Roger McKenzie passes away at 75

That Eric Alper announced the veteran comics writer Roger McKenzie, who was active mainly during the late 1970s to late 1980s, died at 75 years of age:

Roger McKenzie, the comic book writer best known for helping shape the modern era of Marvel’s Daredevil alongside artist Frank Miller, died on the morning of August 21, 2026, at the age of 75, following months of dealing with heart failure and kidney disease while in hospice care.

McKenzie broke into comics in 1976 with a seven-page short story in Warren Publishing’s Vampirella, going on to write extensively for the company’s black-and-white horror anthologies Creepy, Eerie, and Vampirella through 1982. He also worked for DC Comics during this period, creating the western character Cinnamon and contributing to several of the company’s horror titles.

McKenzie’s most significant professional relationship began in 1978, when he and a young Frank Miller collaborated on a two-page story for DC’s Weird War Tales. That same year, McKenzie took over as writer on Marvel’s Daredevil with issue #151, giving the series a darker tone drawn from his horror writing background. Miller joined him as artist on the title starting with issue #158 in 1979, and the two worked together through issue #166, laying the creative groundwork for the run that would soon make Miller one of the most influential figures in American comics. Their collaborative issues were later collected in the ‘Daredevil by Frank Miller & Klaus Janson Omnibus.’

Here's the annoucement on his Facebook page, and here's what veteran writer Paul Kupperberg's telling about him. I'd read at least a few stories he wrote, and he did have talent for his time, though it's a shame he got his start through the horror genre. But when he wrote issues for a several series from Marvel, I'd say that's where he began to show promise, including on several issues of Captain America, and several issues from Marvel Fanfare. I hope Miller's thankful to McKenzie for providing him with the platform that gave his career its most serious start. McKenzie overall did some good work in his time, and IMO, his work for Marvel is what's really appreciated.

Howard the Duck's history

A writer at Cleveland Magazine tells about the history of the late Steve Gerber's Howard the Duck, Marvel's contribution to the anthropomorphic animal genre, which employed a Cleveland-based setting, and interviewed artist Val Mayerik, who was the first to illustrate the anthropomorphic cartoon bird during the Bronze Age. First though:

Working with Marvel comic book writer Steve Gerber, Val Mayerik was the first illustrator to depict the Cleveland-based character when he appeared in a series featuring The Man-Thing in the 1970s. Later, the cigar-smoking, beer-drinking cartoon duck got his own comic book series, which was even developed into a George Lucas-produced film.

That film, most unfortunately, was a failure, and not a good start for Marvel's attempts to enter the live action movie scene. It took until 1998's Blade to get a serious major adaptation produced, and that was more successful. Now, on the subject of how Howard's drawn:

Val Mayerik: "The writer, Steve Gerber; most of the credit goes to Steve. I mean, that character was Steve's alter ego, and Steve passed away quite a while ago. I was the first one to draw Howard, so that that's my pedigree there. Since then, a lot of people have drawn him. The look of the duck has changed a lot, but whenever people request sketches of Howard at conventions, or they want a private commission, I draw Howard in the original way that I had drawn him back in the ‘70s.

I'd say he's right to do it that way. Considering how Marvel was ruined horrifically since the turn of the century in particular, that's why it can do a lot of good to remind people how it all originally began in the Bronze Age, when the feathered fellow was created to serve as a comical adventure, surely the most significant of Marvel's own efforts to experiment with anthropomorphic animals.

Cleveland Magazine: That must have been pretty interesting for you, being from Northeast Ohio, having spent a lot of time in Cleveland — to now be illustrating a duck superhero who is in Cleveland.

VM: "Well, first of all, Howard has no superpowers; he's not really a superhero. Howard is kind of like the Greek chorus for humanity. He's the one who's making the commentary, and he feels he has the right to make the commentary because he's not a human being, so he has a distance which we don't have. It was fun. At the time when the character first appeared, it wasn't really clear that it was going to be that popular, and that it was going to catch on the way it did. I only drew a few early issues of Howard when Marvel decided to give Howard his own title; I was working on other projects that I was really having fun with, and so they gave it to another artist who was a very good artist, and I don't think I was back on the book for quite a few years."

That's an interesting part of Howard's creation: he may have been an anthropomorphic animal, but not one with serious science-fantasy powers. Then again, it's not like every story out there starring anthropomorphic animals does that either, but what matters with Howard the Duck is that he was meant to serve as a satirical adventure, and it's too bad awful scribes and editors like Joe Quesada led to the ruin of such characters with potential. Something I wish veterans like Mayerik would have the courage to discuss. Failure to do so is precisely why such classic creations have suffered so badly.

French cartoon film adapted from Legendaires broadcast on Canal Plus

Sortir a Paris announced an animated film based on a comic called The Legends is airing on Canal Plus:

The Legends, the animated film adapted from Patrick Sobral’s comic, is airing on Canal+ on Friday, July 31, 2026 at 9:06 PM. Directed by Guillaume Ivernel, the feature marks the first time the adventures of Danaël, Jadina, Gryf, Shimy and Razzia leap from page to the big screen in the magical world of Alysia.

Released in French cinemas on January 28, 2026, the film draws on the Delcourt-published saga, a touchstone of contemporary French children's comics. Now airing on television, it invites families to experience this adventure — a blend of magic, humor, and action — designed for viewers aged 6 and up.

The Légendaires used to be the planet’s greatest protectors. But a curse left them trapped in the bodies of ten-year-olds, just like everyone on Alysia. Stripped of their adult forms, Danaël, Jadina, Gryf, Shimy and Razzia must join forces to confront the sorcerer Darkhell and free their world from this eternal childhood.

The story keeps the core ingredients that made the comic a hit: a team of heroes with very different personalities, an accessible fantasy world, spectacular battles, and humor born from tensions within the group. The characters’ transformation into children also fuels a narrative about trust, friendship, and the need to cooperate despite their disagreements.

That certainly sounds a lot more faithful to its source material than some mainstream USA comics adaptations can be. And it's hopefully a lot more respectable to what's in good taste for children than what comes out of Hollywood these days too. Maybe best of all though, is that it's not airing on a bad network like Netflix happens to be. Broadcasting it there would only be bad news. It's better than the cartoon remain on French channels like Canal.

Dark Horse infected with antisemitism

It's sad to discover that Dark Horse's name is taking on a whole new meaning, as the Algemeiner reports one of their editors refused to enable publishing a comic by Jewish scholar Rafael Medoff, the director of the Wyman Institute, because he wouldn't take an anti-Israel and anti-American stance:

Dark Horse Comics, the third-largest comic book publisher in the United States behind Marvel and DC, has canceled the publication of a book by a Holocaust scholar after he refused to include an introduction accusing Israel of “genocide,” according to the Jewish advocacy organization StandWithUs, which condemned the move in a statement on Sunday.

Dark Horse had scheduled Dr. Rafael Medoff’s Cartoonists Against the Holocaust — a collection of 150 editorial cartoons from American newspapers of the 1930s and 1940s, accompanied by Medoff’s commentary on what Americans knew about the Holocaust as it unfolded — for publication this summer. According to StandWithUs, then-Dark Horse imprint editor Craig Yoe told Medoff, the founding director of the Washington, DC-based David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, that he would block publication unless the book’s introduction stated that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Yoe later followed up in writing, the group said, demanding that the book include text accusing Israel of “war crimes and crimes against humanity” and claiming that the US operates “concentration camp-style prisons.”

Medoff refused, arguing that the claims are false, and Dark Horse subsequently canceled the project.

“Accusing Israel of genocide is a lie, and requiring a Holocaust scholar to denounce Israel to see his book published is antisemitic bullying,” Medoff said in the statement. “It’s troubling to see McCarthyism rearing its ugly head in 21st century America. Historians should be free to write about history, without being subjected to political litmus tests.”

Dark Horse had previously published two of Medoff’s books, Whistleblowers and Cartoonists Against Racism, without incident. It was only after Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of Israel, StandWithUs said, that Yoe began demanding that Medoff denounce Israel as a condition of publication.

Dark Horse has disputed that account. In a June 3 email to StandWithUs cited by the Israeli news outlet Ynet, the publisher’s legal counsel said the decision was based on the company’s financial needs and repeated scheduling delays, and that Dark Horse “does not plan to publish” the book. [...]

“When a comic book publisher pressures a Holocaust scholar to denounce the Jewish state before his own book on the Holocaust can see print, the irony is hard to miss,” Carly Gammill, director of legal policy and litigation at StandWithUs Saidoff Law, said in Sunday’s statement. “We are seeing an alarming trend in which Jewish professionals are expected to pass ideological tests before they can fully participate in public life.”

She continued, “Whether in academia, the arts, or publishing, Jewish authors should be evaluated on the quality of their work — not on whether they are willing to denounce a core part of their Jewish identity.”

I seem to remember this Yoe as having been a far-leftist who published anti-war comics, and that Dark Horse, whether owned now by a video game corporation, would be willing to hire this disgraceful man and practically enable him to determine what's okay to publish speaks volumes. It was already horrific they employed the disgraced Scott Allie and ignored the sexual abuse accusations against him for some time. Now, they're tainting their image even further by allowing an antisemitic dictation to remain in place. That says quite a bit about what they must think of comicdom's past Jewish contributors like Stan Lee, Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Jack Kirby and Gil Kane. Also note how Mr. Yoe apparently wanted anti-American propaganda injected into the narrative, and it says a lot more about where the company could be going too. On which note, at Times Now, it says that:

Medoff alleges that editor Craig Yoe later sought to add a separate statement addressing contemporary politics. In an email dated 1 September 2025, Yoe reportedly proposed retaining the book’s existing introduction while placing an editor’s note elsewhere in the volume.

Writing in a personal capacity, Yoe accused the Trump administration of attempting to create detention centres comparable to concentration camps and of sending US residents to prisons abroad without constitutionally guaranteed trials. He also referred to the International Criminal Court warrants issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and criticised US military assistance to Israel.

Medoff rejected the proposed wording, arguing that it would turn a historical project into a platform for present-day political commentary. He also objected to comparisons between contemporary American detention policies and Nazi concentration camps.

The historian said such language risked diminishing the suffering of Jewish victims imprisoned and murdered in concentration camps during the 1930s and 1940s. He further argued that connecting Israel with allegations of crimes against humanity within a Holocaust publication could be interpreted as accusing the country of genocide.

Medoff described the alleged pressure to criticise Israel as antisemitic bullying and insisted that a Holocaust scholar should not be required to denounce the Jewish state as a condition for publication.

The planned book was expected to feature approximately 150 editorial cartoons. Nine of them had originally appeared during the 1940s and were intended to demonstrate how much information about the Holocaust was already available to the American public while the atrocities were taking place.

Medoff said he proposed several compromises to prevent the book from being cancelled. Among them were publishing the manuscript without changes or moving the project to another Dark Horse imprint without Yoe’s name attached, while allowing the editor to retain his four per cent royalty interest.

According to Medoff, those proposals were rejected. Yoe subsequently ended his association with Dark Horse, while the publisher formally withdrew from the project.

Interesting that despite Yoe leaving their employ, they still wouldn't publish the project. But considering they just might practically be closing down one day as a book publisher, perhaps that's one more reason why realists should stay away from them. If this is the path Yoe took, and DH is okay with, you cannot possibly expect them to publish any history books about the Danish Muhammed cartoons of the past 2 decades either, nor could you expect them to approve a project focused on survivors of September 11, 2001. This also reminds me of the time when Mike Baron was publishing Private American: if he wanted to arrange with DH to be the host publisher, they clearly rejected it. The New York Post gives one more eyebrow raising detail about Yoe:

Yoe, a former creative director for the Muppets and a longtime cartoonist, was an editor with Dark Horse as he worked on Medoff’s book. He has since severed his relationship with the publishing house.

According to On Scouting, he was hired by the late Jim Henson himself. So it looks like the Muppet franchise is now tarnished by him along with the scandal from nearly 15 years ago involving the Muppeteer Kevin Clash, who was accused of sexual misconduct. How do these entertainers end up making such poor choices for recruits?

What's interesting about this scandal is that in the past decade, if the following articles from the Jerusalem Post and Arizona Jewish News indicate, Medoff and Yoe were once on positive terms with each other. That means Yoe turned against Medoff in later years. However, Medoff should've considered earlier that somebody with a disturbing left-wing record like Yoe's was a bad lot and a poor choice for a publishing partner. And as this NPR affiliate indicates, Lee once knew Yoe (or rather, didn't), and was willing to write an introduction to a book he'd published about Joe Shuster's "fetish art". I think it'd be wise to look for another author who could cover the same ground of research.

I hope Mr. Medoff's looking for a better publisher now. Although Dark Horse may be suffering financial difficulties now, that's still no excuse for refusing to publish the latest version of Medoff's history items. Seriously, Medoff should sue both them and Yoe for interference (and he shouldn't have approved of letting Yoe retain any profit percentages), and perhaps look for an editor of Israeli descent (and conservative) who can work freelance on the projects instead. This is not going to look good on Dark Horse's record, for as long as they're still around, nor will it help former chairman Mike Richardson's image in hindsight.

Ohio Maltz Museum's exhibition for Jewish comics contributions

NPR-WOSU covers an exhibition of Jewish comics contributions at the Maltz Museum in Ohio. It was also organized by a historian who was involved in getting a NYC street named after Jack Kirby:

“Icons in Ink, The Jewish Comics Experience,” on view at the Maltz Museum in Beachwood through Aug. 23, is a revelation and a celebration, albeit with some limitations and questionable aspects.

The show’s core material is conveyed through colorful, large-scale graphic layouts resembling magazine pages that reach from the height of one’s knee to above one’s head. The layouts are filled with text and reproductions of pages from comic books. It’s an eye-grabbing approach that produces visual overload at times. Also, transitions from one section of the show to another occasionally lack continuity and flow.

But when it comes to the core goal of highlighting Jewish contributions to comic book history, the show delivers fascinating and sometimes surprising insights.

Organized by Roy Schwartz, a New York-based pop culture historian, the exhibition opened in 2023 at the Center for Jewish History in New York and is now in the middle of a five-year national tour.

It brims with Schwartz’s zeal to highlight the Jewish roots of what he described in an interview as “a unique American art form,’’ and “the bastard child of literature and art.’’ His expertise includes having written the 2021 book, “Is Superman Circumcised?: The Complete Jewish History of the World's Greatest Hero.’’

For Cleveland, Schwartz and the Maltz expanded the show to highlight the city’s role in the evolution of comic books, in collaboration with Samantha Baskind, the Cleveland State University professor of art history known for her extensive scholarship on Jewish contributions to the visual arts.

Hidden meanings of Superman

Naturally, Superman, the brainchild of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, two Jewish high school students in Cleveland’s Glenville neighborhood who invented the “Man of Steel’’ in the 1930s, is a major focus.

Superman’s birth on the doomed planet Krypton and his parents’ effort to save him by launching him to Earth is a familiar tale. It may not be widely appreciated, however, that the story echoes that of the finding of Moses, and that Superman’s name at birth, Kal-El, is a Hebrew phrase often interpreted as “voice of God’’ or “vessel of God.”

Superman’s powers evoke the myth of the Golem, a massive, Samson-like humanoid purportedly molded in clay by a 16th-century rabbi Prague to defend Jews from pogroms.

As the show points out, Jewish fans have certainly understood such signals.

Somehow, I'm not so sure they do, seeing how some of those who stick with leftism are so hostile to Israel, their country of origin, that it's hard to believe at this point they care about any "signals". Speaking of which, this exhibit features at least 2 comic creators who decidedly aren't worth seeing there:

Also featured in the Cleveland section of the show are printed works and original drawings from Harvey Pekar’s ironic and self-deprecating “American Splendor” series, Peter Kuper’s hilarious “Spy vs. Spy” episodes in Mad Magazine and Terri Libenson’s Jewish-centered narratives in series, including “The Pajama Diaries.”

Cleveland Heights native Brian Michael Bendis is represented by outstanding works including a spectacular 2006 ink drawing for an Avengers episode depicting an explosion on a crowded street in what could be Downtown Cleveland.

When somebody as awful as Bendis is included, despite how overrated and atrocious his writings were on - but not limited to - series like the Avengers, something is terribly wrong. What's so "outstanding" about his cheap approach to science fiction? It's also troubling that somebody like the late Pekar was included, despite his negativity to Israel that he practically wove into a GN titled "Not the Israel my Parents promised me". These are the kind of "creators" whose works we need to see? Nope.

Conspiracists and paranoiacs might see the show as piling on more evidence for the hate-filled fantasy that Jews supposedly control everything from Wall Street to Hollywood.

On this, it's bizarre said conspiracists would want anything to do with Jewish creations, if that's how they feel, and have no interest in producing their own entertainment products that hopefully aren't laced with prejudicial visions. And then, in a very sad hint at where this NPR affiliate really stands, they say it needs an "update":

It’s also striking, given its attention to the social and political context of comic books in prior decades that “Icons in Ink’’ doesn't bring its story fully into the present.

The show’s generally triumphal tone feels oddly off-key amid the recent uptick in anti-Semitism on the left and right, and the post Oct. 7 backlash against Israel.

Debate over Israel’s military conduct in Iran, Gaza and Lebanon, or settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, has inspired authors and pundits of all political persuasions.

“Icons in Ink’’ hasn’t been updated to reflect the turmoil. It could be said that because the show was organized in 2023, there hasn’t been enough time for a significant response to current events from Jewish creators of comic books or graphic novels to warrant attention.

But it seems to be a missed opportunity that the show doesn't mention the conflicted feelings about Israel that Pekar explored in “Not the Israel My Parents Promised Me,’’ published in 2012 as one of his last books.

There’s also no mention of the three-page spread criticizing Israel’s conduct in Gaza published in The New York Review of Books in February 2025 by Joe Sacco and Art Spiegelman, the Pulitzer Prize-winning creator of the Holocaust-related graphic novel “Maus,’’ whose work is otherwise lauded in the show at Maltz.

Such publications and others like them represent an intriguing opportunity to revise “Icons in Ink’’ as it continues to travel. The exhibition argues successfully that the Jewish experience in comics needs to be understood more deeply.

Given that goal, some freshening could make the show even more relevant and up-to-the-minute. After all, as the exhibition demonstrates, Jewish comic book creators and graphic novelists have been pulling no punches for decades in messages both overt and subtly coded.

When they insist Sacco's a recommendation, and no right-wing creators like the late Joe Simon are mentioned at all, or even Will Eisner, that speaks volumes as to where they really stand on this. It's actually amazing Pekar's screed didn't turn up at the exhibit, but even so, he's hardly somebody I'd consider a perfect choice any more than Spiegelman. Also note how the news site omits issues like Jews being murdered by the Religion of Peace, and all they care about is making Jews look like the sole ones responsible for anything bad happening post-October 7, 2023, while obscuring the more serious issues caused by said religion.

I'll give Schwartz and company this: they may have deliberately avoided some of these issues because they realized Pekar's POV was divisive, and it wouldn't do any good post-10.7.2023 to bring something like that into the mix. Even so, if they didn't bring in something that could provide a more positive viewpoint on Israeli issues like a Japanese mangaka's publication, then it's otherwise a defeat, though not in the way NPR wants to frame it. What they say about the exhibit in that context is shameful, and if that's their position, why'd they even bother to cover the project?

LA's Skirball Center exhibition explores how comics shaped America

The Los Angeles Daily News wrote about the Skirball Center's current exhibition on comicdom's history as part of the USA as a whole:

A year ago, the Skirball debuted its first comic-themed exhibition in years, “Jack Kirby: Heroes and Humanity,” a celebration of the life and work of Kirby, who helped create such comic book icons, such as Captain America, the X-Men, Black Panther and the Avengers.

Now, with “Inventing America,” the center has widened its gaze to include the story of comic books from the early decades of the 20th century to the present, examining creators such as Kirby, yes, but linking the art and adventures to the story of the United States over the past century.

“We greenlit both of them at the same time, knowing they would build on each other,” says Michele Urton, the Skirball’s museum deputy director and co-curator of “Inventing America” with comics expert Patrick A. Reed.

“The overview, because it’s an American history exhibition, we really wanted to time that to America 250,” she continues. “And for practical reasons, we needed a bit more time to do a larger survey.”

I do wonder if it'll cover stuff leading up to say, 2020, by which time quality long plummeted, and if they'll take an objective look at history? Sad logic suggests they won't.

In many ways, “Inventing America,” which runs through February 2027, tells a parallel story of the rise of youth culture in America.

“Comic books were really that first flowering of youth culture,” Reed says. “The first time that there was an entertainment form targeting kids, not only as the audience but as the direct consumer. Publishers recognized that all of a sudden, they can be selling things for nickels and dimes and targeting the kids directly.

“That’s sort of Ground Zero for everything that follows,” he says. “Today in America, youth culture is the driving force of pop culture. That all emerged following the comic book, the 45 RPM record and Saturday morning cartoons.

On this, one can only wonder if youth culture still holds the same influence it once did, seeing how in the past decade, there was less of it in films and TV. And based on how younger generations have been indoctrinated in schools to be uncreative and unproductive, can anyone be surprised if that's another reason why comics have fared no better than other entertainment forms in providing youth culture with what to enjoy when they're uninterested? If sales today are poor, that tells something, and prices long went up far beyond nickels and dimes.

Many of the early comic book creators we still remember today – Superman’s Joe Shuster and Jerry Seigel, Batman’s Bob Kane and Bill Finger, Captain America’s Jack Kirby and Joe Simon – were the children of European Jews who immigrated to the United States.

“A lot of that’s because the industry was founded in New York City, which was a major center of immigration,” Reed says. “The comics companies that were sort of low-end publishing coming out of pulp and broadsheets were an industry founded largely by immigrants, by Jewish Americans.

“And if you were a young Jewish American in New York City, and you had artistic aspirations as Jack Kirby did, if you wanted to work in the arts, the comic book was there.

“The kids in the Lower East Side [where Kirby was born] weren’t necessarily attending fine art programs or going to art schools,” Reed says. “They weren’t necessarily able to jump straight to commercial illustration. So to work in comic books was a way to express your creativity and also provide for your family.”

And the comic book industry has remained, to varying degrees, a world of art and storytelling with its doors open wide.

“As comic books move from the Marvel-DC model and expand in the 1960s, you get the whole underground movement,” Urton says. “People began self-publishing. They’re coming at it from a different angle.

“I think that because the comic book is a format that continues to change and evolve, and that can be created really inexpensively and self-produced, you continue to see entry into this field for a wider and wider range of folks,” she says. “As Patrick likes to say, anyone with a pencil and a piece of paper can become a comic book artist.”

To Reed, that openness creates an energy and vibrancy in comics that’s not always present in the mainstream creative arts.

That can certainly be what it's like today, when the mainstream have long been taken over by conglomerates who disrespect everything the original comics were built on, and practically threw out anybody who didn't adhere to their PC mindsets, including, but not limited to, conservatives, recalling even a liberal like Larry Hama was blacklisted, and that still seems to be in effect. Even Jews aren't respected, and all they're doing is making clear how ungrateful they are to the very community that worked so hard to develop those comics in the first place. In that context, it's not a place where doors are open wide, and we must consider some of the embarrassments that occurred in the past decade and even more recently. So I wish they wouldn't sugarcoat the present, because that's what they're doing.

I'm sure an exhibit like this has its values, but all this failure to examine everything more objectively is harming the industry in the long run, and it doesn't bode well for creativity or even productivity. And whatever one thinks of independent creations, Marvel/DC cannot continue to remain in the hands of conglomerates who don't respect the creators and their creations.

2 old interviews regarding the JSA

I found 2 interviews, one with the overrated David Goyer and the other with the late Len Strazewski, from an old Geocities JSA fansite that's now archived. First, here's the interview with Goyer:

Q2. How did you choose what storyline to start the new series with? Was it always intended to deal with the death of Sandman, and the rebirth of Dr Fate, or were there other ideas?

We always intended to begin the new book with the death of Wesley Dodds, but originally, this was going to be tied into a story involving the old Paul Kirk Manhunter clones. We shelved that (we'll be bringing it back later on) and decided to go for something much more epic -- the birth of a new Dr. Fate.

And that new Dr. Fate was Golden Age Hawkman and Hawkgirl's son Hector Hall, aka the Silver Scarab, who about 5 years later, was put back in the grave along with Lyta Hall/Fury, by none other than Geoff Johns himself when he took up the writing chores almost entirely solo. So what was the whole point of bringing them back into the fold? And what's so wrong with Kent Nelson and Inza Nelson that they wouldn't reverse their atrocious fate in Zero Hour?

That aside, while it may be one thing to write up a demise for Dodds, the way he was depicted committing suicide to prevent a hefty villain from possibly assaulting him to get more information out of him was disgraceful and forced, as were the other deaths depicted early in the series' run. The problem with how they did it is that they seem to think these other characters were some sort of a burden with no storytelling value to build around, and in the end, instead of just quietly letting them be dropped into limbo, they can only think of putting them to death through murder. Even suicide's very appalling. Yet they resort almost exclusively to such fates instead of death by natural causes and auto accidents, just to show how uncreative they actually are.

Q5. How has the reaction to the new JSA comic been in the DC offices? Positive?

Generally, DC has been very happy with the book. Sales are quite good and they like the way the fans have been responding. They've given us fairly free rein to do what we want.

Q6. What did you think of the 1992 JSA series by Len Strazewski and the late Mike Parobeck?

I enjoyed the short-lived '92 JSA series, but I thought it lingered a bit too much in the past, recycling the same (quite small) JSA rogues gallery, etc.

That was one of the reasons we introduced Mordru and (in issue #6) Black Adam. Later on, we will see a new Injustice Society. We wanted to expand the JSA's rogues gallery.

Oh, so here he's stealthily putting down Strazewski's work, which was cut short by editor Mike Carlin, yet when somebody like Goyer comes along, suddenly there's no complaints. Funny Goyer says Strazewski's work lingered in the past too much, when Goyer/Johns/Robinson's JSA wasn't all that different, despite what they say. And a big problem was how it didn't built legitimately or organically, based on how it stuck with the status quo set by Zero Hout, and there were at least 3-4 series at the time introducing new characters to replace the older ones, including how Oliver Queen was replaced as Green Arrow by a newly created son. In retrospect, none of the replacements aged well.

Q8. Why did you decide to explore the return of a new Dr Fate, and not the return of another JSAer, for e.g, a new Hawkman, new Spectre or new Sandman?

We decided to bring Dr. Fate back because the Spectre issue was already being dealt with in Day of Judgement.

Hawkman was a larger issue which is being worked out as we speak -- but at the time we were pitching the series, DC still wasn't ready to give us the green light on a Hawkman resurrection.

As for Sandman -- well, Sandy needed to be in the book from the beginning for obvious reasons. And we were prohibited from actually naming a new character Sandman by Gaiman and the Vertigo folks. In the DCU, that name is exclusively Morpheus' now.

Well at least this tells something. To think that a so-called called auteur who was since accused of serious sexual abuse would have that kind of "creative control" at the expense of the flagship DCU would even have veto power over what characters could retain the Sandman codename. Of course, one can reasonably wonder how Goyer and company feel now that a guy they possibly looked up to as a genius was discovered to be quite the opposite? Do they still consider what he did with Lyta Hall throughly acceptable? I don't know, but the next part of the interview certainly makes clear what kind of woke advocate Goyer really is:

Q15. Some fans have claimed that Dr Midnite (Charles McNider) was possibly gay. What is your opinion on this situation?

It is my personal belief that McNider may very well have been gay. If we have the opportunity, we may address it one day in a story.

