Apparently there is a leaked copy of the original script of Uncanny X-Men #500
1 making the rounds of the internet, and in it, the characters at the beginning end of the story are referred to (by the bad guys) as "queers" and the line in the published comic is changed to "freaks," instead [EDITED TO ADD: A helpful editor at Marvel helped explain that #501 did not have the line, but now I'm told that is because it apparently was not the beginning of #501, but rather the end of #500 (which leads directly in to the opening of #501) that had the edited line].
In any event, the scene in question (that carries over from #500 to #501), even without the lines, certainly appears to evoke a gay bashing, and with the edited lines, it makes the scene's purpose even clearer.
But that makes me wonder - what type of approach do you normally take to a comic book reading? A textualist approach or an intentionalist approach?
In other words, when you judge a comic, do you usually tend to use just what is actually published, or do you usually take into consideration stuff like lines that were taken out by the editor, or interviews the author gave about his/her story?
Note the word usually - I perfectly understand that, like most things, these things work best when not held to rigid standards, and most typically, it will end up being a mixture or a case by case basis. That said, which side do you USUALLY end up on? Just going by the published story or going by outside texts?