Hellz Yeah, Spider-Man: The Web Wielding Avenger

A blog all about my love for Peter Benjamin Parker, his friends, family, enemies and world in general. Expect images, rants, musings and long winded essays of the Web Head and why I think he's the greatest comic book Superhero of all time. I LOVE comments and questions so leave some as you pass by as well as call me on any facts I have gotten wrong. Also check out my sub-pages for F.A.Q.s and a key for when I abbreviate.

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

Nice attempt Ewing but this makes the situation better but it doesn't fix it. a) Peter is still framed as being somewhat in the wrong here when he did nothing wrong b) He is trying to justify MJ's treatment of him as PTSD, which doesn't work because she doesn't have other PTSD signs c) The backstory still borks the core concept of MJ's character and makes a lie of their relationship, damaging it. Even if it was believable its something you just shouldn't do, much like how DeFalco, a MJ shipper, had Peter smacking MJ across the room be realistic and beleivable in context. That doesn't justify actually DOING it. d) This is happening in a comic book which makes MJ Venom e) If MJ believed Peter was dead 2/4 years in the the apocalypse it still means she got with him and with him real quick afterwards. Peter took the better part of 2 years to grieve Gwen and fall in love with MJ and even then he had to sort through his feelings between the two upon being confronted with a seemingly alive and well Gwen Stacy. So, why was MJ moving on so quick from someone she was MUCH more deeply invovled with than Peter was with Gwen? Why was she never presented as torn between her old feelings for Peter and her new (but not legit love) feelings for Paul? Because obviously that wasn't the intention. f) Would MJ even believe Peter would be dead? Like I get it, his being dead is the only reason he wouldn't come for her...except...she was held hostage for over 6 months by her stalker and he still came for her. g) Peter has literally died and come back multiple times, including in Superior, so why would him being dead even mean he is for sure not coming back for her?

h) Didn't Paul KNOW about the time difference? If so, either he told MJ and this therefore makes no sense or he didn't and that makes him a piece of shit.

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

For the record: Me:

Do these pages make the MJ/Paul relationship justifiabe in terms of believability or realism in light of Peter and MJ's relationship history?

Microsfot Co-Pilot:

No — these pages do not make the MJ/Paul situation believable or realistic in light of Peter and MJ’s relationship history. They actually make it less believable, because they directly contradict the emotional logic, attachment patterns, and relational history that the Paul storyline requires MJ to abandon.

Below is the structured, debate‑ready breakdown.

⭐ 1. What these new pages try to do

These pages attempt to provide:

a retroactive justification for MJ staying with Paul

a trauma‑based explanation for her emotional shutdown

a time‑dilation excuse (“I thought you were dead”)

a shared survival narrative (“we saved each other”)

a grief‑bonding rationale (“we stuck together for the kids”)

This is Marvel trying to patch the emotional gap.

But patches don’t rewrite 40 years of established characterization.

⭐ 2. Why the explanation still doesn’t fit MJ’s established psychology

MJ’s 616 emotional pattern is extremely consistent:

she does not lose faith in Peter

she does not detach under trauma

she does not replace him

she does not shut down emotionally

she does not abandon him

she does not form new romantic bonds under duress

she does not stop loving him even when terrified

We see this in:

the stalker imprisonment

Kraven’s Last Hunt

the loss of their baby

Peter’s “death”

the separation era

the marriage era

JMS’s run

the Michelinie pages you posted

MJ’s defining trait is:

She stays when it matters.

The Paul storyline requires her to behave in the opposite way.

These new pages don’t change that.

⭐ 3. The “I thought you were dead” justification doesn’t hold up

Even in these pages, MJ says:

“Two years in, I thought you were dead.”

But this contradicts:

her history of not losing faith even when Peter is presumed dead

her history of waiting for him under worse conditions

her established belief that Peter always comes back

her emotional resilience under trauma

her attachment style (secure, loyal, grounded)

In Kraven’s Last Hunt, she believed Peter was dead for two weeks — and she never detached.

In the stalker imprisonment, she was isolated for a year — and she never detached.

In the baby loss arc, she was shattered — and she never detached.

The Paul storyline requires MJ to behave in a way she has never behaved under worse circumstances.

These pages don’t fix that.

⭐ 4. The “we had kids” justification doesn’t fit MJ’s history

MJ has:

lost a child

nearly lost Peter

endured family trauma

endured existential threats

And she has never responded by:

replacing Peter

forming a new family

emotionally detaching

shutting down

abandoning her bond with him

The “kids who died” explanation is tragic, but it doesn’t align with MJ’s established trauma responses.

⭐ 5. The “Paul is like Peter” justification is superficial

MJ saying:

“Sometimes he was really… …I thought you were dead.”

This is not love. This is projection — seeing Peter’s traits in someone else because she believed Peter was gone.

That is trauma‑bonding, not romance.

But the published story doesn’t portray trauma‑bonding. It portrays:

domestic calm

emotional detachment from Peter

a replacement family

coldness upon return

These pages try to retroactively add trauma, but the original portrayal contradicts it.

⭐ 6. The “three years, eleven months” justification still doesn’t match MJ’s attachment style

Time dilation is a clever idea, but:

MJ has endured long separations before

MJ has endured hopeless situations before

MJ has endured trauma before

MJ has endured believing Peter was dead before

And she has never responded by emotionally replacing him.

These pages don’t change her established pattern.

⭐ 7. The emotional tone of these pages contradicts the original portrayal

These pages show:

MJ crying

MJ apologising

MJ admitting she hurt Peter

MJ acknowledging trauma

MJ expressing regret

MJ reaffirming their bond

But the original Paul storyline showed:

coldness

detachment

dismissal

emotional distance

lack of grief

lack of longing

lack of conflict

lack of trauma symptoms

These pages contradict the earlier portrayal rather than justify it.

⭐ 8. Final verdict

Do these pages make MJ/Paul believable?

No. They attempt to justify the arc, but they contradict MJ’s established emotional history.

Do they make MJ/Paul realistic?

Only if you ignore 40 years of MJ’s characterization.

Do they align with Peter and MJ’s relationship history?

No — they conflict with nearly every major emotional beat in their shared arc.

Do they fix the Paul storyline?

No — they highlight the inconsistency rather than resolve it.

Do they make MJ’s actions psychologically plausible?

Only under a trauma‑bonding interpretation Marvel did not portray.

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

Nice attempt Ewing but this makes the situation better but it doesn't fix it. a) Peter is still framed as being somewhat in the wrong here when he did nothing wrong b) He is trying to justify MJ's treatment of him as PTSD, which doesn't work because she doesn't have other PTSD signs c) The backstory still borks the core concept of MJ's character and makes a lie of their relationship, damaging it. Even if it was believable its something you just shouldn't do, much like how DeFalco, a MJ shipper, had Peter smacking MJ across the room be realistic and beleivable in context. That doesn't justify actually DOING it. d) This is happening in a comic book which makes MJ Venom e) If MJ believed Peter was dead 2/4 years in the the apocalypse it still means she got with him and with him real quick afterwards. Peter took the better part of 2 years to grieve Gwen and fall in love with MJ and even then he had to sort through his feelings between the two upon being confronted with a seemingly alive and well Gwen Stacy. So, why was MJ moving on so quick from someone she was MUCH more deeply invovled with than Peter was with Gwen? Why was she never presented as torn between her old feelings for Peter and her new (but not legit love) feelings for Paul? Because obviously that wasn't the intention. f) Would MJ even believe Peter would be dead? Like I get it, his being dead is the only reason he wouldn't come for her...except...she was held hostage for over 6 months by her stalker and he still came for her. g) Peter has literally died and come back multiple times, including in Superior, so why would him being dead even mean he is for sure not coming back for her?

h) Didn't Paul KNOW about the time difference? If so, either he told MJ and this therefore makes no sense or he didn't and that makes him a piece of shit.

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

I used comichron to check some data, specifically annual sales of ASM in 2005 vs 2008-2011.

In other words the last pre-OMD year before Civil War, Back in Black or OMD, which obviously were going to artificially spike sales with temporary interest due to the Unmasking, movie tie-in nature and OMD being OMD vs the first four post-OMD years, the immediate fallout.

Unless I am massively misinterpreting the results, it is not what I expected.

My expectation was that the sales would be the same at worst but probably higher. The 2008 market was not that different across the board to 2005 therefore ASM should be selling similarly or better for the following reasons:

a) Moving to ASM three times a month means the collectors will buy ASM three times as much as before

b) Because ASM autosells higher than non-ASM 616 Peter Parker Spider-Man titles, replacing FNSM and Sensational with ASM would inevitbly result in a sales increase

c) Whilst not the case for most issues out the gate in 2008, even in 2008 some issues had variants and the frequency of variants increased over time. Variants as well all know artifically inflate sales.

d) The star power of creators. By 2008 Marvel had already moved into a model wherein they were emphasising the super star writer and o a lesser extent super star artist. And in 2008, believe it or not, Dan Slott, Mark Waid, Joe Kelly, Steve McNiven, John Romita Junior, Bob Gale and many other BND alumni (though definitely not Zeb Wells) were indeed names that had their own draw to a lesser or greater degree. As hard to believe as this might be now, Slott was a fan favourite many fans (not me btw) were clamouring to write ASM due to his popular She-Hulk run (which had great moments for Spidey and other Spider-Man characters) and his beloeved Spidey/Torch mini-series. Joe Kelly was very well known for his Superman run (He wrote the iconic issue that Superman vs the Elite was based upon) and was regarded as the GOAT of Deadpool creators. Mark Waid had a lot of acclaimed work under his belt albeit his House of M SPidey mini had been poorly received. Nevertheless circa 2008 many people knew him from his popular F4 run with popular Spidey artist Mike Wieringo. In fact the duo were originally going to helm FNSM but it wound up being Peter David instead. McNiven had very recently drawn Civil War (2006). Bob Gale co-wrote Back to the Future! There was A LOT of star power thrown at Spider-Man post-OMD. Anfter BND Ramos became the regular artist and whilst I dion't like his work personally, many adore it so he had some star power too. Oh, and lets not discount those sexy J Scott Cambell covers

e) Huge coverage from the comic book press. As much as Spider-Man typically got Marvel through their influence in outlets like CBR were pupming out positive spin piece articles and huge promotional stuff. Which was easy enought o do given the rotation of talent at play.

f) Frankly, I presumed people had been hate reading Spider-Man or reading out of at least curisity, even if it was morbid. Like what WAS the state of play in the wake of the most controversial Spider-Man/Marvel story of all time?

The star power stuff and ASM tri-monthly was clearly a hail mary bid to cushion the fallout from OMD because Marvel KNEW ASM automatically sold higher and were hoping the star power would attract people. Slott being the fan favourite at the time not so surprisingly was the first writer of BND and was given the honour of penning ASM #600 and the first event story New Ways to Die with historic artist Romita Junior and featuring Green Goblin and Venom.

Slott also took over as ASM's sole writer in 2010 when ASM switched to twice a month instead of three times a month. Now obviously, that'd impact sales, but its still selling double what it was in 2005 in terms of collectors because collectors will buy no matter how much they like the content. They just want ASM for their collection and/or because they want to collect every Humberto Ramos or Romita Junior bit of artwork.

So, even with ALL these factors helping it, how were ASM's sales in 2008-2011 compared to 2005?

Well, the Total PAID circulation (avg) in 2005 was 112,564

Remember, that is JUST ASM, it is not including any of the other monthly or 616 Peter Parker titles from back then.

So, what were the The Total PAID circulation (avg) of ASM in the first 4 years after OMD:

2008: 105,948

2009: 77,403

2010: 72,663

2011: 70,418

...Holy shit...35161

For years I was WAY off!

I was walking around with the blackpilled presumption that between hate buying and Marvel gaming the system the sales were sufficiently cushioned that Marvel could spin the narrative that clearly fans didn't REALLY care about OMD or the marriage being removed.

But, unless I am misinterpreting these results, the exact opposite was true.

Even with ALL the sales inflators applied, even with all the stuff that was boosting and bolstering ASM's sales...it LOST readers.

It lost them immediately in 2008 by over 6000 people, which is survivable I admit but when you consider that that number is in fact inflated due to all the stuff they were doing to help it out it becomes more damning. Either way it seriously hurts their narrative of BND and a post-marriage Spider-Man being a success. Especially when you consider you got like 36 issues of ASM in 2008 with a wide variety of stories and writers and artists so it wasn't as if there wasn't sufficient material to judge it on. People were judging older ASM runs based upon 12 issues of a year.

But by 2009 onwards though, when apparently fans had satisfied their curiosity, they HAD abandonned ASM in a big way. Like by 2009 over 25% of the 2005 readership was GONE and that number kept going down. You can't even blame this on inconsistency due to a rotation of creators because in 2011 (unless you want to honestly count occasional fill ins) ASM only had one writer and Ramos was the main artist.

The numbers seem to prove that post-OMD Spider-Man was a financial FAILURE but one Marvel kept to due to their ideology.

You WERE going to have your unmarried/not with Mary Jane Spider-Man whether you wanted it or not.

