Originally published May 3, 1996, in Comics Buyer’s Guide #1172
Some interesting developments on the First Amendment front which I thought I’d share with you folks.
First, here’s a fascinating letter from Rick N. of Mountain Home, Tennessee:
Here in Tennessee, we’ve won a somewhat shaky victory over censorship in the classroom. A bill was introduced in the state legislature requiring loss of tenure for any teacher who taught that evolution is scientific fact. Most of the congress critters didn’t want to vote for it and didn’t dare to vote against it, and for a while it looked like the bill would pass. But then a clever, if mealy-mouthed, solution was found. The bill was amended to also require loss of tenure for any teacher who taught that the theory that the earth goes around the sun is scientific fact. Zip–the amended bill goes back to committee, where there is hope that it will die without every coming to a vote.
But what impressed me most is how the bill’s supporters understand the constitution and the bill of rights. There were a lot of letters in the local paper, and here (quoted from memory, but close to the originals) are some of my favorites:
“Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to say anything you want.”
“If a teacher teaches something that is against my religion, then my freedom of religion is being violated.”
“Freedom of religion means just that: Freedom of religion. It means freedom to believe in religion, not freedom to disbelief in religion.”
“Scientists criticize Christians for believing in religion based on faith. But their belief in evolution is based on faith. Why is their faith better than ours?”
At the heart of the censorship problem, whether it is censorship of science or censorship of comic books, is that most people don’t know how to think.
Oh, I don’t know if it’s that people don’t know how to think, Rick. It’s that they don’t know what to think.
Remember: Free speech is a burden. The freedom to choose your religion, or even to desire freedom from religion, is likewise a difficulty. It takes a certain stripe of individual to want something like that and be willing to fight, suffer, even die for it. It takes… well, it takes the kind of people who founded this country.
And every time another blow is struck in favor of those who would control the freedom of others, it is another slap in the spiritual face of the nation. But here’s the scariest part: I will guarantee you that there are people who read the letter above and will be nodding in agreement with a number of the comments you quote from the letters pages of your local newspaper.
Interestingly, this country’s motto is, “In God We Trust.” It’s right there on the currency. Well, God gave us free will, the right to choose, the right to freedom, the ability to reason… all things that some of our fellow countrymen would try to deprive us of.
Stephen H. in Garnerville, New York, writes:
I don’t know where to begin. Maybe by telling you about me. I’m fifteen years old and nothing special. Ideas and feelings and beliefs that I have tend to overthrow my brain in a given situation, and I’ll stop at nothing to get others to believe what I do.
But I don’t know what else to do.
I’ve followed the Verotik/Planet Comics tragedy since it first began, since that man first wrote the letter complaining about Verotika #4. When I read your recent column saying how about 90% of your readers hadn’t sent in their money, I decided it was about time I sent in mine.
Now, I’m not rich. By any means. I have about $25 to my name. But I understand the situation and I wanted to do my part. So I sent in my $10. And I thought, with the proper knowledge, I could get some of my friends to do the same. They’re not into comic books, but I thought maybe the principle of the case would persuade them.
And now I know how wrong I was.
Since I first brought up the idea of them sparing $10 each, I’ve been ridiculed. Most don’t even read the material (which were, incidentally, your columns regarding the issue and an article by Verotik) and instead see the words “sexually explicit” or “Mighty Morphin’ Rump Rangers,” and are turned off. Even my very own mother won’t listen to the fact that supporting “pornography” isn’t what I’m trying to do, and is quite disappointed that I feel so strongly about such an irresponsible case. (Yes, irresponsible. In her eyes, Michael Kennedy and John Hunter should pay for selling adult comics to adults. How dare they own them in the first place?)
My sister believes. She’s the most open-minded of everyone in my family. But she’s a junior in college and just spent all the money she had on groceries. Here and there I found a friend who understood, and said they’d contribute $10 or so. But I highly doubt that any of them will actually get around to sending any.
And I feel so badly about the whole thing. No one understands about the precedent that will be formed if this trial goes in favor of Oklahoma State. In fact, even those who actually did read your column don’t understand, because they think you’re too biased, being that you work in the comics industry.
And the only thing I can do is count my change. I have quite a bit, and I’m only getting more. But collecting nickels and quarters will only get me so far. I promised myself that whatever the amount added up to (from the change I collect, that is) I’ll send to the CBLDF. It’ snot much, but maybe then I can feel like I’m doing my part.
Personally, just for the record, I don’t think that stories like “A Taste of Cherry” belong in comics. I think that things like that are better portrayed with words. Why is a picture, to enhance the grotesqueness, needed? But I also am open-minded enough to realize that this is not the issue here.
I know you and Todd haven’t gotten along in the past, but Spawn is (and has been since it first appeared) my favorite comic. The way it’s been criticized already makes me sick. I can’t (and refuse to) imagine what things will be like if Kennedy and Hunter lose.
God help our industry. I pray for its survival.
It sounds to me, Stephen, like you’re doing not only your share, but the share of a lot of other people, as well. If you’re a person of conscience, then I have only four words of advice for you: Get used to it.
I would disagree with only one thing you say: “I’m fifteen years old and nothing special.” Nonsense. You are dámņëd special, and rather than being annoyed with you, I hope that your mom comes to take pride in your initiative, your drive, and your social awareness. She’s raising a better son than even she knows.
Now… here’s something that I find interesting, derived from the March 1996 Diamond Previews. Frank Miller, “outspoken writer/artist of Sin City,” writes a piece under the “Parting Shot” column which is entitled “The Best of Times” and discusses the state of the industry in general. What’s interesting is one paragraph in particular, in which Frank writes:
We don’t have many enemies, and the worst of them, the censors, have bigger fish to fry. They’re off slugging V-chips into TV sets and trying to rein in those feisty libertarians on the Internet. While we do have regional casualties, victims of small-time would-be brainwashers and political opportunists, and the human cost of these assaults is horrible, we at least have begun to fight them through the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (mail that check!). There is, at the moment, no massive attack on the industry at large. Our mother industry, publishing, has never surrendered its First Amendment rights.
Now, the reason I find this interesting–aside from Frank’s usual ability to state matters so well–is that on page 73 of that selfsame catalogue, there’s solicitation information for DC Comics’ Vertigo Vérité: Girl, a 3-issue miniseries in the Rebax Format… which I guess means it’s printed on old sneakers or something.
The point is, on that same page, there’s a great big warning that reads, in all caps (and therefore is faithfully produced here in the same manner): “RETAILERS IN SENSITIVE MARKETS ARE ADVISED THAT VERTIGO BOOKS MAY CONTAIN STRONG LANGUAGE AND SEXUAL SITUATIONS, AND SHOULD BE ORDERED ACCORDINGLY.”
Now I find that a darned interesting advisory. First off, it’s utterly useless on a case-by-case basis, because the word “may” simply means that it may… or, then again, it may not. Specifics of such contents are not indicated anywhere in the individual solicits. The various Vertigo entries carry the label “Mature Readers,” but that term continues to mean nothing (mature as in thirteen and up? Eighteen and up? I know mature kids and immature adults), having no real legal application of which I’m aware. How strong is strong language?
Is “dámņ” or “hëll” strong? It is in some people’s book: I once had an outraged and extremely conservative man say to me, in complete earnestness, “I’m as mad as H-E-Double hockey sticks!” Does “Sexual situations” include showing two unmarried adults in bed together? On that language and sex basis, the advisory applies equally to Sandman and Aquaman, although the latter is not a Vertigo title. To say nothing of what one does if your local censorship organization really gets the most upset about violence–in which case there’s across the board difficulties.
And because the warning is so nebulous, it’s nearly impossible for any retailer to know what local advisories apply, because the specific contents of the book which might warrant legal action are unknown.
Nooo, this advisory doesn’t strike me as having much in the way of practical application on a day to day basis.
What it does do is allow DC to cover its butt. This way, if any trouble whatsoever comes down the pike, DC can turn around and say, “Hey, babe… we warned you. You’re on your own.”
And considering I hear through the rumor mill that Preacher has been targeted, it’ll be interesting to see just how aggressive DC is if push comes to shove.
(Peter David, writer of stuff, can be written to at Second Age, Inc., PO Box 239, Bayport, NY 11705.)
• 
Frank Miller is currently getting a taste of what it must be like to have one’s first amendment rights questioned. His criticism of the OWS gang has gotten some of my more, um, progressive friends to call for everything from boycotts to social ostracism from his peers. The irony boggles the mind.
In what way a boycott questions Miller’s (or anyone’s) freedom of expression? Social ostracism and commercial boycott is within the acceptable range of reactions even from the most staunch libertarian point of view. there is no state sponsored coertion, just a bunch of customers who decide not to support Miller’s work with their money.
.
Disagreeing, no matter how vehemently , is not an attack on someone’s right to voice an oppinion, just on that oppinion itself.
A person choosing not to financially support a person or business based on statements is not stepping on freedom of expression. It’s an acceptable response.
.
However, organizing, and attempting to create a mass boycot or ostracism is an attempt to intimidate or supress someone’s freedom of speech.
No, Jerry, it’s really not an acceptable response. It’s a punitive response. It’s an intolerant response. It’s saying, “I disagree with what you have to say, and not only will not defend your right to say it, but instead will endeavor to punish you economically and maybe, if I’m really lucky, drive you out of business.”
.
And before you start trying to defend the positions of boycotters, keep in mind that you’re talking to someone who’s been the subject of letter campaigns from right wingers who have actively targeted companies I work for, telling them that they are going to cease purchasing ALL books published by the company until they cease employing that left wing liberal áššhølë, Peter David.
.
Once you endorse punitive response to opinions you don’t like, you open the door for accepting targeted harassment and a chilling effect on people in the public eye, saying to them effectively, “I can say whatever I want, but if you say something I disagree with, you’re going to pay for it.”
.
PAD
With all due respect both to you and your experience with orchestrated campaigns, PAD, I dont know how someone’s voicing their intention not to buy the work of an author whose words they dislike or even offended them falls outside the boundaries of acceptable response and freedom of speech.
.
I can see your point when an organization pressure others not to carry or buy an author’s product, not only refusing to buy themselves but trying to make it as hard as possible for others to do it and extending their righteous outrage to others who dont even care about the issue. But for individuals to publicy say “you’ve lost a client/reader, buddy”… well, I think it’s their loss but they are within their right.
.
I dont know how someone’s voicing their intention not to buy the work of an author whose words they dislike or even offended them falls outside the boundaries of acceptable response and freedom of speech.
.
The reason so many people think it’s okay is because it’s so common. This perpetual inability of audiences to be able to separate the work from the individual. No one in the industry has been a bigger and more consistent douchebag in relation to me than has John Byrne. He public defames me, lies about me, constantly. I still buy his work. Why? Because I like the work. Because I separate the artist from the art. Becaus I REALLY support the right to free speech, rather than just paying lip service to it.
.
PAD
PAD, I don’t think you read Jerry’s post very carefully. He said (and I agree with him) that merely “…choosing not to financially support a person or business based on statements is not stepping on freedom of expression. It’s an acceptable response.”
.
This is in no way punitive. This is not a case of if you are not for us, you are against us.” This is more nuetral and “maybe if I ignore it, it’ll go away.”
.
He also said, “However, organizing, and attempting to create a mass boycot or ostracism is an attempt to intimidate or supress someone’s freedom of speech.” Which, in my mind, seems to be your point exactly not “I disagree with what you have to say, and not only will not defend your right to say it, but instead will endeavor to punish you economically and maybe, if I’m really lucky, drive you out of business.”
PAD, I don’t think you read Jerry’s post very carefully.
.
Yes, I did.
.
He said (and I agree with him) that merely “…choosing not to financially support a person or business based on statements is not stepping on freedom of expression. It’s an acceptable response.”
.
Yes, I read that part. And then I said I didn’t consider it acceptable.
.
This is in no way punitive.
.
It is in every way punitive. It is designed to strike back at someone with whom you disagree. To put a hurt on them. To judge them as an individual and, in finding them wanting, thus refusing them to support them creatively. It’s one thing if those opinions are reflected in the work to such a degree that the work is no longer enjoyable. But if they’re not, and you’re just refusing to continue supporting the work because the creator said something you don’t like on his blog, that’s punitive. And if you think that’s too strong a word, then how about “spiteful?” Is that more acceptable?
.
You can rationalize it all you want, but ultimately, you’re kidding yourself. It’s intolerance, pure and simple. You don’t like that that person has opinions that differ from yours. Furthermore, you would deny him the right to speak those opinions. And don’t say that that’s not it, because that’s EXACTLY it. If he has opinions with which you disagree, but keeps them to himself, then you’d be fine with that. You’d be blissful in your ignorance. But if he speaks them and you find out what they are, then you walk away. The same fan mentality that tosses my name on blacklists because various groups declared I said things I never said, refuses to grant the concept of, “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree” to prominent people. The rationalizations range from “I’m no longer comfortable reading his work” to “It’s the only way I have of letting him know how much I disagree” to “People who think like this must be marginalized and driven out of the public eye.” The degrees vary; the sentiment remains the same.
.
PAD
PAD:
.
Having to choose between many books to purchase, “this guy’s a cretin because he said this or that” is just one more of the reasons to buy this-and-not-that. If I enjoy someones work on a certain level I am not going to stop enjoying because I disagree with him. I read Tom Wolfe and I love his book on the Bauhaus even tho I think he is utterly wrong. I read BigHeadPress webcomics daily even tho I am very much anti-libertarian. I might decide to listen because I like the style or because I think its enlightening and helps me understand why some people defend what they defend. But its something I am free to do. Or to not do.
.
Since I engage in political discussion pretty often, I think its only fair to listen to what “the other side” have to say. But most people dont do that and dont have to. Their loss but in no way diminishing of freedom of speech. After all, freedom of speech doesnt equate with obligation to listen. Its better for everyone if we listen but there is a responsability in the speaker to make himself and his message tolerable enough to be worth the audience’s time (and money).
.
And for some people, beign called a “rapist” might be the line to stop caring about what Miller has to say.
