Another subject Dan Slott is not qualified to comment on
1 Comments Published by Avi Green on Friday, August 22, 2014 at 12:59 AM.
A new volume comes out for Spider-Woman, and some people are insulted by the variant cover drawn by Milo Manara featuring Jessica Drew's behind. Well, it's a rather dull illustration anyway, and not as sexy as the artist and editors might think. But who does CBR see fit to quote for defense? Not the official writer, Dennis Hopeless (surely a fitting name for Marvel today), but rather, Dan Slott, who posted these two tweets:
I wonder why we're supposed to take the word of a man who a]tarnished Starfox's past stories with one where Eros is accused of rape in She-Hulk, b]wrote Dr. Octopus doing just that in Superior Spider-Man disguised in Peter Parker's body, and c]whose previous idea of a female-starring title to defend is one that won't be honest about Islam's view of women, stuff that's much worse than the cover for the new SW series? And why are we to accept the word of an editor who's defended much of the same? Albert Ching's article on CBR has no mention of Slott's previous insults to the intellect, and the same site chose to ignore the Jezebel article that brought up the Octopus embarrassment. And there's no comment given by Manara or Hopeless. Not that it would matter; it's long been clear neither employees nor contributors will bite the hands that feed them. But Slott and Brevoort are not people to quote or turn to for comment on coverscans with sexualized poses. The worst part is, they're surely delighted at all the attention this has been garnering, and it makes no difference to them how negative it really is.
Some artists have iconic styles & stick to specific subject matter.
If you see 'em solicited for a cover, & they DO that, why act surprised?
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) August 20, 2014
Seriously. If Picasso were solicited on a cover, would you be complaining the face he drew had 2 eyes on the same side of its head? C'mon.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) August 20, 2014
I wonder why we're supposed to take the word of a man who a]tarnished Starfox's past stories with one where Eros is accused of rape in She-Hulk, b]wrote Dr. Octopus doing just that in Superior Spider-Man disguised in Peter Parker's body, and c]whose previous idea of a female-starring title to defend is one that won't be honest about Islam's view of women, stuff that's much worse than the cover for the new SW series? And why are we to accept the word of an editor who's defended much of the same? Albert Ching's article on CBR has no mention of Slott's previous insults to the intellect, and the same site chose to ignore the Jezebel article that brought up the Octopus embarrassment. And there's no comment given by Manara or Hopeless. Not that it would matter; it's long been clear neither employees nor contributors will bite the hands that feed them. But Slott and Brevoort are not people to quote or turn to for comment on coverscans with sexualized poses. The worst part is, they're surely delighted at all the attention this has been garnering, and it makes no difference to them how negative it really is.
Labels: marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, women of marvel
Slott keeps blaming the "false controversy" on "certain gossip sites" (Bleeding Cool and The Mary Sue?), and complains that the critics are hypocrites who "act surprised" when Milo Manara (who is known for erotic artwork) draws an erotic cover.
As writer Jill Pantozzi rightly pointed out, the issue is not that an artist drew the type of image that he is known for, it's that Marvel hired such an artist in the first place.
And any claims that the comic is aimed at women are patently ridiculous. That variant cover can appeal to one group: horny adolescent fanboys.
As usual, Slott is evading the issue with red herrings.
And Marvel obviously knew that there would be controversy. And controversy means free publicity.