BATTLE ACTION GRUDGE...

Copyright REBELLION

Surprising as it may seem, some people don't know - or appreciate - the difference between typeset lettering and hand-lettered dialogue balloons (or captions) in a comic.  "What difference does it make?" they ask in a puzzled manner.  Of course, these people are as thick as the proverbial brick and I'm sure all you 'Crivvies' could tell them the answer just as well as I could, if not better.

However, there's no need to tell them when I can show them.  Back in the 1970s, there was a period when IPC MAGAZINES resorted to typeset lettering for all their publications, the result of a dispute (so legend has it) with the letterers they usually employed.  DCT had used typeset lettering for years of course, and more or less did it pretty adequately.  IPC's attempts were disastrous on the other hand, and the appearance of many a strip was ruined in my humble opinion.  (For which I'm justly famous, I might add.)

Years later, when these strips came up for reprinting, they had to be re-lettered by hand to bring them up to an acceptable standard and allow them to fit in with the new material they sat alongside.  One such story is the one featured in this post, 'THE GRUDGE', which first appeared in BATTLE #196, cover-dated December 2nd, 1978, and resurfaced twelve years later in BATTLE ACTION FORCE (un-numbered), cover-dated December 14th, 1985.

This is one I lettered myself, and more was required that just placing new lettering over old.  There's a fair amount of 'blotting out' and 'drawing up' to be done, so that old balloon tails or odd edges don't protrude out from under the new and improved speech bubbles and captions.  Anyway, I'll let you judge for yourselves just how good a job I did - right after you've read the story.  Ready?  Off you go then, and remember you have a choice.  The original pages are on the left, the re-lettered versions are on the right of them.



Click on image to enlarge, then click again for optimum size.

COMICS? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH...

Or perhaps that should be:  COMICS DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH...

******

Some people are sensitive to criticism.  In fact, most of us are to some degree or other, but there are a few delicate, insecure souls who are over-sensitive in that department and who often angrily lash out at even the slightest critique of their abilities - whatever they happen to be.  Often they console themselves by telling anyone who'll listen that if their critics could do better, then they'd be doing it.  That's particularly the case with people in a professional capacity, but their protestations are often without foundation when one considers the logical implications of such a claim.

For example, I can't cook, but I sure know a good meal when I taste one.  And you can bet your little booties that I know when I've been served up slop.  Neither can I sing a note (couldn't carry a tune in a bucket), but I can tell a good singer when I hear one, as well as being able to spot a bum note whenever one happens to assail my ears.  I bet it's the same with you.  Couldn't draw a stick figure if your life depended on it?  I'm willing to wager that, chances are, you're still capable of telling the difference between a properly rendered figure-drawing and a 'mutant' monstrosity churned out by some talentless hack.  (Unless you're a total thicko, that is.)

My point being, of course, that just because you can't do something yourself doesn't necessarily mean you're incapable of offering a considered, insightful opinion on the quality or standard of someone else's work.  (In fact, sometimes it's not being able to do something that enables you to recognise when someone else can't either.)

I happen to know an extremely talented artist who is easily as accomplished as some of those working in comics today.  He pencilled and inked (as well as scripted) the MARVELMAN sample pages (impressively lettered by my humble self) which were submitted for MARVEL's consideration when they were deliberating over acquiring the character.  One of the head honchos at the company told me in a 'phone call that he was well-impressed with the artwork, and that the pages were "model" comics art.

    

Guess what though?  The artist concerned doesn't work in the industry and his name is unknown to the legions of comics fandom.  He happens to suffer from 'dry eyes syndrome' and it's absolute agony for him to draw for more than brief and infrequent periods at a time.  He'd probably be incapable of meeting deadlines for comics' monthly production schedules and would therefore be unable to make a living in the business of sequential art.

Consider also this.  When I freelanced for IPC MAGAZINES many years ago (though it seems like only yesterday), there was an editor of one particular comic who gave quite a lot of lettering work to his brother.  Nothing to do with nepotism he assured me, his brother just happened to be available at short notice whenever he needed him.  Now, I liked this editor, but his brother (whom I never met, as far as I can recall) was very far from being the finest exponent of his craft - which is doubtless why 2000 A.D. never availed themselves of his services.  (If they ever did, it must've been an emergency.)  Every page he lettered meant that better letterers didn't.

What does this prove, if anything?  It illustrates that not everyone who works in a particular field of endeavour is always the best suited to do so and may be due to considerations other than natural ability or talent.  It demonstrates that some people who are far better qualified can ofttimes be denied the breaks because someone less so is filling the space, or for any number of reasons.  Sometimes those who work in any given industry do so only because they were in the right place at the right time, or are simply 'good enough' rather than the finest craftsmen available.  (Council workmen, anyone?)

And one other, simple, obvious reason sticks out like a sore thumb.  (To me, at least.)  In a rapidly shrinking medium, there is only so much work to go 'round.  You could be the next JACK KIRBY or LEO BAXENDALE, but it's increasingly difficult to 'get the breaks' when editors understandably prefer to show 'loyalty' to regular contributors who display a competent (if uninspired) standard of work and meet deadlines.  Sadly, the chief concern of too many editors is simply to get a comic out on time, rather than focus on how it can be improved.  (The DANDY, anyone?)

A couple of embittered souls (one of whom is positively unbalanced) have sometimes accused me of being a bully.  (Ironically, one of them was accused of the same thing on a comics forum for abusing his 'status' as a comics contributor to browbeat others [now that is bullying], as if his opinion was somehow automatically imbued with greater validity on account of his occupation.)  I'm not in a position to 'bully' anyone, and wouldn't even if I were.  However, I freely admit that, whenever I read or hear of someone talking absolute b*ll*cks, I'll weigh in with my two cents worth.  Oh, wait a minute - I'm no longer a comics contributor, so therefore my opinions have no merit.  Aye, that'll be 'shining'.

If you're nursing ambitions to break into comics in a professional capacity, then keep on plugging away.  Don't be demoralised by a few smug souls who currently occupy a space which you think would be better filled by yourself.  It may take time, but if you really are that good, then there's a chance you might one day make it - if you're talented enough and if you're determined enough.  (Though sometimes it's simply a case of just being lucky enough.)

However, you need to face facts.  There are no guarantees in this world and the road is littered with the bodies of those who fell by the wayside or were passed over for others less worthy.  Just because you didn't achieve your goal (or haven't yet) doesn't necessarily mean (though it's a possibility) that you weren't (or aren't) good enough - it may merely mean that there are only a limited number of seats at an ever-shrinking table and that perhaps others got there first.

And don't let the smug, self-satisfied mouthings of anyone else ever lead you to believe otherwise.

MIKE NOBLE'S FIREBALL XL5 - PART TWO...

Images copyright relevant owner

We herewith present the second instalment of the FIREBALL XL5 adventure from TV CENTURY 21 #35, cover-dated September 18th, 2065 (no, that's not a mistake), as written by ALAN FENNELL and drawn by MIKE NOBLE.  (For Part One, click here.)

Mike Noble's composition was always perfect, and it's difficult to imagine any other artist of the day (whether it be HAMPSON, BELLAMY or LAWRENCE) surpassing him in story composition.  Only RON EMBLETON was equal to Noble's storytelling abilities in my humble opinion, both of them easily being a match in that particular department for MARVEL's mighty JACK KIRBY across the pond.  The two of them had that 'comics dynamism' that the others, undeniably great as they were, fell a little short of.  (Feel free to disagree of course - you won't get insulted for it on this particular blog - unlike some others.)

