1. How has the academic reception of popular genres changes over time?

Prior to the late 20^th century and beyond, popular genres were largely viewed as ‘below’ the ‘higher’ forms of literature, such as novels and poetry, and ‘not worthy’ of the analysis and criticism the latter received. In part, this was due to how relatively new the genres were. The majority of what we recognize as ‘popular genres’, for example, television, comic books, anime, and so forth, came about due to advancements in technology. Television and film being obvious; comic books, a result of improvements in the printing press, anime an advancement in both animation and the ability to share cultural media between Japan and America. Due to this, many of these ‘popular genres’ only came to wider public awareness in the 20^th century, and their reliance on new and still not entirely explored technologies gave them an aspect of the ‘unknown’. Critics were uncertain how to deal with them – and so they didn’t. (Lister, Dovey, Giddings, Grant, & Kelly, 2009) (Schneider-Mayerson, 2010)

It wasn’t until around the 1980s that ‘popular genres’ began to be viewed and criticized at a similar level to traditional ‘high’ literature. This period brought with it a change in the way texts were being critically analysed in general; where previously much analysis had been focused on the text itself, it’s structure and content, that focus began to shift onto other influences such as the contextual, historical, environmental, ideological, and, most especially, audience. This favoured popular genres due to their intrinsic connection with the time period in which they were created and their unique, often ‘new’ forms of delivery, as critical analysis was no longer as closely tied to the form. (Schneider-Mayerson, 2010)

2. What might the value be of studying them?

Popular genres have a tendency to be a product of their time – or at least act as a mirror of it at the time of their creation. Because of this, by studying popular genres, we can get an insight into aspects of the time period they were made in, such as human interests, perspectives and trends. This is exemplified with the ‘Tintin’ series, that ran from the 10930s through to the 1970s, beginning with the early Tintin albums, which carry many propagandistic and (to use the ‘popular’ term of today) problematic aspects which stem in large parts from the context in which they were created. Tintin in the Land of the Soviets, the first album, shows rather clear anti-Soviet and anti-communist ideologies that were common during the period it was produced (1930s) – and would continue to be throughout the 20^th century. Tintin in the Congo is perhaps the most egregious example, with both the art and writing throughout the book depicting highly offensive race-based stereotypes – the character design resembling that of blackface caricatures and the roles and speech depicting the Congolese people as dumb and sub-servient. This is notable not just in that it mirrors how black people were viewed in many places throughout the world, but also in that it very specifically mirrors the perspective of the author, Herge, and the context he was writing in – a Belgium that was doling out one of the harshest colonial regimes onto the Congo that had ever been seen. However, as Herge’s career in writing Tintin would continue and as both he himself along with the world around him grew more racially sensitive and aware, he would alter go back and edit out some of the worst of the offensive racial aspects, and later albums would show at least some sensitivity in depictions of other races (even if still containing ‘problematic’ moments). (Mountfort, 2012)

References

Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I., & Kelly, K. (2009). New media: A critical introduction. Taylor & Francis Group.

Mountfort, P. (2012). ‘Yellow skin, black hair…Careful Tintin’: Herge and Orientalism. Australasian Journal of Popular Culture, 33-49.

Schneider-Mayerson, M. (2010). Popular Fiction Studies: The Advantages of a New Field. In Studies in Popular Culture, 33 (1) (pp. 21-35). Popular Culture Association in the South.