It's definitely eyebrow raising when somebody blurs the differences between fiction and reality that blatantly. The Golden Age Dr. Mid-Nite is a non-existant person, and like various other characters of the times, was written as a cypher, so how and why do phonies like Goyer jump to these conclusions? And who are these fans they speak of? Not me. Talk about putting words in the fanbase's mouth! Some could say the way McNider was written might make him look gay, but since he's a fictional character, there's nothing to prove, period, except for that some overrated modern writers are some of the most shameless people around. And Goyer did go pretty woke in later years to boot. And what he said about She-Hulk and did with Superman was inexcusable.

Now, here's the 2nd with Len Strazewski, and some of what he tells is far more impressive what Goyer had to say, and tells quite a bit about what went wrong at the time when the editors decided they didn't want to sell according to merit in the early 90s. This is about both the 1991 miniseries and the regular series the followed the next year:

Q4. Was this series received well by fans, and DC alike?

Fans liked the 1991 series and most DC editors ignored it.

Q5. And what about the 1992 series? What's the story behind that?

(After the 1991 series,) Brian and I proposed the 1992 continuing series set in the present. Mike Parobeck worked with me on THE FLY and also on the mini-series, and the 1992 series was created with him in mind. He designed the look of all the characters for the series.

Q6. And was the 1992 series well-received?

Fans universally loved the 1992 series and DC editors hated it because they (as a group) had convinced themselves that no one was interested in older heroic characters. History has proved them wrong, of course.

What's additonally ironic is that at least a few of the older characters who weren't slaughtered during Zero Hour were put to use in JSA, and when that occurred, no complaints were made, and the editors didn't balk at Goyer/Robinson/Johns making use of them. One could validly wonder if Strazewski wasn't PC enough for their tastes that Carlin for one had to be so petty. There is one part here that's unfortunate, however:

Q9. Regarding the lineup of the 1992 series, why were characters such as Dr Fate, Power Girl or the Star-Spangled Kid not included? Were there plans to have them appear in the future?

No special reason not to include them. Dr Fate would have shown up eventually. Power Girl and Star-Spangled Kid never interested me much.

With all due respect, it's ludicrous to say they "never interested" you much when it all depends what talent you can bring to the table and what stories you can build around them. Although, the reason why Power Girl wasn't in those 10 issues was because the disgraced Gerard Jones was holding her hostage to his repellent stories in JLA. As for Star-Spangled Kid, a creation of Jerry Siegel, the only problem there was that Roy Thomas had already put Sylvester Pemberton to death towards the end of Infinity Inc, though if anybody talented enough wanted to, there were zillions of decent ways to resurrect the guy from the grave (and Thomas himself may have once said he'd regretted what he did with Pemberton). Instead, DC editors allowed Johns to exploit the role for his female counterpart creation, Courtney Whitmore, and for some reason, if there was any character in the past decade whom editors didn't demand be given a PC costume design unlike what Starfire sadly got, it was Johns' creation, who wore a tank top outfit, begging the question, why does he get a pass while other writers/artists don't on such issues? Now, here's what Strazewski addressed in regards to the late Mike Parobeck's art:

Q12. Some fans have stated that Mike's JSA work was "too cartoony". Personally, I thought it fit perfectly, but do you have an opinion?

As noted above. He was brilliant and his style is now the most copied style in comics. Among others, DC Executive Editor Mike Carlin said Mike's work was not appropriate for super-heroes and that was one reason why the JSA series was cancelled. Carlin also said he didn't like my writing. He was mistaken.

Again, Carlin was clearly a bad omen for comicdom as an editor, if anything, and some of the later projects he worked on certainly played quite a part in draining all that made DC/Marvel work in the first place. And as I may have noted before, if older characters like Dr. Strange and Mr. Fantastic could be loved by so many readers back in the day, then it's false to say nobody liked reading about older heroes.

Q13. Have you read the current JSA series, by David Goyer and Geoff Johns? If so, what is your opinion?

I haven't read it and probably will not. It would be unfair, I think, to do so. If it is really good, I'd be jealous. If it is really bad, I'd be angry. If it was mediocre, I'd be sad. I've met the creators and they seem like bright, creative, young guys. I am sure they are doing as well as their editors allow them.

Hopefully, he didn't read it and years afterwards, I myself reevaluated whatever I did read from Goyer/Johns/Robinson and realized it was grossly overrated to begin with, and otherwise insulting to the intellect. And Johns later willingly took part in the time-altering crossover Flashpoint, which led to the New52, and in the process, erased his stories from continuity for the sake of a new one that led nowhere fast, and was eventually reversed along with at least a few other horrible mistakes like Identity Crisis. But by then, it was long too late, and the damage Johns in particular engineered on his part was truly reprehensible.

As far as I know, Carlin's never apologized for being such a hypocrite, and of course, neither have Goyer/Robinson/Johns. If Strazewski got alienated from comicdom because of all that, it's understandable. Some PC advocates for decades have really brought things down to insufferable levels, and repairing all that will take an epoch. For now, I hope Strazewski's JSA stories will be reprinted in the DC Finest archives, and as for the later JSA, that's best avoided and forgotten.

Kevin Eastman doesn't think Ninja Turtles could be produced today

Creative Bloq says Ninja Turtles co-creator Kevin Eastman doesn't think it would be possible to get it created today. Some of the parts in discussion include:

Kevin says that when he meets fans at events like MCM Comic Con, he likes to ask them who their favourite Turtle is – “you can tell a lot about someone's personality,” he says.

That's part of what's made the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles such an enduring success. The tone of the franchise has varied: the family-friendly animated series feels a world away from the edgy black-and-white comics that Kevin and Peter Laird began with ("there's a lot less murder and vengeance kind of stuff”), but the core concept remains: the team.

I guess that's the rather odd thing not everyone brings up - the comics were more adult, in contrast to the animated adaptations, and perhaps the live action movies too. But even if the more recent comics from IDW follow the playbook of the original comics, that still doesn't excuse how woke the new ones are.

Another key to the Turtles' legacy is that Kevin and Peter kept creative control. They self-published the comics, and they were personally involved in the first three movies and the first 300 cartoon episodes. That was intentional after learning from the artists who came before them.

“Pete and I were specifically influenced by Jack [Kirby] and his work at Marvel. He was doing work for hire, so he didn't get to participate in creative input or profit participation. We self-published Turtles with the full knowledge of what had happened to those giants that we stood on the shoulders of”.

In that case, why did they sell off the rights years later to companies like Viacom almost 2 decades ago? Seriously, do they really, all of a sudden, no longer care about their creations and what poor changes resulted? Come to think of it, why don't they try to buy them back? Now, about what Eastman thinks of the time when they originally created the Ninja Turtles 42 years ago:

The comics industry has changed massively since Turtles Issue 1, which was placed in comic stores via small number of sub distributors on a non-returnable basis. At that time, trade magazines like the Comic Buyer's Guide were the place to get word out, but it then depended on word of mouth.

Even the first issue did better than Peter and Kevin had hoped for, with its run of 3,000 copies allowing them to return the $1,200 loan they took from Kevin's uncle and also to pay rent for a couple of months. Would they have had such an instant success today?

“I think the Turtles would not at all have had the success it had then. The landscape has changed too much. It would be a completely different set of challenges.

“We were coming off a time in 1984 where you had the mainstream comics like Marvel and DC, the emergence of new publishers like Pacific Comics and Capital Comics, and this whole other foundation that started in the late 60s of underground comics – stuff you found mostly in head shops and intended for adults. It was a perfect storm of opportunity that gave us that foot in the door to find an audience.”

Today, there are more platforms, and Kevin welcomes the likes of Kickstarter and Indiegogo to allow self publishing both digitally and physically. But there's also more competition from other mediums.

That said, Kevin's very hopeful about the industry in general. The Last Ronin tapped into a shift towards prestige comics with mature legacy stories, and it drew a new audience not only to the Turtles but other comics too.

But what about the woke ingredients in the past number of years? What about the woke change to Splinter in a more recent film? That the old/new comics are more adult themselves is no excuse. If they're going to let the conglomerates who acquired the copyrights get away with this, and make no effort to buy back their creations, they've really let down the fandom they've had. And then Eastman actually cites Kirby as an inspiration, when here, the former, along with Peter Laird, later sold off much of the franchise? I'm sorry, it's just no use. By the way, does Eastman know Capital Comics only lasted a few years, and some of the comics they initially published, like Mike Baron's Nexus and Badger, were later transferred to First Comics for continuation?

Eastman is right there's far more competition today, and no telling if Ninja Turtles would be noticed as easily by Hollywood as it was in the late 80s. But he and Laird still made a big mistake selling off their properties to conglomeracy, and if Kirby made the same mistake with any creator-owned properties he had, that wouldn't reflect well on him either. If Eastman/Laird won't address any misuse of Ninja Turtles in the years since they sold it off, what's the point of these observations? And while it's great they got as far as they did back in the day, do they realize 3000 copies is still a drop in the ocean compared to the millions of units published in other mediums? Ninja Turtles is a great creation. But let's not delude ourselves by thinking a mere few thousand copies for a debut pamphlet is something to celebrate compared to millions for other mediums' output.

William Bernhardt's history of the legal wars on Superman

Crime Reads interviewed author William Bernhardt, who's published a history book titled The Superman Wars, which is about the legal issues surrounding the history of Superman's publication:

The story of Siegel and Shuster has been told before—most notably in Brad Ricca’s 2013 book Super Boys: The Amazing Adventures of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster—the Creators of Superman. Bernhardt has updated the long-running legal battles the two men and their heirs endured over the rights to the character. The subtitle of his book is A Battle for Truth, Justice, and an American Icon. [...]

