Battle picture weekly - Terror Behind the Bamboo curtain

[geoff42]

Good stuff, Adam, and now you are in prime position to commentate on the subject that initiated this thread... The Terror Behind The Bamboo Curtain... (cue crash of drums and heavy percussion and...) all ears await with a faint, disturbing ringing in the air... something is coming...

[geoff42]

Major Eazy v Rat Pack

"It was worth the experiment," Steve Macmanus stated in his recent book. From David Bishop's "Blazing Battle Action" articles (Judge Dredd Megazine #209-212), Carlos Ezquerra was clearly dissatisfied with the experiment. While a common practice in the States, the 'in-house' merger of two top stars within a British comic was unusual and, whereas Marvel or DC would attract as much publicity as it could garner to promote any merger, Battle somewhat underplayed Major Eazy v Rat Pack. The previous issue mentioned nothing of a merger; Major Eazy hinted at one in his own strip. After being maligned as a "rat", the Major broke the fourth wall to inform his readers that he was no rat but would meet a few next week.

Cover dated 29/1/77, the 100th edition of Battle, along with its ever diminishing banner "Valiant", expressed pride in two of its new stories - Johnny Red and Joe Two Beans. An A-Z booklet was mentioned, but not a peep over the merger of its two top strips. Seemingly, there was a "surprise-surprise!" element to the strip, so much so that not only had Rat Pack claimed star casting but they had also ejected the Major's name from the title for the first week. Any smugness that the Rats may have reaped from this fleeting victory was quickly eliminated when Eazy assumed command in more ways than one.

The series was to run until 23/4/77 - a short experiment that comprised 13 episodes (a total of 39 pages; well short for a collected volume unless it was lumped in with a series of Rat Pack solo stories) and one that would not be repeated. It's unknown whether or not the writer and co-creator of Major Eazy, Alan Hebden, relished the challenge of pitting the Major against the Rats for which he had also penned many scripts. Perhaps he felt hamstrung in the experiment for too many characters would inevitably dilute the presence of his finest creation. Up until the merger, the Major's solo strip was flying high - so, the addition of the Rats could only serve to detract. Ezquerra certainly felt that this was the case. In "Blazing Battle Action" part 2, Ezquerra is quoted to say: "I was not very happy with Rat Pack. I didn't mind drawing it, but I never enjoyed doing those characters as much as Major Eazy. Rat Pack was too many people, having five of them - I never totally integrated with that strip."

Of the merger, Dave Hunt, the editor of Battle at this time, said that it was a contrivance, created in order to maintain both strips and its creators at the same time. This explanation somewhat bemuses me. Ezquerra had no interest in the Rats and would not go on to draw another solo Rat Pack strip again. He drew eight stories only from a total of five series (not counting the merger). And I'm reasonably sure that Hebden could have simultaneously scripted solo strips for both the Major and the Rats. However, if the merger were to create space for other stories and accommodate the artists who were inherited from Valiant (Eric Bradbury, John Cooper and Joe Colquhoun) then that is understandable.

Crucially, how was the series received? On scouting ahead at future letter pages, I'm unable to find any comments - a dead end there. I suspect that, where the popularity stakes were concerned, the series would have fought for second position, behind Darkie's Mob, against the impressive early episodes of Johnny Red. Personally, I found the series more than just an average read and entertaining despite a dodgy story that involved a German scientist whose radio transmitter could turn rabbits into frenzied killing machines. As Steve Macmanus summed up: It was worth the experiment.

[geoff42]

From Steve Macmanus' point of view as sub-editor of Battle Picture Weekly and Valiant, Warlord was taking a helluva beating in early 1977. Steve pointed out that if Battle ever had a golden period, then 1977 was the year where it began. I have to agree. Charley's War was still a year away, but the content that was filling Battle at this time was definitely well above average. Darkie's Mob needed no super glue to stick to the no. 1 spot. There was a morbid anticipation as to who was next as regards death within the Mob. That was thee attraction of the strip - who was next? It ran for so long with so many characters that no one really wanted to see die but, at the same time, knowing that they would eventually meet with the Grim Reaper. Here lied the fascination with Darkie's Mob - death! Darkie and the Mob had all declared that they would not get out of the jungle alive - it was all a matter of who would survive the longest. And, all those years ago as a pre-pubescent child, I remember the agony over who would actually survive. Every issue, I breathed a sigh of relief when no member of the mob died; it was like - God smiled that week. And when a member did die, I was devastated. Now, when a writer can manipulate a young boy like that, he's got magic. Of course, it was John Wagner who would go on to far better stories that would still influence this same young boy. Yet, I just can't forget Darkie's Mob.

[philcom55]

I remember one of Battle's editors saying that he thought Darkie's Mob was even better than Charley's War.

[Adam Eterno]

Good stuff, Adam, and now you are in prime position to commentate on the subject that initiated this thread... The Terror Behind The Bamboo Curtain... (cue crash of drums and heavy percussion and...) all ears await with a faint, disturbing ringing in the air... something is coming...

Only 5 issues in but enjoying the comic as a whole and Terror Behind The Bamboo Curtain in particular. I find myself picking up the next comic and thinking to flick to the back to read 'Terror' first!

[geoff42]

Aye, Adam, from memory, Bamboo Curtain and Bootneck Boy were the stories I looked forward to most from the early issues

[Adam Eterno]

Aye, Adam, from memory, Bamboo Curtain and Bootneck Boy were the stories I looked forward to most from the early issues

Exactly the same two. Young Budd has a shot up leg currently. He reminds me a bit of Scrappy from The Wizard from the early 70s for some reason.

[geoff42]

From late 1976 and the first 6 months of 1977 there was a back page feature on Battle Picture Weekly and Valiant: The Gladiators. Jim Watson illustrated everyone; they featured a one on one upon a particular battlefield i.e. Bismark v Hood - the Atlantic; RAF v Luffwaffe - Battle of Britain; G.I. v SS - the Ardennes; Bomber v Fighter - the German Ruhr. They were quite informative. And then, on realization, I thought that many of these facts were not included in my school history lessons. Now, we have to slip into a time machine and go back to 1982. That was the year I began my History lessons that would eventually engender a CSE Grade One - an equivalent of an "O" level in those days. The final two years of my school history lessons focused on the first and second world war - I was in heaven; I couldn't fail for this was the spectrum that which I held so dear to heart. I had learnt so much from the likes of "Victor", "Battle" and "Warlord". Even before I begun the "curriculum", I was so knowledgeable, owing so much to these stalwart comics of the seventies. Cut to the chase: I earned a Grade One with ease.

Back to Jim Watson and his "The Gladiators" features; there was so much that was not included in the school curriculum. I learnt that Adolf Hitler had another name: Shicklegruber. In my essay, during a mock examination, I mentioned this name as regards Hitler and was consequently reprimanded by my history master for he had no knowledge of "Shicklegruber"; there was no reference of it in the text books and, therefore, it was not relevant. The "curriculum" had no knowledge of it either and, therefore, any mentioning of it would, ultimately, lead to a deduction of marks. I couldn't believe it. Were I to remark on certain facts, even though they were based on facts, that were not in the "curriculum" I would actually lose points! This kind of attitude smacks of that old adage: "History is written from the victor's perspective." I wasn't a rebel then and, in the true examination, I omitted "Shicklegruber" in my essay on Hitler. I received top marks... job done... but, ffs, Shicklegruber was a genuine moniker for Hitler whatever the f**king text books say.

Again, back to Jim Watson and his "Gladiators". These features yielded so much information. Victor had those true stories on the front and rear covers. There were other true stories depicted by either strip or text in both Battle and Warlord, facts that are not relevant in the "curriculum". In the end, I learnt a helluva a lot more about those hellish wars in comics than the school "curriculum". Even in stories such as "Panzer G-Man" and "Fighter from the Sky", strips that were told from the German perspective - I learnt so much from them of which my history master could never have enlightened me. But, of course, Gerry Finley-Day had no say in the school f**king curriculum, did he?

[geoff42]

Coincidences always occur in life, don't they? I've just finished reading Battle and Valiant, cover dated 28/05/77, the last issue to feature One-Eyed Jack. Then, on Downthetubes, John Freeman exclusively announces that Rebellion are intending to publish a collected volume of Jack McBain's adventures next year. A coincidence or just an eventuality? This made me think of a strange story that my late grandfather conveyed to me many years ago. I'm still not sure whether or not it was a riddle or a moralistic tale; he wouldn't elaborate for he enjoyed the wonder of not having to explain everything. It went like this (I have extrapolated in terms of vocabulary for my grandpappy was a very broad Yorkshireman): A Coincidence rode into town and immediately saw the similarities that which were addressed from the last town where upon a two-fold declaration was unleashed upon the locals: there is gold within the nearby hills entwined with an ill-blowing wind that carries a fatal plague. The opportunistic locals who chanced their luck went to their graves very rich. A Coincidence went on to announce that here, in this town, the double-edged sword again swathes with glee. Here in this town, the locals were mindful of their neighbours and evacuated forthwith. Much later, when this town was plundered of its immense wealth and where upon it was discovered that no threat of plague had ever skirted this town, this town's judiciary apprehended Coincidence and were hellbent on abandoning him to the gallows. In defence, Coincidence smiled ruefully and stated: "I was but a victim, too. The man you want, Greed, left town many days ago." At that, Coincidence disappeared into a puff of smoke and the judiciary along with this town were left empty handed.

It's a tenuous tale to link with my coincidence as regards One-Eyed Jack, but I couldn't resist sharing that. It still bugs me; sometimes, I think I've got it, then I come up with another possible explanation. Anyway, I ain't greedy and certainly won't rob John Freeman of his exclusive. I reckon, from the credits on the sample cover: John Wagner, Gerry Finley-Day and John Cooper, that the Valiant run will be covered in this up and coming volume. If there is a second volume, then that will record McBain's run in Battle; only 96 or so pages there to reprint, so perhaps a few of the strips from the annuals and specials may see print in this second volume.

[geoff42]

The month of June in 1977 was one helluva month for Battle and Valiant. From the beginning, a brand new series almost burst the front cover, dated 4/06/77. From the creators of Major Eazy (Alan Hebden/Carlos Ezquerra) El Mestizo was spawned. As with One-Eyed Jack that ended the previous issue, this series was an incongruous addition; set during the American Civil War. Yet, this reader nodded his head approvingly in acknowledgement of Hebden's laconic, engaging approach to a script. I reckon that I will be posting about this series in the future. Blood-soaked content literally seeped from the cover date of 18/06/77. My oh my; Darkie's Mob ended as it was always meant to end... (There really isn't much that I can add to such a ground-breaking series that has not already been said except for... if you can't afford the back issues, then buy the collected volume - you will not be disappointed.) Kurt Slinger, the namesake of Panzer G-Man, went out in a blaze of glory but (and I really like this) he went out in the same way that Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid did - there was a command of "fire" but you were not supposed to see the consequences of said command, a respectful ending for a German hero. Mike Nelson, the Eagle, finally pushed his luck too far although he had the last laugh. (There will be a separate posting for this special agent for he and the artist Pat Wright deserve as such.) Whew, after so much killing, the Rat Pack also ended in this issue but were still very much alive. But, and this really says something when viewed in context as to their earlier dominance, they would not appear for another twelve months! Then, in the following issue, there were three brand new series: The Sarge, Gaunt, and Sea Wolf - more art from Pat Wright . I still keep thinking of Steve MacManus' assumption: 1977 was indeed a golden period for Battle.

[geoff42]

Democracy allowed anyone to protest, even a girl who decided to pick up a war-themed comic for boys. Yep, even she had a right to complain... didn't she Steven?

[geoff42]

And yet, Steven had a right to protest in return... that's democracy. As for the editor, I reckon that if Steven's protest affronted the "lady" in question, then the editor would not have printed the letter in the first place, would he? Heh-heh, I reckon that the canny editor was not averse to a little stirring, was he?

As a side note, the complaint from thee "lady" in question must have fallen on deaf ears, considering what occurred two weeks later in the now "infamous" issue of Battle (of which is reported in the post before last) that wantonly slaughtered its heroes with a basic view to sweep the decks. My oh my, those bristles must have struggled with so much blood. Hopefully, thee "lady" in question had abandoned this awful war-themed comic beforehand to witness such senseless killings. I think Steven would have been choking on his midget gems but, still, unrepentant.

[geoff42]

I thought about how I termed the Battle issue (cover dated 18/06/77) as "infamous", which was my definition of it for I have looked high and low on the internet and various references in printed form around this time of Battle and have been left wanting for confirmation. There isn't any. No one seems to have picked up on this "bloody" episode. David Bishop's "Blazing Battle Action" came the closet in part 2 of its series with the headline: "They Were Expendable". But little information accompanied this headline apart from a mentioning of D-Day Dawson who had bitten the dust months ago. There was a reprinted scene of the "Eagle" in his death throes but little to corroborate his passing. Had I overreacted in my term "infamous"? I was aware that heroes had died before within the pages of Battle... maybe I was making more of this particular issue than that was necessary. No, I was adamant; I hadn't seen anything like this before and consulted my back issues determinedly to prove... that this issue really did slaughter its heroes like no other. Here are the statistics from Battle No. 1 to the "infamous" issue whereby 32 series had graced its pages (not counting complete stories or a series that was made up of complete stories such as "Badge of Bravery"). "The Team That Went To War" is also a series that isn't included as it was a collection of either one-off or two-part complete stories. So, 32 series of which 7 were either ongoing or taking a break - leaving 25. Back pedal one issue before thee "infamous" one, 4 protagonists died from a total of 25 and promised a healthy survival rate of 84% for our heroes. When thee "infamous" issue arrived one week later - 7 protagonists died from a total of 25 and drastically reduced the survival rate to 62%. Yep, I was right; indeed, it was an "infamous" issue that wantonly slaughtered its heroes. Whether or not this was a coincidence that brought about so many deaths in one issue... perhaps a subversive masterstroke from the editor, letting his readers know that the world of "Battle" was radically different from the safe comfortable tales that were found in "Tiger and Scorcher". Either way, it made an impact on me nearly forty years later. INFAMOUS!

[geoff42]

After eight series, Mike Nelson (codenamed: Eagle), was shot dead in Battle's "infamous" issue, cover dated 18/06/77. The British wartime spy agent had appeared in Battle from its debut issue and had commanded a near-constant presence thereafter - a total of 102 appearances from a possible 120. These statistics would suggest that the Eagle was popular among the readers but, ultimately, not popular enough. As D-Day Dawson discovered earlier, newer characters were bolstering their reputations and casting a shadow from which longevity was no longer guaranteed.

Pat Wright's longevity was in jeopardy from the beginning. The original artist for Eagle drew the first six episodes of the inaugural series "Day of the Eagle" and then was replaced; Barrie Mitchell finished off the first series. From David Bishop's "Blazing Battle Action" article part one, the editor (Dave Hunt) explains the reasons for Barrie's intervention: "He [Pat] was more of an illustrator. The dedication he put into those pages. Pat was one of our biggest culprits for falling behind, we lost so much time. But the effort was all there on the pages."

Thankfully, Dave persevered with Pat although the second series "Death's Head Dossier" was drawn by Geoff Campion, and Pat was not to return until the long running third series "Return of the Eagle" throughout which he supplied art along with Barrie Mitchell, Bill Lacey and Vanyo. It were the last four series (including a ninth series that returned the Eagle in 1980 to depict earlier adventures) that Pat finally wrestled the character as his own, drawing every episode which suggests that Pat was able to draw more quickly by this time. Overall, Pat went on to draw well more than half of the Eagle episodes and firmly grasped his right as the "definitive" Eagle artist.

Pat's life-like, almost photographic, lines were wondrous to behold, even disturbing as they afforded a realism that could sometimes prove too real. His drawings of Himmler were incredible to the point that the reader could be forgiven for believing that Pat must have simply placed tracing paper over a photograph of Hitler's deputy to achieve such quality. However there is a potential double-edged sword with this type of art, the danger of presenting a static-feel to the strip - a struggle to maintain a degree of fluidity, especially in scenes that require action. There was also an element within the strip, engendered purely from Pat's art, that could make the reader feel cold and, perhaps, alienated. Yet, I appreciated this "subverted" quality; it complemented the cold world of espionage against which the aloof, ruthless Eagle fought.

When the Eagle met his demise, Hitler was dead and the war had ended. So, really, there wasn't anywhere else to go for the Eagle, was there? Perhaps an older, wiser Eagle could have returned during the "Cold War" to trouble the Russians. Pat's art would definitely have embraced this type of setting. Yet, were the readers eager for more Eagle? Unlike, Major Eazy, he exuded no charisma; unlike Johnny Red, he offered no rousing cry to rally those around him; unlike the Bootneck Boy, he lacked charm; unlike most members of Darkie's Mob, his death was a dispassionate one. Another possible thorn in the Eagle's talons was how the series developed. The early simplistic missions gave way to more espionage-driven stories and, thus, a complex narrative inevitably ensued - too contrived for a ten year old boy to truly grasp. Pitted against the likes of Major Eazy, Johnny Red, Joe Two Beans and the Bootneck Boy, the Eagle and its heavy text as regards caption boxes might have seemed a bit dull for a young boy. A shame as an older, discerning reader would have approved this change in storytelling.

[Lew Stringer]

I've only skimmed through your posts about Battle, Geoff, as I want to avoid spoilers, but it's good to know you're really enjoying them. I too bought a load of early Battles this year. (The run from No.1 up to the merger with Valiant, and then a run from April 1977 to April '78.) Haven't had time to read them yet as I'm reading through a complete year of Misty (1979) that I bought.

(And still wading through a complete set of Scorcher, but the less said about those the better.)

The mid to late 1970s really was a great time for IPC comics. The new wave of 'grittier' comics came along just at the right time as the older titles were looking very tired by then. Although I regularly bought 2000AD, Action, and Starlord back then I didn't really appreciate how good Battle and Misty were at the time. I avoided Battle because I didn't like war comics, and I didn't buy Misty because, well, I was a 20 year old bloke and it was bad enough fending off sneers about buying any comics, never mind ones aimed at girls.

I didn't buy Battle regularly until after Charley's War started, so I missed a lot of good stuff I'll now be able to catch up on. Truth be told, it didn't cost a great deal to buy them second hand, and each one worked out less than a modern comic. (Some of them far less.)