Dr. Wertham's general arguments put forward in SOTI...

[fantastic_four]

I haven't read the entire book so I can't say. Clearly comics were over the top when he wrote the book, but I'm not sure about the extent to which he exaggerated. They're probably back to being over the top now, but censorship in all media has decreased as well--non-network television keeps getting away with more and more salacious content every decade.

[Ares]

Where is the Crack?

[Hibou]

Where is the Crack?

 

I forgot to add it...

[comicwiz]

IMHO the book lacks merit as an anti-comic platform, however I think that there are elements of truth to the notion of cultural influences on children that shouldn't be overlooked and are more relevant today than when the book was written.

 

I remember hearing about a study done many, many years ago where 6-year old children were asked if they had to choose between their TV or their Dad, and 40% of the children instantly responded they'd rather have their TV.

 

If that same study was performed today, I can only assume the percentage of children choosing their TV would be higher, especially if if the choices were expanded to include TV, video games and the Internet.

 

Whether or not you agree with SOTI and the notion of cultural influences and its impact on childhood development, parents can't ignore the fact that TV, gaming consoles and the Internet have assumed the role of "babysitter" and that the choice falls squarely on parents to allow it to happen or not.

[Jeffro.]

People always want to blame something outside for the poor behavior of their children. Whether it be music, movies, comic books, etc. I have never subscribed to that idea. I think you need to look at why an individual is susceptible and influenced by such outside stimuli. Blaming the stimuli is only addressing one concern.

 

I also find it interesting that a genuine comic related topic and a potentially interesting one like this one has received so few replies but Roy's useless epiphany thread (OT all the way) has gotten tons of responses.

 

Sounds like a mandate from the inmates. We only want nonsense here in CG.

[fantastic_four]

Whether or not you agree with SOTI and the notion of cultural influences and its impact on childhood development, parents can't ignore the fact that TV, gaming consoles and the Internet have assumed the role of "babysitter" and that the choice falls squarely on parents to allow it to happen or not.

 

I haven't seen anything outside of rated-R films--and very few rated-R films even--that compare to the type of content in some of the pre-SOTI comics that were available. I'm a huge fan of EC, but I can't imagine what William Gaines was thinking with "Crime SuspenStories"--many of the issues are just absolute recipes for how to be a serial killer, many of which included the killer getting away with everything. Just not stuff you'd want kids reading then or now, yet kids were free to do so.

 

Even though most media today are more responsible, with the infinite variety of material available via the Internet, I agree with you and the general direction the courts and the FCC have gone in recent decades in mostly refusing to censor television--it really does have to fall on parents to keep their kids away from potentially harmful influences. I see no other solution...the simpler days when SOTI was printed are gone, you can't censor everything.

[Dale Roberts]

Whether or not you agree with SOTI and the notion of cultural influences and its impact on childhood development, parents can't ignore the fact that TV, gaming consoles and the Internet have assumed the role of "babysitter" and that the choice falls squarely on parents to allow it to happen or not.

 

I haven't seen anything outside of rated-R films--and very few rated-R films even--that compare to the type of content in some of the pre-SOTI comics that were available. I'm a huge fan of EC, but I can't imagine what William Gaines was thinking with "Crime SuspenStories"--many of the issues are just absolute recipes for how to be a serial killer, many of which included the killer getting away with everything. Just not stuff you'd want kids reading then or now, yet kids were free to do so.

 

Even though most media today are more responsible, with the infinite variety of material available via the Internet, I agree with you and the general direction the courts and the FCC have gone in recent decades in mostly refusing to censor television--it really does have to fall on parents to keep their kids away from potentially harmful influences. I see no other solution...the simpler days when SOTI was printed are gone, you can't censor everything.

 

I agree with this, especially considering the fact that comics were in fact aimed at children at that point, unlike now when most comics are geared toward an older audience. Was a different time and place and you really have to look at it in that context.

 

 

[sniderwj]

People always want to blame something outside for the poor behavior of their children. Whether it be music, movies, comic books, etc. I have never subscribed to that idea. I think you need to look at why an individual is susceptible and influenced by such outside stimuli. Blaming the stimuli is only addressing one concern.

 

I also find it interesting that a genuine comic related topic and a potentially interesting one like this one has received so few replies but Roy's useless epiphany thread (OT all the way) has gotten tons of responses.

 

Sounds like a mandate from the inmates. We only want nonsense here in CG.

 

I tend to think in this direction. I don't think that comics/TV/Movies/Video Games/Music are the sole contributers to bad behavior. I like to think that there is something else in the person's head that already makes them suscepible.

 

The best comparison I have to Werthman is the fight against video games. When games like Grand Theft Auto came out there were people that started calling them Murder Simulators. I've played computer games and console games since I was 8 or 9 and I still have't committed my first murder or car jacking. It would be the same to thinking that Guitar Hero can teach you to become as good a Slash.

 

It comes down to the parents making decisions for their kids on what they can watch or play. If the parent believes that GTA 4 is appropriate for their kids then fine. If the parent doesn't want their kid to play it then don't buy it for them.

 

Just because soemthing is in the section for kids doesn't mean that you should just take it on faith that you are going to approve of it. Take a look at what they want and make the decision there.

[the420kid]

The world sorely misses you George

[comicwiz]

Whether or not you agree with SOTI and the notion of cultural influences and its impact on childhood development, parents can't ignore the fact that TV, gaming consoles and the Internet have assumed the role of "babysitter" and that the choice falls squarely on parents to allow it to happen or not.

 

I haven't seen anything outside of rated-R films--and very few rated-R films even--that compare to the type of content in some of the pre-SOTI comics that were available. I'm a huge fan of EC, but I can't imagine what William Gaines was thinking with "Crime SuspenStories"--many of the issues are just absolute recipes for how to be a serial killer, many of which included the killer getting away with everything. Just not stuff you'd want kids reading then or now, yet kids were free to do so.

 

Even though most media today are more responsible, with the infinite variety of material available via the Internet, I agree with you and the general direction the courts and the FCC have gone in recent decades in mostly refusing to censor television--it really does have to fall on parents to keep their kids away from potentially harmful influences. I see no other solution...the simpler days when SOTI was printed are gone, you can't censor everything.

 

I agree with this, especially considering the fact that comics were in fact aimed at children at that point, unlike now when most comics are geared toward an older audience. Was a different time and place and you really have to look at it in that context.

 

 

To some degree, yes, but keep in mind that the syndication model is one which aims to reintroduce that influence into modern-day cultural programming, and the Retro-channel which airs old cartoons on television is just one of many examples.

 

As part of its regular programming schedule, it airs WB's original Looney Tunes cartoons several times a day. Let's just say that when I started hearing the language and play that Bugs and his friends used in the cartoons being simulated in our house by our child, that channel got quickly blocked.

[fantastic_four]

People always want to blame something outside for the poor behavior of their children. Whether it be music, movies, comic books, etc. I have never subscribed to that idea. I think you need to look at why an individual is susceptible and influenced by such outside stimuli. Blaming the stimuli is only addressing one concern.

 

I tend to think in this direction. I don't think that comics/TV/Movies/Video Games/Music are the sole contributers to bad behavior. I like to think that there is something else in the person's head that already makes them suscepible.

 

This is absolutely true, but media can be contributors, even if they're not the SOLE contributor. We've all got built-in hangups regarding sex and death--we want the first and want to avoid the latter--and yea, how healthy our attitudes are towards both are the sum of our entire life's experiences, but media can reinforce existing bad thoughts or inspire new ones. A 6-year old Jeffrey Dahmer may have already been screwed up--his parents indicated they caught him torturing animals at a young age--but even though that's true, you don't want to also give him back issues of Crime SuspenStories to accelerate his sickness.

[fantastic_four]

As part of its regular programming schedule, it airs WB's original Looney Tunes cartoons several times a day. Let's just say that when I started hearing the language and play that Bugs and his friends used in the cartoons being simulated in our house by our child, that channel got quickly blocked.

 

I haven't seen Bugs Bunny in a few decades, so I can't remember many specifics of it--what did you find questionable?

[Jeffro.]

Some of those old Warner Brothers cartoons have been edited. There is one Bugs Bunny cartoon where Bugs and Yosemite Sam play russian roulette at the end. That scene has been edited out completely.

[fantastic_four]

Some of those old Warner Brothers cartoons have been edited. There is one Bugs Bunny cartoon where Bugs and Yosemite Sam play russian roulette at the end. That scene has been edited out completely.

 

I kind of remember seeing that in the 1970s or 1980s--didn't think much about it at the time as a kid, of course.

[comicwiz]

As part of its regular programming schedule, it airs WB's original Looney Tunes cartoons several times a day. Let's just say that when I started hearing the language and play that Bugs and his friends used in the cartoons being simulated in our house by our child, that channel got quickly blocked.

 

I haven't seen Bugs Bunny in a few decades, so I can't remember many specifics of it--what did you find questionable?

 

Oh man! Where do I begin. On top of the absolutely inappropriate bad-mouthing behaviour which is used by characters like Yosemite Sam and Sylvester the cat (at least, in the context of my child potentially mouthing off in the same way at home or at school when being reprimanded), there are numerous cartoons which WB created that experimented with the unusual, less known characters, and which really pushed social and political topics in a cartoon format.

 

The last straw in my decision to block the channel was this one cartoon where a street person ran into some luck (can't recall if he found a coin on the street). From that point on, he's being rooted on by this character (similar to Gazoo from the Flinstones) that follows him and lures him into gambling the found money.

 

The guys luck turns to tremendous fortunes through repeated gambling. All along he's influenced by this character cheering him on to bet all his money to get the most return. At one point, he's content with his earnings and wants to walk away, but the character luring him into the whole scheme convinces him otherwise.

 

During the whole time, the guy goes on his gut and instinct, but on the last bet he places, he goes with the advice of the character who has been convincing him to gamble his fortunes. He loses everything at a roulette wheel, and after losing it all, he pulls out a gun, and shoots himself in the head.

 

This is just the tip of the iceberg. For many years, these types of "uncensored" and "racy" looney tunes cartoons could only be seen through proprieters like Reg Hartt and the Cineforums, who had a long history of screening these "banned" cartoons to mature and older audiences from out of his home in the Toronto area.

 

The fact that they are now being syndicated through the Retro-channel - and included into the regular prime-time programming, targeted to all audiences, but mostly aired early morning and during times kids are at home (before school, after school, etc.) is, to put it mildly, shocking.

[burntboy]

I also find it interesting that a genuine comic related topic and a potentially interesting one like this one has received so few replies but Roy's useless epiphany thread (OT all the way) has gotten tons of responses.

 

Sounds like a mandate from the inmates. We only want nonsense here in CG.

 

Interesting observation...

[Park]

I also find it interesting that a genuine comic related topic and a potentially interesting one like this one has received so few replies but Roy's useless epiphany thread (OT all the way) has gotten tons of responses.

 

Sounds like a mandate from the inmates. We only want nonsense here in CG.

 

Interesting observation...

 

I have never read SOTI. I try my best to comment on things that I have at least a passing knowledge of. At the least, this thread does make me want to hit the local library and give it a read.

 

I am well versed in nonsense on the other hand.

[fantastic_four]

I have never read SOTI. I try my best to comment on things that I have at least a passing knowledge of. At the least, this thread does make me want to hit the local library and give it a read.

 

The full text is available online. It's not a compelling read for today's audiences, but worth a glance:

 

http://www.dreadfuldays.net/soti/soti_chapt01/soti_chapt01.html

[Park]

I have never read SOTI. I try my best to comment on things that I have at least a passing knowledge of. At the least, this thread does make me want to hit the local library and give it a read.

 

The full text is available online. It's not a compelling read for today's audiences, but worth a glance:

 

http://www.dreadfuldays.net/soti/soti_chapt01/soti_chapt01.html

 

Cool. Thanks.

[comicwiz]

I couldn't find the particular example I wrote about, but here's a Bugs Bunny one that ends in the same way (7:35 mark):