Drawing the Line

digresssmlOriginally published October 6, 1995, in Comics Buyer’s Guide #1142

Where do you draw the line?

There are comics out there that turn your stomach, curl your hair. Comics with subject matter so repugnant, so vile, that you wonder how anyone could think it? How could anyone write it? God help us, how could anyone read it?

And the children—the children get their hands on this stuff, and it distorts them, doesn’t it? Warps their perceptions, destroy their value systems?

Sure, the First Amendment is important. But it’s not absolute, right? The First Amendment gives way when a “clear and present danger” is presented. As Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in Schenck v. United States, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic…”

And, if people are at risk—children, grown-ups, whomever—if they’re in danger, doesn’t Congress have the right and/or obligation to do something? For that matter, don’t we? For if we don’t, are we not contributing to the problem by allowing it to stand?

What put me in mind of this is a heartfelt letter from Bernard S. of North Wales, PA. I’ve edited it for length and I also had to substitute some language more appropriate to CBG in places (not Bernard’s fault; he was quoting others):

A few months ago a new company was formed, published by the hard-rock singer Glenn Danzig, named Verotika. The name implies the company’s desire to explore the theme of violence within erotica, taking the extra step that Image and Marvel and many, many other companies have not, where they do not bother to dress the overly proportioned women within them, and have no problem subjecting them to the main thrust of the violence either. Sexual violence. Big breasted women being raped to death by demons, or torn apart by animal gods.

And, while this is not different from anything within, say, Faust, there was one particular instance when something inside me clicked and made my teeth ache from grinding.

I walked into the comic book store on the day it gets its deliveries to see which of ‘my’ titles had come in and, while checking the rack, I overheard a conversation from a group of four boys huddled over a new comic from the ‘adult’ section. They were no more than 12 years old and, in a high-pitched voice, one of them said, ‘Watch the [vile slang for female] scream when they burn her [genital region] with the lighter!’

I stopped and paid attention. They began to laugh and describe several other acts within the book and I was shocked, not so much at the content of what they were saying, but rather at the unabashed glee in their voices from having made such a discovery.

‘Yo,’ I said quickly getting their attention and holding out my hand, ‘give it up.’ They handed it to me with scowls on their faces before reslinging their shoulder bags and splitting.

It was the fourth issue of the title Verotika. Specifically, the second story inside called, ‘A Taste of Cherry.’ The girl was drawn in typical comic fashion, exaggerated, extended, and in the interests of your basic moral sensibilities I will not describe the content other than to say this: The virginal homecoming queen is walking down the street and gets kidnapped by a group of skeeves in a van who rape her a few times and videotape it. They proceed to a place where they tie her to a pole, pierce her skin with barbed wire, crush her face with an iron pole, yes, ‘light her [genital region] on fire with a lighter,’ and rape her over and over in graphic, painted, detailed fashion. And, when she begs them for her life, they kill her.

And in the end, when the big irony is supposed to hit, when such terrible deeds are supposed to be reconciled and fixed and the moral is supposed to hit, the authors do this for us: show her father mášŧûrbáŧìņg over the video of his daughter being tortured and murdered, then making a phone call to thank the men for their deed and telling them how much money they’ll save him from sending her to college.

Now, at the risk of coming off as a proponent of wacko political extremism or as a blind advocate of human rights to the point that I can no longer differentiate between a story and real life, I simply was disgusted.

For the first time in my life I was horrified that someone could put something of this nature into print—and even more so at whose hands it would fall into. Back when I was those kids’ age I could easily obtain copies of Omaha the Cat Dancer or Leather and Lace, and I no doubt used them for the same purposes that many others have and no doubt will.

But for a company to target violent erotica at an audience willing to receive such material is wrong. To present it in this light, without any kind of repercussion or justification, is pure, mindless greed. They know who will buy this. They know why. And it is obvious what ideas will be inspired by it.

Now I want to ask them who the hëll needs to make a few dollars so badly they’ll willingly tap that vein and completely ignore the responsibility of adding to the countless problems of our world today.

