Library of Congress Opens Records of Anti-Comic Book Shrink 257
eldavojohn writes "Some light is being shone on comic book history today as the Library of Congress opens up the 222 boxes of a German psychiatrist's evidence and papers against comic books. Dr. Fredric Wertham is well known by comic book fans as the author of Seduction of the Innocent, a bestselling book linking comic books and juvenile delinquency — leading to a full blown congressional investigation (some say witch hunt) of the comic book industry. Wertham was long involved with criminal trials before campaigning against comic books and promoting industry and government censorship for children. Ars adds a little more context for the younger crowd and notes that he later tried to move against television violence but couldn't find the publisher backing he had against comic books."
Ah yes, Wertham (Score:5, Interesting)
Mind you, we probably wouldn't have gotten Mad magazine if things had turned out differently, so it's hard to be judgmental.
Congress: The New Superhero! (Score:5, Interesting)
Dr. Wertham is just an early predecessor to Jack Thompson. These idiots think that anything they don't understand or enjoy should be banned because "clearly it has no moral value". It's a myopic view of art and entertainment that would lead to everyone buying and enjoying the exact same things. Sure, the RIAA, MPAA and big radio would love that but it would kill creativity as we know it.
Comic books and video games aren't my cup of tea but that doesn't make me think they should be banned because those who enjoy them are delinquents and dangerous. If everyone who didn't share my POV was labeled dangerous
Re:Ah yes, Wertham (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know, it seems to me that often the best stories are written when the authors hands are tied a little bit. Typically, code or no code, the author will get the message out that they're trying to get out, but with the code in place it puts a check on the author, preventing him or her from taking the easy way to make their point. It encourages authors to look at both sides of situation more thoroughly than they would have otherwise which in my opinion adds more depth to the story.
Re:Ah yes, Wertham (Score:3, Interesting)
It's My Fault, I Apologize, I Was Wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Dear Slashdot editors:
Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, the phrase "some say witch hunt" is a weasel-faced cop out. It's a device commonly seen on Fox news to to inject opinion into otherwise factual reporting. If "some people" say it, tell us who. Otherwise, let us know it's your opinion.
Regards.
I wrote that summary and CmdrTaco posted it without editing so I guess some if not all of the blame should be on me. And I'll concede that the statement is not accurate. There were staged comic book burnings [wikipedia.org] and during the testimony, Kefauver and Wertham (a German doctor no less) opened their testimony with statements calling Hitler a "beginner" when compared to the comics industry as well as flat out claiming comic books affected children to the same way Nazi propaganda indoctrinated children. Several books on the history of comics detail this testimony including Bradford Wright's Comic Book Nation: The Transformation of Youth Culture in America.
... ? Also, you do know that after the reformation of the comic book industry, juvenile delinquency did not plummet, right? We can still purchase said comic books today. So it seems you have the public burnings to spread fear and you have the oddly selective nature of who is guilty but the "worse than Hitler" testimonial logic is probably more faulty than "weighs as much as a duck" so I don't know what the right label would be.
So I must confess I was wrong to use that phrase, clearly "a witch hunt" would have more sound logic than what was used in an attempt to have the government replace the parents in guiding their children. Tell me though, if you don't think it was a witch hunt, why did backing dry up when they tried to move on to television to clean up all the violence that children saw in the moving pictures? The unrealistic violence of Larry, Moe and Curly is okay because
Perhaps a better label would have been "insanity?"
Pro-censorship crackpot (Score:3, Interesting)
Whatever. Save the children: brain-wash them to be "pure and innocent".. or the world will come to an end.
I know for a fact that I wouldn't be where I am today had I not had comic books when I was little, games like the Lucasarts point'n'click adventures when I was a teenager and the internet later on. I literally taught myself to read and write English and French (2nd and 3rd languages) through those things, and was given an incentive and the means to learn about computers and programming, which I happily and successfully make my living off today. There is no doubt in my mind that I would be a completely different person had Dr. Wertham and his minions deprived me of those.
