As the Golden Age of superheroes came to an end, Mort Weisinger was able to save some of his "creations" (he was famous for his knock-offs of successful characters) by shoehorning them into back-up stories in his Superman family of titles. Johnny Quick and the Vigilante lasted until the end of 1954 and then were left behind by Weisinger's Aquaman and Green Arrow.

If Weisinger had kept Johnny Quick and canned GA or the VIg, would Schwartz and Infantino have gone ahead with a new Flash? Or would the presence of a current speed hero in the DC Universe pushed them towards giving a new Green Lantern a tryout in Showcase #4?

And if Johnny Quick had taken off in the late 50's as Barry Allen did, what would his Kid Flash look like? (Since Wally's yellow and red outfit aped Johnny Quick more than Barry.)

Johnny Quick could have altered the course of comic book history....but then, we'd probably live in a world where we were all complaining about Monster Comics having become stale in the face of the shrinking marketplace, etc.

On the plus side, Joe Quesada would probably have grown up to become a janitor at DC, instead of the ruination of Marvel.

I think something very similar would've happened regardless. We mightn't have got the whole Marvel thing, and things may have panned out differently in some of the details, but I think superheroes would've been 'reborn' regardless. If not The Flash, then they would've revived The Atom, or something, because the timing was right. Carmine and Julius were onto something, and they knew it.

Or, as you say, GL would've been the breakthrough character. But it still would've worked out pretty much the same, I think/feel/believe.

What did Silver Age DC bring to the table in terms of new ideas (a genuine question, not a challenge)?

Was it just the same formula used for superheroes in the Golden Age except with crisp new designs and art thanks to Infantino and company?

Julie Schwartz injected a Sci-Fi flavor that build on what was there in the concept of the superhero.

This. They were already trying sci-fi comics here and there. Julie mixed the hot genre of the day with the almost outdated superhero concept. They also added science fact along with their science fiction. They were stretching it at points, but it made kids believe that their heroes were a bit more real and a little less magical.

I think that Marvel went a slightly different route. Their heroes were more fantastic and were more science fiction than fact.

Could you expand on this? The Flash and Green Lantern don't seem to be based on science fact to me, but I haven't read those stories and my knowledge of science is pretty weak compared to many on the board.

Also, what do you mean by sci-fi flavor? I thought the Golden Age heroes seemed to have a heavy sci-fi thing going on -- Superman was an alien and based on evolution at first, then gravity, then solar radiation... Captain America was created by a serum, the Flash was created by chemical vapors, the Human Torch was an android, etc. I might be missing your point though... do you mean more of a focus on outer space?

The Golden Age characters and stories tended to be more mystical and whimsical in nature. Although there were, as you said, aliens and secret serums (and robots, and weird inventions), the stories were less based on (pseudo) science, or any defined 'set of rules'. Stuff just happened.

Schwartz created a veneer of believability that made people feel like what they were reading was at least possible, even if it was unlikely.

The Golden Age heroes were still pulp-like with more outlandish costumes. Some of them derived their powers from what were basically steroids like Cap or Hourman, but many were simple "Mystery Men", barely more powerful than a regular human. Green Lantern and the Spectre were magic, and Namor was from a fantasy kingdom. If you want to poke holes to it by bringing robots like the Torch, be my guest, but those were in the minority. Superman's origin was more mythological that science fictional until the Silver Age started.

With the Flash, the horizons expanded way beyond the power levels and scope of those earlier heroes. Green Lantern was a Space Cop, whose adventures with the Corps featured heavily, as were Hawkman's Thanagarian origins. The Atom was powered by a Dwarf Star and being Kryptonian finally meant something to Superman.

And you could argue that by doing so, the moved the dial forward a bit too much, and when Marvel dialed it back a notch they found the perfect spot.

I think they were all groping in the dark, trying to see what worked and what didn't. If something sold, then the big two just went for broke.

Look at how many Kung-Fu comics were around in the 70's - they just responded to current fads. Certain ideas/formulas had longevity, others didn't.

