You know, it's been a while since I worked on Pandemonium Renaissance, which is one of the most cherished works I have ever done. I felt that everyone deserved a little update on what's going on with the title, which is not cancelled or ended.
I actually was about to pick up work on it again before the problems happened with SmackJeeves, but since that happened, the delicate inspiration I have always needed for Pandemonium Renaissance was a little damaged. I certainly didn't want to continue it at SmackJeeves, but at the same time I wasn't up to creating a whole new site at ComicDish and I wasn't sure where I wanted to go with it.
However, I have now decided, and I've begun work on it.
What I will do is, I am going to do full-page, glorious art nouveau pieces and tell the story in poetic language. I intend to colour as many of the pieces as I can and make a gorgeous picture storybook. I plan to release it in paperback and in hardcover. If the response and support are good, I'll also be willing to collect the SmackJeeves run into a comic for you to purchase as well.
The storybook Pandemonium Renaissance will be more like something that Luceferos and friends put out to tell their story and to show you how beautiful, how glorious Dis really is, and how magnificent the Abyss is. I was always challenged and, to some extent, frustrated by the comic format for the story, and I think the new format I am currently implementing will be much more suited to the story. It will also very likely lead to some new and gorgeous posters being made available for your enjoyment.
Of course, if this idea takes off and is met by significant support, I have other ideas too, like a festive grimoire, and other fun and beautiful things to enjoy. I know Pandemonium Renaissance was and is loved by many, and I never want to disappoint them. The story is my way of conveying to the world what I have seen in my visions and dreams. So I am sure you understand when I try to convey that it must be the absolute best I can do.
My plan is to take this Autumn and dedicate it to creating Pandemonium Renaissance as a storybook for all of you. Ideally I would like to have it available for the holiday season this year, but that may not be possible since it does take significant time, energy, and attention to do each and every piece of art, and I did ideally want to colour them all. I will not rush myself on this, because I don't want anything less than the best I can do, and I'm sure you don't either!
In any case, Autumn is dedicated to Pandemonium Renaissance. I finished inking the first picture for the book today, and I think it's going to be great fun and quite a healing experience to do. I'll be keeping you updated as regularly as possible, and I think you'll be surprised and impressed at what I've been doing lately!
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
Stop the Witch Hunts. Take a Stand.
Recently it was mentioned that yet another crusade has been announced, to 'combat child porn'. While I completely agree with stamping out pornography that exploits children, I suspect that -- as usual -- the crusade's announced intention is nothing near its actual goals.
In the past decade, adult entertainment has been increasingly discriminated against and 'ghetto-ised', that is to say, it has been forced into a sort of ghetto, an area where similar things exist in a sort of insular world from the rest. Because of a completely frivolous law demanding ridiculous amounts of documentation for adult film actors, some studios suffered massive losses, and all studios in the US today are forced to file much greater documentation for their employees than practically any other industry.
What especially irks me is that the adult industry is often presented as some sort of mafia-run, crime-affiliated, exploitative, illegitimate business that is conducted in shady warehouses and seedy motel rooms. The adult industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, with some studios that produce films comparable to Hollywood quality, such as Digital Playground's big-budget extravaganzas. Maybe once upon a time, adult films were associated with illegality...chiefly because they were made illegal by the same puritanical sorts that seem to be on the same soapbox now. Even nudity, which is not adult material (and the Supreme Court even said so when a nudist film finally brought it to court), was harshly dealt with, especially male nudity. Double-standard, anyone?
It's always the same buzzwords; adult content is purportedly 'endangering' others. As if it's some sort of a weapon. When I was in middle school, some friends of mine at the time purloined a porn mag and flashed a peek of the centrefold at me. I was nonplussed, but mainly because of the massive airbrushing. I wasn't 'endangered', I didn't shrivel up and require hospitalisation, and I don't even remember what she looked like now anyway. Endangering someone means that you are putting them in danger, which means that they may suffer injury, possibly serious. If you are letting your 12-year-old son drive your motorcycle on a cliffside, you are endangering him. If he discovers your vibrator in your closet, he's just embarrassing you.
Canada, England, and a few other completely insane countries have even gone so far as to outlaw any drawn images that may be considered pervy, which contain subjects who 'look' underage. Considering this includes fictional characters, such as aliens and magical beings who may look 19 for pretty much ever, it's rather ridiculous. How do you apply age to a fictional character anyway? I know people in real life who were late bloomers and looked 15 until they were 25. The creepy types who pushed these laws through apparently would like to restrict these people from engaging in any adult behaviour if they 'look' underage. By what standards are we exactly judging this, though? Art styles vary wildly. I have seen art that has depicted fully adult characters, even 40+-year-olds, who are drawn in a style that makes them seem much younger. I have, conversely, also seen art styles that depict supposed middle-schoolers so that they look like collegiates.
And what about the masters like Caravaggio? Are we going to stamp out masterpieces of art because they have subjects who 'look' too young? And shall we destroy Parrish and his gorgeous oeuvres for the same reason? It's inane and ludicrous.
This isn't about protecting or endangering anyone. It's about lazy parenting and lazy lawmaking. Most of all, this only punishes those who already abide by the law and work to put an end to true exploitation and unscrupulous such activities. This is comparable to running a campaign to have cheese removed from grocery stores because you don't think your children should have it. And it's comparable to actually getting cheese removed, or restricted for purchase, simply for that reason. If you don't want your children to have cheese, how about just not buying them cheese and monitoring them, guiding them, being a parent to them so it doesn't become a part of their lives until they are at a point where they can decide for themselves about it?
I am an adult. I have the right to my own entertainment. I am not saying that adult films should be sold in every store, or that children should be able to go out and buy their own. But I am saying, it's time to take a stand. Lawmakers and fanatics need to back off. It's trickling down to the rest of us; I'm not in the adult entertainment industry, but as an artist, I am affected. Every artist is. It's time for parents to be responsible for the children they just had to have. I am through sacrificing rights and privileges for someone else's inability to be a responsible parent.
The attempt to encourage adult sites towards the .xxx domain suffix should be vehemently resisted. While they cite that it will make filtering those sites easier for schools and parental controls, it will also make it easier to further restrict and eliminate adult sites altogether. Many sites with adult content already work with these filters and controls. And if they do not, it is the job of the people who update the controls to find which sites need to be added. It is simply more laziness, more irresponsibility, and an uncomfortable attempt to place everyone involved in a single place for convenient disposal or further marginalisation.
Furthermore, websites that refuse to link to any sites that use the words 'boy', 'girl', 'teen', et cetera are only contributing to the problem. So now words are also endangering? When I say 'I'm going to have a night out with the girls', it means I am going to go out with my friends who happen to be female. I don't mean I'm going to go cruise the elementary school to take some kids to the coffee house. Similarly, when someone says 'I'm going out with the boys', it tends to mean 'I'm going to go out with my male friends'. For example, famous singing group, the Oak Ridge Boys, were well into adulthood and no-one thought the name was misapplied. Sites that advertise 'hot boys' are generally assumed, by most adults with any degree of common sense, to feature attractive adult men. And last but not least, 18 is the age of majority in most places, though 16 is the age of consent in most places. Therefore, some adult stars are teens. Let's not make 'teen' any more demonised than it already is, as a term. What's next? Twink? The more people pre-judge these words to be bad in meaning, the more it will further be promoted.
It's time to put your foot down. The media buzzwords about children being 'endangered' and women being 'exploited' (it's always like this; as if there are no men in adult film) need to stop. We need to make it clear that this is ultimately only detrimental for society and culture, and furthermore lazy and irresponsible on the part of authorities. As an artist, I refuse to be further censored just because someone who had to spawn some offspring can't do his or her job. I already have a more difficult time of things because some of my comics have adult content, meaning I can't use most printers for my work. I am discriminated against because of that adult content, when I have to take measures to make sure this account or that account aren't linked to it. That is, frankly, unacceptable. And I say that it needs to stop. Now.
Please do take a stand. Write your lawmakers, write your representatives, or even phone them and say this must stop. Saying you're doing something to 'protect children' or 'protect women', and so forth, is just a cheap and frankly exploitative way to get votes and support. It also makes it easy to try and demonise anyone who questions your goals, casting them as some sort of criminal or child-hater. News flash: not everyone likes children, and it's not a bad thing if you don't. But just because you don't want to pick up the slack from lazy parents doesn't mean you don't like children. If anything, it means you don't like lazy parents.
Let's take a stand and prevent this from going any further. It needs to stop right here, right now.
In the past decade, adult entertainment has been increasingly discriminated against and 'ghetto-ised', that is to say, it has been forced into a sort of ghetto, an area where similar things exist in a sort of insular world from the rest. Because of a completely frivolous law demanding ridiculous amounts of documentation for adult film actors, some studios suffered massive losses, and all studios in the US today are forced to file much greater documentation for their employees than practically any other industry.
What especially irks me is that the adult industry is often presented as some sort of mafia-run, crime-affiliated, exploitative, illegitimate business that is conducted in shady warehouses and seedy motel rooms. The adult industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, with some studios that produce films comparable to Hollywood quality, such as Digital Playground's big-budget extravaganzas. Maybe once upon a time, adult films were associated with illegality...chiefly because they were made illegal by the same puritanical sorts that seem to be on the same soapbox now. Even nudity, which is not adult material (and the Supreme Court even said so when a nudist film finally brought it to court), was harshly dealt with, especially male nudity. Double-standard, anyone?
It's always the same buzzwords; adult content is purportedly 'endangering' others. As if it's some sort of a weapon. When I was in middle school, some friends of mine at the time purloined a porn mag and flashed a peek of the centrefold at me. I was nonplussed, but mainly because of the massive airbrushing. I wasn't 'endangered', I didn't shrivel up and require hospitalisation, and I don't even remember what she looked like now anyway. Endangering someone means that you are putting them in danger, which means that they may suffer injury, possibly serious. If you are letting your 12-year-old son drive your motorcycle on a cliffside, you are endangering him. If he discovers your vibrator in your closet, he's just embarrassing you.
Canada, England, and a few other completely insane countries have even gone so far as to outlaw any drawn images that may be considered pervy, which contain subjects who 'look' underage. Considering this includes fictional characters, such as aliens and magical beings who may look 19 for pretty much ever, it's rather ridiculous. How do you apply age to a fictional character anyway? I know people in real life who were late bloomers and looked 15 until they were 25. The creepy types who pushed these laws through apparently would like to restrict these people from engaging in any adult behaviour if they 'look' underage. By what standards are we exactly judging this, though? Art styles vary wildly. I have seen art that has depicted fully adult characters, even 40+-year-olds, who are drawn in a style that makes them seem much younger. I have, conversely, also seen art styles that depict supposed middle-schoolers so that they look like collegiates.
And what about the masters like Caravaggio? Are we going to stamp out masterpieces of art because they have subjects who 'look' too young? And shall we destroy Parrish and his gorgeous oeuvres for the same reason? It's inane and ludicrous.
This isn't about protecting or endangering anyone. It's about lazy parenting and lazy lawmaking. Most of all, this only punishes those who already abide by the law and work to put an end to true exploitation and unscrupulous such activities. This is comparable to running a campaign to have cheese removed from grocery stores because you don't think your children should have it. And it's comparable to actually getting cheese removed, or restricted for purchase, simply for that reason. If you don't want your children to have cheese, how about just not buying them cheese and monitoring them, guiding them, being a parent to them so it doesn't become a part of their lives until they are at a point where they can decide for themselves about it?
I am an adult. I have the right to my own entertainment. I am not saying that adult films should be sold in every store, or that children should be able to go out and buy their own. But I am saying, it's time to take a stand. Lawmakers and fanatics need to back off. It's trickling down to the rest of us; I'm not in the adult entertainment industry, but as an artist, I am affected. Every artist is. It's time for parents to be responsible for the children they just had to have. I am through sacrificing rights and privileges for someone else's inability to be a responsible parent.
The attempt to encourage adult sites towards the .xxx domain suffix should be vehemently resisted. While they cite that it will make filtering those sites easier for schools and parental controls, it will also make it easier to further restrict and eliminate adult sites altogether. Many sites with adult content already work with these filters and controls. And if they do not, it is the job of the people who update the controls to find which sites need to be added. It is simply more laziness, more irresponsibility, and an uncomfortable attempt to place everyone involved in a single place for convenient disposal or further marginalisation.
Furthermore, websites that refuse to link to any sites that use the words 'boy', 'girl', 'teen', et cetera are only contributing to the problem. So now words are also endangering? When I say 'I'm going to have a night out with the girls', it means I am going to go out with my friends who happen to be female. I don't mean I'm going to go cruise the elementary school to take some kids to the coffee house. Similarly, when someone says 'I'm going out with the boys', it tends to mean 'I'm going to go out with my male friends'. For example, famous singing group, the Oak Ridge Boys, were well into adulthood and no-one thought the name was misapplied. Sites that advertise 'hot boys' are generally assumed, by most adults with any degree of common sense, to feature attractive adult men. And last but not least, 18 is the age of majority in most places, though 16 is the age of consent in most places. Therefore, some adult stars are teens. Let's not make 'teen' any more demonised than it already is, as a term. What's next? Twink? The more people pre-judge these words to be bad in meaning, the more it will further be promoted.
It's time to put your foot down. The media buzzwords about children being 'endangered' and women being 'exploited' (it's always like this; as if there are no men in adult film) need to stop. We need to make it clear that this is ultimately only detrimental for society and culture, and furthermore lazy and irresponsible on the part of authorities. As an artist, I refuse to be further censored just because someone who had to spawn some offspring can't do his or her job. I already have a more difficult time of things because some of my comics have adult content, meaning I can't use most printers for my work. I am discriminated against because of that adult content, when I have to take measures to make sure this account or that account aren't linked to it. That is, frankly, unacceptable. And I say that it needs to stop. Now.
Please do take a stand. Write your lawmakers, write your representatives, or even phone them and say this must stop. Saying you're doing something to 'protect children' or 'protect women', and so forth, is just a cheap and frankly exploitative way to get votes and support. It also makes it easy to try and demonise anyone who questions your goals, casting them as some sort of criminal or child-hater. News flash: not everyone likes children, and it's not a bad thing if you don't. But just because you don't want to pick up the slack from lazy parents doesn't mean you don't like children. If anything, it means you don't like lazy parents.
Let's take a stand and prevent this from going any further. It needs to stop right here, right now.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Manga Publishers F-Up Again
I am an independent professional who relies on the support of fans and readers. Because of this, I also tend to support creators whose work I enjoy. I lean towards 'indie' sorts and the type that are like me in terms of the way they create, but I have a wide variety of creators that I support.
There is an unfortunately large number of people online (and offline, for that matter) who come along with the attitude that they are entitled to anything and everything online for free. I agree that it's a problem, especially when they read something, enjoy it, and then don't support it. I always go out of my way to support the things that I enjoy, because I know that the individual, unique voice that created it will never be seen again.
Even if I find something similar, it will never be the same. Each creator is different. Each creator brings something different to anything. And if I allow that voice to go silent, then I am betraying my own love for what it has shared with me.
However, the recent actions by a group of publishers in Japan and the United States have gone much too far. This group banded together for the chief purpose of stamping out scanlations.
'Scanlation' is a portmanteau term of 'scan' and 'translation'. Scanlations are essentially the manga equivalent to fansubs, which are fan-subtitled episodes of anime. Scanlations are, in turn, scans of manga that are translated by fans.
The motivation behind scanlations is to expose a new audience to a series to which they otherwise have no exposure. The translations are done out of a love for the series and an enthusiasm to share it with a new audience. When the series is licenced for official release, scanlators typically cease their work and point interested readers to the official release.
In another parallel with fansubs, this is essentially the same approach that fansub groups have. As someone who has known several fansubbers, I can say that the vast majority of them work very hard purely out of love for a series and, when that series is made available to their region in a quality release, they are only too happy to stop their unofficial efforts and point others to the official ones. The goal of fansubbers, as with scanlators, is to provide something that is not being provided, to broaden the exposure of a series that they love so that it can be shown that there is an audience for it.
The publishers have all but stated that they believe scanlations are the Antichrist. It is their intention to stamp scanlations out entirely, with claims that they have ruined the manga industry and other such hyperbole. There are, naturally, a few things that have been left out of this discussion.
The first is that the exact thing has been attempted before. In the 80s, anime releasing companies invented the 'Maison Ikkoku effect', which they claimed explained how fansubs were destroying any chance of anime retaining a foothold in the US marketplace. Because of fansubs, companies such as Viz asserted, their release of Maison Ikkoku failed to be an overwhelming success.
Then, as now, they failed to consider a few points:
- First, Maison Ikkoku was a relatively obscure series outside of Japan that was also nothing like the only other well-known series from the same creator at that time.
- Second, Maison Ikkoku's pace is slightly slower than that of a Tolstoy book. With an emphasis on iyashi-kei slice-of-life situations, Maison Ikkoku was suited even only to a certain Japanese audience, certainly not the sort of series that would take a US audience at the time.
- Third, Maison Ikkoku's aforementioned tone was completely different from what was wildly popular at the time, which happened to be action-filled, flashy-effects spectaculars, typically with sex and violence. The attempt to release such a series so completely untested shows tremendous lack of foresight on the parts of its releasers.
- Fourth, dubs at the time were a crap shoot. Some were decent. Most were mind-numbingly awful. This period of slapdash dubbing instilled an entire generation with knee-jerk hatred of English dubs, and for good reason.
- Last but not least, a typical anime VHS at the time cost around $20...for a dub. Usually they were priced at $30 for a subtitled version. These tapes were usually an hour long, but some were longer. None ever exceeded two hours in length.
Despite all of this, it was claimed that fansubs had ruined Maison Ikkoku's chances, that fansubs were entirely responsible for its commercial failure, and that long-running series like Maison Ikkoku would never be able to be released to a US audience.
Those of us who knew better suspected that it was a case of sour grapes from a company who had made a mistake and simply looked for the most convenient scapegoat. Fansubbers could hardly answer these accusations, especially as it was before the age of widespread internet access. Companies like Viz could make whatever allegations they pleased, and fansubbers and fans alike had no recourse to answer them.
Now, twenty-something years later, we see how fansubs have completely ruined the anime industry...since one of the most profitable booms in history has essentially integrated Japanese animation and comics into American culture. Long-running series, which would never be able to be released to an American audience, are everywhere.
But now the publishers are saying that scanlations are the imminent destruction of manga. Once again, Viz are at the forefront of these claims; you'd think they'd have learned from the Maison Ikkoku incident. I'd like to bring up a few points to this discussion:
- In Japan, I could go to any given bookstore and be reasonably confident of finding a recently-released tankouban. I could also go online and read others' opinions of that series, or even ask friends if they think the series would suit me. Conversely, in the US, the limited number of titles released, many of which are years old, are often not even available to libraries. I can't always find opinions from anyone who may have read a certain title, even if it is available in English. And although I am at a great advantage because I can read Japanese -- and typically buy manga in Japanese, and can browse the internet in Japanese to find reviews -- most readers in the US do not share my ability.
- In Japan, most tankouban cost somewhere between $4 to $6, with an odd few actually closer to $10 and beyond, an exception rather than the rule. In the US, tankouban prices typically begin around $10, with an odd few dipping under or over that figure. When manga were first released in the US, it was not uncommon to see books priced at $20 or more. Like the high prices for the tapes, the ludicrously exorbitant price tags do not exactly encourage people to take a chance on a series they don't know, haven't heard of, and may not like.
- The creator typically receives little to nothing for manga released in other countries. It's the publishers who really profit from publication outside of Japan. This is why I tend to prefer to support creators whom I can contact directly, and whom I can be certain receive the support I want to give them.
- There are so many companies, like Tokyopop, who are absolutely deplorable in the way they do business. I never want to support their spurious business practices. Because of this, I do support the manga titles, but in Japanese.
- Plenty of companies blithely butcher a series with terrible editing that doesn't even bother to involve the original artist, or they simply flip the panels or pages, resulting in disconcerting layouts. Flipping pages was common practise for some time and is still done by some companies. Some companies will just omit pages they don't like, resulting in a confusing final product, which makes one wonder why they even bothered to licence it in the first place if they didn't intend to release it intact.
- Many companies licence a series and then never finish it, even going so far as to do up to the next-to-last book and then no more. While that's no problem for me -- I can just look to a friend in Japan, Kinokuniya, Celga, and so forth -- not everyone has access to those resources and, as mentioned before, not everyone can read Japanese. Now more than ever, now that these companies are becoming so vehement about obliterating manga scans and fan translations, I want to say this: don't start something if you don't intend to finish it. Licencing something and then dropping the release and whining about low sales is a good way to get people not to buy anything from you again, because they can't be sure you'll see it through to the end. At the very least, scanlators work for free and most who are passionate enough about a project will either see it through or hand it off to someone else who will.
There are so many reasons why this latest witch hunt will only serve as detrimental to these publishers and everyone around them who is tangentially involved.
People aren't going to take a chance and spend over $10 on series they don't know if they like, aren't sure if they can count on, and can't trust to be finished. If anything, this will simply increase the occurrences of people checking the books out from their local libraries (if they can find them) and reading them, then picking them up once the series is finished...much later.
People also are less likely to take a chance on a completely unfamiliar series. If they haven't heard anything, can't find anything online (ideally a preview to read), and don't know the author, they're not as likely to just pick it up. Scanlations provide a way for potential readers to see different works from the author and see if the style suits them. Some of the titles they peruse may never become available formally in their language.
All series, naturally, cannot be licenced. Ultimately what publishers choose are series that they think will make the most profit. For whatever reason, be it age, obscurity, or any other justification, many books will never see the light of day in other languages. Is it really a detriment to the profits of the creator if a work that is never released officially in another country is provided in scanned form? I say it is not. Most readers of manga I know would go out of their way to buy a book they love, even if it isn't in their own language. But they have to read it and understand it first, or else they will never know that they love it.
