 |
| Copyright DC COMICS |
DC Comics goes from strength-to-strength when it comes to their Facsinile Editions, with Justice League Of America #75 being a shining example of just how to produce a near-perfect replica. Nothing I can fault this one for, and it wouldn't be hard to mistake for the original comic. Definitely one to buy and keep.
 |
| Copyright MARVEL COMICS |
I bought this Iron Man mag (#2/Lgy682) because of its cover's retro look, but didn't spot the mock-aging in the thumbnail on the dealer's site. I think it would've been better had Marvel omitted the 'weathered' effect (often seen in canvas reproductions) and made it appear brand-spanking new, but maybe that's just me.
Buy 'em now if you haven't already.
14 comments:
Is JLA #75 the issue when Black Canary joins the team? I assume that's her legs
And you assume correctly, McS. Written by Denny O'Neil, but I'd never have known (or guessed) if it didn't have his name on it.
I've got a real short recommendation for you: DOCTOR WERTHLESS. Its a GN (art by Eric Powell) biography of Frederic Wertham, and its the best comics thing I've read this year. It's so well done that anyone could read it even if one knew nothing of the comic book scare, the Code, etc. One does have to steel oneself for some serial crime stuff, because Dr W analyzed two of the worst 1940s killers, and their crimes are laid out for the reader. Worth a library read if not a purchase.
Just looked it up on eBay, GP, and am awaiting word on how it will be sent through the mail. Thanks for the tip, though going from the title it doesn't look like it shows Wertham in a positive light.
From the title alone, one might think DW a hit job. But the authors were remarkably even-handed. They mention how he ran a free psychiatric clinic in Harlem and contributed valuable testimony to the cases that led to the Brown vs Board of Education verdict. (Despite the gravity of the testimony, FW managed to bring up his anti-comics mania, which is quite funny.) The biggest irony of FW's life is that had he not invested so much energy into his anti-comics jeremiad, which was drivel, no one would remember any of his good works.
It was a different time, GP, and I think his concerns weren't entirely unjustified. Some of the images in '50s horror comics would've been quite scary back in the day and parents were naturally worried about them. Sure, he over-egged the pudding, but children are naturally susceptible and easily influenced and the case of the Gorbals Vampire demonstrates by just how much. A few years ago, UK comic The Beano changed a character's name from Fatty to Freddy to avoid giving readers a bad example of calling fat kids 'fatty', so they were acknowledging that comics can have an influence. Yes, that's a long way away from producing juvenile delinquents, but 'we are what we eat' as the old saying goes - and what we read as well.
I think a nuanced criticism of GA comics was possible back in the day. I just don't think FW came close to making one.
I've never read the precise details of his argument, only his basic conclusion. However, if it weren't for him and the resulting Comics Code, we'd never have had Marvel Comics and the UK probably wouldn;t have had Eagle comic, so good for him is what I say.
Sure, I've said a few similar things over the years, and that's a further irony. FW thought that comics shouldn't be exposed to kids in any way, but his efforts forced comics to avoid the more sensationalistic approaches. The Code satisfied irate parents, but at least one critic, Amy Nyberg, asserted that the change also forced DC and a few others to revive superheroes, because everything else in the late 50s had just vanilla sales. Marvel was a little late to that party-- but try to imagine the sixties without not only the best Marvel work, but Marvel acting as a spur to the creativity of DC in particular.
FM didn't mind 'funny animal' comics though, did he, GP? Stan Lee once said that the Code didn't really affect Timely/Atlas/Marvel too much, just made the writers more creative, so that the cream rose to the top. At the end of the day, I think it was all for the best. Certainly wasn't the disaster it was touted to be.
FW may not have covered many funny comics, but some of his fellow travelers didn't like even cartoon violence. And in WERTHLESS the authors mention an incident where FW appeared on radio with Al Capp, where-- as you may see-- the doctor was pretty humorless about the Shmoo.
I can believe Stan said something like that later on, but I bet he wasn't so sanguine back in the day.
Britain had a 'crusader' called Mary Whitehouse, who was against sex and violence on TV shows, but she also once criticised the level of violence in Tom & Jerry cartoons, which was a bit silly of her, though I could see her point with other stuff even if I didn't always agree with it.
I guess you're right about Stan, but was his reaction to the code when first introduced a knee-jerk reaction and his later seeming indifference to it how he came to really feel - or was he just putting a positive gloss on things? I guess we'll never really know for sure.
Cool discussion anyway. Maybe gave me an essay idea for near future.
I'll look forward to reading it, GP.
Post a Comment