Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-61022-20160330220251/@comment-4651179-20160401191833

Nausiated wrote: Because the whole point of writing these profiles is based on what is published by the company that publishes it. Not about what any employee chooses to interpret it.

Brevoort's word is not an interpretation of events. As I already mentioned, considering he knows the details of Secret Wars because he edited and planned out the story, if he says Sue von Doom is not Sue Richards it must be because that's how it is. And this statement is surely based on Hickman's intention, which represents how the event did play out, not how anybody chose to interpret it.

To put it into a different perspective: A medical text book that is published and peer reviewed says vaccinations don't cause autism. One doctor who was involved in the study says "But they do!", well you have to show your work and prove it. Only once that's done is the incorrect information excised and a new interpretation of the data is presented.

That is indeed a different perspective, because the way a writer interprets an artist's work and publishes it is in no way similar to the publication of some kind of study, which is supposed to be factual.

The summary of Secret Wars present in the handbook can be affected by the interpretation of the writer, specially if the writer only read the book as an outsider, like us. Medical studies are (or should) not be affected by such thing.

What "work" does Brevoort need to show to prove the handbook is wrong? His word is the proof because he worked with the writer of the event.