Next Age?

[gifflefunk]

Yes and no. As I pointed out in the thread there is definitely a symbiotic relationship. But most of the stories pushing the limits of the 1955 code were still code approved stories... until you hit the three ASM drug issues that Stan published without code approval. Those three books exposed the Code as being overly broad in scope when it came to exposing drugs as a problem.

 

But that is how change works with the Code. As times change and more scripts are developed that push the envelope of the current code more and more stories get rejected for approval. This rejection rate causes the CMAA members to meet and alter the Code to reflect current social standards (the benefit of a self-regulating body). There are definitely books that push for a change in the status quo, but with the shift from the Silver Age to the Bronze Age no single book can be identified as being "the one". There were many factors that contributed to the change that loosened the restrictions on horror, drugs, and race-related issues in comics. This is why the 1971 Code makes for a good focal point because no single book can be... certainly things were changing going into the 1971 meeting, and things definitely changed after the 1955 Code was revised in that meeting, hence the idea of using it as the focal point.

 

Same can be said with the SOTI hearings and the advent of the 1955 Code. Pre-Code books are a world apart from their 1955 Code approved brothers published later on... that event makes more since to me n dividing the Golden Age from the Silver Age, but that's just my opinion but one I think that makes more sense when you look at the industry as a whole and not just the books from a single publisher or from a single genre.

[dgillock]

Hello all!

I figured that I should drop by since my name came up on this thread. I generally spend my time on the Comics Board over on eBay, but I figure everyone can use a vacation once in a while.

 

As gifflefunk points out (as he has very astutely done before) the CCA can be used very nicely as one way to chart the progress of the "Ages". It's a single factor in a much larger picture, but it is convenient if for no other reason than it was an industry-wide circumstance. I find it especially helpful to use in getting my head around the shift that resulted in the transition from Silver to Bronze. In my opinion, the 1971 Code revisions were remarkably important in what comics became in the 70's. I won't go into tremendous detail here since the arguements are well developed over at the thread giffle already pointed out.

 

One interesting thing to point out though- there wasn't only one Code revision in 1971, there were two. The first was the major overhaul of the CCA that occurred in January of '71. This opened the doors for much (but not all) of the content that we think of as pivotal in the 70s- the return of horror and crime, more graphic violence, and more complex portrayals of social and political issues. But, the initial revision did not open the doors to the portrayal of drugs.

 

There was a second Code revision that occurred on April 15 1971 as a direct result of ASM #96 - #98. Here, the CCA determined that drug use could be portrayed in comics, under the caveat that "narcotic adddiction shall not be portrayed except as a vicious habit". It was after this additional change was made to the Code that DC decided to release their "drug issues" in Green Lantern.

 

I did a slew of research on this particular period and it was interesting to see just how much discussion was going on surrounding the need for comics that had more "social relevancy". It's easy to look at the mid 1950's and see how great an effect the implimentation of the CCA had on the industry, but it's impact can also be seen in the transition from Silver to Bronze and Bronze to ?...

 

_douglas

[joe_collector]

I agree that the Code is an incredibly convenient method of charting the Ages, but let's not confuse this actually being the impetus for any of the changes.

 

The Code has always been reactive, rather than proactive, and to state that the Bronze Age started after the 1971 changes is to ignore WHY these changes were instituted.

 

Comic publishers were already pushing the envelope, sliding books by with obvious Code violations, and really walking the gray line concerning the rules. Readers embraced this new wave that mirrored the times, and were vocal in their support.

 

So the Code rules reacted to these changes, and allowed more leeway, which would never have come about without external forces. In the Bronze Age, Marvel, DC and readers alike exerted their force to get these changes done, not the other way around.

 

So yes, you can retroactively chart the Ages using the Code, but this is incredibly simplistic methodology that totally ignores WHY the Code changed, and it's like saying that drug use in Amsterdam started the day they legalized it.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

"this is incredibly simplistic methodology that totally ignores WHY the Code changed, and it's like saying that drug use in Amsterdam started the day they legalized it"

 

It's not simplistic if you recognize and acknowledge exactly the point you're making and illuminate the fact that this is merely meant as another way to look at things but involves reactive as well as proactive factors. In other words, if you're not presenting the Code/Age methodology in a vacuum but explaining precisely what you're saying about the other forces at work, then you're not being misleading, are you?

