If Darwyn Cooke exploited Will Eisner's Spirit for leftist propaganda, that's disturbing and devastating

There used to be a site called Comics Bulletin, which was in operation until about 5 years ago. Now, it appears other sources in the UK have since bought the domain and put it to use for what's basically a new specialty site with a blog format. And here's one of their entries from over a year ago, which most unfortunately is leftist apologia for the post-911 era, and tells something rather eyebrow raising about the late artist Darwyn Cooke's run on the new Spirit volume from the late 2000s, adapted from Will Eisner's famous comics from 1940-52 by DC Comics, which apparently had acquired a license for it 2 decades ago, after Eisner's passing:

While not as well known as Batman’s or as colorful as Dick Tracy’s, like other masked heroes the Spirit has a long, well-established list of rogues. The differentiating factor, however, is that The Spirit’s rogues gallery is primarily made up of femme fatales. This is one of the few things the terrible Frank Miller movie got right, but even then it overlooked the most prominent of them all, P’Gell. From her first appearance in The Spirit Section #332 (October 6, 1946), she made an immediate impression thanks to her striking beauty, which Cooke gives a modern update in The Spirit #2.

Before proceeding any further, the character of Hussein must be discussed. Islamophobia was rampant in the post-9/11 world of the Bush Presidency. As a result, it would be easy for this character to be a racial caricature and no one would bat an eye. Given their introduction on the issue’s very first page, that may be the initial impression given. He’s smarmy and vile, but also depicted in such an unserious manner where readers feel he can be dismissed out of hand. But as the story unfolds, Hussein proves again and again to be a worthy foil to The Spirit – while also being much more than he initially presents himself.

The issue’s end when he and the Spirit walk off together in a Casablanca homage is Cooke’s exclamation point on this character’s inclusion – that the rampant and accepted Islamaphobia of that time was just as wrong as the offensive depiction of Ebony in the original Eisner comics. A welcome addition to The Spirit lore, Hussein would resurface throughout the duration of Cooke’s run.

First off, I don't think the Spirit was comprised "primarily" of femme fatales, even if there were several such notable characters there. It did have male adversaries too. That potential flaw aside, I can't remember if I'd fully considered it earlier, but if Cooke was applying a far-left vision to a comic originally created by a guy whose last GN gave focus to Islamic antisemitism as much as any other form...that's very disturbing, and easily worse than dumbing down the character design for a gal like Catwoman. It can also make one wonder if the focus on femme fatales in this new comic by Cooke has a different meaning to it than previously thought. And, lest I forget, is the character of Hussein an allusion to Saddam?

As for what's said about Ebony White, the writer - doubtless totally deliberately - obfuscated the differences between race and religion, and it should be pointed out that save for the unfortunate character design in the Golden Age comics, Ebony was depicted respectably and heroically, and Eisner himself wrote in his introduction to his Fagin the Jew GN some time before his death that he hadn't considered that the character design for Ebony was the same thing he took issue with when it came to antisemitic propaganda caricatures. None of which is brought up in the modern puff piece, and the writer should be ashamed of himself for giving his backing to a story that could've been written out of contempt for somebody who was more successful than Cooke ever was.

It shouldn't have to be pointed out that the writer of this puff piece insulted 911 Families when he wrote this retrospective, and provides no concrete proof to explain why disapproval of the Religion of Peace itself is wrong. I remember when the original Comics Bulletin site once posted a ludicrous declaration they didn't want to read Dynamite publishins any longer. Which was stupid enough, but now we have a new bunch that's turning even worse propaganda than their predecessors. And that's not good for the medium's reputation.

Dungeon Crawler Carl gets a comics series, and D'Orc comic gets a movie adaptation

In case it wasn't what was announced before when they previously reported about it, Variety's announced the fantasy novel series will be seeing a comics adaptation, by which I guess they mean an ongoing (and there's also a webtoon adaptation):

New achievement! “Dungeon Crawler Carl” is getting a comic series!

The popular fantasy, LitRPG books by author Matt Dinniman will receive an ongoing comic book series from Vault Comics. The double-sized, 48-page first issue will launch in comic book stores beginning in January 2027. The following issues will be released monthly.

The new comic will serialize the hit “Dungeon Crawler Carl” webtoon series. Writer Tevagah and Laurel Pursuit Studios, which provides artwork, will make the jump from the webtoon to the ongoing comic series. Artist Kuzomari also joins the series, which will have scaled-up art that fits the comic book page.

I know there's been some fantasy books that've been adapted, including Michael Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone, so it looks like we have here another, similar example in preparation. But it'd be a lot more impressice than it sounds if they hadn't preceded this with graded variant copies. Again, that takes away from the better impact an announcement like this could have, and if it's only being sold as pamphlets, that's again a flaw.

On the other hand, Deadline's announced the comics series D'Orc will be getting a movie adaptation:

Sony Pictures has acquired live-action film rights to the bestselling comic book series D’Orc, with its author and illustrator Brett Bean attached to adapt for the screen.

The film plot is under wraps, but the comic book series marries swashbuckling humor with sprawling magical mythology and creatures wrapped in a gritty, action-driven fantasy adventure. Published by Image Comics, the series debuted earlier this year and became an instant bestseller Its first issue sold out before its release and is now on its eighth printing. Subsequent issues also have gone into multiple printings.

As yet more pamphlets, right? Seriously, I just don't understand why the creators want to do it that way, when here, they have a big opportunity to publish it as a whole GN in paperback or hardcover, and find more audience that way if it's sold in regular bookstores. Fantasy adventure can be great, and maybe the movie will be too, if they avoid being PC. But the opportunity to reach a wider audience in a format more appealing so far seems to have been all but missed, and that's a shame.

Whitney Museum's Roy Lichtenstein exhibition

Artefuse wrote about an exhibition of the art of Roy Lichtenstein, a now famous artist who drew inspirations from comics artwork, at the Whitney Museum, and the odd thing about this review is that the writer says Lichtenstein "appropriated":

Roy Lichtenstein was a real New Yorker. There are not many of those anymore. He was born and raised on the Upper West Side in a middle-class family and eventually became one of the most recognizable artists of the Pop Art movement, but his work extends beyond the comic-book paintings most people associate with him. [...]

The exhibition includes plenty of famous works, mixed with lesser-known pieces that, according to the Whitney, have not been seen in a long time. The appropriation is part of what makes the exhibition interesting: cartoons imitating life, life imitating art, and then back to life again. The main dark room on the west side has one of the best layouts. It keeps the story moving, almost like a storyboard, except this is Lichtenstein’s own comic-book retrospective of his art. The images pull you in, but the longer you look, the more you realize how carefully everything has been constructed.

Appropriation makes Lichtenstein’s work more interesting and complicated to me, and this is where the exhibition really has something to say. He borrowed from comic strips, advertisements, and other artists, transforming familiar popular images into something that looked unmistakably like his own. The images still look mechanical, but up close, they are handmade. But that raises a question that still follows contemporary art: when does borrowing become an original act, and who decides?

Oh, for heaven's sake. This sounds like an attempt to minimize the impact of his art, even as he does speak favorably of Lichtenstein's portfolio. I think what he drew in his time is impressive, does a good service for comics by extension, and to make it sound more like he "borrowed" yet isn't being original is trivializing his influence. On the other hand, they should consider how comics artwork today in the mainstream became much duller, perhaps as a very regrettable effect of the cancel culture and censorship of the past decade. I've seen some examples from Lichtenstein's art that are much livelier than say, the dark crime noir overrated comics writers like Ed Brubaker are producing, and what Lichtenstein turned out makes for a far better source of inspiration.

So could we please consider that artists like Lichtenstein are the figures we should really look to for what makes great art and what to emulate? I think that's what should be considered now. And the news site's writer shouldn't be implying the late artist was "unoriginal". On the contrary, Lichtenstein had a very idea of what to draw inspiration from in his time.

Jewish creators exhibition in Milwaukee

The Shepherd Express of Milwaukee wrote about the history of the medium's Jewish contributors, now the subject of an exhibition at their local Jewish museum:

Superman was invented in 1938 by two Jewish kids from Cleveland, Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster. They grew up on a diet of pulp sci-fi and Sunday comic strips, fields where Jewish Americans held a prominent place. Their idea for a superhero-in-disguise, his alien origins concealed beneath the blandly affable image of Clark Kent, encoded their experiences as children of refugee immigrants in a society where difference could be dangerous as Kryptonite.

Their stories and their work, amongst many others, are at the heart of “Chosen Heroes: The Jewish Comics Experience” at Jewish Museum Milwaukee. Although the exhibition’s scope is wide, much of it is focused on the Jewish pioneers of America’s comic book industry, a once reviled trade that quickly colonized the imagination of adolescents and gradually ascended to the summit of world pop culture. By 2018, half of the 10 highest grossing movies of the year were based directly on comic books. The DC and Marvel universes were created by Jewish American demiurges.

“Jewish artists invented the modern superhero,” says Molly Dubin, the Jewish Museum’s curator. “They were second generation Americans, and it wasn’t by chance that they became so influential in the comic book industry.” Excluded by antisemitism from many economic sectors, American Jews took an early lead in turning movies into an industry, made fortunes from rags and scrap metal and mined the untapped market for African American music. “Comic books were a fledgling endeavor,” Dubin continues. “It was an opportunity for them to step into a new creative space and make it their own.”

Yes, and one that's since been degraded by modern ingrates while their apologists won't say anything about it. And while the article noticeably does employ the word "refugee", do they still believe using "immigrants" is required, even though there are differences to be considered? I'm tired of all this subtle propaganda in favor of illegal immigrants who enter countries without vetting, which Europe is now bearing the brunt of, and leftist comics creators vehemently refuse to address honestly, if they even say anything about it at all, no matter how much damage it's doing.

The origin stories of several golden age superheroes crafted by Jewish authors are strangely similar. Superman, Bob Kane’s (Robert Kahn’s) Batman and Stan Lee’s (Stanley Lieber’s) Spider-Man all lost their parents to crime and catastrophe. Encoded memories of pogroms? All three lived in disguise, concealing crucial parts of themselves, much like ethno-religious immigrants wrestling with the opposing demands of heritage and assimilation. All three knew there was a lot of bad in the Promised Land of America, albeit, their battles were initially encoded as crime fighting.

“Superman is not Jewish but stood for Jewish values,” Dubin says. “The comic books championed the oppressed. The artists used the medium to speak to what was going on.”

Yes, but today they champion victimology, recalling when Dan Jurgens exploited a title that was one of his leading assignments years before to push pro-Islamic propaganda, along with whitewashed perceptions of illegal immigration. As though somebody who's "poor" couldn't possibly commit criminal offenses in any way. That was a disservice to the memory of Siegel and Shuster, and if Jurgens hasn't publicly apologized for his propaganda piece, that's a problem.

Exhibitions like these are always admirable, but if they won't explore recent history objectively, it can and does dilute the quality and impact of the overall exhibition and history. Especially when they don't acknowledge that what Siegel, Shuster and Lee experienced is still an issue today. As a result, what good will these exhibitions do if they don't acnkowledge them through a modern lens?

Poison Ivy may be getting a TV show

In another troubling example of how Batman's rogues gallery are considered oh-so important for film and TV spotlights, Variety announced there may be one in the pipeline for Poison Ivy, at least 60 years after her original debut in the late 1960s:

Another Batman villain may be getting their own TV series.

A Poison Ivy TV show is in the works at HBO with “The Penguin” showrunner Lauren LeFranc as a producer, Variety has confirmed. [...]

Poison Ivy, the green femme fatale from the Batman comics, has never been the main focus of a movie or TV show, but she’s appeared in several live-action and animated DC titles. The classic villain has the ability to control plants and often controls people’s minds using seductive pheromones. She first arrived on the big screen in 1997’s “Batman & Robin” and was played by Uma Thurman. In live-action TV, she also appeared in “Gotham” and “Batwoman,” and she’s popped up in several animated shows like “Batman: The Brave and the Bold,” “The New Batman Adventures,” “Young Justice” and more. Recently, she was voiced by Lake Bell in “Harley Quinn” and played the titular character’s girlfriend.

Much like the overemphasis on Harley Quinn, this too is disgusting, based on how Poison Ivy went on to be potrayed as lethal, using physical and/or chemical powers like toxins to murder people in the Batman comics in past decades. I do wonder, will she be portrayed as lesbian, which seems to have become the norm in the DCU since the turn of the century, recalling the partnership she's had with Quinn in past storylines, and may have been preceded by a vaguely Thelma & Louise-style story in the animated Batman series?

If a lady figure like Catwoman were the spotlight on TV, that would be one thing, since Selina Kyle, by contrast, was depicted as an honorable thief who usually avoided murder and was depicted reforming in later years, one of the reasons she got an ongoing solo series in 1993. But to put so much more emphasis on Poison Ivy and Harley Quinn, as has sadly become the norm much later, has taken things much too far, and what if Pamela Isley's depicted as sexy in contrast to how some heroines have been watered down in the past decade? That would only compound the irritating stereotype that only villaineses can be portrayed as beautiful and sexy, and it's repugnant. I will not have anything to do with something that makes a big deal out of a villainess who's emphasized as deadly as Isley's been written over the years. And by the way, wasn't the 1997 Batman & Robin film a failure?

Racing car project done in collaboration with Marvel makes use of Dr. Doom for inspiration

Formula1 tells about a racing car promotion project done in collaboration with Marvel, making use of livery based on one of the most notorious villains in the MCU:

Williams unveiled a special Doctor Doom-inspired livery earlier this month as part of their ongoing collaboration with Marvel, replacing their usual blue with the villain's trademark black and green colours.

The striking design made its debut at New York Comic Con, where the team showcased a specially-liveried FW48 show car alongside superhero-inspired race suits and exclusive merchandise.

Taking inspiration from one of Marvel's most recognisable villains, the car was displayed as part of an immersive experience celebrating the upcoming Avengers: Doomsday film, with the collaboration bringing together Formula 1 and one of the world's biggest entertainment franchises.

What's so special about a villain that isn't so special about a hero? They do bring up how Iron Man's been put to use in a similar project, and there had been a story in the Silver Age where Happy Hogan rescued Tony Stark from a crashed sport car, which led to the former's employment by the latter. But putting a villain who was written doing sick acts like murder in past stories is insulting to the intellect, and no better than the time when Marvel put Doom in the pages of the 2001 Spider-Man tale that wound up blaming America for 911. What next, a livery project dedicated to the Joker, Bullseye and Sabretooth?

Crossovers between sport and superhero comics may seem unusual, but according to Dr Miriam Kent, Lecturer in Film and Media at the University of Leeds and author of Women in Marvel Films, the relationship between superheroes and sport is nothing new.

"We can look back to the history of superhero publishers working with sports teams or featuring famous athletes – going back to the '50s, '60s and '70s, even,” she explains. “Superhero comics have always had an odd relationship to the 'real world', but it's not unusual to find references to public figures or sports teams. The Thing in Fantastic Four is a fan of the New York Jets, I believe."

Well the difference is that back in the Silver/Bronze Age, when such blendings happened, it was usually just because the writers thought it could make a great story, not because they wanted to do a cross-promotion. Something the interviewees and interviewer obviously won't address.

"I think there is something to be said about Marvel affiliating itself with the cutting-edge technology that's involved in F1. Again, there is a history of this – going back all the way to Iron Man, Marvel had a partnership with [car company] Audi. Tony Stark drove an R8 in the film, and Audi featured the character in its own marketing.

"The superhero genre has long been concerned with what it means to push the limits of technology, where the boundaries are between humans and technology. A lot of the appeal is the tech superheroes have access to. So in a way, cars and superheroes make sense."

But not the entertainment value in the finished product? Or the interactions between heroes and civilian co-stars? That aside, when sales are so dismal today, it's clear not many care about even the technological side of the stories. And not all superheroes are portrayed using the most elaborate technology. Daredevil, for example, made use of a walking stick with hidden gimmicks to change it to a billy club, but not much else in the stories I read from the 1964-98 run, though I realize his blindness probably serves as an explanation.

