What I’m amused by is the implication that Blankets and Fun House could be considered pornography. I know that’s probably not the implication you’re making, Ali, but it sure seems to be the implication of those people protesting the books. Yeah, I know that both books deal with sexuality, but I really can’t imagine anyone wanking off to either book! As I recall, Fun House talks about Alison Bechtel (sp?) and her father’s homosexuality, but doesn’t really depict anything in anything near an explicit or titillating way, and Blankets does have some drawings of female nudity, but in a very romanticized and decidedly non-pornographic way.

It does make one wonder if the offended parents really have any real idea what’s in these two books. Moreover, I wonder if they merely have the old “comics are meant for kidsâ€? knee-jerk reaction. I will say this: I live in New York City, and the NYC public library system does have a pretty good selection of graphic novels. At some branches, there’s a separate section of gn’s in the adult section, and at others, they’re all in the children/youth section. Just today, I was in the children’s section of the 58th St. branch (which is a mite embarrassing for a 35-year-old!) looking at their graphic novel stock. I saw Spiegelman’s “In The Shadow Of No Towersâ€? there, which, while not “inappropriateâ€? per se, would not be of any interest to children, in my opinion. I have been in other branches where I’ve seen comics that I really wouldn’t want shelved in the children’s section, and have winced at the thought of some child checking it out, a parent seeing it, and subsequently seeing a headline in the New York Post: “Public Library Funds Smut Comics!!!!â€? (At the same time, I think it’s a bit strange that both Maus and Jimmy Corrigan and Owly and various teen manga would be on the same graphic novel shelf in the Adult section.)

I think most of us in the comics-sphere have long taken for granted that comics aren’t just for kids, to the extent that we forget that that perception is not universally shared, and that in addition to getting the word out that comics aren’t just for kids, there’s also the need to let people know that there are now comics for ALL ages. A library should have Sin City, Love and Rockets, and Lost Girls, AS WELL as Donald Duck and Electric Girl, and those librarians should all know enough to be able to shelf those books in appropriate places for their patrons. The one parent’s suggestion that Blankets and Fun Home would attract pedophiles is based on ignorance and stupidity; the other parent’s suggestion that common sense dictates those books be shelved in the adult section is not.

In my own snarky commentary, let mesay that I think it is hilarious that on Heidi’s blog, this appears under the categoires of “Literacy” and “They hate us,” which reads as “Literacy, they hate us!”

Thus concludes the end of my essay.

What we in the library world know for damn sure is you NEVER attack the complainant’s beliefs. Our defense of the books must remain focused on the value of the books. I never had to deal with a challenge that went into the public forum of a meeting, so I can’t really know just how I would react personally. But I do know that we can never attack our opponents, we have to remain on the moral high ground in our defense of all library materials.

That said, I would still argue that recognizing major cultural trends re. political affiliation and civic action is not only feasible, but just plain smart. While I don’t think we need to bog ourselves down with some sort of bristly, “let’s arm ourselves” attitude in the culture war, it’s just good ol’ common sense to be prepared for what we will say and do when our values, priorities, and pretty picture books are challenged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYjUWSfj7fE

I think one would have a hard time depicting Fun Home or Blankets as stroke books, and similar material in prose in the general section of the library would not likely see such response. This seems clearly anticomicsism.

If nothing else, to do so is to so simplify the issue as to overlook the number of conservatives who do believe in free expression and anti-censorship (those of Libertarian philosophy, for example) and to overlook that some of the most “won’t-someone-think-about-the-children!” censorious movements have come from Democrats (like Estes Kefauver, for an example close to our comics-loving hearts.)

I agree with Mr. Maloof, above. I’m reprinting something here that I submitted to Tom Spurgeon’s site over a year ago, in reference to the comic strip BC:

“I think you are correct in ascribing this issue to a permissiveness of expression among liberals. In my experience, conservatives are much more likely to ‘mobilize’ when they feel threatened by something in the media. Liberals tend towards tolerance of other viewpoints, even those of conservatives.”

Now that I’ve overcome my shock, I should be able to post a more thoughtful post of how there’s something called the freedom of speech and press, etc., and that the mere thought of banning books should be abolished. It’s like people who complain about certain television shows. Learn how to change the channel. If you don’t want your children watching them, then tell them not to watch it, and take steps to prevent them from watching it. Same with books. Just because you don’t want your child to read a book like Blankets, doesn’t mean another parent would be against that.

On top of that, this is a public library. Why should the opinions of a few people have more weight over those who would like these books since they’re considered to be literature in the comics world, and are now seeping into literature classes in college? Sure, 75% of the crowd at the meeting last night were against it, but I’m more inclined to think that it’s because of the fact that those who enjoy the material don’t get in the frenzy that these people do who’re all about the Christian Right. It’s just sickening to see that these people have nothing better to do with their time then to protest a book like Blankets or try to claim that J.K. Rowling is trying to turn their children into Wiccans through a book.

Craig

And remember, any one getting any sort of prurient satisfaction from works like these has probably been living in the woods for the last 50 years.

And CAPTAIN FREAKIN’ UNDERPANTS??!? Yeah, boy, banning Dav Pilkey will fix EVERYTHING going wrong with America nowadays, won’t it?