WHEN THINGS ARE WHAT THEY SEEM - PRINT THE TRUTH...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

"Where men are the most sure and arrogant they are commonly the most mistaken..." wrote Scottish philosopher, historian, economist and essayist DAVID HUME.  He was right.  Nearly a year ago, someone I knew gave me the above comic mag.  I was extremely pleased as it had a JACK KIRBY cover, so I put it on my blog, first submitting it to some computer technology to lessen the fingerprints which mar its surface - clearly seen in the un-retouched scan before you.

This is what I wrote at the time:

"Originally the splash page of FANTASTIC FOUR #51, this great JACK KIRBY image of The THING now graces the cover of this new MARVEL 2 IN ONE first issue.  Superb stuff, eh?  Unfortunately, there were a few fingerprints (none of them mine) on the cover which have lifted the colour, but I've digitally disguised them as much as I can.  Still a great pic though, eh?"

As you can see, I attributed no blame to anyone, namely because I didn't know at what stage it had acquired the unsightly digit-daubs before passing into my possession.  I received an angry text (which I didn't see until a couple of days after Christmas because I never checked my 'phone over the yuletide period) from the bloke who'd given me the comic, saying that in 40-odd years of handling comics, he'd never given anybody one with fingerprints on it.  (Actually, he had, as I'd received similarly-defaced comics from him before, but I wasn't going to argue the point as they'd been free and I didn't want to appear ungrateful.)

I replied, wishing him a merry Christmas, and explained that I wasn't blaming anyone or even complaining (I had merely mentioned the fingerprints in case any readers noticed some 'fogginess' about the cover), but he was so intent on feeling offended that he ignored my festive felicitations and informed me how insulted he was.  Know what?  Dancing around the hyper-sensitivities of people who go through life with a chip on their shoulder and are determined to be offended or insulted at the slightest thing, especially where no offence or insult is intended (or even exists), is not something I'm prepared to do, so I closed the door on that source of potential vexation in no uncertain terms.  I've found that people who continually take offence often do so in order to have others apologising to them all the time and indulge their overblown sense of self-importance, but as far as I'm concerned they can play that game on their own.

Thing is, it only just occurred to me (half an hour ago in fact) to check out the cover on eBay and see if, as had been claimed by the person in question, the fingerprints were a deliberate effect intended by the colourist, instead of, as I had assumed, careless handling by some anonymous, inadvertent vandal whose hands were in need of a wash.  (Could've happened at the distributor's warehouse for all I know.)

As you can see in the image below (taken from eBay), the fingerprints in the picture above are conspicuous by their absence, meaning that I was right in my initial assumption and the other bloke was wrong - he had given me a comic with marks on the cover.  Maybe I should take offence and feel insulted at being accused of causing offence and being insulting when I was right all along?

And I have to admit - I love it when I'm right!  But then again, who doesn't?

See?  The prints aren't on the printed comic

Click to enlarge and compare

WHO CREATED DOCTOR STRANGE? STAN LEE, STEVE DITKO - OR BOTH?

Take a look at the above extract from a letter by STEVE DITKO in response to a fan.  In it, Steve candidly admits that his memory is not perfect and that there are some strips he drew (and maybe even wrote) in the 1960s that he can't even remember doing.  Yet, when it comes to his written reminiscences about SPIDER-MAN and DOCTOR STRANGE, rabid Ditko fans (I mean the ones who are usually equally rabid STAN LEE haters), never question his accounts of his work on, arguably, the two most famous characters he collaborated on.

Why is this?  Is it possible their critical faculty is blunted by their antipathy towards Stan Lee, in the same way that rabid JACK KIRBY fans take anything that Jack said as gospel, while dismissing everything that Stan says as an utter lie?  For proof of the latter half of that sentence, check out this link.  Read it?  I'd say it's compelling evidence of Jack's memory being at least as unreliable as Lee's.  So why do some people regard Steve's memory as being infallible when he himself never claimed it to be, and allowed for the exact opposite in fact?

It's a huge subject, but I'm going to focus on Doctor Strange in this post.  Those who claim that Stan wasn't a co-creator of the sorcerer often quote from Stan Lee's 1963 letter to Dr. JERRY BAILS a few months before the strip debuted.  "'Twas Steve's idea" they declare, as 'proof' that Stan originally admitted that he had nothing to do with the genesis of the character.  In actual fact, it doesn't necessarily prove that at all.  Read the full paragraph below.  (Click to enlarge.)

It occurs to me that this can quite easily mean something other than the anti-Stan brigade say it does.  Consider: "We have a new character in the works..."  Who does he mean by 'we' - Stan and Steve, or MARVEL COMICS itself?  If the former, this suggests that Stan was involved in the idea.  "The first story is nothing great, but perhaps we can make something of him -- 'twas Steve's idea..."  What was Steve's idea?  Seems to me that this could well apply to the 'nothing great first story', not necessarily the character himself (otherwise wouldn't Stan have said "he was Steve's idea"?).  But what about Steve's own account of events?  I'm glad you asked.

"On my own, I brought in a five-page, pencilled story, with a page/panel script..." writes Steve in one of his much later essays.  Assuming Steve's recollection is accurate, this does not rule out Stan - who was the commissioning editor remember - asking Steve to do a story about a 'magician'.  Steve, therefore, may merely have meant that Stan left the story up to him and had no direct input into the plot.  However, even if Stan didn't request such a strip, Strange followed in the wake of Dr. DROOM, a similar character (at least in the beginning, before he was turned into a mere hypnotist), whose debut Steve had inked and could well have been influenced by, subconsciously or otherwise.

What's important to remember however, whatever view you take, is that creator status in comicbooks is usually defined by the printed product, the comic itself.  JERRY SIEGEL came up with the idea for SUPERMAN, but JOE SHUSTER gave him substance, based on Jerry's description.  BOB KANE came up with the idea for BATMAN, but it took BILL FINGER to refine the concept and add much that made the character popular.  (Though it was decades before his contribution was publicly acknowledged.)  Jack Kirby originated a guy on a surfboard, but it was Stan Lee who gave the SILVER SURFER his back-story and motivation with which the comics-reading community is so familiar.

When it comes to Doctor Strange, even if we accept the by-no-means-certain assertion by nay-sayers that Stan didn't initiate the character by asking Steve to come up with something (commissioning editor remember), it was Stan's christening of Strange, his dialogue and captions - in short, his characterisation - which helped define the good Doctor, and shaped the readers' perception of who he was and how he came to be.  (The fact that Strange's origin so closely mirrors Droom's is compelling evidence to the likely truth of that statement.)

So who created Doctor Strange?  The Strange that you and I know was the product of Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, whether you agree with the sequence of those two names or not.

                                            "By the pow'r of the Faltine,

                                            In the name of Satannish,

                                            Let your hatred of 'Smiley'

                                            Immediately vanish!"

    

Here's to Stan and Steve - together they were invincible!

MASTER OF THE CLASSIC ARTS...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

Back in 1984, JOHN BYRNE and AL MILGROM collaborated on new covers for a four-issue series of DOCTOR STRANGE CLASSICS, based on (some might say 'copied') STEVE DITKO illustrations inside the mags.  I think they're pretty good, and though I might've shown them before, art like this is always worth another look.  So what're you waiting for?  Start looking.

STAN LEE IN A POST-FACT WORLD...

Images copyright relevant and respective owners

If you're someone who's interested in the 'who did what' debate in the MARVEL Age, then you're bound to find the erudite and informed article on the subject at this site extremely revealing.  Just click here for the facts.

(BOND) BABE Of The DAY - URSULA ANDRESS...

Well, wouldn't you know

it?  There's URSULA ANDRESS,

posing for her 'Babe of the Day' spot,

when some big bloke in a tux and a toupee

jumps into the scene and pinches her glory.

Well, tries to at least - there's just no way

he can prevent people copping a taste of

Honey.  (See what I did there, Crivs?

 I'm one smart cookie.)

