Rugrats in Retrospect: A Response to Saberspark's Video 'What RUINED Rugrats - The Untold Drama' and Why Paul Germain was Spot on about Good Storytelling
In the 1990's, animation was starting to evolve from toy commercial centric cartoons like Care Bears and My Little Pony to creator driven content as seen with Nickelodeon's hit shows of the time like Doug, Rocko's Modern Life and Nick's then pop cultural phenomenon, Rugrats. At the start of the decade, media and technology entrepreneur, Geraldine Laybourne served as Nickelodeon's first president from 1984 to 1996. She and the rest of the team set out to make Nickelodeon the first network for kids with their unique line-up of shows that were original creator content in order to differentiate themselves from other networks during those years. At the beginning, Doug, The Ren and Stimpy Show and Rugrats were the first three animated shows to be greenlit into production. Of the three, Rugrats would go on to be Nickelodeon's biggest hit, paving the way for the network's upcoming animated shows like Rocko's Modern Life, Angry Beavers and Hey Arnold!. More to the point, Rugrats became the face of Nickelodeon throughout most of the '90's, but then in the latter part of the decade and the start of the 2000's, its popularity gradually began to die down, eventually being eclipsed by Sponge Bob Square Pants.
There is a very specific reason as to why that happened. However, contrary to popular belief, the decline in popularity for Rugrats wasn't so much for the addition of new characters, though, there is some merit to that assumption. The real problem that caused this series to lose its momentum, as seen in Saberspark's video, What RUINED Rugrats? - The Untold Drama, had everything to do with the show creators failing to see eye to eye. The show was created by then married couple, Arlene Klasky and Gabor Cspuo along with fellow co-worker, Paul Germain. In this blog post, I'm not going to delve too much into the notorious drama that went on amongst the writers. I'm just going to pin point the main source of it. Rather, I'm going to discuss my thoughts on the situation from the perspective of an aspiring writer and early childhood teacher. Using my animation and illustration background as well as my experience so far working with children, I will explain with an in-depth analysis on why I favor Mr. Germain's side of the story.
For starters, before Rugrats made its debut, the trio worked on a few episodes of The Simpsons shorts for The Tracey Ullman Show from 1987 to 1989 before it made its debut as a television series itself on December 17th, 1989. The Klasky-Csupo team worked on this series during the first three seasons. The Simpsons, which was created by Matt Groening, has been a pop cultural icon for nearly three decades now, and is still going strong to this day, making it the longest running American animated sitcom in history. As we know, the show deals with the titular dysfunctional family and their interactions and responses toward American culture. As simple a concept that may be, what contributes a great deal to the success of The Simpsons is character development and stories that explore the human condition by going into the characters' minds and challenges. Having previously worked on the show, Paul Germain knew that the key to making a top tier animated series was quality storytelling, so his level of expertise would bode well for him in the long run. (I know The Simpsons did suffer a bit in quality over the years, but that's another topic for another day).
When pitching a show for Nickelodeon, Arlene Klasky created the concept for Rugrats with one basic idea in mind that made it truly memorable: "if babies could talk, what would they say?" Having been pregnant during the show's conception, making this a very personal show that was important to her, she had Paul Germain help her elaborate on the idea. Inevitably, Nickelodeon greenlighted production on the series and a total of sixty-five episodes would be in the contract. Rugrats debuted in the summer of 1991. Due to solid promotion, its success and viewership increased immensely. From films, to merchandise, and even a giant parade balloon making its debut in the 1997 Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, there was no denying Rugrats became the crown jewel for Nickelodeon. Unfortunately, as Saberspark pointed out, the events building up towards the show's success was ultimately what lead the show to crumble. There were several feuds between Klasky and Germain that would often put Csupo in the middle as the swing voter between the two.
