Lee Falk is, of course, known for some of the most famous adventure comic strips from the early part of the 20th century. The Phantom is probably his best-known creation, but Mandrake the Magician runs a close second. It's Mandrake who really set the stage (if you'll excuse the pun) for so many magician characters, from Ibis to Zatara and, by extension, Zatanna. But Mandrake was first, appearing in 1934. Some comic historians consider him comics' first superhero. (I don't want to get into that debate, though!)

In both his Phantom and Mandrake stories, Falk largely focused on adventure. The stories had a very pulp feel to them, and concentrated more on the propelling the story forward with action, moreso than characterization or drama. In Mandrake, Falk was assisted by artist Phil Davis essentially from the start

So I was surprised to stumble across this Mandrake comic strip from 1939...Let's set aside the ugly racial stereotypes in the dialogue and art for a moment, and just look at the basic structure of this particular comic. A barker encourages Lothar to pay ten cents for a half-hour of entertainment in his penny arcade. Lothar promptly tries several machines geared to test one's strength in various ways, and he turns out to be so strong that he inadvertently wrecks each machine, seemingly oblivious to both his own strength and the intent of the barker. It's... a gag. From Lee Falk.

Lee Falk, action/adventure writer, did a gag strip. In a five-year old comic that had been firmly established as a not-a-gag-strip. I'm just left scratching my head on what prompted the sudden change for this one strip. Anyone else ever see examples of Falk's attempts at gag strips like this?

This (sadly) still relevant cartoon and the text below (with my emphases) is borrowed from The Opper Project. In a year when a Republican president is actively trying to get the population killed, and his biggest sychophants are aggressively promoting AI at the explicit expense of actual human workers, it's hard not to see the menacing threat between labor and capital. I might have to buy some stock in pitchfork manufacturers.

Creator: W.A. Rogers

Publication: Harper's Weekly Vol. 45, No. 2319

Publication Date: June 1, 1901

Description: One of the broad effects of industrialization was the new rivalry between workers and managers, or as it was phrased at the time, labor and capital. The powers of factory owners and managers increased as industrialization proceeded. Workers experienced long hour, low pay, and job insecurity but could do little about these conditions. Labor gained strength, however, as more and more workers joined together in unions. The political scene became more favorable to labor once Theodore Roosevelt took office following the assassination of Republican President (and friend of capital) William McKinley in September 1901.

Let's start by looking at Saturday's installment of Red & Rover...

If you're unfamiliar, Red has had a crush on Marcia Brady since he first saw The Brady Bunch in the October 9, 2000 strip. Red & Rover nominally hovers in an ill-defined period around the late 1960s/early 1970s, but given the number of Brady references over the years, most of the strip takes place in the 1970s. The show debuted in September 1969 and ran through March 1974.

Not surprisingly, very few details about specific episodes are ever mentioned. Presumably to keep the comic from getting too specific in being dated. However, as you can see above, Red explicitly calls out one of the episodes by name. "Brace Yourself" debuted in the show's first season, originally airing on February 13, 1970. This means that everything in the strip between October 9, 2000 and this past Saturday -- virtually the entire quarter century run -- takes place over a little less than five months.

"But, Sean," you protest, "couldn't Red have been watching the show in re-runs?"

That's a fair point. But when you look more closely, it doesn't offer much more time. The show ended it's first season on March 20, 1970 and was re-run over the summer until the new season began in September 1970. But that was then the pattern for the course of the show: a new season would start in September, new episodes would run through through March, and then the season would repeat over the summer. Syndication of the show didn't begin until after the show ended in 1975. Now, there were also daytime reruns beginning in 1973, but at 11:30am on weekdays, it seems highly unlikely that Red would be able to catch those since he'd be in school. So if Red happened to miss the original airing of the episode, his next chance would've been (assuming the reruns were broadcast in the same order) July 3, 1970.

Meaning that only adds about four, maybe five months to the overall timline of the strip. Still noticeably less than a year since that 2000 strip when Red first saw Marcia.

Of course, a Red & Rover strip from 2003 references A Very Brady Christmas which didn't air until 1988, so then the real question becomes: what is time anyway? 🤷

I mentioned last week that I've been working on some custom action figures based on the Fantastic Four from before they got their super powers. (That project's been going very well, thanks for asking. The photo here is where progress stands as of this morning.) Now while I'm very well versed in the FF's history, I have been going back and re-reading any of the comics that feature stories or flashbacks to that time period. Since their 'costumes' from back then are basically just, you know, clothes, I'm going back to these stories more for inspiration that a strict adherence to continuity. After all, there are PLENTY of gaping holes between stories -- not even whole stories in most cases, but just the barest of snippets of them -- so who's to say that Reed was or wasn't wearing a tie at any particular juncture?

In order to make sure I'm not missing any of those old stories, since there really aren't very many of them and they're scattered wildly throughout the characters' sixty-plus year history, I'm checking against various lists and websites online. So far, all of the ones that I couldn't remember offhand were all very small and ultimately inconsequential, but you never know when you'll come across a gem. But in reading through these sites, I've noticed two things. First, the vast majority of these people don't cite any sources. They'll say, "Here's what happened" or "This is why things are like this" but they don't point to where this was actually said in the comics. They'll frequently have a picture from the story in question, but just don't tell you where it's from. Which is obviously a problem for my current research but also undermines the writer's credibility. Are they explaining what actually happened, or are they putting their own spin on things, or have they just wildly misinterpretted the story? There's no real way you can check.

Second, and as something of an extension of the first bit, they don't care about continuity. These articles will frequently talk about events from the past 5-10 years, but most everything beyond that is a crapshoot. They talk about the more recent developments as if they were wholly new and not built on the foundations of a story from forty years ago. Oh, they'll make reference to some character first appearing a few decades ago, but there'll be no context. Is this current story/character following along in the same vein as before, or have they been totally reimagined for one reason or another, keeping little more than the original name? Everything outside of the past few years is ancient history, and only worth mentioning in the most oblique, tangental way possible.

This is the direct result of Marvel deliberately spending the past twenty years eschewing continuity. I've complained here before about how the last Marvel comics I really enjoyed were the ones that embraced old school continuity, and I've seen almost nothing like those in two decades. I don't say this to slag on Marvel; I get why they made the change. Beginning in the 1990s, continuity was being used as a crutch and it actually acted as an impediment to new readers. By scrapping continuity for a perpetual now and making every post-origin story irrelevant, a new reader can pick up effectively any new book and get a pretty good handle on what's going on.

Of course, this concept is countered by the continued use of company-wide crossovers (the latest issue of Fantastic Four was impossible to follow for several pages because it tied directly to this "One World Under Doom" storyline that I've not bothered with). In fact, the "nothing will ever be the same" crossovers means nothing since there's no continuity anyway. As soon as the crossover is finished, everyone picks back up with their current now and the big crossover isn't mentioned again.

What strikes me as ironic about all this, too, is that back when continuity was important, comic writers and editors would themselves cite past issues. Spider-Man might come across Hobgoblin in Amazing Spider-Man and quip, "Didn't I just fight you?" and there'd be a caption box that said, "Yes, he did! Check out Web of Spider-Man Annual #3!" This was useful to devoted readers who wanted to read that story, of course, but problematic because it was difficult to find those stories in the days before the internet and healthy reprint programs. You had to physically find an original copy of that exact issue in a comic shop or maybe at a small convention. (There were no such thing as "large" conventions! Back then, even San Diego Comic-Con was topping out at around 6,000 attendees.)

Now, though, when you've got the internet readily accessible on your phone and you can look up dozens of places to buy a copy with a couple clicks, or check out all the places it's been reprinted, or get a digital copy to read immediately -- now that you have all those options to take advantage of those caption box annotations, they're no longer provided. When handling and figuring out continuity is easier than it's ever been, that's when Marvel (and DC from what I can tell; I don't read much from them to confirm first-hand though) decide they're going to just chuck continuity to the curb. EVEN AS their movie franchise has spent the same two decades showing how continuity can, when handled well, be attractive to all audiences, not just nerds like myself.

This rant came about because I just read YET ANOTHER piece claiming that Marvel has reduced the age gap between Reed and Sue Richards when there is literally nothing in the comics to even suggest, much less state that. The fans who are writing these pieces are likely in the 20s and 30s, after Marvel stopped focusing on continuity, and the result is that they're basically presenting their own head-canon as fact, despite being repeatedly and regularly contradicted by the actual stories. Since all that matters is the perpetual now, though, they can claim whatever they like so long as it doesn't contract whatever the current 5-6 issue storyline is. Marvel decided to forgo continuity to be more inviting to readers, but they've since trained those readers to not care what happens outside of 'right now.' It's their right to do that, of course, but it's why the only Marvel comic I read any more is Fantastic Four -- the fewest number of titles I've gotten since 1987.

Here are this week's links to what I've had published recently...

Kleefeld on Comics: Djuna Review
https://ift.tt/DK59xRn

Kleefeld on Comics: Some Continuity Reflection
https://ift.tt/MPwpXAt

Kleefeld on Comics: Understanding the Influencing Machine
https://ift.tt/kQp7uPc

Kleefeld on Comics: Peanuts at 75
https://ift.tt/sU2Jf6x

Kleefeld on Comics: Digital vs Print Contract Restrictions
https://ift.tt/HMGxBlf

Earlier this week, it was announced that Marvel comics will becoming available digitally on GlobalComix beginning October 15. The couple of news pieces I saw about it noted "Marvel joins DC, Image Comics, Dark Horse, Boom! Studios, Oni Press, Kodansha and dozens of other publishers of comics, manga and webtoons worldwide as part of Global’s growing catalog..." and "in addition to Marvel, GlobalComix now offers DC, Image Comics, Dark Horse, Boom! Studios, Oni Press, Kodansha and many more..." This is inaccurate, however, as Oni and Boom! titles are no longer available as of October 1.

(Strictly speaking, the titles were still probably technically available when those articles were written, but they became out of date within hours.)

Over on Reddit last week, KodyCQ offered something of an explanation...

Due to recent changes with their distribution partners, their catalogues will be removed from GlobalComix on October 1st. While this is outside of our direct control, we’re actively working with both companies to restore access as soon as possible.

We can’t yet guarantee if or when their catalogues will return, but please know we’re on it and will keep you updated...

Thank you for your patience and support while we explore bringing BOOM! Studios and Oni Press back under their new distributors.

That sounds to me like there was something in Oni's and Boom!'s respective distributor contracts that either outright prohibits or puts some substantive restrictions on how their comics can be distributed digitally. Perhaps not exactly an exclusivity clause, but something restrictive enough that it conflicted with their agreements with GlobalComix. Possibly there's nothing even conflicting at all, but the legal wording might be vague enough that they're seeking legal counsel before continuing to be on the safe side.

But I'm reminded of the announcement that Image made just over a week ago. They said they were going to release comics through the regular distribution channels as normal, but that bookstore and digital outlets would only come about a month later, allowing comic shops to have some degree of exclusivity. The point I made was that this was largely PR spin, and the likely explanation was that that month-long window was a supply chain constriant on bookstores that ultimately didn't impact comic shop sales anyway; the delay on digital was just a way to sell the 'comic shop exclusive' line as digital sales don't impact print sales much anyway.

I'm wondering if we're looking at the same situation with Oni and Boom! I bet that contract stipulation that KodyCQ alluded to had to do with release dates, and that their distributor contracts required a month-long exclusivity window for comic shops. So rather than go through all their catalog in GlobalComix one by one, they just axed everything with the intent of bringing it all back in 30 days, once everything that had been put online had also been in print for that long. At that point they can then start up with a regular posting-new-issues schedule that simply tails their print releases by a month. That wouldn't be the most nuanced approach from a marketing perspective, but it would certainly be the easiest from a technical and logistics one.

My bet is that Oni and Boom!'s catalogues will be restored in early November. They'll make a big deal about it, maybe even doing some "thanks for staying with us" and/or holiday sales to mark everything down through the end of the year. But I'm certain they'll be back before long; I think this is more of an instance of not telling the audience the full story moreso than any actual legal challenges. I don't know the specifics of their timing, of course, but I'm sure it won't be much longer than a month, if that.

Today is the 75th anniversary of the Peanuts debut. I don't know that I have anything new to add to what you can find elsewhere about the history of either the strip or creator Charles Schulz, so I thought I might share some more personal thoughts on them.

I don't recall my first encounter with Peanuts. Peanuts was created nearly a quarter century before I was born, so it has literally always been a part of my upbringing in some fashion. Heck, both Happiness is a Warm Puppy and the animated Christmas special were around for about a decade before I was! Snoopy has, for me, always been very much a part of American culture.

That means a couple things. First, it meant that I didn't see Peanuts develop. It was a fully formed set of characters from the outset (at least as far as I was concerned). With later popular strips like Garfield and Calvin & Hobbes, I was able to watch their development as their creators found their illustrative and narrative voices. But Schulz was well into a groove with Peanuts by the time I first saw it.

Second, it meant that, while Schulz certainly wasn't done, he had said a lot of what he wanted to say already. The Lucy-pulling-away-the-football routine and the "It was a dark and stormy night" stories had been turned into running gags, where the comedy comes more from variations on a theme than in the concept itself.

In fact, by the time I start reading the strip regularly in the 1980s, Schulz was argueably past his prime. His linework had started becoming shakey as he entered his 60s, and he had largely abandoned some of the adult themes and observations of previous years in favor of the somewhat less dark depictions that came out marketing. Charlie Brown was no longer really manically depressed, but mostly just wishy-washy; he no longer seemed to get angry about his lot in life but accepted it with benign resignation.

And at the time, reprints were not very common. There were probably more of Peanuts than just about any other strip, but the ones I had access to were primarily from the earliest 1950s strips where Schulz was still finding his voice. They were interesting to compare the obvious changes in illustration style, but I largely missed the more cerebral strips that really launched Schulz to comic stardom. So while I heard many fans and cartoonists laud Schulz's work, I was only seeing the least of it.

Furthermore, a lot of Schulz's innovations had been around long enough to have become staples of comics as a whole. Other seemingly age-old strips (i.e. anything that debuted before I was born) like The Born Loser, Marmaduke, and Family Circus had already been influenced by Peanuts and had picked up on various elements that Schulz had introduced to the medium. So not only were Schulz's ideas old hat, but they'd been around long enough to have been copied ad infinitum by others.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't dislike Schulz. The strips were still better than most of what was on the comics page, and the Christmas Special certainly had something magic about it, but the body of work as a whole (of which I had only seen the extreme ends of) seemed over-rated. I seem to recall my father pointing this out in my late teens but, again, the lack of access to good reprint material meant that his explanations were largely from memory (which meant that he couldn't really pinpoint many specific examples) and I couldn't actually see what he was talking about in any event. I was left with what amounted to, "Well, he did some really great and innovative work that mostly overlap the 20 or 30 years that you're missing."

In the ensuing couple of decades of comics research, which includes a wealth of materials becoming more widely available, I've gotten a much better appreciation of Schulz's contributions to both the medium and society as a whole. But I think it speaks to what was a long-standing problem of popular culture: that, until recently, we only had the "now" to assess. Anyone but the most hard-core and dedicated researchers coming to the game a little late might be left out of the loop entirely. People just a few years younger than I am likely have less appreciation of what Garfield's introduction was like and what Jim Davis' contributions were.

But while it's argueable that, twenty-five years after Schulz's death, newspapers should stop running Peanuts re-runs in favor of giving someone else a shot, those Peanuts re-runs are works that were almost entirely unavailable to the vast majority of people until the 21st century. So there's (potentially, at least) a greater sense of appreciation of Schulz's work here at 75 than there may have been at 35 or 45.