Seriously Marvel?

[JoeMcAwesome]

Please at least glance over these links first
http://box-in-the-box.livejournal.com/285334.html
http://community.livejournal.com/noscans_daily/155780.html
http://community.livejournal.com/noscans_daily/156168.html
http://box-in-the-box.livejournal.com/288383.html
A friend of mine pointed these out to me, and I can’t say that I’ve been keeping up with any Spider-Man stories lately, but...What the hell?

How can someone just gloss over this?  I mean, sure, get heavy handed, have a story like this, but deal with it properly!!!  Why is Spider-Man all, “Whoopsie-daisy!  I guess a supervillain I know just raped my roomate!  What’s a hero to do?”

Why are we even focusing on Peter in this story?  It’s being treated like an episode of saved by the bell, honestly.

Anyone have any thoughts?

[Navarre]

Especially reading the last link, the entire comic is full of bad writing, pure and simple.

Stacy B. has made several posts advocating the stronger presence of an Editor-In-Chief to (among other things) assure the right quality and message in the titles Marvel publishes. ... This would be a clear example of why he is right.

[Gibralter]

Wow, now I'm kinda glad I'm not reading Spiderman. Its stories like this where you need to take a step back and think maybe this cool story idea I have isn't so good. Not to go off topic but is anyone else frakkin' tired of the Spidey bashing? I mean come on already give the him and his supporting cast a break.

[Navarre]

I guess I don't pay enough attention to other people's griping. I didn't know anyone was bashing Spidey.

There is nothing wrong with the character of Spider-Man. ... There is something very much wrong with some of the writing; this being an example.

[JoeMcAwesome]

I didn't know people were bashing spider-man, but I guess I don't keep up that much.  I'm fine with the character, in fact, I was a big fan of Ultimate Spidey, but this is...stupid to say the least.

[Gibralter]

Not on the boards here I mean in general comics. Spiderman has got to be the most abused character in comics.
His uncle/father figure dies,
his girlfriend dies,
his bestfriend turns into a drug addict,
his bestfriend's father is a psyco in a halloween mask,
hey his aunt is dead, no wait we were kidding sorry,
he's got cosmic powers!, and now his doesnt,
he got pulled away to fight in a "secret war" but noone thanks him,
hey he's a gaint mutant spider! and now he's not,
His douchebag of a boss still makes the city he has saved like forty times hate him,
hey his aunt is dead again, wait no shes not sorry but his best friend is dead.
His cool new suit is really an evil alien!
He has Clones!
One of said clones takes over his life.
Hey his aunt is dead...again.
His wife leaves him.
Wait she's back.
Hey his aunt is back... again.
He is on a cool new Avengers team! wait now he's not.
He's on a cool secret Avengers team! And now his not.
HE'S A SKRULL!
Wait no he's not.
He revels his secret identity to the world!
hey his aunt is dead.
Wait no he didn't revel his identity because Peter Parker, mister personal accountablity, made a deal with the freaking Devil and now he's not married
...and his aunt is frakking back again!
And now he is a whipped idiot. Thank you Marvel

[JoeMcAwesome]

I don't know if "whipped" is the word your looking for, but yeah, I get what you're saying.  He's not so much whipped as he is AIDING AND ABETTING RAPE.  Definitely an idiot though.

[Navarre]

This is where I often have difficulty with writers. Writers have ultimate power over a character. If they write something in-canon, that's how it is. Period.

As Gibralter points out with Aunt May, any past event can be changed. This is often done by another writer. But so long as it actually happened we as readers see this about the character.

We are given limited omniscience concerning the characters and the universe in which they live. The rest of the universe may not know Parker was married, for example, but we do.

Even when it's made to "unhappen" by a being as powerful as Mephisto, it happened from our perspective. We see every event, even those of alternate universes.

This allows us to explore Parker's choices. It also allows us to be more connected to events like M-Day and the Age of Apocalypse.

In and of itself, this is fine. But the problem is that any writer who is given a character can make anything they want happen and, suddenly, that's just the way it is.

No matter what we think we know of Peter Parker, he is whatever the writer says he is. We can't say, "Oh, he wouldn't do that." because we saw him do it. So obviously he would.

This is where the reader begins to "meta-game" (to use a D&D term). We know that the character is being dictated by the writer.

So if a given writer writes something out of character we have the luxury of saying the writer is wrong in his portrayal. But, wrong or not, this is what the character did in their universe.

So we can blame the writer all we want, and rightfully so. But that doesn't change the character's history.

So everything we are currently seeing Peter Parker, and the other characters, do is in fact what they did.

Any person is best known by their sum of actions over time. A single event or series of events does not define the person.

So something so extreme may happen that we murder someone. That may make us a murderer by definition but if all of the person's previous actions show us a very different person I would not label that person based solely on one action, no matter how heinous.

This is true of Parker. We have seen his conviction to personal responsibility over and over and over. As Gibralter said, it is his trademark characteristic.

So when Peter makes a deal with the devil or takes his current actions on the event above, we do not believe this is indicative of the Peter Parker we know. ... And I agree.

So the writer must construct a masterful, powerful, and plausible reason why Peter would do something outside of his normal psychological profile. If he fails to do so, we have the luxury of blaming the writer. But, sadly, either way this is the Peter Parker we now know.

And, if Peter is the person I believe him to be, there will be a time where he will indeed face the responsibility and consequences toward his recent actions. And the shame and guilt of that will also shape Peter Parker into a very different sort of character.

So, one way or another, Peter Parker is not the man we thought we knew nor is he the man he thought he was. And that is the tragedy here for all of us readers who look to our heroes to show us how to rise above the difficult choices we each must face.

[theSuperAlbino]

Gibralter, I wouldn't call that spider-bashing, Spider-Man's primary story is one of tragedy that's the main reason why Spider-Man works so well, before Spidey Super-Heroes never had problems like Spidey's. However, this storyline is horrible, I'm currently catching up on ASM and most of BND is alright but this is just bad, 90% of the writing in ASM is good but the problem with have a "Brain Trust" is that you'll always get one writer who doesn't get it, atleast I've still got Dan Slott and Mark Waid to make-up for the mess Van Lente is causing.

[Gaumer]

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2009/09/13/amazing-spider-man-and-the-rape-that-wasnt/

This post has a lot of insight that I won't go into here. But folks that care (not sure why cause most of the posters here admit to not even reading Spider-Man) should just put the damned book down, take it off of their pull-list, and start reading Marvel Adventures

Rape is wrong. But murder and attempted murder is morally acceptable? Its the freakin' Chameleon!!! He's an evil douchebag who dips people in vats of acid.

And another point is that in ish 605, Peter tells Michelle that he was 'being impersonated by a super-villain" doing the so-called 'right thing' (which puts his secret identity into jeopardy and therefore anyone who knows it into jeopardy) which may not be the right thing. OMFG! She didnt believe him!!! WOW!! Really?

Lets just put this debate to bed right now. Here's the quote from Van Lente:

"Amazing Spider-Man #605, which went to the printer weeks ago, makes it clear that Michelle and Chameleon did nothing more than make out in the kitchen scene in #603.

There was no sex, and therefore no rape."

So why are we getting all bent out of shape? Because of the specter of rape? Its all a bunch of hogwash (yeah I'm bringing that word back)

I would like to get down to the part of this thread that really gets me going:

How is Van Lente making a mess? The "Red-Headed Stranger" arc has been awesome. The Chameleon parts of the story have not been as good as others but it got us from point A to point B and got us there in an entertaining way. One can not judge 'bad writing' on 1 page they see on a forum thread.

I'm not defending BND. I thought it was a horrible idea. But now that the BND mess is finally leading to some intriguing stories people are whining about the stories.

Is anyone else here actually reading Spider-Man? (props to Albino for actually READING the book and his point is valid and debatable) but people who talk smack on something happening in a book they aren't reading makes me boil over.


Hey guess what guys? It wasnt f*&^in' rape!!

[Navarre]

erm...I was just talking about the effect writers have on characters. I haven't read the book and I try to never take things out of context or form opinions without knowing all of the facts.

[Gaumer]

erm...I was just talking about the effect writers have on characters. I haven't read the book and I try to never take things out of context or form opinions without knowing all of the facts.

Did I come off as a prick? I honestly didn't mean to.


