|
Post by sammiecassell on Mar 18, 2015 10:17:42 GMT -5
Ahhh ok, then the classification of YA is where my issue is. In my old people thought methods, and by virtue of how they are listed in bookstores, my thought was that YA was targeted at ages 12-18. That is a HUGE difference between 16-25, however I stand by my statement that 16-18 year olds should not be exposed to drinking, partying, making out with a random guy in a bar, cross dressers, any more than they need to. I'm probably being old curmudgeon here. But if you romanticize drinking at a bar can that not lead to the cover? I'm not naive enough to think everybody that goes to a bar and drinks will get taken out and beaten. But don't stats show that some of these violence issues are alcohol related. Is this the kind of stuff that should be aimed at 16-18 yrs old. At what point did we stop trying to protect our children as much as possible, in ANY way possible. [...] I am trying to think of an appropriate response to this post and may keep it brief for the moment, perhaps returning to it, perhaps not. It seems we do, indeed, have a very different world view and that colours our understanding of literature, life, etc. and this thread may be straying rather far from the topic at hand. Let me tell you, I am REALLY looking forward to reading the two(!) Batgirl issues out today and talking about them. As to your first part - "16-18 year olds should not be exposed to drinking, partying, making out with a random guy in a bar, cross dressers, any more than they need to." I am curious about the kicker to this sentence - exactly what you mean by "any more than they need to." I find that qualifier bemusing. However, this perhaps falls into personal morality and yours is absolutely an entirely valid stance. One I disagree with, but there you go. Certainly issues of sociability and sexuality and all the thrills and perils faced by teens has been explored in YA lit since, oh, say, The Outsiders, if not before. I recall you saying you aren't currently reading the current series but, if you did, you would see that there isn't a glorification of the drinking etc but there are ramifications for Barbara Gordon. Personally, I think BG deserves to have some consequence-free fun, however she chooses it (or, rather, how the writers decide the character should choose it), because after the 3 years she's had, heaven knows she deserves it. But, to start, it does not romanticize this, which leads to the next section. The second part, however, is what compels me to respond at the moment. The part beginning with "But if you romanticize drinking at a bar can that not lead to the cover?" ABSOLUTELY NOT. This victim blaming which I cannot let lie. If you are suggesting that women being sexually or otherwise assaulted because they decide to go to a bar and/or imbibe in alcohol should mean we need to 'protect' our children from the dangers of booze then ... well I am not sure how to proceed civilly here. Women are assaulted because men assault them. Not because they have a drink or dress in skimpy clothes or anything else. Before I end off, I'll bring this back around to the cover. One of the objections to the variant cover is that it aestheticizes the sexual violence perpetuated against Barbara Gordon in The Killing Joke. I said it myself -it is a beautiful piece of art. If we are to protect our children, girls and more importantly boys as well as men & women, from anything ("won't somebody think of the children?!?") it should be from the depictions of violence against women that glorify and celebrate it. Oh no no no no. Let me emphatically state, I completely agree with you, I DO NOT believe that victim blaming is correct. A woman is not assaulted because of what she wears or that she drinks, they are assaulted because idiots assault them (be it men or women....yep that's a thing too). I do not read the current book, and yes my my problem is of a personal morality issue. "Any more than they need to" may have been a poor line on my behalf. What I'm meaning is that they are inundated with this stuff in tv, movies, and in life. A YOUNG ADULT title should be a place where they can go to get away from that stuff (if YA means 12-16 as I previously stated). Obviously our sticking point is this 16-18 demographic. i know what kids do, I was one and did it with the best (I lived the 80s). However that does not mean I don't want better for my kids and tried to steer them to do better than I. If I remember correctly, The Outsiders did not start off as a kids title, that was something that fell into YA framework as that became a thing. As our moralities have....loosened....stuff like the Outsiders and even Catcher in The Rye seem tame in comparison. Which is kind of my point, without Catcher in the Rye, the Outsiders, the Killing Joke, Watchmen pushing the boundaries, would we be at a point now where things like a transgender person or a gay person, or any of that stuff even be seen in a comic with out it being in the back room? My real problem is in classification, if it's a YA title, and you set it beside Gotham Academy or Unbeatable Squirrel Girl, and you bought it for your 12 year old daughter, would you be upset when you saw Barbara sitting in a bar drinking a beer and having some "downtime". This cover would absolutely upset me if it was on THAT book. But if you're going to show drinking and some "fun filled activity, then why cannot this be an ALTERNATE cover for the book? my ultimate issue is censorship, whether it's by the government, the public, or the morality police. Raphael Alberqurque created a beautiful, scary homage to a scene in a book, that now will be forever tagged as trash because a segment of society saw it as they saw it (right or wrong is not for ME to judge). I saw a tweet yesterday that said, because DC lethim do this cover it just shows that they hate women. That is just as wrong as your perception that this cover is vile and has no business on the stands (forgive me if that's not what you think, I don't want to put words in your mouth, I'm generalizing here).
