 |
| Copyright DC COMICS |
This post was inspired by me seeing the cover of Superman #205 on Facebook. It was the last regularly scheduled DC mag that I bought. "Why are you still reading comics?" asked Julie Schwartz of me in 2002 while we were having dinner with Carmine Infantino. "Comics are for 12-year olds" Julie continued, "I haven't read a comic in the 25 years since my retirement."
What I didn't say is that "I haven't read one of your comics in 35 years", but I was polite and did say, "I remember growing up and enjoying your comics. There was a time I liked them very much."
I've written about why I bought Marvel comics, but I haven't ever written, fully, why I gave up on DC. You see, in the United States (I don't know about Great Britain) it was okay to buy both... even at the same time. There was no real snobbery about comics produced by different publishers back then - not among kids anyway.
I began reading comics with Lois Lane #1, where Lois became a witch. My next comic was World's Finest #102, The Caveman from Krypton. What I didn't know is that while they started me reading comics, they would also be part of why I stopped. First, I was getting older. And as Schwartz stated many times, DC in the 1960s targeted their comics to 10-15-year olds. Marvel was targeting older readers, college students.
In my day there were 'families' of comics at DC: Superman family, Batman family, and the Flash/Green Lantern/JLA family among others, which all had different editors. I'd really began to enjoy comics with Challengers of the Unknown, the Jack Kirby early issues, though I had no idea who Kirby was then and probably didn't care. The Challengers went on adventures, they fought monsters and went to strange new places. You'd think Superman would do that.
Superman became formulaic. The same or similar ideas played over and over again. There was often a gimmick on the cover. Lois was witch, but we knew she really wasn't. Superman or Lois or Jimmy Olsen got old, young, fat, slow, blind, tall, short or bald. Superman was shown dying, or being poisoned by Kryptonite (often by one of his friends) or about to have his secret identity disclosed. Well, after just a couple of years this became boring and annoying. Usually it was a prank, or Superman trying to teach Lois or Jimmy a lesson for some cruel reason. That's right, Superman comics were often cruel. And although the comic's title was Superman's Girl Friend Lois Lane, their relationship never developed. You never saw them dating, holding hands or kissing. I mention that because Superman does all that with Lori Lemaris, a mermaid, and Lyla Lerrol, an actress he meets when he travels back in time to Krypton's past not long before it exploded.
DC had a goal of selling the most comics not creating the best ones. It upsets some fans when I say that, but it's true. DC was in the business of making money not producing great comics, so if a gorilla on the cover sold well there would then be gorillas on dozens of covers. Marvel was not that formulaic.
The Justice League was one of the few comics that had a full-length story, but it was often boring because of formula. A crisis occurs and the JLA divide up into four or five teams of two. Then whatever happens to the first team is repeated over the next 15-20 pages to all the others. They touch something and disappear; or grow old or something. So, you can read the first few pages and the last few and get the entire story.
With gimmicks and repetitiveness there was no fun in re-reading a DC comic. The dialogue was flat and uninteresting, it just told you the plot and nothing about the characters. It was written for 12 year-olds. Marvel gave us personality, intimacy, humour and continuity in their dialogue, it was fun to re-read.
Green Lantern should have had many outer space adventures, but he had just a few and in his mag's last year, he was stationed on Earth. Batman's covers were often misleading. Robin, despite the story's title, didn't die at dawn - or even at any other time of the day. And Batman would escape all those impossible escape-proof traps. Batman would often make a scientific discovery on the first page, use it on the first page and then never use it again. And if Adam Strange miscalculates his terrifying jumps into the transporter ray by one inch or one second, he'd be dead.
There were two problems that completely steered me away; the first was the Legion of Super-Pets. A funny concept and good for a children's book, but to see them have monthly meetings, sitting at their table with clearly labelled table settings for each animal and talking perfect English told me this was for kids, not teenagers or adults. It was Superman #205, perhaps the last Superman comic I regularly bought, that finally got to me. We now use the term 'retcon' meaning retroactive continuity. This occurs when comic book writers 'rewrite' the history or biography of their characters. Often, instead of using a new plot, they would just adjust an old one. In this story we are shown that a mad scientist caused the destruction of Krypton. As I mentioned earlier, they retconned Krypton's doom semi-annually, all with different survivors.
Batman improved when he got his 'new look', but then came the TV show and the mag got silly like the TV show. No change was permanent. There would be a 'new' Superman (in 1971), with reduced powers and no more Kryptonite. How long did that last, five issues? Or they would publicize a race between Superman and the Flash and no one would win. That sort of thing was the second problem that drove me away.
Over the years I did pick up several DC comics, especially Kirby's Fourth World, but DC had run out of gas for me and I'd run out of interest.
What's your view or experience, readers? I'd be interested in reading your reactions.
46 comments:
Superman's new direction lasted around 9 issues, BP, though the effects of the 'Sand Being' storyline were assumed to be in effect for a while after, though I don't think it was ever later referred to much (if at all) and was eventually quietly forgotten. Kirby seemed to ignore it completely. Also, note that Lois was Superman's Girl Friend, as in a friend who was a 'girl' - not his girlfriend. I don't know if that distinction was intended - perhaps 'girlfriend' WAS two words back then - but I tend to regard it as suggesting they weren't necessarily an 'item'.
Marvel comics may have been targeted at college kids but I started reading Marvel at the age of 8 and I understood them fine. I can't comment on DC comics because I never read any but The Legion of Super Pets seems totally ridiculous to anybody over the age of 5.
DC aimed their comics at age groups from around 5-12, whereas Marvel aimed theirs from around 5-18 (and beyond), so they weren't excluding kids, just widening the target group, CJ. And don't forget that your first Marvel comic was Planet Of The Apes, so you were reading a comic about talking gorillas who wore clothes. Not too different from a comic about Super-Pets, apart from in tone maybe.
And my dog loved the Legion of Super-Pets and wanted to join. (She was a super pet, actually.)
Doctor, I think it may be time for my injection.
Kid, are you seriously saying that POTA was like the Legion of Super-Pets?? And don't forget that the POTA weekly also featured Ka-Zar and Gulliver Jones when I started reading it. And I quickly moved on to reading other Marvel weeklies too which didn't feature talking gorillas :)
No, CJ, I'm humorously saying that POTA was like the Legion of Super-Pets. Of course, I suppose it could be argued that the Super-Pets stories were far more realistic, in that they didn't dress up like humans and use guns. Comics about talking animals are all silly when you think about it, and the premise of POTA could be said to be silly, depending on one's point of view. It had, though, as I said in my previous comment, a more serious tone to it. Or am I just being controversial for the sake of it? You decide.
Julie Schwartz question is one I have asked myself a few times as I have gotten older. I probably stopped reading UK children’s comics (Beano, Dandy, Buster etc) at what I assume was the normal age kids lose interest i.e. 10/11 years old, and boys comics (a UK term) around 11 /12 years old (with the very odd foray into them until 17 years old). With US comics the age I stopped (if I have stopped) is undetermined but I think I would say I stopped reading them properly at around 23/25 years old (1984-86) although for most of that time I was only buying some titles out of habit (Conan etc) and only scan reading them. I have pretty much continued like that since then with only a passing interest in new titles (now that has almost stopped) but I do pick up and read some back issues I missed first time around.
Focusing on DC and why I read them until I was around 18 years old was that they grew up with me. I read those early (now considered silly) stories at the time they came out (well a few months later in the UK) as a 5- 9 year old (65-69) and at that age I thought they were fun and whilst some of the storylines/concepts such as the aforementioned super pets, Lois lane etc trying to “trap” Superman into marrying them every other month etc were not of interest to me I loved what seemed to be a never ending supply of DCs superheroes, and I found the DC Earth 1 and 2 concepts totally fascinating at the time (played to death now sadly). As I got older I was able to read of their more “grown up” titles from the late 60s such as Deadman, the Spectre, Adams/O’Neil’s early run on Batman (albeit from 69 onwards), the Teen Titans, some of their war titles, Ditko’s Creeper etc. Then moving into the 70s they produced titles like Swamp Thing, Adams/O’Neils Green Lantern and Batman runs, the JLA, The Legion of Super-Heroes, Plop! etc. I think if I was reading some of DCs titles from 1960 – 1969s as say a 12 year old plus (now and then) they would have been unlikely to intrigue me for any length of time and I would have stopped reading soon after. As it was I think my age band followed the best of DC and when Marvel popped up proper (imho) in the 68-75 period that was me hooked on them until either I lost the magic or they did.
Yeah, I often wonder if comics lost their magic or whether I lost the ability to appreciate them with 'unjaundiced' eyes, McS. Maybe a bit of both. Only very occasionally do new US comics interest me, yet I find I love seeing stuff with which I'm already familiar being reissued, such as the True Believers, the Facsimile Editions, Omnibus and Epic Collections, etc.
I loved '70s Batman and Superman titles, most of the Marvel stuff, and Frank Miller's mid-'80s Daredevil: Born again series was an absolute belter, though probably not entirely suitable for kids. With a few exceptions I still prefer the early original run of Swamp Thing to most of Alan Moore's issues, and although I didn't much mind the first DC Crisis, once they started tampering with their continuity again, I lost all interest in their comics.
I liked the 'retro' 5 issue (I think) Avengers mini-series that Marvel did a few years ago, which was set in the years that the line-up changed for the first time, but most Marvel comics that I see nowadays (along with DC) seem pretentious to me, as if they're trying to be something they're not. Covers are merely pin-ups, and you just know that the reason word balloons tend not to appear on covers any more is because the publishers think it makes them look juvenile - as if that's a bad thing when it comes to attracting juveniles. (Remember, they're the adult readers of tomorrow, so gotta catch them young!)
Ah, for the glory days, eh? My comics purchases these days are mainly back issues, and, as I said, reprints and collected editions of older materials. Why do comics not seem to be aimed at 'my' type of reader anymore? If they are, they're surely missing the target.
I really liked Alan Moore’s Swamp Thing but I agree those early Swampy titles by O'Neil / Wrightson and Redondo were magic (I only recently found out that the Nester Redondo Swamp Thing issues were collected by DC so that Christmas sorted for me). I liked that Avengers retro series as well (although missed the last issue).I certainly enjoyed some titles from the mid-80s to date like the Byrne, Ordway Superman run (the best since Swanderson) Daredevil “Born again “ and the recent Waid/Samnee DD run, BDPR, Usagi Yojimbo (talking rabbit or not), Groo etc but the new stuff largely leaves me cold. Oh and regarding POTA I think you may just be extracting the urine there again.
I didn't know about Redondo's Swampys being collected so that's one I'll have to get too, even though I've got the originals. Talking of Swampy, I also quite liked Len Wein's 6 part series from around 3 years or so back - it was good to see his name attached to the character again.
Me extracting the pee, McS? Whatever can you mean?
Just to say that BP isn't neglecting your comments on his post, it's just that he's incredibly busy doing some work for Roy Thomas at the moment. Doubtless he'll respond when he has time.
Don’t forget I am on a time delay, so I don’t; get to some of the comments.
1. It is great to post here because e\we get some interesting points and discussions.
2. Planet of the Apes was serious science fiction, which presented moral issues for adults. It was clever and thoughtful. The Legion of Super-Pets were simply fantasies for children, once again exploiting the “superman” concept of giving regular living things super powers. (Superman was very much human looking)
3. Girl friend or Girlfriend, and maybe they wanted that to be ambiguous, it just got silly and repetitive. And even if they were just friends you never saw them going out together. (Except once to the movies in the 1940s)
4. McScotty: I wrote here about the DC comics of the 1960s. Recognizing that Marvel was doing well, they tried to improve in the 1970s. And how did they do that? If you read the credits MANY of their talent came from Marvel. Len Wein, Marv Wolfman, Denny O’Neil, Gerry Conway, Gene Colan, George Perez and a few others.(And kind of Neil Adams, who went back and forth) In his intro to 1970’s Wonder Woman Archives Wolfman wrote that Stan Lee changed how they wrote at DC, they coming from Marvel wanted to do more of the Marvel kind of writing. When you say they were growing with you I assume you meant the 1970s into the 1980s.
5. MCS wrote: “although for most of that time I was only buying some titles out of habit (Conan etc) and only scan reading them.” That’s EXACTLY what IO was doing the last year and why I always a bit vague on exactly what year I gave up comics (1976, 1977 maybe 1978)
How's that for timing? I mention Barry and he pops up almost immediately. Obviously he was typing his comment as I was typing mine. And yes, POTA was serious science fiction - if you can call science fiction serious. (And I'm not necessarily saying you can't.) I was really just pointing out that it was the 'tone' of either strip that differentiated them. When you think about it, the concept of, say, Howard The Duck (coming from a universe where animals walked, talked and dressed up), was just as silly as Super-Pets, but it was presented in a much more palatable and believable way.
Anyway, nowadays we know that ol' Clarkie has actually indulged in rumpy-pumpy with Lois, 'cos they have a kid to prove it. He should've taken a cold shower, the randy rascal.
There you go, McS, an actual personal reply to your comment from BP - what more can you ask?
As I still believe,Marvel comics between 1961 and 1975 were the greatest comics of all time(steady,steady....)The fact that we of a certain age re-read those issues constantly and never lose that appreciation of lightening in a bottle is testament to Lee,Kirby,Ditko,Heck,Buscema x2,Colan,Kane ,Adams etc.Think of all the different formats that we collect which tell the exact SAME story and it must be special.I missed the 60's DC,s and started reading buying comics in 1970.The only DC's I liked were Batman,Detective,Mystery mags and absolutely anything with Adams artwork.Add some Hawk and Dove and Creeper with Swamp thing and that was it.Curiously those Superman issues from around #233(great cover)to 250 or so were great but I detested worlds finest,Legion and all the rest.Not for me.!980s DC were great with many high points but EVERYTHING goes back to Marvel and even though I read everything to around 1991 for me the logical cut off point for the end of the magic was the demise of the Giant Size issues in 1975.This coincided with roughly FF 150,Spiderman 140,Avengers 130-135,Defenders 25,Hulk 190,Ironman 75,Daredevil 120,Thor 230 etc.Anything before this was not necessarily high art or amazing stories but they were to my uncritical mind.The dross of the 90's confirm this but obviously all those comics I read were read when I was the right age5-15 and the newness and the freshness never leaves you.You never get a second chance to make a first impression and Marvel blew DC away and never looked back.Uncritical Jim.
As you'll probably know, Triple F, there was a time in the '80s (I think) when Marvel were seriously considering buying DC, and DC were just as seriously considering Marvel's offer. (There's an account of it over on Jim Shooter's blog.) I wonder what DC characters would've been like had Marvel acquired them - would we have noticed the difference, if any? It seems to me that DC mags started to get better around 1969/'70 with tales like 'The Secret Of The Waiting Graves' in Batman, and that was probably down to a conscious decision by DC management to aim their titles at the Marvel audience. Yes, I'd say you're right, when it comes to comics, everything goes back to Marvel. Lightning in a bottle indeed!
It never occurred to me that Marvel writers etc moved to DC in the 70s onwards duh! that that would (mostly/ partly) explain the change. I also had no idea that Marvel had considered buying DC now that would have been a wee hoot! I think I have a DC book (Batman black and white) where John Buscema drew a 5 or 6 page Batman tale somewhere. Of course Sal did a few Batman comics and Stan also wrote that "Stan Lee Imagines..." series for DC where he gave his versions of Superman, Batman, Flash , SHAZAM etc so maybe best that buyout didn't workout lol.
I've often pondered what creative teams would have ended up on the DC characters if Marvel had licensed then in the 80s. Would we have seen John Buscema drawing Superman? Colan drawing Batman with Tom Palmer inking? Sal Buscema pencilling the Flash, or John Romita Sr being tempted away from his Art Director duties to draw Wonder Woman? Al Williamson on Green Lantern, maybe?
If this had happened, would we then have seen some DC guys helping fill the void on Marvel's own titles- Curt Swan on Fantastic Four, maybe inked by Joe Sinnott, or Joe Kubert drawing Conan. Jose Luis Garcia Lopez would surely have done an amazing job on Thor.
Somewhere there's a parallel universe where Marvel are publishing Epic Collections of all of those!
Unfortunately though, McS, the 'Stan Lee Imagines' series did new versions of DC characters that bore little or no resemblance to the originals. I'd have preferred to see Stan script the 'real' Superman, Batman, etc., rather than re-imagine them.
******
As you know, DS, we got to see John Buscema's 'take' on Superman in the second Supes/Spidey team-up. And Gene Colan DID draw Batman when he moved to DC because, he claims, of hassle from Jim Shooter. It would've been interesting to see your other suggestions 'made flesh' (so to speak). I'm off to see if I can book a holiday in that parallel universe for a fortnight.
Not just Shooter but in books such as Slugfest they mention the DC/Marvel thing. First, Marvel would NOT buy it, it would be licensed. This means that DCX (Time Warner) would continue to get the licensing and marketing for their products, but Marvel would do the comics.
This was doe already in the U.S> Dell used to create the comics for Western.
Certainly Marvel would take in DC creators, but there would be some problems. First, such a take over would mean DC’s line had failed and was not profitable to DC. But how much influence would DC have, especially lining the comics to the movies. And would Marvel be paid a flat fee or a percentage? Also, if the Marvel creators come up with a NEW character for Superman who would own it.
And would we get a ton of crossovers. By the way the FTC would have to approve such a merger, it would become a virtual monopoly.
Shooter treated many people badly. If you look at the past blogs you will see all those writers that I mentioned, and then Roy Thomas, and many artist left because of him.
Colan's Batman was good- but it'd have been even better with Tom Palmer inking!
I always thought Keith Pollard was underrated- I'd have liked to have seen his take on Superman too.
I was using 'shorthand' terminology, BP. What I meant was that Marvel would 'buy' the licensing rights to publish comics with DC characters. As for Jim Shooter, he certainly wasn't popular with a lot of people, but he got Marvel's publishing schedule back on track and improved creators' rights. If not for him, John Byrne might not have done so well out of royalties for the mags he wrote and drew for Marvel. Isn't he reputed to have been comics' first millionaire?
******
Well, anyone's art would've been better with Tom Palmer inking, DS.
Yeah, Keith's take would've been interesting. I wonder if he ever drew Superman anywhere?
Keith Pollard drew a Superman, Batman tale in World's Finest issue 279 - the Dollar comics version.
..actually I just found a copy of DC Presents Annual 2 (Superman and Superwoman) in my pile of comics to be given away (not in great condition) that has Mr Pollard's art so he must have done a few Superman stories
I had a hunch he'd probably drawn Superman at some point, but wasn't 100% sure, McS. I've actually got that ish, so I must've had a subconscious memory of seeing his name attached to a Supes story all those years ago.
I always preferred Marvel over DC.. Maybe it was the name. But then again Marvel had better heroes and villains (Dr Doom ) . I think as an 8 year old. Marvel was more enjoyable. Fantastic Four .good stuff.
Thanks for the info McScotty- I wasn't aware of those issues and might need to track them down now!
I think I probably preferred (in the main) Marvel over DC too, LH. The only DC superheroes that I found interesting were Superman, Batman, The Flash, and maybe one or two others. The rest seemed like 'D' listers to me.
******
And I'll have to dig out my issue of DC Presents Annual #2 and take a look at it, DS. I'm intrigued to see just how Keith Pollard drew Superman and Batman.
I think Marvel just got it for me as well, but I do really like DC (well DC from the 69- 75 period) they had some great comics. And DC for animation over Marvel and Marvel over DC for films. Now as to the best for customised pyjamas it has to be.... :)
Well, the answer to that last one, McS, is obviously Custom PJs, Inc.
Dave, you can see Keith's art here form Worlds Finest 279
http://readallcomics.com/worlds-finest-279/
Ooh, I'm off to look at that link too. Ta much.
Silver Age DC has two heads. One was comics were for kids. The stories were simple and repetitive because you read comics as a kid and grew out of them, so who cared if you reused a plot? No one would notice.
The other head took serious science fiction or psychological looks at their characters. What if Superman wasn’t super any more? Would he still be a hero? If Batman has powers what kind of hero would he be? How would Superman act if he had an evil twin? These are all legitimate speculations on our heroes and many of the ideas were later reused by writers such as Alan Moore but had been done decades earlier by DC. These stories, such as Superman being trapped in the future under a red son, the death of Superman, the concept of alternate earths, were the best silver age DC stories.
Most of these emphasized plot over character- you could tell these were stories written by writers who read science fiction.
Marvel and Stan. What to make of them? Ok Stan didn’t write them all but they all had his trademark. They were written by writers who seem to want to write soap operas. Despite the big ideas of Kirby, the stories I remember were the stories of personal struggle. Peter can’t tell Gwen he is Spider-man. Tony Stark pushing away Pepper because he might die since he has a bad heart. Matt falling of Karen Page and also pushing her away because he’s a blind man.
It’s true Marvel also has sci-if ideas such as Galactus and the Inhumans etc. but for me the stories I remember most were the ones where Peter has his arm in a sling and can’t appear in public because people would guess he was Spidey. Those human problems.
Interesting observation, PS. I think you're almost right, but perhaps overstating the case as far as Marvel goes. I think Marvel also did the psychological type of stories that DC did, but with more characterisation and exploration of personal struggles added to the mix. Thought-provoking comment - it'll be interesting to see how other Crivvies respond.
Thanks for that link McScotty! I quite liked Pollard's Superman, but surprised
myself actually preferred his Batman- not sure if the inker on that comic was the best fit for KP, but it was still great to see.
Yeah, I thought that the inking maybe let it down, but it's hard to know for sure without seeing the pencils.
I totally agree with Phil's comments on DC it wasn't just silly stories there was a bit of depth to some of their titles and characters. Yep marvel excelled at soap opera which DC just couldn't get right which is for me, why they were eventually less satisfying. I agree with you that Marvel also did the psychological type of stories that DC did and that their strength was that there was also that soap opera element even in these stories with the likes of the Silver Surfer taking on all the woes of the Universe every month while battling Galactus or Mephisto or Sue Storm falling for Namor in the middle of a battle between the Atlanteans and the surface dwellers. All great stuff though!
I think that BP's point is mostly valid when it comes to DC comics in the early and mid to late '60s being a bit silly, but as the '60s were coming to an end, DC lifted their game. A story I referred to earlier somewhere, 'The Secret Of The Waiting Graves' was written and drawn in '69, but the Batman/Detective Comics mag it appeared in was dated 1970. That's when DC left the silliness behind (I think) - if their were earlier examples, I didn't see them. Great comments so far from everyone.