An additional point I would like to make is that not all manga is collected into tankouban. I dearly love the Yes! Precure 5 and Yes! Precure 5 Go Go manga that ran in Nakayoshi alongside the TV series. Yet they were never collected into tankouban and, likely, never will be. If I had not seen a chapter of the manga scanned, I would never have known it even existed. Even now, trying to seek out the series, I've only managed to collect a handful of Nakayoshi with the manga. Is it really right to obliterate any scans of that existing? Many of the 'telephone book' manga magazines like Nakayoshi are discarded after they are read. That means that these Precure 5 comics stand a good chance of never again seeing the light of day. How is that helpful to the talented creator who composed them?
The scanlators are not all pure, blameless entities, just like the fansubbers are not. People are people. But by and large, the majority of the fansub community, just like the majority of the scanlation community, are people who have a passion for what they do, and what they do is done out of love and admiration. Once the titles are licenced, to be made available in their region, they stop doing what they do because they don't have to now; their goal is achieved. A wider audience will be able to share their appreciation, and easily.
mp3s were not wiped out. Fansubs did not vanish from the face of the earth. And scanlations will not go away. All that has happened is that now, people who want them will have to look in different places. And now, all these manga publishers who were so concerned about profits and revenue will receive even less because people will be less willing to take chances on things they can't be sure they will enjoy. All they have done is create yet another inane buzzword. I am reminded of a friend who worked professionally in voiceovers and struggled to find a host for his website back in 2001, because many hosts refused to host him due to him using mp3s for his portfolio samples. The mp3 format, at the time, was the most economical combination of space and quality. And yet, because it was another stupid industry buzzword, everyone was put through tremendous inconvenience simply because an industry could not get over itself.
I encourage people to support the things they enjoy. There are too many people online who think that everything is theirs for free, and they need not support creators who give them enjoyment. It is not an infinite resource, and each voice is unique and deserving of support if it touches you. I agree that there is a problem with some people online, and that they have caused the rest of us to suffer. I am not endorsing rampant free everything. But I am endorsing being able to make an informed decision since the majority of consumers all have a limited amount of space for things we buy.
Essentially, there must be a middle ground. If publishers are going to insist that scanlations and manga scans in general are made pariahs, they must provide something to compensate for that. If they refuse to allow unofficial product, then it is their responsibility to provide official. That is a fundamental aspect of capitalism. If they can't provide something that is desired and someone else does, then that someone else will receive the support they deserve, which the original party lost.
I might also mention that, as per usual in both Japan and the US, many of these publishers completely flooded the market during the Japanese culture boom that occurred years ago. Japanese animation and comics have become an integrated part of American culture. They have lost their novelty. Because of that, companies can no longer just put out whatever they can licence cheaply and rely on it selling simply because it's Japanese. And yet, actions like this attempt to sweep away scanlations are the kind of thing that such overconfident firms tend to do. They think that they can do anything, produce anything, make any move, and have no end of support. It is actions like this that communicate a belief that even if they lose customers from this, there are always as many customers just waiting to replace them. But that is a fallacy in reasoning. Customers are now a very finite number for larger manga publishers. Antics like this only alienate increasing portions of that finite number.
Essentially the publishers are using scanlations as a scapegoat for declining sales, rather than looking to themselves for the much larger reasons. Manga have lost their novelty. Many series in the past 10 years have become homogenised and formulaic. A consumer public more familiar with the medium will no longer buy arbitrarily and blindly, but instead will become more discerning. That is what has happened.
It's the same thing that happened with Maison Ikkoku, essentially. And in twenty years' time, I would imagine we will see a more completely integrated medium of sequential art, with manga, American comic books, and European comics, all melding together into a cohesive whole...and all who are surrounded by this looking back and laughing at the idiots who tried to blame their own poor business sense on the most convenient scapegoat. It's one thing when you're a sole proprietor and don't have a lot of money. It's quite different when you're a multi-million-dollar publisher who should know better.
Shame on everyone involved in this.
There is an unfortunately large number of people online (and offline, for that matter) who come along with the attitude that they are entitled to anything and everything online for free. I agree that it's a problem, especially when they read something, enjoy it, and then don't support it. I always go out of my way to support the things that I enjoy, because I know that the individual, unique voice that created it will never be seen again.
Even if I find something similar, it will never be the same. Each creator is different. Each creator brings something different to anything. And if I allow that voice to go silent, then I am betraying my own love for what it has shared with me.
However, the recent actions by a group of publishers in Japan and the United States have gone much too far. This group banded together for the chief purpose of stamping out scanlations.
'Scanlation' is a portmanteau term of 'scan' and 'translation'. Scanlations are essentially the manga equivalent to fansubs, which are fan-subtitled episodes of anime. Scanlations are, in turn, scans of manga that are translated by fans.
The motivation behind scanlations is to expose a new audience to a series to which they otherwise have no exposure. The translations are done out of a love for the series and an enthusiasm to share it with a new audience. When the series is licenced for official release, scanlators typically cease their work and point interested readers to the official release.
In another parallel with fansubs, this is essentially the same approach that fansub groups have. As someone who has known several fansubbers, I can say that the vast majority of them work very hard purely out of love for a series and, when that series is made available to their region in a quality release, they are only too happy to stop their unofficial efforts and point others to the official ones. The goal of fansubbers, as with scanlators, is to provide something that is not being provided, to broaden the exposure of a series that they love so that it can be shown that there is an audience for it.
The publishers have all but stated that they believe scanlations are the Antichrist. It is their intention to stamp scanlations out entirely, with claims that they have ruined the manga industry and other such hyperbole. There are, naturally, a few things that have been left out of this discussion.
The first is that the exact thing has been attempted before. In the 80s, anime releasing companies invented the 'Maison Ikkoku effect', which they claimed explained how fansubs were destroying any chance of anime retaining a foothold in the US marketplace. Because of fansubs, companies such as Viz asserted, their release of Maison Ikkoku failed to be an overwhelming success.
Then, as now, they failed to consider a few points:
- First, Maison Ikkoku was a relatively obscure series outside of Japan that was also nothing like the only other well-known series from the same creator at that time.
- Second, Maison Ikkoku's pace is slightly slower than that of a Tolstoy book. With an emphasis on iyashi-kei slice-of-life situations, Maison Ikkoku was suited even only to a certain Japanese audience, certainly not the sort of series that would take a US audience at the time.
- Third, Maison Ikkoku's aforementioned tone was completely different from what was wildly popular at the time, which happened to be action-filled, flashy-effects spectaculars, typically with sex and violence. The attempt to release such a series so completely untested shows tremendous lack of foresight on the parts of its releasers.
- Fourth, dubs at the time were a crap shoot. Some were decent. Most were mind-numbingly awful. This period of slapdash dubbing instilled an entire generation with knee-jerk hatred of English dubs, and for good reason.
- Last but not least, a typical anime VHS at the time cost around $20...for a dub. Usually they were priced at $30 for a subtitled version. These tapes were usually an hour long, but some were longer. None ever exceeded two hours in length.
Despite all of this, it was claimed that fansubs had ruined Maison Ikkoku's chances, that fansubs were entirely responsible for its commercial failure, and that long-running series like Maison Ikkoku would never be able to be released to a US audience.