|
|
|
Post by jonathansoko on Mar 18, 2015 10:41:19 GMT -5
In retrospect, here is my opinion after sleeping on it. I thought about this last night, and heavy this morning before work.
Im a 25 year old, with an 8 year old bright daughter. On a daily basis, she asks me questions that as a young parent myself, am suprised she takes notice of. She is not into Batgirl, but she is into other charecters. This thought is really what changed my opinion. If she was to head into the shop without me, which she sometimes does with her friends. I would be horrified if she was picking up her pull list, and that cover was in there. I screen every book she reads, and Batgirl is definitley one i would approve of, and if i was to see her come home with that, i would not be a happy parent. I would have to explain it to her, and honestly, she does not need to see that side of the world just yet. In the right context, thigns like this, i have no issues with. But due to the current direction of the book, and young readers like my daughter, whos eyes would be seeing that, I am glad it was pulled.
|
|
|
Post by rgsc on Mar 18, 2015 11:00:53 GMT -5
Oh no no no no. Let me emphatically state, I completely agree with you, I DO NOT believe that victim blaming is correct. A woman is not assaulted because of what she wears or that she drinks, they are assaulted because idiots assault them (be it men or women....yep that's a thing too). I do not read the current book, and yes my my problem is of a personal morality issue. "Any more than they need to" may have been a poor line on my behalf. What I'm meaning is that they are inundated with this stuff in tv, movies, and in life. A YOUNG ADULT title should be a place where they can go to get away from that stuff (if YA means 12-16 as I previously stated). Obviously our sticking point is this 16-18 demographic. i know what kids do, I was one and did it with the best (I lived the 80s). However that does not mean I don't want better for my kids and tried to steer them to do better than I. If I remember correctly, The Outsiders did not start off as a kids title, that was something that fell into YA framework as that became a thing. As our moralities have....loosened....stuff like the Outsiders and even Catcher in The Rye seem tame in comparison. Which is kind of my point, without Catcher in the Rye, the Outsiders, the Killing Joke, Watchmen pushing the boundaries, would we be at a point now where things like a transgender person or a gay person, or any of that stuff even be seen in a comic with out it being in the back room? My real problem is in classification, if it's a YA title, and you set it beside Gotham Academy or Unbeatable Squirrel Girl, and you bought it for your 12 year old daughter, would you be upset when you saw her in a bar drinking a beer and having some "downtime". This cover would absolutely upset me if it was on that book. But if you're going to show drinking and some "fun filled activity, then why cannot this be an ALTERNATE cover for the book? Thank you for your clarification. I appreciate it as I certainly read your last post in a manner which you did not intend. In my view, I YA title is a place where where readers can go to explore issues they face, be it sexuality, drinking, drugs, or any other issue. Rather than get away from it, literature of all formats should deal with the issues, hopefully in a thoughtful and thought provoking manner. By no means should everything be a morality play, however. For this book in particular, I absolutely will give it to my daughter. Not now (she is 3, so we are at wonderful DC board book "My First Book of Girl Power" stage) but certainly down the line after she gets through Gotham Academy & other age appropriate titles. As a 12 yr old I was doing a crapton of things that were ill-advised to say the least so I expect my daughter will get herself