Digital Comic Museum
General Category => Comic Related Discussion => Topic started by: bminor on September 12, 2011, 01:46:22 PM
-
Am I missing a genre? Administrators please ad if you see fit.
b.
-
Actually, I like the anthology comics best because I prefer the period from 1939 through 1944. I've voted for the post-war genre I prefer above others.
-
Here's the thing: I don't often care about the genre, I mostly follow creators and to a lesser degree characters. So picking a favorite genre is not only tricky, it's sometimes deceptive.
-
Yes, I'm very much like Eric and while I collect a lot of stuff, my favs are creator based.
-
Having to choose is tough, but in the end I went with sci-fi/fantasy over the other genres like horror and superhero. Well, that stuff more often than not tends to overlap with the sci-fi/fantasy genre anyway.
And how about war comics?... Not that they would've gotten my vote, but I think there were a sufficient number of titles of that type to warrant a place on the list. :)
-
War option now added, thank DL
-
Ya know Yoc, I also forgot to mention Jungle. Funny how things change, I've read that that genre was HUGE back in the GA days, now it's an afterthought.
-
Easily fixed DL. :)
-
Ya know Yoc, I also forgot to mention Jungle. Funny how things change, I've read that that genre was HUGE back in the GA days, now it's an afterthought.
Was it really "HUGE", dl?
From 1935-1941, just about every anthology title had its Tarzan rip-off, but then, except for Jumbo and Jungle from Fiction House, there weren't any other genre titles until Fox began in 1947 (?) to do their GGA stuff. Standard had a couple of Jungle Girl strips in the late '40s in Thrilling (Judy of the Jungle, etc.), Fawcett had Nyoka (which almost doesn't count) and then Atlas had Lorna and Jann for a while in the '50s. DC had Congo Bill and there were occasionally a couple of issues from smaller companies (like three issues of Avon's White Princess of the Jungle), but I think it's only in retrospect that we think of it as other than a tiny niche genre.
my 2¢
(|:{>
-
This observation of Jim's makes me wonder if anyone has ever done a month by month breakdown of genres being published during the 1940s and 1950s?
Curious
Joe
-
That would be a headache and a half especially with so many bi-monthly, quarterly and one-shot books. But I'd LOVE to read it if someone has done one!
-
I imagine that a project like that would suffer from definitions, which would make it even harder. Books, stories, pages, or panels? As Jim hinted, does Nyoka count as a jungle story? How does one count the Superman/Tarzan crossover (it was an Elseworld thing, don't panic)? How the heck do you file Detective Eye?
Still, I'd also love to see something along those lines, even if the above questions are swept quietly under the carpet.
-
Was it really "HUGE", dl?
From 1935-1941, just about every anthology title had its Tarzan rip-off, but then, except for Jumbo and Jungle from Fiction House, there weren't any other genre titles until Fox began in 1947 (?) to do their GGA stuff. Standard had a couple of Jungle Girl strips in the late '40s in Thrilling (Judy of the Jungle, etc.), Fawcett had Nyoka (which almost doesn't count) and then Atlas had Lorna and Jann for a while in the '50s. DC had Congo Bill and there were occasionally a couple of issues from smaller companies (like three issues of Avon's White Princess of the Jungle), but I think it's only in retrospect that we think of it as other than a tiny niche genre.
my 2¢
(|:{>
I'd be more inclined to say yes than no Jim, although perhaps referring to the genre as being "huge" is probably an overstatement on my part. The jungle genre was big, I recall reading (someplace) that those Fiction House titles would outsell Superman at times... and as usual that's the main reason why Victor Fox got into the genre. When looking back in retrospect IMO it's similar to the Captain Marvel situation. I'd venture to guess that today most people who read comics (including myself) wouldn't understand (or believe) how "big" a sensation Captain Marvel was back then, yet he was... so it was with the jungle genre.
And even though it's long forgotten now, Sheena did have a long running TV show back then (perhaps even before Superman... although I'm not exactly sure about that, I haven't checked).
-
Btw, a quick internet search seems to point to Superman's TV show as being aired first, beginning in 1952 and running into the mid-1950s... Sheena apparently first aired in 55, and lasted for about two seasons.
-
I'd be more inclined to say yes than no Jim, although perhaps referring to the genre as being "huge" is probably an overstatement on my part. The jungle genre was big, I recall reading (someplace) that those Fiction House titles would outsell Superman at times... and as usual that's the main reason why Victor Fox got into the genre. When looking back in retrospect IMO it's similar to the Captain Marvel situation. I'd venture to guess that today most people who read comics (including myself) wouldn't understand (or believe) how "big" a sensation Captain Marvel was back then, yet he was... so it was with the jungle genre.
And even though it's long forgotten now, Sheena did have a long running TV show back then (perhaps even before Superman... although I'm not exactly sure about that, I haven't checked).
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 (|:{>
-
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 (http://ratmmjess.livejournal.com/236679.html).
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 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 (http://ratmmjess.livejournal.com/236679.html).
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 (|:{>
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 (|:{>
-
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.
-
Nicely said gents!
-
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 (|:{>
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (|:{>
-
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.
-
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.
-
I never initially thought of comics as "pop culture", paw,
though they obviously ARE and WERE. I was primarily impressed by the way a well-told story (specifically Spider-Man #33) was able to tug at my emotions - and it WAS in the middle of an extended story line. There was a power of which I'd not considered the medium capable. That potential is VERY rarely achieved for me. Since I wasn't trying to "recapture" any youthful sentiments, my quest for older comics was based primarily on 20+ year old's "sensibilities" (I really didn't develop anything LIKE a sensibility until at least five years later). So, frankly, I find such things as Wayne Boring's Batman- to be, well, boring and uninspired. YMMV, and the beauty and grace of Neal Adams' art only rarely was paired with a worthy script, but he did seem to inspire the writers to greater efforts.
Perhaps, as an aside, it's worth speculating that writers seem willing to devote more energy and craft to their comic stories when they are certain that an especially good artist will illustrate them. If they know that the artist is capable of TELLING the story, they may just invest more effort into crafting a worthwhile tale - perhaps an explanation for the rise and success of the author/artist. Of course, there are exceptions, but I'll postulate the theory anyway.
I agree with your description of the faults of modern comics, but would contend that "paper and price" are essentially immaterial. If there is a great story with great art, I suggest that neither paper nor price would inhibit your (or my) purchase of it.
I'm more critical of things like CMJ and JSA. CMJ has a few beautifully drawn stories and then, to me, becomes terribly derivative and self-referential all too quickly. Too many Raboy-mimics, too soon, and not enough attention paid to the stories. Once I see what CAN be, it's hard to accept a slap-dash approximation. JSA was formulaic and cliche-ridden from the beginning with plug-in plots and only serviceable art. Nothing special - just one more routine by-the-numbers comic. Frankly, I want more for my entertainment time investment.
And ALL the things of our youth were "better", I maintain, simply because WE were more susceptible and less jaded. The first music you like "imprints" you with that connection and, since nothing else can be "first", your tastes are unlikely to change considerably. Other types, with some resonance with that first "love", can be appreciated, but they won't supplant that core imprint. NOTHING will ever replace the 1950s rock and roll I first heard in 1956 at 10 years old. The presence of record store that specializes in that and in '50s rockabilly right across the street from our apartment in Paris is so much "icing on the cake" to my appreciation and love for that city.
I've tried to watch the TV shows and movies of my youth and I find that I've moved far beyond them. They were then and this is now. Devoting any time at all to modern TV seems to get really old really fast. A friend of ours gave us a DVD of the first season of Desperate Housewives just after they were aired. We watched the first two. I watched the third. And then I simply didn't care enough any more. Same with various incarnations of Dr. Who. The last thing we did watch was both seasons of Life on Mars, but that was several years ago and only because a dear friend INSISTED. It was quite good, but didn't impel me to dip a toe further into the sea of series out there.
Someday I'll go into detail about why I'm ambivalent about most British and French comics. Suffice it to say that I find they have more in common with American newspaper strips than American comic books and that I consider those to be two entirely different media. Someday.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
ps. did I tell you that last year I bought the very FIRST Corto Maltese appearance at a book fair in Paris? It was in Sgt. Kirk Magazine #1. Also has a striking Arturo Del Castillo western in it.
-
Hmmmmm, lots to consider in your comments. First, I love G.A. JSA because, when I was reading JLA way back, there was mention of other, older heroes who were in this strange JSA thingy and that fired my imagination. (That's the thing with obscure - the JSA was obscure, unknown in fact, to me) And it was not a letdown when they turned up. So colourful, different powers and weaknesses, different costumes. It was a while before I found reprints of the original JSA adventures and, no matter how you feel about them, for me, coming, as I said from a country where American comics were seriously rare prior to 1959, this was wonderful. A whole new world of masked mystery men to explore.
Second, you're bang on re. Spidey 33 and I still experience a wee frisson when I see the cover or read the story.
Thirdly, price and paper. My way round that, if a storyline turns out to tickle my fancy, is to await the tpb, which is usually less expensive but, admittedly, doesn't solve my problem with the paper.
Fourth, I've been imprecise again, I fear and should have said the Raboy CMJ. but while I'm here I should also admit to an enjoyment of Mr Scarlet
and many other Fawcett characters.
Music. Despite growing up with 50's pap and then the revelation of British beat and my continuing love of the Stones, Small Faces, Johnny Kidd etc. from that period, it has not stopped me expanding my taste to encompass classical, lots of jazz, blues, some country (Townes Van Zandt, anybody?) and I believe it is encumbent on all of us to attempt to expand our horizons and experiences, whether it be books, music, art, t.v., films, language and I am sure that is the case with all the enquiring minds on here.
Finally, your antipathy to French and British comics continues to surprise me despite your having gone into the matter a while ago. Difficult for me to convince you of the error of your ways. A lot of what was produced in Europe, as was the case in N. America, was not very good. Poor art, silly stories and titles which came and went without notice for reasons too difficult to go into here. There was also the good stuff. And then the seriously high quality, top level, knock your socks off, just plain gorgeous strips. I know you aren't keen on newspaper strips and I am. Be that as it may, the fact that our weekly anthologies ran 2,3,4 or 5 page strips each week was not much different from an American title with 3x 8 or 10 page stories every month, or 2 months. (Talking about 50's and 60's here.) So, Eagle, with it's ground breaking offset printing on better quality stock with superb art from Frank Hampson and notable others, is simply about as good as it gets, anywhere.
Also, it is important to remember that a lot of British comics contained lots of humour strips. Yes, I realise, humour doesn't travel well. But there are many cartoon/humour strips such as Baxendale's Bash St. Kids; Law's Dennis the Menace; most all Billy Bunter; Harry Banger's Stoogie (who, later became a superhero, Superstooge) and too many more to mention, that were of a very high quality and entertained millions every week. Different system, different culture and no less valuable and important for that.
Keep it up chaps, great exercise for an aging mind.
Forgot to say, enjoy Paris and you're a lucky sod. I've seen that Sgt. Kirk at Angouleme, but don't have it.
-
This will have to be fast and short, paw.
In NO order whatsoever (sorry)
1. I have NO antipathy towards EuroComics. I have an immense collection. I simply see them more as collected newspaper strips than comic books - as I said, a future topic wherein I will attempt to explain my perceived differences between the two and my fascination with one and just appreciation of the other. Much of what you point to in the British weeklies are much more comparable to US newspaper material. It simply does very little for me. Sorry.
2. I have many issues of Eagle with the Frank Bellamy strips and one thing I HATE about them is the reproduction. Sorry, but it's second rate for the era and third rate in the overall rank of print capabilities.
3. I love Jazz and some folk, some C/W, lots of show tunes and blues. But NONE of it hits home like the music I first fell in love with. That was my point. My iPod has 38000 songs on it and I generally appreciate most of it, but what I listen to most...
4. re "price and paper" - I wasn't referring to what might happen if something were to "strike your fancy" but rather what would happen if you found a true gem amongst the weekly dross.
Must run. Last minute orders to fill and comics to pack.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
Personally I've always thought that comics are a bit like Jesuits: if they get to you when you're seven they'll have you for life! But the corollary of this is that if you're not exposed to them early enough you'll never really understand them - however much you may appreciate the craft and skill that went into their creation. In my opinion this is why so many Americans just don't 'get' old British weeklies such as Eagle, Valiant, Lion, Beano, Wham! etc. They never got the opportunity to grow up with them in the way that Paw and I did. Fortunately for us the converse didn't apply on this side of the Atlantic as US comic books suddenly became readily available in 1959 just in time to experience the blossoming Silver Age, even as our own comics responded to the lifting of post-war paper restrictions with an equal burst of creativity. In effect, our generation were able to become culturally multi-lingual by absorbing two very different traditions of comics at the same time.
In later years, as fans such as Alan Moore, Brian Bolland, Dave Gibbons, etc. began to enter the business themselves, this unique cross-pollination led inevitably to the creation of British comics such as 2000AD which successfully incorporated recognizable US ideas and techniques. Finally, during the so-called British Invasion of the 1980s, I'd argue that they were therefore able to play an important part in invigorating a line of American comics that had become increasingly moribund and incestuous.
Nowadays, of course, the British tradition has virtually died out, and all comics have become American comics...on either side of the pond! :(
Incidentally, one thing I would take issue with Jim on is his low opinion of the colour reproduction in comics such as Eagle. Certainly they were quite crude at the beginning, and continued to have problems with tracking lines or poor registration - nothing is ever perfect - but I have yet to see anything produced during the same period, either from Europe or America, that was half as good. In fact, in the case of Frank Bellamy (who went out of his way to work with the printers so that his colours were always reproduced exactly how he wanted them), I'd go so far as to suggest that the results have never yet been equalled!
- Phil Rushton
-
Couldn't have put it better myself. In fact, I didn't.
-
I may be mistaken, Phil,
and if I am I will certainly eat my words. BUT, when I return, I will scan some of the Bellamy pages from Eagle and some corresponding pages from Pilote of the same vintage and YOU decide which was best. Remind me, as seven weeks from now I will have forgotten.
ps. bonjour (or more aptly, bon soir right now) from Paris
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
ps. the Jesuits did get me at 6, and I escaped!
(|:{>
-
Errr... You're not a homicidal, albino monk by any chance are you Jim?
Just what are you doing in Paris anyway...? :-\
- Phil Rushton
-
The Jesuits didn't get me until I was 14; so I didn't really get caught. Learned a lot from them, though.
Then again, the most memorable of my Jesuit teachers was actually, based on his extraordinary knowledge of the private lives of various noteworthy individuals throughout history and some other details, quite clearly an immortal who had changed identities multiple times throughout his long existence. The only previous identity my fellow students and I were able to track down was Henry Cabot Lodge, however.
To this day, I'm only half-joking when I say that; it really does still seem like the explanation that best fits the facts as I knew them. A wonderful, wonderful teacher.
-
Errr... You're not a homicidal, albino monk by any chance are you Jim?
Not when I last checked, Phil.
Just what are you doing in Paris anyway...? :-\
- Phil Rushton
Through an incredible set of manipulations of the Force, I LIVE here three months out of the year. This is my "six weeks in Fall" residence.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
JVJ Publishing / Jim Vadeboncoeur, Jr.
125 rue Legendre / Paris 75017 France
Ph. 01 42 63 99 93 ou 06 80 96 46 79
jim@bpib.com www.bpib.com
-
Seems like you just got back Jim. Well enjoy once again as I am sure you do.
-
ps. Tomorrow I get my copy of Neal Stephenson's latest, Reamde. I find my pleasures where I can.
Drifting way off topic, but what did you think of Reamde, Jim? I had been working through mostly on the bus or lunch breaks until tonight, when I found myself about the half-way mark 6 hours ago and realized I could just about get through the last 500 pages before I absolutely had to crash to get 6 hours of sleep before work. (I read FAST, about 100 pages an hour.) And, more importantly, I had reached the point where I WAS going to finish it before I went to sleep. This was easily my favorite of his books since Cryptonomicon.
Eric
-
Finished a couple of days ago, Eric,
I agree. As I told a friend, "A worthy successor to SNOW CRASH and CRYPTONOMICON. As much as I enjoyed "The Baroque Cycle" which I began to reread as soon as I finished the third volume, this is better: more compact, richer characters and characterizations and more FUN.
Let me know what you think when you get to the end. And tell me what you thought of ANATHEM, if you read it.
Peace from Paris,
Jim (|:{>
-
Oh, I got to the end shortly before I posted last night; Jim. The post was what I did in the very brief window between "I finally turned the last page" and "OK, I can sleep now". Reamde was the first book in several years when I had a "I'm going to be short of sleep on a work night because I can't sleep until I'm done" reaction; I read around 500 pages in a marathon session. I loved it; it never turned from a thriller into a comedy but it was frequently laugh-out-loud funny. Stephenson is a master of injecting humor without sacrificing drama. He does still have his issue of not wanting to write falling action, though.
Anathem, I enjoyed immensely but I really need to re-read. It was excellent work on the micro level, his usual funny and well developed. And it was great on the macro level, with tons of big ideas coming at you at great speed. I'm just now sure how well I think those meshed. And it's probably telling that my reaction after finishing it was "I need to re-read this very soon" now that I had some clue as to what was going on, but I still haven't.