Firebug:https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0785G1QDT?pf_rd_r=9ACFKE77GBGCH3JWFPTB&pf_rd_p=edaba0ee-c2fe-4124-9f5d-b31d6b1bfbee
Umbral, Vol.1: https://www.amazon.com/Umbral-Issues-12-Book-Series/dp/B018848KGK/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=umbral+johnston&qid=1589876278&sr=8-3
Read as much as you can of these--or, if you're really pressed for time and money, read another comic if you have one! The video below deals with Firebug and Umbral only slightly, so you can still follow it if you haven't read them (or read much of them):
Response Question: Which, if any, of the comics we've read do you feel is too graphic for younger readers? Why is this? Do you feel any of them are "pornographic" in any sense of the word? Would you support libraries or schools censoring this work like some have for Blankets, Fun Home, The Killing Joke, and others? If so, do you feel comics should have a rating system or a warning label? Or should comics just be comics?
.jpg)
In my opinion, one of, if not the most important founding principle of our society, is that of freedom of speech. It could be argued that all of our other freedoms hang upon this one. Without taking a deep dive into political ideologies, we as a free people have to safeguard those principles and the fruit of those principles, regardless of their potentially abhorrent nature. All this being said, with regards to this class, the major discussion lies with regulation of how speech, whether it be printed or otherwise, is made available to the public.
ReplyDeleteI am a youth pastor, so there... I’ve done the unthinkable and let my bias out of the bag up front. This issue is one that my students struggle with on a more and more frequent basis. In our media driven culture we are exposed to countless forms of written and graphic forms of speech constantly. So the question is, how do we draw a definitive line between what is art and what is “obscene”? The issue, like you stated in the video, the “Miller Test”, can be very subjective. I think we need a rating system for parents to use so that they can be aware of the media consumption of their children, or for themselves for that matter. Writers should keep their target audience in mind when writing. The example you gave in the post was that of the “Killing Joke”. It is fair to say that there are probably as many, if not more, adults that are avid Batman fans as there are children at this point. However, my 8 year old son loves Batman but I would not let him read “The Long Halloween”. So in short, if a writer wants to make a comic or graphic novel that is more adult-themed, have at it-- just have a rating system in place that lets me know what I am consuming.
As to the comics that we have read in this class, I do not feel any were pornographic in nature. However, as I said above, I might censor them from my children while they are young. As for myself, a consenting adult, I did not feel that any were in poor taste. My personal bias aside, I am very reluctant to censor any work of literature. I have come against this issue several times very recently. There are a great deal of works of literature that I find to be morally repugnant, (or just plain terribly written-- looking at you “Twilight”), but in my opinion that doesn't give me the right to cincture thought. The freedom of speech almost always guarantees that there will be a disagreement over what is spoken, or written as the case may be.
Bulwer-Lytton’s Richelieu said, “The pen is mightier than the sword”, so words have a power that can live on long after us and truly immortalize the writer. By censoring, editing or otherwise hindering these words from being heard, we are essentially committing a crime against humanity as a whole. Stripping away freedom of speech through censorship is equated to stripping away mankind’s ability to express his innermost thoughts through the conduit of art. Regardless of the intent behind these words, or any media, they represent this power of human thought and that, in essence, is what we have the power to protect. And in the words of Stan Lee via Spiderman’s Uncle Ben, “With great power comes great responsibility.”
Yes, great points--the problem with a rating system is that it IS a form of censorship, albeit for reasons of appropriateness rather than silencing. However, some books would be read much less if they got an "R" rating, and some works might not deserve that rating if it's not a question of violence or sex but simply mature issues (like Blankets). As you suggest, it is a crime against humanity to not let certain works be read or heard, and not to let people choose to read them. As a parent, you have that right, but should society act like parents as a whole? Especially when you admit that none of the works are in poor taste, just some 'graphic' material...should we save the rating for poor taste issues? And what would those be? It's tricky...
DeleteYour last paragraph, this sentence in particular "By censoring, editing or otherwise hindering these words from being heard, we are essentially committing a crime against humanity as a whole." brought to mind The Fig Leaf campaign in which great works of art were censored based off the ideology of the ruling catholic church. Great works of art were altered forever because of one groups opinion.
DeleteDr. Grasso, you're correct, a rating system is a censorship, in the most general sense. However, I think of it much the same as a rating system in movies. My wife and I will pre-screen a movie with ratings and reviews on IMDB for appropriateness before allowing our children to watch. I think of this as a tool to be utilized by parents, or even by individuals themselves, wanting to be aware of what they are consuming, much the same way that we use nutrition facts on food labels. The labels would tell me what is in the media and let me make the decision for myself whether it is something that I should proceed with. As you stated, this may cause some things to be "less read", but they would still be accessible to all and every person could make an educated decision based on content. You are correct in that this issue is definitely tricky.
DeleteI think that the term “young reader is too vague”. I teach at the high school level and I would recommend any of these books to my seniors. I also understand that some parents would probably have an issue with Man Eaters, mainly due to the info graph of how to use a tampon. I think that the judgement of appropriateness of any of the Graphic Novels that we have read so far will vary by person. That is the tricky thing about censorship, who gets to decide what is appropriate? I find it interesting that graphic novels are attacked so often about their appropriateness, especially with the leniency of what is acceptable on television or in movies. I have a theory that because these acts of violence or sexuality are temporary, they are on the screen for a fleeting moment and then gone that they are not attacked as heavily as graphic novel whose “inappropriate act” is frozen in a frame. Also, I think that graphic novels are an easy target because images are easier to scan than pages of words. If parents were more diligent in their evaluation of Young Adult Literature I think they may find just as much violence and sexual content as can be seen in flipping through a graphic novel.
ReplyDeleteMaybe a rating system would be helpful but how do you rate it, who makes the decision, how would that effect the artistic expression of the medium? We live in a society in which “appropriateness” is a continuum and different individuals fall along that continuum in many different places. Instead of placing the responsibility on the Graphic Novel industry is it too much to ask for parents to be make that call without forcing their opinion as if it is the only truth.
Yes, you make a significant point: comics are seen as more like pornography because you can linger over an image, and therefore, use it for voyeuristic purposes. A static nude image is the same in Playboy as in a comic, many would argue, since a kid or teenager would see it the same. I don't agree, but I can see how this argument could be made. I think the problem is that people still don't understand what comics are, so they don't understand (a) why you would have to rate them, and (b) why they should EVER be inappropriate. And of course a rating system would be tricky, since you could give both Man-Eaters and The Killing Joke an "R" for totally different reasons--and it might lump them together unfairly. It's a tricky issue.
DeleteI feel that none of the comics read so far would be too graphic for most ages. I read manga like Inuyasha and other things like this when I was very young. Fight scenes and slight pornography is something that many preteens run into without the help of comics and literature. You learn about the human body in middle school and by then it is just apart of life. whether people like to recognize it or not even by elementary school several children already know about these things. Umbral is probably the most "graphic" comic we have had when it pertains to gore but it still is not as bad as some other things I have read. I have never backed censoring of any kind in literature. The stories are what you make of them, and the people who believe gore and porn type things should be censored are typically very religious. I believe that it is all just a part of life whether we like it or not. So why censor someones work when it is something that we see or hear about in everyday life? Instead of censoring these things I believe the idea of a warning label would keep anybody from getting into too much trouble. This way no one can complain that this was just meant for kids to pick up without an idea of what they were getting into. I loved Maneaters and frankly did not see a problem with it until reading the other comments. It is all about mindset and who you are as a person, but I believe comics should just be comics.
ReplyDeleteIn a way, I agree with you: comics should just be comics, much the way books are books. We don't rate books, do we? Any kid can buy The Game of Thrones books, and they have horrible violence and rape in them. And yet we quibble about Fun Home or The Killing Joke. What's the difference? Just the visuals? As you say, we see this every day, especially in movies, so why are books any different (or comics, in this case)? Good points!
DeleteSo far, I feel like none of the comics we have read have been too graphic. It is hard to determine what age should be able to read Firebug, The Long Halloween, or even Maneaters. I don't know the actual statistics of age groups who read comics or kids who even read today anyways (they all have phones), but I would think that most kids start getting into superhero's and actually wanting to read them around eight or nine or years old. (That is my assumption of course, maybe even younger.) Using that age as an example I can see where some parents might not want to expose their kids to the slight nudity in Firebug, even though it was only one scene, or even the violence of The Long Halloween or Maneaters. I do think that there is the option that books could be rated or censored like movies, and maybe in doing so this could help the parents determine if they would allow their child to read it. However, now days most kids around 10 years of age have cell phones or their own tablet, they could easily go down a rabbit hole on the internet and find something their parent may not want them to see, so what difference does it make if they read a comic like Firebug that shows a naked women. One thing, I not understand is why it is such a big deal with graphic novels and not traditional novels. I remember reading The Hunger Games in grade school and that book is very violent, the movies are violent also but kids love it, so why hasn't this book been banned for certain ages? I think it all depends on personal opinion whether or not a comic is too graphic. All comics are not meant for children, so why all comics categorized as children books. We can categorize traditional novels as "young reader", "teen", etc., but comics we can not, so maybe that is something the literature community needs to think about!
ReplyDeleteYes, great points--kids can go down the rabbit hole of the internet any day, without parents even knowing what they're seeing. A book is much more controlled and confined. I'll never forget when my fourteen year-old made a joke about Porn Hub, and I was like "what???" He apparently heard about it at school! And as you suggest, if the Hunger Games already has violence, then why is a comic book any more objectionable? It is very subjective in the end, and comics are really no different from books themselves, which people don't seem as concerned about.
DeleteMy philosophy on censorship and issues of appropriateness of content for children is basically that if you block them from consuming one type of content they will happily find it somewhere else. That may be a fatalistic perspective, and it could definitely change if I have children, but it's where I'm at for now. If a child loves graphic novels and they find Batman: The Long Halloween or The Vision (both of which I think are decidedly mature and potentially upsetting) at the public library, and their reading level is such that they can grasp the material, wouldn't it be better to allow them to read it if they want to and turn your concern as a parent towards giving them a safe space to process and discuss what they read?
ReplyDeleteThat's basically how I feel about violence and sex in comics. Like you suggested, Dr Grasso, finding out about this stuff in comics may not be the worst way to grow up, you know?
With that said, though, I really resent any attempts at censorship of women's bodies. I know it happens, but really, there is nothing inappropriate about an instructional diagram for tampon insertion. That just perpetuates the stigmatization of menstruation, which is harmful to people of all gender expressions and people in all bodies.
So to wrap up, I guess I would say that I would probably let my child read these comics. If they want to read them, they can probably handle them, so long as they know that challenging and upsetting content is out there and that they can reach out to me to process and understand it.
Yes, you make a good point--I think people are more worried about seeing naked female bodies than excessive blood and gore. This happened in one of my classes: a student reported me to the chair because I was showing 'pornography' in class; it was Manet's painting of Olympia, which is a nude. He thought it was shocking that I would show a naked woman in class, since that is' "wrong" and "immoral." But he wasn't worried when we looked at the statue of David (it's a guy, so no problem, I guess!). Also, this same student claimed his favorite movie was Gladiator, which is out-and-out violent and gory. So why is a woman's body 'worse' than a man getting cut in half? Maybe context is the real litmus test, and I think comics always explain WHY the graphic images are in the text, in a way that a careful reader can understand. I think in most cases, the people most offended are the ones who spend the least time reading the books in question!
DeleteAs a parent of kids who read at comprehension levels much higher than their age and is also an English major, I do not censor what they read too much. I do require that I read it first if it is questionable in any sort of way so that they are not too limited on what they can read. I feel it is important for them to learn from the books they read and I prefer them to have diversity. I did not feel that any of the comics that we have read so far were anything that I would keep my children from reading. The only one that even came close would be Maneaters, and that is just because there were some pretty graphic pictures in it of the inner workings of the vagina. However, it was no where close to what I myself would consider pornographic and I still do not think it was enough to keep from my kids. I am also a substitute teacher so I do understand the need to censor works such as these to avoid issues that could arise with parents. I can also see that it may be beneficial for their to be a rating system of sorts to help out with something like that. Even children's books are categorized, so I do not see why comics could not be the same. Although I do not see a need for a warning label as parents should already be aware of what they are letting their children read.
ReplyDeleteI agree, there probably should be some kind of rating system, but if so, ALL books should have it, and not just comics. I think comics are more immediate, and kids could look at the comic without reading it (so that removes the issue of context), but even so, a graphic image is a great way to get people to read the book and learn more. I know as a kid, I read a lot of books because of their covers--a cover that looked strange, or scary, or enticing would often get me to thumb through the pages. So it's not the worst way to get someone to start reading books, is it? :)
DeleteI don't feel like any of the books have been too graphic for younger viewers. None of the pictures have been too graphic but there is some language that probably would not be appropriate for kids. We see bad language a lot in Man-eaters. To me it is normal because I hear it all the time on TV or social media, but for a kid that is 12, their parents might not appreciate it. I have read books with no pictures that are far more inappropriate than these graphic novels with pictures. I also feel like parents should navigate what their child reads. As they get into high school their minds are going to expand and they are going to be reading a couple of novels that will make them uncomfortable. There are so many books that I've read that have a couple of inappropriate parts but there is a bigger message to the book. For example, in Man-eaters there were a couple of graphic pictures with the tampons and the period blood, but the message of the book was far greater than those couple of "graphic" images.
