Sean Howe’s Marvel Comics: The Untold Story is an extremely enjoyable addition to the warts-and-all, behind-the-scenes genre of pop historical writing. It’s not an academic-style history; although heavily researched, it lacks that kind of rigor and perspective. The most apt comparison is probably to the unauthorized biographies of celebrities and political figures by Kitty Kelley. Howe’s guiding principle appears to be the same as Kelley’s, which is “moving an icon out of the moonlight and into the sunlight.” And like her, he has an excellent feeling for incident, a strong sense of narrative momentum, and a terrific eye for (frequently sensationalist) detail. The book is a treat for those interested in the comics industry in particular, or the publishing business in general. Howe also does justice to what a rich collection of personalities the comics field has always been. He manages the large ensemble of creators, editors, and businesspeople with remarkable skill; the people are so well particularized that they never once start blurring into each other. One can easily see the book engaging someone with little prior interest in Marvel or the business in general. One doesn’t need to know comics to appreciate Howe’s book any more than one needs to know the advertising field to enjoy Mad Men.
The first part of the book, titled “Creations and Myths” and covering 100 of the book’s 432-page text, is probably the most valuable from a historical standpoint. It’s also the best realized in terms of narrative. Howe covers a lot of territory here–he begins with founding publisher Martin Goodman’s birth in 1908, and ends with the departure of Jack Kirby, the company’s most important cartoonist, in March 1970–but his handling is clear, detailed, and well paced. He provides a succinct account of Martin Goodman’s rise from poverty to successful magazine publisher, as well as Goodman’s 1939 entry into the comic-book field with the adventures of the Sub-Mariner, the Human Torch, and, in 1940, Captain America. The brief time Captain America creators Joe Simon and Jack Kirby were with the company in those days is effectively recounted. The travails of editor, head scriptwriter, and eventual company figurehead Stan Lee during the 1940s and ‘50s are as well. The so-called Marvel Age of comics, which began in the early ‘60s with the introduction of Lee and Kirby’s The Fantastic Four, Lee and Steve Ditko’s Spider-Man, and other features, begins on page 36. Howe portrays the ‘60s as a whirlwind period for the company, characterized by one successful new feature after another, desperate efforts to find new artists and scriptwriters to handle the workload, and tensions over appropriate credit and compensation.
Stan Lee is treated as the central player at Marvel in the 1960s. He is depicted as having a hand in virtually everything to do with the comics being published. There is considerable controversy over whether Lee or the cartoonists such as Kirby and Ditko deserve the most credit for the features they collaborated on, but Howe doesn’t take sides. He fully acknowledges the extent of the cartoonists’ contributions due to the “Marvel method” of story creation. (Essentially, Lee and an artist would brainstorm ideas in a meeting or over the phone, the artist would then draw the story, and Lee would write the final captions and dialogue.) But Howe also makes clear that Lee was completely responsible for the editorial direction the company took. Lee is also portrayed as at least as much a workaholic as any of the cartoonists working for him. He put in seven-day workweeks, and didn’t even stop to listen to the news reports when President Kennedy was assassinated. And Howe notes that Martin Goodman didn’t treat Lee any better business-wise than the cartoonists. Kirby and Ditko are both portrayed as resentful over the lack of royalties, but Lee wasn’t happy about it, either. Goodman’s attitude was that since he had taken all the financial risk, he should enjoy all the financial benefit. Howe does a capable juggling act; his account pretty much makes the case for both Lee’s supporters and detractors, but he offers no judgment himself.
The rest of the book is probably best characterized as a juicily entertaining sprawl. One may look at the fact that sixty-odd pages are given to the key 1960s period, while over 200 are devoted to the much less significant ‘70s and ‘80s, and wonder if Howe is giving the ‘60s period short shrift. He really isn’t; the ‘60s section is just more focused and better crafted. The later sections of the book are a roughly chronological collection of company high points, entertaining anecdotes, behind-the-scenes conflicts, and creator profiles. They’re a lot of fun to read, but many feel more like draft material than things that necessarily belong in the final manuscript.
Howe is also apparently a fan of several 1970s and early ‘80s Marvel titles, such as Doug Moench’s Master of Kung Fu and Steve Gerber’s Howard the Duck, and he loses all perspective when it comes to them. His discussion of the events leading up to the 1982 cancellation of Master of Kung Fu is the low point of the book: poorly researched, manipulatively written, and borderline libelous. (The passive-aggressive effort to blame Marvel for the death of artist Gene Day is repugnant.) The amount of attention given to Howard the Duck co-creator Steve Gerber is excessive, to say the least. And ironically, the most historically significant aspect of Gerber’s relationship with the company–his 1981 lawsuit to regain ownership of Howard–is only referred to a few times in passing. A reasonably detailed account would seem essential.
The lack of attention given to other things is striking as well. Conan the Barbarian, arguably Marvel’s most noteworthy success during the first half of the 1970s, barely rates a mention. G.I. Joe, perhaps Marvel’s biggest-selling ongoing series during the ’80s, is completely ignored. So is Doug Murray’s The ‘Nam, which received more mainstream press attention than any Marvel title that decade. The efforts under editor-in-chief Jim Shooter to diversify the company’s offerings, such as the Epic titles, the graphic-novel line, and Bernie Wrightson’s The Illustrated Frankenstein, are given little to no acknowledgement. Howe even downplays notable controversies, such as the problems that erupted over the ’70s change in the copyright law, as well as the conflict over the return of Jack Kirby’s original art. He did so little research on the latter that he gets the facts of its conclusion almost completely wrong.
Reservations aside, though, the post-‘60s material is a lot of fun, and in some ways just as worthwhile as the book’s opening section. The antics of the younger ‘70s-era creators, several of them recreational drug users, are fairly hilarious. There are plenty of nutty stories, such as the time an irate fan, distressed by the apparent death of Howard the Duck, mailed a duck carcass to the Marvel offices. The accounts of the office conflicts are pretty ripe, too. (My favorite was the incident in which then editor-in-chief Len Wein had to be restrained from punching out Al Landau, the company’s president during the mid-‘70s.) The terrific anecdotes and personnel profiles continue all the way up to the present day.
To sum up, Howe has put together a solid treatment of Marvel’s early period, including the key 1960s era. For the times that followed, he has gathered great raw material. As I state above, this book isn’t a rigorous academic-style history of Marvel. But it isn’t too far off, and it’s probably a lot more entertaining than that hypothetical effort. It’s a treasure trove for comics aficionados and scholars, and an engaging read for everyone else. I have my quibbles with Howe’s take on certain things, but when it comes to reading history, quibbles are part of the fun.


35 Comments
The discussion of Stan Lee sounds pretty fascinating. Is he still upset about the lack of royalties?
In a word, yes.
Steven–
Stan Lee has had nothing to do with Stan Lee Media for years. He’ll be the first to tell you they’re crooks.
Noah–
With regard to Martin Goodman’s behavior, he might be.
There are several reasons why he came to enjoy compensation that Kirby, Ditko, et al. do not. One, he never quit the company. Two, he has built on his tenure with the company to increase his compensation over time. Three, and most importantly, he has made himself all but indispensable to the company from a marketing standpoint. A basic truism of the corporate world is that salespeople are valued much more than those who create the product being sold. Stan Lee, above everything else, is the top salesperson for the Marvel brand. His creative involvement with the product gives him a credibility that a non-creator salesperson wouldn’t have, but what ultimately matters is his ability to charm, schmooze, and promote. Kirby, Ditko, et al weren’t interested in that, and so, in the long run from the perspective of Marvel corporate, they’re at most pensioners. Personally, I think it’s horribly unfair, but that’s the world we live in.
If Lee had quit Marvel in 1970, and then returned for a few years down the road just to work as a scriptwriter, he’d have gotten the same long-term treatment Kirby and Ditko did.
And indication in Howe’s book as to whether or not he did any new interviews or research? Or did he simply encapusulate period fan press articles and previously published interviews and quilt them all together?
Robert, the thing about salespeople being more valued sounds painfully true. That’s capitalism, I guess. Barf.
Russ–
He did a lot of new interviews. Just about living person of note who’s been involved with Marvel over the last 50 years spoke to him to some extent. The only major exceptions I noticed in the acknowledgements were Steve Ditko, Barry Windsor-Smith, and John Byrne, although I’m pretty sure Byrne spoke to him as an anonymous source. He also gets a lot of material from previously published sources, which is all cited in the endnotes.
RSM — Great! Thanks. I was going to get a copy anyway, but it’s nice to know Howe did his homework.
There were numbers – dollar amounts – in this book that left my jaw on the floor, and made me furious. I seem to remember it said Byrne made like $30,000 for the first issue alone of Alpha Flight. That’s in 1982! Imagine what Claremont, et al were raking in on X-men just a few years later? Also recall a mention of Fabian Nicieza (whoever that is) was raking in $75 grand A MONTH. Jesus wept! I get upset enough at what Clowes and Ware make (and make no mistake, they’re doing extraordinarily well, esp by alt-cartoonist standards) but seeing these figures for the Marvel guys just made me sick to my stomach. I have zero pity for anyone doing as well as these clown did, despite their later and continued protestations of “oppression,” unreasonable working conditions and artistic dissatisfaction. The Image morons were indeed tools but at least they put their money where there mouths were (which I imagine were somewhere near each other’s junk)and walked, however bad they blew it.
Wane, do you get similarly upset at the even greater amounts of money pop stars make? I mean, you well might…but very successful entertainers make a fair bit of money. It’s not clear to me why comics creators should be different in that regard.
And…just because you make a decent amount of money doesn’t mean you should be exploited, and it doesn’t mean that you can’t be taken advantage of or treated unfairly. Stan Lee’s done well for himself — but that doesn’t mean he should have been screwed over on royalties. (Though of course there are other more pressing cases of injustice in the world to worry about — but that’s virtually always the case about anything.)
[...] Stanley Martin reviewed the book in more depth than I have, for The Hooded [...]
I wouldn’t say Stan Lee was screwed over on royalties; he just didn’t receive any, at least back in the ’60s. According to the book, he negotiated a deal that gave him 10% of Marvel’s revenue from movie, TV, and animation licensing in 1998. He sued the company over the money he was due in 2002, and in 2005 settled for $10 million in a deal that ended his royalty participation.
I’m glad Byrne got $30,000 in royalties for Alpha Flight #1 back in the day. (He received this on top of his page rates.) He wrote and drew it, and he created the characters in the first place. His sharing in the publication’s success is the way it should be.
Thanks for the kind words!
Now, as to a few of those less-than-kind words:
“The passive-aggressive effort to blame Marvel for the death of artist Gene Day is repugnant.”
I don’t blame Marvel for Day’s death. I quote from Doug Moench’s eulogy, in which he cites poor sleep habits, cigarettes, caffeine, and lack of exercise. Then I note that some people still pointed the finger at Marvel, despite the facts.
From page 260: “Still, stories began to circulate about a trip Day had taken to New York City to do emergency last-minute work finishing a story for Marvel, about how Day had no choice but to spend the night in the unheated offices overnight, about how [i]that’s what had really killed him[/i]. So what if the stories were filled with half-truths and exaggerations? Marvel Comics was starting to look like the bad guy—the Evil Empire—to more and more people.”
Hi Sean. Thanks for responding.
I’m a bit trepidatious about responding to this here. I’m presently at work on an article about Jim Shooter’s tenure at Marvel. I don’t want to scoop myself.
However, I will elaborate on that sentence. My question is: If you don’t endorse the garbage, why print it, except maybe for rebuttal purposes? If you’re going to get into Day’s death at all, why not just tell the facts, and move on? Why give the crap any legitimacy unless you want it out there?
The passage you quote isn’t all that I found objectionable in that section, by the way.
There’s this sentence, which immediately followed: “As the employees got more and more defensive, they start looking even worse.” You then quote a comment Tom DeFalco made at a November 1982 Marvel press conference. Did DeFalco, Ann Nocenti, or Peter David, the staffers present at that press conference, tell you they were feeling defensive? I’ve read the transcript, and maybe this is just me, but they seemed pretty pissed off about the rumor-mongering that was appearing in the fan press. For those reading this, here’s some of what was said:
Now who looks bad here, the fan press for pushing that garbage about Day’s death, or the Marvel staffers for objecting to it? To the extent they were defensive, they sure don’t seem to feel guilty, and personally I think their objections seem pretty reasonable.
There’s also this sentence of yours, following quotes from a posthumously published interview with Day: “One could interpret his words in either of two ways: to cast him as a martyr, or to let Marvel off the hook.” Now again, perhaps this is just me, but I read that as you thinking it was a reasonable question as to whether Marvel was on “the hook,” i.e. responsible, for Day’s death in the first place.
If you say you don’t blame Marvel for Gene Day’s death, I accept that. But the way the section is written, you appear to be trying to give credence to that view in a way that smacked of trying to maintain, for lack of a better term, plausible deniability. That’s what I objected to.
By the way, according to Day’s brother David, Gene died of a heart aneurism, not a heart attack. Click here.
Also, contrary to your suggestion in the book, Bill Sienkiewicz did not quit Moon Knight because of Moench’s departure from Marvel over the Master of Kung Fu situation. He’s on the record in TCJ 76 as saying Moench’s situation wasn’t a factor; he was leaving to free up time for other pursuits.
Robert,
The reason it is important to talk about the stirred-up controversy about Gene Day’s death is because it was part of the increasing public-relations troubles that Marvel was having with the rest of the comics community/industry. The Comic Reader had taken claims in Moench’s CBG interview about “The Big Bang” and run with them, publishing an excoriating attack on Jim Shooter without checking sources. Even when the Comics Feature rushed to Shooter’s defense, its November cover showed Jim Shooter confronting Iron Man, Captain America, Odin, Shang-Chi, and Thor. It’s understandable that the employees were acting defensively in that press conference. I’m not saying they weren’t justified in their anger. But it’s undeniable that Marvel’s relationship with the press was strained. The transcript you’re referring to was printed in the Comics Journal in an excoriating Gary Groth editorial called “Marvel’s War With The Press.”
Thanks for pointing me to that comment from Gene Day’s brother. I’ll change “heart attack” to “aneurysm of the heart” in future printings.
Sienkiewicz didn’t say Moench’s departure wasn’t a factor, but that it wasn’t the *primary* reason. Carol Kalish said that Sienkiewicz had been interested in exploring other opportunities, but that that “the timing pretty much hinged on the fact that as far as Moon Knight was concerned, his association with the character had been entirely with Doug Moench. He felt, pretty much, that if Doug was leaving the series that this would be a good time to leave.”
The Gene Day death-by-Marvel tale was mainly put about by Dave Sim. Consider the source and all that…
Sean–
I think we’re in an agree-to-disagree situation. I regard the accusations surrounding Day’s death as scurrilous claptrap. I don’t think they should ever be brought up except to be repudiated.
However, let me address some of what you write here. I don’t necessarily define conflicts with the fan press as “public-relations troubles.” Marvel’s target audience at the time was elementary- and middle-school-age boys, who by and large weren’t aware of any of this and probably couldn’t care less. This isn’t a situation like, say, JP Morgan-Chase regularly getting into clashes with editors and reporters at Forbes, CNBC, and the Wall Street Journal. That would be worthy of attention, in part because those are professional press operations that maintain a degree of editorial propriety. With the comics press, you’re talking about amateur publications with at most four-figure paid circulations, written and edited by adult fans who by and large felt they were more qualified to make editorial decisions at Marvel than the people who actually worked there. They were upset over a low-selling cult title finding itself on the path to cancellation and tackily used Day’s death to lash out against the company. It was part of a childish temper tantrum. I would think that to any reasonable (and emotionally mature) observer, it made the fan press look bad, not Marvel.
Complaints about the “Big Bang” editorial plans were just as juvenile, if nowhere as disgusting. Of course, the companies are going to consider revamping titles if they think things have grown stale. So what? The fan press certainly wasn’t in accord with the readership on that count. If memory serves, revamping a title was the single most effective strategy back then in terms of increasing sales. Several of the decade’s biggest sellers—e.g. Byrne’s Superman, Miller’s Batman projects, Simonson’s Thor, the black-costume Spider-Man, Secret Wars, Crisis on Infinite Earths, etc., etc., etc.—were revamps.
The fan press may have been noisy, but they were largely irrelevant from a public-relations standpoint. You maintain perspective about that with, say, the Kirby original-art controversy, which was probably a much bigger deal. Why not here?
On the subject of Sienkiewicz and Moon Knight, I trust Bill Sienkiewicz’s account of his motives more than I trust anyone else’s. You’re also confusing the TCJ reporter’s paraphrase with Sienkiewicz’s statements. When one reads TCJ news reports, one has to remember these things aren’t written by trained news writers. There is a lot of obfuscatory paraphrasing, editorializing, and even speculation that lard up the pieces. The Journal’s unspoken credo with reporting is to sensationalize whenever possible, and it’s easy to be misled. (You got led down some factually challenged roads by this elsewhere in the book, but I’ll deal with those in my Shooter article.) With TCJ, it’s always best to separate the quotes from the reporter’s “contextualization” whenever possible when determining what’s going on. With Gary Groth, one should corroborate everything; he’s a master at writing inferentially deceitful things with technically accurate wording. For everybody reading, here are the sentences in question:
I hope the discord between the reporter’s opening and Sienkiewicz’s actual words is apparent. Going by the quote, that opening sentence would have been more accurately written as, “Sienkiewicz pointed out that his departure was not motivated by Moench’s.”
Alex—
Sim wasn’t the only one. Doug Moench has pushed it, too. In Comic Book Artist 7, he sleazily puts the accusation in the mouth of Gene Day’s widow. I haven’t read any of the interviews he gave 30 years ago, but I gather it appears in at least one of those as well.
Let me take that first sentence from the Sienkiewicz report to illustrate the technically true but inferentially misleading nature that characterizes the writing of TCJ reporting and news editorials.
Judging from Sienkiewicz’s quoted statements, the sentence is technically correct in saying that Sienkiewicz was “not primarily motivated by Moench’s departure.” The inference is that Moench’s departure was to some degree a motivation, but the sentence never actually says that. There’s nothing there saying it was a secondary, tertiary, or any motivation whatsoever for him.
So, if Sienkiewicz complains that he never said Moench’s departure was a motivation, the response is obviously going to be that that wasn’t was written. They didn’t write that it was a motivation; they just said it wasn’t a primary motivation, and strictly speaking, that’s true.
This is what I call “plausible deniability” writing. It’s very effective for sensationalizing things. You can see it with the sentence in question. It strongly suggests that there was tension and/or conflict between Sienkiewicz and Marvel editorial when there actually wasn’t any. This technique is also very useful for smears; if you’re skillful enough, you can defame somebody without technically committing libel.
When one reads TCJ news reporting or Groth editorials, one needs to be extremely vigilant about this kind of bullshit. The sentences only mean what they strictly say, and one should not draw inferences from juxtapositions or anything else. Take all contextualization with a heavy-duty grain of salt. Thankfully, they don’t appear to indulge in misquoting, although they’ve been caught leaving things out in a misleading way. Raw transcripts are always the most reliable reporting in the magazine, and fortunately there’s a lot of that.
I thought this was about Secret History Of Marvel…
http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-History-Marvel-Comics/dp/1606995529
…I didnt realise this was a different book. Is there a reason books like this are coming out now?
I think I might get this one.
To intervene briefly, when I read the Gene Day section I didn’t think Sean Howe was sanctioning or supporting the idea that Marvel killed Day. Quite the reverse: he reported this fantastic version of events to indicate the fevered atmosphere of the time when Marvel was considered an “evil empire” but also provided ample evidence for why the story should be discounted. I’m afraid that Robert Stanley Martin is misreading of this section of Howe’s book for obvious ideological reasons: as a partisan of Shooter he’s hyper-vigilant for any perceived attacks on the Great Man, even when such attacks aren’t actually taking place and are only the product of a habit of seeing slights where none exist.
The first part of your statement seems reasonable Jeet. I think you undermine your position somewhat with the second part, though. Escalating into personalities and accusing others of having axes to grind just makes it look (perhaps erroneously) like you’re grinding one of your own.
If we could, I’d prefer to have the discussion about the merits of the issue, rather than having folks speculating on each other’s motives. Assume good faith and all that. The conversation’s been very civil up till now, so hopefully we can continue in that vein.
Jeet–
If you want to discuss things, fine. But if your only goal is to flame me, I’d appreciate it if you’d find another target. It’s tiresome.
Sean’s section on the events surrounding Master of Kung Fu‘s cancellation is overblown, period. It was one of Marvel’s lowest-selling titles at the time, and the Moench-Day run has little reputation today. I don’t know why he feels it’s so important, other than he personally likes it a lot. The part dealing with Day’s death is handled in a way that flirts with giving credence to the grotesquely ridiculous accusations that followed it. The single most objectionable sentence is this: “One could interpret his [Day's] words in either of two ways: to cast him as a martyr, or to let Marvel off the hook.” Treating Day as a martyr is a reasonable option? Come off it.
I was there at the time, and there was no “fevered atmosphere.” Apart perhaps from some envious competing publishers, nobody considered Marvel an “evil empire” beyond some fan press writers and their readership. The numbers of these people were insignificant and did not reflect the views of the comic-book audience of the time. The audience by and large wasn’t even aware of the fan writers’ existence. And Sean’s efforts here to equate the fan press with the “press,” as if these vanity publications were the equivalent of Publisher’s Weekly or Variety, are simply misguided.
If I was as hyper-vigilant about attacks on Shooter as you say, I’d never get anything else done, including sleep.
Okay, if my remarks on Robert Stanley Martin’s hyper-vigilance on behalf of Shooter comes across as a personal attack, I withdraw them. I was trying to frame the issue in the context of RSM’s other writings on Shooter but I can see how my remarks came across as ad hominem. Apologies for the rhetorical overkill.
I’ll simply stay with the first point, that Howe’s account of Gene Day’s death does not leave the impression that the view the cartoonist was killed by Marvel. Quite the contrary, it evokes this narrative to debunk it, and all the facts presented make it clear that Marvel-as-Day-killer narrative was tendentious. Also it makes perfect sense to me why Howe wanted to discuss Day since a fairly major comics creator (Dave Sim) is one of the chief proponents of the idea of Marvel-as-Day-killer. Like many others, I really haven’t thought about Day much in the last few years except in the context of Dave Sim, so I’m glad that Howe took the trouble to make the facts of the case clear.
As to the relative importance of Master of Kung Fu in the grand scheme of things, I’ll note that one reason why it might have “little reputation” today is apparently for extraneous copyright reasons (as I understand it the estate that owns Fu Manchu is standing in the way).
In his account of Marvel in the 1970s and 1980s, Howe is interested in the auteurs and experimentalists — Gerber, Starlin, etc. Certainly the Moench-Day Master of Kung Fu falls into that category. So it makes sense for Howe to focus on MOKF as part of the story he wants to tell.
Here’s what Dave Sim said in an interview: “Eventually Shooter fired Gene and I think that, as much as anything, killed Gene Day.” See here: http://www.collectortimes.com/2005_07/Clubhouse.html
Whatever you want to say about Sim, he’s undoubtedly an important figure in the world of comics (#16 on the Hooded Utilitarian list of top 115 comics, for example). So Howe did us all a favor by looking into the circumstances of Day’s death and explaining why the Marvel-as-Day-killer narrative doesn’t work.
Jeet–
Thanks for the clarification.
For my part, I don’t think my issues with this section of the book reflect Shooter partisanship. They reflect my disdain for the insularity and excesses of the fan subculture. The accusations surrounding Day’s death are about as egregious an example of that as they come.
