Seduction of the Innocent
in 1954, calling for the introduction of a self-regulating body known as the Comic Code Authority, that had such ridiculous rules as, you could not use the word 'flick' in a comic for fear that the 'L' would run into the 'I' and Spider-Man would be saying, 'Look, he's got a fuck knife!'" note In America, flick knives are better known as switchblade knives. The specific alleged rule is actually just an urban legend, though comics editors were by that time quite aware of The Problem with Pen Island.For decades, the Comics Code Authority — keepers of the Comics Code — served as one of America's premier Censorship Bureaus. This site even named said page after the Code for a time.
In the early 1950s, a moral panic centred around crime and horror comics swept North America, thanks in significant part to psychologist Fredric Wertham and his book Seduction of the Innocent, a putatively scholarly study which supposedly demonstrated an influential connection between severely troubled children and the comic books they read (it wasn't until many years later that researchers discovered Wertham had based his conclusions almost exclusively on data that was distorted or selective at best, and outright fabricated at worst).note In fact, the entire comic book controversy eclipsed some of his notable achievements such as helping desegregate schools. Wertham himself realized he had fallen prey to the When All You Have Is a Hammer… mindset in the early 70s, and wrote about the positive role fanzines had in geek culture. What of the comics they wrote about? "The creative imagination of fanzine writers and artists, especially the younger ones, tends in the direction of heroes, maybe in that lies a message for our unheroic age." However, by then it was too late.
There was nation wide public backlash against comics, including public comic burnings, and even some city councils such as Houston, Texas, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma banning various horror comic series. In 1954, the U.S. comic book industry, trying to head off growing backlash and subsequent calls for government regulation, formed the Comics Magazine Association of America. The CMAA was initially led by major publishing houses Archie Comics (protected by an image of "wholesome American youth")note In fact, throughout the entire existence of the CMAA and the Comics Code Authority, it was run by Archie Comics' administration — a blatant conflict of interest. and DC Comics (which made a lot of money from kid-friendly romance and science fiction titles during this time period). The group subsequently set up the Comics Code Authority, or CCA, as a self-imposed censorship bureau; in hindsight, this move likely led to tighter censorship than was actually necessary to get their rules approved by the government.
The CCA's charter, known simply as the Comics Code, prohibited (amongst other things) the questioning of public authority figures, displays of moral ambiguity, any suggestion of sexuality (up to and including seductive posing), and any display of narcotics in any possible context. Every story had to have a happy ending (i.e., one in which evil acts were punished and good acts rewarded); multi-part stories with cliffhangers had to be specially approved by the CCA before publication. The Code also regulated what could be advertised in comic books as well, but most of those types of restrictions (e.g., liquor, tobacco, weapons, fireworks, gambling equipment) were fairly common-sense, the sole bit of self-regulation that actually seems sensible even in the 21st century.
The effect of the Code's harsh censorship on the minds of young comic readers remains unknown, but it definitely worked to the detriment of the medium's artistic maturity. The "wholesome" entertainment created in the Code's wake stereotyped graphic storytelling (of any kind, regardless of whether they were CCA approved or not) as silly fluff fit only for children — a stigma that the medium still has difficulty shaking off in the United States, despite (or even because of) the ever-growing popularity of live-action comic book adaptations. As a side effect, the Code was designed to favour stories with a very conservative, pro-authoritarian message.note As a further note: this is considered, in retrospect, one of the elements that badly damaged Superman long-term, because DC's Superman titles hewed very close to the code as he was one of DC's breadwinners... which had the effect of making him a flawless ubermensch for much of the '50s and '60s and making him an icon of mid-century conservative America, with all the baggage that would later entail. Later writers — starting with Mark Waid's Kingdom Come and onward — would grapple heavily with this legacy, and it would dog Supes well into the 21st century. The medium's most talented writers and artists of the period, growing frustrated because they could not tell stories the way they wanted, soon resorted to subverting the rules in increasingly creative ways.
