Please Don't Feel Obligated To Read This

Now Chris Tamarri has me doing it. Ed's already written about the subject of what obligation comic book fans may have to conduct themselves properly when discussing comics, a subject started by James Meeley over at his blog. James thinks that comic fans have a responsibility to act as pleasant ambassadors for the medium they enjoy. Ed disagreed with James, saying that fans' only responsibility is to read what they enjoy. Then Chris came along and kinda agreed and disagreed with both Ed and James. I'm mainly going to respond to Chris's points here, so click on the above links if you want the whole backstory. Anyway, here's the relevant section from Chris's blog that I wanted to address in more detail:

And maybe this is unfair, but I'm not sure that Ed's right when he says that fans have no responsibility to the medium. Well, I don't believe that every one of us has an obligation to Make Comics Better; if you just wanna swing by the LCS on fortnightly weekend runs, pick up your Amazing Spider-Man or whatever and chill, that's fine. But if you go out of your way to contribute to the conversation, either by posting on message boards, or by blogging, or by contributing to print media, or whatever, if you're opting to say, publicly, "This is what I think about comics," I certainly think there's a responsibility to put your best foot forward. You've chosen to be a public voice of the culture, and as such, I don't think it's too much to ask that you try to represent its best elements. Now, I don't think this responsibility extends to one's opinions. You think what you think, and anyone who takes issue with that isn't helping matters, to say the least. But I think it's fair to impose a set of standards on the expression of those opinions.

The part that I disagree with is the notion that there's some obligation to adhere to some set of standards on how one can express one's opinions. If Chris (or James) had stated that such behavior is an ideal that everyone should attempt to strive for, I would probably agree, but I don't see how the positing of such an ideal creates an obligation on anyone to uphold it. As I see it, an obligation has two essential features: (1) one takes on an obligation by assuming some role that carries with it certain clearly defined expectations; and (2) if those expectations are not met, there is generally some form of censure that can be leveled against the individual failing to fulfill his duties. Obvious examples of obligations include the roles of employee or parent: By accepting payment from an employer, I agree to perform certain tasks; if I do not perform accordingly, my employer can fire me. By bringing a child into the world, I take on the responsibility of caring for that child; if I fail to provide for the child, I can be subject to legal action or the child can be removed from my custody.

Now, as I understand it, James is arguing that both conditions are met in the case of comic fans, especially those that publish their opinions in some written form. Chris agrees, saying "there's a responsibility to put your best foot forward." What I don't see is where this responsibility comes from or how one takes it on. Chris seems to think you take on the responsibility by "go[ing] out of your way to contribute to the conversation" but I don't think there are clearly defined, generally accepted expectations associated with the role of "public commentator." I certainly don't think there are any expectations regarding how one expresses one's opinions. I think a stronger argument could be made that, by taking on the role of "writer," comic fans are obligated to follow basic rules of grammar and proofread their work for misspellings, but I suspect that James would disagree with that. (As would I. I would still prefer to read bloggers whose writing is grammatically correct and free of typos, but I also realize that I shouldn't confuse a personal preference with an objective obligation that exists independent of my desires.)

I also don't see how the second condition of an obligation is met in that case of comic fans. Another way of phrasing the second condition might be: There is someone to whom you are accountable if you don't meet your responsibilities. Who are comic fans accountable to if they don't follow standards of appropriate behavior? In the absence of someone to enforce such (undefined) standards, I don't see how it's useful to cast a preference for pleasant conduct as an objective obligation.

A proponent of the obligation model might argue that I'm looking at things too narrowly. The obligation isn't a specific one, like the examples I've cited, but more of a general moral obligation that everyone takes on simply by being a member of society. (Chris takes this approach in his comment on his blog entry.) The problem with this approach is that it's even more vague than the previous one. What are the expectations we're supposed to be following as members of society? What are the consequences if we don't meet those expectations? I suspect the answers would be along the lines of: The expectation is to be polite and civil, and the consequences are that one can be criticized or ignored if one isn't. Again, though, these answers seem too nebulous to be useful. Not everyone might have the same expectations, so someone who is shunned by one segment of society could be embraced by another group that welcomes rough or rude behavior.

None of this should be taken as an endorsement of rude behavior online. I dislike obnoxious message board and blog posts just as much as Chris and James do. I just think it's a mistake to describe such behavior as violating some sort of obligation we've all tacitly adopted. For one thing, I think it sets you up for frustration: If you think others are obligated to behave a certain way, you're likely to waste time trying to impose those standards on them and then get frustrated when they don't follow (or even acknowledge) those standards. Worse, I think the model can be counter-productive in encouraging the behavior it wants to bring about. If you approach someone whose behavior you find obnoxious by telling them they're not following a set of standards they're obligated to uphold, they're likely to react defensively (e.g., "Who are you to be telling me what's right and what's wrong?") Coming at the matter from another perspective (such as pragmatic self-interest) might have better results (e.g., "So you're saying that people might be more receptive to my ideas if I didn't personally insult them in the process?")

In the comments to Ed's post on this topic, James responded to some of my remarks with this thought:

I guess maybe I'm just a bit too old-fashioned for this world. I guess that maybe my thinking that you should do the right thing, because it's simply the right thing to do, might not have a place here anymore.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea that you should do the right thing because you think it's the right thing to do. But I think you're asking for trouble if you expect others to do things the way you do or to have the same understanding of what's right as you. It might be interesting to challenge people on the reasons they act the way they do, but that involves trying to understand why they're behaving as they are instead of just telling them they're behaving incorrectly. And if that course of action doesn't end up being productive, there's always one sure-fire way to handle those you find irredeemably odious: Ignore them.

---

OK, long-winded rant out of the way, here's your Strangely Sexual Silver Age Scene of the day:


"Thanks for saving me with your black splooge ray, Swimsuit Lady!"

[from Justice League of America #108, reprinted in Crisis on Multiple Earths Volume 3]