Is Peter Parker a baby killer? Check out my view on the latest hullaballoo, and keep the debate alive in the comment section!
THE SUPERIOR SPIDER-MAN #9
“Troubled Mind Part Two [sic]: Gray Matters”
WRITER: Dan Slott
ARTIST: Ryan Stegman
COLOR ART: Edgar Delgado
LETTERER: Chris Eliopoulos
PLOT POINTS:
- Ghost Peter, Otto explains, is a consciousness manifested from the remaining memories in Peter’s brain. Using the brain scanning helmet he retrieved last issue, Otto attempts to erase Peter’s memories, thereby destroying Ghost Peter. Doctor Octopus and Ghost Peter battle within Peter’s mindscape. Ghost Peter summons the memories of his friends to aid him, while Ock calls upon a mental army of villains.
- As the war turns against Ock, Ghost Peter makes Otto admit that stealing Peter’s life was bad. Otto, however, starts rationalizing his actions as giving the world a “superior” Spider-Man. Otto turns the tables by forcing Ghost Peter to admit that, in issue #8, Ghost Peter attempted to halt Otto from performing life-saving brain surgery on a child because in doing so Otto would gain access to the brain scanning helmet and discover Ghost Peter.
- Ghost Peter collapses, allowing Otto to purge Peter’s memories and seemingly delete Ghost Peter. Otto awakens, claiming he is free.
OPINIONS!
Superior Spider-Man #9 provokes considerable controversy, but thankfully little of that controversy concerns the notion that Peter Parker actually “died” this issue. I guess we all finally know better. Rather, folks mostly seem mad that Ghost Peter, to protect himself, obstructed Otto’s curing a dying little girl. Who enjoys seeing their childhood role model jeopardize an innocent life to save his own non-literal skin? I get it.
But I loved this issue’s ending.
Yeah, I see you there, hitting your caps lock button, ready to verbally crucify me in the comments section. Hear me out. I perceive at least three factors that mitigate this plot development’s so-called travesty.
Mitigating factor 1: Ghost Peter isn’t REALLY Peter. Otto defines Ghost Peter in the panel below. We can trust Otto’s conclusion because this is a scientific matter within the story’s context, and therein lies Otto’s expertise.
Thus, Ghost Peter represents a “version” of Peter Parker that was not “created” until after Otto removed Peter’s consciousness from Peter’s body, but left Peter’s memories intact for Otto’s access. Peter Parker’s original consciousness died inside Otto’s body in ASM #700. Ghost Peter is a distinct entity–he’s all those leftover memories taking on their own life. So if you’re upset that the Peter Parker we know and love tried to let a little girl die, don’t be. He didn’t.
Nevertheless, I do think Otto’s line “it seems we are the sum of our experiences” suggests that Ghost Peter, being the product of Peter’s memories, is cut from the same cloth as the original. I suspect that Ghost Peter mirrors Peter such that they’d behave identically under identical circumstances. Any characterization of Ghost Peter characterizes Peter by extension. I prefer that interpretation because I have no interest in Ghost Peter independent from what we can learn about the real Peter through him.
Mitigating Factor 2: Ghost Peter wasn’t CONSCIOUSLY looking out for himself. Let’s look back at #8’s key scene:
Notice Ghost Peter’s words here, stating that his reason for stopping the operation is that Otto is arrogant, that he doesn’t know what he’s doing. Pop quiz: to whom is Ghost Peter speaking? He addresses Doc Ock, but he can’t intend for Doc Ock to hear him, not if Ghost Peter’s real objective is to evade Ock’s detection. No, the true answer is that Ghost Peter is talking to himself, and that means he has no reason to lie. So the reason he gives in the moment for hindering Ock is what he consciously thinks at the time. Only later, after forced introspection, does Peter realize that he had the deeper, subconscious motivation to protect himself. And as soon as Ghost Peter realizes that he, like every living thing, possesses an unconscious drive to survive at all costs, the knowledge immediately destroys him. So if you’re upset that Ghost Peter actively formed the thought “I need to kill this girl to save myself,” don’t be. He didn’t.
Mitigating Factor 3: Ghost Peter’s hand shook for SECONDS. Examine the previous image again. By the next panel, which I cropped out due to size, Otto appears fully in control. Accordingly, this hubbub is over Ghost Peter quivering Otto’s hand for less than one page. On the podcast, my friend Kevin argued that Ghost Peter must have expended great willpower to accomplish even that. I disagree. The stories chronicle Ghost Peter’s controlling Otto’s limbs starting with Avenging Spider-Man #15.1, when Otto’s hand inexplicably jutted out to topple a fleeing criminal. Ghost Peter’s first on-panel appearance in SSM #1 displayed him holding Otto’s hand still with no apparent exertion. We’ve only seen Ghost Peter straining to control Otto’s arms when attempting complex tasks like writing a note or drawing a picture. Slightly trembling Otto’s hand for seconds is nothing; Ghost Peter has had less trouble doing far more. So if you’re upset that Ghost Peter exerted himself to sabotage the surgery, don’t be. He didn’t.
These factors develop the following picture: a sort of psychic echo of Peter Parker experiences a fleeting, unconscious, selfish impulse that causes his hand to vibrate for a few seconds and quickly stop. And when confronted with even that minuscule of a lapse, Ghost Peter’s entire psyche literally crumbles in on itself. If that’s character assassination, then you must expect Ghost Peter to be some kind of Spider-Christ. We love Peter in part because he isn’t a saint, he deals all the same passions and impulses that everyone deals with, but he doesn’t let them get the better of him. They didn’t get the better of him (or the “ghost” version of him) here, they merely caused a moment’s hesitation. He would never go through with it, and when push came to shove the hesitation did pass, but that one weak fiber of his being is there.
This character beat is not gratuitous. No less of a lapse could serve the storytelling purpose accomplished here. Ghost Peter needed to confront a truth about himself so disturbing that it could unmake and unravel his entire sense of self so that Otto could finally erase him. It fits the bill that a part of himself, however small and buried, would instinctively value his own survival over a completely innocent person’s wellbeing. Anything less would have not felt significant enough to carry the story through this transition, and anything more really would have been out of character. This issue walks a narrow tightrope and gets it right. It’s a challenging story, and it tells a difficult truth about the Peter Parker, but I wholeheartedly endorse it as a compelling read.
As an aside, I would add that letting that girl die would have been the rationally correct ethical decision. Quite frankly, Peter’s life is more valuable than the life of a chronically ill toddler. Sorry, but looking cute and snuggling penguin dolls will never save the world from Firelord. And face it, Doctor Octopus with Peter’s body and powers is a threat to everyone. The “Superior” Spider-Man has already committed murder once, and the only reason the body count isn’t higher is because Ghost Peter has actively prevented Otto from killing others. As a general trend, Otto is directing his violent outbursts toward progressively less deserving targets (from Massacre to Screwball to Cardiac) and there is every reason to believe that truly innocent victims are next. I realize that Peter himself would not actually rationalize it like this, but it needed to be said.
Anyhow, my friend Don wrote that “we are supposed to be left with the idea that Ock is morally superior than Peter.” I disagree. In order to support that conclusion the issue would have to imply that if the roles were reversed, then Otto would have sacrificed himself to cure the girl. To the contrary, the current status quo exists precisely because Otto killed another to save himself. This issue demonstrates that when required to face the selfishness of his choice, Otto reacts by rationalizing and twisting the facts to place himself in a positive light. Ghost Peter also enters denial mode when facing his inner selfishness, screaming “I’d never…” until the guilt kills him. I don’t think this issue declares one rival morally superior to the other so much as it highlights the parallels between them. To answer whether Otto actually qualifies as the better man would require an essay, not merely a “yes” or “no,” and reasonable people could defend opposing conclusions. That said, the final panel showing Peterpus grinning is clearly intended to be frightening. We aren’t being told that Otto winning this battle bodes well for the world.
At this point, I realize that I’ve written much more than usual, yet I’ve only covered the final few pages. That goes to show this issue’s depth. I find the bulk of the comic interesting, if not as provocative as the ending. Normally, I dislike stories taking place in a character’s imagination, dream, vision, or etcetera. Such stories usually seem too abstract and incorporeal. This issue avoids those pitfalls by establishing a concrete rule governing the consequences for the inner-happenings of Peter’s brain: whenever the embodiment of a person or thing gets destroyed in the mental battlefield, Ghost Peter loses the memory of that person or thing. I find this mechanic effective. When Peter struggles and fails to remember Uncle Ben, it feels like Otto has violated him like few villains have.
The art team clearly worked hard to make this a standout issue. The cover, particularly, should go down as an all-time classic. Inside, Ryan Stegman draws mobs of supporting characters and villains, and he does so using the classic design for each character. One must also praise Stegman for his creative panel layouts. Some individual images are particularly memorable, including Peter’s ripping his face off to reveal his Spidey masks underneath, a later image of Otto doing the same (solidifying the parallelism theme and depicting that Otto views his inner self as Spider-man now), and a beautiful fight between the Superior and Amazing Spider-Men. I love the contrast between their costumes, especially in how they’re colored. Unfortunately, Slott’s corny dialogue occasionally mars the pretty pictures.
Although I like how Edgar Delgado colored the Spidey vs. Spidey sequence, truth be told I do not care for the coloring overall. SSM #9 should delight enthusiasts of pea green and beige, but for me these colors egregiously dull down such a visually-driven story. I understand the purpose behind tinting the visual representation of Peter’s psyche the color of Doctor Octopus’s old school costume, but the pallet sometimes comes dangerously close to making Ryan Stegman’s work look boring.
I do think the cliffhanger is repetitive of ASM #698 and ASM #700, issues that also end with Peter’s apparent death and Otto’s “permanent” claiming of Peter’s identity. But this comic offers so much more than a shocking status quo change. No Spider-Man comic has made me think this much in a long while.
A-
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Pandora
Amazon Music
iHeartRadio
Podbean
Amazon Alexa
Player.fm
Listen Notes
Stitcher
Very helpful facts. Blessed my family I uncovered your website by accident, and i am taken aback exactly why this kind of automobile accident wouldn’t occurred before hand! We book-marked them.
Ok…So let me see if i got this straight…
Slott is implying that, the fact that a reflection of one’s personality, having self-preservation impulses and showing the disposition of sacrificing another’s life in order to survive. – and i’m not considering here my perception that, GHOST PETER is, in fact, a DEFENSIVE RESPONSE of peter subconscious and memories, due to the presence of another, INVASIVE AND STRANGE set of the same into HIS brain. – is IN FACT, the proper, natural, precise response that said personality WOULD have in the same situation?
And is he by ANY MEANS implying that, this behaviour in particular, make’s him a lesser man and a “vilain” in face of the man who, 10 editions ago…Did basically, THE EXACT SAME THING?
That’s the biggest load of crap i have ever heard or read since Quesada put his hand on spider-man and try to convince me that NO ONE in the Marvel Universe could heal a BULLET WOUND.( Yeah, im STILL bitching about that…)
The issue as a whole was fine, but it’s the little touches that I liked. Parker forgetting his name (“Parker? Palmer?”) is a nice throwback to a looooong forgotten typo from one of the first issues of Spider-Man that accidentally called him Peter Palmer (as only Merry Marvelites will remember).
Another nice touch is how the Vulture is not among Ock’s mental army of villains; I was originally a little irked at this (Toomes is a classic villain, after all) until I remembered that Ock and Vultch have had a big falling out not too long ago. Then ago, I doubt Ock is too happy with Mysterio after their last team-up…
Sorry if this comment seems way off base from the main point of the article, but I thought I would throw in my quick opinion. Carry on!
P.S. Am I the only one who thinks the Living Brain’s speech patterns are deliberately based on Robby the Robot?
I think that your mitigating factors are a good way to rationalise Ghost Peters actions in this issue, but I also don’t think its entirely necessary. I mean, if you look at what Ghost Peter is saying its that he doesn’t think Ock can perform the surgery. If you look at it logically there is actually NO way that Ock would perform the surgery: he doesn’t know how, Cardiac doesn’t know if he can, there are plenty of other surgeons around who can actually do it etc.
@20 You seem to be saying that you disagree with all the mitigating factors but you agree with their conclusion anyway? I can see the reasoning for number 1, but for number 2 he wasn’t lying about his motivations, he wasn’t aware of them himself. Thats the entire point of an unconscious, that its there to protect you from your base desires or things you can’t deal with and that you are unaware of it. This can be justified by what I said above: his rational reasons for not wanting Ock to do the surgery are sound, but there are other factors which he is unaware of leading him to have an emotional response to what was happening, both an a conscious level of wanting to protect the little girl and on the unconscious level of protecting himself.
On a side note, I think that this character assassination is Slott trying to deal with one of his own personality flaws: he actually really loves Spidey, but knows he isn’t as good a person as Peter, so he’s bringing Peter down to his level.
I have to say this is a very-well written review, Chris, and you make some compelling arguments. That being said, I disagree with your conclusions, in particular your mitigating factors.
Regarding Mitigating Factor #1: That is precisely why I fundamentally disagree with the notion that Peter would be the kind of person who would be willing to risk the life of an innocent person just to save himself. Because even though you are correct in saying that Ghost Peter is not actually the real Peter, you’re also correct in saying that this issue makes the case that, if the real Peter had been in this same exact circumstances as Ghost Peter, he would’ve done the exact same thing. Given all of his years of him being a superhero and how he’s been characterized, Peter just would not be the type of person who would be willing to put his own life ahead of someone else, especially that of an innocent child.
Regarding Mitigating Factor #2: You say that “Ghost Peter is talking to himself, and that means he has no reason to lie” and then add “the reason he gives in the moment for hindering Ock is what he consciously thinks at the time. Only later, after forced introspection, does Peter realize that he had the deeper, subconscious motivation to protect himself.” Well, with all due respect, that actually PROVES that Ghost Peter was indeed lying to himself about his real motivations–which is exactly what Doc Ock accused him of doing. Just because you talking or thinking to yourself doesn’t automatically mean what your saying or thinking is the truth.
Regarding Mitigating Factor #3: Those moments from Avenging Spider-Man #15.1 and Superior Spider-Man #1 are easily explained in hindsight from him doing something similar in Superior Spider-Man #7 in which Ghost Peter prevented Doc Ock from delivering a killing blow to Cardiac–they were purely emotional responses, moments in which he didn’t have time to think. However, any time he was making a conscious decision, such attempting to write and draw a picture, it was far more difficult task and required more force of will–which is EXACTLY what the trembling of Doc Ock’s hand during the surgery indicates. And notice it is DOC OCK, not Ghost Peter, who regains control, which makes sense considering how, at this point in the story, Doc Ock is now aware of the “anomaly” within his own brain patterns.
You also mention that “letting that girl die would have been the rationally correct ethical decision. Quite frankly, Peter’s life is more valuable than the life of a chronically ill toddler. Sorry, but looking cute and snuggling penguin dolls will never save the world from Firelord. And face it, Doctor Octopus with Peter’s body and powers is a threat to everyone.” The problem is that Peter DOESN’T think that way. His Uncle’s death taught him that ALL life is precious; to let someone else die for the “greater good” would only add tremendous amount of guilt. How do we know this? Because we saw this happen in Dan Slott’s very own “Ends of the Earth” in which Silver Sable, while pinned down by the Rhino as they were both drowning, urged Spidey to leave her behind to stop Doc Ock. And as we saw, Spidey was DEVASTATED by this, that he felt it was complete betrayal of his own moral code. Considering how Ghost Peter would have those same exact memories, there’s no way he would ever allow himself to be put into a similar position where he had to potentially sacrifice an innocent person for the “greater good,” much less his own self-preservation–especially since it would be, from the comic’s perspective, a very recent experience.
I feel very strongly that interviews are just that, interviews. A review should be based primarily upon the content and the story should stand on it’s own merits. There are too many movies, shows, etc. where the comments by the directors make sense…then you watch the movie and the execution is lacking or a key point is muddled. So an interview or the comments section of a DVD may be interesting, but from my vantage point they should be used minimally for review purposes.
As for the review above, bravo CC. This is an excellent example of staying away from the hype and using only the story to reinforce an interpretation. Glad that it got your attention and made you think about it on many levels. I cannot recall a recent issue of ASM that made me feel the same way.
I would think us discussing makes him rub his large tummy and laugh like a cartoon villian at us being upset with the character assassination that he is doing.
From K-Box in the Box (3#) “Except that everything you’ve said to defend Ghost Peter is flatly contradicted by Slott and Wacker’s explicit statements in several interviews, in which they stated straight-out that 1) Ghost Peter IS a true reflection of the “real” Peter, and 2) Peter WOULD consciously look out for himself at the expense of someone else.”
Its the only way Slott and Wacker can excuse the character assassination they are doing to Peter Parker. In reality and the way the character has been written outside of the “Brand New Day” universe, Peter would never even entertain the notion of sacrificing a child for his own life. Subconsciously or not.