You say you’ll stay with your point. I’ll stay with mine, too, which is that there is something very slippery about Sean’s handling of the subject that seems to reflect an interest in giving those accusations some level of validity. The accusations are so objectionable in my view that I don’t believe there’s any room for ambivalence. If one doesn’t completely and unambiguously reject them, then I think one opens oneself up to charges that one is endorsing them to a degree. If people disagree with me on that, fine.
Yes, Marvel hasn’t been able to reprint the Master of Kung Fu material in the past few years because they can’t come to terms with the Sax Rohmer estate. They have to pay licensing fees for the supporting cast. (I’ve always wondered if that contributed to Shooter’s suggestion that Moench kill off those characters.) However, back issues of the Moench/Day run are relatively inexpensive and easy to find. There’s never been much interest in them. The Moench/Paul Gulacy run, on the other hand, still commands interest.
I agree that Sean focuses on the titles he’s most interested in, by and large. But if his goal was to provide a satisfactory account of “the auteurs and experimentalists,” he failed pretty conspicuously. In the ’70s sections, Barry Windsor-Smith and Mike Ploog are all but completely overlooked. With Don McGregor, Sean devotes a good deal of attention to the Black Panther series, but none to McGregor and P. Craig Russell’s Killraven/War of the Worlds feature, which is generally considered the more significant work. In the ’80s sections, the Epic titles and the graphic-novel line are similarly given short shrift.
Shooter’s response to Sim is the parent post to the link above to the statement by Day’s brother.
Shooter didn’t fire Day. Day was working on an Indiana Jones story for Marvel when he died, and his brother says he had an Iron Man story in queue. In the TCJ news report about his resignation from Master of Kung Fu, he says he was offered work on Marvel’s Star Wars comic as well. Shooter is quoted in the article as saying, “Everything else Gene does is fantastic–the problem is his storytelling approach to that particular title [Master of Kung Fu].” Shooter also reported to have said he hoped Day would continue to do work for Marvel.
For all of Dave Sim’s cartooning ability and accomplishments with Cerebus, I think most people regard him as a crank and not a particularly reliable source of information.
Here’s the link to the Shooter post for those who don’t want to go digging above.
http://www.jimshooter.com/2011/08/comment-and-answer-about-gene-days.html
Also if you read the post, read through the comments as well. There’s a lot of pithy stuff there, from Shooter and others.
“For all of Dave Sim’s cartooning ability and accomplishments with Cerebus, I think most people regard him as a crank and not a particularly reliable source of information.” That’s probably true on the gender stuff but, for good or ill, Sim is still taken very seriously about his views on comics and he’s been a very influential figure on a variety of fronts (creator’s rights, self-publishing, the history of a certain type of photorealistic art). Which is not to say that he’s right about Day’s death — as should be clear, I accept Howe’s account. But given Sim’s stature and the seriousness of his accusation against Shooter, I was glad to see Howe address Day’s death and provide a complex account that debunks the Marvel-as-Day-killer narrative. What you see as Howe’s “ambivalence” is simply the fact that he’s trying to do several things at once — to give an account of Day’s death but also the rumors surrounded it, because those rumors fit into the larger narrative thrust of that chapter, which is the turmoil and pushback of Shooter’s reign at that juncture. Just because the rumors are false doesn’t mean they aren’t historically significant — the very fact that they circulated speaks to the mentality that existed at both Marvel & fandom. So Howe’s trying to do something fairly complicated, both recording rumors even as he debunks them all in the service of a narrative moving forward. If he had taken the approach you suggest — of “completely and unambiguously” rejecting the rumors — Howe would be writing a very different sort of book, a polemic rather than a narrative. And in any case, I think any alert reader will pick up the cues from Howe — he refers to “stories…filled with half-truths and exaggerations” — that indicate the rumors are not to be believed. Most of the contextual information you bring up (the fact that Master of Kung Fu was a low selling title, the fact that Day was offered work on other titles after being taken off MOKF) is in Howe’s account.
RSM, that was a thoughtful evaluation of “Marvel Comics: The Untold Story.” Without reading the book and comparing the analysis to the item in question, the critique certainly gives the impression of a fair-minded judgment of its strengths and weaknesses.
————————-
Robert Stanley Martin says:
Let me take that first sentence from the Sienkiewicz report to illustrate the technically true but inferentially misleading nature that characterizes the writing of TCJ reporting and news editorials.
Judging from Sienkiewicz’s quoted statements, the sentence is technically correct in saying that Sienkiewicz was “not primarily motivated by Moench’s departure.” The inference is that Moench’s departure was to some degree a motivation, but the sentence never actually says that. There’s nothing there saying it was a secondary, tertiary, or any motivation whatsoever for him.
————————-
Without agreeing that “TCJ reporting and news editorials” were characterized by a “technically true but inferentially misleading nature” — they certainly didn’t give me that impression at the time, and it’ll be a long time before I can reread them to confirm or disprove that position — your analysis of how contextualization, sentence structure, careful phrasing can “defame somebody without technically committing libel” is certainly spot-on. One certainly runs across such tactics pretty frequently.
But, come to think of it (it occurs to me as I am fine-tuning this post), that statement — which can be boiled down to “TCJ reporting and news editorials are, basically, lies” — is itself an example of that tactic. It may not go as far as what was said about Lillian Hellman, “Every word she writes is a lie, including and and the,” but it says that “The Comics Journal” writing on those subjects — carried out by a large array of contributors throughout its lengthy history — was “characterized”…
————————-
char·ac·ter·ize
1. Describe(s) the distinctive nature or features of
– the historian characterized the period as the decade of revolution
2. (of a feature or quality) Be typical or characteristic of
————————–
…by a “misleading nature.” In other words, whatever the subject or author, it was in the essential essence and typical of TCJ reporting to be deceptive, dishonest. A pretty sweeping and serious accusation!
————————-
Robert Stanley Martin says:
…The ["Gene Day was killed by Marvel"] accusations are so objectionable in my view that I don’t believe there’s any room for ambivalence. If one doesn’t completely and unambiguously reject them, then I think one opens oneself up to charges that one is endorsing them to a degree.
————————–
Sure; but is it necessarily fair to accuse somebody of “endorsing [outrageous accusations] to a degree” if one simply mentions them?
I agree that it would be far preferable to “unambiguously reject” such noxious stuff; yet some groups might feel it a violation of their supposed journalistic “objectivity” to do so.
(That “supposed” could be seen as casting doubt on their having any objectivity at all; in my case, it’s a nod to the fact that complete objectivity is a rare phenomenon indeed; and that, moreover, misguided attempts at objectivity in the form of refusing to “take sides” can lead to avoiding informing the public that reality does not match up with what one side is loudly asserting.)
Leading to the sorry spectacle of the “Liberal Media” reporting with a straight face right-wing lies about the senior-slaughtering “death panels” in Obamacare, that Obama isn’t a real American, that “climate change does not exist,” and so on. With the only refutation provided by quoting from Democratic politicos and functionaries, whose words can be dismissed by the masses as “biased” and “party-line.”
Other groups, meantime, might with either a foolishly exaggerated faith in the acumen of the public, or with an awareness of the actual intelligence of their intended audience, consider it unnecessary to refute what they see as utter nonsense; transparent idiocy.
Leading to the sorry results of, in the first case, Democratic politicos considering it undignified and unnecessary to fight back against smears like the GOP-funded “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” smearing decorated war hero John Kerry as traitorously unpatriotic; Obama endlessly putting off refuting the “he wasn’t born in America” charges, thus letting the lies metastasize.
Leading to, in the second case, this “New Yorker” cover ( http://asiasociety.org/files/the-new-yorker-muslim-obama-cover-big.jpg ) or R. Crumb’s “When the Goddam Jews Take Over America” stories. Certainly in both cases the “intended audience” — “New Yorker” and “Weirdo” readers — could be counted on to see superficial assertions that “Obama as flag-burning radical Muslim” and “The international Jewish conspiracy is a reality” as utter B.S.
(The Crumb story may be seen at http://www.darkmoon.me/2011/when-the-goddamn-jews-take-over-america-robert-crumb-cartoon-strip-introduced-by-xanadu/ , its introduction noting that “it’s amazing to think that so many otherwise intelligent people should regard the cartoon strip below as “anti-Semitic” when it is in fact almost the reverse: a satirical spoof…”)
Things get sticky when the unintelligent or ideologically-indoctrinated look at that stuff and take it seriously. Or, when “highly sensitive” groups consider some satires so dangerous that they argue that qualifiers and rejection should be contained within the work itself. Art Spiegelman telling Crumb that re his “Jews” story. And I guess that “New Yorker” cover could have been depicted as a nightmare bubbling up above the head of a sleeping, sweating conservative; making it more of a tiresomely traditional political cartoon…
—————————–
Here’s the link to the Shooter post for those who don’t want to go digging above…
—————————–
It’s possible that Shooter might be telling the truth here; however, his record for self-burnishing inventions and distortions is infamous. He might not be the utter Satan many detractors portray him as; however, as a source of historical information, he is…dubious.
Jeet–
I’ve made my case and quoted the objectionable sentences. In fact, I’ll quote another that you refer to without the benefit of your ellipses:
“So what if the stories were filled with half-truths and exaggerations?”
I wasn’t asking for a polemical book. However, I do think Sean could have easily presented the Day situation without flirting with giving legitimacy to the nonsense.
The book makes no mention of Day’s post Kung Fu Marvel assignments.
Mike–
Thanks for the kind words on the review.
With TCJ‘s reporting, one does have to be on the lookout for sensationalistic and otherwise misleading contextualization. A lot of people complained about it back then. Gary conducted an interview with Shooter in 1980 where Shooter took him to task for the sensationalizing. Stan Lee was so annoyed by it that he would only respond to TCJ questions in writing, in order to avoid “misquoting and distortion.” Walt Simonson and Louise Jones Simonson publicly refused to have anything to do with the magazine until very recently.
Shooter’s recollections of Marvel at this point are all of stuff that happened over 25 years ago. Memories play tricks on people, and often in self-serving ways. This is especially true if you’re writing off the top of your head, which he did at his blog. He’s far from the only one. However, I know from experience he would respond if confronted and acknowledge errors. He was very polite about it, too.
It’s best to corroborate what he says, but that’s true of anyone talking extemporaneously about stuff that far back.
Just about everything Shooter says about the Gene Day situation checks out with the news accounts at the time, Marvel’s travel policies during his tenure, simple logic, etc. The only thing that’s ambiguous is whether Day went to New York before or after Marvel’s move from offices at Madison Avenue to ones at Park Avenue South. His brother David says the trip happened that spring, and Marvel made the move the weekend of April 24-25. If Day made the trip before the move and slept in the Madison offices, they wouldn’t have been heated at night. I don’t know how that would have made any difference with his health issues, though. David Day certainly didn’t treat the two as related in his comment.
Re TCJ’s “reality slanting,” it’s probably useful to differentiate between the magazine’s editorializing and reporting. Certainly reporting can be ideologically-driven and distorted.
However, huge masses of “The Comics Journal” reportage was stuff along the lines of telling how such-and-such a comics store was burglarized, burned down, or had troubles with a distributor; how X indie comics-publisher wasn’t paying their contributors (I think that hits a nerve!) or returning their art, how some artists are being contracted by another publisher to produce some comics, others in dire straits financially; Diamond’s ever-increasing hold over distribution, how a foreign comics creator was recognized with an exhibit of their work, and so forth.
Boilerplate journalism, in other words. Important in its way but hardly particularly ideological. Does all of it and those who wrote it deserve to be tarnished as deliberately deceptive?
As an analogy (not an exact one; I give TCJ much more credit than that), it’s worth comparing “The Wall Street Journal” reporting, which is widely acknowledged as excellent and with no ideological axes to grind — at least in the pre-Rupert Murdoch era — with its editorial page, filled with right-wing propaganda, lies and distortions.
@Robert Stanley Martin. “The book makes no mention of Day’s post Kung Fu Marvel assignments.” That’s untrue. The book quotes Tom DeFalco as saying, “Gene Day left Master of Kung Fu, in which his incentives were about twenty bucks a month, and went over to Star Wars, in which his incentives were about $1,400 a month. If that’s a persecution, I hope to hell I get on Jim Shooter’s hate list.” It’s true that Howe characterizes this statement as “defensive” in a way that made Marvel look worse but that’s a very plausible assessment (the statement certainly sounds defensive to me).
Jeet–
Here’s the unedited quote:
One thing about the Jim Shooter and Gene Day thing, which kind of befuddles me is that Gene Day left Master of Kung Fu, in which his royalties were about twenty bucks a month, and went over to Star Wars, in which his royalties were about $1,400 a month. If that’s persecution, I hope to hell I get on Jim Shooter’s hate list. And I’m glad to see that all you responsible journalists managed to report news like that. It was wonderful looking at how Jim Shooter persecuted this guy and drove him to his death, all while doubling the man’s income.
I’ve put the cuts and original wording in bold.
You can read other statements from DeFalco at that press conference in one of my responses to Sean above. As Sean says, a transcript of the press conference was printed in TCJ, in issue 79.
Maybe it’s just me, but I read DeFalco’s sarcasm as indicative of contempt, not defensiveness.
Whether DeFalco’s statement was defensive or sarcastic (or both: there is such a thing as defensive sarcasm) is neither here nor there. The fact is Howe quoted a statement showing Day got work after Master of Kung Fu while you wrote “The book makes no mention of Day’s post Kung Fu Marvel assignments.” The book does mention one of his post Kung Fu assignments in the form of the quote.
Jeet–
If you’re looking for me to make an explicit concession that I was inaccurate about the book’s mentioning of Day’s post-Kung Fu Marvel assignments, fine. I would have thought it was obvious. However, I note Sean’s purpose in including the quote was not to highlight that work.
I’m glad to know that you’re now saying that whether the tone of DeFalco’s statements is defensive or sarcastic is “neither here nor there.”
To clarify, even with the longer quote you furnished I still think DeFalco’s statement is defensive (or if you will, defensively sarcastic). But the best way to characterize the statement is neither “here nor there” for the purposes of the factual point I was making, which is, contra to your earlier post, Howe makes it clear that Day did post Master of Kung Fu work for Marvel.