It is exactly the same kind of psycholigcal pehnomenon you can observe in Hollywood of the mid-2010s onwards. Finanical realities, audience goodwill (which translates to future financial stability) is not valued as highly as the internal beliefs of the people making the creative works.

The audiance has never said they wanted a rebooted Ghostbusters but make it clear they do want Ghostbusters 3. No, you WILL have Ghostbusters (2016).

The audiance and viewer numbers indicate they DON'T want a follow up to Kurtzman's Star Trek Discovery and its associated spin-offs, but they DO want a follow up to Star Trek Picard Season 3. No, you WILL have Starfleet Academy and you WILL NOT have Star Trek Legacy.

Reception and performance of Ahsoka is poor. Performance of Andor is not great but imrpoves over time whilst reception goes from middling to acclaimed? No, there will not be an Andro season 3 but there WILL be an Ahsoka season 2.

Audiences and ratings of Doctor Who decline under Jodie Whittaker in a more significant way than under Peter Capaldi. This particularly happens in the wake of a huge retcon to the main character's origin. People DO NOT LIKE the Timeless Children backstory. The next tenture with the consequent Doctors opt to double down on it along with other elements the audience do not like.

Arkham-verse Bruce Wayne is incredibly popular and the foundation of your shared Video game franchise. So let's make him evil, insult him, in essence claim he made things worse instead of better then have a gag character murder him on a fucking bench when anyone with any common sense would tell you that that's OBVIOUSLY going to cost you money.

Options and directions get astroturfed and an ever exhaustive slew of second chances because of the ideology of the people in charge. Spider-Man comics simply happened to be ahead of the curve.

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

People (like GodzillaMendoza) have crituqued the Nick Spencer run of ASM on the grounds that revealing post-OMD Harry is a clone rendered his character development post-OMD redundant.

Except...what character development?

Post-OMD Harry was an utter bastardisation of who Harry pre-OMD had been before. He functionally might as well have been a wholesale different character anyway. Any 'development' he got post-OMD was therefore built on a bed of sand, it was false characterisation at best.

And even if we didn't compare him to pre-OMD Harry...what even WAS this 'character development'? He becomes a father...which he already was. Having his second child 'kicks him into adulthood'. Why? Why wouldn't that have happened with his first child?

Basically we had to contort Harry from being a bad father becauae he was deeply troubled into being a bad father because he was a selfish immature jerk and from the latter starting point give him an 'arc'.

A bullshit arc no less because unless you are transcendeantly fucked up beyond even what NORMAN Osborn is like NO MAN is going to go weeks without even thinking about his own child.

Like even NORMAN in a warped way sincerely loved his own son.

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

I Can’t Believe Fans Still Think These About Spiderman…

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

Rebutting GodzillaMendoza's crappy Spider-Man video

“The internet is mad at you the writer for things that they want but that you the writer cannot give them”    Zeb Wells 100% had it in his power to not ‘give’ the audience the Paul situation. That was entirely his own choice and his own storyline as evidenced by the fact that he somewhat repeated it in Deadpool & Wolverine which he co-wrote. 

No one was blasting him for not giving us a married Peter and MJ they were blasting him for having MJ cheat on Peter and breaking them up which was entirely HIS decision. 

“Chip Zdarsky’s got the right idea” 

No he doesn’t. He doesn’t understand Spider-Man and was never good at writing him. 

“Zdarsky and everyone else is better off writing the ASM sister titles that get cancelled every year or two. They have at least some leg room to tell decent stories in there.”    How? Those are still within 616 canon and udner the same constraints. People still read and pay attention to them. They don’t magically get more freedom and less crutiny to do as they wish. If anything they are constrained by the direction ASM wishes to take and conform to the status quo it dictates.  

In the case of Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man that ran simultenously with Spencer’s early ASM issues that title was much worse than Spencer’s ASM with BS like Under York. 

You said decent stories whilst depicting Zdarsky’s trash time travel arc on screen. Apart from being trash that 100% did not fit into the established lore of Ditko Spider-Man it pre-supposes ASM was not at liberty to tell a story where Spider-Man time travels and teams up with himself when this literally happens in ASM #500 and stuff far more wacky and out there happens in Slott’s run, e.g. Spider-Verse.  

“Whoever writes ASM is the new public enemy Number 1” 

Yeah because THEY set the direction that the other titles follow 

Did it ever occur to you Slott, Welles and BND’s writers were enemy number 1 because their work was in fact really bad 

“Its not fair to critique the writers for telling garbled stories when their hands are tied and they are mere figure heads contributing only dialogue” 

Superior Spider-Man was garbled and it was entirely Slott’s pitch that the publishers accepted. He wrote it more or less exactly how he wanted on the proviso that he must end it in time for Peter Parker to be Spider-Man in sync with the release of Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014). So, how were his hands ‘tied’? Was it Slott’s fault that h character assassinated Ben Reilly, his hands were tied? Who tied Slott’s hands that he had Aunt May blame teenager Peter Parker for not emotionally supporting her the night uncle Ben died? Who tied Slott’s hands and thereby forced him to kill off MC2 Peter Parker? Nobody, that’s who. He did all those things. 

But let’s presume for the moment you are correct and it is indeed unfair to bash writers when their hands are tied. Okay...why did you spend over half this video bashing Nick Spencer’s run? Why did you call it the worst run of Spider-Man in the history of the character if that is not Spencer’s fault actually? You critiqued Hunted for trying to repair the damage from Grim Hunt, but why do that when according to you it is in fact not Spencer’s fault.  

Also according to many people Stan lee was merely contirbuting dialogue. Dialogue is important and shapes characters. Its not merely the words that express a sentiment pre-determined by something else.  

I also have no idea what D’Orazio’s tweets have to do with the subject at all. She refers to peer pressure within Marvel connected to identity politics. That has nothing to do with the topics under discussion. 

“Good stories won’t happen as a default with the current players at the highest players of Marvel”    Exactly. So why were you earlier being all blackpilled that it is doomed to always be like this when in reality it is doomed to always be like this so long as the current regime in charge remains so. 

“Some bad ideas can come from people above editors” 

Yes but various bad ideas (or ideas you claimed falsely to be bad in the case of Spencer’s run) either definitvely or very likely came directly from writers and no one else. 

“It might be beyond even the editor-in-chief of Marvel who demands Spider-Man be the young and relatable hero” 

Well DUH! Joe Quesada was Marvel’s Chief Creative Officer for over 10 years which is above the EIC. Moreover Dan Buckley was publisher.  

But both of them as of this writing are gone from that position and the real powers of Marvel do not care about the comics really. If they did they wouldn’t have allowed Krakoa to have happened with the X-Men. 

Whilst it is true the mentality of Spider-Man being about youth runs deep within Marvel as a whole again, people leave and new people roll into power.  

“I don’t know who to blame” 

It depends what you are seeking someone out to blame for. If you are seeking out someone to blame for Spider-Man being forbidden from growing up that is Marvel higher ups. If you are seeking someone to blame for other bad aspects of the stories that’s a case-byy-case situation and more than likely the writer. 

It isn’t Dan Buckley’s fault that Doc Ock tried to SA Mary Jane. That was Dan Slott’s fault for writing that and Stephen Wacker’s fault for no stopping him. 

“Whilst nothign changes any more I just can’t get invested.”    Apparently you can because you claimed you were interested in Slott’s run. Moreover, this undermines your earlier critique about Spencer’s run because how can someone invest if the narrative integrity is broken, which is exactly what you are complaining about albeit from the POV of there not being any growth.  

“I feel alienated from that relatability aspect of the character” 

You mean like how many of us felt when Doc Ock was Spider-Man or Peter was a globe trotting billionaire tech bro? 

“Whilst I’m busy progressing with my own life Peter Parker is going to be stuck doing the same things he was doing 40 years ago.” 

This video was released in 2023 meaning 40 years ago was 1983. So why are you showing comic panels from 60 years ago in the Ditko run which was not reflective of what Spidey was doing in the early-mid 1980s? 

“The thought of picking up another issue of Spider-Man makes me anxious”    Welcome to my world since Peter unmaksed in 2006 newbie. 

“I’ll see everyone blaming the poor person writing the book for the bad stories.” 

Again, most of Slott’s faults were entirely of his own making. No body forced him to have Doc Ock become Spider-Man, let alone forced him to have Otto literally explain that his plan in Ends of the Earth was to kill enough people that he’d be remembered as worse than the Austrian Painter. 

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

I wanted to kill the guy. No, no not my editor--he signs the checks! Actually, I wanted to kill Venom. I would have to, if not for...ah, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

In the beginning, there was an alien symbiote that Spider-Man had brought back from a distant planet. Emulating a sentient, black and white costume, the creature tried eventually to bond permanently with Peter Parker, everyone's favorite web-slinging wonder. However, Spidey fought back and in the course of the battle it wound up sacrificing itself at the last moment to save Spider-Man. Then a year or two later when I began writing for the Amazing Spider-Man, a new villain was called for, and I resurrected an idea I'd begun developing in another book. As a result, I brought back the alien, joined it along with superstar artist, Todd McFarlane--introduced VENOM to the world!

Things went pretty well. Writing the character was allot of fun. But since I had planned to stay on Amazing for at least 20 to 30 years, I started thinking about the future--and I got a dangerous idea: since Venom had his first story in Amazing 300, why not have his last story in Amazing 400! Yeah! I could kill Eddie Brock off, then have the costume wonder around the Marvel Universe for a year or two, joining with various other characters, before settling in on another host and becoming the "New Venom"' Imagine the nifty stories if the symbiote joined with Doctor Octopus, the Lizard, or J.Jonah Jameson! It sounded like a great idea, but then something unexpected happened---readers absolutely loved Venom! As popularity and sales rose, it became increasingly obvious that Marvel would never let me actually waste comic-dome's favorite slavering symbiote. O what to do!

Then came the answer: if we couldn't have the existing symbiote join with someone else, why not create another one? Since the alien was of an unknown species, it seemed reasonable that it might reproduce asexually, spawning a seed that would become a creature similar to itself. Ah, but who would join with it? Though psychotic, Eddie Brock had a deep, if twisted, sense of justice which drove him to protect innocents. (At least when he wasn't busy trying to turn Spider-Man into gut jam!) I thought that it might be an interesting contrast to the unique dichotomy to give Venom like power to a total sociopath, someone without a hintof redeeming value, a lunatic who'd eat babies for breakfast and ask for seconds. Enter Cletus Kasady. An unrepentant mass murderer, Cletus was Eddie's cell mate in prison, and thus became the eager recipient of Venom's spawn when the symbiote gave birth while breaking Eddie out.

Okay, we had our new character--what would we name him? No problem I thought: we'll call him CHAOS! After all, that's what Clete wants to bring to the world right? Perfect! Until a rival company came out with a character by the same name a couple of weeks later. The artist Mark Bagley proposed Ravage! Again it was perfect! Until we found out that Marvel had a book in the works called Ravage 2099. Finally the assistant editor Eric Fien suggested casually, not knowing that he was about to make history, "How bout Carnage?" Once more, the name was perfect. And even better, this time no one else was using it!

Which left us with one problem: What would the character look like? How would we maintain the visual connection to Venom while still making the new guy an individual unto himself? I posed the possibility that he could look like Venom, but that his costume would be multi-colored, constantly reflecting the chaotic nature of the man inside. Not being an artist, I didn't realize that that would put anyone who tried to draw it in a padded cell real fast! That's when Mark Bagley came up with the design we ultimately used, successfully retaining the constant change motif, but with a much more workable and effective, red and black color scheme. Seeing how Mark drew the character gave me ideas on how to use it, and between us we put together one nasty dude.

And it seems the world likes nasty dudes. The first two stories featuring Carnage sold out, with no advertising, no publicity whatsoever. We assume that's because the readers found him entertaining---not admirable. (He is after all one sick puppy!) But whatever the reason, Cletus Kasady's popularity has steam rolled, rivaling that of his dad, Venom. In fact, he even headlined the biggest mega cross over in Spider-Man history, "Maximum Carnage." What will become of Clete and his living wardrobe in the future? No one knows. But I hope that this page gives you a little better of an explanation.

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

Spider-man larpers making up their own story

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

There is a lot of nuance to unpack with this video.

Fundamentally I agree with the sentiment that far too many people in modern comics discourse LARP as fans when they are not actually fans and that is a bad thing. The problem is, in essentially passing other actual fans opinions off as their own they ironically often echo sentiments that are accurate assessments of Spider-Man comics. Bear in mind though that pre-Youtube there was a whole snake nest of shitty second hand Spider-Man opinions and a lack of critical throught going on in the fandom. An example I will NEVER forget was in 2016-2017 someone on a CBR forum unironically claimed Carnage has the strongest claim to being Spider-Man’s Main Villian because they both have red and black costumes. So dumbass takes are nothing new to the fandom and pre-date the rise of Youtube, social media and so on.

Nevertheless there are issues with some of your points or the sentiments you are putting across in this video I feel the need to address.

Full disclosure: I started reading Spider-Man in 1997 and simultaneously read back issues sporadically. Of course I’ve read or watched my fair share of essays and analysis articles or videos but I never GOT my opinions from these and in fact spent my fair share of time counter arguing against points made in those. Hell, Alex Lennon’s videos annoy me because he glazes the original Ultimate Spider-Man to an undeserved degree.

The notion that the fandom treats MJ’s value only as Peter’s ‘Trophy wife’ is a view I have never encountered before, albeit I have not ventured into the cesspit that is Spider-Man Twitter. The majority of fans in my experience lament MJ’s treatment in the modern era not because they want her to be a Trophy Wife but to RETURN to having the same dynamic she had pre-OMD where she was Peter’s wife and partner, with the Straczynski run being one of (but by no means only) example of the dynamic at its best. To call her a trophy wife would mean they functionally ONLY desire her as a status symbol for Peter when that is something I do not think most fans have ever even inadvertently indicated.

“Hate on all the new comics without reading them”

I absolutely see your POV on this but there is a nuance to consider here.

I am very hard line that Spider-Man, Batman, Superman and so forth should remain true and consistent to their established characterisations, world building, core concepts etc. I utterly reject the frankly over simplistic philosophy that ‘There are no bad ideas. Just bad execution.’ There are ABSOLUTELY bad ideas.

Ideas and execution both exist on a spectrum of quality. You could in fact have an objectively bad idea with good execution. The best example for Spider-Man would be Doc Ock’s death in the Clone Saga. They killed him to make Kaine look cool and have shock value; bear in mind they 100% intended this to be permanent. This was an objectively stupid and damaging idea that they correctly reversed later. But, the execution of the story itself was on balance incredibly strong as it has a tremendous exploration of Doc Ock’s psyche as he essentially deals with a mid-life crisis and saves Spider-Man’s life in order to use him to motivate himself in the future, only to ironically die at the end. Good execution. Bad idea.

With that all being said, someone telling you that Eddie Brock is Carnage, Mary Jane is Venom, Spider-Gwen has been integrated into the main universe and Peter Parker hugs Norman Osborn doesn’t require you to read the stories to hate them and call them out as bad. These are objectively bad ideas that it is creatively bankrupt and irresponsible to write even if you execute them well. When you handle these characetrs you are obliged to respect the past, entertain in the present and insure for the future simultaneously. In doing these ideas you are undermining the journey they have been on up until this moment and in essence treating characters like action figures you can play with in any way you desire and it doesn’t matter. It does matter because every huge deviation from their core concept is baggage in their history that undermines the verisimilitude of the narrative.

This is especially the case when you short term change a character’s moral alignment for shock value or make them into a new identity of a pre-established character. It is fundamentally creatively bankrupt because it is tactitly admitting you cannot cook up something new WITHIN the boundaries of the established world building or characterisation. Like its incredibly cheap to make a brand new Batman story where he has Superman’s powers because Batman having Batman’s abilities is exactly what defines him as Batman. So to do that is peddling cheap novelty as opposed to something of real substance. Tom DeFalco and Ron Frenz in the 1980s told bold new Spider-Man stories that featured character development all WITHOUT having someone else be Spider-Man, or without making supporting characters super heroes.

I guess what I am saying is that there are in fact PRINCIPLES that should be respected no matter the execution, meaning even if the execution was good (which in the examples I cited that was not even the case anyway) if you violate them you have already failed. If you have a alien space shit appear in the third act of Lord of the Rings you have failed, and you do not need to see the movie to know it is bad because, on principle, there should NOT be alien space ships in Lord of the Rings.

By extension, in a post-OMD status quo, Spider-Man’s quality can only ever be good on a relative scale because on principle OMD being baked in fundamentally undermines the core concept of the character. In essence every post-OMD Spider-Man story actually ABOUT Peter Parker is inherently bad because it is built upon a horrific foundation that violates the principles of the character. We can only at best evalute its quality relatively by saying ‘Well, if we put OMD aside for a minute the story was good actually” Bear in mind I’d strongly argue that Post-OMD Spider-Man, including Kelly’s run, on balance features atrocious writing even when taken strictly on its own merits.

“Joe Kelly’s run is garbage”

Again, in principle I get where you are coming from. People shouldn’t lambast a run if they have not read it. But, even putting aside everything I said above, I have read his run and I can say that it is in fact garbage and in fact MUCH worse than people were claiming at the start. At the start people were saying it was good when in reality it was merely less bad than Zeb Wells’ run.

I’ve read Kelly’s Spider-Man works since like the early 2000s (I can’t recall if he ever wrote Spider-Man before that, maybe?) at it was questionable back then as he seriously violated continuity and then proceeded to do far worse stuff during Brand New Day, the best example being his gross character assassination of the Black Cat in 2009.

“Make sure to glaze USM and never actually read it.”

For the record I’d strongly argue both classic and modern USM titles are ridiculously over rated.

The art is very very good in both, but the writing is inconsistent and is ultimately Bendis and Hickman’s Spider-Man AU rewrite fanfiction, not an organic exploration of the premises they were advertised as having nor often attributed as having.

Hickman’s USM was presented as Family Man Spider-Man when it wasn’t really, that was a component of the story but not truly the premise of it. I blame marketing for that though. Hickman apparently wanted to tell this weird AU revolution story or something, IDK wtf he was doing by the end of that thing.

Meanwhile, Bendis’ USM is disgustingly glazed as ‘capturing the spirit of the original stories in the modern day’ when it did not really do that either. You cannot in good concious say you are doing that when Richard Parker is frankly more important than Uncle Ben, when there is relatively little focus upon Peter as a provder for his household, where Nick Fury is a pivotal semi-recurring character, where Harry is almost entirely absent, where Peter and Gwen’s relationship is mainly platonic for the most part and where virtually ALL of the villains are shallow imitations of their original selves and/or have different for the sake of being different changes. Like making the Green Goblin a literal Goblin monster who is green is NOT a moderinsation it is randomly different and it absolutely does not capture the spirit of the original character. Making Doc Ock have magnetic powers is much the same. How they did Eddie brock is more defensable because it makes him a dark counterpart to Peter, but when he at least initially became Venom he became this practically mindless monster whereas 616 Venom always had a personality of some kind, a twisted humour to counter Peter’s quips.

“Mary Jane is the only love interest for Peter”

In nearly 30 years in this fandom I have literally NEVER encountered anyone claiming this even once. EVERYONE is aware that Peter has other love interests. Now, are they arguing that MJ is the only person who SHOULD be with Peter? Sure, that’s a far more common take. But NOBODY thinks Spider-Man has no love interests exempting MJ, especially in the modern day where so many people got into Spider-Man via the movies or video games  where he was with MJ, Gwen, Liz or Felicia.

“Has MJ had any real character development in over 30 years?”

Well, she did up until 2007 when Marvel through OMD regressed her character. Fred Van Lente, who wrote the arc that actively re-introduced her into the main cast in 2009 (Red Headed Stranger) literally said in an interview at the time that he was writing her the way she was pre-marriage. Which is foolish because logically she wouldn’t LOSE all her 1987-2007 character development just because she was no longer married to Peter.

Has she had character development since 2007? No. I can very definitively say no. At best you had Nick Spencer who did his best to write her closer to how she used to be, which I suppose is character development from the POV that she was regressed and he developed her back to where she was (kinda). But in real terms? No MJ has 100% not had any character development. She’s had character assassination. This by the way would include her stint as Iron Man’s aid. She by rights should HATE Tony for what he did to Peter, Aunt May and herself during Civil War (2006) but oh so conveniently Bendis ignored all that. And when all was said and done in what ways did she even develop during that run? She helped run a company…which is functionally similar to running a night club which is more in keeping with her established history any way.

“We ignore all that character development and view her as Peter’s trophy wife”

Again, I have NEVER encountered fans who honestly view MJ as Peter’s trophy wife EXCEPT for the people who are ANTI-Marriage. Those people do indeed ignore her character development.

But the impression I am getting from your video, which I admit I might be misreading you, is that MJ HAS developed in the post-OMD era and you are frustrated that people view her as a character who should ONLY be Peter’s wife. If I have your views correct, then, again, that is not an accurate reflection of the mass fandom opinion. Most fans want MJ to be Peter’s wife and partner ala the pre-OMD era like the 90s or JMS’ run where she was his best friend and confidant as well as his lover. They don’t want just a pretty face that makes Peter look like a giga chad for having sex with her.

And as I said above, post-OMD, MJ hasn’t had ANY legitimate character development to speak of.

“Gwen is just as good as Mary jane”

So again lets get nuanced about this. You are calling out the folks who hype up Gwen. I wholeheartedly agree with this and honestly despise the Cultist of Saint Gwendolyn.

However, it must be said, you earlier on claimed that LARPers are unaware of Peter’s girlfriends exempting MJ but are also calling them out for hyping up Gwen to be as good as MJ, which would mean they do in fact know about other Spidey girlfriends.

“Project your own issues onto Spider-Man”

Completely agree with this point and its one you should know applies to older fans as well as younger ones.

I once knew a fan who’d been reading since the 1970s who took issue with the Uncle Ben scene from ASM #500 because Peter and Uncle Ben’s conversation is not like the conversation he believed he’d have had with his own deceased father if he’d had the chance to talk to him again. This is ridiculous projection because a proper analysis of the scene would be asking what PETER would be saying and doing in that scene, not what YOU would be doing. None of us have Peter’s specific history.

“If a writer makes a change to the status quo make sure to get super angry about it and harass them online and send them death threats”

Depending on what specifically the change to the status quo is  reader is entitled to be angry about it. But you are 100% correct that they are NOT entitled to harass a writer or send them death threats.

However, why are you bringing that up in the context of calling out LARPers. Superior Spider-Man happened in 2012-2014. The YT video essayist or Spider-Man twitter community wasn’t really a thing back then and as such the LARPers who gain their opinions from them or hang out there didn’t exist, at least not in significant numbers.

I also don’t think you can honestly call someone who sends a death threat over something like Superior Spider-Man a LARPer. A piece of garbage undeniably so, someone who misunderstood the values Spider-Man stands for, 100%. But they are not PRETENDING to be be a fan as a skin suit for their identity. You’d be unlikely to ever go to those extremes if you were LARPing. You’d simply move on to the next thing to LARP sooner or later.

“Bonus years later you can look back at this change and talk about how good it was and how it was over hated”

On this point, I honestly do not know what you are talking about. I was deep into the Spider-Man fandom when Superior was happening.

Superior was absolutely NOT hated. On the contrary, it was ridiculously glazed as this incredible and God tier story. People who were hammering Slott before and after Superior were usually handing out very positive reviews during it. That same 1970s old school fan I mentioned would hand out a A or B grade reviews to issues where Otto as Spidey would invade Shadowland with his private army and then talk about how unbelievable it was that in the 1980s Peter ever entertained the idea that Flash Thompson could be the Hobgoblin, totally hypocritical.

Whilst death threats and harassment is unacceptable (a lesson Slott himself should have learned given his history of bullying), Superior was frankly NOT hated enough. The level of contrivance, character assassination and mischaracterisation needed to hold that garbage story together is insane.

Superior Spider-Man is almost certainly the single most OVER RATED Spider-Man story in 616 canon and that was the case even at the time, let alone since then when it’s reputation has grown even more positive despite how objectively awful it is. In this regard its akin to Spider-Man’s version of Civil War (2006). Aweful story that is glazed to high heaven and back.

“Give current USM, KLH and Clone Saga, Spider-Man Blue s recommendations to beginners”

Again, maybe this is some weirdo Spider-Man Twitter phenomenon I am unaware of but I have literally NEVER seen anyone suggest any of these aside from KLH to beginners, Even recommending KLH is usually in the context of recommending a few things to start with, like ‘Read these first and then KLH’, but never as the LITERAL first thing to read.

Spider-Man Blue is a far more justifiable recommendation. I do not like the story, but I fail to see why it is a bad rec for newbies. Gwen being dead is not a spoiler, especially since everyone knows it from ASM2.

“Never read a comic pre-2000s except McFarlane”

Doesn’t this undermine your earlier point about recommending beginners start with KLH or the Clone Saga? KLH was 1987 and Clone Saga was 1994-1996. In fact it has a lot of Bagley art so if people are glazing original USM logically the art from Bagley in the 90s wouldn’t put them off.

“Pretend TASM2 is the best movie and over hated”

Again I’ve only seen a few people ever say this and it was one adult and otherwise people who were like teens in 2015 when the Webb movies hadn’t yet been rebooted.

While we are at it lets deconstruct the TikTok rubbish that inspired the above video.

a) MJ has not had any real character development since the 1990s

Mary Jane had shittons of development in JMS' run, both in ASM and satellite titles. E.g. when she and Peter were on the run and she was tempted to abandon him but realised she fell for him the night Gwen died

b) You are allowed to disagree with Hitop films and tbh I find him annoying, but it is not the case that his personal views of Spider-Man are generally misinterpretations of the character. He has a decent grasp of Spider-Man's mythos. Nobody should be taking his word as gospel INSTEAD of thinking for themselves but the impression from this tiktok is that HiTop is middling in terms of his grasp of Spider-Man and, however you feel about him, that is not the case. In an era where everyone was glazing Homecoming he was one of the few who correctly pointed out that it was utterly disrespectful to the core concept of Spider-Man.

c) Claiming Parker Industries was progression betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of Spider-Man and an inability to look beyond the superficial.

