Monday, July 10, 2017


"When I break My Silence, the impact of My Love will be universal and all life in creation will know, feel and receive of it. It will help every individual to break himself free from his own bondage in his own way. I am the Divine Beloved who loves you more than you can ever love yourself. The breaking of My Silence will help you to help yourself in knowing your real Self."—Avatar Meher Baba


  1. Here is something peculiar I noticed:


    1. Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

    2. It is interesting, however clearly not done by a comic reader. Given how closely some of the economic ideas mirrored the comics it is probably a better look at the socioeconomic climate of 1962 than 2002.

      However it does open up something I thought about typing here for a while.

      You have often called Spider-Man the most complex superhero around (or some similar language). I think I have figured out both why that is and why recent views on the wall-crawler have gotten more... complicated.

      Basic point of fact: In High School, Peter Parker was a nerd. Outside of dress however, he was not a stereotypical nerd.

      He was not awkward or shy, on the second page of Amazing Fantasy 1 he is asking out a girl (bonus points if you can name her without looking it up). He is articulate and confident, she just wasn't interested.

      He may have been picked on, but Flash Thompson was less his tormentor than rival and sparring partner. He gave as good as he got.

      Even removing the Spider-man persona, which does awaken a different side of his personality, Peter is a dichotomy.

      He may be a loner, angry, and introverted, BUT he is also, charismatic, easy to talk to, and even charming. And all of this is established by the end of Lee's tenure (Hell, by the end of Ditko's).

      This is no doubt why his every-man character worked so well, everyone could identify with him in some way. Like parts and hate parts (people forget Pete was kind of a jerk).

      BUT, a lot of superheroes are dichotomous (it is a reflection of the American psyche), why does the wall-crawling weirdo do it so much better.

      Because writers could write him different ways and still have it make sense.

      Gerry Conway (and please speak up if you think I am off please on any of these) played more on the charismatic side. Wein had his duty bound side take over. Wolfman, the somewhat lost youth. Over in Spectacular Mantlo excelled at the lone man of honor and passion. O'Neil the working man, and Stern the bookish nerd.

      From that point on, the gates were open to pull from. And the claim staking became more..interesting. Defalco wrote the man trying to make the complicated world manageable. Peter David a n every man cast against a bizarre background. Dematteis, the Self Reflective, thoughtful soul. Michiline the young man who tries more than anything to prove he is an adult... even to himself. Then for a while Mackie the Man with a job to do, but one he truly enjoys.

      Some problems FORCED on Mackie.

      Then Jenkins returns to the lost man, but now adds the idea that Peter feels he should have figured it out... and perhaps that he never will. Straczynski, had a focus on Peter's desire for a small basic life with loved ones.

      All accurate. All able to be drawn to that first 110 issues by THE MAN, and company.

      SO that explains that. But what about the.. complicated... view from after JMS's run?

      Well, the back to basics idea didn't help. Mackie learned that the hard way. I STILL say it is unfair his good work from before the corporate planned volume 2 is forgotten.

      However, this time they learned. They decided to separate as much as possible. No time on emotional resinence from the shift.

      Unfortunately that meant to bring Peter back to basics, they needed a new idea from go. They rebuilt Peter Parker.

      They went all the way back to the most basic basics of the character... a nerd.

      Now, I am NOT making a judgement call on this. And trends and views on what words mean shift and change over time, from generation to generation, and even person to person.

      This Peter got a new character trace... awkwardness. A trait Peter never had before. He seemed more like a character on the Big Bang Theory than he had before. He seemed like what Stan had not made him, a steroe type.


    3. Now I said this isn't an comment, and it isn't. To be fair, many writers had painted Peter in his youth to be more nerdy than he had been in those issues. Even Spider-Man:Redemption (a comic series I love) had Flash Thompson having a slightly skewed, albeit not entirely inaccurate, take on Pete's High School years. Many great runs by writers I really enjoy did this in flashbacks and comments.

      It became a semi-common tool. It was as a way to embrace the late-bloomer idea more fully, I believe. That's the thing... it was to embrae an idea that he had blossomed more.

      Also in defense of this idea I am not fond of, I think all the ways I noted were reflective of Each writer. Again, feel free to speak u if I am wrong. And if some of the architects of the post-OMD Spider-man connected with That IDEA, and felt that a way to tap into something... it isn't that foolish.

      So there you have it, my view on Why Peter is called a complex character and why fans say the modern Spider-Man feels different.

      It was also embraced quite heavily in the Ultimate universe for the Web-Head. So, it probably seemed to track just fine on paper, and probably did in real life for some. That was a really popular comic.

      Thoughts and opinions? Don't be afraid to go in depth or say I'm full of horse sh....uh...crap.


