This weeks Dandy

[Raven]

Fair point. When IPC were doing Oink! in the 80s they found that the younger kids just didn't get the satirical strips. As you suggest, readers have to be aware of what's being satirized to get the joke. That said, today's kids are much more media savvy than they used to be.

I don't think some of the people featured (Jeremy Clarkson for example, though undoubtedly lots of *teen* boys, even younger teen boys, follow Top Gear) are at all part of the 8-10 year olds' world, though - and I'm pretty sure that '70s sitcoms aren't!

[Raven]

I'm not keen on the covers either...
who could forget the recent cover of Desperate dan eating Cow pie...or the totem pole one...or the who ate the pie cover with lots of secret black marks hiding the evidence...

Yes, these are the things that really work - eye-catching, single picture, strong visual gags; a lot of fun and very kid-friendly. They really stand out on the racks.

[Raven]

I prefer the previous layout too but I thought "SIMON COWELL EATEN BY HIS OWN TROUSERS" is one of the funniest headlines I've seen.

Don't 'Simon Cowell has high trousers' gags seem a bit old hat by this point, though? Dandy had Harry Hill being eaten by Cowell's trousers back in the first new-look Dandy last October!

[Lew Stringer]

Fair point. When IPC were doing Oink! in the 80s they found that the younger kids just didn't get the satirical strips. As you suggest, readers have to be aware of what's being satirized to get the joke. That said, today's kids are much more media savvy than they used to be.

I don't think some of the people featured (Jeremy Clarkson for example, though undoubtedly lots of *teen* boys, even younger teen boys, follow Top Gear) are at all part of the 8-10 year olds' world, though - and I'm pretty sure that '70s sitcoms aren't!

Ah well, time will tell.

[Raven]

Ah well, time will tell.

Speaking of which, shouldn't the latest circulation figures be released soon?

[colcool007]

I'll 'fess up. Normally when I take something out, I usually save it on an email or in another method. But as I read it, I thought it best to remove it in toto as it was inflammatory on a number of levels and not everyone would have reacted with the restraint that Phoenix showed. While I did skim over the earlier posts, most weren't too bad or just on the right side of the line in my judgement. (Only just in some cases. Naming no names, but you know who you are! ) But I read the post twice and thought it best to remove it there and then. And promptly forgot to save it...

My reason was made in grumpy mode as the most that I or any other mod on this site should really need to do is either merge or split topics. Or move them to a different forum. You all get the idea. So having to moderate extreme differences in opinions to the point that some of the posts go beyond being close to the bone gets us grumpy as we are here to discuss comics and anything that takes us away from that comfort zone is not going to find us in the best frame of mind.

[-MikeD-]

I'll 'fess up. Normally when I take something out, I usually save it on an email or in another method..

I...um...kept a copy of Swirly's reply (I knew it would be deleted) I could send you a copy if you want to restore the integrity of the board or something...

As for celebrities....kids are familiar with Fawlty Towers through DVDs and clip shows. And I don't have to watch Top Gear to be aware of The Stig etc. Celebrity media is all pervasive nowadays. How many young kids watch The Apprentice? But they all seem to know Alan Sugar (maybe from Comic Relief...)

Where I kinda disagree with The Dandy's approach is in the naturalisation of celebrities. They turn up in The Dandy as characters who are dealt with very lightly by the cartoon, and often have their personal mythologies reinforced as well as any PR department. Wouldn't it be nice if we could reveal the vacuousness of BGT, rather than old, old, old jokes about Cowell's trouser?

Sometimes it seems like an attempt to maintain the myth of Santa as we don't want to spoil the Christmas magic. I don't think there's anything wrong with that per se, but it makes cartoonist movers in the fake, celebrity, superficial, tabloidly world that I think everybody (especially children!) should approach cautiously.

That said, if the circulation figures have risen, then ignore this old fart. I'm probably just smarting 'cos they keep turning down my comic ideas...

[Raven]

As for celebrities....kids are familiar with Fawlty Towers through DVDs and clip shows. And I don't have to watch Top Gear to be aware of The Stig etc. Celebrity media is all pervasive nowadays. How many young kids watch The Apprentice? But they all seem to know Alan Sugar (maybe from Comic Relief...)

I dunno - I know a friend's child, who's nine-going on ten, which I think is that ideal Dandy-reading age, quite well, and I'm pretty sure she and her friends wouldn't have a clue about Fawlty Towers (those clip shows tend to be on after 9pm and contain a lot of not-suitable-for-kids stuff) or the likes of Jeremy Clarkson; I don't think Alan Sugar would register with her, either.

A certain amount of TV stuff in comics is cool and fun, and always has been; I don't think there should be so much over-reliance on that superficial tabloid celeb culture, though, which isn't really a kid thing, either. There's sometimes an evident straining towards being contemporary, as in the Facebook Farm strip, but again, Facebook isn't actually part of the world of the tens/elevens and unders.

I wish there'd be a bit more confidence in creating a self-contained world of *timeless* type comedy that's unashamedly for kids.

Where I kinda disagree with The Dandy's approach is in the naturalisation of celebrities. They turn up in The Dandy as characters who are dealt with very lightly by the cartoon, and often have their personal mythologies reinforced as well as any PR department. Wouldn't it be nice if we could reveal the vacuousness of BGT, rather than old, old, old jokes about Cowell's trouser?

Sometimes it seems like an attempt to maintain the myth of Santa as we don't want to spoil the Christmas magic. I don't think there's anything wrong with that per se, but it makes cartoonist movers in the fake, celebrity, superficial, tabloidly world that I think everybody (especially children!) should approach cautiously.

Interesting points - something a little more cheekily critical could be good.

Some very nice stuff on your blog, by the way. I like the look of Baron Ocean, and Useless Robots is really nice!

[-MikeD-]

I wish there'd be a bit more confidence in creating a self-contained world of *timeless* type comedy that's unashamedly for kids.

Aye. I agree. But I can also see why The Dandy is striving to be cool and media savvy - it reflects the modern, fairly sophisticated young reader and it plays to the strength of a weekly comic. I hope this approach is as successful as they hope.

But I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking a more Pixar-like approach would work as well.

Some very nice stuff on your blog, by the way. I like the look of Baron Ocean, and Useless Robots is really nice!

Thanks!

[Lew Stringer]

I wish there'd be a bit more confidence in creating a self-contained world of *timeless* type comedy that's unashamedly for kids.

But...the majority of The Dandy is like you'd prefer, with strips such as Harry & his Hippo, George vs Dragon, Postman Prat, Pre-Skool Prime Minister, etc.

I'll just back up my opinion with some facts. Let's look at the issue in question (last week's):

Number of originated pages featuring strips/features (inc. cover and excluding joke pages): 32

Number of those pages featuring celebrity based strips/features: 6. Of those six pages, the celebs are those kids would be familar with: Harry Hill, Simon Cowell, Lagy Gaga, Cheryl Cole etc.

Admittedly, some might not know Fawlty Towers, but that's just one panel in a 44 page comic. Some might not be familiar with The Only Way is Essex, but I've never seen the show and I understood that page.

True, Clarkson and Alan Sugar are no doubt unfamiliar to some kids but their presence, when they appear, is only a tiny part of the comic. The Dandy of 1964 made a comment about Doctor Beeching which I didn't understand then but it didn't spoil my enjoyment of the comic. (Ditto references to the "rebels" in the Corporal Clott strip.)

Then there's all the celebs who appeared in Radio Fun, Film Fun, etc. Did most kids of the 1940s know who Izzy Bonn was?

Some criticism is valid but I'm sorry to see this latest Dandy-bashing focused on such a minor part of the comic. Kids are aware of the celeb culture, just as we in the Sixties were aware of mid-evening adult TV shows such as The Avengers, The Saint, Dept.S etc (which is why strips based on those shows appeared in children's comics). Not all kids go to bed at 7.00pm and even if they do, they're often still aware of celebs etc due to the internet or conversations with other kids.

Anyway, just wanted to have my final say on this matter. Good to see that people here are still buying The Dandy anyway. I'll get back to the drawing board now on the next Postman Prat.

[Raven]

Aye. I agree. But I can also see why The Dandy is striving to be cool and media savvy - it reflects the modern, fairly sophisticated young reader and it plays to the strength of a weekly comic.

I think it reflects more the idea of what market research/focus group type ninnies concoct as the idea of a modern child; how accurate it is, I'm not so sure. Media savvy means able to manipulate the media to your own ends, but when you're talking about 8,9,10 year olds you have to remember that they're only really able to do what they're allowed to, anyway - certainly they know YouTube, for example, but many parents bar them from it (at least unsupervised) because even on the suitable video content, the comments below are full of effing and blinding.

But I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking a more Pixar-like approach would work as well.

Well, yes, Pixar tend to be quite successful! Most of the stuff that's huge with kids is fairly timeless stuff, and often quite charming and old fashioned (over the last few years: High School Musical, Harry Potter, Ben 10, etc.). There's no need to strain to be up-to-the-minute cred.

Re: your own strips, like Useless Robots, it must be frustrating that there are so few markets to pitch to nowadays!

[Raven]

Admittedly, some might not know Fawlty Towers, but that's just one panel in a 44 page comic.

It is a punchline, though!

Not "Dandy bashing" at all, Lew - that's a bit over sensitive; this arose from a discussion of the change from the covers featuring great single panel timeless gags to the new "celeb mag"-style cover and whether that's a misfire or not (and to some degree, the front cover defines the "identity" of a comic).

The majority of Dandy certainly aims at timeless comedy, and makes an impressive effort to be a good looking, fun, contemporary comic - and I mentioned that the Harry Hill strip looked fab.

I find the self-consciously "hip" stuff - Dandytube, Twitter, etc.* - amusing in its intent to be cool, if anything, but I think it's an interesting discussion point as to which works best: the timeless approach, or the stuff that assumes a "media savvy" or media fixated readership; which material is likely to be best received by the target age group (looking at the Mailbag drawings, don't you get the impression the readers are *very* young?), and which is likely to be a turn off, or not connect. I expect it's the kind of discussion they have in Dandy Towers itself.

No offence there, surely?

PS: I do think one difference between the old comic approaches to TV stars and stuff, though, is that then they did tend to focus on quality programmes and, usually, genuine stars and big family-friendly talents, not tat; the celebrity/reality TV culture is based more around talentless, lowbrow, considerably less impressive types - and often with a sleazy edge, which does gives it a very different whiff.

EDIT: * of course, comics trying to keep up with the latest gizmos is nothing new. Since posting, I've been having flashbacks of Calculator Kid, Trevor's Treasure Tracker, and the like.

[-MikeD-]

I'm not so sure. Media savvy means able to manipulate the media to your own ends, but when you're talking about 8,9,10 year olds you have to remember that they're only really able to do what they're allowed to, anyway -

Well, I never said that the readers were media savvy…just the comic's editorial direction. But I take your point. As for YouTube…my kids use it, but only under supervision.

Re: your own strips, like Useless Robots, it must be frustrating that there are so few markets to pitch to nowadays!

Yeah…I should be drawing Flash cartoons or concept art for video games…but I love comics! So I draw them, more for my own and my kids' amusement than anything else. And, of course, I may get better at it and actually sell something…

But...the majority of The Dandy is like you'd prefer, with strips such as Harry & his Hippo, George vs Dragon, Postman Prat, Pre-Skool Prime Minister, etc.

You're right, Lew. Even if you add in the Twitter, Facebook, Meerkat and Star Wars references, there is a lot that is original, wonderful, and maybe even iconic...but, as Raven pointed out, this discussion came out of wondering why the cover changed to a more celebrity format and if this reflected a move even further into world of fame. And also my own feeling that some of this celebrity stuff is a little too reverential, and predicated on received wisdoms that are sometimes a little skew (at least to my way of thinking...I know everything is subjective). And it is only a feeling...

[Phoenix]

As I am one of those people who used to read comics like Radio Fun, Film Fun and Knockout in the forties, I would just like to add my sixpennyworth before I go and get a very late lunch from Subway. The strips in the first two comics I mention were all featuring famous names. Some I'd heard of, some I hadn't. But I can assure you that it wouldn't have mattered to me one jot if all the featured characters had been invented. Obviously I knew that the escapades were all fictional, created with the sole purpose of trying to make me laugh, but it is fair to say that I approached them and involved myself in their antics in exactly the same way as I did with the completely invented characters in The Knockout, such as Deed-a-Day Danny, Mike, Billy Bunter or Our Ernie, and to this day I haven't forgotten Mr Entwhistle's Daft, I call it!, which he invariably uttered in the final frame. To a child reading a comic, the fame or otherwise of the main character is, by a distance, secondary to the humour of the strip. The creation of the humour is its only raison d'etre. At that time my imagination took me actually into the strips, as an observer. I was so close to Big Eggo, Keyhole Kate, Korky and the rest that, if I'd stretched out an arm, I could have touched them. They mattered to me, and they made me laugh, and I am convinced that the cartoonists knew this, and still do. To today's child, Harry Hill is little more than a peg on which to hang the humour. There is no difference in essence between yesterday and today. Lew mentions Issy Bonn. I had never heard of him and what's more, to this day I haven't the foggiest clue what a Finkelfeffer family was. Did it matter? Of course not. I did what the cartoonist had intended and hoped that I would do. I laughed my socks off.

[Raven]

Yes, but we're talking mostly about situations where getting the gags *depends* on getting the references, Phoenix, like the Fawlty Towers example; humour often depends on shared reference points.

How was lunch?