posted April 09, 2003 05:03 PM            

So there I was confronted with not one, not two, not three, but a plethora of images of Batman all antagonistically different from each other. How to resolve the puzzle? My solution was to believe everything and discount nothing.

I have to jump to the defense of Jack Schiff, though. From what I know, it doesn't seem that every single Batman comic was "wierd" during the "kitchen sink" period (1960 - 1964--even though my old issue of Ariel Magazine from 1976 expounds on this matter and insists that they were), but in any event, it was probably because of slumping sales (plus the problem represented by the code dictates) that Schiff used the outra angle to bump up sales. Schiff wasn't destroying the comic, he was trying to save it. And given the taste for sci fi back in those days, Schiff probably gave Batman a few more years of life than his previous sales had warranted.

Also, and I was prompted to thumb through my battered copy of Batman from the 30s to the 70s last night, I think Sheldon Moldoff is due some re-evaluation. People are evaluating Moldoff on the terms that he didn't draw like Kirby or Swan. He drew Batman and Batman's world in a radically different style.

But looking at his work I am struck by the economy with which he communicates his message (aided no doubt by the inks of Charles Paris). In one story, in different scenes, Robin is kissed by Bat-Girl, and Batman by Batwoman, and Moldoff delivers that look of uncomfortable and constrained surprise with just a few well chosen lines (this with two characters who are masked and have blank eyes--but it's the shape of those white eye-holes that communicates the emotion).

posted April 09, 2003 07:14 PM            

As far as silly goes, the early Legion stories are seen as charming (and they are) but they are no less silly than the 'intergalactic olympics' story from Detective #260 or Ace the Bathound.

posted April 09, 2003 07:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BP25:
The Batgirl/Batwoman/Batmite era with all the space monsters will be seen in World's Finest vol 3...

---

posted April 09, 2003 08:42 PM               

There was a lot of experimentation during this era which captured my imagination -- granted I read these stories in reprints in the 60's and 70's. But Rainbow Batman deeply etched itself on my psyche -- it had me swearing for years that Adam West dressed this way in a episode of the TV show.

My "Batman from the '30's to the '70's" book has a lot of those charming / bizarre science fiction tales, and the batwoman / batgirl stories. And of course time travel to meet the Man of Bats Indian brave, so Batman could have a Western adventure. And Origin of the Batcave -- more cowboys and indians. I recommend that book, although most of the stories are in black and white.

Batmite may be kookie -- but we could really use somebody to put the hex on Bruce Wayne and lighten the guy up. SHEESH!!

------------------
Interested in joining Hal's Emerald Advancement Team? Check out www.glheat.cjb.net, and if you agree with our mission statement, then email the application to me at SilverAgeAdam@yahoo.com

I INVITE YOU TO SUPPORT OPERATION EMERALD STORM!!

Send your extra comic books to the families of our troops fighting in the Persian Gulf!!

posted April 09, 2003 11:33 PM            

I can't contain my excitement at the thought of another WF archive. These should be illegal, they're too much fun!

And I well remember Bat-Mite (along with Mr. Mxyzptlk) popping up during the "new look" in World's Finest 169 (don't let that cover fool you).

posted April 10, 2003 01:13 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BP25:
...I can only assume that this era is seen as not jibing with the character Batman became,and wouldn't be a big seller to today's reader. The 50's and early 60's era has it's own charm, and if World's Finest sales are good enough to produce another volume this year, a certain appeal.

---

Not to be quarrelsome, but I wonder if any of the Batman archives attract today's readers. It seems like most of us who buy the archives buy them as an alternative to reading today's Batman (at least I do, not that I speak for the majority).

posted April 10, 2003 01:23 AM               

If newer readers enjoy today's Batman, good for them.

I can't stand him. If I want the real Batman, I read my back issues, annuals, and archives.

posted April 10, 2003 08:08 AM               

quote:

---

but I think the early Marvels from the same period (early 60's) are practically unreadable

---

Not to derail the thread, but, I find it hard to believe that anyone could say early 1960's Mavels were unreadable...the FF, Spidey, and Doctor Strange issues from that era are some of the best superhero comics in history!

I suppose if all you were reading was, say, Ant-Man in Tales to Astonish...but that's a pretty isolated example. And I still wouldn't call it unreadable.

posted April 10, 2003 08:12 AM               

quote:

---

Not to be quarrelsome, but I wonder if any of the Batman archives attract today's readers. It seems like most of us who buy the archives buy them as an alternative to reading today's Batman (at least I do, not that I speak for the majority).

---

The REAL Batman still lives in the Batman Adventures books. You should give them a try.

--Mark

posted April 10, 2003 09:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by profh0011:
"the main character isn't Batman, but rather another person of the same name"

That's how I feel about every "Batman" comic published since 1986!

---

Have you read Generations? Its the best interpretation of the Batman mythos since Crisis.

posted April 10, 2003 11:15 AM               

However, and this goes for the current series, as well as MARVEL: THE LOST GENERATION and X-MEN: THE MISSING YEARS and SPIDER-MAN: CHAPTER ONE, John Byrne's writing "style" seems to be devolving into a "Reader's Digest" formula of choppy, incomplete, haphazard, unconnected, barely-ledgible scenes that give brief glimpses of information but have no depth, no soul, no satisfaction, and often no feeling of connection to any other scenes in the same story. My own writing style has been evolving to the point where some of the "gimmicks" of certain other writers' styles are beginning to irritate me. Jack Kirby made a bad habit of abruptly switching scenes in mid-page, but HE probably did it because of too many ideas an not enough room to work in. Somehow Jack always seemed to do it with style & panache. John Byrne has made a career lately out of religiously aping this worst of Kirby's plotting habits, and carrying it to unintelligble extremes.