Retro Comics are Awesome

[andersonh1]

Interesting blog post: Who took the Super out of Superman? It's hard to disagree with some of his conclusions, though I'm not sure portrayals of power and Superman's sales have any correlation.

http://rikdad.blogspot.com/2011/07/who- ... erman.html

The most problematic nature of Superman's characterization is how it has ended up so malleable as to have no solid core. Superman is the property of no single writing team, and in any given decade dozens of writers get their shot at him.
While certain values – of course, his goodness, heroism, and resolve – are relatively fixed, Superman has not become a well-developed character because different writers manipulate his finer points to make their stories work, leaving Superman with no real core.

For example, 2002's eight-issue crossover story Ending Battle climaxed with Superman refusing to kill Manchester Black even when he believed that Black had brutally murdered Lois Lane. Less than two years later, that value was affirmed when Superman said of the prospect of willingly killing a foe, "Never for me. Superman doesn't kill. He has too much control. He'd never make that kind of mistake."

But a year later, the Sacrifice crossover contradicted this by showing a Superman who was willing to kill Brainiac and other powerful foes when confronted with the same illusion that Manchester Black had shown him. The second story, a lead-in to Infinite Crisis, changed this value of Superman's for the sake of making the plot go where it needed to go. Even in this regard, the handiwork was careless: In order to make Superman a dangerous menace in the hands of Max Lord, it was only necessary to make him perform ruthless aggression while believing that he was responding appropriately. Sacrifice could have achieved the same thing by having Superman fight (nonlethally) opponents like Darkseid and Doomsday. In fact, he could unwillingly dole out lethal force while thinking that he was dismantling a bridge, or moving a pile of gravel. The writers and editors of 2005's story could have kept Superman consistent with his 2002 characterization simply by telling the story in that way. What were sacrificed was not the life of a fictional character or the reputation of Wonder Woman, but the creative values of consistent characterization.

[Dominic]

Superman is one of the few characters that the "no killing" rule works for. It has been consistently shown, across multiple iterations of the character, that Superman us fully aware of the potential for harm should he ever lose control, and that this understanding makes him exceptionally cautious. Even when confronted with situations where killing was the only way out (such as in John Byrne's defining post-Crisis run on "Man of Steel"), Superman was shown to be mortified by the necessity. The same run of comics also depicted a Superman who wanted to ensure that he could be stopped if there were ever a need.


Ultimately though, the real question is not if Superman should kill, or under what conditions that killing is okay. The question is how to best use Superman as a character. I tend to think that the best answer to that question is to use Superman to illustrate questions of power and how to use power. Superman's power-set is one of the least defined in comics, and it is far too late to do anything about that now.

But, that does not mean that Superman does not epitomize power, regardless of how his power set is limited (or not) at any given time. "Red Son" nicely illustrates this. Millar set up a scenario where Superman, with the best of intentions, became a tyrant. A more modern example would be Taylor's "Injustice" comic. The complaints about "Injustice" generally go in to the category of people whining about how Superman is not written consistent with Silver Age rules, rather than anything more substantive.

[andersonh1]

So, going with Superman, I dug out an old book that I had forgotten I owned. Superman from the 30s to the 70s. As you might guess from the title, it contains a selection of stories from the first four decades that Superman was published, as well as an introduction by E. Nelson Bridwell. Most of the book is in black and white, though portions of it are in color.

Superman #1, 1939
Superman's origin story is told in two pages, and the basic familiar elements are all there. The doomed planet Krypton and Superman sent to earth, where he is found by the Kents. They place him in an orphanage, where he's already got super strength and freaks out the staff. The Kents come back and adopt him, and in a scene very much like the recent Man of Steel movie, Pa Kent advises Clark to hide his strength until he grows up. He learns to use his powers as he grows, his parents die, and Clark finally decides to adopt the Superman persona. It's typical storytelling for the time, with a lot of story told quickly and efficiently.

And then the story proper begins with Clark attempting to get a job at the Daily Star. They turn him down, but as Superman he stops a lynching and gets a tip about a murder from the man he saved. This gets him the job, and then he goes after the murderer, a lounge singer. When he confronts her, she tries to shoot him, but of course that's a waste of time. He forces her to write a confession (seems to be a common tactic in these old stories), and he then heads for the governor's house to deliver the confession and stop the execution of another woman that had been framed by the lounge singer. He's just in time. If you've read the first issue of Action Comics, part of this story was printed there first and then expanded in the first Superman issue. This is all very familiar, with Clark/Kal El using his abilities as Superman to get the reporter's job, and then get great stories.

The issue doesn't stick with just one story, but rather turns into a series of incidents. Superman goes after a wife-beater, and tosses him into a wall. The guy tries to stab him and faints when the knife breaks on Superman's skin. Then we switch to Clark out on a date with Lois (first appearance), and they get some trouble from some thugs who won't take no for an answer when one tries to cut in to the dance. This is very much the Christopher Reeve version of Clark, bumbling coward. As one caption tells us "Reluctantly, Kent adheres to his role of a weakling."

Thug (slapping Clark in the face): "Fight, you weak livered pole-cat!"
Clark: "Really, I have no desire to do so!"

So Lois is disgusted with his cowardice, walks out and is kidnapped by the thugs, only to be rescued by Superman, who runs down the car, shakes everyone out of it, and then smashes it to bits. The famous cover from Action #1 is reproduced here. Superman takes Lois home, and the next day gets another assignment to go cover a war in a South American country. Superman goes to investigate some political corruption related to the war, and we get a cliffhanger ending to the first issue.

Overall: I think this may have been set up originally as a newspaper strip, which may explain why the story is all over the place. The issue jumps from one event to another to another, but in the process establishes a lot of familiar story beats and characters. As for Superman's character, he's written as supremely confident, fearless, and not above dishing out some punishment where he feels it's warranted. He brings a murderer to justice, saves the life of someone who was framed, stops a case of domestic violence, smashes up the car of some kidnapping thugs, and has no qualms about scaring an arms manufacturer. There's a lot of social justice and fisticuffs, and very little sci-fi apart from his origins. No supervillains at all.

I can see the appeal of this version of the character. The art is certainly crude by modern standards,though it gets the job done and tells the story.

[Dominic]

Scourge of the Underworld:

One of the hazards of reading older comics by old favourites is the danger of being betrayed by cherished memories and being crushed by fallen idols.

"Scourge of the Underworld" is a reprint of comics (and/or excerpts) featuring the Scourge of the Underworld. This volume is essentially broken up in to two parts. The first half focuses on early appearances of Scourge from the characters first appearance in "Iron Man" up to the infamous massacre at the Bar With No Name. The second half of the volume focuses on later appearances up to Gruenwald's "US Agent" miniseries from the 90s.

I was too young to follow Scourge when the character first appeared. (I was reading comics at the time, but only sporadically. Even so, I would not have had any way to track a character whose appearances where intentionally random.) But, Scourge was something that appealed to me from the moment that I first read a sourcebook entry on the character in 1990 or so. I picked up a few appearances, but never had a full run of the character.

Part one:
The first half is an enjoyable, if macabre, trip down memory lane. On page, the high concept is that Scourge is a serial killer (later revealed to be part of a conspiracy) that was bumping off super villains. Off page, the reasoning was that Mark Gruenwald wanted to clean house, and killing off third tier characters is generally a good way to go about that.

A typical early appearance of Scourge went involved an obscure villain showing up (either as the focus of a comic or in a random cameo) and getting shot by a mysterious gunman who would yell "Justice is Served" while the heroes would stand around gaping and describing in ridiculous detail what had happened in the preceding panels.....because Marvel was stuck in the Silver Age until the 90s.

Scourge's gun had one of my all time favourite sound effects in comics, "PUM.....SPAK!", even though the gun was not always consistently depicted. (In some unfortunate cases, the letters would reverse the "PUM" with the "SPAK!", or possibly omit a "PUM" or a "SPAK!". Unfortunately, these sorts of effors are inevitable. However, there is one such error that I found to be especially troubling, as I will descrbie below.

Scourge's appearances were random, and at times inconsistent. There is some question about how much Gruenwald intended for Scourge to stick around and how much Gruenwald intended to have left vague. On the one hand, Scourge's physical appearance often varied beyond what could have been accounted for with disguises, including multiple appearances as a female. On the other hand, the Scourge from the bar massacre (the one most people think of when then think "Scourge") had female disguise elements in his van. (Regardless of Gruenwald's intentions, many of Scourge's later appearances read as if they were back-written.)

The volume opens with a montage of Scourge's early hits, reprinting anywhere from single pages to multiple page scenes that all end with a predictable "PUM....SPAK!", or some variant thereof. Given the predictable nature of these scenes, it is just as well that only the relevant pages are given here. In a few cases, complete issues are reprinted, including and all splash-page issue from Byrne's Hulk run (which features Scourge double-dipping by killing both Hammer and Anvil with one shot) and a Peter David issue of Spider-Man (that ends up causing an error of sorts, as described below).

Issues #318 to #320 are the only two times when Scourge's appearances were predictable until the "US Agent" series many years later. In issue #318, Scourge's appearance is not announced. But, it is telegraphed more bluntly than the character's trademark "PUM....SPAK!" sound effect. (Watching Bluestreak climb in to the cab of that semi is kind of like watching the lead-up to the shower scene in "Psycho". You just know what is going to happen, and it is sort of comforting when expectations are met and "Justice is Served!" with a side of "PUM....SPAK!" leaving a confused hero to sort things out.)

Scourge's presence is announced on the cover of #319, which is arguably Scourge's most famous appearance. Unfortunately, "Captain America" #319 also features two of the more egregious errors in "Scourge of the Underworld". The first, sadly, is during the main event.

In the penultimate scene of what was then called "the Year of the Scourge", 18 super villains gathered at the Bar with No Name and discussed how they planned to deal with a homicidal maniac who clearly wanted to kill them all. As suggestions were being shouted and the meeting descended in to chaos, Gary "Firebrand" Gilbert called for order. Suprisingly, he was not Scourge in disguise. (There was precedent for Scourge disguising himself as a villain, as was the case when the Melter's lab assistant was revealed to be a disguised Scourge.) No, it was.....

Spoiler

JAKE THE BARTENDER!

, offering a simple solution, the gathered supervillains could all "EAT LEAD AND DIE!" The barteder then sprayed the room, complete with an ample amount of the "PUM" effect.

And, that leads us to the problem. While there is a panel of

Spoiler

Jake the Bartender

emptying a clip at the patrons of the Bar with No Name, there is no follow up panel depicting the 18 villains in their death throes, over-lapped with appropriate "SPAK!" effects. This bothers me. It really bothers me. It is, I suppose, something of an injustice.

Another mistake involves a listing of Scourge's victims. In issues #318 and 319 of "Captain America", the Wraith is clearly listed as one of Scourge's victims. However, when Wraith's death is depicted in "Amazing Spider-Man" #278, the Scourge (presumably not

Spoiler

Jake the Bartender

) is shown watching a news report about the massacre at the Bar with No Name, which would set Wraith's death *after* the massacre, despite Gilbert explicitly listing the Wraith among Scourge's victims and having a newspaper clipping referencing the Wraith's murder.

All things considered, even with the above mentioned errors, the first half of "Scourge of the Underworld" is a good read, though I may be letting sentiment influence me here.

(Fun Fact: When I was 12 or so, I spent an absurd amount of time thinking about how cool it would have been if Toy Biz made a "Bar with No Name" play-set, complete with figures of

Spoiler

Jake the Bartender

and the 18 villains he shot. Besides light and sound, the play-set would have had spring loaded chairs and the figures would have had loose joints to simulate getting shot. It is actually one of my un-started projects to make this vision a reality.)


Part two:

Most of part 2 was new to me. I flipped through the first issue of "US Agent" and had some familiarity with Scourge's later appearances, including "Night of the Scourge". But, most of the content is new. As with the first half, the second begins with a montage featuring later antics by characters calling themselves Scourge. At some point, it is revealed the at least some Scourges work for the Red Skull.

I am not completely sure either way about Gruenwald's initial plans for Scourge. But, most of the "big shocking reveals" (none of which match the sheer awesomeness of

Spoiler

Jake the bartender

) read like back-writes. Scourge is a mystery both on and off the page. The whole damned thing really falls apart with the "US Agent" miniseries.

For the record, I really like the concept of "US Agent". And, I figured that there was no way that a story featuring "US Agent" and written by Gruenwald could possibly be anything less than readable. But, oh, how wrong I was. How very wrong.....

Even by the standards of the 1990s, Gruenwald's "US Agent" is one of the greatest atrocities seen on a page since a Scourge disguised as

Spoiler

Jake the bartender

opened up a can of "PUM.....SPAK!" at nameless bar one sunny afternoon. The first issue features Gruenwald showing that he could write "grim and gritty", complete with scene set in a pornographic movie house. There is even a sound effect of "porn movie noises" across several of the relevant panels, one of which shows the woman on screen making a "porn face". But, Gruenwald clearly believes in redemption, as evidenced by religious references that manage to be both ham-fisted and shallow throughout the series.

The series descends from bungling to full-on incompetence with the end of issue 2. At the close of the second issue, US Agent disguises himself as a Scourge that he captured earlier. Unfortantely, the Scourge who is sent to rescue/retrieve him sees through the disguise and shoots US Agent at point blank range. When issue 3 picks up, Agent is shown to be tied up and wearing the tattered remains of his disguise, but it otherwise unharmed. (Apparently, the bullet holes healed up or something?) No mention is made of him having been shot at the end of the previous issue.

Issue 4 plunges to depths of ineptitude that I did not think Gruenwald was capable of reaching. The series starts when Agent is sent to rescue of Scourge who refused to carry out an assigned hit. The Scourge organization is going to kill her because she refused to carry out a hit.

Agent captures the loyal Scourge who attempts to kill the squeamish Scourge. Well and good. In issue 4, the Scourge organization catches up to Agent and co. And, apparently, the Scourges were taking their stupid pills that morning. Rather than freeing their captured (but loyal) comrade, they shoot him dead. Then, they take the squeamish Scourge hostage...and uh.....do not seem to remember who she is or why she is important. Apparently, despite spending several days (and dropping everything else) hunting for her was not enough to help them remember the whole damned point of the hunt that led to the guy they shot being captured in the first place. (Their forgetfulness is contrasted by Agent just being able to find the guy who gives orders to Scourges in the field....somehow or another....I dunno.)

There is also a sub-plot involving a guy named Bloodstain looking conveniently like US Agent's dead brother. (I have to wonder if Marvel toyed with actually making them brothers, and only backed off because that would have been stupider.) Oh, and Gruenwald reaches back to the Golden Age and drags an obscure character named "the Avenging Angel" in to an origin so bad that I cannot tell how much of it was back-written.


Final thoughts:
Scourge is an enigma. What was Gruenwald thinking when he mandated the first wave of Scourge-killings? Was he planning to use Scourge over the years? Did he merely intend to for Scourge to be used only to clear the board of tertiary characters? How much of Scourge's origin was back-written? How much of the back-writing was used to justify inconsistencies with some of Scourge's early appearances? We may never know.

Grade: C/D (The "US Agent" series really brings the grade down. I never thought I would say that about an Agent story written by Gruenwald.)
-revised grade: D

As bad as the second half of "Scourge of the Underworld" was, I still like the concept of Scourge. I would almost want to see a Marvel Legends style figure of Scourge, maybe with Scourge bring the "built-in variant" for a given wave, with there being multiple possible Scourge figures sold on the same type of blister card in different cases (similar to how Zemo and the AIM scientist are packed in the current "Captain America" series).

-late edit: Did a bit of reading on the wiki (to see if anything significant Scourge stories had been published after the "US Agent" series. As it turns out, many of Scourge's victims, including most of the guys killed by the Scourged disguised as

Spoiler

Jake the Bartender

at the Bar With No Name, have since been raised. Apparently, Marvel cannot even keep characters that were killed off because they sucked dead. Dropping the grade on this book.....


Dom
-only knew Scourge was

Spoiler

Jake the Bartender

because of sourcebook entries. Otherwise, Gilbert would have been the obvious suspect.

[andersonh1]

I checked a couple of Spider-Man Marvel Masterworks out of the library today, volumes 1 and 2 specifically. I've only read a story or two, but it's interesting how much of the origin story made it into the original Raimi movie intact, though notably Uncle Ben's death occurs as a result of a burglary attempt at his home, not out on the street. But the wrestling match is there, and Spider Man cornering the crook in a warehouse. Ditko's art isn't as strong as I'd have expected from a guy with his reputation, but it gets the job done. Should be interesting to read the rest of the books over the next week or so.

[Dominic]

Guys like Ditko get unwarranted amounts of credit just for working in the industry when they did. It is not a question of them being legitimately great. It is a question of them being there early.

Working on "the Captain" the the moment. This reprints the arc where Gruenwald introduced John Walker. And, it also seems to have the return of the Red Skull. I am getting the feeling that this is going to be a mixed bag like "Scourge of the Underworld".

[andersonh1]

Guys like Ditko get unwarranted amounts of credit just for working in the industry when they did. It is not a question of them being legitimately great. It is a question of them being there early.

Sometimes it's just a case of being in the right place at the right time.


So, I'll be reading the Golden Age Superman omnibus for awhile. Not that I mind, it's very entertaining. I've already talked about the origin story (reprinted from Action #1 and expanded in Superman #1), so I'll pick up with issue 2.

Action Comics #2
“War in San Monte”
This is the second half of the story begun in the last issue. Superman terrifies lobbyist Alex Greer into giving up the name of Norvell, the munitions manufacturer who is making a tidy profit off of the war in San Monte. Superman heads for Novell’s house, and after shrugging off an assassination attempt and sending the thugs running for their lives, turns his attentions to Novell, who he forces to travel to San Monte and enlist in the army in order to experience the horrors of the war he is perpetuating.

This issue of Action is a little more focused than the last one, though there are still multiple incidents within the larger plotline of the war. Superman takes pictures of the war and mails them back to The Evening Star in Cleveland Ohio, which is apparently the paper he works for this month! Lois Lane, sent with Clark Kent to cover the war, is framed and accused of spying, forcing Superman to rescue her for the second issue in a row. Terrified by the horrors of the war he has been forced to be a part of, Norvell agrees to stop manufacturing weapons. Superman then ends the war by forcing the two commanding generals to sit down and hash out a deal.

Lois in peril: she’s framed, accused of spying, and sentenced to death by firing squad

Employer of the month: The Evening Star, Cleveland Ohio

Rough justice: Superman scares a lobbyist to death to make him talk, and then threatens the arms manufacturer and forces him to join a foreign war, following him every step of the way to drive his point home. The roughest treatment is reserved for an interrogator in the San Monte army, who gets picked up and tossed half a mile into the jungle with a “pitiful wail”. That guy will be lucky if he survived. The story never tells us whether he did or not.

Overall: Superman is very much a “might makes right” character, using his might to enforce his ideas of right and wrong whether those he has targeted for attention like it or not. He’s no boy scout or overpowered demigod here, but he’s very much the toughest guy around and does whatever he wants, because no one can stop him.

Action Comics #3
“The Blakely Mine Disaster”
A mine collapse traps some miners underground. Superman disguises himself as a miner and pretends to fall into the mine shaft, where he proceeds to rescue all the miners. While rescuing the final miner, Stanislaw Kober, Superman discovers that the safety alert cord doesn’t work. When as Clark Kent he interviews first Kober, and then mine owner Blakely, he discovers that the safety conditions in the mine are appalling, and Blakely has no intention of making them better. Yep, it’s another greedy businessman who puts profits over safety. Blakely doesn’t really believe there’s a problem at all.

Disguised once again as a miner, Superman crashes a lavish party at Blakely’s mansion. Blakely decides that it would be fun to take his rich (and mostly drunk) friends down into his mine to see how “the other half” lives. Superman causes a mine collapse and traps them all down there. Blakely learns firsthand how dangerous his mines really are, and vows to make safety a priority in future.

Lois in peril: Nope, she’s not in the story this month

Rough justice: Superman deliberately traps people underground to teach them firsthand how dangerous conditions are in the mine.

Overall: Superman spends very little time in costume in this story. Without Lois around, the pretense of cowardice is dropped and Clark Kent is aggressive as a reporter when questioning Blakely. He is dressed as a miner for most of this story, and super-feats are confined to using his strength to cause and clear mine collapses, and to survive conditions which would kill humans. Blakely seems more callous than evil, and seems to genuinely regret how he treated his employees once he experiences the dangers they face daily.

Action Comics #4
“Superman Plays Football”
The first three issues were pretty good, but this one is a little weak. The incident at the start with the hit and run driver has nothing to do with the rest of the story. All it seemingly does is give Superman a reason to be in the vicinity of the train where three people are plotting to fix some college football games. It’s a little contrived and doesn’t really work.

I’m not a football fan, so the old “fixing the game” storyline isn’t very compelling. What is attention-getting about this story is watching Superman (again, not in costume for long) commit kidnapping and impersonation on perfectly innocent college football player Tommy Burke just so that he can get close to the action and bust the crooked coach.

Tommy gets free finally, while Superman is busy with the big game, and is about to call the cops when his girlfriend spots him and is suddenly thrilled with him now that he’s a big football star, and not a bench warmer. She’s too shallow for you buddy… you should lose her, quick.

All ends well… Tommy gets his girlfriend back and Superman stops the game-fixing. Woo.

Lois in peril: Not in the story

Rough Justice: Kidnapping and drugging a washed-up college football player, no matter the good intentions behind the action, is just bad. The poor guy isn’t even a heartless businessman! At least when Superman roughs up anyone else in the story, it’s in the context of playing a football game, which is a rough sport anyway.

Overall: “Superhero uses his powers to win at sports” doesn’t really grab me as a concept. But then I’m not much of a football fan anyway.

Action Comics #5
“The Dam Bursts”
Thanks to too much rain, the Valleyho dam is about to burst and flood the valley below. Yep, it’s a disaster of major proportions, but when the editor (still nameless) wants to send Clark Kent to cover it, he’s nowhere to be found. Lois wants to go, but the editor is having none of that because it’s no job for a woman. So what does Lois do? She tricks Clark into covering a fake story while she heads for Valleyho. The stunt actually gets Clark fired, since the editor is so angry. But Clark is having none of that, and heads out as Superman to cover the disaster.

The whole sequence with the dam bursting and Superman saving the train looks like it was lifted nearly wholesale for Christopher Reeve’s first Superman movie. It’s not exactly the same, but close enough. So is the sequence of Superman rescuing Lois from her car after it’s been overwhelmed by the natural disaster, though in this case she’s caught in the flood, not trapped by an earthquake and killed.

Lois in peril: Oh yes, her car is washed away and she nearly drowns

Lois in love: yep, she’s not afraid of Superman any more, but tells him she’s in love and plants a big kiss on him, which he seems to enjoy. She doesn't waste time... this is only the third time she's ever met Superman, as far as she knows. Of course, she works with him every day! But now she despises Clark more than ever.

Employer of the month: Clark and Lois now work for the Daily Star

Overall: The major disaster makes a change from social issues. It’s notable that Superman can’t really stop the dam from breaking or stop the flood. He just holds the dam together long enough for people to evacuate, and then he’s done all he can do, other than rescue Lois. He’s tough and strong, but not overpowered.

[Sparky Prime]

Guys like Ditko get unwarranted amounts of credit just for working in the industry when they did. It is not a question of them being legitimately great. It is a question of them being there early.

Several of the covers both he as well as Jack Kirby drew for Spider-Man remains some of the most iconic covers to this day. There is nothing unwarranted about the amount of credit they have. They did some truly great work.

[andersonh1]

I do have to say that having read most of vol. 1 of Spiderman and some Justice League archives from the same time period, I can see the very different approach taken with the heroes and their personal lives. Not that JLA is a fair book to compare since it's a team book with characters fighting for page time, but even solo books like Flash and Green Lantern have an entirely different approach than Spider Man. Parker is much more grounded, both in what he can do and in how he struggles socially and in trying to earn an income. He's not 100% normal though, since he's enough of a scientific genius to build his own web shooters and web formula. But he's definitely more recognizable as an everyday guy than Hal Jordan or Barry Allen. The 60s seems to have been the time where that approach really appealed.

[Onslaught Six]

Guys like Ditko get unwarranted amounts of credit just for working in the industry when they did. It is not a question of them being legitimately great. It is a question of them being there early.

Don't forget that they were, in many ways, establishing a medium. The artwork does not necessarily have to be amazing to work in those days--because the idea of sequential art storytelling wasn't exactly codified the way it is now. Today, things are established, there are almost concrete-lined "rules" about "the way things are done," and New Gods forbid you try to eschew a little bit away from that or else the fanboys will rip you to shreds.

But then again, your post reminds me a joke my friend always tells. "You're not the best. Just the best around."