1/ Charley's War was a great anti-war, anti-heroic story that seems to fit the period it's set in perfectly. What sparked up your interest in the First World War?

I watched the film Oh, What a Lovely War - maybe six times - when I was in my early twenties and also the stage play.It moved me enormously. I felt there was a great comic story to be had, too. Because there isn't the movement and visual spectacle, I knew it would have to be written more carefully with greater emphasis on characters. Only Joe was capable of this.When Dave Hunt took him off Johnny Red to do Charley, I knew it was going to work.

I can't sing Dave Hunts praises loud enough. He was the editor and it was an incredibly brave, dangerous, even foolhardy thing to do. Because Johnny Red was phenomenally popular. There is no editor in modern comics who would ever risk anything like that today.It could never happen. They are far too cautious - and usually Dave was! The significance and importance of Dave's decision cannot be emphasised enough. We all owe him an enormous debt of gratitude. He knew how to put creative teams together - a gift that few modern editors have.

It was done with so much passion and intensity..

Yes. It sometimes puzzled and even disturbs me that I still feel the same passion today. It is something I should take a closer look at!

I just wondered whether you had personal-reasons for doing it-a relative of yours killed for example.

No. I did discover, however, some time after I started that my Grandfather was a policeman in World War One. He hated the idea of arresting deserters Bear in mind, he was a policeman in a small Essex seaside/ port (probably Harwich) so that gives you an idea of the size of the problem - something the history books don't talk about. Perhaps as a port, deserters were smuggling themselves on board ships - I do not know. Anyway, it wasn't why he joined the police force to do the army's filthy work; so he resigned as a policeman. He became a cook in the army and served on the front line. It's that kind of working class attitude and courage that I enormously admire and which I set out to chronicle in Charley's War. It's why I mentioned (I think) in an intro... the letters home of the ordinary soldiers like my Grandfather. Which were so emotional and therefore - in my view - poetry. Alongside the poems of the officer class. That always annoyed me because the impression kids get today is that only the elite write poetry. That a way with words is essential. And this is a deliberate attempt by the establishment - and often teachers - to disempower ordinary people. It's not bad luck - it's totally deliberate.

I totally disagree with their elitist snobbery. I have been moved to tears by illiterate letters from the trenches, which compare with Graves, Sassoon and Owen. I had a neighbour who was a Cambridge Don and from a privileged background. He told me the letters home could not be regarded as poetry because they were not INTENDED as poetry. What total snobbishness!

A letter (from memory) which said from a soldier to his young wife something like: *" Bing! go a bullet - maybe get that man. And you just feel like you're gonna get the dirt. But you know, dear, you mustn't worry, because I'll be all right etc."* (see footnote) The day such letters are respected alongside the university educated poets is the day our schools will be teaching the reality of war. I doubt it will happen.

I've lived in an army town and the stories soldiers have told me of more modern conflicts suggests things have improved, of course, but still have much in common with Charley's day. Charley is the ordinary, working class, illiterate but courageous soldier of his generation who was sacrificed by an odious class system.

* The quote that Pat remembers is from the book ' A place called Armageddon-letters of the Great War' edited by Michael Moynihan and deserves to be here in full. It's a letter home by Tommy Boorer to his sister, and is written out verbatim including original spelling and grammer. "there are times out here when we would rather be gone than have to put up with condiscons that we sometimes get out here at times when the germans be bombarding and the boys get knocked over one by one and they cant hit back. But it beyond me to explain the scene,see the boys come along they be crying like children and shaking like old men,still shells do burst in the air and scatter death and distrakion or a fellow may be in a gay mood and forget there is a war and walk out of cover or straighten himself up (specialy f he be a big man) after he be cramped in a dugout (for they not be built for comfort|) and show himself above a parapet-"BING" go a bullet, maybe catch that man. Well Nance hope for the best, a soldier (catholic) is forgiven his sins by dieying on the battlefeld so that is a comfort and it be better to be a DEAD HERO than a LIVING COWARD, when we are not fighting here it seem you are working and you always get the dirt. But never mind girlie you are far braver than us for you have to take what is given but us we can out and forget it and if we goe... well under we are gone"

2/ Was he based on anyone in particular or just a typical youth of the era? Did you try to make the character easy for the readers to relate to?

Not really. I have a half working class/ half middle class background; so I was able to draw on my working class roots to a certain degree. But I think he was in many ways a typical youth of the period. I wanted the readers to identify with him - absolutely. To appreciate the drama of war; but not to be seduced by it; and to sense some of its horror. I recall talking some years later to a soldier who served in Northern Ireland who had some grim experiences -not least the brutality of the British Army establishment itself when he was a prisoner in their glasshouse in Northern Irelands border country. These were experiences our cowardly media refused to publicise. I asked him why he joined the army. He said it was because of reading war comics. As the co-creator of Battle, I was not especially comfortable about this! In some ways Charley's War was my attempt to reverse the direction of my creation.I wanted to counter-act the danger of war comics helping to recruit cannon fodder for our country's appalling military attacks on other lands, which continue to this day. I always felt that CW had relevance for today and my intention was to carry Charley through World War Two, via his son, and then into Northern Ireland, via his grandson. Because I feel the murderous forces that sent a generation to their deaths in 1914 - 1918 didn't simply vanish, they just became more sophisticated and covert. Much better at suppressing information. And modern technology does not require the mass sacrifice of our soldiers anymore - although these same forces are still able to slaughter Iraqis and Serbians without complaint. My deliberate attempt to get the reader to relate to all sides of the conflict in CW, to see the other person's point of view (e.g. the Germans and the French), is pursuant to this theme.

....So you think the exploitation of soldiers in the First World War happened in the same way in the second?

More covertly. But it amounts to the same thing. There were serious scandals about World War Two. Notably Dunkirk - with officers running away, soldiers arriving back in Britain throwing their rifles out train windows and saying, "That's it. We're finished. It's all over." Before the Blitz, the authorities didn't make shelters for the East Enders (the most likely target with the arsenals and docks). They made coffins. Which is disgusting

I suspect that some parts (the wealthier parts) of London were avoided by German bombers to begin with. Mayfair shows few signs of post-war buildings when I've walked around it. There was a serious mutiny of British soldiers in Italy.

Many people (even today) suffered from collective amnesia, remembering the propaganda image - rather than the reality, including the high crime rate, the rapes in the blackout and the collaboration of the upper classes with Hitler (which will probably always be hushed up). So ordinary people attacked a very well respected author in the 1960's who tried to tell the truth. They wanted to remember the bullshit image. My own family would darkly hint at things, but I could never get them to talk - although my stepfather did admit to British soldiers shooting Italians running away in the back. Not the usual image of the heroic Tommy. But the truth is always better, even if it presents our soldiers in a negative light. And the authorities were much better at covering things up in WW2. They learnt their lesson from WW1 and were skilled at hiding their darker deeds.

I intended to write CW into WW2. I asked the editor for a research budget so I could interview veterans because I knew I wasn't going to get it from books. And I knew there was a real chance to dig up the dirt on WW2, which I have a bit of a nose for. They refused, so I quit. Another writer took it over and the story died within a year, I think. Joe died maybe a year later. I don't like to think about that last tragic chapter too much. The narrow-sightedness of the editorial at that time compares with the vision of Dave Hunt, the commissioning editor

....Do you not think that there is such a thing as a just war? However rare these may be, i cant help thinking that the Second world war was one, i mean -Northern Ireland, Iraq, Korea, Vietnam, Aden, etc., etc. I can understand, right up to Afghanistan and Gulf War the sequel right now But do you not think there is ever anything such as a 'just' cause? or a just war?

It's a difficult one Neil. Because I had a Serbian girlfriend at the time of the Kosovo crisis and she wasn't too thrilled at the idea of cruise missiles whizzing past her family's tower block in Belgrade; or British or American uranium tipped bombs exploding causing cancers for future generations of Serbian children, including perhaps her own young nephew... all in the aid of possibly saving Albanians in Kosovo, depending if you believe the British press, which I don't.

Where World War Two is concerned. Naturally it is a just cause - in terms of liberating Europe from oppression. But the official line doesn't normally include the enormous amount of Trading with the Enemy (a title of a book)... Gold relayed through Switzerland to the States, stamped Buchenwald; Standard Oil supplying German U Boats with oil; Ford supplying armoured cars to Germany and the rest. Plus the financing of Hitler by the Western nations industries and banks. (I featured some of this in Marshal Law, another series I write) All this is seen as incidental and unfortunate. I believe it is deliberate and central and what's been unearthed is merely the tip of the iceberg. War can boost the winning side's economy - and I'm sure is why the USA regularly goes to war. So if there is a conspiratorial agenda by rich vested interests, why should young working class men die for it? The tragedy of cannon fodder didn't end in 1918, it just became more ....sophisticated.

3/ I thought it was interesting in CW that the Germans were not always the villains in the story. At times they became almost comrades (Kat for instance) The Germans seemed most of the time to just be there and having to stay alive, with the same problems and fears etc. as the British. The enemy most times were the commanding officers (Snell and the scholar etc.) and the civilians at home (oily, etc.)-Almost an enemy within. Was this idea something that developed as the story went on, or was it one of your intentions when you started out?

Absolutely. The German system probably made the Germans more likely to obey as we're so fond of saying in this country, but their young men were no more monsters than ours and I've always been aware of this. Inspired by Sven Hassel novels, I initiated the first German hero story when I created Action in 1976 - Hellman of Hammer Force (writer - Gerry Finley Day). I had to really press the publisher for permission because he was nervous of a possible backlash. In fact, one of my current stories (for a French publisher) is about a German soldier in World War Two who ends up becoming a vampire. Without getting too esoteric, I would say I feel as much connection with this German soldier as I do with Charley. I loathe the class system, symbolised by Snell, the establishment and world forces that turn generations of young men from all over the world into cannon fodder. I felt this way long before I wrote Charley's War and nothing has changed my view since.

 In recent years I've visited a number of countries and cities that have confirmed this view. Specifically - Berlin, Sarajevo, Iran, Lithuania Thus, in Iran they will tell you how Britain and America stitched their country up. In Bosnia the Serbians will tell you the same.And many other places in the world. I don't believe they're all paranoid and whilst these countries and peoples have their own issues and problems, I think they have been exacerbated by Britain and America. That's why in Charley's War, I featured the 1919 Invasion of Russia by Britain and America - a "little " war that is downplayed or ignored in our history. I think if in 1919, Russia had invaded Britain we would have a pretty negative attitude towards the Russians. And Britain's 1919 Invasion of Russia is not some isolated maverick incident or odd ball mistake - it's part of a calculated and very deliberate continuum of thinking and global strategy that continues to this day. Hence the impending possible war on Iraq.

4/ I look on you and Joe Colquhoun's work on Charley's War as a sort of Lennon/McCartney of the comic world!! -Two geniuses working on the same team. Did you pick Joe specifically for Charley's War or was it a happy accident? Because he was working on Johnny Red at the time wasn't he?

You are very kind, Neil, but yes - if you get the right team anything is possible. Alas, all too often, I've been stuck with artists who are nowhere near as talented as Joe. The credit must go to Dave Hunt the editor. Johnny Red was fantastic - a lesser editor would have kept Joe on that story. What impressed me about Johnny Red were the incredible scenes of the Russians as heroes. It was a tribute to their astonishing courage and suffering at Stalin grad and Leningrad. Those graphic pictures were so moving - so bloody moving. Frankly, I didn't care for Johnny Red himself - a Brit leading the Russians felt a little patronising for my taste - although it was probably the only way a comic story could have featured Russian communists as heroes. Full marks to writer Tom Tully and Joe for doing the story. Joe deserves equal recognition for his truly fantastic work on Johnny Red. I would love to see Joes Johnny Red episodes collected as I'm sure Charley's War will be in the future.

Anyway, I'd just finished creating 2000AD and I wanted to do something new and special. After the success of German stories such as Hellmann, I wanted to try something even more challenging - and so I wrote a story about a Japanese war hero ... Samurai, with artist Cruez. The publisher was even more nervous this time, but reluctantly agreed. (He was quite reasonably afraid that the Burma Road veterans would complain) Frankly, I didn't get Samurai right. I couldn't get inside the Asiatic mindset and there simply wasn't the research material available. The story was popular enough, but Dave Hunt felt I could come up with something better and create a new number one story. He knew World War One would appeal to me because it was the riskiest subject of all time because it's static and non-visual. To tempt me, he suggested Joe as the artist. . This tempting process was and is very common in comics. Thus Dave also tempted Carlos Ezquerra away from his creation Judge Dredd to draw El Mestizo for Battle. Dave was damn good at this - sometimes, as in the case of Ezquerra, I was miffed that he'd lured away a 2000AD artist. There was a lot of fairly friendly rivalry going on! Anyway, I jumped at the chance of working with Joe! I was so impressed that Dave would take Joe off a highly popular story - Johnny Red -and put him on such a risky venture. Joe liked the idea and so we were in business. At some point you might want to get Dave's view on all this, although I have no idea where he is these days. Also, sad to say, I asked Joe when  Charley was coming to an end in WW1 if he wanted to do Slaine - a character I still do for 2000AD. He said he felt happier staying with reality and drawing Charley in WW2,  albeit with another writer (because I'd resigned, for reasons I will explain another time). In fact he'd have done an astonishing Slaine.

Joe was an incredibly nice human being who some editors in the 1960s and 1970s took advantage of. As earlier interviews show, he was shunted around on different comics and stories;  on at least one occasion against his wishes. Because he was not treated well (with the very notable exception of Dave Hunt), this made me pretty tough in my dealings with publishers and editors, because I saw that being a nice guy simply didn't work.

My generation of writers and artists tended to be tougher because we'd seen how his post war generation of creators very understandably didn't fight back and were badly treated.  Consequently I've fought extremely hard for royalties, copyright and credits you'll note Charley's War starts without credits and it was only after my forceful intervention that by-lines were introduced much later.

Interestingly, the writer and artist generation after mine is also not noted for its campaigning attitude on rights, etc., perhaps because they are Thatcher's generation and she created a similar sense of insecurity which the post war generation suffered from.

5/ The script of Charley's War covered so many bases in terms of the subjects it tackled, a few of which I mention on the Plots page. Do any favourites of yours spring to mind?

Yes, there was an American saga in Charley's War (By then, the editor was censoring me _ not Dave Hunt, but Terry Magee - he wanted to tone down a scene where a black American soldier was being given a hard time time by white American soldiers . He said - "it might offend people" I replied - who would it offend... ? the Klu Klux Klan? Similarly, I showed black French soldiers - Senegalese - being used as cannon fodder.)