Those of us who knew better suspected that it was a case of sour grapes from a company who had made a mistake and simply looked for the most convenient scapegoat. Fansubbers could hardly answer these accusations, especially as it was before the age of widespread internet access. Companies like Viz could make whatever allegations they pleased, and fansubbers and fans alike had no recourse to answer them.
Now, twenty-something years later, we see how fansubs have completely ruined the anime industry...since one of the most profitable booms in history has essentially integrated Japanese animation and comics into American culture. Long-running series, which would never be able to be released to an American audience, are everywhere.
But now the publishers are saying that scanlations are the imminent destruction of manga. Once again, Viz are at the forefront of these claims; you'd think they'd have learned from the Maison Ikkoku incident. I'd like to bring up a few points to this discussion:
- In Japan, I could go to any given bookstore and be reasonably confident of finding a recently-released tankouban. I could also go online and read others' opinions of that series, or even ask friends if they think the series would suit me. Conversely, in the US, the limited number of titles released, many of which are years old, are often not even available to libraries. I can't always find opinions from anyone who may have read a certain title, even if it is available in English. And although I am at a great advantage because I can read Japanese -- and typically buy manga in Japanese, and can browse the internet in Japanese to find reviews -- most readers in the US do not share my ability.
- In Japan, most tankouban cost somewhere between $4 to $6, with an odd few actually closer to $10 and beyond, an exception rather than the rule. In the US, tankouban prices typically begin around $10, with an odd few dipping under or over that figure. When manga were first released in the US, it was not uncommon to see books priced at $20 or more. Like the high prices for the tapes, the ludicrously exorbitant price tags do not exactly encourage people to take a chance on a series they don't know, haven't heard of, and may not like.
- The creator typically receives little to nothing for manga released in other countries. It's the publishers who really profit from publication outside of Japan. This is why I tend to prefer to support creators whom I can contact directly, and whom I can be certain receive the support I want to give them.
- There are so many companies, like Tokyopop, who are absolutely deplorable in the way they do business. I never want to support their spurious business practices. Because of this, I do support the manga titles, but in Japanese.
- Plenty of companies blithely butcher a series with terrible editing that doesn't even bother to involve the original artist, or they simply flip the panels or pages, resulting in disconcerting layouts. Flipping pages was common practise for some time and is still done by some companies. Some companies will just omit pages they don't like, resulting in a confusing final product, which makes one wonder why they even bothered to licence it in the first place if they didn't intend to release it intact.
- Many companies licence a series and then never finish it, even going so far as to do up to the next-to-last book and then no more. While that's no problem for me -- I can just look to a friend in Japan, Kinokuniya, Celga, and so forth -- not everyone has access to those resources and, as mentioned before, not everyone can read Japanese. Now more than ever, now that these companies are becoming so vehement about obliterating manga scans and fan translations, I want to say this: don't start something if you don't intend to finish it. Licencing something and then dropping the release and whining about low sales is a good way to get people not to buy anything from you again, because they can't be sure you'll see it through to the end. At the very least, scanlators work for free and most who are passionate enough about a project will either see it through or hand it off to someone else who will.
There are so many reasons why this latest witch hunt will only serve as detrimental to these publishers and everyone around them who is tangentially involved.
People aren't going to take a chance and spend over $10 on series they don't know if they like, aren't sure if they can count on, and can't trust to be finished. If anything, this will simply increase the occurrences of people checking the books out from their local libraries (if they can find them) and reading them, then picking them up once the series is finished...much later.
People also are less likely to take a chance on a completely unfamiliar series. If they haven't heard anything, can't find anything online (ideally a preview to read), and don't know the author, they're not as likely to just pick it up. Scanlations provide a way for potential readers to see different works from the author and see if the style suits them. Some of the titles they peruse may never become available formally in their language.
All series, naturally, cannot be licenced. Ultimately what publishers choose are series that they think will make the most profit. For whatever reason, be it age, obscurity, or any other justification, many books will never see the light of day in other languages. Is it really a detriment to the profits of the creator if a work that is never released officially in another country is provided in scanned form? I say it is not. Most readers of manga I know would go out of their way to buy a book they love, even if it isn't in their own language. But they have to read it and understand it first, or else they will never know that they love it.
An additional point I would like to make is that not all manga is collected into tankouban. I dearly love the Yes! Precure 5 and Yes! Precure 5 Go Go manga that ran in Nakayoshi alongside the TV series. Yet they were never collected into tankouban and, likely, never will be. If I had not seen a chapter of the manga scanned, I would never have known it even existed. Even now, trying to seek out the series, I've only managed to collect a handful of Nakayoshi with the manga. Is it really right to obliterate any scans of that existing? Many of the 'telephone book' manga magazines like Nakayoshi are discarded after they are read. That means that these Precure 5 comics stand a good chance of never again seeing the light of day. How is that helpful to the talented creator who composed them?
The scanlators are not all pure, blameless entities, just like the fansubbers are not. People are people. But by and large, the majority of the fansub community, just like the majority of the scanlation community, are people who have a passion for what they do, and what they do is done out of love and admiration. Once the titles are licenced, to be made available in their region, they stop doing what they do because they don't have to now; their goal is achieved. A wider audience will be able to share their appreciation, and easily.
mp3s were not wiped out. Fansubs did not vanish from the face of the earth. And scanlations will not go away. All that has happened is that now, people who want them will have to look in different places. And now, all these manga publishers who were so concerned about profits and revenue will receive even less because people will be less willing to take chances on things they can't be sure they will enjoy. All they have done is create yet another inane buzzword. I am reminded of a friend who worked professionally in voiceovers and struggled to find a host for his website back in 2001, because many hosts refused to host him due to him using mp3s for his portfolio samples. The mp3 format, at the time, was the most economical combination of space and quality. And yet, because it was another stupid industry buzzword, everyone was put through tremendous inconvenience simply because an industry could not get over itself.
I encourage people to support the things they enjoy. There are too many people online who think that everything is theirs for free, and they need not support creators who give them enjoyment. It is not an infinite resource, and each voice is unique and deserving of support if it touches you. I agree that there is a problem with some people online, and that they have caused the rest of us to suffer. I am not endorsing rampant free everything. But I am endorsing being able to make an informed decision since the majority of consumers all have a limited amount of space for things we buy.
Essentially, there must be a middle ground. If publishers are going to insist that scanlations and manga scans in general are made pariahs, they must provide something to compensate for that. If they refuse to allow unofficial product, then it is their responsibility to provide official. That is a fundamental aspect of capitalism. If they can't provide something that is desired and someone else does, then that someone else will receive the support they deserve, which the original party lost.
I might also mention that, as per usual in both Japan and the US, many of these publishers completely flooded the market during the Japanese culture boom that occurred years ago. Japanese animation and comics have become an integrated part of American culture. They have lost their novelty. Because of that, companies can no longer just put out whatever they can licence cheaply and rely on it selling simply because it's Japanese. And yet, actions like this attempt to sweep away scanlations are the kind of thing that such overconfident firms tend to do. They think that they can do anything, produce anything, make any move, and have no end of support. It is actions like this that communicate a belief that even if they lose customers from this, there are always as many customers just waiting to replace them. But that is a fallacy in reasoning. Customers are now a very finite number for larger manga publishers. Antics like this only alienate increasing portions of that finite number.
Essentially the publishers are using scanlations as a scapegoat for declining sales, rather than looking to themselves for the much larger reasons. Manga have lost their novelty. Many series in the past 10 years have become homogenised and formulaic. A consumer public more familiar with the medium will no longer buy arbitrarily and blindly, but instead will become more discerning. That is what has happened.
