comic violence

Since the age of 5 I've been reading comics..I'm now 43 and for the first time I'm very disturbed by how much violence or even horror as come. I bought the recent imprint of wolverine and deadpool from Wh Smiths and one of the scenes depicted was deadpool sliceing flesh from his arm and feeding it to angel. If my child had read or even seen that image I would seriously be horrified...have we come such a long way that comics need that much violence?

That particular book Uncanny X-Force: Apocalypse Solution does carry a Parental Advisory warning, it is NOT for younger readers. It's a shame that Marvel/DC and other publishers do not cater as much for children, but picking up on what is clearly an adult series (X-Force is a clandestine assassination team) for showing extreme violence (personally I wouldn't even put that sequence as the most disturbing part of this arc) seems a little unfair.

BTW Uncanny X-Force under Remender is really a great series, just finished the fourth book and it has to be one of the best twenty odd issue run on a Marvel book since I've been reading.

but ive noticed the majority of people who read the imprinted panini comics are young teens....11- 17...and personally i think that particular comic should be bagged or even put on the top shelf so children cannot read it. i really felt strongly when sentry ripped ares apart in the avengers. you wouldnt expect that type of horror in a pg film, so why in a comic book thats catered for teens. yeah have to admit i did like the story. i picked it up for the dark angel saga.

Yet it's been that way in the industry since the 90's, especially in the comics I was reading. I doubt they will change it either, the market is bad enough as it is without losing the Call Of Duty generation readership.

11-17 year olds are actually the minority, when it comes to reading comics nowadays. I go into my local comic shop when they release new issues and trades (dubbed "New comic book day" every Wednesday) and the store is full, but it is mostley men in their mid twenties (children of the 90's), and older.
There is plenty of material out there for a younger audience, but the industry must cater to the majority of their readers. There are comics on the shelf that are truely shocking, for what seems like solely shock value; "Crossed" for example, is honestly a disgusting comic.
Perhaps there should be some sort of parental warning on the comics, but I do not think it would deter younger people from buying the comic; anyone can go online and buy them, if a shop refused sell the issues to them.

Not in a PG film, no, but there are also these ratings called 12 and 15, and parental advisory doesn't mean the same thing as parental guidance, in fact parental advisory stickers tend to say "parental advisory: explicit content", as there isn't a government ratings system for books in this country (good thing too, it would just be used as an excuse for more censorship and would have a terrible stagnating effect on the number of titles published due to the time necessary to evaluate them all), most companies will put age ratings using their own system on the back or put parental advisory when something is graphically violent or pornographic/has lots of sexual content (I don't know whether comics publishers have a similar policy for stuff with large amounts of strong language, though it's not impossible as music CDs have had those warnings placed on them before).

[Deleted by the author on 12 Aug 2012 09:15:57 BDT]

I suspect W H Smith's positioning of all the Pannini and Titan 'Collectors Editions' on the top shelf along with the porn mags and 2000AD gives consumers a good idea of what to expect from anything sat on the top shelf. In the UK at least, there are titles clearly aimed at children featuring Superheroes (the long running Spectacular Spider-Man, Marvel Heroes, plus various licensed titles, all clearly aimed at children with their shouty graphics and free gifts), which these are not and the 'parental advisory' label is a good enough indicator for me of what to expect. Violence in comics has to exist to some extent or another if you're dealing with an action/ adventure series (even Doctor Who - a notably anti-violence character- features a surprising amount of the stuff in his continuing strip adventures), and yes sometimes that is quite graphic. With more mainstream titles like W&D, Marvel are generally very good at only showing graphic scenes if it serves the story - most is left to your imagination. That particular scene showed Deadpool (whom, like Wolverine has a healing factor) carving off a chunk of flesh to feed Archangel to prevent him sucumbing to a viral attack in the field. It's not pleasant, and sadly being delivered by the cartoon character of Deadpool in his sing-song voice which rather undermines my point, but it shows what these characters have to do to survive in the extreme circumstances in which they operate. Its all about the context. There's more an acceptance in all media, that if you are going to show violence, then you have to show the consequences of it, no matter how unpalatable that may be. Rather than worrying about comics, I'd be more worried about the frequent bouts of brutality many episodes of Eastenders foist on a similar audience or irresponsible parents whom buy 18 rated video games for little Jimmy and then express outrage when it turns out to be some shocking gore-fest. Well, you don't say...?

