Amazing Spider-Man #673
Nov. 2nd, 2011 11:48 am![[personal profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flint_marko posting in ![[community profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
scans_daily
Peter goes after Strange, demanding to know how Carlie could have uncovered his identity after his spell.
The thing he has to do is give MJ the antidote, since she still has her spider-powers.
Also, Kaine is now scarless, and from the looks of it I'm guessing he's going to be the new Scarlet Spider. I liked what they did with Kaine when they brought him back (before 'killing' him off), but I'm not too crazy about prettifying him and making him some sort of superhero. And why tease the possibility of bringing Ben back?
And Julia Carpenter, the new Madame Web (I still don't understand why they had to kill off the old one and make her the new one) apologizes to Peter about the loss that's to come.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 04:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 04:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 08:11 pm (UTC)Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 04:57 pm (UTC)Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 05:25 pm (UTC)We are fans of pop culture, and often speak in terms of quotes, references, and subtext. If someone doesn't get the reference, is it our job to spell out the reference and educate people on the context? Or are references just verboten now, at the risk that what we say will be taken out of context by those not familiar with the same pop culture?
Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 05:32 pm (UTC)Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 05:40 pm (UTC)Either way, fridging is a violent act against a female character and you’re using it in the exact same manner (actually, you’re using it in a much broader context, meaning “any female character death” rather than its original intended usage of “any female character death used to motivate a male character”). Why exactly is referencing it as pop culture shorthand for death acceptable, while other pop culture shorthand references to writing a character out of a storyline awkwardly through death unacceptable?
Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 07:45 pm (UTC)But context matters, and in light of The Big Two's zeal for torturing and killing female characters for shits and giggles... jokes from fans along the lines of haw haw she's as good as dead just really aren't that fucking funny.
You aren't laughing at misogynists when you write stuff like that. You're laughing with them.
Please stop. There are better ways to complain about badly written/drawn characters in fiction.
Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-04 12:51 am (UTC)Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-05 05:04 am (UTC)It's a reference to an in-joke about a fictional MALE character inside a fictional universe created as a gigantic joke within ANOTHER fictional universe, to make a snide metafictional comment about a completely unrelated character in yet a third fictional universe. Pretty sure that just advocates watching a very good episode of the The Simpsons, Ma'am, not violence against women.
Not to mention that 'Died' isn't at all the same as 'Was Killed' 'Suffered Violent Death', etc. It refers to...dying, a process that by hook or by crook happens to everyone, real or fictional, and doesn't always involve violence and/or the alteration of an equivalent male character's mood.
Additionally, what you're doing here? Really invalidates the idea of having Mods on the comm in the first place, as you're wasting your time policing a comment which only you have found offensive and which numerous people are saying is *not* offensive, not just the original poster. I've written offensive things on the 'net before - here and elsewhere, I won't deny it - but I've always stood down and apologised when I recognised that I was in the wrong.
And most notably, my comments were always flagged by Mods when someone other than the Mod - or numerous someones - were actually complaining about and feeling hurt about it. What you're doing here is, on a tiny scale, exactly the same as throwing tear gas at peaceful protestors. A waste of time and energy, and self-defeating.
I'm an English Lit. Student. I could spend hours and hours carefully detailing the different aspects of how wrong you are, Ma'am. Or...you could stop being angry over nothing, apologise to thehefner and mercia for an innocent mistake that anyone could have made, and go about looking for comments that people are actually complaining about and finding offensive.
Or...you could freeze the thread without warning again/get unreasonably angry at me for trying to reason with you/suspend me/ban me/do something else that's not reasonable. However, as you're a mod, I'd like to think you know better than that.
I really would like to.
Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-05 04:32 pm (UTC)But thanks for treating me like I'm invisible, using a belittling tone with a woman mod, and dragging out your English degree in order to more effectively put both the little ladies in our proper places.
The only person here at this point who owes anyone an apology is you.
Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-05 04:56 pm (UTC)Oh, wait...you didn't actually reply to thehefner. Yes, you replied to salinea, but you'll note that I'm defending the Simpsons reference, which, again isn't at all inherently sexist either in its original context or in the context of talking about a hypothetical death with no violence implied. If you don't fight the battle yourself instead of hiding behind a mod, why is it a surprise to you that I unwittingly treated you as 'invisible'?
