Rape in the Avengers and Avengers #200

[JKtheMac]

I think it's charitable to say he took full responsibility, although he did accept the buck stopped with him and did apologize.

Well he was on record as accepting full responsibility. As I quoted back on page one "But, in those days, in any case, the buck stopped at my desk. I take full responsibility."

It would seem churlish to suggest that he was avoiding taking full responsibility, even if that statement was much more recent.

[Mike_Murdock]

He said he took full responsibility while also saying he had no knowledge of it, didn't think he had any involvement in it, and had no idea why he got a story credit for it.

[JKtheMac]

He said he took full responsibility while also saying he had no knowledge of it, didn't think he had any involvement in it, and had no idea why he got a story credit for it.

You can take responsibility for you employees if you are responsible for their work and are theoretically approving their work. He has done so, so we should take him at his word on that at least. We can probably assume he was more involved than he actually 'remembers' because just a quick consultation on plot would not give a senior editor a writing credit, he would end up being a writer on every book he had a quick chat about. But that isn't the point really. He doesn't have an explanation for his credit and claims to have forgotten the details but he still took responsibility, which is correct and honourable.

[ed2962]

I think it's grounds for a lawsuit; is all I'm saying. imagine if there was a sexbot of you running around; ruining your good name.

This was literally the plot of a Misty Knight-centric issue of Nick Spenser's Sam/Cap run. The bad guy was making x-rated movies starring LMDs that looked various super ladies.

[Michael Watkins]

This was literally the plot of a Misty Knight-centric issue of Nick Spenser's Sam/Cap run. The bad guy was making x-rated movies starring LMDs that looked various super ladies.

was this separate from the Lady Stilt-Man story?

[Agent Z]

There is definitely a theme developing in the examples being drawn upon here. Writers write a soap opera style plot that has somebody having sex in a way that is either universally disturbing or disturbs a particular fanbase. Fanbase are outraged for all the wrong reasons by focusing on the characters and not the writers or comic culture. Writers "fix things" in an attempt to placate the fan outrage, and ultimately are off the hook.

Until fans stop focusing on the damage to characters and instead call the writers to account on gender issues, this will continue.

Better still maybe we should actually read stories without making such harsh judgements like "she's a tramp and I will never like her again" or "there is a tiny hint of consent issues that I will pick up on forever, but I will ignore every consent issue for my favourite pairings and defend them vehemently".

I am starting to understand why Alan Moore has explored rape so often in his comics.

Except people did call out the writers. It's why Carol was allowed to ream out the Avengers in Annual 10.

[Agent Z]

This is how boogeymen get created. I will get the easy one out of the way, Shooter did not write Avengers #200. Whatever his involvement was, Carol was already getting impregnated by something before he could have been having anything to do with the story.

The more interesting one is the Hulk one, because you have a real anti-rape story here, something people seem to question Shooter about, where he uses a real life story a friend experienced and a super hero that one would not think could be a victim. As far as this story is concerned Bruce Banner could be gay or a woman, and the story still happens. The story is that the fear is so great that he cannot transform into the Hulk. Sure, it falls apart when examined by any Hulk fan, but to a casual reader this is a powerful story. About how bad rape is and if anyone spent more than a second thinking about it beyond whatever article they read telling them how bad this story was, they would see this actually speaks up for women who are often questioned about why they don't fight back or speak up.

Except this wasn't a male-on-female rape. It was a story about male-on-male rape featuring the debut of what is probably the first gay character in a Marvel comic. It was perpetuating a common stereotype about the LGBT community which they still have to deal with to this day. And do we know that Shooter's friend appreciated him using what was a very traumatic experience for him as fodder for a poorly written scene in a comic book?

[JKtheMac]

Except people did call out the writers. It's why Carol was allowed to ream out the Avengers in Annual 10.

And I have already expressed my opinion on that. I am probably in the minority of comic readers but I consider the annual to have made the situation worse not better. Not because it didn't address the issues with the character, that is fine as far as it goes, but because the issue was not a character issue. It is neither professional nor appropriate to have a feud within the pages of a comic. It feeds fan culture to deal with it as a character issue.

Except this wasn't a male-on-female rape. It was a story about male-on-male rape featuring the debut of what is probably the first gay character in a Marvel comic. It was perpetuating a common stereotype about the LGBT community which they still have to deal with to this day. And do we know that Shooter's friend appreciated him using what was a very traumatic experience for him as fodder for a poorly written scene in a comic book?

See here you are effectively arguing the same thing as I am, that while certain topics can make interesting stories and highlight or explore real issues, the nature and simplified world of superhero comics, especially in that era, works against any serious and nuanced exploration and can perpetuate stereotypes. The same could be said over Annual 10 for very different reasons. Carol's accusing of her colleagues is interesting and valid but it is hardly "The Accused". It was virtually impossible to fully explore the issue in the pages of a comic in this era and of this genre.

