INTERMISSION: UK 'TROLLS', ETC...

I've just this moment noticed the above comment on someone's FACEBOOK page about me by the 'author' of the blog I've been showing screengrabs from.  I'm astonished by his claim that I've been 'editing' his post by deliberate omission, because it was my stated intention to cover the complete thing.  There was one small paragraph I inadvertently missed when I was cropping my screengrabs, but the moment I noticed, up it went right away.  And that was before I'd read the above.

Here's the paragraph for your consideration.

You can readily see for yourselves that there's nothing in it which, by its inadvertent omission, alters the tone or context of his post in any way.  It's simply more waffle of the same kind that preceded and followed it.  So, for him to accuse me of 'conveniently leaving it out' as if it contains an unarguable point of principle or piece of pertinent profundity is simply - pure pish!  (I do love  a nice bit of alliteration.)

He prefers to whine like a girl (c'mon, we all know they do it) instead of address the issues.  'Blatant contradictions'?  Point them out then and I'll show you you're mistaken.  Could there be seeming contradictions?  Sure, because certain words have more than only one meaning, and that can be confusing on a casual read-through.  However, I credit the majority of my blog's readers with intelligence, and if they apply a little thought and join the dots, they'll see it all hangs together.  Don't think so?  Then tell me about it, don't whine about it.

As for twisting his words, what a totally fatuous claim.  How do you twist the following?  Remember, these are direct quotes, not products of my imagination.

"...the British comics industry has come under attack in recent years from people whose main goal is to bring it crashing to its knees and put everyone in it out of work for their own selfish reasons."

"...not only are they trying to put adults off buying UK comics but they're happy to try and take this brilliant way of developing reading skills away from the children."

"When they do decide to 'review' the latest comics they don't buy them, they steal them by using illegal scans (god forbid they'd spend any money on them)..."

"...there's certainly some, the ones who seem to complain the most, who were never able to crack their way into the comics industry for themselves or who did have a career but through their own mis-takes, or unwillingness to adapt to the modern ways of working in the field, no longer do."

Read that last part very carefully.  By saying someone no longer works because of their unwillingness to adapt,  it strongly suggests that the decision was taken by potential employers, and wasn't a personal choice by someone who gets no satisfaction from using  modern methods.  That's not 'twisting' his words, that's their implicit meaning.  He certainly isn't saying that there are some people no longer working in comics because they don't want to.  That would hardly be any kind of point to make, would it?

"They blame the industry for what did or didn't happen, even attacking anyone successful in it nowadays too..."

Nothing but vindictive bile aimed at people he doesn't know, and has no means of knowing what prompts or informs their opinions and utterances.  Doesn't stop him from impugning their characters and motivations though, does it?  And yet he has the cheek to act the victim when someone takes him to task for it.

Let me reiterate.  I have no problem with his views on comics, he's perfectly entitled to them.  What he isn't entitled to do, is cast aspersions on people's characters or their motivations.  To accuse anyone of having devious or malicious intentions in their criticism or observations on the state of comics just because they differ from his is simply not on, which is why I've taken him to task for it.

As for his remark about me 'describing violence' against him ('a face you'd never get tired of punching'), we're talking about a hyperbolic, throwaway line, a simple way of dismissing someone as an irritating, impertinent little prat, not a statement of intent or an incitement to violence by anyone else.  Strewth!  Am I dealing with children or halfwits here?

Some bloggers seem to have the impression that I'm 'bitter'.  No, I'm not bitter - I'm annoyed.  @rseholes spreading misinformation about me, maligning my good name, sending me threatening comments which include my address and 'phone number, lying about me on other sites (including TWITTER and FACEBOOK), posting falsehoods and distortions on their blogs.  You'd think I was somebody famous or important they way they carry on.

I find it remarkably interesting that his references to someone messing up their career, blaming other people for their own mistakes, using illegal scans or downloads, editing posts, etc., are the exact same ones that someone I called 'I've Got A Small 'Un' made in comments to this blog not all that long ago.  An amazing coincidence, eh?

I note he says in the comments section of his blog that he isn't going to respond to my posts or address my points.  Of course he's not!  He's a 'hit and run' merchant, who's happy to throw stones, but isn't prepared to back up his allegations about those he has scurrilously maligned.  He can't  of course, because they're unfounded, but it'd be better if he refrained from making such ludicrous statements about people to begin with.

Here's an interesting fact to end up on.  One of my pals has a face that would stop a clock.  Uh-oh, I've only gone and done it now.  I've implied violence against an inoffensive item of household furniture.  I'm a bad 'un, I am, and no mistake.  You gotta laugh - at him!

'Stands by everything he said', remember.  That'll include all his malicious lies and distortions then, I take it?  Things he should never have said to begin with!

PART FOUR OF UK 'TROLLS': KICKING THE BUTTS (OF BUTT-'EADS)...

Right, let's get straight into it. 'Often used to back up the silly rules' he witters in the screengrab above.  Well, I think I've more than ably demonstrated that these 'silly rules' (or the way that he distorts them at least) exist only in his own head (and in the heads of those who agree with his catalogue of exaggeration, disingenuity and misinterpretation.)

However, there is a case to be made (and I think I've done so) for a comic - in a precise sense - being regarded as a physical, published entity.  Something you can hold in your hands and have a tactile relationship with.  (Oo-er, steady on there, missus.)  In a very real sense, a comic is a combination of 'carton' and 'content', not just one or the other.  (Context would be the determining factor.)  If you apply the term 'comic' to any and all paper-covered periodicals in the comics-section shelves of a newsagent, recognize that the categorization is often the result of simple expediency.

Consider this.  One thing that irks many comic readers is the automatic assumption by many adults that comics are just for kids and is a format aimed at the immature or simple-minded.  Part of the problem, perhaps unique (in degree at least) to Britain, is that both 'carton' and 'content' have traditionally been seen as intended almost exclusively for children, and any periodical for kids is therefore regarded as a 'comic'.  So the word has taken on a much looser, wider, definition.  One can make a claim that this is a legitimate application;  after all, if something is perceived as belonging to a particular category, doesn't it actually become so after a while?  Let me apply my mighty brain.

In one sense 'yes', and in another sense 'no'.  After all, a tomato being perceived as a vegetable when it's actually a fruit, doesn't make it a vegetable  People might think it's a vegetable (and in large numbers too), but it remains a misconception, regardless of whether they're aware of it or not.  Yet chefs still use it as if it were a vegetable.

Now, you may at this point think that I'm confirming the accusation of my 'opponent', but I'm actually trying to give him a fair shake by acknowledging that the word 'comic' has more than one just application.  That's part of the problem, you see, because the two sides often use both senses of the word interchangeably.  The word now has a more general application, as well as a specific one.  So, even were I (and others) to subscribe to the limited definition of a comic as derided on that other blog, his negative classification of that as 'silly rules' is surely a purely subjective one, coloured by his willingness to include just about any magazine in the kids' section of newsagents all across the country.

I'd suggest that his looser definition of what constitutes a 'comic' is equally as open to the charge of being 'silly' as the one he so superciliously mocks.  That fact seems to be lost on him.  He has already decided that his definition of what makes a comic is the 'true' one, making him just as dogmatic on the subject as he accuses the other side of being.  By his own standard, his opinion has therefore no more validity than anyone else's.  Hoist by his own petard, methinks.

But, as I hope I've illustrated, it's a more complicated matter than may at first appear on casual consideration.

So, is the comic strip item shown in the first screengrab a comic or not?  Well, in one way, it is, and in other, it isn't.  It's a digital comic.  But why qualify it so?  Well, when I buy my MARVEL MASTERWORKS volumes, I'm buying a book - but one that contains comic strip material previously published in comicbook form.  So isn't the book a comic because of its content?  Nope - it remains a book, not a comic.  So the item in the above screengrab may (and will) be referred to as a 'comic' in a general sense as a matter of convenience, but it's not one in the specific sense that most people understand it.

Think about it.  If it had been first printed in a book, it would  be a book and not a comic, so obviously the form in which it appears is a relevant factor which must be taken into account when it comes to classification.  Is it silly to give things their own category in order to differentiate between them?  I'd say no.  Let's return to my record analogy for a moment.  A CD is a recording, but it's not referred to as a 'record'.  Why?  Easy.  That's because we all know that a 'record' (as commonly understood) is a black (other colours are available) round disc with a hole in the middle.  "So what?" you say.  "A CD is a silver round disc with a hole in the middle.  They both play music, so what's the difference?"

I'll let you decide that for yourselves, but we all know there is one, don't we?   Here's another little something to ponder.  If you're going out to the shops and your kids asked you to bring back a comic and you came back without one, I'll bet you can well imagine their disappointment.  Even if you were to access one on your computer for them to read, you know, in your heart of hearts, that they'd consider it second-best and not quite the real deal (as far as 'carton' goes).  It would be a bit like them asking for a teddy bear and when you forget, showing them a picture of a teddy bear.

True, that's not a perfect analogy, but it serves the purpose of illustrating that there's something about the physical aspect of some things that's essential to their very identity.  And a 'comic', to most people's way of thinking, yet remains a physical thing that can be handled.

Also, consider this fact:  Animated cartoons are nothing more than a series of sequential drawings given the illusion of movement by the application of technology, yet they're called cartoons, not comics.  Why?  Given the more flexible, encompassing definition of that other blog writer, couldn't they, shouldn't they be classed in the same group?

The point being there's a reason for the distinction between similar-but-related art forms, and the erosion of those distinctions is not necessarily a helpful development.  It certainly shouldn't give folk with no regard or respect for those traditional distinctions, licence to ridicule or contemptuously dismiss the point of view of those who do.  (Or invent and ascribe malicious and insulting motivations to them.)

Take a mo to read the caption of the above screengrab.  Now maybe someone will tell me (because I appear to have missed it), but where has it ever been said that a periodical is excluded from being a comic just because it arrives through the post?  In trying to be clever, he's only making a complete prat of himself.  (Do what you're good at is what I say.)  Note that I'm not mocking him for his opinion on comics, but for his ridiculous distortions of other people's views.

  

Let me digress for a moment.  Someone who emailed me recently, said that after talking to the author of the piece, he held the view that it was a 'general article' and 'not targeting anyone in particular'.  Now, see that part in the above screengrab about 'ridiculous rules' coming from those who 'collected these comics or even worked on them' - guess what?  That's me, that is.  Not named, but clearly alluded to.

Now, I'm not claiming to be the only target, but I'm obviously one of them, perhaps even the main one.  If there's anyone else who's worked in comics who's as vocal in his criticisms as I am then I've yet to learn of them, so any claim to it being a 'general opinion piece' (as described by the one who justified his cross posting of it) is patent nonsense in my view.  It was clearly far more than that.

I'd hoped to delve into the definition of 'industry' in this instalment, but I've lingered a tad too long on the above and other concerns now require my attention.  Hopefully I'll wind it all up in the fifth and final part - though that ambition is open to revision depending on circumstances.

See you next time.

BABE Of The DAY - MARTINE BESWICK...

Here's MARTINE BESWICK

doing half an impression of a teapot.

Looks like she wants to be picked up,

 eh?  I'd be happy to oblige.

UK 'TROLLS': KICKING THE BUTTS OF BUTT-'EADS) - PART THREE...

Are you a fan of 'straw man' arguments and spurious 'logic'?  Then you'll love the above screengrab from a blog extolling the 'virtues' of today's U.K. comics scene, as it has them in abundance.  First of all, I've never read or heard of anyone insisting that 'a comic must be a weekly humour title aimed at kids, with cover-to-cover comic strips and must be purchased from a newsagent', so he's foisting his own skewed viewpoint onto those he seeks to discredit.  Comics can be fortnightly or monthly, and can be purchased mail order or by subscription.  Or given away free, even.

I've expressed a preference for the way things used to be when I was growing up, but I've never sought to suggest that the comics 'industry' has to be constricted by that; nor do I know of anyone who has.  Part of the problem, I believe, is the fact that the word 'comic' can be applied to more than just one thing, and this leads to confusion on both sides of the discussion when it comes to understanding just what is being discussed.

For example, the simplest definition of the word 'comic' I've seen online is this: "A periodical containing comic strips, intended chiefly for children."  That's probably still the popular idea of what a comic is among the general public.  However, that's using the word in the specific sense as it's most commonly understood, whereas it also has a looser, broader sense, and this can sometimes lead to people talking at cross-purposes when discussing the seemingly simple subject.

It's like the 'music' industry.  Music is accessible in a variety of ways.  Once upon a time, the vinyl record format was how most folk listened to music, or by attending live concerts.  In modern times, it's mainly by CD, or downloading, and all sorts of other ways that I've probably never even heard of or imagined.  (That's because I'm a doddery ol' fart, but that shouldn't be held against me.  After all, I'm a doddery ol' fart who still has his own teeth and hair and that should surely count for something, you impudent young whippersnappers!)

Once there was a record industry.  A 'record' in the way that most people understood it, was a vinyl disc with a hole in the middle - not to be confused with a Polo Fruit or a doughnut.  When someone said that they were going to buy a 'record', we knew exactly what they meant, and, at one time, didn't include a CD or cassette.  That's because, in the sense I've just described, the word 'record' referred to what I would call the 'carton', and not the 'content'.  Although, confusingly, 'record' was also a 'shorthand' way of referring to the original recording.  That's why the word gradually took on a looser and wider application: Someone would hear a song on the radio and say "I must buy that record" and then go out and purchase a CD or a cassette tape (or 8-track).  That's because, in that particular context, their use of the word referred to the 'content' and not the 'carton'.

