Simply the Best: Kryptonite Nevermore!

One of the first things you learn as you move up the ladder from "comic book reader" to "comic book collector" is that comics history is broken down into distinct categories, or "ages".  The Golden Age began in 1938 with Action Comics #1 (you may have heard of it) and extended well into the 1950's. The Silver Age began in 1956 with DC's Showcase #4 (featuring a reimagined Flash character) and reinforced by Marvels's Fantastic Four #1 (1961).  The Bronze Age began in...well...that one's a little tougher to establish.  Generally understood to run from the early 1970's through the mid-80's, the Bronze Age doesn't have a specific "Genesis Moment" to announce its coming, though there were definite characters and trends collectors point to as indicators.

However, when it comes to Superman, the beginning of his Bronze Age phase was as obvious as an exploding atom bomb with the cover of Superman #233 (1971):

Okay, it's not like I have to convince you that this is a great cover (it should be obvious to anyone with a pulse)...but indulge me in a few observations:

1.  Arguably the first "rock star" comic book creator, Neal Adams had already illustrated dozens (if not hundreds) of DC covers by this time (including Superman covers), but this one seems to stand out from all the rest. In fact, it might even be the most powerful and memorable cover of his entire career. Adams' deceptively simple image of Superman is actually employing some very complex proportion and perspective tricks very few artists can pull off.  For example, Superman's left foot and leg are much bigger than they should "actually" be, but the distortion gives the illustion of a lower camera angle, making Superman seem larger and even more imposing.

Plus, can't you just hear those chains exploding into shrapnel?

2. Speaking of chains, not to take anything away from Adams, but you can never go wrong with Superman busting out of chains. The iconic image has a pedigree going all the way back to Superman's earliest promo art, such as the seal for the "Supermen of America" fan club. Adams seems to acknowledge the roots of the image by giving Superman's face the somwhat squintier eyes and cheek line/dimple of Joe Shuster's Golden Age Superman. This nod to Superman's (then) 30+ years of history might have been reassuring in the midst of so much change and "social relevance" entering that era's comics.

 

3.  Note the clever (borderline sneaky) use of the big number "1" in the upper-right corner. Although this was technically issue #233, it's clear that DC Comics wanted to give the impression this was a new beginning (which it was), and nothing says "new" like a #1 issue (well, unless you count the prominent "NEW" along the top edge).  Sure, the "Number 1" was referring to it's status as the Best-Selling Comics Magazine, but the size of the number makes the context almost irrelevant. It might as well have said "Number 1 Character Wearing a Red Cape".  What matters is that attention-grabbing "Number 1", which reinforced that this was a title with something new and exciting going on.

4. Other touches confirm the undeniable influence of crosstown rival Marvel Comics. Known for their flashy, hyper-dramatic covers, Marvel had spent most of the 1960's eating into DC's once-dominant market share...to the point where DC had no choice but to ape their style. Those explosive "burst" lines, the upper-left corner art of Superman, and the pseudo-literate "Kryptonite Nevermore!" blurb had Stan Lee's fingerprints all over them.  Add to that the conspicuous absense of the round "National-DC Comics" corner logo, and it becomes clear that DC Comics was trying hard to...well...not look like DC Comics!

5. Far too often, the inside story doesn't live up to the promise of a great cover...but that's not the case here....which makes the cover all the more special. Making a big splash as the successor to Mort Weisinger, editor Julius Schwartz introduced some major changes to the Superman titles. The artwork of Curt Swan (the only holdover from the Weisinger era) seemed much more dynamic...even cinematic, made even moreso by the addition of inker Murphy Anderson. Clark Kent was now a TV anchorman instead of a newspaper reporter...and Kryptonite, as the cover stated, was indeed NO MORE (following the explosion of an experimental Kryptonite-powered engine). Ending with the creation of an interesting new foe (the eerie "Sand Superman"), the story really did close the deal on the cover's claim that "Amazing New Adventures" were on the way.

Comments

[meng]

Great issue!

i always remember the panels with Superman eating the now inert Kryptonite as a (slightly bland) snack.

i recently read Neal Adams' comments that he wasn't as jazzed about the cover as many of us are. he didnt think the pose/angle was as dynamic as it could have been and the way the chains were breaking was unrealistic.

which he seemed to address in his third take on the cover, Action 485, which reprinted the story and where i first read it:

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/breaking-chains/action485-tb.html

those "power" lines from the original do really add something to it, though.

btw, here's the second take:
http://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/breaking-chains/sup-record-tb.html

[Mark Engblom]

"i recently read Neal Adams' comments that he wasn't as jazzed about the cover as many of us are. he didnt think the pose/angle was as dynamic as it could have been and the way the chains were breaking was unrealistic."

Yeah, because we ALL know what chains breaking from around an expanding chest is supposed to look like.

You know, God bless Neal Adams, but I've always liked his art far more than his attitude. I can rarely get through an Adams interview without generous amounts of eye-rolling.

[Paul McCall]

Nah, I like his one better than #485. I can still recall buying that issue when I was in high school. The local main street book store in Florence, AL had started carrying comics on a spinner rack and that was the first comic (perhaps the only comic) I bought there. My usual comic outlet was a large drugstore a couple of blocks away from main street that displayed the comics on a large wooden rack with the magazines. (It helped that there was a broken parking meter there where I could park free!)

[Thomas Aylesworth]

This was absolutely my favorite era of Superman. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the "everyone loves the comics that came out when they were 10" rule, but I still love going back and reading my 1970s Superman and Action Comics. I didn't start collecting until later in the 70s so I've only read this one as a trade. But that entire period was a lot of fun. WGBH, Morgan Edge, Steve Lombard, and the return of Lana Lang. Great stuff!

[Brian]

Denny O'Neil's Superman was pretty interesting, wasn't it? It sometimes gets overlooked in his interviews, when everyone wants to talk about Batman (and understandably so), but I think the Supes stuff is way underrated.

[Mark Engblom]

"Denny O'Neil's Superman was pretty interesting, wasn't it?"

I think because O'Neil wasn't coming to the character with much enthusiasm (he's written it wasn't exactly his dream assignment), he was able to explore some different areas others might not have thought of...and I liked that aspect of his run. However, some of it really lost me (like the I-Ching stuff, Billy Anders and his magic Lynx, and how he seemed to plant the seeds for the "Whiney Superman" we've seen so much of in modern times)...so on balance, O'Neil's run is kind of a wash for me.

[Dan McFan]

This cover is like vanilla ice cream, nothing special, just plain old Supe breaking out of some chains with a look on his face that says "Whats for dinner, honey?". No clenched teeth, no Tiger Woods-like yell, no soul, you know? Adams was good penciling action scenes but his drawings don't convey emotion very well.

DC may have been trying not to look like DC but, like vanilla ice cream, its always going to be pretty much same old same old.

[Scott Edelman]

While I agree that Superman #233 was a great cover, I think that the cover Adams will be most remembered for is instead Green Lantern #76.

[Brian]

I think because O'Neil wasn't coming to the character with much enthusiasm (he's written it wasn't exactly his dream assignment), he was able to explore some different areas others might not have thought of...and I liked that aspect of his run. However, some of it really lost me (like the I-Ching stuff, Billy Anders and his magic Lynx, and how he seemed to plant the seeds for the "Whiney Superman" we've seen so much of in modern times)...so on balance, O'Neil's run is kind of a wash for me.

Fair enough-- you know a lot more about superman than I, so your take on his run is probably better contextualized. But I do think- -even if it's not the classic batman or question material-- that you're right to note the advantages an "outsider" (i.e., someone not super-fannish about the character) can bring to the book: he/she can almost act as an editor without the emotional investments a more obsessive writer brings to a book (there are definite advantages to each approach), and I do think that O'Neil is sometimes underrated in comics histories-- I don't love all of his stuff, and I can see flaws in even the stuff I do love, but as a writer, editor, and teacher, he was an important influence on that 70s/80s generation of artists and writers, and I have a lot of affection for his stuff.

I was really taken with your take on his work, and I think the equivalent for me (in terms of being a big fan of a character, and having mixed feelings about a writer's work on it) is O'Neil's run on Iron Man, which I blogged about a bit here (shameless Stan Lee-like plug (:).

[Mark Engblom]

Wow! What a well-written take on Denny O'Neil, Brian! I can never get over how much better comics journalism is out here in Blog Land than it is on the so-called "official" sites or (formerly) the magazines.

Great work!