NOTE

Monday, January 17, 2022

INVADERS #17

"THE MAKING OF WARRIOR WOMAN, 1942!"
Writer/Editor: Roy Thomas | Illustrators: Frank Robbins & Frank Springer
Colorist: George Roussos | Letterer: John Costanza

The Plot: Hitler and Master Man gloat over the imprisoned Invaders, then depart. Meanwhile, Private Biljo White is interrogated by the woman he once knew as Julia, but who now identifies herslef as Madame Ratzel. When Ratzel hypnotizes him, White tells her that he grew up with a man who is now a government scientist, and who told him that one of the key ingredients in the Super Soldier Serum is potassium.

Realizing this was the one ingredient Brain Drain lacked when he created Master Man, Ratzel quickly sets about creating a new serum. But she is interrupted by a Captain Schneider, who realizes she plans to test the serum on herself. Schneider tries to stop her, and in the ensuing struggle, Ratzel's machinery explodes. Schneider is killed, while Ratzel is empowered with superhuman strength.

The Invaders manage to free themselves and confront Hitler and Master Man on the ramparts of Hitler's fortress. But when Ratzel arrives, calling herself Kriegerfrau -- "Warrior Woman" -- the heroes once again fall. Captain America is hurled off the castle, and the rest of the team is recaptured.

Continuity Notes: Though we last saw Master Man in GIANT-SIZE INVADERS #1, Master Man suggests that he battled and was imprisoned by the Liberty Legion between that issue and this one. Though there is a footnote to G-S #1 when Cap recalls defeating Master Man the first time they met, the Liberty Legion encounter goes bizarrely without any reference. However some quick research reveals that Master Man was defeated by the Legion and a time-traveling Thing in MARVEL TWO-IN-ONE ANNUAL #1 and MTIO #20.
This little moment lampshades something I've mentioned several times before while reading this series: Roy Thomas is really weird about what he chooses and does not choose to footnote. It's almost totally arbitrary; you'll get huge recaps of previous issues with no footnote, then you'll get several footnotes about old comics from the forties. Or sometimes you won't get footnotes to the Golden Age, but you will get them to just the previous month's issue. None of it makes any sense. Either provide references for everything or for nothing -- but don't pick and choose at random!

Master Man also notes that since he was re-empowered after GIANT-SIZE INVADERS #1, he is stronger than ever before.

Speaking of huge recaps of previous issues -- Captain America spends a full two pages of this seventeen-page story recalling the events of last month's seventeen-page story (without a footnote, naturally).
As the Invaders charge into battle, Cap once again wonders what's become of Spitfire.
(Trying to figure out if "This way, folks -- to capture Adolf Hitler!" is a more elegant battle cry than "Okay, Axis -- here we come!" I kind of think it is. It's certainly not any worse.)

My Thoughts: Okay, so it turns out this is a three (or more?)-part story. And that's probably why I felt the first chapter was stronger than expected. My experience with comis is that the vast majority of the time, three-parters suffer from "middle chapter syndrome", where not a lot happens. Now, to be sure, something does happen here: the creation of Warrior Woman. But in the meantime, we get a few pages of Hitler ranting at the Invaders, doing nothing to move the story along, two pages of recap, and a fight which ends with the Invaders back exactly where they were when the issue started -- captured by the Nazis! (The only difference being that this time, Captain America is free, which I'm sure will play into the next chapter somehow).

Now I say this without knowing what will happen in the next installment, but as it stands now, I feel like there's a lot of padding in this one. We could've cut some of the Hitler stuff, shortened the recap, and empowered Warrior Woman all in maybe the first five pages. But instead the "plot" feels stretched overly thin. I'm still thinking that Thomas just didn't have a handle on the seventeen-page runtime.
Anyway -- Warrior Woman, huh? She starts out as a Nazi interrogator with a crop that she uses to whip her prisoner, and once she gains super-strength, she dons full-on bondage gear to go out and face the Invaders! I feel like young Chris Claremont must've been leaning over Roy's and Frank's shoulders as they came up with this villainess! Though I will say, I like Warrior Woman a lot more than Master Man. She has an actual characterization and motivations (she wants to prove to Hitler than women can stand beside men in the "master race" in more than support roles). Master Man, after a few apperances, remains a simple brute with no personality. Which I suppose could be a characterization in itself, but it's a really boring one.

3 comments:

  1. Aww man, I was all ready to make the same Claremont joke you did and you beat me to it.

    Warrior Woman pretty much wears her influences on her sleeve: early Wonder Woman had, shall we say, a sizable emphasis on women submitting to men, so naturally Warrior Woman is a comics dominatrix. I love that Hitler's evils also include "women should only have babies and stay in the kitchen of my thousand year Reich!" That cracks me up.

    I also love that the secret to superpowers is "potassium! Plus explosions!" I love how old school comics just rolled with that sort of thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The thing I find kind of funny is that we're fairly deep into the Bronze Age here, but Thomas is still running with a very Silver Age style, including his handling of the origins of some of his original characters.

      Delete

  2. Master Man talking about his alter ego Willie Lohmer as a distinct person, and being kind-of dull himself, reminds me of the (Shazam) Captain Marvel villain Ibac — a skinny nebbish type named Stanley Printwhistle who transformed into a bulky, super-strong guy and himself wasn’t the sharpest tool in the shed.

    Of course Master Man and Warrior Woman evoke Superman and Wonder Woman, too, on which more in a later comment.

    ReplyDelete