Axel-In-Charge - Apr 27, 2012

[jyeager11]

Ok, so you're mad that the comic used a character who is sort of like (but explicitly NOT, because Marvel doesn't want Christians getting mad at them but apparently that didn't work because here we are) SATAN.

But, as someone who is FASCINATED by the people who are STILL mad about that story after all these years: is that a big component in the uproar? The Satan thing? What are the percentages of people who are mad because Satan is scary vs. people who are mad because Mary Jane is hot (or whatever the non-Satan reason would be)? Is there overlap?

You asked in a (relatively) polite manner, so I will respond in kind. :)

First, let me state that I don't care if Peter's married or not. He's a fictional character. Thus, Marvel can marry, divorce, re-marry and widow the character for all I care. It's their property and if they want him single, Godspeed. Life is full of people who are married one day and not the next, there would be absolutely nothing outrageous about a single Peter Parker after years of him being married.

My problem -- because I do not presume to speak for anyone but myself -- is 1) the path Marvel took to get there, 2) how it was forced down our (and the writer's own) throat, and 3) the blind, hypocritical and patronizing way the company continues to claim -- as they have in this interview -- that the path they chose to get from A to Z was the only possible one.

These 3 elements make it seem like everyone at Marvel lives in a bubble that is just screaming to be burst.

Let's start with the first point. Joe Quesada had the company's poster boy for taking responsibility for your actions choose the easy way out after a string of bad decisions no one forced him to make. No one pointed a gun at Peter's head to join the pro-SRA side in the Civil War, nor was he mind controlled when he went public with his secret identity. These decisions which Peter made of his own free will resulted in him eventually going on the run with MJ and May, and May taking a bullet that was meant for Peter. Peter goes to the good guys to help him undo some of his mistakes (like Dr Strange) but alas, they cannot help him with this. So what does our hero who just happens to be the embodiment of taking responsibility in the Marvel U. do? He turns to the dark side for help, and strikes a deal with evil incarnate Mephisto to trade his love for his wife to give his elderly aunt a few more years of life.

Now, let's ignore the lack of logic in trading something so precious so a woman who was already at the end of her rope and lived a full, blessed life can enjoy a couple years more before dying of natural causes. If you want to argue against the notion that Mephisto is an avatar for Satan -- which he clearly is, especially the way he was presented in this story -- fine. But he remains evil incarnate. So whether Peter had struck that deal with Mephisto or Adolph Hitler, the objection isn't Biblical so much as it is to the idea that Peter got away with the bad decisions he made by turning to evil after exhausting his good and virtual options.

With OMD, Peter stopped being the "with great power comes great responsibility" character, and set a precedent of being the "be responsible for your actions as long as the consequences aren't TOO bad, otherwise turn to evil if it'll provide a quick and easy undo". This is on the same level as Captain America waking up one day and deciding that America sucks, and communism isn't such a bad idea after all. If any other character but Steve Rogers did that, it wouldn't be as big a deal as Rogers doing it. Similarly, had this been anyone but Spider-Man -- if it had been Johnny Storm, which is the irresponsible Yang to Peter's Ying -- I wouldn't have so much as batted an eyelash.

But it's Peter. Mr Responsibility. Being irresponsible on cosmic levels. And getting away with it to this day.

Now, how the story came to be is another aspect I have a problem with. For months, Joe Quesada made sure he mentioned how he didn't like a married Peter Parker in every interview he did. We all knew what was coming a year, if not several years, before it did. It's not like some kind of edict was imposed on JQ to unmarry Spider-Man within X months to coincide with something else. He had all the time in the world to really think through how he was going to unmarry Spider-Man, as well as an unlimited source of ideas in the form of a talented writing staff and an audience chiming in ideas of their own. With all these tools in his arsenal, JQ did exactly what he had Spider-Man do : he took the quick and easy way out his predicament, without thinking it through.

JMS himself wanted to take his name off the credits because he saw the flaws in Joe's plans, expressed them to him, and was shut down. JMS and JQ had a very ugly and public spat about OMD as the story was being published. How often have we seen that happen? Things were so bad that JMS openly criticized JQ's closed-mindedness while being the writer on various Marvel books (including Thor). The famous "It's magic, it doesn't need to be explained" line came from these public disagreements between the two. Do you find this normal par for the course? I see it as a sign that something was seriously rotten in Denmark.

And last but not least, the way Marvel continues years after the fact to defend this story as the only possible way to tell the ones that are being told today is extremely arrogant, hypocritical and patronizing. Peter Parker striking a deal with evil incarnate -- and not just any deal, he traded his wife -- is NOT the only way possible to unmarry the character. Erik Larsen had a great one : if the priest that married the couple turned out not to be ordained, then Peter and MJ were never married. Various other people had other ideas that did not involve the character betraying the very value that defines him.

It would be refreshing for someone at Marvel to say "Alright, maybe we didn't think it through enough at the time" or "We didn't expect the level of backlash we got" or "In hindsight, it probably wasn't such a hot idea to have Peter turn to evil for help".

Anything... ANYTHING, except "The awesome stories we're getting from Dan Slott today would not be possible without OMD" which is just pure $#*+

Maybe they couldn't be told without unmarrying Peter, but they could certainly have been told without having him betray the one single value that defined him as a hero, and turn to evil incarnate to undo mistakes he made of his own free will.

And as long as Marvel continues to act like they live in a bubble, people are going to want to burst it.

It's time Marvel just be honest with its audience regarding OMD. Break the wall down, stop shoveling manure, say "Look, maybe it wasn't the best way to get from A-Z, and we're going to have to address the issue that Peter has gotten away with turning to evil for help for this long some day, but this is where we are now, the guy who made that call is no longer making editorial decisions for the company, let's just make the most of where we're at TODAY. Cool?"

And I guarantee you, this stops being an issue for many of us the day Marvel walks out of its bubble and allows itself to be honest with its audience on the matter.

Until that day comes, it's not like any of us are even THINKING about this subject when we're not on forums like this one. It has zero impact on our every day lives. But when I do start reading comic book forums, and the subject is brought up... then this will be my stance on it. And it will not waver.

[Phoenix Egg]

You asked in a (relatively) polite manner, so I will respond in kind. :)

First, let me state that I don't care if Peter's married or not. He's a fictional character. Thus, Marvel can marry, divorce, re-marry and widow the character for all I care. It's their property and if they want him single, Godspeed. Life is full of people who are married one day and not the next, there would be absolutely nothing outrageous about a single Peter Parker after years of him being married.

My problem -- because I do not presume to speak for anyone but myself -- is 1) the path Marvel took to get there, 2) how it was forced down our (and the writer's own) throat, and 3) the blind, hypocritical and patronizing way the company continues to claim -- as they have in this interview -- that the path they chose to get from A to Z was the only possible one.

These 3 elements make it seem like everyone at Marvel lives in a bubble that is just screaming to be burst.

Let's start with the first point. Joe Quesada had the company's poster boy for taking responsibility for your actions choose the easy way out after a string of bad decisions no one forced him to make. No one pointed a gun at Peter's head to join the pro-SRA side in the Civil War, nor was he mind controlled when he went public with his secret identity. These decisions which Peter made of his own free will resulted in him eventually going on the run with MJ and May, and May taking a bullet that was meant for Peter. Peter goes to the good guys to help him undo some of his mistakes (like Dr Strange) but alas, they cannot help him with this. So what does our hero who just happens to be the embodiment of taking responsibility in the Marvel U. do? He turns to the dark side for help, and strikes a deal with evil incarnate Mephisto to trade his love for his wife to give his elderly aunt a few more years of life.

Now, let's ignore the lack of logic in trading something so precious so a woman who was already at the end of her rope and lived a full, blessed life can enjoy a couple years more before dying of natural causes. If you want to argue against the notion that Mephisto is an avatar for Satan -- which he clearly is, especially the way he was presented in this story -- fine. But he remains evil incarnate. So whether Peter had struck that deal with Mephisto or Adolph Hitler, the objection isn't Biblical so much as it is to the idea that Peter got away with the bad decisions he made by turning to evil after exhausting his good and virtual options.

