TIME FOR A UNIVERSAL RATING SYSTEM?

[MattBrady]

<img width="300" height="200" border="0" hspace="2" src="http://www.newsarama.com/Other_Publishers/wow.jpg" align="right"><I>by Michael Tierney</I>

<b>This Article Is Rated: Wow</b>

I've recently been sending out warnings about comics that were solicited as All-Ages and then later shipped as mature readers only (in my market!). I'd like to suggest a possible solution to this problem, but first; let me provide you with the reasons for my perspective. I have two stores in two cities in central Arkansas. I've been directly affected by the recently rewritten Act 858 of House Bill 1525, which vaguely states that should someone (unidentified) consider something displayed in my store to be harmful to children (no further definition of harmful), then I've broken the law.

I've had the good fortune to be able to debate this issue with Arkansas legislators twice on the TV news, and the second time one of the legislators admitted the possibility that an error had been made by writing such a vague law. That was substantial, since over 90% of the legislature voted in favor of this rewritten law. I'm now hoping that Act 858 will be overturned. Needless to say; I'm currently conducting my business with extra vigor to my caution.

Then there is the matter that the recent Texas conviction of Jesus Castillo for selling an Adult comic to an Adult has now set a new legal precedent for the prosecution of comics retailers. In that case, a prosecutor actually convinced the jury that the comics media is expressively intended for children - despite three days of prior testimony to the contrary!

Add to this very dangerous mix the fact that another Arkansas law has been enacted that now makes it illegal to sell any Adults Only material within so many feet of a church or a school, and you can understand why I've become extremely concerned about selling the wrong thing to the wrong person. Even though I've never carried Adults Only comics, I have a very influential Baptist Church directly across the street from one of my stores, and now the ever-escalating need for caution has been made even greater thanks to recent irresponsible solicitations by DC Comics.

Two weeks ago, DC comics shipped Fallen Angel #2. Although DC submitted this book to the Comics Buyer's Guide for review as a Vertigo title (see CBG #1554), it was solicited through Diamond Previews as an All-Ages comic and shipped with no warning on the cover. I'd received a copy a week earlier through DC's sneak peak program, and an employee warned me that this issue contained sexual references that make quite a buzz word. I contacted DC repeatedly to request that they warn other retailers about the content. No official warning was issued - until after I issued one of my own. This is, unfortunately, not an isolated incident.

If you look at Previews, you'll see that the DC Comics solicitations are either Mature or All-Ages. But... rating comics isn't that simple. A lot of the stuff in DC's All-Ages category is not for all ages. Last week, DC shipped <b>Cinnamon El Ciclo #1</b>, which contains the in-panel scene of a man being shot in the chest, directly in front of his
daughter (no Alfred Hitchcock suspense here!) - with lots of blood spray. I showed this book to a number of different customers, and none considered it to be All-Ages material. If I hadn't seen it a week early via DC's sneak peak program, I might have sold <b>Cinnamon El Ciclo</b> differently. But, reign in the lynch mob. This is not a problem with just DC Comics.

Marvel Comics has been having their own problems since breaking away from the Comics Code Authority. It took a lot of uproar to get them to reclassify the recent <b>X-Men: Phoenix</b> mini-series. Now they have unveiled their new "Secret Decoder Grading System" that, as of this writing, no one has yet been able to decipher.

It's all been very confusing - and not just to retailers, but to our customers. Currently, if a retailer gets arrested for selling the wrong thing, the Publishers are insulated from any repercussions. But... there have been recent questions asked about the possibility of the domino effect running backwards in the direction of the Publishers. Now: their attitude might be different!

Now stop and consider the recent advent of CGC graded comics. We've seen on eBay what can happen when a purchaser makes a confident choice based on what they consider to be a reliable certification. And we ALL want to see the sale of comics climb...

So... (since I was a contributor to the 10 point scale that both the CGC and the Overstreet Price Guide use) Here's my "Sound Effects" solution:

WOW All-Ages (G)
POW! Parental Guidance Suggested (PG)
YOW!! PG - 13
ZOW!!! Mature Readers (R)
OWW!!!! Adults Only (XXX)
IIEEEE! No Rating Available (Currently the biggest category)

All right... I laughed (and groaned) too, because I first wrote this as a joke. But... think about it. The solution might really be this simple. Maybe <b>this</b> isn't the right coding system, but I ask you: why not use the labels that the Press has been applying to the comics industry for years? Or, are there any other suggestions? Certainly, in the "Sound Effects System" there will be no lawsuits from infringement. But, while I readily acknowledge that this system probably won't be picked up by publishers, I didn't offer it as a joke or as an academic exercise in Constitutional Law and Free Speech. I'm asking for a communications tool to help me purchase confidently for my local market.

I can predict that most of the writers and artists in the comics industry will oppose any ratings system. What I see as a sales tool that is no more innocuous than a bar code, they see as a dangerous thing. But the simple fact is that retailers need extra purchasing tools.

My stores have a very strong kid's market, and I'm having a terrible time trying to find appropriate product to fill their demands. While I'm not a parent, I readily accept my responsibility as a retailer to protect children from harm when shopping in my stores. But right now I feel that the publishers are leaving me twisting in the winds of chance. Every week it's a scramble to get the new comics out on Wednesday, and although we do our best to inspect every title, every now and then a customer will point out, "You missed one!" My fear is that some day the person who finds the book that slipped past will be someone who hauls me into court, and the next item for discussion on the message boards will be about another conviction - this time in Arkansas!

What I need to avoid having my businesses, that I've built for over twenty years, suddenly being destroyed by a missolicited book is just a little help from the publishers. If all the diverse factions of the comics industry can work together on Free Comic Book Day, then why can't we work together to create our own Private Industry Rating system?

It doesn't have to be <b>this</b> particular system. But we need something new. Right now, I don't know what the Publishers are selling. We need a system that, even if everyone involved doesn't agree - most will agree to use. We need to start talking about basic communication.

After all, that ounce of prevention of a ratings system now could help us avoid a later system that could be written as a pound of cure, with no input or dialog from those affected.

I don't want to go back to the days when the Comics Code Authority forced Jack Kirby to put pants on the dragon Fing Fang Foom. But I really think that an accepted industry-wide ratings system would work - without the requirements of a third party censor.

Because: Let's use the recent <b>Fallen Angel</b> example - If DC had shipped #2 with an All-Ages rating on the cover, and I were arrested for selling it to a child - then I would have had company when defending myself in court. Suddenly, all publishers would have liability for their solicitations. As it is now, DC states clearly in the Previews that they accept no liability for any change made in the content from the solicitation. And as someone recently said to me, "That's their out." But if they print that rating on the cover...!

Somewhere, sometime, a retailer and a publisher will stand together in court - ratings system or no ratings system. We need to think about that... before it happens! As I've said about the Jesus Castillo conviction - beware of Firestarters. It's dangerous out here, and we all need to work together. I have two goals for writing this: one is to open the subject of an industry-wide ratings system for discussion, and the other is to hopefully affect a change in the way comics are solicited to retailers. I'm trying to get the ball rolling, and just hoping that I hit a downward incline. I yield the Public Forum to <b>you</b>.

Lookout! Watch your toes...

Michael Tierney
Collector's Edition - North Little Rock, Arkansas
The Comic Book Store - Little Rock, Arkansas
Little Rocket Publications

[sythspawn]

I hate to admit it, but maybe we do need a universal ratings system for retailer use. Would it help if the ratings were universal and Previews-exclusive? Is it enough that the retailer is fully aware of the contents of the books so they can be displayed accordingly?

I'm not exactly crazy about the sound effects system (it just hearkens back to the Adam West Batman show too much for me, and I see comics as more than just POW! and ZAM! even if the 'outside' world doesn't).

All I know is that the Jesus Castillo case made me furious and I'd hate to see that continue to happen to retailers across the country.

Maybe when all the publishers get together to plan the next Free Comic Book Day (which according to my retailers, isn't really doing a bang up job), they should discuss the possibility of a universal rating system so that we can continue to see the expansion of stories and genres in comics. I'd hate to see everything go completely 'kiddie'.

[JackKirby is GO]

you would think the law would be happy with kids reading instead of car jacking and building portable meth labs. Its not like anyone has read Superman and been influenced to shoot up a Ruby Tuesday's. Some people are taking the mature comics title a little too far. Apparently someone read an issue of the Authority and think that all mature comics are the same thing. I would suppose that Strangers in Paradise is considered mature, but I dont think it poses any sort of influential threat (except the threat of making a grown man cry, I bet they have a secret deal with the kleenex corp.!) Ive said it again and again on all these articles, its insane and sad, and seems to be happening largely in the bible belt. I live in the bible belt, im not going to say what state so as not to jinx us, but if it does happen here I will be the first one setting up protest a protest rally. My wife and I have been drug free for over 4 years and comics have played a major part in that. If your spending your money on comics its kinda hard to spend it on morphine. I have always been a comic book collector but I stopped when I was fifteen to seriously spend my money on beer and drugs instead of comics. About four years ago when I had just started my treatment I went to a bar (ordering soda not alchohol) and I mentiontioned a comic I was reading to a friend and someone overheard me and said they used to read it. I asked them why they dont read comcs anymore, and their reponse was "SO I CAN BUY BEER!". And there were alot of 'hell yeahs' and the such. So comics definately are a positive influence on our society and its high time the old folks in power realized that its the 21st century and that the devil doesnt controll the comic book industry influencing little kids to hit their baseballs into windows and to become street toughs.

[gOgIver]

I don't like ratings on the cover of comics because it says to censors "hey look at me, I'm exactly what you're looking for". Why would you want to make their job any easier? :confused:

[JackHoff]

Worst Idea I have ever heard.Why not just shut down every Comic Store in the country?? This kind of Rating crap would only hurt the industry and there is NO NEED for something like this just because a bunch of hillbillies had nothing better to do with their time.Comic Retailers and Michael Tierney in particular stop being little babies and grow some balls.

[AllAboutMe]

This whole rating system issue is a convolutd mess. First Marvel drops the code, which in actuality was labeled so small on comics these days that anyone who knew what it was (which is very few) cheered as Mighty Marvel sticks it to the Man. Then they come up with the PG etc rating system, which is labeled large and clear on the books, now drawing attention and coutering the whole code dismissal issue. Now marvel has the ridiculous alphabet crap which means nothing to anyone. Hey, a parent could have his kid come up with an issue of Spidey that said PG on it and know that it would be no more harsh than a PG movie. Now, a parent is a clueless as the people in charge of the rating system.
Dispite the shortcomings DC has had of late with Fallen Angel and how it should be labeled (an issue since resolved-we hope) they have made a succesful journey into mature comics with a subtle and appropriate "suggested for mature readers" label.
Marvel thinks they are being responsible and have only marketing on their minds. They are trying too hard.
Also, lets have the parents and retailers have some responsibility. If the comic publishers can't get it right, parents, especially, and retailers have to know what they are buying/selling.

[DarthRandall]

Couple of things in my head:

1- Why can't people see that kids are a whole hell of a lot more "adult" than they were in generations past? When you have sex education in eighth grade and PG movies featuring people getting killed, let alone video games with varying degrees of violence and (finally!!!) sex, how is a static image of a guy getting shot in the chest any more or less harmful?
2- Comics are a target because they are an easy target. The non-comics world is under the delusion that it's "kids' stuff," which we all know is not true anymore. The comics industry doesn't have the money of Hollywood or the prestige of "regular" books to fight censorship battles against these political power-seeking zealots who somehow find people gullible enought to put up money for these battles. Comic retailers are not among the most wealthy business owners in the world, probably only a step above street vendors in terms of cash flow. All this adds up to making comics an easy target, and unless everyone in the country suddenly had the urge to drop $3 on 10 minutes of entertainment, it likely won't change.
3- Publishers, where the money is in this industry (at least with the big 2 and possibly Dark Horse), need to do more to help out retailers who do get in trouble. Imagine if Marvel or DC did a benefit book in the Castillio case - just think about that. Charge $5 for it, get guys like Gaiman, Miller, Moore (three guys you know would be there with bells on) and others to contribute to it, print up 500,000 copies, and you more than raise enough to help fight this blatent case of censorship. It's ridiculous publishers will come out and say, "I'm against censorship," but then when it's time to put up or shut up, they all suddenly go silent, and in all likelihood, lose a retail outlet.
4- A universal ratings system may be a good idea, but it has to be done right. Let the companies do it themselves. Don't set up a body akin to the Comics Code Authority to have universal control on what book gets what rating. It didn't and still doesn't work (see point 1 above).

[MichaelCoughlin]

A ratings system for comics would be fine. Everyone cried "OUTRAGE" when the movie industry did it, and it hasn't had any negative effects that I can see. You can still print whatever you want, just someone else has the right to say whether it should be sold TO CHILDREN. If you're writing a book with graphic sex and graphic violence and are upset because a 7 year old can't purchase it, there's something wrong with you.

This is NOT a slippery slope. We had the comics code for decades. A ratings system isn't new for comic books. All that's new is the need for a more CLEAR ratings system. (I do agree that the Marvel system is confusing as hell)

[Alex Scott]

The video game industry doesn't seem to have suffered, either. They have "E" for Everybody, "T" for Teen, and "M" for Mature. That's really all anyone needs to know.

I personally like Tokyopop's rating system, which is clear, concise, and unintrusive:

A: All Ages

Y: Youth - 7 and up

T: Teen - 13 and up

OT: Older Teen - 16 and up

M: Mature - 18 and up

[TVerBeek]

Originally posted by MichaelCoughlin
A ratings system for comics would be fine. Everyone cried "OUTRAGE" when the movie industry did it, and it hasn't had any negative effects that I can see.I think that's because you're not looking. Movies are targetted and editted to get specific ratings, because certain ratings do better at the box office than others. Producers will specifically add violence or profanity or sexual innuendo to get a "PG13" rating because that rating attracts bigger audiences in the coveted 15-25 demographic than "PG" does. For many years (before Disney got back into the game and showed that kiddie animation could still make big bucks), most studios wouldn't touch all-ages projects, because a "G" rating was the kiss of death at the box office. (I remember the dismay of Trekkies when the first Trek film carried that scarlet letter of shame.)
If you're writing a book with graphic sex and graphic violence and are upset because a 7 year old can't purchase it, there's something wrong with you.And if you think that's what anybody's trying to do, there's something wrong with your understanding of the situation.
This is NOT a slippery slope. We had the comics code for decades. Yeah, and look what that did. It cemented the notion that "comics are only for kids" because you needed the CCA seal to get carried on newsstands, and that was the only viable market for comics. Comics for adults became financially non-viable, and it's only now that the direct market and bookstores have replaced the newsstand market that it's again possible to publish and distribute comics for adults.

[TVerBeek]

Originally posted by MattBrady
WOW All-Ages (G)
POW! Parental Guidance Suggested (PG)
YOW!! PG - 13
ZOW!!! Mature Readers (R)
OWW!!!! Adults Only (XXX)
IIEEEE! No Rating Available (Currently the biggest category)
This set of "ratings" (or anything like it) would never work because they're too arbitrary in meaning. To me "OWW" sounds childish and "WOW" sounds like a teenager's reaction to seeing nekkid chix. If you need a cheat sheet to explain it, it won't work. The terms have to be self-evident, which is why even the well-known MPAA rating system has included ages in its two latest additions: PG13 and NC17; the letters weren't clear enough.

(It's the same problem I have with the name of Marvel's "Max" imprint: it sounds to me like modern kidspeak - like "Extreme", or "Ultimate" - not like a something intended to appeal to more mature readers.)

Numbers may be clear in their meaning, but applying them is horribly arbitrary. I know a 13-year-old who's ready for Sandman, and I know a 40-year-old who isn't ready for New X-Men. For that matter any rating system is going to be arbitrary. Which makes it pretty useless of a legal-protection standpoint.

Ratings are a crutch for people who don't want to think. And keep in mind that ratings are also being criticised as simplistic by those who do want to think, which is why the MPAA is now explaining why they gave a film a particular rating. That's labeling, and I think it's a far better approach. "For mature readers" is a label and it works. So is "adults only". "Contains scenes of violence" is helpful. Etc. I understand that properly shelving and marketing books is a challenge to retailers, and a simplistic rating scehme would make it easier. But it really wouldn't solve anything, and it doesn't give the reader the kind of help she/he really wants or needs in evaluating what they're going to buy for themselves or their kids.

[Mister Farrell]

While I appreicate the plight of Mr. Tierney and other retailers, I have to agree with Frank Miller (and GoGiver) on this one: labels just send up red flags to those who would censor this material. Books don't have warning signs and neither should comics. As it is, someone actually would have to read the books (or at least look at the pictures) to find what they consider objectionable.

The motion picture ratings system has created problems for filmmakers who either do not want to submit their films to the arbitrary and often self-contradictory MPAA. Unrated films are almost always relegated to arthouses and many videostore chains won't carry them (thank you so much, Big Blue), not to mention hurting their sale to cable outlets. This limits their commercial viability and forces many producers to capitulate to changes required by the MPAA.

I didn't object to Marvel's in-house ratings (although their new secret system is baffling) because they were just that; in-house. A universal system would, I fear, create more difficulty for books outside the mainstream to ever be seen or find an audience.

And those sound effects? With those on the cover I would be embarrassed to buy comics for the first time in my life.

[ramberk]

Originally posted by Alex Scott
The video game industry doesn't seem to have suffered, either. They have "E" for Everybody, "T" for Teen, and "M" for Mature. That's really all anyone needs to know.

I personally like Tokyopop's rating system, which is clear, concise, and unintrusive:

A: All Ages

Y: Youth - 7 and up

T: Teen - 13 and up

OT: Older Teen - 16 and up

M: Mature - 18 and up

Indeed it is a very good system.

It's a funny thing I think, but I also think that a rating system is needed. I'm 23 and I don't need a rating system but I certainly would like one because I have little nephews and neices. A rating system will give better protection to the retailer and publisher. It will also point out to the publisher if they are doing a good job providing material that is suitable for children. IMO, there are few books from Marvel that fit that category. And that's the funny thing. I like this more 'mature' Marvel, but I also want to share my love of comics with my younger family members-- I just don't want them to see or read inappropriate material. There just needs to be a balance.

[MichaelCoughlin]

I understand that some studios will change movies around to get certain kinds of ratings, but I still don't see how this is a problem.

A comic book writer can write WHATEVER he or she wants to, then submit it. It gets a rating, and there you go. Now, if the book gets an "R" rating (or the equivalent of "R") it might sell less. Is it because it says "R" or is it because now parents might be able to get a better understanding of the content of the book and don't want their kids to read it.

But ratings have an unintended POSITIVE side as well.

Years ago a man wrote a book. It was a graphic book, but relatively tame by today's standards. Well, someone in Boston (a magazine, book club, or city council, i can't remember) didn't like what the book said. So it was "BANNED IN BOSTON!!!!!" At first this sounds like a horrible thing, the poor guys book was banned in a major market. But the opposite happened: people were intrigued by the banned book. It's the human curiosity of "Wow, how bad can it be?" that pushed the book to monumental sales.

For some books, the idea that it's "off limits" might actually help a book.

I don't see why they don't just have "AA" All ages. "T" teen. and "A" Adult.

Personally, I've never understood the difference between "PG" and "PG13". Heck, I can't even remember the last time a movie was rated "PG" (Star Wars?)

And to quell this argument, because I'm sure it will be made. This is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT censorship. Censorship can only take place at a governmental level. It might be keeping things down, but unless a governmental agency steps in and administers the ratings, it's not censorship. Look at the CCA. For years they had power, then one day Marvel just said, "Screw it, we're done with them." and left. That was it. Nothing happened. I don't think Marvel lost any sales.

The industry should be doing all they can to help out parents of potential buyers. No, we don't need to forsake the current customers for potential futures ones, but we do need to seek their dollars. If a ratings system helps out a confused mother, good.

And yes, I know the argument of "The mother should take a more involved approach to her kids development." and I agree with it. but if there's no rating system, that involvement might just be, "NO MORE COMICS FOR YOU."

[Mister Farrell]

Michael,

I get what you're saying, and yes, it is different than censorship. In regard to films, however, I think it's a more subtle form of economic pressure that comes into play, which creates a kind of self-censorship.

That said, I also see your points about controversial material increasing sales and parents who would put a pre-emptive ban on comics (which happened after Wertham). I disagree with this last point, though: I think creating the ratings would be a lightening rod which would point out to many who couldn't care less about comics that there are -heaven forbid- adult comics.

[Pariah]

While I appreicate the plight of Mr. Tierney and other retailers, I have to agree with Frank Miller (and GoGiver) on this one: labels just send up red flags to those who would censor this material. Books don't have warning signs and neither should comics. As it is, someone actually would have to read the books (or at least look at the pictures) to find what they consider objectionable.

I used to sit and read the letter columns that Frank would write in the back of Sin City, and shake my head. Yeah it would be ideal to say that we live in a society that practices freedom of press/speech/art that we all think we should have. But we live in a world where when people find others who don't agree with them, they sue them. For a long time we as an industry thought we were immune to this, but we're not. With the outbreak of super hero movies more public attention has been looking at the content of comic books. And while nothing should be banned outright, there truly are some things I wouldn't want some kids to see. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen II has surprised me greatly with it's sex and violence, and while the intellectual side of the book overrides that to most mature adults, without a label on it it's just another smoking gun. We need to agree on something more complex than the comics code, something that allows a variety of books to be published, but something that protects the retailers.

[OM]

...First off, if the Federal government would simply enforce the ban on selective inbreeding in states like Arkansas, half the problem would be solved within a generation.

...Secondly, a URS is a nice idea, but as the MPAA found with the original GMRX method, it's sometimes a bitch to draw the line at what rating fits a particular movie. Look at <i>Midnite Cowboy</i>, which came out rated X, won the Oscar, and is now seen in a somewhat edited version as a rained-out baseball game replacement film in some markets. With changing moralities you get changing ratings, and unless a URS is flexible and/or is gradiated sufficiently, you're eventually going to have books that don't fit snugly into one rating level.

...Finally, from my own experience with Bible-wielding Radical Babtists, a bit of advice: You have to fight fire with fire with them. If you back down one iota, they'll eat you alive. Best thing to do is to stand your ground, accuse them of promoting Communist ideals by attempting to censor ideas and freedom of thought and expression, and especially the First Amendment, and above all else do <B>NOT</b> back down.

And yes, having a 2x4 available to get your point across to a bunch of thickskulled inbreds also helps...

[cult of Pat]

Funny that comics, one of the oldest forms of visual mass media, is the last media form to accept a ratings system. I think a universal ratings system is necessary to protect both retailers from prosecution and the indusrty itself from potential legislative scrutiny.

That's why the CCA was created back in the 50's, and maybe it is needed again. Not as the single "stamp of approval" but as ratings scale like what is found on video games. Once the video game industry had a rating system in place, it helped placate the fears of both parents and legislators, which this is really about more than anything else.

A ratings system puts the responsiblity in the hands of the consumer, and takes much of the liability off of the retailer.

[FullSanction]

cult of Pat said:
That's why the CCA was created back in the 50's, and maybe it is needed again.

Some would say that it was created to put EC Comics out of business.

Jose

[GPM]

As a retailer, I'm all for a ratings system. It would provide retailers and parents with information on what might be objectionable to sell to minors. It works for movies, TV and video games, so it is time to apply it to comics. It will also help the retailer have some sort of defense to fall back on when he is taken to court for carrying said material. I know it didn't work enitrely for Jesus, but he did get a suspended sentence and one of the charges dropped. It was still a total miscarriage of justice, but if I were to sell a comic to a kid without realizing its content, the court won't settle for "I didn't know" as an answer. Better to have something to fall back on. If a parent purchases a comic for a kid that is appropriately rated mature and they try to put me in jail, at least I have some sort of defense.

Mostly creators and fans are opposed to this idea, but as things stand now, they are not the ones at risk of being held responsible. If the risk of being sued or going to jail were presented as a possibility for publishers and creators, I'm sure many of them would change their opinions. But right now, they are safe far away from enemy lines where they can stand their ground without the risk of being shot at. I say get down here in the trenches with us where there is some risk and then tell me that we shouldn't have a ratings system.

Besides, I don't want to sell comics that refer to oral sex repeatedly to kids. I'd rather know ahead of time that maybe Fallen Angel shouldn't be sold to a 7 year old unless his/her parent is okay with it.

[OM]

Originally posted by TVerBeek
This set of "ratings" (or anything like it) would never work because they're too arbitrary in meaning. To me "OWW" sounds childish and "WOW" sounds like a teenager's reaction to seeing nekkid chix.

...Yer right. I suggest changing "OWW" to "Oh Baby Oh Baby Oh."

[perk9600]

what you are doing, but it shouldn't be your problem.

As it stands movies have ratings but I see parents bring kids to see things all the time that they have no business seeing. I guess that is their right as parents.

You have gotten it out there that not all books are clean and nice. Parents should not assume that you have set asside all the naughty stuff, nor should they assume that since you have reviewed them all is well. I'll be my childs moral compass, not the comic shop owner. I intend no insult of course as you are doing way more than most. The fact that they legislature is trying to push the responsibility onto you and away from Parents and publishers is where I have my problem.

[1genxer]

I manage a store. My customers and I have had many discussions about this very subject. I don't know about other stores, but my customers are in full support of a universal ratings system. I understand how this can be viewed as censorship, but wake up! Comic books are the only form of media that doesn't have a ratings system. I argue that these ratings have not hurt any of those industires (magazines, TV, movies). If anything it has made these industires stonger, and more accepted in society.
I have been forced to stop carying any mature readers on my shelves because of customer reactions. This means I do not stock any Marvel Max, DC Vertigo, or any mature readers on my shelfs. The only customers who have access to those are persons older than 18 and even then they have to preoder their copies. Because of this my customer base has gone down and so has my selection.
If comics are to be viewed as anything more than magazines for those who can't grow up a universally accepted, easy to understand, system must be put in place. If we don't do something on our own the Government will. We know they will because they have before. Remember "Corruption of the Innocent" and all it caused? Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

[alpha_wave]

as a comic artist and writer/editor all I can say about a possible ratings system is... it'd have to be handled in a simple way like the ratings for movies are . now my company does adults only books and all ages my thinking would be AO = ADults only and AA = all ages Mature would be MR etc, etc . by making it simplistic you get the statement across without having to sacrifice your cover to a big fat PARENTAL WARNING sticker.

needless to say some companies are going overboard and are paying the price. ratings for comics are needed but, simplistic ratings would be best to have.

Jim
back to work on NOT NHS and Alena's Tank patrol

[Genis]

I'm somewhat torn on the subject.

While it is probably a good idea to start putting rating systems on the covers of comics to give the buyer and idea of what to expect inside, I do not want to have to have my ID ready each time I want to buy a comic. Another reason is that some writers may dull down their work in order for it to be readily available to a higher amount of readers. After all, anyone who can buy the higher rated comics (Adult) can also buy the lower rated ones. So having your comic contain a lower rating gives you the broader market.
At the same time, if retailers are going to be sued because they sell something to someone not knowing that the material inside may have been too extreme (and being that there is already a case of this no one can say that it won't happen) then a rating system is the only way to protect these retailers. Really, blaming the people who would sue and saying they are stupid does not mean that there is not a great many people out there who would jump at the chance for some free money.

So I guess overall I am for the rating system. Besides, I'm 21, so I can buy any rating that comes out :D

[metabaron]

Originally posted by 1genxer
I manage a store. My customers and I have had many discussions about this very subject. I don't know about other stores, but my customers are in full support of a universal ratings system. I understand how this can be viewed as censorship, but wake up! Comic books are the only form of media that doesn't have a ratings system. I argue that these ratings have not hurt any of those industires (magazines, TV, movies). If anything it has made these industires stonger, and more accepted in society.
I have been forced to stop carying any mature readers on my shelves because of customer reactions. This means I do not stock any Marvel Max, DC Vertigo, or any mature readers on my shelfs. The only customers who have access to those are persons older than 18 and even then they have to preoder their copies. Because of this my customer base has gone down and so has my selection.
If comics are to be viewed as anything more than magazines for those who can't grow up a universally accepted, easy to understand, system must be put in place. If we don't do something on our own the Government will. We know they will because they have before. Remember "Corruption of the Innocent" and all it caused? Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

Nice refrence from the words of Carlos Santaya or Santanaya. Something like that. In my opinion, by right lawfully and as everyone else has a right to voice, I say why give into government. Retailers should not suffer because Any person or group can not handle mature content. I say if you don't approve of it...simply don't buy it, simply read something else, if your child has it and does not approve..throw it away! Goodness, someone needs to lose their company because the content offends persons? That is ridiculous! What if everyone or a majority was offended by the church? what then? could we have laws passed to eradicate the content of churches? Don't you think then these religious right wing conservatives who lobby to have the movie industry, porn industry, comic book industry, etc..., would have a fit! I mean the content put out in comics is nowhere near obscene to what the Catholic church and it's entire representatives have done by molesting children and trying to cover it up by millions of dollars settlement so that everyone wipes this scandal under the carpet; the very same people or group who use the law to destroy something they think is corruptive...look at the damage they have done to young children and now they and lawmakers in washington have the audacity to use law to ban comics. Maybe I'm just a dumb spic but I know audacity and hypocrisy when I see it, no wonder foriegn countries hate us and terrorize us. We lie, cheat, twist words, and occupy their countries and set up our own influenced governments! Man we all have to take a step back and look at what is happening. The loss of ideas, expression and freedom!

I say don't put a rating system on comics! We should become active and involved and determine what we want! A rating system! Hardly! That would give into what the government wants...CONTROL! why? We should have the right and liberty to the content of material we are exposed to. The government does not need to define of interpret what it best for all people. People do that. The government is not a design for elitists to dictate our lives, they are public servants in the states and National servants to the nation of We the people, not They(government rich representatives) the people!

had to get that off my chest!

Dan:mad:

[JackHoff]

BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD idea,Why not just invite a government employee to stand in your store and screen everything your customers are buying.Have another by the front door to double check what they are leaving with to make sure it fit's in with what THEY say are acceptable.And second WHO is going to create this rating system? Publishers? Yeah right take a look at wHat Marvel has done.Nobody even knows what these ratings on the Marvel tiltes mean.This has nothing and no comparison to do with the Movie Industry.

[jawaplumber]

Originally posted by OM
...Yer right. I suggest changing "OWW" to "Oh Baby Oh Baby Oh."

And in Mexico, it could be "Ay, Poppi!"

[jawaplumber]

Seriously, I'm not so much for a ratings system as I am making sure inappropriate material doesn't find its way into the hands of children. My solution is pretty simple: leave the ratings off the covers, and just polybag the Vertigo and Marvel MAX and other mature readers books. This same approach is taken with magazines, from Maxim to Penthouse. Sure, it isn't foolproof but I think it's a way to please both sides. I've read many mature readers books over the years, and even though some might have an issue with it, I wouldn't complain in the least if they were polybagged.

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by cult of Pat
Funny that comics, one of the oldest forms of visual mass media, is the last media form to accept a ratings system.

Tell that to the book publishing industry, who've been successfully fending off would-be censors for longer than there's been a comics industry.

When they get threatened, they don't cave in, they fight back. Hell, when someone declares holy war against a novelist, they stand behind him, they don't run and hide. They fight and they win.

We should emulate them.

I think a universal ratings system is necessary to protect both retailers from prosecution and the indusrty itself from potential legislative scrutiny.

