LET'S FACE The MUSIC And - FREEZE!

Copyright relevant owner

From LION & THUNDER, cover-dated November 6th 1971, comes a complete PHIL The FLUTER tale in only two pages.  Actually, the strip should more accurately be called 'Phil The Flautist', but it doesn't quite have the same ring to it, does it?  Enjoy.

30TH CENTURY COMICS - WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF A COMPANY THAT TREATS CUSTOMERS LIKE THIS? (Updated)

How does this story grab you for sheer impertinence?  I've bought quite a few comics from a company called 30th CENTURY COMICS over the last couple of years and, in the main, been fairly happy with them.  A few recent comics however, weren't quite as described, and I let them know about it in a perfectly polite and pleasant manner.  Surely they'd want to know in order to avoid such a situation in future?  Not just with me, but with any other customers.

Two comics I bought in March were described as 'very good', but one had a piece torn off the back page, and the other had five faces on the cover defaced with a blue biro or felt tip pen.  There were also rips on the last three pages, the back cover sporting two long rips.  I contacted them about it, said they weren't really worth the bother or expense of returning, and asked for comment.  They awarded me £2 credit, which I was perfectly happy with.   

Last week, I ordered three comics from them at one go, and while two were okay, one was falling to bits.  I don't think that even its modest grading of 'good' adequately covered its many imperfections.  It looked okay in its cardboard-backed clear bag, but when I took it out and opened it, the front cover came away from the spine - as did the next page.  When I examined it, every page was split at the spine, ready to detach at the merest handling.  The middle pages weren't quite as badly split, but still nothing to write home about.

Of course, I could have returned the comic for a full refund (whether that includes postage or not I don't know, though I'd have insisted), but it was WHIZZER & CHIPS #3, which I've wanted to replace for many years now.  (And when I say replace, I mean replace the original, long-gone copy I had in 1969.)  Still, for a mere £6 I was reluctant to bother 30th Century with a return, but I thought they'd at least want to know so they could take steps to ensure the mistake wasn't repeated.  (And, Microporous tape comes in handy for repairing old British comics, so I knew I could salvage the issue to some degree.)

And so I contacted them, said I wasn't complaining or looking for a refund, but I thought they'd want to know that this particular comic didn't match its description as to grading.  I was expecting a reply along the lines of "Thanks very much for alerting us to this matter as customer satisfaction is a priority with us.  We'll double-check any future orders before mailing to avoid any further disappointment." 

Well, knock me down with a feather.  You should have seen the deceptive, seemingly-'polite' reply I received, which essentially told me to feck off and not to order any more comics from them ever again.  They then refunded my £6, which I tried to return, but it hasn't cleared in my bank account yet.  Imagine having your shopping delivered to your home by ICELAND, then finding a couple of items are long past their sell-by dates or were compromised in some way.  Would Iceland 'suggest' that you never buy anything from them again if you politely brought it to their attention?  I doubt it!

  

30th Century's excuse for their complacency is that the majority of their customers are satisfied (or maybe more easily pleased?), but if I ran a business, I'd be aiming for 100% customer satisfaction, not telling the ones that are (occasionally) disappointed to sling their hook.  What a world we live in when the customer is penalised for the seller's incompetence.  I doubt it would've been any different if I'd just returned the comics, they'd have simply seen me as a fuss-pot and a nuisance.  I don't think it's being pernickety to expect a comic to be somewhere in the ballpark of its advertised condition, but 30th Century clearly think otherwise.

Tell you what, why don't you make up your own minds, Crivs?  Take a look at the photos of the comic and then tell me what you think.  It's screamingly obvious that the comic hasn't been checked properly at the grading stage.  One of the two so-called 'experts' (with 40 years' experience grading comics apparently) has given it a casual glance, thought it looked okay, and then stuck it in a bag.  30th Century Comics?  Not with that prehistoric attitude.  Here's an idea for you, ROB RUDDERHAM - why not just try to ensure that all of your comics are in the condition described in your catalogue before sending them out?  Or is that too simple a suggestion for you?  Anyone else have this kind of experience?  Let loose in the comments section.

Oh, and given their cheek, I've just now decided I'm going to keep the refund, as why should I reward them for their incompetence and impertinence?

******

Ah, that explains it.  I've just found out that Rob Rudderham is one of the two graders.  Clearly just pays lip-service to the idea that grading can be subjective, and obviously felt insulted because I (a collector for more than 50 years) dared to question his grading in this instance.  How very dare I?

******

Update: Rob Rudderham, in response to my review on 30th Century's Face-book page, says the following:

'For anyone reading this review, please note that asking a customer not to place further orders is a last resort we only employ with great reluctance when, after multiple experiences, the customer proves impossible to satisfy.  We have only taken this step 3 times in 25 years.' (Emphasis mine.)

Well, I suppose that as two is a multiple of one, technically, it could be argued that he's correct.  (I have queried grading on only two separate occasions, once in regard to two comics purchased simultaneously, the other in regard to one comic bought at the same time as another two. However, Mr. Rudderham is clearly being disingenuous, as 'multiple experiences' suggests a far higher number than is actually the case.  As for being 'impossible to satisfy', on my most recent purchase, I was perfectly satisfied with two out of three comics, only commenting on one of them. How this qualifies as 'impossible to satisfy' is beyond me.  As for '3 times in 25 years', perhaps that's because other dissatisfied customers have simply not availed themselves of his shop's services after their first disappointment, thus taking the decision out of his hands?      

KNOCKOUT ANNUAL COVER GALLERY...

Images copyright relevant owner

KNOCKOUT - there were two incarnations of course, the first back in 1939 to '63, the second in 1971 to '73.  The first version originally had a hyphen (KNOCK-OUT), but lost it at some stage down the line.  KELLY'S EYE started in Knockout, before jumping over to VALIANT when the two comics merged in '63, and it's with Valiant that the strip is nowadays most often associated by former readers of a certain age.

However, it's the second, revived Knockout in which I'm interested in this post - or at least the Annuals and Holiday Specials.  Speaking from a personal perspective, this comic has two distinct associations for me.  The comic came out when I was living in one house, and the first year's worth had been published by the time I flitted to another in a different neighbourhood halfway through June of '72.  Consequently, I not only associate the comic with the previous house, but also the subsequent one because the weekly yet had another year to run before being merged into WHIZZER & CHIPS.

That second association though, has more to do with the fact that the first Holiday Special and Annual that I ever bought after moving into the other house were of Knockout - as I may not have still been regularly buying the weekly at that stage, if at all.  While living in my previous house I'd lent a stack of the early issues to a pal, and when he eventually gave me them back, they were in a terribly mutilated condition, with bits ripped off and pages missing.  That may well have been my 'jumping-off' point, barring free gift issues and the first three after it was subsumed by W&C.

I only ever bought that first Annual at the time, and picked up another two (for '83 & '84) sometime in the early '80s.  I can no longer recall if I bought the '83 one new when it first came out or shortly after, but up until a couple of months or so back, I had only five Knockout Annuals in my collection.  There were 13 in all, from the 1973 Annual (released in '72) up to the one for 1985 (released in '84), so I tracked the missing books down on eBay and completed my collection of them - 24 years after the final one was published.

So, not only does that give me the only excuse I need to bore you rigid with my personal history, it also allows me to show you the covers of all 13 Annuals, plus the two Holiday Specials for 1972 and '73.  And in case you're interested, I also own all 106 issues of the weekly.  Maybe I'll put them on display on the blog sometime, if I ever find the time to scan them.

Incidentally, UK cartooning legend, TERRY BAVE, who drew several strips for Knockout, once told me it was his favourite comic to work on, and that he was sorry when it folded.  (He also gave me his very own copy of the first issue, so that exclusive item is one of the treasures of my collection.)  Right, enough waffle - on to the covers.  (Note that the first eight have a Christmassy or wintry theme, the last five don't.  A deliberate editorial decision, or just the way the cookie crumbled from 1980 on?)

A giant trick flower on the cover of this Annual...

...and also on this one the very next year

THAT'S THE THING ABOUT EQUALITY - IT ISN'T ALWAYS EQUAL...

I see ol' BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH is bleating on about equal pay for women in movies and saying that he'll be trying to ensure payment parity in whatever projects he works on.   What a d*ck!  Now I happen to like Benny, but on this, he's being a d*ck.  Why doesn't he insist that he gets paid as much as his AVENGERS co-stars, because it's a safe bet that a few of them will be paid much more than him - more, even, than he received for starring in his own DOCTOR STRANGE movie.

Let's pause here for me to make a point.  I've worked in a few shop or factory warehouses in my career (though the last time was around 42 years ago), and whenever any woman co-worker (who were all usually older than me and hence paid more - but let's imagine for the purpose of discussion that we were on the same rate) was required to do some heavy lifting, they invariably asked a man (me) to do it for them.  So it was me who had to climb ladders or clamber over shelves and bring down (or put up) heavy boxes for them.  In effect, I was doing part of their job for them, so don't let's hear any of this equal pay rubbish.  Equal pay only applies when men and women are doing (and by 'doing' I mean actually doing, not just filling the position) the same job.  If a guy has to do part of their job for them (because they're women, and apparently can't be expected to physically exert themselves in any way) then it's not an equal situation.  (An office job would, of course, be an entirely different scenario.)

But back to Benny.  The reason why he's spouting rubbish is because it's the film and TV industry we're talking about, and as everyone and their granny knows, there's a pecking order amongst actors.  Some 'stars' are more bankable and therefore command higher pay packets for their contribution.  TOM CRUISE, for example, is always going to be paid more than just about any female co-star you can think of, because Tom puts more bums on seats.  If Tom (or any other big-name actor you care to name) asks for a certain fee, and the movie-makers are prepared to pay that fee to ensure his services, does that mean his female co-star (or even male co-star come to that) should automatically receive the same amount?  Of course not, because 'market forces' are in operation here.

Consider the recent stushie over the NETFLIX TV show, The CROWN, where actor MATT SMITH was paid more than his co-star CLAIRE FOY.  Why?  Well, obviously, Matt Smith has a better agent than Claire Foy (or perhaps the same agent who does a better job on Matt's behalf), and LEFT BANK and SONY (the production companies) were prepared to pay what his agent asked for, as was presumably the case with Claire.  Or, for all I know, amounts were offered for each part, and it's then down to the actors and their agents to decide if they wish to accept.  Isn't that how it should be, or are production companies now obliged to pay one co-starring actor the same amount as the other one they were really keen to have (and were prepared to pay quite a bit more to get), simply out of some ill-conceived notion of so-called 'equality'?  That would mean that, because Tom Cruise was being paid a certain amount, then, if his co-star happened to be MIRIAM MARGOYLES, she would get the same.  Is that fair?  Movie and TV makers have to take into account 'star pulling-power' when choosing actors, and it's simply a fact that one star may have more pulling-power than the other and therefore deserve a higher fee.

But notice how it's been turned into a 'battle of the sexes' in the media.  Actually, you can substitute male co-stars in place of female ones in this discussion.  Note, however, that, so far (as far as I'm aware) no male co-starring actor is demanding that he should receive the same fee as the lead actor in any production.  For example, SIMON PEGG isn't demanding parity with Tom Cruise for his MISSION IMPOSSIBLE appearances.  Once again, women have seized the opportunity to bash men over the head for so-called gender inequality, when, in a lot of cases, it doesn't actually exist.  For every woman who doesn't receive equal pay with some man, there's at least just as many men in the same position.  If you're an actress  (a word now under threat of extinction because of the anti-gender distinction loonies) who receives less remuneration for your part than your male co-star, it's not necessarily due to you being unfairly discriminated against because of your gender, it may simply be because you're not as big a star with the same pulling-power.

If SHARON STONE and Miriam Margoyles were co-starring in a movie where they had more or less equal screen time, but Sharon was paid more than Miriam, would anyone turn a hair?  No, they wouldn't, because it's readily recognised that there's a pecking order in operation, and that Sharon's name is a bigger draw than Miriam's.  It's only when the actor being paid more is a man, that any controversy arises from the situation.  Men, you see (according to some women), should never be paid more than their female co-stars on a point of principle - that principle being that all men are b*sta*rds, rapists, perverts, and paedos - and overpaid ones at that.

And what about those daft male TV presenters who offered to take a pay cut to reduce their wages to that of their female colleagues?  @rseholes to a man.  So keen to appease misandric feminists, that next they'll be offering to castrate themselves rather than incur any form of female displeasure.  Taking a pay cut only achieves a quasi-equality, and reveals the misguided philosophy that lies at the root of the problem.  You see, if women are satisfied with men taking a cut in wages, it shows that their objection isn't so much that women are undervalued and underpaid, it's that they object to men - simply because they're men - getting something that they're not getting.  Their objections spring from the politics of envy - the belief that men shouldn't get anything that women don't seem to be getting (that's their perception anyway), regardless of whether either gender deserve to get it or not.

What will probably end up happening is that lip-service will be paid to pay equality, with two leading co-stars of different genders being paid the same basic fee, but with the bigger star (usually the male) getting a percentage of the profits, or some kind of bonus to offset his lower upfront amount.  At the end of the day, it really should be up to who's paying the bills.  If you're employing two actors to do a job, shouldn't you be allowed to offer a higher amount to the one whom you believe will bring more to the project, to secure his or her services if that's what it takes?  It's always been like that in the film industry, and any attempts to impose an artificial equality on what people are worth (regardless of their gender) aren't based on the realities of the situation.  

Anyway, that's my view on the matter.  Feel free to dispute it if you wish, but I warn you - if you do, I'll give you an intellectual kicking.  (Hee hee - that should start things off.)             

WHAT? YOU AS WELL? ME TOO!

A teacher stood up in class one day and asked if there was a pupil who'd like to have the afternoon off and go home early.  Up shot a hand - "Me!" shouted one voice.  "Me too!" came another, and then the cry of "Me too!", "Me too!", "Me too!" reverberated around the classroom in a wave of sound.

Actors and singers are a self-absorbed, self-centred lot, who, just like kids, don't like to feel excluded from anything.  Millionaire entertainers appear on TV and ask people on less than average incomes to "give generously", while said rich folk raise their profiles and boost their 'caring' reputations at the same time.  (Did you know that TERRY WOGAN copped nine grand a pop for hosting CHILDREN IN NEED?)  If a mere handful of those rich celebs were to open their own cheque books, then they wouldn't need to ask the public for donations.  The spotlight on them isn't quite as bright that way though, is it?  And it's more obvious that the news has been released to the Press to enhance someone's rep.

Let me digress for a moment while I relate another true story.  Almost 20 years ago, a woman took a shine to me, and did her best to win my affections.  Every day, she'd come over to where I was sitting in a local 'food court' and sit down at my table.  She made eyes at me, flirted with me, and made it obvious that she was available if I were interested.  Trouble was, I wasn't.  She wasn't unattractive, but she just wasn't the type of woman that rang my bell, so I resisted her blatant advances.  She even bought two cinema tickets one night and asked me to accompany her to 'the pictures'.  As you'll have gathered by now, I'm pretty irresistible to women (as well as completely deluded - especially when it comes to how irresistible I am to women).  Anyway, although flattered to a degree, I had to let her down gently without hurting her feelings - so I told her I was too in love with myself to have room for anyone else in my life.  Okay, I jest (or do I?), but I managed to convey that I didn't feel towards her as she did towards me, and she backed off.

Did I feel harassed?  Did I feel sexually harassed?  Well, no, I don't think so - although I'd have preferred if the situation hadn't happened, and I did feel my heart sink on sight of her because I knew the dance that I didn't want to dance was about to begin again.  I'm sure everyone's been there.

Okay, so with that out of the way, now imagine that a newspaper or TV station were to offer me a couple of hundred pounds to share any experience I may have had of being on the receiving end of unwanted attention from someone.  Or, in the absence of a direct financial incentive, I perceived other ways in which I could profit from telling my tale.  Would I suddenly reinterpret my experience to suit the expectations of some media company looking for people's personal encounters of sexual harassment?  Well, no I wouldn't.  However, there are people who would - and there are even people who would do it without being consciously aware that they were 'massaging' the facts to better suit the demands of what reporters were looking for.  It happens - it's simply a fact of life, and isn't restricted to sexual matters, but transpires in every subject you care to mention.     

And so, to the "#Me Too" brigade.  Yes, it's terrible that people have been sexually harassed or assaulted and those that have indulged in such sickening acts should be brought to book, but there's a very real danger that some people might be so eager to identify with a movement that's generating a lot of media attention, that they'll rewrite their personal history in order to cut themselves a slice of publicity pie.

So "Who's been sexually harassed or assaulted?" seems to be the big question these days.  "Me!" comes a genuine reply.  Then another, and another, and another - and human nature being what it is, chances are it's more than likely that some of these cries arise not from those with actual, factual experience, but rather from people who've reinterpreted past events out of a desire to promote themselves by 'supporting' a publicity-generating 'movement'.

Seems it's not just children in a classroom who don't like seeing others receiving something they're not getting.

Are you sick of reading about the topic?  Guess what?

Me too!

Comment ammo loaded?  Fire away.

I CAN GET A DATE WITH ANY WOMAN I PLEASE. (I JUST CAN'T PLEASE ANY...)

It should come as no great surprise to anyone that, occasionally, I re-read some of my old posts.  For two reasons, the first being that I'm quite proud of a few of them, the other being that I can correct any typos or poor spacing that fell through the net when I first wrote them.  Even the ones that are guff can be educational to me, because I can (hopefully) learn how to improve any future blog posts by learning what I did wrong in the past.  So, earlier, I was re-reading the post entitled "Said The Actress To The Bishop..." (about sexual harassment) and I realised I had more to say on the subject.

Recently, actress JULIANNE MOORE said that she only just realised she'd been the victim of sexual harassment after hearing other women tell their stories about their experiences.  "When this movement started, I felt sure that I hadn't personally been a victim of sexual harassment or assault, but as I read and listened to the countless other women's stories, I began to look at my experiences through a different lens."  Apparently, this 'sexual harassment' took the form of a director 'persistently' inviting her to his home for an 'audition', which she always declined.  Is it just me, or does the possibility also strike you that this might be an instance of someone rewriting the past in order to jump on the present bandwagon of victim-hood?  If you're being sexually harassed, surely you'd know it at the time?  Of course, without knowing the precise details of Ms. Moore's experience, we can't be sure either way, but at the very least it suggests the possibility of the scenario I just proposed.

If he was constantly ringing her and in a sleazy, innuendo-laden voice, asking her to "Come round and 'audition' for me sometime, baby" then he was certainly making a nuisance of himself.  However, if he merely said on a few occasions at chance meetings "I'd love to work with you some day, Julianne. If a role comes up that I think might suit you, I'll be in touch about an audition. Must dash, 'bye", then that puts quite a different slant on the situation.  I know nothing about the guy by the way, he might be a total slime-ball, but I just think that Ms. Moore's total shift in attitude should be treated with caution until we know the full facts of the matter.  What do the rest of you think?  I believe there have been other allegations about the guy, but, if true, that doesn't necessarily mean he wanted to sleep with every woman he knew.  Has she simply assumed that because he's been accused of harassing other women, then he must have been harassing her as well - even if she never thought so at the time?  It does sort of come across that way.

And now, a true story.  Around 15 years or so ago, I was in Glasgow one evening, standing in Gibson Street (around the corner from the University), when I spied an attractive woman walking in my direction.  Our eyes met and we sort of smiled at one another, and she stopped to talk to me.  I was waiting for a friend coming out of a newsagent's behind me, so our chat was brief.  I quite liked her, so I said "I hope you don't think I'm being forward, but could we meet up for a coffee sometime?"  She was perfectly agreeable to the idea, and told me of the place she usually frequented, saying that I could find her there most days.  Surprisingly, this cafe had an area where they occasionally held art exhibitions, and the current one, she revealed, was of pages by an artist who had freelanced for 2000 A.D. and DOCTOR WHO MAGAZINE.  Well, that sounded like fate to me.

A few days later, I popped along to this cafe and was surprised to see that I'd actually lettered some of the pages - and who should I spy but the lady herself.  We had a coffee, seemed to be getting along famously, and, emboldened by her friendliness, I asked if she'd like to go out for a meal sometime.  Yup, she was up for that, so we arranged a time when she could manage and I counted the hours.  On the day, pillock that I was, I waited for two and a half hours, but no show.  Cut to several weeks later, and I was in another cafe when I saw the lady in question coming along the street.  I went to the door to say hello and she stopped to speak to me.  Eventually I addressed the 'elephant in the room' and said "Perhaps I misunderstood, but you never turned up on the day we'd arranged."  "Oh, sorry, I was busy" she replied.  "That's okay.  If you'd rather not, just say so, but do you still want to go out for a meal?" I asked.  "I'd love to" she said.  I invited her into the cafe for a coffee and she said she'd join me shortly after she'd attended to something.  (She lived nearby apparently, though I didn't ask where.  And in case you were wondering, I'd regularly used this cafe for years before I ever met her.)

Two hours later it suddenly dawned on me that she wasn't going to show (yeah, I was a bit slow on the uptake), but as we'd swapped email addresses (and phone numbers) at some point, I decided to email her from the cafe's basement Internet room.  I explained that I didn't quite understand, but didn't want to make a nuisance of myself (or waste my time quite frankly), so if she wasn't interested then I'd prefer her to just say so, no hard feelings.  If she was interested though, I said that I was intending to go through to the upcoming Edinburgh Festival, and if there was anything she'd like to see and wanted to accompany me, then to let me know.

A day or so later (no, I wasn't still waiting in the cafe's basement), she replied, apologising for not coming to the cafe (had to clean her bike she said) and saying yes to the EF, and enquiring what I'd like to see?  By this time, however, I'd lost interest, so I merely said "Sorry, I'm too busy to be able to make it" and closed the book on that particular chapter of possibilities.  Some months later, I was in Glasgow again and thought I heard someone call my name from behind me.  I turned around, and about 20 feet or so away from me was the woman herself, but I just turned back and continued walking.  I wasn't even sure whether she'd actually called out to me or not, but I wasn't prepared to let her mess me about again.

Why relate this sorry story now, you may wonder, especially as it makes me look like a clueless sap who was getting the p*ss ripped out of him?  It occurred to me after re-reading the post I mentioned above, that, in the current 'anti-man' climate, an entirely different picture could be painted of a situation like the one I've just described.  A woman could easily present a tale of a guy who just didn't get the message, and kept asking her out when she wasn't interested - was 'sexually harassing' her in fact.  Of course, if a woman isn't interested, then she should say so, and that would be the end of the matter.  (In my case, however, the individual concerned repeatedly said she'd love to have dinner, etc., and seemed keen to maintain my attention.)

And that's part of the problem, isn't it?  Some women like to encourage attention from men, even if they have no intention of doing anything about it.  It's their way of validating to themselves and to their friends their attractiveness and desirability, and also their sense of self-esteem.  And although it won't be popular with any feminists reading this, even when some women say no to a date, they don't always mean "Definitely no", they mean "Try harder, convince me of your ardour, make me feel wanted by your passion, pursuit and persistence, until I've satiated my need to feel desirable - and made up my mind as to whether I'm interested in you or not!"  Whereas other women (or even the same women on different occasions), when they say no, that's exactly what they mean, with no room for negotiation or reconsideration.  How's a guy to know when there doesn't seem to be any consistency in the way women respond at different times in similar situations?

If you're a woman who isn't interested in guy who's interested in her, just say so and don't play games.  As I said, some women (and some guys also I'm sure) want to keep their fish on the hook with no intention of ever landing it.  Better to massage your ego some other way, instead of leading on some poor sap and then alleging that he was being 'a nuisance' a few years down the line.  I hasten to add that no such thing happened in my case, but I'm now aware how such instances could be misrepresented by some women determined to prove to their friends and family (and to themselves) how awesomely irresistible they must be by claiming they were 'sexually harassed' at some past point in time.

When such harassment genuinely does take place, no decent person, male or female, would condone or excuse it, but I'm not yet convinced that every alleged instance we've read or heard of recently (and the ones we've still to learn of) properly falls into that category.  Again, what think the rest of you?

******

I've been 'fine-tuning' this piece since first posting it, in order to better convey precisely what I was trying to say, so it's a bit of a work in progress.  Just when I think I've got it, I notice that some sentence or other either doesn't say quite what I intended - or suggests more than I'd intended.  Hopefully, it's not too confusing for anyone.                         

ACTION COMICS #1000 COVER GALLERY...

Images copyright DC COMICS

Hard to believe that it's been 80 years since SUPERMAN made his debut in ACTION COMICS #1, cover-dated June 1938.  Here are the variant covers of the landmark 1000th issue, not counting exclusive store variants (apart from maybe the 10th one).  So which one did you buy?  (The comic went on sale in April I believe.)

Below, the one that started it all - the very first issue.

PSSSST! HEY, WANNA SEE MY WULLIE...?

Oor WULLIE copyright D.C. THOMSON & Co, Ltd

Or to be more precise, oor Wullie, your Wullie, a'body's Wullie.  That's a lot o' Wullie.

******

Just got time for another quick post.  See the photo above?  It's the cover from a 1975 Oor WULLIE book (issued in '74) that's lain around my back room for approximately 20 years or more.  (Someone must've given me it because I'd never buy a book in such poor condition.)  Now see the photos below.  That's the new cover I made for it with the help of a scanner/printer, digital restoration, couple of sheets of card, some Libra-Seal, and masking tape which I coloured with a felt marker pen.  Not too shabby, is it?  I had to enlarge the images at the printing stage by a few millimetres to allow for cropping, but the book's now neat enough to join my other Oor Wullie books.  Gosh, aren't I talented?  (And modest too of course.)

SO, WHAT ARE YOUR CONDITIONS?

My very own, almost-pristine, FANTASTIC Annual for 1968

I must confess to feeling guilty for neglecting all you Criv-ites these past few months, so I've been making a special effort recently (when time allows) to trot out the odd post.  (What do you mean that all my posts are odd?)  Here's the latest piece of self-indulgent nonsense...

****** 

Regarding the TV21 Annuals in the previous post, only the first one (of which I have three) is in anywhere near to almost brand-new condition,  the others having obvious tell-tale signs of wear (and thus age) about them.  With Annuals, as with anything I collect, I tend to take what I can get when I can get it, and replace it later on if a better condition one comes along, depending on the price obviously.  As an aside, I've still got my (pristine) copy of BEEB #1 that I bought down in Southsea/Portsmouth in 1985, but I noticed one on eBay recently in mint condition, still with its original free gift.  It sold for something like £2.50, but now there's now another one up for sale at the ridiculous price of £40.  (Maybe it's the one that cost £2.50, and the buyer's trying to make a tidy profit by selling it on right away.)  That's why I'm cautious (sometimes) about paying big bucks for something, because s*d's law says that a cheaper, better one will come along eventually. (Though in the case of Beeb #1, it happened in reverse on this occasion.)

I notice that when I'm lucky enough to buy an old item in pristine condition, especially when it's something I had new as a kid, that particular period seems not so far away, whereas if the item displays signs of age, then the period seems much further back in time.  Unless, of course, I acquired the original object from a jumble sale and it already looked old, in which case, because the replacement looks no worse than the original did when I first got it, that time doesn't seem so far removed as it otherwise would.  (Anyone following that, or am I far too obscure?)  It would be great to have everything I own looking as if it were brand-new, but at times I just have to settle for what my finances allow for.  Sometimes, a better-condition item will come along and I'll pass, because the not-so-good one has been in my possession for so many years that I've come to accept its imperfections and am exceedingly loath to part with it.  Admittedly, there have been occasions when I've bought another, better one and just kept both.

So what's your view on this if you're an eager collector of old items you had in your youth?  Is condition paramount to you, or not so important?  And, like me, does a replacement's condition influence your impression of how long ago you had the original?  If any of the above makes any sense to you, feel free to record your thoughts, theories and fancies in the comments section.

TV21 ANNUAL COVER GALLERY...

Characters copyright relevant and respective owners

As I was coming back from the main shopping centre in my town this evening, I took the route that was near to the house in which I'd lived when TV CENTURY 21 first came out in 1965 (but dated 2065 remember).  I've often walked along that way in the last few years, and had noticed an elderly man who used to sit in the open doorway of his bungalow, listening to his radio and watching the world go by.  We nodded to one another on two or three occasions as I passed, but never spoke a word other than a brief "A'right" in the few scant seconds our gaze connected on my circuitous way home.  I'd even started to keep an eye out for him whenever I was in the area, so that I could swap 'nods' with him in case my acknowledgement of his presence was the only interaction he had with another person in his long and lonely day.  It would've bothered me if, while lost in thought, I'd forgotten to glance at his doorway and thereby inadvertently ignored him on my way past.  What if he looked at me in anticipation, expecting a nod that never came?  

Tonight his door was closed, and several items of household furniture and appliances lay scattered on his small lawn and footpath.  A fireplace, washing machine, tumble dryer (or small fridge), several odds'n'ends - and his wheelchair.  That tends to suggest he's passed away, rather than gone into an old folks home, and although I didn't know the man or anything about him, I felt kind of sad that another light had apparently gone out in the world.  I couldn't help but wonder what his interests or hobbies had been, what he'd done with his life, and whether he'd owned anything that he'd wish to be preserved or passed on, rather than thrown in a skip or given to a charity shop.

For all I know, he could have been an ardent comics collector with a full set of the original EAGLE, and maybe even, as a young adult, collected TV21 because it had been cast in Eagle's mould.  Now perhaps his collection lay in bin bags, or had been given to grandchildren or nieces and nephews, who would read these prized gems with no regard for their condition and then casually, callously, discard them afterwards.  Whenever I'm in the area in the future, I'll probably find myself automatically preparing to nod to him as I walk by his bungalow, before remembering that he's no longer there.  Which means, I suppose, that in some kind of ironic way, he'll always be sitting in that doorway - at least in my mind.  It also made me think of what lay ahead of me in my own future, and whether I'll likewise be an old man on my lonesome, worrying about what's going to happen to my collection of comics and toys when I die.  A sobering thought indeed.

(Update: I've since learned that the gentleman's name was MATT, and that he'd once been a banker.  A neighbour told me he was cheated out of his life savings by his girlfriend, but I don't know at what stage in his life that happened.  He has indeed passed on, so let's hope he's now at peace in a better place.)

And so, because I was thinking of TV21, and having just recently acquired the last two Annuals I needed (1969 & '70) to complete the set of eight, I thought I'd display them here.  As you can see, the last three come from a time when the comic was completely different to what it had started out as.  Despite what it says on the cover of the 1971 book, JOE 90 doesn't appear inside - nor does any other strip based on a GERRY ANDERSON puppet programme.  The comic had taken the nation by storm, but was barely a feeble puff by the time it finally breathed its last in the early '70s.  And thus do the mighty fall into ruin - as, also, must we who look at the stars while lying in the gutter, hoping for an immortality that may not exist and therefore may never inherit.

Enjoy the covers.

Y'know, it's hard to believe that there were a mere eight Annuals in total over a period of seven years - and that only the first five of them were in the style of the TV21 weekly as it had been when first released.  Back then, the comic seemed to have been around forever, yet five slim volumes on a bookshelf are all there is to represent its yearly output, in what seemed like an eternity at the time.  Funny that.  The remaining three Annuals spring from an entirely different style of comic altogether, the same in name only.

MILD & MELLOW MELANCHOLY MUSINGS...

Some of you might not know of my other Blog, which you can access my clicking here.  It currently features a new post, published earlier today.  Check it out.

What's that?  What's with DIANA RIGG?  Well, you know her - always trying to push her way into things, the glory hog.  (Looks like she's just ran into a glass pane.)

HAVE YOU HEARD OF HECTOR'S HOUSE? YOU HAVE NOW...

Oh, you lucky peeps.  Managed to find the time to dash off a quick post - hopefully it's one that you'll think was worthwhile.

******

A couple of years or so back I was in a shop with someone I know and got to talking about TV shows for kids with the two female shop assistants (who, I guess, were in their 40s).  It was a sort of card/gift shop and there must've been some item or other that kick-started the discussion.  We briefly talked about BAGPUSS and various other shows, and I mentioned HECTOR'S HOUSE, which elicited an interested enquiry from the pair.  As I started to explain, the guy I was with suddenly ejaculated in an exasperated manner "For Pete's sake, Gordie, they're far too young to have ever seen Hector's House!"  I put his remark down to an attempt to ingratiate himself with the women by indulging in a bit of fawning flattery, so I ignored him and calmly continued my discourse.  However, as we were leaving, my companion looked at the duo with an apologetic expression on his kipper and said "Sorry about that!"  I considered his remark patronising (to the women) in the extreme, and insulting to me, so I said to them "Well, you've heard of Bagpuss - he's Sourpuss!"  (I presume their rejoining laughter indicated their agreement.)  As you may have gathered, I wasn't best-pleased with his obnoxious attitude.

Now, here's an interesting fact.  Bagpuss was first screened in 1974 and Hector's House, though first broadcast in Britain in 1968, was still being regularly repeated by the BBC up until at least 1975.  Both shows are readily available on DVD and YouTube, and have most likely been shown at various times on TV over the years.  Many parents purchase DVDs of old TV shows for their kids, whether they actually watched them themselves when young or not.  My point being that those two women were just as likely to have seen - or not seen - one show as the other.  Going by the logic of my companion, I shouldn't have heard of, never mind seen, FRANKENSTEIN, which was made in 1931, or DOUBLE INDEMNITY, made in 1944 - or anything else that was issued prior to my arrival in the world.  You see the flaw in his thinking?  To assume that because someone wasn't born when a movie or TV show was first shown means they can't possibly have heard of it, is extremely condescending - and blinkered.

On another occasion we were in a comics shop and, during my enquiry to an assistant (the manager actually) about a publication with some DALEKS strips, I referred to TV CENTURY 21.  "Gordie, he wasn't even born then, so there's no point going on with that!" this same fellow interjected.  I ignored him and continued, "TV21 was a comic in the '60s that published comic strips based on GERRY ANDERSON puppet shows."  My way, the guy learned a snippet of information that may prove useful in dealing with future enquiries from others, the other guy's way, he remains ignorant and clueless about a landmark in British comics publishing.  That's assuming that he hadn't actually heard of TV21 of course; the fact is, it's unlikely, because the shop sold various books reprinting strips from the comic and he's bound to have seen the name at one time or another.  (Granted, whether it made any impression on him or not is a different matter.)

If you pay people the compliment of assuming that they're at least as informed as you are on a subject, they may (and fairly often do) live up to your expectations - if not, they'll soon let you know and you can then take the opportunity to bring them 'up to speed'.  The point is, knowledge is for sharing.  If you share your knowledge, you enlighten others; if you assume that everyone else is mired in ignorance and keep your knowledge to yourself, then if that's how they are, that's how they'll remain.  Don't know about you, but I know which approach I prefer.