Print

[archiver_USA]

It strikes me as being slightly odd that reprints are treated as story "fills" and not as publications worthy of their own category.
(just the archivist in me wondering why)

Again, it's just my personal feeling, rather than policy, but it's not that I'm dismissing the reprints' value so much as their fitness for the site.  They're not Golden Age books, so they "belong" somewhere else unless they fill a void.

I actually hope that, at some point, we see related sites for Pulp, Silver Age, and other books that've fallen into the public domain, so that there's no worry about books like this falling through the cracks.

Brings up another question I have: What is the Golden Age range for this site? First Silver-Age Flash? Marvel's FF #1? Comics Code comics? A specific date?

[John C]

Brings up another question I have: What is the Golden Age range for this site? First Silver-Age Flash? Marvel's FF #1? Comics Code comics? A specific date?

I believe Aussie set a date of 1959 as "close enough," from a look at when different books ended, as I recall.

[archiver_USA]

Another question... does anyone know if GAC qualifies as an archive?
http://www.llrx.com/features/digitization3.htm

I'm not sure who runs the site and if there are any profit motives behind it, but from what I've seen it looks like a digitization project/archive of material that might allow us more than just the common PD books. Has this already been looked into?

[John C]

My understanding (which, not having read the Act, is very much NOT authoritative), the organization must be a library in and registered with the United States, however that happens.  Digital copies are also only permitted to replace degraded copies that can't be easily replaced, and they absolutely may never be distributed outside the library structure.

I forget which school, but there's a college (I want to say the University of Minnesota, but that doesn't sound right and I don't have access to the right hard drive) with a full comic book research library.  They would probably know far more about the legal details.

[OtherEric]

The 1959 date was set before I got here; I'm not sure why it was selected.  I know we can't make it very much later, if at all, because it's in the very early sixties when everything that had a correct copyright statement is still protected due to the changes in the laws.  Ironically, the IW/ Super books are usable past that date since they didn't use correct copyright statements and, based on everything we now know, never had title to the material even if they did.

[narfstar]

There has never been an authoritative date for the start of the SA. Most put it with Showcase 4 and Flash others with Detective 225 and Martian Manhunter while others point to other seminal events. So the decade change is somewhat arbitrary but also protective before the automatic renewal. My personal preference would be 10 cent books are OK. Pre 1962 but would include Prize comics that held out a little into the the sixties.

[Yoc]

A_U,
I do not have any clue how to 'virtual link' the same upload into two different places short of just a URL in the comments section.
I'm currently experiencing PC and some real life minor physical problems that will have to put the idea of a IW-Super section on hold for a while.

What I would not like to see happen is the same scans uploaded twice if at all possible.  Eventually we will run out of storage space on the servers some day.  I still believe the IW books should be put in with the books they've reprinted and not in a separate section though.

-Yoc

[kquattro]

I forget which school, but there's a college (I want to say the University of Minnesota, but that doesn't sound right...

I believe you're thinking of the comic collection at Michigan State University:  http://www.lib.msu.edu/coll/main/spec_col/nye/comic/

--Ken Q

[John C]

There has never been an authoritative date for the start of the SA.

Not that anybody should be clamoring to find out what I think, especially not for deciding what to host here (which should be as it is, honestly, more liberal than a simple cutoff), but I mostly use the Code changes, which are close-but-not-identical to most other systems.  I apologize that this is drifting off the original topic.

So, I figure 1938-1954 works for the Golden Age.  The majority of heroes are trying to change the world, rather than simply fight bad guys.  Superman, Blue Beetle, Captain America, and so forth are in their primes.  It also contains the entire Fawcett run, most of Quality, and pretty much anything you'd consider Timely.

Within a year of the CCA, Weisinger takes over and revamps Superman, turning him into a science fiction character, rather than a Pulp character with a science fiction background (cough, cough--John Carter).  Atlas relaunches their Big Three.  Charlton picks up Blue Beetle.  You also get the Martian Manhunter in that range.  If we stretch a tiny bit further, DC picks up Quality and the new Flash hits the stands.  Meanwhile, heroes now must defend the status quo, due to the Code's policies--no more corrupt cops and politicians to foil.

Within a few years prior to 1970 (when the Code was changed), you see a massive sea change that, ironically, didn't take hold--an attempt to move past the Silver Age before its time, I think.  You have Schwartz taking over Superman with a complete depowering revamp (later constantly exploring his place in the universe).  Wonder Woman goes Mod and loses her powers (later is abandoned for her Golden Age incarnation).  Captain America starts his disenfranchized anti-Nixonian storyline.  Charlton creates Ted Kord as Blue Beetle.  Green Lantern has to deal with Green Arrow's hippie nonsense, where saving the planet apparently doesn't help black people.  The Martian Manhunter becomes a secret agent and then leaves Earth entirely.  The examples, here, really go on and on.

Then you have 1986ish.  Nothing changed in the Code, but with the maxi-series, the super-crossovers, the guidebooks, and reboots (including Marvel's half-aborted "everything changed during Secret Wars" idea), the books certainly did.  We also saw all the artists who thought they were writers taking over because they threw hissy-fits (culminating in Image and the Code change), and the tone shifted from "help thy neighbor" to "absolute power is awesome" and an inability to get one's personal life together.

Since around 2000--I point to Johns's JSA, Morrison's JLA, and the Ultimate books, mainly--the trend has been towards family and station.  The teams are like gangs, protecting one another to the exclusion of a society that doesn't trust them (thanks, X-Men, for that particular irritating idea).  The heroes are also pushed into predetermined roles, rather than letting them all grow and move on, first with the Morrison idea that certain names MUST be on the JLA's roster, and now the idea that the Silver/Bronze Age identities are the only valid versions of characters.  (Also of interest, at least to me:  In 2000, both Superman and Blue Beetle were slated for revamp, but the editors tossed the ideas; it took a few years, and the ideas have changed significantly, but notice that we indeed have a new Superman, Blue Beetle, Captain America, and bunches of others.)

Obviously, that's not the only or best way of looking at things, but I'm constantly amazed at how well that simple model maps to so many events.

For example, it predicts that there should be a Martian Manhunter clone in the Golden Age (because he's a significant Silver Ager, was changed and then removed for the Bronze Age, replicated as Jemm and brought back for the Iron Age, and half-replaced by Miss Martian now), and there's the Saturnians bugging Zatara (Action Comics #16, I believe), green-skinned, beetle-browed, and beharnessed in their primary-colored skivvies.

I also once used this to predict (though I thought I was joking) the returns of Barry Allen, Bucky, and Hal Jordan, and the Big Event(TM) that would make the heroes circle the wagons (Identity Crisis and OMACs at DC, and the sequence of crossovers at Marvel).

I figure that we're probably on the downswing.  Costs are rising, revenue is dropping.  I think the readers have been traumatized by an endless succession of silly events and crossovers that require you to buy every issue plus conveniently-reprinted back issues to make any sense of what's going on.  So I'm figuring the next Age should show up in 2015 or so.

Uhm...right.  What were we talking about?  Sorry about that...

[John C]

I forget which school, but there's a college (I want to say the University of Minnesota, but that doesn't sound right...

I believe you're thinking of the comic collection at Michigan State University:  http://www.lib.msu.edu/coll/main/spec_col/nye/comic/

--Ken Q

Ah, right.  Much better.  Thanks, Ken.  That was driving me nuts, especially since the folks there are so helpful.

(Minnesota is where they archive theses--if you've ever needed a copy of somebody's PhD work for a project, you've probably paid UMI to print it for you in those undersized, blue-covered books.)

[kquattro]

So, I figure 1938-1954 works for the Golden Age...

This is a subject that has been hotly debated for years. I think you have an interesting take on it, jcolag. I won't take up space with mine, but here's a link to it if you care to read it:  http://comicartville.com/newages.htm

--Ken Q

[bchat]

I'm currently experiencing PC and some real life minor physical problems that will have to put the idea of a IW-Super section on hold for a while.

Nothing serious, I hope.

What I would not like to see happen is the same scans uploaded twice if at all possible.  

Yes, that would be silly and a complete waste of resources.

Eventually we will run out of storage space on the servers some day.  

Any chance of getting the humungo files (those over 50MB) down-sized to something more sensible?  Unless someone's looking to wallpaper their house with the scans, I don't see why the files need to be so large.  It won't free up a lot of space, but every little bit counts.

I still believe the IW books should be put in with the books they've reprinted and not in a separate section though.

How about a comprimise?  Keep the reprints with the appropriate title's section until a scan of the original books is created, then move the IW files into their own section.  They still carry a value of their own since some fans might enjoy seeing what differences there were between the original books and the reprints.  Maybe also have something somewhere ("sticky topic"?) that lists all the reprints and where they can be found?

jcolag

Not that anybody should be clamoring to find out what I think ...

Hey, that's what message boards are all about: expressing your opinions!  Personally, I find the continued sub-dividing of comic history into "metal ages" to be a senseless exercise, and just another way for dealers to tack-on value to books that otherwise have none ("First Zinc Age Book", "First Pewter Age Appearance of Captain Nobody", etc).  My feeling is that comics have nearly always been dominated by superheroes, so until other genres consistantly match superhero comics in sales, that's how I define "The Ages":  Golden Age (1933 up to 1950), Silver Age (1950 on up), Modern Age (however far back I feel like making it ... currently somewhere in the 1990s).  There's plenty of grey areas between Ages as I define them, but it's simple and "close enough".

kquattro -
I like the idea of sub-dividing the Ages into "Eras".  It certainly makes more sense than what's currently used (dividing Ages into more & smaller Ages).  I could readily accept The Golden Age being divided into a "Superhero Era" and "Horror Era" rather than the tedious attempts to create some vague "Uranium Age" which isn't really defined by much of anything outside of randomly chosen books that dealers want to move out of their back-issue bins.  An added benefit of "Eras" as opposed to small & senseless "Ages" is that I can see the comic community more easily accepting the fact that different Eras can overlap within any given Age.

[John C]

So, I figure 1938-1954 works for the Golden Age...

This is a subject that has been hotly debated for years. I think you have an interesting take on it, jcolag. I won't take up space with mine, but here's a link to it if you care to read it:  http://comicartville.com/newages.htm

I certainly don't disagree much.  And, let's be honest, it's really a matter of what you're looking for.

Dealers (as bchat points out) want to see as many subdivisions as possible with nice, distinct lines, so that they can identify books as "first" and "last."  That goes hand in hand with using characters as signposts, of course.

Many people (including yourself, if I read your article correctly) want to identify by surface features--the tropes and other visible characteristics that were common at the time.

To me, what's important is what the stories (in general) are about.  I care less that we're likely to see bank-robbing robots in the 1960s than I am in that the hero (even the cowboys) will be quasi-deputized and very rule-minded.  The supporting evidence with character revivals is gratifying, but only coincidental.

That said, I do think it's interesting that are models aren't all that different.  I average about fifteen years per Age, and I usually see a turning point midway through (the book burnings that figured into Wertham's rise, the DC Implosion, and the Marvel exodus/Image founding all being prominent examples).  On the one side, it explains the "Atomic Age" and such as the "downswing" of the parent Age, but on the other, it puts our two models fairly close.  You see 1948 being a change in genre, whereas I see it as merely the superhero material in decline.  I put 1953-4 as the Silver Age starting, whereas you see the seeds for the "real" start a few years later.

I just still like mine better.  Nyah.

Actually, I'm curious as to whether you think your model holds up past your Silver Age.  Did nothing change between '68 and '86?  Has nothing changed since?  Do you have any thoughts as to why the decade idea hasn't kept up?  Do you see an end to whatever our current age might be?

Here's my personal test, and feel free to remind me what a moron I've been in, say, 2017, once I'm proven wrong:  By my model, we're past the half-way point in the current Age, whatever we call it.  I suggest that, come 2014-15, we'll see, at a minimum:
- A new Superman, possibly borne out of legal troubles with the Siegels, probably with a new idea to regularly explore.
- Steve Rogers will be back as Captain America (or somebody a lot like him, like a son) with a slightly revised history.
- The current Blue Beetle pushed out of the way to make room for someone new.
- The quality of the stories will improve after a few years of disillusionment (which probably really started with Final Crisis and Secret Invasion).
- A tonal shift in what heroes are "about," with the first hints of it being seen in the next few years.

For the moral tone, I'd suggest keeping an eye on Gail Simone's books.  She's somewhat marginal now, but her reception reminds me of Denny O'Neil's and Frank Miller's in a lot of ways, and they pretty much single-handedly developed the tone of the post-1970 and -1986 books.  She's also (pardon the editorializing) similarly overrated by fans for, essentially, using the characters she's writing.

[kquattro]

Dealers (as bchat points out) want to see as many subdivisions as possible with nice, distinct lines, so that they can identify books as "first" and "last."  That goes hand in hand with using characters as signposts, of course.

You (and bchat) are quite right. In the beginning, it was fan-ish enthusiasm that named both the Golden and Silver ages. Since then, in most cases, subsequent delineations have been determined with little thought. "Bronze Age"? "Atom Age"? I do have to disagree with your final line, though. The introduction of Superman in ACTION #1 was a significant "signpost', probably the most significant in the development of modern comic books.

Many people (including yourself, if I read your article correctly) want to identify by surface features--the tropes and other visible characteristics that were common at the time.

To me, what's important is what the stories (in general) are about.  I care less that we're likely to see bank-robbing robots in the 1960s than I am in that the hero (even the cowboys) will be quasi-deputized and very rule-minded.  The supporting evidence with character revivals is gratifying, but only coincidental.

I most definitely don't define the various eras of comic books by the use of tropes. The comic book industry is a business and publishers publish what they think will sell. If it happens to be comics with superheroes in them, then they publish superhero comics. If it's Westerns, then they publish Westerns--and so on. The superhero genre dominated the early Forties, hence my (and Jerry Bails) calling it the First Heroic Era. That's not bowing to a trope, that's recognition of a fact.

Simple business decisions often determined the contents of comics. If something worked,they used it. When it stopped working, they tried something else. Other times, it was outside pressures, such as the introduction of the Comic Code. And that is what I used to delineate the eras in my article.

Your way of seeing the various eras is interesting, but I believe it's more a reflection of your personal tastes than an objective view of what was published. Still, a good article could come out of your thoughts and it would be something I know I'd like to read.

That said, I do think it's interesting that are models aren't all that different.  I average about fifteen years per Age, and I usually see a turning point midway through (the book burnings that figured into Wertham's rise, the DC Implosion, and the Marvel exodus/Image founding all being prominent examples).  On the one side, it explains the "Atomic Age" and such as the "downswing" of the parent Age, but on the other, it puts our two models fairly close.  You see 1948 being a change in genre, whereas I see it as merely the superhero material in decline.  I put 1953-4 as the Silver Age starting, whereas you see the seeds for the "real" start a few years later.

Without seeing what your Ages are or when you determined them to be, I can't comment fully. And the disagreement you have with 1948 being used as the end of the First Heroic Age is with Jerry Bails, not me. If you re-read the article, I was quoting Jerry (we had a lengthy exchange of emails during my writing of this article). The fading of the superhero genre took place over several years and was replaced with an era of several dominating genres, which led me to call it the Genre Age.

As for the Silver Age, I agreed totally with Jerry that it wasn't apparent until about 1958--not '56. As he wrote to me: "The third tryout of the Silver Age Flash was the first inkling to the publishers that superheroes were possibly going to be hot again, some 20 years after the first explosion. I would certainly NOT start the Silver Age in the mid-1950s. That is entirely revisionist fantasy. The Martian Manhunter was a backup feature, and did not spark any copycats. Ditto Charlton's brief efforts, and a few others. Only Flash in the late 1950s, GL (note: Green Lantern), and the JLA (Justice League of America) broke open the dike, and led Martin Goodman to instruct Stan Lee to create a group-hero book. Others followed."

I just still like mine better.  Nyah.

OK.

Actually, I'm curious as to whether you think your model holds up past your Silver Age.  Did nothing change between '68 and '86?  Has nothing changed since?  Do you have any thoughts as to why the decade idea hasn't kept up?  Do you see an end to whatever our current age might be?

While I feel little changed during the period of 1968-86 (what I called the Neo-Silver Age), I'm open to further separation of that time period. DC and Marvel were the Big Two with hardly any other competition. The content of their comics was, for the most part, a continuation of what they had published in the Silver Age. In my mind, little changed until the publication of THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and WATCHMEN. Of course, there were some antecedents to these (and the publication of CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS in 1985 which signaled a break with the past), but I'm comfortable with using 1986 as a watershed year.

As for our current age, it's too early to tell, but I'm afraid it may be known as the Last Paper Comic Age.

For the moral tone, I'd suggest keeping an eye on Gail Simone's books.  She's somewhat marginal now, but her reception reminds me of Denny O'Neil's and Frank Miller's in a lot of ways, and they pretty much single-handedly developed the tone of the post-1970 and -1986 books.

I'd include Alan Moore and Chris Claremont as important influences on the post-1986 comics.

--Ken

[narfstar]

Had not heard the term Genre Age before but I like it. Which going along with having a first Heroic age would lead to the intro of Flash and GL etc all as the Second Heroic Age. Which would be followed by GL/GA as the Third Heroic or relevant age then Dark Knight as the Fourth Heroic or gritty age.

[JVJ]

I will tell you (although, like bc, no one asked) that in 1966 there wasn't one person that I knew or knew of that thought that the Golden Age extended into the 50s. That's a dealer-originated "redefinition" that occurred in the 1970s simply because you could charge more for "Golden Age Comics". Read the old RBCCs or any of the 1960s fanzines and you'll see that EVERYONE placed the end of the GA, at the very latest, in 1948.

The other tendency I find "revisionist" is the DC-centric view of things. DC was one of dozens of successful companies in the late 1940s and it was an industry-wide shift away from superheroes that ended the GA with DC, if anything, one of the few who bucked the trend. The fact that Batman and Superman and other misc. DC superheroes continued  into the 50s was an industry aberration, not an extension of the GA trends.

And I still maintain that it was the Atlas Implosion in early 1957 that opened up the newsstands for the Silver Age to begin. Jerry Bails placed the SA as beginning in 1958 which tends to support that time frame.

Examine the comics literature of the 60s and 70s for more historically weighted evidence. The dealers of the 70s "invented" the current "ages" purely as a marketing tool and later fans, lacking the perspective of people like Dr. Bails, simply accepted them. Also, the fact that the fans in the 60s never coined a term for the "age" between 1949 and 1958 left a vacuum that was begging to be filled.

my 2

[narfstar]

Which does lead to acceptance of the Genre Age. It seems more descriptive than Atomic Age for the period. For this site's purposes accepting all of Prize would be good as we now only exclude a few romance books I think. Also for ACG and Charlton I really lean to a 10 cent cut-off as an easy guage.

[kquattro]

Examine the comics literature of the 60s and 70s for more historically weighted evidence. The dealers of the 70s "invented" the current "ages" purely as a marketing tool and later fans, lacking the perspective of people like Dr. Bails, simply accepted them. Also, the fact that the fans in the 60s never coined a term for the "age" between 1949 and 1958 left a vacuum that was begging to be filled.

my 2

[John C]

First, I owe serious apologies.  I didn't mean to put Ken on the spot or even really debate all that much; reading my prior comments, it sounds far more like an attack than intended.  I also clearly zoned out when I re-read his/your article to comment on it.

(And hopefully I managed to get everything to the right spot--Yoc moved the thread while I was typing...)

Dealers (as bchat points out) want to see as many subdivisions as possible with nice, distinct lines, so that they can identify books as "first" and "last."  That goes hand in hand with using characters as signposts, of course.

You (and bchat) are quite right. In the beginning, it was fan-ish enthusiasm that named both the Golden and Silver ages. Since then, in most cases, subsequent delineations have been determined with little thought. "Bronze Age"? "Atom Age"? I do have to disagree with your final line, though. The introduction of Superman in ACTION #1 was a significant "signpost', probably the most significant in the development of modern comic books.

Don't get me wrong, Superman's important, because he crystalizes a lot of what's going on everywhere else.

However, when I look at existing comics, Pulps, and movies around by then, I think that something with Superman's weight was waiting to happen.  I also think that it's worth noting that Superman, in almost precisely his final, published form, was around for three or four years already.  In other words, I think that Superman is only VERY important because he happened to come along at exactly the right time.  But if he hadn't, something else would have.

Your way of seeing the various eras is interesting, but I believe it's more a reflection of your personal tastes than an objective view of what was published. Still, a good article could come out of your thoughts and it would be something I know I'd like to read.

I completely acknowledge bias, but mostly because a model is ABOUT bias.  I mean, unless (like in physics) you can use the model to generate clearly testable hypotheses, then it's nothing more than a decision as to what facts are important and which are not.

As I see it, analysis of comics shouldn't (in the end) be all too different from analysis of any other physical history (sculpture, portraiture, literature, architecture, or what have you).  It doesn't, in general, matter who the subjects are, the particulars of the medium, or the names of the artists (companies) involved.  It matters most how the subjects are treated and what themes they represent.  That's how I'm trying to look at things.

And again, that doesn't make me right, and I don't think you're wrong at all.

That said, I do think it's interesting that are models aren't all that different.  I average about fifteen years per Age, and I usually see a turning point midway through (the book burnings that figured into Wertham's rise, the DC Implosion, and the Marvel exodus/Image founding all being prominent examples).  On the one side, it explains the "Atomic Age" and such as the "downswing" of the parent Age, but on the other, it puts our two models fairly close.  You see 1948 being a change in genre, whereas I see it as merely the superhero material in decline.  I put 1953-4 as the Silver Age starting, whereas you see the seeds for the "real" start a few years later.

Without seeing what your Ages are or when you determined them to be, I can't comment fully.

It's not too big a deal, and probably not worth discussing, but I break things down as follows:
1938-1948 - Early Golden Age (obvious)
1948-1954 - Late Golden Age (same themes, but looming censorship increases the "good/bad" split)
1954-1962 - Early Silver Age (mandatory Code adherence)
1962-1970 - Late Silver Age (fan-orientation)
1970-1978 - Early Bronze Age (looser Code, "relevance")
1978-1986 - Late Bronze Age (post-DC Implosion, diversification, independants)
1986-1991 - Early Iron Age (anti-heroes)
1991-1999 - Late Iron Age (creator control, much looser Code)
1999-2008 - Early Copper(?) Age (family-orientation, Marvel abandons Code)
2008-2014 - Late Copper Age (rebuilding publishing models, perhaps)

As I read through comics, I see those same patterns within a couple of years.  Over the course of the Age (and I stick with the four metals, because most every artistic movement uses them), there's an early focus on the artform itself--changed in some way--then a serious event midway through that refocuses the creators on the business side rather than the artistic side.

And again, because Superman IS something of a signpost, he also works hand in hand with that scheme.  Siegel and Shuster's version sees print in 1938, of course.  "Return of the Planet Krypton" in 1953 introduced us to the reality of Superman's homeworld, which led to Superman becoming increasingly alien.  The Sandman Saga hits in 1971, attempting to depower Superman and starts his quest to learn who he is in relation to the rest of the DCU.  "The Man of Steel" launches in 1986, with no interest in his heritage.  And Waid, Morrison, and company tried to sell "Superman 2000" to DC editorial; it didn't pass muster, but the ideas have since shown up in "Red Son," "Birthright," and "All-Star Superman," which inform the changes to the character since.  (Captain America, Blue Beetle, and others follow similar patterns, with the exception that they don't have a continuous publication history.)

I should also point out, again, that we don't differ much.  The only significant deviation is what to do with the years around the Code's introduction.  I certainly wouldn't consider a year or two a difference, considering that no movement springs up out of nowhere or vanish into nothingness overnight.

And the disagreement you have with 1948 being used as the end of the First Heroic Age is with Jerry Bails, not me. If you re-read the article, I was quoting Jerry (we had a lengthy exchange of emails during my writing of this article). The fading of the superhero genre took place over several years and was replaced with an era of several dominating genres, which led me to call it the Genre Age.

As I said, my mistake.  I understood that the first time through, but in responding, my wires got crossed.  That said, though, to me, the genre of a book feels slightly superficial.

Let me explain that:  If we take, say, EC's Piracy (1954-1955, mostly pre-Code), the stories are structured in such a way that you could easily reenvision almost any of them as a JLA or Avengers story, but not a one of them could hack it as a Little Wise Guys (Gleason) or Star Pirate (Fiction House) vehicle, to pick some 1950ish leads, even though the setting and character concepts seem more amenable.

As for the Silver Age, I agreed totally with Jerry that it wasn't apparent until about 1958--not '56. As he wrote to me: "The third tryout of the Silver Age Flash was the first inkling to the publishers that superheroes were possibly going to be hot again, some 20 years after the first explosion. I would certainly NOT start the Silver Age in the mid-1950s. That is entirely revisionist fantasy. The Martian Manhunter was a backup feature, and did not spark any copycats. Ditto Charlton's brief efforts, and a few others. Only Flash in the late 1950s, GL (note: Green Lantern), and the JLA (Justice League of America) broke open the dike, and led Martin Goodman to instruct Stan Lee to create a group-hero book. Others followed."

I agree to all of that to varying degrees.  My only point of disagreement is that it sets the date, because the medium isn't really about costumed heroes per se.  (Also, when a movement is already apparent, it's probably too late to make it a beginning.)

What I see instead (and the Martian Manhunter IS a part of that movement, though more of as a ride of the bandwagon than a rolemodel) is the idea that you're not a hero unless you have some sort of official sanction.  What's the first thing the Martian does on Earth?  Gets a job as a cop.  Why is the Flash a hero?  Because he's a cop.  Who's the new Hawkman?  An alien cop.  Green Lantern?  Space cop.

I'm focusing on DC superheroes because I'm more familiar with them, but Fighting American and Captain America both pop up, and their jobs are fairly clear, and I've never seen a significant example where a hero from the CCA to Spider-Man who wasn't working with some kind of official sanction.  Heck, even the aforementioned just-pre-Code pirates take pains to point out that they work for the British government and aren't criminals.

For the moral tone, I'd suggest keeping an eye on Gail Simone's books.  She's somewhat marginal now, but her reception reminds me of Denny O'Neil's and Frank Miller's in a lot of ways, and they pretty much single-handedly developed the tone of the post-1970 and -1986 books.

I'd include Alan Moore and Chris Claremont as important influences on the post-1986 comics.

True.  I just picked the most obvious name for each.  You could easily also point to Stan Lee and Steve Ditko as setting the stage for the Bronze Age, but I'd call O'Neil and Miller the true architects (for better or worse, and not intending to mean that they planned it out).  Without Claremont and Moore, modern comics might be less complex (structurally and thematically), but Miller stuck us with the postmodern hero who's just a maladjusted kook acting out power fantasies.

[kquattro]

First, I owe serious apologies.  I didn't mean to put Ken on the spot or even really debate all that much; reading my prior comments, it sounds far more like an attack than intended.  I also clearly zoned out when I re-read his/your article to comment on it.

No apology necessary, jcolag. I didn't take it as an attack at all, just a disagreement. As long as it's respectful, I'm sure there's no reason we can't continue to disagree.

Don't get me wrong, Superman's important, because he crystalizes a lot of what's going on everywhere else.

However, when I look at existing comics, Pulps, and movies around by then, I think that something with Superman's weight was waiting to happen.  I also think that it's worth noting that Superman, in almost precisely his final, published form, was around for three or four years already.  In other words, I think that Superman is only VERY important because he happened to come along at exactly the right time.  But if he hadn't, something else would have.

Everything you say here is a valid point of view, but it has nothing to do with the establishment of a framework for studying comic book history. And assigning names to time periods is that framework.

I completely acknowledge bias, but mostly because a model is ABOUT bias.  I mean, unless (like in physics) you can use the model to generate clearly testable hypotheses, then it's nothing more than a decision as to what facts are important and which are not.

As I see it, analysis of comics shouldn't (in the end) be all too different from analysis of any other physical history (sculpture, portraiture, literature, architecture, or what have you).  It doesn't, in general, matter who the subjects are, the particulars of the medium, or the names of the artists (companies) involved.  It matters most how the subjects are treated and what themes they represent.  That's how I'm trying to look at things.

Again, you're missing the point. If you chose to analyze comic books using this criteria, that's fine. But that doesn't define an era. How does using your stated criteria account for Mickey Mouse comics? If I can quote Jerry Bails once more, he once wrote that the 1950s could, "...just as easily be called the Dell Age," since they were by far the best selling comic books of that time period. I accounted for that by calling that era the Genre Age, by which I meant no one genre dominated. Dell, like most publishers of that period, published several genres.

And again, that doesn't make me right, and I don't think you're wrong at all.

Thanks.

It's not too big a deal, and probably not worth discussing, but I break things down as follows:
1938-1948 - Early Golden Age (obvious)
1948-1954 - Late Golden Age (same themes, but looming censorship increases the "good/bad" split)
1954-1962 - Early Silver Age (mandatory Code adherence)
1962-1970 - Late Silver Age (fan-orientation)
1970-1978 - Early Bronze Age (looser Code, "relevance")
1978-1986 - Late Bronze Age (post-DC Implosion, diversification, independants)
1986-1991 - Early Iron Age (anti-heroes)
1991-1999 - Late Iron Age (creator control, much looser Code)
1999-2008 - Early Copper(?) Age (family-orientation, Marvel abandons Code)
2008-2014 - Late Copper Age (rebuilding publishing models, perhaps)

As I read through comics, I see those same patterns within a couple of years.  Over the course of the Age (and I stick with the four metals, because most every artistic movement uses them)

OK, while there isn't a big difference in the given time frames, there are some significant differences.

I honestly can't say I understand the reasoning for your various Ages. What is "obvious" about the Golden Age if not the creation of Superman and the subsequent popularity of the superhero comics? Your "Late Golden Age" is based upon the, "same themes"...again, how does that account for Dell or Archie? What "themes" do these comics share with a horror comic? The "mandatory Code adherence" that defines your "Early Silver Age" extended well beyond 1962.

As far as your use of metals as names for your Ages, please enlighten me. I was an art major and took a lot of art history classes. When was the Copper Age of art? I know that there were archeological eras with such designations, but I didn't know they were used in art history. It's been a long time since I was in college, so maybe I've forgotten.

...there's an early focus on the artform itself--changed in some way--then a serious event midway through that refocuses the creators on the business side rather than the artistic side.

Comic books were always (up until recently) a business first and foremost. Publishers, the guys who put up the money to get the books printed and on the newsstand, didn't really care what the contents were, just whether or not they sold. It didn't become an artform until fans began to see it as such. Even the creators of comics (for many years) didn't consider what they did as art--just a job. To say that there was an event that, "...refocuses the creators on the business side rather than the artistic side," totally ignores the facts.

I'm sorry, jcolag, I'm going to stop now. I believe we are talking about completely different things. There is no one, indisputable way of defining the various eras of comic book history. If there were, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If you are comfortable with your definitions, so be it. When I wrote my article about 5 years ago, I was comfortable with it and for the most part, I still am. I'd expand upon certain things (and at some point I may do so), but I still agree with what I wrote. Vive la Diff

[Aussie500]

l always considered the Golden Age of comics to end early 1955, but if the comic is PD, and especially if it is part of a long running series l see no reason why we should not host it here. l think the Comics Code killed off the Golden Age, and it just seemed to take a while before comics became popular again in the 60's. But l am no comic expert, just an occasional reader.

Yes l did look at the possibility of us being classed as an archive for research purposes, when l was looking at the UK copyrights, no we did not seem to qualify.

[John C]

First, I owe serious apologies.  I didn't mean to put Ken on the spot or even really debate all that much; reading my prior comments, it sounds far more like an attack than intended.  I also clearly zoned out when I re-read his/your article to comment on it.

No apology necessary, jcolag. I didn't take it as an attack at all, just a disagreement. As long as it's respectful, I'm sure there's no reason we can't continue to disagree.

Whether or not I offended you (and I feel better that I didn't), I still crossed the line, community-wise.

Everything you say here is a valid point of view, but it has nothing to do with the establishment of a framework for studying comic book history. And assigning names to time periods is that framework.

I'm curious, then, what you believe the timeframes "should" be.  Forgive me if it's stated and I overlooked it, but I don't see a unifying idea.  Instead, it seems (to my untrained eye) to just mark when DC sold lots of superhero comics, and from what I know of you, that can't possibly be what you're going for.

Again, you're missing the point. If you chose to analyze comic books using this criteria, that's fine. But that doesn't define an era. How does using your stated criteria account for Mickey Mouse comics? If I can quote Jerry Bails once more, he once wrote that the 1950s could, "...just as easily be called the Dell Age," since they were by far the best selling comic books of that time period. I accounted for that by calling that era the Genre Age, by which I meant no one genre dominated. Dell, like most publishers of that period, published several genres.

I'm not sure that I follow.  I'm talking about the overall trend, but of course there are outliers, precursors, and atavisms.  But, while I don't have much familiarity with Disney's comic output, I'd be willing to guess that it also follows (if roughly) the scheme I see played out at every other genre and company.

I might be wrong, because I haven't read much (any?) Disney at all, but I would assume that books from what I'd call the Golden Age (where we're not playing at general soap opera--that's a different issue entirely) generally involve the protagonists out on adventures where they do good things regardless of what would be real-world consequences.  That would shift to very restricted morality plays where nobody is ever any danger, and a shift toward the intimate in the '70s.  I doubt they had an anti-hero phase through the '90s, but there were anti-heroes in the '40s, too.

I honestly can't say I understand the reasoning for your various Ages. What is "obvious" about the Golden Age if not the creation of Superman and the subsequent popularity of the superhero comics?

The protagonists (I don't mean costumed heroes fighting crime) are muckrakers, freedom fighters, philanthropic inventors, and vigilantes.  They're self-motivated and operate by their own personal code of ethics.  That's not so much Superman (though he certainly proves the market exists and provides the visual concepts like capes) as it is an upswing in importing that aesthetic from prose.

Your "Late Golden Age" is based upon the, "same themes"...again, how does that account for Dell or Archie? What "themes" do these comics share with a horror comic?

I can only assume that you're asking the question because you don't see the same themes that I do, because I see exactly what I outlined above throughout the Dell and Archie lines.  Again, I use superheroes as examples because I'm more familiar with them (and DC's yet more familiar), but aren't the early Archie stories about (to the extent that they're "about" anything, mind you) about--to borrow Gandhi's catchphrase--being the change you wish to see?

The "mandatory Code adherence" that defines your "Early Silver Age" extended well beyond 1962.

In the limited space I left myself, I didn't think it was necessary or worthwhile to indicate "continues adhering to the Code," since that's, as I've said multiple times, what I think defines the Silver Age in its entirety.

Even so, I'd argue that the early '60s see a dilution of the Code.  There aren't any violations that I know of, but the heroes are no longer bound so strictly by the status quo--Spider-Man himself has serious problems with authority of all sorts.  Can you imagine a hero in 1958 running from the police?

As far as your use of metals as names for your Ages, please enlighten me. I was an art major and took a lot of art history classes. When was the Copper Age of art? I know that there were archeological eras with such designations, but I didn't know they were used in art history. It's been a long time since I was in college, so maybe I've forgotten.

I frankly don't know where I was going with that.  I probably intended to talk about cinema, bicycle design, and so on.  How I ended up on a fine arts track, I don't know.  Sorry 'bout that.

...there's an early focus on the artform itself--changed in some way--then a serious event midway through that refocuses the creators on the business side rather than the artistic side.

Comic books were always (up until recently) a business first and foremost. Publishers, the guys who put up the money to get the books printed and on the newsstand, didn't really care what the contents were, just whether or not they sold. It didn't become an artform until fans began to see it as such. Even the creators of comics (for many years) didn't consider what they did as art--just a job. To say that there was an event that, "...refocuses the creators on the business side rather than the artistic side," totally ignores the facts.

And you've ignored what I actually wrote, despite quoting it.  The writers appear (and if I didn't make it sufficiently clear that it was an appearance and impression only, I apologize for my lack of conciseness) to change the stories to fit the business.  I said nothing about publishers or art for its own sake.

What I meant was that there's an early push in expanding things, seeing what can be done with the medium--for example, in the early '40s, to see how much the market would support.  At the halfway point, though, things...change.  I wasn't there, so I can't tell you what the difference was in the writers themselves at those times.  But from a reader's standpoint, I can tell you that fewer risks are taken, the variety becomes narrower, and the stories become formulaic.  And my experience with people connects that sort of creative output to "circling the wagons" for business reasons.

I'm sorry, jcolag, I'm going to stop now. I believe we are talking about completely different things. There is no one, indisputable way of defining the various eras of comic book history. If there were, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If you are comfortable with your definitions, so be it. When I wrote my article about 5 years ago, I was comfortable with it and for the most part, I still am. I'd expand upon certain things (and at some point I may do so), but I still agree with what I wrote. Vive la Diff

[narfstar]

I have a fairly utilitarian approach. Pre-Hero age. The GA or Heroic age starting with Superman with no definitive ending but varrying with different companies and books when the superheroes were displaced from the cover. I like the term genre age for this period up until the Second Heroic or SA with Flash in Showcase 4. Again for this sites purposes I would like to see us accept anything pd that is 10cents. That makes it easy to follow for inclusion.

[kquattro]

I'm curious, then, what you believe the timeframes "should" be.  Forgive me if it's stated and I overlooked it, but I don't see a unifying idea.  Instead, it seems (to my untrained eye) to just mark when DC sold lots of superhero comics, and from what I know of you, that can't possibly be what you're going for.

Hi again, jcolag.

The reason why I ended my response previously is because I believe we are talking about two entirely different things. You are committed to describing the various comic book ages based upon the various "themes" you seem to find applicable. What you seem to be missing is that comic books are a unique art form that wasn't/isn't based entirely on the artistic whim of the creators, but more importantly, subject to the bottom line realities of the publisher. Given that fact (and it is a fact) it is possible to track the direction the industry as a whole took by looking at the content.

After the success of the Superman feature in ACTION #1, not only National (DC), but a lot of other publishers took notice and began churning out as many superhero based comics as they could. That's a fact. When that genre began to fade, other genres were tried and succeeded. That's a fact. When the comic book industry instituted a code to regulate the content of its members comics, it radically changed the content. That's a fact. And when the superhero genre was tested (in SHOWCASE primarily) and was rewarded with rising sales, it spawned not only DC's renewed interest at that company, but at Timely/Atlas, Archie and Charlton. That's also a fact. This is what the comic fan/historian looks at when trying to define an era.

I don't dispute at all your attempt at finding thematic commonality between various comics--it's a worthy subject and I would love to see how you present it in an article or book. However, I do not believe it is as all-encompassing as you chose to believe. Gardner Fox was not the same writer as Dana Dutch, who was not the same writer as Ken Fitch, who was not the same writer as Mickey Spillane. Each had his own style, own motivations and trust me, they were all doing it for the money. If you want to say that a comic writer's work is reflective of the time period in which it was written (e.g.--anti-Japanese during WWII, anti-Communist during the Cold War era) than I'd agree. That only makes sense from a sales point of view. Publishers were playing to their audience and they put out product that they thought would sell.

You chose to dismiss Dell's Disney comics because you aren't familiar with them. Unfortunately, if you are a serious historian, you can't do that. They were the biggest selling comics of the Fifties. Period. That eventually changed and that's where the Silver Age and the Second Heroic Era come into dominance.

Still, I think it would be interesting to see how you apply your thematic theory as a symptom of the various ages. If I could suggest something it would be that you should use concrete examples to support your points. While I can use ACTION #1, the introduction of Superman and the ensuing onslaught of superhero comics as support of my starting point for the Golden Age, we only have your word as to the unifying themes that you claim define the era. Be specific. Otherwise your argument is weak indeed.

Thanks for the thought provoking posts, jcolag. Take care.

--Ken

[JVJ]

From my point of view, jcolag is trying to impose order on the chaos that is comic books and kquattro is trying to describe said chaos. There's a place for both approaches, but each can only aspire to a rough approximation of history.

Peace, Jim (|:{>