[Drusilla lives!]

I see that you and I do differ philosophically... as I said you are entitled to your opinion.

But as a final thought I'd like to add that:

(1) Regardless of how you or I feel about the cover in question... whether it was repulsive or not was not the question.  The question at that hearing was if it was dangerous to the beholder, would it cause juvenile delinquency.  At the time this wasn't established conclusively... I'm not even sure it is now.  It does not matter really what Gaines thought about the cover... the cover itself wasn't the issue.

(2) He showed the moral code of his comics by showing up and defending them as best he could... in this regard he was a man of conviction.  What you suggest is that he cave in for the good of comics and for his own material gain... yet as he saw it, as mentioned in (1), the issue at hand was not of "taste" but of "effects."  And since those effects were not scientifically provable (at least conclusively so), he felt justified in his position, he took a moral stand on the issue.  Now how would he look if he did as you suggest, that is to cave in and plead the 5th like one of the other dregs later did, or pleaded for forgiveness for having bad taste... when the issue was far more involved and more was at stake then met the eye?  He would have been a sell out, a plastic man, whose position and word would be as pliable as the pulp he printed his comics on... no, he stood up for what he believed was right, he showed that his morals were intact and that money was not foremost his priority as it was for some in industry.  So he became a poster boy, and eventually a rich one... but at that moment, in the political climate of that day, who knows what could have befallen him.  No, I think whether you consider his position as valid or not, he showed the moral code of his comics.

(3) An alternate distribution for his comics wouldn't help.  Even when I began reading Marvel comics in the 70s they were placed on the newsstand racks next to the adult magazines.  Gaines wouldn't be able to honestly state he could control distribution.  No one could... ever.

(4) I suggested he not go to the hearing because I think he wasn't fit... he was too wrapped up in his own world.  As was Martin Goodman... who was also suppose to appear but didn't (what a show that would have made ).  I think he sent some lower level executives in his place (not Stan Lee btw).  Or perhaps he should have sent a staff shrink like DC did... God no wonder their comics were so lame.  But in the end I think he should have at least brought a lawyer.

[Yoc]

I'm enjoying this topic quite a bit!
I can see John's points and would love a crystal ball to see if EC could have in deed survived under a separate 'adult code'.  I believe I read that using 'adult' on a cover was a kiss of death sales wise for 'Amazing Adult Fantasy.'
As for stocking EC's beside Mickey Mouse - that's entirely on the shoulders of the newsstand owners.  Considering the number of titles available each month if a dealer were told he had to stock them with the adult fare he's likely going to turn them down and stock a real magazine instead.  His markup being higher on a magazine than on a comic.  Remember they didn't get much per a sale on a comic and with all the bad publicity comics were getting - heck if I were a newsstand owner I'd just stop selling them entirely too.  And when paperbacks took off they made a lot more per a sale as well.  A tsunami of events that very nearly did kill comics.  Dell was the only one with all the bases covered.  Safe product - cheap page rates for creators - their own presses and distribution.  Everything but the actual stands AFAIK.  There's the reason they never needed to worry about the code.
I agree Gaines certainly should have gotten some legal advice.  But also remember the committee was not a legal trial.  Nobody was going to go to jail though their testimony could have been used against them should charges be placed.  It was Washington's way of looking busy and sending a warning shot over the bow of the industry.

-Yoc

[John C]

I see that you and I do differ philosophically... as I said you are entitled to your opinion.

And don't think that I don't see your point or that I'm necessarily trying to change your mind.  It's an interesting difference of opinion, otherwise I'd keep mine to myself.

It does not matter really what Gaines thought about the cover... the cover itself wasn't the issue.

No, but it and his attitude were emblematic of the issue.

In general, you have always been able to get away with publishing whatever you want, as long as you keep the "nasty" stuff out of the eyes of kids.  Yoc mentioned fairy tales and nursery rhymes, and there's a reason they're perpetually for sale:  The book covers don't show the mermaid cut to ribbons on the rocks or the wolf being disemboweled by the woodsman.

(2) He showed the moral code of his comics by showing up and defending them as best he could... in this regard he was a man of conviction.

I may be overlooking it, but in his testimony, I've never seen the part where he says something like, "we take pains to show the wicked being punished in our stories in a manner we find deterring."  Even Congressmen could've understood THAT.

What you suggest is that he cave in for the good of comics and for his own material gain...

To me, it's not "caving in" or "selling out" to acknowledge fault and keep up with the market.  In my eyes, Gaines DID cave, by allowing Congress to dictate purely a bowlderized industry that he'd just have no part of.

I mean, really:  Does Mad have the artistic merit and moral lessons of the rest of the EC line?  No, it was the best seller at the time.  He clearly wasn't the Randian perfectionist artist you're painting if that's what he was willing to preserve.  (Ahem--Sorry, I've been reading "The Fountainhead," where to a great extent, every character represents a position on this issue, with protagonist Roark absolutely refusing to work on any project where his vision is tainted by anything whatsoever.)

(3) An alternate distribution for his comics wouldn't help.  Even when I began reading Marvel comics in the 70s they were placed on the newsstand racks next to the adult magazines.  Gaines wouldn't be able to honestly state he could control distribution.  No one could... ever.

It's not a matter of control.  It's a matter of understanding.  The guy running the newsstand can do what he wants, once it's delivered (subject to local laws, which I think is important, here, since they can say "horror books can't be sold lower than three feet off the ground, and not to minors), but it'd be clear that the horror/crime books were different and could be treated differently.

I can see John's points and would love a crystal ball to see if EC could have in deed survived under a separate 'adult code'.  I believe I read that using 'adult' on a cover was a kiss of death sales wise for 'Amazing Adult Fantasy.'

Two points, here.

First, for the other reasons you mention, I doubt EC would've survived more than a few more years, but a lot of those issues are things we only know in hindsight.  The players involved wouldn't have figured any of it into their reasoning--heck, DC would've probably abandoned the field, had they only known what the margins would be like.

Second, I used the word "adult" because it's a handy term that's descriptive and honest.  They're books that you ONLY want adults reading.  That's distinct from the more common "mature," which some kids are and some kids aren't, and the content rarely is.  What I actually envision is more like "Code Approved 18" and "Code Approved 80," for example.  Something so the seller knows that these books go down here, while those better go up there, if they don't want trouble from the beat cops.

Also, Amazing Adult Fantasy tanked because it was...well, kind of lame.  Mumbly monsters, "OMG I'M teh alien spy!" twists, and the like, as I recall (I read scans--shhhh!).  In fact, I think there was only one story that was interesting, and it was more for historical reasons (in that it substantially prefigured...the X-Men, maybe?) rather than because it was actually any good.

[Yoc]

Ahh, now the idea of a comics rating system like movies has never bothered me personally though it seems having an 'NC-17' will kill your box-office so nobody wants one.  But as long as the system gives a fair warning of content without censoring said content I'm fine with that.

-Yoc

[Drusilla lives!]

In general, you have always been able to get away with publishing whatever you want, as long as you keep the "nasty" stuff out of the eyes of kids.  Yoc mentioned fairy tales and nursery rhymes, and there's a reason they're perpetually for sale:  The book covers don't show the mermaid cut to ribbons on the rocks or the wolf being disemboweled by the woodsman.

I don't know why I keep coming back to this thread really.  

But we don't know what the fairy tales and nursery rhymes Yoc mentioned would look like if they were created in the modern age... art is both influenced by the times in which it was created, as much as it itself influences those times. 

I may be overlooking it, but in his testimony, I've never seen the part where he says something like, "we take pains to show the wicked being punished in our stories in a manner we find deterring."  Even Congressmen could've understood THAT.

Well they bought some of them... maybe they read them and figured it out for themselves.

To me, it's not "caving in" or "selling out" to acknowledge fault and keep up with the market.  In my eyes, Gaines DID cave, by allowing Congress to dictate purely a bowlderized industry that he'd just have no part of.

He didn't cave in to the memory of his father, you see you must understand the man, to understand his actions.  IMO he was battling the memory of his father... that's one of the reasons I think he was incompetent to go up and testify.

...  He clearly wasn't the Randian perfectionist artist you're painting if that's what he was willing to preserve.  (Ahem--Sorry, I've been reading "The Fountainhead," where to a great extent, every character represents a position on this issue, with protagonist Roark absolutely refusing to work on any project where his vision is tainted by anything whatsoever.)

What is it with this Randian stuff?... I've been hearing a lot of it in the last year or so.  I think it must have had a lot to do with that Ditko book by Blake Bell. 

Actually, I've never read Fountainhead and I'm not that familiar with the philosophy, so if I sound like I'm painting Gaines as a Randian it's only coincidental.  I don't know what Gaines was, only that from the small amount of information I've gleaned in passing from various places over the years it seems to me (and again, this is strictly an armchair opinion) that he was more or less battling the memory of his father... if you see him as a Randian or a conservative, or a liberal or whatever, thats your take.  I just see a tortured man really... but again, that's my opinion.

... First, for the other reasons you mention, I doubt EC would've survived more than a few more years, but a lot of those issues are things we only know in hindsight. 

As with most things I think that eventually the horror and crime titles would have ran their course, as it happens, the coming of the code worked to EC's benefit in one sense... it allowed their comics to end (for the most part) at their zenith.  But I must say, I was recently looking at some old Cochran volumes that I own that reprint those "New Direction" titles and I was quite impressed with the quality of those comics as well, the art was superb as always and the stories were interesting IMO.

... DC would've probably abandoned the field, had they only known what the margins would be like. ...

Bah, DC.  They went on forever with their lame-o "House of Mystery" title... although there were a few memorable covers and stories in the early years they didn't turn that (as well as their other fantasy/suspense titles) around until Joe Orlando signed on as editor.  Outside of the superhero genre I think they were real dullards... but that's just me, that's just my opinion.   

[narfstar]

I did some index updates on some early House of Mystery and they were pretty boring

[darkmark]

Very true.  Although some of the stories were fun, DC was never much good on horror and, in science fiction, only the books edited by Julie Schwartz were any good.  The post-'67 issues of HOUSE OF MYSTERY and HOUSE OF SECRETS weren't that great, but at least they were going in a different direction than before.  (Then again, only MAN-THING and TOMB OF DRACULA were good horror books in the 1970's.) C'est la vie.

[Yoc]

I think we keep coming back to this thread for two very good reasons:
1. It's a topic we find very interesting about an event that shaped the hobby we all love so much.
2. It's a civil exchange of differing ideas where nobody can be completely right or wrong and nobody has taken offence on anything being said.  A rarity on most other sites!

For these as an admin on the site I thank-you guys!

As for modern horror I feel in love with Berni Wrightson before I ever saw an EC and we know how much Berni was influenced by ECs in his work.  Berni's work for Warren and their great horror mags were a ton of fun for me growing up in the 70s.  I tried to buy anything Berni did for a while there.  I also liked some of the work done in Marvel's EPIC magazine.

-Yoc

[cimmerian32]

Gotta differ with ya on this one, DM...  Eerie, Creepy, Psycho, Scream and Nightmare were all great seventies horror...  and you had spot stories in DC's horror anthologies that are quite good.

[John C]

Well they bought some of them... maybe they read them and figured it out for themselves.

Pff.  Heh.  Yeah.  Now tell me the one about how they don't accept bribes from lobbyists...

What is it with this Randian stuff?... I've been hearing a lot of it in the last year or so.  I think it must have had a lot to do with that Ditko book by Blake Bell. 

Couldn't say.  It's always been on my reading list, because people have always (since before high school, in fact) asked me if I've read any of her work.  I read "Anthem" a while back and enjoyed it, so moved on to the novel-length.

So, I can't tell you why other people are reading it (though Ditko is as good a reason as any, I suppose, and Obama has caused quite the ultra-conservative backlash), but I am because people have been suggesting I do so for more than twenty years and I found a cheap copy as I was wrapping up another book.

In case anybody's curious:  It's not terrible, but the energy definitely comes and goes hard.  Rand is one of the few writers I've found who can make a person's thumbnail history an emotional activity and yet somehow drain all the drama from confrontation.

Actually, I've never read Fountainhead and I'm not that familiar with the philosophy, so if I sound like I'm painting Gaines as a Randian it's only coincidental.

Short version:

- Howard Roark is an artistic purist, based vaguely in concept on Frank Lloyd Wright, who turns down (architectural) work if he's not allowed free reign on his vision.
- Peter Keating is the talentless sellout who barely functions but knows office politics and what sells.
- Dominique Francon is more zealous than Roark, thinking that artistic perfection shouldn't even be allowed to be created, lest people defile it.
- Ellsworth Toohey is the designated Commie pinko who hates anybody who is or acts exceptional.

As you might guess, your suggestion that Gaines should have let EC burn to the ground, so to speak, before even acknowledging the fears and concerns that made him a target are a bit reminiscent of the Roark character.

... First, for the other reasons you mention, I doubt EC would've survived more than a few more years, but a lot of those issues are things we only know in hindsight. 

As with most things I think that eventually the horror and crime titles would have ran their course,

I agree to some extent, though there probably wouldn't have been much less of a market than for superheroes.  My point was only that the (now common) theory that the horror folks didn't hang on because of cheaper media seems dishonest to me, something that would only make sense if they knew then what we know now.

as it happens, the coming of the code worked to EC's benefit in one sense... it allowed their comics to end (for the most part) at their zenith.  But I must say, I was recently looking at some old Cochran volumes that I own that reprint those "New Direction" titles and I was quite impressed with the quality of those comics as well, the art was superb as always and the stories were interesting IMO.

I do like quite a few of those books, though I can also see why they didn't pan out at the time.  It was one of the few times in the last century when procedurals weren't an extremely popular form of fiction.

One of the things that surprises me most about EC's output, though, was their half-hearted superhero stuff.  Moon Girl is obvious, but the International Crime Patrol is definitely the apex of "what was that all about?"  A bunch of random stories tied together at the last minute?  EC's version of the JSA?  (It's a shame that the site policy is no EC whatsoever, because I'm pretty sure they weren't renewed.)

[Drusilla lives!]

Ya know, I was reading more of that 1954 Senate hearing and happened to notice that Walt Kelly appeared as well... I was really just interested in hearing what he had to say about Johnny Craig, but he stated something interesting...

"Mr. KELLY. I have been in the newspaper business and animated cartoons and cartooning generally since about 13 years of age. I regret to say that constitutes about 28 years now.
           I got into the comic-book business at one time back in 1940 or 1941 and had some experience with its early days as before the 1947 debacle of so many crime magazines and so on.
           In those days there was even then a taste on the part of children for things which are a little more rugged than what I drew. So that I was faced with the problem of putting into book form, into comic form, comic-book form, things which I desired to make popular, such as an American fairy story or American folklore type of stories.
           I found after a while that this was not particularly acceptable.
           The CHAIRMAN. Would you raise your voice just a little.
           Mr. KELLY. I decided I would help clean up the comic-book business at one time, by introducing new features, such as folklore stories and thinks having to do with little boys and little animals in red and blue pants and that sort of thing.
           So when my comic book folded, the one I started doing that with, I realized there was more to it than met the eye.
           Perhaps this was the wrong medium for my particular efforts. Since then I have been in the strip business, the comic-strip business which is distinguished from the comic books.
           We have found in our business that our techniques are very effective for bringing about certain moral lessons and giving information and making education more widespread.
           Despite the testimony given before, I would say right offhand that cartoonists are not forced by editors or publishers to draw any certain way. If they don't want to draw the way the publisher or editor wants them to, they can get out of that business.
           We have about 300 members of our society, each one of whom is very proud of the traditions and I think small nobility of our craft. We would hesitate, any one of us, to draw anything we would not bring into our home.
           Not only hesitate, I don't think any one of us would do it. That is about all I have to say in that regard.
           I would like very much to give one statement. May I do that now?

... he too admitted he would "use" comics to send "moral messages."

The problem is this, Kelly felt he was sending the right message in his efforts... and in a strange way Gaines thought he too was sending the right message (perhaps in the end they were even the same message).  But while I can't speak as to the appropriateness of one man's methods over the other (that is a matter of "taste"), IMO the ends of both were the same... the teaching of general morals and in the case of some of EC's non-horror material, raising interesting questions with regard to some obvious social injustices of the day.  I must add, that they did this in a very intelligent and above board way, they didn't hide anything... and in my opinion they were in no way "subversives" to the American way of life.  In fact, I'd consider them patriots in some ways.  But the problem that Walt Kelly mumbles about is a real one... and IMO Kelly (while IMO coming off as bitterly bemoaning why he was an initial failure by raising a "conspiracy" theory to explain it away) inadvertently supplies a reason why censorship is much more dangerous then anything EC could publish.  What if a group did conspire to "take power," perhaps at the influencing hands of a potential dictator?  Or what if an existing system becomes so rigid that one group does "control" the media, and if it's true that the media influences behavior then this group could easily convince many that their way is the only and right way... in effect ruling by a monopolistic tyranny of ideas and ideals.  Who is to say that the "message" that Walt Kelly wanted to push was the right one either?... except of course Walt Kelly.  I think you must have both... or neither.  A better approach is to allow both and use one's head... think.  Which does one prefer.   But as someone mentioned in another post, parents today (and perhaps then as well) have "delegated" that to the state... which can be very dangerous IMO.  For the state (at least in a democracy) is us... it's made up of all sorts.  Would you leave your thinking and decision making to a stranger... this is in effect what could or perhaps has happened by proxy (and what is worse, if we are all delegating to the state, who is really running things... no one, or perhaps what's worse, maybe just a few).    

Which brings up a puzzling question (for me at least).  I remember seeing a Kirby cover to one of the issues of his "New Gods" DC title once.  I think it read something like... "when the old gods died, there arose the new gods."  I thought "wow, either Kirby was one of the most naive men to have ever lived... after all, did man ever really heed the old gods, why would they take heed of the new ones... or maybe he meant something else entirely," something I might add much more ominous.  But then it does turn out that he was rather naive, at least when it came to business matters.  

I have to admit I've never read "New Gods" but that particular slogan always stayed with me for some reason... perhaps like an ominous warning from out of the past by what appears to be one of the kindest and giving men that one can find in comic-dom history.   

[darkmark]

Well, Roy Thomas has said (and he's probably right) that EC was "lucky" in that they were taken away at their peak, before they had a chance to decline.  Most likely, if they'd had to continue, they would have fallen prey to artistic attrition.  See the last few issues of WEIRD SCIENCE-FANTASY for a preview of that.  Gaines *probably* would have either watered down the horror to please his critics or gotten grosser to compete with his rivals.  (He's admitted on COMIC BOOK CONFIDENTIAL that "Nobody could out-gore us.")  Classic EC wouldn't have lasted any longer than Classic Marvel.  In the same interview, Roy speculated that if Marvel had been taken away circa 1969, they would have had a legacy similar to EC's.  And William Shatner has written that STAR TREK (TOS) had the good fortune to die after 3 seasons, because further ones would have become more mediocre a la LOST IN SPACE.  As Stephen King put it, "Sometimes dead is better."

As long as you don't play baseball with its innards.

[Drusilla lives!]

As long as you don't play baseball with its innards.

Well how about just with the head?

Would it have helped if the setting of the story had been changed to an ancient rain forest in what is now South America?... and just think, ritual "head games" did take place, those were real events.

Reading a gruesome story in a comic book doesn't bother me all that much... it's the real acts of terror and brutality that I have a problem with.

[John C]

The problem is this, Kelly felt he was sending the right message in his efforts... and in a strange way Gaines thought he too was sending the right message (perhaps in the end they were even the same message).  But while I can't speak as to the appropriateness of one man's methods over the other (that is a matter of "taste"), IMO the ends of both were the same... the teaching of general morals and in the case of some of EC's non-horror material, raising interesting questions with regard to some obvious social injustices of the day.

This gets back to what I mentioned before, though:  Whereas Kelly said so, Gaines said that of course a severed head was in good taste, because it could've been bloody.

That's really my point, here.  Gaines had the opportunity to show that he was doing (or at least trying to do) good for society.  He had the opportunity to tell lawmakers that they were being a bunch of hypocrites for passing judgement on a medium without performing analysis.  He had the opportunity to explain that EC books were preventing the situations they depicted, not creating them.

Instead, he said the absolute worst things possible to an audience of politicians, that children didn't need protection and that he could've printed worse if he wanted.

I must add, that they did this in a very intelligent and above board way, they didn't hide anything... and in my opinion they were in no way "subversives" to the American way of life.  In fact, I'd consider them patriots in some ways.

Alas, politicians have always disagreed.  And that's all I'll say on the topic, because I'm tempted to say some VERY subversive kinds of things.  But I don't think it's any accident that the Code forbade ever showing a public official in anything but a purely heroiic light...

[Drusilla lives!]

... That's really my point, here.  Gaines had the opportunity to show that he was doing (or at least trying to do) good for society.  He had the opportunity to tell lawmakers that they were being a bunch of hypocrites for passing judgement on a medium without performing analysis.  He had the opportunity to explain that EC books were preventing the situations they depicted, not creating them.

Instead, he said the absolute worst things possible to an audience of politicians, that children didn't need protection and that he could've printed worse if he wanted.

To this point I'll give you what Gaines later said at the hearing...

... Mr. GAINES. I would like to discuss, if you bear with me a moment more, something which Dr. Wertham provoked me into. Dr. Wertham, I am happy to say, I have just caught in a half-truth, and I am very indignant about it. He said there is a magazine now on the stands preaching racial intolerance. The magazine he is referring to is my magazine. What he said, as much as he said, was true. There do appear in this magazine such materials as "Spik," "Dirty Mexican," but Dr. Wertham did not tell you what the plot of the story was.
            This is one of a series of stories designed to show the evils of race prejudice and mob violence, in this case against Mexican Catholics.
            Previous stories in this same magazine have dealt with antisemitism, and anti-Negro feelings, evils of dope addiction and development of juvenile delinquents.
            This is one of the most brilliantly written stories that I have ever had the pleasure to publish. I was very proud of it, and to find it being used in such a nefarious way made me quite angry.
            I am sure Dr. Wertham can read, and he must have read the story, to have counted what he said he counted.

... and ...

...   Mr. BEASER. Yet why do you say you cannot at the same time and in the same manner use the pages of your magazine to get a message which would affect children adversely, that is, to have an effect upon their doing these deeds of violence or sadism, whatever is depicted?
            Mr. GAINES. Because no message is being given to them. In other words, when we write a story with a message, it is deliberately written in such a way that the message, as I say, is spelled out carefully in the captions. The preaching, if you want to call it, is spelled out carefully in the captions, plus the fact that our readers by this time know that in each issue of shock suspense stories, the second of the stories will be this type of story.
            Mr. BEASER. A message can be gotten across without spelling out in that detail. For example, take this case that was presented this morning of the child who is in a foster home who became a werewolf, and foster parents─
            Mr. GAINES. That was one of our stories.
            Mr. BEASER. A child who killed her mother. Do you think that would have any effect at all on a child who is in a foster placement, who is with foster parents, who has fears? Do you not think that child in reading the story would have some of the normal fears which a child has, some of the normal desires tightened, increased?
            Mr. GAINES. I honestly can say I don't think so. No message has been spelled out there. We were not trying to prove anything with that story. None of the captions said anything like "If you are unhappy with your step mother, shoot her."
            Mr. BEASER. No, but here you have a child who is in a foster home who has been treated very well, who has fears and doubts about the foster parent. The child would normally identify herself in this case with a child in a similar situation and there a child in a similar situation turns out to have foster parents who became werewolves. ...

... I just want to interject here that I think this last exchange regarding vampires is rather funny IMO (at least in this textual form)...

            Do you not think that would increase the child's anxiety?
            Mr. GAINES. Most foster children, I am sure, are not in homes such as were described in those stories. Those were pretty miserable homes.
            Mr. HANNOCH. You mean the houses that had vampires in them, those were not nice homes?
            Mr. GAINES. Yes.
            Mr. HANNOCH. Do you know any place where there is any such thing?
            Mr. GAINES. As vampires?
            Mr. HANNOCH. Yes.
            Mr. GAINES. No, sir; this is fantasy. The point I am trying to make is that I am sure no foster children are kept locked up in their room for months on end except in those rare cases that you hear about where there is something wrong with the parents such as the foster child in one of these stories was, and on the other hand, I am sure that no foster child finds himself with a drunken father and a mother who is having an affair with someone else.

I think the above exchanges seem to indicate Gaines was indeed trying to explain the positive aspects of his comics... and his opinion that the more gruesome aspects of some of them were innocuous escapism.

Alas, politicians have always disagreed.  And that's all I'll say on the topic, because I'm tempted to say some VERY subversive kinds of things.  But I don't think it's any accident that the Code forbade ever showing a public official in anything but a purely heroiic light...

Oh, don't get me wrong, in hindsight Gaines could be thought of as a patriot... to some of the politicians of the day he was indeed very subversive.  But then anyone's opinion can be viewed as subversive if it differs from one's own... that's the nature of open and free discourse, and that is what is at the heart of the democratic process in its purest form, hearing all sides of an argument and sifting through them. 

[John C]

At this point, I think we agree, for the most part, so I won't belabor the issue.  However, one item stuck out for me.

I think the above exchanges seem to indicate Gaines was indeed trying to explain the positive aspects of his comics... and his opinion that the more gruesome aspects of some of them were innocuous escapism.

There's also a flaw in that, I think.  You can't play both sides of that defense, that on one hand it's moralizing education and on the other harmless entertainment.

That is, I think, exactly the real problem that people had with comics, in a nutshell:  Mere inches (or pages, in some cases) from instructive or light literature is a woman's dangling eyeball being punted in for the extra point or something.  And the only difference is that the "fun" stories don't announce themselves?  Even I can't buy that.

Plus, the contrast between the two "modes" makes the missteps seem even worse.  What if--I can imagine a parent asking--we limit Jimmy to stories with moralizing captions and then he accidentally reads one without?  Will he know that the parent-killer is only the protagonist for shock value?

(I found the vampire exchange amusing as well, if only because I know Beaser was wondering where to go next if it turned out this "idiot" believed in vampires on top of everything else.  I also wonder if Gaines was driving at something with his "and of course no kid has ever been placed in a bad foster home" comment at the end, or if he was just badly covering for the lack of moralizing captions.)

[Brainster]

Let me add a couple of points that haven't been addressed much in the comments so far:

1. The postwar years saw an alarming rise in juvenile delinquency or an alarming rise in reports of juvenile delinquency.  The 1950s, of course were suffused with the rise of teen gangs and thuggish behavior; see Rebel Without a Cause, West Side Story and the Blackboard Jungle for examples.  Inevitably the public began casting about for a reason for this, and Dr. Wertham, who had been pushing these theories for years, suddenly became popular.  He had "the answer" and he had something that worked graphically; just show the people the particularly gruesome covers.  QED.

2. Wertham did make money as an expert witness for the defense in some killings by teenagers, arguing the familiar "Only a lad ruined by X," where X=comic books, in his case, but where more recent imitators have claimed X=Dungeons & Dragons, Judas Priest, video games, etc.  I am not sure his expert witness testimony was a significant factor in his personal income, but if you're looking for a possible pecuniary motive, it's there.  Plus of course the books sales and (I would assume) speaking fees and increased hourly rates for his private practice.

3. There are positives and negatives with the CCA.  I would note that my earliest memory of comic books was when I was about 9 (1964), my mom sent me into the store to buy a couple of comics and candy bars for a long ride in the car.  Now, would she have done that, if she knew I might come back with an EC-type horror magazine?  Granted, I suspect that was unlikely anyway as those stories and covers probably appealed more to adolescents rather than kids, but she still would not have let me rifle through the rack if those kinds of comics were there.

[Roygbiv666]

Plus, the contrast between the two "modes" makes the missteps seem even worse.  What if--I can imagine a parent asking--we limit Jimmy to stories with moralizing captions and then he accidentally reads one without?  Will he know that the parent-killer is only the protagonist for shock value?

Maybe parents should be trying not to raise stupid kids ...

[darkmark]

I have to admit, I come down on the side of responsibility on the artist's behalf.  Without guidelines as to what is and what is not acceptable (such as the Code), many artists will see how far they can push the envelope...and, very often, they break through.  The artist can scream "censorship" and "bowdlerization" as much as he wants, but if he puts out something blatantly offensive, he should have to deal with the consequences, whatever those may be.