Just as one song will not make young kids run out and waste themselves or their parents, I do not believe that this one comic book story will cause people to lose their minds and commit such atrocities. I do believe, however, that it will just once again reinforce any tangled ideas someone has who has the capacity to commit these things. And not everyone who reads comic books is a frothing, adolescent ball of hormones dying to see a pair o breasts or illustrations of acts they’re too young to do to rent videos depicting.

But a few are, and of that few I guarantee what they see in ‘A Taste of Cherry’ will impress upon them the wrong idea.

So, as the man willing to write his truth before the comics reading public in a nationally distributed publication, will you stand up? Is it too much to come off of the sidelines for?

By no means take my word for it. Go ahead and read the story for yourself. And then I know you’ll want to stand up, to mock those scum-sucking bags of sluice at every turn, to call my main man Harlan up and hip him to your battle, and then, when it’s done, send them my way and I’ll bite their dog’s faces off.

Well, Mr. David? What side are you on?

Well, Bernard, I appreciate and understand your call to arms. And I’ll gladly take your word for the contents of the story. (It matches with descriptions I’ve seen elsewhere.)

The question is: What would you have me do?

Say the story sounds disgusting? It does.

Repellant? An understatement.

That it appeals to the worst instincts in humanity? That it gives real-life Beavis and Bûŧŧ-Hëádš something to snort and chortle over while indulging in their own rape fantasies? Probably as a result of their being intimidated by flesh-and-blood women and getting off on any scenario in which males assert power over females? Consider it said.

Do I wish that there was no market for it? That the first issue of such vile subject matter would come out to the deafening silence of unopened wallets? That humanity was, in short, a nobler species? You betcha.

Am I going to buy it? No chance.

Am I going to organize a boycott, hound the publisher into bankruptcy, harangue the distributors, and hold the retailers up for public humiliation?

No chance.

Because I can’t cross that line. No one should, if they are to hold true to the spirit of this country: a spirit that dictates that—no matter how personally repulsive we may find an opinion, an image, a word, or a story—we must support the right of free expression for those who want to say it and those who want to hear it.

“A Taste of Cherry” is not my cuppa. Clearly, it’s not yours. And I believe that it is incumbent upon the retailer to do everything he can to make sure that the books are in a separate adult section (as your retailer did). But I can’t let slip the dogs of war upon Glenn Danzig and have him turned into kibble, because I have to support his right to publish these books and reach an audience—although it’s an audience that I hope to God won’t wind up dating my 14-year-old daughter.

We dare not endorse the act of hounding a publisher out of business because we don’t like the product.

Why?

Because when someone else goes after something we do like, we’re on much slipperier ground in trying to combat those actions. Why is it okay for us to try and terminate a comic book we don’t like, but not okay for someone else to do the same to a comic book he doesn’t like?

Case in point: Spawn.

In Spawn #30 by Todd McFarlane and Greg Capullo, Spawn goes head to head against a group of KKK members trying to drive a black family, the Armstrongs, off their land. Spawn, who is black, lends a hand.

Subtle the story is not: There are heavy dollops of violence, hangings, and rough language from the Klan members. Considering the portrayal of the Klan, the ire of Spawn, and the bad end the Klansmen come to the message is straightforward: Racism is evil.

Call me crazy, but I consider this a positive message—an opinion that one thinks would be shared by anyone aside from White Supremacists.

Yet that issue has been targeted by one aggressive person (that’s all it takes) who has begun a one-woman crusade against the best-selling comic book—a crusade that’s had press in local papers, stirred up a senator, and received national play Sept. 5 on the syndicated A Current Affair.

In the story, ACA reporter Mary Garofalo quickly disabused viewers of the notion that comics are “just kid stuff” (as if that’s a cardinal sin.) Spawn was described as confronting “real-life horrors like homelessness, child abuse, and domestic violence. It’s not your usual comic book fare and it’s certainly not funny.” (Another cardinal sin.)

The problem was posed by Grand Forks, N.D., resident Dr. Mary Williams Ahmed, described as a “concerned parent,” who declared, “I do not want children reading this garbage. To me, it’s garbage.”

She acquired a copy of the issue in question through her seven-year-old son. “As I was examining the front cover page, immediately I fell to the floor in a sitting position,” she said. “I became very emotional by what I had seen in this particular comic book… This is a direct quote from issue 30: ‘Tell us another one, you black-faced monkey. If you had any brains, you’d’ve moved months ago and taken your mutant son and šlûŧ wife with you.’ That was a very offensive statement.”

Dr. Ahmed (doctor of what, we’re not told) didn’t bother to mention that the person speaking is a Klan member. Nor did she opine how she’d prefer this villainous slimeball address the Armstrong character. “Excuse me, sir: I respectfully suggest that you, your lovely wife and charming son might be happier in another location, since your continued presence is negatively impacting property values,” would certainly spare the doctor’s sensibilities, but wouldn’t quite have rung true to the moment.

Garofalo informed us, “The comic book so enraged this Midwestern mom that she became a crusader herself, launching a one-woman campaign to get Spawn off the shelf. She wrote letters to her Senator, published a newspaper article, even went from store to store buying up every copy she could find so there would be none left to sell.”

The concept that comics could be of benefit by teaching positive moral lessons to kids (like, say, that racism is bad) doesn’t wash with Ahmed. “If this is the medium that we’re going to be using in the future in terms of intervention and prevention measures in educating our children in relation to violence, crime, sexism, then this is a very sad day in America,” she said.

And if one pontificating doctor weren’t enough, ACA also hauled in child psychiatrist Eric Benjamin, who stated: “I don’t think there’s any redeeming value in what’s being done here. I think it’s exploitation of very, very tragic things that happen in this society. By sensationalizing them, it does more harm than good and that’s working with these kids all the time, this doesn’t help them.” The good doctor does not explain how a story portraying racism as evil does more harm than good.

McFarlane did his best in trying to defend his work. (With ACA‘s editing techniques it’s impossible to tell what he said in total.) The problem is, he’s got a vested economic interest, and that undercuts his credibility against “concerned parents” and “child psychiatrists” who can be contrasted (as being concerned about the tender minds of children) to someone with a commercial investment or artistic vision.

Missing from the slanted piece was an outside authority to speak on behalf of comics in general: a psychiatrist who sees topical comics as a means of stirring open discussion between parent and child, or a teacher who’s successfully incorporated comics into the curriculum.

Instead we concluded with Garofalo saying, “Mary believes these subjects should be kept out of kids’ reach until they are ready. She’s lobbying for legislation that would force stores to put graphic comic books like Spawn in a separate area all by themselves.”

Except it’s not really just about kids. As with all censors, it’s the elimination of material that they themselves simply don’t want to see. Ahmed makes this obvious in saying, “No person (emphasis mine) should have to be exposed to that type of trash, and this is a war that I’m going to join, if I’m going to join any war in America. And that is to protect the lives of innocent children.”

The hyperbole would be laughable if this woman weren’t getting national exposure and getting her state senator into the act. (A senator going after comic books? That would never happen, right?)

And Garofalo, taking no chance that the audience might not know which way the story is slanted, warns ominously, “Parents, there is no relief in sight. Just like Superman, Spawn is headed to Hollywood with a TV series and a movie in the works.”

The message is clear: Your children are in danger, and the threat is only spreading more and more. One can almost hear echoes of the residents of River City chanting, “Trouble, trouble, trouble,” at the instigation of Professor Harold Hill.

Comics have a tough enough rap in this country. The concept that they could do any good, serve any positive function, is starting to be dismissed out of hand.

Doug P. on CompuServ told me of his aunt who “taught high school English. She was having problems with the remedial Senior English class. These students were major disasters. I knew a comics wholesaler with a whole buncha Marvels he wanted to get rid of, and I had him donate them to her class. He got a tax write off, and she got the kids doing plot analysis and characterization. When they took the Regents exam that year not one of ’em scored below 75. And my aunt was hauled up in front of the school board and almost fired, because she let kids read comic books in class.”

Bernard? Bernard of North Wales, who closed his letter to me with “God bless the entire Verotika staff with cancer of the genitalia?” You still with me after all this. Good.

What it boils down to is this:

We have to remain vigilant. We have to be aggressive in protecting our right to free expression. You don’t like Verotika, and that’s fine.

