It is easy to imagine my disappointment when I read that the author of this splendid tale, Orson Scott Card, turned out to be homophobic. And not just Granddad homophobic (the type known to say things like "It just ain't right"), more like the militant homophobe (the type known to say things like "I want to destroy this government and rebuild a new one because it allows gay marriage").
Whoa.
It turns out Card was gearing up to write an arc of Superman for D.C. Comics until a gay-rights advocacy group (which I am a member of) created a petition and got some 16,000 like-minded individuals to pressure D.C. Comics into not enlisting the help of this anti-gay genius. They have convinced some comic book stores to not carry any issues that Card writes, and one illustrator has backed out of collaborating with him.
I reacted with surprise--shit, a petition actually made a change?!--and clicked out of my e-mail, but the story stayed with me throughout the day, pulling at the back of my brain like a malt liquor hangover.
The more the thoughts simmered, the more upset I became, which is the usual way these things go with me.
The twist was that I was pissed at the activist community. I actually found myself defending the scumbag author and rooting for D.C. Comics to stand strong behind him.
You might think I feel this way because I love the ideal more than the reality, that I like to romanticize more than cope, or that the persons I most admire are typcially people I would never associate myself with in any way, but it is actually because I don't think that people should be denied making art simply because they have moronic (even caustic) views. Plain and simple. Even more importantly, I don't like barriers of entry about who is allowed to make art dictated by public opinion.
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
If we were to limit who we allow to make art to just those persons who are good people, we would be left with no art.
This is a problem.
Many artists are bad/crazy/ignorant/abhorrent people--always have been, always will be. A quick list: Bukowski, Hemingway, Morrissey, Kanye West, Ike Turner, Whitney Houston, Michelangelo (probably, right?) Geoffrey Chaucer, et al. Though far from perfect, these incorrigible fucks left behind some works of staggeringly brilliant beauty that will continue to inspire generations to come. I believe that the pros of letting them create and distribute their art outweigh the cons.
Think about what the world would have lost if we hadn't allowed them to make art-
I wrote a one-scene play for emphasis of this point. It's called, Charles Bukowski Gets Badgered by Theoretical Us-es.
Scene: Southern California
Year:1970
Theoretical Us: Hey, Chuck, you should prolly cool it with the debauchery.
Bukowksi: Go fuck yourself.
Theoretical Us: We are gonna petition your publishing company to stop you from writing. Also, we're gonna make sure no local bookstores sell your shit if you can find a publishing company stupid enough to print it.
Bukowski: *Throws up on self, attempts to punch another woman, doesn't write Ham on Rye, Post Office, any short stories or poems.*
END SCENE
You can imagine this scene playing out again and again through history with varying degrees of damage to the intellectual world at large. (In fact, I'm thinking of turning all of these moments into one scene plays, bundling them, and them teaming up with an on-the-rise songwriter and a down-on-his-luck lead man to forge a bond strong enough to take us straight to the top! Broadway, here I come!)
By pushing for certain stores/publishers to stop allowing an artist to make money, we are collectively saying that a person can't have a living because we don't agree with their views. And all this time, I thought we lived in a democracy!
I am often heard degrading Chris Brown, calling him a spineless waste of human life. And this is true. I even once said that Jay-z should stone-wall him from the industry, giving an ultimatum to any artist/producer--something to the tune of "You either work with him or me. Choose". I still agree with this, though I disagree with the petition to D.C. Comics. The reasons are two-fold.
For one, as much as a dick as Orson Scott Card may be, he hasn't actually broken any laws. He has called for the outright cancellation of basic human right to love and be happy, but he hasn't done anything that could find him in prison. Chris Brown should be in jail for assault. Card, however, is just in the Kanye/Morrissey realm of asshole--if douchebaggery were a crime, they'd be buried under the jail. But, alas, it isn't (mostly due to the strong pull of the Bro Lobbyists), so these guys are just people we disagree with, not actual criminals. We are not allowing Card to make art because he isn't someone we would want to be around, essentially. Because we don't want him as a role model. That's fucked.
I don't want Chris Brown to have money because he is a scumbag, so I don't buy his record. I fucking talk shit on him. I criticize others who do buy his music. And, Should Jay-z try and blacklist him, it would be each individual artist making the decision as to whether or not they should collaborate with Chris Brown. The freedom of choice for the individual is completely lost with this D.C. petition.
The intention, it seems, of the petition is to limit the exposure of this "bad person" so that he has as little influence as possible, thus making his pernicious views socially irrelevant. This is an admirable, albeit misguided, position to take. Homophobia is a big problem, and those who espouse it deserve to be reprimanded with a good "BOO!". I have qualms, however, with the actual execution of the petition's sentiment. Strong-arming a company to not allow an artist to create is a dangerous, and asinine, maneuver. It prevents every consumer not on the petition of 16,000 from having a choice in the matter about supporting Orson Scott Card's art.
(Neither of these points, by the way, address how censorship often draws MORE attention to the would-be censored artist because I don't have the energy at present)
D.C. Comics, presumably, will back away from supporting Card because they
Mr. Montana implores us to hold dear to our hearts a simple mantra on the chorus of "Doesn't Matter"--You shouldn't give a fuck what people say about you! Shit, D.C. Comics, worry about doing YOU. Other people's opinions don't matter, but this will not stop them from having something to say. No matter what you do, you won't please everyone.
And, as French adroitly identified in the intro, there will always be a portion of the public who espouse some "nerd-havin' opinions" about how you should be living your life and making your art. Fuck those people!
If D.C. Comics actually enjoys the work of Card, and they are comfortable with co-signing a homophobe's art, then they should back Card to the end. I would never deny the right of a comic store owner to not stock a comic, but I think it would be a disservice to the people to not allow a book because the person who wrote it is a shithead.
The table has now been set for you, D.C. Comics; you can either cave to the pressure of society and allow the vilification to make you a villain in the war against popularity, or you can stand strong behind your convictions, like Superman stands behind his.
And in the event I read this ten years from now and shake my head at my stupidity, I will ask that you fly around the world as fast as possible to turn back the years and allow me to right my wrongs.
One Love.
No comments:
Post a Comment