Censorship has become a big deal in the modern age of entertainment, whether we’re talking about comics, movies, video games and even toys. Many of us feel violated when boundaries are forced upon our creativity by publishers, and social media platforms. What should inherently be free expression, is silenced if it doesn’t adhere to those we depend on to get our work in front of an audience.
If you’re watching this you likely share the same view.
But let me play devil's advocate for just a moment here. Is there a time and place to restrict someone’s creativity when it goes too far? The reason I ask this question is because it was recently revealed that Walking Dead artist Charlie Adlard initially refused to draw an extremely violent and controversial issue in the comic book series, according to writer and creator Robert Kirkman.
Here’s why - three of the Walking Dead Characters in the book, Rick Grimes, Michonne and Glenn end up suffering horrific acts at the hands of the Governor, a key villain in the story. Rick’s hand gets sliced off, Glenn is imprisoned and Michonne is beaten and raped.
Some pretty bad stuff, but it gets worse in issue 33 of the Walking Dead when Michonne decides to take revenge in the vein of ‘I Spit On Your Grave.’ And so she should right?
Michonne ends up mutilating and sodomizing the Governor with his own torture devices, then gouges out his eye with a spoon. Some pretty hardcore stuff. Hardcore enough to make the artist question whether or not he was okay with drawing all of this out.
Robert Kirkman admitted that he wanted this issue to be grotesque and over the top. You see, he wanted the reader to feel somewhat conflicted, as the perspectives of both the Michonne and the Governor were represented throughout their ordeals. Yes the Governor had committed these atrocious acts, but Michonne was clearly just as capable and sadistic. The only thing that separated these two was the context.
I call that good story writing.
Robert Kirkman explains to Charlie that rather than celebrating the violence in issue 33, the intention was to make the reader feel uncomfortable about it. After that, Charlie relents and agrees to draw it.
Which sets us up for an important conversation surrounding what we might deem as being ‘too much’ in comics. Is there such a thing? Certainly. But who is to say when the line is crossed? Oftentimes that comes down to what’s defined in the law, at least as far as legality is concerned. There are certainly comics, movies and video games out there that have been banned.
So what about the personal opinions of books that are legally allowed to be published, but which make people feel uncomfortable. So uncomfortable they might campaign for it to be censored through social media. It doesn’t take much to offend people these days - and issue 33 of the Walking Dead no doubt pushed the envelope with it’s gratuitous representations of rape and torture.
But is that grounds for it to be ‘canceled’? Or at least dressed down enough to be broadly acceptable to the masses. Should Kirkman cater to the would-be naysayers, at the cost of his story’s authenticity?
You might not want to be so quick to answer. You might be fine with the Walking Dead. But what about another book that showcases something that directly conflicts with what your deem as acceptable? Are you willing to indeed accept it?
Any rules we place onto free expression need to be void of hypocrisy. Unfortunately, this is not the case in this day and age. A slight shift of frame and all of a sudden, what was okay to us yesterday, isn’t okay today even if the same variables are at play.
In the end freedom and tolerance must run hand in hand. Those words, freedom and tolerance are often used as virtue signaling sound bites, but to grasp what they truly mean in reality and practice them is harder than it might seem.
Personally, I would rather have the freedom to create, and experience creativity across its entire spectrum, than to only ever have access to a small slice of it. And I certainly don’t want others to determine what’s okay for me to read or watch, based on their opinion. The law is one thing, creativity has to abide by it, but an opinion is an opinion. It’s personal, and it shouldn’t be used as a be all and end all blanket rule creators must act under.
Maybe you’ve got a different take, and I’d love to hear it. Leave your thoughts in the comments below - and if you enjoyed the video, be sure to hit like, Subscribe and ring that bell for notifications so you don’t miss out on the next video.
That’s all for now, see you later.
-Clayton