DAYS Of CHILLS And TEARS...

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

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

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

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

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

  

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

So - where do I start?

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

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

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

So why did it fail to maintain its momentum?

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

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

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

  

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

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

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

Desperate Dan ironically describes the current incarnation

of one of Britain's once favourite comic periodicals

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

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

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

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

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

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

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

MASSIVE MIGHTY MARVEL MONUMENTAL And MAGNIFICENT MASTERPIECES... (Updated)

Image copyright MARVEL COMICS

For no other reason than that it's a brilliant piece of artwork, here's the cover to MARVEL ANNUAL 1973.  It was the first Annual tied in to the weekly MIGHTY WORLD Of MARVEL, and was out in the shops around late October or sometime in November of 1972.  As most Annuals came out around August or September, it was possibly prepared later-than-usual as the absence of a date seems to suggest there may've been some doubt as to whether it would be ready in time.  However, MWOM #1 was launched on September 30th, so the Annual must've been prepared around the same time as the weekly was, as an interior article suggests that The Wonderful World Of Marvel was considered as the original name of the comic.  'Mighty' was probably a last-minute decision, which is why the Annual sported only a single-name title.

The illustration (by JAMES E. McCONNELL) is a painted version of a panel in 'TERROR Of The TOAD MEN!', reprinted inside and originally from The INCREDIBLE HULK #2.  I won't spoil your fun looking it up by telling you what page it's on - just go to it, tiger!  (As Stan or Mary Jane would say.)

I recall being fascinated by the cover (something about that red) and smuggling it in to school in my schoolbag (perhaps having made a detour to buy it from W. & R. HOLMES on the way, can't quite remember).  That afternoon, I sat in Dougie Smith's maths class, stealing surreptitious glances at the prized possession in my leather satchel while pretending to be looking for a pencil sharpener or eraser.  (Of course, I'd never have called it a satchel back then, so look how pretentious I've become.)

Yup, all in all, a nice little Annual.

A RESPONSE TO JAMIE SMART'S OPEN INTERNET LETTER...

Beano's Dennis giving Dandy's Dan a thumping - a prophetic example of life imitating art perhaps?
Copyright D.C. Thomson & Co., Ltd

Recently, artist Jamie Smart posted an open letter to the internet over on his blog.  I felt obliged to respond.

******

 An open letter to the internet.

"When The Dandy relaunched last year, it caught a lot of attention.  As Britain’s oldest comic institution, it had the weight of history behind it and any attempts at revitalising the form would naturally take some punches.  What it did was quite daring, it scrapped the magazine format it had been slowly creeping towards, and instead declared itself a bona fide comic once more, filled to the gills with a variety of cartoons.  Initially it also did away with the cover-mounted freebie toys, a risk in today’s market.  What it wanted to be, was a modern version of the comics we grew up with.  Unashamedly silly.

Recently the response came back - sales had dropped by a half.  What a crushing blow to such a noble attempt.

Inevitably, sensing blood, the parasites have come out.  Sensing a wounded animal they’ve pounced, picking at it from a safe cowering distance.  In this canyon of the internet, the wretched scabby vultures don’t waste a second.  Forums and blogs, suddenly filled with the barely-concealed glee of a thousand old, bitter, failed cartoonists who declare they KNEW it wouldn’t work.  I say they’re failed cartoonists because you can usually follow the trail of bun crumbs back to their own portfolios, as they’ve clearly tried to infiltrate the world of children’s comics but obviously never quite made it.  Instead of crying salty tears into their own pisspoor efforts, they bitch and whine their stupid opinions online, content that there’ll always be some other bitter tit who feels the same."

******

What Mr. Smart apparently fails to realize is that absolutely nobody is happy with the current predicament The DANDY is in.  If the attempt to breathe new life into the comic was noble - and bold - it was also almost certainly misguided and misjudged, at least in the way it was handled.  At a stroke, D.C. THOMSON eliminated any last remnants of the "feel-good" nostalgia factor which, for many years, was probably the primary reason for the comic's longevity.  It reminds me of when COCA COLA changed the taste of their iconic brand and, such was the resistance to it by consumers (sales apparently plummeted) that they had to reinstate the "classic" recipe.

