Network: 
Robert Crumb's illustrated version of the "Book of Genesis" is out, and it's incredible, and guess who's upset about it. Christians! The amazing part about this particular controversy is that instead of getting up in arms about comics with gay people in them or Japanese cartoons with comedic nudity, they're actually upset with the Bible, and it is blowing my mind.The problem isn't that Crumb's illustrations are upsetting, which is what they're saying; the problem is that those stories in the Bible are upsetting, and many people -- particularly Christians -- would rather not have to look at them.
The book is this bizarre cultural nexus where the hyperactive moralism and whitewashed Scriptural cherry-picking of many Christians runs headlong into the reality of a) life and b) the book that they consider literally infallible, and it's seriously incredible to sit here and watch them crash together.
First, let's be clear about what's actually in the book. The Telegraph article says that "it includes graphic illustrations of Bible characters having sexual intercourse, and other scenes depicting naked men and women as well as 'gratuitous' depictions of violence," as though Crumb woke up one day and decided to illustrate original Bible slash fiction. In truth, all he's really done is illustrate the stories that are in the book, which is why the following is complete and total B.S.:
Hey, Judge, do you know what that sounds like? I mean, exactly like? The response from many Danish Muslims over the cartoon depictions of Muhammed. Except that they were complaining about people mocking something sacred to them, while you're actually complaining about someone faithfully depicting something sacred to you. Are you seriously that afraid of pictures of things? Things that come verbatim from your beloved religious text?"It is turning the Bible into titillation," said Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, a religious think-tank. "...If you are going to publish your own version of the Bible it must be done with a great deal of sensitivity. The Bible is a very important text to many many people and should be treated with the respect it deserves... Faith is such an important part of people's lives that one must remember to tread very carefully."
Also, if we're going to talk about what is and is not "gratuitous," did I really need to know -- for example -- that one time, after a man being pursued by an angry mob threw his concubine outside to be gang-raped all night long, in the morning when they were done he took her home and cut her into exactly twelve pieces? Because that's one story from the Bible that I'm not sure I needed to hear in detail, or at all, but there it is.
Consider further the fact that parents have no problem handing their kids a Bible, which has numerous stories that involve rape, murder, dismemberment, incest, infanticide, and most notably, where the main character that everyone loves gets tortured to death in an incredibly horrible way -- and even encourage kids to wear tiny replicas of the torture device that killed the hero around their neck -- while simultaneously freaking out completely because a Japanese comic book in their local library may have included brief, comedic nudity depicted by several amorphous circles.
Of course, this isn't the first time that the morality police have gotten disproportionately upset with comics -- as opposed to print books with often more titillating or controversial content -- simply because you can see the events taking place directly on the page rather than reading a description of them.
But if you really want to deal with the Bible -- or complicated, powerful stories in any medium -- then you have to be ready to look them in eye, even when it isn't pretty. The power of the "Book of Genesis" in comics form is that is forces you to do exactly that. And the idea that we're not supposed to acknowledge the violence, sex, and even horror of many moments in the Bible because people like Judge want to ignore them in both Scripture and life offends me profoundly, not only because it is ridiculous, but because it is intellectually and spiritually corrupt.
This controversy has less to do with real faith of any kind and more to do with putting your hands over your ears and shouting LA LA LA LA LA LA. Many people turn to the Bible as a book that teaches them lessons about how to live, but no one ever got better at dealing with the hard, complicated realities of living by closing their eyes, or by trying to close them for other people. And in fairness, at least one Christian group interviewed for the article seemed to agree:
A spokeswoman for the Bible Society said she hadn't seen the book but that reviews had suggested that Crumb had "really engaged" with the Book of Genesis. "It may surprise people but the Bible does contain nudity, sex and violence. That's because it contains real stories about real people."
How interesting -- comics do too. I'll have to remember that defense for the next time censors come for us.
Comments:
(17)Add a comment
Tuesday 20 October
By Wesley Smith
Wow. A leader of a Christian group thinks that an athiest's interpretation of the Bible is 'wholly inappropriate.'
That is the worst thing Judge says in the article. It's 'inappropriate.' Not that it needs to be censored, not that it shouldn't be published. In fact he goes out of his way to say it's Crumb's right to have this published.
It's also the worst thing that any of the three representatives have to say about the book. The Telegraph article points out that the other two religious representatives are more supportive.
I'm not saying that Crumb's book should be censored, but NEITHER DID ANYBODY ELSE. At no point in that Telegraph article did anybody come close to saying that it shouldn't be published or read by anybody who wants to read it. Just that anyone who tackles the subject matter needs to be sensative because it's kind of volatile.
