|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jul 24, 2019 22:10:04 GMT -5
One point: Wertham helped create, or better yet, contribute to the environment that led to the Code; but had no involvement with its founding. That was all DC, Marvel, and Archie,.... Was Marvel (or really Atlas + a dozen other names) really pushing for the code? DEFINITELY NOT! Marvel nee Atlas got hit hard by the code - A substantial minority of their books were EC knock-offs, and it was clear they didn't know what to do with those books when the code hit. And I heard that Atlas published the most titles of any comic company for a couple years in the early '50s. (I am sure they did not have the greatest sales, but I dunno if you could call them "not a major player." |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 24, 2019 23:26:55 GMT -5
Was Marvel (or really Atlas + a dozen other names) really pushing for the code? DEFINITELY NOT! Marvel nee Atlas got hit hard by the code - A substantial minority of their books were EC knock-offs, and it was clear they didn't know what to do with those books when the code hit. And I heard that Atlas published the most titles of any comic company for a couple years in the early '50s. (I am sure they did not have the greatest sales, but I dunno if you could call them "not a major player." Nobody was pushing for censorship; but, when the heat was on, the companies saw it as a way to keep outsiders from doing it and a way to thin out the competition, via language in the Code. Goodman followed whatever was the trend, so targeting EC was likely less of a problem, even if it meant losing some knockoffs, than having the government or some other outside force dictating his comics. Looking at it, he might lose some competitors, which would make it easier to sell his own comics. Atlas published the most titles because they flooded the market, not because their titles were successful. They went for selling in volume, rather than quality. Even with that many titles, they weren't even close to DC or Dell. They felt the heat and they jumped on the bandwagon, like the others. Their problem wasn't the Code, though, it was when American News Company, their distributor, went under in 1956, in the wake of government anti-trust litigation and Dell dropping them as a distributor. That, coupled with the fact that Stan had accumulated so mach back inventory of material that Goodman let everyone else go, since he couldn't put out as many titles anymore and didn't need to, as long as he had the material for the books he could put out. Mostly, I think Goodman went along with whatever Goldwater and Silberkleit wanted and saw strength in going along with the CMAA, as he already had the ACMP, in 1948. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jul 25, 2019 2:06:29 GMT -5
DEFINITELY NOT! Marvel nee Atlas got hit hard by the code - A substantial minority of their books were EC knock-offs, and it was clear they didn't know what to do with those books when the code hit. And I heard that Atlas published the most titles of any comic company for a couple years in the early '50s. (I am sure they did not have the greatest sales, but I dunno if you could call them "not a major player." Nobody was pushing for censorship; but, when the heat was on, the companies saw it as a way to keep outsiders from doing it and a way to thin out the competition, via language in the Code. Goodman followed whatever was the trend, so targeting EC was likely less of a problem, even if it meant losing some knockoffs, than having the government or some other outside force dictating his comics. Looking at it, he might lose some competitors, which would make it easier to sell his own comics. Atlas published the most titles because they flooded the market, not because their titles were successful. They went for selling in volume, rather than quality. Even with that many titles, they weren't even close to DC or Dell. They felt the heat and they jumped on the bandwagon, like the others. Their problem wasn't the Code, though, it was when American News Company, their distributor, went under in 1956, in the wake of government anti-trust litigation and Dell dropping them as a distributor. That, coupled with the fact that Stan had accumulated so mach back inventory of material that Goodman let everyone else go, since he couldn't put out as many titles anymore and didn't need to, as long as he had the material for the books he could put out. Mostly, I think Goodman went along with whatever Goldwater and Silberkleit wanted and saw strength in going along with the CMAA, as he already had the ACMP, in 1948. Are you saying that Goodman or anyone at Marvel advocated for the comics code? Or that Goodman didn't actively oppose the comics code? That's not true, according to my sources: From Stan Lee and the Rise and Fall of the American Comic Book by Sturgeon and Raphael, 2004. pg. 47
"... The Goodman line suffered more than most. Despite the advice of his lawyer and his own basic feelings regarding the first amendment, Martin Goodman couldn't opt out of the comics code. He lacked the market clout of Dell.... or the sheen of semi-legitimacy that Gilbertson enjoyed with Classics Illustrated.... Horror, already declining in popularity, was out entirely. Guns were used more sparingly, a touchy proposition when it came to westerns. Production became a more extended process as Lee was forced to have the books approved and to make any corrections demanded by the CCA."
I haven't read every comics history book ever, but I don't remember (and I can't find my googling) any source saying that anyone at Marvel, including Goodman, supported the comics code in any way at any point in time. ( Stan HATED it) Goodman and Atlas didn't feel they had the resources to fight the Code, but they were against it's inception on philosophical and monetary grounds. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 25, 2019 7:47:29 GMT -5
Nobody was pushing for censorship; but, when the heat was on, the companies saw it as a way to keep outsiders from doing it and a way to thin out the competition, via language in the Code. Goodman followed whatever was the trend, so targeting EC was likely less of a problem, even if it meant losing some knockoffs, than having the government or some other outside force dictating his comics. Looking at it, he might lose some competitors, which would make it easier to sell his own comics. Atlas published the most titles because they flooded the market, not because their titles were successful. They went for selling in volume, rather than quality. Even with that many titles, they weren't even close to DC or Dell. They felt the heat and they jumped on the bandwagon, like the others. Their problem wasn't the Code, though, it was when American News Company, their distributor, went under in 1956, in the wake of government anti-trust litigation and Dell dropping them as a distributor. That, coupled with the fact that Stan had accumulated so mach back inventory of material that Goodman let everyone else go, since he couldn't put out as many titles anymore and didn't need to, as long as he had the material for the books he could put out. Mostly, I think Goodman went along with whatever Goldwater and Silberkleit wanted and saw strength in going along with the CMAA, as he already had the ACMP, in 1948. Are you saying that Goodman or anyone at Marvel advocated for the comics code? Or that Goodman didn't actively oppose the comics code? That's not true, according to my sources: From Stan Lee and the Rise and Fall of the American Comic Book by Sturgeon and Raphael, 2004. pg. 47
"... The Goodman line suffered more than most. Despite the advice of his lawyer and his own basic feelings regarding the first amendment, Martin Goodman couldn't opt out of the comics code. He lacked the market clout of Dell.... or the sheen of semi-legitimacy that Gilbertson enjoyed with Classics Illustrated.... Horror, already declining in popularity, was out entirely. Guns were used more sparingly, a touchy proposition when it came to westerns. Production became a more extended process as Lee was forced to have the books approved and to make any corrections demanded by the CCA."
I haven't read every comics history book ever, but I don't remember (and I can't find my googling) any source saying that anyone at Marvel, including Goodman, supported the comics code in any way at any point in time. ( Stan HATED it) Goodman and Atlas didn't feel they had the resources to fight the Code, but they were against it's inception on philosophical and monetary grounds. No, I'm not saying that he advocated for the Code; I didn't say anyone advocated for it. They were running scared. I'm saying that once that was the path chosen that he hardly opposed language directed specifically at companies like EC and Lev Gleason. I'm saying he took as much advantage of those provisions to push out competition as did Archie and DC, and that his relationship with Louis Silberkleit probably influenced him going along with John Goldwater's agenda, as head of the CMAA, which outlined the Code. I have no doubt Stan hated it; butStan was at odds with Goodman on many things. Goodman cared about his bottom line and his profits. I don't have The Ten-Cent Plague around anymore, but, it's got the most extensive study of the period. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jul 25, 2019 14:08:18 GMT -5
Are you saying that Goodman or anyone at Marvel advocated for the comics code? Or that Goodman didn't actively oppose the comics code? That's not true, according to my sources: From Stan Lee and the Rise and Fall of the American Comic Book by Sturgeon and Raphael, 2004. pg. 47
"... The Goodman line suffered more than most. Despite the advice of his lawyer and his own basic feelings regarding the first amendment, Martin Goodman couldn't opt out of the comics code. He lacked the market clout of Dell.... or the sheen of semi-legitimacy that Gilbertson enjoyed with Classics Illustrated.... Horror, already declining in popularity, was out entirely. Guns were used more sparingly, a touchy proposition when it came to westerns. Production became a more extended process as Lee was forced to have the books approved and to make any corrections demanded by the CCA."