The word 'record', as I said, was short for 'recording' so, technically, whatever the 'carton' was - vinyl disc, CD, music cassette , 8-track, or whatever - fell within the category, but, for the most part, it was generally understood that a 'record'' was a particular thing in itself - a round, usually black, plastic disc.  However, when referring to their 'record collection', a person's usually talking about their vinyl collection, not their CDs or music cassettes - even though these are 'recordings'.  Different 'carton' you see. 

Confused?  You will be!  First, though, let's deal with the facetious captions on the screengrabs below.  Got to be thorough.  If a job's worth doing, etc...

Well, the fact that I recently referred to LITTLE STAR (which is in the same format) in some fairly recent posts as a 'nursery comic', puts paid to that little piece of misrepresentation.  Would anyone deny that this was a comic?  Has anyone ever denied that this format doesn't fit the category?  If so, I must've missed it.  The absurd examples he mocks are nothing more than fantasies of his own creation.

   

Again, another gross misrepresentation of the other side's point of view.  I used to work on the above title and the first one below, and I, for one, never once challenged or denied its categorization.  Nor have I ever read of anyone else doing so.  Another 'straw man' argument with no evidence to prove otherwise. 

Do I really need to labour the point?  Remember also that these comics are around 20 to 25 years old.  And here I thought we were talking about the state of today's 'industry'?  Talk about misdirection?  And, amazingly, there are some folk who fall for all his tedious twaddle.  Strewth!

On a simple point of logic, it's perhaps worth noting (though I'm not applying it here) that just because a periodical may describe itself as a 'comic', it doesn't necessarily mean that it fits the description.  (After all, The SUNDAY SPORT described itself as a newspaper.)  Once again, these 'silly rules' he likes to ascribe to others seem to be ones he's invented himself.  What a neat way to try and win a debate - argue against what we say the other side said, instead of what they actually did say.

Let's pretend, just for the sake of argument, that every U.K. comic on sale in shops today contained nothing but reprinted U.S. material.  Would they still qualify as comics?  I'm not aware of anybody who would dispute it, though there may be.  So again, this could be yet another 'straw man' argument.  However, he's referring to two comics. Two comics do not, in my book, constitute an 'industry'.  (Though, in fairness, these are comics from around 20 to 25 years ago, when we arguably still had one.  But that was then - we're talking now.)

Ah, but there are other comics out there, you say!  Indeed, which is why, next time (among other things), we're going to explore the idea of just what constitutes an 'industry' in light of how the word was once understood in relation to the comic biz.  Don't dare miss it!  You know how I hate talking to myself.  See you in part four.

DEATHLOK The DEMOLISHER - The COMPLETE COLLECTION...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

If the loving lady in your life is looking for something nice to get you for Christmas, why not drop a helpful little hint and steer her in the direction of MARVEL's mighty fine DEATHLOK The DEMOLISHER softcover volume, which (gasp) reprints The COMPLETE COLLECTION for your reading pleasure.  And guess just where she could buy one from?  That's right, you clever fellow, your local comics store or book shop is bound to have some copies sitting on their shelves right now!

Well, what are you waiting for?  Tell her to get her lippy on and drag her along there immediately before they sell out!

KID KLASSICS - JOURNEY INTO BLOGGERY...

"Yeah... I'm lookin' at YOU!"

While we're waiting for the next instalment of U.K. 'TROLLS: KICKING THE BUTTS (OF BUTT-'EADS), permit me to make a brief detour.

Sometimes I despair of some of my fellow bloggers.  Presenting themselves as fair, open-minded enquirers after truth who welcome all forms of diverse opinion to theirs (in regard to subjects on which they themselves have invited comment), they then reveal themselves to be biased, small-minded extremists who don't really want to hear what others have to say - unless it's to tell them just how right they are on whatever they happen to be banging on about at the moment.

If someone is going to raise a controversial issue on their blog  then they should be prepared to receive some controversial replies - ones they might even be offended by.  However, I've often found that when a person claims to find a point of view offensive, what they're actually offended by is the idea of someone having an opinion contrary to their own.  (How very dare they!)

The fact is, some people just don't like to be disagreed with - especially when they're simply not very good at defending their propositions to begin with.  And that's regardless of whether said proposition is absurd, questionable, or entirely reasonable.  One thing I've learned from bloggerland is that, very often, when someone asks a question, the only answer they're interested in hearing is the one upon which they've already decided.  It seems that everyone else's purpose is simply to support their fragile and insecure belief in themselves.

