Can comics do wrong?

By The Mad Haranguer
Posted on: May 23rd 2008 at 2:15 AM

Replies: 6

Decades ago, when I was a kid, I read an old Archie comic in which Betty had taken a prescribed tranquilizer that knocked her out. Wanting to be alone with Archie, Veronica insisted they get rid of her. The story consisted of their trying to leave Betty somewhere while everyone kept giving her back. Finally they went over to Veronica's mansion with Betty, still asleep, slung over Archie's shoulder. Foiled even there, they both took one of her tranquilizers and went to sleep beside her. It trivialized prescription drugs, today a major problem with youth. Of course, I don't blame this one story printed nearly 40 years ago in the 60s for the problem of today.

I don't believe it stirred up much controversy at the time, but I know that today, with the concern over drug abuse, it would cause the worse scandal since the Wertham Crusade. As I read the dark, brooding comics of today, I wonder if comics do have any influence. Do they simply reflect the society they are in, or do they reinforce bad behavior by making it appear acceptable. Certainly all modern media like to take credit for the good they think they do, and they do some, but they refuse to take blame for any bad. That's totally illogical. If you can be an influence for good, you can be an influence for bad. If comics are exempt, why did anti-smoking groups can into an uproar over Joe Camel and the animated Hamm's Beer commercials?

I don't claim to know the answer, but I'm sure the writer of that Archie story, if he's still alive, is sorry he wrote it. At least, I hope he is. It was a mistake.

Click here to view more topics posted by The Mad Haranguer

Login to reply to this topic

Comments:

Posted by: Don Markstein

Posted on: 2008-05-23 at 07:06:04 AM

A few years ago, I had a discussion with a woman who objected to cereal commercials "brainwashing" children, but disbelieved in the idea that victims of child abuse often grow up to become abusers themselves -- and child abuse involves techniques used by actual brainwashers.

Yes, it would be silly to claim people, in particular immature, unformed people, aren't affected by what they read or see on TV. But being fanatically opposed to censorship, I look to parents to keep their children from being adversely affected by such things. For example, the old Harvey characters are the worst role models in comics. But I never called for their abolition -- I simply explained to my kids, over and over (getting a bit tiresome on the subject, in fact) that while the antics of, say, Little Lotta, might be amusing, they are not to be emulated, because Little Lotta isn't going to live long enough to get big.

And there's your solution. Abolishing stuff you don't like in the media is no way to protect children, partly because it's the thin end of the wedge of "protecting" everyone else too; but mostly because kids need to be exposed to the whole world, not just the parts the censors approve of. Parental guidance is the way to see that kids are raised right, and grow up able to sort good media influences from bad ones.

Can't "trust" it to take care of all the kids? Well, that's unfortunate, but freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. In a free society, parents take care of their own children.

Quack, Don

Posted by: The Mad Haranguer

Posted on: 2008-05-28 at 12:16:04 AM

I didn't say anything should be abolished, only that I saw the harm in having three popular teenage comics characters casually misuse tranquilizers and I thought publishing it was a mistake. A more serious, or at least informative story, which Archie Comics did publish a few years later, would not have been a problem. All I ask is that parents, as well as the people who make comics, be aware that comics can do harm as well as good.

Don't kid yourselves. If parents forbid their kids to see something, the kids will move heaven and earth to see it. It's their nature. Too often, people in media are all too willing to accept the kudos, but criticize them and they say, "It's only a movie/TV show/book/comic book, etc." If they disregard what I believe is their responsibility to the public, I do not watch or purchase their product, and I did all I could to see that my kids, when they were minors, didn't either. I also contact the publishers/producers and express my displeasure. Surely, that is my right. To say nothing is to condone it. Archie Comics never treated pills so cavalierly again after that story. Someone must have said something.

Posted by: Don Markstein

Posted on: 2008-05-28 at 08:19:33 AM

Well, it looks like we agree pretty much down the line. Yes, Archie Comics behaved irresponsibly with that tranquilizer story, but that's understandable because everybody's consciousness could have used raising back then. (Also, let me add that it's a pleasure to catch squeaky-clean Archie, which practices as soulless an agenda as any other corporation, doing stuff like this.)

The fact that kids will see something that's forbidden is why I never kept adult-conspiracy stuff away from my kids. I just made myself available to answer any questions about it they may have.

Quack, Don

Posted by: oldfolk

Posted on: 2008-09-23 at 11:08:22 AM

Can comics do wrong! Damn right!
There is a publisher who produces comic books (about the size of Tijuana Bibles, but slicker) which are virulently anti-Catholic, anti-Islamic, anti- Jehovah's Witness, and more. These books are far more damaging than a drug or a drinking reference in a mainstream comic book.

Posted by: Don Markstein

Posted on: 2008-09-24 at 08:21:17 AM

What, Jack T. Chick? You sure got that right! On the one hand, I deplore his stuff as a true corruptor of American youth (and anyone else simple enough to fall for it). But on the other, it's so over-the-top, how can I help loving to hate it?

He's also done regular-size comic books. A few months ago, when I wrote an article on one series of them, The Crusaders, I got a private e-mail, expressing just such sentiments as yours, and calling me to task for giving him publicity.

But it's exactly his notoriety that made it inevitable that I write about something of his. Of course I'm ashamed of the fact that I revel in his garbage, but I do. It's a true guilty pleasure.

At least I think I managed to get my actual feelings about the man and his work into the article.

Quack, Don

Posted by: Don Markstein

Posted on: 2008-09-24 at 08:29:01 AM

P.S.
I should mention one of my favorite issues of The Crusaders, one where they came up against a publisher who promoted Darwinism. This guy was fully aware that he was endangering people's souls be promoting anti-God knowledge, but did it anyway because he was making millions of dollars from doing it.

Unfortunately, Chick didn't disclose exactly how millions could be made by endangering souls. Too bad. I wouldn't mind getting on that gravy train myself.

Quack, Don