The stereotyping of comic book readers...

jabbathehurt

Hi, just wondering how do people find the media's and the general Irish public's attitude towards their hobby/pastime? I have an average collection of both comics and action figures at home, I put them on display because Im proud of them.
In recent times as comics and comics related media have become more mainstream (Sin City, Dark Knight) I find more people ask about my collection and are interested in them I have even converted a few friends. BUT i still feel as though I cannot mention my past time in work, for fear of being labelled strange! Im an average guy 25, work, socialise so whats the problem?! It's as if society still thinks they are for kids. Anyone in the know, can see that many deal with adult themes. Yet still the stereotype exists.

Fysh

It's unfortunate that it still happens, but I think things are slowly shifting. It's more prevalent in cultures that follow American culture, I think - there are plenty of other countries where comics aren't viewed as exclusively child-oriented. The "fringe" nature of the medium in that culture (at least when compared to other mass entertainment media like TV and film) dictates that its fans are regarded as suspect in some way, as also happens with science-fiction or fantasy fans, or live-action role-playing fans, or cosplayers, or whatever other example you want to name.

The real issue isn't actually the opinion of the readers themselves, it's the erroneous perception of the medium as being somehow inferior that is at issue. It's kind of like judging serialised cinematography having only ever watched Eastenders or Home & Away.

star-pants

Aye some people see comic following as childish, usually when it's males. If females like comics it's downright odd apparently! :P
I guess in some ways it's like cult films, there's a certain core group who follow them and then there's the ones that hit it by accident and maybe stay on the outskirts but have a vague interest.

I personally see nothing wrong with anyone liking comics, no matter whether its childish or adult content. I also have no issue telling people I like comics, if someone thinks it's silly then that's their problem. No one should feel like they can't talk about their past times.
I used to collect stamps and coins, yes I know!! but never bothered me what people thought. Heck I collect rocks now
and some comics! But it is true that over here it's not seen as normal as perhaps the likes of the US.

bmthlove

star-pants wrote: »

Aye some people see comic following as childish, usually when it's males. If females like comics it's downright odd apparently! :P

I'm a comic collecting female myself and because I have hobbies outside of flower collecting in meadows and baking the stigma i get for it is unreal!!

In fact my masculine collection of hobbies and aversion to the colour pink tends to get me labelled as butch a lot

Although what with all the comic book movie adaptations this social taboo is (slowly!) disappearing but may i say that 'comic book guy' from the simpsons definitely personifies everything wrong with this stereotype: i.e. fat, middle aged and STILL living in his mothers basement!!

livingtargets

In all fairness a lot of superhero comics set themselves up for a slagging.

Over-sexualized and needlessly violent characters clad in skin tight clothes (that would make the most enthusiastic gimp cringe)beating each other up while flying over Big City,USA.
Maybe THAT`S why people think comicbooks are wierd...

These stereotypes wouldn`t be so rampant if more comic readers didn`t conform to them,in my opinion.

ixoy

livingtargets wrote: »

Over-sexualized and needlessly violent characters clad in skin tight clothes (that would make the most enthusiastic gimp cringe)beating each other up while flying over Big City,USA.
Maybe THAT`S why people think comicbooks are wierd...

These stereotypes wouldn`t be so rampant if more comic readers didn`t conform to them,in my opinion.

So most comic-book readers are needlessly violent in skin-tight costumes? Jeez, I'll make sure to cross to the other side of the road the next time I pass by Sub City :eek:

star-pants

alas my friend, you've not read Squee...

bmthlove

livingtargets wrote: »

In all fairness a lot of superhero comics set themselves up for a slagging.

Over-sexualized and needlessly violent characters clad in skin tight clothes (that would make the most enthusiastic gimp cringe)beating each other up while flying over Big City,USA.
Maybe THAT`S why people think comicbooks are wierd...

These stereotypes wouldn`t be so rampant if more comic readers didn`t conform to them,in my opinion.

To be honest what isn't over sexualised these days??

Heck i've even seen childrens toy ads that would make a nun blush!

