rfmcdonald | [LINK] "The market and conservatism in the land of superheros" (Reply)

French-language sociology blog Une heure de peine's Denis Colombi has posted--originally in French but also available in English via Google Translate--an interesting essay examining the poor representation of women (realistic women, any women even) in comics. Why is this the case when there would be a market for comics featuring believable women? Colombi's answer? The market is policed by fans with a vested interest in the established order. My slight editing on Google's translation of a key passage is below.

Fans are organized and have been for a long time: "fandom" did not wait for Internet development. In a sense, and if you go back to science fiction, home of what was to become the geek culture, Hugo Gernsback was the first craftsman. Following this came conventionsand, obviously, the fans were among the first on the Internet. exercise real power over publishers: reactions to the announcement of prequels to the majestic Watchmen by Moore and Gibbons were noisier than in many other social worlds.

Some of the reactions to requests for greater consideration of the female audience are some unambiguously hostile. DC Women Kicking Ass example relates some, left as comments on the site or sent via Twitter:

Have you considered starting your own independent comics publisher? Have you regarded starting your own independent comic book publisher? Then you can make comics the way YOU think they should be made…rather than trying to get a billion dollar corporation like WBE to create something for a tiny niche minority base that ultimately will not be sustainable or profitable Then You Can make comics the way THEY think YOU Should Be Made ... Rather Than Trying to get a one billion dollar corporation to create something like WBE for a tiny niche based Minority Will not Be That ultimately sustainable or profitable
Just a thought. Just a thought.

In short, the moral entrepreneurs are numerous and they defend the borders of the market. Modern guardians of the temple, they are ready to rein in those who come to challenge their conception of comics.

But why are they listening? There are a number of reasons. First, they are the first demographic that canb e picked up by a publisher: it is they who are most visible, either in conventions or on the Internet, they are the ones who speak the most, including sometimes very directly with producers. Therefore, it can be difficult to see that there is another potential market elsewhere. A product is never simply the product of a producer who would propose a demand that would accept or reject. Any production stems from the cooperation of a group of actors who influence the form and content: what Becker calls an "art world", noting that, for example to produce an opera, it is necessary that there is an audience willing to listen and equipped to understand. If your opera lasts 12 hours, it is unlikely to be performed because we will not find the public to attend. Same thing for the comics: the fans involved in the definition and design of what they are. And this is done through these moral entrepreneurs struggling not with them but the producer: comics traditionally have male supporters, not promoters of "kicking ass is gender neutral." And because they are unequally endowed in terms of resources, not everyone can be heard. A market like comics is an issue of struggle and confrontation. It is built in and the conflict between groups, and not just because some Schumpeterian entrepreneur had the brilliant idea of a particular innovation.

Second, for a publisher, to disappoint fans is extremely risky: alienating them is to see dry up a key source of income. L'une des caractéristiques centrales du fan/geek, c'est qu'il achète tout : comics, produits dérivés, places de cinéma, etc. One of the central features of the fan / geek is that he buys everything: comics, merchandising, cinema tickets, etc. He might be disappointed by this or that product but he'll buy it anyway. This attitude is largely based on the distinctive aspect of these practices: we are very proud to be a true fan, to be the one who really knows best (and indeed it confronts happy to know which is the fan, the wisest, the most knowledgeable, etc.), to appreciate what others can only grasp. Again, this is an attitude very similar to that of dance musicians described by Becker: for them, jazz was only defined by the fact that almost it could not please the squares. Therefore expanding production to a wider audience, especially if it carries the stigma associated with women (with the continual devaluation of feminine practices labeled as feminine [. . .]), will lead to a loss of value in their products, their value distinction. Again, this gives a very different market than is generally promoted: the producers do not clash so that they can sell goods or services to be around them a small group of fans could follow them though do. Far from being brought to innovate, rather the publishers are encouraged to comply with standards and rules they can not be the only ones to handle and control.

Go, read.