Are weekly comics doomed?

[Bigwords]

Okay, I gotta speak out about the "newsprint was batter" thing that seems to be coming to the fore...

Really? You're all serious? Honestly?

When the pages weren't printed wonky, they often had serious bleeding problems, with some pages unreadable (from mid-1960s IPC titles through to the vast majority of the 1978 Marvel UK's I'm currently indexing), and when neither of those problems were present, there was always the godawful tone color printed all over the page save for where it was meant to be - there are many comics which I have had to purchase multiple copies of over the years to find a copy which isn't abysmal. And those that are printed with enough care often have those pull-out booklets in the middle missing, or the pin-ups removed.

Yes, the writing was better in many instances, and the art was superbly handled in nearly all of the newsstand comics (I'll gladly separate the 50s indies, along with the albums and such-like from these observations). Looking at something like the WDL titles, with their glossy covers and better paper stock, the weeklies of old are appallingly printed. Going back further still, I have found that many of the newspaper-format comics pre-1900 are printed on much better paper than early 2000 A.D. or Battle or whatever. Nestled at the sides of the large cardboard boxes, without proper comic bags, many of those vintage periodicals have retained their brightness and crisp feel, while the 70s comics are looking their age.

Rant over.

[colcool007]

I really don't think you should treat your wife like that, colcool.

All I am saying is that when the wife is on the naughty step, comics are not to the fore of our thinking! That did make me laugh Chris. No, my 11 year old, is currently suspended from getting her weekly fix, so she cheats and raids our stash of Beanos and Dandys.

Bigwords, I never suggested that newsprint was better, it was just to show that some kids don't always think that the higher quality paper is much of a selling point. But to add to your point, Starlord was done on high quality paper and that has survived very well.

[Phoenix]

I'm not sure why, but the following message I received on my blog seems familiar somehow. Phoenix, you seem to think you're a clever chap, perhaps you might spot a clue that I've missed.

Perhaps I might preface my response by asking you, point-blank, why, when you feel the need to include these so-called anonymous messages which you say were posted on your blog, do you only ever include them in your responses to me? Given my limited intelligence, in your eyes at least, would you be good enough, please, to direct me to the place in my phrase, I don't do anonymous, that you don't understand, and then I will be able to explain it to you. I have also told you till I am blue in the face that I have NEVER posted any comment of any description on your blog, nor do I ever intend to. Members will have already reached the same conclusion as I have, that you are simply provoking me, indulging yourself in some gratuitous baiting, with these so-called anonymous messages, a procedure that is frankly well past its sell-by date. I am reminded that you earlier complained that I was provoking and baiting you, which I wasn't, as I was at pains to point out at the time. But you just don't listen.

Now, about these so-called anonymous messages. The last one was so obviously written by you, that it bears out what I've been suspecting for some time. You must just be making them up as you go along, which, as I'm sure you will agree, is dishonest. This is not at all a new thing. It goes way back to some time in August or early September, when you first accused me of posting messages on your blog. I've no idea how many I'm supposed to have posted because you said you had deleted lots of them, some unread apparently. Now, given that I know I didn't do it, I am in a position of some strength, because you will have to admit that either you wrote and posted them yourself, or someone else wrote and posted them, or what I think is much more likely, and that is that they never existed in the first place. Could that be more fantasy over fact, with the sole intention of deceiving me and making yourself look like some kind of victim, a procedure you seem quite adept at?

[Lew Stringer]

Fact is, from your own research, a child within The Beano's target audience liked what he saw. That's the result that matters. Now you're trying to dismiss it! Hilarious.

What's hilarious, Lew, is that you take the example of one child whose mother (it is reasonable to presume) knows best (certainly better than you) and try to suggest that he's representative of all 6 year olds. (Not even I did that.)

No I didn't. Stick to the facts. I'm going solely by what you've told us. You asked the opinion of one child within the Beano's target age group so his opinion is the only result that's relevant to your research. The child liked what he saw. Now you're dismissing his opinion because you don't agree with it. Let's hope you never work in market research.

[Bigwords]

But to add to your point, Starlord was done on high quality paper and that has survived very well.

Okay. Yes. I know, but keeping a certain degree of quality is essential if current comics are to have any chance. I know *I* prefer something which is packaged nicely.

