|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 18, 2023 22:10:26 GMT -5
If the criteria is we don't know if we weren't there, all the history books should be thrown out.Well............. Naw just kidding; but, history books do bring the biases of the writer; so, there is still no absolute fact to be gleaned in any one book. Very true, but consensus can be reached. And more information can alter that. But to say, we can't know anything because we weren't there, so why think about it at all, is an invitation for ignorance. I am sorry, but I feel that attitude is very anti-intellectual. This is different from not just being interested to this aspect of comics of course.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 18, 2023 22:14:47 GMT -5
I think Stan Lee was the one of the best promoter/marketers of all time. Who really created the core of the Marvel universe? I don't know, and I don't think we ever will for sure. But I do know that without the vision and promotion of Lee it never would have prospered as it did. There is much Lee did that deserves praise, but his taking credit for, and lying about the creation of comics is worthy of criticism.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 18, 2023 22:25:23 GMT -5
It is an established fact that Kane and his father negotiated a byline for Batman. It is a fact that he hired others to do the work. It is a fact that he has claimed creation of characters and ideas that were introduced in stories that it is an established fact that he did not work on. It is an established fact that he hired another artist to produce lithographs that he sold as his own work, when the first Burton film came out. It is fact that he went to school with Will Eisner, yet kept shaving years off his age, in interviews, over the years, to Will's amusement.
Kane's memoirs, however, contained demonstrable falsehoods and other anecdotes that people who were there and knew him said were BS.
As to who actually did what, things like the creation of the Joker have so many elements and influences that you can't really say this guy created him, as he is part Bill Finger's ideas, part Jerry Robinson's designs, and perhaps part Kane's input, though there have been interview subjects who have claimed that Bill Finger showed Kane a photo of Conrad Veidt, in The Man Who Laughed and Kane had never seen the picture.
When you talk about history, you have to go with the best sources available, which is why many things once considered fact are re-examined later, as new sources are unearthed. Much Cold War history, from Western sources underwent revision when the Soviet Union broke up and KGB files were made public, showing that some things were false and some things misbelieved were, in fact, true.
With Bob Kane, Bob Kane is a pretty unreliable source. It is more than just bad memory.
There is a general consensus of sources, from the period, that the major creative force in building the early mythos was Bill Finger. Not that he was the original thinker; but, he was the one who cribbed or suggested cribbing things from other sources, like pulp novels, movies, literature and other sources. He had swipe files and he took ideas from them; but, he was generally pointed to as the one who was originating the actual stories. Batman's Rogues Gallery owed much to Dick Tracy and Terry & the Pirates (Catwoman and the Dragon Lady have much in common); but, Finger is generally agreed to be the one who took those influences and fleshed out the villains and other characters.
The argument with Stan & Jack revolves around what you consider to be creation and how much conversation the pair actually had. The best idea you get is in hindsight, where Jack's solo work has tremendous plots, in many occasions, but clunky dialogue and maybe less developed personalities, while Stan was less interesting in his writing when not paired with an artist who could plot on his own. That leaves you with the collaborations being just that, where one complimented the other and neither could be considered the sole author. As to whose contribution is greater or more definitive for any one work, that is always going to be filtered through bias, as it depends on the story and artistic elements you think carry more weight. The reality is most likely that one had an idea, that inspired another idea in the partner, which led to a new idea by the first, which the second developed further....and so on. That's what happens in collaboration. With Kane and his crew, the general consensus seems to be that he was not collaborating on anything, as far as creating the work, but was taking his contractual cut. That's not to say that he didn't have a hand in hiring Finger, or Robinson or Moldoff; but, he pretty much let them do their thing and went off and did his thing, somewhere other than comics. In that, he was no more the author of the batman stories than Martin Goodman was of the comics he published. He hired and fired the people or hired and fired the editors who hired and fired the writers and artists, just as Kane hired his ghosts and staff, just as Eisner & Iger hired their staffs and just as many comic strip artists hired and fired their assistants and ghosts.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 18, 2023 22:45:41 GMT -5
Well............. Naw just kidding; but, history books do bring the biases of the writer; so, there is still no absolute fact to be gleaned in any one book. Very true, but consensus can be reached. And more information can alter that. But to say, we can't know anything because we weren't there, so why think about it at all, is an invitation for ignorance. I am sorry, but I feel that attitude is very anti-intellectual.This is different from not just being interested to this aspect of comics of course. Now hold on there, Sparky. No one said history books weren't worth reading; but, that any one book isn't necessarily going to give you the whole story, suggesting (which was my intent) that you should seek out more than one book on the subject to see where a consensus develops, which would suggest an intellectual approach, rather than accepting one source as gospel. For instance, I enjoy Robert Leckie's writings on the various wars and conflicts of US history; but, they are also the highlights, as he covered a broad story in many of them. However, I consider his Helmet For My Pillow to be a bit more authoritative an account of the Battle of Guadalcanal, from the perspective of a line Marine, which is what it is. When it comes to comic book history, I enjoyed Ron Goulart's works in the field; but, his focus was a bit narrow, as it was primarily the Golden Age and the 1950s, with the early Silver Age. They pretty much stop before the Bronze Age. Meanwhile, Will Jacobs & Gerard Jones' The Comic Book Heroes fills in that gap; but, it is a fan's perspective on many elements within the book; not that Goulart's isn't also a fan-driven project. However, Goulart had a wider scope than Jacobs & Jones, as they pretty much limit themselves to DC & Marvel, until the tail end, when the independents start factoring in. They give little attention to Harvey and Archie, even as they dabbled in superheroes again or Warren's offerings, like The Rook or even Vampirella, which travel in close proximity. Mike Benton penned some decent volumes, with ones that were more general history and others that were deeper dives into genres. Jeff Rovin produced less histories than reference books, acting as databases before the internet (and more information than you average post-internet blog). All of these have shortcomings and faults, which is why I don't necessarily subscribe to one's version of history over another. Rather, taken as a whole, there are definitive histories for some things and cursory histories of others and very subjective histories for a few subjects. That is also why I read things like David Hadju's The Ten Cent Plague, even though I read about the 50s witch hunts, in the Goulart and Benton books. They talked about the general, he discussed the specific, with interview subjects that hadn't been around fan writers. By the same token, Les Daniels' histories of DC and Marvel are fine reads; but, they are officially sanctioned, while Sean Howe's Untold History of Marvel operates without the corporate spin, for good and ill. So, I therefore see your anti-intellectual and raise you with skeptical and seeking confirmation from other sources. Besides, I am S-M-R-T, smart!
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 18, 2023 22:54:25 GMT -5
ps I just re-read the line where you said "But to say, we can't know anything because we weren't there, so why think about it at all, is an invitation for ignorance" and then the anti-intellectual attitude bit and realize I skipped over a line and lost context.
So, me am not so S-M-R-T.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Apr 19, 2023 2:41:11 GMT -5
(...) So, me am not so S-M-R-T. Well, since ' smrt' means death in Croatian, that's probably a good thing...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2023 3:08:06 GMT -5
Thanks for the great replies, folks.
A certain comic creator did used to get a little boring with variations of, “So, where was your office at WB?” Or, “You didn’t work at DC, so how do you know this or that?”
That’s the extreme I am thinking of. Naturally, this creator had opinions on, say, Ed Wood’s films or King Kong.
We do have to have a leap of faith. I did pick up some issues of Starlog as a kid. There’s no way I - or anyone - could have verified every sentence from each issue, we have to trust that the writers and editors got it right 95% of the time. But there are people in this world who seem to want a source/paper trail for everything, up to and including the brand of tea you had for breakfast! (Such people seem rare)
Reputation counts, too. TwoMorrows is diligent and robust, so I’ll accept what they write. At other times, though, my gut tells me something else, e.g. some tabloid ‘news’ about a superhero film seems so unlikely that I conclude it’s just an editor/writer filling space.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Apr 19, 2023 3:54:00 GMT -5
Well I suppose one can expect people who literally make up stories as a job to sometimes "spike up" the details of reality...
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 19, 2023 4:52:55 GMT -5
There are events that can verified by other writings. And " the truth is generally in the middle " is an interesting but faulty premise. If I get robbed at gun point , and the suspect is caught, do we just figure I probably didn't really get robbed and that the truth is in the middle? Sometimes a person is definitely wrong. Sorting through what really happened just takes some work.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2023 5:18:08 GMT -5
There are events that can verified by other writings. And " the truth is generally in the middle " is an interesting but faulty premise. If I get robbed at gun point , and the suspect is caught, do we just figure I probably didn't really get robbed and that the truth is in the middle? Sometimes a person is definitely wrong. Sorting through what really happened just takes some work. I agree. There can be extremes and a lack of nuance. Your robbery example would piss me off. My response would be, “I was actually robbed, you know.” And my default option is to believe anyone who tells me that kind of thing, except, obviously, if someone is known for making up stories and lying continually. “There are two sides to a story” can be a cop-out at times. I guess we just have to take some things on their own merits. I remember reading the words “lions led by donkeys” to describe WWI soldiers being led by their generals. Even some lame politicians jumped on that bandwagon and would use that phrase in non-war terms. Yet I did watch a documentary once, which appeared to be credible, that stated many generals died on the battlefield. Despite that, the narrative of *every* general sitting drinking alcohol far behind enemy lines does seem to persist at times. I guess reputation plays a part in some debates. Back when I did clerical work, I did work with a guy who was shifted from team to team. He seemed to be falling out with so many people, managers included. So whenever a colleague told me about the latest argument or issue, I was inclined to believe him/her, especially as I’d witnessed this guy’s attitude.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Apr 19, 2023 5:41:05 GMT -5
As someone who has actually earned money writing about the history of comic books, I suppose I ought to weigh in. I've learned several lessons along the way, such as that people's memories are imperfect, interviewers and their subjects sometimes have agendas other than telling the truth, there are questions that can and will never be answered, and that it's okay--and even preferable---to say "I/we don't know."
My article for Alter Ego on the Golden (and Silver) Age histories of Flash, Green Lantern, and Hawkman contained several factual inaccuracies that I corrected when I covered that same material in American Comic Book Chronicles 1940-44. I also made an effort to present all sides of any controversies and I didn't hesittate to dismiss, with explanations, a number of oft-repeated "facts" that were anything but. And still mistakes crept in, and I was sometimes overridden by my editorial supervisors. For instance, in introducing Maxwell C. Gaines, I originally included the phrase "Max to some, Charlie to others" which Roy Thomas insisted be removed because (and I'm paraphrasing) "I never heard anyone refer to him as Max." even though there are numerous sources, such as Frank Jacobs' "The Mad World of William M. Gaines," that quote contemporaries of Gaines who did exactly that.
The upshot of the above is that even the most conscientious historians (as I fancy myself to be) can be wrong or affected by others' agendas. So my advice is to read as wide a variety of sources as you can, identify the historian and.or his sources' biases where you can, and remember that history is an ongoing process and always subject to change.
Cei-U! I summon the early morning ruminations!
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 19, 2023 6:32:48 GMT -5
You can be pissed off that Stan Lee , in the name of selling his company, took more credit than he should have taken. It’s doesn’t mean that he contributed zero like Kirby was saying. Lee was a used car salesman.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 19, 2023 7:55:39 GMT -5
ps I just re-read the line where you said "But to say, we can't know anything because we weren't there, so why think about it at all, is an invitation for ignorance" and then the anti-intellectual attitude bit and realize I skipped over a line and lost context. So, me am not so S-M-R-T. My post was responded to your post about history books, but I should have made clear you did not say "if you weren't there, you can't know" (that was driver). So I was commenting on more than one thing.
I am sorry that it looked like I was accusing your post of being anti-intellectual.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Apr 19, 2023 7:58:16 GMT -5
You can be pissed off that Stan Lee , in the name of selling his company, took more credit than he should have taken. It’s doesn’t mean that he contributed zero like Kirby was saying. Lee was a used car salesman. I never said he contributed zero. Never. I said he did not create everything, as he has claimed. And I am saying all the character ideas did not originate with him, as he has claimed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2023 8:01:54 GMT -5
ps I just re-read the line where you said "But to say, we can't know anything because we weren't there, so why think about it at all, is an invitation for ignorance" and then the anti-intellectual attitude bit and realize I skipped over a line and lost context. So, me am not so S-M-R-T. My post was responded to your post about history books, but I should have made clear you did not say "if you weren't there, you can't know" (that was driver). So I was commenting on more than one thing.
I am sorry that it looked like I was accusing your post of being anti-intellectual.
As my first post hopefully shows, I do not endorse the “if you weren’t there, you can’t know” premise. Some creators have stated that, but I don’t believe in that philosophy. No-one could have been here, there and everywhere for everything they wish to discuss.
|
|