Feel free to agree or disagree - I won't be offended.

******

(Okay, so hardly a 'klassic', but I gotta post something.) 

BABE Of The DAY - BECCA BLOSSOMS...

It's BECCA BLOSSOMS.

With such an alliterative appellation,

do you think she might be a creation of

STAN LEE?  If so, just what could her

superpower be?  Wait - it's affecting

 me now.  Schwiiiinnnggg!

PART TWO OF UK 'TROLLS': ALIVE AND KICKING (THE BUTTS OF BUTT-'EADS)...

Continuing the demolition of the unfounded fantasies of (ooh, a really alliterative comic name springs to mind) someone who, when it comes to 'clinically' considering the views of certain individuals with a different opinion to him on the current con-dition of the U.K. comic 'industry', doesn't let the facts get in the way of telling a good fable. You'll be astounded at his 'insight' into the motivations of those he seeks to call to account for having the temerity to hold a viewpoint not in accord with his own.

Why doesn't he spill the beans: Just who are those who, 'through their own mistakes', no longer work in the field? In exactly what way do they 'blame the industry' or 'attack anyone successful in it nowadays' and 'claim the only reason they can't get work is because there is none as the industry here in the UK is dead'?  Let's have the names and details.  One can't make accusations of that nature without back-ing them up.  One can't rely on unfounded gossip, baseless rumour, or wild imagi-nation to dismiss those with whom one takes issue on the matter.

Again, his presumption is simply astounding.  So some people don't get work because they don't have what it takes or have f*cked up, blaming everyone but themselves and resenting anyone (which surely implies everyone) who works in comics, causing them to want to tear down the 'industry' out of anger, bitterness and envy. Any criticism, observation or assessment is therefore invalid because it stems from a grudge.

Even if it were true that this was the motivation behind some people's negative opinion, that doesn't in and of itself necessarily mean their opinion isn't an accurate one - especially if there are others who don't fall under that umbrella who think the same.  That's what this guy misses.  There are plenty of folk who've never worked, never wanted to work, and never tried to work in comics (but who love them) who also opine that the 'industry' is either dead or dying.

You can't disprove or dismiss an entire argument on the grounds that the motives of some people on the other side of it are prejudiced, unless everyone on that other side is in the same boat.  That's akin to saying you shouldn't listen to what the ol' geezer who lives at number 22 says about global warming, because he's a 'bit dodgy'. Don't you see the utter absurdity of such a position?  It's a perfect example of what's called 'playing the man instead of the ball'.

Oh, what a funny guy!  Nobody has said periodicals for children don't exist - only that those ones which do exist don't constitute an industry in the way the word was once understood in relation to comics.  We'll get to the definition of what constitutes a comic later, but here's something to consider: Many of the publications in these photos will be fortnightly or monthly and will sit on the shelves unsold until the next issues come in.  My local WHS gets in a fair selection of PANINI and TITAN mags every month, and  I can tell you for a fact that most of them are returned to the warehouse with alarming regularity.

Photos of mainly unsold stock which gets sent back to be recycled is hardly overwhelming evidence of a 'thriving comics industry' in my famously humble estimation.

      

While contemptuously dismissing other people's definition of a comic, he blithely bestows his own idea of the term upon any periodical aimed at children.  His far wider application isn't necessarily more accurate though, as many kids' mags are lumped together under that category merely for convenience when being allocated shelf space.  In this, he's doing exactly the same thing he accuses his 'opponents' of. 

  

Now we're getting to the nitty-gritty - the definition of 'comics' and 'industry', which I'll address in detail in the next instalment.  Don't dare miss it - unless you have an important appointment to watch paint dry!

BABE Of The DAY - SALMA HAYEK...

I was just talking to stunning

SALMA HAYEK, who, on checking

herself in the mirror, exclaimed "I'm not

feeling myself today."  "Well, it looks as

though you are!" I said, 'cos I'm a riot.

Ain't she pretty?  Darn right she is!

UK 'TROLLS': ALIVE AND KICKING (THE BUTTS OF BUTT-'EADS) - PART ONE...

Well, I said I'd deal with it and I'm a man of my word.  No issue with his comments about comics helping kids with reading skills, because I had a wider vocabulary than my peers due to my consumption of them.  However, when I look at 'comics' in my local supermarket, what I mostly see are periodicals that are only called 'comics' out of convenience, rather than because they actually are.  Is a comic a comic just because it's categorized as one in a shop, or does it have to meet a more specific standard?  We'll get into this more detail later, as he develops his theme.