Long story short, Arlene Klasky favored the idea of the baby characters acting more like their age rather than see them acting on adult-like behaviors as seen in the 1992 episode, The Trial in which the babies have a courtroom setup after one of the children destroys Tommy's favorite lamp. Paul Germain was all for writing plot driven narratives with solid character development like that of The Simpsons, but for kids. To make this disconnect between the show creators worse, it was the introduction of Angelica that increased conflict between Klasky and Germain. Germain created Angelica, feeling that the show having an antagonist would tip the scales in its favor. Klasky, having not created the character, strongly disliked Angelica and often complained about her portrayal being too cruel towards the younger children. Inspired by a childhood bully, Germain wanted to explore Angelica's character and craft character driven plots examining why some kids who bully other kids behave the way they do. After Paul Germain's departure in the mid-1990's along with other members of the writing staff, the quality of the writing began to shift. Although that was the time Rugrats skyrocketed in success, a few years later, it began to fizzle and eventually the show ended in 2004. Given all that was happening behind the scenes with this show and in regards to good writing and how children learn and develop through cooperative and explorative play, Paul Germain was definitely on-point when it came to what would have been best for this kind of series.
First of all, since Rugrats is a cartoon about children from ages one to three and a half years old, it should delve into topics that focus on the inner workings of early childhood development. The key ingredient that goes into good writing is having a deep understanding of your subject matter and drawing even more inspiration from the real world. It could be from personal experience, people you know or some new insights you've garnered working with others. All of those elements are vital to good storytelling, if not an important foundation for it. Arlene Klasky was right about one thing. When coming up with an idea for a story, it's a good idea to write something that is personal to you, but her unwillingness to listen to her peers left almost no room for personal growth. Good ideas become stronger when you garner deeper understandings of what you're writing about. If Klasky wanted to make a show that was about babies exploring the world around them, she'd be wiser to take those concepts into account. With Paul Germain's approach to writing, he was willing to add and explore those aspects of early childhood development blended with personal experiences and incorporate them into the plots. For example, when the children mimic adult behaviors, that's a prime example in early childhood development with children letting themselves think freely in a risk-free environment. What contributes to children's growth is their freedom to explore certain attributes of adult behaviors and thus, begin to learn about themselves and how the world works. As is the case with The Trial episode, the babies have a courtroom setting in the living room because they have already seen and know that adults attend jury duty. They are somewhat familiar with how that process works. Certainly they may not understand every little detail that there is to know, but at an early age, children observe adults on one side of a testimony and others representing the other perspective in order to determine who might be guilty and who might be innocent.
To add to this, from my experience so far working with preschoolers and what I've been studying, I've seen how children play certain games like house, kitchen, or store. Social referencing is something that occurs in infants between six to nine months, which is when babies observe how their caregivers react to certain situations and use that as a model for the appropriate response. Preschoolers already know this social cue from their infancy and build up from it. In terms of childhood development theories, Lev Vygotsky theorized that social interaction among other children is what adds to the child making meaning and gaining new knowledge. He also believed that, unlike Jean Piaget, who categorized childhood development in four stages, children's development is continuous and occurs through cooperative learning. Children, thus learn from each other. Jerome Bruner's Three Modes of Representation observes that children continuously and actively learn by adding on previous knowledge. Enactive, which is based inaction occurs during the early years. Iconic, which is image based, occurs during the mid-childhood years. Symbolic, which is rooted in language, takes place during adolescence. Applying this to The Trail, we see these examples playing out in the episode. We see that the children in the cartoon already understand why adults resolve disputes in a courtroom, so there is a bit of social referencing displayed as the babies are seen referencing adult behaviors to respond to their situation. The way that the Lev Vygotsky theory is depicted, the children are interacting with one another and thus, through this type of play, they are learning through cooperation and making meaning in order to find out who broke the lamp. The way that Bruner's theory plays a role is that at the age that the Rugrats characters are, they are learning through action or Enactive imagery and that is knowledge that gets built on with new knowledge over time.
