James Robinson to Issue Statement on "Airboy" #2 Controversy

[RJT]

When Sonia Sotomayor had her confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court, senators asked her how being Latino would affect her judgment or rulings. Samuel Alito was not asked how being a white man affected his judgment or rulings. Because often being white is considered the default, without any inherent identity bias.

I mention this because the idea that something can be objectively offensive or inoffensive is false. The idea that a transgender identity affects one ability to see things objectively, but one's cisgender identity does not, is likewise false.

[gurkle]

When Sonia Sotomayor had her confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court, senators asked her how being Latino would affect her judgment or rulings. Samuel Alito was not asked how being a white man affected his judgment or rulings. Because often being white is considered the default, without any inherent identity bias.

I mention this because the idea that something can be objectively offensive or inoffensive is false. The idea that a transgender identity affects one ability to see things objectively, but one's cisgender identity does not, is likewise false.

This is all true (and not that long ago, being Italian-American would have gotten Alito the same kind of questions Sotomayor got; now his identity group has become "white"). Everyone's biased. But what's also false is the idea that something is offensive or artistically unnecessary because a member of a group objects to it, or even several members.

Let's say there's a World War II story where the American soldiers use the word "Jap" constantly. And let's say a Japanese-American reader can't enjoy the book because of this. If I start lecturing this person that she shouldn't be offended, I'm being a jerk. Because I don't understand the pain it brings to hear that word, or the fact that in the WWII context, it was used to dehumanize Japanese-Americans.

But when the conversation shifts from whether the reader is right to be offended to whether the word is artistically necessary - then it's a different issue. Because obviously that is the way soldiers talked back then, and any nicer word would be a lie. And it wouldn't even necessarily make it better: Gone With the Wind, the movie, eliminated all uses of the n-word, but all it did was make the Old South seem even more sanitized.

Now, the artistic necessity argument isn't as clear-cut with Airboy. The scene itself can be criticized for being kind of an old comedy cliche, and maybe the book would be better off without it, but it's still arguably true that the characters' attitudes are the attitudes many people have in real life. And a lot of the criticism has ignored this and gone straight to attacking the book for using that word, even though that's the word real-life jerks use all the time.

Also while I agree that creators should be mindful of their audience, part of the point of these online attacks is that they may not represent the audience at all. Artists tend to think that if their material is bad or offensive, the audience will reject it - so a stand-up comedian judges material by whether the audience laughs, not by what bloggers think. There are advantages and disadvantages to this approach, but I think we're too quick to assume online that a room full of people, or thousands of comic buyers, are so unenlightened or hateful that they don't understand the nuances. Blackface jokes, after all, have been considered corny and old-fashioned since the '30s at least - audiences often reject racist material before they even reject racism.

[RJT]

This is all true (and not that long ago, being Italian-American would have gotten Alito the same kind of questions Sotomayor got; now his identity group has become "white"). Everyone's biased. But what's also false is the idea that something is offensive or artistically unnecessary because a member of a group objects to it, or even several members.

Let's say there's a World War II story where the American soldiers use the word "Jap" constantly. And let's say a Japanese-American reader can't enjoy the book because of this. If I start lecturing this person that she shouldn't be offended, I'm being a jerk. Because I don't understand the pain it brings to hear that word, or the fact that in the WWII context, it was used to dehumanize Japanese-Americans.

But when the conversation shifts from whether the reader is right to be offended to whether the word is artistically necessary - then it's a different issue. Because obviously that is the way soldiers talked back then, and any nicer word would be a lie. And it wouldn't even necessarily make it better: Gone With the Wind, the movie, eliminated all uses of the n-word, but all it did was make the Old South seem even more sanitized.

Now, the artistic necessity argument isn't as clear-cut with Airboy. The scene itself can be criticized for being kind of an old comedy cliche, and maybe the book would be better off without it, but it's still arguably true that the characters' attitudes are the attitudes many people have in real life. And a lot of the criticism has ignored this and gone straight to attacking the book for using that word, even though that's the word real-life jerks use all the time.

Also while I agree that creators should be mindful of their audience, part of the point of these online attacks is that they may not represent the audience at all. Artists tend to think that if their material is bad or offensive, the audience will reject it - so a stand-up comedian judges material by whether the audience laughs, not by what bloggers think. There are advantages and disadvantages to this approach, but I think we're too quick to assume online that a room full of people, or thousands of comic buyers, are so unenlightened or hateful that they don't understand the nuances. Blackface jokes, after all, have been considered corny and old-fashioned since the '30s at least - audiences often reject racist material before they even reject racism.

I agree with almost all of this--I earlier addressed the artistic necessity idea when discussing racist language in Southern Bastards and how Aaron and Latour would likely not react the same way b/c of the overall themes of the book. I'm guessing Robinson doesn't feel the same about the scene in Airboy; he probably could've used a different event to send Airboy over the edge. Thàt doesn't mean he had to. He has every right to put whatever over-the-top joke he wanted to there. It seems, though, that he was caught off guard by the reaction. It's up to every creator to decide for themselves how much to factor in the criticisms of their work.

My main objection is people telling trans people they are wrong to be offended or that they are unable to be objective because they are trans.

[See No Evil]

Gail Simone just tweeted out about this issue:

Isn't that kind of reaction a skewing of the narrative though? The characters/comic isn't intended to pander to bigots, nor are their negative actions meant to be seen in a positive or rewarding light.

Can creators no longer hold a mirror up to society, warts and all?

I agree. I expect more of Simone than this sort of knee jerk, overly "politically correct" response.

This is exactly the kind of response i would expect from Gail Simone.

[Braun Rodman]

isn't this comic a satire...like a painfully obvious satire?

[Zeitgeist]

This is exactly the kind of response i would expect from Gail Simone.

Ah, I didn't know she had a reputation or something.

[RJT]

isn't this comic a satire...like a painfully obvious satire?

Transgender people aren't Martians. You guys can stop trying to explain it them like they've just arrived on the planet. They get that it's satirical, but they still find it offensive.