Dell Comics v. Seduction of the Innocent

[bronze johnny]

Was Dell Comics' position to publicly take on SOTI and distinguish itself from other comic book publishers like EC and Harvey by refusing to join the Association of Comics Magazine Publishers a noble attempt to stop Wertham?

 

Or was Dell's campaign merely a cynical move to promote its books and take a greater share of the comic book market from its "damaged" competitors?

 

Thanks for any insight,

 

John

[BangZoom]

 

From Wikipedia:

 

In 1948, Dell refused an invitation of membership in the nascent Association of Comics Magazine Publishers. The association had been formed to pre-empt government intervention in the face of mounting public criticism of comic books. Dell vice-president Helen Meyer told Congress that Dell had opted out of the association because they didn't want their less controversial offerings to serve as "an umbrella for the crime comic publishers". When the Comics Code was formed in 1954 in reaction to Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent, Dell again refused to join and instead began publishing in its comics a "Pledge to Parents" that promised their editorial process "eliminates, rather than regulates, objectional [sic] material" and concluded with the now classic credo "Dell Comics Are Good Comics."

 

Bart Beaty in his book Fredric Wertham and the Critique of Mass Culture describes a concerted campaign by Dell against publication of Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent to the extent of recruiting several of the companies that it licensed characters from (including Warner Brother Cartoons, the Lone Ranger Inc. and Edgar Rice Burroughs Inc.) to send letters of protest to Wertham's publisher Stanley Rinehart.

 

Dell in this period even burnished its image by taking out full-page ads in the Saturday Evening Post in late 1952 and early 1953 that emphasized the wholesomeness of its comics.

 

 

[markseifert]

Was Dell Comics' position to publicly take on SOTI and distinguish itself from other comic book publishers like EC and Harvey by refusing to join the Association of Comics Magazine Publishers a noble attempt to stop Wertham?

 

I've always found Helen Meyer's testimony at the Senate hearings interesting.

 

I don't think it was a cynical tactic, I think she simply felt (rightly, with the benefit of historical hindsight) that Wertham's campaign could ultimately damage the industry as a whole, and hurt all publishers.

 

She had no love of crime/horror comics, but it's very clear that she had a strong dislike of Wertham's tactics. An excerpt from her testimony:

 

Dr. Wertham, for some strange reason, is intent on condemning the entire industry.Yet, in the extensive research he tells us he has made on comics, why does he ignore the good comics? Dell isn't alone in publishing good comics. There are numerous outstanding titles published by other publishers, such as Blondie, Archie, Dennis the Menace, and so forth. Why does he feel that he must condemn the entire industry. Could it be that he feels he has a better case against comics by recognizing the bad and ignoring the good?

 

Dr. Wertham, I am sure, has a fine reputation as a psychiatrist, but shouldn't the committee hear from other psychiatrists of equal stature? Of all the illustrations presented by Dr. Wertham yesterday, taken from crime and horror comics, needless to say, Dell was nonexistent, but I do take offense to his reading into the record an isolated story that he claims appeared in Tarzan comics. I should like more specific information on this particular story, and when this issue was published. Dr. Wertham has a great habit of using material from comic magazines that were published several years ago, and no longer being published, to help his case against the comics.

 

Dr. Wertham must have done some extensive examining of the 90 titles published by the Dell Publishing Co., as he went out of his way to point up the one story he didn't like in an isolated issue of Tarzan comics, probably published several years ago. Wasn't it unfair and destructive, rather than constructive, to read his condemnation of Dell Publishing Co.'s comics into the record? Shouldn't the good be given proper recognition, if for no othe rreason than to set an example?

 

With regard to Dell's refusal to belong to the Comic Book Association, Dell had no other alternative. When the association was first introduced, we, after thorough examination, saw that Dell would be used as an umbrella for the crime comic publishers.

 

http://www.archive.org/stream/juveniledelinque54unit#page/196/mode/2up

[thehumantorch]

Very interesting, thanks.

[esquirecomics]

I don't believe it was anything but a commercial decision. The fees for membership in the organization was based, at least in part, on the number of titles a publisher was issuing (or circulation, I can't remember). Dell was one of the larger publishers and it would have cost them a small (and maybe more) fortune to pay for something that was not needed given the contents of their comics.

 

I have the ad mentioned above hanging in my office.

 

[Sqeggs]

I don't believe it was anything but a commercial decision. The fees for membership in the organization was based, at least in part, on the number of titles a publisher was issuing (or circulation, I can't remember). Dell was one of the larger publishers and it would have cost them a small (and maybe more) fortune to pay for something that was not needed given the contents of their comics.

 

I have the ad mentioned above hanging in my office.

 

 

26,000,000 copies a month. Whatever else SOTI may have done, you have to think it resulted in a boon to Dell's sales.

[bronze johnny]

Thanks to everyone for their insight.

 

Sqeggs, you raise a interesting point that is one of the reasons why I raised the initial question for this thread- Did Dell realign its marketing strategies to capitalize on the SOTI attacks on EC, Harvey, Charlton, etc?

 

John

 

 

[BOOT]

I don't believe it was anything but a commercial decision.

The financial aspect had to play a part, but there must have been a moral component as well. Dell consistently produced wholesome, entertaining comic books designed for young children. Meanwhile, other less scrupulous publishers produced stories of extreme sexual intrigue and twisted violence. Granted, they may have been intended for adult audiences, but many found their way into the hands of children.

 

As this wave of extreme literature rolled across the country, parents became irate. As a result, they brought the weight of government scrutiny upon the entire industry.

 

The Comics Code was self-regulation by the industry in an attempt at to forestall government intervention. The Code Authority was comprised in part of publishers who may have caused the hostile conditions in the first place.

 

When they approached Dell for membership, Dell may have thought, "We've exercised responsible self-control in our publications. You are the ones who have tainted the medium. Why should we have to pay to provide cover for you?" Indeed, why should Dell have had to take the huge financial hit to deal with a hostile climate they did nothing to help create?

 

I can't say I disagree with that stance. I like some of the work from EC and other adult-oriented publishers from the 1940s and 1950s, but I'm not sure they were entirely good for the medium in the long term.

 

I wish there was still an active comic book publisher with Dell's ethics, professionalism, and good taste!

[esquirecomics]

I don't believe it was anything but a commercial decision.

 

The financial aspect had to play a part, but there must have been a moral component as well. Dell consistently produced wholesome, entertaining comic books designed for young children.

 

You mean like this?

 

[esquirecomics]

 

When they approached Dell for membership, Dell may have thought, "We've exercised responsible self-control in our publications. You are the ones who have tainted the medium. Why should we have to pay to provide cover for you?" Indeed, why should Dell have had to take the huge financial hit to deal with a hostile climate they did nothing to help create?

 

I totally agree. That is part of what I meant with respect to saying "commercial".

[BOOT]

I don't believe it was anything but a commercial decision.

 

The financial aspect had to play a part, but there must have been a moral component as well. Dell consistently produced wholesome, entertaining comic books designed for young children.

 

You mean like this?

 

 

The MASTER Of The WORLD can swim attired however he likes!

[BB-Gun]

I don't believe it was anything but a commercial decision.

 

The financial aspect had to play a part, but there must have been a moral component as well. Dell consistently produced wholesome, entertaining comic books designed for young children.

 

You mean like this?

 

 

That is an obvious error by the colorist. Phantasmo should have been wearing yellow underwear.

or orange

His hair was colored incorrectly too.