So, I want whiners like that guy to just shut the hell up. I don't want them to censor my comic books, ban my video games or disconnect my internet, and I will fight tooth and nail to make sure my kids (if I ever have kids) will have unfettered access to all the stimuli I had when I was young (be those "good" or "bad" in Dr. Wertham's view).
I would go as far as to say, film ratings are stupid. What if a 12-year-old watches a 18+ movies instead of just Disney cartoons with rainbows and flying unicorns?
Good thing Dr. Wertham is already dead, because he would just HATE webcomics (omg, comic books on the internet! It's the work of the devil!)
Re:Comics and Video Games (Score:5, Interesting)
Government intervention is always bad.
There is the problem. I know a lot of people reject propositions with a boring and overly-simple argument of "government is too big," but that doesn't mean that all people who are in favor of a small [federal] government take that route, and it doesn't mean that they think that all government intervention is bad. You're unecessarily reducing a viewpoint to a ridiculous. Claiming that those who are against "government expansion" are in favor of anarchy (if government intervention is always bad, then anarchy would be good, because it would be no government intervention).
Of course, you are probably just exaggerating to make your point, which is probably what the people you're arguing against are doing, too... meaning we're all arguing against exaggerated opinions of the other side, which means we're not even really arguing about something real ;)
I'm a "small government" sort of guy. Didn't Romney do the health care thing in MA? Isn't that "government intervention?" Doesn't he still claim it was a good idea? Of course, that was at the state level, not the federal level... but still.
I suppose I'm nit-picking. But the exaggerations on both sides make any sort of meaningful political discussion impossible. Democrats, according to some Republicans, quite literally want to drive America into the ground and give our land over to Muslim countries. Republicans, according to some Democrats, want to literally milk the people's money out of them through corporations and wouldn't mind if [insert large corporation] actually ran the country. Usually, these are supported by huge jumps from a given action to a motive. Actions are easy to see. Motives are pretty difficult.
As an example, from my own ideological POV's typical party member, "Obamacare" is clearly an attempt to set up a completely socialist government in America. It's also, clearly, an attempt to ruin America and give it to Iran. It's also clearly an attempt for Democrats to gain more federal power. Of course, some of those clear motives are rather mutually exclusive, but we'll ignore that. The action that caused all this was a health care bill, but we clearly know the motive behind it.
The same goes for Democrats. They clearly know the motives behind Repuplicans blocking a given bill (it is undoubtedly an evil and nefarious motive, like wanting to get more money from corporate lobbyists, or wanting to ensure they get re-elected, etc). My whole point? We are so caught up in ascribing motives that we can't even argue about the real substance - the legislation itself.
And, to wrap up, exaggerations about POV's - including "small government" folks being against any government intervention at all, which then boils any discussion down to "well what about [something the government does that is necessary]???!?! you insensitive clod!" and including "all 'socialists' want to control ever single area of your life just like Russian communism!" - is a part of the can't-have-rational-discussion problems...
IMO, of course. ;)
Actually, it's even bleaker than that (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, it seems to me like that kind of idiots has an even bleaker view of it all.
They didn't just think that a violent comic or a violent game just "clearly it has no moral value", but rather that people and especially teenagers will mindlessly do whatever comics/games/tabletop-games/anything tells them to. Let's not forget that the book was called "Seduction Of The Innocent". And really that was the whole thrust. They think that if a 16 year old sees a comic cover where a guy with an axe is holding a woman's severed head, they'll go like mindless zombies and do a verbatim copy of the deed.
Or in more modern days that if some 16 year old spends an hour a day sniping in some FPS, next thing you know he'll climb on the school and snipe people, because he's just that mindless and unable to distinguish between reality and video games. Or that while a 17 year old may be old enough to be trusted to do that sniping (M rating is good enough there, see?) God forbid that he ever sees a boob, 'cause he's not ready for _that_ yet. He'll probably go on some rape spree than ends up with him giving the town council a facial shot. Or, really, dunno what.
