Musings on the ten cent plague book

[Dr.J.]

This book,by David hajdu,is a MUST read book, for all comic fans.It details the legestlation to outlaw the selling of comics,and the burning of them,in the period between 1949 to 1955.Comics became the scapegoat for the growing juvinile delinquency problem.recent headlines,of such as kids ploting to kill their teacher,or teenage girls beating the crap out of another one,would 50 years ago, been blamed on the replacement for comics,rock and roll. 55 years ago, comics would have been blamed.This war was a brutal ugly war,waged not just on the publishers,and destroying their product. It was one that even had kids pounding the crap out of other kids,who dared to go into stores to buy a comic.Many wanted to jail as criminals,anyone involved in producing and distributing comics.This war cast a very long shadow all through the rest of the 1950s,well into the 1970's.The anti comic fanatics,came from the ranks of the then powerful PTA ,womens groups,churches,particulary catholic schools.How many where burned or burried in dumps? My guess would be tens of millions of them.That's why so many "golden age' books today are so scarce and expensive. You can bet along with kids having their books seized and burned by parents, they also recieved VERY stern punishments.For many years after this war, mothers would take the oppertunity when their boy would depart for collage or the service, to get rid of his books. When there was SO much bad things said for so long about comics,well,it lasts for decades afterword..Many of us who grew up after the code came to pass, either didnt know a culteral war had been fought over comics,or how nasty it was.We didnt understand, why So many people hated comics,and gave us so much crap for reading and keeping them. And IF a kid expressed the desire to one day work for the comics, whew!! ! Back in early 1955, NO publisher,with the exception of dell and classics got away with not having it on their books. Non code approved books were destroyed by the thousands in 1955, renigades like ec,simply got their comics returned unopened. NOBODY dared to sell a non approved comic, for fear of being fined arrested,or more, thrown in jail.There were many anti comic book laws passed from 1948 to 1955,across the nation on a local and city level. my bet is that very few of them have ever been repeled, and are still on the books.

[Paradox]

I know it's rude, but...

Spaces go AFTER commas and paragraph breaks would make your posts a LOT more readable. It hurts my eyes just to try.

[Kirk G]

I know it's rude, but...

Spaces go AFTER commas and paragraph breaks would make your posts a LOT more readable. It hurts my eyes just to try.

You said it, Dox.

By the way, your avitar is really distracting, this week. It hurts my eyes just to try to not look at it! :biggrin:

[Kirk G]

PS: I took your advice and have requested my librarian lay in a copy of the book just yesterday. They are pretty good about honoring requests, as long as they aren't too expensive! I'll let you know what I think of it if and when it arrives!

[dan bailey]

My copy of the book arrived via Books-a-Million & UPS a couple of days ago. I'm diving into it even as I type (well, OK, that's an exaggeration ... rather, I'll be diviing back into it once I've submitted this).

It is, of course, sort of sad to see a few so-called fans on another thread (& of course outside CBR as well) have defended Wertham & the book-burners, but I guess it's to be expected, just as certain individuals can be expected to defend the craven cowards & jingoistic zealots who named names during the anticommunist witch hunts of the '50s.

Still, such sentiments & those espousing them sort of make my skin crawl. *sigh*

[Senormac]

Are you kidding? Are you telling me you don't see anything at all wrong with some of the books that the 50's brought to us??

This guy ....arrived in Portland Oregon....in one of only two cities in the country ...book promotions.....at Powells books......and my friend actually went to see him.....asked a question....bought the book and had it autographed........

This book is fantastic ....from what I have heard......and it correctly describes the atmosphere of the times......concerning Wertham.....(the scapegoat of the comics industry hatred)...... and the whole debacle that occured during that time.

[prince hal]

Are you kidding? Are you telling me you don't see anything at all wrong with some of the books that the 50's brought to us??

This book is fantastic ....from what I have heard......and it correctly describes the atmosphere of the times......concerning Wertham.....(the scapegoat of the comics industry hatred)...... and the whole debacle that occured during that time.

Gotta tell ya, Senor, it's tough to tell your point here.

Do you mean that you, or anyone, should be the arbiter not just of taste, but of what everyone else should be able to read? Wertham was nobody's scapegoat. William Gaines was.

And what is the debacle you refer to? If the book correctly describes the atmosphere of the times "from what you've heard" (not sure whether you mean the book or the times), then why do you seem so sympathetic to Wertham, whose methods undermined whatever pure motives he may have had?

[Senormac]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/Senormac/crimeheadoff.jpg

Heres a dime Johnny......go down and get yourself a comic book

[Cei-U!]

