Originally published October 9, 1992, in Comics Buyer’s Guide #986
Yes, I see a hand raised. You, over in Oh, So?
The Comics Code Authority? What do I think of the Comics Code Authority?
Heavens. It’s embarrassing to realize that I’ve been slogging through all manner of subject matter over the past two years and have never touched on the CCA–a truly hideous oversight which will now be corrected.
For those who are unfamiliar with the origins of the CCA (and readers can sometimes have short memories and shaky knowledge of history, as evidenced by one fan who was under the impression that Jim Lee created The Juggernaut), the CCA has been around for some four decades. It was created by comic publishers in 1954 in response to the charges that comics (horror and crime comics, in particular) were destroying and corrupting the youth of America.
This assertion was put forward by Seduction of the Innocent, which (as everyone knows) is the rock group that didn’t play at San Diego this year. (There. That should cause some confusion. I eagerly await fans walking up to Bill Mumy or Al Collins and saying, “So you’re to blame for the Comics Code.”)
The Code was created with the notion that the publishers would then be able to police themselves, rather than have the government do it.
In a nutshell, the Comics Code Authority consists of a lawyer (or lawyers) who look over the titles of those publishers (Marvel, DC, Archie, etc.) which subscribe to the Code. The Authority makes certain that the comic books follow the guidelines, most of which were developed to put a halt to the types of stories being published in ’50s horror and crime titles.
A title carrying the Code seal cannot have excessive blood and gore. An example of being “Code Aware” occurred in Hulk #398, when a character who had just been stabbed was depicted lying in a pool of blood–and the blood was colored purple. When I saw this, I figured it indicated that either the character was of noble birth, or else she was bleeding ink (which made sense, since she was–y’know–drawn).
The Code watches out for a variety of other things, ranging from explicit sex to such philosophical niceties as that evil cannot be portrayed in a positive light (which put a quick end to plans for the Billy the Happy Pusher comic book). Some Code rulings have fallen by the wayside. For example, Amazing Spider-Man broke new ground back in the ’60s, when the storyline concerned drug abuse. The Code Authority refused to put its seal of approval on the issue, despite the fact that drugs were portrayed in a very negative light, because the Code said that you couldn’t have drugs at all.
Marvel went ahead and published the two-part story anyway–and shortly thereafter, the Code was revised. As a result, a few months later DC published a far more intense drug story in Green Lantern/Green Arrow, and that one carried the seal.
Then there was the rule that “zombies” could not be depicted. This one held for a far longer time than the drug rule, presumably since zombies have been a less pressing social issue than drug abuse. Yes, before Marvel was able to benefit from Marvel Zombies, it had to create, instead, Zuvembies–which were just like zombies except they were called something else.
(One cannot help but wonder, if a villain called The Zombie Master had been created, and his ability was to command armies of tall glasses, each filled with liqueurs, fruit juices, and a couple of jiggers of rum, whether the CCA would have let that go.)
Somewhere along the way–I’m not sure when, but somewhere–zombies-by-name started popping up in comics again, and the Code folks didn’t do much of anything about it.
That’s the CCA in a nutshell. The question is what I think of it.
What can any creative individual think of it? I think it stinks, is what I think.
Pure and simple, I consider it censorship.
I don’t care that the publishers helped put it together. I don’t care that it’s voluntary.
I consider the very idea to be antithetical to the ability of not only writers and artists to produce the stories they want to tell, but to the ability of the publishers to publish what they want to publish.
Ah, but they can ignore the CCA, you point out. Stan Lee did it decades ago. True enough. But the problem is that the publisher has to make the conscious decision that it’s going to drop the seal for that issue. The concern about making that decision creates a chilling effect. Does the publisher want the potential hassle? Generally, a publisher wants money from published comic books. Period. So the question becomes: Is the publisher willing to go through hassle to get that money? The answer is: Whatta you think?
Publishers should have the right to publish whatever they want to, without having to second-guess themselves or try to please some lawyers. Lawyers are not editors. Lawyers are people who are conditioned to play things safe–and, if you’re trusting them to allow you to push the envelope, you can pretty much count on the envelope staying tightly sealed.
If the publishers hadn’t created the CCA in the ’50s, would they really have wound up with the government regulating them? Banning them? Clamping down on them? On the one hand, I find that difficult to believe. Certainly those actions would have been challenged in the Supreme Court, and one would like to think that the Court would have remembered about this thing called the First Amendment, which tends to frown on such activities.
On the other hand, one can’t help but notice the local laws being made around the country lately, limiting or even banning the various gangster cards. Still, these are local governments–and one wonders whether such laws would stand up to Supreme Court scrutiny (although frankly, these days, that’s something of a crap shoot).
It’s easy, with four decades worth of hindsight, to declare that the publishers should have stood firm, told the government to take its best shot, and publish whatever the hëll they felt like publishing. But this wouldn’t have served their short-term business interest. Compromise did, and so was born the CCA–as I said, useful in the short term.
But now we’re four decades older and we’re still stuck with the dámņëd thing.
What purpose does it serve? None that I can see. Keeping things suitable for younger readers? It’s hard to believe that, if the CCA vanished tomorrow, the floodgates of profanity, gore and sexuality would open in the average issue of New Warriors or Superman. I tend to think that publishers are very much aware of what their audience wants and expects from specific titles, and no one is going to go berserk if newfound freedom were bestowed.
A net for editorial blunders? Do the publishers really think that their own editors are incapable of producing comics adhering to specific guidelines? If not, then the Code is redundant. If so, then they need better editors.
Protection? An umbrella if trouble hits? You can’t really be serious.
A hypothesis: The XYZ Club, dedicated to preserve morality and God-fearing thoughts in America, declares that Dr. Strange should be banned, because its members feel that the comic book promotes–I dunno–Satanism.
“Ah, but, XYZ Club,” protests Marvel, “look here. The comic book has the CCA seal of approval on it.”
Would the XYZ Club zealots say, “Oh, dear. We didn’t see the Comics Code label. We’re sorry, Marvel. This comic book is OK by us.”
I’m sorry, but no. The CCA label would not deter the XYZ club in the slightest. It doesn’t know the CCA. It knows Satanism.
Furthermore, if action were taken, it would not be taken against the CCA. No, the action would be taken against Marvel. It would be Marvel which would get the letters; it would be Marvel which would be picketed; it would be Marvel stock that would drop; it would be Marvel ads being yanked (due to pressure exerted on the advertisers); it would be Marvel getting the calls from Wal-Mart saying, “You better not be putting and Dr. Strange into 3-packs”; it would be Marvel that would be up a creek.
In the meantime, the CCA would be conducting business as usual, poring over the next flight of Marvel comic books looking for violations of the Code. And you can bet it’ll probably reject the next issue of Dr. Strange–which would help to cover its own posterior but wouldn’t do a dámņëd thing for Marvel.
(And, in case anyone thinks I’m just ragging on Marvel for some reason, substitute DC for Marvel, Batman and Robin for Dr. Strange, and child endangerment and lack of family values for Satanism. You’ve got the same scenario–and, even better, you’d have Warner’s looking to find whom to hold responsible. Would it go after its own people or the Code? You decide.)
The CCA is the publishing equivalent of using the rhythm method for birth control. It’s approved by those in authority and people submit to it voluntarily. But (absolutely no offense intended) it’s not tremendously reliable and it’s not particularly safe–or, to put it succinctly, you can use it faithfully and still get consequences you won’t like.
So why’s it still around? Habit. Habit and inertia. Publishers may still be clinging to the quaint notion that having the CCA around makes them “honest,” makes them “safe,” makes them–in some way, shape or form–better publishers.
But it doesn’t. What it does do is give new publishers the opportunity to say, “Ah, we don’t bother with the Comics Code. We publish whatever the hëll we want.” And even if the material they publish would result in a Code-approved comic book, it doesn’t matter. It still has that edge of anarchy to it.
It is, to my mind, unconscionable that any publisher would voluntarily submit to any sort of outside censorship. If it was felt that it was necessary 40 years ago–well, I’m sorry, but I consider that to have been a mistake in the long run. And in the long run, everyone involved with any Comics Code publisher is still paying for that mistake.
Essentially, the publishers created a parent organization for themselves.
It’s high time they stopped kidding themselves and grew up.
Peter David, writer of stuff, thinks the term “Marvel Zuvembies” would have been a pretty darned silly one.
