NSFW! - Comixology withholds Saga 12 per Apple's policy on sex scenes, then reverses - UPDATED
As reported in The Beat
Apple has refused to carry Saga #12 via any of its app-based platforms because of two small gay sex scenes, writer Brian K. Vaughan has written in a press release. The issue goes on sale tomorrow and will not be available through anything that goes through the App store. However, as Vaughan explains, the issue will still be available through Image and Android apps.
Update, I just flipped through the PDF preview of the book and couldn’t even find the scenes…unless they were removed from the PDF?
Meanwhile, just pick out the violent content that goes through Apple every day and get back to me.
Quoted from BKV's Release:
comicsbeat.com/apple-bans-saga-12-due-to-gay-sex-scenes/
UPDATED-- You can find some updated reporting and clarifications from The Beat here.
Apple has refused to carry Saga #12 via any of its app-based platforms because of two small gay sex scenes, writer Brian K. Vaughan has written in a press release. The issue goes on sale tomorrow and will not be available through anything that goes through the App store. However, as Vaughan explains, the issue will still be available through Image and Android apps.
Update, I just flipped through the PDF preview of the book and couldn’t even find the scenes…unless they were removed from the PDF?
Meanwhile, just pick out the violent content that goes through Apple every day and get back to me.
Quoted from BKV's Release:
As has hopefully been clear from the first page of our first issue, SAGA is a series for the proverbial “mature reader.” Unfortunately, because of two postage stamp-sized images of gay sex, Apple is banning tomorrow’s SAGA #12 from being sold through any iOS apps. This is a drag, especially because our book has featured what I would consider much more graphic imagery in the past, but there you go. Fiona and I could always edit the images in question, but everything we put into the book is there to advance our story, not (just) to shock or titillate, so we’re not changing shit.
Apologies to everyone who reads our series on iPads or iPhones, but here are your alternatives for Wednesday:
1) Head over to you friendly neighborhood comics shop and pick up a physical copy of our issue that you can have and hold forever.
2) While you’re at it, don’t forget to support the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, which helps protect retailers who are brave enough to carry work that some in their communities might consider offensive. You can find signed copies of Saga at the CBLDF site right now.
3) Download the issue directly through sites like https://comics.imagecomics.com or on your non-Apple smartphone or tablet.
4) If all else fails, you might be able to find SAGA #12 in Apple’s iBookstore, which apparently sometimes allows more adult material to be sold than through its apps. Crazy, right?
Anyway, special thanks to Eric Stephenson and everyone at Image for supporting our decision, and for always being so supportive of creators. Sorry again to readers for the inconvenience, but I hope everyone will be able to find an issue that Fiona and I are particularly proud of. And after you do, please check out PanelSyndicate.com, the new digital comics site I own with artist Marcos Martin, which remains 100% uncensored by corporate overlords.
comicsbeat.com/apple-bans-saga-12-due-to-gay-sex-scenes/
UPDATED-- You can find some updated reporting and clarifications from The Beat here.
Comments
And, of course, the fact that a prior issue of Saga had much more, and more graphic, sex in it, albeit straight sex (and, in the context with the story, much of it was nonconsenual sex with slaves raised to be prostitutes) but somehow THIS was too much? Well, the criticism writes itself on that one.
History is doomed to repeat itself.
Adam and Eve were ousted from Eden after the snake convinced them to bite the forbidden apple, and now Adam and Steve are being ousted from Apple for biting the forbidden snake.
Apple's going to get a lot of flack for this move, and deservedly so. (Edit: I may have to eat those words.)
and
@Fade2Black : ^:)^
According to Mark Waid's comments on the matter it wasn't Apple's decision at all. Comixology was the party that flagged the content as being a potential breach of terms of service.
Here's an excerpt, but I encourage anyone who's interested in this incident to read the full text by following the link below.
http://thrillbent.com/blog/saga-and-comixology/
Not that I advocate banning the book. If bukake is your thing I guess this was the issue for you.
On a semi related note... Can we all grow our skins back and get over ourselves already?! Please. I'm so ready to find a deserted island somewhere.
SAGA is actually quite good. It is a mature-themed book, and that may be a turn-off for some, especially younger readers, but if you're of a mature age and a fan of sci-fi/fantasy I would highly recommend giving the first trade a chance, which BTW is a steal at $9.99 for six issues.
When was the last time you heard of a comic not being carried by Comixology because of the explicit nature of the violence?
Put another way:
An erect penis? No way.
Shooting a baby? No problem.
To me that doesn't seem like the healthiest set of priorities as far as what is allowed and what is taboo.
To me.
As a society we glorify a detective on NYPD Blue beating a confession out of a perp but freak out a the sight of Dennis Franz's derrière.
Revel in the destruction of NYC in Armageddon but are scandalized by naughty bits.
yearsdecades so I'm pretty sure there's nothing in there to shock me. :)/Now get off my lawn, you whippersnappers!
The gatekeepers at Comixology seemed to disagree. And that is in keeping with cultural norms about explicit sex vs. explicit violence.
I don't think those norms are healthy. Agreed.
And to be clear, to the larger discussion, I am not saying either should be blocked from the adults that want to buy them. But I find shooting babies far more taboo than sex acts.
The gatekeepers at Comixology seemed to disagree. And that is in keeping with cultural norms about explicit sex vs. explicit violence.
I don't think those norms are healthy.
The discussion of taboos is very interesting to me, however, because I find that even the CBLDF crowd loses their freaking minds if they see something they strongly disagree with in a comic.
#:-S <- hehe
As for the CBLDF crowd 'losing their freaking minds', sounds like a pretty broad generalization. Is there something specific that the 'CBLDF crowd' called for Comixology or other distributors to block distribution of?
I personally can't think of a single case of the CBLDF advocating for any book to not be distributed, but maybe there is something I am forgetting. Actually, they often find themselves in a position to defend the legality of works that they might, personally, be repelled by. As Neil Gaiman well articulated in his essay Why Defend Freedom of Icky Speech?
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html
An essay that the CBLDF linked to on its own website as well http://cbldf.org/2008/12/neil-gaiman-why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech/
As for the Prince character specifically, all sorts of things have appeared on his screen face in the course of his appearances in the story. It has usually seemed like a random spin through the world of recorded media. And, well, the fact is (at least in our world) a tremendous amount of porn has been created. So there would be the chance of some of that being there, as all sorts of things flash on his screen.
Did it HAVE to be there? No. Nor did the character have to be there. Nor did anything else that happened have to happen. We could always second guess things another way.
Personally, I think the question should be 'did it work in the story'? And that is really a question every reader has to answer for themself, in the context of the work. And if the creators of a comic are making the choices that work for you often enough- even if you might not have made the same choices- then you are reading the right comic. That is what we pay them for. If they are making choices that alienate you too often, then you are reading the wrong one. But that is something that you can only judge by reading it. I don't think a third party can judge whether something was objectively necessary or not.
I don't think necessity is really the lens we use to judge creative work. I notice it tends to only come up when something is controversial.
And this isn't to say I'm a prude when it comes to this kind of stuff. I thought the sex scenes in the 6th season of Buffy fit the tone of where the character was and didn't find it random or shocking. I thought the sex scenes in Six Feet Under were important and necessary to the characterizations as well. I do think there is a place for stuff like that but I also think there are times it's thrown in there just for the sake of controversy and shock value.
I get that art is subjective and different strokes for different folks but I think that sometimes something looks gratuitous just for the sake of it. I won't judge the intention of an artist and I would never claim to be smart enough to know the intention but there are times I look at certain books or shows and wonder was that really necessary to tell the story? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't but I know for me, it puts me off more times that it doesn't.
I can think of one instance, though it wasn't a book. Terry Moore, along with a couple other artists (Frank Miller might have been one, though I can't credit Frank with certainty), illustrated a t-shirt advocating an end to censorship. The shirt featured a bound and gagged character (I think it might have been Francine from SiP). I actually used to the own the shirt (and may still - though it's packaged away in storage if I still do). That was back when I wore a XXL size shirt; these days I'm down to a size L. I think I own a print of it as well, and if I can dig it up, I'll post the image. Apparently the CBLDF had second thoughts after it was brought to their attention that it cast women in a poor light. So in act of self-censorship (and perhaps irony) they quickly ceased production of the shirt. I learned this from Terry when I wore the shirt to a con. He informed me the shirt was actually kind of rare for only a handful were produced, and then he proceeded to tell me why. I doubt this is common knowledge for I'm fairly certain the CBLDF wouldn't exactly advertise the fact that they were effectively censoring themselves.
I will also say, though, that there may be difference between the context of reading Saga UP to issue #12- including all the earlier appearances of the TV screen headed characters- and specifically borrowing a friends copy of #12 to see what the controversy is about. You know what I mean?
To me, though, there is a difference between changing your mind about what t-shirt you use to represent (and fund raise for-- remember, the CBLDF shirts are usually used as pledge incentives) YOUR OWN BRAND. . . and choosing to selectively support or not support the speech of others based on your own tastes or beliefs. The story of this t-shirt sounds to me like the former, not the latter.
If it had been a case where a Terry Moore comic that involved a bound and gagged Francine had got him in legal trouble, and he appealed to the CBLDF for assistance, and they decided to withhold their assistance to him because they felt that he shouldn't have depicted women like that in the first place. . . then I would see the comparison.
But what t-shirts they choose to sell, and what images they use or don't use to brand the CBLDF is a different matter. In those instances (again, where these t-shirts are there to be aids to fundraising) they want ones that people will want to buy to support them. If one of them gets a surprising or negative reaction to the audience they are trying to fundraise from, then withdrawing that shirt is not a speech decision, it is a branding decision. Sure, it may not be great optics for them.
And certainly is a blunder to first make a shirt available, and then when it gets a different reaction than you expect, to withdraw it. But that is a blunder about what t-shirt you do or don't sell. It is not censorship. Especially as I would guess Terry Moore still owns the image, and could print it or use it however he wants. He could probably go ahead and make his own t-shirt of it (without the CBLDF logo, which I imagine he does not own). And if someone tried to abridge Moore's use of that image in a comic, I would bet the CBLDF would be there to help defend him.
The CBLDF can defend expression without deciding that ALL expression is necessarily the best thing to put on their own merchandise.