L. Wayne Hicks: What are people going to learn from your book that wasn’t in Brad Ricca’s book?

William Bernhardt: There are several things. And don’t think I’m putting down Brad’s book, because I like his book, and I like him. I thought he was a really generous guy when I interviewed him. The first thing I said was, “Are you thinking about doing a second edition or an update or anything?” He said no. I said, “Okay, I don’t want to step on your toes.”

But for one thing, his book’s about fifteen years old now, and we’ve discovered a lot since then. I’ve discovered some things since then, and others have as well. He couldn’t tell the end of the lawsuit, because that hadn’t happened yet. That didn’t happen until 2016, that it was all over. The Siegel family did not talk to him, at least not on the record, because there was pending litigation.

I did eventually get them to talk to me, which was a real treat. I dug up the bankruptcy papers and figured out what really went down, and so I’m able to explain that, and I think the other lawsuits as well, in a way that will make it more comprehensible. And at the same time, I tried to write those things so that you don’t have to go to law school to understand it. It’s going to be understandable to anybody.

I'm sure there's always room for another take on the history of the legal wars, which Siegel/Shuster's families sadly lost in the end. But I get the feeling Bernhardt won't take an objective view of later executives at Time Warner, who enabled some of the worst abuse of the Superman franchise since the turn of the century. And that's a problem, if not a new one.

LWH: Which was the bigger problem: the boys being naive, or the publishing executives being crooked?

WB: I’m going to go with the latter. Because, you know, the Major (Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson), the guy who founded the company, was perhaps not the world’s greatest businessman, but he was a writer. He understood that creatives deserve to be paid, and sometimes he was late, he didn’t pay that much, but his idea was that someday we’re going to have a breakthrough, and then I’m going to share it with everybody.

That’s what he says at the bankruptcy courts. He says, if you let this go through, these guys aren’t going to treat the creatives the way I did. And boy, was he right about that. This was such an unexpected windfall to Harry Donenfeld and Jack Liebowitz. This is what they did. They acquired other people’s companies by basically creating debt or finding people in debt, or both, and using it to take over their companies. They had no idea that just weeks, if not days, after they fully controlled the company, Superman would come out and be an immediate sensation.

Harry Donenfeld is a millionaire less than a year later. Jack is not far behind him. And they had no intention of letting go of anything. They didn’t have to. Jack’s attitude was always, “Anybody can write this stuff. If you don’t cooperate, we’ll get somebody else to do it.” To be fair, Jerry and Joe did make some real money, especially given that the Depression was going on and a lot of people weren’t making any money. They made good money in the early days. But it doesn’t last.

If the head honchos at the time were corrupt, do they believe the later conglomerate heads were any better? Because look how far the might of the Man of Steel's fallen over the past decades, artistically and financially, no thanks to their neglect/enabling. That doesn't count?

LWH: What does Superman mean to you?

WB: I loved Superman when I was a kid. Part of that was when I started reading comics, the Batman comics were trying to imitate the Adam West series, the comedy series, so they were trying to be funny, not really very successfully. That didn’t appeal to me very much, but Superman stories were more science fiction, and that’s what I liked.

There were two main magazines, Superman and Action Comics. Superman, in my era, usually told the slugfest super villain stories, but Action Comics usually told science fiction stories. He’d go up in space and encounter a world where something’s different and I loved that stuff. In time, I came to realize that over and over again, Superman has been a symbol of hope, which I think is why he continues to be meaningful to people.

As an iconic creation, yes, but the comics themselves in over 2 decades, no. That's all collapsed, courtesy of all the company managers whom I sadly suspect Mr. Bernhardt doesn't say a negative word about, and anybody who won't show the courage to do so remains unconvincing in their alleged support for Siegel and Shuster, let alone any other creators of the times.

As for what he says about Batman comics imitating the West TV show, I think they became more tongue-in-cheek by the 1950s, and it was more a case of the TV show imitating the comics, so this is definitely not the most accurate statement Mr. Bernhardt's made. One more reason I'm not sure now if his new book about Superman history will be the most straightforward take on history available.

Len Strazewski passes away at 71

The Columbia Chronicle of Chicago announced that Len Strazewski, a professor and news writer for the AMA who wrote several comics in the 1990s, and co-created Jesse Quick as the teen daughter for the Golden Age Johnny Quick and Liberty Belle with the late artist Mike Parobeck, passed away at 71 years of age:

Len Strazewski, a Columbia College professor emeritus and comic book writer known for his work on “The Flash,” died Monday, April 27, at 71.

Strazewski died peacefully in an Evanston nursing home following months of infections and hospital stays, Kevin O’Reilly, the son of his longtime partner, shared in a Facebook post.

Strazewski spent more than two decades at Columbia where he became a defining figure in the journalism program as a professor, mentor and administrator. He also built a career in comics, writing for DC and contributing to titles including “The Flash,” “Starman” and “Justice Society of America.”

When it comes to Flash and Starman, yes, he wrote at least one story for both, though it should be noted that the latter was the 1988-92 series primarily written by Roger Stern, starring a newer character named Will Payton, coming several years before the pretentious James Robinson was allowed to make mockery of everything with his overrated take, which starred a son of the Golden Age character Ted Knight, named Jack. Stern's series has yet to be reprinted, from what I know, and while it may not be perfect, I'd sooner read all of that specific Starman series than what Robinson wrote during 1994-2001; a post-Zero Hour concoction as it was. I don't think any of the forced replacement characters that came along in the wake of that shoddy crossover worked out well, because, simply put, they weren't introduced organically.

Outside the newsroom and classroom, Strazewski wrote for DC Comics and was part of projects spanning dozens of titles.

In 2013, he told Chicago Talks that he estimated he had written between 160 and 200 comics. Part of his work was on display at Columbia’s campus at the time.

He said he got into journalism because of Superman. “The job of reporter and journalist seemed to be a suitable profession for a young man because Clark Kent did it,” he said.

Yes, but for many years, there's just far too many journalists influenced by J. Jonah Jameson and Bethany Snow. Maybe Strazewski had a great idea working as a contributor to medical news, rather than political per se. Something that rather unsurprisingly isn't explored here is that back in 1993, the DC editor Mike Carlin cancelled Strazewski's Justice Society series after 10 issues because he didn't think they should be writing stories starring older heroes, and possibly despised Strazewski's writing and Parobeck's artwork too. And this was at a time when Marvel had been publishing Doctor Strange, easily the oldest protagonist in their universe, for many years as a series. Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four could easily come 2nd in terms of age at Marvel for "field warriors", and I'm sure there's more (Wolverine, anyone?). Carlin was also an editor on the repellent Identity Crisis in 2004, and that certainly doesn't speak well for his reputation. Let's also recall at least a few of the Justice Society characters who appeared in Strazewski's series were wiped out in Zero Hour soon after, and that was kept canon for many years.

Surely one of the most important lessons to learn in the debacle involving Strazewski's Justice Society series is that editors/publishers like Carlin weren't marketing on merit. One silver lining is that Strazewski/Parobeck's creation there, Jesse Quick, went on during the following decade to become a recurring co-star in the Flash as a resident lady speedster. But of course, all that went downhill after Mark Waid stopped writing, and terrible writers like Geoff Johns made things worse.

If there were any mistakes Strazewski made during his career in comicdom, it would have to have been when he wrote 2 items for the now defunct Malibu. One was the 1993 Street Fighter comic, the earliest USA adaptation of the video game franchise I know of, when, in the 3rd and last issue, he wrote Ken Masters being slain at the hands of Sagat, as though this were Mortal Kombat rather than SF. Capcom management and the fandom found that objectionable, and it was put to an end as a result, and only several years later when the Canadian Udon Entertainment took up a license did SF adaptations get better traction. Another far worse mistake was when Strazewski and the late artist Norm Breyfogle co-wrote Malibu's Prime with the disgraced Gerard Jones. I wouldn't be surprised if both Len and Norm disowned that comic later on, and stuff like that definitely tarnishes the entire Malibu output, which Marvel bought out at least a few years later, in what was obviously a huge mistake.

Apart from those errors, Strazewski's resume, though small it may be, looks okay, and his contributions to DC are to be admired. Exactly why it's a terrible shame later writers and editors took repellent directions with some of the characters he worked on. So Strazewski's a writer who can be appreciated - certainly a lot more than some of the other figures he worked with, and it's to be hoped that someday, more sensible creators will be able to do justice for his writings as much as previous generations of the past century.

The Golden Age Green Lantern's co-creator gets no true respect today

The Vidette recently wrote about the late artist/writer Martin Nodell, who co-created Golden Age Green Lantern Alan Scott with the late Bill Finger (who also co-created Batman with Bob Kane), and is still a topic at some modern conventions:

Although renowned comic creator Martin Nodell died, his presence is still felt at comic conventions.

The Green Lantern has gone through many iterations in the decades since its inception. The first version, created by Nodell in 1940, was Alan Scott. When he died in 2006 at the age of 91, his son, Spencer Nodell, and great-grandson, Quinn Nodell, took it upon themselves to continue sharing his work.

According to Spencer Nodell, Martin Nodell spent many years renouncing the comic industry due to a lack of stability. By the time Spencer Nodell was born in 1947, he was trying not to associate himself too closely with the Green Lantern character. It was not until the 1980s that Martin Nodell began to embrace his connection to the character.

