FANCY SOME MARVEL UK BULLPEN BEDLAM? THEN READ ON...

Copyright relevant owner

Okay, who remembers the MARVEL UK weekly comic The ORIGINAL X-MEN from back in the early '80s?  If you're a longterm reader, you should at least be familiar with it, as I did a cover gallery of the title on the blog only a few short years ago.  Back then (in the '80s I mean), most British Marvel comics usually contained half-page strips by TIM QUINN & DICKY HOWETT, which were invariably hilarious (I thought) and added something extra to what were mainly reprint comics.

Anyway, I was poring through some back issues of The Original X-Men earlier and re-reading some of the Quinn & Howett lunacy, and thought I'd share a couple of them here.  Hope you enjoy them, and I'd say it's well-past time PANINI (if they own the copyright and haven't done so already) considered colouring the strips by the pair and releasing them in a nice Special Collected Edition.  What say you all?

ALLY SLOPER - FOURTH & FINAL ISSUE...

Copyright relevant owner

Just over 6 years ago, I decided to feature the late DENIS GIFFORD's 4-issue monthly ALLY SLOPER magazine, but I've just noticed that it seems I only ever showcased the first 3.  So back into the cupboard for me it was, to dig out #4, acquired way back in 1976/'77 when the title was new.  There was a 5th issue intended, but low sales meant the title was cancelled before #5 ever saw print.  Given how long a mag is prepared in advance, it's likely that the 5th ish was completed even if it was never published, so it would be nice if the contents were to turn up somewhere and finally see print 40-plus years after the fact.

Anyway, enjoy a peek at some of the pages from #4, including JACK KIRBY's take on Ally Sloper - SLOPERMAN!  The 'King' himself even makes an appearance, drawn by HUNT EMERSON, in the form of CAPTAIN KIRBY.  Jack made Ally a superhero and Hunt did the same in Jack's case.  Great stuff!

(There's always a slim possibility that I did actually feature this ish in a blog post before, but, if so, I can't find it, so perhaps I inadvertently deleted it without realising it.  Anyway, never mind, it's here now and that's what counts.  If you remember buying this short-lived 'series' back in the day, feel entirely free to reminisce about it to your heart's content in our far-out and groovy comments section - it needs YOU!) 

WET JOB (NOW THAT SOUNDS SMUTTY ENOUGH TO ATTRACT ATTENTION)...

Between frequent bouts of sleeping ('cos I kept dozing off about every 10 minutes) I finally managed to get through my CALLAN DVDs, which I thoroughly enjoyed.  (Don't want you thinking they're boring, it's just that I have a slight medical condition which fatigues me.)  The last one I watched was WET JOB, a Special first screened in 1981, but which I didn't see until 1984 or thereabouts.  I wasn't too impressed by it back then, but it's actually better than I remembered, though the awful pieces of incidental music that punctuate the soundtrack from time-to-time are intrusive and ill-suited. I'd suggest that if it's ever re-shown on TV, then the music should be omitted or something more appropriate substituted in its place.

It's a shame that LISA LANGDON didn't reprise her role of HUNTER's secretary, LIZ, but she wasn't in the 1974 movie either, nor was ANTHONY VALENTINE, his role of TOBY MERES being played by PETER EGAN.  In Wet Job, we learn (in passing) that Meres is now dead, killed by the irate husband of one of Mere's conquests apparently, but it would've been nice to hear he was yet alive and simply retired.  In the final TV series' last episode, LONELY, played by RUSSELL HUNTER, was shot and wounded, and Callan walks into the distance with his back to the camera, similar to JOHN WAYNE at the end of The SEARCHERS.

EDWARD WOODWARD turns in a fine performance in Wet Job, but isn't quite as intense in the role as he was in the TV series, though perhaps that's deliberate in order to suggest that the fire in his soul has slightly abated now that he's older, wearier, and retired.  (Well, he thinks he's retired.)  After the uncertain and downbeat way the TV show ended in 1972, it's good to see that the characters of Callan and Lonely didn't fall foul of the S.I.S., as Hunter (played by WILLIAM SQUIRE) threatened to 'break' Callan, making it easy for viewers, in the absence of a fifth series, to imagine that both Callan and Lonely might be terminated to clean up loose ends.

As I said in a previous post, when I first saw this feature-length Special, I was living in another house and neighbourhood, and was unaware that the show was a repeat.  Until watching the DVD, I hadn't seen it in 35-36 years, so it felt 'right' to finally see it again, in the house I stayed when it was originally broadcast ('81), having returned in 1987, four years after having flitted in 1983.  However, the 'ghost' of my room in that other house was present as I re-watched the Special, and that's where I'll probably always associate it with.

