I can understand the distaste of some if they hear second hand that "The Beano now features characters farting" but in its defence, the depictions of such are usually so exaggerated they cease to become offensive. Or at least that's the idea. Personally I'd find it loutish if someone deliberately broke wind in public in real life, but in a comic the act is exaggerated so much it becomes almost abstract.
Here's a recently published example of mine from Toxic, where I had a "fart monster" terrorizing the city. Is this really any worse than the stink bomb jokes depicted in old comics?
Here's another example of gross humour from Toxic, - a baddie uses his smelly sock to force people to hand over their valuables.
Neither of these two examples could actually happen. They use the concept of gross humour to leap into the realm of fantasy. It's the same when Stinkbomb in Super School or Bog in Team Toxic unleashes a giant cloudy fart to bowl over a villain or somesuch. It's exaggerated beyond the norm.
Let's think back to the comics of 40 - 50 years ago. By the same principle, in reality a nail through the sole of a foot isn't funny, but when Sunny Boy drops tacks that his Dad steps on and leaps to the ceiling it is funny. In reality when a child gets beaten black and blue it's anything but funny, but when Dare-A-Day-Davy gets battered so hard he has lumps on his lumps it's highly amusing. Both of those examples are from comics of the 1960s, and no doubt they unsettled some adults of the time just as much as "gross humour" unsettles adults here. But the kids found them hilarious. As adults we still find them funny because it's the comedy of our generation. I suspect the kids who laugh at fart gags in comics today will still find those strips funny when they're adults too, and will no doubt be complaining about the comics of the next generation.
Thoughts?
Lew