Frankly, I couldn't care less what sex you are when I argue that you're wrong. The fact that you even started this long, arduous chain of replies is in itself proof that the definition of 'sexism' on this comm is largely hypocritical - you're pulling out the "THAT'S SEXIST" argument to attack a humorous comment referring to a Spider-Man character whose very existence and creation are in themselves fifty times more inherently sexist than that comment.
Additionally, you haven't really addressed the above-stated fact that there are more people arguing AGAINST your point than FOR it, and that you might - perhaps - need to get off your high horse and recognise that you're wrong, or at least that no matter who is wrong or right, you're blowing the issue out of proportion.
Do feel free to again interpret my attempts at being polite as 'belittling'. Because as we all know, when a debater asks their opponent to be reasonable and refers to them with a respectful 'Ma'am' or 'Sir', they really wants the opponent to feel belittled.
Re: P.S.
Date: 2011-11-05 04:34 pm (UTC)Jesus.
H.
CHRIST.
Re: P.S.
Date: 2011-11-05 04:59 pm (UTC)If it's okay to call 'Died On The Way Back To ___'s Home Planet' the same as advocating murder, it's okay to call 'That is not up for discussion' the same as throwing tear gas.
Sorry to break it to you, but you can't argue by a double standard. It's not a feasible debate method.
Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-05 05:05 pm (UTC)Mod Ban
Date: 2011-11-05 06:46 pm (UTC)In case we were unclear in our clarification earlier : even though this is a quote/pop culture reference, by using it in this context against a female character whose narrative role is that of a love interest, who is pretty unpopular in fandom and has been subjected to extreme amounts of bashing and occasional actual wishes for killing, long term transformations into a spider, and was, in this very post, also called by various posters "hysterical", "harpy" and a "uppity bitch"; we have judged that it participates to a disturbing and sexist atmosphere that does not fit
It's nice of you to be concerned about time wasted for us, but this comment is hardly helpful in this regard. In any case, our time is our own, and I would not consider wasted in this case.
Also, you seem unaware that we were actually acting at the behest of someone's request who felt uncomfortable by those jokes. (The complaint being an open comment in this very post as well, you should be able to find it for yourself).
However, as a result of your belligerence, rudeness, baiting, grandstanding and passive-aggressiveness towards the mods and - especially - towards another member in your answers to
You have now been banned from Scans Daily.
I wish you the best in the continuation of your English Lit studies.
Re: Mod Ban
Date: 2011-11-05 07:51 pm (UTC)*golf clap*
Re: Mod Ban
Date: 2011-11-05 08:32 pm (UTC)Re: Mod Ban
Date: 2011-11-05 08:34 pm (UTC)Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 07:58 pm (UTC)Big difference between the original connotations and what the line is being used for here. Again, please please think about the context here and what you're doing. :(
Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 08:43 pm (UTC)Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 08:55 pm (UTC)There's a pretty large difference between joking about a love interest getting killed and expressing approval when a mass murderer villain gets a beat down. We are able to take context into consideration, so don't worry about this.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 09:51 pm (UTC)Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 04:57 pm (UTC)Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 05:17 pm (UTC)Let me ask honestly: were you familiar with the context? Did you recognize the reference? Furthermore, I wasn't even the first to make this reference, and yet you haven't left a mod note on icon_uk's thread, which he posted fifteen minutes before I posted mine. Why didn't you say something there? Did his use of strikeouts make the quote clearer to you?
All right, I understand that not everyone's seen the episode, and to anyone who actually was offended, to THEM ALONE I apologize and will strive to be more careful and thoughtful in the future. If I quote anything that I feel might be mistaken by those who don't know the context, then I shall reference it accordingly. How's that?
Fucking hell.
Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 05:21 pm (UTC)Thanks for bringing
Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 05:38 pm (UTC)Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 07:48 pm (UTC)It still left a bad taste in my mouth. So, to be fair, did the other posts that made funny ha-has about fridging female characters.
Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-05 01:57 am (UTC)Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2012-10-18 06:06 pm (UTC)Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2012-10-18 06:33 pm (UTC)Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2012-10-18 06:35 pm (UTC)Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2012-10-18 07:15 pm (UTC)Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2012-10-18 07:17 pm (UTC)Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2012-10-18 07:31 pm (UTC)Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2012-10-18 07:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 08:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 08:18 pm (UTC)Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 04:55 pm (UTC)Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 03:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 04:23 pm (UTC)Of course she's probably not gone for good. Probably will be right back after a six-issue arc.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 04:52 pm (UTC)Could be that..
Date: 2011-11-02 06:59 pm (UTC)I say friend. But obviously it's gonna be while before they're on civil terms again.
