Similar to the United States, comics were incredibly popular in 1950s Australia. In 1953, it was estimated that sixty million comic books were sold, with about 200 comics published each month. According to Graeme Cliffe writing on From "Sunbeams" to Sunset: The Rise and Fall of the Australian Comic Book, 1954 achieved what where probably the highest sales of comics ever in Australia.
But not everyone was happy about their popularity. In 1951, parents, citizen associations, religious organisations and, even, unions were speaking up against comics and other popular media they considered harmful.
Bear in mind, that Australia was already an incredibly conservative country when it came to media. In 1948, for instance, the Australian Government, which already banned quite a substantial number of horror movies, banned all horror movies as a result of pressure from these groups. All of them.
As pop culture historian Daniel Best writes in Terror Down Under: A History of Horror Film in Australia, 1897-1973 (a book I highly recommend): "although movies that were already in the country could still be screened, no new horror movie would be alllowed in." That blanket ban to the genre was not lifted until 1969 and the Australian film industry did not produce a horror or horror adjacent movie until Wake in Fright in 1971, which was folllowed by Night of Fear by Terry Bourke in 1973, the first proper horror.
Interestingly, it wasn't simply conservative and religous forces in the censorship camp and progressive professors, intellectuals and left leaning organisations in the anti-censorship camp. As reported by Finnane writing on Bonzer: Australian Comics, 1900s-1990s, it was a lot more complicated than that.
Unions and left leaning organisations and invididuals, for example, objected to the cultural invasion of American comics, expressing concern over the glorification of violence and violent heroes that run against the values and desire of peace in the post war years. So they supported censorship.
Or what to say about Norman Bartlett writing in the very reputable Meanjin literary journal showing clear prejudice of popular culture.
"The effect, helped on by the eat-and-drink-and-be-merry spirit of two world wars, has left in many people a moral and spiritual vacuum. Comic and sex books and the cinema - mostly cheap and nasty reflections of the prevailing spirit in modern literature - have rushed into this vacuum... the comics and sex books ignore community or other values and exploit appetites, impulses and passions." (Bartlett, quoted on From "Sunbeams" to Sunset)
It's not my intention to write a detailed history of everything that happened. That work has already been done. Both Bonzer and From "Sunbeams" to Sunset are essential books for anyone wanting to do a deep dive.
Finnane's chapter on Bonzer, for example, goes into more detail about the history of censorship in the 1950s, what legislation different states implemented, how the debate around censorship developed and what the results were. Overall, as Finnane says, the results were 'muted'. There was censorship but it was not over the top. The states passed legislation, but again it was limited. And the push for censorship caused a counter move in the 1960s with more progressive policies and reforms.
One of the turning points for that push back was the case of romance comics in Queensland. Whilst some publishers began self-censoring themselves to avoid any issues, publisher John Edwards fought the Queensland Literature Board of Review's order to censor the romance comics he imported from the United States, with additional comics by Australian creators.
"The Board's decision to ban the comics (which was made primarily owing to their lack of literary merit) was appealed all the way to the High Court of Australia. In November 1956 the High Court ruled in favour of the publishers." (Cliffe, From "Sunbeams" to Sunset)
Not only was that ruling favourable to the publishers. The High Court made their opinion very clear.
The three publishers involved and the distributors took the Board to the High Court, where the Board was almost literally laughed out of court. The comics may be, the Court said, an affront to readers’ intelligence or even eyesight, but certainly not a threat to their morals. (Peter Coleman, quoted on Kevin Patrick, Australian Comics – A 1960 Snapshot)
In fact, that same article, written by Peter Coleman argues that the final blow was the lifting of import restrictions in Australia.
Those who survived the censorship hysteria were then this year faced with the biggest threat of all – American imports. The lifting of restrictions was unexpected: up to the day before it came publishers were more or less used to appearing on bended knees before the exchange control authorities to get dollars to pay royalties. When the announcement came publishers knew that their Australian 24-page black and white comics could not compete with the American 32-page coloured ones. (Peter Coleman, quoted on Kevin Patrick, Australian Comics – A 1960 Snapshot)
The censorship movement and the fearmongering worked. Less titles were being published and sales of comics never returned to the 1953 and 1954 levels. Then the lifting of restrictions killed the already vulnerable Australian comics industry. It took decades for the reputation of comics to recover.
