WELL, IT SURE AIN'T CLUEDO...

It's amazing what one can find whilst digging through cupboards.  Case in point, the set of cards which now adorns this page.  I must've been 19 when one of the drivers (I think) for the BAIRDS department store stockroom I worked in, asked me to draw a set of cards for a game he'd come up with designed to teach kids road safety.

I can no longer recall if I gave him copies before I left the store to work in my local library, or if he ever pursued his idea, but I was quite proud of the pencilled prototypes which you now see before you.  I think I've still got the rules of the game, so perhaps I should approach a games company and see if I can get them interested.  Of course, then I'd have to try and track down the game's originator, and I'm not sure if he's still alive after all this time or, indeed, even what his name is.

Where's SHERLOCK when you need him? 

KID'S MIGHTY MARVEL MAILBAG...

Image copyright MARVEL COMICS

For those who may be interested, I finally managed to find the photocopy of my letter published in The MIGHTY WORLD Of MARVEL back in 1977 - so, as promised, here it is.  I'd forgotten the number, but I also uncovered a copy of a later letters page reply which identified the particular issue - #226.  Now all I need to do is discover in which number the reply was published and I'll be a very satisfied man.

Unfortunately, the copy of my missive is far too faded to reproduce well, but I managed to discern what it said and retyped it so you can read what my younger self was saying in 1977.

******

TOO REAL?

                Dear Marvel,

                It is well-known by comic fans today that Marvel is the world's largest

                and most popular comic book publishing company compared with all

                the other companies in this field of artistic endeavour.  It is also well-

                known that Marvel characters are supposed to be more realistic than

                characters portrayed by competitors.  In Marvel the characters have

                money problems, romantic hang-ups, feelings of inadequacy, vanity,

                jealousy, fear, etc.  In Stan Lee's best-selling book, "Origins of Marvel

                Comics" he comments about the role comic books play in our society 

                today.  He says, "Or call it (the comic book medium) perhaps a rem-
                edy, a pictorial tonic to relieve the awesome affliction that threatens
                us all, the endlessly spreading virus of too much reality in a world
                that is losing its legends, a world that has lost its heroes."

                Well, it is my opinion that "the endlessly spreading virus of too much
                reality" has finally infected the media which was originally created to
                provide an escape from it.  Or, if you prefer, to offer relievement from

                it.  Let me digress for a moment.  You meet a friend who has just been to

                the cinema and when he starts to relate how the hero, who was wrongly

                imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit, escapes from jail, overpowers

                two guards, hijacks a truck and finally brings the real criminal to

                justice, you immediately think it's a film worth going to see.

                But what happens when you see the film and find out that this action

                only takes up forty minutes out of two and a half hours viewing time,

                and that the rest of the film is concerned with the hero's mother taking

                a heart attack, his father running off with the next-door neighbour's

                wife, his brother joining the army, someone feeding poisoned milk to

                his cat and finally strangling his budgie?  You'd probably go looking

                for your friend with a double-barrelled shotgun.

                Now, if that was reversed, and there was two hours of exciting car

                chases, cliffhanger exploits and other death-defying feats, with the

                hero's personal  life only taking up a half-hour scattered throughout

                the picture, then perhaps you'd think it was a really enjoyable picture,

                and you'd  probably invite your friend out for a drink the next time

                you meet him.

                And now, in case you're wondering what all this has to do with Marvel

                comics, I'll explain.  It used to be, in Marvel, that the story was con-

                cerned with the hero trying to capture the villain who set out intriguing

                traps, made sinister schemes and plotted the hero's downfall.  Occasion-

                ally, the personal lives of the characters would be hinted at in order to

                inform the reader that, although it was a superhero mag, the people in

                it were normal, with faults and follies the same as we ourselves.