Bet she feels pretty bad about getting that tatoo now..Instant reminder of why she broke up!
no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 04:46 am (UTC)Except that's basically what Venom has always been.
/cue boombox in the rain
no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 04:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 04:59 am (UTC)I have no real belief that they'd manage to do it SKILLFULLY, at this point, though, so it'll go in the "Wouldn't it be great if?" vault.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 05:14 am (UTC)(When the symbiont isn't being all stalker-y they can get along fine, have fun, fight crime, then it sees something that reminds it of *him*...)
no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 05:32 am (UTC)(Which would be a very different kind of movie than if you rewrote 'When Harry Met Sally' and made BILLY CRYSTAL the symbiont.)
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 04:23 pm (UTC)Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 06:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 04:25 pm (UTC)"NOTE:
PoochieCarlie died on the way back tohisher home planet.)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 04:41 pm (UTC)Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 05:20 pm (UTC)Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-04 01:51 pm (UTC)Unfortunately, given the scenario, it appeared to be a perfect example to cite of a pop-culutre favourite series with an unpopular, creators-darling, insert-character being clumsily removed when their unpopularity becomes clear. For future reference, would it have been acceptable to use the comparison without the death bit at the end, or should I assume that it will be inferred?
Re: Addendum to Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-04 02:12 pm (UTC)So I'm not sure what I can tell you about using the comparison without the death bit - I guess it works, yes. But I hope that clarifies our intent when we launched all those Mod Notes, and thus how you can avoid this problem in the future?
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 04:34 pm (UTC)All that being said, she had every right in the world to call Peter out on this. He deserved that. It's hard to see her not returning at some point because she knows but the question remains on what do you do? She can't be a love interest anymore.
Also, I'm glad the psychic blindspot is gone. That thing was way too convoluted.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 04:53 pm (UTC)Did she? Yes, he kept something from her, something important, but his reason for doing so was the usual, and fairly justifiable, one of superhero secret identities. He didn't do it to hurt her, or to spite her, but to try and keep her safer than she might well be if she knew. He certainly didn't do it to make his life easier.
I'd say it was comparable to certain real life examples like secret agents not being able to tell their family what they do for a living.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 05:17 pm (UTC)What really upsets her is she's just called him out as Spidey and he is still lying to her face. She has major trust issues and from her perspective, the entire relationship was a lie. And he's insulting her and her intelligence by standing there and denying it.
And if he really cared about her, he would have chased after her instead of going to Dr. Strange and saying "What the hell, man?!"
(Again, the reason I never cared about Carlie was because it was clear from the beginning that she wasn't important. Just a distraction to create this eventual drama.)
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 06:58 pm (UTC)But it's not MJ's call to make.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 07:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 08:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 09:40 pm (UTC)There were a lot of problems with the Peter/Carlie relationship. Not just the reader perception of it.
On paper (not being punny with that), they would seem like a good match. They're both smart, driven people who try to do the right thing.
But in practice, things seemed off. It's more like we were told how good they would be rather than seeing how good they would be. Carlie has major trust issues and Peter has a hard time opening up. Their chemistry seemed off.
Dan Slott knows how to write good chemistry between characters. Look at the way he writes Peter and MJ. But the Peter/Carlie thing was just... off...
no subject
Date: 2011-11-04 01:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 06:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 05:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 06:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 07:23 pm (UTC)Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-02 07:30 pm (UTC)Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-02 07:34 pm (UTC)Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-02 08:17 pm (UTC)Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-02 08:33 pm (UTC)Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-02 08:45 pm (UTC)In this instance, the biggest problem is that "women are irrational and emotionally unstable creatures who overreact without grounds to what men do and say" is one of the big, on going idea that is used to undermine women; and "hysterical" is exactly the sort of word that has been used to do so (connecting irrationality and emotional instability to having a female body, pretty literally).
"Melodramatic" as used by
Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-02 08:53 pm (UTC)I'd be more inclined to consider 'melodramatic' sexist, especially considering the genre of fifties women's films that so defined that particular image (although I think 'melodramatic' is actually more appropriate here, as that is how she's acting). But I would say 'hyperbolic' or 'outrageous' come close, but don't quite cover the definition of 'hysterical'.
And I don't know... sometimes my thoughts on these things are a little unclear. But it seems to me, if we take in account all the words that men have used to demean or undermine women and how much they are apart of our daily vocabulary, it leaves a very limited field of words (in basic vocabulary that is, of course there's a lot of synonyms, but also I'm not a native speaker).
Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-02 09:07 pm (UTC)Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 01:42 am (UTC)"In the Western world, until the seventeenth century, hysteria referred to a medical condition thought to be particular to women and caused by disturbances of the uterus (from the Greek ὑστέρα "hystera" = uterus"
If I had to pick a non-sexist synonym, it would be "overemotional"
Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 01:44 am (UTC)Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-02 09:18 pm (UTC)However, I respect the ethos of the community and will avoid using it- but I think it a little unnecessary as more people using the correct terminology (because it wasn't a gendered word in the first place) can disassociate connotations.
Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-02 10:10 pm (UTC)This I did not know.
Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-02 10:51 pm (UTC)Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 12:31 am (UTC)Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 12:49 am (UTC)Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 01:03 pm (UTC)There's a huuuuge amount of men(and some women) who consider that only MEN can use logic, and women are only capable of reacting emotionally, because of hormones and periods and tiny lady brains. So describing an excited, angry woman as hysterical taps into that whole vast aspect of dismissing women's anger because their feelings aren't considered valid.
Hysterical as in funny is a different ballgame, though - I really doubt anyone would object if you said you found Amanda Connor's art hysterically funny.
Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 07:52 pm (UTC)Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-04 01:28 am (UTC)Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 06:48 pm (UTC)Histrionic might have some sort of sexist connotation i'm not aware of maybe.
Judgmental's rock-solid though!
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 08:25 pm (UTC)But notice that the first thing he says after he admits it is "How did you figure it out?" He's more concerned with his secret instead of actually feeling anything for her. It makes him come across pretty badly.
Because he asked that question, she went into a train of thought that made her question EVERYTHING they had done together.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 01:54 am (UTC)There's precedent. After Mary Jane said she knew (an issue or two later) Peter thought to himself: "How do I convince Mary Jane she's wrong about me being Spider-Man?"
no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 02:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 03:47 am (UTC)"Peter Parker, I know you're Spider-Man."
"Um. No, I'm not."
"...My mistake."
The most mature way Peter handled it was in Brian Bendis' PULSE series, when Ben Urich revealed he knew Peter was Spider-Man.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 04:34 pm (UTC)also, yeah Carlie was actually interesting here, although her whining in that last panel of her's seems a little... harpy-ish.... or melodramatic...
i agree the "spell" was a stupid idea....
i'm still holding out hope that MJ stays a webslinger (it seems like Anya still is)
Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-02 07:32 pm (UTC)Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-02 07:40 pm (UTC)Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 03:34 am (UTC)I wish people would stop making funny ha-ha "fridging" jokes about female characters. [points upthread] Yeah, even the unpopular ones.
Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 03:47 am (UTC)Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 05:15 am (UTC)I totally understand why people don't like the character, but the jokes were really starting to creep me out. :(
Re: Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 05:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 04:42 pm (UTC)Fortunately, I think most of us don't get her either, and can happily say good fucking riddance. Show her some respect? No thanks.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-04 09:43 pm (UTC)That even her reason for figuring out Peter's secret ID is actually terrible bullshit really just makes it perfect.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 04:47 pm (UTC)Now that she knows, he could have told her about the Jackal, and that alone would have been enough to convince Carlie that not knowing would have been safer.
Oh well, now that we got that over with.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 04:48 pm (UTC)That said: "[Spider-Man's] a suit you put on to be like the rest of us".
Oh please tell me that's just her feeling angry and betrayed and not something Slott's actually going for. It didn't fit Superman when Bill said it, it doesn't fit Spider when Carlie does. Maybe Batman, but I am not opening that can of worms.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 04:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 04:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 04:57 pm (UTC)If Slott is trying to use Cooper as the voice of truth when she says 'Parker is just the mask', then he's just as much an idiot as she is. However, it looks more like he's just using that to demonstrate how utterly wrong for Peter she was all along.
If only he actually knew how to write Peter Parker, then maybe there'd be some hope for this title...
no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 03:37 am (UTC)Well, it is like that line in Kill Bill Vol. 2: "Clark Kent is Superman's critique of the whole human race." The audience isn't sure if that is Quentin Tarantino's own opinion of Superman or not, but they are sure it isn't accurate (at least since 1986).
no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 01:23 pm (UTC)I choose to believe that this is therefore not Voice-of-God, but instead proof that Carlie is certainly not yet at the stage where she can get Peter the way MJ does. (In her defense, it doesn't help that for much of the time she's been dating him his actual alterego seems to have been Jerk-From-a-Jock-Movie-Man).