From CrazyChris (7#) “I haven’t read a whole lot of interviews in the past month because I’ve been moving. Also, I’m undecided on whether interviews are fair to consider in a review. On one hand they are a factor that can affect one’s enjoyment of a story. On the other hand they aren’t technically part of the work that’s being reviewed. What does everyone else think about that?”
You’re right, you don’t need to read interviews when you are reviewing something, the work has to stand on its own. But people do read interviews and if the writer and creators are saying that they are trying to put across something in a story and that the story you are reading, you have to judge on what they put forth if you read the interview to see if that came across in the book. From what Slott and Wacker said, that’s what they were going for in the book and what they were saying about the character of Peter Parker. You can interpret all you want ( And in reality, your review is better constructed, better reasoned and better written that the crap Slott gave in my opinion with issue 9) but the fact is that its not what Slott and Wacker was aiming for in the book. Your review Chris made a hell of a lot more sense than the character assassination nonsense that Slott and Wacker put in issue 9.
From Sbee613 (16#) ” It seems to me for slott to have us discussing the real Peter and have even the slightest doubts that he’s not the good guy we know he is slott is getting what we wants. To make us consider spider-faux the better man for the operation and I won’t even entertain that thought for a second he could save thousands but not long ago he was planning on scorching the damn planet and frying over half the population. So no there’s nothing he could do to make me consider him superior remotely.”
Where do you see that Slott is getting what he wants? There are those who want to buy that Spider-Man is willing to even entertain the notion of sacrifice a child to save himself and there are those who don’t buy it. Simple.
It seems to me for slott to have us discussing the real Peter and have even the slightest doubts that he’s not the good guy we know he is slott is getting what we wants. To make us consider spider-faux the better man for the operation and I won’t even entertain that thought for a second he could save thousands but not long ago he was planning on scorching the damn planet and frying over half the population. So no there’s nothing he could do to make me consider him superior remotely.
I thought it interesting that you said this:
“We love Peter in part because he isn’t a saint,”
Yet followed it up with THIS:
“he deals all the same passions and impulses that everyone deals with, but he doesn’t let them get the better of him.”
This is in fact the very DEFINITION of a saint, a human being faced with all the temptaions and struggles of human life, and yet responds to them heroically, rejecting temptation, and instead, making moral choices, often at great personal cost.
The point is not that saints are never tempted, or never give into temptation, but that they respond the way we wish we would respond.
Peter sometimes wishes he could be Reggie Mantle, and leave Flash to be kidnapped by Ock, or otherwise do the rotten thing, but in the end, Peter always decides to be Archie, and do the right thing. (Most of us were really more Reggie, and pretty rotten, but we wanted to imagine ourselves more like Archie, and thus the good guy. Peter really *is* the good guy. He lapsed ONCE, and learned his lesson.)
We admire Peter because he is the saint we all wish we were.
Rob
Great review. You really went into details as to why you liked the issue, as well as it flaws. I for one still don’t know what to think of it. On one end i liked it quite a bit after my first read, but after a few more times i start to like it less and less. Something really is bothering me; however I can’t put my finger on it…
Everyone has a version of Peter Parker that they believe is the true Peter and you’ll usually hear “Oh he’d never act like that” and that’s cool we all have our interpretation of peter parker based somewhat on ourselves because we find him so relatable. Having read spider-man for nearly 40 years I’ve seen Peter do the most heroic things and have some less heroic moments. Would he or some extension of his conciousness try and prevent an operation on a dying girl in the name of self survival? Given the circumstances, yes I think that’s a fair stretch considering the circumstances. And Chris has laid out plenty of interesting reasons for the whys etc. I agree it’s the best and most compelling issue of Spidey in a while. I do think though in the online reviews and on the podcast we could all take “a shot” every time the word egregious is used :-).
I have to say, #3 has a point. However, I think Slott missed something while he was doing the interviews. It’s totally irresponsible to allow Doc Ock to perform the operation when he has no prior medical experience. There were plenty of experienced licensed surgeons on site to carve into the little girl’s brain. Also, to me, saying Pete is more important that a little girl is pretty much missing the point of Spider-Man entirely. If Peter Parker were a more pragmatic character, I likely wouldn’t be reading him. His drive comes from his uncle Ben. He doesn’t want anyone to have to experience that loss that he felt (and you know…he feels guilty and stuff). I do believe he’d die before letting a little girl die first…but at the same time I acknowledge that he’s no saint.