* * *
Footnote from the BID book collection:
This column prompted a letter from the head of the CCA describing how the Authority was, in fact, a wonderful organization, and how I was completely off base.
In the meantime, they continue to crack down on, say, the depiction of blood in comics (it must be black, not red), language, mature themes, and other matters not to be inflicted on America’s youth.
They remain censors.
• 
Ah, but now look at the CCA, 17 1/2 years since, pretty toothless
Peter’s observation about the hypothetical Dr. Strange/Batman “censorship through the CCA” scenario was another example of his phenomenal talent to see The Big Picture that clueless bureocrats and greedy corporate heads refused to witness intelligently! Remember the anti-drug Spiderman story that Stan pushed to have published without the CCA seal that prompted DC to publish the Green Lantern/Green Arrow “Speedy’s on Drugs!” storyline WITH the CCA seal posted on every issue afterwards? Politically correct BSAs!!! All of them!!
I was all set to disagree with you until I realized, well, I don’t. I have all kinds of comics that I wouldn’t have any problem letting my 8-year old read. There are some that he doesn’t get to see until he’s older. Gotham by Gaslight springs to mind, or some of the Dreadstar stuff if I still have it. I trust my kid, I trust myself, and it’s up to us what he sees or doesn’t.
Just out of morbid curiousity, is there anyplace or anything you’d do in a comic without the code?
Ummm … i just looked at a batch of comics from a few years ago (i haven’t been buying many comics for some years, what with gas prices, since the nearest comic shop is over twenty miles away), all DC issues from 2007.
The exercise confirms my recollection that it’s been *years* since the Comic Code seal (dis)graced covers.
I notice Marvel hasn’t used the Code in some time now. Is there anyone that still does? Archie, maybe? (If the Code disappeared tomorrow it seems unlikely that Archie would change anything.)
DC still does sometimes, but they publish enough non-code approved books as part of their main line that it seems that they only bother to submit stuff that’ll be approved anyway, and if it isn’t, I don’t think they care all that much.
Oh please. The SECOND the CCA goes away, they’ll be doing NC-17 material. That Jughead’s really a sicko if you think about it. And we all know Sabrina’s a closet devil worshipper.
Peter;
My two cents: Although the Government was applying pressure and, remember this was the time of McCarthy; and that demon Rock’n’roll was feared by those over a certain age (who wouldn’t even let you see Elvis Presley gyrate on TV), I believe the real reason for the code was less about potential Government intervention than for soothing the way with the local magazine distributors. Although I doubt that ultimately the Government would have done anything other than slap the companies on the wrist, it would have been very simple for local distributors to bow to local pressure and simply not send out comics to the newsstands (this was before comic shops, remember). By organizing the Code the remaining publishers made the problem very quietly and very quickly go away.
By giving the distributors a code, a way out that allowed them to say an independent body was looking over (censoring) these awful things, it permitted the books to be sold in places where its content would have been questioned. Not every city was as open as others, especially not in the repressive ’50s, and do remember that although Wertham’s book was a one-sided witch hunt, many of the smaller companies didn’t help by producing material that was not easily defendable.
I personally don’t believe you need to defend such stuff – free speech is supposed to be free speech – and believe most young kids probably avoided the really terrible books simply because they were terrible and of no interest, but it would have been very easy for a local distributor, who needed local support, to stop distributing all comics and not take the time to find out if there were any “offending” ones. If today an adult can be arrested for buying the wrong manga, or a store can get in trouble for selling Elfquest, as happened a decade or two back, you have to imagine the fear back in those days of McCarthy. As soon as there were “worse” things in the mainstream for people to worry about (TV, Vietnam, drugs, the Beatles, etc.) the Code was weakened and today barely has any more bite than that guy in UP with the dentures. But back then it might have helped allow some local distributors to get the books to that corner candy store.
It bugs me that I don’t feel like I can show my 8 year old issues of… let’s say, Green Lantern right now, because he’d be really into the whole Rainbow Corps aspect and I don’t think the really massive gore in the comic actually adds much to the story that couldn’t be accomplished through more subtle and clever means, but I suppose I still would rather that the creative team be able to follow their vision to the fullest than not.