I'll be interested to see if the book mentions the Washington State Supreme Court's 1956 decision striking down an attempt by pressure groups and local government to block distribution of comic books as a violation of the First Amendment.

Cei-U!
I summon the local legal lore!

[dan bailey]

Heres a dime Johnny......go down and get yourself a comic book

Thank god filth like this disappeared from the newsstands, thereby ridding the U.S. of youth violence for the last 55-odd years!

[dan bailey]

I'll be interested to see if the book mentions the Washington State Supreme Court's 1956 decision striking down an attempt by pressure groups and local government to block distribution of comic books as a violation of the First Amendment.


I just checked the index & saw no listing for Washington State in any context, & the only Supreme Court listed is the U.S. Who knows?

[prince hal]

Hey, Senor, save yourself the dime, go on-line and read the Bill of Rights.

[Senormac]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/Senormac/crime19.jpg

Why? Because Hal said I could.....its in the Bill of Rights

[benday-dot]

Senormac... I think the difference here is leaving the nation's reading discretion up to a discussion between parents and their children, or letting Bid Daddy Politician decide what should and shouldn't be read. If the material is objectionable, should it be legislated out of existence so that no one can read it? Child, adolescent, or parent?

I happen to believe, that both those EC comics you chose are classic works of pop art culture. Wertham would have it so that their making would be all but impossible for a viable comics business to carry out. Comics were impoverished following the CCA. Artists and writers did their best, but they were in some cases ridiculously stifled. Only some years later would they rebound creatively.

As critic Jeet Heer said, these comics are innately part of the unruly spirit of youth. That is a spirit that does not lead to axe murderers, or spousal drownings, but is yet vibrant, real, and altogether unquenchable. EC celebrated that spirit, in artful fashion... and did its best to bring a dark and wondrous elan to an industry that too easily took the bland and indifferent path to its readers.

[dan bailey]

Good lord, Senormac, what are you sitting & wasting time & energy at a keyboard for?

There are books to burn!

Time's a-wastin'!

[MichikoS]

Dr. Fredric Wertham was misguided in his zealous belief that there was a causal link between "juvenile delinquency" and comic book reading.

In a larger context, his linking of media consumption and societal behavior was well ahead of its time. That's still being debated hotly today.

However, attacks against Wertham should be informed. He was no quack, but a trained physician who was medically well-versed in the brain's functioning. In the 1970's, he made a study of the fan subculture of comics epitomized by amateur fanzines, and published a book on the subject called The World of Fanzines, which was largely positive. His books are all available to read through inter-library loan.

The furor over comics in the 1950's was not caused by Wertham. He was certainly a lightning rod for the forces aligned against "bad literature," and his theories lent an air of scientific credence to pro-censorship groups. For all of that, he was a sincere and deeply thoughtful man whose name has become, unfairly, synonymous with "nutcase." He wasn't. He was just wrong.

Michi

[Senormac]

Thank you.

[Sir Tim Drake]

Everyone, please be civil to each other and address the argument, not the person who's making it.

[Sir Tim Drake]

Everyone, please be civil to each other and address the argument, not the person who's making it.

[Slam_Bradley]

Dr. Fredric Wertham was misguided in his zealous belief that there was a causal link between "juvenile delinquency" and comic book reading.

In a larger context, his linking of media consumption and societal behavior was well ahead of its time. That's still being debated hotly today.

However, attacks against Wertham should be informed. He was no quack, but a trained physician who was medically well-versed in the brain's functioning. In the 1970's, he made a study of the fan subculture of comics epitomized by amateur fanzines, and published a book on the subject called The World of Fanzines, which was largely positive. His books are all available to read through inter-library loan.

The furor over comics in the 1950's was not caused by Wertham. He was certainly a lightning rod for the forces aligned against "bad literature," and his theories lent an air of scientific credence to pro-censorship groups. For all of that, he was a sincere and deeply thoughtful man whose name has become, unfairly, synonymous with "nutcase." He wasn't. He was just wrong.

Michi


You're right, Wertham was a trained physician. And yet, inexplicably, he chose to publish the worst kind of pseudo-scientific gobbleydegook that was methodolically invalid, while at the same time ignoring a number of actual scientific studies that disputed his point. So regardless of his credentials he let furor and personal opinion overcome his scientific sense.

No, he was not alone. He shares blame with a ton of librarians teachers and civic do-gooders who were convinced they needed to SAVE America's youth from the perils of bad literature. If we let the government censor what the kids read then we don't have to worry about mommy and daddy actually having to monitor them or make decisions. And the kids can read wholesome government approved pablum.

