.jpg) |
| From Wham! #16, October 3rd 1964. Copyright REBELLION |
It's about time, I think, for yet another dose of
KEN REID's mental, manic and maniacal (to say nothing of fearsome, frightening and funny)
FRANKIE STEIN - from the pages of
WHAM!, published by
ODHAMS PRESS way back in the dim and distant days of the '60s. To refresh your memories as to how Frankie got himself into his present predicament, you may want to click on
this link and all will be revealed.
I look at pages of artwork like these, then think of some of the stuff appearing in today's comics and almost want to weep! Our kids are being short-changed and no mistake. Agree, disagree? Feel free to voice your opinion in the comments section.
 |
| From Wham! #17, October 10th 1964 |
.jpg) |
| From Wham! #18, October 17th 1964 |
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
17 comments:
I have not seen any of these "Frankie" strips before so thanks for this - and even better to see the latest instalment in the amazing "Down the drain" set (strip one) - overall that has to be some of Ken Reid's (and humour comics) best work (up there with his "Queen of the Seas" set and the likes of Wally Wood's work in the US). The work in this strip is wonderful - just look at the second page (1st panel) alone, the detail in that is stunning: the guys up the lamppost, the Scotsman's face, the wee girl getting crushed by her fat (I assume) parents, the wee boy crying, the bus etc etc all brilliant even the man with his head in the sand lol - all just such high octane work / humour.
I know what you mean re comparing this work with today's work but I don't think its really fair to compare (only in a way). Ken Reid, Leo Baxendale, Dudley Watkins etc were exceptions - they really were geniuses of the genre. Granted, there were also about another 10 I could name that whilst maybe not being on par were right up there (ie the likes of Reg Parlett, Bill Holroyd, etc etc) all producing wonderful art and humour week in week out - I think the real talent of today (not that there's not great stuff out there - Hunt Emerson I would rank up there with the best ever) go to other better paid art jobs (marketing, advertising, the US etc) but IMHO most (not all) of today's comics are pretty flat and well boring. Personally I blame the publisher or is it the big stores likes ASDA that want the books to be "parent friendly" or they won't stock them I'm sure this must restrict artists going for it (Ken Reid probably wouldn't get published today in the Beano). I'm sure Nigel Parkinson and the likes of Lew Stringer (I like Lew's work) would go for it more if they were allowed, and artists like Jamie Smart (who attracts some criticism) would be given free reign to do their own stuff (and get the lad off Roger the Dodger, that is not his style). Then again they should really find a way around producing better work in some cases despite the restrictions (if indeed what I say is true re ASDA etc). I have to say if I was reading comics today as a 9 year old I would like them, but I wouldn't want to read any more after I got to about 11 years old (nothing in today's comics have that Baxendale, Reid magic that gets you to want to check out other stuff in the way that the likes of Stan Lee, Neal Adams, Jack Kirby etc did for teenagers in the 60s and 70s).
Wow! I came onto your blog for a look around whilst I had my morning cuppa (have a day off work today) and here I am 3 hours later still on it. The last 3 posts (for me) were brilliant lol - McScotty
These are classic comic strips, love your sense of nostalgia.
More of this please
I like Hunt Emerson's style myself, McScotty - his Little Plum was good. (Did he do The Three Bears at one point?) However, that said, he did an absolutely awful strip in one of the annuals a couple of years or so back - truly dreadful it was.
As for Lew Stringer, when he was doing his self-published stuff a number of years ago, I thought his work showed promise. It reminded me of some of the lesser strips in Smash! in its glory days, but his present work leaves me cold. Competent and professional to be sure, but very far from top-tier in my opinion. Whether this is due to the demands of deadlines or trying to compete with the looser and less disciplined styles of younger, more contemporary cartoonists is anybody's guess.
Jamie Smart's art, in my opinion (going from his Dandy and Beano work) just isn't suited to comic strips. He's done a few single page illos which have been perfectly fine, and some of the stuff on his own blog is okay, but he's just not cutting the mustard when it comes to his DCT stuff. Truly abominable, in my famously humble estimation. However, DCT don't pay that much, so perhaps it's understandable that he just seems to be knocking it out as fast and as simply as he can.
Glad you enjoyed the posts. Does that mean I can mark you down as a satisfied customer?
******
Glad you enjoyed the strips, Tongalad. And here I thought your memory was fading.
You're far too polite Kid. Smart's art is crap and that's a fact.
Yep Kid, very satisfied customer - the blogs have been excellent recently, right up my street (better than 90% of the comics out there today... imho) - I have to add that I'm not a fan of Jamie Smart's work in comics (although I do like some of his indie work and that shows promise to me unlike Rodger the Dodger etc). I think his genre is PC games type stuff. With Lew I really like the humour / adventure strip (like the Mike Higgs' "The Cloak") and no one seems to be doing this any more. I've not seen the Hunt Emerson strip you mention though I did like his "Little Plum" and I think he did a Three Bears set as well(his "Knockabout" work is fantastic though and I'm still trying to track down a copy of his "Thunderdogs") McScotty
Thanks, McScotty - always glad to read a sensible comment such as yours, as opposed to the anonymous drivel which I receive from people in need of increased medication.
Lew Stringer delivers 'what it says on the tin', I suppose - but, like so many contemporary artists, to me, his work doesn't provide the same added rich rewards from studying a page after reading as Baxendale's and Reid's do.
Kid Robson lettered ZENITH. A comic more highly acclaimed than anything else by anyone else mentioned here.
Well, it's true that I did give Mark King a hand with the sound effects.
You know Kid, Ken Reid was a great draughtsman and Leo Baxendale was a genius. No one influenced British funny comic strips more than Leo in the last 60 years. Every artist seemed to take something from him, he was the pioneer. As for Ken, he was unique, there was no one in the UK like him and no one ever succeeded him in what he did. He poured his soul into his work and paid a heavy price for going that extra mile in putting in that detail you are so fond of. I see the quality of Leo and Ken, but the truth is I am definitely not a fan of Ken Reid.
It is unfair comparing any artist today to them.
Of the three current artists frequently mentioned here, I actually like what I have seen of Lew's work both as a writer and an artist. Yes, he has his limitations on the drawing board, but he has a passion for comics, this is obviously not just a job to him. He has consistently worked for 30 years in a shrinking industry. I would also go as far as saying that I do not class the other two guys as bad at what they do. They too have a style, some kids like it and some others don't.
Are kids missing out today by not having their version of Ken or Leo? I would answer; not too much. There are far more alternatives to comics today, to occupy them, both real and virtual.
I know, I have added nothing new to the argument. All each of us can do is voice our opinion, thats all it can be, a subjective opinion.
(Marko)
And, of course, you're entitled to your opinion without being shouted down for it - as am I. Unfortunately, however, there are those who don't seem to want to allow me my views and try to belittle me in the process of disagreeing with them. (Not that you're doing that.) As for Lew Stringer (and it was others who brought him up, not me), I don't have a problem with him working in comics - he's good enough and there's always a place for competent people in comics. However, as you admit, he has his limitations, and if I should prefer other artists to him, I shouldn't be grudged my preferences.
As for kids missing out by not having their versions of Ken or Leo, well, in an admittedly limited sense, they have. Tom Paterson does a pitch-perfect imitation of Leo and Keith Robson can do an excellent version of Ken's style. Unfortunately, however, they're not utilised by editors as much as they should be, so in that sense, kids are missing out - they just don't know they are.
And I agree that, to some degree, opinions can often be subjective. Sometimes 'though, the criteria on which opinions are based can be objective ones - or at least as close to objective as anything ever can be. That's why, when it comes to cartoonists, give me ones like Ken H. Harrison, Nigel Parkinson, Tom Paterson, etc., over what I view as the lesser talents that seem to abound in comics nowadays.
Wow! I'm not sure if I am more taken aback with the comments from unsigned "anonymous" or in reading that you Kid have been a life long teetotaller!! ............call yourself a Scot? (Scottish stereotype comment number 33) lol -
Actually to be serious for a minute anyone, no matter the reason (let alone arguing about kids comics - grow up) attempting to ridicule someone because they (rightly or as in this case wrongly) are on medication (or even unemployed??) is pretty pathetic and shows a major lack of character (maybe this was just written with a rush of blood to the head for some reason and perhaps in reality he/she is not the eejit they come over as here).
On the subject of mentioning the artists (Lew and Jamie) as Kid says, he didn't mention these artists first - I think for my sins it was actually me that mentioned them and not Kid. Plus Kid's replies were not bad, he simply stated Lew was an ok what you see is what you get artist (I paraphrase but that was the jist) possibly not to his taste and he certainly toned down his (I suspect) real opinion of Jamie's work (others, not Kid were more to the point on that). Me, personally I think Jamie has real potential to be a name in the commercial art genre, but with the plus come a "but" comment - ie his work so far on DCT books (not indies or Phoenix) to me, has been poor. I'm also pretty certain that Lew would not consider himself in the same league as Ken Reid or Leo Baxendale (mostly as he has has said as much as this on "Comics UK", not in reference to himself but in comic artists in general). Any other comments were made in reply to some obvious swipes at Kid from the anonymous commentator - so blame me (but don't bother responding as you do to Kid cause I just can't take comments like this seriously, especially from an "adult").
Was really interesting reading Marko's comments, I generally (wrongly) thought that if you liked the work of Leo you would like or admire Ken Reid's work also - I do get the fact Leo influenced more artists although I always put that down to the fact Leo's style was easier to copy (but never to surpass) and would agree for humour Leo Baxendale was number 1, week in week out for years I always smiled (does anyone actually laugh at comics) at his work as a kid and as an adult looking back. I would agree that Ken Reid was a consummate draughtsman but he was also a consummate artist (if that makes sense). Now everyone let's all have a nice virtual hug (or firm handshake) and be pals - McScotty
Don't drink, don't smoke, don't take drugs - AND I make all my own dresses. (Part of that is a joke - I'll let you work it out for yourselves.)
As usual, McScotty, another well-considered, reasoned, thoughtful, non-aggressive comment - are you sure you're a Scot? (Hee hee.)
Personal circumstances (i.e. life) over the last 3 years or so have mellowed my "Celtic rage", plus I'm sure they are watering down the Tennents special brew up here :0) McScotty
Drink twice as much. You'll soon be back to your swearing, smoking, arguing, belligerent best. Problem solved. (Scottish stereotype comment #34.)
UPDATE:
McScotty, in the interests of balance, I've often published comments on my blog which are less than favourable towards me, some of which you have referred to on this very post. However, it's now become obvious to ME that it's the same few people time after time, which gives the impression to other readers not 'in the know' that the tide of opinion is not in my favour. That's not balance, that's imbalance.
Consequently, I have now deleted these comments and, since they would make no sense on their own - AND FOR NO OTHER REASON - I have also deleted my responses to them so that they are not read out of context.
I should emphasise that, contrary to what Mr Stringer is currently trying to suggest on his own blog, I have not removed these comments in order to conceal 'what happened' (I am well-aware that he has screen-grabs), but from now on I refuse to let people use this blog as a platform to insult me. If I publish such comments, I am accused (by thickos who don't know me, obviously) of trying to portray myself as some kind of 'victim', and when I remove them, I'm accused of trying to distort the facts. The commenter was not 'challenging' me, as Mr Stringer suggests - he was just being bloody insulting.
To the few people who've emailed me asking about Lew Stringer's recent piece on his blog, it's my firm conviction that the man's entitled to voice his own opinion on his own blog.
However, I'd dispute his claim that I was taking a 'little pop' at him. I gave what I consider to be a reasonable assessment of three artists that someone else innocently mentioned, and I think my remarks were pretty fair and balanced.
My other comments were made in response to someone who was using Mr Stringer as the yardstick by which to measure my place 'in the food chain', a view which he has often appeared to agree with when referring to those he regards as bitter and frustrated people on the 'periphery of comics'. Therefore, when I receive personal attacks from an 'anonymous' person using someone else's (or his own, for all I know) 'success' by which to measure my alleged 'failure', I feel entitled to point out an APPARENT flaw (clearly labelled as such) in his comparison. Especially when the person referred to has implied or stated (or agreed with) the same comparison numerous times before on various blogs and Twitter sites in the past. Therefore, putting his nose out of joint is hardly a concern of mine.
The strangest thing about his post is that in addressing the subject, he reveals a concern that anyone should ever perceive him as being anything less than the success he and his sycophants clearly think he is. And, to be fair, in a way, he has been. A 30 year career, even in an industry which appears to be on its last legs, is nothing to be sniffed at.
Cont.
Cont.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that anyone who hasn't pursued the same career path as him is in any way a 'failure', which, inadvertently or not, is the impression that he and some of his supporters have often given in their attempts to dismiss the opinions of others, especially mine. Personally speaking, I find his current attempt at portraying himself as the meek and mild 'offended innocent' quite stomach-churning. He is well known for his arrogance elsewhere, so I'm not the only one who has a problem with him.
As for Mark Millar's appraisal of Mr Stringer as 'the heir to Baxendale' - that's like saying Timmy Mallet is the heir to Robin Williams. Wee Markie's entitled to his opinion of course, but it should be remembered that he makes his living creating fantasy scenarios. I doubt there's much potential for a movie in this latest one 'though - and that's something on which Mr Stringer and myself would appear to be in complete agreement. Wow! There's a first.
And no, the reasons for comparing the opinion of a successful Glasgow comics writer (in regard to Mr Stringer's art) with that of a 'has-been letterer' from the same city didn't escape me. It's really rather obvious what he's implying.
******
And no, I've never heard of Peter Dunn either. Nor would I have if he hadn't decided to chip in with his one-sided, distorted and inaccurate drivel on a situation he clearly knows nothing about. Looks and sounds like a complete dobber 'though. And, in publishing the comment without disassociating himself from any part of it, Lew Stringer clearly endorses the sentiments expressed therein. His usual technique. Lets others say what he thinks, allowing him to deny culpability for anything said at a later date.
There - that pretty much covers everything.
Post a Comment