Memories of Fantastic Four Issue No. 137 and My Days as a Friend of Ol' Marvel

Fantastic Four #137 (Aug 1973) 

 

I. 

 

As regular readers will know, 1973 was a crucial year for me: the year that I was initiated into the world of glam rock, buying records by Gary Glitter, Sweet, and Slade. 

 

It was also the year that I bought my first US edition of a Marvel Comic - Fantastic Four #137 ...

 

 

II.

 

Published in May of that year - though cover dated August, as was common practice at the time [1] - 'Rumble on Planet 3' (aka 'Where Walks Warhead!') [2] was written by Roy Thomas and Gerry Conway. John Buscema and Joe Sinnott provided the artwork. 

 

I still remember how excited the cover made me - so glossy and colourful and so unlike the feel of British comics. And Warhead's surreal embodiment of sci-fi horror thrilled my childish imagination [3]. 

 

That said, I still also remember reading it and not understanding anything of what was going on ...

 

 

III. 

 

The story unfolds inside a '50s-themed pop-cultural universe or reality warp, created by a cosmic entity known as the Shaper of Worlds, who, like God, moves in mysterious ways and says things like: I am called the Shaper ... and it is my gift and my curse to make dreams live.

 

It features a Sputnik-headed monster with the body of King Kong battling the Fantastic Four who, at that time, included Medusa, one of the Inhumans, standing in for Sue Richards, the Invisible Girl, who was on family leave caring for her son, Franklin. 

 

Eventually, the Thing dispatches Warhead with a single powerful punch smashing his satellite-skull and causing him to fall back into the drive-in movie screen from which he emerged.  

 

Meanwhile, rival gangs - the Patriots and the Wild Ones - were fighting one another, until a third group - members of the black community (representing the civil rights movement) - comes to bring resolution. At this point, the Shaper of Worlds declares game over and restores '70s normality [4].        

 

 

IV. 

 

To be fair, reading this recap today of a barely-intelligible storyline, I think my confusion as a ten-year-old was perfectly understandable (the fact that I hadn't read part one in issue 136 obviously didn't help) [5].

 

The odd thing is it didn't dissuade me from going on to buy around 1,700 Marvel Comics over the next five or six years and even briefly becoming a member of FOOM [6].   

 

I suppose, looking back, I have a lot to thank the Marvel Comics Group for - they even published one of my earliest pieces of work; a letter complaining about censorship in the British reprints of the original American editions [7]. 

 

This letter received an unusually lengthy (and slightly narked-sounding) reply about the responsibility of publishers to provide material suitable for a UK market in which the average age of readers was lower than the US. 

 

What I didn't receive was a 'No-Prize' for my letter - unlike my friend Andy, who was awarded such for spotting some minor continuity error in an issue of The Incredible Hulk, much to my begrudgement at the time.    

  

Notes

 

[1] Comic book publishers used a future cover date primarily to act as a withdrawal deadline for retailers, instructing them when to remove unsold issues from the shelves. It also meant of course that issues seemed newer for longer. 

      Both Marvel and DC maintained a standard two-month gap between the actual on-sale date and the cover date until 1973, when competitive pressures and distribution adjustments sometimes caused the discrepancy to widen to three months. It wasn't until 1989 that the industry stabilised and things reverted to the traditional two-month gap.   

 

[2] Fantastic Four #137 (1973) has two distinct titles because of a common publishing quirk in the world of comics at that time: the eye-catching title printed on the cover serving as a hook for casual readers browsing the magazine stand often differs from the more restrained official title printed on the interior splash page, where formal story credits are listed. 

      Often, this was due to the fact covers and interiors were worked on at different times and by different artists. But an editor might also decide that a title wasn't dramatic enough to drive sales, prompting them to invent a completely different, sexier tagline for the cover. 

      Among critics and comic-book historians, "Rumble on Planet 3!" is universally preferred and recognised as the definitive title for this issue, though, personally, I've always remembered it as 'Where Walks Warhead!' and still like that title as it also makes me think of a song by British punk band the UK Subs: click here. 

 

[3] Warhead is based on the creature in the 1953 film Robot Monster (dir. Phil Tucker). His body is that of a giant gorilla, while his head is patterned after the first satellite launched into space, by the Soviets, in 1957. To watch the original trailer on YouTube, click here. 

 

[4] For a more comprehensive (though not necessarily more intelligible) story synopsis, visit the Marvel Database on marvel.fandom.com 

 

[5] Fantastic Four #137 is still picking up bad reviews: one critic recently writing: 

      "The story makes little sense, and ultimately feels like a silly and pointless exercise in clumsy cultural anthropology. Thomas and Conway compound their simplistic youths-vs-olds of the 50s dynamic by introducing the Civil Rights struggle of the 60s (which actually began in the 40s). No doubt it was well intentioned, but in the absence of a coherent story it feels preachy and naive."

      See the post by Percival Henry on his blog Percival Henry: The Fantastic Four and more (6 July 2024): click here.   

 

[6] FOOM (Friends of Ol' Marvel) was the official Marvel Comics fan club and members magazine, featuring behind-the-scenes news, artwork, and interviews. It ran for 22 quarterly issues between 1973-1978, which was basically when I collected the comics. The first issues were designed, written, and edited by Jim Steranko. 

 

[7] The letter was published in an issue of The Mighty World of Marvel in early 1976 (unfortunately, I don't recall the exact number of the issue, but it was around #176). The response from the editorial team - led at that time by future Pet Shop Boy Neil Tennant - tried to justify their censorship as a necessary measure to avoid upsetting strict British newsagent distribution networks and parental watchdogs. 

      My letter explicitly called out two instances of Marvel UK's modifications: firstly, in the black-and-white UK version of Incredible Hulk #168, someone prudishly covers a naked Betty Ross; secondly, the word 'wank' which appeared in Conan the Barbarian #24, was frantically scrubbed out for the UK reprint.  

 

Heap Big Monsters: Man-Thing and Swamp Thing

 

Cover of Man-Thing Issue 1 (Jan 1974) by Frank Brunner

 Cover of Swamp Thing Issue 1 (Nov 1974) by Bernie Wrightson

 

 

I. 

 

Sometimes, it takes fifty years or so before one finally (although inadvertently) discovers the answer to a question that has (unconsciously) troubled since comic-collecting childhood in the 1970s ...

 

Who emerged from the swamps first: Marvel's Man-Thing or DC's Swamp Thing? 

 

Before I provide the answer to this, let me just briefly remind everyone who these two monstrous characters are, beginning with the Man-Thing ...

 

 

II.

 

Man-Thing may sound to some like a sex toy, but he's actually a large, slow-moving, empathic, swamp creature (formerly a human biochemist called Ted Sallis) living in the Florida Everglades, near the fictional town of Citrusville. 

 

Conceived by Stan Lee and developed by writers Roy Thomas and Gerry Conway and the artist Gray Morrow, the character first appeared in Savage Tales #1 (May 1971), but it was Steve Gerber's version of the Man-Thing - eventually given a comic of his very own that ran for 22 issues between January 1974 and October 1975 - that is now considered a cult classic.   

 

Having injected himself with a Super-Soldier serum (don't ask), Sallis unfortunately crashes his car into the swamp, where scientific and magical forces combine to transform him into a highly sensitive plant-creature with immense strength and many other astonishing powers; not least his ability to secrete highly concentrated acid when triggered by the violent emotions of others: Whatever knows fear burns at the Man-Thing's touch!  

 

 

III. 

 

As for the Swamp Thing ... created by writer Len Wein and artist Bernie Wrightson, he's had various incarnations, beginning with his first appearance in House of Secrets #92 (July 1971), in a story set in Louisiana in the early 20th century. 

 

Usually depicted as a monstrous anthropomorphic mound of vegetable matter, he uses his vital cosmic powers to protect the natural world (and mankind) from threats of both scientific and supernatural origin, so might best be described as a kind of eco-hero or an embodiment of the Green. Despite his strength and abilities, like other forms of vegetal life, Swamp Thing is susceptible to herbicides.  

 

In the mid-late 1980s, a reimagined Swamp Thing found his greatest popularity thanks to the creative genius of Alan Moore, who was given full freedom to develop the character as he saw fit. His first big decision was to rewrite the Swamp Thing's origin in order to make him a true monster (as opposed to a human being transformed into a monster). Moore also revealed that there had been dozens - perhaps hundreds - of earlier Swamp Things.    

Whilst Moore retained the horror and fantasy elements fans loved, he also broadened the scope of the story to include more eco-spiritual matters and was voted by his fellow comic book professionals for several Jack Kirby Awards in the mid-1980s.

 

 

IV.

   

Let us return now to our opening question: who emerged first from the swamps; Man-Thing or Swamp Thing? 

 

In purely chronological terms, as we have discovered, the answer is Man-Thing - but only by a few months. And so, it has to be asked if the Swamp Thing was merely a (ripped-off) version of the former, as many have suspected and like to believe.  

Surprisingly, the answer to that seems to be no: for it appears that each character arose independently of one another (albeit around the same time) and that, if anything, both the Marvel and the DC character were inspired by a Golden Age comic book character known as the Heap; another mysterious and terrifying muck-monster, who first appeared in a comic cover dated December 1942 [1].  

 

According to one comentator, this game of intertextuality, imitation, and influence is accepted practice within the world of comic books: "Whether fans see it as flattering imitation or unoriginal copying, it's very much the norm for creators to rework an older character into their own works." [2] 

 

Nevertheless, it might be pointed out that Marvel did consider taking legal action against DC when Swamp Thing made his debut several months after their own Man-Thing. They probably didn't pursue such owing to the fact that both of these characters were so similar to the Heap and, besides, Roy Thomas and Len Wein were friends - Wein was also a flatmate of Gerry Conway's - so they doubtless swapped many ideas between them.  

 

As someone who, as a child, was a Friend of Ol' Marvel, my loyalties were obviously to the Man-Thing. 

 

But, I can't help retrospectively seeing that DC's Swamp Thing was probably the superior and more interesting character, especially when Moore took creative control and gave the latter "a tale of tragedy, romance, and an odyssey-inspired journey through the universe that eclipsed Man-Thing's story" [3].

 

Thus, whether Swamp Thing may have initially borrowed story elements from Man-Thing, is ultimately irrelevant.  

 

 

Notes

 

[1] The Heap was created by writer Harry Stein and artist Mort Leav, in collaboration with Ed Cronin. He first appeared in issue 3 of Air Fighters Comics (Hillman Periodicals, Dec. 1942). 

[2] Ashley Land, 'Man-Thing Vs Swamp Thing: Both Were Based On An Older Monster', published on the comic book website cbr.com (19 July, 2023): click here. 

[3] Ibid.

 

 

Musical bonus: Malcolm McLaren, 'Swamp Thing', from the album of the same title (Charisma Records, 1985): click here. 

      Whilst the song has little to do with the comic book character, it's worth noting that McLaren and Alan Moore met and briefly worked together on a film script in 1985, when the latter was in the process of reimagining Swamp Thing. Each man was impressed by the other and Moore would later provide the Foreword to Paul Gorman's biography of McLaren (2020).    

In Memory of Stan Lee and on the Joy of Collecting Comics

Image: The Hollywood Reporter (July 2016)

We assume, says Freud, a strangely considerate attitude towards the dead.

Not only do we suspend all critical judgement and turn a blind eye to their shortcomings, but we write nice things about them on social media in cultural obedience with the ancient command De mortuis nil nisi bene. This display of posthumous kindness and respect contrasts sharply with the mockery and malice we usually direct towards the living.   

So it is that I have refrained from saying anything about Stan Lee, the Marvel Comics genius who died, aged 95, earlier this month. Clearly a gifted, energetic and ambitious individual - and someone who exerted a significant influence over my childhood - I nevertheless struggle to think of anything more I can say about the man.

Truth be told, I always found him a little annoying and hated all that Excelsior! bullshit. What's more, looking back, I don't even think I really cared about his costumed heroes or storylines. What I really enjoyed, I think, was collecting comics rather than reading them.

That is to say, I loved them as cultural artefacts; glossy, colourful objects that had come all the way from America and which put homegrown comics (including the piss-poor British editions of Marvel comics) in the shade. 

The excitement lay in the anticipation of the books arriving monthly in the local newsagents and then going on a Saturday morning to buy (or steal) them. And the pleasure lay in piling 'em up on the floor and watching the collection grow, as I competed with my friend Andy to see who could get the most or earliest issues of those titles we privileged.       

Reflections on the Death of Steve Ditko

Steve Ditko: self-portrait (1964)

The Amazing Spider-Man Annual #1

steveditko.com

Regarded by many as a thinking man's Jack Kirby, American comic-book artist and co-creator of Spider-Man, Steve Ditko, has just been announced dead, aged 90. 

To be honest, I wasn't a great fan of his work; it was a little too weird for my rather conservative and conventional tastes as a child. But I'm perfectly happy to concede his genius to those who insist upon such and know better than I.

As always when someone dies, I can't help thinking about what happens to the corpse. The immortal soul of man conceived in spiritual-personal terms is of zero interest to me. But, as a thantologist, I'm fascinated by the body's shipwreck into the nauseous and the cosmo-molecular dispersal of atoms and their eventual recycling into all kinds of things, including new life forms.   

Interestingly, it just so happens that Ditko was an Objectivist (i.e., a devotee of Ayn Rand), so he would probably have agreed that there is no supernatural or spooky-mysterious aspect to death. There are physical processes and sub-atomic particles, but no heaven, no angels, and no life-after-death as theists conceive of it.

And to imagine that the mind might somehow transcend the demise and destruction of the body is just a ludicrous fantasy. Once your brain has liquidised and dribbled like snot out of your nose, you'll not be able to worry about it. In death, one does not exist; it's not the end of the world, but it is the end of the world for you ...

And so, after a long life of approximately 780,000 hours, Ditko's atoms are in the process of ending their happy affiliation and he's about to get a whole lot skinnier ...

In Defence of the Great White Male

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, 

Great White Male and one of the 

Founders of King's College London (1829) 

As I'm not a Doctor Who fan, the fact that the 13th actor chosen to play the role of the irritating Time Lord is a woman - Jodie Whittaker - doesn't greatly interest or concern me.

If obliged to comment, then I suppose I can't think of any good reason why he shouldn't regenerate in female form and, indeed, rather like the idea of a transsexual and transracial Doctor to whom all identities remain open as fluid possibilities. Michael Jackson, once rumoured to be in line to star as the Doctor in a big-screen version of the BBC TV drama, would have been ideally cast.

Most of the criticism aimed at Ms. Whittaker from fans of the show seems to be rooted in tedious, rather old-fashioned sexism and deeply unpleasant misogyny. Unfortunately, they'll just have to get used to the fact that as times change, so too do fictional characters evolve and sometimes radically transform. Indeed, readers of Marvel comics have long become accustomed to this phenomenon ...

Thus, for example, following the death of pale-faced Peter Parker, Spiderman became the superhero identity of Miles Morales, a young man of Afro-Hispanic origin. There's also a black Captain America (Isiah Bradley) and a totally awesome new Hulk who happens to be Korean (Amadeus Cho). In addition, Ms. Marvel is now no longer busty, blonde-haired Carol Danvers; she is, rather, Kamala Khan, a teenage Muslim of Pakistani origin. Oh, and Thor, the god of thunder, is now a woman too - just like Doctor Who! 

Again, this push for greater diversity - driven by the wish to establish a new and broader fanbase in order to sell more comics and thus make more money, rather than political correctness - doesn't really trouble me. In fact, if anything, I find it mildly amusing.

But what does concern me, however, is when the attempt to denigrate all that is male and pale as stale, isn't being played out in the queer world of sci-fi and superheroes, but within academia ...

Thus, the decision by King's College London to replace portraits of its founding fathers with a wall of diversity in order that today's student body doesn't feel intimidated, is, I think, deeply depressing and disappointing.      

For whilst it's one thing for contemporary culture to reflect the Volkerchaos of modern British society, it's quite another thing to try and launder history or erase the past. This is not just foolish, it's also slightly sinister - not to mention patronising towards those it's trying to protect from the inconvenient truth that whilst blacks have soul and women their intuition, only great white males have genius ...       

The Three Ducks (Donald, Daffy & Howard)

Donald Duck © The Walt Disney Company / Howard the Duck © Marvel Worldwide, Inc.

Daffy Duck © Warner Bros. Inc.

I have never been a great fan of Disney's Donald Duck. Partly, this is due to his choice of outfit consisting of blue sailor shirt, cap and red bow tie; not a look I much care for.

That said, he's clearly more interesting and more edgy than his friend and rival Mickey Mouse. For whereas the latter is simply irritating, the former is amusingly irritable and often seems at odds with those around him and in general conflict with life - a bit like a feathered George Costanza. Indeed, someone should write a comparative analysis of these two characters as they seem to share a wide range of personality traits.

Despite this retrospective Seinfeld connection, as a child I had much more time for Donald's Warner Bros. counterpart, Daffy Duck. Probably this has something to do with being part of a TV generation growing up on Looney Tunes, rather than being a regular movie-goer. Also, Daffy, created by Tex Avery, was, to me at least, simply funnier as well as a more contemporary-seeming, more savvy figure than Donald. Mel Blanc's brilliant vocal characterization doubtless played a large part in this. And, crucially, Daffy spurned the sailor suit and dared to go naked.

  

The third fictional bird to have played an active role in my imagination, is Howard the Duck, created by writer Steve Gerber and artist Val Mayerik for Marvel Comics in 1973. Like Donald and Daffy, Howard is often ill-tempered and foul-mouthed (no pun intended). But unlike them, his character lends itself more to nihilism and existential angst, rather than screwball comedy. 

For Howard reveals that life is joke. But it's an absurd and often cruel joke lacking in point or punchline. As Gerber once explained, via Howard he sought to demonstrate how the things, people, and events we value and take seriously are distinguishable from those things, people, and events we despise or think ludicrous only thanks to interpretation and perspectivism (i.e. personal prejudice and the contingency of viewpoint).

Unfortunately, Gerber and his publishers soon clashed over issues of 'creative control' and the writer was removed from his own series in 1978. The comic in its original format quickly folded. Around this time, Disney was also threatening to sue Marvel for copyright infringement, claiming that Howard looked too similar to Donald and insisting that the former put some pants on!

Today, now that Disney own Marvel, one can't help fearing that with or without trousers, Howard's days are sadly numbered.