I keep meaning to send this letter off to The Believer, but I don’t get around to it. Nerves probably.
One of my TCJ columns was all about Mort Weisinger, the miserable bent man who edited DC’s Superman titles during the 1950s and 1960s. I read a bunch of interviews in Alter Ego and so on (I don’t mean to sound offhand: the magazine makes for good reading) and I read a couple volumes of DC Showcase: Superman, plus old Weisinger Superman stories that were available on the Web (can’t find them now). I even sent away for some of Weisinger’s books: The Contest, 1001 Things You Can Get for Free, How to Be a Perfect Liar. I started with the idea that Weisinger was a jerk. Pretty soon I discovered that, yes, he really was. He was also banal to a degree that’s wonderful. You read Alan Moore rhapsodizing about the miracle conceits of the Weisinger period, and then you encounter the period’s mastermind and realize that behind the conceits lay a man who could not frame a worthwhile thought or write an interesting sentence. His brain had a big lobe for monkey-like ingenuity and no lobes for anything else. And of course he was a mess, an emotional slop pile, a heap of semi-liquid venom. He took delight in splattering anyone without the rank or assertiveness to tell him to lay off. If you want an idea of the low end of the human scale, spend some time researching Weisinger.
Because he was a mess and he had to churn out comics, Weisinger’s neuroses showed up in the Superman stories he oversaw. So it is with artists and neurosis. But Weisinger had very little talent — less, say, than a writer coming up with a funny dream sequence for The Dick Van Dyke Show. The Weisinger neuroses poke thru the stories like broken bones thru skin. God, are they painful. There’s no aesthetic payoff, just the fascination of the awful. But, okay, I’ll settle for that.
My column, called “The Night Thoughts of Mort Weisinger,” looked at a couple of Weisinger fave stories and dug out their abundant emotional subtext. To the extent that anyone reads my columns, this one was a success. So why not resell it? Weisinger seems like a good subject for The Believer, a general-interest magazine that runs articles on ’80s teen movies and the man behind a mid-century publishing imprint dedicated to educating the masses. The Believer, I mean to say, is fairly eclectic and doesn’t demand topical hooks for its articles. So why not an account of how this nasty heap’s emotional problems got imprinted on the favorite reading material of 10-year-old baby boomers? No reason at all, except I’m having trouble writing the letter. I’m just the diffident type.
There is the chance, of course, that someone at The Believer will browse along to this post and save me the distress of stepping forward. I did a post called “Question for Kurt Busiek or Mark Evanier” and, damn, they both wrote in. Conceivably I could write a post called “Will You Love Me, Emanuelle Béart?” and she could write in and say no.
-.jpg){kind=link}
I read the excerpt of your article on Mort Weisinger online with interest and am looking for the Comics Journal issue with the full essay in. I must confess that I’m perplexed by the level of animosity aimed at Weisinger – by you and by others. I have read the legends, at least those recounted in The Krypton Companion, but honestly that makes Weisinger more fascinating to me. Why should the man be tolerable socially? How is this related to our reading pleasure? Hemingway was frequently a horse’s ass and it doesn’t diminish his reputation. (Of course, I am not comparing Hemingway with Mort Weisinger in any other way.) (Although – – – )
The stories themselves are, more than occasionally, remarkable. A whole book could and should be written just on all the red kryptonite variations, silly and formulaic as they might be. Of course, it’s all a matter of taste, but I prefer the Superman axis of comics in the Silver Age(esp. Jimmy Olsen, Lois Lane) to the oft-vaunted Julius Schwartz Flash or Batman stories.
Also, the negativity that you find alarming in Weisinger-edited stories can arguably be read as a subversive edge. The incessant plotting and skirmishing between batman and Superman in World’s Finest, or Jimmy Olsen’s frequent (apparent) betrayals of Superman make for excellent reading because they challenge or defy the bland, traditional narrative. (Who would argue that Weisinger’s Clark Kent, with all his neuroses and whims, is not a more interesting – since enigmatic, ambivalent – character than the current blah version?)