Numerous publishing houses folded after the formation of the CCA because their more adult-themed subject matter could not pass the Code... which coincidentally happened to cut down the amount of competition to Archie, DC, and DC-owned Independent News (then the largest distributor in the CMAA). William Gaines's EC Comics, the industry's most notorious publisher during the backlash, tried to operate under Code compliance despite mounting frustration, but gave up within a year when a planned reprint of the Aesop-heavy Judgment Day was vetoed anyway... because the main character was a black man. That objection had no basis whatsoever in the Code; it was blatantly motivated by Comics Code Administrator Judge Charles Murphy's own racist views, and it confirmed EC editors' suspicions that they were being deliberately harassed into oblivion. Ultimately, EC won the battle and reprinted "Judgment Day" unedited (largely thanks to threats of legal action and bad publicity), only to lose the war: the story appeared in the final issue of their last comic title, after which they abandoned the newsstand comics business altogether. Instead, EC altered its focus exclusively onto MAD Magazine. note MAD was originally published as a comic book before EC changed it to a magazine format. According to William Gaines, the change was done NOT to escape the Code, but to keep editor Harvey Kurtzman from jumping ship to work on another magazine. Although he still ended up leaving about a year later, the format change thus protected MAD from CCA interference.
Two publishers, Dell Comics and Gilberton (publisher of Classics Illustrated), never bothered to submit to the CCA — there was no actual legal obligation to.note What gave the CCA any teeth at all was pressure that newsstands would not carry books not Code compliant. It didn't hurt that Dell, in particular, carried the valuable Disney brand and saw most of their sales in department and toy stores. Dell believed their company brand and reputation would reassure parents, as per their slogan, "Dell Comics are Good Comics." Neither publisher's lack of a CCA stamp harmed their profits for most of the Code's heyday. In an ironic twist, this situation allowed Dell (and Gold Key Comics, which "spun off" from Dell in 1962) to occasionally publish comics the Code would not allow, such as an adaptation of Dark Shadows featuring vampire Barnabas Collins.note But even then, restraint was shown — for example, the artwork implied vampire bites without ever showing them.
Perhaps the one positive benefit resulting from the Code was completely inadvertent. Namely, when Marv Wolfman wrote a horror story for DC's The House of Secrets, the issue's framing story had the horror host, Abel, comment that he heard it from a "wandering Wolfman" as a Stealth Pun. The Comics Code flagged it because they mistook this for a mention of a werewolf, which was specifically verboten. In response, the editor was able to tell the censors that the writer's surname was in fact Wolfman, after which the Code relented on the condition that it be clearly marked in the story as a credit that the writer with the name wrote it. After that compromise, the other writers at DC complained about Wolfman being given such special consideration and the editorship decided to give official credits for all its writers to placate them.
The first serious challenge to the Code's effectiveness came in 1971, when Stan Lee wrote for Marvel Comics "Green Goblin Reborn!", a Spider-Man story that not only portrayed drugs in an extremely negative light, but had been written on the explicit recommendation of the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. That fact in particular made the CCA look damned foolish when it refused to approve the story because it showed... a character using drugs.note In contrast, the CCA had approved an earlier Deadman story where the superhero fought drug smugglers because the story focused on the wholesale handling of narcotics by criminals. The CCA always handled the Code's rules in an inconsistent way. Since Marvel had earned the clout to defy the CCA, it simply removed the Code Seal from the comics containing the storyline, which appeared in Amazing Spider-Man #96-98. The story received considerable public appreciation and critical acclaim. By contrast, the CCA's explanations were dismissed by the public as a bunch of counterproductive excuses from a bunch of blinkered bluenoses/busybodies.
This all was something of a wake-up call to the CCA: they had found out just how far they had fallen out of touch not only with the industry but with society in general. Thus they issued two major revisions to the Code, which either relaxed or dropped many of its more archaic rules. A revision in 1971, after "Green Goblin Reborn!" was published, tried to update the original Code without altering the basic structure. A second revision in 1989 combined notably fewer and looser restrictions with politically correct injunctions against stereotyping minority characters.
None of these changes, however, prevented the Code's eventual lapse into complete irrelevance. As "direct market" comic book specialty stores (which the Code did not cover) rose to prominence and cut into the sales of newsstand comics (which were all covered by the Code) and "direct-only" comics from the established publishers became more common, existing comics companies published more comics without the Code Seal. Newer publishers who needed a way to stand out from the existing pack would produce comics aimed at older teens and adults that ignored the Code.
DC Comics generally stopped using the Code Seal after the turn of the 21st Century. Their rating system is E for Everyone (yes, like the Entertainment Software Rating Board), T for Teen (which is the rating for most of their well-known titles like Superman and Wonder Woman), Teen Plus (suitable for ages 15 and up), and M for Mature. Marvel Comics formally withdrew from the CCA at around the same time, despite Stan Lee having kicked the door in three decades prior and having more or less flouted the Code for decades already. Marvel's current rating system is All Ages, T (for teen, similar to a PG or E10+ rating), T+ (similar to PG-13), Parental Advisory (similar to R), and Max (explicit content).
By 2009, the only three comic book publishers who were still using the Code for their titles were DC, Archie Comics, and the final new company to adopt the Code, Bongo Comics (founded by Matt Groening in 1993, and therefore dedicated primarily to publishing comic books featuring characters from The Simpsons and Futurama). Bongo stopped using the Comics Code Seal on their titles in January 2010, and as a result of this, according to some sources, the Code barely existed during its final year. Only one person was still working for the CCA on a regular basis, and their only job would be to check the few books that DC was still submitting. Archie actually stopped submitting their titles to the CCA the same year Bongo completely dropped the Code, but continued to publish them with the Code's seal of approval, as both parties involved simply assumed Archie's comics would always pass muster. And hey, why wouldn't they? After all, it wasn't like they were ever going to star their iconic uber-wholesome teenage cast in a zombie horror spinoff, or something, right?
In January 2011, DC formally abandoned the Code in favor of an in-house rating system. Archie Comics, the Code's sole remaining participant and administrator, decided the Code no longer served a purpose in light of the company's publishing standards — "We aren't about to start stuffing bodies into refrigerators!"note No, they were going to have their iconic wholesome namesake star brutally gunned down right out in the open... — so it abandoned the Code just a day after DC. With that, the Comics Code Authority was gone once and for all after 57 years... and almost immediately thereafter, Archie debuted Afterlife with Archie, the company's first "direct market" title. Afterlife featured a full-on Zombie Apocalypse, which would never have been allowed under the Code. The first issue of Afterlife sold out — twice.
On September 29, 2011, the CMAA announced it had sold the intellectual property rights of the Comics Code seal to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (a U.S.-based non-profit organization that helps to protect the First Amendment rights of comic creators, publishers, and retailers by covering legal expenses). In a nice little twist, the sale coincided with that year's annual Banned Books Week campaign.
To learn more about the Code's origins and how it ultimately affected the comic book industry, check out The Ten-Cent Plague: The Great Comic-Book Scare and How It Changed America by David Hajdu.
See also The Hays Code, another self-imposed and equally-restrictive "taste and decency" code that covered Hollywood studio movies from the mid-1930s to the mid-1960s.
One final irony: Fredric Wertham, whose book started the whole moral panic in the first place, later denounced the Code as a whitewash that made comics worse — because it allowed comics to depict violence without realistic consequences. He went on to say that what he had wanted in the first place was a rating system.
While the Comics Code itself was an American phenomenon, it had counterparts elsewhere. Around the same time as the Comics Code, Dan Dare was created as The Moral Substitute to American Horror and Science Fiction comics. A few decades later, Britain experienced a significant moral panic around horror comics starting in the mid-1970s, which led to the closure of anthologies such as Action, many of which were aimed at children but featured graphic real-world violence. After questions were asked in Parliament about "far-left propaganda corrupting our young people", and especially about a 20 Minutes into the Future story in which Britain is defeated by a foreign invader and its female prime minister was seen being executed, 2000 AD felt forced to revise and retcon more than one comic story. In Japan, meanwhile, the heyday of extremely violent and sexualized anime and manga in the 1980s came to an end when a notorious serial killer was discovered to have a large Lolicon manga collection, prompting a backlash to such works across the country.
The Code (1954 version):As the documentary Wonder Women! The Untold Story of American Superheroines notes, besides the written rules, there were a number of unwritten rules, such as that women and minorities should be restricted to roles deemed "acceptable" in the 1950s. This resulted in Wonder Woman for many years not being feminist at all, as well as the controversy where "Judgment Day" was denied approval due to the main character being revealed to be black at the end, until William Gaines threatened to tell the media exactly why it had been denied.
The Code (1971 revision):RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4