Duck Edwing to Duck Halloffamewing…when is the last freakin’ time MAD magazine was funny?

June of 1955, to be exact, which is when the Congressionally mau-maued "Comics Code" took effect and turned MAD into a kind of Jay Leno for teenagers. You have to see the first 23 issues to fully appreciate the extent of the damage.

To be even more exact, not a single issue of MAD was ever published under the Comics Code Authority. Its comic book days predated the Code, and its magazine days were never subject to it.

What kind of slime would I marry?

What me worry?

They're really sockin' it to that Spiro Agnew guy again! He must work there or something.

My attempts to fold-in my computer monitor are not working.

To be even more exact, not a single issue of MAD was ever published under the Comics Code Authority. Its comic book days predated the Code, and its magazine days were never subject to it.

They changed to a magazine format to avoid being held to CCA standards of "decency", but the censorship they imposed on themselves after the switch made the change in format largely a moot point. In terms of content, the comic book MAD and the magazine MAD were two completely different animals, one a freewheeling and often savage burlesque of nearly everything, and the other best represented by the leftward fork in this classic National Lampoon cover.

Duck Edwing to Duck Halloffamewing…when is the last freakin’ time MAD magazine was funny?

The correct answer has always been roughly "about the time whoever's asking turned 13."

The Kurtzman issues of Mad were, as Andy alludes to, precedent-setting & hugely influential on the humor/satire milieu at large. The next several years of the (Feldstein?) magazine were different but quite often very nearly as great.

And then, as indicated in my previous post, I turned 13.

censorship they imposed on themselves after the switch

I'm not really aware of any self-censorship (which certainly doesn't mean it didn't happen). I think the differences in approach stemmed from the differences between Kurtzman's extremely hands-on approach & Feldstein's, not to mention their different world-views in general. Whether a magazine Mad under Kurtzman would've attained the huge circulation that Feldstein's did, I have no idea; lord knows, Trump, Help & (I think) a 3rd mag I can't name at the moment didn't exactly set the magazine world on fire.

Duck Edwing to Duck Halloffamewing…when is the last freakin’ time MAD magazine was funny?

The correct answer has always been roughly "about the time whoever's asking turned 13."

I was 10 at the time of the switch, and even at that age the dropoff in humor was obvious. It was like the difference between watching Richard Pryor live and then watching a version of the same concert that was "edited" for network television.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I'm not really aware of any self-censorship (which certainly doesn't mean it didn't happen). I think the differences in approach stemmed from the differences between Kurtzman's extremely hands-on approach & Feldstein's, not to mention their different world-views in general.

Whether it was editorial self-censorship or merely a different worldview (I'd say it was both), the proof is in the watered down content.

Whether a magazine Mad under Kurtzman would've attained the huge circulation that Feldstein's did, I have no idea; lord knows, Trump, Help & (I think) a 3rd mag I can't name at the moment didn't exactly set the magazine world on fire.

I'm about 99.8% certain that the original comic book version of MAD would never have achieved the financial success that the magazine did. The pressures from above would have cut off the normal mass distribution channels, and that alone would have marginalized it in its time. It wasn't until Crumb, Shelton, and the National Lampoon came along that that sort of humor could begin to be accepted by even the fringes of the mainstream.

They changed to a magazine format to avoid being held to CCA standards of "decency",

No, they didn't. That's the standard story, but it's false. Editor Harvey Kurtzman got an offer to become an assistant editor for Pageant. And he parlayed it into an agreement by publisher Gaines to convert MAD the comic into MAD the magazine, where Kurtzman would be no one's assistant.

This jockeying roughly coincided with the Kefauver hearings and Dr. Wertham and the Comics Code and the distributors killing the rest of EC's comic book line by refusing to ship the issues out. And that's why people have always conflated the external battles with MAD's internal upgrade to a different format. Gaines had actually suggested the Code to the other publishers, and tried to make his business workable within it; getting away from the censors at just the moment he did was the happiest accident of his life.

but the censorship they imposed on themselves after the switch made the change in format largely a moot point. In terms of content, the comic book MAD and the magazine MAD were two completely different animals, one a freewheeling and often savage burlesque of nearly everything, and the other best represented by the leftward fork in this classic National Lampoon cover.

Your suggestion of self-censorship is most simply dismissed by looking at the actual product they produced. MAD listed its lawyer in its masthead, to make it simpler for people who wished to sue them. The magazine certainly became influential, ubiquitous and familiar enough to become a Lampoon target.

Whether a magazine Mad under Kurtzman would've attained the huge circulation that Feldstein's did, I have no idea; lord knows, Trump, Help & (I think) a 3rd mag I can't name at the moment didn't exactly set the magazine world on fire.

You're thinking of Humbug. That lasted 10 or 11 issues, never sold much, and had distribution troubles of its own. Trump never got the chance to succeed or fail; it was a casualty of a financial crunch at Playboy (Hefner was its publisher). Help! lasted a couple of years but never really hit.

You're thinking of Humbug.

Yep. Thanks!

Wow, I never knew all this stuff about MAD Magazine. I always thought it was just a collection of puns and Leno-style satire for 12-year-olds.

For those who are interested, DC has released (or will soon be releasing) hardcover editions of all the original MAD comics. Volume 1 and 2, covering the first 12 issues were released about 5 years back, if not longer. Volume 3, covering issues 13 to 18 was released last month, and the fourth volume will be released in November.

Wow, I never knew all this stuff about MAD Magazine. I always thought it was just a collection of puns and Leno-style satire for 12-year-olds.

Consider this thread as an opportunity for dialogue & education.

Also, you should have your sense of cultural history taken away.

For those who are interested, DC has released (or will soon be releasing) hardcover editions of all the original MAD comics. Volume 1 and 2, covering the first 12 issues were released about 5 years back, if not longer. Volume 3, covering issues 13 to 18 was released last month, and the fourth volume will be released in November.

Back in '97, a magazine-sized full-color reprint series called Tales Calculated to Drive You Mad came out that evidently included all the original comics issues. Unfortunately, the final issue -- #8 -- has eluded me so far; I bought the first 7, I think, right off the 'stands.

This jockeying roughly coincided with the Kefauver hearings and Dr. Wertham and the Comics Code and the distributors killing the rest of EC's comic book line by refusing to ship the issues out. And that's why people have always conflated the external battles with MAD's internal upgrade to a different format.

Well, Mad also promotes that idea. Years and years ago I read a history of the publication that was put out by Mad and I recall it flat out stated that the switch to a magazine was for the express purpose of avoiding the censors. In fact, this is the first time I recall hearing the "official" version challenged.

Also, you should have your sense of cultural history taken away.

Sorry, too busy playing video games.

(joke)

I was always more of a Cracked guy.

In fact, this is the first time I recall hearing the "official" version challenged.

There was a biography of Kurtzman put out a year or so ago. I believe this different version was mentioned there. I've seen it in one or two other locations as well, although I can't remember specific names.

They changed to a magazine format to avoid being held to CCA standards of "decency",

No, they didn't. That's the standard story, but it's false. Editor Harvey Kurtzman got an offer to become an assistant editor for Pageant. And he parlayed it into an agreement by publisher Gaines to convert MAD the comic into MAD the magazine, where Kurtzman would be no one's assistant.

This jockeying roughly coincided with the Kefauver hearings and Dr. Wertham and the Comics Code and the distributors killing the rest of EC's comic book line by refusing to ship the issues out. And that's why people have always conflated the external battles with MAD's internal upgrade to a different format. Gaines had actually suggested the Code to the other publishers, and tried to make his business workable within it; getting away from the censors at just the moment he did was the happiest accident of his life.

That's an interesting correction, and it speaks to Gaines' main motivation, which was keeping his publication going. That takes Gaines off the hook, but it doesn't change the fact that the magazine version of MAD was but a shell of its much more robust previous self. The transition wasn't completely abrupt, but within a few years you started getting stuff so bland and predictable that even Donald Duck was more outrageous.

but the censorship they imposed on themselves after the switch made the change in format largely a moot point. In terms of content, the comic book MAD and the magazine MAD were two completely different animals, one a freewheeling and often savage burlesque of nearly everything, and the other best represented by the leftward fork in this classic National Lampoon cover.

Your suggestion of self-censorship is most simply dismissed by looking at the actual product they produced. MAD listed its lawyer in its masthead, to make it simpler for people who wished to sue them. The magazine certainly became influential, ubiquitous and familiar enough to become a Lampoon target.

No, my suggestion of self-censorship is based on knowing the content of the two formats. I've never said that it wasn't "influential, ubiquitous and familiar", but just the fact that it became a sitting duck for a National Lampoon parody should tell you how far it had strayed from its original vision.

Th Al-ighty ollar?

Anyone else remember Cracked?

And the occasional issue of Crazy?

Anyone else remember Cracked?

Definitely. Loved it as a kid; it was a solid second to Mad. (Sick was a not-so-solid rather distant third.) Great John Severin art, of course.

A two-volume history of Cracked has come out within the last couple of years, but last time I looked the books had stubbornly refused to show up cheap from Amazon Marketplace sellers, so I haven't seen either of them.

Anyone else remember Cracked?

Yeah I really liked Help too. I just learned that Terry Gilliam drew for Help and met John Cleese there.

I was 10 at the time of the switch, and even at that age the dropoff in humor was obvious.

oh please. thanks, i'll get off your lawn, whatever.

read mad magazine obsessively all through my formative years, read the comics versions too when they came out in paperback. i still have them somewhere. it was a great humor magazine in all its various incarnations.

striped t-shirst, dungarees, bazooka bubble gum, converse sneakers ... every month the neighborhood kids sat around reading from mad magazine and passing it around. sun-dappled youth.

and then the world turned to sh1t.

Yeah I really liked Help too. I just learned that Terry Gilliam drew for Help and met John Cleese there.

Gloria Steinem worked there as well.

Pops: Well, Mad also promotes that idea. Years and years ago I read a history of the publication that was put out by Mad and I recall it flat out stated that the switch to a magazine was for the express purpose of avoiding the censors. In fact, this is the first time I recall hearing the "official" version challenged.

MAD never put out any such version.

From the 1972 biography "The Mad World of William M. Gaines":
"But Kurtzman was restless in comics. "I never felt I was part of the legitimate publishing establishment," he recalls. "Comics were a bastard form. I wanted to get into the world of slicks. That was publishing. Of course, with the advantage of hindsight, I don't feel that way now."
That he did then was due, partly, to a 1954 article about Mad that appeared in Pageant. Later that year, Pageant's editor offered Kurtzman a full-time job as his right-hand man. Kurtzman was tempted. Pageant was a slick. Also, comic book censorship was coming and he feared that Mad was too freewheeling to survive it. He told Gaines that he wanted to take the new job. Gaines made a counterproposal.
"Harvey, you once told me you wanted to turn Mad into a slick. Stay, and I'll let you do it."

Twenty years later, from "Completely MAD," the authorized history:
"The mainstream Pageant magazine had even run an article on [Mad], one of the few bits of positive press the embattled EC had received lately. Kurtzman had become acutely aware of the vulnerability and limitations of his position as a "lowly comic book editor" when Harris Shevelson, the editor of Pageant, offered him a job that would solve these positions in one fell swoop: work on a "slick" as his right-hand man... [Gaines] offered to allow Kurtzman to turn Mad into a slick magazine, a risky proposition that Gaines now realizes was "a piece of luck because Mad comics could never have gone through the Comics Code Association."

There have been hundreds of sources which offer(ed) the more familiar but incorrect version of events. But MAD isn't one of them. They recognized the advantage of getting away from the Code, but no one at the time understood how fundamental the move would be to MAD's success.

Andy: I've never said that it wasn't "influential, ubiquitous and familiar", but just the fact that it became a sitting duck for a National Lampoon parody should tell you how far it had strayed from its original vision.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. What that tells us is that the National Lampoon mocked prominent things. The same issue of Lampoon that featured the Mad parody included other articles making fun of the peace movement, "Sesame Street" and the Beatles. I'm not sure that "Sesame Street" had strayed terribly far from its original vision by the middle of its second season.

read mad magazine obsessively all through my formative years, read the comics versions too when they came out in paperback. i still have them somewhere. it was a great humor magazine in all its various incarnations.

Which reminds me of a question I've asked a time or two on various comics-related sites without (IIRC) getting an answer one way or the other -- anyone have any idea of what percentage of the magazines (not the comics-format editions) showed up in the numerous paperbacks over the years? I made a point a few years ago of accumulating all the paperback collections (which I loved dearly as a kid) through roughly 1975, but I'm pretty sure that means any number of features from the '50s-'70s have eluded my grasp.

I'm not sure that "Sesame Street" had strayed terribly far from its original vision by the middle of its second season.

The Cookie Monster was a total ####### sellout, man.

Good god. I think Andy is more old-fogeyish when it comes to early vs. later Mad than I am as regards video games. Assuming that's possible.

I was 10 at the time of the switch, and even at that age the dropoff in humor was obvious.

oh please. thanks, i'll get off your lawn, whatever.

read mad magazine obsessively all through my formative years, read the comics versions too when they came out in paperback. i still have them somewhere. it was a great humor magazine in all its various incarnations.

Different strokes for different folks, but I doubt if you'd get many good comedians to agree with that evenhanded take, and I haven't seen too many congressional committees going after MAD magazine the way they went after the style of humor found in the earlier version.

--------------------------------------------------

Andy: I've never said that it wasn't "influential, ubiquitous and familiar", but just the fact that it became a sitting duck for a National Lampoon parody should tell you how far it had strayed from its original vision.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. What that tells us is that the National Lampoon mocked prominent things. The same issue of Lampoon that featured the Mad parody included other articles making fun of the peace movement, "Sesame Street" and the Beatles. I'm not sure that "Sesame Street" had strayed terribly far from its original vision by the middle of its second season.

And I'm sorry, but that totally evades the point that it was MAD's bland inoffensiveness that made it such an easy and obvious target, just as the piety of the peace movement made it a comparable sitting duck. The fact that the National Lampoon parodied phenomena from all walks of life doesn't mean that they didn't richly deserve it.

--------------------------------------------------

Good god. I think Andy is more old-fogeyish when it comes to early vs. later Mad than I am as regards video games. Assuming that's possible.

Sorry, but Crispix had it nailed in # 12. The later MAD is little more than a collection of puns and Leno-style satire for 12-year-olds. Sorry if that opinion offends anyone, and I'll let the video gamers speak for themselves.

That Mad magazine still exists is amazing.

That Mad magazine still exists is amazing.

There are still 12 year olds.

I'll never wash these eyes again.

I remember Cracked as the...well...Burger King to MAD's McDonald's? Which probably meant it was better and they tried harder, but stupid young me only ever wanted the #1 popular brand.

That said, I was amazed when they reinvented themselves as the wildly popular Cracked.com

apparently steroids give you jaundice

Gef:
a question I've asked a time or two on various comics-related sites without (IIRC) getting an answer one way or the other -- anyone have any idea of what percentage of the magazines (not the comics-format editions) showed up in the numerous paperbacks over the years? I made a point a few years ago of accumulating all the paperback collections (which I loved dearly as a kid) through roughly 1975, but I'm pretty sure that means any number of features from the '50s-'70s have eluded my grasp.

The least reprinted MAD material comes from the earliest magazine issues: from mid-1955 to around 1958. Some of it is atypical "un-MAD" stuff that appeared while they were groping their way towards the magazine we know. Some of it could not be reprinted due to copyright/ownership reasons. Before MAD assembled their full staff of freelancers, and because it seemed like something magazines were supposed to do, they adapted a lot of preexisting material from people like Jean Shepherd, Ernie Kovacs, Jules Feiffer, Bob and Ray, Henry Morgan, and Tom Lehrer. (Or as Andy might call them, unfunny mainstream entertainers.)

Andy:
Different strokes for different folks, but I doubt if you'd get many good comedians to agree with that evenhanded take, and I haven't seen too many congressional committees going after MAD magazine the way they went after the style of humor found in the earlier version.

You've seen fewer than you realize. No congressional committee ever went after the MAD comic book. The Kefauver hearings dealt almost exclusively with crime and horror comics. And MAD's reputation in the comedy community is impregnable. Al Jaffee, who never drew a dot for the original 23 comic books, was greeted as a legend in the "Daily Show" offices when he delivered a piece for one of their books.

The later MAD is little more than a collection of puns and Leno-style satire for 12-year-olds. Sorry if that opinion offends anyone

There's nothing terribly offensive about faulty judgement. It would be just as simple to toss off a glib negative dismissal of National Lampoon, but it would be just as untrue. Both magazines were doing some superlative work in the early 1970s.

Here is a fairly recent six-page MAD article that appeared in the summer of 2010... whether the satire measures up to the great Jay Leno, you'll have to decide for yourself. The only thing that's beyond debate is that today's 12-year-olds can't get enough caricatures of Jonathan Alter and Charles Krauthammer.

As a kid, I loved the send-ups of the movies.
Even for movies I had never seen (or heard of), like "The Godfather" (original and sequel).

Then, when I got older, I saw the movies and realized that the MAD send up was even SMARTER than I imagined.

I bought a rather ragged copy of Mad Follies #5 just a few months ago purely because I wanted a copy of a boxing-movie parody called "Crazy Fists" that I vaguely remembered reading as a kid. Had no idea what it was called, but for some reason I remembered that the main character played the ocarina, & damn if Google didn't turn up a panel-by-panel reprinting of the strip on an ocarina-focused website.

Actual baseball connection: I'm pretty sure the fold-in back cover concerns the then-dreadful Mets. The mag came out in '67, so even when I first encountered it I'd somehow acquired it as a back issue; the first issue I actually bought was #118, cover-dated May 1968.

As a kid, I loved the send-ups of the movies.Then, when I got older, I saw the movies and realized that the MAD send up was even SMARTER than I imagined.

Me, too. I still have a fond memory for their long satire of My Fair Lady, entitled I think "My Fair Ad-Man" (or was it "You're a Pig, Mallion"). (It would now be My Fair Mad Man, I guess.) In their version back then, Cary Grant had the Rex Harrison part (Jack Warner had wanted him as Higgins), and although Grant is probably one of the most handsome men in history it was some delicious artwork caricaturing. Sinatra, I think, was a beatnik role reversal Eliza Doolittle. I always thought it great.

Anyone else remember Cracked?

I'm too young to have really appreciated Cracked when it was in print, but I've gone back and looked at some since. I love the website, maybe the funniest thing on the internet IMHO.

I saw some 10-11 year old on the train recently reading a copy of Mad and my heart was truly filled with gladness. I think it's a wonderful tool for a person that age. They are going to find out for themselves soon enough what a ######-up world it is, and they will need a developed sense of humor to deal with it.

I always thought of Cracked as second-rate (I bought both every month anyway), and count me among those pleasantly surprised it's become one of the funniest and informative websites I've seen.

read mad magazine obsessively all through my formative years, read the comics versions too when they came out in paperback. i still have them somewhere. it was a great humor magazine in all its various incarnations.

Different strokes for different folks, but I doubt if you'd get many good comedians to agree with that evenhanded take, and I haven't seen too many congressional committees going after MAD magazine the way they went after the style of humor found in the earlier version.

ridiculous. you've been hanging out with comedians and they say this? and as noted above, the committees never went after mad magazine. but feel free to assert something that can't be verified.

i get that the early versions are more to your taste. own that. meanwhile, you might want to refrain from trying to bolster your opinions with wild speculation.

from what i remember, the humor kind of matured, that's all. it wasn't as slapstick and off the wall, but a little more nuanced, though there were some nutty bits. it read as irreverent as ever imho.

Had no idea what it was called, but for some reason I remembered that the main character played the ocarina, & damn if Google didn't turn up a panel-by-panel reprinting of the strip on an ocarina-focused website.

oh man, i remember this ... awesome ... george chakiris is the young boxer and bette davis is the mother.

That caricature of Bette Davis was somewhat ambiguous at times. In the first panel it was almost definitely Davis, then she reminded me of Jesse Royce Landis (Cary Grant's mother in North By Northwest), then sort of like maybe Celeste Holm toward the end. But I always loved the caricature of the stars. Who was the girl friend?

I haven't seen too many congressional committees going after MAD magazine the way they went after THE STYLE OF HUMOR found in the earlier version.

and as noted above, the committees never went after mad magazine. but feel free to assert something that can't be verified.

I used caps because the underline function doesn't work. I did not say that the committee went specifically after MAD, though (a) they went after EC Comics, which was MAD's publisher; and (b) the style of humor in the magazine was markedly toned down to be more in line with the sensibilities of the mainstream. Whether you or I liked the result is neither here nor there.

MAD comics routinely depicted exactly the sort of gratuitous violence and cheesecake that both Wertham and the congressional committee pursued. Obviously the difference was that MAD was a parody while many of the other EC comics weren't, but if that sort of distinction had been recognized, there wouldn't have been the impetus to change the style of humor. As Gonfalon notes, the distributors refused to ship the rest of the EC line and the hint was obviously well taken. Perhaps this was cause and effect and perhaps it was purely a coincidence. I'm not sure why that matters when the outcome was the same.

I used caps because the underline function doesn't work. I did not say that the committee went specifically after MAD, though (a) they went after EC Comics, which was MAD's publisher

which is different from what you inferred before. which others have pointed out. so you were mistaken.

(b) the style of humor in the magazine was markedly refined to be more in line with the sensibilities of readers whose sense of humor was more developed than nosepicking adolescents.

ftfy.

That caricature of Bette Davis was somewhat ambiguous at times. In the first panel it was almost definitely Davis, then she reminded me of Jesse Royce Landis (Cary Grant's mother in North By Northwest), then sort of like maybe Celeste Holm toward the end.

i see what you're saying, but actually jesse royce landis and celeste holm both had looks that were quite similar to davis, depending on what movie they were in. i kind of liked that ... it was always part of the fun to read the strips and decide from panel to panel how close the artist came to capturing the celebrity ... the girlfriend was some ingenue i'm sure. i'll have to go look at it again.

can't figure out who the girlfriend is ... but those drawings of keenan wynn and buddy hackett were great. i also get a kick out of the way they did the word balloons in those squares. it was so different from anything else. heh.

Yeah, it was genius to make Hackett, "the guy with the mouth full of marbles", the heavy. It would have been an almost enchanting experience to hear him give voice to that character.