"Get Fuzzy" offends the Chicago mob (see previous post.)
The comics page needs to be edited for taste; that's easy to see.
However, an article in the Wall Street Journal suggests that, while editing the cartoons, editors should leave in some riskier ones.
"Look at your comics pages like a stock portfolio," advised Ms. Grimley, an assistant managing editor at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "Diversify. You need to have some risky comics," for instance the slightly subversive observational strip "F Minus," and "some safe purchases like the old favorites." Such "safe purchases" would include blue chips like "Blondie," "Beetle Bailey," "Dennis the Menace" and "Hagar the Horrible."
The author acknowledges that changing the lineup in the paper will undoubtedly ruffle some feathers, as any change does, but that it's all for the good of the comic industry.
But much to the chagrin of young artists and writers eager to make their mark, a fair amount of the comic-page real estate is taken up by what they view as old, tired artists and writers -- in some instances, long departed ones. Charles Schulz, for example, died in 2000, but his progeny Charlie Brown, Lucy, Linus and Snoopy continue to cavort through the funny pages, their antics billed as "Classic Peanuts." Detractors might say stale Peanuts.
I think that the younger artists and writers will be coming up with some good material, funny material - to me.
However, I feel that the classic funnies appeal more to the actual audience of newspapers. These appeal to the older Americans that read the paper every morning over coffee. These appeal to the newspaper's strongest readership.
Do newspapers change the comic pages and start drawing in the younger crowd and upset their faithful readers or do they forgo this opportunity and continue to cater to the people they know will read?
No comments:
Post a Comment