But some characters are special: they’re spawned directly by by ideals, political and/or cultural climates, and so on. And then there are those who are even more special than that.

Wonder Woman is one of the last type. So far as I know, she may be the only superhero in the Golden Age, at least, dreamed up to embody and demonstrate a particular set of psychological theories.

To explain what I mean, I first have to provide some short bios of her creators.

William Moulton Marston (1893 –1947), who actually wrote the early Wonder Woman comics under the name Charles Moulton, was an interesting fellow to say the least. He was a Harvard-educated lawyer and PhD Psychologist who taught at American University in Washington, D.C., Tufts, and the University of Southern California; a successful scriptwriter who also worked for a brief time as Director of Public Service for Universal Studios; an inventor (something I’ll come back to); a writer of self-help books and pop psychology articles; a champion of women’s abilities and causes; and a model for ads.

Marston’s personal life was also interesting, first because he was married to Elizabeth Holloway Marston, a woman of formidable accomplishments herself. Holloway had a B.A. in psychology from Mount Holyoke College and received her LLB from the Boston University School of Law in 1918, one of only three women to graduate thusly from BUSoL in that year. Holloway went on to index the documents of the first fourteen Congresses, lecture on law, ethics, and psychology at several American universities, serve as an editor for Encyclopædia Britannica and McCall’s, and coauthor a textbook, Integrative Psychology, with her husband and C. Daly King. In 1933, she became the assistant to the chief executive at Metropolitan Life Insurance. That may not sound like much, but even in the 30’s, Metropolitan Life was huge; the company insured one of every five men, women, and children in the United States and Canada. That meant that in her position, Holloway was easily the chief breadwinner of the family.

Which she needed to be, because she and Marston also took on a domestic partner, Olive Byrne in 1925. Byrne herself was a woman of no mean intellect and accomplishments, as should be expected of the daughter of Ethel Higgins Byrne and niece of Margaret Sanger, the feminist activists who opened the United States first birth control clinic in Brooklyn in October 1916. Byrne met Marston when he taught at Tufts and at some point during her time as his research assistant became more personally acquainted with Marston and his wife. After graduating, she moved in with Marston and Holloway, dropping out of a doctoral program in psychology to care for Holloway’s first child. Byrne subsequently ‘married’ both Marston and Holloway, becoming the ‘domestic’ partner of the marriage. Byre stayed home to care for both her two and Holloway’s two children by Marston, although Byrne did not completely stop working; under the name Olive Richards, she became a writer of magazine articles for publications such as Family Circle. All evidence indicates the three had a true marriage: Byrne, like Holloway, had two children by Marston, and after Marston’s death in 1947 Byrne would continue to live with Holloway until her own death in 1985, with Holloway surviving her last spouse by eight years.

Although their lives as ‘liberated’ women may seem antiquated by modern standards, both women embodied the feminism of their day and, more importantly for our purposes, helped shift Marston towards similar views (or perhaps strengthened his beliefs; I’m not clear on that). Together, the trio made a formidable team.

As a psychologist, Marston had a unique theory of Human Behavior which, of course, his wives fully collaborated with him in developing. In 1928 he published a book, Emotions of Normal People, much of which was based on Byrne’s research for her doctorate. In it Marston mounted a defense of many sexual taboos, but more importantly, he elaborated on a human emotional and behavioral theory now called DISC that centers on four different personality traits:

Marston’s (and Byrne and Holloway’s) theory was later developed into the DISC behavioral assessment tool, which is still widely used today. For our purposes, however, DISC is important because it shows up constantly in the early Wonder Woman stories. However, to be clear, Marston’s theory didn’t use precisely either the labels or the definitions I list in the table above: I simply thought it might be more helpful. You can dip a toe into Marston’s actual theory, which involves moving along behavioral axes, by reading the Wikipedia article on him, or you can take a deeper dive than that by consulting any of various texts on the subject, but I think the table above gives you enough to understand the points I plan to make.

First, though, a little more on Marston. I mentioned that he was an inventor, and that also has an important role to play. You see, again collaborating with his wives, this time mainly Holloway, he created the systolic blood pressure test, an invention that would later become a part of the modern polygraph, or ‘lie detector,’ testing machine. If you’re familiar with Wonder Woman, then you know where this is headed. If not, hang on, because I will get to it soon.

The last thing you need to know about Marston before I go forward is a little more… interesting. You see, instead of the modern names for the behavioral categories, William Marston’s original DISC system used the traits Dominance, Inducement, Submission, and Compliance. If you’re at all familiar with BDSM, I think you’ll see where this going, too. If not, click the link (WARNING: NSFW images).

Yes, William Marston was into Bondage. However, he did not see it simply as a sexual outlet, something I understand Marston shares with many of the more serious participants in that culture. However, Marston took his ideas a step further: he saw Bondage as a means of transforming the world.

You see, Marston asserted that male ideas of freedom were archaic and, worse, toxic as a basis for current human behavior; on the other hand, he posited that women embodied an ideal he labeled ‘Love Allure’ through which they could lead humanity into an ideal state of submission to loving authority that he felt to be more in step with the needs of living in a modern civilization.