Be that as it may, I wondered what research you did into Weisinger, and towards what end it was originally conceived (before you became disgusted with the project)? I have been thinking about writing about Weisinger myself – but at least conceiving it more as a vindication. Do you know about Mark Schorer, Sinclair Lewis’s biographer, who took on the task, and by the end of it came to despise Lewis?
Maybe Mort Weisinger is the same; but does the private life of the author (or here, editor) have any relevance whatosever? I get a sense that, his avuncular image notwithstanding, Julius Schwartz could be a difficult cuss himself.
Cordially yours,
Elias Nebula
Let me see, research was mainly The Krypton Companion, some issues of Alter Ego, and old copies of Weisinger’s books, which I bought thru Amazon.
I assume you know the standard reasons for disliking Weisinger, so what you’re asking is why I’d get so worked up about them when I never met the guy. Short answer: I’ve known people like him.
By now I’ve read a good bit of Weisinger’s Suprman stories and it’s not like I had to force myself. They go down easy and they’re distinctive. But I wouldn’t say they were good; for me they’re just curiosities connected to one man’s strange personality and a particular phase of cultural history. Each to his own, of course.
Of course — of course!
Uh… I hate to be a pest, but can you tell me which issues of Alter Ego contain the Weisinger material? Is this stuff not duplicated in The Krypton Companion?
Of course Weisinger-era Superman comics are not high art, but it’s also a relief that they do not strive to be high art (or “serious literature”) like so many comicbooks today. Superficial and throwaway, they have a light dadaism and a wan fatalism that the current crop of comics writers – with their over-weening self-belief bolstered by an uncritical and backslapping press -lack. My sense was that an acute consciousness of the disparity between between high and low was part of Weisinger’s constant humiliation and the crux of his anxiety. He was ambitious and confounded; which is arguably a superior artistic state to bland self-satisfaction.
Frank Miller or Grant Morrison, conversely, might actually believe that they are the equals of Herman Melville, and so they possess no such anxiety. I think Mort Weisinger was closer to the truth than Miller or Morrison in this regard.
Like John Lydon says, “anger is an energy.”
Again, cordially – – –
Elias Nebula
Sorry to be a pain, but all my research material is in a storage closet. Best I can tell you, without being a much better person than I am, is that the Alter Egos had interviews with some W-era writers and artists: Al Plastino and Arnold Drake come to mind. If you have an AE issue, you can check out their back-numbers section. It gives little capsule rundowns of what’s in each issue.
No denying W was pissed, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he despised his work, especially the comics. I remember reading that he thought his artists and writers were all morons. But I don’t think his unhappiness produced superior work of any sort; it just made his hackwork a bit stranger. I mean, that’s my view. There’s a lot of run-of-the-mill entertainment that I like, I’m a big tv watcher, but I don’t think W’s Superman measures up all that well even as entertainment. It’s okay, but for me what makes it worthwhile is just that it’s odd.
But there are many, many comic book readers who disagree, of course.
I have now read some more of your articles and have found eminent sense indeed in them; a rare thing in the field of (superhero) comics criticism. That said I think you're too generous to Joe Quesada – and still too hard on Mort Weisinger.
I merely wanted to note here that in the review of the Yale book on superheroes and haut couture, in your closing thoughts on Michael Chabon (which I enjoyed) you remark that "I have the bitterness of failure."
While not wishing to offend thee, I discern an echo of MORT here. Weisinger's son said that his father "wanted to go on to other things, like novels," that he "felt he wasted some of his creativity in comics" but that DC kept him in "golden handcuffs." Doesn't a similar thwarted tone characterise your remarks at the close of this essay? Perhaps Mort had the "bitterness of failure" too — and your recoil is "the rage of Caliban."
Weisinger bridled because he knew or intuited at least that there was something more than comics out there and that life is short and that he'd fudged his chance. Doesn't Stand Lee say the same thing, albeit more cheerfully?
