Colin Smith on a recent issue of Amazing Spider-Man where Peter Parker apparently becomes Your Friendly Neighborhood Torturer (Or, to be more accurate, Your Friendly Neighborhood Tacitly Approves Torture By Allowing Silver Sable To Torture Sandman in His Presence Without Doing Something To Stop It Or Protesting):
Perhaps most sickening of all the many dubious aspects of Global Menace is the way in which Slott presents the bloody-handed Spider-Man as an entirely admirable human being fit to lead a superhero army in a “war” upon his enemies. “I have changed, but not that much.” muses the young-ish Mr Parker, congratulating himself on the thought that he wouldn’t have allowed the Sandman to be murdered. Well, torture’s only torture, isn’t it, and it was all in a good cause, whereas murder, it seems, would be the mark of a truly bad human being. If that beat of the story was designed to establish that Parker’s a self-denying moral imbecile, and I doubt it was, then it only raises the prospect of when he’s going to be tried and convicted for his crimes. Yet strangely enough, Slott seems convinced that Spider-Man remains not just one of the good guys’n'gals, but the guiding light of the costumed crimefighter’s community. For in a later scene in which Parker marshals the various heroes remaining on planet Earth., Slott has him appeal for the support of his longjohned fellows from the international community of super-people with the following example of self-righteous speechifying;
“I’m asking you to take a leap of faith. To stack my character up against (that of Doctor Octopus) and ask — “Who do you trust?”
How’s that for a super-person who’s quite forgotten all that hot-air about “great power” and “great responsibility”, and who seems to have utterly repressed the entirely compromising fact that he connived in the torture of the Sandman just a few moments before? (Perhaps he’s had his ego boosted and his conscience softened by the adoration of his partner-in-torture Silver Sable, who’s quick to declare “This man is a real hero.”) I’m sure that Uncle Ben would be proud of you, Peter, as would all those great Americans who, during times of terrible danger, rejected torture in any shape or form. After all, what could be more humane and American that the embracing of values and actions entirely inconsistent with, er, being either humane or American.
This reminds me of the Secret Avengers scene in which Captain America, too, appears to condone others torturing villains. In both cases, the hero has the out of “Aw, they were just bluffing,” but… Even moreso than Cap, doesn’t Spider-Man seem like a character who should really be freaking out about this kind of thing and refusing to get involved? I understand the concept of “This’ll show just how high the stakes really are!” but still: Of all the Marvel characters, Spidey should be the one whose flirtations with a dark side are all internal, but who ultimately has a pretty unshakable moral center. The idea that he’s okay with torture (but only for a short amount of time, he’s not changed “that much”) is… depressing, really. Clearly, he’s been hanging around with Wolverine too much.
June 1st, 2012 at 9:38 am
Personally, I am tired of all the heroes being afraid to do what is necessary. I wish more of the heroes would use deadly force, and occasionally maybe a Superman, Spider-Man, Batman, or Captain America would actually kill one of these villains who continually come back to terrorize their cities.
How many innocent lives has the Joker taken over the last 60 years because Batman refused to do what was necessary and kill him, instead choosing to lock him in a prison from which he escapes yearly?
June 1st, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Having to do it to save lives (which is what he ACTUALLY says) is not the same as being “okay” with it (which is what the TITLE says).
June 1st, 2012 at 12:43 pm
You’re taking this too literally, it smacks of the typical feigned outrage online: “Good heavens, why I never, gosh golly Spider-Man said something to mislead a villain!” Unconvincing.
June 1st, 2012 at 12:49 pm
I feel slightly bad saying this, because he seems like a genuinely nice and pleasant Englishperson, but Mr. Smith should maybe stop reading contemporary comic books. They seem to upset him a great deal (this being only the latest in a long line of breathless tantrums over the moral rot found in today’s superhero stories), and they certainly have long ceased to bring him any joy.
Having said that, torture’s totally bad and even a guy made of sand deserves due process!
June 1st, 2012 at 1:23 pm
So… I take it the guy who posted hasn’t actually read the book in question….
June 1st, 2012 at 4:07 pm
I could have sworn there was a panel, right after this one, in which Peter said that he’d never do it. Especially since it smacks of being counter to his ‘no one dies’ philosophy. This is like reading Scans_Daily all over again with the internet outrage over one panel out of context.
June 1st, 2012 at 11:21 pm
Except that he DID do it. He LET the “acid-boarding” take place. That IS torture, and that is WRONG.
Torture is not only wrong because a) it is inhumane, but also because b) anyone who’s actually conducted interrogations in the real world will tell you that IT DOES NOT WORK.
Anyone who endorses torture, or tells stories in which it’s shown to be defensible and effective, is every bit as wrong as those who would express support for racial segregation. It’s a dehumanizing practice that doesn’t even accomplish its ostensible goal, which makes it unconscionably evil.
June 1st, 2012 at 11:23 pm
And I might as well leave the thread now, before Dan Slott weighs in and I get banned from posting any replies to prevent me from disputing his false claims, since that’s what’s happened the other times I’ve dared to criticize him on here …
June 2nd, 2012 at 7:27 am
Did you read the book? The dude is one grain of sand. They are burning the other grains of sand, threatening (without doing it) to burn up HIS grain of sand.
People need to learn to read and to think. Jeez.
June 2nd, 2012 at 7:43 am
Er… there was no “just foolin’” in Secret Avengers #21. Which in a just world, would have resulted in some firings.
ASM #685 is way, way, WAAAAAAAAAY more nuanced than what Ellis did.
June 2nd, 2012 at 9:25 am
K-box….ever the victim. Snff…poor fella.
I remember when Spidey captured Sandman In a vacuum or dispersed his sand over the city. Clearly Marvel hates the Geneva Conventions. I’ll never understand why these exaggerated fantasy super hero comics have so much fantasy and exaggeration!
Graeme did you ever correct your post about Kirby’s name not being in the Avengers credits?
SW
Wacker
June 2nd, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Speaking of the Avengers credits, I noticed the second time around that Sal Buscema got a thank you in the credits, which I thought was really nice.
June 2nd, 2012 at 3:15 pm
http://we-are-in-it.tumblr.com/post/22998967472/spider-boarding
I wrote about this on my blog a couple of week’s ago.
So problematic and Wacker’s defense is weak.
Spidey’s very use of term “waterboarding” (or “acidboarding”) just demonstrates the normalizing of torture in our culture.
Superhero comics may be “exaggerated fantasy,” but they clearly reinforce prejudices, nor does their position as fiction make them immune from challenging their moral frameworks that position their protagonists as “heroes.”
June 2nd, 2012 at 3:24 pm
And here’s the link to Colin Smith’s piece at Too Busy Thinking About My Comics
http://toobusythinkingboutcomics.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/why-i-loathe-and-despise-spider-man.html
June 2nd, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Thank you for the post drawing attention to the piece on Spider-Man and torture at TooBusyThinking, Graeme. (I gave it the snappy, neutral title of “Why I Loathe And Despise Spider-Man, That Torturing Piece Of Slime”) To have it referred to here is much appreciated. Should anyone be interested in the original, and I do understand with regret that that won’t be true for the folks who’ve commented above, it can find it at;
http://toobusythinkingboutcomics.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/why-i-loathe-and-despise-spider-man.html
June 2nd, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Torture looks ‘tough’ to a certain portion of the public who’ve watched a lot of Jack Bauer and read a lot of Batman – hey, remember when Batman used to detect stuff instead of dangling a guy off a building? – but, experienced interrogators tell us, it does not work as a reliable method of gaining intelligence. Which makes it practically useless as well as morally indefensible. There’s been a false narrative provided to us by decades of entertainment media in which torture works and can be justified, but in the real world, that’s just not the case.
Those of us in the business of creating entertainment have a responsibility when it comes to the spread of narratives within our culture, and I don’t think standing up and saying ‘I’m not going to craft a narrative in which torture works and is justifiable’ is too much to ask of us. In fact, in times like these – where torture as a practice is gaining a frightening amount of legitimacy – the responsibility of the creator to keep an eye on the message they’re sending is even greater.
Even when you’re torturing a guy made of sand, or when the hero watching it happen was thiiiiiiiiiis close to saying something.
(Not that I’m advocating any kind of censorship, or advocating bringing the Comics Code back, or suggesting that the people who bought this comic and the people who made it aren’t good people. I’m just saying that that page made me feel kind of ooky and here’s why, and With Great Power Comes All That Jazz.)
June 2nd, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Safe to assume the same people above are fine with the vigilantism we showcase in our comics every month?
Of course you are.
Alternatively adults are once again trying to ruin something by over thinking it.
SW
June 2nd, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Oh my goodness. I was kinda treating it like a joke before, but you guys: READ THE STORY. There’s no torture here.
What there IS here is threat of violence. And hey, I dislike threat of violence ALMOST as much as I dislike torture (which is a lot). But I think we can all agree it’s something very different. And something rather common in fiction and life.
Sadly, I think the use of the term “___-boarding” got a certain charming Englishperson (and everybody who rightly loves him) in a bit of a needless uproar.
The panel excerpted above makes it seems as though (sigh) SANDMAN is going through intense pain thanks to the acid pour. The story overall makes it CRYSTAL clear this is nothing like the case. He (sigh) is contained in a tiny grain of sand somewhere in a sand pile and only fears that at some point Spider-Man will let the Cheney-like Silver Sable apply it to his actual person (which is, [sigh] a single grain of sand).
Happily, this does not occur. Unhappily, comic books have to be explained to grown-ups.
June 2nd, 2012 at 6:31 pm
@Colin Smith
I just finished reading your review of Batman Incorporated #1 and nowhere do you complain about the book’s positive depiction of violent, masked vigilantism. The book depicts dangerous, irresponsible acts of vigilastism by unsanctioned civilians, including a young child who is manipulated by the adult “hero” into comitting violent, dangerous acts against his fellow human beings completely outside the rule of law. My question to you is: do you advocate that non-law enforcement personnel put on masks and engage in violent fist fights with dangerous criminals in the real world, or are you just a posturing, imbecilic moral hypocrite applying an ever-changing set of ethical standards to each story you read as it suits your personal agenda?
June 2nd, 2012 at 10:28 pm
RF, here’s how the Geneva Convention defines torture:
“Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”
But please, tell me how threatening to burn someone with acid (whether or not you actually do it) does NOT qualify as torture under that definition.
June 2nd, 2012 at 10:32 pm
“Sadly, I think the use of the term ‘___-boarding’ got a certain charming Englishperson (and everybody who rightly loves him) in a bit of a needless uproar.”
Words mean things. The ONLY reason to use such a term is if the author WANTS us to see things in those terms. You don’t get to be “topical” by comparing a character’s methods to one of the methods of torture that America uses on its enemies (and yes, water-boarding IS torture) and then NOT have to deal with the attendant implications of the comparison which you yourself deliberately drew as an author.
June 2nd, 2012 at 11:11 pm
K-Box: The Geneva Convention’s definition of torture (which I think is a GOOD THING, by the way) could be employed to condemn virtually every action comic book ever written, at one time or another.
And I agree that words mean things. I even sort of agree that the author of this Spider-Man story was, intentionally or not, courting controversy by using the “____-boarding” terminology. But I don’t agree that that controversy isn’t silly and reactionary.
For better or worse, I’ve read about forty zillion Dan Slott Spider-Man comics, and to suggest that he wants us all to believe that the character endorses torture is preposterous to me. Perhaps this was a careless bit of storytelling, but I have a really hard time believing it has any deeper implications.
Also, it’s funny that you’re insisting to me that water-boarding “IS” torture. I know, dude. I know.
June 2nd, 2012 at 11:16 pm
@Metron Prime
What the hell are you talking about? I thought the topic being debated here was the use of torture by heroes without any debate about the moral implications of it.
I take from your post that you disagree with Colin Smith’s conclusions. So, instead of actually explaining the reasons behind your position, you try to change the focus of the discussion and jump into attacks against Mr. Smith’s integrity.
Right. Stay free.
June 3rd, 2012 at 12:19 am
RF: For what it’s worth, I highly doubt that Dan Slott is a closet neo-conservative, especially in light of his commendable condemnation of One Million Moms’ anti-gay bigotry, but in a way, that actually disturbs me that much more, because whatever his sincerely held liberal convictions (I seem to recall him self-identifying as liberal, but if I’m wrong, I’ll gladly stand corrected), he’s still telling a story in a post-9/11 world that deliberately draws parallels to real-world methods of torture, and whatever his intentions (and he may very well be on the anti-torture side of the debate in real life), the implications of his story are really hard to read as anything other than a grudging respect for torture’s supposed effectiveness, which disturbs me when it’s coming even from those who don’t necessarily want to put that worldview out there, because it’s a sign of how much the pro-torture mentality has co-opted the debate as a whole.
Have previous superhero comics shown superheroes engaging in methods that could be deemed as torture? Without question, and in cases in which it’s fitting to the character’s nature, or in which the character is portrayed as morally gray (see also: The Punisher), I have less of a problem with it, but when the characters are meant to live up to the “hero” part of “superhero,” then no, it’s not okay, and no, past precedent does not make it okay, especially not when both Marvel and DC are so happy to retcon away much more beloved characters and stories than what they’re arbitrarily choosing to keep in continuity.
I mean, if you’re using previously told stories as justifications for the bad behavior of certain characters’ current incarnations, then it would be equally okay for Hal Jordan to refer to his Inuit sidekick as “Pie Face,” or to refer to other minority characters with similarly denigrating nicknames, but I think you would agree with me that this would absolutely not be okay.
EVERYTHING in a story has deeper implications, regardless of that story’s genre or intended audience, and even if those deeper implications were never intended in the first place, and if Dan Slott didn’t want to court this controversy, he could have very easily just AVOIDED the issues of torture or “[fill-in-the-blank]-boarding” altogether, since it’s not like any readers were demanding to see that particular aspect of real life brought into the comic, so unless Wacker or someone else in Marvel editorial ORDERED him to include those elements, it’s Slott’s own fault for CHOOSING to include them.
June 3rd, 2012 at 6:17 am
Oddly Graeme seems to have deleted my follow up post. It was there yesterday. ah well….thanks for reading the book.
Have KBox tell the old bit where you think Slott and me i should be punched. People should know the kind of guy they’re dealing with here.
SW
June 3rd, 2012 at 11:39 am
No Steve, I think he was just getting around to the part about Slott being this crazy obsessive stalker or something. Which is kinda fun considering the nature of his blog.
June 3rd, 2012 at 1:56 pm
@Leandro
It’s simple. Most comic readers and critics agree that comics should be read with the understanding that they take place in nonrealistic fantasy worlds and that the actions of the “heros” should not be taken as literal prescriptions of how one should behave in real world settings. Colin Smith and his supporters in this thread disagree, which is fine. What ISN’T fine is his refusal to be consistent in his moral critique.
Vigilantism is not only dangerous and unethical, but studies show that it DOESN’T EVEN WORK at reducing crime. Crime fighting should be left to trained LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL! Colin Smith’s tacit approval of such activities is morally reprehensible. This is particularly evident given that issue of Batman in question features a young child (Damian Wayne) engaging in a glorified form of violent “crime fighting.” Any child who tried to put on a mask and go around physically subduing violent criminals would almost certainly meet a grisly end, and as such Colin Smith’s tacit approval of such activity is ethically the equivalent of advocating child murder.
June 3rd, 2012 at 2:40 pm
@Stephen Wacker – in interests of full disclosure I have posted on Colin’s blog that once a character references real world torture techniques, they negate your claim to fantasy exagerration. Understandably modern day comics need to reflect modern day concerns, but are super-hero concepts sufficiently sturdy to be able to support such weighty matters? I would argue not as they are inherently concepts created as children’s fiction, with all the simplicity that such a concept must entail in the depiction of real world events (as an example, 9/11 in a child’s world is one of good vs evil, whereas in the real world it is a matter of immense complexity that leads to such an abhorrent event, much in the way over here in the UK IRA atrocities where a matter of similar complicated relationships and actions). Of course I would welcome your counter argument, having long been a fan of Marvel comics and Spider-Man in particular. Or it could be a case of an intent that has been mistakenly put forward in execution leading to these misinterpretations, if that is the case.
Thanks for listening.
June 3rd, 2012 at 2:45 pm
“Have KBox tell the old bit where you think Slott and I should be punched. People should know the kind of guy they’re dealing with here.”
Amazingly enough, when you respond with ad hominem attacks to literally every single bit of minor criticism thrown your way, to the point that even fans who have defended One More Day, Brand New Day, One Moment In Time and Big Time have repeatedly called you two out on it, it’s not going to endear me to you, and that’s not even considering that Slott LIED by claiming that I told him to “Go die in a fire” online, which I NEVER said, and which he could NEVER find any evidence of me saying, not to mention the fact that Slott went to the NON-industry PERSONAL blog of a female fan who dared to type ONE SENTENCE of criticism of him, and them tried to BULLY her into submission, which succeeded to the point that she’s gone largely silent and locked all those old entries, so I guess you “won” by silencing a dissenting voice.
You want to play the “man of character” game? When you insult even the most civil of your critics, and even staunch supporters of the post-retcon Amazing Spider-Man like Rich Johnston, David Brothers and Brian Hibbs are all pointing out how badly you’re behaving, and you then have the gall to whine about unkind words that have been spoken about you online, when we’re all just comics fans with Internet connections and you’re the editor of the flagship title of the decades-old comics company owned by one of the most powerful multi-media corporations on the planet, it makes you look like Mitt Romney; an entitled, spoiled, thin-skinned, hypocritical bully who sees himself as a victim whenever anyone tries to hold him accountable for his own actions.
June 3rd, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Metron Prime: A key distinction is that very few people in the real world regard costumed vigilantism as an effective or appropriate course of action, underaged sidekicks or no, whereas this very thread has shown that several people consider torture to be not only permissible, but actually compulsory in certain circumstances.
It’s gotten to the point where Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, whose job it is to interpret the law at the highest level in the land, has actually defended the use of torture by citing the entirely fictional deeds of Jack Bauer on “24″ as “proof” of the merits of torture. Talk to me when Supreme Court judges are saying that Damian Wayne should be used as a precedent to determine what does and doesn’t constitute child endangerment, and I’ll come over to your side.
June 3rd, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Also, I love how Wacker’s response to rational arguments by other people is to ignore them and attempt to derail the discussion by focusing on my supposed misdeeds. It proves for a fact that he knows he’s wrong but will never lower himself enough to admit it.
June 3rd, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Marcus- I’m not aware of the storytelling rules you seem to be proclaiming. However I probably wouldn’t use Spider to delve deeply into political matters of any sort. And we didnt…which seems to be the issue some have.
KBox-You are a hoot. Still. Like a rodeo clown with two…no THREE kazoos!
Also please stop trying to hide behind others you imagine support your violent, antagonistic nonsense. It’s embarrassing for them.
SW
June 3rd, 2012 at 3:00 pm
This is a bit of a test to see if I’m allowed to comment here anymore.
June 3rd, 2012 at 3:06 pm
RF: To be fair, I don’t think you’ve said anything bannable here.
By the way, I apologize for misinterpreting your stance on torture based on your initial comments. As someone who’s served in the military, I believe that my country should be above certain practices, so when I see what looks like an apologist’s attitude toward those wrongs, I tend to get het up, as you no doubt noticed. Still, even though I suspect we still disagree on this story, I feel bad about misreading your stance on the real-world issue behind it, so I am sorry. As someone who rightly recognizes the inappropriateness of torture, you didn’t deserve that.
June 3rd, 2012 at 3:36 pm
I may not have said anything bannable, but none of my longer comments seem to be making the grade.
Perhaps that’s for the best! Good luck to you all and for heaven’s sake STICK TOGETHER.
June 3rd, 2012 at 4:59 pm
For all the people using characters over in Batman as an example, or people saying it may have been necessary, you’re missing the point of the uproar. Of all the Marvel characters, the Spider-Man I know would NEVER torture someone or behave like this. Using a darker character like Damian Wayne in no way, shape, or form justifies this, since he’s always been depicted as one of the more ruthless anti-heroes.
I think I’m more outraged at the constant militarization of Marvel’s superheroes. They’re not soldiers for God’s sake, these kinds of things aren’t what I read comics for.
And Wacker, you really need to learn to make actual arguments rather than just insulting people as a response. You’re a professional editor, not a fanboy.
June 3rd, 2012 at 6:50 pm
@Metron Prime: Smith has discussed those issues in the context of Batman in his articles and their comments sections, and is consistently anti-torture in both.
I am surprised that comments as well researched and devoid of personal attacks as yours do not acknowledge this.
June 4th, 2012 at 4:35 am
@Stephen Wacker – If real world governments had ignored international treaties to bring in laws and work abounds so that they could blast state-decided enemies across cities from a vacuum cleaner without a trial, people would have been angry to see Spider-Man do it.
Spider-Man being supportive of torturing is a screw up, man. It’s the sort of thing he should be against. I’m not really sure if what Sable did was torture – did it count in sand mode? Did Marko feel pain or just fear that he would if it his – but It came very close, and made me uneasy as a reader. I don’t ever want such an alienating moment as reading Captain America allow torture when I sit down to read a comic again. Super heroes are meant to be an escape, not a reminder of the horros of the real world.
You can try cover it with cutesy, but you had Spider-Man pretend to go with breaking the Geneva convention, and that’s going against his core message of great responsibility coming with his power, yet the book pretty much ignored it had happened.
Oh, Graeme didn’t need to correct his article – he never said Kirby wasn’t credited in the Avengers movie, his article was just quoting another site that said it, and the point of his piece went beyond the scope of the quote.
Funny though, I don’t remember seeing Kirby’s name – must have been hidden away at the end, rather than at the front in big letters, as befits the king of comics, let alone the guy who co-created the characters in the film. What’s that about Steve? Why is Marvel so ashamed of Kirby? Don’t you feel silly crowing about his name in small print at the end?
June 4th, 2012 at 4:40 am
“Did Marko feel pain or just fear that he would if it his” was meant to be… “fear that he would if it hit his special particle”.
Also, I probably should have put quotation marks around the “pretend” in the last paragraph about torture. As I say, he says in the next panel he was pretending, but Sable was pouring acid, and he was telling the guy he would murder him. I’m pretty sure that is torture.
June 4th, 2012 at 5:28 am
After all, what could be more humane and American that the embracing of values and actions entirely inconsistent with, er, being either humane or American.
http://www.govevents.com/
June 4th, 2012 at 9:55 am
Spider-Man is a costumed vigilante whose primary method of problem solving is physical violence. He engages in acts of actual physical violence against other people in virtually every comic in which he appears. He has been shown repeatedly to do whatever it takes, short of killing or maiming, to defeat the bad guys and/or save lives.
But now it’s out of character for him to *threaten* a bad guy, even if he doesn’t actually carry out the threat and may never have had any intention of doing so?
That’s a *really* strange reading of a superhero comic.
June 4th, 2012 at 11:52 am
Ben Lipman Says:
If real world governments had ignored international treaties to bring in laws and work abounds so that they could blast state-decided enemies across cities from a vacuum cleaner without a trial, people would have been angry to see Spider-Man do it.
Real world governments don’t drip acid on magical sand people, threatening to burn away the one grain of said containing their soul-seed. Real world governments DO detain prisoners without trial. Maybe everyone here defending the ‘Spider-Man traps Sandman inside a vacuum cleaner’ story should be chastised for being closet Gitmo apologists?
June 4th, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Here’s another potential problem with the “acidboarding” scene: remember, in the very next issue, Spider-Man is able to convince Mysterio to switch sides by pointing out the simple logic that, if Doc Ock succeeds, then Mysterio will not live to enjoy the full pardon and two billion dollars Doc Ock himself was able to get for all the members of the Sinister Six. This is important because the whole reason why Sandman even joined up with Doc Ock again–something which previous issues and “Ends of the Earth” itself point out–is that he’s trying to get his daughter back. So in light of all this, are Slott and Wacker et al saying there was no other way to get Sandman to cooperate other than to have Silver Sable pour acid on him that could have potentially killed him? Spidey couldn’t have pointed out Doc Ock’s plan was putting even the life of Sandman’s daughter at risk and that if he helped them he was also potentially saving her life?
June 4th, 2012 at 5:18 pm
@allstarmatches – “But now it’s out of character for him to *threaten* a bad guy, even if he doesn’t actually carry out the threat and may never have had any intention of doing so?”
He threatened as Silver Sable was pouring the acid onto Sandman – had it hit his magical sand particle, he would have died. So, Sandman was tortured, and Spider-Man allowed it to happen, and only questioned his actions afterwards.
I always thought the core moral of Spider-Man, was to not take the easy way out, that with his power, comes responsibility. I don’t think this scene played to that at all.
The Avengers are a bad influence on him.
@Metron Prime – “Real world governments don’t drip acid on magical sand people, threatening to burn away the one grain of said containing their soul-seed.”
No, but they do tie people who have not been tried to a board and make them feel like they are drowning, or play white noise at them at ear-drum splitting loud levels.
“Real world governments DO detain prisoners without trial. Maybe everyone here defending the ‘Spider-Man traps Sandman inside a vacuum cleaner’ story should be chastised for being closet Gitmo apologists?”
Spider-Man detains people for the process of arrest – he has never trapped anyone for an extended period of time without a trial.
Heck, the webbing wears out after a while, so if the cops slack-off, the crooks he catches get to go home.
If he left Sandman in that vacuum for five years, subjecting him to daily torture, and then rewarded him with Pringles when he confessed something, then those folks would be closet Gitmo apologists.
And for any pro-torture fans out there, go watch ‘Taxi To The Dark Side’, and then shut up.
June 6th, 2012 at 12:14 am
You’re talking about a character who was made into a guy who only cared about himself and his dying Aunt. Marvel put that stuff out and didn’t care how bad it was or the fact they had told fans they had the biggest stories of all time for the character.
Was this bad? Probably. It’s a terrible book. I’ve only read it sporadically since that stuff. We don’t get big actual stories about the old Spider-man whose actually a decent guy and whose actions have consquences. Didn’t he lose his job after doctoring a photo recently? Is that what I’ve heard? He sold out the universe for his aunt. Who had already died before. Marvel doesn’t care what fans think. I don’t think they even want the book to be good. They just want it to sell well and they haven’t been able to get it back in the top ten despite hyping issue after issue. Look at DC and Batman. 2 or 3 in sales. Snyder and Capullo are beating the competition like crazy. Basically OMD and the Civil War no-secret-identity stuff where everything changed constantly just did it in. It was bad fiction, period. Fan or otherwise. That’s the biggest story you can do with your character and they didn’t even try it seems.
Again, I haven’t read recently, but Doc Ock apparently is altered beyond recognition and then they do a big story with him, so it looks pointless. He’s a dying robot-thing. Spider-man wearing the Bat-armor from Batman #9 torures the Sandman. I guess I’ve read too many Spider-man comics. You always thought Sandman was a morally conflicted character who went straight, Then they changed it back. Then Mysterio is dead in the Daredevil comic. They brought him back. I guess Kraven is back, too? Gwen Stacy will back soon, too. There’s nothing really to do in the book anymore.
They could of made this issue a debate on torture, I suppose. But like Civil War itself is probably so poorly constructed it makes it pointless. I’m sure Spider-man cracke da joke after he spat acid in Sandman’s eye. I don’t know how you make a comic book, where the impossible can happen every issue and make it completely unbelievable to us older readers, but they managed.
June 6th, 2012 at 12:35 am
Come back, Ben Reilly.
June 6th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Clearly, he’s been hanging around with Wolverine too much.
Nah, actually, the devil made him do it. Spidey’s into that kind of thing now.