One More Day Discussion Thread

The Question said:
To all three of those rules, why? That just limits a writer's ability to tell the story.
Click to expand...

They're like any rule of artistry in that they're ultimately all guidelines, there's always gonna be that genius writer or writers who can defy any and all conventions and in so doing create powerful and evocative work, but he'll probably also be able to explain why he defied whichever convention and how that made his work stronger. From that perspective I don't think MD did all that bad a job.

...Granted that I do think number three is way too absolutist, there should be some level of self-destructive cycle but it depends on the author's purpose whether the character is ultimately able to extricate himself from that cycle.
 
Back onto OMD... I'm probably not the first to point this out but inasmuch as the rationale for the retcon is that Peter's married life is 'limiting' for the stories that can be told about the character... really, isn't it much more limiting to play scorched-earth with the character's continuity and supporting cast every few years? For all the trouble and logical conflict it might cause, I would expect that the upshot of writing a character with 40+ years of development would be the unparalleled opportunity for richness and depth in the interactions between the characters. Conversely, taking a wrecking ball to all that investment of work just leaves you a whole lot of nothing, and then you're back redoing all the work Stan Lee already did for you building the character up, way back in 1965 (or whenevs).

Just throwing that out there.
 
fifthfiend said:
Back onto OMD... I'm probably not the first to point this out but inasmuch as the rationale for the retcon is that Peter's married life is 'limiting' for the stories that can be told about the character... really, isn't it much more limiting to play scorched-earth with the character's continuity and supporting cast every few years? For all the trouble and logical conflict it might cause, I would expect that the upshot of writing a character with 40+ years of development would be the unparalleled opportunity for richness and depth in the interactions between the characters. Conversely, taking a wrecking ball to all that investment of work just leaves you a whole lot of nothing, and then you're back redoing all the work Stan Lee already did for you building the character up, way back in 1965 (or whenevs).

Just throwing that out there.
Click to expand...

Precisely. :up:
 
fifthfiend said:
They're like any rule of artistry in that they're ultimately all guidelines, there's always gonna be that genius writer or writers who can defy any and all conventions and in so doing create powerful and evocative work, but he'll probably also be able to explain why he defied whichever convention and how that made his work stronger. From that perspective I don't think MD did all that bad a job.

...Granted that I do think number three is way too absolutist, there should be some level of self-destructive cycle but it depends on the author's purpose whether the character is ultimately able to extricate himself from that cycle.
Click to expand...

I thought numbers one and two were a little absolutist too. They assume that if a character is a hero he must be completely virtuous, and forget that sliding into personal change for the worse is probably one of the easiest things in the world. Not saying that it's better for a hero to be tarnished or anything, but depending on the story and what the author is trying to acomplish, it's very easy to see a character willing to compromise some morals if he finds himself in the kind of desperate situation where a deal with the devil might come into play in the first place.

Also, my other problem with number three is the whole thing about The Devil never flat out explaining the deal in simple terms. It might be interesting, story wise, for The Devil (or whatever) to explain to the person just exactly how they'll be damning themselves or others around them by making the deal, and trusting in their desperation and inherent flaws to let them damn themselves regardless.
 
The Question said:
I thought numbers one and two were a little absolutist too. They assume that if a character is a hero he must be completely virtuous, and forget that sliding into personal change for the worse is probably one of the easiest things in the world. Not saying that it's better for a hero to be tarnished or anything, but depending on the story and what the author is trying to acomplish, it's very easy to see a character willing to compromise some morals if he finds himself in the kind of desperate situation where a deal with the devil might come into play in the first place.

Also, my other problem with number three is the whole thing about The Devil never flat out explaining the deal in simple terms. It might be interesting, story wise, for The Devil (or whatever) to explain to the person just exactly how they'll be damning themselves or others around them by making the deal, and trusting in their desperation and inherent flaws to let them damn themselves regardless.
Click to expand...

Yeah upon review you're right that list is pretty flawed. Especially rule one as it goes against one of the core themes of the Faustian bargain, which is the temptation of an otherwise decent man. I would submit that the real measuring stick isn't evil so much as weakness. A well-meaning but weak-willed character will eventually talk himself into caving whereas even an ambiguously moral character will resist if he has a sufficiently fierce sense of self-determination (in the case of a John Constantine, he'll use that strong sense of self to send the Devil twisting himself into knots).

Looking at it in that sense it makes even less sense because Peter is one character who by his very nature rejects the Faustian bargain, as for him every day is a rejection of that bargain by choosing to use his gifts for good instead of his own material gain. Or put another way he made his deal with the devil when he took that wad of cash from the fight promoter all those years ago and the price he paid was in his uncle's blood, so of any character in fiction he should know on a fundamental level that the price of that bargain will always be more than he can afford to pay.

Granted from there you get into well oh it was his wife who actually signed on the line but that just leads you right into Eden mythology and after that there'll just be no helping me, so I'm just gonna stop myself here.
 
And since Spidey is still in the avengers....here's a question i don't now if anyone has posed...

Does one even DESERVE to be called one of "Earth's Mightiest Heroes" if they resort to making deals with the devil (ultimate evil) to tamper with life and forsake other loved ones such as a wife?

What are people's feelings on THAT angle..??

WHat would Cap say about that...if he was alive...and allowed to remember anything now??
 
farmernudie said:
And since Spidey is still in the avengers....here's a question i don't now if anyone has posed...

Does one even DESERVE to be called one of "Earth's Mightiest Heroes" if they resort to making deals with the devil (ultimate evil) to tamper with life and forsake other loved ones such as a wife?

What are people's feelings on THAT angle..??

WHat would Cap say about that...if he was alive...and allowed to remember anything now??
Click to expand...