It's the same thing that happened with Maison Ikkoku, essentially. And in twenty years' time, I would imagine we will see a more completely integrated medium of sequential art, with manga, American comic books, and European comics, all melding together into a cohesive whole...and all who are surrounded by this looking back and laughing at the idiots who tried to blame their own poor business sense on the most convenient scapegoat. It's one thing when you're a sole proprietor and don't have a lot of money. It's quite different when you're a multi-million-dollar publisher who should know better.
Shame on everyone involved in this.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Appearing at Knoxville Comic and Anime Con!
I just want you all to know, I'll be appearing at the Knoxville Comic and Anime Con on 26 and 27 June 2010. That's in a couple of weeks! It's at the Knoxville Expo Centre, which is easy to find, and admission is only $5 a day. I'll be there peddling my wares and meeting people, and doing art for them too! Please do come by and get a sketch!
I hope I'll see some of you there. :)
The official site is at http://www.knoxvillecomicanimecon.com/ and it lists all the particulars such as hours and more information about guests and vendors. I'm sure it's going to be great fun!
I hope I'll see some of you there. :)
The official site is at http://www.knoxvillecomicanimecon.com/ and it lists all the particulars such as hours and more information about guests and vendors. I'm sure it's going to be great fun!
Monday, April 12, 2010
Incubus Tales has moved!
Just so you're aware, if you weren't aware before, because of SmackJeeves administration being idiots in general, Incubus Tales has moved to ComicDish. Please update all your links and bookmarks to the following address, to continue to follow and support Dhiar and all his adventures:
Thanks very much for your continued support!
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Put Your Foot Down...Yes You!
Generally I don't take the time to write about causes unless they mean something to me. In the past year I have written about the need to stop environmental destruction, awareness of one's diet, and one of the most important causes for myself and any artist: censorship. But it goes beyond that now, and the recent SmackJeeves fiasco has set me to thinking, as well as my interactions with various people I've discussed the matter with during the past week.
Something that has got to be stopped is overreactive legislation on art, especially sequential art storytelling, or the medium will be destroyed before it really has its greatest chance to blossom. One of the most controversial topics regarding this is the portrayal of young-appearing characters in comics, and this is one of the topics about which I feel most passionately.
I will say first of all that I am vehemently opposed to actual child pornography, and also to exposing people to sex too soon in life. Responsible parenting should be employed at every stage of a child's life, to ensure healthy development. Note that I say 'responsible parenting', not 'trying to get laws passed so you don't have to do your job that you agreed to do when you got yourself knocked up and decided to keep it'. There is a significant difference, and it is unfortunately missed by many in the modern world.
In any case, actual child pornography has nothing to do with legitimate pornography and adult films. There are so many rules, regulations, and standards in adult filmmaking today that it makes the MPAA look like a bacchanalia. One of the things that I find most objectionable about the way anything adult-oriented or made solely for adults is discriminated against, especially in the last decade, is that so often the people who never watch, purchase, or otherwise enjoy it are the same people trying to put more and more limits on it for the people who do enjoy it. That would be as ludicrous as someone asking me to write up laws regulating the packaging of meat products.
As vexing as this is dealing with real people, it's even more infuriating when the characters are fictional, the situations invented, and the locations nowhere in this world. Some countries have passed laws prohibiting even ficitonal characters who 'appear underage' from engaging in any activity of the naughty kind, under the claim that it is to combat child pornography.
There are a number of reasons why this is a complete load of nonsense.
The first of which is the fact that it attempts to criminalise things by way of 'looking' or 'appearing'. Even in real life that would raise a complicated issue, the first facet of which is: who is going to judge? Many people may look underage to a person who has little experience with people under the age of 30. And it is no secret that most politicians and other law-related professionals not only tend to concentrate on the over-30 demographic, but are also in that same bracket themselves.
The second facet of this is: even if someone does seem to look underage, the quickest show of identification would prove they are not. However, that is generally only required when making a formal application of some kind or attempting to make an age-restricted purchase, such as adult videos, alcohol, cigarettes, et cetera. The law cannot prevent someone from having a relationship on the basis that they 'look too young'; there have been cases where people have successfully sued, and rightly, for being discriminated against because someone wrongly mistreated them, thinking that they were a different age than they are. And that does not even begin to consider the people like Gary Coleman, who will appear to be childlike for his entire life. What about young-looking actors like Alyson Hannigan and others who portray teenagers successfully into their 30s? If they were so discriminated against, they'd be in and out of court with a successful case in no time.
The second reason is, as these are fictional characters, fictional situations, and fictional locations, they cannot be judged adequately by laws established to govern completely different worlds, societies, and people. The easiest example of this is the Vampire: whatever age they are bitten at, they tend to stay for the rest of their lives in appearance. One of the most famous examples of this, Claudia from Interview with the Vampire, is clearly not a child after some years, despite still having the appearance of one. If we apply the laws as they are conceived, does it really protect...anyone? If we were to judge the situation as if Claudia were an actual person in this world, would it hold water? No, of course not; we could examine documents and see clearly that she was born long enough ago to be old enough to be someone's mother. Is it, then, permissible to discriminate against her by saying that because she has a youthful appearance, she may not enter into a sexual relationship? No, it is not.
Do most people in this world live to be thousands of years old and exist in a land of eternally-blooming flowers and magical fruit? No? Well then why should a law applying to this world apply to the denizens of that one? Are there races of shapeshifters well-known in this world? No? Then why should it apply to them, when they could take the appearance of any age that they please?
Look at the Elves in Lord of the Rings. Or even better, look at the Hobbits. So, because Hobbits generally look youthful for decades, any Hobbit-sex is criminalised? An Elf could look like a young teenager and be the age of an average human's grandfather, so they're not supposed to have sex? Good luck telling them that!
The third reason is, this cannot be evenly enforced at all. There is no real standard, only subjective judgement, and typically by those who do not understand art and are not qualified to assess artistic value. Are we supposed to destroy works of past masters of the Renaissance if they depicted 'underage looking' subjects in sensual situations or poses? Doesn't that show rather flagrant disregard to their time period, in which they may have been considered adults? Adolescence is a relatively recent invention, historically speaking. Even modern masters such as Maxfield Parrish depicted youthful exuberance in various states of undress or suggestive draping; does that, then, make it illicit?
What about differing styles? Absolute age cannot be objectively applied to artwork, because each and every artist employs a different style. Take a look at some European cartoons for adults, with their youthful and strange, almost inhuman, proportions. Now look at Japanese manga. Now look at Peanuts. Look at Garfield. Try to apply an absolute age to any of the characters; you're likely to be wrong. Look at Picasso and try to apply an absolute age to some of his subjects.
To choose a specific individual feature that is often a stylistic choice, let's take body hair: some artists draw it all, some pick and choose where to have it, others don't draw it at all or feel they can't. Many adults do have body hair, it's true; but many also shave, trim, and wax. Some adults keep their bodies completely smooth: I need only point out swimmers, bodybuilders, and the like, the majority of whom rid themselves of all body hair. It doesn't make them somehow not-adults, but some who attempt to condemn, for example, Japanese yaoi stories, have tried to allege 'underage looking' antics because they don't have enough body hair. It just further demonstrates utter ignorance of art, specifically by disregard for stylistic differences and aesthetic choices.