But how did a teaching psychologist make the leap from that profession to comic book writer? Once again, this came about because of the women in Marston’s wife. Olivia Byrne interviewed Marston on the subject of comic books, then published the result under her professional name, Olivia Richards, in the magazine Family Circle. In the article, “Don’t Laugh at the Comics,” Marston opined that there was ‘great educational potential’ in comics. Comics pioneer Max Gaines happened to read the article. A former educator himself, Gaines was then co-publisher of All-American Publications, which in turn linked him to National Allied Publications, the company that would later become DC Comics. He hired Marston as an educational consultant for both companies.

Marston suddenly saw great possibilities open before him. He’d gotten into entertainment in the first place to publicize John Augustus Larson’s version of the polygraph. Larson’s machine fully realized the ideas of Marston’s own systolic blood pressure test together with others to create a true ‘lie detector,’ and Marston, now styling himself the ‘Father of the Polygraph’ (which he was not, strictly speaking, since others before and alongside him had done work on the subject), became its evangelist.

But now Marston saw an even greater opportunity: to create a superhero who would embody the positive aspects of DISC and who conquered not with raw power, but with love, and to broadcast that message through the new educational medium of comics, reaching thousands of young minds, especially those of girls. Legend has it that he was nudged in the right direction by Elizabeth Holloway. 

“Fine,” Holloway said, “but make her a woman.”

Thus was born Wonder Woman.

In my next blog, I’ll discuss exactly how Wonder Woman fits into Marston’s vision. See you then!

I do not claim ownership of any of the partial image representations posted here.

The post The Golden Age Wonder Woman: A Heavy Background appeared first on Comic Odyssey.

But in the 1940’s, Lois is largely a woman working in a man’s career field, trying to use her ‘nose for news’ to break out of her ‘sob sister’ gig (for those unfamiliar with newspaper terms, one of Lois’ early duties is writing an ‘Advice to the Love-Lorn’ column) and into real, headline-making reporting. Yes, her reach often exceeds her grasp, but the fact that Lois would’ve been dead before the decade was out were there no Superman to rescue her doesn’t detract from this; it merely gives the stories an impetus they might otherwise have lacked.

Now, on to the hats!

Lois is actually looking pretty stylish in this ‘feminized fedora’ (I call it that because of the big bow on the back). It gives her a sort of intrepid woman-of-mystery air, something I at least am not used to seeing in Lois, who is about as in-your-face, what-you-see-is-what-you-get as possible most of the time. Even Margot Kidder (Superman: The Movie, Superman II; Kidder appeared in the other two films of that series, but those were not much more than cameos, so far as I know. If you know differently, let me know, as I can’t bear to watch them) got that right.

In the next issue, she’s equally stylish wearing a seashell.

Okay, no; that’s clearly a turban held on the side of Lois’s head by a ginormous hat-pin which she could’ve used as a weapon. Incidentally, this really was a story Joe Shuster penciled himself; Lee Nowak only did finishes and inked it. That tells me Shuster really did enjoy putting Lois in strange hats. Or perhaps they all really were fashionable, but I’m not sure the sort of hard-boiled reporter Lois is trying to be would’ve worn them.

Sigh. That, of course, suggests the sort of character undermining I mentioned happening later has already begun. But we’re here to have fun, or at least I am, so I’ll leave that for now and pretend that Shuster or someone else in the Shuster Shop was friends with a milliner and trying to do them a good turn.

Next up is one of those hats I’m beginning to think of as ‘orca-brims’ because, like a captive killer whale with a long dorsal fin, they stand up for part of their length, then flop over.

And no, she didn’t fall asleep; instead, Clark put Lois under with one of his slowly-growing list of super-abilities. Oh, Siegel doesn’t call it ‘super-hypnotism,’ but those writers who succeed him will.

In the next issue, Lois has another bonnet (I’m guessing again) perched on the back of her head.

I at first thought that the hat was bending in the wind in that second panel. Perhaps that is indeed what Nowak intended, but I think it’s simply shading. I also love how Lois’s hair is done up in a ‘sausage roll’ at the base of the hat. How long does it take her to get it to do that? And I assume that every time she puts the hat on, Lois has to re-do her hair, as she doesn’t wear the hat indoors, and when it’s off, her hair isn’t so tightly rolled.

See?

I don’t know what this next hat is, but it’s odd-looking. This panel also does a good job of depicting those ‘newshound instincts’ of Lois’ that I talked about earlier; her first thought is what a headline the scene will make.

In the last story of that issue, Lois wears what looks like a beret:

But I’ve reversed the order of these panels so you can next see it from the front:

She’s wearing it bonnet-style, complete with that red ribbon to give it a ‘Little Bo Peep’ effect. Oh, Joe, oh Leo, whichever of you drew this, what were you thinking?

Next comes another of those creations I simply cannot describe. I will say that it’s so strange the artist himself doesn’t quite know how to depict it. First he does it this way:

Then he changes it with in his more detailed drawings:

And a side view:

What exactly that’s supposed to be, I have no idea. Once again, if you do, by all means let me know. I’m afraid all I can offer is a No-Prize, plus mentioning your name/handle if you like and where you can be found on the Internet. Still, I know how people go for those No-Prizes, so I expect to hear from you.

