![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
buggerySo, I've been reading Judd Winick's maxiseries Caper. You haven't heard of it? Or, you have heard of it but haven't been reading it?
You will. It's a damned good book, which had me hooked before I was halfway through the first issue.
But I digress.
I haven't cut for spoilers on this post because I'm not spoiling anything by discussing what had me saying "what the fuck?!" out loud when I read the most recent issue (#11 of 12) last night. Hopefully the mature topic won't offend anyone either. Because it's the mature content, the labeling of the comic as containing such, and the subsequent handling of said content inside the book, that I'm feeling the need to rant about.
Caper has been, from the very beginning, a clearly not-for-kids book. Yes, the violence and references to sex have been decidedly inappropriate for littl'uns. If Judd has been holding back to spare any squeamish readers, it hasn't been showing.
Until issue #11.
In which, when a naked man runs out of a building, and in the following panel stands cringing and (wholly ineffectually) trying to cover himself, you can see his bare genitals flapping about. Or... you sort of can. They appear to have been digitally obscured, as if I'm reading the comic through the lens of The Jerry Springer Show or COPS.
Which frankly, DC, I didn't think I was. And it's not like naked penis has never been shown in a DC "mature readers" title before -- hell, they were letting Mike Grell get away with it during his run on Green Arrow decades ago. (Well, it was the 80s, if not quite 20 years before present.) This is the twenty-first century. This is a mature readers title. This is a medium where naked women are not infrequently shown even in titles not designated "for mature readers," and in which there's entirely too much "camel toe" in some titles that bear the stamp of Comics Code approval.
I suspect that it was Judd's original intention, and probably artist Tom Fowler's as well, to show that swinging appendage in all its profound lack of glory. Which would mean somebody at DC editorial decided even their mature readers couldn't handle it. This is hardly the first time in recent months I've been frustrated by bewildering decisions on a DC editor's part that have diminished my enjoyment of a comic I read, but it is the first one that comes down to a matter of censorship as much as of respect (or lack thereof) for the fans.
Caper set its tone early: gory, blunt, no holds barred. (And dramatic and funny as hell.) The coy obscuring of one small area in two panels of Caper #11 interrupted that tone, threw me right out of the story I had been so divertingly immersed in, and will echo jangling through the remainder of the series -- as well as hang over any subsequent "mature readers" titles DC puts out.
Shame on you, DC.
You will. It's a damned good book, which had me hooked before I was halfway through the first issue.
But I digress.
I haven't cut for spoilers on this post because I'm not spoiling anything by discussing what had me saying "what the fuck?!" out loud when I read the most recent issue (#11 of 12) last night. Hopefully the mature topic won't offend anyone either. Because it's the mature content, the labeling of the comic as containing such, and the subsequent handling of said content inside the book, that I'm feeling the need to rant about.
Caper has been, from the very beginning, a clearly not-for-kids book. Yes, the violence and references to sex have been decidedly inappropriate for littl'uns. If Judd has been holding back to spare any squeamish readers, it hasn't been showing.
Until issue #11.
In which, when a naked man runs out of a building, and in the following panel stands cringing and (wholly ineffectually) trying to cover himself, you can see his bare genitals flapping about. Or... you sort of can. They appear to have been digitally obscured, as if I'm reading the comic through the lens of The Jerry Springer Show or COPS.
Which frankly, DC, I didn't think I was. And it's not like naked penis has never been shown in a DC "mature readers" title before -- hell, they were letting Mike Grell get away with it during his run on Green Arrow decades ago. (Well, it was the 80s, if not quite 20 years before present.) This is the twenty-first century. This is a mature readers title. This is a medium where naked women are not infrequently shown even in titles not designated "for mature readers," and in which there's entirely too much "camel toe" in some titles that bear the stamp of Comics Code approval.
I suspect that it was Judd's original intention, and probably artist Tom Fowler's as well, to show that swinging appendage in all its profound lack of glory. Which would mean somebody at DC editorial decided even their mature readers couldn't handle it. This is hardly the first time in recent months I've been frustrated by bewildering decisions on a DC editor's part that have diminished my enjoyment of a comic I read, but it is the first one that comes down to a matter of censorship as much as of respect (or lack thereof) for the fans.
Caper set its tone early: gory, blunt, no holds barred. (And dramatic and funny as hell.) The coy obscuring of one small area in two panels of Caper #11 interrupted that tone, threw me right out of the story I had been so divertingly immersed in, and will echo jangling through the remainder of the series -- as well as hang over any subsequent "mature readers" titles DC puts out.
Shame on you, DC.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 06:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 02:03 pm (UTC)*pets a Jack*
no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 06:40 pm (UTC)::also growls::
no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 05:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 06:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 08:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 05:06 pm (UTC)Ooh, cool -- perhaps you can tell me whether the offices are wheelchair-accessible? Is there an elevator, or a lack of steps, basically. Though I wouldn't hold it against you if you hadn't noticed.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-13 08:29 am (UTC)The DC offices are located in your average Manhattan sky-scraper office building so there is definitely an elevator. No idea if it's totally wheelchair-accessible as old buildings don't necessarily have to be up to code and they've had those offices since forever. I suspect it is, however, as they are part of a large corporation and I would think Warner would make sure that sort of thing was taken care of, if only to avoid bad PR.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 06:35 pm (UTC)Comics editing/censoring is almost as strange as TV censoring/editing.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-10 07:16 pm (UTC)No, it's stranger.
There are essentially three "ratings levels" of comics (well, of US comics; it's rather different in Japan, but this isn't the place for an analysis of manga standards): Comics-Code-Approved, no label (Outsiders, for example), and Mature Readers.
Keeping kids from turning on the TV and watching programming that's rated PG-13 or R (or the equivalent television ratings, TV-14 etc.) is actually difficult. Even if parents "lock out" their own cable or satellite box, there are any number of other places their children might visit with no channel restrictions, not to mention the fact that many kids are more adept at foiling the channel-locks than their parents are at setting the things up.
There's actually no reason, other than their parent(s) allowing it, or a second-hand acquisition (bought at a tag sale, pilfered from an older sibling, rescued from the trash), why a kid should ever wind up with a Mature Readers comic book.
Why's that? Well, look at how comics are sold.
Venue one: mail subscription. (Yes, apparently some people still do that.) Requires a check, money order or credit card, which means either parental involvement or a precocious identity thief. Here we have the complementary checks of 'know what you are buying your child' and 'provide supervision adequate to prevent your child from making purchases in your name without your knowledge or consent.'
Venue two: newsstand. Also applies to supermarkets, bookstores and other retail outlets which are not comics shops but which sell comics. These sorts of businesses aren't offered adult titles by the publishers, so kids are not going to wind up flipping through Caper #11 at Big Bear while mom's an aisle over feeling up the tomatoes.
Venue three: comics shops. I've yet to see a comics shop where kids could go in and read comics they hadn't paid for without employees hovering and/or giving the hairy eyeball. Most shop owners and employees, moreover, would not let a minor purchase a Mature Readers title without their parent right there giving permission, and it's more likely than not that a kid under thirteen trying to buy a book without the Comics Code seal would get steered towards a different title at the very least. People in the business of selling comics are actually quite aware of the need to keep inappropriate content out of the hands of younger readers; there have been too many witch-hunts targeting comics over the years, and there's even a whole professional organisation that assists comics shop owners accused of selling inappropriate comics.
So, the censorship -- self-censorship, no less -- of a title already designated For Mature Readers... yeah. Definitely stranger than television censorship.