That being said, drawing from real-life examples and knowledge of how children develop are important elements that contribute to good writing. The topic or subject matter you are writing about may be personal to you, but if you don't take the time to build up a deeper understanding from other perspectives and real-life observations, your concept may still be good on paper, but stale in representation. This also leads me to another reason why Germain's approach to storytelling excels over Klasky's, one that should always be at the forefront when crafting a story: who is your target audience? This question may already be a matter of common sense, but its one that seems to get a bit lost as new writers join a team on a show or other type of creative project. As mentioned earlier, Paul Germain envisioned Rugrats being The Simpsons of children's television. What he meant was that the target demographic for Rugrats could appeal to not only children, but adults as well. Just because of the age of the main characters, it shouldn't imply that there can't be stories written in a way that would resonate with older audiences as well. From the sound of the debates between Arlene Klasky and Paul Germain, it was obvious that Klasky failed to understand her audience, much less ever listen to why Germain's writing team was on point. Klasky felt that if they were to make a show about babies, it automatically meant that the main characters should consistently do what babies do. However, there is a major flaw in this thought process: aside from it leaving very little room for character development, it leaves very little room certain topics to be covered, rendering the show's content too stale.
The main problem I see with Klasky's approach as to what she thought was right for Rugrats is that she wanted to play the show too safe. Audiences eventually get bored of that. They can easily tell when writers are taking creative risks and when they are selling themselves short. By having the main characters constantly act their ages, not only are there limitations on story and character growth, but it fails to resonate with audiences. If Rugrats was intended to be a show both kids and adults could relate to, this approach was absolutely not the ideal choice for that demographic. You can't just have one foot in the door for a certain age group and the other one stepping out for another. A good kids show written for both kids and adults in mind should always be an open space for writers to be adventurous and explorative when it comes to dealing with new ideas. Plus this is the type of audience that wants to see something beyond the comfort level. There have been episodes of Rugrats, like the PBS Kids edutainment show, Arthur, where difficult topics were covered, such as neglect, loss of a pet or family member, jealousy, generational differences and of course, child growth and developmental milestones. There have even been episodes that deal with fears adults struggle with and new experiences that come with each stage in life. Even most impressive was that there have been holiday specials that focus on Hanukah and Passover and their religious significance, something that not very many shows at the time were covering. Being open to topics like these make room for both kids and adults to have a dialogue with one another. Because early childhood development is the seed that shapes how we grow up as our earliest experiences shape us, our perception of others and the world around us, it makes more sense that character driven plots were the best way to construct an episode of a show like Rugrats. Playing it safe with very little for the characters to do eventually alienates viewers and thus, that is why Paul Germain had the right idea all along. Even so, when it came to Angelica, her role wasn't solely to be a one-dimensional bully as mentioned earlier, but rather to represent a figure of the type of kid everyone has to deal with at times. As children grow up, they will always encounter a bully. Contrary to some of the stereotypes portraying bully characters over the years prior to Rugrats and other shows afterwards, there are underlying reasons why some children lash out the way they do. Over simplifying or dodging the subject altogether is not only playing storytelling safely, but it's also denying the reality of the world we live in. (I would like to delve into the topic of bully/brat characters in kids shows in a separate blog post sometime because I think it's a topic deserving of its own post).
With all that has been said and done and how well Rugrats aged as a pop cultural icon, in the end, it was Paul Germain's values as a storyteller that made it stand the test of time. With all due respect to Arlene Klasky, who undeniably had a brilliant idea for a television show, her concepts sounded good on paper, but Germain had ideas to help take her concept up another step further. It was unfortunate that Klasky and Germain failed to find common ground, but one can't deny that it's one thing to have a good idea on your hands. It's a whole world of difference to build up on it. Going off of Klasky's approach, there would have left very little room for character development and growth due to limitations on plotlines as was the case with the later seasons. Germain had all the right pieces in mind that fit into crafting good stories that would resonate with the show's respective audience. With an understanding of real world examples, such as studies related to the subject matter that the series centers around and personal experiences along with comprehending who the show is for, those are all important factors that contributes to both a show's quality and increased level of success in the long run. Stories can teach us about our struggles and shed them in a different light when delved into correctly, inspiring viewers to ask themselves the right questions and reflect on their own situations. By playing it safe and shunning other suggestions to further improve your concept as well as knowing less about who your target audience is, you not only put limitations on the potential of your ideas, but also on yourself as a writer. The more explorative you become with your concept and how it relates to the real world along with knowing what kind of stories your audiences are hoping to see, the better rounded you become as a creator. Your concept will grow and flourish, reaching its full potential. As with any creative medium, it will always be a continuing process that no one ever stops learning from because our experiences never stop shaping us and endless knowledge is always being spread around. You yourself will never stop learning. It's either you're open to it or you just stick to what is already familiar to you. By the latter, you will have many missed opportunities. By the former, you will constantly be exposed to them and those new opportunities and insights are what you give your audiences in return.
