Burns comics burn

[Figuremod73]

Wikimedia Error
nope, he wouldnt have known....

[Hector]

I'm glad nowadays people are less weird about stuff like that and blaming strange things on whatever they deemed as evil and having personal bonfires.

Are you sure about that?

[johnmiic]

It's no fair, I never win anything. Send them to me.

You want to buy 12 boxes of Top Cow stuff? I'll put you in touch with him.

[torgospizza]

The religious morons didn't say anything about Little Orphan Annie?

In his defense, Wertham wasn't much of a religious moron. He did have a social conscience, though, working to help people in Harlem in the 40s and even having his work used as evidence to show the ill effects of segregation on black children in Brown v. Board of Education. He was mainly concerned with trying to inhibit violence as an influence in the lives of children, and TV was a big issue for him, as well. I imagine the people that jumped on his bandwagon were a lot like people that stop immunizing their kids after they see something about it on Oprah. People that implicitly trust anyone that seems to speak from authority without relying on their own discernment.

I'm against the degree the government went to in this crusade against comics (and the PMRC's campaign against Heavy Metal in the 80s), but let's look at it like this: if I went around showing children drawings of decapitated people, how would people react? Would only "religious morons" find that behavior inappropriate? Is it okay if I'm charging the kids to look at the drawings? We're not talking about 18-year-olds not being allowed to read Brought to Light.

EDIT: I guess the point I'm not really making quite clearly is that often smart, well-meaning people often do stupid things. And there's always someone willing to follow them without any hesitation.

[Brazoo]

Torgospizza is right. Dr. Wertham wasn't motivated by religious ideology. He dealt with troubled kids for the better part of his career and honestly thought that violent movies, TV and comics contributed to violent behavior in children - which is still a debated subject (though, I personally agree with JediJaida).

Dr. Wertham's Freudian analysis of the symbolism in comics is misguided and laughable (especially today), and his contempt for comics really clouded his understanding of them - in some cases he completely gets the details of the comics he's writing about wrong - but it's important to note that Dr. Wertham claims he was against censorship. Though, it does seem he got a little caught up in the spotlight his cause created if that's totally the case.

The senate hearings was based on public outcry based on his book "Seduction of the Innocent" - but as far as I know he would not have been in favor of book burning.

Here's a quote from Dr. Wertham:

I had nothing whatever to do directly with the comics code. Nor have I ever endorsed it. Nor do I believe in it. My scientific findings had something to do with it only because the crime comic book publishers, some of them multi-millionaires, were afraid laws or statutes would be passed against their worst productions. To guard against that the code was established.
Controlling the excess of brutality in crime comic books has nothing to do with censorship. Protecting children is not censorship. I was the first American psychiatrist admitted in a Federal Court in a book censorship case - and I testified against censorship.

The lesser-known follow up to Dr. Wertham's story with regards to comics is that in the 70s he actually praised and was excited by the sub-culture of kids who were comic collectors. He even wrote a book in favor of collectors and kids who wrote Fanzines.

To me he basically seems like a well-meaning guy - misguided, sure - and he doesn't seem like much of a critical thinker - but he wasn't one of the masses trying to just pass-the-buck of juvenile delinquency onto any one particular thing the way a lot of others did once they got hold of his ideas. He did genuinely devote a lot of work to solving the issue - on the wrong track in my opinion - but still.

The wikipedia article gives a nice overview:
Wikimedia Error

And this article on Dr. Wertham's turn-around:
Fredric Wertham

[Brazoo]

I wonder how the guy who created wonder woman would have felt to have witnessed this. He was a psychologist, right?

In the Wikipedia article on Dr. Wertham it mentions:

Wertham's claim that Wonder Woman had a bondage subtext was somewhat better documented, as her creator William Moulton Marston had admitted as much; however, Wertham also claimed that Wonder Woman's strength and independence made her a lesbian.

Seems like Marston might have been against Dr. Wertham's ideas based on Marston's notions about the sexes:

From WILLIAM MOULTON MARSTON .COM

Marston posited that there is a male notion of freedom that is inherently anarchic and violent, and an opposing female notion based on "Love Allure" that leads to an ideal state of submission to loving authority.

So, if he thought healthy males were naturally drawn to violence I don't see how he would have had a problem with them reading violent comics -

Though he also said:
"comics' worst offense was their blood-curdling masculinity."

and:
"...there's great hope for this world. Women will win! Give them a little more time and the added strength they'll develop out of this war and they'll begin to control things in a serious way."

(Both from this source: Wonder Woman: A psychologist's creation
)

So his overall goal was for female influence of love and strength to balance-out masculine violence, which indicates that he was in favor of less violence in general.

It does seem pretty clear that Marston didn't have the same concerns Wertham did with exposing children to sexual themes though. On Wonder Woman's lasso Marston said:

The only hope for peace is to teach people who are full of pep and unbound force to enjoy being bound... Only when the control of self by others is more pleasant than the unbound assertion of self in human relationships can we hope for a stable, peaceful human society... Giving to others, being controlled by them, submitting to other people cannot possibly be enjoyable without a strong erotic element

So maybe in favor of less violence in comics - but maybe not on the same page as Wertham in terms of concern, and certainly less prudish and more open to separating content he disagreed with from the medium.

I also found this article comparing Wertham to Marston a bit:
William Marston’s Secret Identity - Reason Magazine

[The4thDoctor]

Really??

Anyone who burns a book is an absolute, close-minded idiot who does not view the world like the rest of us, they are very narrow-minded individuals not open to new ideas and concepts and are afraid of change...My .02 cents..

[Figuremod73]

Those are some interesting observation Brazoo, Thanks

[Brazoo]

Those are some interesting observation Brazoo, Thanks

I think it was a really interesting question - I never made that connection before - so thanks man - that was awesome!

[Joe90]

Comics! Comics are really the root of a lot of the problems in this society.

They're just Trouble!

Comics...
Starts with C
And that Rhymes with T
And that stands for Trouble!

[Figuremod73]

I actually didnt know he had died in '47. I would really like to have seen his view on the whole matter. Im assuming most of comics roughest days were from '51-'54. (If you dont count the last ten years of so, of course). But I presume it had been building for a while after most of the GI's had returned and wanted something with a little more meat on it other than superheroes. Im sure Moulton would have side steped the question since his creation was one of Nationals most popular. This tread has given me a new found respect for Wertham though. Once again its others trying to lay blame on SOMETHING, not looking at every side of whats at question. This is something that still goes on to this day.

[ctc]

>What gets me is how anyone with half a brain, or even a fourth of a brain could think that comic books, of all things, were responsible for juvenile delinquency, drug use, etc.

It’s a culmination of things. Most folks are willing to buy the negative hype of anything they feel is distasteful.... not even EVIL; just stuff they don’t like. Kids stuff (and things you can convince people are kids products) are a great target ‘cos parents are usually predisposed to dislike “wasting” money on “that useless junk” Throw in a little “it distracts from their studying” or “it makes them antisocial” or even “they waste all their time with THIS instead of going out and playing!” and voila!

Adding to this is the fact that folks won’t look too deeply into the credibility of proponents of this sort of thing. “They guy on tv said it was bad!” is enough for them.

>The religious morons didn't say anything about Little Orphan Annie?

That’s the confounding variable for me: Wertham targeted comic books specifically. Annie was a newspaper strip; THOSE escaped scrutiny. Post-inquest, comic books became strictly kids stuff, whereas newspaper strips weren’t. I’ve never figured out why, except that “the guy on the tv” never mentioned strips, and most folks enjoyed newspaper strips.

‘Course, the same was true of comics: EVERYBODY read them. So I still got no answer.

>I'm against the degree the government went to in this crusade against comics

The government pretty much left them alone, after the hearings. The censorship that followed came from the industry itself. The government had nothing to do with the Code. A lot of folks believe the whole point of the Code was a way for the rest of the industry to thump EC Comics, the industry leader at the time.

>if I went around showing children drawings of decapitated people, how would people react?

But the catch is; what if those pictures aren’t MEANT for kids? Post-Code the industry went WAY to the other side, and stayed there until the late 60's. Instead of any sort of rating or segregation, they eliminated ANY non kid-friendly material; alienating a large chunk of the potential readership.

Don C.

[Brazoo]

>I'm against the degree the government went to in this crusade against comics

The government pretty much left them alone, after the hearings. The censorship that followed came from the industry itself. The government had nothing to do with the Code. A lot of folks believe the whole point of the Code was a way for the rest of the industry to thump EC Comics, the industry leader at the time.

It's true, the hearings are often compared to McCarthyism, but unlike McCarthyism this didn't stem from the government outward - the government was kinda doing what they were suppose to - reacting to the public outcry.

To me "The Code" seems like a mix of cowardice and greed. I think some of the publishers were on board to kill their competition at EC, (as William Gaines thought) but I also think some were on board to eliminate EC because they thought EC was the most offensive to the public, Gaines made the biggest stink, and the publishers were interested in rebuilding the industry in the public eye.

At the end of the day it's the distributers who enforced The Code by refusing to carry comics who weren't approved - not the government.

>if I went around showing children drawings of decapitated people, how would people react?

But the catch is; what if those pictures aren’t MEANT for kids? Post-Code the industry went WAY to the other side, and stayed there until the late 60's. Instead of any sort of rating or segregation, they eliminated ANY non kid-friendly material; alienating a large chunk of the potential readership.

Don C.

While I agree with you, I also think the reality was that comics really were mostly for kids at that time. Even Gaines doesn't push the issue that comics could be for adults - When asked if his comics were appropriate for kids Gaines just said stuff like "I think so." - because I think he knew that some kind of a ratings system would have killed EC just as quickly as The Code did.

[Figuremod73]

Was the period after WW2 on into the mid '50 a period of high juvinile deliquency? I havent came across any information on it yet...

[Figuremod73]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e6UPS1vAcU
well theres is some interesting news reels around.