Regarding the question of "Did it have to be. . . ?", I think that is a somewhat fraught way to talk about creative choices. I mean, hypothetically, nothing in a work HAS to be there. Another way to do everything is possible, and can be imagined. And that is as true of a shocking choice as with a pedestrian detail of the story. Everything could be different, if you want to think of it that way. You know what I mean?
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.
So, did the penis that Bisley rendered into Lobo's elbow on Lobos Back work in the story or was it just an attempt to slip something past someone?
I've read Saga #1 only so I'm only passingly familiar with any of the characters and I wondered the same thing as @jaydee74. Basically, is this something that is consistent with the character? Does this somehow advance the story? Not something that I could answer with a single issue of background. I will admit that I also wondered if the imagery was specifically called out in the script or if it was the artist just selectively filling in the screens arbitrarily.
You're absolutely correct that ultimately art is what the artist says that it is or intends it to be but sometimes what the artist intends it to be is inflammatory not for the sake of testing a boundary or expressing an ideal, but simply to be inflammatory. With that in mind, I don't think that it's out of bounds to ask if the images in question are character or story consistent. Certainly, I'm not offended or made uncomfortable by them, but I do have to question whether this entire blow-up did anything that wasn't a negative to the industry as a whole...
Uninitiated Perspective #1: "Gosh, I had no idea that comics were so pervy!"
Uninitiated #2: "If my kids can get that on the iPad, I'm going to have to keep them from getting that app."
Uninitiated #3: "If that's what's in comics today, I'd better not let my kids go to the comic shop anymore."
Now, I'm not suggesting that the creators of Saga are responsible for the wellbeing and PR for the entire industry, but I'm not sure how this was going to go any other way given the potential issues with in-app purchases.
I have read the first trade of Saga. Is that 1-6? It was okay. I saw the television heads but I have to say that the story itself, while interesting, didn't hold my interest enough to get into any particular character. I saw one had some kind of laser sword which was cool. At the end of the day, I think you need to let the creative team tell the story that they want to because that's what is going to get you the best story that they can tell. Having said that, the story isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea and that's okay but I still have a hard time thinking that creative teams don't put something in a book because they know it's going to get their product some air time and people are going to look at it out of curiosity and I am sure people have. I know I was one of them so I guess it worked.
The way I saw it was the character was injured in battle and he was saying "cocksucker" with a little visual flair. Didn't seem like a big deal.
That's a fascinating interpretation and, I think, goes to the heart of the question. Is it consistent with the established character and story. I'm now curious to go back and look again at his appearances in the first issue to see how much his screen images support or expand the written dialog.
The way I saw it was the character was injured in battle and he was saying "cocksucker" with a little visual flair. Didn't seem like a big deal.
See, that would make a lot of sense to me. If that's indeed what the creative team had in mind, it would make a lot of sense. See, I just don't get the television heads and why certain things come on their screen. I have no idea if it's supposed to be random or if they are showing something that they are thinking or whatnot. If that's the case, that makes so much more sense and it does seem necessary. I would have loved to have seen something different but if that's indeed what they were going for, I can understand that.
Regarding the question of "Did it have to be. . . ?", I think that is a somewhat fraught way to talk about creative choices. I mean, hypothetically, nothing in a work HAS to be there. Another way to do everything is possible, and can be imagined. And that is as true of a shocking choice as with a pedestrian detail of the story. Everything could be different, if you want to think of it that way. You know what I mean?
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.
So, did the penis that Bisley rendered into Lobo's elbow on Lobos Back work in the story or was it just an attempt to slip something past someone?
I've read Saga #1 only so I'm only passingly familiar with any of the characters and I wondered the same thing as @jaydee74. Basically, is this something that is consistent with the character? Does this somehow advance the story? Not something that I could answer with a single issue of background. I will admit that I also wondered if the imagery was specifically called out in the script or if it was the artist just selectively filling in the screens arbitrarily.
You're absolutely correct that ultimately art is what the artist says that it is or intends it to be but sometimes what the artist intends it to be is inflammatory not for the sake of testing a boundary or expressing an ideal, but simply to be inflammatory. With that in mind, I don't think that it's out of bounds to ask if the images in question are character or story consistent. Certainly, I'm not offended or made uncomfortable by them, but I do have to question whether this entire blow-up did anything that wasn't a negative to the industry as a whole...
Uninitiated Perspective #1: "Gosh, I had no idea that comics were so pervy!"
Uninitiated #2: "If my kids can get that on the iPad, I'm going to have to keep them from getting that app."
Uninitiated #3: "If that's what's in comics today, I'd better not let my kids go to the comic shop anymore."
Now, I'm not suggesting that the creators of Saga are responsible for the wellbeing and PR for the entire industry, but I'm not sure how this was going to go any other way given the potential issues with in-app purchases.
I want to emphasize that I'm not trying to be snarky and that I'm not just trying to call you out, but I've frequently seen the argument that art is whatever the artist says that it is and sometimes that's true, but other times it's about something else entirely (I'm looking at you guy-who-installs-unplumbed-urinals-in-way-too-rich-peoples-foyers-and-calls-it-sculpture. It's not sculpture, it's defective plumbing and an invite to have someone whip it out and whiz on the travertine when the wine and cheese party has gone a bit too long!)
It is, I concede, a broad brush statement I made, based on an overall perception. For instance, Gail Simone's rather transparent (if you follow her on Twitter and are acquainted with her views) LGBT advocacy via her storytelling is applauded by many of the very same people who cheered her "Women in Refrigerators" campaign. Anything considered in any way xenophobic, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, etc. is flatly opposed. Frank Miller comes to mind. The producer of the work is shunned/vilified.
So after a while you get the impression that, far from believing that artists should be free to produce whatever they want, that instead there is a certain orthodoxy that should be observed, and only the "right" people should be offended with work that deliberately pushes the "right" boundaries. Creative orthodoxy. I find that blatantly hypocritical.
I personally believe in censorship, which is why I do not support the CBLDF. I also contend that those who say that they do not believe in censorship are commonly liars, as I have a strong degree of confidence that I can describe material (spawned from my own filthy mind) that they would agree simply should not be produced, published, or purchased.
This is NOT to say that I think Gail Simone should write different stories, or that this issue of Saga should have been altered by editorial. It's simply to say that people are inconsistent on the matter, yet generally think they are right.
Edit: I also should add that, IMHO, the balancing factor against censorship is ratings/labeling/clarity about content. We're all grown ups here. If the book says, "May contain portrayals of live kittens being eaten by transgender Nazis", then I'm good with that.
My take on it is if a book has an "M" on it, you should be prepared for whatever you get, and parents should take an active role in what their kids are reading. And if you're old enough to be a grownup and still enjoy comics, you need to be genre-savvy enough to have an idea of what to expect. I knew from the cover to the first issue alone that Saga was going to push some buttons, and reading pre-press on it only confirmed that.
Frankly, I'm glad all the attention is focused on these mainstream books...because the manga-philes are all pointing and laughing at you right now. :)
It is, I concede, a broad brush statement I made, based on an overall perception. For instance, Gail Simone's rather transparent (if you follow her on Twitter and are acquainted with her views) LGBT advocacy via her storytelling is applauded by many of the very same people who cheered her "Women in Refrigerators" campaign. Anything considered in any way xenophobic, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, etc. is flatly opposed. Frank Miller comes to mind. The producer of the work is shunned/vilified.
So after a while you get the impression that, far from believing that artists should be free to produce whatever they want, that instead there is a certain orthodoxy that should be observed, and only the "right" people should be offended with work that deliberately pushes the "right" boundaries. Creative orthodoxy. I find that blatantly hypocritical.
Unless the orthodoxy you are talking about actually called for the work they objected to not be distributed, then I don't see the hypocrisy, or the connection to this case regarding Saga.
There is a difference between criticizing a work or a creator, wagging a finger at them, blogging about them, calling them names, etc. . . . and actually trying to keep the work that has been created away from the audience that wants to read it.
Sure, a lot of people called Miller's most recent work zenophobic, for example. They might have criticized him, or loudly declared that they would not support the work, support his future work, etc. But did they actually try to keep anyone that wanted to buy it from buying it? Did they call for distributors to not distribute it?
My memory of Women in Refridgerators is not that that it was a campaign to get certain existing comics off the shelves, or blocked from getting to the shelves. Rather, it was a campaign to call attention to how (in their opinion) female characters were being treated in the work, and encourage (or shame) the publishers and creators to do better. That, too, is not a block or a ban. It is speech about what you would rather see in the future.
BLOCKING work from getting to the audience (as Comixology did before they changed their mind) is different from Tweeting or blogging against a work or a creator. The one is more like censorship (though, unless the government is involved in criminalizing any distribution, the C-word doesn't really apply); and the latter is just speech against something you don't like.
Comments
I've read Saga #1 only so I'm only passingly familiar with any of the characters and I wondered the same thing as @jaydee74. Basically, is this something that is consistent with the character? Does this somehow advance the story? Not something that I could answer with a single issue of background. I will admit that I also wondered if the imagery was specifically called out in the script or if it was the artist just selectively filling in the screens arbitrarily.
You're absolutely correct that ultimately art is what the artist says that it is or intends it to be but sometimes what the artist intends it to be is inflammatory not for the sake of testing a boundary or expressing an ideal, but simply to be inflammatory. With that in mind, I don't think that it's out of bounds to ask if the images in question are character or story consistent. Certainly, I'm not offended or made uncomfortable by them, but I do have to question whether this entire blow-up did anything that wasn't a negative to the industry as a whole...
Uninitiated Perspective #1: "Gosh, I had no idea that comics were so pervy!"
Uninitiated #2: "If my kids can get that on the iPad, I'm going to have to keep them from getting that app."
Uninitiated #3: "If that's what's in comics today, I'd better not let my kids go to the comic shop anymore."
Now, I'm not suggesting that the creators of Saga are responsible for the wellbeing and PR for the entire industry, but I'm not sure how this was going to go any other way given the potential issues with in-app purchases.
So after a while you get the impression that, far from believing that artists should be free to produce whatever they want, that instead there is a certain orthodoxy that should be observed, and only the "right" people should be offended with work that deliberately pushes the "right" boundaries. Creative orthodoxy. I find that blatantly hypocritical.
I personally believe in censorship, which is why I do not support the CBLDF. I also contend that those who say that they do not believe in censorship are commonly liars, as I have a strong degree of confidence that I can describe material (spawned from my own filthy mind) that they would agree simply should not be produced, published, or purchased.
This is NOT to say that I think Gail Simone should write different stories, or that this issue of Saga should have been altered by editorial. It's simply to say that people are inconsistent on the matter, yet generally think they are right.
Edit: I also should add that, IMHO, the balancing factor against censorship is ratings/labeling/clarity about content. We're all grown ups here. If the book says, "May contain portrayals of live kittens being eaten by transgender Nazis", then I'm good with that.
Frankly, I'm glad all the attention is focused on these mainstream books...because the manga-philes are all pointing and laughing at you right now. :)
There is a difference between criticizing a work or a creator, wagging a finger at them, blogging about them, calling them names, etc. . . . and actually trying to keep the work that has been created away from the audience that wants to read it.
Sure, a lot of people called Miller's most recent work zenophobic, for example. They might have criticized him, or loudly declared that they would not support the work, support his future work, etc. But did they actually try to keep anyone that wanted to buy it from buying it? Did they call for distributors to not distribute it?
My memory of Women in Refridgerators is not that that it was a campaign to get certain existing comics off the shelves, or blocked from getting to the shelves. Rather, it was a campaign to call attention to how (in their opinion) female characters were being treated in the work, and encourage (or shame) the publishers and creators to do better. That, too, is not a block or a ban. It is speech about what you would rather see in the future.
BLOCKING work from getting to the audience (as Comixology did before they changed their mind) is different from Tweeting or blogging against a work or a creator. The one is more like censorship (though, unless the government is involved in criminalizing any distribution, the C-word doesn't really apply); and the latter is just speech against something you don't like.