    4. Great thoughts and wonderful insights, Jack. I've said just about everything I can about Peter Parker in my various stories and essays, Jack—but I invite anyone reading this to chime in because I would LOVE to follow this discussion.

    5. I don't think anyone will even know this is here. Of course you could always tell me if I am right, since you know some of those writers (word on the street is that you live in the same house as one) and whether that IS a possible thing thing each might gravitae too, or if you saw that in ther work.

      But, whatever. Your site (or so I let you believe), your call.

      On the plus side, Mark Waid is returning to writing Captain America, so whatever the future holds for the wing head, it is sure to be well written.

      They even announced the first story arc will be one where he travels America. Good to know he didn't lose his courage, because that is a brave choice.

      I have faith in Mr. Waid, and I'm sure it will turn out well, but that is still skipping down a road filled with landmines.

      If your coming back though, bet the whole damn farm on it. Like I said, I'm positive he will do just fine, but I will be holding my breath every issue.

      I think we should all, or at least all who enjoy his work, should wish him nothing but luck.


    6. I agree. Mark is a wonderful writer, who understands and respects the characters. (He's also a very nice guy.) I join you in wishing him great good luck with his CAP run.

    7. I have three thoughts on Waid, well beyond that he is talented and when I met him a very nice guy:

      1. I think Marvel and DC view him as a fixer. There is a weird pattern where he is brought in to write characters after controvertial runs.

      Not surprising, he is widely considered at worst a solid read.

      2. I once heard someone say that he is one of the few writers who actually write superhero stories, where as most writers will write stories that happen to have superheroes.

      As such, I think between that and his love of writing heroism, he is the heir of Gruenwald, and that Geoff Johns is the next in that line.

      3. Don't forget bold. As I said a a traveling America story is risky and fraught with peril. So, kudos to him for diving in head first, and without a life jacket.

      It would be easy to play it safe.

      Also, Starlin was inducted to the Hall of Fame. True story.


    8. I can definitely see a link between the two Marks and Geoff.

      What Hall of Fame was Starlin inducted into? Eisner?

    9. Since Stan Lee first wrote E.F., most people don't write superhero stories. They write stories of any numer of genres, that happen to have superheroes in them.

      Gruenwald, Waid, and Johns wanted to write Superhero stories. They did. They were great. Geoff Johns JSA run is phenomenal. If you haven;'t read it, do yourself a favor.

      As for Starlin:


    10. That's great news about Starlin—and very well deserved!

      I'm assuming that article was written by you...?

    11. This is America. You an assume anything you want.

      Doesn't mean its right, doesn't mean its wrong.


    12. The real question is... will you tweetify THIS one out?


    13. Great. Starlin is... his own thing. And certainly deserving of the honor.

      I don't know who the other inductees are, but another was Walt Simonson.

      Also very deserving, but more interestingly, this is Kirby's 100th birthday (this year anyway) and quite possibly his two most devoted disciples were inducted to comics hall of fame.


    14. Simonson, too? That's great. Two massive talents.

      Yes, Kirby's hundredth birthday is August 28th. Cause for celebration!

    15. Starlin was also the first Detroiter inducted, and it was the day before the 50th anniversary of the riots staring.


    16. Interestingly, the same word that got me started on being into Starlin was the one that started to get me into Dematteis.

      Also, I haven't seen teh Wonder Woman movie, but can we all admit that it is pretty neat that the most well known female Superhero, who was also created in the 1940s, was played by someone named "Gal?"

      Can we also all admit that DC should just realize they should make a New Gods animated feature film (more likely a trilogy? I don't care how good the JL movie MAY be, with none of the main characters all from Earth. Besides, I really think that animation is rthe only thing that can capture the Kirby power.


    17. GAL Godot. Weirdly, that didn't hit me till you pointed it out!

      Back in the late 90s/early 2000s, I was at a meeting a some movie production company (I forget which ) and noticed a bunch of NEW GODS artwork. They were developing it as an animated movie...which clearly never got made. And I agree that an animated movie would be perfect for the material. And I'd be happy to write it!

      "The same word"?

    18. Yes, the same word.

      The Gal Gadot realization is pretty neat, isn't it?

      as for the New Gods, I know Kirby himself shopped it around as a Saturday morning cartoon. I also heard a rumor once that Bruce Timm was hoping for a New Gods spin-off from the Superman: TAS.

      I have no idea why DC doesn't see that potential. Maybe its the sort of... complicated history, post-Kirby. Maybe it is too convoluted, or just too Star Wars like.


    19. I've always thought the NEW GODS-STAR WARS connection was overstated.

    20. Well, it was Jack Kirby who saw it, Not me.

      I have no control over 70s Jack Kirby.

      Also, I wonder if the "same word" thing may need some expanding on.