Comic Book Plus Forum
Help And Support => Suggestions => Topic started by: archiver_USA on May 15, 2009, 05:30:33 PM
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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...
-
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.)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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. :(
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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 (|:{>
-
I think Ken hit the nail on the head with one point.
'Follow the money.'
While it may be a unique artform we here all love - comics have always been published to make money and it would seem to me easier to follow the trends in comics by comparing the publisher's statements or perhaps some other more reliable resource to see just what comics were the best sellers over the years. I believe some numbers were mentioned in the Kefauver investigation that really showed how much Dell really dominated back then. And they never bothered to worry about the Comics Code either.
I'd love to see a list of the top 50 newsstand sellers for each year from 1935-on.
-Yoc
-
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.
Well put, Jim!
If it isn't obvious from reading my article, I didn't arrive at my age definitions alone. While I spent years formulating my own theories, I also consulted people like Jerry Bails, Roy Thomas, Dr. Michael Vassallo and others a whole lot smarter than me for their opinions. Jerry in particular was instrumental in the final months that I was putting the article together.
(an aside: I knew Jerry off-and-on since I was a kid. I bought my first Golden Age comics from him at the local Detroit conventions (the fabled Triple Fan Fairs) back in the mid-Sixties. I was making the tentative move from just buying comics off the newsstand to these strange, old books and I recognized Jerry's name from the letter columns in the various DCs. I remember the first comic I bought off him was a DETECTIVE #30 and my hands were shaking when I paid for it. It cost me all of $30...sigh...I miss those days...)
I certainly don't claim that my take on the comic book ages is perfect. And I know it needs tweaking. One of these days, when time permits, I hope to revisit it and fine-tune it a bit.
--Ken
-
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.
While true to some extent, the same is true about any artform. Warhol and Salinger (or Botticelli and Marlowe, for that matter) didn't do their things exclusively to relieve their heart of some burden, it was to make a living, too. Is Cervantes courting a patron any different from Jack Cole submitting a script to Quality?
This is what the comic fan/historian looks at when trying to define an era.
That may be how it's been defined so far, and it may be a decent indicator of things, but what does it TELL you about comic books? The Golden Age of Television refers to the highbrow culture from which programming was derived. The Golden Age of Radio refers to the breadth of programming available. The Golden Age of Comic Strips refers to the exploration and definition of the visual vocabulary. The Golden Age of Jazz refers to specific styles.
Were those artforms not strictly commercial ventures? Are they so much more sophisticated than comic books that they can withstand thematic analysis while comics are only worth checking to see if lesser-light superheroes are being frequently sold on their own?
I think that's my main problem with the variety of models out there. Coming from a science background, if a model can't tell you things about what you haven't seen yet (or even what you can see), then it's not a useful model.
(You're not too far off the mark, Jim--I'm not so much trying to impose order as highlight what order there is. Writers don't write in a vacuum and they don't operate at random, so there must be some order, by definition. Whether I'm overreaching is another thing entirely, of course, and that's something that time and research will presumably turn up.)
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.
In my defense (to the extent that I ever seriously defend myself), I'm not pushing for acceptance or claiming that I have discovered the key to understanding all things comic books. Someone asked how such things were defined, and I kicked out the idea I generally use.
You might think that I must study certain things before I have a right to speak up, but as I pointed out, I'm also willing to make predictions to test fairly important things. If I'm found wrong (for example, in the Disney characters' relationship to authority in their more adventurous stories), I'll go back to the drawing board.
And yeah, I could hit my page after page of notes and fill in details of when things are first found versus commonly found, but (again) this isn't a hard sell, nor is it likely to be, especially in a forum that's owned and operated by somebody else. I already feel like I've filled too much of somebody else's space, here, so I'll probably leave the topic here.
-
I've always felt that a "Golden Age" of anything referred to an initial level of popularity & acceptance that brought something from an experimental/developement stage into the "mainstream".
I was always under the impression that the phrases "The Golden Age of Television" and "The Golden Age of Radio" referred to the initial popular succes of each medium and not so much to any specific style of programming they may have had.
-
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
-
I don't mean this as a personal attack, but I've always thought that people who define the Silver Age as starting with FF #1 as being much too Marvel-centric. Stan admits the genesis for FF was the JLA (whether or not there was a golf match and with whom is something of a question). And Marvel's FF wasn't even the second company's reintroduction of Super-heroes. Archie (Pvt Strong, Fly), and Charlton (Capt Atom) also preceded FF #1 and were in what is generally considered the Silver Age.
-
I've always thought that people who define the Silver Age as starting with FF #1 as being much too Marvel-centric. Stan admits the genesis for FF was the JLA (whether or not there was a golf match and with whom is something of a question). And Marvel's FF wasn't even the second company's reintroduction of Super-heroes. Archie (Pvt Strong, Fly), and Charlton (Capt Atom) also preceded FF #1 and were in what is generally considered the Silver Age.
I totally agree, Jon.
Any -centric "defining point" is missing the whole concept of an "age". The "Golden Age" isn't about super-heroes, IMHO, but about a general approach to comic books that brought forth such diverse books as Keen Detective Funnies, Action Comics, Four-Color Comics, Prize Comics, New Funnies, Heroic Comics, Jungle Comics, Captain America, etc. It was not about a particular genre but about newness, freshness, experimentation and creative diversity coupled with a touch of naivete. The same can be said of "golden ages" of pulps, TV, radio, film, etc. The term in generally applied to the defining period of a new medium.
