Someone Else’s Policy
by T. Hodler
Friday, February 12, 2010
It’s no secret that comic-book “fandom” more or less grew directly out of the earlier organized fan traditions of science fiction. (In fact, if you didn’t mind significantly overstating things, you could even say that the modern comic book industry itself originated from sf fandom, seeing as Siegel and Shuster debuted an early version of Superman in the science fiction fanzine Siegel published as a teen.)
Comics fans didn’t just model themselves after the sf fan world in terms of mimeographed magazines, letter columns, societies, and conventions, but also in terms of attitudes. Consider the “Statement of Policy” printed in 1964, as an opening salvo in the first issue of the excellent (but extremely short-lived) fanzine SF Horizons, edited by Brian Aldiss and Harry Harrison. (Incidentally, Harrison once worked in comic books himself, most famously as an artist for EC, and Wally Wood fans will remember him as half of the Harrison-Wood team.) In the editorial, Aldiss and Harrison declare the following:
Critics, teachers, editors, writers — all people who should know better — remain remarkably ignorant about the realities of sf, while at the same time feeling free to condemn or brush it aside. Their attitude has long served to bolster the reactionaries inside sf itself who greatly desire to continue their existence as outcasts, a term they translate to mean superior beings. These are the people whose contention that sf is a special medium which must be treated by special standards has created one of the major stumbling blocks in the path of intelligent criticism of sf.
In reality we need no special pleaders; the long-flickering spark of sf existence has finally burst into a hearty flame that is fed by a continuous supply of books. During the year 1962, at least 160 sf books were published in the English language. The attitude once widely held within sf that any sf book was a good one, and was best not panned in public, produced a flock of reviewers and no critics. Whether this pose was necessary at the time to ensure the survival of sf is unimportant now. Sf may still be suffering from a number of deforming, and at times repellant, diseases, but none of them are fatal.
With a little bit of pruning and reworking, you could replace “sf” with “comics,” and almost get away with this as a recent statement describing the current state of comic books.
Later in the same issue, SF Horizons includes an amusing but almost unbearably chummy* dual-interview with eminent SF boosters C.S. Lewis and Kingsley Amis, recorded by Aldiss “in Professor Lewis’s rooms in Magdalene College.” It’s a fun read. (Though I personally admire the writings of Aldiss far more than those of the other two. Maybe I haven’t read the right books.) Mostly Lewis and Amis congratulate each other on their superior tastes, and bemoan the fact that so few in respectable society take science fiction seriously. Then the subject of comics comes up.
Lewis: One thing in sf that weighs against us very heavily is the horrible shadow of comics.
Aldiss: I don’t know about that. Titbits Romantic Library doesn’t really weigh against the serious writer.
Lewis: That’s a very fair analogy. All the novelettes didn’t kill the ordinary legitimate novel of courtship and love.
Aldiss: There might have been a time when sf and comics were weighed together and found wanting, but that at least we’ve got past.
Amis: I see the comic books that my sons read, and you have there a terribly vulgar reworking of some of the themes that sf goes in for.
Lewis: Quite harmless, mind you. This chatter about the moral danger of the comics is absolute nonsense. The real objection is against the appalling draughtsmanship. Yet you’ll find the same boy who reads them also reads Shakespeare or Spenser. Children are so terribly catholic. That’s my experience with my stepchildren.
Aldiss: This is an English habit, to categorise: that if you read Shakespeare you can’t read comics, that if you read sf you can’t be serious.
I’m not sure that many children these days read both comic books and Spenser, but then Spenser seems to be a British thing mostly. Otherwise, it’s remarkable (and salutary) how quickly Lewis backs down from his early blanket dismissal of comics as a form, declares that the Wertham argument against them is worthless, and says the real problem lies in the low level of craft.
Anyway, nothing of major importance here, just a window into a cultural moment ostensibly, but perhaps not actually, much different from today’s.
*For example, the frequent alcoholic interludes sprinkled throughout the interview.
Such as:
Lewis: [Interrupted from a discussion of Abbott’s Flatland.] Are you looking for an ashtray? Use the carpet.
Amis: I was looking for the Scotch, actually.
Lewis: Oh, yes, do, I beg your pardon….
And then later:
Amis: More Scotch?
Lewis: Not for me, thank you, help yourself. (Liquid noises).
Amis: I think all this ought to stay in, you know — all these remarks about drink.
Lewis. There’s no reason why you shouldn’t have a drink.
Those were the days, I guess.
Labels: Brian Aldiss, C.S. Lewis, fanzines, Harry Harrison, Kingsley Amis, science fiction
In a way, the kind of boosterism they write of in SF is pretty analogous to the promotion of "comic bookiness" that gets tossed around as a response to literary comics. If not analogous, it's like that sentiment has been around for so long in comics that it's been codified into a certain trashy aesthetic.
Read that way, Lewis could be suggesting that the lurid and trashy really has nothing to do with comics in an essential way.
Ultimately , I think that's true, but I also think it's a legitimate aesthetic. I just hate this notion that it's "more comic-booky" , or pure.
I see what you mean, Uland. I'm not sure that Lewis was actually putting that much thought into his statement about comics, but your reading makes sense all the same.
As for "comic booky" versus literary, it all depends on what you mean by "comic booky." I mean, I'm on the record about a million times about the "literary" thing, so I'll spare you that tedious routine. I agree with you that "purity" is a bad term to throw around (though I've been guilty of doing it myself a few times).
But I do think there is something to be said for the idea of a cartoonist that really uses the unique qualities of the comics medium to push his or her own vision. If that's what is meant by "comic booky," I'm all for it. (Even though formal innovation is of course not the only legitimate artistic ambition.)
But if the term is just being used to refer to genre or trope, or to say that comic books should just be about comedy or action or pirates or whatever, I find it a lot less useful. (Even if I'm not above feeling the same way occasionally, like when reading a particularly shoddy mini-comic about a crappy after-school job or something.)
You know, that being said, I really don't mind it when anyone really owns their strong opinions. You know, if you think the only good comic books are superhero comics, or autobio comics, or romance comics, or whatever, more power to you. No one has to agree if they don't want to. (I'm not sure that contradicts anything already said, but still.)
Mark E. Smith? The Fall?
I guess they lend themselves to a particular type of fandom too…
I wasn't really clear. I apologize for the muddy writing.
Lewis wasn't talking about what I identified as the "comic booky" aesthetic. I'll flesh it out a bit more:
Santoro, Benjamin Marra and guys like Johnny Ryan and Michael Kupperman have each made statements that promote the idea of comic bookiness as having distinctly "low culture" qualities; lurid, scrappy, crappy, etc.
I'm suggesting that that aesthetic is the result of the comic book boosterism that promoted comics that someone like Lewis would think of as genuinely crappy.
An association between that crappiness (which has been run through the irony mill a few times, and seems like it has a lot to do with nostalgia as well) and the form itself seems to be a part of the "comic booky" aesthetic; something that acknowledges the low-culture quality of those old comics is thereby a more "pure" kind of comic.
..If someone like Lewis could've brought his standards to bear on comics, that association with the lurid might not have been there..
..Or is there something essentially pornographicabout comics?
—In a very broad sense, I mean; are we more likely to draw the socially unacceptable than write it? Does it go back to drawing pee-pees and flying knives in early childhood?
I was a bit confused by M.E.S. and the Fall here too – his continuous references to SF and comics in his (awesome) lyrics?
Or was that picture meant for another 'comics enriched their lives' post?
(another anonymous)
Fascinating stuff. Is this fanzine available anywhere online? I'd love to read it.
Harrison also wrote some Flash Gordon comic strips.
I can't vouch for Lewis but have you read Amis' Lucky Jim? It's a good book, very funny. Not quite up to level of Waugh but still good. I haven't had any luck with any of Amis' other books.
It's worth noting that Amis also wrote science fiction: The Alteration; Russian Hide and Seek. Also a James Bond novel which is generally dismissed as pretty crappy.
Amis and Lewis were of course notorious drinkers. There is even a book called Amis on Drink.
About comics coming out of science fiction fandom: you could also mention Mort Weisinger and Julie Schwartz, early s.f. fans.
I know from my interview with George Metzger, that SF fandom was what got him involved in the underground scene. He did work for Gil Spicer’s Graphic Story and Gilbert Shelton encouraged him to make his own comics after seeing the work in those zines.
I think there was a bit of a fanzine scene in Texas that provided some start for folks, but I may be completely wrong.
@Uland: I see what you mean. I don't want to speak for Frank, but I think that does oversimplify his stance a bit. Besides that, geez, it would take a whole post or more to really respond, because it's a complicated set of issues. Basically, though, I am sure you are partially right about the origins of that attitude, but at the same time, I wouldn't want to generalize about people's motivations for feeling that way. On top of that, while I would argue all day with another critic or comics reader about highbrow/lowbrow, trash vs art, or whatever, I feel like artists themselves have the right to find their inspiration from wherever it comes. I don't have to agree with Johnny Ryan about autobio comics to really love Prison Pit, for example. And so on. Anyway, I may still be misreading you, so my apologies if I am.
Also, that pornography drawing vs. writing question is a good one — I don't know the answer, though!
@Jeet: I don't think SF Horizons is available online, but it does look like the Lewis/Amis interview I quoted from was later collected in a C.S. Lewis criticism collection, and it can be found via Google Books.
I've read Lucky Jim, but it didn't work for me at the time; something about the whole attitude rubbed me the wrong way, like he was satirizing the wrong people or something. Waugh has always been a blind spot, too, for similar reasons. It's been a decade or so, though, so I'm probably due for some re-reading. When I do, I will most likely look back at this statement and cringe.
Weisinger and Schwartz are both great calls. I should've mentioned them in the post. Thanks, Jeet.
T- That's alright! I'm just throwing a bunch of stuff out there, not so much expecting answers, just hoping to provoke discussion.