I remember talking with the Eclipse editors about one of their stories they'd pubbed dealing with censorship, and they told me that the story itself had to be censored.  So much for that.

[John C]

Maybe parents should be trying not to raise stupid kids ...

See, you can say that, but good parents worry that they haven't done their job well enough.

Plus, as Darkmark points out, why shouldn't the artist take responsibility for his work?  What's the big deal with pushing boundaries?  If you don't like the limitations of the form or if you don't like your audience, go do something else!

And I don't just mean this in terms of obscenity or gore.  I mean the (to use a recent example) Brad Meltzer being loosed on DC to show us that our superheroes are complete losers whose worlds don't bear scrutiny and who are, themselves, embarrassed by the genre.  OK, fine, you've pushed the envelope.  So?

I'm reminded of Infocom, a game company in the late '70s and early '80s.  They went into business at a time when computers didn't have the processing power or imaging systems ready to tell a textured story.  So they chose to create only text-based games.  And everybody who worked there, when interviewed, talked about how they thought it would be hard to limit work to only description and that the memory limits would be atrocious.  But instead, it HELPED the process, because it kept them focused.

I'd argue that restrictions like the Comics Code might have been a bit heavy-handed, but they also helped writers get their stories out and market to a consistent audience.  Do you think Disney got where it is on the story quality of "The Fox and the Hound"?  No, it's because they restricted their work to a formula.  If you wanted to write something edgier, you shopped it somewhere else, plain and simple.

[Yoc]

While I agree that limits can sometimes help one create perhaps a better piece of art but I'm not one to think using a set formula does much but quickly lead to repetition.
The Hayes code in moves (1934) was pretty similar to the comics code and one could argue it pushed movie makers to get better at their craft.  But one can also see the freedom allowed in Europe at the same time resulted in more mature works too.

-Yoc

[John C]

Well, I also think that maturity means something different than most.  "The Wizard of Oz" deals with some shockingly "heavy" material, and I don't even mean from a modern perspective on race and the like.  And yet, it's a children's book and (almost) entirely presentable to a modern audience.

Is it mature?  I think so, and yet most of it would easily pass the most restrictive code, once you get gloss over the occasional racist bits and the casual passing around of enslaved races.

My point isn't that the Comics Code itself is inherently good.  It's that, if you're looking to push the envelope, there had better be a damned good reason for it beyond you (the artist) wanting to show that "it's not just for kids anymore."  The sentiment itself is immature, and restrictive codes force those people to shape up or leave.

A good example are the Spider-Man and Green Lantern/Green Arrow drug storylines.  They violated the code because there was a good story to be told.  Contrast that with, say, The Dark Knight Returns, which was harsher and existed mostly to have an "adult" book, and so Miller's entire point is to make heroes look like jerks.

[Guardian7]

This is a VERY interesting discussion.

I have to tell you all. I was exposed to the Seduction of Innocents from the get go of my comic collecting days.
I had purchased soon after buying JLA 145 Aug 77 (Due to Wonder Woman), Flash 250-251 June/July 1977, STFamily 11 June-July 1977 (due to the Flash), five star super hero spectacular sept 77 (because of Flash & Aquaman), Issue 250, SSotSV 8 July-August 1977 (Because of Kid Flash), Plus a quite a few others including Teen Titans, Wonder Woman and Green Lantern.
My parents were very okay with me having a hobby of this nature (at least I was reading and being an artist, it/they gave me something to focus on) - A short while after I bought the issues stated above, They also purchased for me a hardcopy of Wonder Woman from Bonanza Books which gave a lot of her early adventures (not nearly as exciting as I had hoped but I read it cover to cover).
At the same time of my purchasing WW/Bonanza Book... I also bought the Great Comic Book Heroes by Jules Feiffer. It was in here that I was introduced to the name of Frederic Wertham - "Seduction of the Innocent". I was only like 9 or 10 and when I read all the crap that he stated and I was actually mystified. I had never ever even looked at any of this stuff in that context.
Who is the guilty party here?
Who either put a face of that nature or drew one where there wasn't one?
To me... I personally feel Frederic Wertham was and is the Roy Cohn of the Comic book industry.
I do feel that art or storytelling freedom should not be locked.
But I also feel they have a responsibility to their target audience (particularly at that time).
Wertham demonized comics the same way Roy Cohn demonized those he and his petty council considered "Un-American".
Were things getting out of hand with some companies? (I.E. too graphic? too adult?)
Possibly.
But the nail in the coffin for me on this entire thing will always be... Batman and Robin are homosexuals and Batman was a predator of Robin. (there is a big difference between Pedophiles and homosexuals).
It wouldn't surprise me if there was a LOT wrong with Wertham in as much as there was with Cohn (That they were actually demonizing these things due to some form of demonization of self).

So... the question beckons and I have yet to hear a solid answer and the ones we have heard seem to fall into that perpetual grey answering area...
Were the comics on that list rightfully there? or not?
Was Wertham in some manner correct? or not?

Do companies have a responsibility to their target audience and the genre they compose in?


DARKMARK: see Reply #30

So you threw those comics away?
I know this probably isn

[Yoc]

Well said G7.
I think we've all agreed this thread will wander off-topic at times and nobody minds.
I think we all can see we are covering a lot more than just SOTI here.
As for 'do some of those books belong in SOTI?'  Only you as a reader can tell for sure.
There's a good SOTI website btw.  Check it out here - http://www.lostsoti.org/
A list of all the comics used in SOTI is HERE - http://www.seductionoftheinnocent.org/FoundSOTI.htm -
Links to scans of many of those books are at the bottom - some leading back to our very own GAC site!

I've heard a lot of people were turned off by Identity Crisis.  I haven't read any of the 'event comics' since Crisis 1.  The ploy to rip every sent from our pockets to follow the storyline to hell with any current story-lines in those books absolutely repulses me. I actually stopped buying modern books about the time Image Comics took over and saw from afar the whole speculation bubble with the foil stamped covers and sealed bags crap.  I kept thinking 'yep, got out just in time.'  Since then I've found I did miss some good things while away.  DC's Vertigo line was one though not all of them of course.  Today I enjoy the FABLES books as much as anything I've read in the past.  Y-The Last Man, a fantastic read.  The JSA 10 issue run from the early 90s was just great IMO.  So I can't tar and feather the entire era.  It seems as John mentioned - there are always going to be 'bad seed' writers who want to shock for the sake of shocking.  It must have been something like what doing horror stories in the 50s felt.  Especially for those creators who likely did not enjoy the work they were producing only working for a fast buck.  A writer like Eisner who certainly liked the medium and knew it could be so much more than just silly animals, teen humour or generic mystery-men pushed the envelope.  Heck he created a lot of the things we take for granted in a good comic when he was doing work for Fox and Fiction House.  But he pushed the boundaries for the sake of making a good story.  Later he also was working for an audience that wasn't going to buy his books thinking they were getting another Spiderman or Superman story.
In that point I agree with G7.  Know your audience and write to that level.  I still think the retailers have a responsibility to display the books separately for each other.  Disney shouldn't be mixed in with Vertigo titles.
I don't believe in censorship but I do believe in telling buyers what they can expect in a title either with a rating system or at least proper display techniques that give a parent a chance of perhaps pointing his little one in the more appropriate direction.

Now, how do you guys feel about the Manga issue?  I find some of the titles quite confusing.  They appear to be drawn for a young audience in that same generic style they use (long legged, doe eyed, HUGE chests, fantastic detailed backgrounds, etc) but their stories are FAR from being safe for anyone under 14 or 15.  Some are made for adults only but drawn in the same style.  I know Japan has never looked at comics as a 'kiddie books only' thing and sell a ton more per a book (and they are books, 100s of pages per issue) but how are they marketed and sold I wonder?  If they all basically look the same how does little 'Hiro' know which is safe and which is porn?   

-Yoc

[Guardian7]

I believe there is such a HUGE cultural difference in the treatment/view of comics here in America as opposed to comics/Manga/Anime in the Asian countries.

Though they may look the same to us. I would hazard a guess that the parents there might regulate what their children read (as nearly all adults like both Manga and Anime in Asian countries), due to the fact that they themselves might give it a quick read.

Though I know the Japanese have a pretty tight regulation on things such as porn... I don't think they are so tight on nudity.
Obviously they view violence in a different manner than most American Comics. They have always had more violent comics in my opinion.
But what our sense of justice culturally and theirs is may be slightly different.

A lot of the stuff I have seen are almost new age fairy tales in the Manga stories (and they are stories... unusually long).
Hell... Japanese cartoons (Anime) make our cartoons pale in comparison and ALWAYS have. Yes Disney has done some great stuff... but not at the sheer volume Japan has (and certainly not at it's level of expertise).

Culturally I believe that the Asian Manga books are suited to their societies.

I won't say that there isn't an audience for the "over the top" amount of just dragging heroes through the mud... but the funny thing is... These same writers can only ride on the shirt-tails of others... I don't see them putting out anything of their own that is successful in and of it's own accord (Well... maybe Miller's SIN CITY... and I guess a case could be made for the Watchmen... even though they were simply Charlton Chara with a HUGE makeover).

Image tried... and (in the end) basically failed (good!). The only reason they were as successful as they were was because everyone (fans) played follow the artist... and didn't stick with the truely good writing.

If comics aren't careful... they could drown in their own self-induced bile.
For me they already have...

It may not be a Seduction of Innocent... but it sure was a complete loss of it.

G7