|
Post by rberman on Jan 7, 2019 15:19:25 GMT -5
You are about 8 years older than me. So I was a teen in the cynical 70's. The idealism you spoke of was definitely not there during my teen years. The gas embargo. The ending of the Apollo missions. Disco (ha!). Ugly cars. Leisure suits. It was not a hopeful decade.
Thanks for your answer.
You're welcome, and I agree completely. I first taught high school in 1975 and it was striking how dispirited kids were about the future. Head-banging, beer-drinking, pot-smoking mindlessness predominated. And that was on every academic level, every economic level. Interesting. I grew up in the 80s, and at least in my rarefied private school environment, the prospects seemed infinite. But then I didn't have a draft card.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jan 7, 2019 15:19:53 GMT -5
The idealism you spoke of was definitely not there during my teen years. The gas embargo. The ending of the Apollo missions. Disco (ha!). Ugly cars. Leisure suits. It was not a hopeful decade. Hey, 70s leisure suits were okay for about a minute on the cultural landscape...
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jan 7, 2019 15:20:05 GMT -5
The idealism you spoke of was definitely not there during my teen years. The gas embargo. The ending of the Apollo missions. Disco (ha!). Ugly cars. Leisure suits. It was not a hopeful decade. Hey, 70s leisure suits were okay for about a minute on the cultural landscape...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2019 15:29:50 GMT -5
You're welcome, and I agree completely. I first taught high school in 1975 and it was striking how dispirited kids were about the future. Head-banging, beer-drinking, pot-smoking mindlessness predominated. And that was on every academic level, every economic level. Interesting. I grew up in the 80s, and at least in my rarefied private school environment, the prospects seemed infinite. But then I didn't have a draft card. I agree. In the 80's it seemed the national mood had shifted. Personally the 80's were a good time for me. Graduated college. Got married. Started my career.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jan 8, 2019 15:42:20 GMT -5
I seem to be an in-between age here. I was just old enough to catch a whiff of the idealism before it dissolved - I was 10 during the Summer of Love (and riots), 12 during Woodstock, and graduated from high school about six weeks before Nixon resigned. Not a great era, but I had it a lot better than my parents - my father turned 14 three weeks after Hitler invaded Poland, and my mother turned 14 halfway between V-E Day and V-J Day.
This run came out during my hiatus from comics. From summer of 1969 to spring of 1971 I bought & read no comics at all. I think now that I was depressed. When my brother brought home a few comics starting in February 1971, I dipped my toe back into the world of comics - but to me at that time, that meant Marvel comics. I literally did not even look at non-Marvel comics until I recognized Kirby's art on a DC cover and Ditko's on a Charlton, at some point in 1972. As I got into fandom, I certainly heard and read about the O'Neil/Adams GL/GA; it may not have sold well to the general public but it made a huge impression on dedicated comics fans.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Jan 8, 2019 19:28:01 GMT -5
I first read a few of these comics in 1974 or '75 (age 8 or 9) and they left a strong impression on me (the "crucifixion" issue especially - I was genuinely shocked by GL's violent, sudden destruction of the jet). Yes, O'Neil is terribly didactic in this run but, as others have noted, this was generally par for the course then. His take on systemic, institutional racism was powerful for a lot of young, white readers during a time in which you could count all of the black superheroes in both Marvel and DC comics on one hand. Certainly it's a product of it's time, touching on the "go-find-yourself-and-the-real-America" spirit of Easy Rider and the "reluctant-hero" vs. "The Man" mythos of Billy Jack. Both of these films seem anachronistic now, especially Billy Jack, and so too do these GL/GA comics. I feel that they remain of interest today more because of Adams' art and less because of O'Neil's writing. But, whatever their flaws, they are still a darn sight better than some other, even more ham-fisted attempts at "relevance" during this period:
|
|
|
Post by Farrar on Jan 9, 2019 17:15:44 GMT -5
^^^ As a kid I had that issue as a back issue, bought a few months after its publication; I'd heard about the story from some kids at at school before I bought the comic. While I wasn't crazy about the more realistic Lois Lane comic--I was a diehard fan of the Schaffenberger era Lois--I remember I found this story interesting. Sure it was heavy-handed, but it had some good points to it as well; and it helped open my eyes to some things in a way that, say, school didn't. As a fan back then I never minded seeing my favorite characters, such as the Avengers, Black Widow, and (for a time) Subby over at Marvel, and for DC Diana Prince, Lois, the Teen Titans and others-- engage in more socially relevant stories. The Lois story garnered some nice feedback, at least based on what was printed in the lettercol a few issues later.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 9, 2019 18:44:37 GMT -5
I was too young to really "experience" the 60s (born in Nov 66). My earliest memories date from around 1970 and are pretty strong through the entire decade. For me it was a mix. I was mostly oblivious to Vietnam, until after the main fighting. I recall footage of the POWs returning and vague notions of protesting and the news of Kent State (didn't really process it, since I seem to recall hearing about it on the radio, since I didn't watch the tv news, at that age). I do recall Watergate (interrupted by morning viewing of Space Angel and Underdog!) and Nixon's resignation. Much of it seemed dark, especially in my neck of the woods, as the recession hit the decatur area hard. I do recall social consciousness permeating entertainment, from these comics to the Norman Lear shows, to things like Room 222 and the Waltons. It seemed like messages were everywhere, though the early half of the decade. The latter half seems a mix of disco, Star Wars and Saturday Night Live and the recognition that Jimmy Carter inherited a mess. He seemed an honest man, who tried and then we ended with the Hostage Crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, where he seemed incapable of accomplishing anything (cemented by the fiasco of the rescue mission, that ended in fire).
I found the 80s to be a similar mix. There was much talk of pride; but, if you paid attention, you saw the seamy underbelly of of the Reagan years, with proxy wars in Central America and Afghanistan, sabre rattling and Nationalism, and rampant greed culture. I came from humble circumstances and the differences between haves and have nots was rather vivid. Politically, I was socially liberal, though probably still conservative on defense, aided by an overly romantic ideal of the military and the Vietnam Guilt Complex. Part of that led to my NROTC Scholarship and my time in the military was a real political awakening, as I could see closer up how America's foreign policy worked. The Gulf War really opened my eyes about the corporate media and how coupled the government was with big business and business had been getting bigger and bigger through the Reagan and Bush years.
These stories certainly fit in with what I saw on tv in the early 70s, as much as companies like Eclipse and some of the other indies would reflect much of what I was seeing in the 80s. In both decades, I saw darkness and light, pride and shame; but, nothing like how the culture seemed to turn with Millennial Fear and the 9/11 attacks and aftermath. It's been almost 20 years and the country still feels like it is in the grips of fear and acting stupidly because of it, listening to the people stoking it for personal gain, on either side, rather than thinking things through and applying reason. Entertainment and comics are filled with metaphors of random violence and catastrophic events, fear of invaders, and armies of crazies or a quiet neighbor suddenly snapping. When I was a kid, you might fear the school bully, a test, or the day's lunch menu; but, you didn't have thoughts of one of your classmates opening fire on you with automatic weapons, or some adult doing the same. You also didn't have the entire media shoving such things in your face, even during the reporting of Vietnam. There was some decorum. I think the shooting of an ABC reporter, by the Nicaraguan security forces, during the uprising against Samosa, was my first real shocking visual event, to be followed by the attempted shooting of Ronald Reagan. The death of John Lennon was something that was heard, not seen again and again, on the evening news and for weeks to come. That seemed to come with the 24 hour news.
For all of the clunkiness and ham-fisted preaching, I see more positive in these stories, than the violent 9/11 metaphors of today's comics. I see far more attempts at trying to change the world for the better, than reflecting and magnifying the darkness of it, as I too often see today. Comics could use a few more muckrakers.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Jan 11, 2019 13:47:30 GMT -5
The Lois Lane "I Am Curious (Black)" story is embarrassing. The notion that a white person could become temporarily black and consequently gain an almost instantaneous understanding of racism is a reductive and toxic white fantasy. This is underscored by the fact that the story's most overtly racist character is a black man. At least the GL/GA story gave some kind of a voice to a black character, albeit briefly (and purely as a token stand-in for all African Americans). Yes, it's still white creators addressing racism to a predominantly white audience but at least it wasn't a one-off story in which Green Lantern becomes a black man for a day and suddenly "gets it." As with the other "heavy" social issues addressed in the O'Neil/Adams run, any degree of understanding a marginalized perspective has to be earned (hence the whole road trip conceit).
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jan 11, 2019 13:57:58 GMT -5
The Lois Lane "I Am Curious (Black)" story is embarrassing. The notion that a white person could become temporarily black and consequently gain an almost instantaneous understanding of racism is a reductive and toxic white fantasy. This is underscored by the fact that the story's most overtly racist character is a black man. At least the GL/GA story gave some kind of a voice to a black character, albeit briefly (and purely as a token stand-in for all African Americans). Yes, it's still white creators addressing racism to a predominantly white audience but at least it wasn't a one-off story in which Green Lantern becomes a black man for a day and suddenly "gets it." As with the other "heavy" social issues addressed in the O'Neil/Adams run, any degree of understanding a marginalized perspective has to be earned (hence the whole road trip conceit). Time compression is a challenge in many forms of pop fiction. Think of all the movies or comic books or TV shows in which a romance is distilled into a few representative encounters following stereotyped beats (the meet-cute, the date, the kiss, the misunderstanding, the wistful regret, the reconciliation, the wedding) when real relationships take a lot more time and work. Fiction wants to show things that can happen (e.g. an insensitive person gains insight and empathy for others beyond their own demographics), but compressed manner of the telling can generate false expectations about how easily and rapidly these things happen.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jan 11, 2019 14:08:44 GMT -5
The title "I Am Curious (Black)" is based on a then-recent film, I Am Curious (Yellow), which was an early example of a high-profile, sexually explicit movie. Even kids who had no idea what was in the movie had heard of the title. The Lois Lane story has no other connection to the movie; DC just wanted to seem more "hip".
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jan 11, 2019 17:02:02 GMT -5
The Lois Lane "I Am Curious (Black)" story is embarrassing. The notion that a white person could become temporarily black and consequently gain an almost instantaneous understanding of racism is a reductive and toxic white fantasy. This is underscored by the fact that the story's most overtly racist character is a black man. At least the GL/GA story gave some kind of a voice to a black character, albeit briefly (and purely as a token stand-in for all African Americans). Yes, it's still white creators addressing racism to a predominantly white audience but at least it wasn't a one-off story in which Green Lantern becomes a black man for a day and suddenly "gets it." As with the other "heavy" social issues addressed in the O'Neil/Adams run, any degree of understanding a marginalized perspective has to be earned (hence the whole road trip conceit). The premise was based on the experiences of two journalists, Ray Sprigle and John Howard Griffin. Sprigle, who had won a Pulitzer for his expose of Justice Hugo Black's KKK membership in who in 1959, tried everything to dye his skin so that he could pass as a black man, but nothing worked. Sprigle merely shaved his head and got as deep a suntan as he could. In the late 50s, Griffin underwent sun lamp treatments and took a drug to darken his skin. He also did what Sprigle had, and traveled the South as a black man. It didn't take long in either case for them to experience what "separate but equal" (read: American apartheid) truly meant. I have only read about Sprigle's experience, but I read Griffin's Black Like Me and it was harrowing on virtually every page. Both men were profoundly affected, and though neither could have come close to understanding and/or portraying the effects of centuries of institutional racism on the life of an individual, I do think they were able to at least give white America a cold hard slap in the face and a way to start looking at themselves and their position in this society a little more honestly.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jan 11, 2019 18:08:39 GMT -5
The Lois Lane "I Am Curious (Black)" story is embarrassing. The notion that a white person could become temporarily black and consequently gain an almost instantaneous understanding of racism is a reductive and toxic white fantasy. This is underscored by the fact that the story's most overtly racist character is a black man. At least the GL/GA story gave some kind of a voice to a black character, albeit briefly (and purely as a token stand-in for all African Americans). Yes, it's still white creators addressing racism to a predominantly white audience but at least it wasn't a one-off story in which Green Lantern becomes a black man for a day and suddenly "gets it." As with the other "heavy" social issues addressed in the O'Neil/Adams run, any degree of understanding a marginalized perspective has to be earned (hence the whole road trip conceit). Keep in mind that a monthly comic is no different than the single "Very Special Episodes" of a TV series; the intent is to address and/or expose a problem or give voice to something previously voiceless, but its never packaged as THE answer for the problems addressed. I remember the Lois Lane issue very well, and I see it now (described above) as I viewed it when it was published. DC's editorial staff and publishers did not think they were going to solve/end the curse of racism (specifically racism against black people) in one monthly comic, but it did serve to (at least) shine a light on how some out-of-touch whites might have felt before being forced to confront life in the shoes of "the others." Lois Lane was the perfect testing ground for this, as up to that time, she--within the comic book medium and in popular culture--had represented white privilege and a single-mindedness afforded to those who truly did not know how they attained that status in a nation of many kinds of people. All anyone ever knew of Lane was that she was allegedly some "go-getter" reporter who faced no true challenges, save for her being jealous of anyone trying to flirt with "her" man who was--in privileged fashion--the most perfect man in existence (at least that's what the comics sold). There was no one else better to have to face what racial reality, perception and struggle is than the personification of allegedly flawless American white womanhood. Again, I doubt anyone thought they were creating a "IN THIS ISSUE: Racism Ends Here!!" story, but it was clearly a subject they could not ignore any longer, in favor of yet another "Madame Perfect Dreams of Loving Superman" story.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2019 19:40:06 GMT -5
Script by Denny O'Neil, pencils by Neal Adams, inks by Frank Giacoia. Black Canary is on the road on her motorcycle and is attacked by a biker gang and left behind unconscious. 2 weeks later GL, GA and the Guardian come thru the same town which is on an Indian reservation. There they are also attacked by the same gang and find BC's motorcycle. They search for her and find her nearby. However she appears to be under the influence of a cult led by a Joshua. He "hypnotizes" her to shoot GA but her mind "breaks thru" and Joshua ends up shooting himself in the ensuing fight. This issue touches on how poorly this country has/still treats the native population. I wish O'Neil had gone into more detail about this. He also tries to touch on cults as well. Unfortunately both topics suffer from too much brevity. Cult leaders don't really use hypnosis to "control" their followers. But I digress. I think O'Neil did a decent job showing how dangerous cults can be and at the very least spent a moment on poor treatment of the Native Americans. Again I wish he had more pages to devote to these topics. He also spends a page recapping Black Canary's "origin" which at that time was that she was the original BC from the JSA and she had "migrated" from Earth-2 to Earth-1. Mostly because of the death of her husband Larry Lance.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jan 11, 2019 19:50:49 GMT -5
Neal Adams is amazing. That is all.
|
|