Peter, i don’t buy anything by Miller any more (haven’t in years) because i find his work ugly, more and more overly-reliant on sex and violence to the exclusion of story to sell it, and generally repulsive.
.
We’re not talking Mike Diana here, but heading in that direction.
.
And, of course, the travesty called “The Spirit” was the clincher.
.
Look, let’s say it’s the early 1950s. You’re going to buy a new car. You have the choice of a Lincoln, a Cadillac, or a Packard. All three are as nearly the same price as makes no practical difference, all three are effectively equal in perceived quality and utility.
.
GM built tanks to fight the Nazis in WW2 a few years ago. Packard built engines that powered the P51 Mustang fighter and the PT boats that helped.
.
Ford was originally supposed to build the engines (under contract from Rolls-Royce) that Packard wound up building. Why didn’t they?
.
Because Henry Ford was an anti-Semitic jerk who thought (like Joe Kennedy) that Germany defeating Britain would be a good thing.
.
Oh and he required Ford dealers to sell and promote “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” or risk losing their franchise.
.
In the face of no other ove-riding factor, you’d buy a Ford product instead of a GM or a Packard product?
.
And if the Lincoln was also butt-ugly, noisy and rode badly (which is essentially what Miller’s recent work does), and the other two didn’t, you’d still buy it because you didn’t want to penalise someone for his honest beliefs?
Peter David: Furthermore, you would deny him the right to speak those opinions. And don’t say that that’s not it, because that’s EXACTLY it.
Luigi Novi: No, not necessarily. There’s a distinction between those boycotts that are clearly punitive, and personally refraining from purchasing or patronizing a given work.
.
Some boycotts are certainly punitive. And sometimes it’s just a matter of one’s aesthetic reaction to the person behind the work, which is perfectly reasonable. You may make a point of separating the work from its creator, and that’s fine. But it’s not obligatory, and is no way a moral issue, since why you patronize a given work is based entirely on aesthetics, and cannot be “right” or “wrong”. Trying to get other people to boycott a work may be punitive, but if I choose not to, and leave it at that, it’s not. It’s just aesthetic. You can’t apply standards of right and wrong to whose writings, artwork or music you choose to spend your money on.
.
“Peter, i don’t buy anything by Miller any more (haven’t in years) because i find his work ugly, more and more overly-reliant on sex and violence to the exclusion of story to sell it, and generally repulsive.”
.
I’m somewhat curious as to what that has to do with the point being made. Your entire post addressed aspects of why not to buy that are all pretty much based on personal tastes related to the work itself and not really the personal views expressed by the creator. You think Miller’s work is ugly, basically repulsive and too reliant on sex and violence to the exclusion of story. Okay, those are all valid reasons to not buy something and things I don’t disagree with in the least (as I touched on over at ComicMix.)
.
I think Twilight is ridiculously stupid and an insult to the genre. I don’t buy the books and I don’t watch the films. My not buying it just means I don’t like the material. Lots of other people do like it and I’m not trying to prevent them (either directly or indirectly) from buying the merchandise or seeing the films.
.
That doesn’t equate to a boycott on any level. That’s just the standard free market at work.
.
Where what’s being discussed here and what you are saying differs is where people actually go out of their way to hurt a creator for things completely unrelated to the work. There are people out there stating that they don’t like what Miller said and that the correct response is to punish him for it. They’re declaring that even people who still like his work shouldn’t buy it because he said something that they find politically repugnant and, in some cases, taking the further step of trying to get some dealers to stop stocking Miller’s works.
.
We’re talking about things like the occasionally frequent appearance of posts here that pop up in political or social observation threads where someone declares that they’re saddened by Peter’s expressions of his thoughts on the matter because it just means that they have to stop buying the works of his that they enjoy and (in some cases) get rid of the stuff they already own because seeing his thoughts on fill-in-the-blank make it impossible to enjoy his work anymore. Or, as we saw when he made his Holder thread, people trying to blacklist him and get others to do the same.
.
You’re defending apples while he’s discussing oranges.
PAD: No, Jerry, it’s really not an acceptable response. … It’s saying, “I disagree with what you have to say, and not only will not defend your right to say it, but instead will endeavor to punish you economically
.
That makes it sound like if I disagree with what you say I’m still obligated to send you my money as I wish. That I’m not allowed to stop buying someone’s works if I’ve decided I no longer want to because my reason for stopping isn’t “acceptable”.
.
I’m sure that isn’t really what you’re advocating. But every time I’ve read one of your “withholding your money in response to not liking a creator’s personal opinions is unacceptable” postings that’s how it’s struck me.
.
Now I’m not talking about organizing a boycott and trying to get the books pulled from the stands, the show cancelled off the air or (an example you’ve given before) marching down to your place of work and trying to get you fired. But as an individual person I should be able to say “I choose not to financially support a person or business based on statements they’ve made” (as Jerry did) without being told I’m wrong to make that choice. I’m not trying to stop them from earning a living. I’m just refusing to provide them with my dollars to do it.
PAD: I still buy [John Byrne’s] work. Why? Because I like the work. Because I separate the artist from the art. Becaus I REALLY support the right to free speech, rather than just paying lip service to it.
.
I support his right to free speech, too. And would never call for him not being allowed to say or print something. I REALLY support his right to free speech. But I don’t believe I’m obligated to pay for it. And if I choose not to, if I make the choice to no longer read something I might typically enjoy then I’m within my rights to do so. And claiming that isn’t an “acceptable” response is, in effect, telling me I don’t have the freedom to make that choice. That advocating for free speech, standing up for the free speech of others (via contributions to the CBLDF, etc.), opposing efforts at censorship aren’t enough. I actually have to buy something I don’t want to buy because making any other choice on how to spend my money isn’t “acceptable” to you.
PAD: It’s one thing if those opinions are reflected in the work to such a degree that the work is no longer enjoyable.
.
What if the opinions aren’t reflected in the work, but I find that I can’t completely disassociate them from the work and, consequently, that affects my enjoyment of the work? I’m now finding the work not nearly as enjoyable. Not for reasons of artistic merit, true, but for whatever reasons I find myself unable to enjoy the narrative without being aware of how much I disagree with the creator’s personal views.
.
Unacceptable? It doesn’t matter that I now longer find the work unenjoyable, I have to continue to buy it? I can’t stop unless I have an “acceptable” reason that passes muster with someone else? Now who’s trying to control someone else’s economic status?
(Apologies for the multiple replies. I’m playing a bit of catchup on the thread. Last one.)
PAD: You don’t like that that person has opinions that differ from yours. Furthermore, you would deny him the right to speak those opinions.
No. I’m most emphatically not. I’m by no means denying him the right to speak. Quite the contrary. I’m willing to defend (and have defended) the rights of those I’ve vehemently disagreed with to speak.
.
But I don’t equate choosing not buy the work I find bothersome with oppressing them. You seem to be insisting that support for free speech HAS to take a particular form, that full throated support is unacceptable, that only full economic support is indicative of real support for free speech.
Jerry Chandler: You missed what i was talking about and i guess it’s my fault. Maybe i should have included separator between my comment on Miller’s current work and the hypothetical that followed.
.
Something along the lines of “But, even if it had been a creator whose work i truly enjoy and seek out – say PAD himself – if he said something equally fuggheaded and just plain offensive as Miller did, i might reconsider whether to buy his books if there are oters i enjoy as much.
Peter, i don’t buy anything by Miller any more (haven’t in years) because i find his work ugly, more and more overly-reliant on sex and violence to the exclusion of story to sell it, and generally repulsive.
.
And that I take no issue with. If his work fails to entertain you, there’s no reason to keep supporting it.
.
PAD
That makes it sound like if I disagree with what you say I’m still obligated to send you my money as I wish. That I’m not allowed to stop buying someone’s works if I’ve decided I no longer want to because my reason for stopping isn’t “acceptable”.
.
Sigh.
.
Why do these things always turn into whether things are “allowed” or not. You’re an adult. Do whatever the hëll you want.
.
When I say it isn’t “acceptable,” I’m speaking of my own opinion, which should be obvious. I’m just saying I don’t accept the notion of, “I didn’t like what he just said, so I’ve decided to stop buying his work” as being a valid reason to cease supporting a creator. There might be people out there whose work you eagerly support who are tremendous áššhølëš; you just don’t know it. So essentially you reward people who are silent douchebags and punish people who are, well, outspoken douchebags.
.
On this very board, plenty of people here had little patience with the flotilla of áššhølëš who showed up here during an assortment of blowouts, from Scans_Daily to my supposedly racist remarks. I don’t recall any of the regulars saying, “Yes, right, by all means, stop buying PAD’s work, good call.” Why? Because you all agreed with the things I said. Which is fine as far as it goes and, of course, appreciated by yours truly
.
But then you have to ask yourself, what’s your dedication to the principle? Do you truly believe in supporting free speech, or do you only believe in supporting that speech, and those speakers, with whom you agree? If it’s the former, then everything I’m saying should be self-evident. If it’s the latter, then ultimately you’re not really all that different from the people who showed up here to announce that they were going to stop buying my work because I said something about the attorney general that they disliked. For that matter, if I get a call from Marvel telling me that Frank Miller is going to be doing an Elektra project, and he wants me to write it with him, I’d like my first thought to be, “That sounds exciting. Frank can be a great talent when he’s on his game; I bet we could produce something great. I’m in.” I shouldn’t have to worry that I’m going to be harangued by fans declaring that, because I’m willing to work with Frank, I obviously support all his opinions and therefore my name is going on their personal blacklist.
.
And guys, please, can we spare the infinite and endless array of “Okay, but what about” examples that always sprout up, like weeds. The mentality of, “How far and to what degree can we push this whole acceptance thing?” Because that quickly degenerates into individuals exercising their imagination and coming up with the most tortured and labored examples, usually involving anti-semitism because it’s assumed that, hey, PAD’s Jewish, so obviously he’ll have no tolerance for that. An assumption that I find both insulting (as if being Jewish is the totality of my being) and wrongheaded, if for no other reason than that nothing makes me feel superior to anti-Semites than showing that I’m tolerant where they aren’t.
.
PAD
PAD: When I say it isn’t “acceptable,” I’m speaking of my own opinion, which should be obvious.
.
Sigh.
Of course it’s obvious. I never said it wasn’t your opinion or that you weren’t entitled to it. There’s no argument being made there so no “Hey, guys, I’m expressing my opinion” defense needed. I just have a different opinion which I’ve tried to explain.
.
There might be people out there whose work you eagerly support who are tremendous áššhølëš; you just don’t know it. So essentially you reward people who are silent douchebags and punish people who are, well, outspoken douchebags.
.
The alternative being that I have to continue to send my money to support people I find to be douchebags?
.
Writer X is a brilliant writer and I find his works truly enjoyable. But he’s made no secret of the fact that he personally believes something I find repellant and he spends every cent he has promoting and advocating for that. There is no doubt that the money I spend on is books will go directly to something I would spend hard-earned money actively opposing.
.
I truly enjoy his works, which don’t exhibit his personal views, but don’t like the idea of my money going to where I know it’s going to go. Is it acceptable for me to stop buying his books, or does doing so somehow show I don’t really support his free speech rights?
.
If it’s the latter, then ultimately you’re not really all that different from the people who showed up here to announce that they were going to stop buying my work because I said something about the attorney general that they disliked.
.
I think this is the key point where we disagree. I see a distinction between people (group A) announcing they’re no longer going to buy your works and people (group B) actively trying to prevent others from being able to do so and it seems to me that you equate the two. But group A isn’t saying you don’t have a right to say and publish whatever you want. They’re not trying to get you fired or blocked from publishing or interfere with your making a living at all. only that they shouldn’t be obligated to pay for you doing so. Seems to me the alternative is that, to demonstrate they are truly good soldiers for free speech, they have to continue to buy things they no longer want to buy. (Because stopping buying your books is not “acceptable”.) And isn’t that then an oppression of sorts of their rights?
.
I support anyone’s right to have whatever opinion they want and to promote it in any lawful manner they choose. They absolutely have a right to stand on the street corner and preach whatever they wish to the masses. If someone tries to stop them I’ll oppose it vehemently and work arduously to get them back on their soapbox. But I shouldn’t be told that it’s unacceptable if I don’t also pay for their soapbox, microphone and cab fare to the street corner.
I have never made any secret, Bill, of the disgust I feel for liberals who are punitive censors. Of course, so are right wingers. What differs is the reasoning. Left wingers support censorship on someone else’s behalf. Right wingers support censorship because it upsets them personally. They’re all censors; it’s just that the right wingers are most honest about it.
.
PAD
Most righteous censors, right or left leaning, believe to act on behalf of “society”, “morality”, “women” or some other entelechy you can’t really put your finger on. The paternalism you mention is an element that tho more present in left leaning censorship, is not absent in the right (try catholic censorship).
I don’t know, most of the liberal censors I’ve known may have claimed it was for some helpless “other” but it seemed to me to just be a reaction to something they themselves didn’t like. But as generalizations go, it’s better than most.
.
I would tend to fear left wing speech suppression more than that from the right due to A-personal bias on my part and B- they have more sway with the ones who can make it happen. It is extremely unlikely that some right wing ding fundamentalist Christian group is going to get you fired at marvel. If Marvel did listen to them they would be met with a firestorm of criticism. And I suspect that more than a few big players on the right would be right there adding their voices to the firestorm. But if those left wing nitwits who think that you and Harlan Ellison and anyone else unfortunate enough to get on their radar are secretly racist sexist whateverelseists….if those fools manage to make enough noise and get enough attention and someone listens to them…Marvel might listen. Being targeted by Jerry Falwell types is considered a badge of honor but the racist accusation still carries a punch, if a diminished one from overuse.
.
My own brushes with this were mostly at college. No rightwinger could make a dent but when radical leftists pitched a bìŧçh about something the standard response was to knuckle under or, at best, issue groveling pleas for mercy at having to accommodate those with the “wrong” ideas. (Keep in mind, when i was at college being “politically correct” was something people BRAGGED about.)
I would tend to fear left wing speech suppression more than that from the right due to A-personal bias on my part and B- they have more sway with the ones who can make it happen.
.
See, whereas I fear left wing speech suppression simply because I expect the left wing to be a bastion of sanity and it’s depressing when it fails to live up to that.
.
PAD
As far as I know, Falwell would have a hard time getting someone fired from Marvel (or most other media-entertainment company) but can get Walmart (and other chains) to stop carrying your product without much of a sweat.
.
But I agree with the notion that left leaning censorship is perverse in that often its not perceived as censorship at all by too many people. Having written some pieces about sexual identity and freedom, I have often tackled with well meant feminists oblivious to their own censorship.
Peter – you’ve often made the point that non-governmental actions, no matter how repressive, cannot properly be called “censorship”.
.
If i choose to use my limited budget to buy the work of someone i happen to not be pìššëd øff at for something outside the work itself, rather than the raving jerk who’s gone out of his way to offend me, that is my right, my privelige, and as far from “censorship” as it’s ever gonna get.
…I expect the left wing to be a bastion of sanity and it’s depressing when it fails to live up to that.
.
Boy, setting yourself up for a lifetime of disappointment much?
.
You know I’m fairly conservative but my default position will always be that those with power will quite probably abuse it. The ability to limit people’s ability to disagree with you is too tempting and effective a cudgel for most partisans to resist.
.
And threads like this are why, despite all of our disagreements, I will always have a deep and abiding respect for you. It’s not enough to talk the talk, sometimes you gotta walk the walk and nobody can honestly claim you have done otherwise.
PAD: Left wingers support censorship on someone else’s behalf. Right wingers support censorship because it upsets them personally.
.
It’s an old saw that left-wingers are offended on behalf of someone else. From what I’ve seen it applies equally to right-wingers. “Think of the children” is far, far more often their stated concern than “This offends me“.
Peter – you’ve often made the point that non-governmental actions, no matter how repressive, cannot properly be called “censorship”.
.
Uhm…okay. And…?
.
If i choose to use my limited budget to buy the work of someone i happen to not be pìššëd øff at for something outside the work itself, rather than the raving jerk who’s gone out of his way to offend me, that is my right, my privelige, and as far from “censorship” as it’s ever gonna get.
.
It’s also as far from anything I’ve been talking about as anything’s ever gonna get, but okay.
.
You’re rattling on about rights again, as if I ever challenged that. So that’s irrelevant.
.
And you’re claiming that I was calling personal choices of individuals “censorship,” which I wasn’t. I only used the word “censorship” in one place, talking about left wing and right wing censors, and in those instances–although I didn’t spell it out–I was referring to left and right-wing politicians. You know: the government. Or the political talking heads who endeavor to influence laws, or manipulate the justice system.
.
I mean, come on: am I not saying enough about the topic that can be addressed, that people have to bring up stuff I didn’t say and go after that?
.
PAD
Boy, setting yourself up for a lifetime of disappointment much?
.
Well, yeah. Where have YOU been all this time? That’s why it always breaks me up when people declare that I uniformly always defend liberals, when there are any number of times when liberals and Democrats piss me the hëll off.
.
You know I’m fairly conservative but my default position will always be that those with power will quite probably abuse it.
.
Hardly an original thought there. Lord Acton beat you to it by a century or two. “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” What I find interesting is that people oftentimes misquote Acton by leaving out the “tends to,” but of even more interest is the third part of the quote that no one ever cites: “Great men are almost always bad men.”
.
The ability to limit people’s ability to disagree with you is too tempting and effective a cudgel for most partisans to resist.
.
On that we agree.
.
And threads like this are why, despite all of our disagreements, I will always have a deep and abiding respect for you. It’s not enough to talk the talk, sometimes you gotta walk the walk and nobody can honestly claim you have done otherwise.
.
Thanks. Unfortunately, walking that walks has left more people than I can count on the path behind me. Sometimes I wonder if, from a career point of view, I’d be better off or worse off if I kept my mouth shut.
.
PAD
Sometimes I wonder if, from a career point of view, I’d be better off or worse off if I kept my mouth shut.
.
It probably cuts both ways. Yes, you will have to put up with the fury of those you “let down” (by daring to have opinions contrary to their own). On the other hand, being so open and fan friendly creates an element of loyalty and desire for support that an otherwise competent but faceless writer doesn’t have. So if Marvel announces Hey, we’re putting out a brand new book, created and written by Peter david, it means something. There are only a very small group of writers who draw readers just by virtue of their name and all the ones off the top of my head are people who have put themselves out there–interviews, fan interaction, etc.
.
Obviously you risk a huge backlash so you have to watch what you say, which must suck. Miller has the advantage of being able to sell art, so there are limits to what the boycotters can do to him. I(t’s risier for writers.
Let me sum up my position:
.
Censorship bad.
.
Personal choice good.
.
Budget limited.
.
Good stuff available.
.
Frank Miller jerk who writes and draws repugnant junk.
.
Miller junk can stay on shelf and feel righteous while i buy something good from someone who doesn’t annoy or offend me.
Also:
Fire bad.
Tree pretty.
This has been Comic Book Discussions, with Frankenstein, Tarzan and Tonto.
Actually, “fire bad, tree pretty” isn’t Tarzan, Tonto or Frankenstein. It’s a reference to the third season closer of “Buffy the vampire Slayer.”
.
PAD
Shouldn’t that be “Miller junk can stay on shelf and feel righteous while Mike buy something good from someone who not annoy or offend Mike.” ? 🙂
Geeze. Pedants over-analysing dumb jokes.
It it was tongue-in-cheek analysis done for the sake of humor, sure, why not? Hardly pedantic if I’m just trying to make a joke.
I’ve changed my mind and came to agree with PAD. Stopping buying an artist’s work for extra-work reasons is silly. I don’t know, I may have become more cynical as I got older, but I felt the only person I was really punishing was myself.
.
I got into a polemic in another site, and wished to know PAD’s opinion. People were saying we should boycott Polanski’s movies , on account of what he did to that girl in the 1970s. That is a much better reason to get angry at someone than a disagreement on political ideas, but still I watch his movies.
.
THE PIANIST was a beautiful movie, and had nothing to do with sex with minors. I still think Polanski should pay for what he did, but I don’t want to stop myself from watching classics like CHINATOWN and ROSEMARY’S BABY.
.
So, do you think people are right to boycott the work of sex offenders?
.
Hmmm… Roman Polanski is an interesting case. He’s an example of where I disagree with the concept of separating the artist from the art.
.
He was a criminal who was avoiding arrest in the US while making money off of films being marketed, screened and sold in the US. It’s one thing to have been arrested and done time or to be doing time. You’ve done the crime, but you’ve done the time as well. It’s another thing entirely to me to be running from the law in the US and avoiding punishment for your crime and still earning money in the US.
I would not work with Polanski…not that I’m likely to be asked.
.
But I can certainly enjoy his work. He is a monster but so were many great artists. Awful, terrible human beings. It makes no difference to me though, if a piece of music moves me, whether it came from a sinner or a saint.
.
So, do you think people are right to boycott the work of sex offenders?
.
I think people have a right to boycott whatever they want. I think it’s wrong to force someone to buy a book or attend a movie that they don’t want to buy/see.
.