But back to the main subject, what dismays me here is when a villain as nasty as Doom could be portrayed in past storylines is emphasized in a project like this. Because again, villains with lethal records are not somebody to admire, and this racing car project doesn't improve the situation at all. What's so special about Doom that isn't so special about Black Widow, or better still, Mary Jane Watson? If I were one of the project designers and realized how much fun I could've had producing liveries based on overlooked figures from the MCU, I could just weep.

New Clayface movie looks like it'll flop

John Nolte at Breitbart says the new adaptation of Clayface - another product of filmmaker James Gunn - is not looking good in new reviews or box office prospects:

Clayface, the latest comic book movie from James Gunn’s faltering DC Universe, has drawn tepid reviews and box-office tracking that makes Supergirl look like a monster hit.

“While trailers promised a fun movie for horror fans, the project’s pre-sales have lagged behind the worst-performing DCU film to date,” according to one report. “Currently, Clayface’s domestic pre-sales lag by 80% in comparison to Supergirl’s pre-sales at a similar time, which is a week from its theatrical release.”

The report continues, “Even compared to a more genre-specific competitor, Resident Evil, Clayface is 66% behind on pre-sales. This puts its expected opening weekend collection at $20 million.”

Some tracking shows Clayface’s opening this weekend could dip into the teens. [...]

If Clayface underperforms, the only good news for Gunn is that it didn’t cost much. All in all, production and promotion, it probably cost around $100 million. That means it will have to gross around $200 million worldwide to break even. If it fails to do that…

Then Skydance, as the new owners of Warner Brothers, along with Paramount, will show Gunn the door? Oh well. Truly, he's no filmmaker, considering the films he's most known for include a live action take on Scooby Doo, and a remake of George Romero's Dawn of the Dead during 2004. What's so arty about those kind of brainless popcorn fare? I doubt they'll be considered huge classics by the end of the century.

And why do we need another horror film spotlighting a villain? That's something the film industry has to start moving away from too. Heroism is what the film industry sorely needs a return to.

The appeal of Spider-Man that was destroyed by propagandists who won't defend the hero's dignity

The Conversation wrote a stupefyingly fawning "history" of Spider-Man (via Hip Hop Canada), supposedly to celebrate the non-landmark 1000th issue. Near the start:

This autumn marks a special occasion in the Marvel universe: Spider-Man, perhaps the most popular superhero of all time, has reached issue #1,000 in the comics series.

The tale of a scrawny teen from Queens who was bitten by a radioactive spider at 15, Spider-Man premiered in Marvel’s Amazing Fantasy #15 in August 1962 as a last-ditch attempt to save the dying series. The story of Peter Parker’s witty, agile alter ego quickly became an international sensation.

The defining hero of our times, this 1,000th edition also begs the question: what is it about superheroes that make them routinely outlive almost every other cultural property out there – regular heroes included?

My ongoing research into the world of superhero franchises may present a partial answer. Over the past several years, I have read a few thousand comic books, seen most (if not all) superhero films ever released, and interviewed dozens of superfans across the globe. I believe the secret to the longevity of Spider-Man (as well as countless other superheroes) lies at the nexus of four qualities cultivated over many decades within Marvel and DC, the two largest names in superhero entertainment for almost a century.

Those qualities were destroyed years ago, no thanks to these very same apologists for the publishers and editors, and where they go at the expense of the creations. I'm sure they'd do the same with Daredevil if they thought it made a great target. Does he really think Spidey and other superheroes are outliving other products at this point when they're in such dire artistic straits, and have lost sales and audience as a result?

1. Spider-Man is unreliable

Heroes are heroes because we always know where they stand. From Hercules to Luke Skywalker, a hero is a person of generally high principles and integrity. Heroes are reassuringly reliable, almost by definition.

In contrast, superheroes are compelling because they are unreliable, even to themselves. For instance, Spider-Man quits being Spider-Man altogether in The Amazing Spider-Man #50, and publicly unmasks in the Civil War comic book series (which undermines the character’s long-established anonymity). He is actually replaced in The Amazing Spider-Man #698-700 by arch-villain Doctor Octopus, who for a while becomes a harsher, more violent “superior” Spider-Man.