Nowhere in the Heidi MacDonald's post--or anywhere that I've read in any of the reports of the account--was religion brought up as a factor for the Dragon Ball incident. Just a father concerned that Dragon Ball Z might not be appropriate for his elementary school age son or his school's library. In other words, he was DOING HIS JOB.
And comic books "contain real stories about real people"? Really? Which ones, because unless you're referring to the issue of Amazing Spider-Man that features President Obama, you're delusional. Comics by the major publishers in the US and Asia are predominantly escapist fantasies. Whether or not you believe everything in the Bible is true, a lot of people do, so some amount of respect needs to be made to the material. If someone published a graphic novel biography of Abraham Lincoln that included a scene of him boning Mary Todd, regardless of whether it happened or not, we'd all have the right to be concerned about how much respect was being paid to Lincoln.
In short, Laura you are sensationalizing what is essentially a non-story and intentionally misleading your readers into making a connection between Christians and reactionary censorship where NONE EXISTS in these cases.
And I think it's hilarious that in a post where you rant about conservative reactionism and censorship, you've got these attractive black bars covering up the naughty bits. Good job with that.
Reply
Tuesday 20 October
By Laura Hudson
I didn't say that the religious leaders complaining about Crumb's illustrations were seeking to censor the book, I said that they were didn't like seeing the sex and violence that exist in the Bible illustrated, as it forces them to confront those aspects of the Bible in a concrete way.
I also said that the visual component of comics that has upset these religious leaders -- who theoretically do not have a problem with the Book of Genesis in prose form -- has also played a significant role in the censorship, parental complaints, and removal from libraries of comics and graphic novels, for precisely the same reason.
The fact that you don't know comic books can contain stories about real people indicates to me that you know very little about the medium, and I suggest you educate yourself a bit further about the form and particularly the first amendment issues it has faced from social and religious conservatives throughout its history, as you don't seem to see a connection there.
Also, I find it interesting that you continue to suggest that Crumb is somehow being insensitive by illustrating these stories -- unless the Book of Genesis itself is somehow insensitive to the Christians who are complaining, a concept that is mystifying to me and yet they appear to be saying it.
Also, I'm not allowed to post nudity as per my contract, but your desire to see more on the site is noted.
Tuesday 20 October
By Shawn Richter
Kudos, Laura. on the excellent article. I've been trying to find more info on this book and Comics alliance appears to be the place to look!
As for Wesley smith's comments, it generally isn't the mainstream superhero books that get banned - it's the true life or autobio stuff that gets shop owners in trouble with the so-called moral majority:
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2009/10/01/celebrate-freedom-read-a-banned-comic/
Just my two cents...
Shawn Richter
www.wonderealm.com
Reply
Tuesday 20 October
By Wesley Smith
Okay. I see a couple of your points. I wasn't trying to imply that you were saying folks were trying to get the book censored in any way. I was trying to say that the worst things that anybody said in the article were that: 1) it seemed inappropriate; 2) that anyone taking on undertaking such a project should be sensative to the material; and 3) it seemed like a bad idea. And half the Christian representatives quoted had no problem with it at all. So I do think it's unfair to generalize all Christians here are offended by the material, when there's not even a majority referenced in the Telegraph article.
But you do imply a direct connection between Christians and book banning in the Dragon Ball case, which I think is unfair because there still hasn't been any evidence that the people asking for the removal of the Dragon Ball Z book were themselves religious.
And we both know there's a difference between hearing someone talking about sex, or reading that someone had sex, and seeing a picture of it. It's one thing to see Adam and Eve naked; that makes total sense. Seeing Lot in the missionary position serves no real point in the story (from what I've seen--I obviously haven't read the book yet) other than to titillate.
And, yes, of course there are real people portrayed in comics. I said as much. My point was that 95% of comics published are escapist fiction. You seem to imply that if authorities try to yank Dragon Ball Z out of your local library, your defense will be that comics portray real people in real situations.
However, I do want to seriously, honestly apologize for the tone of my first post. While I vehemently disagree with your suppositions, I wholeheartedly agree with your right to have them. And the sarcastic tone of my first post was way out of line, plainly.
The article you linked to, the one about Banned Books Week, was well done, too.
Reply
Tuesday 20 October
By Laura Hudson
I appreciate that, as well as your willingness to have sincere dialogue over this. I do see your point -- certain not ALL Christians feel this way, although the focus in the media has been on the most outspoken and outraged religious leaders.
All too often, I think this what happens -- the most vocal leaders who stand for Christianity in our society are those who are the angriest and most self-righteous, which is a poor way to carry the message of the faith. I frequently see little to nothing of Christianity in the things these leaders say -- instead of love and compassion, I see anger, fear, narrow-mindedness, hypocrisy, and a need to mandate their beliefs and choices in the lives of others.
The fact that many Christians would rather avert their eyes and get angry at someone for showing them the unpleasant parts of their holy book rather than try and come to terms with the difficult questions they pose seems dishonest, spiritually shallow, and rooted in the same prudishness that keeps many of them from dealing honestly with real life issues of sex and violence that are even more important.
And yes, I do link issues of sexual prudishness and puritanism with religion, but because culturally and historically that's at the heart of it.
In the story of Lot and his daughters, sex is a hugely important part of that narrative, and something that is described in detail in Scripture. Actually seeing Lot having sex with his daughter isn't titillating, it's gross and weird and unpleasant -- but that's the point. Not every story is best served by a soft fade away from a terrible scene, particularly if the point is that the scene is terrible.
Tuesday 20 October
By Halifax
It may be true that Judge's response sounds exactly like the response of some Danish Muslims--but the key word is some. If all Danish Muslims had objected exactly like that, or, rather, had not threatened violence, we wouldn't be talking about Danish Muslims in the first place. What's the connection?
I agree that visual representations are treated differently than verbal presentations, although there are several complicating factors. There are different styles of verbal representation: although there is plenty of sex in the bible, even in the raciest parts of Song of Solomon you won't find the "slowly he ran his moist, pink tongue over her quivering thighs" that you will in, say, verbal pornography. Or, rather, we treat the former as neutral, and the latter as in some way pornographic. There are, obviously, different styles of visual representation, as well, and slow-motion cheesecloth camerawork is different from "objective"/"neutral" camerawork (there are problematic terms, but you get my meaning)--but we tend to treat any depiction of people having sex as pornographic, no matter how it's filmed. This may be a double standard, although it's really a triple standard, since verbal pornography (which can be found in bodice-ripper romance novels) is regulated, at least societally if not legally, more heavily than visual pornography. I mean, you can read a bodice ripper on the subway, but pulling out a Playboy is taboo, even though the romance novel is technically hardcore and Playboy is not. There may be good, or valid, reasons for this (anyone can take in images at a glance, but it's hard to read porn text over someone's shoulder, e.g.), but it's also probably because pornography is regulated by Cirinists.
In any event, I'm not sure anyone is "afraid to look" at the bible so much as that we are all aware of the word-image problem. I mean, if we read in a book that a that character has dysentery, well, do we necessarily want to see that scene in the movie version? (Obviously I do, but you can dig what I'm saying.) Depictions of sex are always going to cause a problem because even handled with kid gloves, or in a "neutral" way, we see all depictions of sex (as I mentioned before) as racy in a way that not all mentions of sex are racy. But one of Crumb's virtues is his gratuitousness, so the kid gloves are off. Judge's statement is an acknowledgment of this, and I would, therefore, argue that it's not B.S.
Reply
Tuesday 20 October
By Laura Hudson
The reason the Muhammed cartoons were originally published was because the Danish editor felt that many people, particularly in the press, were self-censoring themselves out of deference to the demands of Muslims that Muhammed never be depicted.
"The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech... It is certainly not always attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance in the present context."
I happen to agree with him, regardless of whether we're talking about Islam, Christianity, or any other faith, and that special consideration is precisely what I feel like Judge is asking for.
I also find your characterization of the Crumb images as pornography to be false -- that's quite simply not what he has drawn. The mere act of representing sex where sex is mentioned, as in the instance of Lot, has been deemed controversial not because he's made some Biblical "Lost Girls" or because he's angling for salaciousness, but because it is sex and people are uncomfortable with that, particularly in the context of the Bible. And I do think they are afraid to look at it, much as they are afraid to look both literally and figuratively at the stories of Lot, and the Levite and his concubine, and many, many others that don't fit into their religious notions about what is fit for reading and discussing, despite the fact that they play an important role in their own religious book.
Tuesday 20 October
By Douglas Wolk
Solomon 5:4-5: "My lover thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my heart began to pound for him. I arose to open for my lover, and my hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with flowing myrrh, on the handles of the lock..."
Tuesday 20 October
By Greg
Bravo Zulu. Well done, Laura. I think you have it just about right. And I suspect that most people of intellectual and spiritual honest, including some well grounded in the world and their faith, would also agree.
Reply
Tuesday 20 October
By PJ McGee
See, Islam is way ahead of its time. They've been saying for years, "No drawing people or Allah, especially Allah, draw hexagons." They saw Crumb coming a mile away. Mohammad = Better Prophet, obv.
Also I love that the guy's name is Mike Judge.
Reply