|
|
Post by String on Aug 6, 2018 10:19:49 GMT -5
Last week I read a notice on CBR where DC has decided once again to table the decision to release a new collection of the Golden Age Shazam serial Monster Society of Evil. The reason(s) why are the exact same that they cite every time this idea surfaces, that is the racial stereotyping that is seen as offensive by today's standards (mostly in conjunction of Japanese portrayals and the depiction/behaviour of Billy's black manservant)
DC's flirtation with this decision over the years baffles me. Now I admit, I've read very few Golden Age comics so I don't know how widespread this type of racism was back then. Judging by covers alone, it seems to me that it may have been prevalent to some degree across the board. I could be wrong but I have to ask, has DC, Marvel, or other publishers released collections of other Golden Age materials featuring this type of racism?
I would hope that fans today would realize that while such depictions are wrong, they are also part of that specific era and should be viewed in that context alone. Is it that these racial profiles in Monster Society are more heavy-handed or extreme than even the 'norm' of the Golden Age perhaps?
I don't know, it just feels to me like this serial is singularly targeted for this specific reason above everyone else and I'm not sure why.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Aug 6, 2018 10:54:48 GMT -5
Make no mistake bout it: racism is endemic in Golden Age comics. And it doesn't just take the form of innertube-lipped blacks spouting minstrel show dialogue or slavering, degenerate Japanese (often referred to as "monkeymen"). There are insulting caricatures of Chinese, Hispanics, Native Americans, Arabs, and Southern or Eastern Europeans practically every time you turn a page. I've gone through over 5,000 comics published between 1940-44 and I can count on one hand the instances when minorities were presented in a non-stereotypical, non-degrading fashion. The only minority spared from this abuse are Jews, not surprising given the ethnicity of most comics executives and creators back then. I understand your frustration over DC's reluctance to put out a Monster Society collection but, even with disclaimers about historical context, such a book is bound to set off sparks of protest. I wouldn't be surprised if some chain stores refused to stock it.
With websites like Comic Book Plus (comicbookplus.com) offering free downloads of most, if not all, of the original Fawcett ouevre (and Quality, Fox, Centaur, etc., etc.), thlough, you can check out all this material for yourself.
Cei-U!
Give it a try!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 10:58:36 GMT -5
Whiz Comics #12 If this Comic Book came out today it would be very racist in my eyes because Billy Baston wanted to disguise himself to make peace with the Captain that he attempts to come on board. There is many references to racism on this single page of comics that I don't want to dwell on ... this would not fly today at all.  Pretty Sad for a Captain Marvel Comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Aug 6, 2018 10:58:52 GMT -5
Yeah, it's pretty hilarious that this has happened twice now.
DC Executive: "We should release the Monster Society of Evil! I hear it's a classic!"
*8 Months Later DC Executive actually reads the Monster Society of Evil*
Dc Executive: "oh. Never mind."
I don't want to say I applaud companies for releasing racist material... But, yeah, slap a disclaimer on it and print it, please!
I think these examples of historical racism serve more as an object lesson than as incitement to hate Japanese people, or that black people are idiots. You can see through past racist caricatures how the petty "alt-right" (or whatver) racism that's really prevalent in our culture now is going to look like the height of gape-mouthed idiocy in a couple decades.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Aug 6, 2018 11:24:23 GMT -5
This is EXACTLY why the ridiculously extended copyright lengths are anathema to a free exchange of ideas. I have no problem with protecting creators and their families for a reasonable amount of time. I have major problems with multi-national corporations locking up our cultural heritage for hundreds of years.
Luckily the Fawcett books have mostly fallen into the public domain. But that will no longer happen in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Aug 6, 2018 11:32:09 GMT -5
I read where a lot of the trepidation is because a Shazam movie is being planned and no-one wants to risk a negative view of the character (which isn't exactly a household name these days). Of course it's not just comics. A lot of portrayals popular culture up through WWII--movies, animation, fiction, public art--can be pretty jarring to modern audiences. And slapping a disclaimer on it won't protect a corporation that wants to avoid bad publicity--it's not worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 6, 2018 12:05:55 GMT -5
Last week I read a notice on CBR where DC has decided once again to table the decision to release a new collection of the Golden Age Shazam serial Monster Society of Evil. The reason(s) why are the exact same that they cite every time this idea surfaces, that is the racial stereotyping that is seen as offensive by today's standards (mostly in conjunction of Japanese portrayals and the depiction/behaviour of Billy's black manservant) DC's flirtation with this decision over the years baffles me. Now I admit, I've read very few Golden Age comics so I don't know how widespread this type of racism was back then. Judging by covers alone, it seems to me that it may have been prevalent to some degree across the board. I could be wrong but I have to ask, has DC, Marvel, or other publishers released collections of other Golden Age materials featuring this type of racism? I would hope that fans today would realize that while such depictions are wrong, they are also part of that specific era and should be viewed in that context alone. Is it that these racial profiles in Monster Society are more heavy-handed or extreme than even the 'norm' of the Golden Age perhaps? I don't know, it just feels to me like this serial is singularly targeted for this specific reason above everyone else and I'm not sure why. I'm not sure why Monster Society was solicited after a previously planned release (I think around about in 2011) was cancelled for the same reason. Will DC be testing the waters again to see if blackface will be more warmly received in the far off future of 2025? As for how other Golden Age comics compare, I can't imagine anyone's as well versed in that period as Cei-U!, but in my experience, I can say that I don't recall there being much, if any, racism in Batman and aside from some anti-Japanese sentiment in Superman (there is an infamous Action Comics 58 "Superman says: You can Slap a Jap!" cover with a racist caricature accompanying the slogan) I can't think of anything that leaps out at me. Not that I wish to downplay any racism, but I think there is a certain amount which DC can get away with by releasing a 'Please note that we present the material as originally published and today do not condone the depiction of...' disclaimer at the start of the book and a degree of racism that can't be as easily winced at and then placed in the back of the mind. Or to put it another way, DC has released Golden Age reprints of Superman, Batman, and Green Arrow in the past year and I haven't heard any outcry or concern with regards to its contents. I believe I heard something about a Wonder Woman collection from the same period having artwork altered, but I don't know what the situation was there beyond the fact that the changes were due to racist portrayals of a certain group. At the same time, that doesn't mean that if something's been released, you can count on it being free of racism. The Spirit used a racist caricature in the form of Ebony within it's stories (and had black audiences rightly call Eisner out on this, hence his departure from the series in 1949), The Young Allies (Marvel's team of junior superheroes during the war) had a similarly offensive racial stereotype filling out its ranks in the form of Whitewash Jones, DC's Seven Soldiers of Victory had an eighth member in the form of Wing - a Chinese stereotype that doesn't even look human - and all of these series have been released as either part of DC/Marvel's Archive program or Masterwork line. In my opinion, if you're curious about the Golden Age of comics but are hesitant to explore that period out of concern for finding something on par with what's in The Monster Society of Evil, I wouldn't worry too much - after all, I'm sure that whatever you've heard about Golden Age Batman stuff for instance, is more of the "Why is Batman acting so goofy? variety than of the "Why is Alfred wearing blackface" variety. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 6, 2018 12:22:05 GMT -5
It's a long and old debate. Do you re-release historically important material with disclaimers or even a long essay to establish context, when it is filled with offensive material? It is the reason we don't see Song of the South, from Disney, a lot of early cartoons from Disney and Warner Bros, and some beloved children's books. When I worked for Barnes & Noble, our children's department carried the picture book Little Black Sambo, which was considered a classic in many circles, yet is nothing but racist caricatures. I only glanced at it; but, I believe the edition we had may have been from Dover, who reprints public domain material. It sold fairly steadily. We also carried Mein Kampf, in the German History section. Both are as offensive as you get and both have historical and literary importance; but, it takes a lot of contex to undercut the racist material. The question is, how expensive and far are you willing to commit to establish the context? Are the potential sales worth it? Is the potential economic impact worth it? Most conglomerates will say "no." The cartoons are buried, the books allowed to remain on dusty shelves, the comics hidden.
I think it takes more than a disclaimer to justify publishing that much racist material. If it were one or two panels, than a one page disclaimer should suffice (much like the disclaimers about some of the wartime Looney tunes, on the home video collections of that material). If it is prevalent, you need a long chapter to provide context and must expend a lot of time establishing the historical value of the rest of the material, to justify it. Given the size of the potential audience for such a thing (which, let's face it, is relatively small), why bother?
I do agree that the copyright extensions rob the population of cultural artifacts.
I sometimes wonder why DC doesn't just license the material for someone else to print (and take the heat), as was done previously, with the limited edition collection that was put out in 1989, from American Nostalgia Library (a division of Hawk Books, ltd) which had a 3000 copy print run. Sadly, I don't still own my my copy).
|
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Aug 6, 2018 13:44:51 GMT -5
This is EXACTLY why the ridiculously extended copyright lengths are anathema to a free exchange of ideas. I have no problem with protecting creators and their families for a reasonable amount of time. I have major problems with multi-national corporations looking up our cultural heritage for hundreds of years. |
|
|
|
Post by String on Aug 7, 2018 16:24:35 GMT -5
Even if you know some or all of the context, that sort of material is hard to read, wow.
It's equally disturbing to see such racism applied across all types and groups. My initial thoughts were that since this was during WW II (and preceding it) that any vitriol (however strong) would only be aimed towards Axis members and allies.
A new mass-market collection of this serial would probably be risky both in terms of potential profit and negative backlash. However offering a new library-type edition, perhaps presented as a legitimate historical reference with proper context seems a better option. As cody mentioned with the only other previous edition released, offer it in a pre-order sale on a limited run basis for those true fans who would buy such an edition. That way, DC would know how many sales they would generate. (I wouldn't object to paying a higher cost for such an edition).
On an aside about the Fawcett material having fallen into public domain (thanks for the tip about Comic Book Plus), did DC not gain ownership of all that material when they got the rights for the character and such from Fawcett in their lawsuit? If it's in the public domain now, how can they sell a collection of it for profit? (As with the Shazam Archive books)
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Aug 7, 2018 16:38:09 GMT -5
Even if you know some or all of the context, that sort of material is hard to read, wow. It's equally disturbing to see such racism applied across all types and groups. My initial thoughts were that since this was during WW II (and preceding it) that any vitriol (however strong) would only be aimed towards Axis members and allies. A new mass-market collection of this serial would probably be risky both in terms of potential profit and negative backlash. However offering a new library-type edition, perhaps presented as a legitimate historical reference with proper context seems a better option. As cody mentioned with the only other previous edition released, offer it in a pre-order sale on a limited run basis for those true fans who would buy such an edition. That way, DC would know how many sales they would generate. (I wouldn't object to paying a higher cost for such an edition). On an aside about the Fawcett material having fallen into public domain (thanks for the tip about Comic Book Plus), did DC not gain ownership of all that material when they got the rights for the character and such from Fawcett in their lawsuit? If it's in the public domain now, how can they sell a collection of it for profit? (As with the Shazam Archive books) It fell into the public domain because the copyright was not renewed which was a requirement until the Copyright Act of 1976. What DC acquired was whatever was still under copyright to Fawcett and whatever trademarks still existed. There is nothing stopping them from publishing public domain works just like there is nothing stopping anyone else. For example, A Princess of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs is in the public domain. ERB Inc. can still publish the book. And you can find a ton of people on the internet selling digital copies of it for 99 cents. However, you can also find it for free at many places including Amazon and Project Gutenberg. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 7, 2018 23:27:21 GMT -5
Even if you know some or all of the context, that sort of material is hard to read, wow. It's equally disturbing to see such racism applied across all types and groups. My initial thoughts were that since this was during WW II (and preceding it) that any vitriol (however strong) would only be aimed towards Axis members and allies. A new mass-market collection of this serial would probably be risky both in terms of potential profit and negative backlash. However offering a new library-type edition, perhaps presented as a legitimate historical reference with proper context seems a better option. As cody mentioned with the only other previous edition released, offer it in a pre-order sale on a limited run basis for those true fans who would buy such an edition. That way, DC would know how many sales they would generate. (I wouldn't object to paying a higher cost for such an edition). On an aside about the Fawcett material having fallen into public domain (thanks for the tip about Comic Book Plus), did DC not gain ownership of all that material when they got the rights for the character and such from Fawcett in their lawsuit? If it's in the public domain now, how can they sell a collection of it for profit? (As with the Shazam Archive books) Dc did not gain the rights to the characters from the 1950s lawsuit. They reached a settlement whereby Fawcett ceased publishing the characters, as sales were declining anyway. In the early 70s, DC licensed the characters from fawcett and reprinted many of their stories in Shazam and in the Shazam Limited Collector's Editions. Those reprints carried the notice "Copyright (year of publication) Fawcett Publications." For a time there, there were issues with DC's license of some of the Fawcett characters, which limited things to Captain Marvel and his specific villains. DC finally cut a deal to acquire ownership of the characters, outright. However, by that point, the copyrights on the stories had lapsed or were beginning to and DC didn't own the stories themselves, just the characters. DC was able to reprint the stories in their Archives and 80 pg Giant reprint comics, since the stories were public domain and DC controlled the trademark for the characters. Bill Black's AC Comics reprinted some Fawcett material, including the original Sentinels of Justice story; but, removed Captain marvel Jr from the art to avoid issues from DC. On some of their other reprints, they did similar things or changed the name of the character, such as calling the original Daredevil Reddevil. Similarly, AC also republished some Quality Comics stories (as did Greg Theakston's company, Pure Imagination). Again, DC gained the trademarks to the characters; but, the copyrights to the individual stories were not renewed and fell into the public domain. |
|
|
|
Post by String on Aug 8, 2018 10:44:46 GMT -5
Even if you know some or all of the context, that sort of material is hard to read, wow. It's equally disturbing to see such racism applied across all types and groups. My initial thoughts were that since this was during WW II (and preceding it) that any vitriol (however strong) would only be aimed towards Axis members and allies. A new mass-market collection of this serial would probably be risky both in terms of potential profit and negative backlash. However offering a new library-type edition, perhaps presented as a legitimate historical reference with proper context seems a better option. As cody mentioned with the only other previous edition released, offer it in a pre-order sale on a limited run basis for those true fans who would buy such an edition. That way, DC would know how many sales they would generate. (I wouldn't object to paying a higher cost for such an edition). On an aside about the Fawcett material having fallen into public domain (thanks for the tip about Comic Book Plus), did DC not gain ownership of all that material when they got the rights for the character and such from Fawcett in their lawsuit? If it's in the public domain now, how can they sell a collection of it for profit? (As with the Shazam Archive books) Dc did not gain the rights to the characters from the 1950s lawsuit. They reached a settlement whereby Fawcett ceased publishing the characters, as sales were declining anyway. In the early 70s, DC licensed the characters from fawcett and reprinted many of their stories in Shazam and in the Shazam Limited Collector's Editions. Those reprints carried the notice "Copyright (year of publication) Fawcett Publications." For a time there, there were issues with DC's license of some of the Fawcett characters, which limited things to Captain Marvel and his specific villains. DC finally cut a deal to acquire ownership of the characters, outright. However, by that point, the copyrights on the stories had lapsed or were beginning to and DC didn't own the stories themselves, just the characters. DC was able to reprint the stories in their Archives and 80 pg Giant reprint comics, since the stories were public domain and DC controlled the trademark for the characters. Bill Black's AC Comics reprinted some Fawcett material, including the original Sentinels of Justice story; but, removed Captain marvel Jr from the art to avoid issues from DC. On some of their other reprints, they did similar things or changed the name of the character, such as calling the original Daredevil Reddevil. Similarly, AC also republished some Quality Comics stories (as did Greg Theakston's company, Pure Imagination). Again, DC gained the trademarks to the characters; but, the copyrights to the individual stories were not renewed and fell into the public domain. If you published a collection of the Fawcett public domain material that featured Shazam or any other characters that DC owned the trademarks over, would that mean you'd have to pay DC some type of licensing fee if you didn't make any art alterations? Copyright and trademark laws seem like a tricky minefield to navigate regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 8, 2018 11:02:58 GMT -5
Dc did not gain the rights to the characters from the 1950s lawsuit. They reached a settlement whereby Fawcett ceased publishing the characters, as sales were declining anyway. In the early 70s, DC licensed the characters from fawcett and reprinted many of their stories in Shazam and in the Shazam Limited Collector's Editions. Those reprints carried the notice "Copyright (year of publication) Fawcett Publications." For a time there, there were issues with DC's license of some of the Fawcett characters, which limited things to Captain Marvel and his specific villains. DC finally cut a deal to acquire ownership of the characters, outright. However, by that point, the copyrights on the stories had lapsed or were beginning to and DC didn't own the stories themselves, just the characters. DC was able to reprint the stories in their Archives and 80 pg Giant reprint comics, since the stories were public domain and DC controlled the trademark for the characters. Bill Black's AC Comics reprinted some Fawcett material, including the original Sentinels of Justice story; but, removed Captain marvel Jr from the art to avoid issues from DC. On some of their other reprints, they did similar things or changed the name of the character, such as calling the original Daredevil Reddevil. Similarly, AC also republished some Quality Comics stories (as did Greg Theakston's company, Pure Imagination). Again, DC gained the trademarks to the characters; but, the copyrights to the individual stories were not renewed and fell into the public domain. If you published a collection of the Fawcett public domain material that featured Shazam or any other characters that DC owned the trademarks over, would that mean you'd have to pay DC some type of licensing fee if you didn't make any art alterations? Copyright and trademark laws seem like a tricky minefield to navigate regardless. You could publish the story; but, you could not use the names Captain Marvel or Shazam as the title. Shazam is trademarked by DC, Captain Marvel by Marvel Comics. Copyright and trademark law is pretty convoluted, especially after the copyright extensions that Disney and Warner helped push through Congress.. Copyright covers the specific story, trademark covers the character, logos and book titles. AC had characters like Doll Man and Black Condor on covers of issues of their Golden Age Men of Mystery reprint series, as well as Mr Scarlet and Spy Smasher. Basically, they knew DC wasn't focused on those characters, as they hadn't done much with them and nothing that was particularly successful. With the Marvel Family, they knew DC would make things difficult. The real problem isn't the law, it's the fact that DC could tie anyone who wanted to publish this stuff up in court for so long it wouldn't be worth it. Just as Marvel made things difficult for Dez Skinn, over the name Marvelman, DC could file a trademark infringement lawsuit over the use of the characters, even though they don't own the copyright to the Fawcett stories. Most publishers who would be interested in printing this stuff would be smaller outfits, who couldn't afford the legal costs. A similar issue exists with Tarzan. The original couple of Tarzan novels have fallen into the public domain, making them fair game for anyone who wants to publish them. You can also use Tarzan and Jane, as they were introduced in those books, so long as you aren't using material from later Tarzan's that are still under copyright. Burroughs Inc holds a trademark on the name Tarzan and has tried to stop some uses of Tarzan; but, when they went after Dynamite, over their Tarzan comic, Lord of the Jungle. Dynamite stood their ground and Burroughs lost, affirming that anything derived from the public domain novels is fair game. Same is true for A Princess of Mars, the first John Carter and any of the subsequent books that have fallen into the public domain (and Fu Manchu, which is part of why Marvel could finally reprint Master of Kung Fu). A big enough publisher could reprint the Fawcett stories, if they chose, and fight DC in court; but, most would consider the audience too small for the costs. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 8, 2018 11:11:43 GMT -5
If you want to see public domain characters in action, look at the Nedor/Standard characters. They fell into the public domain years ago. Several publishers have used the characters. Eclipse published a Black Terror comic in the early 90s, from Chuck Dixon, Beau Smith and Dan Brereton (one of Brereton's first high profile books). AC Comics published several reprints of the Jerry Robinson/Mort Meskin Black Terror stories in Golden Age Greats and Golden Age Men of Mystery. DC, via Wildstorm, published Alan Moore's Tom Strong, which used the Black Terror and other heroes, as well as Terra Obscura, which centered on those characters. Dynamite put out the Project Superpowers, which featured the Black Terror and other Nedor characters, plus other public domain heroes. Eclipse trademarked the title Black Terror. So, AC and Alan Moore just called the character The Terror. Todd McFarlane ended up with the Eclipse rights, after he picked up their assets in bankruptcy court. However, he didn't do anything with most of it. He must have let the trademark lapse, because Dynamite called their version The Black Terror and titled the book with that.
|
|
