Serantes’ discussion of the stereotypical comic book reader hits uncomfortably close to home for yours truly. She cites Halpern’s description (“not…popular, academic, socially mature”) but condemns it as too narrow a group to truly cover comic book readers. However, it must be pointed out that in 2002 when Halpern was published, North American comics were in a readership slump and had yet to become the mainstream powerhouse that they are today. [source] Nowadays readership is much wider than it was then. The teens who read comic books in the nineties or, God forbid, the early 2000s, were mostly outliers, making them by definition a little weird. Teenagers are strongly social, so those willing to be weird were probably loners and misfits. Obviously, this is a generalization, but it follows Halpern’s idea of comic readers as kids who “[didn’t] go to school dances.”
Serantes, by contrast, was published only three years ago, long after Marvel revitalized the superhero movie and DC rebooted its main property to bring in new readers. The shift in demographics over those ten years was dramatic enough to make Halpern’s stereotypes mostly obsolete. Comics are cool now. Cool kids can read them. This, of course, makes it easier to bring teens into libraries via comics, since they’re more widespread. (I personally remember using my library for that exact purpose as a teen.)
The history lesson is particularly fascinating. I was already familiar with Wertham’s “Seduction of the Innocent,” but I have never encountered Sterling North before. I’m aware that comics before the implementation of the Comics Code spanned from wholesome to lurid and borderline pornographic, so it’s easy to see how moral guardians of the era would have found such content objectionable. I also believe that the Comics Code was a gross overreaction that stunted the medium for decades afterward, but that’s only peripherally relevant. Suffice to say that the Code dramatically limited the kinds of stories that could be told in North American comics, arising as it did from the notion that comics were for children and confirming/adhering to that belief. “Adult” storytelling didn’t return to mainstream comics until the 80s.
The idea of graphic novels as a “hook” to draw in reluctant readers is not a new one, but the discourse around how effective they are as literary practice is interesting. There is definitely evidence that teens who aren’t interested in books might nonetheless pick up comics if they are exposed to them. However, are comics just an interim medium? Should readers be nudged towards “real” books once they’ve been made more comfortable with the idea of reading, or are comics literature in their own right? There’s as much variety in the medium as in books themselves. Maybe a comics reader could go on to read Twilight, or maybe they pick up Persepolis instead. Which direction has more value? Is the appeal for teens in the medium, or is it in the easy and digestible subject matter?
All I know is that the graphic novel section of libraries should offer as much variety as any other section. There’s no point in keeping a shelf stocked only with superhero stories.
'Sup? 
I want to say how much I admire the dedication of librarians who choose to work in schools. My choice to work in a public library certainly frees me from the need to ‘hook’ teens with comics and then ‘improve’ their reading choices. Then again, I have a responsibility to encourage awareness of all types of literature that the public library holds.
LikeLike
Great point about developing graphic novel collections to reflect the variety of stories, subjects, genres utilizing that format. Many readers may not know there is more to comics, etc. than superhero stories.
LikeLike
Although I completely see your point between the differences in comics culture between 2002-2013, I would love to discuss further this point in class. For example, do you think is a justification to describe a population as Halpern does? Even if comics readers in 2002 were not the “cool” kids that mainstream say that they are now, as a professional, should we not point out the problems with such a description?
More later!
LikeLike