  

I recall thinking that the empty spacesuits was quite a creepy development, and being intrigued as to what the explanation for it might be.  Fennell didn't appear to 'write down' for kids, often including elements that less fearless writers or editors might have steered clear of.  Arguably, he wasn't big on characterisation, but with only two pages a strip he could hardly afford to be.  He kept the story rattling along at a cracking good pace, and that's no doubt why these tales still stand up well today and are so fondly-remembered.

For Part Three, click here.  Don't miss it!

T.H.U.N.D.E.R. AGENTS IN ACTION...

Copyright relevant owners

An interesting but short-lived monthly comic hit Britain's newsagents' shelves and spinner-racks back in 1986 - T.H.U.N.D.E.R. ACTION.  Short-lived in that it only lasted four issues; interesting because, along with newly originated material, it contained what seems to be unauthorised reprints of WALLY WOOD's '60s secret, super-powered T.H.U.N.D.E.R. AGENTS.

Unauthorised?  I suspect so, primarily because the pages were laser-scanned from what appears to be original TOWER COMICS issues.  Also, there's no copyright acknowledgement to whoever was then the current owners of the material, the only copyright reference being to U.K. publishers, SAVOY SERVICES Ltd.  (The comic was apparently a 'ROCK PHOTO PUBLICATION '.)

The first issue had a mix of full colour and black and white content, which didn't affect the new material as it had been created for b&w reproduction.  However, in the case of the U.S. reprints, the monochrome pages were 'muddy' and the colour ones looked washed out.  With the exception of the occasional pin-up page, the rest of the T.H.U.N.D.E.R. material was presented in a landscape format, akin to the MARVEL UK comics of the '70s, The TITANS and SUPER SPIDER-MAN & The SUPERHEROES.

With issue #2 the magazine went all-colour, which was a vast improvement, particularly in the case of the U.K. originated stories.  (JONATHAN SHATTER, plus new T.H.U.N.D.E.R. tales.)  The U.S. reprints though, continued to suffer from less than perfect reproduction, hardly surprising given their source.  The fourth issue proved to be the final one, although the cause of its sudden demise remains unclear.  Perhaps it simply didn't sell enough copies to warrant continued publication, or the lawful copyright owners of the Tower Comics adventures threatened legal action against Savoy Services Ltd.  We may never know.

Whatever the reason, these four issues make an interesting addition to the saga of The T.H.U.N.D.E.R. AGENTS!  If you're a completist, you may want to hunt them down on eBay - I imagine they wouldn't be terribly expensive to acquire for your collection.

Unfortunately, the captions and speech balloons for the new strips were typeset, which seldom lends itself to a satisfactory look - especially in action-adventure stories.  They badly needed hand-lettering, and when it comes to badly hand-lettering strips, no one beats me.  (Er, hang on a minute - that didn't come out right.  Oh well - you know what I mean.)

So, there you have it - a whistle-stop tour of a 'blink-and-you'll-miss- it' comics mag from over a quarter of a century ago.  If there's enough demand (and even if there isn't), I may one day share some more of the contents with you all as a special treat.  And if you have any information pertaining to this short-lived series of comics from so long ago, feel free to divulge it in the comments section and spread some enlightenment to your fellow bloggers.  There's no point in keeping it all to yourself.

As you can see, issue #4 carried a 'PG' rating.  Perhaps that had something to do with the mag's cancellation, as such an advisory may have resulted in it being placed on higher shelves, out of sight of potential purchasers.  (If customers can't see it, they can't buy it, can they?)  Having said that though, in my experience, newsagents seldom pay the slightest bit of notice to what it says on the covers of comics, automatically assuming that all such publications are for children.  

Oh, all right then - if you'd like to read those new T.H.U.N.D.E.R. tales in their entirety then just click right here.  Be seeing you.

******

Click on images to enlarge, click again for optimum size.

The MOST NOBLE ARTWORK Of ALL - MIKE NOBLE'S FIREBALL XL5 - PART ONE...