Although Martin Nodell renounced the Green Lantern legacy in his early years, Spencer Nodell said that the family was friends with Stan Lee, a renowned creator at Marvel Comics. According to Spencer Nodell, Lee offered Martin Nodell an illustrator position at the company that would become Marvel Comics.

Spencer Nodell explained how his father came to accept his place in the comic book community.

"In the 1980s, when Gary Colabuono, who ran the Chicago show and also owned several comic book shops in the Chicago area, said, 'Oh, you gotta come out to the shows. People wanna see you. They think you're dead,’” Spencer Nodell said.

Martin Nodell spent several decades late in his life attending conventions, leaning into his association with the Green Lantern. Spencer Nodell said that as Martin Nodell grew older, it became harder for him to sign items, so he began signing and stockpiling Green Lantern books in advance to sell to fans.

While it's great the senior Nodell re-embraced his connections as a co-creator with what he first conceived in the Golden Age, one can only wonder what he'd think today if he knew that 6 years after his passing, DC would corrupt his hard work by changing Alan Scott into a gay man, something they unshockingly still stick by till this day, much like how the disgraced Gerard Jones did something similar with Roy Thomas' creation of Obsidian from Infinity Inc? And let's not forget Marvel went a similar route with Iceman, undoubtably encouraged by where DC was going with their stable of characters. When they speak of "many iterations", it's sad but unshocking they won't bring up any of the PC pandering that's brought down charaters like Alan Scott any more than the rest of the comics industry.

In fact, do Nodell's children realize what's happened, and does it sit well with them the retcons by James Robinson tarnish the legacy of their dad's creation even more? If they do, yet choose to remain quiet lest they offend the leftist cultural hijackers, they've only failed their dad's legacy in the long run. Come to think of it, even Thomas, who created the 2 children of Scott in the pages of All-Star Squadron/Infinity Inc, is failing his own legacy if he never spoke out against the harm Jones led to over 3 decades ago when he forced his woke beliefs upon somebody else's creations, effectively encouraging abuse and exploitation of past veterans' creations for the sake of politicized agendas.

I highly appreciate Nodell for his contributions to comicdom, but it's regrettable nobody's willing to admit the GL comics themselves have been largely destroyed as reading material, due to all the bad storytelling decisions and editorial mandates that came down the lane after mid-1988. And Alan Scott, much like Hal Jordan, was one of the biggest victims of all the abuse. Anybody who continues to make a shambles of past writers' work is not respecting Nodell's memory.

Video game producer donates classic back issues to the Smithsonian

I previously wrote about what I thought was a questionable article by one of the founders of Riot Games, producer of League of Legends. Now, it looks like there is something good he's done that should serve as vital example in this day and age, as the Smithsonian magazine's announced Brandon Beck donated some classic back issues to the museum's archives:

Before Superman and Captain America became global symbols of heroism, joined cinematic universes and inspired Halloween costumes, they were just ink on cheap newsprint—bold, bright and bursting with possibility. Now, the comic book debuts of two of the world’s most iconic superheroes have found a permanent home at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History.

In an extraordinary acquisition, gifted by Brandon Beck, co-founder of the video game developer Riot Games, the museum has added Action Comics No. 1 and Captain America Comics No. 1 to its collection. These comic books were the public’s introduction to characters whose influence today spans movies, television, toys and the imaginations of several generations.

This is what collectors doing it for the sake of the speculator market should really be doing: donating those brilliant treasures to museums, and thankfully, here we're seeing a far better example set. Predictably, however, this article can't evade certain political biases:

Superman first leapt onto the page in 1938’s Action Comics No. 1, widely considered the beginning of the superhero genre. Created by writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster, Superman—a caped defender of humanity who came to Earth from the doomed planet Krypton—embodied Depression-era yearnings for justice. Nearly 90 years of storytelling were launched from that first issue.

Captain America arrived in December 1940, with the issue dated March 1941, as global conflict intensified. Created by writer Joe Simon and artist Jack Kirby, the star-spangled super soldier debuted with an unforgettable image: delivering a crushing right hook to Adolf Hitler’s jaw, before the United States officially entered World War II in December 1941. The cover was more than sensational art—it was a bold political statement. When a scrawny Brooklyn volunteer named Steve Rogers was transformed by science into a symbol of national resolve, comic books became a vehicle for wartime morale and democratic ideals.

In an era where such values as democracy and morale are being shredded, that's certainly saying something, isn't it? Interesting how they argue that Cap's Golden Age debut was a political statement, but today, when somebody wants to take on issues like Islamic terrorism, suddenly it's inappropriate, and not bold at all. And should it really be described as a political statement? Maybe that's running the gauntlet of hijacking somebody else's creation for their own propaganda goals, and not considering that issues like totalitarianism is a serious topic that transcends mere politics? As though they couldn't give more suggestions their own claim is political, a more recent form of propaganda comes up:

“We use objects from popular culture to reflect and learn about the past, and the comics provide incredible insight into the era from which they come, including the relationships between the books’ Jewish American creators and the beginning of the World War II era, fascination with technological and scientific advancements, and representations of sacrifice and heroism during challenging times,” says Jentsch.

Taken together, the comics reflect societal anxieties and aspirations alike—whether in Superman’s immigrant origins or in Captain America’s wartime ethos. “The pivotal creators of these comics—Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Joe Simon and Jack Kirby—were all first-generation Jewish Americans, anxious to make their marks in a country that had welcomed their parents,” says Paul Levitz, president of DC Comics from 2002 to 2009 and writer of many comics, including Superman, via email. “As someone who had the pleasure of knowing them all, I can confidently say that this recognition of their work in the most significant comic book acquisition in decades, would have been a great affirmation of the groundbreaking genre that they created.”

Another article where they fall back on the angering cliche of describing the Man of Steel as an "immigrant" instead of an otherworldly refugee from a destroyed planet. Based on that, it's hard to believe the Smithsonian's really serious about respecting the goals of the Golden Age creators, let alone their ethnic heritage and backgrounds. Considering how disinterested leftist ideologues like the Smithsonian's are in learning and reflecting on the past, what's the use of their acquiring the classic oldies when they may not do justice for their history? And even now, Levitz may not be fully qualified to speak in their name, considering he sold out to Islamic propagandists nearly 2 decades ago, and even indicated he thought abortion was okay years later. As a result, Levitz for one isn't offering the best affirmation of the acquisition.

The timing is apt. In recent decades, superhero narratives have dominated box office returns and streaming platforms, generating expansive programming and reshaping Hollywood economics. Yet the origins of these billion-dollar franchises remain humble: Stapled pages sold for a dime at neighborhood newsstands. Today some of those rare pages are among the most valuable printed materials in existence. Four years ago, Captain America’s first adventure sold for more than $3 million at auction. Last year, a copy of Superman No. 1 was auctioned for more than $9 million. In January, a copy of Action Comics No. 1 sold privately for $15 million.

And it doesn't bother them that outside the donation of Beck's back issues to their archives, there's speculators out there who've sold these back issues round and round, yet never, not once, donated to museums, let alone bought themselves wall paintings of the same characters? What isn't discussed by extension is whether that suggests the speculators are actually ashamed of the products, their desire to own them notwithstanding.

That 2 of the most famous superheroes' premiere issues have been acquired by a museum is a positive example in itself, and Beck deserves credit for setting a good one. But beyond that, there's no telling if an institution that's been pretty left-leaning will do enough to convince they really support the messages Superman and Cap were built upon back in the day, or that they don't wish to exploit the material for the sake of leftist propaganda, as their description of Superman suggests. Do they even know Simon was conservative? Will they ever even put Simon's illustration of Cap smashing Osama bin Laden on display in their future exhibitions? If not, then this purchase amounts to little, and won't be respecting the visions of the original creators.

The role of Detroit, Michigan in comicdom

NPR-Michigan Public wrote about what role a city like Detroit played in producing comics, and tabletop games:

When people think of Detroit, they might think of the city’s reputation for auto manufacturing or Motown music—but what about comic books? Two recent exhibits at the Detroit Historical Museum showcase the city’s lesser-known influence in comic books and tabletop gaming.

Curated by Billy Wall-Winkel, “Heroes vs. Villains” explores Detroit’s comic book history, showcasing more than 60 comic artists with ties to Michigan. The exhibit features artists like Jerry Bails, known as the “father of comic book fandom,” and Shel Dorf, the founder of San Diego Comic-Con, among others. A companion exhibit, “Worlds of Palladium,” profiles Detroit-based publisher Palladium Books, a pioneer in the tabletop roleplaying game community.

“We had folks here in Detroit that were just absolutely obsessed with science fiction and fantasy,” Wall-Winkel said. “We had folks that wanted just to convince everyone else that comics [were] a legitimate art form.”

Trouble is, anybody who thinks they succeeded in convincing they are a valid art form failed, if we look at this from an artistic perspective, and how the mainstream was devastated by political correctness. The only thing the specialists convinced anybody about was that comics make a great wellspring for extended media potential like movies and TV programs. And for a while, yes, that was a success. But by the turn of the decade, the fortunes of Marvel's movieverse began to recede under the weight of wokeness,

The exhibit also features the work of Detroit comic artists who worked for Marvel and DC, including Jim Starlin, Rich Buckler, Keith Pollard, and many more. Wall-Winkel’s personal favorite is writer Dwayne McDuffie, who pioneered minority representation in superhero comics through Milestone Media.

