Age of the Geek

Culture wars: Round 2
     I figured I’d be writing on this subject again, but I didn’t expect it would be so soon.
     Last week I noted the hypocrisy of two groups of so-called “Ghostbusters” fans upset that the franchise wouldn’t be catered exclusively to them. It was good for a laugh because, for all their complaining, there’s really not much they can do about it other than not see whichever movie they don’t like.
     I’m not laughing anymore.
     But let’s take a step back.
     This year is the 75th Anniversary of Batman’s pale-faced nemesis, the Joker. To commemorate this, DC Comics will be releasing Joker-themed variant covers across their line of books. The “Aquaman” variant has a bunch of grinning sharks, the “Wonder Woman” variant features Wonder Woman and Joker dancing while he holds a bomb. So on and so forth.
     This is a standard practice for the industry. DC did the same thing with The Flash not too long ago. They’ve even had a LEGO themed variant cover month.
     However, controversy hit when the variant cover to “Batgirl” was revealed.
     In it, the Joker is smiling, holding a gun on Batgirl with one hand and apparently drawing a red smile on her face with the other while she stands quivering in fear.
     It is a powerful and intentionally disturbing piece of art.
     The cover is a throwback to the 1988’s “The Killing Joke,” one of the most popular and well regarded Batman stories in the long history of the franchise. In “The Killing Joke,” the Joker shoots and assaults Barbara “Batgirl” Gordon in ways I won’t describe in a family paper. While the exact nature of the attack is left somewhat up to the imagination of the reader, it’s a horrific assault nonetheless.
     Along with being one of the definitive Joker stories, “The Killing Joke” is also one of the most significant events in Barbra Gordon’s fictional history. The attack left her paralyzed and bound to a wheelchair. Retired from the rooftops, she spent the next two decades fighting crime with a computer as Oracle, not only becoming a much more interesting character in the process, but serving as an inspiration to disabled readers everywhere.
     That all changed in 2011 when DC rebooted their fictional universe and put Barbra Gordon back in the Batgirl role. Since then, the character has been redesigned and rebranded to attract a new demographic.
     Specifically, females of the “selfie generation.”
     And that’s where things went wrong.
     Many in this new demographic don’t know about “The Killing Joke,” so when previews of the variant covers were released, they didn’t see a homage to a landmark story in both the Joker and Batgirl’s history. They saw a creepy pale guy holding a gun on their hero while she stood paralyzed (figuratively, not literally) in fear.
     And they did not like it.
     Naturally, upon seeing the cover they put aside their outrage, investigated the greater context of the cover, and decided that even if they didn’t like it, they didn’t have to buy it so it was no big deal.
     I’m kidding, of course.
     No, they took to Twitter with the hashtag #ChangeTheCover. After a weekend of being called terrible things and watching the latest round of the Internet culture war unfold in his lap, artist Rafael Albuquerque asked that DC not use his art for the cover.
     The end result was that the cover was pulled because a very loud group of people decided that if they didn’t like it, nobody should have it. I’d say that this sets a bad precedent except this isn’t even the first time in recent memory that the self-appointed morality police got a variant cover canned before it hit the shelves.
     And yes, keep in mind that this fuss is all over a variant cover. Anybody that didn’t like the variant could have gotten the regular cover. In fact, they would probably have to go out of their way to get the variant in the first place.
     This is a situation where people would literally have to go out of their way to be offended.
     I’ll admit that the cover is dark, far darker than the tone of the current book, but that’s not out of the ordinary.
     If this were the only cover available I could see the point of being upset, but there isn’t a single problem anybody can have with this cover that cannot be solved with “don’t buy it.”
     In 1954, similar hysterics resulted in the creation of the Comics Code Authority. If you’ve ever wondered why superhero comics are so dominant in the market, it’s because the Comics Code Authority made it virtually impossible for other popular genres, particularly horror comics and crime comics, to survive.
     It wasn’t until 2011 that the code was made officially defunct. You’d think we’d learn our lesson, but here we are starting the same old song and dance with a new generation.
     Don’t get me wrong, I totally get being angry and frustrated with comic book publishers when they do dumb things. I’ve been there. Where were these people when Spider-Man sold his marriage to the devil? I’d get onboard with that hashtag.
     But that was a situation where I was forced to choose between reading a bad Spider-Man story or not reading Spider-Man at all. I voted with my wallet and chose the latter.
     In this case, where the objectionable content is completely avoidable, it’s an entirely different beast.
     I draw the line at telling people that something shouldn’t exist simply because it doesn’t conform to my personal tastes. That is what voting with your wallet is for.
 
     Travis Fischer is a news writer for Mid-America Publishing and yes, self-censorship is still censorship.