Latest Posts

It's been called the Golden Age of Reprints in comicdom the last few years. It's a hard point to argue since we're getting all sorts of wonderful collections of old material. Everything from complete hardcover collections of Peanuts and Pogo to obscure Tijuana Bibles and a Wimmen's Comix to superhero books that showcase the original line art at actual size. Hell, we've even got books being reprinted today that were originally cancelled because they were printed illegally!

That said, this apparently newfound wealth of comics reprints has been in the making for at least a quarter century now.

When I first seriously got into comics in the early 1980s, my primary book of choice was Fantastic Four. After I read a few months' worth of current issues, I got hooked and, not long after that, realized that there were around 250 issues featuring these great characters that I hadn't read yet. That's when I began hunting back issue bins, trying to dig up as many old FF comics as I could find.

Somewhere in the back half of my college years, I managed to get the number of FF comics I was missing down to less than a half dozen. They were mostly, if not all, single digit issues. That was when I realized that I didn't really need to get the actual issues any more. I could hunt down these handful of comics and pay a few, if not several, hundred dollars for each one (this was before the speculator market and "slabbing" and all that crap) and what would I get out them? I had some of those single digit issues already, and I'd only flipped through them once because A) they were fragile and I didn't want to over-handle them, and B) I'd already read those stories.

Now, when you're talking about the first dozen or so issues of Marvel's flagship title, it's no surprise they'd been reprinted. I think I had five or six reprints of #1 by then without really even trying. And those issues I was missing were all in the first Marvel Masterworks book I already had.

I got a couple more of those missing issues almost accidentally. (I was at small con and just asked to look at them -- the owner haggled them down to a quarter of his original asking price before I even said anything. It was too good a deal to pass up!) I wound up getting a few more as gifts. (My parents got me a copy of Fantastic Four #1 as a college graduation present!) But I never really hunted for those other issues. To this day, I have still never picked up #2 or #5.

But I realized back then that, for what I was looking for -- the comic stories themselves -- I didn't need the original issues. And I was went forward in my collecting from there, I kept that in mind and made a point of looking for reprints instead of originals. I created a list of where all those Human Torch solo stories from Strange Tales got reprinted, and what stories Marvel Tales contained. And Marvel Triple Action. (Special shout-out to Chris Marshall for compiling a lot of that info! I don't know how long he's been putting posting reprint info online -- I want to say he dates back to USENET -- but I know I was VERY grateful that he shared so much info that helped me read up on the Marvel Universe without spending a truckload of money!)

Not everything was reprinted, of course but even then (this would be the mid-to-late 1990s) you could find LOTS of material that had been reprinted. And that was just expanding and expanding, as publishers started to realize they could collect old stuff in book form to sell it again. DC and Dark Horse began emulating Marvel's Masterworks line. Marvel and DC both came out with cheaper black and white "phone books" lines. There were special collections based on a specific creator and/or character. (Frank Miller's Spider-Man, Neal Adams' Deadman, etc.)

The variety of formats means that, yes, it would be kind of annoying to try to read through Amazing Spider-Man chronologically in my collection since you have to pop around between multiple titles and formats. But since I almost never read more than two or three issues sequentially, it's at least never a problem for me. I'm more prone to look for a specific issue or story as research for something I'm trying to write up. So as long as I have that at hand, I don't much care which long box or bookshelf I pull it from.

All of which is to say that this Golden Age of Reprints didn't exactly come out of nowhere. It's been something that I, for one, have been watching for over two decades now. And even with the advent and preponderance of digital comics, I quite welcome it!
I missed this last year, but A Wise Way interviewed Jud Meyers of Blastoff Comics about running a comic book shop. He has a lot of solid answers and insights that I don't think most comic fans might even consider. Worth sitting through all eight of the videos...

Here are this week's links to what I've had published recently...

Kleefeld on Comics: On Business: Monetizing Your Work

FreakSugar: Fanthropology: Where Fan Studies Have Come
http://ift.tt/2xb6H8v

Kleefeld on Comics: On History: The First Spider-Man

Patreon: MTV Geek Classic: Kleefeld on Webcomics #32: Just a Stepping Stone? https://t.co/geK7cq5sNS

Kleefeld on Comics: Weekly Comics Links
http://ift.tt/2xi6GQu

FreakSugar: Webcomics Wednesday: Ad Revenue?

Kleefeld on Comics: On isms: Don't Tolerate Dismissiveness

Patreon: MTV Geek Classic: Kleefeld on Webcomics #33: Personal Forum https://t.co/geK7cq5sNS

Kleefeld on Comics: On Strips: Capp in Magazines




As you may know, Al Capp was probably the most famous cartoonist in his day. He had articles written up about him in many major magazines, from Life to Playboy to TV Guide. A few years back, I reproduced one of the Life articles that Capp himself wrote. Today, I thought I'd run a few other pieces, including the one in which he appeared on the cover of Time, perhaps his most famous magazine cameo.

First, Newsweek from November 1947...
Next, Time from November 1950...
Then we have the March/April 1954 issue of Se, the Swedish version of Look...

And finally, The Freelancer #3 from, I think, 1957...
Note that in that time, there's almost no criticism or change in how he was viewed. It really wasn't until the mid-to-late 1960s where he wasn't perpetually lauded by the public. But before that, as shown in these pieces, he was a dearly beloved figured.
Do you know why Congress perpetually has an approval rating only nominally better than the Bubonic Plague? Basically, it boils down to them regularly showing that they don't care about the American people. Their repeated attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act are a prime example. Everything about the most recent attempt in the Graham-Cassidy bill strips away funding and protections for huge swaths of the population and, oh by the way, gives some nice tax cuts to the upper 1%. (Call your representatives and let them know you do not approve of this bill!) With actions like this, Congress is telling the American people that only the phenomenally rich are worth their time. It's little wonder Congress's approval rating is at a measly 16%.

See, people generally don't like to being told that they don't matter. Go figure, right?

But that's exactly what happens in so many cases of harassment.

About a month ago, I saw someone start talking about the "Diversity and Comics" account on Twitter. I think it was Jennifer de Guzman‏. She pointed out that he was harassing women online. I don't recall if she explicitly had a call to action to report his account or just to block him, but I did a quick scan of his feed, saw he was indeed being a dismissive asshole, and reported/blocked accordingly. I've come to adopt a policy on social media that, if I hear someone is being harassed -- even if it's someone I don't know -- I'll track down and report the harasser's account. Harassment and bullying is just a really shitty thing to do in any circumstance, and no one (except the harassers themselves) deserves that. So, no, I don't want to share digital space with anyone who thinks that's okay, even if we're not travelling in the same circles.

As I recall, reporting "Diversity and Comics" was challenging because he generally skirts within the confines of the official Twitter policy. From what I've seen at least, he's not out there expressly calling people names and attacking them directly. But he does seem to goad others into doing exactly that, and he's then dismissive of the victim. "Dismissive" is of course an adjective that means "saying that you don't matter."

Here's the thing about harassment that I think a lot of people don't really get: no one wants to be a victim. No one even wants to appear as though they might be a victim. Which means that, if someone says they're being harassed, there's almost a 100% chance that they are. People don't make that kind of shit up.

But in a society where we believe someone is innocent until proven guilty, we wind up giving deference to the harasser because the victim hasn't conclusively proven they were harassed. It becomes a game of she said/he said and, barring evidence, the guilty party is frequently found not guilty. (This holds true in our social contracts as well as legal ones, by the way. The court of public opinion will favor a harasser as not guilty, even if things never get to an actual court.)

So when I see someone like de Guzman (that is to say, a person) say "Diversity and Comics" is harassing people, I'm inclined to believe her and I only look for actual evidence because that's what I'll need to report the account.

(And, by the way, you don't need to tell the victim you're reporting their harasser's account. Doing so suggests you're more interested in being rewarded than actually helping. You don't get a cookie for doing what you should be doing anyway. Just report/block the harasser and move on.)

We are just starting to get comics to a place where women and minority voices are starting to get heard. (There are some phenomenal minority-created comics that just won a bunch of Ignatz Awards by the way! I'd highly recommend picking up Ben Passmore's Your Black Friend if you haven't already!) Don't let assholes like "Diversity and Comics" drag us back to the bland bullshit we were limited to before because everybody else was told they didn't matter. If you see him or one of his ilk causing problems on any social media platform, be sure to report them and let them know that kind of bigoted disregard for people not like them is not welcome in our neck of the woods!
No, this isn't a post about how much Ditko, Kirby, Lee, Beck, or whomever contributed to the character Spider-Man. I'm looking tonight at the first person to portray the character live.

There have been numerous actors who've donned the spider-suit since 1963 when he first debuted in Amazing Fantasy #15. Tom Holland, Andrew Garfield, and Tobey Maguire are the most recent and most obvious. Older fans might recall the TV movies starring Nicholas Hammond, or that Danny Seagren portrayed the character a few years earlier on The Electric Company. Seagren noted in a recent interview that he also portrayed the character for appearances at shopping malls and the like around that time. (I seem to recall seeing a Spider-Man at one our local malls back then; I have no idea if it was Seagren or not, though.)

But there was someone who played the role as an "official" Spider-Man before all that by about a decade, and that someone was none other than Roy Thomas!

I recall reading a few years back that Thomas had a Spider-Man costume and posed for publicity photos from time to time. Most notably in the 1969 Fantastic Four Annual. When I went to do a quick search to confirm things for this post, though, I came across an even more surprising discovery: the costume still exists! In fact, until March of this year, it was still in Thomas' possession!

It turns out that Thomas brought the costume out for comic historian John Cimino, and he's gotten it cleaned up a bit for better display. What's more, Thomas relayed the full history of how the costume came to be created...
Sometime in the last months of 1965, or in early 1966, in the Marvel offices, production manager Sol Brodsky showed me several folded-up costumes which, he said, had been sewn for Marvel by a "professional seamstress" -- or some phrase to that effect. They were costumes for Spider-Man, Fantastic Four (a uniform that could be worn by either sex), and two others, which I believe were the Wasp and Medusa. He told me the costumes had been made for the company specifically so that they could be worn in a Macy's Thanksgiving Parade... that would've had to be the 1965 one. Sol told me that the "actors" hired to wear the costumes had gotten paid in advance and hadn't marched in the parade; I believe he said or implied that they'd gotten drunk and never showed up. He told me I could have the costumes if I wanted them, as they were just cluttering up the office.
Thomas goes on to cite the various times he'd worn the costume, both to Halloween parties and for publicity photos. Check out the full post by Cimino with an extensive introduction from Thomas here. It's a fascinating look at the earliest days of Marvel's attempts at marketing.

The one thing I would quibble with Cimino's comments, though. He suggests that the seamstress deliberately chose to make the leggings a different color than the torso because there were color inconsistencies in the printed books back then. Personally, I think this ascribes too much consideration on the part of the seamstress, and ignores what strikes me as a more practical reasoning: she probably simply bought a pair of leggings and couldn't get the colors to match perfectly. Occam's razor, you know?

I personally didn't hear anything about this back in March, and the Google searching I've done for this post suggests it flew under the radar of all the 'regular' comic news outlets, so my guess is this is still new information for most comic fans. Theoretically, Cimino will be putting the costume on the auction block at some point in the not-too-distant future, but I don't see any more recent information on that.

So not only did Thomas become the first "official" Spider-Man, but the very costume he wore is still around and seems to be in pretty good condition!