.jpg) |
| Images copyright MARVEL COMICS |
And now, another big bunch of covers and images from UNTOLD TALES Of SPIDER-MAN, a retro-mag from the 1990s which set its stories back in the days of LEE & DITKO's era of the wondrous web-slinger. I filled you in on just about everything you need to know about the mag last time, so there's no point going over old ground. Instead, let's focus on the difference between comics of today and what I like to call 'the good ol' days'. In a local comicbook store recently, I overheard someone talking about the subject. He may only have been referring to a specific title, but his comment was apropos to most contemporary comicbooks, the main purpose of which seems to be to provide content for collected editions and thereby sell the same material twice.
"You've got to read them all together or they don't make any sense!" was what he said, referring to a continuing story-arc in a series of issues of the same title. And he's right. I can't be bothered with all that. When I pick up a comic, I want it to be self-contained, or - if it's a continued story - to be no more than three or four issues at most. That was the good thing about the comics of a now-vanished era; there may have been a continuing sub-plot to keep the reader interested, but the main storyline was usually done and dusted in one ish. The only comic I know of that does this today is DAREDEVIL in PANINI's The MIGHTY WORLD Of MARVEL.
Got any thoughts on the matter? Then you know where the comments section is. In the meantime, enjoy the piccies from a comic that knew how to give readers what they wanted.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
15 comments:
I never even read 'em all in the right order when I was a kid and I still managed to follow plots.
But now, I just ain't got enough years ahead of me to start at the very beginning again. I'll leave it to them youngsters. At least they'll be reading the classics which nobody should be denied!
I dunno what happened with this post, JP. I was making a revision, and when I'd finished, it popped up out of sequence like a new post. I don't think any comments were lost, but I can't remember.
What you say is correct. You could pick up one issue from a continued story in the '60s or '70s, and you immediately knew what was happening. Not any more, alas.
I can't remember seeing any comments, but I did mean to say something about "you gotta read 'em all in order!"
Anyway, first you need to buy/have 'em all!
Then, there are websites which are attempting to log them all in the correct reading order.
Me? - I wish I could just afford all the Essentials! That'd do me!!
I've got a few Essential volumes, but I prefer the Masterworks and Omnibus editions. Not enough dosh? You'll have to consider hawking yer mutton, JP.
Nah, you got me beat there! Hawking yer mutton? Can't work that one out?
Just like you & McScotty talking about "Boabby" - couldn't get that either, but didn't want to stick me neb in.
Hawk: to offer (goods) for sale, as in the street.
Mutton: meat.
You've obviously lead a sheltered life, JP.
I do know 'hawking yer mutton' but I don't know 'boabby'. My father jokingly referred to pregnancy as 'a bellyful of beef' - ever heard that, Kid ?
Nope, don't think I've heard that one before, CJ. However, everyone knows 'boaby'.
But I haven't got any meat. I've got some bread, but I wouldn't get much for it on the street.
Just googled boaby and if mutton's the same thing, I'd get even less hawking THAT on the street than I would for the fecking bread!
No more Essentials for you then, JP. Unless you start baking bigger loaves.
And that retort works perfectly - both in the literal sense and as a euphemism!
You crafty little, wordsmith, you! - You get the punchline and nick all my laughs!
Shameless, that's me!
I just googled 'boaby' and all I can say is that I never heard my father say it even once, perhaps they didn't use that word in Glasgow when he was young (he was born in 1927).
I think it's a relatively recent word, CJ. I suspect that it's no more than 15-20 years old - 'though I could be wrong.
Post a Comment