If you spent the last few weeks cataloguing new species of fish in an ocean trench, and for whatever reason came to this website ahead of all others as soon as you got back to shore and a wifi-enabled coffeehouse, you should prepare yourself for a shock.

(Spoilers for Spider-Man’s One More Day)

Spider-Man made a deal with the Devil to save Aunt May’s precious little life at the cost of his wedding to Mary Jane. Not only did Mephisto erase his marriage from the timeline, he also apparently decided to do him a solid and make everyone forget his secret identity (even those who knew about it years before Civil War), get rid of his creepy organic webshooters in exchange for the original manufactured ones, and bring his best friend Harry Osborn back to life. That Devil really is a swell guy, isn’t he? And all he asked for in return was a nagging feeling of unexplained loss in the back of Spidey’s head for him to feed off of like some kind of personal house demon.

As you can imagine, hypothetical marine biologist, the internet spontaneously combusted. We all knew Marvel, and in particular Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada, wished the marriage would go away, but even so the avenue they ended up moseying down to accomplish this disturbed many, even those who thought they’d braced for the worst. But wait, the worst is yet to come.

Adding fuel to fire, in a possible last-ditch effort to save himself permanent pariah status with traditional-minded Spidey fans, J. Michael Straczynski, the writer of One More Day itself, came out against the ending. He said he wanted to take his name off of it. He said the ending was put together by editorial. He even retconned Gwen Stacy sleeping with Norman Osborn into being Quesada’s idea. Maybe he’s annoyed the last several years of his life as Amazing Spider-Man writer were just erased from continuity? The readers are feeling the same way…

When editor’s seize the reins of the story they’re editing, we all lose. Even if the editor has the best intentions, even if they’re a brilliant writer in their own right, there’s a boundary between editor and writer that should not be violated. The best stories ever told were forged by the strength of the teller’s personal vision, and while comic books may be commodities designed to make money, they still, in the end, can be art. When said stories are crafted by committee, however, they can never be more than products.

The term “vocal minority” refers to the common conceit that people who take the time to make their opinions known (especially loudly) do not necessarily speak for a proportionate amount of the entire population. It’s basically the opposite of the way Nielsen ratings work, where the opinions of a few thousand are considered to be the opinions of a few million. The vocal minority represents only itself. Even The Internet’s Pal, Steve Wacker, said “all of us [on the message boards] know deep in our hearts that nothing said here represents a “large portion” of the readership.” Et tu, Steve?

Because that was the point of One More Day, wasn’t it? They knew the internet fans would be in a tizzy, but they did it anyway because the non-internet fans—a subtle implication here: the normal fans—would appreciate a Spider-Man back to his 1970s status quo. And those future fans, those unmarried ten and eleven-year-olds, would be confused and bewildered reading about a hero who’s more like their dad than their older brother. Marvel wrote One More Day, in essence, for the children.

I can almost see the children now, comic books grasped tightly in one fist, while the other hand tugs on Mom’s skirt as she puts the pot roast in the oven…

“Mommy, can I make a deal with the Devil like Spidey-Man did?”

Dante Kleinberg writes Vocal Minority exclusively for Comics Now! magazine.
Contact Dante at dantebk@hotmail.com or at his website dantebk.blogspot.com.

Previously…

Last year the New York Times published an article about the new wave of minority characters in comics, with the Hispanic Blue Beetle, the Chinese Great Ten, and the lesbian (also: Jewish) Batwoman leading the pack.  Given that no one outside the comics community has ever heard of the Blue Beetle, the news of a homosexual Bat-character was the only bit of the story to be picked up and carried away by the rest of the mainstream media.  The comics community responded to the media coverage with its usual mix of flattered outrage.  Many in the Vocal Minority decided, before Batwoman had even been introduced in 52, the whole idea of a new “sexy lipstick lesbian” Batwoman was a shameless editorially-mandated attempt to steal media attention while titillating their young boy fanbase, with the added bonus of desecrating yet another beloved/forgotten character from “a simpler time.”

This week in Vocal Minority

In a recent Lying in the Gutters, Rich Johnston broke the news that Greg Rucka will write and J.H. Williams will draw a new Batwoman monthly.  While not exactly a ‘Net-Cracker, this has sparked some debate on the comics forums. 

Full of sound and fury

Does Batwoman deserve a monthly?  Can J.H. Williams draw a monthly?  Has the Bat-family of books become too large for its own good?  Is Batwoman even a legitimate character?

Be reasonable

First, let’s get this out of the way:  J.H. Williams probably can’t draw a monthly. But with enough lead time, maybe he can get out the first arc in a timely manner and then have a fill-in for a few months.  His work is pretty enough we can forgive the time it takes.Does Batwoman deserve a monthly?  If the creative team has a great story to tell with her, then yes.  What the debate here is really about is not whether or not a Batwoman title will be a good read, but why does Batwoman get a book and not XYZ-favorite obscure character (e.g. Cassandra Cain Batgirl, original Firestorm, SuperBuddies, etc.)?  It’s all about the story.  It’s very possible no one has any good ideas for the female Dr. Light at the moment, but when that perfect pitch comes along – look out!Has the Bat-family of books become too large for its own good?  There are three secret arguments here.  One, I like Batman but can’t afford to buy everything and am afraid I won’t be able to keep up with what’s going on.  Two, I don’t like Batman but enjoy peeing on the parades of others.  Three, why Batman and not XYZ-favorite obscure character (that argument comes up a lot amidst the Vocal Minority)?  The thing is we live in a capitalist society, and we vote with our dollars.  If you really want a book to go away, you’ll do your part by not buying it.  If it insists on sticking around anyway, that means other people are buying it, but you’re still free to ignore it.Is Batwoman even a legitimate character?  I’ll skip right to the answer on this one:  Yes, all characters are legitimate, it’s the treatment of said characters that makes the difference.  The Vocal Minority was up in arms at the notion that DC would kill off Nightwing for his seeming redundancy, but still can’t seem to find room in their hearts to give this possibly redundant character a chance to make her own way in the fictional world.  10 years from now when Captain Boomerang Jr. is getting a monthly from Bendis and Joe Madureira, you may find yourself complaining: why him and not Batwoman?  No one’s known what to do with her since Rucka and Williams…

Until next time…

Dante Kleinberg is a superhero geek from way back.  Check out his blog or send him an e-mail, particularly if you have a topic you’d like to see covered in a future edition of Vocal Minority.