BABE Of The DAY - DENISE MILANI...

The delectable Denise Milani is

playing a new game she created herself.

The rules are if you can see her hands, she

has to touch you with them, which is why

she's trying her best to hide them from you.

Only because you're ugly though - she lets

me see her hands all the time.  (What a

 soft and gentle touch she's got.)

Part Three Of The GHOST Of STAN 'The Man' LEE Presents: The CREATION Of SPIDER-MAN...

No Amazing Fantasy #15, alas, but here's the first issue of
Spidey's own mag.  Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Hi, Stan Lee here again with the lowdown (from my perspective) on who created Spider-Man.  Jack Kirby claimed he did, but then again, Jolly Jack once claimed to have created Superman and The Punisher (the Frank Castle version, not Galactus's servitor), so his memory really wasn't any better than mine.  To be fair to him, according to Mark Evanier, he probably didn't mean to claim he was responsible for Superman, and maybe his hearing let him down when he was asked to clarify which of the two Punishers he'd created, but Jack wasn't always the most reliable witness in how things happened years after the fact.

(Incidentally, it was me who christened the character when the creators - Gerry Conway, John Romita Sr., and Ross Andru - were trying to figure out what to call him.  "What does he do?" I asked them.  "He punishes criminals" was their answer.  "Then call him The Punisher" I said.)

Another example of Jack's poor memory is that for many years he believed he'd designed Spidey's costume, probably because he drew the published cover of Amazing Fantasy #15, the comic in which the web-slinger made his debut.  It was eventually pointed out to him that his cover was based on Steve Ditko's original version, which didn't see print until quite a few years afterwards.  No, don't ask - I just can't remember why I nixed Steve's cover and asked Jack to draw a replacement (which Ditko inked), but that's exactly how it happened.  And if Jack could make that kind of mistake with Spidey, he may have done the same thing with Iron Man, who we looked at in the previous post.

Jack wasn't even correct when he later claimed he'd suggested to me doing a Spiderman character (no hyphen) he'd created, which had morphed into The Silver Spider (drawn by C.C. Beck) and then The Fly, because it was Joe Simon and Jack Oleck (his brother-in-law) who came up with that idea.  At one time, when Joe was still considering doing a Spiderman strip (prior to the name being changed to The Silver Spider, remember), he lettered a logo for the purpose, and it was this discarded logo that Jack later said he'd shown to me when touting the character as a possible feature for Marvel.  (And it's not impossible that Jack was simply responding to my idea about doing a spider-powered character, and he merely recycled Silver Spider/The Fly.)

I've no memory of ever having seen the logo, much less one of Jack suggesting the strip, but even if he had, it was Simon and Oleck's baby he was nursing, not his own.  Joe Simon later said that he'd expressed surprise to Jack about his claim, and Kirby's response was something along the lines of "Hey, what can I say, Joe, I needed the work."  Is it possible though, that Jack approached me with the idea of doing a strip by that name?  Anything's possible, but the concept of Spider-Man that Marvel published was mainly down to me, with the assistance of the incredibly talented Mr. Ditko, who designed the costume and the web-shooters.  (Though Eric Stanton, who shared a studio with Steve at the time, claims that it was he who suggested the latter to his artistic companion.)

See how confusing things can be when trying to decipher the facts so long after the events?  Steve, of course, brought a lot to the table, but I still maintain that I dreamed up the concept, and that's why I consider myself the creator of the idea.  Of course, whether it would have been as successful if handled by anyone other than Ditko is certainly debatable and maybe even doubtful.  So I'd go as far as to say that yours truly and Steve can rightly be regarded as co-creators as far as the finished published character goes, but Steve didn't come up with the concept and that's why I regard myself as sole creator in that department.

That's my take on the matter, but you may disagree.  And you're allowed to - just as I'm allowed to see things my way.  However, infamous faulty memory or not, I was there at the birth so I'd say my account of events has the edge on the way you might prefer to see things any day of the week.  Anyway, that's it for now - see you next time, true believers, when we'll be taking a look at Doctor Strange!

Excelsior!

Where Have All The Hours Gone - Long Time Ago?

On August 1st it was 36 years since my family (sans brother) returned to my current (and hopefully final) house after 4 years away in another neighbourhood.  On August 2nd it was 35 years since I revisited, for the very first time, the previous home we'd lived in prior to first moving here in 1972.  (Hope that's not too confusing.)  In 1988 we'd been back in this house for a year and a day when, by prior arrangement with the woman who'd lived here before us and with whose family we'd originally swapped houses, I revisited my former address 16 years after flitting when I was a mere 13 and a half year-old teenager.

I was then only 29 years-old on that first return visit so 16 years was more than half my life up to that moment.  It seemed like we'd moved only a day earlier, but paradoxically, also many years more than that at the same time.  Maybe it was because I was yet a schoolboy in 1972, but had been a working man from a mere 2 or 3 years after that, right up to 1988 (not counting occasional periods of unemployment between jobs).  Hard to believe that I've now been back in this house for more than twice the duration I'd been away from its predecessor when I returned for a visit.  Time runs away from us all, eh?

Back then, barring accidents or illness, I had more life ahead than behind me, but now it's the reverse of that, sadly.  That's one of the things we lose as time passes - the sense (or illusion, if you will) of eternity that accompanies us in our youth, but also fades along with it.  When we get to a certain age, every friend, neighbour, or family member who dies reminds us of our own mortality and that we've now taken up residence in Death's waiting room, waiting for our name to be called.  (And that concludes Crivens' cheery thought for the day.)

Do you ever consider such grave thoughts, Crivs, or do you prefer to leave them dead and buried in the depths of your subconscious lest they haunt your waking hours?  (See what I did there?)  Feel free to comment if you so desire.

******

                                                        We are but older children, dear,                                                              Who fret to find our bedtime near.

Lewis Carroll

Reflective Repost: PARENTS, POSTERS, & PUPPETS (Er, MUPPETS)...

Not one of the original posters mentioned, but
better than nothing.  Image copyright DISNEY

Bear with me, Crivs, but there's a reason for repeating this particular post from 7 years back, which should, I trust, be obvious when you get to the end of it.  Hopefully, you'll think it was worth the journey.

******

I'm not a parent, but even given my status as non-participant in that category, I'm smart enough to realise just how difficult - and even heart-breaking - the position must often be.  There's an ad on telly at the moment (this was 2016, remember) featuring The MUPPETS (the full version is very funny), and seeing it just a few moments ago took my mind back to an occasion involving my father in the late 1970s.  Allow me to relate it to you now, as I'm sure it'll remind you of similar incidents concerning your own parents.

My father loved nothing more than going into Glasgow every weekend and trawling around his old haunts from his youth.  He always visited The BARRAS or PADDY'S MARKET, and one Saturday evening he returned home with two Muppet posters for me and my brother.  At that time I'd have been in my late teens or early twenties, and my brother was in the latter age group, so we both poured scorn on the very idea of having a Muppet poster in either of our rooms, as it would've been 'uncool'.

This attitude must've confused my father, because me and my brother both watched The Muppet Show and enjoyed their mad antics, so he naturally assumed we'd each appreciate a poster of the objects of our TV affections.  Our ingratitude must have hurt, although I don't recall him showing it.  A similar incident happened a few years later when he brought back a poster of Scottish Steam Trains for me, although I'd never shown any interest in railway matters.  Again, my lack of enthusiasm or gratitude for his parental thoughtfulness must have hurt him.

We were living in another house at the time of the second poster event, and I remember, a few weeks after moving from it back to our previous home, I called in (by prior arrangement) to the house we'd not long vacated to collect our old ironing board from the greenhouse and take some final photos of the place (ah, ever the nostalgist), and the tenant with whom we'd swapped properties suddenly dug out the train poster from the cupboard outside what had recently been my bedroom.  I took a photo of him holding the poster, while feeling vaguely ashamed of just how heartlessly I'd abandoned it.

I had to abandon it a second time, because he never offered it to me to take away as I left, but at least I've got a photograph of it to remind me of how thankless kids can be to their parents, however unintentional it may be.  Maybe one day I'll track down replacements for all three posters - then, should I ever have kids even at my advanced age (hey, you can get many a nasty sting from a dying bee), it'll remind me to try and be patient whenever they behave in a similar way as myself (and my brother - I refuse to take all the blame) when I was a mere young and thoughtless youth.  Then again, weren't we all?

Any similar incidents in your own youth you'd care to share?  That way, I can maybe pretend that I wasn't quite the ungrateful little b@st@rd that I must've seemed at the time.  C'mon, help assuage my sense of guilt, eh?

I see that we also left the light-shade.  How casually
we abandon things that have served us faithfully, eh?

Update: Truth to tell, it never occurred to me to ask him for the poster back then so I assume I still never really wanted it.  36 years later, however, I felt it would be nice to have something that my father bought specifically for me, so I went searching on eBay and found its doppelganger, along with a similar poster, which I promptly bought.  I don't really have the space to hang it anywhere, but knowing that I can unroll it whenever I want to and remember those long ago days gives me a nice feeling inside.  I may not have appreciated my father's thoughtfulness at the time, but hopefully I've now redressed my ingratitude from all those years ago.  Below, the two posters I've just purchased, which will shortly be winging their way to me.

And, while we're on the subject, the poster below may well have been one of the two that my father bought for my brother and me back in the '70s.  It certainly seems to ring a bell in memory's belfry.

MARVEL FACSIMILE EDITIONS...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Three fairly recent Facsimile Editions for you to look out for, Crivvies, are X-Men #101, and The Incredible Hulk #s 180 & 181.  The latter two were reprinted a few years back, so now you've got a second chance if you missed them first time around, without paying inflated prices on eBay or on the collectors market.

I noticed that 180 has the 'Continued After Next Page...' lines before ads, whereas 181 doesn't, which is perplexing.  Why Marvel doesn't seem able to operate a consistent policy regarding this is beyond me.  My earlier facsimiles aren't at hand* for me to check if it was the same, but when they got around to reprinting #182, the 'Continued...' lines were present, as I can see from looking at the issue on my blog.

Anyway, Make Mine Marvel!

*Update: Couldn't help myself - dug out my previous facsimiles of #s 180-182 from a few years back and checked.  181 also has no 'Continued...' lines (though 180 & 182 do), so the new copy is just a straight reprint of it, aside from the current printing date in the indicia.

Spiritual Matters - The GHOST Of STAN 'The Man' LEE Presents - Part Two: The INVINCIBLE IRON MAN...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Hi gang, Stan Lee yakkin' with you again as promised last post.  Up here in the Heavenly Hills, I'm having a great time, but I miss my ol' Soapbox days, which is why I occasionally 'inhabit' my Mego 8 inch action figure so I can communicate with all you Marvel Maniacs.  This time round we'll take a look at the Invincible Iron Man, as well as the fallibility of human memory (especially yours truly's).

At one time, both Jack Kirby and Don Heck seemed to think Jack did the layouts for the pages of the very first Iron Man story.  It later turned out they were both mistaken and Don had drawn Shellhead's origin story in TOS #39 all on his lonesome.  Don may've been confused by Jack pencilling Tony Stark's alter-ego's second (and fifth) appearance, which Don inked.

However, it's said Jack designed the Iron suit as seen on the above cover, but I have a notion that covers were drawn after the contents (though they went to the printers weeks or months in advance), so if Jack designed the armour, perhaps he did it before producing the cover.  Just a guess of course, but that doesn't mean it ain't so.  (Doesn't mean it is either.  Hey, I like to be fair.)

Jack wasn't very consistent in drawing Stark's armour (especially the joints), and he gave him a cannon shell-shaped head with no chin.  However, Don had drawn the helmet with a chin when he illustrated the first strip and therefore tweaked Jack's pencils at the inking stage to reflect that.  Whoever designed the suit, it was Don's version that was the more impressive and 'realistic' looking one.

As with Thor, I supplied the plot, though I have no idea if I talked things over with Kirby before handing it to my brother Larry to do a full script for Don to follow.  Larry came up with the name of Tony Stark, avoiding the alliteration I was prone to, which is why he wasn't called Tony Tanner, Samuel Stark, or Anthony Anderson.  Yep, there's no doubt about it, Tony Stark is a much better name for a millionaire playboy in the '60s.  Larry, ya did me proud.

Anyway, that's it for now.  Gotta dash for my monthly memory competition with Jolly Jack (yep, he's up here too) to see who misremembers the most from those early days of the Marvel Age of Comics.  It's usually a draw, 'cos we're both as bad as each other when it comes to recalling exactly how things happened.  We both did something right though, whoever did what, which is why these characters are still around in the 21st century.

'Nuff said!

The BEANO Reaches 85th Anniversary Milestone...

Copyright D.C. THOMSON & Co., Ltd

You'd have thought The Beano (I don't care that they've dropped the 'The', I'm still using it) would've learned to do without featuring 'celebrities', considering the potential scandals lying in wait for the future.  DCT really overuse this dreary approach and I think I'd be more inclined not to buy the comic because of celebrity overkill than I'd be persuaded to make a purchase.  (Only bought this one because of its historical significance.)

Anyway, The Beano has made it to 85 years of age, so congratulations, but I still miss the original Dennis and resent the cutesy doppelganger who seems to have supplanted him.  I haven't read it yet, don't know if I will, as a casual browse-through fails to enthuse me with any desire to do so.  Dennis isn't called a menace anymore and Fatty and Spotty were renamed a while back to Freddy and Scotty, apparently to diminish any possible influence on readers who might refer to other kids (in the real world) by those 'awful' appellations.

This tacit admission that comics might have the power to do such a thing surely demonstrates that those who once claimed comics couldn't possibly have any negative influence on kids' behaviour were wrong, doesn't it?  Otherwise why bother?  The editor even boasts of the periodical now being 'woke', as if it's a good thing.  I'd settle for it being funny, but that remains to be seen - if I ever get around to reading it.

Anyway, Happy Birthday Beano!

(Incidentally, contrary to some TV news reports, The Beano isn't the oldest comic in the world - it's only the oldest British weekly comic in the world.  There's a difference.)

Return To The '70s - The MIGHTY WORLD Of MARVEL Cover Gallery Omnibus... (Updated)

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

When The Mighty World Of Marvel #1 made its debut on September 30th 1972 (cover-dated the following week), it had newsprint paper covers the same as the interior pages.  67 issues later the covers went glossy (and the interior printing often went a bit murky), but for 66 glorious numbers, MWOM was a class act among British comics of the time.  Going from memory, #54 was the last to contain 40 pages (with no interior colour, unlike the earliest issues), and the comic consisted of only 32 pages until #67, when the page count was upped to 36 (and the price to 6p).

Here then, for those who were there at the time, are all 66 pre-glossy covered issues for you to salivate over and remember your childhood and teenage years.  Hard to believe it all started 51 years ago as it seems to my mind to be nowhere near as long as that - more like 51 weeks, truth be told.  I love looking at these covers, but much as I enjoy doing so, I can't help but think "There goes my boyhood!" as I drink in their captivating colours and dynamic displays of action and adventure.  Is it the same for you?  Then share your reminiscences with your fellow Crivvies!

And below, the first three glossy covered issues of MWOM - a new era.