|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 28, 2020 14:43:19 GMT -5
Yeah, I have that book. Some pretty nasty illustrations. By the same token, I had read that Bill Ward had done some stuff beyond Torchy and Nanny Dickering and then saw a couple of samples that were horrifying. I guess it was done for some mob interests; but (SHUDDER), that was some sick stuff. You should probably avoid the bondage stuff that Joe Shuster did then. Shuster's tame; even mild. Ward's stuff was nasty by any definition. Shuster mostly just did imitations of things you could find in newspaper strips. Even whipping scenes were less than you would find in Flash Gordon, in glorious color, on the Sunday Funnies page. Ward's stuff wasn't damsel-in-distress melodrama or even pulpy terror; it was nightmarish sadism being perpetrated by some monster (within the context of the illustration, not Ward, himself). From what I have read, he was fulfilling his client's wishes, not perpetuating his own fetishes, unlike an Eric Stanton, Gene Bilbrew or John Willie/Alexander Scott-Coutts. From what I read, Ward had money troubles and did this stuff for some mob guys, for distribution through hardcore outlets. |
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on Feb 28, 2020 18:03:51 GMT -5
No, I have only seen the character in a few comic features, from the last few decades. Greg Hatcher, over at Atomic Junkshop, has done a column on them. I believe he mentioned a new adventure or anthology, from Ron Fortier's Airship 27. Can't recall if Greg was involved or just helping to get the word out. She had a good look, which was quickly copied in comics, with characters like the Blonde Phantom and Lady Luck. I have read a few examples from the Spicy line and the Sally Sleuth Spicy Detective stories; they couldn't be much worse than that stuff without being outright prose porn. Wonder Woman in the Golden Age was no stranger to the "pretend to be captive to learn your plot" game. Sounds like she and Sally Sleuth were pretty similar.  Yep, it’s only in recent years that I’ve come to find out that Wonder Woman’s creator based her and her part of the DC world on concepts such as bondage, eroticism, and “love slavery fetishes,” implying how men enjoy being bound in chains if the one bounding them is a beautiful, loving, stronger woman. Just a really unique, if not, weird concept all around all things considered in how William Marston went about creating this superheroine. From Wonder Woman #4 (April 1943, DC Comics). Art by Harry Peter:   |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,222 
|
Post by Confessor on Mar 9, 2020 4:58:33 GMT -5
You should probably avoid the bondage stuff that Joe Shuster did then. Shuster's tame; even mild. Ward's stuff was nasty by any definition. Shuster mostly just did imitations of things you could find in newspaper strips. Even whipping scenes were less than you would find in Flash Gordon, in glorious color, on the Sunday Funnies page. Ward's stuff wasn't damsel-in-distress melodrama or even pulpy terror; it was nightmarish sadism being perpetrated by some monster (within the context of the illustration, not Ward, himself). From what I have read, he was fulfilling his client's wishes, not perpetuating his own fetishes, unlike an Eric Stanton, Gene Bilbrew or John Willie/Alexander Scott-Coutts. From what I read, Ward had money troubles and did this stuff for some mob guys, for distribution through hardcore outlets. I think Ward's fetish stuff is beautiful. I mean, OK, some of the subject matter might not be to a particular indiviual's taste or for the faint-hearted, depending on your tolerance for BDSM play or "forced fantasy" themes, but the execution of the artwork itself is gorgeous IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by junkmonkey on Mar 9, 2020 19:08:04 GMT -5
Bill Ward did do shiny legs like no one else on earth.
|
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Mar 10, 2020 13:12:46 GMT -5
I think of Bill Ward and i think "pointy".  |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,222
|
Post by Confessor on Mar 10, 2020 14:20:47 GMT -5
I think of Bill Ward and i think "pointy". To be fair, brassieres were more "pointy" back in the 50s, 60s and 70s, which was Ward's heyday. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 10, 2020 22:30:35 GMT -5
Shuster's tame; even mild. Ward's stuff was nasty by any definition. Shuster mostly just did imitations of things you could find in newspaper strips. Even whipping scenes were less than you would find in Flash Gordon, in glorious color, on the Sunday Funnies page. Ward's stuff wasn't damsel-in-distress melodrama or even pulpy terror; it was nightmarish sadism being perpetrated by some monster (within the context of the illustration, not Ward, himself). From what I have read, he was fulfilling his client's wishes, not perpetuating his own fetishes, unlike an Eric Stanton, Gene Bilbrew or John Willie/Alexander Scott-Coutts. From what I read, Ward had money troubles and did this stuff for some mob guys, for distribution through hardcore outlets. I think Ward's fetish stuff is beautiful. I mean, OK, some of the subject matter might not be to a particular indiviual's taste or for the faint-hearted, depending on your tolerance for BDSM play or "forced fantasy" themes, but the execution of the artwork itself is gorgeous IMHO. Yeah, some of it does go too far for me but most of what I've seen is quite innocent - little sight gags and much of it without any nudity or anything, just sexy girls in short skirts or lingerie, etc. But I know what codystarbuck is talking about, too. I don't mind mild bondage etc, but some of Ward's stuff does go beyond that.
Has his Cracked stuff ever been collected?
|
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Mar 10, 2020 23:43:00 GMT -5
I think of Bill Ward and i think "pointy". To be fair, brassieres were more "pointy" back in the 50s, 60s and 70s, which was Ward's heyday. Pointy shoes too. I guess I prefer pointless cartooning.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Mar 11, 2020 5:01:51 GMT -5
I am uncomfortable with the direction of this thread drift. People wanting to read a thread about the first superheroine might not be up for a discussion of porn/porn-adjacent comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by junkmonkey on Mar 11, 2020 7:25:49 GMT -5
I am uncomfortable with the direction of this thread drift. People wanting to read a thread about the first superheroine might not be up for a discussion of porn/porn-adjacent comics.
The history of comics is littered with heroines with inter-mammary sulcuses you could park bikes in, and skirts so short their panties are part of their costume. As far as I can tell most of the superheroines were (until recently) written/drawn and read by men/boys (and various combinations of the two) and existed purely to satisfy adolescent and arrested adolescent urges of sexual domination/helplessness, bondage, rubber fetishisation, and other assorted desires.
So it's hardly surprising really.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,222
|
Post by Confessor on Mar 11, 2020 7:29:59 GMT -5
I am uncomfortable with the direction of this thread drift. People wanting to read a thread about the first superheroine might not be up for a discussion of porn/porn-adjacent comics. That's absolutely fair enough, repti. But nobody in this thread has broken any of the forum rules or has even come close to doing so. Thread drift happens sometimes, just as a result of the natural flow of discussion. I know that some moderators in other forums are very "hands on" when it comes to splitting off tangential discussions into their own threads, but it's always been our policy here to allow threads to mutate, so long as nobody is breaking the rules or getting nasty with each other. Superheroines have always been sexualised to a greater or lesser degree. Plus, I suppose a discussion about Golden Age superheroines probably has an above average chance of drifting into discussions about female objectification and BDSM themes, given that several prominent heroines have well known sexualised aspects to them (Wonder Woman and bondage, Sheena of the Jungle as sex symbol, the Spirit's seductive femme fatales, and the aforementioned racey Torchy series to name just a few examples). After all, let's not forget that these comics were predominantly written by males for other men or boys. My advice to you or anybody else who is uncomfortable with the current direction that this thread is taking is to simply ignore it. |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Mar 11, 2020 8:58:12 GMT -5
Has his Cracked stuff ever been collected?
I don't think so, not systematically. There was a recent kickstarter I supported that put out one collection each of Davis and Severin Cracked work, though these only scratched the service, esp for Severin. |
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on Mar 11, 2020 12:59:03 GMT -5
Wildfire from Smash Comics (1941), possibly the first fire-themed superheroine:   |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 11, 2020 13:10:00 GMT -5
Has his Cracked stuff ever been collected?
I don't think so, not systematically. There was a recent kickstarter I supported that put out one collection each of Davis and Severin Cracked work, though these only scratched the service, esp for Severin. Do you have a link to that completed Kickstarter? I'm curious how they got the rights to those works. |
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Mar 11, 2020 13:18:26 GMT -5
I think a lot of girls did read Mary Marvel in the '40s-'50s, her 'replacement' Supergirl in the '50s-'70s, and they would read male heroes too, and of course their brothers' comics (though maybe not vice-versa so much, Millie The Model and Katy Keene are acquired tastes I think). I can balance things right now with a cover from the company of Ruth Roche, Lily Renee, Marcia Snyder and Fran Hopper... Woohoo!   |
|