no subject
Date: 2011-11-04 03:15 am (UTC)I don't really know the writer's intent, but it's also possible to read that scene as Carlie thinking that if Peter's this awesome hero whom she's admired all this time, she no longer feels like she can ever be his/their equal.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 04:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 05:14 pm (UTC)And she's only in the right if you actually bought in to Slott's rather pathetic attempts to make her an awesome girlfriend; As it is, roller-derby's cooler when Ellen Page is doing it, and the tattoo stuff was a joke. Most fans seem to take every approach they've tried with her as a desperate, straw-clutching attempt to make her cool and likeable and someone worth keeping around. As it is, she's justifiably right in being angry about Peter lying to her, but you'd think she'd be more understanding about WHY he's lying.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 05:40 pm (UTC)Gwen Stacy: DEAD.
Captain Stacy: DEAD.
May Parker: Fiance dead. Stages Death. Threatened repeatedly. Shot. Brainwashed and turned against family.
Betty Brant: Husband becomes supervillain. Goes Insane.
Ned Leeds: Becomes Supervillain
Flash Thompson: Too many too list.
Anyone named Osborn: OMFG.
Carlie is being unfair here. Now, it's understandable why she'd react this way...but given his life history, it's really not surprising at all that Peter would keep his secret. I mean, they talk about the old Parker Luck...but really, compared to his friends, Peter is the luckiest guy around. I mean, DAMN.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 05:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 05:58 pm (UTC)How the hell does the Jackal still know it? I dunno how this is JUST coming to me, but per the mystic mumbo jumbo which was still in tact back when Spider-Island started, he could not have possibly known. I mean freakin' NORMAN OSBORN doesn't know any more, and him knowing used to be the only thing that made him a legitimately threatening villain. God damn is that a plot hole big enough to drive a truck through.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 06:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 06:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 07:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 10:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 07:08 pm (UTC)Also, everyone who put it on their facebook page or diary when Peter first unmasked himself also knows?
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 07:51 pm (UTC)According to this to break the spell Peter either has to be unmasked or unmask himself to someone. He hasn't done that with Osborn. However, the Jackal has what, video footage of his cloning technique, Peter's DNA, Ben Reilly, Kaine, Spidercide and several other stupid things to fall back on that could be the cause. I don't like it either but at least with the Jackal there are a lot of easy excuses as to why he remembers.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 08:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 08:18 pm (UTC)Dear Marvel - plz credit us.
Seriously though, my guess is that Iron Man or someone had the video pulled like a lot of companies do with copyright shit. You Tube pulls videos left and right these days if they are told to and I could see Spidey's unmasking being just such a thing. Although that would mean there are a lot of DVRs out there that spell Peter Parker's eventual doom doom doom doomy doom doom.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 07:13 pm (UTC)Unless we're saying that Jackal figured it out again thanks to Peter being dumb enough to talk about his 'new' powers on the internet, which is impossible, I think, in terms of the storyline's progression.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 07:47 pm (UTC)It's a visual, not verbal. My guess would be that the Jackal has video footage of his experiments, plus all of his Ben Reilly and Kaine stuff. With the dna, experiments and the like lying around, it would have been impossible for the Jackal not to have something of Peter or Ben or Kaine (all the same person visually) and if someone that looks like peter having spider powers would trigger the spell to be broken, then the jackal has enough of his own creations that could trigger that.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 07:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 07:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 07:58 pm (UTC)Like I said. Truck-sized hole.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 08:13 pm (UTC)My personal thought is it goes like this.
"Hmmm. What to watch tonight? Porn. Gay Porn. Dwarf Porn. Furrie Porn. Wait what's this? "Peter Parker/Ben Reilly/Spider-Man footage #235. Nyahahahaha! How could I have forgotten this video? It must be all these men having a three way! Perhaps I can use Spider-Man's homosexual love of Peter Parker against him in some way!"
15 minutes later....
"HOLY CRAP! PETER PARKER IS SPIDER-MAN! HOW DID I NOT REMEMBER THIS?"
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 08:23 pm (UTC)I maintain the truck hole!
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 08:32 pm (UTC)Personally if I were writing Spider-Man, I'd use that as a massive plot point and to further hone in that magic requires pretty anal retentive wording.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 08:35 pm (UTC)I think working on post-OMD Spidey is just melting Dan Slott's formerly fine sense of continuity.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 08:40 pm (UTC)Maybe it's a big blur over Spidey's face? But if that's the case how did the internet thing work? Maybe magic doesn't work on the internet? Quick Spidey - look up your marriage to MJ!
