Talk here about just about anything associated with British comics or story papers and the industry that does not fit in any other forum.
There are separate fora open to registered members for discussing specific comics, artists, websites etc.
Bob Frankland wrote:
I have no doubt that the bulk of correspondence on this messageboard are more than aware of the individual illustrator styles and would appreciate the credit being given in the book, however Joe Public probably just wants his memory jogged when flicking through the pages.
As I said, I appreciate the work that's gone into the books but on this one point I strongly differ. If your intention was purely to jog the memory of "Joe Public" I doubt you'd have researched as far back as the 19th Century. Both books are presented as well-researched historical volumes that will undoubtedly be essential reads for footie fans, war historians and comic fans alike. Therefore the anonymity of the creators just jars a little. It's like reading a history of movies that doesn't credit the actors or directors.
Joe Public is often very ignorant of the work that goes into comics, and I've even met people who didn't know strips were drawn, just "done by a printing machine". The only way to educate the masses is to provide them with information, and a few credits would have at least spurred them to consider that numerous artists and writers are involved in the process of comics.
Comic artists and writers were treated as anonymous cogs in a machine for far too long in this country and, if nothing else, giving credit where credit is due (where possible) goes some way to redress the balance.
Hmm, is this an appropriate time to mention a few other little errors i spotted in the war book?
-One caption mentions a story that appeared in Chums in 1882, the paper didn't start until 1892, though. In fact i could probably track down the actual issue XD
-1898 somewhere around Victorian chapters was accidentally typed 1989
-A caption said there had been "4,0000" issues of Commando
-Right at the end it was implied that War Picture Library was still going, actually only Commando is, but War Picture Library reprint books have appeared along with Commando ones.
I'm pretty sure the Charley's War page reproduced was from the 1979 Battle Annual, not the most appropriate one as it was in full colour and was a typical "cram it in" annual story with a "funny" ending. Still i seem to remember it having a flash of the black humour from the weekly right at the start, with the sergeant shouting "We have to defend this position or die trying!" and Charley saying "And i suppose the Germans have to capture it or die trying?"
Talksport online magazine is running a feature on the book from today.
But perhaps more importantly the front cover features an illustration by Barrie Mitchell, with a front cover credit. Obviously he has an appeal even to the readers of lads mags.
I agree entirely with Lew. I don't think the 'Joe Public won't care' approach is a good idea; you're writing to inform, and I'm sure you're assuming an intelligent, interested readership. These expensive, in depth books won't be bought as casual buys from people with just a flicker of interest in the medium.
Not crediting the creators when you do know their names would be considered unthinkable in a book about American comic history. Yet over here we kept the writers and artists anonymous for so long; a wrong which should now be rectified. It's great to hear you'll be crediting in future volumes.
But none of this is to take away from how very appealing and welcome these first two volumes are - they're beautiful books, and should be irresistible to any British comics fan. Splendid work. I'm really looking forward to seeing future volumes.
Absolutely agree with Lew and Raven. These volumes are high-quality, in-depth publications that should be as informative as they possibly can be. It makes no sense to not include creator credits because you can't include them all. All that does is to make it more likely that those names that are known, at this moment in time, may be lost to future generations precisely because they weren't catalogued in hard-copy publications such as these.
I really do not understand where you are coming from. Should we have cut the copy for storylines to provide details of known illustrators? The intention of the book was to provide readers with an insight to a genre which is being lost .
If you believe there is an alternative book out there why not put your money where you mouth is and publish a definitive tome listing storylines, a list of titles, dates of publication, authors and illustrators. There will be minimal interest from a publisher and little or no interest from the average consumer. Produce a synopsis and we will present the option to our publisher
We researched reader appeal before we published, what do you base your assumptions on? In the commercial world atypical research does not work.
To date the vast majority of people who have seen the book have been impressed, and have no doubt that this will result in significant sales, and an increased awareness of comics, characters, authors and illustrators.
On the back of the competition to win an original piece of Barrie Mitchell Roy of the Rovers artwork we achieved entries in excess of 9,000 applications. Perhaps this has done more to promote the talent of the illustrator than you can imagine.
Bob Frankland wrote:I really do not understand where you are coming from. Should we have cut the copy for storylines to provide details of known illustrators?
Why would you have to cut copy to add the name of creators as captions under the samples you publish? How would, say, 'art by Ron Turner' in the white space under or above the Billy's Boots multi-pager have resulted in essential book copy being cut? Even Thomson's 'History of The Beano' did this, and historically they've been one of the worst for refusing to acknowledge the creators. As Lew says "It's like reading a history of movies that doesn't credit the actors or directors."
Would you have been happy for the books to come out with no credits for yourselves? If not, why not, for Joe Public surely wouldn't care.
It's surprising that you "really can't understand where you're coming from" as I don't think Lew or Kashgar could have expressed themselves more clearly or politely, while also highly praising these very welcome, hugely appealing books.
Plus Ray Moore (Kashgar) is an expert in the comics industry, responsible for cataloging several titles in his index books, and Lew Stringer is an artist and writer who, like Ray, knows what he's talking about. No offence, but you couldn't have picked worse people to disagree with. By the way Bob, Ray already did put his money where his mouth is, about 20 years ago, by writing The Beano Diaries, Topper Tales, The Dandy Monster Index, and a few more similar titles. History of the Beano reproduced most of the Index section from The Beano Diaries with updates.
Bob Frankland wrote:I really do not understand where you are coming from. Should we have cut the copy for storylines to provide details of known illustrators? The intention of the book was to provide readers with an insight to a genre which is being lost. If you believe there is an alternative book out there why not put your money where you mouth is and publish a definitive tome listing storylines, a list of titles, dates of publication, authors and illustrators.
It isn't rocket science, Bob, just plain common sense, and I am in agreement with Lew, Raven and Kashgar over this issue, and I haven't even read either of the books yet. For heaven's sake, they are all praising your books, not knocking them because they would have preferred you to have written a definitive tome listing storylines, a list of titles, dates of publication etc. They are merely expressing disappointment about one perceived deficiency, and we are not persuaded by your argument that to credit the artists of the illustrations you have used, you would have had to cut the copy for the storylines, nor by your decision not to credit known illustrators because you didn't know them all. Is there not also a chink in your logic here because, on the one hand you seem to be saying that you would have credited the artists if you had known them all, but on the other hand you didn't do so because of a lack of space? Furthermore, the statement I really do not understand where you are coming from is, in my opinion, little short of an insult to the intelligence and perception of respected members of this Forum.
Bob Frankland wrote:I really do not understand where you are coming from. Should we have cut the copy for storylines to provide details of known illustrators? The intention of the book was to provide readers with an insight to a genre which is being lost .
If you believe there is an alternative book out there why not put your money where you mouth is and publish a definitive tome listing storylines, a list of titles, dates of publication, authors and illustrators. There will be minimal interest from a publisher and little or no interest from the average consumer. Produce a synopsis and we will present the option to our publisher
The benefit of having a debate like this on an online forum is that when someone creates a "straw man" argument, as you have above Bob, the facts are all on record to easily refute it. If you look you'll see that what I actually said was:
"As for space being a premium, an art credit (where known) after a picture caption would not have taken up any space from the main text."
Neither I or anyone else here remotely suggested that your book should have been (as you put it) "a definitive tome listing storylines, a list of titles, dates of publication, authors and illustrators". I think we all agree that such a work would have very limited appeal, which is why no one suggested it.
A pity that you appear to be so oversensitive of the slightest criticism that you've ignored all the positive things that people here have said about your books.
Bob Frankland wrote:On the back of the competition to win an original piece of Barrie Mitchell Roy of the Rovers artwork we achieved entries in excess of 9,000 applications. Perhaps this has done more to promote the talent of the illustrator than you can imagine.
Good news indeed, for Barrie is great football comic artist who's often been overlooked. Does he get a mention in your book?
I gave in and bought the book at WH Smiths in Liverpool yesterday lunchtime. I spent the rest of the day reading it. My initial reaction was very favourable. The presentation and the format are excellent. It is well written and manages to deal with a large subject in a very interesting way. There is a good range of illustrative material, and individual pages are broken up in an inobtrusive manner, although I couldn't see the point of using illustrations from within the text for the endpapers when different ones from the same sources were obviously available. I thought the real success was the first four chapters. I felt that chapter 5 on the Fifties needed to be longer to do justice to such vibrant and changing times. I do realise that a number of key characters from the decade were held over until coverage of the picture papers started but I cannot see any reason why Baldy Hogan, Adventure's iconic football star of eight series between 1946 and 1952 could be completely ignored. Chapter 6 and the first part of chapter 7 were good but thereafter there did seem to be more of a drift towards summarising serials.
I do not think it is possible to produce a book without a mistake or two creeping in, but the time between the writing and the printing demands careful proof-reading and fact-checking. I raised my eyebrows at the careless cropping of the Hot-Shot Hamish panel on the front cover and was then mildly alarmed by a couple of spelling mistakes on page 17, proceeding should be preceding and rarified should be rarefied. There were more. On page 43 Leversham should be Leverham, on page 144 Redstoke becomes Redstock within three lines and on page 125 Limp Along Leslie is said to play for Darby Rangers, and although the correct Darbury appears four lines later, it becomes Danbury on pages 212 and 214, where it is presented incorrectly seven times.
The main problems, however, are errors of fact and incorrect dates. Dates first. On page 63 a caption states that Burly Brock was in The Wizard in 1932. It was actually printed in 1933. The date 11 January 1947 for Cannonball Kidd is only correct in relation to the illustration on page 114. The story actually started in issue 549 (August 24th 1946). This approach is repeated a number of times, once for Napper Todd on page 121 for example, and is irritatingly misleading. On pages 119/120 two serials about Cannonball are unaccountably merged. The Bradburn City story is simply called Cannonball Kidd (not THE Cannonball Kidd, by the way) and dates from 1949. At the beginning of the 1950/51 story Too Old At Twenty, Cannonball is transferred from Bradburn to Carstock United, and the rest of the story tells of his season with Carstock. A caption on page 128 claims that Nick Smith was in The Hornet from 1965, although his first appearance in that paper was in 1963. Finally, in the chapter on the Fifties, Biffalo Bill is said to start on 14 December 1963, although the illustration on the facing page clearly shows the player in The Hotspur in 1958.
Errors of fact. On page 143 it states that Adventure was giving free gift cards away for eight weeks. This particular giveaway lasted eighteen weeks. On page 60, referring to the full-page illustration on page 61, and at the top of page 9 of The Ultimate Fantasy Football Comic, it is implied that this is the first appearance of Cast-Iron Bill. In fact there had been seven series about the character in The Rover prior to this serial, which was a repeat of the very first story from 1927. See the relevant cover below. The final issue of The Skipper had sixteen pages, not fourteen as is stated on page 92. On page 93 it says that Thomsons' Big Four did not return to 28 pages until the early Fifties. In fact, it was 1960 before there were 28 on even a reasonably regular basis. In the late Fifties 20 or 24 pages was the norm. On the same page the claim is made that The Hotspur returned to weekly publication on 11 January 1947. In fact issue 1237 of The Rover was the first, but not until March 12th 1949. For several years prior to that point Thomsons had had a 'three weeks out of four' system in place. On page 102 it states that The Wizard steered clear of football stories during the war, focusing instead on 'the greater game'. Not so! The Ninety-Minute Nelsons was very much a football/war serial which ran between October 1941 and April 1942. On page 158 it says that JP Sedley is Granton's goalkeeper. He is actually the right half.
This is a good book overall and I recommend it. It is attempting an area which has previously remained uncoordinated and does a pretty good job. But my late father-in-law was in quality control at Vauxhall's, Ellesmere Port, and he refused to release a car until all flaws were eliminated. He told me that the cars looked great but a blemish was a blemish. It is to be hoped that Adam, Tim and Robert, who are all members of this Forum, will see the above as advice rather than criticism, and simply tighten up on their quality control for the five future projects.
As an aside to Mister "put your money where your mouth is" I've just recalled that one of the paid jobs I did on writing comics history included this whirlwind history of British humour comics for the BBC:
Barring a number of proof reading errors (mostly in regard to text relating to art examples containing factual errors when the correct details are given elsewhere within the body of the main text) and the occasional mistake e.g D C Thomson's association with the football comic did not end with the demise of Victor as the Football Picture Monthly (first published in 1986 as a Commando style mag for the footie fan) ran on after Nov 1992, my biggest beef with this book remains the non-inclusion of any artist details.
How a book that is meant to a celebration of 'comic' heroes and includes page after page of art examples should then give the artists involved short shrift is a little beyond me. As an example Bert Vandeput has eleven examples of his work featured in this book, including six full page contributions, and yet his name doesn't appear anywhere. But where would a book like this be without the input of Bert and his ilk?
In fact the only artist that gets a name check in the book is Tom Browne and he gets one only by accident as his name is attached to the bottom of a page reprinted from Denis Gifford's 'Victorian Comics'.
Plus Ray Moore (Kashgar) is an expert in the comics industry, responsible for cataloging several titles in his index books, and Lew Stringer is an artist and writer who, like Ray, knows what he's talking about. No offence, but you couldn't have picked worse people to disagree with. By the way Bob, Ray already did put his money where his mouth is, about 20 years ago, by writing The Beano Diaries, Topper Tales, The Dandy Monster Index, and a few more similar titles. History of the Beano reproduced most of the Index section from The Beano Diaries with updates.