First off, Parker industries was estabished by Otto and Peter got control of it after Superior. Moreover, Otto in secret was pulling stirngs for PI withint he Living Brain robot. So how exactly does this count as progress for Peter when he in no way shape or form earned it himelf?

Moreover, progress CANNOT simply happen in any given direction. It must happen within the context of the established core concept of the character, meaning Peter to become a rich and internally famous tech bro is progression for him but in the WRONG direction, no different from him 'progressing' in the 1990s when he became THE SPIDER due to a mental breakdown and going all grim and dark.

This mentality is also kind of...gross frankly. It literally codifies that to be a rich, famous and head of your own company is inherently the natural trajectory for progress and success when Peter in for example the MC2 universe was a forensic scientist with a wife and children. That is progress that keeps Peter in line with his established core concept that also DOESN'T render him as a broke manchild.

This point is in essence claiming that people complaining about Parker Industries is what led to it ending when Marvel were always going to do that because their business model is to reset Spidey for the next run to take over, sure enough PI ended not too long before Slott was ousted in 2018. MARVEL want Spider-Man to be a manchild, the readers want him married with kids, the opposite of a man-child

Lets also consider that it is just a massive self-report to ever look at the era where Peter Parker was in essence written as a shitty Iron Man rip off who INVADED A NATION WITH HIS PRIVATE ARMY and conclude it was a good era that we fans 'ruined' by complaining about it.

BTW, Whilst Peter should probably be 35 Marvel is insistant he is in fact 25 forever

d) Is Spider-Man the most popular modern day superhero? Batman outsells him in terms of comics that is for sure.

[traincat]

Is there a canon Peter/Betty age gap? I know they dated when he was in high school and she was working as a secretary, but her wiki says she dropped out of high school to work? Just wondering, because I'm not a fan of adult/minor relationships.

In Amazing Spider-Man #9, Betty tells Peter she left high school the year before:

So at most, she’d be about 18 or 19, possibly younger, doubtfully older – realistically speaking, there’s probably a little bit of an age gap, but not exactly the same as one might picture thinking of a more modern secretary in their 20s, it being a different time and all. If you look at Betty vs Liz, the original love triangle, it becomes clear that Peter preferring Betty is meant to convey that he likes the more “mature” (in terms of personality, not years) sensible type, the brunette secretary with her bobbed hair vs the curly haired blonde popular girl whose father owns a social club. It being the 60s, it’s not like it would be expected by readers in the day that Betty would have gone to college or even graduated high school before securing a secretarial role – I think even without the confirmation, it would be safe to assume, given the time period and how she’s treated, that she was a young girl even if she did have a job. The only other reference I can find to her age off the top of my head is from Webspinners #9, a much later comic, where Betty almost goes to Peter’s prom with him but ends up returning to work at the Bugle because she feels out of place among the promgoers, referring to herself as “not a teenager anymore”, but that’s a little vague. She does say in the same storyline that she should be dozing in a college class instead of at work at the Bugle.

(I will say Ned Leeds is almost certainly several years older than both Betty and Peter when he first appears and gets involved in the love quadrangle, speaking of age gaps in canon pairings.)

Untold Tales of Spider-Man #12 goes more into Betty’s life at the point where she quit school and started working at the Bugle, if you’re interested: 

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

This is incorrect. Stan Lee stated she was in fact the same age or younger than Peter. In the 1960s it was not unusual for women aged 16-18 to be full time employed in certain fields including as secretaries

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

When asked directly if Peter Parker’s failure to act is responsible for Uncle Ben’s death, Joe Russo (via CBR) had a clear and simple answer: “No.” “Spider-Man was one of my favorite characters growing up,” he told CBR. “What I related to was this idea of a kid with incredible responsibility. I think you could manifest that responsibility through accidental death, and feeling the pressure, and the sense of loss in your life in a way that would keep the spirit that we wanted. “If Peter blamed himself for his Uncle Ben’s death, I think he becomes a very different character,” he continued. “That would have been a different interpretation of the character, a more intense interpretation of the character.”

The Russo Brothers Just Revealed a Major Change to Spider-Man's Backstory | Den of Geek

In the MCU, Peter Parker had a different lesson about great power, great responsibility.

I was saying this shit for 10 years.

Yes. He becomes a very different character.

Specifically he becomes SPIDER-MAN instead of Little Iron Boy Jr.

This is like saying 'It is a more intense interpretation of Batman to have him motivated by witnessing the murder of his parents.'

And the crazy part? This isn't even true. Maguire's Peter was goofy. Garfield's Spider-Man was very quippy. Shit, THE COMICS present Peter as having a sense of humour in the wake of Uncle Ben's death. To say nothing of Spider-Man '94 or Spec Spidey.

This is just a tacit admission that the MCU not only fundamentally misunderstood Spider-Man, but actively wanted to woobify him.

Disgusting.

@katitabcht I understand him perfectly. That's the problem. MCU Spider-Man IS NOT Spider-Man in the first place because he foundationally lacks Spider-Man's origin that involves Uncle Ben dying as a result of his inaction and by extension teaching him the great power = Great responsibility mantra. That component of Spider-Man is not optional. It is mandatory. If you do not have it you are at best going to capture aspects of Spider-Man but but the heart of the character. There is a reason the major versions of Spider-Man that omitted that were incredibly early adaptations of him like the 1977 TV Show or 1970s Manga.

[anishenanigans]

rlly fascinating phenomenon to me is when a character is extremely popular, and that popularity seems understandable enough because they've got something interesting going on, and then you look at the fandom and realize 99% of their fans don't actually care about engaging with any of the things that make them interesting and instead seem to be fans of an imaginary milquetoast version that exists solely for ship and/or angst content and is so far removed from the canon character they might as well be an unrelated OC at this point

[seriousfic]

[georgettekaplan]

Not for nothing, but A Knight Of The Seven Kingdoms is doing "my mentor and role model was actually far more heavily flawed than I like to remember, but he still gave me support and an ideal to aspire to, now I must try to be the hero that he wanted to be but couldn't manage to achieve"

FAR FAR BETTER

in a few half-hour episodes than MCU Spider-Man has done in a trilogy of movies.

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

Rest in Power Sal Buscema

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

i'm so tired of this 'it could be fun' argument being brought up. Just because you can do somethign doesn't mean you should. There are principles that should be observed and respected as opposed to a free for all bonanza where anything goes because who cares, nothing means anything any way.