For mystery of “The Evolution King,” Lois wears a dip serving dish:

Not convinced? Have a closer look:

Dip goes in the center, and there’s space in the outer bowl for chips and crackers. What else can it be?

She tops that one in the same story, though, with this… something:

A sack? Her Flash Gordon Mongo warrior helmet? Your guess is probably better than mine.

At least I can name what Lois is wearing in the next issue. It’s a green Valentine!

What she’s celebrating, on the other hand… there you have me.

And then there’s this:

The problem with this hat is that the artist (either Novak or Shuster) can’t decide which way that ever-loving upper brim curls. In the panel above it curls down, but in the next one, it’s… up?

And then it’s down again.

Perhaps it’s a mood hat. I know that sort of headgear showed up in Japan a few years back in the form of cat ears, but I had no idea they went back to 1942.

After that. I’m almost relieved to see a bottle cork hat again. Not the same one, of course; this hat is green and sports a nifty fur brim, but I can recognize our old friend from Part 2. Can’t you?

When Lois gets to be lead reporter in place of Clark while he mans her desk as ‘sob sister,’ she matches her elevation with a power hat… I think.

It sports a feather (I believe that’s what that is), a back strap, and ribbons. What more could you want?

For a story that’s a little silly—Lois and Clark are watching a film (one of the Fleischer Superman Cartoons; I presume the point of this story was to drum up attendance for them) based on a comic by some guys called Seigel and Shuster—Lois wears an equally silly hat:

That’s right; she’s wearing a flower pot. At least it’s not orange like the dip-server and the whatsis sack.

And finally, yes, finally! I know this has been a long one, but bear with me: this will have been worth the wait. I’ve said before that Lois rarely exactly repeats herself. This time, however, she seems to be out to prove me wrong.

Why, it’s the return of the blue folded bow-thingy from Superman #15! She must’ve finally run out of space. That’s okay, Lois, we under…

Whoops! How wrong I was!

That’s right, folks; Lois is wearing a cat-hat. In blue. And no, don’t ‘feather’ me: those are cat ears and a tail, they are.

And that’s the end of our survey of the Many Hats of Lois Lane. Or what this entry would’ve been called in the late fifties, with Lois having to wear a new hat every day to save Superman’s life or charm him into marrying her or something. And then Mister Mxyzptlk or the Prankster tricks her into wearing the same hat…

…in short, it’s awful.

I do not claim ownership of any of the partial image representations posted here.

The post Superman, the 1940’s: Lois Lane’s Hats Part 3 appeared first on Comic Odyssey.

(which makes Lois seeing the same dress on sale for $7.50 two panels later all the more fun), so perhaps Lois does have the money.

As an aside, Clark’s reaction make me wonder how much he lays out on all those identical suits of his. Eight bucks each? Ten? Clark, you spendthrift, you!

But back to Lois. So she has the money, maybe, but does she have the space? Sure, some of these creations look collapsable, but still, if Lois wears a new hat every week, where does she put them all? It looks as though they’d crowd her out of hat and home! (‘Dad joke.’ Sorry.)

Finally, a note: in Part One of this series, I used sources to help me identify the types of hats Lois was wearing to the best of my poor, fashion-ignorant ability. But from Superman #9 onward, the artists often drift so far afield from those that I simply can’t. I leave it to you, if you wish, to try it yourself. If you do so, be certain to let me know so I can include the info. If you like, I’ll be happy to also include your name or non de web and where to see what you do on the wild ‘n wooly web.

Now on to the hats.

In Superman #9 Lois decides to wear a cushion affixed to a skullcap. Or maybe it’s a flower like the one Peter Gabriel used to wear on stage. (Yes, I know hats like that have a real name—I think it’s another fascinator—but look at that thing, be honest, and tell me it doesn’t resemble a cushion)

Also, for some reason, Superman is playing hide and seek with her. Oh, sure, the story supplies a reason, but I’m sure that somewhere in its archives Superdickery has a more amusing one. If not, Mike Miksch is getting slow.

In the same issue, while investigating the “Mystery in Swasey Swamp,” Lois sports a serious feather in her cap. Two of them in fact. Don’t get too close, fella! She’ll tickle your nose!

(I suspect the odd angle of the feathers in that second panel is just a perspective error on penciller Paul Cassidy‘s part, but still… Also, for some interesting information on Cassidy and the working of the Shuster Shop, look here)

This next hat comes from “Jackson’s Murder Ring.”

But she does have a heart, Clark! A purple one! Can’t your fancy super-vision see it perched on her head? Because I certainly can.

This isn’t a hat, but I simply have to include it. Lois is undercover, and she’s chosen an utterly impenetrable disguise: 

So if you ever wondered why it took Lois so long to work out Superman’s secret identity, now you know.