And if you thought _that_ is stupid, well, at least one Chick Tract seems to be based on thinking that AD&D actually teaches children to cast real spells. But I digress.
Re:Demonization? (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, "enemy of freedom?" Oh, I don't know about. Werthan wasn't some power mad dictator who unilaterally banned comics. He reflected the concerns of parents at the time and was an eloquent spokesman for the censorship position. Its important to realize what mainstream American society was in the 1950s and 60s. A lot of media at the time was fairly sanitized, except for comics, which kids bought and often broke down into two categories. Detective stories which may involve adult themes like rape and murder and horror comics that was pretty gruesome.
I don't think we should dismiss the people in the past, even Werthan, as mindless automatons hell-bent of censorship, but people with a political position that may very well be valid. Should comic buyers, especially when most of them were under 14 or so, be exposed to such things? How can a 10 year old process rape, murder, etc? This is what people mean to put him in context of his times, the same way we put George Washington's slave ownership in the context of his time.
The real issue is that the comics code was too encompassing. Instead of the rating system we have for movies and tv, the comics code was really the only rating and it meant that if you wanted to publish enough to make real money that you had to follow it.
I think all human societies must have some level of ratings or censorship. It crops up everywhere and even purposeful experimental societies draw the line somewhere especially when you deal with children. Some nudist societies don't allow children, for instance. A bad implementation is a bad implementation. Shame people didn't care enough to better implement comic ratings.
I like Adam Smith's critique of small government (Score:5, Interesting)
"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."
The Wealth of Nations,Book V, Chapter I, Part II, 775
If Government is stripped of all other functions save the defense of property, it is a tyranny of the rich. I believe that is why the rich nearly invariably favor small government. The more desperate the have-nots are, the more they will put up with and the less they will demand. Taking away social safety nets favors the rich employer who desires a pool of desperate, starving, cheap workers.
But the truly rich make up less than one percent of our population. Why do the non rich desire smaller government? Is it out of some philosophical principle? Well, if humans were commonly genius-saints, perhaps. But we aren't. Most of us start from our assumptions and reason backwards to find support. And most of the upper middle class assume they will be rich one day, despite the lack of any evidence that this is likely. The gap between an upper middle class person making $100,000 to $250,000 per year and an actual owning class person is tremendous. We do not have as much upward mobility in our society as we would like to believe, but everyone believes we do. Why? Simple: anyone who says they don't think they can make it is obviously a failure. Who wants to admit to being a failure? The myth says hard work will make you rich, what, are you lazy?
This is how the rich fool the middle class into defending the rich from the poor, even though the middle class has far more in common with the poor than the rich.
Re:Comics and Video Games (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I like Adam Smith's critique of small governmen (Score:3, Interesting)
You have made quite an extrapolation from a very specific quote.
If your viewpoint really is that the middle and lower class should rise up and take from the rich because they have that power and it would benefit them (they have license to do so in a democracy), then I find your sig pretty ironic.
Re:Comics and Video Games (Score:3, Interesting)
My whole point? We are so caught up in ascribing motives that we can't even argue about the real substance - the legislation itself.
I agree and I blame the comic book industry's irresponsible, apolitical position on the issue. I think more comics should be dedicated to in-depth discussion of new legislation. Who owns the copyright on the character of the Socialistman?
Rewriting history (Score:3, Interesting)
The comic book was on the fast track to extinction after World War Two.
Mikey Spillane was in paperback and so, for that matter, was Dashiell Hammett. Trash or class for 25 cents. The kids were watching television.
The crime and horror comic was the stop-gap, quick-buck, solution.
Pretty much every commercial artist serves his apprenticeship in the sub-basements of his profession. The Civil War artist Mort Künstler churned out Nazi sex-slave bondage covers for men's magazines like Stag.
The problem is that critics weren't looking at what the comic book might become - but what old pros like Al Capp, Hal Foster and Milton Caniff and newcomers like Walt Kelly had made of the newspaper comic strip.
