Breaking The Comics Code: Backstory

And here’s another one of those article series I’ve been wanting to get to for a long time, although the title came to me only recently. Breaking The Comics Code will be an examination of, obviously, the Comics Code. For those of you who haven’t followed comics very long, the Comics Code were a set of standards comic writing and art had to adhere to show they were family-friendly or even kid friendly. At least in theory. In practice, it was a set of morals standards and if you didn’t have the official seal (seen in pieces in the logo above) you wouldn’t make it to the newsstands.

The Comics Code would slowly be ignored, for various reasons that we’ll get into as the series goes on. This series will also be a breakdown of the Code and its various revisions leading to the answer of one question: was the Comics Code really as bad as it gets painted out to be, or is there more to the story? For our first installment we’ll take a look at what led to the formation of the Comics Code.

Most of you probably know the basics already. In the 1940s and 1950s a number of horror comics had hit the shelves. There were also comics that told crime drama stories and superhero stories, romance tales, and other things. As with any media, there was this group who assumed comics were only for kids. They were worried about morally questionable content in something that they assumed was targeted to kids. Naturally, Congress got involved and are you gamers having a flashback right now? Comics even had their own Jack Thompson in the form of Fredrick Wertham, with others joining his cause. I’m shuffling events chronologically for the record. It’s easy to look for.

In response the Comics Magazine Association of America (CMAA) created a set of standards called the Publisher’s Code, based on the “Hayes Code”, or the Motion Picture Production Code created by Will H. Hays. And once I’m done here I should look at that. Sure it was thrown out by Congress, but it’s still fascinating discussion material. Copy/pasting from Wikipedia, the code was as follows:

1. Sexy, wanton comics should not be published. No drawing should show a female indecently or unduly exposed, and in no event more nude than in a bathing suit commonly worn in the United States of America.
2. Crime should not be presented in such a way as to throw sympathy against the law and justice or to inspire others with the desire for imitation. No comics shall show the details and methods of a crime committed by a youth. Policemen, judges, Government officials, and respected institutions should not be portrayed as stupid, ineffective, or represented in such a way to weaken respect for established authority.
3. No scenes of sadistic torture should be shown.
4. Vulgar and obscene language should never be used. Slang should be kept to a minimum and used only when essential to the story.
5. Divorce should not be treated humorously or represented as glamorous or alluring.
6. Ridicule or attack on any religious or racial group is never permissible.

“Ridicule..on any…racial group is never permissible”…oh, how they messed that one up. Anyway, Charles Murphy was put in charge of the CCMA, and he established a series of rules that would in theory make the parents groups happy. Any comic that didn’t follow the CCA’s edicts would not be able to sell their comics at the newsstands..except Dell and Gold Key did that quite well. Both companies knew how to target their comics and keep the content safe for the proper age group, which is not what the CCA eventually did. And it might have even been corrupt at the start.

One of the companies seriously hurt by the Comics Code was EC Comics. Their titles focused on horror stories, with titles like Tales From The Crypt (which inspired the HBO horror anthology show and CBS’s Tales From The Cryptkeeper, which was a more kid-friendly Saturday Morning cartoon) and Vault Of Horror, the CCA banning the words “horror”, “crime”, and “terror”. EC’s publisher, William Gaines, claimed the Code was created to target him, since Gaines and Murphy didn’t like each other. If he’s right, the Code wasn’t created to protect kids but hurt rivals who couldn’t adjust their comics to the new standard. Just like politics, really; whenever someone says “we’re doing this for the children”, say goodbye to another right.

Even with this potentially darker shade to the Code’s origin, however, the big problem is that the code itself was so poorly enforced that even the big name companies started to distance themselves from it. At the end of this article series, and possibly during it, I’ll discuss the failings of the Code and the CCA and look into what ultimately led to its demise, and to answer the obvious question, was Wertham right? (It’s not as simple as no, but that’s our starting point.) For the rest, however, we will look at the Comics Code itself, to dissect the rules and see what the actual damage was to comics. I also want to look at the revisions made, the enforcement of the Code, and how the Code could have been better. We now live in a time where there are Superman comics I wouldn’t be comfortable showing to a kid the same age I was when I discovered Superman. That makes me sad. The last question I want to answer is…could there have been a better way to keep kids safe from certain comics and did the end of the CCA lead to a positive or a negative for the comics industry.

To prepare, Lambek.net has a visual representation of the Code, showing examples of pre-Code comics that wouldn’t make it within the rules of the Code or earn the seal. The article’s banner has an image that might disturb some, so fair warning there. It’s like a zombie Two-Face with part of his head missing. At the next opening we’ll look at the Code itself, dissecting what was silly to do, what was a good idea, and what could have been done better. Join us for the next installment.