for my laugh of the morning...

McGloughlin could have taught the folks at Marvel (and especially the folks at DC) in the '60s and '70s a thing or two about simplicity and concision.

and that sir, is blasphemy.

This art is pretty good for the period. Not EC good, but nice work.

Heretic!

The color plates are well done. Maybe not spectacular art, but not mediocre by any standard. I would compare the line work to that of Reed Crandall. Very professional but not overly stylized. The writing is not dumbed down for kids either. A very enjoyable book.

especially for that period. And yes it isn't like some of those you've posted that are easy to make fun of.
I was just reacting to the back hand dissing of the likes of Kirby, Buscema, Romita and Colan, not to mention Steranko and Adams.

The American style did tend to be more cartoony rather than straight forward. There were definitely some good practitioners of the art, but it often became more about the art than the story. DC of course suffered from poor stories, IMHO. I've been finding the British produced comics to be more story oriented. This is also reinforced by the preponderance of text with illustrations in British story comics.

it was a bit of faux outrage on my part.