Thursday 31 July 2014


A few posts back, I said I'd turn my attention to a couple of myths perpetuated about me.  True to my word, here's the first one.


What's your working environment like?  Do you get on with all of your colleagues, or do some of them really get on your t*ts?  What about the manager?  Nice guy or total @rsehole, with a bad attitude and a face you'd never get tired of punching?  If you think it's any different in the wonderful world of comics then think again, Charlie!  Unlike the MARVEL BULLPEN image created by STAN LEE (and replicated by ALF, BART & COS for the ODHAMS GARRETT), not everyone is loveable, or honourable - or even, believe it or not, the best person suited for the position in which they're employed.

There are some great people as well, of course; not only good at their jobs, but also really nice, decent, human beings.  I won't embarrass anyone by naming them (from either category), but there are some folk in comics who really make it a sheer pleasure to work with or for them. Unfortunately, however, there is also the usual contingent of idiots who don't have a scooby, and are unpleasant, surly, spiteful, resentful - and  don't really deserve to be on the planet, never mind in their jobs.

Let me now illustrate just what I mean by relating a true story of the type that many comics creators will be all too familiar with.  I once freelanced for a company that was terrible at paying their contributors in a timely fashion.  (They hadn't always been, but things had deteriorated.)  So tardy were they, that they actually sent out letters of apology (which I still have) and increased the page rates by way of compensation.  However, as they never managed to improve the speed at which they paid, it resulted only in contributors having to wait just as long for higher amounts than previously.

It eventually got so bad that my reliability in meeting deadlines was seriously put at risk.  For the first time in my life, I had to get overdrafts from the bank - not to eat or pay the rent, but just, on the odd occasion, to return jobs on the date required by.  Although the company was supposed to pay within 30 days, I often found myself waiting two or three months to be paid the full amount for several strips from a single week's work.  I wasn't the only one of course, but I probably found it more difficult because, having no other source of income (like a partner's wages) coming into the house apart from my freelance commissions, if I wasn't paid within a reasonable time, I simply had little or no money to meet the demands of having to send large packages to London on a regular basis.

To paint a clearer picture, if I earned, say, four or five hundred quid in a week for a few strips for the same company, I might get paid for one strip in a month's time (usually took about six weeks in fact), but I wouldn't get paid for another strip (returned on the same day) for another four to six weeks after that - and this would be repeated for each job until I was paid in full.  In theory, I was earning a fortune, but because I was being paid in instalments, it took ages to get my hands on the complete amount.  (Even when the company later changed from cheques to a direct transfer system, it only seemed to make things worse.)

It eventually got to the point where my bank wouldn't give me an overdraft because every time I'd assured them that money would be in my account on a certain day, it never was, despite me having been assured that it would be.  On one occasion, I even had to ask an editor to 'phone my bank and convince them that a cheque was on its way, so that they'd advance me cash to return a job.  (As well as the post, I sometimes used RED STAR, which could be costly.)

And now, having set the scene, let me finally come to the point.  An overdue cheque I'd been waiting on (this was before the transfer system had been adopted ) still hadn't turned up.  I needed the money to return a job in order to meet a looming deadline in a few days.  (It was all wrapped up and ready to send.)  I 'phoned the editor and asked him if he would chase up my cheque for me, because if it failed to arrive, I just didn't know how I was going to be able to return it on time.  As it turned out, the cheque arrived either the very next morning or the day after (having already been in transit), and I was able to return the job a day or two before deadline with no fuss.

Guess what though?  I later learned that this @rsehole of an editor (a smug b*st*rd who wasn't well-liked - either by colleagues or freelancers) was spreading it about that not only had I threatened to withhold the job 'til I was paid, but had actually done so.  I think I first learned of this when I was at a comic mart in Glasgow, and whilst chatting with a group of contributors to various publications, was asked about this apparently well-known (though not by me) 'legend' that had been doing the rounds in the comics community.  Now, remember, not only had I never threatened to withhold the work (expressing a concern over being able to is quite a different thing), but it had been returned well before deadline and hadn't been delayed for a second.

I may well still have a copy of the letter I sent to him in which I expressed my opinion about his disregard for the facts - should I ever find it, I'll post it here.  I was once told that whenever a particular group of former staff meet up, he isn't invited.  When I asked why, the answer was "Because he's a c**t!"  That's not a word I like or even use, but even I have to admit that it sums him up perfectly.

So, there you have it!  Despite any notions you may have about how great it would be to work in the comics industry, it's really no different than any other job when it comes to the people you'll meet and 'rub shoulders' with.  If you ever make it, you'll find out for yourself, sure enough.  Try not to be put off!

But don't go into it thinking it's going to be a bed of roses either.     


For those who enjoyed The FLASHING BLADE in the '70s (which is when I remember it from, though it was first aired on U.K. TV in '69), here's the opening and closing titles to help you relive part of your childhood.  Takes you right back in time, eh?



Here's a panel-by-panel presentation of half a page of a FRANKIE STEIN strip by the late, great, KEN REID that I was given nearly 30 years ago.  I no longer have it, but I was smart enough to laser-scan and laminate it before relinquishing ownership, and thought you might appreciate the opportunity of studying the detail at the original drawing size.  Nice, eh?

Below is the full, published version from WHAM! #29, January 2nd 1965.  The patch which changed 'am' to 'ain't' on the note in panel four was already missing when the original art first came into my possession.  (I may have shown this strip before, but not the scan of the original art.)

Wednesday 30 July 2014


As regular readers will have noticed, there's been a little controversy on the pages of CRIVENS! recently.  Some readers enjoy these little spats while others aren't too keen, but exactly what the proportions are, I don't have a clue.  (And not just about that, some critics would cry!)  Truth to tell, nobody ever really manages to come out of these things smelling of roses, so why do I bother airing these disputes if that's the case?  Simple.  Permit me to explain.

As it's this very blog that makes me a target for abusive comments, silent 'phone calls, implied threats of damage to my property, lies, distortions and insinuations about myself, etc., I see no reason why I shouldn't use the blog to address these matters and set the record straight.  To give you an example - a particularly loathsome individual recently used my comments section to lie about me in regard to a comic we both worked on for MARVEL U.K. back in the '90s.  While I could have chosen not to publish his comments, that would have allowed him to suggest I hadn't done so because they're true, and it wouldn't have prevented him from repeating those lies elsewhere, without a right of reply from me.

So, it's far better to confront the lies head-on and nip them in the bud before they pass into legend.  (Speaking of which, there are a couple of myths concerning me that have come to my attention that I'll get around to addressing one day.)  I usually alert readers to the nature of such posts so that they can skip over them if they don't fall within the scope of their interests.  One good thing has come from the most recent stushie, however.  In publicly accusing me of submitting abusive comments to the blog of one of his pals, he's revealed who his chum believes is responsible for them.  After all, he wouldn't level accusations against me in regard to a friend's blog if they ran contrary to that friend's own opinion, and it's clear that they've both discussed the situation.

That makes a nonsense of his buddy's claim that he had no particular person in mind concerning so-called 'anonymous' comments - proving that I was right all along.  'Nuff said!


Above, is MARTINE BESWICK, who played PAULA
in THUNDERBALL.  (She was also one of the fighting gypsy
girls in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.)  In this publicity shot
she's wearing the swimming cossie that CLAUDINE AUGER,
who played DOMINO, also wore.  I wonder if they had to fight
over it, or was there more than one?  Either way, it's us who
are the winners with pics like this.  Right, guys?

Tuesday 29 July 2014


Copyright DC COMICS

Big JOHN BUSCEMA never thought that MUHAMMAD ALI could box.  I used to doubt it myself, in fact.  I'd watch him dance around the ring, taking punches, and then wonder why he'd been declared winner when the other guy had done all the work.  However, as a symbol of what black Americans could aspire to, he was the perfect choice to go up against what some people might view as the epitome of the white superman - quite literally SUPERMAN.  Not that DC COMICS' blue-eyed boy was meant to represent such a notion, but it was hard to deny that he was the perfect peg on which to hang the accusation for those who were of a mind to.

I didn't buy the giant Treasury Edition back in 1978.  I didn't see the point in pitting a real-life character against a fictional superhero, so I gave it a miss.  It's now considered to be a bit of a collectors' item, and DC reissued the classic tale in a deluxe, omnibus-sized edition in 2010.  They also published a larger treasury sized version, but I'm running out of shelf-space as it is, so I opted for the slightly smaller tome.  (Update: I've now got the larger version as well.)

There are some nice extras in the back of the book, such as reproductions of pencil sketches and layouts, and an afterword by JENETTE KAHN, not forgetting an introduction by NEAL ADAMS himself at the front of this handsome volume.  A few panels seem to have been slightly reworked, though I'm unsure if the larger edition features these revisions.  However, it's definitely one to seek out, especially if, like me, you didn't buy the original and now wish you had.  Your local comicbook store is bound to stock a copy, and, if not, they can probably order it for you.

Why not pop in today and have a look?!


Images copyright relevant owners

Remember I said in the previous post that things would be back to normal with this one?  Well, let's compromise, shall we?  I'll meet you halfway by showing you some comics pages, but I'd like to wrap up a little unfinished business at the same time.

The above image is from RUGRATS, a monthly periodical (morphing into a fortnightly at some stage through its run) published by MARVEL U.K. in 1996.  It survived for 29 issues before being cancelled, and I contributed to 27 of them - from #3 right up to the very last one.  I lettered one of three strips in 5 issues, two of three strips in another 5, three of three strips in 1 issue, one of two strips in 2 issues (content was cut from three strips to two), and two of two strips in 14 issues.  So, out of a total of 71 strips, I lettered 48 of them - in short, the majority - right up to the final issue, completing the entire latter half of the run by myself.

Now let's remind ourselves of what a certain bitter blow-hard said in the comments section a few posts back:

"You were supplied with a Rugrats script to letter and took it upon yourself to rewrite the script replacing licensor-approved jokes and dialogue with dreadful old jokes and terrible puns of your own making!  Indeed so bad was your job, that I forced you to reletter the strip and then had to put up with your abject apologies as you squirmed in embarrassment on the end of the telephone begging for forgiveness.  Trouble is, once a freelancer has made that much of a tit of himself and shown you that level of ineptitude you never employ him again or indeed recommend him to colleagues and peers."

Got that?  I've already pointed out the absurdity of his claim, which is pure invention, but let's have a short recap.  The finished strip would have to be on his desk for him to read any departures from the script, meaning it had already been returned.  He'd then have to post it back to me to be re-lettered, and note that he claims he never gave me any further work afterwards.  Under those circumstances, it would be far more expedient to get a letterer closer to hand and cut me and the Royal Mail out of the proceedings altogether.  As that's not what he says he did, and seeing as how I was never asked (or 'forced') to redo a strip, his claim has absolutely no credibility.

So, at just what point could his 'imaginary story' have occurred?  If he kicked me off the mag as he claims, then how did I come to letter the remaining 14 issues all by myself?  Unless, of course, as luck (for him) would have it, my alleged crime didn't take place until the last issue, in which case there wasn't going to be any further lettering anyway.  And  if I'd revised the script (which, for reasons of space and internal consistency I occasionally did - after seeking and receiving editorial approval), Marvel simply wouldn't have gone to any additional bother for what was going to be the final issue.

So, there's nothing about his claim that withstands even a superficial consideration, which should come as no surprise to anyone who knows anything about how comics were produced all those years ago.  Conclusion?  He's simply being a lying b*st*rd!

However, I misremembered two things (age, alas).  It wasn't a cover which had 27 balloons on it, it was an interior page - and it had 28 balloons on it.  You can see just how copy-heavy some of them are - one even has 33 pieces of lettering on it.  By contrast, a complete seven page strip in an issue of Marvel's ACTION MAN published around the same period has only 25 word balloons - which is a helluva difference!  That means the letterer on Action Man had less work to do on seven pages than I had on one single page - and got paid six times as much for his efforts.  Lucky letterer.

I don't recall getting even one single chuckle out of any of the strips I worked on for the Rugrats mag.  Humour should never be so laboured - or so devoid of laughs.  I breathed a huge sigh of relief when the comic was eventually cancelled, believe me.  And that should tell you all you need to know about it.  Now, let's see if 'BILLY LIAR' has got anything to say about that, 'cos I sure could do with a laugh.  Probably the wrong person to go to for one though!  (He's crying inside, you see.)  Verdict?  Case proved, case closed!

Monday 28 July 2014


Looks just like a little turd, eh?  Same as the photo on the previous post

A number of years ago, someone tried to do me a bad turn.  At the time, he was widely rumoured to be having an affair with one of his employees and it was regarded as an 'open secret' by everyone else who worked for him.  I won't bore you with the details, but when this man eventually got his comeuppance, there was a general feeling amongst those who knew him that he had only received his just deserts (no, you're wrong - it isn't desserts) and not one single tear was shed on his behalf (apart from those he undoubtedly shed himself).

I won't lie to you - I despised the man and don't have a good word to say about him, even to this day.  One thing I refused to do, however, was participate in the gossip about his alleged affair.  I didn't know then (nor do I now) whether it was true or not, and just because he'd tried to wrong me, I refused to take revenge by adding fuel to the fires of what everyone else already believed.  It would've been too easy (though satisfying), and, pompous as it may sound, I at least aspire to be honourable, even if I don't bother about trying to be popular (or even nice).

I try to see the good in people, I really do.  Sometimes it's fairer to say that I struggle to see good in them, because I don't really have a high opinion of a lot of my fellow human beings.  You've only got to take a look around to see what's happening in (and to) the world today to understand why.  However, one thing that dismays me is when I see (or experience) someone trying to damage someone's reputation by taking the easy route and telling lies about them.  Whether it be in the form of a insinuation or assertion, it's wrong and it's evil, and the lowlifes who engage in it have no honour and are truly despicable human beings.

As I said in my previous post, liars don't have to prove their lies, merely plant them, and then stand back and watch their evil labours bear fruit.  Strangely enough, I've often found that the worst of folk also appear to be the most charming and charismatic, but are the ones most ready to resort to any means by which to achieve their purpose or fulfil their ambition - regardless of how it impacts on the lives of others.  Just so long as they get their way is all that's important to them.

One thing I know, though, is that their words and deeds usually come back to bite them on the bum.  Sometimes it doesn't happen right away, but, sure as eggs is eggs, it'll happen in the fullness of time.  And, in my case, I'm not averse to giving the wheels of justice a little push - without lying of course.  That I leave to those with no shame and no honour.  You can usually spot them by the teeth marks in the seat of their pants.

And there's usually a few boot prints right along with them.

Okay, peeps, you'll be glad to hear that normal service (or what passes as normal around here) will be resumed in the next post.  And I'm nothing if not honest!


You can just tell, can't you?

Never having been one to shy away from controversy, I confront lies head on, not ignore them in the hope they'll go away.  (Not for me the fear that someone might read my address of them and believe them to be true.)  That's the insidious nature of lies - the liar doesn't have to prove them, simply plant them and allow them to take root.  And let's be honest - if it's lies about someone we're not too keen on, we're sometimes far too ready to think there might be some truth behind them.  And let's face it, with my frank and forthright opinions on the state of British comics and the deterioration in the quality of some of the content, I'm hardly Mr. Popular.  There are people out there who are only too willing (and eager) to believe the worst about me.  After all, I've committed the heinous crime of not being overly-impressed by what they do.

Recently, artist DAVID LEACH decided to thrust himself to the forefront and comment on my post about the falsehoods being perpetuated about me on the blog (and elsewhere) of one of his pals and fellow cartoonists in the comics industry (such as it is these days).  You'll have heard the old saying about not suffering fools gladly - well, I don't suffer them at all, and instead of pandering to his over-inflated ego (which dwarfs by far any degree of talent he may have), I gave him short shrift.  In a petulant, huffy fit, he retaliated by indulging in a catalogue of outrageous lies, which he knows aren't true, but are designed purely to insult me and damage my reputation as a former professional lettering artist (and loveable human being).

You can read them in the comments section of this post.  That a professional comics contributor should resort to such flagrant fabrications in an attempt to damage the credibility and reputation of someone like myself - who is renowned for being meek and mild, humble and modest, self-effacing and introverted (okay, I admit I may be stretching credulity with that part) - perfectly illustrates the kind of devious disingenuity to which certain egocentric people are all too readily prepared to resort, in their attempts to deride those they seek to silence.  I  find it ironic that, under the pretence of condemning abusive and insulting comments on someone else's blog, he indulges in the exact same sort of behaviour himself.  And what's worse, lies through his immensely fat @rse while doing so.

After all, if there were any truth to his claims, it would be far easier not to publish them and thereby avoid the ensuing hassle.  I, however, prefer to demonstrate just what these people are like - warts and all.  And isn't it strange how the few individuals who attempt to shout me down by spreading falsehoods and distortions are all friends with one another?  I somehow very much doubt that it's merely a coincidence.  What do you call those who gang up to harass someone else?  Ah, that's right - bullies.

They should've picked on someone who's easily intimidated.

Sunday 27 July 2014


Good news, lads.  I never really watched
the show, but if I understand things correctly,
there are nine of her.  Put your names in a hat
and I'll pick eight of you from among them.
(All bribes carefully considered.)

Saturday 26 July 2014


Now here's a blast from the past - the opening titles of FOLLYFOOT, a popular TV series from the '70s.  Nice to see that DESMOND LLEWELYN got a bit of regular work between the JAMES BOND movies.


How do you measure success?  Is it by comparing your achievements to the accomplishments of others, or against the fulfilment of your own ambitions?  And when it comes to judging the success of others, it's probably pretty pointless using your own aspirations as the standard by which to do so, because they simply may not have been aiming at the same target - nor shooting the same kind of arrows in order to hit whatever target they were aiming for.

I once freelanced for IPC's top-selling boys title, 2000 A.D. I had my name in print, people requesting my autograph, and - best of all - money!  Was I success?  Well, in one way, yes - but in another way, not really.  I'd never had any particular ambition to work for 2000 A.D. per se, only to work in comics in some way.  The fact that I started my 15-year career on the most popular adventure comic in the country was merely a bonus.

So was I any more of a 'success' than someone whose first job was as a shelf-stacker in Sainsbury's and who then worked his way up to the position of store manager?  Well, no, not really.  Is he any more of a success than me?  Just how do you measure it?  It may never have been his ambition to work in a supermarket, but it was mine to work in the comics biz - and I actually achieved that.  (Interestingly, back in 1988, MARVEL U.K. contacted me to offer me work - I never had to approach them.  That's being a failure?)

If you're happy (or content) with your achievements in life, then, in a very real sense, you're a success.  Whether you're a biscuit salesman or banker, if you've attained the goals you set for yourself then that's an accomplishment.  (Unless your ambition was to be a failure - now there's an interesting paradox.)  Remember, you can't be said to have failed at something you've never tried (after all, you've got to be in a race to win or lose it), so don't ever waste a second paying heed to those smug, self-satisfied types who regard their own personal career situation as some kind of 'international standard'.

Deep down inside, they're extremely insecure people who need to feel that they've done better in life than anyone else in order to feel good about themselves.  Sad but true.

Friday 25 July 2014


know LYNDA has already made an appearance
on BABE Of The DAY, but how could I refuse when
she requested to be on again?  Well, could you say no
to Lynda?  (Behave - you know what I mean.)


           Me                                                     The other guy

Once again, I unfortunately find myself placed in the position of having to address a certain controversial matter that I imagine most of you won't have much interest in - might even be bored by, in fact.  I've dealt with the subject before, but the individual concerned seems determined to pick at the scab by constantly adding, subtracting and altering the details of his provocative and misleading remarks in a malicious attempt to malign my name and impugn my good character.  Such an attack cannot go unanswered, but if you prefer to skip such posts, I completely understand.


I guess his hits must be down. Why else would he be trying to stir things up again by posting such a blatant lie on his Blog?  What am I talking about?  You remember me telling you about a comics forum I'd joined a good while back and then resigned from on account of a handful of people who resented my membership doing their best to create controversy around me? 

I grew weary of certain members being allowed to say anything they liked either to or about me without the moderators calling them to account, so I resigned from the forum.  My resignation, as far as I'm aware, is still there for everyone to see.  After I'd resigned, one particular moderator somewhat impotently banned me for - are you ready for this? - leaving the forum.  Yup, that was my 'crime' - I'd left the forum.  The site owner subsequently invited me to rejoin, but I declined because I couldn't be bothered having to deal with the handful of @rseholes who clearly regarded the site as their own personal playground and didn't want to share it with me.  No big loss.

Got that?  So what do you call someone who completely ignores the facts of the case (even though he's aware of them) and continues to claim that I was banned from this forum because of my 'behaviour'?  I'll tell you - a big fat feckin' liar, that's what!  This is a guy who has taken frequent pops at me in the comments section of his Blog (without explicitly naming me, but making it obvious to whom he was referring), prompting me to respond on my Blog in humorous, mocking fashion of his childish, obsessional behaviour.  When these responses to his provocation had eventually served their purpose, in the fullness of time I removed some of them because they were no longer topical.  Once, in a fit of one-sided generosity, I removed a few of them to give the guy a break and wipe the slate clean. 

But guess what?  He's now claiming that I removed them in order to 'play down' my 'aggression', thereby suggesting that he has some kind of 'special insight' into my motives.  Let me tell you about aggression: This is the guy who once issued a thinly-veiled 'come and have a go if you think you're hard enough' challenge to me on someone else's blog, and has been accused of being a bit of a bully on the very forum he claims I was banned from.  He has been banned from at least two Blogs that I know of, the owner of one of them being informed that a warning would be issued to this person by his Internet Service Provider for his behaviour.  (Whether it was or not I have no way of knowing, but I hardly expect him to publicly admit to it.  After all, he is a liar, remember.)

And now, as far as I can see, he's at it again in his best sly, sleekit, sh*t-stirring fashion.  I've not long been alerted to the fact that he's currently claiming to be the victim of 'trolling'.  (That usually means that someone has ventured to offer an opinion contrary to his own.)  I've previously mentioned here that I find such designations childish and immature, and the first resort of the emotionally insecure who can't handle any kind of dissent to their own rigidly-held opinions.  Well, guess what?  In two seemingly casual, throwaway sentences - "If you don't like the phrase, stop doing it.  It's cowardly and it's childish and it's not welcome here" - he appears to be pointing the finger in my direction - without actually naming anyone of course, and thus allowing him to deny having anyone particular in mind.

He's done this before on quite a few occasions - it seems to be a pattern of his.  He makes remarks that readily apply to a specific circumstance or person, but does so in such a way that allows him to deny it when challenged.  Then he levels accusations of paranoia at whoever's calling him to account, hiding behind the fact that no names were mentioned, even though it's fairly obvious just who or what his comments or accusations were levelled at.  He's fooling no one of course, apart from himself and a few sycophants, but it allows him to evade accountability for his outrageous statements.

What he perhaps doesn't realise is that I restored most of my previous posts about him quite some time back (in response to his continued attacks on me on various Blogs, forums and Twitter sites), long before he'd mentioned I'd deleted them.  Any that I didn't restore was simply down to me not keeping them on account of them being no longer topical, not because I was trying to conceal them for any reason.  In his typically obsessed way, he claims to have archived these posts, so, if he'd be kind enough to supply me with copies of any he can't find on my Blog, I'd be more than happy to re-post them.

To be completely honest with you, I find it utterly disgraceful that a 'full-time professional comics contributor' should indulge in such outrageously provocative and disingenuous behaviour, but he obviously has problems of some kind.  In the meantime, kindly remember - I've given you nothing but cold, hard facts - whereas he continues to deal in lies, distortions and insinuations.

Hardly the behaviour of someone you can trust, I'd say.


UPDATE: In light of ridiculous claims on the man's blog, note that all I've done is report the fact that he's revised the lies about me on his site, and pointed out that he seems to be alluding to me in his post about abusive emails - yet this he constitutes as an attack on him.  He seems to miss the point that if he didn't post lies about me and attribute motives to me of his own invention, there'd be no need for me to comment on it.  For example, he's still claiming on his blog that I was banned from a forum because of my behaviour, which is a complete distortion of the facts.  To deliberately distort the truth is to lie, in my book.  Yet he denies it without ever addressing the evidence for it.  The truth is out there!  

Thursday 24 July 2014


COLBYS, LOIS & CLARK, and BABYLON 5 - plus quite a
few dreams of mine.  I don't know about the TV shows, but in
my 'productions', she won an award - and now she's made
BABE Of The DAY!  Is there no end to her talents?


Here's k.d. lang with a classic track that she more than does full justice
to.  So sit back and relax and let her dulcet tones envelop your lug'oles.


Characters copyright REBELLION

REG PARLETT was one of the greats!  Anyone who knows anything about the history of British comics art would never even consider disputing that simple, incontrovertible fact for a second.  Anything and everything he drew was imbued with a spontaneity and deftness of line that was effective, pleasing on the eye, funny, and seemingly (and no doubt deceptively) easily accomplished.

What we have here is an episode of RENT-A-GHOST LTD., from the March 17th 1973 issue of BUSTER.  Each panel has been scanned from the original art, and I've included the published page to allow you to do a direct comparison, enabling you to appreciate Reg Parlett's artwork at its finest!

And, to my eyes, that's mighty fine indeed!

Wednesday 23 July 2014


I first became aware of LYNDSEY MARSHALL
in an excellent TV show named 'GARROW'S LAW' a
few years back.  The above photo is from another drama,
though I haven't actually seen it.  However, what does it
matter?  She's still an absolute babe!


Images copyright DC COMICS

By now, if you've seen the other three posts in this run and are really serious about collecting classic comicbooks, you'll want to add these iconic issues to your collection.  (Assuming that you don't already have them all, natch.)  Don't know where to start?  Panic not, O DC disciple.  Every one of JACK KIRBY's CHALLENGERS Of The UNKNOWN tales are available in an Omnibus Edition which should be available at your nearest comicbook store.  You might even be able to pick up the previous two volumes of the DC ARCHIVES books which featured these great tales.

Interestingly, the title was still going when Jack returned to DC in 1970, but was cancelled not too long afterwards.  A handful of reprint issues were subsequently published in the early '70s, and the series was later revived for a short time, but not 'til after JK had departed DC.  There seems to be debate over who created and wrote the strip; some sources credit Jack Kirby alone, but others say it was Jack and DAVE WOOD.  There always seems to be controversy of this kind around 'The King'.  JOE SIMON said he created CAPTAIN AMERICA on his own, Jack claimed to be solely responsible for every good thing at MARVEL, and even his best-known '50s DC work has a cloud of uncertainty over who did what.  Pattern or coincidence?

Meanwhile, it's poor ol' STAN LEE who carries the can for being a 'glory-hog'.  Hardly seems fair to me, I gotta say!


Captain's log - should've flushed it away, the dirty
buggah!  But enough of such levity!  We gather here today
to admire the womanly charms of NICHELLE NICHOLS.
Just think - WILLIAM SHATNER got to snog her - and
was paid for it, the jammy rascal.   I'd have done it for
 nowt - even though I was only ten at the time.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...