                Nowadays, I have noticed a growing tendency in your mags (especially

                American) to have the story centered  around the heroes' personal lives,

                with an odd super-villain or two thrown in to provide a bit of action, and

                to remind us we're reading about superheroes.  Don't misunderstand me,

                I'm not saying cut out private lives altogether, all I'm asking is don't play

                them up so much.  A bit of soap-opera is okay once in a while in an odd

                magazine or two, but when you pick up at least ten or twelve mags

                regularly every month and you read nothing but  "O Henry" type of

                stuff, it gets kind of boring.  After all, what would YOU rather watch,

                a James Bond movie or "Crossroads"?

                                                                                                                             Gordon Robson,

                                                                                                                        Glasgow, Scotland.

                We-e-e-ll, from time to time we've had criticism tossed at us, hurled

                at us or gently pushed across the table at us.  But to you, Gordon,

                goes the distinction of being the very first critic to suggest that we

                have too much REALISM in the mags.  That "realism" is one of the

                cornerstones of Marvel.  How do we defend it without defending

                Marvel itself?  So at this stage we're gonna wait for the reaction

                from Marveldom.

******

And here's the reply from LANCE HANSON a few issues later:

BACK TO REALITY

                Dear Sir (and Gordon Robson),

                I absolutely disagree with Gordon Robson's letter in MWOM 226
                about comics having "too much reality".  He wrote, "Which would
                you rather watch, a James Bond movie or Crossroads?"  I would
                watch  James Bond.

                Well, it is my opinion that "the endlessly spreading virus of too
                much reality has finally infected the media which was originally
                created to provide an escape from it, " he wrote.  Very silly.  If I
                wanted laughable comics I would buy them.  But I don't, I buy
                comics to think about what I am reading.  I buy my comics for
                reality.

                If Mr. Robson wanted reality in Marvel, why not buy "Howard
                the Duck"?  Take peter Parker, student at a university.  The death
                of Gwen Stacy shook him, but he soon got out of it..  His friendships
                and hardships with Mary Jane Watson.  His super-hero career does
                not affect him in any way.

                Gordon, make a choice.  Either take a risk of embarrassment and
                read "Funny" comics or read comics filled with signs of reality.
                Think it over again.  You might feel differently.

                                                                                                                                 Lance Hanson,

                                                                                                                   Dudley, W. Midlands. 

I'm sure I replied to Lance's letter, but no longer recall whether it was published or not.  Going by his response to my James Bond comparison, it seems plain that he didn't quite get what I was saying.  In fact, I'm far from convinced that he quite got what he was saying either, as his logic lacks cohesion, based, as it is, on a misunderstanding of my basic point.

Looking at my letter all these years later, I can only wonder why I used an obsolete word like 'relievement' instead of 'relief', but apart from that (and using the word 'media' instead of 'medium'), it wasn't too bad, considering.  So, how do I wrap this up?  Ah, I know... "Make Mine Marvel!"

******

UPDATE: Since first posting this, I've now acquired a replacement copy of the actual issue.  It's like holding a little piece of history in my hands, which helps roll back the years to 1977 as if it were only a couple or so years back.  Incidentally, I now realise why the photocopy of my letter was so faded - the letter itself as printed in the comic wasn't too sharp to begin with.  Still good to have the 'original' back in my possession though.

The ORIGINS Of The BROONS...

Copyright D.C. Thomson & Co., Ltd

Today's The SUNDAY POST has another great giveaway magazine - The BROONS FAMILY TREE - with another album to follow next week.  Featuring strips by the talented KEN H. HARRISON telling the 'origins' of the Broons, this free mag will be sure to delight fans of the only artist since DUDLEY D. WATKINS to do full justice to the aforementioned Scottish family and Oor WULLIE, who first appeared in the paper's FUN SECTION way back in the '30s.

Unfortunately, the designer has gone for the cliched option of making the pages look as if they're part of a family album, which is slightly intrusive and distracting.  The first and last pages would've been fine - but all the way through?!  When is D.C. THOMSON going to learn that 'less is more' and stop compromising the integrity of a comic page with needless clutter?  Some of the pictures also look like they've been resized, and the guttering between panels - as in last week's magazine - is far too large, lending a disjointed look to the finished result.

Still, it's Ken H. Harrison, it's the Broons, and it's free -so despite my few critical reservations, well-worth having.  Rush out and buy your copy of The Sunday Post today!  

Just look at Maggie Broon - no wonder I fancy her!  Well done, Ken

THE 'CROPPER' STRIKES!

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

Amazing, isn't it?  "Er... what is?" you ask.  I'll tell you.  I recently purchased the SPIDER-MAN volume in the series of HACHETTE partworks featuring MARVEL stories, and was pleased to see a recoloured printing of Spidey's debut story from AMAZING FANTASY #15.  (I told you about it here.)

This version had originally appeared in a 2012 reprint of AF #15, which had been released as part of the ol' web-spinner's 50th Anniversary.  I'm a sucker for such publications, but it seems to have slipped under my radar at the time - because I knew nothing about it until I saw it in the Hachette edition.

Well, I just had to have the actual issue, not only because it also contained a recoloured reprint of The AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #1, but because it's simply a great little addition to the collection of any true Marvelite.  So I tracked one down on eBay and sat back to await its arrival, which happened to be this very day.  Guess what though?  The splash page art of AF #15 has been slightly cropped to accommodate the rather lengthy indicia, to my mind somewhat compromising the story's presentation.

That means that the Hachette version is more complete than the Marvel issue it's reprinted from, which is a strange state of affairs to my way of thinking.  So, if you have the recent partwork and were thinking of obtaining the 2012 issue, the former is actually a better presentation than the latter.  One thing the comic has going for it though, is, as I said, a re-coloured reprint of Spidey's first issue of his own mag, so it's worth getting it for that.

Cropped splash page, alas!  Stan and Steve's names are missing

Anyway, here are a few pages from my newly-arrived acquisition, just to let you see what delights you're missing.  Surely my gargantuan generosity knows no bounds?  (Unless you're asking for my very last ROLO - push off, it's all mine.) 

PLEASE FEED THE BEAR...

STEVE HOLLAND's site BEAR ALLEY BOOKS always has something worth reading, as well as many fine publications relating to British comics which you're bound to find interesting if you're a fan of the genre.  Still got unwanted Christmas cash to get rid of?  Then why not visit Steve's site now and see what's on offer?  Just click on the link in the first line to be whisked straight there!

THE BROONS CELEBRATE ROBERT BURNS...

Copyright D.C. THOMSON & Co., Ltd

If you missed out on THE BROONS magazine in THE SUNDAY POST recently, my local newsagent was supplied with a stack of them - but no newspapers to go with them.  I'm sure I could negotiate an acceptable price with him (including post & packing) for anyone desperate for a copy, so contact me via the comments section if you're interested.  I use comment moderation, so your details will remain private.  All dosh will go to the newsagent's, not me, so relax - I won't see a penny of it.

Containing poems by ROBERT BURNS, features, and comic strips (by DUDLEY D. WATKINS, KEN H. HARRISON and PETER DAVIDSON), it's a nice little collectors' item, so grab one now!

LIKE DOGS? LIKE GHOST STORIES? THEN YOU'RE GONNA LOVE THIS...

Mere words from me are superfluous.
Just have a box of handkerchiefs ready.

MOBILE MADNESS...

Mobile 'phones?  Mobile ruddy 'phones?  Don't get me started!  Am I alone in considering them to be the most irritating, infuriating, antisocial invention of modern times?  Help me salvage some rapidly-fading remnant of my hard-pressed sanity and tell me that I'm not the only person on the planet who thinks so.

Don't get me wrong though.  Mobiles are all very well - in their place!  And that place is for making or receiving important calls which, if missed, could leave us knee-deep in the soft, smelly brown stuff.  The trouble is, however, that very few calls or texts actually fall into that category.

The telephone, once a practical and useful tool, has now been demoted to a mere toy - an idle distraction for the easily bored and the feeble-minded, who can never be content to simply be alone with their thoughts on account of not having any to begin with; who have absolutely nothing to say worth saying, but, thanks to the workings of a perverse fate, now have the technology with which to say or text it anyway.

Example: "wot r u up 2  did u c big bruv last nite  c u l8r"

Just think - all over the world, literally millions of people are exchanging such pointless, badly-spelt and punctuation-free drivel countless times a day.  And simply because they can, not because they actually need to.

"But if people are using their mobiles to keep in touch, then in what way are they being antisocial?" you might ask.  Pay attention the next time you see a group of people anywhere.  It's not uncommon to see friends or partners oblivious to one another as they gab or text away on their mobiles to someone else.  Why not just go out with the person on their 'phone if they'd seemingly rather talk to them at the expense of whoever they're with?

That's why they're antisocial.  They drive a wedge between actual physical company and divert the attention of those who should be interacting with each other, as opposed to some ethereal voice or illiterate text on a mobile.  If you were out with some friends who barely spoke a word to you because they were engrossed in deep conversation with one another, it's a safe bet that you wouldn't be too impressed by their manners.

So in what way is it any less rude to ignore those you're with to talk or text on a mobile to someone else?  That disembodied master or mistress whose imperious summons (heralded not by a heavenly fanfare, but rather a tacky and irritating ring-tone) must be answered immediately and cannot be ignored.

Well, excuse me, but I've always thought that technology was supposed to be at our disposal and for our convenience, not the other way around.  Hear that mobile ring - see its slave give a convincing impression of someone who's just had a tub of itching powder dumped down the back of their neck as, seemingly in the throes of spasm, they frantically check every pocket or aperture that fashion provides in order to obtain their regular fix of 'mobile madness'.

This mobile madness, however, isn't confined only to adults.  Teens and children as young as 11 or 12 are falling victim to Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI), brought on by continually texting their friends.  RSI?  That's got to be one hell of a lot of texting!

How sad.  Where kids once merrily played together in fields and parks or each others' gardens, they now spend a disproportionate amount of time in their rooms texting (or emailing) their pals, instead of interacting together face-to-face.  And, just like 'adults', when they are with their pals, they often ignore them while they text friends who are elsewhere.

"A fool and his money are soon parted" runs the old saying.  Considering the obscene profits reaped by mobile 'phone companies from the exchange of  unnecessary communications between simpletons, it's plain to see that this maxim is true many millions of times over.

So, let me ask you all a question.  Do you possess a mobile 'phone - or does a mobile 'phone possess you? 

ASTERIX The GAUL COVER GALLERY... (Updated)

Copyright relevant owner

It was 1975 or '76 - I was 16 or 17 years old and working in the warehouse of my local BOOTS The CHEMIST.  On my day off one Saturday, having been paid my hard-earned wages the day before, I treated myself to some ASTERIX The GAUL softcover books, which have been in my possession ever since.  I've long meant to upgrade to hardback, but, somehow (aside from an Omnibus or three), have never quite gotten around to it.

I'd decided to purchase them because I remembered looking through a French edition in my school library one lazy, hazy, summer afternoon in 1973 or '74, which already seemed like the dim and distant past to me by the time I came to be a working lad with a bit of spare cash to spend.  I recall being much impressed by the artwork, so I suppose it was inevitable that I would eventually buy copies for myself when I spotted them in my local branch of JOHN MENZIES while browsing in their book department one day.  (Though I have a nagging suspicion I may have bought some in Boots itself.)

In the mid-'80s, when I was commuting to London every week during my freelancing days at IPC, I was given some file-copies of RANGER magazine (which I still have) by one of the editors, and was surprised to see that it had reprinted some of the Asterix strips in 1965 under a different title: BRITONS NEVER, NEVER, NEVER SHALL BE SLAVES.  The setting was changed from Gaul to Britain and Asterix was renamed BERIC The BOLD, and OBELIX became DORIC, the son of BOADICEA.  Their shield-riding leader, CHIEF VITALSTATISTIX, was called CHIEF TUNNABRIX, which I happen to think is actually a far better name.

I was equally surprised to later learn that, just over a year earlier ('63), popular boys comic VALIANT had reprinted the first Asterix adventure under the title of LITTLE FRED - The ANCIENT BRIT With LOADS Of GRIT.  It would be 1969 before Asterix landed on these shores speaking English under his own name, and his full-colour books have enjoyed immense popularity ever since.  If memory hasn't failed me, I bought nine albums on that afternoon back in 1976, got another one not too long after, and acquired six more over the next three years or so, completing the first 16 in the series.

As everybody and their brother will doubtless already know, Asterix the Gaul was created by RENE GOSCINNY and ALBERT UDERZO and first appeared in the French magazine PILOTE in 1959.  The art is simply superb and I can think of a few cartoonists working in British comics today who'd be well-served by following Uderzo's example of how it should be done.  The English versions were translated by ANTHEA BELL and DEREK HOCKRIDGE, and later, I think, by Anthea herself, though I've no idea who currently performs the task.

Here then, in honour of the gallus little Gaul, is a cover gallery of those 16 softcover books in my collection.  I've probably got a few other tales in my hardback Omnibus volumes, but one day I really must get around to obtaining the full set.  If you don't have any Asterix books of your own, run out and buy some today!

Update: In 2004, the books were revised, being relettered and recoloured (or perhaps just using plates with the original French colouring), and the results are (mostly) a vast improvement when compared to the previous English-language editions.  Uderzo also redrew the two introductory pages, and at some stage he produced a new cover, though I'm uncertain whether this was for the revised edition of 2004 or was done later.  The new cover is shown below, first by itself and then alongside the original to better facilitate direct comparison.

Incidentally, the new UK edition featured the redrawn rendition of page 35, produced by MARCEL UDERZO (Albert's brother) in 1970 when the original plate was lost, whereas previous UK volumes had used a blurry image of the original page sourced from an earlier French printing featuring Albert's version.

BUDDY, CAN YOU SPARE A DIME? (Updated)

For the background to this post, click here.

******

Over on William Peace's blog, someone has left a snide comment, saying "Kid Robson is a troll.  Ignore."  Think about that for a moment.  Surely the definition of a 'troll' is someone (usually anonymous) who leaves childish, inane remarks that aren't pertinent to the matter under discussion, for the purpose of insulting another person or sowing discord?  I wonder if the commenter is aware of the irony of his actions, but I doubt it.  It seems that some people think the Internet was invented solely for those in perfect agreement on everything to communicate with one another, and therefore object to any form of lively discussion on the part of others.  

Mr. Peace says that, due to the response my remarks have generated, the thread has now deteriorated and he will delete all future comments from everyone.  He could simply delete those he regards as "empty rhetoric", but it appears to be mainly the comments for which he has no answer and wishes to evade that are the true targets of his ire.  I was unaware when I initially replied to the post that it was three years old, but a number of folks disagree with Mr. Peace's viewpoint in no uncertain terms - a few are quite insulting, in fact.  My comment, on the other hand, is perfectly polite and (more importantly) pertinent - it's only 'fault' being that it disagrees with Mr. Peace'e fundamentally flawed view that anything he regards as showing disabled people in what he sees as a negative light serves only to reinforce a stereotype of them.

But Mr. Peace is, I believe, mistaken - it doesn't!  Let us now, for the purpose of discussion, consider his proposition that the blind beggar comes across as a bit of thicko in the ad.  So what?  Disability is no respecter of persons, afflicting people from every walk of life regardless of age, gender, status or intellect.  Is Mr. Peace saying that there are no physically disabled people who are far from the sharpest tool in the box?  When I watch the video, I do not come away from it thinking that all (or even any) blind beggars are 'useless' and 'thick' (and I sincerely doubt that any fair-minded, rational person without an axe to grind does either), only that, for the purpose of the ad, a beggar of average intelligence was required.  (I did wonder why the woman was wearing sunglasses on a dull, rainy day though.)

Another thing - it wasn't just the beggar who failed to see the potential benefit in rewording his sign; the other passers-by were equally as unimaginative - as was everybody who watched the ad.  It can't be claimed that the man was portrayed as being stupid without levelling the exact same charge at everyone else (bar one), as well as the entire viewing audience.  However, if an able-bodied person were to suggest that it made 'people' look stupid, you'd think that he'd had too much vinegar on his chips and was over-reacting.

Consider this: Ads usually portray situations in a way best-suited to serve whatever idea or product the advertiser is trying to promote.  Shortcuts are usually taken, hence the woman not seeking permission to change the beggar's sign, nor him asking what she's doing as she writes it.  Or, indeed, asking consent to touch the woman's shoes, as a fellow 'activist' complains on the site that Mr. Peace links to in support of his views.  (Saying that other people think the same as him is hardly the clincher he seems to think it is.)

A lot of disabled people are largely self-sufficient in their day-to-day lives, but, equally, many aren't, relying on family, friends and paid carers for assistance in order to make their lives easier or, in some cases, even bearable.  (Depends on the disability, obviously.)  Mr. Peace's problem seems to stem from his resentment of the notion that not all disabled people are as capable as their more able-bodied counterparts.  Well, Mr. Peace, it's a sad fact that not all of them are.  The clue is in the name - 'disabled'.

Yet another case of political correctness gone mad, I'm bound to say.  Should disabled people only ever be portrayed as intellectual giants whose physical disabilities are mere minor inconveniences, and who are far better and more capable human beings than those who haven't been 'blessed' with some form of physical impairment?  (In just the same way that homosexual couples who adopt, always seem to be shown as loving, caring parents to a degree that heterosexual parents can only dream of.)

That way lies madness.  If disabled activists are genuine in their claim that all they want is to be treated in the same way as the able-bodied, then they should be prepared to put up with advertisers treating them in the same manner as they do everyone else - as people to be exploited.  That's true equality.  Welcome to the real world, Mr. Peace!

Sadly, in this instance, Mr. Peace comes across as just another guy with a giant chip on his shoulder who wants to bully the rest of society into seeing and doing things his way.  Perish forbid that any able-bodied person should ever be portrayed as being smarter than a disabled one, or shown assisting or bestowing an act of assistance on anyone less fortunate.  That would never do.

******

Agree, disagree, couldn't care less?  Or would you prefer a punch-up at the back of the pub?  Feel free to have your say in the comments section - or not, as the case may be.

******

As someone seems to be exploiting this topic to 'settle old scores' over in the comments section of Mr. Peace's post on this subject, let me just make it clear that I hold no personal animosity towards him.  It is only on this one matter that I feel he is not only mistaken, but damages his own credibility in his response to an ad which I (and many others, some of whom are disabled themselves) feel he has over-reacted to.  Also, in 'shifting the goalposts' for his reason for objecting to the ad and removing my follow-up comment pointing this out, I feel that he has been less than honest.

As, I'm saddened to say, he has also been in saying that he would publish no further comments from anyone on the matter and then allowing a number of 'anonymous' attacks on me by one or two people without the guts to identify themselves (or reply to my post) who have sought to exploit the occasion for reasons of their own.  It's strange that none of the more vociferous replies to Mr. Peace's post have attracted the same kind of hostile attention as my own far more mild and moderate one.  Strange indeed.

Says it all really.

JUST OUT OF REACH...

Tense, nervous, headache?  Tired and worn out from the cares of the day?  Then what you need is a mental massage to soothe and relax you, and nothing does that better than the velvet-voiced musical marvel that was - that is - JIM REEVES!

