#I hate feeling like my work is unoriginal but I cannot help but compare it to idea I have done previously before or compare it to other pets

[mimzy-writing-online]

How do you handle casual ableism especially ableism that’s said to be “a joke”? I am blind and I get this all the time and it’s so annoying because I can’t win.

If it’s said by someone I know I probably won’t talk to much, if ever again, I just grin and bear it. If I’m invested in this friendship or know I’ll be working with them a lot, then I’ll say something. But I do have some personal pet-peeves.

“Oh, so you’re blind, but not like, blind-blind.” 

Whenever I explain to someone new that I’m visually impaired and what I see, I sometimes get the “oh, so you’re blind, but not like, blind-blind.” and I just... *internal screaming*

I hate it because it reinforces this hierarchy of “who has it worst in the world” that abled society has. It’s like saying, “oh, you’re blind, but at least you don’t have cancer.” That is insensitive to both people who are blind, people who have cancer, and people who have both. 

Everyone is going through their own stuff, and sometimes it feels debilitating and sometimes it feels normal. Undermining someone’s experiences by saying/implying someone has it worse is terrible and even worse is using that idea to say “oh, then you don’t need this accommodation that badly, you’re not disabled-disabled.”

I am blind. Just blind. I have a condition that highly affects my life and just because there are a few settings where I can pass for sighted, does not mean that I am not blind.

And those people feed my internalized ableism and imposter syndrome so that I begin to think “I’m not that blind, people have so much less sight than me” and begin to feel like I don’t deserve any of my accommodations, even my cane when my worst days hit. My cane, that thing I bought myself that affects no one apart from warning them I can’t see them, but means everything to me.

What I would like to say: “I am blind. What I’m describing might sound like no big deal to you, but it affects my life every day and I will never, under any circumstances, see as much as a sighted person. Please stop comparing my disability to other disabilities.”

“Can you use your cane as a weapon?”

It was funny the first 3-4 times I heard it, but strangers say it to me constantly and it’s just like... “oh, them Lakers” or “How’s the weather up there” or some other cliché joke that has been told to death. And these strangers don’t realize how unoriginal it is because they probably never interact with other blind people, but I hear it all the fricken time.

I’ve explained to friends that I don’t like this joke. And I have an example of it in A Witch’s Memory, specifically Ulric’s second chapter. But like, I cannot control what strangers think is funny.

What I would like to say: “I cannot. Canes are much more fragile than you think, and each one has cost me $50 each. And I’ve had... six? Over the years. And they take weeks to ship to me. I would be terrified of my cane getting damaged.”

“I bet you’re looking forward to robot eyes.”

No. I’m not. I’m really not. Leave my eyes the fuck alone.

This was waaaaaay before I was diagnosed with Visual Snow Syndrome, which is a neurological problem, not an eye problem, even if the symptoms that affect me most are visual.

And as for the ableism, there’s soooo so much in that statement:

“Oh, I bet you’re looking forward to getting cured”

“I think being blind is terrible, I would want robot eyes immediately”

And if I said that I didn’t want robot eyes ever, I’d almost always get:

“I bet it wouldn’t be that bad, you’d be a cyborg. How cool is that?”

I said no the first time. Respect that answer. It’s my body, my eyes. I’m so tired of this debate.

The only form of this conversation I will ever accept is from my best friend who admitted that he personally would jump at the chance for cybernetic enhancements, especially something that reduced chronic pain. There are some more personal issues I won’t disclose, but from his perspective I understood and we came to the acceptance that we had very different stances and that was okay so long as we respected each other’s choices.

What I would like to say: “I have considered this and personally decided that under no circumstances would I ever want this kind of surgery done to me. Please respect that choice and don’t joke about experimental surgeries with me.”

“Just consider me your personal human guide dog.”

Only one person has ever said this to me, but he’s said it several times while acting as my sighted guide and I hate it, not because there is any ableism directed at me, but because he’s calling himself less than human and I wish he treated himself better. He deserves better. My solution is just saying nice things to him every chance I get about how much I care about him and how he is good.

“Fuck you! I love you! Don’t you dare call yourself a dog. You’re amazing and I love you.”

“Well you’re able-bodied.”

Said to me by another person with a disability, specifically a chronic illness, while complaining about why I couldn’t do something for him.

It was my father.

and I just...

I have literally never not been disabled in some capacity.

I remember my ADHD affected me from the early age of six years old and how much that affected my self esteem. I started having chronic health problems (mostly due to anxiety) as soon as I entered my teenage years. The worst was when I was 19. And then I went blind.

I am in no way able-bodied. Do not throw this hierarchy of who’s more disabled at me. I physically cannot handle the task you asked me to do without physical pain following me for the rest of the day. It’s either going to have to get done by someone else, or I’m going to need help. Why do I need to be in pain all day for this?

You’re young, therefore you are able-bodied.

You means nothing in terms of disability! Lots of people are disabled, visibly and invisibly. And if your kid needs disability aids to perform normal tasks like walking safely outside, you shouldn’t be calling them able bodied.

What I would like to say: “I am not able bodied. I am far from it. What you’re asking me to do will either risk serious injury to me or will cause me serious, lasting pain. Please respect my physical limitations.”

“And on your right you and hear, smell, taste, touch the ocean.”

It was a joke by a close friend when we were on a road trip. Also, we were in a car on the freeway, literally, none of those things would be possible from that distance because all I would hear and smell would be car fumes. 

Like, okay, I know I can’t enjoy the scenic view the way sighted people can, but I am enjoying this drive in my own way. Even the visuals I can see are nice(ish). It’s stimulation, something different for my brain. I’m having fun listening to the music and your story while we move and there are shapes and faded colors passing us.

I’m experiencing this amazing road trip.

Maybe it’s not the way you would experience or best enjoy it, but I am having fun, don’t spoil it by reminding me that I’m different from you and that my experience “must be less enjoyable.”

I told him: “I don’t like those jokes. They aren’t funny to me. I don’t need to see it to enjoy it.” And he stopped. He never made another one after that drive.

(He’s also one of those people who has serious anxiety around making someone uncomfortable, and me telling him “hey I don’t like this, can we do this instead” actually helps us both, because I’m no longer uncomfortable and he can trust that I would immediately tell him if he ever did something I didn’t like. If I’m not speaking up, then I am good. And I can trust that he will stop as soon as I tell him to, and that I can always speak up if I need to.)

[365days365movies]

January 14, 2021: GoldenEye (Epilogue)

WhoooooooooooooOK. Look, I’m gonna get through this, but I’m gonna have to go in a different order. I’m going from highest score to lowest, because that’s how I’m gonna be able to get through this. And for the record, I’ll be doing some...ranting...at certain points. This is gonna be interesting. Why? Well, let’s start with this little tidbit.

79%. Not my score. That’s the Rotten Tomatoes score for this movie. The average rating on RT is 7.1/10. My score...my score will not be that high. Maybe not terribly low, but...it ain’t gonna be that high. ‘Cause I got some problems. OH BOY...do I got some problems. And this might even be controversial for some, but if you like this movie, I’m so happy for you.

I...I was not that lucky.

Review

Direction and Action

To Martin Campbell: great job. I actually mean this sincerely, great job with the direction of this movie, as well as the cinematography. Good job from you too, Phil Méheux. Some of the shots and framing of this movie are great, and credit absolutely deserves to be given for that. And the action! Look, as stupid as some of the framing is for it (we’ll get there, dear GOD, we’ll get there), the action is all dynamite. From the jump into the dam at the beginning, to the VERY impressively brutal fight scene between Alec and James at the end. Absolutely impressive, and gets a 9/10 from me. Yeah, really. No complaints here. 

Wow, a 9? That’s a big deal! I thought you said you hated this movie.

I don’t hate everything in this movie. But some things...some things...we’ll get there.

