By | Wednesday, July 06, 2011 2 comments
  • This has been around for a few weeks but, in case you haven't read it yet, Gary Groth has a rather scathing piece on Jim Shooter's attempts at re-writing comics history. More specifically, his place in it. It's a bit long, but worth the read. It was the Kirby art fight of the mid-1980s that really got me interested in the creators originally, so I remember much of what was talked about at the time and my recollections definitely line up with Groth's. Despite his sometimes off-putting tone, his version is decidedly more accurate than Shooter's. I might add, though, that his final question, "Has anyone falsified a moment in comics history more persistently than Jim Shooter?" might be answered with "Stan Lee" and/or "Bob Kane."
  • This was actually posted before the Independence Day holiday, but Danny uploaded the most unusual image with a patriotic theme that I've ever seen in a Marvel comic.
  • If you've read this blog for any length of time, you'll know I've got an interest in comic fandom, so I have to point out this Call For Papers (CFP) for a special issue of Transformative Works and Cultures that will focus on "Appropriating, Interpreting, and Transforming Comic Books." The deadline for submission is April 1, 2012. I'm already noodling what I might want to write up to send them.
Newer Post Older Post Home


Matt K said...

I'm certainly never going to wade into this particular who-said-what-when, to any depth, but your assessment carries a lot of weight with me.

Which is rather the opposite of Mr. Groth. As a relatively unbiased, relative outsider to the argument, in comparing his presentation with Jim Shooter's I know which seems more persuasive to me, and it wasn't Groth's. I know just enough to have a vague impression that "that's just his way," but for what my opinion is worth I don't think coming across like your main goal is to be as personally rude and nasty about someone else as possible is a very good way. (Assuming that one is actually interested in writing persuasively rather than just venting with flourish; I know that I do the latter sometimes but I'm aware that I'm doing it.)

Yeah, Groth can be really hard to read through, even if you know going in that he's going to be... I guess "coarse" might be the polite term. K suspect that a lot of his arguments are lost on comicdom precisely because of his approach. Which, in this case at least, is unfortunate because he's trying to counter false claims. I can't vouch for each and every item Groth scrutinized (I wasn't at the conventions he talks about, for example) but his version is more accurate than Shooter's. But because of Groth's reputation and general demeanor in these sorts of diatribes, Shooter's version will likely prevail for a while longer.

Which is pretty much the same way Bill Finger's name got buried for so long and to this day doesn't carry nearly the clout it should.