Amazing Spider-Man #655
Feb. 25th, 2011 01:18 pm![[personal profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cyberghostface posting in ![[community profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
scans_dailyColor me surprised, as this is the second time in a row that a BND issue was pretty good. I guess my final opinion hinges on how the next issue turns out, but overall, I thought this was a very solid effort in terms of writing and art and definitely one of the better issues of the BND era by far.
Anyway, the issue deals with the aftermath of the fridging of Jonah's wife, Marla. The bulk of it is a dream sequence in which Peter is reminded of all the people who knows who has died during his tenure as Spider-Man. I was actually impressed with the actual continuity here as we see a lot of dead characters from years ago...for example, Nathan Lubensky, Aunt May's former lover is there as well as Charlie, the girl Spidey accidentally killed during the Spider-Man vs Wolverine one-shot. I'd like to post some of these pages, but there's no way I could post just four and get the effect across to you. There's some interesting presentation here, with one two-page spread looking like something out of a M. C. Escher painting.
Basically, it brings up how Spidey doesn't kill people, with his villains chastising him and blaming their victims' deaths on him for not having the courage to kill them.
At the end, Spidey runs into the burglar that killed Uncle Ben. Spider-Man decides to take matters into his own hands, and beats the burglar into a bloody pulp, when...
The issue ends, however, with a hostage situation in which a new villain kills one of his hostages before the police even have time to negotiate. He says that he has he has no regard for human life, and if they don't do everything he says, they're going to have a massacre on their hands (he puts emphasis on the word 'massacre', so I'm guessing that's his name).
So basically, and what's gotten the internet riled up, is that a lot of people are saying that this issue is leading up to Spidey breaking his "no-kill rule" and that he is going to kill this guy next issue. I personally don't think it'll get that far, but if it did, what would you think?
Anyway, the issue deals with the aftermath of the fridging of Jonah's wife, Marla. The bulk of it is a dream sequence in which Peter is reminded of all the people who knows who has died during his tenure as Spider-Man. I was actually impressed with the actual continuity here as we see a lot of dead characters from years ago...for example, Nathan Lubensky, Aunt May's former lover is there as well as Charlie, the girl Spidey accidentally killed during the Spider-Man vs Wolverine one-shot. I'd like to post some of these pages, but there's no way I could post just four and get the effect across to you. There's some interesting presentation here, with one two-page spread looking like something out of a M. C. Escher painting.
Basically, it brings up how Spidey doesn't kill people, with his villains chastising him and blaming their victims' deaths on him for not having the courage to kill them.
At the end, Spidey runs into the burglar that killed Uncle Ben. Spider-Man decides to take matters into his own hands, and beats the burglar into a bloody pulp, when...
The issue ends, however, with a hostage situation in which a new villain kills one of his hostages before the police even have time to negotiate. He says that he has he has no regard for human life, and if they don't do everything he says, they're going to have a massacre on their hands (he puts emphasis on the word 'massacre', so I'm guessing that's his name).
So basically, and what's gotten the internet riled up, is that a lot of people are saying that this issue is leading up to Spidey breaking his "no-kill rule" and that he is going to kill this guy next issue. I personally don't think it'll get that far, but if it did, what would you think?
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 09:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 09:33 pm (UTC)its whenever a character is killed (as it says above) in a particularly greusome manner JUST so the Hero has motivation to act.
thats not the same thing as just character death.
character death happens. i can accept that. but when a character is killed as a throw away or used as merely a device, and then never again referenced unless it is to "shock" the hero (ie, not dealing with the grief process), then i call foul. regardless or race, gender, or orientation.
As a minority myself i don't think minorities should be a "sacred cow" if you are going to kill a character, any character, make the death count for something. otherwise i concider it a cheap, fridging death
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 09:43 pm (UTC)I'm not saying "minorities should be sacred", but killing off a member of an under-represented character pool is always going to mean more, in a 'real life matters' sort of way. If it's torturous, even more so. It needs to be discussed and having a term to use in that discussion is extremely useful. Even if it's a well-written death, a non-throwaway one, it still needs to be discussed and patterns need to be watched for.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 10:02 pm (UTC)i guess my real problem with the issue itself is that i think that some terms have been over used. any female death or minority death is being called afridging (or the race card is played) yes, some times this actually is the case, and yes these situations have to watched out for, but it's the hair trigger reactions that urk me. (i admit, i had a hair trigger reaction to Freedom Ring's death, but that really just turned out to be a REALLY unfortune set of circumstances that even the writer admits was stupid)
yes i know i kinda steared away a bit from the topic we were discussing. so let me get back to that: I agree, the death of a minority character should be closely scrutinized (regardless of how the death was handled) but we should be careful before we criticize it, you get what i am saying?
That said, i think ANY death should be scrutinized, (was this death necissary, how is the aftermath treated, was it a throw away death, did the death have meaning beyond the emidiate action?)
