[Yoc]

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

[kquattro]

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

[John C]

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.

[bchat]

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.

[Drusilla lives!]

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

[JonTheScanner]

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.

[JVJ]

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

[narfstar]

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.

[JVJ]

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 (|:{>

[Drusilla lives!]

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. 

[JVJ]

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 (|:{>

[Drusilla lives!]

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.

[Drusilla lives!]

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.

[John C]

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...?

[Yoc]

I see a lot of excesses in today's comics JC.
Superhero inbreeding, etc.  It's a scary place.

[John C]

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...

[JVJ]

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

[JVJ]

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 (|:{>

[Drusilla lives!]

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

[narfstar]

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.

[kquattro]

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".  

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

[JVJ]

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 (|:{>

[JVJ]

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 (|:{>

[bchat]

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.

[John C]

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?