into similar situations. I can only hope that if she were to read a book like this it would lead her to think about the ramifications on her actions (hopefully before she engages in them). I believe strongly in having an open and positive stance on drinking, sexuality etc. which means educating not sweeping these issues under the rug and pretending they don't exist and that teenagers (or even younger kids) don't have questions about them. Literature can help in this. Drawing a straight line from a 12yr old reading about drinking to having them drink is a very simplistic approach. Having the same person read and then question what it means and what the impacts are, perhaps. Kids are a bit more sophisticated than that. And, again, in this book, the behavior has serious consequences for the character and it starts off the narrative arc we are just wrapping up today. In terms of representing a strong female character, the current run's team is doing a bang-up job. The character is not perfect (hard to make a good story from that) but definitely worthy of the emulation & admiration of a young reader. Catcher certainly did not start as a book for adolescents/YAs, but The Outsiders was written when Hinton was in highschool. I can't speak to the marketing at the time but it was widely controversial since the time of its publications because of the depiction of the youth culture of the time (still is a widely banned/challenged book). Pushing boundries in literature of all forms is something I passionately advocate for. But I don't think it is applicable in this situation. Boundries aren't pushed here; the territory has been covered, in depth, in the recent past and the story (or any story) is not being moved forward. It is about respect for the character and respect for the audience. This cover does neither. Back to the cover - to my mind there isn't an equivalence between the "fun filled activity" and the horrific violence referred to in the alternate cover. You might draw the line at drinking & sexuality, I draw it at glamorizing sexual violence. That is not what I want in a book aimed at YAs or anyone, for that matter. In this particular instance, to go over territory well worn in previous posts, the cover depicts the hero without agency, without the possibility to prevail against her antagonist, and absolutely at odds with the tone, marketing, and story being played out in the book. As Bobby said, it is one thing to present lightheartedness on a serious book but a very different matter to present a deeply serious work on a lighthearted one. The publisher, the creative team and the artist who drew the cover all agree on the fact that the variant is not an appropriate one for this series at this time.
|
|
|
Post by rgsc on Mar 18, 2015 11:10:42 GMT -5
my ultimate issue is censorship, whether it's by the government, the public, or the morality police. Raphael Alberqurque created a beautiful, scary homage to a scene in a book, that now will be forever tagged as trash because a segment of society saw it as they saw it (right or wrong is not for ME to judge). I saw a tweet yesterday that said, because DC lethim do this cover it just shows that they hate women. That is just as wrong as your perception that this cover is vile and has no business on the stands (forgive me if that's not what you think, I don't want to put words in your mouth, I'm generalizing here). Criticism is not censorship. DC *can* publish whatever they want and Raphael Albuquerque *can* draw whatever he wants. If they put it out into the world, however, then it can face criticism as well as praise. So, just as they have the right to create/publish, the public has the right to speak out or not, for either side. As well as to purchase or not. Let's not forget the choice of variant cover is as much, if not more, a marketing decision as it is a creative one.