If the death of a minority character happens, the death should be all the more scrutinized.
i guess this is just my long way of saying, i think a fridging can happen to anyone regardless of minority status, because the essence of a fridging is the death of a character close to (more likely cherished) by the main character, for the sole reason of furthering the main character's story, then more often than not forgoten almost immediately after or only used there after for shock value. in other words, the throw away death of a supporting character.
you don't have to agree. this is just my opinion. i still beleive that deaths of minority characters (or in the case of GL Terry) the mistreament of minority characters has to be more closely looked at because of the natural inclination of people to use them as disposable characters, but other characters can fall victim to this type of writing..
(wow i did not expect this to be this long)
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 10:21 pm (UTC)Hair triggers are something that annoy a fair number of people, but it's important to remember that that doesn't invalidate the complaints of the people who have them.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 10:41 pm (UTC)let me put it this way: when a minority character is killed/tortured/maimed this needs to be closely examined because there is a very high possibility that this is a fridging and SHOULD be classified as thus if it is.
However: if a NON minority character is killed/tortured/maimed, taht does not necissarily mean it NOT a fridging either. Non Minority characters can be fridged as well.
i think the main issue is that Fridging itself has a number of variables to it. does it have to do with the death of a female character? Does it have to do with the death of a minority character? does the death have meaning? Does the death serve the story or does it merely a device to propel the hero? Does the death of the character involve Agency (on the part of the deceased) or was there a lack of Agency (since i learned what this means i have found my self using this alot)
because there are so many variables it becomes hard to point out what exactly a Fridging is.
there are things to watch out for, and the death of a minority character is DEFINATELY one of the things to look out for. However (a) that is not the only requirement (b) not every minority death is a fridging
and vice versa, just because a character is a non minority does not mean the death is NOT a fridging.
you get what i am trying to say?
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 10:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 11:11 pm (UTC)wikipedia states: "Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, social status or political affiliation.[1]
"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail)"
a hate crime is any crime which is motived by one's social position a person who attacks some one because he is privilaged is still committing a hate crime. its not the crime itself, its the motivation of the crime.
In my area there have been hate speech painted on the walls of churches and parking lots saying amongst other things, defaming speech about christians, jews, blacks, latinos and whites. all of these are concidered hate crimes. despite the fact that it included whites and christians (neither of which are minorities)
i guess thats the key. the motivation of the actions in both these situatios. Hate Crimes and Fridging.
i'm not trying to take away from minorities (hell im a double minority myself, possibly a tripple minority depending how you look at it) i just think that even a non minority death could possibly be a fridging as well (unlikely but still possible)
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 11:21 pm (UTC)It's true that it's terrible for Johnny Storm to die, and that how he died was probably really awful for him personally, and that it's a terrible thing to happen to a character. But in the wider context of "deaths in super-hero comics", or "the use of minorities' mortality in fiction", his personal circumstances just don't rate in the same way.
Motivation isn't the only thing that makes a crime fuelled by hate a Hate Crime. Crime in general is pretty hateful, but we do need the extra clarification in some cases.
I'm not thinking that you're trying to rob anyone of anything, and I doubt anyone reading this thread would either!
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 11:44 pm (UTC)Or a gay man can beat up a latino and because he is "inferior in power hierarchy" to the latino that is not a hate crime.
any attack on another person for the sole purpose that they are of a certain class, race, religion ect should be a hate crime. Now statistically it does usually only happen to minorities, but that does not mean that a hate crime cannot be perpetrated on a non minority.
also that is not to say that some people have tried to take advantage of hate crime laws on both sides.
that said, not every crime perpetrated on a minority is a hate crime.
as far as Johnny storm, i only mentioned that because and argument could arguably be made more that (not a strong one but still) and it happened recently and (i still think that death was partially objectifying but the key was that he like marla in my opinion had Agency, he DECIDED to sacrifice himself to save ben and the others)
I agree motivation is not the only thing, but it is a major thing and should also be taken into account.
as far as both cases, just because most cases fit into one cattegory does not mean all cases fit, and just because some case would not normally be see a certain way does not mean they are not.
(i hope i am still making sense and not just arguing sematics... also thank you for this conversation, it is the most rousing one i have had in a long time, and the most civil:D
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-02-26 01:21 am (UTC)Gotta be honest. This confuses me.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-26 10:10 am (UTC)Meet Ebony Dark'ness Dementia Raven Way
no subject
Date: 2011-02-26 12:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-26 01:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-27 02:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-26 10:14 am (UTC)"Punctuation Shaker: Assuming the apostrophe in her name is meant to be there and isn't a comma that died of despair in the previous line. "
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 09:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 09:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 10:03 pm (UTC)ps sorry my response to your post was so long, i didn;t intend it to be so long...
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 10:14 pm (UTC)He's actually just reacting to having seen a number of people he was shooting a film with be horribly killed, I think it's supposed to be an "oh no!" face.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 10:21 pm (UTC)where is it from?
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 10:24 pm (UTC)It's possibly better in the original language (it's dubbed), but.. I don't think it can be THAT much better. You can find it on Archive.org if you want.. but.. you really probably don't.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 11:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 11:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 11:45 pm (UTC)