Jeet Heer writes, "Easy enough to mock, Wertham showed up in a brief and unsympathetic cameo in Michael Chabon's prize-winning book The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay." He goes on to paraphrase Bart Beaty's argument as claiming that "the view [of Wertham] promulgated by authors like Hajdu and Chabon is pure calumny" and later writes, "Many of the comics now nostalgically celebrated by Hajdu and Chabon were extremely unsavory in their social attitudes. EC comics regularly featured husbands and wives ending marital spats with knives, axes, and poison. On the racial front, Will Eisner's much-loved Spirit featured a Sambo-like sidekick named Ebony White, who was childish, had thick lips, and spoke in an illiterate minstrel dialect..."

It seems simpleminded, or at least awfully lazy, to conflate my novel, which offers no arguments, with Mr. Hajdu's nonfiction, which is built of them, but the lapse could also be explained by Mr. Heer's having failed to read the novel, or at least to have read it carefully or recently.

This is what the novel has to say about Dr. Wertham, who does not quite make "a cameo appearance," at least not in the sense that that other real-life figures, such as Orson Welles or Salvador Dali, do. I'd say it's closer to a namecheck, but that's a semantic matter, I suppose.

Here is what I wrote:

"Dr. Frederic Wertham, a child psychiatrist with unimpeachable credentials and a well-earned sense of outrage, had for several years been trying to persuade the parents and legislators of America that the minds of American children were being deeply damaged by the reading of comic books. With the recent publication of the admirable, encyclopedic, and mistaken Seduction of the Innocent, Dr. Wertham's efforts had begun to bear real fruit; there had been calls for controls or outright bans, and in several southern and midwestern cities local governments had sponsored public comic book bonfires, onto which smiling mobs of American children with damaged minds had festively tossed their collections." (p. 478)

The tone settles on mockery right at the end, I suppose, but not of Dr. Wertham himself, or even of his flawed work; it mocks those who took that work as license to engage in censorious and barbaric behavior as bad as anything in the pages of Tales from the Crypt.

Later, in my fictional version of the Kefauver subcommittee hearings, I wrote:

"The first [witness] was Dr. Fredric [sic!] Wertham, the considerable and well-intentioned psychiatrist and author of The Seduction of the Innocent, who was, morally and popularly, a motive force behind the entire controversy over the pernicious effects of comic books. The doctor testified at great length, somewhat incoherently, but dignified throughout and alive, ablaze, with outrage." (p. 613)

The phrase "somewhat incoherently" might be construed as mocking, but if so, it is mockery qualified and counterbalanced by admiration if not quite approval. In any case I believe that a consultation (admittedly time-consuming and tiresome for Mr. Heer) of the transcripts from the hearings, available at any major library, would bear out the accuracy of those adverbs.

As far as I can tell or recall, that's pretty much all the novel has to say about Wertham, except for one minor character who refers to him as a "fountain of gloom." (p. 478)

None of these statements constitutes calumny; they barely qualify as mockery in my view, certainly in comparison to the tone the novel takes with other witnesses at the hearings, such as the pornographer Samuel Roth.

In fact my personal view of Wertham, reflected in the novel itself, had progressed beyond the simplistic condemnation ("Easy enough to mock...") or demonization that Heer suggests well before I actually wrote the relevant scenes in the novel itself. No one who does even the most rudimentary research into Wertham's career and accomplishments can fail to admire him for his compassion, his intelligence, his desire to help children, and his fairly snappy prose style. He was not wrong about the meretriciousness or offensiveness of many of the comics he condemned, though he was wrong about a lot of them; nor was he wrong when he argued that many of the stories featured inappropriate material for young children. It was Wertham's boneheaded inferences about the direct causal connection between, say, "headlight" comics and "deviance" in children, not to mention the hysteria his inferences helped to foster (along with a counter-hysteria among comics fans) that have tarnished his admirable legacy.

As for the racist, misogynist, violent comics for which I am averred so nostalgically to pine, I defy anyone to find evidence for such a sentiment in anything I have ever written or said, in Kavalier & Clay or elsewhere. Talk about easy generalizations.

I just reread K&C, and even on a second reading I have to admit I came away with an impression of Wertham as a purse-lipped, censorious mother hen who hadn't bothered to understand the liberating effect many, if not most, comics had on the imaginations of the young of his era. Now, having read MC's focused account of his statements on the man, it's obvious that I contributed a good deal of that impression all on my own. Perhaps that was MC's intention, knowing that the very idea of Senate hearings on matters of literature would summon the ghost of McCarthy while leaving the writer with wiggle room to deny that he ever meant any slander on Dr. Wertham.

Wow, you're a wordy mofo Chabon. You need to read more Hemingway.

and most balanced discussion of Wertham is collected in The Immediate Experience, by Robert Warshow. ""Paul, the Horror Comics, and Dr. Wertham," an essay published in 1957, deals in conflicted fashion with Warshow's own reaction to the comics (horror and disgust); his observations as to their effect on his 11 year old son (probably none); and his assessment of Dr. Wertham as well-meaning but lacking in perspective.

My response to Chabon is brief.

1) I said that Wertham makes “brief and unsympathetic cameo" in The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay; the quotes Chabon provides from his book support this description of how Wertham is presented in the novel, briefly and unsympathetically.

2) I wrote “Many of the comics now nostalgically celebrated by Hajdu and Chabon were extremely unsavory in their social attitudes.” Chabon contests this. But surely any good reader of Kavalier & Clay would acknowledge that the novel is suffused with a nostalgic appreciation of the early comic books (that’s one of the strengths of the book: that it evokes the excitement of the pioneering days of the superhero). As for many of these books being “extremely unsavory in their social attitudes”, a few minutes flipping through reprints of the early stories of Will Eisner and Jack Kirby (two artists Chabon and I both love) will answer that question.

3) My purpose wasn’t to cast aspersions on Chabon as a novelist or to upbraid him for his nostalgic celebration of early comics. He’s a great writer and like him I find the early comics to be imaginatively nurturing (I love Chabon for many reasons but especially for calling attention to the greatness of Jack Kirby). My only point was that there is a complexity to Wertham as a historical figure that doesn’t come through in many accounts of his career, including the brief and unsympathetic references to him in Kavalier & Clay.

Though I've stayed out of this discussion (and others) of Wertham's work and legacy, preferring that my book on the man speak for itself, I did want to make one minor correction regarding the inference that I have been directly critical of Michael Chabon's characterization of Wertham. I have not.

At the same time, in correcting what he sees as Heer's errors, Chabon draws attention to a few minor ones of his own. It may be a simple thing, but Wertham was not, as Chabon indicates in his novel, a child psychiatrist, although he did see children in the course of his practice. Further, the historical chronology presented on p.478 seems off, insofar as it seems to imply that the calls for banning and bonfires were a result of the publication of Seduction of the Innocent, which appeared in April 1954, two days before the Senate hearings, and which more closely marked the conclusion of the anti-comics debate.

I disagree with Chabon's reading of Wertham on the issue of causation, but I deal with that in great depth in my own book and won't rehearse the argument here since we seem to agree on most other significant points in this matter.

And, if by chance he is reading this, I would like to let Mr. Chabon know how much I enjoyed his portrait of the comic book industry at that historical moment, even as I think that some of the material in Wertham's archives indicate that it may have been even darker than the sometimes grim portrait that he paints.

I suppose commentors could quibble endlessly about the meaning of "unsympathetic," and whether Chabon's descriptions fall in that definition. I'd like to say (as someone totally unqualified to comment on the merits of the debate) that one of the things I love about Chabon's writing is his ability to capture and convey the fully complexity of a character with compassion and wit. Knowing next to nothing about Wertham when I read K&C, I found his descriptions of Wertham to be both critical and sympathetic; recognizing the man's passion and good intentions and also the misguided and flawed nature of his conclusions and efforts. In other words, an entirely human protrayal of a complicated man.

ephemeral that endure because of collectors and isolate historically attitudes of the times.

That is one reason why such comics are not only valid but are becoming researched.

To deny that this past exists, is to move forward with rose-colored glasses, waiting for an Angel to pass on a sacred text.

Authenticity in comic book writing (found in indies now I think) is what keeps this part of us alive.

What would the 80s be after all without Rogue's Big Hair.

rojac68:

Wow, you're a wordy mofo Chabon. You need to read more Hemingway.

So, everyone should write like Hemingway? What a bore that would be. MC's wordage is brilliant and fun. Lighten up.