The "Silver Age", IMHO, revolves around a restriction in the "formula" of comics that saw the number of companies and genre radically condensed. It also featured the rise of fandom and an awareness of the creators that had been gradually eroding away over time. Consider that in early Fiction House and Centaur nearly EVERY artist was identified and acknowledged. Though the practice continued sporadically over the decades, it wasn't until the SA that Marvel and then DC made it a practice to give credits as a matter of course.
Up until the SA, artists were coming into comics at a fairly regular clip. By the time the SA arrives, the Atlas Implosion has created a surplus of artists and a dramatically lowered demand for their services. I can't think of more than two or three artists (Neal Adams, Jim Steranko, and ?) who entered the comics field in the SA. Given that we're talking about a period of at least ten years, that's significant in and of itself.
"Ages," again IMHO, are "-centric-neutral" and should help define the INDUSTRY, not the contents of the product. One doesn't define the prehistoric Iron Age by the alloys that were used in the tools, but by the fact that early man had tools made of metal rather than stone. When you talk about "ages" you need to stand back until the "details" blur and you get an overall view of the medium.
my 2
-
I think in a large way heroes represent/epitomize the excitement of the age. Superman authored in an excitement for the medium that can be seen by the hero explosion. The same can be said for the SA Flash with a revitalization after a decline. The gold and silver represent a time of shine. I like the term genre age for the post GA. It was a time when diversity reigned. Yes it may be fanboy logic but I think the excitement about comics in general has always come from superheroes specifically. I know that Dell was at one time the biggest seller but for the overall industry it is closely tied to superheroes.
-
I think in a large way heroes represent/epitomize the excitement of the age. Superman authored in an excitement for the medium that can be seen by the hero explosion. The same can be said for the SA Flash with a revitalization after a decline. The gold and silver represent a time of shine. I like the term genre age for the post GA. It was a time when diversity reigned. Yes it may be fanboy logic but I think the excitement about comics in general has always come from superheroes specifically. I know that Dell was at one time the biggest seller but for the overall industry it is closely tied to superheroes.
No offense, Narf,
but I simply disagree with those statements. I think in fan-logic/perspective they may be valid, but the product of the industry just doesn't support them. Equal support could be drawn from the data for funny animal comics. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
I don't mean this as a personal attack, but I've always thought that people who define the Silver Age as starting with FF #1 as being much too Marvel-centric. Stan admits the genesis for FF was the JLA (whether or not there was a golf match and with whom is something of a question). And Marvel's FF wasn't even the second company's reintroduction of Super-heroes. Archie (Pvt Strong, Fly), and Charlton (Capt Atom) also preceded FF #1 and were in what is generally considered the Silver Age.
Well for me it's always been like this...
Golden Age: 1929 to about 1946.
"New Trends" Age: 1946 to about 1955 or 1956 (imposition of comics code, end of EC's comics line, Kurtzman leaves Mad).
"Post New Trends" Age: 1955/56 to about 1961.
Silver Age: FF #1 to Conan the Barbarian #1.
Bronze Age: Conan the Barbarian #1 to Warren implosion (about 1982 or 83, don't remember exactly).
Modern Age: Everything after 1983.
Of course I'm aware that these divisions are rather superficial and simplistic (and in fact there is no real boundary between periods)... and yes, I know it's a rather EC and Marvel centric view of things. But it's what worked for me... sorry if I've disturbed anyone. :)
-
Of course I'm aware that these divisions are rather superficial and simplistic (and in fact there is no real boundary between periods)... and yes, I know it's a rather EC and Marvel centric view of things. But it's what worked for me... sorry if I've disturbed anyone. :)
I don't think anyone is (or should be) "disturbed" by ANY of this, DL.
But it certainly does vividly demonstrate that all these "ages" are very subjective and most often influenced by personal experiences with collecting. C'est la vie. I think we all knew that to begin with. and like I said to Narfstar, we sometimes have to "agree to disagree" and we generally do it with smiles on our faces (at least I hope we do).
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
Of course I'm aware that these divisions are rather superficial and simplistic (and in fact there is no real boundary between periods)... and yes, I know it's a rather EC and Marvel centric view of things. But it's what worked for me... sorry if I've disturbed anyone. :)
I don't think anyone is (or should be) "disturbed" by ANY of this, DL.
But it certainly does vividly demonstrate that all these "ages" are very subjective and most often influenced by personal experiences with collecting. C'est la vie. I think we all knew that to begin with. and like I said to Narfstar, we sometimes have to "agree to disagree" and we generally do it with smiles on our faces (at least I hope we do).
Peace, Jim (|:{>
That's ok JVJ... no offense taken. :)
I'm here to learn about other points of view... and I must say, your "-centric-neutral" approach to thinking about the various "ages" is indeed a more powerful method of analysis and does yield a better understanding of comic history. Of course it also requires a greater knowledge of the subject matter, which I don't possess... but I'm working on it. :)
-
Any -centric "defining point" is missing the whole concept of an "age". The "Golden Age" isn't about super-heroes, IMHO, but about a general approach to comic books that brought forth such diverse books as Keen Detective Funnies, Action Comics, Four-Color Comics, Prize Comics, New Funnies, Heroic Comics, Jungle Comics, Captain America, etc. It was not about a particular genre but about newness, freshness, experimentation and creative diversity coupled with a touch of naivete. The same can be said of "golden ages" of pulps, TV, radio, film, etc. The term in generally applied to the defining period of a new medium.
So by "-centric-neutral" thinking there really wouldn't be a difference between say, what happened in the late 30s early 40s to what was going on up until the code (about 1955). Because creatively the approach was similar (experimentation, diversity, newness of genres to a certain extent... but maybe some loss of naivete). The artistic zeitgeist was similar... so it was a common age. I think I'm getting what you're saying... or at least what I think you're saying. :)
The "Silver Age", IMHO, revolves around a restriction in the "formula" of comics that saw the number of companies and genre radically condensed. ...
Or depending on how you look at it, the restriction to a formula. :)
... It also featured the rise of fandom and an awareness of the creators that had been gradually eroding away over time. Consider that in early Fiction House and Centaur nearly EVERY artist was identified and acknowledged. Though the practice continued sporadically over the decades, it wasn't until the SA that Marvel and then DC made it a practice to give credits as a matter of course.
Again, I think what you're saying is that the age was marked by a unique zeitgeist.
The Bronze Age (BA) is the BA not just because Conan the Barbarian #1 was published, but because there was a shift in creative risk taking and artistic expression which allowed Conan the Barbarian #1 to come about. The BA is also marked by some as starting around the time Kirby left Marvel for DC, but Kirby leaving Marvel didn't start the BA, Kirby left because he was being screwed. And he was as much influenced into moving by what was happening (independent underground publishing, the growing awareness among artists for creator rights, etc.) as he in turn influenced others... yes in his actions he helped define a new "age," but he was also a product or reflection of that coming age.
-
Something that I realized probably shaped my model significantly, and I think echoes Jim's sentiment: I've heard it suggested (and I wish I could find the reference) that most industries and artforms undergo a series of transformations, from exploration (by definition, since these are the pioneers) to orthodoxy to experimentation (pushing against the orthodoxy) to self-indulgence (essentially experimentation gone out of control).
That may (and I happen to think it does) map well to Golden, Silver, Bronze, and Iron Ages (is Crisis on Infinite Earths anything less than supremely self-indulgent?). Though, of course, now that the worst excesses have been mostly purged, does that mean that the model has broken and we're in some kind of new world...?
-
I see a lot of excesses in today's comics JC.
Superhero inbreeding, etc. It's a scary place.
-
True, Yoc, but compare the Geoff Johns "let's just bring back everything and see what sticks" approach to the (putting this as charitably as I can) art-directed books of the late '80s and early '90s. There's excess in both, for sure, but I wouldn't call the modern stuff nearly as self-indulgent as (to pick something at random) Frank Miller's take on Batman. Or Spidey's Clone Saga.
What I call the Iron Age was marked primarily by an attitude of...well, snootiness, and desperation to be "taken seriously," whatever that means. Neil Gaiman, John Byrne, the Image founders, and pretty much everybody else who was significant at the time was working on pseudo-mature junk that tried really hard to prove that art could be found in comics. They wanted to be the "cool kids," or at least "leave their mark on the industry."
That approach seems gone, now, and it's no longer "about" the writer and penciller. Whether the creators' skills have improved, of course, is a matter of opinion...
-
So by "-centric-neutral" thinking there really wouldn't be a difference between say, what happened in the late 30s early 40s to what was going on up until the code (about 1955). Because creatively the approach was similar (experimentation, diversity, newness of genres to a certain extent... but maybe some loss of naivete). The artistic zeitgeist was similar... so it was a common age. I think I'm getting what you're saying... or at least what I think you're saying. :)
No, DL, I think that there was VAST difference between what was going on in early 40s and what happened after 1947. I think in MY Golden Age, experimentation was rife and often way over the top, but more focused on product than genre. With the end of the war we see a retrenching of the medium and a search for THE (as opposed to A) new thing. Crime, Romance and Horror are a LOT different from the superheroes, funny animal and westerns of the GA. They're more "grown up" (as the medium had become) and the "thrills" more focused. The books were losing page count (and physical dimensions - albeit at a much slower rate than pages) and the stories were being condensed too. Tighter, more-focused, more "true to life" (their term, not mine) than before. Where "True" used to mean biographies of famous people in the GA, in the post-GA period it meant depictions of a "real" crime, a "real" romance, or "real" fear - or at least the comic books equivalent of same. This is a MAJOR change.
And the industry moved in unison. If you consider the comic book industry as a huge flotilla making a course change, the bigger companies were the battleships and aircraft carriers that took the longest time to alter their direction, but the smaller companies moved almost as a single unit. First they embraced the Romance line. Read Michelle Nolan's book "Love on the Racks" to see just what a sea change occurred in 1947-49. Then they found a way to do Crime comics (even DC had Mr. District Attorney and Big Town - their version of crime) and eventually horror (look at the Classics Illustrated books that came out in this period compared to those of "my" GA).
Since "zietgiest" isn't a word I use regularly, I looked it up: The word zeitgeist describes the intellectual, cultural, ethical and political climate, ambience and morals of an era (similar to the English word "mainstream") or also a trend. In German, the word has more layers of meaning than the English translation, including the fact that Zeitgeist can only be observed for past events.
I don't agree that the "intellectual, cultural, ethical and political climate, ambience and morals" of the pre-war and war years of comics, and certainly not our country, are the same as those experienced in the years 1949 - 1955. I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone here of a continued zietgiest from 1936 through 1955. If anything, I think it marks the BIGGEST change in the mainstream culture in two decades in our nation's history. I think there is a change in zietgiest after the war and that the change marks the end of the Golden Age.
Or depending on how you look at it, the restriction to a formula. :)
If you place the beginning of the SA at FF#1, then TO A formula applies. If, like me, you place it at the beginning of 1958, then I'll stick with IN THE formula.
Again, I think what you're saying is that the age was marked by a unique zeitgeist.
Your words, not mine. The Silver Age, as I see it, was defined by DC limiting Timely/Marvel/Atlas to eight monthly comics. This caused dozens of artists to be freed up from their adequately paid jobs and to go looking for work. The explosion of Classics Illustrated/World Around Us/Special Issues, the experimentation at Charlton, Dell movie and TV adaptations, MAD imitation magazines, etc. are ALL part of the SA. The super-heroes at DC, Archie and Charlton are also part of it, but remember that 25% of the comics on the newsstand had just mysteriously vanished. That leaves a huge vacuum in the supply chain. Superheroes eventually filled that vacuum, but it didn't happen overnight.
The Bronze Age (BA) is the BA not just because Conan the Barbarian #1 was published, but because there was a shift in creative risk taking and artistic expression which allowed Conan the Barbarian #1 to come about. The BA is also marked by some as starting around the time Kirby left Marvel for DC, but Kirby leaving Marvel didn't start the BA, Kirby left because he was being screwed. And he was as much influenced into moving by what was happening (independent underground publishing, the growing awareness among artists for creator rights, etc.) as he in turn influenced others... yes in his actions he helped define a new "age," but he was also a product or reflection of that coming age.
Here's how I look at it: The BA came about because Marvel was sold and the new owners examined the ten year old restraint of trade contract that Goodman had signed with DC's distributor and said it wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Up until then, Marvel was "restricted" to 16 titles. What was originally meant to be only eight monthly titles had doubled as the sales and profits of an expanding Marvel overrode the restraint agreement. When the restraint was removed, the double-mags (Strange Tales, Tales of Suspense, Journey into Mystery, etc.) were split and as many new titles as possible were added. Conan was one of them.
Yes, there was creative risk taking, but it came from a small group of fans-turned-pro. The main thrust of the BA was, as always, PROFITS. It also marked the beginning of new blood in the ranks of comic book artists. As fandom grew and fans like Roy Thomas moved into the industry, change was inevitable, but not until the artificial restraints were lifted. The DEMAND for artists opened up and the SUPPLY was there in fandom just waiting for the call. It was these new fan-centric artists who eventually brought about the changes.
Like I indicated earlier, you have to stand back at examine the industry, not the individuals, when you're trying to "define" an "age."
Looks like this is 4
-
Something that I realized probably shaped my model significantly, and I think echoes Jim's sentiment: I've heard it suggested (and I wish I could find the reference) that most industries and artforms undergo a series of transformations, from exploration (by definition, since these are the pioneers) to orthodoxy to experimentation (pushing against the orthodoxy) to self-indulgence (essentially experimentation gone out of control).
That may (and I happen to think it does) map well to Golden, Silver, Bronze, and Iron Ages (is Crisis on Infinite Earths anything less than supremely self-indulgent?). Though, of course, now that the worst excesses have been mostly purged, does that mean that the model has broken and we're in some kind of new world...?
Well put, jc.
If you find the reference to the stages/transformations, please share it with us.
Does anyone else ever wonder if comics of today might not actually be a different medium than what existed in the 20th century?
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
No, DL, I think that there was VAST difference between what was going on in early 40s and what happened after 1947. I think in MY Golden Age, experimentation was rife and often way over the top, but more focused on product than genre. With the end of the war we see a retrenching of the medium and a search for THE (as opposed to A) new thing. Crime, Romance and Horror are a LOT different from the superheroes, funny animal and westerns of the GA. They're more "grown up" (as the medium had become) and the "thrills" more focused. The books were losing page count (and physical dimensions - albeit at a much slower rate than pages) and the stories were being condensed too. Tighter, more-focused, more "true to life" (their term, not mine) than before. Where "True" used to mean biographies of famous people in the GA, in the post-GA period it meant depictions of a "real" crime, a "real" romance, or "real" fear - or at least the comic books equivalent of same. This is a MAJOR change.
Thanks for the clarification and I must say very well put. And I agree with you on all points. To me there's a definite difference as well, although I couldn't put it in as concise and direct terms (I tried to allude to some of what you cite by my "loss of naivete" comment, but perhaps there's just too much to brush under the rug... thanks for making them explicit). I think jcolag has captured it most succinctly, the GA was an age of pioneers and experimentation, what came in the post-GA (post WWII) was a transformation of this.
...Read Michelle Nolan's book "Love on the Racks" to see just what a sea change occurred in 1947-49. ...
Any others that you would recommend?
Since "zietgiest" isn't a word I use regularly, I looked it up: The word zeitgeist describes the intellectual, cultural, ethical and political climate, ambience and morals of an era (similar to the English word "mainstream") or also a trend. In German, the word has more layers of meaning than the English translation, including the fact that Zeitgeist can only be observed for past events.
I don't agree that the "intellectual, cultural, ethical and political climate, ambience and morals" of the pre-war and war years of comics, and certainly not our country, are the same as those experienced in the years 1949 - 1955. I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone here of a continued zietgiest from 1936 through 1955. If anything, I think it marks the BIGGEST change in the mainstream culture in two decades in our nation's history. I think there is a change in zietgiest after the war and that the change marks the end of the Golden Age. ...
Sorry, poor choice of words, perhaps "gestalt" was more appropriate... maybe not. What I was trying to use the term to describe was the idea that within the subculture of the comic book business (not the entire culture) there was still a modicum of the pioneering and experimental spirit in the post-GA era... and that if anything were the same it would be that. But as I feel you made explicit, even this was not coming from the same place, so to speak.
Again, I think what you're saying is that the age was marked by a unique zeitgeist.
Your words, not mine. The Silver Age, as I see it, was defined by DC limiting Timely/Marvel/Atlas to eight monthly comics. This caused dozens of artists to be freed up from their adequately paid jobs and to go looking for work. The explosion of Classics Illustrated/World Around Us/Special Issues, the experimentation at Charlton, Dell movie and TV adaptations, MAD imitation magazines, etc. are ALL part of the SA. The super-heroes at DC, Archie and Charlton are also part of it, but remember that 25% of the comics on the newsstand had just mysteriously vanished. That leaves a huge vacuum in the supply chain. Superheroes eventually filled that vacuum, but it didn't happen overnight.
Never thought of defining the SA in that way, with regard to restrictions on distribution (and it's consequences), good point... although I don't think many artists felt they were adequately paid (but then who does).
The Bronze Age (BA) is the BA not just because Conan the Barbarian #1 was published, but because there was a shift in creative risk taking and artistic expression which allowed Conan the Barbarian #1 to come about. The BA is also marked by some as starting around the time Kirby left Marvel for DC, but Kirby leaving Marvel didn't start the BA, Kirby left because he was being screwed. And he was as much influenced into moving by what was happening (independent underground publishing, the growing awareness among artists for creator rights, etc.) as he in turn influenced others... yes in his actions he helped define a new "age," but he was also a product or reflection of that coming age.
Here's how I look at it: The BA came about because Marvel was sold and the new owners examined the ten year old restraint of trade contract that Goodman had signed with DC's distributor and said it wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Up until then, Marvel was "restricted" to 16 titles. What was originally meant to be only eight monthly titles had doubled as the sales and profits of an expanding Marvel overrode the restraint agreement. When the restraint was removed, the double-mags (Strange Tales, Tales of Suspense, Journey into Mystery, etc.) were split and as many new titles as possible were added. Conan was one of them.
Again, good insight... I didn't really know the specifics of why those titles were split up or the connection with the Conan title (again, those restrictions on distribution had a real tangible effect on changing the direction of things... a point I often forget).
Yes, there was creative risk taking, but it came from a small group of fans-turned-pro. The main thrust of the BA was, as always, PROFITS. It also marked the beginning of new blood in the ranks of comic book artists. As fandom grew and fans like Roy Thomas moved into the industry, change was inevitable, but not until the artificial restraints were lifted. The DEMAND for artists opened up and the SUPPLY was there in fandom just waiting for the call. It was these new fan-centric artists who eventually brought about the changes.
Like I indicated earlier, you have to stand back at examine the industry, not the individuals, when you're trying to "define" an "age."
Thanks JVJ... lots to think about.
Looks like this is 4
-
I really do not disagree with you Jim. Since it is a subjective area I consider your definition a co-definition rather than a counter definition. I think both work depending on perspective you wish to examine at the time. I admit to mine being more fan centric but consider the fan a vital part of the medium.
-
Any -centric "defining point" is missing the whole concept of an "age". The "Golden Age" isn't about super-heroes... It was not about a particular genre but about newness, freshness, experimentation and creative diversity coupled with a touch of naivete. The same can be said of "golden ages" of pulps, TV, radio, film, etc. The term in generally applied to the defining period of a new medium.
Of course, (if I remember correctly) Maggie Thompson said something along the lines of, "The Golden Age is what you were reading at the age of 12". ;D
I really like Jim's definition of the term "Golden Age". It certainly applies to comic books and the other media he mentions. But I think it also carries with it an implied sense of it being a peak period of quality. Obviously, that's not always the case. Still, it is a factor in most Golden Age definitions.
And while I agree that super-heroes didn't completely define the Golden Age of comics, they certainly drove it. If we remove the concept of the super-hero from the comic book medium, I can't see how it would have exploded in popularity as it did following the publication of ACTION #1. Comic books prior to ACTION #1 were doing OK, but none of the existing concepts were setting the world on fire at that time. It was the sales of ACTION #1 and subsequent issues that caught the publisher's attention:
By the time the fourth and fifth issues hit the stands, in the late summer of 1938, word was coming in that ACTION was selling through quicker than other comics. Harry Donenfeld sent his sales staff out to run an informal survey of news dealers and their customers, and they came back with the word that kids were asking for "the comic with Superman in it." --(Men of Tomorrow by Gerard Jones, pg. 141)
Publishers fell all over themselves trying to replicate that success and usually they did it by offering their own version of the super-hero. Why else would National have fought so hard (but in vain) to keep the concept exclusive to themselves? [evidenced by the lawsuits against Fox and Fawcett]
When the super-hero genre ran its course, publishers desperately searched for the next "big" thing. But without the super-hero concept in the first place, there may not have been much of a comic book industry by the late-Forties.
The "Silver Age", IMHO, revolves around a restriction in the "formula" of comics that saw the number of companies and genre radically condensed. It also featured the rise of fandom and an awareness of the creators that had been gradually eroding away over time...it wasn't until the SA that Marvel and then DC made it a practice to give credits as a matter of course.
Again, Jim has made a great summation of the Silver Age!
"Ages," again IMHO, are "-centric-neutral" and should help define the INDUSTRY, not the contents of the product.
I agree that any attempt to tie the definition of an Age to the actions of one company is a mistake. The contents of the comics, in my opinion, are the outward face of the industry as a whole. What they publish is a manifestation of business decisions that the buyer is generally not privy to.
I'm glad to see this subject (the comic Ages) generate so much discussion. Some great thoughts and points to consider by Jim V and others have certainly widened my perspective. Thanks!
--Ken Q
-
I really do not disagree with you Jim. Since it is a subjective area I consider your definition a co-definition rather than a counter definition. I think both work depending on perspective you wish to examine at the time. I admit to mine being more fan centric but consider the fan a vital part of the medium.
We may still have to agree to disagree, narf. The fan is certainly a defining and vital part of the medium NOW. In the Golden Age that was certainly NOT so, and fan activity is one of the defining developments of the Silver Age. I don't see the history of comics as being "subjective" albeit the definition of "ages" certainly is. I was very interested in characters and companies for the first three or four years that I collected comics (1966-1969), but since then I've been more focused on the creators than the contents. So I'm dealing with the facts of the medium, not the fantasy of the characters. I could care less whether Kirby drew romance, crime or Fighting American or Lockjaw the Alligator. It's all KIRBY to me and equally interesting. I'm a fan of the artists and the medium, but am generally blase about the contents.
I think that allows me a more objective view of the subject. You may disagree as to whether or not there's any merit in that objectivity, but then we enter your "subjective area" and I start debating the merit of THAT. Let's agree to disagree.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
I think jcolag has captured it most succinctly, the GA was an age of pioneers and experimentation, what came in the post-GA (post WWII) was a transformation of this.
I agree that jcolag's comments were perceptive and valuable. I'd like to pursue the source if he can turn it up.
...Read Michelle Nolan's book "Love on the Racks" to see just what a sea change occurred in 1947-49. ...
Any others that you would recommend?
The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, Romance Without Tears, Men of Tomorrow, John Benson's book on Archer St. John. It's hard to get REAL history books on comics as so many of them originate from the fan perspective - not that I have anything against fans, but they make lousy historians.
Sorry, poor choice of words, perhaps "gestalt" was more appropriate... maybe not. What I was trying to use the term to describe was the idea that within the subculture of the comic book business (not the entire culture) there was still a modicum of the pioneering and experimental spirit in the post-GA era... and that if anything were the same it would be that. But as I feel you made explicit, even this was not coming from the same place, so to speak.
I think there's always SOME degree of experimenting happening in the medium, DL. It reminds me a bit of popular music where every generation feels the need to do SOMETHING different from the previous generation. Sadly, the number of different musical directions that are also good is limited. The same is true in comics. Difference attracts attention and sometimes it sells, too. When Simon & Kirby "invented" Romance comics, though, it was a calculated spin on newsstand romance magazines designed to make money. It was NOT a pioneering and experimental creative spark like the one that conjured up Capt. America. Alas, that's one of the differences....
Never thought of defining the SA in that way, with regard to restrictions on distribution (and it's consequences), good point... although I don't think many artists felt they were adequately paid (but then who does).
Absolutely true, but they DID have adequate work and knew that there would be another job to pick up when they turned in the current one. When THAT changed, it was a frightening time for ALL of them. It's why the Silver Age starts with a major explosion of non-superhero material as all those artists scrambled to find SOMETHING to do to pay the rent. Just remember that in 1958 Dell was the leading publisher and Archie, Harvey, Prize, Charlton and Classics Illustrated were all players in the comics market.
Another thought on defining the Silver Age as starting with Showcase #4: it seems to conveniently overlook the fact that Superman and Batman were continuously being published throughout the first half of the decade. What were they, chopped liver? If the Golden Age is defined by Superman, why on earth (II) isn't he a factor in the SA?
Again, good insight... I didn't really know the specifics of why those titles were split up or the connection with the Conan title (again, those restrictions on distribution had a real tangible effect on changing the direction of things... a point I often forget).
I think Conan was a symptom of a sea (or "age") change, not an indicator of same.
Thanks JVJ... lots to think about.
My pleasure, DL. Perhaps I should make a "Full Disclosure" here that the thoughts I expressed were extemporaneous and have not been thoroughly vetted to make sure that they are 100% accurate. So perhaps only 18% of the comics on the stands disappeared - or some other such detail might be off a bit. I'm lazy and I've been both working hard on the next issue of my magazine and also dealing with some serious sleep problems, so please don't quote anything I've said as gospel without double-checking with another source. Thanks.
Just remember: when I joined this group my first post was titled something like "Lots of Comics but No Time."
And worth every cent. :)
Thanks. Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
Another thought on defining the Silver Age as starting with Showcase #4: it seems to conveniently overlook the fact that Superman and Batman were continuously being published throughout the first half of the decade. What were they, chopped liver? If the Golden Age is defined by Superman, why on earth (II) isn't he a factor in the SA?
My take on this (using Showcase 4 as the "start" of the Silver Age ... which I don't personally agree with, for what it's worth) is that it was the "reinvention" of The Flash that showed DC that taking old characters and updating them could be financially successful. Eventually, this led to the formation of the JLA, which in turn led to the FF from Marvel. DC's other heroes (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, etc), who had been published since the 1940s, proved they were successful on their own, but certainly were not as instrumental in the creation of the Justice League as The Flash and everyone who followed him.
-
I agree that jcolag's comments were perceptive and valuable. I'd like to pursue the source if he can turn it up.
I've been hunting, but it's getting busy over here, and promises to be even busier for a couple of months (which is good for things like paying the rent...). It doesn't help that it could be anything from a mythology paper by Cassirer to a book on software development to some blog post. I don't recall it being the main thrust of the text, whatever it was.
I think there's always SOME degree of experimenting happening in the medium, DL. It reminds me a bit of popular music where every generation feels the need to do SOMETHING different from the previous generation. Sadly, the number of different musical directions that are also good is limited. The same is true in comics. Difference attracts attention and sometimes it sells, too. When Simon & Kirby "invented" Romance comics, though, it was a calculated spin on newsstand romance magazines designed to make money. It was NOT a pioneering and experimental creative spark like the one that conjured up Capt. America. Alas, that's one of the differences....
I actually see it as very similar. It's clearly not exploration motivated by the same forces, preventing collapse instead of trying to expand, but it's still an attempt to find the boundaries.
Another thought on defining the Silver Age as starting with Showcase #4: it seems to conveniently overlook the fact that Superman and Batman were continuously being published throughout the first half of the decade. What were they, chopped liver? If the Golden Age is defined by Superman, why on earth (II) isn't he a factor in the SA?
On the other hand, look at 1953 instead of 1956. Superman gets his first glimpse of science-fiction adventures with the appearance of the three Kryptonian criminals. At the same time, Atlas (or whoever they were that week) brings back its major heroes. It can be rather easily argued that the details of these events didn't survive long enough to be relevant, but they seem strongly indicative of the fare to come.
And yes, one of the things I hate most about revisionist history is the lack of accounting for not just Superman and Batman, but Wonder Woman (never really a huge seller, as I understand it) and all of their backup strips. The fact that neither Aquaman nor Green Arrow was trumped in his own strip by a pet (Green Lantern), plainclothed kid sidekicks (Daredevil), or reporter girlfriend (Blue Beetle) suggests that the superhero form was still viable, though not in the masses previously seen. And yet, the story as a lot of fans seem to "know" it is that superheroes completely vanished at the end of the war, and a lot of writers are more than happy to play into the view. And that doesn't even start to mention Fawcett, Quality, Fox, and any minor companies that kept with superheroes until they collapsed.
Side question: Has anybody ever investigated how it is that only National characters managed to survive continuously at DC? Of All-American's output, they're repeatedly reinvented (to the point where it's almost their point), with the exception of Wonder Woman, who was technically a licensed property until the '80s. That has always struck me as an interesting historical detail. Was Green Arrow really a more sellable idea than Mr. Terrific, for example?
-
I think the reason for Green Arrow and Aquaman lasting goes back to 1946; there was apparently a decision to turn Adventure into the "Superhero" anthology and More Fun into the Humor anthology. Detective and Action were never purely Superhero back then. So it boils down to dumb luck and the sales on Adventure being good enough to not need to tinker with; we could almost as easily had Shining Knight or Johnny Quick continue without stopping. I suspect they only survived because there weren't non-superhero strips in the book to survive when the page drop came, and it wasn't worth creating new features.
-
I think the reason for Green Arrow and Aquaman lasting goes back to 1946; there was apparently a decision to turn Adventure into the "Superhero" anthology and More Fun into the Humor anthology. Detective and Action were never purely Superhero back then. So it boils down to dumb luck and the sales on Adventure being good enough to not need to tinker with; we could almost as easily had Shining Knight or Johnny Quick continue without stopping. I suspect they only survived because there weren't non-superhero strips in the book to survive when the page drop came, and it wasn't worth creating new features.
I think you're absolutely dead-on, Eric,
It was the luck of the draw (hey, that's a DOUBLE pun when applied to Green Arrow!) and nothing more. Just as I believe that it was pure luck that Flash was chosen to be "updated" in Showcase. I'll bet you that by the time Showcase #4 came around, the editors were cursing themselves for setting themselves a task to create a "new" character every month. So they just grabbed a sentimental favorite (perhaps) from the past and figured it was an easy ride for that month.
We look back and figure it was planned, but odds are that it was simple expediency.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
ps. That Peter Wheat 26 is a pure joy. It's one of the few downloads that I've actually saved. I hope you find more of them.
-
So it boils down to dumb luck and the sales on Adventure being good enough to not need to tinker with; we could almost as easily had Shining Knight or Johnny Quick continue without stopping. I suspect they only survived because there weren't non-superhero strips in the book to survive when the page drop came, and it wasn't worth creating new features.
Weisinger was involved in the creation of Green Arrow and Aquaman and not Shining Knight or Johnny Quick so he might have had more attachment to those two features. I doubt he had any financial interest in them.
-
Yeah, I didn't think there was some massive conspiracy, but it seemed peculiar that the 1944 merge provided no mixing whatsoever, even as the superhero lines were in decline. You'd think the lifeline would've gone to the characters with the best returns across the line, rather than whoever happened to already share a spot with Superboy. Especially when Wonder Woman (as far as I know) has never been a real commercial success.
(Or maybe I did think there was a conspiracy. After all, DC hasn't exactly let their other acquired properties take the spotlight. Well, except for Black Canary and her absurd cigarette girl outfit, I guess.)
-
And, dredging up a old thread: I said earlier that I thought the reason Green Arrow and Aquaman survived when others didn't came down to the Adventure/ More Fun content shift. Looking at that now, I think they decided on the contents first, and only after the fact swapped the titles. My current suspected order is they decided to change Adventure to a humor title and brought Dover & Clover over from More Fun to join Genius Jones. Since they then had a slot in More Fun, they moved Shining Knight over as the best feature. Only then did they realize the titles sounded backwards and swapped them. I'm not sure what features I would keep if I was really looking at both books for the best, but if the plan was originally to make the hero book Adventure I think they would have started with the Adventure features and then add the best from More Fun, not vice versa.
I've just had Adventure Comics on the brain recently, what with the revival coming soon. Picked up a few fun pre-code issues, including 161 with a Frazetta Shining Knight. Beautiful stuff, I would love a collection of Frazetta's DC work.
-
One wonders why a collection of Frazetta's DC wasn't done Years ago!
Heck, people have reprinted him forever and even started new comics by other artist based on his paintings.
-Yoc
-
I've been checking on the GCD; as near as I can tell a collection of Frazetta's DC work would be 17 stories; 101 pages. Throw in a 1/4 size cover gallery, since he didn't do any covers, and a couple intro pages, and you could have a very nice 112 page HC. I know I would buy one in a heartbeat!
-
But they never ask us do they Eric. I hear a Sugar and Spike collection has been BEGGED for by the fans for Years and nothing.... its all very sad. :(
-
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
I have a question about the Michigan State collection. I just looked at the index on the site. Do they have ACTUAL copies of all those comics? Or is it basically just an index keeping track of old comic books?
-
Did'nt DC put out a couple of 'Deluxe' issues featuring Frazetta's stuff sometime back in the late 70's early 80's ?
-Nigel
-
http://www.comics.org/covers.lasso?SeriesID=11323
Masterworks series two Frazetta and a Wrightson
-
Oh wow, and I even own those!
Dang is my memory going south!
-
I have a question about the Michigan State collection. I just looked at the index on the site. Do they have ACTUAL copies of all those comics? Or is it basically just an index keeping track of old comic books?
They have the actual comics on site. From what I understand, you have to make an appointment if you are interested in viewing any comics. I'm sure if you called the MSU library, someone there could give you all the details.
--Ken Q
-
I've really enjoyed reading through this discussion and the arguments on these ages. I can almost say I agree a little with everyone as silly as it sounds. When I grew up and as a kid started seriously collecting comics in 1961 rather than the haphazard once in a while it was pretty clearly understood that the "Golden Age" of comics was this era that ended in the late 40's. There was no name for the time after that and I can't even recall when I first started to hear of a "silver age". But to a fan you could definately see styles, genre and trends moving forward and backwards in time in the comics that were available then. I had zero interest in the horror titles and crime titles that older brothers of friends may have had - I was really interested tho in their Action comics of the late 50's which clearly belonged with the Actions of the early 60's. You could literally feel a new era of comics being born around you with the Justice League, Superboy Legion of SH in Adventure, the breakout and birth of the Marvel titles like FF and Daredevil and Iron Man. By the end of the 60's the winds of change were clearly blowing - i once thought I was outgrowing comics then but with a little hindsight it is pretty clear to me that I just didn't grow with or care for the change. To me the silver age as we now call it pretty clearly dies in 1969-1970. You have the end of the 12 cent comic, Mort Weisinger leaving in 1970, and things like the birth of Conan.
From that point on comics very rarely caught my interest. And with the 80's and big hair it fell completely away. Still, it was pretty obvious even in the moment that another era of comics began in 1986 or so.
For the most part this matters not a bit what you call various times. But there are pretty clearly various era of comics whatever you want to call them.
-
They have the actual comics on site. From what I understand, you have to make an appointment if you are interested in viewing any comics. I'm sure if you called the MSU library, someone there could give you all the details.
Randall Scott is (or at least was) the man to ask for.