Comics UK

Looks like you quoted the wrong post, if that was a response to my query about what Old Freddy would think of your username.

Digifiend wrote:Looks like you quoted the wrong post, if that was a response to my query about what Old Freddy would think of your username.

It's good that he's corrected one of the mistakes, but unfortunately it's led to more:

"Sammy started out in an Odhams comic known to many as Wham! However, in the mid 1960s Odhams was swallowed up by Fleetway. Knockout, another old Odhams comic, returned as an IPC comic in 1971, and Sammy Shrink returned within the pages."

The original Knockout was published by Amalgamated Press, not Odhams. Amalgamated Press became Fleetway around 1960. Fleetway did not absorb Odhams. Both were companies which became part of IPC.

"so how he got the name Sammy Shrink is a bit of a mystery". - Not at all. It was explained in the very first episode in Wham!

Lew

Which makes his reference to Sammy Shrink possibly sharing Peter's Pocket Grandpa's origin (argument with a gypsy?) redundant.

Well most stuff's fixed now; hopefully that site shouldn't have more mistakes (I deleted the entire PPG reference). I wondered why he decided to go ahead and make a Sammy shrink page when he hadn't even started making any other Odhams/IPC comic pages beforehand.

Lew Stringer wrote:
If publishers tried to appease parents every time we'd have never had EC Comics, Oink!, Action or 2000AD. (Though "concerned parents" did their best to destroy the first three.)

Oh, but EC, Oink, Action and 2000AD all had considerably more intelligence and imagination behind them than features on how to create a fake filled nappy!

Lew Stringer wrote: EC Comics published the top quality horror/crime/sf comics of the 1950s Digi. The sort of notorious "horror comics" that shocked soft parents and led to book burnings. Even though EC's stories usually had a moral streak it was obviously too subtle for a reactionary population easily swayed by the anti-horror campaigns in the media. So they banned horror comics, introduced the Comics Code Authority and.... it made no difference whatsoever to juvenile delinquency which continued to get worse.
Lew

Just so Digi doesn't think EC are *too* innocent, I'm not sure it would just be soft parents who'd be taken aback to find necrophilia, graphic mutilation, extreme violence to women and the like in the comics their children were reading! The horror tales had a sort of 'moral streak' sometimes, but usually in an Old Testament 'eye for an eye' way in that often somebody doing something a bit wrong would get a totally out of proportion hideous retribution ...

The EC comics were indeed often extremely good, but some of their top artists have since expressed discomfort with some of the horror content. Of course, EC were nowhere near the most sadistic or tasteless of the pre-code horror comics but the extremities of the competition did cause them to push the envelope ever further.

It's an interesting conundrum. However much we've collected and loved the EC titles, would *we* actually think it appropriate to put that kind of material in titles that are essentially for children if we had the option? For adults fine, but for kids ... it would be difficult to justify some of it. (I think William Gaines said he didn't consider his comics to be for children, but I suspect the majority of readers were.)

Of course their science fiction comics are a different animal completely, as are their war comics. They're all worth a look but if you give them a try, Digi, especially if you fork out on one of the expensive colour hardbacks, go for the later volumes/later material first. EC got better and more sophisticated with the years on just about every level - the artwork became especially outstanding. The very early stuff is quite primitive in comparison and may make you wonder what all the fuss was about.

I'd heard that due to the '50s titles, some of which found their way over here or were reprinted here, there was a long standing ban on publishing horror comics in Britain and that's why Scream was always on very shaky ground and quite a risk.

Raven wrote: Oh, but EC, Oink, Action and 2000AD all had considerably more intelligence and imagination behind them than features on how to create a fake filled nappy!

Fair point. I was mainly reacting to the notion that comics should please parents all the time. A "safe" product doesn't necessarily mean an entertaining product.

Raven wrote:It's an interesting conundrum. However much we've collected and loved the EC titles, would *we* actually think it appropriate to put that kind of material in titles that are essentially for children if we had the option?

Yes. I don't think EC Comics harmed children at all, and never have been proven to do so. It was a complete witch-hunt. Juvenile delinquency was increasing and they looked for a scapegoat. I'd have loved to have read such comics when I was a kid and would feel quite happy producing similar comics myself. I collected those gory Civil War Cards when I was five and they never turned me into a sadist or made me relish war. (Just the opposite - they taught me the horrors of armed combat at an early age!) Those cards were far more gory than anything in the EC Comics.

(A 1960s Sub-Mariner comic once gave me a nightmare about a giant seaweed monster emerging through my bedroom wall when I was a kid. I thought it was great!)

Bear in mind the readers of those horror comics were mainly in their early teens or thereabouts, so it's not as if they were being snapped up by toddlers.

