Antony Johnston argues for an end to the censorship.
'Approved by the Comics Code Authority'. A phrase that, frankly, sends shivers down my spine. It brings visions of a board of Concerned Citizens, dissecting the latest issue of X-MEN and crying, "My God! There's a picture here of a woman giving birth!!! What's that? Punisher shoots fifty people this month? Well, so long as there's no blood, that's fine..."
I'm sure there's a curious parallel there with the imbalanced American view of violence vs. sex, but that's a whole different story. What I want to ask here is, "Why the hell does the CCA still even exist?" There are a number of answers to that question. All of them hold about as much water as a sieve. With staggering disregard for editorial tradition, I will now tell you my conclusion right at the start - if comics are to be rated at all, we should adopt a similar system to that of cinema. Got that? Good. Now let's see the arguments, starting with the most familiar...
"The moral majority will never accept abolition of the Code. The Code serves to keep them off our backs."
This is the lamest excuse ever. We shouldn't need to keep the moral minority (sic) off our backs. What amuses me about the MM is that they represent a tiny proportion of the population, yet shout louder than anyone and get their way. In other circumstances they'd be accused of just trying to get attention. Or bullying. Do books have a rating system? No. Sure, the MM occasionally get their backs up about something like AMERICAN PSYCHO. But do we hear cries for books to be rated? No. Do we suggest books should be banned outright? Of course not. And this is because of perception. Books are recognized for the validity of their form, and it's accepted that there will be different books for different audiences.
The counter-argument to this, of course, is why should we then have a ratings system at all? Because unfortunately, comics fall under the same 'graphic' umbrella as cinema, video and - to a lesser extent - videogames (more about them next column). Reading prose describing a horrendous act of violence, for example, requires a fair amount of imagination and maturity on the part of the reader to remove it from the purely abstract. Seeing it at 24 frames a second, or in glorious computer-enhanced four-color, does not. Hence the difference in the way each medium is treated.
"In which case, don't we need the Code?"
No, and this is where the logical parallel with cinema comes in. The fact that film and videogame makers are free to place horrendous acts of violence into a film or game if they so wish doesn't mean that suddenly no-one is watching U movies, or buying Mario Kart. Quite the opposite -- look at the audience/sales figures. These ratings give everyone their peace of mind, and allow them to comfortably absolve themselves of any responsibility. Which is always an important factor in gaining the trust of the average idiot. And it's not just graphic violence that is verboten under the Code. Nudity and sex are also taboos. In principle at least, so is ridiculing Institutions such as the Government. The fact that this particular point is so blatantly ignored by many Code-approved books only further underlines its uselessness.
"But the Code ensures parents know which comics are suitable for their kids."
Film ratings serve the same purpose much better. Whether or not you agree with them, and whether or not they're even correctly rated most of the time, the general populace is quite happy with them. What separates a Code approved book from a U or PG film? Very little. Besides, how many non-comic-reading parents actually buy the comics these days? Very few, I'd imagine. They may supply the allowance, but the majority of kids buy the comics themselves. A film-style rating would put the onus on the retailer, not the child, to ensure a ten-year-old doesn't go home with the latest PREACHER. For even younger children, a U rating would be just as, if not more, useful than the Code seal. So everyone gets to keep their peace of mind. Including creators.
"The Code doesn't stifle creativity!"
Absolute hogwash. Even in cases where it's not a direct cause, do you really think any writer is even going to attempt turning in a FANTASTIC FOUR script with, say, a sex scene between Reed and Sue? Of course not. Marvel, specifically, has a company policy that all its books are for kids. Even if you abolished the Code tomorrow, most of Marvel's output would remain the same. Why? Because 'Comics are for kids.' Sure, this is a publisher's prerogative. Disney aren't going to be knocking on Abel Ferrera's door any time soon. The difference is that many mass-market retailers and distributors, such as Wal-Mart, won't even touch anything without a Code seal, whereas Abel Ferrera's films are fully supported by the cinema distribution system so long as they carry an appropriate adult rating. A contentious point, but this is censorship.
Another example of the code's indirect effects was the Batman graphic novel 'Arkham Asylum'. Even though it was a non-Code book and 'suggested for mature readers', it required one major change. Grant Morrison found out the hard way that Batman is not allowed to say, even in the most extreme circumstances, "fuck." The end result is Batman, under extreme duress, exclaiming to the Joker, "Get your filthy hands off me!" -- marring an otherwise excellent work simply by virtue of being so incongruous with the rest of the book. Why did this happen? Because 'Comics are for kids.'
"But the code has already changed with the moral climate -- it adapts to what becomes socially acceptable."
Obviously not enough. Warren Ellis has also run into difficulties over DC's arbitrary rules on language. While there was never a problem with the word "fuck" appearing in HELLBLAZER, as Ellis recounts: "It is set in London so people are going to say nasty words... like cunt, which is a word of frightening power in America, and in London is punctuation. And no matter how I try, it is still an unacceptable word in HELLBLAZER." (Writers on Comics Scriptwriting, Titan Books 1999)
Once again, this isn't a Code book. But the perpetual specter of the MM has a fallout effect. No-one wants Tipper Gore on their case. The fact that the Code can change surely renders it even more irrelevant. Film ratings also change with the times, as do the whims of book publishers and television producers over what is and isn't acceptable. Comic editors, being mature and responsible people, are equally aware of what they can and can't present to the public. But by keeping the Code in place, all we are actually doing is reinforcing the common view that they aren't -- that we can't trust them not to corrupt and deprave little Johnny.
"Plenty of books are published without the Code seal anyway."
Yet some of these books, often by the publisher's own admission, blatantly aren't suitable for children. Unsure parents who are aware of the Code's existence will automatically go for the Code-approved books. The mere fact of the Code's existence is enough to cause a knee-jerk reaction when it's ignored. The biggest problem with the Code is it reinforces the idea that comics are strictly for kids -- that only something which has been systematically scanned for profanity, violence and sex is suitable to go in a comic. There are many, many people out there who don't even realize that non-Code comics exist.
"But the companies producing non-Code books probably wouldn't want their comics rated at all."
Maybe not. So what? It's hardly going to hurt their sales. Considering the present mass-market distribution problem, those publishers would be in no worse a position than they are now. And in the long run (as the ultimate aim here is to drag comics out of the 'kids only' doldrums) they may even gain sales, as more people begin to accept comics as a mainstream form of entertainment and the readership widens. And let's be frank - that's what this is about. Widening the readership. Comics are currently in the odd situation of being perceived by the mass populace as 'for kids' - yet more comics than ever are being sold that wouldn't see the light of day if they were submitted to the Code. Here we get to a larger dilemma. The Code is actually financed by the big three members of the Comics Magazine Association of America (CMAA) - DC, Marvel and Archie comics. They have the power to simply abolish the Code as and when they see fit.
So why don't they? Their main argument (and certainly Marvel's) is financial. As noted, mass-market distributors won't carry anything without a Code seal. But so what? If there was no Code seal at all, maybe they'd actually have to re-think their policy. There's a danger that they would just drop everything, but that's unlikely. Wal-Mart doesn't carry comics out of the kindness of its heart - they sell. So Wal-Mart, and others like them, would be forced to reconsider how they stock these books. And an alternative rating system, one that is easily recognized and already in use in other media, would make that transition a whole lot easier for them. Even if the distributors did stop selling comics, the point of scrapping the Code is to gain acceptance of comics as a form, like novels, movies and games, with different subjects for different levels of maturity. And in the long run, that would be a Very Good Thing for the industry.
Unfortunately for our comics utopia, short-term thinking is very much the order of the day at present. Nothing takes precedence over that bottom line and immediate cash flow. While the 'big three' continue to think like this comics are damned forever to languish in their 'kids only' reputation.
 |
 |
 |
|
Pop Preview - Grendel: Past Prime Talkback:
|
||
 |
|
 |
Relevant Links
The Comics Code
Message Board.