Graphic Novels!

Hey guys! Adventure Van here with a college paper!

Since art has been invented, people feel tried to control what people both say in them and hear from them under the guise of protecting the innocent. This is no different for graphic novels, but why do we ban them? It’s a question that’s been wondered about since the start of the media. Differing viewpoints have always found different reasons to ban different comics. But what happens when one central group, like the CCA, attempts to regulate all of those viewpoints? I’ll be as commenting on the CCA and the banned books of the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s; and I'll also talk about Bone as a modern day example due to the similarities in why they were at risk of banning.

Now, what do I mean by banning? Overall, banning in America isn’t that strict. Graphic novels were either kept off the market or restricted in certain places, but that didn’t mean no one could access them or there was a punishment for producing them other than the stigma and loss of money. This is unlike in places like Europe where, during the same period as the CCA, producing banned material could have resulted in a fee and/or jail time. This may be the result of the self monitoring done by the CCA over the government monitoring of other countries.

In the 1940s, the comics industry was in full swing. The superheroes weren’t dominating the market, due to genres such as True Romance and True Crime. Despite the names, most of these stories were not true but larger than life, and going into intense detail. Even with the laughable claim of focusing on morals, they glamorized the life of the ‘Big Bads’ until the last page. These unofficial main characters lived a life of sex, glory, money, and guns until they were ‘defeated’. These were over the top, usually creating over the top reactions as well. Framing it as ‘protecting the children’, people bought copies to burn, boycotted stores, and wrote very angry letters to the syndicates in charge of sending these “Satan’s Pamphlets.” Of course, the ‘devil’ comics also sold like hot cakes, because they were excuses to look at pinup art and to see the epic violence and overly gritty realism that superhero comics lacked.

Back in the present, however, Bone is a comic book series following the adventures of three ‘Bones’ from Boneville, not nearly as grit packed. It is a long series, though, filling eight separate graphic novels at the time of writing. It is also quite impressive in its ability to weave together a world of fantasy, all while working in an iconic to realistic setting. It seems like an innocent enough series, but somehow it was the 10th most challenged book in America in 2013, despite that innocence. How is that the case?

Bone has been challenged in the past because of the intense violent scenes some parts contain, as well as the fact one can read into it being racist and/or sexist. It’s surprising that a young adult graphic novel would be challenged to such a large extent. And what is more surprising is that despite the frequency of it being challenged to be banned, it has been successfully banned only once. It's clear from that ratio that it's due to the sense of entitlement from the challengers, and not a factual standing. But what would give them that sense of entitlement?

A likely answer lies back with the True Crime graphic novels, and the pushback against them. Fredric Wertham is the main face of this pushback, being the author of the infamous Seduction of the Innocent. Seduction of the Innocent is a book about how comic books were teaching children how to commit crimes, was turning children illiterate, and many other claims.  This coincided with a U.S. Congressional inquiry, which turned Fredric Wertham into a large force of the time (as well as selling a multitude of his books) (Wikipedia One).

Despite the utter absurdity of some of the claims, he even made the infamous claim that Batman & Robin were a gay couple (Wikipedia One), and due to ineptitude of defense from some syndicates and poorly worded statements, Seduction of the Innocent and the Congressional Inquiry helped work to create damage around the globe for comics. Governments began to crack down on comics, although some of these bans and restrictions were made to simply stifle dissent and remove competition. In order to save themselves from the government restrictions happening in the USA, these syndicates created the Comics Code Association, more commonly known as the CCA.

The Comics Code Association was created after the insanity of the U.S. Congressional inquiry had died down, and it was obvious that the majority of people wanted comics policed. Because of the urge to still stay independent from the government, comic book creators and syndicates formed the CCA to self monitor.  They introduced the CCA seal (Figure 1), a simplistic design that was required, not to sell your comic, but to get rid of the stigma of not having the seal. They created tons of restrictions that had to be followed in order to get the seal, effectively censoring out all of the things Fredric Wertham had problems with.

But what happened to those without seals, the ones that were “dirty”? The stigma around not having one of these inked marks on the comic meant that most stores would refuse to sell them, forcing many of our True Crime and True Romance stories to either change to a “clean” plot or go out of business. It was effectively banning entire genres. The CCA was a large, shadowy force, controlling the flow of these comics, likely with a sinister cackle. The seal effectively made clean comics, by purging the rest.

But the CCA isn't around today, so how do graphic novels like Bone still get banned? They can be challenged, and brought to court. Even for the most bizarre reasons, these challenges can be made, and due to that, any book can be banned for any reason. However, that’s not a common experience. The most common reason for banning books are ones that are deemed inappropriate for the target audience, as in having sexual content in books for 7-9 year olds. Like the chaste kiss in the graphic novel Drama. (CBLDF 6)

Back with the CCA, however, controlling these comics didn't work really well. It killed off a large portion of the true crime and romance comics, leaving only uninteresting stuff in official stores. The restrictions made it impossible to really relay any plot, as the storylines were a black and white dichotomy. The good guys were the epic, perfect pinnacles of all that was good and righteous. They also happened to almost always be white. The bad guys were had no redeeming qualities, were cruel and heartless yet had the edges sanded off, and always failed, as well as happening to almost always be a minority like Black, Irish, or Scottish. The government was always in a good light, as they were always the perfect people you could turn to trust. There were no corrupt officials in the government, which is probably the most absurd thing about the “clean” comics with the seal.

The restrictions from the CCA would have not put their seal on classics like "A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", due to the unflattering portrayal of government officials, Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot mysteries, due to the in-depth explanation of crimes, and even Homer's The Odyssey, due to the excessive violence. The CCA also was fought with due to not putting their seal on an excessively violent comic ... of the Shakespearean classic, Macbeth, as well as banning the word Wolfman in a DC comic, when it was in fact the writer's last name: Marv Wolfman (Wikipedia Two).

And even then, that was just the official stores. Independents were still capable of creating comics and selling them through other means, meaning that it was still possible through things like ‘head shops’ for kids to get their hands on the violence, romance, and crimes that the CCA was established to protect them from. This was one of the reasons that Wertham himself called it a “half measure” (Wikipedia Two).

In the modern day, yet still with an apparent ‘failure to regulate violence’, Bone is unique in that the author, Jeff Smith, is such an active member of his fanbase and communities, he is able to defend and talk about his books and the ban attempts on them (Flood, The Guardian). Let me state here, Bone is a fun children’s book. It is funny, has vibrant characters, a strong, foreboding plot, and many other attributes. It also has violence, and crimes, and some small sexual innuendo. But it isn't 'dirty', nor is it deserving of the countless ban attempts on it.

These ban attempts always failed, just like the villains the CCA forced upon the industry. Ironically, the CCA itself fell like those bad guys in 2011 (Wikipedia Two). Due to the insensitivity of violence the culture succumbed to, and the new target of videogames to move the focus of “ruining our children” to, many companies either made inside advisory systems or simply dropped the CCA.  Advertisers also began to not care about the seal. The CCA was eventually erased from modern culture.

Flipping to the present, the vast majority of attempts on Bone have suffered the same fate. Maybe due to the fact that the claims were far from truthful, maybe because of Jeff Smith’s defense, or maybe because of bias, the fact is that attempts to ban this book almost never succeed. The violence of these books isn’t really worth banning, and neither is the storyline.

Of course, some graphic novels do have parts that would make them able to be banned, but a vast majority of banned books are due to simply not being well received in the community. A non-graphic novel example would be To Kill a Mockingbird, while a graphic novel variant could be Maus, both due to the fact that the topics make people uncomfortable. These victims of mob rule are usually under the guise of saying that it's ‘for the children’, sadly without asking about the actual effect it would have.

To put it bluntly, however, any attempt on banning graphic novels, and by extension art, will fail. Certain people have always been trying to suppress one thing or the other for their own selfish reasons, and everything, especially art, eventually rises up to the surface and is accepted. Be it because the rulers disagree with the politics, or parents go up in arms because of the violence, graphic novels have been banned and still have people trying to ban them to this day. Yet, despite all of that, it’s still very possible to read them. These comics, these graphic novels, have a durability that Superman would be jealous of.

The CAA Seal. (Figure 1) (Source: Wikipedia)Bibliography:

“Seduction of the Innocent.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 24 Sept. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_of_the_Innocent. (One)

“Comics Code Authority.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 19 Sept. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority. (Two)

Flood, Alison. “Bone Author Jeff Smith Speaks out Ahead of US Banned Books Week.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 19 Sept. 2014, www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/19/jeff-smith-bone-us-banned-books-week.

DefendBannedComics, CBLDF, 10/1/18, http://cbldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/CBLDF_DefendBannedComics_2018_FINAL_digital.pdf.

 b5c53dcc-682c-4951-aacd-c519fddbfa3d

Zombies versus Vampires

Hey guys! Adventure Van here with another college paper!

In today’s modern age of blockbusters, extremely diverse political structures, and Donald Trump, it is very hard to find an exact correlation between movies and the current government. There is one, however, in that both political groups have a monster that is correlated with them from the other side. As much as it is utilized in comics and satire, Hollywood and independent producers are both swayed towards creating movies about one specific monster during that monster’s respective political party’s stay in power. (Figure 1)

Before I can delve deeper into the symbolic meanings of these monsters, I must first describe them and their relations to the political parties. The Democratic Party is commonly associated with the monster archetype known as Vampires, while the Republican Party is usually related with the Zombie tropes. So, what are the specific Zombies and Vampires that I am talking about?

Vampires are not the same as they were many years ago, as comparisons of the written comparisons of Dracula (from Dracula) and Edward (from Twilight) can show easily. They are bloodsucking, sun hating creatures that trap, seduce, and otherwise torment young ladies to turn them into vampires of slightly less prestige. They hide away in dark caverns and castles, come from different countries and places, have different practices of government and religion, and are repelled by symbols of Jesus and the New Testament.

Zombies are usually true to their origins in the vast majority of modern representations. They are brain eaters, although not picky in what they end up consuming; mindless creatures that move in swarms. They devour the helpless to make more of themselves, and will ignore harm they cause themselves for a goal they may or may not get. They attack humanity in an outright war and will likely win due to their brute numbers. By the same token, they are usually weak when alone, easily tricked, and pay no attention to any other zombies around them.

So, why are there comparisons between the reigning political parties of the United States and two sets of monsters, of which neither came from the U.S.A.? It is really quite simple, and easily correlated to the standing and perspectives of the politics of our system. With seeing the complete lack of bipartisan standing in our current political sphere, it is a very easy and simple comparison to make to paint your enemies as monsters. I’ll start off with why is it often that vampires are associated with leftists.

For one, they are often used both as examples of parasites, using the common people as means to continue living lavish lifestyles. For vampires, this is comparable to sucking the blood of innocents to continue their survival in large, expansive castles and mansions. With the Democrats, then, this ‘sucking’ is commonly referred to as the ‘tax hikes’ Republicans promise we’ll get if we elect liberals, and everyone has heard of the infamous ‘Liberal Ivory Tower’ which is brought up every so often as a way of saying that leftists are elitists and removed from society.

They also are comparable in the fact that the vast majority of them are foreigners. Vampires often have different religions, different political structures and social ones, and therefore are heavily removed from what the country they were actively living in. This can be comparable to how non-Christian religions are viewed in the United States, and how many members of other religions are often Democrats. Some Liberals further to the left of the political spectrum also have a strange message of acceptance towards other economic forms than straight Capitalism.

They are also destroyers of the innocent. Dracula and other vampires easily are able to seduce and bite young maidens for their own pleasure and to transform them into much more vile beasts. Young men would also fall prey to a vampire in many a novel. Likewise, Liberals are all for sexual education, destroying the ‘sanctity of marriage’ by allowing people to have other sexualities and not be punished for it, and abortion, all of which the innocent are characterized as not having.

Aspects of other sexualities and simple freedom with sex is exemplified by the female vampire. They are well known for their own freedoms, having a bit more glorious detail put into their works about how exactly they lure their prey into their embrace. They are heavily linked to the portrayal of the negatives of sex and the male ownership of the females. (Citation 2) The corruption of the virginal women and prostitution of themselves to males only to take a bite off of them afterwards, literally, are all things the Right stands against.  

That is quite obviously shown that the most common way of defeating one of these vicious corrupting foreigners is a good, white, Christian, male, armed with a cross, garlic, and a stake. Those who doubt the religion will fall, but the true of heart stand strong and can defeat even the most vicious of creatures and resist the charms they attempt. But what do the Republicans have for their own little monsters?

The Grand Old Party is known for their more grassroots movement, and their monster reflects that in literally coming from the ground in most cases. The Zombie is often applied to the Republican, and often with many apt comparisons springing from it. The most obvious one is the fact that they are often characterized as mindless monsters that seek only for short bursts of fulfillment and to change others into their view set. No matter the personal views of the individual, upon introduction to the undead, they only have the same thoughts as everyone else in the horde, unable to think for themselves. When seeing many people parrot the exact words off of Fox News, it is possible that others have thought to themselves about how this horde of mindless, single brained creatures are easily comparable to your average zombie.

In almost all media, it is impossible to either convince a zombie to change their ways, or to have them change their minds. All they want are brains and to convert others, and they don’t care if between them and their goal is a 50-foot drop, they’ll shamble onwards until they fall to their doom. This can sadly be summed up with the amount of Rightwing voters who believed that after ‘Obamacare’ was destroyed, they’d still be covered by the Affordable Care Act, which are the same thing. With examples like this, it’s hard for those more knowledgeable to not be horrified as they watch voters shoot themselves in the foot. (Citation 3)

Anyone who can talk to the average Republican voter may realize how the members of the Right don’t see how their actions affect others or realize that there are other reasons for something. Most don’t realize that Planned Parenthood doesn’t get government funding to do abortions already, and that abortions make up an extreme minimum of their program time (Citation 4). And many more on top of that don’t seem to think outside of their local communities in how things like homeless shelters, more accessible schooling, and other options can vastly improve other communities, because it doesn’t affect their own and only makes their taxes go up. This is quite easily comparable to zombies not realizing when a fellow undead next to them keels over from an arrow to the head. In most cases, they’ll continue wandering in search of food if whatever killed them doesn’t have a large enough flash or bang to attract their attention.

And of course, it takes a group of people with varied talents and abilities to survive and rebuild society. All of these people will be ‘freethinkers’, and therefore will get into arguments with each other, but will be able to work together for the common goal of recreating civilization and living longer. Often comparable with Liberals, these survivors will be better, smarter, and stronger than those who already fell to the disease or curse, and are often willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good.

All that being said, these comparisons to monsters help dehumanize the political party we disagree with, making it easier to blindly hate and neutralize some of the more horrible things of that party. It’s easier to deal with the fact that 6% of the population is Nazis if you’re comparing them with zombies. But maybe we should begin facing the real monsters among us, and not what we’d like to cliché our opponents as.

Figure 1

Bibliography:

Figure 1: West, Marc. “Correlation of the Week: Zombies, Vampires, Democrats and Republicans.” MSS, 23 May 2009, www.mrscienceshow.com/2009/05/correlation-of-week-zombies-vampires.html.

Citation 2: Dijkstra, Bram. “Dracula and his Daughters”, (Page 31), Idols of Perversity.

Citation 3: Dropp, Kyle, and Brendan Nyhan. “One-Third Don't Know Obamacare and Affordable Care Act Are the Same.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7 Feb. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/upshot/one-third-dont-know-obamacare-and-affordable-care-act-are-the-same.html.

Citation 4: Parenthood, Source: Planned. “Fact Check: How Does Planned Parenthood Spend That Government Money?” Minnesota Public Radio News, 5 Aug. 2015, www.mprnews.org/story/2015/08/05/npr-planned-parenthood-fact-check.

Pygmalion Anaylisis

Hey guys! Adventure Van here with another one of my College Papers!

Pygmalion is a myth included in Ovid’s Metamorphoses. It’s a story about a sculptor named Pygmalion, who grows to detest all of the women who “lead their shameful lives and vices Nature has given the female disposition only too often.” That’s the second two lines. The rest of the myth follows suit, which the man then decides himself too good for womankind, devotes himself to his craft, and creates such a ‘beautiful woman’ from a statue that he falls in love with it. The festival of Venus comes along, and “timidly Pygmalion made offering, and prayed: ‘If you can give all things, O gods, I pray my wife may be- (He almost said, my ivory girl, but dared not) - one like my ivory girl’. And golden Venus wast there, and understood the prayer’s intention, and showed her presence… Pygmalion came back where the maiden lay, and lay beside her, and kissed her, and she seemed to glow, and kissed her, and stroked her breast, and felt the ivory soften under his fingers…” and more detailed describing that would very likely reach above PG-13 ratings. He then has a daughter with this statue, and that’s the end of the story. There’s nothing else.

I have chosen this mythos to dissect using the five layers due to both the interesting past of the myth, as well as what associations it has with our modern day society. It is an interesting story with a multitude of places to dive into it despite a low page count (only two pages long). As already stated, it’s part of Ovid’s Metamorphoses (Citation 1) as well, which is a collection made by the Romans of Grecian myths about change, meaning the original material was very possible to have been changed to fit viewpoints of the collectors. However, it still will be a solid source for the material of the myth, as no original copy exists to my knowledge.

 Layer One:

The very beginning is talking about how Pygmalion has grown completely fed up with women and how they are all whores and sluts who have no decency. This very likely is going to be a reflection of how the author of the myth felt about the female gender in a negative light. The myth does center on how horrible women are and only gods and a man’s creation are really good women. Especially with how the creation, granted sentience, is basically forced into a relationship with this man during the same second she came into being. It helps solidify the Greek’s relationship with how women were items to be tossed around, in this case literally. The poor woman isn’t even given a name.

It’s easy to see how this reflects on the Roman culture as well. As much as the Romans had a more progressive standpoint, they still had this very sexist and misogynistic myth being given a high standing among the rest of Metamorphoses, a critical collection of other important Grecian myths. Obviously, seeing how other minor details have been nudged in other tales in the book, there was little to no effort done by Ovid or other translators to edit the tale into a more positive light on the statue.

Layer Two:

Apparently, the couple had a daughter of the name Paphos. This is mentioned more as a footnote then an actual character. I couldn’t find an actual myth about her, but she is credited with being the reason that the island of Paphos was named (Citation 2). This seems more of a throwaway comment, but it’s the only real reason this myth has for existing. There is no moral, no lasting consequence of the tale except for this. Wikipedia claims that the couple birthed a son as well, who has had even less importance and anything about him (Citation 3). It helps cement how this tale is made not to explain anything but simply to say how this one man escaped from the grips of womankind.

Layer Three:

Venus is the Grecian god of love, and is also responsible for the enlivenment of the statue. She obviously condoned this relationship, otherwise she wouldn’t have brought the statue to life in the first place, meaning that despite being the goddess of love, she worked to please Pygmalion. Pygmalion had shut himself off completely from women kind and was kind of a sexist about it, so the fact that Venus bent the rules for someone who actively tried to stay out of her domain felt out of character. However, seeing how this feels less like a focus on the gods and more a fantasy of what a man feels entitled too, it makes sense that the idea of religion would play a secondary role and not have nearly as much sense as the rest of the story.

There is also the supernatural effect of turning a statue into a real human that’s not mentioned in the slightest. The man is so devout in his wish and prayers that Venus just agrees and brings the statue to life. The statue, upon becoming human, isn’t anything more but a glorified toy for the sculpture, never getting a name or any mention beyond sex. Despite the probable many consequences of bringing a creation to life from the supernatural that’s said to be a full human, it’s simply brushed under the rug for the sake of story.

Layer Four:

The idea of an old man attempting and succeeding to seduce or even just feel justified to have access to a younger female has always been around, especially as trophy wives. My Fair Lady and She’s All That are both prime examples of this, but it’s very apparent in a relationship that actually came out very recently. A 63 year old male artist married a 22 female one and then acted surprised when their families were disgusted (including the man’s children, who were older than the bride by 6 years) (Citation 4). He justifies it that it’s not like his wife is intellectually inferior. And this is just an extreme case. Many famous actors change their wives or significant others out for younger women while they grow progressively older. However, this is an occurrence almost entirely exclusive to men, not women. It’s a dangerous double standard which has always been in this species.

Layer Five:

From a modern perspective, it’s easily comparable to the fantasies of involuntarily celibates, also known as Incels. It fits in completely with their worldview of women, whom are all sluts who attempt to up their status by sleeping with those who are not the Incels. Incels would likely gravitate to the idea of creating a beautiful, obedient, nameless wife for them very easily, and it’s a shame to see them having the same ideals as the Grecian males of old. Some actually do associate themselves with cults of that time period as well, so it’s not too much to stretch the relationship between the two groups.

All in all, this story is not about teaching a lesson. Nor is it about explaining why something is as it is, or even just for enjoyment. It’s made to downgrade women and almost get into eroticism. And it’s put in with so many other powerful, important pieces of fable as an equal. As much as it is isolated, it’s not impressive, it helps give context and a look into the mindset of both the Grecian and Roman communities. It also helps us see that even now in our modern day, there would be those who’d agree with the idea of having a mindless, nameless trophy wife, and there likely always will be. It’s important to make sure that everyone stays equal and that preconceived notions aren’t as bad as stated in this myth if we ever want to strive for true equality.

Bibliography:

1.Ovid, and Rolfe Humphries. Metamorphoses, Tr. by Rolfe Hemphries. Indiana U.P., 1955.

2.“Paphos.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 29 Apr. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paphos.

3.“Pygmalion (Mythology).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 15 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_(mythology).

4.Oberman, Jeffrey, and Jeffrey Oberman. “I'm 63. She's 22. Here's What Most People Get Wrong About Our Marriage.” HuffPost, HuffPost, 8 May 2019, www.huffpost.com/entry/intergenerational-marriage_n_5cd0598ee4b04e275d4dffcd?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKCLh1qvJJ0PQf-RxThE_1X1SdGA5nswYhamcwa7hVHsTZPm9WpGvYlPnmeLa7wGAXAUPNIMq8oqlcmI4jZ394eH9vI_xcwMUYYYnDg-6xfEXklhUz-gNxmkcOpa1yHYxDo1OTMAhYPKEpyFYm3qvX5FXRA9NCCXs8FpIY3tz1jA.

World War Two and Animation

Hey guys. Adventure Van here with one of my College Papers!

World War Two has been the cause for a large amount of things. It created several dangerous weapons out of necessity, including the world renowned Nuclear Bomb, gave us the first large negative association with the swastika, and also resulted in giving us Bugs Bunny as one of the most famous cartoon characters. The last one might seem bizarre, but if it wasn’t for WW2, we wouldn’t have many iconic characters of our past, nor would we have such a variety in our past of animation companies.

Starting this out, Walt Disney was severely misinformed about unions, and didn’t appreciate or approve of their existence. Because of this, several strikes happened in 1941, and general discontent from animators for him was pretty high. However, even with these problems, Disney pretty much still had a monopoly on the animation business, where other companies had to fight tooth and nail for half as much of the business that Disney and their brand was getting. The biggest ‘competitor’ that Disney possibly had was none other than Warner Bros’ Animation Department, but that wasn’t saying that much. Disney was capable of putting out entire movies, and Mickey Mouse became an iconic creature in next to no time. It was extremely hard for any of the ‘competition’ to ever pose a threat to the gigantic company.

And one of Warner Bros’ Looney Tunes’ main problems was that they had no Mickey. They had two ‘main’ characters (characters that weren’t one time or playing minor roles as background characters) before WW2, Porky Pig and Daffy Duck. Daffy Duck was ‘cuckoo’, and not anywhere close to his now well known straight man role. Porky Pig was the straight man character who was definitely a bit of a pushover. Due to this dynamic, the cartoons that they had were good, but not bombastic. Neither had the selling value of a real protagonist, neither in likability or gag potential. Even with the powerful music department that the animations could get, they were still behind Disney, in terms of creativity, hilarity, and money making potential.

Disney’s monopoly seemed as if it was inevitable. It was surviving the depression with a distinct and unique lack of problems. But during WW2, things changed rapidly. The United States Military needed to have more propaganda for getting civilians to buy war bonds, so they hired multiple artistic studios, disregarding size, to make cartoons as propaganda.  Because they needed to have a straight man in these cartoons that wasn’t as nice and gullible as Porky Pig, Daffy was turned into a different kind of straight man: egotistical, easily angered, and ‘average’ man to fill the role of “Why should I care about the war, it’s not effecting me” down to the bill. Disney had more problems, as being such a big company, they were expected to help, but already annoyed animators that were sent to these propaganda camps were on edge. The companies they were planning on buying were getting the same offer, keeping them afloat.

The army threw together groups of animators as if they weren’t part of an official company already. This caused some pairings that wouldn’t have happened otherwise, and it’s a very important detail. Some powerhouse companies were created solely because people after the war stuck together because they were a good fit, like Hanna Barbera. It also caused some pairs to split, meaning some creative ideas may never be known, but by doing so it created brand new combinations of people. It was also when the fact of how angered Disney’s animators were came to a head, as many left to join other companies with the people they had met in the camps.

The war also caused the idea that “We don’t care about quality, we care about mass production”. This allowed ideas that a ‘commercial’ company might be against to flow free as new art styles and characters could be introduced as the army really didn’t care much about that. What they did care about was producing a lot of propaganda in a hurry, so animators working for the US government learned what they worked with well and what didn’t work so swimmingly, as well as allowing some improvisation that wouldn’t have come around otherwise. WW2 singlehandedly stopped animators from getting stuck into the same ruts that could eventually cause the end of theatrical cartoons

In 1945, after WW2 ended, Warner Brothers needed a new ‘insane’ character and they didn’t want to devolve Daffy from the actual character he became back to a Woody Woodpecker, so instead they created Bugs Bunny to fill that role. Of course, Bugs didn’t stay insane for too long either; he became an interesting character in his own right. They really created a personality for themselves, from the voice actor, Mel Blancs, giving the iconic Brooklyn accent and line of ‘What’s up, Doc?’ to the character, and the studio learning from the mistakes of other companies having their ‘insane’ ones on a downfall in profits, especially Woody Woodpecker. What people wanted was someone to root for, and Bugs Bunny was a trickster spirit, sure, but he wasn’t malevolent in the slightest.

Bugs was bad news for Mickey Mouse and the Disney Company. With the now ever popular and very original gagster taking stage, it seemed to be booting out Disney. The war had already stolen some of their best animators and moved them over to other companies, and they were in a hard place financially. They barely managed to pull through, and Disney was looking like its time in the limelight was spent. Of course, in today’s modern era, they’ve got a monopoly again, so they weren’t killed off completely, but Warner Bros’ had a solid grip on the animation market, and everyone and their dog were in a form of admiration for the lovable bunny.

And it wasn’t just Bugs that got the carrot and not the stick. Hanna Barbera wouldn’t have come around without the second great war, and without them would never have come Scooby Doo, one of the most long lived and powerful characters in American culture. Even some of Disney’s last ditch grabs for character designs in order to save themselves now have large audiences and followings. And, of course, any creation that fought Nazis wouldn’t have come into existence, but that isn’t solely related to animation. However, all of that included, it’s quite easy to see how animation, and, a good portion of American culture, was heavily effected by World War Two.

Bibliography:

Maltin, Leonard. Of Mice and Magic a History of American Animated Cartoons. Plume, 1987.

“Mel Blanc.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 23 May 2019,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Blanc.