Comic Book Resources

Makes perfect sense to me, Brian. Oh, wait…

A few days ago, in response to a Greg Burgas article, I put forth my belief that not only do I not think being a lawyer makes one particularly smart, but in actuality most of them are actually pretty dim. Then Marc Guggenheim made that statement. I love it.

Excuse the poor sentence structure above (’in actuality…actually’). Posted in a rush.

I don’t care what Californians do as long as they keep their grubby mitts off Great Lakes water. Support making a deal with Loki to forget Norman Osborn’s boffing Gwen Stacy by conserving water, everyone.

Excellent!

Guggenheim’s statement was so absurd not only because the logical connection was nonexistent, but because he basically accuses comic book fans of being anti-gay marriage bigots that MUST embrace the magical divorce in order to maintain their anti-gay marriage views.

So if you still think the magical divorce was a bad idea, show up at your next local gay pride rally with a “I support Spider-Man’s marriage!” or a “Just Like Magic, You Don’t Need To Explain Homosexual Love!” sign. At least, that’s the point that Guggenheim seems to make. Either way, it makes little to no sense, depending on how you look at it.

In short… was this absurdly stupid statement really necessary for Guggenheim to make? If Marvel and/or Spider-Man creators keep commenting on One More Day, the books will NEVER be able to move on from the storyline. It should be handled like the Clone Saga disaster — drop the whole subject and press on. Heck, Marvel still has Spider-Girl floating on the fringe of the radar and STILL doesn’t like to acknowledge the Clone Saga.

Drop it and more on already. Stop making ludicrous statements in desperate attempts to prove it was a good move for the Spider-Man franchise. A better way to prove that is to MAKE THE BOOKS SUCCESSFUL, and the jury’s still out on that one.

First Kirkman shoots his load in a crappy farce of a youtube mission statement, now Guggenheim raises the bar for idiocy.

Man. I was flipping through comics at the supermarkets while the Clone Saga was going on and I didn’t think it was bad, but everyone on the Internet hates it. What’s my problem?

I clearly missed something. What’s going on?

Um… is Guggenheim pro gay marriage or anti gay marriage? That statement was so baffling I can’t tell. Is he saying that if you oppose deals with the devil, you’re in favor of Christian values and therefore anti gay marriage?

Marc G said that if you are against BND, then you must therefore support gay marriage.

Seriously

I think what he’s trying to say is that if you object to the characters’ relationship being downgraded to something considered less legitimate than marriage, then you have to acknowledge that the civil unions available to gay couples are unsatisfactory, consolation prize-esque proxies.

So it’s not using gay as a pejorative or anti-same-sex marriage, it’s just anti-comprehensible.

The quote, from ‘Lying in the Gutters’:
“Here’s my attitude, if anyone is upset about the marriage going away, then they must all be pro gay marriage… “Because if you’re pro gay marriage, you understand the distinction between a marriage and a civil union — that a civil union is not equal to a marriage. We downgraded Mary Jane and Peter to a civil union. If that bothers you, then you’re pro gay marriage.”

It’s like a logic problem. If you don’t grant the premise (”People are upset about the marriage going being downgraded to a civil union”) then the whole thing kinda falls apart and sounds like the ravings of a kooky person.

It’s like a logic problem. If you don’t grant the premise (”People are upset about the marriage going being downgraded to a civil union”) then the whole thing kinda falls apart and sounds like the ravings of a kooky person.

The problem is, even if you grant the premise it still makes no sense as an argument to sell people on the concept of Brand New Day. How on earth is that argument, even if we suspend our reasoning and pretend it’s 100% valid, supposed to turn naysayers around on Brand New Day? When you are trying to sell people on a controversial topic via analogy, the analogy should be to something there is a consensus about. For example, if he could plausibly sell the analogy that being anti-Brand New Day is akin to being pro-Nazi, that I’d understand. But gay marriage is as controversial and divisive if not moreso than Brand New Day. If anything his analogy, if he sold people on it, would probably cause more controversy rather than less.

The argument isn’t even valid. It wasn’t downgraded to a civil union, since no union took place (legal, religious, or otherwise) in the new continuity. It was cohabitation. Considering comic book time, they couldn’t have lived together long enough for a common law marriage. They would have had none of the benefits of marriage or civil union. For example, while Peter was a teacher, MJ couldn’t be added to his health insurance.

Whatever.
I just want to marry my inflatable Bozo-the-Clown bop-bag.

Don’t tell me I Can’t, you hater!
I proudly read Spider-Ham!
Or at least I would, if they ever brought him back.

Damn, Moophisto the devil cow erased him from continuity.

Vote Prop 7!

X_the_Phantom-Longbox__

Honestly, he’s just fed up with all the bitching about the damn Spider-marriage. His point probably had less to do with Spider-man and more to do with gay marriage. People are upset that two fictional characters are no longer married? Boo hoo. There are real people who aren’t allowed to get married.

His argument doesn’t make sense (in relation to Spider-man), but I think if you take a step back and look at as an argument why gay marriage is important and how civil unions aren’t the same, it’s (relatively) sound.

Are most people uspet about the marriage upset because it’s now some sort of wacky civil union or because they felt like something was broken and they needed to make a change in the first place. I tend to think more people are upset that the current status quo isn’t marriage on the premise that a married Spider-Man is somehow broken than the goofy way they got rid of the marriage (though that obviously doesn’t help).

I could be way off there though.

Not to stop the clutching or pearls and the dizzy spells of strained outrage, but is it possible that anyone out there’s getting a little too worked up? Is it possible that Marc just said something screwy and is still a smart guy? I can vouch for him being both, if it matters.

“The argument isn’t valid!” Ha! No kidding!

Guy says something goofy on internet…Film at 11! (To the younger ones out there, back in the 80s we used to watch those network newscasts that are on during the Seinfeld reruns)

Okay, gotta get back to ruining your childhoods! ALL YOUR POGS ARE BELONG TO US!!!!!

Love, Steve.

It’s like a logic problem.

It’s also broken logic even if you accept the premise (that this is the reason people are upset) and the bad analogy (since a civil union isn’t the same as cohabitation).

Given the statement: A (pro gay-marriage) implies B (recognize that civil unions are lower-grade than marriage), you can assume certain things:
- If A, then B.
- If not B, then not A. (because if A were true, then B would be true as well)

But you cannot assume:
- If B, then A.
Because it’s possible that B could be true for a different reason. A might also be true, or it might not. You can’t tell without more information.

But that’s what he’s doing. He’s following a chain of assumptions to B, and then assuming A.

In the end, what he says just boils down to the Chewbacca Defense: a total non-sequitur based on false premises that confuses and distracts people.

Ok I think I understand what he’s saying…I think I even agree with him…I think he’s saying if the idea of marriage is so important to you that you’re upset by the comics downgrading it to make it less than marriage, then you should support gay people’s right to be married, because a “civil union” is a down grade….or something….

So he’s saying “shut up unless you like the gays!”? Bizarre. I mean, I would have prefered they kept the marriage and I’m all in favor of gay marriage, but I had no idea the two views had anything to do with each other. I’m glad that Marc explained that to me. I wonder what my preference for Veronica over Betty says about my views on campaign finance reform.

Marc G said that if you are against BND, then you must therefore support gay marriage.

Seriously.

…is that bad?

Mary Jane owes Peter Parker a shitload in palimony payments.

I happen to be very pro gay marriage and pro Spider marriage.

I need a bummer sticker that reads “Defeat Prop 8 and the Green Goblin!”

Wait…

“Civil Union” is the title of the next arc of Spider-Man?? Who’s his partner goign to be?? Harry Osborn???
And the ceremony is goign to be eco-friendly???

I’m going back to read My Dan Slott She-Hulk books… Wake me when Flash steps out of the shower…

For the record, I’m pro-gay marriage and pro-Peter/MJ marriage.

I’m anti-OMD/BND because I’m anti-spending-my-hard-earned-cash-on-poorly-conceived-stories!

Mark Guggenheim! Today’s Worst…Person…IN THE WORLD!
(with apologies to Keith Olberman)

I’m actually more against what Stephen Wacker said in this thread than I am against what Guggenheim said. I’ve noticed this in some of the interviews he’s given around the time BND launched–a tendency to blame fans for not liking the current direction of the series. “Oh, hey, you don’t like BND? Oh, God forbid I outrage whiny fanboys! Only lame-o’s don’t like our cool new direction!”

Surprisingly enough, I don’t respond well to being insulted for disliking your creative decisions.

“A few days ago, in response to a Greg Burgas article, I put forth my belief that not only do I not think being a lawyer makes one particularly smart, but in actuality most of them are actually pretty dim. ”

Hee hee. Isn’t Cronin a lawyer?

Hee hee. Isn’t Cronin a lawyer?

Brain is very, very bright, despite being a lawyer.

For the record I’m a lawyer too.

Wait, so is Guggenheim anti-gay marriage?

In the end, what he says just boils down to the Chewbacca Defense: a total non-sequitur based on false premises that confuses and distracts people.

Reason #2456 why Comics Should Be Good is the best blog that I read: Kelson, who has a Flash blog, drops a South Park reference to show just how illogical a statement by a Spider-Man writer is. It’s like putting pop culture in a blender.

With that said… while I respect Wacker for coming on and defending Guggenheim, the point stands that the statement Guggenheim made was incredibly laughable.

Again… I’m really tired of the Spider-Man writers/editors defending the BND changes. It’s done and over with — if some fans haven’t accepted it now, they either never will or will come back when the stories interest them again. Wasn’t the whole intention of BND was to start a newer, better era of Spider-Man stories? Then why are we still talking about the old era?

Man… if only the internet was around during the 1986 Superman reboot. “If you don’t like the Byrne Superman reboot, well, that means you support Reaganomics.”

He’s FOR gay marriage, he’s against “seperate, but equal” civil unions.

Well now what do I do?

As a homosexual male who is in support of gay marriage or unions or whatever States decide to do, but also in support of the Spidey and MJ marriage, I’m thoroughly confused as to whether or not I should stand behind my original decision to not buy or read what I feel is storytelling tripe.

Should I just continue to ignore the Spider-books, then?

Was that ACTUALLY Wacker stepping in just to defend a non-sensical statement? Seriously?

Because nothing’s more pathetic than someone making a stupid statement via the internet… unless it’s people wasting their time griping about it… UNLESS someone else actually goes even further to take those statements seriously and deride the people who make them while at the same time defending the original statement that was so stupid in the first place.

If that’s actually Wacker, then screw him, I’ll drop Amazing Spider-Man, which I was just starting to get into, and excited about, especially the upcoming Dematteis, Waid, and Stern issues. Although I seriously doubt that was actually him.

Not to get too far off-topic, but I just read the Wikipedia article on the Clone Saga and now I see why readers hate it. I must have missed a lot of it. Sorry for being clueless. Show your support for “Brand New Day” by helping save the Amazon rainforest, everyone.

Well I’m anti-gay marriage but I’m pro making deals with Satan.

I’m so confused now…..

Not to get too far off-topic, but I just read the Wikipedia article on the Clone Saga and now I see why readers hate it. I must have missed a lot of it. Sorry for being clueless. Show your support for “Brand New Day” by helping save the Amazon rainforest, everyone.

Ah shit. I’ve been going down there every weekend with a hacksaw and a blowtorch.

I’m so confused.

I am so confused about…all of this. Can we just read comics we like and not read comics we don’t like? It works pretty well for me.

I am so confused about…all of this. Can we just read comics we like and not read comics we don’t like? It works pretty well for me.

Oh brother, chill out Chicken Little, the sky is hardly falling. Go to the front page and there are tons of posts on comics people like. Why do we have to be Pollyannas 100% of the time, occasionally talking about comics we don’t like works for some of us here too.

Considering comic book time, they couldn’t have lived together long enough for a common law marriage.

And even if they had, only if New York recognizes common law marriage.

I think most people “understand” what he meant but he said it in a screwy way so everyone gets worked up about it. It’s a gaffe. Every three months we get one from Joe Biden or John Kerry or or Obama or whoever. Everyone knows whats going on but we all go along with it anyway.

And even if they had, only if New York recognizes common law marriage.

Our New York does not. If “Marvel” New York does, then it must recognize common law marriage after living together for only a few years… which certainly must create a lot of legal problems in the Marvel U. Thank god for She-Hulk and Daredevil…

Anyway, I’m spending too much time thinking about this.

Plus Guggenheim’s comment ignores all the other non-marriage-related changes brought on by BND. I don’t think Harry living in Europe is covered under any kind of civil union, regardless of sexual orientation.

Huh?

*going back to not caring*

Hmmm…. I’m pro gay marriage, but (possibly) anti-Spider-marriage.

I wonder were that fits in with Guggenheim’s theory.

Maybe he’s just trying to pull a “Millar” and just saying whatever he thinks will get people talking on the internet.

Was that ACTUALLY Wacker stepping in just to defend a non-sensical statement? Seriously?

Well, if you’ve read an interview with Wacker, it read exactly like him.

UNLESS someone else actually goes even further to take those statements seriously and deride the people who make them while at the same time defending the original statement that was so stupid in the first place.

Well, I think he was doing a bit of damage control – you know, ‘yeah, that was a really silly thing to say, but we all know it was, so it lets just let it go’ kind of thing… I think he’s had to do a lot of damage control due to the old guys since taking over, that he just wants to keep moving instead of worrying about a silly comment from one of the writers.

Of course, I wonder who Marc thinks he’ll win over with that comment, especially as he’s working at the comic book company where gay heroes must be in MAX books… not necessarily the right company to be arguing for gay rights…
(If that’s what he was trying to say…)

And what about people who are pro-civil union but anti-defacto?
Where are they left right now?
(And lets face it, if the internet has taught us anything, those people exist).

Oh, and personally, I was already pro-gay marriage and against the Spider-split, but y’know, not for any of the reasons he gave.
I’m pro-gay marriage (or down grading all marriages to civil unions in the eyes of the state) because I believe in equal rights for all.
I’m against the Spider-split because it never seemed necessary to me – Spider-Man’s been married ever since I’ve been reading comics, and I never felt like it was holding the book back – and because they did it in a way that totally dropped the ball.

So, he’s saying Mephisto made MJ a dude?

Whatever, I’m pro gay marriage and anti-BND, so I guess Guggenheim’s formula works!

I wonder if this theory applies to Guggenheim’s other books. I thought I hated Young X-Men because it was boring, but it could be I hated it because I support a woman’s right to choose.

So, he’s saying Mephisto made MJ a dude?

Well, *that* would be an interesting twist to the Jackpot mystery.

I’m hoping for the outrage over OMD/BND to continue just cos I find the discussion around it hilarious, kind of like people raggin on Rob Liefeld.