For Mr. Smart to call anyone with an opinion different to his own a "vulture" or a "parasite" is as shocking as it is inaccurate.  Although I do not like his current version of DESPERATE DAN, I devoted a post on my blog to a positive critique of his art on his own blog.

And as for his ridiculous comments about failed cartoonists, let me remind him that, as far as failure goes, his brief (and that of others also) was to revive the comic.  In that respect, those involved have singularly and spectacularly failed!  It's probably partly because of this realization that he's on his best "whiny bitch" defence-mode.  The simple fact is that many people said that the new Dandy was a mistake and wouldn't sell.  Looks like they were right.  I think they've proved their point - or, rather, poor sales have done it for them.  Seems that some people just can't live with being wrong and feel a need to lash out and attack others, which is rich, considering what comes next.

******  

"Worse is the personal attacks they make on the art.  The Dandy was bold in allowing new, unexpected artists to take the reigns (sic) on some of their popular characters, to try new things and shake the medium up a bit.  The range of material inside was a joy, and should be applauded.  But the criticism coming back at it was unfounded, and purely subjective.  I’ll say this now, I can take it.  I’ve been doing this long enough, and had enough whiney criticism thrown at me that it swiftly stops being hurtful and fast becomes funny.  When you realise you’re being criticised by the angry, bitter internet, with all its confused rationale and hypocritical vitriol, it becomes more of a trophy - the fact you’re invoking such a reaction means you’re doing something right.  But I’ve seen the attacks on the other artists, some of them brutal, and it’s nothing but childish jealousy.  It dismisses all the years of work someone’s put into their craft in one sentence."

******

"The criticism... was unfounded, and purely subjective."  Likewise, Mr. Smart's opinion to the contrary is equally subjective - and therefore doesn't have any more validity than (according to him) those of his critics.  As for his assertion that "the fact you're invoking such a reaction means you're doing something right." - total nonsense!  I rather think it proves he's doing something wrong and confirms - along with drastically decreased sales - that the criticism was very far from being "unfounded" indeed.

And to call criticism "nothing but childish jealousy" and to presume it comes from those with unachieved artistic aspirations merely demonstrates an elitist attitude.  I'm willing to bet that the majority of criticism comes from ordinary people who have never even considered a career in comics, never mind pursued one.

******

"It’s pathetic.  An opinion is one thing, and an informed critical opinion can often be very helpful.  But a snide, bullshit swipe at something that was trying to do good is callous.  The Dandy was standing up for British comics, and the artists were chosen because their artwork delights children.  And it did, any naysayer can say their kids didn’t like The Dandy but they’re not taking into account the thousands that DID, and the untapped audience that would if they could just be reached.  For every grown adult who says I draw comics like an idiot monkey, there’s a score of people who love what I do.  Complaining that someone’s style is wrong is like saying custard is offensive - it means nothing.  It’s your opinion.  Instead of frothing it up with the nastiest words you can muster, try not thinking about it.  Try getting on with your own life. Try doing something constructive instead of whining like a bitch."

******

To paraphrase one of his above statements and cast it in a far more realistic light - "...any yaysayer can say their kids love The Dandy, but they're not taking into account the thousands that DON'T!"  (As testified to by the fact that half its recent readership has abandoned it.)

Face facts.  Of course there are other factors involved in the circulation decline of all magazines, but such conditions have existed for years.  The main reason that The Dandy's sales have deteriorated so drastically in such a short space of time is that readers have simply abandoned it because it failed to deliver.  For that, those responsible should accept their fair share of culpability in the situation, rather than posture as misunderstood geniuses whose efforts and talent are unappreciated.  That's like saying it's the fault of the audience.  We see such petulant, childish, arrogant behaviour on our TVs every week, whenever the X-FACTOR judges tell some social inadequate that he or she can't sing, dance, or whatever.

Simply put, just like them, Mr. Smart lays the reasons for The Dandy's shortcomings at the door of his critics.  As for his assertion that "For every grown adult who says that I draw comics like an idiot monkey, there's a score of people who love what I do." - really?  That's the verdict arrived at as a result of a stringent, scientifically-conducted survey on the matter, is it?  Talk about being subjective.  He needs to remember that for every person who still buys The Dandy, there's another who doesn't, but used to.  (Not counting the fact that the few thousand who buy the comic are outnumbered thousands-to-one by those who never have and never would.) 

******   

"The reasons for The Dandy audience slide could be many (distribution, advertising, competition etc).  I thought they were doing something really right, you can say I’m biased because I work for them, but I would have applauded it even if I had not. Even if they’d rejected my work, I would have promoted the relaunched Dandy.  It deserves a huge amount of respect for trying, and I really hope it can find a way to keep going.  I’ve a few suggestions but hey, I’m sure they’ve a few plans too.

Instead of hiding in your dark corners, internet critics, seeping out at the first sign of trouble, you could have been cheering on a bold move in children’s comics.  You could have stood up for the greater cause, you may even have enjoyed some of the work inside if you’d made the effort to look past your own bitter opinions.  But you’d rather criticise someone else’s work, than do something constructive yourself.  Because it’s far easier to destroy than it is to create."

******

It's also far easier to create stuff that people don't want, and then blame the audience for not wanting it.  If the comic is "destroyed" (and we all surely hope it isn't) then it was the misguided and ill-advised new direction which is responsible for its destruction.  That's something Mr. Smart would do well to consider, as he hurls his bad-tempered, vicious and vitriolic insults at the backs of a rapidly departing and decreasing audience.  The Dandy destroyed?  Then he had a hand in doing it!  Something he should remember as, with thumb in mouth, he sulks under the blankets of a bed of his own making.

He describes anyone who has been vocal in their criticism of the recent incarnation of The Dandy as "whining like a bitch".  People in glass houses perhaps?  For one who isn't shy about using his own blog to vent his frustrations, how dare he berate anyone else for doing the same thing.  The words pot and kettle spring to mind.  And as for "personal attacks" - when he's been told that "cancer is too good for you" and "you've only ever f****d your mum" (as I was on his site) then he'll know just what a personal attack is.

Why not simply follow his own advice?  "Instead of frothing it up with the nastiest words you can muster, try not thinking about it.  Try getting on with your life.  Try doing something constructive instead of whining like a bitch."  Indeed.  Now why not trying drawing a strip that will increase The Dandy's sales, instead of driving the readership away in droves?

That'd be a good start.

THIS IS A JOB - ER, I MEAN A PHOTO - FOR HOOPERMAN...

Terry Hooper and his mum

Aren't computers wonderful?  (Okay, I'll admit I was a bit of a late convert to the idea.)  Take a look at the photo above, borrowed from TERRY HOOPER's blog, COMIC BITS ONLINE.  The piccie shows Terry as a baby, sitting on his mother's lap and doing that thing that babies do so well - looking cute and loveable.  (Funny how it wears off when they become teenagers.)

As you can see, the photo has a few creases in it which somewhat spoil its pristine beauty - but wait, what's this?  It's SUPERKID with his amazing computer, able and willing to save the day.  A few minutes later, after applying a secret process known only to himself and a forgotten tribe of ancient camel breeders, the photo is restored once more to its original, brand-new appearance.

Hope ol' Terry's happy with the results.

And TALKING Of SECRET IDENTITIES...

Art by RON FRENZ & JOE SINNOTT

Next time you visit your local comics shop, don't forget to pick up a copy of ROY THOMAS's ALTER EGO #104 - unless you've already bought one that is.  Jam-packed with goodies about The FANTASTIC FOUR, STAN LEE, JACK KIRBY, and a whole host of other stuff, it'll give you something worth reading as you snuggle up in bed with a cup of cocoa and hot-water bottle, bracing yourself against the Autumn (and fast-approaching Winter) chills. 

This issue features a fantastic version of FF #1's cover, brought to you by RON FRENZ and JOE SINNOTT.  Trust me, it's worth the price of the mag alone.

"NOTHING IN THIS GAME FOR TWO IN A BED..."

Copyright relevant owner

Here's a YOGI BEAR strip from a 1961 issue of TV EXPRESS WEEKLY. Enjoy.  (And shame on you if you thought it was something naughty.)

HERE WE GO AGAIN DEPT:

It has once again been brought to my attention that, over on the pages of another blog, some rather sad individual continues to delude himself that the majority of dissenting voices who post comments in response to his ramblings all spring from the same source.  He hasn't named anyone, but it seems all too obvious who he's got in mind.

Leaving aside his absurd notion that only one person (allowing for hyperbole) in the world is likely to disagree with him, if I'm correct on who he's trying to implicate in such an underhand fashion, then I can say with 100% categorical assurance that he is completely wrong.

Someone has even suggested to me that he's writing some of these comments himself in a sneaky attempt to portray the subject of his ire in a negative light, while he himself postures as the champion of a comics community besieged by unfair and unfounded criticism.

Far-fetched?  Perhaps, but I notice that whenever he has these little blog 'spats', his response numbers go through the roof.  Attention junkie?  I'll leave it for you to decide.

TEST YOUR 'METTLE' DEPT: IS IT HEAVY?

Copyright relevant owner

Back in 1990, the manager of a local band asked me if I could possibly secure the services of a 2000 A.D. artist to do an album cover for him.  He had no specific artist in mind - anyone who worked on the comic would suffice.  "I'll see what I can do," I replied, "but it'll probably cost you."  I 'phoned SIMON BISLEY, who wasn't interested, so I told him to name a figure that'd make it worth his while.  Perhaps wishing to price himself out of a job he didn't want, he quoted a sum far in excess of his usual page rate (at that time anyway).  I relayed it to the manager, thinking it'd be beyond his means, but to my surprise, he agreed.  I told Simon it was a deal and he went to work, turning the job 'round in no time flat.

Simon generously offered me £100 for putting the job his way, but I turned it down on the grounds that, as he'd done all the work, he was entitled to all the money.  All I'd done was make a few 'phone calls to describe to him what the band had in mind (before he and the manager started talking directly between themselves).  As it turned out, it was worth every penny - and then some - because the cover was what swung a record deal their way.  The band's manager played their demo album to the record company, then delivered the coup de grace - the finished cover art by a high-profile artist.  A deal was struck on the spot.

I was promised an extra-special credit in the sleeve notes, which was only fair, I thought.  After all, the cover had got them the deal, and I'd got them the cover.  When the album was released, everyone else and their granny got a mention - everyone, that is, except me, who'd suddenly become the invisible man.  Simon Bisley got paid, the band got their cover and a record deal, the manager got to bathe in the reflected glory and publicity (plus whatever percentage he was on), staff at the hotel the band rehearsed in were thanked in the sleeve notes, and sundry other folk were credited for simply breathing.  Me?  I got hee-haw!

Well, that's not quite true.  I got one spare, well-played copy of the CD (with well-worn, wrinkled inlay booklet).  I'd have thought I deserved a brand-new, shrink-wrapped copy at least.

And the moral of the story?  If anyone asks you to do something which they hope is going to make their fame and fortune, charge them for your time.  Promises of gratitude are worthless.    

JOURNEY'S END...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

Here are the final two stories from J.I.M. #83 to complete the issue.  One is a text piece, of the type that was only included so that the mags qualified for 2nd class mailing rights, the other's a typical fantasy tale by STAN LEE and STEVE DITKO.

