Secret I.D. Wins 1st Award: Shame Award
This morning, under the title “Shame Award for Craig,” a “George D” posted the following message on the prestigious comics history message board, The Platinum List. I had posted an announcement about Secret Identity: The Fetish Art of Superman’s Co-Creator Joe Shuster...
Craig,
As much as I do not wish to be call you on something, this is something for the sake of the absent parties who cannot speak for themself (sic), that I must address.The story of Siegel and Shuster is sad. The creators of not just Superman, but the ones who redefined the image of the super hero as well as the comic book did not deserve the hard times they recieved (sic). Granted they shouldnt (sic) have signed away Superman the way they did. Granted they didnt (sic) have clever father (sic) like Bob Kane did. Granted the industry should have found a place for them. In fact, In (sic) retrospect, one might wonder whether they did the right thing by suing DC Comics.
The Joe Shuster of the 1950s was not a happy man. He was a man who just lost his job, his creation and the law suit. From what I read, he was not the conquering hero with the best job in the world. He was a man full of saddness (sic). A man perhaps struggling to feed his family. Most men in that position might not be thinking straight and doing (sic) things they regret.
But to take the memory of the man who gave us so much who is now dead and try to sensationalize him as a sleeze (sic) artist for something which was either done by him in secret or made to look by him is levels of new low (sic) for you Craig.
Maybe not you (because I wonder if you are capable of shame) but I am sure there are many here who have done things they regret and to have those things paraded gleefully for the sake of a few shekels and to get some perverted titillating pleasure of seeing a hero fall is shameful.
Wheather (sic) he drew the alleged stuff (which I can assure you I will not buy) I cannot say. Assuming he did, wheather (sic) he saw anything wrong with it or not, I cannot say. Yet at the same point I do not think he would want to be remembered as the artist of this anonymous work. I believe he would much rather be remembered as we all remember him, the father of Superman. The one who gave us our first superhero, who stood for truth, justice, the american (sic) way, and morality.
So, with the greatest respect, I ask you Craig, show a little true compassion and love for others in your heart and show the dead some respect. You can be appreciated so much more if you gave up the image of a hugh hefner (sic) wanna be, or a guy who gets adolecent (sic) thrills for naked artwork.
You have said things that I felt were low taste before, but I have to say, with saddness (sic) as I not wish to say the above about anyone, this is a new low.
Try to better yourself Craig, not bring others down to your level.
Rexpectfully (sic),
George
Steven Stwalley, Webmaster, The International Cartoonist Conspiracy responded:
George, just because an artist chooses to work “blue” is no reason to censor access to their artwork, especially after they are dead. I haven’t seen Craig’s book, but I think any artist of prominence should be able to be analyzed by their full body of work. In comics, it doesn’t get much more prominent than the creator of Superman. Like it or not, part of Shuster’s body of work is racy. For me, this doesn’t lessen his other work… it greatly informs it.
Kudos to Craig for bringing this work to light.
Leo De Sa, Co-Moderator of the Platinum List responded:
What the man said!
Fortunately, during the last century or so museums and art publishers all over the world have chosen to disclose and not hide away some of humanity’s most beautiful paintings and statues, depicting the human body even in highly suggestive poses or actions. Fortunately too, in spite of well- or ill-intentioned family members and sell-appointed defenders of public morals, such interesting pieces as private correspondence or posthumous books like Mark Twain’s dazzling Letters from the Earth could indeed be shown to those who want to peruse them. All of an artist or writer’s work, including the parts that weren’t originally meant to be widely shown, can be meaningful to those who want to know more about said artist or writer. This is certainly also true for comics artists and writers.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, however obtuse they may be. Just please don’t try to censor for the others. Certainly nobody has to purchase a book he doesn’t want to have.
For my part I will definitely buy Craig’s book on Shuster, even if it’s only half as entertaining as his other ones it will be a treat!
Warren Bernard, who was an invaluable help to me on researching Secret Identity responded:
I had the pleasure of being the main historical researcher on Secret Identity. This took me from the Library of Congress to The National Archives. Along the way we discovered that these cartoons had such an impact that they were featured in New York State hearings, Senate hearings chaired by Estes Kefauver and most important of all, a New York City obscenity case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. This was in addition to these cartoons being linked directly to some very heinous crimes that outraged New York City.
I cannot think of another cartoon, comic, or comic strip that could say the same.
It would be a great loss to the history of comics if we had just let these go and did not turn up this new chapter in the history of comics. Especially since this all occurred right at the time the Comics Code was being formed and yes, in many articles of the day, both these Shuster cartoons and the Comics Code were written up in the same articles in the newspapers of the day, adding much fuel to the Comics Code fire.
When you read the full story, it will become clear that this was no ordinary series of sleazoid cartoons. Keep in mind, of all the sleaze being published at the time in the porn world, New York City picked these cartoons, these magazines, to take to court in an attempt to clean up Times Square.
To quote the man who wrote the introduction:
‘Nuff Said
Jeet Heer, co-editor with Kent Worcester of Arguing Comics: Literary Masters on a Popular Medium responded:
I completely agree with what Warren (and others) have written: the material Craig found is historically fascinating and important. And I don’t think it reflects poorly on Shuster unless you have some fairly old-fashioned ideas about how sex should be depicted.
