Previous Post > I couldn't believe how much positive, creative energy was in this issue. Knocking out the stability of marriage creates a sort of manic electricity to the Parker character. > I'm sorry but at the risk of a minor flame you sound like an idiot here. If you are going to go around the board defending BND at every turn that's fine. If you then enjoy BND when you read it that's great. But to post something like the above and then turn around and accuse everyone else of being a reactionary (when you are obviously being one in the opposite direction) just makes you look foolish. As for the issue, I did read a copy (though I did not give them my money) and it isn't bad. I don't think anyone expected Slott to turn in a lousy story. The issue is that there are already books for this type of thing (Ultimate, Adventures, some new brand they decide to make up) and there was no need to scorch the earth of mainstream continuity. Now, people who like a married Peter have nothing to read while people who like a single Peter have even more books to read. No one that I've seen on this board has questioned the talkent of Slott or McNiven

First, I assure you, Tom, I can't be flamed by you. The lack of importance I assign to your opinion acts as something of a flame retardant.

Anyway...What I said:

"Something, I think, has been lost in the constant flow of Internet commentary: the ability to read the comic as a reader and NOT a reactionary reviewer who wants to treat each issue as though it were a novel or as if they are a creator."

To further clarify I said: "Most comics are better judged by arcs or in sets...as many criticisms shouldn't be leveled on the basis of one issue. The reviewer falls prey to this and then basically admits it."

I modified "reactionary" with a lot of context, all of which you disgarded for the satisfaction of saying that I sounded like a idiot.
Feel better?

I thought it was clear that the based on my comments, that the "reaction" I was criticizing was the over analyzation of particular plot points as though the comic is a complete story.

The reviewer criticizes the story for the details that he believes make Parker seem like a loser because he doesn't want Parker to always seem like a loser...the reviewer then admits that he really can't make that criticism yet. (Why didn't he just delete it, then?)

My reaction to the comic and my post was specifically geared at saying how I FELT reading this particular comic and the fact that the greater uncertainty made things fresh. Thats really not a reactionary parsing of plot points. Regardless what happens next issue, that won't change how I felt about reading this issue.

However, new revelations absolutely could change the reviewers assessment of specific plot elements that make him afraid that Peter will ALWAYS seem like a loser...As he himself admits, its too early to say.

And you can ALWAYS be worried about whether the presence of a plot point means that plot point will be overused in the future. Its that kind of "commentary" that I'm really questioning. Does it improve our enjoyment of comics? Is it effective and meaningful?

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, when I lamented that "something has been lost," I never said that I haven't lost "it" as well.
People who have lost innocence, aren't hypocritical if they lament the loss of society's innocence.

I was talking about the whole community of those who engage in comic commentary.

You assumed I was saying I NEVER do it and that I am above it.

Victor