The Four Color Media Monitor

Before you judge, here's what Slott said on the matter over at Comic Book Resources:

Originally Posted by Eumenide No 2:
So Starfox is Marvel's date-rapist now?
I could've sworn some issue of GLA had a negative commentary about rape as a comic book subject...


Dan_Slott:
Exactly!

And to be precise, the actual line from GLA #3 was:
"But recently, what's bothered me the most is how cavalierly comics have treated subjects like rape and violence towards women."

Talking with friends, co-workers, and fans about these issues-- and watching all the discussions about them both here and on other boards-- got me wondering if it was possible to deal with this subject matter in comics-- and to treat the issue in a NON-cavalier way. Is this something that could (or, more importantly, should) be covered?

That's where the germ of this current story started. And (as people who've read the issue know) this story isn't quite over yet. There are specific threads that will be picked up again in the Fall.

All I ask from posters is that they give me a fair shake as we continue to discuss this issue. That if they're going to enter into the discussion about SHE-HULK #7, to please read the issue in its entirity first. That they judge it and/or draw conclusions about it based on the ACTUAL material-- as opposed to what they assume it's about-- or what they've gleaned about it from reading other people's posts.

That's fair, right?

Originally Posted by The Cool Thatguy:
My brutal thoughts on it are this...

I'm so damn happy I never gave Dan Slott a single cent of my money and now I never will.

Dan_Slott:
Wait... You did read the issue though, right? Please tell me that your "brutal thoughts" are about the ACTUAL comic and NOT from your opinion ABOUT other people's opinions...

Originally Posted by The Cool Thatguy:
This man ranted about how ID Crisis and it's ilk have damaged the industry. He made a point to state that The Hulk has never killed an innocent man (somethinh I agree with in theory, but not practice) and sells himself as a man runs counter to the industry norm of decompression. He bills himself as basically the anti-Bendis with no need for shock value.

So what does he do? He turns a fun loving long time super hero into a serial rapist. A serial rapist. It bears repeating.

Dan_Slott:
Before you repeat it again, can you please point out ANY moment in the book where this is a stated fact? I'm sure there are a lot of characters in the book that believe that, but where is it actually proven?

As for your other points-- Yes, I stand by my "Hulk belief". And, yes, I'd rather tell shorter "compressed" stories (for example, this was part 2 of a two-parter). And, hey, even Bendis has called me the Anti-Him (...and loveable guy that he is, he said it with a big grin on his face!).

But if I do have a certain track record for how I treat fun-loving characters... Well, that's greatly exagerated. Why just look what I did to poor Dinah Soar, Grasshopper I, Grasshopper II, and Monkey Joe!

Originally Posted by The Cool Thatguy:
Not only does this utterly destroy the of Starfox, it's lazy writing to the extreme. It's something you might expect to find in the much derided (deservingly so) erotic fanfictions floating around the 'net.

Dan said that making Hulk responsible for the deaths of innocents destroys the character as a sympathetic lead. Turning a character into a rapist, a hero no less, is far worse.

Dan_Slott:
Three things:

1) Lazy writing? Hey, I did my research. Check out the word-for-word flashback to AVENGERS #234 for Pete's sake!

2) The Hulk is an iconic flagship character. Starfox is far from that.

and 3) The story isn't over yet. Chill, biscuit.

Once upon a time I wrote a five part story for the MULTIPATH ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN. One chapter involved Darkseid trying to get Jimmy Olsen because he believed Jimmy had the Anti-Life Equation inside him. By the chapter's end, Darkseid had Superman & Jimmy cornered... And, to ensure that Darkseid wouldn't get the Anti-Life Equation, Superman picked Jimmy up... And TOSSED HIM INTO ONE OF APOKOLIPS' FIREPITS!

When then SUPERMAN editor, Mike Carlin, read that script for approval, he filled it up with tons of red ink! He couldn't BELIEVE that Superman would EVER do something like THAT! EVER!

And THEN we showed him the start of the NEXT chapter. And when he read how we got out of it, he said he thought the solution was VERY clever-- and we were allowed to keep the jaw-dropping cliffhanger.

Look, all I'm saying is... Just wait. Starfox's story isn't over yet. Read the issue for yourself and you'll see that there are some PRETTY BIG dangling threads. Okay?

Originally Posted by The Cool Thatguy:
To me at least, something always seemed 'off' about Slott.

Dan_Slott:
What? How? You've never spent "a single cent" on me. Read some of my stuff first, okay? How can I be 'off', if you've never given me the chance to be 'on'?

Originally Posted by The Cool Thatguy:
I honestly wanted to believe Slott was a skilled writer who simply hadn't written a character I'm fond of. But I see now he's just like every other writer out there...

Dan_Slott:
How? How can you see that if you haven't read the actual story? Sheesh, maybe YOU are like every other over-reacting internet poster out there... (Just kiddin'!).

Originally Posted by The Cool Thatguy:
..only he's tried to tap into the discontentment of readers with the current industry by pretending to be something he's not.

Dan_Slott:
Whoa! Seriously. That's harsh. I think my body of work speaks for itself. Give it a shot... before... well... shooting it. And me.

Originally Posted by The Cool Thatguy:
At least Bendis, Millar and all the rest are honest to themselves and us about who they are. I don't feel Dan can say the same.

Dan_Slott:
Say it? I'll sing it! From the rooftops!

Originally Posted by The Cool Thatguy:
Truth be told, I'm rather curious how Slott's fans will defend this double standard. ID Crisis never pretended to be anything other than a grim and serious mini series. She-Hulk's a light hearted book with a focus on the characters and comedy.

Dan_Slott:
No. It's not. Read the book. Vol.1 #2: features a man going through changes in his life that are ruining his marriage. Vol.1 #3: features a very grisly murder. Vol.1 #10: showcases the life story of one of She-Hulk's main enemies-- a life filled with bitter disappointments. Vol.2 #4: a story about disaster relief and personal accountability. And throughout all 19 issues we've had characters face heartbreak, insecurities, and personal loss. And, yes, there's been guest stars-- and plot twists-- and super hero fights-- AND lots a' fun! But please, READ the book first, okay?

Originally Posted by The Cool Thatguy:
What's funny about rape?

Dan_Slott:
Not a damn thing. Show me where we made fun of rape itself-- and I'll be the first to condemn what we've done.

Originally Posted by The Cool Thatguy:
There are better ways to have fun

Dan_Slott:
Yup. Read the book.

Originally Posted by The Cool Thatguy:
No one put a gun to Dan's head and forced him to write this story, after all.

Dan_Slott:
True. And I knew it would be difficult. And that's why I did it. I want this book to stretch and to grow. I want it to be limitless in what stories we can tell there-- what subject matter we can take on-- what characters we can explore. I NEVER want to work on a book that falls into a rut-- that fails to surprise. I want to take risks. They won't always work. I know that. But I'd rather reach for something and fail-- then rest safely in the comforts of what comes easy. Please tell me that you want the titles you read to do just that! Please!

***The original post can be found here:***
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=3092835&postcount=19

Avi,
Quick question: Did you read the issue? Or did you only read those sections of the story that were scanned?

I've read the issue in its entirity. And I don't feel that they made fun OF rape in the comic. The subject was actually treated quite seriously. And a number of online reviewers and bloggers have gone out of their way to say that Slott did treat the subject with respect and did not make light of it.

I think it's very clear he didn't read the issue, or else he'd know that the story was handled as seriously as it could have been, and that no apology was necessary from Mr. Slott.

Okay, kids. I may find it more comfy analyzing at times, but in any case, if I goofed in my approach here, I apologize. In any case, I still find the whole story embarrassing due to the fact that it puts a stain on Starfox as a character. A guy like him just doesn't fit in a story like this, because, he's a hero, isn't he? And even minor heroes aren't exactly what I consider worthy of sacrificing on the alter of the slapdash, politically correct platform.

It's also foolish due to the fact that it's the plaintiff who's case should be important here. At least that's what I think.

Perhaps I should've said I was commenting on the story synopsis/reviews. But anyway...I'm obligated to literally go to all the trouble of reviewing it once it's at my local bookstore and within my reach? Oh, for heaven's sake! If everyone were required to do so, we'd all be worn out, going out of our way to just get ahold of the material. People have the right to say what they think of a synopsis just as much as they do to review it.

But you're not really reviewing the issue.
You're reviewing an incomplete version of the story. And that's not REALLY the story.

For example, some of the pages that were NOT scanned on that site had a member of She-Hulk's firm addressing some of the EXACT same points that you made.

Imagine if you reviewed a movie where you'd only seen a few scenes of it. If you were reviewing a film like MEMENTO or SIXTH SENSE, a few crucial missing scenes could give you a completely different opinion of what the film was about.

I don't think it's too unreasonable that if someone is going to go to the effort to review a book (especially a review that passes such harsh judgements on it) that they read the book in its entirity.

Your points are taken. Also, sorry if I sounded a bit too irritated there.

Avi,
In your current update you write:

"Update: okay, here's the link to the CBR thread on which Slott defends his take (thanx, fax). Well, okay, I appreciate his efforts, but nevertheless, I'd like to say that the whole premise is so wrongheaded IMO, because:

- It runs the gauntlet of character assasination for Starfox, and can leave a bad aftertaste.

- I would think that Jen would be representing the plaintiff, and not the defendant, in a case like this.

And the best argument I can make here is that, if it's an otherwise impossible story, it shouldn't have been written at all. It takes less effort."

And again I have to ask:
Have you read the issue yet? Because you're still commenting as if you've read it. If you haven't, how can you make these broad statements?
In the story none of the charges that were brought against Starfox have been confirmed. And the story ended with the words "to be continued..."

Is Starfox a serial date-rapist? We don't know yet. How many stories have a cliffhanger of whether a character is a murderer or not? Or whether or not a character has gone bad?

I realize how it ends. There's no real telling what Starfox was made out to be. All the same, I still don't think it's the kind of story worth telling.

And again I have to ask:
How do you know it's "not a story worth telling" if you haven't read it?

Gauging from your intense reaction about just the brief clips you've seen, this is obviously something that is interesting to you. So who knows? Maybe the WAY the story is executed WOULD be something you'd find worth reading.

For example, if someone said to me "Do you want to watch a movie where the main character gets AIDS?" I'd probably say no. That wouldn't be something I'd ever be in the mood for. But having watched PHILADELPHIA, I'm glad I did.

Any story that you've talked about this much (just from seeing brief snippets of it) has to be worth telling, doesn't it? Look at how much energy you've devoted to it already.

Wait a minute, you think that Jen, typically a defense attorney, would be representing the PLAINTIFF in the case?

Well, if it's the woman who filed the charges we're talking about, I would think she'd be defending the victim in a case like this. But then again, maybe that's just me.

Avi -- Someone who knows nothing about the basis for the American legal system? I'd say, or else you'd understand the necessity for the guilty and the innocent to get the best possible defense across the board and the need for a good attorney to put her personal feelings aside in order to defend the accused.