Young Protagonists (or lack thereof)

Well, one of the things that has happened in Western culture over the last hundred years is a gradual but steady shift in the way we think about children and childhood. The Victorians were the first to start celebrating childhood, though only for the upper classes. Before that, childhood was just an inconvenient step along the way to adulthood, to be gotten through as quickly as possible so one could become a productive member of the family. The Victorians invented things like picture books and toy stores, things that had no real purpose other than to entertain children and encourage them to play while they were still young and innocent. But the reality for poor children was still pretty harsh, and the "play" years were very short.

It really wasn't until the Baby Boom that people began to think about designing things specifically for children, or about differentiating between childhood and adolescence. People discovered what a rich market there was in making things for kids and persuading their parents to buy those things. At the same time, developmental psychologists/educators/doctors like Piaget and Montessori and Spock were publishing all kinds of books about how important those early childhood experiences are.

So...if we go back to the days before Beatrix Potter, it was unheard to write a book specifically to entertain children. Educate only. Now, the opposite is true. You are not a good parent if you don't read to your baby, buy books for your preschooler, etc.

Having children be the heroes of those books is a natural part of the shift toward valuing childhood. If children are too young to be of any use, why make them heroes of a book? But if children are precious and full of potential, then they make the most exciting heroes of all. Which in part explains why so many adults adore the Harry Potter novels. They simply wouldn't be the same with an adult protag. Adults are hardened and cynical. Harry Potter is never, not even in his darkest moments, hardened or cynical. He is pure, unadulterated heroism.

MrRuff said:

And, of course, RL Stine, like his adult-novel counterpart Stephen King, takes most of his inspiration from old horror comics like EC comics. Goosebumps is like RL Stine's answer to Tales from the Crypt, albeit toned down a little.

But one thing I've noticed about old horror comics like these is that the protagonists are NEVER children. They're always fully grown adults, often on the latter side of 30.

So basically, I thought it might be interesting to discuss why there's this crucial difference. You wouldn't find a MG novel about a 30-something now. And while EC Comics may not have been aimed at an audience quiet as young as Goosebumps, it certainly found an audience there and children loved them, despite the age of the protagonists.

Meh. Just something to think about.

Click to expand...

You wouldn't find a MG novel about a 30-year old then, either. Unless it was a child's version of someone's life.

There's a reason they're always described as 'old' horror comics. In the 1950s the comic publishers self-imposed a 'Comics Code' to limit the amount of violence and gore in comics, chiefly because of children reading horror comics. They self-censored because in the US there were Senate hearings on juvenile delinqency, and comics kept coming up as bad influences. So the publishers cracked down on themselves in an effort to pre-empt legislation.
Those comics weren't aimed at children, they were for grown-ups, but it was children reading them that caused the problem.

Consider how many children there are in Stephen King's books, yet they're never considered children's books.

Comics are different from novels.

MrRuff said:

Clearly, because some of those comics are horrific. Objectively, of course, I love all that grim stuff!

But like you said, comics and novels are different. It's mainly because of the pace, I think. I just think it's interesting how different the rules can be even if you're telling the same story in both media.

Click to expand...

There's a couple of them that I still remember, forty years later. Then my mother actually read one, and it was back to 'Archie' and 'Caspar the Friendly Ghost'.
I think the difference is that with a comic, the pictures can convey stuff that you wouldn't want to have to spell out to children.
First, because doing it word by word would make you really aware of what you were telling them, and because children don't really have the vocabulary. Sure, they'll learn, but it ruins the pacing and suspense if the reader has to look up 'viscera', and 'shambling abomination'.

I think it might have something to do with the difference of violence level. In a MG novel, the violence level is sometimes spiked, but usually pretty benign, and never gory. In a comic book, it's been known to be very bloody and gory, and you can't have a young protagonist in that kind of situation.

Meh. Maybe it's just me?