PART TWO Of The TITANS CENTRE-SPREAD POSTER GALLERY...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Okay, peeps, here's the second part of our super-duper centre-spread poster cover gallery from MARVEL U.K.'s mid-'70s weekly The TITANS.  Those of you with computer colouring technology should have a go at adding colour to your favourites and let the rest of us see the results.  Go on - give it a go - I know you're dying to give it a bash.  (Hoi!  Behave.)

PART TWO OF WHIZZER & CHIPS ANNUAL COVER GALLERY...

Copyright relevant owner

Wow!  Another six WHIZZER & CHIPS Annual covers.  What's not to like?  So - were you a Whizz-Kid or a Chip-ite - and why?  C'mon, folks - join in the fun!

LIGHTNING STRIKES ONCE...

Image copyright DC COMICS

So just who created SUPERMAN?  JERRY SIEGEL and JOE SHUSTER, wasn't it?  Well, what about CAPTAIN AMERICA?  JOE SIMON and JACK KIRBY we're told.  And The BATMAN?  BOB KANE and BILL FINGER it's said.  How about SPIDER-MAN?  That's surely an easy one - STAN LEE and STEVE DITKO.  There are other characters we could consider, but these four iconic superheroes will do for now.

I seem to recall reading an account by Jerry Siegel, many years ago, that he dreamt up the concept of Superman overnight, then rushed around to his pal Joe's family apartment and described his creation to the young artist, who sketched out the character described to him.  It's interesting to note that while Siegel denied being influenced by PHILIP WYLIE's 1930 pulp novel, GLADIATOR, Superman wore gladiator-type thonged footwear in his earliest appearances in DC's ACTION COMICS.

When it comes to Captain America, Joe Simon claimed he'd created the character and designed the costume, and the earliest existing sketch of Cap is indeed by Joe.  As for Batman, Bob Kane's vision of the Dark Knight was someone wearing a domino mask and bat wings - it was Bill Finger who recommended the pointy-eared cowl which imbued the character with the element of mystery we all know and love.

Spider-Man is a slightly more complicated - if we believe Jack Kirby's claim that he created the character.  However, we can quickly dismiss the idea; even if Jack had suggested the outline to Stan, he was merely recycling an idea by Joe Simon and JACK OLECK that had evolved into The FLY.  Funny thing about the poster boy for the 'hard-done-to' brigade - he was never slow to diminish his collaborators' contributions when recounting his career years later.  According to Jack, on the few occasions he deigned to mention him, Joe Simon was mainly the guy who cut the deals for the duo and did the bookkeeping, and Stan Lee was merely an editor who never created or wrote anything in his life.

So let's accept Stan's account of creating the concept for Spidey, and give Steve credit for the costume design and adding the web-shooters and various other details.  That's something all of those characters had in common - someone dreamt up the initial concept, and someone else was responsible for realising the visual aspect of that concept.  That surely means that when the readers first saw the finished article in published form, it was the result of at least two co-creators - to some degree or other.

One could argue that, as Shuster mainly drew what Siegel described, then Siegel was the primary creator and could have used any other artist, without much difference to the end result - apart from one of style.  Same goes for the good Captain: Joe Simon came up with the idea and the look, Jack 'merely' drew the comic.  

What we forget after all these years though is that, back in the day, when a book was a hit, those who produced it (writer and artist) were described as the 'creators'.  However, this mainly referred to their status as joint 'authors' of the published comic, not necessarily joint creators of the original idea for the character.  It wasn't intended to accord equal status to both parties in coming up with the original concept - except in cases where they had!

Although Steve designed the Spidey outfit, it's not unlikely that Stan had said something along the lines of "Put some spider webs on his costume and make him look sorta spidery."  If so, Stan could always claim that Steve was only following his suggestions for the costume, but as we all well know, suggestions can be interpreted in different ways.  (I should stress that Stan, as far as I know, has never attempted to claim credit for Spider-Man's outfit.  Jack Kirby did though, several times, until it was pointed out to him that he was wrong and actually hadn't.)

So imagine the following scenario: Someone dreams up an idea for a character which is pretty well complete.  He gives an outline of the costume design, but it's the actual artist who interprets it - even though one or two other people may suggest minor revisions which are incorporated into the finished look as illustrated by the artist.  As comics are a visual medium, the published article as seen by the public is mainly a collaboration between two people, even if others (editors, for example) had some input along the way.  What the reader gets is a combination of what the writer wrote and the artist drew in the pages of the printed comic.  Surely it would be wrong for the architect of a house to deny the builder his right to claim he built it?  Not a perfect analogy by any means, but it carries the essence of the matter.

It's on that basis Joe Shuster was given credit as co-creator alongside Jerry Siegel, Jack Kirby alongside Joe Simon, Bill Finger (retroactively) alongside Bob Kane, and Steve Ditko alongside Stan Lee.  At least, that's the way the readers view things.  It seems only fair then, that on that same basis, TREVOR VON EEDEN, whether he wants it or not, can legitimately be regarded as co-creator on BLACK LIGHTNING - as the published mag, and the character, looked the way they did as a direct result of his artwork.  And, unless the writer gave him a sketch (even a poorly drawn one) that was unmistakably the costume that Trevor ended up drawing, his interpretation of any instructions or suggestions given to him carried his stamp.  Another artist, given the exact same description, may well have come up with something quite different.

Disagree?  Well, as everyone knows, I'm not the dogmatic type.  The floor is yours - if you want it.

THE RETURN OF THE 'KELVIN KID'...

Today was a milestone of sorts for me in a strange kind of way.  I'd been jaunting (no, not like The TOMORROW PEOPLE before you ask, more like The YESTERDAY MAN) around my home town, photographing three nascent building sites in areas connected to my childhood - before they change beyond all recognition.

One was just across the road from where I resided in 1964/'65, and, on a whim, I chapped the door of my old house.  I explained to the fella who answered that I'd once lived there, and asked if he'd do me a favour by taking a photo or two of the view from my old bedroom window.  He invited me in to take them myself, and that's how I found myself in the home I'd once inhabited, for the first time in 50 years.

This was the house I was staying in when TV CENTURY 21 first came out, and got my second MARX TOYS YOGI BEAR on a scooter for my 6th or 7th birthday.  I think I may have got my Marx YOGI & HUCK ramp walker in this house also - though it could've been the previous one (unsure).  Having now been back in this former residence, all my associated memories seem much more vivid and not quite so long ago.

I think I'll dig out some TV21s later and re-read them, occasionally glancing at the photos you're now looking at, and - well - just remember how things used to be.

The TITANS CENTRE-SPREAD POSTER GALLERY - PART ONE...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS, CONAN copyright CPI

Above is the free gift poster that came with issue #1 of The TITANS.  Below are the centre-spread posters that started in issue #2.  Someone got the numbering mixed up because they couldn't work out if the colour poster should be counted or not, but don't let that confuse you - none are missing.

Click to enlarge, click again for optimum size.

BABE Of The DAY - VENUS...

Here's a blonde bombshell any man

would be proud to be seen with on his arm.

So what if she's only 2 feet tall and a puppet!

 What are you?  Some kind of bigot?

HARRY PALMER? NO - PETER PALMER...

Image copyright MARVEL COMICS

STAN LEE's poor memory is well-known.  One of the reasons he gave his characters alliterative names was to make them easier to remember, but even then, he sometimes slipped up.  We all know about BOB BANNER instead of BRUCE (FF #25), and we also probably all know about PETER PALMER instead of PARKER (ASM #1), but I thought it would be interesting to show the latter error from a British printing in the POW! Annual for 1968.  Just look at that awful colouring - a white THING, for crying out loud.

Strangely, the name had been corrected to Parker when the tale was printed earlier in Pow! #2 in January 1967, so why it got overlooked in the Annual (released August/September '67) is a bit of a mystery.  Well, no it isn't - it's because of poor proof-reading on the part of the editor, but I was trying not to say so.  (Failed.)