Cast and Acting

I can’t believe I’m saying this, considering my opinions on a lot of the movie...but Brosnan is a pretty great Bond. I hate the lines he’s forced to deliver, I hate the relationships and lack of emotion in his dialogue (WE WILL GET THERE), but I don’t actually blame Brosnan for that. He does a great job with what he’s given. And that basically goes for everybody else...almost. Famke Janssen. Xenia...she, uh...HOLY SHIT DUDE. She fuckin’ GOES for it. She’s the craziest Bond...Girl...wait. No, wait, she isn’t the Bond Girl. SHE’S THE HENCHMAN. Shit. OK, I’m on board with Xenia and Famke Janssen’s portrayal. Over the top, sure, but I can deal with that. Sean Bean does great, no surprise there, and I even like Izabella Scorupco as Natalya. Alan Cumming...Boris....yeah, no, no pass for Boris, he’s obnoxious as hell. I know you’re a great actor, Alan Cumming. So why in the hell do I NEVER SEE YOU IN ANYTHING GOOD??? Except X2, you rocked as Nightcrawler. And y’know what, Judi Dench’s one scene as M was FANTASTIC. Seriously, more of THAT, please! So, yeah, when I really think about it, high marks here, too. 8/10!

And an 8! For somebody who liked Connery, I’m surprised that Brosnan was OK for you. And yet, you said you didn’t like this movie? Why?

Just keep reading. It’ll aaaaaaaaaaallllllll make sense soon.

Production Design

Not much to say here, except...yeah, it looks great! From Arecibo Observatory to the streets of St. Petersburg, it all looks great. Iconic sets, like that Soviet statuary. Costumes, ESPECIALLY Xenia’s, were also pretty good, although not particularly iconic. Definitely no real problems here. Good job, Peter Lamont! 8/10 for you and your cohorts.

These are pretty high grades, 365.

I know. I am aware. We are not done.

Music and Editing

Before I talk about Tina Turner’s song, I have one thing to say...the triangle guy in the orchestra was having a FIELD DAY. My girlfriend and I watched this together, and she noticed it first. Now I can’t unhear it. Everybody wants to be heard...even the triangle guy. Listen to the theme from the tank sequence, you won’t be able to unhear the triangle guy going CRAZY back there. 

OK, the opening sequence might’ve been crazy compared to others, but the song was...pretty good. Absolutely not my favorite Bond song (GOOOOOOOOOLD-FINGAAAAAAH-WHAP-WHAAAAAAAP-WAAAAAAAAAAH), but still good. And the rest of the music for the movie is good...but I won’t be buying the soundtrack, sorry to say. Still, Éric Serra did a good job, I mean that. With all that said, 8/10.

Gee, 365, you sure you don’t like this movieGIVE IT A GODDAMNSECONDOK???

Plot and Writing

...Hey, uh...you OK? Looks like your eyes have gone blank there, 365. You all ri-wait...wait, what are you doing with your thighs? No! NOOOOOOOOO-

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHATETHEWRITINGANDPLOTINTHISGODDAMNMOVIE

OK, take a breathtakeabreathtakeabreathtakeaBREATH. The plot and writing of this goddamn movie cripples EVERYTHING ELSE IT HAD GOING FOR IT for me. And for the duration of the film, I’ve been trying to figure it out. What was it? I’m gonna have to break it into pieces here.

Plot first. At the end of the day, the plot isn’t actually bad in and of itself. However...it is the most UNORIGINAL, HACKNEYED, SPY MOVIE, JAMES BOND CLAPTRAP THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN. The entire film just feels scripted, and not in a good way. And I know that, logically, some things are going to stay the same. He’s gonna get the girl, there’s going to be a dastardly villain, there’ll be gadgets, Bond’ll be cool, and there’s the music. Let’s take the music out of it, obviously, and look at the other core elements of a Bond film, shall we?

The Girl: I might’ve liked Natalya, but the characters had NO chemistry. Can’t say that about Brosnan and Izabella, they did fine with what they were given. But the characters weren’t given a single satisfying reason to get together. They needed to either meet earlier, or you needed to give her something in her character to get her to convincingly fall for Natalya. The work needs to be done with her. Because, let’s face it: James Bond is a man-whore. It’s literally a part of his character definition. He doesn’t need an excuse to fall for her, she needs an excuse to fall for him. And we never get a convincing reason for their relationship. Ever.

The Villain: Gaaaaaaah, Alec! Alec was actually an interesting character! His motivations actually did make sense, and play on a VERY tough event in the history of the UK. While it certainly doesn’t justify his actions, it definitely makes him more three-dimensional. Which is why it’s a shame that the film works so hard to flatten him out. They turn him from an intriguing individual, to someone whose ultimate goal is to steal ALL OF THE MONEY IN LONDON!!! MUUUUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!! This guy is a Baron Zemo, a THANOS. Doing terrible things for understandable reasons. Should’ve leaned into that more, instead of just turning him into Evil James Bond. One of the biggest failures of this movie, seriously.

Gadgets: WHAT GODDAMN GADGETS??? The acetylene torch at the dam? Barely a gadget, and you know it. The car? NOPE! Agent Wade takes it away! Here’s an ideaUSE THE CAR IN ST. PETERSBURG. Instead of TEARING UP DOWNTOWN ST. PETERSBURG. Real subtle, Bond, real great work AS A SPY, YOU FUCKLEHEAD!!! What about the pen? Oh, the one he uses by ACCIDENT? Yeah, not counting that either. The belt? Nope, not even touched. And lastly, I cannot stress this enough, WHY WOULD YOU TEASE ME WITH THE GODDAMN CAR MISSILES, AND DO NOTHING WITH THEM??? Yeah. Still not over the car thing, I mean that. Enraged. So enraged.

James Bond: Pierce...you did a good job. You did a great job, even. It’s not you. It’s the writing. See, Bond lines used to be cool. But then, Schwarzenegger happened. And Stallone happened. And literally the entirety of the 1980s and early ‘90s happened. And all during that, Bond was still around, and still pumping out movies. All of Connery’s wit and cunning got Flanderized into almost a parody of the original character. And Brosnan...Brosnan does his damndest with those puns. Those awful...AWFUL...puns. If they were here and there, sure, I could’ve taken it. But at times, it felt like EVERY OTHER LINE!!! At a certain point, the film felt less like a Bond film, and more like a parody of a Bond film. EXCEPT, that unlike Austin Powers, IT. WASN’T. FUCKING. FUNNY. But you may have noticed something...that has nothing with the plot. That’s all writing. OK, let’s get into it.

The writers need help; they were clearly locked in a room for too long until they came up with “good puns.” It didn’t work. And the problem stretches far outside of the puns. Lemme give you an example, yeah? At one point, Valentin asks if Bond has “joined the 21st century,” then notes that M is now a woman. That comment makes no sense in two ways. One, that phrase is meant to state that an individual is somehow dated, out of touch with the present, stuck in the past. Yet, working for a woman is most certainly a more modern trait, so that makes no sense. And secondly, THIS IS 1995, IN THE 20TH CENTURY. And that’s a relatively minor nitpick, at the tip of the iceberg of this film. There are plot holes, missed opportunities...long story short (too late), the writing is TERRIBLE. It’s goddamn awful. It’s so awful...that I’m going for 1/10. Yeah. This movie PISSED ME OFF.

There. You get it now? Most of the elements of the movie were fine, but the writing TORE it for me. Which leaves us with…

A 68%.

*wakes up* W---WHAT? You tried to Xenia me, and you still gave it a 70%? What about the whole “My score will not be that high” thing? HUH?

I mean...it wasn’t. The average rating on Rotten Tomatoes was a 71%. Mine’s a 68%.

Because here’s the thing: it’s honestly not a bad movie. It just infuriates me for one reason. By all other metrics, this movie’s totally fine. It’s just the unoriginal plot and cringeworthy writing that tears it down a peg. Just imagine if the writing was good. This movie would be considered one of the best action movies, instead of just once of the best James Bond movies. And even then, if you ranked these movies by Tomatometer, GoldenEye’s only #9. That’s beneath Lazenby, a Moore, two Craigs, and the first four Sean Connerys. In other words, it’s the worst Bond movie I’ve ever seen...and I’ve only seen the first four Connery movies. So, really, this rating makes sense when you think about it.

There it is: a good action film with shitty writing. That’s GoldenEye. And PLEASE disagree with me, I’m one of the outliers with this movie. It is a beloved classic for many, and I respect that. But for me...it’s a 68%. Just my opinion.

But this isn’t fair. I want me a good Bond movie, or at least one that I like. Already seen Goldfinger, so...let’s go for the Bond after Brosnan, shall we?

January 15, 2021: Casino Royale (2005)

[deadrcbins]

Oneshot Requests! (Bonus: Jeffmads headcanons!)

Yeah, I’m pretty imitable and unoriginal. Sorry, Aaron. Anyway, like a majority of the fandom, I’m making Hamilton one shots! I take requests, I’m great with any angst, no smut, and I’m great with fluff, as well! 

(The cover is John Laurens approved, even though he preferred birds to turtles, the background looked nice.)

SO, onto ships!

I do:

~Jeffmads, since that’s my OTP

~Lams, since it’s also OTP

~Mullette, because it’s OTP in the fandom and in my heart

And literally ANY other ship in the fandom. ANY. If I name them all, I can go on for days!

The exceptions are incest between the Schuylers, and Washette/Whamilton unless there’s no age gap. 

Anyway, thank you so much for reading!

PLEASE NOTE THAT I’LL DO HEADCANONS BEFORE I DO MY ONESHOTS! THANKS!

~

Jeffmads Headcanons:

Let’s start with Madison:

How do they react to a breakup?

James will usually cry a lot and shut himself inside the house for a bit until Thomas comes over and forces him into a Disney movie marathon, complete with ice cream, pillow forts, and a lot of blankets. Of course, this was before Thomas and James professed their undying love for each other. He also becomes very moody and becomes the ULTIMATE emo kid, often dressed in dark and everything. He’ll also contemplate what he did wrong in the relationship and wallow in his self-pity for a bit. This span stretches out for two weeks before he’s back to normal, and so far, he’s only had two breakup episodes.

What would they do if they caught their soulmate cheating?

James’ entire world would crash down. Everything falls out of orbit, and it’d be exactly his worst fear. Thomas is a real good-looking guy...why would he even want to be with James when there are so many other people much more impressive than James? He’d definitely fall into depression. It’d be horrifying for him. Life’s colorful palette would surely turn monotonous. 

Would they leave in the middle of an argument?

No, never. Thomas and James have an envious relationship with each other, and it never becomes that extreme. They’ll talk it out and compromise when it gets to this point. This is quite seldom, though, and over odd issues. 

“Tommy! You’ve burned my favorite pan! Now my omelette won’t taste as good!”

“Buy a new one, then, Jemmy! That YouTube video was so hard to follow!”

Would they make up after a huge argument?

Most definitely. They’re a power couple, a force to be reckoned with!

If James would break up with Thomas, for what reason would it be?

Thomas is too easily jealous of anyone even looking at James the wrong way. He’s a bit clingy, as well. Also, Thomas ends up in a lot of fights with Hamilton, and James gets worried for Thomas’ safety. Gremlin though he may be, he also went to summer military academy, so Hamilton is stronger than he lets on. Thomas has height and build, but can’t channel much of it.

Moving on their S/O?

Jemmy would be horribly depressed, but life has a way of moving on whether you wish to or not. He’ll most likely never find passionate love again, and Thomas remains etched into his memory for life.

Emotions while arguing?

Mostly irritation and annoyance, and afterward, regret and sadness.

How do they and their S/O deal with loss?

It was Thomas who experienced loss, between losing his father at fourteen, and Martha Wayles, his high school sweetheart. James comforted him both times. Madison lost his grandmother to cancer a few years back, and he immediately fell into a grievance for months. His grandmother was his only confidant after Thomas left for Paris, and it disheartened him greatly. He’d never felt so alone in the world, and on top of that, while Thomas was gone, James’ parents pressured him in the first place to go to that highly competitive boarding school for the gifted and talented. He developed his anxiety and anxious introvertedness (Is that a word?) that would plague him for quite a while after. He fears not being good enough, and he constantly feels incompetent and unimportant, despite Thomas’ protests. He kept a secret from Thomas. He tried to take his own life. He stopped hurting himself after Thomas and James got together. 

Biggest regret? 

James’ biggest regret was not being able to maintain the best relationship with his grandmother, who was the one pillar in his life, as he lived with her for two years while James’ parents sent him off to school two hours from there, in the same town Gramma lived. 

Thomas’ Headcanons:

How do they react to a breakup?

Thomas has only been in two relationships before James. Before he met Martha, there was this girl named Sally who dumped Thomas for someone named William Clark. He was depressed, quiet, reserved, and sad for a week with Sally gone, and he was horribly self conscious about his tics, he was fidgety, too. It was horribly out of character, and even Hamilton bought Jefferson a cupcake. He compared himself to everyone else for ages after that. Luckily James was great at comforting, and he was so kind to Thomas afterwards. James made Thomas Mac ‘N’ Cheese and they both pranked Hamilton secretly just for fun, He bottles his emotions until the last day of his phase, then cracks. The next day, he’s back to normal.

Would they ever leave in the middle of an argument?

Again, no, never. Thomas might get stressed out trying to compete with Hamilton at work and work itself, and/or might have had a bad day occasionally, so he’ll be extra moody those days. James knows that he’s anxious about something, so he tries to give Thomas space those days, often reading or watching TV or doing something quietly until he cools off.

Would they make up after an argument?

Most definitely. Thomas is a little puppy. He’ll always come back, loyal and a tad clingy. They enjoy talking out their issues and compromise. 

If Thomas were to break up with James, for what reason would it be?

Thomas loves James and you cannot convince anyone otherwise. Cons

Moving on from their S/O?

Thomas actually had to do this with Martha. In the beginning, it was difficult, and he fell down a vortex of emotions, feelings he wasn’t used to feeling, and like with Sally, Hamilton tried his hardest to console Thomas so that they could fight again. Thomas hates being alone, and losing James as well...it’s unimaginable.

Emotions while arguing:

First, it’s annoyance and irritation, then guilt and sadness. 

How do they and their S/O deal with loss?

It was Thomas who experienced loss, between losing his father at fourteen, and Martha Wayles, his high school sweetheart. James comforted him both times. He likes to keep it private, you won’t even know he cried. Mostly his way of accepting is helping and comforting other people, and shuts his emotions and mourns privately.

What is their biggest regret?

Not getting to say goodbye to his father and Martha, who both died in car crashes. Martha died, she was going with her friend Merida, who survived, on their way to A La Mode, and Peter, Randolph, and Thomas were involved in a car crash the year before, after coming back from a guys’ day out fishing trip. He feels he distracted the drivers both times and deaths were his fault, though it wasn’t. Thomas rode shotgun, giving him his cane, and Randolph had his spleen removed. Elizabeth, their sister who had autism and brain trouble, went crazy after hearing of the crash and refused to sit in a car. They give her Benadryl or sleep medicine. now for necessary trips. A secret Thomas kept from James was that he failed a suicide attempt, but doesn’t self-harm anymore after James and himself got together. Little did he know, while he was in France...James, ever depressed, tried the same thing.    

[soyouareandrewdobson]

There must be something in the water...

This comic by Dobson, is in my opinion one that really serves as one of the biggest self owns in his history, once you know a few things about the quote and are familiar with the work of the person who said it AND Dobson’s output .

See, the quote “My books are like water; those of the great geniuses are wine. Everybody drinks water.“ is alluded to none other than one of America’s greatest writers in the 19th century. Samuel L. Clemens. Or as he is known to many people worldwide, Mark Twain.

Now let me admit, I have not really read much of Clemen’s work in my life, but I have read articles about him, saw quotes of him, read up on his life as well as his social opinions and thanks to popculture osmosis I am aware of the plot outlines of works like “The Prince and the Pauper” and “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer”. I say plot outlines, cause lets face it, those movie adaptations we all know and love obviously miss the point of Clemens social satire he either hid well in his work or was as subtle as a sledgehammer to the head about.

Clemens in a way was an anti-Dobson. He came from a privileged upbringing, but took on a rather “low class” job in his youth before becoming famous through his writing. Similar to Dobson he hated racism, was obviously against conservative Christianity and for his time a “woke” fellow. But unlike Dobson, I think he did not just do it for virtue signaling, he genuinely believed in the cause and if he felt he went too far, he also apologized. Like his takes on Christianity certainly became more mellow later on in life (at least as far as I know)

 Additionally, Clemens was funny. He was critical of society and literature (I highly recommend you to read Fenimore Cooper’s Literary Offences to get just how brilliantly this man could dissect the work of others. Here is a link to it https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/FenimoreCoopersLiteraryOffences )

Both in a way he would use snark to mock them, but also get a valid point across.

And the water line up there? In a way it is both the greatest ego boost, but also self deprecation he could go for.

See, the line actually goes like this

„My books are like water; those of the great geniuses are wine. (Fortunately) everybody drinks water.“

 The boost comes from the fact that he is essentially saying “everybody reads my books”. Which lets face it, was true. Clemens was read by many people, both scholars and people from the general public. He was legitimately popular, to the point that even 110 years after he died he is still well known. Not only his works, but the person himself has become an iconic figure in our cultural conscious. Or to focus on what was really important: Clemens: I make money through my writing, bitch!

Okay, he wouldn’t have said it like that, but he would have at least acknowledged that making good money through his work was a nice benefit.

But in the same way, the line is a bit of self deprecation and slightly humble. See, he says his books are water. Something basic, something not everyone can afford. While the books of great masters are like wine. Something not everyone can afford, but which is in a way “sophisticated” and will live on too, even in higher regards.

I bet that at times Clemens could be full of himself, but we have to understand, this was a man who could take criticism and give it. A man who understood also something about literature and had certain insights others did not have at his time. A deadpan snarker who when he got a positive review allegedly told one of his first critics something along the line of “You made me as happy as the white slave owner chick who realizes her kid was going to be white after all”.

So what I believe is that he was humble enough to see that there were also people better/more sophisticated than him, which he even looked up too and whose work he compared with wine. People by whom he as a creator was like water in comparison. But thankfully (or rather, fortunately) everyone drinks waters aka “reads” the stuff he writes and therefore guarantees his career.

Which honestly, I consider also something of a truth some content creator should go for. Look, I am not saying that we should stop trying to go for something meaningful when we create art or tell stories, but in a way if Clemens was alive today, he would consider his water statement just further confirmed in the way a lot of popcultur works nowadays. Best example, Marvel movies. Marvel movies, as entertaining as they are, are basically just water (or soda), compared to genuine artistic movies or movies with deeper social issues in them. And yet, those movies make money and seem to connect with people at times better than something more “sophisticated”. Go figure.

 But, back to Dobson for a bit, okay?

See, for Clemens the water line made sense, because again, his works were popular and understandable for everyone, making them as accessible as water. But for Dobson? Oh boy… For starters, if we compare their achievements in life so far Clemens already wins. Cause by the time he was 39 (Dobson’s current age at the time this post is written) Clemens was successful under his pseudonym by writing multiple articles and short stories, including The Innocent Abroad, Roughin It and Tom Sawyer. He was also married and was involved in multiple businesses. Dobson meanwhile had attempted to create the following comic series Patti, Formera, Percy Phillips, Legens/Alex ze Pirate, Danny & Spots, Brentalfloss Comics and they all sunk faster than the Titanic. Okay, not the Brental Floss Comcis, those just ended because Brentalfloss thought it was time to end it, but still.

Four major stories he supposedly wanted to write abandoned because they did not earn him the reputation he wanted and one unpopular out of touch gaming comic strips where the punchline was that a rejected clone of Cubitus with the Marsupilami (go look them up) liked the Wii, while its owner/friend was a hardcore PS3 gamer who obviously always needed to be in the wrong because after all, only troglodytes play non nintento consoles.

All his major books got rejected by the public, because the writing was either not good or the artwork was at best mediocre at worst something people on manag forums could draw better when doing fanart.

And yet here we have Dobson, using another ones famous and funny line claiming “his books are like water. Everybody drinks water” indicating amongst other things “everyone reads my books and they are easily accessible”.

No, that is a freaking lie. No one read your books, most of them are not accessible to anyone because they are either out of print or you could not see them anywhere if you dig up as deep as possible online (see my paywall post earlier this week). And when people read your books common criticisms included how unoriginal and aimless your stories would feel (Formera), how derivative characters were from other fictional characters (Alex ze Pirate is e.g. just Lina from Slayers but with the bitchy temper of a Rumiko Takahashi character) and how unlikable most characters would just be (see everyone in Alex ze Pirate except the Ninja Girl and Sam).

 Or to put it in Clemen’s work when describing the sins of Cooper’s Deerslayer, your works tend to break among other things the following rules:

- … A tale shall accomplish something and arrive somewhere. But the Deerslayer tale accomplishes nothing and arrives in the air.

- They require that the episodes of a tale shall be necessary parts of the tale, and shall help to develop it. But as the Deerslayer tale is not a tale, and accomplishes nothing and arrives nowhere, the episodes have no rightful place in the work, since there was nothing for them to develop.

- They require that when the personages of a tale deal in conversation, the talk shall sound like human talk, and be talk such as human beings would be likely to talk in the given circumstances, and have a discoverable meaning, also a discoverable purpose, and a show of relevancy, and remain in the neighborhood of the subject in hand, and be interesting to the reader, and help out the tale, and stop when the people cannot think of anything more to say. But this requirement has been ignored from the beginning of the Deerslayer tale to the end of it.

- They require that crass stupidities shall not be played upon the reader as "the craft of the woodsman, the delicate art of the forest," by either the author or the people in the tale. But this rule is persistently violated in the Deerslayer tale.

- They require that the personages of a tale shall confine themselves to possibilities and let miracles alone; or, if they venture a miracle, the author must so plausibly set it forth as to make it look possible and reasonable. But these rules are not respected in the Deerslayer tale.

- They require that the author shall make the reader feel a deep interest in the personages of his tale and in their fate; and that he shall make the reader love the good people in the tale and hate the bad ones. But the reader of the Deerslayer tale dislikes the good people in it, is indifferent to the others, and wishes they would all get drowned together.

And now replace the Deerslayer tale with Alex ze Pirate/Formera and tell me those rules are not broken.

I am sorry, I get Dobson just wanted to be more sophisticated and give himself a slight ego boost and trick his readers into thinking he is deeper in his thinking than he really is. But if Dobson’s books are like water, said water is somewhere in the desert in an almost empty well that has also been poisoned. Either it gets detoxed and filtrated for consumption or you are better off drinking your own piss. Which is Clemens code for “write fanfiction”.

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

Oh boy one of these again

“Even though both of these characters are awesome, fans can’t help but argue among themselves, so the question is simple: Who makes the better Spider-Man? Is it the new kid on the block who is winning new fans over left and right, or is it the classic Spidey that basically started it all?”

 It’s Peter.

 This isn’t even a debate.

 One character is literally trying to be a replication of the other but throwing in some zigs where they zagged, whilst the other is the thing being replicated that also revolutionized comic books forever.

 “As always, the answer to this question is: “it depends.” ”

 Yes. It depends if you are a moronic clickbait author or not.

 Do most Miles Morales fans even honestly argue that Miles is the best Spider-Man as opposed to just...great in his own way?

 Like I’m pretty sure most Ben Reilly and Sam Wilson fans don’t try to honestly assert those guys are better than Peter or Steve.

 “How do you even begin to measure something like this? ”

 Who has had the biggest impact on the medium.

 Who was most original.

  Who has the most acclaimed stories.

  Who has had the most comparatively unconvoluted narrative.

 Who’s stories stick closest to the fundamental guiding ideas behind the core concept of Spider-Man and execute that the best.

 Mystery solved.

     20. MILES: BETTER ORIGIN

  “The Peter Parker Spider-Man has an origin story that is downright iconic. There’s no denying that. However, if we’re being honest, then Miles Morales has a much better origin story. And it’s one that modern audiences will find a much easier time relating to.”