And to be quite honest i'm sure when you see a scantily clad girl in a bikini on a beer commercial or whatever your the first one to complain about the oversexualisation and objectification there *rolls eyes*

Face it, sex and violence sells and comic books are only moving with the times,

no one would want to go see a movie if the next die hard film consisted of 2 hours of bruce willis holding hands with terrorists and singing 'Coombyah'

Get over it.

livingtargets

bmthlove wrote: »

...
And to be quite honest i'm sure when you see a scantily clad girl in a bikini on a beer commercial or whatever your the first one to complain about the oversexualisation and objectification there *rolls eyes*

Face it, sex and violence sells and comic books are only moving with the times,

First of all,beer ads and people who watch beer ads aren`t trying to convince people that beer ads are art.
Comics are though.

But if you`re happy with comics being cheap,dumb and pandering to silly power fantasies,then you should stop whining about people not respecting your hobby.

Secondly,"Face it, sex and violence sells and comic books are only moving with the times"

Whaaaaa?Monthly comic book sales are declining rapidly.And I can assure you that more copies of Persopolis or Maus have been bought this month throughout the world compared to the latest issue of Wonder Woman,for instance.
Why?Because Persopolis and Maus aren`t full of over the top violence or semi-porn.

Also,I love Squee.I said "superhero comics"

star-pants

I'm too tired to think properly, I know you said superhero comics but the OP was talking in general.
I think comics have had a lot of violence and sexual undertone for a long long time, it's not a recent thing just because it 'sells'. They just have more freedom with what they can draw/do.

I love some superhero comics, heck Ironman the old old tv series, was so funny,
'if only i could reach my attaché case' and such like. I don't think they're set up for slagging as such, they're just pushing their boundaries as they've gotten wider over the years.

Fysh

A lot of the American stereotyping of comics is down to the impact of the Comics Code Authority, the result of Wertham's campaign against comics. It was because of this that comics went from the likes of EC and Warren's horror comics to the childish nonsense of the Silver Age, which in turn is why the rise of Marvel's comparatively more realistic characters became so popular in the late 60s. Despite all the developments that have happened with comics (increased sophistication in both art and writing, etc) a lot of people who have no familiarity with the material still seem to think that comics are the print equivalent of the Adam West Batman TV series.

That's one issue that's slowly changing, as more and more people who've grown up with comics go on to work in mass-media entertaiment industries.

The visual aspects of superhero comics are a different matter entirely. The costumes and appearances are throwbacks to the old days and frankly, make no sense in modern entertainment. For sheer practicality, the Singer X-men & Nolan Batman films have demonstrated that military-style clothing would be more suitable by far. But the costumes linger on in the comics, as just another aspect of the nostalgia that underpins so much in superhero comics.

The idealisation of body type I get very annoyed about. As Luke has said above, you can't compare advertising with anything purporting to be either entertainment or art; the fact that TV and film are being over-sexualised isn't a justification of comics becoming (further) over-sexualised, it just provides social context. It's always bothered me that the male body-idealisation in comics is firmly linked to the physical-strength aspect (justifiable, given the premise of superheroics in genera) whereas the female body-idealisation always involves very form-fitting outfits and improbable physiques with the sexual attributes emphasised.

The only comics that have even come close to addressing this well have been the likes of The Ultimates, with their superheroes-as-military-forces angle. And even then they didn't entirely get away from the "hello boys" style of costume entirely.

subedei

livingtargets wrote: »

First of all,beer ads and people who watch beer ads aren`t trying to convince people that beer ads are art.
Comics are though.

But if you`re happy with comics being cheap,dumb and pandering to silly power fantasies,then you should stop whining about people not respecting your hobby.

Secondly,"Face it, sex and violence sells and comic books are only moving with the times"

Whaaaaa?Monthly comic book sales are declining rapidly.And I can assure you that more copies of Persopolis or Maus have been bought this month throughout the world compared to the latest issue of Wonder Woman,for instance.
Why?Because Persopolis and Maus aren`t full of over the top violence or semi-porn.

