Josette Frank: Alone Against the Storm, Part 3

May 23, 1944

To The Sponsors of SUPERMAN
Mutual Broadcasting Company

Gentlemen:

     This is written in a spirit of friendly criticism, but definitely criticism.
     Your Superman Program seems to me to defeat the very purpose for which it was intended. I assume you mean to "get across" the idea of Superman as the power of Good which overcomes or frustrates all the evil in the world.
     At this point let me say that I believe it is wrong to implant in a young child's mind the idea that the control of good and evil may be lodged in a being such as Superman. We should rather try to raise a generation of healthy minded youth with well-balanced emotional lives. For when people grow up mentally and emotionally in a healthy and well-adjusted way the juvenile problem will be so minor as to be practically extinct, and children are not going to achieve healthy emotional adjustments by being fed such food for emotional digestion as your program furnishes.

     So began a long and well-reasoned letter from listener Margaret Linnell detailing her concerns and likely reflecting those of other parents.
     "To the average child your program is emotionally exciting, the lurid and frightening events (such as gas attacks terrorizing a whole city, ape men, men with queer quirks of personality and physique, gunmen, spies) assuming such prominence as to be the one thing which remains in their minds. They mull it over and feed their imaginations with it until real harm results.
     Children have unusually vivid imaginations and little sense of discernment.
     My own son, aged six, perhaps a bit young for Superman, but the same experience has been true of [my] older boy became frightened to go to bed, had nightmares and finally became very upset when left in his room to go to sleep. He never had been a timid child.
     I finally banned Superman and in a few days everything was back to normal."

     Linnell's rational letter resonated. This wasn't a knee-jerk diatribe written by a parent with an unfocused sense of moral outrage. Moreover, the problems she had with the radio version of Superman could also be applied to the published one.
     "Do you not think that instead of holding before children the evil, the undesirable ways of acting, the wrong sort of conduct, and dramatizing it, that a better approach would be to feature the normal, clean everyday goodness and fun which should be at the root of a child's life?"
     Josette Frank was effectively employed to be the arbiter of Superman's moral code. Given that she had invested so much of her own belief system into his heroic persona made any such attack personal. The Child Study Association had been founded upon Felix Adler's principles that premised the Ethical Culture Movement. Its most important goal was educating children and along with that, stressing socially responsible morality. That a parent could find a character imbued with those attributes troubling was in itself troublesome.     Frank's oversight of Superman had taken him from his roots as a Jerry Siegel's wisecracking, vigilante strong man, through his evolution into the virtuous Big Blue Boy Scout. A teenage fantasy re-imagined as a symbol of America itself. Was the letter-writer objecting to this personification in light of the German Übermensch that the country was fighting at the time or was it a rejection of a preternaturally powered, God-like protector in general?
     Furthermore, Linnell's letter seemed to fear the effect of the, "emotionally exciting, the lurid and frightening events," would have upon children. This stance flew in the face of Frank's assurance that not all childhood reading need be "saturated with sweetness and light" and that a healthy serving of "good red meat" reading was allowable as well.
     Linnell wasn't the only one expressing these complaints. Her letter was representative of other parents, of certain other concerned adults, whose voices would become increasingly louder and far less polite.
_______________________________________________________

     While many historians have usually viewed the controversy surrounding comic books in a vacuum, the fact is that effect that such popular mass media as radio and film had upon children was a larger battleground of which comics, initially, were just a skirmish. The brewing conflict over comic books was already being fought over children's radio programming and Frank was uniquely positioned to see both battles. 
      Frank and Bob Maxwell saw the Superman radio program as an opportunity. Rather than just choosing to not offend, they sought ways to set an example.
     "I have given a great deal of thought to the problem we discussed the other day--the possibility that something new and fine and important can be added to the late afternoon children's radio hour," wrote Frank to Maxwell in a September 29th, 1944, letter, "And the more I think about it the more excited I am about what might be done. It seems that the time is ripe for just such an event in juvenile radio."
     Frank further noted, "In a country where radio is doing such magnificent things for adults, we have really neglected our children, both in terms of their commercial potential as an audience, and--since I am concerned , after all, as an educator--in terms of offering them really fruitful, in creative, cultural entertainment."
      "There is a great stirring in our educational and cultural world, and children are a part of it. I believe that some of our "best minds" are turned toward children these days and I believe could be brought to focus right now on the really rewarding business of shaping a new kind of radio entertainment for children."
     At the same time, comic publisher DC was doing all it could to get on the good side of the public. Their public relations arm, Superman, Inc., was actively coordinating very visible activities that would undoubtedly garner a favorable response. In a December 20, 1944, letter to Frank, Harry Childs described some of these efforts.
     "At the request of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs, we prepared a specialized History of the United States in comics continuity written with a slight emphasis on the contribution made by Spain and Portugal. This continuity was written in English and then translated into both Spanish and Portuguese. Two editions were printed for Latin-American distribution and I am enclosing copies."
     "At the request of the Navy Department, we are preparing a series of graded readers for use with Navy Personnel. For sometime [sic] the Navy has been taking men who must be classified as illiterates and has undertaken the job of teaching them to read. In setting up the requirements of reading material, the Navy selected comic magazines since they are both extremely popular with service personnel and are well suited to providing reading experience--small blocks of copy supported by illustration."
     Childs went on to inform Frank, "These two activities, plus many more in the work, underline the increasing recognition of the comics continuity technique. As additional material becomes available I will see that you are kept informed...".
     One such widely distributed publication was the SUPERMAN WORKBOOK, which reportedly made its way into some 2,500 classrooms across the country. This effort as part of the Superman Good Reading Project contained, "...vocabulary exercises of various kinds in addition to the pictures stories.", ¹ and sported Fred Ray's classic SUPERMAN #14 cover of the titular character holding a bald eagle and posing before a stars and stripes emblazoned shield on both its front and back. The choice of this cover, which featured Superman virtually wrapped in the American flag, was certainly not coincidental.
     "In the meantime," Childs implored Frank, "I hope you will give some time to the thought of the potential application of "words, pictures and color in continuity." Needless to say, I will be anxious to hear your opinions, criticisms, suggestions, etc."
 _______________________________________________________

     Even with the efforts to set the  Superman program apart from the rest of the offending rabble, Frank found that not everyone saw the difference. An indiscriminating view that crossed international boundaries.

Dear Miss Grannan:

      I am very much interested in the new that the question of "horror programs" is to be on the agenda of your CBC national conference. It seems a little strange that such programs as the general run of our afternoon serials should be included in that category, since when I think of horror programs I think of the more or less adult presentations such as The Shadow and The Inner Sanctum etc.

     There was a growing backlash in Canada against "horror programs" aimed at children. So much so, that during 1944, the state-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) recommended that local stations not renew the contracts for such shows. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters went a step further, "...endeavoring to find concrete cases of this type of program contributing to juvenile delinquency." ²
    Frank's January 9th, 1945, letter to Mary Grannan, CBC supervisor of children's broadcasts, was likely a preemptive strike meant to provide some separation between Superman and legitimate horror programs. Still, Frank didn't totally disagree with Grannan's view.
     "However I do think that once or twice the Superman program has gone overboard in that direction--notably when I was away on my vacation last summer, and in case you heard last Friday's Superman (which I hope you did not) it had a few touches which were done over my dead body and screams of protest. But this is not the usual thing, and as a rule I would hardly call it a horror program."
     There was related matter, unaddressed by Frank, that concerned the producers of Superman. A concern detailed in a February 12th letter from Robert Maxwell to a parent. 

Dear Mr. Duboff,

     The production department of the Mutual Network has informed me that you called to discuss the HOUSE OF MYSTERY program on the basis that a large group of parents in your locality objected to its content. Since HOUSE OF MYSTERY is produced under my personal direction, your inquiry was referred to me.
     As I understood it, you characterized HOUSE OF MYSTERY as "too much like INNER SANCTUM". I am amazed at this since the two programs are diametrically opposed. As a matter of fact, HOUSE OF MYSTERY was created to combat the so-called "unexplained" or psychological horror programs to which so many  children are addicted. The main purpose of HOUSE OF MYSTERY is to explain and expose, to assure youngsters that the occult, the supernatural and the spiritualistic do not exist; to allay fears of the darkness and to show them that wherever supernatural manifestations are said to exist, they can be traced to natural phenomenon or man-made effects.

     The HOUSE OF MYSTERY program is under the editorial guidance of Miss Josette Frank of The Child Study Association of America and the psychiatric guidance of Dr. Loretta Bender, Chief of the Children's Psychiatric Division of Bellevue Hospital, both of whom are convinced that in HOUSE OF MYSTERY we have the first children's entertainment vehicle possessed of therapeutic value.

     Although its spooky organ music and funereal intro delivered by Roger Ellliott, "the Mystery Man", would seem to belie the difference between House of Mystery and other horror programs, Maxwell's assurance was backed by his offer to Duboff to have a meeting. The meeting, which would be attended by either Frank or Bender, was Maxwell's attempt to find a common ground.   
     "You have a great deal at stake as the parent; we have a great deal at stake as the creators and producers of juvenile entertainment, which, to be successful must meet with your approval."  
      Whether such accommodating measures were common in an attempt to placate upset parents is unknown. But it does go to the heart of the matter as it shows the level of concern felt within Superman, Inc. and by extension, throughout DC. Although Superman had originated within the pages of comics, the radio program had brought the character into virtually every home and decisions made on the show affected how he was presented in the comic book. And other than Bob Maxwell, nobody affected how he was presented on the radio program more than Josette Frank.

  _______________________________________________________

     Novelty Press was the comic book imprint of Curtis Publishing, publishers of the venerable SATURDAY EVENING POST, influential LADIES HOME JOURNAL and JACK & JILL children's magazine. With such a respectable legacy to protect, managing editor Robert D. Wheeler hoped to show that his comics were on the side of the angels and the quickest way there was to get Frank's approval.

March 7, 1945


Dear Miss Frank:

      The inclosed [sic] copy of FRISKY FABLES represents our effort to produce a magazine of the highest type in its field, a "comic" appealing to very small children.
     You will notice that some of the humor will go over the heads of our tiny tots,. We don't think the story value is impaired thereby, however; and frankly our intention was to give a bonus of entertainment value to the adult who has to read the comic to the child.
     As arranged in our telephone conversation, Novelty Press would like an appraisal of FRISKY FABLES by your staff, on the usual paid basis. Not a detailed analysis and study of individual strips, but a general summing up of how ell or how poorly we have accomplished our aims, with perhaps comment on anything particularly deserving praise or censure. 
     We appreciate greatly the fact that you have found TARGET COMICS, BLUE BOLT, and 4-MOST of a standard high enough to warrant your recommending them. I am inclosing [sic] a recent copy of BLUE BOLT to show how our Q and A feature is liked by readers, as shown by readers' letters. Note how we have sandwiched educational [material] among others.

     Frank's response apparently pleased Wheeler, as a few weeks later in a letter dated March 29, she received his appreciative reply along with his acknowledgement of a recommended aid.
     "All the members of our editorial staff are pleased to think that you were so favorably impressed by our new comic magazine, FRISKY FABLES.
     We appreciate also your comments about the Q's and A's, and about the way in which the negro child is introduced in "Fearless Fellers". We are familiar with the booklet "How Writers Perpetuate the Stereotypes" and believe our policies generally are in accordance with the ideas expressed therein."
     Wheeler's familiarity with the recently published (January, 1945) booklet is not surprising, nor is the implication that it was mentioned to him by Frank.
     Produced by the Writer's War Board (the main propaganda organization for the U.S. during WWII), "How Writer's Perpetuate the Stereotypes" took a hard look at the prevailing racial stereotyping in America at the time.
     The Board, chaired by famed mystery writer Rex Stout, conducted an extensive survey of current media--film, radio, advertising, theater, and the various print forms--and ranked each according to how sympathetically it treated minorities. Theater was at the top of the list, novels and motion pictures followed. More than halfway down were comics.
     Frank was certainly aware of this poor showing. It follows that she would attempt to change the portrayal of minorities within comic books as it fit with her, and the CSAA's, similar efforts in children's literature.
     In 1943, the CSSA had established its Children's Book Award based upon rewarding a book, "for young people that deals realistically with problems in their own world". The CSAA was especially appreciative of books that reflected its own progressive attitudes of brotherhood and social significance. 
     This sometimes meant that they would attempt to influence authors themselves. Frank was known to have asked writer Doris Gates to change a white character in a story to an African American ³. That she would hope to similarly influence comic book editors is understandable and it didn't end with her suggestions to Wheeler.
  _______________________________________________________

March 4, 1946

Dear Mr. Maxwell,

     It is with the greatest of pleasure that I accept your invitation to serve as the consultant for the Superman Radio Program insofar as the subject  of intergroup relations is concerned. Those of us associated with me and I are delighted that you are going ahead with this type of program because we think it can make a very important contribution to the promotion of understanding and respect among Americans of all backgrounds.

     This letter from Willard Johnson, vice-president of the National Conference of Christians and Jews, was welcome news. Frank had solicited this organization for their help ⁴ and this confirmation of their input was just what she and Maxwell had hoped for.
     Frank had long envsioned a greater purpose for Superman beyond the everyday crime-fighting limitations placed upon him by his writers. She found a sympathetic ally in Maxwell, who was able to convince W. H. Vanderploeg, president of  the program's sponsor Kellogg's and its advertising agency, Kenyon & Eckhardt, that having a social conscience was commercially possible.
     It didn't take long after the first installment of "The Hate Mongers Organization" broadcast on April 16th for the first reviews to come in.
     "Though he did not make the headlines, Superman was news of a rather high order last week," wrote radio columnist Jack Gould, "Disregarding his conventional excursions in escapism, he set out on a new series of adventures in which he proposes to combat the more mundane evils of racial and religious intolerance, adolescent gangsterism and other related problems of the juvenile." ⁵
     The story arc follows the efforts of Superman and his pal Jimmy Olson to thwart the Guardians of America hate group and their acts of terrorism against the multi-cultrural Untiy House. Though the malicious organization is revealed to be [SPOILER ALERT] conveniently led by a former Nazi spy, this was the show's earliest attempt at potentially controversial subject matter and its positive reception encouraged further socially conscious storylines.
     The vice-president of the CSAA, Mrs. Hugh Grant Straus, took the occasion of a mention in the liberal PM daily newspaper to explain the rationale and development of the new direction of the radio program in a letter to the editor dated May 20th.

Dear Sir,

     I was delighted to note your salute to the new series on the Superman radio program.
     I believe your readers would be interested to know that the Radio Committee of the Child Study Association of America through Josette Frank, its staff adviser, has been consulting with the Superman program and working with its producers for a number of years. The idea of using Superman's special popularity for fighting intolerance was a composite of many consultations and was directly encouraged by a meeting called by this Association to discuss ways in which children's programs might be used to further good interracial and intercultural relations. For the present series, our Committee listened to trial recordings and called upon psychologists, psychiatrists, and propaganda specialists to advise the producers who found themselves with a challenging problem on their hands--entertainment with a purpose.
     We want to join with you in applauding the sponsor (Kellogg's) and the producer (Robert Maxwell Associates) who were willing to put so much blood, sweat and tears into a risky and difficult experiment. We who watched and worked with it since the inception of the idea know what it takes.

     While the next story arc concerning the corruption of poor youth from the slums by a crooked politician ("Al Vincent's Corrupt Political Machine") continued along the path of social awareness, it was the following episodes that elicited both the most praise and the most condemnation. 
     Beginning on June 10, "The Clan of the Fiery Cross" depicted the torments visited upon a young Chinese-American boy named Tommy Lee and his family by a group of "True American" bigots determined to drive them out of Metropolis. Clearly based upon the real Ku Klux Klan, the organization dubbed the Clan of the Fiery Cross is [SPOILER ALERT] eventually stymied and captured as Superman, once again, saves the day.
       Perhaps predictably, there were threats from what Frank characterized as "the lunatic fringe" ⁶  and some southern U.S. radio stations protested this storyline, but the press was generally positive in their appraisal of Superman's newly formed social agenda.
     Typical was Harriett Van Horne, who wrote in her September 10th column,"Kids admire him now more than ever, it would seem, because his exploits concern matters within their ken. He talks back to the governor and outwits the state police and raises funds for the needy. Along with eating bins of corn flakes, the sponsor hopes the youngsters will imbibe some of Superman's sympathy for the underdog." ⁷
     Unmentioned, but an underlying motivation was the bedrock belief of the Ethical Culture movement to which the CSAA was dedicated: the establishment of a morality based upon socially beneficial acts free of religious dogma. It can't be overlooked that as the other-worldly Kryptonian was inherently devoid of Earthly religious ties, a being who did good deeds for the sake of goodness itself, Superman was the fictional personification of that belief.
  _______________________________________________________

     Harry Childs was serving as editorial director of promotional comics publisher General Comics when he received a December 11, 1946 letter from Frank regarding her critique of a proposed comic he had sent her.
     "My criticism had to do solely with the philosophy that was enunciated by the hero of your strip when the only advice he could offer to two quarreling children was to learn how to fight so that one of them could win. You realize of course that by this precept one of them will also lose. It seems to me that on the positive side we will do well to teach our children that there are things worth fighting for and worth fighting against in this world, and that they can find things more worth fighting about than petty personal advantage. The fight against injustice, against disease, against ignorance--all these offer a most valuable outlet for children's aggressions too."
     Later that same day, Frank wrote yet another letter to Childs concerning a feature at DC.
     "I have been thinking quite a lot about Johnny Everyman and the possibilities he offers for selling America to American children. In a way I think it would be a pity to take him off his international mission. All the educators right now are urging us to do something for children on the U.N. theme, and certainly you are doing it in Johnny Everyman. This idea is more wanted now than ever."
     Ostensibly created in cooperation with the Pearl Buck-led East and West Association, Johnny Everyman was an attempt,"to further understanding between peoples", according to the blurb prominently displayed on the splash page of each story. Often scripted by Jack Schiff, DC editor and writer well-known for his liberal views, the feature put the lead character in situations wherein he could teach impressionable youngsters lessons in tolerance.
     "It occurs to me that you might do one of two things:  (1) Introduce a new character of this type in another book whose mission would be to show our children what goes on in these United States. There is plenty of wonderful material to draw from, and I would like to talk with you about this idea. Or (2) you might use Johnny Everyman in the United States to show the contributions of various nationality groups to the building of America. I have some excellent source material of this kind and this too, is an aspect of American life which is very much wanted by educators and librarians and which plays into the U.N. theme."
     "Think about these two possibilities a bit, and let's talk about it further. I'd like to see you take the lead in this."
     Despite Frank's enthusiasm for the feature, Johnny Everyman disappeared from the pages of DC comics within a few months, doomed, perhaps, by George E. Sokolsky's nationally syndicated column of June 29, 1946.
     "Do you know what your children are reading? Do you ever pick up the comics to which they are so devoted?", he asked rhetorically.
     "The other day, I picked up "World's Finest Comics" and noted a distinguished editorial advisory board," wrote Sokolsky as he dutifully listed Frank and the others, "So I thought that with such a group of advisers, this must be something extraordinary indeed. On the very next page to this listing of these great names appears a comic entitled "Johnny Everyman".
     Sokolsky recounts the story of a young boy named Niikitin ("Nicky") brought before a "young people's court" in the Soviet Union on a charge of theft. The boy kept the bolt of cloth he claimed to have found since he "had his head turned" by pictures he saw in an American magazine. Johnny Everyman appears in the court and is allowed to speak in the boy's defense. "You see, Nicky, in the first place, although America is far ahead of Russia in production, not everybody in America possesses the things you saw advertised in that magazine."
     This does not sit well with Sokolsky.
     "Of course, Nikitin does not read that. No Russian child will read any American comic. All this is for American children."
     Sokolsky finishes detailing the rest of the story and concludes that this means just one thing.
     "In a word, to the child reading that strip, Americans must appear mean and hateful."
     "And there is not a single thing in the cartoon to show democracy or decency in America. The question is asked, by no one answers about freedom of speech, of movement, of thought, of the press,of secret elections, of trial by jury and the privacy of one's home and possessions. Not one word of this."
     "Is that what you want your children to learn about their country? Is that how you would teach them to love their country?"  ⁸
     Any dreams Frank may have had expanding Johnny Everyman's mission were never going anywhere. Having already incurred the wrath of the powerfully connected Sokolsky (he counted J. Edgar Hoover among his close friends), DC wasn't about to draw any more unwanted attention to its comics.Soon there would be attention enough coming from other quarters and  Sokolsky wouldn't be among its biggest concerns.           
 _______________________________________________________

1  "Issues Relating to the Comics", THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL, pg. 642, (May 1942).

2  "CBC Hits Horror Shows", BROADCASTING, pg. 24, (Dec. 25, 1944).

3   Mickenberg, Julia L., LEARNING FROM THE LEFT, pg. 329,  (2005).

^{4   Bowers, Rick, SUPERMAN VERSUS THE KU KLUX KLAN, pg. 119 (2012).}

5   Gould, Jack, "On the New Superman", NEW YORK TIMES, April 28, 1946.

6   Ohio State University, EDUCATION ON THE AIR YEARBOOK, vol. 17, pg. 158, (1947).

^{7  Van Horne, Harriet, "Superman's Message is For Grownups, Too", NEW YORK WORLD-TELEGRAM, Sept. 10, 1946.}

8  Sokolsky, George E., "These Days: The Reading of Children", June 29, 1946.

Josette Frank: Alone Against the Storm, Part 2

March 10, 1942
 
The Most Reverend John F. Noll, D.D.,
Bishop of Fort Wayne,
Fort Wayne, Ind.

Your Excellency:

     It has been called to my attention that our most recent publication, "Sensation Comics", is included in the N.O.D.L. listing -- Classification for March, 1942.
     While I am pleased to see that comic magazines as a whole have been eliminated from this N.O.D.L. list, I am, of course, rather concerned that "Sensation Comics" was included, particularly in view of the fact that I was the originator of the entire comic magazine field.
     Overlooking Max Gaines' bit of self-aggrandizement at the end of that paragraph, the content of his letter to Bishop Noll revealed a real problem for All-American Comics. The National Organization for Decent Literature (NODL), a Catholic Church group led by Noll and founded in late 1938 to combat "lewd literature", had singled out SENSATION COMICS for condemnation. While the comic's title was likely troubling in itself, it was its star that led to to the ban.
     "You will no doubt recall a visit made to you the latter part of August of last year by Miss Josette Frank of the Child Study Association and Mr. Harry E. Childs of our Executive Department, as a result of which three of the Superman-DC Publications, "Adventure", and "Detective Comics", and "Superman", were taken off the N.O.D.L. list."
     Frank was obviously being utilized more and more as the respectable voice of DC/AA. The line between her various employers had become blurred to the point that at a February, 1942, conference on children's radio programming, Frank represented Superman, Inc., while other speakers appeared on behalf of the CSAA.That she was being paired with public relations man Childs indicates that the publisher wanted to take no chances that their point of view was misconstrued.
     "I am sending you the last several issues of "Sensation Comics", and I call your particular attention to the May issue, in which we publish Alice Marble's endorsement of "Wonder Woman", and the page entitled, "Have You A Civilian Defense Club In Your School?"
     I am also enclosing some other material about comic books and our Educational and Defense activities which may prove interesting to you.
     Would you be good enough to advise me, at your earliest convenience, which of the five points in your "Code for Clean Reading" has been violated by anything which appears in "Sensation Comics"?"
     The NODL code Gaines was referencing directed that literature is banned which:
     1)  Glorifies crime or the criminal
     2)  That is predominantly "sexy"
     3)  That features illicit love
     4)  That carries illustrations indecent or suggestive
     5)  That carries disreputable advertising ¹
     Gaines' request as to which of the points was violated by SENSATION came in Bishop Noll's letter of March 13th.

Dear Mr. Gaines,

      I have your letter of March 10 attached to the April, May and June numbers of SENSATION COMICS, for which I thank you.
     Practically the only reason for which SENSATION COMICS was placed on the banned list of the N.O.D.L. was that it violates Point Four of the Code in the same degree that many magazines do.
     Wonder Woman is not sufficiently  dressed nor are many of the characters with whom she deals. There is no reason why Wonder Woman should not be better covered, and there is less reason why women fall under her influence should be running around in bathing suits.

     Gaines had to be concerned, but surely not surprised. The suggestive qualities exhibited by Wonder Woman and the other Amazons, even though depicted in Harry G. Peter's somewhat archaic style, were readily evident to any reader. What had to be concerning for Gaines was the wide acceptance of the Code. Not only were millions of Catholics pledged to adhering to it, but so too were many others who responded to its bans.
     At the same time Wonder Woman was raising the ire of the Catholic Church, she was also enjoying growing popularity among readers of SENSATION. In a letter to Frank dated March 23, 1942, Gaines included a detailed survey comprised of readers' responses about their favorite features within SENSATION COMICS.
     "The remarkable thing about this tabulation is, first, the almost unanimous approval of "WONDER WOMAN", and her selection as first choice, not only among boys and girls, but also in every age group.
     Another surprising thing about this poll was the unusual number of coupons sent in by men and women--mostly women--over 18 years of age. We received over twenty-five such coupons among the first thousand replies, the same proportion of these twenty-five choosing "WONDER WOMAN" first, as did the boys and girls."
     Its hard to know how seriously Gaines took these results and furthermore, how he expected Frank to respond to them. The results of any such poll were inherently unscientific, taken as they were from a sampling of voluntary responses from readers already buying the comic with Wonder Woman as the lead feature. And Frank,who was concurrently conducting her own study of the effects of comic books, had to view such a survey with a jaundiced eye.
     In any case, Gaines followed this with another letter to Frank on May 4, in which he assured her that,"A copy of my letter of March 10 was shown to Mr. Liebowitz (both Mr. Maxwell's and Mr. Childs' superior in Detective Comics, Inc. and Superman, Inc. and partner in All-American Comics) before it was sent out to the Bishop."
     Enclosed was a copy of the letter he received from Bishop Noll.
     "We would have omitted SENSATION COMICS from our May objectionable list," wrote the Bishop, "if it were not for the fear of being charged with not applying the same rule to all publishers."
     "However, since we have no other comic magazines on our list, I shall instruct  the publisher of the ACOLYTE [the NODL house organ] to remove SENSATION COMICS from the June list."
     While Gaines was undoubtedly thrilled by Noll's absolution of SENSATION, Frank likely received the news with mixed emotions. She had her own concerns about Wonder Woman; concerns that would surface in the not-too-distant future.
________________________________________________________

May 18th, 1942

Dear Mr. Childs:

      You asked me to write to you about the meeting I attended at White Plains on the subject of the Comics.
     It was a a small group (perhaps thirty) composed largely of school librarians from all over Westchester County. On the panel, beside myself, were Miss Lockie Parker of Story Parade [note: a children's magazine], Mrs. Edmonds of the Ethical Culture Schools and someone from N.Y.U. The chairman was the M[t]. Vernon librarian with whom you corresponded. 
     Frank's letter to Childs recounted the program. Several readings of papers about comics, Sterling North's editorial, a couple of positive pieces including a DC published pamphlet and, "an attack on comics quoted from 'the eminent psychologist and college professor, Dr. William Marsten. [sic]' (I quote this from the reader's presentation)"
     After all the presentations had been made, including mine--the gist of which you are familiar with--the chairman said that she had hoped to have the D.C. publications represented by a big, husky  man at whom they might hurl their criticisms, and were therefore disappointed that "this nice lady" (meaning me) came instead!
     On the whole, I think the discussion accomplished something for those librarians who came to it with an open mind. The chairman was very emotional and resentful of the Comics. The others were, however, more thoughtful.
     Along with being the face of  DC/AA in such public venues, Frank was also becoming its scapegoat. Although she good-naturedly recalled the chairperson's gibe in her letter to Childs, she would increasingly find herself the subject of far less genial attacks.
 ________________________________________________________

Dear Miss Frank:

      Enclosed herewith please find a copy of the first chapter for the proposed SUPERMAN book which I promised to let you see at the first opportunity.
     When you have finished reading it, I'd appreciate it if you'd promptly return it to me with your comments.
     Hope Stanley [sic] was pleasantly surprised by the acceptance of his synopsis. The check I sent to DC to be forwarded to him, has probably already reached him.
     Best personal regards. I may be in New York near June 13th and hope to see you at that time.

Cordially, 
Jerry Siegel

    Siegel's mention of "Stanley" and the acceptance of his synopsis was a actually a reference to Frank's young son, Steve, who had submitted a Superman story idea. While this plot line wasn't used in either the comic or the radio program, it did garner a personal letter from Harry Childs and apparently, a check from the company. Coincidentally, it recalled a recently published, similarly themed comic written by Gardner Fox in FLASH COMICS #32 (Aug. 1942).
     More significantly, this letter of June 1, 1942, was accompanied by Siegel's 25-page opening chapter to his proposed Superman book. It was apparent from the first page that his writing exhibited more enthusiasm than skill. 
     "Hundreds of thousands of light years distant from our planet Earth there once rotated in space the colossal, proud planet of Krypton. No ordinary planet, this. Like our own world it supported life. But--unlike our world--the life on that far distant world had evolved millions of years beyond our own. Where Earth is peopled by Men, Krypton was inhabited by SUPERMEN!
     What is a SUPERMAN?
     A SUPERMAN is a human being whose physical structure is developed to the ultimate peak of physical perfection. He has a body that is at once astounding and beautiful to behold for sheer amazing physical development. And he has powers far beyond that possessed by ordinary men.
     For instance--the strongest man on Earth would have to struggle pretty desperately to raise a huge boulder into the air with his bare hands...if he could do it at all. But on planet Krypton it was a mere everyday occurrence for SUPERMEN not only to lift mighty boulders,but to rip tremendous mountain ranges apart!" ²
     Siegel's limitations as a writer were surely evident to Frank, who had made a career of critiquing books. Whether it was at her suggestion or not, Siegel was replaced as author by George Lowther, one of the writers of the radio program. Frank herself provided the book's foreword.
     "America has had many fabulous heroes. As our country grew, there sprang up tall tales of men whose wondrous deeds and strength were beyond ordinary men. In the great lumber country men told of Paul Bunyan, mighty logger, who moved mountains and changed the course of rivers to suit the lumbermen. The opening of the West created Pecos Bill, who could lasso a tornado and mount a demon stallion. As the railroads pushed south and west came black John Henry, steel-driver, spitting hot rivets and laying rails just ahead of the speeding trains. And now--Superman--wrestling with the mechanized might of today's world of airplanes and submarines and super-villainy." ³
     Frank saw something in Superman beyond his science fictional origin. To her, he was the latest hero of American myth; a mythos she was instrumental in crafting. And if she could help remake Superman, she could help change the public perception of comic books in general.
 ________________________________________________________

     Frank's opinion mattered. Not only in editorial matters, but also on a more personal level, as evidenced by a letter concerning a new publication.

 October 13, 1942

Dear Miss Frank,

     Thanks for your note of October 12th about "All-Flash", and for your interest in "Picture Stories from the Bible".
     You will be interested in knowing that a trial run of 100,000 copies of "Picture Stories from the Bible" was distributed in about 80 cities throughout the country and the results were sufficiently good to warrant our going back to press with an additional 235,000 for a national newsstand and chain store distribution.
     You will note that in the December issues of four or five of our magazines, we ran a full page ad with a coupon telling the youngsters that if they can't find "Picture Stories from the Bible" on the newsstand, to send in the coupon, with a dime. Yesterday and today, we received over 200 of these coupons, which is a very satisfactory response and an indication that there is a keen interest in this type of book.
     Plates for the second issue are now in work and it will go on sale in December.
     The third issue--the last of the Old Testament editions--(unless we decide to extend the fourth one to cover the balance of the Old Testament characters) will go on sale in March.
     I have letters from ministers of every Protestant denomination, praising "Picture Stories from the Bible", and we have sold many thousands directly to Protestant churches of every denomination, as we are giving them a special price of 5¢ a copy.
     A great many Jewish schools and Talmud Torahs have ordered and are ordering them every day.
     So you can see that on the whole, there has been a very favorable reaction, which is extremely gratifying to me personally because I had been working on this idea for a number of years and it's nice to know I am on the right track.
     Again thanking you for your interest, I am

Very sincerely,
M. C. Gaines
    
     It appears that Gaines valued Frank's approval of his pet project. Her approval wasn't always so easily won, though. A fact that Gaines would soon realize.
  ________________________________________________________

     To this point, most of the debate about comics had been chiefly academic. As demonstrated in Frank's letter, it was librarians, teachers and clergy who truly fretted over the effects of comics. Indeed, Frank herself shared some of these concerns, reflected in her continual commentary on the poor lettering and print quality of many comics.
 
February 3, 1943

My dear Harry:

     I want to tell you that I find the new "Boy Commandos" very good indeed and that I particularly like that fact that the lettering is good.
     The question of lettering remains, however, a very serious stumbling block to any wholehearted recommendation of the comics as reading matter for children. I think I have never gone to any meeting at which some parent has not said something to the effect that she has no objection to her children reading the comics except that they are dangerous to the eye-sight.
     You knew we have talked of this, you and I, many times and I feel that some progress has been made. Not, for example, "Bible Comics" [sic] whose lettering is above reproach. In the current action comics I find most of the lettering much better but not all of it.
     I still cannot understand, despite your editorial department's protest, why, if some comics can be well lettered, others cannot. I really wish you would give me a chance to talk with your editorial department on this subject, for as it is I find it impossible to defend you against attacks on the comics on this score.
     Won't you see if you can make some further effort along these lines?

     Arguments pro and con filled scholarly journals; credential-heavy professionals citing their own personal studies and quoting others. And although it was Frank who most often showed up in public venues and radio broadcasts, other members of the Editorial Advisory Board,--Thorndike, Sones, Bender--provided articles promoting the positive aspects of comics.
     In truth, most Americans had other concerns. The country was immersed in a war that was championed by nearly everyone, including comic book characters who fought the Axis with superhuman fervor and touted war bonds. It was hard to hate such good citizenship.
 ________________________________________________________

February 8, 1943

Dear Harry,

     Several people on my committee have pointed out to me what seems to be some violations of your own "code" in one of your publications. I refer to Wonder Woman, which flaunts a partly dressed woman on the cover.
     Since you yourself have old me that this voluntary restriction which you have put upon your magazines has been dace for the purpose of avoiding any possible criticism of the ground of being "sexy", I do believe this constitutes a violation of your policy.
     A further violation, it seems to me, is the fact that the "ladies" in this strip always seem to appear in chains or irons--whatever you would call them--and this might perhaps come under the head of sadism.
     I am passing these criticisms along to you because they have seemed important to our committee and therefore should be important to you. As for my own personal feeling about these factors you know how I have always felt about this particular strip, and I may say here that while I cannot honestly say that I think it would be damaging to children, I do believe it lays you open to justifiable criticism.

     Frank had touched a sore spot, but as the public face of AA/DC and their most vocal defender, her words were taken seriously by the publishers. Just to make sure that they were, less than a week later, in a letter to Gaines dated February 17th, she follows an evaluation of the lettering in ALL STAR COMICS by further stressing her concerns about Marston's Amazon.
     "May I take this occasion also to tell you that there has been considerable criticism in our committee concerning your WONDER WOMAN feature, both in SENSATION COMICS and in the WONDER WOMAN magazine. As you know, I have never been enthusiastic about this feature. I know also that your circulation figures prove that a lot of other people are enthusiastic. Nevertheless, this feature does lay you open to considerable criticism from any such group as ours, partly on the basis of the women's costume (or lack of it), and partly on the basis of sadistic bits showing women chained, tortured, etc.
     I wish you would consider these criticisms very seriously because they have come to me now from several sources. I should like very much to talk this over if you think that would help."
     While her initial letter to Childs apparently didn't produce any results, her letter to Gaines did.
     A memo from editorial assistant Dorothy Roubicek coming just two days after Frank's letter, contained suggestions that Wonder Woman be kept off Paradise Island and changes to her costume in pursuit of modesty.⁴
     Marston himself, having obviously been made aware of Frank's letter, shot off a reply to Gaines on  February 20th. In it, he called Frank, "...an avowed enemy of the Wonder Woman strip, of me and also of you insofar as she predicted that this strip would flop and you rubbed it into her that it hadn't." 
     The apparently infuriated Marston also chose to question Frank's loyalties to Gaines by declaring that she had, "...a determined drive to ruin this Wonder Woman strip if possible, or injure it all she can, and you can bet she's doing that everywhere she goes, despite the fact that you are paying her to work for you." ⁵
     Mixed opinions coming from other Editorial Advisory Board members, Bender and Sones, only exacerbated the debate. Fellow psychologist Bender generally sided with Marston's benign view of the feature, while education professor Sones agreed mostly with Frank.
     Gaines was on the fence. Here was a successful feature, perhaps his most successful, being attacked by comics' most ardent defender. Yet, while he was likely somewhat assuaged by reassurances from Marston and Bender, something about the strip bothered him as well. This lingering concern was actualized when Gaines received a letter from a reader professing the erotic pleasure they got from the thought of women in bondage.
     "This is one of the things I've been afraid of, (without quite being able to put my finger on it)," Gaines wrote to Marston in a September14th note,"in my discussions with you regarding Miss Frank's suggestions to eliminate chains."
     Gaines, though, offered a solution rooted more in corporate pragmatism than in addressing any bothersome psychological predilections or offensive depictions.
     "Miss Roubicek dashed off this morning the enclosed list of methods which can be used to keep women confined or enclosed without the use of chains. Each one of these can be varied in many ways--enabling us, as I told you in our conference last week, to cut down the use of chains by at least 50 to 75% without at all interfering with the excitement of the story or the sales of the books."
 ________________________________________________________

    "The Children's Book Committee of the Child Study Association has watched with increasing interest and concern the growth of comic magazines as a form of children's reading.Approximately twenty million of these magazines are circulated monthly. They appear to have almost universal appeal to children of all ages and both sexes, regardless of I.Q. or cultural background." ⁶
     These lines introduced the eagerly awaited results of the comic book survey undertaken by Frank and her very formally bylined colleague at CSAA, Mrs. Hugh Grant Straus. Appearing initially in the Summer 1943, issue of CHILD STUDY, "Looking At The Comics" became the oft-quoted argument in the defense of comic books.
     The survey undertook the task of studying and evaluating "about a hundred current comic magazines" in an attempt to,"offer suggestions by which parents and others may help children learn to discriminate among these as among other forms of reading." ⁷
     That is where Frank and like-minded comic defenders had chosen to make their stand. They conceded that not all comics were "good", understood to mean visually appealing, literate or thematically moral.
     What they had determined to do was establish a criteria for differentiating the "good" from the "bad". To accomplish this, Frank and Strauss separated comics into different genres: Adventure, Fantastic Adventure (superhero), Crime and Detective, War, Real Stories and Biographies, Love Interest (romance), Fun and Humor, etc.
     This categorization was quite possibly the first time comic books had been considered as subjectively unique. Although not part of their expressed purpose, this accurately presaged the genre specialization that would define the era of comics to come after the superhero-heavy boom years of WWII.
     The survey took pains to describe the general themes, to access their appeal and to determine their impact upon children.
     The genre they called Fantastic Adventure, "centering around a superhuman hero such as Superman or one with magic powers, as Mandrake the Magician," found that, "a frequent pattern is the changeling personality, assuming special powers with a change of costume. Sometimes there are pseudo-scientific devices, usually for grand-scale destruction. The villain is often a "mad scientist," and many of the stories are weird and grotesque."  ⁸
      Following the authors' disciplined script, each entry would offer perceived benefits and caveats, and most importantly, their recommendations to supervising adults.
     "These stories seem to satisfy the same emotional needs as do the traditional fairy tales: escape and wish-fulfillment. The fact that they combine fantasy with current, every-day life adds a satisfying element for our modern children. They undoubtedly serve many children as emotional release for feelings of aggression or frustration, and may have positive value in this respect.
     Some children, particularly those who are emotionally disturbed or insecure may need to be protected from a too-heavy reading diet of fantastic stories in this as well as in other literature. Adults object to a certain sameness about these stories, which may or may not bother the children. They are often not really imaginative but merely variations on a stereotype theme." ⁹
     Each theme in turn was reviewed in similar fashion.
     Despite her connection to the comic book industry, Frank was an unbiased critic. Her evaluations of comics were consistent with opinions she had expressed years before her employment by AA/DC. And her public criticisms matched her private communications. One example was her constant complaint about the lettering that was mentioned frequently in her correspondence and in the survey.
     "The whole question of legibility is a serious one, for many of the magazines appear to be a strain on children's eyes. Publishers should be urged to remedy this fault and children should be urged to select their magazines with this factor in mind." ¹⁰
     The survey concludes with an even-handed look at the Pros and Cons of Comics Reading.
     "To many adults, all comic books alike. This Committee, however, finds that these magazines cannot be grouped as all of a kind, or as either "good" or "bad". As in other publications there is a wide variety among them, not only in their content and drawing, but in their editorial standards. Some are carefully edited. Others are not. Some have amusing or interesting ideas, others not. Some have good drawing, good color work, good lettering, others not. It is important for us to recognize these differences and to help our children learn to discriminate among them." ¹¹
      Frank and Straus's survey was widely read and generally well received. One such enthusiastic response came from Catherine Mackenzie, NEW YORK TIMES writer of the influential Parent and Child column.
     "Your and Mrs. Straus's study is so full and rich that I've found it difficult to do anything adequate in a resumé," wrote Mackenzie in a June 30th letter to Frank, "so I've taken the highspot [sic] we talked about and added your comment. (The editor thinks it is 'very good indeed' and is pleased with the constructive suggestions)."
     Her subsequent July 11, 1943. article lauded, "the sheer physical endurance and mental stamina involved," and offered, "a vote of thanks," to both Frank and Straus. Along with a few highlights from the survey, Mackenzie paraphrases an interview with Frank.
     "One trouble with anti-comics tactics," wrote Mackenzie, "lies in an effort to substitute "good" books. Well, she (Frank) says, we can't. "We have to be realistic about it," and think no more of taking children "off" the comics than we do of taking them "off" candy--instead we offer them other food too." ¹²
  ________________________________________________________

     Not everyone, though, was as pleased with Frank and Straus's survey as Mackenzie.
     "It seems to me that after reading this article, " wrote George Hecht of Parent's Magazine Press in a June 11th letter to Frank, "parents, librarians and educators do not know any more as to which are good comics than they did before they read it. I believe that you should name the magazines in each classification which are the best of their type. Certainly, some of the magazines in each classification are better than others in the same classification. Why not tell your readers which are those of the better type in each group?"
     This was not the comics survey that Hecht had previously encouraged or expected. Moreover, although he actively sought Frank's approval of his comics in their previous correspondence, there was only a passing reference to his TRUE COMICS in the CSAA survey and he was clearly incensed by the perceived short shrift given his books.
     "In all the classifications of the comics except "Real Stories and Biographies" you have printed evaluations," Hecht continued, "However, under the classification which our principal comics come there is no general evaluation of our publications as they are now. You say they have potentiality for the future, implying that if they got better they may render a greater service. You say that some children like this kind, and some children like this and other kinds, and then you tell parents not to urge our kind of comics because they may prejudice children against them, but you do not publish any evaluation of the job our comics are doing."
     Hecht read something more into this slight. "I have an idea the you think our comics have not been very much of a success and that they are bought largely by  parents who force them on their children. We know this isn't so," he wrote, bolstering his argument with sales figures showing that his company's five current titles all had circulations between 250,000 to 350,000 copies each.
     Obviously exasperated, Hecht opined, "The most definite piece of advice that you give parents is to counsel them not to urge children to read our type of comics. When you stop to think it over, it has a humorous aspect!"  
     His final paragraphs, however, revealed what he thought the real reason was behind the lukewarm endorsement of his type of comic books. 
     "Furthermore, this survey is published as an unbiased study and yet it undoubtedly was largely prepared by you, who are [sic] a paid adviser and propagandist for a particular group of comics. This does not seem to be quite forthright particularly as no mention of your association with this comic group is made in connection with this survey.
     "And it seems to me the height of inconsistency that you should continue to have your name used as Chairman of the Editorial Advisory Board of comics, some of which have scantily clad women on the front covers, and that feature stories dealing with criminals and what appear to be degenerates--in general, comics that members of the Child Study Association and people who are influenced by the opinion of the Association, would surely not wish to have their children read."
     As angry as he was already, it can only be imagined what Hecht's reaction would have been if he had read the memorandum sent to Frank on April 14th by Harry Childs on Detective Comics, Inc. stationary.

SUBJECT: "True Comics"

Dear Miss Frank:

     As you suggested, I have asked Dave Marke to glance over a copy of "True Comics" that I happened to have in my office. This is dated September, 1942, and has two historical stories in addition to a number of current history treatments. Because of limited time, Dave confined himself to these two stories alone and has not even considered the remainder of the magazine. 
     The story "The Lost Colony" beginning on page 9, has several inaccuracies as indicated on page 11 of this marked copy. The date of Sir Richard Grenville's expedition is inaccurate, and the statement about 108 colonists is misleading in that nobody knows exactly how many colonists sailed with Grenville.

     What follows are four more paragraphs pointing out the historical inaccuracies in the two stories considered by Marke. While this intercompany evaluation alone would have been enough to infuriate Hecht, the identity of the evaluator would surely have made him explode.
     David Marke was the former editor of TRUE COMICS.
     Hecht even authored an introduction to Marke on the inside front cover of TRUE COMICS #1, "All of the art work and captions are supervised by our Editor, David T. Marke, a young but already eminent authority in the field of history." Marke's tenure at Parent's Press lasted until the fifth issue of TRUE, and in the small world of comic book publishing, he had landed at DC.
     "This is," Childs wrote in summary, "of course, a sketchy criticism of "True Comics" Miss Frank, but it does show what even a cursory examination will reveal. Fictionalization is fully justified only when it is quite clear that it is fictionalization, but should not be presented as Gospel.
     Hope this is helpful in your analysis."
     While it's not possible to know how much influence this information had upon Frank or the survey, knowing that DC had a hand in evaluating comics for her gave at least some truth to Hecht's insinuations.
 ________________________________________________________

January 29th, 1944

Dear Mr. Childs,

      I am enclosing herewith [a] copy of a letter to Mr. Gaines. I am sure this will be no news to you, for you have known for allong [sic] time that I have been disturbed about this feature. It seems to me most unsuitable as a member of your family.
     I am sorry if this request I am making causes any embarrassment to you or to anyone else. I can only assure you that I am making it after considerable deliberation and with deep regret.

     Frank had had enough. Her short note to Childs surely came as no surprise, nor did her qualified letter of resignation from the Editorial Advisory Board sent to Gaines. She could no longer allow her name to front the comics carrying the Wonder Woman feature.
     "Intentionally or otherwise, the strip is full of significant sex antagonisms and perversions," she wrote to Gaines, "Personally, I would prefer an out-and-out strip tease less unwholesome than this kind of symbolism."  ¹³
 ________________________________________________________

     Despite receiving a paycheck from and essentially serving as the conscience of  the company, Frank enjoyed a unique independence at DC (Gaines having recently been bought out and All American merged).
     Her position on the Book Committee at the CSAA was always her primary calling. And in that capacity, other comic book publishers would seek her guidance and hopefully, her approval. Among those was Robert Wheeler of Novelty Press. He came to her in regards to what probably was an early issue of FRISKY FABLES. Her response on September 22, 1944, showed the serious consideration given to even the smallest details.

Dear Mr. Wheeler,

      Several of our staff and Mrs. Straus, Chairman of our Children's Book Committee, have gone over the drawings you left with me and none of us feel hat the subject matter of the strip would be frightening. It has some touches about it which we like very much but there are some we felt should be eliminated. 
     One--we all agree with you that the animal should be either a rabbit or a kangaroo but not both. Personally I think a kangaroo would be more unusual and therefore I should like to see it definitely a kangaroo.
     Two--most of our staff felt very strongly about the "hotfoot", as being a rather cruel form of joke and always objectionable wherever it appears. I am afraid that I think the children would enjoy the hotfoot very particularly but as a parent and an educator I have always found it a very obnoxious form of joke. You will probably have to make your own decision about that.
     Three--we all object violently to the burning and threatened roasting of the hero. This is the only spot which I feel very strongly should definitely be eliminated. I think you would be just as well off or perhaps even better if you pictured your hero running away, pursued by the flames rather than threatened with cooking. The cries of help and the rescue by the elephant could still take place and this, by the way, is a touch we all liked.
     Four--some objection was raised to the use of the devil as a symbol of fire since he is a quasi religious symbol and his appearance here might be misinterpreted. Wouldn't your strip be just as effective if you used some other character invented for the occasion just as the ingenious little figure of the flame has been invented?
     The drawings in the whole strip is excellent and the humor is certainly the kind children will love. On the whole we would see no reason not to use it with the modifications I have suggested.
     I hope this criticism will prove helpful to you.
_______________________________________________________

     The Journal of Educational Sociology was, unsurprisingly, intended for a primarily academic audience.  Its pages were usually filled by serious-minded monographs authored by educators and social scientists trying to establish a basis of educational procedure in the relatively new discipline of educational sociology.
     Such a publication would seem to be an odd forum for the current sensationalistic debate over the effects of comic books upon children. But so it was that the December, 1944 issue not only was given over to this subject, it became the high-water mark of the comic book industry's offensive against the growing rumble of criticism.
     Under the umbrella title of "The Comics as an Educational Medium", the contents page listed "The Comics--There They Stand!" by issue editor, Harvey Zorbaugh, "The Comics as a Social Force" by CSAA directory, Sidonie Matsner Gruenberg, "The Psychology of Children's Reading and the Comics" by Dr. Lauretta Bender, "The Comics and Instructional Method" by W.W.D. Sones, "Some Uses of Visual Aids in the Army" by Major Paul Witty and Josette Frank's "What's in the Comics?".
     Each author took a different approach. Zorbaugh focused on the worldwide popularity of comics, Dr. Bender on the their relatively benign psychological effects based upon her own research, while Sones and Witty lauded the application of comics as learning aids.
     Frank's essay relied heavily on the results of the CSAA survey. She began by noting that, "Children of all ages, of high and low I.Q., girls as well as boys, good readers and nonreaders, in good homes and poor ones--the all read the comics, and read them with an avidity and an absorption that passes understanding."  ¹⁴
     As in her survey, Frank discussed each comic book category in turn. She took the time, though, to flesh out her survey evaluations and to add some further comments.
     When discussing "fantasy adventure" comics, Frank wrote that, "Indeed, man has always made such fantasy stories for himself. The myths and legends of ancient Greece, the folk legends of America's Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill, and the classic fairy tales themselves attest to the human need for escape and wish fulfillment."  ¹⁵
     While consistent with her often expressed beliefs of the beneficial aspects of comics, echoes of her foreword to George Lowther's Superman book could be heard.
     "Stories which push back the boundaries of reality have long served civilized man for the release of feelings of aggression and frustration. Identifying with "Superman", one can overcome all obstacles, do battle for the weak and against the wicked, triumph over one's enemies, and generally transcend the hampering restrictions of a hard world."  ¹⁶
     Frank's previous correspondence with Hecht garnered a more positive, yet still tepid approval of his historical/biographical comics.
     "They are sometimes both inspirational and instructive and point he way to new educational materials," she wrote, "As in other reading, there is a place in the comics for informational stories as well as for fiction and fantasy, and many children enjoy both."
     "There is no reason to believe, however," Frank continued, adding a qualification that would surely annoy the Parent's Press publisher, "that fact is more suitable than fiction for children's reading, or the assume that only "educational" stories are valid."  ¹⁷
     Frank was dismissive of jungle adventure comics, as in her view, "...struggles between rapacious monsters and fair maidens are hardly desirable juvenile reading."  ¹⁸
     Noting that at the time that romantic love only entered into a few comics, Frank observed, "For the most part hero and heroine are noble, courageous, chivalrous, and sexless." ¹⁹
     Her next comments, though, seemed more pointedly aimed at her battles over Wonder Woman.
     "Magazines that exploit the female form or picture amorous embraces with the obvious purpose of stimulating sex interests are certainly not suitable for children, nor are these found among the children's favorites."  ²⁰
     Notably, Frank's most favorable evaluations were given to comic book types published by DC and less enthusiastic reviews went to types not coming from that publisher. This subtle selectivity colored not only her essay, but that of her CSAA colleague Gruenberg, who also wrote a positive piece about comics, bolstered with examples from Fawcett Publications.
     It was likely more than coincidental that Zorbaugh and Gruenberg served on Fawcett's editorial advisory board, while Frank, Sones, and eventually Bender, served on DC's. Looking at it impartially, it is hard not to imagine that there wasn't some sort of coordination between the two publishers behind this effort. Though bitter and litigious rivals, they had a shared interest in maintaining their lucrative slices of the publication business.
     Fact was, that while not published by the comic book industry itself, this issue of the Journal of Educational Sociology effectively became its greatest public relations coup of the Forties.
     Soon though, such scholarly discussion would move into more publicly accessible venues, as the debate over comics was becoming anything but academic.
     ________________________________________________________

1  Catholic University of America, STUDIES IN PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY, pg. 22 (1943).

2  Siegel, Jerry, "The Origin of Superman", Chapter One, pg. 1 from unpublished SUPERMAN, (1942).

3  Frank, Josette, foreword to SUPERMAN by George Lowther, (1942).

^{4   Daniels, Les, WONDER WOMAN: THE COMPLETE HISTORY, pg. 62 (2004).}

5  Ibid.

6   Frank, Josette and Straus, Mrs. Hugh Grant, "Looking at the Comics", CHILD STUDY, pg. 112, (Summer 1943).

^{7  Ibid.}

8  Ibid., pg. 113.

9  Ibid.

^{10  Ibid., pg. 116.}

11  Ibid. 

12  Mackenzie, Catherine, "Children and the Comics", NEW YORK TIMES, July 11, 1943.

13   Daniels, op. cit., pg. 72. 
      
14  Frank, Josette, "What's in the Comics?", THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL SOCIOLOGY, pg. 214, (Dec. 1944).

15  Ibid., pg. 216.

16  Ibid., pg. 216-217.

17  Ibid., pg. 218.

18   Ibid., pg. 219.

19   Ibid., pg. 219-220.

20  Ibid., pg. 220.

Josette Frank: Alone Against the Storm, Part 1

     The history of modern American comic books is haunted by one person. Much anger has been directed at and much written about Dr. Fredric Wertham and his almost monomaniacal crusade against comics. 
     But what of the other side of the controversy? For there to be a controversy in the first place there had to be two sides. Who spoke up for the comic book medium?
     In fact, there were many, but one stands out; one who was steadfast; one who didn't relent.
     It's about time to meet Josette Frank.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS    

     The following text is the product of many sources, but chief among them were Stephen Jacobs and Judith Rosen, Josette's children, her grandson, Thomas Jacobs, and Lindsey Wyckoff, Archivist and Special Collections Librarian of the Bank Street College Library. But special thanks go out to Linnea Anderson, Archivist of the Social Welfare History Archives of the University of Minnesota. The vast majority of correspondence utilized in this text came from those archives and without Ms. Anderson's kindness and research help, this would not have been possible.
     I have made every attempt to make sure that all other sources are properly cited and noted. Unless otherwise noted, all correspondence comes from the aforementioned University of Minnesota Social Welfare History Archives.
      -- Ken Quattro
________________________________________________________

     Robert Maxwell had a lot riding on the success of the upcoming Superman radio program. Trumping that, publisher Detective Comics, Inc. (DC) had even more riding on it.They employed Maxwell and the newly incorporated Superman, Inc. to market their franchise superhero to America and the radio show was to be the platform.
     It hadn't been easy. After getting Hecker's Oats, who had once backed the Bobby Benson show, to agree to sponsorship, Maxwell and publicist Allen "Duke" Ducovny, were only able to sell the Superman program to ten regional stations.¹ Complicating matters was the concern among certain portions of the citizenry about the effect that "adventure" radio programs were having upon children.
     Such was the level of concern that Dr. John DeBoer of the University of Chicago, conducted experiments on 148 children who listened to radio programs while he recorded their respiratory and galvanic responses.
     "In situations of danger, combat, pursuit, flights and threats to the possession of some treasured object," he was quoted, "both boys and girls in the 6 to 8 group respond by gripping some article of furniture tightly, gasping, chuckling involuntarily, sobbing, laughing and weeping quietly." ²
     Keenly aware of the public scrutiny, the National Association of Broadcasters issued a industry-wide code in July, 1939, aimed at quelling their concerns.
     Still, the debate continued and as such, it was one of the topics discussed in a public forum held by the Child Study Association of America (CSAA) in November, 1939, to discuss matters affecting the "modern child". When it came to the portion of the meeting to broach the subject of children's radio programming, Josette Frank of the CSAA Radio Committee, noted that "approved" children's radio shows were not popular with children. She then offered the controversial opinion, "...that parents and teachers must realize that children's tastes are not those of adults." ³
     It's not known whether Maxwell or Ducovny were among the audience at the CSAA forum, but they surely were aware of Frank's point of view.
________________________________________________________

January 3, 1940

Miss Fielding 
c/o Mr. Bob Maxwell

Dear Miss Fielding:

     I have looked over the "Superman" script which you left with me and I have an idea it should be very popular radio program with the young.
      So far as the two scripts you left with me are concerned I can see no objection to the whatever. They seem to me harmless enough unless one brands all excitement as harmful, but I do not. Naturally I cannot give you any kind of opinion on the whole program on the basis of two scripts. I have no way of know[ing] that the 9th script may not contain something which I would object to and so of course I must confine my opinion to these which I have read.
      Do let me know if the program goes on as I shall look forward with considerable interest to hearing it. Knowing the hold which the magazine SUPERMAN has upon young readers, I would be curious to know whether the same fascination could be translated into this other medium.
      With best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours,
Josette Frank


     Maxwell and Ducovny must have been overjoyed to get Frank's approval of the two scripts. So overjoyed that they anticipated her thumbs-up in a press release even before Frank had written her response. This didn't go unnoticed by Frank in a letter dated February 3, 1940.


Dear Miss Fielding:

     I am greatly shocked to find on my desk this morning a clipping from the New York Telegraph of January 30th concerning the SUPERMAN program, in which I find this sentence:  "The first set of scripts for the serial have been submitted to the Child Study Association, according to reports and have won that body's approval. Reason for the previous ban was that parent organizations had objected to the excitement as too much for children."
      I recall very clearly that when you came here to ask for our opinion of the program, you very distinctly told me that this was not to be used in any publicity, and that you merely wanted for the information of the prospective sponsor, to know whether we considered the program harmful. The letter which I subsequently wrote you specifically said that we could not approve a program of which we had seen only two of the scripts but that so far as these two were concerned, we did not consider them harmful. I can imagine no possible warrant in my letter for any such publicity or any such claims as you have made.
      Will you please take every measure to eliminate our name from any future publicity, and to correct, in so far as you can, any public impression that this program is going on the air with the Child Study Association's approval.
      Please let me hear from you as to what you can do in this respect.

     It took a few days, but Fielding's response of February 8th, was geared toward making amends.

Dear Miss Frank,

     I have been attempting since receipt of your letter to contact you by phone, but without success. Mr. Maxwell has gone into the matter of SUPERMAN publicity revolving about the Child Study Association and finds that its point of origin was the advertising agency controlling the Hecker Product's account. He has issued orders that no publicity naming the Child Study Association is to be released in the future.
     Copies of your original letter to me were submitted both to the Hecker Company and the advertising agency, and since by inference at least, you gave approval to the scripts you read, you can readily see how the sponsors were eager to take advantage of such approval.

     It stretches the bounds of believability that Maxwell or Ducovny were unaware of the use of the Child Study Association's good name in the TELEGRAPH piece. Furthermore, Fielding's contention that the submission of Frank's letter had been what triggered the press release rings hollow, given that the TELEGRAPH article pre-dated the writing of the letter by several days.
     "I will call you within a day or two and trust that you can see me personally, as we are very anxious to secure, if not your approval, your opinion on our future scripts. Believe me, it was not our intention to trade on the Child Study Association's name, since the SUPERMAN program had already been sold to Hecker's prior to the appearance of the publicity you mentioned."
     Fielding's postscript dutifully informed Frank that the Superman program was debuting the following Monday, February 12th, at 5:15 P.M. on local station WOR. In a personal touch, Fielding (who was also Bob Maxwell's wife) added, "I should be interested in knowing how your son reacts to it." It was in the best interest of Bob Maxwell and Superman, Inc. to stay on the good side of Josette Frank. They would have need of her in the near future.

________________________________________________________

     Josette Frank,whose father Leo owned a successful New York City furniture company, graduated from a girls finishing school in 1910 with a clear view of her path in life.
     "For me the world was full of things needing to be done, and I needed to be doing," she wrote years later, "I seemed to think I owed the world my services. So I did what socially conscious girls did in those days: volunteered for social service." ⁴
      For much of the following decade, Frank worked in a variety of positions, mainly with organizations having a socially progressive mission. She taught English to newly arrived immigrants, aided social workers at Bellevue Hospital and served on the publications staff of the National Child Labor Committee helping to edit THE AMERICAN CHILD magazine. A frustrating turn as a vocational counselor in a Lower East Side school preceded her employment in 1923 with the Federation for Child Study as part-time editor of their new monthly magazine. The publication soon had its title changed to CHILD STUDY and the organization that published it eventually changed its name, too, to the Child Study Association of America.
     The original Federation of Child Study was formed by five women from the Ethical Culture Society in 1888. This group of Jewish women were followers of Felix Adler, founder of the ethical culture movement which believed in a morality based not upon religion, but social activism. Adler's motto, "Deed, not creed", led to the organization of a number of social welfare programs and the establishment of a cooperative kindergarten. From this simple beginning, the group's scope expanded to not only include the study of children, but to also aid in their educational, societal and moral development.
     Frank's part-time position at the CSAA led to additional responsibilities as staff liaison to the Children's Book Committee and as contributor to various publications.
     "We can best guide our children's reading if we let our children's reading guide us," she wrote in a 1936 issue of PARENTS MAGAZINE, "Instead of trying to mold them into preconceived patterns of 'what the well-read child should read,' let us rather encourage them to find their way to real experiences of their own in the vast world of books." ⁵
      Frank's growing expertise in the area of children's literature prompted the organization's director, Sidonie Gruenberg, to suggest that Frank author a book recommending children's books. The result was WHAT BOOKS FOR CHILDREN?, first published in 1937, providing the basis for Frank's growing reputation as an authority on the subject. Despite her notoriety, though, her views on independently thinking children flew in the face of many contemporary beliefs and were not always well received.
      An appearance at a NEW YORK TIMES sponsored book fair promoting her book led to an angry letter to the editor attacking Frank's progressive views. She in turn responded with her own letter.
     "It is true that there is much good literature today, and we, as parents, must see to it that our children have ready access to plenty of it, and the best of it," she wrote, "But this is not to say the we can keep them from reading much that is less than good."
     Frank goes on to acknowledge that children cannot be protected from reading material that, "is fraught with danger," since they are surrounded by it. Trying to stop them from reading such things that adults may consider "unwholesome" is pointless since, "...we know that prohibiting has ever had the effect of enhancing the allure of the forbidden." ⁶
     It was a chapter added to the 1941 edition of WHAT BOOKS FOR CHILDREN? that carried Frank's most controversial views. Views that she stated in no uncertain terms.
     "We may have to climb down from pleasant ivory towers and concede the possibility that children's books need not be saturated with sweetness and light, that writing for children may be fine and still deal in good red meat."⁷
________________________________________________________


     Fortunately, for all concerned, the Superman radio program was a hit.
     After achieving reportedly record numbers (for shows broadcast 3-times per week) in the April, 1940, Crossley Ratings, 'Duke' Ducovny parlayed that success into the July 3rd "Superman Day" at the 1940 New York World's Fair. And though a deal with Republic Pictures for a live-action movie serial fell through, another with Paramount for a proposed cartoon series would result in the classic Fleischer Brothers productions a year hence. Along with the myriad number of licensed Superman products hitting the market, the hoped-for multimedia exposure of Superman seemed to be complete.
     But not all observers were taken with the Man of Steel's growing popularity.
     "Virtually every child in America is reading color "comic" magazines--a poisonous mushroom growth of the last two years," read the first line of Sterling North's May 8, 1940, editorial titled, "A National Disgrace".
     "Ten million copies of these sex-horror are sold every month," he wrote, "One million dollars are taken from the pockets of America's children in exchange for graphic insanity."
     The Wisconsin-born children's book author and literary critic, North would seem to be a likely kindred spirit to Josette Frank. Instead, his beliefs were perhaps more reflective of prevailing deeply-rooted American values; of slowly changing attitudes and fear of the new. He withheld no vitriol as he continued his hyperbolic attack 
     "Save for a scattering of more or less innocuous 'gag' comics and some reprints of newspaper strips, we found that the bulk of these lurid publications depend for their appeal upon mayhem, murder, torture, and abduction--often with a child as the victim. Superman heroics, voluptuous females in scanty attire, blazing machine guns, hooded 'justice' and cheap political propaganda were to be found on almost every page."  
     North went on to further castigate comic books for being, "Badly drawn, badly written and badly printed--a strain on young eyes and young nervous systems--the effect of those pulp-paper nightmares is that of a violent stimulant. Their crude blacks and reds spoil a child's natural sense of color; their hypodermic injection of sex and murder make the child impatient with better, though quieter, stories."
     And then his coup de grâce.
     "Unless we want a coming generation even more ferocious than the present one, parents and teachers throughout America must band together to break the 'comic' magazine." ⁸
    The gauntlet had been thrown down and though he may not have realized it at the time, North had established the talking points for the comic book debate to come.

________________________________________________________

     North's editorial was widely reprinted (claims were that requests for copies numbered in the millions) and DC knew that had to do something. There had to be outwardly signs that they were a concerned organization.
     Someone came up with the idea of an editorial advisory board; a group of upstanding citizens, impressively credentialed, with notable names. Even before the official formation of the advisory board, Managing Editor Whitney Ellsworth had been  tasked with developing an in-house code of editorial conduct that reined in some of the more objectionable behaviors appearing in comics.
    "I sat down with several of the editors and the public relations people to work out a set of standards for the guidance of all of the artists and writers who were engaged on these magazines,"  Frank later told an interviewer, "A number of these standards were of course on the negative side--things not to do. They contained such obvious prohibitions as "no kidnapping of a child" -- "no derogatory attitudes toward parents or toward constituted law enforcement", etc. 
     "There were, however, some positive suggestions having to do with social attitudes and educational values." ⁹
      In mid-April of 1941, Ellsworth sent out a memo.

TO:  All Editors, Associate Editors, Writers and Artists preparing material for DC Comic Magazines.

     It is our desire to publish our magazines in strict adherence to accepted standards of decency and good taste. The following code must be followed both as to spirit and to letter; there are no exceptions.      
     Writers and artists are advised to confine their contributions to material that is completely above any possible criticism. Our requirements are rigid, and much time and effort will be saved if they are strictly adhered to.
     In this rapidly growing field, many recent comic books have fallen far short of our standards. We have no intention of catering to that fringe of the public which forms the market for vulgar, obscene or vicious literature. Our obligation to the youth of America and parents requires us to publish only wholesome material.
     We wish to point out that this code of editorial practice has been prepared with the advice and assistance of:  
     Dr. Robert Thorndike, Teachers College, Columbia University.
     Miss Josette Frank, Staff Advisor to the Children's Book Committee, Child Study Association of America.
     Dr. Ruth Perl, Associate Member, American Psychological Association.
     Dr. C. Bowie Millican, Department of English Literature, New York University.

    
     Ellsworth's memo came with the attached editorial code. It was very specific, quite restrictive and sporadically enforced.

Editorial Taboos

     No profanity of suggestion of profanity (such as "Who th'--", What the '--", etc.)
     No reference to the Deity.
     No sex. Relations between the sexes must be kept casual.
     Female characters used as little as story exigencies permit.
     NO FEMALES ON COVERS OF MAGAZINES. Covers must stress clean action.
     No sadism. Use of whip and hypodermic absolutely forbidden. 
     No torture.
     No pictorial horror. The borderline here is difficult to define. A certain amount of shooting and such may be necessary if stories are to pack any "punch" whatever. There must also be a definite an strong menace for the hero to overcome. Yet by careful and judicious editing, the violent action angle must be played down, and details of death are not emphasized either in story or picture. Battered or bloody figures must never be shown. This angle is approached very much as the movies approach similar problem under the restrictions of the Hays Office.

General Policy

     "Heroic" heroes (the type of hero who has superhuman or extra-human powers) never use firearms or other lethal weapons. If a menace loses his life in an adventure with such a hero, he loses it through his own machinations. For example, a menace may fire a shot at SUPERMAN; because of the fact that SUPERMAN has impenetrable skin, the bullet merely bounces off him and back to the menace, destroying him. Thus the death of the villain can in no way be blamed upon the hero, who was merely a passive agent to the act.

     Ordinary "detective" heroes generally "get their man" by ingenious brain--and footwork. However, such a hero, because he is ordinary in the sense that he possesses no extra-human powers, must sometimes use firearms to get him out of trouble.

     The overall general policy is to point up the phrase "Crime Doesn't Pay". Every story hammers home this same message. Further, it pictures regular law-enforcement agencies and agents as capable and on-the-job--never inept or ridiculous.

     Wherever women are essential for plot purposes, they must be properly and decently clothed.
     Except where characterization requires it (as in the case of hoodlums), grammar must be correct. Check this carefully.
     Captions and dialogue must be large enough for easy reading and must appear on white and light shaded background only.
     Patriotism and the manifold merits of democracy shall be emphasized wherever possible.
     The good neighbor policy shall be maintained--individual and national villains shall not be Mexicans, Central or South Americans.
     Humor, gauged to childhood levels, is a desirable attribute.
     Physical fitness, learning and moral integrity are essentials for all heroic characters.
     Weapons, such as revolvers, automatics or machine guns, incidental to plot, shall not be over-emphasized or their operation described.
 
     The four individuals credited with helping write this code, along with the honorary membership of former heavyweight boxing champ Gene Tunney, formed the Editorial Advisory Board that came to be prominently displayed on the inside front cover of DC  and the affiliated All-American (AA) comics. It seems, though, that the writing of the editorial guidelines preceded the official formation of the editorial advisory board.
     Frank's inclusion was likely the easiest to secure. She was already working with Maxwell on the radio show, reviewing scripts and making suggestions, and had even recently started writing book and movie reviews that were appearing in some of the AA/DC comics.
     She was also recently widowed. Her husband, Henry, passed away on September 30, 1940, leaving her with two small children. The opportunity to work for AA/DC came, "...shortly after (Henry's) death and life was at a low point," daughter Judith recalled years later, "I think she found this interesting and stimulating, and it, literally, gave her a new lease." ¹⁰
     Curiously, Frank's invitation to serve on the advisory board didn't come from Ellsworth or another member of the editorial staff. It came from Harry Childs of the Juvenile Group Foundation.
     The Juvenile Group Foundation was in reality an arm of  DC's publicity department, headquartered at a different address to give the impression of independence. The appropriately named Childs was yet another publicist, probably working under Ducovny's direction.
     Frank's response to Childs' invitation dated June 17th, 1941, was decidedly friendlier than her earliest correspondence with Maxwell's office. And she was certainly more willing to offer her approval backed by her name.

Dear Mr. Childs,

     Thank you for your invitation to serve on  the advisory board of your magazines, comprising, as I understand it, Superman, Bat-Man [sic], Detective Comics, Action Comics, More Fun Comics, All-American Comics, and Flash Comics.
     I shall be very glad to serve on the advisory board, especially since I am confident, from my conversations with you, that you are as concerned as I am with standards which will safeguard your young readers, and that any criticism or constructive suggestions which I may have to offer toward that end will be welcomed by you.      
     You may, if you wish, use my name along with other members of your advisory board on your editorial page, listing me as "Staff Advisor to the Children's Book Committee of the Child Study Association of America".

     In practice, enforcement of the editorial guidelines meant no killing (sorry Spectre), no overt sexuality (sorry boys), no use of chains or torture devices (we will get back to that...). The curiously misogynistic ban on women would soon prove to be a particular problem.

________________________________________________________

     DC and AA weren't the only ones hoping to secure Frank's nod of approval.
     In a letter dated June 21, 1941, coming less than a week after Frank's agreement with AA/DC, George J. Hecht, President of Parents' Magazine Press, courted her as well.

Dear Miss Frank:

      The snowball has started to roll.
     For some time past parents and teachers have worried about the trashy, lurid ("comic") magazines which boys and girls insist on buying, literally by the millions. Nagging and scolding were of no avail; prohibition of "comics" only resulted in deceit.
     Now they find the solution in substitution wholesome, educational reading matter that the children like. The campaign has started. Educators, mothers and fathers are actively promoting the new idea in "comic" magazines..."comics" that provide all the thrills and action told in colorful picture-stories, but "comics" that educate, in the right way, even while they entertain.
     This solution of the "comics" problem was created by the publishers of PARENTS' MAGAZINE. Now the Parent's Magazine Press, Inc. is bringing out REAL HEROES, a brand-new 64 page "comic" publication, built around the heroic deeds of famous and little-know real people. Instead of fantastic, impossible "comic" characters, REAL HEROES deals entirely with the men and women who have made or are making history, heroes and heroines who really lived and performed important deeds of bravery or of service to the world. I am enclosing a copy of the first issue together with additional data about the magazine.
     This forward step in popular juvenile reading has the endorsement and support of leading teachers and psychologists, as well as parents. We believe REAL HEROES merits your attention, and we shall appreciate any editorial mention of it that you see fit to make.

     Hecht didn't even try to conceal his contempt for the dominate trend in contemporary comics (a term he disdainfully confined between quotation marks). Hecht was founder of the Parents' Institute and, like Frank, had long history of involvement with social welfare.
     While he had already put together his own illustrious board of editorial advisers, Hecht apparently hoped for Frank's blessing via her position at CHILD STUDY magazine. And he wasn't the only publisher so inclined. In a letter dated two days later, the publisher of CHILD LIFE also sought to gain Frank's favor in regards to a new comic book-style feature it was running in its magazine.      
     "CHILD LIFE believes that the "comic" form of story telling need not be objectionable to parents," wrote A. A. Belford to Frank, "In fact, we believe that a method of story telling which appeals so completely to children can be effectively used to increase the interest of a child in a magazine which provides good literature and wholesome entertainment."
     Frank had to be conflicted. While she certainly shared their view that comics could be used as an entry point to "good" literature, Frank also believed that the current superhero genre that they found so objectionable was a positive release for children. And she wasn't the only one who thought this way.
     In a research paper published in the July 1941, issue of a psychiatry journal, Dr. Lauretta Bender and Dr. Reginald S. Lourie concluded that their study of the effect of comics upon children had shown that,"The comics may be said to offer the same type of mental catharsis to its readers that Aristotle claimed was an attribute of drama." ¹¹
     Even the efforts of DC were being noticed.
     Catherine MacKenzie, columnist and parent-child editor of the NEW YORK TIMES, wrote in an opinion article on October 12, 1941, "Parents who haven't been keeping up with Superman may not be aware of the high moral tone pervading his exploits, or aware that a serious-minded committee, including educators and psychologists, advise on editorial policy." 12
     Still, Frank's agreement to work for DC/AA posed an ethical dilemma. How could she maintain objectivity when she was being paid by them? This connection was only to get closer when she also agreed to work on Superman, Inc.'s latest venture: the radio dramatization of an ALL-AMERICAN COMICS feature.
     "Your invitation of me to serve in an advisory editorial capacity in the preparation of the HOP HARRIGAN radio program is at hand," Frank wrote to Bob Maxwell on June 23rd, "and I more than welcome the opportunity to be of assistance on this program." 
     Frank's closeness to the companies she was advising was evident in the correspondence she had with All-American Comics president, M. C. "Max" Gaines. In an October 15th missive, Gaines included copies of her book reviews that were to appear in upcoming issues of his comics, along with his note that, "I am arranging to get two more tickets for your Association's theatre party, and hope to have Mr. and Mrs. Dvorkin join our party on October 30th, at which time we can arrange for a get-together sometime in November."
     This letter also contained an interesting paragraph hinting at something more.
     "I had a talk with Mr. Childs yesterday, and as he pointed out to you Dr. Marston's name will be eliminated as a member of the Editorial Advisory Board on all issues which will come out during the month of January."
     Was this removal of Marston's name coming at Frank's request? If so, what objection did she have against his inclusion on the board?
     A letter from Gaines dated just one day later accompanied copies the latest issues of FLASH and SENSATION comics and concluded with, "I am also sending you an advanced copy of "All-Star Comics" #8, which contains the introductory episode of "Wonder Woman".
     Gaines seemed to grow increasingly dependent upon Frank. In early November, he wrote her asking, "Can you arrange to have with me Friday? I would like to tell you about our visit with Dorothy Canfield Fisher, and at the same time take up some other matters with you." Fisher was an early women's rights activist and it can be speculated that Gaines' meeting with her concerned the character, Wonder Woman.
     The public reception of Wonder Woman appears to have been a major preoccupation for Gaines. His letter to Frank dated November 22nd touted a report by another advisory board member, Dr. Thorndike, that the Wonder Woman feature received a "readability" rating of, "...17, which is 3 or 4 points higher than any other comic strip in either "Sensation Comics" or any of the others of our publications."
     "Incidentally, a preliminary check up just received from our distributing company indicates a very favorable reception to "Sensation Comics" insofar as the sale on the first issue is concerned."
     His postscript surprisingly referred to an earlier letter he received from George Hecht of Parents' Press.
     "I believe you will be interested in knowing that our good friend, Hecht, has not yet replied to my last letter to him of November 14th," Gaines noted cryptically.
      The letter to which Gaines was referring was itself part of a series of letters that were exchanged by him and Hecht over several months. A November 10th letter was representative of their subject matter.

Dear Mr. Hecht;

     My attention has been called to an item in the New York Times of Thursday, November 5, reporting the proceedings of the first Children's Book Week luncheon.
     As the originator of he monthly comic magazine, and publisher of an important group, I was, of course, very much interested in the account of your address at that luncheon.

     The TIMES article cited was wholly given over to an account of Hecht's remarks criticizing the amount of time children spent reading comics in lieu children's books.
     "There are approximately 125 different comic magazines and they are featured on more than 100,000 newsstands in the country," Hecht said, contrasting that number with, "I am told that a publisher is pleased if 1,000 book shops sell his children's books and an edition of 5,000 copies is a good sale."  ¹³

    It was another quote, though, that caught Gaines' attention.
     "The publisher declared," read the article, "that he would be glad if "all comics, including our own, were put out of business."  ¹⁴
     Gaines reminded Hecht of his earlier letter to TIME magazine that was more specific in its criticism.

     "You will recall that in your letter to TIME, you specifically mentioned "Superman", "All-American Comics", and, I believe, several others of our group as not being in a class with those which you wholeheartedly condemned."
      "It seems not that you put all comic magazines, including your own and the "DC-Superman" Group, with such a distinguished Editorial Advisory Board as Dr. Thorndike of Columbia University, Dr. Sones, Professor of Education at the University of Pittsburgh, Josette Frank of the Child Study Association, Dr. Millican of New York University and others, in the same category."
      "I have tried to analyze the reasons for your statement as reported in The New York Times and have come to the conclusion that there is a possibility that you may have been misquoted."

     Gaines went on to propose a symposium about comics under the auspices of Hecht's Parents' Institute and funded by Gaines.
     Hecht's letter of reply came back quickly. He assured Gaines that he, "...was in part misquoted by THE NEW YORK TIMES," and he readily agreed to Gaines' proposal.
     "I gladly accept your proposition," wrote Hecht, "and will be glad to publicly debate the problem of the comic magazines with you and with other members of your editorial advisory board."
     While Gaines' November 22nd letter to Frank refers to his reply to Hecht, it's not clear if the symposium ever occurred. What is clear is that Gaines didn't appreciate Hecht's opinion of comic books, a medium which Gaines frequently took credit for creating and the main source of his income. Less obvious, but no less likely, is that Gaines didn't appreciate Hecht's previous attempt to recruit Frank to extol his comics.

________________________________________________________

      A blurb in the NEW YORK TIMES of Dec. 14, 1941 may have gone overlooked in all the war news so soon after Pearl Harbor, but it was an announcement that would have a significant impact on the comic book industry.
     "The Child Study Association of America has embarked on a study of the comics and Miss Josette Frank has this to say about it:
     "Because our children are reading comic books literally by the millions it seems important for us to find out wherein lies there peculiar fascination and to help children to develop discrimination in their comics as in their other reading.""  ¹⁵
     With the probable input of Bob Maxwell, Frank had come up with the perfect public relations tool. A "scientific" study of comic books, conducted by a respected institution, with a likely positive result. Given Frank's favorable predisposition toward the comic book medium, and not to mention her connection to DC/AA, there was little chance for it to turn out otherwise.
     Despite the sincerity of Frank's research, this delicate dance between unbiased advisor and paid consultant complicated the perception of her impartiality.
     By the time of the TIMES mention, Frank had already gone about contacting the various comic book publishers for copies of their products for the study.
       "I am sending you two copies of each of our comic magazines under separate cover. The titles are: Walt Disney's Comics, Looney Tunes & Merrie Melodies Comics, Super Comics, Popular Comic, and The Funnies, which are published on a monthly basis," wrote Helen Mayer of Dell Publishing in her response of Nov. 25th.
     "At the request of Robert Maxwell," scribbled Leo Greenwald in his short handwritten reply, "I will send you the latest issue of "Champ Comics"."
     "Mr. Max Grossman suggested that we send up copies of each of our comic magazines to used in your study of current comic books," was the answer of Timely Comics' Abraham Goodman.
     Not surprisingly, her former correspondent, George Hecht of Parent's Magazine Press, was enthusiastic about the study.
     "We are, naturally, tremendously interested in the findings of your Children's Book Committee and should like very much to see any  report they publish on their study of the effect of comics on children's reading," was his reply along with current issues of TRUE, CALLING ALL GIRLS and REAL HEROES. Notably missing was his condescending inclusion of the word "comics" within quotation marks.
     Frank seemed a bit confused about the difference between comic publishers and the comic shops that created many of them. In a January 6, 1942, letter to Lloyd Jacquet of Funnies, Inc., Frank thanked him for his offer of the use of his files of comics, but, "I am not quite clear, from your letter, whether you are publishers of certain comic magazines--you mention True Comic[s], which we already have--or whether you are a production agency, creating strips for many publishers."
     In point of fact, this wasn't the first comic book study undertaken. In the months leading up to the CSAA announcement, Frank asked for and received help from librarians, educators and social workers, from the Smith Memorial Library in Chautauqua, New York to the State Board for Vocational Education in Boise, Idaho. Each had also conducted their own research into the effects of comics. Frank's study was going to be as thorough as possible, even though the outcome was in little doubt.
________________________________________________________

December 4, 1941

Dear Mr. Childs:

      I have been going over very carefully all of your magazines that are now coming to me regularly and I am impelled in my capacity of "advisor" to make one or two suggestions.
      The first has to do with the type faces in several of the magazines both in the captions and in the balloons. For example, in the current issue of FLASH the type is in places almost unreadable. I realize that in each of the magazines there are spots where it is good and others where it is not, but I do wish that something could be done in all your magazines to bring them up to a good standard in this respect. I think the best of them right now from this point of view is the STAR SPANGLED COMICS which I received this morning.
      The reason I stress this matter of print so strenuously is because this is always the very first point which parents make when they complain about the comics. Invariably the statement runs something like this: "I wouldn't care if my children read the comics if the only had different print so that they would not ruin their eyes." I always assure them that in our group of comics we are working on this problem seriously and sincerely but I must confess when I look at some of your books after I have given them this assurance I have some misgivings.
      I want also to ask again whether I may be assured that I will see proof of all copy which appears in my name. Recent issues have carried perfectly appalling errors which seem to me most unnecessary especially considering the fact that our original agreement provided that I should see all proof. I am sure that I could forestall most of these errors.
     I should like to ask also by  what process you check the grammatical correctness of your own copy. One of the "standards" which you have thrown up and of which you are pardonably proud is a demand for correct grammar. I have found grammatical errors from time to time that I have always hoped they were isolated slips of editing. Can you find some satisfactory way for handling this?
     I am sorry if I seem to be taking my responsibility of "advisor" too seriously, but I assume that this is one of the things you want me for. Incidentally, while I am on this subject, I note that the Advisory Board as it appears in the February issue of STAR SPANGLED COMICS remains unchanged. As long ago as August, 1941 I was promised that there would be changes in this Editorial Board and only a few weeks ago I was told that the changes would take place after the January issue. This is something about which I am seriously concerned and I would appreciate some immediate word from you about it.

Sincerely yours, 
Josette Frank 

     There was no doubt that Josette Frank took her position with DC/AA seriously. As well as her detailed advice to Harry Childs, Frank was compiling lists of children's books to run in the comics. She came up with a contest that paid five dollars for the best review submitted by a child based on her published lists. "That ought to get 'em!", she wrote hopefully to a correspondent.
     ________________________________________________________

1  De Haven, Tom, OUR HERO: SUPERMAN ON EARTH, pg. 95 (2010).

2  "Radio's Effect on Youth", NEW YORK TIMES, Nov. 13, 1938.

3  "Parents Criticize 'Newer Education'",  NEW YORK TIMES, Nov. 19, 1939.

^{4   Frank, Josette, THE YEARS AFTER SCHOOL.}


5  "Book Expert Makes Plea for Child Deciding What to Read", MIAMI DAILY NEWS, Oct. 21, 1936. 

6   Letters to the Editor, NEW YORK TIMES, Nov. 28, 1937.

^{7  Frank, Josette, WHAT BOOKS FOR CHILDREN?,  pg. 82 (1941).}

8  North, Sterling, "A National Discrace", May 8, 1940.

9  Josette Frank interview with Mrs. Charles Liebman, Jan. 28, 1947.

^{10  Judith Rosen email, April 4, 2013.}


11  Bender, L. and Lourie, R. S., The Effect of Comic Books on the Ideology of Children, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOPSYCHIATRY, 11: 540–550 (July, 1941). 

12  Mackenzie, Catherine, "Movies--and Superman", NEW YORK TIMES, Oct. 12, 1941.

13  "Comics' Effects on Youth Scored", NEW YORK TIMES, Nov. 6, 1941.       

14  Ibid.

15  "Notes", NEW YORK TIMES, Dec. 14, 1941.