Think about that for a moment.  The 'main goal' of those who 'attack' the 'industry' is to 'bring it to its knees and put everyone in it out of work for their own selfish reasons'.  Have you ever read a more ludicrous statement?  And by what supernatural means does he divine the inner motivations of other people's minds? Perhaps it's simply nothing more than some comic readers who love them as a medium complaining about the downward spiral they appear to be in, and speaking out because they want things to improve?  Nah, couldn't be that, could it?  They must be evil.

'Trying to put adults off buying comics' and trying to 'take this brilliant way of developing reading skills away from children' is another hysterical (and I don't mean funny) assertion based on nothing more than an insane fantasy of his own invention.  Did even Dr. Fredrick Wertham at his most extreme ever declare a more ridiculous notion (as his critics would claim) based, not on fact, but on nothing more than a determined desire to diminish the views of those with whom he disagrees.

This is clearly a man on a mission, who doesn't seem to care by what means he accomplishes it.  No exaggeration is too huge for him, no distortion or invention too great.  Watch and see.

     

Well, I can certainly see a gaping hole, though not in the so-called 'theory' he ascribes to others, but in his gross misrepresentation of it.  I have, on the odd occasion, concluded that one or two comic contributors, in putting a positive spin on the state of either a specific comic or the condition of the 'industry' in general, have done so with an eye on how such loyalty to 'the cause' might benefit their long-term career prospects, than from a desire to present an accurate assessment of how things actually are.

Think about it.  Do you really believe some individuals are completely unaware of how being perceived as 'biting the hand that feeds them' might not exactly impress those who employ them?  Freelancers are at the mercy of commissioning editors, and so must often tread a delicate path.  Such is reality, my friend.  However, contrary to what is claimed, neither I (nor anyone that I know of) has ever claimed that absolutely every comics contributor who may have a more positive attitude on the current state of play than I (and others) do, holds that view because of a vested-interest.

So, again, a vast difference between the facts and the assertion.  And this is a theme that runs through the person's entire blog post.  And as for 'trolls' having 'the vested interest', in what way exactly?  Do they get financial remuneration for destroying the comics 'industry', or are they in line for an O.B.E. as a reward for all their hard work?  The guy talks more pish than Mr. Pishy of Pish Street, Pishtown, in the County of Pishshire.  Gimme strength someone.

Anyway, I'm off for a cuppa and a biccie - see you all in part two if you're interested in truth, justice and fair play.  We'll likely have a Babe of the Day or two in between parts though, 'cos there's a helluva lot to cover.

The PLAIN And SIMPLE TRUTH...

Well, at least the bottom blurb is right

According to the Free Dictionary, the definition of 'thriving' is "To grow vigorously; flourish" and "To be successful or make steady progress; prosper". Most of the meager group of detractors who take issue with my views on British comics have conceded that sales of comics have been declining for years and continue to do so.  They may disagree that the alleged 'industry' is dead, but they usually admit the long, slow, steady decline.  Except when they're trying to 'talk it up' of course.  Then they use words like 'thriving', 'healthy', etc., in their rabid desire to put a rosy glow on things.

Incontrovertible point of logic: If sales and circulation are in decline, then they can't be thriving or prospering - that's just a plain and simple fact.  On that basis alone, I win the argument.  It's over - case proved, case closed, and no amount of intellectual (I use the word in an ironic sense) gymnastics on their part, no amount of distortion, obfuscation, or wishful thinking can alter the facts.  There's really no need for me to go on, I'm right, they're wrong, and that's just how it is. That's simply the way the cookie crumbles.

That won't stop me beating the subject to death though, as is my wont.  When people ascribe motivations of their own invention to my comments on comics as if they have some kind of exclusive insight into the workings of my mind, when they casually accuse me of bitterness, envy, and frustration at 'not being allowed' to work in U.K. comics today, then they're playing with fire. Let's now get one thing straight: The reason I no longer work in comics (specifically) is down, mainly, to two things.

Firstly, the world of British comics today is a vastly different entity to what it was in 'my day', not only in its set up, but also in its size.  Secondly, I no longer get any enjoyment or satisfaction from working in the field (so work indoors then - chortle) and would find it a chore.  I've been offered a few opportunities to return to the biz over the years and not pursued (or declined) them.  That's not something my tiny band of determined detractors can accept though, preferring instead to smear me with their false accusations as to my inactivity in the medium in which I had a 15 year career.  