Sometimes I think I would've preferred Peter's surname being Palmer, so it's nice to see 'what might have been', captured in the pages of a British publication from the 1960s.  Unless one happened to own ASM #1 (which I do), this little slice of history would probably have been unknown to U.K. readers until many years after-the-fact.  Anyway, you may have heard of this slip-up before, but now you can actually see it for yourself.

BABE Of The DAY - GRACE LEE WHITNEY...

Here we go - after the fun of the

last couple of posts, we return to normal

with latest Babe, GRACE LEE WHITNEY

as Yeoman JANICE RAND in TV's STAR

TREK.  She appeared in only eight episodes

of the first series before being written out,

though she returned for four of the big

 screen movies.  (Welcome back.)

GAY Of The DAY - DENNIS The MENACE From VENICE (& FRIEND)...

Okay let's have a laugh.  Remember now, I'm using the word in its original sense, meaning happy, etc., not the way in which it's misapplied nowadays.  So, look at these two happy chappies - Dennis and Walter.  Now where've I heard these names before?  And don't go getting the wrong idea - just because they share a garden shed and lock themselves away in it for hours on end means nothing.  They're simply using it as a dark room to develop their photos.

HUNK Of The MONTH - BILL PRATT...

What a gorgeous hunk of monsterhood.  Look at those pins - the ones holding him together, I mean.  Doesn't your pulse quicken at the merest glance from under his hooded eyelids?  Not quite a self-made man, but only one step removed from it.  Here he is, girls - I give you the one and only - BILL PRATT!  (But you can call him BORIS.) 

AGAIN - THE NICHOLAS BROTHERS...

The NICHOLAS BROTHERS seemed to go down

well last time, so here they are again in a tap-dancing

frenzy that will astound you.  Don't try this at home.

HEY, S.A.M. - YOU GOT A MOMENT?

Y'know, I really hate liars.  One of my childhood friends was an inveterate liar and, years later, in adulthood, I eventually stopped having anything to do with him because of it.  Liars are evil, because they rob you of the truth to which you are entitled from your fellow human beings.  People who lie to you don't respect you, and people who don't respect you aren't deserving of the courtesy of your time and attention when they only want to abuse it.  So, the subject of today's post is liars - which brings me neatly to Mr. TONY ISABELLA.

Mr. Isabella has worked for various comic companies such as DC and MARVEL over the years, and although I've never considered him to be a 'major' talent, or in the top tier of comicbook creators, I thought him deserving of some respect for being there in the 'Bronze Age' when comics were more entertaining than they are now.  I accorded him that respect when I joined his blog after discovering a link to it on another site.  Whenever I visited, I would observe him indulge in a tirade of vitriol and invective against any poor commenter who didn't happen to agree with him.

The more I read, the more convinced I became that he was a thoroughly unpleasant, obnoxious little man with a huge chip on his shoulder, so I stopped following his site and removed my avatar from his list of members.  I kept a link to his site in my blog-list though, to provide a service to my own readers who might like to read his more informative posts which didn't involve him insulting people for no justifiable reason.  I still visited his site myself on occasion and, I must confess, sometimes wondered whether his abrasive and aggressive manner was a facade - a part he was playing for entertainment value.

"Well, hold on a moment, Kid", you may be saying.  "Mr. Isabella may be no STAN LEE or ARCHIE GOODWIN or DENNY O'NEIL, but he's made a far bigger splash in the comicbook biz than you ever did." 

True, but the main difference between us is that I've always been fully aware of my status as virtual non-entity and been quite content with it.  Even when I was a full-time working contributor to comics like 2000 A.D. and being asked for my autograph because of it, I obliged rather sheepishly because I knew I was bathing in the reflected glory of something greater than myself, and that my signature wasn't being sought on its own merits, but merely for the link it provided to someone's favourite mag.  As I've said before, had I only been the 2000 A.D. teaboy, I'd still have been asked for my autograph, such is the rabid desire of some fans to connect to it in some way.  (And I'm not knocking that in the slightest.)

One only has to read Mr. Isabella's blog posts to see that he considers himself to be one of the more important comicbook writers of his generation.  And there may even be people who agree with his generous self-assessment.  I'm no expert on his career, admittedly, but adding the word 'Black ' to the names of two minor characters who never truly made the grade hardly strikes me as an act of creative genius.  I'm not saying his work was bad, mind, but it was hardly memorable, or in the same league as the true giants of the industry.  (And we all know who they are.)

Regular readers will likely know of the recent disagreement between myself and Mr. Isabella (for those who don't and want to read the full details, click here).  Basically, I left some perfectly innocuous comments on Mr. Isabella's blog and was lambasted for them.  It didn't help that someone in pursuit of settling a grudge on behalf of one of his friends jumped in to stir the pot.  I suspect that he meant to comment anonymously, but in his haste forgot, because similar comments have previously been left on other blog sites I've visited.  Yes, it really is true - at least one saddo is on a mission to malign me whenever he perceives an opportunity to do so, so obsessed is he with turning internet opinion against me.  (Hey, as if I need any help with that.)

"But we know all this - you've covered it already" you cry.  Yes, but here's the latest.  On a recent blog post, in which Mr. Isabella once again assumes the role of campaigning crusader in rabid pursuit of crushing all dissent to his 'valorous' view of things (thereby forcibly thrusting himself into the limelight and stealing a disproportionate share of attention - must have a garage sale coming up), he makes this obvious reference to me.

"Almost all of the comments I received were supportive of whatever decision I made.  (That's perhaps having his cake and eating it.  Some said he should go to the convention he said he wasn't going to go to, others said he shouldn't.  I'd say that means that opinion was divided, but what do I know?)  Some of my readers and Facebook friends gave me a lot to think about.  I was pleased that only one clearly homophobic reader - and from another country at that - posted to this bloggy thing with his tired 'you're intolerant because you don't respect my intolerance' crap.  Excuse me as I pause a moment to roll my eyes at his hate-fueled idiocy."

Let's deal with that distorted and dishonest representation of my comments.  First of all, they were not intolerant.  Society as a whole tolerates homosexuals - but that doesn't mean that those who are uncomfortable with the gay lifestyle on the basis of religious, cultural, or an instinctive aversion to it, have to approve, endorse, or embrace it - or subjugate their opinions or beliefs to those who hold a different view.  As I was merely trying to suggest that we should all behave courteously and respectfully to those we disagree with (and that includes Mr. Isabella), I don't think that my attitude can fairly be described as either 'intolerant' or 'homophobic'.  (It appears that only people like Mr. Isabella are allowed to categorise our concerns, not ourselves.)

Mr. Isabella is fully entitled to express opinions entirely different to mine or anybody else's.  However, just because he may not understand a point of view, it doesn't mean that he, in his ignorant incomprehension, is entitled to to lambast, insult, denigrate, or be dismissive of folk merely on the basis that they hold a different opinion to his.  Not everyone who has reservations over the spread of gay culture is a 'homophobe' (a ridiculous word, in my opinion, used only to diminish the opinion of those who have concerns on the subject), because they don't hate gay people, they just aren't comfortable with what they represent.  Do you think they're wrong?  Fine, but they're entitled to their opinion - a traditional opinion that goes back many years.

Remember, however absurd you may think it is for some baker to decline to make a cake for a gay wedding, should he be stopped from not wanting to be involved, even in a small way, in something which he feels would compromise his beliefs?  If you wanted a Muslim baker to make a cake with an image of the prophet Mohammed on it, should he be compelled by law to do so?  Remember, no-one's advocating that gays should be denied medical aid or hospital treatment, or police protection, or demanding that they be locked up, or verbally or physically abused, or any of that nonsense; all that the Indiana legislation is designed to do, it seems to me, is protect religious-minded people from having to compromise their conscience in the matter of being forced to do things that they don't feel comfortable with.

Let's be clear.  Small things, nothing major that would seriously impact on the life of a gay person with a choice of options (and bakeries).  And as Mr. Isabella is so fond of calling for boycotts of those he sees as 'bigots', why doesn't he simply advocate that, rather than insist on being served by an alleged 'bigot', the would-be customer just take his business elsewhere?

   

It seems to me that a balance needs to be struck to accommodate people of different persuasions, and however clumsily it may have been done, that's what the Indiana legislation was trying to do.  Which doesn't mean that everybody who voted on it was necessarily singing from the same hymn sheet - some may well have had different agendas - but it's likely that, on the whole, it wasn't so much 'anti-gay' as 'pro-straight'.  Some people will think that the latter automatically translates as the former, but all I mean is that it was trying to acknowledge that it's not only gay people who have rights in America.  Could the bill be misused by those determined to do so?  Sure, but so can any law until the wrinkles get ironed out.

I don't think I've ever hated anyone simply for thinking differently to myself.  On this 'ere blog of mine, you've seen for yourselves that I'm perfectly willing not only to allow people to express dissenting opinions to my own, but to discuss and explore a topic, and try to get to the heart of the matter - purely in pursuit of understanding.  People like Mr. Isabella however - angry, bitter, self-opinionated, hate-filled people who resent anybody thinking differently to them, and who insult, denigrate, abuse and malign anyone who does - while posing as the champion of the oppressed and downtrodden in an attempt to increase their public profile, well - we should perhaps feel pity for them.  Mr. Isabella, in wilfully misrepresenting my comments and their motivation (eagerly egged on by those pursuing an obsessive grudge), has revealed that he is a man bereft of honesty, and worthy of no respect whatsoever.  At least, not from me, he isn't!

Except, perhaps, for his impressive ability in the 'art' of shameless self-promotion.

(BOND) BABE Of The DAY - MARGARET NOLAN...

Once again, magnificent MARGARET

NOLAN graces our Babe post, spreading joy,

happiness, awe and adoration in the hearts of us

'mere' men.  (Just throwing the feminists a bone

following my previous post.  After all, you know

how insecure and sensitive they all are.) 

The ISLAND Of BEASTS...

Copyright relevant owner

Again, from the 1968 POW! Annual, a six-page tale entitled The ISLAND Of BEASTS, which sounds like a feminist's idea of a 'men only' holiday resort - but we all know how they resent our obvious physical and intellectual superiority in all things important, so we'll forgive them their bitterness, resentment and envy.

The artwork looks to me to be that of LUIS BERMEJO, who also drew The MISSING LINK/JOHNNY FUTURE in FANTASTIC, and is a superbly talented illustrator, I'm sure you agree.  Anyway, I haven't read this adventure in a few years, so let's re-explore its delights together.

Ready?  Then let's go!

JUST FOR KICKS...

Copyright REBELLION

Here's a two-page strip from the POW! Annual for 1968, drawn, I believe, by GRAHAM ALLEN.  In his time, Allen has worked for many comics, such as LION, BUSTER, WHAM!, SMASH!, POW!, WHIZZER & CHIPS, COR!!, TV21, LOOK-IN, SCORE 'N' ROAR, WHOOPEE!, PLUG and TV COMIC - and that's just part of his output over the years.  Truly, one of Britain's greats.

BABE Of The DAY - CANDY LOVING...

Right, who all loves CANDY?  Well,

here you are then.  Wish granted.

PART FOUR Of UNTOLD TALES Of SPIDER-MAN COVER & IMAGE GALLERY...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

First, the bad news.  I'm unable to open the Spidey Special at the foot of this post wide enough to scan the interiors without damaging it, so you're going to have to settle for the front and back covers.  Also, my FLASHBACK comics are up in my attic somewhere, so I can't, at the moment, scan the splash page from the featured issue, but when I can, I'll add it later.  Fortunately, I'd already scanned the cover for an earlier post, which is why I can show it here.

So here we are with the final part of the cover gallery of UNTOLD TALES Of SPIDER-MAN for you to dribble and drool over.  There are some nice images here, reminiscent of STEVE DITKO's artwork on the character back in the 1960s, the definitive look for Spidey in many people's opinion.  Did you read Untold Tales back in the mid-'90s?  Any reminiscences or observations that you'd care to share with your fellow Criv-ites would be most welcome.

Seat-belt fastened?  Then away we goooooooo!