Thread Drift: Does Superior Spider-Man Show A Preference For Doctor Octopus?

[Moral_Gutpunch]

By making him fail at mostly everything and defer to Peter as being the better person and hero?
It was definitely a good character study but I see a love letter as more of a piece of writing that basically delves into and highlights the positive sum aspects of a character. Though I guess a love letter can also encompass all the terrible/negative qualities of a character if that's what makes them what they are?

I think Slott mentioned his love for the character and at least insinuated the story was a loveletter to the character (he promoted the violence over how Peter dealt with his enemies).

It's kinda like how George Lucas's Star Wars prequels were obviously love letters to Anakin or how Star Trek 5 is an obvious loveletter to himself by Shatner (who by then figured himself and his character were the same).

[Phantom Roxas]

By making him fail at mostly everything and defer to Peter as being the better person and hero?
It was definitely a good character study but I see a love letter as more of a piece of writing that basically delves into and highlights the positive sum aspects of a character. Though I guess a love letter can also encompass all the terrible/negative qualities of a character if that's what makes them what they are?

But that doesn't really start happening until Darkest Hours. I'd go with Goblin Nation, but Darkest Hours had citizens getting fed up with Spider-Man playing Big Brother, and it took Peter to defeat Venom… not that Otto noticed, but that's beside the point. I think you and I discussed this before, so I know there's something like how he had to be built up so he would have a harder fall, but I disagreed with it coming across as a heroic sacrifice rather than seeing a villain losing. At the very least, I like how his portrayal throughout Volume 4 so far has made it clear that Otto's obsession with Anna Maria is wrong, but that dynamic to their relationship was not in Superior.

Taken on its own, though, Superior is a substantial enough narrative that did seem to support the relationship. I'd say a love letter that encompasses terrible/negative qualities is one that argues that such qualities are not terrible/negative, and Anna Maria served to provide such an argument.

[DCordo74]

I'm not sure if these links work, but they might give you an idea.

https://twitter.com/DanSlott/status/562025604372238337
https://twitter.com/DanSlott/status/562025774644215808
https://twitter.com/DanSlott/status/562026096745779201
https://twitter.com/DanSlott/status/562026235241713665

If not, then I will try to quote the important parts to the best of my ability.



Not sure if it's what you were referring to, but generally, my summary is that the understanding of sexual consent is that Doctor Octopus stealing Peter Parker's body and introducing himself as Peter Parker is similar to someone under witness relocation/protection. This suggests that any sexual consent SpOck obtained is was done so in a similar manner in which someone with an identity provided as a part of witness protection would gain consent.

Lmfao. EW. Messy.

[Zeitgeist]

But that doesn't really start happening until Darkest Hours. I'd go with Goblin Nation, but Darkest Hours had citizens getting fed up with Spider-Man playing Big Brother, and it took Peter to defeat Venom… not that Otto noticed, but that's beside the point.

I think the line could be drawn a few places. It could be argued it starts with Otto using a gun to kill Massacre. Definitely at least by the point he takes out Shadowland, because that creates the vacuum which Osborn's army ends up filling.

I think you and I discussed this before, so I know there's something like how he had to be built up so he would have a harder fall, but I disagreed with it coming across as a heroic sacrifice rather than seeing a villain losing. At the very least, I like how his portrayal throughout Volume 4 so far has made it clear that Otto's obsession with Anna Maria is wrong, but that dynamic to their relationship was not in Superior.

Well that brings up an interesting question I guess: if a villain or anti-hero makes one selfless decision, does that absolve them of their status as a villain or anti-hero? How much red in their ledger does that wipe off?

Taken on its own, though, Superior is a substantial enough narrative that did seem to support the relationship. I'd say a love letter that encompasses terrible/negative qualities is one that argues that such qualities are not terrible/negative, and Anna Maria served to provide such an argument.

I'm coming to think of it as a "warts and all" kind of deal. A character's flaws makes them who they are, to different degrees. Doc Ock wouldn't be Doc Ock without his immense superiority complex. The fact that it's a key part of his personality still doesn't mean it's an objectively great thing, but he still wouldn't be the same without it.

[Mister Mets]

One wonders how the narrative was even able to get past these points then, and there lies the problem with the whole story as well.