I’d like to think that I’m a smart enough parent that I can find a thousand other things of quality to share with my child. Still, I know he’d like it and I feel like it doesn’t add a whole lot, so yeah, the gore bugs me, not enough that I’d want to crawl back to days of censorship though.
Actually, Peter, I think even then when the code was created that the Supremes were a crapshoot, I mean, there would’ve been no guarantee that they would’ve decided in favor of 1st Amendment rights, let alone granting cert. (I’m sure that it would’ve been a viable issue, I’m just dubious that the case would’ve been a Slam Dunk)
You said that it was unlikely that the Government would’ve actually banned any comics if the Comics Code hadn’t been created. But according to ‘The Ten-Cent Plague’, several local governments had already banned them by this time, or subjected them to strict regulations, and I think a couple of states had already taken some action. Whether this would’ve stood up in the Supreme Court is uncertain, but keep in mind that the exact same conditions had led to the Hays Code in Hollywood, and the Supreme Court had accepted all the state and local censorship of movies that had led up to that. The Court didn’t reverse itself on movie censorship laws until much later.
Local censorship can be just as bad as national if there’s enough of it. It can be worse, actually, since there would be so many different rules in different places; you could end up with almost anything even remotely objectionable to somebody somewhere being taboo. Which is pretty much a good description of the Comics Code in its strictest, original form.
Regarding “lawyers not pushing the envelope” … ah, we were so young and naive in those days, weren’t we, PAD?
Who would have thought that we’d see the lawyers like John Yoo and other fine products of the Bush administration, making legal decisions that even laymen such as myself can sadly shake their heads at. Warrantless wiretapping, torture, the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply even though they insist on calling it a war, habeus corpus can be struck down through simple legislation despite clear instructions in the Constitution that it can’t … those guys didn’t just push the envelope, they wiped their butts with it, burned it, then scattered the ashes leaving no trace of humanity on the legal environment.
I think people are too quick to throw around the word “censorship”. The Code served a legitimate purpose – and still does. It allows parents to simply know that they don’t have to worry much about that issue of “Archie” they are getting. And yes, publishers did have a choice. Just because they found making that choice a PITA does not equate to censorship.
.
And frankly, all of the “pushing the envelope” is great for those who have read or have written comics for a long time, but it’s also a huge reason why parents don’t buy comics for heir young kids anymore and why the demographic of the overall readership keeps getting older.
.
is there something wrong, really, with giving people, parents especially, a good idea that the comic they are buying is “safe” for their children. Yeah, their kids may want to read the edgier stuff that wouldn’t have a seal, but there is nothing wrong with giving people a heads up without them having to read every panel of the book in the store – which would take a long time and likely get them yelled at.
.
The CCA was and is simply the equivalent of a heads-up. It’s not banning anything and is not equal to censorship.
So, basically, the CCA it allows parents to not have to, you know, be parents by checking to see what their kids are reading?
.
Eh, good riddance to the CCA regardless.
the need for parental supervision is a no-brainer, but it would be nice for us parents if we knew something was reliable. After checking out a few issues of Spider-Man (or, in fact, being raised on them myself) I think I should be able to trust that the Chameleon isn’t going to rape Peter Parker’s lady roommate in a book promoted as “all-ages” after I get the kids a subscription. Turns out I was wrong.
The code was not created to establish a level of decency, it was put in effect to punish some publishers, even to the point of ending their lines of comics.
“It’s hard to believe that, if the CCA vanished tomorrow, the floodgates of profanity, gore and sexuality would open in the average issue of New Warriors or Superman.”
I respectfully think you called that one wrong.
I was very discouraged when I found an oral sex reference in an Azzarello/Lee issue of Superman; when a villain called an escort agency to order a blond, brunette, and redhead (“a sexual banana split!”) in a JMS Spider-Man; when Green Arrow and Green Lantern stood on a rooftop discussing Hal’s threesoome with a couple other heroines; with DC’s fascination with rape in general. It disappoints me that I can’t share these characters I’ve loved since I was four years old with my own kids.
The CCA was draconian in it’s earliest days, but it eased up as time passed and it wasn’t censorship. Marvel published numerous horror and fantasy comic mags for adults decades ago and didn’t suffer for it. I’ve bought my share of adult themed comics, but I think there’s something wrong with anyone wanting to impose that template over Batman rather than create their own setting for it.
I’d like to see all varieties of comics have a chance to flourish, but I’d also like to see a self-governing system that imposes a little restraint and better judgement regarding characters that are not creator owned and for decades were ALL-ages accessable.
“So, basically, the CCA it allows parents to not have to, you know, be parents by checking to see what their kids are reading?
.
Eh, good riddance to the CCA regardless.”
.
No, it just informs them something is clean and doesn’t have sex and gore. really, does EVERY comic have to be grim and gritty? And “Archie” and his sister publications still use the CCA and they’re doing just fine, thanks. They sell around 100,000 copies each at Borders, newsstands and the like – and even cracked the Top 100 with the “marriage” storyline. So the CCA is far from dead.
.
And, really, Marvel’s ratings system is downright confusing. Someone just had a letter printed where they said they weren’t buying “Amazing Spider-Man” because they thought the A rating meant “Adult” and not “All Ages”. And if it’s really All-Ages, which I feel the stories have been and that doesn’t make them “Spidey Super Stories” why not have a simple seal that proclaims that fact?
And “Archie” and his sister publications still use the CCA and they’re doing just fine, thanks
.
And the CCA could drop off the cover tomorrow, and I bet you few if any would notice.
.
Archie is Archie. It’s not going to have sex and violence, whether the CCA is around or not.
.
Jerome, 99.9% of the parents out there have no idea what the CCA is or what it means. it’s not like the FDA or the FCC where (A) it’s a goverment body and (B) you hear about it every other day in the news.
.
Not long ago Yvette Spivock and her husband Bill of NC were less than thrilled by an issue of Batman Confidential that she bought at a library sale for her 12-year-old son. It was, if I remember the news blurb, the one where Batman tracks Catwoman to a hedonist society’s hangout. Clothing was optional. The fact that there was no CCA seal on the thing didn’t seem to matter.
.
Besides, as the many cases of the past show, the seal means nothing when people want to target comics as the cause of something bad and it protects no one. It was created for stupid reasons and it has remained stupid ever since.
Alan Coil,
“The code was not created to establish a level of decency, it was put in effect to punish some publishers, even to the point of ending their lines of comics.”
.
This is, of course, largely true. To prohibit any titles with words like “Horror” in them served mainly to destroy EC Comics. I get that.
.
My point is only that the code evolved into merely meaning something that was kid-friendly and that parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles could get without having to examine every panel.
.
In an industry that is still struggling, it is just absurd that we would make it that much harder for young people to be exposed to comics by having people wonder if the content is suitable.
.
Again, not every book has to be “Archie”, but not every book has to have the Sentry ripping someone in half on-panel either.
The interesting thing is given one of PAD’s jokes is that Marvel actually has a villain called the Zombie Master, though I don’t think he’s appearance between his first appearance and his recent handbook entry (Daring Mystery Comics#1 1940 and Marvel Mystery Handbook#1 2009, respectively).
Also interesting is how much of a cash cow zombies have been for Marvel in recent years.
My biggest problem with the code is its inconsistency. Sometimes you hear stories of really silly changes, sometimes creating something worse (like readers thinking Kyle Rayner’s girlfrind had been dismembered because an open fridge door showing her body got changed to a closed fridge door showing her limbs). Other times there will be something in a code approved stores that suggests that the code people didn’t read the story. And as Peter noted, context hasn’t always been a priority.
I can see how a code of some sort can be helpful in some cases, but if we’e talking kids, the authority on how wholesome the comic is should be the parent. And by parent I mean the parent of the kid in question and not some other parent who got on the news.
OH, I am SO going to be the “Zombie Master” mentioned here at Comic-Con this year.
Neither Dell nor Gold Key submitted their books to the CCA. Are we then to assume that Dell and Gold Key comics are bad for kids?
Actually, Alan, Dell had it’s own self-control program, known as (Shudder) “Pledge to Parents” (THE lamest comics program name ever) whereby they would not have to join the CCA, but they would also not lose money
Actually, Charles, as a long time comic book reader and collector, I knew about the “Pledge to Parents”, but the PtP was not on the cover, as was the CCA stamp, therefore not any type of indicator to parents perusing the comic books.
My apologies, Alan.
Personally I’d still like to get a list of the not for public list of no-no’s that the code created when they revised it in 1989.
The CCA is conceptually identical to prior restraint, which is a very big no no (although many eternal verities seem a bit less firm in the past nine years: There was a time when intelligent people did not begrudge prisoners legal representation, and that pesk Supreme Court did make a few broad rules which used to seem rather comprehensible…). Of course some think the situation is different because it is self-imposed. This seems unconvincing: It is probably legal, but it is hardly moral. I would be less concerned if each publisher decided its own standards for itself, but the establishment of an overriding industry standard seems like monopoly, prior restraint and collusion.
“Actually, Alan, Dell had it’s own self-control program, known as (Shudder) “Pledge to Parents” (THE lamest comics program name ever)”
.
Why is it a lame name? Seriously. This rabid opposition to simply having a seal that lets a parent know, “This is clean” (subjective, I know, but so is Marvel’s current rating system, for example) bothers me as much as the fanatics on the other side of the spectrum, who felt the “bøøb movies” of the 1980s like “Porky’s” were a sign of the end of civilization.
.
It reminds me of the problem the makers of the film “The Rookie” had when when their film was given a rating of G, for General Audiences. Combined with a star like Dennis Quaid and based on a true story, they should have been thrilled the film was deemed suitable for everyone.
.
Except no, not really. “The Rookie” was the first live-action movie in years to get a G rating. heck, most Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks ANIMATED features get a PG, minmum, and some even get PG-13. The producers of “The Rookie” considered adding in some rougher language and some violence so they would get a PG rating and not be considered lame. Thankfuly, they didn’t and the film was a modest hit.
.
But that our culture is getting to the point where they thought that way bothers me as much as if there was pressure to outlaw pørņ or brutal horror movies like “Saw” (I just got the “Nightmare on Elm Street” 8-pack, actualy).
.
Isn’t there room for clean stuff and edgy stuff and over-the-top stuff? And is it that much of crime, especially when you’re talking about the Big Two and characters the general public knows, to let parents know, “Hey! This is okay!”/ In a struggling market, does it make much sense to tick off someone whose kid was excited by the “Iron Man” sequel and buys a bunch of comics for their kid and there is mature matter in there?
.
For example, the latest “Fall of the Hulks” storyline,only one of the eight issues are rated for All Ages. The rest are rated for Teens and up. The thing is, the Hulk, ever since Loeb took over has become increasingly simple, over-the-top, “Batman” TV show-ish. Most teen and above want something edgier and the potential younger audience that could get into the Hulk with this storyline are being told it’s not suitable for them.
.
Doesn’t make much sense to me.
Some years back I read an article on why there were so many gross-out scenes in kids’ movies. Apparently the producers/studios of many of these kids’ movies insisted that such scenes be included (even in movies where’d they be out of place) because they were that convinced that the paying kids would not be caught dead seeing a movie that didn’t have gross-out stuff in it. The article also had a sidebar with the guy who owns/trains/produces Bengi (remember the small shaggy grey dog star of 1970-80’s kid movie fame?), and his having to do finance the latest Bengi movie independently because the studios refused to touch it without sufficient gross-out scenes, and the Bengi guy refusing to put them in because he didn’t like doing them, or viewing them. Which, if you think about it, is kinda sad that a known public quantity like Bengi (who hasn’t starred in anything for some years now) can’t get a movie made because the studios think that a kids movie without grossness can’t be marketable to them.
It’s sad that getting a G rating on a film is considered the same as getting a NC-17 rating: Both are considered unmarketable to the movie industry, and taboo to see to the paying public.
I’m not crazy about the CCA at all and i think it hurt the comic industry in a lot of ways it ended up becoming a niche brand of almost entirely super-heros and ones that were usually uncomplicated.
that left a smaller and smaller fanbase and gave comics the reputation as being nothing other than “superheros for kids”
so out goes the romance or the westerns or anything else that would attract a wider fan base.
But of course now we don’t have the CCA and there is no regulation at all where you can have a very safe book like Izombie that has a parental sticker on it even tho there is nothing objectionable in the book whatsoever.
and then you get issues of mainstream superhero comics where its all blood and gore and violence and sex with no redeeming qualities and no parental sticker or advisement.