At the very end of the 1960s my aunt was selling the candy store. Before then I will go in and read every single comic. When the store closed I would have to buy my comics and I became very selective. So if there was a good dc series In the early 1970s I didn’t see it. More than that I stopped looking for them. It sounds funny now but $.35 was a lot of money to me then. Marvel was expanding their line with More expensive comics including giant size and their magazines. But like I said in 1968, after hanging on for several years, I realise I just wasn’t enjoying the DC comics very much. I decided to spend my money on girls!
But something else was happening. As my friends entered college they lost their interest in Comics too. So there wasn’t discussions on what’s out there, which new what’s good, and so forth. We would often trace Comics And that way I would be introduced to new ones. But that stopped.
1968 was too early for me to be spending my money on girls, BP, but when I was finally old enough, I realised that I preferred to spend my money on comics. So I decided to let girls spend their money on me. Hey, I was worth it! My pals were never as interested in comics as much as me (or at all in some cases), so that was never a factor that affected my buying and collecting them. Did you ever meet a girl who shared your love of comics? I haven't, and often wonder if such a creature exists.
I also agree with Barry’s comment on DC in the early 60s but silly was fun when you were 6 years old. But in amongst all that stuff DC did try to address some more serious issues in the 1960s (and of course as you say in the early 70 s) such as drugs and diversity. In the early 60s (I think) they introduced what could be considered the first real black person into a story with US soldier Jackie Johnson becoming a member of Sgt Rocks Easy co (a great Joe Kubert issue that one) . There was also an attempt to address what it was like for a black lady in New York (well Metropolis) possibly done a bit cack-handed in a Lois lane tale (issue 106) where Lois changes her race (yeah written down its borderline offensive, but I think it came from a good place) . Of course in the 70’s there was also the classic Green Lantern run where Adams/O’Neil addressed the issues of race, social depravation (issue 76 ish) and of course drugs with that amazing cover (Speedy shooting up on heroin) . They also tried to break out of the standard super hero mold with stories like Jason Quest in DC Showcase (which I really enjoyed).And as mentioned earlier in the early 70s they had some good standard comics like Deadman, Brave and Bold, JLA, Spectre, Detective comics , the Mystery comics,Plop etc. I’m starting to think I may be a closet DC fan!
At least with DC comics, it gave readers another option if they weren't wild about Marvel, though it's hard to imagine anyone not being wild about Marvel. Once DC started following Marvel's way of doing things (even if only to a certain extent), they became a whole lot more interesting. I loved 'Demon Of Gothos Mansion', a Batman tale from around the early '70s, and like you say, McS, there were other interesting titles. I think there are probably quite a few closet DC fans, which is fine as long as they've got their own closets. Otherwise it's bound to be mighty crowded if they're sharing.
On the subject of girls and comics - about 10 years ago I was in WH Smith's and I overheard a boy and girl, both about 16, discussing the Panini Marvels they were perusing. I don't know if they were an item or just friends but it was the girl who was the comics fan. I heard the boy say: "So why do you like these comics?" and the girl replied: "I dunno, I just do".
That's the difference between males and females, CJ. A male would've been able to say why he liked them. (What's that? There are other differences? Tell me more.) Got my Conan book today, by the way - will be doing a 'review' soon.
Colin, if that had been me and a girl had asked me why I liked those comics, she'd have been subjected to a 2 hour diatribe about the works of Jim Starlin and John Buscema, Stan's Soapbox, 80s Marvel, Daredevil Born Again and much more.
Then I'd have allowed her a short break, before starting Part Two of said diatribe.
That'll be why comic fans are so popular with the burds, DS. We've got the patter. (And now, back to the real world.)
Actually, I have had that discussion ore than once. When they tell me that the stories are ridiculous or silly, I bring up the fact they they watched soap operas, which were silly too.
As we lads know, all women are mental, but we overlook it if they make great soup.
Post a Comment