Men of Tomorrow

[Slam_Bradley]

I finished up Men Of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book by Gerard Jones. Wow! Excellent overview of the birth of the comic book. Overall, very even-handed. Certainly the best portraits of Jack Leibowitz and Harry Donenfeld that I've ever read. And probably the most sympathetic look at Mort Weisinger that I've seen. He still comes off as a thoroughly unlikeable man...but a man with a talent for what he did. The one exception is probably Bob Kane. Ah well...Kane did a lot to put his own views across.

While the book largely focused on Siegel and Schuster and their (predominantly Siegel's) attempts to get money out of DC for Superman, the book does a good job of presenting DC's viewpoint with regard to their property. Clearly it was Donenfeld that took the risk in publishing Superman in the first place. If he'd bombed...it would have been Donenfeld that lost money, not Siegel and Schuster.

I can't possibly recommend this book enough. A must for those interested in comics history.

[Scott Shaw!]

MEN OF TOMORROW's biggest revelation by far was the previously-unknown fact (unknown to me, at least) was that Jerry Siegel's father was murdered when Jerry was young. With a tragedy like that in his formative years, it's surprising that Siegel and Shuster didn't co-create BATMAN!

For that matter, I was very surprised to read that Joe Shuster wasn't Jerry's first choice as a collaborator. In fact, he'd first approached another Cleveland cartoonist, Tony Strobl, who later drew tons of licensed comic books such as DONALD DUCK, UNCLE SCROOGE and THE JETSONS (of which I inked a few of his stories for Marvel's H-B SPOTLIGHT)! Apparently, Tony turned down Jerry's offer, claiming that "Superman" didn't strike him as having any hope of success!

Aloha,

Scott!

[Slam_Bradley]

MEN OF TOMORROW's biggest revelation by far was the previously-unknown fact (unknown to me, at least) was that Jerry Siegel's father was murdered when Jerry was young. With a tragedy like that in his formative years, it's surprising that Seigel and Shuster didn't co-create BATMAN!

Also, I was surprised to read that Joe Shuster wasn't Jerry's first choice as a collaborator. In fact, he'd approached Tony Strobl, who later drew tons of licensed comic books such as DONALD DUCK, UNCLE SCROOGE and THE JETSONS (of which I inked a few of his stories for Marvel's H-B SPOTLIGHT)! Apparently, Tony turned down Jerry's offer, claiming that "Superman" didn't strike him as having any hope of success!


Those were both revelations for me, as well. While there wasn't a huge amount in the book that was new, it was put together in a very clear and coherent manner. It's nice to have a reference rather than leafing through tons of fanzines.

However, I really didn't know a lot about Independent Distribution. Or Kinney Parking. I was always of the belief that it was Warner Brothers that bought DC when it was really a case of the combined National/Kinney that bought Warner. Really interesting stuff.

[Mark Evanier]

While the book largely focused on Siegel and Schuster and their (predominantly Siegel's) attempts to get money out of DC for Superman, the book does a good job of presenting DC's viewpoint with regard to their property. Clearly it was Donenfeld that took the risk in publishing Superman in the first place. If he'd bombed...it would have been Donenfeld that lost money, not Siegel and Schuster.

ME: First of all, it's Siegel and Shuster.

Secondly, I think the above is ridiculous. Siegel and Shuster took an enormous risk in giving their creation to Donenfeld. If Donenfeld had botched up the publishing and distribution, their creation would have been ruined and they'd have almost nothing to show for it. Donenfeld did take a financial risk but (a) it was almost microscopic and (b) investing money is what a publisher is supposed to do.

Sorry if I sound harsh about this but I think Donenfeld got the deal of the century there, taking almost no risk and paying Siegel and Shuster almost nothing.

[Slam_Bradley]

ME: First of all, it's Siegel and Shuster.

Nit-pick much?

Secondly, I think the above is ridiculous. Siegel and Shuster took an enormous risk in giving their creation to Donenfeld. If Donenfeld had botched up the publishing and distribution, their creation would have been ruined and they'd have almost nothing to show for it. Donenfeld did take a financial risk but (a) it was almost microscopic and (b) investing money is what a publisher is supposed to do.

Sorry if I sound harsh about this but I think Donenfeld got the deal of the century there, taking almost no risk and paying Siegel and Shuster almost nothing.

I'm not saying that Donenfeld didn't get the deal of the century. On the other hand he also took the entire financial risk. Given Siegel and Shuster's inability to place the property over the course of a number of years their ultimate risk was selling the property or having it continue to sit on their shelf.

You're absolutely right, investing money is exactly what a publisher is supposed to do. And, as with most investments, they expect to get a return on the investment. Was the deal for Superman fair? Ultimately, no it wasn't. But at the time the deal was made, nobody had any way of knowing that.

I'd be pretty darn shocked if you had agreed with me Mark. Considering the arguments that we've had over copyright law (though you may not remember them).

[gentlesatirist]

...could fit on the head of a pin. But I do know that MEN OF TOMORROW might be the best comics history book I've ever read.

As for Siegel's business acumen, the book has an intriguing section where the author admires Siegel's ability to get editors/publishers to buy into his concepts, but once the battle is won, all Siegel pushes for is a 50 percent increase in his page rate and more assignments from the publisher. He was promised undefined residuals from DC, but those never materialized. If anything, he and Shuster were too trusting.

Many comics creators have struggled with the financial side of the world. Sadly, S&S are the most noteworthy.


- FE
Wickliffe OH

[dan bailey]

Nit-pick much?


persistent misspelling of the name of a true pioneer like shuster (not to mention siegel, whose "i" & "e" one sometimes sees reversed) is a real sore point with some -- i remember something fairly close to a knock-down drag-out over it a few months ago on the charlton list.

me, i've always had an unfortunate tendency to conflate that famous creative team with simon & kirby ... i blame it on having owned way too many books published by simon & schuster over the years.

[T GUy]

Slam Bradley: I'm not saying that Donenfeld didn't get the deal of the century. On the other hand he also took the entire financial risk.

Siegel and Shuster took the entire creative risk. Donenfeld never created anything (nor did Liebowitz or Martin Goodman, come to that).


You're absolutely right, investing money is exactly what a publisher is supposed to do. And, as with most investments, they expect to get a return on the investment. Liebowitz and Donenfeld got an incredibly good return on their investment(s). That is, compared with publishers of novels, who will publish hardback first novels from three new writers with the pretty certain notion that two of those novels will sell about 37 copies each. The third will be Agatha Christie or J. K. Rowling - but they don't know which one of the three will turn out to be the success. And that's an excellent hit rate compared to the pharmeceutical industry, where SmithKleinBeecham at any one time are running ten projects for new cures for various things, secure in the knowledge that on eight of those they might as well just flush the dosh down the toilet.

Compare these success rates with National/All-American in the 'forties - IIRR, their first flop was Frontier Love or whatever it was called.

And Bloomsbury don't own the copyright to Harry Potter. Any time Rowling wants, she can leave them for Allen Lane. And unless I'm mistaken, the Harry Potter films don't mention Bloomsbury in massive letters at the begining before anything else, in contrast to the Spider-Man film.

[gentlesatirist]

...Donenfeld's top priority wasn't creative recruitment. He was hustling press time to keep National's paper-and-ink business moving, while running a magazine distribution business and overseeing a line of smutty pulp mags. He wasn't parsing every story submission to see if it had allusions to the Odyssey.

And Liebowitz was the money guy who kept everything together. That's how National survived the depression. Donenfeld would rouse up the business, then Lebowitz would make sure they got paid on time. When they didn't, he'd chase 'em down and sometimes end up acquiring their assets as payment. That's how the empire was built.

Then Superman (and Batman) came along and everything fell into place. Having struggled mightily for a decade, Donenfeld and Liebowitz fought like hellhounds to protect their ship once it came in.


- FE
Wickliffe OH

[T GUy]

Then Superman (and Batman) came along and everything fell into place. Having struggled mightily for a decade, Donenfeld and Liebowitz fought like hellhounds to protect their ship once it came in.

That ship flew the Jolly Roger.

[Slam_Bradley]

That ship flew the Jolly Roger.


Must have been a pretty common emblem at the time, since every newspaper syndicate, comic book and pulp publisher also flew it.

[MDG]

Of course all of this is hindsight--one of the things the book does well and I can't recommend it enough) is capture the feeling that at the time the publishers (and probably the creatives as well) had no idea whether or not the market would dry up tomorrow. They certainly weren't looking for properties that would provide a revenue stream for 50 or more years.

One thing I don't understand is how the standard in comic books became "buying the story" was the same as "buying the character." In pulps, characters were either created for hire by the publisher (like the Shadow), or the publisher only had first print rights to a story, but the story, and it's characters, remained property of the author (like Tarzan).

Also, was Superman--with already-created material "ready to print"--an exception? I seem to remember that Bob Kane sold the concept of Batman before delivering the first story--ditto Marston (or Moultin--I forget which was his real name) with Wonder Woman.

What I'd really like to see is a book on the business side of comics in the 60s and 70s, where it seemed to grow again, then fall apart just as fast.

MDG

[Slam_Bradley]

I'm going to do my best here, but Mark, Scott, anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.



One thing I don't understand is how the standard in comic books became "buying the story" was the same as "buying the character." In pulps, characters were either created for hire by the publisher (like the Shadow), or the publisher only had first print rights to a story, but the story, and it's characters, remained property of the author (like Tarzan).

Well, to a large extent, this practice was also true of newspaper syndicates. The syndicate would buy the strip from the young, inexperienced artist. They were taking the risk that they could get it placed in enough papers to make money. This is why we see Alex Raymond leaving Flash Gordon to create and control Rip Kirby and Caniff leaving Terry to create and control Steve Canyon.

Also, I think, with a lot of the pulp stories the stories were purchased outright. The authors regained control of the stories through the copyright process when the pulp publishers failed to renew their rights. This is the reason that some that would still be covered have fallen in to public domain. I'm thinking about the work of Stanley Weinbaum. Weinbaum died at a very early age. A lot of his pulp work was never renewed by the publisher and he was dead, so the work went in to the public domain.


Also, was Superman--with already-created material "ready to print"--an exception? I seem to remember that Bob Kane sold the concept of Batman before delivering the first story--ditto Marston (or Moultin--I forget which was his real name) with Wonder Woman.

I think that after the first real push that already-created material was the exception. Early on you had packaging houses like the Eisner-Iger shop and Jack Binder's shop. And you had Siegel and Shuster shopping around Superman. But, I believe, once the business was viewed as viable, most new creations came in-house.


What I'd really like to see is a book on the business side of comics in the 60s and 70s, where it seemed to grow again, then fall apart just as fast.


I'd love to see that as well. And though we don't agree on much...I'd love to see our own Mark Evanier write a definitive biography of Jack Kirby.

[Mark Evanier]

Well, to a large extent, this practice was also true of newspaper syndicates. The syndicate would buy the strip from the young, inexperienced artist. They were taking the risk that they could get it placed in enough papers to make money. This is why we see Alex Raymond leaving Flash Gordon to create and control Rip Kirby and Caniff leaving Terry to create and control Steve Canyon.

ME: That's basically it. Guys like Siegel and Shuster thought the comic books were giving them essentially the same deal as a newspaper syndication company. It wasn't the same deal. The syndicate took ownership of a property but they also paid the creator 50% of all revenue from it as long as he produced it. Jerry and Joe would have been quite happy if they'd received 50% of all income from Superman. But they didn't. They did have a deal that gave them a small percentage of DC's income from Superman but it was nowhere near 50% and Siegel became convinced (apprently, correctly) that it was not being paid honestly.

The one thing I'd disagree with in the above is the part about the syndicates "taking the risk." As with a lot of the early comic book publishers, the risk was pretty minuscule. If you'd created a new newspaper strip in that era (or even today) and a syndicate agreed to take it on, you'd be taking a much more significant risk than the syndicate.

I think that after the first real push that already-created material was the exception. Early on you had packaging houses like the Eisner-Iger shop and Jack Binder's shop. And you had Siegel and Shuster shopping around Superman. But, I believe, once the business was viewed as viable, most new creations came in-house.

ME: I can't think of too many.

I'd love to see that as well. And though we don't agree on much...I'd love to see our own Mark Evanier write a definitive biography of Jack Kirby.

ME: He's almost finished with it.

[Slam_Bradley]

ME: That's basically it. Guys like Siegel and Shuster thought the comic books were giving them essentially the same deal as a newspaper syndication company. It wasn't the same deal. The syndicate took ownership of a property but they also paid the creator 50% of all revenue from it as long as he produced it. Jerry and Joe would have been quite happy if they'd received 50% of all income from Superman. But they didn't. They did have a deal that gave them a small percentage of DC's income from Superman but it was nowhere near 50% and Siegel became convinced (apprently, correctly) that it was not being paid honestly.

The one thing I'd disagree with in the above is the part about the syndicates "taking the risk." As with a lot of the early comic book publishers, the risk was pretty minuscule. If you'd created a new newspaper strip in that era (or even today) and a syndicate agreed to take it on, you'd be taking a much more significant risk than the syndicate.

ME: I can't think of too many.

ME: He's almost finished with it.


Appreciate the corrections. Glad to hear that the book is almost done. I've been looking forward to it for a long time.

[T GUy]

Glad to hear that the book is almost done. I've been looking forward to it for a long time.

Me too!

The wait has been tolerable because I know it'll be worth it. I appreciate your taking the time to get it right, Mark.

[Gothos]

I posted the following MOT-related comment on the Interfan forums first, then decided to reprint it here in case it proved of interest.

Good discussion of MOT, btw.

"Re: the question of Weisinger and his effect on Jerry Siegel--

I don't want to give Uncle Mort credit for the actual creative efforts of Siegel or any other creator who slaved under that editor's apparent tyranny: however, I've got to say that I enjoy the stories Siegel wrote under Weisinger more than any I've read from the Golden Age, or any of those from the post-Weisinger period. I'm not saying the former are in every way "better" than the latter two groups, but the Weisinger-edited stories benefit from what I presume (and here Gerald Jones' book backs me up) was the editor's insistence on greater story logic. (Or at least the superifical appearance of logic: analyzing the logic behind "The Giant Turtle Man" can make your head spin...)

I think Siegel was a very intuitive type of creator, who dashed stuff off without thinking about it much, not unlike Robert Kanigher. There's a creative vigor to such work but the discipline of logic and reason can improve on the initial impulse. I further think Weisinger probably forced Siegel to discipline himself more than did any other editor in Siegel's lifetime, and the result is that a tale like "Superman's Return to Krypton" combines a lot of Siegel's zany creative energy (a rocket takes off because a fire-breathing dog shoots his flame-breath into it????) with more modulated human emotions of love and pathos.

So Weisinger deserves a little credit for his role in developing Siegel and Shuster's SUPERMAN. Not as much as he tried to take, in his lifetime, but I'm willing to give the editorial devil his due."