History and nature of the 'underground' comic

A loose definition of an underground comic would be: a comic that both in form and content, visually and linguistically, is not restricted by any convention of social taboo. They were originally associated with the underground press which evolved out of an ideal of 'no censorship'. These papers in the US opposed the war in Vietnam, supported soft and hallucinogenic drug use, minority groups, sexual freedom, women's liberation, and political anarchism.

As a result, what shines through the comic medium is the open-mindedness about human and artistic experience that was the spiritual core of the 'movement'. The most successful of the comic authors developed comic book or newspaper strips about stock characters in situations which were familiar to the lifestyle of the readers. Hence the vicarious interest in activities of Harold Hedd, Mr Natural and other heroes or anti-heroes of comic life.

Robert Crumb's work is both a product and critique of the alienation and materialism in US society. His fantasy characters exhibit traits we all reveal in our more extreme and sympathetic moments and it is this feature that gives them lasting literary—pictorial merit. Any shallow political posturing or counter-cultural myth-making is avoided by his deft treatment of the mental and emotional interaction of his characters

But what is lost in Human the Schuman and Mr Natural's endless questions-behind-answers is any critique of society. Crumbs strength as an artist means that he is unable or unwilling to view society as a whole in his comics and pinpoint the real causes of the failure of the US social system.

I'm really gettin' pissed off!

Gilbert Shelton's original character was Wonder Warthog, a pig-like Superman, but he made his fame with the creation of the Furry Freak Brothers. This still-running strip concerns itself with the amoral and self-indulgent life of a trio of hippies. These characters transcend the restricted surroundings of their Bohemian existence with a reworking of old themes based on commonplace occurences. Lately however the series has lacked new ideas and has become a stereotyped repetition of 1960's drug and political themes.

Those comics attempting social realism while admirable in their satire of the American ruling classes rarely rise above a world-weary cynicism when portraying alternatives. Radical Rock and the Mountain are exceptions both portraying elements of idealistic communalism. The latter has an epic quality and ends with an implied warning of the fascistic tendencies of religious-based mass movements.

The former, despite, its adherence to the myth of youth power versus police power, is an excellent comic with some clean-cut portrayals of American negro life and a particularly discerning treatment of the older generation. This, the most politically developed of the comics to reach New Zealand, was banned because of a sexual sequence no more explicit than the line-drawings of a sex-manual. Or was it banned because of the politics?

The lack of self-censorship in the subjects of sex and violence is largely a reaction to the psychological repression of the 50's. The suppressed imagination of the authors of that period is released and provides the basis of the humorous qualities of the comics. The reader is amused and challenged by the revelation of activities pictorially which he could only deny the existence of in the past. Hence violence and explicitness are the central attractions of the comics. (S. Clay Wilson of Captain Guts fame represents this in the extreme).

The technique of exaggerating and exposing morbid fears is developed to the point where crudity becomes cathartic.

These categories are not exclusive, but in general the creative direction of each artist produces a comic suitable for its readers tastes.

The present state of the underground comic in the United States

Following a peak around 1970—1971 the production of comics in the US has suffered a decline. Reports from major distributors, and articles on the subject indicate that not only are a number of publishers on the verge of bankruptcy (November 1973) but a recent Supreme Court ruling on obscenity allowing local settings of standards has threatened future production. The decline in sales is largely a result of greater discernment among readers who now reject poorer quality comics. The decline in quality is a result of three factors: publication of arty talent, over confidence through initial strong sales of any comic and a desire on the part of some publishers to expand quickly by producing as large a range as possible. With the decline of the 'counter culture' comics have had to compete with other commerical products through normal retail channels. Their past success depended on the now defunct underground papers and now capitalist 'head' stores. Driven by changes in social circumstances the comic producers are forced to choose not just in terms of quality but in ideology. The writers have to choose between the hard road of opposition to bourgeois culture or a down-grading to further sex-ploitative mass-marketing.

Decisions of the NZ Indecent Publications Tribunal

The Indecent Publications Act of 1963 defines indecent as : 'describing, depicting, expressing or otherwise dealing with matters of sex, horror, cruelty, or violence, in a manner that is injurious to the public good.' Also Section ii) 1)e) states it counts against the material in question if there is 'likelihood of the person(s) being corrupted by it.' And the notorious Catch 22 of comic book law which has been used in all four cases: — Section ii)3) 'When the Tribunal decides than any picture-story book likely to be read by children is indecent in the hands of children under a specified age that picture-story book shall be deemed to be indecent in the hands of all persons'. This was presumably slipped into the Act by someone influenced by the McCarthy era book 'Seduction of the Innocent' (Wertham) which deals with the corrupting effect of comics dealing with sex, crime and violence on children and which led to the institution of the US Comic Code.

This section gives the Tribunal complete control over comics. Not only can they specify the age down to that of a baby in whose hands it can be indecent, but the 'likely to be read by children' is interpreted as 'sold publicly'.

The mere fact of the comics existence is taken as a likelihood that it can be read by children, and hence bannable at the least indication of corruptive or injurious effect. In defense 'the Tribunal must take into consideration the dominant effect of the book, its literary or artistic merit, and honesty of purpose'. As honesty and artistic purpose is considered to be lost on children only the dominant effect has ever been taken into account.

Last December's decision is the best guide to the Tribunal's feelings on dominant effect. As well as wishing to protect children they show concern in this decision for the welfare of the 'semi-literate section of the adult population' who could be harmed. This liberal patronising attitude to those lacking the same education that the members of the Tribunal have gives an indication of where the Tribunal's ideological position is. The hypocrisy of the Indecent Publications Act is never shown more clearly. While the government legislates the less qualified into socially degrading roles it also generously protects them from any Kung-Fu or masturbatory fixations they may develop in response to their alienation.

Young Lusts and Legion of Charlies (the Calley Manson allegory) were considered unfit for all readers because of undue emphasis on sex and violence.

Binky Brown meets the Virgin Mary, Motor City (one of Crumb's best and most political comics), Slow Death No 2. 'The Tribunal is of the opinion that children, adolescents, and the semi-literate are unlikely to grasp the meaning or purpose of the comics and are therefore likely merely to dwell on the images presented. The treatment of sex and violence where these occur are likely to have ill effects on children...'

It therefore becomes useless to argue before the Tribunal that a comic has dominant purpose or honest intent because they maintain such purpose and intent is above the comprehension of a child and therefore the child would become a voyeur and suffer lasting behavioural deformations. Any portrayal of sex or violence is ruled out because either it is too sopisticated and the child becomes a voyeur or otherwise the comic is at the child's level of comprehension and the offending sequences create an even more unfavourable impression (on the child?) Heads — the Tribunal wins, tails — the comics lose.

Doping Dan, Mother Oats, Merton of the Movement... while the Tribunal admits the sexual content is minimal, the Tribunal banned them on the following grounds. '.....however the crudity of language along with one or two frames depicting or suggesting sexual activity and some frames depicting the administration of drug dosages could have detrimental effects on the young.'

The Act says 'that is injurious'. The Tribunal has managed to cover all comics by slackening this definition to 'could have detrimental effect'. The Tribunal will ban comics which depict crude language, suggested sexual activity and administration of drugs. As long as the law stays as it is the Tribunal will suppress comics, but what the above analysis shows is that the Tribunal is not liberal in practice, it utilises what legal powers it has to provide the most sweeping practical powers for the suppression of any unorthodoxy in comics.

As a further indication of their establishment position a quote from their decision on Vampirella and Creepie comics (they were passed without restriction) proves illuminating — 'to the very young they would be meaningless' (you would expect that would encourage the young to "dwell on images presented") 'and on those in their developing years' (what about the semi-literates?) 'we do not think these particular publications would make any more injurious an impression than many of the fairy tales on which previous generations have been nutured.' Is this a double standard? Does the Tribunal like werewolf type fairy-tales but not little green dinosaurs? Or is it that Vampirella and Creepie are distributed by the main monopoly magazine agency in NZ and hence carry more economic persuasion?

Section ii)2) 'in the interests of art, literature, science or learning and would be for the public good'. Unfortunately in the case of comics despite their literary and artistic merit and being for the good of a large section of the public ii)2) only applies to ii)1) not to section ii) 30 that covers comics. The Tribunal has also decided in the case of Mr Natural No 2, Zap comix and others that 'their standards of morality, art, and literacy, nullify any satire or humour some pages contain,'

Tribunal decisions (see list appended below)

Of the 75 comics banned the following are the most notable: By Crumb — Big Ass No 1, Motor City, Despair, Uneeda, XYZ. Mr Natural, No 2, — Legion of Charlies, Radical Rock. Neither Harold Hedd nor the three Freak Brothers comics have been banned yet, apparently because the Customs have not yet intercepted them. It aint me babe and Brain Fantasy were both cleared by Customs. Best of Rip-Off Press will be appearing before the Tribunal soon.

Take it or Leave it! Yeah Right

Up the Revolution! Yee Haw! Today the Campus - Tomorrow the Nation!

What can be done

My main purpose in writing this article was to bring the actions of the Tribunal to the attention of a larger number of people than those who consult the Government Gazette. What little mass circulation of US comic material there has been up till now has been provided by the university newspapers. Their present legal source of graphics could dry up if the activities of the Customs Department and Tribunal are not in some way curtailed. The supply of the comics to the public has now ceased thanks to these two. Further importation would only result in the banning of other meritorious but as yet unseized comics.

The tactic with the most hope of success is one of attrition. There is almost no possibility of any change in the law so the standards on which the Tribunal in the past has judged comics must be refuted. One-hundred-and-fifty as yet unbanned comics are still in print and new ones are still being produced. Previous methods of importation gave the Tribunal the opportunity to ban the comics in large numbers — up to 30 at a time. The one thing the Tribunal does not want to do is to spend its time considering each comic singly on its merit. It is far more efficient from their point of view to consider each comic as part of its unsavoury genre and to be suppressed as another intrusion on NZ culture.

The apparent contradiction between the wide circulation of graphics in the University newspapers and their unavailability to the rest of the population needs to be overcome. Furthermore the newspapers are presently restricted by their printers but if the Tribunal continues to get away with its crack-down on comics there will inevitably be a growing restraint on their reprinting and the production of similar indigenous graphic work.

The 'Dirty Books' Tribunal and the Customs Department have gradually created a stranglehold on the importation and sale of 'underground' comics. While many of these comics are uninspired and perverse the majority are amusing, thought-provoking and of considerable artistic merit. To allow without a whimper of protest a conservative organ of the state to suppress an important sector of literary freedom is to encourage it, and similar organs, to further trample on our rights. Furthermore such weak defense adds to the influence that right-wing elements already have on the Tribunal.

The ideological position of the content of the comics is largely irrelevant to any position that should be taken on the banning. Despite the fact that some of the stories extend to the advocacy of anarcho-capitalism or communal fascism this should not deter us from opposing the decisions of the Tribunal in every way possible. What gives the repression significance is the way in which the Tribunal's decisions reflect the long-term interests of the ruling classes. Which groups can best use the comic medium and which groups see in the uninhibited use of this medium a potential threat are the politically vital questions.

The Tribunal should be opposed because not only are its actions reinforcing its own powers but its censorship attacks a field of creative activity that has a mass rather than elitist origin. Because the Tribunal is part of the capitalist state its power or increased powers will inevitably be used to suppress socialist propaganda and reportage. By keeping the maximum possible freedom of expression under bourgeois society we can create the conditions for the maximum involvement in decision-making by the working class in the future. To fight for freedom of expression and hence greater freedom of action while under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie not only reduces its avenues of coercion but ripens conditions for the dictatorship of the 'proletariat' rather than that of the party. Whatever can be done to increase the social expressiveness of the masses of society is a progressive step and an absolute increase in human freedom.

Against this freedom we have Tribunal members who are 'uptight' and the creators of the Tribunal who are even more terrified of potential activity of liberated people. Hence the attempts to hinder the explicit portrayal of social activity in a medium that is easily used and read by all social groups.

The self-confidence of the Tribunal and the apathy of the readers of underground comics is an indication of the extent to which the ruling methods of communication and debate control our lives. This fatalistic acceptance of the censorship imposed on the readers is an indication of the bankruptcy and selfishness of the NZ counterculture. The bourgeoisie has society so atomised and stoic that it can deprive the 'advanced' sections of the middle class youth of one of its playthings without fear of opposition.

Appendix 1

Sources An of the comic book Ed Herdeg & Pascal. Graphis Press, Zurich 1972. Comix, Les Daniels, Outer bridge, USA 1971. Indecent Publications Tribunal Decisions, 731-741/25.9.1973, 661-697/15.6.1973, 767-786/14.12.1973. 788-789/20.3.1974. Indecent Publications Act 1963. Eric Fromm Newsletter October 1973. Ground Under Comix Tips. Berkeley Barb, October 19, 1973. Have You Stopped Reading Comics? J. Westbrooke, Thursday, November 1973. Underground Comics, J. Westbrooke, Free. March 1974.

Appendix 2

Banned Comics: Amorkins, Anomaly No. 4, Air Pirate Funnies, Armageddon No. 1, Binky Brown and the Virgin Mary, Big Ass No 1, Captain Guts No's 1—3, Coochy cooty men's comix. Colour, Despair, Dr Atomic No 1. Doping Dan, Dan O'Neill VI, No 3. Demented Pervert, Fantagors NO's 1—3, Fantagor No 4, Greaser No 1, Heavy Tragi Comix No 1, Insect Fear No 2, If the shoe fits No 2, Illuminations, Little Green Dinosaur, Legend of Charlies, Laugh in the dark No 1. Mother Oats No 1. The Mountain/High School Funnies, Merton of the Movement, Motor City No 1. Mr Natural No 2, Monolith. Mean Bitch Thrills, Pulp No 1. Radical Rock, Real Pulp Comix No 1, Rubber Duck, Skull No's 2—3. Slow Death No's 2-3, San Francisco No's 2&3. Tortise and the Hare, Tales of Toad No 2, Thrilling Murder [unclear: Corx] No 1, Tales from the Ozone, Tales of Sex and Death, Uneeda, Uncle. Sham No 1, Up from the Deep, White Lunch Comix, Yellow Dog No's 17-21, Yellow Dog Vol 2, No 13, Zap N's 0,2,3,4, Young Lust No's 1—3, XYZ.

Appendix 3

Publishers and distributors addresses. Los Angeles Comic Book Co. Box 25896, Los Angeles CA 90025

Krupp Comic Works Box 5699, Milwaukee, Wisc. 53211.

Grasstown Books 56A Powell Street, Vancouver 4BC Canada.

Book People 2940 Seventh Street, Berkeley CA 94710.

Print Mint 830 Folger Ave CA 94710. Rip-Off Press Box 14158 San Francisco CA 94114. Last Gasp Box 212 Berkeley, CA 96704. San Francisco Comic Book Co 3339 23rd St

Eric Fromm Box 31075 Diamond Heights, San Francisco. CA 94131. Nasty Tales 11B Wardour Mews. London W1, England.

Bud Plant. 458 Harmony Lane, San Jose, CA 95111.

Cartoonist Coop Press Box 40474, San Francisco Dept C, CA 94110.