InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "You Say!"

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)

	box_in_the_box 2009-09-13 09:18 pm UTC (link)
	I suspect this response was prompted by the fact that we just hit the newswire. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	cyberghostface 2009-09-13 09:20 pm UTC (link)
	I just hope Marvel doesn't come down on us now...again. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

box_in_the_box
2009-09-13 09:23 pm UTC (link)

I share your concerns, but Gail had it right when she said that such a step would be ill-advised for Marvel, unless it REALLY wants to see what fanrage looks like. After all, this is the s_d that was founded upon being more restrained and respectful toward comics copyrights and creators, so if even THIS isn't good enough, then the third generation of s_d is going to look like 4chan by comparison.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	cyberghostface 2009-09-13 09:25 pm UTC (link)
	Not doubting you, but where/when did Gail say that? I heard her comments after the original S_D closed but nothing after. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	box_in_the_box 2009-09-13 09:26 pm UTC (link)
	I forget where, but it was quoted on The Beat or one of those other news sites. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	cyberghostface 2009-09-13 09:35 pm UTC (link)
	Think I found it: "These people are not the enemy. They’re the good guys, and the alternative is SO much worse. You think what S-D is bad? Watch and see what pops up in its place." http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=20241 (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	box_in_the_box 2009-09-13 09:38 pm UTC (link)
	That'd be it, yes. And she's absolutely right. This place is a goddamn cocktail party compared to what the old s_d was. Shut us down after we've made all THESE concessions, and a good number of us are going to go, "You know what, fuck it; you're obviously going to come down on us no matter what we do, so we're now going to go nuclear on you." (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	thandrak 2009-09-13 09:41 pm UTC (link)
	Still, the newswire isn't good. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) -

cleome45, 2009-09-13 09:41 pm UTC

(no subject) -

thandrak, 2009-09-13 09:42 pm UTC

(no subject) -

foxhack, 2009-09-13 09:43 pm UTC

(no subject) -

janegray, 2009-09-14 08:29 pm UTC

(no subject) -

cyberghostface, 2009-09-13 09:53 pm UTC

(no subject) -

box_in_the_box, 2009-09-13 09:58 pm UTC

(no subject) -

cyberghostface, 2009-09-13 10:08 pm UTC

(no subject) -

cyberghostface, 2009-09-13 10:09 pm UTC

(no subject) -

box_in_the_box, 2009-09-13 10:14 pm UTC

(no subject) -

icon_uk, 2009-09-13 10:23 pm UTC

(no subject) -

box_in_the_box, 2009-09-13 10:25 pm UTC

(no subject) -

zordboy, 2009-09-14 12:10 am UTC

(no subject) -

blaketiger, 2009-09-13 10:14 pm UTC

(no subject) -

sandoz_iscariot, 2009-09-13 11:02 pm UTC

(no subject) -

parsimonia, 2009-09-14 02:45 am UTC

(no subject) -

tanetris, 2009-09-14 02:53 am UTC

(no subject) -

cyberghostface, 2009-09-14 03:00 am UTC

(no subject) -

tanetris, 2009-09-14 03:21 am UTC

(no subject) -

janegray, 2009-09-14 08:37 pm UTC

(no subject) -

ashtoreth, 2009-09-14 06:17 pm UTC

(no subject) -

janegray, 2009-09-14 08:36 pm UTC

(no subject) -

psychop_rex, 2009-09-15 10:52 am UTC

(no subject) -

buttler, 2009-09-14 04:24 am UTC

(no subject) -

skalja, 2009-09-14 04:48 pm UTC

(no subject) -

foxhack, 2009-09-14 07:59 pm UTC

(no subject) -

skalja, 2009-09-14 09:03 pm UTC

(no subject) -

kingrockwell, 2009-09-13 09:56 pm UTC

(no subject) -

angelophile, 2009-09-13 10:26 pm UTC

(no subject) -

suzene, 2009-09-13 10:20 pm UTC

Yeah..

steverodgers5
2009-09-13 10:40 pm UTC (link)

I just hope Marvel doesn't come down on us now...again.

