Here's the cover of LOIS LANE # 50 (DC Comics, Cover Date: July, 1964), with Lois acting as our issue's VILLAIN (...as characters in Silver Age DC Comics were often wont to do)!
Ah, but WHAT is it that makes Lois the villain? Depends on WHEN you ask!
If you were to ask that question in 1964, it would be her extreme jealously toward Lana Lang, wanting to (as the thought balloon says) "wreck her romance"!
Why the TITLE EVEN TELLS YOU she's "plotting against poor, innocent, teen-age Lana"!
But NOW, you have Jerry Springer, Dr. Phil, and a host of reality-competition shows like "The Bachelor" that showcase, if not outright promote, the underhandedly destructive aspects of "romance"! Today, folks even cheer-on such bad behavior - or go WHOOP-WHOOP just to make their sorry-studio-audience-selves heard!
That would NEVER happen in 1964!
Just look at that diabolical fur-wearing expression! She relishes every stitch of that coat!
Not unlike Cruella De Vil, who was really only regarded as a villain because she wanted a coat made from CUTE LITTLE PUPPIES! If her desires were merely for mink or fox, as Lois appears to be sporting, Cruella would be kinda okay by 1964 standards! Even her chain smoking was sorta normal!
But, today, Lois would clearly be a villain due to her choice of attire! ...And, I can't say I disagree!
Look out, Li'l Fox! Big bad Lois is after you!
...Even if you were just an innocent bystander!
It's a good thing this didn't happen to CLARK KENT, with Lois' fur coat...
...One bite might have exposed him as Superman...
 |
| (...At least her COAT is made of CLOTH!) |
...or worse, just plain "exposed him" to something like this!
YEOW!
Note that, even here, "Villain Lois" is wearing fur!
Note that, even here, "Villain Lois" is wearing fur!
7 comments:
In the Silver Age, Lois often came across as conniving and manipulative. She was constantly scheming to find out Superman's secret identity, or to entrap him into marrying her.
Some of her schemes would have scared Luthor and Brainiac. At times, she seemed more criminally insane than the Joker and Riddler combined.
Couldn’t agree with you more, TC!
That’s why I even hinted that she might send an anthrax laced letter to Lana Lang in THIS POST!
In a way, that’s what made her compelling in those less-enlightened days.
Of course, Lana Lang was just as bad, and the two of them played off each other like a higher (perhaps even deadly) stakes version of Betty and Veronica! They were also not above teaming-up temporarily, when a new romantic interloper might read her head!
And, to perfectly complete the triangle, Clark/Superman would be just as cunning and manipulative to thwart their schemes, and keep them at bay. Is there a more perfect example of this than The Baby Lois Story? No spoilers for those who haven’t read it – but it is GREAT!
You can check out it’s reprint in this less expensive issue or, in daily comic strip form in the more recent hardcover volume “Superman the Silver Age Dailies: 1959-1961”, from my former employer IDW! That book is REALLY a gem!
As comics in general have become so dark, crushingly continuity heavy, and even (…as is sometimes applicable) grotesque, I find myself enjoying these “cutthroat love stories” far more than when I read them ages ago!
I guess furs DO have quite a "bite" in our time, even more so than on the cover of "Flintstones" #39! Great issue! The second instance of a reprinted cover, after the previous issue #38, and the second time the contents of a "Flintstones" book contained largely reprinted material. These stories were new to me when I first came across them in this issue. I had no idea that the lead story was taken from the very first Flintstones comic book, nor that the second story was reprinted from the Dell "Comic Album." The backup "Gruesomes" story was delightful when I first read it, and it retains its delight for me to this day. I would have liked to see "The Gruesomes" become a regular backup feature in "The Flintstones" comic book but at least they had a haunted home for a while in the pages of "Cave Kids." The final panel of the last story puzzled me, however, because Barney remarks to Fred that the only ones in their home are Fred and Wilma. I wondered why he neglected to mention Pebbles. Of course, now I realize, as I eventually did then, that the story predated her arrival. All in all, one of my all-time favorite Flintstones issues, and of course you knew I was going to comment on it, didn't you?
But regarding Lois...it sure looks as though the objective of the writers was in getting Lois to behave as far out of character as possible. Or maybe being out of character actually WAS in character for her in those days! She seems quite maniacal in her quest to harm Lana, and of course the fur coat is highly symbolic...if she can kill once (or at any rate participate in a mercenary killing through the cold-blooded purchase of a dead animal skin), she can kill again. It would appear the "Lois Lane" title had a strong tendency toward whackiness. So for me these covers beg the question...what kind of audience were the publishers targeting? Furthermore, who were the readers who were actually buying the book? They must have been considerable for the book to sustain the long run that it did.
Actually, Cruella's name is just plain De Vil, rather than the more cleverly-disguised “DeVille” form you propose.
Fun fact, in the original French translation of the book (but not the movie), her name was changed to a German one, to better emphasize that she was the villain; she was known as Kruella Von Teufel. (Anyone guess what “Teufel” means in German? One guess, guess who.) For whatever reason, this change was carried over the junior novelization of the Disney film, even as the film itself instead changed her name to Cruella d'Enfer (Cruella De Hell).
While we're talking French Cruella localization, by the way, the impossibly catchy song is known round these parts not as Cruella d'Enfer, but as Cruelle diablesse (“Cruel demoness”). This actually makes a lot more sense; from the English version where it keeps insulting her by name, it's hard to see how Cruella could possibly have let it slide and not sued for slander, whereas when the lyrics merely suggest her name very strongly without actually saying it, she'd be powerless.
Scarecrow:
Regarding the reprints beginning in Gold Key’s FLINTSTONES title at the beginning of 1967, you may notice that the same thing occurred with the Yogi Bear title. Six pages of new story (on average), the rest being reprinted material from earlier in the decade. The Jetsons, Top Cat, and Huckleberry Hound titles were suspended, then returned as ALL REPRINT (with some brief exceptions for Huckleberry Hound) until those titled ended in mid-1970.
Only THE FLINTSTONES had semi-regular all new issues during the period of 1967-1970.
On a purely personal note, this was my first instance of seeing reprint material that I *already had* in original form – and I didn’t like it! The reprints in BUGS BUNNY, WOODY WOODPECKER, and MICKEY MOUSE, for instance, dated back to the early-to-mid 1950s (and, thus, were “new to me”), but THIS STUFF was only a few years old, because Hanna-Barbera didn’t have the long history the other studios had with Western Publishing!
I’ve always wondered if the sudden lack of large amounts of new Hanna-Barbera comic book material from Western Publishing (Dell and later Gold Key, to any “civilians” who might be reading this) is what lead to the classic H-B character license being shifted to Charlton by 1970!
Regardless, and I’m really digressing from Lois Lane here, something happened at Western that reduced the amount of new material being produced by 1967! That’s why we got that wretched “Gold Key Comics Club” carving-out SIX PAGES that were formerly used for story content – in ALL titles! …It’s just another of those things that we’ll never really know the reasons for!
To be fair, DC also began adding reprints to the mix as the 1960s wore on. But, DC’s reprints (since so many of their earlier stories were of a short length) were the BACKUPS, with the majority of the issue being devoted to longer new stories – oddly the converse of Gold Key!
I’LL BREAK THE COMMENT HERE, BECAUSE GOOGLE SAYS I MUST!
WELCOME BACK! CONTINUING THE PREVIOUS COMMENT…
Back to Lois, if you disregard the television depiction of Lois on THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN, this sort of thing actually WAS “in-character” for her. Though the TV series was so popular, and so pervasive a part of our culture, that it’s easy to see why it might be considered otherwise! Noel Neill would never do things like that!
Then again, the “animated Donald Duck” wasn’t exactly one of our greatest adventurers either, was he? Comics, especially “back then” (whatever that might mean), created their own worlds, that seemed to best suit their readership.
Thus, Lois and Lana Lang mirrored the popular Betty and Veronica – though neither one was “sweet” like Betty.
Pretty much ALL of Silver Age DC had (as you say) “ a strong tendency toward whackiness.” I believe this was the result of the early 1950s hysteria over comic books (So how did the intervening decades turn out, you misguided bunch o’ do-gooders?), the Comics Code Authority, and all that! But, making lemonade from lemons, at least DC made it FUN to read!
My guess is that the LOIS LANE title served at least two constituencies… those who bought it along with ACTION, JIMMY OLSEN, SUPERBOY, and WORLD’S FINEST, because it was part of the “Superman Family” … and girls who appreciated seeing a female lead character, even if Superman often came to her rescue. Tapping into the Betty and Veronica base.
While she may have directed too much of her energies toward becoming “Mrs. Superman”, Lois was still depicted as smart (if not outright cunning and calculating), brave, and determined. And, as the decades – and our overall awareness – advanced, those qualities served her well as she evolved into a heroic, crusading adventurer in her own right.
Indeed, in LOIS LANE # 80 (Cover Date: January, 1968), she even destroys the “Superman’s Girl Friend…” part of her logo to make the point!
The overall run of the title could be seen as our changing society in micro-comics-cosm …If you’ll permit me to create such a nicely alliterative and descriptive phrase!
Achille:
Consider the Cruella correction… um, corrected!
Clearly, I must have been thinking of the Cadillac De Ville – a car Cruella, no doubt, would have driven with dalmatian-puppy-skin-seats, rather than “rich Corinthian leather” (as Ricardo Montalban used to say in those car commercials)!
“(Anyone guess what “Teufel” means in German? One guess, guess who.)”
Pleased to meet you… Hope you guess my name!
I studied German in grade school, high school, and college – and am married to the daughter of immigrants from Germany and Austria… so I’m gonna take a wild guess and say… “The Devil”!
A very clever localization, indeed! So, where were the complainers on deviating from “The Original”? …Oh, wait, no Internet! Ah, the good old days!
Post a Comment