[Astaldo711]

I have the reprint deluxe edition of All Star Comics. I think it's issues 1-4. At any rate, the editor in it mentions how he had a subscription and one day gets the new issues, opens it up to find All Star Western. It's amazing to me how so much of the 50's was westerns and space.
I also never understand how people looked to comics as a source of evil influence. We can laugh about it now but I guess it was serious business to them back then. I can remember in high school everyone making a big deal over "Satanic" music. Even the TV news came to school. I listened to this "evil" music, I played Dungeons and Dragons, played Doom and Quake on the computer, and read comic books. I've never even gotten a parking ticket or been in trouble with the law. I had my share of teenage hell raising but nothing bad.
I read these old books now and it's good versus evil. Noble heroes. Good guy stuff. I guess there always has to be a scapegoat.

[Yoc]

By the end of the war the Superhero era was all but done Astaldo.
Only DC's big three characters and hangers on and the odd but mostly forgotten but still loved heroes hung on into the 50s.  Crime, horror and romance became the big sellers with funny animal licence books always doing pretty good for Dell.  TV would certainly influence comics not only in hurting sales but in bringing genres like westerns to the front as well as monster books and sci-fi for a while.  It took a looong time for anyone beside DC to make any money on superheros after WW2.
GAC has a huge selection of all these genres for you to enjoy and perhaps see life goes on beyond the underwear and capes.  Some of it is Really quite good and some - well you might see why some parents were shocked when they happened to look inside. 

Someone online links that you might enjoy while exploring the history of that era -
TheComicBooks.com site is a good place to start to learn about the Gold and silver era as well as some fantastic MP3 from comics panels.  I've shared this link before.
Crime Boss - Crime comics of the 40's and 50's Galleries and essays on them.
The Rules of Attraction Examples of strips and comics by big name artists at the bottom.
a list of All the Romance Comics Ever Published - no pics just a huge list!
The Other Guys-a brief history of pre-Comics Code horror comics other than E.C.

If I recall any more I'll let you know,
-Yoc

[Yoc]

Anyone wishing to get a sample of Ronin Ro's 'Tales to Astonish: Jack Kirby, Stan Lee, and the American comic book revolution"
Go to THIS LINK AND GET A PREVIEW OF THE FIRST SIX PAGES -
http://tinyurl.com/lh4g2p

There's zero bibliography or index but some sources are mentioned in the text.

I'm about 1/3 done in one night's reading.  It's not a dense book at all.

-Yoc

[Astaldo711]

Thanks Yoc. I love reading about the progression of comics books. My favorite genre is super hero but I also like some of the sci-fi and horror stuff. There's plenty here to comb through. I must admit however that I have great trepidation to reading any of the "romance" books. I'm curious because I can't imagine how many stories you could write about it but there are quite a few. I'm pretty sure I'd feel funny reading them, kind of like watching "The Notebook" when my wife isn't around. 

[OtherEric]

Try looking in the St. John section for romance books with Matt Baker art.  The art is just stunning.  I'm not sure how many I've even actually READ, I get distracted in awe at the pictures.

Some of the Simon/ Kirby romance is also interesting, mostly to see the creators trying something else.

[JVJ]

Try looking in the St. John section for romance books with Matt Baker art.  The art is just stunning.  I'm not sure how many I've even actually READ, I get distracted in awe at the pictures.

Some of the Simon/ Kirby romance is also interesting, mostly to see the creators trying something else.

Wasn't Baker simply the greatest? How did comics ever luck out and get an artist of that caliber? I'm also in awe of nearly everything he did.

Peace, Jim (|

[fett]

Anything Baker, Ward or the great L.B. Cole I immediatley take a gander at.

[Yoc]

Astaldo, one you get a gander at Matt Baker's romance artwork you wont care what the text says!
Baker was simply the best good girl artist going, period!
Check out his work on Phantom Lady in the Fox section and I personally always get a giggle out of his always silly 'Sky Girl' stories in Fiction House's JUMBO COMICS.

Here's a link devoted to Matt Baker.
http://www.geocities.com/blacksuperherohype/mattbaker.html

[Astaldo711]

Just  downloaded a couple of the Phantom Lady books. I'll check them out. Thanks for the suggestion.

[Yoc]

Latest book to read about comics - the Mammoth sized
The Comics Before 1945 (2004) by By: Brian Walker.  He wrote a sequel as well for After 1945.

I'll let you know what I think when I'm done.
-Yoc

[mergekoray]

He did a lot of interviews that still haven't been published, and a lot of the stuff that pertained to comics that weren't covered were held back for future volumes, I'll bet.

Geez, how long do they think they can hold on to it and still find enough buyers to break even.  I'm just now seeing Dean Martin shows; kindly: more than half the people that would have wanted to buy them are with Dean right now!

I watched an episode of "Have Gun, Will Travel"... it was ok, but I don't think I'd want to "buy" the series just because I watched it when I was a kid.  Comics on the other hand, were always better than TV...

