BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Comics: not just for kids?

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Gary Lactus
21:51 / 03.02.03
Of course they are. Comics are for kids.
 
 
sleazenation
00:12 / 04.02.03
and you read them because...?
 
 
dlotemp
00:32 / 04.02.03
I think someone dumped a conversation grenade into Barbelith.

A blanket statement like "comics are for kids" is like saying Mozart is for the elderly or the Simpsons are for kids; it's absurd. No medium is inherently confined to a specific age group. It's only tied by tradition, the market, and the talent of the creators. The Invisibles is not for Kids, neither was Sandman or Jimmy Corrigan or Love & Rockets or Berlin or Stray Bullets or any other number of comics being produced. Some of these books are too sophisticated for kids or some deal with material meant for an adult audience.

Comics are for people...

but some make great lining for the bird cage.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
01:42 / 04.02.03
I can guarantee you that the work of Milo Manara isn't meant for kids.
 
 
The Falcon
02:32 / 04.02.03
Kids are fucking better than adults anyway.

Thats why I try and be one.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:58 / 04.02.03
Oh, come on.....the Sandman is totally for kids. Goth kids, to be exact. It's that eternal difference between gothic books (books written in a gothic style) and gothic books (books read by goths).

Anyway, isn;t the problem here that comics (meaning comic books, i.e. A5 American stuff) *aren't* for kids? That the main consuming audience of comics is aging all the time, as they are both too expensive and too hard to find for kids to pick them up in any appreciable amount, except perhaps for the newsstand reprints of the X-Men and the Avengers, which I suspect I would find utterly incomprehensible were I a kid? So, the distinction between "kid's comics" and "grown-up comics" is not actually a distinction in age but a distinction in how the purchaser wants to see themelves (Green Lantern has really strong female characters, anyone?)?

"Comics: Please God, can we have some kids in the store?" might be closer to it....
 
 
DaveBCooper
09:36 / 04.02.03
I'm with dlotemp.
Sure, they're for kids. But also for adults, teenagers, centenarians, and anyone else between the age-of-just-being-able-to-read and just-losing-the-ability-to-read.
Just like TV is for kids. And ice cream. And swimming.

Not so much a conversational grenade as a squib, methinks, though Haus makes it more interesting by pointing out that the public perception of a medium for the wee ones is at variance with the actual paying audience.
 
 
Ganesh
09:57 / 04.02.03
A somewhat second, third, fourth-hand "grenade" to boot...
 
 
Gary Lactus
10:21 / 04.02.03
I'm with me. Comics are for kids. I saw that Jimmy Corrigan. Its about the adventures of this kid and there are lots of cut-out construction activities for the illiterate pre-school kids. The sandman doesn't exist, he's something you tell kids about so they go to sleep. Y'know, for kids.
 
 
Sax
10:22 / 04.02.03
Grenades are for soldiers.

It's as simple as that.
 
 
dlotemp
10:52 / 04.02.03
Tannhauser wrote - "Oh, come on.....the Sandman is totally for kids. Goth kids, to be exact. It's that eternal difference between gothic books (books written in a gothic style) and gothic books (books read by goths)."

I have to respectfully point out that your using a gross description. In the interest of semantics, I consider the term kids to refer to individuals aged 5-18, possibly to 21. Sandman did appeal to kids who fit the goth mode - listened to the Cure, black hair, black eyeliner, liked vampires (sorry for the stereotyping, goth people, nothing personal)- but it has long been acknowledged by dealers, creators and other readers that the book brought in an adult audience, particularly a female audience. The themes of loss, identity, and responsibility that are discussed in Sandman appeal to a broad spectrum of people and Gaiman's writing is sophisticated for adults, but not pandering to younger adults. Sounds like you have a gripe against The Sandman.

Tannhauser also wrote - "Anyway, isn;t the problem here that comics (meaning comic books, i.e. A5 American stuff) *aren't* for kids? That the main consuming audience of comics is aging all the time, as they are both too expensive and too hard to find for kids to pick them up in any appreciable amount, except perhaps for the newsstand reprints of the X-Men and the Avengers, which I suspect I would find utterly incomprehensible were I a kid?"

I've heard this before from many people but the answer is no.

You've applied circular reasoning that comics must be for kids because the main consuming audience is for kids. That doesn't need to be the case as seen in Europe and Asia where graphic novels are a respected and popular form of entertainment.

Perhaps you mean that the type of illustrated book refered to as a "comic" is meant for kids while adults are meant to consume a different type of book like a "graphic novel" or "sequential fiction." Please clarify. I don't think you are though.

Again, I hardly think something like "From Hell" is meant for kids. It is a book that demands diligence, an interest in history, and the ability to find personal relevance with a setting that contacts vastly different social mores and values. To say nothing of the ability to rationalize the horror of butchered prostitutes. Do you really think kids want mutilated whores in their comics..

..wait a minute...strike that question...I forgot which Board I'm posting on...

These Barbelithers are into strange things.

But seriously, don't let your perceptions be boxed in by preconceived notions of a medium's audience. Art has the curiuos ability of reaching across ages, whether from 5 to 78 or from the stone age to today.


Sax - good point.
 
 
dlotemp
10:58 / 04.02.03
One point I forgot to follow up on -

Tannhauser also implies that because comics aren't appealing to kids, that they're meant for an older audience, that we're lossing the main purchasers. (I hope I got that right). I can't deny that kids are a big purchasing force but adults from 21 - 65 represent a larger group with more purchasing power than the kids.

Comics can be for everyone.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
11:08 / 04.02.03
I saw that Jimmy Corrigan. Its about the adventures of this kid and there are lots of cut-out construction activities for the illiterate pre-school kids.

If you're being sarcastic, I think you're a comedic genius.

If you're being serious, I question not only your ability to read, but your vision as well.
 
 
The Natural Way
12:43 / 04.02.03
It seems to me that there are two fronts being waged on this page: the first concerns whether or not comics are for kids, the second proposes that only funnylittlemen (big heads, long arms) actually READ comics.

Well, I intend to bind these two positions together.

Comics, as Fraelyboy quite rightly points out, are FOR kids, but, as Haus argues, sad little adults comprise the fat bulk of their readership. Sad, lonely adults with the brains of little kids. Illiterate kids.
 
 
Gary Lactus
12:55 / 04.02.03
I agree with Runce and Haus and would also like to bind these important points together. Comics are for kids and funnylittlemen with big heads and long arms, true. But has anyone considered the fact that a great many kids have big heads and long arms? I don't think so!
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
13:09 / 04.02.03
This is absolutely ridiculous.

Comics, as an artform, are about as much 'meant for children' as music is 'meant' for teenagers or television is 'meant' for the elderly. I find it jaw-dropping that anyone here on Barbelith would be so willing to make such a profoundly ignorant remark, even if the intention was to stir up conversation. Really. Every last one of you should be smarter than that. Even with the slightest bit of research, it would be abundantly clear to anyone that a very large chunk of all of the comics produced are meant almost entirely for an adult audience. This is not a bad thing. Art made by and for adults is never a bad thing. This is about as ridiculous as saying that all television should be children's educational programming, don't you see?

Can we please make a greater effort to not conflate "superhero comics" with comics as an artform, please? When you do that, it only makes you look ignorant. It may also be a good idea to maybe separate what the comics industry was thirty years ago from what it is now. Things are better now, and things are worse too - but we're not going back to 1966, so when we talk about what comics are now, it's a better idea to keep your head in 2003.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:22 / 04.02.03
Well, I think dlo's managed to misunderstand everything I said. Wow. that's pretty impressive.

Meanwhile - for heaven's sakes, people. Runce and Fraelyboy, chums of the Twart, are adopting the Mantle of the Twart, in the exact sense of trying to get a bit of attention by being silly. There's no point getting worked up about it.

Fluxyquals - except that, if we're talking about distribution, Marvel and DC (and the offshoots - Wildstorm, Vertigo) get the most distribution and the vast majority of the product produced by Marvel and DC is concerned with superheroes. However, I take your point that a more accurate formulation might be "kids comics are for kids", and to that I would suggest again that North American "kids comics" are in fact primarily consumed, in the UK at least, by adults.
 
 
The Natural Way
13:28 / 04.02.03
I don't think you fully understand the thrust of Fraelyboy's argument, Flux. As far as he's concerned, all the comics HE'S read are for slightly deficient adults: "one half of Jimmy Corrigan is comprised of cut-out models"...etc... I would argue that cut-out models can be for adults too, but that's just a matter of opinion. Although I feel the vast majority of people would fall down on the "cut-out models are for kids" side.
 
 
CameronStewart
13:31 / 04.02.03
The problem, as Haus points out above and I'm going to echo, is that comics are NOT for kids, at least currently. The works that SHOULD be for kids - i.e. virtually every single superhero character - are being written for an adult audience. Even my Catwoman partner Ed Brubaker says that since our audience consists primarily of adults, he's going to write for them, not for kids (never mind that if superhero comics WERE written with kids in mind, the audience might shift - and grow).

Comic shops are devoid of children - one of my local comic shops is right across the street from a school, and the kids never go in. I asked the shop owner who the customers are and he said it was mostly middle-aged men - their kids wait outside. I get a big box of everything DC publishes every month and I donate them to my studiomate's wife's primary school class - but by the time I've sifted through to find the age-appropriate books I only end up giving a dozen or so of them to her (out of about 50-60).

The artform and the business (in North America and Britain, at least) is fucked from the ground up and continues on a path of self-destruction. The only way to fix it (if it indeed it isn't already past the point of no return) is to stop ignoring the kids and try to get them interested again.

Fuck "adult" comics.
 
 
Gary Lactus
13:38 / 04.02.03
I'm sorry if I've "stirred up a hornet's nest" here. Everyone is making very good points here, very well informed. In fact a bit too well informed so I must insist for the good of you all: Comics are for kids.
 
 
Gary Lactus
13:42 / 04.02.03
And to those who would accuse me of twartdom I would just like to impart this nugget of wisdom:

Who is the biggest twart, the twart or the twart who reads comics which are for kids?

Sussed.
 
 
glassonion
13:58 / 04.02.03
i read a kid's comic about the holocaust once where all the people's heads were turned into animals. the author, clearly more of a dog person, did this because the holocaust is for grownups and comics are for kids and that's how he made it funny.

but the holocaust isn't funny.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:59 / 04.02.03
He's dry inside, you know. Because of his lovely blue-and-black striped jumper. Hmmmmmm.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch - pretty much what Cameron said. Whether these things should be for kids I don't know about, but I'd certainly suggest that at present they aren't, or at least, even if created for kids, they are not being bought by kids (at least in my experience in the UK, and subsequently his experience in Canada). As dlotemp says, people in the 21-65 age group have more buying power. However, presumably there is a degree of wastage as we move up the age ranges, and without a base to the pyramid will there be any new comics consumers in 20 or 30 years' time? Search me. But it does seem a bit odd....so, for example, the business model of the book trade has releases aimed specifically at very young children, older children, teenagers, and on up to a whole range of possible options for people who want to carry on reading into adulthood. I'm not sure how far the book publishing business model is workable, but it doesn't seem like a terrible idea to try to offer a range of products at evolving markets that can then move onto further product ranges as they develop...
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
14:28 / 04.02.03
I think where I'm getting lost with all of you is this kneejerk "fuck comics which aren't meant for children, comics are FOR KIDZ!" attitude. I can't understand why a very smart and right on "where are all the comics meant for kids?" argument must include wrong-headed antipathy for all of the comics which are meant for different audiences.

Cameron's frustrations with traditional superhero comics being deliberately written for adults is one thing, and he's damn right too, but I can't possibly see why dissing the work of Chris Ware (based on what could very well be the all-time shallowest reading of his work ever, so shallow that Fraelyboy didn't even notice that the book ISN'T about "the adventures of (a) kid)") has to do with anything.

If you're looking at Chris Ware's work, and judging/dismissing his work entirely on the fact that he creates 'cut-out' games and toys based on early 20th century designs and motifs which are mostly of interest to historians and antique collectors, then I'm telling you right now: You're very, very dumb, and you are almost deliberately missing the point.

I don't see why wanting to attract younger readers has to be at all at odds with some creators wanting to create adults works for other audiences. Focusing on any one audience is a very bad idea, the better idea is to expand the industry in all directions.
 
 
grant
14:40 / 04.02.03
Actually, there is something really kid-like about comics. Picture books, you know. Primitive language.
Most of what makes Jimmy Corrigan great all have to do with kids - the forgotten brutalities of childhood, misplaced nostalgia. And fun activities.
I mean, you can call Superman an archetype (or, for that matter, Sandman or Swamp Thing), but what does that mean? Something that exists below the level of the grown-up brain. Somewhere back with the kids stuff.
 
 
Haus Of Pain
14:53 / 04.02.03
Ahhhh great someone talking sense at last!!

I totally agree, Comics are for Kids that's indeed fact.
However, It's fine to enjoy things that are essentially for children, i mean i still think transformers are quite cool!!

Everyone is making very good points here, very well informed. In fact a bit too well informed so I must insist for the good of you all: Comics are for kids.

Incorrect i'm afraid, comics are for kids. But some of them are actually quite good,with some great, bright colours and characters specifically designed to capture the hearts of children.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:55 / 04.02.03
Flux, fraely is messing with you. It's not *meant* to make sense. It's a bunch of guys with a phattie in or around Brighton making with the funny, in a style familiar to any graduate of the British playground. There's no point getting agitated. Just address the questions of interest arising around the posts, and leave the posts themselves. They are the equivalent of the "do you have skills" question.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
15:02 / 04.02.03
Ah, I know. I just can't help wanting to slap down very stupid comments. There's a lot better ways to make a point than by saying the dumbest thing that comes to mind and trying to nudge it in a smarter direction from there.
 
 
CameronStewart
15:02 / 04.02.03
>>>I don't see why wanting to attract younger readers has to be at all at odds with some creators wanting to create adults works for other audiences. Focusing on any one audience is a very bad idea, the better idea is to expand the industry in all directions<<<

Because right now everyone seems to be preoccupied with "dignifying" the comics medium by creating "adult" works - to the complete exclusion of anything that might appeal to a younger audience (who are crucial in the preservation of the industry). Right now, we have a bunch of adults reading comics and virtually no kids, and the industry is shrivelling up before our very eyes - we don't NEED any more adult comics at the moment. We DO need a damn sight more kids comics. I'd like to see creators collectively try and rejuvenate this dying medium by making solid, kid-friendly comics (and note that this does not necessarily mean they can't be enjoyed by adults as well - Harry Potter anyone?) so that we can ensure that there will be a comics industry after the current audience dies out.

Flux, I am one-hundred percent with you that this is a medium that can encompass works for every age group - but right now we need to fix what's broken, and FAST. There's plenty of time for the next From Hells and Jimmy Corrigans to come along, they can wait. We need to make some kids books NOW.

You dig?
 
 
grant
15:11 / 04.02.03
So, Cameron, (and maybe this is a good starter for another topic), what do you think a good kid's comic needs?

What would it take to make a great kid's title?

Oh, and I gotta ask - would Bone count?
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
15:14 / 04.02.03
Cameron, I know what you're trying to say, BUT you've got to remember that in most cases the biggest reason why a creator chooses to create adult work is because that is what they, as artists, want to produce. It's what is exciting to them, it's what they want to express, it's the audience that they feel comfortable with. I don't think it's a good idea to suggest that everyone should drop everything and focus on working for a children's audience, because I can't see why kids would have much interest in reading something that the creators hearts weren't into.

I think a better idea would be to try to attract creators to the industry who have an interest in creating work for a kid's audience - there's a LOT of people out there who want to produce children's books and entertainment, wooing them over to comics might be a good start. There's a lot of young illustrators who want to make children's books, believe me, and the reason why they don't even bother with comics is because of the Marvel/DC hegemony and that they see no place for themselves in the current marketplace. What the industry needs is a new company which will focus on the children's market, seek out new creators who will create work for that market, and find as many different ways to distribute those books as possible. With proper business sense and intelligent marketing, someone could very well make a small fortune and help the industry in a big way.
 
 
Gary Lactus
15:22 / 04.02.03
Yay! I'm sure Marvel/DC would be prepared to do some good kid's stuff if influential creators expressed an interest. It needs to happen. COMICS ARE FOR KIDS.
 
 
CameronStewart
15:36 / 04.02.03
>>>Cameron, I know what you're trying to say, BUT you've got to remember that in most cases the biggest reason why a creator chooses to create adult work is because that is what they, as artists, want to produce.<<<

Agreed, but YOU have to remember that this is not only an artform, it's a BUSINESS, one that is currently struggling to keep afloat. It's very noble and idealist to suggest that all artists must produce what they in their heart of hearts wish to create - but the reality is that commercial concessions must be made in order to create a healthy and stable business. Sorry chap, I don't like it either, but that's the way it is.

>>>because I can't see why kids would have much interest in reading something that the creators hearts weren't into.<<<

I don't think Jack Kirby's "heart" was in any of his comics, really - from every interview I've read it comes across that he enjoyed working on the books, but at the end of they day they weren't his dream projects, he was making comics that he thought would SELL, not making heartfelt works of artistic expression. He understood that it was a business, and his job was to make entertaining children's stories.

And you know, kids seemed to like those okay.
 
 
DaveBCooper
15:43 / 04.02.03
Aha ! I get it now. Right, let me get into character here (takes deep breath, clears throat) :

I know you are, but what am I ? Infinity.

Hah ! Me am best.
 
 
CameronStewart
15:46 / 04.02.03
"[Monster comics] made sales, and that's always been my primary objective in comics. I had to make sales in order to keep myself working. And so I put in all the ingredients that would make sales. It's always been that way."

-Jack Kirby, interviewed by Gary Groth in The Comics Journal
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply