Saturday, September 04, 2010

Will CLiNT No.1 kick ass?


"Grandpa had the Eagle, Dad had 2000AD and now you've got CLiNT, you lucky people."

Thus writes Mark Millar in his editorial for the first issue of CLiNT, the major new, hyped-up, reviewed-on-Newsnight, "boys comic" from Titan Magazines which is in all the shops now. Not just comic shops, but newsagents and supermarkets. Yes, a brand new UK adventure comic. Everywhere. 100 full colour pages for a mere £3.99.


Technically it's not really brand new. The two main strips, Turf and Nemesis, are reprinted from American comics published by Image and Marvel/Icon, and I hope that Nemesis gets back on schedule in the States before CLiNT catches up with it or there'll be a 22 page hole to fill in issue three. Another strip in issue one is an eight-page preview of the forthcoming Kick Ass 2 comic that Marvel/Icon are publishing in the USA later this month.

Of the actual, brand-new, not-connected to any other publisher, comic material that only leaves Rex Royd by Frankie Boyle and Jim Muir, illustrated by Michael Dowling, (11 pages) and a three page Space Oddities strip by Manuel Bracchi. The pale, red-bearded, somewhat anxious face of Frankie Boyle dominates the front cover and I think his fans might be disappointed that although he co-writes the comic strip inside (which has none of his style of humour) there's no interview with him. Instead we get an interview with Jimmy Carr. You know; that comedian who looks like he's wandered through a time warp from a Mack Sennett backlot and has been surprised by the headlights of a car more advanced than a Model T Ford.

The rest of the mag is taken up with articles destined to be the talk of the school lunch break such as Charles Manson's Death List and Hot Mums. Even so, it is comic strips that fill most of CLiNT and this is definitely a comic even though the cover design will suggest it's shelved alongside SFX or Nuts.


So who is it aimed at? Mark Millar definitely refers to it as a "boys comic", and some may think that's tongue in cheek but the whole package of the mag would suggest he's being honest. The promos talk about it appealing to 16 to 30 year-olds but maybe that's just to sell it to retailers. Personally I think CLiNT will really find an audience of 13 to 16 year-olds excited by the ultra-violence of Kick Ass and Nemesis. Don't be surprised to see some prudes rise up to bang on about comics "corrupting children". Every generation has those spoilsports and they've never proven their case yet. It seems to me that Millar and Titan have preempted such attacks by not making the cover look like a comic and clearly putting an "Adult Content" advisory beside the barcode. The responsibility is now with retailers to choose who to sell it to, and with parents to monitor what their kids read. No passing the buck this time for the blame culture.

Is it any good? Turf and Nemesis are the strongest strips, which is fortunate as they take up half of the comic. Turf, written by Jonathan Ross, is perhaps too verbose and full of information overload for new readers unaccustomed to comics but I hope they'll stick with it as it's a good story of mobsters, vampires and aliens. The artwork by Tommy Lee Edwards is fantastic.


I've never read Kick Ass and I missed the movie but from the Kick Ass 2 strip in this issue by Mark Millar, John Romita and Tom Palmer I found it easy to grasp the concept so that's a good start.


If CLiNT raises any controversy it'll most likely be because of Nemesis, a Mark Millar written tale of a super terrorist in the style of Italy's Diabolik. Nicely illustrated by Steve McNiven it features images of mutilation and carnage and a script littered with four letter words. I'm sure that teenagers will see it for the outrageous black comedy it is but there's always some resentful faction of society that have nothing better to do than complain about fiction.


Will CLiNT succeed? Too early to say. I'm sure comic fans will love it but the aim of this title is to reach beyond the fan ghetto and attract Joe Public in the way that comics used to. Comic fans love continuity strips but they're a much harder thing to sell to casual readers who prefer the instant laughs and complete stories of Viz. It's a lot to ask of people to remember the complexities of a serial strip over four-week gaps. In CLiNT's favour it has the same high-energy of a blockbuster movie but it's the "continued next issue" aspect that's the big hurdle. It may have worked for Dickens and Conan Doyle, and even for Eagle and The Hotspur, but this is 2010 and people like self-contained entertainment with sequels as an extension of a concept, not a result of a cliffhanger.

Is CLiNT easy to find in the shops? Well, if retailers do their job right it should be alongside SFX, Sci-Fi Now and 2000AD, but reports are coming in of it being next to anything from Match of the Day Magazine to Fun-Size Beano. In the branch of WH Smith I bought my copy from ten issues had been stacked back to front. That's the next biggest hurdle: retail intelligence.

Any new comic faces a big struggle to succeed today. Outside of faithful collectors and a gradually growing graphic novel readership, I've found that Britain tends to view comics with either indifference, ridicule, or contempt. The cover style of CLiNT should at least raise curiosity of casual browsers and maybe hook some new readers who thought comics were only for young kids.

Mark Millar has ambitious plans beyond CLiNT. As soon as the first issue was placed on the shelves he announced "
I’m in this to win it, not fail and so using every trick at making this work where everything since 2000 has died" and announced intentions to revitalize the UK comic industry to "make sure it has as many jobs and as many readers as it had a generation ago".

That's quite a bold statement from someone who's comic had only been on sale for one day, but one has to respect Millar for trying to make a difference and wanting to pull the industry back from the abyss it could face in a few years. It may be hyperbole but in this day and age one has to be confident in order for talent to be noticed amongst the mediocrity. It'll be interesting to see how CLiNT fares and I for one will be following its progress.


http://clintmag.com/

31 comments:

Joel H said...

Picked up Issue 1 the other day. Not sure what to make of Frankie Boyle's strip yet, but Kick-Ass 2 and Nemesis were fun enough. Long may it continue.

Andrew said...

It's too expensive. I'm an adult with a reasonable job and a deep interest in comic books - but even I baulked at 3.99. I flicked through it on the shelf and then put it back again. Why do all magazines these days have to be in colour and bigger than A4. Ask yourself this: How is it that Commando has been so successful for fifty years?

Lew Stringer said...

Commando has a loyal following of ex-squaddies and collectors, but its distribution is poor. Some branches of Smiths may order an established comic like Commando but it'd be a harder if not impossible task to get them to stock a new title in that format.

Retailers prefer £3.99 magazines because it means their percentage of the cover price is better than it would be on a £1.30 comic. It's all about keeping the retailers sweet unfortunately but without their support publishers are stuffed.

Most readers prefer colour comics. As for size, CLiNT isn't bigger than A4 and for £3.99 you get 100 pages as opposed to £3 or so for a 32 page comic book. Isn't that good value?

John Freeman said...

That's a superb, well-rounded review, Lew. Will add a link on ours over at downthetubes. Interesting comments on comic magazine anthologies though - do you really think that's a dead approach to comics in the UK? Doctor Who Magazine fans seem happy to read their strip monthly (but then again, they're probably buying that mag for other reasons). Do you think a weekly (like 2000AD) or a fortnightly has the same problems - that people no longer want a 'part work' comic? That's a bit of a worry...

Lew Stringer said...

Thanks John.

I think there's long been resistance to cliffhanger stories. DC Thomson used a clever technique of making their serials mostly self-contained episodes whilst advancing the plot, whilst IPC were more dependent on direct cliffhangers. I remember at school in the sixties that the main objection kids had to comics were the disappointment of finding the stories were continued. This is why serial strips were eventually phased out in Buster and The Beano.

As I'm sure you know, British publishers used to resist publishing monthly comics because they felt a month was too long for kids to remember what had transpired previously. I think CLiNT is going to face this problem, and it'll be even worse if future episodes of Turf and Nemesis are chopped in half so Titan don't catch up with the USA too quickly.

Outside of the fan ghetto I don't think people today have the patience for comic serials. As for DWM I'm afraid that outside of comic fans the Doctor Who fans I know skip the comic strip. They buy it for the features.

I hope that CLiNT and STRIP can revive the public's interest in serial adventure strips but society is a lot different than it was 30 years ago, and even then serial adventure strips were on the way out in the UK.

John Freeman said...

Good points on serials, Lew. However, I think a publisher will continue to put them out for a while at least in print, as they spread the cost of production.

(These days of course, there is also a digital comic element to consider as a another potential revenue stream).

Speaking as its editor, my concern right now, in terms of what's going into STRIP Magazine when it launches, is that where possible, the stories published shouldn't, hopefully, just read as part of a longer story. However, I'm aware that's not always easy, as comics publishing is these days rather dependent on collections to, ultimately, make money for the publisher - as their own edition and in re-sale.

Although comics are still syndicated to other magazines (and there are some newspaper strips that are hugely successful in this arena), the market doesn't appear to be that strong.

I have a feeling your gut instinct is correct - there is an attitude of wanting "the whole thing" rather than being left hanging. Outside of soap and ongoing dramas (like Holby, for example) it's the same on UK TV. Maybe music is similar, too - why buy the single when you can have the album?

Interesting though that this isn't a new phenomenon. I didn't know that was why serial strips were dropped from titles like Buster. Cheers for that nugget!

Adgros said...

I haven't seen the issue yet though I will do at some point this week. Interesting reading and at 100 pages I think it's a fair price. It all depends on whether people prefer 100 pages of fun and escapism and will come back for another dose. I believe serials can work for a few things, but overall you need some one-off tales to please those of us who like a grt one off story that will make you think and enjoy with some good humour. Fingers crossed though and looking forward to seeing Strip Mag too. Retailers hold the keys to the gate and placing in the right spot helps - though do shops have dedicated retail management layout artists on staff?

Anonymous said...

It's not really a comic, it's more of a magazine with comic strips in it. The whole concept behind the title springs from a rather adolescent mindset in my humble opinion. As for your comment that 'prudes' have never proven their case that comics corrupt children, you're banging on your own pet drum. The cause and effect nature of how absolutely everything has some kind of influence on consumers is a long established principle, and there is a plethora of evidence to prove it - as much as anything is able to be proved that is. The fact that you reject the evidence (if you've even read it all) reveals nothing more than your own prejudices. Spare us from those with a cause.

Lew Stringer said...

Perhaps you could source some proof of comics damaging children and post it on your own blog? As the theory has been around for over 60 years I'm sure someone must have come up with something concrete by now. I look forward to reading it!

Anonymous said...

Sorry, don't have a blog, but the evidence of influence is there to be had at the touch of a button on your computer. As for 'damaging children' it depends on your definition of damage. I would say the fact that children are nowadays more sexually experienced at a younger age, swear more, and are generally more obnoxious (in terms of numbers as well as degree) is down to what they are exposed to while growing up. That includes a whole variety of influences from how they're brought up, peer group pressure, the records they listen to and the books, comics and magazines they read. If you don't think there's anything wrong with swearing, rowdiness, and being sexually active at 13 then you won't see damage. So from that perspective, what is damaging is subjective. However, I think it is incredibly naive to dogmatically state what we all know to be true in other areas of life; we are influenced by what we are exposed to and sometimes in a negative way as well as positive. To conclude otherwise is to claim that all of the negative aspects of today's society are completely independent of what psychologists, psychiatrists, various behavioural experts, teachers, law-enforcement officers and those who deal with those issues on a daily basis tell us is the cause of some of today's antisocial ills which beset modern living. It all depends on your view of what an ideal society is. If you think that apart from a few isolated hiccups society is fine as it is then you won't see a problem. On the other hand, if you aim for a higher model of societal behaviour then you're bound to be disappointed by what is our present reality. And if so, you will look for a cause, a reason...and scrutinising the content of what we feed the minds of the members of our society, regardless of age, is a sound start. The subject has been looked at and the results are worthy of consideration. A complacent dismissal of the evidence (which is, of course, debatable...as it is in every controversial topic) does not lead to enlightenment. Anyway, I'll look up some evidence and post it on your blog when I have the time.

Lew Stringer said...

And yet the increasing immorality of society that you perceive is parallel to sales of comics dwindling. It's almost as if, I dunno, society's problems have nothing to do with comics!

Thanks for your theory again anyway kid. The address to contact regarding your concerns about CLiNT is at
http://www.millarworld.tv/forums.html

hal9000 said...

I loved it! 71 pages of comics and and only 13 pages of articles.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the compliment, but at 63 I'm hardly a kid. Sales of comics per se may be declining, but there's a wider choice of things with which to influence people...for example, many young teenagers buy lads' mags which are totally inappropriate for them. Falling numbers would not preclude comics from having influence on their young readers (especially if they follow current trends in reflecting what many people would consider the excesses of modern living), but obviously only on a vastly reduced readership from my day. Nobody's saying, as far as I'm aware, that comics are the main or only cause of society's ills - only that they may be one more factor (even a minor one) in the melting pot of what affects people on a regular basis. If we despair at kids bad language (for example), then let's not have bad language in comics or magazines that kids might have access to...but let's apply that to other things as well: Records, TV programmes, etc. As I alluded to earlier though, if you don't have a problem with swearing then you won't see a problem needing to be resolved. The media may say they're only reflecting current trends in what many consider to be antisocial attitudes, but doing so may inadvertently magnify them. Anyway, I don't want to appear as if I'm banging on MY pet drum so I'll leave it at that. There's at least two sides to every story and sometimes more than two sides. It's wise to keep an open mind on such matters.

Not a fan of Clint said...

Lew your comments about the anti-comic 'prudes' are always going to make the sanctimonious types kick off. Being angry at society is their default setting. No comic is going to teach a streetwise 13 year old bad language or bad habits. My criticism of Clint is more grounded. What irritates me is Millar's insistence that Clint is a new British comic when it's more or less another Titan reprint comic. The phrase 'Emperor's new clothes' has never been more appropriate. I predict it'll implode within a year. I'm not a fan of Clint as you may have gathered. I hope Strip Magazine shows more potential.

Anonymous said...

I'm afraid you disappoint me, Mr Stringer. Your rules clearly state that you will not allow insulting 'ad hominem' attacks. I can live with you not posting my response to your last reply to me, but to be numbered so disparagingly and insultingly amongst the 'sanctimonious types' for merely expressing an opinion surely contravenes the spirit of your blog's stated guidelines? 'Not a fan of Clint' has not even accurately summarized my point of view, instead indulging in some distorted, exaggerated caricature of it. It's clear his comments are made with me in mind...is it one set of conditions for those who agree with you and another for those of a different viewpoint? I thought I was extremely reasonable in explaining my position and made no dismissive remarks about anyone. Is it too much to hope for a level playing field?

Lew Stringer said...

"Anonymous", I doubt the comment about "types" was directed solely at you so it's hardly personal abuse.

Leeann H said...

Anon, this is practically Mr. Stringers's ground, and of course you can voice your own opinion on comics, without that sketchy, too long to read generalisation in your second comment. If you need an equal playing ground, you need to know excatly what you're talking about, WITH evidence to back it up.

Copypasting a comment I made about this on Lew's Facebook yesterday afternoon:

'There's plenty of age-appropriate material for kids out there, but many parents are crap consumers who ignore the content and shat themselves too late/ don't want kids to grow up/ are tunnel visioned after years of upholding a PC world from an un-PC one they were denied in childhood and still don't know what they want, while quietly oogling the CAREER BOOSTING HARDCORE PORNY TOPLESSNESS, OMG! page 3 girls in The Sun, or something. :p I'm still trying to wake up.

'I do remember seeing a chart at college comparing the sales of comics and crime rate between America and Japan. It was STAGGERING. :C'

It's disheartening when I'm trying to publish what I drew and wrote in the medium that I love, has to come under Daily Mail type scrunity from someone who clearly does not love this craft, and fears reading some illustrated content akin to already acceptable primetime or post-watershed TV narratives.

PS. There are plenty of tennagers I've met who are NOT horny ASBOs (keen on setting an housing estate on fire with petrol bombs and cigerettes). Hate towards children has to stop too.

John Freeman said...

I admire Lew for permitting anonymous postings of the kind featured here. We don't know if the first "Anonymous" is the second. It could be anyone. Or Anonyone.

The debate is interesting, but if you want a level playing ground I suggest you "de-cloak" so we as reader don't attribute one Anon's views to Anoters (Anonthers). Your call.

John Freeman said...

To be fair though Leeann H, having picked up and flicked through Kick Ass after reading the first pages of Kick Ass 2, I can't say I found it pleasant, featuring as it does at least one scene of the top of someone's head being chopped off with a sword. (As I have said elsewhere, though, I am not the target audience for this title).

Now, we both know there's worse than that described above in many movies, but the static nature of the panel makes it rather grim reading. While Holby City has its fair share of gross surgery scenes I don't recall seeing anything that graphic pre-watershed.

That said, is this material any worse than, say, Hookjaw eating people back in Action in the 1970s? Violence in comics always shocks, and many have argued that as in other media you should not only see it, but show the result. Otherwise you end up with the sanitised unreality of The A Team where bullets fly all the time but no-one is hurt. That, to me, is more harmful than portraying the very real damage can cause.

However, if you simply use a graphic scene to shock, there is, I think, the danger that you de-sensitise your potential reader and the trick is over used and rendered ineffective. A loose comparison is the way British soaps go through phases of "upping the ante" with plotlines, the current buring down of the Vic pub in EastEnders and the upcoming train crash in Coronation Street being good examples of this.

When you go all out with a grand visual to capture a new audience, what do you do next? Have an earthquake? Hit Weatherfield with an A-Bomb?

Creators surely forget that the most important thing about a story - characters you should care about - at their perils. That element is, for me, what makes a story memorable, although admittedly the spectacle grabs attention.

Anonymous said...

It's clear his comments are in direct response to mine, and that he has me in mind when he uses the term 'sanctimonious types'... therefore I am his target though perhaps not exclusively so. I also note your inverted commas around the word anonymous...am I to understand from this that you are implying the opposite? I'm afraid I find Leeann H's comments too poorly and haphazardly expressed to resonate with me, apart from her opening remarks in which she implies I do not know what I am talking about. This is clearly intended as an insult. Another example of a biased philosophy on your part it seems. At my age I did not arrive at conclusions on any subject without giving the matter a great deal of thought, I can assure you. It seems you comic types are bereft of common courtesy if this is anything to go by. Perhaps rudeness is something you learned from (amongst other things)the comics you read as a youth?

Lew Stringer said...

Could you point out exactly where I or anyone else has been rude to you? Isn't it rude for you to dismiss comments as "poorly and haphazardly expressed"?

Do you feel comics have ever contributed to damaging you personally? If not, how can you consider them a threat?

Leeann H said...

Gah, internet keep seating my posts so I'll keep this quick.

John: I was making a comparison between the pacing of Blacksad and cop-out cast culls via giant explosions in soap operas. Blacksad has awesome storytelling and has sex and violence as what could only be rendered by an ex-Disney animator, giving it a strange satisying vibe seeing cartoon animals pounding the crap out of each other in a film noir setting. :D

Anon: Whoa, didn't realise I'd poorly and haphazardly strolled from an internet comment board into a Dickensian elocution class. Better watch my step! Altough the chances of you reading this as to how I feel rather than how I write is slim, again. (I know what THAT's called, but comics didn't raise me that way to post THOSE insults here. I might be right on my assumptions too. :))

What I can understand from your hyper-conservative babble is that you haven't applied your argument to the realm of comics, or have told us what's eating the inside of your rectum concerning comics and kids. TELL US. You haven't mentioned yet what you'd like to see comic creators making to distract kids and single-handedly raise them to be proper pillars of society, while you fret away your time being some sort of strange posh Troll (ie. person who pests others on the internet, lest you start referring to Tolkien) here. Explain or get out of here.

Lew Stringer said...

Yes "Anonymous", could I echo John's request and ask you to post under your real name please? As you're so passionate about your views it might give them more credibility. Thanks in advance.

Leeann H said...

This comment time travelled into my Gmail box, so....

Anon: Sales of comics per se may be declining, but there's a wider choice of things with which to influence people...for example, many young teenagers buy lads' mags which are totally inappropriate for them.

Neither are Page 3 girls, but the Sun newspaper can be easily grabbed off a bottom shelf. No one complains.

Anon: If we despair at kids bad language (for example), then let's not have bad language in comics or magazines that kids might have access to...but let's apply that to other things as well: Records, TV programmes, etc.

Hence 'explicit lyrics' labels on rap albums, blacked out swear words in some of DC's titles, the 9pm watershed/bleeps.

Anon: As I alluded to earlier though, if you don't have a problem with swearing then you won't see a problem needing to be resolved.

Never mentioned a point about swearing, but however... for young kids, no. For that 17 year old kid in Topeka starting the Anti-cuss club, and on hearing Stephen Fry's rebuttal on the story ('swears are geniune words from our language since the 12th or so century... those (who say otherwise) are either under educated or a fucking lunatic'), it's a qualification in growing up.

Anon: Anyway, I don't want to appear as if I'm banging on MY pet drum so I'll leave it at that. There's at least two sides to every story and sometimes more than two sides. It's wise to keep an open mind on such matters.

Irony that you have yet to show the 'other side' of your concerned citizen schtick and what REALLY got you riled in the first place.

Not a fan of Clint said...

Anon, I was making a reference to Lew's comment about 'prudes'. Pardon me if you took it as a personal insult. The important thing to remember about Clint is that it's an adult comic for mature readers. It's not the responsibility of Titan Books if it falls into the hands of children any more than it would be the responsibility of James Wan and Leigh Whannell if kiddies got access of a DVD of Saw or do you think all of adult entertainment should be cleaned up to be child friendly in case some irresponsible babysitter leaves it around??

Anonymous said...

I will certainly consider giving my real name in a future posting, although I don't think it would matter one way or another as to the credibility of my point of view. On the other hand, given the personal invective aimed at me by Leeann H for simply expressing an opinion, it should not be surprising if I decide it wiser not to. I must confess to being puzzled as to your desire to know my name...as if this will in some way help you to decide whether I am worth giving credence to or not. Surely the 'argument' (I would prefer the term discussion) should stand or fall on its own merits? If you prefer people to forego anonymity, perhaps it would be wiser not to offer them the option? Speaking of Leeann H, I found her original post rather haphazard and poorly expressed and simply and honestly said so. (I thought that may encourage her to focus her thoughts and convey them in more cogent manner.) That is a mere observation on the way she has expressed herself (although that perception may be subjective on my part), not necessarily a condemnation of what she is attempting to say. However, my remarks can hardly be construed as a personal attack. I'm afraid I find her further comments far too aggressively phrased to even address and will not be responding to them. Such confrontations merely produce heat, not light. I appreciate Mr Freeman's thoughtful contribution and may reply to it when I have more time, your good self allowing. However, in the main, I agree with a large part of it. As for examples of rudeness, I suggest you reread Leeann H's comments. Lack of respect for myself and my opinions permeates the whole tone of her posts. The comic I took when I was a boy was 'The Eagle'...60 years after it first appeared it is still held in great regard and remembered with fondness. I very much doubt that magazines like 'Clint' will have the same impact on posterity.

Lew Stringer said...

Why should Leanne respect you when you misconstrue people's criticisms of your opinions as "rudeness" and "ad hominem attacks" whilst making judgement about their writing ability? The world doesn't revolve around you.

If you're going to continue contributing and don't want to be perceived as a troll perhaps you could focus on constructive answers to the questions about comics that have been put to you?

Anonymous said...

I'm afraid that the bullying and confrontational nature of your tone leaves me cold. Perhaps you are unaware of it, but both my wife and myself can see it in your replies. So far only Mr Freeman has responded with anything constructive and done so with civility and humility. I merely replied to a comment of yours on a controversial subject in order to show the other side of the case...for the purpose of balance you might say. Yet I am met with hostility and derision. I'm afraid I find you a poor ambassador for your profession and will not be returning to your blog. I feel that an attentive perusal of my remarks will reveal my thoughts on the questions raised and therefore requires no further embellishment. It would be pointless as it is abundantly clear that you have already made up your mind on the matter and will brook no alternative opinions concerning it. The confrontational nature of your replies displays an unhealthy and unnatural eagerness to defend your position from what you seem to percieve as an attack on your beliefs, based merely on someone mildly expressing a different opinion. Infantile name calling, with words such as 'troll' reveals an over-developed sense of insecurity and a level of immaturity that I would have thought beyond a man of your age. I visited your blog because I saw it mentioned on someone else's, but if I had been aware of your surly disposition I wouldn't have bothered. The thugs who frequent our local shopping centre display more civility and courtesy than you do. Good day to you, sir.

Lew Stringer said...

Hi John, I appreciate your point about violent media desensitizing its audience although I'm skeptical that it works the same way with comics.

A graphic scene in a live action movie may affect the viewer because the nature of it being live action and a moving image with sound nurtures a tone that makes it closer to reality than a comic.

On the other hand a comic consists of linework (or painting) that never involves the reader in quite the same way as film. I'm not sure a comic image (such as Hookjaw biting someone's legs off) could desensitize a reader to that same kind of scene in reality.

Of course there will always be some poor souls who can't distinguish fiction from reality but that's a result of other problems going on with them. We shouldn't censor the media "just in case" it upsets a minority who shouldn't have unsupervised access to such things anyway.

Strangely the prudes who want to police fiction because of their own evangelical agendas always seem to be immune to the effects of the "harmful" media themselves. Funny that.

Just my opinion.

colcool007 said...

My views on Clint are available for all to see on www.comicsuk.co.uk.

As to the potentially harmful effects of Clint, one could do a lot worse than get hold of Prof Martin Barker's The Video Nasties: Freedom and Censorship in the Arts, where the same tired and hackneyed arguments about the harm done unto the innocent have been repeated ad nauseam to apply to such evils as Video Nasties, Action [the UK comic], Rock and Roll, The Silent Movies, Horseless Carriages and Music Hall to name but a few examples.

Lew Stringer said...

Martin Barker's 'A Haunt of Fears' is also along the same lines, and is superbly researched, exposing the real agendas of the anti-comics brigade.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...