MK

[narfstar]

Western channel is running Have Gun. Not all episodes are gems but it has some great ones.

I have lots of books on comics. I like to read Alter Ego as very informative.

[Astaldo711]

I had a couple of books about comics way back when but not any longer. I have the Marvel Encyclopedia and their older Official Handbook of The Marvel Universe as well as The Encyclopedia of Superheroes by Jeff Rovin. I know they're not exactly the kind of books you're discussing but I enjoy reading the histories of the characters.

[Ed Love]

Jeff Rovin's books are partly what got me started with my Encyclopedias. I only own the one though I've seen the others. There's just enough mistakes in it that I used it mainly as a starting point to track down characters or as a last resort. Some of the mistakes were sloppy as in getting names wrong in Doc's aides which were even then easily verifiable as Bantam was still releasing the Doc novels. Others were no doubt just due to difficulty of wading through the vast majority of comics and characters, especially the GA ones. Depending on which comic you were reading, Lance Hale comes off as a vastly different character (which makes a little more sense if you have the fortune of reading the stories in order) but other characters like the Hood, Catman, and Shock Gibson have major changes to their real names, origins and backstory that just happen. I've been doing this for years and I'm just now finding out why some of the information has been contradictory thanks in a big way to this site.

[Astaldo711]

I'd heard Rovin's book had some error's but I mainly use it just to find some character that looks interesting and get the actual book if I can. It's not entirely an encyclopedia in that he put a lot of his opinions in it. An encyclopedia should be just the facts, ma'am.

[Ed Love]

I think as long as you are clear of the difference between what's your opinion vs what's fact. I editorialize a bit on what I think is interesting in regards to characters or what I see as flaws in some characters' designs, concepts or stories. And, sometimes a little opinion slips in just by trying to liven up the writing, so that it's not always a dry recitation of the facts. Such as Shock Gibson deciding to give up his helmet (he caught himself in a mirror?) or suddenly switching to t-shirt and shorts (competing with the Black Cat over who has the best legs in the comic?). Or comparing certain mad scientists to Dr. Sivana. But, I try to talk frankly when discussing the Jungle Lords and Ladies because other writers/historians do dismiss them and the stories out of hand as being racist. I try to differentiate between what truly were racist depictions vs stereotypical depictions and sadly the reality of the time. A black character with little education in a servant's role is not racist but a stereotype of the reality of the times. Uneducated and superstitious natives are not by default racist depictions. Indeed, the racism is often a bit more insidious such as the native men drawn as ugly primitive brutes with exaggerated racial features, but all the women drawn as being basically white women. It's racist when the stories say the blacks are uneducated and superstitious by the simple virtue of their race being a lower form of evolution as opposed to circumstances. I have seen certain historians and reviewers that definitely wear their preferences on their sleeves and treat their opinions of what's good and what's not as absolute fact without taking a step back and looking at the works and contexts a little objectively.

And, by design, there are characters I don't include because I don't find anything particularly interesting or flashy about the character or story ie most of the Nazi bad guys or run of the mill gangsters and robbers. Otherwise I'd be cataloging every story and almost every character out there which isn't my goal. But, that means by default (and this is true of every encyclopedia really), I am stating my opinion simply by those that I include and those that I leave out. When it's not an error or by the simple fact that I've not read that particular comic yet.

[Astaldo711]

So these are books you have published? Can we find them anywhere?
The problem I had with Jeff Rovin's opinions is that if he didn't like a character, he could be pretty vehement about it so that you wouldn't care to read any more about it.

[skybandit]

Dig what you say, Ed.  The Spirit's sidekick and Chop-Chop from the Blackhawks LOOK hideous, but both characters were treated with respect by both their associates in the comics and the writers of same.   Blackhawk repeatedly stated that Chops was the smartest Blackhawk, even though he looked and spoke like a yellow monkey!

[boox909]

Dig what you say, Ed.  The Spirit's sidekick and Chop-Chop from the Blackhawks LOOK hideous, but both characters were treated with respect by both their associates in the comics and the writers of same.   Blackhawk repeatedly stated that Chops was the smartest Blackhawk, even though he looked and spoke like a yellow monkey!

The "treated with respect" formula is often the excuse offered for racist stereotypes and caricatures in comics and film. That excuse does not actually excuse anything. It personally pains me that many of these comics creators were Jews; bedeviled by racism concerning their own grouping, but felt that treating Asians and Blacks in comics as 'talking curiosities' was acceptable because 'the times' were okay with it.

While we can still enjoy the work of such creators, we should remember that 'the times' have changed.

B.

[Ed Love]

So these are books you have published? Can we find them anywhere?
The problem I had with Jeff Rovin's opinions is that if he didn't like a character, he could be pretty vehement about it so that you wouldn't care to read any more about it.

Books? No. Just my online site: www.herogoggles.com
As I'm at the point that I'm in the process of expanding to include DC and Timely characters, I've thought about looking for a publisher. The few books I've seen are often woefully incomplete and full of erroneous information (such as one that listed Wonder Woman as the first female superhero).

I've found that attitude elsewhere. It crops up in Toonopedia from time to time (such as his Peacemaker entry) and Jess Nevins' sites, otherwise fine historians until you get to a particular pet peeve. When talking about the characters, I do try to find something positive to say about them. After all, for most of them, especially the villains, they are on the site because on some level I found them interesting, warts and all.

[Astaldo711]

Wow, that's YOUR site? I bookmarked that some time ago. It's great!
I guess it's hard to write about something you're passionate about without bringing some emotion into it.

[Ed Love]

Thanks for the kind words. It would only be a shell of itself if not for this site, that's for sure. One of the other slightly annoying things is Bill Black has a tendency to edit the stories he reprints meaning I have to be careful in using stories from his books as some names may have gotten changed (and in some rare cases, characters get substituted). He's also very inconsistent in citing the sources of the stories.

I think one has to be able to step back and look a little objective at the situation though. I think many of the cases, the racism charge is warranted. But, it gets trotted out unfairly as well. Such as the case with Huckleberry Finn. Originally it was a banned book because of the fact that Jim was a sympathetic character and that Huck was willing to not only break the law to help him but also consign his soul to Hell if that's what it meant by helping a friend. Now, it's controversial because it dares to portray a black man as a slave, and an uneducated one at that. It misses the whole point of the book. Now, if that was the only type of book you were giving students to read, and the only type of black characters they were being exposed to,  you do have a racist problem, but it's in the attitude and nature of the reading program, not in the book itself. I think it crops up in the comics as well and we who are so enlightened today and pc looking back. In some cases, it's not the character that is racist, but the time period. Stereotypes are not necessarily racist as they exist and become stereotypes for a reason. It's how they are played out.  Luke Cage was a racial stereotype as were facets of the Falcon. Sue Storm, the Wasp, and Betty Brant were all stereotypes of their sex and the roles they filled in society.

And, some day, I hope society will look at comedians in fat suits today as well as the self-loathing as comedy from comedians like Chris Farley be how we look at actors in black face in the past. In some ways, we didn't become more enlightened, we just found a different group to make fun of.

[Astaldo711]

We judge the past on the present's definition of what is okay or not. I read some of these old comics and I'm shocked by how black people are portrayed. I'm not up in arms by it or "write your congressman" kind of thing because I realize that when the story was written, it wasn't trying to be cruel or mean. To do it today would be a huge problem.
I just read Fantastic Four #44 and in it Sue Richards has an apron on while Reed is fixing the dishwasher for her. I was always amazed at how they showed her in the early issues.

[JVJ]

We judge the past on the present's definition of what is okay or not. I read some of these old comics and I'm shocked by how black people are portrayed. I'm not up in arms by it or "write your congressman" kind of thing because I realize that when the story was written, it wasn't trying to be cruel or mean. To do it today would be a huge problem.
I just read Fantastic Four #44 and in it Sue Richards has an apron on while Reed is fixing the dishwasher for her. I was always amazed at how they showed her in the early issues.

You're right, Astaldo,
It's when the story was created that really matters the most. Some of the most fascinating stories in literature (and history) feature modern sensibilities before their time: A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court springs immediately to mind. The first few books in Jane Auel's Cave Woman series worked for me on that level, too. Leonardo DaVinci must have yearned for someone to whom he could relate. And tons of various quality science fiction place "modern" man amidst his prehistoric (or post-historic) ancestors.
My point is, we enjoy these stories because of the frission of enlightenment vs lack thereof. When we approach any literary form, or scientific theory, we have to acknowledge the time in which it was formed and judge it on two criteria:

1. How valid was it "in the day"?
2. How valid is it today?

If #1 is okay (that is, if it conformed to the general mores and standards of the time), then I think we can cut it some slack on #2. We have to be aware of the times. Take a look at the natives that black artist Matt Baker drew in his Camilla stories for Fiction House. They are no better or worse than those drawn by John Celardo or August Froehlich (most Fiction House artists were actually very progressive in their portrayals, though H.C. Kiefer seemed stuck in the 19th century...) in the same issues.

I always thought that "The Invisible GIRL" was an incredibly demeaning name, and Stan probably realized that fairly quickly, too. It may have been valid in the '40s when he was first making up character names, but by the '60s it had too many bad connotations for a woman old enough to marry. So the whole domestic nature of the character was mostly dropped.

Now I must get back to my taxes... Drat. This is eversomuch more fun.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[Roygbiv666]

...Such as the case with Huckleberry Finn. Originally it was a banned book because of the fact that Jim was a sympathetic character and that Huck was willing to not only break the law to help him but also consign his soul to Hell if that's what it meant by helping a friend. Now, it's controversial because it dares to portray a black man as a slave, and an uneducated one at that. It misses the whole point of the book. ...

Shouldn't that be part of what teachers are teaching their students? Not just "read this" but, here's how to read it.