Do you think that the next generation will...

[Zaphod]

1. Comic books have been treated as "kids stuff" by everyone from the publishers to consumers to the media for 60 years. Until and if that changes, there will no longer be a place for comic books in American culture.

2. The Direct Market essentially killed newsstand sales. If you are not into comics in the first place, why would you go to a comics shop to buy them? The Direct Market...which saved comics publishing in the late 70's, essentially destroyed it in the early 2000's, because there was no longer a newsstand presence for comics. People cannot buy what they do not know exists.

3. Prices for comics have been, thanks to Ron Perelman, raised much faster than inflation, even accounting for the rise in paper costs in the early 90's, which was more than offset by the reduction in costs due to the computer revolution (like coloring, for instance.) The average 84 page magazine, for example, costs $3.95, and is filled with about 60-70 pages of editorial content. The average 32 page comic book has 20 pages of editorial content and costs a minimum of $2.95.

4. Comic books in Europe and Japan, especially, are viewed as acceptable reading material for all ages, and are far more popular there than in the US as a result.

5. With the exception of newspapers (which may be due more to an ideological shift more than anything else), publishing print media has flourished in the 21st century. More books than ever are being printed, and there are more magazines on the shelf, covering a vast array of subjects, than any one person can read in a week. People like the portability AND disposability of printed media, and that's not going to go away anytime soon.

6. There is no effective advertising for comic books. Whereas, you see cross-media ads for all sorts of products, the only advertising done for comics is in other comics. Not effective.

7. The artform, itself, will never go away, so long as there are human beings to tell stories. Even if the medium through which the artform changes, there will always be people who want to tell stories with pictures and words.

I think #1 is slightly skewed. I highlighted what I agree with, but publishers and consumers don't regard the medium as "kids stuff" Heck, the early day of comic books were often quite adult in nature which propogated the creation of the comics code.

For the majority of the time, I would agree and in the uninitiated and public persona yes...but not 100% of the time.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

1. Comic books have been treated as "kids stuff" by everyone from the publishers to consumers to the media for 60 years. Until and if that changes, there will no longer be a place for comic books in American culture.

2. The Direct Market essentially killed newsstand sales. If you are not into comics in the first place, why would you go to a comics shop to buy them? The Direct Market...which saved comics publishing in the late 70's, essentially destroyed it in the early 2000's, because there was no longer a newsstand presence for comics. People cannot buy what they do not know exists.

3. Prices for comics have been, thanks to Ron Perelman, raised much faster than inflation, even accounting for the rise in paper costs in the early 90's, which was more than offset by the reduction in costs due to the computer revolution (like coloring, for instance.) The average 84 page magazine, for example, costs $3.95, and is filled with about 60-70 pages of editorial content. The average 32 page comic book has 20 pages of editorial content and costs a minimum of $2.95.

4. Comic books in Europe and Japan, especially, are viewed as acceptable reading material for all ages, and are far more popular there than in the US as a result.

5. With the exception of newspapers (which may be due more to an ideological shift more than anything else), publishing print media has flourished in the 21st century. More books than ever are being printed, and there are more magazines on the shelf, covering a vast array of subjects, than any one person can read in a week. People like the portability AND disposability of printed media, and that's not going to go away anytime soon.

6. There is no effective advertising for comic books. Whereas, you see cross-media ads for all sorts of products, the only advertising done for comics is in other comics. Not effective.

7. The artform, itself, will never go away, so long as there are human beings to tell stories. Even if the medium through which the artform changes, there will always be people who want to tell stories with pictures and words.

I think #1 is slightly skewed. I highlighted what I agree with, but publishers and consumers don't regard the medium as "kids stuff"

Alright, let's address this...you'll note that my first sentence was "have been...for 60 years." That means it spans a period of time, not just "now." Are things the same as they were in 1954? No. Are they the same as they were in 1978? No. But is it GENERALLY still true? Yes.

Now, considering the scope of my statement regarding publishers....I guess you're not aware that several what we now consider "big name" creators in the 50's and 60's were EMBARRASSED (as Jim Shooter will attest) to tell people they wrote and drew comic books for a living. That was a direct result of publishers like Martin Goodman (Marvel) and Liebowitz (DC) forcing their companies to focus on telling "kid stories", a situation that did not even BEGIN to change until the 1980's.

This was one of the greatest failures of poor Bill Gaines: he had a national platform to state that "comic books were NOT solely for kids, and MY books aren't published for them"....and he failed. Why?

Because he believed they were for kids, too.

He could have stood up to Kefauver and staunchly defended his publishing efforts by stating, without equivocation, that his comics were most assuredly NOT for children, they were for ADULTS. He couldn't do that, mostly because it wasn't in his personality, but partly because he believed the above statement to be true. He was on Kefauver's side without even knowing it.

As far as "right now", let's consider: imprints like Vertigo are the EXCEPTION...which means that the RULE is that the vast majority of comic books....to this day....are aimed at (boys) ages 5-22. That's STILL. That's because publishers....TO THIS DAY...think that their best and really only market (and they would be right) is this demographic. But this is due in part to their general unwillingness to reach out to other demographics!

Look, we could get into a discussion for DAYS about what publishers COULD be doing to evolve the artform as it has been in Europe and Japan, but suffice it to say, they haven't succeeded because they haven't tried hard enough.

As far as consumers...yes, consumers do, in fact, regard comic books as "kid stuff." You'll note I said "consumers", not "consumers of comic books." There's a difference.

When I talk about "consumers" with no qualification, I'm talking about the average, general buying public, as that word is generally understood and used.

Heck, the early day of comic books were often quite adult in nature which propogated the creation of the comics code.

60 years ago = 1948. There was a reason I put that number there. SEVENTY years ago, it was a different story. Up until and through WWII, comics were viewed as acceptable to all ages, because they were the children of newspaper strips which, of course, everybody read.

After WWII, however, things changed, and by 1950, if you still read comics in your teens, there must be "something wrong with you."

And as far as "adult" in nature...you'd be wrong. There are almost no "adult" comics that were published after WWII. Allow me to explain: I don't mean adult as in mature content; sex, blood, guts, etc. There was plenty of THAT. But that's not really "adult"...it appeals to our prurient natures, and in that regard, it's far closer to childhood than "adult."

What I mean is adult THEMES, ideas, concepts, situations which are only able to be understood and appreciated by adults, people with life experience. In comics of the late 40's-60's, this simply didn't exist. In the comics of the 70's, we find scattered examples (such as Cerebus and many of the "higher class" undergrounds.) It wasn't until the 80's, and Alan Moore, Frank Miller, Grant Morrison and Neil Gaiman (to name a few) that creators...some of them...decided to buck the system and start telling truly "adult" stories. The average 15 year old, to this day, doesn't understand Sandman, nor Animal Man. The average 10 year old would be bewildered by Watchmen and totally miss the many, many layers of Miracleman. These are comics that must be read as an ADULT (or RE-read) to really understand what the creators were saying.

Heck, in the late 1980's, DC tried to launch a program which touted that comic books "aren't just for kids!"...where?

On comic books.

And the 90's? Talk about devolution. Bleagh. You can thank Image and "those 7" (especially McFarlane, Liefeld, and, God bless him, Valentino) for dragging the artform back down to the childish and prurient. Spawn? High class literature?

And that brings us to now: certainly, there are some brainy, excellent books being published in the 2000's (Fables, the late, lamented Y, Strangers in Paradise, Walking Dead, the late, lamented Poison Elves, etc) but the focus...ESPECIALLY at Marvel...is "tell stories that will sell to teenage boys....you know, the ones who go see our movies and buy our video games."

The focus at DC is "create characters that we can then turn into cross-media properties."

So, yes, even now the focus isn't on publishing comics that are accessible and appreciated by EVERY demographic. Which, frankly, is just sad.

In other genres, I can give you some examples: the Simpsons is an example of an adult cartoon. The humor is squarely adult and cultural, and most of it flies over the head of anyone younger than 20. Same with South Park. Same with King of the Hill.

But the perception that comic books are "just for kids" has persisted amongst the general public ("consumers") TO THIS DAY.

Every time comics makes news (Superman "dying", Cap "dying"), how many "man on the street" comments do you hear about "wow, comic books are still being published? I didn't know!"

Yes, it's changing....but not everyone watches Heroes, and not everyone who sees a comic book movie knows that comics are still being published, for reasons #2-6 above.

For the majority of the time, I would agree and in the uninitiated and public persona yes...but not 100% of the time.

That's what "consumers" means.

[geocarr]

My 5 year old reads comics (as best he can) and his future allowance will be contingent upon him continuing to do so and he may get bonuses for converting his friends and thereby making me a pusher. Peace.

[Daniel Jackson]

My 5 year old reads comics (as best he can) and his future allowance will be contingent upon him continuing to do so and he may get bonuses for converting his friends and thereby making me a pusher. Peace.

Hahaha....son, get out there and pimp those comic books.....

[superman-prime]

[Zaphod]

1. Comic books have been treated as "kids stuff" by everyone from the publishers to consumers to the media for 60 years. Until and if that changes, there will no longer be a place for comic books in American culture.

2. The Direct Market essentially killed newsstand sales. If you are not into comics in the first place, why would you go to a comics shop to buy them? The Direct Market...which saved comics publishing in the late 70's, essentially destroyed it in the early 2000's, because there was no longer a newsstand presence for comics. People cannot buy what they do not know exists.

3. Prices for comics have been, thanks to Ron Perelman, raised much faster than inflation, even accounting for the rise in paper costs in the early 90's, which was more than offset by the reduction in costs due to the computer revolution (like coloring, for instance.) The average 84 page magazine, for example, costs $3.95, and is filled with about 60-70 pages of editorial content. The average 32 page comic book has 20 pages of editorial content and costs a minimum of $2.95.

4. Comic books in Europe and Japan, especially, are viewed as acceptable reading material for all ages, and are far more popular there than in the US as a result.

5. With the exception of newspapers (which may be due more to an ideological shift more than anything else), publishing print media has flourished in the 21st century. More books than ever are being printed, and there are more magazines on the shelf, covering a vast array of subjects, than any one person can read in a week. People like the portability AND disposability of printed media, and that's not going to go away anytime soon.

6. There is no effective advertising for comic books. Whereas, you see cross-media ads for all sorts of products, the only advertising done for comics is in other comics. Not effective.

7. The artform, itself, will never go away, so long as there are human beings to tell stories. Even if the medium through which the artform changes, there will always be people who want to tell stories with pictures and words.

I think #1 is slightly skewed. I highlighted what I agree with, but publishers and consumers don't regard the medium as "kids stuff"

Alright, let's address this...you'll note that my first sentence was "have been...for 60 years." That means it spans a period of time, not just "now." Are things the same as they were in 1954? No. Are they the same as they were in 1978? No. But is it GENERALLY still true? Yes.

Now, considering the scope of my statement regarding publishers....I guess you're not aware that several what we now consider "big name" creators in the 50's and 60's were EMBARRASSED (as Jim Shooter will attest) to tell people they wrote and drew comic books for a living. That was a direct result of publishers like Martin Goodman (Marvel) and Liebowitz (DC) forcing their companies to focus on telling "kid stories", a situation that did not even BEGIN to change until the 1980's.

The comic book writer stigma was more of a status thing. Like movie actors not appearing on tv. It was all about status and opinion in the industry, not about the medium itself as a whole. You are trying to generalize an entire medium, which I won't squabble with you over. I don't have a need to be right.

This was one of the greatest failures of poor Bill Gaines: he had a national platform to state that "comic books were NOT solely for kids, and MY books aren't published for them"....and he failed. Why?

Because he believed they were for kids, too.

He could have stood up to Kefauver and staunchly defended his publishing efforts by stating, without equivocation, that his comics were most assuredly NOT for children, they were for ADULTS. He couldn't do that, mostly because it wasn't in his personality, but partly because he believed the above statement to be true. He was on Kefauver's side without even knowing it.

As far as "right now", let's consider: imprints like Vertigo are the EXCEPTION...which means that the RULE is that the vast majority of comic books....to this day....are aimed at (boys) ages 5-22.

I disagre, but please continue.

That's STILL. That's because publishers....TO THIS DAY...think that their best and really only market (and they would be right) is this demographic. But this is due in part to their general unwillingness to reach out to other demographics!

Look, we could get into a discussion for DAYS about what publishers COULD be doing to evolve the artform as it has been in Europe and Japan, but suffice it to say, they haven't succeeded because they haven't tried hard enough.

As far as consumers...yes, consumers do, in fact, regard comic books as "kid stuff." You'll note I said "consumers", not "consumers of comic books." There's a difference.

When I talk about "consumers" with no qualification, I'm talking about the average, general buying public, as that word is generally understood and used.

Heck, the early day of comic books were often quite adult in nature which propogated the creation of the comics code.

60 years ago = 1948. There was a reason I put that number there. SEVENTY years ago, it was a different story. Up until and through WWII, comics were viewed as acceptable to all ages, because they were the children of newspaper strips which, of course, everybody read.

After WWII, however, things changed, and by 1950, if you still read comics in your teens, there must be "something wrong with you."

And as far as "adult" in nature...you'd be wrong.

By your definition. You shouldn't expect everyone to assume your very specific use of the term "adult".

There are almost no "adult" comics that were published after WWII. Allow me to explain: I don't mean adult as in mature content; sex, blood, guts, etc. There was plenty of THAT. But that's not really "adult"...it appeals to our prurient natures, and in that regard, it's far closer to childhood than "adult."

What I mean is adult THEMES, ideas, concepts, situations which are only able to be understood and appreciated by adults, people with life experience. In comics of the late 40's-60's, this simply didn't exist. In the comics of the 70's, we find scattered examples (such as Cerebus and many of the "higher class" undergrounds.) It wasn't until the 80's, and Alan Moore, Frank Miller, Grant Morrison and Neil Gaiman (to name a few) that creators...some of them...decided to buck the system and start telling truly "adult" stories. The average 15 year old, to this day, doesn't understand Sandman, nor Animal Man. The average 10 year old would be bewildered by Watchmen and totally miss the many, many layers of Miracleman. These are comics that must be read as an ADULT (or RE-read) to really understand what the creators were saying.

Heck, in the late 1980's, DC tried to launch a program which touted that comic books "aren't just for kids!"...where?

On comic books.

And the 90's? Talk about devolution. Bleagh. You can thank Image and "those 7" (especially McFarlane, Liefeld, and, God bless him, Valentino) for dragging the artform back down to the childish and prurient. Spawn? High class literature?

And that brings us to now: certainly, there are some brainy, excellent books being published in the 2000's (Fables, the late, lamented Y, Strangers in Paradise, Walking Dead, the late, lamented Poison Elves, etc) but the focus...ESPECIALLY at Marvel...is "tell stories that will sell to teenage boys....you know, the ones who go see our movies and buy our video games."

The focus at DC is "create characters that we can then turn into cross-media properties."

So, yes, even now the focus isn't on publishing comics that are accessible and appreciated by EVERY demographic. Which, frankly, is just sad.

In other genres, I can give you some examples: the Simpsons is an example of an adult cartoon. The humor is squarely adult and cultural, and most of it flies over the head of anyone younger than 20. Same with South Park. Same with King of the Hill.

But the perception that comic books are "just for kids" has persisted amongst the general public ("consumers") TO THIS DAY.

Every time comics makes news (Superman "dying", Cap "dying"), how many "man on the street" comments do you hear about "wow, comic books are still being published? I didn't know!"

Yes, it's changing....but not everyone watches Heroes, and not everyone who sees a comic book movie knows that comics are still being published, for reasons #2-6 above.

For the majority of the time, I would agree and in the uninitiated and public persona yes...but not 100% of the time.

That's what "consumers" means.

consumers requires purchasing something. Injesting. The uninitiated are not consumers (at least not in the matter of consuming those comic books)

We need to get you a platform to focus that energy though. heh.

EDITED to address entire post

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

I so didn't have time to read through all of that yet, but the last part...consumers requires purchasing something. Injesting. The uninitiated are not consumers (at least not in the matter of consuming those comic books)

We need to get you a platform to focus that energy though. heh.

It's a worthwhile read, I think. Like I said, we could talk about what publishers have done, can do, should do, haven't done for days, but my view is that they've historically treated comics as "kids stuff"....to their unending detriment.

[Zaphod]

I so didn't have time to read through all of that yet, but the last part...consumers requires purchasing something. Injesting. The uninitiated are not consumers (at least not in the matter of consuming those comic books)

We need to get you a platform to focus that energy though. heh.

It's a worthwhile read, I think. Like I said, we could talk about what publishers have done, can do, should do, haven't done for days, but my view is that they've historically treated comics as "kids stuff"....to their unending detriment.

I edited my post, I don't imagine there is alot in it worth responding to, and I definately appreciate your passion and level of detail. Some parts I don't agree with but that is my problem to deal with.

[yardstick]

What I am getting out of this discussion:

"adult" = literature

"kids" = entertainment

[superman-prime]

good sum up yard

[yardstick]

Change the perception that comics cannot be a "literature" medium, and you change the paradigm.

Books would need to be created with a heavy "literary" content and without the graphic violence, four letter words, and "adult" themes to make the books palatable for the younger audience's parents

[xodacia81]

Change the perception that comics cannot be a literature medium, and you change the paradigm.

Books would need to be created without the graphic violence, four letter words, and "adult" themes to make the books palatable for the younger audience's parents

And they'd need to avoid the "Archie & JugHead" syndrome, while doing it.