Violence, Nudity, and Gore: When Musicians Cry "Censorship!"

in the 1980's under the reign of Ronald Reagan, the United States saw the rise of inflation, poverty, and crack convictions, but thats not all: in the social sphere there was also a recurrence of the spike in public debate about racey content in media and its effect on society that we tend to see every few years or so. Particularly, with musicians and groups such as Prince, Frank Zappa, Dead Kennedys, Twisted Sister and Black Sabbath becoming increasingly popular, parents, educators, and congressmen alike were beginning to question: can music have adverse effects on the minds of children and consumers?

This question occurred particularly to Tipper Gore, activist, photographer and wife of then-senator Al Gore when she had heard her 11 year old daughter Karenna listening to Prince's "Darling Nikki", a more than suggestive song with less than subtle lyrics. With 3 other women among a group referred to as the "Washington Wives", Tipper co-founded the Parents Music Resource Center, creating awareness for the music that she and others found to be "occult", "promoting violence", "sexually explicit" or otherwise inappropriate for children. 

 In my search for why we hate Tipper Gore, I found video essay upon video essay referring to her as "the original anti-woke karen" and even asked a couple people who responded that she basically just wanted to put a gag on the music industry because it wasn't raising her kids properly. 

In a series of debates with members of various bands and even in congress she argued, among other things, that gratuitous violence desensitises the populace and therefore contributes to the increase in adolescent violence. The musicians voiced their concerns that demonising their music is not the answer, that violence often results from a mental illness in an individual, not a gorey movie they might watch with their friends. Many bands released songs concerning their hatred of Tipper and the PMRC's bid for censorship and their infringement on free speech, folk rock musician John Denver even comparing the attack on so-called "porn music" to Nazi book burnings. The PMRC on multiple occasions tended to use colorful language to describe the allegedly heinous music, clutching their pearls as they painted a picture of satanic musicians encouraging children to stir up violence and lead riots, then follow the riots up with acts which utterly disgrace the sanctity of marriage. Simply put, people like me who like their music loud and raunchy weren't happy with the flak they were getting from these congressmans' wives.

But what was the goal of the PMRC? What was this maniacal plan to vanquish the explicit music industry which caused so many musicians to dig their heels in and bark and scratch and bite the dangerous hand of censorship?

well, they wanted... warning labels on the music and movies to notify parents of their content.  In Tipper's own words:

"I would like to see an industry initiative where the industry takes responsibility for providing consumer information to parents and others who are concerned about sadistic, sexual and savage scenes in some of these movies which are available to children. The answer is consumer information."

 

Something found among many of these debates is that the musicians felt they had "put Tipper in her place" when all they had really done was affirm her point. Case in point: Frank Zappa, when attempting to point out the absurdity of 'censoring' gorey movies said that he had watched one such movie after taking it home with his kids and it wasn't bad, adding, after being asked if he (as someone going into the home movie industry) would ever produce such a movie, that it "wasn't his idea of entertainment". Not only is this hardly an argument against the idea that gore in movies is desensitising, he unknowingly proved on the spot the importance of consumer information and parental involvement. He watched a movie with his children because he understood its content and felt it was not inappropriate, he then specified that he has an idea of entertainment and insinuated he wouldn't like to watch some of the aforementioned objectionable content. The same sticker he tries to argue against seems, to me, very useful in the discernment of "your kind of entertainment". 

Even though Tipper seemed to become the target of anti-censorship campaigns, a shocking number of songs cussing her out or decrying censorship, Tipper never actually had any involvement in any category of censorship bid- she didn't even so much as aim to forbid stores from selling to minors, the sticker simply served so that children young enough that their parents still bought their music had a bit more insight into what they were buying. She said it herself: as a strong supporter of the first amendment, her purpose wasn't to put a "gag" on music, but to keep it safe for younger listeners by providing parents with information about the content of the songs. Any solid arguments against the movement, such as ones which argued that certain people in the coalition FOR labeling DID want regulation on music, hardly apply to Tipper in any respect.

