Back in '86, Furman was given a shitty concept and told to use it. In '06, he took the same concept and expounded further on how out of place it was.
The only reason that Arcee got a push in '86 was because Hasbro wanted to make clumsy effort to reach girls with an obvious token character. The more that anybody thinks about the internal logic of "Transformers", the less a female robot makes sense.
The only way to find evidence of misogyny in "Spotlight: Arcee" is to decide it is there *before* reading it and actively seeking evidence for that view with no regard to logic or truth.
Scott's comments followed on a consistent stream of complaints over the years about "Spotlight: Arcee".So maybe she could've tip-toed around the topic a little more carefully. I'm not going to say she was 100% right in how she discussed her problems with SL:Arcee. But I still feel that he's overreacting to a perceived attack where there was none intended.
Or more ironically- he misunderstood the intent of something Scott wrote and took offense.
Most likely.The way I see it, Scott is just pandering to the Tumblr crowd to prop up her notoriety, causing false controversy where there is none, to get the Jezebel readers and the SRS groupies to buy her comic. I should know, as a literary agent I've had a few clients pull this same tactic. It's viral marketing 101.
I have to disagree with Shockwave. "Beast Hunters" is actually not bad. (It is good enough that I plan to pick up the second volume despite Scott being the writer.) But, yeah, this incident has not raised my opinion of her as a writer.Her approach is making me want to skip the series entirely, whereas normally I'd read it and then make the call.
