>I think it's ironic that something under his definition would be a "cheat"
>is being used to justify what others would classify as a "cheat".

But then again you make my point...by your standards, *everything* is a cheat,
and therefore the term no longer has any meaning.

Further, you keep saying that Spider-Man is the "everyman" and that therefore
nothing extraordinary can be used...but that's not the meaning fo the term
everyman. You continue to misuse vernacular to suit your own purposes.

An everyman is expressly someone who represents the average reader, NOT someone
whose world has to be average. We identify with Spidey because he's not
perfect, NOT because everything that happens to him has a mundane explanation.

If you think that everything that is in his world has to be readily acceptable
and explainable and mundane...explain to me the Sandman, please, in a way that
makes conventional sense. Ditto for the Molten Man and the Lizard.

By your definitions, those are also cheats that don't belong in Spidey's world.

Words have meaning, you can't just make them mean what you want them to mean.

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)