I haven't read every comics history book ever, but I don't remember (and I can't find my googling) any source saying that anyone at Marvel, including Goodman, supported the comics code in any way at any point in time. ( Stan HATED it) Goodman and Atlas didn't feel they had the resources to fight the Code, but they were against it's inception on philosophical and monetary grounds. No, I'm not saying that he advocated for the Code; I didn't say anyone advocated for it. They were running scared. I'm saying that once that was the path chosen that he hardly opposed language directed specifically at companies like EC and Lev Gleason. I'm saying he took as much advantage of those provisions to push out competition as did Archie and DC, and that his relationship with Louis Silberkleit probably influenced him going along with John Goldwater's agenda, as head of the CMAA, which outlined the Code. I have no doubt Stan hated it; butStan was at odds with Goodman on many things. Goodman cared about his bottom line and his profits. I don't have The Ten-Cent Plague around anymore, but, it's got the most extensive study of the period. Ok that's fair. I think that "everyone at Marvel was actively opposed to the comics code" is an important point, comics history-wise, and I didn't think that was being effectively communicated. Also, as a fan of that era of Marvel/Atlas, their comics took a huge dip in quality after the implementation of the code - Marvel (using Marvel and Atlas interchangably her) didn't cancel their horror or western books, but pumped out a bunch of toothless and narratively unsure stories. Also, at least some of the Marvel titles switched from four stories per issue to five stories with fewer pages, which also made for rushed and crappy stories. I hypothesize that the distributor change (and then crash) which led to Goodman and Stan no longer buying material from freelancers for several months was directly a result of Atlas management running scared post-code and feeling the need to make radical changes. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 25, 2019 15:21:05 GMT -5
Fantagraphics put out a book, The Secret History of Marvel Comics, about Goodman's pulp and magazine line and includes some interesting tidbits about the man, beyond what filtered through in the comics and how he did business.  His relationship with Silberkleit is discussed, plus some of the comics guys who moonlighted on the pulps and magazines, including Kirby. Some of his pulp stuff was pretty nasty; definitely not Street & Smith or Argosy. Looked like it would have been a step up to join the Spider and Operator 5, which got kinds of grisly. |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jul 25, 2019 15:39:21 GMT -5
Fantagraphics put out a book, The Secret History of Marvel Comics, about Goodman's pulp and magazine line and includes some interesting tidbits about the man, beyond what filtered through in the comics and how he did business. His relationship with Silberkleit is discussed, plus some of the comics guys who moonlighted on the pulps and magazines, including Kirby.... Yeah--I just read this. Always heard how low-rent many comic publishers were behind the scenes, but jeez! That's why I figured he'd be against the code as something getting in the way of "pushing paper."
I wish the book continued into the 60s and went into the 60s men's magazines and the ascendancy of the comic line. ...Some of his pulp stuff was pretty nasty; definitely not Street & Smith or Argosy. Looked like it would have been a step up to join the Spider and Operator 5, which got kinds of grisly. I was a little familiar with the "shudder pulps" having read a couple representative stories in this collection from the 70s, but didn't realize how much and how far some went. With pictures yet!
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Aug 16, 2019 6:23:08 GMT -5
Ran across this ...  |
|
|
|
Post by robot1a on Aug 19, 2019 18:47:51 GMT -5
Not to one up you, but I ran across this:  |
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Oct 19, 2019 18:57:19 GMT -5
Not a cover, but ...  |
|
