When The Comics Went To War

[colcool007]

Just finished this book and I thought that I would give my impressions about it to those wanting this little gem in their stocking from Santa.

This is a great primer book for those who want to look outside their sphere of comic-love. This is an overview going from the 1860's to the 1990's, so don't expect full detail on your favourite era.

I did like the way that the chapters were broken down into decades/eras as it gave the book a good structure. I also liked the fact that a 'fantasy' comic was put together at the back with a selection of stories, not only from different comics, but from different times.

I also like the way that the book did exactly what it said it was going to do. It looked at comics and the different ways that they expounded factual war themes to different generations of comic readers.

Now for the bad. I would have liked to have seen a bibliography and an index at the end of the book. The first as it gives anyone else a good starting point if they wish to carry out similar research. The second as it gives the reader a chance to go back into the book and look at a specific item.

I did pick up one typo, but I am beggared if I can find it again. But the two factual errors that I picked up are biggies. Major Eazy is attributed to being in Warlord on pg 210. Guys, shame on you! We all know that Eazy was in Battle and was from IPC, not DCT! But I would not expect the non-comic fan to pick up on this.

The other factual error was that you described the Victor as going "...from strength to strength during the 1970s and 1980s..." on pg 197. Considering that most comic sales were nose-diving from the mid-70s, this is a big error, in my eyes.

Several omissions were surprising, such as Joe Bones: The Human Fly from Victor, Fighting Mann from Battle, Swamp Boy from Hornet and The Big Palooka from Hotspur and Hornet. The last one I can understand as I only just remembered that one. Sniper! My God! How could I forget that one, but Sniper Kelly doesn't even rate a one-liner.

The other omission that I found surprising was that there was no mention of the fact that both DCT and IPC/Fleetway/Egmont thought nothing of re-using the stories. I have sneakily used Phoenix4ever here and confirmed several stories that I originally thought were new are actually re-treads. A specific example being the Last White Boy In Singapore story.

Overall, a good book, but not quite the "..colourful, authoritative history..." that it is described as on the fly-leaf.

Adam, Tim and Robert. Don't get me wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed the book and I would be surprised if anyone outside of this forum or not involved in comics would have spotted any of these omissions or the errors.

To end on a further positive note, I did like the way that you tried to only mention wars that have actually taken place, because if you had considered all the "What If" stories, you would have ended up with another book. Hmm, now there's an idea... Also, I do not consider the money spent on this book a waste as by reading it, I have built upon my comic knowledge in areas that I am weak in.

[felneymike]

I thought this book was brilliant also, but noticed a few other errors, and on the main forum section the lack of credits was lamented. Hopefully this will be fixed in future titles (i think they said 7 or 10 books were planned covering different themes and the third one is under production).

I noticed a few other minor errors as i went though, one mentioned a story from Chums "in the 1880's" when Chums started in 1892, it also said Commando had been going for "4,0000" issues XD (well here's hoping...). Also at the end of the book it was vaguely implied that War Picture Library was still being published.

The authors must be commended, though, for acknowledging and giving equal weight to the story-papers (writers who didn't really care about the subject and just wanted quick cash would have given The Boys' Own a cursory mention and them leapt straight into Victor and Commando "for the dads" who would remember them) and also avoiding socio-genderpolitical guff and boring statistics, and instead concentrating on writing about what was actually in the comics!

[Digifiend]

The other factual error was that you described the Victor as going "...from strength to strength during the 1970s and 1980s..." on pg 197. Considering that most comic sales were nose-diving from the mid-70s, this is a big error, in my eyes.

To be fair, they probably said that meaning that it survived whereas so many other comics failed in those decades.

[colcool007]

The other factual error was that you described the Victor as going "...from strength to strength during the 1970s and 1980s..." on pg 197. Considering that most comic sales were nose-diving from the mid-70s, this is a big error, in my eyes.

To be fair, they probably wrote it said that meaning it survived whereas so many other comics failed in those decades.

Digi, you're probably right, but when you set up a book to be THE reference book, you need to deal in hard fact. Which has led me on a rather frustrating search today to try and find circulation figures to see if the figures were on a downward spiral or if they were relatively stable.
For me, the two big indicators that Victor wasn't "going from strength to strength" was the loss of the titles for the true stories in 1975 and then the loss of the true stories as a standard part of the comic in 1987. Admittedly, by that time, the stories were almost all reprint, so they were replaced by new art in the form of pg 1 of the Jimmy Grant stories and the back cover became colour adverts, so that helped to garner more revenue for the comic. Plus, a revamp was badly in need by 1987 as the comic did look very dated in comparison to either Battle or Eagle at the time.
But both strike me as ways that the editoral staff were trying to either make the comic more cost-effective or avoiding upping the cover price at the time. This is not to say that the Victor identity was exclusively tied up in only the true stories, as there were many great serials in there that kept a reader hooked week by week.

[Rogerhat]

Digi, you're probably right, but when you set up a book to be THE reference book, you need to deal in hard fact.

I don't think we ever said it was THE reference book, unless a press release has gone out that I haven't seen.

To answer another point, we are going to try to credit the artists in the captions in the next book (if we get commissioned), and in the other two if they get reprinted. Can anyone recommend any good books/websites that would be useful, I have Denis Gifford's Encyclopedia of comic characters but could do with more.

tim

[Phoenix]

Can anyone recommend any good books/websites that would be useful, I have Denis Gifford's Encyclopedia of comic characters but could do with more.

Just go to the professionals, Tim, and the two main men are on this website. Ray Moore has a database to die for and Lew Stringer is a practising cartoonist with a huge breadth of knowledge about comic artists. Together they are your encyclopaedia. Gifford's book would be useful backup, but where he credits artists, he is only actually referring to the examples he prints. Quite frequently the complete run of a strip is not always drawn by the same artist, Lew and Ray would be reliable guides to such changes. Whatever other books you eventually get hold of, crosscheck their information as well with Ray and Lew. In the extremely unlikely event that they can't agree, ask the forum members. There are more enthusiasts here than you can swing a stick at and although they don't always agree with each other, they are very earnest and the answer to your question should soon emerge. Go for it.