PDA

View Full Version : Stuart Moore's A THOUSAND FLOWERS, part 6 - Even More from the Drunken Uncle


MattBrady
12-03-2002, 09:40 AM
<center><a href="http://www.newsarama.com/Thousand_Flowers_index.htm"><img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/flowers_banner.jpg" width="475" height="75" border="0"></a></center>

<font face="Arial, Verdana"><center>A THOUSAND FLOWERS</center>
<center>Comics, Pop Culture, and the World Outside</center>
<center>Installment 6</center>
<center>by Stuart Moore</center>

6. Comics’ Drunken Uncle: Science Fiction
Part Three: Eating Raw Dough

Uh-oh. Uncle Hugo -- the author’s increasingly irritating stand-in for the field of science fiction -- is still ranting about what we talked about <a href="http://www.newsarama.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=000011" target="_blank"> last time</a>:

“…so for decades, it was all about the magazines. All the great sf used to appear in magazines first, even the novels. Book publication came later, if at all. Then everything shifted to books -- but it took awhile.

“You’re goin’ through that now, ain’t you, kid? All I gotta tell you is, be careful just what you wish for -- I miss those damn magazines. Damn, where are my ****ing smokes…”

He’s got a point (about changing publication patterns, not his ****ing smokes). But while Comics, Uncle Hugo’s estranged nephew, fidgets and soaks that one in, let’s look at the two fields from another angle.

**

<a href="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/chastkafka.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/chastkafka_t.jpg" width="300" height="141" border="0" align="right"></a>There’s a great Roz Chast cartoon from The New Yorker called “Where Their Paths Crossed,” graphing the lives of Davy Crockett and Franz Kafka. The Kafka line has points along it labeled “Depressed kind of guy,” “Lived in Europe,” “Modern writer,” and “Thought the world had a lot of problems.” The Crockett line is made up of points like “Folk hero,” “Frontiersman,” “‘The Coonskin Congressman,’” and “Could whip his weight in wildcats.” And there’s one point where the lines cross, marked: “Liked to eat raw dough.”

This time around, we’ll look at sf/comics writers and editors who liked to eat raw dough.

The fields of sf and comics were founded within a decade of each other -- sf in 1926 with the publication of AMAZING STORIES, and comics in the mid-30s -- and both were considered trash-literature by the general public. So it was natural that many pulp writers, always looking for another market, crossed over between the two. In the early days, most of that crossover revolved around two men: Julius Schwartz and Mort Weisinger.

Schwartz and Weisinger had both been active in early sf fandom. In the early ‘30s, they published THE TIME TRAVELLER, a seminal fanzine; and in 1934, they founded Solar Sales Service, the first science-fiction literary agency. Two years later, Weisinger became editor of THRILLING WONDER STORIES, while Schwartz continued to recruit an impressive array of writers for the agency.

Most comics fans know what happened eventually: by the early ‘40s, they both began long-running careers as well-respected editors at DC Comics. Schwartz is still a consultant there; his recent autobiography, MAN OF TWO WORLDS: MY LIFE IN SCIENCE FICTION AND COMICS, covers a lot of this territory in much greater detail.

While editor of THRILLING WONDER, Weisinger published many top sf writers. He bought the first story by Alfred Bester, who would later write two acknowledged classics of the field (THE DEMOLISHED MAN and THE STARS MY DESTINATION). According to the CD-Rom ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE FICTION: “in 1941, Weisinger shifted over to DC COMICS, and took many of his top writers with him, including Edmond Hamilton, who worked for some time in the mid-1940s as a staff writer on SUPERMAN, along with Henry Kuttner and others.”

Those others included Bester, who wrote stories for Superman, Batman, Captain Marvel, and Green Lantern. Bester is often credited with originating Green Lantern’s oath. Otto Binder, whose sf work included the important early Adam Link, Robot stories, also wrote Superman and Captain Marvel stories, sometimes under the pseudonym Eando (Earl And Otto) Binder.

<a href="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/captfuture.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/captfuture_t.jpg" width="250" height="183" border="0" align="left"></a>Edmond Hamilton is an interesting case. In a fifty-year career, he wrote a mixture of “serious” sf, comics, and light space opera. His space opera stories included the CAPTAIN FUTURE prose series, which appeared in the ‘40s and early ‘50s both in its own magazine and, later, in STARTLING STORIES. CAPTAIN FUTURE, a juvenile-adventure series heavily influenced by DOC SAVAGE, was reportedly the brainchild of Mort Weisinger during his time at Standard Magazines. Hamilton wrote most of the stories, some under his own name and some under the pseudonym Brett Sterling. Small wonder he was later tapped to write THE LEGION OF SUPERHEROES and the futuristic “Superman of 2966” stories, both (again) for Weisinger.

Manly Wade Wellman was another prolific pulp writer, known more for horror and fantasy than straight sf. But he worked in many fields, even filling in on one of the “Brett Sterling” CAPTAIN FUTURE novels in the mid-‘40s. In comics, he similarly ghosted THE SPIRIT for Will Eisner while Eisner was in the army. (World War II provided a lot of fill-in opportunities for those writers left on the home front.) While Eisner’s own SPIRIT stories are regarded as the best in the series, Wellman’s are currently being reprinted in DC’s beautiful SPIRIT ARCHIVES set.

Where Hamilton and Wellman were always primarily prose writers, Gardner Fox really made his name in comics -- despite having supposedly published more than 150 books. (It’s hard to get an accurate count -- he used a lot of pseudonyms.) But Fox never broke out as a prose writer, while his comics work eventually made him a star in that field. He wrote countless stories for DC in the ‘40s and ‘50s, but it was in the ‘60s that he did the work for which he’s best remembered.

When DC decided to revamp its superhero line in the late ‘50s and early ‘60s, Julie Schwartz was the editor they turned to. And Schwartz made full use of his sf background: Gardner Fox was one of his most prolific writers, salting science facts into stories in FLASH, JUSTICE LEAGUE, BATMAN, and others. The new ATOM owed his powers both to an extraterrestrial substance and to his own scientific ingenuity, and his name -- Ray Palmer -- was taken directly from a writer/editor of AMAZING STORIES and other sf/paranormal publications. The real Palmer was hunchbacked and stood four feet tall -- fitting inspiration for the world’s smallest superhero.

<a href="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/schwartzamazwrld.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/schwartzamazwrld_t.jpg" width="175" height="227" border="0" align="right"></a>But it was the revamped GREEN LANTERN that really drew on Schwartz’s and Fox’s sf backgrounds. Where the original character had drawn his power from an ancient mystical lamp, the new Lantern came down in a straight line from E. E. Smith’s Lensmen, with the power ring standing in for Kimball Kinnison’s lens. Like the Lensmen, the Green Lantern Corps was a huge, powerful, intergalactic peacekeeping force. Schwartz, Fox, and sometime-pulp-writer John Broome made the most of this premise, dividing their hero’s time between terrestrial adventures and large-scale epics ranging through space and time.

Schwartz was also instrumental in the early days of organized comics fandom. In the introduction to Roy Thomas’s ALTER EGO collection, Schwartz recalls an early meeting with Jerry Bails -- co-founder of ALTER EGO and, arguably, of comics fandom: “I told Jerry about science fiction fandom. I dug up some fan magazines from a drawer and showed them to him. His eyes popped out. He didn’t realize there was a fan movement in science fiction with fan magazines. I told him they were called ‘fanzines.’ I realized that sitting before me was a guy who was as nuts about comic books as I was about science fiction.”

So a lot of the similarities between sf and comics fandoms, as described in <a href="http://www.newsarama.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=000006" target="_blank"> installment 4</a>, are not coincidences or simple cases of fans showing their appreciation for their chosen fields in similar ways. Julie and Mort were there to show them the way.

Mort Weisinger edited the Superman comics until his retirement in 1970. Julie Schwartz edited virtually every title in the DC line at one time or another, coming full circle with a line of sf graphic novels in the mid-80s, adapted from prose stories by writers including Harlan Ellison, Robert Bloch, and Robert Silverberg. They were not big sellers, perhaps because the price-to-content ratio was pretty high -- they seemed like a pretty thin slice for the money -- and perhaps because some of the material was becoming dated.

But there may have been a different reason. Paradoxically, sf in comics has always been a hard sell, from E.C. Comics on down to the present. We’ll get into some of the possible reasons for that next time -- but wait. Do you hear something…?

**

Oh -- it’s Uncle Hugo’s nephew, Comics, interrupting his uncle’s ramblings:

“Okay, okay, dude. I hear you -- we got a lot of common ground. Lot of the same guys have helped us out over the years. And I think I even understand that ‘raw dough’ business. It’s a metaphor, right?

“But there’s one thing I still don’t understand. If we’re so much alike -- if we’ve been through so much of the same stuff -- how come you always hated me? How come you always brushed off my achievements -- treated me like some second-class citizen in the literary world? Huh?”

There’s an uncomfortable pause. Uncle Hugo takes a long drag off that cigarette. Finally:

“I don’t hate you, kid. I just -- you got all those pictures and everything, and -- aw, hell. I gotta think about that one for a while.”

So we’ll give the old screwball a couple weeks, and come back to that topic in the final installment of Comics’ Drunken Uncle: Science Fiction.

**

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/Creators/stuartwizphoto_f.jpg" width="110" height="113" align="right" alt="Stuart Moore">Stuart Moore has been a writer, a comics editor for Vertigo and Marvel Knights, a kitchen worker, a book editor, and the nighttime manager of the Lawrenceville, NJ Woolworth's curtain department. He has won the Will Eisner award for Best Editor 1996 and the Don Thompson Award for Favorite Editor 1999.

Currently Stuart freelances as a writer of comic books and nonfiction; he’d like you all to go out and buy ZENDRA, his epic science fiction series from Penny-Farthing Press. Issue #4 of the second series, ZENDRA: HEART OF FIRE, is on sale now, and the trade paperback ZENDRA 1.0: COLLOCATION collects the first series. Then you can go to Stuart’s message board at <a href="http://www.joequesada.com" target="_blank">http://www.joequesada.com</a> and discuss ZENDRA, this column, or anything else you like. And don’t worry: One more week, and Uncle Hugo’s gone forever. Maybe…

Adriano
12-03-2002, 10:11 AM
Thanx to the Italian time zone...first post ! :D

Jess Nevins
12-03-2002, 10:14 AM
The field of SF was founded in 1926?

That would surprise a lot of people with names like Verne and Wells.

AMAZING wasn't even the first sf magazine.

jess

Francis Barel
12-03-2002, 10:46 AM
I agree with the doubt regarding 1926. Verne, Wells, Poe even (some borderline sf work), Asimov...
But it's like comics: weren't they around at the end of the 19th century? The funnies existed before 1889 or something like that, right?

csGuy
12-03-2002, 10:47 AM
WOW! I had no idea so many sci-fi writers of old were involved in comics!

Great article as always Stuart.

Jeffrey D. Smith
12-03-2002, 11:05 AM
Certainly there was a lot of science fiction before 1926 (and comics before Superman), but AMAZING STORIES is indeed where sf as a publishing genre got started.

Rich Johnston
12-03-2002, 11:23 AM
[quote]Originally posted by Francis Barel:
<strong>I agree with the doubt regarding 1926. Verne, Wells, Poe even (some borderline sf work), Asimov...
But it's like comics: weren't they around at the end of the 19th century? The funnies existed before 1889 or something like that, right?</strong><hr></blockquote>

The earliest published items recognised as comics were in the mid 1800s, in London.

Adriano
12-03-2002, 11:32 AM
Francis, 1926 is just a conventional date;
the novels by Verne and Wells are usually defined "scientific romances"... and Asimov's first story was published in 1941, so it's not correct to cite him in the "pre-Gernsback" group. Anyway, "Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley is usually considered the seminal scientifc romance or proto-scifi novel.
As far as comics are concerned...the "official" birthdate (again: we're talking about conventions here) is 1896, when the first strip of Yellow Kid appeared... but if you want you can go back to Ancient Egypt hieroglyphics.
Ok, ok...end of the lesson... :p

Grendel Prime
12-03-2002, 12:48 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Adriano:
<strong>As far as comics are concerned...the "official" birthdate (again: we're talking about conventions here) is 1896, when the first strip of Yellow Kid appeared...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I hate it when people cite this. The Yellow Kid was a comic STRIP. Not a comic BOOK.

I think the confusion stems from so many people referring to both mediums as "comics". But we all know there is a world of difference between the comic strip and the comic book.

Michael P
12-03-2002, 01:09 PM
I think Stuart was more referring to when the popularity of SF and comic books (not strips, obviously) took off, and not their actual origins.

BoyWonder
12-03-2002, 01:11 PM
Another fun article. However, it would be great to have a bit more on the stories these guys wrote for DC. A bit about what happened to Green Lantern during this era, for example.

Taylor Porter
12-03-2002, 01:36 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Grendel Prime:
<strong>But we all know there is a world of difference between the comic strip and the comic book.</strong><hr></blockquote>

We do, huh? News to me....

IanZL
12-03-2002, 01:37 PM
Thats why I call them comicbooks. All one word prevents confusion. And hey, comic strips go back even farther, look at any cave wall.

RDFozz
12-03-2002, 02:32 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Grendel Prime:
<strong>

I hate it when people cite this. The Yellow Kid was a comic STRIP. Not a comic BOOK.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

One of the reasons people cite this is that the first recognizable comic books were compilations of comic strips.

I'm not sure when original material crept in, but if you date comics back to 1935 (I think), then that's what you are talking about; magazines (comic-sized, I believe) reprinting existing comic strips.

Stuart Moore
12-03-2002, 03:55 PM
We got into the same argument about the 1926 date in installment 4. Here's what I wrote then:

"In science fiction circles, the field (not the literature) is generally accepted to have started with the inception of AMAZING STORIES, the first sf magazine, in 1926. Hugo Gernsback, its founder and first editor, coined the awkward term 'scientifiction' (abbreviation: 'stf,' pronounced 'steff') to identify AMAZING's subject matter. This was soon modified by others into 'science fiction.'"

And as for comics: We had a similar exchange back with installment 1 or 2, but that was lost in the big Newsarama hack/crash. Yes, I'm dating the field from the publication of FAMOUS FUNNIES in 1935.

And yes, I'm aware that both dates are controversial. :)

Best,
Stuart

FireLight
12-03-2002, 05:43 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Stuart Moore:
<strong>And as for comics: We had a similar exchange back with installment 1 or 2, but that was lost in the big Newsarama hack/crash. Yes, I'm dating the field from the publication of FAMOUS FUNNIES in 1935.

And yes, I'm aware that both dates are controversial. :) </strong><hr></blockquote>

Thanks Stu. As was alluded to above - some folks already knew this - but I appreciate the clarification.

I was even taught that the birth of 'SciFi' as a modern genre was in the 1930's by a high school English/History teacher. Who also explained that Verne's works were only recently grouped into SciFi.

Granted there WERE books, novellas and other works that would have been SciFi - but they were truly far-and-few between enough that they didn't carry a classification.

In two hundred years - we had maybe 100-150 original stories that 'could' have been called SciFi. Since 1935 - it's more like 100-150 a year. Suddenly you have to put all these like-minded books together somewhere because A) the public suddenly demanded to have them and B) you had to tell them where to get it.

Just some useless knowledge I never thought I'd have any use for until now. Thanks Mrs. Jenkins.

Bob_W
12-03-2002, 11:55 PM
Sorry, Firelight, but Mrs. Jenkins gets an F in science fiction history. If you want to study SF before 1926, I'd advise reading SCIENCE FICTION BY GASLIGHT and UNDER THE MOONS OF MARS, each by Sam Moskowitz. You can probably find both books in most libraries. They give some details about the hundreds and hundreds of SF stories published before AMAZING STORIES. Btw, you might be interested in knowing that in the first issue of AMAZING STORIES, Hugo Gernsback reprinted "Off on a Comet" by Jules Verne, as the cover story for the magazine. Verne was recognized as an SF writer long before 1930.

