Labeling: Censorship? Or providing adequate information? Now there's a fat can of worms.

I was looking through the 1994 Comics Retailer's "list of themes" for each issue this year (yup, it's planned out that far in advance), thinking to myself, "Self, you're just not a team-player" I mean, this space is for Brian's Rant-of-the-Month-Club, what the hell could I say about "store fixtures" or "holiday buying", right? I'd rather expose whatever issue is stuck in my craw this month, figuring if we're all going to get screwed anyway, at least we may as well know we're getting screwed. Sometimes this is hard, but mostly it's handed to me on a silver platter by a Publisher, Distributor, or Creator. Anyway, I basically figured I'd never need the "official topics" list – it's just not my bag.

Well, color me surprised when I realized that I wanted to wade in on labeling comics, the same month as this was to be the "official" topic. So, while you shouldn't expect to see me playing in the same sandbox as everyone else again, I'm here now.

Now, I'm in San Francisco, arguably one of the most liberal cities in our country. Further, Comix Experience is located in one of the most "alternative" of neighborhoods in The City: the Haight-Ashbury (you remember the 60s, right?) We've never had problem one with "community reaction" to what we sell, or even the slightest hint of a problem. Hell, most of our customers are adults – less than 5% are under 18; and those that are either are regular customers (so I know how far their parents will let them go), or are accompanied by their parents during their visit. So it's pretty much a non-issue for us, right?

Additionally, I make a massive effort to read every comic that comes into the store, so it's unlikely in the extreme that I'll ever have someone come back to me in the future claiming I sold them something I was unaware of.

However, it is clear to me that few other retailers are in such an liberal geographical location such as we are; blessed with an older, more sophisticated customer base like us; or are taking the time and effort to read their wares at all (to say nothing of carefully). While the last could be argued to be the retailer's responsibility (though that ignores the practicality - the reason I'm able to stay so on top of it is because I don't have a life), the first two are so far out of the retailer's control, that it's clear that there must be some measure of responsibility from the publishers.

By the same token, I subscribe to the notion that the creator must have absolute control of their own work, up to, and including, the manner in which it is marketed. If a creator decides that they don not want to label themselves, then we have to abide by that desire. Frank Miller said, in the letter's column of Sin City: A Dame to Kill For #4,

I'm behind this sentiment 100%. You don't walk into WaldenBooks and see "Suggested for Mature Readers" plastered all over the cover of the latest Stephen King novel. But by the same token, it is generally understood that if you buy a Hardy Boys book, you're not going to be reading about a disembowelment, described in every exquisite detail. The projected audience for the work determines the suitability of violent and sexual situations. This is, of course, eminently sensible.

However, hand in hand with creator freedom comes creator responsibility. You can not have freedom, without assuming the responsibility that goes along with it: responsibility to your marketplace, to the concerns of parents, to your fellow creators. Not holding to your end of the bargain is a craven and selfish thing. Frank is right: Sin City is clearly not for kids. You can see that from format, from content, from price point. Given this, I think it's wholly appropriate for Sin City to not be cover-tagged. You will note, though, that the book is solicited as for "Mature Readers". This is very important. The retailer is giving the appropriate information as how to handle this title, before it arrives in the store.

On the other hand, you have the situation with Image's Bloodstrike (which has gotten plenty of press, so I won't say much more) or with Defiant's War Dancer #1. Have you seen this one? The last few pages of this comic book feature a small boy and his dog exploding in extremely graphic detail. This in a title that is described in the solicitation materials as laying "the foundation for the Defiant Universe", a line of comic books clearly aimed at the pre-teen superhero fan. No mention was made in the solicitation materials of exploding children, but we get a lot of frothy hype about War Dancer being "Defiant's centerpiece title, meaning that it will serve as the lynchpin for their first mega-crossover (Schism) scheduled for July/August 1994! Consider yourself warned!" Sure. Just not about the right things.

The worst part about these kinds of abuses of the system is that the publisher will never be held accountable. If Mrs. I.M. Acensor gets upset about her little Johnny buying a copy of Bloodstrike, or of War Dancer, who d'you think she's gonna sic the cops on? Rob Liefeld? Jim Shooter?

Or You?

So, what do I think should be done? Thanks for asking. If a publisher missolicits a book based on violent or sexual content, they should pay for any and all expenses involved in legal actions against retailers. And, right now, this second, they should donate 100% of the gross amount collected from these comics to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. Anything less would be greedy and cowardly.

Other than that, publishers should make sure the content of a specific work is explicitly solicited. We don't need cover advisories, but we must have the proper information to make the choice in the first place. Anything less would be cowardly, and does an incredible disservice to we who put our very livelihoods on the line.

'nuff said?

***

On a completely different note, I just want to state for the record how much I HATE that Marvel has pulled out of the distributors’ catalogs.

It already takes far too long to place my monthly orders. I vehemently oppose any decision to make that job harder or more time consuming.

My records are, and always have been in alphabetical order by shipping group. Not only is this the most sensible and easiest way to organize the vast amount of data that we're forced to collect, it's also the industry standard for all other publishers, and allows us to quickly calculate weekly cash-flow (which is all-important to retailers in today's market)

However, Marvel's new system is listed in the rather bizarre alphabetical by "family" group. Not only have I never seen a store that racks books in anything like this manner (I know I'd hate to shop in a store like that – talk about confusing), but it's adds substantially to the time in filling out an order – first you've got to figure out where something is listed, before you can access the solicitation.

For my part, I plan on ordering Marvel comics by cycle sheet numbers only. I simply don't have the additional hours in the ordering process to mess around with their new system. I've no doubt that this will uniformly lead to lower orders on Marvel comics from me.