For comic book writers, there is much debate surrounding how to go about lettering. Some authors stick to the old-fashioned approach, while others will take advantage of the new technologies. In either case, both options have their merits. Depending on the art style and which tools were used to create the art, it can play a role in which techniques are being used for applying font. For example, if an entire story is hand drawn, lettering by hand might be the ideal option as it would naturally match the art. Lettering via computer would most likely be too distracting and out of place in that scenario. If the art was created digitally, lettering by hand might appear drafty than a completely polished piece. These scenarios are over simplified reasons for why some would letter by hand while others would letter by computer especially in this day and age where artists are looking for new and creative ways to merge the traditional and the digital together.
Renowned graphic novelist and teacher, Gene Luen Yang, the author and illustrator of American Born Chinese and the two-parter, Boxers & Saints, covered this topic on Book Riot in his post, Comics Lettering: By Hand or on the Computer. Speaking from his own experiences, Yang describes when he first began creating comics in 1984 as a middle school student and that lettering by hand “was a daunting task”. Because PCs were in their state of infancy at the time, the Ames Guide was the tool comic book authors took advantage of. For Yang, lettering by hand was more of a nuisance when it came to retaining neat handwriting for such a long time working as well as it leading to hand cramps. While Yang favors lettering on a computer, he points out a very important reason why some writers stick to the traditional. “I do, however, sympathize with the other side of the controversy.” he highlights. “The polish of computer lettering can sometimes be jarring, especially in a comic that’s meant to be personal, one that’s meant to feel like a diary.” He goes on to describe the lettering process behind American Born Chinese, in which to create the fonts, he used WhizBang and enhanced the letters in Photoshop “to scrunch the font’s width down by about 20%” and from there, he started using a font that closely resembled his handwriting. While typing makes comic lettering look easy, there is a level of craftsmanship that goes into creating a unique font that is as distinct as your own handwriting as Yang indicates that this process consisted of a set number of days, but is satisfied with how they came out. With Boxers & Saints, Yang dubs it as his “most ambitious project font-wise”, because he created three sets of letterings. The spoken word fonts, influenced by Yang’s handwriting as a means to represent the characters’ thoughts in the present moment, the serif font for the Bible passages and, inspired by his wife’s handwriting, a cursive font that resembled that of writing in a journal. Yang’s approach to lettering is an example of how comic letterers select their fonts. It's similar to how a filmmaker would set the lighting to be effective in a given scene or how a painter chooses a color to convey a mood or state-of-mind. When lettering fonts by a computer, the comic writer’s selection is based on what will be an effective font to use in a particular moment in the story. If, for instance the reader is going inside an individual character’s mind, the typeface will vary from the standard text used throughout much of the story.
In Yang’s conclusion, he pinpoints expert letterer Janice Chiang, who loaned her skills to works such as Conan the Barbarian, Transformers and Alpha Flight, is adept in both typing and hand lettering. Also, a friend and fellow comic artist letters via computer first and then traces over the typed fonts “in order to give them a more organic look”, to which Yang is impressed with how it looks. There are also even some great resources and tips for lettering by hand, such as Webcomic Alliance’s own Chris Flick’s (Capes-n-Babes) post, A Guide to Hand-Lettering Your Strips… as well as Todd Klein’s Hand-Lettering Basics. That being said, lettering by hand will always have its merits, too and curious beginners might give it a shot just to get the feel for what creating a comic in the old days was like. It never hurts to experiment with either. Whatever the art style, your lettering skills, what works best for you and what matches the medium the art was created with can play a major role in how you go about lettering your comics.
