Since their inception in 1954 The Bash Street Kids have been so synonymous with The Beano that it may be surprising to hear that the characters also appeared in another publication for a while. For a short time in the mid-Fifties, D.C. Thomson's story paper The Wizard included Bash Street in its line up, - as a text story.
Simply titled Bash Street School the single page (or page and half) text stories appeared in The Wizard No. 1522 (April 16th 1955) to No. 1554 (November 26th 1955). As revealed in Ray Moore's diligently researched books The Beano Diaries (pub. 1991) Leo Baxendale drew new headers for the stories and, on two occasions, illustrated two Bash Street covers for the story paper, tying in with the text stories, on issues 1536 (July 23rd 1955, seen above) and No.1547 (October 8th 1955).
What's most interesting about the Bash Street School text stories is that they gave the reader more information on the characters than The Beano had revealed. As The Wizard was aimed at a slightly older reader than the primary school age group of The Beano, it also aged the Kids for its readers to relate to. Issue 1536 states that the Bash Street Kids are "over thirteen years old".
More revealingly, it gave full names to some of the characters. The stories were narrated by Sidney Pye (simply known as Sid in The Beano strip) and other characters fleshed out were his sister Kate Pye (Toots in The Beano, thus becoming 'Kate and Sydney Pye' - geddit?), Deathshead Danny Morgan (Danny), and Fatty Brown (Fatty). Wilfred and Smiffy remained without surnames, but there was no Plug or 'Erbert. Instead, new Kids with names such as Gasbag Jones and Toffy Hughes made up the numbers.
No nameless "Teacher" either. Instead, the form master of Class 2c was "Sleepy Snorer" , - a completely different teacher. The nameless "Janitor" from the comics was given the name "Bull" Carr, an ex-sergeant-major.
If the issue I have is any example, the tone of the Bash Street School text stories was far different to the wild slapstick of The Bash Street Kids comic strip. Although still geared towards comedy, the pacing was far gentler and the humour more sophisticated.
The Wizard had a long run in its first incarnation, starting in 1922 and running until 1963 as a text story paper. Then it was revived in 1970 as a comic, which ran until 1978.
On Saturday 12th September 1970 IPC Magazines launched a new addition to their growing line of new weekly comics. Score 'n' Roar was a 32 page football comic/magazine featuring the same "two in one" gimmick as IPC's Whizzer and Chips had pioneered a year earlier. Score and Roar were effectively two 16 page comics, with Roar being a pull out in Score's centre pages.
The contents seemed pretty strong. More or less a 50/50 split of strips and features, more colour than the average IPC comic, and photogravure printing giving quality reproduction to artwork and photographs. Yet it only lasted for 41 weeks before merging into companion footie comic Scorcher. What went wrong?
A few theories:
1) The "two in one" gimmick was convincing for Whizzer and Chips because its main rivals, Dandy and Beano, at that time were 16 page comics for 4d (8d in total). So Whizzer and Chips being "two" 16 page comics for 6d undercut DC Thomson. However, Score 'n' Roar were claiming to be two 16 page comics for 9d in a market where other adventure comics had 32 pages for around 7d each. (Yes, a mere 2d made all the difference in those days.) Therefore Score 'n' Roar seemed poor value in comparison, and its "two in one" gimmick seemed phony (which of course it was).
2) Score 'n' Roar fell between two stools. Was it a comic or a magazine? Only a year previously IPC had successfully launched footie mag Shoot! Why should Shoot's loyal fanbase buy Score 'n' Roar when they could get more football info from Shoot?
3) Similarly, IPC had earlier that year launched footie comic Scorcher. Again, why should readers of Scorcher buy the more expensive Score 'n' Roar? By their very nature theme comics only appeal to readers interested in that theme and this was stretching things too thin. Seemed there was only enough support for one football comic and Scorcher (being newsprint and cheaper to produce) had the upper hand.
Shame really, as Score 'n' Roar did feature some good material. Here's a few samples:
Cannonball Craig. "Skinny Craig Cartwright found that he developed a tremendous cannonball shot whenever he ate some of his Grandpa's bubble and squeak". Ok, daft premise, but the artwork (either by a rushed Mike Western or Mike White, I can't tell) was strong enough.
Peter the Cat. Artwork by Tom Kerr. Kid goalie who amazed everyone with his skill. Clearly inspired by Peter Bonetti. Not Kerr's best work, but he was quite prolific at that time.
