NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL FUNNY...

Copyright D.C. THOMSON & Co., Ltd

Well, it made ME laugh.

(From The Beano & The Dandy Celebrate Dennis

The Menace - available now from all good bookshops.)

"AND THERE WERE GIANTS UPON THE EARTH IN THOSE DAYS..."

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

It was originally intended to be a single-series revolving-door showcase mag for a roster of MARVEL's mightiest heroes, but no sooner had the 1st ish hit the stands than those plans underwent revision.  GIANT-SIZE SUPER-STARS #1 starred The FANTASTIC FOUR, with the second issue scheduled to feature none other than your friendly neighbourhood SPIDER-MAN.  (PETER PARKER's amazing alter-ego would doubtless be first choice to launch any new alternating series nowadays, but, back then, the Fab Four were still accorded premier position in the Mighty Marvel firmament of Super-Stars.)

However, it soon became apparent to the 'powers-that-be' that, rather than restrict the idea to one title, it would be potentially more profitable to give each chosen group or hero their own giant-size mag.  And so, Spidey was awarded his own 68 page comicbook series and what would've been the 2nd issue of Super-Stars evolved into GIANT-SIZE FANTASTIC FOUR #2, followed by another four successive issues over the course of the next fourteen months or so.

There were quite a number of different titles in the various Giant-Size quarterly series on sale back in '74-'75.  GIANT-SIZE SPIDER-MAN, GIANT-SIZE AVENGERS, GIANT-SIZE CONAN, GIANT-SIZE CAPTAIN MARVEL, GIANT-SIZE DOCTOR STRANGE, GIANT-SIZE DRACULA, GIANT-SIZE DEFENDERS and a host of others got the same treatment, proving the when Marvel has an idea, they exploit it to the full.  However, it's only the good ol' FF that we're concerned with today.

I didn't even know of the existence of these mags at the time they first came out - it wasn't until 1979 or '80 that I obtained the 1st issue when I ordered it unseen from a back issue dealer in Bournemouth.  And it was a battered copy containing only the main story, the back-up features having been 'surgically' removed from the comic.  It must have been sometime around the mid-'90s perhaps, before I was able to obtain the full six issue set and finally see the complete contents of issue #1.  (Only to find that the missing pages were pin-ups reprinted from FF ANNUAL #1, which had been in my collection for some time.)

The main stories in the first four issues were all brand-new material, with reprints from the early days of the FF as back-up content.  (Annual #1, and regular issues #13, 21 & 28.)  The last two in the series reprinted FF Annuals #5 & 6 as their main features, with #5 also including another tale from the quartet's early days.  (Issue #15, and not the MOLECULE MAN story from #20 as erroneously stated on the cover-blurb.)

So, let's return to an earlier, more innocent time; the seemingly sun-soaked, carefree days of the sizzling '70s, and enjoy all six scintillating covers in their full, unadulterated, cataclysmic glory.

The PERRY RHODAN FILES - PART TWO...

Copyright relevant owner

Here's the second part of The PERRY RHODAN FILES, featuring more covers from his 1967 comic and some photographic stills from the movie based on the characters and concepts.  Try as I might, I can't really generate any enthusiasm for the comic - it just seems well below par.  And the movie doesn't look up to much either, to be honest.  If anyone wants to weigh in with their opinions on why ol' Perry was the greatest thing since sliced bread, then feel absolutely free.

Assuming that anyone is interested, be sure to tune in again for Part Three whenever I can't think of anything else to write about.  The blonde sure looks okay though, doesn't she?

CALLING ALL DENNIS FANS...

Copyright D.C. THOMSON & Co., Ltd

As the proud possessor of every DENNIS The MENACE book ever printed, I greeted the news that there's to be no regular Dennis book this year with mixed emotions.  On the one hand I'm disappointed that his annual escapades have ended; on the other I'm somewhat relieved to be able to write 'finis' to a collection which stretches back to the mid-'50s and is now complete.

However, do not despair, fellow Dennis-lovers.  D.C. THOMSON have released this beautifully bound hardback volume showing Dennis at his very best, with comic capers from his earliest appearances in The BEANO, right up to his modern-day madcap meanderings.  (Also includes other features and strips.)  What's more, as well as a DVD containing two of Dennis's TV cartoons, the book also includes a separate, good-quality complete reproduction of his first Beano appearance back in 1951.

Dennis may be 60 years old, but he's still the world's wildest boy at heart. Don't miss this superb collectors' item - available now from all good bookshops.  Priced at £12.99, it can be ordered direct from DCT for £9.99.  Also, some shops are bound to include it in a 'buy one, get one half-price' deal in conjunction with other books, so be sure to shop around. 

ISBN # 9781-1-84535-462-2  

'DUNCANRIG DOUGIE' - A TRIBUTE...

So far on this blog, I've related a couple of anecdotes about two of my old art teachers, Mr. BOB BELL and Mr. SLOSS, with a passing reference to Mr. McLEAN along the way.

Now it's time to draw back the curtain and introduce yet another teacher from the dim and distant days of my youth; so let's have a big hand for Mr. DOUGIE SMITH, one of the more popular teachers at DUNCANRIG SENIOR SECONDARY.  Not that any pupil ever dared call him Dougie to his face as far as I know, but that was how they affectionately referred to him throughout the school.

Mr. Smith's classroom under fire-escape stairway

You know that sense of amazement one feels when, years after having left school, you see a teacher who doesn't seem to have aged in the slightest since you were a kid?  When you're a youngster, anyone over 21 seems older than they actually are, which probably accounts for my inability to supply an accurate assessment of what age Mr. Smith would've been back in the early '70s.  He could have been anything from 35-45, but it'd be pointless trying to narrow it down any further because I simply don't have a clue.  Not that it's important I suppose, but I like to give my readers (both of them) a fully rounded picture of the subject under discussion.



Mr. Smith's old Maths class in 2007.  By the looks of things, at some point the room
had been opened up at the front and extended out into part of the hallway...



Anyway, Mr. Smith was blond-haired and what I assume would be regarded by the fairer sex as a fairly handsome Maths teacher who, like many another teacher at that time, still wore the classic bat-like gown as immortalised by Mr. CREEP in the WINKER WATSON strip in The DANDY.  I seem to recall him also wearing the mortarboard hat on occasion, but quite possibly I'm imagining it.  (Although as he had the gown he would most likely have had the hat too, one would presume.)  The fact that teachers still wore such traditional educational apparel most likely accounts for why I never found strips like BILLY BUNTER or the aforementioned Winker to appear outdated - it was yet an everyday sight that didn't appear unusual in the slightest.



...and how it would have looked in my day



As the saying goes, Mr. Smith was a 'good egg'.  I remember him telling me one day, "Gordon, some of the other teachers say that they regard you as a difficult pupil, but I find that as long as I don't try and make you do anything you don't want to, then you're no trouble at all."

Which is not to suggest that I was a troublemaker of any sort, but I was a daydreamer.  If I wasn't doodling on the covers or margins of my school jotters then I was staring out a window off into space, lost in my own little world.  Mr. Smith was wise enough to realize that it was better to leave me there, rather than try and compel me to apply myself to a subject I had no interest in, or, indeed, aptitude for.  Unlike another teacher (whose name escapes me, otherwise I would readily identify the guilty party), who once gave me 'six of the best' for my inability to master the intricacies of an Algebra equation.

View from one of the windows

But now to the point of this tale.  ("At last!" cry those who haven't yet abandoned the arduous trek.)  Mr. Smith, if I remember the details correctly after almost 40 years, was in charge of producing a Maths booklet for use in schools throughout what was then known as The COUNTY COUNCIL Of LANARKSHIRE.  He asked if I'd provide some cartoon illustrations for said project, and I didn't need to be asked twice.  It took a few days for him to determine precisely where my artwork would be required, but once armed with the necessary information I got to work.

A week or two later and much to my surprise, he presented me with an envelope containing a whopping £5 (which was a lot of money to a 14-15 year old at the start of the '70s) as payment for my contribution.  "It comes out of the budget" he said, by way of explanation - though I wouldn't be at all surprised if it came out of his own pocket.

The picture (from an initial 'rough') inspired by one below



I was especially proud of one picture in particular, and had it specifically in mind when I produced my KEVIN & His TALKING SOCKS strip for possible inclusion in a comic called OINK!  A period of a dozen or so years lay between the execution of these two drawings, which, as I relate this, strikes me as requiring further, completely unnecessary, long-winded exposition. (Even if that last sentence is a total contradiction in terms.)

Back in 1985/'86, my schooldays seemed like an inordinately long time past.  It was practically half my life away after all, which probably accounts for that particular period appearing almost prehistoric from my mid-'80s perspective.  Nowadays, however, anything that happened 10 or 12 years back seems to have occurred no more than two or three years ago at the very most.  It's scary to consider that the quarter of a century gap between 1986 and today doesn't feel anywhere near as long as the far shorter (almost by half) period between 1973 and 1986.  Yup, it really is true; time seems to go by faster the older one gets.

Not having a photo of Mr. Smith, one of comic artist
supreme George Tuska will have to suffice.  To my
mind, they were extremely similar in appearance

Anyway, returning to the point of this personal reminiscence before even I lose track, a belated thank you is long overdue to Mr. Smith for giving me what could be described as my very first paid 'professional' assignment - and for simply being such a thoroughly decent bloke.  He's probably been retired for some years now, but it would be nice to think that he might in some way hear of this 'tribute' to him and be touched by it.  Knowing you made a difference to someone's life can sometimes make a difference to your own.

Here's to you, Dougie.  Hope you're hale and hearty.

******

And below, in all their unretouched glory, are the four illustrations drawn with a black ink BIC biro in a blank jotter on a lazy afternoon in Mr. Smith's Maths class all those years ago.  Nothing brilliant by any means, but while I indulged myself, my classmates had to get on with doing their sums.  I wonder if I'm the only pupil ever to get paid for doing something else during school hours?

(Actually, now that I think about it, I remember finishing the fourth one at home, so the Maths period must have been the last one of the afternoon.)

******

FOOTNOTE: Since first posting this, I've been beset by a nagging suspicion that I may have misremembered the amount of remuneration involved.  Perhaps it was only £2 and not £5 in that envelope.  However, if so - two quid was still a lot of money for a young teenager back then. Especially as I mostly earned it during school hours when I should've been doing something else.  

BLAZIN' A TRAIL - PART ONE...

Images copyright D.C. THOMSON & Co, Ltd

Elsewhere on this blog I related the true tale of how, about a year or so ago, a friend of mine turned up at my front door one evening with a bag of comics that I'd given him 30-odd years before.  "I thought you might like these back!" he said.  Among other gems (some of which I previously told you about), the bag of goodies contained - wait for it - the first ten issues of D.C. THOMSON's STARBLAZER pocket-sized science-fiction comic-mag.

Starblazer survived for 281 issues before succumbing to the 'Death Star' of cancellation due to declining sales.  Launched in April 1979, it finally crash-landed in January 1991, but is fondly remembered by those readers who supported the title during its respectable almost twelve-year orbit.  (Hey, good at these space allusions, ain't I?!)

So, I thought you might like to see the front and back covers of those selfsame ten issues, to savour at your leisure and pleasure.  I'll show them in two instalments, so here's the first five to start things off.  Enjoy - and be sure and come back for Part Two.

 

CALLING A SPADE A BLOODY SHOVEL DEPT...

Images copyright D.C. THOMSON & Co., Ltd

Once, in a world far away and now forgotten, there was an objective standard by which things were measured.  Alas, however, that was very long ago.  Today we live in an age of dumbing down.  Exams made easier so that more students pass; participants in a primary school race all being awarded prizes so that no-one is disappointed or feels humiliated; people being given jobs on the basis of so-called positive discrimination rather than ability or merit.

There are no longer winners or losers, no longer good or bad, right or wrong, black or white - or at least that's the way it often seems in this bright new world of the 21st century.  Excellence may still be rewarded, but all too often, so too is mediocrity.

   

In the world of political correctness in which we live today, everything is valued as being of equal worth.  That’s why a pile of bricks or half a sheep in a glass case are now accorded the same artistic legitimacy as the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, or Rembrandt and Constable paintings.  What utter tosh.  To claim that the measure of a thing’s worth is defined by whether people like it is ridiculous.  Appreciation is no indication of quality or craftsmanship.  Other criteria must also be brought to bear.

I can quite understand the natural reservations of those in any working 'community’ to make critical comment (at least publicly) on the merits of one another’s work; there is a professional courtesy at play which prevents them from doing so.  In some ways that’s a good thing, but let’s be honest – it also allows those of lesser or no ability to infiltrate the ranks, simply because it’s not regarded as ‘good form’ to point out the failings or inadequacies of others, or to unmask the impostors.

One of the reasons why the standard of children's literacy, as an example, is so appalling today is that everything created for them is aimed at their level.  That’s why many of them never progress to a higher one – they aren’t enticed or encouraged or motivated to.  If you give them nothing but inferior quality, that’s what they learn to appreciate.  But what if children like it?  Children have the capacity to like whatever is put in front of them, but that's no excuse for giving them substandard fare.

Without wishing to offend anyone, there are certain strips in the current incarnation of The Dandy which simply don’t measure up to an objective standard.  And don't be misled by those who claim there isn't one.  It's that kind of wooly thinking that has resulted in unmade beds on display in art galleries.  Also, there are some art styles which do not readily lend themselves to the medium of sequential storytelling in general, or children’s comics in particular.

Contrariwise, Ken H. Harrison, for example, has a fantastically fluid art style and brilliantly clear sense of storytelling that fulfils the highest standard expected of a comic strip.  He is the only artist to draw The Broons and Oor Wullie who has even come near - or is on - the same level as Dudley D. Watkins, talent-wise. There are some who don’t even come close, judging by the standard of the work they submit.  Could they do better?  Perhaps, but what they are doing just doesn’t cut it.

And before I'm subjected to the same old tired, predictable and erroneous accusations of envy, bitterness, etc., etc., I’m merely speaking as a comics consumer, not a former professional comics contributor.  I am not comparing those whose work I dislike against any level of artistic ability I perceive, pretend, imagine, wish, or delude myself I may have, but rather the recognized 'greats' of yesteryear and today. Artists of the calibre of Bave, Baxendale, Brown, Grigg, Harrison, Law, Main, Martin, Mevin, Millington, Nadal, Nixon, Parkinson, Petrie, Parlett, Paterson, Reid, Ritchie, Sutherland, Titcombe, Watkins, and a whole host of others far too numerous to mention.

   

Today we live in an age where the utmost quality is no longer the main consideration - or even a requirement.  In short, anything goes.  Unfortunately, one of the first things to go was a regard for standards.  We can only hope that it's due to make its return sometime soon. 

"DUCK... I SAID DUCK...!"

Residing in my kitchen is a tray I remember from childhood.  It's an old-fashioned tray with a glass surface, under which resides a picture of two waterfowl in flight.  I like this picture, and purely on that basis have decided to indulge myself and share it with you here.  It's been in every house I've ever lived in, and may even predate me.

They say that when you die, your life flashes before your eyes in seconds.  I wonder if the above picture will be part of my 'home-movie' reel someday?  And will it flash by too fast for me to spot it?  As long as it's there, I suppose, alongside other 'old friends' from childhood - not only those that remain, but also those from which I was separated long ago.

Can anyone identify the artist and also the painting's title?  If so, let me know in the comments section.

DAYS Of CHILLS And TEARS...

Hard as it is to believe, a certain blogger on another site continues his defence of The DANDY's ill-fated new look (launched back in 2010), while at the same time throwing up a smokescreen to deflect criticism from those who are keen to deny any involvement in its failure.  Here is the essence of his argument, boiled down to its barest bones.

Comics once sold in vast numbers mainly because they were the only real form of cheap entertainment for kids.  Yes, we know.  Nobody has ever disputed it.

With changing social habits, and a wider range of available options on which children can spend their pocket-money, sales have been on a steady downward spiral since the '50s and '60s.  Yes, we know.  Nobody has ever disputed it.

There's a lot more, but that's the READERS' DIGEST version.  In short, the picture he's trying to paint is that these and other factors are the main reasons why The Dandy has recently suffered a devastating decline in circulation, not helped by the fact that they no longer regularly give toys away as cover-mounted attractions.

Although paying lip service to the notion that "content and art styles might play a part in a comic's fate", his use of the word "might" reveals he regards it as highly unlikely.  He then dismisses the importance of such a possibility by claiming "but it's by no means the main reason."  It seems a tad dogmatic to suggest that, in the entire history of the medium, no comics have ever expired solely on the grounds that readers didn't like them.

  

The implication is clear; The Dandy's failure is mainly attributable to other factors and has absolutely nothing to do with the content - nor is it related to the 'unfounded, vicious criticism' of some of the artists, who are all brilliant and should be applauded for their valiant attempts to restore the comic to its former glory.

So - where do I start?

The toys issue is more complex than it may at first appear.  As someone who has bought an odd issue of DOCTOR WHO ADVENTURES for a clockwork DALEK, I can see how I've contributed to an increase in sales that week.  However, as someone who has also steadfastly refused to buy The BEANO and DANDY whenever they hike up the price to cover some toy I don't want, I have far more often been deterred from making a purchase than I've ever been seduced into one.  What's more (because I don't want to have gaps in a run of comics), I no longer buy the regular-priced, no toy issues that I'd most likely purchase under normal circumstances.  I doubt that I'm the only one.

I've read on various other forums of parents claiming their kids won't buy a comic if they don't like the toy that week, so how can we ever know, with absolute certainty, whether a toy has been an attraction or not?  It's seems far too nebulous to make any definite claims in the case of The Dandy.  Especially as, even when The Beano offers no toys, it outsells its sister publication by a wide margin.

Consider also this: when The Dandy was relaunched as a less-expensive, no toy, all-comics weekly (as opposed to a dearer, toy every issue, magazine-type fortnightly publication), it's circulation at first increased.  Those involved (including that aforementioned blogger) hailed it a success and sat back to bathe in the reflected glory.

So why did it fail to maintain its momentum?

Let's look at, what seems to me, the obvious reasons.

The Beano and Dandy are both all-comics content, both printed on the same paper, and both priced at £1.50.  Like with like is fair comparison.  Although The Beano has also suffered a drop in sales over the years (as has every publication), it continues to sell around five times more than The Dandy.

So is it reasonable to ignore the likelihood that, in The Dandy's specific case, content is not only an extremely important factor, but most likely the primary one?  Even if 'gifts' do occasionally lead to increased sales, then that's a bonus.  If a comic's content is right, it will surely maintain its readership on its own merits.  That's what the publishers of all comics and magazines should be focusing on.

  

The aforesaid blogger reports that certain Dandy artists have been subjected to 'vicious, bitter, vindictive, unfounded personal attacks'.  The worst I know of is "Such and such can't draw!" or "Wotsisname draws like a 6-year old".  Personal?  Compare that to the remarks levelled at myself for daring to comment on The Dandy's sad decline.  "Cancer's too good for you" and "You've only ever f***** your mum".  The blogger failed to condemn such comments, although I know for a fact that he read them.  And for him to dismiss all critics as "resentful failed comickers with an axe to grind" or as "ever-vindictive people on the periphery of comics" in a churlish, small-minded attempt to diminish their point of view almost defies belief.

He seems to be suggesting that any small-press artists, illustrators outside of comics, or those who do it merely as a pastime - many of whom have never even considered working in the field professionally - are all worthless, non-entities whose opinions should  therefore be dismissed.  A bit harsh - a bit elitist in fact.

The number of so-called 'professionals' (in all walks of life) who are far from being the finest exponents of their craft is legion.  However, as Lee James Turnock pointed out, although Jordan could well claim to be a published author, it doesn't necessarily mean that her books aren't sh*te.

Desperate Dan ironically describes the current incarnation

of one of Britain's once favourite comic periodicals

Seems like sour grapes to me, arising from the fact that The Dandy's failed relaunch has left those responsible with egg all over their faces.  In the end, it doesn't even matter why it failed; the fact is, it was trumpeted as a bold, new move - and a success - by those whose judgement has been demonstrated to be seriously lacking.

While his post may explain the overall general decline in just about everything over the last 40-odd years (which no one, to my knowledge, has ever disputed), it fails to address the pertinent reasons as to why The Dandy in particular has suffered in so disproportionate a fashion in such a short time in relation to other titles.  Remember, it's lost half its audience in 9 or 10 months.

In short, it's nothing more than a thinly-disguised attempt to lay the blame for The Dandy's decline on a much wider doorstep - and thus absolve those directly responsible for its sad humiliation.

A MONSTER TO MARVEL AT - PART TWO: FRANKENSTEIN VERSUS DRACULA...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

In this 2nd part of A MONSTER To MARVEL At, let's now take a look at the covers which depict, amongst other things, the Monster of FRANKENSTEIN's battle with ol' VLAD The IMPALER - otherwise known as DRACULA!  As STAN LEE used to say (or something close to it), let's not waste words when the pictures speak for themselves.  Enjoy, frantic ones.

To see Part 3, click here - to see Part 1, click here.