Stephen Wacker wrote:No comic company has ever cared about the "greater scheme of things". Every comic you've ever loved was simply people trying to sell some comics that month.
That's the way of commercial art.
I'm honest enough to admit that this statement is true, that, as a whole, comics companies don't truly care about what they're selling as long as it is selling. I get it, acknowledge it, understand it.
But Wacker should be honest enough to acknowledge that many creators do care about what they do, that they are doing their best to put out material that is "good."
This turn of events in Spider-Man...take out all the personalities, the leaks, the emotion. Then ask yourself this question: Is this truly a good story? Is this the kind of story people would want to read about Peter Parker, the Spectacular Spider-Man, if it was their first exposure to the character?
I don't think it is, and that's the problem I have with this storyline. You can change Peter Parker's status quo...Marvel NOW! did it with many characters, longstanding franchises. Those changes, at least for the titles I've been reading, are all good, with the condition that I need to see a few more issues of Bendis' X-Men to make sure I understand where he's going with it. I think I get it, but I want to make sure.
But this deal with Spider-Man? I guess I'm really struggling to understand why this would be considered a good story, and to me, that's the problem Spider-Man has had, as MM said, for a really long time now: The stories themselves just haven't been good. This is no exception, and the salt in the wound is that Parker "lost" on pretty much every scale anyone would care to measure.