At least with jackal he can look back and go "Who did I clone Ben and Kaine from" and have some sort of record that can be traced back to Peter. I'm sure that we can find something that is plausible in that whole spider-cloning history that would jog his memory.
Of course Kaine remembers, right? And jackal had kaine under his control for a bit in Spider-Island. Maybe that's how?
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 08:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 08:53 pm (UTC)"Why the hell do I have so many clones of Peter Parker and why do they all have Spider-Man's powers? I'm obviously missing something here!"
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 09:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 06:20 pm (UTC)I didn't even include the number of times Mary Jane was a target or people near Peter were put in danger because a villain knew that Peter himself had a relationship of sorts with Spiderman. How many times has a villain sought him out because he was Spidey's unofficial photographer?
Point being: Peter's not just being cautious, he's got stacks of police report blotters to remind him of why being associated with Spiderman is a dangerous thing and why revealing that secret is not something done lightly. It's not like revealing you don't like onions, tattoos or circumcision. :)
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 06:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 07:00 pm (UTC)Of course, Peter doesn't know he's a protagonist, or he'd realize this. :)
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 05:57 pm (UTC)Hey, what happened to Harry....? after that whole "American Son" thing he just kinda disappeared... wasn't bringing him back on fo the big things about BND?
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 05:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 05:47 pm (UTC)Consequently, why I've never been down with the old "I can't tell you because DANGER!" excuse is because the underlying implication of that is "I can't tell you because I don't trust you enough not to blab." It's a good reason not to have the whole world know, or not to have your villains know, but it's not a good enough reason not to tell the person you're sharing a life with, unless you just plain don't trust them to keep the secret. And finding out that your loved one doesn't trust you, no matter how right the decision is, can be very hurtful, which is what I interpreted Carlie's reaction to be.
I also find it insane to start a serious relationship with someone and hiding the fact that there's a potential life-threatening danger to either one of you. As you say, the potential is still there, and it's incredibly unethical to rob someone the opportunity to weigh in all the facts before they walk into a situation. Yeah, I understand that every superhero ever have this dilemma: "Al I want is a normal liiiiife." But it's impossible for me to get behind justifying the secrecy. That's why we appreciate the supportive love interests who do know, like how MJ and Lois used to be. Which is not to say I want them all to have this dynamic. I'm just saying that when a hero goes down this total secrecy route, you have to take the douchiness of it into account, and in this case, with Peter Parker and Carlie, I find the whole thing very misguided.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 09:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 10:15 pm (UTC)Given that Spider-Man seems to spend most of his time as a vigilante being actively sought by the Police, I'd say that was a bloody good reason right there.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 10:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 10:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 07:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 09:54 pm (UTC)Now, I do think that there is a window of time where you can be in a relationship with someone and not tell them, because you do have to build up a certain trust level to confess such a big secret that not only potentially puts you in great danger, but also everyone you have any kind of relationship with (both romantic and family/friendships), if somebody turns out to be NOT worthy of the trust. I'd say if you're at a point with regular sleepovers and/or "I love yous" have been exchanged, you've crossed out of the window (I don't read the books, just scans, so I don't actually know if they're at either point yet)... the first because it puts you in the vicinity and thus danger a lot more than a friend or casual acquaintance would be, and the second because, well, I don't know, it just seems right... if you're not ready to follow it up with a "but there's something you need to know", you'd better be ready to follow it up with "...but for reasons I can't disclose, we can't be together."
And in this scene I think even if they weren't at that point, ultra-jerkiness comes in after the first lie gets demolished (considering Carlie knows he wasn't in the bedroom and isn't freaking out about OMG I WAS JUST IN THERE AND YOU WEREN'T THERE WHERE DID YOU COME FROM, but is just all calmly "yeah, I'm going to go.") and he keeps trying to lie. You don't have to necessarily tell the truth in that situation, even a "I've got things I can't tell you" is fine, but continuing to try to make up lame stories shows a fundamental lack of respect.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 11:42 pm (UTC)He made my realise that the regular cast are all quite annoying
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 05:34 pm (UTC)Because..
Date: 2011-11-02 06:55 pm (UTC)If only the rest of the cross-over had had this type of art. I think I would have really enjoyed it, but alas..
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 06:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 07:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 09:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 11:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 07:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 07:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 09:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 09:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 09:44 pm (UTC)...
Remember kids, this makes Spidey more relatable to the kids! :(
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 08:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 12:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 07:04 pm (UTC):-D
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 09:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 10:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 07:05 pm (UTC)As for Peter and Carlie breaking up...well, I wish I could say I cared at all. Maybe now Carlie can go back to being her own person instead of being "Peter's perfect girlfriend".
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 07:05 pm (UTC)Also Carlie will probably return. There will be some grand reconciliation between the two where they profess each other's undying love one for another.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 07:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 08:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-02 09:50 pm (UTC)And what part of this spell said that it could keep ANYONE from finding out? how does that work? When someone gets close, like Aunt May doing lundary where Peter's Spidey-Jamas were left, do they get drowse and just forget what they're doing? And if this thing breaks, does that mean Aunt May will die? Making everything go back to they were before OMD... except Peter and MJ STILL weren't married?
no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 03:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 12:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 02:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 05:28 am (UTC)http://comicbookdb.com/issue.php?ID=178
no subject
Date: 2011-11-06 01:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-06 03:37 am (UTC)Aximili...Esgarouth Isthil? From Animorphs? Gods it's been a long time since I read that series.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 02:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 01:20 pm (UTC)And that epilogue with Strange... smelled it coming miles away! (after the retcon to be precise)
no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 06:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-03 08:23 pm (UTC)I mean, no questions of "What were you thinking?! Why did you lie to me?! Why would you think it'd be ok to hide this to me?", that would facilitate him actually being able to explain why he did what he did.
Just "Yup, you lied. You're an ass. I'm gone."
Which, you know.....I'm ok with for this character.
Mod Note
Date: 2011-11-03 08:30 pm (UTC)Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-04 12:43 am (UTC)This is your FIRST OFFICIAL WARNING. Please note that if you receive two further warnings you will lose the ability to post on this community.
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-04 01:41 am (UTC)However, I will not argue your ruling. I would just like to point out that it's too broad a statement to call something "blatantly sexist" when the context can be taken several different ways depending on your opinion. I certainly didn't mean it in a sexist way.
I am genuinely interested in knowing why this is being brought up now when I know I've seen comments on this very same character being made in a similar (if not worse) fashion, and no issues arose due to it, that I was aware of.
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-04 02:37 am (UTC)How is a phrase like "uppity bitch" ever not sexist? I'm not a mod or anything, but I am a woman. I'd really like to know. What is accomplished with a sexist slur that can't be accomplished by calling her, say: A total asshole, a judgmental idiot, an arrogant jackass, etc.
And I know that a Cooper is a really unpopular character on s_d, and I completely understand why. But if there are really s_d threads where people have been using sexist slurs right and left to complain about her, I'd like to see the links. Because I'm finding that a little hard to believe.
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-04 02:50 am (UTC)That would be like a dude being called sexist for calling another dude a dick.
I guess I just don't see why I got a warning for it, ya know?
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-04 03:02 am (UTC)You add "uppity" and it just compounds the insult. "Uppity" is traditionally a slam used against an individual whom the powerful believe "does not know their proper place." IOW, against somebody who thinks their place in the status quo is lousy and rebels against it.
These term come with baggage. It's bad form to try and claim that you can use them as insults without bringing that baggage along with you.
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-04 03:27 am (UTC)So the judgments of other people about what your behavior indicates is just ~what they might think~ but your judgment about the behavior of the character Carlie Cooper is some sort of absolute value.
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-04 11:40 am (UTC)If I'd called her an uppity dick, would I have gotten the warning anyway?
I'm genuinely trying to figure this out, because I like this community, but treading seems to have gotten tricky now.
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-04 01:09 pm (UTC)You got a warning because the adjective "uppity" to "bitch" makes it even more sexist. (usually we only give a Mod Note reminding people not to do it when they use "bitch").
You would not have gotten a warning for "uppity dick". Mostly because men do not suffer from widespread discrimination and oppression just because they have a male body (though they may suffer from discrimination for mores specific reasons) and the expression "uppity dick" isn't built for the express purpose of reminding them their place as lower being.
If you're still confused, note that in our profile we link to a lot of documentation and resources about anti-oppression etc. which are what shapes our decisions on those sort of issues. You could learn more by following them.
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-04 03:44 pm (UTC)If I'd called her an uppity dick, would I have gotten the warning anyway?
For real? Bitch is sexist. And uppity is a seriously charged word, with a racist, sexist AND classist history. It's kind of a trifecta of careful language use fail. That you're a woman doesn't make 'uppity bitch' any less sexist.
I'm genuinely trying to figure out if you're concern trolling at this point. But hey, here's a post (on of the first to come up in a google search) on gendered insults and sexism, if you're interested in the topic.
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-04 09:39 pm (UTC)I'm not a feminist, so wrapping my head around a term that to some people is sexist while to me and people I know is just a regular insult (even used for guys) is kind of confusing. Especially when I'm a girl being told not to use supposedly gendered insults. I thought there were exceptions to the rule.
Again, is one girl calling another girl a bitch sexist? If I call a guy a dick, is that sexist?
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-05 12:53 am (UTC)I already explained above why calling a man a dick isn't sexist. Are you even reading people's responses at this point? Have you seen the links in the s_d profile, or the link
Personally, I hate it when other women throw around the word "bitch" to describe women. I've tried really hard to stop doing it myself. It's called internalized misogyny. It runs down other women for the very qualities that we all share, because we're all women.
I had a boss last month who made my last temp assignment just about the worst employment experience I've ever had in thirty-plus years of wage work. I was more than happy to inform other people that I found her to be an abusive, compulsively-lying, manipulative, lizard-brained, stupid-ass bullying dirtbag. If nothing else, I figure that's at least a tad more original than just throwing misogynist slurs around. :p
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-05 03:43 am (UTC)I did read what they posted, btw. I don't agree with it and think it's kinda crap, but I will abide by the ruling. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to stir shit. I'm just trying to get a feel of what is going on.
I'm not trying to be sexist. I just always use the term "bitch" as a way of saying "Hey, you're being a absolute asshat. It's just easier to say you're being a bitch.". I've used the term often around my fellow female friends without issue. I never thought of it as being anything misogynistic in the current time we live in. because I thought people had grown past that. (not meant as a jab to anyone here...I'm really just saying that)
So what I should have said is that Carlie is being a self-righteous pissant, right?
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-05 04:39 pm (UTC)There's something ironic about saying this on a thread about Peter Parker, the dude who (when written well) was legendary for wanting to do the right thing, no matter how far from "easy" it was for him. But, yeah. In short: You know now that most woman posters on s_d have different standards about acceptable speech than your real-life friends, and in this context, your second version of your issues with a fictional female character are going to go over better than your first version did.
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-05 07:31 pm (UTC)Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-05 08:30 pm (UTC)Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-05 08:34 pm (UTC)Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-05 08:42 pm (UTC)If that doesn't bring out your creative side vis-a-vis profanity, nothing will. ;)
*And I don't mean my co-workers. They were mostly okay.
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-05 08:45 pm (UTC)Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-05 08:47 pm (UTC)Employment, like fandom, goes a long way towards teaching us that It's Never Just You™.
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-05 08:49 pm (UTC)Re: "No Tellin' What They Just Might Do..."
Date: 2011-11-05 08:56 pm (UTC);)
Re: "No Tellin' What They Just Might Do..."
Date: 2011-11-05 09:02 pm (UTC)Re: "No Tellin' What They Just Might Do..."
Date: 2011-11-06 10:30 pm (UTC)Re: "No Tellin' What They Just Might Do..."
Date: 2011-11-06 11:17 pm (UTC)I will totally mention as much to my counselor when I start sessions next week.
(Here. Have a cookie.)
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-06 05:08 pm (UTC)Sort of like calling Peter Parker a douche, right?
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-06 07:13 pm (UTC)But if that one's fallen out of favor because people think it has woman-exclusive overtones (guys were never told by advertising to pour dangerous chemicals in/on their genitalia to stay "fresh"), I'd be happy to find something else. Because it is pretty overused, if nothing else.
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-06 11:35 pm (UTC)Re: Just whatever you do...
Date: 2011-11-07 06:14 am (UTC)[sigh]
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-05 07:26 pm (UTC)If you call a guy a dick, it's not sexist. It's a gendered insult but it's not about denigrating a guy for being a guy (ew!). It simply doesn't have the same weight or history behind it.
Re: Mod Warning
Date: 2011-11-04 03:27 am (UTC)And it was.
Because no one in the Mod team is a mind reader, we can never judge based on intent, we have to make do with people they say, and what can be reasonably inferred from it, according to the rules and ethos of the community.
If you've seen some equally grievous insults against a female character in the past that we failed to mod, I would be thankful if you sent us a PM or e-mail pointing it out to the mod team. We are not omniscient and sometimes we miss things.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-04 02:26 am (UTC)