However, and I'm not sure if you're even reading Superior Spider-Man, I believe that it's been a nice organic story with lots of interesting plot lines & twists... And it's going to have a lasting effect on Peter Parker when he comes back... So in MY opinion, it's much more than a simple gimmick...
I am not castigating the arc in and of itself. Though I don't always agree with Marvel's events, I believe in the past decade the only two events I took serious issue with were Civil War and OMD. However, I recognize that good stories can be told even within events that I do not approve of. As much as I still loathe OMD, I mostly enjoyed BND, if for no other reason than it reads very much like late 70s, early 80s Spider-Man (down to bringing back the element of a strong supporting cast and recycling villain and character roles, e.g. Carlie = Gwen, Menace = Green Goblin, Harry exists again etc).
My complaint isn't with the quality of Superior in and of itself. Though I have taken a year long break from current Spider-Man titles, I have heard nothing but glowing reviews for the book, both online and at my LCS. I am excited for Peter Parker's return, not just as an ardent fan of Parker but to see how he handles the aftermath of Ock's tenure in his body.
Where I am displeased is with the many attempts to establish a new status quo or with marketing that exaggerates what amounts to an extended arc as if it will be the new status quo. The rationale is sound; give readers something new about the book in order to attract their attention. However, the execution is often questionable, if not misleading. An arc in which Doc Ock switches bodies with Peter Parker? Sounds awesome. An event in which you tell everyone that Peter Parker is being replaced for good? Comes across as a gimmick.
I don't blame fans for the skepticism. We can blame the industry for "killing Superman" and "paralyzing Batman" (and Tony Stark for that matter) and replacing them with new faces in old roles. They were gimmicks then and the market has never really gotten over that. It is sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, because I understand the need to take daring steps to keep reader interest. However, the methodology just seems rather off.
As an example, House of M was written nearly a decade ago, yet the effects of that story have guided the X-Men comic franchise ever since then, with Messiah Complex and a host of other follow up stories. In fact, the current direction of Cyclops' leadership is deeply influenced by the dearth of mutants, a direct consequence of the end of House of M. Even if a person hates that story, no one can call it a gimmick because it was an actual moment of organic plot progression.
Conversely, we get told that Ock is replacing Peter for good, yet here we are a year later and they are scrapping the plot line because a new Spider-Man movie is out in theaters. All the X-Men movies in the world didn't make Marvel change the direction of the X-Men titles in light of M-Day, yet we see Marvel running back to Peter just to catch those casual readers that wander into a comic shop amid Spidey fever. It just reeks of gimmick rather than organic story telling.
By the by, I accept your humble retraction and similarly extend a bit of grace. I was a bit too hasty in my defensiveness. I should have instead brushed off your initial insult and merely made an effort to better explain the post with which you took issue. It may have averted an entire diatribe. So my apologies.
