In Memory of Dr. Wertham - SOTI Images to Corrupt Our Youth

[Montezuma]

I was going through a group of Treasure Chest issues, and came across this story, It's silver age, but I figured it would fit here better. Typical nonsense about a direct link between comics and crime.

 

Now I just need to find copies of Junky, Stinko, Slime and Trash.

 

[Montezuma]

[Montezuma]

[Montezuma]

[Montezuma]

[Montezuma]

[SOTIcollector]

I love it! Thanks for posting! Now I need to add this one to my wantlist. Which issues is it?

[Cat-Man_America]

 

[font:Times New Roman]This Illustration should've been on page 17 of Treasure CHEST ...[/font]

 

 

 

[font:Times New Roman]Love that wholesome good girl entertainment![/font].

[Montezuma]

Vol 13 #10

[SOTIcollector]

Vol 13 #10

Great! Just bought one online. Thanks!!!

[montrealfilmguy]

I dont have any comics to share,but i did find these 2 pictures from the actual Senate subcommitee hearings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rjpb]

I was going through a group of Treasure Chest issues, and came across this story, It's silver age, but I figured it would fit here better. Typical nonsense about a direct link between comics and crime.

 

Now I just need to find copies of Junky, Stinko, Slime and Trash.

 

 

Interesting that this came out 3 years after the introduction of the CCA, but I guess they were referring as much to the lurid detective magazines still on the racks as they were comics. I can imagine how even the most civic minded kids today would react to cops telling them they should organize a pressure group to limit the availability of some kinds of reading material. I can imagine the follow up issue of Treasure Chest where the sarge suggests that reporting one's parents to the authorities if they are reading "trash" might be a good idea.

[Sarg]

wertham was a quack. i think he read to much freud or was a perv in his own. im reading "The Ten Cent Plague" right now. about a quarter of the way through. some pretty interesting history in it. if anyones interested in this time in the history of comics i highly suggest it.

 

Most of the people who vilify Wertham thus have never read SOTI or tried to understand him in the context of his times. That he appears to have been the only adult medical professional in America who actually read comics and took them seriously shows, to me, an astonishing level of neglect, but pretty typical of the "laissez-faire" approach to child raising in this country.

 

It's pretty hard to defend the picture section of SOTI.

 

Had Wertham limited his criticism to just crime and horror, he would have had a more effective case. It's when he attacks Classics Illustrated, funny animal, and superhero books that he sounds like a fanatic who wants to paint ALL comic books with the same broad brush. That comics could be an art form was beyond his comprehension, but this was a common prejudice at the time.

 

The comics publishers are equally to blame for their demise. As Wallace Wood once said about Gaines and Feldstein, they knew they were going too far, but it was like they couldn't help themselves.

[rjrjr]

wertham was a quack. i think he read to much freud or was a perv in his own. im reading "The Ten Cent Plague" right now. about a quarter of the way through. some pretty interesting history in it. if anyones interested in this time in the history of comics i highly suggest it.

 

Most of the people who vilify Wertham thus have never read SOTI or tried to understand him in the context of his times. That he appears to have been the only adult medical professional in America who actually read comics and took them seriously shows, to me, an astonishing level of neglect, but pretty typical of the "laissez-faire" approach to child raising in this country.

 

It's pretty hard to defend the picture section of SOTI.

 

Had Wertham limited his criticism to just crime and horror, he would have had a more effective case. It's when he attacks Classics Illustrated, funny animal, and superhero books that he sounds like a fanatic who wants to paint ALL comic books with the same broad brush. That comics could be an art form was beyond his comprehension, but this was a common prejudice at the time.

 

The comics publishers are equally to blame for their demise. As Wallace Wood once said about Gaines and Feldstein, they knew they were going too far, but it was like they couldn't help themselves.

 

If Avatar were the top publisher today and Avatar comics were representative of your typical comic, I suspect we'd have a repeat of the circumstances that brought about the CC the first time.

[Cat-Man_America]

wertham was a quack. i think he read to much freud or was a perv in his own. im reading "The Ten Cent Plague" right now. about a quarter of the way through. some pretty interesting history in it. if anyones interested in this time in the history of comics i highly suggest it.

