Axe Elf

If I speak the same dialect of autocorrect, I believe the accurate translation is "silver age." Whoever invented autocorrect should burn in hello.

CREEPY #42 - November 1971 According to the Warren Magazine Index... 42. cover: Manuel Sanjulian (Nov. 1971) 1) Creepy’s Loathsome Lore: Captain Kidd! [T. Casey Brennan/Ken Kelly] 1p [frontis] 2) The Quaking Horror [Gardner Fox/Rafael Auraleon] 6p 3) A Change Of Identity! [Don Glut/Dave Cockrum] 6p 4) The Amazing Money-Making Wallet [Steve Skeates/Joe Staton] 6p 5) Spacial Delivery [R. Michael Rosen/Larry Todd] 7p 6) A Chronicle! [Steve Skeates/Jorge B. Galvez] 4p 7) Escape From Nowhere World [T. Casey Brennan/Jerry Grandenetti] 8p 8) The Creepy Fan Page: Jerry Grandenetti Profile/The Demon/The Old Lady And The Cats/The Problem [Jerry Grandenetti, Jim Fadler, Randy Kirk & Robert Nason/Donald MacDonald] 2p [text article/stories] 9) Ice Wolf [Gary Kaufman] 10p Notes: Although it wasn’t completely apparent from this issue, the Spanish invasion of artists had begun a couple of months earlier in Eerie, which would eventually result in most of the American artists being driven from the Warren pages. The professional artists and writers’ debuts, which had highlighted the previous two years, also began to dry up. The sorceress in Sanjulian’s first Creepy cover was largely naked and while an effort was made to cover up her breasts with a yellow bra overlay, the technique used clearly didn’t work. ‘Escape From Nowhere World’ was a sequel to the earlier ‘On The Wings Of A Bird’ from #36. Brennan says he wrote the original story but the version here is not that story. His original script was apparently rewritten by various Warren staffers. Ernie Colon had a letter reprinted from the New York Times while future writer/artist Frank Miller also contributed to the letters’ page. ‘Ice Wolf’ was the best story. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ah yes, the infamous "yellow bra overlay" cover. I think this is the first time we've seen illustrated nudity on a Warren cover, isn't it? Or do you even still consider it "illustrated nudity" after the yellow bra overlay? I'd always kind of thought of the "Spanish Invasion" as a good thing; an influx of foreign talent--but the Index makes it sound more like a predatory thing--"Those Spanish artists came in and took our jobs!" I certainly hate to hear that all these new artists and writers are going to be drying up, as I have considered (most of) their appearances to be a welcome influx of talent as well. So I'm hoping to hear some opinions from our readers about the pros and cons of the "Spanish Invasion." Lots to look forward to here! A sequel to "On the Wings of a Bird"? Yes, please! I hate to hear it was altered from the author's original version, though; I hope it was only in the details, and that they didn't change his entire vision or something--but then again, I guess we'll never know (unless someone has access to his original script). At least Grandenetti is still the artist--and I always look forward to the artist profiles in the Fan Pages; his will be no exception! I would expect Grandenetti to be quite the character, just based on his highly stylized art. And speaking of artists, we have letters from Ernie Colon and Frank Miller (like "Sin City" Frank Miller??) and Ken Kelly doing the Loathsome Lore!! So I'm hoping to put the debacle that was VAMPIRELLA #13 behind me and enjoy this Sanjulian-covered issue instead!

I cheated and looked ahead to the letters sections of VAMPIRELLA #15 and #16 to see what the fans had to say, and for the most part it looks like they liked it--though there was one dissenting opinion. That was more about the artwork than the story itself, though. But this one was more @OtherEric-level of praise: Me and Randy will just be over here in our corner telling each other how smart we are and laughing at the rest of you. But seriously, I do feel BETTER about disagreeing, now that we've done it a few times and everyone realizes that there is no "right" or "wrong"; just different opinions on creative works of art. This reading club is still one of my favorite things in life right now.

Hoo boy, where do I start with this one? Did I mention it has a really nice cover? Didja know you can't judge books by those? The highlight of the week for me is probably the synchronicity of Trina Robbins' mention as the designer of Vampirella's costume to lead off "Vampi's Scarlet Letters"--in the very same week in which she passed away! I wasn't really familiar with her before, but it seems like she was a very interesting, accomplished and independent woman. The same writer said the cover to VAMPIRELLA #11 (Frazetta's classic "Woman with Scythe") "wasn't spectacular, but just 'good'." I also wish we could have seen the nude photo of Linda, the Vampirella look-alike secretary, but I suppose that Jim Warren had had his fill of publishing nude photos by then. I also enjoyed the Vampirella installment, "Lurker in the Deep," quite a bit. I don't care what the Index says, I like Gonzalez' art for her stories, even when it's a little scratchy/scribbly. The "lurker" itself kind of pushed the limits of that style, being kind of a scribbly "Creature from the Black Lagoon" with octopus arms, but overall I find his art very interesting. The twist of a jealous female monster was clever, too. I enjoyed the double-sized Vampirella story so much that I kind of convinced myself that I was liking "From Death's Dark Corner" the first time through as well, but by the time I got to the end and reviewed the story, I was a lot less impressed by it. @OtherEric was put off by the repetition of "Death's Dark..." in the title, and I don't really see why it was named that in the first place--it should have been something more like "The Changeling in the Swamp" or something--but I thought the story was poorly told and constructed (and ended). She hated her monster child so much that she killed her husband, faked the kidnapping of the child, and abandoned it in the swamp--but continued to bring it food until it was old enough to kill her? Unfortunately, it's probably the second-best story in the issue. And if there was redundancy in the "Death's Dark..." titles, then there was also Egyptian redundancy in multiple recent stories about the Ramses kings that brings us to the piece that @OtherEric called one of the all-time Warren classics--"The Silver Thief and the Pharoah's Daughter." I hate when we disagree so sharply, and I love ya Eric, but I feel like I must be missing something here! The debut of the Jose Bea art was ok, but it was a long (11 page) story for a small payoff--the thief was so good that the king gave him a job?--and his daughter's hand in marriage? It seems ridiculous to me, as were some of the plot devices (how did the chopped-off arm get him past the guards in the chamber with the king's daughter?). And further, this isn't even a horror story--not even a psychological or human nature horror story--it belongs more in Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine or something! I could have gone through all the Warren magazines without reading this bloated historical crime drama. For me, it just doesn't fit and it's not that great--but I always hate dissing a piece that other people enjoy! Forgive me! And speaking of redundancy over the past couple of issues, for some reason they reprinted the same exact "Annual Warren Awards" feature in this issue that was printed in VAMPIRELLA #12 (although for some reason, this escaped listing or mention in the Index). "The Frog Prince" was the lowlight of the issue, and that's saying something. It might even be the lowlight of the VAMPIRELLA series thus far. The whole thing seems like it could have been a Don Martin one-pager in MAD magazine and still delivered the joke. And the joke might have landed a little more effectively for me if the frog prince's "CROAK" at the end hadn't been so over-the-top. Like if his throat and upper chest had just puffed out a little--instead of turning him completely into a ball with arms and legs. And after all that talk about "reversing the spell," "turning him into a man again," and so on, the twist isn't really even that logical--unless of course he was a man who croaked BEFORE the enchantment! And finally, "Eye of the Beholder" was every bit as grim and ugly as @OtherEric described--and that was even with it reminding me of a darker version of Shel Silverstein's "The Giving Tree" a little bit. It's only redeeming feature was the closing line, "...and then her left eye popped out," which broke the darkness of the piece with a little piece of even darker levity. Kaufman's work on "Vampi's Feary Tales" was indeed better than his work on that last story, even if the narrative was a little fragmented. I like that they are digging deep for some of these Gallery/Lore/Tales features rather than just rehashing well-known monsters. I'm learning from some of these, including this one, as I had never heard of the Lamia before. The "Vampi's Flames" fan pages left me cold as usual, especially the conclusion to the fan fiction epic, "The Leaking Bathtub." The only reason I can see for ever opening this magazine is the Vampirella feature--worst issue of the series so far, in my opinion.

OMG She engaged with underage girls??

I thought you were quizzing us.

VAMPIRELLA #48?

Mylar & the Fullbacks Or Fullback & the Mylars (Fullback & the Mylites?)

In the same vein would be the Cover Pieces. They're #1.

I don't think I saw this one, but it seems obvious. Detached Cover (They only do other people's songs, but they don't care about them.)

The real irony would be if CGC did the pressing, and then dinged themselves for doing a poor job. P.S. As I understand it, pretty much ALL grader's notes are "opinions."

Good call! That's probably the middle ground between ignoring the tape and not ignoring the tape. Parenthetically, I may be using the term incorrectly, but I was considering a "bindery tear" to be any tear to the binding, not necessarily a production defect. The way a couple of you have answered, I get the impression that the term "bindery tear" refers only to production flaws? Yes, I think this cover started to tear at the bottom of the spine, after it was in circulation, and someone applied tape to stop the spread of the tear. Sorry if calling it a "bindery tear" caused any confusion.

It's a really interesting question, because to me, tape on the cover is one of those "hard" defects where there's no "slight" or "moderate" tape on the cover; if there's tape on the cover, then there's tape on the cover, and the highest the book can possibly grade is a 4.0. If you have tape on the cover of a Gem Mint book, then it becomes a 4.0 book. Period. But if CGC was forced to abide by their own policy on tape, then this book would have to receive (in your estimation) a 7.0, because their official policy is to ignore the tape and grade on the basis of the defect that is addressed by the tape. I'm just really curious how CGC would actually grade this book, given their policy (but not curious enough to pay them to find out.)

So I just noticed not too long ago that my nice-ish copy of VAMPIRELLA #16 actually has a little piece of tape on the cover! It's a small piece at the bottom of the spine, wrapping from back to front, apparently put there to keep the little bindery tear at the bottom of the spine from getting worse. I've read the Official CGC policy on tape--if the tape is there to correct a defect, the tape is ignored and the book is graded on the basis of the defect alone without the tape. But this would likely still be an 8.0ish book if it was graded without the tape, even with that little bindery tear--but it has tape on the cover! Surely you can't have an 8.0+ with TAPE ON THE COVER--can you??? So what's your wild guess as to how this book would be graded?

Lawdhammercy...

VAMPIRELLA #13 - September 1971 (If you have your welding goggles handy for the upcoming eclipse, you can also safely view my blindingly white copy of VAMPIRELLA #13! "So white it belongs in a toothpaste commercial!" It's like there's no difference between that cover and the white space of the forum background!) According to the Warren Magazine Index... 13. cover: Manuel Sanjulian (Sept. 1971) 1) Vampi’s Feary Tales: Lamiae [Gary Kaufman] 1p [frontis] 2) Vampirella: The Lurker In The Deep! [Archie Goodwin/Jose Gonzalez] 15p 3) From Death’s Dark Corner! [Gerry Conway/Steve Hickman] 7p 4) The Silver Thief And The Pharaoh’s Daughter [Dean Latimer/Jose Bea] 11p 5) The Frog Prince! [Bill DuBay] 5p 6) Vampi’s Flames: Official Contest/Children Of The Atom/The Leaking Bath Tub!, part 2 [J. R. Cochran, J. G. Barlow, Carl Daigrepont, Jr./Gregg Davidson, Clyde Caldwell & John Ayella] 2p [contest rules/poem/text story] 7) Eye Of The Beholder [Gary Kaufman] 7p 8) Easy Way To A Tuff Surfboard! [Archie Goodwin/Frank Frazetta] ½p reprinted from Eerie #3 (May 1966) Notes: Sanjulian’s cover was of much higher quality than the previous issue’s. Some good stories & art here but the real prize was the American debut of Jose Bea. Future cover artist Clyde Caldwell also debuted his work on the fan page. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, the Index doesn't actually have much to say. I'm expecting good things though, because the last couple of issues of CREEPY and EERIE (since the final round of Annuals) have been pretty solid, despite (or perhaps because of?) a large number of new contributors making their debuts--and we get more of the same here. I still tend to like Gonzalez' Vampi stories, too, despite his art being largely panned by the Index whenever it has appeared up until now, and the Vampi saga is really starting to take shape, with longer stories that get to indulge themselves a little. So I hope we're in for another quality issue. Now if only I knew the easy way to a tuff surfboard... Hey, got a light, mate?

I'm just ordering each year's back issues at the end of the year. Figure that's one opportunity for shipping mishaps, as opposed to 14. The ones I've received (close to 50 now) haven't necessarily all been 9.8s or anything, but I haven't received any that I would say were in not-so-great condition, as to me, that implies something less than an 8.0 or so. One shipment looked like it had been bumped a little more than the others, but I don't recall any that had any major flaws; I would say that all of them probably fall between 8.5 at worst and 9.6 at best. I've thought about the subscription route, just so I didn't have to wait so long for new ones--but I'm not at all convinced that shipping individual books would get them here in any better condition. Then again, I'm not really buying them as an "investment" per se, and I won't live long enough for them to see any appreciable increase in value. Therefore I'm not really fretting over their condition, as long as they're not in REALLY not-so-great shape. I expect them to look new, but not necessarily perfect.

Good point. It's almost like one of the twists is that there IS no (living) mummy. I suppose, although when they said "he wrote and drew" I just assumed they meant he did it himself. I could see someone tossing off 30 pages of Calvin & Hobbes in a day, but Kim's work is so much more nuanced that I would think that kind of productivity would be impossible, especially if he had even a HINT of a life outside of writing and drawing books. Still, a very impressive body of work.

Looks like our cover this week is another of those covers that isn't directly related to any of the stories it encloses, other than sort of a general nod to the Sword & Sorcery genre to which the first three stories kind of belong. (It does, however, contain a copious amount of teaser text.) The lead-off story, "Retribution," was probably the best of those three, and one of the highlights of the issue overall. The Steve Englehart art was precise and meticulous, and the plot was consistent in telling a meaningful story. Frank Brunner's art lifted "The Comet's Curse" to something more enjoyable than the story itself, although the story wasn't bad, either. I remember someone once making the comment that Neal Adams incorporated so much "movement" in his art; I get that same feeling from Brunner at times. And last in the little Sword & Sorcery trilogy is "The Tower of Demon Dooms." I had kind of forgotten to look for the "D**k Tracy" in the hero when I first read it, and I didn't really get that impression on first read--but then again, I haven't read many Tracy comics, and certainly haven't seen him out of his traditional yellow trenchcoat. Going back after the fact, I could maybe catch some Tracy in some of his facial expressions--but it wasn't my first impression. I thought this was a really good story with competent artwork, but the ending seemed a little strained--the dead can't stay in our world, and the living can't stay in the world of the demons, unless the one who doesn't belong drinks the blood of the other? Yeah, ok... But catching up to myself a little, it's really interesting that the "EERIE's Monster Gallery" frontispiece is not only the lone contribution the artist made to Warren, but to any comic whatsoever! And it really IS a Monster Gallery, being devoted to monster sightings and all (although the last one seems to be more of a naked hottie sighting than a monster sighting)! Feedback on "Starvisions" from EERIE #33 seemed to dominate the "Dear Cousin EERIE" pages this week; both positive and negative. Most of the negatives were mostly just complaining about publishing sci-fi in a horror magazine, but there were a lot more positive comments than negative. And then the poor Ken Kelly guy who kept getting confused with Ken Kelley was kind of funny. He even contributed an illustration to the "EERIE Fan Fare" feature, adding to the confusion. Cousin Eerie advised him to go by "Kenneth" or "Kin" or something. Overall, though, the fan fiction was as terrible as usual, and the only redeeming quality of the fan pages was the Sanho Kim biography. I find it a little hard to believe, though, that Kim "wrote and drew more than one-thousand books, each fifty to one-hundred pages long," over an 8 year period. 50,000 to 100,000 pages in 3,000 days? Can anyone do 15-30 pages a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, for 8 years straight?? That's freaking impressive, if true! And EERIE finally gets around to reprinting the "Annual Warren Awards at the New York Comicon" feature that we've already seen in CREEPY #40 and VAMPIRELLA #12. But back to the main features, I didn't think "Cats and Dogs" was Grandenetti's best work--and when Grandenetti isn't at his best, he's almost at his worst it seems. Still, his cartoonish and highly constrasting work was a good fit for the cartoonish and dualistic subject matter of what I would consider kind of a light-hearted filler piece about a family who will never need pets. "I Am Dead, Egypt, Dead" brought us yet another new artist in Victor de la Fuente, whose art was at times as meticulous as Englehart had been in the opener, yet he doesn't seem to have as much mastery over facial expressions and such--but his backgrounds are quite detailed. This story is well-crafted in stacking its twists at the end, and it's kind of unique in that there are no actual "monsters" in the story--just three people double-crossing each other to get the most treasure. In that sense, it is similar to the last story in this issue, "Money," by Sanho Kim. I was kind of lukewarm on Kim's "Dragon Woman" piece when we first saw him in VAMPIRELLA #11, but my appreciation for him has grown with this piece, and with his Fan Fare biography. You can really see both the eastern and western influences in his work. The trees and mountains especially look like what you see in oriental art, while his human characters look more western to me. Like "I Am Dead, Egypt, Dead," this piece doesn't really have any monsters in it, it's more of an Aesop's fable about human greed. (For the people who don't like sci-fi in your horror magazines, how do you feel about morality lessons?) In that sense, it kind of reminded me of "The King's Ankus" included in Rudyard Kipling's "The Jungle Books," where Mowgli and his animal friends track some humans who are killing each other over a treasure as they go, until they are all dead because of their greed. I wasn't sure of the ending of Kim's piece, though; was the guy dead now, guarding his treasure as a ghost? I don't know. In any case, this was indeed a pretty good issue--most of its warts were minor spelling and grammatical errors--and it's kind of unique in that the "monsters" featured most prominently in at least two of its stories were nothing more than greedy human beings themselves! WE are the real monsters!

It's kinda like pre-heating an oven or pre-boarding a plane...

And the definition varies by jurisdiction, but the point being that from the information available, he didn't say or do anything sexual at all. Yet he was shamed like a sexual predator or something. "Issue," anyway, but with that other gal, who knows... It could have been like, "Give me your agent's number!" "Blow me!" or something. It could have been more like asking for a date between two adults. We don't have much information on that situation, and it doesn't seem to be that situation that caused the Great Consternation in the first place, so you'll excuse me if I don't enter it into evidence at this time.

According to the Heritage guide, you can have actual dates written on the cover up to 9.6--so this raises an interesting question--is the impression caused by actual writing on the cover less of a defect than the indentations caused by writing on a superimposed surface, such as the ones you've noticed? I would think "indentations" in the cover would be graded more harshly than writing on the cover, but that's somewhat counterintuitive, as the actual writing has both an indentation from the writing AND the writing itself... 9.6 NEAR MINT+ (NM+): Back to Top Small, inconspicuous, lightly penciled, stamped or inked arrival dates are acceptable as long as they are in an unobtrusive location.

If he had asked her to buy a bunny suit and sit on his face she might be a victim of sexual assault, but from what I can see, her "victimization" consisted of being called a "naughty girl" after describing a petty crime, and being offered a place to crash (in a separate bedroom, with it's own drawing table) if she was ever in town. If she was located in a state with stricter age of consent laws, it might be considered grooming--but they both lived in PA, so it's not that, either. I don't know the artist and I certainly don't vouch for his character, but from the information available, it seems to me that the least repugnant behavior of anyone involved was the artist's.

EDIT: Eh, never mind. Like a regular comic book reader, I was looking at the pics and not reading the text.