The shooting of Massacre itself was a narrative-breaking moment. Think about it--Spider-Man shoots an unarmed man in the face with a firearm.

The scene with the cops acting like "duh, we didn't see anything" in SSM #10 was particularly insulting.

Let's not forget that it's heavily implied that he committed rape-by-fraud with Anna Maria, something she didn't seem to be particularly bothered about.

While definitions change with greater consideration and awareness, "rape by fraud" as currently understood, does not apply to SpOck and Ana Marie.

"Rape by fraud" or "rape by deception" generally refers to situations in which one person pretends to be someone a woman is sexually involved with in order to sleep with the woman. Ana Marie and Peter were not romantically involved prior to the events of Superior Spider-Man, which makes a big difference here.

While lying and omitting the truth is sketchy, it's not illegal, nor is it rape. A man who exaggerates his accomplishments while chatting a woman is not attempting to commit rape by fraud. A man who withholds information from his wife that would cause her to leave him is not committing rape by fraud every time he has sex with her. A relevant element for superhero comics is that by the overly loose definition of the term any superhero who hides his secret identity from a woman is committing rape by fraud because she might not consent if she was aware of it.

[LOSTie-chan]

In a weird way I think Peter was the one who was raped since Ock was using his body without his permission.

[Phantom Roxas]

Lmfao. EW. Messy.

It should be possible to read other tweets in that conversation, in case there may be some points left out of the tweets I mentioned, but I don't think they make much of a difference.

I think the line could be drawn a few places. It could be argued it starts with Otto using a gun to kill Massacre. Definitely at least by the point he takes out Shadowland, because that creates the vacuum which Osborn's army ends up filling.

Otto was cheered on to kill Massacre and was allowed to attend Alistair Smythe's execution, an execution that Otto himself fulfills, and then gets away with because he blackmailed the mayor. Now, this could speak to Jameson's qualities as a mayor, but it does show that Otto was able to avoid consequences. Shadowland, though, that I understand.

Well that brings up an interesting question I guess: if a villain or anti-hero makes one selfless decision, does that absolve them of their status as a villain or anti-hero? How much red in their ledger does that wipe off?

Considering how Natasha quoted the "red in my ledger" line from the Avengers movie to SpOck, it seems like that would be something that could have been followed up on. At least to me, though this is not something I'm really solid on, I think that selfless decision needs to carry a lot of weight with it, especially if it is to atone for an earlier crime. In Otto's case, he gives Peter back his body because he trusts Peter to defeat Norman and save Anna Maria, so it was not entirely selfless on Otto's part. Additionally, Otto was presented with an earlier opportunity during Troubled Mind, where he tried to delete the last trace of Peter. So for me, if Slott expects me to believe that Otto has redeemed himself, then I'll wait and see if Otto will make a heroic sacrifice in The Clone Conspiracy.

I'm coming to think of it as a "warts and all" kind of deal. A character's flaws makes them who they are, to different degrees. Doc Ock wouldn't be Doc Ock without his immense superiority complex. The fact that it's a key part of his personality still doesn't mean it's an objectively great thing, but he still wouldn't be the same without it.

And I think part of the point Cheesedique was making is that Doc Ock's superiority complex is actually supported by the narrative, where boasts are merely just celebrating genuinely good deeds, while Peter is juxtaposed as incompetent. In other words, Slott's story shows that Otto has done things he should be proud of. I agree with you about the "warts and all", but… yeah, I'm not sure how to phrase this without repeating the same meaning of my previous post. Basically I don't think they're seen as warts or flaws.

While definitions change with greater consideration and awareness, "rape by fraud" as currently understood, does not apply to SpOck and Ana Marie.

"Rape by fraud" or "rape by deception" generally refers to situations in which one person pretends to be someone a woman is sexually involved with in order to sleep with the woman. Ana Marie and Peter were not romantically involved prior to the events of Superior Spider-Man, which makes a big difference here.

While lying and omitting the truth is sketchy, it's not illegal, nor is it rape. A man who exaggerates his accomplishments while chatting a woman is not attempting to commit rape by fraud. A man who withholds information from his wife that would cause her to leave him is not committing rape by fraud every time he has sex with her. A relevant element for superhero comics is that by the overly loose definition of the term any superhero who hides his secret identity from a woman is committing rape by fraud because she might not consent if she was aware of it.