So, there you have it - the complete ish (sans ads) of one of the classic MARVEL comics of the Silver Age.  This comic would cost a small fortune to buy in decent condition nowadays, so don't ever say that I never give you anything for nothing.  As before, click on images to enlarge, then click again for optimum size.

Be sure to tune in again from time to time - you'd kick yourself if you missed anything.  And check out the previous two posts, if you haven't already, for the rest of this collectors' item issue. 

"GONNA TAKE A SENTIMENTAL JOURNEY..."

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

Okay, peeps, today we're going to re-present the first instalment of the remainder of JOURNEY Into MYSTERY #83.  Wouldn't want your lives to be incomplete now, would we?  Looking at the last page, it's clear that Mike Morgan was actually falling to his death, but the Comics Code must've objected to this grisly ending and insisted on changes.  The first clue is the caption in the 2nd panel of page 5 - "And in those last nightmarish seconds of Mike Morgan's life..." is a giveaway that he was receiving his just comeuppance.

The last two panels have clearly been re-lettered by a different hand to give the impression that he survives, and the final panel itself seems to have been altered, as the figure doesn't look like the work of DON HECK, who drew the rest of the strip.  "Guess I might as well glide down and save him..." ?  Get real - he's splattered all over the landscape by now - unless he was falling in slow motion.  Click on images to enlarge, click again for optimum size.  And, if you haven't already, be sure to see the previous post for the origin of THOR The MIGHTY!

THOR The MIGHTY & The STONE MEN From SATURN!

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

If you're fortunate enough to own any of the MARVEL OMNIBUS editions, you'll doubtless have appreciated the clean reproduction, the near perfect colour registration, the larger than normal page size, the attention to detail, etc., etc.  Truly they are things to marvel at (pardon the pun), but they have one drawback - they're almost too good.

A while back, I purchased The SILVER SURFER Omnibus; I went through it page by page, drinking in all the above mentioned qualities, savouring the exquisite clarity of each panel - but without reading it.  Then I dug out my original eighteen issue run of comics and read them individually over the next few evenings.

Great as the Omnibus volumes are, there's just something about the original issues which is hard to beat.  The smell of the paper, the adverts, the Ben-Day dot colouring - it all adds up to an experience which is a delight to the senses.  When you're sitting on the porcelain, an Omnibus volume can be quite heavy on the ol' thighs; a single comic is much easier to read and far less wearing on the legs.

With that in mind, I decided to treat you all to THOR The MIGHTY's origin, scanned from my very own copy of JOURNEY Into MYSTERY #83.  I could've scanned my softcover MASTERWORKS volume, which - along with the Omnibus edition - has the best reprint so far of that particular tale.  However, you folks are special - I figure that you deserve nothing but the original.

******

Plot: STAN LEE  * Script: LARRY LIEBER  * Art: JACK KIRBY
& JOE SINNOTT  * Letters: ART SIMEK

Click on any page, then click again to see the image in extra-large size.

******

BONUS DEPT:  Here's how the final panel originally looked before it was changed to the published version.

DIRE DOINGS DEPT: Is The DESPERATE DANDY DESTINED To DWINDLE And DECLINE Until DOOMED To A DARK, DREARY, DISCOURAGING, DISPIRITING, And DESPAIRING DEATH???

Copyright D.C. THOMSON & Co., Ltd

If the reported current circulation figures of The DANDY are to be believed, the recent relaunch of Britain's longest running weekly comic must be considered a massive failure. Apparently, it's selling around half of what it did before it's massively-hyped 'reboot' back in 2010.

Of course, there are many reasons why comics today don't sell in the numbers they once did back in the '50s & '60s.  Publishers today would welcome the reduced circulation of the '70s with ecstatic glee should they ever find themselves in the fortunate position of being able to attain them.  One of the reasons for declining sales is increased competition from other things kids can now spend their pocket-money on, compounded by the fact that comics are no longer the cheapest form of entertainment available.  In fact, they've increased their prices far above the rate of inflation, year by year, for a almost a couple of decades.

Also, buying comics on a regular basis is a habit that needs to be developed and encouraged through the early stages of childhood, otherwise by the time children reach the age where they make their own decisions on what to buy, spending their dosh on comics isn't going to be their first choice.

Forgetting the spurious defence to the contrary currently expounded on some other blogs, another reason for their fall from grace is that, in the main, they're not as entertaining as they used to be.  "But wait a minute!", you cry.  "Comics aren't aimed at your age group.  As long as the kids of today find them funny then they're doing their job!"  Rubbish!  The declining sales, even allowing for other contributory factors, puts paid to that nonsense.  And besides, if you feed sh*t to those who have never tasted steak, they're not going to know the difference, are they?  Still no excuse though, is it?

There are certain comics and strips - from before I was born, or before I was reading them, or I didn't see until years after they were published (hence no nostalgic sentiment involved) - that I can sit and read (or re-read) today and they're uproariously funny.  The only strip I can think of, off the top of my head, in recent years, that's always worth reading, is TOM PATERSON's CALAMITY JAMES in The BEANO.  (Unsure if it's still in it, I'll have to check.)

There are a handful of artists who still produce solid, well-drawn, humorous work - but they're often let down by the sheer banality of the scripts.  Dennis, with a menagerie of pets in tow (GNASHER, GNIPPER, RASHER, etc.), was regularly zooming about in some futuristic rocket-ship contraption not that long ago, rendering the strip far too surreal and divorced from what readers can relate to, to be as memorable as early Menace strips used to be.

Nowadays there seems to be a disturbing trend to go for an almost abstract style of art, in some misguided mission to appear 'up to date' and 'down with the kids'.  The Dandy in particular pursues this position, to the extent that the 'fix' has resulted in it being far more 'broken' than was previously the case.

Even balloon lettering has suffered from this approach.  Not too long ago, the Dandy editor defended the switch to upper and lower case lettering on the grounds that research (of which I'm dubious) seemed to suggest that children found it easier to read.  Let's just allow the possibility that it might be true for a moment.  In what way would that justify the hard-to-read, amateurish scrawl that defaces some of the strips?  To my mind, hard-to-read lettering is hard-to-read lettering - regardless of whatever case it's rendered in.  I'm quite sure that no research of any kind has ever led to the conclusion that badly rendered upper and lower case lettering was easier to read - for kids or anyone else.

Also, D.C. THOMSON would do well to make up their mind as to precisely what business they're in - comics or lucky bags.  I suspect those cover-mounted 'gifts' deter at least as many buyers as they attract - especially as they usually add £1 or more to the price.  If someone buys a comic for the toys, then they're not buying it for the comic, and that's the market Thomson's should be aiming for - the comic reader.

I could go on and on, but why flog a dead horse (or a dying Dandy)?  The fact is, despite the claims of those who defended and applauded the new direction (that'll be downwards then) of The Dandy, the evidence suggests that the treatment is killing the patient.  Let's just hope D.C. Thomson have some miracle cure up their sleeves before it's too late.

******

Feel free to comment and share your views on the matter.  Unlike one blog I could mention, you won't be patronized or insulted for not agreeing with me.  Nor will your comments be paraphrased and distorted for the sole purpose of taking a dig at you while petulantly denying you the right of reply.

"WHERE WALKS THE GHOST?"

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Here's a brilliant 5-page STAN LEE, STEVE DITKO tale from AMAZING ADULT FANTASY #11, April 1962 (which meant it probably came out sometime in January).  I've scanned it from the AMAZING FANTASY OMNIBUS, so there's a bit of spine-curl and shadow down one side of each page (tightly bound, these volumes), but hopefully it's not too distracting.  So, sit back and enjoy Stan & Steve at their very best.

And just think... a mere 4 issues later, the titanic twosome unleashed SPIDER-MAN on an unsuspecting world.

Remember... click on images to enlarge, then click again for optimum size.