 

I'm always amazed how passionate people get about putting what are ultimately fake labels on history that cannot truly be labeled. Life isn't experienced in discrete segments - it just keeps rolling along. We slap labels on things so we can talk about them. But that's about it.

 

Anyway, when the article comes ou, hit me with the feedback. Hopefully most of you will find it intriguing and not too horribly offensive .

 

Arnold

[Zonker]

So I didn't read the whole eBay thread on the subject, but the gist of it I picked up was...

 

1. There were different CCA revisions that roughly correspond to different post-Code ages.

2. The move from Silver/Bronze/Whatever/Modern is a spectrum, a continuum, rather than a staircase effect.

 

Both those observations are fine, as far as they go. But I'd have a big problem in assigning the beginning point of an Age to the CCA itself. Otherwise, you'd need to begin the Silver Age immediately with the first Code approved books, whereas if Silver Age means anything, it indicates a period of renewed vigor (in this case, the super-hero genre) after the generally moribund state of affairs caused by the Code (Dell comics existed in their own happy universe, where the Code was irrelevant).

 

What I'm arguing is the Code ushered in comics' version the medieval dark ages, and the comics version of the Renaissance began with Showcase #4, which barely caused a flicker, but led to Showcase 22, Brave & Bold 28, and yes, Fantastic Four #1. Some have argued that the Silver Age Flash is not important enough, but very few hold out pre- Showcase #4 books as examples of the Silver Age! Even the Detective 225 holdouts would have to deal with 8 issues of Detective Comics (#217-224) that are CCA approved but pre-Jonn Jonzz. I can't imagine anyone thinking of those books as "Silver Age."

 

So in the case of Silver Age, the CCA is the cause, and the very delayed response is Showcase 4. In the case of Bronze Age, I'd agree with JC that the cause is what was happening in the comics themselves, and the effect is the CCA revision. What was happening was the newer style of more self-consciously-adult storytelling that Roy Thomas and Denny O'Neil were experimenting with at that point, in books like Conan #1 and GL/GA #76. And though Stan was the first to do a mainstream book referring to the "drug issue," it was a full year after the arrival of the O'Neil/Adams self-conscious "issues" style of storytelling, and the attempt to have comics seen to be "all grown up."

[joe_collector]

I'm always amazed how passionate people get about putting what are ultimately fake labels on history that cannot truly be labeled.

 

A mirror is a wonderful thing.

[joe_collector]

In the case of Bronze Age, I'd agree with JC that the cause is what was happening in the comics themselves, and the effect is the CCA revision. What was happening was the newer style of more self-consciously-adult storytelling that Roy Thomas and Denny O'Neil were experimenting with at that point, in books like Conan #1 and GL/GA #76. And though Stan was the first to do a mainstream book referring to the "drug issue," it was a full year after the arrival of the O'Neil/Adams self-conscious "issues" style of storytelling, and the attempt to have comics seen to be "all grown up."

 

Well said.

[CompleteRunComics]

 

So the CCA and the content of comics will determine the "labeling" of this new age not simply one or the other.

 

A debate is being held over a moot point as nobody has said the new age group will be based solely on just one of the above criteria.

 

So, if code and comic content are some of the criteria, "Next Age?"...

 

"Speculator Age"?

 

CRC

[gifflefunk]

Otherwise, you'd need to begin the Silver Age immediately with the first Code approved books

 

I don't have a problem with that. And it makes sense if you don't try to base Ages on just the superhero genre (again, read the entire thread on eBay for the full argument... its a good thread worth reading from start to finish).

 

...and the comics version of the Renaissance began with Showcase #4

 

I don't buy that. Showcase #4 didn't do much for the superhero genre as shown by the data I posted in the eBay thread. The Flash wasn't the first post-code hero as other companies were already re-introducing the superhero genre after the code killed off the gritty crime and blood and gore horror genres. And Showcase #4 had very little impact to the genre... the superhero genre didn't take off in sales until 1964. Publishers needed something to fill the void created by the 1955 code and MANY publishers restarted their superhero genres in 1954/1955.

 

Showcase #4 is just a contrived attempt to somehow give credit to DC for reviving the superhero genre by DC fans. In fact, in the first OPG Bob even states that Action #1 ushered in The First Heroic Age of Comic Books" and that "Most fan historians date the Second Heroic Age from the appearance of the new FLASH comics magazine (numbered 105 and dated February, 1959)." How the Heroic Ages came to define the whole of the Golden Age and Silver Age is a mystery to me. And how the Second Heroic Age got pushed back to Showcase #4 is even more of a mystery to me....

 

For me the Ages are better defined by the 1955/1971/1989 CCA codes. Within each Age there is an Age of Superheroes, an Age of Crime, an Age of Horror, etc. I just take the whole of comics into account instead of keeping a tunnel vision approach to assigning Ages based on a the superhero genre from a single publisher.

 

Now I have no problem with DC fans having the DC Golden Age of Superheroes starting in 1938 with Action #1 and ending in 1946, the DC Silver Age of Superheroes starting in 1956 with Showcase #4, the DC Bronze taking over in the 70s with Green Lanter #76 and DC Copper starting with Crisis in 1986. No problem at all... but it does not reflect the industry as a whole and frankly I refuse to classify the division of my Golden Age Archies and Silver Age Archies based on Showcase #4 (why would I use a different genre book from a completely different publisher? That would be just crazy).

 

I make no claim that the Code and subsequent changes in 1971 and 1989 are the reasons things changed... most certainly there are factors leading up to the code changes, hence the Spectrum discussed in the eBay thread (and I suspect in the 34th OPG). All I claim is that the Code changes make a good focal point for when things officially changed across the board for all publishers and using those points in time make more sense to me than using the books from one publisher.

 

Which is the whole point of using the CCA as the focal point... to find something that ties all genres and publishers to common milestone events.

 

Now if you want to talk about the starting point of the Golden Age of Superheroes, the zenith of the Golden Age of Superheroes, and the end of the Golden Age of Superheroes compared to the start of the Silver Age of Superheroes, it's zenith and end points I'm open for that debate.

[joe_collector]

I just take the whole of comics into account instead of keeping a tunnel vision approach to assigning Ages...

 

 

Yeah, no tunnel vision on your part. More like a puppy who won't let go of a bone, not matter how many maggots are on it.

 

And P.S., if you're trying to pawn off the Bronze Age as the "Age of Horror", I sincerely doubt you'll find many adherents, especially if you consult sales data from the time.

[Zonker]

I don't buy that. Showcase #4 didn't do much for the superhero genre as shown by the data I posted in the eBay thread. The Flash wasn't the first post-code hero as other companies were already re-introducing the superhero genre after the code killed off the gritty crime and blood and gore horror genres. And Showcase #4 had very little impact to the genre... the superhero genre didn't take off in sales until 1964.

 

Well, sales need not be the be-all and end-all. Otherwise we could just date the Silver Age as beginning with Amazing Spider-Man #1, eh? But something must have been cooking by at least 1961 for Marvel to launch its super-hero line, right?

 

Publishers needed something to fill the void created by the 1955 code and MANY publishers restarted their superhero genres in 1954/1955.

 

How many of those 1954/55 re-starts had legs?

 

Showcase #4 is just a contrived attempt to somehow give credit to DC for reviving the superhero genre by DC fans. In fact, in the first OPG Bob even states that Action #1 ushered in The First Heroic Age of Comic Books" and that "Most fan historians date the Second Heroic Age from the appearance of the new FLASH comics magazine (numbered 105 and dated February, 1959)." How the Heroic Ages came to define the whole of the Golden Age and Silver Age is a mystery to me. And how the Second Heroic Age got pushed back to Showcase #4 is even more of a mystery to me....

 

Some people don't think the Silver Age should be dated from the chain of causation that ends in Fantastic Four #1 swiping the super-team idea and the very cover to B&B28 as a result of a golf game between Jack Liebowitz and Martin Goodman. B&B28 itself is just one in a series of Julie Schwartz Golden Age super hero revivals (in this case revamping the JSA), preceeded by Showcase 22 (GL) and Showcase 4 (Flash). DC did pave the way in the ultimately successful revival of the super-hero. You may disagree that chain of causation merits Showcase #4 being named the first Silver Age book, but that chain is a matter of historical record; no mystery there.

 

frankly I refuse to classify the division of my Golden Age Archies and Silver Age Archies based on Showcase #4 (why would I use a different genre book from a completely different publisher? That would be just crazy).