For myself, I grew up reading a mix of Oink!, The Beano and Transformers. The latter of which was surprisingly graphic as smashing up robots gave artists carte blanche to show all sorts of horrors (most of the Autobots deactivated and strung up outside Autobot City by the Quintessons as an act of provocation sticks in the mind, along with Galvatron being ripped apart by a rift in time and space). That tougher, more mature (ish) storytelling meant I epxected similar from other comics and lead me to seek out other stuff which I would find more rewarding than the average issue of Spider-Man (or whatever). Down the years, this lead me into more offbeat territory from Marshal Law, Toxic! (which always carried the warning 'not suitable for young children') to Overkill, Ghost Rider, The Maxx, Bone , Maus and others. Essentially, in someways violence actually showed me that comics, like any other medium, are capable of exploring more mature themes - and with considerable aplomb.

Ultiamtely, I think the thing people find upsetting about violence in comics boils down to this salient example. Gary Larson once drew a Far Side cartoon called 'Tethercat' which elicited a strong number of complaints, and what it boiled down to was that that image was essentially a frozen moment in time and could be repeatedly viewed and you do not move on from the image in the same way you do were something similar presented in film or tv. Although with comics your mind makes the necessary connections to see how you tranisition from one scene to another, it is a medium comprised of static images which are more easily reviewable in more depth and detail than any other medium. Its comics greatest strength, but it does mean that that power should be weilded with care. As such, the images tend to linger much longer in the mind. And that is as it should be - some things- like the scene in question- should provoke a response in people, it should make you think about what is happening to these characters and how that makes you feel. If anything, I'd argue that this scene has stirred some feelings which is precisely what the writer was looking for. It shouldn't then be confused with the thought that 'gosh all comics must be like this - think of the children!!!'. Last time someone entertained those thoughts was in the 1950s with the publication of 'The Seduction Of The Innocent', which lead to the establishment of 'The Comics Code Authority' which set very strong guidelines about what could or couldn't be shown in comics, which lead to the loss of not only EC Comics and their ilk - but any kind of mature storytelling until the late 1970s when Spider-Man tackled the thorny issue of drugs in young peoples lives. Not something violent or deplorable, but very commendable from a mainstream publisher - but they still had to print them without the CCA logo as non-code books. Whilst guidelines against what or what isn't acceptable could and should exist, they should not be a barrier to storytelling. Otherwise that ends up as censorship (which does exist in the world of comic books - hence the existence of the Comic Book Legal Defence Fund to support artists and writers whom find themselves in bother over published works the world over).Although in the US, Marvel and DC have moved away from the CCA, their titles do carry their own ratings systems to guide consumers, but as others have said, such is the shrinking nature of ther comics market that its highly likely that such things wont be read by anyone under the age of 15 now anyway.

The other obvious thing to state would be that excpet in our curious island, comics have never been 'just for children'...just perceived as such as if somehow the marriage of words and pictures is something beneath other literary forms.

Simon Hall: as far as I can tell, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund does not support any legally enforced rules about what can or cannot be drawn in or outside a comic context. Censorship of drawings is wrong regardless of what you're censoring. I do agree with keeping graphic violence and porn (and I mean actual porn, rather than just nudity, especially if said nudity is not expressly sexual but rather something like Kirikou and the Sorceress, though I really do think that even if it's somewhat intended to be titillating, if there isn't a misogynistic/degrading element, seeing breasts is not going to damage or traumatise most children, the belief that it is is specific to certain cultures that also tend to engage in moral panic about women breastfeeding in public) away from little kids, and I'm glad companies generally elect to have some sort of ratings system for their titles, but I don't support locking people up because they draw/look at porn comics or whatever (oh, and I'm a woman and a feminist).

yeah, just reading my post back the mention of the CBLDF makes it sound like its something its not! :) you are of course, quite right.

i just read siege. there is a pretty graphic scene in that. The Sentry literally rips someone to pieces. I must say it shocked me as to how excessive it was compared to the rest of the book

In regards to the initial post about the violence in the Wolverine and Deadpool comic, that's like saying I watched lots of PG rated films when I was a child and am now appalled by the level of violence in 15 and 18 certified films. Comicbooks are like any other format like, film, tv, novel, music, videogame. Some are for children, some are for teens and some are for adults.

However, this should always be clear on the cover and if in the case of the Uncanny X-Force book that was mentioned, it isn't then that is a failing of the publisher for not protecting younger readers. With a character like Wolverine, this is a character that is also in books and tv cartoons that are aimed at younger readers. If they saw that Wolverine book on the shelf with no age warning they would just think it was the same as the cartoon on the telly or the X-Men books for younger readers and teens.