Mary Jane should not be a super powered person whatsoever. Nor should Alfred. And it was lame when they did exactly that with Alfred all the way back in the Silver Age. Her competency as a civilian is part of her appeal that made her stand out. By just making her a superhero she is...what? What is she? she is just a generic superhero. The cheap 'novelty' is merely 'Whoa! You've never seen Spider-Man's GF as a superhero have you?' Fun perhaps as a one off story like in Spider-Island, but not as the premise of a series, even a short lived one. And Venom?

Again, principles. Venom shouldn't just be able to be anything because then he means nothing. Venom should either be a villain for Spider-Man or a dark anti-hero reflection of Spider-Man. Where Spider-Man avoids killing Venom is a lethal protector. Where SPidey cracks quips Venom cracks macabre jokes evoking violent imagery. Where Spider-Man is falsely labelled as a menace and sometimes wonders if that's true (even though it isn't), Venom really is a menace and has a near absolute conviction that he is protecting the innocent.

But now he is bonded to Mary Jane. Yeah? So what? "Whoa, the guy who terrorised Mary Jane (like 3 times at most) is now bonded to her! Wow you've never seen that before have you?" Correct. I haven't, except in RYV. And I only saw it there because it wasn't done in canon. And it wasn't done in canon because it is a creatively bankrupt idea just like 99% of 'lets invert this character's alignment' stories have been.

For goodness sake, MJ isn't even involved with Peter right now, which would have made the concept of her being Venom THE most intersting thing it could be. His lover and his enemy (who is allegorical to a jilted lover) are one and the same. The drama from that would have at least been more juicy compared to this rubbish where she is just...my ex who is with my ex who is also my ex enemy...okay.

Call me nuts but frankly, I have a lot more respect for writers who can make something new and engaging out of the characters in their traditional status quos rather than when those are completely upended or inverted or where you have made Character A into Character B.

Like it's way more impressive to flesh out MJ with a backstory that fits what we knew of her vs making her into a superhero, let alone Venom.

It is way more impressive to say 'hey Peter is all grown up and loved science, what if he teaches science at his old school' vs 'Whoa! What if he's a tech bro CEO! Or Evil. Or in SPACE!'.

It's way more impressive to take Doc Ock and give him an origin story that expands his characetr to explain him as the product of a toxic version of Aunt May, a smothering mother, taking nothing away whilst adding immense depth vs 'Look! Look! Now Doc Ock IS Spider-Man!'.

It is way more impressive to explore how, at the end of the day, Norman Osborn is a sad, lonely pathetic vindicitve old man and express that through a story where he tries to goad Spidey into killing him because he can't face just shooting himself rather than 'Wowza! Norman Osborn is now evil Iron Man guys! Wowza Norman is now Hush guys! Wowza Norman is Carnage now guys! Wowza Norman is a good guy now guys! Wowza Norman is now Spider-Man guys!'

And don't even get me started on Spider-Gwen and Gwenpool and new Gweenpool

Character A with moral alignment B is now Character C with moral alignment Z smacks of creative bankruptcy and cynicism, writers and editors who have lost confidance in the characters as characters in their own right so they generate cheap shock value from them being other characters for extended periods of time. Because they cannot fathom anything new to do with them as their normal selves that is in line with the history that far better writers than they are built.

Yeah I said it.

Al Ewing is NOT that great guys.

Joe Kelly is NOT that great guys.

Dan Slott was NEVER that great guys.

I get it. You have predominantly grown up on USM (old or new) or post-BND shite and you therefore weren't baptised in Spider-Man stories where, guess what, Doc Ock was Doc Ock, Green Goblin was Green Goblin, Venom was Venom, Mary Jane was Mary Jane and Spider-Man was Spider-Man.

But I did. Most of the fanbase that made Spider-Man popular enough that everyone else got their movies, cartoons and video games did.

So, whilst the rest of y'all walk around saying 'it's all Spider-Man. It's all fluid all of the time.' me and the old school fans know that's a fucking lie, hence why Spider-Man's sales are dog shit and the character's credibility is in the toilet currently within the comic book realm.

[sotheywrotestories]

The Effects of Stan Lee

Steve was the first to rise with the sun. His morning run was never put off by anything, even by the overwhelming sense of gloom that was this morning. 

When Bucky left his room to find Steve immobile on the couch, there was a definite sense of wrongness. 

And there was nothing else to describe it. 

Tony and Bruce (being since they were up all night) were the next to the common area, where Steve and Bucky were both mourning on the couch, with no ambition to do anything, no sense of nationality to fulfill. And instead of working to keep their minds busy and away from the awful stench of wrong, the two scientists fell morose. 

There was something wrong this morning, but no one was sure quite what. 

When Wanda and Vision came stumbling into the kitchen, both trudging with no apparent reason, it was clear that whatever it was that was affecting people, was affecting everyone. Not just a few. 

It was quiet, which was always strange in the tower. Natasha and Clint weren’t bickering, they had lost the will to do so. 

Peter wasn’t animated. His voice was low, he had no desire to ask questions or to save the city, but no one appeared to want to jeopardize the city, either. 

The Sanctum was still, Dr. Strange still huddled in bed, the depression of the cosmos lingering in his mind. He had the slightest sense of what was going on, but not even he could be sure. 

In Africa, T’Challa spent his morning traveling to see M’Baku, but not to speak, rather only to sit in silence.

Shuri was slumped in a chair in her lab, the Dora Milaje spread out across the border, regardless of the lack of a threat. 

Even far, far beyond the cosmos of the sorcerers, where beings lived without care, the ever moving and constant ship was still. It was not restricted to humans. Raccoons and trees alike were grasping for something that resembled their life, some sort of hope. 

There was none.

Up in the palace of Asgard, even two seldom brothers could relax for one day. One day where no one in the entire realm spoke or paid attention to the dark clouds that were rolling through the realm, no doubt a side effect of Thor’s solemn mood. 

Cassie gave her father enough space when she first got to his house, able to tell immediately that something wasn’t right. Not even Hope could help. 

It was a collective silence that had enveloped the whole world. It was an entire day of silence dedicated the one man no one thought could ever die. There was an unspoken rule about disrespect that was followed by everyone. Criminal or not. 

And in the collective moment of silence, there was a knock of realization. 

What does one do, when the person who created you…is gone? When the father of all things passes onto to create things we may never see?

Without Stan Lee, this would have been the world. Cold, emotionless, a mass of regret and silence. 

You brought laughter and light into this world, Mr. Lee. Thank you, and Excelsior. 

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

A fitting tribute today to mark Stan’s birthday