Across these stories, Spider-Man is never just a fixed moral archetype. Instead, he is a character whose very meaning can be repeatedly unsettled. And, comparing Spider-Man across different eras and manifestations fascinates the fans, who can never agree on what Spider-Man actually is outside of the name and a now-canonised origin story.

Look who's talking. A so-called "researcher" who's proven he's utterly unreliable if he brings this up entirely sans objectivity. He doesn't see anything wrong with Civil War, whose divisive politics were one of the worst things about it, in addition to its being an example of heroes fighting each other more than villains? And he doesn't see anything wrong with the Doc Ock switcheroo story from over a decade ago, one of the most atrocious tales turned out by Dan Slott? The way the Conversation's writer brings that up almost makes it sound like this happened in real life. It didn't, and it's not above criticism, yet no objective approach is taken to referencing it at all. Besides, if superheroes aren't reliable, can't that actually imply they're not so admirable at all?

The writer evidently isn't a Spider-fan, or he'd admit it's regrettable Spidey - and Mary Jane Watson - had to be subject to only many increasingly bad storylines ever since the Clone Saga first came about, though it was with J. Michael Straczynski's run that continuity really got derailed. We could even say it's also where John Romita Jr's artwork started becoming seriously mediocre, which, now that I think of it, is also what the late Darwyn Cooke's artwork could be described as. The Clone Saga is also brought up in the following "point":

2. Spider-Man is actually Spider-People

At first, Spider-Man was just Peter Parker. Over time, however, Spider-Man stopped being a single character and became a narrative role that different characters could inhabit together and in parallel.

For instance, Ben Reilly, introduced as Peter’s clone in The Amazing Spider-Man #149, eventually takes over and becomes Spider-Man during the 1990s Clone Saga. Miguel O’Hara, a brilliant scientist, then reimagines the character for the future in Spider-Man 2099. There are several more incarnations too, including Peter Porker (aka Spider-Ham), a pig bitten by a radioactive spider, Spider-Spider (a spider in the Spider-Man costume), and even a medieval British version called Peter Parquagh.

Over time, Spider-Man no longer describes one biography so much as a portable combination of recognisable powers, a loose moral compass and visual codes. For fans, this makes the brand unusually elastic. As they do not have to agree on a single definitive Spider-Man, they can attach themselves to the version that best fits their tastes.

Gee, doesn't this make clear Spidey's uniqueness has been effectively drained by too many imitations that ultimately don't add up to anything merit-based in terms of writing? This is stupid, and it's practically the reason why the premise of passing the mantle may have only worked with the Flash in the DCU, when Wally West took over where Barry Allen left off, and might've worked far better with the 2nd to 3rd Robin if it hadn't been for how the death of Jason Todd in 1988 was turned into a telephone poll. The Spider-verse cartoon from several years ago is where Peter Parker's uniqueness really got turned meaningless, and does anybody actually talk about it today? At this point, you don't really even hear about it anymore, and decidedly for good reason.

But this does indicate the writer's basically saying that whoever makes a big deal out of characters like Miles Morales at Peter Parker's expense isn't really a fan of the latter's creation in 1962. And it's sad how the creation of a mask that covers the entire head and face wound up being exploited as a way to push social justice propaganda. The columnist doesn't find it even the least bit sad how Stan Lee's creation was diminished by absurd "commercialization" that only makes the whole product pointless? Says all you need to know about what kind of phonies are writing these superficial puff pieces.

3. Spider-Man: no way home

Almost by definition, heroes must undergo the hero’s journey: they are called to an adventure, transformed by an ordeal and eventually return home as changed people. This has been a consistent pattern since Odysseus at least.

In contrast, Spider-Man never really gets to go home, as his supposedly formative experiences simply become the beginning of further experiences. For instance, in The Amazing Spider-Man ##121-122, the death of Gwen Stacy, Peter’s friend and first love, permanently upends the emotional stakes of his life – a fact that reverberates in Spider-Man #1000.

Decades later, however, he marries Mary Jane Watson. But The Amazing Spider-Man #544-545 dissolves this marriage and resets much of his adult existence again. That is, before Brand New Day begins yet another personally tumultuous phase in #546.

None of these moments supply a final transformation. Spider-Man simply can never graduate from being Spider-Man, the tortured Hamlet of superheroes. Therefore, his journey becomes less a cycle and more a never-ending life story in which apparent endings are continuously folded into new beginnings. For fans, this constant regenerativity creates a peculiar promise: older fans can “grow old” with Spider-Man, while new readers always encounter what feels like a brand new beginning.

I guess the writer's saying he absolutely loved One More/Brand New Day, and the embarrassments it led to. He doesn't approach the subject through a critical lens, and worst, makes it sound almost like all this happened in real life. He's obviously not a fan of MJ either, or he would've noted how repellent her treatment as a character's become ever since. And now former editor C.B. Cebulski did no favors by overseeing what looked like a long-called-for reunion between Peter and MJ in 2018, only to break it up shortly afterwards.

The writer sounds like he literally believes Spidey should never have true, organic success at anything, as though every such creation's writing paths should be even more extreme than how Charlie Brown's portrayed in Peanuts. As a result, the Conversation writer only ends up devaluing MJ by extension, and fascinating how he doesn't see anything wrong with Peter making a faustian pact with Mephisto. Even if that's not as abominable as how DC's Identity Crisis played out, it's still very reprehensible and contradicts how Peter was written years before. Even during the Clone Saga, Spidey was never written that absurdly.

4. Spider-Man remembers everything

Traditional heroes usually arrive with relatively little narrative baggage, and their defining trials and transformations are contained within finite and carefully staged stories.

Every new Spider-Man story, however, enters a world already crowded with previous stories. Spider-Man does not merely accumulate stories. Instead, later stories continually reactivate, reinterpret and cross-reference earlier ones.

This accumulated baggage can surely make the Spider-verse difficult to navigate for some. But it also rewards familiarity and time investment: the more Spider-Man you consume, the more meanings, references and connections become visible, turning laborious research into a source of pleasure and expertise.

Spider-Man’s longevity is the product of a highly specific narrative architecture. Spider-Man can contradict himself, multiply into different people, begin again after apparent endings and continuously mine his own past for new stories. These qualities make Spidey unusually difficult to exhaust, as each new generation of fans inherits a Spider-Man that is both recognisably old and strangely new.

Issue #1,000 is therefore less a culmination than a proof of concept. Looking back at more than 60 years of constant reinvention, Spider-Man’s greatest superpower may simply be his ability to go on despite all odds.

I think "remembering everything" is the problem. There's no distinguishing between good and bad storylines here, yet noticeably no mention of Straczynski's Sins Past storyline from 2004, which is where his shoddy run on Spidey really became a serious disaster. Those who initially acted as apologists for JMS and Marvel's mandates should be ashamed of themselves. What's so "carefully staged" about a story where Gwen was made to look dreadful by having sex with Norman Osborn, which she was never overly depicted doing with Peter back in the day?

And the 1000th issue doesn't "prove" anything, save for how badly worn out classic properties have become as a result of all these pointless boomerangs to "grudge matches" between heroes and recurring villains. To keep strip-mining older stories is something that could even be said about various other superhero creations like Superman, Avengers, Iron Man, Batman, and Justice League, but the reason these modern minings fall flat is because they're not done with respect for past continuities up to the turn of the century, and they're not done with respect for the personalities originally attached to the superheroes and co-stars. The writers and upper echelons may claim there's "humanity" and "reality" in these shoddy PC stories of theirs, but it's not organic or plausible so much as it's phony, and only makes the heroes look more like scumbags and idiots than flawed individuals.

And then some propagandists whose fandom is questionable and put words in actual fandom's mouths have the gall to come along and defend the worst directions taken by the writers and editors. To say nothing of acting as apologists for the entire publishing company themselves. If they don't have the courage to admit they're on the side of the company, that's precisely the problem.