What kind of GA comic do you like best?

[Drusilla lives!]

Quite honestly, dl,
I don't know how big or small or huge or trivial the Jungle genre was, but for purposes of establishing the actual size, statements like "I recall reading somewhere..." don't do much for me. Personally, I don't believe that Jungle or Jumbo ever reached the circulation levels you claim. If you have some real details, then lay 'em on us, but sorta remembering something maybe isn't really germane. With the Internet and Google, etc., we should be able to better than that.

I can be convinced of your position, but not that way.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

I should point out here to you and others that I wasn't really trying to convince anyone of anything, I was only engaging in casual conversation.  If you want me to produce hard numbers and cite sources I might not be able to... because almost no one could, and I've found that those few that can won't... at least not for free.  Like most aspects of this stinking hobby of ours, getting a clear and accurate grasp of its history isn't free (both in money and time).  

So I make due with what I can get, and quite frankly, it's enough for me.  The more I've learned, the more I dislike comics... IMO they've always sucked.  And perhaps that's ultimately why it's so hard to get a clear picture of the industry.  Because for those who were REALLY involved in it want nothing more to do with it (perhaps because it sucked for them as well)... unless of course they can make a quick buck off it.

Now with that said, if you want numbers I can cite Nicky Wright's book again (The Classic Era of American Comics)... I know it's a bit dated, but what the heck.   He has Fiction House's "Big Six" coming in with combined monthly sales of 737,000 units (page 101) by September 1942, which he then states as "doubling" over the next few years, mostly due to war sales (page 102).  Since Fiction House's comic line was mostly built around the Jungle titles (all two of them at the time) I'd think it reasonable to consider that most of the 737,000 comics they were selling were of that genre.

Btw, for comparison he also has numbers for Quality (1.1M), Marvel (1.25M), S&S (1.285M), National (1.375M) and Fawcett who's sales by July of 43 were 7.4M... yes, that's 7,400,000.  There's also an interesting article that Yoc pointed out awhile back that has similar figures which I think is still available here.  

How this all adds up as to how "big" Jungle was I have no idea... but if Victor Fox wanted in on it, it must have been huge.

[JVJ (RIP)]

I should point out here to you and others that I wasn't really trying to convince anyone of anything, I was only engaging in casual conversation.  If you want me to produce hard numbers and cite sources I might not be able to... because almost no one could, and I've found that those few that can won't... at least not for free.  Like most aspects of this stinking hobby of ours, getting a clear and accurate grasp of its history isn't free (both in money and time).  

So I make due with what I can get, and quite frankly, it's enough for me.  The more I've learned, the more I dislike comics... IMO they've always sucked.  And perhaps that's ultimately why it's so hard to get a clear picture of the industry.  Because for those who were REALLY involved in it want nothing more to do with it (perhaps because it sucked for them as well)... unless of course they can make a quick buck off it.

Now with that said, if you want numbers I can cite Nicky Wright's book again (The Classic Era of American Comics)... I know it's a bit dated, but what the heck.   He has Fiction House's "Big Six" coming in with combined monthly sales of 737,000 units (page 101) by September 1942, which he then states as "doubling" over the next few years, mostly due to war sales (page 102).  Since Fiction House's comic line was mostly built around the Jungle titles (all two of them at the time) I'd think it reasonable to consider that most of the 737,000 comics they were selling were of that genre.

Btw, for comparison he also has numbers for Quality (1.1M), Marvel (1.25M), S&S (1.285M), National (1.375M) and Fawcett who's sales by July of 43 were 7.4M... yes, that's 7,400,000.  There's also an interesting article that Yoc pointed out awhile back that has similar figures which I think is still available here.  

How this all adds up as to how "big" Jungle was I have no idea... but if Victor Fox wanted in on it, it must have been huge.

I know exactly what you mean. I'm always telling people that "They're only comic books" implying strongly, as you say, that they aren't really that good. Expensive, yes, but most of them are only fair to mediocre, at best. Many of the publishers do not seem to have been the nicest folks, but I would disagree with you that this is a "stinking hobby." EVERY one of my friends and most of the people in my life are a direct result of the hobby - so don't be so hard on it.

Casual conversation is what I'm engaging in, too, but there's no harm in keeping as close to the facts as possible. Talking about comics history is what I like and it's what Tigger's do best. I also believe that there are many "myths" in comics fandom that are taken on faith and that they ought to be examined more closely. Our current perspectives tend to distort the view. As you say, getting a clear history isn't easy.

Taking your same data, I would suggest that it's pure speculation to consider that half of Fiction House's war sales were due to the two jungle titles. With Wings and Rangers and Fight and Planet as the other four, it makes just as much sense to argue that the sales were probably fairly evenly split, since Wings and Rangers and Fight were all war-oriented and basically had the same scantily clad girls in them, as did Planet. We'll probably never know, but I've never read that "Fiction House's comic line was mostly built around the Jungle titles."

I think that Victor Fox wanted in on sex and titillation and got it with Westerns and Crime and Jungle and Phantom Lady and whatever. I would speculate that Jungle offered the easiest titillation genre and it's probably why he tried more of them than the others - plus Iger had a staff of artists churning it out for Fiction House and he would have made them available to Fox. None of his titles lasted very long, and none of them started until three or four years AFTER the sales figures that  Wright cites (which the 1942 numbers for Fiction House were actually pretty impressive, given their small line-up...). The war sales boom was over and probably very few titles were as profitable and popular as they had been. Does he cite circulations for 1947 and 1948, when Fox jumped back into the fray?

How THAT adds up to how "big" Jungle comics were is also far from clear, but I don't think Wright's data is applicable in 1947, nor do I think there is a strong relationship between Fox's participation in the genre and its size. How big was the western killers genre, and the lurid, sexy romance genre?

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[Yoc]

Post war sales numbers for all the publishers (by title) would be fascinating to see.  To chart their sales through the Comics Code era would be quite informative.

[Drusilla lives!]

I know exactly what you mean. I'm always telling people that "They're only comic books" implying strongly, as you say, that they aren't really that good. Expensive, yes, but most of them are only fair to mediocre, at best. Many of the publishers do not seem to have been the nicest folks, but I would disagree with you that this is a "stinking hobby." EVERY one of my friends and most of the people in my life are a direct result of the hobby - so don't be so hard on it. ...

Do you know what I mean?  

When I feel like saying "They're only comic books" to someone, I usually mean that they shouldn't be taken too seriously, seriously in the "Wertham/Gaines" sense... they're only works of fictional entertainment, not that they mostly aren't good or not.  I've never considered myself as in a position to critique anyones work, let alone the cumulative output of an entire industry (although like everyone else, I have my subjective likes and dislikes as far as artists and genres).   They are what they are... but I guess that's just an outgrowth of what seems to me to be a gentrification of the form which is one aspect of my recent distaste for the medium.  IMO comics were suppose to be fun... a happy diversion... it saddens me to see the grotesque monstrosity that they've become.  And knowing now some of the back story of the business, that perhaps it might have always been so, that is even more disturbing to me.  

Particularly when I've had to recently come to the (somewhat sad) conclusion that I never experienced what you've mentioned here... I've never had any really "good" experiences with comics on the order of which you speak... particularly with the collector/hobby aspects of it.   And also sadly, I have to admit that perhaps I never understood comics really... what they fully meant to others.  

I guess some people (such as myself) are/were better off leaving them in the past, with whatever few good memories and feelings for them that they may have had still intact.    

[Yoc]

Hey DL,
You found DCM and the people here.  I think you can say you've met some good people who share your passion.  And btw, there are a lot of comics beyond the superhero work being produced by Marvel and DC.  I've been hooked on Vertigo's (DC) FABLES books.  I'm sure there are other books (like Mice Templar perhaps) that others could recommend if you're looking for suggestions.

-Yoc

[JVJ (RIP)]

Do you know what I mean?  

Yes, I do.

When I feel like saying "They're only comic books" to someone, I usually mean that they shouldn't be taken too seriously, seriously in the "Wertham/Gaines" sense... they're only works of fictional entertainment, not that they mostly aren't good or not.  I've never considered myself as in a position to critique anyones work, let alone the cumulative output of an entire industry (although like everyone else, I have my subjective likes and dislikes as far as artists and genres).

Precisely. Or seriously in the, dare I say it, Roy Thomas "I love the Justice League" sense. I love the FORM and the HISTORY (don't ask me why), but I don't READ comics. I did for a decade or so, and then sporadically for another two, but with less and less real interest in anything but the medium. Occasionally a series would rise to worthiness, but very seldom.

They are what they are... but I guess that's just an outgrowth of what seems to me to be a gentrification of the form which is one aspect of my recent distaste for the medium.  IMO comics were suppose to be fun... a happy diversion... it saddens me to see the grotesque monstrosity that they've become.  

Like watching a train wreck in slow motion from seven different cameras over and over again. The same screeching wheels, the same buckling tracks and the same multitudinous casualties. The same dumb corporate mistakes again and again. I don't think comics have been fun since 1969. Maybe one or two, on and off, but please don't let the current state of the industry taint your appreciation of their past successes.

For me it's always been the artists - generally good-natured folk doing their best in an untenable situation. It's hard to find a pre-1969 artist who wasn't a pretty decent person. I'm sure there are exceptions, but in the main, they are rare.

And knowing now some of the back story of the business, that perhaps it might have always been so, that is even more disturbing to me.

 

Again, consider how many GOOD people survived that environment. It was never very easy and seldom pleasant, but so MANY MANY really nice people like Murphy Anderson, John Severin, Everett Raymond Kinstler, Jim Mooney, Jack Davis, Al Williamson, etc, etc, etc, made their living there. Their success stories are awe-inspiring.

Particularly when I've had to recently come to the (somewhat sad) conclusion that I never experienced what you've mentioned here... I've never had any really "good" experiences with comics on the order of which you speak... particularly with the collector/hobby aspects of it.   And also sadly, I have to admit that perhaps I never understood comics really... what they fully meant to others.

I haven't had that many good experiences with "comics". All of mine have been with PEOPLE in and around the comic business - a business I've deliberately shied away from participating in during these last 45 years. I don't fully understand what comics mean to most collectors/dealers (they do tend to meld together with time), either. Still, most of those I met have proved to be worth knowing.

Sure there are assholes out there and you're bound to run into them now and again, but, like the good/evil ratio of comic artists, they are a minority.

I guess some people (such as myself) are/were better off leaving them in the past, with whatever few good memories and feelings for them that they may have had still intact.    

The fact that you're here and interacting with some pretty nice folks shows that there are still advantages to be had by staying involved. The current crap that passes for comics these days are unreadable to me - and have been for over a decade. They are picture/pin-up books with a passing nod to story-telling and a vicious streak a mile wide. I finally stopped buying them. My rule was I only bought comics that I would read and it kept taking me longer and longer to go through the week's haul. When I sat down and analyzed why, it turned out that most of them were simply unreadable - as comics.

As I said, that takes NOTHING away from the books that WERE readable and were crafted by some pretty awesome gents and ladies. Don't give in to the dark side. There's light at the end of the scan.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[Poztron]

Fascinating conversation. Of course, everyone has their own unique take on comics and comics fandom. My most intense interaction with comics fandom was approx. 1962-67, during my teen years. I have great memories of fans lending GA comics between ourselves for each other to read and then mail back in simple manilla envelopes (probably at printed matter rates.) I doubt that practice survived the mid-60s.

As for the worth or seriousness of comics, they are what they are. Pop culture produced to make a buck. Yet within those market-based restrictions, some marvelous work was produced. I am less a "just the art" fan than Jim, as I've both written and drawn comics and consider them a melding of both story and art. I mostly don't follow comics being produced today (especially those from Marvel and DC, etc.) as they don't interest me. But the development of sites like DCM and GAC and the GA scanning community has provided me with the much appreciated opportunity to delve into and follow the history of comic books' evolution from the '30s on. In so doing, I've had the privilege of seeing a lot of super art I'd not previously been aware of.

But, yes, a lot of it is hacked-out. All the more pleasure in finding the diamonds in the rough amidst the coal.

[Yoc]

Nicely said gents!

[JVJ (RIP)]

Remembering WHY comics exist is always helpful, Poz.
They didn't HAVE to be, and probably wouldn't be right now if not for the support of the "entertainment" industry. They were initially pop-culture pablum produced to make a quick buck. That they are still around would astound every single one of their early producers. Still, the passion they engendered in many of their creators far exceeds their value to society and certainly surpasses their cultural standing. And fandom, of course, is a nearly unique social cohesion that never existed in any other medium at the level it achieved in the 1960s in comics. Now "fandom" is synonymous with "market" and the cohesion is monetary, not so much social.

Two things:
1. I was 19 when I bought my first comic book, so I missed out on the formative/imprinting experience of youthful encounters.
2. It is more than "just the art"! It's the telling of a story utilizing pictures that fascinates me. I'm ALWAYS looking for that perfect story that melds the two. It just how many "There Will Come Soft Rains" are there?

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[OtherEric]

A very good question, Jim.  "There Will Come Soft Rains" is on my personal top 10 all-time favorite comic stories list.  Even by the high standards of Bradbury/Feldstein/Wood, that one is AMAZING. 

Sturgeon's Law is completely in force in comic books.  But I still enjoy a lot of the not-so-good stuff; and every now and then you hit something truly wonderful.

[John C]

It's also worth pointing out that pretty much any mass medium you're going to look at is mostly atrocious crap produced in hopes of making a fast buck, mostly by people who you wouldn't let in your house if you could help it.  Consider that Wikipedia--the Internet's crown jewel of collaborative volunteer effort, no matter what we might think about the accuracy and direction--was backed by Jimmy Wales, who was trying to make his money in porn and his behavior also shows him to not be a particularly nice guy.  The important work needs to be all but smuggled onto television, as evidenced by the stories of "Star Trek" and "All in the Family" show, and even their importance is debatable.  Music is largely mass-produced garbage, and has been since it was possible to make money writing it.

It happens.  Basically, you lower your standards a tiny bit and don't give any more thought to the crap and the CURRENT business (past business is interesting history) than you absolutely need to.  There's good music, good TV, good movies, good web pages, and good comics out there.

My feeling is that comics themselves basically took two serious hits in quality.  The first was when the second-generation writers and artists got to work, because they were trying to be comic book writers and artists.  It's more fun in some ways, since they're enjoying their work, but since they're trying to ape the phoned-in comics rather than trying to pay the bills until a "real job" shows up, the work isn't as solid, and that trend has continued to today with the choice between anatomically-implausible people and traced porn.

The next drop in my eyes was the "comics aren't just for kids" and "comics are serious art" movements that were in full swing when I started reading in the '80s.  Oh gosh, oh golly, an entire imprint where the characters can say bad words?  Ooh, where do I sign up, right?  Boobs, you say?  The whole idea that superheroes are only interesting if they're abusive, alcoholic misanthropes, to me, pushed the industry off a cliff.  I don't wish for a return to the Comics Code, but I think Frank Miller nicely illustrates the lack of realism in comics in that his template for Batman's personality is still used and, in nearly thirty years, nobody has strangled the character for being such an insufferable, impotent ass.

And yet, sometimes there's really entertaining stuff, despite the problems.  I don't know where it comes from or how to cultivate more of it, but it's always going to be out there.

[narfstar]

I think that some of the new stuff gets an unfair rap. Much of it is much the same stories as were being told in the sixties and seventies. Some of the covers are works of art. Their are more different styles of art now than in the sixties. You can find the abnormal physique but also the well done anatomy. Avengers Academy is as much fun as anything from the sixties. I am primarily a writer fan. Christos Gage, Gail Simone and Tony Isabella are consistently good reads and I believe Roy Thomas has new series coming. I like some of what Steve Niles when it is not straight horror but his humorous horror stories.

[JVJ (RIP)]

It always boils down to individual preferences, narf.
To each his own. I've NEVER focused on anatomy as being a criteria for good comics. Heck, people like Jack Kirby, Jack Davis, Harvey Kurtzman, Steve Ditko, etc. were not great anatomists. What they were for me, and what most modern comic artists seem to not be, is great story tellers. All too often in modern comics, I can't make heads or tails of the continuity without a second or a third look. That's what I was trying to get at when I described why I found it taking longer and longer to get through my stack of new comics. They simply were NOT easy to read. They didn't entice me into the story. In fact, the art often acted as a barrier to the story - the antithesis (to me) of what comics are about.

For me, nothing will be "as much fun as anything from the Sixties" because I'm no longer the person I was in the Sixties. I changed. I won't say "I grew up" because I don't think that describes it. I think I have just learned more and I know what is possible. Few, VERY few, comics in the last 30 years have lived up to the potential of the medium. Alan Moore's "Americas Best Comics" line came close on occasion, but then corporate maneuvering axed THAT bright spot.

I'm frankly jealous that you can find comics that continue to charm and entertain you. I am not so lucky.

ps. Tomorrow I get my copy of Neal Stephenson's latest, Reamde. I find my pleasures where I can. Thursday, I head off for Paris, where I hope to meet up with Tilliban and go over some good old ACE comics. Lots of fun - with no new comics.... sigh.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[OtherEric]

Ooh, Reamde is tomorrow?  It may need to wait until next paycheck for me to grab it, but that's one I'm looking forward to.  Stephenson is wonderful.

As to why it may wait until next paycheck?  Today I made my monthly trip to my current comic book pusher.  And got to pick up two books that have been on my dream wish list for a very, very long time:  Venus Masterworks #1 and Sugar & Spike Archives #1.  The Venus collection is the closest thing we'll ever get to a late 40's Timely/Marvel sampler:  Venus was a very weird book that jumped genres every 2-3 issues.  And the fact #1 exists means we should get #2, which will be an amazing Bill Everett showcase.  And Sugar & Spike?  250 pages of PURE Sheldon Mayer.  This is a book I've wanted for DECADES; even if I have a bit over half of the contents already.  They're the oh-so-rare comics that are truly fun for ALL ages; a bright preschooler would probably enjoy having them read to them but they still make me laugh out loud every time I look at them.  Even if it's technically early silver age, it's pure comic book gold. 

[paw broon]

What a good discussion.  I came in late as I've been busy with British comics stuff. 
Even though comics are considered as pop culture and cheap entertainment and while personal taste will always cause differences of opinion and while a lot of what has been produced over the years is really not very good, the entertainment side should never be underestimated.  Also the sheer quality of many G.A., 60's and the odd "new" comic makes this hobby something to be enjoyed and excited about.  I don't like very much that is new in comics and haven't done for a few years now.  The paper, price, unfathomable storylines, tie-ins and story extensions over umpteen titles make new comics a particularly unattractive offer for me, for the most part.  But I still find great enjoyment in re-reading many older American comics and strips incl. The Spirit; Black Terror (which despite bad art early on and daft stories, is just so exciting given that great costume, name and covers by Schomburg.) as drawn by  Robinson and Meskin; Hawkman by Kubert; G.A. JSA; Cap. Marvel Jr.; lots of Fawcett and MLJ  ..................... actually I don't know why I'm listing these, suffice to say most G.A. and some S.A. superheroes because they're all so colourful.  Never liked jungle titles and war comics leave me cold, probably because of the plethora of war comics which were available here in U.K. and I just got scunnered with them.
But I can't read Batman nowadays and the last time, imo, that Batman was enjoyable was when Adams and Newton drew his adventures.  For me, most modern stories of well known heroes pale into insignificance compared to their early stories.  E.G. Spiderman - but I gave that up not long after Ditko left.  Or Superman?  I love those Wayne Boring stories, Swan/Anderson and some of the Ordway period.  Now and recently, to me at any rate, pony tail, personal problems- horrible.
As with some others on here, I'm getting on a bit and sometimes do feel I'm living in the past.  You know, T.V., comics, music, all used to be better when I was young but it's not really true and I had a think about this recently.  We watch a fair number of new American & British t.v. shows and while The Avengers and old Dr. Who can't be beaten, we also love a fair few new progs.  Music isn't all crap nowadays and I can stand certain bands and chanters but Dr.Feelgood, The Pirates, Pretty Things just can't be beat. imo. I grew up with it all.
There are a lot of newish, non-superhero comics out there which are well done and enjoyable and some have been recommended on DCM but DL, if you will allow me to make some suggestions, you could try English language translations of The Scorpion and certainly any English versions of most books by Hugo Pratt, especially Corto Maltese.  If you fancy trying war comics, there a number of anthologies of classic British strips available (particularly Charlies War) and even I can appreciate that one.  What about the strip reprints of Jet Scott drawn by Jerry Robinson; the Phantom reprints from Hermes; the Rocketeer reprint; Tintin; Modesty Blaise(lovely art in the early stories by Jim Holdaway); the jaw-droppingly gorgeous art and upright stories in the Dan Dare reprints?  So much exciting stuff.
Excuse the ramble, I get carried away - comics do that to me.
I fancy the Venus collection.  All I have is a photocopied issue and I'm intrigued.
As some of you are into humour strips, can I mention the new Broons/Oor Wullie Christmas annual, containing really old D.D. Watkins strips from the Sunday Post.  I'm sure it will be on Amazon U.K.