Buffy's Choice and the "Evils" of Free Speech Fallout

One of the things I love about free speech is that it grants you the right to have--and express--your own opinions about anything you want.  You don't have to take small little things like etiquette, dignity, and respect for others who might be more involved in an issue, into account--and this of course is the hallmark of so many citizens of the Internet, who often feel that their views on something trumps everything else.

Including, apparently, their own dignity.

When I finally read about the goings-on in the current issues of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I was shocked at the developments.  Buffy Summers, the heroine and protagonist, had apparently made a bad decision at a party, gotten black-out drunk, and ended up sleeping with some guy.  She was too wasted to even remember who it was, but apparently she became pregnant as a result.  In thinking about her circumstances--which are, to say the least, unique--she has apparently resolved to have an abortion, reasoning that she simply doesn't feel ready to bring a child into the world.

It is, of course, at this point where the free speech kicks in, and every anti-abortion crusader from underneath the rock springs up and decries what a horrible development this is.  They berate everything they can: Buffy is supposed to protect the weak; Buffy shouldn't have made such an irresponsible decision; why can't she just consider adoption; and so on and so forth.  I've seen articles and comments from idealogues galore--many of whom freely admit they've never read this comic or seen the television series, but still feel they have the proper context to argue about this particular story.

Never mind that you had no interest in this series or story until it told this particular story, about this particular issue, in a way that seems to avoid the ending you'd want it to.  Never mind that you're now condemning Joss Whedon and his creative team based solely on this issue.  Never mind that this decision is rarely addressed in a respectful way in the mainstream storytelling media--it's not going the way you want it to, so you're going to scream and shout and bitch to anyone who will listen that this Joss Whedon and all these evil liberal leftist comic book readers are tearing up the nation and sending it straight to hell in a hand-basket.

Ah, irony.

I'm usually not given to this level of derision, but I've seen so many posts that support this stance that I can't help but transfer the sentiment to this one.

I probably won't be reading the current issues of Buffy anytime soon.  I don't know all of the specific details of that plot, aside from the occasional sample page put out on the Internet.  But I do have an abiding faith in Joss Whedon's ability to tell a story that is involving, insightful, and above all, respectful of the human issues involved.  That's simply what the man does: he tells stories well.  They may be stories about vampires and monsters and captains in tight pants, but they are also stories about suddenly losing a family member, dealing with a betrayal from a friend, and struggling through drug addiction.  They are stories of human beings: wonderful, horrible, flawed, fantastic human beings, and if we know anything about Buffy, she's one of the most human protagonists he's come up with.

And humans, as so many of us know, are prone to make at least the occasional bad decision.  And those bad decisions often end up coming back to haunt us, and force us to confront them, however uncomfortable they may be and however much we'd like to simply ignore them or gloss them over.  That's exactly what Buffy is doing right now, and we as observers of this story should think about the agony, the seriousness, and the life-changing potential of that confrontation--not doling out knee-jerk reactions immediately based on our own personal beliefs.  It's fine to have your own opinions about abortion--but focusing only on the outcome without respecting the heroine's struggle through the narrative is, at the very least, flagrantly insensitive.

And, while I could be wrong, I get the distinct feeling that most of the pro-lifers here have simply gotten word of this headline, and then set out to spread their displeasure about it without even giving the issue a read.  I point them out mostly because they appear to be reacting negatively to the apparent direction of the narrative.  I have yet to see any pro-choice posts trumpeting this as "Abortions for all!" or anything like that.

If the Komen Foundation debacle has proven anything, it's that pro-lifers have a long way to go before they're going to take away a woman's right to choose.  The fact that women mostly have the right to choose in this country is not something you'd know by watching the mainstream media these days, astoundingly enough, and that is undoubtedly due in no small part to influence from those who are outraged at the very notion that some woman somewhere should have the right to decide what's going on in her own body.  With this story at least, now even that is under fire.

I don't mean for this post to be political, even if my loyalties are very clearly showing.  My main goal is to argue for the sanctity of storytelling, and respect for its ability to start a dialog about topics that are controversial or uncomfortable.  Many of the people and organizations that have responded to this news item have only argued their own points, seemingly just from the idea of this story's very existence, without having read it.  I think that's deplorable, and to me at least, it demonstrates a complete lack of respect for not only those who tell such stories and their fans, but also anyone who may have lived another version of the same story.

