InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "A war is coming, Charles."

drsevarius (drsevarius) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-09-13 16:48:00

Entry tags:

char: chameleon/dmitri smerdyakov, char: michelle gonzales, creator: fred van lente, title: amazing spider-man

Fred Van Lente update on the Chameleon controversy

I got another e-mail from Fred Van Lente, that he's asked me to post.

First off, while I believe he had the best of intentions, the poster "DrSevarius" wrote me under his real name and asked me a question I thought I was answering in private, to him. He posted my response without my permission and without telling me beforehand it was supposed to be for public consumption.

If he had told me that, I would have, first off, made it clear that I am not a Marvel employee. I am not a Marvel spokesperson. I am a freelancer. I speak only for myself. That is just as true for the following statement as the previous one.

Also, if he had told me that, I may have been less coy about the following "Spoiler Alert". Anyone who cares not to have stuff that's in ASM #605 revealed now should avert their eyes.

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.

And I'll simply point out that in the scene in ASM #604 when Peter comes home he has no idea why, exactly, Michelle is treating him differently, only that she is. He learns why-- at least partly -- and he responds, in #605.

Thanks for listening. I appreciate it.

Best,
Fred Van Lente

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

bluefall
2009-09-14 12:22 am UTC (link)

Really now Icon. They slid offscreen, with a giggle, and she shows up wearing his boxers. I know you're fully aware of the cultural context, here, and the way that sex is portrayed in this variety of entertainment media. Saying "people are reading into that, that doesn't necessarily mean sex," is tantamount to saying "Dick's parents might not have actually died, we never saw them hit the ground. An empty trapeze bar doesn't necessarily mean death."

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	foxhack 2009-09-14 12:30 am UTC (link)
	You know how comics are. When someone gets killed off-panel, and we never see a body... they may end up alive in a later issue for some reason. Eh. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

bluefall
2009-09-14 12:38 am UTC (link)

Yes, but we still correctly understand the scene to be conveying the message "this character is dead," regardless of whether we believe it. It's a language. Certain symbols and behaviors are collectively understood to carry certain meanings. A man lifting up a body-shaped sheet, looking under it, and looking away, is as clear and straightforward as spelling out the words "this man is looking at a dead person's face." We all know exactly what it means. If you later in the story *reveal* that you faked out the audience, and he was an archaeologist looking at a damaged mummy, or something, that's perfectly legit, sure, but it doesn't change the fact that - in fact, it relies entirely on the fact that - you were supposed to see the initial image and get "oh, guy looking at dead body" out of it.

Likewise, we were supposed to look at the slide under the table as sex. Saying that the fanbase reading it that way is some kind of failure on the fans' part is disingenuous at best.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	foxhack 2009-09-14 12:43 am UTC (link)
	I'm not arguing against that. :p I'm just... I dunno. -_- (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	zordboy 2009-09-14 01:49 am UTC (link)
	I'm with Bluefall there. It sure as hell looked like they had sex, even if we didn't see it happen on-camera. It's not a stretch to assume they didn't have sex, because of where the scene cut. But if the implication was they just cuddled, then the writer and artist should've done a better job of saying so. Because the implication is pretty obvious. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	bj_l 2009-09-14 02:32 am UTC (link)
	I'm pretty sure they did it the way they did to intrigue people, you know? Make them sit up and say "hello, whats this about? I wonder what the fall out from this will be?" (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	ashtoreth 2009-09-14 06:48 pm UTC (link)
	One of my reasons for being dubious about Peter and Michelle actually having sex in their drunken hookup. Comics and their creators are notorious for lying to people and telling you later what you thought was true wasn't. I'm just relieved that one of these is backwalked already. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	icon_uk 2009-09-14 07:29 am UTC (link)
	But whilst it COULD be argued that Dick's parents were also poisoned (there's nothing to say they weren't), I can't assume they were. And as the reveal is the end of an issue, I'll allow for squick inducing misdirection, provided it IS addressed in the story. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -