Wertham question 3 3

[gadzukes]

I pulled out a long forgotten Millie the Model comic from my collection (#17). I have no idea when I bought this..... probably well over a decade ago.

I noticed some tiny scribbling on the backing board (not in my handwriting) and after staring at it for a while I thought, "Hey, I think that says 'Wertham copy.  28 pgs'."

So..... now my curiosity is peaked.  I pulled the comic out and saw that the cover is in excellent shape, but it's definitely incomplete.  And then I noticed tiny notation marked in the corner of basically every single "remaining" page.  Check marks and circles.... like some kind of "code"

Could this actually be a comic that Frederick Wertham used when compiling his notes for "Seduction of the Innocent"?

NOTE* - I do not remember EVER buying something advertised as a  "Wertham copy" and because of the historical significance you'd think I would remember something like that.  I do like buying nice looking GGA from time to time (even if it's incomplete).  So I believe I must have bought a "lot" of MIllie, and perhaps this was mixed in, and I just overlooked the messy Wertham notation on the backing board.

Here's some pics.

My comic is missing pages 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 & 24.  I looked at these pages online and I believe they were possibly taken out because they were "not as offensive" as the other pages PLUS one of those pages had an Anti-Censorship (anti-Wertham) editorial (so ya gotta take that page out).

Anyone with more knowledge than me care to comment.

 

Edited August 29, 2022 by gadzukes

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

I don't know anything for sure, but it's definitely interesting.

[Mucheee1]

I wonder if the circles and check marks annotated on the top of the pages correspond with a panel on the page that had some specific info he was tabulating for his research.

[jpepx78]

It would be quite interesting if that Millie 17 comic is an actual comic that Wertham used to compile notes. Maybe the book was used by another comics censor. Millie 17 was on sale Dec 1948 and the Association of Comics Magazine Publishers (ACMP) adopted a comics code on July 1 1948.

ACMP Publishers Code of 1948
    1.    Sexy, wanton comics should not be published. No drawing should show a female indecently or unduly exposed, and in no event more nude than in a bathing suit commonly worn in the United States of America.
    2.    Crime should not be presented in such a way as to throw sympathy against the law and justice or to inspire others with the desire for imitation. No comics shall show the details and methods of a crime committed by a youth. Policemen, judges, Government officials, and respected institutions should not be portrayed as stupid, ineffective, or represented in such a way to weaken respect for established authority.
    3.    No scenes of sadistic torture should be shown.
    4.    Vulgar and obscene language should never be used. Slang should be kept to a minimum and used only when essential to the story.
    5.    Divorce should not be treated humorously or represented as glamorous or alluring.
    6.    Ridicule or attack on any religious or racial group is never permissible.

Here is my theory if that book was used by Wertham or another comics censor. The circle and check mark codes on the pages would designate offensive or objectionable content on the pages and the position of the marks would correspond to the location of the offending panels. The marks would designate violations of the code.
One of the marks may mean a serious violation and the other a minor violation.

Here are my interpretations of the marks on your pages while referencing the above comics code.

Millie cover: boobie & scanty swimsuit pic
Examples: Millie pages 5, 7, 9, 13, 15.
Page 5 panels 2 & 5 some upskirt views.

Page 7 panel 6 butt photo

Page 9 panels 2, 3, 4, 6 jiggly butt & boobs

Page 13 panels 1, 2, 3, 6 jiggly butt & boobs, panels 4 & 6 offensive portrayal of store cop (authority)

Page 15 panels 1 & 6 boobies & slang, panel 4 ridicule of store cop ( funny attire)

Was there a sale of Wertham's research materials?

Edited August 29, 2022 by jpepx78

[Cat-Man_America]

On 8/28/2022 at 10:14 PM, jpepx78 said:

It would quite interesting if that Millie 17 comic is an actual comic that Wertham used to compile notes. Maybe the book was used by another comics censor. Millie 17 was on sale Dec 1948 and the Association of Comics Magazine Publishers (ACMP) adopted a comics code on July 1 1948.

ACMP Publishers Code of 1948
    1.    Sexy, wanton comics should not be published. No drawing should show a female indecently or unduly exposed, and in no event more nude than in a bathing suit commonly worn in the United States of America.
    2.    Crime should not be presented in such a way as to throw sympathy against the law and justice or to inspire others with the desire for imitation. No comics shall show the details and methods of a crime committed by a youth. Policemen, judges, Government officials, and respected institutions should not be portrayed as stupid, ineffective, or represented in such a way to weaken respect for established authority.
    3.    No scenes of sadistic torture should be shown.
    4.    Vulgar and obscene language should never be used. Slang should be kept to a minimum and used only when essential to the story.
    5.    Divorce should not be treated humorously or represented as glamorous or alluring.
    6.    Ridicule or attack on any religious or racial group is never permissible.

Here is my theory if that book was used by Wertham or another comics censor. The circle and check mark codes on the pages would designate offensive or objectionable content on the pages and the position of the marks would correspond to the location of the offending panels. The marks would designate violations of the code.
One of the marks may mean a serious violation and the other a minor violation.

Here are my interpretations of the marks on your pages while referencing the above comics code.

Millie cover: boobie & scanty swimsuit pic
Examples: Millie pages 5, 7, 9, 13, 15.
Page 5 panels 2 & 5 some upskirt views.

Page 7 panel 6 butt photo

Page 9 panels 2, 3, 4, 6 jiggly butt & boobs

Page 13 panels 1, 2, 3, 6 jiggly butt & boobs, panels 4 & 6 offensive portrayal of store cop (authority)

Page 15 panels 1 & 6 boobies & slang, panel 4 ridicule of store cop ( funny attire)

Was there a sale of Wertham's research materials?

I'm going to stick my neck out ...see image in spoiler below... and say that there's a good possibility that these pages could've been set aside by Wertham or his assistants as examples of offensive material under existing guidelines.  

Wertham himself may or may not have seen this material, but it makes sense that this might've been collected as research.  In recent years there've been claims made that some of the research for SOTI was constructed, put forward without actual studies.  I have no way of ascertaining the validity of those claims, but it doesn't make materials less historically relevant if they weren't used, but set aside to bolster his sensationalized claims of rampant juvenile delinquency caused by comics.   In fact, it fits in quite well if these are authentic research materials, even if he never saw them.  It might explain why a backing board has his name in caps and panels coded for his review.  

Also worth noting is that Millie the Model #17 had an anti-censorship editorial.  Wertham very well might've been irked by the blowback he was getting from publishers and other colleagues.  The $64,000 dollar question: Could SOTI have been the product of spite?

Spoiler

Edited August 31, 2022 by Cat-Man_America
Ale added!

[gadzukes]

On 8/28/2022 at 10:39 PM, Mucheee1 said:

I wonder if the circles and check marks annotated on the top of the pages correspond with a panel on the page that had some specific info he was tabulating for his research.

I think you've got something here....

This Millie page has the most notation marks at the top corner.  And they seem to correspond with the panels (one for each panel).

But.... what does a circle mean and what does a check mark mean?

[gadzukes]

Now this page only has 1 notation in the top corner, a check mark.

I can only see 1 possibly offensive panel (3rd panel)

Is the check mark in relation to that panel?

[gadzukes]

And then this splash page has a circle notation. 

I don't see anything offensive so perhaps the circle means "this is fine"

[gadzukes]

Here's a copy of the Anti-Censorship editorial that was ripped out of this comic if you're interested.

[ThothAmon]

If all this conjecture is true the circles are most likely zeros. Meaning nothing offensive on this page. Two columns, one for sex one for violence?  Torn out pages were offensive with their jiggly boobies and such. Cool book. 

[gadzukes]

On 8/29/2022 at 11:43 AM, ThothAmon said:

If all this conjecture is true the circles are most likely zeros. Meaning nothing offensive on this page. Two columns, one for sex one for violence?  Torn out pages were offensive with their jiggly boobies and such. Cool book. 

I actually think the torn out pages were the "not offensive" pages.  These pages that are left have all the notations and jiggly boobies/butts.

But I agree that the circles probably meant "nothing Offensive"

There's not really any violence in a Millie comic so I don't think your 2 column theory applies here.

 

Edited August 29, 2022 by gadzukes

[Robot Man]

Interesting. I have collected censorship books since the mid 1970’s. I have never heard of this. It does stand to reason that he would have “file copies” to back up his accusations and research. One would wonder what would have happened to them? If this book was indeed in his possession, it would be very historical. Nice find and observation! 

[OtherEric]

Fascinating find, thanks for sharing.

Paging @SOTIcollector

[SOTIcollector]

Very cool find!

It seems that Wertham held onto some, but not all, of the comics that he used in his research.

He died in 1981, and his materials were donated to the Library of Congress.  At some point the Library of Congress realized it had duplicates in the material and sold off some extras.  So some items that Wertham had definitely ended up in the hands of collectors.  One boardie has the copy of the 1951 New York Legislature report on comics that Wertham used to own, and which the LOC sold off.

What remained in the Library of Congress was, I believe, one copy of each distinct comic that Wertham had.  I have photos of those comics from the Wertham files from about 2013, after the LOC opened the files up to researchers.  Those comics have very distinctive pen markings on them.  Those pen markings matched Wertham's handwriting, and those markings don't match what I'm seeing here.   I'm not saying this wasn't Wertham's writing, only that it doesn't match the notations I recall seeing.  I'll have to dig those photos out and do a comparison.

Of course, this could have been something by Hilde Mosse or one of Wertham's other assistants who worked with him.   The "Wertham's Copy" notation is particularly interesting.  Somebody wrote that, and whoever wrote it thought that information correct and was significant.  It's definitely a really cool finding.  Gotta run, now... more thought and maybe photos when I get a chance.  

Edited August 29, 2022 by SOTIcollector

[gadzukes]

NOTE* - I do not remember EVER buying something advertised as a  "Wertham copy" and because of the historical significance you'd think I would remember something like that.  I do like buying nice looking GGA from time to time (even if it's incomplete).  So I believe I must have bought a "lot" of MIllie, and perhaps this was mixed in, and I just overlooked the messy Wertham notation on the backing board.  Definitely interesting.

[SOTIcollector]

On 8/29/2022 at 2:26 PM, gadzukes said:

NOTE* - I do not remember EVER buying something advertised as a  "Wertham copy" and because of the historical significance you'd think I would remember something like that.  I do like buying nice looking GGA from time to time (even if it's incomplete).  So I believe I must have bought a "lot" of MIllie, and perhaps this was mixed in, and I just overlooked the messy Wertham notation on the backing board.  Definitely interesting.

That's actually one thing that I'd say supports the theory that this was Wertham's book.  I can think of only two reasons why somebody might have written that.  One is that it actually was Wertham's book, and the other is that it's a forgery that somebody wanted to use to convince people it was Wertham's, probably to be able to sell the book for more than they'd otherwise get.  Given that you bought it without knowing that was there, it seems the forgery scenario is unlikely.  Forging something is pointless if the forger gets nothing out of it (although I suppose the case of forged-art-donor Mark Landis could be considered to disprove this notion).  

Wertham's files had a lot of comics, but a lot were also missing.  When I say "a lot", I mean all the classic SOTI books are absent (and I'm not referring to just Classic Comics/Classics Illustrated).  If you think of a SOTI book off the top of your head, it's probably not there.  I'll list some that aren't in his files:  Phantom Lady 17, Reform School Girl, Crime SuspenStories 20, True Crime #2 (the book Wertham cited as "dangerous" more than any other), Blue Beetle 54, Authentic Police Cases 6, Haunt of Fear 19, Crime and Punishment 59, Crime Detective 9, and so on.  What remains in his files are lots of Silver Age books from his research into a sequel to SOTI (like Rawhide Kid and Fantastic Four, among others) and some lesser-known books actually referenced (but not pictured) in SOTI, like Captain Marvel 101, Howdy Doody 6, and Hopalong Cassidy & the Mad Barber.

What happened to all of those classic books?  It's anybody's guess.  Could they have been sold off or given away by Wertham during his lifetime?  Sure.  In talking to old-time SOTI collectors, I have heard no stories about their existence.

Here's what some of Wertham's books at the Library of Congress look like.  They are consistently marked with a red ink.  The red seems to fade to purplish in some of these photos, but I think that was just the lighting.  They ink is typically reddish or pinkish.

Here's a sample of his handwriting, found inside Captain Marvel #101.

My interpretation of the handwriting:  "She first tells ab[out] his wild imaginations ref: what else?  Then she tells ab[out] his reading so many c-B's [Wertham's common abbreviation for comic books]"  

 

Typically, when Wertham would find an offending panel, there would be a notation in the margin singling out particular panels. 

From page 88 of SOTI (quoting a child): 

I don't think they should read Captain Marvel. Look at this one with all the pictures of the man without his head! 

 

Here's Wertham's Hopalong Cassidy & the Mad Barber from the Library of Congress files.  In the second picture, what looks like a marking in the middle panel is actually bleed-through of the pen from the other side.

From pp. 308-309 of SOTI:  

Children have shown me a comic book which mothers must think is "good." It is produced by one of the biggest comic-book publishers, is given away free by a famous-brand food manufacturer and has the name of Hopalong Cassidy on it. It shows an insane" barber running loose with a sharp razor. He ties an old man to the barber's chair, brandishing a razor.
The old man: "He's stropping the razor! And he's got that mad look on his face! He'll cut my throat! GULP!"
A close-up follows with the face of the old man bound to the chair, the face of the barber, the knife and the neck. The same 
scene is shown a second time, and a third. Then comes Hoppy, twists the barber's arm backward and knocks him out so he sees stars: "WHAM!"
I have talked to children about this book. They do not say this book is about the West, or about Hopalong Cassidy, or about a barber. They say it is about killing and socking people and twisting their arms and cutting their throats.

 

Here's the Howdy Doody #6 in Wertham's files.  The note on the front has Wertham's -script at the bottom, but it's unclear to me whether the printing "Even Howdy Doody - See television has race hatred" is Wertham's.  

Wertham had a lot of problems with the comics he saw, including the grammar.  Here, it seems he was upset about the "Whaddya."

He wasn't wrong, though, in calling out the racist stereotypes in comics.  In fact, Wertham was ahead of the curve when it came to calling out racism.  Many don't know that his testimony in a Delaware court case, regarding the detrimental effect of segregation on students, was later used in the landmark Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka case.

So, there's what I know about Wertham's books.  I hope this helps.

Steve

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

Some good ideas here and interesting theories.

Here's mine;

I don't believe that Wertham, 'god bless 'im guv'nor' ever touched this book. I think it was a researcher ferreting out some 'dirt' for him.

Take this page for example. I think the O may have stood for 'offensive' and the tick was considered benign. If you apply that logic to this page for example, it would seem to fit.

1st panel O  bendy butt

2nd panel O bendy butt and boobs

3rd panel O prominent side boob

4th panel-tick  innocuous

5th panel-tick  innocuous

6th panel O bendy woman again

It's ridiculous to claim any of this was suggestive, but it was a ridiculous time back then, was it not? 

[gadzukes]

On 8/29/2022 at 9:42 PM, SOTIcollector said:

That's actually one thing that I'd say supports the theory that this was Wertham's book.  I can think of only two reasons why somebody might have written that.  One is that it actually was Wertham's book, and the other is that it's a forgery that somebody wanted to use to convince people it was Wertham's, probably to be able to sell the book for more than they'd otherwise get.  Given that you bought it without knowing that was there, it seems the forgery scenario is unlikely.  Forging something is pointless if the forger gets nothing out of it (although I suppose the case of forged-art-donor Mark Landis could be considered to disprove this notion).  

Wertham's files had a lot of comics, but a lot were also missing.  When I say "a lot", I mean all the classic SOTI books are absent (and I'm not referring to just Classic Comics/Classics Illustrated).  If you think of a SOTI book off the top of your head, it's probably not there.  I'll list some that aren't in his files:  Phantom Lady 17, Reform School Girl, Crime SuspenStories 20, True Crime #2 (the book Wertham cited as "dangerous" more than any other), Blue Beetle 54, Authentic Police Cases 6, Haunt of Fear 19, Crime and Punishment 59, Crime Detective 9, and so on.  What remains in his files are lots of Silver Age books from his research into a sequel to SOTI (like Rawhide Kid and Fantastic Four, among others) and some lesser-known books actually referenced (but not pictured) in SOTI, like Captain Marvel 101, Howdy Doody 6, and Hopalong Cassidy & the Mad Barber.

What happened to all of those classic books?  It's anybody's guess.  Could they have been sold off or given away by Wertham during his lifetime?  Sure.  In talking to old-time SOTI collectors, I have heard no stories about their existence.

Here's what some of Wertham's books at the Library of Congress look like.  They are consistently marked with a red ink.  The red seems to fade to purplish in some of these photos, but I think that was just the lighting.  They ink is typically reddish or pinkish.

Here's a sample of his handwriting, found inside Captain Marvel #101.

My interpretation of the handwriting:  "She first tells ab[out] his wild imaginations ref: what else?  Then she tells ab[out] his reading so many c-B's [Wertham's common abbreviation for comic books]"  

 

Typically, when Wertham would find an offending panel, there would be a notation in the margin singling out particular panels. 

From page 88 of SOTI (quoting a child): 

I don't think they should read Captain Marvel. Look at this one with all the pictures of the man without his head! 

 

Here's Wertham's Hopalong Cassidy & the Mad Barber from the Library of Congress files.  In the second picture, what looks like a marking in the middle panel is actually bleed-through of the pen from the other side.

From pp. 308-309 of SOTI:  

Children have shown me a comic book which mothers must think is "good." It is produced by one of the biggest comic-book publishers, is given away free by a famous-brand food manufacturer and has the name of Hopalong Cassidy on it. It shows an insane" barber running loose with a sharp razor. He ties an old man to the barber's chair, brandishing a razor.
The old man: "He's stropping the razor! And he's got that mad look on his face! He'll cut my throat! GULP!"
A close-up follows with the face of the old man bound to the chair, the face of the barber, the knife and the neck. The same 
scene is shown a second time, and a third. Then comes Hoppy, twists the barber's arm backward and knocks him out so he sees stars: "WHAM!"
I have talked to children about this book. They do not say this book is about the West, or about Hopalong Cassidy, or about a barber. They say it is about killing and socking people and twisting their arms and cutting their throats.

 

Here's the Howdy Doody #6 in Wertham's files.  The note on the front has Wertham's --script at the bottom, but it's unclear to me whether the printing "Even Howdy Doody - See television has race hatred" is Wertham's.  

Wertham had a lot of problems with the comics he saw, including the grammar.  Here, it seems he was upset about the "Whaddya."

He wasn't wrong, though, in calling out the racist stereotypes in comics.  In fact, Wertham was ahead of the curve when it came to calling out racism.  Many don't know that his testimony in a Delaware court case, regarding the detrimental effect of segregation on students, was later used in the landmark Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka case.

So, there's what I know about Wertham's books.  I hope this helps.

Steve

Steve, so much great info there.  Thanks for sharing.  I just love the education I get from being on the boards.

Well, the markings in my comic don't even come close to matching Wertham's markings.  Mine were done by someone else, but... maybe a colleague? It's a mystery until someone else finds a similar comic with similar markings.  Maybe someone else on the boards with knowledge can chime in if they see this thread.

One final thing I wanted to say about my Millie comic is... it looks brand new, the cover is actually amazing... like it was bought and someone opened it up and gutted it, tearing pages out.  It doesn't have any of the normal wear you see on a comic from this age.  And the little "code" markings are extremely tiny.

[gadzukes]

On 8/29/2022 at 9:58 PM, GG © ® ™---Paul said:

Some good ideas here and interesting theories.

Here's mine;

I don't believe that Wertham, 'god bless 'im guv'nor' ever touched this book. I think it was a researcher ferreting out some 'dirt' for him.

Take this page for example. I think the O may have stood for 'offensive' and the tick was considered benign. If you apply that logic to this page for example, it would seem to fit.

1st panel O  bendy butt

2nd panel O bendy butt and boobs

3rd panel O prominent side boob

4th panel-tick  innocuous

5th panel-tick  innocuous

6th panel O bendy woman again

It's ridiculous to claim any of this was suggestive, but it was a ridiculous time back then, was it not? 

Yes..... the "code" seems to work the way you detail it.  

What I would like to know is if someone else out there has a similar book to corroborate my book.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 8/30/2022 at 3:04 AM, gadzukes said:

Yes..... the "code" seems to work the way you detail it.  

What I would like to know is if someone else out there has a similar book to corroborate my book.

I'm guessing a few of us may have had books like this before but had no idea what they were and just assumed it was some random kid's scribblings.

I'm almost sure I've seen these type of markings before across the years.