There's a couple articles about Wertham and then Valerie D'Orazio's talking about it and there's a healthy smattering of interest and response.
But when ol' Cranky McWomanhater talks about Wertham, well, only a few will brave those dark waters.*
Okay, sure, maybe I made it all uncomfortable-feeling by linking Wertham's attitudes to some displayed by elements of the feminist fandom. It's pretty damn interesting to me, though, how there can be this "was-he-or-wasn't-he" discussion of Wertham and what he did, whether he was right about those crime comics being inappropriate for kids, and then I can click on some other link at WFA and find Looking To The Stars' blog talking about The Latest Bendis Warcrime. Read:
So why did I feel the need to comment on this when so many other more distinguished luminaries, including that master parodist Christopher Bird, have already weighed in on this issue?OH GOD TAKE COVER HERE IT COMES
Because of something that the children's librarian in me remembered from reading through a catalog and something that I think is rather important. Namely, that this book - Mighty Avengers #11 - was rated All Ages by whoever it is that Marvel has rate their comics for age-appropriateness.
Yes. All-Ages. As in, you're supposed to be able to give this to anyone without fear of it containing inappropriate material.
Now, I'm not a prude. Far from it.
Anybody who has read my work, knows my reading habits or is familiar with my weekend exploits as part of a Rocky Horror troupe can vouch that I am not easily offended nor am I a Helen Lovejoy "Won't Somebody PLEASE Think of the children" type.THERE'S A "BUT" COMING I JUST KNOW IT
But I have to ask: Since when has "whore" been an acceptable word for use in children's books? Even children's pictorial bibles don't drop the W-bomb!And right there, the ghost of Wertham rises, to reach a quavering claw-like hand from beyond the grave!
Before now, I was content to limit my ban on Marvel Comics to my own personal reading habits. Now, I'm enforcing it at my library. Because if I can't trust Marvel Comics to honestly and fairly rate their own materials, then I can't be bothered to take the risk on anything they publish.
I mean, no sooner has he said he's not all "think of the children", he goes right in and thinks primarily of the children! A complete ban on Marvel at the library? Is this is a library that only caters to kids? Are the comics normally only racked in the kid's section? Do adults never peruse the comics at his library?
Unless this is a kids-only library (hell, I dunno, it could be), what he's saying in effect is: because Marvel drops the ball with its labeling in his opinion, nobody at the library should get to read any Marvel comic from now on, be they minors or adults. It is more important that a kid not have to see the word "whore" in a comic than said comic is available to those old enough to not suffer brain damage from reading the kind of words they say on prime-time TV.
(And in addition: at what age is a kid able to withstand the horrors of the word "whore", and does this mean that the library, even if it caters exclusively to minors, would be removing Marvel not only for the teeniest wee sheltered readers but also the teens and just-about-teens? Yes, of course it does. Were I a teenager in such a situation, I'd feel pretty damn condescended to, and I'd avoid such an institution like the plague.)
And since labeling is the issue here, let's trot over back to Occasional Superheroine, where we see in the comments section, courtesy of Ami Angelwings:
Here's the problem.
I dun see a problem with a warning label or description of what's in it. I mean as a writer who posts a lot of fiction online I know a lot of stories have tags at the beginning to inform readers about what sort of themes are contained. We have NSFW stuff in posts. A tag or label isn't censorship in any way :\ It's just more information :) Like nutritional labels in food products :)
Warning labels are arbitrary. They hold standards which are based on opinion. A food label, at least, has the benefit of supposedly telling you objective facts ("this candy bar has peanuts in it"); a label that says "this comic has too much violence for an 11-year-old" depends on the person reading the label and the agency placing the label on the book having similar standards.
Ever gone to a movie and thought the violence was too much for the PG rating? Or seen an R-rated movie and wondered what the fuss was all about? That's someone at the MPAA board deciding for you that this is too much violence for some folks here, but this other violence here is more acceptable.
Someone at Marvel thought "whore" was an acceptable word to put in an all-ages book**, and our librarian disagreed, and now no more Marvel at the library. That is censorship, right there. Not in a country-wide fashion, no, you can still read Marvel comics elsewhere. But it is censorship nonetheless. And going back to movie ratings: when was the last time you saw a movie with an "A" rating in the theater? Once someone marks a film as being "too adult for even the R rating", that pretty much kills its distribution. Oh, sure, you can still find a few places that might play it, depending on the film. A seedy adult film theater (if they still exist in the days of private DVDs and internet porn), a tiny art-house showing, or heck, just wait for the DVD. Well, gosh, it can't really be censorship if it's still around, right?
Sure. And all those comics that didn't take up the Comics Code in the fifties could still be published, they weren't being censored, no, you just couldn't find them on the majority of newsstands.
Labels suck. They are, in a fashion, an abandoning of personal responsibility: "Well, the label says it's bad, so I don't have to use my own judgment and think about it myself, out it goes!".
They are also a hammer, a threat: "take that blood spray or cleavage out of that scene, there, or we'll give you an "A" rating and then you can't get your film into theaters. Conform to our standards for decency!"
You may not think a simple warning label could have much effect, but then you probably also don't pay much attention to what CDs get into Wal-Mart and which don't due to labels or potentially offensive material. You don't care or even know about about some gangsta rapper failing to sell some album because the forces that be behind the scenes are "looking out for the public interest". You probably don't know about artists as tame as Sheryl Crow running into content troubles with chain outlets. And Tipper Gore only wanted to help parents with the awful drudge-work of raising children when she formed the PMRC. Surely she didn't think she would institute censorship, oh, no.
Ami probably means well, the librarian may have nothing but the finest of intentions, but really, it doesn't take a whole lot of foresight to see how these things can start benignly but snowball out of control, far beyond what anyone thought they wanted, since it's happened before, and we even have an example specific to comics that we can look at and evaluate.
What's that everyone says about history and being doomed to repeat it...?
*I really wish I were confident enough about my readership that I didn't feel the need to mention that was all a joke.
**Actually, I think it's far more likely that nobody at Marvel is really paying attention to their rating labels, or that they don't want to have to judge each issue individually so that little Billy can read Avengers #347 but isn't allowed to see the continued story in Avengers #348...
8 comments:
You make some good points, Anon, but I have to disagree with you on this bit:
Warning labels are arbitrary. They hold standards which are based on opinion. A food label, at least, has the benefit of supposedly telling you objective facts ("this candy bar has peanuts in it"); a label that says "this comic has too much violence for an 11-year-old" depends on the person reading the label and the agency placing the label on the book having similar standards.
I'll grant you that warning labels and rating systems aren't totally benign. They do carry certain connotations, sometimes hefty ones, but how those connotations are used and for what purpose, is entirely up to the individual. It is NOT censorship in an of itself. It only becomes that if a person is using it to invoke it themselves.
Your words from Matt Morrison prove this. While one might understand why he'd be upset about certain materials being rasted improperly, does he take a logical approach to the issue (like say emailing Marvel Comics about this, to let them know that someone in that department dropped the ball and they want to look into fixing that)? No, he reacts with an extreme. He takes the material (and all future Marvel output) away from all people (not just ones certain material might be inapropriate for). He used the rating system to impose his own will onto others, which says more about him, than the rating system itself.
Rating sysems are merely information. And that alone is never evil. The information of the chemical formula to make an explosive devise isn't "evil." But the heart and sole of the one who obtains that information might be. How they use that knowledge will tell that tale. And it is no different here.
Rating systems are also protaction, not just from giving adult information to prevent children from seeing something inappropriate, but also for folks like your local comic dealer. They can't read everything that comes out. That is an impossible task. But a small rating on the cover can help them to keep that mertial out of the hands it doesn't belong. Which, in turn, protects them from irresponsible and sue-crazy parents and adults, who are only to happy, it seems, to want to take advantage of such a situation.
Are they the "perfect" solution to everything here? No, they aren't. But then, as long as people have free will and can allow themselves the right to be offended at whatever they want; as long as human beings are different from one another and not merely a race of hive-thinking clones; as long as someone out there wants to believe that their own moral code should be the world's moral code, rating will be a necessary evil. To protect both those they are meant to protect (i.e. the children), as well as those who could be made to fall victim to the irresponsible minded and made as scapegoats for them.
As for those who will use the information of a rating system to invoke censorship, yes, that will still be a possibility, but then, we also have other options, too.
If Matt Morrison will not allow Marvel Comics material at his library, then those who want that will go to other ones. When people want something, they find ways to get it (the laws against "illegal" drugs should be proof enough of that). Just as someone who wants an unsanitized CD by a gansta rapper, will go to somewhere other than Wal-Mart. In this respect, these individuals desire to create censorship can hurt them, even more than the ones they are inflicting it upon.
Warning labels and rating systems are not a form of censorship. They are merely information that is provided to you so you can make a somewhat educated choice on the material you see before you. How you use that information, will always reflect more on you, than the item that is getting said rating.
Warning labels are not, in and of themselves, censorship, no.
How they are applied, and how they are reacted to, that is often censorship. No, scratch that, it's entirely censorship. I can't think of any case where it is NOT censorship.
And to be clear, in some circumstances, some few cases, censorship is needed. Don't want your kid to read the word "whore" in a comic? Well, it's censorship if you prevent your kid from reading that comic, but that's one of the few instances where you can say censorship is justified.
But rating systems aren't "merely information", they are OPINIONS. Someone (whoever determines a label is needed) selects some material, judges it by some criteria, forms an opinion (yes? no? 11 or up? 18 or older? 21 and needs ID?) and places the corresponding label, and his or her opinion may not match yours.
As an example, if I ran a poll asking at what age it was safe to use the word "whore" for children's literature and provided a selection of the gamut of ages from 5 to 18, that poll's results would be weighted towards the older end of the scale, most likely, but I doubt everyone would pick the exact same age.
The best you can hope for is to acquire a feel for the most common, mainstream opinions and apply them to the standards for judging, but that, I feel, only really occurs by dumb luck these days, if and when it happens. And still, all that means is you've tapped into the most common opinion, not any real objective criteria.
But rating systems aren't "merely information", they are OPINIONS. Someone (whoever determines a label is needed) selects some material, judges it by some criteria, forms an opinion (yes? no? 11 or up? 18 or older? 21 and needs ID?) and places the corresponding label, and his or her opinion may not match yours.
You are right. their opinion may NOT match my own. I might think they are way off, even. But that rating label let me know that I would have to take a look at that material and make that choice for myself (and most probably my child).
I may decide that my (hypothetical) 8 year-old is prefectly capable of handle Mighty Avengers #11, even though Doom refers to Ms. Marvel as a "whore." But that is MY choice to make, not the choice of the comic retailer to sell that material to ANYONE without question, nor for the comic publisher to decide to think my child SHOULD read it.
As I said, rating label are an imperfect solution to a very difficult problem. But it is better than doing nothing. And really, no matter what, it would seem almost ANY measure one could take could ultimately be abused by others (Like Matt Morrison). Done that mean we should just do away with rating labelsa dna warnings altogether? If you know your history, you'd know that is how a large part of the of American public got hooked on drugs back in the 19th century (They were called pattened medicines). They didn't tell you what was in it and how dangerous it could be, nor were they obligated to. The results were a nation of dope addicts. No one could even give you an exact toll of the damge that was done by this. But when regulations were put in place, to inform the public of potential hazards, most of these "businesses" closed up shop.
My piont to the histroy lesson I stated above? That rating and warning labels are not the problem. They never have been and never really will be. It's what people do with the information they gleen from that that is the problem. Some CDs have "explict content" warnings on them, yet having worked many retail jobs in my life, I can tell you I've seen many parents buy then for young kids ANYWAY. The warning didn't stop the kid from getting that material. It simply gave the parent a heads up on what may be found on that album and protected the retailer from pointless lawsiuts by parents who might take advantage of such situations (because they do happen, even today).
The best you can hope for is to acquire a feel for the most common, mainstream opinions and apply them to the standards for judging, but that, I feel, only really occurs by dumb luck these days, if and when it happens. And still, all that means is you've tapped into the most common opinion, not any real objective criteria.
You are right. It isn't 100% objective. But if you are saying NOTHING should be done, because of that, then I have to say you are fool, Anon. That's just as stupid as what Matt Morrison is doing regard Marvel's output over a possible rating mistake. Because I doubt it is even possible to find an "objective rating criteria."
I know you want to protect free speech and have material be allowed to exist, while not having one person or group deciding for everyone. And I agree with you 100% in that. "Offensive material" does have the right to exist with non-offensive material. But a rating system, even one that is only guaged by the "most common opinion" is not stopping any material from existing. People who take extreme measures, who use those ratings as a weapon, are doing that. Yet, even if you took the ratings away, they would simply find something else to use to do the same thing.
Rating systems ARE just information. A (hopefully) semi-educated guess-timation, sure, but a (hopefully) honest attempt to merely give adults a "heads up" on what they can expect in that material. You can't blame them for the actions of the TRUE censors. Those types don't need rating systems to do what they do. They'd do it anyway, without them. Getting rid of rating systems won't make materials any better protected or safe from those types, either. You'll just be putting a lot of honest retailer butts into a sling or legal nightmares. And as someone who's had to deal with legal manuverings recently, trust me, you don't want to have that monkey on your back.
Ratings may or many not protect the children, as they are often touted for doing. But they certainly protect the retailers (as well as publishers) from our sue-crazy world, filled with oppertunistic jerks who'd love to pounce on something like that. When fat people want to sue McDonalds for "making them fat," I don't know how anyone couldn't see what a disater a lack of rating systems would bring down on the entertainment industry as a whole.
You want a system where logic and level-headedness rule how people will respond to offensive materials. But that's not this world, my friend. It probably never is going to be, either. As long as human being have free will, those who will choose to get into an overractive snit (like Matt Morrison) will always be here. Fight the good fight to keep all types of material available for those who would want them, but don't fool yourself into thinking censor-minded people won't take advantage of a lack of rating systems. You'll cause more unintended damge to a lot of good and honest people than you might realize. More damage than you think semi-biased rating sytems do now.