I’ll agree it’s going to far when you say “I want to make their works unavailable to others who do want to buy/see them.” But an individual, a group, a whatever definitely has a right to boycott whatever they wish, to freely say why they are doing so, to try to persuade others to join their view.
.
Anything else would be denying the individual/group/whatever their free speech.
Yeah, boy, the Polanski situation is a tough call.
.
I mean, I don’t think anyone should be made to feel guilty because they see and enjoy films by Polanski.
.
But I was most definitely NOT on the side of those who argued that Polanski should be given some sort of pass on facing justice because of his body of work and his status as an artist. I mean, there were some serious Hollywood heavy hitters signing that petition asserting that Polanski shouldn’t have to face the music for what he did. I mean, I went back and forth about it in my head for a little while. I thought, “Well, it was so long ago, and the victim herself is saying she didn’t want it dredged up and she was past it, so maybe we should honor that.”
.
And then I thought, “What if it was MY daughter?” and that slammed the door on that.
.
But of course, if one is going to be true to the spirit of personal boycotts, then anyone who feels Polanski films should be boycotted would also have to boycott the films of every Hollywood individual who felt that Polanski shouldn’t be prosecuted. After all, simply disagreeing wouldn’t cut it. You’d have to stop supporting them as well.
.
That’s the slippery slope you tread.
.
As for what I’d do if I had the chance to work with Polanski, it’d probably be moot. I’d be introduced to him, and he’d say, “So tell me about yourself,” and I’d say, “Well, for starters, I have four daughters, and if anyone sexually assaulted them the way you did with that girl, I’d want to beat the son of a bìŧçh to death with a baseball bat.” I doubt the interview would go much beyond that.
.
PAD
.
Bill Mulligan: “Awful, terrible human beings. It makes no difference to me though, if a piece of music moves me, whether it came from a sinner or a saint.”
.
Again, it’s not quite the same. I have some music, films and literature that I enjoy greatly that were created by some truly awful, terrible human beings. Different thing all together though. People long dead or people who did bad things and then paid for it are still not people who are fleeing justice and then reaping financial rewards in the country that is the home of the justice that they’re fleeing. Polanski sexually assaulted an underage girl and then ran to where he felt he wouldn’t be extradited back to the US from and, while doing that, still made movies for the US market and earned money off of those films, VHS tapes and DVDs that were sold in the US market.
.
Wasn’t a big fan of seeing a fugitive from US justice earn millions out of the US and didn’t want to add to his revenue stream.
.
PAD: “But of course, if one is going to be true to the spirit of personal boycotts, then anyone who feels Polanski films should be boycotted would also have to boycott the films of every Hollywood individual who felt that Polanski shouldn’t be prosecuted. After all, simply disagreeing wouldn’t cut it. You’d have to stop supporting them as well.
.
That’s the slippery slope you tread.”
.
No, not really. Roman Polanski did the crime. He’s the one I won’t support. The others are espousing an idea that I disagree with, but they did not do the crime. I won’t punish the others for expressing an idea or position that I disagree with.
.
Hollywood and the music industry have both been jammed full of people who see a criminal in jail and decide that the criminal is innocent despite overwhelming evidence and that the criminal in question is now the celebrity cause of the moment. They’re idiots who say idiotic things, but that’s really all they are.
.
Saying or doing idiotic things is not a crime. Sexual assault is a crime. There’s your difference for holding everyone else to a different standard than one would hold Polanski to.
No, not really. Roman Polanski did the crime. He’s the one I won’t support. The others are espousing an idea that I disagree with, but they did not do the crime. I won’t punish the others for expressing an idea or position that I disagree with.
.
Well, that’s you, Jerry. To you, it simple. (And I would agree that there’s a difference between condemnation of someone based upon criminal acts as opposed to opinions.)
.
On the other hand, there are indeed people who are big into condemning based merely upon association. Case in point: I wrote a video game called “Shadow Complex.” It tied into a novel written by Orson Scott Card. Card is an outspoken homophobe. None of that attitude was present in the source material, and certainly not in the game. But there were plenty of people who were calling for boycotts of the source material; boycotts of the game; and boycotts of all my work because I was associated with a work of his. The only thing that stopped the latter sentiment from getting any real traction was that it’s hard to justify boycotting someone on the basis of homophobia when he’s got a GLAAD award for his work on “Supergirl” (and later X-Factor.”)
.
Perhaps it’s self-centered that my sentiments are based on things that have happened to me and the incessant judgment by people of my work based upon other factors, some of which aren’t even in my control. But we are all the sum of our experiences, I suppose.
.
PAD
.
“Well, that’s you, Jerry. To you, it simple.”
.
And that’s the only person it has to be simple for; me. Unlike some of the people going on about Miller, OSC or even at times you, I’m not asking anyone else to stop buying Roman Polanski’s films. I have a lot of friends who like Polanski’s stuff. They know how I feel on the matter, but they also know the only restriction I want to have on their buying habits is that they don’t buy any for me. Other than that, they buy them when they can as DVDs go on sale or as new Blu-Ray versions come out. Hëll, as I said above, I’ll even purchase them myself, but I do it in a way that sends no money into the studio system or to Polanski.
.
I’m not pushing to get everyone to boycott him or get his works pulled from the shelves. I’m just not buying his work in ways that will benefit him.
PAD: Perhaps it’s self-centered that my sentiments are based on things that have happened to me and the incessant judgment by people of my work based upon other factors, some of which aren’t even in my control. But we are all the sum of our experiences, I suppose.
.
There was a scene in West Wing where the Pres, Leo and Lord Marbury were discussing how to respond to some international situation. Leo was rather hawkish and Marbury said, “That’s a perfectly understandable view from someone who served their country in two tours in Vietnam.” (or something to that effect). Marbury advocated a different course, but fully understood Leo’s view and respected why, from what Leo’d experienced, Leo’s view made perfect sense.
.
I’ve never been the target of any attempt to ban my works, but I can certainly understand and respect the view of someone who has, even if I don’t always agree with it.
Peter David: When I say it isn’t “acceptable,” I’m speaking of my own opinion, which should be obvious. I’m just saying I don’t accept the notion of, “I didn’t like what he just said, so I’ve decided to stop buying his work” as being a valid reason to cease supporting a creator.
Luigi Novi: It’s a perfectly valid reason. I can I have whatever reasons I want for choosing what to do with my time, energy and money. Personal decisions based on aesthetics or whims cannot be “wrong” or “invalid”. If I want to cease patronizing someone’s work because I think they’re secretly transmitting lesbian cake recipes to Marvin Hamlisch through the hole at the tip of my ding-dong, that’s just as “valid” a reason as choosing to do so because I feel their last work lacked a strong plot, characterization or sense of theme. There is no “wrong” or “invalid” where what I do with my money is concerned, since it’s all whim and aesthetics.
.
Moreover, this has nothing to do with not being able to separate the artist from the art, since how one does so might manifest itself differently from how you do so. Me, I can freely concede that Hitler was a talented painter. The fact that he was an evil, genocidal madman doesn’t factor into that, because they’re two separate things. But that doesn’t mean that I would hang his artwork on my wall. Store it in my reference folders for informational purposes, yes, but not hang it for aesthetic appreciation. Thus, I can make concessions to his talent and skill, while still not patronizing his work. Nothing “punitive” or “censorial” about it.
The fact that he was an evil, genocidal madman doesn’t factor into that, because they’re two separate things. But that doesn’t mean that I would hang his artwork on my wall.
.
Really, Luigi? Hitler references? After what I said above how annoying it is when people automatically, in these discussions, pick examples involving anti-Semitism or anti-Semites because, hey, I’m Jewish, so obviously that’s the only way I’ll get the point (Godwin’s Law aside).
.
You wouldn’t hang a painting by Hitler in your house? I would. In a heartbeat, if it weren’t ugly (and his landscapes are fairly adequate). If nothing else, it would be a fascinating conversation piece. “Interesting piece on your wall. Who did it? Is it someone I’d know?” “Yeah, you’ve heard of him. Twenty bucks if you can guess.” Plus it would be intriguing to see if there’s any hint of the madman beneath the swirls of paint.
.
PAD
Yeah, I’d hang one too. Or some of Stalin’s pørņø comic sketches, for that matter. Then again, I’d love to hang up some of those amazing propaganda posters from WW2 but a lot of the best ones are from Germany and I can see the local paper having a field day with “teacher displays Nazi Imagery in home” articles. So it’s the Cannibal Holocaust poster instead, which somehow passes muster.
Serendipity. A friend and I were talking last week about how we couldnt even look at the promo poster for Cannibal Holocauste when we were teens. I actually had a hard time looking at it directly and had to glance from the corner of my eyes. It still gives me the shivers, even tho I am pretty sure I’ve seen pretty hardcore stuff.
If it’s the poster I’m thinking of (and I was of course joking, no way Shonna is letting me hang up that one) I know what you mean…it was one of the reasons the movie makers were almost brought up on charges of having shown or orchestrated real killings.
We are all talking about art and an author’s right to speak without his work beign held liable for whatever the author’s choose to say. Lets give a different example;
.
A few years ago I decided to stop buying my bread in the place I had been buying it for a decade because I realized the baker/shop owner was too much of a extreme right winger. After years of polite exchange I happened to hear him tirade in colourful terms about the way he would heal gay people, solve unemployment and delinquency, what he would do to teens who abort, etc. So I said to myself “screw this guy” and walked 5 more minutes every day for my bread from then on. Have in mind I already knew this guy was a reactionary, he had (like some people here) a portrait of Franco in his shop, so in a way it’s not his ideas I punished, but his manners, his lack of civility.
.
So (and have in mind I am not boycotting Miller… the next time he works with, say, Mazzuchelli, I am all over it) is it ok to punish an author for his manners?
It seems like you would be punishing yourself, unless you are one of those people who sees writers and other artists as some kind of secret friends. I like harlan Ellison as boh a human and a writer but if he said something so beyond the pale that i no longer liked him as a person…he’s STILL be every bit the great writer he was the moment before. So denying myself the pleasure of reading an ellison story seems foolish.
.
I get that some people cannot separate the artists from the art. I would suggest they avoid at all times ever reading interviews or news stories about their favorite artists or their entertainment options may be ever dwindling.
Have in mind I already knew this guy was a reactionary, he had (like some people here) a portrait of Franco in his shop, so in a way it’s not his ideas I punished, but his manners, his lack of civility.
.
No, you didn’t. All you did was run away. He doesn’t know he lost a customer. He doesn’t know squat. Boycotts are the easy way out because they require no effort.
.
You said “screw this guy” to yourself. Whoa. Tough guy. It’s nice to know that you were in total agreement with yourself. Aren’t you the least bit interested to know what he would have said if you’d challenged his beliefs? Or if you said something like, “So if I’m gay, you don’t want me in your store?”
.
My barber has some very different viewpoints than I do. But he does a good haircut. So I go to him and we oftentimes have spirited discussions. Because we live in a world of differing opinions, and isolating, ignoring, banning or running away from opposing viewpoints is, if nothing else, a dull way to live.
.
PAD
As I said, I had spent years of polite exchange with this guy, and that included politics, football (that can be even more heated) and neighbourhood gossip. I was perfectly ok with him not having the same oppinion as I do, the same I am here (where I think most people disagree with me). But when his rethoric reached a point where it was not meant to exchange oppinion but to offend and spew petty hate, when it stopped beign civil, I refused to take it.
.
Should I have argued with him? I did, while it was civil. And since my problem was with his manners, his civility, I am not going to point out that because my own manners prevent me from lecturing grown men, older than myself.
.
I’ve never run from opposing viewpoints, PAD. Much to the contrary I am drawn to them. Since I am not gay I don’t use that hypotetical but beign half gipsy I have had plenty of chances to confront racists on that. It doesnt make me tougher, most of the times it doesnt do any good but on the few times it does, there was a civility in the discourse beforehand. No screaming moron ever fell on his knees having an epifany.
.
So while I am against isolating different oppinions, I am very much for isolating ill mannered cretins. Miller is not cretin enough for me to isolate (Born Again and Year One says he probably never will) but I can see how others might choose to.
But when his rethoric reached a point where it was not meant to exchange oppinion but to offend and spew petty hate, when it stopped beign civil, I refused to take it.
.
Except to me, refusing to take it means striking back at it. Running away isn’t striking back; that’s just sparing your feelings. He will never know how hurtful and dûmbášš his opinions are, not to mention potentially destructive to his business, until someone lets him know. Just don’t delude yourself into thinking that you were that someone.
.
PAD
I prefer to choose my battles. I dont believe myself to be striking and charismatic enough to crumble the convictions of a bigot unless that bigot is open to exchange ideas. And because of my experience, I put civility as the sign of respect neccesary to be open.
.
But just to be clear, PAD… if your oppinion is that I should have told him how wrong I tough he was before removing my money from his bussines… is’nt that what the outspoken boycotters of Miller are doing? Or your point is that I should have kept buying to him while having screaming contests every day?
.
And regarding your relationship with the barber, to put it on level with my ex-baker… if you heard him defend the rape of lesbians to cure them of their desire to marry other women, would you stand up an leave or engage with him in a meaningful discussion about human rights and sexual identity?
PAD: He will never know how hurtful and dûmbášš his opinions are, not to mention potentially destructive to his business, until someone lets him know.
.
I don’t see it as El Hombre’s responsibility to inform him of either. I don’t see why El would have to do something he’d find (presumably) unpleasant and pointless. (Attempting to convince a dûmbášš that his opinions are hurtful and counter-productive? Good luck with that.).
.
Note: This is different than “good men doing nothing”. Were someone else being harmed by his views one should step in, but where the harm is self-inflicted (his loss of business) let him face the consequences of his own choices.
Darn it, and now I feel obliged to chime in with my two cents.
.
Mr. David, I agree with you completely (mostly – I don’t know every single facet of your belief system… 🙂 The art is not (usually) the artist. You made note of John Byrne; I love his work (and it seems you do also.) That doesn’t mean I like his opinions or always agree with them (sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t.) But that isn’t the important part. Unless the artist specifically inserts his beliefs directly and obviously into his art, there has to be a split.
.
