Subversive Sixties in Ink: Underground Comix, Censorship, and Translation between the United States and Italy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on underground comix in the US and their reception in Italy, where different translations have been circulating since the late 1960s. Underground comix were the controversial product of the 1960s-1970s’ counterculture, that is, of a period of struggle and cultural renewal in US history. As taboo contents such as sex, drugs, and political dissent became the core of this needle-sharp graphic satire, underground cartoonists had to deal with media lynching, exclusion from distribution circuits, fines, and seizures of materials. The present contribution reconstructs the twisted relationships between underground comix and the different forms of censorship they faced in their homeland as well as in Italy, where they were translated by both militant and mainstream publishers in different time periods. This study focuses on Robert Crumb, the most famous underground cartoonist, and discusses a corpus of comics dealing with the theme of sexuality used to shock and subvert US morality. The compared analysis of multiple translations of the same stories, published between the 1970s and 2018, shows how the Italian reception of Crumb’s most provocative comics was impacted by a pre-selection of contents, practices of deliberate censorship of the original materials and, in particular, by the trivialisation of potentially subversive contents under the influence of the commedia sexy all’italiana film genre. It is maintained that, in the Italian context, Crumb’s sexually explicit works are not deemed controversial provided they are deprived of social criticism and re-interpreted within a comedic frame through translation. The latter argument paves the way for a reflection on how subversive materials can be “narcotized” (Eco, 2003, p. 139) by means of banalization, whose outcomes are similar to those that result from overt censorship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".