Thanks for hosting this again for another year, Kurt, and for all your hard work. It was a lot of fun.

Yes, though I'm not sure they all are. I only have 4 issues out the 8, but at least a couple of them have an old 9d (9 pence) UK price ink-stamp on them. I have zero problem with that. I actually kind of like those old ink stamps.

I also have quite a few 60s and 70s American Marvels that are UK price variant covers. You know, like where the British price is actually printed on the cover, rather than rubber stamped. It's just something you come across a lot if you're buying old Marvels in the UK.

I'll be interested in your comments on Cinder & Ash. I was always intrigued by the mini-series when I saw adverts for it in other comics back in the late '80s, but I never saw it on the newsagents shelf at the time. I've only thought about it very infrequently over the years and never thought about picking it up very seriously, assuming that it likely wasn't terribly good.

But just lately I've read some really positive comments about it in various places online and that has put the mini-series firmly back on my radar. I currently have the full set of 4 issues on my watch list on eBay, just waiting to pull the trigger.

Doc Ock and Aunt May?

I love Napoleon Dynamite. I saw it at the cinema when it came out and found it strangely compelling. With subsequent viewings on DVD I've grown to really love it. It's quite a subtle film and was definitely a slow burn with me, in terms of coming to love it. It's a fascinating combination of quirky, funny and the strangely moving.

Actually, I am interested in your thoughts and was glad you took the time to read the arc. But obviously we don't agree on its merits and neither of us is likely to change our minds on that score, I would think. So probably best to move on.

I haven't watched all of this, but I did watch as far as his commentary on the opening pages of the first issue...the scene with MJ rehearsing in an off-Broadway show called Cats Always Lie. This Linkara guy has completely missed the point of that scene. It's gone right over his head.

That whole opening scene is simply there as foreshadowing. The director of the play telling MJ to "just tell the truth" and "stop acting" is, frankly, really obvious and not terribly sophisticated foreshadowing of the secret she carries about what happened between Gwen and Osborn (which she will later confess to Peter). The fact that this "reviewer" missed that and even offers criticism of the director's coaching style -- as if that is in any way relevant! -- says to me that he hasn't got the smarts to review the ingredients on a cereal packet. Given his failure to pick up on such an obvious literary device, I decided his opinion was basically worthless.

Which is not to say that your reaction to "Sins Past" should change or isn't valid, Hoosier. Or that it in any way strengthens my championing of that story. My point isn't really about "Sins Past" at all.

It's more that this Linkara fella, like so many other self-appointed "reviewers" or "critics" on YouTube, doesn't know his arse from his elbow when it comes to literary criticism. I see clowns like this reviewing albums or films all the time on YT too -- and they really don't have any business putting their opinions out there in front of the public as if it's worthy of anybody's time.

It's also why I hate "reaction" videos. Life is too short to waste time watching know-nothing, attention-seeking morons try to tell me whether some piece of music, film, theatre etc has any merit or not.

[/grumpy rant over]