Library of Congress displays TMNT #1 in children’s comics section.

[TurtleWA]

Was watching this video and at 2:40 noticed TMNT #1. The person filming the video also mentioned the section as an interesting choice. This was a “pop-up exhibit” featuring items from the Library's collection. They had a “Milestones” table display that might have also worked for placing TMNT #1 IMO. What do you think is the children’s section alright?

[Andrew NDB]

I don't see a TMNT #1 at 2:40.

[TurtleWA]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I don't see a TMNT #1 at 2:40.

Closer to 2:58 after they mention the powerpuff girls.

[neatoman]

I see it, right above the number 7, next to Bone and above Jumbo comics.

It's an understandable mistake, you could just request the library to correct it. All they would have to do is examine the contents and determine wheter or not it's suitable for children.

[Andrew NDB]

I see "Dark Knight Returns" #1 there. I don't think a little black and white blood makes it a "Mature" book or anything. I see some Green Lantern books there and there are people regularly maimed or exploded bloodily in those.

[TurtleWA]

Originally Posted by neatoman

I see it, right above the number 7, next to Bone and above Jumbo comics.

It's an understandable mistake, you could just request the library to correct it. All they would have to do is examine the contents and determine wheter or not it's suitable for children.

Very true.

I’m not sure all the categories the library had to choose from for the displays. But I did notice titles such as: Milestones, Science Fiction, Wonder Woman, Marvel, DC and Children’s Comics.

[Candy Kappa]

It's not any worse then a standard daredevil or wolverine comic if the time. TMNT #1 is fairly tame in voilence
level

[Mutant Ninja Anole]

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa

It's not any worse then a standard daredevil or wolverine comic if the time. TMNT #1 is fairly tame in voilence
level

To be honest, after being told over and over how dark the original comics were, reading volume 1 struck me as less dark and mature as much as crazy mostly PG-PG-13 fun.

Later volumes were definitely more mature in their storytelling but it very much felt like a comic geared toward 14-16 year boys (not a bad thing) compared to the 1987 show, which aimed younger.

[TurtleWA]

Originally Posted by Mutant Ninja Anole

To be honest, after being told over and over how dark the original comics were, reading volume 1 struck me as less dark and mature as much as crazy mostly PG-PG-13 fun.

Later volumes were definitely more mature in their storytelling but it very much felt like a comic geared toward 14-16 year boys (not a bad thing) compared to the 1987 show, which aimed younger.

If I had to rate vol 1 like a movie I would do PG13. But I wouldn’t say it’s “fun.” That’s just me though. I think I would say ‘entertaining’ or ‘compelling.’

For displaying it as part of comic history I think I would have picked the Milestones or Science Fiction tables over the kids table. But I can definitely understand how someone would put it at the kiddie table when considering all the other TMNT comics and shows.

[Ninjinister]

Originally Posted by TurtleWA

What do you think is the children’s section alright?

Why wouldn't it be?

[TurtleWA]

Originally Posted by Ninjinister

Why wouldn't it be?

I’m a little confused by your question. But I’ll interpret it as you saying your fine with the placement of the comic within the exhibit. And that’s cool, to each their own.

[Powder]

Originally Posted by Ninjinister

Why wouldn't it be?

I assume because it's a pretty violent issue. Killings, implied sexual assault, blood, blah blah blah. I assume that book is there because most people see TMNT as a kids property, even if it was not intended to be at that time. It's easy to see both sides of the "argument", IMO.

[Ninjinister]

Originally Posted by Powder

I assume because it's a pretty violent issue. Killings, implied sexual assault, blood, blah blah blah. I assume that book is there because most people see TMNT as a kids property, even if it was not intended to be at that time. It's easy to see both sides of the "argument", IMO.

Well like someone else said, it's not any worse than some of that era's "all ages"-ish comics. Marvel and DC were in the same boat. Probably some of the very issues that are right there next to it.

For all of the "dark and gritty" aura people give the Mirage books, most of them weren't too bad even by 80s standards. The "gritty" probably originally was about the underground komiks art style, in fact. Who was it here that said that Mirage wasn't "adult" because of blood and boobs, but because it dealt with mature situations like loss.jpg and betrayal and futility, like feelings and emotions instead of vices and viscera?

[Powder]

I think it was me who said that, actually.

[Ninjinister]

Originally Posted by Powder

I think it was me who said that, actually.

Fair 'nough. I don't usually associate quotes directly with people, and my memory's getting garbage anyway.

I phrased my initial statement wrong anyway. It's less of "it should be there" and more of an "it doesn't bother me that it's there".

[Powder]

It could really go in either category, honestly, so it's no big deal. I personally dislike when things continue to push the idea TMNT are only for kids, but its not like its so grand a misstep that one should get in touch with these people.

[Ninjinister]

I'm with ya on not feelin' like having to fight to get the series as a whole to be seen as more than just kiddie-fodder like other comics have had to in the past... but I'm also bothered by all those beating their dicks about how "mature" most of E&L's stuff is, in terms of violence and whatnot. Outside of Bodycount, which was just insanity on paper, I think the goriest the series got was... some of Jones' stuff in Tales Vol. 2? There's a chance I'm forgetting something.

[TurtleWA]

I don’t think most kids in general would appreciate or understand TMNT comics until reaching the adolescent years. Even then it would be more like late teens. I know there's an exception to every rule so just generally speaking.

I’m starting to think the comic was placed more as a symbol of the entire franchise which is viewed as for kids. That is strange because I thought the exhibit was specifically about the comics and comic history. Not about overall franchises. I mean Spiderman and Batman have giant franchises with things geared towards kids such as cartoons and toys. But both had placements within other displays.

Has TMNT not shaped comics history enough that it gets anymore distinction other than children’s comics?

[Powder]

I'd say that it did, unquestionably, however it doesn't get the credit it deserves for that.

Their initial burst of popularity sparked a trend of wisecracking antho animal teams, the "black & white comics boom", & its creators Kevin & Pete spearheaded a huge creators rights movement that led to the creation of indie publishers like Image. They definitely made their mark. But again, most of the brand visibility came from the kids show, which is what the world at large thinks is the sum of TMNT, so they're largely unaware of what the books were like or how influential they were. I once read an anecdote in which someone got main art duties on an (adult) TMNT comic in the 90's (might have been Frank Fosco), & in response to this one of their contemporaries said "I'm so sorry", assuming he was stuck doing goofy children's books for a living.

[TurtleWA]

Originally Posted by Powder

I'd say that it did, unquestionably, however it doesn't get the credit it deserves for that.

Their initial burst of popularity sparked a trend of wisecracking antho animal teams, the "black & white comics boom", & its creators Kevin & Pete spearheaded a huge creators rights movement that led to the creation of indie publishers like Image. They definitely made their mark. But again, most of the brand visibility came from the kids show, which is what the world at large thinks is the sum of TMNT, so they're largely unaware of what the books were like or how influential they were.

Nicely stated.

I’m not a comic historian but it seems like TMNT was ahead of its time. Was anything else even comparable to TMNT back in the 80s/90s? It seems like it would currently fit in very well at Image comics. In a sense that Image seems to be about trying new ideas. Welcoming comics that aren’t your stereo typical capes and spandex stories.

Originally Posted by Powder

I once read an anecdote in which someone got main art duties on an (adult) TMNT comic in the 90's (might have been Frank Fosco), & in response to this one of their contemporaries said "I'm so sorry", assuming he was stuck doing goofy children's books for a living.

Sad.