Phantom of the Forest. Art by Jesus Blasco. Ghost of deceased footballer who could gain human form whenever an ancient football was kicked. Typically barmy British comics premise but interesting to see Blasco drawing a football strip instead of The Steel Claw.
Trouble Shooter. Art by Graham Allen. The token humour strip in the comic.
Nipper. Art by Solano Lopez. Easily the most popular and enduring character in the comic. Young Nipper Lawrence struggles to rise from poverty and to clear the name of his dead father. Featured a thuggish character called Pete Belcher,- one of IPC's best names for a villain. Clearly the readers responded well to this emotional story of a hard luck hero as the strip successfully carried on in Scorcher and later into Tiger for many years.
Score 'n' Roar seemed to be in trouble from the start. A few months after its launch it became simply Score (dropping the "two in one" gimmick). This prepared it for its merger into Scorcher at the end of June 1971.
The better-late-than-never 9th issue of cult media mag Death Ray has just hit the stands. A few weeks later than scheduled, but still a value for money package of reviews and articles on tv, film, and comics. This issue includes the promised article on Dave Gibbons, known, as if anyone needed reminding, for his artwork on Watchmen and Give Me Liberty amongst many other comics.
Considering the build up given to the article in the previous issue I'd hoped for a huge section on Dave's long and worthy career. What we're given is a six page interview accompanied by various snippets of art. Nevertheless, it's an informative article and covers Dave's work fairly well, albeit briefly. Whatever its shortcomings it's great that a magazine that's on sale in the High Street is making the effort to promote comics. It's also pleasing that Dave is spotlighted as some journalists tend to overlook his considerable contribution to Watchmen and bias their attention towards Alan Moore. (Himself very deserving of course, but the comic was a joint effort.) With the Watchmen movie now in production expect to see more press coverage on the comic and its artist this year and next.
The same issue of Death Ray also runs a feature on the new Dan Dare comic, with an interview with the artist Gary Erskine. Shame on the magazine however for failing to mention Spaceship Away, which has been running new Dan Dare stories for several years. This appears to be a deliberate omission, as a page of Dan Dare art from Spaceship Away is used as one of the illustrations for the interview!
Death Ray No.9 in newsagents and supermarkets now. £3.99
Marvel's flagship comic Amazing Spider-Man is to start the New Year with a complete revamp to attract new readers, and a shift from monthly to three-times-a-month frequency. One might expect this news to be greeted with applause by Spider-fans but instead vociferous online fandom (Newsarama, Comic Book Resources, etc) is mostly outraged by the idea.
It's the execution of the revamp which has angered long-term fans. Over the past year or so Spider-Man has revealed his true identity as Peter Parker to the world but then became a fugitive for refusing to register under the (Marvel Universe) government's Superhero Registration Act (which effectively registers superheroes as military operatives). This led inadvertently to Peter's Aunt May being shot by an assassin (the bullet was meant for Peter) and leaving her mortally wounded.
To save his Aunt's life, at the end of his tether, and to make right what a mess he'd made of his life, Spider-Man makes a deal with the devil. (Mephisto, the name Marvel use for Satan as to not offend religious groups.) That's right. Spidey makes a pact with Satan. Don't try it at home kids.
Sat, er, Mephisto doesn't want Peter's soul though. Oh no. He wants Peter's marriage. So, in order to save Aunt May and make life easier for all, Peter and Mary Jane Parker give Satan their marriage..... meaning that it never happened, and history is rewritten. Even Peter's old buddy Harry Osborn is back from the dead. I guess Satan threw that in as a bonus as he'd had such a good day.
The actual reason for the reset? Because Marvel Editor In Chief Joe Quesada and Marvel management feel that kids can't relate to a married Spider-Man. (Even though the marriage has been in Spider-Man comics for the past 20 years.) Maybe they have a point. Stan Lee created Spider-Man as an "everyman" character for children and teenagers to relate to.... he suffers from colds, money problems, he's a geek... but then later writers had him marry a supermodel. Not quite in keeping with the concept really, but it did the trick at the time; readers felt that Peter Parker was growing up with them, so they stuck with the comic.
Now however it seems that Marvel are throwing out the past 20 plus years of continuity, and some fans feel this is an insult. Never mind the fact they can still read those comics. They're reacting as if Joey Q had sneaked into their homes, burnt their comics and wiped their memories.
Reaction from fans on message boards to the current revamp has been extraordinary. Whilst most have been articulate and rational, others have wailed like children. One even blamed Peter Parker; "If Parker had registered none of this would have happened", - seeming to forget that the character wasn't real. Someone called Skellion said "This is a bunch of crap. I hope something really bad happens to Joe Quesada." (Oooh!) Another member of the intelligentsia pointed out that Spider-Man was bought by adults, not children: "when ninty eight persent creater of an industry are over 27 years it is perfectly exceptable to give an opinon comic books are not for kids any more and they havent been on years" (sic). Or at least I think that's what he meant.
The main point was that they had an emotional investment in the life of Spider-Man: "I'm 31... I don't care about the possibilities... i want MY spider-man back" said one rather selfish adult. Tomorrow he'll be demanding jelly and ice cream.
From the many similar comments it appears that most adult fans of Spider-Man buy the comics not to follow a writer or artist but mainly because they're hooked on the characters: "money makes this industry run. Who do you really think has more disposable income to spend on comics? This long time adult fan with 30+ years of brand loyalty". (Disposable income also buys more penny chews, so by his logic all sweets should be marketed to 40 year old men.)
This isn't the first time fans of US comics have reacted so loudly of course. In fact they do it every time there's a major change of direction in their favourite comic. This time some fans are demanding that Quesada lose his job, and dissenting voices against such knee-jerk reactions are soon shouted down. The very nature of message boards allows such a lynch mob mentality to proliferate. Although moderators usually step in if members become too abusive the forums are primarily there as a release valve for such emotions. Companies such as Marvel and DC exploit this of course. They send press releases and exclusives to the websites knowing full well that the more controversial the subject, the more it'll be discussed, and the more free publicity they'll gain. The comic companies win, the fan websites gain more hits, and the fans get a chance to boo or cheer like a pantomime audience.
What's interesting is that the incentive for such passions point out a difference between collectors of US and UK comics. British comics have traditionally been concerned with plot and artwork, and little character development. However Marvel Comics have always focused on soap-opera storylines and brand loyalty. Whilst this did Marvel huge favours in the sixties it soon became evident that character development had to be finite in order for their core characters to remain viable to the company. Peter Parker could graduate from college (and did), get married (and did), but he couldn't grow old because the majority of readers wouldn't be interested in a Spider-geriatric. Likewise, Parker's friends and family could have "realistic problems" but never anything long term. (For example Aunt May is forever "frail" but never suffers from any ongoing debilitating afflictions to represent her age in a realistic way.)
Therefore Marvel introduced what became known as "The Illusion of Change". This meant that characters could die, the status quo could change, but by the use of skilled (or often clumsy) writing a cop-out would eventually return things to basics within a few months or a couple of years. (For example, Captain America, still currently dead, will one day return, Aunt May has died several times and come back, Iron Man has exposed his secret identity at least three times.)
Incredibly, it's the fans with the longest years of "brand loyalty" who always seem to fall for the hype of the revamps. You'd think they'd be bored by now. Instead of observing these marketing techniques with a wry smile, they become fiercely upset by such "everything changes forever" hucksterism. Why? Because they've become too emotionally attached to the characters. This is exactly what Marvel wanted of course. They know that Spidey addicts will, as one fan admitted, be "sticking it out through a crappy patch because they loved the characters" in the same way that fans of tv soaps will tune in week after week. Whoever's writing or drawing the comic becomes of secondary importance because the fans just want to know what happens next to Peter Parker.That said, to a certain extent it's understandable that fans are annoyed with this particular story. It would appear that this time the reset button has rewritten so much of Spider-Man's backstory that it affects practically every other comic he's appeared in over the past 20 years as well. (The Civil War mini-series for example, in which Peter unmasked to the world. Do readers now have to ignore that particular sequence and its consequences?)
This current revamp, altering two decades of Spider-Man history, could potentially cause more confusion if new readers go on to read older stories in graphic novels. Never mind. I'm sure there'll be another "everything changes forever" situation along to resolve it. And another to resolve that. And another.... Maybe it's all a dream. Will Marvel really let Mephisto win like this? Nahhh. Stay tuned.
Amazing Spider-Man No.545, featuring the end of the current continuity is on sale now from comic shops. Issue 546, with the start of the new continuity (below) is on sale soon.
Update 4th Jan 2008: This has to be the most outlandish reaction to the Spider-Man revamp yet. From the Newsarama message boards:"this happening means that classic 9-11 line rings true...the terrorists have won...cap is dead and spidey might as well be...because he's dead to me". Someone desperately needs to get a grip on reality!
The covers for the books will feature brand new artwork by Jon Haward inked by Gary Erskine. The black and white versions of which can be seen on this blog.