If you’re a comic letterer, feel free to leave a comment below describing your approach to lettering. I would love to read your thoughts on the topic.
Disney has been a staple in animated films for eighty years since its release of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1937 and continues to enlighten children and adults with their clever storytelling, memorable characters and of course, timeless tales through the art of animation. Walt Disney, the man himself behind the famous company name once reminded us “that it was all started by a mouse”, which made its debut in 1928 in the short film Steamboat Willie. From the early days of Mickey Mouse in short films to full-length animated features like Snow White, Fantasia (1940), Bambi (1942), Cinderella (1950) and Lady and the Tramp (1955), Walt Disney and his creative team continuously pushed the boundaries of the art form, capturing realism and life for their characters and the world they inhabit by using techniques such as the multi-plane camera, cel animation and (when it would be effective), rotoscoping. Until his death in 1966, Walt Disney had spent his career, adding to his creative and innovative repertoire. With live action films, theme parks and animatronics also a part of his company’s innovative collection, no one can doubt if Walt Disney was alive today he would be welcoming of 3D (CGI) animation as well and thus, be ready and willing to explore is creative potential. In fact upon the debut of Pixar’s first full-length CGI animated feature, Toy Story in 1995, which the Disney company distributed, Walt’s nephew, Roy E. Disney said so himself that his uncle would loved the film.
Given the Walt Disney Animation Studios’ success in the 1990’s during the Renaissance era to its decline in the early 2000’s and downsizing throughout the entire decade to its resurgence in the 2010’s, one might be wondering, will Disney ever create a new film using traditional animation? Perhaps the best way to answer that is to evaluate what happened in the 2000’s and what the company is experimenting with nowadays.
Surely it would seem that with the success of Pixar, today's popular releases like Frozen (2013) and Big Hero 6 (2014) and the decline of Disney in the 2000’s, it does seem that hand drawn animation would be a thing of the past. As Pixar released hit after hit with Toy Story 2 (1999), Monsters, Inc. (2001), Finding Nemo (2003) and The Incredibles (2004), Disney would have a few successes like Lilo and Stitch (2002), but suffered major failures with Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001), Treasure Planet (2002) and Home on the Range (2004). The following year, Disney released its first CGI animated feature, Chicken Little, which was a financial success, but was completely out of favor with critics for its notorious lackluster story and dislikable characters. Throughout the remainder of the decade, Disney released three more animated features, two of which were CGI, Meet the Robinsons (2007) and Bolt (2008) and a 2D feature, The Princess and the Frog (2009). Meet the Robinsons was not as successful as Bolt and while The Princess and the Frog was a box office success, it failed to exceed expectations for two reasons. One of which was as current president of Disney and Pixar, Ed Catmull indicated in his and the late Amy Wallace’s book, Creativity Inc, Overcoming the Unseen Forces That Stand in the Way of True Inspiration that the “marketing folks warned us: Having the word princess in the title would lead moviegoers to think that the film was for girls only” (Catmull, Wallace p. 268) and that there was also the issue that it was released five days prior to James Cameron’s Avatar. Another set back, which was highlighted by Pixar and Disney’s current chief creative officer, John Lasseter in an article by Variety, he stated that “[he] was determined to bring back [hand-drawn animation] because [he] felt it was such a heritage of the Disney studio” and that after delving into details via research, the results revealed that the film “was viewed as old-fashioned by the audience”.
In an article by Mitchell Stein on The Mickey Mindset Blog, entitled Will Disney Ever Return to Making Hand-Drawn Animated Films?, there is mention of how The Princess and the Frog and the 2011 Winnie the Pooh both failed to compete with other film releases and financially fell short of expectations. Stein goes on to further explain that after Moana, although Disney has no 2D animated films announced in the years to come, he reminds readers that “traditional 2D animation still continues to live on in different forms at the Walt Disney Animation Studios in unexpected forms. In recent years, Disney has found ways to blend unique styles of animation between CG and hand drawn 2D to create stunning results”. He discusses the Academy Award winning 2012 short, Paperman, which made its debut alongside Disney’s 52nd feature animated film, Wreck-It Ralph and pinpoints that Disney “blended the use of traditional animated over CG-rendered work. The result is both stunning and immersive, showcasing Disney’s ability to push innovation and creativity to unexplored frontiers”. (To learn more about the making of Paperman, the film’s director, John Kahrs discusses his process in an article by fxguide, which you can find here).
