And the reply was made without rancor, put-down or outright attack. Maybe yourself, Brevoort and Gale could learn something from this.

Posted by randin on 2009-01-01 05:45:37
Actually, the more I read the response given, the more it flies in the face of BND. "Pete's life grows by itself" - OMD /BND could not be more at odds with this statement. The ending of the marriage was an editor mandated arrangement. It was so out of character for Peter that even Brevoort and others have said that it probably wasn't the way they would go.
"too real, after years of existance, to be manipulated by behind the scenes artists and writers" "after working out several instances for Pete to get into, we had to decide that Pete, as we know him, would never really get into them" I think before you show examples from previous lettercolumn responses you should maybe think how it conflicts with the stories you are putting out.
"But its his growth and change thats really important here". That would be the growth and change that BND has robbed us of.

Posted by randin on 2009-01-01 06:19:39
Gale could definitely learn something from this as he always seems to attack the fans for what they believe in.

Posted by Blazeatron on 2009-01-01 09:16:27
Author
I can't help but wonder if the author is the bass player, Jeff Berlin. He's famous among bass players. He's a jazz and rock player. He's played with Bill Bruford and others.

--Tom

Posted by killerbass on 2009-01-02 14:01:29
Whatever.

This is just a sad excuse to justify losing over 50% of your readership!

If you had learned anything in 2008 it should be to not (@*#$&(@*& on fans with stupid devil dealing retcons.

The above letter wasn't written at a time WHEN THEY LOST MORE THAN 50% OF READERSHIP.

We don't want OMD/BND.

WE WANT THE REAL SPIDEY BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This trash you have now is not the real Spidey. You are running out of time to fix this as we are moving on. You will have destroyed the greatest super hero of all time.

Posted by HiddenVorlon on 2009-01-03 16:09:47
Hmm, in regards.
It may be that "Catwoman" is to be married to "Immortalis", thus creating a link from the movie "Underworld Evolutions" to "Ladyhawke"/"Ladyhawk".???

Posted by Celestial on 2009-01-05 20:04:25
There may be a character.....
Known as "Slipper".???

Posted by Celestial on 2009-01-05 20:39:04
Interesting
Whoever that editor was didn't publicly ridicule the upset reader, or call him a cultist, or call him a fat kid living in his mother's basement. What was wrong with that editor? He also said that Peter was supposed to change, and grow up. It was a really nice reply. Who was the author? Why do you guys run Marvel the opposite way from how that guy did?

Posted by revjab on 2009-01-13 17:15:30
It just may be.......
That it connects to the character known as "Happy Hogan".???

:)



Posted by Celestial on 2009-01-14 17:45:01
Different Times?
Likewise, the reader is quite a bit more polite and less wildly dramatic about his uncomfortability with the storyline. Like attracts like.

It makes me wonder if it's an overall difference in people and their responses. For instance, I work in a call center at a bank, and get to listen to the occasional: "This $5 fee is totally unfair and wrong and I'm going to close all my accounts and tell everyone I know to never put their money into bank ever again, always!" And I'm curious if I lived 30 years previously if more callers would be more like that writer and simply explain why they thought it wasn't reasonable to have been charged and ask what we can do about it.

Frankly, I'd feel more inclined to respond in the same polite way as the writers did then, and do when I do come across such reasonable people.

Personally I have no complaints. Keep up your good work, Spider-Office.

Posted by PseudoSherlock on 2009-01-17 10:20:25
Grasping.At.Straws...
So I read the letter twice and I'm not really getting your point. Randin seems to have hit the nail on the head...

It's really rather "amazing" to watch you guys refuse to acknowledge what's blatantly obvious: you screwed up. There's a difference between random letters by fans who have a gripe about a particular issue or event and the tsunami of bad sentiment created by your little Deus ex Machina "Mephisto" deal (and your continued condescension toward hordes of lifelong customers).

The business model you're pursuing is also rather unique. Usually businesses try to not to insult their customers--even if secretly you feel as though said customers are wrong. Instead of coming across as a professional you're really just proving to be a petulant child.

For a group that seems to love Colbert and Obama, you're doing your best to imitate the hubris they accuse the Bush administration of possessing.

If sales get low enough will you have a Henry Waxman Variant cover? That would be sweet.

Posted by dtrod on 2009-01-18 19:41:41
Also...
the anti-BND thing is getting REALLY old. You guys need to accept it and move on. Spidey isn't just for you. He's for the generations to come, too.

Posted by Moorish on 2009-01-19 11:46:58
for Moorish
Yes, Spider-Man is for future generations. I'm glad they'll be inheriting a Peter Parker who willingly makes deals with the devil when he gets in a jam. Because with great power comes great responsibility...unless Mephisto offers up a deal, in which case all bets go out the window. Great role model for the kiddies, moorish.

Posted by dtrod on 2009-01-19 12:39:38
Huh
Sort of looks like my response which was pointedly not pro-BND/OMD got marked as offensive. I suppose not being upset is pretty offensive online.

Course if it ever gets reestablished this post won't make much sense.

Posted by PseudoSherlock on 2009-01-19 19:11:47
Henry Waxman, offensive?
I like how the post saying the best thing to ever happen in ASM was Gwen being thrown off a bridge isn't "offensive"...but my anti-OMD/BND comment pondering at which point sales would be low enough to warrant a Henry Waxman Variant cover had to be axed.

I find Henry Waxman's looks offensive...but talk about ridiculous!

Posted by dtrod on 2009-01-19 19:54:13