I had 2 points

I thought the fact that in this arc it showed someone being dissolved alive in acid, and that isn't bringing heat, but this brings buzz. Is it wrong and despicable? Yea. To the 10th degree. But so is dropping someone in acid. Let's not argue Peter not doing anything about this supposed rape (it wasnt rape) let's argue Peter not going after the Chameleon for the millions of bad things he has done. That's a huge hole in a lot of comic books. Just because people assume he is raping (not actual raping) instead of DIPPING SOMEONE IN ACID!!! it make a stink. I find that wrong.

My second point was an arguable one and I didn't really mean it because I know everyone can't read everything and I still want discussion to ensue but it just kept coming up in post after post on this thread and it upset me.

I read a lot of comic books and my opinion is just as crappy on those as everyone else who reads those books, but if you haven't even read the book is your opinion even valid? I guess it is because I want to hear what people think but in this case it really sparked my gas can.

I apologize to anyone I offended. I'm sorry.

[Navarre]

Nah, not offended. You just seemed very passionate about your point of view.

I found your points to be valid and presented with conviction but respect. T'is all good.

We begin to get into other areas of debate as we explore if one crime is more serious than another and how they should be handled. I think violent sex crimes and crimes against children immediately invoke a more powerful response than even murder. Perhaps we are largely desensitized to murder while we still hold the other two crimes to be the ultimate evil.

But if any costumed vigilante is going to take it upon himself to fight those who break the law then certainly dropping someone in acid warrants just as much attention as anything else. I think this storyline is being purposefully written to try and invoke that strong emotional response in us.

Apparently it is working but a lot of the response is focused more on the way it is being written than what is happening. And, again, as readers we have the luxury of examining both.

It doesn't seem to be the crime that is raising tempers. It's that the characters involved in these events are not acting as we would expect them to considering their lengthy character history.

Even the new characters are not reacting as one would think plausible in many cases. I just see it as a product of bad writing, not the subject matter itself.

And I will reiterate once more that I haven't read all of this in context so I only know what I have read here. In that I think you are perfectly correct.

It is fine for any and all of us to express our opinions. Even informed opinions are often flawed.

But without all of the information, that flaw is almost guaranteed. But this is what I have to offer at this time.

[Gaumer]

Ok

How should Spidey react to someone impersonating his alter ego and have relations (not rape) with his roommate? How did he react to someone killing Gwen right in front of him? Hmmm, that guy is now in CHARGE OF EVERYTHING!!! Spidey did nada. He always does nada. Spider-man for me has always been what is happening to Peter because of him being Spider-Man.

The Chameleon taking the place of Peter and fanning the flames of love between Peter and a girl who he really doesn't like, who really doesn't like him, and with whom he had a drunken one night stand, and the fact that its his roommate, makes this exactly the kind of thing Spider-Man as a book should be. If Peter Parker wasn't Spider-Man he would be dead in a vat of acid. But because he IS Spidey he survived unbeknown to the Chameleon. In fact the way it was written, Chameleon was reinforcing this relationship for the sake of Michelle to make her feel good feelings towards Peter who Chameleon assumed would never see this girl again and would be dead with Michelle thinking that he died loving her.

In a demented-ass, psychotic way, that's sort of sweet. I do not condone it, and I don't necessarily think the writer should have used the Chameleon in this way, but damn, it made for a story that worked and IS a Spider-Man story.

I feel the characters are acting just as they should be: Peter is caught between his personal life and his life as Spidey. The Chameleon kidnapped Peter because of his job; he was going to be at the right place at the right time. But Peter screwed that up for him because he is Spider-Man. Spider-Man never does what he SHOULD do, and go ape shit crazy and kill the bad guy (that's not his style. That's the Punisher and the bad guy's style), so it works. Peter is caught in another problem caused because he is Spider-Man. That's totally in character.

There was no rape. This would be a totally different conversation if van Lente had come out and said otherwise. It's still wrong, screwing with emotions, but he's a bad guy.

[Navarre]

I don't disagree.

There seemed to have been an insinuation here that a large part of the outrage is that Peter is acting irresponsibly in this situation when he is supposed to be Marvel's highest representation of responsibility.

Do you feel he is being irresponsible? And if not, why not?