Yeah, you and me both cyberghostface. That was actually at the back of my mind when I was posting in the most recent thread about this issue, (that it might get so blown out of proportion that things would get out of hand,) but I didn't say it because it almost felt like I'd be tempting fate to do so.. (Crazy as that sounds)

But I'm biting my tongue just now, (though probably not enough,) because if something like that did happen, this time I would actually be more understanding of marvel's reasons for doing so.(Though I certainly don't want that to happen.) Since the sheer amount of vitriol and hate that has often seemingly been directed towards the title every time an issue comes out has sometimes made me feel a little disgusted to even be a comic book fan.

I'm hoping this blows over, and people can actually get back to posting scans that are about the fun of collecting comic books rather than using this place as a platform to desperately try and find fault, and something to be outraged over out of a simple comic book. There's plenty more out there in the real world to be righteously upset over than fictitious plot turns in a superhero comic..

And those who will now try and go looking for lies and conspiracies here, there's this little thing called 'benfit of the doubt.' You know 'innocent before proven guilty', and all that sort of thing. Maybe folks should try and have a little bit of faith in people, that the writers aren't subverting moral values in these things. Because that way of thinking isn't exactly a million miles away from Fredric Wertham's take on what was wrong with comic books. And we all know the mess of things that caused.

Now, I'm sorry if this comes off as condescending and or offensive to some folks here, (And certainly I'm not aiming this at you cyberghostface,) but I'm just saying that maybe we should all try and take a step back, and not to try and look for the worst in everything a set of writers do, just because we might not like the direction of the stories. I know if I don't like things, and I'm no longer getting enough enjoyment out of them to spend my hard earned cash on them, I tend to vote with my wallet and stop buying them. Isn't that enough? These characters are Marvels, and if we don't like what they're offering us we shouldn't really be buying them. It's that simple.

I just don't see why people devote so much energy and passion into being upset over something like this. When they could be using that time more productively. There's enough real misery in the world without trying to revel in it here. Can't we find more fun scans to have any discourse over? Isn't that what we want out of this place?

(Sigh!..What I wouldn't give for some Superdictionary posts just now. Surely we haven't exahausted all of them?)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: Yeah..

cleome45
2009-09-13 11:00 pm UTC (link)

"...Maybe folks should try and have a little bit of faith in people, that the writers aren't subverting moral values in these things..."

For me, this has less to do with "subverting moral values" than obviously bad writing that somebody didn't think through. None of us are immune from that kind of criticism, even those of us that only write/draw this kind of thing as a hobby.

But I'm not going to preface every post I make on a creative work that displeases me with, "Obviously I'm not saying Fan A or Writer B is an evil, sexist monster who should die." Because, well, faith should be a two-way street: I don't think VanLente is a horrible person who is endorsing acquaintance rape. He doesn't think I'm a horrible person out to wreck his story and/or career and/or give his industry a black eye, etc.

That seems fair, doesn't it?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

You're right..

steverodgers5
2009-09-14 05:57 pm UTC (link)

Absolutely! I'm sure Van Lente will have learned a lesson in this, in how people can interpret ambigious events in his writing, (and his comments..) in the worst possible light.

Sorry Cleome45 i should have really have put something in that last post saying that last night, but I wrote this reply when I was going to bed, and I think I was so tired and grouchy that I didn't express some of the points I was trying to make very well.

But what I was getting at, was more the way some folks seemed determined to try and find fault with all the recent issues, and try to read the worst into every example they could find.

The thing is, you know that old saying 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder,' well the converse/opposite is true also. As all art, (yeah even comic books,) is subjective. And if people try their damndest to find fault with it, to infer moral failings and sinister motives in the writing, then of course they will find it. Because that's what they're bringning to bear when they approach the issue. They're projecting that into it, and when what they see doesn't fit whatever they're looking for exactly, they seem to disregard that in favour of trying to find a way to fit it into their targeted criticisms. (All the-'"Let's assume the absolute worst case scenario here, and Oh, let's hunt around and find a definition/example of rape that fits this so we accuse Marvel of this..etc etc..)