 

In insane depiction of Tipper's censorship featured in a 1986 SPIN article titled "Tipper Gore's Diary" 

 If anything, Tipper did more to boost the explicit music industry than ever with many bands seeing their peak after releasing disses on her or finally slapping that coveted Parental Advisory sticker on their track. This was not an "unfortunate side effect" either, Tipper's aim was industry responsibility to educate the consumer, and even if this resulted in adult consumers gravitating towards the evil sticker, well, the consumer was educated before they did so. 

To conclude, the world has not been kind to Tipper Gore, treating her activism as a demagogic attack on free speech when at worst it was simply not the most relevant issue at the time. The PMRC aimed to make a friendly sticker to warn parents of usage of the seven dirty words, and for whatever reason we've rewritten the calm, collected arguments from a concerned parent and activist, backed up by peer reviewed studies, into an attention-seeking senator's wife personally attempting to duct-tape the mouth of your local nirvana cover band. Most heinously of all, it has greatly overshadowed the other activism Ms Gore has participated in;

- She represented the Clinton administration in the Washington, D.C. AIDS Walk in 1993 as one of the highest-ranking public officials ever to participate. 

- She co-chaired the National Mental Health Association's Child Mental Health Interest Group, and in 1999, hosted the first White House Conference on Mental Health,

- and she has continued this activism even in the years following her second-ladyship. 

  

 

The PMRC'S final Parental Advisory sticker. 

 

 

Were Ronald Reagan's movies actually any good?

 
A common fun fact about 40th President of The USA Ronald Reagan is that he was first an actor! Everyone’s least favorite president wasn’t just a fascist, he was also union-busting, commie reporting hack at Universal! From here he slowly veered right and started using his platform to plug neo-liberal policies… but were his movies that good?

BEDTIME FOR BONZO

Movie overall: 6/10
Reagan’s performance: 6/10
Personal rating: 4/10
Average group rating: 6/10
Ronald Reagan works through his daddy issues to prove he can be a good father to a monkey. Everyone's character is fairly decent except specifically for Peter who seems to not care for anyone in the slightest (until the very end when he narrowly escapes being arrested over his monkey son stealing jewellery because his parents are divorcing). Probably the only movie on Reagan's roster that can be called a comedy, it's underwhelming to say the least. Reagan's character spends most of the movie not actually caring about anything other than his need to prove a point (ie. his fiance, his reputation, the monkey he's raising like his son) and continually blowing off everyone in favor of nothing in particular. In the happy ending, he leaves his fiance for the woman he was raising the monkey with despite never actually showing any sort of development in his relationship with her. The clip of Peter kissing Jane and then bonzo does a backflip in reaction to this made me laugh unreasonably hard. 

SPECIAL FEATURE: RORY REVIEW

If there’s anything Jordan Peele’s 2022 horror/scifi film Nope has taught us, it’s that chimpanzees are 4 foot murder machines with an insatiable taste for human blood. This proposes the following question; who would win in a fight, a chimpanzee, or Ronald Reagan?

Bedtime For Bonzo was Ronald Reagan’s foray into the world of wacky movie primates, in which he hires a nanny to help him raise the titular chimp Bonzo to help fix his daddy issues and prove he can marry his girlfriend. An unnamed imdb user once described it as “...a masterful piece of film-making, an epic in the truest sense of the word and by far the finest gangster film ever shot. Made with finesse, style to spare and a director that elicits pitch-perfect performances from a talented cast, this is movie making as it should be…” this is objectively a sentence that can be said, as a result of free will, regardless of how true it is. In the film, Ronald Reagan’s character Peter spends the majority of the runtime sneaking around with his nanny (Jane ??? I think ???) behind his girlfriend’s back and playing house. Some particularly interesting moments I remember include but are not limited to;
Peter and Jane referring to each other as “Mama” and “Papa” in front of the monkey
Him KISSING HER GOODBYE ON THE MOUTH every morning 
Them supposedly sleeping in the same bed ????
Him somehow being surprised that she fell in love with him
Them running off into the sunset to be together at the end of the movie
The obvious highlight of this movie is the funny monkey shenanigans. The two leads will be having a faux marital spat then the camera would cut back to Bonzo, where it’s almost played like this chimp is upset at their argument. He also screams a lot and the mic peaks and that is funny. And he rides a tricycle once, which is funny. He also steals a really expensive necklace but learns the value of doing the right thing and returns it.