Robert Swanderson has been trying to discover that growth-promoting radiation ever since he read that comic as a youngster. His quest continues.

In which case, given how current comics sales are apparently lagging, could we be on the cusp of a new golden/silver age?

Possibly. It seems to be the case that things get into a rut, sales slump, and then the publishers start trying out a bunch of different stuff to see what 'takes'. It's one of those cyclic things.

Certainly, given the current situation, it seems that there's the potential for some good ideas to take shape in the near future. The big two had been pretty stagnant for a pretty long time.

Depends on the current trends. The space race and the atomic age gave us science based heroes that lasted for a few decades. Disco and breakdancing heroes didn't fare as well in the 80's.

Have we learned nothing from Alan Moore? Surely the big two can see that the Pirate genre will be the saviour of the medium? It makes perfect sense.

Why do you think Nick Fury has an eye patch?

Of course! The clues were there all along, for those who cared to look.

Sorry if it feels like I'm trying to "poke holes" -- it's not really my intent to "disprove" what you're saying, I'm just throwing out my own viewpoints and way I see the medium.

I'm trying to work on my posting style as I guess it comes across as argumentative and "trying to win" when it comes to expressing opinions and stuff -- I honestly just like topics like this, expecially ones focused on the history of the medium and genre -- I want to be more in the "wishing to discuss different perspectives and see what others think" vein when I post a view that is counter to what someone's just written.

I don't want to "win" or make you chance your mind, I just want to shoot out my reactions to what your saying and see what you think about them. I hope to be more in the "discussion" side of things rather than the "debate/argument" side. I want to move away from being "Hanzbrenner" and more of a "let's shoot the shit about long underwear heroes" type dude. I'm trying to dial down the snark and such -- so bear with me.


That's interesting because I tend to view it as quite the opposite (unless I'm misreading what you mean by "mythical". When Superman was created, he was based on the idea of a human being being highly evolved, so much so that they seemed superhuman -- I think of what a person in the year 200 AD, back when the average male height was 5 feet tall or whatever, might think when they see a person like Brock Lesnar or Dwayne Johnson -- they'd probably seem like gods in their size, strength and speed. (In fact, an alternative origin considered was having Superman's father as the last man on Earth and sending his son back via time machine to the 20th century to give him a chance at life as the human race goes extinct.)

It's rather fantastic but it does use some scienctific concept to create the rationale of a person having powers. Then they moved the Krypton having stronger gravity and atmospheric conditions creating unusual density -- again, fantastic but using science, however loosely interpreted, as the foundation of having powers.

You move then to the "yellow sun" which uses radiation but it's probably the most fantastic origin yet. And when you consider the kinds of stories, with flying dogs, Planet Krypton's fire-falls and unusual fauna, statues being raised in Superman's honor, the intergalactic zoo with animals a step removed from the griffin or unicorn, the many kinds of Kryptonite... I tend to view the Weisiner era as beign the most fantasy and mythologically oriented era of Superman ever, with "science" acting as a thinly veiled substitute for magic.



That's true, they did seem to be a bit more ambitious in their concepts and villains... the Golden Age seems to be the age of bank robbers, Nazi saboteurs and movie-serial mad scientists with generic robots or whatever. They seemed close to "world-building" in the Silver Age than the Golden Age, for sure... the only thing that springs to mind like that from the earlier eras is Fawcett's Captain Marvel and the Flash Gordon strips.

My short answer to the question posed by the title of this thread is just "No - Johnny Quick couldn't have prevented the silver age".

I think the time was right and the readership ready for those kinds of stories. If the timing had been wrong, or the readers not ready, then things would've tanked pretty quickly. Clearly, the silver age (in my view) was 'supposed' to work out the way it did.

It need not have been Showcase #4, or The Flash, that kicked it off - but something similar would have done the trick. Things would've headed in a similar direction, thanks to the temper of the times and the people who were involved in the silver age's greatest moments. All those guys were science fiction fans, and all of them wanted to make a buck in their chosen profession, so I honestly think that things were going to wind up very much as they have done whatever else happened.