The Doug TenNapel “Situation”

Artist/writer/game designer Doug TenNapel has caused some controversy in recent days with some comments he made on the site that houses his “Ratfist” web-comic.  I’m not going to bother rehashing the specifics of what he posted other than to say – from the get-go – that I think they’re obviously offensive and small-minded.

They are also not at all surprising to people who have followed his work over the years.  Doug has never hidden his political/moral views from public view.  While he’s best known (apparently) as the creator of Earthworm Jim, he’s also put together an impressive and diverse array of graphic novels over the years, many of which have included (with varying degrees of nuance) ideas and concepts that are obviously drawn from his religious and political views.  And in case those were too subtle, his website has always been a clear and obvious vehicle for his specific opinions.  Even a cursory consideration of his regular posts there would make clear his positions in a way that should have rendered his recent comments unsurprising, if not necessarily acceptable.

In his comics, more often than not, I have found his communication of his religious/moral/political views to be deftly handled and his presentation – even of things I don’t happen to believe myself – to be pleasant and attractive.  On only one occasion have I found content in his professional work that was so offensive that I could not, in good conscience, recommend it to friends.  In that latter case, I disposed of my copy of the book and went back to enjoying the rest of his work.

Which brings me to my major point.  Can you enjoy the work – creative or otherwise – of a person who you know harbors views that dramatically conflict with your own?  Can you enjoy their work SELECTIVELY?

This is an issue I’ve struggled with over the years.  I have friends who are “moral absolutists” when it comes to this sort of thing and they will permanently cordon off anyone who they consider to have offensive political, religious or moral views.  In some ways, I appreciate the purity of that position.  Without question, supporting ANY of the work of a person who has an offensive philosophy winds up subsidizing the rest of their efforts, so completely cutting them off makes sense in that regard.

*MY* problem is that I really, REALLY like some of the things that certain people (artists, mostly) have created who happen to have gone on to say or create fairly offensive things later.  The best example I can think of is Dave Sim.  The first hundred issues of his epic Cerebus series are astonishing, glorious and beautiful – filled with wit and humanity and great insight.  The fact that Sim went on to become a loopy, misogynistic, religiously fanatical hermit simply cannot undo the FACT that his earlier works were amazing, valuable achievements.  Even when the main narrative ran off the rails into strange, rambling metaphysical gibberish, I was able to enjoy the occasional oasis of sanity that popped up from time to time in the later volumes.

If I opt for the “absolutist” position, I can never watch a movie with Charlton Heston in it.  Or listen to Wagner’s operas.  Or ride in a Volkswagon.  Or ever watch a Mad Max film again (the horror!).  For me, that price is too high.  While there are obviously exceptions, I generally find it best to separate a creator’s WORK from a creator’s LIFE.

Now, I will admit that I have a dog in this particular race.  I make my living trying to get people to pay me for the things I help create.  I also have a fairly public persona and I don’t shy away from making my political views clear.  I hope and trust that the VAST majority of people judge my work on its own merits and judge my beliefs separately.

I know I have plenty of conservative fans who enjoy the games I make despite being aware of my rather Lefty tendencies.  I know I have religious fans who don’t use my lack of faith as an excuse to boycott my work.  I WOULD, however, expect them to refuse to purchase or support something I made if it was an explicit, ideological manifesto of some kind.

Which leads me to a final (admittedly fussy) point:

Some of Doug’s supporters are upset about calls for boycotting his work – going so far as to claim that it’s censorship or a violation of his rights.  This is silly and wrong.

While I don’t intend to do so, it is entirely right and proper to boycott someone’s work – for ANY REASON – if that seems like the best course of action to you.  It is not censorship.  It is not an abridgment of the target’s right to free speech and expression.  You have a RIGHT to speak your mind.  You do NOT have a right to do so unopposed and you DEFINITELY do not have a right to an audience.  If you bang offensive drums long and loud enough, people will eventually hear you and many of those people will decide they never, ever want to hear from you again.

For my part, I hope Doug keeps making excellent books for many years to come.  I am sure I will continue to disagree with him on nearly everything politically, morally and religiously, but I will always at least give his stuff a chance because his work has enriched my life greatly in the past.