Also,I love Squee.I said "superhero comics"

Strange point, I mean the mainstay of movies is mindless, over sexualised action movies, but most people wouldnt say movies arent art because the main part of the movies produced are action movies.

As for art? I mean classical art had much more nudity than comics do, with ridiculous proportioned and idealised bodies too. Yet most people would call them art. And classical art was illustrating myths and legends, of superhumans fighting monsters and saving the day. Yet most people again would call Greek mythology art. Some of the most intelligient stories from Greece used greek mythology as a way of transmitting their message to the masses, often some pretty daring stuff and what most playwrights and authors have been influenced by since then. And guess what? Both the art and the stories were extremely popular in their time.

So I dont see the issue here. Mythology is in every culture, like Norse, Germanic, even Irish, but would u call them silly? Suppose they are in a way but they have the same features as superhero comics. The ridiculousness of Irish mythology is on par with superhero comics (which I still like tho). Superhero comics are just a modern form of this myth making and storytelling, the difference is we know they arent true now.

As for shame, ya many people do look down at comics or any fringe hobby. But then again who can caste judgement? I mean what is the most popular thing? Sports? well thats guys in shorts running around kicking a ball to each other or wrestling for it. I wonder if Aliens came and saw both comics and sports which would they think is the more ridiculous?

Fysh

subedei wrote: »

Strange point, I mean the mainstay of movies is mindless, over sexualised action movies, but most people wouldnt say movies arent art because the main part of the movies produced are action movies.

I don't agree; if you restrict your sample data to big Hollywood studio in-house productions then you might be able to suggest that but if you consider all films released from all studios there's a lot more variety out there.

Whether people have access to these films through their local MegaPlex 12-screen cinema is another matter, but then again an audience unwilling to put any effort into seeking material they enjoy can't really complain about whatever it is they do end up watching.

subedei wrote: »

As for art? I mean classical art had much more nudity than comics do, with ridiculous proportioned and idealised bodies too. Yet most people would call them art. And classical art was illustrating myths and legends, of superhumans fighting monsters and saving the day. Yet most people again would call Greek mythology art. Some of the most intelligient stories from Greece used greek mythology as a way of transmitting their message to the masses, often some pretty daring stuff and what most playwrights and authors have been influenced by since then. And guess what? Both the art and the stories were extremely popular in their time.

I'd argue the difference is that a lot of classical art is explicitly about exploring the idea of beauty and how that relates to the physical body. In a lot of superhero comics it boils down to pert bum, tiny waist, big boobs, all wrapped up in a skintight outfit. There's no suggestion of exploring individual examples of beauty and the idiosyncracies these things involve. You can't compare a David or a Venus De Milo to most superhero comic depictions of female characters (unless you're talking about someone like Frank Cho, and even then it's still a bit iffy). The other thing of course is that idealisation of bodies is one thing, but there's very little variation in the idealisation of bodies as it appears in superhero comics - it's pretty much all big macho muscled men with amazingly internalised genitals, and women wearing outfits more suited to soft porn.

The point i'm trying to get at is that only a comparatively small amount of superhero comics artwork would be considered to have genuine merit as artwork when examined from the art market with commercial/financial considerations removed.

subedei wrote: »

So I dont see the issue here. Mythology is in every culture, like Norse, Germanic, even Irish, but would u call them silly? Suppose they are in a way but they have the same features as superhero comics. The ridiculousness of Irish mythology is on par with superhero comics (which I still like tho). Superhero comics are just a modern form of this myth making and storytelling, the difference is we know they arent true now.

I've never really bought this argument that superhero comics are the modern mythology, because TBH a lot of their importance is very much an internal thing - DC are worse than marvel for this but characters and writers alike will tell you how important their stories are in a greater sense, but really? A lot of them aren't. How important can a story be when it's produced in a perpetually ongoing structure to a monthly schedule? Sure, some superhero stories are great, but there's a hell of a lot of crap out there - as there is in any genre. The whole "it's a modern mythology" argument has always struck me as a bit too much of a defensive riposte to the "it's all childish nonsense" argument, which is equally wrong in the opposite direction.

subedei wrote: »

As for shame, ya many people do look down at comics or any fringe hobby. But then again who can caste judgement? I mean what is the most popular thing? Sports? well thats guys in shorts running around kicking a ball to each other or wrestling for it. I wonder if Aliens came and saw both comics and sports which would they think is the more ridiculous?

I'll grant you this one, I figure any aliens turning up and examining humans would probably assume we're a pretty daft species across the board

subedei

Fysh wrote: »

I don't agree; if you restrict your sample data to big Hollywood studio in-house productions then you might be able to suggest that but if you consider all films released from all studios there's a lot more variety out there.

Aye true just as there are so many other types of comics other than superhero, the most financially successful are superhero comics just like the most financially successful films are big block buster hollywood movies. Alot of these are terrible but there are some really great and good ones, just like with superhero comics.

Fysh wrote: »

Whether people have access to these films through their local MegaPlex 12-screen cinema is another matter, but then again an audience unwilling to put any effort into seeking material they enjoy can't really complain about whatever it is they do end up watching.

Aye the same could be said for comics, you have to put in that extra effort to find alternatives to the mainstream, well in Cork anyway.

Fysh wrote: »

I'd argue the difference is that a lot of classical art is explicitly about exploring the idea of beauty and how that relates to the physical body. In a lot of superhero comics it boils down to pert bum, tiny waist, big boobs, all wrapped up in a skintight outfit. There's no suggestion of exploring individual examples of beauty and the idiosyncracies these things involve. You can't compare a David or a Venus De Milo to most superhero comic depictions of female characters (unless you're talking about someone like Frank Cho, and even then it's still a bit iffy). The other thing of course is that idealisation of bodies is one thing, but there's very little variation in the idealisation of bodies as it appears in superhero comics - it's pretty much all big macho muscled men with amazingly internalised genitals, and women wearing outfits more suited to soft porn.

Well first point to make is that realism as in "individual examples of beauty and the idiosyncracies" was only brought it in around the time of alexander (hellenism) and Rome. Before that, the time that art historians regard as the real art (time of athenian hegemony), there was idealism instead. Where the individual was ignored in search instead of some universal beauty. Normally a great sculptor would find his ideal proportions and bodies and then produce various sculptures that were all very similar, then he would teach to his students and then them to their students etc. So much so that you had a generic look after a while. But the reason for this idealism was because they were depicting gods, not humans, so this would have some links to suerphero comic. An idealistic comic characters follows the same trend, idealism instead of realism, characters of universal beauty not idiosyncacies. A good point to make maybe is that comics idealism is more sexy, but that is just what is regarded as beautiful now, while classical sculpture was just what was regarded as beautiful then, yes superheros wear skimpy clothes but this is just to showcase their idealistic bodies underneath. You must remember at that time sculpture was like advertising, most streets would be lined with them, there was millions of them, just only a few are held up as great examples. As probably will be done with superhero comics. That aside, it is sort of unfair to compare a single sculpture that must tell all the story by itself to a sequential image, a more accurate comparison would be sequential relief sculpture like Trajans column or the freize in Pergamon. Apologies bit of a history lecture there.

Fysh wrote: »

I've never really bought this argument that superhero comics are the modern mythology, because TBH a lot of their importance is very much an internal thing - DC are worse than marvel for this but characters and writers alike will tell you how important their stories are in a greater sense, but really? A lot of them aren't. How important can a story be when it's produced in a perpetually ongoing structure to a monthly schedule? Sure, some superhero stories are great, but there's a hell of a lot of crap out there - as there is in any genre. The whole "it's a modern mythology" argument has always struck me as a bit too much of a defensive riposte to the "it's all childish nonsense" argument, which is equally wrong in the opposite direction.