Having dealt with that, I'll soon be addressing each and every point of the provocative post I mentioned last time.  I'll have to do it in instalments, because the effrontery of its dubious claims is simply too enormous to confront in one go.  I'll demolish each and every false assumption and accusation one by one, and demonstrate beyond any doubt why that particular individual is not only wrong, but disingenuous in the way he presents his case.

 See you then - it's a date. 

HOW TO DEAL WITH FUTILE AND FRANTIC FLAPPING FROM A PIG DESPERATELY TRYING TO FLY...

I've been informed that some prat with a face you'd never get tired of punching is taking a little pop at me over on his blog devoted to a comic that was never very good at its best.  His post completely distorts my point of view (and motives), railing against his own straw man interpretations of my opinion in an attempt to heap scorn on it, and in doing so, merely reveals the feeble nature of his position.

Only his small circle of industry pals with whom he seeks to curry favour and win approval will see any merit in his ingratiating brown-nosing, as the facts are simply against him.  Can he name any company producing comics today who turns them out in the numbers that IPC and DCT once did?  Can he name any British comic that has a circulation even approaching that of any comic of the '60s and '70s?  No, of course he can't, because they don't exist.

Fewer children buy comics today than they once did, but he conveniently overlooks this salient fact in his sad endeavour to discredit me for merely expressing the plain and simple truth.  To accuse me (or anybody) of trying to tear down what passes for (or 'poses as' would perhaps be a more accurate description) the current comics 'industry' and destroy the jobs of those trying to earn a tenuous living from it is a ludicrous assertion.

My criticism of The DANDY, for instance, was intended to identify what was wrong with the ailing periodical in the hope that corrective action could be taken to save it.  My assessment of the current state of what is laughably called the comics 'industry' is voiced for the same reason.  Comic strips of course, survive on the internet and in book form, but the format of a comic has its own individual 'character' and 'charm' that cannot be replicated on a computer screen, mobile, or iPad.

He can squeal as much as he likes of course, but pigs will fly before his outrageous assertions and provocative distortions will prove to have anything more than the most superficial resemblance to reality.  It's a shame he didn't address the actual issues, instead of trying to settle scores on behalf of his few disgruntled chums.  You never know though - maybe there's an oinkment they could rub on their affected parts.  (Mutually in all probability, given their obvious 'admiration' for each other.)

Now that's what you call bringing home the bacon.  Next!

******

Oh, and don't worry, I ain't going soft.  I'll be going through his post piece by piece and exposing it for the lies, distortions, misrepresentations and fantasies that it is.  Coming soon, so don't dare miss Kid kick @ss!  

BABE Of The DAY - SALMA HAYEK...

Those eyes, that smile, those - er,

sparkly sequins on her trousers - so

let's hear it for SALMA HAYEK!

CHILDHOOD CAPERS - CHAPTER TWO: 'A STICKY SITUATION'...

I've lived in many houses over the years, but there's one in which I stayed for around only 15 or 16 months back in 1964 and '65.  Curiously, it doesn't seem, in retrospect, that I lived there for any less duration than houses I inhabited for longer periods, despite the fact that I had only one Christmas and two birthdays in the place.  And even then, the second birthday (my 7th) fell on the day we flitted to another house, so I tend to associate that cheerful event more with my new abode than the old one.

That information doesn't have much to do with the tale I'm now about to relate, apart from the fact that it transpired in my short-term domicile mentioned above.  (Just setting the scene in my mind.)  As I type, it occurs to me that I may have already recounted this story, but I'll persevere anyway as, even if I have, it's bound to be new to some of you.

If I remember correctly, #41 was the 'doubler' I bought on the night...
but I had #42 at the same time.  I maybe even bought them together 

My parents were out one night (not a common event), and an aunt had been drafted in to look after me and my brother.  In an act of generosity, she gave us two bob each, and we ran around the corner to CHAMBERS newsagent and spent it.  If I recall correctly, I purchased another copy of an issue of TV21 which I'd already had and disposed of (I was fascinated by its pristine newness and indulged myself), and me and my sibling each bought a tube of BRITFIX 77, a polystyrene 'cement' for plastic model kits, as it always paid to be prepared.

(Anyone remember Britfix 77?  It was 'the' glue of the '60s it seemed, and I'm not exactly sure when it disappeared.  I think I've still got a later tube tucked away somewhere, but the 77 had been dropped by this time, and the design on the tube was different.  It was made by HUMBROL.)

Anyway, we returned to the house to survey our spoils.  I snapped the tip off the end of my glue's nozzle and inserted a pin, the customary method used for resealing the tube to prevent the glue drying up or leaking.  As this was also what my sibling usually did ('twas he who showed me), I did the same for his tube, thinking I was being helpful.  He took exception to my act of consideration and flew into a temper tantrum, throwing the glue on the carpet and stamping on it.  The result of this was to expel the contents of the tube directly onto my aunt's black velvety ankle boots, newly acquired not too long before.

