• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Where did the Comic Code go?

56 posts in this topic

Evidently my memory has failed me, once again. You are correct.

 

S'all right...I only know 'cause I once met the man responsible for that bit of mischief - the letterer on that issue, Tom Orzechowski.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've noticed lately that the "Approved by the Comic Code Authority" stamp is gone from both Marvel comics and Archie Comics (which have had them from the get-go). What happened to them?

 

It was put on in the first place to prevent Congress or state governments from placing restrictions on comic books being sold to kids due to all the violent content in books in the 30s, 40s, and 50s. Since comics went to direct market distribution in the 1990s kids don't buy them in supermarkets anymore, so the purpose of the code became moot, hence the companies dropped it. It needed updating anyway to keep up with the times, but it wasn't worth updating, so it was dropped. If a comic has overly explicit content the publishers often label it as such anyway, like Marvel's "MAX" line.

 

I agree. Its similar to cable TV and how the product is not for general consumption any longer.....but specialized

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will add that Wertham had no real hatred for comics, nor was he in favor of censorship. He was an extrememly gifted psychiatrist who compiled tons of data from thousands of case studies, which led him to a conclusion that had so much weight and truth to it .......that his evidence went all the way to the highest court in the land to be heard. I don't think the Comics Code was required on any books since it was self regulated. Companies put it on their covers so they could make money. Imagine that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't the real problem not with his "evidence," but rather the un-objective way in which he compiled it? It had a nice wrapper on it, but it simply wasn't science.

 

No.....that wasn't the real problem. Yes.......he was objective. Whats science got to do with evaluation of behavior ? Its determined by compiling large quantities of data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His "science" was very flawed. He interviewed a bunch of juvenile delinquents and noticed they all read comics, so he assumed comics were the cause of their being JDs.

Comics were almost universally read at the time, so if he had interviewed 100 cops, he could have deducted the reason they became cops was that they read comics.

I can't believe anyone is trying to defend him, especially on a comics board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't the real problem not with his "evidence," but rather the un-objective way in which he compiled it? It had a nice wrapper on it, but it simply wasn't science.

 

No, but that doesn't mean he wasn't right. Not sure how you can read just about any issue of EC's Shock SuspenStories and not see how it could negatively influence a kid...the book contained such detailed depictions of serial killings that it couldn't help but serve as inspiration for kids who already had morbid tendencies. I highly doubt comics were directly causing kids to transform into killers, but for the kids who already had that leaning, they were serving as inspiration and training to continue the path they had already started on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't the real problem not with his "evidence," but rather the un-objective way in which he compiled it? It had a nice wrapper on it, but it simply wasn't science.

 

No.....that wasn't the real problem. Yes.......he was objective. Whats science got to do with evaluation of behavior ? Its determined by compiling large quantities of data.

 

No, he wasn't objective. The gold standard type of study is a double blind control study, statistically speaking. His work had no controls or blinds at all. In addition, all of the work is anecdotal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't the real problem not with his "evidence," but rather the un-objective way in which he compiled it? It had a nice wrapper on it, but it simply wasn't science.

 

No, but that doesn't mean he wasn't right. Not sure how you can read just about any issue of EC's Shock SuspenStories and not see how it could negatively influence a kid...the book contained such detailed depictions of serial killings that it couldn't help but serve as inspiration for kids who already had morbid tendencies. I highly doubt comics were directly causing kids to transform into killers, but for the kids who already had that leaning, they were serving as inspiration and training to continue the path they had already started on.

 

yep, agreed. but there's really no way to prove the causal nature of this relationship... and he didn't really even try. (lack of a control group as previously mentioned)

 

It was just circumstantial evidence combined with the pervasive "morality" of the country that really allowed him to push this stuff forward. Plus, it's always nice to blame someone else for your kid being screwed up instead of taking responsibility as a parent.

 

I can see both sides of the "was he right or not" question, but the only evidence he had to back up his claims was circumstantial, at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly...

 

like saying that all red-headed people have hair, therefore all people with hair are red-headed. fallacious argument.

 

Yes, very fallacious.

 

Now, if you said that all red-headed people were children of the devil, THAT would be a legitimate argument....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His "science" was very flawed. He interviewed a bunch of juvenile delinquents and noticed they all read comics, so he assumed comics were the cause of their being JDs.

Comics were almost universally read at the time, so if he had interviewed 100 cops, he could have deducted the reason they became cops was that they read comics.

I can't believe anyone is trying to defend him, especially on a comics board.

 

I can't believe that you think that the Supreme Court of this country would allow a case to come before them if his process was as you state above. You don't just go straight to the top you know :baiting:

 

Also, what better place to discuss comics history than on a comics board ? The way I see it is the only people who really have any reason to gripe about him are the Crime and Horror publishers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His "science" was very flawed. He interviewed a bunch of juvenile delinquents and noticed they all read comics, so he assumed comics were the cause of their being JDs.

Comics were almost universally read at the time, so if he had interviewed 100 cops, he could have deducted the reason they became cops was that they read comics.

I can't believe anyone is trying to defend him, especially on a comics board.

 

I can't believe that you think that the Supreme Court of this country would allow a case to come before them if his process was as you state above. You don't just go straight to the top you know :baiting:

 

Also, what better place to discuss comics history than on a comics board ? The way I see it is the only people who really have any reason to gripe about him are the Crime and Horror publishers.

 

The 10 Cent Plague is the most recent thing I've read about this, so whatever I'm thinking about most likely came from that book. The author (David... Hadji???) certainly seemed to have done his research into Wertham's methods and results. The picture he painted was definitely one of inaccuracy and inconsistency.

 

Just to clarify, however, this did not ever go to trial at the Supreme Court but rather was debated in Senate hearings. Wertham had no hand in instigating the hearings but was called upon as an "expert" in the field.

 

And, God knows, the Senate will listen to just about anything if it makes them look like they care about "the people."

 

The creation of the CC was an industry response in an attempt to avoid any sort of legal action being taken which would allow an outside entity control over the content they published.

 

 

sooooo... to answer your question... I really really hope that something like this would not have ever made it to the Supreme Court. Stranger things have happened, I suppose... but I'm not at all surprised that Wertham was able to testify in front of a Senate subcommittee. For him to properly play the role they wanted him to play, he needed to be biased

 

 

EDIT: I sure would like to see what those hearings did for the sales numbers on that book...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly...

 

like saying that all red-headed people have hair, therefore all people with hair are red-headed. fallacious argument.

 

Yes, very fallacious.

 

Now, if you said that all red-headed people were children of the devil, THAT would be a legitimate argument....

Okay, that's enough out of you Eric Cartman. :insane:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly...

 

like saying that all red-headed people have hair, therefore all people with hair are red-headed. fallacious argument.

 

Yes, very fallacious.

 

Now, if you said that all red-headed people were children of the devil, THAT would be a legitimate argument....

Okay, that's enough out of you Eric Cartman. :insane:
cartman-1.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly...

 

like saying that all red-headed people have hair, therefore all people with hair are red-headed. fallacious argument.

 

Yes, very fallacious.

 

Now, if you said that all red-headed people were children of the devil, THAT would be a legitimate argument....

 

:whistle:

 

redhead.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites