Although obviously Dark Reign is just a big steaming pile in any case.

rather just frustration with the way the Green Goblin character (does anybody remember that’s who he is?) has become so plastic that a better name for him now might be, simply, “Big Bad”.

I’m not sure if he is. Like I say, Ellis established a strong benchmark and restablised the character in terms of concept if not in terms of continuity. The Dark Reign incarnation is simply an extension of that character concept, although how successful Dark reign has been in extending it is open to debate. Whatever, I think we can all forget what happened with those twins, twas years ago.

But, but, but I totally get that Matt was dashing off frustrations, and I feel a little guilty going on like I have.

That said, I didn’t take that as big continuity-based criticism — love the economy of “subjectivities are bound up in continuity’s manufacture” though! — rather just frustration with the way the Green Goblin character (does anybody remember that’s who he is?) has become so plastic that a better name for him now might be, simply, “Big Bad”. I think the subjectivities cut both ways in this case: Gerry Conway writes a story twenty-five years ago, and now we’re treated to a “legendary” Green Goblin whose importance is the wholly the result of subjectivity reinforming the continuity that birthed it.

Which, I guess. But my problem with Norman Osborn is still that as far as I know he’s supposed to be dead. Does anybody remember how or when he came back from the dead, or did it just sort of “happen”? I almost feel a bit silly mentioning it at this point, and how extremely silly is that? Did he die, or what? Did that “still” happen?

In a way I feel like the question “is the character being used well” is overly abstract; after all, it could be any character doing this-or-that in a story, couldn’t it? And in a way, it seems like it is…so somehow the name “Norman Osborn” is supposed to mean something arbitrarily exciting, and every year that excitement gets more and more arbitrary, and has to be propped up more and more arbitrarily.

Well, that’s kind of what I took from that. But then again, I’ve got my own biases: I’m sick of every Spider-Man story being about freakin’ Norman Osborn, and I’m sick of Bendis painting his interests on only the blankest walls he can find.

This is perhaps slightly uncharitable. I’m sure some people are well aware of their own involvement but just can’t help themselves. Maybe Matt wants to like Norman Osborn, or want to be open to liking Norman Osborn, but just can’t bring himself to.

Also, even the most continuity minded should have had enough time to get over the creative missteps made with the character, as he’s been well enough written for years now. If anything Ellis *did* rehabilitate him, in that he showed how the character could be used to good effect. All this brings to mind another point: no matter what we’re led to believe by the publishers and creatives, continuity is always partially subjective, always, in part, the product of editing by the individuals invested in it. When I say that x wouldn’t do y, or I can’t take z seriously, I’m often (not always) simply saying that y or z don’t fit with my own private reading of x. What’s astonishing to me is that despite all the arguments amongst continuity obsessives about continuity, all the different readings in evidence, all the internal fan fiction created to plug the holes, they fail to notice the fact that their subjectivities are deeply bound up in continuity’s manufacture.

It’s very particular reading that makes the Green Goblin unusable, and it’s one that I reject.

Take the Red Hood, for example, assuming Morrison is planning on having JT behind the mask, am I really going to let Judd Winick and Paul Dini’s legacy ruin what Morrison’s planning? Of course I’m bloody not. I’m going to take the character as I find him.

In case it isn’t immediately obvious, this isn’t intended as a defence of Reborn or Dark Reign, by the way.