Except it won't do either. The book Jesus Castillo was arrested for selling had a rating on it. The books Friendly Frank was arrested for had ratings on them. Ratings don't protect retailers.

Even the law Michael Tierney talks about in his piece above doesn't say it's okay to sell books that are deemed offensive if they have ratings on them. It says they can't be sold at all -- and what makes the law so pernicious is that it doesn't define the problems; the only way to find out if something is illegal is if someone complains. After you've sold it, and it's too late.

Tierney is absolutely right to fight that law. But I think he's absolutely wrong on ratings. As has been noted, movie ratings ghettoized the family film -- the very kind of film the ratings were created to protect. Nowadays, if you want adults to see you movie, you've got to stick in enough objectional material to get it a rating that won't brand it a "kiddie film."

Ratings won't protect retailers from would-be censors, because would-be censors will simply say the ratings are wrong. We've seen it -- would TOM SAWYER and THE WIZARD OF OZ get X-ratings? Hardly -- but would-be censors want them out of the libraries, because they don't care what other people think. The would-be censors don't want material they object to labelled -- they want it gone. And too many times, too many places, ratings have served to let them know what to go after.

The book publishing industry manages to sell kids books to kids and adult books to adults, and to do so without a ratings system. They do it by packaging the books in a way that reaches out to the right audience instead of warning away the wrong one. Retailers know where to rack the books and how to sell them because of catalog entries, package design, imprint design and more. They manage to tell the difference between ANNE OF GREEN GABLES and NAUGHTY NAKED NURSE without a rating system.

I think we can learn a lot from their example.

As a creator, I'm not on the front lines, and I'm not likely to get arrested. But I don't think ratings will do anything to prevent Tierney from being arrested, either. They have the potential to hurt comics just like they hurt movies, but they won't do what Tierney hopes they will.

As such, it seems to me that they have the potential to do harm, but won't accomplish the good Tierney hopes for. So I don't think they're the answer.

Let publishers tell retailers what's in the books. Try to make it as accurate as possible, so they aren't surprised. Put it in the catalogs, not on the covers. And design a kids book to appeal to kids. Design a mature readers bookto appeal to mature readers. Don't make 'em look the same, except for a warning sticker that says, "Hey, Kids! Poison!" Market different kinds of books to different kinds of audiences and you won't need labels to tell them apart.

kdb

kdb

[jamesmith]

Originally posted by GPM
If the risk of being sued or going to jail were presented as a possibility for publishers and creators, I'm sure many of them would change their opinions.

It's official. The ENTIRE WORLD has forgotten Mike Diana.

[MichaelCoughlin]

Originally posted by Kurt Busiek
As has been noted, movie ratings ghettoized the family film -- the very kind of film the ratings were created to protect. Nowadays, if you want adults to see you movie, you've got to stick in enough objectional material to get it a rating that won't brand it a "kiddie film."


Out of curiosity, and I'm not asking kurt specifically, but has anyone heard of this happening with comic books yet? Marvel had pretty clear ratings (until recently) and I never saw people not buying certain books because they were all ages.

[GPM]

"Let publishers tell retailers what's in the books. Try to make it as accurate as possible, so they aren't surprised. Put it in the catalogs, not on the covers. And design a kids book to appeal to kids. Design a mature readers bookto appeal to mature readers. Don't make 'em look the same, except for a warning sticker that says, "Hey, Kids! Poison!" Market different kinds of books to different kinds of audiences and you won't need labels to tell them apart."

The problem is that the publishers in many cases are failing to tell retailers about a book's content beforehand. Fallen Angel had no warnings in any of the solicitation information. The only reason most retailers know about it is because another retailer spoke up. The same with violent scenes in Cinnamon. DC is going to label Fallen Angel now, but only after someone complained. Are we to assume that even DC doesn't know what the creators are putting in their books before they hit the shelves? Isn't that one of the editor's jobs?

What about League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? No warning of any kind. The movie had a PG13 rating but the comic wouldn't even get an R, it would have to get an NC-17 for its content.

What about the Ultimates or Ultimate X-Men? These books are not all ages comics, yet Marvel doesn't use their ratings system on those books. Why? The most obvious answer is that they are hoping that kids will buy them. To me, that kind of behavior only gives these extremist groups further ammunition against the industry because Marvel is trying to hide the fact that these are books that would generally be considered unsuitable for anyone under the age of 13 at least.

Part of the problem is that the top publishers in the industry actually appear to be somewhat guilty of what the retailers are being accused of. If they are afraid of sales dropping just because they are informing retailers or parents of the content, then they are trying to fool retailers and parents into thinking it is all ages. If they are so proud of the fact that comic books offer creative freedom, then why hide that fact? They are actually trying to sell a product to minors that they KNOW a lot of parents would find objectionable, even non-extremist ones. They know that sales will suffer if the kids can't read them so they turn a blind eye in favor of greater profits meanwhile the poor schmuck running the comic book store gets to be told in prison that "Bubba's horny" instead of the Hulk telling Betty.

If publishers do not want a ratings system and they want to maintain their creative freedom then they need to do a better job of protecting the guy in the line of fire, the retailer. I never heard of any publishers coming to the forefront to help Jesus in his time of need, not even CPM who published the comics he sold.

[Lance Parkin]

I think there are a couple of problems with a rating system.

The first is that if an organisation, pressure group
or individual want to start a campaign, they'll start
a campaign anyway. Movies are rated, people just
about understand what the ratings mean, but there
are plenty of sites out there telling us that the ratings
are wrong, or that standards are slipping.

www.capalert.com

For example. The man running that is, I'm sure,
sincere in his beliefs. But by judging films by the
standards of scripture, it means he objects to
characters with tattoos, for example. He criticises
The Phantom Menace for 'statue nudity'. And
if you said to him 'well, it got a U rating', he'd
see that as evidence that the rating system was
wrong.

The second is that it encourages people - by
which I mean some creators - to think only in
terms of what they're 'forbidden' to do. The
equivalent of some lousy film putting a sex scene
in to bump up the rating, to make the film seem
more extreme.

More insidious is the opposite - there have been
some 'Marvel PG' books that, for the life of me,
I can't see why they needed the PG label. Because
Wolverine drinks or has a cigar? Because someone
said 'damn'? Because it's got the tiniest, most timid
piece of political comment or *said* the word 'gay'
(not shown two men holding hands or kissing
... just used the word 'gay').

It encourages editorial timidity. It excuses it,
codifies it. It doesn't distinguish between
gratuitious and artistic use of themes. The
*editor's* job is to decide what is suitable and
what isn't. They should be able to justify
every decision made, they should have the
judgement and maturity to know what's
suitable for their intended audience. An editor
should read a script and go 'I want to see
this published', not 'I'm afraid we have to ... '.

Let's look at good practice: Take Alias issue 1.
Alias is a great comic, and there's so much
more to it than the *one* panel that gets
discussed. It was designed to shock, I'm
sure - but *as a character point*. We learn about
Jessica from that. As it happens, it's not that
explicit a panel. The power isn't in what we're
*shown* it's in what it *means*.

That issue is as good a character study as you'll
see on TV or film or read in a novel published
this year. It's justified artistically.

Comics are art. Novelists don't have a rating
slapped on their books, why should graphic
novelists? The answer, and the problem, I
think is that a lot of comics aren't very good,
and a lot of the writing and artistic choices
can't be justified. They're either biting their
tongue or going for the cheap shock.

'Mature readers' ... no, I'm with Jess Lemon
on this - mature readers want David Copperfield,
not Vampirella / Witchblade. I *want* 'mature'
comics. When I buy a 'mature readers' comic,
though, what I usually find is something that
has nothing interesting or witty or mature to
offer, just a woman with no clothes on or a
bit of sub sub sub sub Tarantino violence.


I see the problem for retailers, though. The
solution has to be trust and communication
between publishers and retailers. Retailers
have to make sure that the Happy Little Elf
comics don't get put next to Horrible Druggy
Psycho ones, just because they begin with
an H. Publishers can't suddenly stick a druggy
psycho in Elfland as a publicity stunt.

The key to th

[Cry For Life]

I agree that a rating system alone unfortunately wouldn't really do all that much good. I'm all for anything that would help buffer retailers from lawsuits but I don't think it would work. Look at the game industry, theyve had ratings for years now and you still hear tons of stuff on the news about how govt ppl are b*tching about them corrupting america's youth.

What we need is a serious attempt by this largely juvenile and immature industry to actually create outreach programs to educate parents. To give them the tools and information they need to make informed choices, and simply slapping a rating on a comic cover isn't going to do that.

The problem has several levels, on the one hand you have mature readers and all ages books that actually share characters, so wolverine may appear in a mature ages title the same month he's appearing in X-Men Evolution ( i know it was cancelled but i'm just using that as an example).

In an attempt to maximize profit marvel is making sure it's most popular characters are marketed to EVERYONE, and that generates massive confusion. I recently saw a storybook for toddlers that has a cartoon wolvie (with claws out for no apprent reason... dangerous blades mind you) playing in a park with the Hulk. How do we reconcile the fact that we're marketing these characters to toddlers now?

IMO it's a huge irresponsibility on the part of Marvel Comics for one, and the fact that they publishing children's picture books with cute and cuddly versions of blood spilling vigilantes is actually a bit disturbing when you think about it.

So honestly is it any wonder that many parents have no clue as to what books are mature and what books are all ages??

Now I remember a lot of ppl discussing the idea of comics aimed at kids and I always get a rebuttal "but comics aimed strictly for kids never sell well and always get cancelled", and ppl cite x-men evolution as an example of this.

There are so many flaws with this that it's hard to know where to begin! First off, X-Men Evolution was a sad attempt to gain younger readers by watering down a concept that at its very core deals with mature, thought provoking issues.

Parents who might have otherwise let their children read the content it contained most likely were turned off simply by the fact that it was X-Men, and they aren't stupid. They've read movie reviews and know that it usually involves violence, and contains a character with foot long razor blades that shoot from his arms!

Yet with no way of knowing how this title might be different from other X-Men material they've heard of, they'd disallow it outright, and if kids are doing the buying, they'll recognize that they're getting a pale watered down imitation of the real thing and just buy Uncanny, Ultimate, or New X-Men instead.

I cannot stress this strongly enough: ALL THE KID AIMED COMICS IN THE WORLD WILL NEVER SELL A DIME IF PARENTS DONT KNOW THEY EXIST!!!

We KNOW all ages comics can sell; for god's sake look at Archie! Still in business after all these years, because parents know and understand what Archie Comics stands for. They don't need a rating to tell them Archie comics are cool for kids because they already know that.

But with DC and Marvel, Dark Horse, Image, or any Independent out there, they don't have that kind of consumer confidence, and the only way they'll ever get it is to stop sending parents mixed signals. To stop cross marketing their mature characters into "all ages" titles AND vice versa, and for god's sake start making the covers of books once again an indicative representation of the content within!

You wouldnt have Harry Potter and Carmen Sandiego in a steamy soft-core sex novel, and if they did parents would be outraged. You don't have Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six characters in a childrens' pop-up book, if they did parents would be outraged.

So what in the world makes the comic industry any different??? In a way the major publishers bank on the hopes that parents might not look into the covers of their books, because if they did it could hurt sales. They thrive on those books getting into the hands of mature readures and kids alike, regardless of content. After all,it creates mindshare for licensing.

There's no excuse for it and honestly almost every mainstream "cape and tights" publisher is guilty of this with a bullet, but especially Marvel and DC.

It HAS to stop, give children original, exclusive properties and throw parents a bone by actually reaching out to them and helping them understand the value of such all ages books, or the industry is going to eventually see a political sh*tstorm the likes of which Fred Wertham couldn't have even imagined in his wildest dreams.

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by GPM
The problem is that the publishers in many cases are failing to tell retailers about a book's content beforehand.

If that's the problem, then that's the part to work on fixing. Not adding a rating system that won't protect retailers and won't be any more accurate because you won't agree with the publisher. Or, if you're having an outside organization rate the books, it won't help and retailers won't know the rating when they're ordering the book, because it won't be finished yet and the rater won't have seen it.

You follow up with a number of examples where publishers who do put ratings on their books didn't put ratings on them that you found accurate.

It strikes me that better information is still the answer, not more ratings you might not agree with.

kdb

[Lance Parkin]

"It strikes me that better information is still the answer, not more ratings you might not agree with."

Exactly. Clear marketing, rather than a ratings system.

I'll come back to Alias again. It's set in the Marvel
Universe ... but it's also at pains to look different to,
say, a Spidey book.

It's got the Max logo, it's got those abstract painted
covers. You open it up - er, well this month isn't the
best example - and it's clearly dark and murky and
'realistic', just from the art. This month there's a
massive Avengers story running ... but there's no
way a kid would accidentally pick it up. And no
retailer could accidentally sell a kid a copy.

The one that confuses me is the Ultimate line. I
like the comics, don't get me wrong. But Ultimate
Spidey is 'kid friendly', and seems to be deliberately
there to appeal to that market (and, like all the
best fiction for older kids, works for adults). The Ultimates
almost seems like the polar opposite - a
deliberately more 'adult' take on the Avengers,
which at its worst often comes across as a bit
adolescent. I buy the Ultimates, I like the Ultimates,
but I don't really see how it's 'the same sort of
thing' as Ultimate Spiderman.

Again ... part of the problem has been exactly what
'Cry for Life' was talking about - a blurring of that
marketing. Ask a parent, they'd probably think Batman
or The Hulk *were* Happy Little Elf kid-friendly
comics. But ... well, if you've got young kids, you check
what they read and watch and make sure for
yourself it's suitable.

I think pretty much every problem the comic book
industry has would be solved if everyone involved
answered one simple question about each comic that
comes out: 'who would actually want to read this?'.

Lance

[Michael Tierney]

I'm not around the internet much, so this is the first chance I've had to read everyone's responses - and I really want to know what everyone thinks. There are always 360 sides to every degree of every point of view.

First off, I want to reiterize that I am not for censoring comics. My whole push here is to not only know what the publishers are selling at the time of solicitations - but also for any sales clerk (no matter what their level of comics experience is) to be able to confidently sell comics, without fear of hidden content.

Not every store in the country will have the same concerns as me, and not just because I'm in the Bible belt and am currently fighting an intentionally vague censorship law. While some stores are in areas of the country where attitudes are more lax, other stores simply do not market comics to kids in the same vigorous fashion that I do. I've had military customers come in, and exclaim after taking one step, "Thanks God! Finally a comics store where I can take my kids into!" I'm not saying this as a knock on stores that don't cater to children, I'm explaining the extent to which I promote comics to kids. So needless to say, I'm very careful about the responsiblity that I accept when I encourage kids to read comics. This is where I, and other stores across the Bible belt, need help.

I don't expect for a second that POW is going to start showing up on comics covers (although I think WOW could work). As far as I'm concerned, it could be any system that tells a clerk who the comic is targeted at. Color codes. Whatever. Just help me get the right product into the hands of the right reader. This is not a call for censorship - this is a call for clear packaging.

Kurt and I have recently discussed all this at great length, and to mutual disagreement. I respect the concerns of comics creators, but disagree that adding one more sales tool to the price, date, UPC code and other essential information on the cover could possibly hurt the industry as a whole. To make a comparison -I sometimes feel like a grocer who has been shipped a lots of cans of soup. The labels clearly tell me every from price and even who the cook is - but not the content. And different cooks (not all) sometimes cater to different tastes. You shouldn't have to open the can to figure out what's inside. For retailers, this becomes a can of worms.

It's been suggested that comics should be retailed like the book industry, which has no ratings system. The problem is that we are a visual medium. We show the reader what happens, with them having to visualize the scene in their own head. As a result, we will always be scrutinized the same way that movies and television have been scrutinized. I was watching MSNBC last night, and there appears to be a major push forming in this next election to crack down on television content. I don't want that push to escalate to include comics.

True, the problem is more severe in my own state of Arkansas. Wal-Mart, the king of grab every dollar not glued to the floor, refuses to sell comics in Arkansas. Wal-Mart was founded, and is headquartered in Arkansas. But when publishers dropped the Comics Code, mature comics were shipped to Wal-Mart, sold to kids, and now Wal-Mart is scared to even touch them. I think that this contributed a lot to a recent television poll of 500 random adults, where 1 in 3 said that they considered comic books to be harmful to children! Obviously this is a big concern for me, since so many kids, and sometimes whole families, shop my stores.

After quick reading the previous responses, I'd put the unofficial results at 60% or more in favor of some sort of ratings system. Some responses, I'm not sure how to interpret. For democratic purposes, how about starting your responses with a clear vote of in favor, or disagree, before your explanation of your reasonings? I really whan to know what everyone thinks. To those who just want to spout... well... I don't even finish reading posts that just want to spout insults.

Thanks!
Michael Tierney
Collector's Edition - North Little Rock, Arkansas
The Comic Book Store - Little Rock, Arkansas

[jamesmith]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
For democratic purposes, how about starting your responses with a clear vote of in favor, or disagree, before your explanation of your reasonings?

Ah. Sorry. This would be a vote in favor of something.

The way you describe it here is as a system by which retailers would be able to tell what was in the books. It doesn't have to be something that censorius persons would know about or recognize. If that were the case, I think it could work.

Putting a big PG13 on the cover's a bad idea.

And I agree, also, that the fact that comics are an image-driven medium has to be taken into account. People can talk all they want about how the industry should stand up and defend itself, but every time this battle is fought, Comics lays down and takes a beating. Helping retailers keep aware of what's actually in a book wouldn't be a terrible thing.

[Lord Savaunt]

Before I give my two cents I want to respond to a guy calling himself JackHoff, which seems such an appropriate name. Your opening post on this thread was puerile garbage. You’re saying that guys like Tierney should “stop crying like babies and grow some balls”. Well let me ask you something boyo. Do you own or operate a comic shop? Are you a comic publisher? Are you an artist or a writer? If not then it can be clearly said that you have an absolute zero stake in the legality of this. If you aren’t at any risk of getting prosecuted on this then you have no place to call someone else a whiny coward because they’re worried about their freedom and lively hood. So unless you can present some credentials showing that you’re involved in the industry in such a manner that you stand to face the legal repercussions of these laws shut the fuck up and know your role.

Onto the matter at hand, I tend to agree that while a universal rating system may seem like a necessary step it is a regressive one. I particularly find it amusing that someone supporting this idea invokes the words of George Santayana “Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it.”, when we have here a case of people who do remember the past wanting to repeat it. They’re even using some of the same arguments like “if we don’t do this the government will do it for us”. So back in the 50’s the comic industry did it to itself and hobbled itself for generations to come.

I agree that the best idea is to alter the marketing on books aimed at children. The first place to start is the packaging. First point of packaging to look at is shape. Let’s emulate the book industry. Something for little kids is big and thin, while something for older kids are the same dimensions as regular books. So let’s come up with some different dimensions for kids comics. Next let’s focus on cover art. For that let’s go with bright, pastel colors and simplistic art styles. The tile should be at least twice the size you’d see on a normal comic book. Next up is the info in the upper left hand corner. Go bigger is the first step. Remember when Marvel had those big logos in the corner? You know where you’d have a rectangle with a picture of the main character or something? Let’s go with something like that. What we mostly need is what number the issue is, and that’s it. Next we put the price in the bottom right hand corner or the back of the cover. Why you ask? Isn’t all of the stuff supposed to in the corner box? No it’s not, not for this anyway. Look at a kid’s book, and tell me where you see the price at? Back cover is the most likely answer.

Now we focus on the inside. I agree that we should have exclusive characters that only show up in books for kids. Does anyone remember the STAR COMICS! Imprint marvel did back in the eighties? It was all kids stuff. Either based on TV shows like Care Bears and Muppet Babies or new properties such as Planet Terry. None of these characters showed up in the Marvel universe proper, and marvel characters stayed out of the kiddies section. That imprint lasted for quite a few years and they even introduced new titles so don’t give me any shite about “comics for kids are doomed to failure because they haven’t worked before”. Even if that were true, which it isn’t, just because it hasn’t worked today don’t mean it won’t tomorrow.

Instead of running and hiding and giving them a rating system that makes it easier to find things to freak out about that only serves to rewind our progress, let’s try something new this time.

[Michael Tierney]

Hi,
The format that sells best to children is All-Ages. Kid's rebel from books that they consider to be written down to them. I personally still read a lot of the same type of material that I read as a kid. Also, PG material is something that kids want, because they are in the process of growing up and exploring the world. They want to learn what else there is in life.

When confronted with a child who wants to read material that could be considered PG, I do exactly what the rating indicates - I get the parent involved. 19 out of 20 parents will say, "That's fine." But they appreciate having a safe environment for their children to shop in.

It's that 1 in 20 person that concerns me. As long as they are involved, everything is fine. But, if their child were to buy something that the parent doesn't approve of - look out! This is what happened at Wal-mart. This is also part of the argument that helped persuade Arkansas Legislator's to consider that they might have made a mistake. With Act 858, it would be that 1 in 20 person deciding for the children of the other 19 could read. Considering this ramification helped the legislators realize that the minority would soon be making decisions for the majority, and since the majority decides elections.... hey, maybe Act 858 isn't such a good idea. So, while this viewpoint helped turn the attitude of the Arkansas legislature around, it still doesn't provide a bookstore any legal protection from a lawsuit or criminal charges filed by that 20th person.

The tools I'm looking for will help me deal with that 1 in 20 person. The other 19 aren't the problem. Kids do need to learn life's lessons before they experience them first hand, and only their parents really know what level of reading each individual child is ready for. So... let's help the parents make educated decisions. Then we all win.

Michael Tierney

[GPM]

It seems as if most retailers are in favor of a ratings system, but just about everyone else is not. However, with a few exceptions, most people agree that the current system isn't working either. It seems clear that publishers need to find a way to inform retailers of a book's content before they order it and/or a system of labelling that would alert the retailers to the content but not those leading the witch hunts. It seems to me that Vertigo and Max or Eye of the Storm are good examples of labelling that work for everybody. Those books are all imprints that I automatically know are for 18 and over only. I know that Marvel Knights books tend to be more graphic than Marvel Universe ones but not in the league of Max titles. Cartoon network titles are safe for all ages.

As I see it DC needs a new imprint for grittier storytelling that doesn't quite reach Vertigo levels, but is worse than your average DCU book. Fallen Angel, Cinnamon and Lobo Unbound are good examples of books that should be placed in this new imprint. I suspect that the upcoming books, The Demon and Caper may also fall into this category.

Wildstorm seems to be doing well with placing most of its more mature stuff into Eye of the Storm, but occasionally I do find some titles that slip through. Alan Moore's books are especially inconsistant since LXG is not for anyone under 18, but Tom Strong is usually appropriate for anybody for example. ABC is closing down soon though so that won't continue to be a problem.

Marvel is good some of the time with Marvel Knights and Max, but sometimes they slip in a more mature series where you don't expect it, or a book's content will suddenly be worse than anything previously in that series and they fail to make the retailer aware of that. This needs to stop. If they do something that pushes the envelope, the retailers need to know in advance. The Ultimates is one of the worst cases right now that Marvel has yet to correct because Ultimate Spider-Man is so kid friendly. Ultimate X-Men also doesn't strike me as an all ages book even though it isn't as bad as Ultimates. I think most retailers are aware of the problems with these books not being consistant under the same imprint, but Marvel needs to make these things known further in advance.

So I think better solicitation information and imprint labels may be the way to go. If the main companies decide they need to tell a more mature story than normal, just solicit it as such in Previews.

[GPM]

Totally off-topic here, but I just gotta say to Lance Parkin since I assume you're the writer of that name, that I really enjoy your work on the Doctor Who novels. The Infinity Doctors, Cold Fusion ans The Dying Days were all great! :D

[Michael Tierney]

One thing I want to make clear - I'm not advocating a return to the days of the Comics Code, when comics were all for kids. In the last couple of decades, thanks to the Direct Sales Market, comics have exploded in content and diversity. But... as the Jesus Castillo conviction proves - we are still percieved by many as being a kid's only industry. This only makes the need even greater to distinguish which books are intended for which audience. Sure, in the Castillo conviction, the code was on the book. In that case, they were looking something in particular - and they were going to find it, no matter what precautions were taken. It goes back to that perception thing.

As publishers continue to push the envelope of what's accepted, the disconnect between parents and publishers gets even greater - with retailers caught in the middle. There is currently no edcucation process by which parents, or even retailers, can be certain which book is intended for which audience, without sitting down and reading the whole thing first.

Identify the target audience, and that's not only exercising due diligence, it's effective advertising. Get the right books to the right customers, and sales can only increase. Confident purchasers buy more product. Look at what happened with CGC certified books on E-Bay. Call it a sales tool, call it a ratings system, or whatever - Buying with confidence can never be a bad thing.

Michael Tierney

[FIG]

.....we don't want to backtrack and go back to the idiotic days of the Comics Code do we?-We want freedom of expression in comics, we don't want to limit the variety now do we?-We only limit the variety if we start rating books.-Its bad enough Joesph Lieberman wanted to rate video games, why should comics follow suit? :mad: I can't stand it when self-proclaimed watch dogs begin talking about a rating system for comics.-Like they have the right to dictate whats good or bad for anybody. :rolleyes: -Its a bad idea, I'd rather have the freedom to decide for myself and rate comics based on my own taste, not somebody elses.:)

[hjcho]

So like any rating system that has come down the pike, there are some hard questions to consider:

1: Who makes the ratings and reviews each and every book that comes out? How does one establish a standard? Who pays for it?

2: How does a ratings system in any way guarantee that material intended for adults or teenagers doesn't end up in the hands of children? I've seen plenty of kids in R rated movies without adult supervision, kids buying cigarettes at 7-Eleven, and I can only imagine the legions of kids surfing the net for porn, violence, and other illicit material.

3: How does the ratings system ensure that comics will not be scapegoats for ambitious politicians looking to raise their profile for taking on "moral offenders?"

As a parent of a young child, I can tell you that the MPAA ratings do not prevent your kids from seeing violence and scary situations. The biggest movie of the summer, Finding Nemo, was rated G, and opened with a mother and most of her eggs wiped out by a barracuda, and also featured several intense life-or-death encounters. No one is going after Hollywood, but a similar occurrence in a comic rated for general audiences would represent a very precarious position for a comics publisher.

[Michael Tierney]

___________________________

1: Who makes the ratings and reviews each and every book that comes out? How does one establish a standard? Who pays for it?

2: How does a ratings system in any way guarantee that material intended for adults or teenagers doesn't end up in the hands of children? I've seen plenty of kids in R rated movies without adult supervision, kids buying cigarettes at 7-Eleven, and I can only imagine the legions of kids surfing the net for porn, violence, and other illicit material.

3: How does the ratings system ensure that comics will not be scapegoats for ambitious politicians looking to raise their profile for taking on "moral offenders?"

____________________________

Reasonable questions. I'll try to answer them:

1. No one pays for it. Through dicussions groups (like this!) establish guidelines of communications. What is considered what. Are we going with ratings, color coding, or suggested age levels? Once a concensus is reached, everyone is encouraged to communicate honestly what they intend to put in a comic - and not just at the time of solicitation, but at the point of sale.

2. There are no guarantees.

3. In contrast to the fact that there are no guarantees, effort sure counts for a lot. By being proactive, and community responsible, we elevate not just ourselves - but our entire industry. Perceptions are always more important than details. If someone does pick a fight - and someone will - make them regret it. Politicians are easy targets just like we're easy targets. We stop being a target when we prove that we acted responsibly and with foresight. If a mistake is made, most people are a lot more forgiving of those who have proven their effort than they are of those who let others do the work (of course, that could just be the employer in me talking).

The comics medium is misunderstood and undervalued here in America. There is in my mind no reason that we shouldn't be selling many multiples of the volume sold today. We should be doing more than the average sales per population that is achieved in Japan. It's all about perception. We've got a lot of cleanup work still left to do from the Fifties. Let's start telling the world about the great diversity that comics have to offer, while at the same time providing assurances that we are a responsible industry that is community friendly.

Comics aren't just for kids - and they aren't just about super-heroes. What wrong with announcing that diversity - in a clear and concise manner?

Michael Tierney

[Cry For Life]

Originally posted by GPM
It seems as if most retailers are in favor of a ratings system, but just about everyone else is not.

I wouldn't be opposed to a industry standard rating system done right, just saying that all the ratings in the world won't do a single bit of good if the publishers don't start taking some other responsibilities like stop cross marketing ultra violent characters in super kiddie version, and reach out to parents groups and get them involved.

[Michael Tierney]

I totally agree. If publishers do not act responsibly, then we're all wasting our time.

[Doc Rebel]

:D TIME FOR A UNIVERSAL RATING SYSTEM? :D
Though I'm aware this is a serious debate I laughed when I read this heading. Do you realy think that any rating system that you cook up will apply to my country? I don't think so! (And even bigger, I doubt the Skrulls or the Klingons would be impressed by your so called 'universal rating system'. :p ) Though some Americans may think it to be, but the universe is a little bigger than just the U.S.A. ;)

[Cry For Life]

Originally posted by Doc Rebel
:D :D
Though I'm aware this is a serious debate I laughed when I read this heading. Do you realy think that any rating system that you cook up will apply to my country? I don't think so! (And even bigger, I doubt the Skrulls or the Klingons would be impressed by your so called 'universal rating system'. :p ) Though some Americans may think it to be, but the universe is a little bigger than just the U.S.A. ;)

Thats a good point, but honestly when one says universal in such a context they usually just mean industry-wide, and of course the american comics industry is different in ways than those of other countries, so in this case that's why the term universal is meant to be the american comics industry.

[Rob Jensen]

Originally posted by jawaplumber
And in Mexico, it could be "Ay, Poppi!"

Shouldn't that be, "Ay! Salma!" ;)

-- Rob Jensen -- adds, "Y Tu Mama Tambien!"

[MichaelCoughlin]

I know it's nice to think we live in this perfect world where we should have absolute freedom and everything will work out, thus no need for a ratings system. But I think it was a man much wiser than I who said, "If man were a choir of angels, then we'd have no need for government."

It's the recognition that people aren't perfect that allows man to implement certain rules.

I'll never kill anyone, but I don't know about the guy down the street.

I still don't see how a little box that says,"PG13" in the corner will do anything to the comic book industry. I mean, it seems to me like every day I hear about how only adults are buying comics anyways. (18-45 year old guys etc....)

And in some ways I think it's almost unfair to except parents to read EVERYTHING their kids read. I mean, think about how hectic a parents life is. Now think about the hour or so they might waste having to read their kids comic books. If I'm a parent I'm saying, "Forget it, no comics for you."

[Michael Norton]

.
If we don't do something on our own the Government will. We know they will because they have before. Remember "Corruption of the Innocent" and all it caused? Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

Fear. It grows, and it has been growing since 9/11. With the PATRIOT ACT on the books, and the VICTORY ACT knocking on the door, you'd think we'd all be trying to stop being afraid.

In 2001, when Bush first entered office, his Attorney General(that swell guy Ashcroft)'s first objective was to start cracking down on porn. He reopened an anti-porn office in the DoJ.

When 9/11 happened, people wanted to be safe...so they let things slip in, like the PATRIOT ACT.

Now, with Arkansas and my home state of Texas, they are coming after comics. Not the government, maybe, but the fear of the government is there. And I for one am tired of it.

These ratings will only help serve these radical conservatives notions of what to do with comics.Instead of being able to say "All comics are for kids, its always been that way" a District Attorney could then say, "We know they're for kids because there is a ratings system! The comics industry acknowledges they're wrong because they put it on the covers themselves!"

I've joined the CBLDF. I've protested. I bought Micah Wright's awesome poster book. I will continue this fight until I can no longer breathe. Because unlike religion or slavery, there is no debate or controversy about where freedom of speech falls into the founding of this great country.

I'd quote Yoda now...his mantra being the best example of why fear is a bad thing, but then I'd be laughed at and you wouldn't take this seriously.

As Mr. Busiek said, ratings didn't help Jesus Castillo. They won't help us here.

Michael Norton

[Michael Norton]

.
If we don't do something on our own the Government will. We know they will because they have before. Remember "Corruption of the Innocent" and all it caused? Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

Fear. It grows, and it has been growing since 9/11. With the PATRIOT ACT on the books, and the VICTORY ACT knocking on the door, you'd think we'd all be trying to stop being afraid.

In 2001, when Bush first entered office, his Attorney General(that swell guy Ashcroft)'s first objective was to start cracking down on porn. He reopened an anti-porn office in the DoJ.

When 9/11 happened, people wanted to be safe...so they let things slip in, like the PATRIOT ACT.

Now, with Arkansas and my home state of Texas, they are coming after comics. Not the government, maybe, but the fear of the government is there. And I for one am tired of it.

These ratings will only help serve these radical conservatives notions of what to do with comics.Instead of being able to say "All comics are for kids, its always been that way" a District Attorney could then say, "We know they're for kids because there is a ratings system! The comics industry acknowledges they're wrong because they put it on the covers themselves!"

I've joined the CBLDF. I've protested. I bought Micah Wright's awesome poster book. I will continue this fight until I can no longer breathe. Because unlike religion or slavery, there is no debate or controversy about where freedom of speech falls into the founding of this great country.

I'd quote Yoda now...his mantra being the best example of why fear is a bad thing, but then I'd be laughed at and you wouldn't take this seriously.

If nothing else, as we like to pat ourselves on the back for reading the latest issue of Arrowsmith("Look, it doesnt have superheroes! I am so brave!") or Strangers in Paradise we should be checking our industry for a yellow stripe down its back if this were to come to fruition.

I'm sure Busiek,Miller,Waid or Gaiman could say what I'm trying to say better but I had to say it anyway.

Michael Norton

[Michael Norton]

Sorry about the double post. Hit the wrong button.
Michael Norton

[jamesmith]

Originally posted by Michael Norton
As Mr. Busiek said, ratings didn't help Jesus Castillo. They won't help us here.

Michael Norton

Then don't make it a ratings system. This is really simple. It doesn't have to be a rating. All you need is a simple way to let retailers know THIS book is for adults, THAT book is for kids. Tierney's not suggesting this as a way to save people from undue prosecution. The books at Castillo's store were sequestered from the kid population, so nothing could have saved him. The point is to help retailers protect themselves.

Kurt suggested things like trade dress and marketing. Great ideas. Except that they-- and the other suggestion, new imprints-- cost money.

So what about a simple colored dot, right next to the bar code? Retailers will automatically know that all Green-Dot books are for kids, all Blue-Dot books are for teens, and all Red-Dot books are for adults.

It's a simple, cheap idea. Doesn't stigmatize books. Doesn't require a board to get together and debate it for five years. Doesn't cost a dime. Doesn't sound a clarion call to censors (which is a dubious argument anyway. The censors come because they want to, not because you label your product.)

Additionally, publishers can arrange their Previews catalog sections the same way they're arranged in the book industry. Under Fantagraphics, books can be further sectioned as Kids, Erotica, Adventure, etc. Retailers automatically-- without any ratings of any kind-- know what they're looking at. If it can work for the book industry, why not for comics?

Or is that too simple.

[Michael Norton]

To help Mr. Tierney know where I stand, let me start off with a big "not on your life!"


Then don't make it a ratings system. This is really simple. It doesn't have to be a rating. All you need is a simple way to let retailers know THIS book is for adults, THAT book is for kids. Tierney's not suggesting this as a way to save people from undue prosecution. The books at Castillo's store were sequestered from the kid population, so nothing could have saved him. The point is to help retailers protect themselves.

OK, then let's do something that will truly help. Let's have actual descriptions in the Previews catalogue.

One of the problems that will arise from this is that SPOILERS will be included. But there is a very simple answer to that. We,the readers, already pay for Previews. So you just have a seperate Retailer Catalogue.Have all the retailers pay for it. It's not that hard and it will help them if they're so afraid of Big Brother.

A dot might not stigmatize the indivual books but it will do the same as the CCA did to the industry. If we want people to stop thinking of comics as only kid's material, we'd better stop treating them like that ourselves.

I still say this all comes from fear and it's a bad idea when anything comes from that place.

Michael Norton

[Lord Savaunt]

After having read some of further posting of Mr. Tierney and reconsidering I would like to ammend my previous position.

While I am on the No side of this equation I would like to point out that I don't have the same negative view that others do.

What Mr. Tierney is suggesting is a ratings system, which is drastically different than the CCA. The comics code was never a ratings system and wasn't intended as one. It was a censorhip system designed to dictate what was and was not acceptable. It was used to put EC comics out of business (the rules stated things such as no comic being allowed to have the words Crypt, Horror or Crime in their titles, gee guess what titles were automatically barred any consideration for code approval) as a form of revenge for the fact that EC didn't just hand over their testicles and cave in to the bible pusher and christ dealers.

There was never any concern at all about determining which book was okay for which audience, just an all or nothing approach that dictated what a book could or could not be. An issue from the Lee Ditko run of Spiderman is a classic case. Someone in the NYPD or some other law enforcement agency had sent a letter asking if Stan Lee would do an anti-drug issue of Amazing Spiderman for the sake of giving kids a message against drugs featuring one of their favortie heroes.

When Lee submitted it for code approval he was told that it couldn't fly because it had drug usage in it. He tried to explain that the drug referrences and usage was in no way meant to portray it in a positive light, quite the opposite it was intended to keep kids from trying drugs in the first place. Lee was told that his argument was irrelevant becasue the rules stated no drugs what so ever and no exceptions. So this code that was started up because of A) Wanting to keep the dogs of cngress at bay and B) wanting to screw over the biggest competition of any company in the industry that didn't own the trade mark to "Tales from the Crypt" ended up hbeing a stumbling block to the publishing of a book that could be beneficial to children.

All that Mr. Tierney is suggesting is accurate advertising. The idea of letting people know what they are buying seems to rile up a lot of us and for good reason. Let's not however, let our scars from the CCA blind us to better ideas that improve upon the failures of old and could turn them into successes.

My opposition to this is cheifly beacuase I think that there are better ways to accomplish the same ends.

Oh and by the way for all those nay sayers talking about the damage this will do to the industry if it happens think on the following: we've survived Wertham and McCarthy, we've survived the birth and rise of the motion picture, we've survived the birth and rise of video cassette tapes, cable tv and DVD, we've survived the birth and rise of CDs, MP3s online entertainment and really bad cartoons based on comics. We've survived the birth and rise and evolution of the videogame industry and the home PC. Hell we've even survived a massive market crash in the mid 90's and assault after assault on the comics industry from insipid movies and tv shows that reinforced the image of comics as puerile trash for kids and older kids that won't grow up and still live in their moms basement when they're getting close the age of being able to get social security checks.

Somehow I don't think a non-mandatory rating system that dictates nothing in the way of content will even make a dent on us.

[Lord Savaunt]

By the way in response to a post that you titled "Kids don't want to read kids comics" I have a question for you Mr. Tierney. What do you consider a kids book? To me Harry Potter is a kids book (or rather a series of them) that is accessible to adults. Dr. Suess and Curious George are also kids books to me. The difference therein being that they are less accessible to adults. So before I respond I want to make sure we're both on the same page as far as kids books and all ages books.

[jamesmith]

Originally posted by Michael Norton
A dot might not stigmatize the indivual books but it will do the same as the CCA did to the industry. If we want people to stop thinking of comics as only kid's material, we'd better stop treating them like that ourselves.

Because those parental advisory stickers have really ruined music, haven't they?

Again, it's not an imposition of any kind on the books to let retailers know what's in them.

And the idea of a separate catalog still requires more money to be spent. Not your money, but Diamond's.

My second suggestion, I fail to see how that could be disagreeable to anybody, but maybe it is. So tell me. What would be the problem of having each publisher put their titles under section headings-- Kids, Mystery, etc.? The exact same thing that every other mass medium does. Somehow, it'll destroy comics. Explain how.

You can talk big and call it fear all you want but that doesn't change the fact that the American comic industry has taken it up the ass every time it's been presented with a real challenge.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
I'm not around the internet much, so this is the first chance I've had to read everyone's responses - and I really want to know what everyone thinks. There are always 360 sides to every degree of every point of view.

First off, I want to reiterize that I am not for censoring comics. My whole push here is to not only know what the publishers are selling at the time of solicitations - but also for any sales clerk (no matter what their level of comics experience is) to be able to confidently sell comics, without fear of hidden content.

Not every store in the country will have the same concerns as me, and not just because I'm in the Bible belt and am currently fighting an intentionally vague censorship law. While some stores are in areas of the country where attitudes are more lax, other stores simply do not market comics to kids in the same vigorous fashion that I do. I've had military customers come in, and exclaim after taking one step, "Thanks God! Finally a comics store where I can take my kids into!" I'm not saying this as a knock on stores that don't cater to children, I'm explaining the extent to which I promote comics to kids. So needless to say, I'm very careful about the responsiblity that I accept when I encourage kids to read comics. This is where I, and other stores across the Bible belt, need help.

I don't expect for a second that POW is going to start showing up on comics covers (although I think WOW could work). As far as I'm concerned, it could be any system that tells a clerk who the comic is targeted at. Color codes. Whatever. Just help me get the right product into the hands of the right reader. This is not a call for censorship - this is a call for clear packaging.

Kurt and I have recently discussed all this at great length, and to mutual disagreement. I respect the concerns of comics creators, but disagree that adding one more sales tool to the price, date, UPC code and other essential information on the cover could possibly hurt the industry as a whole. To make a comparison -I sometimes feel like a grocer who has been shipped a lots of cans of soup. The labels clearly tell me every from price and even who the cook is - but not the content. And different cooks (not all) sometimes cater to different tastes. You shouldn't have to open the can to figure out what's inside. For retailers, this becomes a can of worms.

It's been suggested that comics should be retailed like the book industry, which has no ratings system. The problem is that we are a visual medium. We show the reader what happens, with them having to visualize the scene in their own head. As a result, we will always be scrutinized the same way that movies and television have been scrutinized. I was watching MSNBC last night, and there appears to be a major push forming in this next election to crack down on television content. I don't want that push to escalate to include comics.

True, the problem is more severe in my own state of Arkansas. Wal-Mart, the king of grab every dollar not glued to the floor, refuses to sell comics in Arkansas. Wal-Mart was founded, and is headquartered in Arkansas. But when publishers dropped the Comics Code, mature comics were shipped to Wal-Mart, sold to kids, and now Wal-Mart is scared to even touch them. I think that this contributed a lot to a recent television poll of 500 random adults, where 1 in 3 said that they considered comic books to be harmful to children! Obviously this is a big concern for me, since so many kids, and sometimes whole families, shop my stores.

After quick reading the previous responses, I'd put the unofficial results at 60% or more in favor of some sort of ratings system. Some responses, I'm not sure how to interpret. For democratic purposes, how about starting your responses with a clear vote of in favor, or disagree, before your explanation of your reasonings? I really whan to know what everyone thinks. To those who just want to spout... well... I don't even finish reading posts that just want to spout insults.

Thanks!
Michael Tierney
Collector's Edition - North Little Rock, Arkansas
The Comic Book Store - Little Rock, Arkansas

Here are my thoughts on this topic.

1. I am most definitly in favor of a universal rating system for the comic book industry.

2. If a universal rating system is ever created for the comic industry, it is important that the actual content of a comic is appropiately and consistantly suitable for whatever rating that a particular title is given. In other words, rated R material/content should not be allowed in all ages,PG rated,or PG-13 rated books.

3. Like a couple of other posters have already said, marvel and DC do not want the general public (epecialy non-comic reading parents) to know what is actualy being published in their superhero books. They are afraid that most people (especialy parents) will be both outraged and shocked at what is allowedin books that were originaly created for and aimed at kids/all ages.

4. With the exception of out of continuty or stand alone one shots, mini series,and graphic novels, all interconecting marvel universe and DCU titles should be suitable for and aimed at kids.

5. Here is my idea of how a universal comic industry rating should be done. I'll be using movies ,tv shows,comics,and video games as examples of what type of content is suitable for each rating.

AA (all ages) children tv shows that carry a Y rating like Rescue Heroes and the Muppet Babies,Archie comics

TW or tweens (ages 9-14) pre-quemas code approved marvel books,TV-Y7 action cartoons (like the edited anime on toonami,Batman TAS,Batman Beyond,X-men TAS,EXO-SQUAD,Phantom 2040,and the Legend of Prince Valiant),PG rated movies like the Star Wars movies,Titan AE,the Iron Giant,Disney's Atlantis,PG-13 movies like the Scorpian King,all of those teen Disney shows that air on the Disney Channel (Sister,Sister, the Smart Guy,and Even Steven),and code approved DC books (like Batman and Teen Titans). This is the age group/ audience that all marvel universe and DCU superhero titles should be aimed at.

T or teens (ages 15 and up) TV-14 rated tv shows like LAW & ORDER,24, and the x-files,PG-13 movies like Indiana Jones and the Tempe of Doom, non code approved DC super hero books (like JSA,the Outsiders,and Hawkman),most PG rated marvel books (like New X-MEN,Daredevil,and Amazing Spider-man),marvel PG+ rated books,and Image books

MR or "mature readers" vertigo comics,MAX comics,League of Extrordinary Gentelmen,Eye of the Storm Wildstorm books,rated R movies and M rated video games (like Resident Evil and Silent Hill)

AO or "adults only" hardcore porno comics and movies

[Michael Norton]

Because those parental advisory stickers have really ruined music, haven't they?

I hate to say it but that is not a valid argument here because comics are not the same as music. Music has not always been considered, and certainly doesn't have the stigma that it is "only for kids". The Jesus Castillo case proves that that is comics problem.

Again, it's not an imposition of any kind on the books to let retailers know what's in them.


And didn't I say to put better descriptions in the catalogues for retailers?

Michae Norton

[GPM]

People talk of fear being the reason for implementing a ratings system and I won't disagree that I'm afraid of going to jail on some trumped up charge, but fear isn't my primary reason for a ratings system. I want to use it to educate parents and others that comics are no longer for kids. I want to flaunt the fact that yes there are comics for adults so that we can eliminate this stigma. I also want to show via a ratings system that we are responsible people who realize that there are certain things that shouldn't be sold to children without a parent's consent. I want to work with the sensible parents and others in our communities to remove the power that these witch hunters currently hold because of misconceptions about comics. That's not fear, that's standing up for yourself. I want to use the system to help us rather than fight the system from outside.

The fear I see is people who are afraid a ratings system means that the violence and sex will be removed from all comics which is not what is being proposed here. People are suggesting that we need to hide the fact that comics aren't all for kids. That sounds more like fear to me.

So lets say there is no ratings system because we're afraid that the censors will spot those books. If I segregate those books into different areas or hide mature books behind the counter, you don't think those people will notice that as well? They noticed that Castillo's store had a separate section for adult books. Okay so if I can't draw any attention to the books for fear of them being spotted, the only option left is to mix the mature stuff in with the all ages stuff so I can hide it from the censors. Uh-oh! Now I'm actually guilty of what the censors are accusing us of! I'm making the mature comics accessible to the kids. Oh, well as long as those nasty censors don't catch me, it's all good. At least I can still read my Vertigo titles in a closet when no one is looking.

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by jamesmith
Kurt suggested things like trade dress and marketing. Great ideas. Except that they-- and the other suggestion, new imprints-- cost money.

It doesn't cost a dime more to put Vertigo trade dress on a book instead of DC trade dress.

Marketing costs money -- which doesn't make it a bad idea, and comics publishers do tend to have marketing departments -- but every book has trade dress and an imprint. They're generally designed on staff. Those are among the easiest, least expensive measures to take.

kdb

[Michael Norton]

People talk of fear being the reason for implementing a ratings system and I won't disagree that I'm afraid of going to jail on some trumped up charge, but fear isn't my primary reason for a ratings system. I want to use it to educate parents and others that comics are no longer for kids. I want to flaunt the fact that yes there are comics for adults so that we can eliminate this stigma

But we know this isn't the way it will work because it never has in any medium in the past. The record industry hasn't been able to use their labels for this purpose. Noone has.

The fear I see is people who are afraid a ratings system means that the violence and sex will be removed from all comics which is not what is being proposed here. People are suggesting that we need to hide the fact that comics aren't all for kids. That sounds more like fear to me.

This sounds a bit disingenuous to me.I don't see anyone saying "Don't do it! I won't be able to see boobies!" I think what the people who are against it are saying is that it is dangerous because it may lead to people not being able to tell the kinds of stories or the events in the stories they want to.

What happens when(and I hope I don't tick him off using him as an example), Mark Waid is writing Superman and he wants to do a story about child abuse?And the editor says, "Nope, can't do it because then we'd have to put a PG-13 instead of a PG on this issue".Or better yet, then they put the "higher" rating on this one or two issues...now someone is gonna have a hole in their collection for awhile, meanwhile the retailers are going to have to adjust their orders.... This is all example remember.

. Uh-oh! Now I'm actually guilty of what the censors are accusing us of! I'm making the mature comics accessible to the kids. Oh, well as long as those nasty censors don't catch me, it's all good. At least I can still read my Vertigo titles in a closet when no one is looking.

Just a note here:Where are the parents in your fable?

Michael Norton

[jamesmith]

Originally posted by Kurt Busiek
Marketing costs money -- which doesn't make it a bad idea, and comics publishers do tend to have marketing departments --

The fact that marketing costs money will certainly make it a bad idea to publishers who don't think it's necessary. My point is that while what you're suggestion is certainly useful, it demands an effort from publishers which they obviously aren't willing to put out. Because they would have already done so if they deemed it important.

Trade dress will certainly need to be designed, and existing standards changed. In my experience, companies don't do this quickly, but maybe the comics business is different. At any rate, I'm not sure how that would give Mr. Tierney the type of forewarning he's asking for: Both Y The Last Man and Preacher are Vertigo books. Only one of those books features a man murdered while having carnal relations with a side of beef.

[Shawn Fumo]

Lots of good discussion in here. First...

People keep saying the Castillo case was won because everyone thinks comics are just for kids. That was implied by reports at first, but from reading things more recently, the reason he was able to be charged was that the book was just considered vulgar and without artistic merit under a paricular law, which any kind of medium could be hit with if they wanted to. Has anyone actually read Demon Beast Invasion? It is basically all about monsters with phallus tentacles raping and killing women in a graphic fashion. I don't think it is right to censor stuff, especially when it is made up with drawings, but it certainly seems most comics would be immune from being hit by this particular law. This wasn't just a mature comic with some violence and sex in it, it is a full-on porno comic. The problem in that case was more with the law than just a jury thinking all comics are for kids IMO.

As far as just informing parents goes, it would be very nice to have some sort of indicator and make things easier for retailers. I don't really care all that much what method is used. Trade dress or some basic age recommendations (like most manga has) I don't think would be all that bad. I doubt people would be that strict in most cases and just use it as a general guidline. Someone used an example of Waid having a two-part story become pg-13 instead of pg. In that case maybe the parent could check it out and it probably wouldn't be an issue. But if a pg comic suddenly had some element that made it R or NC-17, I think people need SOME kind of warning.

Also, as people mentioned, while books don't have a rating per se, they do tend to have special trade dresses or sizing for kids or teen books, and at least some way to categorize titles for the retailers. When you go to a library and see stuff marked as YA for young adult, do you think they read every single book that they get in? There has to be some sort of even general mechanism to let retailers know if it is a kids, teen, or mature book...

I REALLY agree with what some people said about especially Marvel/DC crossmarketing stuff in ways they shouldn't. A recent case in point is the Hulk. They did huge crosspromotional stuff and one of their biggest seller was the Hulk Hands for kids, and yet the movie was not at all appropriate for little kids and I've heard many stories of people leaving because their kids were scared and crying.. You can argue that the rating was appropriate, but people got thrown off by mixed signals...

This is kind of a personal rant for me, but I'm sooo tired of the whole pro sports approach to things. Where different writers and artists work on the same titles, things get re-invented constantly, etc. A title like Batman could be anything from cheesy fun like the TV show to grim and violent adult content. These characters may be icons, but IMO what exactly they represent has gotten a bit muddled over time and it confuses people.

I agree with needing more specific titles for kids. We need more of things like Amy Unbounded, Akiko, Sidekicks, etc..

Japan generally gets around these problems since comics are distributed in anthology magazines. A particular mangazine generally targets an audience, maybe has a theme, and sticks to it. People know generally what to expect if they pick up Weekly Shonen Jump versus Margeret. People rise up a ladder of kiddy comics to more adult fare. People may continue to keep reading Jump since it is so popular, but it isn't like they read old stories re-invented with more mature plots. The older magazines have their own unique titles in them... Sure they might be of a similar genre or concept, but it isn't the exact same characters...

So, what do I think should actually be done?

For retailers, I'd say do the best you can. Certainly don't mix stuff together. Use any info. you can get from publishers, or reading titles when you can to determine what is for kids and what isn't and seperate the stuff accordingly. Mixing it together is only going to confuse consumers and give people more ammunition. I think making the shop more like the setup of a bookstore actually helps anyone put in a bad situation because they can say that the mature titles were kept from kids or at least had some warning. It won't help for the Castillo case, but neither would have mixing the stuff together really...

Publishers I think need to do the most work. New trade dress would be nice. Marketing to specific audiences and having separate characters for these markets would be nice. Maybe a basic age rating, even if each company has their own rules. It isn't like comics have huge multi-milliondollar campaigns that'd get affected by ratings like movies do. Just some sort of very basic info. whether it is an imprint or saying it is for teens or whatever would help parents and retailers. Even info. given strictly to retailers like putting the books in basic categorys of how they think they should be sorted would be nice...

Anyway... just some thoughts,
Shawn

[Howard Price]

Kurt, I agree that books don't carry labels on them to inform the readers about the nature of the contents inside.

...and yet Waldenbooks knows to keep some titles in plastic behind the counter.

...and yet the Science Fiction Book Club manages to put Warning: Explicit sex and/or violence in its catalog listings.

Wizard has already exercised the old CYA by stamping their covers "Not intended for all ages." Several magazines (and comic books are far closer to magazines than they are to books) carry age-appropriate labelling.

No one is calling for censorship. No one is asking government agents to "OK" all the merchandise (not all states are as liberal as Vermont, Jack). What retailers are asking for is help in knowing the contents of books before they make a potential slip up and put something in inappropriate hands.

Ratings work.

[Howard Price]

...and it isn't likely to be voiced here.

That's the voice of the parents of kids who read comics, specifically parents who don't read comics themselves (as we should expect that a comic-reading parent will have a pretty good idea of the marketplace and will steer their children accordingly.)

If only the market could get their input, what might we learn?

[Michael Tierney]

Now that we've all had time to discuss this very complicated matter, and start to wrap our minds around the issue - I'm going to share a conversation I had today with a Harvard professor who shops at my store every time he's in town on vacation.

Did you know that Bill Gates was a huge comics collector - and a Harvard dropout? Harvard knows. They've been running a study to examine why so many visually orientated people tend to drop out of college early, and then go on to have great success - like Greg Land who dropped out of Harvard and went on to found Polaroid. Harvard is doing a study on the effects that comics have on students, and the professor I was talking to teaches a course that every year has to turn away hundreds of students. In his opinion, in three years or so college entrance exams will be changed to also test a person's visual orientation.

With college's recognizing the positive influence that comics have on readers, our industry is poised for a period of incredible opportunity. Harvard is convinced that Bill Gates found a lot of his inspiration for the Windows design from reading comic book pages. As I've said before: Comics are fun brain food.

So what does all this have to do with an industry-wide ratings code? Earlier in this thread I was asked to clarify the difference between Kids books and All-Ages comics. To me, and to Kids, comics (or any book) that is deliberately written down to a young audience is a Kids book. But Harry Potter makes a wonderful example of an All-Ages books. Adults read these adventures as avidly as kids. But there is always someone out in the public ready to throw rocks at anything that they don't understand. In Fort Smith, Arkansas, a school pulled the Harry Potter books from the library out of concerns over the issue of witchcraft. It was the parents who hired a lawyer and forced the school to put the Harry Potter books back into the hands of their children.

My point here is that parents want their children to read - and comics are being recognized as a wonderful tool for expanding a child's ability to absorb information. I've always advanced the concept that comics are a perfect tool because it teaches a child to use the side of the brain that recognizes visual input in tandem with the other side of the brain that processes language. Gee... isn't that what made Einstein a genius? Both hemispheres of the brain working in tandem. It's what comics teach children to do.

With all that in mind, parents and children are a huge untapped market for comics. There are over 60 million kids in America. As more and more educational people recognize the worth of comics in developing those 60 million kids, we as an industry need to not only tap into that market, we also need to be prepared to process those customers in a responsible manner.

As a retailer, parents trust me not to sell the wrong thing to their children. When I advise them that a book might have some mature content, they want to know what content - not have to take the time to read the whole thing themselves. That's not going to happen - we all agree on that. What I'm asking is for our industry to help me identify those books - not just to me or my sales clerks, but to the parents as well. Get the parents involved, and we all win. To get them involved, we retailers need to know the content of the books on our shelves. Right now, way too many books that are packaged as All-Ages are really for mature readers.

Going back to my Grocer comparison: Would YOU buy a can of soup without knowing what the contents were? Go one step further, and ask yourself if you'd recommend the unknown contents for your neighbor's child? I didn't think so. but retailers are asked to do this every shipment day.

Let's stay on point here: Retailers need proper sales information tools in order to sell the right thing to the right person. This isn't just for our protection, which is certainly an aspect of the whole discussion. This is also about PROMOTING COMICS. Let's get the word out about the great and varied content in comics. This isn't about negative impressions. This is about making positive impressions.

Everybody - regear your thinking with this in mind, and then tell me your thoughts! I really think that the comics industry is just a few right moves away from a positive explosion... Sp stop thinking of a ratings system in negative terms. This is about proper packaging. Think positive!

Michael Tierney

[Howard Price]

Originally posted by Michael Norton

I still say this all comes from fear and it's a bad idea when anything comes from that place.


That's a fairly absolutist statement, and like most absolutist statements it's too easy to find exceptions:

Mary: Look! There's a mother grizzly bear! Maybe we should walk slowly away and picnic somewhere else?

Mike: Aw, you're just saying that because you're afraid of the grizzly. Moving the picnic is a bad idea if you're just doing it because you're afraid of it.

Sometimes knowing what there is to be afraid of, and reacting accordingly, is a survival instinct, to be ignored at one's own peril.

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by jamesmith
The fact that marketing costs money will certainly make it a bad idea to publishers who don't think it's necessary.

Publishers already market their books. What I'm suggesting is that they market them differently, not that they decide to market them. That money is already being spent.

My point is that while what you're suggestion is certainly useful, it demands an effort from publishers which they obviously aren't willing to put out. Because they would have already done so if they deemed it important.

You could say the same of a ratings system, of course. But you could have also said the same thing about sharing ownership with creators, about royalties, about all kinds of things that publishers didn't use to to and now they do. If you're going to give up on anything they aren't alrweady doing, then there's no point in trying to persuade them of anything.

Trade dress will certainly need to be designed, and existing standards changed. In my experience, companies don't do this quickly, but maybe the comics business is different.

I'm not sure why they'd need to be -- it's not as if we're offering a choice between a ratings system that can be implemented overnight and better information and design that would take time. Any choice would take time.

At any rate, I'm not sure how that would give Mr. Tierney the type of forewarning he's asking for: Both Y The Last Man and Preacher are Vertigo books. Only one of those books features a man murdered while having carnal relations with a side of beef.

I think his forewarning should be in the catalog. I think the books should be designed to reach out to appropriate audiences. If that means making the PREACHER covers look more like stuff for grownups than Y-THE LAST MAN, then go ahead. I'm not sure Tierney would want to sell either to kids, but since I don't think ratings would serve him in the way he imagines, and I think accurate catalog information and appropriate packaging would, then I'm gonna support the latter.

kdb

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Howard Price
Kurt, I agree that books don't carry labels on them to inform the readers about the nature of the contents inside.
...and yet Waldenbooks knows to keep some titles in plastic behind the counter.

Yes they do. And without ratings on the books.

...and yet the Science Fiction Book Club manages to put Warning: Explicit sex and/or violence in its catalog listings.

...and without a rating on those books.

Wizard has already exercised the old CYA by stamping their covers "Not intended for all ages." Several magazines (and comic books are far closer to magazines than they are to books) carry age-appropriate labelling.

I find PLAYBOY's "Entertainment for Men" far more useful and postive than if it said, "Not For Kids." But there is no universal ratings system in the magazine industry either, and I think that's a good thing. If WIZARD wants to do that, they're welcome to. If PLAYBOY doesn't want to, they're fine too.

No one is calling for censorship. No one is asking government agents to "OK" all the merchandise (not all states are as liberal as Vermont, Jack). What retailers are asking for is help in knowing the contents of books before they make a potential slip up and put something in inappropriate hands.

And I'm all for it. But I don't think they need ratings to do it. You've noted several instances of how the book and magazine industries function well without the kind of system Tierney wants, and I agree -- they do just fine without one.

Ratings work.

Since I think the book industry is creatively more free than the movie industry, has more success keeping would-be censors out, and experiences less controversy, I respectfully disagree.

kdb

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
So stop thinking of a ratings system in negative terms.

What if we think ratings are negative?

Why should we ignore the downside just because you want us to?

Michael, with all due respect, you're very vocal about wanting a dialogue and trying to understand all points of view, but I think what you mean is that everyone should understand your point of view. That you see ratings as nothing more than a sales tool indicates to me that you're not understanding the point of view of those who disagree with you -- you think they're identical to CGC ratings, even though one rates purely physical condition and the other rates content on an exclusionary basis. There are no CGC ratings for "Kid stuff" or "You can't have this."

This is about proper packaging. Think positive!

Okay. I'm positive that proper packaging (and proper information) doesn't require a ratings system. I think the tools you need are easier, cheaper and more effective than the tools you're asking for.

kdb

[Howard Price]

But Kurt... short of reading every single book in their inventory, how does Waldenbooks, how does the SFBC, how do any of them know to warn consumers about the content? Yes, there are no ratings on the books, so how do they know?

Unless someone tells them.

The "ratings on books" argument will only hold up until--for some unknown-yet-hoped-for reason--children start reading books again. I don't mean Harry Potter, though goodness knows that's a step in the right direction. I mean when the pendulum swings from the visual media that children would rather be involved in--movies, television shows, video games, comic books (one of these things is not like the other--do you know which one and why?)--and starts to look around their local Barnes & Noble and go, "Gosh, there's a lot of other shelves here than just this one with the Scholastic imprints. Here's one that looks interesting. Laurel Hamilton, huh? Never heard of her. But hey, she writes about fairies living in the real world! Cool! I'm buying it."

And then Mom reads it, and gets about 2 chapters in before jumping in the minivan and driving irately to confront a clerk and a manager.

This kind of thing hasn't happened yet--at least not in any measurable quantity--and so there's no reason in the world for books to be concerned about ratings. But to say "Books don't use ratings, therefore comics shouldn't," is not comparing equal media.

[Michael Tierney]

Hello Kurt,
I think my whole point is being missed here, when you say:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think his forewarning should be in the catalog. I think the books should be designed to reach out to appropriate audiences. If that means making the PREACHER covers look more like stuff for grownups than Y-THE LAST MAN, then go ahead. I'm not sure Tierney would want to sell either to kids, but since I don't think ratings would serve him in the way he imagines, and I think accurate catalog information and appropriate packaging would, then I'm gonna support the latter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You agree with me partially on the subject of packaging. But you're missing the main point: Some kids are more mature than others. I've been steadily employed since the Fourth Grade, when I worked at the local newpaper first as a delivery boy and then later as assistant manager of the mail room while in high school. From Grade School on, my parents thought nothing about me being out at all hours of the night, while some of my friends were limited to the confines of a neighborhood during the day. I'm not sharing this to brag on myself, but to illustrate that different people mature at different rates and are ready for responsiblity at different ages. I recognize this in many of my customers, and when a parent approves, I will sell a teenager Y the last man. Preacher is a later teen matter. In the case of Vertigo, yes - I know to watch out for content. Packaging is a good step, but it's only a first step in the right direction.

Comics aren't just for mature readers or just for kids. There are a lot of shades of gray within comics. Instead of styfling those shades of gray - let's celebrate the deversity in content and promote it, properly. We've just got to be responsible about it. We know what we need to do, now it's just a matter of getting everyone to admit it and jump on board. I'm not advocating a system that would dictate content to you, the writer. I'm advocating a system, be it color coding, age targeting, or whatever, which takes the guesswork out of retailing comics.

If I feel like I'm guessing and being decieved by publishers, then you know that the parents are much more concerned. Maybe they aren't worried when they shop in my stores, but they were at Wal-Mart. Now Wal-mart is afraid to touch comics, in the same state where I'm actively promoting comics to kids. Maybe I'm just plain stupid and asking for trouble. But the fact is, I see great potential within our medium. I'm not willing to be quiet and let that potential remain untapped.

Kurt, you've referred often to comparisons with the Movie industry. I read insider movie industry magazines every week, because our audiences are so comparable. Did you know that the Movie Studios fought against VHS recorders in court, and lost. Now video sales are a huge segment of movie income - in spite of the industry's paranoia. Let's not make decisions out of fear or out of timidity. Let's promote buying comics with confidence! This needs to happen at the point of sale.

Michael Tierney

[Michael Tierney]

Kurt,
We've met, and I like you as a person. So don't take this a wrong way, but I really want you to listen to your own words:

"Michael, with all due respect, you're very vocal about wanting a dialogue and trying to understand all points of view, but I think what you mean is that everyone should understand your point of view."

Well... yes and no. Yes, of course I am trying to express my point(s) of view. I am also encouraging you to express your views. I don't want this dialog to turn nasty, so before someone else says it, I want to say it as a friend; aren't you talking about yourself?

I am not promoting any particular system. I made an initial proposal to get the ball rolling, then after that, it's up to the industry as a whole to make an informed dicision. If we let this discussion turn negative, or we all bow to your desires to stop discussing the matter - nothing will ever be accomplished.

And 'something' needs to be done. I find it interested that the majority of retailers are in agreement with this need. This isn't just a perspective from the state of Arkansas. I'm not a native of Arkansas - I lived in Kansas and Oklahoma before I was passing though Arkansas for one day way back in the Seventies (and it's been a really loooong day!). Kurt, go back and look at our discussions on CBIA, and notice how many stores from Kansas that agreed with the need for a new system (also notice how many times you told me that I was wrong compared to the fact that I never once told you the same). Look at the Talk back on ICV2 and you'll see the same concerns from both Kansas and Texas. We all know the situation in Oklahoma.

Kurt, I've said it before - I consider you to be one of the good guys. Maybe we each have a different perspective, but we both need to acknowledge the needs of our own comics retailing community. Retailers need changes to help us sell comics responsibly. It doesn't have to be my way or your way. But, if I stop encouraging dialog, retailers get nothing.

Besides all that... I want the comics industry to grow and prosper. I also see this as a means to accomplish exactly that!

Michael Tierney

[jamesmith]

I hesitate to speak for Mr. Tierney, but I think people should get the word Ratings out of their heads. And I'd suggest he stop using it. It was a suggestion among many in his first post, and people can't seem to let it go. He, I and a number of other people have repeatedly admitted it's not the best, or only answer.

And I'm not suggesting "giving up" on getting publishers to amend their ways in this regard. I never said that. The reason I was harping on other ideas, which I believed could be implemented quicker and easier, was because that ease and speed would make them attractive first steps.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Michael Norton
But we know this isn't the way it will work because it never has in any medium in the past. The record industry hasn't been able to use their labels for this purpose. Noone has.



This sounds a bit disingenuous to me.I don't see anyone saying "Don't do it! I won't be able to see boobies!" I think what the people who are against it are saying is that it is dangerous because it may lead to people not being able to tell the kinds of stories or the events in the stories they want to.

What happens when(and I hope I don't tick him off using him as an example), Mark Waid is writing Superman and he wants to do a story about child abuse?And the editor says, "Nope, can't do it because then we'd have to put a PG-13 instead of a PG on this issue".Or better yet, then they put the "higher" rating on this one or two issues...now someone is gonna have a hole in their collection for awhile, meanwhile the retailers are going to have to adjust their orders.... This is all example remember.

I disagree with your argument. It's less about the adult subject matter being discussed in either an "all ages" or PG rated comic, but instead is more about how those adult subjects are delt wit and portrayed. Adult subject matters can be delt with in PG rated (and to a certain extent, all ages comics) in a subtle and tasteful manner, without having to be graphic (in terms of language, graphic violence,or strong sexual inuendos'strong sexual content). For example, compare the subtle way that Fabian Nieceiza delt with sex in the Valiant comic series Troublemakers and the code approved New Warriors series to the blatantly obvious and in your face manner that Mark Millar is doing in the PG+ rated Trouble mini series. I should also point out that PAD's run on the Hulk delt with adult subject matters such as sex, AIDS,homosexuality,abortion,and child abuse and the book was still approved by the comics code authority. PAD's run on the Hulk is not only proof that adult subject matter can be delt with in an all ages or PG rated comic, but also proves that marvel's reasons for dropping the code wee a big load of BS.

[Michael Tierney]

Thank you Jane Smith for your comments:

"I hesitate to speak for Mr. Tierney, but I think people should get the word Ratings out of their heads. And I'd suggest he stop using it. It was a suggestion among many in his first post, and people can't seem to let it go. He, I and a number of other people have repeatedly admitted it's not the best, or only answer."

Any suggestions out there on a better way to reference a designation of the intended audience at the point of sale?

I also agree with points made by Wraith. Strangers In Paradise is a great example of a book that deals with mature subject matter in a responsible manner (did you know that Terry is a decon in his church?). Adults know what is going on between the panels, without having to be shown every sordid detail. But, if Terry Moore were to suddenly include a graphic seen that was out of context with the previous issues of the run, I'd appreciate a cover warning about the change in content. Sure I don't recommend this title to children, but if a teenager were interested, I'd readily ask for the parents approval.

Michael Tierney

[Michael Norton]

Let's see if I can be coherent and concise.

From Howard Smith, regarding my comment on fear:That's a fairly absolutist statement, and like most absolutist statements it's too easy to find exceptions:

Ok, the problem with that is that the first thing the bear is gonna do is smell fear on you and come looking for a snack. That's exactly what the governemen, or some civic group will do once you put ratings on something.Not to mention, you obviously don't know a lot of bears ;)

From Kurt Busiek:I think his forewarning should be in the catalog. I think the books should be designed to reach out to appropriate audiences. If that means making the PREACHER covers look more like stuff for grownups than Y-THE LAST MAN, then go ahead. I'm not sure Tierney would want to sell either to kids, but since I don't think ratings would serve him in the way he imagines, and I think accurate catalog information and appropriate packaging would, then I'm gonna support the latter.

OK see, that is what I was saying. I think Kurt and I agree on this. I would like to ask, Kurt, what kind of cover changes or differences you could see between a "Mature" title and a "All-Ages" title? You were in marketing before writing right?

From Michael Tierney:You agree with me partially on the subject of packaging. But you're missing the main point: Some kids are more mature than others.

OK so then we're going to end up slapping all titles that have a certain word on them with the same rating? As someone else points out, its a bout the way the content is presented.If that is true than why slap a rating on it, knowing that Spider-Man's anti-drug story is different than the movie "Trainspotting"?

From Wraith:I disagree with your argument. It's less about the adult subject matter being discussed in either an "all ages" or PG rated comic, but instead is more about how those adult subjects are delt wit and portrayed. Adult subject matters can be delt with in PG rated (and to a certain extent, all ages comics) in a subtle and tasteful manner, without having to be graphic (in terms of language, graphic violence,or strong sexual inuendos'strong sexual content).

But once an editor or EIC sees that one rating will outsell another, they will start putting the books out to get that rating, thus you end up in a situation where the creator's voice isn't heard. On a side note of this, in TV all decisions are made out of fear of offending. That's what this will come to also. I can almost guarantee it. I've heard some people say that of DC, because they're owned by AOL/Time Warner.

Now I have a question that will probably get me booed,but I think it's a fair thing to ask.

By doing all this work of ratings and differentiating covers, aren't we encouraging lazy retailers? More importantly than that, aren't we encouraging lazy parents? I asked the same thing when the "v" chip came out. Understand, I'm not trying to be insulting, I just think it is one more aspect to consider.

Michael Norton

[Michael Tierney]

To Michael Norton's query: yes, there are lazy parents. They aren't the problem. It's the hyper-active ones that get a retailer in trouble.

And yes, there will always be lazy retailers. But most of them went out of business in the Nineties.

Finally: No. I don't want to encourage editors to start dictating content. I totally agree with Kurt's concerns on this. That's why I keep asking for everyone to try and help come up with a solution what will work at the point of sale, and still keep everyone happy. Even if it's just a colored dot - that would work with me. Put something on the book to indicate content.

There has got to be a compromise out there somewhere. We just have to look for it!

Michael Tierney

[Michael Norton]

Finally: No. I don't want to encourage editors to start dictating content. I totally agree with Kurt's concerns on this. That's why I keep asking for everyone to try and help come up with a solution what will work at the point of sale, and still keep everyone happy. Even if it's just a colored dot - that would work with me. Put something on the book to indicate content.

But see, this does sound like a lazy thing for a retailer.Not you yourself, but I'm trying to just point out what it sounds like.

Both Kurt and I have already suggested a strategy. That of putting the better descriptions into the catalogues.

This sounds more like what your looking for is a way to avoid having to actually read the catalogues and instead be able to decide just by looking at the covers.

Who knows? If more retailers actually read their catalogues, they might promote something from the industry outside of DC,Marvel,Crossgen and Image.

Michael Norton

[Howard Price]

By doing all this work of ratings and differentiating covers, aren't we encouraging lazy retailers?

New book day will now be Saturday, not Wednesday, as all retailers do their due diligence and read every single book they have received on Wednesday before putting them out.

[Michael Tierney]

Since the subject of catalogues came up, I'll answer: The day I send off one month's order, I start working on the next. Multiply this by the months I've been in business and then multiply by the time I've had two stores and I've worked up something like 400 order forms - and that's not even counting the days of Heroes World and Capital City, when the orders were divided between three distributors. And I'm supposed to remember what they said a couple of months later? And even that statement doesn't take into account late shipping books. I'm not lazy, but I'm not omnipotent either. So if I can't remember, I certainly can't expect my sales clerks to remember what the catalog said at the time of solicitation. Besides, that my job to analyze them. And I could make a list longer than this thread about books improperly marketed...

Right now, the way books are shipping - everyone is supposed to read every page of every book before they put it out for sale on Wednesday. Sorry... but we need a more pratical solution to know what contents are. This goes back to my scenario of a grocery store shelf stocked with cans of soups that doen't indicate content. Even Wal-Mart is scared by the current format by which comics are sold.

So... if mega-dollar hungry Wal-Mart won't touch it, I'm out of line to be concerned? The facts speak for themselves. We need something more than what we have. And it HAS TO BE AT THE POINT OF SALE. This is the part where all the points of contention are being raised. But I can't back off of it. Anything less won't work.

Michael Tierney

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Howard Price
But Kurt... short of reading every single book in their inventory, how does Waldenbooks, how does the SFBC, how do any of them know to warn consumers about the content? Yes, there are no ratings on the books, so how do they know?

Unless someone tells them.

Exactly. Someone -- the publisher -- tells them. And not through ratings.

The "ratings on books" argument will only hold up until--for some unknown-yet-hoped-for reason--children start reading books again.

More children read books than read comic books -- and more to the point, the book industry has been successful at this for as long as there's been one, so it's not as if the system didn't work when reading was more common across the board.

But to say "Books don't use ratings, therefore comics shouldn't," is not comparing equal media.

I don't think of comics as a lesser medium. I think the strategies book publishing uses can serve us just fine.

kdb

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
But you're missing the main point: Some kids are more mature than others.

I don't see the relevance -- that same range of kids seems to be served well by the book industry and the magazine industry without the use of ratings systems.

Comics aren't just for mature readers or just for kids. There are a lot of shades of gray within comics. Instead of styfling those shades of gray - let's celebrate the deversity in content and promote it, properly.

I'm all for it. I don't think ratings do it.

We know what we need to do, now it's just a matter of getting everyone to admit it and jump on board.

See, this is the kind of thing that makes me think you just don't understand the views of the people who don't agree with you. You think we all secretly agree with you but won't admit it.

There are areas where I agree with you, and areas where I flat-out disagree. Believe me, it's not just a matter of getting me to admit to something I don't agree with and hopping on the ratings train.

Let's not make decisions out of fear or out of timidity.

I agree. Unfortunately, I think that the argument for ratings is one of fear and timidity.

Let's promote buying comics with confidence! This needs to happen at the point of sale.

I disagree, at least when it comes to doing it via a universal ratings system. Not only does it not need to happen, but other industries show that it can be done and done well without such things.

kdb

[Michael Tierney]

Kurt,
We're starting to run laps here. I'm not going to repeat myself, or ask you to repeat yourself. When you start taking statements out of context, like my example about how CGC customers spend more money when they make a purchase with confidence, then I'm pretty certain that I'm wasting my time in further discussion with you.

To boil our arguments down: I'm requesting a point of sale notification of content. You see that as a terrible thing. So rather than work with me on a compromise, you oppose me and make comparisons that I personally don't think fly - many of them don't fly. But hey, it's a free country and you're entitled to those opinions. I'm just not going to run any more laps.

Without realizing it, you really summed up my whole arguement when you spoke about how kids read more books than they read comics. This is what we need to change. Maybe my stores are just weird - but I have a lot of kids who shop with me. Parents think nothing of waiting in the car while their 5 year-old daughter comes into one of the stores, unattended, to buy her Archie comic. The whole industry could benefit from more parents feeling confident in their children reading comics. This is what I'm fighting for. The kids can't do it for themselves.

Are you advocating that our industry continue you to move away from the kid's market and to an adults only market? Never mind. Don't answer that. I'm moving forward and onward. I refuse to abandon the kid's market. And I won't back off the need for a point of sale notification. All this time I thought of you as a friend. I guess I should now officially recognize you as an opponent.

Michael Tierney

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
I don't want this dialog to turn nasty, so before someone else says it, I want to say it as a friend; aren't you talking about yourself?

I don't think so. I've been forthright about disagreeing with you, and forthright about both explaining my position and presenting it as my position. I haven't once said anything like:

"So stop thinking of a ratings system in negative terms. This is about proper packaging. Think positive!"

or:

"We know what we need to do, now it's just a matter of getting everyone to admit it and jump on board."

I think ratings systems are a negative thing, and have explained why. I don't think I need to do it again, but I also don't think it's any sort of attempt to understand my position to just tell me to stop thinking that way and be upbeat about what I think is a dangerous system that wouldn't accomplish what you want it to. Nor do I think it's any attempt to understand my position to claim that we all agree, it's just that some of us won't admit it.

And 'something' needs to be done. I find it interested that the majority of retailers are in agreement with this need.

When you put it that way, even I agree with you -- something does need to be done. I do think that you as a retailer need better information. It's just when you make the leap from "something" to the assertion that that means ratings that you lose me.

Kurt, go back and look at our discussions on CBIA, and notice how many stores from Kansas that agreed with the need for a new system (also notice how many times you told me that I was wrong compared to the fact that I never once told you the same).

Actually, go back and look, and I think you'll see that I said I think you're wrong. And I do. And while you've never used the words, you've certainly dismissed my arguments clearly enough to make it clear that you think I'm wrong.

There's nothing wrong with me thinking you're wrong or you thinking I'm wrong, though -- if we didn't, we wouldn't need to have a discussion at all. Where I think things go off-kilter, though, is when you say that we all agree, and it's just a matter of getting some of us recalcitrants to admit it.

Beyond that, I don't think that the retailers on Kansas and Oklahoma should be dictating what the retailers in San Francisco and Boston have to live with -- I think that a system can serve both retailers who live in liberal areas and retailers who don't, without the need for a universal rating system.

Maybe we each have a different perspective, but we both need to acknowledge the needs of our own comics retailing community.

I think we need to acknowledge more than that.

Retailers need changes to help us sell comics responsibly. It doesn't have to be my way or your way. But, if I stop encouraging dialog, retailers get nothing.

I never suggested you stop encouraging dialogue. I do suggest that you stop telling people to think about things differently than you want them to, though -- that isn't encouraging free exchange of ideas.

Besides all that... I want the comics industry to grow and prosper. I also see this as a means to accomplish exactly that!

That's where we disagree. I think that retailrs need better information, comics need better packaging and design ... but I think ratings are not the answer. Particularly not without the better information -- that's what really frustrates you, I think, that you get told a book is one thing and it comes in as something else. A ratings system wouldn't change that, either because you'd disagree with the publishers or because the outside panel that would have to rate the books in order to take the matter out of the publishers' judgment wouldn't get the books until after solicitation anyway. Nor do ratings protect retailers from prosecution. Not in Texas, not even in the local laws you've taken a stand against.

Better information, however, would give you what you need without a ratings system. Accordingly, I think it'd be far better to push for that. I think that would help the comics industry grow and prosper.

kdb

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Michael Norton
OK see, that is what I was saying. I think Kurt and I agree on this. I would like to ask, Kurt, what kind of cover changes or differences you could see between a "Mature" title and a "All-Ages" title? You were in marketing before writing right?

Yeah, but not in product design.

Nor am I really in a position to verbally redesign comics lines off the top of my head -- but I'm talking about thinks like when the differentiation between SUPERMAN and SWAMP THING was that SUPERMAN had bright action-oriented line-drawing covers and a bold logo with cover-copy that emphasizes action and thrills, and SWAMP THING had painted covers, a more subdued palette, more sophisticated typography that didn't jump off the page ... SWAMP THING just didn't look like a book that ten-year-olds would be drawn to. Combine that with the "sophisticated suspense" header (not really a kid-oriented message, that) and appropriate catalog info and you've got a decent distinction going.

Beyond that, were I actually trying to work out the details of something like this, I'd do a more detailed study of what works in the bookstore -- what kind of graphics, trade dress, typography, cover copy, trim size, imprint design and so on is different between books aimed at different ages. What information is in the catalog, how do bookstore clerks pick up on it, what effects decisions on shelving, when do the warning bells go off. I have no trouble differentiating between a YA romance and an adult romance, but haven't had to put a lot of thought into what techniques are used to give me that information. There are people who think about that kind of thing all day, though, and they're worth talking to.

I think the best way to make the comics industry grow is to reach out to new readers. I think it's far more effective to do that via packaging and design (a system geared toward making a product that's appropriate for a particular audience appeal to them) than ratings (a system designed to bar inappropriate audiences). Reaching out works better than walling off. Make SUPERMAN look attractive to kids and PREACHER look attractive to older readers. Let the retailer know that PREACHER isn't for kids, but don't put "Forbidden Fruit" on the cover. Make them attractive to the right audience. Build bridges to where to want to go -- they'll take you further than building walls to where you don't want to go.

And on that overly aphoristic note...

kdb

[Howard Price]

Originally posted by Kurt Busiek
I don't think of comics as a lesser medium. I think the strategies book publishing uses can serve us just fine.


Nor do I. I think of them as a *different* medium, neither book nor portrait, but sequential art. In that sense, I think they are more in line with motion pictures.

As regards ratings, I think these are something we won't see on comics until we're absolutely made to and it's already too late... if history is any kind of a guide.

[Michael Tierney]

Kurt,
We've tried it your way for the last 15 years. It ain't working.

It's time to try something new. I've advocated working together for that change. I've acknowledged your concerns. We just disagree on making a change. You know the old saying about better the devil you know.... ?

Michael Tierney

[Howard Price]

Typography, muted colors, and "sophisticated" headers are awfully, awfully intangible traits to fall back on when it's time to defend yourself against a parent. Well, we didn't think Johnny would pick up PREACHER. I mean... look at it... the covers are painted. Why would he want that?

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
We're starting to run laps here.

I agree.

When you start taking statements out of context, like my example about how CGC customers spend more money when they make a purchase with confidence, then I'm pretty certain that I'm wasting my time in further discussion with you.

I don't think that was taken out of context.

"Look at what happened with CGC certified books on E-Bay. Call it a sales tool, call it a ratings system, or whatever - Buying with confidence can never be a bad thing."

I think trying to equate CGC ratings with content ratings is an attempt to say, "Hey, they're both just sales tools," which ducks the point that they're not.

To boil our arguments down: I'm requesting a point of sale notification of content. You see that as a terrible thing.

I think there are far better ways of doing it that the universal ratings system you've proposed, yes.

Without realizing it, you really summed up my whole arguement when you spoke about how kids read more books than they read comics. This is what we need to change.

I think that's taking things out of context a bit myself -- I pointed that out as a counter to the guy who argued that books don't need to be rated because kids don't read them.

I think we should be working to get kids to read more -- not just more books, not just more comics, but more. Lots more.

Are you advocating that our industry continue you to move away from the kid's market and to an adults only market?

Note remotely. In fact, if you're a ComicsPro member, you saw me oppose Buddy Scalera proposing just that.

Never mind. Don't answer that.

Um ... why shouldn't I answer it?

I refuse to abandon the kid's market.

Good for you. I'm with you there.

And I won't back off the need for a point of sale notification.

And while I'm not with you there, I think that if you truly think you need it, you should push for it. You just shouldn't get so offended when people who disagree with you oppose you on it, exercising the same rights you are.

All this time I thought of you as a friend. I guess I should now officially recognize you as an opponent.

I'm sorry you think the two are mutually exclusive -- and even sorrier that you think that a friend would fall into line with you even if he doesn't agree with you.

kdb

[jamesmith]

So it seems like the last four or five people still talking here all agree something needs to be done. And while certain ideas are obvious bones of contention, it seems like everyone thinks a better organized Previews would be a good idea. Exactly what that might look like is open to debate, but I think ripping off a decent bookseller's catalog might be a start.

So, to avoid another round of "That's Not What I Meant," I'd like to ask exactly how Diamond might be convinced to re-organize their catalog, and how all publishers might be convinced to redesign their submissions to that catalog.

[Kurt Busiek]

double post...

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
We've tried it your way for the last 15 years.

No, honest, we haven't. If you think the current way is "my way," then you really haven't been reading any of the suggestions I've made.

In fact, I think we've been a lot closer to your way -- lots of books with warning labels. But you don't agree with the labels, so you want other labels.

I don't think any of it will work without the part we agree on -- better information from publishers.

It's time to try something new. I've advocated working together for that change. I've acknowledged your concerns. We just disagree on making a change.

We disagree it, seems, on what changes to make. Not on making a change.

You know the old saying about better the devil you know.... ?

Yeah, but I'm not sure how it relates, since you're pushing for the devil you don't know, and I'm pushing for some other industry's angel.

kdb

[Michael Tierney]

Kurt,
You keep pushing for a change at the catalog level. While I agree with that - I also think that the change needs to keep moving forward to the point of sale.

That (point of sale notification) is what I propose and you oppose. Correct? Here is where the bone is being chewed by growling dogs.

Michael Tierney

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Howard Price
Typography, muted colors, and "sophisticated" headers are awfully, awfully intangible traits to fall back on when it's time to defend yourself against a parent. Well, we didn't think Johnny would pick up PREACHER. I mean... look at it... the covers are painted. Why would he want that?

If that were all I'd suggested, you might have a point. However, it isn't.

Leaving aside the fact that bookstores seem to do fine with exactly this sort of thing -- different designs do, it seems, attract different readers -- what I suggested was more extensive than that.

First, the design is about making the book more attractive to the right audience and less attractive to the wrong audience, making it less likely that little Johnny would pick it up in the first place. However, the design isn't only a signal to the customer, but to the clerk, as well -- if little Johnny picks up a book that doesn't look like it's aimed at him, maybe it needs some thought. This works in bookstores as well -- there's nothing on the cover of NAUGHTY NAKED NURSE to say it's not okay for little Johnny, but the clerk can figure it out.

Beyond that, the catalog info would give the retailers more data to make that kind of judgment in advance. Maybe for Rory Root's audience, PREACHER is fine in his general fiction section, and in Michael's, it's in the adult fiction section -- a distinction they can both make for themselves if they're working from a catalog description, but not so much if it says "Yow!" on the cover.

And before we go into another round of the comics shop having to read every book that comes into the store -- it shouldn't be necessary, any more than it's necessary for the folks at Waldenbooks. So I'd say if something's broken, fix that part, don't try to add a new system that doesn't address the broken part.

kdb

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by jamesmith
So, to avoid another round of "That's Not What I Meant," I'd like to ask exactly how Diamond might be convinced to re-organize their catalog, and how all publishers might be convinced to redesign their submissions to that catalog.

The only tool we've got is persuasion.

That's the only tool we've got if we're pushing for ratings labels, too, so that's a wash there...

kdb

[Michael Tierney]

Kurt,
You've got points to make. No one is denying you that. But go back and look at these posts. If someone says something that you don't agree with, you disect their letter and go for their heart. There are so many places that I could have done the same with you - but didn't. I think it's counter-productive and negative. Look at how most everyone else has dropped out of the discussion... just when everyone was getting involved and thoughtful interchanges were being made.

Consider your stature within the industry, and stop scaring those who don't agree with you. I know this is important to you, but Gee Whiz... lighten up on those who don't agree with you. They also have important things to say, and a lot of them have become scared that you'll attack them if they speak up.

Let others express their persuasion. Go ahead and disagree, but please stop disecting them! I really want to hear what the others have to say...

Michael Tierney

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
You keep pushing for a change at the catalog level.

I'm glad to see you say that, since it's at odds with your telling me we've been doing it my way for 15 years, and I want to abandon the kids' market.

While I agree with that - I also think that the change needs to keep moving forward to the point of sale.

Since all of the factors I've discussed about cover design and imprints and such also function at the point of sale, I think we're in agreement that something should be going on at the point of sale. I just don't think it should be ratings.

That (point of sale notification) is what I propose and you oppose. Correct?

I think it's more than that. Sorry I can't clearly draw a line and say "You on this side, me on that one," but if we could, I think this would have ended much sooner.

If you have a red dot on the cover, and that red dot means "don't sell it to anyone under 17," then I'm opposed, for the various reasons I've given before.

If that red dot simply means, say, "Decapitation within," and that allows you and Rory to make different choices about what that means to your community standards, then I'm less opposed, but still wary, since I see all kinds of legal nightmares over a ratings system that isn't uniformly applied. Just as the label on the book was used to convict Jesus Castillo, the prosecutors arguing that the label meant he was fully aware he was selling obscenity, I think such a label could mean even greater trouble for you, if you make one decision about how to handle it and your local prosecutor thinks that you should have made a different one. Plus, I think you'd need more dots than there are colors in the big Crayola box, and that could get in the way of the art.

As we discussed on the CBIA, I'm far less concerned if your code/rating/dot/whatever isn't a consumer tool, and consumers can be attracted/repelled by the stuff that's suposed to attract or repel (the advertising and packaging, not the warning). However, I'm not sure how you'd accomplish that. Even if you wound up working up your own poster for parents explaining that the red dots are bad but the blue dots are okay and the green dots are borderline, what happens if the guy in the next county's poster says the green dots are bad, too, and that gets used as evidence that you're a smutmonger?

I think ratings are a classic "slippery slope," and I think they're too often used by the people who want to attack you as weapons. They're historically a poor shield.

As such, I favor information for the retailer and outreach rather than danger signs to the consumer. I'd be happy with your regular Wednesday shipment coming with a reminder sheet about content information that you could have at the cash register, or anything else that puts the information at your fingertips but keeps it off the covers. When you want to put warnings on the covers, I get skittish. Maybe there's a way you can do it, but I haven't heard it yet.

In all this, however, I remain convinced that publishers can do a better job both informing you and reaching out to appropriate audiences, and I think that's a better place to concentrate, since I think both of those are all upside, without the dangers that accompany ratings.

Here is where the bone is being chewed by growling dogs.

Could be. I'd rather talk than growl, though.

kdb

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
You've got points to make. No one is denying you that. But go back and look at these posts. If someone says something that you don't agree with, you disect their letter and go for their heart.

I can't say I agree -- many people in this thread have said things I don't agree with, and I haven't said a word. For the most part, if you check, you'll see that I've been responding almost exclusively to people who respond to me -- continuing the conversation.

I also think that if you disagree with someone, the discussion is better served by saying why -- by analysis and discussion. I haven't been going for anyone's heart or throat or whatever, and will tender an advance apology to anyone who thinks I have.

Look at how most everyone else has dropped out of the discussion... just when everyone was getting involved and thoughtful interchanges were being made.

I think that the fact that we're both here on a weekday afternoon, plugging away, has less to do with scaring anyone away and more to do with posting habits -- posts from people who aren't self-employed tend to concentrate in the evenings and mornings.

Consider your stature within the industry, and stop scaring those who don't agree with you.

I'm not trying to scare anyone -- and I'm not sure how I could be. I'm discussing content, not making threats or calling names.

Let others express their persuasion.

By all means.

Go ahead and disagree, but please stop disecting them!

You lose me when you say this -- it seems like you're saying that I should disagree but not give any reasons for disagreeing.

I really want to hear what the others have to say...

Sure, me too. But when people ask me questions, or say something to the effect of "I think you're wrong because..." then I don't see the value in refusing to respond, or in not responding in the same open spirit that they bring to the table. Let's face it, you've been asking me questions too -- I don't see why I shouldn't respond to you.

But is anyone really scared of either of us? Anyone?

kdb

[Michael Tierney]

Kurt,
I'm not going to disect the places where you misquoted, or misdirected my previous statements. I had an ex-wife who did that for years... so I ain't taking the bait. I won't do it to someone else, either. And since my hobby is shark diving, I can't be bullied - I'm not smart enough. I will say that your last statement had more compromise in it than your previous statements. Thank you for that. Maybe we just aren't hearing each other...

But I'm not backing off of the point of sale notification. I never said that it had to be something parents could read (remember Wow, Pow, etc?). What I always said was that I wanted for the sales clerk to be able to look at the cover and then notify the parents and then let them make a decision for their child. Maybe you and I are getting closer to compromise, after all... ?

Michael Tierney

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
I'm not going to disect the places where you misquoted, or misdirected my previous statements.
...
And since my hobby is shark diving, I can't be bullied - I'm not smart enough.

I agree with your general point -- let's focus on the subject. But let me register at least a minor objection to you taking a couple of drive-by shots while simultaneously claiming to take the high road. I've never misquoted you, never intentionally misrepresented you and never once tried to bully you.

I've argued with you. That's all.

I will say that your last statement had more compromise in it than your previous statements. Thank you for that. Maybe we just aren't hearing each other...

Could well be. That's why it's worth continuing to talk. From my vantage point, I haven't done much more than re-explain stuff I said over on CBIA.

But I'm not backing off of the point of sale notification.

Good for you. If that's what you believe, go for it. I disagree, so I'll push in a different direct, but that's the soul of democracy in action.

Maybe you and I are getting closer to compromise, after all... ?

Anything's possible. You figure out how to do that without a ratings system, and I may just be there with you. I think I've pointed out where I see the dangers, so those are the bits I want to avoid.

kdb

[Michael Tierney]

Kurt,
It may be a popular way to debate on the internet, but disecting the statements of others and following with a retort is more to me like the drive-by shooting you just accused me of. People don't have real discussions in this manner. Of course, I know this is just a by-product of the internet's delayed form of interaction.

Instead, so I can fully understand your position, how about just making your own clear and concise statement of what you are proposing? I'm not asking you to repeat everything that you've already said, but I'd especially like to know what point of sale notification you might propose (on the cover, not a flyer that is only good for one week - books are on the shelves for months! A flyer is impractical.)? I've made several other suggestions. Your turn.

Michael Tierney

[Michael Tierney]

Well... seems like I'm the last one on the playground at this late hour. Things sure got quiet, and for some reason I'm outta of the store a couple of hours late tonight. Barring unforseen circumstances, I'll be back at this location on Saturday to continue the debate (not argue) - if anyone is still interested.

One last note to Kurt: Whether you realize it or not, you have stature within our industry. This is a compliment. People look up to you. And when you're bigger than the person you're talking to, you can sometimes intimitate them - without ever realizing it. I know that it's not your intention to squash the opinions of others. It's just an unfortunate by-product of your success. I'm not saying that you shouldn't engage in debate. Just suggesting that you take it into consideration and go a little easier on the others.

Best wishes to all (and I do mean Everyone - even the guy who made the crack about hillbilly inbreeding.)!

Michael Tierney

[zamuel]

For starters I'd just like to comment on the religous issue, just as an aside. I consider myself to be a Christian man and though I admire some of the so-called "bible thumper's" intentions, I disagree with some of their methods. Or more bluntly, if ANOTHER CHRISTIAN is scared of southern baptists it makes you wonder what other people see them as...

Back on topic. I feel that most comics, in the GENERAL sense, try to appeal to different ages for their coloration and design. The problem comes from specific instances within a normal run or change in writers. For example, a mainstream Batman title will have only some much mature content but the amount and presentation will fluctuate as different writers and artists are put on the title. There's going to be an issue or two that might push some buttons. The publisher should make a commitment to expressing the content to the retailers. Diamond/Previews would be a great idea to express this through and in the light that it is hard to remember two months in advance, several back issues should be kept on hand. Sounds like a good idea. Problem: Getting the publishers to actually do it. The ahem, "bad" content is sometimes cross-sold to a younger audience on purpose. And as mentioned, comics stay on the shelf for a while if not sold out so there is limited space for extra Previews lying around.

Going from this to POS labeling, I think that ratings are almost in the right direction but the problem comes from perception of where the borders are. When does Teen=Adult? Some adults aren't even mature enough to handle Archie while some kids could read Fade From Blue perfectly fine. I think of the videogame industry alot when I think of this and been sitting the last couple of days viewing this forum and I think I may have an idea.

Forget ratings. Use the content descriptors.

Rather than E or PG or WOW!, use a description of what the content is (Violence/Profanity/Sexuality etc.). And have a "strength" based upon a color or number subscript. For example an S(5)/red colored S could mean full on visual perverted hentai crap while an S(1)/blue S could mean merely a tongue-in-cheek sex joke or scantily clad clothing. A rough idea, though I think it would be better. The ratings themselves could be put near the barcode so they don't take up a ton of space/disrupt tue cover art flow. Money and accuracy would be the problem here but I'll attempt to argue those pros and cons when I have more time.

[jamesmith]

Originally posted by Kurt Busiek
The only tool we've got is persuasion.

That's the only tool we've got if we're pushing for ratings labels, too, so that's a wash there...

kdb

Who persuades all these companies, and how?

[wraith]

Originally posted by Kurt Busiek
Yeah, but not in product design.

Nor am I really in a position to verbally redesign comics lines off the top of my head -- but I'm talking about thinks like when the differentiation between SUPERMAN and SWAMP THING was that SUPERMAN had bright action-oriented line-drawing covers and a bold logo with cover-copy that emphasizes action and thrills, and SWAMP THING had painted covers, a more subdued palette, more sophisticated typography that didn't jump off the page ... SWAMP THING just didn't look like a book that ten-year-olds would be drawn to. Combine that with the "sophisticated suspense" header (not really a kid-oriented message, that) and appropriate catalog info and you've got a decent distinction going.

Beyond that, were I actually trying to work out the details of something like this, I'd do a more detailed study of what works in the bookstore -- what kind of graphics, trade dress, typography, cover copy, trim size, imprint design and so on is different between books aimed at different ages. What information is in the catalog, how do bookstore clerks pick up on it, what effects decisions on shelving, when do the warning bells go off. I have no trouble differentiating between a YA romance and an adult romance, but haven't had to put a lot of thought into what techniques are used to give me that information. There are people who think about that kind of thing all day, though, and they're worth talking to.

I think the best way to make the comics industry grow is to reach out to new readers. I think it's far more effective to do that via packaging and design (a system geared toward making a product that's appropriate for a particular audience appeal to them) than ratings (a system designed to bar inappropriate audiences). Reaching out works better than walling off. Make SUPERMAN look attractive to kids and PREACHER look attractive to older readers. Let the retailer know that PREACHER isn't for kids, but don't put "Forbidden Fruit" on the cover. Make them attractive to the right audience. Build bridges to where to want to go -- they'll take you further than building walls to where you don't want to go.

And on that overly aphoristic note...

kdb

A couple of quick points.

1. What you are proposing is pretty much what marvel was doing (or used to do when they had their magazine, Epic,and original graphic novel lines) before the current regime took over. This method worked back then because most marvel universe books (the exception being stand alone or out of continuity mini series,graphic novels,and the one shot Carnage special) were all both suitable for and appropiate for kids/all ages. The only pre-quemas marvel books that I can recall that carried a "suggested for mature reders" label were Sax & Violens, Elektra lives,the Typhoid Mary mini series,and the aforementioned Carnage one shot by Ellis. Mature (or "more mature") books like the Foolkiller mini series were listed as "suggested for mature readers" in the Preview order forms, but did not carry a label on the actual published copy. It was'nt until the quemas regime started allowing (and maybe even encouraging) more adult content (language,strong sexual inuendos,and in some cases, graphic violence) in the previously all ages marvel universe titles, that they started slapping their own BS label on the covers of their books. So now writers are allowed to use words like ass,bastard,and bitch and have characters openly discuss sex in PG rated marvel books. I find it funny that marvel did'nt have any problems with the current guidelines of the comics code until the quemas regime took over. Quemas claimed that the code was holding marvel back (quesada even said that the code would'nt allow the phrase "it sucks" to be used),yet there were a number of times that words and phrases like ass,bastard,goddamn,and son of a bitch were all used in code approved marvel books (most likely with complaints and objections from the Code board) that were all published durring the quemas regime. Hell, the phrase "this sucks" was even used by Captain Marvel at the end of the 2nd to last page in the last issue of the EXCELENT code approved Avengers Forever mini series that was published under the previous regime.
2. In order for your proposal to work, publishers have to grow a pair and stop kissing the butts of those "hot" creators who want to include inapropiate adult content (like language,graphic violence,and strong sexual inuendos/situations) in comics that are aimed at kids/all ages. They can't (and should'nt) be afraid to tell "hot" creators like JMS,Morrison,and Geoff Johns that words and phrases like bastard,ass, and son of a bitch do not belong in books like amazing spider-man, x-men,and hawkman. By the same token ,creators who are working on books that are aimed at an all ages audience, have to accept the fact that certain things are not allowed in an all ages comic. They also have to realize that if they want to deal with more mature subject matter in a comic aimed at kids/all ages, that they will have to do so in a subtle, discreet,and tasteful manner.

OMT, when I use the term "quemas" I'm only using it as an abreviation for Quesada and Jemas, and notas an insult to them.

[Regulator]

I have to say that I think everyone is making good points, but a ratings system or lack thereof is NOT the problem here. The problems are these vague laws that brand things "obscene" or "harmful." Instead of worrying about ratings systems, organizations like the CBLDF should be lobbying state legislatures to clarify their nebulous laws. For example, imagine if criminal codes were rewritten to include something as vague as "doing harm" to someone else as grounds for an assault charge.

That said, Jesus Castillo's case was never about comics being for kids. He fell victim to a vague law like the one mentioned in Arkansas. Specifically:

A person commits an offense if, knowing its content and character, he promotes or possesses with intent to promote any obscene material or obscene device. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 43.23 (c)(1) (Vernon 1994). Obscene means material or a performance that:

(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest in sex;

(B) depicts or describes:

(i) patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sex acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including sexual intercourse, sodomy, and sexual bestiality; or

(ii) patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, sadism, masochism, lewd exhibition of the genitals, the male or female genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal, covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state or a device designed and marketed as useful primarily for stimulation of the human genitals; and

(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.

Get the whole story of his trial here: http://www.5thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/as_web.exe?c05_02.ask+D+11251151

By the defintion of this offense, a jury could, and did, find him guilty. That is the real danger, not the lack of a ratings system.

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
It may be a popular way to debate on the internet, but disecting the statements of others and following with a retort is more to me like the drive-by shooting you just accused me of.

Oh -- is that what you mean by "dissecting"? The quote-and-response style?

Sorry, but that's just internet style -- it's not rude or inaccurate or distorting or anything. It's just a way to stick the responses with the points being responded to. If this response was stuck after all the other stuff you've said, for instance, I'd have to summarize your position to respond. Here, I can just stick the response right after the bit I'm responding to, and it's more like a conversation than a speech.

People don't have real discussions in this manner.

If by "real discussions," you mean conversations, then yeah, that's true. But they don't have them by delivering lengthy essays at each other either. If we were talking face to face we'd be making shorter statements and more responses, not making complete speeches at one another. Doing it this way is no more artificial than the way you're doing it, and is actually more suited to the internet than treating it as if we're writing letters back and forth.

Instead, so I can fully understand your position, how about just making your own clear and concise statement of what you are proposing?

I haven't made a concrete proposal -- I've mostly just responded to ideas. But were I to make one, it'd involve:

1. Better, more accurate information in the catalogs, so you know what you're ordering and can trust it.
2. Better packaging and design, to appeal _to_ the right audiences rather than try to warn away the wrong ones. Reaching out more than walling off.

Beyond that, I'd take a lot of cues from the way the book and magazine industries manage it, since they've been successful at being mass media without suffering the deleterious effects of ratings.

I'd especially like to know what point of sale notification you might propose (on the cover, not a flyer that is only good for one week - books are on the shelves for months! A flyer is impractical.)?

I haven't proposed any, because I don't think they're a very good idea. If someone suggests one I think would work and wouldn't have the downsides I've described, I'd have no problem, but I haven't seen such a suggestion yet.

And books in bookstores are on the shelves for months and even years, so since they get by, I think it's possible. Ultimately, I think familiarity would kick in -- my wife made dinner tonight without cracking a cookbook, because she knows all the recipes. The average bookstore clerk doesn't have to look up every book brought to the counter, because they're familiar enough where things get racked and why and what the packaging means that they don't have a problem. I would imagine that the average comics store, which tends to have fewer SKUs and more knowledgable clerks, could do even better at this.

I've made several other suggestions. Your turn.

If what you want is a suggestion that includes the very stuff I don't want, for the reasons I've said I don't want it, then I don't think you're going to get it from me. My suggestions have been about how I think things could work well without ratings or cover advisories or codes or whatever you want to call them, so I'm unlikely to propose including them.

One last note to Kurt: Whether you realize it or not, you have stature within our industry. This is a compliment. People look up to you. And when you're bigger than the person you're talking to, you can sometimes intimitate them - without ever realizing it. I know that it's not your intention to squash the opinions of others. It's just an unfortunate by-product of your success. I'm not saying that you shouldn't engage in debate. Just suggesting that you take it into consideration and go a little easier on the others.

The only way I see of dealing with that is just being a straight shooter. So that's what I try to do.

kdb

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by jamesmith
Who persuades all these companies, and how?

In general, it's whoever wants the change. Art returns were a matter of artists persuading publishers to do it, royalties were a matter of creators making it clear that they'd go with the competitive deal, and so on.

In this case, any successful persuasion is more likely to come from retailers than anyone else. I work with editors whenever possible on cover design, solicitations, the tone we want to communicate, and such, but I have limited clout when it comes to asking for catalog changes on an overall scale, because I'm not a retailer.

So in this case, it's probably up to retailers to demonstrate the problem and suggest the solutions they want to see -- it could come up at retailer summits (there's one in November), through communication with company reps and in other ways. The rest of us can support the suggestions if we think they're good ideas (I've talked to editors and others about why I think some retail concern sould be addressed and how, for instance, sometimes with success, sometimes not). It's not necessarily a matter of just pushing a button and being convincing -- some changes have taken years to take place, and even now retailers are often making the best case they can for companies to change their policies, but the companies aren't convinced.

Nothing to do but keep trying.

kdb

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by wraith
What you are proposing is pretty much what marvel was doing (or used to do when they had their magazine, Epic,and original graphic novel lines) before the current regime took over.

It's even more strongly based on how things were treated in the late Eighties, when Carol Kalish was Marvel's VP of Direct Sales, and had very strong opinions about responsible packaging and the dangers of labeling.

But I think it could be taken farther. There weren't any books back then that looked like GLOBAL FREQUENCY (well, maybe STRAY TOASTERS), but I think it does a very good job of appealing to a sophisticated eye, and not looking like a wowzer adventure for kids. I'd love to see comics aimed at kids as well designed as the children's books Charles de Lint and Charles Vess are doing these days. I think there's a world of possibility, and it's worth trying to make the books do a better job of reaching out to the right sets of eyes.

kdb

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Regulator
The problems are these vague laws that brand things "obscene" or "harmful." Instead of worrying about ratings systems, organizations like the CBLDF should be lobbying state legislatures to clarify their nebulous laws.

I think that's a good idea too -- and Michael's been on the forefront in opposing a law like this, for which I commend him.

kdb

[GPM]

But we know this isn't the way it will work because it never has in any medium in the past. The record industry hasn't been able to use their labels for this purpose. Noone has.

It works in my store. We rent and sell tons of Japanese Animation tapes including videos of the afforementioned "Demon Beast Invasion" Almost all of these tapes carry ratings of one kind or another on them put there by the video companies. We put the adult videos in a seperate section and everything else is in alphabetical order. For the rentals we add our own labels so that they are consistant and more visible that correspond with the video ratings. When we sign people up for a video rental membership, we explain to them our ratings system. Most parents are shocked to find out that there are cartoons not for children out there. When we tell them we have adult videos, they say "Not really adult." We say. "Oh yes, X-rated stuff." They assume that all cartoons are for kids. We educate parents that isn't the case. They tell us what level of rating their kids can rent up to, we mark it on their membership card and we tell them that the Youth Restricted and Adult videos can only be rented by peopel 18 years of age and older. We are always getting thanked for informing the parents of the situation and they happily sign their kids up for video membership, confident that we will not rent these videos to their children in their absence.

This system has worked for almost 7 years now and we have never, ever had a complaint. Why? I think its because we are helping the parents out here rather than ignoring their wishes or taking the easy way out and letting the parents do all the research themselves.

The problem with the comics is that we have no method of insuring what the content inside is from title to title or issue to issue.

I'm open to Kurt's idea about more solicitation information and marketing tools, but I am not opposed to a ratings system because all the evidence I have in my store tells me it works.

People say that Castillo would have been better off if their were no warnings, but they are automatically assuming that the lack of warnings absolves him of any responsibility. Legally it does not. Ever hear the phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"? Personally, I think if the book had no rating and he hadn't kept it behind the counter, he would be serving jail time instead of a suspended sentence. Think about that guys before you assume that lack of warnings means a "get out of jail free" card. Also don't assume that because something isn't marked that one of these censor people won't find out about it. If they stumble across a copy of Fallen Angel or The Ultimates their kid bought at the store, they are going to find out where it was purchased and a come a witch huntin'. And then your only defense is "But I didn't know." Do you really think the jury is going to buy that?

[GPM]

QUOTE]This sounds a bit disingenuous to me.I don't see anyone saying "Don't do it! I won't be able to see boobies!" I think what the people who are against it are saying is that it is dangerous because it may lead to people not being able to tell the kinds of stories or the events in the stories they want to.[/QUOTE]

You are distorting what I said to suit your own agenda. I understand that you fear that creators will lose their freedom, but I disagree that would be the case. The famous Stan Lee incident where Marvel removed the code to tell a drug awareness story shows that they were willing to go with the creative freedom in that case even then. Now, the comics code authority has virtually none. I don't think we'd see the story concepts toned down in my opinion.

What happens when(and I hope I don't tick him off using him as an example), Mark Waid is writing Superman and he wants to do a story about child abuse?And the editor says, "Nope, can't do it because then we'd have to put a PG-13 instead of a PG on this issue".Or better yet, then they put the "higher" rating on this one or two issues...now someone is gonna have a hole in their collection for awhile, meanwhile the retailers are going to have to adjust their orders.... This is all example remember.

So in your fable, Waid does a story about child abuse without swearing or graphic visuals. Y'know writers have been finding ways of writing mature themes without using graphic language, sex or violence for almost as long as there has been people writing period. They just used more subtle methods of story telling. Sometimes it just isn't necessary. If you feel the story must be told in a more graphic fashion, then don't tell the story in Superman, choose another book. Let's say the rating is upped a notch for an issue or two, most parents won't probably care, but they've been warned of the stronger content. Those few who do care, don't buy the book. The kid may have a whole in his collection, which, being a collector myself, is incredibly traumatic I know, but in that situation either the parent or the kid is going to be unhappy anyway. Sorry kid, the parent's the boss. The other alternative is to not put the rating on and not warn the parent, so maybe just maybe they won't notice. Again, that's doing exactly what these crazy people are accusing retailers of, selling comics to kids that we know parents might not approve of. I didn't think it was my job as a retailer to sneak stuff to kids their parents don't want them to have.

You asked where the parents are. Well I hope they are taking an active interest in their kids development and interests, otherwise they are being irresponsible. However, I am acknowledging my responsiblity as a retailer to not give kids material that most parents would find objectionable. If I gave a kid a Hustler Magazine or a DVD of House of a Thousand Corpses, especially without their parents around, would I be acting as a responsible person?

[OM]

Originally posted by Kurt Busiek
Oh -- is that what you mean by "dissecting"? The quote-and-response style?

Sorry, but that's just internet style -- it's not rude or inaccurate or distorting or anything. It's just a way to stick the responses with the points being responded to. If this response was stuck after all the other stuff you've said, for instance, I'd have to summarize your position to respond. Here, I can just stick the response right after the bit I'm responding to, and it's more like a conversation than a speech.

...Hear! Hear! It's also my favorite way of making sure that a moron fully understands that while he does, in fact, have a point, it's sadly on the top of his head. Dissecting posts by morons, idiots, Marvel zombies and other trolls sentence by sentence can actually be a lot of fun, and will help you improve your debating skills in short time!

Originally posted by Kurt Busiek
They manage to tell the difference between ANNE OF GREEN GABLES and NAUGHTY NAKED NURSE without a rating system.

...I can see it now:
<blockquote>
<i>This word just in to Newsarama: Kurt Busiek's </I>Naughty Naked Nurse<i> #1 has officially sold out with over 250,000 copies in print, and pre-orders on the TPB have been triple that number. According to the publisher, the profits after taxes should just be enough to bail Kurt out of the Little Rock, Arkansas jail where he's been held since being arrested at a local convention where he was handing out copies of the promotional issue #0...</i>
</blockquote>

[GPM]

But once an editor or EIC sees that one rating will outsell another, they will start putting the books out to get that rating, thus you end up in a situation where the creator's voice isn't heard. On a side note of this, in TV all decisions are made out of fear of offending. That's what this will come to also. I can almost guarantee it. I've heard some people say that of DC, because they're owned by AOL/Time Warner.

I undestand your fears, but don't you think they already know this? Max, Vertigo and Cartoon Network titles aren't exactly breaking the Top 50. (Except Supreme Power. JMS rules!) Do you truly think that Azzarello is going to be allowed to tell the same stories in Superman that he does in 100 Bullets regardless of any ratings system? As for television; have you watched TV recently? I don't see much censorship since they got ratings. The content is racier than ever! The language, sexual situations and violence on TV has never been this permissive in all its history of broadcasting. You could never get away with this stuff 15 or 20 years ago. I've heard just about every word on TV now that George Carlin's old comedy routine said you could never say on television.

By doing all this work of ratings and differentiating covers, aren't we encouraging lazy retailers? More importantly than that, aren't we encouraging lazy parents? I asked the same thing when the "v" chip came out. Understand, I'm not trying to be insulting, I just think it is one more aspect to consider.

I certainly hope not, and I certainly don't see this as lessening my workload. I already don't have time to read every comic book that comes into my store, and those I do read aren't just because I'm checking content, I enjoy them. I read all of the descriptions for comics by all major publishers so I can keep up on what books I should be ordering, what's happening in them, etc. I won't stop doing that because of a ratings system. My question back to you is why are we encouraging lazy publishers and editors? The editors workload seems to be lessening all the time. I hear stories all the time about how writers and artists on the same book have no idea of what the other one is doing, their editors didn't tell them what was going on with the book. Editors no longer have to keep track of continuity under the new policies set by the major publishers and now they don't even have to look at the content of the books?

[Michael Norton]

My question back to you is why are we encouraging lazy publishers and editors? The editors workload seems to be lessening all the time. I hear stories all the time about how writers and artists on the same book have no idea of what the other one is doing, their editors didn't tell them what was going on with the book. Editors no longer have to keep track of continuity under the new policies set by the major publishers and now they don't even have to look at the content of the books?

Hey, don't think I'm not gonna agree with you. I think editors should have a role in the books,continuity and all. Comics should be written by writers and edited by editors though.It falls on a writer to know his material as much as an editor.One of the reasons I look forward to certain writers is I know they take thier time and do research and know the histories of the books.

You are distorting what I said to suit your own agenda. I understand that you fear that creators will lose their freedom, but I disagree that would be the case. The famous Stan Lee incident where Marvel removed the code to tell a drug awareness story shows that they were willing to go with the creative freedom in that case even then. Now, the comics code authority has virtually none. I don't think we'd see the story concepts toned down in my opinion.

First if you feel I distorted you I apologize. I replied how I saw it.Secondly, this Spider-Man Stan Lee story was also before the days of making comics into fodder for movie plots. I bring that up because that will also effect the creative proccess with a ratings system should there be one.

So in your fable, Waid does a story about child abuse without swearing or graphic visuals. Y'know writers have been finding ways of writing mature themes without using graphic language, sex or violence for almost as long as there has been people writing period. They just used more subtle methods of story telling. Sometimes it just isn't necessary. If you feel the story must be told in a more graphic fashion, then don't tell the story in Superman, choose another book

Right there is the censorship I am talking about. Why not a mature Superman story?Now I'm not saying that it HAS to be done, but if I were being published and were able to, I might do a mature story with Superman.DKR certainly fits the notion as does Kingdom Come.

If I gave a kid a Hustler Magazine or a DVD of House of a Thousand Corpses, especially without their parents around, would I be acting as a responsible person?

Well yes, but why are they there without the parents anyway?Just a thought.

Michael Norton

[Michael Norton]

I want to try this. I might get booed but I'll try it anyway.Since Michael Tierney keeps bringing up "point of sale" and has brought up sales clerks, I am going to suggest something in response

Let me redesign PREVIEWS,at least in this post.

First or second page of every issue of the new PREVIEWS is a word about mature books. It basically states that Diamond suggests having a "Mature Readers" section in your store. Then in the different comic sections in PREVIEWS there will be a "Mature Readers" section where those titles that deal with more adult issues will be put so retailers can choose from there.

The major publishers DC,Image,Crossgen and Marvel(and I guess IDW and a couple others) would have their own "Mature Readers" section in the book with their own regular sections, meanwhile further into the catalogue there would be an actual section put there by Diamond for publishers to submit their books to.

That would take care of the industries responsibility. They have identified the mature books and at practically a glance retailers can see what might be "objectionable". Then it's up to the shop owners themselves to put a mature section together and sell appropriately.That way, even the dimmest nimrod of a clerk wouldn't be confused.

Now, two things come to mind. This different section still won't help protect against prosecution(it didn't help Jesus Castillo). Also it won't help if the retailers don't take the initiative.

Let me know what you think.

Michael Norton

[Howard Price]

Originally posted by Michael Norton
Right there is the censorship I am talking about. Why not a mature Superman story?

Just a note--Michael, that's not censorship. That's editorial policy. Big difference.

[GPM]

Originally posted by Michael Norton
I want to try this. I might get booed but I'll try it anyway.Since Michael Tierney keeps bringing up "point of sale" and has brought up sales clerks, I am going to suggest something in response

Let me redesign PREVIEWS,at least in this post.

First or second page of every issue of the new PREVIEWS is a word about mature books. It basically states that Diamond suggests having a "Mature Readers" section in your store. Then in the different comic sections in PREVIEWS there will be a "Mature Readers" section where those titles that deal with more adult issues will be put so retailers can choose from there.

The major publishers DC,Image,Crossgen and Marvel(and I guess IDW and a couple others) would have their own "Mature Readers" section in the book with their own regular sections, meanwhile further into the catalogue there would be an actual section put there by Diamond for publishers to submit their books to.

That would take care of the industries responsibility. They have identified the mature books and at practically a glance retailers can see what might be "objectionable". Then it's up to the shop owners themselves to put a mature section together and sell appropriately.That way, even the dimmest nimrod of a clerk wouldn't be confused.

Now, two things come to mind. This different section still won't help protect against prosecution(it didn't help Jesus Castillo). Also it won't help if the retailers don't take the initiative.

Let me know what you think.

Michael Norton

Cool idea. We've had a lot of ideas and it seems like a redesign of Previews or at least solicitation information is in order.

A side note is that no matter what we do, nothing is going to be foolproof. Somewhere, sometime, other retailers will be dragged to court by these jokers, but I think our brainstorming the best way to avoid that, plus improving our ability to market and inform our customers can only help make things a little bit tougher on the censors.

[Michael Tierney]

Sorry that I'm not around the internet much, but I'm back - at least for a little while. I just got a rush request for a market report (print publications require a lot of lead time and short notice), and since this is a busy Saturday that starts a long weekend... I may not be able to contribute as much as I'd like. But I'll try.

I'll start where I left off - on the subject of internet debating. I really spend little time here, so maybe I'm just looking at this subject as an outsider, but... I consider it too easy to distort statements when a single sentence is taken out of context. Quoting a paragraph seems perfectly acceptable, because in that format you are maintaining the integrity of the speaker's statement. But that is not the case a single sentence, or by pasting sentences together with "...". It's too easy to change the intent. I'll give an extreme example: "I... am... God!" Paste a few words from different places and you can accuse someone of delusions of grandeur. It may not be what they said or ever dreamed of implying, but you can rearange words into anything your want if you don't maintain the integrity of the speaker. To summarize: keep paragraphs whole.

Back to the subject at hand: The industry needs point of sale notification. Others have suggested, and continue to suggest that notification can be made by modifying Previews. We've been trying this for 15 years - ever since the last time that the comic book creators spoke up against their perception that a point of sale notification would defile the covers and wreck the industry. Previews has been redesigned and remodified more times than I can remember. Previews just changed the way Marvel is solicited this month. And every time - the problem gets worse (take this one sentence out of context, and you could say I was talking about whatever your own personal agenda might be). We've tried that approach, and retailers have paid the price. To suggest that it's tough luck on retailers in the Mid-West if they need a new system but that there other parts of the country where the problem is not as acute isn't a good answer. Do we really want to continue to shrink the comics community?

I am not, and would never, promote any idea that I felt would restrict the content of comics. Right now - the diversity is the greatest that it has ever been. When creators argue that it will ruin our industry if we put a point of sale notification on the cover, I think that they are just plain wrong. The local weatherman predicted storms and bad weather all this weekend, and outside is a beautiful, sun-shining day with clear blue skies. Predictions are just guesses. They are made blindly. What's wrong with trying something more that what we have? If it causes more problems than it solves, then I'll be one of the first to admit it. Right now we have only a tangle mess of ad-hock attempts and missinformation by which retailers are expected to conduct their business in accordance with community ethics. We need more. We need real, point of sale, information.

That's why I'm glad to see everyone here try to make different proposals. I'm not advocating 'this' or 'that.' A number of different ideas have been made, and there is only one thing that everyone agrees on: that the creators will oppose anything being put on the cover. Allowing this debate to be rerouted back to the same old plan of reworking Previews is only a step backwards. We need to move forward. How many out there agree with that assessment? Those who disagree, save your breath, we've already heard you - many, many times.

I was talking to Maggie Thompson at the Comics Buyers Guide a couple of weeks ago, concerning the series of articles that they are currently running about the Gaithings Tribunal hearings conducted during the mid-fifties, during which new laws were debated to restrict the content of not just comics, but books and radio and television. I found it interested that every piece of negative subject matter that was found to be objectionable in comics during that tribunal, and that years later were also found to be objectional by the Comics Code Authority, is now currently being solicted in previews as All-Ages material. Changing Previews isn't the answer. But if a publisher accepts the liability to state the contents on the cover - then retailers will start getting the help we so desperately need (at least here in Mid-America).

Michael Tierney

[GPM]

It's interesting to note that most positions taken i this debate shift drastically depending on what your position is in the industry.

It appears as if retailers are generally for point of sale notifications because ithey believe that it will make their jobs easier, and allow them to keep their customers better informed.

Creators are generally opposed to the idea because they believe that it will lead to restrictions on their creative freedom.

Fans are generally opposed to it because they also believe it will lead to restrictions on creative freedom.

Parents are unheard generally here, but those few fans who have declared themselves to be parents and hearing from parents personally lead me to believe they are for point of sale notifications because it keeps them informed and it makes it easier to find comics suitable for kids.

Publishers are keeping quiet, but I assume they are against it since they are reluctant to do it, but they don't want to say that. (They want to appear to placate both sides I suspect.)

It all seems to be split based on your perspective of the industry.

[Lance Parkin]

Originally posted by GPM
Totally off-topic here, but I just gotta say to Lance Parkin since I assume you're the writer of that name, that I really enjoy your work on the Doctor Who novels. The Infinity Doctors, Cold Fusion ans The Dying Days were all great! :D

Thank you very much!

Lance

[Regulator]

I know I entered this thread a little late, but I'm starting to feel like Cassandra of mythology. Aside from a short response from Mr. Busiek, no one has even acknowledged the fallacious assumptions about the Castillo case that seem to be the catalyst for the original editorial, not to mention this entire discussion. Point of sale notifications or even stricter ratings systems will do absolutely nothing under horribly written laws like the one I listed from Texas or the one Mr. Tierney listed from Arkansas. If anything, they will make it easier for retailers to be brought up and convicted on obscenity charges. To put it simply, if mature comics are illegal, why would you want to tell people you are selling mature comics?

[Michael Tierney]

GPM... I think you are totally on target with your assessment of the situation.

In concerns to the publishers, I think that in the past they have overwhelmingly bowed to the demands of creators. True, some trade lines like Vertigo are made with mature audiences in mind. But the content of our industry isn't as simple as "it's mature or it's not." As has been well pointed out many times throughout this thread, there are many levels between All-Ages material and material intended for adults only.

Before the assault begins on my statement about publishers favoring creators, let me also point out that the creators are much more unified than retailers. Plus, in my incounters with both creators and publishers, I find that both groups prefer to blame all of the industry's problems on retailers. This isn't just my opinion. That statement has been confirmed by many others. So... when it comes to making a decision on a difficult issue like point of sale notification, guess who ends up being the odd man out... ?

When it comes to being a retailer, I think back to the Revolutionary statements of Benjamen Franklin - that we should hang together, or we will surely all hang separately. Me, I'm tired of watching the lynch mobs dragging retailers to the nearest tree.

Michael Tierney

[Michael Tierney]

To respond to the Regulator's concern that a point of sale notification would make it easier on censors, I disagree. As I've said elsewhere, I'm not advocating a system that would embellish a giant, waving flag on the cover - shouting, "look at me, I'm trouble."

What I'm advocating is a system that alerts retailers to when a child tries to purchase a book that resides in the gray areas of this discussion. Ideally, and I'm going back to my original Wow, Pow, etc. suggestion, it would be something that alerts the retailer to ask for a parent's permission. It's been my experience that the majority of parents will approve gray areas of material. But both they and even those who decline for their child all want to be involved. If no parent is present - no sale. I'm asking for the tools to act responsibly within my community. For someone to stand safely away at a distance and tell me that I don't need them, well... I go back to the old saying of, "Walk a mile in another person's shoes before you make a judgement."

Michael Tierney

[Howard Price]

Personally, I think being up-front about the content beats the alternative, which smacks of being sneaky.

Without a label, a parent can justify any outrage with a "Why weren't we warned about this? I don't let my kid see R rated movies! I don't let my kids watch TV shows with mature ratings!"

An ounce of prevention is worth months of courtroom wrangling and lost business.

[Michael Tierney]

Howard, you make a very good point. I haven't shared it before, but when this subject is debated within the confines of my stores, there have been solid accusations made by my customers that they consider the publishers to be intentionally committing fraud. Again, their words - not mine.

And back to the contention that any kind of label would destroy the industry: How come other industries go out of their way to promote their (supposedly negative) labels? I'm a KC Chiefs fan, and when watching football programs I keep seeing ads for video games proudly proclaiming rated E for everyone. What not use a new system as a selling point? It doesn't have to be considered only as a gag. One man's trash is another man's treasure... and I see treasure in this concept.

Michael Tierney

[Michael Norton]

Just a note--Michael, that's not censorship. That's editorial policy. Big difference.

And what your calling "editorial policy" is exactly what I'm trying to say is bad. That if you go this route with ratings on the covers,editors wouldn't allow a maturely told Superman story because they'd be afraid of the brew-ha-ha and the lack of sales it might generate right off the bat. The way I see it, I would have no problem with such a story and if a writer wanted to tell it, I'd love to have a chance to read it. A chance that might not come if this system were implimented.



Cool idea. We've had a lot of ideas and it seems like a redesign of Previews or at least solicitation information is in order.

I noticed that IMAGE has "Mature Title" tags in their solicitations in the new PREVIEWS.

I guess what I am advocating is doing things a bit differently at the retail level which wouldn't add to their workload and would not compromise artistic integrity. Yet some would be against that.

Michael Norton

[Michael Tierney]

Michael (Norton - so no one thinks that I'm talking to myself), when you advocate doing things differently at the retailer level - aren't you really advocating no changes at the retailer level? This is where the help is truely needed.

I dissagree that a mature Superman story couldn't be told. It shouldn't be done within the monthly books that have been All-Ages for something like 60 plus years now. But the comics industry is ripe with different formats that could allow any pursuit that a creator could dream up.

A perfect example of the pursuit of imagination with Superman is the current Red Son mini-series. I think Mark Millar (pronounced Miller) did a fantastic job with this elseworlds story. I have to admit, I'm not really a fan of Super-hero comics. I grew up with Turok, Tarzan and Magnus. But Red Son is definitely worth checking out. Because of a few scenes (a bloody Lex standing amid the bodies of his slain victims) it is right on the edge of All-Ages, but if Millar deemed it necessary he could have pushed the envelope further and gone for a mature label. The elseworld's format could have supported it. He didn't need to go to that extreme, and the resulting story is worth your time to check out.

Michael Tierney

[zamuel]

edit

[wraith]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
Howard, you make a very good point. I haven't shared it before, but when this subject is debated within the confines of my stores, there have been solid accusations made by my customers that they consider the publishers to be intentionally committing fraud. Again, their words - not mine.

And back to the contention that any kind of label would destroy the industry: How come other industries go out of their way to promote their (supposedly negative) labels? I'm a KC Chiefs fan, and when watching football programs I keep seeing ads for video games proudly proclaiming rated E for everyone. What not use a new system as a selling point? It doesn't have to be considered only as a gag. One man's trash is another man's treasure... and I see treasure in this concept.

Michael Tierney

I agree. Hell, I'll even go so far as to say that the publishers know that what they are passing off as either "all ages" or "PG" rated material is anything but "all ages" or "PG" rated. I beleave that they know (or fear) that MOST responsible parents would be appalled at a lot of the contentin that is allowed in books that were originaly created to be both appealing to and suitable for kids/all ages (I'm talking about marvel and DC here),and would probaly not purchase (or allow their kids to purchase) those books. Like I said in my previous post, marvel and DC need to stop kissing the butts of those "hot" creators (like JMS,Millar,Johns,Moore,Miller,and Morrison) who insist on putting inapropiate material in books that were created for kids/all ages. They should also slap "mature readers" labels on books writen by Miller and Moore, regardless if Moore and Miller reject to such labels.

[zamuel]

Originally posted by wraith
I agree. Hell, I'll even go so far as to say that the publishers know that what they are passing off as either "all ages" or "PG" rated material is anything but "all ages" or "PG" rated. I beleave that they know (or fear) that MOST responsible parents would be appalled at a lot of the contentin that is allowed in books that were originaly created to be both appealing to and suitable for kids/all ages (I'm talking about marvel and DC here),and would probaly not purchase (or allow their kids to purchase) those books.

Of course not. As an older brother, I'm probably the closet thing to a parent here at the moment. If I were to get one of my younger siblings a comic book I'd sort of be against the wall if I was forced to choose some stuff. I try to make a point to read everything before I give it to them. I can pull this off since I have a good reading speed and normally stay up late. This seems to be my only defense. I can't TRUST the publisher enough to say "Hey, spiderman should be kid friendly, right?" without reading the comic first. For example, I get Previews since I've started in the past month+half in regularly buying comics. As far to my knowledge, the "Hush" arc of Batman is marked as all-ages. I love the arc and think it is a great read but I certainly wouldn't hand it to my siblings to read. I know my parents sure wouldn't. At the same time, Superman/Batman seems fine so far and I might actually get extra copies so I can share with them (I'm keeping mine in mint condition:sue me). So far Previews sure isn't any help. Adding stuff to Previews would be great if it weren't for one little problem...

That two month gap of time.

Alot can change in a comic from press to publication. A perfect example is that Princess Dianna X-Statix story that was canned. Previews couldn't show the content of the replacement comic if it is printed two months in advance. I think that due to this, "ratings" (technically content descriptors but close enough) is the best way to go. The parent or retailer can tell roughly if the content is appropriate for the child. It can be put near the barcode to not "disturb" the cover. The biggest hurdle wouldn't be writers in my opinion. It would be money. For this to work, it would need to be adopted industry-wide and rated by a seperate entity. I mean a non-profit like the ESRB could work but I don't see enough of the people in the industry supporting it. I used to work for Blockbuster and I can easily see Tierney's side of things. If a video doesn't have a comment on the content inside, I don't know what's in it. Videos and games are relatively organized, why do comics have to take a crabs in a pot approach?

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
I consider it too easy to distort statements when a single sentence is taken out of context. Quoting a paragraph seems perfectly acceptable, because in that format you are maintaining the integrity of the speaker's statement. But that is not the case a single sentence, or by pasting sentences together with "...". It's too easy to change the intent. I'll give an extreme example: "I... am... God!" Paste a few words from different places and you can accuse someone of delusions of grandeur.

Except, of course, that nobody's done that in this thread. othing in the above paragraph, for instance, has been assembled, Frankenstein-style, from different places -- it's all as you wrote it, in the order you wrote it, carrying the same meaning.

It may not be what they said or ever dreamed of implying, but you can rearange words into anything your want if you don't maintain the integrity of the speaker.

And since the speaker's full statement is available upthread, it would be pretty transparent to try to do something like that.

Those who disagree, save your breath, we've already heard you - many, many times.

That's the road to free discussion -- tell the people who disagree with you to shut up; you're only interested in hearing from those that agree. I note that you have no problem repeating yourself many, many times -- you just don't want anyone to repeat the arguments against your position.

But that's okay. I think the arguments against stand well enough.

I was talking to Maggie Thompson at the Comics Buyers Guide a couple of weeks ago, concerning the series of articles that they are currently running about the Gaithings Tribunal hearings conducted during the mid-fifties, during which new laws were debated to restrict the content of not just comics, but books and radio and television. I found it interested that every piece of negative subject matter that was found to be objectionable in comics during that tribunal, and that years later were also found to be objectional by the Comics Code Authority, is now currently being solicted in previews as All-Ages material.

I find it interesting that the book industry came out of it free, unregulated and unrated -- because they fight for their freedom rather than giving in. Book retailers, book publishers, book creators ... they all hang together, over something they believe in.

kdb

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
When it comes to being a retailer, I think back to the Revolutionary statements of Benjamen Franklin - that we should hang together, or we will surely all hang separately. Me, I'm tired of watching the lynch mobs dragging retailers to the nearest tree.

Of course, Franklin was talking about rebellion -- about taking a stand against unfair laws and standing up for freedom. He wasn't just preaching solidarity for its own sake, but solidarity in in fighting against encroachments on liberty. He wasn't trying to cover his ass, he was speaking in favor of drawing a line in the sand and starting a war over it if necessary.

I think solidarity is a good thing in the service of a worthy goal -- but I don't think it's served by "us against them" statements that say creators and publishers are the bad guys, and retailers have to fight them.

I don't know of any creator who wants to see retailers get arrested -- and I know a lot of creators who support the CBLDF to fund the fight against such things. And as the major voice of creators in this thread, I've certainly never said that retailers are the problem with the industry, so the implication that creators say that (and therefore I must be one of those creators so don't listen to me) is no more logical than the implication that statement-and-response answers are bad because making up whole new statements out of random words, like a ransom note is bad, and the two amount to the same thing.

For someone who says he favors persuasion, open discussion and democracy, you're putting a lot of effort into demonizing those you disagree with and trying to silence them.

kdb

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by wraith
I agree. Hell, I'll even go so far as to say that the publishers know that what they are passing off as either "all ages" or "PG" rated material is anything but "all ages" or "PG" rated.

In some cases, at least, I wouldn't argue with you.

However, that brings up another wrinkle to consider. What Michael's been proposing is a voluntary, industry-wide ratings system (or point of sale notification; the phrases are synonymous) where the industry agrees on a certain set of standards and then follows them, voluntarily placing whatever the coded warnings are on the covers. [And the idea of secret ratings not shared with the public is another can of worms -- how would that play in a courtroom?]

However, if the publishers can't even be trusted to be honest about the content of the comics, and you can't seem to get them to agree to change that, then how would anyone expect them to (a) agree to the idea of industry-wide standards, (b) agree on what those standards are, and (c) be honest in administering them? If you think they're irresponsible and dishonest, isn't this a matter of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse?

So what's the solution? Make it not voluntary but mandatory? Create a board of overseers to implement it? Michael's said he doesn't want that (and I'll agree with him fully there; I don't want it either), and even if he did, how are you going to get that irresponsible fox to pay for better fences to keep him in line?

If implementing this is a matter of getting everyone to agree, then which is easier? Getting them to agree to be more accurate and responsible in the catalogs? Or getting them to do that plus agree to standards, agree on standards, and be accurate and responsible in using the warning codes?

It seems to me that the first option is simpler -- but if you can't get the publishers to agree to that (indeed, Michael thinks that after trying for 15 years, it's only gotten worse, and he's got a point), how are you going to get them to agree to something more complex?

It comes back to persuasion. If you can't persuade them of the simpler point, giving up and trying to persuade them of a more complex setup that includes the simpler point, how is that going to work any better?

I don't say this to say that it's impossible to persuade comics companies of anything -- they've been persuaded of plenty over the years, from paying royalties to accepting returns on late-enough books (usually!). I say it to point out that if persuasion is your tool, then it might not be a good idea to give up on what aounts to Step One.

And if you abandon persuasion for force, even if you can figure out how, then you might as well give up any idea that this is meant to be voluntary -- outside agencies altering creative material by force is censorship. Even if it's just dots.

Just throwing out a little more food for thought -- it's worth keeping in mind how you're going to get there while you're figuring out what the goal is. Ultimately, I don't disagree with Michael that there's a problem -- I just don't think his solution will work, and even putting that aside, I don't think that it's easier to persuade publisher to adopt such a system than it is to persuade them to do what Michael wants to give up on, because he thinks it won't happen.

kdb

[Lance Parkin]

Originally posted by wraith
I agree. Hell, I'll even go so far as to say that the publishers know that what they are passing off as either "all ages" or "PG" rated material is anything but "all ages" or "PG" rated. I beleave that they know (or fear) that MOST responsible parents would be appalled at a lot of the contentin that is allowed in books that were originaly created to be both appealing to and suitable for kids/all ages (I'm talking about marvel and DC here),and would probaly not purchase (or allow their kids to purchase) those books.

... and this is the problem with a rating system. People
will always object to a rating system. People in the same
town will have different standards, let alone people in
all the different countries that DC and Marvel sell to.

There will be parents who object to stories about men
and women in swimsuits and leotards punching each
other. But no rating system would declare a standard
superhero comic as offensive unless there was blood
or cursing.

There are a couple of issues - first of all: who are we
protecting? If it's 'very young children' (say, pre-teen),
then there's a responsiblity there for everyone in the
chain from the writers, publishers and retailers. But most
of all, it's the parents. Parents have the right to set the
boundaries. Personally, I think comics that portray
using guns as a solution to a problem or women only
as victims are worse than comics with a little bit of
blood or a little bit of skin. I don't have kids, but if I did,
and they were very young, I'd check what they were
reading and watching.

There's a retail issue. For the direct market ... it's
easier. Retailers should know what they're selling,
they should be able to know if they live in an area
that's especially sensitive to certain themes.

For somewhere like Wal-Mart ... well, Wal-Mart knows
not to sell certain things to certain people. It wouldn't
sell alcohol or matches to a six year old. I'm guessing
that most Wal-Marts would at least hesitate before
selling, say, Cosmopolitan to a ten year old girl. Wal-Mart
may be mass market, but they aren't dumb, and their
*job* is to differentiate between different products and
get them to the market.

DC didn't come down in the last shower, either - the
company's been around since the 30s, they're part
of one of the biggest media companies in the world
now. If the will is there, it wouldn't be beyond the wit
of DC and Wal-Mart to come up with some way of
protecting vulnerable readers. I don't know if it happens
in the States, but in the UK, when you buy glue or
alcohol or knives or other potentially dangerous items
at a supermarket, they run it through the bar coder
and the message comes up 'Age Restricted Product'
and the checkout person checks that you're over
16 or whatever.

Lance

[Howard Price]

Originally posted by Lance Parkin
... and this is the problem with a rating system. People
will always object to a rating system. People in the same
town will have different standards, let alone people in
all the different countries that DC and Marvel sell to.

And yet, all the various communities can understand what is meant by the universal ratings applied to movies, television shows, and video games. They may disagree over what the appropriate level is for their own children, but they at least know what the contents are by the label on which they can base their decision.



Originally posted by Lance Parkin
If the will is there, it wouldn't be beyond the wit
of DC and Wal-Mart to come up with some way of
protecting vulnerable readers. I don't know if it happens
in the States, but in the UK, when you buy glue or
alcohol or knives or other potentially dangerous items
at a supermarket, they run it through the bar coder
and the message comes up 'Age Restricted Product'
and the checkout person checks that you're over
16 or whatever.

Which is great for Wal-Mart, but most direct market comic stores I know of don't have it in the budget to implement these age-restriction bar code scannings. (Heck, I've never seen a comic store that scans bar codes for so much as the price!)

[Regulator]

Very recently, video games passed movies as the top source of entertainment revenues in the United States. Along with that, they have become the leading target for the old argument that violent media increases violence in children. You see that "E for everyone" rating on TV commercials because game makers have bowed down to legislators so as to keep their livelihoods intact. They can do that, because both sides realize that a lot of money, both now and in the future, will be made for lots of Americans due to the video game industry. The same goes with movies. I can turn on Cinemax or Showtime or HBO and see tons of things that the Texas law which convicted Jesus Castillo would deem "obscene" and all they have is a 5 second screen showing a warning of strong sexual content or excessive violence. Do you think anyone will ever convict Cinemax on an obscenity charge? No, they won't even bother prosecuting. The problem with comic books is that the industry as a whole has nowhere near the kind of leverage as video games or movies.

I have to say that I'm not actually against the idea of a ratings system. In states where there aren't vaguely worded obscenity laws that are open to drastic interpretations, a ratings system would be just fine. However, I get the feeling that you guys think that ratings are the solution to the problem of obscenity laws that overstep the bounds of government in a free society. When laws like this exist, there is no point in having a ratings system. It's not a matter of being sneaky, it's just a matter of not making an effort to do something that doesn't matter anyway. Slapping a rating on every comic isn't going to convince them to stop making these laws and it isn't going to stop them from prosecuting people like Jesus Castillo under these laws. The laws will be there until we make legislators realize that they are wrong.

[Howard Price]

Originally posted by Regulator
However, I get the feeling that you guys think that ratings are the solution to the problem of obscenity laws that overstep the bounds of government in a free society. When laws like this exist, there is no point in having a ratings system. It's not a matter of being sneaky, it's just a matter of not making an effort to do something that doesn't matter anyway. Slapping a rating on every comic isn't going to convince them to stop making these laws and it isn't going to stop them from prosecuting people like Jesus Castillo under these laws. The laws will be there until we make legislators realize that they are wrong.

There are bullets and there are bombs. The ratings are nothing more than a flak jacket, some metaphorical Kevlar(tm) weave to stop the bullets.

The bombs (i.e. the egregious laws) are a different matter that won't be fixed by ratings, and must be dealt with differently. However, if you're going in to defuse someone's bombs, it's best to go in with your flak jacket on, with the reasonable assumption that they probably have bullets as well.

[Michael Tierney]

For the benefit of anyone joining late, and hesitant to join in, I'll try to recap where I personally feel that this 'debate' currently stands. I'm only around the internet on occasion, so necessity requires that I speak bluntly.

As an unofficial spokesperson for Mid-Amerian retailers (never claimed to be all, but some agree), I keep repeating that I'm a salesman. I need sales tools. This is the one place where I believe that I've heard agreement from those who argue with my intent; which is that the current manner by which mature comics are dealt with isn't working. I mean; LOOK at what tools that retailers currently have by which to sell comics:

Marvel (once a name that was the GOLD STANDARD of ALL-AGES READING) Maxx comics have large blocks that bellow EXPLICIT CONTENT. Excuse my language - but I hate having crap like that on my shelves. But, when you take a character like Rawhide Kid, who was once seen as, 'Grab my hand, Ma'am, and I'll save you from that stampeding head!', and then change him into something completely different from the past 40 years of publishing history - there had better been a warning on it! See why I suggested 'YOW!!!' ? All discussions about the wisdom of making a switch in content aside, there has got to be a better way to deal with this matter. That resolution involves something still being done on the cover - but one that doesn't flash like a hazard warning sign. In addition to point-of-sale notification (which is the only real solution being discussed here - have fun with that one, Kurt) on over-the-top categories, we also need to address comics that contain material definitely not for All-Ages, but is currently being packaged as All-Ages - without any warning of content! This is, and has always been, my key point of contention...

Remember, I've been a comics retailer for 20+ years, and hopefully I'll be selling comics for the next 20+ years - which means that I'll be selling some of today's books many times over the coming decades. What worries me is that, even if a system is created today that the whole industry might applaud and embrace - there already exists a lot of potentially dangerous material packaged as All-Ages - liteterary landmines that will be hiding in 50 cent bins and waiting to explode in the wrong hands of the wrong person, years down the line.

Unfortunately, we can't worry about that right now. Now we need to start correcting this problem at the source; at the point-of-sale level. Give me good, strong tools to work with, and then I can get back to my job of being a salesman, and start selling comics with confidence again. Right now... for some (circularly argued) reason... I'm having trouble getting everyone to agree that those tools don't exist in today's marketplace. And Gee... since I'm directly affected by the current hazardous conditions - you'd think that'd be taken into greater consideration, instead of contantly hearing, 'Give a Previews rewrite one more try!'

Well... hopefully that will be enough from me on Labor Day. I'm going to make this trip to the store as short as I can. I'll be back on Wednesday. Monday holidays always wreck a retailer's normal routine.

Michael Tierney

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
In addition to point-of-sale notification (which is the only real solution being discussed here - have fun with that one, Kurt)

Nah, I'll keep it simple.

Anyone interested in the other solutions that have been discussed, or in discussion of why your proposed solution might not function as you hope and might well be less easy to implement than the ones you've given up on as too hard to implement need only scroll upward.

Hope you had a pleasant weekend.

kdb

[Michael Tierney]

I'm going to put out an alert in this post... to everyone who is a fan of Kurt Busieks's work. JLA/Avengers #1 ships tomorrow (on Thursday because of the Monday holiday), and it's already sold out from Marvel. Was sold out weeks ago (don't even get me started on Marvel's short sighted short print policies), so if you want a copy - get to your local comics shop early! While I may disagree with some of Kurt's 'debating' techniques, I will steadfastly promote his creative writing. Not only is this a book that fans have been waiting a couple of decades for... It's wonderfully illustrated by the superb George Perez!

But wait... there's more! No. No ginzu knives. The coloring is done by Tom Smith. While Tom may not be as well known to most of you as Kurt or George, I know Tom, and I'll give you my personal assurance (sight unseen) that Tom will do a fantastic job on the book. You see, Tom did the coloring for the covers of my own, self-published (under my Little Rocket Publications imprint) Wild Stars and Force Majeure: Prairie Bay. He did a fantastic job coloring the work of Frank Brunner and Armando Gil. Give him good stuff to work with and... well.. I nominated his work on my publications for an Eisner - two years in a row.

So in summary... good writing, good art, and good coloring. Get this one fast. It won't last long on the shelves.

Michael Tierney

[Michael Tierney]

All right... since my promotional statement just opened a can of worms, let me clarify before the questions start:

Yes. I do see this whole issue from a publisher's perspective. And from a writer's and an illustrator's perspective. True, maybe not from the same professional level as some... but more than some others. I've have been faced with the question of what content would I allow to be put into my books. On my Wild Stars, I would rate them a POW - parental guidance. Wild Stars is no more mature than a regular newspaper, but like a paper... it deals with with issues of drug addiction and traficking, and violence (there is an in panel scene of a shark attack) and even humor (a former circus bear escapes from a hunter by knocking a bicyclist over and stealing his bike). There is even the equivalent of a bra and panty ad (but this is necessary for a subsequent scene) and election campaigning, and charges of electioneering (when a marijuana feild is set on fire and the clouds of smoke sweep over voter lines). Mature subject matter handled in a responsible manner, but still something I wouldn't sell to a little kid without the parent first being aware.

Force: Majeure is All-Ages fare. Rated WOW. A science-fiction story set on Mars in the near future, I still read a complaint about content from one internet reviewer. During a bar fight, when a man of Arab descent lands chin first on the floor, the reviewer called me a Nazi because of this scene. So you see... no matter how hard you try, someone is liable to complain. That's why we have to be ready for those complaints.

Because this whole discussion is not just about just selling comics... it's about selling comics responsible to children! So that's where I'm coming from in this debate - not as a publisher, a writer, or as an artist. I can see those points of view. I've made the decisions required of those points of view. But ulitmately, my concerns are those of a retailer - who is selling this material to the public!

That's why I don't think that a fix at the Previews level will work. Five years from now, when a books has passes through my register for umpteenth time, nobody will remember what was said about it in Previews. So if there is something that someone might perceive as dangerous on the inside - I need a warning on the cover.

In summary: The need for a point-of-sale notification is important because we have to act responsibly with the children who enter our stores. That is where local community responsibility starts! That is where out feet will be held to the fire...

Michael Tierney

[Michael Tierney]

Judging by the lack of activity on the thread today, I'll conclude that this topic has just about run it's course. So... I'll try to condense everything into one last statement. Consider a point-of-sale ratings system in this way:

It's an early warning system.

The system that I'm proposing is designed to get parents involved whenever their child's reading enters an area of concern for a retailer. Exactly that - and nothing more. To me, warnings in Previews should definitely be there to help me make smart purchasing decisions. But more important is the point-of-sale warning. Because the umpteenth time that book passes through my register, years down the line from now - who's going to remember what Previews said?

I've always contended that teens will want to read material that will help them to not only grow and explore, but also to understand the dangers of the world - before those dangers happen to them first-hand. Part of growing up is being curious. I'm just asking for the tools to help me deal with curious younger readers in a responsible manner.

If you can trust that the retailers know their customers, and you can trust that the publishers are honest about what they're selling (and if they put it on the cover, you know they'll give their liability for their sales pitch a little greater consideration) - then the retailers can do a more effective job of selling to the customers. We all win. Nobody gets caught in the middle.

The result? The local community will know that their children will always be safe when shopping at their friendly neighborhood (a tip of the hat to Stan Lee) comic book store.

Michael Tierney

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
Force: Majeure is All-Ages fare. Rated WOW. A science-fiction story set on Mars in the near future, I still read a complaint about content from one internet reviewer. During a bar fight, when a man of Arab descent lands chin first on the floor, the reviewer called me a Nazi because of this scene. So you see... no matter how hard you try, someone is liable to complain. That's why we have to be ready for those complaints. Except that with the rating you've given it, you've given the retailer no way to prepare for the complaint. You've given him no warning at all. Because the rating system is such a subjective one, reliant on the publisher, the retailer, and the customer all having the same guidelines in mind... something which is not likely to ever be the case. You seem to understand that concept; in standing up against that new law (and bravo to you for that), you've addressed the problem of the vagueness of the law's reach.

As someone who has worked on the publishing, creative, and retail ends of the comics business, I am in agreement with Kurt on practically every point. The history of ratings in other media have shown that they do not deflect complaint, that if anything they add another focus for complaint. The communities and shops across the English-speaking world are diverse, and a one-size-fits-all set of ratings would not serve them any better than the various ratings systems that have already been used in comics.

I suggest that anyone reading the summaries go back and read the points that have been raised against it. Do not accept the claims that the points being addressed are misquotes, nor that all of the people disagreeing with this plan actually agree with it.

[MudshovelForYou]

After following this discussion for a few days, I felt a sudden urge to respond.

I think that there are a few historical "errors" in regards to the other media industry and censorship.

Movies - Suffer from a biased rating system that is never the same from one movie to the next. Example: Everyone Says I Love You is rated R for the use of 1 swear word, while Titanic (PG-13) featured several swear words, nudity, slight gunplay, and some disturbing scenes of bodies being twisted in ways that a body should never be twisted. Which creates the first problem of the rating system (that has partially been addressed) as to who will rate what and what standards are you going to use? Secondly, rating systems in film are geared towards the Pg-13 level, not only because a larger percentage of the audience can view them, but because theaters will show less of r-rated movies and most will flat out not show NC-17 or unrated films. Thus, in terms of Hollywood the rating system has handicapped films.

TV - So far, everyone who wants a rating system seems to be asking for something similiar to the TV system: a little letter in a box, with abbreviations as to what is in the book. I argue that this has two problems. First: TV shows do not have a set standard for what a TV series will be. Watch any two episodes of the Simpsons and odds are that both will carry different ratings, due to the material in that episode. Regardless of editorial policy on a title or character, this same problem is just going to carry over in comics, as different characters/villains require different stories (i.e. a Joker story is going to be a little more twisted than a story with the low ranking Marvel villain Kangaroo). Secondly, those who say TV creators have more freedom now: TV has more free reign with sex talk and the occasionally butt shot on NYPD blue. Regular non-cable TV is still facing massive constraints that were not present in the 70's (think Archie Bunker's racial slurs) due to sponsers than to anything. Cable is where the creative freedom is and not because of the rating system, but because it's cable.

Long post, but I'm wrapping it up now:

Lastly, video games - The rating system came about thanks to Mortal Kombat and its blood soaked ilk appearing. And it has been a huge curse on the industry. Three current home systems: Sony's Playstation 2, Microsoft's X-Box, and Nintendo's Gamecube. The Gamecube has becomed handicapped in terms of sales and is actually constantly losing marketshare (no matter what the reports say) thanks to the system being 75-80% kid based. The X-box has managed to find success with mostly everyone and teen based games and the Playstation has managed to dominate the industry by offering a vast amount of different games to different ages. How does a rating system play into this? Nintendo was the giant of gaming, but by being the kid friendly system and by going for parental support, they are actually stagnating themselves. Transfering that to comics, simply means, that all-ages titles aren't going to be the ones that move forward with the reader as they are older, which means less long-term readers.

And I'm not even going to address the joke of a system that the music industry has.

It seems Mr. Busiek is right when only books and magazines have escaped harm from censorship. But I pose a question that no one seems to have noticed: "Why is it I can go into Wal-Mart, purchase an action figure and hunting rifle right next to each other, purchase the blood soaked Friday the 13th (pick a number), a tawdry adult novel, a sexually explicit Britney Spears album, but not an issue of Spider-Man?"

I'm thinking it's not because the material's inappropriate. I'm thinking it's because this world needs better education on what comics are.

[Howard Price]

Regarding your comparison of "Everyone Says I Love You" (R) to "Titanic" (PG-13): The *specific* word usage in ESILY was "mother-F'r" which is explicitly barred at the PG-13 level, no matter how much nudity (very little) and death (a lot) occurred in Titanic.

The response about how videogame sales are consistently down "no matter what the reports say" is laughable. "No matter what the reports say"??? Well, let's just toss out those meaningless reports. Goodness knows the boxes of cartridges at the local department store are getting buried underneath inches (INCHES, I say) of dust and cobwebs for lack of product movement.

Finally, back to movies with "R" ratings...

Waitaminnit... I thought producers were going to make MORE R-rated movies because it brought in more $$$? Now they're making *fewer* R-rated movies in favor of PG-13, because they bring in more $$$? Which is it? Further... let's pretend there was no movie rating system (and since this is a comic discussion, we'll call our Earth, Earth-MPAA and the other one Earth-Nolabel.) All things being equal in the way people think, do you really think that a movie that earned an NC-17 rating on Earth-MPAA would be picked up by *more* theaters on Earth-Nolabel, just because there wasn't a rating stamp? Or do you think the theater managers are smart enough to know what kind of movies play to their audiences anyway?

[MudshovelForYou]

1)The word "f-ck" is in Titanic and it still got the Pg-13.. Which means what? Base versions of swears are allowed and not variations?

2) I never said that video games sales were down. I said Nintendo's marketshare and Nintendo's sales were down - the company feeling the most constraint under the ratings system.

3)Studios on a whole aim towards more PG-13 features. There has been an increase in the number of R rated movies, true, have increased, but on a whole the trend is more focused to the PG-13 level. Which creates creative constraints.

I'll address your last point about the multi-Earth's when I get back from class. Such is the life of a college student.

[Howard Price]

Originally posted by MudshovelForYou
1)The word "f-ck" is in Titanic and it still got the Pg-13.. Which means what? Base versions of swears are allowed and not variations?

Afraid so. Same logic applies to "damn" and "god damn", the former obviously something that can be used even at the PG level, the latter one that gets bleeped on television.

2) I never said that video games sales were down. I said Nintendo's marketshare and Nintendo's sales were down - the company feeling the most constraint under the ratings system.

You're right, and I apologize. I misread your statement on videogame sales. But surely it makes more sense that Nintendo is losing marketshare not because of ratings, but because of the introduction of Xbox into the arena and the attractiveness of the Sony Playstation? The more competitors that go grabbing for the pie, the smaller the pieces become.

Studios on a whole aim towards more PG-13 features. There has been an increase in the number of R rated movies, true, have increased, but on a whole the trend is more focused to the PG-13 level. Which creates creative constraints.

Prior to 1968, when the MPAA established the graduated scale of ratings that today's system is based on, there were only two ratings: approved and not. As such, the establishment of ratings that identified movies that had more mature content increased the kinds of stories that could be told and the manner in which they could be presented. Far from being a barrier, it opened creative doors that had previously been nailed shut.

I'll address your last point about the multi-Earth's when I get back from class. Such is the life of a college student.

Take your time. :) I've been working on an article about this very subject that should be up within the week, and as such I've been *trying* to stay away from this thread, lest I have nothing new to say in the piece.

[MudshovelForYou]

First the multi-earths:

I'm freely going to admit that I maybe misunderstanding or misrepresenting your logic with your multi-earth theory. And If I am, I apologize in advance for it.

I understand your statement to mean that theaters in Earth-NoLabel would have the option of showing whatever films they wanted based on their own perception of the media? If that's the argument I think 1) that's a good thing and 2) in today's world, the label does prohibit this in most theaters. The problem comes not from theater managers, but from theater chain policies. I think the last thing the comic industry needs is a variation of that. Especially when it's unrated films that have no graphic/improper nature to them. (Such as the just released, in limited limited play only Dracula: Pages From A Virgin's Diary).

And now for the others:

1) That is definitely bad and subjective logic for a rating standard to have. Too bad it carries on in every other system.

2) You're partially correct with the reason for Nintendo's lost marketshare. But their biggest losses have been Teen/Adult gamers who just don't want to play Pokemon Purple (or whatever the current color is) and would rather have games with stories or substance. With people pointing to the ESRB as a good system, I just get this fear of Spider-Man or Superman becoming a kids only character (even though I think all ages is much more approriate for them).

3) And I partially agree with you're point about the film studios. The ratings system may have helped in the 70's-80's, but with the advent of Parental Groups and the Post-Columbine America, R-rated movies feature the stigma of being less successful (at least until this summer) and of smaller budgets (once again, at least until this summer).

And I do have a problem with any system that is based entirely on ages. It just doesn't seem to address certain issues for me, not to mention the fact that somewhere along the way, someone came up with the idea of halting a children's mental growth by stopping the reading of actual novels (Tom Sawyer, Treasure Island and their like) and replaced them with "Young Adult Novels" of 120 pages with simplified plots in schools. (Wow, I suddenly sound so old...)

When it comes down to it, I just see a rating system as a makeshift patch that won't address any of the real problems with the mediums preception to people.

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Howard Price
Waitaminnit... I thought producers were going to make MORE R-rated movies because it brought in more $$$? Now they're making *fewer* R-rated movies in favor of PG-13, because they bring in more $$$? Which is it?

Both, actually.

They make more PG-13s than Rs, and they make far more of either than they make G-rated films, which are the very category the MPAA hoped to encourage and protect, but instead they've virtually wiped them out.

The fact that they skew the content of films because that little letter or two on the poster isn't just description but an economic force is troublesome as is, but the dramatic decline in all-ages fare is the true indictment of the ratings system.

kdb

[Howard Price]

It was my understanding that the intent of the ratings was to create a market for more than just all-ages fare; that the advent of "Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf", which was troubling the studios due to its usage of "screw" and "hump the hostess" (they decided to edit out the former and keep the latter--who knows why) started getting Jack Valenti thinking that the system was flawed--that making all the movies "all-ages" friendly was stifling the creativity and keeping a lot of otherwise good movies out of production. As such, I should expect the "all ages" movies to consume a smaller percentage of available types of movies.

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Howard Price
It was my understanding that the intent of the ratings was to create a market for more than just all-ages fare;

Nobody suggested that they were trying to create a market only for all-ages fare -- if that's what they wanted, they could have set up the Comics Code.

But a big part of the concern was that they felt people couldn't safely go to the movies and bring their families, because they didn't know what the content would be. They felt that the G rating would identify family films so that people could choose them without concern for objectionable content -- that the result of the MPAA ratings would be to help the family film flourish by allowing families to go to them with confidence. The result, of course, was that the G-rated film virtually died out. Far from being simply a smaller portion of the marketplace, the "family film" (as opposed to "children's film") became an endangered species.

Turned out that given a choice between a thriller that might be exciting and involving but was "safe," and a thriller with swearing and a flash of nudity, adults and especially teens would choose the one that was identified as racy. G movies were for babies, and kids bragged about getting to see GP movies (as they were known then) and looked forward to the days they could get into the R movies. What was meant as identification turned into marketing, and when movie studios realized this, they began deliberately inserting harsh language and sexual situations into movies that were not scripted or intended to have them, to get the more marketable rating. They deliberately made movies that pre-MPAA would have been family films into non-family films, due to the effect of a label -- an effect that didn't exist beforehand, when people judged whether a movie looked interesting from ads and previews and cast and concepts and such.

All-ages films were killed off to the point that we now consider PG-13 to be the default rating, the one an ordinary movie gets. Whether this is a good or a bad thing depends on your perspective -- I object more to the process than the result, since I don't like a non-creative lement like labeling to exert such a warping effect on creation, and I think it's a salient lesson that the MPAA completely misjudged the effect the ratings would have.

But, again, book and magazine publishers manage to turn out an amazing range of material that gets responsibly marketed and sold, without this kind of distorting force. If you don't make industry-wide rules based on what you hope will happen, then you won't get bit in the ass when hope and reality don't agree.

You might get bit in the ass by other things, but at least you can address them, instead of being stuck with a self-perpetuating machine that doesn't do what it was built to do...

kdb

[Michael Tierney]

Hey guys,
I see the discussion has been busy while I've been away from the net. The more everyone talks, the more I'm certain that everyone involved here is on the same page, but is just disagreeing on details - and the intent of those details. We all want a healthier industry, but many of us keep getting distracted by looking at other industries and making comparisons that only end up muddying the water.

First, the comparisons to the book industry just don't fly - because, as I've said before, written books aren't an industry that actually shows you what happens. We are a visual medium. But even more important than that consideration is the history of comics when compared to the history books. Back in the 50s; comics capitulated to censorship pressures and resolved to creating comics only for the kiddies. Thusly, we have been percieved as being a kids industry for decades! This is the core of the problem that I want to address. We have to get the word out there that comics aren't just for kids anymore (Shout it out loud!)! So, when we compare ourselves to an industry that handled matters differently 50 years ago, we are resolving to use circular logic that just doesn't fly. We have to face facts and use lenear logic - and take into consideration only the actual facts of history.

On a side note that connects to the above statement- I want to thank Kurt for his nod of respect to Jack Kirby in the recently released JLA/Avengers #1, when Green Lantern looked up at a group of classic Kirby monsters and said, "Those are some great looking monsters." And, unlike his code days appearances, the Fing Fang Foom dragon wasn't wearing pants! At least, I don't think he was - that part of his anatomy was kind of shadowed. So, when it comes to acknowledging the history of comics, we also must remember not just the history of the creators who once battled with oppressive circumstances, we must also remember the history of the public's perceptions.

On that subject of perceptions, Nat completely misunderstood what I was saying when I mentioned how I would have rated my own Force Majeure: Prairie Bay as rated WOW (for all ages) and the connection to when I read a review calling me a Nazi for one scene involving a man of Arab descent. His misunderstanding is completely my fault, because I wasn't that clear about what I was saying... I felt that the reviewer was completely wrong and out of line in his assessment. As a retailer, I face complaints that are sometimes nothing but plain bullshit based on biases that exist only in the head of the complainer. That someone would object to what was intended to be humorous scene, just because of race... well, that not what the story did or was even intended. I won't go into the reasons that this character was Arab, but will say that his race was important not just because of future plotlines, but the fact that Arabic culture provides the possiblity of multiple wives. Knowing that no insult was intended, it was very easy for me to not regard the complaint with an ounce of serious concern.

Because out here on pulbic ground... complaints will happen. I had a mother once who had been convinced by her preacher that Howard the Duck comics were a form of Satan worship (No joke!). My call for a point-of-sale notification system isn't a call for controlling content, but instead is a call for help from Publishers to help Retailers in identifying content when dealing with the public. The key point in this call goes back to the public's perception that we are an industry directed at kids. We can't ignore this because we, ourselves, don't feel that way - and know better. As long as children shop within our stores (and I encourage them to shop with me and I need them as customers) we will be held to a higher ideal. When it comes to dealing with kids - we SHOULD be held to a higher ideal. I accept my responsiblity, but I sometimes feel hung out to dry by irresponsible publisher actions. This is what I'm hoping to correct.

I don't think publishers are intentionally trying to cause trouble - that is where this dialog will hopefully get them to thinking about this and other matters. So... as much as I might disagree with Kurt and some others on some points - the plain fact that we are discussing these concerns in a public forum raises attention to the concerns of this sensitvie matter. So... thanks for your help - even if you oppose my suggestions!

I need tools to deal not only with concerned parents in a responsible manner, but to also deal with the moron minority who will always find something to complain about. It helps to know when a complaint is real or imagined, because, as a store owner, I always have the right to ask someone to leave my store. I've done it before, and will do it again. I won't allow jerks to compromise the pleasant shopping experience that I want for my real customers, both adult and child, to have when inside my stores.

Michael Tierney

[wraith]

Originally posted by MudshovelForYou
First the multi-earths:

I'm freely going to admit that I maybe misunderstanding or misrepresenting your logic with your multi-earth theory. And If I am, I apologize in advance for it.

I understand your statement to mean that theaters in Earth-NoLabel would have the option of showing whatever films they wanted based on their own perception of the media? If that's the argument I think 1) that's a good thing and 2) in today's world, the label does prohibit this in most theaters. The problem comes not from theater managers, but from theater chain policies. I think the last thing the comic industry needs is a variation of that. Especially when it's unrated films that have no graphic/improper nature to them. (Such as the just released, in limited limited play only Dracula: Pages From A Virgin's Diary).

And now for the others:

1) That is definitely bad and subjective logic for a rating standard to have. Too bad it carries on in every other system.

2) You're partially correct with the reason for Nintendo's lost marketshare. But their biggest losses have been Teen/Adult gamers who just don't want to play Pokemon Purple (or whatever the current color is) and would rather have games with stories or substance. With people pointing to the ESRB as a good system, I just get this fear of Spider-Man or Superman becoming a kids only character (even though I think all ages is much more approriate for them).

Actualy, Nintendo's loss of marketshare are due to the following reasons.

1. Nintendo's refusal to make their 64 console into a CD based game console in favor of the more expensive cartrige based format. This caused 3rd party (and many 1st and 2nd party) gaming companies to abandon or refuse make games for the nintendo 64 console, because it wouldbe a lot more cheaper (and easier) for gaming companies to make games for a console that plays CD games. This lack of 2nd and 3rd party support has also carried over to the new mini disc playing Game Cube.

2. Nintendo refusing to make the Game Cube a multipurpose entertainment console. Unlike both the PS2 or the X-BOX, the Game Cube cannot play DVD movies,music CD's,or have internet capabilities. Given a choice between buying a gaming system that only plays video games or buying a gaming system that can play music CD's,DVD movies,and is able to go online. Most people (of all ages) would choose te latter.

3. The Game Cube is NOT backwards compatable lie the PS2 is. Therefore ,the Game Cube does not have no where near the size of library of games as the PS2 does.

4. There are not that many good games, regardless of the rating, for the Game Cube.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Kurt Busiek
Both, actually.

They make more PG-13s than Rs, and they make far more of either than they make G-rated films, which are the very category the MPAA hoped to encourage and protect, but instead they've virtually wiped them out.

The fact that they skew the content of films because that little letter or two on the poster isn't just description but an economic force is troublesome as is, but the dramatic decline in all-ages fare is the true indictment of the ratings system.

kdb

I have a slightly off topic question for you Kurt. A few months ago, I asked Tom Defalco (over on the spider-girl MB at the comicboards site) if he would be interested in getting together with creators like yourself,Roger Stern,Larry Hama,Tom Grumet,Priest,Claremont,Mark Waid, Karl Kessel,MD Brigt,Pat Oliffe,Ron Frenze,Ron Lim,Erik Larson,and many other creators who may or may not be currently working in the industry and revamp/relaunch the entire line of the Archie superheroes aimed at all ages and that are sold on newstands,in bookstores,in comic book stores,and in supermarkets. Defalco said that he liked my idea, but that Archie had other plans. I also asked Erik Larson this same question (over on the comicon boards) and he said that he did'nt think a relaunched line of the Archie superheroes would sale in todays market. My question to you is ,would you be interested in working on a line of the revamped Archie superheroes aimed at all ages and sold in many different outlets?

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by wraith
My question to you is ,would you be interested in working on a line of the revamped Archie superheroes aimed at all ages and sold in many different outlets?

Depends on any number of factors, like how busy I am at the time, whether they're offering competitive rates and a decent royalty deal, whether their packaging and distribution plans are credible or just wishful thinking, who else is working on the project, how they're going to promote it, how long they're committed to trying it for, how much of it would be the creators' vision and how much would be ACG-dictated and so on and so forth.

I like the characters -- or see potential in them, at least -- but there's an awful lot more to it than that.

And as Tom noted, this doesn't seem to be something Archie wants to do.

kdb

[wraith]

Originally posted by Kurt Busiek
Depends on any number of factors, like how busy I am at the time, whether they're offering competitive rates and a decent royalty deal, whether their packaging and distribution plans are credible or just wishful thinking, who else is working on the project, how they're going to promote it, how long they're committed to trying it for, how much of it would be the creators' vision and how much would be ACG-dictated and so on and so forth.

I like the characters -- or see potential in them, at least -- but there's an awful lot more to it than that.

And as Tom noted, this doesn't seem to be something Archie wants to do.

kdb

Thanks for the response Kurt. Hopefuly, TPTB at Archie will come around and decide to revive their superhero line. If they do decide to revive their superhero line, I hope they can makea deal with you and the other creators I named, that will be both financially and creatively satisfactory toall the creators involved.

I have heard from a reliable source, that the reason Archie is putting out a tpb reprinting their old silver age superhero comics, is in order to test the waters for a possible revival of their superhero line.

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
On that subject of perceptions, Nat completely misunderstood what I was saying when I mentioned how I would have rated my own Force Majeure: Prairie Bay as rated WOW (for all ages) and the connection to when I read a review calling me a Nazi for one scene involving a man of Arab descent. His misunderstanding is completely my fault, because I wasn't that clear about what I was saying... I felt that the reviewer was completely wrong and out of line in his assessment. As a retailer, I face complaints that are sometimes nothing but plain bullshit based on biases that exist only in the head of the complainer. That someone would object to what was intended to be humorous scene, just because of race... well, that not what the story did or was even intended. I won't go into the reasons that this character was Arab, but will say that his race was important not just because of future plotlines, but the fact that Arabic culture provides the possiblity of multiple wives. Knowing that no insult was intended, it was very easy for me to not regard the complaint with an ounce of serious concern. If I'm supposed to have misunderstood something, this has not been changed at all with this message, as my understanding remains much the same. There was content that the publisher (you) deemed not objectionable but which a reader did. Since your warning system is designed to warn retailers of material that consumers will find inappropriate or objectionable, the system would have been a failure in this instance. This reflects an inherent problem in such ratings systems: even if we were to somehow get the disparate members of the comics industries to agree on the values (unlikely) and the publishers to accurately police them (somewhat more likely, but not probable), getting the parents to agree to our values is unliklely.

[Michael Tierney]

Sigh...

Again... with tools you can solve problems. I NEVER said that all the problems would go away like someone waved a magic wand!

My whole point here is the same as the argument I made against Arkansas Act 858. With a random censorship act, that one out of twenty person who complained would suddenly be deciding what the children of the other nineteen could read. Since elections are decided by the majority, the legislators suddenly realized the gravity of their mistake. This is where Gray Davis in California went wrong - by tripling the car registration fee and making every voter with a car unhappy! Back in the late Seventies, Bill Clinton made the exact same mistake in Arkansas and was defeated in his try for a second term as Governor. He learned his lesson, and didn't repeat it after he later rewon the Governor's seat (an even later event was a bumper sticker that declared: Bill Clinton for President - ANYTHING to get him out of Arkansas).

No matter what we do or don't do in concerns with a Universal Ratings System to - there are going to be complaints. I am better prepared to deal with those complaints when I am provided with point-of-sale notification of content. This way, when one of the normal nineteen complains I'll know if they are making a legitimate complaint. But when it's that 1 in 20 yammering because he woke up in a bad mood and is looking for a dog to kick - I can confidently boot him out of the store.

No magic solutions here. No perfect solution to resolve every problem that our industry has and will ever face. But we must accept the fact that our industry is perceived as a kid's only industry - this is what nailed Jesus Costillo - and regardless of our own personal knowledge, we must deal with this public perception. We have to concede our own history, and work to reshape that public perception.

Again, I'm a proactive type of person. I don't like waiting until I'm backed into a corner before acknowledging that there is a problem that needs dealt with. Sure, it's easier to wait until you have no choice but to react. But I don't consider that to be the safer choice.

Michael Tierney

[Michael Tierney]

While I am not a fan of the current DC ratings system of "Either it's for adults or it's for kids" - something is better than nothing. Here is a recent example of an event that occured recently in my Little Rock store - which exemplifies the need for greater range and depth within that system:

As I've said before, I have many whole families shopping with me - where every generation can find something of interest inside my store. The family I'm going discuss also includes an autistic boy around the age of 7. I'm not going to take a lot of time to explain autism - but it's a disorder that can affect how a person can function in both public and private life.

This young boy was really wowed by the League of Extra-Ordianary Gentlement movie. I've showed his father the mature content in the comics, and he approved of them for his son. His son is so enthralled by this universe that can include any fictional character that was ever created - that he has started writing and drawing his own adventures that include other fictional characters. With this new focus, suddenly you couldn't tell that this boy was autistic - you'd just think that he was an enthusiastic fan.

Then came LOEG Volume 2 #5, with a lot of sex and brutal deviant sexual violence. Sure, as an adult I know that this will probably all tie into the story's conclusion. Alan Moore is an excellent writer who only puts stuff into his story that has a point. But still - for a 7 years old boy, it was something we needed to make the father take a second look at. When he did, he agreed that this was too far for his son. I wasn't there the day he was denied this particular issue, but I've been there when he faced disappointment before and know how he reacted with extreme (devastated) disappointment. It was a scene.

The good news is that this didn't kill the boy's newly discovered joy of writing and drawing. The family came into the store last Saturday when I was there. My smiles were genuine as I patiently listened to this little boy tell me the story he had written thus far. I've got to tell you - this little kid really might have the gift! He'd tell his story event by event, with clues about how a guard was strangled by hands 3000 years old - and later get to the revelation that the Frankenstein monster was involved (and how was a story in itself). It got pretty complicated, and imaginative - and wasn't bad! When the family left - Sheri, one of my sales assistants commented, "Wow! That little guy really has an imagination! He thought of everything! Everything you could ask him a question about - he had an answer for!"

Obviously, this is one of the feel good stories about being a comics retailer. But, if both myself and my crew hadn't been readers of LOEG - the elevation of graphic content in V2 #5 might have gotten past us. The father had already approved it. But even if it was off camera (dealing with an Invisible Man), the brutal act of one man (Mr. Hyde) homosexually raping another man to death is something I would never want to sell to kid! Even the extended sex scenes between Alan Quartermain and Mina Harkness seemed mild in comparison. This issue was way over the top when compared to the rest of the series, it went beyond recommended for mature readers - now we're starting to get into the graphic edge of adults only! From POW!! to YOW!!!

This is the problem that we are currently dealing with. No consistent guidelines. Complain all you want that guidelines can't be established that everyone would follow. I disagree. I never said that creating a workable system would be easy. Nothing worth doing is ever easy. But... After all...

The kids are counting on us. You can't just ignore this problem. We had a ratings system until about 10 years ago, and now we only have a hodge podge mess to work with.

To steal a couple of lines that politicans fell in love with about ten years ago: If not us... who? If not now... when?

Michael Tierney

[Michael Tierney]

To give you an idea of what it means to be a retailer, and deal with a diverse public, I'm going to pose a simple question.

But first, let me set it up. You're a retailer, and a family similar to the one I just described is shopping in your store for the first time. You want to make a good impression that you're providing a safe environment for all ages. Now... keep in mind that you don't have time to think about your answer. You have to respond instantly, with balance and certainty, when the 7 year old boy asks:

"Why does Mickey Mouse wear pants and Donald Duck doesn't?"

Think fast!

Michael Tierney

[Nat Gertler]

So what you're saying is that we'd have guidelines that would separate the raping and killing that has taken place in previous issues of LoEG from the raping-and-killing in the most recent issue?

I have trouble seeing the set of ratings guidelines that would've been prepared to handle the specific action that Moore put forth.

Donald doesn't wear pants 'cause the store was all out.

This is where Gray Davis in California went wrong - by tripling the car registration fee and making every voter with a car unhappyNope, you're wrong there. It didn't make me unhappy. (But then, it also wasn't Davis that did this. The raising of the fee was required under a law signed by former governor Pete Wilson.)

[Michael Tierney]

I posed the question, so here's the answer(s):

Always give children an honest answer. If you don't have an answer, tell them that; "Gosh, I don't know. That's a good quesiton that I'll have to think about." Then, after you've had a chance for thoughtful reflection, when you see the child again you can answer that the reason Mickey Mouse wears pants and Donald Duck doesn't probably has something to do with Walt Disney deciding that feathers and fur equal a pair of pants.

In concerns to League of Extra-Ordinary Gentlemen Vol. 2 #5, even my adult customers mentioned that they were a little shocked about the elevated violence material in that particular issue. #6 is out now, so I can now see that Alan Moore was setting up the death of Mr. Hyde - exploiting his violent tendancies in combination with Hyde's genunine (and almost platonic) love for Mine Harkness (I told you that this guy was a great writer). But still... adults in my stores found #5 to be far more mature than the issues around it. We'll be able to sell #6 to the autistic 7 year old, and when he wonders what he missed in #5, we'll just refer him to Mr. Hyde's statements that comforted Mina that the Invisible Man died without undue suffering.

Guys, I've got to tell you... we need to do something here. Wizards of the Coast just announced this week their own ratings guidelines for point-of-sale guidelines in D20 licensed books. This is a need that's a no-brainer to me. We have to be proactive to interact responsibly within our varied communities. Sure... what's a concern in Mid-America might not be such a big deal on the East or West coast. Then again... some day it might. I'm preaching prepardness here. Trouble is the one constant in the universe - so why not take steps to prepare for it?

It's not a bad thing to be proactive in concerns to your local comminity. I just got a call for Little Rock's City Hall yesterday, requesting my presence for a committee meeting in the board room next Tuesday. No... I'm not in trouble. I've been serving for the last two years on a committee that is rewriting the business license schedule for Little Rock. Would you believe that their old 280 level system still includes sections for Mule Skinners and Hide Tanners? Sure... the new three level system has been meeting opposition form powerful and influencial factions that want to GrandFather in their own sweetheart deals from the old system (the last committee to tackle this gave up - and there have already been attempts to dissolve the committee I'm on), but like I said before... nothing worth doing is ever going to be easy.

Move forward... always keep moving in a forward direction...

Michael Tierney

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
Trouble is the one constant in the universe - so why not take steps to prepare for it?Michael, you might do well to recognize that the people who are disagreeing with you are not saying "let us never take steps to prepare for trouble".

You have proposed a very specific plan, and some folks are unconvinced about its effectiveness, dubious about the evenhandedness of it, and have strong legitimate concern about negative effects that it could have. Your plan depends not only on an unlike consensus but also on unlikely even interpretation of some yet-non-existent-but-supposedly-clear guidelines.

Your arguments have relied on spurious examples where your proposed system would not likely have helped, on false and unsubstantiated allegations, and on taking offense at people addressing your statements point by point. None of this would seem to be effective in swaying people to the system you propose.

[Michael Tierney]

Hello Nat,
I've attempted to keep the focus on the positive. The system I proposed is open to revision and definition. Instead, I've been hearing 'Let's don't do anything' in a lot of the responses. If you agree that something should be done, then by all means share your ideas! That's all I've been asking for...

I'm not trying to shoot down the opinions and views of others. An example is your disagreement with my statement about Gray Davis making a mistake with car licenses. If it wasn't a mistake - then why did he just repeal this increase.... after he consulted with Clinton? But... that's an issue that would take us off topic, and since you're a resident of California and I'm not, I'm happy to concede this subject to you. You're obviously closer to that subject matter than I am.

All I'm trying to encourage here is dialog. I want to incorporate the thoughts and suggestions of others. But negative retorts of 'it won't work' or 'it's too tough a problem' just don't fly with me.

As for the subject of even-handedness, I think you'd have a tough time trying to find a stronger advocate for even-handedness. I'm not proposing a third party sensor. What I'm proposing is an open dialog of What consists of this category, and What consists of that category. I obviously have my own ideas, but what I'm more interested in is hearing the ideas of others. My whole point is to avoid having an impartial (and uncaring) third party to do all of the deciding for us. Trying to encourage me to drop the whole matter accomplishes nothing. If I don't take your advice...

Taking offence? Not me. I've got a pretty thick skin. But I diagree with someone disecting a paragraph in four parts and attacking it from four different directions. I also disagree with verbal debates where one speaker tries to talk over the other speaker. It's the same thing to me. Everybody take your turn and make your statement. Allow the other person to have their own views. That's what I've advocated. If I find someone saying something that I consider offensive, I will just stop reading their words. It's that simple.

False and unsubstanciated allegations? I have no idea what you're talking about. You'll have to explain that one. Obviously you are against my suggestions. And that's fine. It's a free country and I will fight as hard for your right to disagree with me as I will fight for my right to disagree with you. As far as the opinions of others... I think I'll let them speak for themselves.

Michael Tierney

[Michael Tierney]

Everyone who disagrees with me is helping by saving me from taking the time to play devil's advocate. Sure... there are positive and negative sides to every issue. So when I (repeatedly) say thanks to those who disagree - I really mean it. Every viewpoint helps - so, even if they don't always include criticism of the constructive kind, all input is appreaciated.

Thanks!

Michael Tierney

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
Instead, I've been hearing 'Let's don't do anything' in a lot of the responses.Care to quote those responses?
If you agree that something should be done, then by all means share your ideas!And indeed, I've posted the concept of outside parties creating their own ratings lists elsewhere.
I'm not trying to shoot down the opinions and views of others. An example is your disagreement with my statement about Gray Davis making a mistake with car licenses. If it wasn't a mistake - then why did he just repeal this increase.... after he consulted with Clinton?Here is an example of your use of inaccuracy to try to hold up a point. You made a specific claim: "This is where Gray Davis in California went wrong - by tripling the car registration fee and making every voter with a car unhappy." I pointed out that he did not, in fact, make "every voter with a car unhappy". I am a California voter with a car, and the fee reversion did not make me unhappy. I also pointed out that it was Pete Wilson, not Gray Davis, who signed the requirement. That requirement may arguably have been a "mistake", but if so it was Pete Wilson's mistake.
I want to incorporate the thoughts and suggestions of others. But negative retorts of 'it won't work' or 'it's too tough a problem' just don't fly with me.I understand that you would want to remain ignorant if your system would not work
As for the subject of even-handedness, I think you'd have a tough time trying to find a stronger advocate for even-handedness. I'm not proposing a third party sensor.No, you're proposing that each publisher provide their own ratings, and in such a situation you are apt to get different publishers applying the ratings differently.
Taking offence? Not me. I've got a pretty thick skin.Oddly, your posts don't reflect that. Your attacks against Kurt did not read like someone being calm and dispassionate. But I diagree with someone disecting a paragraph in four parts and attacking it from four different directions.If you make for separate statements in that paragraph, why should they be overlooked or ignored?
I also disagree with verbal debates where one speaker tries to talk over the other speaker. It's the same thing to me. Then your logic seems strange. Directing responses to individual points is not silencing the other person. No one is prevented from making their responses visible. It is, in fact, taking seriously what someone has said and addressing that, rather than some vague summary of it.
False and unsubstanciated allegations? I have no idea what you're talking about."I'm not going to disect the places where you misquoted, or misdirected my previous statements." So you accuse Kurt of misquoting you, yet offer up no evidence for it. You went on to imply that you'd been bullied. Kurt quite reasonably objected to this, yet I see no sign of you having retracted or apologized for your statement. You've accused me of misunderstanding something apparently because I disagreed with your analysis of it.
As far as the opinions of others... I think I'll let them speak for themselves.Really? I thought you were a self-styled "unofficial spokesperson for Mid-Amerian retailers".

[Michael Tierney]

Nat,
As I said before, if you disagree with me that's fine. Also, as I said before, there are times when I could employ the same tactics as others, but I prefer to conduct debates by the standards of interaction that I encourage when they are held within my stores.

As far as my statements to Kurt, sure I could have followed that up, but then I would have done the very thing that I was complaining about. Not going to do it. You miss my whole point here: Move forward. I'm not mad at Kurt. I like Kurt. I think he's a good guy, but I did feel he might be intimidating some of the other posters, without realizing it - and said so. Never said that Kurt WAS trying to bully ME. Never felt that way. I just told him what type of person that I am so that he could better understand where I'm coming from. If that wasn't clear, okay, good point and I've addressed it - now that I know what you're talking about.

But enough of going backwards. I won't get caught in a loop of explaining the same thing over and over again when someone takes a point out of context and misinterprets it. If this attitude insults someone, I apologize. If my posts sound blunt, well... I'm back to that honesty thing. I don't sugar-coat my statements. I don't have that kind of time. I get to the point. If that insults someone, then... sure, I apologize.