I do agree with you that Wertham was wrong. However, he deserves every ounce of vitriol that he gets.

[dan bailey]

He shares blame with a ton of librarians teachers and civic do-gooders who were convinced they needed to SAVE America's youth from the perils of bad literature.

Just from skimming the book, I was rather taken aback to see (assuming my initital impression was correct) the sociologist C Wright Mills as one of the voices in the lynch mob, as it were. Mills was quite a hero to many in the nascent New Left -- quite a few of whom, of course, probably intitially learned to question authority as kids from reading comics like the ones in question.

[MichikoS]

I do agree with you that Wertham was wrong. However, he deserves every ounce of vitriol that he gets.Slam, we must agree to disagree on this point. There's plenty of blame to go around, as you point out, and rightly so: Politicians, educators, church and civic groups and librarians (ouch) were all complicit in propagating the hysteria. It's kind of like....well, today. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

Michi

[Senormac]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/Senormac/crime23.jpg

With apologies to Frank Jacobs:

See the man.......
he is a fisherman.....
he has a boat.......
on saturdays he likes to go fishing in his boat......
fish, fish, fish.......
he has never missed a saturday yet.......
thats because the fisherman is not married.......

See the woman........
she is the fishermans date.......
she does not like to fish, but she likes to talk.......
talk, talk, talk.........
she likes to talk about getting married......
she likes to talk about raising a family......
she likes to talk about buying a house......
she thinks fishing is a waste of time.......

the man is tired of listening to the woman talk about everything except fishing.....
he says fishermen should be quiet because fish can hear pretty good......
he is going to help the woman be a little quieter.......
hush, hush, hush.......
soon the woman will be very very quiet.......
and the man will be able to continue fishing ......
even though he is out of worms........

good thing he has his knife with him.

[Slam_Bradley]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/Senormac/crime23.jpg



I'm still waiting for your point.


And how it justifies censorship.

[Cei-U!]

Please stop "shouting" at us, Senormac. Your point can be made just as effectively in standard-size type.

Cei-U!
I summon the indoor voice!

[dan bailey]

I'm still waiting for your point.


And how it justifies censorship.

I presume his point is that Frank Jacobs, who wrote for Mad, which was a product of EC ... was one of the depraved people behind the lawlessness afflicting American youth in the early '50s? And/or was a murderer or at least thought it was cool?

Something like that.

[dan bailey]

Sir Tim --

Not telling you how to run the forum, god knows, but it's becoming quite clear to me that a certain person here is posting in this thread merely to bait many of the rest of us.

[Gilda Dent]

Are you kidding? Are you telling me you don't see anything at all wrong with some of the books that the 50's brought to us??

Oh absolutely, there were problems with some of the crime and horror books, many of which contained content that was inappropriate for impressionable kids. I have a reprint of every all of ECs horror, crime, sci-fi, fantasy, and war comics, and there are many I would not want my ten-year-old sister to read. My daughter won't be seeing them at all until she's of an age at which she can handle things.

Absolutely there was inappropriate content out there.

However, what is and is not appropriate reading material for the kids in my care is my decision to make, not that of a government regulatory agency, the PTA, Friends of the Family, or whatever other self-appointed censor wants to make that decision for me.

Some of these comics had very good material, strongly written and beautifully illustrated, and despite the often lurid content, evil is depicted as evil and good as good. ECs horror line in particular was filled with stories of poetic justice, of evil deeds being punished in often gruesome ways.

I can understand why people objected, and if and when they did, the proper solution was to prevent their own children from reading such comics, not to take the decision away from everyone by appointing themselves morality police and criminalizing speech and artistic expression of which they disapproved.

It's my decision as a parent what my kids read. I resent it when others take that decision away from me under the guise of moral authority.

[Senormac]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/Senormac/crime17.jpg


See the man.......
he is not a happy man......
he has been fretting about money.....
fret, fret, fret.........
he has been working two jobs to make ends meet.....
but his ends don't seem to be getting any closer......
his house payment is due......
his car payment is due....
his "Rush Limbaugh" tie of the month club dues, are due.......
fretting is hard work........

See the woman......
she does not fret about money......
she does not fret about anything.......
her motto is "I like to spend".......
spend, spend, spend........
where does she get the money she spends?........
from the fretting man, where else........

See the shiny gun.......
its full of shiny bullets.......
guns and bullets are dangerous......
especially when they are together.......
the man is pointing the shiny gun at his head......
the mans finger is pulling on the shiny trigger......
tighter, tighter, tighter..........
the mans fretting is about to come to an end......

the woman, however is about to start fretting big time.