Any book that contains more mature content should be clearly labelled. That way nobody 'should' have any complaints and people of all ages can continue to enjoy the brilliant world of comicbooks.

I too have a similar point, my local emporium owner reliably informed me the other day most of his customers are in their 20s and upwards, teens are not that interested in comics/graphic novels and this has nothing to do with a lack of material for them, it's just not that culturally relevant, they are the I-phone/Internet generation.

Speaking as a teen, I would say that the main reason my generation does not read comics is due to a 'herd' mentality. I started reading comics, so my friends did too. Before that, it was just something that no one else did, so why would someone else start?

Also, finding a comic book store is about as manageable as finding Nessie. In a world where films are full of people having their heads smashed in by falling masonry (Hot Fuzz, anyone?), it takes quite a lot of violence to faze your average teen.

These are all very good points.Ellie makes a very cohgent one. On my own experience the only folk looking at the Marvel/DC section in WHS are lads from the local 6th Form colleges and upwards and older men like me (61) pretending we're getting them for our grandsons. I think Marvel have been pretty responsible in thier approach to violence (although there are a few notable examples- I'm thinking Ultimate New Avengers with the Red Skull where he holds a baby and forces the mother to kill the father or he kills the baby, then once that's done throws the child out the window). It will always be a tricky problem, but take a look at the average offerings of magazines across the whole spectrum and there will always be ones that make you uncomfortable.

Ive never had an issued with Marvels certifications of their comics, and advisory stickers are always clear on the covers in my experience.

Ive read comics continuously for more than 30 years, starting on things like Battle, Victor, Eagle and 2000AD and later onto Marvel comics. Even though it was the early 80's these comics were extremely violent and had very adult themes depicting real death and misery. No they may not have had visceral images of people being blown apart, but who of those who read it could have forgotton images of Charlie Bourne from 'Charlies War' carrying the peices of his best friend back to the lines in a small sack or the language used in a certain story based during the Japanese invasion of Burma, the title of which Amazon will not let me write as it considers it racist (even though it was the protagonists actual name and they sell the book on this very website!)?

Someone mentioned Transformers. I too read this series which started in 1984 and recall in one very early story the Autobots all deactivated and hanging from their feet as if in an abatoir, leaking their vital life fluids all over the floor, I recall 'Time Wars' which involved the wholesale slaughter of Transformers on both sides and also 'City of Fear' which involved undead Transformer zombies killing the living. It was only the fact that these comics depected robots rather than people which allowed them to be printed, they were nevertheless extremely violent.

Comic violence isnt new, and complaining about its effect on your children is not only somewhat hypocrytical from anyone above the age of about 30/35 who read comics as a child themselves but is like complaining about the effect of 'Grand Theft Auto' on your kids - ultimately you decide what your kids are exposed to, what they watch, read or play - so take responsibility.

Another thing mentioned is that comics are largely aimed at and purchased by older teens/younger adults. I've found this to be the case based on the people who use my local comics shop. Comics arent for the most part designed or marketed at kids and so they generally dont attract them. Additionally, with a $3.99 comic (which is most of them) costing about £2.80 over here, which kids can afford a comic-reading habit?

like you, ive read comics since i was a boy....dracula lives, planet of the apes....but the horror that was in those comics, no way reflect the violence in comics today....if panini printed "the boys" monthly or...walking dead etc, i would expect a certain amount of violence per issues...a graphic scene depicting deadpool feeding human flesh to archangel, in my eyes exceeds the bar of good taste.....

You mention 'The Boys'.

Garth Ennis' 'Preacher' contains numerous scenes which would be considered 'tasteless' by many persons standards, be it Herr Starr having his genitals removed by a Rotweiller, Arsefaces attempted suicide, Hugo Root taking Jesses order to 'go copulate' with himself literally, a child abusing sadist goth, Yorkshire sexual investigators, Cassady keeping Tulip a drugged-up prisoner and all manner of blasphemy. Yet, because these scenes occur in an award winning book - and one that desreves every plaudit it ever received in my opinion - which tackles a big issue, it gets a pass from the taste Police.

With this in mind it seems clear that what determines 'taste' is open to interpretation, be it the examples I cite above, a book about a super-powered prostitute, comics depicting the real horrors of war, a super hero who keeps a gerbil up his backside for sexual gratification, a hero who abuses his power of x-ray vision in order to check out Wonder Woman, or the Punisher explaining the principle of rape to a woman by smashing her to peices on a reinforced window. These are just some examples of 'tasteless' scenes in highly celebrated books written by just one writer.