I honestly thought the Comics Code Authority had died out in 2004

The tortuous story of how the Comics Code Authority came to be, and the mix of creative desolation and laboratory-results-generating amazingly-weird-stuff in the CCA hothouse that came afterward is chronicled very well in David Hajdu's The Ten-Cent Plague. 

Since the 1950's, the CCA has acted as a non-governmental censorship with an astonishing bit of clout, trying to make sure that comics that fell into the hands of kids were wholesome reading material.*  The development of the rules and the enforcement thereof was often stringent and nonsensical.  For example: no werewolfism or vampires.  Everybody has to love and respect authority figures.  Etc...

This had two separate effects:
1)  It killed off whole genres of comics whose genre continued to thrive in TV, movies, radio, magazines, etc...
2)  The rules were so strict, it led indirectly to how bizarre some comics became during the Silver Age.  Basically, you could no longer show Superman actually just beating people up, but you could show him in bizarre situations with red kryptonite and screwing with Lois Lane's perceptions of reality on a near daily basis in order to maintain his secret identity.

However, by the late 1970's the Direct Market (ie:  the newly invented comic shop) began to appear and the Direct Market was not the supermarket.  While magazine racks and supermarkets wouldn't carry comics lacking the CCA Seal of Approval, the direct market saw it as a growth opportunity, and an opportunity to draw in an older readership.  And this began the change to the market you see today.

By the 1980's when I figured out what a comic shop was, you could occasionally find a "For Mature Audiences" comic like Swamp Thing accidentally or intentionally tucked in with X-Men and Hawkman.  But the comic shops were full of all kinds of stuff across a whole range of non-kiddie faire.  (Circa 7th grade, I have very strong memories of wondering who would come up with an idea like Cherry Poptart.)  But it wasn't all "hey, this is fun!  What can we do now?"  Some of it was Watchmen and Elektra and Grendel.

Flashforward to the 00's, and honestly, I haven't noticed a CCA logo cluttering a comic cover in years, and I had kind of guessed that the CCA had folded long ago.  The idea that a room full of retired librarians and elementary school teachers were still looking at every panel didn't seem too likely.  After all, once grocery stores and comics mutually agreed the other wasn't profitable enough and broke up, DC and Marvel both started writing for an audience I would describe as no younger than 14, including in titles like Superman.  And, certainly the code had become so relaxed within the past 15 years that, short of a few choice items of profanity and full frontal nudity, its a grown-ups world in "mainstream" superhero comics these days.

However, today DC announced they were dropping the CCA, which elicited a "wha-?  The CCA is alive?" from me.  DC Comics is taking steps similar to those embraced by Marvel years ago, and adopting a ratings code, similar to that of the MPAA.

DC's Announcement

Pop Culture Safari ponders what it can mean

Comics Alliance responds to the change

From the DC site:

E – EVERYONE
Appropriate for readers of all ages. May contain cartoon violence and/or some comic mischief.

T – TEEN
Appropriate for readers age 12 and older. May contain mild violence, language and/or suggestive themes.

T+ - TEEN PLUS
Appropriate for readers age 16 and older. May contain moderate violence, mild profanity, graphic imagery and/or suggestive themes.

M – MATURE
Appropriate for readers age 18 and older. May contain intense violence, extensive profanity, nudity, sexual themes and other content suitable only for older readers.

 of course, this isn't what Marvel is using, so... good luck, parents!

As near as I can tell, the CCA doesn't have, and may never have had a website.  I can't even find a site for the Code's parent organization, Association of Comics Magazine Publishers.  That's just mind boggling.

It leads one to wonder if DC made this move because the CCA informed them they were going out of business, anyway.

In my opinion...

This may actually be a sign that DC is looking to diversify their offerings.  I suspect DC didn't worry about the ratings before as they knew who was walking into comic shops.  But I suspected that when a non-comics person like Diane Nelson took over DC, she was not going to settle for trying to just get a bigger piece of the Direct Market comics pie.

As DC moves into digital and seeks new markets and audiences, of COURSE they will be looking to kids and teens, in which case, you can't have Cry for Justice on the same shelf as Tiny Titans.  And I don't think its wrong that Superman writers should mostly stick to a "T" rating.  Batman can go be "T+".

I may be misreading it, and likely am, but time will tell.

That said, I got away with reading all KINDS of stuff because I was never dumb enough to let my parents flip through the pages of what I was actually reading, and my books didn't have an age-appropriateness rating.  Then again, I didn't have the internet and the wide world of eye-popping wonder that it contains, either.



*The one thing that Hajdu omits from his story is the recently unearthed and mostly forgotten mix of comic art and badly typed prose called Nights of Horror, which was, in fact, not at all for kids, but contained art by Superman creator Joe Shuster (this was basically just discovered within the past four years).  I am totally not kidding.  I recommend seeing if your local library has a copy of Yoe's book, Secret Identity: The Fetish Art of Superman Co-Creator Joe Shuster (mine did!  Look, I'm a Superman completionist.  And its not what you think.).

Anyway, it seems that much-vilified-by-comic-nerds psychologist Fredric Wertham, who led the crusade against comics in the 1950's, did so after a series of brutal killings in New York that the perpetrators blamed their inspiration on comics.  Those comics were not, by the way, Archie and Superman, but Nights of Horror.

If you were to say, "Hey, what is the best thing ever?" I would respond with "Dog Fort Comics. Obviously."

Dog Fort Comics.

You are welcome.


Found at Comics Alliance.  Where they've posted some highlights.

This makes me really miss Mel.  And our forts.

@laura_hudson of Comics Alliance accidentally drops a dime on lame ass "anarchist" comics guy

Oh, shiiiiiiiiiiiiit.

In a recent editorial, Comics Alliance editor, Laura Hudson, reposted comments by a comics retailer in the wake of the Giffords shooting.  The retailer basically said:  1 down, 534 to go.

Yeah.  Exactly.

If you feel that sense of utter rage boiling at the base of your skull and tensing up your shoulders and neck, don't ignore it.  Its called "righteous indignation", and its your body telling you that Travis Corcoran is a scum bag, and your body is correct.

I don't disagree with Hudson's editorial. I love me some democracy and sanctity of human life.  That said...

People, I am a fan of the first and second amendments, and I am not sure how I feel about getting the FBI on you for saying something dumb online* (I mean, if saying something dumb online was a crime, I'd have been in the electric chair long ago)...  but, anyway, it seems that the post at Comics Alliance drew the attention of folks in Law Enforcement (who we respect.  And, uh, we absolutely love and we really don't want any trouble).  Apparently they have taken all kinds of steps towards making Corcoran's life really uncomfortable.  And, uhm...  no guns for a while.

Anyway, here's the story. 

And here's Comics Alliance's quick attempt to catch up.

Here's Hudson's depiction of herself after learning of the story.

There's definitely some tricky territory here, and I'll let the curiously high number of lawyers I know ponder this one.  But its also kind of amazing that Hudson's very-pissed-off editorial, which was not likely to leave the comic geek-o-sphere, got this kind of attention.

If there's a lesson to be learned, its that you do not piss off a comics blogger, or we will bring the NSA down on you and everyone you love.

That said, you know Corcoran's internet "anarchist" buddies are going to be all crazy and "911 was an Inside Job" and maybe throw a brick at a Starbucks over this.

*I should point out, what Corcoran said could be construed as a threat.  I'm not going to get into the full extent of his post (its been deleted), but it was also one blip on a site that acted as a soapbox for his anti-government stances.  I suppose law enforcement is taking this sort of talk seriously lest we see a string of copy cats (after all, the AZ shooter's stuff was online, too).

MLK Day

Blog Break

I have never read this, and I have no idea.

We're going to take a little time off from the blogging.  As always, I have no idea how long I shall take to charge my batteries.  But I think I need to spend some time with my own super doggies and Super Girl.  We'll be back soon enough.  And, of course if any news breaks that's relevant, we'll be back ASAP.

Susannah York Passes

Actress Susannah York has passed at the age of 72.  While York had a distinguished career, Signal Watch points to her in her brief but excellent portrayal of Lara, birth mother of Superman, in Superman: The Movie and the theatrical release of Superman II.

Godspeed to Ms. York.

Some Favorite Lois Lanes - Part 1

I don't even recall what I was doing, but I stumbled across this image and it got me thinking.

I didn't love the ending of Superman: Birthright, but when it came out, and then when you see it collected... man, I still really like both the look and emotional vibe of that comic. And I always liked Waid's characterization of Lois. Somehow, Yu's take also felt right as the "gangly girl who grew into a beautiful woman but doesn't know it".

This particular image of Lois from Birthright has such an odd sense of...  poetry to it.  (Yeah, I said poetry.  Shut up.) Its a cover, and it tells you what you need to know about the issue, too, I guess.

I think its important that artists remember who they're dealing with when they draw Lois Lane.  She's not deserving of respect just because she appeared with Superman in Action Comics #1, but because she's a great, tough, smart character.   So, you know, take care, fer goodness sake.

Anyway, looking at Lois here got me thinking about some of my favorite comic artists and how they handled Lois.  Over the the years, Lois has been drawn by, I'd guess, hundreds of artists in an official capacity.  Many don't seem to really know what to do when it comes to Lois, and draw "generic brunette woman" into the comic, just not even trying to give her any punch.  Its almost a hallmark of how invested the artist is in Superman how much they try to do something with Lois in the pages she appears.

It all started, of course, with Siegel and Shuster, two dudes who knew instinctively what kind of woman would catch the eye of their new hero.

This leads indirectly to the fellow freaking out on the cover of Action Comics #1

I LOVE Lois Lane in these early appearances.  She treats Clark like dirt for being a weasel, she takes no guff, and she's taking the world by storm.

Lois's foremost characteristic is, of course, fearlessness.  In most portrayals, she also has no idea that she's a very good looking woman (although John Byrne seemed to disagree on that point.  She seemed to know in Man of Steel.)   And she'll sell her child to the black market if it could get her a scoop, but that would be so she could expose the corruption of the Black Market Baby racket, ie:  she's a social crusader who uses the Daily Planet as her megaphone.

What every artist and writer has to strive to do is find a way a way to demonstrate that this person is the sort of person that would draw Superman's interest, and that's no small feat.  In comparison to Superman, fragile she may be, but she also has to be the kind of person who can go toe-to-toe with The Man of Steel, tell him when he's wrong without blinking, and all without writers sliding down the path of making her sound like an unpleasant person (which, some weaker writers have done from time to time).

In addition to Shuster, of the classics I'm a fan of the work of Wayne Boring and Curt Swan, the two primary artists on Superman back in the day.  Boring handled Superman in the 1940's and Swan came on in the 1950's, I think, and departed around 1986.

If Siegel and Shuster have a depressing cautionary tale to tell about Intellectual Property, then Wayne Boring is DC's answer to depressing stories about work-for-hire.  Boring drew Superman comics (hundreds of them) for years.  One day he showed up for work, and had been let go.  Because something was really, really wrong with editor Mort Weisinger.

His Lois is a little more fragile looking than most, but he was there for the post WWII Lois and took part in bringing Superman into the Silver Age.

This is pretty much the stylistic look I associate with Boring: a lot of WTF looks from Lois

He was first teamed with and later replaced by Curt Swan, who had been doing covers and backups and whatnot, and as much as I love Boring for his era, I'm amazed not just at Swan's prolific output, how he came to define a lot of what people think of when the concept of mid-century comics comes to mind. 

Swan would draw Lois for decades, and help bring her right into the 80's.  I actually quite liked some of his 70's-era updates as the "big city reporter" melded with an ERA-era Lois.

Kurt Schaffenberger's depiction, is actually a lot more fun than I think most comic readers know.  He really captured the bat-@#$% crazy mindset of Lois in the late 50's through the 60's and gave a lot of life to the character.  He was on Superman's Girlfriend, Lois Lane for a huge run of the series. Lois is, no doubt, out of her mind in practically every single issue of the first 80 or so issues of the series, and Shaffenberger displays an amazing ability to draw Lois's many states of crazy.  Below:  blind rage.

In this story, Lois is kind of the Betty Draper to Clark's Super-Don

But my favorite is Schaffenberger's "scheming Lois".

our hero, ladies and gentlemen

The fact that Lois was constantly plotting and petty during the crucial Silver Age era is seen as a big negative by some, especially as she was plotting and scheming to get married, but, you know...  times is times and I don't hold it against the creative teams any more than I would hold it against Lois if she were scheming to get a get stock tips or good seats at a basketball game today.  As much as I enjoy scheming Lois, I'm not sure what kind of comic that would be today.  But I would welcome it on the rack.

There's no doubt about my adoration of the much-more-recent All Star Superman, and as the series progressed, I really began to appreciate what Morrison had written for Lois, as well as how Quitely portrayed Lois.  At first I thought she was a little willowy, but I really grew to appreciate what he'd done in modernizing the look a bit (Lois is the Batmobile of the Superman universe, btw.  Every artist has their ideas.)

Man, this is a couple who has come to an understanding.

this picture is actually how I feel keeping up with Jamie, sometimes

Gary Frank took on Lois in Action Comics and Superman: Secret Origin, giving me a Lois I think I liked as much as Quitely and Yu's.  Frank's style lended itself to making Lois appear almost like someone you might know, and not an airbrushed image of a woman that comic artists do when they aren't allowed to hide behind superhero costumes (I'm looking at you, Ed Benes).

Tim Sale hasn't had extensive opportunity to draw Lois Lane, but I can't argue with the results.

And if you've never read Darwyn Cooke's New Frontier, for shame!  His Lois is a nice retroactive approach to the character, appropriate to the astronauts and trail blazers of the era.  And you never doubt the Superman/ Lois dynamic, not for a moment.

So there's a heaping, helping bunch of Lois Lane for you.  Next time we do this, I think we'll talk TV and film.

Superman 707 arrives/ Continuing the "Grounded" Storyline

Superman #707
Story Outline by J. Michael Straczynski
Script by Chris Roberson
Pencils by Allan Goldman
Inks by Ebel Ferreira

A Whole Lot of Background:

Yesterday I ventured out to Austin Books and Comics and picked up Superman 707 as part of a signing that was held for Austin local Chris Roberson, who worked from an outline by J. Michael Straczynski.  I did get the issue signed, etc...  And I am very happy to have an Austin local on the book.

Roberson has his hands full coming on in the middle of what's been a fairly major and public catastrophe for DC Comics and the Superman line of books, in particular.  When Geoff Johns left the Superman books to work on other projects and take on the role of Chief Creative Officer for DC, DC handed the reigns off to well regarded writer Greg Rucka, who had done a good job on Action Comics circa 2005-2006.  Unfortunately, Rucka was handed an idea that didn't really sound like his cup of tea (the iffy Nightwing and Flamebird storyline while Superman ran around New Krypton in a spin-off maxi-series).  Few Superman fans felt that the year-long story-arc was well executed, and it left the books in an odd place.  Clearly DC had expected for the hook of Superman abandoning his own titles, etc... was going to be huge.

So, in the best of circumstances, taking over a book mid-stream is a tough job.

Enter JMS, the mind behind the much-beloved sci-fi epic, Babylon 5, writer of the very good film Changeling, and a guy who I thought had taken some pretty good whacks at comic work at Marvel with Spider-Man (and I liked The Twelve until it stopped coming out), but who had kind of flamed out with a storyline that just lost me.  Nonetheless, I was glad to hear DC was invested enough in Superman as a character that they would bring on JMS.

JMS's storyline, Grounded, followed Superman on a cross-country walk as he, in a state of PTSD after New Krypton*, realized he wasn't in touch with the very people he was trying to protect.

Look, I have very, very mixed feelings about what followed.  Far be it from me to say that the story is perfect.  That's simply not the case.  The dialog was iffy and JMS clumsily wrote in straw man arguments for Superman to supposedly dismiss.  Whether its the fault of the artist or JMS, the racial coding on some of this was a little... hard to swallow.

But the truth is that the online reaction to the story has been hyperbolic and reveals more about the mindset of comic readers and, frankly, their inability to understand nuance or even try to stay with a story that didn't resort to extreme violence, awkward attempts at sexiness, a team-up or insular comic-book logic to push it forward.  At some point in the discourse (and fairly early on), JMS ceased being the one who was wrong in the conversation, no matter the quality of the work.

Not every writer is going to be brilliant, and not every story from a great writer is going to be gold.  But I could appreciate that JMS was at least trying to posit how Superman would look in the world, and that the kinds of solutions Superman provides are temporary solutions at best, and that the world is, in fact, a deeply complicated place.**

People following the comic know that of the prior 6.25 issues of JMS's run, 2 were substitute issues written by G. Willow Wilson, a writer whose work I don't know much about.  JMS and DC cited health issues, and because that seems reasonable, I'm going with JMS's story.

While I didn't love the execution, I at least liked the questions Wilson brought up.  Its basic character and world-building stuff that writers seem to ignore all too often when thinking about writing Superman.  But the bottom line is that JMS had only written 4 .25 issues, and its impossible to know what JMS intended for the duration of what was supposed to be his 12 issue run.


So, on to actually discussing 707

I have no idea what part here is JMS, and what part is Roberson.  I hate to even hazard a guess.

What's interesting is that Roberson seems to have a feel for the Bronze/ Silver Age Superman that Geoff Johns was trying to bring back to the DCU (and that I've personally begun to feel is a lot more fun than the COIE to IC Superman) than JMS.  There's something oddly Bronze Age about how the story is set up, from the chemical plant fire to Superman's discussion with Lois (in which she comments that he seems... off), and continuing right to the twist ending - leading to much bigger things.  I can't exactly put my finger on it, but I wouldn't cry to see the book drawn by Curt Swan.

Not all of the dialog is as smooth as it could be, and I'm not sure how this will fit with the overall DC Comics approach where Blackest Night and Batman & Robin are hot commodities, but the story serves as a bridge between the last few issues of Superman's trek and wherever Roberson is sending him next.

Most runs have a rough first issue (I'd include Morrison's first couple issues on Batman) until the writer settles in and the audience goes a bit more along with the writer.  I'll be watching the next few issues to see Roberson truly take the reins of the story and see what he can do to get the Superman book back on track, even if Grounded itself can't quite be saved.

The moral dilemma of the story centers around an environmental issue vs. and economic issue.  A chemical plant is definitely damaging the environment (but not people) but the factory is the last sustaining economic factor in the town.  Its a microcosm of America's (and much of the planet's) grappling with the needs of the economy versus the longterm environmental impact of polluters.

In reviews I read online, a  lot of reviewers went so far as to claim the solution was obvious or simple, and Superman's indecision was ridiculous.  Others pointed to "mind control".  But the bottom line is:  If you step away for two seconds and/ or actually read the paper - this isn't a simple issue.  For anybody (try Googling "Kyoto Protocols").  Nor should it be seen as a simple issue for Superman to magic away because he's Super.

The discrepancy between what Superman can and can't do, and maybe what we can all do if we tried, is much of what JMS was trying to say with his Grounded storyline.  I'm not sure its okay to use Superman to wish-fulfill away abusive parents, infestations of drugs in economically challenged communities, etc...  and keep Superman on the side of the angels while providing a longterm solution or keeping him on police duty 24/7 in every crook where people have decided to live, everywhere on the planet. 

Its often difficult to try to reconcile Superman's first appearances as an unstoppable social crusader (which, for the modern reader is a vintage throwback) with the knowledge that its semi-offensive to suggest in a comic that, say, Superman would resolve something as serious as the tragedy in Haiti.   You can't have Superman stop 9/11 in the comics any more than, during WWII the editors were willing to put him on the front lines in Europe, which is about the time Superman quit dealing with real-world issues in the comics.***

The problem may be:  the story of the superhero living and acting in the "real world" makes for a decent fill-in-issue or writing assignment by some fresh faced young writer outside of comics who thinks they are making some point nobody ever considered (you see a lot of that in different media, from short stories to websites.  Also, Superman stealing people's girlfriends.).  But sustained over 12 issues, I'm not sure reminding the audience at every turn that their superhero of choice is a bit ineffective on the macroscale, or that real-world problems are actually difficult to grapple with is something a lot of superhero fans are going to grok and/ or embrace.

But Superman, for the last 60 years of his publication history hasn't been about Superman fixing everything wrong with the world like a helpful genie.  If we want to look at the character, the point is to use what you have to make the world better when and where you can with what you have.  

Whether this story grips you personally as a reader who was hoping Superman would heat-vision a tank or something, then...  sure, I can see why you'd be disappointed, but I thought Roberson handled Superman's frustration pretty well.  With a hint that something else was going on, as the story indicated.

Oh my god, shut up internet

I made a solemn vow not to talk about what the rest of the internet was saying.  But...

And I want to be clear, here:  I don't know Roberson.  I have nothing invested in whether he succeeds or fails with his issue.  But if you're going to criticize the issue...  at least make it clear you either actually read it or that you can understand what you read.

Its an odd failing of long-form storytelling that comics produced by DC and Marvel rely on the monthly format.  And as an odder artifact, it seems the review and reviewer work entirely in the realm of the 22 pages in front of them, as if there's been nothing before and what the writer sees in a single issue is all there is.  That point of view can be defended, but sometimes...  cheezus.  You kind of want to slap the reviewer in the head and ask what public school failed them.


If the argument between Superman and Lois felt a little weird or awkward...  congratulations.  You picked up on what was a fairly obvious tip-off from the writer (along with the many suggestions that Superman was having issues) that something is up.  It does not mean Roberson is necessarily doing something wrong either with a character or with a story. And, I believe, he's taking the story back to a place that's maybe a little more familiar and a better space for Superman and superhero comic readers.

In conclusion

The last page of issue 707 suggests that (1) something else is at hand and that (2) Roberson plans to take Superman in a different direction now that he's got the keys to the car.

I'm going to hold out on telling you that you need to run out there and buy this comic any more than I was saying that about most other Superman comics.  But what I will say is that rather than another several months of up's and down's that we saw with JMS, we now have the potential for a better Superman comic. 

I, uhm...  I did not love Allan Goldman's pencils, I am afraid.  Serviceable, but this was obviously a pretty quick turnaround.


*  Spoiler alert:  The city of Kandor exploded, killing 10's of 1000's of Kryptonians and Zod attacked Earth with a fleet of Kryptonian soldiers
**but I about choked on the "aliens in Detroit" story
***for those of you gleefully leaping to your keyboards and the comment section: this also applies to virtually every character in every heroic fictional action story in every medium, which is why I'm interested to see Superman, the 800 lb gorilla of American Genre storytelling, put up against actual crises

Noir in Austin - "Out of the Past" and "Laura" at the Paramount on Sunday

Out of the Past starts at 2:00 and Laura starts at 4:00.  I believe one ticket will get you into both shows. 

I'll be there at 1:40 or so.  Email me if you're going.

I should of stuck with that job

A long time ago, some colleagues at my current job and I were chatting, and I was describing the most troubling part of the job I'd had when I worked at the Disney Store during the summers of 1993-1995.

"And so we had this thing at the back of the store, it was called 'Plush Mountain', and it was this pile of stuffed animals.  Brand new stuffed animals, all brightly colored, all these familiar Disney characters piled up way higher than any kid could see.  And these kids, they'd see it from way, way back in the store from between the racks of toys and coffee cups.  We had these high pillars filled with all kinds of Disney stuff.   It was too much.  It would just overload their little kid brains to see this amazing pile of Disney.

"So the kids would see it, and they'd start running at the mountain from half-way through the store, just barreling at full-tilt, ready to fling themselves into Plush Mountain.

"What these kids didn't know, and what their parents didn't know, I guess...  was that the only way you can have a mountain like that is to have these shelves built in.  It looks like a pile, but its this tiered thing, with these hard, wooden shelves built in in there, covered with laminate or something.  If any kid actually ever made the leap, and was able to jump in there headfirst, you know, the way they were trying, they'd have smashed their little faces in.

"So every Saturday, when the store was really busy, I'd get stationed at the back of the store.  And, yeah, you're helping people find stuff, but what you're really doing all day is catching these kids before they throw themselves face first into this mountain of stuffed animals, and that's just going to end badly.  All day, just kid after kid, you see them start running, and you're grabbing them.  Some of them, I kid you not, in mid-air.  Stopping some of them by the seat of their pants.  That's all you'd do all day."

My co-worker looked at me, and I could tell he had something to say:  "You were The Catcher in the Rye".

We kind of eyed each other for a minute and burst out laughing really, really hard.

"Jesus, I should of stuck with that job."

Nobody else at the table got it.