Print

[Robb_K]

This fortnight's choices are two 1940s comic books from the "Teen Comedy" genre.  One is the first issue of "Wilbur Comics", from MLJ/Archie Comics, mainly (at least Wilbur stories) drawn by Bill Vigoda and inked by Terry Wolk (Szenics), was MLJ's second teen comedy series from 1944, patterned after Archie's success.  Wilbur had appeared as one of the feature stories first in Zip Comics in 1941, and later in Laugh Comix, and Laugh Comics, before getting his own titular series.  "Chimpy" was drawn by Red Holmdale, and "Omar of Bagdad" was drawn by Carl Hubbell.  The second book is Andy Hardy 6, the last issue of that series, from 10 years later, in 1954, drawn by former Disney animator, Al Hubbard, and written and storyboarded by John Stanley. 

We came across a teen comedy feature as a filler in a mixed bag comic book a while back, and had an interesting discussion about it.  So, I thought it would be interesting to discuss the differences and similarities between a teen comedy series at the start of their faddish popularity, led by Archie (from Archie's own company, and a film and TV based teen comedy comic book near the end of their wider popularity, before Archie Series was the only publisher issuing the bulk of that genre's comic books.

You can find Wilbur 1 here:   https://comicbookplus.com/?dlid=73214


You can find Andy Hardy 6 here:   https://comicbookplus.com/?dlid=14812


I hope you all will enjoy this change of pace genre's books, and I look forward to your comments.

[Quirky Quokka]

Interesting selections, Robb. I had a quick look at Andy Hardy a few weeks ago, so will look forward to reading in more detail. There's some great art in there. Wilbur is new to me, but it looks like there's a variety in there. Stay tuned.

[Robb_K]

Interesting selections, Robb. I had a quick look at Andy Hardy a few weeks ago, so will look forward to reading in more detail. There's some great art in there. Wilbur is new to me, but it looks like there's a variety in there. Stay tuned.

Yes, the larger (52-page) books of the 1940s contained more filler features, with characters different from the series title character, than did the 36-page 1950s books.  "Wilbur Comics" was more of a mixture of a single character book and a grab bag anthology different of comedy/humour features aimed at BOTH teens AND younger children.  During the early 1940s, even "Archie Comics" started out with 4 Archie stories and 3   regular filler funny animal stories in every issue.  "Chimpy" and "Omar of Bagdad" were only included in "Wilbur Comics" for the first 3 issues.  By issue number 4, they were replaced by teen humour features, "Katy Kean" and "Catfish Joe".  While even "Archie Comics", starting out with 60 pages, still had a couple funny animal features through issues up to #15 (Bumble The Bee-Tective, Cubby Bear, and Archie's Dog, Oscar).

[The Australian Panther]

About both books, I will have more to say about the artists. if somebody else doesn't get there before me.
Re the Wilbur book, Bill Vigoda signed the cover and interior art.
He was the brother of Abe Vigoda best known for the part of 'Fish' in the police comedy, 'Barney Miller'
I saw a photo of them both in a retrospective Archie collection. At the age of about 8, Abe already looked like that! 
The Best of Fish | Barney Miller
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0OznXFBt8s

Hal Linden on his "Barney Miller" co star Abe Vigoda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BOxzp08jLM

Abe also played a very different minor role in The Godfather part 1
cheers!

[Quirky Quokka]

About both books, I will have more to say about the artists. if somebody else doesn't get there before me.
Re the Wilbur book, Bill Vigoda signed the cover and interior art.
He was the brother of Abe Vigoda best known for the part of 'Fish' in the police comedy, 'Barney Miller'
I saw a photo of them both in a retrospective Archie collection. At the age of about 8, Abe already looked like that! 

I love that kind of trivia. Abe certainly had an expressive face. I found a couple of comics online that Bill Vigoda did for Reggie stories in Archie. Will be interesting to compare with the earlier work. Here's the first one:

https://tri-stateoriginalart.com/william-vigoda/bill-vigoda-1966-reggie-me-21-complete-story/

On this next site, it's the second story:

https://13thdimension.com/fun-city-how-about-some-1970s-bill-vigoda-reggie-to-brighten-your-day/

[The Australian Panther]

In that first story, we have Midge laying down the law to Moose.
'I told everybody that you were a kind and gentle guy, and that is exactly what you are going to be, or I'll break every bone in your body!'
Now that's a side of Midge that we don't see and gives a whole new dimension to the relationship that we haven't seen.  I like it.

[K1ngcat]

I approach these choices with trepidation. I've enjoyed the clips of Abe Vigoda as Fish, I've been interested in his brother's art on Reggie, I'm afraid I got sucked into the Jack Kirby tribute on an adjoining page, I was sidetracked and amused by QQ's reaction to John Pertwee's cape, and I still found all of this more fascinating than the two magazines that were posted.

Sorry, Robb, I just don't get Teenage Comics, any more than I get Funny Animals. Did they really appeal to teenagers? When I was a teenager (that's from 13 upwards, right?) I was far more interested in 1) Superhero Comics, 2) Pop Music, and 3) Girls. Of course the great divide meant that the life of UK teenagers was a long way removed from that of their USA counterparts, and we had very little, culturally, in common, so Archie and his various imitators held nothing I could relate to.

Unfortunately my interests now are not that far removed from what they were when I was a teenager, even if they've become a little more sophisticated with my advancing years, thereby proving what women worldwide already know, i.e., that men are always still little boys at heart.

I read Wilbur and Andy Hardy assiduously and apart from noticing that the art on the latter was way neater than on the former, I can't connect with the content any more now than when I was a spotty young oik. I appreciate that all this stuff had a big US market, but it leaves me unmoved. As the Beach Boys asked in When I Grow Up To be A Man, "Will I dig the same things that turned me on as a kid?" and the answer's still a resounding Yes!

Sorry Robb, I did try, thanks for the posts.
All the best
K1ngcat

[Robb_K]

I approach these choices with trepidation. I've enjoyed the clips of Abe Vigoda as Fish, I've been interested in his brother's art on Reggie, I'm afraid I got sucked into the Jack Kirby tribute on an adjoining page, I was sidetracked and amused by QQ's reaction to John Pertwee's cape, and I still found all of this more fascinating than the two magazines that were posted.

Sorry, Robb, I just don't get Teenage Comics, any more than I get Funny Animals. Did they really appeal to teenagers? When I was a teenager (that's from 13 upwards, right?) I was far more interested in 1) Superhero Comics, 2) Pop Music, and 3) Girls. Of course the great divide meant that the life of UK teenagers was a long way removed from that of their USA counterparts, and we had very little, culturally, in common, so Archie and his various imitators held nothing I could relate to.

Unfortunately my interests now are not that far removed from what they were when I was a teenager, even if they've become a little more sophisticated with my advancing years, thereby proving what women worldwide already know, i.e., that men are always still little boys at heart.

I read Wilbur and Andy Hardy assiduously and apart from noticing that the art on the latter was way neater than on the former, I can't connect with the content any more now than when I was a spotty young oik. I appreciate that all this stuff had a big US market, but it leaves me unmoved. As the Beach Boys asked in When I Grow Up To be A Man, "Will I dig the same things that turned me on as a kid?" and the answer's still a resounding Yes!

Sorry Robb, I did try, thanks for the posts.
All the best
K1ngcat

Kingcat, I don't blame you for not liking Wilbur or Andy Hardy.  Wilbur is too slapstick and uninspired for me to ever have liked it.  I like Andy Hardy, mainly for admiring Al Hubbard's artwork, and a few funny scenes and situations written and storyboarded by humourist John Stanley.  I didn't buy them as a child or teenager.  I really don't think teenagers were the main audience who bought and enjoyed teenage comedy comics.  I think, first of all, that they were mainly liked by girls from ages 9 through 11 or 12, and a few boys of maybe 10 and 11, who liked to think about what their older siblings were doing in high school.  There may have also been some not-very-popular, introverted girls who were late to dating, and didn't get invited to parties, and didn't like reading books or teen girls' magazines, who read them up to ages 13 and 14.  I think the teen humour genre in USA was mainly based on what the US publishers GUESSED what would be another yet untapped market for the new print medium of comic books.  And they found out a handful of years later that it really wasn't not one of at the bigger markets.  And then all those copycat titles dissolved very quickly. 

I don't recall any attempt at "teen comedy" comic books in The Netherlands.  Girls there read "Suske & Wiske" and Disney comics, and Martin Toonder's "Tom Puss", and "Sjors & Sjimmie", and other little kid fare when very young, and then moved on to standard books, and an early teenage girl's magazine, "Tina", for whom one of my Dutch work partners and best friends was one of their main storywriters, for the comic stories that formed only a small portion of that magazine.  Boys read all those children's comic books, and then moved onto graphic novels, and books.  The faddish film star and rock star magazines, existed, but mainly "low brow" people read them.  None of my family members or friends did.

In Canada, and after we moved to USA, I remember Archie being popular among late preteen an very early teen girls.  But, most girls I knew read books from a fairly early age, outgrew reading funny animal comics at age 8 or 9, read Archie after that for a year or two, and thought the girls' teen fad and movie star and rock & roll star magazines were tripe, and stuck with books. Very few of them read romance pulps, although several read classic women's novels (respected literature). 

None of the boys I hung out with ever read Archie.  In any case, most of them were hockey players, and had little time to read much other than to do their school homework and working on term papers.  When they did like comics, at ages 6 through 9, and maybe 10, they were mainly combat, Superhero, detective, Classics Illustrated, Sci Fi and Horror, although some of them liked the animated cartoon-based Disney and WB comics at ages 6-8, and maybe just Carl Barks and those other genres I listed, at ages 9 and 10.

I simply chose this as another genre of comic books available here on CB+, to explore.  I didn't want to have us discuss superheroes every other time, broken up by only detective, Western and Sci-Fi, here and there.  I still have a hard time understanding who was buying all the teen humour comics.  My great interest is in comedy (Books, comic strips and comic books, films and TV shows.  Despite my having found little to like in the teen comedy comics line, so far, as a comics producer, and fan of sequential art storytelling, and have become an amateur comics historian, and am interested in how the industry developed, and taking a look at all its products (at least during its earliest periods). 

[The Australian Panther]

Kingcat, Wow!
Don't take my response as a persona attack, as it isn't meant to be taken that way.
You are quite entitled to your opinion and your reactions.
Here is mine!

Sorry, Robb, I just don't get Teenage Comics, any more than I get Funny Animals. Did they really appeal to teenagers? When I was a teenager (that's from 13 upwards, right?) I was far more interested in 1) Superhero Comics, 2) Pop Music, and 3) Girls. Of course the great divide meant that the life of UK teenagers was a long way removed from that of their USA counterparts, and we had very little, culturally, in common, so Archie and his various imitators held nothing I could relate to. 

Curious, then that you close your post by quoting the Beach Boys. Surely, if the argument that 'the great divide meant that the life of UK teenagers was a long way removed from that of their USA counterparts,and we had very little, culturally, in common, Archie and his various held nothing I could relate to' was the only reason for 'not getting Teenage comics', It would apply to American Movies, books, music and across the range of culture? There must be something more.
In my case in Australia, I had, to read, Enid Blyton, the 'Just William' books, the Perishers, the 'Broons', Dan Dare, Tiger Tim, and at the other extreme, Archie, the Flintstones, Blondie and Dagwood, Uncle Scrooge, Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse and so on. In other worlds most of the cultural materiel I was exposed to came from two foreign cultures. I learned to glean the common elements, and appreciate the level of creativity of the writers, artists, filmmakers and musicians. The elements of basic human relationships that make up the raw material of story-telling are the same in all cultures. I could have disliked Archie comics, out of resentment, because like most guys i never had 2 gorgeous women fighting over me. But I love the skills and talent of the creators, regardless - maybe in spite of the subject matter. I wish I could draw like that, I wish I could write like that and I admire the editorial skills needed to keep the Archie behemoth going successfully for 80 years.       
You and I are both 'Blueslovers' and that culture surely, in terms of our daily lives, comes from a reality  ' a long way removed from that of our USA counter parts.'   
The Liverpool Beat, Beatles-led revolution, seen as British, was in fact a case of people in Europe, not just the UK, being exposed to US culture and then sending it back across the Atlantic to change US culture. Same thing for the Teddy Boys, and the early Jazzers and Bluesmen. What happens with exported culture is that once exported it mutates and changes into a local variety.  Or just dies, which doesn't happen often. 
'Funny Animals' and why they exist as a genre, is an interesting topic, and you are not the only one who doesn't get them.
For myself, telling stories with fictional cartoon animals means you can have them do things that would be unbelievable and unacceptable if you told those stories with identifiable human beings as characters
I mean in terms of slapstick and so forth.

When I was a teenager (that's from 13 upwards, right?) I was far more interested in 1) Superhero Comics, 2) Pop Music, and 3) Girls.

 
Well, I'm with you when it comes to music and girls,but I was just interested in good, believable narratives,
in terms of comics;- Detective and Crime stories, Westerns, War stories, Science Fiction, Horror, Mystery and Book and Movie adaptations, as well as Superhero comics.
And are Superhero comics any more relatable to the life of a UK teenager - in those decades - than Teenage comics and Funny Animal ones?
By the way, I have a similar reaction to Billy Bunter stories, they do nothing for me!
Go well, my friend!                           

[Robb_K]

Kingcat, Wow!
Don't take my response as a persona attack, as it isn't meant to be taken that way.
You are quite entitled to your opinion and your reactions.
Here is mine!

Sorry, Robb, I just don't get Teenage Comics, any more than I get Funny Animals. Did they really appeal to teenagers? When I was a teenager (that's from 13 upwards, right?) I was far more interested in 1) Superhero Comics, 2) Pop Music, and 3) Girls. Of course the great divide meant that the life of UK teenagers was a long way removed from that of their USA counterparts, and we had very little, culturally, in common, so Archie and his various imitators held nothing I could relate to. 

Curious, then that you close your post by quoting the Beach Boys. Surely, if the argument that 'the great divide meant that the life of UK teenagers was a long way removed from that of their USA counterparts,and we had very little, culturally, in common, Archie and his various held nothing I could relate to' was the only reason for 'not getting Teenage comics', It would apply to American Movies, books, music and across the range of culture? There must be something more.
In my case in Australia, I had, to read, Enid Blyton, the 'Just William' books, the Perishers, the 'Broons', Dan Dare, Tiger Tim, and at the other extreme, Archie, the Flintstones, Blondie and Dagwood, Uncle Scrooge, Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse and so on. In other worlds most of the cultural materiel I was exposed to came from two foreign cultures. I learned to glean the common elements, and appreciate the level of creativity of the writers, artists, filmmakers and musicians. The elements of basic human relationships that make up the raw material of story-telling are the same in all cultures. I could have disliked Archie comics, out of resentment, because like most guys i never had 2 gorgeous women fighting over me. But I love the skills and talent of the creators, regardless - maybe in spite of the subject matter. I wish I could draw like that, I wish I could write like that and I admire the editorial skills needed to keep the Archie behemoth going successfully for 80 years.       
You and I are both 'Blueslovers' and that culture surely, in terms of our daily lives, comes from a reality  ' a long way removed from that of our USA counter parts.'   
The Liverpool Beat, Beatles-led revolution, seen as British, was in fact a case of people in Europe, not just the UK, being exposed to US culture and then sending it back across the Atlantic to change US culture. Same thing for the Teddy Boys, and the early Jazzers and Bluesmen. What happens with exported culture is that once exported it mutates and changes into a local variety.  Or just dies, which doesn't happen often. 
'Funny Animals' and why they exist as a genre, is an interesting topic, and you are not the only one who doesn't get them.
For myself, telling stories with fictional cartoon animals means you can have them do things that would be unbelievable and unacceptable if you told those stories with identifiable human beings as characters
I mean in terms of slapstick and so forth.

When I was a teenager (that's from 13 upwards, right?) I was far more interested in 1) Superhero Comics, 2) Pop Music, and 3) Girls.

 
Well, I'm with you when it comes to music and girls,but I was just interested in good, believable narratives,
in terms of comics;- Detective and Crime stories, Westerns, War stories, Science Fiction, Horror, Mystery and Book and Movie adaptations, as well as Superhero comics.
And are Superhero comics any more relatable to the life of a UK teenager - in those decades - than Teenage comics and Funny Animal ones?
By the way, I have a similar reaction to Billy Bunter stories, they do nothing for me!
Go well, my friend!                         

I grew up partly on both sides of The Atlantic, and although the cultures are different (to some extent (although very close when either are compared to those of The 3rd World)), those relatively small differences were not what makes my taste in reading different from either of yours.  I like Billy Bunter, especially for the artwork, but also get to laugh about the schemes he develops to get extra money and food from others, and the clever way the authors make him pay for his selfishness and indiscretions in the end.  Of course they remind me of the great acting and great lines of dialogue written by the writers in the 1950s TV series.  I agree very much with you, Panther, regarding the use of Funny Animal stories to say things that are difficult to say or difficult to have the characters do and get it past the editors or publisher's policy.  Carl Barks and Walt Kelly used hiding behind funny animals and that supposed children's genre to not only make fun of the different foibles in Human nature, and to make political statements (just as Daniel Defoe did in his novels, and Jonathan Swift did in "Gulliver's Travels", and "Mouse" by Art Spiegelman, many authors used that genre to comment on subjects that many people don't want to face, or to make points without fear of being treated badly by people, or losing one's job, or way to earn a living.  I, myself put subtle messages in favour of saving the environment or that people who destroy the environment are hurting Humanity and The World, into Uncle Scrooge, Donald Duck, and Gyro Gearloose stories, without having too much of a "preachy" tone, and ruining the entertainment value of the story.  And put in messages that people of good will must stand together against bullies and wrong-doers, and living by "The Golden Rule" is the best way to behave, and so on.  To me, the animals are just people who are wearing costumes.  To me, superhero stories are far more unbelievable and un-relatable to me as a Human than funny animal stories of good writers like Barks.  I like the more realistic genres like detective mysteries, classic novels with sequential art, Westerns, military combat, and science fiction, but only when the stories are well thought out, not too unrealistic, the logic works, and there is something about the characters' characters with which I can identify.  I get bored with crankout, formulaic stories, which the authors have spent no time investing anything of themselves because of lacking time to put in, and not having anything to say (just doing it to earn money), which to me, is true for probably 90% of the comic book stories I've come across.  But, the memorable ones come across with evidence that the author has lived through the emotions of the protagonist character about whom he or she is writing.

Kingcat, I am sure that we both dislike "Wilbur" for the same reason. (that it is too silly, slapstick, and there is nothing to learn about all the superficial characters, and to relate to our own lives).  Andy Hardy not only has better artwork, but the gags and comic scenarios are a bit more clever, but there is still nothing of much substance in it.  I like it mainly for Hubbard's artwork, and Stanley's staging, and a little for the way the latter developed the stories, as I am mainly a comedy writer.  Stanley wrote, and storyboarded many excellent "Little Lulu" stories, and penciled many as well, which were cleverly crafted.  And although they were basically aimed at little girls, they could give an adult of either sex, a few chuckles.  Same for his "Tubby" and "Peterkin Pottle" stories (Remindful of a couple of HG Wells stories).

Different people read different reading material for different reasons, and Almost every reader's criteria for maximizing enjoyment differs in some way from most others.  Just know that not all of the books choosers for this group are choosing are favourite books that we are trying to expose to the other members.  We are very often trying out books that are new to us as well, and to cover all the different genres available on CB+.  I chose this genre because it hasn't been covered in a long time, and Quirky Quokka and a couple other members commented on a teen humour book recently, so I knew that there was some interest here.

[Quirky Quokka]

Sorry, Robb, I just don't get Teenage Comics, any more than I get Funny Animals. Did they really appeal to teenagers? When I was a teenager (that's from 13 upwards, right?) I was far more interested in 1) Superhero Comics, 2) Pop Music, and 3) Girls. Of course the great divide meant that the life of UK teenagers was a long way removed from that of their USA counterparts, and we had very little, culturally, in common, so Archie and his various imitators held nothing I could relate to.

I appreciate that all this stuff had a big US market, but it leaves me unmoved.

Hi K1ngcat

I discovered Archie as a preteen in the early 1970s (so around ages 10-12).  The Archie cartoon show 'Everything's Archie' was on TV at about the same time and I loved it. I can't remember whether I fell in love with the comics or the cartoon show first, but they probably fed off each other. The thing I loved most was that Archie and the gang had their own band called 'The Archies' and I especially loved the shows when they sang. Like this clip of their big hit 'Sugar Sugar':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3plj_Xplus

Or even their theme song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0eh0b3GF_k

Believe it or not, an Archie cartoon show inspired me to write my first song at the age of 11 (with guitar chords and everything!).

My best friend and her three older siblings had a big stash of comics, and they used to let me borrow them. I always gravitated towards the Archie ones and the Betty and Veronica ones. Even though the high school situation in Australia was quite different, it seemed that we mainly had American shows on TV anyway, so the Americanisms didn't bother me. I thought Archie and the gang were groovy, fun and 'happening'.

I still really like the art. I've read the revamped Archie books that came out a few years ago with the more contemporary art and I like them, but I still can't go past the classic Archies from the 70s. I've even bought a few new classic Archies this year, though it's probably more for the nostalgia value now.

I don't know of any boys from my era who read them, but to this preteen girl, they were wonderful.

Cheers

QQ

[Quirky Quokka]

In Canada, and after we moved to USA, I remember Archie being popular among late preteen an very early teen girls.  But, most girls I knew read books from a fairly early age, outgrew reading funny animal comics at age 8 or 9, read Archie after that for a year or two, and thought the girls' teen fad and movie star and rock & roll star magazines were tripe, and stuck with books. Very few of them read romance pulps, although several read classic women's novels (respected literature). 

Robb, you'll see I wrote a longer reply to K1ngcat about Archie, but in a nutshell, my experience here in Australia tends to concur with your Canadian experience. I loved reading Archie comics round about ages 10-12. Maybe they were the teens I aspired to be. I was more nerdy than Betty and Veronica, but I've always loved music. By the time I got to high school, I was hanging out in the music room with my friends, sharing deep and meaningful songs we'd written.

Round about ages 11-13, I also loved the American pop music magazines like Tiger Beat, but I only had a couple of my own as they were a bit expensive. Then  I graduated to different kinds of music and used to regularly buy an Australian music magazine called Ram (a bit like Rolling Stone).

When I was a teenager in the 1970s, most of the cinemas used to also carry a couple of different lines of movie magazines and I used to buy them whenever I could. I still love old movies and have a collection of movie books, so some things I never grew out of.

Cheers

QQ

[Quirky Quokka]

In other worlds most of the cultural materiel I was exposed to came from two foreign cultures. I learned to glean the common elements, and appreciate the level of creativity of the writers, artists, filmmakers and musicians. The elements of basic human relationships that make up the raw material of story-telling are the same in all cultures.     

Panther, I was having a chat about this with my hubby the other day. I was trying to think of any Australian comic books from my childhood (1960s-1970s) and I couldn't. There were newspaper strips, like 'Ginger Meggs', and later there was 'Swamp', 'Beyond the Black Stump', 'Snake', and Leunig, and some of those have been collected in comic books. But I don't remember seeing any of the 32-page magazine style comic books with Australian characters. It seemed like all the comic books and most of the TV shows were American, and it didn't bother me. You might know of some Australian ones.

Hubby is 7 years older than me and he remembers reading Eagle and Iron Man, and seeing more of the superhero ones.

Cheers

QQ

[paw broon]

I can't take Wilbur.  Too slapstick and stupid for me.  Some of the art looks good but that's about it.
Oddly I still enjoy an occasional Archie title, so it's not the culture thing that's putting me off. 
K1ngcat and I seem to have similar experiences.  Superhero comics, music, girls. It's odd that the sheer daftness of late '50's Worlds Finest, Detective and Batman should appeal to me, but some were very well drawn and there was a certain charm about them. But I didn’t enjoy the silly, to my mind, humour titles that I sometimes stumbled on.
And then there is Bunter.  What a great creation.  Love Magnet.
Discovering Amarican superhero comics way back was like the thrill of hearing some music for the first time.  Johnny Kidd and the Pirates, the Big Three, Cyril Davis, and the never to be forgotten late night on my Perdio transistor radio when The Kinks and You Really Got Me exploded into my brain.  What a charge. Something of the same feeling as seeing #1 of The Double Life of Private Strong.
I'll have a look at Andy Hardy but I don't hold out much hope of enjoying it.

[Robb_K]

In other worlds most of the cultural materiel I was exposed to came from two foreign cultures. I learned to glean the common elements, and appreciate the level of creativity of the writers, artists, filmmakers and musicians. The elements of basic human relationships that make up the raw material of story-telling are the same in all cultures.     

Panther, I was having a chat about this with my hubby the other day. I was trying to think of any Australian comic books from my childhood (1960s-1970s) and I couldn't. There were newspaper strips, like 'Ginger Meggs', and later there was 'Swamp', 'Beyond the Black Stump', 'Snake', and Leunig, and some of those have been collected in comic books. But I don't remember seeing any of the 32-page magazine style comic books with Australian characters. It seemed like all the comic books and most of the TV shows were American, and it didn't bother me. You might know of some Australian ones.

Hubby is 7 years older than me and he remembers reading Eagle and Iron Man, and seeing more of the superhero ones.

Cheers

QQ

Ginger Meggs had some "Magazine-style comic books during the late 1940s and early 1950s , The "Sunbeam Books", and also the "Ginger Meggs Christmas Annuals" through the 1950s.  But, as far as I've  seen, those were just compilations of Sunday newspaper strip full pages.

[Robb_K]

I can't take Wilbur.  Too slapstick and stupid for me.  Some of the art looks good but that's about it.
Oddly I still enjoy an occasional Archie title, so it's not the culture thing that's putting me off. 
K1ngcat and I seem to have similar experiences.  Superhero comics, music, girls. It's odd that the sheer daftness of late '50's Worlds Finest, Detective and Batman should appeal to me, but some were very well drawn and there was a certain charm about them. But I didn’t enjoy the silly, to my mind, humour titles that I sometimes stumbled on.
And then there is Bunter.  What a great creation.  Love Magnet.
Discovering Amarican superhero comics way back was like the thrill of hearing some music for the first time.  Johnny Kidd and the Pirates, the Big Three, Cyril Davis, and the never to be forgotten late night on my Perdio transistor radio when The Kinks and You Really Got Me exploded into my brain.  What a charge. Something of the same feeling as seeing #1 of The Double Life of Private Strong.
I'll have a look at Andy Hardy but I don't hold out much hope of enjoying it.

I think that the difference in Archie's and Wilbur's popularities is that Archie was inspired, originally, and his different writers fleshed out his character to make him well-rounded, whereas Wilbur was uninspired from his very start, and he was based solely on earliest Archie's penchant for getting into trouble, and  Wilbur's character never developed.  Developing an exact clone of Archie, but being uninspired, wouldn't have worked in any case.  Archie became a well-rounded teenager, having all the different hopes and dreams, fears, joys, disappointments, confusion, successes and failures that real teenagers in all the "Western Countries" face; and although exaggerated moderately (as most comic characters are) Betty, Veronica, Jughead, Archie's parents, Mr. Weatherbee, Pop, and Archies teachers were all basically similar to some people we all knew in life.  So there were a lot of elements in Archie stories with which most of us could identify.  So we could empathise with him and root for him.  Wilbur was just slapstick physical comedy that got old very fast (as were all of the pure attempts at cloning Archie, and almost all the other "teen humour" genre comics, including the "air headed girl" lead character series.  Archie was the only one that I can recall that lasted more than a handful of years.  The very fact that Archie Publications didn't renew the copyright on Wilbur like they did for Archie, Betty & Veronica, and Jughead, is a tell-tale sign that Wilbur was never developed enough to be a worthwhile publication property.

[K1ngcat]

Well, golly gee, that was all interesting! I hadn't envisioned so many reactions.

Firstly, Robb, thanks for enlightening me about the perceived audience for "teenage comics," I always assumed they were marketed at teenagers, or possibly an older audience who would be amused by what goofballs teenagers were. I never figured pre-teens in the equation.

Panther, I appreciate your confusion, and yes certainly many of the things that influenced me as a teenager originated in the USA, but certain things spoke to me - pop, garage, R&B, The Spirit, Plastic Man, etc., and others just didn't. My experiences seem to be more in line with paw broon"s regarding the kind of music, and comic reading choices, that exploded in my brain and made me see a new and exciting world. "Teenage Comics" and "Funny Animals" said nothing to me, except. "there's something more exciting than this out here, don't waste your time." And, paw, The Double Life of Private Strong #1 - I had it (and the first few issues of Simon & Kirby's Fly comics) I had them all and let them go on a trade-in! What a fool I was. 

Maybe I'm an adrenaline junkie. All those hours I spent playing to live audiences, hoping for applause and the validation of my efforts, is perhaps similar to my search for thrilling listening and reading experiences.   As Robb will have gleaned from my earlier posts, "believable narratives" don't float my boat, I'm more than happy with "cheap thrills" as long as the artwork's up to snuff.   

Panther, it's right for you to note that in the bleak grey world of post-war Britain, there was very little  excitement to be had that didn't come from, or wasn't inspired by, the U S A. But as a "Public" Schoolboy (which in the UK is a school that's not public, but only open to those with big wallets - I was a fool and won a free scholarship, which I still regret) in a single sex boarding school which had lessons and compulsory sport on Saturdays, there was nothing in teenage comics to excite me except for Betty and Veronica, and they couldn't hold a candle to Wally Wood's women! 

And to QQ, thanks for sharing the inspiration a younger you derived from The Archies. By the time they came out here, I was in my early twenties playing "serious" deep and meaningful music, and detested their sugary simplicity. Still, they undoubtedly made more money from their music than I ever did, so who's the fool now? 

Bottom line, I am what I am, and I like what I like, I make no apologies for my inconsistencies! 

Thanks to you all for your responses
All the best
K1ngcat

[The Australian Panther]

Kingcat, Well said!
cheers!

Honest mutual dialogue inreases our understanding and the reasons for different viewpoints and should enrich us all.
And these posts, like the rabbit hole Alice fell into, sometimes take us into an unfamiliar wonderland.

Cheers!   

[Quirky Quokka]

Ginger Meggs had some "Magazine-style comic books during the late 1940s and early 1950s , The "Sunbeam Books", and also the "Ginger Meggs Christmas Annuals" through the 1950s.  But, as far as I've  seen, those were just compilations of Sunday full pages.

Thanks for that, Robb. I came across a book recently called "From 'Sunbeams' to Sunset: The Rise and Fall of the Australian Comic Book (1924-1965)", so that explains the 'Sunbeams' of the title. I've ordered it through my local library, so haven't laid eyes on it yet. It will be interesting to see what they include.

[Quirky Quokka]

And to QQ, thanks for sharing the inspiration a younger you derived from The Archies. By the time they came out here, I was in my early twenties playing "serious" deep and meaningful music, and detested their sugary simplicity. Still, they undoubtedly made more money from their music than I ever did, so who's the fool now? 

K1ngcat, you'll be happy to know that my 'bubblegum pop' phase didn't last past about 14. Though the very first concert I ever saw live was The Osmonds back in 1974! By the time I was 15 or 16, I was into Heart, Fleetwood Mac, Elton John, and folkies like Joni Mitchell, Melanie and Don McLean. And even though my first song at the age of 11 was inspired by the Archies, it was actually an anti-pollution song. Very deep and strangely still relevant If I had been born 10 years earlier, I would have been sitting in a coffee shop somewhere listening to beatniks reading bad poetry, accompanied by bongos   

[The Australian Panther]

Kingcat said,

The Archies. By the time they came out here, I was in my early twenties playing "serious" deep and meaningful music, and detested their sugary simplicity.

If we are talking about the Archies music,we are definitely on the same page.
But from a very early age,I realized that there was a huge difference between something on a printed page and what Hollywood and Television did to it when it was re-interpreted on a screen.
Re Music, I was totally into 'serious' music. Of QQ's list, The original Fleetwood Mac yes, and Don McLean, but that was it.
I had been listening to music for quite a while, but the late 60's was still the watershed time for me.
Beefheart, 'Safe as Milk' Music from Big Pink, Hendrix, Cream, The Bonzos, John Mayall, Brian Auger, Bob Dylan 'John Wesley Harding' and yes I could go on, and on and on. You boring old fart, Panther!
I didn't play but I had friends who played it very seriously.  But I was a DJ for a while.
cheers!         

[Robb_K]

And to QQ, thanks for sharing the inspiration a younger you derived from The Archies. By the time they came out here, I was in my early twenties playing "serious" deep and meaningful music, and detested their sugary simplicity. Still, they undoubtedly made more money from their music than I ever did, so who's the fool now? 

K1ngcat, you'll be happy to know that my 'bubblegum pop' phase didn't last past about 14. Though the very first concert I ever saw live was The Osmonds back in 1974! By the time I was 15 or 16, I was into Heart, Fleetwood Mac, Elton John, and folkies like Joni Mitchell, Melanie and Don McLean. And even though my first song at the age of 11 was inspired by the Archies, it was actually an anti-pollution song. Very deep and strangely still relevant If I had been born 10 years earlier, I would have been sitting in a coffee shop somewhere listening to beatniks reading bad poetry, accompanied by bongos   

And 10 years before THAT you would have been listening to Charlie Drake singing "My Boomerang Won't Come Back".  Reminds me of when we had to sing "Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree" and "Waltzing Matilda" in music class early in elementary school.  We also learned "Auld Lang Zyne", and a few Afrikaaner Songs.  That was our introduction to Commonwealth Cultural exchange.

I think  "Sugar, Sugar" was one of the worst "Bubblegum" pop songs ever.  Not sung with much feeling.  I hated Wilson Pickett's version too.  Why the latter would sing that song, I can't imagine!  Were you a fan of The Seekers?

[Quirky Quokka]

Were you a fan of The Seekers?

Funny you should ask that, Robb. I absolutely adored The Seekers when I was aged about 5-8. I started to learn guitar at the age of 7 so I could play like The Seekers (though surprisingly, it turned out to be more difficult than that). When I got a bit better at guitar, my guitar teacher gave me Morning Town Ride to practise one week and I thought I'd died and gone to heaven. And my biggest claim to fame is that I had my picture in the newspaper with Judith Durham when I was 7. She was coming to my home town for a Lord Mayor's Command Performance just after The Seekers broke up, and my mother managed to wrangle me in front of a photographer at the airport when she arrived. Go Mum! I met Judith again about 20 years later when she was doing a solo concert, and then I finally saw The Seekers in concert when they did their big reunion tour in the 90s. I was so sorry to hear that she'd passed away a few weeks ago.

I'm still a folkie at heart, and love most of the folkie/protest singers from the 60s, plus more recent singers like Suzanne Vega and Tracy Chapman (though I suppose they're not so new anymore). And I love Clannad and Moya Brennan. So that was more than you needed to know - LOL

[Quirky Quokka]

So after going down several rabbit holes, here are my thoughts on Wilbur.

Promo

Nice touch that Archie is reading a copy of Wilbur’s comic. Reminded me of the first Silver Age Flash story in which Barry Allen is reading a comic book of the Golden Age Flash right before he has his life-changing accident. Though I’m not sure Archie will be as inspired as much by Wilbur, as Barry Allen was of Jay Garrick.

Intro Page

I guess it was helpful to have a page introducing the characters.

Wilbur Makes a Date

I thought the ending was a bit strange. I know Wilbur would have been annoyed at Red for using the photo of Wilbur’s grandfather in the first place, but wouldn’t it have been more likely that Miss Gargle would want to wring Wilbur’s neck? Or was she too embarrassed? I thought she was too much of a caricature. As Robb mentioned in another post, the characters in Archie were more relatable, including the teachers. My Grade 8 headmistress looked strangely like Miss Grundy from Archie, but I can’t imagine Miss Gargle as a teacher.

Do You Know?

Are there really 27 mistakes in No. 5? I can’t imagine what they are if there are that many.

The Bus Boy

Okay, but I didn’t really understand the line at the end. Avocado crab meat?

The Ghost Smasher (Short Story)

Not the world’s greatest story. I got a bit confused. Did the cow follow him all the way from the graveyard or were they two separate things? Doesn’t Wilbur’s house have a fence? Where are his parents? After not much suspense, the ending is pretty weak.

Chimpy and the Genie

Some funny moments in this one and a few good one-liners. Given how the king is dressed (e.g., Middle-Eastern footwear), it’s strange that his daughter looks more like an example of ‘good girl’ art in western clothing. I thought it would have been stronger if it finished with the second-last panel rather than having the extra panel to explain it in case we didn’t get it.

A Wilbur Short

I had no idea what mucilage was and had to look it up. It appears to be a North American word for a type of adhesive gum or glue. Is that term still used? I’ve never heard it in Australia. As for the story, it’s okay but relies on the slapstick which isn’t that great.

A Fish Story with Wilbur

I don’t mind slapstick, but this doesn’t grab me. It doesn’t have heart.

Omar of Bagdad [sic]

Should we be worried that Baghdad is spelt wrong in the title? Or is that an alternative spelling? Misshapen dwarf? Ugh! (At the term, not the dwarf). I got a bit confused in this one, but didn’t want to go back and read it again because I was having a politically correct anaphylactic shock!

Wilbur

No title for this one? Unless it’s supposed to be ‘Carnegie Hall Presents …’. Pretty flimsy premise. I didn’t enjoy this one.

Overall

There were a few good moments in this comic book, but it doesn’t have the same charm as Archie. It relies on the slapstick rather than showing us more of Wilbur’s character. He’s not a character I particularly like and his pal Red isn’t developed much either. We feel for Archie when he gets into scrapes because we love Archie. I guess this is the first issue and they were still developing him, but there was nothing in here that grabbed me enough to want to read the next issue. Some of the slapstick art was good, but the stories let it down.

[Robb_K]

Wilbur Makes a Date

I thought the ending was a bit strange. I know Wilbur would have been annoyed at Red for using the photo of Wilbur’s grandfather in the first place, but wouldn’t it have been more likely that Miss Gargle would want to wring Wilbur’s neck? Or was she too embarrassed? I thought she was too much of a caricature. As Robb mentioned in another post, the characters in Archie were more relatable, including the teachers. My Grade 8 headmistress looked strangely like Miss Grundy from Archie, but I can’t imagine Miss Gargle as a teacher.

The Bus Boy

Okay, but I didn’t really understand the line at the end. Avocado crab meat?

The Ghost Smasher (Short Story)

Not the world’s greatest story. I got a bit confused. Did the cow follow him all the way from the graveyard or were they two separate things? Doesn’t Wilbur’s house have a fence? Where are his parents? After not much suspense, the ending is pretty weak.

Chimpy and the Genie

Some funny moments in this one and a few good one-liners. Given how the king is dressed (e.g., Middle-Eastern footwear), it’s strange that his daughter looks more like an example of ‘good girl’ art in western clothing. I thought it would have been stronger if it finished with the second-last panel rather than having the extra panel to explain it in case we didn’t get it.

A Wilbur Short

I had no idea what mucilage was and had to look it up. It appears to be a North American word for a type of adhesive gum or glue. Is that term still used? I’ve never heard it in Australia. As for the story, it’s okay but relies on the slapstick which isn’t that great.

A Fish Story with Wilbur

I don’t mind slapstick, but this doesn’t grab me. It doesn’t have heart.

Omar of Bagdad [sic]

Should we be worried that Baghdad is spelt wrong in the title? (1) Or is that an alternative spelling? Misshapen dwarf? Ugh! (At the term, not the dwarf). I got a bit confused in this one, but didn’t want to go back and read it again because I was having a politically correct anaphylactic shock!

Wilbur

No title for this one? Unless it’s supposed to be ‘Carnegie Hall Presents …’. Pretty flimsy premise. I didn’t enjoy this one.

Overall

There were a few good moments in this comic book, but it doesn’t have the same charm as Archie. It relies on the slapstick rather than showing us more of Wilbur’s character. He’s not a character I particularly like and his pal Red isn’t developed much either. We feel for Archie when he gets into scrapes because we love Archie. (2) I guess this is the first issue and they were still developing him, but there was nothing in here that grabbed me enough to want to read the next issue. Some of the slapstick art was good, but the stories let it down.

(1) Yes, that was the older spelling, which was the standard when I was young. 

(2) Yes, Wilbur was meant to be a clone of Archie, whose 1942-44 stories before the first Wilbur, had him mostly a well-meaning, but sort of a bumbling character, who couldn't get out of his own way, and was always getting into trouble.  He was a bit mischievious, and was also too quick to judgement, which were the biggest factors that got him into trouble.  So, during those first 2 years, he was much like Wilbur is in his first issue.  It might be interesting to read a late Wilbur, from Archie Series, as opposed to the early MLJ books, to see if the later writers flushed out and widened his character.  Unfortunately, the "newest" (latest) issue we have here at CB+ is #35 from the beginning of 1951.  It does seem a little bit less emphasis on slapstick, but his character is not as flushed out as Archie's from the 1960s.  I remember that Wilbur lasted well into the Archie series period, at least into the start of the 1960s.  But, he never had remotely the popularity that Archie had.