Hmm, a scientifically gifted teenager gets bitten by a super science spider and gains spider powers that he doesn’t commit to using altruistically for the wider community. Because of this he fails to intervene in a crime the results of which ultimately wind up killing a noble person he admired. From this he learned that his great powers should be used responsibily to help others and carried a burden of guilt around with him. o this end he dressed up in webbed spandex and became a crime fighter called Spider-Man.

 Yeah...I can see how that is so much better and modern than Peter Parker’s origin...

  This doesn’t even explain how or why the origin is better, it just says Peter’s origin is iconic but Miles is better and leaves it at that.

 Surely if something is better than the iconic thing you’d have more to say about it.

  “Miles, meanwhile, had to deal with his powers being stolen by an uncle (whom we saw briefly in Spider-Man: Homecoming) before Miles’ early exploits with Venom led to the loss of his mother.”

 This isn’t part of his origin and therefore doesn’t belong in this section.

Moreover it’s asinine because it omits Peter’s early adventures to give the false impression Miles is better.

 Let’s say Miles’ uncle stole his powers. Why is this somehow better than ‘My uncle is dead, I need to step up and replace him as the man of the house, also my aunt is chronically ill, I am cash strapped and I constantly get shit in both my identities’.

 Call me crazy but wasn’t Spider-Man supposed to be ABOUT those normal life problems as opposed to the inherently fantastical problem of your magic science spider powers getting jacked?

 Or your mother dying due to an ooze monster before she was literally resurrected like two years later negating all drama?

 Even if his mother had remained dead, how does this make him better than Peter? His mother died. Wow. I’ve NEVER seen a superhero with a dead parent before. I’ve NEVER seen a female supporting character die in a superhero story before. Certainly not a Spider-man story. Certainly not a Spider-Man story that changed comic books forever before shallow repetitions like murdering the characters mother turned it into a mess of a cliché. A mess of a cliché that the same guy who did it reversed 2 years later.

  “In this way, he feels a much keener guilt over the passing away of a family member than Peter Parker does”

  **** please!

 His mother came BACk to life two years later and it wasn’t like his ENTIRE motivation after she died was BUILT around his grief over her death.

 Like Peter brings up Uncle Ben’s death so much that we needed to do a movie that SPECIFICALLY DOESN’T BRING IT UP!

 And this isn’t even getting into how despite being a family member the best analogy for Rio within Peter’s story is Gwen NOT Uncle Ben.

 And you cannot with a straight face tell any Spider-Man fan Gwen’s death was not AS keenly felt by Peter as Rio’s was for Miles.

 Miles quit after Rio died and then an arc or two later after a time skip he was back in the saddle. Meanwhile literally 2 years worth of issues were devoted to depicting Peter’s grieiving of Gwen and then we also wouldn’t shut up about it for another 40 years!

 “making him not only more motivated, but more sympathetic in the eyes of the readers.”

 If Rio’s death made Miles more motivated than Peter...why did he literally quit being Spider-Man after she died?

 This gets even dumber when you consider this article is drawing an analogy between Rio’s death and Uncle Ben.

 RIO’s death motivated Miles to quit for  A WHOLE YEAR!

 Uncle Ben’s death motivated Peter to BE a superhero for *checks watch) 56 years and counting!

 And what is this the tragedy Olympics? Miles deserves more sympathy because his mother died when he was fighting a villain than Peter does for when his father figure died due to someone he failed to stop?

 At best BOTH things are equally tragic and worthy of sympathy.

 At worst if you truly contextualize this, fuck no Miles doesn’t deserve more sympathy.

 I’m not saying ‘screw him he deserved it’. I’m just saying of course Peter had it worse.

 When Rio died that was the third major death in Miles’ life. His mother, his uncle and Ult Peter Parker.

 Yeah, that’s 2 dead family members to Peter’s 1 circa Gwen’s death right?

  Wrong. Peter lost his parents, his uncle which was his fault, George Stacy who was another father figure which he also felt guilty over and then also his girlfriend/practically his fiancé...which he also felt guilty over.

 Then you’ve got the fact that Miles, whilst feeling guilty over Ult Peter’s death, didn’t actually know him personally. Peter knew all those people personally sans his parents, but they were still his parents.

 And then he had to be the provider for May whilst having exactly zero emotional support from anyone other than her. Miles had Ganke through everything. Peter had jackshit and was also getting bullied and was also getting hated on by Jameson.

 You can’t even say “Well Miles had it worse because he saw his mother die violently right in front of him.” Peter saw and CAUSED Gwen to die violently in front of him, he saw George Stacy die violently in front of him, he at least KNEW Uncle Ben died violenty and in his own home to boot.

 And unlike Miles’ uncle or mother none of THOSE people came back to life!

 19. PETER: CREATIVE USE OF POWERS

 “Have you ever thought about how limited Peter Parker’s powers really are? No, seriously — he has spider-sense and super-strength, and he made himself some webs and that’s it”

 -and, spider agility, and spider speed and you know wall-crawling the one thing his namesake, a spider, FAMOUSLY does!

 “Seemingly every issue has him doing something new with his powers,”

 Says someone who’s clearly not read much Spider-Man.

 How the hell do you even begin to try and have him do something new in every issue across multiple monthly titles across 57 years my god!

 18. MILES: COOLER COSTUME

 “If you were trying to figure out what the most iconic comic book costume was, it may very well be Peter Parker’s Spider-Man costume. Those red and blue tights have inspired literally decades of comics fans, young and old. But we hate to break it to you: Miles Morales has the cooler costume.”

 “The red and blue may be iconic, but it’s also difficult to translate into the real world, such as live action films.”

 This is fucking moronic on four levels.

 Level 1: It was a costume designed for a comic book which isn’t set in the real world or even in a live action medium so the point is fucking moot because the measure of a COMIC BOOK character’s costume is how well it works in a COMIC BOOK.

 By this logic Batman’s costume sucks shit because it’s rarely translated well into live action and usually needed to be made all black.

 By this logic ALL MANGA isn’t that great because none of it translates t the real world.

 Level 2: If the thing is ICONIC then obviously is does effing work!

 Level 3: Solid black with red patterning on top of it. Yes. I can see how this is very original and inherently better.

 Level 4: The red and blue costume has literally been translated into film FOUR TIMES!

 “Meanwhile, Miles’ black and red costume looks sleek and modern.”

 Looking sleek and modern doesn’t counter ‘is difficult to translate to film’. Those are two separate things.

 Moreover, it’s ‘modernity’ is afforded it by being again, mostly unoriginal.

 Shit Spider-Man’s SECOND most iconic costume, which is also more iconic than Miles’, is even MORE sleek so does that make it more ‘modern’ too?

  It’s the same nonsense as before, ‘it’s just better’. How and why!

  “ It’s a perfect compromise between comic book sensibilities and real world aesthetics”

 Which means it’s not as good in the medium it was designed for as another costume that was!

 “and you can’t help but grin whenever you see it.”

 That isn’t even a point, that’s barely even an individual opinion!

 17. PETER: BETTER LOVE INTERESTS

“Sometimes, comparing Peter Parker and Miles Morales feels like comparing apples and oranges. ”

 And reading this article comparing them feels like throwing up.

 “That’s because there are some cool things that one hero has that the other doesn’t, meaning there’s no real comparison. ”

 Okay like...first of all if the author actually believes that then what the fuck is the point of this list!

 Second of all, the fact that they are comparing them means obviously they can be compared.

 Thirdly the fact that they are literally both characters called Spider-Man, with spider powers, based in New York, who got their powers the same way, fight ostensibly the same villains and (allegedly) touch upon the same types of sub-genres and are both made by Marvel comics OBVIOUSLY MEANS THEY ARE COMPARABLE!

 Like fuck dude, this isn’t like you are trying to compare Spider-Man to the Power Rangers!

  “Peter Parker has had an epic romance with Mary Jane Watson, as well as dalliances with Felicia Hardy and Carlie Cooper.”

  Really? You are going to list off a quick romantic history of Spider-Man and you mention MJ and Felicia and...Carlie Cooper.

 A character not seen since 2014. A character who dated Spider-Man for like one year publishing time.

 You will mention her but not, I dunno, Gwen effing Stacy?

  16. MILES: MORE INFLUENTIAL

 I’m face palming from just the title of this one.

 “One reason that we think Miles Morales might be the better Spider-Man is because of how influential he is. And we’re not just talking about more and more fans discovering the character each year. A major bit of evidence is that his character highly influenced the insanely successful Spider-Man: Homecoming.”

  Well I’m happy somebody is acknowledging Homecoming was basically a whitewashed Miles movie.

 “An example of this is Peter’s friend in the movie, Ned Leeds. Longtime Spidey fans were surprised that he looked nothing like the Ned of the comics. That’s because his design and characterization was based on Miles’ friend, Ganke Lee. On top of that, we even see Miles’ uncle, Aaron Davis, played by Donald Glover. This gave many fans hope we’d see Miles Morales in the MCU!”

  Just to be crystal clear here, this ‘article’ is asserting that Miles Morales, a character invented by Bendis and Pichelli less than 10 years ago, is more influential than the character that....literally every teenage super hero after 1962 was inspired by (including Miles himself)...who was created by one of the art Gods of all comics and the single most famous writer of comic books of all time.

 And their ‘evidence’ for this was...one movie from last year...that he wasn’t even in...

 15. PETER: FANTASTIC…FIVE?

There is nothing objectionable in this sans the fact that he joined the Future Foundation not the F4.

14. MILES: STEALTHY SPIDER

 “We love Peter Parker’s abilities but if we’re being honest, they don’t always make a lot of sense. Detecting future danger and being super-strong is really neat, but it never exactly screamed “spider” to us.”

 Spiders are very strong for their size. Hence ‘proportional strength of a spider’ as a commonly used phrase associated with the character.

 The Spider Sense is more defencible as being ‘not a spider thing’, but there are still ways to explain it.

 “It felt a bit like the writers were just making stuff up.”

 ...making stuff up is literally the definition of writing fiction...

 “And if you’re going to make up some weird powers, we say “go big or go home.””

 None of Peter’s powers sans his spider sense were even remotely weird if he was intended as a human spider.

  “And that’s why we like Miles Morales’ cool stealth ability. His ability to blend into his surroundings creates some really fun stories, and adds a fun dose of Batman to the Spidey stories that we love.”

 Not only is this dumb because being like another character is not a good thing (doesn’t it make you less unique), but worse it pretends like having stealth is something that’s even MORE insane for a spider than spider sense.

 It’s not.

 Spiders can camouflage into their surroundings like you know....shittons of animals people commonly know about.

 13. PETER: AVENGERS MEMBER

 Nothing that wrong here.

 12. MILES: GALACTUS FIGHTER

  “When fans argue about which characters are the best, there are plenty of different metrics. One of the biggest, though, is who the character has managed to fight. And if a hero is able to take on a villain well above their weight, it establishes just how serious they are.

So, how can you tell that Miles Morales is the best? He managed to take on Galactus. No, seriously — when Galactus threatened the universe, Miles Morales teamed up with resident big brain Reed Richards in order to get information and allies. While it was definitely a team effort, Miles should get credit for tackling a bigger foe than Peter Parker ever did.”

 This is so fucked up it’s not even funny.

 By this logic ANY TIME Peter contributed even a little to a team effort that ultimately led to beating someone it should count on his win record.

 Okay then. In AvX he contributed to fighting the Phoenix, which is canonically MORE powerful than Galactus. He’s also contributed to fighting Galactus in Secret Wars. He contributed to fighting Onslaught who was approaching a Galactus level threat. He contributed towards defeating Scarlet Witch in House of M and restoring the 616 universe, Scarlet Witch also being even more powerful than Galactus in that story.

 If you DIDN’T use this type of bullshit then Peter has taken on supremely more powerful foes than Miles.

 Juggernaut, Hulk, Tri-Sentinel, Rhino. The entire X-Men.

 Even the stuff that doesn’t make sense for either character put Peter ahead. Peter beat Firelord a Herald of Galactus, whilst Miles beat Blackheart, the son of Mephisto.

 Let me remind you that Silver Surfer, also a Herald of Galactus, has beaten Mephisto himself.

 Therefore Firelord is most likely put of Blackheart’s weight class.

 11. PETER: CIA PARENTS

 There is nothing incorrect in this but why is this a point in Peter’s favour? Spider-Man is supposed to be down to Earth so the more James Bond super spy craziness involved the more reductive it is.

 Hell it doesn’t even make sense against Miles since Miles dad worked for SHIELD.

  “We shouldn’t be surprised Peter is who he is when he had parents like this!”

 Yeah or you know it could’ve been because of Uncle Ben as literally every version of Spider-Man spells out for us.

  10. MILES: S.H.I.E.L.D. AGENT

 “Just as you can judge a hero by who they fight, you can also judge them by who they fight alongside. When a character joins a team with a proud history and powerful members, it goes to show just how amazing that hero is. And this is why we love that Miles Morales is a member of S.H.I.E.L.D.

He was hand-picked as a hero with great potential and trained by the greatest secret agents on the planet and this is all the more impressive because he already has more training and experience at his young age than Peter had way back when.”

See what I said about about James Bond stuff in Spider-Man being a bad thing.

 Also, if Miles is better because he fought alongside SHIELD, then by this logic Peter would be better because he was a member of the Avengers and FF...at the same time.

 Moreover, whilst it’s true Miles has had more training than peter had, he hasn’t necessarily had as much experience.

 And the point is moot if training and experience doesn’t translate into you being a better fighter, and at a comparable age, Peter definitely could’ve beaten Miles provided the writers didn’t cop out and have his Spider Sense not work so he can avoid Miles’ cheat code Venom blast.

 9. PETER: CHEATING HIS DEMISE

“One time, Kraven filled Spider-Man with tranquilizer darts and left him to pass away, going so far as to bury him. Peter emerged alive, but he later “passed away” after fighting Morlun, only to be reborn with weird new spider-powers. It turns out you just can’t keep him down!”

 Okay, but he also died in Secret Wars, Infinity Gauntlet and Infinity War (the comic, not the movie, or it might’ve been Infinity Crusade).

 8. MILES: BETTER SUPPORTING CAST

 Oooooooooooooooooooooh boy can’t wait for this!

 “Sure, given enough time, you may be able to rattle off a few additional names when it comes to Peter Parker’s supporting cats.”

 This is such BS because Felicia alone is a more memorable supporting cat than any of the felines in Miles’ series.

 LEARN TO SPELL CHECK ON THE ARTICLE YOU’VE BEEN PAID FOR!

 “But when pressed, most people will simply say “Aunt May and Mary Jane.””

 No, most people would say Aunt May, Mary Jane, Harry Osborn, J. Jonah Jameson, Gwen Stacy and possibly now Ned Leeds due to Homecoming.

 And that’s just for Joe Average on the street. Actual comic book fans would say all those people and also probably Black Cat, Betty Brant, Joe Robertson, Liz Allan, Flash Thompson and possibly Norman Osborn and Eddie Brock (the latter being a mistake due to adaptations but still, they’d mention him).

 “And while we’re calling them a “supporting cast,” they often don’t play a major role in the story.”

 Almost like they exist to...SUPPORT the main story isn’t it? Wheras being a MAJOR character would be different.

 This is also a BS metric to use for Spider-Man. Spider-Man’s core concept involves him being a normal guy in his civilian life who is also a super hero, with those two sides impacting upon one another.

 Since most stories are mostly about the hero stuff it means that to get the supporting cast involved in major stories would make them involved in the super hero stuff and therefore make Peter’s civilian life NOT normal.

 “With Miles, he gets to have his spider-cake and eat it, too. He has a major supporting friend in the form of Ganke Lee, who provides insight into both the personal and the superhero life of Miles. And Miles has an extended supporting cast as part of all those team-ups: Avengers, Ultimates — if Miles needs help, some A-listers are just a dial away!”

 First off, by this logic Mary Jane from like 1984 and Aunt May from 2001 would count as equally as Ganke.

