Mike Gold: Violence and Comic Books
Are comic books too violent?
Sure, this is a question some will ask in the wake of a tragedy like last Friday’s massacre in Newtown Connecticut – and a question soon-to-be-ex Senator Joe Lieberman asks every day. But let me put aside my deep-seated prejudice against book-burners for the moment and tell you who else is asking this question right now.
DC Comics is asking this question. Actually, it’s asking the question “Are DC Comics too violent?” And that’s a valid question, as long as those asking it are aware that they’ve been continuing a trend of some decades and that there is no real evidence that there’s a causal link. But that DC name, now synonymous with Warner Bros, is right there on the cover… as well as on all those movies, profitable and otherwise. But movies are a horse of another color: for one thing, children actually go to movies.
Way back in the fall of 1976, DC Comics published Action Comics #466, pictured above. I ran it slightly larger than our usual graphics so you can see what I’m talking about. This was a somewhat controversial cover: several big-name creators found it abhorrent. They felt we shouldn’t beat up babies on the covers of DC Comics. (No, causing harm was what those old Johnson-Smith ads inside were for.) The story was reprinted in a trade paperback back in 2000.
But at that time I was DC’s entire marketing and publicity department, so publisher Jenette Kahn brought me in, showed me the cover, and asked what I thought. “Well, to be honest,” I said paraphrasing like hell, “I hadn’t noticed it as untoward when I first saw the cover several months prior to publishing. Now that you mention it, I see the point. It doesn’t offend me, but little does. Professionally, unless one of the nut-groups is having a slow day I doubt it’ll be a problem.” It wasn’t.
Jenette said it didn’t bother her either, but we had a nice conversation about limits. That’s a good thing to do from time to time, particularly if you’re in the media racket and you are dependent upon the pleasure of mom’n’pop store-owners.
But you can’t please everybody.
Given some of DC’s recent comics – and by “recent” I mean “at least since the time they broke Batman’s back” – one wonders how they will evaluate the standards. Note that the Comics Code Authority, the guardian of comic book morality and the exorciser of four-color excess, approved the above cover. Today such decisions are made where they should be, in-house.
If, by way of example, it is deemed the current Batman mega-arc “Death Of The Family” crosses that revalued line, would DC alter it for the trade paperbacks and omnibus editions? Or forgo these editions entirely? If not, well, so much for the new standards.
Which is OK by me, but it’s not my call. It’s been a while since I’ve been on their payroll and, knowing me as well as I do, were I still in editorial I’d be pushing those new limits right up to that “you’re meeting with Human Resources tomorrow morning” point. Hey, I’m a brat.
I’m not expressing concern or outrage, nor am I screaming censorship. It’s good for such concerns to evaluate and reevaluate their standards from time to time and, besides, as the great A. J. Liebling said, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”
THURSDAY: Dennis O’Neil
I’ve always been under the tutelage that it’s not the fault of the media. It’s the fault of the parent. Growing up, I had access to movies, TV, comics, and books that all contained morally reprehensible material. And I turned out just fine. Why? Because my parents made sure that first and foremost, I living in an environment where I could question the things I see. Secondly because they monitored what I consumed, and ensured I asked the right questions. There’s a line to be drawn, yes, and it should be made at the level of the creator. But I’d be hard-pressed to say I’d prefer Scott Snyder or anyone ‘tames’ a concept or story because they feel they are crossing the line. If it serves the purpose of the story? Do it. And then, as a publisher, ensure parents know on the cover the book (be it a floppy, trade, omnibus or infogas) ensure they know what kind of mature content will be found therein.
It’s aggravating when the “moral guardians” start blaming comics, movies, video games, etc. for various horrors but if someone casts blame on the acutal weapon(s) used, then they recoil and say, “No, it’s the person that did it!”. Hurray for hypocrisy!
Comics sure have gotten more violent than when I was a kid and it’s really messed up how the people at my comic shop say that they have had to steer kids away from Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, etc. due to the content in them. Considering the head honchos at the publishers have gone on record that they don’t think kids read comics, I don’t see them ever really scaling things back or even writing material that will appeal to a wider audience. Best bet, look at something from the other publishers instead.
Just wait. Much of the blame will be placed on “violent” video games. Well, maybe it’s their turn. Certainly the Comics Code Authority, the movie rating system, the teevee rating system and Parental Advisory Warnings on rock music each have stopped their evil mind control over our nation’s youth, so it MUST be the video games, right?
It can’t possibly be our near-total lack of parenting, could it? Parents who think that our schools should stand up to their children because they, the parents, are too lazy or, worse and more common, don’t want to be seen by their precious precious as “the bad guy.” Parents who don’t want to be bothered to supervise their children’s media input — teevee, Internet, whathaveyou?
I will support the right of any parent to veto their child’s choice of entertainment. However, this can get me in trouble. This happened several times, but here’s the best case:
I was at a comic book store signing copies of Howard Chaykin’s Blackhawk. It was a fairly sophisticated story — you really had to want to use your brain — and it was a labeled comic book: it was labelled “Chaykin.” So when a kid of about eight wanted me to sign it, I asked his father if it was okay since the book was heady, rather violent, and had, you know, blow jobs and stuff. Daddy went apeshit: “Give my kid what he wants!” he screamed, and went on and on about how I’m not his parent. Hey, I was only asking. I signed the book and tried to figure out how to slip some S. Claw Wilson stuff into his bag.
It’s never a parenting problem, nope. It’s the responsibility of the tv or computer they stick their kids in front of rather than talking to them.
As much as my mother supported my comic collecting (she read them as a child and also figured my reading anything was a good thing) she also would look at what I was reading. Aside from the joking about how it must be an additional superpower of the women in the comics to be able to fit into those next-to-nothing costumes, I had a wide berth as to what I could read but she had no problem saying “no” to various things she didn’t think were appropriate for me. A parent saying “no”, what a concept!