(If ever. I don’t really know—yet—when or, to be more accurate, when or if in this continuity Lois learns that Clark is Superman, or Superman is Clark, depending on how the writer at the moment is handling the character. Since these older comics technically occur on Earth 2 until the first Crisis—a whole ‘nother ball of wax that I intend to get to eventually—took place, I’m not sure this Lois ever does. I do know the ever-rebooting DC eventually decided to let the Post (first) Crisis Lois know that Clark is Superman [I think it happened in 1997 to coincide with Lois learning Clark’s other identity in the TV show Lois and Clark: the New Adventures of Superman], but, as I said, I’m not sure that Lois is the same as the Lois in the 1940’s continuity, of the ‘New 52’ whatsis, or even the Lois of the current one. I hope so, as in a collection I recently read they are married and have a child, but you never know what corporate heads will decide to do. Look at what happened to poor Peter Parker because of all Marvel’s Civil War hoopla. Anyway, in either case, I’m not sure about the Lois of Earth 2, although I think perhaps she and Clark married there, too. At least I know there was a teenaged Superman Jr. or some equivalent zipping around for a while in World’s Finest in the 70’s, a character I fully intend to cover later, because what I recall of him is truly strange. Ah, the twisted web continuity shifts weave!)

In Superman #10, Lois sports this perky number. I wish I could show you all the panels showing that feather tickling the sky, but I don’t want to go overboard.

In the next story, Lois finally goes Full Robin Hood, green dress and all.

Is the takeaway never go Full Robin Hood in the DC Universe unless you’re Green Arrow (who I’m fairly sure hadn’t been created yet)? Possibly, but if so, the main reason not to do it is because without a bow, you look a trifle odd.

If you were leering at the receptionist there, hold on to your capes, because Lois is the next woman to use that outfit.

Although Wayne Boring never draws Lois quite as slinky as he does the previous girls, who were criminals, after all. Still, I wonder if this is where the writers of the aforementioned Lois and Clark series got the idea to dress Teri Hatcher in a similar outfit (look at about 0:40).

In “The Dukalia Spy Ring” Lois wears, well, this:

I’d call it a baseball cap, but it’s… not. 

For the Superman #11 tale “Zimba’s Gold Badge Terrorists,” Lois chooses lime green and, yet again, what I can only refer to as ‘this.’ Back view:

Front view:

I think that the artist—Leo Nowak—got a little confused, but then again, later views of both back and front look pretty much the same. Maybe it’s the wind of Clark vanishing and showing up again.

Lois keeps wearing this hat for a really long time in this story, so we get more looks again, both back:

And front:

But I’m honestly not sure they help any. It’s an enigma wrapped in a mystery perched upon Lois’ head.

Moving on, in “The Corinthville Caper,” Lois sticks to green, but wears a different hat. Again, Leo Nowak is kind enough to provide us with a rear view: 

And front:

I don’t know what to say about this creation except that perhaps something has been snacking upon it. Also, Lois, please! Clark is not cowardly; he’s mild-mannered. We’re told so. Often.

For the next story, ‘The Yellow Plague,” Lois proudly dons a bottle cork.

Which soon begins to slip off her head.

I suppose that’s better than, ah, popping.

Had enough? I hope not, because I haven’! Stay tuned, because next time the hats get truly strange. And yes, I’m looking right at the bottle cork hat as I write this. Unless you’ve read these oldies, too, you have no idea…

…but you will.

I do not claim ownership of any of the partial image representations posted here.

The post Superman, the 1940’s: Lois Lane’s Hats Part 2 appeared first on Comic Odyssey.

Most of the period I’m going to cover is technically pre-war for the U.S., although towards the end of this run Superman will begin beating the drums, so to speak, and at the very end begin to give whole-hearted support to the U.S. effort. I think it gives an interesting insight, to those who notice such things, into the fashion of the era. While I myself am not especially a fan of style, I do find myself capable of being amused by it, and, as I watch the parade of headgear Lois dons and often loses, I can’t help but chuckle and wonder, too.

One reason for my merriment is that this is all, so far as I know, Joe Shuster’s work. Even after the Shuster Shop was up and running, Shuster himself did the pencil and ink work on Superman’s, Clark’s, and Lois’s heads (if this is incorrect, please let me know) in the early years of both the Action Comics stories and Superman, so I’m guessing that Lois’ headgear was his work, and if not, at the very least met with his approval. 

Clearly Joe enjoyed variety.

Not that we got much of that at first. The stories that appear in Action for the first few years aren’t exactly devoid of Lois, bus neither does she have the costarring role she soon takes on in Superman. Her hats, I suppose, reflect this.

First up: a rather ordinary brim slouch. 

Next, either a very plain turban or else, heaven help us, a snood. Oh, Lois! Did you leave in that much of a hurry?

Lois next dons a rather subdued if stylish picture hat:

And then some sort of day hat:

The first issue of Superman featured reprints from Action, and it took over half a year (Superman was at first a quarterly magazine) to get its legs under it. But by the end of the magazine’s first year, Lois was ready with, ah, this:

I think that’s a pillbox hat of some sort, but frankly, it looks like a jar lid, knurls and all. 

Two issues later, perhaps to celebrate Superman going bi-monthly, Lois would get a little more stylish with a tan fascinator:

And a smart green skimmer as well:

In the next issue, Lois sports either a red small saucer hat or a beret—I suspect the former—with a sporty bow on top:

And in the next story that issue, “The Gay City Plague” (No, it’s some sort of gas turning people into glass. Really. Hush), she wears the same hat, but in green:

Bored? Lois has the cure! Again, I’m not sure what this thing is, although my guess is some sort of ‘Robin Hood’ Tyrolean hat.

(Incidentally, for those artist enthusiasts among you, these stories in Superman #7 were mostly penciled and inked by Wayne Boring as Joe Shuster began to find himself incapable of carrying the ever-increasing art load.)

And for election night in that story, Lois spruces up in, well…

Look, online research can only get you so far, folks. All I know is that if it’s the same hat, Lois has fed it too much and it has now grown and is ready to reproduce, tribble-style.

(If any fashion-literate person recognizes this thing perched on Lois’ noggin, please let me know.)

Now and then Lois does repeat, of course. In “The Giants of Professor Zee,” she seems to have donned the same green saucer hat she wore in “The Gay City Plague.”

Then again, sooner or later she has to, right? Plus, Lois is about to pull one of her crazier stunts (details at another time, I hope), so she probably isn’t thinking much about her appearance.

Later that issue, Lois wears either some sort of flop beret or more likely a turban. It’s strange, either way.

In the next story, our intrepid ‘girl reporter’ sticks with red, but returns to saucers. Not one of the earlier hats, though. No, indeed! This one has a skullcap. 

Bored? Just wait! As the series gets more popular and the relationship between the ‘triangle’ (or perhaps helix) of Clark, Lois and Superman gets more intense, Lois’ hats become much more extreme. Clark has some definite feelings about that, by the way:

Oh, he says it’s about her infatuation with Superman, but I think Clark is laughing about Lois’ hats.

As for me. I’m not done with them yet. We’ve only begun to plumb Lois’ collection, and I know you’re as eager to see more as I am.

You see, we need the laughs, too.

Note: If you’re interested in the hat terms I use, here are my sources: Vintage Dancer’s “Women’s 30s Hat History” and “1940s Hats History,” and the Art Deco Society of California’s Deco Life page “The Mad Cap.” I wouldn’t have known where to begin without them other than ‘Hee-hee, lookit that!’ so they are all much appreciated.

I do not claim ownership of any of the partial image representations posted here.

The post Superman, the 1930’s-40’s: Lois Lane’s Hats Part 1 appeared first on Comic Odyssey.

If you know the background of the development of Superman, then you know that he began—sort of—as the featured villain in a Jerry Siegel story for which Shuster drew illustrations. In it, the ‘superman’ has psionic powers, for lack of a better term, instead of mostly physical ones, and, of course, he’s bald. For whatever reason, either Shuster, Siegal or both thought that a good way of indicating villainy was to depict a character as bald, which will cost Luthor his locks (yes, he had them, and, no, there was no ‘Lex’ when the character was first introduced) very soon. After deciding a heroic superman might see better, the character’s appearance underwent various and sundry transformations as Siegal kept pitching the character, but when he and Shuster reunited (after an understandable spat, since Siegal had tried to shop Superman around with other, better known artists), and got an offer to publish a story, they decided on this:

What’s the first thing I noticed when I read this comic? No boots! Or boots colored the same as his tights, anyway. Superman appears to be wearing a footed onesie with red trunks pulled over it, but if you look carefully, you can see what appears to be some sort of high sandal straps wrapping around his calves. I’m assuming those straps were meant as a nod to Hercules, since his and Superman’s powers are pretty much the same at this point. (and although I may be the first to make the costume link, I’m certainly not the first to make the comparison: See Action #1)

From the same page:

The ‘S’ on Superman’s chest is a small triangle and completely golden with a red ‘S.’ In bigger panels of later comics some red can be seen, but not much, and sometimes the emblem will appear completely golden. The yoke of Superman’s shirt is rounded, too, and from his front, you can’t see where his cape attaches. Finally:

There’s no ‘S’ on his cape at all.

That’s pretty much it. Superman already sports his familiar golden belt and red trunks (most of the time. Haha!), and the colors are the same, but I admit that when I first read these stories (back when I bought a giant-sized anniversary edition of the first Action comics), I was a bit surprised.

On the cover, which Shuster drew earlier than he did the first story in Action, Superman has boots instead o the sandal-things (or booties. For cryin’ out loud, Joe!), and they are red, not blue, although I think I can see the strap lines, too. Possibly Shuster made the footwear blue in the comic to slightly simplify his work? (Or whoever was the colorist did; I can’t find a credit anywhere save for the cover, where it’s Jack Adler of Green Lantern (Silver Age] and other fame.)

Also, the ‘S’ is definitely red. It is often yellow and the emblem a simple triangle in the comics, again, most likely, to make the task of drawing and coloring the character more simple, but here Superman proudly bears a wide golden shield with a big red ‘S’ on it, a harbinger of things to come.

Indeed, changes would be coming soon, but not too soon. In fact, in Action #3, “Superman Battles Death Underground,” a story about exposing a skinflint mine operator in which our hero poses as an immigrant miner, Superman doesn’t even wear his costume. Hard to believe now, I know, but it makes sense in the climate of comics at the time. The other pages of Action Comics were filled with hardboiled characters of various stripes who all operated in everyday clothes, except for Zatara the Master Magician (one of several characters so billed in Detective Comics, Inc.’s and other companies’ stables, although Zatara would endure, after a fashion, much longer than most), a refined type who always wore a tux and top-hat. Admittedly, since Zatara’s ‘day job’ (more like night job, as his heroics mostly occurred in broad daylight) was performing in clubs as a stage magician, such garb was part of the tools of his trade, even if he seems slightly overdressed when Zatara’s merely having lunch with friends. In any case, given the types with whom he shared the magazine, Superman dressing as a regular person probably didn’t seem out of place at all.

So… Superman can’t fly and doesn’t wear his costume. I can’t help thinking that Jon Peters would be so very happy!

In Action #6 we first see Superman wearing proper boots within a comic:

And, though difficult to see (sorry for the bad scan), the ‘S’ on his chest is definitely red. After this, sometimes the colorist would forget or not bother because of tight angles, but overall, the ‘S’ will remain red.

The chest emblem is also larger, although still a simple triangle instead of the more familiar stylized pentagon. Also, the cape is attached to the neck of Superman’s shirt at the front instead of somewhere in the back. although this will revert to the older way in the next issue. Ironically, this image is not of Superman, but an actor pretending to be him as part of a scam. That guy’s handler must’ve been on the ball, since he put his protégé in a costume Superman hadn’t even been wearing yet!

In Action #18 Superman’s cape is now attached to the edges of his shirt in the front the familiar manner (he must’ve liked the look) and will remain that way. The yoke of his shirt is now more of a slight curve than an arc, too. That pesky ‘S’ is still so small, though!

In Superman #4 (Yes, our hero is now popular enough to get his own bimonthly magazine with three stories or more of his own while still keeping the star spot in Action), we see the golden ‘S’ emblem on his cape for the first time (it will be red and gold, too, from time to time until someone, probably management, finally settled on gold), although we still have ‘triangle S’ on his chest. The cape emblem and the more elaborate cape flow were both the work of Paul Cassidy, whom Shuster hired to do inking and detail work as Shuster’s workload increased. The work below is of another artist, Leo Nowak, who followed Cassidy’s lead on both:

And finally, in Superman #5 (and at some point thereabouts in Action, too) we see a full-sized stylized ‘S’ emblem on his chest, also the contribution of Cassidy. Cassidy was also responsible for the making permanent the ‘modern’ look of attaching Superman’s cape to the sides of the front of his shirt neck. which you can also clearly see below in this panel, penciled and inked by Cassidy:

I must confess: I love seeing that big, stylized red ‘S’ at last! Thank you, Paul!

The tops of Superman’s boots now angle up from the back of his calves and end, not with a point on his shin, but with a small indent, and they are double-stitched at the top, too, as you can see below in these panels penciled by Wayne Boring and inked by Paul Lauretta.

Superman’s boots will retain this design even up until today.

And that, as they say, is that, except that by now Joe Shuster, as you can see, had several other assistants helping him draw, ink, and color the stories, among them Paul Cassidy, Leo Nowak, John Sikela, Ed Dobrotka, and Wayne Boring, who would soon concentrate on the new Superman daily newspaper strip. Instead of working for Detective Comics, Inc., though, although that would gradually change, at first these fellows worked directly for Joe Shuster in what would be called the Shuster Shop. For details on these artists and others in the Shuster Shop, look here.

I do not claim ownership of any of the partial image representations posted here.

The post Superman Costume Evolution: The Early Years appeared first on Comic Odyssey.

…[Kane] had an idea for a character called ‘Batman’, and he’d like me to see the drawings. I went over to Kane’s, and he had drawn a character who looked very much like Superman with kind of … reddish tights, I believe, with boots … no gloves, no gauntlets … with a small domino mask, swinging on a rope. He had two stiff wings that were sticking out, looking like bat wings. And under it was a big sign … BATMAN. (Wikipedia, “Bob Kane”)

Of course, most readers will recognize the germ of another character, Robin, in that description.

At any rate, Finger convinced Kane to go with a full cowl and scalloped cape. He also suggested Kane leave the eyes blank white with not visible pupils in order to add a sense of mystery (one of the best things animated films have over any cinematic form of Batman, I think, is that they retain those blank, somewhat-creepy eyes).

Those blanked-out eyes became heavily influential; while masked characters in comics before Batman had clearly visible eyes, many characters such as the original Atom (Al Pratt) and Green Lantern (Alan Scott), and even Mr. America, the character created when rock ’em-sock ’em adventurer Tex Thompson turned superhero, also had blank white eyes, and it has continued as a tradition in comics drawn by all artists to this day (although some character like the second Green Lantern [Hal Jordan] only have blank eyes when he’s drawn at a distance, and even some Batman artists occaisionally show his eyes through the mask in close-ups).

Besides these changes, the revised Batman costume dropped red in favor of black and gray colors befitting a mysterious creature of the night and added gloves, although, as we’ll see, Kane wasn’t initially sold on that part. And thus we have this:

Two issues later, though, we see these:

Not only gloves, but the Batman’s utility belt is closer to the more modern version: the same vials (which the Batman initially used quite frequently to spread gas, acid, etc.) but with a square buckle instead of a rounded one:

…right up until Frank Miller got hold of it and stuck some Rob Liefeld style pouches on it (no, I’m still not happy about that). Also, whoever is doing colors is using blue for highlights instead of coloring the cape and cowl completely in black. This was done because the coloring limits of early comic books made details impossible to render without a highlight color. Wikipedia simply chalks the change up to ‘coloring schemes,’ but I, having read a great many 1940’s and later vintage comics, am inclined to respectfully disagree, or at least go into more detail. Abandoning black-on-black was not simply a ‘scheme,’ but absolutely necessary. Given the coarseness of the cheap printing used in comics at that time, all black was simply not going to supply the ability to make the images two-dimensional; a more distinguishable contrast color was needed for that. It is improvements in printing tech, up to and including our own digital age, have made the return to black I will mention later possible without drastically raising the printing costs.

Some things still remain the same, such as the Batman’s cape flaring into a ‘real wings’ shape.

Then, in issue #31 of Detective, in “Batman vs. the Vampire, Part 1,” a story with a script freely cribbed by Gardner Fox from Mathew ‘Monk’ Lewis’ 1796 novel The Monk, (if you ever wonder about the Batman’s Gothic origins, since Fox was a frequent writer of his exploits over the years, look no further) Kane has the gloves extending up the Batman’s arms. I can only assume we’ve Bill Finger to thank for that. Also, Kane is veering away from the ‘spread’ ears of the cowl to the more vertically oriented ones we’re familiar with today.

By Detective #33, the costume’s vertical ‘ears’ and full gauntlets are here to stay:

In the last panel you can see that Kane has drawn the cape closer to the manner with which most Batman readers will be familiar, as stylized bat wings, whether it makes any physical sense or not: a suggestive but not quite so obvious effect, as opposed to the ‘stiff,’ possibly wire-supported ‘points’ Kane had previously been drawing. Also, note that while the Batman has a hot-rodded car—what is that, a V-16?—it’s by no stretch of the imagination a ‘Batmobile,’ although we have seen a ‘bat autogyro,’ one with robot controls that is capable of crossing the Atlantic, in “The Monk” by this point.

And finally, in Detective #36, behold! we have bat scallops/spikes on the outer edges of the Batman’s gauntlets instead of the flared cuffs. Also, the blue tones are now being used on the cowl and upper side of the cape instead of just the underside, the boots, and the gloves. That coloring will last until 1986 in The Dark Knight Returns, (which was printed using a ‘high end’ process that made this work) during which Batman will revert from a costume with blue tones to one with the original black. After that, black will again become the norm for more and more of his appearances.

That pretty much completes the Batman’s costume as we will see it for some time, although at some point (fairly soon, actually, in Batman #2) the ‘ears’ will get shorter. I never have understood the reasoning behind that, except that Kane was being pushed harder and harder to keep up with demand, and he insisted on doing all the pencils until, of course, he couldn’t. Perhaps shorter ‘ears’ made drawing faster? Or did Jerry Robinson, who was doing the inking by then, shorten the ears over Kane’s pencils?

Of course, twenty years later during editor Julie Schwartz and legendary comics artist Carmine Infantino‘s tenure, the blue tones will have both lightened and pretty much taken over the dark parts of the costume, and yellow circles will suddenly surround the bat on the Batman’s chest, but it may take me some time to get there.

I do not claim ownership of any of the partial image representations posted here

The post Batman Costume Evolution: the 1940’s appeared first on Comic Odyssey.

Compare them to Robbins’ Batman:

Robbins’ art is much more noir, I suppose, which is in keeping with his writing. Considering these styles occur only issues apart at times, however, it can be rather jolting switching from one to another and back again.

I do not claim ownership of any of the partial image representations posted here.

The post Robbins Draws the Batman appeared first on Comic Odyssey.

I confess to avoiding my usual practice of using small clips. I couldn’t bear to slice up such works of art, so I instead chose to present these glorious pages whole. If you like what you see, Dark Horse has now reissued Kubert’s Tarzan work here and perhaps elsewhere as well. (I own copies of the original issues as well as the digital, and I promise every page is just as wonderful)

The post Kubert! appeared first on Comic Odyssey.

Yes, comics. Specifically, superhero comics. Oh, I’ve read other types over the years, and I enjoy them, too, but my first and main love has always been superheroes. Why? Search me. Larger than life? Able to fix rotten situations relatively easily (Which, incidentally, might explain why I prefer older comics to the ‘latest and greatest’)? I don’t know, and I haven’t asked my analyst, so for right now let’s just go with ‘I like ’em.’ Perhaps as you read this blog, you can decide and tell me.

So what’s in here? Oh, a little bit of everything. I’m interested in both how characters came to be as they were, are, and will be as well as making up reasons for what I read that are often silly, but fun, too, at least for me, and I hope for you. I’ll cover things like costume development, from Batman’s cape to Lois Lane’s hats (yes, hats: you won’t believe it), how the character changes and why I think that happened, For example, did you know that when Superman began, he operated much like the Batman? No cozy relationship with the police (the Batman’s has ebbed and flowed over the years), no particular compulsion against threatening people, and you got the sense that he really meant it, too. I haven’t followed Superman in recent years much outside of one collection (I have some more lined up to read now , though), but I know that wasn’t the case through the 1960’s, 70’s, and 80’s, or even the 90’s. 

Now, I’m going to ask one thing of my readers, such as I may have. I fully realize this blog may never be more than something created for my own entertainment, and that’s fine, so no, this is not a pitch for money. I’m not a working writer and may never be, and even if by some miracle I become one, this blog will not be used to boost sales or the like.

No. What I ask of you is this: if you’re intrigued, if you get interested, buy some comics! Support the medium. Don’t just go to the movies: I will confess right now that I have seen very few live action superhero movies, and I’ve not liked any of them much because they nearly always distort the characters in order to ‘broaden the film’s appeal’ and, frankly, they usually accomplish this by dumbing down either the character, his story, or both (I have nothing against Sam Jackson playing Nick Fury, but I do about making Thunderbolt Ross an absolute tool the way he was in the first Hulk movie; that was done to avoid exploring the nuances of his character, which in turn lessens the tragedy of Bruce Banner). Case in point: the Batman’s secret identity used to get exposed in the comics about once every five years, max (if that). However, in the first three films (I’m talking the 80’s and 90’s, kids, not the more recent films), he was exposed in every single film. Tony Stark’s cover is blown in the first Iron Man film and to a villain at that. Oh, I know Stark himself revealed it at the end, too (which I wasn’t too happy about), but I think that was a case of the writers trying to sync with current Marvel storylines. Even so, that first film had diddly squat to do with those. The whole point of The Invincible Iron Man has always been a near-unbeatable being on the surface and a fragile human within the armor. Couldn’t we simply have stuck with that for one film?

Of course, I know why: revealing the secret identity is a cheap, easy plot device. Better yet, as a bonus you get the face of the actor you’re paying a bazillion bucks on screen just a little more instead of a mask that anyone could wear. In other words, Hollywood logic.

Comics don’t have to resort to those tricks because they let you inside the character’s head. You don’t have to see Peter Parker’s face unmasked to know he’s straining to hold a runaway train back.

Why? Because in a comic, you can see his thoughts, and they tell the whole story. And yes, I know, I know, but all the people see how human he is! Sorry folks, but to me, that’s cheap writing and also undermines the problem the character has: he is ‘just a kid’ through much of the early run of the comic, and yet no one knows that, which is why Jameson’s schtick continues to work, kind of. Spider-man lives with that and yet keeps being a hero, keeps saving people every day. That, to me, adds to the depth of the character much more than blowing his identity does.

Of course, as I said, the fact that the drawn Spider-man doesn’t cost 32 something million bucks the way Tobey Maguire did for the second and third films may also have something to do with it. Not that I begrudge Maguire his pay; it’s simply the reality of the thing. If you’re paying for that face and its expressions, then you’re going to want to use them as much as possible and never mind how much you screw up the idea that one of the core concepts of the character is that Peter has strong reasons for always keeping his face concealed when he’s Spider-man.

In a comic, on the other hand, thanks to thought bubbles, you can see spectacular action scenes, see facial expressions when possible, and know what the character is feeling without constantly resorting to unmasking him, all thanks to the combined efforts of a writer and an artist (even when they’re one and the same). It’s a unique medium that is able to convey a story in a unique manner.

But I digress.

Buy and read comics. You have a wonderful medium for them now: it’s as though tablets were made for comics. The colors are bright, the text clear, you can zoom in on panels, and your younger sibling can’t sneak in and snip the UPC code from the covers for some stupid school fundraiser while you’re out of the house the way mine did. If you like them, it’s worth your while, I think, to subscribe to services like Marvel Unlimited. I wish DC had something similar, as their DC Universe collection, last time I looked, was sadly lacking in that area, although it does have all their animated movies and Batman: the Animated Series, which makes it a good deal. You can’t go much wrong with Bruce Timm (Yes, I enjoy animated features, but generally not as much as comics). But with MU, you can dig into the past, see where these characters came from and how interesting and/or silly they were or have become. You don’t have to worry about the mailman messing up your new issues, either the way I did. The only problem is ownership, but I hope someday soon that will be solved, and until it does, it will affect many more things than comics.

Anyway, rant over. Prepare to be amused, astounded, or simply astonished that I would actually find this or that interesting. Either way, to the Comicsmoble, Readin’! We have an odyssey to begin!

(er, Dad joke. Sorry. Blame ZeFrank.)

I do not claim ownership of any of the partial image representations posted here.

The post Greetings, Mortals! appeared first on Comic Odyssey.