Self Reflections

Originally published July 15, 1994, in Comics Buyer’s Guide #1078

Two things this time around.

First, I received a good deal of positive response to my letter about the Self article. In case you’ve forgotten, this was the half-witted piece chock full of misinformation, designed to terrorize unknowing readers into thinking their local comic store was a haven for pørņø comics. Plus, Self included a forum where readers could write and state whether they felt a congressional investigation into comics, a la the 1950s, was warranted.

I also got the following from Self itSelf:

Thank you for your response to Stefan Kanfer’s article “Pow, Zap, Pørņ,” in the April issue of Self.

We’re sorry you didn’t like the article, and we understand your concern about the thoroughness and accuracy of our information. We are highly aware of the responsibilities that go with trying to provide our readers with up-to-date facts on current issues. However, in the midst of all the practical information which Self provides, we feel it is very important to have a place in the magazine where we can tackle tough controversial issues that will consequently draw positive or negative reactions from our readers. This is a long standing magazine tradition and we feel it makes for a stimulating change of pace for our readers if not always a pleasing one.

We appreciate not only your interest, but the time you took to contact us. Reader feedback is important to us, and helps us focus the magazine in future issues.

Sincerely,

Helena Massan

Reader Correspondent

Naturally I’d be interested to know if anyone else received this exact correspondence, to confirm my suspicion that it’s a form letter.

My response to Ms. Massan, which is as likely to see print as my first letter, will be as follows–

Dear Ms. Massan:

Thank you for your response of June 14 regarding my complaints about “Pow, Zap, Pørņ.” Unfortunately, you addressed it to the wrong person.

The bulk of your letter states, in essence, that Self feels it has the right–even an obligation–to publish whatever it sees fit, despite the negative reactions such publication might entail. You even state this policy is a “long standing magazine tradition.”

That’s a very solid First Amendment-based response. Bully for Self.

But why are you telling me this?

You defended something that I never challenged. Self‘s right to “tackle controversial issues” was not in question. Obviously, though, you don’t indulge in that right capriciously. I doubt we’ll be seeing articles entitled, “White Supremacy: The Wave of the Future” or “Women: Should They be Scorned, or Merely Pitied?” The reason, of course, is that not only would such articles not be in keeping with Self‘s editorial slant, but they are inflammatory and one-sided.

You had an obligation to make sure that the articles you run are at least nominally accurate, which Kanfer’s was not. I don’t expect Self to fact check everything, but certainly the absence of any substantial quotes from comic publishers should have been a tip off. Self‘s overlooking of this indicates that the editors are either sloppy, or else advocate wildly slanted articles.

Of course, Self has the right to print wildly slanted articles. Again, that’s First Amendment protection. But again, why tell me? It was Kanfer who advocated abridging those same First Amendment rights which you quickly invoke for yourselves, but would deny others (or don’t comics count as “magazines?”) And it was Self that asked its readership whether the government should investigate restricting comic book editorial content, again in defiance of the First Amendment principles to which Kanfer pays lip service, and to which you cling.

Don’t talk to me about freedom of expression, Ms. Massan. Talk to Stefan Kanfer. Better yet… talk to yourSelf.

* * *

The following is an actual transcription of a genuine internal struggle that resulted from a letter by Mr. Jeff Plackemeier:

You gotta do it.

“I can’t.”

You gotta run it.

“Leave me alone.”

But look at it! It’s too perfect!

“Yeah, but this is old news. I made my point.”

So you made your point. So what? So you can’t belabor it a little? Besides, you didn’t find this; it’s a letter.

“I know it’s a letter. But still…”

It’s not like it’s a stray panel or something! It was the cover of Comic Shop News!

“Yeah, I know, but–”

And CBG! Fer cryin’ out loud, it’s the cover of CBG! The gall–!

“Be quiet. Let me think.”

And look at the CBG headline! The headline! “Liefeld’s Back!” It’s too perfect!

“Yeah, but he didn’t write the headline. Besides, if I run it, it’s like: ‘Liefeld’s Back… and here’s a knife for it.’ It’s not very nice…”

Nice?! Now you’re suddenly worried about nice?!?

“But it’s no way to welcome him back.”

It’s the perfect way! The poetically just way! And besides, it’s not like Ron Wilson, who drew the cover, was on Liefeld’s official list of tributable influences! What’s his excuse gonna be this time?!

“I don’t care. This is pointless and old hat and I’m not going to run it, and that’s that.”

Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Y’know what I think? You’re scared!

“Am not.”

Are too! You’re gutless! You’re a coward!

“Shut up!”

Coward! Gutless! Fraidy cat!

“All right, that does it! As Rob Liefeld’s best buddy has demonstrated, the fastest way to get a rise out of me is to call me a coward! I’ll show you!”

———— (Or, to quote Jeff Plackemeier–in the best “Dr. Zachary Smith” voice that one can manage: “Rob Liefeld’s back, indeed.” It’s like seeing Dan Quayle hitting the headlines again… you didn’t realize what you had until it was gone. Welcome back, Rob. Apparently, BID fans have missed you… and they’re watching.)

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