By Eli Lerner
Abstract
Scholars exploring the history of the comic book industry in the United States frequently operate under the assumption that there was a sharp division between politically timid mainstream comics and politically radical underground comix. However, few have zoomed in on the comics in the gray area between the mainstream and the underground and attempted to locate that dividing line. Through a case study of mainstream comics that incorporated elements of the politically subversive underground comix movement, Howard the Duck and Comix Book, in comparison with a similar underground comix magazine Arcade: the Comics Revue, I attempt to locate the barrier that separated mainstream and underground comix. Unsurprisingly, I find that there was a rigid barrier preventing mainstream comics from including as much explicit content as underground comix. This was largely motivated by the corporate drive for mainstream comics publishers to uphold a reputable brand image. However, the idea that mainstream and underground comics are politically separated by this barrier flattens a nuanced reality. In fact, mainstream comics could, and did, take many of the same radical political stances as their underground counterparts, although underground comix framed those statements in a more provocative manner. Additionally, the restrictions on mainstream comics were both a restrictive force, limiting artistic expression, and a protective force, shielding readers from extreme racism and sexism often included in underground comix.
Introduction
The Comics Code Authority (CCA), instituted in 1954, is regarded as one of the most egregious examples of US government-imposed censorship on media. It has been blamed for reducing mainstream comic books to mass-produced, creatively stifled, politically timid repetitions of tired superhero tropes (Acheson 15; Welsh 23). Similarly, it has been credited with sparking the Underground Comix Movement, which rose up in resistance against the censorship of mainstream comics (Welsh 24). Where superhero comics rarely ventured outside of mainstream social and political norms, underground comix sought to include as much provocative content as possible. As such, underground comix are known for featuring explicit violence, graphic sex, and radical politics (Welsh 24–26). The seal of approval from the CCA drew a clear line between mainstream superhero comics and underground comix. Or at least, this is the traditional wisdom among comics scholars. This binary view of the comics industry offers an enticingly simple narrative: the politically docile mainstream in diametric opposition to the politically resistive counterculture.
However, this view draws heavily on traditional perceptions of the mainstream, which have come under significant scrutiny. Mainstream culture is traditionally seen as mass-produced, profit-driven, and therefore low-brow culture, which shies away from controversy. Counterculture, on the other hand, is considered the artistically liberated, avant garde, politically subversive resistance to the monolith of the mainstream (Huber; Dhoest, Malliet, Segaert, and Haers). This distillation of the mainstream-counterculture dichotomy has been extensively criticized for flattening the diversity within both mainstream culture and counterculture. It ignores both the mainstream media that pushes the boundaries and the countercultural media that fails to say anything new. Additionally, this oversimplification of mainstream and counterculture often romanticizes the themes of dominance and resistance within each (Huber; Dhoest, Malliet, Segaert, and Haers; Rebentisch and Trautmann; Woo).
Within the field of comics scholarship, the existence of a simple dichotomy between the mainstream comics and countercultural comics is all-too-often treated as a given. The assumption of a clear-cut mainstream has already come under scrutiny in reference to the contemporary comic book industry since the introduction of webcomics (Woo; Singsen). However, the assumption of a binary between mainstream and counterculture in previous eras of the comic book industry is still largely unquestioned. There continues to be a strong consensus that a clear line separates countercultural underground comix from mainstream superhero comics, yet few have zoomed in on the comics in the gray area between the mainstream and the underground and attempted to locate that line (Witek, Spiggle). Only through fully understanding the boundaries of underground comix and mainstream comics can we develop a full picture of what mainstream and underground comics were during the Silver Age of comics, a critical era in which the foundations for the modern comic book industry were laid. Thus, through a case study of three comics that tested the boundaries between mainstream and underground, I explore the barriers that separated mainstream and underground comics and interrogate why those barriers existed.
My case study focuses on the 1970s, when the bifurcated worlds of mainstream comics and underground comix, which had long been separated by rigid censorship, began to
overlap. Taking a significant creative risk, Marvel published mainstream comics that imitated the style of underground comix. Still, these radical, mainstream “comix” were never able to completely match the political radicalism of underground comix. By studying the ways in which Marvel was inhibited from fully embracing the radicalism of the underground comix movement, I explore the following questions: to what extent were mainstream comics politically restricted, what were the restricting forces, and what were the effects of those restrictions? This introduction provides a brief historical overview of the political stances within mainstream and underground comix up until the 1970s.
The Emergence of the Underground
Before the 1950s, the political content in all comic books was virtually unrestricted. However, after a period of intense fearmongering about the corruptive potential of comics, the US government threatened to impose regulations on the comic book industry if publishers were unable to regulate themselves. And so, a group of publishers joined together to form the Comics Code Authority (CCA) (Hadju). Those who wished to receive the CCA stamp of approval (and thereby maintain mass appeal) were required to adhere to CCA rules and politically censor their content. These rules included: no sympathetic portrayals of crime; no disrespectful portrayals of government officials; and no depictions of gratuitous violence, sexual imagery, or “sexual perversion” (Hadju 274–305). Many of these rules were lifted verbatim from the infamous Hays Code. The creation of the Comics Code Authority effectively split the comics industry into two rigid groups: the politically timid mainstream comics which submitted to the CCA, and the politically subversive underground comix which ignored CCA guidelines (Welsh 22–30).
Mainstream comics, which had until that point included a diverse blend of genres, turned to superheroes for their dependable profits and their comparatively unobjectionable nature. Although superheroes would still participate in politics, fighting communists and contributing to the space race, they rarely took any controversial political stances (Wright 110). As a reaction against the censorship of mainstream comics, the countercultural underground comix movement emerged. Unfettered by goals of securing a large consumer base, and therefore not bothering with approval from the CCA, underground comix were able to include politically radical and often offensive content marketed to niche audiences (Deverell 2–3). Underground comix did not hold back in criticizing mainstream culture and politics, largely through satire. Formed in the late 1960s, underground comix were generally associated with the hippie movement and incorporated anti-establishment political sentiments (Rosenkranz 15; Gabilliet 67). As a movement dominated by white men, they were often intensely misogynistic and racist, frequently featuring exaggerated racial stereotypes and graphic sexual violence (Cook 36; Olsza 24–25; Rifas). Still, some women and Queer artists took advantage of the freedom of the genre to produce highly progressive, affirming content during a time in which their messages were not accepted by mainstream values (Olsza; Sammond).
Vietnam and the Re-Politicization of Comics
In the 1960s, after the controversies of the Vietnam War moved to the front and center of American political discourse, several factors pushed mainstream comics to reincorporate political commentary. Thousands of readers wrote in to urge Marvel to either enlist their superheroes to fight in Vietnam or protest the war, and letter columns were filled with heated political debates. Additionally, comic book creators who had been raised in the more culturally liberal decade of the ‘60s were now taking the creative helm on new stories. Perhaps most importantly, political comics were selling well. Whereas overt politics in comics had ushered censorship and financial crisis only two decades ago, now the public commended the comics industry for incorporating the external political circumstances in its themes. In fact, the rules of the CCA were revised to be significantly more relaxed, and mainstream publishers even began to publish issues without approval from the CCA (Wright 233–235). Although they did not present particularly radical views, mainstream comics would often take firm, usually liberal political stances, not just on the war itself but on heated issues like drugs, race, class, and gender (Wright 238). Meanwhile, boosted by the burgeoning counterculture movement of the 1960s, underground comix surged in popularity (Hatfield, Alternative Comics 18).
However, by the mid-1970s, political comics stopped selling well in the mainstream, and most mainstream comics returned to the political ambivalence they had exhibited in previous years (Wright 245). It was at this time that Stan Lee, Editor-in-Chief at Marvel Comics, turned his attention to finding the next new direction for mainstream comics. This direction, he thought, would come from the counterculture movement of underground comix (Raphael 142). Initially separated by years of rigid censorship, the lines between underground comix and mainstream comics began to blur.
Previous Comparisons between Underground and Mainstream Comics
While mainstream comics receive significantly more attention than underground comix, both categories have been well studied. Still, there is a significant lack of research directly comparing the two. Joseph Witek poses an interesting case study comparing mainstream and underground comics, specifically analyzing how they treated the topic of war. Mainstream war comic Total War portrayed an ideologically comfortable fictional war in which militarism could be romanticized. When real-world tensions around Vietnam became too high to proceed comfortably, the series was canceled. Mainstream comics only revisited the war genre in the 1980s, when the topic had become defused. On the other hand, underground comic Raw War Comics took a strong anti-war stance, depicting the sheer savagery of wartime violence without a narrative infrastructure to glamorize it.
Susan Spiggle executes another interesting comparison between the underground and the mainstream in her paper “Measuring Social Values: A Content Analysis of Sunday Comics and Underground Comix,” which employs a quantitative approach to discern if and how commercialism is depicted differently in Sunday comic strips as compared to underground comix. Spiggle finds that the depictions of commercialism are remarkably similar across mainstream and underground sources. She concludes that commercialism was pervasive in all aspects of society during the periods studied, as it is similarly prevalent even in vastly different cultural settings. Spiggle’s paper demonstrates the value in the comparison of mainstream and counterculture, as any similarities indicate the pervasiveness of trends across disparate groups in American society.
Understanding the similarities and differences between underground and mainstream comics is extremely important for understanding the culture of the comic book industry and has been a focus of significant scholarship. Still, both Spiggle and Witek analyze comics that were either firmly mainstream or firmly underground. Thus, the comics at the intersection of mainstream and underground comics remains understudied. A better understanding of the fringes of mainstream and underground comics is essential to understanding the boundaries of both groups.
Can Mainstream Comics Be Politically Subversive?
As noted by Alison Huber, the idea of mainstream in the cultural imaginary is often a romanticized antagonism between uninhibited art and corporate cash-grab. This view of media was held by Marxist scholars Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer when they coined the term “culture industry” in 1942, arguing that the commodification of mass media inherently stripped it of any creative merit or political autonomy and made the media into a tool of propaganda to placate the masses. This theory has been widely criticized for being both simplistic and overly pessimistic (Rebentisch and Trautmann). However, the idea that market pressures restrict media has not been wholly abandoned. More recently, sociologist David Hesmonhalgh modified the theory of the culture industry, referring instead to “cultural industries.” Inspired by Adorno and Horkheimer, cultural industries theory views media as “a material process of production and exchange,” which is “determined by the wider economic processes of society” (Garnham 135). However, his theory acknowledges the diversity within media industries, hence, the plural “industries.” Additionally, cultural industries theory does not dismiss the possibility of creativity within mass media, seeing the tensions between creativity and commerce as a continuous struggle (Hesmondhalgh 23–25).
Informed by the theory of the culture industries, I do not assume that either mainstream or underground writers were producing comics solely for profit or solely for art. Instead, I distinguish between underground and mainstream comics based on the scale of their publishing. Underground comix were printed in significantly smaller quantities, sold in less publicly accessible spaces, and distributed to smaller audiences than mainstream comic books (Hatfield, Alternative Comics 16). Therefore, a creator working on a mainstream comic would do so with the knowledge that their work will be viewed by a larger audience and will need to sell more copies in order to be financially successful.
There is a general consensus that underground comix lacked any boundaries in their political expression, as the absence of restrictions was a cornerstone of the underground comix movement (Cook 35–36). This idea is thoroughly explored in analyses of the politics of underground comix. However, scholars hold widely conflicting views as to where the boundaries on mainstream comics lay. While some scholars argue that mainstream comics are highly restricted, others view mainstream comics as an ideal platform for controversial political stances.
Jean-Paul Gabilliet, for example, argues that mainstream comics are politically restricted due to their large target audience, writing that “mainstream comic books were inadequate vehicles to propagate any anti-establishment discourse because they were hardly likely to reach a large receptive audience” (76). Todd Steven Burroughs agrees with Gabilliet, arguing that when a comic book creator prioritizes sales, they automatically undercut the ability of their comic to be politically subversive. However, if the creator does not prioritize sales, a mainstream comic can be politically radical. Burroughs contrasts Christopher Priest’s run of Black Panther with that of Reginald Hudlin, finding that because Priest prioritized the acquisition of large audiences, he adjusted the comic to accommodate a white audience, and thus was ultimately more cautious in his political statements. On the other hand, Reginald Hudlin, who did not rely on the profit of Black Panther, produced a much more Afro-centric, politically confrontational run. Thus, according to both Burroughs and Gabilliet, the pursuit of profit is linked with politically timid comics which align with the median political beliefs of their time.
Carolyn Cocca, too, views the drive for mass appeal as a factor that limits the political statements of media. In her book Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel: Militarism and Feminism in Comics and Film, she argues that contemporary pieces of mainstream media, including comic books, include space for multiple self-assigned political interpretations to remain popular in today’s splintered political climate. For example, to make conservative readers and watchers comfortable with the themes of female empowerment in Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman, Marvel and DC placed the empowered women within the comfortable structure of the military (Cocca, Wonder Woman 80). These works, while seeming objectively progressive, include opportunities for different fans to glean entirely different and tailored political messaging (Wonder Woman 4). According to Cocca, to secure mainstream appeal, brands create ambiguity and space for interpretation within their political stances.
Whereas Gabilliet, Burroughs and Cocca see mainstream comics as politically restricted due to their mass appeal, other sources contest this notion, claiming that mainstream comic books have long been used as a medium for countercultural political expression. For example, Mike Millford argues that Captain America’s creators Joe Simon and Jack Kirby utilized the political freedom afforded by the comic book format to take an unpopular political stance when Captain America supported American entrance into World War II in 1939 (Milford 624–626). Douglas Wolk and Ramzi Fawaz identify the immensely popular X-men comics, as well as their spinoff The New Mutants, which deeply explore themes of societal marginalization and oppression, as strong allegories for the oppression of minority groups such as the LGBTQ+ community, well before LGBTQ+ identities were accepted in the US (Awaz 234–268; Wolk 136–171). Richard Young claims that The ‘Nam author Doug Murray took advantage of the “edgy” reputation of comic books in order to promote his unpopular opinion that the actions of the US military in the Vietnam War were morally just. All these sources highlight how non-mainstream political beliefs have been expressed through mainstream comic books. According to Millford, Wolk, Fawaz, and Young, mainstream comic books provide a viable platform for politically subversive material. Were mainstream and underground comics actually separated by a huge political divide, or is that a fabrication of our romanticized, flawed interpretation of “mainstream”?
Design of the Case Study: Comparing Comix Book, Arcade, and Howard the Duck
Through a qualitative comparative analysis of three mainstream, underground, and hybrid comics, I work to more clearly define the boundaries that separate mainstream and underground comics. First, I provide a description of the three comics I analyze: Comix Book, Arcade, and Howard the Duck and elucidate the reasons for their selection as a case study.
Comix Book
Comix Book, albeit short-lived, was the earliest attempt to bring underground comix into the mainstream, with its first issue published in 1974. Stan Lee was inspired by the success and creativity of underground comix at a time in which mainstream comics were experiencing a creative and economic slump. Wanting to bring underground creativity into the mainstream, he asked Denis Kitchen, the founder of popular underground comix company Kitchen Sink Press, to create an underground comix anthology that Marvel could distribute to a mainstream audience (Raphael 142–144). This would require toning down the explicit sex and violence popular in underground comix. Lee offered popular underground comix creators a $100 per page commission, four times that of a regular underground comic. Despite the monetary incentives, many underground comix creators refused his offer, viewing it as a selling out of their countercultural values (Vance 18–19). Those who accepted had a difficult time navigating around Lee’s rules (Kitchen 11). The making of Comix Book included a tricky push-and-pull between Lee and the comix creators over the explicit words and images they wanted to include, with both sides making significant compromises (Vance 29). Eventually, for fear of backlash, Stan Lee chose not to release the final product under the brand name Marvel, but instead under the imprint company Magazine Management Co. While not explicitly linked with a mainstream brand, Comix Book was created for a mainstream audience, and distributed in large quantities alongside mainstream comics at newsstands and drug stores (Vance 19)..Stylistically, Comix Book was a mirror image of popular underground comix, at least in form. Popular underground artists, such as S. Clay Wilson, continued drawing in their quintessential styles. Comix Book was a financial flop: the appeal of the underground comix movement, which was precisely its lack of censorship, had been lost, but the magazine was still too off-kilter for the average mainstream reader. Although initially planned to consist of five issues, Marvel canceled Comix Book after only three issues. The fourth and fifth issues were published by Kitchen Sink Press, with no aid from Marvel (Vance 31–32). I analyze all five issues of Comix Book, as well as interviews and statements from Stan Lee, Denis Kitchen, and other creators involved with the magazine.
Arcade
As a direct foil to Comix Book, I review the underground comix anthology, Arcade: The Comix Revue. Arcade, published from 1975–1976, follows the same anthology format as Comix Book. The two magazines were direct competitors during this time. In fact, Arcade was allegedly formed in reaction to Comix Book, as Bill Griffith and Art Spiegelman felt that Comix Book was too watered-down. Many of the contributors to Comix Book also contributed to Arcade—including Spiegelman and Griffith themselves, who published strips in the early issues of Comix Book despite later serving as Arcade’s chief editors. On occasion, the exact same strips were erroneously submitted to both publications (Vance 30–31). Because the two publications were so similar, one of the biggest creative differences between them was that Comix Book was publishing for a mainstream audience and had to wrestle for creative authority with mainstream publishers, whereas Arcade remained strictly underground.
Howard the Duck
Where Comix Book was deemed too outrageous to be explicitly affiliated with the Marvel brand, Howard the Duck, which also capitalized on bringing fresh underground styles into the mainstream, became one of Marvel’s biggest names. Howard the Duck came into being in 1973 as a secondary character in Steve Gerber’s Marvel comic series Adventure into Fear. Howard eventually secured a solo run by 1976. At a time when most mainstream comics withdrew from heavy social commentary, Howard the Duck was a distinctly political satire of American society (Wright 245). Howard fought villains such as Pro Rata the Financial Wizard (Gerber, Howard the Duck No. 1; Gerber, Howard the Duck No. 3). He even ran for president in 1976 (Gerber, Howard the Duck No. 7–9). The aesthetics and humor of Howard the Duck were very reminiscent of underground comix, both of which cast anthropomorphized, cartoonish animals as main characters, ironically placing them in adult-themed real-world scenarios. Although it embodied many aspects of underground comix, with an idiosyncratic sense of humor that unabashedly critiqued societal norms, Howard the Duck vied for a mainstream audience. Most notably, it was sold well amongst mainstream audiences, garnering a two-year run that only ended due to a dispute between Gerber and Marvel executives. In that time, the comic had earned a cult fan base of its own and was even labeled a “hot comic” by the Comic Buyer’s Guide (Miller). Gerber’s run of Howard the Duck merged mainstream comics with the absurdist humor and political satire of the underground comix movement (Sacks, Hoffman, and Grace xi–xiii). I analyze all the issues of Gerber’s run of Howard the Duck, which lasted from 1976 to 1978.
Howard the Duck, Comix Book, and Arcade have all been selected to make as direct, as possible, a comparison across the two disparate categories of comics. Because Arcade and Comix Book were similar publications, although one was published in a counterculture platform whereas the other was distributed to a mainstream audience, the differences between the two can demonstrate the effects of the wider audience and corporate branding. Despite original plans to be published under the Marvel brand, Comix Book was instead published under an imprint name. However, Marvel editors were comfortable with publishing Howard the Duck, which also lifted its tone from the underground comix movement, under the Marvel brand name. Therefore, by analyzing Howard the Duck in contrast with Comix Book, I examine the extent to which carrying a brand name restricts a piece of media. How did Marvel attempt to bring counterculture comics into the mainstream, and how was it restricted from doing so?
The three comics selected for this case study are not the only examples of comics that walked the line between the underground and the mainstream. One salient example is the comic Star*Reach, which was notable for including graphic sex and nudity, although it was created by artists and writers in the mainstream comics industry for a mainstream audience. The series is now acknowledged as a pioneering independent comic (Hatfield, “Comic Books” 29).
Additionally, there are many other instances of underground comix being clumsily brought into the mainstream. For example, Esquire magazine commissioned and then censored several underground cartoonists, namely Gilbert Shelton, for a magazine issue in 1970 (Polli 123–124). Racial expletives and images of vaginas were censored out of R. Crumb’s work when a mainstream publisher, Viking, collected an anthology of his cartoons in 1968 (Polli 125).
R. Crumb’s underground creation Fritz the Cat was also brought to cinemas twice, in 1972 and 1974, although Crumb detested the adaptation for criticizing rather than promoting countercultural values (Polli 125–126). The sheer existence of multiple comics that tested the borders between underground and mainstream suggests that the separation between the two groups is not as rigid as generally supposed.
Guiding Questions
In this case study, I compare the political content across Comix Book, Arcade, and Howard the Duck. For this analysis, I define “political content” broadly. I sort it into three general categories, all of which have political implications:
- Explicit Content: depictions of sex, violence, and drugs
- Overt Politics: depictions of politicians, government policies, and socioeconomic commentary
- Marginalized Identities: depictions of people of different genders, races, ethnicities, religions, and sexualities.
I analyze each instance of political content with two major questions in mind:
- To what extent was the content radical, meaning outside of the political mainstream?
- To what extent was the content explicit rather than being left ambiguous? (g., does the comic criticize a politician by name, or does it criticize a supervillain who looks eerily similar to said politician?)
Finally, paratextual sources such as interviews with creators were applied as an additional means to derive whether the comics written aligned with the political views of creators, or if not, how and why they were held back from expressing those views. In order to focus on the political dimensions of each comic, I analyze each comic not as a piece of art, but rather as a product of the cultural industries, a political commodity within a broader capitalist system. Each comic is therefore treated as a representative of its position within the industry: a representative of the mainstream, the underground, or a blurring of the two. This analysis is necessarily reductive. For an analysis of these comics from an artistic perspective, there are a plethora of scholarly sources. For example, for a thorough artistic analysis of Howard the Duck, see the penultimate chapter of Eliot Borenstein’s Marvel Comics in the 1970’s: the World Inside your Head (201–246). On Comix Book, see Best of Comix Book (Lind). And on Arcade, see the second chapter of Artful Breakdowns: The Comics of Art Spiegelman (Gilbert).
Findings
Explicit Content—Sex, Violence, and Drugs
Sex
Although Howard the Duck features allusions to sex and sexual innuendo, it rarely calls out sex explicitly. One of the most explicit references to sex occurs in issues 19 and 20. Howard, temporarily in human form, has sex with Amy, a woman he meets. Ultimately, it is his sexual encounter that activates the biological change for Howard to return to duck form. Even though the encounter is central to the plot of the comic, it is only briefly discussed, and the fact that Howard and Amy have sex is never explicitly stated. Instead, Howard and Amy are shown kissing while on a bed, with the caption that her “ministrations of TLC (tender loving care) activated his adrenal glands, among others” (Gerber, Howard the Duck No. 20). Although an admittedly obvious innuendo—especially given the narrative importance of sex—the fact that it is never directly stated highlights Howard the Duck’s reluctance or inability to candidly address the topic. Additionally, Howard the Duck frequently sexualizes its female characters, but it never portrays nudity. A prime example of this is in issue #1, in which Beverly Switzler, Howard’s human female companion, is first introduced while chained to a castle wall in a revealing golden bikini and underwear and extravagant makeup (figure 1). While she remains in this outfit through the entire issue, and is often posed to emphasize sexuality, she is never nude. In Howard the Duck, sexual content is present—often obvious and sometimes important—but never explicit.
In contrast, Arcade features frequent, explicit allusions to and depictions of sex. Sex is central to the plot of many stories, explicitly called out, and sometimes graphically shown. The most pertinent example of sex in Arcade is in the feature “Sex in the Thirties” in issue #7, which archives some of the pornographic comic strips of the 1930s (namely, Tijuana Bibles) that laid the groundwork for the Underground Comix Movement. The feature is essentially four pages of graphic sex without plot, with both male and female frontal nudity, and sometimes multiple people having sex at once. The nudity that Arcade does show is extremely graphic—issue #3 features two detailed, large images of vaginas. Male frontal nudity is often just as explicit.
Arcade also features sex much more prominently than Howard the Duck. While Howard the Duck frequently has sexual imagery, covers are rarely sexual. In contrast, the cover art of Arcade is frequently sexual. A woman’s nipples are exposed on the cover of issue #5 and accentuated on the covers of issues #1 and #2. Arcade not only features and advertises more sex, but the sex that it does include is sometimes graphic and always explicit.
Comix Book, like Arcade, is significantly more sexual than Howard the Duck, as bare breasts are common, and sex is almost always a main focus of its quips and plots. However, all sex is non-graphic, and nudity is almost exclusively above the waist. For example, S. Clay Wilson’s work in Comix Book, which prominently displays women’s nipples, is much less graphic than his work in Arcade, which graphically depicts both male and female genitalia. The most explicit nudity in Comix Book occurs in John Pound’s “Flip the Bird” strip in issue #1. In it, the main character, Flip, pins up a picture of a naked woman. While her pubic hair is visible, her vagina is not (Pound, “Clean and Wholesome Fun with Flip the Bird”). Genitalia are often referred to, although never explicitly shown.
Comix Book was conspicuously restricted from being as graphic as Arcade in terms of sexual content, as evident in interviews with the creatives helming Comix Book. Stan Lee identifies the pressures of maintaining a good brand reputation as the reason for which sexual content was watered down, saying that he chose to limit the explicitness of sexual content “because, after all, I was part of a respectable, prestigious comic book company […] I felt I had a responsibility to our company and our younger readers” (Lee 9). However, brand image was not the only pressure restricting Comix Book’s sexual content. In issues #4, and #5, which were independently published without affiliation with Marvel, the sexual content remains limited. A rejected cover from issue #5 demonstrates this point. This cover features a naked woman with bare breasts, sitting in a bed, posed in a sexual manner, and barely covering her genitals. Flip the Bird is running towards her with his eyes straight on her breasts, licking his lips and saying “yummy,” while wearing a bib that says, “eat out more often” (figure 2). This cover was ultimately rejected in favor of a non-sexual cover. Instead of discarding the image entirely, this alternate cover is included in small format in the table of contents of the issue. Editors of Comix Book, which was being displayed on newsstands to the general public, minimized sexual content on its cover even without a brand name to uphold. Although brand influence certainly did play a role in limiting sexual content, the level of explicit content remained largely the same even without interference from Marvel.
Violence
The depictions of violence across the three sources follow a similar pattern. Comix Book was not as violent as Arcade, but still much more so than Howard the Duck. Steve Gerber, author of Howard the Duck, often criticized gratuitous violence in mainstream media. While he disliked violence, he generally included at least one fight per issue, sarcastically referring to it as an “obligatory comic book fight scene” (Gerber, Howard the Duck No. 16). All violence included is thus satirical or ironic, and never graphic, although there is no evidence that it was restrained from being more graphic.
On the other hand, Arcade is graphically violent, in a manner that would be off-putting to most mainstream audiences. For example, on the inside cover of issue #2 is a detailed image of a dead man with his organs spilling out of his abdomen, and surrounding cultists pulling off and eating pieces of him (Osborne, Arcade No. 2). Although few and far between, graphic images like this exist throughout Arcade’s seven issues. While not as pervasive as sex, when Arcade portrays violence, it is extremely graphic.
Comix Book, while more violent than Howard the Duck and any other typical mainstream comic, is not as graphic as Arcade. Comix Book’s violence is either cartoonish or solely in prose and is never graphic. However, the prose violence could be extreme. For example, issue #2 includes descriptions of violence such as a man’s penis being cut off and stuffed into his mouth, and the brutal kidnapping, mutilation, and rape of a woman (Fowler). The violence in Comix Book is more drastic than the average mainstream comic, and certainly more so than Howard the Duck, but not as shocking as Arcade.
Drugs
Paralleling the pattern displayed with violent and sexual content, Comix Book speaks much more about drugs than Howard the Duck. Surprisingly, however, Comix Book has a much larger focus on drugs than Arcade does.
Howard the Duck may include some coded references to illicit drugs, although whether that was intended is not clear. For example, one of the enemies Howard faces is named Dr. Bong after the sound a bell makes, but with other possible connotations. Dr. Bong’s powers put Howard in a state of “hovering between sleep and wakefulness, half-dreaming of sea serpents in top hats… boulders tumbling out of the sky… stone eggs that hatch concrete swans” (Gerber, Howard the Duck No. 17; original emphasis). Still, Howard the Duck never clearly refers to illegal drugs, and certainly never incorporates them explicitly.
Arcade, being distributed primarily in head shops, frequently discusses illegal drugs. In issue #1, a prose piece by Paul Krassner argues that the US war on drugs is an authoritarian initiative to stamp out the counterculture movement (Krassner). According to Krassner, despite government propaganda, acid is liberating, and LSD and marijuana are not actually harmful. Aside from this, which is the most extreme example of drugs in Arcade, there is also casual marijuana use in some strips, and advertisements for drug-related products, such as the Cocaine Consumer’s Handbook. Drugs are featured in prominent places in the physical issues, with issue #6 even featuring a character smoking marijuana on its cover (Crumb 1976). Still, these mentions of illicit drugs only average about once or twice per issue.
Comix Book features frequent references to drugs. Whether characters are casually smoking marijuana, high on LSD, or bartering cocaine, drugs often play a central role in strips. Perhaps the most extreme inclusion of drugs appears in issue #3, when a caricature of a leftist hippie babysits a young girl. After lecturing her on the failings of American society, he proceeds to inject himself with heroin. Then, he injects the young girl with heroin as well (Beck). Political statements about drugs are limited, but inclusions of illicit drugs are frequent, and often used for shock value
Arcade is casual in its treatment of drugs. Illicit drugs, integral to the underground comix movement, are completely absent from Howard the Duck. Comix Book is not restricted from incorporating illicit drugs into its content, whether using them casually or for shock value. Still, unlike Arcade, Comix Book’s drug-related content is never in highly visible places such as the cover or back of the issue.
Overt Politics—Politicians, Government Policies, and Social Structures
Politicians and Government Policies
In terms of commentary on the political state of the US, Howard the Duck is not timid.
For example, throughout a five-issue arc in which Howard runs for president, Howard voices his objections to real presidential candidates, and his opinions on policies such as the US’s involvement in the Middle East. When announcing his candidacy, Howard the Duck criticizes cowardly politicians, both “jellyfish” liberals and “animalistic” conservatives, concluding that “we need a man in office” (Gerber, Howard the Duck No. 7; original emphasis). Immediately after, Howard survives multiple assassination attempts for daring to tell the unfiltered truth, as “today’s [political] candidate doesn’t think, he recites” (Gerber, Howard the Duck No. 8). Overall, Howard the Duck does not hold back on making specific and incisive political commentary, not just about political candidates, but also on topical issues such as the military, the police, and economic policies.
Arcade, too, does not hold back in its political commentary. Cartoonists in Arcade often voice general distaste about the state of the US, both criticizing democrats and republicans. Arcade is quite radical in some of its fatalistic statements. Generally, it takes on a cynical mindset, encapsulated by “Modern America,” a strip by R. Crumb appearing in issue #2. This strip criticizes the US for being cruel, gluttonous, and greedy, in the case of the Vietnam War. It criticizes careless politicians, conservative businessmen, and liberal protesters. Finally, it accuses the US of being reminiscent of the fascist Nazi regime (Crumb, “Modern America”).
Comix Book follows Arcade in its pessimistic political stances. The back of issue #1 advertises the magazine to people who are “perplexed and frustrated by the state of the economy, moral decay, and the deteriorating environment” (Kitchen, Looking for Answers). Comix Book also alludes to the US politicians being corrupt and anti-democratic, although it does not go so far as to compare politicians to Nazis. The police are accused of being gratuitously violent and going on unpunished murder sprees of innocent civilians (Williamson, “Super Sammy Smoot”). In issue #4, Skip Williamson even explicitly refers to himself as an anarchist and explains his opinion “I think the system should be destroyed, but it won’t be, because people are stupid and will always replace an old system with a new system. There’s always something else to take over…” (Williamson, Interview).
Socioeconomic Commentary
Comix Book, Howard the Duck, and Arcade are very similar in their critique of capitalism. Howard the Duck often criticizes capitalism, with villains such as Pro Rata, the relentlessly profit-driven Financial Wizard, who dies falling from a tower of credit cards, and the giant ape Kong Lomerate, who owns an army of brainwashed people (Gerber, Howard the Duck No. 1; Gerber, Howard the Duck No. 10). In issue #2, while Beverly and Howard are cornered by hostile alien forces, an exaggeratedly dramatic narration describes the peril of their situation by comparing the violent alien forces to capitalist society:
Beverly and I were, in a word, doomed to the most horrifying and brutal demise known on this world since the day when corporate monsters rose encased in glass and steel and swallowed our ancestors whole into their bureaucratic digestive tracts, reducing their minds to gelatin and their bones to roughage, making waste-matter of people, then callously eliminating them at age sixty-five, sixty-two for women (Gerber, Howard the Duck No. 2; original emphasis).
As demonstrated, Howard the Duck frequently, and explicitly criticizes capitalism.
Arcade, too, criticizes capitalism. Not only does it blame capitalism as one of the culprits of the decay of modern society, as in the strip “Modern America,” it also depicts some action against capitalism. Issue #4, for example, begins with a strip depicting anti-capitalist radicals as they initiate a plan to revolt against the upper classes by bombing Rockefeller mansion. Ultimately, although the main characters die in the attempt, the bomb only destroys one of the Rockefellers’ many garages, and the bombers fail to make any impact (Crumb, “Frosty and His Friends”).
Comix Book follows Arcade and Howard the Duck in including explicit criticisms of the class structure. For example, in a strip prominently featured on the back of issue #1, a wealthy man encounters a dying homeless man who requests aid. The wealthy man’s only reaction is annoyance that the homeless person’s blood has gotten onto his shirt, which he had planned to wear to a fancy party. When he goes to the party, however, the other wealthy people find the blood fashionable, and inquire as to how they, too, can get shirts stained with the blood of the poor (Williamson, “Halsted Street”). Comix Book presents an extreme and unambiguous criticism of the class structure in the US.
Marginalized Identities— The Treatment of Gender and Racial Minorities
Women
Howard the Duck criticizes sexism, although it is not a radically feminist comic by any means. For example, Howard faces off against male chauvinist “Count Macho” (Gerber, Howard the Duck No. 3). Beverly Switzler, Howard’s female companion, jokes about Howard’s fragile “male ego” when he is uncomfortable with her taking the role of provider for the two of them (Gerber, Howard the Duck No. 5). However, being a product of the 1970s, Howard the Duck also has its share of casual sexism. Beverly is often objectified and pushed into the role of damsel in distress. Sexual harassment is dismissed, and men fight each other to win the affections of a woman. Howard the Duck is, for its time, mild in its feminist statements, and similarly mild when it takes misogynistic statements.
Arcade includes sexism of a much more extreme nature. The word c*nt is consistently used to refer to women. In issue #1, a strip called “Big Ass Topics” solely consists of men ogling women’s behinds and objectifying them—including a young girl (Crumb). In issue #6, a man creates a Frankensteinian woman in order to have sex with her, then promptly kills her because she “wasn’t a virgin” (Wilson). Also, in this issue, a man fondly recalls memories of getting his girlfriend drunk to the point of unconsciousness in order to rape her. In issue #3, under an image of a naked woman lying dead with a knife in her neck, there is a prose description of her brutal rape and murder (Osborne, Arcade No.3). A man talks with his girlfriend about lusting after a little girl and fondly recalls getting his girlfriend drunk and raping her while she was unconscious. Then, he calls her a c*nt and beats her (Crumb, “Those Cute Little Bearzie Wearzies”).
Comix Book employed two female creators, Trina Robbins, and Sharon Rudahl, who had backgrounds writing feminist comix. They included feminist messages in the strips they wrote for Comix Book. Robbins’ ongoing strip “Panthea,” in which a group of women bands together to defeat a group called “manne unkind,” is explicitly feminist (Robbins, “Panthea Discovers” 11–14). Although feminist strips in Comix Book are the minority, they are much more radical than Howard the Duck’s feminism. However, the sexism within Comix Book is also more extreme than the sexism in Howard the Duck. For example, in issue #3, the male main character of a strip sexually assaults an attractive woman he sees walking through a park by grabbing her breasts. Then he tries to force her into sex work before she is saved from his assault by her boyfriend (Pound, “Flip da Bird in: Bad Karma”). Comix Book consistently draws women as sex symbols.
Still, Comix Book’s mainstream target audience and brand affiliation were a significant protective force against the sexism in purely underground comix like Arcade. Comix Book never uses the word c*nt, and never satirizes rape. This was in large part due to its mainstream status, which warded away creators such as R. Crumb, who did not want to sacrifice the artistic freedom that publishing underground allowed him (Vance 28). Crumb was responsible for some of the most extreme misogyny in Arcade. Trina Robbins attributes this decrease in extreme misogyny to Comix Book’s mainstream status: “[I] was happy that since it was a mainstream underground (so to speak), it would not contain some of the violently misogynist graphic sex that was so popular in the underground and which so horrified me” (Robbins, Interview 13). As clearly noted by Robbins, the restrictions on mainstream content had a positive impact, as they restricted Comix Book from being as grossly misogynistic as Arcade.
Race
Comix Book, Arcade, and Howard the Duck follow much the same patterns with race as they do with gender. Howard the Duck is relatively timid, generally avoiding speaking about, or including characters of, races other than white. It does, however, make some antiracist statements through allegory. On multiple occasions, Howard refers to anthropomorphic ducks as an oppressed minority and criticizes others for their stereotypes and biases against him.
Arcade includes nonwhite characters, but these characters embody racist stereotypes. They are frequently drawn as racist caricatures, with shockingly racist dialogue. Arcade makes no effort to conceal its racism. Issue #2 features R. Crumb blankly stating that he hates Black people, using the n-word to refer to them (Crumb, “Modern America”). Arcade incorporates the n-word into four of its seven issues. There is a member of the KKK among a host of characters on the cover of issue #5 (Lynch).
Comix Book also includes racist images, dialogue, and plots. For example, in the strip “Snappy Sammy Smoot in Sammy Encounters the Black Mafia,” by Skip Williamson, Black people are drawn with exaggerated large lips, AAVE is satirized in a racist manner, Black men are stereotyped as non-thinking drug dealers, and Black women are sexualized (Williamson, “Sammy Encounters the Black Mafia”). Ironically, another strip by Williamson criticizes racism. In it, Sammy Smoot realizes that “th’ reality of our national spirit is and has been nothing more than racism, sexism, exploitation, and genocide” (Williamson, “Ol’ Sam Has a Revelation”).
Conclusions
This study had three major findings
1. As expected, mainstream comics were restricted in the extent to which they could include explicit content.
Overall, I found a significant correlation between having a brand name and large target audience and having restrained content. Art Spiegelman declared that, with Arcade, he was attempting to “move away from the stifling limiting themes of the early underground– sex, dope, violence etc.” (Carlin). Still, in terms of explicit content, Comix Book is significantly more restricted than Arcade. Comix Book was able to explicitly include sex, drugs, and graphic violence to an extent that was unheard of in mainstream comics. As Denis Kitchen, editor of Comix Book said, “no Marvel-published title could possibly contain the unrestricted content defining undergrounds. That said, the four-letter words and nudity we were able to use broke all precedents” (Kitchen, “Foreword” 11). While here he accuses Marvel supervision as the main reason for restricting explicit content, Comix Book remained restricted even after it began publishing independently from Marvel (but still for a mainstream audience), suggesting that brand pressures were not the sole forces fueling the division between the underground and the mainstream.
2. Against popular conception, mainstream and underground comics could (and sometimes did) take very similar political stances.
Although it is generally believed that underground comix were distinguished by their radical political stances, this case study does not support that conclusion. Comix Book, Arcade, and Howard the Duck all make similar, explicit criticisms of capitalism and take many of the same stances on political issues. In this category, Comix Book differs little from Arcade despite being watered down for a mainstream audience in other areas. Howard the Duck is also just as effective and clear in its political stances as its underground counterparts. In this way, the line between mainstream and underground comics is less rigid than generally conceived. It is not drawn by what stances are taken, but rather how those stances are presented: Comix Book and Arcade communicate their political stances in more provocative manners than Howard the Duck.
3. The limits on mainstream comics were both a restrictive force and a protective force.
While many tend to villainize the dulling down of content in mainstream media, in reality, this view oversimplifies a phenomenon that can be as protective as it is destructive. Although Comix Book included strong feminist and antiracist stances, it also included extreme misogyny and racism. Arcade was even more extreme in terms of the racism and sexism it displayed. While the market pressures on mainstream comics could act as a partially censoring force, they also functioned as shields against the extreme racism and sexism rampant in fully underground comix.
The extent to which these claims can be generalized is limited. I followed a case study approach that assessed how Marvel was limited in fully portraying the radicalism of Arcade when writing Comix Book and Howard the Duck in the 1970s. I do not claim that every mainstream or underground comic had equal limitations or freedoms, simply that restrictive forces were present and influential, yet not absolute in separating the underground from the mainstream. The only claims that apply to other forms of media, such as film and television, are whether brand affiliation or mainstream distribution imposed a restrictive influence, rather than the magnitude of that influence or its particular consequences.
While this paper aids in creating a more vivid understanding of mainstream and counterculture comics of the past, it is unclear how the concepts of mainstream and counterculture have evolved to fit the contemporary comic book industry. Comics have changed drastically since the 1970s. In place of the Underground Comix Movement, we have its descendants, alternative and indie comics, which have maintained the underground’s artistic spirit, but have become increasingly commercial (Hatfield, Alternative Comics ix). Graphic novels have experienced a meteoric rise in popularity (Weiner 58). Meanwhile mainstream comics have diversified their political messages (Cocca, Superwomen). Additionally, digital comics, both online, and on apps such as Webtoon, have become increasingly popular. With the diversification of the comic book industry, we are forced to confront the questions: where is the new mainstream, where is the new counterculture, or do these traditional categories no longer apply to the industry at all? This question has received some scholarly attention. For example, Sean Fenty, Trena Houp and Laurie Taylor argue that contemporary webcomics have carried on the spirit of the Underground Comix Movement. However, as argued by Benjamin Woo, many comic book fans and some scholars still operate under the assumption that superheroes have continued to dominate the mainstream, even though their sales are relatively low compared to contemporary graphic novels (Woo). The effort to define a new mainstream and counterculture in the contemporary comics industry is one that is still in need of significant scholarly attention.
Works Cited
Acheson, Charles P. In the Code’s Shadow: Censorship, Underground Comix, and the Rise of American Graphic Memoir. 2021. University of Florida, PhD dissertation. https://www.proquest.com/openview/13e6e5b6089fd7552ac833815d3d91c9/1?cbl=1875 0&diss=y&pq-origsite=gscholar. Accessed April 30, 2024.
Burroughs, Todd Steven. “Black Panther, Black Writers, White Audience: Christopher Priest and/vs. Reginald Hudlin.” Fire!!!, vol. 4, no. 2, 2018, pp. 55–93, https://doi.org/10.5323/fire.4.2.0055. Accessed April 30, 2024.
Beck, Joel. “Lefty Doomsday Babysits Little Snooks.” Comix Book, #5, edited by Denis Kitchen, Kitchen Sink Press, 1974, pp. 56–58.
Borenstein, Eliot. “Subjectivity and its Discontents: Steve Gerber and the Uses of Disenchantment.” Marvel Comics in the 1970s, Cornell University Press, 2023, pp. 201–46.
Carlin, John. “Masters of American Comics: An Art History of Twentieth-Century American Comic Strips and Books.” Masters of American Comics, edited by Stephanie Emerson, the Hammer Museum and the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, 2005, pp. 128.
Cocca, Carolyn. “Superwomen and Social Change: Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity in Superhero Comics, TV, and Film.” Women’s History Month Observance, 1 April 2022, Wofford College, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmZm1MpfFo4. Accessed April 29, 2024.
——Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel: Militarism and Feminism in Comics and Film. Milton Park, Routledge, 2021.
Cook, Roy T. “Underground and Alternative Comics.” The Routledge Companion to Comics, edited by Frank Bramlett, Roy Cook, and Aaron Meskin, Routledge, 2017, 34–44.
Crumb. R. “Big Ass Topics.” Arcade: The Comics Revue, No. 1, edited by Art Spiegelman and Bill Griffith, Print Mint, 1975, pp. 22–23.
—— “Modern America.” Arcade: The Comics Revue, No. 2, edited by Art Spiegelman and Bill Griffith, Print Mint, 1975, pp. 5–9.
—— “Frosty and His Friends.” Arcade: The Comics Revue, No. 4, edited by Art Spiegelman and Bill Griffith, Print Mint, 1975, pp. 5–10.
——Cover Image. Arcade: The Comics Revue, No. 6, edited by Art Spiegelman and Bill Griffith, Print Mint, 1976.
——“Those Cute Little Bearzie Wearzies in Ain’t it Nice.” Arcade: the Comics Revue, No.6, edited by Art Spiegelman and Bill Griffith, Print Mint, 1976, pp. 5–11.
Deverell, Richard Donald. The Comics Code Authority: Mass Media Censorship in Postwar America. 2021. State University of New York, PhD dissertation. https://www.proquest.com/openview/b23291d8896b9ff09eca1bb1be09f441/1?cbl=18750&diss=y&pqorigsite=gscholar&parentSessionId=iLtdxxSLDBzOSiwntp%2FFH0WtMZ5OwDRGs3k WoKcpCcY%3D. Accessed April 30, 2024.
Dhoest, Alexander, Steven Malliet, Barbara Segaert, and Jacques Haers. Introduction. The Borders of Subculture: Resistance and the Mainstream, Routledge, 2015, pp. 1–5.
Fawaz, Ramzi. The New Mutants: Superheroes and the Radical Imagination of American Comics, NYU Press, 2016, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt15zc697. Accessed April 30, 2024.
Fenty, Sean, Trena Houp, and Laurie Taylor. “Webcomics: The Influence and Continuation of the Comix Revolution.” ImageText, vol. 1, no. 2, 2005. https://imagetextjournal.com/webcomics-the-influence-and-continuation-of-the-comix- revolution/. Accessed April 30, 2024.
Fowler, Will. “Blunderbuss.” Comix Book, No. 2, edited by Denis Kitchen, Magazine Management Co., 1975, pp. 49–50.
Gabilliet, Jean-Paul. Of Comics and Men: A Cultural History of American Comic Books. Translated by Bart Beaty and Nick Nguyen. University Press of Mississippi, 2009.
Garnham, Nicholas. “On the Cultural Industries.” Media Studies: a Reader, 2nd ed., edited by Paul Marris and Sue Thornham, New York University Press, 2000, pp. 135–142.
Gerber, Steve. Howard the Duck, No. 1 by Steve Gerber, illustrated by Frank Brunner. Marvel Comics, 1976.
——Howard the Duck, No. 2 by Steve Gerber, illustrated by Frank Brunner. Marvel Comics, 1976.
——Howard the Duck, No. 3 by Steve Gerber, illustrated by John Buscema. Marvel Comics, 1976.
——Howard the Duck, No. 5 by Steve Gerber, illustrated by Gene Colan. Marvel Comics, 1976–1978.
——Howard the Duck, No. 7 by Steve Gerber, illustrated by Gene Colan. Marvel Comics, 1976.
——Howard the Duck, No. 8 by Steve Gerber, illustrated by Gene Colan. Marvel Comics, 1977.
——Howard the Duck, No. 9 by Steve Gerber, illustrated by Gene Colan. Marvel Comics, 1977.
——Howard the Duck, No. 10 by Steve Gerber, illustrated by Gene Colan. Marvel Comics, 1977.
——Howard the Duck, No. 16 by Steve Gerber, illustrated by Al Migrom, Alan Weiss, Dave Cockrum, et al. Marvel Comics, 1977.
——Howard the Duck, No. 17 by Steve Gerber, illustrated by Gene Colan. Marvel Comics, 1977.
——Howard the Duck, No. 20 by Steve Gerber, illustrated by Gene Colan. Marvel Comics, 1978.
Gilmore, Shawn. “Modern Disruptions. Art Spiegelman as Experimenter, Editor, and Critic” Artful Breakdowns: The Comics of Art Spiegelman, edited by Georigiana Benita and Lee Konstantinou, University Press of Mississippi, 2023, pp. 49–68.
Hadju, David. The Ten Cent Plague: The Great Comic Book Scare and How it Changed America. Farrar, Strauss, and Giraux, 2008.
Hatfield, Charles. Alternative Comics: An Emerging Literature. University Press of Mississippi, 2005.
—— “Comic Books.” Comics Studies: a Guidebook, edited by Charles Hatfield and Bart Beaty, Rutgers University Press, 2021.
Hesmondhalgh, David. The Cultural Industries. 3rd ed., SAGE Publications, 2013.
Huber, Alison. “Mainstream as Metaphor: Imagining Dominant Culture.” Redefining Mainstream Popular Music, edited by Sarah Baker, Andy Bennett, and Jodie Taylor, Routledge, 2013, pp. 3–33. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203127858-2/mainstream- metaphor-alison-huber. Accessed April 29, 2024.
Kitchen, Denis. Foreword. Best of Comix Book, edited by John Lind, Dark Horse Comics, 2013, pp. 11.
——“Looking for Answers?” Comix Book, No. 1, edited by Denis Kitchen, Magazine Management co., 1974, pp. 67.
Krassner, Paul and Spain. “The Love Song of Timothy Leary.” Arcade: the Comics Revue, No. 1, edited by Art Spiegelman and Bill Griffith, Print Mint, 1975, pp. 16–18.
Lee, Stan. Introduction. Best of Comix Book, edited by John Lind, Dark Horse Comics, 2013, pp. 9.
Lynch, Jay. Arcade: The Comics Revue, No. 5, edited by Art Spiegelman and Bill Griffith, Print Mint, 1976, cover page.
Milford, Mike. “Veiled Intervention: Anti-Semitism, Allegory, and Captain America.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, vol. 20, no. 4, Dec. 2017, pp. 605–34, https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.20.4.0605. Accessed April 29, 2024.
Miller, John Jackson. “Comic Buyer’s Guide: a Look Back,” Comichron, June 14, 2022,https://www.comichron.com/faq/comicsbuyersguidehistory.html. Accessed November 12, 2022.
Olsza, Małgorzata. “Feminist (and/as) Alternative Media Practices in Women’s Underground Comix in the 1970s.” Polish Journal for American Studies, vol. 14, 2020, pp. 21–37, 139, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/feminist-as-alternative-media-practices- womens/docview/2473439187/se-2?accountid=3672. Accessed April 29, 2024.
Osborne, Jim. “They Shall Not Be Forgotten.” Arcade: the Comics Revue, No. 2, edited by Art Spiegelman and Bill Griffith, Print Mint, 1975, inside cover.
——“They Shall Not Be Forgotten!” Arcade: the Comics Revue, No. 3, edited by Art Spiegelman and Bill Griffith, Print Mint, 1976, pp. 37.
Polli, Chiara. “We’re not rated X for nothin’, baby!”: Satire and Censorship in the Translation of Underground Comix. 2018. Universitá Degli Studi di Trento, PhD dissertation. http://eprints-phd.biblio.unitn.it/3705/. Accessed April 29, 2024.
Pound, John. “Clean and Wholesome Fun with Flip the Bird.” Comix Book, No. 1, edited by Denis Kitchen, Magazine Management co., 1974, pp. 56–61.
——“Flip da Bird in: Bad Karma.” Comix Book, No. 3, edited by Denis Kitchen, Magazine Management co., 1974, pp. 55–60.
——Rejected Cover Design. Comix Book, No. 5, edited by Denis Kitchen, Kitchen Sink Press, 1976, pp. 1.
Raphael, Jordan. Stan Lee and the Rise and Fall of the American Comic Book. Chicago Review Press, 2003.
Rebentisch, Juliane and Felix Trautmann. “The Idea of the Culture Industry.” The Routledge Companion to the Frankfurt School, edited by Peter E. Gordon, Espen Hammer, and Axel Honneth, Routledge, 2018.
Rifas, Leonard. “Racial Imagery, Racism, Individualism, and Underground Comix.” ImageText, vol. 1, no. 3, 2005. https://imagetextjournal.com/racial-imagery-racism-individualism-and-underground-comix/. Accessed April 30, 2024.
Robbins, Trina. “Panthea Discovers New Allies and New Dangers in San Francisco.” Comix Book, No. 4, edited by Denis Kitchen, 1976, pp. 11–14.
——Interview with James Vance. Best of Comix Book, edited by John Lind, Dark Horse Comics, 2013, pp. 24.
Rosenkranz, Patrick. Rebel Visions: The Underground Comix Revolution 1963–1975. Fantagraphics Books, 2008.
Sacks, Jason, Erica Hoffman, and Dominick Grace. Steve Gerber Conversations. University Press of Mississippi, 2019.
Sammond, Nicholas. “Meeting in the Archive.” Feminist Media Histories, vol. 4, no. 3, July 2018, pp. 96–118, https://doi.org/10.1525/fmh.2018.4.3.96. Accessed April 29, 2024.
Singsen, Doug. “An Alternative by Any Other Name: Genre-splicing and Mainstream Genres in Alternative Comics.” Journal of Graphic Novels and Comics, vol. 5, no. 2, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1080/21504857.2013.871306. Accessed April 29, 2024.
Spiggle, Susan. “Measuring Social Values: A Content Analysis of Sunday Comics and Underground Comix.” The Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 13, no. 1, June 1986, pp. 100–13, https://doi.org/10.1086/209050. Accessed April 29, 2024.
Vance, James. “The Birth, Death, and Afterlife of Comix Book.” Best of Comix Book, edited by John Lind, Dark Horse Comics, 2013, pp. 12–33.
Welsh, K. C. Terrifying Tales from The Code: The Anti-Comics Movement, Mass Culture, and the Impact of the Comics Code on American Comic Books. 2020. Claremont Colleges, Senior Thesis, https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/1481. Accessed April 29, 2024.
Weiner, Stephen. Faster than a Speeding Bullet: The Rise of the Graphic Novel. 2nd ed., Nanter, Bealle, Minoutschine Publishing inc., 2012.
Williamson, Skip. “Halsted Street.” Comix Book, No. 1, edited by Denis Kitchen, Magazine Management Co., 1975, cover.
——Interview with Dave Schreiner. Comix Book, No. 4, edited by Denis Kitchen, Magazine Management Co., 1976, pp. 25–26.
——“Snappy Sammy Smoot: Ol’ Sam has a Revelation.” Comix Book, No. 1, edited by Denis Kitchen, Magazine Management Co., 1975, pp. 34–35.
——“Snappy Sammy Smoot in Sammy Encounters the Black Mafia.” Comix Book, No. 2, edited by Denis Kitchen, Magazine Management Co., 1975, pp. 9–13.
——“Super Sammy Smoot Battles to the Death with the Irrational Shithead”, edited by Denis Kitchen, Magazine Management Co., 1975, pp. 1–8.
Wilson, S. Clay. “Monster Bride.” Arcade: the Comics Revue, No. 6, edited by Art Spiegelman and Bill Griffith, Print Mint, 1976, pp. 18–19.
Witek, Joseph. “The Dream of Total War: The Limits of a Genre.” Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 30, no. 2, 1996, pp. 37–45, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/dream-total-war-limits-genre/docview/195370550/se-2?accountid=14512. Accessed April 29, 2024.
Wolk, Douglas. All of the Marvels: A Journey to the Ends of the Biggest Story Ever Told. Penguin Press, 2021.
Woo, Benjamin. “Is There a Comic Book Industry?” Media Industries, vol. 5, no. 1, 2018, pp. 27–46, https://doi.org/10.3998/mij.15031809.0005.102. Accessed April 29, 2024.
Wright, Bradford W. Comic Book Nation: The Transformation of Youth Culture in America. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.
Young, Richard. “There is Nothing Grittier than a ‘Grunt’s Eye View’: American Comic Books and the Popular Memory of the Vietnam War.” Australasian Journal of American Studies, vol. 34, no. 2, 2015, pp. 75–93, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44779735. Accessed April 29, 2024.
