Comics Code Authority

views updated

Comics Code Authority

When the Comics Code was drafted in 1954, it was touted by its creators as "the most stringent code in existence for any communications media." It certainly created a fervor, and sparked heated debate about the role of comic books and what they could and should do. The Comics Code Authority, however, was quick to diminish as a censoring body, challenge after challenge reducing it to relative powerlessness. Still, the Code, along with the events leading up to it, had made its impact, not only changing the direction and aesthetics of American comic books, but also affecting this artistic form internationally. Conventions were shaped, as artists endeavored to tell their stories within the Code's restrictions. Meanwhile, working outside of the Code, some artists took special care to flout such circumscription.

Although many factors may be considered in the establishment of the Code, the most widely discussed has been psychiatrist Frederic Wertham's book, Seduction of the Innocent, which, in a scathing attack on comic books, claimed that reading comics could lead to juvenile delinquency. The book reproduced isolated panels from several comics and argued that such scenes had a negative impact on the psychology of children. Although some psychologists argued against Wertham's claims, the book was generally well received, becoming a best-seller and creating a furor over the supposed insidiousness of the comic book industry. The release of the book was followed by hearings—commonly referred to as the Kefauver Hearings after presiding senator Estes Kefauver—before the Senate subcommittee on delinquency. Called to testify, Wertham continued his attack on comic books, concluding "I think Hitler was a beginner compared to the comic book industry." William Gaines, publisher of the much-maligned EC line of comics, argued that these comics were not intended for young children and should not be subjected to protective censorship. Still he found himself forced into a defense not of comics as an expressive art form, but of what constituted "good taste" in a horror comic.

After all was said and done, however, it was not from the outside that the code was imposed, but rather from within the industry itself. The Comic Magazine Association of America(CMAA) was formed on October 26, 1954 by a majority of publishers, in an effort to head off more controversy and to resuscitate declining sales figures. The CMAA served as a self-censoring body, creating a restrictive code forbidding much violence and sexual content as well as anti-authoritarian sentiment, and even limiting the use of specific words like "crime," "terror," or "horror" on comic book covers. Publishers were now obliged to submit their comics for review by the Comics Code Authority (CCA). Approved magazines were granted the cover seal stating, "Approved by the Comics Code Authority." Publishers that failed to meet Code restrictions or that declined to have their books reviewed by the CCA found their distribution cut off as retailers declined to carry unapproved books. Such publishers eventually either submitted to the Code or went out of business. Notably, Wertham had been in favor of restrictions that would keep certain comics out of the hands of children, but he was troubled by what he saw in Code-approved books, which he often found no less harmful than the pre-Code comics.

Two companies, Dell and Gilberton, already regarded as publishers of wholesome comics such as the Disney and Classics Illustrated titles, remained exempt from the Code. Other publishers worked around the Code. Some resorted to publishing comics in magazine format to avoid restrictions. Given the virtual elimination of crime and horror comics, several publishers began to place more emphasis on their superhero books, in which the violence was bigger than life and far from the graphically realistic portrayals in crime and horror comics. It was during these ensuing years that superheroes came to dominate the form and that DC and Marvel Comics came to command the marketplace.

In the 1960s a very different response to the Code manifested itself in the form of underground comics. These independently-produced comic books included graphic depictions of sex, violence, drug use—in short, anything that the code prohibited. Moreover, these comics often paid tribute to pre-Code books and raged against the very censoring agents that had led to their demise.

The first overt challenge to the Code came from Marvel Comics in 1971. Although the Code explicitly prohibited mention of drugs, writer/editor-in-chief Stan Lee, at the request of the Department of Health Education and Welfare, produced a three-issue anti-drug story line in Amazing Spider-Man. Despite being released without the code, these comics were distributed and sold wonderfully, aided by national press. It was with this publication that the Code finally changed, loosening up slightly on its restrictions regarding drugs and clothing to reflect a change in times. Still, most of the restrictions remained largely intact.

The power of the CCA was still further reduced with the rise of direct distribution. Shops devoted to selling only comic books, which received their comics directly from publishers or, later, comic distributors, rather than general news distributors began to spring up during the 1970s. With this new system, the vigilance against non-Code books was bypassed. The new marketplace allowed major publishers to experiment with comics geared towards an adult readership, and allowed more adventurous small publishers to distribute their wares. The way was paved for major "independent" publishers, like Image and Dark Horse, who refused to submit to the CCA's restrictions.

Although the CCA has but a shadow of its former power over the industry, and although the Code itself has been criticized—even from within the CMAA—as an ineffectual dinosaur, there can be no question of its impact. The comics industry, both economically and aesthetically, owes a great deal to the Comics Code Authority, having been shaped variously by accommodation and antagonism.

—Marc Oxoby