Writers, I recognize this might not matter to you at first, but read through.
Chuck Dixon is a freelance writer of comic books, best known for his work on Batman titles in the 1980s and early 1990s. He was recently informed that he would no longer be working for DC, despite the fact that he was the primary writer for multiple titles.
The reasons aren't completely clear... but the unofficial word is that he refused to put more overtly homosexual characters into the books he was writing.
The reason, per Dixon, is that he doesn't feel sexuality is a topic that should be openly breached in comic books which are going to be marketed to children as well as adults. In his words, he writes with an eye toward "a precocious ten-year-old." In other words, he views general-audience comics as young adult fare: to be written with the notion of producing something appealling to an older reader, but undistressing to younger ones. No sexuality of any sort; he's on record as being upset when another Batman scripter wrote a scene in which Dick Grayson had opened condoms on the bedside table, whereas his own scripts tended more toward 1950s-esque romantic clinches followed by cuts to other scenes.
Now, I'm not debating the notion of whether DC was right to fire him. They own the titles, they get to have final say as to content. My question is this: is he right?
I'm inclined to say he is. I grew up with comics, and I recall how controversial it was when a comic (Teen Titans) showed Robin and Koriand'r (Starfire) reacting to a call by both sitting up in the same bed. That happened in a prestige-format comic specifically marked for adult readers, but it was still shocking to many... and it was later reprinted in the regular comic with little fanfare, because the discussions had already taken place. When Swamp Thing got brutal, they put a "Mature Readers Only" tag on it and yanked the CCA stamp. Later, when DC realized the value in adult-concept comics, they formed a seperate imprint, VERTIGO, to handle those titles.
In the meantime, though, things have continued to march onward. I've been picking up mainstream comics again, in graphic novel format, to donate to learning-disabled teens. Along the way, I've been reading them, trying to keep track of what I'm donating....
DAMN.
Whether it's She-Hulk sleeping around, secondary characters being led into torturous on-panel deaths in the pages of Shadowpact, a cheerfully upbeat teen superhero being ripped to shreds and eaten by a crocodile-man who he'd thought was his only friend in the pages of 52 or any one of dozens of other examples, I grow leery of giving this stuff to teens, for fear some of it may wind up going to twelve, thirteen, or even... dare I say it... precocious ten year olds.
I expect this in the pages of titles under the Vertigo or Marvel MAX imprints, and I'm aware that it's always a "buyer beware" situation going into indie comics as far as maturity level goes. But I do think that I'm behind Dixon if he decided to stick up for his principles and just refuse to incorporate sex into a comic that doesn't need to have it in there. Especially as he had shown no qualms about writing overtly sexual scenes, both heterosexual and homosexual, for comics that had Mature Content warnings.
So, I'm curious. What does anyone else out there think?
Chuck Dixon is a freelance writer of comic books, best known for his work on Batman titles in the 1980s and early 1990s. He was recently informed that he would no longer be working for DC, despite the fact that he was the primary writer for multiple titles.
The reasons aren't completely clear... but the unofficial word is that he refused to put more overtly homosexual characters into the books he was writing.
The reason, per Dixon, is that he doesn't feel sexuality is a topic that should be openly breached in comic books which are going to be marketed to children as well as adults. In his words, he writes with an eye toward "a precocious ten-year-old." In other words, he views general-audience comics as young adult fare: to be written with the notion of producing something appealling to an older reader, but undistressing to younger ones. No sexuality of any sort; he's on record as being upset when another Batman scripter wrote a scene in which Dick Grayson had opened condoms on the bedside table, whereas his own scripts tended more toward 1950s-esque romantic clinches followed by cuts to other scenes.
Now, I'm not debating the notion of whether DC was right to fire him. They own the titles, they get to have final say as to content. My question is this: is he right?
I'm inclined to say he is. I grew up with comics, and I recall how controversial it was when a comic (Teen Titans) showed Robin and Koriand'r (Starfire) reacting to a call by both sitting up in the same bed. That happened in a prestige-format comic specifically marked for adult readers, but it was still shocking to many... and it was later reprinted in the regular comic with little fanfare, because the discussions had already taken place. When Swamp Thing got brutal, they put a "Mature Readers Only" tag on it and yanked the CCA stamp. Later, when DC realized the value in adult-concept comics, they formed a seperate imprint, VERTIGO, to handle those titles.
In the meantime, though, things have continued to march onward. I've been picking up mainstream comics again, in graphic novel format, to donate to learning-disabled teens. Along the way, I've been reading them, trying to keep track of what I'm donating....
DAMN.
Whether it's She-Hulk sleeping around, secondary characters being led into torturous on-panel deaths in the pages of Shadowpact, a cheerfully upbeat teen superhero being ripped to shreds and eaten by a crocodile-man who he'd thought was his only friend in the pages of 52 or any one of dozens of other examples, I grow leery of giving this stuff to teens, for fear some of it may wind up going to twelve, thirteen, or even... dare I say it... precocious ten year olds.
I expect this in the pages of titles under the Vertigo or Marvel MAX imprints, and I'm aware that it's always a "buyer beware" situation going into indie comics as far as maturity level goes. But I do think that I'm behind Dixon if he decided to stick up for his principles and just refuse to incorporate sex into a comic that doesn't need to have it in there. Especially as he had shown no qualms about writing overtly sexual scenes, both heterosexual and homosexual, for comics that had Mature Content warnings.
So, I'm curious. What does anyone else out there think?
