Digital Comic Museum
General Category => Comic Related Discussion => Topic started by: Yoc on August 03, 2010, 05:13:05 PM
-
Hi Gang,
Some might recall a request for info and opinions on Lily Renée some time back.
Well, the feature finally showed up on Newsweek's site at the following -
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/30/a-real-life-comic-book-superhero.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/2bshdr8
Enjoy,
-Yoc
-
Man, I would love to see some of this woman's work. Does anyone have any reading suggestions (or, heaven forfend, some kind of index)?
-
here is an index from GCD many available here
http://www.comics.org/penciller/name/Lily%20Ren%C3%A9e/sort/alpha/
-
She's best known for her work on Fight Comics 'Senorita Rio' feature. Fight #34-51
She worked with her then husband on Abbott and Costello Comics for St John that I highly recommend.
-Yoc
-
Most interesting article, thanks for posting it up Yoc.
Geo
-
here is an index from GCD many available here
http://www.comics.org/penciller/name/Lily%20Ren%C3%A9e/sort/alpha/
Thanks for doing this, narf,
but it seriously surprises me that so many people out there are unaware of the resources that are available to them. Wish there was a Newsweek article on the GCD, too. Even the Who's Who, which is sadly becoming outdated, should have more visibility. With all the work that's been done on both, one would hope that they were better known.
Sigh...
And, Yoc, I totally agree with the Abbott & Costello assessment. Good stuff.
(|:{>
-
here is an index from GCD many available here
http://www.comics.org/penciller/name/Lily%20Ren%C3%A9e/sort/alpha/
ps narf, I find it eversomuch more helpful to sort by DATE. It provides an overriding structure to the listing that I feel is more informative.
my 2¢
(|:{>
-
Based on this interview, I've just removed her GCD 1942 Timely credits at Comedy Comics. There is no way that the story signed "Reney" can be her work as she was first hired by Fiction House, per Renee, in 1943.
(|:{>
-
I agree Jim.
Thankfully both sites do get mentioned quite often (with links) in Roy T's 'Alter Ego Magazine' so that's something.
:)
-
I agree Jim.
Thankfully both site do get mentioned quite often (with links) in Roy T's 'Alter Ego Magazine' so that's something.
:)
In the overall scheme of "the real world", Yoc,
Alter Ego isn't even a blip on the radar. It's preaching to the a small clique of the "converted". I mean, Kusonoki is presumably a comics fan and yet he didn't know how to go to the GCD and run a search on Penciller = Lily Renee. That's pretty basic, IMHO. Anybody in GAC or DCM, fer crissakes, should be able to do that. I'd like it if anyone on the INTERNET knew enough to find that kind of info - well, at least that segment of the population that has an inkling that comic books did or do still exist.
A Newsweek (or any mass market, main stream periodical) mention would go some ways toward making that a reality. Alter Ego, bless Roy Thomas' persistent heart, is nowhere near the vehicle for such an enlightening. Sigh...
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
Right. I'm sure Roy is doing the best he can. It is a pretty specific niche he's going after.
A few more million dollar sales might get people looking harder for info.
-
That's unfortunately the nature of the Internet, Jim. For all the talk about automation, everything is still very much word-of-mouth unless you happen to be running one of the handful of sites that search engines use as a primary source for answers, like Wikipedia. Google and company do nice work for what they do, but the fact remains that, if you don't know to ask the question, the answers are rarely forthcoming.
There are a bunch of sites I'd put on the list of "why wouldn't everybody know about this," like the Internet Archive; the Wayback Machine alone has helped me out more than a few times. And sometimes someone'll try to take it upon himself to organize it all and curate the information, and...you end up with something like InfoChimps.org--which is nice, but itself obscure and incomplete, and suffers from the same information overload as the general case.
But then, you could say the same about books and magazines. There's a ton of great stuff that's been published over the years that none of us has ever heard of (and with the decline of brick-and-mortar used book shops, the likelihood of stumbling on such a gem decreases, unfortunately, just like the website issue).
-
Wow, thanks. What a good read.
And I googled "The Werewolf Hunters" and got it directly and found another good blog as well. This looks like the little red dress the article was talking about.
http://pappysgoldenage.blogspot.com/2008/03/number-276-spider-sorceress-heres.html (http://pappysgoldenage.blogspot.com/2008/03/number-276-spider-sorceress-heres.html)
-
Right on every point, Jon,
but one just wants to think that people would take more responsibility for finding information. It is SO much easier now than it has ever been and don't we have a thread on DCM on how to find comic info on the Internet (important sites, etc.)? It just seems that people expect to be told what to do rather than have the the thrill (and expend the effort) of finding it themselves.
Wish there were better tools available to turn up these precious sites.
Still, I'm happy that they are there...
my 2¢
(|:{>
-
I completely agree, but as with the thread...well, it's kind of the same situatiion, isn't it? Unless you've been here from the beginning and saw it, would the "thread of useful links" be obvious? I'm only asking that half-rhetorically. The few forums I've participated in, over the years, I've been with from the launch, so I have no idea what it's like to be the "RTFM guy," so to speak.
I'm thinking about how to solve the problem, but it's quickly a closed loop. Like, I'd gladly spearhead collaboration putting together a book for the community of where to find information and how to use it (there are tools I'm dying for an excuse to try out, actually), but...how does a user find the book, once it's written? Write another book to tell people about it? What does that proverbial bottom tortoise stand on, exactly? It feels like you'd need to get George Lucas to digitally insert the directions into the next re-release of Star Wars or something, to get it in front of people...
-
The GCD is interested in raising its profile as well. If you are on Facebook, you can "like" the GCD: http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Grand-Comics-Database/136512123051365?ref=ts
If you have a comment or a correction this might also be a way to contact us.
-
Yeah, John,
We need an instruction manual for the world, it seems. And even if you DID write one, how do you get anyone to READ it. Sigh... The "thread of useful links" is an excellent example of a beacon hiding in plain sight. I didn't take your question at ALL rhetorically.
We'll keep lighting that torch, no matter who keeps ignoring us.
Intrepidly, Jim (|:{>
-
Narf's Reference Links still exists on GAC but didn't make it over to here.
It's been on my 'to-do' list for a while. Sorry.
-
The GCD is interested in raising its profile as well.
It's a start, but it's not just a matter of getting noticed, Jim (GCD's Jim, I mean). The GCD (and this site, and GAC, and Who's Who, and...well, you get the idea--I'm not throwing stones, by any means) almost need some kind of unified "comic book research textbook," because the extraordinary depth between the sites can get overwhelming.
It's one thing to look at the GCD front page and say, "oh, I can search forr this comic and see someone's summary." It's quite another to realize exactly how many questions can be answered and how to form the questions. I'd be willling to bet that few people look at the site and think "checklists for every creator I can name."
(If anybody is interested in organizing the state of the art, in any respect, contact me privately, and maybe we can get such a thing moving.)
-
The serendipitousness of this just had to make me laugh, guys.
I've been diddling around on my bookshelves for stuff to sell on eBay and one of the things I turned up, in addition to some pics of Karen and me from 40 years ago, was a copy of Don & Maggie Thompson's mimeographed fanzine, Comic Art #6 from 1966.
In it is an article by Roy Thomas entitled, wait for it, "Newsweek Meets Alter Ego" in which Roy reacts to a, wait for it, Newsweek article on comics fandom in 1965. Fat lot of good Roy sees as coming from it, so I wanted to lower everyone's expectations and reset our wish priorities for some "national" exposure.
You can see the cover and read the description on eBay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=150476552378 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=150476552378)
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
And Jim becomes the king of coinkedink.
GCD underwent one recent major revamp. Advanced search can do a lot of things. It still has another major upgrade to come that will make it the premier site for research. I think you can not beat having actual copies like are scanned here for the best of research with seeing the real thing
-
The GCD's major weakness, IMHO, is that you never really know to what degree you can trust the accuracy of the data. There was never the "gatekeeper" aspect that Bails provided for the Who's Who and, while I completely understand and appreciate the magnitude of the task it set for itself and the unselfish efforts of all those who contributed, you are still left with uncertainties in the data and they cast a pall over ALL the efforts. I'm not the "final say" in such matters, but the number of errors I encounter is staggering and I simply don't have the time to start correcting them all. I have a life, as does everyone who ever input data to GCD, but the site needed a much more liberal supply of question marks in its infancy.
Still, it is an amazing effort to be applauded, and I do.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
Regarding the GCD, I think they've gotten really behind for some reason on updating stuff. I reported a couple of minor inker credit errors a few weeks (or perhaps now it's maybe almost two months) ago and they never made the changes.
Not that they were of any great importance, in fact they're pretty obvious (for people who'd care to double check such things), but still, it's somewhat off-putting. I mean, I hate to admit it, but I'm not sure I'd care to bother next time I run across something that looks in error if it's not going to make a difference. :(
-
I do not really do the error corrections. Most of the guys get on simple things right away so not sure what went wrong. One of the problems others have with the GCD is the effort they take to try and verify things. Yes early on it was screwed up but now everything is checked. Yes some errors still get in but compared to open wiki it has to be less
-
One thing about the GCD that irritates me is that there is no standarisation of creator names, I have found series where the same artist have been written differently 4-5 issues in a row.
That said, Comic Book DB, where they try to standarize names also have some creators show up as both Robert, Bob and Rob, so probably not an easy solution to this.
-
It's come a long way, narf,
but it's the early data that remains erroneous and the big problem is that there simply aren't enough people with the comics (all praise to GAC and DCM, etc.) and even when they are or become available, how many people can perform the IDs needed to make corrections? I've studied for 35 years to get as far as I have, and I'm still puzzled by so MANY styles... Even then, it took me nearly two years to correct the Fiction House data, and we didn't even finish them up.
As I said, it's a mind-boggling task and I believe it needed the energy that got it started, but that same enthusiasm led to what I call "data for data's sake" and that put a lot of mistakes in corners that will require even more effort to illuminate and correct.
DL: you can make your own corrections to the GCD data. Did you make some that were never implemented or did you submit them as corrections? I'm not sure what the difference is in the GCD process (or perhaps they pay more attention to "me"), but when I've made the corrections myself, they seem to get through pretty quickly.
I just wish I had days to just sit down with boxes of comics and crank in the corrections. One more great thing about the JVJ scanning project is that it allows me to submit data via the index cards.
Speaking of that, narf, I owe you a box of comics. I'll try to get to them tomorrow. It completely slipped my mind until I typed the sentence above. Sorry.
(|:{>
-
It seemed pretty quick when I posted an update on GCD, it was changed in about one day I believe, but then they knew the data posted up was wrong.
Geo
-
I process a lot of the error reports. Sometimes the speed at which they get done has to do with whether we are familiar with the reporter and whether he explains the error well. The error report system is also NOT the place to debate (un-signed) art attributions. We were also burned by an error reporter who submitted corrections that turned out to be wrong, so we try to double-check as much as we can.
And there are many things we simply are not able to do right now. We can't delete anything (cover scan, sequence, issue, series, publisher). We can't change the publisher listed for a series.
We also have a very common problem where an error reporter will send us incomplete information, we try to ask for clarification, and our emails are blocked.
The fix for the problem with creators' names is in the works. But it will take time.
(Aside to Drusilla lives!: I can look into your error reports and see what the hold up might be...but I don't know your GCD name. Drop me a note at jrvandore at gmail dot com.)
-
I'll just state those two small errors here... RGK should at least get partial inker credit on "A New Beginning" in Weird Science #22, and "Fish Story" in Weird Science-Fantasy #23. I just happened to have recently read both and noticed his initials in panels from both stories... page 4, panel 5 and page 1, panel 1 (respectively).
Btw, my GCD name is the same as it is here.