>That's very dramatic, but maybe Paul's point is simply that such mistakes
>have
>been made (maybe recently) by writers with similar or better track records
>than
>yours (some of them maybe working on the Spider-Man titles), so it doesn't
>seem
>unreasonable for readers to be skeptical whether the case at hand is indeed
>conscious misdirection on your part, and not another goof.

Which is why it seems to me the most productive thing is to wait and see what
it is before deriding the book for what it isn't, which a lot of people were
doing. It would be as wrong headed to praise the book for what it might be as
it would be to diss the book for what it might be...speculate on what it might
be, sure, that's half the fun...but let it run its course before making
declarations about what it is.

jms

(jmsatb5@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)