Morality in old Superman comics

[Mirrorglass]

Most breathing is a much more conscious control that ejaculation. What about when he sneezes?

Maybe he pisses on his hand to break the force down... Could be very messy though..... Maybe he just goes somewhere remote and pisses there.

Or maybe he just points up, taking care not to hit the moon.

 

[dudalb]

DC wrote stories about Superman and in them he occasionally appears as Clark Kent, while Marvel was writing stories about Peter Parker and how being Spider-Man effected his life. This meant that supporting characters play a much bigger role in Spider-Man and Marvel stories in general.

Then there was the 90’s and Marvel became all about “cool” poses oversized guns and humongous… shoulders.




All the X-Men were pretty weak back then and Jean was exclusively a telekinetic to start with and stayed that way until issue #60 or so when Professor Xavier dies (later to be revealed as an impersonator) and “gave” her some of his telepathic ability off screen.

Yeah… X-Men storied were pretty bad in the 60’s even by the standards of the day and the book was effectively canceled in 1969. It continued as reprints until 1977 when the All new all different X-Men were introduced in #97



Marvel didn’t really start with “strong” women characters until Chris Claremont started writing the X-Men. He had a habit pf not only focusing on his female characters but making them ridiculously overpowered. When he introduced Kitty Pride he actually did so as a part of a bet/challenge to keep at least one female character on a relatively normal level.

Yeah, not that many people remember that the X Men was at best only modestly sucessful in the 60's and when a bad downturn for the comic industry came in 1969/70, was put on "reprint status"... ie, no new stories were published, they just reprinted previous issues..which almost always was just a prelude to cancellation.

Agreed the DC actually has more strong women charecters..even if they were supporting..in the 1960's then Marvel.
Although I HATE the Lois Lane of the Wesisenger era. They made her into a total ditz who did nothing but think up outragous schemes to trick Supes into Marrying her. I often felt that Wonder Woman needed to take Lois aside and give her a good talking to....

 

[dudalb]

They did keep Power Girl around, though they had to screw around with her history because she wasn't kryptonian anymore (though she's officially kryptonian again, and she may be immune to kryptonite now). The daxamites were also retained, which always took away the uniqueness to kryptonians to me.

I have a soft spot for the early golden age superman stories. Superman would go to oddly extreme measures to "fix" a problem, like poverty (Action Comics #8), safety standards (Action Comics #3), or war profiteering (Action Comics #2).

You have seen that short short they did on How Superman Would end World War 2 by grabbing both Hitler and Stalin, for their agressions on Poland and Finland, and bringing them before a international tribunal?

 

[dudalb]

One of my favorite DC comic characters of the 60's was Joe Kubert's Enemy Ace. On of the great war Comics.

 

[bynmdsue]

Was it Weisinger that kept a sign in his office that read "Remember We are writing for 8- yr olds."

 

[quarky]

I really like you guys and everything...

And I appreciate what you've helped me with in this thread...

But I can't hang out here anymore in the outside chance that any babes are lurking; babes that would assume I'm a nerd, or worse, dork.

I need to be Ferris Bueller in this movie.

god bless you all.

 

[quarky]

I really like you guys and everything...

And I appreciate what you've helped me with in this thread...

But I can't hang out here anymore in the outside chance that any babes are lurking; babes that would assume I'm a nerd, or worse, dork.

I need to be Ferris Bueller in this movie.

god bless you all.

Just ignore him. Quarky is having his period.

 

[Brainster]

I really like you guys and everything...

And I appreciate what you've helped me with in this thread...

But I can't hang out here anymore in the outside chance that any babes are lurking; babes that would assume I'm a nerd, or worse, dork.

Megan Fox stopped by and said that if you're not a nerd, she's not interested.

Totally. I like funny guys and those, for some reason, tend to be nerdy guys.

 

[Vortigern99]

Yeah, it's time to discard this perception that "nerds" and "geeks" don't attract women, because it's total baloney. Most of the people I know are sci-fi/fantasy/comic book "nerds", including myself, and most of us, including myself, are married or dating.