 

Most of the people who vilify Wertham thus have never read SOTI or tried to understand him in the context of his times. That he appears to have been the only adult medical professional in America who actually read comics and took them seriously shows, to me, an astonishing level of neglect, but pretty typical of the "laissez-faire" approach to child raising in this country.

 

It's pretty hard to defend the picture section of SOTI.

 

Had Wertham limited his criticism to just crime and horror, he would have had a more effective case. It's when he attacks Classics Illustrated, funny animal, and superhero books that he sounds like a fanatic who wants to paint ALL comic books with the same broad brush. That comics could be an art form was beyond his comprehension, but this was a common prejudice at the time.

 

The comics publishers are equally to blame for their demise. As Wallace Wood once said about Gaines and Feldstein, they knew they were going too far, but it was like they couldn't help themselves.

 

 

[font:Times New Roman]I've read SOTI and other books contemporaneous with it that denounce comics publishers participation in the popular trends of horror, erotic and crime literature. I have no compunction about condemning the scientific research Wertham theoretically conducted and relied upon to make his case against sex and violence in comics as much of it has been exposed as fraudulent (see link below).

 

http://corabuhlert.com/2013/02/12/fredric-wertham-not-so-innocent-but-actually-a-fraud/

 

There is growing evidence that Fredric Wertham used the popularity of horror and crime comics to promote a book based on false claims and shoddy research. His real goal wasn't reform, it was achieving fame and financial rewards from national publicity. In linking the reading of comic books to juvenile delinquency Wertham went after low-hanging fruit. It was an easy target for a hustler seeking public attention (think of professor Harold Hill in The Music Man) in the cold-war paranoia of 1950's America.

 

Furthermore, SOTI's photo section lacks context which call into question the reliability of any of his conclusions. Many of the edited images used were long out of date at the time SOTI was published and the inflammatory descriptions that Wertham employed were misleading. Therefore no defense is required.

 

The fact that Gaines and Feldstein pushed the envelope in a highly competitive genre doesn't excuse overreaction and an industry wide scape-goating by politicians, church and civic groups. Rubber-stamping CCA's oversight of the industry resulted in such extreme censorship that many publishers, including EC's lucrative lines, were put out of business. There was never any justification for it.

 

It's worth noting that in his later years Wertham tried to make amends by endorsing amateur fanzines as an innovative communication tool for interaction among fans of comics. He even wrote a book on the subject praising the new medium (I've read that one as well). But for all the efforts he made to rehabilitate his image Wertham is still seen as a pariah, reviled for almost destroying the very industry that gave rise to fandom.

 

For many folks in the comic community, Wertham is beyond redemption and will never be forgiven. Food for thought.[/font] (thumbs u

[Sqeggs]

I, too, have read SOTI cover to cover, although it was probably at least 20 years ago, maybe longer. I'm probably in a tiny minority on this, but a few thoughts:

 

Even on a first reading, Wertham's arguments concerning the connection between juvenile delinquency and comic reading seemed pretty screwy -- thinly substantiated and reliant on unrepresentative case studies. I guess we now know that he was cooking the books on his "evidence" but even if he hadn't been, his argument was unconvincing.

 

Maybe I'm a cynic, but most social science research strikes me as dubious. Typically based on small, often unrepresentative data sets, dubious statistical techniques, and a desire to win the authors the approbation of whatever group the research is pitched to. If the New York Times or Fox News gives heavy play to a study on, say, the effects of childcare on child development can't you guess the result of the study solely by which of the two outlets find its results to be congenial? Wertham was playing to a particular audience, but I'm not sure there's much social science research that doesn't.

 

The larger point, I think, is not the connection between comics and juvenile delinquency -- which was just Wertham playing to a particularly hot postwar concern -- but the staggeringly inappropriate content in most PCH and crime books. I'm not reluctant to use the word "inappropriate" here because I find a good deal of it unsettling even as an adult. I'm genuinely glad the Comic Code kept me from being exposed to it as a preteen.

 

Wertham got his traction, I believe, not because of his phony "research" on the connection between j.d. and comics, which I would guess most people at the time saw through, but because a lot of parents, legislators, church leaders, and so on were genuinely shocked by the content of PCH and crime comics.

 

There may well have been a middle ground -- perhaps the ratings system approach the movie studios took in the 1960s -- rather than the approach the publishers felt obliged to adopt with the CCA, and a lot of good stuff was swept away.

 

But if we are apportioning blame for the implosion of the comics industry in the mid-1950s, I would point first to Gaines and company who were making money selling to children what was often wildly inappropriate material, rather than to Wertham, charlatan and publicity hound though he may have been.

[Sarg]

wertham was a quack. i think he read to much freud or was a perv in his own. im reading "The Ten Cent Plague" right now. about a quarter of the way through. some pretty interesting history in it. if anyones interested in this time in the history of comics i highly suggest it.

 

Most of the people who vilify Wertham thus have never read SOTI or tried to understand him in the context of his times. That he appears to have been the only adult medical professional in America who actually read comics and took them seriously shows, to me, an astonishing level of neglect, but pretty typical of the "laissez-faire" approach to child raising in this country.

 

It's pretty hard to defend the picture section of SOTI.

 

Had Wertham limited his criticism to just crime and horror, he would have had a more effective case. It's when he attacks Classics Illustrated, funny animal, and superhero books that he sounds like a fanatic who wants to paint ALL comic books with the same broad brush. That comics could be an art form was beyond his comprehension, but this was a common prejudice at the time.

 

The comics publishers are equally to blame for their demise. As Wallace Wood once said about Gaines and Feldstein, they knew they were going too far, but it was like they couldn't help themselves.

 

 

[font:Times New Roman]I've read SOTI and other books contemporaneous with it that denounce comics publishers participation in the popular trends of horror, erotic and crime literature. I have no compunction about condemning the scientific research Wertham theoretically conducted and relied upon to make his case against sex and violence in comics as much of it has been exposed as fraudulent (see link below).

 

http://corabuhlert.com/2013/02/12/fredric-wertham-not-so-innocent-but-actually-a-fraud/

 

There is growing evidence that Fredric Wertham used the popularity of horror and crime comics to promote a book based on false claims and shoddy research. His real goal wasn't reform, it was achieving fame and financial rewards from national publicity. In linking the reading of comic books to juvenile delinquency Wertham went after low-hanging fruit. It was an easy target for a hustler seeking public attention (think of professor Harold Hill in The Music Man) in the cold-war paranoia of 1950's America.

 

Furthermore, SOTI's photo section lacks context which call into question the reliability of any of his conclusions. Many of the edited images used were long out of date at the time SOTI was published and the inflammatory descriptions that Wertham employed were misleading. Therefore no defense is required.

 

The fact that Gaines and Feldstein pushed the envelope in a highly competitive genre doesn't excuse overreaction and an industry wide scape-goating by politicians, church and civic groups. Rubber-stamping CCA's oversight of the industry resulted in such extreme censorship that many publishers, including EC's lucrative lines, were put out of business. There was never any justification for it.

 

It's worth noting that in his later years Wertham tried to make amends by endorsing amateur fanzines as an innovative communication tool for interaction among fans of comics. He even wrote a book on the subject praising the new medium (I've read that one as well). But for all the efforts he made to rehabilitate his image Wertham is still seen as a pariah, reviled for almost destroying the very industry that gave rise to fandom.

 

For many folks in the comic community, Wertham is beyond redemption and will never be forgiven. Food for thought.[/font] (thumbs u

 

 

Pretty much the stereotypical boilerplate reaction to Wertham. No attempt whatsoever to try to understand him in the context of his times, or engage with his criticisms, just predictable "comic fan" ad hominems.

 

"His real goal wasn't reform, it was achieving fame and financial rewards from national publicity."

 

And you know this how? Have you uncovered the Secret Diaries of Wertham? SOTI wasn't a bestseller. He kept his day job in the Harlem clinic.

[Sarg]

I, too, have read SOTI cover to cover, although it was probably at least 20 years ago, maybe longer. I'm probably in a tiny minority on this, but a few thoughts:

 

Even on a first reading, Wertham's arguments concerning the connection between juvenile delinquency and comic reading seemed pretty screwy -- thinly substantiated and reliant on unrepresentative case studies. I guess we now know that he was cooking the books on his "evidence" but even if he hadn't been, his argument was unconvincing.

 

Maybe I'm a cynic, but most social science research strikes me as dubious. Typically based on small, often unrepresentative data sets, dubious statistical techniques, and a desire to win the authors the approbation of whatever group the research is pitched to. If the New York Times or Fox News gives heavy play to a study on, say, the effects of childcare on child development can't you guess the result of the study solely by which of the two outlets find its results to be congenial? Wertham was playing to a particular audience, but I'm not sure there's much social science research that doesn't.

 

The larger point, I think, is not the connection between comics and juvenile delinquency -- which was just Wertham playing to a particularly hot postwar concern -- but the staggeringly inappropriate content in most PCH and crime books. I'm not reluctant to use the word "inappropriate" here because I find a good deal of it unsettling even as an adult. I'm genuinely glad the Comic Code kept me from being exposed to it as a preteen.

 

Wertham got his traction, I believe, not because of his phony "research" on the connection between j.d. and comics, which I would guess most people at the time saw through, but because a lot of parents, legislators, church leaders, and so on were genuinely shocked by the content of PCH and crime comics.

 

There may well have been a middle ground -- perhaps the ratings system approach the movie studios took in the 1960s -- rather than the approach the publishers felt obliged to adopt with the CCA, and a lot of good stuff was swept away.

 

But if we are apportioning blame for the implosion of the comics industry in the mid-1950s, I would point first to Gaines and company who were making money selling to children what was often wildly inappropriate material, rather than to Wertham, charlatan and publicity hound though he may have been.

 

You were making some good points until the end, when you felt the need to revert to the predictable "comic fan" ad homs. Can somebody here discuss Wertham without these same childish attacks that we've all heard since the '70s at least? I heard all this stuff 30 years ago. It's boring, and I'd like to think we've matured some. Wertham's research methods may have been questionable in some areas, sure, but he wasn't a charlatan or "publicity hound" -- those are just empty cliches we throw at any public figure we don't like. Save those terms for people who deserve them, like "Dr. Phil."

 

I think you're right about social sciences being soft science, which I think most (modern) social scientists acknowledge. Wertham liked to believe he was conducting a purely "scientific" study, but it wasn't like he was doing serious research outside of his clinic, or had the funds to do real statistical analysis. He was pretty much just reading the comics and asking his patients about them. Wertham was bringing a European academic mindset and applying it to American popular culture, and there is always going to be a problem when those

forces clash. European culture is simply not going to produce things like cowboy movies, or superheroes, or rock and roll -- or horror comic books. These (and many others) were all manifestations of the youthful collective unconscious, which

American adults didn't understand (but tolerated), and European adults considered prima facie "trash."

 

I don't hate Wertham. I just don't think he was necessarily qualified to write about a subject he didn't understand -- American pop culture.

 

[Cat-Man_America]

wertham was a quack. i think he read to much freud or was a perv in his own. im reading "The Ten Cent Plague" right now. about a quarter of the way through. some pretty interesting history in it. if anyones interested in this time in the history of comics i highly suggest it.

 

Most of the people who vilify Wertham thus have never read SOTI or tried to understand him in the context of his times. That he appears to have been the only adult medical professional in America who actually read comics and took them seriously shows, to me, an astonishing level of neglect, but pretty typical of the "laissez-faire" approach to child raising in this country.

 

It's pretty hard to defend the picture section of SOTI.

 

Had Wertham limited his criticism to just crime and horror, he would have had a more effective case. It's when he attacks Classics Illustrated, funny animal, and superhero books that he sounds like a fanatic who wants to paint ALL comic books with the same broad brush. That comics could be an art form was beyond his comprehension, but this was a common prejudice at the time.

 

The comics publishers are equally to blame for their demise. As Wallace Wood once said about Gaines and Feldstein, they knew they were going too far, but it was like they couldn't help themselves.

