Are we dumbing down comics for today's kids?

Lew Stringer · Post by **Lew Stringer** » 16 Aug 2007, 11:50

Steve Bright wrote:
Lew Stringer wrote:
Dizrythmia wrote:I don't know about being dumbed down, but the amount of toilet humour that shows up in your average Dandy (& more frequently in Beano) is a bit worrying. Still... if that's what turns kids on these days...

Kids have always found that stuff funny. It's just that publishers and retailers used to be too po-faced to accept it.

Lew
It's not often I disagree with Lew, and to an extent I agree with him on this, but with qualification. Kids have always found toilet humour funny, yes, but that is true of anything that has a 'forbidden fruit' element to it. That's when it's 'naughty' and much. much funnier.

Forgive the image, but ramming snot, poo and gunge down their little throats as the mainstay of their diet will be like all their Christmases coming at once for a while, but it will lose any edge it had very quickly, and then who knows what the next 'forbidden fruits' might be?

I don't call a desire to steer our kids towards a slightly more intelligent form of humour po-faced, Lew. It may be a misguided notion from the point of quick-fix commercial viability, but it is at least an attempt at being a responsible one.

That doesn't have to be boring - the trick is getting the balance right, and from where I'm standing, the see-saw has all the 'goodies' laden on to one end.

Strangely enough I was just about to post a similar follow up, so we are in agreement Steve.

The problem is that "toilet humour" is now acceptable in comics because society has accepted it. It's become the mainstream. Fart gags are rapidly becoming as common in comics as banana skins or pies cooling on windowsills.

That said, I don't see any comics that are entirely dependent on toilet humour - there's always some redeeming factor in there too. Bea gets up to other sorts of naughtiness and Team Toxic have their daft villains to contend with. And looking at comics overall, such humour is still in the minority. (No such gags in Wallace & Gromit for example, or Lucky Bag Comic.)

It's a fad, but it's a fad that's been signposted for decades so people should have expected it. (Twenty years ago kids were giggling at such crude humour in The Young Ones for example, and a bare bum or two appeared in Wham! 40 years ago.)

Lew

ajsmith · Post by **ajsmith** » 16 Aug 2007, 23:11

the thing is though: where next? How long before The Beano or the latest mutation of the Dandy contain their first "genuine article" swear word? Apparently in the Dandy Extreme sitting on the nations shelves this very moment, Desperate Dan has a sign placed on his back that says "I ate a Turd" .. standards only need to slip a notch or two more before things get really vulgar..

Lew Stringer · Post by **Lew Stringer** » 17 Aug 2007, 01:29

ajsmith wrote:the thing is though: where next? How long before The Beano or the latest mutation of the Dandy contain their first "genuine article" swear word? Apparently in the Dandy Extreme sitting on the nations shelves this very moment, Desperate Dan has a sign placed on his back that says "I ate a Turd" .. standards only need to slip a notch or two more before things get really vulgar..

Before the media get hold of that tale and run with it let's state that No such message appears on Desperate Dan or anywhere in the comic section.

It's in the photo strip in the magazine. (No, I didn't find it amusing, but then I'm not 8.)

I remember when people were outraged at Action. And Oink! And the anti-comics tirades of the fifties seemed to be full of "where will it end" type worries too.

My concern is of a slightly different nature. That kids who like quick hit gross humour might not have the attention span to remember to buy the next issue. But perhaps the various games cheats, DVD news, and comic strips do attract a reader who's more intelligent than we assume.

By the way, "genuine swear words" have appeared in children's comics already... many years ago. I seem to recall a Professionals strip in TV Tops had the word "bleedin'" used abusively, and also Acne had a "bloody" or two I think. No floodgates were opened.

Lew

Brendan McGuire · Post by **Brendan McGuire** » 17 Aug 2007, 16:12

I used to think that Alf Tupper saying "flamin' ada" was quite rude.

philcom55 · Post by **philcom55** » 17 Aug 2007, 17:28

Lew Stringer wrote:By the way, "genuine swear words" have appeared in children's comics already... many years ago. I seem to recall a Professionals strip in TV Tops had the word "bleedin'" used abusively, and also Acne had a "bloody" or two I think. No floodgates were opened.

I know the bar has been raised considerably since then but I've got to admit I was still a bit surprised to see the Caped Crusader casually talking about "dead b*****ds" in last month's regular, code-approved Batman comic!
"Holy Blue Murder" as Burt Ward might have said!

- Phil Rushton

ajsmith · Post by **ajsmith** » 18 Aug 2007, 10:30

I haven't my copy to hand, (bought one second hnd a year or so back) but I recall Acne being very rude, swear word wise: otherwise it was like a regular kids comic: one of the weirder kids/adult hybrids that emerged in the early 90s adult comics boom.

tolworthy · Post by **tolworthy** » 18 Aug 2007, 15:00

philcom55 wrote:I was still a bit surprised to see the Caped Crusader casually talking about "dead b*****ds" in last month's regular, code-approved Batman comic!

Maybe he was paraphrasing Shakespeare? Was one of the deceased called Edmund? (Lear, act 1 scene 2)

Brendan McGuire · Post by **Brendan McGuire** » 18 Aug 2007, 18:10

You omitted Lear's fart joke, Tolworthy.
"Blow wind and crack your cheeks."

PaulTwist · Post by **PaulTwist** » 20 Aug 2007, 02:27

ajsmith wrote:I haven't my copy to hand, (bought one second hnd a year or so back) but I recall Acne being very rude, swear word wise: otherwise it was like a regular kids comic: one of the weirder kids/adult hybrids that emerged in the early 90s adult comics boom.

I had a few copies of Acne and I'm sure they went as far as "the s-word", and there was definitely implied c-word ("Nicky Hunt, The Lying Person" if I recall correctly). The Pathetic Sharks Bumper Special (Viz spin-off aimed at kids, much of which was illustrated by one Lew Stringer) definitely contained the word "crap", if that counts.

I'm still surprised to see words like "fart" and "turd" in children's comics - that's certainly further than Oink! was allowed to push the boundaries. It's a shame that the Dandy Xtreme seems to lack the intelligence of Oink!, however. I don't have a problem with the, erm, "xtreme" nature of the comic, but a bit of Oink's satirical bent wouldn't go amiss. Also: the way in which they talk to their readers is patronising "to da max". Have DC Thomson never seen "The Itchy, Scratchy & Poochie Show" episode of The Simpsons?!

PaulTwist · Post by **PaulTwist** » 20 Aug 2007, 02:29

philcom55 wrote: I know the bar has been raised considerably since then but I've got to admit I was still a bit surprised to see the Caped Crusader casually talking about "dead b*****ds" in last month's regular, code-approved Batman comic!
"Holy Blue Murder" as Burt Ward might have said!

- Phil Rushton

What is the point of the Comics Code these days? I wouldn't say that Batman was particularly child-friendly, yet it is, as you said, code approved. Surely it's a relic of older (worse) times? Marvel scrapped it years ago, I don't know why DC haven't followed suit yet, especially when many of their books aren't code-approved anyway.

Cap Haggis · Post by **Cap Haggis** » 20 Aug 2007, 13:30

Marvel withdrew from the Comic Code Authority (CCA) around 2001 and replaced it with its own hectic ratings system but at least it really works the ALL AGES system is very good and the comics (IMHO) are really fun and don't talk down to kids (or old gits like me

) the so called "mature (MAX etc) rating system just hides (mostly ) purile violent strips and poor writing (great art though) . As it stands only DC and Archie Comics (of the major publishers) still submit their books for CCA approval. However DC only submit books from its Johnny DC (Teen Titans Go, Scooby DOO etc) and DC Universe superhero lines. This is based on the 2001 much laxer CCA rules (not the one I was brought up on from the 60s probably based on the 1950s CCA) and even then a lot of the DC Super-hero line is published without Code approval when it suites (like lots of the Batman titles). There's little point to the CCA now that almost all comics are Direct Sales and cost a small fortune, few young "impressionable" kids could afford them on their own pocket money on a regular basis now ( something the comic industry is very soon to regret as there will be no new comic buyers coming through).

PaulTwist · Post by **PaulTwist** » 20 Aug 2007, 17:04

Cap Haggis wrote: the so called "mature (MAX etc) rating system just hides (mostly ) purile violent strips and poor writing (great art though) .

I quite like Garth Ennis's Punisher, but I can see how it is an acquired taste. Bendis's Alias was good too, but I've seen nothing else in the Max line that has impressed - as you said, it's "mature" in a very immature way.

I think self-regulation a la Marvel is better than the increasingly pointless CCA - I haven't really seen anything in Marvel's all-ages or A comics that is unsuitable for children.

Cap Haggis · Post by **Cap Haggis** » 20 Aug 2007, 17:49

I was probably being unfair to Marvel Paul, some of the Max (and general Mature) lines are really good. Some just have a lot of excess violence and sweary words in order to get that label (I feel) - At least you can't pick up a Marvel MAX by mistake it's pretty clear on the cover its not for kids.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » 21 Aug 2007, 01:04

tolworthy wrote:
Manga is the perfect example of this. Manga works like TV. 300 oage Manga collections are read in a single tube journey. Eyes scan over the action with such speed that it's effectively moving. Each page gets maybe two or three seconds of eye time. Manga sells. Personally I find it incredibly shallow and unsatisfying. But kids find my comics difficult and boring. We just read in different ways.

The sad result is that, if people made comics that I like, deep and detailed, then kids today wouldn't buy them.

Though there is a very evident dumbing down throughout most UK media, I'm surprised you pick manga as an example of depthless and undetailed comics, tolworthy - and, indeed, as comics built for speed reading.

The titles I've read, which include the likes of Death Note, Angel Sanctuary and the Cain Saga/Godchild titles, tend to have such complex and detailed plots that they can become quite incomprehensible if you don't pay very close attention. Some of these are far more difficult to follow than much vintage UK stuff - and even the titles that seem aimed at younger readers like Sgt Frog and Hikaru No Go (about a haunted game board) seem to be very text heavy indeed. I couldn't imagine how anyone could read 300 pages of this material in a single tube journey, nor necessarily a decent length train journey in some cases.

Of course, there are a vast range of titles of (impressively) many different genres and not all are the same or of the same quality, but for UK readers especially, following the pictures alone requires a certain level of commitment and concentration just to follow the peculiar - to us - back to front and right to left style. And there are often many panels per (smallish) page and the art is often very busy.

I find the manga titles to be a welcome presence over here.

tolworthy · Post by **tolworthy** » 21 Aug 2007, 08:04

Raven wrote:I'm surprised you pick manga as an example of depthless and undetailed comics

I should have mentioned that my ownly exposure to Manga is through Shonen Jump and a few other comics of the same genre. The strips I saw didn't appeal to me at all, they seemed to be just one stereotype after another. I am told that these are among the highest selling, hence my comment. But I accept that manga is a huge field and there is probably something for every taste.

Comics UK