While the conversation has steered towards The Beano, I gotta point out that 2000 A.D. is looking very impressive. It is cleanly designed, has brilliant art, and obviously knows the audience it wants to attract. There's something to be said for progress, and that better paper.

[Lew Stringer]

Okay, I gotta speak out about the "newsprint was better" thing that seems to be coming to the fore...

Really? You're all serious? Honestly?

I think it's mainly a nostalgia thing to prefer newsprint. That said, a lot of the time the printing wasn't that bad, and personally speaking it rarely spoiled the enjoyment of a comic for me when I was a child. I'm just looking at some 1960s Dandy and Topper comics now and the printing is pin sharp, and the colours are in register. Although compared to photogravure such as in the Dandy Summer Specials, I agree there's no contest. (Although colours could often be off-reg in phorogravure comics too.)

Newsprint was looking pretty poor for the IPC comics in the 1980s. Mainly because the paper stock was thinner and not so well made.

As for bleed-through, I think a lot of that comes with the aging of the paper. I don't recall it being that noticeable when I was a kid, but now I see the ink has soaked through the paper a bit more over the years.

[Phoenix]

No I didn't. Stick to the facts. I'm going solely by what you've told us. You asked the opinion of one child within the Beano's target age group so his opinion is the only result that's relevant to your research. The child liked what he saw. Now you're dismissing his opinion because you don't agree with it. Let's hope you never work in market research.

Yes, I was going to query your approach to research, Kid. I must admit that although you did say that it was minor, I didn't think it would be that minor. I was, really, waiting with some anticipation for the results of a more meaningful piece of research. Any university student, or even sixth-form pupil, has to learn pretty darn quickly what any piece of research entails, or they'll be out on their ear. Your concept of research doesn't pass muster. It's no wonder people are criticising you, they were expecting more. If it's any help, can I suggest a visit to some college or night-school near you to have a word with a specialist, perhaps in literature or psychology, because I'm sure that they would be willing to give up some of their spare time to give you some ideas, some pointers to mull over, possibly even a plan of campaign if you're really lucky. Then you will be able to trot over to your nearest W. H. Smiths better prepared next time.

[Bigwords]

That said, a lot of the time the printing wasn't that bad, and personally speaking it rarely spoiled the enjoyment of a comic for me when I was a child.

Not sure why, but it doesn't seem to be through runs, but individual issues. Almost as if the titles went to poorer paper for a week, or a few weeks, before returning to the slightly better stock. I can see it clearly on Battle Action Force (the slightly grey issues compared to the white paper issues), and it is really noticeable on Lion, which had the odd issue with terrible paper for some reason. (I spent a while trying to work out the dates, to see if paper shortages were causing the changes, but that didn't hold up to close examination)

I'm just looking at some 1960s Dandy and Topper comics now and the printing is pin sharp, and the colours are in register. Although compared to photogravure such as in the Dandy Summer Specials, I agree there's no contest. (Although colours could often be off-reg in phorogravure comics too.)

Early photogravure had issues with the sharpness of images, and the colour mix can be... odd. Mickey Mouse Weekly still holds up magnificently, and that is what I compare many things to.

As for bleed-through, I think a lot of that comes with the aging of the paper.

Certain paper stock, at any rate...

[AndyB]

I remember more register errors in IPC comics, for sure. DCT weren't exactly immune, but it was the exception.

[Bigwords]

DCT weren't exactly immune, but it was the exception.

DCT never had it as bad, but it is noticeable that they had more trouble with black blacks. In patches of what was meant to be solid color, there would often be irregular shapes within of slightly different hue.

Not that minor repro niggles such as those ever impacted my enjoyment of the comics in the same way.

[Kid Robson]

Perhaps I might preface my response by asking you, point-blank, why, when you feel the need to include these so-called anonymous messages which you say were posted on your blog, do you only ever include them in your responses to me? Given my limited intelligence, in your eyes at least, would you be good enough, please, to direct me to the place in my phrase, I don't do anonymous, that you don't understand, and then I will be able to explain it to you. I have also told you till I am blue in the face that I have NEVER posted any comment of any description on your blog, nor do I ever intend to. Members will have already reached the same conclusion as I have, that you are simply provoking me, indulging yourself in some gratuitous baiting, with these so-called anonymous messages, a procedure that is frankly well past its sell-by date. I am reminded that you earlier complained that I was provoking and baiting you, which I wasn't, as I was at pains to point out at the time. But you just don't listen.

Now, about these so-called anonymous messages. The last one was so obviously written by you, that it bears out what I've been suspecting for some time. You must just be making them up as you go along, which, as I'm sure you will agree, is dishonest. This is not at all a new thing. It goes way back to some time in August or early September, when you first accused me of posting messages on your blog. I've no idea how many I'm supposed to have posted because you said you had deleted lots of them, some unread apparently. Now, given that I know I didn't do it, I am in a position of some strength, because you will have to admit that either you wrote and posted them yourself, or someone else wrote and posted them, or what I think is much more likely, and that is that they never existed in the first place. Could that be more fantasy over fact, with the sole intention of deceiving me and making yourself look like some kind of victim, a procedure you seem quite adept at?

What is dishonest is you suggesting that I would write such things to portray myself as a victim, but that seems to be your thing; accusing me of lying, altering comments, indulging in fantasy, etc., etc. The fact is, these messages are coming from someone on this forum who seems to have a fascination with pedantry, and they only began after I joined this site. (And, curiously, at around the same time I received two emails from you containing, more or less, the exact same content as the anonymous comments.) After a while, I started deleting them unread, which wasn't difficult as most of them popped up in my Spam while. However, because these childish, pathetic and ridiculous attempts at harassment are clearly emanating from some deluded, obsessive and, frankly, unhinged individual on this forum, I feel that other members have a right to know about them, which is why I have now, temporarily, refrained from my usual practice of deletion. Why do I display them in responses to your posts? Dunno, just coincidence I guess.

[Kid Robson]

Fact is, from your own research, a child within The Beano's target audience liked what he saw. That's the result that matters. Now you're trying to dismiss it! Hilarious.

What's hilarious, Lew, is that you take the example of one child whose mother (it is reasonable to presume) knows best (certainly better than you) and try to suggest that he's representative of all 6 year olds. (Not even I did that.)

No I didn't. Stick to the facts. I'm going solely by what you've told us. You asked the opinion of one child within the Beano's target age group so his opinion is the only result that's relevant to your research. The child liked what he saw. Now you're dismissing his opinion because you don't agree with it. Let's hope you never work in market research.

I am sticking to the facts. And your assertion that the 6 year old's opinion is the only one which is relevant is erroneous. I was trying to find out not only what kids might like, but why parents do or don't buy The Beano for their children. Therefore, their opinion is every bit as relevant. Besides, I'm sure that DCT wouldn't exclude 12 year olds, and the one I asked didn't like a particular strip - a fact that you insist on ignoring because it's not in accord with how you wish to see things. The 'target group' of my 'research' (limited as it may have been) was kids and parents, which is justified by the fact that it's often parents who first introduce their children to comics. Therefore, their opinion is extremely relevant in my view, even if it isn't in yours.

[AndyB]

An insignificant sample, Kid. All you have is one likes it and one doesn't like it, which is reputedly pretty much also the case for Calamity James. Such a small sample size proves nothing.

[Kid Robson]

Yes, I was going to query your approach to research, Kid. I must admit that although you did say that it was minor, I didn't think it would be that minor. I was, really, waiting with some anticipation for the results of a more meaningful piece of research. Any university student, or even sixth-form pupil, has to learn pretty darn quickly what any piece of research entails, or they'll be out on their ear. Your concept of research doesn't pass muster. It's no wonder people are criticising you, they were expecting more. If it's any help, can I suggest a visit to some college or night-school near you to have a word with a specialist, perhaps in literature or psychology, because I'm sure that they would be willing to give up some of their spare time to give you some ideas, some pointers to mull over, possibly even a plan of campaign if you're really lucky. Then you will be able to trot over to your nearest W. H. Smiths better prepared next time.

H'mm, seems a bit redundant to point out that minor research is minor research, and to expect minor research to be 'meaningful' research. Statement of the bleedin' obvious, innit? I even said that it didn't prove anything but was worthy of consideration (even if only as a starting point). I'm quite sure that if the 4 of them had all loved Roger the Dodger, it would be touted as all the proof required to discredit my opinion.

[Kid Robson]

An insignificant sample, Kid. All you have is one likes it and one doesn't like it, which is reputedly pretty much also the case for Calamity James. Such a small sample size proves nothing.

That's what I said at the start, Andy - but try telling that to Lew. He seems to think it does.