Crikey 5

[Lew Stringer]

The new issue of Crikey! is out, and is steadily improving. There's a short item on Oink! and why it caused controversy in 1986, and a nice piece by Gil Page of IPC/Egmont who reveals (for the first time I believe) that several of the strips that appeared in IPC's revamped Smash! (Cursitor Doom, Janus Stark) were originally intended for an unpublished Fleetway horror comic. Very interesting.

Lew

[colcool007]

The new issue of Crikey! is out, and is steadily improving. There's a short item on Oink! and why it caused controversy in 1986, and a nice piece by Gil Page of IPC/Egmont who reveals (for the first time I believe) that several of the strips that appeared in IPC's revamped Smash! (Cursitor Doom, Janus Stark) were originally intended for an unpublished Fleetway horror comic. Very interesting.

Lew

My Victor article wasn't in there was it?

[Lew Stringer]

My Victor article wasn't in there was it?

No, but perhaps it'll be in issue 6 which promises to be a DC Thomson special.

There's a very odd comment in issue 5 from the editor on the letters page: "There's little point in people spotting mistakes and sniggering in secret as they pass little messages to friends. Let's get it out in the open. If people pick us up on mistakes, we'll do our best to publish the corrections - but people have to tell us first."

I don't know if by "secret" he means this public access forum, or my public blog, but I sent an e mail regarding the numerous Smash! mistakes to him months ago (cut and pasted from my blog
http://lewstringer.blogspot.com/2008/01 ... issue.html

and it wasn't used. They have however printed someone else's letter on the matter which corrects some, but unfortunately not all, the errors.

Personally I haven't seen anyone "sniggering" about Crikey!'s flaws, - just well-intentioned criticism and a desire to see the mag continue.

Lew

[Captain Storm]

I agree with you 100% Lew!I can't imagine where this came from and I would be slightly aggrieved if I thought this forum was being targeted!Surely Kashgar can pass on any and all corrections brought up here?As a matter of interest can you start a poll to see exactly how many members here subscribe to the magazine?

P**d off Cap!

[Kashgar]

I agree with you 100% Lew!I can't imagine where this came from and I would be slightly aggrieved if I thought this forum was being targeted!Surely Kashgar can pass on any and all corrections brought up here?As a matter of interest can you start a poll to see exactly how many members here subscribe to the magazine?

P**d off Cap!

Surely Kashgar could if that was Kashgar's job! If you want to point out errors, either by email or post, then do as Lew does and contact them personally. (Whether these get published however is also sadly outside of my remit). I only ever 'signed up' to point out those errors and omissions that I can personally verify and not to trawl the highways and byways of electronic comicdom in order to highlight errors that have been discovered by other interested parties who have seen fit not to contact the magazine directly.

[Lew Stringer]

If Crikey! have read people's corrections on the 'net then they know what mistakes they've made. Failing to correct those mistakes just because some people haven't contacted them directly is being a bit bloody minded on their part methinks.

Lew

[HighAndMighty]

it must be quite tricky sometimes to check the validity of a correction v.s. the validity of the published article.

just because i say that dennis the menace originally had a green stripe in his jumper doesn't mean that all articles claiming he had a red and black stripe should be "corrected"

[Lew Stringer]

[quote="HighAndMighty"]it must be quite tricky sometimes to check the validity of a correction v.s. the validity of the published article.
/quote]

Not at all. It's the comics themselves that verify the facts. In the case of the Smash article the author clearly hadn't checked the comics for a long time or didn't actually own many of them, but still proceeded to write with authority.

Two clichés come to mind: "Write about what you know" and "Don't shoot the messenger" when mistakes are pointed out.

Lew

[Captain Storm]

Hi Kashgar,I actually meant my comment to be light hearted and not at all serious.It is only comics we are talking about.I just thought that you could mention to these good people that ComicsUK is a serious forum with experts who can be of help.I've mentioned this to Crikey,I think Lew has and others,but still no corrections of any merit.As Lew previously mentioned,as time goes on and folk pick up back issues these errors could become accepted as fact.I'm not lambasting the magazine or editors in any way.After all their treatment of my article was very professional.But as this magazine picks up steam and these errors go unchecked even though people are contacting them,it will quickly lose credibility.Nobody is being singled out,most are doing a fantastic job,but they have got to seriously "listen" to the fans.As this is the only forum of repute that I know of,then it stands to reason that this must be the forum that is being referred to.Nobody here is sniggering in secret.Far from it.I think I speak for most people here when I say that we all wish this magazine to succeed and with you on board as a fact-checker all the better.The Editors are free to join up here.As a matter of fact I think it would be very beneficial to them and us.
Rant over.
Peace and love to all at Crikey!
And you too of course,Ray!

Me!

[Kashgar]

No offence taken, Cap. I think it would seem sensible for Brian and his team to take note of errors and correct them issue by issue and the fact that this doesn't seem to happen is as much a puzzle to me as everyone else.
I'm listed in the magazine credits as a 'fact checker' which is really too wide-ranging and vague a title. I couldn't possibly check all info in the mag for its factual accuracy, no one could. For instance, I'll probably do more fact checking in the next DCT special issue than usual but ask me about TV21 or 2000AD and I know there are far wiser heads than mine out there.

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

I've seen two issues of 'CRIKEY!' in my local 'FORBIDDEN PLANET', and it certainly gives every impression of being well-put together in general, by genuine enthusiasts [the sort of folk like us who frequent this site, really...........[!]].........

LEW'S concerns on accuracy remind me of one of my earlier postings on here, [on ODHAM'S comics] where I drafted a topic soley on almost 40-year-old memories......I done about 3 mistakes, and now I tend to write mostly about stuff I KNOW well enough by heart........I personally hate stopping to check stuff, but it's better if SOMEBODY takes responsibility for facts......when I go into depth on a subject now, it definately rings more true with the original comics in front of you for accuracy.

[Richard S.]

The only errors I've spotted (in the 2 articles I'd even be able to spot an error) are as follows:

p.27 - Marooned on Mercury was a collaboration between Harold Johns and Greta Tomilinson, not Harold Johns alone

p.28/9 - Fulton Press is mentioned rather than Hulton Press

p.29 - the Lady Penelope illustration is listed as being from Lady Penelope comic when in fact it's from The TV21 Summer Extra 1965

With the exception of the last one these are minor points and are listed here for completeness rather than any other reason. I'll be passing them onto the Crikey team.

All in all though I feel that Crikey improves with each issue. The interview with Gil Page is great and the reason to buy a mag such as Crikey. One good detailed, in-depth article in amongst the lighter, reminiscence based pieces shoud help please most of the people most of the time I reckon.