The Four Color Media Monitor: Once more, Peter Parker is trampled

The 9th issue of ~~Superior~~ Inferior Spider-Man has come and gone, and pretty predictably, Peter Parker has once again lost to Doctor Octopus just like in ASM 700:

Following Doc Ock's discovery last issue of the shred of Peter Parker's consciousness that's been hanging around their shared body since Superior Spider-Man #1, mental warfare took place between the long-time enemies for control, with Otto Octavius evidently the victor, and apparently now fully in the Superior Spider-Man driver's seat, and any hope for Peter at least temporarily dashed.

And the worst part is that Peter may have accidentally led to the injury of a girl whom Doc Ock was trying to save(?):

Nrama: It's interesting that Peter is seemingly undone by the admission that he evidently neglected his own code of power and responsibility, in regards to the girl OckSpidey performed surgery on last issue. Is it possible that's a circumstance where Octavius genuinely has the moral high ground, or more of a testament to the desperate position Peter is/was in?

Wacker: I guess that will be up to each reader to interpret, but from my vantage point Peter Parker was interesting for 50 years because of the mistakes he made. He’s not stainless, he’s not perfect. There are plenty of examples over 700+ issues where his behavior was less than exemplary.

I hope readers are troubled by Pete’s actions. I know I was.

I hope anybody who really thinks of themselves as a Spider-fan is troubled by Wacker's negative reference to Peter, because I sure am. Peter Parker causes an accident, Doc Ock is the better here, and we're supposed to be fine with that? Shudder. And what an absurd claim that Peter was interesting all because of his mistakes. What about his altruism and efforts to mend the mistakes he made, as well as his interactions with the supporting and recurring casts in the MCU?

And if Otto really saw the light and understood why crime doesn't pay, wouldn't he try to help Peter regain control of his body? They can spin this any way they like, but even if Octavius didn't exploit Mary Jane, he's still guilty of killing Peter in a most bizarre way, and that itself is quite an offensive act. It'll make no difference if he tries to do more "good" within the next several years, because he's guilty of murdering Peter, and worst, nobody in the MCU actually knows anything about this as Otto continues to keep it a secret.

All Spider-fans who honor the true foundations of Lee/Ditko's creation should stay far away from this atrocity and not spend even a penny on this horrific mess.

Update: The Homeworld website gave this a very damning review, and says that the 9th issue of Inferior is terrible not because it's shocking and maddening, but rather, because it's simply boring. No doubt, it'll be quite the cure for insomnia.

Labels: bad editors, golden calf of death, marvel comics, moonbat writers, Spider-Man

This storyline increasingly sounds like the love child of "Superman Blue/Red" and "Spider Clone."

We all know it's going to end with Peter back in his own body and Ock out. Anything until then is just marking time. Yawn.

Posted by The Drizzt | 4:45 PM

100% Wrong. Doc Ock as Spidey is great. His road to redemption is much more fascinating than watching Parker ruin his relationship with MJ again.

Posted by DiRT | 8:32 AM

"much more fascinating than watching Parker ruin his relationship with MJ again"

And whose fault is that if Pete's relations with MJ falter? The character's or the writers/editors? On the one hand, you seem to be saying that for you, the contrived obliteration of the Spider-marriage during OMD is fait accompli. On the other hand, you're uninterested in trying to campaign for bringing Pete and MJ back together and mending the shambles made of the MCU, and I don't see how you can justify telling a story with Doc Ock in Spidey's body in such an overlong, padded manner instead of just 2 or 3 issues, which would at least make it easier to stomach. The Marvel staff's spent nearly 6 years now marginalizing MJ, when here she could've made the best, most easily recognizable co-star who could serve as an ideal symbol for women of the MCU in a lot of other mediums, and have lost more than a sufficient amount of loyal readers while gaining almost no new ones.

It's regrettable if this is what you think makes for great storytelling. It's your opinion, I'll admit that. But that doesn't and isn't guaranteeing massive sales, and it shows in the charts on websites like ICV2.

Posted by Avi Green | 1:36 PM

"I don't see how you can justify telling a story with Doc Ock in Spidey's body in such an overlong, padded manner instead of just 2 or 3 issues, which would at least make it easier to stomach. "

The real problem here is that you can't move past the fact that Octavious IS Peter Parker. You're still hung up on the "rape that's not really rape but we call it rape to get attention" and the idea of a villain on the road to redemption is beyond you.

"But that doesn't and isn't guaranteeing massive sales, and it shows in the charts on websites like ICV2."

Yeah, being in the Top 20 sucks. It's obviously not selling... oh wait..

Posted by DiRT | 10:23 AM

Being in the top 20 in comic book sales these days is like being the world's tallest dwarf.

Posted by Anonymous | 12:48 PM

"Being in the top 20 in comic book sales these days is like being the world's tallest dwarf."

Since the conversation we're having is about which dwarf is taller, your attempt at trolling is a massive FAIL.

Posted by DiRT | 2:53 PM

The original post seemed to be about the current arc in Spider-Man comics. Obviously, some fans like it, some hate it, and some don't care one way or the other. My impression was that Avi is a long-time Spider-Man fan and finds the present storyline distasteful. Years ago, a lot of fans complained about the violence in Punisher and Vigilante; today, Doctor Octopus executes a criminal in cold blood and it's part of his "redemption." And Doc Ock allowing MJ to think he is Peter is some form of sexual assault, and could well be considered rape. If I had it to do over, I would not use the "world's tallest dwarf" metaphor, but only because it might be offensive to (physically) little people. "Big fish in a small pond" might be a better phrase for a comic that sells relatively well. Today's best-selling comics would have been cancelled for low sales in the Silver Age. That's partly because of competition from video games, but also because modern comics have too much sex and violence for kids, and they are too sophomoric and silly for adults.

Posted by Anonymous | 4:16 PM