Sorry for the long winded response. I don’t talk to a lot of spider-fans irl.
It’s a damn shame that this review is so damn good but this issue just isn’t worthy of such effort I think.
@7 about my #2 comment:
Chris, this is a very strong review and stands out from many of the other reviews that I’ve read. First off, you mention Slott once during the review. I say this not as a “I never want Slott to be on this book,” or as a “Boo, Slott, he murdered my childhood with an axe,” because neither of these statements are true. I do say this because so frequently I see people reviewing the person or the marketing instead of what is actually in the book. You’ve allowed that to pass and you are actually looking at the book in the context of Spidey’s history. This issue is 100% in character for Peter, flaws and all. So you get major points from me for your intellectual look into the character and removal of your feelings, whatever they may be, for the creator.
This review does feel like another side of an argument and in this case I feel like that is valid, as you are rebuffing another opinion and reiterating the opinion you expressed on the podcast. I wouldn’t say that this is the style that you should express moving forward, I would just be confident in your opinions out of the gate and express clearly the merits and detractions of a piece. Keep up the good work, I really appreciate your voice on this site.
Fundamentally, I have no problem with a reviewer considering interview quotes, but it seems to become a slippery slope, wherein eventually the Slott-said-Wacker-said game becomes more important to people than the actual content of the comics. Considering a lot of readers don’t read these interviews, or only maybe catch the occasional one, it doesn’t seem right to act as if the only correct view of the comic is one entirely informed by interview quotes.
@#3
Don’t do this to me, man… this explanation is the only way I can deal with that part of the story. It’s the only way I can tolerate it.
1- Thank you.
2- What about this review did you like, so I can learn from the feedback.
3 – I haven’t read a whole lot of interviews in the past month because I’ve been moving. Also, I’m undecided on whether interviews are fair to consider in a review. On one hand they are a factor that can affect one’s enjoyment of a story. On the other hand they aren’t technically part of the work that’s being reviewed. What does everyone else think about that?
4 – Thanks for the complement. I think this issue is a fertile one for varying opinions.
5 – No need to apologize for your rant.
6 – I think the memories that remained in Peter’s physical brain after Peter’s consciousness was removed to Otto’s body were kind of like data stored on a harddrive. Otto could access them, but the memories themselves were not aware of themselves initially. However, those memories BECAME aware of themselves–became conscious–and that new consciousness is Ghost Peter. I’m sure none of this lines up with actual brain science, but that’s the comic book logic to it.
Chris,
Great review as always! One question for you – you suggest that Peter’s original “consciousness” died in AMZ 700, but his memories lived on to become “Ghost Peter.” However, while I agree you can have consciousness without memory (e.g., an amnesiac), I wonder if it’s possible to have memory without consciousness. That is, it seems like Peter’s memories could not exist on their own without a consciousness orchestrating these memories into cohesive representations of past events. In addition, consciousness can be defined as “the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself.” Based on this definition of consciousness, it seems Peter’s awareness of his moment of weakness and subsequent guilt at the end of the issue would seem to prove that his consciousness is alive and well. So I wonder what aspect(s) of Peter (if any) actually died in AMZ 700?
So since slott was getting everyone worked up for this particular issue and we lost ghost Peter what’s next? I’m guessing 10 issues later spider-faux will realize his eye keeps twitching and removes it or his foot goes numb and decides to cut it off you know to be absolutely sure there’s no more Peter left in there. And now you’re going to drag scarlet spider into this tainted series? I knew it wasn’t going to last this series couldn’t stay out of slotts cross hairs forever ugh. Wake me when it’s over. Sorry for the rant.
Bravo. Great review, excellently written.
I had a very different opinion about what took place in this issue regarding the nature of Ghost Peter. But after reading this review … well I haven’t changed my mind , but I’m not so sure anymore. Well done.
Except that everything you’ve said to defend Ghost Peter is flatly contradicted by Slott and Wacker’s explicit statements in several interviews, in which they stated straight-out that 1) Ghost Peter IS a true reflection of the “real” Peter, and 2) Peter WOULD consciously look out for himself at the expense of someone else.
Can we get more reviews like this?
Great review Chris. I liked how you went deep into the material to disprove the notion that Ghost Peter was being selfish.