|
|
|
Post by caircoke on Mar 18, 2015 11:12:45 GMT -5
In retrospect, here is my opinion after sleeping on it. I thought about this last night, and heavy this morning before work. Im a 25 year old, with an 8 year old bright daughter. On a daily basis, she asks me questions that as a young parent myself, am suprised she takes notice of. She is not into Batgirl, but she is into other charecters. This thought is really what changed my opinion. If she was to head into the shop without me, which she sometimes does with her friends. I would be horrified if she was picking up her pull list, and that cover was in there. I screen every book she reads, and Batgirl is definitley one i would approve of, and if i was to see her come home with that, i would not be a happy parent. I would have to explain it to her, and honestly, she does not need to see that side of the world just yet. In the right context, thigns like this, i have no issues with. But due to the current direction of the book, and young readers like my daughter, whos eyes would be seeing that, I am glad it was pulled. My daughter is also 8. I know how hard it is to try to keep up with an 8-year-old, and to want to protect them while also answering their questions honestly. Seeing the world through others' eyes isn't easy to do, but it's really important, whether it's your own kid or someone else's kid, or another adult.
|
|
|
Post by pacino on Mar 18, 2015 11:18:00 GMT -5
my daughter is 14. It's tough to decide what is and isn't OK to introduce, but being informed is the first step to them figuring out what is and isn't OK for them to do. I wouldn't mind eventually showing a cover like to that to her with the proper forewarning and proper context, but it'd be a big discussion about violence, violence against women, comics, etc. As it is, this book wouldn't be the appropriate place to start that conversation. As it is, she isn't into superheroes or really even many comics. She did like Wimpy Kid books and I recently got her Raina Telgemeier books. That seems appropriate for her leve at this juncture (she's a little on the naive side yet, but as she is now in high school she's seeing a lot). She goes to her mom for these conversations, though, not me. I will say she was never a 'princess' and we never had her buy into that stuff. I am not personally a fan of putting women on pedestals as prizes to be won, and luckily she isn't into that (though I see inklings of it with the boys she interacts with; they are very immature and DO assign these roles to themselves and the girls they are into). There's nothing wrong with Disney stuff for kids but I'm just not a fan of the offshoot results from it. Hope I didn't insult anyone's favorite movie. BTW, I hate to pile on the lovefest, but I really do love this forum. We can disagree but not be disagreeable. Cheers, Talking Comics friends
|
|
|
Post by jonathansoko on Mar 18, 2015 12:12:12 GMT -5
I agree pacino, its not that i want to sheild my daughter from that kind of stuff forever. But at the age of 8, she has already seen and been through nightmares. And in my opinion, she doesn't need to see that image of a charecter she thinks is cute, being abused like that. Not yet, i want her to discover things as i grow with her. But they don't have innocence for too long in this world, as a young dad, i want to help her hold on to it for at least a few more years. She if fully aware that the world we live in isn't always nice to us and she sees enough crazy in the neighborhood we live in.
I brought the cover up to her, without showing it to her and asked her what she would think if she saw it on her own without me present. She responded with, "daddy, id move it aside and get to the good stuff, you know, the stuff im into, because im into all of the good stuff"! I thought it was cute.
|
|
|
Post by rgsc on Mar 18, 2015 12:56:37 GMT -5
Yes, yes, yes. AND, to my surprise DC's logo is just the small one in the footer & the barcode is on the back so this is pretty much exactly what the cover looks like! Suitable for framing! And, in the page I got this pic from, Chiang talks about his Harley variant from last month vis a vis TKJ (interview was done prior to the RA cover announcement) 13thdimension.com/batbook-of-the-week-batgirl-40/ So Good. Looking forward to reading the issues at afternoon coffee. I need to get some work done now, though... I really have spent too much time thinking & talking about comics the last couple of days.