 Second of all Ganke is literally the ONLY supporting cast the folks with the most cursory knowledge of Miles could name. Even under CBR’s nonsensical logic of Aunt May and Mj being the ONLY people anyone would know from Peter’s cast, that’s still two vs. one. The author brought up a point against Peter and then failed to demonstrate how Miles is better in comparison, probably because he wasn’t.

 Thirdly the Avengers and the Ultimates are NOT supporting cast members, they are team mates!

 Fourthly, by that logic Peter again has the advantage since the Avengers, F4, the (Netflix) Defenders, the X-Men and literally everyone he ever teamed up with in Marvel Team up count as his supporting cast!

  7. PETER: DEALING WITH THE DEVIL

 Forget what I said earlier. Now THIS really should be good!

  “We’re going to keep saying this over and over again, but the best way to judge a hero is to look at the villains they have gone up against. And in the case of Peter Parker, he’s actually survived the greatest villain in all of history in the devil himself or, as they call him in Marvel Comics, Mephisto.”

 That is such insane broken and desperate logic I almost want to love this article for trying.

 Peter is better than Miles BECAUSE of the worst Spider-man story of all time.

 Wow. That’s beautifully bonkers.

But seriously, this is...just holy shit.

 Peter did survive an encounter with Mephisto...but Mephisto was never trying to kill him. They never exchanged blows at all.

 Saying Peter survived Mephisto is like saying Miles survived God Emperor Doom in Secret Wars, therefore he’s more awesome.

 Then you have the fact that Mephisto really, really, really isn’t even the greatest villain in the marvel universe. I hate to invoke Quesada, but he isn’t even the ACTUAL devil. He’s not even the ACTUAL guy who rebelled against God and was damned to be the ruler of Hell. He’s one of the 4 rulers of Hell alongside Satan, Satannish and Lucifer, who is the ACTUAL Biblical devil. In fact one of them (Satannish) is himself the SON of the Dread Dormammu and supposed to be weaker than his old man IIRC.

 DAFQ are you the greatest villain when the DAD of one of your peers is a bigger deal than you are?

 And if we ignore morality for a moment and look at raw power, shittons of antagonists are much more powerful and dangerous than Mephisto or else have been capable at times of owning his red ass.

 Thanos. Firelord. Hela. Galactus. Annihilus. Dark Phoenix. Arguably Apocalypse and Onslaught.

 “Longtime fans don’t like to remember this because it is a highly controversial story. ”

 Longtime fans? It was only 10 years ago!

 And the sequel was only 8 years ago!

 And it got referenced explicitely THIS YEAR!

  “Spider-Man basically gets Mephisto to save Aunt May’s life, but Mephisto’s price is that he will rewrite reality so that Peter and Mary Jane never loved each other. ”

 Holy shit that isn’t even an accurate summation of the most infamous story ever.

 Mephisto rewrites their marriage, not their love. And Spidey gets him to do nothing, it was an offer Peter accepted.

 “Is it the clumsiest reset button ever? Sure. But Peter still survived encountering the ultimate evil.”

 He survived in so far as he didn’t die. He objectively lost though.

  6. MILES: PLAYING WELL WITH OTHERS

  “One of the weirder qualities of Peter Parker is how much he likes to keep to himself. ”

 No one in the real world does that. And it isn’t like he has a rich friendship group or anything.

 “Sure, he’s been on many teams (and that many more team-ups), but at the end of the day, he prefers to work alone.”

 Except when he’s in Marvel Team up or with Black Cat.

 “This isn’t the case for Miles Morales, which is why the young man has better allies than Peter does.”

 Preferring to be a loner vs a team player doesn’t make you better or worse it’s just different. But even if it didn’t Peter has allies too. Most of Miles allies are also Peter’s and Peter has even more.

 “Who are we talking about? Miles is both friends and allies with characters like Ms. Marvel, Nova, Amadeus Cho,”

 And Peter is both friends and allies with characters like Captain Marvel (both female ones), the ORIGINAL more powerful Nova, and Bruce Banner, a.k.a. the original and holy fuck immeasurably stronger Hulk.

 He’s also friends with Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, Wolverine and most of the X-Men and Avengers and F4.

  “He seemed to figure out something early on that eluded Peter Parker for many years: that it’s good to have a support system in place, especially as a superhero!”

 And yet, Peter survivied on his own for years like a bad ass.

  5. PETER: THE MAN, THE MYTH

 “While the comic played coy and never confirmed this, it is strongly hinted that Peter Parker is part of centuries of “spider totems” that are chosen as champions. That means the spider that bit him was not powered by radiation: it had powers it wanted to give Peter, and only later passed away due to radiation. You may or may not believe it, but Peter quite likely has centuries of lineage fueling his powers!”

 Again this isn’t necessarily a good thing.

  4. MILES: BETTER VILLAINS

BWAHAHAHAHAHA...oh they’re serious...

 Do you want to know the secret to nostalgia? Your brain only remembers the good parts of whatever you’re thinking about. Your buddy that loves ’80s music? Trust us when we say that he managed to brain wipe some pretty awful stuff — it’s a lot like that with Peter Parker’s rogues gallery.

Sure, there are some cool villains like Venom, Green Goblin, and Doctor Octopus, but there are also some real lame ones like the Shocker.

 a)   The author can go suck a dick, Shocker is awesome.

b)   Yeah SOME cool villains like those 3 guys...and Carnage...and Kingpin...and Hobgoblin...and Rhino...and Scorpion...and Electro...and Vulture....and basically everyone under the Ditko run

c)   By this logic Miles villains suck ass too because he’s fought many lame ones too

  “Compared to this, Miles Morales has fewer villains, but that means fewer duds as well. ”

 Super hero rogue’s galleries are not marked negatively.

 It’s one thing if you have few good villains and most of the time you fight lame ones.

 It’s entirely different if you have a lot of good villains, and way more disposable rarely seen lame ones. The lame ones don’t make the whole thing suck shit.

 This is particularly asinine since most of Miles villains are either Peter’s villains or else the Ultimate versions of them.

 What is worse is that by this logic BATMAN has a worse rogue’s gallery than Miles Morales!

 “We’ll take cool villains like the resurrected Aaron Davis over Peter Parker’s C-list baddies any day!”

 So would I probably but would you take him over Venom, Doc Ock or any of the Osborns!

  3. PETER: ALIEN FIGHTER

I don’t even understand how this is a point in Peter’s favour

  2. MILES: SPIDER-BITE

“As we said earlier, it often felt weird that Spider-Man wasn’t more like, well, a spider.”

 He is like one the author is just a jackass.

  “Which is one of the reasons we appreciate Miles Morales so much. In addition to having a cooler backstory”

 A near identical backstory made cooler because the author said so...

 “and a more realistic costume, ”

 Which is bad because in a visual medium like comics where you aren’t bound by the constraints of reality (hence spandex looks awesome) ‘realism’ in your costume designs is not a good thing.

 “Miles has more realistic spider-powers as well, including his “bite.””

 ...his what?

  “With a simple touch, Miles Morales is able to incapacitate villains. Now, Spidey being Spidey, he still has to engage in some wild fisticuffs on more than one occasion, but it’s pretty cool to see that he can take down major bad guys with a spider-bite instead of just fists powered by “radioactive blood.””

 Wow.

 Lets unpack this.

 First of all the author is such a dumbass they don’t even realize Miles’ Venom blast (not named because the author is a hack) is not a representation of a spider bite, but of a specific ability some species of spiders possess wherein they can paralyze foes with bio-electricity.

 This is one of THE most well known things about Miles.

  Second of all if this was analogous to a spider bite wouldn’t it i dunno involve his fucking TEETH!

 Third of all this is Miles’ worst power. It sucks the drama out of action sequences because it’s an auto-win button which means he wins too easily or looks like a moron when he doesn’t just bust it out.

 1. PETER: STOPPING THE UNSTOPPABLE

Again, there is nothing wrong in this, but like...how does this prove Peter is better.

 This article made me ill

[mindcoolness]

Does Catharsis of Aggression Work? The Truth about Anger Release

New Post has been published on http://www.mindcoolness.com/blog/catharsis-anger/

Does Catharsis of Aggression Work? The Truth about Anger Release

Does catharsis induce mindcoolness?

