Amazing Spider-Man #655

[cyberghostface]

Color 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?

Comments

[shadowpsykie]

i don;t think it should be limited to "Dead Minority" though i get where you are coming from.

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

[greenmask]

Gruesome gratuitously torturous deaths have become so common that alone, they're not 'an issue' any more.

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.

[shadowpsykie]

me i can respect a well written death, the death of supergirl in the first crisis, that made me cry, it made me want to be supergirl (though at that young age i was still wise enough not to tell my my father that little fact... me being... not a girl and all)

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)

[greenmask]

It IS used a lot. I don't think that the solution to a word being overused is to stop using it correctly/reasonably, though! Like, "Mary Sue" - often used in ways people will argue over, but there ARE examples which (almost) nobody would dispute of Mary Sues. Ebony Dark'ness Dementia Raven Way, for example. And to describe and discuss characters like that "Mary Sue" is REALLY useful. It's interesting to debate Sueishness about less starkly written characters, too. But you can only do that because "Mary Sue" is still a thing, even after being used soooooo much.

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.

[shadowpsykie]

oh i didn't mean to say that it invalidates them. not at all, everyone is entitled to thier gripes. And even the most hair triggery things can still have a kernel(grmr ck?) of validity.

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?

[greenmask]

I see what you're saying, I'm just not sure that I agree that "fridging" is the word to use for non-minority characters. The original Green Lantern fridging was so enraging because it had this real-world edge to it - hate crimes are committed against minorities, crimes are committed against the privileged.

[shadowpsykie]

ok. i can see where you are coming from. But wouldn't some one beating up a man for the sole reason that he was provilaged be conscidered a hate crime?

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)

[greenmask]

Are they actually considered hate crimes by law? I can see them feeling the same, in an area with a very diverse population, and I can see that they may be 'motivated by hate', but I'm fairly sure-ish that hate crimes are considered in a national context, because laws about them say something about the context of a country as a whole rather than about a local area.

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!

[shadowpsykie]

well the whole White Hate Crime is debateable. some people say that a white person cannot be a victim of racism "because a hate crime against a member of a group that is superior in the power hierarchy by a member of one that is inferior cannot be racist" so a latino attacking a white man because he is white (not because he wants his money, not because of anything other than He is a white man and I hate him) is not racist? thats like saying a black man can attack a latino because he is a latino but thats not racist (and vice versa) which i think is ridiculous.

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

[greenmask]

I gotta go to bed, but I shall reply tomorrow!

[sadoeuphemist]

Hey I'd like to cut in here for a second, hope no one minds.

1) Hate crimes are a terrible comparison to "fridging," because yes, killing a guy just because he's white is in fact legally considered a hate crime.

2) You're conflating personal racism with institutional racism. Personal racism is, someone actively and personally hates blacks/whites/jews/whatever. Anyone can be a target of personal racism.

Institutional racism is, society is set up so as to provide more opportunities for one race over another. People participate in this, but not necessarily consciously or maliciously. You can only suffer institutional racism as a minority.

These two can intersect. For example, a black dude kills a guy because he's white, and because he is a racist who hates white people. But at the same time, they both live in a society where the legal system disproportionately targets black men, where black people are more likely to be discriminated upon and disadvantaged, where black people have a history of oppression at the hands of white people, etc. So while it's still a hate crime, it doesn't have the same racial implications of a white racist killing a black guy.

3) So overall I think it's more productive to discuss "fridging" as a result of institutional discrimination, instead of personal discrimination, unless the author of the book was Dave Sim or something.

[shadowpsykie]

But at the same time, they both live in a society where the legal system disproportionately targets black men, where black people are more likely to be discriminated upon and disadvantaged, where black people have a history of oppression at the hands of white people, etc. So while it's still a hate crime, it doesn't have the same racial implications of a white racist killing a black guy.

oh I am well aware of that. its the same with other minorities. I myself am a double minority (though I am lucky in that i have never experienced personal discrimination... at least as far as i know, i am aware of it though)

i only used that as an example in conjunction with Fridging because of the intersect that can be made. hate crimes by minorities to whites can happen, and does happen. Does i happen as often as the opposite, no. I know the implications are not the same but a hate crime (a legitimate hate crime) is a hate crime. (i don't like hate)

so using that as an example (and trying not to be simplistic about it), a fridging is a fridging regardless of Gender, race, orientation ect. When it happens to a minority it does have different implications, but a pointless, objectifying death is a pointless objectifying death.

