Twelve-Cent Archie

Comics Culture

by Bart Beaty

For over seventy-five years, Archie and the gang at Riverdale High have been America’s most iconic teenagers, delighting generations of readers with their never-ending exploits. But despite their ubiquity, Archie comics have been relatively ignored by scholars—until now. 

Twelve-Cent Archie is not only the first scholarly study of the Archie comic, it is an innovative creative work in its own right. Inspired by Archie’s own concise storytelling format, renowned comics scholar Bart Beaty divides the book into a hundred short chapters, each devoted to a different aspect of the Archie comics. Fans of the comics will be thrilled to read in-depth examinations of their favorite characters and motifs, including individual chapters devoted to Jughead’s hat and Archie’s sweater-vest. But the book also has plenty to interest newcomers to Riverdale, as it recounts the behind-the-scenes history of the comics and analyzes how Archie helped shape our images of the American teenager. 

As he employs a wide range of theoretical and methodological approaches, Beaty reveals that the Archie comics themselves were far more eclectic, creative, and self-aware than most critics recognize. Equally comfortable considering everything from the representation of racial diversity to the semiotics of Veronica’s haircut, Twelve-Cent Archie gives a fresh appreciation for America’s most endearing group of teenagers. 

Genres: Comics, Nonfiction, Books About Books, Graphic Novels Comics, Criticism, Comix, History

221 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 2, 2015

Reviews

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Twelve-Cent Archie is an examination of Archie comics published in the 1960s, when the cover price was twelve cents.

I'm an Archie guy from way back and threw this on my Christmas list because I'm allegedly hard to buy for.

Divided into 100 short chapters, Bart Beaty examines every aspect of Archie comics during the twelve cent era. Almost every topic imaginable is covered, from every girl in Riverdale being drawn the same apart from their hair, except for Big Ethel, to various plot conventions, to Hiram Lodge being called Albert or JP in early appearances.

The plot devices and secondary characters common to a lot of Archie stories are dissected, put under the microscope, and have the fun sucked right out of them in some cases. The lack of continuity is discussed, noting exceptions like Jingles and Archie's black book. The super hero tales are covered, as well as the Man from RIVERDALE.

This is a pretty cool examination of Archie comics. My one gripe is that Bart Beaty takes every opportunity to throw sideways jabs at Dan DeCarlo and tout Harry Lucey as the best Archie artist of the time period, putting DeCarlo third after Samm Schwatz and making sure everyone knows it.

Apart from the blatant anti-DeCarlo bias, Twelve Cent Archie is a good examination of Archie comics during the 1960s. 3.5 out of 5 stars. Yeah, deducting that half star was for Dan DeCarlo.

[Michael Neno · Rating 5 out of 5]

As research for this book, English Professor Bart Beaty read every Archie comic book published by the company during the twelve-cent era (from 1961 to 1969) and describes what he consumed in short chapters akin to Archie's six-page stories.

Beaty's thoughts on the company's output are smart, insightful, opinionated, fairly comprehensive, and imminently readable (especially if the reader, like me, has read much of the material he analyzes). Starting with the proposition that much academic appreciation and criticism of comics has slanted towards those works which exhibit the most literary qualities, Beaty rightly argues that more commonplace, workaday, comics-grounded work is just as ripe for, and deserving of, commentary. Topics covered include the no-continuity formula of the stories, their story-serving contradictions, the differing styles of cartoonists Harry Lucey, Samm Schwartz and Dan DeCarlo, the daily newspaper strip, the series' fantasy elements, '60s fads the company pursued, the series' gender politics, and much more.

The content is so comprehensive, it's a shame other Archie decades couldn't have also been covered (Samm Schwartz' best and most sustained work was in the '70s, for example), but that would make the volume too unwieldy and concentrating on one specific decade does allow Beaty to illuminate the era in which, he reports, Archie comics sold the most (it's also the era he was first exposed to as a child). Twelve Cent Archie is highly recommended to casual fans of the world of Riverdale and its denizens.

[Nick Nguyen · Rating 4 out of 5]

A pleasurable read for those who grew up reading Archie. The wide range of observations and commentary that Beaty culls together are well-spotted, well-argued, and written in an easily accessible tone that simultaneously offers amusement and contemplation. It's even structured to mimic the reading experience of Archie comics (too much in one sitting can be too much though it's an easy book to put down and pick up on irregular intervals).

