InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "It's alright."

dr_hermes (dr_hermes) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-03-14 23:12:00

Entry tags:

era: golden age

Why use a good name only once? (and today's mystery photo)

This is Alex Schomburg's cover for MYSTIC COMICS# 6, October 1940. The Destroyer was fairly successful for a Timely character (their big three of the Human Torch, Captain America and Sub-Mariner overshadowed any other heroes in sheer exposure). The Destroyer was American war correspondent Keen Barlowe, who had been given a variation of a super-soldier serum and went on to fight as a saboteur in Germany itself. The striped pants are debatable as a fashion statement but the full-face mask is a nice eerie touch. Roy Thomas re-introduced him in the 1970s series THE INVADERS and I think he's been revised and tweaked any number of times since then. But why use a good name once when you can hitch it up to the wagon a few more times? In addition to this character, Marvel has also had a Destroyer who was an obscure mediocre villain from an early Human Torch story in STRANGE TALES, an animate suit of super-powered armor created by Odin, a revenant monomaniac created by Jim Starlin to harass Thanos (and thus being a sort of lesser-Orion to the lesser-Darkseid). But if you ask your average fan of adventure stories about the Destroyer, you are most likely to get a reference to the very good series of paperback novels started by Warren Murphy and Richard Sapir back in 1963 and still being published. Oh, and someone might mention the KISS album too, you never know.

This author wrote the stories of a famous character who is not originally from comics but who has been published by a half-dozen comics companies.

(Post a new comment)

	volksjager 2009-03-14 10:17 pm UTC (link)
	I have alway thought the Destroyer was cool. Would love to see the Invaders second string get a good treatment:) (Reply to this)

	perletwo 2009-03-15 01:50 am UTC (link)
	Robert E. Howard, creator of Conan? (Though the best-known photo of him I can find is of him as a young man, looking rather like Paul Muni...) (Reply to this) (Thread)

	dr_hermes 2009-03-15 03:19 am UTC (link)
	No, sorry. they were both pulp writers, though. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	ebailey140 2009-03-15 03:23 am UTC (link)
	How about Doc Savage creator Lester Dent? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	dr_hermes 2009-03-15 03:35 pm UTC (link)
	It is indeed. After the pulps folded, Dent returned to Missouri to manage the family ranch. I always thought it a bit sad that Lester Dent died in 1959 and couldn't have known that (just a few years later) Bantam would start reprinting Doc Savage as a successful series of paperbacks. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	saralakali 2009-03-15 11:50 am UTC (link)
	Walter B. Gibson? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	dr_hermes 2009-03-15 03:42 pm UTC (link)
	Not Gibson. I do have a few pictures of him taken many decades apart, and it'd be interesting to compare them side by side. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	tahngarth 2009-03-15 01:05 pm UTC (link)
	There's a common belief that the Destroyer was one of Stan Lee's creation, although nobody can tell anymore, least of anyone Stan, whose memory has been spotty for decades. Nonetheless he was one of Marvel's really successful second-stringers during the forties, whereas a lot of other characters made 1-5 appearances in total. Also, isn't it "Keen Marlow/Marlowe"? (Reply to this) (Thread)

dr_hermes
2009-03-15 03:40 pm UTC (link)

I think you're right, the secret identity was "Marlow" or "Marlowe." My usual exhaustive research consists of scratching my head for a second and going, "Sounds right."

It's too bad in a way that Torch/Cap/Namor dominate Timely so thoroughly. The Destroyer could have benefitted from a title of his own, as could the Vision and a few other promising second bananas.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

tahngarth
2009-03-15 07:35 pm UTC (link)

The main problem they had (and this is sort of a recurring theme for Marvel) is that the real top talent departed the company who started filling their shoes with somewhat less skilled creators doing the same characters. The war draft for WWII was the main reason back then, of course, but Simon and Kirby were baited off by National/DC, leaving brilliant strips like Cap, Vision, Mercury/Hurricane, Tuk to the hands of the lesser lights that Martin Goodman could reel in.

I mean, Syd Shores was an okay artist, but he was not Kirby, you know?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

psychop_rex
2009-03-16 01:21 am UTC (link)

I kinda like the striped pants - they give him an interesting Renaissance-esque sort of vibe. Anyway, the important thing is that they are immediately identifiable, which is important in a costume. Most of the other details have been done multiple times - there's the skull logo, the spooky mask, the grey shirt, the red boots and gloves - they've all been done, but there are precious few other characters who have red-and-blue striped tights. You see those, you think 'ah - this guy's the Destroyer, all right.'

(Reply to this) (Thread)

dr_hermes
2009-03-16 08:24 am UTC (link)

That's a good point. The bright colors, capes, masks and insignias all served a useful function. The goal (until recently) was for quick decisive recognition of the characters. That's why they tended to wear the same civilian clothes and props nearly all the time, whether a bow tie or a fedora at an a angle or a cigar stuck in the corner of the mouth. This seems to have been played down over the years, with more natural, muted colors, to the point where comics have actually become a bit drab.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

psychop_rex
2009-03-16 03:21 pm UTC (link)

I don't think it's so much the colors as the designs. Bright colors help, absolutely, and there certainly have been less of them in recent years, which is a shame, but if you changed the red and blue stripes to black and white ones and the red gloves and boots to brown, he would still be recognizably the Destroyer - just muted a bit. Batman's costume has never been terribly colorful, even during all those years his cape was colored blue instead of black, but he has one of the most distinctive designs in comics, so it hardly matters. The Hulk has been green, grey and now red, and he's worn all sorts of outfits besides the classic purple pants, but through it all, he's still been easily recognized as the Hulk. The problem is not so much the colors, it's the fact that popular designs tend to get blatantly copied over and over again, so eventually (as in certain points in the '80's) everyone is running around with Wolverine's hair, Batman's gloves, Cable's arms and the Punisher's guns, and it's hard to recognize anybody. Either that, or they go the opposite route, and opt for plain, unornamented jumpsuits, which makes things even worse. A distinctive design can really help a character, simply because it elevates them above the crowd.

(Reply to this) (Parent)