This movie taught me a lot about monkeys. And about bedtimes. Hence me falling asleep during the movie with 20 minutes left. I give Bedtime For Bingzoid a 6/10, because even though it lowk made no sense and will not stick with me, it was a funny monkey movie.

KINGS ROW

Roxy and rory score: 3/10
Movie overall: 6/10
Reagan’s performance: 7.5/10
Average group rating: 4.5/10
This movie dragged and it had way too many major plot points. The first major one is that the main character, Parris’s childhood sweetheart, began to lose her mind just like her mother had, so her father poisoned her and then shot himself to prevent parris from being “stuck” with her and losing his chance to be a great doctor. This motivates Parris to become a psychiatrist, so he moves away. There is a very long sub-plot where his grandmother dies and this subplot holds little actual significance other than giving parris a chance to quote her at the end and decide between telling his friend a painful truth or putting a normal woman in an insane asylum for discovering said truth, which is framed as a difficult decision for our protagonist who is a psychiatrist. Reagan’s character, Drake, had a wavering role, becoming very relevant when he's down on his luck after losing all his money and then when he has his legs amputated after a work accident and becomes withdrawn. Admittedly, Drake shows a wide array of emotions not seen in other Reagan movies I've watched where he habitually smolders through every line and hopes that counts as acting. His triumphant laughter, breaking him free from his withdrawal and shame about his disability (though poorly timed and honestly not a great way to wrap up a movie) was sold pretty well so extra points for Reagan on this one. Other scenes such as “RANDY, WHERE'S THE REST OF ME?” came off odd, where i would have expected a visceral panic or disgust he seems to convey the loud but shy fear a child might display after a nightmare– he saves the scene with the way he faints, his body limp and face obscured in darkness. The movie overall, though there are fragments of ideas of morality or insanity or the idea of self, feels oddly pointless despite its themes. This movie is usually used to argue that Ronald Reagan CAN act, and sure enough he could, just not well. 

THIS IS THE ARMY

Overall: 8/10
Reagan’s role: 5/10
This movie is a “musical” but not really a story based one so much as it is a compilation of army themed acts and numbers with a bit of story to contextualise the army relief show for the first 30 or so minutes of the movie. The acts themselves are extremely impressive, and it was an enjoyable watch with a fabulous amount of drag, much to my surprise. Unfortunately given the time this movie was released in, there was a minstrel/vaudeville act (which, by the way, was fairly dated even when the movie was released, AND a character in the movie comments on this). Reagan's role occurs in patches throughout the movie with a little arc about his character being drafted and then refusing to marry his lover out of fear of leaving her a widow. Eventually he marries her during one of the “this is the army” acts and it's a happy ending. I begin to understand what people mean when they say Reagan “can’t act”; he isn't a sloppy or overtly bad actor but he shows very little genuine emotion so even though you're convinced he IS the character, you hate the character. Why he was typecast for melodramas I really couldn't say.




I gave up on trying to find some deus-ex diamond in the rough, I think I’ve seen enough here. 

To conclude, Ronald Reagan wasn’t so much an actor turned politician, but a born politician who did a short stint union busting while he masqueraded as an actor. I regret self inducing the headache that is Ronald Reagan movies and my only comfort is perhaps that he is looking up at us as his movies continue to be criticised 60 years later. I hope my friends can forgive me for making them watch these with me and vote on them. 

Al Gore and Climate Activism: Grift or No Grift?

 

The following is a speech I did to a small group of people that was received quite well so I'm posting it here


To preface this speech I realise it is probably necessary to give a quick introduction to Al Gore as a person, because anyone who’s ear I haven’t already talked off about him is likely unfamiliar with him. So, here is a quick summary I shamelessly ripped from my own webpage.

Al served the USA as vice president to president Bill Clinton, a self-described "Conservative Christian Democrat". 

The Clinton-Gore administration is known for reducing government bloat- they had a 123 BILLION dollar budget surplus in 1999, which is the largest recorded surplus in the USA, even adjusting for inflation. An example from Vice President Gore himself when he appeared on Letterman: they had found that the ashtrays used in government buildings were required to be of such quality that they had to break into less than a certain amount of pieces if broken! Reducing wasteful practices like this on a large scale is said to be how they cut so much fat while preserving muscle, so to speak. Al ran for President of the United States in 2000 with Joe Lieberman as his running mate– his platform ran on topics such as medicare, social security, and climate preservation– he even did a fairly decent job taking credit for the Clinton-Gore administration's victories while dodging the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, in which the president was revealed to be having an affair with a Whitehouse intern.  Al won the popular vote by 543,895 votes, but lost in the electoral college, at the time making him the only person besides Grover Cleveland to have this happen (Though Hillary Clinton soon followed). It was a topic of immense debate at the time, many calling for a recount, but Gore conceded to maintain humility. Currently, Gore is predominantly a climate activist. 


A common misconception about Al is that he “defected” to climate research after he lost (ahem, AHEM, WON) election 2000 because he was an attention seeking man child who couldn't bear irrelevance. This is not true.

 As a young man,  Al worked on his family’s farm in Carthage, Tennessee and thus learned about all those things you need to know so you don't have a big hole where your land should be; topsoil erosion, cattle care, pesticides, the like. Gore himself said his interest in the environment actually began as a teenager when his mother was reading a magazine about pesticides and their impact on the environment. 

But, contrary to what some would let you believe, it was FAR from a passive interest. Al Gore not only made the climate an issue in his time as vice president, but at only 28 years of age in 1976, he held some of the first congressional hearings on climate change and co-sponsored hearings on toxic waste and global warming. He became close with David Keeling, the FIRST MAN to measure co2 levels, and this helped to fuel his passion towards the scientific case for climate activism. 

Progressing, in 1992 as a senator he released an ENTIRE BOOK called “earth in the balance” which, by the way, i've listened to the abridged audiobook about a million times and im halfway thru the actual book (go check it out it’s great). Earth in the Balance was the first book released by a sitting senator to make it to the bestsellers list since JOHN F. KENNEDY’S “Profiles in Courage”.  

He went on to try and get the kyoto protocol passed as vice president and regularly made it a topic of his speeches. I mean, when I hear myself list this all off i think the accusation that he's purely a grifter is a little absurd; Al wasn’t getting called “Ozone Man” by George H.W Bush in 1992 just for people in 2012 to say he just started grifting to cope with his recent divorce.

Now,  I will be real about this, Al has said and will probably again voice predictions about the climate that are wrong; I had to google this to confirm what he was actually wrong about because my only sources were the confusingly recent hate comments on his posts, but al gore has a harmful habit of overshooting climate crisis predictions. 

To name the most erroneous of the few:
 

- He made a model that basically said half of Florida was going to sink

- He said it would straight up stop snowing on mount Kilimanjaro by 2020

-And, he’s taken a liking to the theory linking hurricanes and global warming, though some scientists say the link is tenuous. 


HOWEVER, To say that a few mistakes in the 50 odd years he’s been campaigning for, when he isn’t and doesn't claim to be a climate expert, merely someone voicing the concerns of them, is not an unforgivable crime and I don't believe it does away with the good that he’s done. On the climate, al gore has released 6 books, two documentaries, and he still gets around doing speeches every now and then. If it were a grift, he at least deserves credit for investing early, when people still called you a tree-hugging hippie for saying fast cars and hairspray aren't worth setting the ocean on fire for, and even more credit for continuing it well past retirement age.

Learning to love Big Brother: 1984 and violent acts of truth as love

Everyone has heard “literally 1984” and during at least one point in their life had to listen to a rant about how relevant it is today, but upon reading it, i was more thoroughly gripped by the way that the totalitarian society depicted warps the characters and readers ideas of love, oppression, and control. 

In a world where non-reproductive sex is an act of rebellion against the loved and trusted authority, Winston finds a special kind of hatred in the way that the red “anti-sex league” sash rests upon the hips of the dark haired woman who passes him in the hallway. The desire to kill her crosses his mind and for a moment he cherishes it, genuinely considering the action upon seeing her in a place he wasn’t meant to be. Eventually, she confesses love (a thoughtcrime in of itself between party members) to him through a note smuggled to him in the hall, and the two begin their long and recurring affair wherever they can hide from Big Brother. 

