Dial B for Blog returns

[Earth 2 Chris]

Over at Rob's Aquaman Shrine, Craig posted a link to Dial B for Blog. I figured it was an old archived entry, as "Robby Reed" quit the blogging business last year. Nope, he started it up again.

The current series running on Batman's creation is fascinating. I've always thought many of Kane's claims didn't hold up, and even some of his artwork seem doctored and post-dated to match up to his "facts". Looks like I was right. I knew Finger contributed far more to Batman's creation than Kane usually admitted to, but not this much!

Oh and that Amazing World of DC story about Bill Finger is just the most ghoulish thing I have ever read in a comic.

DIAL B for BLOG - THE WORLD'S GREATEST COMIC BLOGAZINE (http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/390/)

Chris

[batmanmc]

thats cool chris. thanks for the link

[kingdom warrior]

Thanks for the link I thought i had it but didn't Patners of Peril was an awesome read!

[The Toyroom]

Glad to see ol' Robby Reed is back! Fun, informative reading!

[MegoScott]

Fascinating.

[palitoy]

As an aside, I find it interesting that we canonize for sainthood those that got screwed in the comics industry and bedevil those who made out alright.

Not disputing the fact that Finger deserves more credit but he was, from every account I've read, his own worst enemy.

[huedell]

As a writer who fights for inches of ground (because that's what writers who are realistic
and realize they need to make ends meet work for anyway) I have to agree with Brian's
slant on the subject.

There's not anything wrong with honoring Finger, but it sounds like he got what he
worked for (more or less) when it came to career forming choices.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I agree Finger could have/should have stood up for himself, but that doesn't excuse Kane's fabriactions and exclusion of credit to Finger and all of his collaborators/workers-for-hire. But I do see Kane's point. He was the boss, and he paid those people to do the work. So he felt he could take all the credit. I can see it, I just don't agree with it.

Chris

[palitoy]

Lee Falk always signed the phantom but he hadn't actually drawn since the very early days. I also thought Walt Disney drew those Uncle Scrooge comics because his signature appeared on that stuff.

What's the big difference? I think that lies more in Kane's persona than anything else.

[Earth 2 Chris]

Lee Falk always signed the phantom but he hadn't actually drawn since the very early days. I also thought Walt Disney drew those Uncle Scrooge comics because his signature appeared on that stuff.

What's the big difference? I think that lies more in Kane's persona than anything else.

Good point. A recent example of this kind of name stamping is Matt Groening. You know he doesn't draw every single piece of Simpsons art that is out there. It's likely he draws next to none of it. But, everyone knows others work on the Simpsons, and he doesn't try to hide it.

I think Kane's attitude toward his "ghosts" is what sets people off. He never even mentioned longtime ghost pencilers Lew Sayre Schwartz and Sheldon Moldoff in his autobiography. Even when the cat was out of the bag, he still stuck to his old stories.

In his defense, Kane thought of himself as a comic-strip artist, and those artists are known to have uncredited ghost artists, like Lee Falk, and even nowadays with Jim Davis and Garfield. I think the organized comic book fandom that sprang up in the 60s is what makes it different for creators to claim credit for others work. Comic book fans want to know every detail about everything, including who drew what. Determining which artist drew which story is a past-time in itself, one many of us here enjoy, as seen in the "comic book origins" section of the Museum library. Under such scrutiny, it's hard for a creator to use uncredited ghosts, and not come off unfavorably.

Kane did say in later years he should have given Finger a by-line as well. Of course, he could have made those changes after Finger's death, and still didn't.

Chris

[Earth 2 Chris]

The final part of the Bob Kane expose is up. I think Robby Reed gets a bit sensational at times, but hey it's his blog, and he's good at what he does.

But if Kane had any one supporting his full artistic integrity before, I doubt he will now. Check it out:

DIAL B for BLOG - THE WORLD'S GREATEST COMIC BLOGAZINE (http://www.dialbforblog.com/)

The out-and-out plagarism is out of control here.

Chris

[palitoy]

The sensationalism lessens the impact for me somewhat. Kane's swipes are undeniable in a few instances then kind of stretching in others.

I still feel the man believed himself to be a newpaper strip artist, which regularly has ghost artists, the "Fanboy" uprising of the 60's has somewhat bit him the rear here.

Not denying he was a showboat who could have shared the spotlight especially in his later years, I'm just kind of uneasy with the wichhunt.

[Earth 2 Chris]

Yeah, I think he goes way overboard at the end, having the Shadow condemn him. I know it's kind of tongue and cheek but...

I think some of his panel comparisons are a stretch, but there are many that are obvious swipes. Esp. the Waynes' murder, and Bruce in the study, contemplating. Those are such classic pieces of Batman iconagrpahy, it's a bitter pill to swallow.

I too believe Kane thought of himself in the same league as the great strip artists. And certainly the Batman character has surpassed really all of the great comic strip heroes, in terms of longevity and recognition. If comic fandom hadn't evolved into the all-seeking, all-knowing creature it is today, Kane probably wouldn't be seen in such a light.

Chris

[The Toyroom]

A little over the top and a lot of stretching the idea as far as the majority of the "swipes" were concerned...but overall the point is made with some pretty damaging evidence. I myself was never a big fan of Kane's...don't get me wrong, I LOVE Batman but I feel that most of the stuff that appeals to me was created by others along the way and not Bob Kane.