|
|
|
Post by sailormarvel on Mar 18, 2015 13:25:31 GMT -5
I am trying to think of an appropriate response to this post and may keep it brief for the moment, perhaps returning to it, perhaps not. It seems we do, indeed, have a very different world view and that colours our understanding of literature, life, etc. and this thread may be straying rather far from the topic at hand. Let me tell you, I am REALLY looking forward to reading the two(!) Batgirl issues out today and talking about them. As to your first part - "16-18 year olds should not be exposed to drinking, partying, making out with a random guy in a bar, cross dressers, any more than they need to." I am curious about the kicker to this sentence - exactly what you mean by "any more than they need to." I find that qualifier bemusing. However, this perhaps falls into personal morality and yours is absolutely an entirely valid stance. One I disagree with, but there you go. Certainly issues of sociability and sexuality and all the thrills and perils faced by teens has been explored in YA lit since, oh, say, The Outsiders, if not before. I recall you saying you aren't currently reading the current series but, if you did, you would see that there isn't a glorification of the drinking etc but there are ramifications for Barbara Gordon. Personally, I think BG deserves to have some consequence-free fun, however she chooses it (or, rather, how the writers decide the character should choose it), because after the 3 years she's had, heaven knows she deserves it. But, to start, it does not romanticize this, which leads to the next section. The second part, however, is what compels me to respond at the moment. The part beginning with "But if you romanticize drinking at a bar can that not lead to the cover?" ABSOLUTELY NOT. This victim blaming which I cannot let lie. If you are suggesting that women being sexually or otherwise assaulted because they decide to go to a bar and/or imbibe in alcohol should mean we need to 'protect' our children from the dangers of booze then ... well I am not sure how to proceed civilly here. Women are assaulted because men assault them. Not because they have a drink or dress in skimpy clothes or anything else. Before I end off, I'll bring this back around to the cover. One of the objections to the variant cover is that it aestheticizes the sexual violence perpetuated against Barbara Gordon in The Killing Joke. I said it myself -it is a beautiful piece of art. If we are to protect our children, girls and more importantly boys as well as men & women, from anything ("won't somebody think of the children?!?") it should be from the depictions of violence against women that glorify and celebrate it. my ultimate issue is censorship, whether it's by the government, the public, or the morality police. Raphael Alberqurque created a beautiful, scary homage to a scene in a book, that now will be forever tagged as trash because a segment of society saw it as they saw it (right or wrong is not for ME to judge). I saw a tweet yesterday that said, because DC lethim do this cover it just shows that they hate women. That is just as wrong as your perception that this cover is vile and has no business on the stands (forgive me if that's not what you think, I don't want to put words in your mouth, I'm generalizing here). The cover was not censored. The cover hasn't been banned, as evidenced by the countless people who are now using the cover as an avatar on social media, and those clamouring it to be made into posters. The artist listened to why some people found the cover problematic, and decided that it would be best to remove the cover, for he did not want to cause harm. Perhaps most importantly, DC listened to the BG creators themselves, who campaigned against the cover before there was even a public outcry. The creators spoke about the integrity of their book and their vision, and how the cover went against it. DC yielded to the will of their creators. How is that censorship? There was no censorship. No one is saying that TKJ or Watchmen etc should be banned or censored. I find it hard to believe they would have a hard time being made today, as you claimed earlier. I mean, Jupiter's Legacy for example, is a very popular comic book, that features fridging and sexualises women. It is not being 'censored' by anyone. In fact, if you do a search for articles, you will find an almost deluge of praise for the book. I think it is lovely that you chat and consult with your daughter, my dad does the same with us kids. It really helps us see other perspectives. I disagree with her view though, because the image does not show Batgirl empowered to fight back the Joker, especially since she doesn't have the chance to do that, because that's not what the story is. www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=796916953679235Compare these two images, the removal of the fear in her eyes changes the image almost completely. And no one is saying Rafael's cover is trash. Even people like me, who are glad that it was removed, recognizes the artistic value in it. And we're not saying DC hates women, but that DC has a problem with how it treats its female characters. I hope you have a chance to read the article Mara and I wrote about this here on TC. It explains why the cover affected a lot of people in a very negative way. Yes, women are strong enough to fight back against violence and trauma. No one is questioning that. What we are questioning is the constant glamorization of gendered violence in comic books.