Without a ratings system in place, Tales From The Crypt could be sold off the same racks as Scrooge McDuck and Casper.
The comic book did not have an independent distribution channel but tended to end up in places like your neighborhood cigar store - a strictly male preserve, like the old time saloon, and often a front for pornography sales, bookmaking and the numbers racket. It was not a place you wanted to see a kid.
Call it guilt by association, if you like, but the connection hurt the comics industry and hurt it badly.
Re:I like Adam Smith's critique of small governmen (Score:3, Interesting)
You have made quite an extrapolation from a very specific quote.
If your viewpoint really is that the middle and lower class should rise up and take from the rich because they have that power and it would benefit them (they have license to do so in a democracy), then I find your sig pretty ironic.
1. I'm glad you agree with my point.
2. We agree here, too. The rich favor big government for the rich, and small government for everyone else. As the rich make up only 1%, I'd say they generally want smaller government.
3. Are you simply noting the most obvious implications of what I said and repeating them in order to curry favor with me? Yes, this is exactly the major problem with wealth disparity, thanks.
4. My definition is not arbitrary. When the top 10% own 90% of the material wealth, I think that dividing line is crystal clear.
5. Taking something that someone originally stole from you is not wrong. The wealthy have been waging class war on us, and stealing the wealth we created.
6. Congratulations. You've made your first coherent point in the first half of this item. Which also negates the second half. If big government is no guarantee the poor will be helped, small government is no guarantee either. You say people argue that small government will help the poor, but on the most crucial point you remain silent: what are those arguments?
7. I agree completely, and let me add that I believe most people actually want to see excellence rewarded, even if they are not the recipient. We do not want excellence punished, but we do want unfairness punished.
8. I believe they are being fooled because they are acting neither according to any coherent principles they espouse, nor according to their own self interests.
The middle and lower class should rise up and take back what they created with their ingenuity and labor. Idly sitting in mansions investing money that you can not really lose does not create wealth. Work creates wealth.
My sig is a reminder that freedom isn't free. It takes work, and sacrifice. It is more than just license. Freedom means defending those whose freedoms are endangered.
Re:I like Adam Smith's critique of small governmen (Score:3, Interesting)
No, in fact, most people are not greedy and selfish, recent economic experiments have shown that people value fairness and reciprocity over self interest.
If an elected government is full of stupid, evil, greedy people, who is really at fault?
How is taking taxes and giving some to the poor trampling your rights? Are you being held here against your will? Think of society like a retail establishment that sells package deals. You take the deal a society offers you, or you shop around for something better. You wouldn't walk into a Kentucky Fried Chicken and demand a Whopper for five cents, and then complain they were trampling your rights when they laughed at you, would you? If you don't like the deal, you are free to look elsewhere for a better one.
I don't want to remove all economic inequality, I want to remove economic inequity. Excellence and hard work should be rewarded, but fooling people into thinking you are excellent and hard working should not be. And why should pure luck be rewarded? Shouldn't good fortune be shared? Quite frankly, if you are selfish and don't feel like sharing your good fortune, how are you any benefit to society, and why should you be allowed to participate?
I think maybe we have different ideas about what 'fair' means. I don't think it is fair for 10% of the population to control 90% of the wealth, for instance. In such a society, there is no way that everyone is treated as equals and no way that everyone has the same political, economic, or civil rights. Would you or I have gotten the same light handed treatment that, say, Lindsey Lohan got for stealing an SUV, driving around intoxicated, and crashing it into an innocent bystander? Nope, justice really means 'just us rich folk.' How many Americans grow up with dozens of fabulously wealthy friends who are willing to loan us money for our loopy business schemes that have failed dozens of times in the past? You and I don't, But George W. Bush sure did.
We have two Americas now. The America of Wall Street CEOs that makes up 90% of the physical wealth of the country, and the America of the rest of us, a measly 10% split amongst the bottom 90%. They get bailouts and tax breaks, we get failing infrastructure.