‘Remembered Reading’ by Mel Gibson; book review

Remembered Reading: Memory, Comics and Post-War Constructions of British Girlhood“, by Dr Mel Gibson; ISBN 9789462700307, published by Leuven University Press, June 2015. Reviewed by Jenni Scott.

Remembered_reading

British girls’ comics are not much written-about, either within academia or within comics fandom. Even the people who read these comics as children tend to move away from then in their teenage years and forget about them as adults, until a deep well of memory is probed and an undercurrent of (often very strong) emotion is released. In looking at how people talked and thought about girls comics in the past, and how people talk and think about them still, this book is a great review both of the memories of the former girl readers, and of the criticism – often ill-informed or inadequate – made of these comics.

To be clear up front, this is an academic work based on Dr Gibson’s research for her doctoral thesis, and published by an academic press within a series of ‘Studies in European Comics and Graphic Novels’. Some of the writing includes some specialized vocabulary or concepts (in fact this is generally not too bad but it could put some people off). Perhaps more importantly for a work on comics, only a very few illustrations are used: this sort of book typically has definite budget constraints and it is hard to obtain permission to use this sort of old material (especially for free). It is not a lavish reference book for a general audience! Having said that, Dr Gibson has chosen wisely in including a four-page “Belle of the Ballet” story and an absolutely corking two page photo story from “Shocking Pink”. It also includes a very solid chapter on ‘The Rise and Fall of the British Girls’ Comic’, which provides an outline of publication history and of the development of this market. Its real strength, though, lies in the number of questions, thoughts, and avenues for investigation that it has provoked in me during my reading. (And what better thing can you say of an academic book than that it is fruitful?)

So, what is the book all about, in more detail?

Coverage

In the Introduction, Dr Gibson sets out her stall. This book aims to look at how the genre of comics aimed at British girls developed and why they disappeared, while also looking at other comics that were read by girls (such as American superhero comics) and to a lesser extent also at the phenomenon of boys reading girls’ comics too. This is in order to challenge the received idea in our Anglo-Saxon culture of comics as being by and for boys and for men: a prejudice that forgets and belittles the history of girls comics. Because it proved hard and expensive to get hold of issues of girls comics themselves, or at least in the range and quantity you’d need to do a good overview, Gibson ended up not looking at the titles directly, or the stories in them, but rather at people’s memories and what was important enough in those memories to stick with them until she interviewed them years and decades later. (These were interviews done at a range of events typically held in libraries, schools, and other organizations, thus not targeting a body of already-identified comics fans.) At the same time, Gibson is clear about needing to look at the history of British writing on comics too: a history that comprises a strand that considers comics functionally as an educational tool, a strand that reflects enthusiasm and positive interest in the medium, and a larger third, critical, strand that starts from the premise that comics are bad for readers. (Even in the Introduction, it’s obvious that Gibson is writing from the point of view of a keen and positive reader of comics herself, so that while she outlines and discusses the critical strand there’s no fear she is likely to endorse it.)

Chapter One starts off talking in more detail about why it was so hard for Gibson to find copies of the girls’ comics she would have liked to work on: you might not have thought this was a particularly interesting aspect to lead off with, but it actually reveals some interesting attitudes on the part of the comics dealers she was in contact with. The dealers themselves had prejudices and misconceptions about girl comics readers: they argued that girls only got given comics out of duty and “did not really like them”, while at the same paradoxically still keeping them – meaning that dealers ended up with stashes of girls comics that they didn’t value either, and typically destroyed rather than sell! So a perceived lack of interest in girls comics becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Mass media writing about girls comics, too, ‘flattens’ and reduces the diversity of comics actually produced and read, and paints the comics that girls read as being all about boarding schools and middle-class respectability.

Between her own experience, the interviews with readers, and even some interviews with women involved in the creation of comics, Gibson promises us a much more nuanced view not only of the value and interpretations that girls do place on comics, but of the range of publications actually on offer at different times, and the relevant differences between them, particularly including perceived differences of class. This nuanced view is used not only to challenge the views of the dealers but also those of the few academics or educationalists who have written about this area. The analysis is even turned inwards too: Gibson confesses that “[a]s a younger reader I dismissed comics for girls as less significant, showing my own entanglement with value judgements and ideology” – a point she develops further in the rest of book that had a lot of resonance for me, too. Nevertheless, when discussing their memories with readers who came forward, she found that “these publications had been an important part of childhood reading”, used to construct the reader’s sense of what it was to be a girl in Britain at the time. (Not that everyone wanted to become a girl if that was what it meant to be one – some readers rebelled in various ways – but it clearly helped to shape them, either way.)

Chapter Two covers the publishing history of girls’ comics in Britain: this is a really good solid chapter which covers the gamut of work and of publishers. It starts with 19th and early 20th century text-based periodicals for girls, which were aimed at and read by a wide range of classes and ages. Girls’ comics themselves appeared rather later, in the 1950s; the key story is “The Silent Three” but the key title that comes under most discussion here is Girl. One particular point of interest in this chronological approach is that Gibson is able to highlight the treatment in Girl of ballet as “acceptable”, “although it had not been long since ballet had been seen as a problematic profession” – that is, although later generations of readers treated ballet themes as boring and conservative, we should remember there was a time when this was far from being the case! Gibson also highlights that titles with a mixture of content – features, fashion, pin-ups as well as comic strips – “came to be predominantly associated with British girls’ comics” (despite also being seen in boys’ titles such as Eagle and Look & Learn). Later titles such as Jackie in particular took this further, of course, and indeed led to the magazine format dominating the teenage and adult markets. At this point there’s a visible split in the market, with the titles for pre-teens (starting with Bunty, Judy, and Princess) being produced primarily in comics form rather than using more of the mixed format. “The comic medium, in not continuing through to periodicals for adults, was reinforced as an indicator of childhood.”

The section on Bunty and the subsequent section on Tammy and the new wave of comics will probably be of particular interest to readers of this blog, and won’t disappoint. There are some quotes from Benita Brown, who talks about writing the stories “Blind Bettina” (publication not traced),  “Hateful Heather”, and “Cathy’s Friend From Yesterday” (both in Mandy). Brown also wrote the sports tips that appeared in Jinty, “Winning Ways”, and it is implied though not stated clearly that she wrote “Spirit of the Lake” too. The final section is also interesting, covering the advent of photo-stories (illustrated by a parody one from feminist title Shocking Pink) and horror themes, before the death of the girls’ comic as a separate medium. Unfortunately for my personal interests, this chapter doesn’t go down to the level of detail I would ideally want to see about ‘production’ points such as sales data, who wrote what, who drew what, or editorial decisions and aims. Nevertheless it is a really good chapter that will give solid reference for anyone reading or researching in this area in the future.

Chapter Three is about how librarians, academics, teachers, and others have thought and talked about comics reading in Britain. It looks at moral panics and the fears that adults who are gatekeepers for children have had about comics: that comics are dangerous unless vetted for appropriate content, poorly-made, and will incite their readers to violent, criminal, or otherwise undesirable outcomes. These fears applied to boys and girls but particularly vehemently to girls; there was also a class element to the fears, with working-class readers felt to be more at risk than others. These worries came from various sides of the political spectrum as there were also plenty of feminist critiques made: that girls’ comics were unnecessarily twee and limiting, that they had too many stereotypes, that they were created almost exclusively by men, that they encouraged a victim mentality (especially the Cinderella and Slave story themes, as you can imagine).

On the positive side, Gibson counters these fears much more thoroughly than I’ve seen elsewhere. She cites Benita Brown as seeing her work in comics deliberately stretching the boundaries of the girls’ comics traditions; Brown also apparently “said that during her period of writing the majority of writers that she found out about, in both IPC and DC Thomson, were women”. (No further details were given on this statement – I’d love to hear more! – I also note that Mavis Miller, who also shaped girls comics publications at the time, wasn’t mentioned.) Gibson also points out the contradictions in the ‘moral panic’ reactions to comics – that commentators are scared comics will make readers ‘lazy’ and unwilling to move on to ‘proper’ books while at the same time noting that high volumes of comics being read tends to go hand in hand with high volumes of other materials being read by the same people. Gibson also points out changes over time in what is shocking and deplorable – at one point ballet is risqué, then Jackie becomes worrying because of its content about boyfriends and fashion, and subsequently titles like Just Seventeen and Mizz seem just as problematic. Each generation sees “a shift in defining what girlhood is and what the concerns of girlhood are.” Furthermore, once you start talking to the readers of the stories about them in more detail, you get a lot more about how they are interpreted or understood by those readers: girls discussed and argued about what they were reading, they interpreted them in different ways, it wasn’t just a mechanical equation or imposition of stereotypes onto vulnerable readers. It is precisely that area of reader response that is so valuable in the subsequent couple of chapters.

Chapters Four and Five are based on her interviews with readers of comics. It covers (of course) girls reading girls’ comics, looking at interview data to see how women talk about their girlhood reading and comparing this to academic writing that often makes incorrect assumptions about how that worked. Pleasingly, Gibson also covers boys reading girls’ comics, and girls reading comics that aren’t intended for girls (or not straightforwardly – she argues that even humour comics intended for a mixed audience are more firmly marked as being for boys than you might think).

Gibson showed through these interviews what readers of this blog will know from personal experience: girls don’t only read girls’ comics as might be assumed, they also read humour comics intended for a mixed-gender audience (The Beano) and titles intended for a male audience (Eagle, superhero comics). They read across class lines (there is often awareness of the idea of comics as a ‘lower class’ thing unless you read the ‘posh’ titles such as Girl). Most of all, readers read widely – borrowing other people’s comics, swapping, buying multiple titles per week – often communally, and with strong feelings about those comics even when remembering them as adults. Comics were fun to read and remembered fondly, but were also an important part of growing up: the transition from reading comics to reading magazines was often a marker of teenagerhood or early womanhood, and not infrequently this transition was forced on the reader to some extent by parents or by peer pressure. So on the one hand comics showed you ways of being a girl in British society (which you might reject by reading boys comics instead, or by interpreting the story differently from the way adults did), and on the other hand they were something you were expected or made to grow out of and put behind you – they belonged to childhood.

And girls comics stayed in one’s childhood, unlike the boys comics which have generated a collector base and fandom around them. Grown women are not, in our society, supposed to be still interested in those childish things for their own sake (though they are allowed to read comics if they have children who they are buying them for), and grown women do not as a rule, indulge themselves in re-buying their old comics and participating in ‘collecting’ activities. This is especially the case considering that comics are quite strongly marked culturally as being ‘for boys’ and ‘for men’, apart from the girls comics which are marked as being ‘of the past’. Some women will buck this trend, of course, but as exceptions to the rule.

The book ends with a good selection of end material, with an index and bibliography that has given me leads for further investigation in the future. One very welcome feature is a list of stories under discussion, which shows convincingly the wide range that Gibson covers. An index is also always useful, though a couple of quibbles – why not include Benita Brown in the index? (Pat Mills is also quoted but not included, so presumably no creators are listed in the index, but this still doesn’t make good sense to me.) Also, why is there no list of figures? There are only about 6 of them so it wouldn’t be a long list but it would be handy to refer back to and seems a striking omission for a book about comics.

I have a host of follow-up thoughts on this in terms of questions this book sparks, and further things to be looked at. This post is already very long though so those will continue separately.

Advertisements

31 thoughts on “‘Remembered Reading’ by Mel Gibson; book review

  1. Benita Brown wrote Tomorrow Town in Tammy. This was the only credited Tammy story to Brown during Tammy’s credits era.

    1. Indeed. She clearly has a long background in writing girls’ comics though! Our knowledge about what she created has just gone up massively. I’ll do a post about her in due course – and if possible, a interview (though I have tried contacting her before now to no avail).

        1. The confirmed thing she wrote for Jinty was the sports hints & tips strip called ‘Winning Ways’, as mentioned in the review. Spirit of the Lake is also based around a sport, so I wonder if she did more sports stories?

  2. I just had a thought about Blind Bettina. Could it be The Dark Secret of Blind Bettina (reprinted as The Lying Eyes of Linda Lee) from Mandy?

    1. The info in the book about ‘Blind Bettina’ is that she was an orphaned pop singer whose only friend was her guide dog, and her cruel uncle & aunt were her theatrical agents. Does that match? Apparently Benita got sick of the dog and tried to kill it off, but the editors intervened (which they don’t seem to have done very often, from other people’s accounts).

      1. Different story so, The Dark Secret of Blind Bettina is a girl who regains her sight but keeps it secret so she can take advantage of the people fostering her and play tricks on her foster sister.

      2. The editors also intervened on a Misty story called “Red Knee, White Terror”. They toned down a joke a kid brother played on his sister with a spider. They changed it to a clockwork spider.

  3. Could Benita Brown be the female writer who wrote Fran of the Floods? Tomorrow Town shows she did write SF.

    1. The exciting thing is that she could have written any number of cool strips for Jinty! Yes, Fran is definitely one of the possibilities, I’d say.

    1. Glad you liked the review, Col! I hope people are able to get hold of it. Of course as an academic book the publishers are probably expecting library sales and that sort of thing more than private individual sales, but hopefully the online retailers of this world will manage to get some in.

      1. I’m interested to see your further thoughts on the book, this is a nice review on what to expect from the book. I will invest in a copy when i have some free money.

  4. Enquiries at ComicsUK regarding Blind Bettina and the other two Benita Brown serials yielded the following information:

    The serial you refer to as Blind Bettina is presumably intended to be The Dark Secret Of Blind Bettina, which appeared in Mandy 491 (Jun. 12 1976) – 503 (Sep. 4 1976). However, the problem is that your plot doesn’t match it. The serial that it does match is Blind Belinda, which had already appeared in Mandy 428 (Mar. 29 1975) – 444 (Jul. 19 1975). Furthermore, the theatrical agents weren’t relatives. They were a couple of crooked chancers, Keith and Gloria Foxton by name, who had had plenty of experience booking acts into shows, and no doubt taking financial advantage of them to boot. In this case they promised Belinda Stewart (and her dog Kim) that they would make her a star, and pay for an expensive operation that would restore her sight. You can guess the rest!

    Hateful Heather appears in Mandy 907 (Jun. 2 1984) – 920 (Sep. 1 1984). I don’t have to hand any information on Cathy’s Friend From Yesterday, which means that I must have the whole serial, but without so far having logged its details.

    1. I recently posted a comment about Cathy’s Friend From Yesterday on the comicsuk website. The main point I made was that in my opinion the title doesn’t exist in Mandy, but the story does, but with the title Gateway To The Past. It was repeated roughly five years later with no change of title.

      1. I did see that comment on the ComicsUK site, Derek; thanks for repeating it here. It’s odd because Benita Brown clearly remembers it as having been printed under the “Cathy” title (per her blog post I have just found on how she got into print). The comment that her daughter makes (the third of the 6 comments) indicates that this was a household that read the stories too, so it presumably isn’t the case that she submitted the story and never saw it again. But of course you have looked through the issues in much more detail than any of us, and if you can’t find it under the “Cathy” title then it is unlikely to be there! Very odd.

        1. A propos of Cathy’s Friend From Yesterday, I need to make three points. First, I looked carefully through my issues of Mandy, and the notes I took in the British Library, without finding it. Secondly, it is possible that I might have missed it but given that Gateway To The Past is effectively the same story, with a repeat to boot, and with a protagonist called Cathy, I simply doubt the existence of that story in Mandy with a different title. Finally, my records are not absolutely complete. Things will be much clearer when they are.

          The theme also appears elsewhere in Thomsons’ titles for girls. For example, A Switch In Time in Mandy 934 (Dec. 8 1984) – 944 (Feb. 16 1985). This yarn is about a girl called Kyra, who is from the future, and she turns out to be Melanie Clarke’s great-granddaughter – or will be!

          There is also The Girl From Tomorrow in Judy 1280 (Jul. 21 1984) – 1289 (Sep. 22 1984). In her own present Jody Powell meets Kate Stanley, an orphanage girl from a hundred years earlier, and at one point tells her ”I am a girl from tomorrow!”

      1. You could use the first four paragraphs of my summary of the Hateful Heather serial on ComicsUK. The post can be found on page three of the Two Mandy Stories I Want To Find thread.

        1. This is what I have taken from that thread, many thanks: “Hateful Heather appears in Mandy 907 (Jun. 2 1984) – 920 (Sep. 1 1984). Hateful Heather is an interesting take on the difference between fantasy and reality. Sally Hill is an orphan living with her grandparents, very grateful for the sacrifices they have made for her, and hoping to be able to make it up to them one day. She is an aspiring actress in her local drama school, and she auditions for the part of Heather Ross, a nasty character in a new television serial to be called The Ross Family, hopeful but not expectant because she is well aware just how talented all the other children in the drama school are. She is chosen. Her grandparents are impressed with the generous terms in the contract that the producer personally discusses with them. Sally will be very well paid, and as she will not have time to go to school, she will be educated privately.

          The essence of the opening episode is the news that Heather’s father, Mr Ross, discovers he has won the pools, and the life of this working class family is about to be transformed.

          When the first episode is to be screened, Sally’s grandparents invite the neighbours in to watch it. One scene shows Heather’s grandmother having dropped her chocolates on the floor when she nodded off, and Heather picking them up and eating them, saying She’s so forgetful I can tell her she ate them all herself. Coincidentally, when Sally goes down to the corner shop to collect her mother’s groceries, Ted the grocer gives her a box of chocolates that her gran had won in the coffee morning raffle, but takes them back when his assistant/wife? tells him that she will deliver the box herself. As Sally is leaving the shop with the groceries she overhears the assistant/wife? saying to Ted You saw what she’s like on television. The old lady would never have got those chocolates.

          The reality/fantasy issue is brought home to Sally in a lighthearted way when the actress playing Heather’s gran tells her that earlier in her career she had had a regular role in a radio serial, and when the character she played got married, listeners sent in wedding gifts. Outside is a different kettle of fish as a hate campaign takes off. The producer is delighted because as soon as Sally started getting bad publicity the viewing figures shot right up. Things get so bad for Sally though that the producer is ultimately forced to apologise privately to her, and publicly by placing a statement in the press, accompanied by a photograph of the other actors, stating that Sally Hill is a kind and caring girl who is extremely popular with the entire cast.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s