Exaggerating accomplishments is not the case here, so you are using a false equivalent. Doctor Octopus committed identity theft, and the very beginning of Ends of the Earth showed Doctor Octopus broadcasting his identity to the world, and if you have to cite an "overly loose definition", that is clearly obfuscating what Otto did. While he did not pretend to be someone Anna Maria was previously involved with, he was relying on identity theft, and Anna Maria is aware of who Doctor Octopus is. You are defending his rape by fraud by claiming that it is not that by citing a flimsy technicality. Even if you disagree that it's not illegal (But I'm pretty sure identity theft is) or rape, you said it's sketchy. Can you at least allow us to criticize Otto and Anna Maria's relationship because we think it's "sketchy"?

[Mister Mets]

Exaggerating accomplishments is not the case here, so you are using a false equivalent. Doctor Octopus committed identity theft, and the very beginning of Ends of the Earth showed Doctor Octopus broadcasting his identity to the world, and if you have to cite an "overly loose definition", that is clearly obfuscating what Otto did. While he did not pretend to be someone Anna Maria was previously involved with, he was relying on identity theft, and Anna Maria is aware of who Doctor Octopus is. You are defending his rape by fraud by claiming that it is not that by citing a flimsy technicality. Even if you disagree that it's not illegal (But I'm pretty sure identity theft is) or rape, you said it's sketchy. Can you at least allow us to criticize Otto and Anna Maria's relationship because we think it's "sketchy"?

To be pedantic, I'm not preventing anyone from claiming that SpOck committed rape by fraud. I am explaining why I think that view is wrong and misguided.

You can criticize Otto and Anna Maria's relationship for any reasons you choose. One question is whether the criticism is directed at a character who made a decision you disagreed with, or for Slott for telling this story.

[DCordo74]

To be pedantic, I'm not preventing anyone from claiming that SpOck committed rape by fraud. I am explaining why I think that view is wrong and misguided.

You can criticize Otto and Anna Maria's relationship for any reasons you choose. One question is whether the criticism is directed at a character who made a decision you disagreed with, or for Slott for telling this story.

You know what alright let's talk about the word "rape". It's a tricky subject. But here it is:

Rape is a type of sexual assault. It involves forced sexual activity against a person without their consent or compliance.

Whereas,

Rape by deception is a crime in which a perpetrator has the victim's sexual consent or compliance, but gains it through deception or fraudulent statements or actions.

Anna Maria was raped by deception. Peter Parker was straight up raped TWICE. If Mary Jane had slept with SpOCK she would have been raped by deception as well.

Dan Slott never acknowledged that. Dan Slott tried to write it off. Dan Slott is wrong. IF he had acknowledged that Otto was a rapist bastard, then it would be wrong to accuse him of anything. He would have shown that he knows Otto was wrong. And he would have shown the audience that Otto's actions were disgusting and wrong. HOWEVER, that went against his attempt to redeem Otto. And since Slott is a mediocre writer AT BEST, he ignored it. He lacks a serious understanding about sexual consent. And so does anyone attempting to defend it.

Anna Maria thought she fell in love with and made love to Peter Parker. She actually made love to an ugly, fat psychopath with metal tentacles and a bowl cut. She should feel emotionally and physically violated. And so should Peter. But they don't. Because Otto is supposed to be redeemed and we're supposed to want Anna Maria back with SpOCK. And Slott writes Peter as a SpOCK apologist.

So yes. EW. MESSY.

[Phantom Roxas]

To be pedantic, I'm not preventing anyone from claiming that SpOck committed rape by fraud. I am explaining why I think that view is wrong and misguided.

So in other words, people can express their opinions as long as they understand that their opinion is the wrong one.

You can criticize Otto and Anna Maria's relationship for any reasons you choose. One question is whether the criticism is directed at a character who made a decision you disagreed with, or for Slott for telling this story.

I'm criticizing the character for making a decision I disagree with, and I am criticizing Dan Slott's writing because I believe that I am not supposed to have that disagreement, otherwise I'll be called "crazy" because the book in my head is supposedly different from what is on the page. I understand writers who will have characters make poor decisions because that is a part of their character. However, I do not believe that the decision was intended as a poor one, so what I do believe is that there should be no problem with how I have directed my criticism at Slott for telling the story.

DCord74 summed things up very well, and I agree with all of their points.

[Mister Mets]

You know what alright let's talk about the word "rape". It's a tricky subject. But here it is:

Rape is a type of sexual assault. It involves forced sexual activity against a person without their consent or compliance.

Whereas,

Rape by deception is a crime in which a perpetrator has the victim's sexual consent or compliance, but gains it through deception or fraudulent statements or actions.

Anna Maria was raped by deception. Peter Parker was straight up raped TWICE. If Mary Jane had slept with SpOCK she would have been raped by deception as well.

Dan Slott never acknowledged that. Dan Slott tried to write it off. Dan Slott is wrong. IF he had acknowledged that Otto was a rapist bastard, then it would be wrong to accuse him of anything. He would have shown that he knows Otto was wrong. And he would have shown the audience that Otto's actions were disgusting and wrong. HOWEVER, that went against his attempt to redeem Otto. And since Slott is a mediocre writer AT BEST, he ignored it. He lacks a serious understanding about sexual consent. And so does anyone attempting to defend it.

Anna Maria thought she fell in love with and made love to Peter Parker. She actually made love to an ugly, fat psychopath with metal tentacles and a bowl cut. She should feel emotionally and physically violated. And so should Peter. But they don't. Because Otto is supposed to be redeemed and we're supposed to want Anna Maria back with SpOCK. And Slott writes Peter as a SpOCK apologist.

So yes. EW. MESSY.

Rape is a tricky subject, as it's a serious crime in any form, and intersects with other controversial topics (gender politics, criminal justice). Whenever anything is categorized as rape, it is understood to merit a serious prison sentence. If anyone disagrees with a particular instance, controversy is guaranteed because it is so high-stakes and the views are irreconcilable. One side thinks the other advocates people getting away with a serious crime, while the other side thinks that the first group advocates years in prison for people who don't deserve it.

Understandings of these things evolve so it's not as if there is an absolute agreement of what counts as consent. Marital rape has become illegal only relatively recently. Massachusetts considered laws against rape by deception in 2008, based on a case in which a woman slept with her boyfriend's brother in a dark basement, but it doesn't appear anything came of it. The United Kingdom has laws against it, but it is meant to be interpreted quite narrowly.

Superior Spider-Man was based on technology that doesn't exist in the real world, which makes the applications to modern controversies more complicated. So it's judging writers on your interpretation of their understanding of how invented technology applies to peripheral legal and moral questions on a very serious topic, albeit one they didn't explicitly bring up.

I'm curious as to how Slott should have shown that Otto's actions were disgusting and wrong. Was Ana Maria obligated to dislike him? Does Peter have to blame him for things that occurred when Otto believed him dead? Should supporting characters have brought up their interpretations of events?

So in other words, people can express their opinions as long as they understand that their opinion is the wrong one.



I'm criticizing the character for making a decision I disagree with, and I am criticizing Dan Slott's writing because I believe that I am not supposed to have that disagreement, otherwise I'll be called "crazy" because the book in my head is supposedly different from what is on the page. I understand writers who will have characters make poor decisions because that is a part of their character. However, I do not believe that the decision was intended as a poor one, so what I do believe is that there should be no problem with how I have directed my criticism at Slott for telling the story.

DCord74 summed things up very well, and I agree with all of their points.

It's a discussion board. People who disagree with you will express that opinion just as you express yours.

[DCordo74]

Rape is a tricky subject, as it's a serious crime in any form, and intersects with other controversial topics (gender politics, criminal justice). Whenever anything is categorized as rape, it is understood to merit a serious prison sentence. If anyone disagrees with a particular instance, controversy is guaranteed because it is so high-stakes and the views are irreconcilable. One side thinks the other advocates people getting away with a serious crime, while the other side thinks that the first group advocates years in prison for people who don't deserve it.

Understandings of these things evolve so it's not as if there is an absolute agreement of what counts as consent. Marital rape has become illegal only relatively recently. Massachusetts considered laws against rape by deception in 2008, based on a case in which a woman slept with her boyfriend's brother in a dark basement, but it doesn't appear anything came of it. The United Kingdom has laws against it, but it is meant to be interpreted quite narrowly.

