18 Nov 1970 / Comics Code

It's been two weeks since we last met. At the very least, we're both older, and I'm wiser.

 Speaking of comic books, as you may remember, as we left you last time, we prepared to introduce our villain: The Code of the Comic Magazine Assoc. of America Inc., which consists of 90% of all publishers, distributors, printers and engravers.

And let me give you a hint: You can write and have printed the world’s most fascinating piece of illustrated fiction, and if no one will distribute it, no one else will ever see it.

The distributors, in the comics field, hold the key to power, and since they are directly subject to local pressure, they embrace the concept which makes taste, judgement, and censorship someone else's decision. How about a code that says "no comic shall use the word Horror or Terror in its title." (Part B-l); or one that includes a prohibition against " Scenes of horror...gory or gruesome crimes, depravity..."

Not that I am in favor of comics which would feature such things, but the language used is so broad and vague that it can and has been used against comics that have tried to express a worthy point in graphic form.

In this day and age, the code still enforces a candy-coated reality for the comics world: "Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at, or portrayed.” (My emphasis added) The ultimate in self-censorship is yet to be found, in section C of the code: "All elements or techniques not specifically mentioned herein, but which are contrary to the spirit and intent of the code, and are considered violations of good taste or decency, shall be prohibited." It's certainly comforting to know that someone was protecting my good taste and decency during the years I read comics myself. Why quote the code? What is it? What does it mean? It means that the comics industry self-polices itself into a nearly universal level of blandness.

There are no real surprises in comics.

Which is what gives rise to the underground comics. The blandness is a result of the generalities which we have just quoted from the code.

It is so broad as to be able to condemn almost anything, any story, and illustration, depending on who is interpreting it.

And to second guess this kind of censorship is to eliminate controversy before the material is even submitted.

In talks with production people at the Marvel comics group, I discovered that late submission of material to the printer results in large financial loss. Since all material must be pre-submitted to the code authority, censorship is equal to money lost.

This kind of censorship is now being hailed by many because it is so successful. Le-'s hope that its success does not lead to its adoption in other fields. Yet there are people in establishment comics that are trying to make a point in the magazines they write. In particular, I am speaking of Stan Lee and the Marvel Comics Group, of which he is head man (Art director and Editor-in Chief).

The group is a loose confederation of commercial artists ( as most comic groups are these days) who are given their story lines from a select group of authors employed bythe publishing house. The editor adds his loving touch on every story, and PRESTO! You have a consistent editorial line which has a point of view of life to get across to the reader.

That helps define the comic art form as literature.

The other adventure magazines are now following suit, but I see Stan Lee as the leader.

Illustrated fiction is heading for bigger and better things, and if you'd like to see a new entertainment form in the embryonic stages, go back again, and look at the comics rack especially for Marvels).

Scenes From American Life by A.R. Gurney Jr.

(The M.I.T. instructor in the field of playwriting) was, to put it simply, one of those rare combinations of the very funny and the deeply tragic, together yet separate. When viewed as whole, it is clear that the play's kaleidoscopic representation of Buffalo, N.Y. from 1930 to 1985 is tragic in nature. This does not really become clear until the end of the play however, so one is allowed to laugh at the very human and very touching scenes from everyone's life that the playwright portrays. (Without telling too much of the lot, I highly recommend close attention to the scene with the choir boys; the minister; and the young person's first exposure to tennis, in which he asks “What is love?" and is told that " Love means nothing.").

In describing the mixture, I am reminded very much of a common reaction to the film Joe. Some say that if the overall tone of a play or movie is tragic, then no individual part of it can be considered funny, but I disagree. Looking back on the whole play, I consider it to have been frightening, prophetic, and well done.

The dialog was sharp (Some minor lapses.

No major ones), and considering the short rehearsal period, their performances were nicely polished. The scenes from 1985 were introduced gradually throughout the play, until, near the end, they became more entwined with the past and the present, so much so that they dominated.

All the harmless little inhumanities that went before suddenly combined into man's ultimate inhumanity. Since many have mentioned it, including a Maijamajers who wishes to remain anonymous, you will note that this column did not start off by saying "This is what I will do this week", following which I proceeded to do it.

Instead, I got right into the real guts, a habit I will continue while relegating my tangents to the end rather than the start.