just musings

[Xela]

For me its all about the art.

 

I see some of the modern age comics and in my opinion the art (both the cover and interior) are terrible. Golden age comics have always caught my eye because of the art and how dynamic artists like Schom were, especially with how much was going on in the Timely covers.

[eman13]

Simply put, the GA era was before comics were popular

Well, not really. By the early '50's, there were five hundred different comic book titles published monthly.

The Lev Gleason title, "Crime Does Not Pay" had a circulation of over 5 million books each month, all by itself.

 

Television sets were not as prevalent as they would become in the near future, and many ppl relied on comic books and pulps for their low cost entertainment.

 

CDNP didn't actually sell 5 million copies a month, "circulation" often referred to the estimated number of readers, some multiple of the actual number of copies distributed back in those days. A number larger then than now, when most comics were still passed around after purchase..

Allow me to rephrase " the GA era was before comic collecting was popular"

[vaillant]

For me its all about the art.

 

I see some of the modern age comics and in my opinion the art (both the cover and interior) are terrible. Golden age comics have always caught my eye because of the art and how dynamic artists like Schom were, especially with how much was going on in the Timely covers.

 

Generally speaking it might be, because artists seriously believed in training and hard work. There are great artists today, however, it’s hard to see them because there is a huge amount that are not good, but often preferred by the public.

Take Frank Quitely, for example. He is amazing…

[fifties]

I also question the point brought out by fifties, as realism do not stem from lack of rules. The abolition of the Comics Code has brought more damage than good, as it was unnecessary since you could always specify products suitable to adults alone.

The CCA requirements, although stemmed from generalization and influenced by quite acritical writings, were aimed to both safeguard and educate. Definitely not aimed at ten years old alone.

The very concept of censorship, which was the intent of the CCA, stifled what was allowed to be put in print, it was that simple.

 

Reprints of pre-code stories that were, "cleaned up" to pass the censorship are excellent examples, as in the one I referred to. Aiming their content toward 10 year olds was a recognized generalization; no more graphic murders or horror scenes, stories about infidelity, werewolves/vampires/walking dead, etc., nor titles containing the words "weird, horror, terror, etc." They wiped out the entire EC lineup with the restrictions.

 

I'm afraid that you contradicted yourself..."safeguard...not aimed at ten years old alone"...Seems to me to be the same concept.

 

Now I am unaware of the abolition of the comics code, since I don't collect anything printed beyond 1956 (except the EC reprinted titles), so am not in a position to intelligently comment about it, but I can tell you that I was very passionately against the one instituted beginning with the March-April titles in 1955.

 

Simply put, the GA era was before comics were popular

Well, not really. By the early '50's, there were five hundred different comic book titles published monthly.

The Lev Gleason title, "Crime Does Not Pay" had a circulation of over 5 million books each month, all by itself.

 

Television sets were not as prevalent as they would become in the near future, and many ppl relied on comic books and pulps for their low cost entertainment.

 

CDNP didn't actually sell 5 million copies a month, "circulation" often referred to the estimated number of readers, some multiple of the actual number of copies distributed back in those days. A number larger then than now, when most comics were still passed around after purchase..

Ahh yes, I remember reading that somewhere myself, . OK, lets cut it in half; that's still 2.5 million comics sold per month, when the population of the country was somewhere around a third to a half of what it is today. I'd go out on a limb and say that that figure certainly displayed popularity...

[vaillant]

You are probably looking at it from the pre-Code collector viewpoint, and the reprints problem you were hinting to – I never saw it as "censorship", with a negative bias on the word. I always liked the idea.

If you wanted to publish comics with graphic violence or content unsuitable for children, you could have done so anyway – all you need is to specify that on the cover.

Why do you say I contradict myself? When I said "not aimed at ten years old alone" I meant that they were both respectful of children and the authors managed to do great stories for everyone, regardless the favorite target – at the same time.

 

I am speaking mostly for Marvel comics, so we may be talking of different things anyway…

[MrBedrock]

If you wanted to publish comics with graphic violence or content unsuitable for children, you could have done so anyway – all you need is to specify that on the cover.

But if a publisher were to do that in the first number of years of the code there would be no chance to get distribution or to have any kind of shelf space to display for sale in retail outlets. The Comics Code did more than simply set in place a standard for content, it also created a system which prohibited general distribution of any comic books that did not meet those standards. Dell met those standards and was therefore given a pass. It wasn't until the late '60s that any publisher attempted to defy those standards and release a non-code approved book. Even then distributors refused to handle them in some areas. Only when the distribution model changed significantly in the '80s were publishers allowed to viably skirt the code with any chance to still have positive sales results.

[fifties]

If you wanted to publish comics with graphic violence or content unsuitable for children, you could have done so anyway – all you need is to specify that on the cover.

But if a publisher were to do that in the first number of years of the code there would be no chance to get distribution or to have any kind of shelf space to display for sale in retail outlets. The Comics Code did more than simply set in place a standard for content, it also created a system which prohibited general distribution of any comic books that did not meet those standards. Dell met those standards and was therefore given a pass.

Exactly!

 

I presume that vaillant wasn't around in the mid-fifties, but there was a mindset against horror and crime comics. The 1954 Senate committee investigation, relying on testimony from Dr. Frederick Wertham (author, SOTI), and not particularly impressed by Bill Gaines' (publisher, EC Comics) remarks, pretty much told the industry, "police yourselves or we'll do it for you", hence the self-imposed CCA by the publishers.

 

And regarding Dell; yes, they never had to subscribe to the code, and there were never any CCA labels on their comics.

 

Here's an excellent treatment displaying a pre-code story re-written for a post-code book;

http://comicbookattic.blogspot.com/2011/02/insanity-of-censorship-ruth-roche-and.html

[markseifert]

it also created a system which prohibited general distribution of any comic books that did not meet those standards. Dell met those standards and was therefore given a pass.

Exactly!

 

And regarding Dell; yes, they never had to subscribe to the code, and there were never any CCA labels on their comics.

 

Dell EIC Helen Meyer's Senate testimony makes it pretty clear that they felt they had the market position to do what they wanted -- according to her, they had a 32% comic industry marketshare and accounted for 11 of the top 25 of ALL newsstand magazines.

[vaillant]

If you wanted to publish comics with graphic violence or content unsuitable for children, you could have done so anyway – all you need is to specify that on the cover.

But if a publisher were to do that in the first number of years of the code there would be no chance to get distribution or to have any kind of shelf space to display for sale in retail outlets. The Comics Code did more than simply set in place a standard for content, it also created a system which prohibited general distribution of any comic books that did not meet those standards. Dell met those standards and was therefore given a pass.

Exactly!

 

I presume that vaillant wasn't around in the mid-fifties, but there was a mindset against horror and crime comics. The 1954 Senate committee investigation, relying on testimony from Dr. Frederick Wertham (author, SOTI), and not particularly impressed by Bill Gaines' (publisher, EC Comics) remarks, pretty much told the industry, "police yourselves or we'll do it for you", hence the self-imposed CCA by the publishers.

 

And regarding Dell; yes, they never had to subscribe to the code, and there were never any CCA labels on their comics.

 

I was aware of most things, but Bedrock’s explanation makes it clearer, thanks!

I think I have also read the things in detail time ago, but I must have forgotten about the distribution thing.

 

It’s not a matter of age, however (as long as the context is loved and studied): it is a thing specifically belonging to american culture. In Italy, since the 1950s we had a sort of equivalent of the Comics Code but at the same time there were comics publications with (gratuitious) graphic violence et al.

 

Read at a distance, Wertham – and his most unlikely statements – is interesting as it testifies the massive influence the most coarse and schematic aspects of psycology theories has had on american popular culture.

 

Here’s (roughly) the italian equivalent of the Comics Code (which had brief life), used from summer 1962:

 

But the same year would have also seen the birth of Diabolik (in november) which had not a specific audience but being a thief and a sort of anti-hero (the police commissary was the "villain").

 

[vaillant]

It appears the "GM" code badge had short life.

 

In June 1967, it was still there:

 

but in July 1967 it was already gone: