Historic acquisition, my last of 2023 2 2

[SOTIcollector]

Since I was digging around in the archives, I thought I'd pull out one of the precursors to the anti-comic-book efforts.  Because prior to comic books rotting kiddies' brains, the comic strips were apparently doing the exact same thing.  The anti-comic-book efforts echoed many of the same themes as the anti-comic-strip efforts.  Case in point:  Ladies' Home Journal, January, 1909.

[Telegan]

On 1/4/2024 at 5:55 PM, SOTIcollector said:

Since I was digging around in the archives, I thought I'd pull out one of the precursors to the anti-comic-book efforts.  Because prior to comic books rotting kiddies' brains, the comic strips were apparently doing the exact same thing.  The anti-comic-book efforts echoed many of the same themes as the anti-comic-strip efforts.  Case in point:  Ladies' Home Journal, January, 1909.

 

"Now I ask, in all possible fairness, where is the first glint of humor, of fun, or ofthe comic element in this gibberish?"

lolol.

So whackadoodles existed back then, too?

[Jayman]

On 1/4/2024 at 7:09 PM, Telegan said:

So whackadoodles existed back then, too?

So sad that no one saw fit to point out the potential for children (or adults) to broaden their imagination by enjoying the artistic creativity in many of these strips or comics. They provided escapism, humor and relaxation for many, I’m sure.

[Telegan]

On 1/4/2024 at 6:48 PM, Jayman said:

So sad that no one saw fit to point out the potential for children (or adults) to broaden their imagination by enjoying the artistic creativity in many of these strips or comics. They provided escapism, humor and relaxation for many, I’m sure.

It's even nuttier that they're referencing this when stating that :

Those people took their comic strips SERIOUSLY.

[Cat-Man_America]

If I could locate my copy of the monthly OAFzine circa late 1969 early '70 ...best recollection... there's a three page satirical comic send-up of Fredric Wertham titled "Fredric Worthnone, MD."

The art is terrible, partially because it was all done via ditto master; I did my best to create Bill Elder style comments in panels which in retrospect may be its only saving grace. Note: For those unfamiliar with ditto-masters, they're basically purplish carbons under a top sheet that can be used a limited number of times to produce a small run of fanzines. The membership of OAF was around 60 or 70 at the time so copies got very faint toward the end of the run. In doing art one had to bear down to the point of punching through the paper most of the time.

Bart Bush and David Smith were the OAFzine editors. Our membership increased to the point where we had to go offset shortly after this with a dues hike to keep the zine going.  Also, ...and this is the kicker... Fredric Wertham actually joined OAF around this time as he was researching fanzines for another book.  Haven't a clue whether he ever saw my comic strip, but gratefully no legal action was taken! 

Edited January 5 by Cat-Man_America
ALE!

[Bookery]

On 1/4/2024 at 11:18 AM, Professor K said:

I think he did all this for notoriety and self promotion which leads to money. It was all about money to him. Just like Al Gore's wife Tipper and that whole PMRC nonsense in the 1980's. Publicity and self promotion in the guise of "We're doing this to help you because we care". "For your children". It's an old playbook that they still use today and probably always will , because it works. 

Probably.  But I think we tend to believe money is behind all motivation.  I think a lot more people are driven by the desire for fame and attention than actual money.  And I think it's an over-simplification to dismiss Wertham merely as a mustache-twirling villain.  There are two other factors that came into play in the 1950s.

First, for whatever cultural reason, in America (unlike Europe or Japan) society couldn't conceive that comic books might be produced for all ages... comics were a product that simply had to be designed for children.  If you look at it from this perspective, then yes, comics were truly pushing the boundaries of what would be acceptable for young ages.  Second, the publishers and newsstands were not without blame themselves.  They made no attempt to put warnings and suggestions on some titles that they were meant for teens or older, because the publishers didn't want to lose any sales, including those to children (see... the whole "money" thing goes both ways).  Let's be honest... these same exact stories in some of those comics, re-packaged today, 2024, with modern art so that we can distance from the "historical artifact" nature of the originals, would still receive a "not for children" label or an age-appropriateness range on the cover.  No movie in the 1950s, no matter what the target age, contained the level of gore and violence that was available in comics racked right next to Little Lulu and Stumbo the Giant.  It's curious that newsstand operators who would never think of selling a child a copy of the pulps Horror Stories or Weird Tales (stories that had to be read at length to get to the salacious parts) never gave a second thought to selling a 9-year old comics with gore and sexual innuendo to be seen at once just by flipping open the book.

So like all things in history, it gets complicated.  Should those comics in the '50s have been banned?  Of course not.  Should some effort have been made to categorize them into age-appropriate sectors so that parents could decide for their families?  Probably.  Also, with all things history, it will be endlessly repeated.  70 years later the debate continues on where is the line between separating by age-appropriate, and what is considered to be book banning.

History is rarely black-and-white, and if it was it would be pretty dull.  What makes it fascinating, for those willing to put in the work, it to study the complications, layers, and to see things in the context of the times in which they existed.  This is why the SOTIcollectors of the world are to be commended for not only preserving the historical artifacts themselves, but for periodically bringing the stories behind them to our attention lest it all be forgotten.

[fishbone]

On 1/3/2024 at 7:32 PM, pemart1966 said:

"Back in the 1950's, the entire US comic book business was nearly put out of business by people who said the content was inappropriate for kids." 

There's absolutely no doubt that some of the content was inappropriate for younger children...

That being said, kids being kids would no doubt seek that out 

Yes, I think we just gloss over the actual content and ridicule him and his "arguments", and some were definitely ridiculous - some of those covers, Man !! - I love them, and I have collected several of them, but even with today's standards they are "questionable". I am no defender of Wertham, but c'mon , things were going too far for sure. If these were adult-only books, no problem go for it, but I wouldn't have wanted my kids looking or reading that stuff as young kids in the 1950's or the 2020's .........

[fishbone]

On 1/5/2024 at 8:30 AM, Bookery said:

Probably.  But I think we tend to believe money is behind all motivation.  I think a lot more people are driven by the desire for fame and attention than actual money.  And I think it's an over-simplification to dismiss Wertham merely as a mustache-twirling villain.  There are two other factors that came into play in the 1950s.

First, for whatever cultural reason, in America (unlike Europe or Japan) society couldn't conceive that comic books might be produced for all ages... comics were a product that simply had to be designed for children.  If you look at it from this perspective, then yes, comics were truly pushing the boundaries of what would be acceptable for young ages.  Second, the publishers and newsstands were not without blame themselves.  They made no attempt to put warnings and suggestions on some titles that they were meant for teens or older, because the publishers didn't want to lose any sales, including those to children (see... the whole "money" thing goes both ways).  Let's be honest... these same exact stories in some of those comics, re-packaged today, 2024, with modern art so that we can distance from the "historical artifact" nature of the originals, would still receive a "not for children" label or an age-appropriateness range on the cover.  No movie in the 1950s, no matter what the target age, contained the level of gore and violence that was available in comics racked right next to Little Lulu and Stumbo the Giant.  It's curious that newsstand operators who would never think of selling a child a copy of the pulps Horror Stories or Weird Tales (stories that had to be read at length to get to the salacious parts) never gave a second thought to selling a 9-year old comics with gore and sexual innuendo to be seen at once just by flipping open the book.

So like all things in history, it gets complicated.  Should those comics in the '50s have been banned?  Of course not.  Should some effort have been made to categorize them into age-appropriate sectors so that parents could decide for their families?  Probably.  Also, with all things history, it will be endlessly repeated.  70 years later the debate continues on where is the line between separating by age-appropriate, and what is considered to be book banning.

History is rarely black-and-white, and if it was it would be pretty dull.  What makes it fascinating, for those willing to put in the work, it to study the complications, layers, and to see things in the context of the times in which they existed.  This is why the SOTIcollectors of the world are to be commended for not only preserving the historical artifacts themselves, but for periodically bringing the stories behind them to our attention lest it all be forgotten.

perfectly said

[Professor K]

On 1/5/2024 at 8:30 AM, Bookery said:

Probably.  But I think we tend to believe money is behind all motivation.  I think a lot more people are driven by the desire for fame and attention than actual money.  And I think it's an over-simplification to dismiss Wertham merely as a mustache-twirling villain.  There are two other factors that came into play in the 1950s.

First, for whatever cultural reason, in America (unlike Europe or Japan) society couldn't conceive that comic books might be produced for all ages... comics were a product that simply had to be designed for children.  If you look at it from this perspective, then yes, comics were truly pushing the boundaries of what would be acceptable for young ages.  Second, the publishers and newsstands were not without blame themselves.  They made no attempt to put warnings and suggestions on some titles that they were meant for teens or older, because the publishers didn't want to lose any sales, including those to children (see... the whole "money" thing goes both ways).  Let's be honest... these same exact stories in some of those comics, re-packaged today, 2024, with modern art so that we can distance from the "historical artifact" nature of the originals, would still receive a "not for children" label or an age-appropriateness range on the cover.  No movie in the 1950s, no matter what the target age, contained the level of gore and violence that was available in comics racked right next to Little Lulu and Stumbo the Giant.  It's curious that newsstand operators who would never think of selling a child a copy of the pulps Horror Stories or Weird Tales (stories that had to be read at length to get to the salacious parts) never gave a second thought to selling a 9-year old comics with gore and sexual innuendo to be seen at once just by flipping open the book.

So like all things in history, it gets complicated.  Should those comics in the '50s have been banned?  Of course not.  Should some effort have been made to categorize them into age-appropriate sectors so that parents could decide for their families?  Probably.  Also, with all things history, it will be endlessly repeated.  70 years later the debate continues on where is the line between separating by age-appropriate, and what is considered to be book banning.

History is rarely black-and-white, and if it was it would be pretty dull.  What makes it fascinating, for those willing to put in the work, it to study the complications, layers, and to see things in the context of the times in which they existed.  This is why the SOTIcollectors of the world are to be commended for not only preserving the historical artifacts themselves, but for periodically bringing the stories behind them to our attention lest it all be forgotten.

Good post good points. Won't address them all but I will say fame and attention result in money. It doesn't matter his motive I suppose but I've seen enough of these kind of people in my life to conclude with near certainty that he was "only in it for the money". To me more likely than that he cared so much for American children that he went to the extremes he did. 

I agree that putting a label on comics that says "Not intended for children", "Contains Adult Material" or similar would have been much better than what they eventually did, but even that I'm kind of against. They were going to start putting labels on everything anyway so might as well have put them on comics in the mid 50's rather than just water down the whole medium. 

[Professor K]

On 1/4/2024 at 6:35 PM, Jayman said:

Wertham vs. Dr.Phibes himself!

would love to see that debate. 

Well I don't know anything about Dr Phibes but I would love to see what the great Vincent Price and Agent 99 had to say to him. By the way she is 90 years old. Price and Feldon are both really smart people and probably made some great point/counterpoints. 

[pemart1966]

On 1/5/2024 at 1:54 PM, fishbone said:

Yes, I think we just gloss over the actual content and ridicule him and his "arguments", and some were definitely ridiculous - some of those covers, Man !! - I love them, and I have collected several of them, but even with today's standards they are "questionable". I am no defender of Wertham, but c'mon , things were going too far for sure. If these were adult-only books, no problem go for it, but I wouldn't have wanted my kids looking or reading that stuff as young kids in the 1950's or the 2020's .........

Agreed - no way I would have let my kids read some of that - even in today's world...kids are only kids once...

Edited January 7 by pemart1966

[fifties]

On 1/5/2024 at 5:30 AM, Bookery said:

Probably.  But I think we tend to believe money is behind all motivation.  I think a lot more people are driven by the desire for fame and attention than actual money.  And I think it's an over-simplification to dismiss Wertham merely as a mustache-twirling villain.  There are two other factors that came into play in the 1950s.

First, for whatever cultural reason, in America (unlike Europe or Japan) society couldn't conceive that comic books might be produced for all ages... comics were a product that simply had to be designed for children.  If you look at it from this perspective, then yes, comics were truly pushing the boundaries of what would be acceptable for young ages.  Second, the publishers and newsstands were not without blame themselves.  They made no attempt to put warnings and suggestions on some titles that they were meant for teens or older, because the publishers didn't want to lose any sales, including those to children (see... the whole "money" thing goes both ways).  Let's be honest... these same exact stories in some of those comics, re-packaged today, 2024, with modern art so that we can distance from the "historical artifact" nature of the originals, would still receive a "not for children" label or an age-appropriateness range on the cover.  No movie in the 1950s, no matter what the target age, contained the level of gore and violence that was available in comics racked right next to Little Lulu and Stumbo the Giant.  It's curious that newsstand operators who would never think of selling a child a copy of the pulps Horror Stories or Weird Tales (stories that had to be read at length to get to the salacious parts) never gave a second thought to selling a 9-year old comics with gore and sexual innuendo to be seen at once just by flipping open the book.

So like all things in history, it gets complicated.  Should those comics in the '50s have been banned?  Of course not.  Should some effort have been made to categorize them into age-appropriate sectors so that parents could decide for their families?  Probably.  Also, with all things history, it will be endlessly repeated.  70 years later the debate continues on where is the line between separating by age-appropriate, and what is considered to be book banning.

History is rarely black-and-white, and if it was it would be pretty dull.  What makes it fascinating, for those willing to put in the work, it to study the complications, layers, and to see things in the context of the times in which they existed.  This is why the SOTIcollectors of the world are to be commended for not only preserving the historical artifacts themselves, but for periodically bringing the stories behind them to our attention lest it all be forgotten.

Some good points, but I must dispute several.  Actually Dr. Wertham DID do some good things for society,  but this wasn't one of them, AFA those of us who enjoyed, and still do, the pre-code fare. 

In regards to, "They made no attempt to put warnings and suggestions on some titles" isn't entirely true; please see the the restriction on the enclosed.  That said, there were few of these, and frankly as a kid it would have only served to encourage buying the "forbidden".  

"No movie in the 1950s, no matter what the target age, contained the level of gore and violence that was available in comics"  Are you serious?  Take a look at damn near any Tom and Jerry cartoon, where they're slamming each other over the head with bats, or Western movies where guys get beat up or shot to death regularly.

AFA segregating comic books in the '50's, it's too bad that they couldn't have done what the Motion Picture Industry did with feature films about 15 years later, with the G, PG, R, & X labels.

 

[sfcityduck]

On 1/5/2024 at 10:54 AM, fishbone said:

Yes, I think we just gloss over the actual content and ridicule him and his "arguments", and some were definitely ridiculous - some of those covers, Man !! - I love them, and I have collected several of them, but even with today's standards they are "questionable". I am no defender of Wertham, but c'mon , things were going too far for sure. If these were adult-only books, no problem go for it, but I wouldn't have wanted my kids looking or reading that stuff as young kids in the 1950's or the 2020's .........

Which is why parents need to pay attention.  But censorship?  Not necessary.

[sfcityduck]

On 1/5/2024 at 12:03 AM, Cat-Man_America said:

If I could locate my copy of the monthly OAFzine circa late 1969 early '70 ...best recollection... there's a three page satirical comic send-up of Fredric Wertham titled "Fredric Worthnone, MD."

The art is terrible, partially because it was all done via ditto master; I did my best to create Bill Elder style comments in panels which in retrospect may be its only saving grace. Note: For those unfamiliar with ditto-masters, they're basically purplish carbons under a top sheet that can be used a limited number of times to produce a small run of fanzines. The membership of OAF was around 60 or 70 at the time so copies got very faint toward the end of the run. In doing art one had to bear down to the point of punching through the paper most of the time.

Bart Bush and David Smith were the OAFzine editors. Our membership increased to the point where we had to go offset shortly after this with a dues hike to keep the zine going.  Also, ...and this is the kicker... Fredric Wertham actually joined OAF around this time as he was researching fanzines for another book.  Haven't a clue whether he ever saw my comic strip, but gratefully no legal action was taken! 

That's awesome.  Would love to see it!

[Bookery]

On 1/5/2024 at 3:28 PM, fifties said:

"No movie in the 1950s, no matter what the target age, contained the level of gore and violence that was available in comics"  Are you serious?  Take a look at damn near any Tom and Jerry cartoon, where they're slamming each other over the head with bats, or Western movies where guys get beat up or shot to death regularly.

 

AFA segregating comic books in the '50's, it's too bad that they couldn't have done what the Motion Picture Industry did with feature films about 15 years later, with the G, PG, R, & X labels.

 

 

As a one-time film major, I can assure you that nothing produced in the '50s came close to the levels of gore found in comics.  There were a couple of drive-in horror movies that showed decapitated heads... but even these looked like the mannequins that they were, and there was very little if any blood associated with them.  Most westerns showed no blood, or maybe a small patch on a shoulder wound.  Meanwhile comics books were having eyeballs poked out, disemboweled guts strewn around a baseball field, body parts being ripped off.  Even the kind of routine gun violence displayed in a typical crime comic didn't see the big screen until the late 1960s with Bonnie and Clyde and The Wild Bunch.  

Yes, ratings on anything didn't appear until the latter '60s with an evolving MPAA system.  In some ways, these actually freed up creativity in films.  Prior, all films had to be made viewable for all audiences.  While some in the '50s and early '60s certainly had mature themes, they would generally have gone over the heads of any child viewing, as they were treated without overt graphic depictions.  But again, I think magazine vendors and newsstands bear some responsibility here.  Not then, nor now, are there ratings on novels.  It was assumed a bookseller would know enough not to sell Lady Chatterley's Lover or Lolita to a minor.  There were adult paperbacks beginning in the latter '50s, but vendors would stock these apart from other books.  It's partially, if not primarily, because adults (parents and vendors) paid so little attention to comics that they just assumed everything was like Superman or Donald Duck.  When Wertham and others capitalized on this lack of awareness, it created a panic.

[sfcityduck]

Dave Wigransky's take on an anti-Wertham strip from 1948.  Wertham would have loved it -- to use against delinquents like Dave:

See here for a great article on the above:  https://library.osu.edu/site/cartoons/2016/02/23/guest-post-found-in-the-collection-the-uncanny-adventures-of-i-hate-dr-wertham/

 

[fifties]

On 1/5/2024 at 12:51 PM, Bookery said:

  It's partially, if not primarily, because adults (parents and vendors) paid so little attention to comics that they just assumed everything was like Superman or Donald Duck.  When Wertham and others capitalized on this lack of awareness, it created a panic.

No, the panic started apart from anything Wertham did, and well before the 1954 publication of SOTI and the Senate committee hearing he was involved in.  There was a furor in '48, and then again about '52-'53.

[adamstrange]

Pre-code comics were far more extreme in their depiction of adult-related images/topics in comparison to movies.

Movie ratings weren't used until the industry abandoned the Code, which had governed all widely-released films in the US from 1934 - 1968.

"On June 13, 1934, an amendment to the Code was adopted, which established the Production Code Administration (PCA) and required all films released on or after July 1, 1934, to obtain a certificate of approval before being released. The PCA had two offices: one in Hollywood and the other in New York City. The first film to receive an MPPDA seal of approval was The World Moves On (1934). For over 30 years, virtually all motion pictures produced in the United States adhered to the code."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code

[sfcityduck]

On 1/5/2024 at 4:00 PM, adamstrange said:

Pre-code comics were far more extreme in their depiction of adult-related images/topics in comparison to movies.

Movie ratings weren't used until the industry abandoned the Code, which had governed all widely-released films in the US from 1934 - 1968.

"On June 13, 1934, an amendment to the Code was adopted, which established the Production Code Administration (PCA) and required all films released on or after July 1, 1934, to obtain a certificate of approval before being released. The PCA had two offices: one in Hollywood and the other in New York City. The first film to receive an MPPDA seal of approval was The World Moves On (1934). For over 30 years, virtually all motion pictures produced in the United States adhered to the code."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code

First scene censored by the Hays Code from Tarzan and His Mate:

 

[Bookery]

On 1/5/2024 at 3:51 PM, Bookery said:

Yes, ratings on anything didn't appear until the latter '60s with an evolving MPAA system.  

Hate to quote myself, but I want to correct a bit of an error here.  Technically, the Comics Code Authority was a ratings system.  There was no law that stated a comic had to carry the seal.  The seal merely meant that the comic had to meet certain stringent requirements.  Comic companies chose to self-censor rather than risk newsstands refusing to carry their product.  Yet Dell (and later Gold Key) refused to carry the seal, feeling their product already met those requirements.  And if anything, Dell increased the amount of their product released after the Code, while other companies reduced titles or went out of business altogether.  Fawcett, for example, probably felt it wasn't worth the hassle... they had already lost their flagship title due to the DC lawsuit, and comics were only a small portion of their publication empire.  They continued on under the Pines imprint, but mostly concentrated on their magazine output, and their highly successful Gold Medal paperback line, which catered especially to an adult market (no codes required).  By the mid-60s certainly the entire underground comics movement made no effort to adhere to the CCA.

Some (or a lot) of the responsibility must be given to the publishers themselves.  They could have designed their own mature-audience label (or ages 15+, as an example) and requested these comics be racked separately along with the men's adventure mags and more exploitative tabloids.  Maybe the newsstands would have complied, maybe not.  But it wasn't as if the newsstands in 1950s America were particularly prudish.  They carried plenty of men's "action" titles.  Magazines like Titter and others had nudity within, and carried pictorials of Bettie Page and others.  Playboy debuted in 1953 and ushered in a plethora of sex-oriented titles like Gent, Adam, Satan, etc. Tabloids showed actual murder victims on their covers.  Comic publishers had backed themselves into a corner.  They wanted to expand into more mature stories, but had already branded themselves as a kids' product.  They made no effort to indicate any transition via labeling or marketing.  Remember all of those comic book spinner racks?  The banners read "Hey Kids! Comics!", not "Comic Books for All Readers" or separate racks for older readers.  The writers and artists at comic book companies wanted to tell stories beyond just the funny animal genre.  But the publishing companies themselves continued to market it as a children's product.  

Motion pictures had already begun pushing the boundaries of the code in the '50s.  An entire genre, film noir, began post-WW2 and particularly catered to mature audiences.  Though there was no rating system applied to these films, they reached their desired audience through marketing.  Kids weren't likely to attend them without an adult.  They didn't play Saturday matinees.  The trailers made it clear these films weren't meant for kids, but for their parents.  Comic publishers could have begun separating out and marketing their product similarly... but chose not to.