Yesterday, Embracer Group dropped a press release to announce "its intention to spin off Fellowship Entertainment on Nasdaq Stockholm." Embracer Group, if you don't know, is the private equity firm that bought Dark Horse back in 2022. It's day-to-day operations were still headed by Dark Horse founder Mike Richardson until early March of this year when he was unceremoniously fired.

So why do we care about this press release?

Let's start simple. This "intention to spin off" basically means that Embracer Group is formally splitting into two different companies: Fellowship Entertainment and Embracer Group. This 'new' Embracer Group will basically continue to act like the old one, focusing on buying up other companies and either making them more profitable (by radically cutting costs -- i.e. laying people off) or turning around to re-sell the company for a profit. Frequently, they try to do both. Fellowship, then, will be more focused on owning/managing a variety of IP franchises. That is, if you want to make a product about some character they own, they're who you will have to pay the licensing fee to. The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit is probably their most well-known propety now (hence the name "Fellowship") but they also own Tomb Raider and other Eidos games, as well as Dark Horse.

According to the press release, Fellowship "will focus on dedicated IP management, aiming to transform franchise ownership into recurring revenue streams across games, film, consumer products, and additional areas." The first key phrase there is "IP management." There is no talk about storytelling or immersive gaming or anything like that anywhere in the announcement. Just IP management. That means that all they want to do is just own the rights to a bunch of properties, and then sit back and let licensing fees roll in while they do jack shit. That's what "recurring revenue streams" are. They don't care who puts out another Tomb Raider game or if there's an ongoing Lara Croft comic book or anything like that; they just want to be able to essentially rent out the character to the highest bidders. They're not the ones who are going to continue publishing The Lord of the Rings books or making another Tomb Raider game; they just go to collect the paychecks.

So why did they buy a comic boook publisher like Dark Horse?

Because Dark Horse is not a comic book publisher. I mean, yes, they do publish comic books and their most popular ones are themselves either licensed (e.g. Star Wars, Stranger Things...) or creator-owned (e.g. Hellboy, Umbrella Academy...) but they own a number of properities themselves including The Mask, Time Cop, and Ghost. They also have some degree of control over other properties they don't own outright; for example, while Mike Mignola still technically owns Hellboy, all of the media properties -- the movies, shows, and video games -- are managed by Dark Horse and they get a slice of the pie just for managing the contract. That's what Embracer Group wanted when they bought the company in 2022; they didn't care about the comics -- they just wanted the IPs.

This is part of why Embracer Group outright closed Things From Another World's online presence last year. It involved actual work on a day-to-day basis. They don't want that. They want to kick their feet up on the desk and let the checks roll in. I expect we'll see the physical stores close before long either -- they're probably only still open because of existing rental contracts for the physical store locations.

Am I saying that we'll stop seeing comic books with a Dark Horse logo on them? Probably not. They're going to do the same thing that Marvel has been doing more slowly over the past several years. The comics will continue, but their actual production will be farmed out to other publishers. I have been pointing this out for nearly a quarter century now, but no one has seemed to catch on -- Marvel stopped being a comic book publisher in 2000 and became a "character licensing company." They realized their worth was in owning Spider-Man and the X-Men, not in publishing Amazing Spider-Man and Uncanny X-Men. We see that more and more now, with an increasing number of publishers putting out comics in Marvel's name: Abrams, Scholastic, IDW, Titan... That's why Disney bought them. Embracer Group is trying to do the same thing with Dark Horse. They don't want to publish comics; they want people to send them money so they can rubber stamp another Mask movie.

I don't know what kind of timeframe Embracer Group is working on, and what other legal or financial factors might be at play, but if you want to mark the official end of Dark Horse as a publisher, this is it. The comics will continue for a while, but the company isn't a publisher any longer.

The headline image here is the Thomas Nast cover cartoon from an 1876 edition of Harper's Weekly. The title of the image is called "The Ignorant Vote" and ran shortly after that year's elections.