.....Talking of controversial story lines, what would you have covered had you continued to write Charley's War as it continued into the Second World War?

If I'd had Charley return from Dunkirk, I would have featured some of the darker aspects... with British soldiers throwing their rifles out the windows and saying to Hell with this; we've had enough. To my mind, this doesn't take away from their courage - on the contrary, it gives an idea of what they went through and what was really going on, as opposed to the propaganda image.

You can see why I hesitated to carry CW on into World War Two and ultimately refused when they wouldn't give me the support of a research budget . It would have been explosively controversial. Even now. Thus, when the Monocled Mutineer was televised, Tory MP's complained; the BBC backed off and it has never been repeated...That was the great thing about CW... We slipped through the wire ; no one paid any attention to a comic; and that, of course, was my intention...

6/ How did the process work? did you meet with Joe regularly,,just at the beginning or at all? Did you sit down together and formulate the look and basis of the characters?

This will astonish you, but I probably spoke to Joe no more than maybe five times over the whole period! Maybe less. It was traditional for the writer to create the story and often to send it in without knowing who the artist is, or without reference to him. Before you say how antique that is.... take this on board : THAT STILL HAPPENS TODAY! And has happened to me quite recently. In this case, I knew it was Joe - but that was it. It was actually seen as a little unprofessional to spend too much time talking to the artist. Editors often get paranoid that writers and artists are ganging up on them or planning to head off elsewhere. With some justification - it does happen. I don't agree with any of this, but I can understand it.

Joe came up with brilliant work and it seemed to me, he had done this without talking directly to me. So I didn't want to mess with the magic; we had a fantastic formulae , I felt it would be foolish to rock the boat. And... Having started 2000AD and dealt with many young, unprofessional, angst-ridden artists who would spend considerable time agonising over their work, you cannot imagine the RELIEF... THE SWEET RELIEF!... of working with a professional who just got on with it and delivered on time. There was none of the shit I'd had to put up with along the lines of "I can't draw this.I can't draw that."

Whatever I gave Joe, he drew... No ifs, no buts, no misery, no angst.

And I would see his characters on the printed page and respond to them. Seeing his Smith 70 and Young Albert, for instance, encouraged me to develop their characters further and the same for many others. I cannot stress how important Joe's professionalism was to me. There was no fear of him pissing off to go round the world, having a nervous breakdown, going off to work on a different story, being poached by America etc.

Let me give you a comparison to Joe. Some few years ago, an artist who no one will be able to identify (so no one should even try - cos my lips are sealed!) was drawing very, VERY brilliant artwork but was getting slower and slower. He told me he hadn't got a girlfriend and was desperate for one. He also didn't like some of the elements in my story - or rather he didn't know how to draw them, so he was working himself into a state , instead of just getting on with it. It ended up with my girlfriend spending hours on the phone counselling him and suggesting ways he attract the opposite sex! She was even wondering if she had some friends she could introduce him to! (Or maybe I was begging her to!) Needless to say , he didn't pull. Eventually this poor , sex-starved wretch completely screwed up , didn't deliver, and I had to repay my cash advance to the publisher when they cancelled the story. And not just my cash advance, but his advance as well. (The publishers in question wanted to work with me again, but had written the artist off, so I had no choice but to cough up) I was not a happy bunny, believe me!

Now the relevance of this is... compare Joe with this hopeless neurotic who is by no means unique in modern British comics. (It's why an editor once printed some business cards for me "Pat Mills Artist Therapy always available."!!!) Compare him with Joe, happily married, secure, confident, producing genius work, week after week, year after year. Never complaining. Never commenting. Always on time. Drawing everything with equal magic. The total professional. And God - there must have been episodes where he must have thought , "This isn't one of Pat's best " . Or... " I think Pat's got that wrong." .... or... "I don't like drawing tanks" or whatever.

Can you imagine how brilliant that felt for me as a writer? He had total trust in me. I didn't have to be an artist-therapist with Joe, I could just get on with what I was paid to do - writing!

And when certain prima-donna fantasy artists were obsessed with Eagle awards and fandom, and competing with each other, and angsting and behaving in ways I could not repeat, there was Joe quietly and modestly working away .And remember with Joe, for the first couple of years or so of CW , he DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A BY-LINE ( until I had words with the editor) - so no one even knew who he was!

7/ Charley's War was almost a mini-revolution in battle-did you get a lot of stick from your peers at the time for it's political stance?

Charley's War was always seen as a maverick, a one-off, by the powers that be and my peers. They didn't especially understand it or want to imitate it. It certainly didn't create any similar stories that I'm aware of. So, in a way, it was a revolution that failed. And I got no stick at all for it.

This kind of reflects the convenient and popularly held view - which I don't agree with - that World War One was also a one-off, maverick, tragic phenomenon.

Maybe I also had no problems because Charley's War was extremely popular, so they didn't actually care what I was saying. And World War One can really ONLY be treated in that way. It was so obviously evil. So everyone makes an exception for it and accepts it will HAVE to be critical. The World War One poets and novelists also made it 'respectable" to criticise it. It's become a subject for literature and historical study in schools. (So long as it sticks to an agreed "tragic" antiwar agenda ... avoids conspiracy allegations ... and doesn't dig up any of the really controversial stuff, like the British army mutiny) This 'respectability" reminds me of the cartoon I believe I quoted in the Titan intro to Book One. I think the cartoon was by Reading in Punch. World War One soldiers are going over the top and one says to the other, 'I shouldn't really be here. I don't write poetry."

And I think I may have said already how a Cambridge don once said to me the letters of the working class soldiers were not poetry - even though they were incredibly emotional and had me in tears - because "they were not intended as poetry.". Now - by comparison... I have had all kinds of stick from peers for some of my later, more contemporary "war" stories. They followed the Charley's War rules, characterisation and style and were my way of continuing the revolution you refer to . So let me talk about them a little...and you'll get some idea of what goes on behind the scenes and the kind of people I was also dealing with on Charley's War.

Take Crisis where I wrote Third World War in a fairly similar way to Charley. For me Third World War is the same war as 1914 - 1918, fought by other means. An extension of the misery that was visited on the British people in 1914 - 1918, only now inflicted on people in the Third World, which can also include parts of Britain. I was memorably and furiously lectured by one famous comic artist on how I should be writing entertainment, not politics. This could have also been because Third World War came out a few months before a story of his which had a similar main character but was more 'entertainment orientated." Perhaps it was sour grapes on his part, but he was very angry and really gave me stick for writing politics..

Another example. This one illustrates the shallow , commercial thinking that was also around then and at the time of Charley's War: I did a Crisis Amnesty issue featuring a kid in the Gaza Strip during the Intifadah, for which I interviewed a Palestinian psychiatrist. I also wrote about a planned mass execution of black people for rioting during a demonstration in South Africa, in the course of which a policeman was killed.. I focussed on a the last days of a rioter on death row. For me, he was a black Charley Bourne. Just before the issue came out, South Africa repealed the death penalty, which was great.. So we added a footnote saying this. It made for a dramatic eleventh hour happy ending. But a member of the editorial team said "Damn ... why couldn't they have repealed the death penalty AFTER we came out on the newstands." (So the readers could still write to the South African government - which was the original intention) He seemed to have forgotten these were thirteen REAL people on death row, including a grandmother. They were NOT comic book characters.

