"Good writers can write good stories about a married Spider-Man." Any time this debate rears its head, some variation of that sentence gets trotted out, accompanied by some examples of good married Spider-Man stories. Good writers can do that? No, really? Do these people honestly not see how this line of reasoning proves absolutely nothing? Considering how long Spider-Man's been around, there's probably been some good Spider-Man stories in which he didn't have his powers. There's probably been some good Spider-Man stories where he didn't fight any supervillains. By the Spider-marriage proponents' logic, these stories prove he should be powerless and not fight supervillains in most of his comics, right? *Any* kind of story can be good if the writing's good enough. To prove Spider-Man should be married, it isn't enough to prove good stories can still be told. You have to prove that status quo provides a better springboard for good stories than the other status quo. And yeah, some pro-Spider-marriage people do make arguments for that, but there are plenty who don't bother. It's as if they see the marriage as the default state and the onus is on others to prove it's unworkable. Small wonder so many on the pro side mention that they first became fans when he was already married, then.
Also, people on the single Spider-Man side are just trying to live out their fantasies of being a swingin' bachelo? Oh, c'mon! Right, because there's no way being married to this
could be a fantasy, huh? Or, for the fans who are into men, being married to this?
Really, it doesn't reflect well on your position if you have to resort to attacking the people on the other side rather than their arguments. That's something the single Spider-Man proponents have done a much better job of avoiding, I've noticed. They're much less likely to make personal attacks.Also: "One More Day". I'm hoping that'll get this site more hits.
No comments:
Post a Comment