Images copyright relevant owner

MIKE NOBLE is one of the greatest artists ever to draw for British comics since they first rolled off the presses.  During the '60s, his graceful, fluid, yet action-packed artwork appeared in a variety of publications, but he's possibly best known for his FIREBALL XL5, ZERO X, and CAPTAIN SCARLET strips in TV CENTURY 21, and, in the '70s, his FOLLYFOOT, TIMESLIP, and BLACK BEAUTY strips in the Junior TV TIMES publication, LOOK-IN.  In fact, I probably do him a disservice - he's renowned for far more than that.

The accompanying Fireball XL5 strip (from TV Century 21 #34, cover-dated September 11th, 2065 - honest) is one I remember reading on my way to school, back when I was a mere snot-nosed kidlet (as opposed to a snot-nosed adult).  Around six years later, a smaller, black and white reprinting of the adventure appeared in COUNTDOWN, a comic heavily influenced by TV21, which should come as no surprise as it was helmed by former art editor DENNIS HOOPER.  Naturally I was overjoyed to see it, even in 'reduced' circumstances.

Regarding the tale's initial appearance, I recall eagerly invading the newsagent's en route to school every week, in the hope that the latest copy was available for perusal on the counter.  I even remember Mr. SMITH, the manager, patiently thumbing through an issue on one occasion, to give me a preview of the latest instalment of that snowmen adventure.  (I had no money on me and just couldn't wait to see what had happened to ROBERT The ROBOT when he was knocked off his Jetmobile by a giant, rolling snowball.)

Interestingly (for me at least), Mr. Smith later became the manager of another newsagent's in the neighbourhood my family had by then moved to, from which I purchased the issue of Countdown reprinting that exact same tale.  He subsequently gave me a job as a paperboy on a salary of £1 per week.  (Which was slave labour even back then.)

Anyway, enjoy this first instalment - and be sure to stay tuned  for the rest of this classic comics serial in future posts.

Click here for Part Two.

A SIGN Of The TIMES...

I used to be a signwriter.  I started off as quite a good signwriter and, in the fullness of time, became a very good one - an excellent one in fact.  (If I say so myself - and I do.)  That's probably why I found lettering for comics to be relatively easy - at least there was no climbing up and down ladders and scaffolding in the rain when putting speech balloons next to comic characters' heads.

Occasionally, even during my career in comics, I'd be prevailed upon to do a sign or two for someone or other.  While going through some old photos earlier, I discovered the two images which adorn this very page.  (Both sides of a sandwich board-type sign, for display outside a shop.)  They're scanned and enlarged from quite small images so might not be quite as sharp as I'd like, but I think they'll suffice to give you a fair indication of just how proficient I was.

Someone must have thought so, because it was stolen after only a couple of days or so.  What can I say?  It's nice to have one's work appreciated.  (Obviously it was nicked so that someone could paint their own signs over mine, or perhaps some drunken neds dumped it in the woods further along the street and across the road.)

Signing off for now.  (Har, har!  Pun intended.)

UNFINISHED BUSINESS...

Around fifteen years ago, one of my old schoolfriends found himself in the unfortunate position of having to vacate the family home when his father died.  To help him and his sister have less to shift when they moved, I accepted his offer to see if there was anything I might want to buy from their unwanted baggage.  I gave him £100 for a few relatively worthless odds 'n' ends (books, ornaments, etc.) so that he didn't think he was the recipient of charity, and hoped it would be of use in some small way.  (He'd already given me a couple of ornaments for free, so I wanted to help him in return.)

Amongst the items I purchased from him was the above book.  I bought it for my father who was in hospital at the time, so that he could read it when he got out.  He never did.  He died not long after without ever seeing it (unless he glimpsed the cover on what turned out to be a brief visit home) and it's languished in a cupboard since the day it came into my possession.  Having fought abroad during the Second World War these type of stories were right up his street, but I've never been even remotely interested in military matters.

However, whenever I lay eyes on the book, it brings with it a sense of 'unfinished business' - as if it's waiting to fulfill the purpose for which it was bought, but has been denied ever since.  As I said, the subject isn't really my 'cup of tea', but, more and more these days, I'm left with a strange sense that maybe I should read it on my father's behalf - and thus end its years of neglect and abandonment.  I know it sounds daft, but the feeling is beginning to haunt me. 

Unfinished business, eh?  One day soon perhaps.

THERE'S NOWT SO QUEER AS FOLK...

Okay, that's it!  The gloves are off.  No more pussy-footing around. I've put up with it long enough.  Seems a certain person can't leave well enough alone.  If it's not constant sly digs on his posts and the comments section of his own blog whenever he or anybody else mentions the state of the U.K. comics industry, it's devious insinuations about the source of any criticisms or disagreement he receives on said blog.  How do I know this?  I'm forever receiving emails and comments from various folks advising me of his transgressions and asking if I'm going to respond to him.  (I've had six so far today.)  No doubt the motivations of those who alert me to his preposterous statements are mixed: some merely want me to know what is being said and others want to see a good rammy.

From having various comments on his blog attributed to myself (in order to suggest that my opinion is a minority one), to being called a "bitter, frustrated former comics contributor" (in an attempt to dismiss my opinion as being motivated by envy or hatred and therefore invalid), hardly a week goes by without him taking some thinly-veiled pot-shot at me or anyone else who happens to hold a similar viewpoint.  He insists on speaking as if he has some special insight into the workings of my mind.  One thing's for sure - he has none when it comes to understanding the delusional obsessions of his own.

It was in response to his recent sniping that I posted a genuine email I received a day or two ago as a shot across the bows to him.  Unsurprisingly, he seems to be insinuating on his blog that I wrote it myself.  What arrogance!  I could take the same view when it comes to the current comments his post has received, but I don't labour under the delusion that I'm universally popular and that any criticism of me must spring from the same source.  As JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES once said: "Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking."  Never were truer words spoken.  Unfortunately, "the unthinking" don't like to be made to think and often resent those who drive them to it.

Seems that the second-string individual to whom I refer falls into the same category.  Maybe he should stick to drawing his second-rate strips for an ever-dwindling audience.  For someone whose career has depended on more skilled cartoonists being too busy to draw everything, he should perhaps be a little more humble and less uptight.  Let's hope he discovers women soon - perhaps then he'll relax a bit.

The accompanying photo?  Don't worry, it's 'metaphorical'.

******

I'm reliably informed that, over on his own blog, the person concerned continues to witter on like an innocent virgin.  (I think we can safely disregard the word 'innocent', but you can draw your own conclusions as to the rest of it.)  No mention of his sly, sustained insults over the months, his constant insinuations regarding anonymous comments, his obvious contempt whenever he obliquely refers to me.  Let's see just how long it is before he takes another dig in the coming weeks, eh?  Someone will be sure to tell me.  If ever he learns that whenever he lobs a brick over my garden wall it gets lobbed right back, then perhaps things will quieten down.  Let's hope so.    

JET - IT DISAPPEARED ALMOST AS FAST AS IT ARRIVED...

Copyright REBELLION

You're looking at an interesting 'one-off' published at the end of 1972 - JET ANNUAL 1973.  What makes it interesting is that the comic which spawned it had ceased publication over a year before, making the release of an annual somewhat surprising.  It must have been prepared well in advance of when most annuals are put into production, which is usually several months before appearing in newsagents and bookshops.

JET comic (below), released on April 24th 1971 (dated May 1st), was a replacement for the failed THUNDER which had preceded it.  Thunder lasted for only 22 issues, but Jet fared just as badly, likewise lasting for 22 issues before being consumed by BUSTER.

The comic contained a mixture of action-adventure and light comedy strips, such as VON HOFFMAN'S INVASION, The SLUDGEMOUTH SLOGGERS, PATRIDGE'S PATCH, SERGEANTS FOUR, The DWARF (which made its debut in ish #2), PADDY McGINTY'S GOAT, CRAZY CAR CAPERS, ADARE'S ANGLICANS, KESTER KIDD, BALA The BRITON, and CARNO'S CADETS. The traditional offering of mad scientists, football, police, war, crime, friendly aliens, car races, sporting marvels, and ancient warriors that U.K. kids comics were so fond of.  Outright humour was taken care of by the likes of The KIDS Of STALAG 41, FACEACHE, and BERTIE BUMPKIN.

Although Jet must be considered a failure, one of its characters enjoyed a successful quarter-century run in the comic it moved to when Jet bit the dust.  Face-ache, drawn by KEN REID (with occasional fill-in strips by other artists), appeared in Buster right up until the artist's death.  In fact, an unfinished Faceache strip was on Reid's drawing board when he died, and I still recall reading the letter from his family to editor ALLEN CUMMINGS, explaining that they'd like to keep it as a memento of Ken.  As far as I'm aware, no one outside of Reid's friends and family have ever seen it.*  Just think - an unseen Ken Reid strip - what an amazing collectors' item that would make, don't you think?

Jet may have lasted for only 22 issues and one annual, but - with Faceache - it still managed to make its mark on the U.K. comics scene far beyond its published lifespan. 

******

*Update:  I've now seen the page, which consists of only one pencilled panel.  I've got a copy of it, and may show it one day if you all behave yourself.  (And once the person who gave me it has used it for a project he's working on.)

******

Click on an image to enlarge, then click again for optimum size.

"THE RETURN OF ULYSSES..."

Copyright relevant owner

In a recent post (here) about E.H. SHEPARD's illustrations for KENNETH GRAHAME's classic book, The WIND In The WILLOWS, I described the artist's pictorializations as "definitive" - and I stand by that assertion.  There is something about Shepard's linework that suits the adventures of the animal equivalent of The FANTASTIC FOUR to a tee.  However, that is not to say that other artists have not also produced magnificent representations of MOLE, RATTY, TOAD and BADGER which are masterpieces in their own right.

Such an illustrator is INGA MOORE, who created her drawings a few years ago for a slightly abridged version of Grahame's delightful and enchanting story.  So evocative are Moore's pictures, and so detailed and distinctive, that I would like to see her art grace a full and unabridged edition of the book.  Without having it to hand, I'm going from memory (the accompanying illustrations are scanned from a calendar), but if I remember correctly, Moore's edition only has ten (or perhaps eleven) of the original twelve chapters - and they have been simplified in places from Grahame's rich and articulate original text, which does not 'write down' to children.

I understand it was Inga Moore herself who did the abridging, and I'm sure she did so as sympathetically as possible - but, in my opinion, the tale should never be abridged as to do so is to diminish its effect and is an insult to both the author's memory and the reader's intelligence.  The book is a masterpiece and should not be tampered with.  Fortunately however, the magical quality of the artist's work is not affected by the dilution of the author's text, and are a shining example of near-perfection personified.

IF IGNORANCE IS BLISS, THEN I KNOW ONE VERY HAPPY MAN...

I received an email earlier regarding a certain blogger (whose name I have omitted from the 'cut and paste' below) which makes for interesting reading.  I've also omitted the name of the sender to spare him from any hostile repercussions.  Much as I'm tempted to respond with my own thoughts, I can't really top what the sender himself has said.  Read it and make up your own minds on the matter.

"I was reading (name redacted) blog earlier and he was talking about the UK comics industry. He said it wasn't as big as it had once been, but was still doing well and not dead as some people claimed. Anyone who disagrees with his assessment he dismisses as bitter ex-contributors or sentimentalists mired in nostalgia for the comics of their youth.  (He obviously has you in mind.)

He comes across as a smug, obnoxious prat, and I know you've had your run-ins with him so I wonder what you thought of his post if you read it?  He sounds much like a well-fed man with an amply filled larder during a famine, wondering why hungry people are always moaning about there being no food.  Completely out of touch with reality I'd say.  I had to wonder why, if the industry is as healthy as he claims, he regularly has to sell pages of his old art so he can pay his mortgage.

There's no real comic industry in this country today.  What we do have is more like a village craft fayre.  Maybe you should consider doing a counter-post.  I'm sure it would make for interesting reading." 

I haven't seen the post as I rarely visit his blog unless someone alerts me to such instances as described above.  I've just recently addressed a matter from a few weeks back which I was advised of only the other day, and I really can't be bothered reading his same tired, old, misinformed opinions yet again - so won't be gracing his blog with a visit.  Most sensible people know the truth, so there's no point in flogging a dead horse.  Besides, he's entitled to his point of view, even if it has been formed in a glass bubble of self-delusion and ignorance.

Let's just leave him there - he seems happy enough.

******

LEE JAMES TURNOCK had some interesting thoughts on the matter over on his blog, but it doesn't exist anymore so you can't read them.

FRED & BARNEY - FRIENDS TO THE END...

A little while back I promised to show you my FLINTSTONES WALKER by MARX TOYS, made way back in the early 1960s.  So, without any further ado - enjoy.  YABBA-DABBA-DOO!

To see my YOGI BEAR & HUCKLEBERRY HOUND walking toy, click here.

SNEAKY GOINGS ON IN THE COMICS WORLD...?

Well, my spies were a little late reporting this one to me, but better late than never I suppose.  It's just been brought to my attention that, some weeks back, a certain blogger made remarks in the comments section of one of his posts which seem to suggest that he's responding to a particular (though un-named) individual with whom he's been known to disagree.

Now, call me a cynic, but if indeed he is referring to that specific person (which is the consensus of those who alerted me to it), why would he knowingly print comments from someone he's banned from his site and then respond to them?  It just doesn't add up.  Unless, of course, he wrote the comments himself to cast suspicion on that particular person and show them in a bad light.

I've seen it all now.  Oh well, onward and upward.

THEREIN HANGS A TALE - DITKO SPIDER-MAN COVERS...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

I suppose there's some kind of irony to waxing lyrical about the joys of holding an actual, physical comic and illustrating my post with images which you, the reader, will be viewing on a computer screen - but it's one we'll just have to live with I'm afraid.  In an age where the future of comics appears to lie in a digital format, wandering into a newsagent's and plonking down your pennies in exchange for a printed publication may well soon be a thing of the past, but to this old dinosaur, using a laptop, iPad or mobile 'phone to follow your favourite funnies or herculean heroes just can't compare to the 'real thing'.

There's something about the shape and feel of a comicbook, the ink on the page, the smell of the paper even - which the digital impostor cannot match, and - truth to tell and without meaning to be patronising - I feel kind of sorry for future generations if their only exposure to printed comicbooks is going to be looking at them in an airtight, temperature-controlled glass case in a museum somewhere.  Let's hope that the two formats - digital and traditional - can co-exist for many more years yet at the very least.

Anyway, back now to the fascinating subject in hand, which is the next batch of '80s MARVEL TALES reprints of '60s SPIDER-MAN adventures by STAN LEE and STEVE DITKO. Apparently, the FANTASTIC FOUR stories by Lee and JACK KIRBY were considered for a similar treatment, though I now forget if it would've been in a separate reprint mag or in Marvel Tales after the Lee and Ditko Spidey stories had run their course.  Not that it matters much because it never happened.  Readers had to wait until the advent of the MASTERWORKS series of volumes a few years later to see the early FF classic tales again.

Anyway, I'd better not keep you from the goodies any longer - enjoy these cataclysmic classic covers from yesteryear. 

Sharp-eyed readers will have noticed that the above image has been 'flipped' from its initial appearance and that DOC OCK's face has been changed to a more slimline version.  The glasses seem like an afterthought, not being rendered too well - and look as if they're about to fall off.

Also, when the original cover was first printed, back in the '60s, Stan Lee had Jack Kirby redraw the lower parts of Spidey's legs, being dissatisfied with Steve Ditko's rendition of them.  Curiously, for the Marvel Tales reprint they've been redrawn yet again, not matching either Ditko's or Kirby's versions.

Want to see more Marvel Tales/Spider-Man covers?  Just try and stop me!  For Part Three, click here.  For Part One, click here.)

LETTER In A SHOEBOX...

You know what it's like - things start to pile up and make the place look untidy.  If you're like me, you start stashing things away wherever you can find a space for them.  With yours truly, that space is usually an old shoebox, of which I have several.  Old letters (some unopened), bank statements, leaflets and the like.  I was going through one such repository of assorted items earlier this evening and discovered a letter from 1990 amongst the contents.  It was a nice 'thank you' letter from the woman who'd once lived in the very house in which I now reside, before swapping residences with us back in 1972.

As related in an earlier post (here), we lived in her old house for eleven years before moving elsewhere, only to move back again just over four years later.  We'd been back only a few months when a friend informed me that the field I'd played in as a boy (across the road from the house we'd vacated in 1972) was due to have amenity housing for pensioners built upon it, which, to me was very sad news indeed.  I always feel much the same when I hear of a childhood landmark about to bite the dust - there goes my past.

Anyway, one night I boldly chapped the door of my old abode and clued in Mrs. MAISIE MITCHELL (who remembered me from all those years before) about the upcoming fate of the field across the road.  Would it be all right to come along some day and capture it on film before it disappeared forever?  Mrs. Mitchell was agreeable to accommodating my over-developed sense of nostalgia, and, some months later, for the first time in sixteen years, I crossed the doorstep of my childhood home.  (Well, one of them.)

I got some good photos and made another couple of trips over the next few weeks, to grab a few more snaps of what I'd missed first time around (she'd kindly let me take some pictures all around the house) and, on the last occasion, to present her with a box of chocolates and a little ornament to thank her for her kind indulgence.  I also gave her a cassette tape of JIM REEVES and said I'd give her some other music the first chance I got.  Sometime later, I duly posted them to her as I didn't want to wear out my welcome by turning up on her doorstep yet again like the proverbial bad penny.

Some weeks (if not months) later, on the 14th of June 1990 to be precise, I received a letter from Mrs. Mitchell, thanking me for the cassette tapes and informing me that she'd now moved to another address.  (If I remember correctly, she told me in a subsequent conversation [either by 'phone or in person] that the tapes had been forwarded to her from the old address to which I'd sent them.)  She was only in her new flat for a few short years before she died, making the effort of moving seem more trouble than it was worth to my way of thinking, but obviously she had no way of knowing what the future held for her.  (Who does?)  Interestingly, her new home was quite close to ours, being only a few minutes away in the same neighbourhood.  It's a shame she never got to enjoy it for longer.

As I re-read her thank you letter, it brought back memories of my old home and my visits back there.  (I returned in 1991 to shoot a video, by arrangement with the new tenants who'd swapped with Mrs. Mitchell only the year before.)  It struck me as being somehow oddly significant to be reading a letter from someone who'd once lived in this very house, addressed in her own hand to her previous residence - while probably being completely unaware of the profundity inherent in such a situation.  When I'd posted her the cassettes, I was only too well aware of how strange it seemed to be sending something to an address that was still all-too familiar to me - that still felt like 'my' address, not someone else's.  However, I realize that not many people think in quite the same way I do, which, on reflection, is probably a good thing.

Anyway, I cleared out quite a few things from that old shoebox, but I decided to hold on to Mrs. Mitchell's letter.  It somehow seems right at home here.