James Meeley of Sequential Treasures in Yakima, Washington read Mark Dudley’s comments (see "Mark Dudley, Illustrator and Sequential Artist, on Steve Bennett's Latest Column") regarding Steve Bennett’s latest column (see "Confessions of a Comic Book Guy--The Most Unexpected Black Lanterns of All") and has this to say:

I have to say, I don't know what offends me more, from the recent blather of Mr. Mark Dudley: how much he seemingly goes out of his way to miss Steve Bennett's point, or the callous disregard he has for the classic superhero model type (which many comics have been founded on)?  Still, in the interests of fair play, which I learned a great deal about from that classic superhero model type, let me attempt to answer Mr. Dudley's pointed questions:

"If the comic book readership primarily consists of men, roughly age 13 to 40 and companies have to market to this demographic, then why should it be such a surprise that we are seeing more mature themes and dialog in comics?"

It isn't surprising to see more "mature themes" in comics.  Nor did Steve Bennett's piece suggest that it is.  I think the surprise is where they are being put.  In comics, featuring colorfully suited characters, who's sole purpose is to battle injustice and evil.  Do we really need to hear about Green Lantern's sex life, or about Wonder Woman's menstruation cycle, or other such things that happen in our real world and have no real business in a story aimed at (if not made specifically for) kids?  I mean, these things are supposed to be used as an escape from of overly-complicated and compassionless world.  Why would I want the very things I'm trying to forget put in my entertainment to remind me about them?

I've been reading comics for almost 22 years.  I've done about as much as you can in this industry, without actually creating them.  I've been a letterhack, an online reviewer and commentator, worked in several comic shops and currently am the artist rep for several artists who make them.  I've seen quite a few changes in my years and most of them for the worse.  I was there when the speculation bubble popped.  I was there when Marvel filed for bankruptcy.  I was there for the rise and fall of CrossGen and everything that came after.  And in that same time, my comic reading list has been growing shorter and shorter.  The characters I loved and admired are no longer ringing true for me.  They don't sound or act very heroic.  In some cases they don't even look heroic.  And it is due to those, like Mr. Dudley, who want to see "mature themes" shoved into these characters and their worlds, despite how ill-fitting it may be.

Worse yet, is how often these "mature themes" are anything but. What exactly are these "mature themes" Mr. Dudley would suggest are, not only unsurprising, but should actually be expected?  In most cases it is the following: foul language, toilet humor, murderous impulses, sexual inference (if not outright sexual displays), and basically whatever modern-day dysfunctional attitude is popular that minute. Yeah, that sounds really "mature," to me.

There is simply no need for it.  Marvel has their MAX imprint, while DC have the Vertigo and Wildstorm lines.  You want "mature themes," you can easily find them there.  But the classic heroes should be above that kind of debasement.  It's not what they are about, nor what they should be used for.  Mr. Dudley suggests that this is simply marketing the product to the demographic (one of which I am a member).  But then, can he explain why comic sales are at all time lows, while at the same time, the films featuring these same characters, which are based more on the classic model he says is so passe, do multimillion dollars of business?  If this is what the consumer base wants, they should be eating up and coming back for fifths and the film should all be flops.  That isn't happening, though, which seems to go against the notion that this is being done with the consumer base in mind.  My thoughts?  I think it is simply creator excess.  The people making these stories have seen that classic heroic standard done and want to make their own mark.  This, of course, requires them to break away from what these characters are about and supposed to represent.  And since he himself is a creator, I can see why Mr. Dudley would support such moves.  After all, even comic creators want to be remembered forever.  Why should characters in the comic have all that fun, right?

And now for question #2:  "I am almost 40 years old and I love comics, but you can't expect me to continue to buy into the manufactured morality of the characters in these books.  I like my characters far more three-dimensional.  The world isn't black and white so why should I expect that in any literature that I read?"

The short answer to this, is that he shouldn't expect it in the literature he reads, because he can choose what he wants to read and what he wants to ignore.

But the real answer is that, if you want to read about folks who fly and bend steel in their hands, who fight evil in multicolor spandex, all of which are things your mind is willing to accept, you should also be willing to accept the simplified morality of the world in which they exist, unless you either have some kind of personal grudge against them or think your own personal tastes are what the world needs to go by.  Either way, we are talking major ego trip here.  I'm sure I wouldn't be surprised to find out how close to the truth some of that is for Mr. Dudley.

He practically gives up his motivations, with the claims that the classic superhero model is a "McCarthy-ist dungeons of the Comics Code Authority."  Because why should superheroes not have themselves soiled in out real world politics and general dysfunction?  Never mind that these characters were made for kids over 70 years ago, nor that they are still marketed to them this very day (after all, you still see Wal-Mart and the like selling Spider-Man underoos and Superman backpacks in their kids departments, don't you?).  I would question Mr. Dudley's right to even call himself a creator with such utter disdain at the classic model for superheroes.  He claims creators are more free now, to tell tales they couldn't before.  But did he ever stop to consider that maybe those tales aren't worth telling?  That maybe those kind of tales don't belong in every series, or within every character?  And does he realize how his words disrespect the many talented creative minds who, even with the burden of the CCA, manage to tell incredible adventure tales filled with pathos, drama, heroism and passion, even without the use of "mature themes?"  I find that a lot more creative to have done something like that, then to simply fall back on the worst traits of humanity for easy shock value and empty drama.  It's the same kind of thinking used in this "reality tv" crap, which has made watching the tube merely an exercise in seeing humanity further debase itself.

If Mr. Dudley, or anyone else, wants "three-dimensional characters" (which means allowing the immaturity of "mature themes"), you can find plenty of comics from publishers other who do that, as well as the imprints from Marvel and DC I already mentioned.  The comic series The Authority and The Boys are tailor made for those of Mr. Dudley's "sophisticated tastes."  There is simply no need to drag the classic superheroes, which kids have looked up to for decades, down that same path.  What about those of us who like those "one-dimensional pugilists" tales?  Is there no room at the table for us? Is our money no good here?

Maybe the issue here, isn't that the classic superhero model is some outdated and uninteresting relic of a hopefully forgotten time.  Maybe it is simply the fact that folks, like Mr. Dudley, need to look within themselves and admit that they are the ones who need to change, not the characters.  Maybe it isn't the comics that need to grow up, moreso than those who are reading them and expecting "mature themes" in heroic adventure tales.  Times may changes, but so do people's tastes.  Maybe it isn't the comics that need to move on to other things, maybe it is those who feel like Mr. Dudley who do.  There's no shame in admitting you've outgrown something.  It is only natural.  But there is certainly plenty of shame in destroying something fun and entertaining for future generations, simply because you find it "too quaint and antiquated" as a concept.

Just one "13-40 year old" reader's, and long time industry supporters, thoughts on things.

The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff of ICv2.com.