DC Comics Gets a Lot of Coverage Today

DC Comics got a fair bit of both positive and negative news coverage today, as they unveiled yet another new logo, and got ripped into by Fox News for having too much sex and violence in their comics.  I'll go into each item, and add my take on them.

New Logo
Probably the more popular item of the two, DC has introduced another updated logo design, with some slight variations done to commemorate its various properties.  They'd updated before, in 2005, with a blue and white design that I thought was pretty slick and relevant, so this most recent one is a little mystifying to me.  Their justification is that it coincides with some of their more recent milestones, like last year's relaunch and same-day digital delivery of their titles.  They also say it's more digital-friendly.  Here's a few of their more well-known logos and the basic new one:

The new design.  Yay?

The old classic logo.

The 2005 redesign.  Sweet.

The new logo, as you can see, is basically a D, peeling away to reveal a C underneath.  I suppose it's pretty, in its way, but I feel pretty underwhelmed, particularly when you compare it to the bold, blue and white star design from 2005.  Despite the reasons they've given for the newest logo, I can't help wondering if they just got pissed at whoever designed the 2005 logo and just want to cut that person off from anymore royalties.  It feels pretty corporate and uninspired, even with the variations, and I have a hard time imagining how this particular change is going to benefit them at this time.

If I've given you the impression that I care passionately about this item, rest assured that I really don't. Overall, even if I don't care for the new logo, I'm pretty unaffected by this development.  I've never been the world's biggest DC fan except for a few titles, and their logo sure as hell isn't going to assure that I buy more comics from them.  It's their playground, and they can do what they want.  I just think this development's a little on the mystifying side.

Fox News DC Debacle
Bleeding Cool news broke this story, and followed up on it later in the day.  Basically, the Fox News syndicate in Washington, D.C. (heheh) seemed to have a problem with the amount of sex and violence in today's superhero comics from DC, accusing them of essentially using the New 52 relaunch to pack their wares with too much of both.  Here's the video that Bleeding Cool originally embedded on their site:

Relaunched Comics Using Sex and Violence To Sell: MyFoxDC.com

In response, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund published an article advising comic book retailers how to defend themselves against a hostile media attack.  That we need to keep these kinds of defenses in place is a pretty sad comment about the state of American journalism these days, but it's unfortunately not surprising.  News outlets often go for these kinds of unjustified "gotcha" pieces, unfairly portraying their subjects in a negative light using flawed logic and juvenile reasoning.

In a prime example, the reporter acquires a bunch of these targeted comics--which have a "16 and up" label on them, for crying out loud--and takes them to a freaking middle school, showing them to the kids there and asking them for reactions.  Clearly, these kids are below the intended reading age--flaw number one--but that may not necessarily stop them from wanting to read or buy these kinds of comics.  This gives way to flaw number two: any comic shop worth its salt will have distinct sections for children and adult buyers.  Essentially, if they aren't peddling it as kiddie fare, and have other materials for younger readers, then why are you getting bent out of shape about this?

Personally, this kind of story makes my blood boil, at least at first.  I see a lot of unfair attacks in the news these days, particularly when it comes to the issue of censorship and freedom of expression.  In comics, as with most industries, the market dictates what is popular, and what will sustain the industry.  If there's too much sex and violence in comics for you, guess what--you don't have to read them.  Attacking comic shops for selling comic books to a particular market is like attacking the Harry Potter books for promoting witchcraft: the people doing the attacking probably haven't read them (and therefore don't have a proper context to judge them), and their fear, more often than not, makes them look like drooling idiots.  Most kids with a basic understanding of life can figure out what's fiction and what's not.  Sensationalizing something by attacking it is only going to make them aware of it, and likely more curious about it.

And it's that final thought that brings me back to my calm.  Societal disapproval of a particular event or form of media often leads to it becoming more popular because of the sensationalization poured into it by the disapprovers.  They're basically shooting themselves in the foot, particularly in this day and age.

So, if they want to make more comic book readers by trying to vilify comic books, stores, and publishers, go right ahead.  We'll be here.