With OMD, Peter stopped being the "with great power comes great responsibility" character, and set a precedent of being the "be responsible for your actions as long as the consequences aren't TOO bad, otherwise turn to evil if it'll provide a quick and easy undo". This is on the same level as Captain America waking up one day and deciding that America sucks, and communism isn't such a bad idea after all. If any other character but Steve Rogers did that, it wouldn't be as big a deal as Rogers doing it. Similarly, had this been anyone but Spider-Man -- if it had been Johnny Storm, which is the irresponsible Yang to Peter's Ying -- I wouldn't have so much as batted an eyelash.

But it's Peter. Mr Responsibility. Being irresponsible on cosmic levels. And getting away with it to this day.

Now, how the story came to be is another aspect I have a problem with. For months, Joe Quesada made sure he mentioned how he didn't like a married Peter Parker in every interview he did. We all knew what was coming a year, if not several years, before it did. It's not like some kind of edict was imposed on JQ to unmarry Spider-Man within X months to coincide with something else. He had all the time in the world to really think through how he was going to unmarry Spider-Man, as well as an unlimited source of ideas in the form of a talented writing staff and an audience chiming in ideas of their own. With all these tools in his arsenal, JQ did exactly what he had Spider-Man do : he took the quick and easy way out his predicament, without thinking it through.

JMS himself wanted to take his name off the credits because he saw the flaws in Joe's plans, expressed them to him, and was shut down. JMS and JQ had a very ugly and public spat about OMD as the story was being published. How often have we seen that happen? Things were so bad that JMS openly criticized JQ's closed-mindedness while being the writer on various Marvel books (including Thor). The famous "It's magic, it doesn't need to be explained" line came from these public disagreements between the two. Do you find this normal par for the course? I see it as a sign that something was seriously rotten in Denmark.

And last but not least, the way Marvel continues years after the fact to defend this story as the only possible way to tell the ones that are being told today is extremely arrogant, hypocritical and patronizing. Peter Parker striking a deal with evil incarnate -- and not just any deal, he traded his wife -- is NOT the only way possible to unmarry the character. Erik Larsen had a great one : if the priest that married the couple turned out not to be ordained, then Peter and MJ were never married. Various other people had other ideas that did not involve the character betraying the very value that defines him.

It would be refreshing for someone at Marvel to say "Alright, maybe we didn't think it through enough at the time" or "We didn't expect the level of backlash we got" or "In hindsight, it probably wasn't such a hot idea to have Peter turn to evil for help".

Anything... ANYTHING, except "The awesome stories we're getting from Dan Slott today would not be possible without OMD" which is just pure ---

Maybe they couldn't be told without unmarrying Peter, but they could certainly have been told without having him betray the one single value that defined him as a hero, and turn to evil incarnate to undo mistakes he made of his own free will.

Hope this helps you understand this "interesting" point of view. ;)

Great post.

I don't even read/watch much Spider-Man but I get the idea of him and turning to a devil archetype to get what he wants is the antithesis of what Spider-Man is.

Also, I hate how smug and full of themselves some of Marvel's editors are. I feel cognitive dissonance when I support their books at times.

And yes, they will admit their folly once they are out of the business.

[HsssH]

Very nice post by jyeager11.

Deals with demons/devils belong to Ghost Rider, not to Spider-man.

[RCF]

Until that day comes, it's not like any of us are even THINKING about this subject when we're not on forums like this one. It has zero impact on our every day lives. But when I do start reading comic book forums, and the subject is brought up... then this will be my stance on it. And it will not waver.

I appreciate the thoughtful and non-crazyperson response. And I'm glad you don't think about this all the time. As are, I'm sure, your loved ones.

While we don't agree that this is a REAL BIG DEAL (even within the already-established trivial world of "Comics We Read"), I can't disagree that the story sounds pretty dumb. I have never read it, and was fortunate enough to jump into the world of Modern Amazing Spider-Comics AFTER all this silliness occurred. Which is perhaps why I find the ferocity of the arguments so delightfully insane.

You, however, disappointed by being fairly reasonable! You even ruined my theory that OMD-crazies are so crazy because, in addition to being crazy, they're crazy Christians who think Satan is scary (and real). But your point about Mephisto, Satan or not, being an "evil guy" is logical and barely reminds me of a Chick tract at all.

The only thing that's SLIGHTLY crazy is that you're still talking about it, but what the heck, I still talk about this one sandwich I made in 2003 with olives and brie and it was SUPERGOOD.