So, instead of looking at the history of it all in detail, I thought it'd be fun, and a bit different, to look at some of the newspaper articles and editorials written at the time (1951 to 1957) to get a sense of how the conversation around censorship developed and how the media covered it.
Before we get to the newspapers, though, I wanted to share one final quote from Bonzer that sets the scene:
"1952 and 1955 most Australian state governments accompanied others in New Zealand, Britain, the United States and Canada in seeking to control or eradicate the comic book. Facing what he considered this 'great menace in our midst today, one that threatens to destroy the very basis of our Christian civilisation,' the Queensland Labor Attorney-General, William Power, introduced in March 1954 the Objectionable Literature Bill, which created a Literature Board of Review." (Mark Finnane, quoted on Bonzer)
Le'ts have a look at the newspaper archives.
BEFORE SEDUCTION OF THE INNOCENT
In June 14, 1951, the Federation of Victorian Mothers' Clubs advised the Acting Premier of Victoria Mr Dodgshun to censor the comics their children read. The Acting Premier, emphasised how the Commonwealth already exercised some censorship over imported titles and the responsibility of parents to ensure their children read appropriate comics. He also highlighted that "the best results can only be achieved through home influence."
Frustratingly, we're still stuck in the same conversation in so many ways.
Only a few months later in the same year, the Parents and Citizens Association called for the Federal Government to impose censorship on harmful comics, radio serials and TV.
 |
| November 6 1951, Sydney Morning Herald |
It's important to emphasise that censorship was already being exercised by the government but these community and religious organisations were demanding more of it.
In 1952, a round table of church and community organisations discussed the effects of films and comics on juvenile delinquency. Among the 'evidence' and concerns discussed by these organisations cited on The Age's second page in the June 2 1952 edition were:
- Good books for children cost "not much less" than 10/, while comic magazines sell at 9d.
- More than 5,000,000 copies of comics circulate in Australia each month, according to investigations by the Victorian Arts Council.
- In 1950 of 47 publications, 30 emphasised violence and 12 undesirable aspects of sex.
 |
| June 2, 1952, The Age |
- Who was the target audience for those publications?
- Were they adult publications?
- What 47 publications where highlighted?
- Out of how many publications in circulation?
- And what, exactly, were the violence and undesirable aspects of sex?
- On whose standards?
- Were they merely kissing?
- Was it just an extramarital affair being implied?
- Or were violent sexual acts depicted in detail?
We'll never know the answers to those questions, but considering they even wanted to ban romance comics (which, let's be clear they were not explicit) I bet it was more on the tame side than what their moral panic made it seem.
The same article also cites speakers against further censorship who argued that:
- More special films for children are being shown at matinees in Hoyts theatres.
- The number of cases of child delinquency (3200 last year) is decreasing.
- Not one major case of delinquency can be attributed to comics or substandard films - Mr P. Loftus, chief prosecutor of the children's courts.
- Root cause of juvenile crime is lack of parental control.
Remember, these arguments were made by people who opposed further censorship, but they're not defending comics, are they? The first point emphasises that more special films for children are being at matinees, which is a good thing. The second and third point focus on crime and delinquency. It's incredible that in an argument against censorship they have to talk about crime and delinquency and make the very basic arguments that crime is decreasing and there are no criminal cases linked to comics.
The last point makes it clear that the root cause of young crime and delinquency is lack of parental control. These are all very basic points and those arguing against censorship seem a little bit cautious in the most part. But, okay, at least they make that last point clear and direct. So I guess they were defending comics, in a way.
1954, THE YEAR SEDUCTION OF THE INNOCENT WAS PUBLISHED
Australians often look at the U.S. with some kind of bemusement and superiority thinking "those crazy Americans." But, as we know, Australia often copies what happens there. Especially, the bad ideas and, to no one's surprise, the comics scare on the 1950s in the U.S. accelerated the demonisation of comics in Australia.
Let's jump to 1954, to the month of April, the same month that Frederic Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent was published in the United States.
The Age
The LCP and CP, parties of the opposition, spoke against the deregistration plan arguing that it was causing fear and self censorship among publishers. As the article says at one point "even the best-minded book sellers and distributors could unwittingly find themselves classed as deliberate purveyors of licentious publications."
While all this was happening. An abhorrent and disturbing case hit Australia. Len Lawson, the creator the Lone Avenger, who was on all accounts the greatest and most popular comics creator in Australia at the time, committed a series of horrible crimes (including abduction, rape and murder) that caused enormous pain and suffering. It also caused the end of his career in comics and marred comics in the public sphere.
It's an incredibly disturbing story. You've been warned but if you want to know more you can read all about it here, on a great article written by Joe Sergi for the Comic Book Legal Defence Fund. Alternatively, if you want to go deeper, you can read Daniel Best's book on Len Lawson called Monster.
Len's crimes had a profound impact in the comics scene and their publication. During the trial, it was highlighted that Len was a comics creator "of violent comics, which frequently depicted bosomy heroines," and:
"As a result of the trial, the media’s attention, and claims that Lawson’s comics contained graphic violence, there was a severe backlash against comic books and their creators in Australia. Lawmakers began to publicly scrutinize the Australian comic industry in a way that paralleled the public backlash against horror comics in the United States that was taking place around the same time. Comic publishers were denounced as pornographers and peddlers of escapist, dehumanizing mass culture that promoted sadism, violence, or militarism." (Sergi, 2012)
 |
| September 23 1954 Sydney Morning Herald |
Then Reverend Cardwell is cited as saying that they asked some children in Goulburn and each child spent 5/ a week on comics and "one child told us he spent 15/ a week on comics."
Their survey of children and spending habits on comics is anything but scientific but this is never questioned or reported in the article which continues to report a resolution passed by the assembly deploring the "lack of restraint" in the publication of news items "based upon sex, vice, crime and brutality."
Was this only happening in comics? Are we meant to understand that prose novels were all totally virtuous and clean?
The resolution was followed by another demanding the authorities to exercise stricter control and censorship "in view of the concern of many of our members over the showing of films of a degrading and demoralising nature to children."
Clearly, what they objected to most strongly was comics and films. Two new storytelling mediums with a common attribute: they're both visual. They also keep raising the issue out of concern to children. As if comics and movies are for children.
Sadly, these arguments are still being used these days. Those who call themselves defenders of free speech, virulently attack the visual medium (picture books, illustrated books, and comics).
But we know that art and stories are meant to challenge the reader. They are there to offer different experiences and perspectives outside of your own. And there are comics, graphic novels and manga, that are not for children. Same as books. Same as movies.
In October, Chief Secretary Bill Galvin (Labor), unleashed a full on attack on comics when opening Library Week. As reported in The Age, October 19 1954: "One of the pestilences of this decade, Mr Galvin said, was the rise of unwholesome comics." According to the report Mr Galvin said that no amount of censorship would fix it, instead, Mr Galvin said:
"We must be able to produce an alternative 'good' in an attractive guise, and libraries are the obvious answer." (The Age, October 19 1954)
Mr Galvin then proceeded to announce a large amount of money dedicated to subsidise free libraries.
It's interesting to see that libraries were framed as a solution to the 'scourge of comics.' Libraries were seen as a place that would have good literature, no comics. Mr Galvin's remarks are followed by the CSIRO Chairman Sir Ian Clunies Ross who spoke at the same event:
"I heard from a news agent that adults, just as much as children, buy comics... They are too expensive for children. I believe they will not buy them in the next generation because the children will have begun to read good books. Those who have been this movement [for free libraries, that is] will see, during their lifetime the consequences of a public appreciation of good books." (The Age, October 19 1954)
While it's good that there was a movement in support of free libraries and I agree with the idea that books, literature and culture, should be available to everyone, it's troubling to see how it was framed in such a way that it dismissed large parts of literature and art. This movement wanted libraries with 'good books,' but who was the arbiter of what those good books were and what would be excluded?
The Queensland Literature Board was formed in this environment. Its main goal was to monitor, give advice and control the content of books. In particular, they were very keen and interested in suppressing comics. The State Library of Queensland says that the board banned "forty-seven publications in its first twelve months - most of them crime or love comics." The board reasoned in its first annual report that:
... parents and teachers need to be reminded from time to time of the generally unfortunate effect on the child mind of even the outwardly 'harmless' comics. These can help to cause mental laziness, can have a narrowing effect on the mind at a period of life when the mental horizons should be expanding and destroy self-expression, have a bad effect on speech construction, and create a false sense of values by causing amusement from actions which are unkind and untrue. (State Library of Queensland, Banned Comics - Love Illustrated)
 |
| Love Illustrated #37, January 1954 |
I will not unpack everything that's wrong with the words above. That would be a whole other blog post, but those aberrant words are a perfect encapsulation of every wrong, misguided and dangerous views those censorship happy individuals held.
Unfortunately, the influence of the Queensland Literature Board and similar groups spread because what got banned in one state was quickly banned in another.
Other states, tried different methods. Victoria proposed to use the obscenity legislation to tackle the issue. South Australia and NSW followed along similar lines. As seen in the article above, Baptists' Protest on Comics, the NSW government proposed to "amend the Obscene and Indecent Publications Act by extending the definion of "obscene publications.""
State governments didn't stop there though and they also proposed to deregister any publishers who published materials that violated the act, which effectively turned publishers into fearful self-censorship. As the Sydney Morning Herald reported in November 24, 1954 in an article headlined Many Pitfalls In Standard Legal Test of Obscenity, this powerful legislation presented its own problems.
The article is quite extensive and very interesting to read but here's the start of it:
The amendments to the Obscene and Indecent Publications Act, shortly to be submitted to the N.S.W. Parliament will sooner or later, if passed, present the Courts with another instalment of a highly vexatious problem. The problem is this: What is the precise meaning -if, indeed, there is any objective meaning- of the words "indecent" and "obscene"? (Sydney Morning Herald, November 24, 1954)
1955: THE TIDE TURNS?
Things started to change in 1955, due in large part to vigorous debate and the fact that, clearly, not everyone was on the censorship camp. Legislators warned about too much power and the risks of censorship. Academics also spoke against it. But community and religious voices against censorship were still present and refusing to give up.
In an article from April 22 1955 in The Age that is broadly supportive of Dr Frederic Wertham's thesis that comics promote delinquency in young readers, Dr F.W. Connell, of Sydney University, and a psychiatrist by trade like Dr Wertham, is quoted as dismissing that notion, stating that there is no link or scientific proof that comics cause child delinquency.
The Age
On the same day over at the Sydney Morning Herald, as a result of the Obscene Publications Bill being enacted in NSW, 31 professors and 49 senior members of staff of Sydney University published and were signatory to a letter arguing that the more they looked at the law the more dangerous it appeared.
Having said that, even those who were opposed to the new law and censorship, could not shake off their prejudices. The summary of their conclusions is quite telling:
The signatories conclude that the Act:
1.-Is a plain threat to freedom of expression, both intellectual and artistic;
2.-Is sweeping and indiscriminate in its aims; and
3.-Refuses to distinguish between the reputable publisher and the purveyor of low grade comics. (April 22, 1955, Sydney Morning Herald)
Sydney Morning Herald
One of the most frustrating things in reading all these news reports is how similar the debate and arguments of that time are to what we've seen in the last few years. In October 5 1955, The Age, for example, reported on remarks made by the senior lecturer in education at the University of Melbourne, Dr E.H. Wyeth. In a meeting with parents at Wesley College he said:
"The average parents do not know just what their children read... If you ban comics in the home and your children want to read them you can be sure they will read them somehow. I think it is better for them to read comics under parental supervision." (October 5 1955, The Age)
"We do not know whether comics are a cause of delinquency, but we do know that children find more security in the adventures of Superman than in many Victorian homes. Broken homes, slums and poverty are closely associated with delinquency and I am sure the community will not be rid of it by banning comics." (October 5 1955, The Age)
In a July 3 1957 article published by The Age, reporting on a 14 year old boy found guilty of murdering his sister, the article cites the jury expressing "concern and disgust at the type of literature produced in the case which was readily available to young people." The article bears the headline: Comics in Murder Case Shock Jury.
Similar to, the now debunked, Wertham's arguments, how could the jury prove it was reading comics that pushed the young fourteen year old to kill his sister? Were there no other factors? As always, social factors are ignored because they are more complex and uncomfortable to tackle. Comics, on the other hand or horror films are an easy target.
Only days later, in July 6, The Age reported on the Australia's first national Children's Book Week, with the slogan: It's always book time. The article, titled Books the Answer to Children's Comics, explains how children's book councils from four different states were cooperating to:
"impress on parents and all adults the importance of child reading, and to give children an opportunity to see the wide range of excellent books being especially written and published for them." (July 6 1957, The Age)
Similar to what I said above about the free libraries movement, this was a great initiative that did a lot of good. It donated large numbers of books, it promoted free libraries for children. It promoted great titles for children and fostered a love of reading.
Unfortunately, it was also a product of the censorship movement and it was born with strong prejudice and bias. Aside from the title, the caption in the lower right corner of the photo accompanying the article reads:
"Librarians tell of children who have read nothing but comics, whose eyes are opened wide by books intelligently designed for their age." (July 6 1957, The Age)
Under their guiding principles they listed:
- To encourage children to read good books;
- To assist parents and people generally to choose the best children's books;
- To help establish and develop children's libraries;
- To promote the production and distribution of children's books of high quality. (July 6 1957, The Age)
The Children's Book Council actively worked to keep children away from comics and to keep comics out of libraries and schools. The CBCA did not include graphic novels in their lists until very recently and it took 77 years for a graphic novel to win the Book of the Year award with Tom Taylor and Jon Sommariva's Neverlanders. As Tom said at the time:
"I'm so excited that, for the first time in its 77-year history, a comic book has won the Book of the Year for Older Readers. To me, comics are the greatest storytelling medium on the planet, and potentially the most powerful educational tool available for reluctant readers." Tom Taylor August 18, 2023
It's incredible that it took so long for comics and graphic novels to receive the accolades and recognition they so rightly deserved. But I'm digressing... Let's get back to 1957 for a bit more.
As we know, when there's a frenzy it's hard to stop, so just a few days later in July 8 1957, The Age had another article with the headline: Ministers Say 'Stop Comics. In the article, two ministers attacked the government for being too soft on comics and used the case of the young murderer mentioned above to push for tougher, stricter censorship with highly sensationalised language.
Then in July 27, the Acting Premier Rylah is quoted as, once again, saying there's a lot of loose talks about comics and censorship. He's also quoted as reiterating, once more, that it is primarily the parents' responsibility to decide what children should or should not read. The article goes on to say that if parents paid more attention there would not be any need to talk about censorship. Then the acting premier is quoted as saying:
"Advocates of State censorship of literature are only asking that parents be relieved of their parental responsibilities." (July 27 1957, The Age)
The article then continues describing Acting Premier Rylah's remarks:
"He urged parents to encourage their children to use library facilities where these were available. Library services were an excellent counter to comics, he added. They provided good, wholesome and interesting reading, and if children were encouraged to read this type of literature they would not worry about comics." (July 27 1957, The Age)
As we can see, from these newspaper articles, there were many who did not favour direct government censorship but who still held deep prejudices against comics. Unfortunately, the government, the Book Council and even some ministers saw libraries as a solution. In libraries, they could control what was available and comics had, clearly, no place there.
Only two days after the Acting Premier's comments above, Reverend Irving Benson spoke of the dangers of censorship and in support of the Acting Premier's call for children and families to use libraries. The article says:
He [Rev. Benson] applauded what he [the Acting Premier] said about the need for parents to introduce their children to libraries where the most interesting and fascinating books were available to young people. (July 29, 1957, The Age)
Then Rev. Benson is quoted as saying:
"Real action must be taken to defend positively and constructively the minds of children from the onslaught of pernicious literature." (July 29, 1957, The Age)
As we can see by these examples, the debate refused to die and the panic continued but cracks were starting to appear. Some could see the problems of government and spoke against it. Some saw libraries as a place where librarians, acting as gatekeepers, would curate a collection of 'good and wholesome' books. And comics, were under attack, by almost everyone, condemming all of them as dangerous and obscene.
THE EFFECTS AND THE AFTERMATH OF CENSORSHIP
As it always happens in these kind of situations, things started to turn when the stupidity and idiocy of censorship became clear and apparent.
The September 26 edition of The Age in 1957 published an op ed titled: Arbitary Book Censorship. The whole editorial argues against censorship and points out the fact that books that had been long in print were suddenly being censored by arbitary censors. Arguing against the censorship of Catcher in the Rye, the article reads:
"The decision in this case is wrong; the procedure in general is also wrong. The official statement that the book has been banned for "good and pertinent" reasons is typical of the evasive and secretive manner in which the censorship of books is done by the Customs department. It is impossible to discover exactly why a book is banned. The list of banned books is also a deep secret." (September 26, 1957, The Age)
In October 1957, Leslie Clement Haylen, a playwright and politician from the Labor party was speaking on the Estimates for the Department of Customs and Excise when he described the fact that more than 1,100 books had been censored by the bureaucracy as ridiculous. The article reads:
"Mr Haylen said "Catcher in the Rye" - the experiences of a 16 year old boy as a truant - had been read by those interested in delinquency and read for six years before somebody was duly shocked, who then banned it. "This made the Australian community look foolish." (October 17, 1957 Sydney Morning Herald)
By November some books were already being taken off the banned list. A November 10, 1957 article in Sydney Morning Herald, cites the Minister for Customs and Excise Senator Henry saying that the Literature Censorship Board was making quite a bit of progress in reviewing titles and they were ending the ban for some of them. But, and this is a big but, the article continues:
"Senator Henry said he would not depart from the standing attitude of all Governments that the list of banned books should not be made public. However, it is known that there are many hundreds of books on the list. In addition, there is a separate list list kept of banned comics, magazines, and "paperbacks" also running into hundreds of titles." (November 10, 1957, Sydney Morning Herald)
Sydney Morning Herald
All these attacks and moral panic took a huge toll on the publication of comics. As Cliffe writes on From "Sunbeams" to Sunset:
"In the USA, the number of titles on the newstands fell from "about 650 to some 250." Australia's publishers and distributors took action to reduce the damage, but the publicity generated by most of the states passing legislation aimed at a variety of offensive ephemera reflected badly on comics in particular."
Self censorship became common. Particularly in states like Victoria where publishers lived under the threat of deregistration if they published any material that was considered obscene.
An interesting case in this self censorship was that of the Horwitz Code. Horwitz was a publisher dedicated, mostly, to young adult content. Similar to the Comics Code Authority, the Horwitz code demanded that comics be totally squeaky clean. 
The Horwitz Code
stamp
Here are a couple of examples of what the Horwitz Code guidelines for creators:
- “must emphasise high social, civic and national ideals; physical fitness, learning and moral integrity must be exemplified: respect for proper authority must be instilled at every opportunity
- The heroes must never break any law, “even though a temporary infringement may be the means of bringing villains to ultimate justice (e.g. when crooks are escaping, the hero must not jump into an unoccupied car which does not belong to him and give chase – he must ask the passing driver to ‘follow that car’).”
- No reference may be made to sex. Characters must conduct themselves as though sex does not exist – females should appear only when necessary to the plot and must at all times properly and decently clothed.”
- “No intimacy other than wholesome embrace may be exchanged by any characters. Even husband and wife should not normally be shown together in the bedroom. Plots involving divorce should be avoided, as they point towards lack of family stability and are complicated and unsettling to the teenage mind.” (Coleman, 1963 cited on Patrick 2007)
Interestingly, the Horwitz Code was adopted in Australia just months before the more famous Comics Code in the U.S. was established. For more on this you can read The Lost Comics Code of Australia on the Comic Book Legal Defence Fund website.
Unfortunately, librarians and educators were right in the middle of this frenzy and a lot of them went with it. Those who sympathised with the movement were quick to ban comics from the classroom or the library. Those who may not have been as sympathetic with outright censorship, removed them quietly, refrained from buying them and discouraged their reading in a clear case of soft censorship, which is a lot harder to track and far more insidious.
Outright censorship or soft censorship, the results were the same. The popularity of comics plummeted. Sales of comics collapsed. The printing and circulation of comics was vastly reduced and readers moved to other texts or simply stopped reading altogether in favour of watching TV.
All this is similar to what is happening right now. What gets banned in one state or school in the U.S. ends up in a list that's shared thorugh messaging apps or social media. Other states and schools move to ban those books. Usually without having read them at all. And, of course, what happens in the U.S., ends up reaching Australia in time.
When challenges to books and comics had a huge uptick in the U.S. in 2021, it didn't take long for an uptick in challenges in Australian libraries and referrals to the Australian Classification Board. Copycats are everywhere and they're quick to stir trouble.
But there are a couple of things that are different and these differences are important. One, sales of comics are not going down. Comics, graphic novels and manga are selling well and readership is huge. Two, librarians, publishers and academics are a lot more prepared to advocate for them and to argue their virtues. And plenty of research and studies support the power of comics in fostering a love of reading, turning readers into life-long readers and in fostering multiliteracies.
There is a lot more resistance against censorship these days but there is still work to do. I find that Australia lags behind the U.S., Japan, and France (for example) in terms of academic studies of comics and their importance in archives. As Daniel Wee, writes on The Silent Voice of the Australian Comic Book:
"Although resistance to comics studies in academic departments has diminished in recent years, the acquisition of comics materials in Australian academic libraries is still in its infancy.
Currently, only a small handful of academic rare book collections in Australia have significant comic book collections, despite ... being an integral component of Australian culture, literature and social history."
In my review of newspaper articles and headlines, the overwhelming majority of voices argued in favour of censorship with varying degrees of enthusiasm but most of them showed appetite for it and a clear prejudice against comics.
The mechanism of how that censorship would be applied was contested. Some groups wanted the government to do it, some totally opposed that. Some governments leaned towards a literature board that would overlook publications and make censorship recommendations, others threatened publishers with deregistration and others wanted to work with an obscenity legislation. But the definition of what was to be censored and how to define obscenity was also hotly debated and contested.
Blaming crime and using young people who committed crimes to call for censorship was also prevalent. Rather than looking at the social situation that caused the young person to commit the crime, it was a lot easier to blame what they were reading or watching.
Among all this, I was very happy to see that not everyone jumped on the comics are trash and must be banned bandwagon. There were some critical voices, who spoke clearly and openly in favour of all forms of art, including comics. My favourite of those critical voices is John Metcalfe, who happens to be an incredibly important figure in the history of Australian libraries.
 |
| By Sydney Riley Studios, Public Domain |
Already in 1935, in an article published by The Herald in April 8 titled Our 'Absurd' Censorship, Metcalfe upon his return from an overseas trip is quoted as saying:
"In England and America, particularly, I frequently heard references to 'Australia, where there is an absurd censorship.' In America, one could see in any bookshop, drug store or library, nearly all of the books that are banned In Australia— even Joyce's 'Ulysses.'" (April 8 1935, The Herald)
Metcalfe, went on to become one of the most important librarians in Australian history and he also defended comics explicitly. In a September 30 1954 article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Metcalfe, who was the Principal Librarian at the Public Library of New South Wales at the time, is quoted extensively from an address he made organised by the NSW Arts Council.
In the first section of the article he outlines his views on censorship and how it should be done, if it must be done.
"There should not be censors," said Mr. Metcalfe. "There should not be boards deciding on these things. I don't want such people forcing their own views on me and telling you and me and our children what we should read.
Censorship of any description should be done as it is now - by defining in law what should be censored, and then enforcing these legislation through the courts.
It may be difficult to obtain a satisfactory definition of, for instance, obscenity, but this is far preferable to having a board or some other censor making private decisions from which there is no appeal.
This is very important, especially as legislation on this very question of censorship is pending before State Parliament." (September 30 1954, Sydney Morning Herald)
These are sensible views that still feel topical and sensible today but it's the second part of the article that I find more interesting where Metcalfe launches a direct defence of comics and art.
Mr Metcalfe said that some people objected to comics because the characters in them used bad English, which might be passed on to children.
He added: "But good language is only bad language become respectable. Good literature has never been confined to nice people talking school-ma'am English, and even children are introduced to such 'uneddicated' people as Sam Weller and Huckleberry Finn.
A well-drawn picture is better than a poor description, and even these critics who imply that poorly-written action stories are better than well-drawn ones, talk learnedly of visual education and about documentary films taking the place of books.
Even as pictures some comics are better art than the pictures that look down from the walls of people who criticise them.
Many people come to read books through reading comics. For many, especially those who leave school early, before they have become skilled readers, comics provide a bridge.
There is no evidence that the portrayal of violence in comics affects children one way or the other." (September 30 1954, Sydney Morning Herald)
There's a lot to unpack there but it's so great to see a librarian, who I'm pretty sure did not read comics (I really can't imagine John Metcalfe read them but I'd be quite happy to be proven wrong), defending them so clearly and strongly. He also appeared before the Supreme Court of Queensland in 1955 in a case involving 'objectionable' comics.
And here we are, more than seven decades later, still hearing a lot of the same arguments from those who want to incite a moral panic and are hungry for censorship, as well as those who fight against censorship. Even those, who love comics and see their incredible value in terms of art as well as literacy. It seems like this conversation is doomed to go in circles.
I would phrase some things slightly differently, but I'm glad to see that at least one, very promiment, librarian in Australia spoke up with common sense. As Metcalfe said, I really don't want the people who keep inciting moral panic forcing their views on anyone and deciding what others, including my child, should or should not read.
He is long gone but, damn, I'd loved to have the chance to meet him, talk about censorship and show him some of my favourite art from comics. I think he would've been interested to see how far the ninth art that is comics has come.
I want to thank my colleague Anne A. for digging out the newspaper articles presented here. She loves doing this kind of research. She lives and breathes archives and I'm grateful for her friendship and support.
References and futher reading:
Best, Daniel (2023), Terror down under: a history of horror film in Australia, 1897-1973, Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers
Bruce, Joan (2014), Banned Comics - Love Illustrated, State Library of Queensland, retrieved from here.
Cliffe, Graeme & Karmichael, Nat & Comicoz (2019), From "Sunbeams" to Sunset: the rise and fall of the Australian comic book (1924 to 1965): an illustrated history, Margate Beach, Queensland: Comicoz
Coleman, Peter (1963) quoted on Patrick, Kevin (2007) Australian Comics – A 1960 Snapshot, retrieved from here.
Margolis, Eric (2014) The Lost Comics Code of Australia, Comic Book Legal Defence Fund, retrieved from here.
Sergi, Joe (2012) The Sordid Tale of The Lone Avenger's Rise to Infamy, Comic Book Legal Defence Fund, retrieved from here.
Shiell, Annette & Stone, Mick (1998), Bonzer: Australian comics 1900-1990s, edited by Annette Shiell; checklist compiled by Mick Stone. Elgua Media Redhill South, Vic.
Wee, Daniel (2023), Chapter 7: The Silent Voice of the Australian Comic Book: Understanding the Importance of Collecting Locally Produced Comic Books, published on Comic Books, Special Collections and the Academic Library, Association of College and Research Libraries
Newspaper clippings from The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Herald.
No comments:
Post a Comment