Hugo Gernsback popularized SF by publishing the first "all science-fiction" magazine. Nobody thinks Gernsback invented the field, though as best anyone can tell, he did invent the term "science fiction."

As to why most science fiction fans look down upon comics, I think I cover the topic pretty thoroughly in my book, THE SCIENCE OF SUPERHEROES (plug, plug). The science in comics is nonsense. More than that, it's totally wrong. It's on the same level of Creationism and just as unbelievable. It's impossible for Superman to be so strong due to the gravity on Krypton, and the light from a red sun is no different than the light from a yellow sun. And so on and so on. As long as comics insist on using absurd science, they will always be viewed as stuff for kids.

bob w.

FireLight
12-05-2002, 12:00 AM
[quote]Originally posted by Bob_W:
As to why most science fiction fans look down upon comics, I think I cover the topic pretty thoroughly in my book, THE SCIENCE OF SUPERHEROES (plug, plug). The science in comics is nonsense. More than that, it's totally wrong. It's on the same level of Creationism and just as unbelievable. It's impossible for Superman to be so strong due to the gravity on Krypton, and the light from a red sun is no different than the light from a yellow sun. And so on and so on. As long as comics insist on using absurd science, they will always be viewed as stuff for kids.
<hr></blockquote>

That's getting a little too literal, isn't it? I mean from Shakespeare to Sherlock Holmes - suspension of disbelief is the key to the enjoyment of the product as entertainment - not the science. Again, fictional science-like stories are not meant to be scientifically factual.

In the real world there is never going to be a 'Superman'. But, there is no need to deconstruct every element of what may or may not be true-to-life in comics. Stephen King's Christine is a prime example of a ludicrous concept that made for a great book (and ok movie). Cars coming to life - men who can see through walls - men in tights swinging on ropes twelve stories high at night - women with bullet proof bracelets - not likely - nor physically possible - in the 'real' world.

Comics are still literature - as are science fiction novels - as is Frankenstein.

As for the timeliness of Science Fiction stories - or the birth of scifi - my point was rather that until the 1900's there was a smattering of scifi that was mass produced or demanded. A 4500 print run of There Once Was A Werewolfe in 1832 doesn't qualify as turning the literary industry on it's head. The 16th edition of The Invisible Man - however - does.

Bob_W
12-05-2002, 01:45 PM
well, in a word, no.

THE BATTLE OF DORKING (1871) was a booklet that described the invasion of England by Germany in the future. It was so popular that it went through many editions and spawned hundreds of imitations. If you check, you'll discover that future war stories were extremely popular in England well before the beginning of the 20th century. And, of course, THE INVISIBLE MAN was published in 1897. The 16th printing was probably well before 1914.

CHRISTINE is horror/fantasy and like all things supernatural the rules of science fiction does not apply to it. No one expects fantasy to obey the laws of science. That's not my point. SF in the 1930's and 1940's routinely featured bad science and thus no one in mainstream literature thought it was worth reading. If your story violates the basic laws of science, then it can't be a very meaningful portrait of life. In the 1950's and 1960's, with the rise of sf writers and editors who understood science, the ridiculous science was dropped and an attempt was made to write SF with realistic scientific backgrounds. Only then did SF filter into the mainstream.

I'm not against speculation and suspension of disbelief in stories. I'm all for that. But anytime you have a character running faster than the speed of light, or a man strong enough to lift a battleship, you're breaking basic laws of reality. How can anyone take comics seriously when you are willing to do that? That's why the few comics that have achieved mainstream success like MAUS and SANDMAN are fantasy not SF.

bob w

Taylor Porter
12-05-2002, 01:58 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Bob_W:
<strong> That's why the few comics that have achieved mainstream success like MAUS and SANDMAN are fantasy not SF.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

MAUS is fantasy?

Stuart Moore
12-06-2002, 10:07 AM
Nice discussion...and it leads directly into the next column! Be here Tuesday, December 17th...

Best,
Stuart

Elayne Riggs
12-06-2002, 03:52 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Bob_W:
<strong>As long as comics insist on using absurd science, they will always be viewed as stuff for kids.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Coincidence is not causality, Bob. Comics' use of absurd science and comics' reputation as being only for kids are two entirely separate considerations. Some of us don't have a problem with absurd science in our fiction, and don't feel it has any bearing one way or another on the maturity level of the stories themselves.

- Elayne

Elayne Riggs
12-06-2002, 04:00 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Bob_W:
<strong>But anytime you have a character running faster than the speed of light, or a man strong enough to lift a battleship, you're breaking basic laws of reality. How can anyone take comics seriously when you are willing to do that?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Are you implying it's somehow not proper for an otherwise serious adult to enjoy wish-fulfillment fantasy? If so, have you informed all the adults flocking to see Spider-Man and Lord of the Rings?

- Elayne

Elayne Riggs
12-06-2002, 04:06 PM
[quote]Originally posted by TaylorPorter:
<strong>MAUS is fantasy?</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's actually allegory, which is a far different animal (pun intended) than either fantasy or science fiction.

- Elayne

Stuart Moore
12-07-2002, 08:15 AM
Elayne & Bob: I agree with both of you. Fudgy or absurd science isn't, in my book, a really good reason to look down on a branch of literature. It IS, however, one reason why sf fans looked down on comics (and on prose fantasy).

More in the next column...

Best,
Stuart

Bob_W
12-07-2002, 04:15 PM
Elayne--

"Some of us don't have a problem with absurd science in our fiction, and don't feel it has any bearing one way or another on the maturity level of the stories themselves."

I think you are missing the main thrust of my argument. Comics are not accepted as serious literature by most "non-comic book" readers at least in part because of the absurd science. And the number of people in general willing to accept superhero comics as serious literature is getting smaller, not larger. (not all comics. Just superhero ones.)

"Coincidence is not causality, Bob. Comics' use of absurd science and comics' reputation as being only for kids are two entirely separate considerations."

You can call the two statements coincidence, but that doesn't mean the facts aren't related. I believe they are. My beliefs are based on my experiences as an SF fan (40+ years), a bookstore owner, and as co-chairman of a comic book convention for 20 years. Besides, statistics are my friend. I could easily produce a chart showing a strong relationship between the degree of a reader's science education and their lack of interest in superhero comics.

I don't think comics are dying just because of bad science. There are plenty of other culprits equally guilty. But bad science is a factor.

bob w.

Elayne Riggs
12-08-2002, 06:02 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Bob_W:
<strong>I think you are missing the main thrust of my argument. Comics are not accepted as serious literature by most "non-comic book" readers at least in part because of the absurd science.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, I got the main thrust. The main thrust was what I addressed. I just happen to disagree with your views. Except that I will agree with your and Stuart's implication that science fiction readers tend to be elitist snobs.

- Elayne

Zonker
12-08-2002, 11:06 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Bob_W:
<strong>In the 1950's and 1960's, with the rise of sf writers and editors who understood science, the ridiculous science was dropped and an attempt was made to write SF with realistic scientific backgrounds. Only then did SF filter into the mainstream.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Bob, you're definitely on to something about why sf fans look down on comics. But IMO you're way off base in attributing any mainstream or mass market appeal of sf to its science content. The mainstream mass market couldn't give a rat's ass whether those space ships in Star Wars can perform aerodynamics in a vacuum, to site the obvious example. Good science may have everything to do with self-esteem within the sf ghetto, but nothing to do with mainstream acceptance. For the mainstream, you need solid prose, a bit of poetic stylishness, an original take on things-- think Ray Bradbury. Or Kurt Vonnegut. Or the posthumous success of Philip K. Dick in Hollywood. Great writers all, all receiving various levels of mainstream acceptance-- none of them particularly of a hard science bent.

A true hard sf novel that is also well-written is a wonderful thing to behold, but it is very rare. I'd love to read such things, but then I also like Bradbury, Vonnegut, PKD, Zelazny, Tolkien, Gibson.

And comics by Moore, O'Neil, Kirby, Morrison, Vaughan, etc.

Cheers,
Z.