In 1984, Totalitarianism skews ideas of what would otherwise be love. Winston feels that having sex with Julia is a political act, not really love or an animalistic urge. When he can't have sex with her he feels he is being deprived of a given, but shrugs off the feeling. However, telling her that in all honesty he considered beating her head in with a rock is his first act of love to her because it was an act of truth. plain, bare honesty, however violent the sentiment may be. when he refers to a "refusal to betray her" he doesn't mean he wont tell the party every crime they committed, he means that he won't stop loving her even when he does tell them everything. Julia, who confessed "love" to him before he could even really say he liked her, not only sold him out immediately, but betrayed him in the same instance. 

Similarly, I like to imagine that in the same way that Winston telling Julia he originally wanted to kill her was an act of love, O'Brien telling Winston of Big Brother’s true intentions was also an act of love. In 1984, especially in later chapters there is an idea that Winston is meant to view the torture as loving correction. Winston is insane, O'Brien is offering to cure him. Winston has reduced himself to the emaciated state he can see in the mirror, but The Party is compassionate, caring: they only want to make your brain perfect before they blow it out. 

The violent compassion seen in the torture comes from Big Brother. O'Brien wants him to see "reality" which is not objective but rather established from a point of reference according to the party. But even through the ideas O'Brien forces Winston to accept, there is a single, plain, truth: "power is not a means, but an end. the party does not seek to benefit the people, only itself." which, though in O'Brien's case is masterfully discarded through doublethink, feels like thoughtcrime. 

This sentiment comes off as being not of the party: The party bans any sort of religious worship, however, in his deranged scribbles along with assorted party slogans, Winston pauses, reflects upon O'Brien's words, and writes "GOD IS POWER".

The message is garbled in his drug-addled and brainwashed mind, but the idea comes out in a way that is contradictory to Ingsoc values, showing just a glimpse of rebellion in an otherwise incapable man.

 

My Top Favorite Norman Moments

Norman is my favorite gas station tweaker, which is why I'm compiling a list of the best Norman moments, as well as partially explaining why they're my favorites. This list will include ridiculously mundane feats as well as his stranger arcs.

Norman having a psychotic break and getting naked in the thunderbolts basement while fantasizing about being president

In this scene, Norman drops easily one of the funniest monologues I've ever heard:

"Always the same. I have to do everything myself.
Can't rely on anyone these days. All too busy reading about dying pop stars and iron mans pants. You two! Report to the quartermaster and get yourself a pair of dresses, on the double!
I always knew it'd come down to this. I always have to be the man.
Good old Norman Osborn. He’ll bail us out. He'll save the day. He'll be the hero.
Norman will make the hard choices, Norman has no feelings. Norman will make the girl pregnant and snap her neck in public. Norman wont mind. Norman will do what it takes. Norman will take care of everything, don’t you lift a damn finger to help or, god forbid, do your damn job. There's a space monster and a mad swordsman loose in the base– shall we trust the high security complement and the team of superhumans to deal with it? Oh, no. lets make a complete dog’s breakfast of the whole operation so Norman has to clean things up. I'm a fricking martyr to my own innate heroism, is what I am. Norman Osborn. America’s last hero. Thats what i am. One day I'm going to run the country, and do you think anyone will appreciate me then? Of course they won’t. Of course they won’t.  It'll be 'Excuse me Mister President Osborn sir, I don't have the strength to take out my own garbage, can you do it for me?' Thats what it'll be like. 'President Osborn! I'd love to be able to do anything competently, but my family tree looks like 2 yard sticks jutting out of a dead racoon.'
Hitler never had this kind of trouble, people just always did what he asked.. Must have been nice.
Ah I'm so glad I never washed this particular costume, it smells like death, blondes and victory. Maybe this could be my presidential uniform. Do presidents have uniforms? I suppose not. Still, since I'd be the president, I could do what I want, really. I'd rewrite all this superhuman legislation junk, I'll tell you that for nothing. 'Are you a self-proclaimed superhero?' 'aw, shucks, sir, i sure am a regular guy in bad underpants who fights crime without any understanding of how the world works, yes.' 'excellent, i send you now to a concentration camp where  you will be sterilised, lobotomised, tenderised, and pastuerised.' 'so says president goblin!'. Actually, that's a bit more doctor doom, isn't it? Still, the ideas sound.
Note to self: give naked dictation more often. The ideas seem to flow more freely.
Now, lets take care of business. And then, i think, i shall viciously beat some complete strangers at random. Theyre bound to have done something to deserve it at some point, after all.
Swordsman, swordsman.. What shall we do with you? Aside from kill you, of course. Of course I have to kill you. Its what the little people expect me to do. This is how I display my heroism."

You could tell that this wasn't just the classic "insane person spews nonsense" trope we're so used to, everything he said was so well articulated that you know he is all there, it just happens to be that all of his ideas are so deeply insane that he's clearly been off the wagon since the start.

Truly one of the most amazing ways they could've showed Norman snapping.

The Multiple Times He Straight Up Bit Someone

After Norman was arrested in Civil War: Front line #8 for shooting someone in broad daylight (he didn't do it, he swears!), they had to muzzle him because he bit the guy arresting him. He knew it wouldn't free him, and he never goes for a fatal bite, it's always just the hand or arm. He just did it to ruin the guy's day, I love that about him.

He did it again on the cover of Osborn: Evil Incarcerated 4. I Think my favorite part about this is you can tell he isn't even being arrested in this image, he's AT the trial he turned himself in to get (and, obviously, lost anyway). Something tells me that trial went down like The state of Georgia vs Denver Fenton Allen.

On the topic of Osborn: Evil Incarcerated, I also found it really funny that through the entire comic his waves looked nasty as hell and then they looked fine when he turned himself in. I very firmly believe he broke out just to get them re-done.

idk what to title this one

I love how this scene makes it very apparent that he doesn't know how to have a normal conversation so he just makes a 30Rock reference (which didn't land because everyone at the table was 12). Norman paraphrasing the scene so poorly seems to imply that its been a while since he saw that scene but it stuck with him for some reason anyway. He definitely seems like a Jack Donaghy fan.

Wiped sweat off Bullseye's face and then licked it

Self explanatory. Why did he choose this as his intimidation tactic? Why did it work?

This was a scene from Thunderbolts #110 and it definitely did its job setting a precedent for what kind of insanity to expect from Norman as leader of the T-bolts.

Became a Super-Adaptoid

A super-adaptoid is essentially someone who gains the power of anyone they make physical contact with, and it gets explained that Norman had become one so he could stand a change against the avengers after he got out of prison, but they explained this AFTER New Avengers (2010) #20 when he grabbed Luke Cage by the head and bowled him like a baseball. The few comics before they explained why he could do this were absolute gold, in my opinion. Sometimes I wish they never explained it- I enjoyed thinking he just did that because he wanted

to.

 

What is going on with Norman Osborn and why does it suck?

Norman Osborn is marvels favorite safety net to fall back on when they need someone to ruin peter’s day, he’s perfect for any sort of complication because his drive is oftentimes just “I'm strong and you're weak so I hate you” put through about 5 different filters to have political or psychological implications. …so why did they take that away?

You might notice our new hero ‘the Gold Goblin’ making a fair amount of appearances all throughout modern marvel comics, and this was caused by an event that can be traced back to an arc from the 2020 Amazing Spider-Man comics. 

In ASM  (2018)  issue 50, Norman has a run-in with the character known as the sin-eater. Real name Stanley Carter, sin-eater became obsessed with the idea of cleansing the world of sin. Though I refuse to read into any of his appearances that don't coincide with Norman’s, his powers can be summed up like this:

Stanley shoots bad men with his magic shotgun

Bad men die 

The bad man then comes back a good man, cleansed of sin (which, as far as I can tell, is defined the same as in a biblical context) and plagued with guilt about their previous life.

During his encounter with Carter, Norman proposes an alliance, and after being denied this alliance, calls him out for being a deluded zealot being manipulated by Kindred (who was later revealed to be Harry). Stan, still focused on his mission of cleansing the world from sin, shoots Norman in the chest and leaves him to go tell kindred the work is done.

Though the exact ‘rules’ of how sin works aren't really explained well, Norman goes on, free of his sin and overwhelmed with guilt and the sudden revelation that he has to save his son.

I'm not going to summarize the whole comic but I will bring up parts of it periodically.

After the last remains fiasco that left harry dead and in the middle of some very convoluted ret-cons, Norman rebuilds Oscorp and swears to stay away from goblining or gliders, (though later accepts his duty as a hero and rebuilds himself, nicknamed by the public “Gold Goblin”).