Raven wrote:I'd heard that due to the '50s titles, some of which found their way over here or were reprinted here, there was a long standing ban on publishing horror comics in Britain and that's why Scream was always on very shaky ground and quite a risk.

Yes, the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications Act) 1955 forbids "horror comics" to be sold in UK newsagents. Notice the name of the act assumes comics harm children, which IMHO is total cobblers.

Part of the propaganda of the Fifties....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LVlrEeiEzE

Lew

Old Freddy wrote:Well most stuff's fixed now; hopefully that site shouldn't have more mistakes (I deleted the entire PPG reference). I wondered why he decided to go ahead and make a Sammy shrink page when he hadn't even started making any other Odhams/IPC comic pages beforehand.

Hey! it wasn't my desicion to do sammy shrink, it was yours! v

Lew Stringer wrote: Yes. I don't think EC Comics harmed children at all, and never have been proven to do so. It was a complete witch-hunt. Juvenile delinquency was increasing and they looked for a scapegoat. I'd have loved to have read such comics when I was a kid and would feel quite happy producing similar comics myself.

I don't think it was *just* a witch hunt, though Wertham was certainly not beyond bending the truth, and the tabloids obviously did the same when they sensed a feeding frenzy. But US horror comics did get quite nihilistic and extreme - as I said, EC were no by no means the most so - and I think there'd also be some genuine, well-meant concern at some of the content from parents, too, not even related to delinquency.

Lew Stringer wrote:
(A 1960s Sub-Mariner comic once gave me a nightmare about a giant seaweed monster emerging through my bedroom wall when I was a kid. I thought it was great!)

Yes, but a giant seaweed monster is fairly innocent, and every bit kids' stuff. It's not necrophilia or dismembering your wife's corpse as it lies in the bath!

Though I don't think horror comics cause any long term "harm" to children in the way often suggested at the time, I'd still find it hard if asked, say: 'Do you think a woman being violently strangled to death is a suitable cover for a children's comic?' to say "yes." (I'd think there were a lot of junior school age readers, circa 9-11 reading at the time, and it does seem adult content.)

Having said all this, my place is packed with EC stuff!

Lew Stringer wrote:Yes, the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications Act) 1955 forbids "horror comics" to be sold in UK newsagents. Notice the name of the act assumes comics harm children, which IMHO is total cobblers.

That's it. I should have remembered the name as Martin Barker mentions it at the start of his extremely interesting 'A Haunt of Fears' book about the British Horror Comics Campaign.

Hey, Freddys, don't start an argument now. Since you're brothers, if you must argue, do it face to face, not on the forum.

Lew just brought up a good example of changing attitudes. Teenagers were buying those horror comics 50 years ago. These days, most teens wouldn't be seen dead with any comic.

Digifiend wrote: Hey, Freddys, don't start an argument now. Since you're brothers, if you must argue, do it face to face, not on the forum.(

It'll be a bit freaky if they're arguing on the same computer.

Raven wrote: Yes, but a giant seaweed monster is fairly innocent, and every bit kids' stuff. It's not necrophilia or dismembering your wife's corpse as it lies in the bath!

I don't think there was actual necrophilia depicted in the comics were there? No sex of any kind was shown. Nor was the actual dismemberment was it? Which comic are you referring to? (I have all the EC reprints so I'll check.)

Raven wrote:Though I don't think horror comics cause any long term "harm" to children in the way often suggested at the time, I'd still find it hard if asked, say: 'Do you think a woman being violently strangled to death is a suitable cover for a children's comic?' to say "yes." (I'd think there were a lot of junior school age readers, circa 9-11 reading at the time, and it does seem adult content.)

If a question was phrased like that then obviously it puts the artist on the spot and conjures up a more horrific image than in the way it might have actually been drawn. For example I could ask "Do you think the depiction of horrific facial injuries to a child is suitable for a comic" when describing a Ken Reid Dare-A-Day-Davy panel.

The EC Comics were obviously aimed at an older reader than, say, Superman or Wonder Woman at the time. I honestly don't think very young children would be interested in them and would find them hard going. Ages 9 to 11? I don't see any harm in them for that age group. By that age one's personality is set and comics aren't going to corrupt or disturb their view of the world IMHO. Kids like monsters, they like scary stuff. What is it exactly that you think horror comics could do to a child?

Lew

Lew Stringer wrote:
I don't think there was actual necrophilia depicted in the comics were there? No sex of any kind was shown. Nor was the actual dismemberment was it? Which comic are you referring to? (I have all the EC reprints so I'll check.)

I wouldn't like to imply that EC Comics were actually running rampant with necrophilia but I can recall two stories that feature - or very strongly imply it - not graphically depicted, of course. The punchline of 'The Prude' from Haunt of Fear # 28 (final issue): "Why, Mr. Forbisher! Don't you know there are laws about that sort of thing! Gasp ... shame on you!" (Actually, this was two dead people at it.)
And that story where the puppet master returns to his lover's bed, and she only realises the next morning that he's a corpse, manipulated on strings by his puppets. Think I'm remembering right, though I don't recall the issue and title off hand.

And there are quite a few mutilated bodies and chopped up body parts throughout the EC horror line. And we certainly see the axes coming down a few times, don't we?

Raven wrote:Though I don't think horror comics cause any long term "harm" to children in the way often suggested at the time, I'd still find it hard if asked, say: 'Do you think a woman being violently strangled to death is a suitable cover for a children's comic?' to say "yes." (I'd think there were a lot of junior school age readers, circa 9-11 reading at the time, and it does seem adult content.)

Lew Stringer wrote:
If a question was phrased like that then obviously it puts the artist on the spot and conjures up a more horrific image than in the way it might have actually been drawn.

Well, look at the covers of CrimeSuspenStories numbers 19 and 22. They're not wacky-cartoonish like Dare-a-Day Davy.

Lew Stringer wrote: The EC Comics were obviously aimed at an older reader than, say, Superman or Wonder Woman at the time. I honestly don't think very young children would be interested in them and would find them hard going. Ages 9 to 11? I don't see any harm in them for that age group. By that age one's personality is set and comics aren't going to corrupt or disturb their view of the world IMHO. Kids like monsters, they like scary stuff. What is it exactly that you think horror comics could do to a child?
Lew

Well, I think a child could certainly be disturbed and very upset by images of extreme horror violence, and I expect many kids at the time *were* troubled by things they discovered in the '50s horror comics - I recall being quite badly disturbed by a few images (not EC, etc.) I encountered myself as a little 'un, in a way which lingered on. In terms of lasting harm, though, I doubt there actually is any. But I was pondering more on the motivations and justifications of the people who'd choose to present extreme horror/violence images to children than on the readers themselves.

Raven wrote: And there are quite a few mutilated bodies and chopped up body parts throughout the EC horror line. And we certainly see the axes coming down a few times, don't we?

Actually, no I don't think we do. We see the swing, and we see the after effect sometimes, but we never see the impact. That's the line not to cross IMHO.

Raven wrote: Well, look at the covers of CrimeSuspenStories numbers 19 and 22. They're not wacky-cartoonish like Dare-a-Day Davy.

No, but I don't think the presentation of the comic would appeal to very young children. Besides, shouldn't parents be monitoring what young kids read? I appreciate your concern about finding that "nappy prank" inappropriate in The Dandy, but EC Comics were clearly pitched at an older reader. There's no masking the fact that they're horror comics which contain violence. It's obvious from the covers. So whilst I wouldn't think it wise for a four year old to read them, I don't think they'd fall into their hands in the first place, nor do I think they'd attract a child that young. Nine year olds? Yeah, I think they could deal with it without any trauma, but again I think they'd be more interested in other, younger, comics. The letters in the EC comics usually seemed to be written by kids older than nine.

Incidentally, when they summoned Bill Gaines, EC's publisher, before the senate committee to use him as society's scapegoat, his defence of that decapitation cover above was that it wasn't obscene because you can't see the severed neck. If he'd shown that, it would be obscene in his opinion. I see his point.

Raven wrote:Well, I think a child could certainly be disturbed and very upset by images of extreme horror violence, and I expect many kids at the time *were* troubled by things they discovered in the '50s horror comics - I recall being quite badly disturbed by a few images (not EC, etc.) I encountered myself as a little 'un, in a way which lingered on.

There used to be a commonly-used warning before horror movies that "persons of a nervous disposition" should perhaps avoid them. Same applies to comics. If a parent knows his child is easily scared or disturbed, don't buy him horror comics. It's when people suggest that NO one's child should read them, and that they should be banned, that we get into "nanny state" territory. Sadly that's what happened.

Raven wrote:In terms of lasting harm, though, I doubt there actually is any. But I was pondering more on the motivations and justifications of the people who'd choose to present extreme horror/violence images to children than on the readers themselves.

The motivation is to entertain an audience that one assumes is capable of dealing with it. The actual horror in the EC Comics is usually in the payoff, with the attraction of the stories being in the build up to the bad guy getting more than his just desserts. And it's often presented in a darkly humourous way.

Obviously there are things I would refuse to write or draw in a children's comic; graphic sexual content and animal cruelty for two examples. But EC never contained anything like that.

The truth is the majority of readers loved those comics and came back for more, and there are no genuine cases of kids being disturbed or corrupted by them. As you know from Martin Barker's excellent book, the media tried to blame the deeds of one violent child on the tale that he owned thousands of horror and crime comics, when the truth was he owned one very tame Western comic, which had nothing to do with his behaviour.

Lew

I don't think (personally) that there were any alterior "motivations and justifications " in the people that published horror comics 50s style - I think EC just wanted to do something different and they had the talent to carry it off . Part of the problem may have been other less worthy publishers with less talanted artists jumped on the bandwagon of the then current hit craze and focused on the horror/gore side rather that the overall story and produced some really awful horror comics (similar to the many wannabe VIZ comic clones that produced osme really foul so called humour comics) . But I think its impoertant to not that EC comics were not primarily aimed at children (ie ten year olds)they were aimed at young teenagers - if kids bought/got hold of them (as they will) I don't know if you can blame EC for that - and shouldn't childrens reading be monitored by parents?

You have to also keep in view that US comics were, in general pretty violent in the 30s - 50s (they were far more gentle in the 60s) Batman used have a gun and shot people , the Spectre burned them alive/turned them to skeletons or dust etc etc. However, I think it needs to be pointed out just how cutting edge EC were, apart from horror/gore they produced very mature comics; the Sci Fi and Shock Horror titles had some good anti semitic, anti racist etc strips (the famous strip "Judgemet Day" is a perfect example of a cutting edge strip that probably upset white middle class america more that the horror titles). I certainly wasn't aware of the necrophilia strips which are a bit tastless (so a good point there).

Re the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications Act) 1955 which forbids "horror comics" to be sold in UK newsagents - was this UK wide as inthe 60s 70y in Scotland you could pick up Pchyco, Witches Tales (one of the better 50s style , bit not as good EC rip offs) Scream (Skywald), Nightmare and of course the Marvel and Atlas etc black and white horror magazines no problem.

Lew Stringer wrote:

Raven wrote: And there are quite a few mutilated bodies and chopped up body parts throughout the EC horror line. And we certainly see the axes coming down a few times, don't we?

Actually, no I don't think we do. We see the swing, and we see the after effect sometimes, but we never see the impact. That's the line not to cross IMHO.

The swing is what I meant by "the axes coming down." I.e. we see people being savagely attacked by axes, etc.

Lew Stringer wrote:
No, but I don't think the presentation of the comic would appeal to very young children. Besides, shouldn't parents be monitoring what young kids read?

I always imagined that in the '50s, when comics were cheap and plentiful, kids bought them off the over-stuffed newsstands themselves and swopped them amongst themselves. It's hard to imagine parents actually buying their children some of the really lurid 50s American horror offerings!

Lew Stringer wrote:
I appreciate your concern about finding that "nappy prank" inappropriate in The Dandy, but EC Comics were clearly pitched at an older reader. There's no masking the fact that they're horror comics which contain violence. It's obvious from the covers.

It's obvious from those particular covers (though even they aren't Crime's most lurid.) Other covers did give much less of a clue of how extreme it got inside, though.

Lew Stringer wrote:
Incidentally, when they summoned Bill Gaines, EC's publisher, before the senate committee to use him as society's scapegoat, his defence of that decapitation cover above was that it wasn't obscene because you can't see the severed neck. If he'd shown that, it would be obscene in his opinion. I see his point.

I think he said it would be "bad taste" in his opinion, if the head was held a little higher and you could see the blood dripping from the neck. It's not hard to see his point, though easier to agree in terms of describing horror read by adults rather than children, I think.

Lew Stringer wrote: The truth is the majority of readers loved those comics and came back for more, and there are no genuine cases of kids being disturbed or corrupted by them. As you know from Martin Barker's excellent book, the media tried to blame the deeds of one violent child on the tale that he owned thousands of horror and crime comics, when the truth was he owned one very tame Western comic, which had nothing to do with his behaviour.
Lew

As I said before, I expect there were quite a few kids were disturbed and upset by them - I've read the odd account of that - but no, I'm sure nobody was 'corrupted' by them. Horror comics may horrify but I don't think they could *turn* you into a horror. Calling them a cause of delinquency is just a scapegoat.

I think my overall view would be that many children really love scary stories and horror tropes but stories aimed at children do require a certain special discretion and careful handling. I'd go more for atmosphere, tension and suspense than visceral bloody horror. There's a difference between Goosebumps and Twilight and 18 Certificate anything-goes extreme adult horrors, and, to me, that's not a bad thing.