 

 

[font:Times New Roman]I've read SOTI and other books contemporaneous with it that denounce comics publishers participation in the popular trends of horror, erotic and crime literature. I have no compunction about condemning the scientific research Wertham theoretically conducted and relied upon to make his case against sex and violence in comics as much of it has been exposed as fraudulent (see link below).

 

http://corabuhlert.com/2013/02/12/fredric-wertham-not-so-innocent-but-actually-a-fraud/

 

There is growing evidence that Fredric Wertham used the popularity of horror and crime comics to promote a book based on false claims and shoddy research. His real goal wasn't reform, it was achieving fame and financial rewards from national publicity. In linking the reading of comic books to juvenile delinquency Wertham went after low-hanging fruit. It was an easy target for a hustler seeking public attention (think of professor Harold Hill in The Music Man) in the cold-war paranoia of 1950's America.

 

Furthermore, SOTI's photo section lacks context which call into question the reliability of any of his conclusions. Many of the edited images used were long out of date at the time SOTI was published and the inflammatory descriptions that Wertham employed were misleading. Therefore no defense is required.

 

The fact that Gaines and Feldstein pushed the envelope in a highly competitive genre doesn't excuse overreaction and an industry wide scape-goating by politicians, church and civic groups. Rubber-stamping CCA's oversight of the industry resulted in such extreme censorship that many publishers, including EC's lucrative lines, were put out of business. There was never any justification for it.

 

It's worth noting that in his later years Wertham tried to make amends by endorsing amateur fanzines as an innovative communication tool for interaction among fans of comics. He even wrote a book on the subject praising the new medium (I've read that one as well). But for all the efforts he made to rehabilitate his image Wertham is still seen as a pariah, reviled for almost destroying the very industry that gave rise to fandom.

 

For many folks in the comic community, Wertham is beyond redemption and will never be forgiven. Food for thought.[/font] (thumbs u

 

 

Pretty much the stereotypical boilerplate reaction to Wertham. No attempt whatsoever to try to understand him in the context of his times, or engage with his criticisms, just predictable "comic fan" ad hominems.

 

"His real goal wasn't reform, it was achieving fame and financial rewards from national publicity."

 

And you know this how? Have you uncovered the Secret Diaries of Wertham? SOTI wasn't a bestseller. He kept his day job in the Harlem clinic.

 

[font:Times New Roman]No offense, but did you not read the link I provided asserting the dubiousness of Wertham's research?

 

If you need scholarship closer to the source read this:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/books/flaws-found-in-fredric-werthams-comic-book-studies.html?hp&_r=2&

 

In the article you'll note that Michael Chabon tries to put a kinder, gentler face on Frederic Wertham's intentions, but other authors analysis of his ambitions are less generous.

 

I'd recommend reading David Hadju's The Ten Cent Plague...

 

http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Cent-Plague-Comic-Book-Changed-America/dp/B004KAB5BE/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378797717&sr=1-1&keywords=david+hadju

 

...then come back and take a shot at re-welding the boilerplate. (thumbs u

 

Sarcasm aside, I've had many serious, scholarly discussions about Frederic Wertham over the years and am old enough to have been a member of a club that the late doctor himself joined in an attempt to convince fans that he was hip to the culture. That didn't prove any more successful than those who've endeavored to rehabilitate his reputation.[/font]

[Sqeggs]

It was on the basis of Tilley's revelations that I referred to Wertham as a "charlatan." I think a researcher who intentionally fudges his data deserves that label.

 

This quote from Chabon in the NYT article captures my own reaction to SOTI when I read it years ago: "You read the book, it just smells wrong. It’s clear he got completely carried away with his obsession, in an almost Ahab-like way.”

 

In a thread a few months ago we discussed the often unappreciated role of demographics in the evolution of the comics industry. I don't think it's a coincidence that Wertham gained traction and the CCA came in at the same time that the first wave of baby boom kids reached comic reading age.

 

I can just see Junior caging some change from Mom and trotting home from the corner drugstore with a copy of CSS 22.