The example I frequently use is Michael Jackson. Some of his personal tastes were eccentric, some of them were unsavory, some of them were offensive. That doesn’t change his music one tiny bit, anymore than his tragic death changes it. He made some great work, and whatever he was about didn’t have anything to do with that.
.
I’m sure, as you observed, that there are a hëll of a lot of creators who are not just unpleasant but downright monsters – but they don’t wave that flag in public, and people don’t care about it enough to dig into their history. Of course, if something about that person is presented on the Internet, every critic in town will grab it (and exaggerate it and aggravate it and spread it around like manure at planting time…)
.
Or consider the other side. Let’s take any comic book writer – say, Brian Writer. He’s a great guy, loves baseball, America, apple pie, and Mom. You’d love spending an evening with him over dinner and drinks. Kind, considerate, pleasant. Nothing he says is controversial.
.
But his writing sucks. Do you stand up and say, “Buy Brian Writer’s work! He’s a great fellow! He deserves your support! Go purchase all of his books!” Yes, but… what happens when we see that the emperor has no clothes? I think that is the same thing that is being discussed here, save that it is the other side of the coin.
.
PAD, thanks for sharing your thoughts, and for allowing us to share ours. Keep up the great work – written AND spoken!
That’s actually a great point that I’d never considered. If people feel obligated to stop supporting creators whose opinions they disagree with, even though they enjoy their work…are they then obliged to support creators whose work they’d actively dislike because that person is like-minded, or has a compelling history that would make the customer feel guilty for not supporting him?
.
Obviously not. Amazing how easy it is to separate the creator from the work when it’s convenient.
.
PAD
Actually, I have purchased the token work of a few friends on the basis that I find them to be great guys while their work, not beign “bad” it’s just “meh”. Of course, I wont ever tell them that unless they ask for my specific oppinion, and even then I will probably be gentler in my criticism that I’d be with a “meh” work from an anonymous author.
I have bought books that I would not normally pick up because I knew the creator personally. (Or even just Internet-ally.) This is usually a matter of price, but I have continued purchasing titles that I am thinking of dropping, because of a relationship with the creator, rationalizing it has “giving them the benefit of the doubt”.
.
As you say, we are the sum of our experiences. And that means our enjoyment of a work of art is also the sum of our knowledge. If our knowledge of the writer enhances the enjoyment of the work, so be it. And if we can’t stop thinking about the creator – politics, sexuality, bad taste in ties, whatever – long enough to engage the work, then the work isn’t good enough to make us enjoy it.
.
Hopefully that isn’t the only criteria by which we judge a work of art. Just as hopefully we don’t choose the leader of the free world on *just* the color of his tie. But if it effects our enjoyment of the work, for good or ill, then it effects our enjoyment of the work. And to insist that we ignore that would be to say we should not be our experiences, but an emotionless void. And that’s not Art.
I suppose that’s laudable; but I also find it a little strange. I don’t expect anyone to keep reading my work if they find the work deficient, no matter how strongly they may feel about me as an individual. My job is to entertain them. If I’m not doing that, they shouldn’t be spending the money. If they keep doing do out of some sense of personal obligation, sooner or later they’ll resent it.
.
PAD
Well, in my case, even the books you write that I did’nt like received sort of a “leniency”, an extra couple of issues to see where were they going, before I dropped them. But then yours is a bad example because I can’t say if I did that because of previous works that I enjoyed or because I kind of find you a kind-of-a-nice guy.
.
If people feel obligated to stop supporting creators whose opinions they disagree with,
.
Not obliged. But not required to continue to support them financially either.
If they keep doing do out of some sense of personal obligation, sooner or later they’ll resent it.
.
I disagree with an artist’s personal view strongly enough that it affects my enjoyment of their work. I continue to purchase their work because to stop doing so because I disagree with their personal views is not an acceptable response.
.
Eventually, yes, if I keep buying out of some sense of personal obligation, sooner or later I’ll resent it.
.
Here’s a question for you. Why read the opinions at all? Yeah, you’re going to hear about it. We’ve always heard about something someone said or did even before the internet and sometimes what we were hearing was even almost true. But most of the time we simply brushed it off back then. Even if we thought it was true, we may have still brushed it off a bit since we couldn’t o and look it up.
.
But now, now in the age of the internet? Most people hear about it and then, knowing that they’ll likely get pìššëd øff by what they read, seek out what they heard about and then scream and yell about how badly it pìššëd them off and how such things being expressed by creators destroys their ability to just love what the person in question creates.
.
Seriously, when it really comes down to it, why the hëll does it really matter? The vast majority of the people we consider minor to major celebrities aren’t (for the most part) reading the news to us, shaping the news we get or really having any true impact on our politics. Does it really mean anything if Miller taps away at his keyboard or says something ignorant at a convention if you don’t bother to read what he says or see him at that convention?
.
I think that Ted Nugent is an ignorant ŧwáŧ. I don’t seek out his political and social commentaries and I don’t go to his concerts because he dos running commentaries in between most of his songs. I’ll still buy just about anything he’s playing guitar on because he can play like nobody’s business. I think Janeane Garofalo is an airhead with delusions of intellectual weight. I don’t pay attention to most of her political comments. I’ll still watch her in an acting role because she’s funny when she’s got a character down cold.
.
Am I aware of their (and others’) general POVs? Yeah. Do I seek them out when I hear about them? Not all of the time and I simply avoid any forum where they will rant and rave in between entertaining and there is no place for contrary opinions or discussion. Of course, I can deal with others having opinions I don’t agree with, but if you can’t, why bother reading them? If you know that you can’t handle it, why bother caring what they say outside of creative confines enough to look it up and further feed your outrage?
I’m still having a hard time seeing a passive act (that of not buying something) as punitive. If I don’t like something, I don’t buy it. I don’t “not buy it” to hurt someone’s pocketbook, I do it so I don’t waste my valuable time and money doing something that is only going to aggravate me.
.
I suppose if you just don’t like the creator as a human being and refuse to even look at something he did/wrote/starred in becasue of who he is/what he’s done, that could be seen as spiteful. But sometimes it seems to me to be more a matter of “I refuse to be a party to this.” But that is all a matter of personal feelings and integrity.
.
Now, organizing a boycot… sure, that is absolutely punitive and mean-spirited.
Man. And all this time, I thought I was being morally weak by not being able to bring myself to boycott people’s work when I disagreed with things they said or did. At least now I can start enjoying them guilt free.
Seriously, thanks to everyone who weighed in on this conversation. It’s really expanded my views on the subject.
Just wanted to say that i agree with Mr. David (sorry, i can’t help being formal…the reason in the next sentence). Politically, economically wise, i may be the opposite coin, but i would read any book by you (you made something rhyme with orange!). Same goes for many artists across the spectrum from Morrison, Millar and say Willingham.
I guess if any artist came out and said “i am sending all my profits to by guns and kill people”, then that’s a different story (they aren’t making art, they want profit for killing people. i know there’s a loophole in there, so i apologize in advance)
i hope that made some sense. in the end the art stands for itself. if it’s bad don’t read it. kind of like the T.V. if you don’t like it, don’t watch it…unless it was Arrested Developement. you bášŧárdš =)
sorry for the long post…and tiring of hitting Shift.