Senormac Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 This issue of SAD SACK (I never understood the meaning/title of this book to tell you the truth) has the following 3 page story. I was shocked to see it. Was this considered normal back in 1961 ? Was this military humor ?? What editor decided that this was funny / ok to be put into a comic book story for (most likely G.I.'s) ..... but also anyone else who happened to buy it. We might be a long ways from 1961, but c'mon..... how could this EVER be considered ok or funny ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badback83 Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Wow. I didn't see that coming. Not cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
entalmighty1 Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Perhaps it was supposed to be a kind of tongue-in-cheek story that only a few insiders would know about that made it into the final cut? Maybe an editor/artist/manager from a competing publisher, that had a reputation for being heavy handed with his wife? Either way it's not funny, but sometimes perception is worse than reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Aldred Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 (edited) From a time when comics were supposed to be for kids, and in a Comics-Coded book, it's very surprising to see this type of subject matter make an appearance. Even if the situation was treated as relevance storytelling, it would be played straight rather than joked about, more in the way pre-code EC would've done; a ShockSuspenstory about spousal abuse. Edited October 12, 2017 by Ken Aldred Larryw7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revat Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 27 minutes ago, entalmighty1 said: Perhaps it was supposed to be a kind of tongue-in-cheek story that only a few insiders would know about that made it into the final cut? Maybe an editor/artist/manager from a competing publisher, that had a reputation for being heavy handed with his wife? Either way it's not funny, but sometimes perception is worse than reality. I thought it was supposed to be more of satirical commentary on how people in authority or 'moral' authority are often equal or worse that the people they are supposed to be leading/teaching, and don't even see the irony in their behavior. I wasn't too offended by it, the dude got arrested in the end. I feel like the soldiers were laughing about the hypocrisy, not that the dude will beat his wife again. Its touchy subject matter for sure (touchier today than back then) and could have been handled a little more delicately, but even by today's standards is a million times less disturbing/offensive than say "the Honeymooners" Terrapin, lizards2 and Kenglo1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizards2 Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 26 minutes ago, revat said: I thought it was supposed to be more of satirical commentary on how people in authority or 'moral' authority are often equal or worse that the people they are supposed to be leading/teaching, and don't even see the irony in their behavior. I wasn't too offended by it, the dude got arrested in the end. I feel like the soldiers were laughing about the hypocrisy, not that the dude will beat his wife again. Its touchy subject matter for sure (touchier today than back then) and could have been handled a little more delicately, but even by today's standards is a million times less disturbing/offensive than say "the Honeymooners" I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis, and did not find it that offensive. Add in the academia and publishing angle and it's quite interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
entalmighty1 Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 2 hours ago, revat said: I thought it was supposed to be more of satirical commentary on how people in authority or 'moral' authority are often equal or worse that the people they are supposed to be leading/teaching, and don't even see the irony in their behavior. I wasn't too offended by it, the dude got arrested in the end. I feel like the soldiers were laughing about the hypocrisy, not that the dude will beat his wife again. Its touchy subject matter for sure (touchier today than back then) and could have been handled a little more delicately, but even by today's standards is a million times less disturbing/offensive than say "the Honeymooners" There's been plenty of examples of poor behavior in comics. The early interactions between Ant-Man and Wasp, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustEatBrains Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 From 1964..... Go figure, "violent, temporary therapy"... http://time.com/3426225/domestic-violence-therapy/ http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,876203,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazyboy Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
