SHOUTING AT CLOUDS...'COS MY SHOES ARE TOO SMALL...

The Sunday Times, September 11th, 2011

Human nature constantly amazes me. Certain members of the UK comics' so-called 'creative community', always the first to bleat on about freedom of speech or expression and their opposition to any form of censorship (when it comes to their own personal projects), are also always among the first to try and bully into silence and submission any dissenting voices to their own self-serving view of things.

Everyone knows that comics are in a bad way. Sales are declining all across the board (with the possible exception of Manga) and the future doesn't look particularly good. There are many reasons for such a situation, but we all know what they are by now so there's no point in repeating them here. Suffice to say that a significant number of those who used to buy comics no longer do so, and the usual reasons they give for abandoning their weekly or monthly fix are that comics are now too expensive and, basically, rubbish.

One clueless chump claims that those people have simply outgrown comics, although this fails to take into account why they continue to seek out publications from an earlier age that they haven't yet read, as well as reacquire those they once owned, either in the form of original issues or sturdy reprint volumes. For myself, I love comics - when they're done right. When I pick up a comic from years ago ('60s, '70s or '80s), even if it's one I've never read before, I can usually find something in it which I like and which entertains me.

 Whether it be the art, the story, or the mood - or some other indefinable quality, there's something that makes the exercise of reading it worthwhile. I'm hard-pressed to repeat the experience when perusing a modern comic, whether it be a British or American one. Which is not to say that there are no good comics out there, only that they're increasingly harder to find.

Some of my recent posts have come in for criticism in some quarters (mainly those with a vested interest),
saying that if I (or anyone else) don't like something then I should just ignore it and move on. (A bit like seeing a conflagration and not shouting "Fire!") It's therefore fairly safe to assume that they don't like what I've written, which makes their reluctance to follow their own advice in such matters all the more curious.

Instead of practising what they preach, they devote themselves to sarcastic, supercilious, banal comments on their Twitter accounts (thus convincing me that such forums are aptly named, apparently catering to more than a fair share of twits), and creating false identities for the purpose of leaving feeble attempts at insults on my posts. (Most of which I don't bother publishing because they lack the courage to affix their real names to them.)

I have read and collected comics for over forty-seven years, fifteen of which I worked as a freelance comics contributor. Ignoring my professional involvement for the moment, my 'civilian' interest in (and devotion to) the medium surely qualifies my opinion as informed and considered at the very least, yet a few of those who disagree with me constantly seek to dismiss my 'expertise' in the subject as ignorant and worthless.

As we all know, The Dandy is currently dying on its @rse. D.C. Thomson won't let it, of course, because they take pride in being the publishers of the world's longest-running weekly comic. However, what could possibly be the cause of its poor sales?
Consider the facts. They relaunched it amid much fanfare and within a few months it had lost half its readership. All the old tried and tested reasons for declining sales were trotted out to explain (away) the situation, despite it being obvious that they couldn't account for such a dramatic loss of sales in such a short space of time. That's clear to anyone with a brain.

Could the fact that the comic now featured some artwork which wasn't quite as polished and professional as in previous years be responsible in some way? Artwork which was basic, flat, crammed, repetitive, unclear and, in some cases, distinctly amateurish? Stories that were juvenile, uninventive and, worst of all, unfunny? Lettering fonts that were inconsistent, indecipherable and, let's face it, incompetent? Could it be because the comic bore little resemblance to what it had once been at its best, instead looking like some kind of 'underground' comic magazine with a poorly-rendered Dandy masthead pasted on?

No to all of the above, according to the editor and some of the handful of new artists who were behind the drastically altered look of what had once been - along with its companion paper The Beano - one of the Nation's top-selling humour periodicals. New look - half the readers. No such thing as cause and effect then, eh? Must just be a coincidence.

The Dandy is part of the Nation's heritage. It's been around longer than Superman (in published form at least) and is regarded with fond affection by those who have long-since ceased to purchase it for themselves, but continue to do so for their children. (Although even that custom is now on the wane.) It's as British as the Bulldog and the Spitfire, and we are all concerned with its current ailing state and invested in the hope that a cure can be found to restore it to its former glory. Small wonder then, that passions run high and that newspapers devote so much space to reporting on the suspected cause of its infection.

Unfortunately, said infection seems to be of the 'superbug' variety and is resistant to treatment, or even shame at being responsible for the malady which afflicts one of the Nation's best loved comic icons. In the absence of any effective antidote to the condition, the only hope is to resort to the ultimate solution, drastic as it may be: amputation. Cut off the source of the infection and consign it to the furnace.

We fervently pray that D.C. Thomson decide to operate sooner rather than later, while something still remains of the patient to save.

******

UPDATE: A certain person has commented on his own blog about some of my recent posts, describing them as repetitive. He then trots out the same tired, 'one-
size-fits-all'
excuses that he's resorted to so many times before (completely unaware of the irony) in an attempt to explain away in general terms the specific
circumstances of The Dandy's current situation, ignoring and distorting
the pertinent aspects in the process.

Oh, and he's indulging in his usual habit of ascribing motivations of his own invention to those of a different opinion to himself, in an attempt to 'explain' and dismiss their point of view as irrelevant. All delivered in his usual smug, patronising style. However would we all manage without him telling us what we think and why we think it?

Here are the specific reasons why the examples he cites do not satisfactorily account for things. I am not someone picking up a comic after twenty or thirty years and being appalled by the fact that it's no longer anything like it used to be in 'my' day. I have never not bought comics. I gave up on The Dandy when they first revamped it into a 'yoof-style' magazine (because it was rubbish), and I gave up on The Beano only because of their insistence on attaching a pile of tacky poo from time to time and wanting to charge me anything up to £2 or £3 more for the dubious privilege.

I do not dislike some modern comics because they are 'modern' - I dislike some of them because they are not very good. If I don't care for a strip, my assessment is based on whether it is pleasant to look at or not, whether one can tell at a glance what happening on the page without hurting one's eyes, and whether it has been drawn to an admirable standard of craftmanship. Oh, yes - and whether it's funny. Not because it doesn't look like the comics I bought as a seven-year old. When I decided that I didn't like The Dandy, I was comparing it to what it had looked like only the week before - not how it had appeared in 1937.

That's why, even 'though there is an element of truth (as there always is in the best 'misrepresentations') to what he says in a general sense, it falls far short of explaining the specifics. Not all those who decry the current incarnation of The Dandy are folk who stopped buying it years ago in their youth; a sizable number are people who want to purchase it, but don't - simply because they don't consider it to be very good. (And that accounts for at least half of the comic's former readership in 2010.)

I haven't always liked every strip in even my favourite comics; some I liked more than others, some I didn't like at all. However, even if I liked only two or three strips an issue, I was still getting value for money because comics used to be the least expensive way available of passing an enjoyable half hour. That's no longer the case and publishers would do well to remember it. 

Anyway, there's no point bothering with someone who refuses to recognise the facts, and who - despite however much he protests to the contrary - has a vested financial interest in 'talking-up' the comic and keeping on the good side of those who supply part of his livelihood.

He also seems to forget that I have witnessed first-hand the expediencies that some comic editors are prepared or compelled to indulge in. I used to visit the offices of IPC every week (sometimes twice) for almost two years (working in the building from about half-six in the morning to nine at night), and know full-well that certain people were sometimes utilised only because the preferred choice was unavailable   

Thankfully, I'm not in thrall to the same financial or 'insider' social considerations that he seems to be, and am therefore free to think and speak as I want to.

******

Incidentally, there's a fascinating discussion on the declining sales of American comics currently going on over at Jim Shooter's excellent blog on http://jimshooter.com/ - give it a look-see.

And while you're at it, give Thomas Haller Buchanan's equally delightful blog a visit. Loads of lovely pictures and fascinating thoughts. Click on http://mydelineatedlife.blogspot.com/ for your passport into Wonderland.