[benday-dot]

Senormac, while your poems are kind of fun, they don't constitute any sort of argument for censorship. You need to present some facts as to how censorship improves the morality of the nation. The onus is on you as the censor, to show why you would deny an artform the chance to express itself. Are you suggesting a world without EC and Harvey and Key and all the others would go some ways toward reducing juvenile violence. Did such violence decline following the advent of the CCA?

Do you think you have proven such with these verses?

[Tetsuo_man]

At first i thought you were a right wingnut senor whatever. But posting that after all the great defenses of such ec comics including gilda's (in which she said what i think is everyone's thinking which is let us decide not the government but then again gilda has so many great posts all over the site). I think your just flame bait now man.

[prince hal]

There is a place where the government controls the flow of information...are these the guys we want telling us which books to read?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=pentagon+experts&st=nyt&oref=slogin

[Gothos]

Just from skimming the book, I was rather taken aback to see (assuming my initital impression was correct) the sociologist C Wright Mills as one of the voices in the lynch mob, as it were. Mills was quite a hero to many in the nascent New Left -- quite a few of whom, of course, probably intitially learned to question authority as kids from reading comics like the ones in question.

.

It's an eternal irony that many of the voices that one would think of as "liberal" have been known to call for censorship. (C Wright Mills, meet Tipper Gore.) Sometimes the rationale is that Big Money Interests are seducing our youth's innocence with their Fast Talk and Fancy Ways. Sometimes it's has more to do with a belief in positive social programming, as with Wertham's notion that young people were like blooms in a garden that had to be protected from adverse effects.

Either way is pretty bogus.

[MichikoS]

If we've learned anything at all about censorship in a free society (not saying we have, just saying if) it's that the would-be censors are often well-meaning and well-intentioned. "Let's protect the children." "Let's protect the minds of impressionable youth." "Let's protect people from their baser impulses." Etc. etc. etc. Their intentions, however, don't make them any less wrong. (Just like Dr. Wertham was wrong).

A free society is defined by individuals (yes, even, or perhaps especially, young people) deciding for themselves what they will see, read, view, and purchase.

The starting point for many discussions I have had with many well-intentioned parents who question books and other materials found on public library shelves is the Library Bill of Rights, drafted in 1938 by a librarian in Iowa and adopted by the American Library Association in 1948. It's been been revised several times since. The Library Bill of Rights is not a legal document, but a statement of principles vital to those of us in the profession. Here's a substantive excerpt:

The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide their services.

I. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.

II. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

III. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.

IV. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.

V. A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.

An important point to underscore is that in 1996, the American Library Association reaffirmed that age should not be the basis for denying access to information.

Michi

[MichikoS]

I finished TEN-CENT PLAGUE on the plane today, returning from Salt Lake City. It's actually quite gripping, in spite of its esoteric subject matter and the extensive personal interviews incorporated into the narrative. Aside from a few typos (Al Avison, Captain America artist, is listed in the appendix as "Al Alvison.") Also, the inclusion of Leslie Charteris and Mickey Spillane in the list of "[those] who never again worked in comics after the purge of the 1950's" is a little disingenuous, in my opinion.

Daniel Hajdu does an exceptionally fine job of teasing out the various sociological, political and commercial forces at play in the war against comics that took place in the 1940s and 1950s. One little tidbit that I did not know, and found fascinating, was that GORDON PARKS took the SOTI jacket photo of Wertham, and was friends with him from his work with the black community in his Harlem practice.

My only reservation about the book is one that Hadju applies to Wertham's inflammatory Seduction of the Innocent:

If, to many readers, the book appeared to be a serious treatment of a popular subject, it was elementally a popular treatment of a serious subject.

The same can be said of The Ten-Cent Plague. But that doesn't diminish its value. It's better written than many of the scholarly papers and monographs I've slogged through. Sir Tim?

Michi

[MDG]

I haven't had a chance to read the book yet, but I caught a couple of radio interviews with him and was struck by two things:

1) He didn't mention Wertham or SOTI, focusing on movements and legislation that sometimes pre-dated SOTI

2) His argument seems mainly sociological/political--he doesn't say that the comics themselves are well-done or "works of art" and needed to be protected on that basis

[Kid Monster]

Wertham also railed against Superman, conveniently ignoring the character's Jewish origins to cast him as a Nazi racist ("...with the big S on his uniform- we should, I suppose, be thankful that it is not an S.S." and "Superman has long been recognised as a symbol of violent race superiority... not only have (sic) "superhuman powers", but explicitly belongs to a "super-race"). And Batman and Robin? "A wish-dream of two homosexuals living together".

Good thing somebody went after that trash, eh?

[gToon]

Interesting discussion as it seems to mirror some of the debate written about in Hadju's excellent book.

Quick question: I'm writing a review of "Ten-Cent Plague" and I was wondering if contemporary comics have any sort of "approval" or "standards" committe/organization?

[Gilda Dent]

Interesting discussion as it seems to mirror some of the debate written about in Hadju's excellent book.

Quick question: I'm writing a review of "Ten-Cent Plague" and I was wondering if contemporary comics have any sort of "approval" or "standards" committe/organization?

The CCA still exists, but the only major major publishers left submitting books are DC and Archie. DC publishes books that aren't given the seal without it. It has virtually no power any longer, and there is in practical terms no external regulation of content.

The big publishers have voluntary internal rating systems that vary from publisher to publisher and are often questioned as to whether they accurately represent the content of the comics being published, with a couple of big objections in recent years being rape being used in all-ages comics or homosexuality requiring a mature label regardless of how explicitly it's portrayed.

[gToon]

Thanks for your quick reply, GD. I suspected as much, but wasn't quite sure. I wonder if the video game industry has become a kind of buffer for comics today; taking the heat, so to speak.

Also, can you suggest any links for info on the issue of "rape" in recent comics? (sorry for going off topic. It will only be this one time)

[Gilda Dent]

Thanks for your quick reply, GD. I suspected as much, but wasn't quite sure. I wonder if the video game industry has become a kind of buffer for comics today; taking the heat, so to speak.

Also, can you suggest any links for info on the issue of "rape" in recent comics?

Do a search on rape here and you'll find a good number of threads, especially those related to Infinite Crisis and Nightwing, just to name two where rape was used as a plot device.

You might also want to check out http://www.unheardtaunts.com/wir/index.html, which may not be entirely up to date, but does contain some information and discussion that might be helpful.

[gToon]

Your help is much appreciated, Gilda. I'll be sure to follow up on those leads. :smile:

[jessecuster3]

I just finished the book myself and already ordered a few of the EC archives collections. However, I also am now loaded with questions based on things in the book.


The biggest thing bothering me, is wondering if there were any comics at all from around 1957 to around 1960-61? The book seems to indicate that the whole industry basically died.

Also, I am not sure if any here are Archie readers, but is it really obvious what the pre- and post- CCA Betty and Veronica look like?

[dan bailey]

The biggest thing bothering me, is wondering if there were any comics at all from around 1957 to around 1960-61? The book seems to indicate that the whole industry basically died.


If so, that's certainly a false impression. 1957-1961 pretty much marked DC's laying the foundation for the Silver Age. I'll bet that well over half of the Showcase Presents volumes that've come out so far consist solely of stories from that period.

And again, that's just DC.

[jessecuster3]

If so, that's certainly a false impression. 1957-1961 pretty much marked DC's laying the foundation for the Silver Age. I'll bet that well over half of the Showcase Presents volumes that've come out so far consist solely of stories from that period.

And again, that's just DC.

So besides DC, what else was out there? It seems even Marvel laid off their staff and didn't start back up until the early '60s.

[MDG]

So besides DC, what else was out there? It seems even Marvel laid off their staff and didn't start back up until the early '60s.

Marvel (well, Atlas) was in their big monster phase--certainly not glutting the market like before, but a few titles.

I think Dell went on essentially untouched by the whole controversy--they published about 700 issues of Four Color from 56-62, as well as other titles.

Archie was around, as was ACG. I can't think of any Charlton books from the era, but I can't believe that they stopped publishing comics in 54 then started up again in the 60s.

Does Treasure Chest count? Classics Illustrated?

[dan bailey]

Off the top of my head -- ACG, Dell, Charlton, Archie ... no doubt quite a few others.

[Slam_Bradley]

So besides DC, what else was out there? It seems even Marvel laid off their staff and didn't start back up until the early '60s.

Marvel/Timely/Atlas cut back to the bare bones, but they still put out books. The classic books that introduced the majority of the Marvel heroes all ran in that time period (Strange Tales, Tales To Astonish, Tales of Suspense).

Archie's line continued as did Dell's. Crestwood/Prize stayed afloat though they later sold out to DC in 1963.

[dan bailey]

Oh, yeah -- Harvey, of course. Hintermann would probably swoop in & smite us all dead if Harvey didn't get mentioned. He'd be justified in doing so, too. (Well, except for the "dead" part, which I could see being interpreted as just a bit of an overreaction.)

[jessecuster3]

Marvel (well, Atlas) was in their big monster phase--certainly not glutting the market like before, but a few titles.

I think Dell went on essentially untouched by the whole controversy--they published about 700 issues of Four Color from 56-62, as well as other titles.

Archie was around, as was ACG. I can't think of any Charlton books from the era, but I can't believe that they stopped publishing comics in 54 then started up again in the 60s.

Does Treasure Chest count? Classics Illustrated?

Off the top of my head -- ACG, Dell, Charlton, Archie ... no doubt quite a few others.

Marvel/Timely/Atlas cut back to the bare bones, but they still put out books. The classic books that introduced the majority of the Marvel heroes all ran in that time period (Strange Tales, Tales To Astonish, Tales of Suspense).

Archie's line continued as did Dell's. Crestwood/Prize stayed afloat though they later sold out to DC in 1963.

Oh, yeah -- Harvey, of course. Hintermann would probably swoop in & smite us all dead if Harvey didn't get mentioned. He'd be justified in doing so, too. (Well, except for the "dead" part, which I could see being interpreted as just a bit of an overreaction.)

Very interesting, thanks all.

[dan bailey]

I think the "comics just about died in the late '50s in the wake of the witch hunts" scenario is roughly comparable to the "rock'n'roll just about died in the late '50s in the wake of Elvis going into the Army, Jerry Lee Lewis & Chuck Berry succumbing to scandal & Little Richard going (more) nuts" view ...

Basically, a bunch of inconvenient facts insist on getting in the way of a good story. Don't you just hate it when that happens? I do.

[Slam_Bradley]

I think the "comics just about died in the late '50s in the wake of the witch hunts" scenario is roughly comparable to the "rock'n'roll just about died in the late '50s in the wake of Elvis going into the Army, Jerry Lee Lewis & Chuck Berry succumbing to scandal & Little Richard going (more) nuts" view ...

Basically, a bunch of inconvenient facts insist on getting in the way of a good story. Don't you just hate it when that happens? I do.


I think you're right to a large extent. However, a lot of comic publishers either failed or pulled out of comics at that time. And from virtually all the interviews that I've read of creators from that period there really was a feeling that there wouldn't be any more comics starting...any minute. There are kernels of truth in there, they just aren't the whole truth.

[dan bailey]

There are kernels of truth in there, they just aren't the whole truth.

You're right, of course. And it is also true that rock went rather flat in the late '50s/early '60s.

But, yes, reports of their respective demises were greatly exaggerated.

[Rob Allen]

Would it be fair to say that the "Marvel Age of Comics" was the four-color version of Beatlemania?


At some point I figured out that there were 10 comic book publishers in 1960:

DC
Dell
the company formerly known as Atlas and soon to be known as Marvel
Charlton
Archie
Harvey
American (ACG)
Prize
Gilberton (Classics Ill.)
Hallden/Fawcett (Dennis the Menace)

Another aspect of the contraction of the industry in the 50s is that we lost a generation of artists. Young people graduating from art school in the late 50s could not get into the comics industry; the few remaining jobs went to experienced artists. When Neal Adams arrived in the mid-60s, he was the first new artist in about a decade. I once asked a group of experts about the last young guys to get started in the comics industry before the downturn; the names that came up were - Steve Ditko, Gray Morrow, George Woodbridge, and Angelo Torres.

[Sir Tim Drake]

By the way, I just borrowed a copy of Bart Beaty's Fredric Wertham and the Critique of Mass Culture, and although I haven't read it yet, it looks like a really useful reference on this subject. His book is not an attempt to prove that "Wertham was right," but he has a much more positive view of Wertham than most comics fans do, and he argues that a lot of people's hostile reactions to Wertham are based on misunderstandings of the man and his work.

[dan bailey]

Another aspect of the contraction of the industry in the 50s is that we lost a generation of artists. Young people graduating from art school in the late 50s could not get into the comics industry; the few remaining jobs went to experienced artists. When Neal Adams arrived in the mid-60s, he was the first new artist in about a decade. I once asked a group of experts about the last young guys to get started in the comics industry before the downturn; the names that came up were - Steve Ditko, Gray Morrow, George Woodbridge, and Angelo Torres.

Interesting. Didn't Adams come over from comic strips (if memory serves, he drew -- maybe as a ghost -- "Ben Casey")? Makes me wonder what (if any) others of his artistic generation might have gone into, & stuck with, that field, instead.

[InfoBroker]

Some additional observations and quick points:

The major sale impact of the 50s would have been the months leading up to, and the months immediately after the implementation of the comics code. Were talking 1954/55 here. Lots of comics coming back to the publishers in boxes never opened and never handled, and lots of retrenchment and redeployment of titles, and the sales staff to push them to the wholesaler and retailer distributors, along with "selling" end stores on displaying the product.

Most un-impacted and probably benefited would have been Dell with their Disney, Warner Brothers, and other cartoon television tie-ins, and Archie. Harvey comics did a near complete rehaul of their comics line and was probably the most successful of the hard core horror producing and reinventing their image as a wholesome producer of young 6-10 year old material. Atlas/Charlton/DC lines did the same with some of their line but still held ground with cleansed war, adventure, western and mystery (the horror-lite genre) titles.

While the comics code had its impact directly on more mature themes in comics, Dell, Archie and Harvey were giants in the years leading up to and well into the 60s. They had titles that sold millions of copies per issue.

Marvel/Atlas' implosion and very temporary discontinuation occurred in 1957, and all of that was due to business decisions by Martin Goodman.

Realize that despite the growth of Marvel in 60s and the rise of the Second Heroic Age of comics that went with that, comics sales overall, and penetration in the market space were higher in the late 50s than they were in the early 60s, higher in the early 60s that the late 60s...

Adams did indeed work for strips before coming to comics. He was considered a child savant of sorts. His first work was with Howard Nostrand, doing backgrounds on Bat Masterson. A mere 3 months later, Elmer Wexler brought him over to Johnson and Cushing to do advertising work. Under Elmer's wing, he developed the slick style that grounded him (to no ones surprise here I hope) to the school of photo-realistic comic strips. Three years later, at the age of 21, he began Ben Casey teaming up with writer Jerry Caplin.

The lack of new talent coming into the field certainly traces itself to the limited genre palette that the code enforced on comics, and its impact continued until the 70s. Steranko, Barry Smith, Herb Trimpe and Neal Adams are the major artists working at Marvel in the late 60s, that didn't have a vestige of comic pedigree going back to at least the early 50s if not the 40s. At least that I can think of right now off the top of my head. Most of Marvels expansion hires in 65, 67, and 68 were actually rehires of talent that had been forced out of comics due to lack of work a decade earlier.

DC used as a selling point for their Junior Bullpen project in the mid 70s the observation that new talent was sorely lacking in the field. Which was ironic to me in some ways, since the previous 3 years or so had seen more new blood than the ten before it.

I sorta assumed the Jim Aparo's late arrival into the comics field was due to the crash in the 50s.

-jb the so much for being quick and short ib-

[InfoBroker]

the company formerly known as Atlas and soon to be known as Marvel

Their working title as a business entity from the golden age until their sale in 1968(and perhaps even a few years beyond) was Magazine Management. It is also interesting to note, that from a sales pitch to potential advertisers point-of-view, their non-entity-business title was "Marvel Comics".

Far as I know those business entities (real and imagined) formed early on in the business practice of Martin Goodman, that went all the way back to the golden age of comical books, if not even earlier.

-jb the "partnership corporations make for interesting bookkeeping practices" ib -

[jessecuster3]

This is all interesting, thank you all for the information. In '54/'55 when they instituted the code, is there a noticeable change in the art of the comics at the time ?

[MDG]

This is all interesting, thank you all for the information. In '54/'55 when they instituted the code, is there a noticeable change in the art of the comics at the time ?
From my limited viewpoint, I'd say that there was an averaging out--with EC and Quality out of the business, the best probably wasn't as good, but with Nedor, Standard and others gone, the worst probably wasn't as bad.

[InfoBroker]

This is all interesting, thank you all for the information. In '54/'55 when they instituted the code, is there a noticeable change in the art of the comics at the time ?

You mean changes like electing a comic book czar with the authority and audacity to censor artists right down to how to draw wrinkles and hands, and control the content so that his idea of good artwork is what everyone else should think is good artwork?

You mean those kinds of noticeable changes?

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x161/infobroker/comicCzarism.jpg



-jb the "surely freedom loving citizens would never allow such a thing" ib -

[InfoBroker]

By the way, I just borrowed a copy of Bart Beaty's Fredric Wertham and the Critique of Mass Culture, and although I haven't read it yet, it looks like a really useful reference on this subject. His book is not an attempt to prove that "Wertham was right," but he has a much more positive view of Wertham than most comics fans do, and he argues that a lot of people's hostile reactions to Wertham are based on misunderstandings of the man and his work.

Haven't read the book, and would be interested in doing so, might provide some additional information to add to my knowledge base. A base which began circa 1967 or so when I came across a rebounded copy of Seduction of the Innocent in the local library. Somebody had selective edited it (I not-so-greatfuly assume to protect my innocence) removing in a very professional manner the majority of the illustrations) leaving mainly just the words. A year or so later, via my cartoonist art lessons set, I read the entire comics code and all its various parts. Found it strange that vampires were prohibited and I burst out into laughter when it dictated that use of the word "CRIME" on a cover had to be exercised with care and restraint.

In the late sixties when I was becoming aware of comics fandom, and reading lots of history about my beloved medium, and events prior to Silver Age Marvel comical books, first exposures to EC comics, broader range and sophisticated themed comics, early Kelly, the Barks admiration society,first Spirits, first Chesney, Crumb, Kurtsman, fan work by Kaluta, Wrightson, Grainger, Newton, Cockrum, Starlin...., fan articles about SOTI, comics codes and censorship, Senator Estes Kefauver, I would also bump into a handful of letters-to-editor from Wertham.

From my vantage point, and the material I have read so far and in a very brief(well brief for me anyway) nutshell; here is my opinion to date:

Wertham was befuddled and simplistic in his crusade to fix juvenile delinquency. His expressed observations became a leading focal point of the broader forces seeking to censor or eliminate comics. He found an open niche and a direct means to broadly rally support from the soccer moms of the times, who wanted to quickly, easily and in basic black and white simplistic terms; shelter their offspring from all the dangers "out there" in the big wide world. Some also needed/wanted a scapegoat to blame when the sheltering or neglect went awry.

While I don't find it as abhorrent as the politicians who used comics and commies as fear-baiting means to advance their political power, Wertham had his agenda too. A book to sell.

I've come across claims that Wertham, after the fact, in the 1960s is on record that he wasn't advocating comic censorship. Yet, I also have also come across testimony from him from the 1950s diametrically opposite that claim, stating that he objected to the industry self-censoring itself because he didn't feel they would go far enough to "fix the problems". Since it was part of the New York investigations, I couldn't help but ponder that maybe he was fishing for a job.

The letters in the fanzines circa 1969-70 were odd collections of observations, information and reviews. On their own they seemed quaint at times, innocent even, and somewhat strange as well. My perspective on them as I got older and gained more knowledge of the paranoia of the communists under-ever-bed, comics-fearing 50s, is that of a man with a certain amount of guilt, and a need to redeem and rewrite history a bit to ease that guilt.

Not unlike the mom at the end of the SOTI book who looks at the Doctor and says something to the effect of "Say it again. Say its not my fault."

- jb the ib -

[dan bailey]

Another aspect of the contraction of the industry in the 50s is that we lost a generation of artists. Young people graduating from art school in the late 50s could not get into the comics industry; the few remaining jobs went to experienced artists.

I was thinking about this some more yesterday, & now I'm wondering if it would be fair to say that to a certain extent, the generation of artists that didn't go into comics instead wound up more or less inventing comix.

I dunno how many, if any, of the original underground artists might've wound up drawing for Marvel, DC or whomever, but they were the right age group to fill the gap you describe. Several had even been involved in the early zine culture that sprang up in the wake of EC & Mad, as I guess is made clear regarding Crumb in the closing pages of 10 Cent Plague.

Not to mention the early fan artists like Biljo White, Grass Green, Ronn Foss, etc ...

[Gothos]

I recently wrote a short piece defending Hadju's book against the assaults of fellow comics-critic Bart Beaty, which appear cached somewhere or other on THE COMIC REPORTER.




http://arche-arc.blogspot.com/2008/06/plague-on-only-one-of-their-houses.html

[Gothos]

By the way, I just borrowed a copy of Bart Beaty's Fredric Wertham and the Critique of Mass Culture, and although I haven't read it yet, it looks like a really useful reference on this subject. His book is not an attempt to prove that "Wertham was right," but he has a much more positive view of Wertham than most comics fans do, and he argues that a lot of people's hostile reactions to Wertham are based on misunderstandings of the man and his work.


Tim,

Did you ever finish the Beaty book?

I ask because I've recently finished reviewing it in a 4-part essay on my blog. Though I appreciate on one level Beaty's attempt to see another side of a person who's become an anathema to comics-fans, I don't think Beaty's defenses hold water. They include a lot of illogic, special pleading and denigrations of comics fans themselves-- not too much unlike the good doctor!