Does shouting curses at a hated person’s picture help to “release poisonous anger”? Does smashing a car with a sledgehammer help to “blow off steam”? Does a full-intensity round on the heavy bag help to “cleanse the soul”? Would it make you a better, freer, more authentic human being if you exercised emotional discharge on a regular basis? Should you practice catharsis to optimize your mental health?

Think about a man who rarely or never expresses anger. He must be stifled, emotionally repressed, right? What would help him, what would set him free from his self-inhibition, would be a way to express his anger in a safe environment, right? This is the idea of therapeutic catharsis: that aggressive behavior relieves the psychological pressure created by pent-up anger. Spoiler alert: If you believe this nonsense, you have been successfully deluded by the pseudopsychology presented in the mass media and the self-help industry.

Many modern self-improvement seminars are built on the illusion of cathartic release. You pay for the seminar. You clap and jump and yell and “release your stifled emotions.” You are taught that this is what authenticity and freedom feel like. And you feel empowered—at least for a few hours until you revert to your old, normal self, longing for the next seminar to re-spike your emotions.

There is nothing wrong with feeling good at a seminar (although you might get the same feelings cheaper at a metal/hardcore show), but the underlying narrative is simply false. It assumes that there is some kind of emotional vessel in the human bodymind that gets filled with anger (“bottled-up anger”), filled by negative experiences, filled over days, weeks, months, or even years, until it explodes or the anger is vented. In reality, no such vessel exists. Emotions come and go. They do not settle in the human soul, they do not accumulate, they do not require expression to pass. By their nature, emotions come and go on their own.

However, instead of venting emotions, cathartic anger expression could still break patterns of compulsive emotion suppression—if only by adding a new strategy (namely, expression) to one’s emotion regulation arsenal. But there are at least four problems with that:

Why would it have to be a cathartic process of screaming, shouting, bag-punching, and pillow-pounding, rather than, say, calmly verbalizing the anger or writing about it?

How is physical expression better than well-researched emotion regulation strategies such as acceptance and reappraisal?

Would reliance on catharsis, which involves a powerful bodily experience, not even discourage the use of abstract cognitive strategies?

Most importantly, to what extent can cathartic release, which typically happens in a safe environment without negative consequences and without a real trigger of anger, actually break a chronic pattern of anger suppression?

I can assure you from my personal experience involving years of untargeted yelling and being aggressive at the gym that it did not at all alter the way I express my anger at other people.

What does the science say?

Looking at the immediate effects of physical catharsis,* the scientific consensus is clear: it does not mitigate, but increase anger. Here are some key studies:

In Hornberger’s (1959) experiment, participants were first insulted and then asked either to pound nails with a hammer or to do nothing for ten minutes. Rather than having a cathartic effect, the aggressive act of pounding nails increased hostility toward the insulter.

Geen and Quanty (1977) reviewed all the data available by that time and concluded that catharsis makes people not less, but more aggressive; Warren and Kurlychek (1981) found the same.

Bushman (2002) had participants write an essay about abortion, for which they received fake negative feedback—”poorly organized,” “unoriginal,” “bad writing style,” “unpersuasive arguments,” “one of the worst essays I have read!”—by another participant, who did not exist. With the anger induced by this bogus criticism, participants hit a punching bag while thinking either about the other participant or about becoming physically fit; some did not punch the bag at all. Afterwards, they all played an aggressive game where they could punish the alleged other participant with blasts of loud white noise. The results: Thinking about the other participant while hitting the bag (i.e., catharsis) did not reduce, but increase self-reported anger and game-related aggression. Hitting the bag generally increased aggression, whereas those who did nothing but sit quietly for two minutes after they read the criticism were the least aggressive. The authors concluded, “[V]enting to reduce anger is like using gasoline to put out a fire—it only feeds the flame.”

In a similar study, Bushman and colleagues (1999) found that people who hit a punching bag were more aggressive afterwards, even if—and especially if—they had been led to believe that catharsis is highly effective. Therefore, catharsis does not even work as a self-fulfilling prophecy; and not only does it not work: it makes people who believe in it even more aggressive.

Catharsis does not “release trapped anger.” On the contrary, catharsis produces and reinforces anger. By yelling out loud, we trigger our body to activate the sympathetic nervous system, putting us in a fight-or-flight state, which, among other things, gives us an adrenalin rush. This has everything to do with basic human physiology and nothing with freedom, personal development, spiritual growth, or psychological healing. Yet, of course, it is a nice trick for self-help gurus to sell seminars and therapeutic charlatans to sell counseling.

The trick works because, despite being counterproductive for anger management, physical catharsis feels really good. It feels good to yell, smash, and go berserk without having to worry about negative consequences—not, however, because emotion expression is freedom, but because movement feels good and because aggression feels good. After all, aggressive behavior boosts testosterone, which is a hormone that feels good to have. Try lifting heavy weights while yelling on every rep like a rabid maniac—let it all out! Again, you are not “letting out” anything, except air and loud noises. In reality, you are building up anger and adding to your aggression, to your feeling of power, to your sense of strength.

It feels good to be aggressive, and if there are no negative consequences or moral judgments to worry about, it even feels good to be angry. This is why so many people in a frenzy of rage actually want to be feeling that way—they want their anger. It makes them feel positive, powerful, and alive, at least for the moment. Compare that to someone in a whirl of anxiety who would give everything to stop feeling anxious. How many people take medication against anger, compared to anxiety? I would even hypothesize that once anger feels bad, it has already turned into shame or guilt, and that that is the negatively valenced emotion, rather than the anger itself.

Finally, catharsis might induce mindcoolness, though not by “releasing anger,” “letting off steam,” or “cleansing the soul.” These mythical metaphors have nothing to do with how emotions really work. Catharsis can cool the mind only by deflecting attention away from emotional thoughts and toward action, movement, and bodily exertion. To the extent, however, that an aggressive behavior is cognitively associated with aggressive ideas, catharsis will heat up the mind by triggering thoughts of anger, hate, and retaliation. Thus, to enter a state of mindcoolness, forget about catharsis, forget about anger, forget about feelings, and be serenely aware of your body taking action, exerting itself aggressively, in the present moment.

Key Points

Catharsis does not release trapped emotions, cleanse your soul, or set you free; it probably cannot even break chronic patterns of emotion suppression.

According to experimental studies, physical catharsis is a counterproductive practice in aggression: instead of reducing anger, it reinforces it.

Aggressive behaviors like yelling and punching feel good because they elevate testosterone levels and trigger a fight-or-flight response.

Anger might actually be a positively valenced emotion, related to a sense of strength and vitality.

Catharsis may cool the mind by deflecting attention toward physical activity, but it may also heat the mind by means of cognitive association.

Do you think this man will soon be peaceful? He will be exhausted at best. (Source: WDR/Willi Weber)

* For other, non-physical forms of catharsis (e.g., verbalizing hostility, expressive writing, or playing video games), scientific studies have produced mixed results.

References

Bushman BJ (2002). Does Venting Anger Feed or Extinguish the Flame? Catharsis, Rumination, Distraction, Anger, and Aggressive Responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28(6), 724-731.

Bushman BJ, Baumeister RJ, Stack AD (1999). Catharsis, Aggression, and Persuasive Influence: Self-Fulfilling or Self-Defeating Prophecies? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(3), 367-376.

Geen RG, Quanty MB (1977). The catharsis of aggression: An evaluation of a hypothesis. Advances in Experimental Psychology 10, 1-37.

Hornberger RH (1959). The differential reduction of aggressive responses as a function of interpolated activities. American Psychologist 14, 354.

Warren R, Kurlychek RT (1981). Treatment of maladaptive anger and aggression: Catharsis vs behavior therapy. Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology Methods and Therapy 27, 135-139.

Further Reading

Is Suppressing Emotions Bad For You? (Jocko Willink Vs. Science)

How Anger Arises in the Body

The Truth about Testosterone: Aggression, Sex, and Social Status

Why Every Man Should Practice Aggressive Sports

To Control Your Emotions, Understand and Label Them (Affect Labeling)