To be fair, quite a few Avengers have skeletons in their closets or even moments of evil-ness.

Hank Pym's are of course the most rehashed. He created Ultron, a menace that has gone on to threaten his allies, family, waste entire nations of people, and now menace the universe. He also beat his wife, tried to rig his own Avengers-trial, and has lost his mind a few times. Then CW just added some more fuel to the fire.

How about Wonder Man? He was originally a mole set up by the Masters of Evil, a white collar crook with a grudge against Stark who was supposed to doom the team, but later he had a change of heart by their nobility.

Black Widow was a Communist spy. Scarlet Witch & Quicksilver were former mutant terrorists who both went on to go bonkers at various periods and return to doing dark stuff. Wanda's inability to move on from a trauma, at least if you look at Disassembled as something natural and not a slapped together "event" like so many others, is almost the same as Spidey's. She flipped out and her tantrum cost the lives of a few of her teammates, put some others in the hospital, and depowered an entire CLASS of people, endangering many of them and even ruining countless lives. Quicksilver's gone on his own deranged antics to try to reverse this. At least Spider-Man didn't actually kill anyone to deal with Mephisto.

Iron Man's naturally gotten drunk and even wasted some UN ambassador fella that way, as well as having gone through ARMOR WARS where he took out anyone using his armor designs, even heroes or government guards. Now he's RUNNING SHIELD.

Justice is an ex-con who served prison time for murdering his father. Yeah, the guy was abusive, but they literally had an ex-con who was convicted of manslaughter as an Avenger.

Even Vision was once corrupted by ISAAC and tried to take over the world.

The list goes on and on and on.

So, if after all that history, if some of the Avengers thought Spidey was now "unworthy", he should tell them where to stick it. :p
 
So a friend of mine just tricked me into watching "2 girls one cup". I nearly vomitted and tried to scratch my eyes out in disgust. Interestingly enough, I'd rather watch this than read OMD again.
 
Dread: To be fair, quite a few Avengers have skeletons in their closets or even moments of evil-ness.

Hank Pym's are of course the most rehashed. He created Ultron, a menace that has gone on to threaten his allies, family, waste entire nations of people, and now menace the universe. He also beat his wife, tried to rig his own Avengers-trial, and has lost his mind a few times. Then CW just added some more fuel to the fire.

How about Wonder Man? He was originally a mole set up by the Masters of Evil, a white collar crook with a grudge against Stark who was supposed to doom the team, but later he had a change of heart by their nobility.

Black Widow was a Communist spy. Scarlet Witch & Quicksilver were former mutant terrorists who both went on to go bonkers at various periods and return to doing dark stuff. Wanda's inability to move on from a trauma, at least if you look at Disassembled as something natural and not a slapped together "event" like so many others, is almost the same as Spidey's. She flipped out and her tantrum cost the lives of a few of her teammates, put some others in the hospital, and depowered an entire CLASS of people, endangering many of them and even ruining countless lives. Quicksilver's gone on his own deranged antics to try to reverse this. At least Spider-Man didn't actually kill anyone to deal with Mephisto.

Iron Man's naturally gotten drunk and even wasted some UN ambassador fella that way, as well as having gone through ARMOR WARS where he took out anyone using his armor designs, even heroes or government guards. Now he's RUNNING SHIELD.

Justice is an ex-con who served prison time for murdering his father. Yeah, the guy was abusive, but they literally had an ex-con who was convicted of manslaughter as an Avenger.

Even Vision was once corrupted by ISAAC and tried to take over the world.

The list goes on and on and on.

So, if after all that history, if some of the Avengers thought Spidey was now "unworthy", he should tell them where to stick it. :p
Click to expand...


Good points Dread!!

I am not sure where i stand on that question...i can see both sides....hmn....
 
i haven't seen any discussion on the "Atlas Shrugged" reference. anyone who has read it, is there anything to connect the two stories beside the obvious?
i picked it up at the library to try connecting for myself.
 
fifthfiend said:
Remember, Stephen Strange couldn't do it because it was magically impossible.

But Mephisto could do it because !!



But that's nonsense, because he completely lost the jackpot, by having his marriage to and love for his wife completely ripped away.

I'm all for gettin emotional about good writing, but - in fact, because of that - I am strongly against getting emotional over badly written nonsense.

I mean dang, respect your own feelings enough to reserve them for when the author legitimately gives you reason to care.
Click to expand...
But I got what they were going for. I understood it and went with it. In the comics, the Peter and MJ chapter began with that line, and with OMD, it ended with that line. They were going for the emotional response. Wheter it worked or not depends on the person.
 
PhotoJones said:
Make sure they're fresh, too. Oh, and you can bring some chocolates. They always seem to help. Thanks, bud. :up:
Click to expand...
:woot: :( Flowers and Candy, and not even a date? I guess I got Parker luck.
 
You plan to have a heart attack so PJ can resuscitate you in a totally non-sexual way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SouLeSS
Ending of One More Day?
11 12 13
Replies
320
Views
17K
TheCorpulent1
TheCorpulent1
hippy fascist
preview of "one more day" SPOILERS
4 5 6
Replies
137
Views
11K
BrianWilly
BrianWilly
JewishHobbit
Your Top Marvel Events/Plots/Issues?
Replies
11
Views
3K
JewishHobbit
JewishHobbit
hippy fascist
Comics "one more day previews" spoilers
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Venom Drool
Venom Drool
farmernudie
Comics "One More Day"...(SPOILERS!!!!)
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
Red
Red

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 3,021 (members: 29, guests: 2,992)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,265
Messages
22,075,365
Members
45,874
Latest member
kedenlewis

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"