The old version (http://web.archive.org/web/20041210100431im_/http://www.questionablecontent.net/comics/10.png) is really uncomfortable. There's a vast difference between a statement that shy, submissive people want to be raped and that they'd fantasize about being with a dominant partner. Those two are not close experiences at all.
I think both versions are about equally offensive, really. I'd rather he just delete that comic entirely.Ehhhhh no.
The timing is even harder to explain given that Jeph has said he doesn't do archive trawls.
I imagine he just did it in a hurry to meet the need, and wasn't worried about quality in such an old strip.I agree.
I'm only one data point, but more than one man in my close family is a rape survivor, and I was still fine with the original strip, taking it as clearly hyperbole.
make your own an indicator.
I personally don't understand why it was changed
or why people let jokes like that get to them.
Rape is a horrible thing, no doubt. But so is murder and people make jokes about murder and death all the time. They may be tasteless, but they're still just jokes and do not condone the action they make fun of.
If somebody decides to go out and rape somebody because a girl in an internet comic strip made a casual mention of it, there is something seriously wrong with the person, not the creator of the comic strip, for thinking a joke makes the action OK.
I didn't realize a mention of hypothetical rape in a cartoon (literally make-believe within make-believe) was more important than guns within a single level of make-believe.
Does 1524 offend people?
Because porn and roleplay are significantly damn different from talking about the situations of actual rape-survivors.
So Valdís, how long did it take you to delete all the n-words from Huck Finn?
It was the attitude of real things that was so bothersome in 10, not the mere mention of the word in any context.
Edit 2: She says it in her first appearance. (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1298)
I find myself confused about the topic of this thread. Is it about
* whether Jeph really changed the strip (he did)
* what triggered the change (we will probably never know)
* whether he had the moral obligation to change it or
* whether he had the moral obligation to leave it like it was?
:?
Jeph became uncomfortable with that particular joke being in there, he had the power to change it, and so he did. Works for me.
It isn't the word that's the problem, it's the attitude.That's one of the reason the change bugs me. The attitude does not change. She's still grabbing Marten and doing her thing without asking if it's ok first, because she'd assume he'd be happy with the result.
That's one of the reason the change bugs me. The attitude does not change.
I'm thinking of an artist who created a public piece of work, who then decided it wasn't quite what he wanted it to be, and so took it upon himself to "edit" it.
Charges of vandalism were considered.
No, it wasn't George Lucas.
According to some European copyright laws an artist has moral rights in a work that remain in place even after it's sold.
Once it's been sold to someone else, it belong to the buyer and the artist has no further right to change it. Whether the buyer has any right to edit it is another story. I would tend to say no, unless they get permission from the artist to do so, because the changed work would still have the original artist's signature on it, but would no longer be entirely their work, so it would be misrepresenting that artist's work.
@Storel: Well, actually.. that doesn't matter, does it? Money being exchanged just usually signifies relinquishing his rights to it. The difference between "I am giving/selling you this DVD" and "I am letting you watch my DVD". In the latter case the person being lent the DVD doesn't really have a leg to stand on if you snap your own disc.
According to some European copyright laws an artist has moral rights in a work that remain in place even after it's sold.
Yeah, but then it's a case of selling the rights to a work, but not the right of alteration. Basically a limited sale, but since the artist has ceased owning the work that wouldn't grant them the right to alter it. Their remaining not-sold right being "Well, you can't either!", pretty much?
You can amend the work, but you can never show anyone. Not until copyright has expired.
There certainly are a lot of people offended by a years-old hand-drawn webcomic on the internet. Claiming stuff is "horrendously offensive" and such. While I understand that rape is a serious subject, I also think that just because someone makes a joke about it doesn't mean everyone should suddenly go into "censor it" mode. I wholeheartedly oppose censorship of any kind, and I've said before that I lose respect for people who censor their work because someone else is offended. If you don't like it, don't read it.
I'm arguing that both artists and the public have a moral obligation to leave art as it is.
New editions don't make the older editions disappear.No, and Jeph's new edition doesn't destroy all the book editions out there, nor any versions you have saved to your computer or printed out already.
But new editions acknowledge that they are new.Sure, but I think there is no moral imperative to do so, especially given that they don't ever tell you what has changed where since edition 1.
If not, don't you think it's time to let this rather silly discussion go?I don't think it's a silly discussion at all! I think it turned into an interesting conversation. As for the comic itself, I basically agree with MDBS's post now. I hadn't really thought about it, but now it makes sense. But it's still interesting to think about whether or not he should have changed it, even if we all agree that he has the right to.
It's an old comic but it's also very early into the series--I'd hate for someone to start QC from the beginning, come across that, and be turned off from the comic as a whole just from it.
Well, I only remember it because we went from talking about whether Steve had his junk out to whether old Faye really would have been offended at a casual rape joke.