SOMETHING STRANGE...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

The late STEVE DITKO left us with a whole kaboodle of great comicbook stories and artwork, and one series in particular I like is MARVEL's DOCTOR STRANGE.  For the softcover MASTERWORKS volumes a few years back, two of Sturdy Steve's illustrations were painted over by DEAN WHITE and RICHARD ISANOVE respectively, so in case you don't have those two volumes in your collection, I've reproduced the images here.  I've also thrown in the ALEX ROSS cover to the OMNIBUS edition, which included the above covers in the back of the book - if you don't have it, you should have.

CARLOS EZQUERRA - 1947 - 2018...

JOHNNY ALPHA and associated characters copyright REBELLION

I'm a bit late with this, but I couldn't let Spanish artist CARLOS EZQUERRA's passing go unnoticed.  Over 30 years ago I became the regular letterer of 2000 A.D.'s STRONTIUM DOG, and I'd guess hundreds of pages (or so it seems) of Carlos's artwork passed through my hands as I added speech balloons and captions to his unique and distinctive-looking strips.  When I had a go at drawing a pin-up for 2000 A.D. back in the mid-'80s, I tried to emulate Carlos's style, while still retaining certain characteristics of my own.  (I was later paid for the pin-up, but don't know if it was ever published.)

He was only 70, which isn't that much older than me, and his passing is a sad reminder that my own youth is naught but a fading echo carried away on the winds of time.  Rest in peace, Carlos.   

MYSTERY OR MIRACLE WITH 'THE MONSTER FROM MARS'...?

Copyright MARVEL COMICS.  Art (and TORCH's two left hands) KIRBY & AYERS

The MIRACLE MAN, as seen in FANTASTIC FOUR #3, is supposed to be the greatest hypnotist on the planet.  Thing is though, he also seems to be the thickest hypnotist on the planet.  Rather than go to all the bother of hypnotizing everybody so that he can rob jewellery stores and banks and thereby amass a fortune, why not just hypnotize them into thinking he has a wallet full of cash whenever he pops out on his weekly shopping jaunt to Tesco's?  "Say, miss - can you change this $100 note?" he'd say, waving a piece of Monopoly money in front of the checkout girl's fizzog.  It always works for me.

The story doesn't really make any sense, and gives the impression that the hypnotist angle was perhaps a last-minute resolution.  "Why's that?" you ask.  Well, the villain supposedly brings a wood and plaster statue of a 'Monster from Mars', situated outside The BIJOU movie theatre, to life, as witnessed by the FF on the TV news.  It goes on a rampage, destroying cars and crashing through brick walls, before being reduced to ashes by The HUMAN TORCH in a field just outside of town.  "How did The Miracle Man make him move??  How??" asks The Torch.  And we might well ask the same question.  According to REED RICHARDS, "The monster never really moved - - he hypnotized us into thinking it did!"

So let me ask the obvious - how do you hypnotize a television camera?  The FF (as well as millions of other TV viewers) were too far away to succumb to MM's power, so all they'd have seen on their screens would've been an immobile statue, not a moving monster.  And if the monster didn't really move, how did it get from outside the movie theatre to the outskirts of town?  Either Stan or Jack, or both of them, hadn't really thought things through with this tale.

One can multiply examples of this kind of oversight a thousandfold with the application of a little thought when reading these bygone classics of yesteryear.  However, perhaps I'm being a little harsh.  These stories were intended to be read by undemanding kids who were only interested in action, adventure and excitement - logic was never part of the package and it hardly seemed to matter as long as the story thrilled and entertained its young readership.

Remember, we're talking about 'long-underwear characters' - absurdity is inherent in the basic premise from the get-go.  So, the next time you're reading your favourite comic, don't get hung up on the details - just enjoy it for what it is.  Unless, that is, it takes itself so seriously that the writer deserves a slap on the head if you ever run into him.  (And, if so, give him a good slap from me while you're about it.)

DOOM WATCH...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

Behold - DOCTOR DOOM - whose image The FANTASTIC FOUR (well, three of them anyway) can see by means of a spherical screen, transmitted from elsewhere in the Latverian monarch's castle stronghold.  Got that?  It's a TV pic, yet there's REED RICHARDS, supposedly the brightest man on the planet, stretching out for that image and saying "I've got to reach him!"  Why?  What good would it do for Reed to touch the televised visage of the villain who's trying to destroy them?  No good at all, surely.

Is Reed hallucinating in his oxygen-bereft state?  Does he think that he sees the real Doom before him - even if it's only a giant head and shoulders shot of the evil arch-fiend?  The picture as dialogued just doesn't make any sense.  Ah, but that means it's the dialogue that's at fault, which suggests STAN LEE is to blame for the absurdity, not JACK KIRBY, you say.  Well, Stan's merely giving voice to what Jack drew, which is Reed reaching out to touch a giant, globular television screen, so Jack's equally culpable in this instance.

Or, I suppose, we could say it's merely symbolic and therefore not meant to be taken literally and let it go at that.  Oh, I dunno though...

What do you think?   

BABE Of The DAY - CLAUDIA CARDINALE...

Is that a dressing gown or bathrobe

that stunning CLAUDIA CARDINALE

is wearing?  Wait a second and I'll ask her.

"Claudia, throw it over here so I can take a

closer look."  (Rats, she's too clever to

 fall for that one - unfortunately.)

DOCTOR WHO...?

Everything you thought you knew about The DOCTOR is wrong.  He's not a TIME LORD from a planet called GALLIFREY, he's simply an earthman from the far-flung future, who, in order to withstand the rigours of experimental time-travel (before it was perfected), had a second (cloned) heart transplanted into him.  His regenerations are a result of future technology, built into the TARDIS, and not the result of any inherent ability on the part of The Doctor.  Thing is, he's delusional, and all this Gallifrey crap is just in his head, though his adventures are otherwise real enough.

The Doctor is not a clown, or a cosmic hobo, or a non-violent pacifist - nor is he a 'superhero', or a gender-changing freak, or the saviour of the universe, feared by The DALEKS and other alien races.  He's just a traveller, a meddler, a historian, who somehow finds himself and his companions involved in exciting escapades in different points in time.

Well (in regard to that last sentence), he would be if I had anything to do with it!     

SHUT THE BOX - THE BLUE ONE - IT'S JUST NOT FUN ANYMORE...

Just saw some of the ads for the new series of DOCTOR WHO, which starts on BBC 1 next Sunday.  JODIE WHITTAKER's Doctor wittering on inanely and sounding like BRENDA BLETHAM's irritating VERA, with lots of running around while she does an impression of an egg whisk because of her 'lady' run, and looking and sounding as if it's all going to be one big jolly wheeze.  It very much looks like the 'same old same old' and I hate it already.  Oh, and her outfit looks like that of a clown - which says it all really.  I'm more determined than ever not to watch it unless The DALEKS turn up.  And, for once in my life, I really hope they don't.

FANTASTIC FLASHBACK - The MIGHTY WORLD Of MARVEL #1...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

My senses reel as I realise that the above comic - The MIGHTY WORLD Of MARVEL #1 - came out a staggering 46 years ago today, although 'today' was a Saturday back then on the 30th September 1972.  What's that?  The date on the comic says 7th October?  Yes, I know - that was the way of things back then - most comics carried the date of the following week so that they'd have a full seven days' shelf-life before any unsold periodicals were returned.

This was a great comic, and a step up from various earlier reprint weeklies that had previously presented such Marvel tales.  For a start, MWOM had a few colour pages, as well as spot-colour, to distinguish it from the black and white ODHAMS PRESS publications from a few years before.  What's more, the number of colour pages actually increased a few issues later, beating its competition hands down for visual impact.  That didn't last too long though, and the internal colour was eventually phased out well before the mag's first year had elapsed.

However, the early issues of MWOM, containing The INCREDIBLE HULK, The Fabulous FANTASTIC FOUR, and The AMAZING SPIDER-MAN were something special to British readers who bought it at the time.  Over the ensuing weeks some readers called for full colour throughout, saying the comic could go monthly to accommodate this, but it was explained UK comics were geared towards weekly publication and full colour on every page would be far too costly.  How times have changed!  Now UK Marvel mags (published by PANINI) carry around 76 pages, and each one is in full colour and the same size of the US mags.

And what's more, MWOM is still around!  Okay, it hasn't been published non-stop since 1972, but it was revived in 2003 and has been going strong since.  (A previous revival in 1983 only lasted 17 issues.)  So enjoy looking at how it all started (and dig that crazy free gift transfer), and remember, if you were around at the time, what it was like to wake up on an autumnal Saturday morning 46 years ago, and then rushing to the newsagents to buy this brand-new comic before it flew off the shelf.

Ah, happy days! 

And if you're lucky, you may yet find the latest issue sitting on the shelf of your local newsagent's.  It's a 100 page special edition celebrating the work of the recently-deceased STEVE DITKO, one of Marvel's founding fathers.  Race 'round there now and buy a copy before it sells out, if it hasn't already.  And remember the cry - "Make Mine MARVEL!"

THE HALL'S LAST (AND FIRST) STAND...

This photo by me on a visit in June or July

Here's what I consider a touching little tale.  Sadly, the mother of one of my friends died last September and eventually her house was put up for sale - only a few months ago in fact.  The family had moved in sometime in 1970, 48 years ago, and over the course of that time, my friend's siblings had grown up, married and moved out, their father had died, and only my friend's mother remained in the house until she passed away.

When they moved in back in 1970, there was a hall-stand left by the previous owner, who didn't have the space (or the need) for it in the flat they'd moved to - which had been my friend's family's, as it was an 'exchange' when the properties were still council-owned.  (Incidentally, I've known my friend since 1965 when he lived in that flat, in the same street and just around the corner from the house in which I then lived.)

Estate agent's photo seen by the granddaughter

Anyway, one of the daughters whose mother, as a child, had originally lived in the house from the early '60s up to 1970, learned that it was up for sale and, looking at the estate agent's website, saw the hall-stand that she remembered from when she visited her grandparents as a kid.  She contacted the estate agent and asked them to enquire whether my friend's sister (who was the executor) would consider selling the hall-stand to her.

My friend's sister said that she could have it for nothing, and the hall-stand is now in the possession of the daughter of one of the children who had originally lived in the house before my friend's family moved in and 'inherited' it.  The granddaughter being reunited with a familiar aspect of her childhood that reminds her of her now departed granny and grandfather is something I find quite heart-warming.

How about you?

******

(There's always a chance my friend invented the whole story though, because he knows the sort of tale that I'm an absolute sucker for and would want to be true.)

This photo by me on a visit in June or July

WHEN DEJA VU IS NOT DEJA VU...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

Imagine for a second that you run into a friend while you're passing a shop in town one day.  A fortnight or so later, you run into him again outside the exact same shop and he exclaims "Deja vu!"  Except he'd be wrong, because deja vu is when you experience something for the first time and it feels like you've experienced it before - not something that you have actually experienced before.  So what I'm now about to describe to you isn't deja vu, but it's like deja vu.

Back in 1981, in the VIRGIN MEGA STORE in Glasgow, I purchased my first JOHN BYRNE issue of The FANTASTIC FOUR - issue 234, "The MAN With The POWER!"  Loved it, and started buying the mag regularly from that point on whenever I saw it.  However, I missed a couple of issues, and ordered them, as well as the first two JB issues, from WONDERWORLD COMICS in Bournemouth.  I no longer recall if I ordered them all at the same time or on two separate occasions (though I'm pretty sure that I got #s 236 & 237 in the same package), but what I do remember is receiving #232, the "BACK To The BASICS!" issue, the first one of John Byrne's 62 issue run as regular writer and artist.

So today, the TRUE BELIEVERS reprint of that very issue arrived - and immediately took me back 37 years in time, when, in the very same room, in the very same bed (well, it's actually a new bed, but it has the very same headboard and it's in the very same corner of the room), I first read that classic comicbook from so very long ago.  It's a weird feeling to re-experience a moment (or one very similar to it) in the very same place where it first happened.  Anyway, I re-read the comic and marvelled (contrived pun intended) at how quickly time passes, remembering that I was far less than half the age I am now when I initially read the issue.

So, simply to give you something to read (and give me an excuse to show the cover), above is the TB version, and below is the original one.  Funny how the span between past and present can vanish in an instant on sight of something as simple as reprint of a comic, don't you think?

******

(The tale has been reprinted a few times over the years and I have at least three of them, but this is the first time [that I know of] it's been reprinted as a single issue.)

Yup, this is my original issue, purchased back in the early '80s

RESTORATIVE REPOST: RESTORING The KING...

"Where's Cagney?  I'll moider da bum!"

Being incredibly talented - as well as witty, charming and handsome (not to mention modest and with a self-deprecating sense of humour) - it should come as no surprise to anyone to learn that I once inked (re-inked, to be precise) the artwork of JACK "KING" KIRBY - while he was still alive, making it even more of a thrill for me.  To see my name listed with some of the legendary greats of the comicbook biz like STAN LEE, JACK KIRBY, VINCE COLLETTA, etc., was a big deal for me, and one of which I'm immensely proud.  How did this monumental accomplishment occur, you are perhaps asking - so here's the scoop.

MARVEL were producing their first run of MASTERWORKS editions, when then-editor, TOM BREVOORT, asked me if I could supply some of the absent pages from their files.  As it happened, I was in a position to help out, utilising some of my comics collection featuring Marvel reprints in U.K. publications of the '60s.  However, things were a lot more complex than simply photocopying pages from old comicbooks and sending them over to the States - and here's why:

Back in the '60s, ODHAMS PRESS, publishers of comics such as WHAM!, SMASH!, POW!, FANTASTIC, & TERRIFIC (also EAGLE and others), made all sorts of alterations to the Marvel comic strips they reprinted.  Credit boxes were deleted, American references were changed, colloquial speech was altered, characters' names were revised, and pages were - in the case of Wham!, Smash!, and Pow! - also resized to fit the standard British dimensions.  However, rather than witter on about it let me show you.  Below is a THOR page as it appeared in issue #27 of Fantastic back in 1967.

And here's how the page looked once I had restored it to its original appearance.  What you might call 'invisible mending'.



Next is a poorly printed ad featuring the cover art from FANTASTIC FOUR ANNUAL #3, taken from an issue of SMASH! printed back in the 1960s.  As you can see, most of the linework has dropped out and a couple of characters have been deleted, but this is what I had to work with.  I later found a much sharper copy of this ad in an issue of FANTASTIC, but by then it was too late - I'd already completed all the work and wasn't willing to do it again.

And below is the finished result, a combination of re-created lettering and some taken from my own copy of the actual issue.  You'll see that I had to add two missing figures, as well as re-ink the entire page.

When I first started restoring pages, my aim was to make them as exact as I could, but then I succumbed to the temptation to leave my own 'stamp' on them.  If you look closely, you'll find occasional little deviations from the original.  However, this was accentuated by Marvel not following the original colouring of the published comics.  Nowadays, Marvel strive to make their Masterworks volumes as close to the originals as possible.  The recent softcover editions really are worth acquiring for your collection.

Above is a section from the cover - isn't that gilded frame a thing of beauty?  Below is a section from the credits page - Stan Lee's name kicks it off, I bring up the rear.

And now, what you've been waiting for - the published result.  Unfortunately, the outline of 'King-Size' in the banner at the top of the page was somehow 'lost' in the colouring process, but it was fixed when the cover was later reproduced in other publications.

Considering I used only a Marsmatic technical pen to re-ink a photocopy on cheap paper (copied in my local library), it turned out not too badly.  I also worked on Volume 26 (THOR) - the series was cancelled after Volume 27, but was revived a few years later.

Here are a few more 'before & after' illustrations for your perusal.  As you can see below, the figure of The THING lost most of his body when the image was resized to fit the larger U.K. page.  With the aid of reference as to how the page should have looked, I soon restored the missing details and returned the page to its former state.

BEFORE:

AFTER:

BEFORE:

AFTER:

And finally, a Thor pic, before and after restoration.

Remember - the images can be enlarged by clicking on them - and then clicking again on the enlarged pic to make it larger yet.  (These two are a little blurred - although the preceding pictures can be seen to their best advantage by this process.)

And that's how one restores royalty.  Simple, really - but immensely satisfying.  Altogether now - "Long live the King!"