I’d also add that anyone who has looked at the early superhero comics will be aware that they were fairly kinky, full of bondage, spankings, etc. To think they were purely wholesome family entertainment is to forget how controversial they were. There was a real overlap between the worlds of the early comics and that of girlie magazines and soft-core porn. Craig’s research helps illuminate that overlap.
Craig here. I welcome more discourse on this subject in the comments section below…
— C. Yoe (in the funny papers)
This book is the worst kind of filth. Superman represents an ideal to young and old alike and to drag out this material is a horrible insult to Siegel and Shuster, the creators of Superman, and degrades their work for which they should ever be known. I bet the author wouldn’t like his name tarnished like he is doing to Joe Shuster. I applaud what George D is saying. I will not buy this book either and all true fans of Superman should boycott it!
Regarding the comment by George D, has he read the book? I suspect not. If he had he would see the high journalistic standards of the writing and the even-handed way Shuster is treated. He seems to think it’s a hachet job, as if Craig had the goal to ruin Shuster’s reputation. I don’t think there is a single phrase in the book that puts Shuster down for doing these drawings. He did them, a lot of crazy, weird stuff happened, and here they are. The reader is left to draw his or her own conclusions. It’s an extremely fair handling of this potentially scandalous topic, in my humble opinion.
Filth! Filth of the worst kind. I suggest a good old-fashioned BOOK BURNING. Let’s get all our friends to each buy 7 or 8 copies of the book and then burn them all in a big bonfire! That’s the only way to rid the world of this horrible blight on humanity. Burn The Filth!
When Stanley Lieber started writing for comic books, he was ashamed to use his real name. Comic books were not considered a respectable art form. Years later, when comic books had become both lucrative and respectable, he changed his legal name to the one he had been using in comic books: Stan Lee.
These Joe Shuster drawings might not have seemed respectable when Shuster drew them, but time and talent change a lot of things. I haven’t yet seen everything that’s in this book, but based on the few samples I have seen, I don’t think there’s any reason to be ashamed of this work.
The commentators (and there have only been two) who sincerely feel this book tarnishes Shuster’s name are wrong. Their arguments only make sense if you believe that the work *is* shameful in every sense, and not only in the eyes of Shuster’s environment. To do so is to assign a lot of feelings to him that almost certainly weren’t there: If they were, he wouldn’t have drawn what he did.
One doesn’t become good at this sort of thing — heck, at *anything* — without sincere engagement. The cleanliness of form and line that Shuster displays in these drawings demonstrate that engagement. He may have hidden his relation to them because of circumstances, much as an Iranian Christian might hide his engagement in his faith. But the engagement is still real, and in both cases it’s an insult to their holders to insist that they must be “shameful”.
Wow, interesting knee-jerk reaction from some people. I wonder why?
Let’s put this into perspective people — these are “DRAWINGS”. Drawing is easily one the oldest art forms, dating back well over 30 thousand years. For about 29,990 of these years people have been drawing naughty bits, and I have no doubt there was someone complaining about it and trying to cover the bits up ever since.
Look at the word being used: “Filth”. Right. And in the decades since these images were created the so-called “Comics Code” protected all of us from anything even as remotely “filthy” as the images we see here.
Oh wait, that isn’t what happened. What DID happen was that, by the mid to late sixties, the backlash to the code had begun in the form of the underground comics. These went so far in the other direction that the images in this book are TAME in comparison. No, really. Compare even the most vanilla Robert Crumb, S. Clay Wilson, Robert Williams…
By the seventies the Code was already a joke, and by the eighties the independent comics scene was laughing at it openly. The Watchmen was the lamestream’s attempt to join in on the joke, and they accidentally succeeded in large part due to Alan Moore, as cranky as he is.
The web revolution that has pushed drawing online also removed the last set of “automatic” censorship — that tendency for artists to pull back for fear of offending advertisers, publishers, or even the freaking PRINTER (it matters not that you have a legal right to publish what you want printed, if the guy who owns the press has a special-ed fish on his shingle he’s not likely to fire-up the offset press to produce halftone nudes).
But now, ANYONE can be published. I could draw a half-assed (heh) picture of George W. Bush in bed with Octomom and all sixteen of her children doing indecent things with chickens and the stuffed, preserved body of Nixon’s long dead dog, Checkers, as the prophet Mohammed rims him making snorting noises, and have the same access to everyone online that DC, Marvel, or King Features does right now.
[Why yes, I split some infinitives here. Enjoy all of the permutations of imagery that engenders!]
The great masters of the Renaissance often were commissioned for erotic pieces, some of which are now on open display. We can choose to, as George D and NumOneSuprmanFan (is the fact the he’s numb at the root of his resentment of all things erotic?) does, to close our eyes and cover our ears, chanting “LALALALA! I don’t see or hear EEEE-vil!”, or we can stop being ashamed about what is really quite silly sexual expression.
BTW, I don’t include Marsha Mellow to the list because she’s obviously encouraging people to buy multiple copies of the comic. I know I would rather have the dwindling mass of right-wing extremists spend their money to use this book as heating fuel then to spend it on the advertisers of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly.
Fine! Let’s just burn one book each, then. If enough people do it, it will still go a long way toward wiping out this kind of pornography.
Yes, but all the carbon dioxide will add terribly to global warming.
I’m with Marsha! if we could just get everybody in America to buy and burn one copy of Yoe’s horrible book, then he and his publisher will think twice before publishing such filth again!