That particular election was very contentious. Without getting into a lot of details, a close modern analogy would be the Bush/Gore race from a few years back. Eventually, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes was awarded the presidency; however, it's generally believed that it was on the condition of ending the Reconstruction in the South, which was a Democratic goal. While Nast was an abolistionist and often depicted Black people with a level of dignity not afforded them almost anywhere else at the time, he was also a strong supporter of Reconstruction and was upset at its ending. He blamed ignorant voters for making the election so contentious that the compromise needed to be struck. And, in his eyes, ignorant voters were recently freed slaves and Irish-Americans, both caricatured here.

Over at this wikispaces page they summarize the comic this way...

By setting the Irish and Blacks as equal on the scale, he is asserting that their votes are equally inferior. On the upper portion of the scale, “North” is inscribed on the side with the Irishmen, and “South” is inscribed on the side with the Black man. This suggests that Nast believes that North and South are equally negatively affecting United States’ politics. The controversy regarding the Election of 1876 was not just the Black man’s fault; the responsibility is equally shared by Black and White. In both instances, there are outside forces affecting their voting decision other than their personal political beliefs. For the Irish, it is the Roman Catholic Church; for the blacks, it is the white people that they depend on for their livelihood. Both the Church and the white Southerners generally supported the Democratic party; whereas Nast and Harper’s Weekly subscribed to Republican doctrine.

The Irish were racially stereotyped very poorly for generations. They were considered lazy, perpetually drunken louts, not very far removed from apes. In that respect, they were viewed similarly to Black people but, by virtue of their skin color, they just weren't quite as bad. Absurd as it seems to me, I've seen old references where someone makes the comparison, verbally or visually, of apes evolving to Africans evolving to Irish evolving to Caucasians.

Interestingly, while Nast did have a prior history depicting Blacks in America with a level of dignity, rarely resorting to even the generally accepted visual tropes of the day, he evidently had few qualms portraying the Irish in a negative light. He regularly showed them as drunken neanderthals, and here is no exeception. A German-born immigrant himself, one wonders if Nast felt more resentment against the Irish because he was in more direct competition with them. Allegedly, when he was a child in New York City, he was frequently bullied for his small size and he may have transferred that general resentment of a handful of local Irish boys to the Irish as a whole.

Despite being perhaps the most widely recognized American cartoonist at the time, Nast's career began going downhill not long afterwards. His importance diminished significantly after he left Harper's Weekly in the 1880s (and, ironically, Harper's Weekly's significance declined without Nast) and Nast lost most of his wealth in 1884. While he continued working in a variety of (mostly) artistic capacities, he experienced a number of commercial failures but was eventually given a consulship by President Teddy Roosevelt, largely due to his work from years earlier.

I was recently pointed to this article on How to Avoid Becoming a Weeaboo and thought I should point out the utter horseshit of it.

Let's start with a little background. The definition, according to Know Your Meme, is "a Gaijin (foreigner in Japanese) displaying a heavy bias towards everything from Japan or virtually exiling oneself from the indigenous culture (also known as “outside”) in pursuit of the “superlative.”" It's a little different than "otaku" in that otaku tend to be more focused on a certain aspect of Japanese culture (e.g. anime, manga, etc.) whereas a weeaboo is more indiscriminate, taking an extreme interest in all-things-Japanese. Basically, a weeaboo is a person who is such a fan of Japanese culture to the extent that they regard everything else as inferior.

I don't know that I've ever met anyone who might be considered a weeaboo. Stu Levy is probably the closest, but while he has a clear appreciation for Japanese culture, I don't know that I've seen him eschew everything else as inferior. But I'm sure there are people out there who would generally be considered weeaboo; I just don't travel those circles very regularly.

So why is this "Avoid Becoming a Weeaboo" horseshit?

Well, first, there's nothing wrong with liking Japanese culture. Beyond manga and anime, they have deep, rich culture with a history at least as fascinating as anyone else's.

Second, there's nothing inherent in one's own culture (whether you're from America, France, Egypt, or anywhere else) that's necessarily superior to Japan's. We're generally taught a sense of patriotism, or even jingoism, wherever we grow up and it's infused so pervasively at such a young age that we rarely have the wherewithall to step back and recognize it as the propaganda that it is. There's no fundemental reason that says we have to accept that at face value or, for that matter, that we have to accept it at all.

By calling someone weeaboo, you're effectively saying that their value judgements are fundamentally wrong. That they're not allowed to consider Japanese culture, traditions, language, and mores better than their own. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with that judgement, but we're not talking about anything quantitative here. It's no different than claiming someone's an idiot because they prefer vanilla over chocolate. If anything, it displays more small-mindedness on the part of the insulter because it shows how they can't accept that anyone might have a different set of values than they do.

Take a look at that How to Avoid Becoming a Weeaboo piece again too. Most of the "rules" center around not being a newcomer. If you want to actually learn Japanese, don't you have to start with just a few words? Don't many cosplayers start with relatively easy costumes using store-bought products? Doesn't everybody adopt different styles from other people as they're discovering what works for them? Don't many authors consider using Mary-Sue characters as a viable way to train yourself to write better? This list of Don'ts that we're presented with essentially says that you're not allowed to start becoming interested in Japan; you have to skip over the education portion of becoming a fan and simply be an expert without any learning curve. They're basically laying down club rules that say you can't be a member of the club unless you're already a member of the club.

And what a shitty way to treat fans! Look, I've gotten annoyed with comic fans who asked very obviously newbie questions. I used to moderate a Fantastic Four message board, and I got really tired of answering the same dozen FF questions every 6-8 months for the new guy who just discovered how awesome the comic/cartoon/movie was. But I still recognized that I had that level of excitement when I first discovered the comic as well, and I didn't want to potentially kill that excitement and sense of discovery for this new person. That's not fair to them, and it robs fandom of someone who could have a lot to contribute.

You want to roll your eyes when somebody online tastes Pocky for the first time? Fine. But don't try kicking them out of the club before they've even had a chance to see what it has to offer!

The big news in comicdom last week was that Kickstarter has now banned anything even resembling 'adult' content. Their now openly contradictory terms of service (likely contradictory because updates were rushed through, leading to a mix of old language and new) say you can't even imply sexual activity with blurred images or self-applied censor bars. This seems to be entirely because of demands from their payment processor, Stripe. The same processor that demanded OnlyFans -- a site that was 80% adult content -- ban adult content.

Stripe is a privately held company, still run by its founders Patrick (CEO) and John Collison. While I can't find anything about the two brothers that speaks to their personal stances on sexuality and gender (I have seen a third-hand anecdote about one of them saying they want to outlaw porn, but I haven't been able to verify that) they have received large investments from noted anti-LGBTQ+ asswipes Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. And in March, the FTC found Stripe had illegally de-banked law-abiding citizens over their poltiical and religious views. That this change is being 'forced' on Kickstarter --particularly that it's happening now -- seems very much like a vindictive approach to anyone who they don't like.

Comic creator Jennie Gyllblad, who has dealt with exactly this situation before with Patreon and Itch.io said this in response to the Kickstarter change...

"Erotic" has no meaning. "Spicy" has no meaning. Censoring your work has no meaning. Because at the end of the day, they just don't... they don't want us to exist. Like, that's the bottom line. The most effective way to erase queer creators and sex positive people off the internet is to remove all of the ways for us to actually make a living. Just to deplatform us. De-bank us. That's the best way -- the most effecient way -- to get rid of us.

This is part of a broad cultural war to exterminate every group of people the 1% don't like. I don't doubt that if they could figure out a way to ban people of color without actually saying "people of color," they absolutely would. Hell, even this 'adult' content ban seems more focused against women than men with considerably more phrasing in refrence to female genetlia than male. They want the world to be only populated with cis-gender, hetero white people, full stop. They don't want to even consider gay people exist. They don't want to even consider Black people exist. They don't want anyone whose very existence challenges their exceptionally narrow world-view to exist.

