 |
| Copyright DC COMICS |
It was on a sunny late afternoon in 1971 when I came back from the newsagent's across the road from my house with at least two comics, maybe more. The two I remember in particular were Superman #233 and Action Comics #353, which was an old comic from 1967, but still available in brand-new condition from the spinner-racks, as wasn't unusual back then. US comics didn't always appear in sequence in the UK, which had its pluses and minuses.
The minuses were that you didn't always get to read continued stories in the order they were published; the pluses were that you could catch up on earlier parts you'd missed of a storyline you found yourself immersed in somewhere further along. Swings and roundabouts is probably the best way to describe the way things were at the time.
What's odd (from my perspective) is that I have a feeling that Action Comics #353 wasn't the first time I'd bought this particular issue. There's a little voice nagging at the back of my mind that I'd previously bought it on another occasion, maybe years before, and purchased it for a second time because I remembered once having it, and also due to its pristine newness appealing to my aesthetic senses; I did that on more than one occasion.
However, I suppose that's neither here nor there, but airing the thought will perhaps enable me to remember in future whether I had it before or not. Sometimes things I think I've forgotten suddenly spring to mind with stunning clarity at a later date, and that might be the case in this instance one day.
Another odd thing is that I'd always assumed AC #353 was a stand-alone story - until I discovered many, many years later (decades in all probability) that it was the third episode of a three-part tale which had started in #351. It just didn't read (to me anyway) like part of a continued saga; I thought the splash page was just a symbolic teaser of the events in that ish, not also a reminder of what had happened in the previous two.
Many years ago I acquired (and have owned for yonks) a replacement copy for the one I'd bought in 1971, before eventually obtaining #351. A few years back, I picked up a coverless copy of #352, but the story really is overstretched and, from what I recall, would work better as a single ish, two at the most. Anyway, I recently added another copy (this time with a cover) of #352, so decided to show all three issues together. At some stage, I'll sit down and re-read them all just to see if my opinion could be revised as to the merits of this trio of mags.
Anyone else got them, or had them in the past? If so, what was your view, and what associations do you have when you look at or remember them? Feel free to share in the comments section. Incidentally, if you think there's something vaguely familiar about Zha-Vam, it's because he's based on Shazam, the world's mightiest mortal - namely Captain Marvel.
Afraid these don't ring any bells at all with me Kid. Athough I do remember the time you could buy US comics that were "new"c( as in not second hand) but 3 or 4 years old or more in newsagents.
ReplyDeleteYeah, those were the days, McS. Shame it doesn't happen any more, eh?
ReplyDeleteThis is my favorite three-part Superman tale from this period. The increased appearance of these multi parters might be an index of how much DC was starting to emulate Marvel. As I recall, since the intro of Supergirl in Action, the Superman stories were usually done in one while Supergirl stories could be serials. It’s like DC was thinking that if they pissed off some kids with the serial, the done in one would keep them reasonably satisfied. But around 1965 DC started taking more chances.
ReplyDeleteI think DC were stretching things thin with this 3-parter, GP, 'cos I don't think it's a strong enough tale to warrant 3 parts. Having recently re-read the story in its entirety, it seems immensely old-fashioned when compared to what Marvel were doing at the time. And as much as I'm a fan of Wayne Boring, his art seems incredibly dated in comparison to Curt Swan. If this was DC's answer to Marvel, then I think they misheard the question.
ReplyDeleteI like the Zha-Vam three-parter fine, but had if it had originally appeared in just two parts-- Part One, hero gets knocked around by new foe, Part Two, hero learns foe's origins and extinguishes him-- I'm sure that I would never have felt the lack. The last part is the meat of the story anyway: the audacious idea that the gods of Greek paganism would become irate at seeing a New God in Town.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the art, sure. Editor Mort Weisinger was a controlling type who, being a sometime writer, insisted on the art being secondary to the written part of the story. Weisinger was the type of editor who would try to lift superficial aspects of a competitor's act with the hope of stealing some of the other guy's mojo, but at base MW still believed his way of doing things was the best, and he wasn't exactly the type to see the handwriting on the wall. He would never have allowed artists to do their own thing. Now other editors did liberalize their approaches somewhat-- but sometimes the artists given their head also didn't produce anything that could compete with Marvel. I like Mike Sekowsky, but at his most creative he's not even competition for Gene Colan, much less Kirby and Ditko.
For years I thought the 3rd part was a one-off story, so I was surprised when I found it was a continued one. It's all right, just the sort of thing DC was doing in 1967, but it didn't blow me away re-reading it as an adult. I think the fact that Zha-Vam was based on Shazam is what was supposed to be the big thing (in an 'easter-egg' sort of way), but I didn't realize that fact 'til I read about it in a magazine decades later.
ReplyDeleteI've read that Mort was known for ripping off ideas from writers; he'd talk to one, reject his story proposal, then give it to another writer as if he himself had thought it up. C.C. Beck was another who thought his way of doing things was best, which was why he didn't work on the revived Shazam series in the '70s for very long. Whenever I read an interview with him or read anything he wrote about comics, he comes across as a very bitter, narrow-minded man when it came to how comics should be done.