Jim Shooter on the Kirby Artwork Controversy

[samurainoir]

A couple of interesting articles covering that time period...
Marvel Comics: The End of the '70s: Problems with Artists and Editors Plague the Comics Giant
Marvel Comics: The Early '80s Business Side: Restructuring, G. I. Joe, Animation, Epic, and Direct Sales

Something I had complete forgotten...

The Lee/Kirby reunion Graphic Novel.


I think this one is as often overlooked as The Hunger Dogs.

[Brazoo]

I haven't got time to read it now - but Gary Groth's rebuttal is online:

Jim Shooter: Groundhog Day in the Land of the Apocryphiars | The Comics Journal

[Brazoo]

Wow - this doesn't leave much grey area between the two accounts:

Shooter’s two blog entries purporting to accurately describe Kirby’s dispute with Marvel are such falsified claptrap that they reminded me of Mary McCarthy’s infamous quip about Lillian Hellman’s writing, made in an eerily similar context — that every word is a lie, including “and” and “the.”

Kirby hadn’t sued Marvel. There was no lawsuit, no discovery, no documents produced, no legal maneuvering within a lawsuit, no demand by Kirby, enshrined in a lawyer’s letter or otherwise, that he receive sole credit for characters he co-created, and no demand that Lee receive none. It’s all a fiction. None of this happened.

Where Groth tears into Shooter's account on the basis that Shooter is getting checkable facts wrong, I am inclined to side with Groth's side. I have to assume that Groth has protected himself from getting sued to some degree and he has some evidence to support his side:

Was Miller reluctant to jump on the “bandwagon” defending Kirby? Here’s what he said: “My position is very simple — I believe the man’s artwork should be returned.” And why would Miller call a panel he agreed to be on protesting Marvel’s treatment of Kirby a “kangaroo court”? Answer: He didn’t.

Shooter was in the audience of this panel, and was at one point graciously given the floor; among other things, he said: “I would be embarrassed to be up there on that kangaroo court, speculating on my — Marvel’s — reasons for doing what we do, speaking about things you obviously don’t know about.”

Oooops. Shooter actually attributed what he said to Frank Miller!

While this doesn't automatically mean that Shooter's a comic book supervillain I have to assume that a transcript of this panel exists and Shooter is flat out wrong.

I think morally speaking Shooter might be somewhere in the middle of what Groth thinks of him and what Shooter thinks of himself - but I'm questioning a lot more of Shooter's account now.

The Kirbys never suing Marvel (if that's true) is a MAJOR discrepancy - and Shooter should be ashamed for promoting that (again, if true).

[samurainoir]

Having just gone on and on in the Ditko thread about how Stan sued Marvel, I have to admit that this gave me pause to see if I indeed remembered correctly.
Stan Lee Sues Marvel | Hollywood.com
So I can sympathize with Shooter's misremember the threat of legal action vs actual legal action (I think he corrects himself in a later entry).

Sometimes in these discussions, it's easier (and far more dramatic) to say "so and so sued so and so" rather than Stan Lee settled with Marvel for an undisclosed amount or Joe Simon settle with Marvel. The end result is everyone lawyering up and negotiations ensuing. Shooter himself would not have been privy to much of that directly, but from his account had to deal with the fallout both internally at editorial and publicly.

I'm sure the truth is probably somewhere in between Shooter's self aggrandizement and Groth's axe to grind.

From most accounts, Shooter's reign as EIC was a political minefield all around (Christopher Priest/Jim Owsley has a rather frank series of blog postings around his time there in the eighties).

It's interesting to see how often Shooter is villified vs his successors like Tom DeFalco (who appears to have had some kind of Golden Handcuff deal that to this day gives him writing work at Marvel) and Bob Harras (who now sits in the EIC chair at DC).

I think it should also be noted that Jim Shooter is not synonymous with Marvel, even though he was the figurehead at that time.

[johnmiic]

Jim Shooter is a real piece 'o work. You can find out a little about his eccentricities by reading Modern Masters: John Byrne. Or read it on Byrne's own website under the 6th header down-Why did John Byrne stop working on...? Mr. Byrne also claims: "All statements starting with JB: are © 1997-2011 John Byrne Inc. and may not be reproduced outside of ByrneRobotics.com, in whole or in part, without written permission of John Byrne Inc." He is very strict so I would not test him by re-producing paragraphs here. It is interesting reading tho.

Byrne Robotics: FAQ

[samurainoir]

Not that Byrne himself isn't a bit of a wing nut himself... I'm saying this as a Huge fan of byrne and someone that does follow his tantrums at his board.

I'm just re reading destroyer duck right now and Kirby and Gerber certainly are not painting what I think to be both the shooter and Byrne analogues in very positive lights as well.

Shooter and Byrne both probably ate their degree of shoe leather in their time due to statements they made as Marvel employees. At least bryne's most blatantly offensive statements in his 1982 infamous comics journal interview are tempered by a glaad award, which shows you how people can change for the better.