My look at Marvel Team-Up #23 the other day yielded another interesting item from that issue's letters page. Apparently, Dave Lofvers of Rochester, New York was pining for Spider-Man to team up with a rather controversial character...
Get that? Not only did Dave request a forbidden zombie and nudity in Marvel comic books, but he wanted the entire Comics Code abolished as well!
So, what was the response? Well, unlike Marvel's typically flip and humorous replies to letter writers, the response of the editor (most likely Roy Thomas) was surprisingly thoughtful and candid...
Pretty astonishing stuff. Granted, in his official capacity at Marvel Comics, the editor had to publicly support the Comics Code Authority and its standards, but at the same time it's refreshing to see someone openly challenge the knee-jerk assumption that sex and violence equals an "adult" reading experience. The response continued...
More stunning stuff here. See, in all my years of collecting comics, it's been the accepted orthodoxy that everything about the Comics Code was toxic and repressive, and that the comics of the early 50's were exempt from moral scrutiny and social responsibility. Yet the editor acknowledges the excess and irresponsibility that lead to the Code's creation...a view I've long shared. I'm no apologist for the extreme charges of Dr. Wertham, nor am I willing to defend every aspect of the Comics Code policies (some of which were pretty silly), but I have to say: I just don't buy the propaganda....so it's gratifying to see that people in high places were willing to break from the crowd. In the case of this editor, it was an attempt to separate sensational violence and nudity from a more elevated form of maturity...a truly adult way to tell a story.
You see, the inclusion of the Comics Code seal in my blog's header isn't an ironic statement, but actually a shorthand way to show visitors where my head and heart are at. To me, the code seal on the comic books I grew up with wasn't a symbol of persecution and First Amendment shredding, but a sign that adults were looking out for me who had an expectation that creators would find ways to entertain without resorting to easy, sleazy thrills. Same thing holds here at Comic Coverage.
So, since the Comics Code Seal isn't seen as the sign of the Anti-Christ here, fellow fans of code-era comics can visit my Secret Identity shop, pick up some Comics Code stuff (like the shirt to the left), and proudly show your support for a vanished era of comics.
Or hey, buy one and ironically wear one even if you oppose the code. I'm not picky. Just be sure to order one in time for Christmas!
Good post, and I do agree with you for the most part. The arguments both for and against the code have been extremely over-simplified over the years.
It IS refreshing, though, to see the editor's response. Even today, too many people equate "mature" with gratuitous stuff that doesn't really add to the story except to pander to prurient interests. Just the other day, I was complaining to my wife about a recent Vertigo book that struck me as "trying too hard" Gah, I sounded like my dad!
I never gave the code much thought then (I think we're about the same age), but I've wanted one of those shirts for awhile now (in a completely un-ironic way)
Posted by: Jim Azelvandre | December 16, 2008 at 08:47 AM
A surprising amount of depth and insight for a letters page.
It's interesting to think about how frequently "adult" is wrongly equated to mean containing large quantities of sex and/or violence. A complex and layered story can be adult in a way that's inaccessible to children, and we've sort of lost that as a definition of what it means to have an adult story.
I think the inverse is also true, though. We keep feeding children these adult themes, without thinking how it will affect these outlooks.
My two-year old son recently started becoming addicted to Superman. We happened to catch Superman: The Movie being broadcast on TV, and he was hooked. But as I watched it, I thought how it wasn't really subject matter for someone his age.
As I reflected on it, I realized that there wasn't really any Superman content out there that would be appropriate for him. The Bruce Timm cartoons (Superman: The Animated Series as well as all the Justice League stuff) were great, but they weren't really meant for anyone younger than 15. The Christopher Reeve movies were generally for younger viewers (or, rather, younger than the Brandon Routh/Bryan Singer movie was), but still had some complex scenes involving Superman's relationship with Lois.
There was a time, long ago, where these characters were meant for children and the stories were digestable by children. Where did those stories go?
Posted by: greyman24 | December 16, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Excellent post, Mark. I have some longish thoughts about this so I will create a blog post. What I find odd about the response from Roy about zombies, though, is that Marvel had by that point been publishing comics with vampires and wolfmen, both of which were expressly forbidden by the code, at least the version that I've read. Was there some amendment to the code around 1971, or did they allow those stories on a case-by-case basis?
Posted by: Pat Curley | December 16, 2008 at 11:42 AM
I think Marvel's "trojan horse" when it came to introducing vampires and wolfmen (and zombies for that matter) were their line of magazines, which weren't covered by the code. This way, I think they could gauge their popularity to see if it was worth an attempt to introduce them to the comic book side in a "kinda sorta" way.
For example, Marvel's first vampire was Spider-Man villain Morbius, who was created through a science accident...which nicely skated around the supernatural vampires covered in the Code. Another famous dodge was Marvel's use of "zuvembie" creatures which, for all intents and purposes were zombies, seemed to pass muster (though I'm sure they got a skeptical eyebrow-raise out of the Code office).
So, this sort of thing gradually diminished some of the Code's supernatural admonitions, which...paired with Marvel's famous "drug issues" appeaing in Spider-Man...lead to an overall weakening of the Code's influence.
Posted by: Mark Engblom | December 16, 2008 at 12:27 PM
"I realized that there wasn't really any Superman content out there that would be appropriate for him."
Greyman-
I know how you feel. When my kids were much younger, it was always a challenge finding stuff that I knew was appropriate for them. As for animated shows, you should give the new "Batman: The Brave and the Bold" a viewing. They're aimed at a much younger audience, but are still quite entertaining to those "young at heart" (like Yours Truly). Give it a shot...I think a two year old would enjoy the show...but that's just my opinion.
Posted by: Mark Engblom | December 16, 2008 at 12:30 PM
You also have the current DC Super Friends comics, the old Superfriends cartoons, and even the unlamented Ruby-Spears cartoons of the 90's that probably won't be appearing on DVD anytime soon. (I actually liked that show, so that's too bad.)
I read the editor remarks posted, look at what the Marvel editors are doing now, and cry.
Posted by: ShadowWing Tronix | December 16, 2008 at 02:48 PM
The comics of the early 50's really made the Code necessary. The lurid and violent crime and horror stories really had no merits as stories, and the more wholesome superhero stuff was dying out. The creation of the Code really indirectly caused the dawn of the Silver Age, as Superman and Flash comics really weren't that offensive to begin with.
I'm a video games fan as well as a comics fan, and I sort of see the same things happening today with video games as happened to comics in the past. Stuff obviously made for kids like Sonic the Hedgehog get violence and swearing thrown in for no reason. It's a far cry from when "Rated G" meant "for everyone," not "for kids under 7."
Posted by: Chris Mullen | December 16, 2008 at 04:05 PM
Sent a trackback on this, Mark. Do you have to approve them before they show up? I got the confirmation message from the pinger.
Posted by: Pat Curley | December 16, 2008 at 05:58 PM
I think the Bruce Timm cartoons are perfectly appropriate for younger kids (though they'll probably get more out of them once they're old enough to follow moderately complex plots.) Occasionally there might be some content that's a little scary for very young kids, but they've played well for my niece and nephew from about age 4 up.
At age 2 (I think), my nephew really dug the Fleischer Superman cartoons. I think it was before he was even talking much, but it was fun to see how his eyes just lit up whenever Superman was on the screen. There's clearly something about Superman that just plain *works* on a fundamental level, even for little kids who don't already know him.
Posted by: suedenim | December 17, 2008 at 08:22 AM
Agree wholeheartedly with sudenim. I never really found much in the way of offense when it came to any of the Timm cartoons - least of all S:tAS. As sude said I'm sure there's more they'll get out of it once they are older, but I don't see why they wouldn't be perfectly appropriate, fun cartoons for someone a little younger (if you have specific reasons, please, enlighten me - not trying to be sarcastic or anything, just genuinely curious).
Of course, I might hold off before introducing them to some of the second season Justice League stuff...with the whole "Justice League vs. the government" stuff I can imagine it being hard for them to distinguish the bad guys from the good.
Posted by: Matt | December 19, 2008 at 07:31 PM
Just wanted to drop back to say I picked up a DVD of the Fleischer cartoons. Great stuff. Best rated version I could find was put out by Bosko, which was also pretty cheap!
Thanks all!
Posted by: greyman24 | December 24, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Wasn't there a whole Marvel Zombie arc where Spider-Man was a zombie?
Posted by: Tentelumper | April 20, 2009 at 01:16 PM
BTW, just found out an interesting fact. Roy Thomas the (apparent) editor in question? Wrote an article that was intended for the original Alter Ego #1 recommending getting rid of the CCA. But because Jerry Bails had gotten Julius Schwartz's enthusiastic backing for the project, Thomas apparently pulled the article (I don't think it was ever published).
Posted by: Pat Curley | April 21, 2009 at 12:06 AM