It would take Alan Moore's Swamp Thing to fully explore issues of power and consent within the genre, and even then some found this inappropriate.

[ed2962]

was this separate from the Lady Stilt-Man story?

That's the issue I was thinking of.

[ed2962]

And I have already expressed my opinion on that. I am probably in the minority of comic readers but I consider the annual to have made the situation worse not better. Not because it didn't address the issues with the character, that is fine as far as it goes, but because the issue was not a character issue. It is neither professional nor appropriate to have a feud within the pages of a comic. It feeds fan culture to deal with it as a character issue.



See here you are effectively arguing the same thing as I am, that while certain topics can make interesting stories and highlight or explore real issues, the nature and simplified world of superhero comics, especially in that era, works against any serious and nuanced exploration and can perpetuate stereotypes. The same could be said over Annual 10 for very different reasons. Carol's accusing of her colleagues is interesting and valid but it is hardly "The Accused". It was virtually impossible to fully explore the issue in the pages of a comic in this era and of this genre.

It would take Alan Moore's Swamp Thing to fully explore issues of power and consent within the genre, and even then some found this inappropriate.

I think it's less likely than more for a variety of reasons, but I don't think it's impossible.

[JKtheMac]

I think it's less likely than more for a variety of reasons, but I don't think it's impossible.

Which is why I said virtually impossible. The constraints of an annual and the genre conventions make it quite challenging. But Claremont did spend more time with Carol and did a good job of reworking and exploring her to the point that she was a viable character again later on.

[Galvanite]

Ugh god, soaps are such garbage. There are likely things like that in so-called romance novels too. Vomit worthy.

Yeah, but they had a weather dominator. A weather dominator.

[Agent Z]

And I have already expressed my opinion on that. I am probably in the minority of comic readers but I consider the annual to have made the situation worse not better. Not because it didn't address the issues with the character, that is fine as far as it goes, but because the issue was not a character issue. It is neither professional nor appropriate to have a feud within the pages of a comic. It feeds fan culture to deal with it as a character issue.



See here you are effectively arguing the same thing as I am, that while certain topics can make interesting stories and highlight or explore real issues, the nature and simplified world of superhero comics, especially in that era, works against any serious and nuanced exploration and can perpetuate stereotypes. The same could be said over Annual 10 for very different reasons. Carol's accusing of her colleagues is interesting and valid but it is hardly "The Accused". It was virtually impossible to fully explore the issue in the pages of a comic in this era and of this genre.

It would take Alan Moore's Swamp Thing to fully explore issues of power and consent within the genre, and even then some found this inappropriate.

It can be a character issue and a writing one. It isn't binary.

Actually I'm not. I'm arguing that Shooter contributed to an ugly stereotype about gay people and handled the issue of rape poorly. Annual 10 did not.

[JKtheMac]

It can be a character issue and a writing one. It isn't binary.

Actually I'm not. I'm arguing that Shooter contributed to an ugly stereotype about gay people and handled the issue of rape poorly. Annual 10 did not.

I know you are, and I disagree with your point, I just think you are using the same rhetoric. Annual 10 effectively made the story about rape. In a self conciously virtuous way Clairemont couched his actual complaints and in my opinion aimed them at the characters inappropriately. This isn't the way to handle a serious social and cultural issue. As if it is the fault of a superhero.

Superheroes don't figuratively stand for the inequality. Yes it is valid to say they should stand against it, but everyone knows they are not real, and whenever they make blunders like this it is not their fault. They are a fiction. Awareness of the issue of writers ignoring problematic issues in society or going along with them is not increased by writing a comic blaming The Avengers.

All that will be achived is a broad brush stroke caricature of someone unaware of the social issues, and not a nuanced understanding of the way cultural attitudes are arrived at or perpetuated.

[ed2962]

I know you are, and I disagree with your point, I just think you are using the same rhetoric. Annual 10 effectively made the story about rape. In a self conciously virtuous way Clairemont couched his actual complaints and in my opinion aimed them at the characters inappropriately. This isn't the way to handle a serious social and cultural issue. As if it is the fault of a superhero.

Superheroes don't figuratively stand for the inequality. Yes it is valid to say they should stand against it, but everyone knows they are not real, and whenever they make blunders like this it is not their fault. They are a fiction. Awareness of the issue of writers ignoring problematic issues in society or going along with them is not increased by writing a comic blaming The Avengers.

All that will be achived is a broad brush stroke caricature of someone unaware of the social issues, and not a nuanced understanding of the way cultural attitudes are arrived at or perpetuated.

I'd argue that Avengers Annual story was not about rape, but the Avengers having a fist fight with the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants with an epilogue that pontificates on the errors of a previous story. I don't think Claremont's intension was to address the subject of rape, it was to point out what was wrong with Avengers #200.