|
|
|
Post by sailormarvel on Mar 18, 2015 13:48:15 GMT -5
Rafael Albuquerque did a brilliant interview about this. It is in Portuguese, but I post it here anyway. I've translated some key bits: entretenimento.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2015/03/18/a-industria-de-hq-sempre-foi-machista-diz-brasileiro-de-capa-da-batgirl.htmWhen asked if he received any pressure to remove the cover:"No. The decision was mine alone. I see a lot of people talking about freedom of expression and that I was forced to do this. I have always defended minorities. I think this is what is correct and what has integrity. I don't think a book that has the intention of lifting the female self-esteem should have images that suggest otherwise. In another book, maybe the cover would make sense. But not Batgirl's current book. Freedom of speech also means not saying what you don't want to say and that is exactly the right I exercised in making this decision."He was directly asked if concerns about the portrayal of women could cut into the creative freedom of artists or if they were valid complaints:"They are completely valid. The industry as a whole has always been sexist. We are used to this but we are living through a moment where the industry is opening up. It is important for us the reevaluate our values and our positions. I think that dialogue and respect is fundamental for the industry not to divide itself. Respect is my key flag on this issue"What would you like to be the legacy of this controversy:
"I think that, independently of your position about the cover, feminism or free speech, the important thing is to learn to listen. To have empathy for those with differing views. To put yourself in the position of the other and have some consideration... Freedom of expression cannot be reduced to only the things you like. Freedom must come with responsibility."
|
|
|
Post by sailormarvel on Mar 18, 2015 13:57:16 GMT -5
Rafael Albuquerque did a brilliant interview about this. It is in Portuguese, but I post it here anyway. I've translated some key bits: entretenimento.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2015/03/18/a-industria-de-hq-sempre-foi-machista-diz-brasileiro-de-capa-da-batgirl.htmWhen asked if he received any pressure to remove the cover:"No. The decision was mine alone. I see a lot of people talking about freedom of expression and that I was forced to do this. I have always defended minorities. I think this is what is correct and what has integrity. I don't think a book that has the intention of lifting the female self-esteem should have images that suggest otherwise. In another book, maybe the cover would make sense. But not Batgirl's current book. Freedom of speech also means not saying what you don't want to say and that is exactly the right I exercised in making this decision."He was directly asked if concerns about the portrayal of women could cut into the creative freedom of artists or if they were valid complaints:"They are completely valid. The industry as a whole has always been sexist. We are used to this but we are living through a moment where the industry is opening up. It is important for us the reevaluate our values and our positions. I think that dialogue and respect is fundamental for the industry not to divide itself. Respect is my key flag on this issue"What would you like to be the legacy of this controversy:
"I think that, independently of your position about the cover, feminism or free speech, the important thing is to learn to listen. To have empathy for those with differing views. To put yourself in the position of the other and have some consideration... Freedom of expression cannot be reduced to only the things you like. Freedom must come with responsibility." In regards to the cover being a homage to TKJ he said:"Even if not intentionally, DC and I made a mistake in thinking the image would be appropriate."
|
|
|
Post by harmonica on Mar 18, 2015 14:22:57 GMT -5
thanks for translating that interview
|
|
|
Post by pacino on Mar 18, 2015 14:28:24 GMT -5
I just heard a podcast where someone snarked 'These tumblr and twitter people dont even read the book'. Another said 'They probably didnt even read The Killing Joke'.
You won't be able to sway some people if they are coming from that point of view.
|
|
|
Post by sailormarvel on Mar 18, 2015 14:37:23 GMT -5
thanks for translating that interview My pleasure!
|
|
|
Post by sailormarvel on Mar 18, 2015 14:38:28 GMT -5
I just heard a podcast where someone snarked 'These tumblr and twitter people dont even read the book'. Another said 'They probably didnt even read The Killing Joke'. You won't be able to sway some people if they are coming from that point of view. On that interview I translated above, Albuquerque openly says readers, ans especially young female readers, have no obligation to read TKJ.
|
|