By the way, as you probably already know, in other countries Egmont have a good line of comics. On my last trip to Norway (albeit 6 years ago) I noted about 30 different titles. Ok, some were reprint, but many were new. Hopefully, with Crazy Comics and the upcoming Egmont reprint specials, perhaps Egmont UK will give comics more priority. It’s not a guarantee, what with the recession, but they own so many great characters that are just sitting in limbo that it’s a crime not to revive or revamp them.

Hi Lew. Yes, I am completely wrong about the idea of a “lifestyle” mag. It’s been around for ages, you’re completely right. Still hate the branding though.

I’m going to drink till my brain starts working better.

As for gifts bagged/stuck to the covers of modern comics: yes, they’re a complete pain. It’s difficult to find a good condition copy of The Beano now for example because the weight of the cover mount is often too heavy for the flimsy new paper to keep the comic from creasing. Unfortunately those gifts are a necessity of childrens comics now due to requirements by supermarket retail giants and to compete with rival comics.

Regarding the sparse amount given to comic strips in Toxic, this is due to the allocated budget unfortunately. We’d all like to see more strips in there, including the readers, but with comics selling a tenth of what they did 40 years ago it’s not feasible at present.

Anyway, let’s hope that a positive reaction to CRAZY COMICS inspires Egmont to do more!

But I’ll stand by my comments about the side of Toxic I don’t like; there’s part of me that doesn’t like the idea of a “lifestyle” mag for 8-12 year olds. It’s a horrible idea. But maybe that’s my middle class, Guardian reading, liberal mindedness coming through! As for the plastic tat on the cover – I think it’s terrible that it’s become a necessity for any comics in the supermarkets & newsagents. It forces a parent to always consider whether their child actually wants the comic for the comic or just because it happens to have a crappy toy on the front. I’d much rather Molly wanted to read a comic than play with the toy – we’ve seen far too many comics and magazines discarded and unread!

I suppose part of the problem has become an arms race between publishers. It used to be that a special issue would have something stuck to the cover. And that worked okay. But somehow we’ve got to the position where any magazine for children feels it HAS to have something attached to the front – making the comic feel more like a McDonalds Happy Meal than a bit of children’s entertainment.

Yes, Toxic is succesful and I’m really glad it is – anything with some comics in is better than nothing. And yes, I may have been too hard on it. And yes, the DFC wasn’t perfect, far from it. But it’s ideals were good. Maybe the subs model would have worked in time in a better financial market. We’ll sadly never know.

I remain hopeful that Toxic will keep trying to get more comics into the magazine, especially if they’ve got the quality of the four I’ve highlighted above.

Toxic is a comic that reflects what you need to survive in the marketplace – that you, or I, might prefer it have more comics and be more like the DFC might just condemn it to the scrap heap as well. It may not even need comics to work but that it is championing them is a terrific thing – any new work from Lew Stringer is a gift to us all. I know the DFC presented an opportunity for what I’d call a decidedly ‘middle class’ branch of cartooning and cartoonists to emerge but it wasn’t ‘all that’ to my mind – carrying a number of weak, muddled or downright boring strips. The greatest loss is the cartoonist’s access to paying work rather than, for me at least, the magazine as such. Let’s hope they find new avenues that this exposure has opened up for some – full pagers in the Guardian ain’t a bad consolation prize.