Given his own mini, Norman confesses that despite being cleansed of sin, the guilt leeches into every factor of his life- the memories of his past actions haunt him and he can't help but hate himself. Distraught, he works harder than he ever has to save as many lives as possible in hopes that somehow it’ll make up for everything he’s done.

Normans thoughts were explored quite well, and i did enjoy seeing that being cleansed of sin didn’t magically re-wire his thought patterns and make norman Not Norman- he hates Owen because he thinks he’s incompetent and weak- he faces Kafka and his first thought isn’t just ‘stop her’, it’s ‘kill her’ (and he would have gone through with it if The Ghost Of Schizophrenic Past hadn't told him to cut the shit). It was good to see there were at least some reasonable aspects of the way the comic was written.

Unfortunately, even though I enjoyed the execution quite a lot, I hated what it was at its core. 

It gets revealed at the end of the 2nd issue that when Norman was cleansed of his sin, they went into Kafka and she became the Queen Goblin- the total manifestation of Norman's evil. What does that even mean? The comic goes on to insinuate that the sins are eating her alive and that they are slowly killing her, but how? She isn't sick, she’s just violent and has adapted Norman's knack for murder as a solution to a problem. There's a couple times where they almost outright state that she got his memories, too, and she clearly blames him for what he did and is just DYING to return those sins to him, but what does that even mean in a literal sense? 

In the end of the comic, Norman panics and kills her to get her away from Peter and then breaks down sobbing, insisting he had to. This weird gripe continues in Amazing Spider-man (2022) #32, when Kafka, who came back because someone at Ravencroft didn’t cremate her, gets Kraven (who just piped her, idk why that was clarified but alright) to help her “imbue the sins in a spear” (????) and plans to stab Norman to give them back to him. This plan fails, Peter gets the sins, and then we get The Spider Who Gobs. 

….what?

It becomes increasingly obvious that none of the writers have actually agreed upon what it means to “carry Norman's sins” and they're just frantically re-establishing the boundaries so they can keep crossing them. After an underwhelming and overhyped 3 comic saga, Norman sets the spear to steal-sins mode (WHAT??) and stabs Peter with it, but just as Norman expected, the sins return to their rightful owner. Alone in the confines of his office, Norman stifles a giggle. 

My issue with this is not only that the sins were clearly never supposed to be a “tangible” thing, but even after they've broken this golden rule, they can't stick with whatever bullshit constraints they established in literally the comic RIGHT before it!

Let me get this straight-

Norman gets his sins sapped from his body. The memories remain, but guilt looms over him.

Kafka receives these ‘sins’ and along with it, his memories, and loses her guilt. The sins are agreed upon by both parties to be ‘eating away at her like acid’ despite any symptoms manifesting.

The sins get put in a SPEAR, a physical object, he gets stabbed with it, and instead of inheriting Norman's memories, he just wants to get revenge on everyone who personally wronged him.

Norman RE-OBTAINS the sins but experiences no sudden violent urges, instead quietly giggling and then thinking “oh man I don't wanna be evil!!” and then just not being evil.

Now, I understand that sometimes interpolating science fiction with supernatural concepts can be rocky, and implying new rules is necessary sometimes to introduce these ideas and personalise them into a story YOU want to write, but at least try and stick to the rules you're writing! Obviously, it was ambitious to say the least for me to expect something good from the already over-complicated origin of Norman's new-found goodness, but the fact that it somehow got worse was astonishing. They’re bringing back the green goblin, if not in the comic that releases almost immediately after this, then the one after that. Everyone expected this from Zeb ‘put-the-toys-back-in-the-box’ Wells, but so far they’ve failed to successfully convey how those sins have actually resurfaced in Norman. The closest recognizable attempt I saw was in ASM 37, when Norman walks into his office at the business that HE HAS TO MANAGE, sees REK-RAP, tells Peter to do his damn job and stop bringing freaks into work (quite politely and logically at that), and then leaves. Zeb Wells is so incompetent he accidentally just wrote a grounded and reasonable response to the situation while he was trying to show Norman being an asshole. 

In conclusion, Norman good character writers bad writers I hate modern comics