The First 21st Century President

The Founding Fathers of the United States were children of the 18th century.  Even Benjamin Franklin, one of the oldest (born in 1706), was born in the same century in which the U.S. government was founded.  

     George Washington, born in 1732, never lived to see the 19th century, passing away in December 1799, a few weeks before it began.

     Since independence from Britain was not declared until 1776, it's not surprising that no U.S. political leader of the time had been born in the previous century.  The Constitutional requirement that a president be at least 35 years of age also creates some necessary distance in time between when a future president is born and the decade or century he may hold power.

     The 8th president, Martin Van Buren, inaugurated in 1837, was the first U.S. president to be born after 1776.  (He was born in 1782.)  His successor, William Henry Harrison, who died after a month in office, was the last U.S. president born before 1776.  (He was born in 1773.)  

     The first U.S. president to be born in the 19th century was Millard Fillmore, who was born in January 1800.  Fillmore had been vice-president, and became the 13th president in July 1850 after the death of Zachary Taylor.  So, it was not until the 19th century was half over that a person born in that century became president.  

     When Fillmore died in 1874, he and Andrew Johnson (who died the following year) had been the only living ex-presidents.  When Johnson's successor Ulysses S. Grant left office in 1877, Grant found himself to be the only living ex-president.  (Nearly 100 years later, when Richard Nixon left office in 1974, there were also no living former presidents other than himself.)

     Fillmore's successor, Franklin Pierce, was also born in the 19th century (1804), but Pierce's successor was an older man, James Buchanan, who was born in 1791.  Leaving the office in 1861, Buchanan was the last U.S. president to be born in the 18th century.  

     The U.S. Civil War began in 1861, but it was not until 60 years later, when Warren G. Harding was inaugurated in 1921, that the country had a president born after the Civil War.  (Harding was born in 1865, several months after the war ended.)  All of Harding's predecessors had been born before the war started, and all the presidents that followed were, like him, born after it had ended.  (None were born during the war.)

     Just as James Buchanan became the last U.S. president born in the 18th century, when he was inaugurated in 1857, exactly 100 years later Dwight D. Eisenhower (born in 1890) became the last U.S. president born in the 19th century when he was inaugurated (for his second term) in 1957.

     John F. Kennedy, inaugurated in 1961, was the first U.S. president to have been born in the 20th century -- as all subsequent U.S. presidents have been. (He was born in 1917.)

     Kennedy was the first president to have been born in the same century in which he became president since William McKinley (who was born in 1843 and was president from 1897 to 1901).  Like McKinley, Kennedy was assassinated while in office.

     Looking at the above history, we see that it took 50 years in the 19th century for someone born in that century to become president (Millard Fillmore in 1850) and it took 61 years in the 20th century for someone born in that century to become president (John F. Kennedy in 1861).

     If the 21st century conforms to a similar pattern as the previous two centuries, then we can expect that it will not be until 2050 or 2060 that someone born in the 21st century will become president.  Which means that half of the current century will be led by a president whose formative years took place in the previous century.    

     Living through an era, as opposed to reading about it later in a history book, can profoundly shape a person's outlook and identity.  The generation that lived through World War Two, for example, will recall the sacrifices and battles of that time, which were experienced by their fellow countrymen and understood implicitly like a common language that they share.  Over time, as new generations are born, the names of places where battles were fought and lives lost fade from the nation's collective memory, as fewer and fewer among the population were alive to experience them.

     World War Two (1939-1945) was perhaps the most important event of the 20th century.  America's experience in liberating Europe from the Nazis undoubtedly influenced military decisions by American presidents in subsequent decades, usually with less fruitful results.  

     Until 1993, when Bill Clinton was inaugurated, every U.S. president had been born prior to 1925.  Every president since Herbert Hoover had been alive during the Great Depression and World War Two.  Clinton, however, was born in 1946 and his outlook growing up was shaped by the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s.  

     Bill Clinton was the last U.S. president to govern during the 20th century.  His successor, George W. Bush, inaugurated in 2001, was born the same year as Clinton was, 1946.  Donald Trump was also born in 1946.  The three presidents were born within three months of each other: Trump on June 14, Bush on July 6, and Clinton on August 19.  (Two recent nominees who failed to win the presidency, Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton, were born the following year, 1947.)

     It's often noted how presidents utilize the technology of their times, such as FDR's mastery of radio with his fireside chats, or JFK's use of television for his press conferences and debates.  The medium of radio and TV were not exactly brand-new inventions, but young and growing industries, and their use by these leaders for political purposes impacted how they would be used by those that followed.  Indeed, a media-savvy presence would become essential for political success, culminating in the election of a former movie and TV star as president in 1980 with Ronald Reagan.

     Social media on the internet is a uniquely 21st century innovation that has also taken on a dominant role in political discourse, influencing (and even originating) news coverage.  Twitter was founded in 2006, and citizen/celebrity Donald Trump created an account on the site in 2009.  Given the media's use of Twitter in the formation of their news stories, Trump was able to use the site as a way of sending unfiltered messages to the public while simultaneously remaining in the media spotlight.  This was very much a 21st century phenomenon, and it could be argued that Trump was the first true "21st century president" (no matter the year of his birth) by exploiting this new method of communication.

     However, we are only 21 years into the 21st century -- at a point comparable when Warren G. Harding became the first post-Civil War president in 1921 -- and there's no telling how the rest of the 21st century will look.  It's just possible that it may look more like Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama.

     Obama, America's first African-American president, was unlike any president before or since, due to his racial identity.  He was also born more recently (1961) than the others, and will become only 60 years old later this year.  For Obama, the events of the Great Depression and World War Two are even more remote than they were for his fellow baby boomers Clinton, GWB and Trump, all born in 1946.  "Baby boomers" is the term for those people born between 1946 and 1964, a group which also includes the current Vice-President Kamala Harris (if not President Joe Biden himself, who was born in 1942).  

     Kamala Harris was born in 1964.  It seems reasonable to assume that at some point she will run for the presidency, and if so would likely be a strong frontrunner given her current position as vice-president.  (Harris ran in 2019, but dropped out before any votes were cast.)  As president, she would not only be the second African-American president, but the first woman to be president.  As the demographics of the country become more diverse, a president that reflects such diversity would be more representative of the century in which they live, and more important a factor than whether they use Twitter or not. 

 

   Another prominent female politician these days is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, born in 1989.  Like Trump, she has used social media to enhance her visibility and voice.  AOC (as she is known) also has a Puerto Rican heritage, an ethnic background than reflects the country's growing diversity.  Currently only 31 years old, AOC would turn 35 on October 13, 2024, which means that if she ran for president she would meet the Constitutional requirement of being 35 years or older when taking office. (The 2024 election will take place on November 5, 2024.)

     If such a thing happened, she would be the youngest person to ever hold the office of U.S. president.  (At age 42, Teddy Roosevelt was the youngest person to become president, assuming office upon the death of President McKinley.)  Nonetheless, a President AOC would still be a "20th century" person leading the country in the 21st century.  Nearly one-third of her life would have been lived in the previous century.  

     Whoever becomes the Millard Fillmore or John F. Kennedy of the 21st century (i.e., the first president to be born in the same century in which they became president), it would have to be someone born after the year 1999.  This unknown person is currently 21 years old or younger, and (as noted earlier) will likely not become president until 2050 or later.  Constitutionally, they could not even run for president until 2035 at the earliest. Which means we probably have another 30 to 40 years of presidents who were born in the 20th century until that happens.

     However, I suspect it will happen sooner than 2050.  In the past, experience in either governing or military leadership were considered important factors in the election of a president.  Recent history has shown these qualities to be less important -- and perhaps even disadvantages -- than in the past.  For example, both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama won their respective elections against opponents with admirable military backgrounds (Bush, Dole, McCain).  Donald Trump was the first president to be elected who was neither a politician nor military leader.  

     The most important factor in winning elections may simply be an ability to create favorable impressions of one's self, which is the guiding principle of social media sites like Instagram (founded in 2010).  The power to control the narrative, to manipulate the populace's understanding of reality in the promotion of one's own ends, has long been important in politics, as mentioned above regarding FDR on radio and JFK on TV.  

     Using the "bully pulpit" (a phrase coined by Teddy Roosevelt) to achieve one's goals is nothing new.  But now each person has their own online pulpit in which to spread their gospel, in the hope of winning converts to their cause, regardless of whether the message is literally true or not.  A polarized electorate chooses sides in the manner of watching a football game, based on traditional loyalties, their interest maintained by commercial hype and the dramatic action on the playing field.  The bolder the play, the bigger the cheer from the crowd, and the greater the media exposure.  

     Politics is now just another sporting event, just another movie premiere, just another viral meme, for a shallow and bored public.  It's possible that a future president, the product of such a culture, could debase the office in ways unimaginable, even to those who have lived through Watergate, through the Clinton sex scandals, and through the reckless rhetoric of Trump.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the future holds, and hope for the best.

Early use of the abbreviation "HEA" when discussing Romance Novels

The abbreviation "HEA" (which stands for Happily Ever After) is regularly mentioned by romance novel readers when discussing the genre.  A romance novel that lacks a HEA is usually considered not only a disappointment, but not even a romance novel.  This is because one of the requirements of a book marketed as a "romance novel" is that it must have a happy ending for the main characters (the lovers) that are the subject of the book.  

     Because sequels and series have become so popular and prevalent, the abbreviation "HFN" (Happy For Now) is allowed as an alternative to the HEA, in order to fulfill the romance novel's requirement of a happy ending.  The HFN indicates that within the book in which their love story is featured, the romantic partners will be together and happy by the end of the book.  HFN does not guarantee eternal bliss for the main characters of the first book in the next book of the series, however, or in other books down the line.

     But where did the phrase "HEA" come from?  

     From my examination of 1980s issues of Romantic Times, I was unable to find a mention of the abbreviation "HEA" within their pages.  A happy ending was understood to be the desired ending of any romance novel, but the shorthand word "HEA" itself -- so ubiquitous today when discussing romance novels -- was nowhere to be found (at least that I saw in my perusal of the issues I have).  

     The earliest example that I found of the word "HEA" in print was in Romantic Times #93 (Dec. 1991).  Shown below is the top half of the article by author Bobbi Smith titled "EQ = HEA²" (presumably a pun on Einstein's famous "E = MC²" equation).  The "EQ" in the article stands for the "Emotion Quotient" -- a romance novel's ability to "touch our readers' hearts and make them 'feel' what our characters are feeling."  (You can read the article in its entirety here.)

     For the rest of the 1990s, however, the word "HEA" seems not to have appeared in the pages of Romantic Times.  Readers were said to favor "happy endings," and authors would declare "we read romances always for the guarantee of happily-ever-after" (RT #134, May 1995; p. 13), but the shorthand term "HEA" was not used.  (Of course, it's possible I simply missed such a reference, or don't have access to it.  If you do know of the abbreviation "HEA" being used in a 20th century book or periodical, please let me know.)

     The internet was known early on for its unique abbreviations ("LOL" being perhaps the most famous) and so I suspected that "HEA" may have been the result of internet discussion about romance novels.  

     The earliest reference to "HEA" that I have been able to find online was in a post by author Jo Beverely (1947-2016) on the newsgroup RRA-L (Romance Readers Anonymous-List) on March 20, 1994 (screencap below), replying to another member about happy endings:

     In the above post, Beverley is writing about how different types of readers respond to a book's ending.  The "HEA" reader is one who may question whether the couple will be able to sustain their relationship, despite the happy note on which the book ends.  

     In the thread replying to Jo Beverley's post, other readers chimed in saying whether they considered themselves "HE" or "HEA" type readers.  

     On March 24, 1994, Jo Beverley posted a reply regarding the responses that she had received to her post about the "HE" and "HEA" wherein she clarified what she meant by "HEA."  Even if the novel had an epilogue showing the couple happy, if the outcome was not convincing that their love would overcome future obstacles, then it was merely an "HE."  "HEA is a feeling I get at the end of a book, epilogue or not,"  she wrote. "HE is for me when this feeling isn't there, and I've experienced it even with epilogues showing them happy."

     This definition, then, is a more subjective determination, based on the willingness of the reader to accept the happy ending. In this early discussion of "HEA," it was more about the reader and her response to the likely permanence of the happy ending rather than whether the book had a happy ending or not.  

     To give an example from my own reading experience, in a review of a Harlequin Presents novel a couple years ago, I wrote the following: "Sure, they get it all resolved 10 pages before the novel ends. But realistically, what kind of stable relationship could two such distrustful people have in real life? One can imagine the same miscommunication problems happening again, destroying their relationship."  So, in that instance, the book had a happy ending, but failed to reassure me that (as Beverley put it) their "love will endure and that this couple can handle life and stick together." I was not convinced that the couple's issues were truly resolved and that the problems they had in the rest of the novel wouldn't come up again in the future, potentially ruining their happiness.

     However, "HE" and "HEA" were subsequently discussed by others in relation to the book (not the reader) and "HEA" would become shorthand for whether a work could be considered a romance or not.  In May 1994, there was discussion on the list about the 1992 novel The Bridges of Madison County by Robert James Waller, where the lack of an "HE" and "HEA" indicated that it was not a romance novel.

     On the newsgroup, "HEA" was often used as shorthand to indicate a happy ending (and thus a romance novel) while "HE" disappeared.  In practice, it appears that "HE" was eventually replaced by "HFN," although that particular abbreviation doesn't show up in my searches of RRA-L posts, and I don't know when "HFN" became regularly used.  

     In her column on online romance in Romantic Times #119 (Feb. 1994), Cathie Linz noted that "New technologies create new words.  Just as each generation has its own catchwords, computer bulletin board users have developed a language of their own."  Examples that she gave included "BBB" (book buying binge), BHA ("BookHoarders Anonymous") and IMHO ("In my honest opinion"), but not "HEA."  (Actually, IMHO stands for "in my humble opinion," as a RRA-L member posted on March 17, 1994.) 

     Occasionally the meaning of such abbreviations was posted about on the RRA-L, but HEA was not listed among them until the following post in January 1997.

     By the mid-to-late 1990s, conversations and activity gradually drifted from the text-based newsgroups to the image-oriented WorldWideWeb, with many authors, publishers and readers setting up webpages relating to the romance genre.  Since Oct. 2020, with the demise of Yahoo Groups, the RRA-L can be found on the groups.io site (which operates similarly to Yahoo Groups).

     The first installment of Laurie's News & Views, from March 1, 1996, included a survey question asking visitors whether a romance novel had to include an HEA.  So far this is the earliest reference to "HEA" that I've seen on a webpage (as opposed to a newsgroup post).

     The webpage was produced by Laurie Gold who went on to found the All About Romance website.  She mentions that debate about the issue was occurring on the RRA-L newsgroup.  Her inclusion of the abbreviation "HEA" after the phrase "Happily ever after" suggests familiarity with its use, even though the inclusion of an abbreviation seems unnecessary here since it only appears once.  (In these screencaps, I have highlighted the instances where the word "HEA" appears, to make it easier to see at a glance. You can click on the image to view it larger.)

     In the second installment, dated March 17, 1996, Laurie provided the results of her survey, showing that most readers preferred a "Happily Every After (HEA)."

     A year later, in installment #27 (June 4, 1997), Laurie raised the topic of the HEA again.  Although she again provided the meaning for what the letters stood for, the presence of the abbreviation is far more prevalent here than in the previous installments.  As highlighted by me here, we can see that the word "HEA" appeared 7 times.  So, it's safe to say that by 1997, "HEA" had already become familiar shorthand for readers discussing the content of romance novels. 

     The webpage published the comments of many authors and readers on the subject of the HEA, which can be read here.  Even back in 1997, a HEA was considered "essential" and "required" for a love story to be considered romance by most of the genre's readers.  

     And yet, for something so "simple," the HEA component of romance novels continues to this day to be a topic of debate on internet message forums, from Twitter to Facebook to romance fiction websites.  Through the years, even the definition of what constitutes a HEA (for example, marriage and/or children) has changed.

     The HEA can be used by readers to determine not only whether a book ought to be read, but whether an individual ought to be trusted.  Too often media commentators will recommend or reference novels that lack the HEA as "romance novels," and the simple act of doing so exposes their lack of understanding of the genre.  

     Or, to quote another popular variation of the HEA abbreviation: "HEA or GTFO."

My History as a Capfan

I recently joined a FB group called "Captain America Comic Book Fans" about the Marvel Comics character.  One nice thing about this group is that the focus is squarely on the comics, not the movies, etc.  The reason I joined is that they have been having a bracket where Cap artists who had long runs on the title are voted on, to eventually determine fans' favorite.  The names are lined up alphabetically, so right away there was a major decision to be made with Sal Buscema vs. John Byrne, two Capfan-favorites. (I went with Byrne.) Right now it is Ron Garney vs. Butch Guice, which is an easier choice for me since I find Garney's art frequently sloppy and unappealing, and I have enjoyed Guice's art since the late 1990s (I wasn't a fan of his 1980s art).  But looks like Garney is winning that round.

     Anyway, what brings me to post this is the board's interesting banner (shown above), which shows the top left corner of the covers from the 1940s to 2018.  The first image shown is actually Joe Simon's original concept sketch of the character. The one next to that (with Cap in a circle) is from a 1940s issue.  We then jump ahead to the first issue (#100) of Cap getting his own solo series in 1968 (after having spent the previous four years sharing "Tales of Suspense" with Iron Man). Then we have #150 (from 1972) and the Bicentennial issue #200 (1976, shown at left) during Jack Kirby's 1970s run as writer-artist-editor. All of these Silver-Age and Bronze-Age comics I obtained as back issues circa 1980-82; the first issue of Cap that I bought brand-new was #229 (Jan. 1979) which came out around the time that I turned 8 years old. (I wrote a previous blog post about the earliest comics that I read and bought which can be read here.)

     After that on the banner we see the corner symbol for #250 (Oct. 1980), during the great Stern-Byrne run.  By this time, I considered myself a collector of the series, and had a letter printed in #255 asking a continuity question about past depictions of Cap's origin. I got a mail subscription by #260, during Mike Zeck's run (which I enjoyed), but by #300 (Dec. 1984) my tastes were changing and I did the unthinkable and stopped "collecting" the series. #300 was the last issue of my subscription, and I didn't buy another issue of it until a year later, #312 (Dec. 1985), which was the 6th issue of Mark Gruenwald's lengthy run as the book's writer.  At first I enjoyed the series again, but by the #330's, during the storyline where Cap became "The Captain" and was replaced by another Captain America, I felt like the comic was repeating past glories and doing them less well, so I started buying it more infrequently.  I dropped it with #337 (Jan. 1988) and didn't buy it again until #349 (Jan. 1989) because I liked the Kirbyesque cover. If I recall right, my friend Matt sent me #350, but I hated most of the art inside. 

     On May 14, 1989 (when I was age 18), I wrote in a letter to Matt that I went "into 7-11 & purchase X-Men #247, JLA #27, Cap #356, Iron Man Annual #10, & Action Annual #2. The Action Comic annual looks okay. The Cap comic looks real good, Milgrom made his art look like Simon-Kirby. The X-Men & JLA look okay I guess. The Iron Man Annual looks really dumb, 'cos it's part of a continuing story! Aargh! I'm sending you all of them except the Cap one. God, what a waste of money."  Until reading the letter again years later, I had forgotten that I'd bought those other comics in addition to Cap #256 (cover-dated Aug. 1989).

     I was disturbed, however, by the violence in #256, as I shared with Matt in a letter on May 17, 1989: "Here's what's in my latest Cap: young boy kneed in the groin, boy then beaten on back with a stick, young girl hit in stomach by stick, villainess kicked in stomach, children locked in dark cages, villainess kicked in head, dirt flung in face, lines like "Drugs are your friend! Don't let anyone stand between you and a high! Violence is your right!", a group of children murder an innocent man, throwing his body into a fire, young girl gets her neck broken in full panel view by a group of villains who then laugh about it. And then for 4 pages a Captain America without his super-serum body is beaten in the head, in the back, in the hand, in the throat, on the face (not counting 2 pgs. where he's tied up, punched twice & then injected drugs with a syringe), punched in the face, punched by 5 different villainesses at once, kneed in the stomach, & again pounded on simultaneously by the villainesses & in the final panel the 17-year old Cap, weak, unconscious, is gripped by the hair about to be given "one last killing blow!" & that's where the story ends. Whatever happened to the hero winning in the end??"

     So, not surprisingly, I didn't buy another issue of Captain America again until after writer Mark Gruenwald left the book. Which is too bad, I realize now, since I think I would have enjoyed "The Bloodstone Hunt" backup series that began in the very next issue.  Gru stayed on the book for years and years, though -- his last issue was #443.  So, when I happened to see both #444 and #445 (Oct. & Nov. 1995) at the local Waldenbooks, and noticed that they were NOT written by Mark Gruenwald (but by Mark Waid), I bought them.  After all, this was the first chance to read a new issue of Cap that wasn't written by Gruenwald since 1985!  

     Unfortunately, I was less than impressed by both the writing (Waid) and the art (Ron Garney, see above). I particularly didn't like how Waid had brought back Sharon Carter, who died in #233 (and her death confirmed in #237) since I had long felt that Bernie Rosenthal, a normal person, as Cap's girlfriend was more likely to keep the character rooted in real-world problems rather than sci-fi adventures. (Of course Marvel had ended up having Bernie participate in Cap's adventures going back to DeMatteis' run, defeating any attempts at presenting a more realistic character.)  So I think I didn't buy another Cap after that.  I saw the distorted, ugly Garney cover of #448, which supported my decision not to buy the comic anymore.  Which didn't matter anyway, because the series was "cancelled" soon after with #454 (Aug. 1996), which I recall seeing on the shelf at the time.  

     I might have seen that final issue (#454) at a comics convention, in fact, because I had begun going to those regularly with Matt starting around this time, in an attempt to buy all the old comics that I hadn't been able to buy when I was younger.  I already had most of the Cap issues from #100 to #300, which I had gotten in the early 1980s when I was collecting the series.  But now since the series had an end point (#454) I figured that I'd fill the holes in my Cap collection between #301 and #454, just to have the whole run -- especially since I kept finding them in the cheap boxes where I was buying most of my back issues anyway.  Eventually I got almost all of them -- looking at my list, it appears that I'm missing only three issues  (#323, 447 and 454) to have #100 through #454.  (But my list might be a little out of date, so it's possible I have gotten them since.) 

     A rebooted Cap series (with a new #1) began in late 1996, initially drawn by Rob Liefeld, but I stayed away.  It ran 13 issues, until Cap was given a new #1 (Jan. 1998) that featured the return of Waid & Garney, who a lot of fans on the internet felt had been unfairly shoved aside during their previous run to make room for Liefeld's less critically-appreciated reboot. By 1997 I had home access to the internet and was participating in comics message boards, including the Cap board at Alvaro's.  I even had the experience of emailing 1970s Cap writer Steve Englehart to ask him a question about something in his run that I had wondered about (specifically whether The Falcon had murdered a character while under the control of the Red Skull).  

     My involvement on comics message boards, and the ease with which I was able to obtain comics at a nearby comics shop located only a 20-minute walk away (where I got a "pull list" for the first time) led to me buying new comic books again.  So I started buying Cap again with the new #1 (Jan. 1998) and didn't a miss a single issue (I had a pull list after all) until the series ended with #50 (Feb. 2002).  I had really begun to enjoy the series again during the run of writer-artist Dan Jurgens (#33-50), during which time Cap had gotten a normal, non-superheroic girlfriend again (lawyer Connie Ferrari).  But unfortunately Marvel decided to reboot the series again, under the "Marvel Knights" imprint, with a new #1 (June 2002).  This gave me a good "jumping-off" point, so I didn't buy the series again for the next couple years.

     The "Marvel Knights" Cap series ended with #32 (Dec. 2004).  So when it was rebooted again with #1 (Jan. 2005) by writer Ed Brubaker and artist Steve Epting (whose work I already liked), I gave it a shot and loved their run.  Even with the killing off of Jack Monroe (Nomad) and the return of Bucky Barnes (as Winter Soldier) and the prominence of SHIELD and over-the-top espionage story arcs (instead of Cap dealing with real-world issues, which is what I always prefer to see) -- despite all that, I loved it, and kept buying the series through the rest of Bru's run as writer (which eventually included Butch Guice as artist, who I also liked).  

     I kept buying Cap even after Brubaker & Guice left, and the series numbering went through some weird variations, such as a short-lived retitling of the series to "Captain America and Bucky."  And I continued to buy the series when it was rebooted with a new #1 (Jan. 2013) by a new creative team, writer Rick Remender (whose work I didn't know) and artists John Romita Jr. & Klaus Janson (whose work I was familiar with & had enjoyed).  In August 2012, I posted on Facebook (before seeing the first issue): "I've bought Captain America every month without fail since 2005 when Ed Brubaker began writing the series.  Ed has left, so it makes sense to renumber again and start anew, but this new series does not look appealing to me.  I'll probably try the first issue to give it a chance, but it looks like this may be a 'dropping-out' point for me."

     I gave the new series a try and even shared a page from the 2nd issue on my FB wall in Jan. 2013, writing: "I had my doubts about whether I'd continue buying new issues of CAPTAIN AMERICA because of the recent creative team change, as I posted about here on my FB wall a while back. I'm happy to report that the series will be staying on my pull list. The writing and art are different, but really good. Even the coloring is great!"

     However, the science-fiction slant of the storyline I found unappealing and I dropped the series a couple issues later.  That was the last time (2013, by which time I was 42 years old) that I bought the series brand-new off the shelf.  In July 2014, when I read about a new development in the series I wrote the following: "Good Lord, not again. I dropped Captain America when it was renumbered in 2013, after having faithfully bought every issue since 2005.  I dropped it with #4 or so, having given the new writer a good try.  I liked the first two issues, as a change of pace, but the direction that he was going was not appealing (and I see from the below news that 'Dimension Z' is still part of the narrative). Now we once again have the 'replacement Cap' storyline, which has been done multiple times during the character's history, which always results in Steve Rogers eventually returning to the role.  (As he should.  Steve Rogers IS Captain America.  Do readers need to find that out yet again?) Far from causing me to want to pick up an issue, this has 'you can ignore this entire story arc' written all over it."  

     This was followed by a "Captain America: Sam Wilson" series that ran 24 issues, from #1 (Dec. 2015) to #24 (Sept. 2017).  (There was also a concurrent "Captain America: Steve Rogers" series that ran 19 issues.) Although I'm a longtime fan of The Falcon (Sam Wilson), I prefer him as The Falcon, and particularly prefer him as someone dealing with down-to-earth matters, not more sci-fi, espionage, etc.  So I didn't buy this series.  It was renamed "Captain America" with #25 (Oct. 2017) when Steve Rogers became Cap again, and the next issue (#695, Jan. 2018) restored the series' original numbering.  (The top left corner of #695 is shown in the Facebook group's banner as the most recent image.)  Mark Waid returned as the book's writer, and the artist was Chris Samnee, whose simplified Alex Toth-esque art I had enjoyed previously on Daredevil (also written by Waid).  I didn't buy the series brand-new, but I did pick up a few issues (#696, 697, perhaps others) when I saw them for dirt-cheap shortly afterwards in a cheap bin at a comics shop that would soon go out of business.  This series was surprisingly short-lived, ending with #704 (Aug. 2018).

     The series was rebooted again with a new #1 (Sept. 2018) in a run written by political commentator and author Ta-Nehisi Coates.  I was tempted to start buying Cap again because of Coates being the writer, since I've enjoyed his columns online, but I've not regularly bought a new comics series from either Marvel or DC since around 2013, so I ended up avoiding Coates' run as well.  The series was given dual numbering with #9 (#713 overall) for those fans who want to collect everything from #100 (in 1968) to the present. (I'm no longer one of those folks.)

     The pandemic slowed down production of all comics, and so there was a gap between #20 (#724, May 2020) and #21 (#725, Oct. 2020).  The series is currently somewhere around issue #28, and as far as I know, Coates is still writing it.  

     Anyway, there's my history of buying Captain America comics -- thoughts which were prompted by seeing the glimpses of past covers.