In addition to Paperman, other short films such as Feast (2014) and Inner Workings (2016) were also created with this technique. Even so, Moana, which is mostly CGI animated, there are also a few aspects that are animated in 2D, such as the opening and the tattoo character, Mini Maui. According to an article entitled Disney’s Oscar-Winning Software Brought ‘Moana’ to Life, But Could a Full Length Movie Be Coming Soon? by Sam Cooper on Movie Pilot, Disney is creating these new animated techniques via Meander, a program that juxtaposes 3D and 2D and delves a bit into how it works. To put it simply, Cooper highlights in bold letters that the program “takes the first layer—a moving, multidimensional image—and allows it to drag the lines of the second layer along with it, filling in the gaps of the hand drawings and letting the hard lines take the spotlight”.
With Disney continuing to innovate as they have always done over the past 80 years, possibilities are as endless today as they have always been in the past. The company has no doubt, had its ups and downs as, especially after Walt Disney's death. It can be a major challenge for a company to adopt a similar mindset as its founder, an example seen in recent years with Apple, Inc following Steve Job’s death, but once a company understands what made their past projects great, they are able to display that same craftsmanship and spirit as the company’s pioneer. The studio was able to bounce back in the 1990’s with the Renaissance era by adopting new innovative approaches to storytelling while retaining the spirit of the classics that made Disney famous and are doing it again in the 2010’s. Innovation in both animation and narrative are the reason the company continues flourish and therefore, 2D animation is not a thing of the past. It’s simply evolving with the times. Disney appears to be exploring new techniques so that the art form would continue to be fresh and new rather than look like they are trying to recreate the past. This is actually no different than the early days of Pixar, experimenting with CGI short films before Toy Story’s debut or how Walt Disney himself experimented with new techniques by starting small and then building up. What is important to note is that Disney, like every other company built around innovation is constantly evolving and failure occurs in the process, not because of the art style, but because of the timing of their releases, how they go about marketing and of course, lack of innovation in the animation techniques. That being said, Disney can make a successful new 2D animated feature through innovation in their animation techniques and retaining their classic spirit without trying to blatantly repeat what they had already done before.
Imagine a store where shoppers could scour scores of timeless memorabilia with no expectation of what they might discover. It could be a vinyl record for a popular band from the 1950’s or a collection of photos from a bygone era. It could even be a small set of trading cards or figurines from the early days of famous cartoons from the 20th century. At first glance, it sounds like the type of store that the younger generation might not easily latch onto. But if you happen to visit Virginia Beach and swing by the Pembroke Mall, you will be in for a big surprise when you come by a store filled in every nook and cranny with neon lights, statues and images of iconic film and animation characters like the Blues Brothers and Betty Boop and portraits of Marylin Monroe and Elvis Presley.
Cool and Eclectic, fittingly known for its slogan, ‘Where it is usual to find the unusual’, is an independently owned gift shop, consisting of a wide variety of vintage and contemporary items. From vinyl, to comics, to décor, to toys, to even clocks, their inventory will not only invite the customer to shop for hours, but also encourage both the older and younger generation to bond over icons from both past and present.
This year was my 9th annual family vacation to VA Beach and as always when I’m there, I never miss an opportunity to stop by Cool and Eclectic. It has always been one of my favorite stores from the area and knew it would be a great topic for the blog. As usual, the store owner, Larry never fails to deliver on the store’s promise. Although Larry was away when I visited, I had the pleasure of speaking to two other employees, Mark and Diana, whom I briefly interviewed for this post:
Q: In terms of the lease, how much longer do you suppose Cool and Eclectic will remain at the mall?
Mark: Well, it’s kind of up in the air. We don’t know exactly as far as expenses and things like that. We don’t really know if we’re doing well or not. I know we are hindered by the construction at the [main] entrance [to the mall]. I think it has affected our sales.
Diana: Yeah, the construction has affected it. We used to get a lot of traffic through there.
Mark: The construction has taken longer than they said. It’s been months beyond what it was supposed to be. Sunday was not a good day for me in the morning, but later on, we did really well.
Diana: Usually we used to get maybe two or three slow days, but the rest of the days, it was busy. And usually weekends, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays used to be busier.
Mark: I think our loyal customers have helped us exceedingly to stay afoot. They appreciate our variety. They appreciate us being there for them to find them things that they like and the regular customers come regularly because they know we’re going to help them out. We appreciate our VIPs a lot. We give them extra discounts cause they’re regulars. We value them and that’s why they stay with us.
Q: When it comes to your customers, do they rank from just about any generation? They could be millennials or baby boomers.
Mark: Absolutely across the border of all generations. We have every generation come in and like our variety. Because we have a good enough variety, they all appreciate their own time period. We have enough to cover everybody’s time period and we find that they come back because we match their time period very well, whether it’s a millennial or it’s, like me, a baby boomer. We appreciate a lot of stuff and even beyond the baby boomer.
Diana: We get younger generations and they appreciate very old memorabilia, which is very surprising.
Mark: It is. It’s refreshing to see younger people like the older stuff, too. They’re getting a bit of history when they come in.
Q: How did the store concept come to be?
Mark: If Larry was present, he could tell you more about that, but…he’s being doing this store for a very long time, far beyond me and before our friendship has evolved. He’s been doing this for quite some time…at least twenty years.
Diana: Yeah, I don’t know how long, but he’s been doing it a long, long time.
Mark: Cool and Eclectic has probably been around at least then. Maybe twenty years. I might be off a little bit, but it’s a long history. We’ve moved to different locations.
Q: At first there were two stores, one at the Lynnhaven Mall and this one here at Pembroke. Eventually the Lynnhaven location was moved to this mall. Thus, Pembroke operated two Cool and Eclectics under one roof and now it’s just this one.
Mark: Yes. Not out of our desire. It was out of our control (laughs). Basically, they got bumped out of both [malls]. The Lynnhaven [location] was bumped out of there first and we moved here into [Pembroke] mall. And we got bumped out again and not having another location to go to, we merged our two Cool and Eclectic stores together. So, we are now one and hopefully we have the best benefits of both, the old and the new. The old one, which is this one, tended the older stuff, but now that we’re infused with the other one, we have a lot more new stuff. And I think that’s a good, positive thing for this company.
Q: Sounds like it’s a huge blessing especially when you have people from all walks of life really appreciate what they see here. When people come to Cool and Eclectic with their kids, does it become more of a chance to bond over the classics and the contemporary?
Mark: Oh, yes! The children come in and they buy the things that they have seen with their parents. The parents buy them for them and they’re all happy and excited when they’re going out. And they’re good family heirlooms that these kids, if they keep them, they can pass them onto their kids and their grandkids.
Q: How do you feel about the future of the store?
Mark: I’m very hopeful it will continue because everybody can appreciate a little bit of history, which this [store] has. It has the history. It has the vintage items. The LPs, I hear, are experiencing a resurgence because the sound quality is unmatched. The digital does not hold a candle to the LPs and apparently, they can do it with the LPs. So, it’s going to be something amazing if we see a resurgence of LPs coming back again. I’m hoping to see them back into the movie soundtracks again, too…and hopefully [this trend will] infuse our company to put some new stuff and keep it fresh and alive and going.
Once again, a huge thanks to Mark and Diana for their time. To learn more about Cool and Eclectic, check out their Facebook page.
Ever (re)discovered new facts about any art form or part of pop culture that you thought you knew before and realized there might be more to the story than what meets the eye? The Blog section debunks common expectations and assumptions in the art world.