Earlier this week, The Beat’s Heidi Macdonald wrote a smart piece entitled “Why DC and Marvel will never truly target female readers.” If you haven’t read it yet, you should; she writes that “By addressing female readers (and also younger readers), DC risks alienating its core audience of teenaged boys and men 25-35,” going on to suggest that Marvel doesn’t have the same concerns (I’m unsure about that part, personally, considering that Marvel has fewer female-led solo titles than DC, but I get the “The X-Men readership has traditionally had a large female percentage” point she makes in defense of the idea). “The truth is,” she concludes, “as much as some individuals within each system would wish to deviate, the mandate to both Marvel and DC from their corporate owners is to be for boys. Period.”
Sue at DC Women Kicking Ass disagrees:
If that were true we wouldn’t have seen DC blink after the efforts of Kyrax last year. We wouldn’t have seen DC and Marvel continue to put out books that feature female characters drawn so don’t have their tits and asses as the main focus (God bless you J.H. Williams III and Cliff Chiang). That those books sell well, kinda hits at some of the assertion of the Beat as well.It also means you wouldn’t have DC bringing a new writer on Catwoman who said publicly its because the company wants a “female perspective.” And as far as DC Entertainment goes you wouldn’t have DC Nation featuring content with real, gosh doggone GIRLS like Super Best Friends Forever, Amethyst and the Black Lighting sisters. I’m sure you could try and make a case that this is simply an attempt at a Brony play where female friendly content creates a male fanbase rather than emanating cooties, but really I think that’s unlikely. Now none of those are particularly change agents. I’d say more they are cracks in the ice. Signs of a thaw. Signs that yes we do recognize that people who don’t identify as male are an audience and here’s content for them.
It strikes me that the upcoming Amethyst revival – written by a woman and, seemingly from the promo material at least, divorced from the sturm-und-drang of the regular DCU – may tie into this thinking a little, as well.
Me, I’m unconvinced that either DC or Marvel really have a mandate to be “for boys”; I know that Disney’s purchase of Marvel was in part related to the company’s desire to build up its male audience, so there’s at least some truth there, but I don’t think that either Warners or Disney would be anything other than overjoyed at the prospect of building a female audience. I suspect the truth is that both publishers have a mandate to be successful, and that the various Powers That Be in both cases don’t necessarily know how to do that in any way other than the familiar, male-centric methods.
That said, I can kind of agree with Heidi on this:
Thus, I would much rather spend my energy enjoying the work of the hundreds of successful female creators outside the Big Two than hope that corporate culture will change very much on this point.
I certainly hope that corporate cultures can (and will) change, but really? Many of my favorite creators these days are female, and working outside of either DC and Marvel (and superheroes altogether). Yes, it may be a seeming constant struggle for women to break into the Big Two’s ranks, but the culture is already changing for the better outside of those publishers and will hopefully continue to do so, because, hello, progress. If Red Hood and the Outlaws (as a random example) is getting you down, why not read Octopus Pie or Family Man instead?
(To those snarkily saying “But those aren’t superhero comics, it’s not the same thing!” Well, fine; try The Adventures of Superhero Girl instead, then.)
July 27th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
First off, thanks for The Adventures of Superhero Girl (I was already reading Octopus Pie). Very cute!
As to the points made, I think DC is doing the minimum they can as far as female readership. The couple times they’ve backtracked under pressure, it was usually to save face (after making spectacular missteps in how they initially spoke to fans on the subjects when broached). Even then, it often feels like lip service. Yes, some of the books are good examples of female characters. Batgirl, Batwoman, Birds of Prey, Wonder Woman… Some of them are decidedly… not.
But strong female characters doesn’t necessarily equal appealing to female readership. Because, to me, the real crux of the problems at DC currently is the feel of the books.
The Stephanie Brown Batgirl comic (one that is almost the poster child for the situation we’re discussing) was FUN. The Power Girl series (in particular under Connor/Palmiotti/Grey’s direction) was fun, with a bit of cheesecake. Blue Beetle pre-Nu52 was fun. People who clamor for the old Justice League under Giffen/Dematteis do so because it was fun.
The sense of fun feels like it’s been the target of some sort of focalized strike by DC Editorial the last few years. And, yes, the books I’m talking about (besides JL) were probably never DC’s biggest sellers, so maybe that’s why.
But DC put out 52 new titles in one big bunch, and it felt very level in what it delivered. Some was better, some was not, but the entire feel of the line felt like it was all action, sex, seriousness… Not for younger readers, certainly. Not particularly for female readership either. Not for anyone who enjoys fun books.
Am I saying women all want “fun” comics? No, that’s certainly not true. But it’s an acknowledgment of the fact that the tone of the line is too monotone. If you can’t try to have distinct voices in a line of 52 titles, then you’re doing something wrong. Four books about Green Lanterns that all sound the same will sell to a Green Lantern audience, but no one else. 8 books about Batmen will do the same. For a while. And then people will gravitate towards the best of them and abandon the others.
I don’t think DC is trying actively to have a monotone voice for their line. I think it’s too much of the same editorial controlling the books. If it’s all being hands-on controlled by Didio, Lee, Johns, and Harris, then there’s no chance of finding a new audience.
They even broke up the new line in sections, with the usual Bat/GL/Superman areas, but adding in Dark and TT/LoS (Young Justice?). On the one hand, I can see why it might seem beneficial to say, “if you like Swamp Thing, you might also like to follow Animal Man, or I, Vampire.” But the other side is that you’ve already pre-defined what these books are supposed to be, instead of letting the creators grow them into something of their own.
There’s a tried-and-true thought process that seems to be happening, which would be okay, but the stuff that’s tried has been done so much, it’s no longer true. People seemed to think relaunching the whole DC line last year was a huge gamble, but it really felt like they overly played it safe. One war-time comic, one western, and a superhero line across the rest of the board.
It’s not a female perspective that DC is missing. It’s anything other than what they already know.
July 28th, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Of course the big two aren’t going to make a large scale effort to abandon their core audience to target adult women or children. It would be financial suicide for an industry that’s already dying a slow death or treading water at best. And the whole “if you build it, they will come argument” is completely ridiculous. Most adults who don’t read comics, male or female, aren’t going to become converts. DC put out the Minx line to attract female readers and they barely sold. Kids nowadays just want to play Batman in a videogame, or watch a movie or cartoon about him. Only a small percentage are going to want to read the comics. If it’s some kind of endemic sexism at the big two that’s repelling female readers, then why aren’t Dark Horse, Image, and IDW burning up the sales charts selling comics to all these untapped female readers begging for non-sexist comics?
July 28th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Smax, the traditional prose publishers–the kind that know how to sell books to kids and girls–who have opened up graphic imprints ARE burning up the charts. Smile by Raina Telgemeier is #1 on the NYT Graphic Books paperback bestseller list– beating Batman: Knightfall. Alison Bechdel and Marjane Satrapi are household names. And hey! Gail Simone’s Batgirl is #4 on the hardcover list!
And Minx didn’t so much fail as it didn’t succeed fast enough for the DC overlords. Books have a much slower burn than comics are allowed to have, and you can’t give an entire imprint just one year to capture its audience.
July 29th, 2012 at 9:05 am
I think in all these “Minx failed” comments it should be remembered that the line was mostly conceived by male Vertigo writers who had always wanted to do a book for girls and very very heavily edited. Not that many of the books weren’t good, but the entire conception of it was very very constricted by internal factors.
July 29th, 2012 at 1:08 pm
The only thing better than Heidi’s original article might be the comments on this blog post. The lack of trolls is refreshing!
I think Heidi nailed it on the head and, as Smax mentioned, it makes little financial sense for Marvel or DC to alienate their core audience — which is horrible short term thinking, but it is what it is.
@Alexa Aside from Batgirl, those aren’t superhero books you’re talking about, and superhero books are the bread and butter of the Big Two. That’s also a part of the problem — they’re not going to make big pushes into other genres because they won’t expend the resources. I also wouldn’t go so far as to say Bechdel and Satrapi are household names. Great? Sure, but not known to most people.
I think Corey Scott is exactly right about DC doing the bare minimum and only really doing it for PR reasons. I’m actually surprised to see that Sue thinks otherwise. DC is just going to go through the process to make themselves look better, but a year from now they’ll cancel the new Spoiler series because it doesn’t sell, and it won’t see because it will have a little known creative team because the Big Two won’t put their “A” creators on such titles.*
The answer, as with most things concerning the health of this industry (if not the medium) is getting away from our dependence on the Big Two. That’s the only way we get better (in all ways).
*Okay, that was a bit of a diatribe, but I know a lot of people who were turned off by the new Captain Marvel book because of the art, and I find that really unfortunate
July 29th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
Kyle, are you talking about the Captain Marvel comic with art by Mike Kunkel, or the Shazam backup in Justice League? I adore Mike’s art, and honestly have no problem with Gary Frank’s. I’m not convinced I’m on board with the new story of Shazam in the new DC continuity, however. I’m trying it, at least.
I enjoyed a good amount of the Minx books that I read. I think it was more aimed at the Manga market than even the female readership it was pitched to, though. At that point, I believe they thought those readers were one and the same, but I’m not as convinced. Certainly not now.
Thing is, I can convince myself what would make a goo comic aimed at women and girls. Just like I can say that I know what makes a good comic for kids, or a good comic in general. But I won’t know if that’s right or not unless I actually put the book out there and see. DC has made some efforts int the past, and it hasn’t worked for them, so they’ve kinda’ blocked themselves in to what they’re doing now. Like a lot of people, I find it strange that they’re following the 90′s so closely in the talent they use and the feel and art of the books, when the 90′s felt like a pretty dark time in comics for a lot of people. But that’s what they’ve gone with, and they’ve had some success, even if it’s fleeting.
Marvel did make a big push the last couple years with more focus on female creators and characters. Same thing, though… the sales never took off. Pointing fingers at what I think were there mistakes and missteps doesn’t automatically mean I’m right. I just wish both the companies would keep trying. With 50+ titles on either side, does it hurt to at least take chances on one or two titles?
I think it’s easier for a woman to pick up a book like Smile and know that they’re probably going to get something out of it. Compare that to, say, X-Factor. X-Factor has some of the best storytelling out there, as far as I’m concerned. It has incredibly strong female leads. The only thing inconsistant is the art, but that’s never really bothered me. I think a lot of female readers would really like the book, but how would they know since it’s racked next to X-Force and X-Men and a ton of Avengers vs. X-Men titles currently. Also, it’s not the firs title anyone would think to recommend to a woman who just wandered into a comic shop. Heck, I don’t know that the new Captain Marvel is either, and that is a female lead written by a woman (it’s also quite good so far).
Things like Smile, and Strangers and Paradise, and Sandman… those are easy go-tos. They’re what we collectively think women who read comics will want. But tons of women know the X-Men. They saw the Avengers. They like Sci-Fi and Horror. Some are even as turned off by Twilight as anyone, but still can be a genre fan. I don’t think you have to create a story for women, per se. I think you have to create great stories, with individual voices, and then the right readership will find you. But if you create with only one audience in mind, you’ll only get them, and they can’t sustain your whole line. They sure as heck can’t grow it.
*Also, I just figured out which Captain Marvel book you meant. I was so DC focussed… But I agree, the art didn’t work for me. Fortunately, the story worked enough that I’m coming back anyway.
July 30th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
What about the super girl mini that came out a few years ago with her saving cows and being friends with Lexs niece. That was fun and for girls. I gave a piece of art for that comic to my sister and she hangs it in her law office.