I remember growing up in the 90s reading MAD books and magazines at Goodwill for hours on end. I would love to reread some of them and figure out what subversive ideas were placed in my mind.
I grew up reading Mad in the 80s and have read a lot of their earlier 60s and 70s work as well!
Funny you mention "subversive," though!
MAD Magazine has a "subversive" reputation, and that's certainly how I remembered it.
But when I go back and read those old issues, the overall worldview seems surprisingly (to me) very middle-class, conservative, and sort of the opposite of "subversive."
There seems to be a special kind of disdain for hippies, pot-smokers, and LGBT figures. LGBT figures in particular are always portrayed as grotesque caricatures.
They did not go easy on Ronald Reagan, but he's generally parodied as a photogenic-yet-doddering old man - it's not his arch-Republican ideals that were pilloried.
White, male, middle-class, middle-aged Americans receive a more gentle sort of parody which of course tracks with the makeup of their staff.
I still enjoy reading those old issues. I'm not criticizing it per se here; I'm just kind of amused by the disconnect between how subversive is felt to me while growing up and how conservative it reads to me now.
(I'm not too familiar with MAD from the 1990s onward. Not sure how things changed, if at all...)
As a kid (mid 90s) I remember acquiring some issues from the 50s and 60s. My impression was:
1. The artwork was way more compelling in the 50s into the 70s. More detailed, literally darker, somewhat more inspired by comic books.
2. Most of the humor was absolutely foreign to me. Except jaffees stuff, which seemed timeless.
The fold ins sometimes didn't land, but some of that was too specific to events that didn't resonate.
I was a fan of Dave Bergs stuff for the same reason. His political humor generally could be made current with minor tweaks.
Also can anyone explain the longevity of these Mad stalwarts?