Attendance at any sic-fi/comic book convention will reveal hundreds or thousands of beautiful women who are also into the same stuff, and who like and date guys who share their interests.

In my own case, I met my wife at a Renaissance Festival where we were both in costume. It doesn't get any "geekier" than strapping a sword to your side and tromping around in knee-high pirate boots.

 

[dudalb]

Was it Weisinger that kept a sign in his office that read "Remember We are writing for 8- yr olds."

Acccording to legend, yes.
And you can't criticise that method in terms of sales. Sales of Superman and the Superman Related comics went through the roof from the late 50's, when Weisinger took over, until the mid Sixties,when the Marvel Revolution hit.
And don't forget that Weisinger took over Supes in the aftermath of Fredrick Wertham (may he rot in Hell, just like one of the villians in a EC Horror Comic)
when the comic book unindustry wanted a squeaky clean image.
BUt, yes, Weisinger did pitch Supes to a very young audience, whereas the rest of the DC comics appealed to a slightly older audience in the 12 to 14 age group.
Of course come 1961, Lee and Kirby were to turn the comic industry upside down by writing a superhero comic that was aimed at much older audience..high school and college students. DC should have taken note that the business was changing,, but they did not, and as a result by 1972 what
just a few years ago was considered impossible had happened...Marvel was outselling DC,and Supes, despite attempts to make the character appeal to a more mature audience (With what Kirby did with Supes in "Jimmy Olsen" and "The FOrever People" and Dennis O Neill's run as editor, which consisted in trying to undo a lot of Weisinger had done) was dropping in sales. In fact, DC was in a decline that continued until Jennete Kahn took over and, basically, saved DC.
BTW I am one of those who thinks that Wertham and the killing of EC Comics set the industry back artistically about 20 years. I am a huge fan of EC Comics,heh,heh,heh.........

 

[quarky]

Megan Fox stopped by and said that if you're not a nerd, she's not interested.

so.....













What do you have to say about the morality issue of the Bizzaro world?

Or that imp from the 5th dimension, mxytylpltz, whatever, that Supe had to DECEIVE into returning to his own dimension; tricking him into saying his name backwards, as I recall dimly.




Hi, Megan!

 

[alfaniner]

Nowadays you almost have to have a regular job to be able to afford to buy comics.

 

[Brainster]

Acccording to legend, yes.
And you can't criticise that method in terms of sales. Sales of Superman and the Superman Related comics went through the roof from the late 50's, when Weisinger took over, until the mid Sixties,when the Marvel Revolution hit.

Supes would have kicked butt all through the decade had it not been for Batmania. One of the side-effects of the Batman TV show was that Superman sales slumped significantly.

And don't forget that Weisinger took over Supes in the aftermath of Fredrick Wertham (may he rot in Hell, just like one of the villians in a EC Horror Comic) when the comic book unindustry wanted a squeaky clean image.

The part that I find most interesting about Wertham is that although he's generally portrayed as a bluenose conservative, in fact, he was pitching his theories to defense lawyers who were defending teenaged murderers, offering to help get the Charlie Starkweathers of the world off on the basis that they were just lads led astray by comic books.

BUt, yes, Weisinger did pitch Supes to a very young audience, whereas the rest of the DC comics appealed to a slightly older audience in the 12 to 14 age group.

Aside from the war comics, and arguably the sci-fi titles, you would have a hard time backing up this assertion. Weisinger saw his target audience as kids from about 7-12 or so, as did the rest of the comics publishers.

Of course come 1961, Lee and Kirby were to turn the comic industry upside down by writing a superhero comic that was aimed at much older audience..high school and college students.

That's an exaggeration. Marvel probably did hit an older demographic cohort than DC, but not that much older. I'd guess that their prime market in the 1960s was more 10-15 or so. The problem with going much older than that is that Marvel still couldn't provide what that market wanted, which was sexier and more violent fare.

DC should have taken note that the business was changing,, but they did not, and as a result by 1972 what just a few years ago was considered impossible had happened...Marvel was outselling DC,and Supes, despite attempts to make the character appeal to a more mature audience (With what Kirby did with Supes in "Jimmy Olsen" and "The FOrever People" and Dennis O Neill's run as editor, which consisted in trying to undo a lot of Weisinger had done) was dropping in sales. In fact, DC was in a decline that continued until Jennete Kahn took over and, basically, saved DC.

DC would have been fine except for one thing: the birth control pill. Although it's commonly believed that the baby boom topped out in the mid-1950s, and then dropped sharply, in fact, the number of live births in the US remained relatively steady until 1964, when the ready availability of the pill suddenly had a dramatic impact. From 1964-1965, the number of births dropped by 6.6%. In 1966 there was a further 4% decline, and another 2.5% drop in 1967. This meant that the cohort of 7-12 year old kids was going to take a big hit in the 1970s.

BTW I am one of those who thinks that Wertham and the killing of EC Comics set the industry back artistically about 20 years. I am a huge fan of EC Comics,heh,heh,heh.........

Well, it did give us MAD magazine as well. I love EC, but the comics biz would have benefited greatly from a rating system like that used for video games. The fact that none existed allowed Wertham to claim, "This is what the kiddies are reading!" when in reality, it's likely that EC was more likely to be read by adolescents and teens who could handle (and enjoy) the gross-out factor.

 

[Nova Land]

Sales of Superman and the Superman Related comics went through the roof from the late 50's, when Weisinger took over, until the mid Sixties,when the Marvel Revolution hit.

I'm curious what your source is for that claim.

"Went through the roof" implies the sales figures went up dramatically in the late '50s. I am not aware of any figures which back up that claim. Yes, Superman was one of DC's best-selling comics in the 1960s. It was also one of DC's best-selling comics in the 1950s and the 1940s.

The Superman comics carried circulation figures once a year starting in 1960; these figures were not published in the comics in the 1950s.

Here are the official sales figures for the top-selling comics of the 1960s. Superman, as you can see, sold quite well -- although less than his over-a-million sales back in the 1940s, and less than the two top Disney comics.

And here are the official Superman sales figures for all the years they are currently known.

A number of comics companies were hurt badly by Wertham's crusade, by Kefauver's senate hearings, and by the introduction of the comics code. Other companies (such as Archie and Dell) appear to have benefitted, since when the horror comics were squeezed out that left them with more market share. Is there any evidence that sales on Superman comics went down, rather than staying fairly constant?

Superman appears to have been doing well enough in the late '40s and early '50s that DC was interested in spinning him off into other books. Superboy got his own comic in 1949; in late 1953 DC increased the frequency of publication, from bi-monthly to 8-times-a-year, indicating sales were increasing rather than decreasing. Jimmy Olsen got his own comic in 1954, again starting as a bi-monthly; DC upped the frequency of this book in mid-1955, again indicating the book was doing well. Lois Lane got her own comic in 1958, starting bi-monthly; frequence was upped in early 1959. Looks to me like sales of Superman comics must have been doing pretty well all along, or DC wouldn't have kept adding Superman books and upping their frequency.

Meanwhile, other editors at DC were also adding new books (and upping the frequency on the successful ones): the new Flash gets his own book in 1959, frequency is upped in mid-1960; Green Lantern gets his own book in 1960, frequency is upped in early '62; the Justice League of America got their own book in late 1960, with frequency upped in early 1962; etc.

Yes, the Superman books sold better than the new Flash and new Green Lantern. That's because Superman had been around for 20 years, was known by virtually everybody, and appeared in his own prime-time tv show from 1952 through 1958.

Weisinger deserves credit for keeping Superman's sales good. But it's not as if he took over a book with low sales and turned it into a best-seller. He took over a book with good sales, and he kept them good.

But, yes, Weisinger did pitch Supes to a very young audience, whereas the rest of the DC comics appealed to a slightly older audience in the 12 to 14 age group.

The stories appearing in Superman during the late '40s, early '50s, late '50s, and early '60s are all aimed at essentially the same age group. There is no sudden change that I can see at any point during that time in the nature of the stories or the age group being aimed at.

Harvey books, such as Casper the Friendly Ghost, were aimed at a young age group; Superman was aimed at a slightly older age group -- the same basic age group as the other superhero, science fiction, western and war comics DC was publishing.

Marvel was outselling DC,and Supes, despite attempts to make the character appeal to a more mature audience (With what Kirby did with Supes in "Jimmy Olsen" and "The FOrever People" and Dennis O Neill's run as editor, which consisted in trying to undo a lot of Weisinger had done) was dropping in sales...

When do you think that Denny O'Neil was editor of Superman? He wrote Superman in the early 70s under the editorship of Julius Schwartz; perhaps that's what you're thinking of. (He did briefly edit Wonder Woman, in the early '70s, and The Shadow a little later. And he edited the Batman books in the '80s. But Superman? Not that I know of.)

 

[Nova Land]

The part that I find most interesting about Wertham is that although he's generally portrayed as a bluenose conservative, in fact, he was pitching his theories to defense lawyers who were defending teenaged murderers, offering to help get the Charlie Starkweathers of the world off on the basis that they were just lads led astray by comic books.

Yes, the idea that Wertham was a conservative is wrong. He was a liberal -- most notably, a strong opponent of the death penalty and a strong supporter of civil rights. Wertham's testified in court cases on the harmful effects of racial segregation, and his work was part of the body of evidence presented to the Supreme Court which led to their landmark Brown v Board of Education decision.

And Estes Kefauver, the senator who held the 1954 hearings which led to comics publishers forming the Comics Code Association, was also a liberal.

I don't think the anti-comics crusade of the late '40s and early '50s was primarily a left-wing or a right-wing cause; it was one of those issues which transcended left/right lines. But two of the main leaders of the crusade were liberals.

 

[Nova Land]

DC would have been fine except for one thing: the birth control pill. Although it's commonly believed that the baby boom topped out in the mid-1950s, and then dropped sharply, in fact, the number of live births in the US remained relatively steady until 1964, when the ready availability of the pill suddenly had a dramatic impact. From 1964-1965, the number of births dropped by 6.6%. In 1966 there was a further 4% decline, and another 2.5% drop in 1967. This meant that the cohort of 7-12 year old kids was going to take a big hit in the 1970s.

Interesting theory. Unfortunately, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The decline in births started, as you note, in 1964. By then comics sales were already in decline.

In 1960, the top two Dell comics (Uncle Scrooge and Walt Disney's Comics & Stories) both had average paid monthly sales of over one million copies; Superman was above 800,000; Batman was above 500,000; the Lone Ranger was above 400,000; Casper the Friendly Ghost was just a hair under 400,000.

Over the next few years, sales of Superman and other DC comics steadily slid down (with the exception of Batman, which briefly spiked up due to incredible popularity of the Batman television show). By 1969 -- well before children not born in 1964 and 1965 would be not-buying and not-reading comics -- Superman's sales were already down to 500,000.

The collapse in sales of Disney and other funny comics was even more dramatic. In 1961 Uncle Scrooge sales were down to 850,000; by 1963, Walt Disney's Comics & Stories was below 500,000 and Scrooge was down below 300,000; by 1965 WDC&S was down to 400,000; by 1966 WDC&S was below 350,000; by 1967 WDC&S was close to 300,000 and Scrooge was around 275,000; by 1969 WDC&S was close to 275,000 as well. That clearly wasn't caused by a drop in births that started in 1964.

You can see the same thing with sales on Harvey comics, Archie comics, pretty much every company's comics.

There are many reasons why this happened. One of them was probably the rise of television. In the '40s it was a rare novelty. In the '50s more and more families were buying sets, but there were still many families which didn't have one. By the 60s almost every family had one -- and kids were spending increasing amounts of time watching them. I suspect that reading in general declined quite a bit as a result.

Another key reason was probably economic. The price of comics had remained ten cents until 1962 -- when it shot up to twelve cents. In 1969 they shot up another three cents, to fifteen cents. Meanwhile, the price of other magazines such as Life, Look, and Time, which had once been comparable in price to comics, had gone up considerably more.

Newsstands simply were not making as much money from stocking comics as they could from stocking other items. Comics, which in the '40s and '50s could be found almost everywhere, began to be carried in fewer and fewer places. There used to be spinner racks of comics in virtually every drugstore, most grocery stores, and lots of other stores as well. (I remember one of my favorite places to buy comics in the early '60s was a shoe-shine shop, which had a solid wall of comics -- the owner had strung clothesline along the wall, and hung comics on it with clothespins. May not have been the best way to preserve comics in mint, but it made a gorgeous display.)

By the end of the 60s many drugstores and grocery stores had removed their spinner racks, and even many newsstands were cutting down on the number of comics they carried. There just wasn't enough profit to be made from comics.

In the years since the '60s, a variety of other things have contributed to the steady decline in comics sales. But birth control? Seriously?

Can you find any reputable source to back you up on the notion that birth control is what led to the decline in comics sales? I've never heard that theory before -- and, having heard it now, I can't say it makes very much sense.

 

[Cainkane1]

Before this thread dies completely let me say this. When I was a little boy comics gave me more pleasure than my much beloved computer does these days. Superman, batman, Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse were like friends visiting every month. Thats how often the new issues came in.

It is to the credit of Superman DC and its nice Jewish authors that 50 some odd years ago they taught me not to judge a book by its cover. Remember my OP. These guys would also include short articles against religious and racial prejudice at a time when racism was rampant. These simple childrens magazines caused me to think first before I thought ill of someone.

 

[Brainster]

Interesting theory. Unfortunately, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The decline in births started, as you note, in 1964. By then comics sales were already in decline.

In 1960, the top two Dell comics (Uncle Scrooge and Walt Disney's Comics & Stories) both had average paid monthly sales of over one million copies; Superman was above 800,000; Batman was above 500,000; the Lone Ranger was above 400,000; Casper the Friendly Ghost was just a hair under 400,000.

Over the next few years, sales of Superman and other DC comics steadily slid down (with the exception of Batman, which briefly spiked up due to incredible popularity of the Batman television show). By 1969 -- well before children not born in 1964 and 1965 would be not-buying and not-reading comics -- Superman's sales were already down to 500,000.

The collapse in sales of Disney and other funny comics was even more dramatic. In 1961 Uncle Scrooge sales were down to 850,000; by 1963, Walt Disney's Comics & Stories was below 500,000 and Scrooge was down below 300,000; by 1965 WDC&S was down to 400,000; by 1966 WDC&S was below 350,000; by 1967 WDC&S was close to 300,000 and Scrooge was around 275,000; by 1969 WDC&S was close to 275,000 as well. That clearly wasn't caused by a drop in births that started in 1964.

There are lots of problems with this analysis. First, have you examined the frequency of publication for the Dell line? Uncle Scrooge, which gets the prize for highest circulation at ComicChron for 1960, was published quarterly that year. Second, Dell kept trying to raise the price of comics to 15 cents, but they ran into pretty fierce sales resistance, especially since DC kept their prices at 10 cents until the end of 1961.

More important, look at what happened between 1962 and 1965. DC didn't publish circulation figures for 1963 and 1964, but looking at the two outermost years in that four year period, DC saw pretty strong sales gains throughout their line. Superman increased sales by 11%, Action by 21%, Adventure by 25%, Superboy by 11%, Lois Lane by 13% and Jimmy Olsen by 18%. And it's not like I'm cherry-picking the Weisinger titles; GI Combat was up an incredible 34%, Brave & the Bold 19%, Star Spangled War Stories 25% and the Adventures of Jerry Lewis up 20%. Indeed, of the 28 DC titles which published sales figures in both years, only four declined in circulation over hat period.

Now granted, sales in 1962 were off from earlier years due to the full impact of the 2 cent increase finally taking hold, but as time went by the 12 cent price was accepted by the market.

There are many reasons why this happened. One of them was probably the rise of television. In the '40s it was a rare novelty. In the '50s more and more families were buying sets, but there were still many families which didn't have one. By the 60s almost every family had one -- and kids were spending increasing amounts of time watching them. I suspect that reading in general declined quite a bit as a result.

Again, an argument that would appear to make a lot of sense, if we didn't have those circulation increases from 1962-65 staring us in the face. I suspect like you that the market penetration of TV sets increased in those years and that the amount of time that kids spent watching TV increased as well. And yet it didn't hurt circulation in that 1962-1965 era. Why not?

Well, TV wasn't TV back then. In most areas there were maybe 3-4 stations; NYC had 7 counting the PBS outlet. And even with that plethora of options, there were really only a few shows that appealed to kids, and they were usually on against each other on Friday night.

Another key reason was probably economic. The price of comics had remained ten cents until 1962 -- when it shot up to twelve cents. In 1969 they shot up another three cents, to fifteen cents. Meanwhile, the price of other magazines such as Life, Look, and Time, which had once been comparable in price to comics, had gone up considerably more.

Newsstands simply were not making as much money from stocking comics as they could from stocking other items. Comics, which in the '40s and '50s could be found almost everywhere, began to be carried in fewer and fewer places. There used to be spinner racks of comics in virtually every drugstore, most grocery stores, and lots of other stores as well. (I remember one of my favorite places to buy comics in the early '60s was a shoe-shine shop, which had a solid wall of comics -- the owner had strung clothesline along the wall, and hung comics on it with clothespins. May not have been the best way to preserve comics in mint, but it made a gorgeous display.)

By the end of the 60s many drugstores and grocery stores had removed their spinner racks, and even many newsstands were cutting down on the number of comics they carried. There just wasn't enough profit to be made from comics.

Nothing I disagree with here.

In the years since the '60s, a variety of other things have contributed to the steady decline in comics sales. But birth control? Seriously?

Can you find any reputable source to back you up on the notion that birth control is what led to the decline in comics sales? I've never heard that theory before -- and, having heard it now, I can't say it makes very much sense.

Well, that's not precisely what I was arguing, although it's pretty close, and I can see I didn't make the point clearly, although it's somewhat implied by what I was responding to from Dudalb. He said:

DC should have taken note that the business was changing,, but they did not, and as a result by 1972 what just a few years ago was considered impossible had happened...Marvel was outselling DC,and Supes, despite attempts to make the character appeal to a more mature audience (With what Kirby did with Supes in "Jimmy Olsen" and "The FOrever People" and Dennis O Neill's run as editor, which consisted in trying to undo a lot of Weisinger had done) was dropping in sales.

What I was trying to say was that DC was not really presented with an insurmountable problem by Marvel. You go after the kids from 10-15 years old while we go after the age 7-12 bracket is a reasonable deal in times of steady birth rates. But when they decline, suddenly the publisher hitting the younger market realizes that he's guaranteed lower sales just by the demographics. Now granted, that's going to hit the older market as well, just not as early, and thus the publisher with that younger market is going to try to extend out their age range.

The number of live births peaked at about 4.31 million in 1957. But as late as 1961, it was still as high as 4.26 million. Over the next three years it declined to 4.03 million. But in 1965, as I have commented, it plunged to 3.76 million, and by 1968 it was down to 3.5 million. That's a pretty sharp and steep decline, and the pill seems the most obvious factor, as it began to be more widely available, especially after the SC's landmark 1965 decision in Griswold, guaranteeing availability of contraceptives to married couples (it was later extended to unmarrieds as well).

The effect on cohorts was dramatic. The 7-12 year old group peaked at 25.6 million in 1967, but it was guaranteed to decline to 22.5 million by 1974. Remember, this was already in the cards. So of course, DC started reacting by making their lineup more appealing to the older kids. Marvel, as well, started putting out racier and more violent material (e.g., the Conan the Barbarian series).