I just think people need to try and put themselves on the other side of this. The people writing these stories are doing so because they are fans. They're certainly not in it for any longterm financial career goals. (Since this is one of the few jobs where older writers/artist are pretty much dependent on charity to survive..)And there's certainly not much in the way of job security in it. So they're obviously doing it to create enjoyment, when they could probably be making a darn better wage, with better prospects elsewhere. And yet, every issue rather than people appreciating the effort and work they put into providing us with said entertainment, it seems like they have some folks hovering around like a pack of vultures ready to pick apart what they're doing and try and find something to get really upset over. And I just don't understand why people are like that. Because it must get pretty demoralizing to be on the other side of this, and have everything you do savaged, and people jumping the gun to accuse you of all sorts of things in the writing, without even waiting to see how it all pans out out.

Because like somebody else mentioned, there are only so many pages in a comic book. And I think if people had been just a little bit more patient, and not so quick to jump in there with the accusations, then all this whole mess could have been avoided. Without people getting so upset, when instead they could have been spending their time just having fun here, posting things that they do enjoy, that actually has brought a smile to their face..

However if people want to go looking for things that upset them, then inevitably they will find it. But I just don't understand why they would want to? (Shrugs.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	bluefall 2009-09-13 10:05 pm UTC (link)
	Ow holy shit the comments. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

box_in_the_box
2009-09-13 10:12 pm UTC (link)

... You know, I've finally figured out the root objection of so many guys to interpreting that scene as rape, because they all say, "Well, if THAT'S rape, then it's also rape if you misrepresent yourself in ANY way!"

A clear majority of guys seem to believe that they're ENTITLED TO LIE in order to GET LAID, as though the woman herself is simply the OBSTACLE to be overcome, between the man and the woman's VAGINA.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

bluefall
2009-09-14 12:18 am UTC (link)

Well, yes, exactly. It's that Sex as Conquest vs Sex as Collaboration thing. If the Conquest guys concede any kind of deception as possible rape, it's a slippery slope to disqualifying a whole category of valid battle strategy and giving the Other Team a huge edge.

Meanwhile we Collaboration types are standing over here in the corner going "THIS IS SERIOUSLY INSANE, HOW DO YOU NOT SEE THAT," but we're not even speaking the same language, so obviously we're not going to get through.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	scottyquick 2009-09-13 10:13 pm UTC (link)
	Way to make me curious, jerk. No amount of Diane Lance can save my brain from "this is the same thing as James Bond". (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

zordboy
2009-09-14 12:13 am UTC (link)

That is a point though.

If lying to get sex counted as rape, all those women Bond *didn't* tell that he was a secret agent -- would that make him one of the greatest serial rapists in the history of fiction? You're talking dozens of women here.

It's why I'm having trouble agreeing with "lying to get a woman in bed" should be just out-and-out rape. Because there's just too much wild interpretations to go along with it. Gaining sex through dishonesty is still morally abhorrent, but the James Bond thing is a good point. When is it rape and when it just a guy being a jerk?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

bluefall
2009-09-14 12:32 am UTC (link)

The question is, why is that even the question? How sick and wrong is it to have a discussion that basically amounts to, "but can I still get away with this - how about this - how predatory am I allowed to be"? How fucking warped a perspective is that to have on sex? Making it about victory and conquest and some kind of battle between the involved parties, where one's trying to get it and the other's trying to keep it? Consent should never be a question. If you have any reason to think that your prospective partner might not want to have sex with you, why are you trying to get it anyway? Why should the lies even come into it?

That said, there's a huge difference between "withholding personal information from a sexual transaction that does not involve that information" and "relying on false information to get someone into bed." If Chameleon had tried to pick up an anonymous stranger in a bar while wearing Peter's face, no, that's not a particularly rapelike act. He's withholding information, but it's not relevant information. Whoever he goes home with consented to sleep with *him*.

This woman consented to sleep with Peter Parker. Someone she knows. For reasons that involve, very clearly, who Peter is as a person, and not who Chameleon was when they met. That is very different, and very much rape.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

zordboy
2009-09-14 12:54 am UTC (link)

And I understand that difference. At no point would I agree that lying to get sex is okay. But I still would be very hesitant to call it rape. Going down that road, has there ever been a time when Kal-El consumated his relationship with Lois (in either identity) and didn't tell her about said double-identity?