My only beef against it (and this is outside of the author's control) is that the book would have benefited from a greater attention to visual presentation in terms of the quantity of the images and the quality of their reproduction.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Twelve-Cent Archie is an exemplar of pop-culture analysis. Bart Beaty makes the case, quite convincingly, that Archie comics (specifically, those published in the 1960s) may not be worth reading, especially not as "literature," but they are certainly worth studying as one of the most popular cultural artifacts of their time.

The parameters of Beaty's study required him to read every comic book Archie Publications published between December 1961 and July 1969 (these were the years in which [most] Archie comics cost twelve cents). These years contained, arguably, the publisher's artistic high-point and also, fairly objectively, the publisher's most financially successful years: in the '60s, their flagship title, Archie, consistently sold an average of nearly a half-million copies a month, and even the publisher's least-popular comics--like Pep, Laugh, etc.--sold a quarter-million copies per month. These are numbers that any comic book publisher would kill for nowadays, but even in the '60s Archie's numbers usually put it at or near the top of the best-selling books in any given month.

Commercial success does not equal artistic success, of course, but Beaty makes the case early on (as most pop-culture critics and historians do of their chosen subject) that the Archie comics of the '60s are worth studying not necessarily because they are works of art but because they were so ubiquitous. This is not to say that he doesn't find gems amongst the dreck. In fact, he has a clear fondness for the Archie comics of this period and makes the following memorable point in one of his college classes: A student, not knowing he was working on this book at the time, said that Archie comics shouldn't be considered literature. Beaty agreed with her, then added that Shakespeare "was probably a lousy cartoonist anyway." His point being that the value, if one finds any at all, in the Archie comics of the '60s is to be found in the artwork (specifically that of Harry Lucey, Samm Schwartz, and Dan DeCarlo). In other words, "literature" should not be the one and only criterion by which one rates a work of art's value.

But even artwork by Lucey, Schwartz, or DeCarlo frequently cannot save the average Archie story from being just plain bad. Considering the dozens of stories that were published each month, it's not surprising that anyone with a critical eye wouldn't find much to praise. Most Archie stories told the same basic story over and over again, because the characters' personality traits were so strictly limited, and because the lack of continuity between stories didn't allow for any growth or change. If "story is character," and characters don't change over the course of ten, thirty, fifty years, despite stories continuing to be written about them, how many of these stories can be great, or even good? Mathematically, the probability of great or good stories diminishes with each issue published.

Then, of course, there's the sexism (two gorgeous girls endlessly compete for the affections of a talentless bozo; girls can't play sports; a girl like Midge is defined entirely by the boy she dates; and a girl like Big Ethel is treated poorly because she's first "ugly," and later, "dumb" as well), the cultural conservatism (modern art is a scam; hippies are fakes), and the political blindness (during the height of the civil rights movement, no black characters appeared in Archie comics [Archie's first recurring black character, Chuck, wasn't introduced until 1971] and characters of any ethnicity other than white were usually treated in a racist fashion).

But wow, Harry Lucey sure could draw a beautiful pratfall! And this is where Archie comics shine. Beaty describes what he considers to be the (nearly) perfect Archie story, from Laugh Comics 166: it is a story in which nothing much happens and no one learns any kind of lesson (Beaty notes that Archie was well ahead of Seinfeld in this way), each character acts in his or her traditionally characteristic way, there is a metatextual element in the story, and, perhaps most importantly, the artist (Lucey) draws several well-executed pratfalls and sequences of wordless comic violence. The only reason Beaty doesn't consider it truly perfect is because Jughead isn't present. Otherwise, it contains everything that an Archie story does best.

It's a shame Beaty wasn't solicited for his opinion when Art Spiegelman and Françoise Mouly were putting together their TOON Treasury of Classic Children's Comics, because Spiegelman was never a fan of Archie and none of the book's advisors made a solid-enough case for including an Archie story in the book. (The story of how the book was assembled is retold, via an archive of instant messages and emails that were published in the Comics Journal 302, if I remember correctly. It's a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at how children's comics are valued, or not, by the artform's greatest contemporary practitioners and critics. Archie is debated extensively in the messages back and forth, but loses out in the end. Bob Bolling's Little Archie made the cut, but that hardly counts.) Ah, well.

Like Beaty, I have a fondness for old Archie comics. They were the comics I read almost exclusively as a kid, and so they were very important to my formative years. It's interesting to read, in retrospect, a cultural critic's well-reasoned take on how limiting and--to be honest--generally bad Archie comics were back then. It doesn't surprise me, and my own plunge back into my own collection of Archie comics bears this out. But kids aren't particularly critical about the material they devour, and every generation has the pop-culture garbage juggernaut of its youth, whether that juggernaut be Barney, Disney Channel sitcoms, or HBO's eviscerated version of Sesame Street. It won't kill 'em, and no doubt they'll remember it just as fondly as I do Archie and his gang of fellow cardboard cutouts.

[Diz · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a highly entertaining look at Archie comics published during the period when they cost 12 cents an issue. This period runs for about 8 years in the 1960s. Some of the greatest Archie artists were active during this period: Lucey, DeCarlo, and Schwartz. The author makes it a point to write short sections on various points in a way that mirrors the way stories were presented in Archie comics--stories presented without continuity. The good point of this is that it is very easy to pick up and put down as each section is from one to four pages. That makes this book easy to read. As for the content, if you are an Archie fan, you'll find a lot to enjoy in this volume. However, if you are an Archie skeptic and were planning to read this book to find out why people like Archie, you probably won't find what you're looking for.

[Hal Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is really a marvelous book, certainly the best ever written about Archie comics and one of the best books of comics criticism I’ve ever come across. Beaty claims to have read every 12-cent Archie publication, and his grasp on the subject matter is encyclopedic enough that I believe him. Too often a cultural critic is obviously dipping into his subject matter, dragging up random examples when examples are called for without any understanding of whether the examples are typical or even apposite. Beaty has the range to pick the example that most elucidates his point.

Tongue-in-cheek sections include a list of typos, "notes for the Norton Anthology" (should Archie stories be thus anthologized), and an abstruse economic analysis of whom Archie should marry (I assume one character got lost in a font change, or else economists use a box with an X in it to represent…a function or something).

My only real complaint is perhaps an unfair one: I think the book would benefit from being longer. Its hermetic focus on the 12-cent era leaves threads dangling right over the margin. For example Beaty’s statement that “until the introduction of Chuck Clayton…not a single African American appeared in an Archie story set within the Riverdale city limits” may not be true, if only because Val Smith predates Chuck by two years. Val’s debut is a couple of months after the switch from 12 to 15 cents cover price, so she only gets a passing mention (which omits her race) in this book, and I don’t think Beaty knows whether the Josie issues with Val took place in Riverdale, or Midvale, or some exotic location “where the action’s at.” I’d be curious, though, and the book can’t tell me, because it can’t look outside the 12-cent borders (actually, it cheats on occasion, but not at the exact times I want it too, which is what I’m complaining about!).

Discussion of the Archies (the band) is incomplete without discussion of the Pussycats, the Glads, and the Bingos—but at least some of these fall (just) outside the 12-cent deadline, and so we don’t get the analysis.

Similarly, the fact that Harvey Comics experimented with giving Richie Rich super powers and an adventure-based title a few years after Archie did—yes, this is well off topic, but wouldn’t it have been an interesting chapter?

For that matter, is this a book about Archie the publishing company and their output, or a book about Archie the character and his friends? Katy Keen merits barely a mention. Beaty seems to focus on what he wants to focus on (Li’l Jinx has a whole chapter!), and at times this shifting focus can be misleading. Writing about Archie knockoffs, Beaty constructs an argument about the “one-dimensionality” of teen comic characters of the era based on how closely they hew to the Archie formula; he wants to posit that the palette of choices one has in writing ’sixties teenagers is limited, and the examples he picks (Tippy Teen etc.) back him up. But I think he has massaged the evidence to conceal the fact that his argument is circular. Archie knockoffs are copies of Archie specifically because they are knockoffs! If they didn’t they wouldn’t be knockoffs! In fact, there are a wide range of 12-cent teen titles that do not follow the Archie pattern—Ponytail, Thirteen Going on Eighteen, Dunc and Loo, Wally—and their existence, while not necessarily refuting Beaty’s point, at least requires explanation. But they go unremarked, presumably because no one wanted to produce a 500-page book on Archie.

Yet this is what I want! What’s up with Jughead’s S on his shirt (is it, as I assume, just that it’s not an R, that rebel?)? When did Archie’s Gag Bag fillers start reprinting the daily comic straight up? Where’s Sabrina’s cat?

These are small criticisms. One of the great pleasures of this book (and among many!) is being reminded that the ’60s, perhaps surprisingly, do not constitute the core “classic” Archie period in which the characters become codified and reach their canonical forms. The ’70s, with its Dan DeCarlo lockstep look, its boost to Betty’s stature (I peg Life with Archie #120 (April 1972) as the watershed after which Betty has a fighting chance for Arch), and its gradual abandonment of humor, or at least the madcap humor that once had Archie labeled “the mirth of the nation,” is really the defining Archie decade. In the ’60s Mr. Lodge isn’t even named Hiram! Man, I’d really love to read a book called Fifteen- to Forty Cent Archie.

One question: why is every character listed in the index by first name except Clayton, Chuck?

[Mark Harris · Rating 3 out of 5]

Similar to “How to Read Nancy.” Fun and insightful.

[Biblio Files (takingadayoff) · Rating 4 out of 5]

A scholarly study of Archie comics? Even The Simpsons and South Park have more depth than Archie and the Riverdale High gang. And as long as no one has yet deconstructed Peanuts or Leave it To Beaver, I can't believe that academics have run out of pop culture icons to analyze. Bart Beaty has brought his considerable professorial superpowers to bear on this subject and has come up with the most original take on Archie comics that you are likely to read.

Beaty zeroes in on the 1960s, the "twelve cent era," when the regular comic books (not the double or special issues) cost 12¢. The 1960s were fascinating in many respects, and even Archie was affected by the times. But while many fans might remember that Archie, Betty, Veronica, and Reggie formed a Monkees-style pop group, they might not recall that when the occasional shaggy-haired hippie showed up in Riverdale, they were always the butt of the jokes. The mod clothing styles were also subject to ridicule, as was the op-art of the time. You really have to conclude that the comics were being drawn by a bunch of middle-aged guys who were more than slightly alarmed at what was happening to the country. Imagine Archie Bunker drawing Archie Andrews, remembering his own high school days wistfully.

Beaty notes that there is no continuity in the cartoons from story to story, each story is self-contained, the gang never ages or learns. It's a comic about nothing. He notes the various drawing styles of the artists and how identical storylines were treated differently in the artwork. He even explains the historical origin of Jughead's hat. When he occasionally analyzes the behavior of the characters, it feels as if he might be reading more into the comics than is there. But even that's in the best tradition of any kind of art criticism. Just because the artist/writer didn't intend to put it in there doesn't mean it doesn't exist for the viewer.

Twelve-Cent Archie is fun, not at all stuffy, and much more entertaining than reading a stack of Archie comics.

[Kathryn · Rating 4 out of 5]

An exhaustive thesis on a specific era in Archie history, the 12-cent period of the 1960s. Beaty dissects the denizens of Riverdale and all the trappings that made Archie / Pep / Laugh, etc. what they were - formulaic stories (sometimes with plots) drawn as diversions for a young readership. You'll learn more Archie and the gang than ever realized and may come away realizing things you hadn't before - e.g. the progression of Archie comics through a changing decade, constant repetition of gags/tropes, etc.

Like the author, I grew up on comics like Archie, Richie Rich, and the like. I enjoyed reading about the comics from a scholarly perspective, particularly now with the recent attempts to reboot the brand.

[Jackie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love Archie comics. I’ve been reading their comics for almost 20 years, and I’ve loved how the Archie comic world has grown. On one hand this book gave me new insight into certain aspect of the comics I didn’t know. On the other hand, this book only looks at a narrow field and I feel the author forgets this at times. He makes statements that may have been true, and no longer and I feel he should have noted that. The comics span 75 years, yet he takes the 12 cent era as if it’s on its own and disconnected from the 60 plus years.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

I usually snicker at overly academic analysis of comic books, and I've never been a fan of Archie, but I still found this book utterly compelling and interesting. Check out the IDW reprint edition of Samm Schwartz's Jughead comics for some wild comic book fun.

[Michael Rhode · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book, best digested in short doses and by people familiar with Archie comics.

[Kevin Hogg · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. An English instructor at the local college saw me buying an Archie comic at the local bookstore. Rather than scoff at my sometimes-lowbrow tastes, he recommended this book. I love the idea of scholarly treatment of the previously ignored, so I picked it up.

I'm not wholeheartedly sold on the random placement of chapters. I'm not one to read a chapter here and there, so it led to some repetition for anyone who would read from start to finish. However, it ended up enjoyable at times, when I got a string of chapters about topics I particularly enjoy.

The biggest obstacle for me was the absence of page 130, but I'm trusting that it's just a printing error and not to be held against the author or book. I tracked down a preview of the page on Google Books, so I got my closure.

This is exactly the sold of book that historically has driven me crazy due to spelling errors, but I was pretty pleased with this one. I found the spelling of Dilton's last name (given as Doily rather than Doiley) a bit jarring--but I've seen it spelled that way in some issues, so perhaps that's something that has evolved over time.

I guess that leads into one of my other thoughts. Limiting the study to the twelve cent era necessarily leaves out some information. However, it's necessary to remember that this isn't intended to be encyclopedic. For example, maybe Midge's last name wasn't established in the 1960s, so it isn't given here. At times, there are some references to later events (the Married Life storyline), but others aren't mentioned at all (e.g. Kevin Keller's appearance). Again, not a failing of the book, but something I needed to remind myself of several times.

Okay, that's a bunch of minor detail. Overall, like I said, I was impressed and engaged. Beaty makes a lot of good points about life in Riverdale and brings in behind-the-scenes details enough to demonstrate some substantial research into the creation and production of the comics. He presents some original interpretations, many of which are well supported. At some points, this might be a theory with no evidence other than his speculation, but it's an interesting viewpoint to consider.

I enjoyed that the book went beyond looking at each person and location. Many of the additional chapters deal with highly specific topics and oddities in the Archie universe, some with a good deal of significance and others that struck the author's fancy. Some of these are highlights of the book. Overall, it's a great beginning to Archie/Riverdale scholarship, and it would be great to see people carry on with this work.

[Dan Domanski · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's easy to find people in high places who have opinions about the comics that qualify as "literature": Persepolis, Maus, Fun Home, and some of the superhero comics. But no one would write a book about a very non-literary, definitely-not-a-masterpiece comic like Archie...until now. Bart Beaty has done it, and it's fantastic. I thought the color illustrations were worth the extra money; there aren't very many of them in the book, but they illustrate his points well, especially when he discusses the artistic style of Harry Lucey vs. Dan DeCarlo.

[Ondra Král · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sáhodlouhá analýza Archieho komiksů v šedesátých letech (resp. v období, kdy stály 12 centů). Beaty se na komiksy dívá z mnoha úhlů a v krátkých kapitolkách zkoumá postavy, tvůrce, zápletky, ale i sexismus, rasismus nebo panelování. Zajímavé, ale místy vyčerpávající čtení. Záběr čistě na šedesátky byl pro mě moc úzký.

[charlotte! · Rating 4 out of 5]

this was really good!! tbh i feel like the discussions of this eras influence on the modern era of archie could have been more discussed given that archie has entered the mainstream media again recently through riverdale and i would love to know the authors thoughts on it

[Elizabeth Lund · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enjoyable, readable book focusing on 1960s Archie comics. Very little on the comics outside that era.

[Heather · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are some truly stunning insights into the characters.

[David Rickert · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating, and obsessive to the point of madness.

[Joe Mason · Rating 4 out of 5]

Highbrow lowbrow!

[David Macpherson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is what I needed. A well written, smart look at forgettable comics. The author read every Archie comic from 1961 to 1969 and lived to tell the tale. There were 100 short chapters that didn't build off each other in a linear fashion but became a gestalt. This was cool. The idea that there is only a present in the Archie stories was fascinating. It became slightly repetitive near the end, but as a whole, this was a great book. Anyone who ever read Archie or any person curious about disposable popular fiction will like this book.

[Ashleigh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read as digital ARC.

Although I desperately wanted some analysis directed at Afterlife with Archie or Married Life, covering the twelve-cent period actually worked out quite well for me. Between my dad's comics and my own collection, with the way Archie Comics reprints/recycles, I was actually the perfect audience for this book and recognized many of the stories discussed. Beaty taught me many things about drawing style, humor, technique and characterization that I'd noticed, but never put that much thought into before. I also treasured the history lessons regarding topics like Hot Dog's arrival and The Archies. Although pedantic at times, I found this book an absolute delight to read.

Bonus thought: I was majorly impressed when Beaty brought up my favorite "Are you calling me, Betty?" story. Do you know how many years I had to wait for someone to use the phrase so I could pull that gag on them? AT LEAST 5 YEARS. And I've only been able to use it once. Worth it!

[Oliver Bateman · Rating 5 out of 5]

yeah, this was f'n magnificent. i'm writing a longer review of this that'll be published in a couple weeks, so i'll keep this short: this was the best treatment of a completely bullshit piece of trash fiction i've ever read. beaty manages to come to terms with the "twelve-cent" era of archie, and does so on its own terms, finding some value in its slapstick art and trying to make sense of the rest of its strange, ahistorical, and oddly conservative tropes. the chapters are short and to the point, deliberately out of sequence like the archie comics themselves (and thus able to be read in any order). all academics should take note: i want to read more of this, not more 500-page tomes built out of decades in the archives (not that beaty didn't painstakingly create an archive of ALL THE UNCOLLECTED COMICS FROM THIS ERA, which is itself a "holy shit" accomplishment. yowza.