I have a rating system on my webcomic. I also know at least one five year old who's reading it with parental permission, and I think that's great. The rating is basically to cover my ass, so that when people complain "how dare you shove naked pussy into my face" I can reply "it's your own fault for not installing content filtering software".
It's different for paper publications, but for the web this is a solution with almost no drawbacks.
"But that is MY choice to make, not the choice of the comic retailer to sell that material to ANYONE without question, nor for the comic publisher to decide to think my child SHOULD read it."
It's a two-edged sword. You are willing to let someone else NOT allow your hypothetical child to read something, over allowing them to read something potentially "harmful". Which, fine, that's your call. But either way you go you're asking someone else to make that judgment call, unless you're standing in the store looking over your kid's shoulder. Unless you do personally vet everything that passes in front of your kid's eyes, you are abdicating some measure of choice when you accept a rating system.
I am not so naive as to think that no ratings would somehow make everything all nice and free or that there wouldn't be legal problems whether or not ratings exist.
What I do not find palatable, however, is the idea some folks seem to be tossing out, that ratings are the simple, convenient SOMEHOW CONSEQUENCE-FREE solution to the whole freedom-of-speech/protect-the-childrens debate. If you can stand up and say "I don't see any problem with ratings", then you aren't looking closely at all, or your sense of history is lacking.
In the original post, I've just detailed several problems with ratings. If you think the benefits outweigh those problems, well, enjoy the ratings, 'cause there they are. I'm not really that interested in debating the total goodness or badness of ratings except to point out to anyone making a snap "yay ratings!" statement that THAT's not going to solve everything, either.
I will say this, however: remember that the Comics Code was, in essence, a ratings system. The criteria were spelled out in detail and there were two ratings possible: approved or not approved. That you had the choice to seek out non-Code-approved material did one little good when such material was nigh-impossible to acquire...
It's a two-edged sword. You are willing to let someone else NOT allow your hypothetical child to read something, over allowing them to read something potentially "harmful". Which, fine, that's your call. But either way you go you're asking someone else to make that judgment call, unless you're standing in the store looking over your kid's shoulder.
No, I'm allowing someone else to make a judgement call (based most likely on the "most common opinion") on the material found within that item. Nothing more. Whether my hypothetical child gets to see it, is up to me. Just because the rating might be suggesting the material isn't right for them, I can still check it for myself and make up my own mind. No one is making the choice for me, merely informing me that I should look at this, before I allow my child to.
I will say this, however: remember that the Comics Code was, in essence, a ratings system. The criteria were spelled out in detail and there were two ratings possible: approved or not approved. That you had the choice to seek out non-Code-approved material did one little good when such material was nigh-impossible to acquire...
The difference, though, is in what current rating systems do and what the Comics Code Authority did. The CCA didn't just give an guess-timated rating for the material within the comic, they set up rules for what you could and couldn't put in the comic to get their seal. They forced their ideals onto others and took away choice from people. Heck, the word "authority" is in their name, which gives you a good idea of just how they will operate.
Marvel's current rating system (to use as an example) is merely the information such rating systems should always be. They don't tell creators what they can and cannot create, or what materials will be published and what won't. It just give you an idea of the age range/demographic the material is meant for. Nothing more. The rest is up to you. You have the choice to make, without someone else making it for you.
I know it can be a slippry slope, Anon. I know today a rating system might be fairly benign, but tomorrow become the new Comic Code Authority. But as long as there are people like you and I out there who will speak up if a rating system starts to go too far, I don't fear it happening as much. I appreciate the information rating systems give us. But that's as far as they should go. If they move past that "line in the sand," I'll be right on the frontlines with you is call for them to back off.
Please, distinguished gentleman, I know that you can help me. You see, here in Nigeria, where I am former producer of many comic books feminists have come to our country and are trying to censor me.
I have written many important comic books in Nigeria and made many millions of american dollars. The feminists and others have burned all my comic books, and now they have said that they are coming to your country. I have read your posts on the When Attack Fangirls and you are the only one I can trust.
Now my millions of dollars are being held by the Bank Of Nigeria, which I cannot visit, because feminists watch my every move.
If you will help me in this endeavor, I shall fight with you the censorship, and together we will be able to strike the greatest blow for tolerance the world has ever known.
And I will give you a finders fee of 20 percent. That is over 3 million american dollars! You are right that your country is next, and if you aid me in taking out my money, together we will be able to accomplish the task. I am counting on you and your distinguished indulgence, to come to my aid.
Nigeria and all free people will be forever in your debt.
Wow. I haven't heard a Nigerian scam-letter riff since, like, the last time I heard one.
Post a Comment