Superior Spider-Man was based on technology that doesn't exist in the real world, which makes the applications to modern controversies more complicated. So it's judging writers on your interpretation of their understanding of how invented technology applies to peripheral legal and moral questions on a very serious topic, albeit one they didn't explicitly bring up.

I'm curious as to how Slott should have shown that Otto's actions were disgusting and wrong. Was Ana Maria obligated to dislike him? Does Peter have to blame him for things that occurred when Otto believed him dead? Should supporting characters have brought up their interpretations of events?

Consent is very simple. The partner someone is attempting to have sexual contact with says, "yes". But they also have a full understanding about the situation they are participating in. It's an agreement of sorts between two or more people. Do you see how the definitions of rape and rape by deception plays into that?

Anna Maria couldn't give her full consent. She did not have a full understanding of the situation she was in. She thought she was having sex with one person when it was actually a known genocidal maniac. Do you see how it's not "misguided" or "wrong" to think? Hmmmmmm? Maybe she wouldn't have wanted to have sex with a known genocidal maniac who stole an innocent man's body? And if she did? Well then that's a different story. But Otto didn't give her the opportunity to make that decision for herself. NOPE! He made it for her. He raped her by deception.

But to answer your questions: Yes. Yes. Yes.

Dan Slott is not infallible. He wrote the comic the way he did. And it is MESSY.

[Metamorphosis]

Superior Spider-Man was based on technology that doesn't exist in the real world, which makes the applications to modern controversies more complicated. So it's judging writers on your interpretation of their understanding of how invented technology applies to peripheral legal and moral questions on a very serious topic, albeit one they didn't explicitly bring up.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the technology did exist in the real world--would Otto taking physical advantage of a woman in such a way be any less reprehensible?

I'm curious as to how Slott should have shown that Otto's actions were disgusting and wrong.

He could start by not writing the book like a moronic cartoon, for one.

It's interesting, in this era with many at Marvel including Slott often playing PC Cops on Twitter, that Otto's actions have been glossed over.

[Zeitgeist]

Otto was cheered on to kill Massacre and was allowed to attend Alistair Smythe's execution, an execution that Otto himself fulfills, and then gets away with because he blackmailed the mayor. Now, this could speak to Jameson's qualities as a mayor, but it does show that Otto was able to avoid consequences. Shadowland, though, that I understand.

Just because he got away with these things initially doesn't excuse how terrible they were, IMO.

Considering how Natasha quoted the "red in my ledger" line from the Avengers movie to SpOck, it seems like that would be something that could have been followed up on. At least to me, though this is not something I'm really solid on, I think that selfless decision needs to carry a lot of weight with it, especially if it is to atone for an earlier crime. In Otto's case, he gives Peter back his body because he trusts Peter to defeat Norman and save Anna Maria, so it was not entirely selfless on Otto's part. Additionally, Otto was presented with an earlier opportunity during Troubled Mind, where he tried to delete the last trace of Peter. So for me, if Slott expects me to believe that Otto has redeemed himself, then I'll wait and see if Otto will make a heroic sacrifice in The Clone Conspiracy.

I don't believe Slott intended Superior Spider-Man to be anything close to a redemption story. One hell of an anti-hero though.

And I think part of the point Cheesedique was making is that Doc Ock's superiority complex is actually supported by the narrative, where boasts are merely just celebrating genuinely good deeds, while Peter is juxtaposed as incompetent. In other words, Slott's story shows that Otto has done things he should be proud of. I agree with you about the "warts and all", but… yeah, I'm not sure how to phrase this without repeating the same meaning of my previous post. Basically I don't think they're seen as warts or flaws.

Can't agree with that at all, but YMMV.

[nose norton]

Anna Maria couldn't give her full consent. She did not have a full understanding of the situation she was in. She thought she was having sex with one person when it was actually a known genocidal maniac. Do you see how it's not "misguided" or "wrong" to think? Hmmmmmm? Maybe she wouldn't have wanted to have sex with a known genocidal maniac who stole an innocent man's body? And if she did? Well then that's a different story. But Otto didn't give her the opportunity to make that decision for herself. NOPE! He made it for her. He raped her by deception.

Otto was simply following Peter's stablished behaviour, where he would never reveal who he really was, to any of the girls he had sex with.