Because that logic tells us that Superman raped Lois Lane. Anyone in the audience going to argue that? And that also makes Bond a serial rapist.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

bluefall
2009-09-14 01:20 am UTC (link)

No, it doesn't. Because again, Bond is not getting people into bed on anything other than his own charisma. The women he sleeps with have consented to sleeping with the person they're with. That's manifestly unlike consenting to sleeping with a different person than the one you sleep with, which is not consent at all.

It's not about "going down that road," there's no slippery slope argument here, there is quite simply no relation between consent on little information and total failure of consent. Superman and his double identity don't even begin to come into it, they have nothing to do whatsoever with this argument. There is no question of consent there. If Lois agreed to sex with Clark Kent, and slept with Clark Kent, how is that even in the same universe as agreeing to have sex with Peter Parker and actually having sex with the Chameleon?

This isn't a fantasy scenario, by the way, some metaphorical extension of typical "pretend to be rich" barfly deception. This is something that translates directly to real life. Imagine a committed couple, Dick and Jane, and a third party, Joe. Joe thinks Jane is hot. Dick and Jane go to a costume party, and Dick wears a full-body knight costume. Joe buys the same costume. At some point during the night, he uses that costume to present himself to Jane as though he were Dick, and has sex with her. Are you really going to argue that's not rape? That that, in any way, meets the criteria of "informed consent"? That it is remotely comparable to not telling a one-night stand that you have an interesting day job?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) -

zordboy, 2009-09-14 01:47 am UTC

(no subject) -

bluefall, 2009-09-14 02:00 am UTC

(no subject) -

arilou_skiff, 2009-09-14 06:16 am UTC

(no subject) -

janegray, 2009-09-14 08:22 pm UTC

(no subject) -

arilou_skiff, 2009-09-14 09:06 pm UTC

(no subject) -

arilou_skiff, 2009-09-14 09:21 pm UTC

(no subject) -

ashtoreth, 2009-09-14 06:27 pm UTC

(no subject) -

bluefall, 2009-09-14 06:32 pm UTC

(no subject) -

psychop_rex, 2009-09-15 11:12 am UTC

houbanaut
2009-09-14 11:23 pm UTC (link)

Why is that even a question? Because some of us consider the suggestion that all selfish or unpleasant behavior should be made a crime to be naive, unpractical and highly dangerous.

It's great if people are nice to each other, and we should certainly encourage that, but the reality is that some people are jerks, and all of us are jerks now and then. Making it illegal to be a jerk isn't going to change that.

For as much as you and others insist that impersonating a person the victim knows is completely different from other kinds of deception, there is a continuum there. Like, how about the guy who pretends to be, I don't know, Ricky Martin, in order to get groupies? Rapist? How about the guy who pretends to be in the band? Rapist? How about the guy who carries around a book of poetry just so he'll seem deep? Rapist? How about the guy who tells his date "Yes, that's my favorite movie too!"? Rapist?*

Deception is a tricky thing to legislate because we all use it (studies have shown that the average person tells a lie, IIRC, about a dozen times a day). Yes, some deceptions are criminal and SHOULD be criminal. I think we all agree on that. But when you're classifying certain cases of something so slippery as one of the most heinous crimes there is, it's only natural that people should ask "So where does it stop?"

___
* For the record, my gut feeling is that something like the Chameleon scenario - with sex - would be rape, the Ricky Martin guy might be guilty of some kind of sexual assault (though I have no idea whether the actual current law would agree), the guy pretending to be in the band would be a jerk, the guy with the poetry would be doing something tacky but within the "rules of the game" (which men and women both play), and the guy with the favorite movie is probably OK.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	kingrockwell 2009-09-13 10:49 pm UTC (link)
	It was almost all just the one guy, too! And at the end someone said the exact same thing in a different way and he's all "oh yeah i guess maybe that could be rape?" Uggggghhh (Reply to this) (Parent)

	sandoz_iscariot 2009-09-13 11:25 pm UTC (link)
	If there's anything I've learned from reading news items, it's never read the comments. D: (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	cleome45 2009-09-14 12:18 am UTC (link)
	Same with YouTube. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	khamelea 2009-09-14 01:51 am UTC (link)
	I learned that by reading the comments to They Might Be Giants' version of Istanbul (Not Constantinople.) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	gargoylekitty 2009-09-14 12:58 am UTC (link)
	This. News and youtube, the two places you don't read the comments. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -