BATTLE ACTION GRUDGE...

Copyright REBELLION

Surprising as it may seem, some people don't know - or appreciate - the difference between typeset lettering and hand-lettered dialogue balloons (or captions) in a comic.  "What difference does it make?" they ask in a puzzled manner.  Of course, these people are as thick as the proverbial brick and I'm sure all you 'Crivvies' could tell them the answer just as well as I could, if not better.

However, there's no need to tell them when I can show them.  Back in the 1970s, there was a period when IPC MAGAZINES resorted to typeset lettering for all their publications, the result of a dispute (so legend has it) with the letterers they usually employed.  DCT had used typeset lettering for years of course, and more or less did it pretty adequately.  IPC's attempts were disastrous on the other hand, and the appearance of many a strip was ruined in my humble opinion.  (For which I'm justly famous, I might add.)

Years later, when these strips came up for reprinting, they had to be re-lettered by hand to bring them up to an acceptable standard and allow them to fit in with the new material they sat alongside.  One such story is the one featured in this post, 'THE GRUDGE', which first appeared in BATTLE #196, cover-dated December 2nd, 1978, and resurfaced twelve years later in BATTLE ACTION FORCE (un-numbered), cover-dated December 14th, 1985.

This is one I lettered myself, and more was required that just placing new lettering over old.  There's a fair amount of 'blotting out' and 'drawing up' to be done, so that old balloon tails or odd edges don't protrude out from under the new and improved speech bubbles and captions.  Anyway, I'll let you judge for yourselves just how good a job I did - right after you've read the story.  Ready?  Off you go then, and remember you have a choice.  The original pages are on the left, the re-lettered versions are on the right of them.



Click on image to enlarge, then click again for optimum size.

COMICS? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH...

Or perhaps that should be:  COMICS DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH...

******

Some people are sensitive to criticism.  In fact, most of us are to some degree or other, but there are a few delicate, insecure souls who are over-sensitive in that department and who often angrily lash out at even the slightest critique of their abilities - whatever they happen to be.  Often they console themselves by telling anyone who'll listen that if their critics could do better, then they'd be doing it.  That's particularly the case with people in a professional capacity, but their protestations are often without foundation when one considers the logical implications of such a claim.

For example, I can't cook, but I sure know a good meal when I taste one.  And you can bet your little booties that I know when I've been served up slop.  Neither can I sing a note (couldn't carry a tune in a bucket), but I can tell a good singer when I hear one, as well as being able to spot a bum note whenever one happens to assail my ears.  I bet it's the same with you.  Couldn't draw a stick figure if your life depended on it?  I'm willing to wager that, chances are, you're still capable of telling the difference between a properly rendered figure-drawing and a 'mutant' monstrosity churned out by some talentless hack.  (Unless you're a total thicko, that is.)

My point being, of course, that just because you can't do something yourself doesn't necessarily mean you're incapable of offering a considered, insightful opinion on the quality or standard of someone else's work.  (In fact, sometimes it's not being able to do something that enables you to recognise when someone else can't either.)

I happen to know an extremely talented artist who is easily as accomplished as some of those working in comics today.  He pencilled and inked (as well as scripted) the MARVELMAN sample pages (impressively lettered by my humble self) which were submitted for MARVEL's consideration when they were deliberating over acquiring the character.  One of the head honchos at the company told me in a 'phone call that he was well-impressed with the artwork, and that the pages were "model" comics art.

    

Guess what though?  The artist concerned doesn't work in the industry and his name is unknown to the legions of comics fandom.  He happens to suffer from 'dry eyes syndrome' and it's absolute agony for him to draw for more than brief and infrequent periods at a time.  He'd probably be incapable of meeting deadlines for comics' monthly production schedules and would therefore be unable to make a living in the business of sequential art.

Consider also this.  When I freelanced for IPC MAGAZINES many years ago (though it seems like only yesterday), there was an editor of one particular comic who gave quite a lot of lettering work to his brother.  Nothing to do with nepotism he assured me, his brother just happened to be available at short notice whenever he needed him.  Now, I liked this editor, but his brother (whom I never met, as far as I can recall) was very far from being the finest exponent of his craft - which is doubtless why 2000 A.D. never availed themselves of his services.  (If they ever did, it must've been an emergency.)  Every page he lettered meant that better letterers didn't.

What does this prove, if anything?  It illustrates that not everyone who works in a particular field of endeavour is always the best suited to do so and may be due to considerations other than natural ability or talent.  It demonstrates that some people who are far better qualified can ofttimes be denied the breaks because someone less so is filling the space, or for any number of reasons.  Sometimes those who work in any given industry do so only because they were in the right place at the right time, or are simply 'good enough' rather than the finest craftsmen available.  (Council workmen, anyone?)

And one other, simple, obvious reason sticks out like a sore thumb.  (To me, at least.)  In a rapidly shrinking medium, there is only so much work to go 'round.  You could be the next JACK KIRBY or LEO BAXENDALE, but it's increasingly difficult to 'get the breaks' when editors understandably prefer to show 'loyalty' to regular contributors who display a competent (if uninspired) standard of work and meet deadlines.  Sadly, the chief concern of too many editors is simply to get a comic out on time, rather than focus on how it can be improved.  (The DANDY, anyone?)

A couple of embittered souls (one of whom is positively unbalanced) have sometimes accused me of being a bully.  (Ironically, one of them was accused of the same thing on a comics forum for abusing his 'status' as a comics contributor to browbeat others [now that is bullying], as if his opinion was somehow automatically imbued with greater validity on account of his occupation.)  I'm not in a position to 'bully' anyone, and wouldn't even if I were.  However, I freely admit that, whenever I read or hear of someone talking absolute b*ll*cks, I'll weigh in with my two cents worth.  Oh, wait a minute - I'm no longer a comics contributor, so therefore my opinions have no merit.  Aye, that'll be 'shining'.

If you're nursing ambitions to break into comics in a professional capacity, then keep on plugging away.  Don't be demoralised by a few smug souls who currently occupy a space which you think would be better filled by yourself.  It may take time, but if you really are that good, then there's a chance you might one day make it - if you're talented enough and if you're determined enough.  (Though sometimes it's simply a case of just being lucky enough.)

However, you need to face facts.  There are no guarantees in this world and the road is littered with the bodies of those who fell by the wayside or were passed over for others less worthy.  Just because you didn't achieve your goal (or haven't yet) doesn't necessarily mean (though it's a possibility) that you weren't (or aren't) good enough - it may merely mean that there are only a limited number of seats at an ever-shrinking table and that perhaps others got there first.

And don't let the smug, self-satisfied mouthings of anyone else ever lead you to believe otherwise.

MIKE NOBLE'S FIREBALL XL5 - PART TWO...

Images copyright relevant owner

We herewith present the second instalment of the FIREBALL XL5 adventure from TV CENTURY 21 #35, cover-dated September 18th, 2065 (no, that's not a mistake), as written by ALAN FENNELL and drawn by MIKE NOBLE.  (For Part One, click here.)

Mike Noble's composition was always perfect, and it's difficult to imagine any other artist of the day (whether it be HAMPSON, BELLAMY or LAWRENCE) surpassing him in story composition.  Only RON EMBLETON was equal to Noble's storytelling abilities in my humble opinion, both of them easily being a match in that particular department for MARVEL's mighty JACK KIRBY across the pond.  The two of them had that 'comics dynamism' that the others, undeniably great as they were, fell a little short of.  (Feel free to disagree of course - you won't get insulted for it on this particular blog - unlike some others.)

  

I recall thinking that the empty spacesuits was quite a creepy development, and being intrigued as to what the explanation for it might be.  Fennell didn't appear to 'write down' for kids, often including elements that less fearless writers or editors might have steered clear of.  Arguably, he wasn't big on characterisation, but with only two pages a strip he could hardly afford to be.  He kept the story rattling along at a cracking good pace, and that's no doubt why these tales still stand up well today and are so fondly-remembered.

For Part Three, click here.  Don't miss it!

T.H.U.N.D.E.R. AGENTS IN ACTION...

Copyright relevant owners

An interesting but short-lived monthly comic hit Britain's newsagents' shelves and spinner-racks back in 1986 - T.H.U.N.D.E.R. ACTION.  Short-lived in that it only lasted four issues; interesting because, along with newly originated material, it contained what seems to be unauthorised reprints of WALLY WOOD's '60s secret, super-powered T.H.U.N.D.E.R. AGENTS.

Unauthorised?  I suspect so, primarily because the pages were laser-scanned from what appears to be original TOWER COMICS issues.  Also, there's no copyright acknowledgement to whoever was then the current owners of the material, the only copyright reference being to U.K. publishers, SAVOY SERVICES Ltd.  (The comic was apparently a 'ROCK PHOTO PUBLICATION '.)

The first issue had a mix of full colour and black and white content, which didn't affect the new material as it had been created for b&w reproduction.  However, in the case of the U.S. reprints, the monochrome pages were 'muddy' and the colour ones looked washed out.  With the exception of the occasional pin-up page, the rest of the T.H.U.N.D.E.R. material was presented in a landscape format, akin to the MARVEL UK comics of the '70s, The TITANS and SUPER SPIDER-MAN & The SUPERHEROES.

With issue #2 the magazine went all-colour, which was a vast improvement, particularly in the case of the U.K. originated stories.  (JONATHAN SHATTER, plus new T.H.U.N.D.E.R. tales.)  The U.S. reprints though, continued to suffer from less than perfect reproduction, hardly surprising given their source.  The fourth issue proved to be the final one, although the cause of its sudden demise remains unclear.  Perhaps it simply didn't sell enough copies to warrant continued publication, or the lawful copyright owners of the Tower Comics adventures threatened legal action against Savoy Services Ltd.  We may never know.

Whatever the reason, these four issues make an interesting addition to the saga of The T.H.U.N.D.E.R. AGENTS!  If you're a completist, you may want to hunt them down on eBay - I imagine they wouldn't be terribly expensive to acquire for your collection.

Unfortunately, the captions and speech balloons for the new strips were typeset, which seldom lends itself to a satisfactory look - especially in action-adventure stories.  They badly needed hand-lettering, and when it comes to badly hand-lettering strips, no one beats me.  (Er, hang on a minute - that didn't come out right.  Oh well - you know what I mean.)

So, there you have it - a whistle-stop tour of a 'blink-and-you'll-miss- it' comics mag from over a quarter of a century ago.  If there's enough demand (and even if there isn't), I may one day share some more of the contents with you all as a special treat.  And if you have any information pertaining to this short-lived series of comics from so long ago, feel free to divulge it in the comments section and spread some enlightenment to your fellow bloggers.  There's no point in keeping it all to yourself.

As you can see, issue #4 carried a 'PG' rating.  Perhaps that had something to do with the mag's cancellation, as such an advisory may have resulted in it being placed on higher shelves, out of sight of potential purchasers.  (If customers can't see it, they can't buy it, can they?)  Having said that though, in my experience, newsagents seldom pay the slightest bit of notice to what it says on the covers of comics, automatically assuming that all such publications are for children.  

Oh, all right then - if you'd like to read those new T.H.U.N.D.E.R. tales in their entirety then just click right here.  Be seeing you.

******

Click on images to enlarge, click again for optimum size.