True I do aggree it is a "defensive riposte", but doesnt make it less true, I read alot of mythology, well have of late, Greek and Irish and there are alot of similarities to the superhero comic. A good example is someone like Cucuhalainn taking on a multitude of people and defeating them, performing superhuman feats, or Jason and his search for the golden fleece. In content, purpose and theme they have similarities, storywise anyway. Even the central idea to all mythology, how great their own civilisation is, whether greek or irish or whatever, can also be applied to sometimes very nationalistic american superhero comic. The only real difference is that superhero comics are monthly, instead of told by word of mouth by some travelling story teller or by a particular poet/author/playwright and that they are set in a modern world instead of Ancient.

PS apologies for the very long reply and the fact we have gone very much off topic.

Patrick Brown

I think the stereotype of comics fans these days has nothing to do with comics being for children - if it ever did. I suspect that's more a projection by comics fans of what they feel defensive about. And, to be honest, most people stop feeling embarrassed about liking childish things when they leave adolescence.

The main stereotype of comics fans is that they're nerdy - obsessive, lacking social skills and so on - and I'm sure we've all met people who live up to the stereotype. There's no doubt society in general is uncomfortable with people who are too keen on something - it's not "cool". Fortunately it's far more acceptable to be a geek or a nerd these days than, say, ten or twenty years ago, because all the people in charge of popular culture are geeks now. And geeks are often more interesting to talk to than cool people - you can learn stuff you didn't know from them.

So my attitude is pretty relaxed. Like what you like, and don't worry if other people don't.

][cEMAN**

The comic side of is mostly a misiterpretation thing. People will go to see films like Sin City and think "Damn that was good!", but when you explain "This was adapted from ..." it comes as a shock to them. "You mean THAT was a comic?"

Yeah it's the idea that all comics are about colourful superheroes with rediculous moral values that aren't effective in todays culture (because of silver age as mentioned), and as thus people think you adopt these yourself. I've seen people who think you have a hero complex because you read comics. And it doesn't matter where the comics come from, DC, Marvel, wherever, because the same people think they all come from the same place.
At the same time though i've seen people who've gotten onto me for watching the simpsons, futurama, family guy, south park, saying that it's a kids TV show - just because it's in animated format. In the end, the misconceptions are usually down to stupidity, or lack of will to try to understand something that is new to them.

As for the collecting....well this comes down to two things. Models are toys. They are, and there's really no getting away from it. But like all toys, they're to be interpreted by the owner. We see them as artistic masterpieces or status symbols of our favourite characters. Someone from a different perspective would just see them as toys - and they think toys = children. So they put 2+2 and get 5.

The other thing though is the general idea of collectors. Look at coin collectors, stamp collectors, or unique fishing flies collectors - they're all people who put 'unrealistic value in things that mean nothing'. This'll come from the people who are more about what's happening, rather than what has meaning. "Why would you want to do that, when you could go to the bar and get drunk?"

Either way, if it were comic/model appreciation, or any other hobby, the majority of these people would still look down their noses. So rather than try to change their minds, just be glad you have a more open and adaptable mind.

Handsome Bob

jabbathehurt wrote: »

Hi, just wondering how do people find the media's and the general Irish public's attitude towards their hobby/pastime? I have an average collection of both comics and action figures at home, I put them on display because Im proud of them.
In recent times as comics and comics related media have become more mainstream (Sin City, Dark Knight) I find more people ask about my collection and are interested in them I have even converted a few friends. BUT i still feel as though I cannot mention my past time in work, for fear of being labelled strange! Im an average guy 25, work, socialise so whats the problem?! It's as if society still thinks they are for kids. Anyone in the know, can see that many deal with adult themes. Yet still the stereotype exists.

It honestly doesn't bother me. I suppose what helps is that I don't fall into the "stereotypical" image of a comic book reader. I don't hide that I buy comic books & graphic novels and I have a simple answer whenever I am asked why I buy them; I have an appreciation for good and well written stories.

The format, whether they be novels or comics, doesn't bother me. The source material, whether it be about normal people in normal situations or about superheroes trying to save humanity, it doesn't bother me. As long as the story is something I find interesting I am happy to spend my money. I don't see why I should deprive myself of a good story just because of someone else's misconception about "comics being for kids."