Be that as it may about McDuffie, something that disappoints me is that he was still quite a leftist, from what I know. But, if it matters, it's admittedly disgusting how Dan DiDio fired McDuffie over an Orwellian Thoughtcrime after the latter indicated he wasn't happy writing Justice League in the mid-2000s, because of horrible editorial mandates forced upon him. The worst part is that DiDio all but got away with doing so, and who in the mainstream holds him accountable for disrespecting a POC today over a petty issue? Let's not forget Frank Miller inexplicably hired him as an editor for a self-titled imprint Miller launched a few years back, and if it was a flop, DiDio's involvement alone is arguably why.

As noted, the article also brings up tabletop games like Dungeons & Dragons, and how such concepts have overlapped with comicdom:

Palladium Books was founded in 1981 by Detroit artist Kevin Siembieda, a time when tabletop gaming surged in popularity. The publisher is most known for tabletop games like Rifts or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Other Strangeness, which was the first licensed product of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Tabletop games like Dungeons & Dragons allow players to act out fantasy adventures together, fighting monsters while playing as their own original characters. Dungeons & Dragons, in particular, has been having a mainstream moment after featuring heavily in the Netflix series “Stranger Things,” as well as the success of its own 2023 feature film. According to Wall-Winkel, fans of video games often turn to tabletop gaming as a more expansive way to explore fantasy and science fiction worlds.

Predictably, they won't get into how the franchise also encountered political correctness and was watered down in the past decade for the sake of leftist propaganda like "inclusivity", as though it were never there, and some of the silliest things about this direction are that they acted like the Drows, Orcs and goodness knows what other anthropomorphic villains in the franchise literally had to see positive depictions, as though they weren't there to begin with. D&D, for all we know, will probably be brought down hard in time by all this wokeism.

Without a doubt, Detroit's got plenty of interesting comics contributors abound who could make good subjects for this exhibition. But, if there's one whom I hope they haven't gone out of their way to highlight, it's Geoff Johns, whose writings in mainstream in the past quarter century were so inexcusably crude and insufferable, they'd make a very humiliating addition to the exhibition as a result. From what I can tell, Johns doesn't seem to be on the list, and if he's absent, that's fortunate. No need to sully the exhibition with the work of somebody as blatant as he proved to be in the long run.

That told, it's still a shame there's so much more an article like this could've brought up, and predictably, they wouldn't because it doesn't fit the superficial, PC narrative they follow.

Some history of an early Fantastic Four issue's story and of Lee/Kirby, that may have unfortunately been exploited for political propaganda

A writer for City News in Canberra, Australia, tells about the 51st issue of Fantastic Four, but there's suggestions this item was written as a stealth political statement. First, here's something he tells about team leader Mr. Fantastic:

The thing is, nestled among those treasures, and appearing in Australian newsagencies in early August 1966, at exactly the same time I first appeared too, was the little known number 51.

It’s worth a small fraction of the others and is a lame and ordinary 20-page story introducing a villain (the evil scientist Ricardo Jones) who was so uninteresting that he dies at the end of the story and was never seen again.

From the moment I first read it, it is my favourite comic book of all time and I read it about once a year, whenever my wife rereads Pride and Prejudice. It’s got fewer bonnets but more explosions so, you know, swings and roundabouts.

The story is simple. In every issue since number 1, Reed Richards, famed scientist and the leader of the FF, promises but fails to cure his best buddy Ben Grimm from being a monster made from rocks, known as The Thing.

I think a moment must be taken to point out that Mr. Fantastic didn't promise or practice curing the Thing in virtually every issue at the time, and certainly not within 2-3 decades of its debut, so why is this being exaggerated? That the writer seems to be putting down the story despite suggestions to the contrary is also galling. Here's more:

The story begins with Ben being so frustrated at never getting cured that he falls in with the Evil Scientist, who is jealous of Reed’s fame and fortune.

The scientist successfully turns Ben back into a normal man. Ben races to his girlfriend’s house to show off his normality and finally propose. Evil scientist is turned into the rock monster himself and impersonates The Thing, his plan being to destroy the hated rock-star scientist Reed Richards. [...]

Classic comics melodrama demands that when the evil bloke dies, Ben, about to propose to his girlfriend in his handsome human body, instantly turns back into the ugly Thing and fails to pop the question. Alicia, we know, doesn’t care what he looks like and loves him for him, but he never sees it.

When I was 11, life was often hard. I read that comic 20 times and felt such shame that I related more to the evil scientist than to Reed and Ben, our heroes.

I understood his loneliness and anger so much better than their easy success, belonging and having a best friend. I loved the redemption that could be gained from a single act.

Kindness to me is finding all those people who are behaving like the evil scientist, blaming everything for things they cannot grasp, and showing them all the love and respect we can, to open their own hearts.

People who have undergone unfair treatment, fear, and despair and seek recognition or refuge in our modern Australia – people who’ve been here for six years or 60,000 – there’s plenty here who need our love today more than ever.

But is there room for people who follow bad ideologies/religions and commit terrible crimes stemming from that? I get this strange feeling this was written as a form of apologia for Islam's entrance into Oz, and if it was meant for that purpose, that's very disturbing, considering all the damage that occurred in decades since till now. It's also disturbingly worrisome how the columnist implies he's sympathetic to people who commit crimes, and raises another troubling issue - there seem to be quite a few people like these who created a situation that got worse over the years where they pivot to loving the villains more, presumably because heroes are "boring"?!? That's practically what led to Hollywood glamorizing crime. Just what are people like these thinking? Is this how they thank Lee/Kirby for all their hard work? And just what "easy success" did Reed and Ben have? Considering the former failed several times to fully restore the latter to his human form for long, that's not exactly what I'd call success. Also, Reed had fallouts with wife Susan Storm, and while they did eventually mend fences, the whole notion everything was rosy in the FF's series up to the early 2000s is colossally exaggerated by these propagandists. Also, opening your heart to somebody who could follow an ideology built upon evil and oppression is naive and dangerous.

The above column, unfortunately, led to another one that appears to have been written even more noticeably for said apologia goals. First though:

How much of the resultant work was Lee and how much was Kirby, is a furiously debated topic in comic book circles. But what is clear is that it needed both of them to make it special.

Sadly, as the years passed, Lee would claim sole credit for the Fantastic Four, framing Kirby as simply an artist-for-hire. Kirby was deeply hurt and eventually left Marvel for DC. Fantastic Four continued under Lee and other artists, but the spark was gone.

And this is little more than another subtle putdown, when they make it sound like Kirby was the only artist who ever gave it energy. What about John Buscema, John Byrne, Walt Simonson, Carlos Pacheco and goodness knows what other artists were involved up to the turn of the century? Anybody who's going to minimize the impact of FF the way both columnists have done is not writing these history pieces altruistically. I think it's a shame Lee and Kirby fell apart, but what the writer says in regards to the entertainment value going forward is still no excuse. And now, here's another clue this article was meant more for propaganda purposes:

Like Lennon and McCartney, the creative rift between Lee and Kirby was never fully resolved before their deaths. Which brings us back to Antonio’s characteristic question about kindness. How should two big egos work together?

While healthy to have, egos should never be left untempered. We know this since Renaissance times when the cloistered cathedrals of Europe interacted, often turbulently, with the polymathic Islamic world.

Gee, this sounds an awful lot like somebody's trying to make the Islamic world look far better in every way, at the expense of say, the Israeli world's innovations. Naturally, he never gets into what innovations or polymathism the Muslim world allegedly produced, when more honest research would make clear that's not literally the case. And is he implying the Christian church wrongly attacked the Islamic world, but not the other way around? Wow, this practically obscures persecution of Christians in Nigeria. The columnist should be ashamed. Towards the end of the City News column, here's what's additionally fishy:

I was 16 and saw a classifieds ad for “a box of Marvel comics”. Travelling by train to Strathfield, I walked several blocks to be met by a guy who explained that his uncle (a single man) had died and that they were selling his house contents.

What emerged were, not one, but several boxes of comics – a complete run of Fantastic Four from issue 22 to 116, plus other ’60s Marvel titles, all in excellent condition.

I can’t remember exactly what I paid – perhaps $100, which was a lot for a 16-year-old at the time – but I do remember the crazed, Joker-like, grin on my face as I shoved a fistful of $20 notes into the seller’s hand. It took two arduous trips to get them home and they’ve been with me ever since.

When I look at them now, I like to imagine that dead uncle smiling at me from above, pleased that his collection is still being loved and read, rather than sealed in a vault, awaiting a Sotheby’s sale. Some pretty strange teamwork, that’s for sure, but the world works better with strange teams.

Which is in no way a segue to my normal political milieu, to cheekily encourage a Greens/Liberals partnership. Mind you…

Ah, how fascinating. Sounds like this must be some stealth leftist propaganda as well, which only dampens the impact of the comics segment even more. And begs the question - was this article intended as comics nostalgia, or as political propaganda?

Some so-called historians sure know how to exploit the creations of people they may not like and insult everbody's intellect, all for the sake of advancing their ambiguous political goals. With the worst part being when they're not willing to be clear and state their exact beliefs. Such people, as a result, have no business commenting on comics history.

Comics from India keep up with changing times, and publishers respect suitability for children

France24 wrote about India's comics, which draw from early local mythologies:

Nearly six decades later, the comic, known simply as ACK and meaning "immortal illustrated stories", is still holding its ground in an era ruled by smartphones and streaming television.

Founded by storyteller Anant Pai after he noticed children on a quiz show knew more about Greek gods than their own mythological heroes, ACK quickly became a cultural touchstone.

Its titles, from tales of Hindu deities to biographies of freedom fighters, sold in the millions and were translated into multiple regional languages. [...]

Production depends on the same painstaking research, writing and colouring, although some images of deities have evolved.

"We used to have a very slender Ram, a very slender Shiva, drawn lovingly by artists who drew by hand," said Puri, 68, who has been with ACK for 34 years.

"Today the artists... give them six-pack abs and muscles."

Not all fans love the makeover, but Puri said times change.

"Children today are not used to that old kind of art," Puri said. "We have to adapt to what the children want."

Storytelling has also shifted.

"If, earlier, we used to show the man sitting with a newspaper, and the woman sweeping the floor or cooking food, that's changed," she added.

"It could be the woman sitting and reading a book, and the man gets her a cup of tea."

That's okay, because even women need a rest and a good cup of tea or coffee. That doesn't mean it's wrong, however, to draw a woman doing household chores, but perhaps a balance of both men and women doing housework could be helpful. One other thing that's amazing about this history item is the following:

But one frontier is firmly off‑limits: artificial intelligence.

"Art is to be respected, a writer's work is to be respected", Puri said.

Comic designer Srinath Malolan, 24, who grew up reading ACK in his school library, said the human-made process ensures content remains safe for children.

"The internet can create whatever it wants... we have meticulously looked at what we are giving the kids," Malolan said.

Wow, that's showing a lot more responsibility than what's been seen in the west this past decade or more. Obviously, if you know where to look in the east, there's respect for family and parental values in retaining good taste. I'm sure even in the west, these comics could resonate, so let's hope the publishers make an effort to market them in the USA too, if they haven't done so yet.

New mural in Stockton dedicated to the Fantastic Four

CBS News in Sacramento reports there's a mural that's been painted on a building in Stockton that's dedicated to the Marvel team that boosted Marvel's profile in the Silver Age:

As you're walking down Miracle Mile in Stockton, you may hear the sounds of colorful graffiti when all the sudden, you come across a striking mural.

"Behind us is the iconic Fantastic Four mural that is currently being worked on," co-organizer Orlando Molina said.

The Fantastic Four, the classic team from Marvel, is coming to life at another classic spot: Al's Comic Shop.

"It is inspired by the old comic book with The Thing on the front that claims that Stockton is the hometown of the Fantastic Four," Molina explained. "It's a very rare comic. Al's Comics, which is right here in the building, they have the comic and they had Stan Lee visit here and kind of do the stamp of approval."

Al's Comic Shop owner Al Greco can be seen in a picture right next to Marvel creator Stan Lee in 1986. That's when Stockton was officially recognized as the hometown and birthplace of these four hometown heroes.

This was a moment Greco pushed for and succeeded.

"It was a big day for Stockton. When Stan Lee came, he went to the city and they gave him a key. Then he came here and kind of signed all day for kids," Greco continued. "He was a nice guy. He was friendly. He had Spider-Man with him, jumping around."

Now isn't that great. Painting a mural on a local building is certainly more worthwhile at this point than reading the modern comics output from Marvel, and it's too bad the publisher couldn't have closed down in the early-to-mid-2000s, because that could've minimized the damage Joe Quesada brought about when he became EIC. So congratulations on this new mural being painted in the city. But it's a shame that Marvel's modern output dampens the impact that could've been had if they'd stopped publishing comics years earlier. If they had, Lee's legacy could've worked far better for this.

Non-profit Jewish organizations want to honor overlooked creators

From eJewish Philanthropy (here's an archive link if it requires registration to read all), some news about non-profit organizations like the Jack Kirby Museum that wish to honor creators like him, among other Jewish figures who were early originators of modern comicdom in the mid-20th century. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they take a sugarcoated view of recent film adaptations:

This year, four of the top 10 domestic blockbuster films were based on comic characters created by Jews — Superman, the Fantastic Four, the Avengers and Captain America — which collectively brought in more than $1 billion.

Was there an Avengers movie this year? I'm not sure, but if we take the Superman, Cap and FF movies as examples, those weren't financial successes individually, so why make it sound like there's something to celebrate, considering how bad the politics in the former was, and quite possibly also in the Cap film? Does that not concern folks who say they respect the background of the creators? If there's no complaints made about abuse of Jewish creations by potential antisemites and anti-Israelists, then what's the point of this?

This Black Friday, the franchises will generate further revenue as parents brave their way to Walmarts and Targets to snag cartloads of action figures, apparel and Lego sets based on their kids’ favorite Marvel and DC heroes and heroines. But that same day, legions of fans will trek to One Art Space in Tribeca, New York City, to celebrate the man who co-created many of these characters: Jack Kirby, the artist behind the Fantastic Four, Captain America, X-Men, much of the rest of the Marvel Universe, who also fully created DC Comics’ New Gods.

Organized by the Jack Kirby Museum, the pop-up event titled “Jack Kirby: From the Ghetto to the Cosmos” runs from Nov. 28-Dec. 7, with an opening reception on Saturday. The heart of the event will be a display of reproductions of Kirby’s only explicitly autobiographical story, the 10-page “Street Code!,” which portrays Kirby’s life growing up in the tenements of the heavily Jewish Lower East Side, a 30-minute walk from the exhibit. [...]

The Kirby Museum, along with The Siegel and Shuster Society, which honors Superman’s Jewish co-creators, is one of the few nonprofits celebrating the Jewish masterminds of the comics medium. Even though these writers and artists’ creations are plastered on nearly every child’s lunch box — not only in America, but around the world — their foundations and museums often lack the financial support of nonprofits dedicated to those deemed “fine” artists. [...]

You cannot take the Jewish out of these creators and their creations, Rabbi Simcha Weinstein the author of Up, Up, and Oy Vey: How Jewish History, Culture, and Values Shaped the Comic Book Superhero, told eJP. His book was one of several on the topic of Jews in comics published in the late aughts after Michael Chabon’s 2000 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, told the story of two Golden Age comic creators modeled after Siegel and Shuster, drawing attention to the Jewish history of the medium for the first time in mainstream media. “It’s impossible not to see [the superhero] journey as a reflection of the Jewish immigrant experience, name changing, the desire to mask the double identity, the wrestling of the outsider/insider.”

When they bring up a writer who's taken political positions hurtful to Israel, I'm less convinced the people doing this coverage are sincere. Chabon also did serious damage to the Star Trek franchise, and based on that, what's so special about him anyway? What if his leftist politics were the reason Jewish history was allegedly taken note of in the mainstream? That's the problem, unfortunately.

Comic characters often mirror their creator’s experiences, even if not implicitly. Superman is the story of an immigrant to Earth whose planet was destroyed — widely seen as a reflection of the Jews fleeing Eastern Europe for America. Captain America can be read as a Golem or a take on assimilation, a character so American that he envelopes himself in the flag. The Fantastic Four’s Ben Grimm, known as the Thing, grew up on Yancy St., a stand-in for Essex St., and his often gruff, sarcastic character was revealed to be Jewish after Kirby died, with many believing the character was based on him.

It would seem somebody chose to parrot the MSM narrative of Superman as an "immigrant" and not a refugee. No doubt, Supergirl and the Martian Manhunter would be subject to that kind of narrative too. Also troubling is how they speak of Capt. America - does that bizarre comparison of Cap to a golem and wrapping himself in the USA flag imply he's portrayed as a "jingoist"? This is weird when you consider that the Thing could've been considered the golem variant, and even the part where they use the word "revealed" instead of "established" is again irritatingly flawed.

Hoppe is not Jewish, but he said that Kirby’s heritage can be seen in everything the museum does. “The whole comic book industry, we wouldn’t have that without the Jews and any of the creative people that were shut out of mainstream publishing,” he said. [...]

Because superheroes are ubiquitous, it’s important non-Jews recognize the characters’ Jewish roots as a way to combat antisemitism, Schwartz said. “One would think that if somebody loves a character and finds out that they were not only created by Jews, but were designed to reflect the Jewish experience, that makes it a little bit harder for this person to hate Jews.”

Unfortunately, if history since is any indication, it's clear that regardless of whether antisemites/sexists/racists read this stuff, they still don't recognize the legitimacy of the creators as human beings. Though you definitely have to wonder why they'd buy and read/watch this stuff if they really don't like Jews, and don't want to put money in their pockets. You could make a similar point about Andre Citroen, who founded the car company that's today owned by Peugeot; why would antisemites want to buy cars and trucks from a company founded by a Jew, or even from the company under which it's owned? It's mystifying. Also note, from the comics-based perspective, that terrible ideologues like Saladin Ahmed are not only allowed by Marvel/DC management to write Jewish-shepharded comics, they seem to do so out of some form of virtue-signaling and spite.

I can't say the article's very convincing when it takes an otherwise superficial, fluff-coated view of the subject, and for a site that's allegedly about philanthropy, it's tough to comprehend why they don't make an argument that Israel's descendants have to reclaim their overseas brethren's creations if they really want to make clear they care. Nor do they make a case why Islamic antisemitism is something that has to be tackled in comics as much as in any other medium. I'm sorry to say, but all this cowardice and selling-out has not helped comicdom in the least. Will Eisner may have been one comics scribe who dealt with the issue, but perhaps unshockingly, nobody else seems to want to follow his examples. Alas, this is another article of its sort that's getting nowhere.