The CBLDF: Perception vs. reality

digresssmlOriginally published April 27, 2001, in Comics Buyer’s Guide #1432

So we’re talking about the CBLDF this week.

Now of course, it’s not as if I’ve never discussed it before. Indeed, the last time I did, it prompted J. Lyle of North Carolina to wonder in “Oh, So,” in part:

I’m very glad that someone brought up this particular point about CBLDF. It certainly seems to me that CBLDF mostly defends the right of retailers to carry pornographic comics. I know that is not always the case, but it is a strong impression that CBLDF gives to the public.

That’s too bad. I feel that this is part of the reason that our industry is in decline. Whenever comics are given any publicity in the popular press, it seems to focus on “adult-oriented” comics. Imagine the poor parents who, remembering the comics of their youth, take their child into the local comics shop to pick up a copy of Scooby Doo, only to find that same shop catering to an entirely different type of client: the pornography buyer. So retailers have the right under the law to sell pornographic comics, but is it a good idea?

And he goes on to ask:

Why does CBLDF seem to cater to the pornographic comics publisher? Does the CBLDF have any interest in the publishers of “family-friendly” comics? If so, why would it choose Cherry Poptart as “spokesmodel” for fund-raising efforts? And why is the CBLDF table at conventions littered with pornographic comics? (I realize that they carry a wide range of comics for fund-raising purposes, but pornography is at their tables in abundance.)

I find that I’m forced to acknowledge that Lyle has a point: It must seem to the average fan that the CBLDF does indeed “cater to the pornographic comics publisher.” As a result, it must give the average fan a rather unsavory feeling. Make him or her feel—well—yucky defending the cause, because it takes a hëll of a lot of character for people to really, truly, believe in the First Amendment. To support that which they themselves find unpalatable, based purely on that most ephemeral of human motivations: Principle.

The short answer to Lyle’s question is to say that the CBLDF caters to pørņ publishers in the same way that firemen generally tend to cater to people whose houses are aflame. If Lyle is at home, minding his own business, he’s not thinking much about the fire department. But just imagine if Lyle’s neighbor’s house was on fire. Suddenly the presence of the fire department would be highly desired, because he’d want that blaze extinguished before the wind carried the flames over onto his house.

That’s what the CBLDF is. We’re the firemen. We’re the ones who hop onto our shiny red firetrucks and dash to the scene of the conflagration in hopes of smothering the flames with water before it gets a lot worse.

Now Lyle may think his house his fireproof. As for the neighbors, well—they’re noisy and disgusting and do lewd things day and night. If their house goes up, secretly that’s just fine with him. And it could never spread to his house because his house is impervious to it.

This is the sort of thinking that underscores the great divide between adult material and kiddie material. Booksellers have the right to sell pornography… “but is it a good idea?” Lyle asks. In order to make his point, he describes a comic book store that matches up with none I’ve ever been into. Every comic store I know of, if some parents walk in wanting to buy Scooby Doo comics, old Scooby’s right there, in the kid rack or the dollar rack or alphabetically nearby old standbys like Spider-Man and Superman, if they’re racked alphabetically. And if the store does indeed carry adult material, you’re no more likely to find it next to kiddie fare than you are to find the works of Anais Nin next to those of J.K. Rowling in your local Borders, or The Red Shoes shelved next to The Red Shoe Diaries in Suncoast video.

Unfortunately, there’s a common mistake made by many critics of anti-censorship organizations such as the CBLDF. They think that censors come after material because it’s pornographic. Wrong. Censors come after material because they don’t like it. That’s the only reason. The only reason.

What are the most censored works of literature in American history? Huckleberry Finn. Catcher in the Rye. The classification that one would ascribe to the subject matter is secondary. It’s the handy excuse, it’s the buzzword, it’s the means by which censors get people riled up so that the censors can accomplish their aim, namely to decide on your behalf what you should and should not be allowed to read.

The major problem the CBLDF faces is that the format of comics—despite Maus, despite Jimmy Corrigan, despite Sandman, all of which get copious mainstream publicity and are not remotely “pornographic”—is still regarded as the province of the child. As Neil Gaiman has pointed out, words by themselves remain adult fare, and pictures by themselves are art. But the moment you combine words and pictures, the result is considered kiddy fodder. Which means that the bar for our little venue is lowered even further than it would be for novels. Anything, anything above the level of a Scooby-Doo, runs the risk of posing a danger to the only acceptable audience that the general public will ascribe to comics: Kids.

Is there a public perception that CBLDF equates with pørņ? Lyle says yes. He may be right. Does that indicate that there’s something wrong with the cause or the organization? No. It just indicates that the public wasn’t paying attention. Wow. There’s a shock.

In this column alone, I’ve discussed instances where such “pornographic” fare as Elfquest, Spawn, and Spider-Man were targeted by individuals with axes to grind, who tried to make life difficult for various retailers. I’ve also discussed Legend of the Overfiend, material that is considered art by scholars and probably most of Japan. But a wink and a nudge from a prosecutor and a reminder that “comics are just for kids” got the retailer found guilty of selling obscene material… not to minors, but adults.

Lyle only makes mention of Cherry Poptart. Curious. With an array of “spokesmodels” including Evan Dorkin’s Milk & Cheese, Dave Sims’ Cerebus the Aardvark, not to mention t-shirts with graphics by Terry Moore, Mike Kaluta, Chester Brown and Frank Miller, why is it that Larry Welz’s Cherry is singled out? I don’t know. I do know that we can’t be held responsible for the public’s misguided perceptions. All we can do is correct it, over and over and over again.

Perhaps the CBLDF might be more palatable if Scooby-Doo were our symbol. But hey, what about that Scooby Doo, huh? What an unwholesome bunch. The dog talks; probably the work of the devil. He gets high on some sort of snack, which is an obvious endorsement of drug use. And the relationships of the humans! Look at the way Fred dresses, and the fact that he hasn’t hit on Daphne. Gotta be gay. For that matter, Daphne and Velma are probably a couple, and we don’t even want to know what’s going on between Shaggy and Scooby. Drug-addled dogs and perverts. It’s enough to make you sick. Out, out dámņëd Spot, or Rover, or Scooby, or whatever the hëll your name is. You’re almost as bad as that Harry Potter, encouraging our children to worship Satan.

Bottom line: The CBLDF doesn’t defend pornography. The CBLDF defends what needs defending. Because someone, somewhere, is capable of being offended by absolutely anything. Now you can either contribute to the volunteer fire department… or you can wait around until the fire gets to your home, and wonder why no one is coming when the alarm bell sounds.

(Peter David, writer of stuff, can be written to at Second Age, Inc., PO Box 239, Bayport, NY 11705.)

 

Comments are closed.