jackdoe wrote:I see your point and agree to an extent. However I think that the role of mainstream accessibility is met by the normal monthly comics (how many are there of the three characters you mentioned?) while challenging the perception of a given character is exactly the point of hiring a notably "mature" writer such as Miller to do a series outside of normal continuity.
I think you may be missing the point. It doesn't matter who's writing it, or why they were hired to do so, the general public is entirely ignorant of these things. All that really matters is that the words "fuck" and "cunt" were plainly visible - repeatedly
- in a comic book entitled "Batman and Robin, The Boy Wonder." A comic that doesn't have any specific adult content warning, and for anyone who isn't fairly entrenched in online comic book news and culture, would be most likely indistinguishable from any other Batman comic on the rack. All it would take is for one "concerned parent" to pick this up for their kid, see the profanity, and kick up a fuss, for this to become a big PR nightmare for DC. They won't know or care that it's Frank Miller, they won't hear the argument that it's satirically "challenging the perception of the character," all they'll see is that a Batman comic book has the word "cunt" in it, and how dare DC peddle this filth to children, it's an outrage, etc etc etc.
You asked why this is newsworthy - this is why.[/quote
I got the point. The post you quoted was in response to certain things not feeling "right" in a Bat-Man comic and how that role is filled by the comics in the normal continuity while this series is meant to challenge such perceptions. No bearing on the original issue... got off on a little tangent I guess
Back to, the original issue its obvious that the entire thing was a mistake. That is to say outside of the "maturity" level that the editor intended and outside of what is permissible by the comic code. But DC publishes comics with or without CCA approval (and I *think* that they only submit normal DCU books...) so in the end content of DC published books is entirely unregulated except by internal policy. Public perception in this instance becomes another word for "ignorance". The reality of the situation is that the book is marketed to an 18-30? male audience.
So should the headline have read: "DC published adult oriented comic with profanity, deadbeat parents buy for child"?
Comics without CCA badging should be inspected by a concerned parent before their child reads it, right? But even with the code how many parents actually know what that means? If written in novel form, without the profanity, would the hypothetical novel have been allowed in the young adult section of a library? I think not. So the problem then becomes a larger issue of DC failing on a larger scale. Wouldn't it? If we want to blame DC, they made a mistake, there is no way around that but I think it still comes down to the parent to guide their kids. I would much rather my kids know a vulgar word for "vagina" at any age than have them exposed to the evil of rape.
Shirking responsibility has been the MO in this country for decades and no amount of work on the part of the various publishers will ever make up for a lack of ownership and oversight on the part of the parents...
Sorry, I'm rambling. In the end these parents are almost universally guilty of laziness and ignorance. DC should cover their asses and slap a "suggested for mature readers" label on anything that has vulgarity - censored or not - realistic violence, rape etc. It won't effect their sales much, if at all, and it would prevent this sort of crap from popping up. But in the end kids will still buy it. And parents that failed to perform the duties they set themselves as parents to shield their children from what they've deemed unpleasant will still feel the same sense of moral outrage.