 

Well, I imagine collectors of Famous Funnies also can't see a reason for distinguishing their pre-Golden Age from Golden Age books on what happened in Action Comics #1 either! And I'm genuinely interested in your view of what was different about pre-Code Archies and post-Code Archies. Was there a difference? 'Cause if not, we should just agree the Golden/Silver Age distinction isn't valid for those books, any moreso than Duck books or other genres.

[joe_collector]

And I'm genuinely interested in your view of what was different about pre-Code Archies and post-Code Archies.

 

You must have missed those stirring 1971 issues:

 

"Archie Andrews: Coke Snorting Pimp"

 

"Jughead: My Best Friend's a Heroin Addict"

 

"Mr Lodge: Pot Kingpin"

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

Would it clarify things at all if I said that if I wasn't writing about it as part of my job, I wouldn't talk about this at all? Never concerned me in the slightest. Honest. But given the fact that I *am* writing about it, it's my job to do the best I can, distill all the various opinions and arrive at something that will please the most people and communicate our ideas clearly and concisely.

 

Now if you want me to actually be personally passionate about something, ask me about DOCTOR WHO.

 

Arnold

[valiantman]

Now if you want me to actually be personally passionate about something, ask me about DOCTOR WHO.

Here's a Doctor Who question...

Why oh WHY wasn't there a warning at the beginning of Dr. Who episodes?

 

I can't tell you how many nights I woke up screaming as a little kid...

usually after dreaming about some combination of Dr. Who monsters

and what I was sure were the last moments of my life...

[gifflefunk]

I understand any attempt to get people to let go of the superhero genre as the defining criteria for the Ages is an uphill battle and I accepted that a long time ago (as seen by some of the arguments in that eBay thread). So here I go again....

 

Well, I imagine collectors of Famous Funnies also can't see a reason for distinguishing their pre-Golden Age from Golden Age books on what happened in Action Comics #1 either

 

Well, I don't accept Action #1 as the start of the Golden Age either, if you noticed I have the Golden Age defined as 1933 to 1955. I start the Golden Age in 1933 with the consistent usage of the standard format created by Harry Wildenberg (for Funnies on Parade). Don't get me wrong, Action #1 was definitely a watershed event in the history of comics and kick-started the Golden Age of Superheroes (again, all of this has been expressed by me in the eBay thread). But I do make a distinction about the Golden Age in total, which is part of the difference in the way I look at the topic... I spent time trying to define the larger picture that can be used to explain the entire industry (and not just a single genre). So within the Golden Age there was a Golden Age of Superheroes which is defined by the well-accepted Action #1 criteria, and I have no problem with those that want to define the start of the Silver Age of Superheroes with Showcase #4, but the Silver Age as a whole began with the 1955 Code for me.

 

You may disagree that chain of causation merits Showcase #4 being named the first Silver Age book, but that chain is a matter of historical record; no mystery there.

 

For DC fans maybe. Other than the DC Three (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman) all superhero titles had a hard time being sustained. Charlton, Marvel/Atlas, Ajax/Farrell, etc., had all published superhero books post-code and prior to Showcase #4. It is not until 1959 that a new superhero title outside of the DC Three could be sustained for more than a couple years, and for that I do recognize Flash #105, but even then superheroes were a small part of the comic market place.

 

The case for the Ages based solely on the DC superhero genre is well and fine if you want to disregard all other genres and publishers. I just find it to be a classic "fan-based position" lacking in solid research to back it up. That was the main reason I began conducting my own research into the history of comics and by looking at many genres and many publishers to figure out what was different between Golden Age books and Silver Age books. This research lead to my position of using the CCA Code as the focal point between the two Ages (which I explain in the eBay thread); subsequent research lead to my understanding of the 1971 code and 1989 code which correlated to changes noticed by many as occuring around those times... basically a hazy line between the Silver Age and Bronze Age where nobody could nail the "one book" that could be used as the "moment" and a similar problem in defining the end of the Bronze Age and the start of the next Age (Copper?). The CCA Code, as a focal point, solves those problems and encompasses all genres and publishers. Something I could readily accept instead of the fan-based opinion that Showcase #4 had somehow changed the industry.

 

I take the position that the Superhero genre is not the be-all-end-all defining yardstick for Age determination. Golden Age Horror is significantly different than Silver Age Horror, Golden Age Crime is different than Silver Age Crime. The change in content can be traced back to CCA Code and using Showcase #4 as the dividing line makes absolutely no sense when you have the the 1955 Code which clearly deliniates the changes that took place.

 

And I'm genuinely interested in your view of what was different about pre-Code Archies and post-Code Archies. Was there a difference?

 

I refer to the company and not the character. And yes, the types of comics published by Archie pre-code did change with the advent of the Code (same with Harvey), and it isn't until after the 1971 code changes that Archie got back into horror with Red Circle Sorcery. None of these events have anything to do with Action #1, Showcase #4 and GL #76. So again, the CCA changes make for better industry milestones when it comes to Age ranges when compared to a fan-based timeline of DC's superhero genre. But I'm open to new research on this topic and if it can be shown that Showcase #4 impacted the industry more than the 1955 Code than I'd be willing to alter my opinion.

 

And just a side-note for clarification:

...as a result of a golf game between Jack Liebowitz and Martin Goodman

 

This was disproven a long time ago by Liebowitz himself who is quoted by Les Daniels in his book on the History of DC. In re: the golf game: "I'm sure I didn't discuss anything with him about that, but everbody knew what the sales were." And also noted by Stan Lee in the Origins of Marvel Comics: "Martin mentioned that he noticed one of the titles published by National Comics seemed to be selling better than most."

 

 

As for Joe Collector, I'm not sure where he got the idea I'm trying to pawn off the Bronze Age as the "Age of Horror". I never made that claim. But there was definitely a Bronze Age of Horror, as well as a Silver Age of Horror and a Golden Age of Horror. Same with Superheroes, Romance, Crime, Westerns, etc.

[joe_collector]

Would it clarify things at all if I said that if I wasn't writing about it as part of my job, I wouldn't talk about this at all?

 

Sure, and I'm starting to see how this Code Argument got started. After all, if I collected Archie and Funny Animal books, I may not like how pervasive the super-hero books are in determining the Age.

 

Doesn't make the argument hold any more water, but it is understandable from a purely emotional point of view.

[sterlingcomics]

Hey Doug! WELCOME TO THE BOARDS!

 

I posted for a little while on eBay forums--I love this forum interface much better--and the folks are much cooler here too!

 

Hope you stick around--your comments have always been thorough and insighful--if not entertaining.

 

Sterling

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

Well all this stuff is understandable, everybody has a take on it influenced by their personal interests. No problem with that. The trick is to try to find a happy medium. I think in discussing all this, we do all seem to share certain basic logical approaches to it. Like I said, I think most will find the article reasonable. But there's also no reason not to keep debating it, this community thrives on debate after all. No problem with that either.

 

Arnold

[dgillock]

Thanks for the warm welcome Sterling.

For people interested in this debate, I'd like to offer up mentions of three articles that I found really helpful in developing my feelings about this topic:

 

Van Gelder, Lawrence. "A Comics Magazine Defies Code Ban on Drug Stories", New York Times, Feb.4 1971, pg.37. (Interesting article about ASM #96 and Lee's decision to release it without CCA approval. Note that this came out about a week after the Code was initially revised on Jan.28. Also of note is a quote by Infantino stating that he would not bring out a "drug book" until such a book could get Code approval)

 

Van Gelder, Lawerence. "Comic-Book Industry to Allow Stories on Narcotics", New York Times, Apr.15 1971, pg.34. (This details the decision by the CCA to ammend the Code to allow for portrayals of drugs)

 

Braun, Saul. "Shazam! Here Comes Captain Relevant", New York Times, May 2, 1971, pg.SM32. (This is a long article from the NYT Magazine that is a treasure trove of info on how great the push for greater content flexibility was in the industry at the dawn of the 70s. Excellent stuff from Lee, Goodman, Infantino, Kirby, and more. A must read IMO if the emergence of the Bronze Age is of interest.)

 

Note that if you can't access these at your local library they can be downloaded from the New York Times Archive site. It will cost you a couple of bucks, but most things will these days...

 

_douglas

[read_em-migration]

 

I posted for a little while on eBay forums--I love this forum interface much better--and the folks are much cooler here too!

 

Buuzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Wrong, try again...