I'd argue that this position, simultaneously whipped and snobbish though it may be (particularly to the clammy fanboy community) is still preferable to that self-satisfaction of the contemporary hack who insists uncritically that comics are a High Art of themselves and so therefore comics work is ambition enough.
Certainly Mort reacted poorly to his compromise, as you say.
(Since reading your essay I have paid closer attention to certain nuances of Mort-edited comics. I recently noted a few Mort-penned responses in the letters pages that illustrated your view.
In one letter, responding to an innocuous and good-natured [if pedantic] remark, Mort upbraids the reader by effectively calling him a voyeur ["Maybe that's what you would do if you had X-ray vision-But Clark Kent only uses his X-ray vision when he feels there is a good reason for doing so. He doesn't go around looking through everything, like a super-Peeping Tom!"]. In another instance on the same page, to a female reader who rashly pointed out a perceived "boo-boo" [in a madhouse scene], he tartly responds: "We've never been in a sanitarium. Have you?"
Meanwhile, in a "Smallville Mailsack" [in SUPERBOY #81] Mort rebuffs another reader who also mistakenly marks a boo-boo where there is none: "Meanwhile, keep reading our stories and look for a boo-boo to help you overcome your inferiority complex."
Unlike you, I guess I find this stuff charming in a funny way. I presume that most of them were taken as such by the letter-writers.
Also, while you say that silver age DC had "an unhealthy, neurotic air," I maintain that they were merely reflecting the world around them at that time: which was neurotic, paranoid and evolving erratically towards an uncertain future.
Wiesinger's personal identification with JFK alone is worth closer scrutiny. Indeed, silver age DC comics may conceivably have fuelled many of the most colorful aspects of conspiracy theory, particularly the JFK-Oswald-Ruby stuff with its multiple instances of doubling. Jack Ruby even looked like a Curt Swan hood.
As you noted, at the end of the story the continuity would be entirely reset ["bungee storytelling"]– which is finally reassuring, isn't it? As if to say that no matter how warped and inverted and exaggerated the world becomes, however closely total annihilation looms, the planet (or the Planet) returns finally to peace and calm; Jimmy Olsen or Perry White may seem to be a spy, or a traitor, or a robot, or a monster, or Luthor's new crony; but there is a rational explanation for it all. Something Zen about that.)
Forgive me my rhapsodizing. I enjoy your intelligent pieces on superhero comics in the Journal. It's about time.
Cordially, as ever,
I am
Elias Nebula
"whipped and snobbish." Yeah, you got me. But I've been around a lot of people who were down on themselves, and we don't all cope in the same ways, which I guess is a point you already made. To me, W is a model of the wrong way to respond to feeling miserable about life.
Those letter-column quotes you found — damn, do they make me hate the guy. I guess the readers took it as good fun, since he kept on doing it and no one stopped him, but I hate that whole way of talking, the pettiness and can't-be-wrongism.
If you write about W, it would be worthwhile to get a copy of "How to Be a Perfect Liar." It's a humor book he co-wrote, and it's more or less set up as a guide for handling yourself in difficult social situations. The spirit is entirely that of the letter responses you quoted.
Great to hear you liked my columns. I didn't realize I was so easy on Quesada. Brand New Day sucked, but I really liked a lot of the Ultimates and Marvel Knights that I saw.
"Indeed, silver age DC comics may conceivably have fuelled many of the most colorful aspects of conspiracy theory, particularly the JFK-Oswald-Ruby stuff with its multiple instances of doubling. Jack Ruby even looked like a Curt Swan hood. "
That's a wild idea. It could have been a great National Lampoon piece in the 70s, if those guys had been more up on superhero comics.
My apologies for the epithet "whipped and snobbish" – I was as much (or moreso) speaking about myself. None more whipped – none more snobbish. Perhaps however we are each of us projecting ourselves onto what we read; and exorcizing shortcomings along the way.
I read in "Big Red Feet, Mighty Chest" that the Weisinger Superman stories were your introduction to comics, and maybe that is the key. They shall always be the ur-myth for you. You are simultaneously stung and charmed by them.
My introduction, meanwhile, came ignominiously through British reprints of SECRET WARS in the early-mid eighties. As a consequence I still give (arguably) undue amounts of thought to that eccentric figure the Beyonder; his works and all his meanings. As a consequence I am still puzzling out the cosmic power tallies in the Marvel universe (and fatuous related excursions along the way, such as whether the Spectre is less powerful than the Living Tribunal?) (of course he is) even while that series is almost universally disparaged in the "high-thinking" comics community. I remain blankly perplexed that this is not considered the highpoint of the form, even while all the evidence screams to the contrary.
Still, that denouement between Doom and the Beyonder…
These, our hobby horses.
Conversely, I came to the Weisinger Superman narrative late, through Jimmy Olsen (and depressingly I have already forgotten what occasioned this foray in the first place). I remain enthralled by a good percentage of the numbers I read.
It occurred to me that here – in this most facile of pleasures, which cannot (and should not) be glorified as anything higher than what it is – is the other side of the exchange; while Mort could (as we have seen and you have shown) be inappropriately withering to pre-teens, he also brought them a lot of daft joy in his stories. With one hand he giveth, with the other he taketh away.
Reading "Big Red Feet. Mighty Chest" I also wondered what you thought about Superman's definition against Batman? How does his team-up with Batman redefine Superman as an abstraction for you?
This becomes a new way of seeing Superman after World's Finest #71; to this day some of the (ostensibly) "deepest" analyses of what Superman IS are done within the pages of Superman/Batman.
This, the psychoanalysis of Superman that goes on in the current title, is mostly amateur pop-psych of course. I predictably prefer by far the Weisinger World's Finests where they waver madly between cheery friendship and maniacal animosity, and where any erratic behaviour is explained away by red kryptonite or Mr. Mxyzptlk or some alien spore unleashed in the Fortress of Solitude.
These are the issues where Superman has Batman in stocks, or where Batman has put Superman in jail and refuses him bread and water. Issues where they are furiously trying to sabotage each other's secret identities.
Where does the partnership with Batman fit into your concept of Superman?
Cordially,
Elias Nebula
"These are the issues where Superman has Batman in stocks, or where Batman has put Superman in jail and refuses him bread and water. Issues where they are furiously trying to sabotage each other's secret identities. "
I've got to get some of those. That sounds so Weisingerian.
"Where does the partnership with Batman fit into your concept of Superman?"
I hadn't thought about it. Read a lot of WF as a kid but not since. If I were really going to think about the Bman/Sman friendship, I'd have to do a lot of thinking about Batman on his own, and, you know, I don't get paid a whole lot for this stuff. But I will at least keep an eye out for DC: Showcase collections of W-era WF issues.
The damn Beyonder … he is such a hack contrivance. I can see how he'd throw off your notion of the Marvel characters' pecking order and power levels and so on. But, from Secret Wars, I do remember a nifty line: "Terrorist is what the big army calls the little army."
Hi, Elias and Tom–
Hope you don't mind me hopping into your fascinating discussion. I have wondered much about MW over the years, and have never been able to come to a conclusion as to whether he wa a very good or a very bad editor.
As a former editor for magazines and newspapers, and a consultant to Marvel Comics for a while, I can look, say, at the work Jerry Siegel did for Weisinger and compare it to some of the work he did both earlier and later, and think, "Well, MW made a better writer of Siegel."
I have also been exposed to those who bullied others simply to make themselves feel better, and know that there is no excuse for such behavior.
MW also had a rep for taking credit for what others did, and inflating what he actually had done himself.
Still, as a kid in the 1950s and 60s, I viewed the DC Superman line as the absolute best in comic books. I enjoyed a lot of other stuff, but the Superman books seemed to be the best.
I do know that I received a very snide remark on a DC postcard from MW when I wrote him regarding an illogical aspect to his Superman mythos. He denied what I had written to him about, but, at the same time, he referred to the issue I had raised in every subsequent reference to it. To get that kind of response was, to a 15-year-old kid, a real downer.
So, all I end up with is this: What a very strange dude Weisinger must have been!
–Jim
"He denied what I had written to him about, but, at the same time, he referred to the issue I had raised in every subsequent reference to it."
He just couldn't be wrong!
Hey, Tom–
>>He just couldn't be wrong!
That is exactly what I thought as a kid, and have had no reason to change my feeling.
What I had commented on, and it wasn't in the nature of "This is a boo-boo," was the frequent mention in the Superman books of those days that Superman's hair didn't grow under a yellow sun.
I said if that were true, the amount of hair that a baby has is way less than that of an adult, and Superman would look strange if he had the same amount of hair that he had sported when he landed from Krypton. I even drew a picture of an adult Superman with a baby's amount of hair.
So MW replied that anyone would know what he had meant and there was no reason to correct it in the books.
YET, in every reference after that, he would have the wording that Superman's hair doesn't grow under a yellow sun, EXCEPT TO CONFORM TO HIS PHYSICAL GROWTH.
So he wouldn't admit the error in logic but still corrected it.
No big deal, but I thought it was rather a childish way to act, especially when it was a kid writing in concerning a kid's magazine!
I also was rather startled when he replied to another kid one time that DC couldn't sell or condone the sale of back issues of their magazines because old, previously read comics could carry diseases!
Take care–
–Jim
"I even drew a picture of an adult Superman with a baby's amount of hair."
Now I can see it from Mr. Weisinger's point of view. That drawing would have freaked me out too.
But seriously, what you report is exactly what I dislike about him. He couldn't even say something like "Good point, but luckily most readers will accept some growth of Superman's hair as long as he looks normal."
Come to think of it, if Superman's hair doesn't grow, why should his bones, skin, brain cells, etc., grow? He would stay an infant the rest of his life.
The first time a kid asked how Superman got his hair cut, Weisinger could have said, "Who knows? As long as he looks right for the part, it doesn't matter." Instead he had to come up with some malarkey. A lot of adults do that when that kids ask tough questions, the idea being that someone smart enough to raise a difficult point must also be dumb enough to accept a flimsy answer. Not a good way of doing business, really.
… no back issues because they carry disease. Good frigging Lord.
Do you what Jerry Siegel thought of Mort Weisinger? He worked for him twice, in the 1940s and in the late'50s-early '60s. When Siegel returned in the late '50s, what did he think of all of Weisinger's additions to the Superman mythos? While there was humor in Siegal's stories form the '30s and '40s, it was nothing like the later Weisinger stories, which were often tounge in cheek from beginning to end. What did Siegel think about that? I've heard that Siegel wrote the '60s stories uncredited (I guess because he was supposed to be blackballed at the time) So, did Weisinger have anything to do with that?
By the way, do you know what Siegel might have thought about the whole Earth One/Earth Two premise that Julius Schwartz introduced? (I always thought it was a bit unfair that Siegel's Superman, the first Superman, was relelgated to Earth Two instead of Earth One)
I know these are a lot of questions. My feelings won't be hurt if you simply answer "I don't know"
Best I can do is advise reading "Men of Tomorrow" by Gerard Jones. It's a history of Superman with the focus on Jerry Siegel. The section on Weisinger isn't long, but it's choice.
If you're OCD enough, you might look thru the DC Showcase volumes and see which of the Weisinger stories were written by Siegel. That wouldn't tell you what Siegel thought of the Weisinger mythos, but it would indicate which ideas had come from Siegel. Though the method is not 100% reliable, since reportedly W would take an idea from one writer and give it to another.
What did W think of Earth 1/Earth 2? Now that you've raised the queston, I wish I knew. That would be really interesting to find out.
Since my father was my best friend, it is always amusing to hear comments from those who knew him, especially those who worked with him. I share them with my mother and we both have a good laugh.