And the problem is that, because Stripe holds the keys to the money, Kickstarter has only two options at the moment. Either comply with their demands to eliminate 'adult' content, or shut down entirely until they can find and set up a new payment processor. OnlyFans did eventually find a new payment processor, but they had to keep a 'non-adult' ban in effect until they did. I suppose at this point, that's the absolute best anyone can expect out of Kickstarter. But that would only last until/unless that new payment processor decides they don't like 'adult' content either.

So what can you do?

Well, if you're a creator, you'll likely have to find an 'adult'-friendly payment processor. I'm told the Free Speech Coalition is in the process of setting up a credit union explicitly for this purpose. Although it ostensibly won't be ready until 2027, they have some preliminary information and a form to sign up for updates in the meantime. For creators specifically in the US, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is asking people share their debanking experiences via public comments on bank licensing filings (PDF). For readers and people who just generally want to support creators, I'd recommend reaching out to Kickstarter and telling them exactly what you think of this. Their Contact Us form is here.

Here are this week's links to what I've had published recently...

Kleefeld on Comics: Smaller Comics = More Money
https://ift.tt/eoi1Nvp

Jack Kirby Collector: Incidental Iconography
https://ift.tt/2NetclK

Kleefeld on Comics: Half a Crossover?
https://ift.tt/mPcuX9x

Kleefeld on Comics: Webcomics as a Microcosm of American Capitalism
https://ift.tt/O1rTXkx

Kleefeld on Comics: From Foolish Fred to Uncle Pennybags
https://ift.tt/q93fvx1

Kleefeld on Comics: The Origin of Atlas
https://ift.tt/q8QWcD9

The name "Atlas" shows up fairly frequently throughout comics' history. There are number of characters that go by that name, multiple publishing companies, many specialty comic retail shops and countless references within the comic stories making sly background references to the name. My question is: how did it become so ingrained in comics' lore?

Well, the short answer is Martin Goodman and I expect many of you will have mentally gone there already. But let's explore this more deeply...

An "atlas" (lower case) is essentially a collection of maps. They're generally of very large regions, often the entire Earth, and often printed and bound. The earliest items we would consider atlases date to around 150 AD and were put together by Claudius Ptolemy. Though already outdated by the time they were released, they sold very well and he produced several revised editions.

It wasn't until 1595, however, that the actual term "atlas" was used in connection with these collections of maps. It was Flemish cartographer Gerardus Mercator who entitled his book Atlas, Sive Cosmographicae Meditationes De Fabrica Mundi which translates to Atlas, or Description of the Universe. It was actually published after his death in December 1594 by his son Rumold.

Contrary to popular belief, however, the name was NOT chosen after the mythical Atlas who bore the weight of the heavens on his shoulders. Rather, it was in reference to King Atlas of Mauretania (roughly corresponding with modern Algeria and Morroco) who was allegedly the wise philosopher, mathematician and astronomer who made the first celestial globe. An image of King Atlas is in fact on the title page of Mercator's book.

A century later, Dutch merchants were using Atlas (the Greek) as a sort of patron saint. (A statue of Atlas adorns the top of the Royal Palace in Amsterdam to this day.) Thus regional map makers of the time began using images of the titan on their collections of maps, making a direct association between the two.

The symbolism does make sense. Although the original myths held that Atlas bore the weight of the heavens, which was generally depicted as a globe, it would be easy to mistake/substitute the Earth in its place without altering the meaning substantially. It's certainly a more compelling visual than a mere portrait, and it's little wonder that map-makers would use the titan's likeness to grace the covers of their collections. Indeed it was a likeness that was compelling enough to write comic stories about! Without doing exhaustive research on this point, I found comic book stories that feature the classical Atlas as early as 1948, pre-dating Goodman's use of the term for his company by 3 years. (Curiously, though, he remains relatively untapped as a source of comic stories compared to other Greek heroes.)

Atlas Comics "debuted" in 1951. It was really just the same company Goodman had been running for years under a few dozen different names. The question that strikes me, though, is: why "Atlas"? Why not "Zenith" or "Red Circle" or any of the other names he'd been using to publish comics?

The reason why Goodman used so many company names at first was a hold-over from the 1940s. It wasn't uncommon for one publisher to use multiple company names to skirt any number of laws, one of the most obvious being paper rationing. A publisher was only allotted a certain amount of paper they could use, but if one person ran two publishing interests, he could obtain twice the amount of paper. Thus, many publishers of the time would run one company under several names simultaneously to get the benefits of multiple corporations.

But that approach didn't make as much sense going into the 1950s, as World War II ended and things got back to "normal." Goodman also saw the benefit of having a single brand identity, one banner under which he could promote the likes of Patsy Walker, Captain America, and Kid Colt. There was no reason to hide behind multiple company names, and plenty of reasons to coalesce under one. But, again, why "Atlas"?

The reason is Goodman's other business as a periodical distributor. Goodman believed he could make even more money by distributing his comics and magazines; why pay a middleman to do that? So he ditched his current distributor, Kable News, and established the Atlas News Company. In this context, "Atlas" begins to make sense. Goodman didn't publish just comics; he also had several lines of general interest and adult (but not that adult!) magazines. He was in several fields and probably paid little attention to the comics end of things. The name "Atlas" for a distributor would imply that his reach covered the entire globe; all walks of life, all corners of the Earth. That wasn't necessarily accurate, of course, but it gave an immediate implication that his operation was bigger and more grand. Goodman then simply applied the "Atlas" name to everything, including his entire publishing arm. Thus "Atlas Comics" were born.

Atlas News Company lasted until 1957. Goodman basically took a look at the finances and decided that he really wasn't making all that much money on distribution, so he closed that business to focus exclusively on publishing. It was ultimately a huge mistake from his perspective, though, as the new distributor he partnered with -- American News Company -- folded only a few months after they began distributing Atlas-published books due to a Justice Department lawsuit. With his own distribution setup eliminated and the country's largest distributor (American News) gone, Goodman was left with few options but using Independent News, which was owned and operated by his business rival, DC Comics (then National).

The Atlas brand that Goodman had spent the better part of a decade establishing was almost wiped out overnight. Independent would only distribute eight of their comics (down from 30+) a month. But in those years that Atlas was producing comics, there was some great and innovative work from the likes of Jack Kirby, Joe Maneely, John Severin and John Romita Sr. to name just a few. It's in honor of those great works that so many comics-related businesses are named.

Now, I could go on to explain where "Marvel Comics" came from, but that's another story that's probably longer than you'd expect!

Back in 1904, a strip debuted by the name of Foolish Fred. It wasn't successful, lasting only a few months, and is pretty unremarkable even for strips of the time.

In fact, the only reason, I supsect, it's remembered at all is because it was by C. W. Kahles who, only a year and a bit later, created Hairbreadth Harry who was perpetually trying to save Beautiful Belinda from the evil plots of Relentless Rudolph. Kahles continued working on the strip until his death in 1931, and the strip carried on under the hand of F. O. Alexander for another eight years. Even if you haven't seen Hairbreadth Harry, you're likely familiar with Alexander's work -- he did the original illustrations for the board game Monopoly, which are still being used today. (Although my initial thought was that Alexander stopped working on Hairbreadth Harry thanks to the royalties he received from the wildly popular board game, it looks as if he was never paid at all for that work!)

In any event, you can see from the example above the concept of Foolish Fred isn't that interesting or original. It's not really bad, but just a fairly standard gag strip with little characterization to interact with or appreciate. I will say, though, that I am impressed with the execution of the brickwork in the final panel above, which is rendered only through color and without any linework to "hold" the individual bricks. Very nice and effective use of the medium, but hardly enough to save an otherwise mediocre effort.