But Paul, 15-25 year olds are basically young adults. That's not what Pol is talking about. Kids. 6-to-12 year olds. Where are they? Where do they get to play?

When I made this same analogy some three or four years ago, a lot of people didn't get it then either. More accurately, they refused to get it. There's this either/or binary thinking that says comics have to be kids only or adults only, and any desire to do something for one audience is perceived as an attack on the other. Any time anybody suggests that it might be nice to let today's 8-year-olds fall in love with Spider-Man and Batman the way we all did, there's a contingent that shrieks "MINE!!! MINE!!! YOU CAN'T HAVE THEM!!!"

I think if we really got into unpacking it, we all have more in common (obviously! we're all nerds who read comics!) than we think, and we could probably expand our reading and appreciation horizons by communicating this stuff better, and exploring the vast middle ground between the extremes of "More rape and violence please! My dungeon master at the S&M club loves it!" and "More silver age nostalgia please! I eat Cocoa Puffs every morning and read them in my jammies!"

I think John S. has some exceptional points above, and as for Kenn's question, I don't think it's that there aren't LOTS of innovative, fun, interesting ways to put superhero comics in front of kids--I think it's more that there's no money in it, at least, no immediate money when compared to a Stephen King adaptation, a dead Captain America, or a "universe-changing" epic crossover.

hell, not only could they do cheap comics for a buck, they could REPRINT OLD COMICS cheaply for a buck. literally less than no production costs other than printing and administrative work. I'd buy those, and I'm not even a kid.

Certainly, I agree with the accusations levelled against books like Meltzer's JLA-- which I thought started off fine, but devolved pretty quickly-- but luckily, there are also a lot of new books I wouldn't mind giving to kids and/or new readers.

And since my 1970's JLA reference muddied up the waters a bit, I will concede it's not a great story. Among other things, it was a ret-con origin, featuring a bunch of old characters I didn't recognize because they hadn't been used in years. Now, why does that sound familiar?

Have either of the Big Two tried doling comics for $1 or less recently? If they used cheap paper and 4-color printing, I'd buy a lot more comics for my kids. See, they READ comics - you know, turn the covers around, tear the pages, leave them sitting on the floor.... They don't care how shiny the paper is, and they don't need them to last. Anybody else see a market there?

No, my two biggest complaints about "things that turn kids off comics" are a) pacing, and b) exposition. I think the reason kids don't read the current 'Avengers' series (New or Mighty) is that less happens in one issue than happened in one page of the 60s or 70s or even 80s series. Bendis thinks that having his characters sit around a table and have a good long chat with each other is entertaining--and to a grown-up, who's intimately familiar with these characters and just loves seeing them interact, it is. But to a kid? Look. Guys sitting around a table for ten pages. Meanwhile, over in CardCaptor Sakura, they've had five fight scenes, a passionate romance, and the hero's been kidnapped by giant ninja pirates in that same span. Watch all the kids drift away from "grown-up comics."

And exposition...nobody wants to write it anymore, because recapping the plot always feels clunky, and they're just telling people they already know (because everyone knows everything about comics history, or at least everyone the writer knows), and besides, it's just an "easter egg" for the long-time fans. They don't even put the little caption boxes in anymore that say, "Last seen in 'Daredevil #121'," or whatever, which could at least tell new fans where to go to find the information they need. Comics today are designed to be read by comics readers, which automatically excludes anyone under the age of thirty. (To a degree, not totally. I have no doubt that some people figure it out from context, some titles are more accessible than others, et cetera, et cetera. But it's still an area that needs work overall.)

You want an example of what comics should be like? Go watch the new 'Doctor Who' series. (Season Three starts tomorrow, woooooo!!!!!!) It's all-ages without sacrificing characterization, depth, scares, emotional resonance, or even the sex. ("Ladies...your ratings just went up.") Because it's fast, it's funny, it doesn't wank over its own continuity, and it's got a sympathetic character in charge. You follow those four dictums, and you can keep a lot of the "grown-up" stuff you want to have.

I think there's a disconnect there, though, between those issues and the "comics for kids" discussion. Because, hell, comics could do a better job of being accessible in general, just to attract new teenage readers, or new pre-teen readers, or new twentysomething readers. seems unlikely, but still--would putting a book like All-Star Superman into a digest sized paperback to sit alongside manga sell well? Who knows.

I buy JLA. I'm not a big fan of it at this point. I'm buying it because I know Meltzer's done in 12 issues and I want to have the complete set.

Sad of me? Probably. But there it is.

In other cases, I can deal with gratuitous sex and violence if there are other aspects of the storytelling I enjoy. that's true for a movie, a prose book, a TV show--I don't necessarily enjoy staring at John McClane's bloody feet in Die Hard, but it's a neat movie. The random and very gratuitous violence of Geoff Johns' comics is jarring and bothersome to me, but if I'm enjoying the overall characterizations and storytelling, I chalk it up as a mark in the "stuff I dislike about this comic" column. it doesn't turn me off the whole book.

so I guess what I'm saying is that I would defend any good story/comic, and not defend any bad one. Hope that helps.

(and have a great show this weekend with the kids Greg!)

what do you think of Miller DD? Just curious.

My sticking point is that the superheroic figure can be found in almost any genre from myth to fantasy to horror but there is a specific type of story told in superheroic DC and Marvel comics which has undergone a change as outlined in the original post by Pol Rua. My argument is that this change has drifted from the initial storytelling technique emblematic of superhero fiction.

First of all, I disagree with the notion that it has disappeared - your average issue of Batman or Spider-Man would still be superhero fiction by your definition. Second - do you see it as a bad thing that non-superhero stuff with superhero elemnts are popular (such as X-Men the past 25 years)?

It’s the difference between being a Western or just being a story about some cowboys. Westerns have specific archetypical stories, themes and characters that allow Westerns to be identified as Westerns.

I disagree. "The Unforgiven" is still seen as a western even if it has only the trappings left from your regular 50´s fare.

My sticking point is that the superheroic figure can be found in almost any genre from myth to fantasy to horror but there is a specific type of story told in superheroic DC and Marvel comics which has undergone a change as outlined in the original post by Pol Rua. My argument is that this change has drifted from the initial storytelling technique emblematic of superhero fiction.

It's the difference between being a Western or just being a story about some cowboys. Westerns have specific archetypical stories, themes and characters that allow Westerns to be identified as Westerns.

My objection isn't based on nostalgia. It's based on the idea that when we stop letting new people into the club, the field gets narrow and incestuous and unhealthy. I think superhero comics going from a general-audience MASS medium to a specialty collector item aimed primarily at the faithful few is a dumb idea and gives us, on the whole, more bad comics than good ones. I don't really understand the objections to this I'm seeing if nobody's willing to DEFEND the crappy comics like the new JLA or the other examples Matt rattled off. I'm not talking abouyt the GOOD ones. I'm happy there ARE good ones. I think there are fewer of them than Matt does, but, whatever. That's not the issue here. My question is this: So if we all know this is what those books are and that it's bad, why all the anger when we say that, I dunno, we might try an approach that historically worked better for more people? Why is it so NECESSARY to have a gory, adult, T&A Justice League? Where is the upside there other than a bad novelty act? That's what I'm asking.

An admirable person/group of people goes to unrealistically absurd means in order to save others. This can involve direct personal conflict, but this is not required. This work should be accessible to children in tone and style as well as embrace the genre trappings of bombast, moralism and absurdity.

Ah, I felt my last response may have been harsh or something. It´s just that - only speaking from my perspective - only "super powered combatants, of which one party should be a protagonist, have some sort of conflict which most often kids can buy into" is enough.

I really thought your posts was interesting, it got me to think. However, your "rules" for superhero comics are pretty arbitrary. I also don´t understand why you can´t mix the superhero genre with other stuff (which you seem to be implying). I mean, the X-Men for example, the strongest comic franchise for the past 20 years, is not primarily an archetypal superhero comic. It mixes superhero ingredients with classic soap opera and sf elements - which, I think, is not only what fans want but also a viable genre in itself (look at Buffy, Charmed, Heroes etc).

And, for the third time, I am NOT looking for comics to grow up with me.

Green Lantern
Action Comics
Batman
Fantastic Four

I bought seven mainstream superhero titles today. Out of those seven, I would feel fine giving FOUR of them to a kid. Even my own kid.

Would the kid understand it? Maybe not, but then we get to Greg's actually excellent point about the great superhero comics of the past that were both relatively sophisticated AND all-ages appropriate.

I honestly think this describes MOST of the mainstream superhero titles on the stands today. And if that means some eight-year-old will read Morrison's Batman or McDuffie's Fantastic Four or Action Comics and feel like he's not being talked down to, and try to understand something outside his scope, then that's a good thing.

(And by something "outside his scope," mind you, I'm NOT referring to rape, big boobies, arms being ripped off, etc.)

Now, of course, by "sophisticated," I do NOT automatically mean "good." That is an entirely different debate.

"Truthfully, I just pulled the Nancy Drew example out of a hat because I assumed no writer was idiot enough to pitch a story where “Nancy goes undercover as a Bangkok whore to bust the child sex trade.” Or whatever. If the same thing is happening to Nancy Drew in the ‘Casefiles’ that’s happened to the JLA’s regular comics incarnation, I’m REALLY going to be depressed."

And yet, the same is true for Nancy Drew that is true for superhero comics--if you WANT to buy your daughter/niece/whoever a classic Nancy Drew novel that represents the character and her adventures in an all-ages fashion that reflects the character as she was when you grew up, those original books are either still in print, or easily found.

Same with superhero comics. Just because Meltzer's JLA isn't for kids doesn't mean that there aren't forty-odd years of JLA comics that ARE for kids, available both in back issues and reprints aplenty. Not to mention that the JLA has moved into a cartoon series, toys, and even--yes--an all-ages COMIC BOOK.

What we're really arguing here is that the mainstream DC/Marvel universes should feature storytelling that is at least all ages, if not aimed straight at kids. (I think the original post was more about making these comics aimed directly at kids, but I'll expand the argument.)

"Rhymes-with-selfish about covers it. the argument always seems to be, “But *I* want these characters to be adult now, because I’m older now.”"

As others have pointed out, the way superhero stories are told now is the way they basically have been told for probably at least twenty years. Have SOME SPECIFIC STORIES become more graphic and pushed the envelope of taste and decency? Absolutely. But this is not some new trend.

Claiming that the way superhero stories are told today is acceptable is NOT selfish because it is not some kind of recent trend propulgated by a minority of the fanbase...

...actually, that seems to me to pretty accurately describe the silver/bronze age nostalgists who continually post on blogs and message boards about how HORRIFYING today's "adolescent power fantasies" are.

"Every time someone suggests that maybe mainstream Marvel or DC superhero stories are inappropriate vehicles for ‘adult’ material — and by adult we mean arrested-adolescent, usually; my God, have any of you SEEN that Canary/Power Girl JLA cover? If that’s ‘adult’ comics I’ll pass, thanks. — but seriously, any time the subject comes up there’s this angry wave of responses saying, “Kids don’t read this stuff any more so back off, I want my goddamn adult-sex-gore-version, the old stuff’s childish. Comics need to Grow Up, anyway.” But it really usually means, shut up or they’ll take my books away."

Here's one thing I am goddamned tired of: It's fine to claim there is too much chauvinism and objectification of women in modern superhero comics. I agree. It's also fine to claim there is sometimes too much graphic violence in modern superhero comics. I also agree.

What is NOT fine is this endless generalization that opening a random issue of any DC or Marvel monthly title is to be confronted with rape, carnage, soft-core porn, drug use, and so on.

Modern superhero comics are not some kind of obscene orgy of monthly sex and violence designed solely to titilate. There ARE books like that. They are often NOT very good. (That is of course MY opinion.)

What there ARE out there are many good superhero comic books told in a way that still gets the whole adolescent power fantasy vibe across but tells stories that are relatively complex and sometimes even layered. Here's a shocker--sometimes, these books are even relatively all-ages appropriate! At least, as much as any comic book has been appropriate for all ages since more than twenty years ago!

But of course, I realize I generalize too. So if the folks on the other side of this argument will stop assuming that every comic book with 2007 in the cover date is some kind of fetish rag aimed at rape enthusiasts and porn fiends, I'll stop assuming that all y'all want Jimmy Olsen to turn into a turtle every goddamned month.

"When I say ‘adult’ I mean ’something an adult can read and enjoy.’ Period. I don’t mean R-Rated and specifically designed for me, depending on my eidetic memory for thirty years’ worth of trivia. I think treating mainstream Marvel and DC heroes that way is a huge mistake and bad for comics as a whole. Bad for the genre, bad for business, bad for our rep that we used to be so obsessed about… just bad all around. Your mileage may vary."

fine. i'd like to see someone REALLY unpack this and spend a month or two reading pretty much all of the DC and/or Marvel line, and HONESTLY tell me how many of these books are these "R-rated" continuity orgies. Because I think it's FAR far less than you think, honestly.

Hell, I'll even GIVE you a few, on YOUR side, to be charitable.

Meltzer's JLA? Too much violence that has no relevance to the story.
Much of Geoff Johns' work, especially 52 and Infinite Crisis? Ditto.
Power Girl, in any comic? Put a shirt on.

I think Dr. Light raped Sue Dibny, and that has been used for years as some kind of blanket generalization about modern superhero comics.

First of all, thank you for keeping things civil. Looking back, I may have been a bit more forward than I would have liked to be so I appreciate not taking it personally.

Secondly, I'm not sure if there's a fully-developed answer to that question that I could give you. As much as the tone may shift depending on the nature of the character or the title, there are some universal themes and ideas that are central to the concept of superhero fiction. If there weren't, there wouldn't be the instant appeal that gives a superhero film or cartoon the edge that it gets over other works in the same vein. I would propose that part of the base concept on superhero fiction would be as follows:

An admirable person/group of people goes to unrealistically absurd means in order to save others. This can involve direct personal conflict, but this is not required. This work should be accessible to children in tone and style as well as embrace the genre trappings of bombast, moralism and absurdity.

However, that's a description that I find too generic to be functional. I might also add:

The main heroic character in the piece should show evidence of altruistic motives while the villain should be motivated by personal gain.

But I'm a bit conflicted on that one. I don't know if there is a definitive list of elements to the core of superhero fiction and that's probably a much larger topic than this particular discussion allows.