Everything you accuse me of doing is how I feel when I read your posts. You've called me ignorant and implied worse. But I won't take it personal. An apology doesn't matter to me. This isn't about a popularity contest. What I would like to hear from you are your suggestions for a workable system of point-of-sale notification.

If you don't personally like me... fine. That was never my concern. I'll be around another half an hour. Back on Thursday or Friday. Not sure which - it's order form time.

Michael Tierney

[Michael Tierney]

I was thinking of next week.

Be back on Saturday.

Michael Tierney

[zamuel]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
I've attempted to keep the focus on the positive. The system I proposed is open to revision and definition. Instead, I've been hearing 'Let's don't do anything' in a lot of the responses. If you agree that something should be done, then by all means share your ideas! That's all I've been asking for...

All I'm trying to encourage here is dialog. I want to incorporate the thoughts and suggestions of others. But negative retorts of 'it won't work' or 'it's too tough a problem' just don't fly with me.

Perhaps we should recap on the idea suggestions so far:

-Age based rating system (on the product itself)
Has numerous pluses and minuses to it

-Content descriptors (on the product itself)
Same as above but I'll argue that a content descriptor would be a better idea than just a straight rating

-Changing PREVIEWS (seperate guide)
Seems like this is slowly being done. At least it seems like more mature titles have been marked.

-Altering cover art to appeal to the audience (on the product itself)
Seems like it is already done for the most part. Seems a moot point though if "objectionable" content is included in a mainstream title.

Does anyone have any more ideas or greater discussion on these?

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
I prefer to conduct debates by the standards of interaction that I encourage when they are held within my stores.Do you check in-store discussions to make sure that people aren't responding point-by-point?
As far as my statements to Kurt, sure I could have followed that up, but then I would have done the very thing that I was complaining about.I'm not clear on what you're saying here. Are you saying that you could have provided evidence to back up your claim of misquoting, but choose not to, while still talking about the incident? Or are you saying that you could have apologized, but chose not to? Because in either case, it sounds like you are choosing not to take responsibility for your words. And it makes it hard to take the statements that you make that can't be verified seriously when you make statements that seem false on their surface.
You miss my whole point here: Move forward.Again, you conflate someone disagreeing with you with someone misunderstanding you.
But enough of going backwards. I won't get caught in a loop of explaining the same thing over and over again when someone takes a point out of context and misinterprets it.When who does what now? You seem eager to make that claim that you're being misinterpreted, but whenever you point to where, there's no sign of it having happened.
If my posts sound blunt, well... I'm back to that honesty thing.Bluntness is not the same as honesty. Bluntly saying that someone misquoted you when they did not is not being honest. Saying you could respond to that concern but choose not to is not being blunt, for that matter.
What I would like to hear from you are your suggestions for a workable system of point-of-sale notification.You've heard things from me and from others. Previews descriptions, cover design, third party ratings lists. Descriptions and third party ratings can theoretically be databased. Knowing your stock. Supporting the CBLDF.

I'm thinking back on all the legal cases and foofraw that has popped up around "inappropriate comics", and I cannot think of a one that this ratings system would have addressed. It wouldn't have helped Jesus Castillo, who sold adult comics to adults. It wouldn't have helped the Golden Apple publicity, where the clerks clearly knew they were selling adult material. About the closest case that comes to mind is the ElfQuest case... but in that case (which didn't come close to holding up in court), there was no question about notifying a parent since it was the parent selling a comic to his own son. I'm not saying there are never instances of irritated parents, but the scale of that seems small in contrast to the scale of the proposed solution.

[Michael Tierney]

Sorry Nat,
I didn't finish reading your post. The discussion here is about a Universal Ratings System and how to implement it through a point-of-sale notification system. When I started to read your last post, like so many of your other posts - you seemed to be (to me) more interested in having me re-explain this and re-direct that, and Honestly... I don't dance. I keep saying... move forward. Not backwards.

Zamuel,
Thanks for getting this discussion back on track! As I mentioned earlier, my time demands are going start getting a lot heavier next week with my local commitment to reworking the City of Little Rock Business License Schedule (We took a break - but now it's back to business), so today may be the last one I can devote to this topic for a while... so let's make the best of it!

First, on the subject of changing Previews - I'm all for it. But we don't need to stop there. One of the inherit problems with reworking Previews is the statement by the publishers that if the content changes from the time of solicitation, they accept no liability. Remember, Diamond is only a middle man in the distribution system, and as a result... caught in the middle. They have no control over the publishers. However, if the publishers start tying their solicitations to a point-of-sale notification system, then the information they provide would probably start being a lot more accurate.

You know, I agree with everyone who doesn't want to put something on the cover. But, when you stop and remember the public history of our industry, we really aren't left with much of a choice. Otherwise, events like the one with Jesus Costillo - where three days of testimony to the contrary were washed away by the Prosecutor's closing argument of 'comics are for kids' - will keep happening.

About the trade dress issue - that's really a can of worms. There are too many comics that this wouldn't work for. Powers looks like a kids book, with the two-dimensional, cartoony art - but it's not. There are lots of examples like this, so to go with a trade dress is not a good solution. I never said that it wasn't a desirable one, but there are too many problems in getting all the publishers to say: this kind of art can go here - and this can't go there. There will be too many exceptions to keep track of.

When I proposed my ratings system, this was just as a vehicle to get the dialog started. If a descriptor of content is more palatable to most, I can live with it. Even Teen and Pre-Teen would work. My request is just for something to help me deal with the children who shop in my stores.

It's obvious that we need something. All the other visual mediums have a firm system in place already. We'll always be a target without one. But by being proactive, and tackling the problem head-on, we can decide for ourselves what that system should be - while at the same time including input from all the diverse factions involved.

You know, while this online discussion hasn't gone as far as I would have hoped, it has gone farther than I expected. There have been a lot of good suggestions on all sides of the issue. I've never been more confident than now that something might really happen! It won't happen tomorrow. It won't happen right away. But as long a people are aware of the concerns and willing to discuss the matter... we're going in the right direction.

Thanks for all the help!

Michael Tierney

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
The discussion here is about a Universal Ratings System and how to implement it through a point-of-sale notification system.I understand. When you feel like lying about Kurt in order to make him look bad, that's not a digression. When someone confronts you with that lie, that's a digression. When someone points out that flaws in your plan, that's a digression. When you want to lecture people on how they should respond to you, that's not a digression.
But, when you stop and remember the public history of our industry, we really aren't left with much of a choice. Otherwise, events like the one with Jesus Costillo - where three days of testimony to the contrary were washed away by the Prosecutor's closing argument of 'comics are for kids' - will keep happening. Excuse me? Before the Castillo case, there had been things put on the cover for more than 40 years. (Or is being aware of history a matter of looking backwards?) The Castillo case was one where the store was aware enough of what they were selling to have already separated it and sell it to adults only. This claim has not a logical leg to stand on.
I never said that it wasn't a desirable one, but there are too many problems in getting all the publishers to say: this kind of art can go here - and this can't go there. There will be too many exceptions to keep track of.Sounds like the same could be said of your rating system.
All the other visual mediums have a firm system in place already.They do? Can you point me to the rating system for paintings? For art prints? For t-shirt designs?
We'll always be a target without one.There have been voluntary rating systems in comics for decades. Has it stopped us from being a target yet?

[Michael Tierney]

...And expect me to have a conversation with you? Get real.

Again... Nat, I quit reading your words. I gave you another chance and tried, but... You just want to throw insults and argue.... Not my idea of a conversation. More like a waste of time.

Anybody out there who does what to have a (real) legitimate discussion about defining the boundaries of what is accepted in comics? Don't let the negativity of others put you off. Nat is enacting the last defence of a desperate man. Pay no attention. I don't.

Michael Tierney

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
Anybody out there who does what to have a (real) legitimate discussion about defining the boundaries of what is accepted in comics? Don't let the negativity of others put you off. Nat is enacting the last defence of a desperate man. Pay no attention. I don't.

Actually, while you may not like his manner, Nat's pretty much just challenging your assertions, and you're refusing to provide any support for them.

None of that is "the last defense of a desperate man" -- it's simply the way debates work. If you make an argument and want other people to believe it, you should be prepared to back it up. At this point, though, you're repeatedly making assertions and when you're asked to back them up, refusing to "look backward."

Thus, we're left with arguments like your claim that you don't want cover advisories, but unless we institute them, situations like the Jesus Castillo one will keep happening. Since the Jesus Castillo case involved a book [I]with a cover advisory on it, and since the book was displayed and sold in keeping with that advisory, this argument doesn't seem to make sense.

But even though this has been pointed out, you keep making the same assertions, and you keep refusing to back up those assertions. All we have is your word that cover advisories will stop more Jesus Castillo cases -- but Jesus Castillo was arrested for selling a book with a cover advisory. Which should be believe? Your word, or history?

Telling people not to pay attention to the people who ask you to back up your arguments doesn't serve to make the arguments any more convincing. It just looks like you can't or don't want to address the arguments, so you make light of the person making those arguments. That's called ad hominem, and is a logical fallacy -- it's focusing on the person talking rather than on the content of what the person is saying.

Maybe you don't like Nat's manner. Maybe you think he's impolite. But telling people he's desperate (why? what does he have to be desperate about?) or that they shouldn't listen to him doesn't do a thing to debunk his arguments.

And it still winds up that you're telling people that cover advisories will change things in a way they haven't before. And that they'll prevent things they haven't prevented before.

I think looking backward is justified when what you're looking backward at is whether the plans being offered for the future have any likelihood of working. Those who don't remember the past, and all that.

kdb

PS: And to address your question about defining the boundaries of what's accepted in comics -- I think setting boundaries is a bad idea. Giving retailers information as to what's in the books is a great idea, but saying that certain content is unacceptable in comics is exactly the censorship we're arguing against. I'm guessing you didn't actually mean it that way, but I'm forced to respond to what you actually said, because it opens the door for people who will mean exactly that. You should be able to define what's accepted in your own store. But not in comics as either a medium or an industry.

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
You just want to throw insults and argue.... Not my idea of a conversation.Any conversation that bars noting when a statement is inaccurate or reflects dubious logic is a conversation that will be a poor one for reaching an understanding of a situation.

If you have a concern about the statements being made about you, perhaps you should also be concerned about the statements you've made about others. Unsubstantiated claims about people misquoting you, misunderstanding you, and such do not serve you well. When I accused you of falsehood, I can at least point to the statement, note exactly what I'm accusing you of. You have the opportunity to address it. This is in sharp contrast to your accusations.

If you want to convince people or to engage people, you would do well to show an interest in accuracy and in understanding people's disagreements with your statements.

[Michael Tierney]

Again, as I've said before, maybe I'm just coming at this from the viewpoint of an outsider. Then also, it could be that I'm just not internet experienced enough... But when you make a statement - that I can understand. When someone takes something out of context and says you we're saying something contrary to the rest of the intent of the paragraph, I tend to ignore it and refuse to re-explain a point that I consider to already be made. So... I'm willing to take the heat for some of the misunderstandings. Though I have to admit, sometimes I just couldn't decipher what was being said. And as the tone got heated, I figured it best to move on instead of reply in a like manner.

About the Jesus Castillo conviction, it has also been pointed out by others that if the rating hadn't been on the book - he would still have been in trouble. When I refer to this conviction, I have to look at the fact that the procecutor sat silent for three days of testimony about the breadth and scope of comics and their content. Then for a closing argument, she simply told the jury that they all knew that comics were intended for kids - and the jury then convicted Jesus. That statement of the public perception that comics are for kids is at the very heart of this discussion! This isn't my word. This IS history according to the CBLDF archives!

Let me give you two examples of the need for a ratings system - both of which just occured yesterday in the store location where I was working. Two different mothers with teenage daughters came in. Both were new customers - and in the down month of September, I sure need new customers.

Both mothers were actively involved in helping their daughters shop for reading. Both daughters gravitated toward Manga. But... if it didn't have a rating, the mothers wouldn't even consider the books. Remember, parents are trained from years of selecting movies, videos, and everything else graphic, to look for a rating to use as a tool by which to make their decision. At this point I stepped in and tried to help. One of the books rejected because it didn't have a rating was (and I hate to mention publishers too much, but sometimes there's no choice if a point is to be made) Oh My Goddess. I've always considered the American reprints of this Manga to be pretty kid friendly - from everything I've reviewed. But...

One mother read the back of one book, and I thought she would faint. While I read it, she approved Cardcaptor Sakura - which carries an A for All-Ages rating. Then I saw why she was concerned - this particular graphic novel's back cover touted a story where the lead female character gets drunk, starts granting 'wishes', and then gets her hand glued to the male lead character - and now it's time for a bath. Again, I thought she would faint. We in the industry know that this is a harmless title, but the parent isn't going to take the time to find that out. This mother said exactly that. Without a rating, she considered the description too dangerous.

The other mother wouldn't approve of Love Hina, which carries a rating of 16 and up. The 14 year old daughter argued that the CDs were rated 13 and up, but the mother would have none of it.

The good news here is that the parents were involved. The bad news is that when making decisions for their children - they were looking for a rating system. Without a ratings system, no sale. So...

I'll try to define a point-of-sale notifications of content system in another way: consider it a User Friendly Access Tool for Parents. Like I keep saying - at the point of sale: we need sales tools. (And not just now, but when the books passes across the counter again - years down the line)

You know, I don't want to have to do this, either. I'd love to leave the covers as works of art. But they aren't - not with Publishers and creators names and pricing and bar codes plastered across them. I'd love to say - just leave the kids comics unmarked and do what we're already doing, and marking only the older comics (in a dozen different ways). But none of this helps the parents. So... again...

If we're already operating under so many different ratings systems - all of which are inconsistent and unreliable - why not try and define a system that explains what material goes into what category? This is what I mean by defining boundaries. What is what? Then the writers know what audience that they're writing and the retailers will know what they're selling.

Systems are already in place. I'm just proposing improving them - not creating some new creature that never existed.

Michael Tierney

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
When I refer to this conviction, I have to look at the fact that the procecutor sat silent for three days of testimony about the breadth and scope of comics and their content. Then for a closing argument, she simply told the jury that they all knew that comics were intended for kids - and the jury then convicted Jesus. That statement of the public perception that comics are for kids is at the very heart of this discussion! This isn't my word. This IS history according to the CBLDF archives!Yes, and the Castillo conviction came after voluntary rating labels on comics had been in place for decades. So far, I've yet to see any way in which your labeling system would have changed the views of that jury any more than the existing labeling systems have.
The good news here is that the parents were involved. The bad news is that when making decisions for their children - they were looking for a rating system. Without a ratings system, no sale. So...Yes, but neither was looking for an industry-wide standardized rating system. The individual rating system used by the publisher of Love, Hina seemed to work well enough.
I'd love to say - just leave the kids comics unmarked and do what we're already doing, and marking only the older comics (in a dozen different ways). But none of this helps the parents. I'd say that the existing advisories do help the parents. In fact, I think you showed that with your Love, Hina example. You might think there are better ways to help the parents, but that's different from the existing methods not helping the parents.
If we're already operating under so many different ratings systems - all of which are inconsistent and unreliable - why not try and define a system that explains what material goes into what category?Given that the same people would be in charge of setting the ratings on each given issue, I don't see why that would be any more reliable than the current ratings the various publishers use.

The problems with achieving uniformity can be seen in the movie business. Studios are constantly submitting movies that they think would qualify for a given rating, only to find that the ratings board considers them to earn a different rating, and then the wrangling and editing goes on. Obviously, if the studios were setting the ratings themselves, it would not be uniform.
Then the writers know what audience that they're writing and the retailers will know what they're selling.As a writer, I already have some perception of the audience I'm writing for, and it may not fit someone else's categorization.

[Michael Tierney]

Plain and simple: The current system isn't working.

When the publishers stopped used the Comics Code Authority, they continued shipping books to sources who thought that they were still selling the same content. As a result: the wrong thing got sold to the wrong person. In Arkansas, this happened at Wal-Mart, and they no longer sell comics statewide. To my understanding, Wal-mart no longer sells comics in Texas, either.

I have customers coming into my store all the time and telling me about how chain booksellers are selling to kids comics that I won't - not without parental permission. As a result of all these factors, during the height of the debate over the censorship Act 858, a local TV station did a poll of 500 random adults, and the result was: 34% of adults in Arkansas considered comics harmful to children! And here I am, actively promoting comics as being good to children and every year giving them away at the Govenor's Summer Youth Laurette Program for gifted and talented children.

The chain sellers aren't trying to stir up trouble. They just don't know what it is that they're selling. All the while - public perception goes into the toilet. Every time someone else sees something that they consider to be aimed at kids, and then discover otherwise, the perception gets worse.

And I'm having trouble figuring out what the publishers are selling. I can't sell confidently in my own store - and that's my job! In the current Previews a title is being touted for the kids market and decribed as having 'Smart Ass Gore for Kids.' What does that mean? I have no idea, so I'm not ordering it. But if the publisher told me what the target audience was, I might. Depends on that target audience.

For me, when 34% of the public has a negative perception of comics - I think that this a problem which needs to be addressed.

Michael Tierney

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
About the Jesus Castillo conviction, it has also been pointed out by others that if the rating hadn't been on the book - he would still have been in trouble.

And it's been pointed out by others that without a rating he'd have been in a stronger legal position.

Neither point addresses your claim that ratings would prevent this sort of thing from happening, though. There was a rating on the book. It didn't prevent the arrest, the trial or the conviction.

Both mothers were actively involved in helping their daughters shop for reading. Both daughters gravitated toward Manga. But... if it didn't have a rating, the mothers wouldn't even consider the books. Remember, parents are trained from years of selecting movies, videos, and everything else graphic, to look for a rating to use as a tool by which to make their decision.

I don't see that as a demonstration of the need for a rating system so much as a need to educate those people to think of a comics store more like a bookstore than like a Blockbuster.

If we're already operating under so many different ratings systems - all of which are inconsistent and unreliable - why not try and define a system that explains what material goes into what category?

For all the reasons mentioned before. Giving it a different name doesn't change the downsides.

kdb

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
Plain and simple: The current system isn't working.

While that constitutes an argument against the current system, it doesn't actually support your plan. It just says we need to do something.

If someone pointed out that our current traffic laws aren't preventing drunk driving, so we should all paint ourselves rainbow colors and that would help, thay'd be on solid ground to say that the current system isn't working well enough. However, that doesn't mean that painting ourselves rainbow colors will improve matters.

That's an extreme analogy, but it illustrates the point. The assertion that the current system isn't working doesn't mean your system will work. I don't think it will, for the reasons already stated.

For me, when 34% of the public has a negative perception of comics - I think that this a problem which needs to be addressed.

Me too. I just don't favor addressing it through a ratings system.

kdb

[Michael Tierney]

But seriously... I agree that painting ourselves is not an answer. When you have a problem, you don't just treat the symptons. You treat the source of the problem.

As far as the Jesus Costello conviction, that could be argued from every direction, if you want to make a supposition of 'if things were different.' Kind of like the line from the original Star Trek episode where Scotty said something like; "And if my Grandma had wheels - she'd be a buggy." But that's not the point. My point is the plain fact that the prosecutor delivered a simple, straight-forward statement that comics are for kids, and the jury bought it - and convicted Jesus based on that statement.

And there are examples of comic dealers getting into trouble over comics that didn't have ratings. Back in the 80s, didn't Friendly Franks get into trouble over the unlabeled Omaha Cat Dancer? There are too many ways for the government to seize a retailer's livlihood by enacting the RICO act. Using RICO, whole video store chains have been seized because of adult videos. But none of this is the point of the discussion.

The point I'm trying to make is the perception that the public has that comics are for kids. The comics industry actively cultivated this perception for decades. Now that we are no longer restricted by that philosophy, we have to still recognize that this perception still exists.

Public perception needs to be addressed - and reversed. And what better way to educate the public, than through a user friendly system (and a better system than we have now)? As I said earlier, comics are fun brain food, and they can be instrumental in the development of a child's learning ability.

Michael Tierney

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
And there are examples of comic dealers getting into trouble over comics that didn't have ratings.

That doesn't show that comics with ratings offer any protection, though. All it says is that there's been trouble over comics, whether they have ratings or not.

Which is not a stirring argument that ratings will prevent trouble.

Public perception needs to be addressed - and reversed. And what better way to educate the public, than through a user friendly system (and a better system than we have now)?

I think ratings are a lousy way to educate the public, for the reasons I've gone into before. Outreach and promotion are both better ways than warnings on the covers.

As I said earlier, comics are fun brain food, and they can be instrumental in the development of a child's learning ability.

Some comics are fun brain food, but not all comics should be expected to be. And comics can absolutely be instrumental in the development of a child's learning ability.

The same is true of books and magazines, though, so none of that means that ratings will protect retailers, reverse public perception or silence would-be censors.

kdb

[Howard Price]

Originally posted by Kurt Busiek
That doesn't show that comics with ratings offer any protection, though. All it says is that there's been trouble over comics, whether they have ratings or not.

Which is not a stirring argument that ratings will prevent trouble.

I think ratings are a lousy way to educate the public, for the reasons I've gone into before. Outreach and promotion are both better ways than warnings on the covers.

No, it doesn't.

But we do have examples that movies with ratings offer protection. We do have examples that video games with ratings offer protection.

But heck, maybe they should have used more outreach and promotion to let parents know, "Hey! Did you know there are movies and games out there for more than just Little Johnny's tastes?"

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by Howard Price
But we do have examples that movies with ratings offer protection. We do have examples that video games with ratings offer protection. Do we? I don't know of any legal cases or situations that were averted because of the existence of movie or game ratings. I can point to a fair number of complaints that have been generated because folks thought that a movie was inappropriately rated, and foofraws arising about people being allowed to see movies of certain ratings. And the ratings have certainly not stopped kids from being exposed to movies that ratings suggest are inappropriate for them.

I'd be interested in hearing what examples you have to point to.

[Michael Tierney]

There's not much argument that ratings systems already exist. So let's jump the conversation forward...

What about doing a hypothetical rewrite of the current systems? Take everything that is already being used... and try to rework into a new, more workable system. This is, after all... what I proposed from the start.

Anybody out there want to take their own crack at defining what comics content should be at different, appropriate levels? I've taken a turn at it. Feel free to use (or abuse) my system as a starting base. Or don't.

Any other suggestions out there to turn the tide of public perception at the retailer level?

Michael Tierney

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
As a result of all these factors, during the height of the debate over the censorship Act 858, a local TV station did a poll of 500 random adults, and the result was: 34% of adults in Arkansas considered comics harmful to children! I doubt that is largely based on these people being knowledgable about the current state of comics, so changing the current state of comics would not change that.

Labeling some comics as being inappropriate for children would seem an unlikely way of convincing folks that comics are not harmful for children. It would practically be announcing the opposite.

And given the track record seen in TV and films, uniform labeling would likely discourage comics meant to be open to the younger audiences.

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Howard Price
But we do have examples that movies with ratings offer protection.

Do we? Were there a lot of obscenity arrests before they were instituted? Have the ratings protected adult cinemas from harrassment and prosecution?

I do know that we've seen those ratings contribute to a calamitous fall in the numbers of family films made, and seen their existence distort creative content, so I don't see them as the answer.

I don't know as much about the effect of video game ratings, but have seen arguments in both directions from people who follow that industry better than I do.

But heck, maybe they should have used more outreach and promotion to let parents know, "Hey! Did you know there are movies and games out there for more than just Little Johnny's tastes?"

I think that'd have been a much better idea, yes.

I think if the movie industry had stood up against the would-be censors as consistently, as boldly and as uncompromisingly as the publishing industry did, we'd have a much different movie industry today. I tend to think it'd be a better one.

In any case -- yeah, I prefer outreach and promotion to warning labels that nobody seems to be able to agree on. Michael felt that joking insults that referred to oral sex meant that FALLEN ANGEL wasn't safe for kids -- and maybe he was right, in his community. He'd be wrong in others. E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL has a joking insult referring to oral sex in it, which wasn't enough for the MPAA to give more than a PG to, which could be too mild a rating for FALLEN ANGEL in Michael's neighborhood, and as such wouldn't help him any -- especially not if he trusted the rating and parents got mad at him. These things aren't objective, and standards vary widely.

Never mind that the system as proposed is voluntary, which means that alll the publishers would have to be persuaded to agree not only to adopt a system, but to agree on what the standards are and apply these subjective standards consistently. However, we're also being told that persuading them to put better information in PREVIEWS hasn't worked, so we have to try something else -- so that adds up to giving up on getting them to do one thing, and replacing it by trying to get them to agree to something that includes all the same stuff we just gave up on convincing them of because it's apparently too hard, plus even more.

So in the end, I don't working, I don't see it happening and I don't see it as desirable.

kdb

[Michael Tierney]

Well... no surprises in those responses. Except for Howard and Zamuel, I guess it's mostly down to me versus Kurt and Nat as naysayers in this particular conversation.

Anybody else out there, still keeping tabs, that is involved at the retail level - who understands what is happening at the street level?

Or... for the sake of the Devil's Advocate... anybody still out there who agrees with Kurt and Nat?

Or... any fresh perspectives?

If not... there's not much sense in the same people repeatedly restating the same views.

Michael Tierney

[zamuel]

But heck, maybe they should have used more outreach and promotion to let parents know, "Hey! Did you know there are movies and games out there for more than just Little Johnny's tastes?"

Good enough idea. It's the issue of implementation. Advertising within other media seems like a possibility. A kid-aimed comic advertised in something such as National Geographic WORLD while an adult aimed comic in something like Rolling Stone. It would be pointing the comics to the right target audience. I think that Free Comic book Day could be a good way to educate parents that there is a large variation in comics available but I feel that it would be far too advertising/profit oriented to pull this off. Alot could be done with more info from the publishers but this will just make me cynical and shout "Hah! Like THAT will happen."

And I specifically mean publishers not writers, which leads into my next post...

[zamuel]

The issue that a ratings system can alter a writer's quality is quite true and an example can be given--myself. I'm an ametuer and not at a point where anything, video game or comic could be published (yet). But in working toward that, the existance of a rating system HAS altered my writing though I didn't implicitly think that hard about it until now. I feel that it is a mixed blessing. I feel that writers should take a certain responsibility in what they produce and any religous issues aside, I try to be careful with the tone and content. At the same time, I noticed that in trying to hit certain ratings within my mind caused the ideas to not be toned down but rather be watered down. On certain, ideas I had to take a second look at them. Though I feel that certain ideas can be expressed without being very explicit, I saw where some needed more substance for their style. That said, rating can be a decent idea and I support them. But it can be quite the double edged sword that can cause limitation for a writer or deter certain mediums.

On that question of video game ratings: I feel that though not perfect, they do a far better job than movie ratings and game makers seem to have use it to expand rather than restrict.

[MudshovelForYou]

Maybe it's a little presumptuous of me to think this, but I'm starting to believe that no matter how much effort anyone puts into a rating system, and fliers, commercials and educational material, a 40 year old adult who has spent the past 20 or so years believing comics should be for children only is not going to change his mind. Sure you may win a small percentage of people over, but I just can't imagine it working for the masses. Why? Because of years of biases built in to them that has grown and cultivated over the years. Now, notice I said that "they believe comics SHOULD" not that they think comics are. Which means that if there is a rating system and you come out with an explicit book with a Mature audience warning label, nothing's going to change. You'll have the same state of mind floating around in the populous.

My suggestion to this problem is still education on comics as a medium but through an entirely different means. Educate the developing society (high schoolers, college kids, 20 somethings). The societal bias isn't so entrenched in their minds that you could actual begin to provide an atmosphere in the near future that is less hostile to comics. Of course, you would still want to try to reach today's adults, but the focus should be on the incoming generation. Metaphorically speaking (and I am by no way, shape or form trying to devalue the work done by the people involved when I use this example), grassroots civil rights movements, while led by older, and in some cases much wiser men, the success of it came from showing the younger generation the errors of the current system.

[zamuel]

Any other opinions? I think Free Comic Book day would be a really good idea.

[Michael Tierney]

Judging by the time that's passed since the last response, I'd estimate that this thread has run it's course -- so I'm going to sign off with this final post.

Consider a Point-of-Sale Universal Ratings system in another way. Not just as a retailer tool, or just as consumer friendly access for parents. While naysayers consider the combining of all the diverse ratings systems that already exist into a unified form to be a definition of negative boundaries - my last counter would be not to think of a universal system in the terms of a brick and mortar wall...

Consider a Universal Ratings System as a definition of accepted comfort zones: not just for retailers and parents - but also as a comfort zone for publishers and creators. This wasn't a discussion about censorship - this was about defining target audiences.

Thanks to everybody for your input.

Michael Tierney
Collector's Edition - North Little Rock, Arkansas
The Comic Book Store - Little Rock, Arkansas
Little Rocket Publications (Wild Stars, Force Majeure: Prairie Bay)

[Nat Gertler]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
Consider a Universal Ratings System as a definition of accepted comfort zones: not just for retailers and parents - but also as a comfort zone for publishers and creators. You seem set to ignore that all those groups do not share an "accepted comfort zone", that even if you somehow got the entire comics professional community to agree with what was acceptable for each audience, there is no guarantee that the parents would agree with our judgments.

As a publisher and a creator, your plan is outside of my accepted comfort zone.

--Nat (wondering if this will be your last statement to the same degree that your 09-03-2003 11:36 PM post was)

[Kurt Busiek]

Originally posted by Michael Tierney
Judging by the time that's passed since the last response, I'd estimate that this thread has run it's course -- so I'm going to sign off with this final post.

I'd agree. Looks like closing statements all around, then.

Consider a Point-of-Sale Universal Ratings system in another way. Not just as a retailer tool, or just as consumer friendly access for parents. While naysayers consider the combining of all the diverse ratings systems that already exist into a unified form to be a definition of negative boundaries - my last counter would be not to think of a universal system in the terms of a brick and mortar wall...
Consider a Universal Ratings System as a definition of accepted comfort zones: not just for retailers and parents - but also as a comfort zone for publishers and creators. This wasn't a discussion about censorship - this was about defining target audiences.

My quibble here is that simply calling it something else doesn't make it something else. If it had negative repercussions or fatal administrative problems (and as previous posts have gone into in detail, I think it would have many), then considering it something else won't make them go away. If someone throws a brick at my head, I can consider it a construction unit rather than a weapon, but I've still got a concussion either way.

And I'm not sure what the practical difference is between a metaphorical wall (a boundary) and a defined comfort zone (a boundary). Both draw a line and say you can't cross it -- which might work in your community, but cause problems in other communities, even if it protected you from trouble (no evidence that it would), would be adopted voluntarily and applied consistently by publishers (no evidence that it would) and didn't have any effect on the interiors (sadly, there's at least some evidence to the contrary, even with the non-universal systems we've had already).

Ultimately, my conclusions are the same: There is evidence that ratings systems can cause problems of various sorts, and simply hoping that those problems wouldn't arise for comics is not enough. The book and magazine industries, however, have been ratings-free, and yet manage to successfully match audience with publication, including graphic material, from the fluffiest of kiddie books to the hardest of hardcore adult material.

Neither system is without strife, but the publishing industry's system has been more successful at dealing with strike and remaining free. So if your goal is to eliminate strife, I don't think you'll have much luck. If your goal is to connect material with the appropriate audiences in a way that affords the most freedom, versatility and range of material, I think the publishing industry's model is the better one to emulate.

kdb