Understandably, being but a mere woman (sexist?  Moi?), she got all emotional and started crying, squealing about the ruination of her fancy footwear.  "Oh, my new boots, my new boots!" she wailed over and over.  "It was Gordon's fault!" my big brother blurted, somewhat disingenuously.  She eventually calmed down, but my parents had to reimburse her for the cost of the boots (a fiver).  However, perhaps because she'd been so emotional at the time of the incident, she only seemed to remember my brother's attribution of the 'accident' to me (though I was quick to offer the correct account of events), and it was his version which was relayed to my parents.

I recall this page from #41 because I cut out the figure of Steve.  Handy thing having a spare issue, eh?

Some time later, while visiting my gran (my aunt's mother obviously), she referred to 'my' crime of ruining the boots, so obviously it was believed by other relatives that I'd been the perpetrator of that particular infraction, not my brother.  Whether they thought I'd been the one who stamped on the glue, or were simply holding me accountable because they considered my act of removing the tip (but resealing the tube, remember) as the provocation for my brother's outburst, I couldn't say with any certainty.  Not that it matters much as, either way, I was blamed for something I hadn't actually done.

Consequently, I always detected a certain amount of antipathy towards me from that side of the family, who never seemed to quite take to me.  They appeared to think the world of my bruv though, but then again, he always was an ingratiating little 'sook' when it came to currying their favour, whereas I didn't actually give a fig whether they liked me or not.

Still feel the same way actually - as do they.  25-odd years later, two other aunts (not the one with the boots) 'phoned my mother, but didn't immediately hang up at their end when the conversation finished.  The answerphone was on in case anybody from IPC called me about work, as my parents found it difficult to make out English accents on the other end of the 'phone, and invariably forgot to pass on messages anyway.  The answering machine continued to record, and what followed was a vicious, vitriolic, slanderous diatribe about me between the two aunts, which I still have on tape to this day.

Remind me to tell you the details on a  future occasion.  It really is a shocker.

******

Update:  The story is now told, and you can read about it here.

TOPPS 1966 BATMAN CARDS - PART SEVEN...

Images copyright DC COMICS & TOPPS

Thought I'd forgotten, didn't you?  No way!  So here are another six BATMAN cards from the days of the 1966 TV series.  Looking at them, I feel as though I'm only 7 years old again.  Do you remember them?  Then share your recollections in the comments section, frantic ones. 

BABE Of The DAY - GILLIAN DUXBURY...

It's lovely GILLIAN DUXBURY

to jump-start your pulse and put a smile

on your face this cold December day.  I'd

love to find her in my Christmas stocking,

though I'd have to start wearing stockings

first.  Y'know what - I'm beginning to

 think it just might be worth it.

The THREE AMIGOS...

Back around 1970 or '71, I saw a WADE YOGI BEAR in the window of a shop called STANLEY'S STORES.  It still bore the pre-decimal price of 1/11d, so it's possible it was 1969, but what's a year or two over a 45 year period?  Anyway, long story short, I bought it, and that's the very one you see in the above photo.  Yup, still got it after all this time.

In fact, I've now got three Yogis, as I bought another two of them on eBay a couple of years or so apart.  It's usually listed as 'rare', but there's always loads of them on sale anytime I look, so I'd take that with a pinch of salt.  Apparently, its catalogue price is around £80 (unboxed), but I got my second one for £25.  The third one I did pay £80  for, but it had the box.

A few years ago, I decided I wanted the other two in the set - HUCK and Mr. JINKS - so I acquired them at a very nice price.  I'm so chuffed with them, I thought I'd share them with you here.  I've shown Yogi on his own before, but this is the first time with his two pals.  These figures first came out around 1962 or '63, so regard any hugely differing years of origin you read as widely inaccurate.  (Some uninformed sellers date them from the '50s.)

I had my original box for a couple of years after buying the item, but the corners had split after awhile and I'd repaired them with Sellotape.  Huge mistake.  The tape gradually yellowed and then shrank, and when I tried to remove it, I damaged the box and so discarded it.  I recall it from the last year in my old house and the first year in my new one, which is strange for my memories of something to be equally divided between homes.  You can imagine how happy I was to eventually replace it.

Anyway, that's far too much 'verbosity' for a mere two photos, so I'll shut up now.  Enjoy the view of Yogi and his two HANNA BARBERA chums.