new reader who might feel they need to read 700 issues of backstory to understand what's going on. They don't, and a new #1 issue is an easy way of telling them so.

This is, of course, just my opinion on the matter.

As far as killing Peter Parker and leaving Doctor Octopus running around in his body, I personally think this is a fantastic story, with some great potential for interesting character arcs. Doc Ock trying to be a hero, trying to live up to the legacy he's basically stolen, finding out how hard it really is to be Peter Parker? (I can't help but wonder if the Spider-Man we saw in Avengers #2 was Parker or Octavius. I assume it was Parker, based on the fact that it was a flashback, but it would make it so much more interesting if it were Octavius.) Maybe he'll realize that he was wrong and try to find a way to restore Parker to his body? Maybe he'll go out in a blaze of heroic glory, paving the way for Parker to return. The potential is limitless.

And to those who say that this wasn't a worthy end to Peter Parker, I wonder if you've ever read a Spider-Man comic. This is Peter Parker to a tee, and it couldn't be any more heroic (well, yeah, it could be way more heroic, but it was still pretty heroic). Pete is the perpetual sad-sack, the constant loser. Goes out, saves the girl, saves the city, saves the world, then he still has to make rent and his girlfriend's pissed because he missed their date. And the Bugle's front page story is about how Spider-Man attacked some girl, tried to destroy the city, or the world. And he does it all over again the next day. Because he's Peter Parker, and that's what he does. Not because he expects a monument when he dies, or weeping mourners. Because it's the right thing to do. That's why Spider-Man is the best.

And keep in mind that, really, he did win. Sure, he died in Doc Ock's body, and no-one knows it, and Ock gets to tool around pretending to be Peter Parker. But he's not going to use that body to commit crimes. He's not going to kidnap Tony Stark or try to defraud Aunt May or build some kind of Octo-Spider-Pus robot army to take over Manhattan. He's going to go out and Spider-Man it up, and he's going to be the best damn Spider-Man he can be. Like I said, I haven't read the issue, but I know he has Peter Parker's memories now, and I can only assume he's doing it because he's somehow been inundated with Parker's overwhelming need to do good.

So yeah, as far as I'm concerned, this is a great direction for Spider-Man.

Anyway, back to my larger point. What this really represents, and what I feel people are most outraged about, is a deviation from the business-as-usual model that comics have followed for so long. The idea that characters should never change significantly, should never grow up and have children and long-term relationships (One More Day, anyone?). Something that has been especially apparent in the Spider-Man continuity over the years.

This is not how you tell stories. At least not good ones. If you want everything to stay the same all the time always, there's plenty of police procedurals on TV, and there's a ton of the old formulaic sitcoms on Netflix. Harsh? Maybe. It's not my intention to offend, but I think the worst thing a writer can do is everything their fans want them to. Of course you want your favorite character to win in the end, and get the girl and all the money and barely even have to try. Good storytelling challenges that desire. Good storytelling puts your hero through hell, and sometimes they don't make it out the other end, and sometimes when they do they're worse off than before.

One of the things that drove me crazy when DC announced their New 52 reboot were all the comments asking "Why should I bother to keep reading the comics that are coming out if they're not going to matter in a few months?" The answer, of course, is for the same reason you were buying them before. Because you enjoy the stories being told. If you're buying comics for any reason other than that, then you're buying for the wrong reason. If you're just reading comics because you buy everything with your favorite character in the title, or because you need to know all the continuity even if you hate the story, then maybe you should just stop. The reason there are currently five Batman titles running, and arguably only 3 of them are any good, is because DC knows there are people who will buy any Batman title that is published. When the Batman title that gets such bad reviews that most sites don't even bother reviewing it is getting consistently higher sales than books like Swamp Thing or I, Vampire, which almost always gets fantastic reviews (I, Vampire is one of my current favorites), there is a problem. People who only care about continuity or who have to buy every book their favorite character is in are hurting comics. They're a huge part of the reason comic sales are struggling to get up.

I'm going to wind things down before this turns into (more of) a rant. I just wanted to conclude with a thought. I've heard some recent speculation calling this the 2nd Golden Age of Comics. Mostly this is referring to the fantastic creator-owned series that have been cropping up all over the place, but I think there's also a good bit of that going on at the big 2, especially Marvel. Writers who grew up on 80s and 90s comics, writers who have a more literary take, but also have a strong respect for the comic book medium. People who saw what was good about those eras as well as what was bad about them, and are creating a whole new tradition in comic books. One that relies more on exploiting the potential of the characters, rather than just maintaining the status quo.

Of course this means that there's not going to be room for some of the old-school fans. But if you can't learn to love good stories, then why are you even here?

Again, this is all just my opinion, and I know it got a bit rant-y there in there middle, I hope I didn't offend anyone.

New script - Raven

New script here. Fair warning, it's melodramatic vampire romance. It's actually an adaptation of a short story I wrote like ten years ago. I posted a previous version of it over at deviant art, but that version was extremely cramped. I'm pretty happy with this version.

Also, got some concept art for Lunatic Fringe, so far everything is looking great!