So, plug in your headphones, click the above link, then sit back and feel all your worries melt away.

GOOD OR BAD? YOU DECIDE...

MARK EVANIER, one-time assistant to the legendary JACK KIRBY, recently embedded a video (on his mostly excellent blog) which has turned out to be quite controversial.  No fault of Mr. Evanier it has to be said, but a disabled person who calls himself BAD CRIPPLE has taken against it.  The video is an ad by a company called PURPLE FEATHER, and Bad Cripple (I don't even like typing the name, so let's call him by the other one he uses, WILLIAM PEACE) claims that it shows disabled people (in this case, a blind man, or perhaps an actor playing blind) in a negative light.  Watch the video and see what you think.

(Incidentally, the ad was filmed at the back steps of the premises which once housed BORDERS, behind The Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow, for those of you who may be interested in such things.)

I left a comment on the man's site (as did numerous others), politely stating that he was perhaps over-reacting, and asking him if he would've had a problem if the beggar hadn't been blind, but merely homeless, and the woman had changed his sign to 'It's a beautiful day, but it'll be a cold night on the street'.  (You'll understand what I'm alluding to if you watch the ad.)  Mr. Peace then changed tack, and said that he was offended by anyone having to beg, "disabled or not".  I politely pointed out that this was a different argument, as his original stated objection had been to the depiction (in his view) of disabled people in a stereotypical, negative way, not people ("disabled or not") who had (or chose) to beg.

I also observed that perhaps the man was begging not because he was blind, but for some other reason(s), and that maybe his blindness was unconnected to his current situation.  Sure, his sign said "I'm blind - please help", but this could merely be due to matters of expediency.  After all, "I'm an alcoholic junkie- please help"  (or whatever) is hardly likely to produce the desired result.  Mr. Peace decided  not to respond to my points (which he's perfectly entitled to do - it's his blog after all), but he deleted my second comment, which, I feel, demonstrates his inability to deal with what I feel were pertinent points contained therein.

However, it raises an interesting question.  Whenever disaster strikes anywhere on the planet, should aid agencies and charities refrain from showing us the effects it has on people's lives for fear of portraying them in a disadvantaged way, in need of assistance from the global community?  And the same goes in the case of disabled people.  Surely the best way to solicit help - when it is needed - is to show (within reason) the ugly realities that  people in such situations have to deal with.

While it's true that the ad is designed to draw attentiom to the company that produced it rather than the plight of disadvantaged or disabled people, it is surely treating them in exactly the same manner as it treats the able-bodied (as players in a story) - which is surely the aim of every disabled person everywhere?  That is, to be treated exactly the same as everybody else.  So, what's Mr. Peace's problem?

(It's interesting, though, that it's not the beggar who wears the shades, but the 'insightful' woman who rewrites his sign.  Was it intended as some kind of irony perhaps?  At least they avoided the stereotype of non-sighted people always wearing dark glasses.) 

Do you think the ad is a good or a bad thing?  Take a look, and then say what you think in the comments section.

WHAT'S IN A BOOK?

Illustrated by ERNEST H. SHEPARD

You're looking at a book I bought back around 1977 or so.  "Big deal!" a few of you may be thinking, but I've posted it here because it reminds me of so many different moments in my life.  Of course, I've wittered on before about the associations that items can conjure up, but if I didn't return to a topic from time to time, I'd have little to write about - and then some of you might be placed in the unfortunate position of having to find something a lot more worthwhile to do with your time than read this humble blog of mine.

I first saw this version of one of the all-time classics of literature in a magazine ad while awaiting my turn in a barber's shop one afternoon, circa 1976 or '77.  (Actually, it was a ladies hairdressing salon by the name of MARINA, which accommodated a traditional gents barber in a partitioned section at the back of the shop.)  Several weeks later, I ordered a copy from a great place called MODATOYS in the local shopping precinct of one of my old neighbourhoods, and patiently waited to be informed of its arrival.

About a month or so later, myself and a friend decided to visit our old primary schools.  He had gone to one just around the corner from where I lived, and I had gone to another one not too far away from it when I had resided in a different part of the area quite a number of years previously.  After visiting those two schools and being given guided tours around them by their respective secretaries, we then called in upon the school we had both attended while living in another neighbourhood, the same one in which was located the toy (and book) shop referred to in the previous paragraph.

I should perhaps mention that we were only around 17 or 18, and schools were much more welcoming to former pupils - and far less security-conscious - than they are nowadays.  To once again walk the corridors and view the classrooms of our childhood was a magical thing, even though it had only been about six or seven years since we'd left.  Of course, at that time, those years were almost a third of our lives away, so, proportionately, it seemed like a much longer period than it would seem to me today.  (These days, six or seven years appear to be roughly equivalent to a fortnight back then.)

Anyway, being in the neighbourhood, we dropped in to the shop to enquire about my book.  Imagine my surprise to discover that they had 'phoned my house a couple of weeks earlier to let me know that the book was now in stock.  I had been out, but they had left a message with my father to pass on to me, which he hadn't.  Thanks, dad!  I didn't have enough on me, but I returned to the shop a few days later and paid for my new acquisition.

(Funnily enough, a few years later, another friend of mine relocated to England, and would 'phone me from work from time to time.  If I wasn't in, he would ask my father to let me know he had called, which he never did.  A case of parents regarding the affairs of their offspring as being too insignificant to worry about, much less remember, I guess, but it was annoying.  I only found out about them when my friend mentioned it in a 'cassette-a-letter' some time later.)

Anyway, back to the book.  Sometime back around 1985 or '86, having moved to yet another house, I bought a second copy of the same edition from a book club, and placed it alongside its predecessor on my shelf.  The later edition was slightly slimmer (thinner pages), and had an orange cloth cover as opposed to red, but I got it in an introductory offer for about 50 pence (or less) so it was a welcome addition/spare to my collection.

So, whenever, I look at this particular edition of The WIND In The WILLOWS, there are many different things I associate with it: The barber shop (which only recently relocated, but the separate section for gents was phased out long ago), the toy and book shop (now long-gone, alas, but it was there a good number of years and is sadly missed), the three primary schools of me and my friend (the one we both attended currently being demolished, the previous two not long fallen to the same fate), the two houses in which I lived when I obtained each copy of that particular edition - and last, but  not least, my long-vanished youth, when I was young, strong and fit, with more years ahead of me than behind me - no longer the case, alas.

It also reminds me of my father's annoying inability to ever pass on a message.  All that history - and so much more besides - contained within the pages of one book.  Amazing when you think about it, eh?  If there are any particular books which conjure up distinct recollections of your own past, please feel free to share them with the rest of us in the comments section.

SPIDER-MAN 'REMASTERED'...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

I'm sure you all know about the HACHETTE PARTWORKS series of MARVEL books by now, but I thought I'd remind you that Part 2, which is currently on sale, contains a recoloured presentation of AMAZING FANTASY #15 - SPIDER-MAN's first appearance.   This version was originally available in 2012 as part of Spidey's 50th anniversary, and makes for an interesting comparison to the original 1962 issue, colour-wise.

I think the new colouring job gives the art an extra depth and has been very well-done, although I have some reservations about the choice of colours used.  (I'd prefer to see something closer to the original colour palette, but with the modern, almost 3D look.)

Unfortunately, the book perpetuates the official myth about AF #15, long since debunked by the actual facts of the case (see here), but, that apart, it's well-worth £6.99.  (Regular price from Part 3 will be £9.99.)  Part 1 also contains an error, in that it lists IRON MAN's first appearance as TALES Of SUSPENSE #29, as opposed to #39.  Probably just a typo though, as a thumbnail of the issue's cover was included.

So, what are you waiting for?  ON SALE NOW!