Was OMD pointless?

[Cryptid]

Just to clarify, you're not trying to say that anyone who defends OMD's merit is an apologist, right?

I think his point is that an apologist, by definition, is someone who defends the merit of something. The word does not have a negative connotation. We think of an apology as an admission of fault and regret, when the earliest uses of the word have to do with public speeches of defense. An apologist is not a person who says sorry a lot...although there's an REM song that makes that joke.

[OrpheusTelos]

because liking OMD = apologist.

there's no other explanation for some people, because they can't see beyond their own desire for a fictional character.

He didn't say that everyone who likes OMD is an apologist.

[whiteshark]

Who are all of these "people" you speak for? How could you possibly know what the readership is looking for? As I said, I know several people (myself included), who find OMD to have been very good storytelling. You can dress it up however you want, end of the day you're just giving your personal opinion. And it seems a bit odd to try to pass your opinion off as the hard and fast rules of what makes a good story.

Well said.
Many times i see people using their own personal opinion as a fact of what makes a bad or good story.
This speaking in the name of people is just another way to somebody try to disguise his own opinion as anything else more that just a opinion.
I for one did like the OMD story and neither my liking or disliking that story makes my opinion right or anybody negative opinion about OMD makes that opinion as a universal rule to how the opinions about OMD should be.
This using absoluts about fictional super heroes stories as OMD as that story having to be bad or good does not make a bit of sense.

[whiteshark]

This is well said and I think it sums up my thoughts about OMD as well, after all these years. Truly Marvel has thrown the whole Spider-man mantra of "Great Power/Great Responsibility" overboard and made this "faux" Spider-man in the regular Marvel Universe.

At least that's how I viewed some of the BND and Big Time Stories, even it was by Slott's writing, it still not the true Spider-man, as that guy died when OMD was made.

I think the bolded part in your opinion just can happen about fictional super heroes is when people make their own continuity about how the stories should or not be.
I have read Spider-Man stories for years,and have in my opinion read more that a couple of bad stories (Not OMD because i hapened to like that story but other stories) and was not because what i thought was a bad story that i thought Spider-Man was a faux character due those stories.
Several writers with diferent visions for the character and diferent writing styles are prone to write stories that any fan will dislike.

[Kevin Nichols]

I think his point is that an apologist, by definition, is someone who defends the merit of something. The word does not have a negative connotation. We think of an apology as an admission of fault and regret, when the earliest uses of the word have to do with public speeches of defense. An apologist is not a person who says sorry a lot...although there's an REM song that makes that joke.

I know what the word means, but it does have a negative connotation in today's language. Just the fact that you feel the need to explain it kind of shows that. (I guess that makes you an apologist apologist.) Why not just say "people who liked OMD"? Otherwise you could just as easily say that anyone who likes any story is an apologist. Just seems kind of silly to me.

[ShaggyB]

I know what the word means, but it does have a negative connotation in today's language. Just the fact that you feel the need to explain it kind of shows that. (I guess that makes you an apologist apologist.) Why not just say "people who liked OMD"? Otherwise you could just as easily say that anyone who likes any story is an apologist. Just seems kind of silly to me.

bingo. its like fanboy. No poster here that comes regularly is not by definition a fanboy.... but there is a negative connotation with the word fanboy.

[Mister Mets]

I think his point is that an apologist, by definition, is someone who defends the merit of something. The word does not have a negative connotation. We think of an apology as an admission of fault and regret, when the earliest uses of the word have to do with public speeches of defense. An apologist is not a person who says sorry a lot...although there's an REM song that makes that joke.

The word isn't often used with something that's almost universally acclaimed. Historians will rarely be referred to as "Lincoln apologists" when they defend his actions.

[Von]

Who are all of these "people" you speak for?

Well, the 'people' I speak for are people that enjoy a well crafted, internally consistent story that respects the integrity of the characters, obeys the constraints of the world as set up by the author(s), and is consistent with the overall narrative of the work.

Oh wait. I already said that.

Maybe now I should keep debating on an internet forum with some random stranger, by repeating all of the ways in which One More Day is a sloppy, cheap solution to a narrative the the editorial staff at the time thought was not the direction they wanted to go in.

So they just wiped it all out with a scenario that disrespected the integrity of the characters, pissed all over the primary motivations of the main protagonists, and broke the rules of the universe they had previously set up in the narrative of Spider-Man over the course of 30 or 40 years (or however long it was)

Or maybe I shouldn't bother. Maybe you can't tell the difference.

[PoorRichard]

I know what the word means, but it does have a negative connotation in today's language. Just the fact that you feel the need to explain it kind of shows that. (I guess that makes you an apologist apologist.) Why not just say "people who liked OMD"? Otherwise you could just as easily say that anyone who likes any story is an apologist. Just seems kind of silly to me.

Apologist was the correct term to use since the OP was describing folks who defend the merits of OMD. "People who liked OMD" is not correct in this context. There are several movies/tv shows/comic book stories I enjoy and don't defend the merits of since I realize they are pretty piss poor in quality, but happen to fit into my personal preference.
For the record I personally enjoyed OMD, but can't find much defence for it in regards to creative merits. Even I realize it was a story crafted to push a status quo. I enjoy the status quo it pushed though.

[Scott Taylor]

I think of Spider-Man as being about responsibility. Or duty. Either way. He is a hero not because he has powers but because he has a responsibility to act heroically. Having the powers just increases his potential for doing heroic things.

Just because "grimdark" came into fashion or Peter had to be shown as flawed, doesn't take away from the value of the core concept to the character. And the value of the core concept to society, I think.

[Mark_S]

nope, I have proof people care more about the fictional marriage than they do it being a "bad story"

What proof?

[Mark_S]

I've seen plenty of plausible reasoning from both sides of this question, even if the arguments haven't shifted all that much in the past five years. The most convincing argument from people who dislike One More Day is that the dissolution of the marriage resulted in a story that is virtually impossible to read as anything but a pretext for editorial meddling. The most convincing argument from the apologists (my camp) is that Amazing Spider-Man has been a good read since Peter asked the devil to let him go clubbing again.

Both camps seem eager to invoke the Rules of Storytelling and the Essence of Peter Parker, or similarly lofty abstractions, but what discourages me about virtually all of the arguments is the focus on continuity rather than individual issues and stories. It's pointless to read every story for its impact on the continuity, as a kind of fantasy baseball speculation as to what's good for the franchise, the character, etc. Especially when the most powerful influence on the comics canon, for those willing to let things go, is not the the planned reboots so much as the fact that the good bits cling to our memories more than the bad or the boring.

Marvel used to pride itself on the continuity of it's characters.

[stephen wacker]

Marvel used to pride itself on the continuity of it's characters.

Fantastic Four #2.

SW

[Scott Taylor]

Such a buzzkill.

[Charmed1]

nope, I have proof people care more about the fictional marriage than they do it being a "bad story"

Thats not something thats remotely possible but...

please proceed