ReplyDeleteI agree--in the end, a parent has to be responsible for what their kids read, and I don't think we need blanket censorship for that. I mean, as a parent, that's what I do...and I know that many might not agree with what I let my kids read, and what I steer them away from (which really isn't much). Just tonight I was watching the show The Great (on Hulu) with my 16 year-old son, and it's a comedy full of sex and filthy language. But it's funny--that's the context, it's satirizing people in history. And it doesn't really faze him, and I think he understands the context. I firmly believe that literature is one of the ways we negotiate the world and learn about truths and taboos and realities. It's far better to learn about it in a great novel than on a bathroom wall, after all!
DeleteMayra Munoz:The only comic that I think is a little too graphic for children is “Firebug” (nudity), specially for grades 1-6 and maybe even up to 8th grade, some of these children are not mature enough to understand the art of the graphics. Some of the others are a little too bloody, like “Man eaters”, but it seems like even something this graphic is usually shown on regular TV. I would probably not support the censoring of the graphics, since in some way they are also part of literature, but I think it would help if there was some type of label, so that parents would be aware of what their children are reading. I would not encourage anybody to have any like the ones I mentioned in any of the younger schools. Or even any that showed any kind of violence, children are children, and there is no need to introduce them to violence at that age.
ReplyDeleteYes, clearly you wouldn't want someone very emotionally immature to read these books, and that's where common sense comes in. But an elementary library wouldn't have many mature books, either, or anything above a certain reading level. I agree that you want to protect very young children from violence and even sex if you can...and yet, does our culture obey this rule? Almost every show, every movie, and every ad is objectionable if you look carefully...and even their friends at school will teach them bad words and bad jokes (and bad behavior!). So I wonder how much we should hold literature accountable when no one else seems to follow suit?
DeleteJordyn Moore: In the comics we have read so far, I don’t believe there are any that are too graphic or pornographic for young readers. However, I do think that women are very over sexualized in a few of them. The only comic we’ve read that I believe is getting too close to the line for young children would be firebug. I personally don’t feel as if any of the books we have read were pornographic, I just don’t believe enough happened to make it so (Firebug included). If I were to support schools and libraries in censoring different comics I would do it differently than they are trying to do it. For comics like “Blankets” I agree a young child should not find it next to other comics. I think it should be put in a section where the readers are close to the age of the people in the story or just a few years younger. This way works so that readers still get to read this great comic, but a young child isn’t reading things that might be too much for them at the time. Now for a comic like The Killing Joke, I haven’t read the comic but if schools and libraries are trying to ban it just because of the violence in it then I believe it is probably not a worthwhile idea. Violence is in everything else children learn, read, and do, so why ban one comic because of it. I don’t know if comics should have a rating system, it might be a good thought but also, I feel like so many young people would not get the chance to read good comics because of their rating.
ReplyDeleteGreat response, and a good argument for a rating system, or at least a way of viewing comics as literature, not "comics." We need to simply put all mature literature together, and that includes mature comics, and keep the kids' books (and kids' comics) together as well. Maybe that's the problem...we keep looking at comics as something apart from other books and films, and it's simply not. So our own biases is what's ruining the experience for kids, and increasing the ignorance of parents and other adults.
DeleteBrittany Davis - I don't believe anything that we've read so far is pornographic in anyway. I chose to read, "They're Not Like Us" instead of the other comics listed because that's what I had and it only had a couple more adult scenes in it. I do think that women are pretty sexualized in most of the comics, but I feel like that's just the nature of comics and video games, things of that nature. I think that's because they are more geared towards boys/men. I am in agreement with Jordyn in that I think there should be sections of age appropriate literature, not necessarily a rating system. I also think that what a kid reads or doesn't read is ultimately up to their parents and if they are okay with it. I don't think it's right to censer the comics solely because it is part of the comic and part of the story, it ads to it, the author didn't just throw it in there just for S&G's they had a reason for it.
ReplyDeleteCallie Farley: I don't really think that any of them are too inappropriate for young readers. I do think that women are over-sexualized in many of them though. I do think that this is a problem because honestly it just gives boys unrealistic expectations and/or gives them the wrong idea of women in general. in addition, I've always been one to advocate for using the age-group new adult instead of just lumping 12/13-18/19 all in the same category and thinking that it will work. I think that if you try to censor kids too much than they will just rebel and get the content from somewhere else that could potentially be more detrimental. I don't think its right to say "this shouldn't be in comics" and instead just put the comic in the appropriate age category so that when your child goes to the young adult section you know that there will be, as they say, "fade to black" scenes rather than blatant graphic scenes that you might find in new adult or adult age categories.
ReplyDelete