Alien plots are copyeditors’ downfall


This is getting annoying.


  1. Rakarich says

    Marve’s marketing department is great at it’s job. But this time I think they are doing the “overkill” on this one so far.

  2. jonathan says

    This whole campaign is kind of boring compared to the Zombie covers which have been done so much that they are no longer interesting.

  3. says

    That’s the old Spider-Man font (Todd Klein: one of yours?).

    A STRONG HINT, if EVER I saw one.

    Todd Klei – I mean Spider-Man is a Skrull!

    Also, THE EYES.


  4. Alan Coil says

    Whom cares?

    About who/whom, I mean.

    It has been obvious for weeks that Marvel is going to run a whole garbage-truck load of Skrull covers over the next year. Last year—zombies. This year—Skrulls. Next year—???

  5. says

    “Knock knock.”

    “Who’s there?”

    “Objective case.”

    “Objective case who?”

    “No. Objective case whom.”


  6. Daniel says

    C’mon, PAD. Whom has been dying for years and it’s not a great loss. Language is carbon-based, not silicon. Let it evolve.

  7. says

    Actually, it will shake out that the way to tell a human from a Skrull is that humans know how to use who/whom properly. Skrulls always get it wrong. So, the ending to PAD’s scene is:

    “No. Objective case whom.”

    “BLAM! BLAM!”

  8. says

    It’s almost as if language doesn’t evolve or something. As if it’s frozen in time, never to change.

    I’d like to ask PAD when the last time he used “thee” or “thou” was.

  9. David C says

    I like ‘whom’. It makes me feel important.

    But seriously, if we start deleting all the difficult parts of language that are irregular or difficult and calling it “evolution”, one day we’ll be left with “I finded mooses in my garden. Its bad and your 2 blame.”

  10. David C says

    Hmmm… Alright Daniel, y’gots a point.

    I still think learning the rules and using them (to a point) betters cognitive process (as does having a larger vocabulary), but that article has partially won me over.

  11. says

    The copy-editor is right. “Whom” is basically dead outside formal written English. Even the OED lists it as obsolete in colloquial speech. And there are plenty of situations where, whatever the traditional rules may say, “Whom” is so unnatural as to be plainly wrong in a modern context. (“Whom do you think you’re looking at?”)

    “Who do you trust?” is entirely right as colloquial English, and more or less acceptable even as formal English. “Whom do you trust?” is too formal in tone.

  12. Dreamer says

    learning about and the continual usage of the delicacies of a language also enriches and preserves a greater part of the cultural processes that human civilization as a whole have developed until this point, besides the proposed cognitive advantage above ..

    that pseudo-intellectual argument aside, who do you trust sounds about right and don’t think it should be considered a big issue anyway.. :p

  13. Donnie says

    It was probably The Goldwaters that corrected the classic Bo Diddley song to its proper uptight whitey usage of “Whom Do You Love?”

    Lighten up, ya word nerds!

  14. rich says

    I read Calvin Trillin’s remark in an issue of WRITER’S DIGEST long ago:

    “As far as I’m concerned, ‘whom’ is a word that was invented to make everyone sound like a butler.”

    So does this mean this Jarvis is a skrull?

  15. James Van Hise says

    Is this going to be like CIVIL WAR in that a major change in the Marvel universe will be introduced (like the unmasking of Spider-Man) only to have it magically disappear a year later?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *