Comics UK

Just in case I'm coming across as someone who finds little merit in this book, that is far from the truth. It is a beautifully produced, nicely written volume based around an interesting concept which it brings to fruition rather well. In fact one of the main reasons it galls with regard to the lack of artist details is that it is so good in other respects. It's a two goals in injury time performance when it so easily could have been a hat-trick!
Also, when it comes to any future volumes maybe consultation with someone with a more knowledgable overview of some of the topic areas covered would see some genuinely long-running, memorable characters (and therefore more likely to be remembered by the readers) not being overlooked and being replaced by lesser lights, Champion's post WWII football star 'Danny of the Dazzlers' and Lion's 'Carson's Cubs', which ran continuously for seven years, springing immediately to mind.

Kashgar wrote: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.

Now that we've seen the book, I think we are in a position to put this missing-artists' names issue to bed. The reason they were omitted clearly had nothing to do with a lack of space. The layout allows for a margin on most pages, into which information identifying the illustrations is placed, in as many just-under-three-centimetre lines as are required. Where a comic cover takes up a whole page, the information about it is placed within the margin of its facing page. There is a huge amount of space left over which could easily have accommodated the credits for the artwork. Just occasionally no margin is left, as for example on page 73, but then the narrative text stops short of the bottom of the page to allow room for the illustration information, which gets two or three lines of about six neat, inobtrusive centimetres, so room could have been provided even there for the artists' names.

As for the occasional mistake, I think you are being a little too kind, Ray. I've been asking myself how the errors of fact that I outlined in an earlier post could have been made, and I've been forced to the conclusion that on such occasions the investigative research was sloppy. In the case of Adventure's free gift cards (on page 43), it would appear that because eight footballers were illustrated on the cover, they assumed that those constituted the whole set. There really is no excuse for such carelessness when Thomsons gave them the free access to their archive that they have mentioned. This apparent willingness to assume things, rather than check them out thoroughly, must surely have led to their presentation of Carstock United in Too Old At Twenty as Bradburn City. I suspect that they didn't even read the whole of the first instalment, preferring instead to assume that because Cannonball Kidd was playing in Bradburn's first pre-season practice match in the opening paragraphs of the story, the heading block picture of the Carstock United's team of teenagers was therefore the Bradburn City team. As for all the errors over JP Sedley, Cast-Iron Bill, page counts, publication schedules and football stories in the Big Five during the war, this information is either in the public domain or in the archive.

Yes, The Beano's wartime page count and schedules info was mentioned in The History of The Beano and I assume The Beano Diaries. If similar indexes exist for the boys text papers, the info should be in those indexes. But one thing goes further than the indexes - the issues themselves. Were they too lazy to count how many pages issues had? Could they not tell when it got thinner because of paper rationing? Or that issue dates had a two week gap instead of one where rationing had reduced the frequency of publication? Didn't Adventure's gift cards promo have alternate covers, with the English and Scottish versions showing players from their respective leagues? I'm sure that was mentioned in another thread.

I'd like to say thanks for the kind comments about the book(s), also I'd like to answer a few of the negative points.

I think the vast majority of the mistakes crept because we were under a lot of pressure. Although we originally approached the publishers in October, we couldn't get them to commit to it until sometime in April, giving us about four months to produce the (football) book. Maybe we should have said it wasn't enough time, but we were worried that if we did we could lose the commission.

Adam and I did discuss putting artist/writers credits in the book when we were about half way through the book, but time constraints, and the possibility of getting them wrong, swayed us. If these books are reprinted or we are commissioned for more, it's something we will seriously consider.

With regards consulting with experts in the field, we just didn't have the budget (I ended up paying for the Getty pictures out of my fee due to lack of budget). I didn't think putting a post on the forum from someone you hadn't heard of, asking people to proof read/fact check the book for a thank you in the back and a free copy of the book would have gone down that well. We will correct all the mistakes that have been pointed out.

I'm sorry if this comes across as a “poor me” post, and I appreciate it's the final product that matters. I wanted to put some of things in context, as both me and Adam are unhappy some of the things in the book, which were out of our control.
I would also like to say thanks to everyone who has bought and read the book, we really appreciate it.

tim

Rogerhat wrote: With regards consulting with experts in the field, we just didn't have the budget (I ended up paying for the Getty pictures out of my fee due to lack of budget). I didn't think putting a post on the forum from someone you hadn't heard of, asking people to proof read/fact check the book for a thank you in the back and a free copy of the book would have gone down that well. We will correct all the mistakes that have been pointed out.

Hi Tim,

Thanks for the polite response. I see what you mean about proof-reading as that would be time consuming but in regards to identifying artists, I think some if not all of us would have been happy to do that for a free book. Mainly because it'd just be a case of looking at an image and saying "Yeah, that's Ron Turner / Mike Western / Joe Colquhoun..." etc, and would hardly take up any time at all as recognition of the style would be immediate.

Anyway; nice books and fascinating reading.

Lew

Rogerhat wrote:With regards consulting with experts in the field, we just didn't have the budget (I ended up paying for the Getty pictures out of my fee due to lack of budget). I didn't think putting a post on the forum from someone you hadn't heard of, asking people to proof read/fact check the book for a thank you in the back and a free copy of the book would have gone down that well.

More assumptions! For all the members of this Forum, Tim, comics and/or story papers are an interest, a hobby or an obsession. The very fact that we are involved in comicsuk means that we are all essentially like-minded. Those that upload posts are contributing to some ongoing debate or other, sometimes asking questions, sometimes clarifying, sometimes arguing, but always being helpful. Why then would we not have helped you? All you had to do was ask, so it's disappointing that you didn't feel able to do so. Do we seem mercenary? I for one would have jumped at the chance to help you, completely free of charge. Lew says he would too, and I feel confident that I can speak for Ray, Colin and others. It's what we do. It's just the way it is. If you are given the future commissions you mention and feel that we may have something to offer, don't be backward in coming forward, we're only a PM away.

It's not that I think anyone on this forum is mercenary. It's more to do with the fact I'd contributed nothing to this forum, and I wasn't comfortable asking people to help for nothing. On top of that, I wasn't even sure the book would ever see the light of day until I saw a printed copy, which would have made the promise of a free copy pointless.

If we get a commission for another book, I'm sure we'll be posting a few queries

Rogerhat wrote: If we get a commission for another book, I'm sure we'll be posting a few queries

So, as Shakespeare said, All's well that ends well. Or as Arthur Daley would have it, That's a result. A victory for common sense, 4-3.

Rogerhat wrote:...With regards consulting with experts in the field, we just didn't have the budget (I ended up paying for the Getty pictures out of my fee due to lack of budget). I didn't think putting a post on the forum from someone you hadn't heard of, asking people to proof read/fact check the book for a thank you in the back and a free copy of the book would have gone down that well. We will correct all the mistakes that have been pointed out....

You want me to read a book about comics, point out any errors that I may or may not find including typos and you are going to stick my name in it as well???? Where do I sign up and who do I have to kill?

Re the comments on the book itself. I take it from the mention of the masterly Bert Vandeput, that we have a fair share of Gorgeous Gus, Sparky Morton and the Mysterious Mr X who created a football team from players that he controlled by various means, including putting them into 'cold storage' when they did not come up to scratch in regards to their playing form?

Also does Rats United, the only football strip that I can think of from Warlord, get a mention?

From the comments on the thread, while they may feel negative, I know that I would enjoy seeing this book either early in December as a birthday pressie or even under the tree on the 25th.

I'll echo Phoenix and Lew's comments that we are passionate about our comics and that is why we are so engaged to espouse our love of the medium And that may explain why Phoenix may come across as pedantic (see, I spelled it properly this time! ). I am surprised that he is not a complete pedant as, after years of marking student papers regurgitating the same old material, I know that I would be miles worse that phoenix is if I had spent as many years as he had reviewing student papers!

colcool007 wrote:I'll echo Phoenix and Lew's comments that we are passionate about our comics and that is why we are so engaged to espouse our love of the medium And that may explain why Phoenix may come across as pedantic (see, I spelled it properly this time! ). I am surprised that he is not a complete pedant as, after years of marking student papers regurgitating the same old material, I know that I would be miles worse that phoenix is if I had spent as many years as he had reviewing student papers!

Now I know what you mean, Col, by lost in space. You mean spaced out. It must be the weed. Have another go at your last paragraph tomorrow afternoon, assuming you've landed by then. It's a D for clarity so far, and if I don't see a significant improvement I will have to consider placing you in special measures.

Hi Tim,

I'll just echo my fellow contributors and say that should help be needed with any future projects please feel free to ask.

Regards,

Ray.

I've spotted another mistake in the football book (my copy arrived yesterday). It says that Raven on the Wing ran in Valiant from 1968-72. It actually ran till May 1974, then, as philcom55 kindly informed me in this very forum a couple of years ago, was briefly revived from December 74 to January 75.

An odd mistake to make as one only had to look at any single 1973 issue to see that the strip was still running.

No idea why it is so late but last Friday the Daily Mail ran a full page article on this book. I have had to reduce it via the photocopier in order to fit my scanner so I hope it is legible.

Here's a perfect example of the error knock-on effect that we mentioned earlier. The newspaper claims that The Rover created Cast-Iron Bill in 1939 because it bases its own 'research' on Adam Riches's book. However, as I commented at the time, the character first appeared in The Rover in 1927.

That article is laughably packed with errors

Though i could kind of understand why Hotspur might accidentally get called a football comic. By somebody who had never seen one, anyway.