But if you want them to come and take Verotika away, you have to be aware that they’re also gearing up to try to take away Spawn. If you were a Spawn fan in Grand Forks, North Dakota, you’d be out of luck because of Dr. Ahmed buying every copy in sight. (Although if I were a retailer, I’d be buying ten times as many copies just to break her budget.)

We find the subject matter of Verotika to be personally repellant. As repellant, I’d wager, as parents found EC Comics 40 years ago: comics we now view as classics, and which led to Senate hearings, an industry running scared, the end of a publishing line, and the creation of a board—for self-censorship.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying 40 years from now, Verotika will be an EC-level classic. Chances are very likely it’ll be long forgotten. What I’m saying is that it’s not for me to make the call.

By declaring war on Verotika now, we’d be no different than Dr. Wertham of the 1950s—or Dr. Ahmed of 1995. That is not a direction I choose to go.

You, of course, can go in whatever direction you wish. After all, this is America, and you have freedom of choice.

For the moment.

(Peter David, writer of stuff, can be written to at Second Age, Inc., PO Box 239, Bayport, NY 11705. He can’t wait to see how some people read this column and try to figure out how it’s an attack on McFarlane.)

 

35 comments on “Drawing the Line

  1. Boy, I hope I one day write a comic somebody hates so much that they buy up every copy they can find.

    1. “Boy, I hope I one day write a comic somebody hates so much that they buy up every copy they can find.”

      Not me. My ambition is to get “The Big Laugh”. By that, I mean not just something that people say “Ha, ha”, and never think about again. I mean something that gets ingrained in their consciousness, and that they might laugh about years later.

      For example: Recently I was out in the car. A front seat driver with me said “Bear Left”, and I instinctively said “Right, Frog.” When a gag from a movie is funny enough that it instinctively comes up as a word association 30 years later, that’s The Big Laugh.

      Another case in point: If you’re in a crowd, and you say the words “Surely you can’t be serious”, I can guarantee what response that at least one person will give. That’s also a Big Laugh.

  2. Wait, so let me get this right. This trash (my opinion) gets into the hands of twelve-year-olds, who clearly aren’t mature enough to understand what they’re looking at.
    .
    This doctor’s son, who is seven years old, gets the Spawn comic (and it seems she can’t understand the story for the “bangles and beads” covering it as it were…) and goes ballistic about it.
    .
    And on HBO and other cable stations (which I do not get, but I read about ’em…) have shows which are of very violent, sexual, or “perverse” content.
    .
    And someone expects PAD, or the government, to regulate access to these – or to stop them outright – so that their little ones can’t experience ’em.
    .
    Hey, here’s a radical idea – what about the PARENTS??? What about actually raising the kids, teaching them, and controlling what they see and hear – or at the very least, explaining it in context?
    .
    I applaud the retailer mentioned above for having a mature section, and I also have to express a little disappointment that he let twelve-year-olds in the area long enough to read that entire Verotika comic. Technically, he shouldn’t be responsible for what the kids see… still, it might be nice if he’d called them out. (Still, at this point, it’s third hand experience – maybe he had.)
    .
    But why do parents let kids THAT young buy comics without even knowing what’s IN the books that their kids read? Maybe a mother or father should be with a kid that age to see what he’s checking out?
    .
    Or maybe they should teach the youngsters about what they’re looking at, or stop them if the kids can’t understand it?
    .
    I know life is hard, working is hard, taking care of house and home and family is hard… but monitoring and teaching the children is IMPORTANT.
    .
    PAD, I could only point a finger at you if you were lacking in how you oversee YOUR children. Otherwise… what can one man do? (That should be done by another man…)
    .
    And boy, you really came down hard on McFarlane THIS time, didn’t you? 🙂
    .
    I remain,
    Sincerely,
    Eric L. Sofer
    x<]:o){
    The Bad Clown…

    1. What I didn’t even bother to mention in the column was that in that issue of “Spawn,” McFarlane named two of the KKK members “Peter” and “Johnny” as digs at me and John Byrne. Byrne wanted to sue McFarlane over it and asked me to join him in the suit. I told him flat-out that it was insane; that there was no way we were going to prove that we had suffered some sort of damage for which we should receive compensation. That we couldn’t possibly prove that a publisher had read that issue and come away from it thinking, “My God, I had no idea that Peter David and John Byrne were members of the KKK; we must never hire them again!” That it was just Todd being a dìçk, and you don’t sue people simply for being dìçkš. John was REALLY pìššëd at me that I wouldn’t join him in the suit. To the best of my knowledge, he never filed it.
      .
      PAD

      1. I don’t know what John Byrne’s ethnicity is, but I’m fairly certain that people who practice Judaism aren’t acceptable candidates for the KKK. Protestants and, within the past decade or two, Catholics, yes, but not Jews. Also, unless your last names and “reasonable likenesses” aren’t being used in the story, neither of you have a legal leg to stand on! As you said, there’s no law against being a jerk…sorry, dìçk! OOPs! I hope McFarlane doesn’t slap either of us with a slander suit!

    2. Hey, here’s a radical idea – what about the PARENTS???
      .
      Well, if you’re Leland Yee, author of the California violent video game law that was recently struck down by SCOTUS, you tell parents that they should be parents… by having the government be the parents. 😛
      .
      It shouldn’t take laws to get parents or shops to keep such material out of the hands of children.

    3. Eric, 90% of what is worth seeing in American TV is in HBO and other cable channels. Yes, I wouldn’t recommend it to people younger than 16, but it’s miles ahead of anything else in terms of sheer quality.
      .
      Yeah, I know you weren’t criticizing HBO, but I had to say it. HBO rules.

  3. So, 16 years later, Verotika ia a forgotten footnote, as is A Currrent Affair. So there is at least some justice in the world.

    SPAWN is still around, so that just shows how useful these sorts of media smear campaigns are. Every time someone gets TV time to bash something, it seems to only improve its visibility. Last Temptation of Christ and Dogma come to mind too. And look how much the Catholic church’s condemnation of DaVinci Code hurt sales of that mega-seller. 🙂

      1. Plus let’s keep in mind that the 12 year olds of the time are now in their late twenties and would probably feel mortified over their reactions from the time.
        .
        At least one hopes.
        .
        PAD

  4. I knew as soon as I saw some Verotik titles on the shelves back in the mid-90s that it was going to collapse in on itself (much like the Soviet Union, he hee!). I didn’t feel the need to start some sort of “campaign” against the publisher. Most often, that’s what these sort of products are hoping for anyway.

  5. Years ago, as a youngish kid, I chanced to switch channels and catch the end of an episode of Benson. The plot apparently revolved round some “concerned citizens group” pushing to ban certain books from the local library – not sure which after such a long time, but fairly sure that at least one mentioned is considered a literary classic. Benson was asked to appear alongside the group’s spokesperson on a chat show, to present a counter arguement. However, he caught the other guest off guard; he agreed with him, saying something along the lines of “I haven’t read all the books he wants removed, but he seems a reasonable man, so I’ll trust his judgement. Let’s remove them. But I have one favor to ask.” Turns to the other guest: “Do you think I’m a reasonable man too?” Book-banner: “Yes, of course.” Benson: “There’s a few books I think are bad which aren’t on your list. Before we carry out the ban, can I add them to your list?” Book-banner, slightly uncertain: “Yes, I suppose that would be okay.” Benson, turning to chat show host: “What about you? Any books you’d like to add?” Host: “I suppose so.” Benson: “And the audience seem like reasonable people. Let’s get their lists too. And why stop there? Let’s get everyone’s list. And pretty soon every book is going to be on that list, because every book has someone who dislikes it and would be happy to see it banned.” Turns back to book-banner: “Once you start banning books, where do you stop?”
    .
    .
    Obviously the above is filtered through a couple of decades of recollection, so the dialogue and details are bound to be a bit askew, but the point is, that message stuck with me from that day on – once you start banning books, or comics, or films, or TV show, where do you stop?

    1. Sounds reminiscent of the WKRP episode in which Carlson befriends a minister who asks him to stop playing certain songs on the station because they’re “inappropriate.” Carlson finds the minister reasonable enough, isn’t familiar with most of the music on the station, and finds some of the lyrics provided as an example to be objectionable.
      .
      It comes to a head when the minister meets with Carlson and Andy. Andy gives the minister the lyrics to John Lennon’s “Imagine” and asks him if it would be on the ban list, too. The minister reads them, and says that, because the song says there’s no heaven and no religion, that it implies there’s also no god, so yes…it’s on the list. Andy points out that the lyrics don’t say that…they say “imagine” those things…that the minister is now moving on to censor not just words, but ideas.
      .
      Would love to see that episode again sometime soon.
      .
      –Daryl

      1. There’s an episode of DR. QUINN, MEDICINE WOMAN (not a fan, but seen enough to talk about it) where the townsfolk are out to ban (actually burn) several of the books in Dr. Mike’s library. As people rail and rant against their books, she has her own suggestion for a book to ban:

        Reverend: I’m glad to see you’ve had a change of heart.
        Michaela: How could I not? With a book that tells of a father who sacrificed his own daughter. A book that tells of a man who was married to more than one woman at the same time. Why this book even has a passage in it that describes how God accepted a bet from the Devil!
        Reverend: You’re right Dr. Mike. That’s a book that we can all agree on. And handing it over to me is the kind of gesture that will heal the spirit of our town. I thank you for showing so much faith.
        Michaela: Not at all Reverend.
        Loren: What is it?
        Michaela: The Holy Bible.

        The Bible also has graphic violence (lots of battles and slaughters) and torture (the Crucifixion), a king (appointed by God) who has a soldier killed so the king can sleep with his wife/widow, and (if you take Genesis literally) all of present humanity being the product of incest (after all, who’d Adam and Eve’s children have sex with to populate the world?).

        As they said on FUTURAMA, it’s a filthy holy book.

      2. And, see, Rick…things like that are why I’d love to see the episode again.
        .
        And, just like Schoolhouse Rock allowed me to remember the Preamble to the Constitution, Venus teaching the cleaning lady’s son about the components of the atom helped me in school, too.
        .
        Thanks!
        .
        –Daryl

      3. I also remember Mr. Carlson confronting the minister solo over the “Imagine” lyrics…and that episode sealed the deal to earn not just my sympathy but my respect for that character.

  6. Thing is… I couldn’t even recommend Spider-Man comics to a 12 year old starting a few years ago. They’re not Verotik, but there’s an awful lot of blood and inappropriate subject matter. Then there’s Justice League: Rise of Arsenal #3. The Big Two are pushing way too much sheer crap right now and they’ll soon follow Verotik if they remain so out-of-touch.

    1. I wouldn’t recommend them because, with the exception of FNSM (he says, not trying to suck up to PAD but because he feels it’s accurate), they’ve been of poor quality – specifics of content aside – for years. And now that the proverbial well is poisoned by “One More Day,” “Brand New Day” and “One Moment in Time?” Forget it.
      .
      –Daryl

      1. Oh I agree, I just think that we’re seeing the tipping point within the last 5 or so years. Corporate comics aren’t really being written with the idea of getting 12 years olds hooked. Instead, it seems the writers/editors are writing for each other now moreso than ever… trying to out-do each other when it comes to deconstruction and the use of “socially relevant” topics.

      1. Who cares? The comic industry needs kids to get the comic book bug if its going to survive.

  7. .
    I kinda remember reading this the first time around. I also remember seeing some similarly voiced sentiments about Danzig’s comics around this time as well. I told a few people doing the complaining to just chill out. Sales figures on his line showed that not even his ultra-loyal fan base was coming over to the product to support him and that the ultra dark and violent stories with no redeeming characters or moments in (while sadly reflected in some real life events) had an extremely limited appeal to most readers. It would be done and gone and forgotten before they knew it.
    .
    One of my few predictions about trends in comics back then that was dead on.
    .
    Beyond that, I can’t get behind that thinking. I’ll never quite understand the person who will defend to the death their right to enjoy things that they want and explain how it’s their freedoms that others are trying to curtail with their backwards thinking while then pointing to something that they don’t like and demand that it is the duty of all truly decent people to stand up with them and ban it.
    .
    “Censorship is bad! Unless I’m the censor, of course.”
    .
    Fun people. I don’t remember if you ever wrote a follow up to this. Did the charming young man who wished cancer of the genitalia on people he didn’t like while trying to rally your support for a full on boycott of/war against their product ever write you back after this was originally posted? And if he did, were you cast in the roll of the guy who just didn’t get it or were you know playing the part of one of the people that represented what was wrong with comics/the world and in need of divine intervention against the continued health of your private sector?

  8. I was a retailer when this came out, and I remember ordering it, reading it and deciding there’s no way I was going to sell it. Then had a loud argument with a customer about how if it was available it was my duty to sell it to him. I could see his point (especially in the days before online shopping made EVERYTHING available) but I still chose not to sell it. My store, my choice.

    1. I can certainly respect a retailer deciding – for whatever reason – not to carry any given product, as long as they’re up front about it if/when asked.
      .
      The flip side of the coin was in 1988 with the whole Lone Star Comics/Wasteland brouhaha. For those not aware of it, following the store “Dissecting Mr. Fleming” in DC’s Wasteland horror anthology, the owner of Lone Star decided they weren’t going to carry the book. Fair enough…his store, his choice, just as you say, deadguy. The difference was that, in a store memo, he instructed employees to not tell anyone asking about it that they’d dropped the book, but to instead say that they “hadn’t gotten any in,” because telling potential paying customers that they no longer carried the book was “liable to generate further questions and complaints.”
      .
      If you don’t carry a book I want, just tell me. I’ll find another way to get it, and stick with you for the rest. If you pull that kind of thing on me, though, you’ll lose all of my business…as Lone Star did.
      .
      –Daryl

  9. I have a funny story about censorship. My Mom died in 2003, and I got very depressed and afraid of death. It was one of the few times in my life when I felt a genuine need for religion.
    .
    I became interested in Spiritualism. It’s somewhat popular in Brazil and a few parts of Europe, not so much in the US, but basically it is a mix of Christianity and Budhism. Or Christianity 2.0 as I came to think of it.
    .
    They have books that explain their afterlife in considerable detail, unlike Christianity. And in their version of Heaven (or ONE heaven; they have many superior spiritual planes) they have material objects, including books.
    .
    But get this: there are only books with “healthy” content. Any books with contrary oppinions, profanities, etc. can’t be found in Heaven.
    .
    I quickly lost my passion for Spiritualism. I still respect it more than mainstream Christianity. But you can see how one man’s Heaven is another man’s Hëll.
    .
    An universe containing only virtuous books isn’t that much better than Orwell’s 1984 to me.

    1. I imagine that Heaven would have pretty much any book you could name, but the less virtuous ones wouldn’t get any interest. That’s the worst fate for a book. Not to be burned, but to be ignored. That’s what I found the most disturbing about this blog entry. Not that the comic existed, but that it had an audience that was delighted to get their hands on it. In “Heaven”, this comic might exist, but it would have no audience.

  10. Just out of curiosity– can I still go around shouting Shark! in crowded elevators?

  11. The funny thing is, the protester buying all the copies reminds me of an old DORK TOWER strip. The owner of Pegasaurus Games was facing Pokemon protesters (HAD ENOUGH/ OF JIGGLYPUFF!). When the owner was told that the protesters were buying all the cards to burn them, his response was, “So, they’re planning on putting us out of business by making us rich?”

    Unless the protestor buying the books was actually… a protestor/speculator, deliberately raising sales of the targeted book one month, so the store owner would over-order for the next month, resulting in massive quantities of books that wouldn’t sell. As they said in THIS IS SPINAL TAP, it’s a fine line between clever and stupid.

  12. Whenever this sort of thing arises (particularly in a comics context), i remember Will Eisner’s “The Awful Book” (as it originally was, and as it was reprinted in one of the Harvey Spirit volumes in the mid-60s), which revolves around an EC-style crime/horror book (apparently – we never actually see the content), and is narrated by a schoolteacher.
    .
    “As I was leaving, I passed the playground where the school psychologist, Dr Wolfgang Worry, was holding his weekly book-burning…” (Or words to that very close effect.)

  13. I’ve just read the Verotika thing (didn’t know there was another issue scripted by Grant Morrison, woah) and it seems to me forgettable torture pørņ for teenagers. I remember “Lord of the Flies” to be way more disturbing.

  14. “As Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in Schenck v. United States, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic…””
    .
    Actually, it would, according to Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Comments are closed.