Art is a deeply individual, personal, subjective experience. What one person judges about a piece of art, another person will judge the exact opposite. It cannot be tied down and dissected. Art is expression, and each individual person will derive something different from it, because art speaks to personal experience, personal judgement, personal aesthetic. It cannot be held up to a legal standard because frankly, art is as inscrutable as magic. There are methods to self-expression through art, but there is no method that can ever be tought to give one person the ability to assess any individual piece of art for every possible meaning it can have to every possible person who experiences it.
It's one thing if it's a clear attempt to just apply some sloppy Photoshop filter to a photograph to get around a legal loophole and make it into a drawing rather than a photograph. But making any kind of 'drawn pornography' (a stupid term in any case) illegal is nothing short of laziness and attempts to thought-police. It's clear they have no comprehension of the creative process, or they'd know that most artists don't work with actual models and don't require a photographic reference to draw something. Where does it stop? Whether or not the things appeal to you, stop and think: is it really logical for them to step in and make restrictions for anthropomorphic animals, pregnant males, and other creatures that don't exist in this world? Can there really be any reasonable standards applied legally to them that would be legally sound if they did? With a legal precedent showing that they can step in and say 'you can't draw this sort of thing', what's to stop them from taking a little bit more and cracking down on something else?
The only thing that can stop them is if creators, publishers, and other concerned parties -- especially voters -- get together and put our collective foot down. Government, especially the United States' government, has acted like a spoiled child for over the past decade, a spoiled child whose parent never told it 'no'. Now is the time to say 'no'. We are the voters, we put them in office. And more and more, they're willfully refusing to upload the freedom of expression established in the United States and many other countries. That's not doing their job. It additionally seems to indicate an inability to differentiate from reality and fiction, which is not something that I applaud in people who command as great a social influence as politicians do.
Do you really want someone deciding the future of your country if they can't tell the difference between a real person and a fictional character?
Recently creators, actors, and publishers banded together to defeat a proposed law in Japan that would be more of the same morality legislation, criminalising depictions of imaginary characters in imaginary situations. I can only hope and encourage people in other countries to show the same kind of solidarity.
To quote a sequential art legend in one of the most thought-provoking political works of sequential art from the past 50 years -- V from V for Vendetta -- 'People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.' And this is true. Governments should not feel like they have carte blanche to do whatever they please, as long as they put a certain spin on it or try to shame people into agreeing with them. Each and every politician should be aware that he or she is accountable to each and every voter and each and every person who is affected by their decisions. Morality cannot and should not ever be legislated, especially when there are plenty of more deserving issues that need addressing; when millions of people are starving because they're unable to find work, who honestly cares if someone has naughty comic books?
There is much more protection for novels and the written word; they wouldn't dare to pass a law restricting the sale of Nabokov's Lolita, for example. So why, then, is it permissible to attack sequential art?
If people are punished for possessing or creating pornography of imaginary characters as if they were real people, it's a logical progression that they can be punished for possessing or creating stories that depict illegal acts with any imaginary characters. What's to stop them, after a legal precedent is established, from punishing a creator for having a character die during the story? Is it murder or manslaughter? You may think this sounds ludicrous -- because it does -- but it's exactly the same sort of situation. It's exactly as ridiculous as holding someone responsible for drawing a comic or having a comic someone drew, with other situations that would be illegal...if they were real people. Which they aren't.
When one legal step is taken and supported, accepted, subsequent steps are much easier. When it is allowed to punish people for one thing, albeit a controversial thing that doesn't appeal to everyone, it opens the door for other things to be controlled or done away with outright. Even if you think 'that could never happen to what I like', think again. It starts with something that is an easy target and an easy foothold, easy for unscrupulous politicians to cast shame on its supporters and proponents. They're just using it as a stepping stone to get to where they really want to go, to control what they really want to restrict.
This is punishing someone for thoughts, ideas, and creations. And that is unquestionably wrong, and unquestionably in defiance of, at the very least, the United States Constitution.
I urge each and every one of you to go write your political representatives, locally and nationally, and to support the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. You can find the official website here:
Something that has got to be stopped is overreactive legislation on art, especially sequential art storytelling, or the medium will be destroyed before it really has its greatest chance to blossom. One of the most controversial topics regarding this is the portrayal of young-appearing characters in comics, and this is one of the topics about which I feel most passionately.
I will say first of all that I am vehemently opposed to actual child pornography, and also to exposing people to sex too soon in life. Responsible parenting should be employed at every stage of a child's life, to ensure healthy development. Note that I say 'responsible parenting', not 'trying to get laws passed so you don't have to do your job that you agreed to do when you got yourself knocked up and decided to keep it'. There is a significant difference, and it is unfortunately missed by many in the modern world.
In any case, actual child pornography has nothing to do with legitimate pornography and adult films. There are so many rules, regulations, and standards in adult filmmaking today that it makes the MPAA look like a bacchanalia. One of the things that I find most objectionable about the way anything adult-oriented or made solely for adults is discriminated against, especially in the last decade, is that so often the people who never watch, purchase, or otherwise enjoy it are the same people trying to put more and more limits on it for the people who do enjoy it. That would be as ludicrous as someone asking me to write up laws regulating the packaging of meat products.
As vexing as this is dealing with real people, it's even more infuriating when the characters are fictional, the situations invented, and the locations nowhere in this world. Some countries have passed laws prohibiting even ficitonal characters who 'appear underage' from engaging in any activity of the naughty kind, under the claim that it is to combat child pornography.
There are a number of reasons why this is a complete load of nonsense.
The first of which is the fact that it attempts to criminalise things by way of 'looking' or 'appearing'. Even in real life that would raise a complicated issue, the first facet of which is: who is going to judge? Many people may look underage to a person who has little experience with people under the age of 30. And it is no secret that most politicians and other law-related professionals not only tend to concentrate on the over-30 demographic, but are also in that same bracket themselves.
The second facet of this is: even if someone does seem to look underage, the quickest show of identification would prove they are not. However, that is generally only required when making a formal application of some kind or attempting to make an age-restricted purchase, such as adult videos, alcohol, cigarettes, et cetera. The law cannot prevent someone from having a relationship on the basis that they 'look too young'; there have been cases where people have successfully sued, and rightly, for being discriminated against because someone wrongly mistreated them, thinking that they were a different age than they are. And that does not even begin to consider the people like Gary Coleman, who will appear to be childlike for his entire life. What about young-looking actors like Alyson Hannigan and others who portray teenagers successfully into their 30s? If they were so discriminated against, they'd be in and out of court with a successful case in no time.
The second reason is, as these are fictional characters, fictional situations, and fictional locations, they cannot be judged adequately by laws established to govern completely different worlds, societies, and people. The easiest example of this is the Vampire: whatever age they are bitten at, they tend to stay for the rest of their lives in appearance. One of the most famous examples of this, Claudia from Interview with the Vampire, is clearly not a child after some years, despite still having the appearance of one. If we apply the laws as they are conceived, does it really protect...anyone? If we were to judge the situation as if Claudia were an actual person in this world, would it hold water? No, of course not; we could examine documents and see clearly that she was born long enough ago to be old enough to be someone's mother. Is it, then, permissible to discriminate against her by saying that because she has a youthful appearance, she may not enter into a sexual relationship? No, it is not.
Do most people in this world live to be thousands of years old and exist in a land of eternally-blooming flowers and magical fruit? No? Well then why should a law applying to this world apply to the denizens of that one? Are there races of shapeshifters well-known in this world? No? Then why should it apply to them, when they could take the appearance of any age that they please?