I just want to say, as i told greenmask, this has a been a very stimulating conversation, and one of the most civil i have seen on a message board (i really do love S_D because of that) i have to admit it is getting draining (these are not easy subjects to talk about) but i am greatful this community is so... great

hmm maybe i should go watch I love Lucy... or Dr. Who. LOL

[sadoeuphemist]

I don't think that's what fridging is about, though? Although at this point I'm not really sure of the definition myself.

Because there's nothing inherently wrong with fictional characters dying "pointless" deaths. Secondary characters, background characters are killed off all the time in violent stories. If a security guard is killed by the Joker, that's not really a fridging, yeah? So hate crimes are a terrible analogy for this, because authors don't typically kill off their own characters out of racial / misogynistic hatred.

As I understand it, the point of WiR is to show how many of these secondary, background characters were disproportionately women, and how the characters their deaths were intended to motivate were overwhelmingly male. It's less about, "oh no, women are being killed," but more about how women's roles are marginalized and used to prop up men instead. The imagery of a woman in a refrigerator was just a dramatic phrasing to attract attention to the issue. So I don't think it's possible to really discuss the topic outside the lens of institutional prejudice.

[shadowpsykie]

well Secondary characters is too broad. its really more characters that are close to "Hero" a wife, brother, sister, lover, partner, sidekick ect. a character that has a close tie to the hero. it started just as women but has been expanded to gays, and other minorities. but it is as you said, an attempt to "prop up" a hero or "Show how bad a villain is" at the expense of the loved one (who more often than not is Female)

truth be told though, i don't think there is A DEFINATION for Fridging anymore...the definition has changed and evolved over time but i don't think those changes have been noted. people cry "Fridge" or use the "race card" anytime something negative happens, and that is not always the case.

back on topic. with the changes that have been made, its more of a case by case basis now. ( it hink)

[sadoeuphemist]

I guess the lesson to be taken from this discussion is that nobody really knows what fridging means anymore. Oh well!

[shadowpsykie]

PS. no don't mind at all, as i said, i like that we can have conversations like this civily and constructively

[greenmask]

Ah! I wasn't sure; thank you for that information. In that case it WAS a pretty bad choice, but my opinions on the matter still stand I guess.

I think what you're saying is something that my comment a little downthread agrees with, the institutional problem being what leads to the classification.

[greenmask]

I think that the fairest way to designate it would be that an act committed against an unprivileged demographic due to their membership of that demographic would be what got the title.

An unkind act against the privileged is a bad act, but it is due to social reform being necessary and the desperation of the downtrodden and therefore cannot be placed as politically despicably as someone in power harming someone out of it because of their perceived political weakness, or someone out of power harming someone also out of power because, again, they saw and despised the perceived political weakness of either themselves, their victim, or (most likely) both.

And a woman killed to further a man's story might very likely have been chosen because she is a woman, due to those pesky old gender roles that go lady = protected, man = protector. Spider-man "couldn't save" Marla, or whatever; it's more culturally symbolic if a man "can't save" a woman. And that sucks, and that's what makes it fridging.

[big_daddy_d]

Ebony Dark'ness Dementia Raven Way, for example

Gotta be honest. This confuses me.

[icon_uk]

Me too, but Google is a wonderful thing

Meet Ebony Dark'ness Dementia Raven Way

[greenmask]

It's actually a pretty delightful story to read, and I mean that in a "yaaay badfic" and also in an honest "oh my goodness, teenagers are SO CUTE" way.

[icon_uk]

My tolerance for such things is not high, so I think I'll just take your word for that.

[big_daddy_d]

That is..that is so fuckin horrible..I mean.. I actually just tried to read the actual story to see what the fuss is and...I could barely read a sentence..that is..wow.

[icon_uk]

I should apologise for a tvtropes link, but they have such fun tearing the concept apart that I couldn't deny anyone of the chance to enjoy it. I particularly like

"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. "