Anyway, if you're a Callan fan, you'll likely enjoy Wet Job, but do your best to ignore the bloody awful incidental music, which is like something more suited to TV Soap CROSSROADS.  Oh, one last thing: The synopsis on the back of the DVD cover says that Callan meets "the fourth 'Hunter' of his career", but it's actually the fifth, and Callan confirms that he worked under four previous Hunters in response to a question by the new one.  Whoever wrote the spiel wasn't paying attention.  (I'm not counting ERIC PORTER as a sixth Hunter in the '74 movie as that was only an expanded remake of 'A MAGNUM For SCHNEIDER'.)         

POSTER 'PUZZLE' FINALLY SOLVED...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Remember this poster, peeps?  It was given away in return for 8 (I think) cut-out coupons from The MIGHTY WORLD Of MARVEL way back in 1972.  The one you see here is a scan of a preview in one of the weekly issues and is nowhere near as impressive-looking as the actual 'bigger than a breadbox' item itself.  I showed this in a post back in 2015 (how time flies) and was unsure whether this (and its subsequent SPIDER-MAN COMICS WEEKLY counterpart poster) was produced for the States and then pressed into service in Britain, or vice versa, as I seemed to recall them being advertised in US mags at some point.

Well, I've just seen the one above in an ad (below) in my facsimile edition of The INCREDIBLE HULK #180, the original of which came out in 1974, so it seems it was produced for the UK first, and then made available in the US. (Unless it had previously appeared in an earlier American issue.)  I still have the impression that I saw the Spidey one in a US mag as well, but so far haven't been able to confirm whether my seeming memory of it is accurate or not.  Still, it looks like I may've solved the mystery in regard to the above one.  (I have a replacement of the actual full-size poster, but it's never been up on the wall, though my original was back in 1972.)

Anyway, here's a question for all of our Stateside readers: Did any of you ever have this poster back in the day - or the Spidey one - and if so, just how did you acquire them?  (Reader Phil S probably had them when he stayed in Britain back then, but I'm thinking of those who lived in America at the time.)    

Update: I've just noticed that the ad also appears in F.O.O.M. #5, which I've owned for many years, so I must've seen it at some stage and simply forgotten about it.  And in case you've forgotten what the Spidey poster looked like (or have never seen it before), that's it below.  The colour error on the costume wasn't on the actual poster - only on this preview in an issue of SMCW.  I can't quite remember now, but they may have shown it again in another issue, as I remember seeing it without the colour error.  Either that, or it was spotted and corrected during the print-run, though that would probably have been expensive to do. 

ARE YOU A TRUE BELIEVER IN FACSIMILE EDITIONS? (THAT MEANS REPRINTS, MELVIN)...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Being someone given to periods of self-indulgent introspection from time-to-time, I've realised that I'm a creature of habit - a reveller in repetition.  I seem to derive some sense of satisfaction in re-creating moments from my past, though it's probably more accurate to say I feel compelled to rather than because I actually want to.  In the last few years, what with all the many TRUE BELIEVERS and FACSIMILE EDITIONS that have been released, I've been able to repeat moods and moments that I first experienced decades ago.

Take True Believers comics like the reprint of OMEGA The UNKNOWN #1, or JOHN BYRNE's first issue as regular writer and artist of The FANTASTIC FOUR (#232) for example.  I first bought the originals back in the '70s and '80s while living in the very house where I now reside.  To receive and re-read their reprints in the very same room of the very same house I stayed in back then has some kind of immense significance to me, and the period between the old and the new is reduced in the process.  A step back in time, as it were.

Same with MARVEL PRESENTS #3 (GUARDIANS Of The GALAXY). When the facsimile of that arrived, I was whisked back to the sizzlin' '70s (spoiler alert: Kid's favourite and oft-repeated catchphrase ahead) faster than a fart from The FLASH!  (Hey, you gotta admit - it's a classic!)  Am I the only one who reacts in such a way?  One glance at a new edition of an old comic and I'm reminded of when I first saw the original (even if I've still got it) and, for a brief moment at least, it's like my life's reset button has been pressed and everything old is new again.  (Or should that be everything new is old again?  See?  Philosophy - and for free, too.)

If you can relate to anything of what I'm trying to say (or even if you can understand it), feel free to expand and expound, and add your own thoughts, theories, and observations to the subject in our cataclysmic (hey, I gotta give it the hard-sell with you guys) comments section.

THE INCREDIBLE HULK #180 FACSIMILE EDITION...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Just arrived this morning, MARVEL's facsimile edition of The INCREDIBLE HULK #180, featuring WOLVERINE's first (cameo) appearance.  Number 182 is due out in March, meaning that there'll be no excuse for anyone not having all three issues reprinting Wolvie's initial adventure, and at a fraction of the cost of the original '70s comics.  I've already ordered and paid for 182, and March will roll around in no time.

As usual with these handsome reprints, all the original ads and letter pages are included and 180 (above) has the COMICS CODE box and also the lower page captions and numbers that were a feature of the time, as well as the 'CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE' alerts that were missing from previous facsimiles.  I tell ya, someone at Marvel must be reading this blog of mine!  Now if only they'd send me some freebies.

RACISM - BLACK, WHITE, Or GREY...?

Racism.  It's a big and ugly subject, but I have a few thoughts on it (surprise) which some people may find interesting.  Or insulting, or repellent, or unacceptable, depending on your personal point of view.  Hell, some of you may even agree with me.   So let's start with an easy one, shall we?  I see IDRIS ELBA is still being touted as a possible contender for the role of JAMES BOND.  We all know James Bond, don't we?  The white, male, British, 6 foot tall (according to author and creator IAN FLEMING) (not so) secret agent who works for MI6.

Which, I'd say, rules out Bond being played by an actor of either Negro, mixed-race, Pakistani, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, female, handicapped, hunchback, or dwarf status - purely on the grounds that none of the above are how Bond's creator envisioned him.  "You're a racist and a bigot!" you say.  Nonsense!  Were it to be announced that DANIEL CRAIG (or any white actor) was being signed up to play LUKE CAGE (POWER MAN), T'CHALLA (The BLACK PANTHER) or WYATT WINGFOOT (JOHNNY STORM's Red Indian - or Native American if you prefer - pal), I'd be equally perturbed.  You can bet your booties that if it were ever suggested, accusations of racism would be flying around all over the place.

So why is it any different in the case of Bond?  I'll go one further and say that it's racist (and sexist) to suggest that 007 (as we presently know him) should ever be played by anyone who isn't white and male, because such a proposition springs from the belief that there are far too many white male actors who get plum parts in movies.  That's surely racism, isn't it?  If I attended a performance of PORGY & BESS and stood up halfway through, saying "Why aren't there more white actors on stage?" I'd probably be booed out of the theatre - and rightly so.  Therefore, why is it deemed acceptable for people to say "Why aren't there more black actors (and actresses) nominated for Oscars?" when the awards ceremony rolls around every year?

In the case of Bond, we're told that we should be 'colour-blind' and not consider the colour or ethnicity (or even gender nowadays) of the actor as important.  (Which, I'd say, doesn't mean it should be ignored in regard to the character.)  Shouldn't that work both ways though?  There seems to be a double-standard at play when we're told we shouldn't see colour when it comes to apportioning roles, but we should see it when it comes to handing out awards.  It cuts both ways.  Black actors should only see fellow actors receiving recognition for their performance, not white people.  Are they so desperate for an Oscar or a Bafta, that they don't mind being in the running solely to meet some politically correct requirement of 'inclusivity'?  Isn't that tokenism?  I think it's fairly safe to say that no black actor would ever say "Why's there no white guys this year?" if all the Oscar nominations were black (or whatever).  In fact, I'd be surprised if any white actors expressed such a sentiment.

I'll go further.  I think it highly likely that at least some actors of colour are only concerned with getting an award in order to improve their career and financial prospects, and try and increase their chances by playing the 'race card'.  Regardless of their colour, actors in the main are self-obsessed and have a sense of entitlement, believing that opportunities are their due which shouldn't be denied them.  For example: Are you black?  Then why aren't there more roles for black actors?  Are you handicapped?  Then why aren't there more roles for handicapped actors? Are you gay or transgendered?  Then why aren't there more roles for gay and transgendered actors?  Are you female?  Then why aren't there more (good) roles for actresses?  And I'll bet even many white male actors wonder why there aren't more roles for white male actors cast in their mould.

It's a bit like traditional signwriters bemoaning the fact that they don't get so much work in today's world of computer-generated signs, which are quicker and less expensive to produce.  Adapt or die.  Neither the world nor your profession owes you a living.  That's something actors should remember as well.  Writers shouldn't be required to cater to the needs or wants of actors, or indulge high-handed demands for 'diversity' in order to meet quotas.  They should be able to tell their story without having to worry about whether there are enough female, gay, black, transgendered characters to appease the politically-correct minority who are on a mission to portray society as they'd prefer it to be, rather than as it is.   

I've noticed that there seems to be an increasing vocal opposition in some quarters these days to gay or transgendered roles being played by anyone who isn't gay or transgendered, but curiously no one seems to object to a gay actor playing a heterosexual character.  Double-standards again.  (And able-bodied actors in handicapped roles also come in for criticism.  Hey, newsflash - it's called acting!)   Is anyone else as fed up of this nonsense as I am?  Let me tell you something - there probably isn't a race of people anywhere in the world who isn't racist or bigoted to some degree.  A lot of black people still view 'whitey' as the enemy, and regard us as their oppressors - even though slavery was abolished centuries ago, and many white people voted against it, even fighting and dying in the process.

Any country you go to, there's a large percentage of the populace who look down on another (sometimes neighbouring) country and consider them inferior.  Many Jews look down on Arabs and many Arabs look down on Jews.  Pakistanis look down on Indians and Indians look down on Pakistanis.  Any country you care to name harbours a certain antipathy towards another - or even towards minority groups within their own boundaries.  Just about all of them seem to despise the West, but that's something we're expected to ignore in our one-sided quest to appease those who seem to hate us.  It appears that the only group of people who aren't permitted to express any reservations about any other group are White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants who are male and of a heterosexual persuasion, which seems kind of bigoted to me - even racist in fact.

Race is important to those who tell you that race isn't important when it comes to casting Bond, so don't be deceived by their duplicity.  If it wasn't important to them, they wouldn't be trying to oust a white actor from playing a white character who's been white since he first appeared in novels back in the '50s.  Why not give Idris Elba the opportunity to play a different secret agent in a big-budget movie if there's a demand for such a thing, and make his own stamp in the cinematic world of espionage?  Have him play a colleague of Bond's in a future film, and then spin him off into his own series of blockbusters.  That way, everyone will be happy.  Bond will still be the Bond he's always been, and Idris can have the exact same kind of role without indulging in a form of racism against white people.

Because that's exactly what it would be if ever Bond's ethnicity was changed from what it is now.

Agree?  Disagree?  Want to punch my face in?  Why not start by discussing where you think I err in my opinion, and we'll see where that gets us.  Besides, I don't care how big and tough you are, you couldn't fight sleep - and I was trained by James Bond and DAVID CALLAN themselves, so you've got no chance!  (When I say 'trained', I mean I've watched how they do it and I'm a quick study.)  Now if you'll excuse me, it's time for my reality pill.

******

And talking of Bond, commenter BARRY PEARL sent me a snap of some of his collection, below.

DON'T LOOK, ETHEL - BARE BUMS ON DISPLAY. OR: ACTION MAN - JUST A REGULAR (GI) JOE...

Images from www.actionmanhq.co.uk

Years ago, I remember reading - as part of ACTION MAN's official history - that when he first appeared in the UK in 1966, he was merely a renamed and repackaged GI JOE - until PALITOY acquired their own moulds and started manufacturing him in Britain.  Now it seems that the story isn't quite accurate, and that Palitoy produced him from the start, but at some stage had to supplement their stock with Canadian GI Joe figures to meet orders from shops around the British Isles.

The fact remains though, that some Action Man boxes contained figures with GI Joe stamped on their bums.  As to whether they're regarded as being more collectable or not, I couldn't say, but there were some interesting variations in the Palitoy Action Man within a very short time.  The first figure had a hard head and his rivets were painted flesh.  His feet were longer too, but soon his head was of softer plastic, his rivets remained unpainted, and his calves were shortened slightly, as were his feet.

Interestingly, it was Palitoy who came up with the idea for gripping hands and flocked hair, though it was Hasbro who introduced the 'eagle-eyes' and talking figures.  GI Joe sort of disappeared in the States around 1977 or so, leaving Palitoy's Action Man as the more successful and longer-running toy of the two.  Hasbro stands for HASSENFELD BROTHERS, who introduced GI Joe in 1964, and it's Hasbro who now own the Action Man copyright.  In 2006, they licensed the name to MODELLERS LOFT for a 40th Anniversary facsimile edition of Action Man, and ART & SCIENCE currently have permission to produce the toy.

Did you have an Action Man (or GI Joe) when you were a boy?  Then regale your fellow Crivs with your fond memories of this toy from childhood.

A TITANIC TRIO Of TRUE BELIEVERS...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Another trio of TRUE BELIEVERS, effendis, for you to feast your awestruck orbs upon.  I scanned these issues in their poly bags so there's some dust and hairs on view if you look closely enough, but I trust you won't hold that against me.  Have you got them yet?  No?  Then get around to your nearest comicbook shop as soon as you can and snap 'em up!  And remember to pay for them - there's no need to be criminally insane.  (In case you get annihilated.)

THE MARVEL WORLD OF ICARUS...

Cover art copyright MARVEL COMICS

A couple or so years ago, someone gave me a presumably unwanted CD called The MARVEL WORLD Of ICARUS.  I only got around to listening to it a few weeks back and, surprisingly, quite liked it.  It appears for all the world like a professionally produced CD, not a bootleg, but apparently it may not be 'official'.  You see, I recently saw another version of it on eBay with 5 extra tracks, so bought it immediately for the additional songs.

The extensive liner notes in the sleeve/booklet claim that it's the only authorised version (from the original masters) since its original 1972 release, so if true, I'm not sure about the status of the other CD.  I note that it's also been reissued on vinyl, so if you'd like to own a little-known slice of the '70s, this one's for you!

DETECTIVE COMICS #359 FACSIMILE EDITION...

Copyright DC COMICS

Just arrived, my DC COMICS facsimile edition of DETECTIVE COMICS #359 - "The MILLION DOLLAR DEBUT Of BATGIRL!".  I wonder if anyone at DC reads this site, because this time around they've left the date on the cover, as per my suggestion in response to their previous facsimiles.  Even the ads (with one or two exceptions) don't look quite so faded as in preceding mags in this series, so not much to complain about with this one.

I bought the original issue way back in the '60s, but never kept it.  However, I purchased a replacement for it many moons ago*, and there's a scan of it alongside the new version below.  As you can see, the lettering in the lower left-hand corner of the facsimile has been moved slightly to accommodate the bar-code box, but I can live with it if you can.  (There are a few other minor differences as well - can you spot them?)  Still, great stuff, eh?  Now run out and buy your own!

(*And I also have a DOUBLE DOUBLE COMIC containing the issue.)

DOES CALLAN HAVE A BUDGIE...?

Because of chronic fatigue, I find it nigh impossible nowadays to watch anything on TV and give it my full attention, as my mind soon drifts off or goes into shutdown mode.  Often, within 5 or 10 minutes, I've fallen asleep and only wake up once it's all over.  However, with these limitations, I've been watching CALLAN and BUDGIE (in 10 minute segments) and finally managed to cover all 12 surviving monochrome episodes of the former show.  The DVD collection of Callan was issued in 2010, and the programmes contained therein hadn't been seen in 40-odd years, which means it's been over 50 years since I first and last saw them on their initial broadcast between 1967 and '69*.

(*Except for the ARMCHAIR THEATRE pilot, A MAGNUM For SCHNEIDER, which was repeated as part of the TV HEAVEN series in 1992.) 

I last saw Budgie back in 1985 when it was repeated on Channel 4 (I think), which was 35 years ago.  As mentioned in a previous post, when they were first broadcast (in two series) back in 1971 and '72, I saw the last 5 episodes of the 2nd series over the first month in the new house we'd moved to, and in which I again live today.  Last night, I persevered and managed (between sleeps) to watch the first of those last 5 shows, so in 4 episodes' time, I'll have reached the end of my quest to re-experience that particular aspect of my past, before moving on to another with the colour episodes of Callan.

Here's the thing though.  Back in 1991, I bought the house number-plate from the then-current (and now sadly-deceased) tenant of my former abode, and affixed it to the door of the room in which I now type this.  That means I've now passed the number-plate many more times in my present domicile than in my former one, as I only stayed there for 6 years and 7 months (which was around half my life at the time).  I therefore had a decision to make in regard to those last 5 Budgie episodes, which was this:  Should I watch them in the living-room where I first saw them back in '72, or should I watch them in the room above which sports the number-plate of my former house where I viewed all the preceding ones?

You see, while I find it alluring to re-create a 'moment' in the same room it first occurred 48 years before, I find it just as alluring to imagine the past as it could've happened had we never flitted from our former home in '72.  After all, I'd still be watching those last 5 episodes in the same house I first saw them, but in a room bearing the actual number of the previous house in which I'd viewed the preceding 21 - the best of both worlds, as it were.  That may not mean anything to you, but I find it appealing in some way to indulge in a game of 'what if...?', as opposed to what did.  (Try it, it's fun.)

True, a large dollop of imagination is required in the process, but I've got that in spades.  Feel free to tell me how mad I am in the comments section.

PUSSY IN BOOTS - THE SEQUEL...

In the previous post, I made passing reference to a pharmacy colleague of the lovely ELIZABETH, said workmate being the one who wagered (with the full involvement and approval of the others) that I wouldn't be able to find out two specific items of information about Liz.  Now, truth be told, this colleague was a bit snooty and up herself, and always presented herself as being a bit prim and proper and above mere ordinary mortals like myself, a lowly warehouse worker.  Here's a little tale of how, based on my daring detective work related earlier, she sh*t a brick, thinking I had access to all sorts of secrets best kept hidden.

One of my occasional duties in BOOTS warehouse was operating the 'baler', a huge machine for compressing wastepaper and cardboard boxes into large compact cubes.  There was a part-time worker assigned to this task, but when he wasn't in, it fell to me or another of the warehouse staff to do it.  Anyway, one day, I was busily feeding all sorts of paper waste from an oblong trolley into the machine, including 'wallets' of photographs which had remained uncollected by customers for months.  It was the company's policy, due to limited storage space, to dispose of all abandoned photos after a certain period.

In a moment of idle curiosity, I picked up one of the thin cardboard wallets at random, and took a casual look through it - and was surprised to see a few pics of the snooty pharmacy worker, completely rat-@rsed at a party.  Gone was her reserved and 'dignified' demeanour - she looked completely blotto and uninhibited, and totally different from the image of herself she presented at work.  (Which is fair enough I suppose - after all, it was a party.)  Anyway, I thought she'd like to have them, so took them around to the pharmacy and gave them to her, freely telling her I'd found them in a trolley of waste earmarked for disposal.  She took one look at them and quickly thrust them into the pocket of her white coat, looking a bit flushed and flustered.

I returned to the baler, but a little while later, she came into the warehouse and quizzed me on where I'd obtained the photos, trying to inject a tone of stern authority into her voice.  Obviously, because of my dazzling detective work in the case of Elizabeth, her imagination had been working overtime, causing her to wonder if I had specifically 'targetted' her, and whether my discovery of the photos had been as a result of me deliberately digging into her life.  Nope, pure random chance and sheer coincidence!  Anyway, I was a bit surprised, to say nothing of annoyed, at her obvious insinuation and told her it was exactly as I'd first said when I gave them to her - I'd found them in the waste trolley.

She appeared satisfied, albeit reluctantly, perhaps sensing that I was affronted by her unspoken-but-obvious suspicion, and pushed off back to the pharmacy.  Maybe I should've been more annoyed than I was (after all, I'd being doing her a favour), but I couldn't help but be enormously amused at her paranoia, and even pleased to a degree that I'd gotten under her skin (purely metaphorically you understand) and caused her a moment's perturbation.  Snooty people like her deserve to be toppled from their high horse in my view - and that's exactly what I did.

Any youthful tales of a similar nature, fellow Crivs?  Reveal all in the comments section - if you dare!

RIVETING REPOST: PUSSY IN BOOTS - OR: THE DAY I ASTOUNDED SEVERAL WOMEN AT THE SAME TIME...

Here's a goody.  Long, long ago (but in the same galaxy), when I was 16 or 17, I toiled in the warehouse of my local BOOTS The CHEMIST.  In the pharmacy department worked a young lady by the name of ELIZABETH (surname withheld to spare her blushes in case she ever reads this, unlikely as it is), on whom I had a bit of a crush.  A mild crush - not one that would ever have compelled me to ask her out, but enough of one that would make me want to impress her, should the opportunity present itself.

Guess what?  It did.  Sitting in the canteen one day, I was engaged in a bit of casual conversation with Elizabeth and some of her pharmacy colleagues.  I no longer recall what we were discussing, but at some stage the extent of my knowledge of the subject was called into question.  "You don't know everything!" one of them said, which was like a red rag to a bull to me.  "Perhaps, but anything I want to know, I can find out!" I stated.

They called my bluff! "Okay then, what's Elizabeth's mum's maiden name, and what hospital was Elizabeth born in?" one of them asked, rather smugly.  They had flung down the gauntlet and I had to accept or lose face.  "I'll find out!" I declared to loud jeers and derision.  (They actually bet me that I couldn't, though I no longer remember what the forfeit was.)  Now, on the face of things, I was in a bit of a bind.  Just how could I possibly uncover such obscure information unless I was psychic or had access to Elizabeth's and her mum's personal information files, kept in some secret government facility somewhere?  (I know, I know - watched too many JAMES BOND films.)

This was on the Tuesday or Wednesday, and they gave me until Friday to accomplish the task or admit defeat.  Anyone else would have given up (scratch that - no-one else would ever have gotten into that situation to begin with), but your bold host is made of sterner stuff.  I triumphed in my mission, wiped the smiles from their faces, utterly astounded them, and firmly established a reputation for being someone who didn't make idle boasts.  Intrigued?  Of course you are.

Okay, here's how I did it.  The lovely Elizabeth, who was shortly due to leave to go to another job, had once mentioned which area of the town she lived when we were having an idle chat one day, so I obtained her 'phone number from Directory Enquiries and rang her mother.  Pretending to be one of the managers, I told her that the staff were planning to throw a surprise party for Elizabeth's leaving 'do', and that we were going to stage a "THIS IS YOUR LIFE" segment so I needed a few trivial background details to cover her life from birth to the present day.  Did she buy it?  Of course she did - and even gift-wrapped it for herself too.

I asked a few innocuous questions, such as what her daughter's favourite colour was, where she'd been born, her best friend at school, etc., and "Oh, what's your maiden name?"  Armed with the required knowledge, I waited 'til I had to take a package around to the pharmacy.  As I was leaving, I casually turned, seemingly like an afterthought, and said "By the way, Liz, your mum's maiden name is Blackstock and you were born at Rottenrow Maternity!"  My!  You should have seen their jaws hit the floor - and in unison, too.

I 'phoned Elizabeth's mother back shortly after and explained my ruse - not out of guilt, but because I'd always intended to anyway.  She was highly amused at the daring of my subterfuge, and said "She should be glad someone would go to all that bother!"   (What can I say?  I had a tremendous 'telephone voice'.)  Elizabeth took it in good humour too, and I believe she was actually quite flattered.

I still never asked her out before she left though, foolish youth that I was!

Coming next post - The Sequel!

RUMINATING REPOST: LET'S HAVE SOME LIGHT AROUND HERE...

Here's a funny thing.  ("About time!", you cry.)  No, I mean 'funny-peculiar', not 'funny-ha ha' - although it is about time, so to speak.  You know how, when you associate a particular item with a specific place and period in your past, the association sometimes seems 'all-inclusive', whether it actually was or not?

"Good grief!  What's he wittering on about now?" you may be asking yourselves - so I'll tell you.

On my living-room ceiling are two circular fluorescent lights, which were first acquired in a previous house back in the 1960s.  I know we didn't always have them as I remember my father bringing them home one night and having to return one for a replacement the next day (or was it the next week?) because it was broken*.

We'd moved into the house in 1965, but it could've been anytime between 1966 and '67 at the earliest (maybe even '68?) before the lights assumed their place on the ceiling.  I can't remember the exact year we got them, but I now associate them so strongly with the house that, whenever I think back, it seems as if we had them the entire period we resided there, even though I know it isn't so.

Over 30 years ago, I visited my old home for the first time since leaving 16 years before, and was surprised to see patches over our old paper on the ceiling where the lights had once been.  (The patches were still there a few years later and perhaps might yet be there now, for all I know.)  Anyway, seeing that the lights had left their mark for so many years afterwards only reinforced their connection to the house in my mind.

It's the same with toys and comics.  Over the years, I've been lucky enough to re-acquire many items I once had as a child and have now owned them for far longer than I ever had the originals.  Some I originally maybe had for only a few weeks or months, others a year or three - and, as is the way of such things, some were consigned to history long before others made their appearance - yet somehow I seem to remember possessing each and every one of them concurrently and for the same duration.

One example I spoke about in a previous post is the first issue of the revamped SMASH! from March, 1969.  I only had it for around four days before selling it on to a classmate (it was my intention to buy another copy the next day, but I couldn't find one).  However, every page had embedded itself in my memory with such clarity that, when I tracked down a replacement copy over 15 and a half years later, it was instantly familiar - as if I'd last seen it only a few weeks before.

Here's the kicker though - whenever I leaf through its pages, I'm instantly transported back to the living-room of the house I lived in at the time.  What's more, it seems to conjure up every aspect of that house and all the years I lived there, even though I only had the comic for a mere four days.  Uncanny!

So, I don't know about you, but I find it exceedingly strange that some items inform our recollections of a place to such a degree that they seem to represent the entire 'picture' as opposed to only a part of it (if that makes any sense).

If you've any thoughts on the subject, feel free to express them in the comments section.  (And if you can tell me what I've just been talking about, I'd very much appreciate it.)

******

*It's just occurred to me that I've subconsciously always regarded both lights as being the ones my father brought back on that particular night and which have adorned our ceiling(s) ever since.  However, as related above, one was returned because it was broken, so its replacement was essentially a 'ringer'.  It reminds me of when it was eventually revealed that the first BLUE PETER pup died a few days after its debut appearance, and was hastily substituted with a doppelganger (later christened PETRA).  For many years, viewers believed that the dog they'd watched grow up on TV was the same one they'd first been introduced to, but such was not the case.  I feel sorry for the poor puppy that died, but I suddenly find myself feeling a little sad for the broken light that had to be returned.  Yes, you're right - I'm bonkers.

PORTALS To The PAST...

On the wall of my downstairs hallway are two framed photographs, one on either side of the front door.  The one above is the view (or part of it) from my parents' front bedroom window in our previous house, while the one below is a section of the view from what was my (and my brother's) back bedroom.  Thing is, they weren't taken when we actually lived in the house, but 16 years after we'd flitted from it.  What's more, 11 years after flitting, we flitted again - then, four years later, returned to the house we'd flitted to the first time.  (I really hope that makes some kind of sense to everyone.  If it helps, there are three houses involved in the above account.)

A year and a day after returning to the second house, I returned (by arrangement) to the first to take some photographs, both inside and out, because the view from my old bedroom (which I'd shared with my brother) was due to change forever.  Y'see, amenity houses for the elderly were about to be built on part of the playing field on the other side of the street, and I felt a strange compulsion to capture things as they were before it was too late.  Over the intervening years since, other alterations have occurred, so that the views from either window are today no longer exactly the same as what once met my gaze whenever I looked out of them.

(A little aside here: I find it interesting to consider that when I look at these two pictures, I'm looking at scenes that now no longer exist, and that the present tenants/owners of my former house don't see [and have never known] whenever they look out of either window.  Would they care?  I doubt it, but I believe I lived there when the neighbourhood was at its finest, and those who stay there now, without ever realising it, have to settle for second-best.) 

Anyway, it's comforting to me that the views familiar to me as a kid are preserved in their former glory, and that I can revisit them as they were (more or less) whenever I want to.  Sometimes I'll stop in the hall before going upstairs and just look at the photos, and I'm returned in memory to the house, and reminded of many of the things I once owned when I lived there.  Comics like WHAM!, SMASH!, POW!, FANTASTIC, TERRIFIC, WHIZZER & CHIPS, THUNDER, JET, SUPER DC - and many, many more.  Toys, such as ACTION MAN, TOMMY GUNN, CAPTAIN SCARLET, AURORA and AIRFIX plastic model kits, DINKY, CORGI and MATCHBOX diecast vehicles, and all sorts of other goodies.

I could extend the above list of things (including records, TV shows, etc.,) I associate with that particular house, but I'll spare you the details lest this post becomes even more tediously self-indulgent.  Suffice to say that there's a plethora of memories which arise to the surface whenever I look at these two photographs, and I'm really glad that I made a point of returning to the house to take them.  In my mind, the past is always with me, but sometimes the images appear indistinct, as though viewed through the bottom of a milk bottle.  Thank goodness for cameras, which can preserve our past in crystal clarity and ensure that we'll never forget it on our journey through the present and into the future.

Do you have any specific photos that you cherish, whether of people or places, which return you to an earlier time and that you'd never part with?  What's their significance, and have you taken any steps to ensure their safety and survival so that they at least last for the remaining duration of your lifespan?  Feel free to share in our comments section.  

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO... MY MEMORY OF JAMES BOLAM?

I recently watched the first two episodes of the second series of BUDGIE, starring ADAM FAITH, and was surprised to see actor JAMES BOLAM from The LIKELY LADS in both of them.  I last saw these Budgie episodes around 1985 when they were first, last, and (as far as I know) only repeated after their initial broadcast in 1972, and I remembered them reasonably well.

Before I proceed, let me state that I'd been a huge fan of WHATEVER HAPPENED To The LIKELY LADS since the colour series was first shown in 1973, and James Bolam had also starred in WHEN The BOAT COMES IN, and ONLY WHEN I LAUGH, so the actor was no stranger to me.  Also, WHTTLL was repeated around the mid-'80s, so it was unlikely that I'd have forgotten his face.

I was therefore quite surprised by my surprise at his turn in Budgie (as a character called WHOSSNAME), because surely I would've recognised him instantly?  Yet, try as I might, I just can't resurrect any memory of seeing him in Budgie at the time of its repeat around '85.  I wouldn't have known who Bolam was when Budgie was first aired in the early '70s, but by the time the repeats rolled around, I was a big fan of his portrayal of TERRY COLLIER, and had been for years.

The only other possibility is that I did recognise him in Budgie in '85, but then forgot seeing him in it over the intervening years, hence my surprise at his presence in my recent viewing.  How-ever, it's kind of annoying not to know which of the two options it actually is.  Anything like this ever happen to you?

MORE OF STAN LEE'S LITERARY LAPSES...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

And now it's time for what you've all been waiting for (I like to tell myself) - yet another in the long line of MARVEL boo-boos which, for the sake of a (mainly) alliterative title, I call STAN LEE'S LITERARY LAPSES.  (Well, that, plus the fact that he wrote 'em!)

In The AVENGERS #6, there's quite a few to choose from.  First is on page 7, where IRON MAN is interrupted while trying to free CAPTAIN AMERICA's knee from BARON ZEMO's Adhesive X, meaning that he should still have one patella stuck to the ground.  (Especially as he said he can't move.)  Yet a few panels later on page 8, his knee is free, though both feet are stuck fast to a section of cutaway concrete.  (And the space between Cap and GIANT-MAN and their position in relation to each other also changes.) 

Then on page 9, Iron Man warns THOR that the BLACK KNIGHT's lance is a "dangerous weapon" that can "fire all sorts of missiles".  However, on page 15, during a subsequent encounter, the Black Knight says to Thor "You didn't suspect my innocent-looking lance is in reality a most deadly arsenal of weapons!"  He didn't have to suspect - Iron Man had already told him several pages back.

On page 5, RICK JONES is named correctly, but on pages 13 and 19 (no need to show the relevant pics - I'm sure you'll take my word for it), he's renamed as Rick BROWN.  (Maybe his mother had remarried in the interim?  Nah, can't be that - he's an orphan, isn't he?)  We'll ignore Baron Zemo being renamed Dr. Zemo on page 19, as it's entirely possible to be a baron and a doctor at the same time.

Anyway, that's quite a number of boo-boos for one issue, but we'll forgive ol' Stanley because we love 'im.  Besides, considering that he was scripting everything in sight at the time, it's a miracle there weren't more given his workload!   

MORE TRUE BELIEVERS...

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

Above, another in the The CRIMINALLY INSANE run of TRUE BELIEVERS reprints, below, four in the ANNIHILATION series.  Not too happy with that MASTERS Of EVIL logo - wish they'd left in the original AVENGERS title and placed the 'sub-title' in smaller letters somewhere else, but at least the original un-retouched cover is reproduced inside at the back of the mag.  Some great covers on display here, but why is the SUPER-SKRULL cross-eyed?  I've already got all these stories, but I just can't resist these handsome re-presentations.  Rush out and buy them asap, if you haven't already.