Look at the Elves in Lord of the Rings. Or even better, look at the Hobbits. So, because Hobbits generally look youthful for decades, any Hobbit-sex is criminalised? An Elf could look like a young teenager and be the age of an average human's grandfather, so they're not supposed to have sex? Good luck telling them that!
The third reason is, this cannot be evenly enforced at all. There is no real standard, only subjective judgement, and typically by those who do not understand art and are not qualified to assess artistic value. Are we supposed to destroy works of past masters of the Renaissance if they depicted 'underage looking' subjects in sensual situations or poses? Doesn't that show rather flagrant disregard to their time period, in which they may have been considered adults? Adolescence is a relatively recent invention, historically speaking. Even modern masters such as Maxfield Parrish depicted youthful exuberance in various states of undress or suggestive draping; does that, then, make it illicit?
What about differing styles? Absolute age cannot be objectively applied to artwork, because each and every artist employs a different style. Take a look at some European cartoons for adults, with their youthful and strange, almost inhuman, proportions. Now look at Japanese manga. Now look at Peanuts. Look at Garfield. Try to apply an absolute age to any of the characters; you're likely to be wrong. Look at Picasso and try to apply an absolute age to some of his subjects.
To choose a specific individual feature that is often a stylistic choice, let's take body hair: some artists draw it all, some pick and choose where to have it, others don't draw it at all or feel they can't. Many adults do have body hair, it's true; but many also shave, trim, and wax. Some adults keep their bodies completely smooth: I need only point out swimmers, bodybuilders, and the like, the majority of whom rid themselves of all body hair. It doesn't make them somehow not-adults, but some who attempt to condemn, for example, Japanese yaoi stories, have tried to allege 'underage looking' antics because they don't have enough body hair. It just further demonstrates utter ignorance of art, specifically by disregard for stylistic differences and aesthetic choices.
Art is a deeply individual, personal, subjective experience. What one person judges about a piece of art, another person will judge the exact opposite. It cannot be tied down and dissected. Art is expression, and each individual person will derive something different from it, because art speaks to personal experience, personal judgement, personal aesthetic. It cannot be held up to a legal standard because frankly, art is as inscrutable as magic. There are methods to self-expression through art, but there is no method that can ever be tought to give one person the ability to assess any individual piece of art for every possible meaning it can have to every possible person who experiences it.
It's one thing if it's a clear attempt to just apply some sloppy Photoshop filter to a photograph to get around a legal loophole and make it into a drawing rather than a photograph. But making any kind of 'drawn pornography' (a stupid term in any case) illegal is nothing short of laziness and attempts to thought-police. It's clear they have no comprehension of the creative process, or they'd know that most artists don't work with actual models and don't require a photographic reference to draw something. Where does it stop? Whether or not the things appeal to you, stop and think: is it really logical for them to step in and make restrictions for anthropomorphic animals, pregnant males, and other creatures that don't exist in this world? Can there really be any reasonable standards applied legally to them that would be legally sound if they did? With a legal precedent showing that they can step in and say 'you can't draw this sort of thing', what's to stop them from taking a little bit more and cracking down on something else?
The only thing that can stop them is if creators, publishers, and other concerned parties -- especially voters -- get together and put our collective foot down. Government, especially the United States' government, has acted like a spoiled child for over the past decade, a spoiled child whose parent never told it 'no'. Now is the time to say 'no'. We are the voters, we put them in office. And more and more, they're willfully refusing to upload the freedom of expression established in the United States and many other countries. That's not doing their job. It additionally seems to indicate an inability to differentiate from reality and fiction, which is not something that I applaud in people who command as great a social influence as politicians do.
Do you really want someone deciding the future of your country if they can't tell the difference between a real person and a fictional character?
Recently creators, actors, and publishers banded together to defeat a proposed law in Japan that would be more of the same morality legislation, criminalising depictions of imaginary characters in imaginary situations. I can only hope and encourage people in other countries to show the same kind of solidarity.
To quote a sequential art legend in one of the most thought-provoking political works of sequential art from the past 50 years -- V from V for Vendetta -- 'People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.' And this is true. Governments should not feel like they have carte blanche to do whatever they please, as long as they put a certain spin on it or try to shame people into agreeing with them. Each and every politician should be aware that he or she is accountable to each and every voter and each and every person who is affected by their decisions. Morality cannot and should not ever be legislated, especially when there are plenty of more deserving issues that need addressing; when millions of people are starving because they're unable to find work, who honestly cares if someone has naughty comic books?
There is much more protection for novels and the written word; they wouldn't dare to pass a law restricting the sale of Nabokov's Lolita, for example. So why, then, is it permissible to attack sequential art?
If people are punished for possessing or creating pornography of imaginary characters as if they were real people, it's a logical progression that they can be punished for possessing or creating stories that depict illegal acts with any imaginary characters. What's to stop them, after a legal precedent is established, from punishing a creator for having a character die during the story? Is it murder or manslaughter? You may think this sounds ludicrous -- because it does -- but it's exactly the same sort of situation. It's exactly as ridiculous as holding someone responsible for drawing a comic or having a comic someone drew, with other situations that would be illegal...if they were real people. Which they aren't.
When one legal step is taken and supported, accepted, subsequent steps are much easier. When it is allowed to punish people for one thing, albeit a controversial thing that doesn't appeal to everyone, it opens the door for other things to be controlled or done away with outright. Even if you think 'that could never happen to what I like', think again. It starts with something that is an easy target and an easy foothold, easy for unscrupulous politicians to cast shame on its supporters and proponents. They're just using it as a stepping stone to get to where they really want to go, to control what they really want to restrict.
This is punishing someone for thoughts, ideas, and creations. And that is unquestionably wrong, and unquestionably in defiance of, at the very least, the United States Constitution.
I urge each and every one of you to go write your political representatives, locally and nationally, and to support the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. You can find the official website here:
The time for sitting by and hoping for the best is long past. Creators, readers, and everyone else are having their rights trampled on by people who are not qualified to make the decisions they are doing. And it is the power and the responsibility of every responsible citizen to put a stop to it. Write your politician and say this isn't acceptable. And make sure to let your voice be heard in any and every situation where this is applicable.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Midnight Down begins!
Check it at http://www.booksie.com/fantasy/novel/hushicho/midnight-down
I hope you enjoy! Please do help me out by signing up for booksie and supporting Midnight Down there! It'll be updated weekly on Sundays, during active chapters (with a week or two between chapters). I really appreciate your support, in advance. Do be sure to show that you like Midnight Down, because it's only through your support that I will know it's worthwhile to continue.
For those of you unfamiliar with it, Midnight Down is a tale of a buxom sorceress, a gay vampire prince, a delightfully manly lycanthrope, and a dandy demon. Their adventures are always a tongue-in-cheek look at the pulp history of horror...and there are pictures too!
I hope you enjoy! Please do help me out by signing up for booksie and supporting Midnight Down there! It'll be updated weekly on Sundays, during active chapters (with a week or two between chapters). I really appreciate your support, in advance. Do be sure to show that you like Midnight Down, because it's only through your support that I will know it's worthwhile to continue.
For those of you unfamiliar with it, Midnight Down is a tale of a buxom sorceress, a gay vampire prince, a delightfully manly lycanthrope, and a dandy demon. Their adventures are always a tongue-in-cheek look at the pulp history of horror...and there are pictures too!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)