Spider-Gnome
Walloping Web-Snappers!
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,219
- Reaction score
- 15
- Points
- 58
See, I felt the shots of all his friends and shots of all his villians looked a bit rushed. I actually wished Ramos handled this.
I'll probably expand more on this on my blog later (thus giving me a reason to update it finally) but yeah...it's not so much that readers will get upset that Doc Ock kills Peter once again, because let's face it: quite a few people expected that Ghost Peter was going to lose and be jettisoned/erased or what have you by Doc Ock. Rather, it's the notion that Peter Parker, the Amazing Spider-Man, Marvel's flagship character and they guy we've been told for 50+ years is "the hero who could be you" was willing to run the risk of letting an innocent, brain-damaged, little-girl die just to save his own skin.
Granted, the suggestion is that Ghost Peter is only the manifestation of the real Peter's memories and is therefore not the real Peter, but the issue also makes the point via Doc Ock that "we are the sum of our experiences," meaning that Ghost Peter might as well have been the real Peter for all intents and purposes. And even if we're supposed to conclude that this is supposed to be another example of how readers can "relate to" Peter because he's not above succumbing to moral lapses out of fear and desperation, it still comes across as the most blatant form of character assassination of a beloved comic book superhero that I can recall ever seeing. Hell, this whole issue was practically saying:
"See? Doc Ock isn't just a better and far more deserving Spider-Man than Peter Parker--he's morally superior to him as well. Because Peter, at his very core, isn't just a selfish person--he's also a morally weak, hypocritical coward diluted by his own self-righteousness while Doc Ock is willing to do what ever is necessary to get the job done, but not at the cost of innocent children's lives. In fact, it's Peter's sense of guilt and desire to be loved which actually proves that his dedication to heroism and self-sacrifice was nothing but a lie. Unlike Peter, Doc Ock admits that he's motivated by personal self-interest, that he too wants fame and recognition for his deeds just as much as Peter does, only he's not willing to drop his moral principles at the drop of a hat when it's most convenient, especially when innocent children are in danger. Plus he doesn't care that people don't like him personally because as long as the results are done for the greater good, who cares what other people think about him. That's an admirable quality in a hero, is it not? It's Peter Parker, the so-called superhero who is the real villain here, and has been a villain all along. Therefore, Doc Ock is worthy of redemption and has earned more than enough right to prove himself as a hero."
To which the proper response to this argument should be: "BULL****!" Especially when the last page is pretty much a variation of:
Guys,
Yes that revaluation about Pete risking the life of the little girl does seem out of character, but it was probably a natural instinct, a self preservation thing. I'm sure there will be an answer. Perhaps it is as you said not the real Pete and the real Pete "soul molecule" is still out there somewhere. And no way is Ock "Morally superior." You just spit out Ock's twisted rationalizations. Pete does fight the way he does to "be loved." He does it because it's the right thing! Ock is the one looking for acculations. He has been in the first issue he appeared way back in ASM #3. He's still doing it to this very issue.
Anyway, we knew what the outcome was going to be, but overall I enjoyed it and look forward to what Slott has up his sleeve!