On the other hand:

And I guarantee you, this stops being an issue for many of us the day Marvel walks out of its bubble and allows itself to be honest with its audience on the matter.

This is possibly true for YOU but you and I both know your garden variety OMD-lunatic won't settle for a mere acknowledgment of the story's lack of crapiness. I think at this point they're asking for their own island nation?

[Xenon]

Ok, so you're mad that the comic used a character who is sort of like (but explicitly NOT, because Marvel doesn't want Christians getting mad at them but apparently that didn't work because here we are) SATAN.

And that's totally fine! I get that if you believe in him, Satan is totally scary, and if he existed we probably shouldn't be putting him in Spider-Man books because then kids will want to make deals with him too. And clearly, if such a thing were possible or real, that would be bad.

But, as someone who is FASCINATED by the people who are STILL mad about that story after all these years: is that a big component in the uproar? The Satan thing? What are the percentages of people who are mad because Satan is scary vs. people who are mad because Mary Jane is hot (or whatever the non-Satan reason would be)? Is there overlap?

And please understand: I kid about Satan (and Mephisto's not Satan -- it says so in the Handbook!) but I totally respect your views/faith/fashion sense. Just curious!

First, Satan IS a marvel comics character, for the record. He's not Mephisto, of course, but he is roughly equivalent (i.e. he's a hell lord). Mephisto is the Satan stand in, and ergo using him is essentially the same thing, with slightly less baggage. The fact that he's not OFFICIALLY Satan means little. Analogues exist for a reason.

Second, As someone who both does read the current title and is still mad about OMD, I'll say that there are numerous reasons to be mad at that story, and that being at least a little mad about it is, IMO, the rational response. But I'll make you a list....

1) It ****s continuity. Hard. In a way that hasn't really been done to Spider-Man before. Other bad stories have come close. Sins Past, the Clone Saga's Revelations, but there's nothing quite as ****ed up as trying to say that everything was the exact same except for this one kinda fundamental detail that would change how people behave with one another.

2) It regresses a character that has always been about progression. In 1962 Peter Parker was a 15 y/o High School Sophomore Nerd. In 1972 he was a College Sophomore with a steady girlfriend. In 1982 he was a College Graduate dating a Catwoman Analogue. In 1992 he was a married part-time graduate student. In 2002 he was a married High School teacher and two time graduate drop out. The book has continued to progres in other areas, but his relationship was yanked back twenty years with no consequence or even any real recognition. It was just another girlfriend now, like Deb or Felicia. This is partly why the method is so bad, because it avoids one of the few things that would make that regression meaningful, that they learned something or were wounded or changed in some way. the purpose of OMD, and by extension, OMIT, was expressly to not do that. It was to get rid of her without any of those negative consequences. But even if you had that, there's.....

3) It's pointless. Being married DOES limit the kind of stories you can tell. Specifically, it removes you're ability to tell stories where Peter (and MJ, but this is not her book, so who cares?) is romantically involved with or pursuing someone who ISN'T his wife. But when you make a giant notDevil deal that is contrived and forced just so you can get him back to that status, it ruins any dramatic potential those stories had. Romance subplots are built on the premise of the characters finding their "true love" and living happily ever after (Shallow fun has its own merits, but its not really a story). When you both already resolve that question for many by having twenty years of story reinforcing the love between two characters and you've shown what ridiculously lengths you'll go to to make sure he will not succeed, any future romantic subplots are pointless. The only question is how will they break up? the danger of the new girl dying isn't even that significant thanks to historical events. And besides....

4) It's not like Peter's love life wasn't thoroughly explored before. Unlike our buddy Superman, who follows "First Girl Wins" to a T, Spider-Man has had four significant love interests, plus at least one lesser interest. We've covered basically all the angles on this one, and the resolution of the Carlie Cooper relationship just illustrates he point. And while there ARE other angles to be explored (like real superheroines and single moms and such), those are angles that they will not explore, either because it doesn't fit the character or because it doesn't fit the ideal they worked so hard to get to.

5) He made a deal with the notDevil with no repercussions. There are some villains you can trust and work with occasionally. The "King of Hell" Mephisto (as recently described in the Venom series) is probably not one of them. He's a stand in for the symbol of the epitome of all evil. Working with him is inherently a bad idea, and making this your "happy ending" method is unsettling. You shouldn't work with the notDevil. And he is, therefore, the foundation of all you're trying to do here going forward.

6) People liked her/the relationship. I've never been a huge Mary Jane fan, but there are plenty of people who are, and ergo there are plenty of people who are mad that she got demoted and kicked out (and the fact that she subsequently came back in a lesser role is not a huge boon, exactly). This is one of the more subjective ones, of course, but there are people mad about it.

7) It's a terrible story that isn't even that good at what it's trying to do. I know this is about why people are STILL mad, but when you make a story that is foundational to everything you're going to do going forward, you should try to make that story not incredibly stupid. OMD was so bad that not only did they need another bad story to try and explain it, but even that follow-up leaves people with unanswered questions.

8) It was terribly unnecessary. As I alluded to earlier, what did we actually GAIN that we needed OMD for? I'm not going to argue one way or another about the quality of BND, but of all the things that were positive, what actually required him to be single? Him getting blacklisted as a photographer? Nope. Jonah being elected mayor? Nope. Him facing off against classic villains, many of whom have been rebooted? Nope. 90-95% of the content in BND has nothing to do with his romantic status. Those stories could have been told is virtually the exact same way with or without OMD, which finally leads to.....

9) They keep pretending it was necessary for the good stuff. It's bad enough that it's unneeded, but when called on this fact, as Axel alluded to in this story, they persist in the party line that "it was necessary". But there's absolutely no evidence that's true, and there's yet to be a celebrated storyline that actually required a single Peter Parker. And so we see it's not true, we know its not true. But the fact that they can't admit "we did it because that's what we wanted" just stokes the fires of people who didn't like it.


So...that's why. Different people get mad about different combinations of the reasons above. There's a lot to hate about OMD and what it did, so you'll get overlap of reasons from some people, a single primary reason for other people, and for some it all hinges on a single reason without which they wouldn't care. I've found that most people in the third category are hung up on the devil thing, and without that (or with some comeuppance FOR that) they'd be fine with the whole situation. Personally, I primarily subscribed to 1-4, 7, and 8, but 5 and 9 bother me a little.

[Xenon]

Huh. Yeager's post there was quite excellent, much more in-depth that what I was trying to do. =p

[ZeoVGM]

...in a heartbeat. Much like I'd catcall Barry Bonds or McGwire for the cheating SOBs that they are. Facts are facts.

I'm not sure what's more embarrassing, that you compared a cheating baseball player to a comic book writer whose style you personally don't like or the that you seem to have a strange definition of 'fact'.

[Mister Mets]

Name ONE that required Peter trade his marriage to Satan to undo mistakes he made of his own free will.

Just ONE subplot that couldn't have been accomplished with a divorced Peter, or a Peter who found out that the priest that married him wasn't ordained and he was never legally married.

Just ONE.

Take your time.

I think you're arguing past Alonso here.

His current comments about the difficulty of retconning it now, and about what we got as a result of One More Day, rather than about how the story could have been done differently.

Whether a divorce would have been preferable to the deal with Mephisto is a separate matter.

[Mister Jerusalem]

Anyone else catch this bit:

"I guess it’s possible, but I don’t understand the mindset. I can’t imagine denying myself one of my passions because of one story development – and let’s face it, one that will probably be rectified in the future."

First time I've heard someone from Marvel actually acknowledge this possibility.

[jyeager11]

I think you're arguing past Alonso here.

His current comments about the difficulty of retconning it now, and about what we got as a result of One More Day, rather than about how the story could have been done differently.

Whether a divorce would have been preferable to the deal with Mephisto is a separate matter.

I'm not so sure it's a separate matter when Alonso pompously writes things like :

I asked him if he was currently enjoying the series, and he said, emphatically, “Yes!” and then he went on to explain how much he liked so many of the subplots and characters that, again, wouldn’t have been possible if we hadn’t done “One More Day.” And I said, “Mission accomplished.”

This. This is the arrogance that makes people like me want to bring up everything that was wrong about OMD again.

To pat yourself on the back and say "mission accomplished" when you just betrayed everything the character stands for (why is Aunt May worth turning to evil for help over, but Uncle Ben wasn't? It almost makes Peter's relationship with May seem a little inappropriate) is going just a little bit too far, IMHO.

Was it Marvel's mission to alienate so many of us in the transition? No? Then maybe "mission accomplished" isn't the term Alonso wants to be using, here.

I'm pretty sure the mission was to unmarry Spider-Man in a way that did NOT alienate half the book's readership, and create a religious and moral controversy surrounding the company's most iconic and important property.

And in that mission, Marvel failed.

Marvel needs to stop acting like the OMD backlash is something that was necessary. That's like Chris Brown saying beating up Rhianna was necessary. Sure, it got the job of shutting her up done. But to then pompously claim "mission accomplished"? It makes everyone want to remind him about the bruises. And that there was another way.

Get my drift?

[RCF]

Marvel needs to stop acting like the OMD backlash is something that was necessary. That's like Chris Brown saying beating up Rhianna was necessary.

Get my drift?

Whoa, whoa, there, cowboy. I know you're a reasonable person so I'll take this with a grain of saltines, but it IS comments like these that places the OMGOMD crowd in the "They Should Look Into A Lithium Prescription" category.

Anyway, I do appreciate these measured responses (one with numbers, even!), but I was primarily interested in the now-debunked notion that there was a Jesus element. I have to say I'm happy to hear that's not the case. Because while I may not think this bad comic book story was as an egregious affront on humanity as some of you, I'm glad we can all agree that Spider-Man is more important than Jesus.

(The above Lennon-esque comment was made in good fun so please do not be mad at me if you love Jesus/hate Satan.)

Anyway, Mr. Alonso might be super-arrogant, for all I know, but he's also not really at fault for this bad story. If he has failed to admit to the world that the bad story was indeed totally bad, it's probably because his boss made up the story. I'm sure we've all had bosses and know that it's often a bad move to say they're stupid and bad at making stories. Heck, my boss at my old job made up a story where Spider-Man met the cast of Friends and made out with Rachel (or Phoebe? I forget) and trust me: IT WAS BAD. Did I speak up? Well, yes, I did, and that was the last time I worked for Mr. Tom Skerritt.

[jazz41]

Anyone else catch this bit:

"I guess it’s possible, but I don’t understand the mindset. I can’t imagine denying myself one of my passions because of one story development – and let’s face it, one that will probably be rectified in the future."

First time I've heard someone from Marvel actually acknowledge this possibility.

It told me that they might actually think that fans will keep on buying something no matter what. They might believe that more fans worry about "completing a run," so much that they will tolerate whatever is thrown out there.

I was guilty of this, until Norman Osborn's second attempt at forming Dark Avengers.

[Rasputin9977]

This is the arrogance that makes people like me want to bring up everything that was wrong about OMD again.

I wish Marvel would invest in good PR people. I think their connection to fans started to fade when Jemas left Marvel.

[RCF]

It told me that they might actually think that fans will keep on buying something no matter what. They might believe that more fans worry about "completing a run," so much that they will tolerate whatever is thrown out there.

I was guilty of this, until Norman Osborn's second attempt at forming Dark Avengers.

I think you guys are misreading the statement. He's saying that it's weird that someone would cut out Marvel comic books ENTIRELY because one thing happened in one storyline. A dead Nightcrawler shouldn't really impact your appreciation of Fantastic Four or Power Pack or Teal Avengers or whatever. It's the idea (or "mindset") that you're SO MAD about one thing that you'll deprive yourself of enjoying things that have relatively little to do with the thing that you're mad about. Or say that you will, anyway.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but I think that's the correct interpretation of Mr. Alonso's comment.

[jazz41]

I think you guys are misreading the statement. He's saying that it's weird that someone would cut out Marvel comic books ENTIRELY because one thing happened in one storyline. A dead Nightcrawler shouldn't really impact your appreciation of Fantastic Four or Power Pack or Teal Avengers or whatever. It's the idea (or "mindset") that you're SO MAD about one thing that you'll deprive yourself of enjoying things that have relatively little to do with the thing that you're mad about. Or say that you will, anyway.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but I think that's the correct interpretation of Mr. Alonso's comment.

Maybe. And if it is that specific, I agree, one specific thing making a reader drop all of one publisher is weird, but that is a reader's perogative. In my case it was a multitude of things both story and outer politics related.