Talk:Seduction of the Innocent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board. | ||
| ??? | This article has no rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and provide comments here. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale. | ||
Contents |
[edit] Hidden Images
I will admit, although I now quite a bit about this page in comic book history, I have not read Seduction of the Innocent and with regards to the phrase 'images of female nudity concealed in drawings of muscles and tree bark', this is the first I have noticed this statement. Are there examples available anywhere to illustrate what Wertham was attesting to?--RedKnight 13:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know of any examples, but I've heard in several sources that Wertham made these claims. I believe they were all ludicrous accusations, though, mere coincidences of shape. Elijya 17:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've read SOTI, and the scientific merit of its hidden images are on the level of Wilson Bryan Key's books; that is, sensational nonsense, the fearmonger's equivalent of a Droodle. I recall that Wertham reproduces a panel with a drawing of some muscular guy or superhero, next to a close up of the same drawing, showing the deltoid muscle (front shoulder), which the artist or inker feathered to add contour. FW seemed to think that it was either a deliberate or subconscious attempt at drawing a female pelvis and pubes. FW's caption went something like "There are pictures within pictures for those who know how to look". --AC 20:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Publishing History?
Does anyone have any information on the publishing history of SotI? How many printings did it go through, in what years, through what publishers? There's also a line about the book being a small bestseller. Does anyone have any actual figures about the number of copies the book sold? Elijya 17:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Evidence
Is any evidence available for his claims about the effects of comic books?
- None whatsoever, except as mentioned in the article (Wonder Woman and bondage). Most of his claims are profoundly silly - comic books cause juvenile delinquency because most delinquents read comic books. Of course, most juvenile delinquents also chewed gum or drank milk, but he fails to mention those "causes" of their behavior. --Chancemichaels 20:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels
[edit] Voluntary establishment of Comics Code?
The current article now says:
the Comics Code Authority was voluntarily established by publishers to self-censor their titles.
...and:
publishers developed the Comics Code Authority to censor their own content.
I believe both statements are misleadingly general in that they suggest that all publishers volunteered to form the CC. Rather the case seems to have been that some publishers saw the code as a way of competing with other publishers.
As I understand it William M. Gaines proposed that publishers band together to FIGHT censorship, as Frank Jacobs writes, p. 112 of 'The Mad World of William M. Gaines':
A few weeks after the hearings, Gaines tried to rally his fellow publishers. The plan was to start a new comic association that would be an action group. It would work with educators and psychologists to find out if there really was a link between horror and crime and juvenile delinquency. It would employ a public relations staff to reclaim the public's shattered faith in comic books. Finally it would protect publishers against the spectre of censorship.
Gaines hired Wendell Willkie Hall for the first meeting. He was happily surprised when nine publishers showed up. However, their first action was to vote to outlaw the words "crime", "horror", and "terror" in comics. Gaines rose from his seat. "This isn't what I had in mind," he said, and walked out of the hall.
Wikipedia's own Gaines article goes on:
In 1955, EC was effectively driven out of business by the backlash, and by the Comics Magazine Association of America, an industry group that Gaines himself had suggested, but soon lost control of to John Goldwater, publisher of the innocuous Archie teenage comics.
Summing up: the relatively liberal WMG rents a hall and tries to get his fellow publishers to form something like the ACLU or Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, but the meeting is taken over by conservative John L. Goldwater who must of prefered the Hayes Code as his model. JLG may have done this out of altruism, (if he thought horror comics were evil), or as a ruthless business strategy, (he wasn't publishing horror comics), or for both reasons.
The article should be clearer how publishers were divided about whether to fight or capitulate to political pressure, that the majority who favored caving in prevailed, and that some of that majority (perhaps coincidentally) had something to gain by it. --AC 21:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