To ignorant people like this, it's ONLY about making money, about commercial success. Clearly he didn't give a damn about what the Amnesty story was saying. Charley's War was a commercial success so they left it alone. If it wasn't so popular, I'm pretty sure they'd have trashed it for being political and not "entertainment"

But I was always expecting trouble - and my friends would constantly say to me, 'How on earth did you get away with last week's issue?" I really thought someone would pull the plug on me when I wrote about the British army mutiny - but there wasn't a murmur.. The same with the British invasion of Russia in 1919. Not a squeak. And you must remember also that the publisher himself, John Sanders, (responsible for a vast number of titles) was a kind of maverick character himself who enjoyed controversy which probably explains why he unleashed me to create Battle, Action and 2000AD. Although we had our differences, he rarely pulled me up on content. Thus on one memorable occasion,I introduced a German hero in Action, the first to ever appear in comics. He was all set to throw it out, then he listened to my spirited defence, and finally said "You're right. Let's do it." The people below him, though, were not of the same calibre.

Coming back to "politics" in comics, I believe you can be entertaining and commercial AND have something powerful to say, too. So I don't agree with the famous Hollywood mogul's quote, 'If you've got a message use Western Union." It's great that Charleys War readers also believe, as I do, that comics can compete with Western Union, and I'm encouraged by them and greatly value their response and support then and now

As always, I do believe so much of Charley's success is down to Joe. I firmly believe that if he had drawn many of my subsequent stories, like that Amnesty story I've quoted above, he would have made them equally popular.That's how important and special and gifted the man was. Finally... I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but this seems a place to say this: When John Wagner (Judge Dredd writer) and I created Battle, we were both very reluctant, at first, to do a war comic. Remember we grew up in the radical 1960s and early 70's and so it seemed a backward step to us. But, because Warlord was out, and we had to compete, we reluctantly made Battle an all-war comic. I guess we took the King's shilling ourselves. We tried to modify Battle a little with realism, and working class heroes (A rarity at that time - they were usually officers), but I always felt kind of guilty about creating a war comic.

Some years later, when I was researching Third World War, I interviewed one soldier, who served in Northern Ireland and ended up in a military prison. (This soldier was to partly form the basis of the eco-terrorist and Army deserter Finn in Third World War) I asked him what made him join the army. He said it was because he loved "the green" (the outdoor life) and also because he read war comics as a kid. Charley's War was my way of making amends to myself for creating such a war comic.

8/ Were you surprised when it became popular with readers?,it must have made you feel that you had really achieved something worthwhile. I remember most of the letters page usually sang its praises each week

It was naturally great and one can never be complacent but I was reasonably confident.You see, comics were nowhere near as competitive as they are now. That is to say, they were still riddled with traditional thinking and , essentially, it was myself, John Wagner (Darkies Mob and Judge Dredd) and Gerry Finley-Day (Rogue Trooper and Rat Pack) who were moving things forward. Tom Tully (Johnny Red and Harlem Heroes) was a very good, but traditional writer

So the prime rivals at that time were essentially whatever they came up with. John had decided to take a huge risk and do a ship story - HMS Nightshade, which I think appeared the same issue. Traditionally, ship stories never work (Coffin Sub in Action and Flight of Golden Hinde in Battle had bombed - I felt for other reasons ) and John fancied the challenge. He researched it at least as heavily as I did CW, but was hampered by having two artists. It didn't work out - but not for lack of effort on his part. Later, I tried to break the ship jinx on Charley's War by doing the WW1 Battle of the Falklands. I figured with the topicality and Joe's background in the navy, plus other members of Charley's family - like Wilf and Blue - working it should be okay. No. The readers didn't like it. The editor specifically rang me - the only time ever - to tell me to steer back to the trenches. I was dissappointed because I had been hoping to do the Battle of Jutland - an astonishing and hideous event that really needs to be chronicled - and the Falklands had been the warm-up. This would also have given me more time to do further research on the final year of World War One and the opening year of World War Two.

It wasn't to be, sadly. To date, no-one has ever made a ship story work and hit the spot with the readers. Why this is , I don't know - I loved Das Boot and the classic films like Sink the Bismark, but in comics it just doesn't happen.

9/ Something I really love, looking at the early copies, was the idea of Charley writing his own simple narrative in the form of his letters home. I was wondering why you stopped doing those so early on?.

I'd have loved to have kept it going. But it was difficult to sustain the irony or to maintain Charley's simplicity with momentous events. And the realism - as conveyed by genuine soldiers letters home, which I possibly drew on - but may have limited the dramatic thrust (an ongoing pressure of British weekly comics that is still there today) That's why I used post-cards from time to time which were a useful alternative: the heartbreaking "tick the box" if you were ill/okay/on leave and the humorous Bruce Bairnsfather - Well if you knows of a better 'ole... go to it. So quintessentially British. The idea came from when I'd worked on a girls romantic magazine with John Wagner (Judge Dredd). We were both extremely impressed by a story called THE PRIVATE WAR OF NICOLA BROWN. Art: Maroto (quite a famous artist) and Script: John Cornforth. John Cornforth had used a diary format and thiswas an attempt to follow in its footsteps. Hence why a diary features in H.M.S. Nightshade, I think.

10/ I read somewhere that its re-runs were censored in the dying days of battle-action-force. How did you feel about this?

You're possibly right Neil, My views on anyone who censored CW in the re-run era are fairly unprintable. I can only recall , some time early, during the origination period, Editor Terry Magee censoring the black soldiers being ill-treated by white Klu Klux Klan members because he thought it might offend people. Like who? The Klu Klux Klan?! and he baulked at a scene where I had a bored Charley fishing for rats with a length of barbed wire and a piece of meat - something that went on. He presumably thought that was revolting. So? And he also deleted a scene where Charley shot a comrade rather than let him drown in mud - which again happened. But, because I got away with so much - like the British army mutiny - I thought, hey - let it go. Don't sweat the small stuff.

Personally I stopped reading it at the end of the first world war. How did you feel about it carrying on into the second?

My view is reasonably straight-forward here. If one of us - as creators -wants to keep going, then that has to be respected. Joe needed to keep it going, so that was fine with me. I would have loved to carry it on into WW2, but - because I feared I did not have enough knowledge to sustain my usual savagery and they wouldn't give me a research budget - I declined.

Scott Goodall , who continued it into WW2 , was a traditional writer (he'd written a couple of series with Joe before) - sadly there was no way he was going to give it any edge, although I'm sure he did his best. My enduring memory and the true ending of CW is in 1933 - where Charley on the dole and he's thinking tomorrow is another day and things can only get better . He walks off into the grimy sunset of London's East End as a newspaper announces: "Adolf Hitler made Chancellor of Germany" That, to me, sums up Charley and the betrayal of his great, uncomplaining but tragic generation.

11/. And lastly, is there anything that you can remember that I haven't covered that you would like to add.

Can't think of anything Neil, But if you feel there's something these replies have opened up, do ask some supplementary questions. Also, if you feel your site readers might want to ask some questions I'm happy to answer them. As several readers have rightly commented , CW readers are very different to normal comic so-called "fans",some of whom are far from normal! (Believe me!) . I have so much time and respect for CW readers' genuine passion , warmth and interest, which is refreshingly free of the "asshole" factor that unfortunately goes with certain science fiction "fans". . For this reason, and because of the important subject matter, and not least because of wonderful Joe, I , too, view CW in a very different way to some of my other stories and want to " give something back" to the readers by being as pro-active as I can be

Id like to thank Pat Mills personally for the time and energy that he put into answering these questions. He could have answered them in two sentences, but really took the time to write something that is an insight into the world of Comics as well as his own mind. It goes to make it a mini-epic which is brilliant. Thankyou Pat. Im sure I speak for all CW fans when I say that..

SUBMIT YOUR OWN QUESTIONS TO PAT.

If you have a question for Pat Mills email me and I'll pass them on to him.

Here's the first submitted question.from Phil Buckley

Dear Mr Mills,

Im a massive fan of CW and wondered if you would answer a question for me. How did the script look when it reached the artist? Would you, for example draw how you wanted it to look or is that all down to the Artist? Would the script say for instance "scene of Charley remembering such and such". Im probably not explaining myself very well at all im afraid, basically how much influence did you have over how the story looked.

Thank you very much.

Phil Buckley

It would say something like. 1. A grim World War One landscape. Charley walks towards , a haunted expression on his face, as he holds a sack containing the remains of his dead friend Ginger. An Officer confronts him

OFFICER: WHAT HAVE YOU GOT IN THAT BAG, SOLDIER?

2. Charley draws closer towards us. The Officer again confronts him and points his pistol at him

OFFICER: FOR THE LAST TIME, SOLDIER - WHAT HAVE YOU GOT IN THAT BAG?

3. Close up of just Charley in pic, staring with shell-shocked eyes at the readers

CHARLEY: ME MATE, SIR, ME MATE GINGER

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I think I had a lot of influence over the way the story looked - but the characterisation and detail were only possible because of Joe's unque genius.

Lee O'Brien's Question

Hi Pat,

Quick question for you. As Neil has covered most of what I, and I think most CW fans wanted to know, I only have one he hasn't asked and it is this: Neil says on the Welcome page a true thing about WW1 being almost ignored by filmmakers and writers before CW and since, I'd like to know what you think of the only exceptions to this that have come after Charley's War:

Blackadder goes Forth, the recent films Regeneration and the Trench and nearer CW's time The Monocled Mutineer? My personal fave was Blackadder goes forth as I feel that although it was comedy it was done in such a clever and honourable way it was tragic as well as funny. I also feel that it was similar to CW in that it also contained some great black humour over a tragic subject. I would love to know what you think on these (if anything) thank you for your time, and, over the years your words. For every fan of yours who don't get it. I hope the CW site makes you realise there are 2 who DO, we just had no outlet before!!!

Thank you

Yours Lee O'Brien

Thanks, Lee. I haven't seen the Trench or Regeneration - but will look out for them. I thought Monocled Mutineer was superb and I'm a huge fan of Black Adder Goes Forth. I especially liked the sombre ending. Oh, What a Lovely War - a 60's movie - is a real classic that was a major influence on CW.

Black Adder was very well researched, especially in the context of the character. But I would love to see a dark comedy focussing soley on the intimate aspects of CW - e.g the officer's dug-out with a servant's bell, the street names, the trench humour, and the other attempts to recreate the class-ridden Edwardian Britain in the trenches.  By the by, the Good, the Bad and the Ugly has astonishing scenes of the trenches in the American Civil War - the first trench war. They're recreated in amazing detail and there are several tragic scenes with exactly the same feeling as World War One. I imagine there must be some French films covering Verdun. I must ask my French friends next time I've over there.

Davey Machale wrtites;

Dear Mr Mills,

I just wanted to applaud CW firstly-it was a massive chunk of my good memories from high school and I thank you and Joe Colquhoun very much. Id like to ask you; Do you think that Charley's War would work today? was there something right about it's place in time that helped it be a success? Or do you think kid's attitudes have changed so much now that it was 'of it's time' i.e. something was right about the late seventies early eighties for it to happen?

Thank you for taking the time to answer questions from fans-Im sure I speak for us all when I say this 'interactive' discussion page is both different and fascinating stuff.

Thanks

Davey

Hello, Davey,

It's an interesting question which raises a number of points that I guess some CW readers have been wondering about . So I'd like to use your question as an opportunity to address these wider points, if I may , and cover them for the benefit of all CW readers. The short answer to your question is "yes" CW could work today ; if the magazine it's in is right; and if the story itself was adapted to suit current trends.  Firstly, the magazine - Battle lost its edge. It became somewhat "young". (Far younger than when we started it - I cringed with embarassment at some of the later stories) Battle didn't follow up or appreciate the success of the lead stories Johnny Red and Charley's War - that what readers were looking for was detail , realism and social conscience. And to be treated maturely. The reason why Battle didn't do more stories like CW is because such stories take more thought than thick-ear action stories. And it's far easier to screw up an anti-war story than a pro-war story. So they stuck to the same old safe stuff.

But comics and magazines that are of their time can evolve with changing trends. Private Eye , for instance, originated in the 1960's at a time of satire, political upheaval and controversy and has sustained itself into these rather bland modern times. Whereas Punch didn't keep its edge and died. 2000AD , too, evolved and changed - whereas TV21 and the original Eagle didn't and consequently died.  So Battle could and should have evolved

Then there's the subject matter. Saving Private Ryan and the Trench shows there's still an interest today in war from a realistic point of view. And 2000AD currently is running two future war stories - Rogue Trooper and the VC's, which are very Battle in style (both well written, incidentally) . I also believe war is one of the most popular genres in 2000AD. But there should always be a market and an audience for an anti-war story - especially with the current possibility of Britain being drawn into a war against Iraq.

Finally there's the CW story itself.  Content and style are both important in stories, but in Charley's War , arguably, content was more important than style. But in modern stories, often style is more important than content. To make it work today, Charley's War would need a stronger emphasis on style. Although, if I had to choose, I would always go for content over style. (See below for my comment on some stylish French and American comic books ) By style, I mean less images on the page; slower , more moody storytelling, "cooler", more emotionally restrained , and with stronger sequential art storytelling. Usually with a pivotal "cool" character/s .  Whatever, CW was, it was far from "cool". To hell with cool. Reading about the experiences our forefathers went through made me angry and sad and I wrote it often with blazing anger. It was often told in three pages - so it had to be fast paced , passionate and intense - which worked very well. Sometimes, though, it had too many images on a page .This was really my fault - I should have slowed it down , perhaps even gone for full page, single image aerial views of the trenches at war. Can you imagine what Joe would have drawn?!! I'd like to see some of those small images he drew blown up big - just to see. Editorial would probably not have appreciated less pictures on a page, but I should have persisted. I think the difficulty was, you get into the characters and there's so much you want to put across in one week, that slowing it down can feel like you're cheating the reader. Not giving them enough "value". My mistake, really, because Joe left the pacing entirely to me. It's one of the reasons why I'm especially keen to see later episodes of CW reprinted where the imagers are larger because the story is told over four pages. I think these episodes, especially, would attract a wider and new audience who might not get into the earlier episodes so easily.

Still on the subject of style : jagged , crooked and strange frame lines had evolved from the Frank Bellamy era (a great original Eagle artist) . Artists were either influenced by him or they may have been told to put jagged lines or diagonal lines around pics to make them more exciting. (Just like today, many artists are influenced by Simon Bisley or Mike Mignola and include their stylistic devices) Now, of course, such lines look a little old fashioned. Because of the era he was working in, and the generation he was from, Joe would have used some of these lines around his art . But a good art editor should have seen that they were not necessary and asked Joe to change this. His art was so astonishing and brilliant it didn't need them. A conventional layout would have made his work more appealing to an international audience.

Again, I'm at fault here , too - because I knew this , even at the time. But I was so knocked out by his art, I felt it would have been impertinent to poke my nose in; and I still feel uncomfortable making the point today. Plus I was constantly at war with the editor on 2000AD at the time, trying to get decent artists on my work there, so I greatly valued the peace and quiet I had working with Joe , so I decided not to rock the boat.

Another stylistic point: I personally don't mind typeset dialogue in balloons (it suits stories with a lot of images on a page much better than hand lettering - unless you have a great letterer) but it's seen as old fashioned by a wider comic audience, especially in fandom. Later CW did switch to hand lettering - but some of it is rather rough and poor. Again - I should have complained about the quality and I wish I had. But I was getting away with so much subversive stuff , I didn't want to push my luck!

Despite these points, it angered me enormously even then - and still does - that fans would rave over and award fantasy artists who simply were not in the same class as Joe. They would ignore CW because style and fantasy are more widely regarded than war stories , whatever their content. It frustrated me that his work was not widely appreciated. But, as I've said before, it's a comment on his genius that he didn't need such accolades . It's also a great tribute to Battle readers that you saw then - and see now - beyond these minor stylistic problems .

Titan will reprint, I'm pretty sure - they're still working on the feasibility details , they tell me. When they do, I suspect Joe's work will finally be rated by those very people who ignored it first time around. Better late than never, I guess. In my view, Joe was one of the most important comic artists of the twentieth century, certainly of the 1970s and 1980s. His depiction of the humanity and suffering of the people of Leningrad and Stalingrad in Johnny Red; and the humanity and suffering in World War One is important and unique. I'm not aware of any other artist who has ever depicted war with such emotion and passion in any English speaking countries.

A few French artists may have achieved similar results. The superior stylistic format of BDs (large, high-quality glossy pages; colour albums) is in their favour. For instance, there's a brilliant French artist who showed the suffering of the Germans on the Russian Front and then in Stalin's gulags Other French artists have shown impressive details of war on their home front during the German occupation. But these French books I've seen , although excellent , are still missing Joe's warmth, gritty intensity and individual characterisation. They seem stylish and cool , rather than powerful and emotive; and they don't appear to be making the controversial points we made in CW.

I suspect the same may be true of similar American stories which have also been produced in superior formats. I can recall a great one off anti-war story by the late Archie Goodwin who I also respected enormously - it was very polished, stylish but restrained in its hard hitting comment on the war in Vietnam. Again we come back to the issue of style versus content. Ultimately , for me anyway, content is more important. I write with passion and prefer to read books and comics written with passion. The more emotional the better, irrespective of their literary merit. The "coolness" or "elegance" that often comes from books and comics written with a strong literary style interests me less.

Finally, coming back to Joe... When Titan reprint CW, I'm sure some pundit , critic, historian , or similar expert , who has studied the genre in detail will finally confirm Joe's status as one of Britain's greatest comic artists. Then it will be official. But you Battle readers knew that long ago when you were nine, ten or eleven, and , for your good taste and judgement, I applaud you

Pat

Here's some questions from my mate Mark Jarvis who runs a brilliant 'battle' site at http://www.frothersunite.com/marbles/fanboy/battle.html-If you havent already been there, well why not? Here's his questions for Pat;

(1) In both David Bishops 2K history in the Meg and my own interview with David Hunt re 'Battle', both you and John Wagner appear pretty much from nowhere as 'young hotshots' empowered to shake up the UK boys comics market. I just wondered about your history before then - how did you get into the comics industry, what did you do pre - 'Battle' , how did you first meet John Wagner ??

John and I worked on Romeo as sub-editors. Then I went freelance and established myself in the girls and humour market. John joined me. And we also cracked the boys comic market too

(2) The 'CW' possible reprints from Titan - will this be the 'complete' story or just reprints of the earlier GN's ?? Because as I understand it the earlier GN's reprinted only a part of the run in 'Battle' ?

I think it has to be them all

(3)OK tbh I must admit the story that grabbed me first as a kid was Wagner's 'Darkies Mob' - great story and fantastic art. Did you have any input into the strip ? Oh for a GN reprint ! (peasant!!-Neil lol)

No but it was the role model for Bad Company in 2000AD I think

(4) Does a complete listing of your work exist in any form ?

No. It would be enormous. And these days I find it can be a bit counter-productive. People assume because you've written a lot that you must be in the past - whereas my current stuff for France is more successful and harder than much I've written before (Charley's War being a notable exception)

(5) Did your short 'Death Race' series with Kev O'Neill ever get a GN reprint ?

Alas no

(6) What are your future plans - any more 'Redeemer' for Black Library ?

Unlikely because it's not copyright owned, although I do have a fondness for the character and could be persuaded. It's owned by GW which is absolutely fine, but... An important thing that all fans and site designers such as yourself might focus on is that comic writers and artists should , wherever possible, write and draw stories where they own or have control or an interest in the product they create. British comic people's attitude to this subject is extremely poor and my generation of writers and artists was more militant than subsequent generations (or earlier ones). It's WHY there are so many weaknesses and problems in our industry.

Will we in the UK get to see your French work at some point ?

Absolutely. Probably via Heavy Metal. Good luck with your Battle site

Pat

Here's question from Jo;

Hi Pat my name is Jo Slee, and I was wondering (Charley's War being a great example) how do you do the 'donkey work' of the writing process; do you do the research and sketch out the bare bones like an artist would? (make rough notes etc); then build up the picture with more writing; sharpening the whole thing up in a finshed script. Or do you start the finished thing and do all the creative process at once. Do you 'cut and paste' adding and taking stuff away etc etc.Do you ever start something and think of the the later endings etc. while in the writing?-Or is the whole lot worked out(including the depth of the characters) in the very beginning? Do you use PC or type? before PCs did you learn to type on a typwriter or was it in your own hand and you have a secretary? ...Do you need a secretary? (only joking!! L.O.L)

Do you find it hard to discipline yourself? As far as I can see your job is 100% creative all the time, therefore you cant just go into 'auto' like the rest of us at work can you? What happens when the 'muse' is playing hard to get?; have you a way to work through writers block?

Thank you for your time Pat, your very kind All the best Jo Slee.

Hi, Jo,

Thanks for your question. Yes, I start with research and build the story up like an artist would. And cut and paste, taking stuff out, moving it around etc. Sometimes I'll leave some details s for later, but I try and have it all pretty clear in my head so I don't write myself into a corner. The golden rules are 1) Write what you know about (or can research) 2) Start with the characters and know your characters. 3) character swing ...e.g. a character is moving in one direction, then an event (a death , an attack) makes him move in another. 4) Theme is important , too - what is the message? What are you actually saying? The theme on Charley's War, for instance, is clearly that the British government and its ruling class were responsible for the murder of a generation; everything in the story should reflect the theme.

Writers block is actually a case of not listening to the muse properly ; or writing for money rather than for conviction. Or - if there's an interfering editor screwing the story up which sometimes happens.  And yeah - I started on an olivetti portable and I've ended up on a lap top

Cheers

Pat

Hello Mr Mills,
I read with interest your interview on the Charlie's War site-and was particularly taken with your discussion with the interviewer on war in general, I was wondering what your views are on the current world situation since September the 11th? Do your views regarding the US still stand the same as they did before? Also you mentioned the kosovo crisis in the same interview, but yet I was unclear as to your stance on whether it was right to step in when ourselves and the Americans did? Many thanks, and kindest regards,
Alan Burrows

Thanks, Alan. America is an imperial power - which is fine for people like you and me living in a country which is an ally of America. But its imperialism seriously harms many countries throughout the world. Inevitably some of those people are going to retaliate in ways which all of us would deplore, but are a result of its imperialism, a role it has taken over from the Britain of Charley's War which seriously harmed large parts of the world (India, Africa). The media will promote a pro-American point of view and the same is true in the case of Kosovo. No one would deny that Albanians were treated badly in Kosovo or Milosevic's role as a war criminal. But, as is so typical of the so called free press in our country , many facts are avoided, manipulated, or downplayed.

For instance - the terrorism against the Serbian people by Albanians. The need by the USA and Britain to bring every country into the IMF (International Monetary Fund) global system of capitalism (e.g. inside the American Empire) . Serbia now is inside and its people are suffering ( friends who live there tell me) from those policies. . Also, there's the use by Britain and the USA of uranium tipped bullets in the Kosovo conflict which are carcinogenic (also used in the Gulf War). If a third world dictator used cancer inducing weapons he would be called an evil monster. But Blair can't be an evil monster, can he ? After all, he looks like such a nice man.

The USA, imitating Britain's past imperialism, will always make it seem right to intervene in other nation's affairs, especially if they are dictators like Hussein or Milosevic, but they always have a hidden agenda - usually relating to the IMF, trade or oil (Afghanistan and Iraq). And it's that hidden agenda which really motivates empires - the other stuff is clever window dressing to hide their aggression and it probably makes our leaders feel good, too - because they can convince themselves - and us - they are doing good . Because we are removed from it, it may seem hard to believe , but if you travel in countries that have been on the receiving end of American and British policies, you will see evidence of their imperialism.

I know (and forgive me, I haven't time to find exact dates and location ) that the British Royal Flying Corps used poison gas in the Middle East in the late 1920's, early 1930's. I'm pretty certain it was against Iraq, dropping it on rebellious tribesmen...e.g. people who didn't want to be ruled by the British Empire. If I'm correct, I wonder if it will ever be mentioned when more poison gas is discovered in Iraq.

I believe it was the first use of poison gas from the air. The Italians then used it in Ethiopia in the 1930's

I recall reading about  Britain using poison gas in peacetime, when I was
researching CW  twenty years ago and was really shocked.  Today I did a web
search and finally found one  single reference to it confirming my
recollection. (See below)  I found it rather surprising there were no other
references to it on the web in view of its  topical significance.

Poison gas was banned by International Agreement in 1925.  As the article
below confirms , the British Royal Air Force used it in Iraq in the early
1930's, dropping it from the air on the Kurds . This was before Italy used
it in Ethiopia.  In both Britain and Italy's case, they would have been
dropping it on poorly armed tribesmen who would have  been unable to hit
back.

Britain was the first to use a weapon of mass destruction,   poison gas ,
in this way,  in pursuit of its oil interests.  Curious to think that today
Kurdish old men may well have  come under  poison gas attack from our
country when they were children. Saddam Hussein  used poison gas against the
Kurds in recent years  - I suspect he  could have got the idea from
relatives telling him  how Britain used to  deal with  rebels   (so it must
be all right)     An inconvenient  and embarassing fact that I'm sure Blair
would not like to be reminded of.

I had originally intended Charley's brother to serve in the RAF in the
1930'S  to highlight this  disgusting  atrocity committed by our rulers, but
, as you know, I eventually ended the story in 1919 after Britain's equally
appalling invasion of  Russia.

Best wishes

Pat

Memorabilia Magazine Interview with John Freeman

September 2002 Pat Mills interview courtesy of John Freeman.

MEM - Memorabilia Magazine

PM - Pat Mills

MEM : If there's one man responsible for creating some of the most memorable characters in recent British comics history, it's Pat Mills. He co-created Battle and was the genius/madman behind the controversial Action! and the title it spawned - 2000AD. Other memorable credits include Marshall Law (with long- time collaborator, artist Kevin O'Neill) and a variety of US comics, such as DC Comics' Batman: Book of Shadows.

What was the British comics industry like to work in?

PM : Full of fuck-wits. It's improved a little over the years, but in a sense, these days, it's become more colourless - at least people then were pretty wacky and eccentric and drunk! These days when I've entered a couple of editorial studios it's like a morgue! But the fuck-wits are still around, only they've become better at hiding their incompetence. Back in those days you could spot them at a thousand paces - usually by their pipe smoke and sports jackets. There were lots of them. Having come from a non-comic background, sent in to stir the industry up with some new titles and new thinking, and being given a free hand to achieve it, you could imagine how well I got on with them. I realised that if I was going to produce something worthwhile, I'd have to start from scratch without the pipe-smokers.

MEM: What can you tell us about the interference you had with later parts of your anti-war story for Battle, Charley's War?

PM: Not much on the censorship front. I can recall two examples. If you mean the fact another writer took over Charley's War, I accepted this because Joe Colquhoun, the artist, wanted to carry on to retirement and I thought the world of him. Alas, the new writer pretty well killed Charley's War stone dead. It lasted a matter of months after I left it.

MEM: What was the reaction to Charley's War at the time?

PM: Very popular. No problems. Being World War One, no one in charge paid any attention.

MEM: Is there any chance it will be reprinted again?

PM: It seems very likely. We're gathering requests [via the Charley's War web site here from readers to pass on to Titan [who previously published it in two graphic albums]. The more we get, the more likely they will reprint.

MEM: What do you think made the comics you created such a success - and as sought after as Action! and Battle are with their fans today?

PM: Because I aimed them at the ordinary reader. Not comic aficionados. Both [Battle and Action!] were very street level. Both were subversive in one way or another; Action! particularly so. And on both, we sweated blood.

MEM: Why do you think the British comics market has changed so dramatically since then? Why are there no longer any original 'boys comics' (except for 2000AD)?

PM: Because all the talent is going elsewhere, to the US in most Brit writers and artists' cases, to France, in my case. You could say it's the weekly format being out of date, but The Beano is still there, so I feel that's an excuse. Imagine a Brit weekly comic filled with top writers and artists - I think it would succeed, and 2000AD's ongoing success also bears this out.

MEM: If you collect comics at all, what do you chase down at comics festivals?

PM: I don't collect, but if I did, it would have to be Ken Reid. Especially his Jonah and Frankie Stein. The man was a genius. His satirical black humour pre-dated Monty Python and seems to have working class roots, rather than university origins. Yet it is as funny and warped as any of them.
I still wish I'd been able to run his story in 2000AD about a nuclear survivor who is so hideous he tries to kill himself every week. But the pipe- smokers won on that occasion and stopped me.

MEM: What are you working on now?

PM: 'Requiem-Vampire Knight' and two other ongoing bandes dessines for France. The French market is extremely important to me - good deals, good format, good sales and plenty of respect for creators.

Any complete bibliography of Pat Mills' work would be impossible, however heres a rough one from wikipedia - His Comics work includes

• MACH One (18 episodes in 2000 AD between # 1-64, 1977-78)
• Flesh (in 2000 AD # 1-19, 1977)
• Judge Dredd (in 2000 AD # 2-3 & 19-20, 1977)
• Shako! (in 2000 AD # 20-35, 1977)
• The Visible Man (in 2000 AD # 47-52, 1978)
• Judge Dredd: The Cursed Earth (co-writer, in 2000 AD # 61-85, 1978)
• Ro-Busters (in Starlord # 1-4 & 7-12, 1978)
• Planet of the Damned (in Starlord # 1-10, 1978)
• Ro-Busters (in 2000 AD # 86-101, 1978-79)
• Charley's War (in Battle, 1/6/79 to 1/26/85)
• Ro-Busters (in 2000 AD # 103-115, 1979)
• Wagner's Walk (in Tornado # 1-7 & 10-19, 1979)
• The ABC Warriors (in 2000 AD # 119-139, 1979)
• Doctor Who (in Doctor Who Magazine # 1-16 & 19-34, 1979-80)
• Ro-Jaws' Robo-Tales (in 2000 AD # 144, 1979)
• Judge Dredd (in 2000 AD # 152-54, 1980)
• Nemesis the Warlock (in 2000 AD # 167, 178-79 & 1981 Sci-Fi Special, 1980-81)
• Nemesis the Warlock Book I (in 2000 AD # 222-233, 238-240 & 243-44, 1981)
• Nemesis the Warlock Book II (in 2000 AD # 246-257, 1982)
• Dan Dare (in Eagle # 1-33, 1982)
• Nemesis the Warlock (in 1983 2000 AD Annual, 1982)
• Dan Dare (in Eagle # 34-38, 1982)
• Dan Dare (in Eagle # 39-83, 1982-83)
• Nemesis the Warlock (in 1984 2000 AD Annual, 1983)
• Slaine (in 2000 AD # 330-367 & 1985 2000 AD Annual, 1983-84)
• Nemesis the Warlock Book III (in 2000 AD # 335-349, 1983)
• Nemesis the Warlock Book IV (in 2000 AD # 387-406, 1984-85)
• Slaine (in 2000 AD # 411-428 & 431-434, 1985)
• Nemesis the Warlock (in 2000 AD #430, 1985)
• Nemesis the Warlock Book V (in 2000 AD # 435-445, 1985)
• Slaine (in 2000 AD # 447-461 & 1986 Sci-Fi Special, 1985-86)
• Metalzoic (DC Graphic Novel, 1986)
• Marshal Law
• Nemesis the Warlock Book VI (in 2000 AD # 482-487 & 500-504, 1986-87)
• Slaine (in 2000 AD # 493-508 & 517-519, 1986-87)
• Torquemada the God (in 2000 AD # 520-524, 1987)
• Nemesis the Warlock Photo-Stories (in 2000 AD 1987 Sci-Fi Special & # 534, 1987)
• Nemesis the Warlock (in 1988 2000 AD Annual, 1987)
• Nemesis the Warlock Book VII (in 2000 AD # 546-557, 1987-88)
• The ABC Warriors: The Black Hole (in 2000 AD # 555-566 & 573-581, 1988)
• Nemesis the Warlock Book VIII (in 2000 AD # 558-566, 1988)
• Slaine (in 2000 AD # 582, 589-91 & 1989 2000 AD Annual, 1988)
• Third World War (in Crisis, 1988-90)
• Nemesis the Warlock Book IX (in 2000 AD # 586-593 & 605-608, 1988-89)
• Slaine: The Horned God Book I (in 2000 AD # 626-635, 1989)
• Slaine: The Horned God Book II (in 2000 AD # 650-56 & 662-664, 1989-90)
• Slaine: The Horned God Book III (in 2000 AD # 688-698, 1990)
• Nemesis & Deadlock (in 2000 AD # 700, 1990)
• Nemesis & Deadlock (in 2000 AD # 723-729, 1991)
• The ABC Warriors: Khronicles of Khaos Book I (in 2000 AD # 750-757, 1991)
• Slaine the High King (in 1992 2000 AD Yearbook, 1991)
• Finn Book I (in 2000 AD # 770-779, 1992)
• The ABC Warriors: Khronicles of Khaos Book II (in 2000 AD # 780-84 & 787-790, 1992)
• Flesh: The Legend of Shamana (in 2000 AD # 800-808 & 817-825, 1992-93)
• Finn Book II (in 2000 AD # 807-816, 1992)
• The ABC Warriors: Dishonourable Discharge (in 2000 AD Winter Special # 4, 1992)
• Nemesis the Warlock (in 2000 AD Winter Special # 4, 1992)
• Nemesis the Warlock (in 2000 AD #824, 1993)
• Slaine (in 2000 AD # 850-859, 1993)
• Dinosty (in 2000 AD # 873-882, 1994)
• Slaine (in 2000 AD # 889-896, 1994)
• Nemesis the Warlock (in 2000 AD # 901-903, 1994)
• The ABC Warriors: Hellbringer Book I (in 2000 AD # 904-911, 1994)
• Finn (in 2000 AD # 924-937, 940-949, 1995)
• Slaine (in 2000 AD # 950-956 & 958-963, 1995)
• The ABC Warriors: Hellbringer Book II (in 2000 AD # 964-971, 1995)
• Finn (in 2000 AD # 991-999, 1996)
• Slaine (in 2000 AD # 995-998, 1996)
• Vector 13 (in 2000 AD # 997, 1996)
• The ABC Warriors: Joe Pineapples - His Greatest Hits (in 2000 AD 1996 Sci-Fi Special)
• Slaine (in 2000 AD # 1000-1012, 1996)
• Accident Man
• Slaine (in 2000 AD # 1023-1049, 1997)
• Slaine (in 2000 AD # 1090-1100, 1104-1109 & 1111-1118, 1998)
• Nemesis the Warlock Book X: The Final Conflict (in 2000 AD # 1165-1173 & prog 2000, 1999)
• The ABC Warriors: Roadkill (in 2000 AD prog 2000, 1999)
• Slaine (in 2000 AD prog 2000, 1999)
• Slaine (in 2000 AD # 1183-1199, 2000)
• Deadlock (in 2000 AD # 1212-1222, 2000)
• The ABC Warriors: Return to Mars (in 2000 AD # 1234-1248, 2001)
• Requiem Chevalier Vampire
• Slaine: The Books of Invasion I (in 2000 AD prog 2003 & # 1322-1326, 2002-03)
• Black Siddha: Bad Karma (in Judge Dredd Megazine # 202-208, 2003)
• The ABC Warriors: The Shadow Warriors Book I (in 2000 AD # 1336-1341, 2003)
• Slaine: The Books of Invasion II (in 2000 AD # 1350-1355, 2003)
• Slaine: The Books of Invasion III (in 2000 AD prog 2004 & # 1371-1376, 2003-04)
• Whatever Happened to Tweak? (in Judge Dredd Megazine # 214, 2004)
• Savage Book I (in 2000 AD # 1387-1396, 2004)
• Black Siddha: Kali Yuga (in Judge Dredd Megazine # 218-223, 2004)
• The ABC Warriors: The Shadow Warriors Book II (in 2000 AD # 1400-1405, 2004)
• Slaine: The Books of Invasion IV (in 2000 AD prog 2005 & # 1420-1425, 2004-05)
• Slaine: The Books of Invasion V (in 2000 AD # 1436-1442, 2005)
• Savage Book II (in 2000 AD from # 1450, 2005)