As I have said many times, everything about my dad's personality is true–however, writers and artists who think they have been under his attack have no idea what it was like showing my homework-brutal. Yet, he taught me how to be creative and have fun in my work. If any of you have any quetions about him or activites that occurred at DC during his tenure, I am the best source you will find, as I was also his best friend.
For openers, though, I will say that without a doubt, my dad was what made superman successful. Thirty years, and Superman was always at the top. Those who say he had no talent, stole ideas, are way off. It would be quite a feat to stay in the top position, leave on your own terms, if you didn't deliver the goods. We all know that he couldn't done it on his good looks and on his personality. It was my father who thought of ideas like getting Superman on I Love Lucy, having JFK in a story, that truly integrated superman into pop culture. He innovated both story structure and the business with imaginary stories and Superman Manuals which allowed him to use the same story multiple times. He was the story editor of over 100 superman shows and cartoons. He was multimideia before the term existed. As a psychologist, I would say one of the reasons that many comic writers didn't like him was because he pointed out their lack of talent. They found it offensive, but the fact was, he was right. There were a few, Carry Bates, Ed Hamilton, Otto Binder that he respected, but these, were really sf writers, not comic writers.
Also, he wrote thousands of magazine articles for the top editors in the country. Did they like what they read or were they poor editors and writers too? As I have said, he did not consider comic writers to be particularly creative and thus, had little respect for them, My father discovered Ray Bradberry too and Rod Serling, who spoke at my college graduation, "You should be very proud of your father. He is a very talented man." His writing peers respected him and thought well of him.
Every morning, I woke up with him tellling me a cover idea-if I could guess the twist, he would throw it out. Also, many of the letters in the mailbags he made up, many times signing my friend's names. He would often do this to plant ideas and to develop the superman mythology.
He was hard on my mother, and my sister, but he was my best friend and taking a day off from school and going into his office with one of my friends to read superman proofs were some of the happiest moments of my life; naturally, I would see him yell at the writers and a few of the artists, but the top executives kissed his butt cause they knew they had a creative genius running the ship-and he didn't sink it, did he?
I think you will all enjoy my new book, Flying Like Superman.
http://www.drhankw.com
This excellent conversation has laid dormant a while and I realise what follows is the sort of anal shenanigans serious adults eschew, probably rightly, but:
Couldn't Superman do all his various feats of growth and hairstyling in the Bottle City of Kandor? All his powers switched off there.
There are places where Superman's powers switch off. Lex Luthor's planet was another one. It's under a red sun, right? Right. He could go there or to Kandor and grow a beard. Experiment with a moustache. It's something all men like to do from time to time.
Honestly, I think you have a point about the cells of his body though. Why didn't Superman remain a new-born babe? Or rather, exactly the same as when he landed on Earth?
As for the ongoing question of Mort Weisinger's unpleasantness, while I was the one defending Weisinger in the first instance, I don't think Mort's son's filiopietistic "defence" does him many favours. Also, for a certified "doctor" his post is riddled with errors of spelling.
Physician, heal thyself.
We move in phases… I am now reading Marvel comics again mostly.
Hi Elias, good to hear from you again. I just finished writing a second essay about Mort, this one focusing on his nervous breakdown and how it showed up in the covers he approved. In the course of the work I dug up my old sources and found some new ones, so in a few days I will fulfill your old request and post a bibliography here. Right now I'm away from home.
As for Dr. Hendrie, it was a kind of a thrill for me to see his comment. For better or worse, his comments were entirely in line with what I had picked up about his character and his father's.
And as for Superman's cells and hair styles … damn, you're punching out of my league. Looking back at Weisinger's old letters pages, it is interesting to see that at least once, early on, he answered a continuity question by saying, in effect, "Come on, kids, it's just a story." But soon enough he began the arguing that we all know and love.
Tom, I suspect your problem with the quality of Weisinger's work stems from cultural distance from the subject. I was struck by the this sentence:
"But Weisinger had very little talent — less, say, than a writer coming up with a funny dream sequence for The Dick Van Dyke Show."
That strikes me as odd, because the main writer for the Dick Van Dyke Show was Carl Reiner, who won three Emmy Awards for his writing on that show. You may say from this cultural vantage point that he seems untalented, but his peers certainly did not agree with that assessment.
By all accounts Weisinger was a miserable person to work for, because he was a perfectionist. But the result was a product that was perfect for its time and market. Yes, he himself did not appreciate it, but juvenile entertainment was pretty much looked down upon at the time, especially comic books.
Compare his stuff to the competition; not necessarily Marvel (they definitely went after the adolescent crowd). Compare it to the new Saturday Morning cartoons of the time, like Wacky Races, or the New Adventures of Hercules. Compare it to the Hardy Boys books produced in the 1960s. You'll find that it was a cut above most of what was out there.
"I suspect your problem with the quality of Weisinger's work stems from cultural distance"
Mort and I are from the same culture. Jewish moms, middle-class families, Manhattan a short trip away. Plus, I grew up reading his comics during the '60s.
"the main writer for the Dick Van Dyke Show was Carl Reiner"
He was good as the feed in the 2,000 Year Old Man. A solid, likable comedy professional. But not a big talent, in my arrogant view. The journeyman's journeyman. Maybe I'll rewatch some old Van Dykes and find they're better than I remember. But I do think the show's writing was better than Weisinger's comics scripts.
"the result was a product that was perfect for its time and market."
Certainly the product had its strengths, and it sold. I bet it was better than Wacky Races or the Hardy Boys, though Three Investigators would be a hard call.
I find these posts mesmerizing. At least as much as a rerun of "Dick Van Dyke". Some comments seem to be an attempt to be as 'Mort-y' as Mort himself. Even to the extent of cracking on the guy's son!
You guys kill me!
More!
As Morey Amsterdam said, nobody likes a wise guy.
Perhaps you might find my article on my father in Alter Ego Magazine, December, 2010, enlightening. He has been deceased since the late 1970’s. Incomplete and, more than a few times, inaccurate reports of him have been made since the time of his death until the present. I am sure you know that he was inducted into the Will Eisner Hall of Fame at San Diego Comic Con, 2010.
Cordially, Joyce (Weisinger) Kaffel
Yes, your article sounds like it could be very interesting and helpful. Congratulations on your father’s induction — he played a tremendous part in the history of American comics.
Thanks, and thanks for responding to my comment.
Joyce (Weisinger)Kaffel
What a favorable late-night find! Old though the thread may be, I find it fascinating.
Over-weening self-belief? Check! Self-satisfaction? Yes! High-thinking? I hope so. The more hyphens, the better! But my favorite is Ur-myth. My Ur-myth I guess is Ur.
But even phrases without hyphens can stir up interest–“light dadaism and wan fatalism” is my new favorite line; it’s ridiculous and true at the same time! I love the internet. Only here on this site would I ever be given the chance to be conscientiously alert and wistfully smug at the same time on the topic of Mort Weisinger. Conscientiously alert and wistfully smug! I too belong.
Would I ever glorify this most facile of pleasures as anything higher than it is? I’m not sure, but thirty words later I might ask when Superman became an abstraction for somebody, so I guess I probably would. You’re right, this is fun!
All wistful smugness aside, I guess the thing that struck me is the fact that Mort respected Carey Bates, Ed Hamilton, and Otto Binder, but apparently generally disliked other comics artists. I was just thinking about the many reasons why he may have liked them. He may’ve liked Binder because he was so prolific. Or he may’ve liked him because they got along in the break room. Binder may’ve been nice to him or something. Maybe stuff like respect doesn’t have anything to do with artistic philosophy or temperament or anything, which I was inclined first to think.
Anyway, Morey Amsterdam might not’ve liked me, but some people might, like my wife, or my parents; hopefully, any parental fondness for me isn’t a mere response to any filiodietisticism.
Actually, Weisinger said that the best Superman writer he’d worked with was Jerry Siegel — because he was the only one truly passionate about it.
“I love the internet.” Yeah, I bet you do.