Well, I was wondering what you're take on the Unmasking was, Madgoblin, and I have to say you make some very good points as to why it was badly executed and also why it is not necessarily out of character for Spider-Man to do so. After all, it wasn't as if Spider-Man hadn't been unmasked before (and pointed out in a satirical post entitled "Who Cares About Spider-Man's Silly Old Secret Identity Anyway?") and, what helped to get over my initial anger towards it, was finding out that Spidey's identity being public was something kicking around Marvel for awhile. According to Howard Mackie on the Byrne Robotics, he said that this was something the various Marvel writers had in store BEFORE the clone saga and right around the time of Venom's first inital appearances. However, Tom Defalco ended up rejecting the idea because the initial reaction to Spider-Man being outed as Peter Parker would have, in the eyes of the public, would be "Who?" In other words, the public wouldn't care who Spider-Man's real name was, because far as they were concerned, he was simply Spider-Man the hero or Spider-Man the menace. And that's basically what we have gotten in the "Unmasking."
Also, the way Spider-Man was unmasked has actually made things problematic, not only for the reasons you cite, but also because making his identity public removes one of the essential aspects that made the character work to begin with: that Peter had a normal life with everyday obligations that he tried to keep separate from his other life as a superhero, that it was both a release from his problems and also contributed to problems. Having a a public identity pretty much eliminates that aspect because that sense of having normal problems and responsiblies has been outweighed by his superhero life which he must now be 24/7. If anyone at Marvel wants to get Spidey "back to basics" there is going to be an even bigger convoluted mess on the same level as the "Clone Saga." (And considering how the "Unmasking" instead of increasing sales has had the opposite effect, I'm pretty sure that they'll want to come up with someway of undoing it if they believe the "unmasking" was responsible for the decline in sales.)
Also, this was pretty much a stunt from the get go. Consider that Mark Millar when writting Civil War admitted that it wasn't his idea but something Joe Q came up with at the spur of the moment; Quesada then said later that he had no real idea whose idea it was, but maybe it was Tom Breevot's--talk about passing the buck. Quesada also said there was a year-and-a-half worth of stories out of the unmasking? Why only that much? Why not just come out and say that they hoped to make this a permanent part of the status quo like they tried with "the Other?" Also, Spidey's life is a series of ups and downs. Prior to his Unmasking, everything was going good for Spidey, but afterwards, his life has spiraled out of control, haven't lost his job, his home at Stark Tower, the public's respect, being branded an outlaw, and now talk about MJ or Aunt May getting killed. Spidey never lasts in such extremes for long. Plus since this was coupled with Civil War, there really wasn't any "numerous story possibilities" but only one story possibility, which is pretty much what we've been seeing now for the past several months.
Also, as far as making it permanent, I was wondering if you read this person's article that retorts this argument?:
http://fourcolormedmon.blogspot.com/
With regards to Venom, I completely agree with your take. Where I would argue, which Doc Ock and Dragon have brillantly pointed out, is this: Green Goblin and Doc Ock never started out as villains with a desire for revenge against Spider-Man. They followed the super-villain convention of being bad guys who was more concerned about their own personal ambitions whom the hero tried to stop and offered a challenge to the hero. After their defeat at the hands of the hero, that's when they realize the hero needs to be taken care of first before whatever schemes they have need to take affect, but even then it's nothing personal. Only after several rounds of this to the villains desire fro revenge outweigh any personal ambition. This isn't just limited to Doc Ock and the Green Goblin but villains like the Vulture, Sandman, Shocker, Scorpion, and especially Kraven the Hunter. Even Mysterio, whose goal was to publicly discredit Spider-Man and make himself a hero didn't have any personal grudge towards Spider-Man but strictly saw his downfall as a means to an end. Venom, however, was created entirely on the basis of revenge over what he believed was personal wrongdoing and, as you correctly point out, he really doesn't have a well-founded reason and that other attempts such as the animated series, Ultimate, and the upcoming movie, have done a better job fleshing out his motivation and even improving upon his origin. J. Jonah Jameson, who is also motivated by a personal hatred for Spider-Man, has a far more developed desire for revenge than Venom does. Spider-Man is basically everything Jameson prides himself as being but realizes he is not and yet refuses to "climb to his level" because his own self-importance. The only option for him is to use his power and influence to ruin Spidey so he won't have to be reminded that he's a hypocrite.
t:
