|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 10, 2009 13:00:03 GMT -5
While surfing the web I accidentally run into this page, from an old World's Finest book. It has Dick Giordano's version of why the original Avengers/JLA was canceled. So far I had always only seen the Marvel part of it, so despite being quite one-sided, it's an interesting read. Click on the thumbnail for the full resolution
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 11, 2009 8:03:44 GMT -5
Wow-- see, I never followed the behind-the-scenes industry politics. I just assumed Jim Shooter was this great, beloved, inspiring leader. Then the New Universe crashed and burned (pretty much before it got too far off the launch pad), and it seems like he- uh- "moved on to other opportunities" about 20 minutes later. I figured it was a forced resignation. Perhaps there were many folks at Marvel (and elsewhere) glad to see the back of him in the sunset?
Sharkar, is this something you have a moment to clue us in about?
HB
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jun 11, 2009 18:51:08 GMT -5
Wow-- see, I never followed the behind-the-scenes industry politics. I just assumed Jim Shooter was this great, beloved, inspiring leader...Perhaps there were many folks at Marvel (and elsewhere) glad to see the back of him in the sunset? HB, I assume you weren't being facetious when mentioning Shooter and "great, beloved, inspiring leader" in the same sentence (sometimes it's hard to tell online, so I'm just checking... . Anyway, I don't think it's a stretch to that Shooter is probably one of the most disliked figures in all of the comics business. I'm saying that and I've gone on record as stating I am a huge fan of his (of his writing, especially his Legion stuff). But there are those who consider him the Devil Incarnate. This is merely my conjecture based on interviews and other material I've read, but he's a controversial figure who's had difficult relationships with many in the biz. He started at a very young age (14) in the business writing scripts for DC in the 1960s (to help support his family) and I'd guess there must have been some jealousy/resentment from others on account of that. He also seems to have at times buckled under the pressure of being his family's breadwinner (or one of them) at such an early age--and editor Mort Weisinger's by all reports sadistic treatment of him didn't help his self-esteem any...and he left comics for a while. (As we know he returned to the fold, after a stint in advertising in, I believe, his native Pittsburgh.) Anyway, later on in the '70s when Shooter became Marvel's EIC, his editorship at Marvel was fraught with employee unrest...among other things, he wanted to impose some structure on the "freewheeling" writers at the time (Claremont et al.)--they edited their own work (giving them pretty much free reign) and Shooter abolished that. He insisted the writers could not edit their own work. He insisted on clear beginnings, middles, and ends for stories as opposed to the never-ending, amorphous story "structure" some writers at the time indulged in (also some of the artists, such as Gene Colan). His measures were perceived by some as Draconian, and he alienated some of the veteran employees such as Roy Thomas (who then headed off to DC). Shooter later became embroiled in the prolonged Kirby/returned artwork mess, which didn't exactly enhance his (JS's) reputation. Also, many consider his reign at Marvel to be when the company stopped being creative and started being overtly commercial, as epitomized by Shooter's Secret Wars and its merchandising tie ins. (I just read SW a couple of years ago and I liked it very much--great depictions of how people operate within groups, always his forte--despite its disregard for then-current events in the Marvel Universe.) During his EIC tenure he raised the profitability of the company (even Roy T gives him credit for that) and no less than Marie Severin said in an issue of Comic Book Artist she went through 7 editors (at Marvel, after Stan) and of them, Shooter was the only one who was organized. But it seems overall he is more reviled than idolized. He recently returned to writing the Legion series, and then left due to dissatisfaction with the art (based on interviews he's given that I've read on the internet.) Sorry to have gone on so long but as mentioned I'm a big fan of his work, so I've read a lot about his career. There's a lot more to his story, HB, and you'll certainly find plenty about Shooter on the 'net and in periodicals about comics. In fact, he's featured in this month's Back Issue (#34, the one that features Tana Nile's Warlock article). If you get a chance, take a look and see what you see think. While surfing the web I accidentally run into this page, from an old World's Finest book. It has Dick Giordano's version of why the original Avengers/JLA was canceled. So far I had always only seen the Marvel part of it, so despite being quite one-sided, it's an interesting read. Thanks for posting this, Shiryu--it's fascinating! From everything I've read Giordano was a pretty easy-going guy, so for him to have aired dirty laundry like this...wow. And coincidentally, I just picked up the JLA/Avengers trade (Busiek/Perez) a week ago--can't wait to actually sit down and read it. The Giordano column you posted and the history it provides for the JLA/Avengers project will make my reading experience all the more richer!
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 11, 2009 20:44:37 GMT -5
And thusly, Sharkar, you have been exalted once again! Thanks, as ever, for the thoughtful overview and the in-depth references. Man, it's like having Katherine Hepburn's "Bunny" from "The Desk Set" right here on this very board!
(Now we shall retreat & see if anyone is at all familiar with that reference. . .)
It's always hard not to take undue advantage of your body of knowledge.
And, geeze, I think I'm not so thrilled with Jim Shooter anymore-! (Although it sometimes does take a jerk of a boss to make an operation run well.)
HB
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 11, 2009 22:44:15 GMT -5
Wow-- see, I never followed the behind-the-scenes industry politics. I just assumed Jim Shooter was this great, beloved, inspiring leader...Perhaps there were many folks at Marvel (and elsewhere) glad to see the back of him in the sunset? HB, I assume you weren't being facetious when mentioning Shooter and "great, beloved, inspiring leader" in the same sentence (sometimes it's hard to tell online, so I'm just checking... . Anyway, I don't think it's a stretch to that Shooter is probably one of the most disliked figures in all of the comics business. I'm saying that and I've gone on record as stating I am a huge fan of his (of his writing, especially his Legion stuff). But there are those who consider him the Devil Incarnate. This is merely my conjecture based on interviews and other material I've read, but he's a controversial figure who's had difficult relationships with many in the biz. He started at a very young age (14) in the business writing scripts for DC in the 1960s (to help support his family) and I'd guess there must have been some jealousy/resentment from others on account of that. He also seems to have at times buckled under the pressure of being his family's breadwinner (or one of them) at such an early age--and editor Mort Weisinger's by all reports sadistic treatment of him didn't help his self-esteem any...and he left comics for a while. (As we know he returned to the fold, after a stint in advertising in, I believe, his native Pittsburgh.) Anyway, later on in the '70s when Shooter became Marvel's EIC, his editorship at Marvel was fraught with employee unrest...among other things, he wanted to impose some structure on the "freewheeling" writers at the time (Claremont et al.)--they edited their own work (giving them pretty much free reign) and Shooter abolished that. He insisted the writers could not edit their own work. He insisted on clear beginnings, middles, and ends for stories as opposed to the never-ending, amorphous story "structure" some writers at the time indulged in (also some of the artists, such as Gene Colan). His measures were perceived by some as Draconian, and he alienated some of the veteran employees such as Roy Thomas (who then headed off to DC). Shooter later became embroiled in the prolonged Kirby/returned artwork mess, which didn't exactly enhance his (JS's) reputation. Also, many consider his reign at Marvel to be when the company stopped being creative and started being overtly commercial, as epitomized by Shooter's Secret Wars and its merchandising tie ins. (I just read SW a couple of years ago and I liked it very much--great depictions of how people operate within groups, always his forte--despite its disregard for then-current events in the Marvel Universe.) During his EIC tenure he raised the profitability of the company (even Roy T gives him credit for that) and no less than Marie Severin said in an issue of Comic Book Artist she went through 7 editors (at Marvel, after Stan) and of them, Shooter was the only one who was organized. But it seems overall he is more reviled than idolized. He recently returned to writing the Legion series, and then left due to dissatisfaction with the art (based on interviews he's given that I've read on the internet.) Sorry to have gone on so long but as mentioned I'm a big fan of his work, so I've read a lot about his career. There's a lot more to his story, HB, and you'll certainly find plenty about Shooter on the 'net and in periodicals about comics. In fact, he's featured in this month's Back Issue (#34, the one that features Tana Nile's Warlock article). If you get a chance, take a look and see what you see think. While surfing the web I accidentally run into this page, from an old World's Finest book. It has Dick Giordano's version of why the original Avengers/JLA was canceled. So far I had always only seen the Marvel part of it, so despite being quite one-sided, it's an interesting read. Thanks for posting this, Shiryu--it's fascinating! From everything I've read Giordano was a pretty easy-going guy, so for him to have aired dirty laundry like this...wow. And coincidentally, I just picked up the JLA/Avengers trade (Busiek/Perez) a week ago--can't wait to actually sit down and read it. The Giordano column you posted and the history it provides for the JLA/Avengers project will make my reading experience all the more richer! Shooter is a very controversial figure, yet much like Quesada, he can always point out that Marvel was making a heap more money than DC at the time. However if we're gonna lambaste the man, let's give him his credit as well... He pushed for higher page rates, got health insurance for the Marvel staff (which was virtually unheard of at the time in the industry) and got people more money if their books sold well. He pushed the direct sales market (which while I hate how comics became marginalized, I must admit, was probably the only way the industry would've survived in a viable format as newsstands were returning the books in droves) and created Epic magazine which gave creators rights over their characters and really spearheaded the creator's rights movement with Epic comics. Marvel also created the new GI Joe during his tenure which turned out to be a cash cow and books were coming out on a regular basis. Remember the "dreaded deadline doom?" It disappeared under Shooter. And let's not forget the books that were coming out. Frank Miller's Daredevil, Walt Simonson's Thor, Claremont and Byrne's X-Men, Bill Sienkewicz on Moon Knight...oy the beauty of some of that stuff! I worked in indie comics at the time (as a gofer for a small press, then later an assistant editor) and the major complaint was that Shooter was a hardass boss. Compared to some of the doofuses who were nice guys and couldn't sell a single book, I would've been thrilled to work with Shooter...
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 12, 2009 3:26:45 GMT -5
I worked in indie comics at the time (as a gofer for a small press, then later an assistant editor) and the major complaint was that Shooter was a hardass boss. Compared to some of the doofuses who were nice guys and couldn't sell a single book, I would've been thrilled to work with Shooter... This is very true. I remember reading more than one editor, or even author, saying that if you want to be successful, you need an healthy dose of arrogance. Like everyone who has worked in an office knows, if you are too nice people just take advantage of it and do whatever they want, and this is probably all the truer for creatives. On the other hand, it always looks like Shooter couldn't quite balance the "push and pull" act, and in the end he ostracized, and was ostracized by everyone. Considering that in comics you seem to have more or less the same people moving around, making bitter enemies can be a problem. Regarding the JLA/Avengers, in Storyteller George Perez says that, even though he hated Shooter for the longest time since drawing that crossover was his dream, even he could see the obvious weakness of the plot. Since I love Busiek's crossover, I think it wasn't too bad that the story was stopped at the time ^^
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 12, 2009 9:23:50 GMT -5
I worked in indie comics at the time (as a gofer for a small press, then later an assistant editor) and the major complaint was that Shooter was a hardass boss. Compared to some of the doofuses who were nice guys and couldn't sell a single book, I would've been thrilled to work with Shooter... This is very true. I remember reading more than one editor, or even author, saying that if you want to be successful, you need an healthy dose of arrogance. Like everyone who has worked in an office knows, if you are too nice people just take advantage of it and do whatever they want, and this is probably all the truer for creatives. On the other hand, it always looks like Shooter couldn't quite balance the "push and pull" act, and in the end he ostracized, and was ostracized by everyone. Considering that in comics you seem to have more or less the same people moving around, making bitter enemies can be a problem. Regarding the JLA/Avengers, in Storyteller George Perez says that, even though he hated Shooter for the longest time since drawing that crossover was his dream, even he could see the obvious weakness of the plot. Since I love Busiek's crossover, I think it wasn't too bad that the story was stopped at the time ^^ heavy is the head that wears the crown. for an interesting take on shooter and the whole editor in chief position at marvel I think everyone should read priest's blog. he was close to shooter, and knows what was going on before Jim took the chair. I don't agree with priest a lot (I think the guy can't tell a comic story very well) but some of what he observed makes Marvel during the eighties a lot clearer... www.digital-priest.com/comics/adventures/spidey.htm
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jun 12, 2009 10:27:58 GMT -5
Thanks for posting the link--Priest's blog is always informative and interesting.
As ff stated, Priest and Shooter go way back. As Marvel EIC, Shooter instituted a program to nurture young talent called Romita's Raiders, so that newcomers could get their start in the industry and learn about production and how to put it all together (including touch ups, background work, coloring, paste ups, etc.)...under the auspices of John R. Sr. Some notables who were Romita's Raiders are Kyle Baker and Priest (then under a different name).
This was not unlike the comprehensive comics "education" Shooter himself received, under Weisinger (who as I mentioned could be a tyrant). Weisinger insisted that the young Shooter make regular trips to DC's NY office (from Pittsburgh) so that Shooter could learn multiple facets of comic book production.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jun 12, 2009 11:42:28 GMT -5
Wow Shiryu, it's been so long since I remember reading that column from Giordano. I recall being bitterly disappointed that JLA/Avengers was not going to happen. We had that explanation, as well as Marvel's side of things in Marvel Age, and then there was also the independent comic mags like Comics Journal and Comics Buyers Guide reporting on the mess. But regardless of the reasons, the fact of the matter was that it meant no team-up.
Probably the best, most impartial article I've read about the aborted JLA/Avengers is in Back Issue magazine #1, by Michael Eury. There's also some interesting info from George Perez in the book Modern Masters volume 2: George Perez, although Perez of course is not without bias!
It's generally acknowledged that Gerry Conway's plot for the story was exceedingly loose, with some gaping plot holes. However, Perez and Len Wein came up with some story revisions they felt would solve these problems and Wein verbally shared them with Mark Gruenwald. Wein thought the situation was resolved and gave Perez the go-ahead to continue drawing. Obviously, it was a mistake to do this without anything in writing. Ultimately Shooter rejected these revisions. Perez has an interesting take on this. In Modern Masters, he states that he felt Shooter should have trusted him more to fill in the holes in the plot, "because I used to do the same thing when I worked with him on the Avengers at a time when he wasn't as familiar with the characters."
Roy Thomas was brought in to re-work the plot and try to save as much of the Perez artwork as possible, since had other work to do. Perez notes that "Roy came up with a plot and tried to use as many of the pages as possible. And of course, being a Roy Thomas plot, all of a sudden I've got a scene with Aquaman and the Sub-Mariner set in World War II - the Invaders might have been in the background! Only Roy!"
Since Perez had other projects to do, and was also growing quite sour on JLA/Avengers, other artists were considered, including Don Heck. But by this point (mid-1984) things had gotten so bad between the two companies that the project was just left to die.
Eury feels that the real issue here was a clash in editorial styles. Giordano had a loose style, one where he would try to assign the best people for a job and then let them do their thing. This sometimes worked and sometimes didn't. Shooter was more authoritative and disciplined, and while Marvel experienced much success under his hand, there were many who rankled at his style. I tend to think Eury is on to something here. I have a hard time believing that Shooter was trying to purposely sabotage the project. If anything, I think he just felt very strongly about maintaining a level of quality. I'm sure though that egos did get involved and after awhile it did indeed become a "pissing match".
|
|
|
Post by Commander Benson on Jun 12, 2009 22:35:29 GMT -5
...among other things, [Shooter] wanted to impose some structure on the "freewheeling" writers at the time (Claremont et al.)--they edited their own work (giving them pretty much free reign) and Shooter abolished that. He insisted the writers could not edit their own work. He insisted on clear beginnings, middles, and ends for stories as opposed to the never-ending, amorphous story "structure" some writers at the time indulged in (also some of the artists, such as Gene Colan). If you ask me, this is exactly what an editor is supposed to do. Shooter's situation at Marvel always sounded to me like the writers were bent out of shape by not being allowed to run wild in the sandbox anymore. Shooter insisted on following fundamentals of fiction writing and refused to let the writers enjoy their indulgences. I think most of the writers' bad mouthing of Shooter came from the fact that playtime was over.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Jun 13, 2009 12:31:13 GMT -5
...among other things, [Shooter] wanted to impose some structure on the "freewheeling" writers at the time (Claremont et al.)--they edited their own work (giving them pretty much free reign) and Shooter abolished that. He insisted the writers could not edit their own work. He insisted on clear beginnings, middles, and ends for stories as opposed to the never-ending, amorphous story "structure" some writers at the time indulged in (also some of the artists, such as Gene Colan). If you ask me, this is exactly what an editor is supposed to do. You'd think so, wouldn't you? Shooter's situation at Marvel always sounded to me like the writers were bent out of shape by not being allowed to run wild in the sandbox anymore. Shooter insisted on following fundamentals of fiction writing and refused to let the writers enjoy their indulgences. Yep... as I said, he felt (correctly IMO!) a story should have a beginning, middle and end (which doesn't preclude continued stories--the "fundamentals", as you put it. He imposed order on the chaotic, freewheeling practices in play at the time by making sure the writers' work was edited by someone other than themselves (he didn't want Claremont editing his own work, for example). And Shooter strove for clarity--the famous example commonly cited is Claremont (sorry to use him again, but it fits) would call Storm "Ororo", "Storm", "Windrider", "Goddess", etc. all in the same story, and Shooter asked for less fancifulness and more consistency. So sure, he made enemies--the inmates weren't running the asylum anymore!
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Jun 13, 2009 12:54:30 GMT -5
At the very least, I agree that a writer should not be able to edit his own stories.
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Jun 13, 2009 14:34:48 GMT -5
At the very least, I agree that a writer should not be able to edit his own stories. Boy, that's absolutely for sure. I'm not sure how that can ever be considered a sound practice. It's like a director casting and directing himself in the lead in a play. How in the world can he objectively know if what he's doing works? Who in the world is going to tell him when it doesn't?? It's been a loooooong time since I read it (like, never since it was first published), but I'm pretty sure the late run of Howard the Duck is a likely candidate for non-editor syndrome. I don't remember which Steve (Gerber or Englehart) was the writer, but it was probably the most hopelessly self-indulgent, "look-how-cleverly-offbeat-I-am" series I've ever read. Possibly followed closely by the Defenders' Headmen/Bozos/Gun-totin'-Elf period. May have been the same writer, in fact. . . HB
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 13, 2009 16:20:14 GMT -5
No wonder the writers weren't happy, playtime was over.
Like most creatives, comics' authors do need some degree of bridling. I remember reading somewhere that Kirby's tenure at DC wasn't as successful as expected because, without Stan around to balance and regulate his ideas, they wouldn't work quite as well.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jun 13, 2009 23:05:41 GMT -5
As outsiders, many years after the fact, I don't think we'll ever really know exactly what happened at Marvel. I'm sure there's some truth on each side. Of course, anyone in a position of authority will ruffle some feathers. But like the old saying goes, "where there's smoke, there's fire". I can't believe that with so many people expressing negative feelings for Shooter, that he wasn't at least partially responsible for the situation. I do think that not letting writers edit their own material was a good move. Bringing more discipline into the bullpen was probably necessary. But from what I understand, it goes beyond those things to more the way Shooter implemented his decisions. There's a way to treat people, particularly creative people, and a heavy-handed method probably isn't going to go over too well.
|
|
|
Post by Commander Benson on Jun 14, 2009 8:13:37 GMT -5
But from what I understand, it goes beyond those things to more the way Shooter implemented his decisions. There's a way to treat people, particularly creative people, and a heavy-handed method probably isn't going to go over too well. After nearly thirty years as a Naval officer, I have a small knowledge about such things, and it's been my experience that it is the creative people, in particular, who need a heavier-handed approach---if you're trying to achieve a practical goal. Not all, of course, but many creative people feel they are exempted from the rules because of their "special muse". Before I said anything further on the matter of Jim Shooter's tenure as Marvel's editor-in-chief, I decided to bring myself more up to speed with his tenure. I went to Wikipedia first (granted, not always the most accurate source of information) to get a basic familiary, and then to the footnote sources, which provided more detail. Interestingly, on Christopher Priest's website, I found his remarks on the subject (http://digital-priest.com/comics/adventures/spidey.htm) to be the most detailed and comprehensive account of Shooter's leadership as Marvel's E-i-C. Much of it corroborated my remarks in my previous post here. I also discovered that there were many things Shooter did to improve working conditions and benefits for the writers and artists for which he rarely gets credit. By Priest's account, Shooter was tough and demanding, to be sure, but he was also concerned for his talents' welfare. He was not an uncaring brute. On the other hand, the Wikipedia article mentions some of the people who abandoned Marvel over Shooter---Marv Wolfman, George Pérez, John Byrne, Dave Cockrum---and when I went to the footnoted comments by those folks, they make almost no criticisms of the decisions made by Shooter as E-i-C. Their principal complaint seems to be that, under Shooter, Marvel was no longer a fun place to work. (Or, as I put it in my previous post, playtime was over.) In fact, Pérez, according to his interview in Wizard # 35, only had friction with Shooter over the handling of the intended JLA/Avengers cross-over. He stated that Shooter micro-managed the creative production of the story. Pérez, with regard to his other Marvel assignments, mentioned no other criticisms of Shooter, though the interviewer opened the door for such. If Shooter had a failing as an executive, I would deem it as---according to what I read in Priest's website--a lack of "political skills". Now, if one is thinking, "Hey, Shooter was the boss! Why would he need to have political savvy?", I would point out that it's a valuable skill down the chain, as well as up. It's an understanding of the dynamics of the secondary, usually unstated, motivations of subordinates. Priest provides a perfect example: his desk chair was old and falling apart, so he approached Shooter for a new one. Shooter replied, "Sure, go ahead and get a new one." As it developed, many of the other folks were resentful of Priest's fancy new chair and took it as favouratism on Shooter's part (a feeling probably amplified by Shooter's taskmastery). Priest points out that, if any of those people had requested a new chair or desk or the like from Shooter, Shooter would have told them, "Sure, go ahead," as well. It was not a question of Shooter looking out for his employees or caring about their needs; rather, it was his lack of understanding the political dynamic---how a given action would be perceived. When Priest came to Shooter for a new chair, Shooter either should have invited any other subordinate who wanted one to also get a new one, or have turned down Priest's request, explaining that if he got a new chair, so would everyone else. Thus, Shooter was not faultless. But, as I see it, the lion's share of the problem was on the part of the talent and not the boss.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jun 14, 2009 20:54:09 GMT -5
After nearly thirty years as a Naval officer, I have a small knowledge about such things, and it's been my experience that it is the creative people, in particular, who need a heavier-handed approach---if you're trying to achieve a practical goal. With all due respect –since I think maintaining a career in any field for 30 years is impressive – I think many of us on this forum could claim to have X years experience in our fields that would give us insight into both managing and being managed by other people. I’ll stand by my belief that heavy-handed micro-managing is often detrimental to a group (particularly to group morale) because of my 20+ years in my career. I’ve read Priest’s blog before, and I think it’s telling that he is one of the very few people out there actually defending Shooter. Are all the other writers and artists simply crybabies? I find that very hard to believe. I think some had very legitimate complaints. Doug Moench for one recalled a plan by Shooter to start killing off characters so he could replace the “Stan Lee Universe” with the “Jim Shooter Universe”. Obviously this didn’t happen, but it gives some indication of some of the things that were causing rifts at the time (that info was from Comic Book Artist vol. 3). I have no problem with many of the things Shooter wanted to implement; but I question the way he went about it. I’ve always believed that one of the hallmarks of a good leader is the ability to retain the best staff. Clearly this is an area where Shooter failed when he first took over. From my understanding, much of this might have been avoided if simply handled in a less dictatorial manner. But again – I wasn’t there – nor were any of us. It’s difficult at this point to ascertain how things went down from listening to two sides argue years after the fact. I do know from what I’ve read that Shooter is not a very diplomatic fellow. Was the Marvel staff in perpetual 'play-time'? Maybe. Were they in need of a stronger hand? Quite possibly. I think the real issue here is the way Shooter tried to change the culture -not that he changed it. Roy Thomas is quoted in the book Secrets in the Shadows by Tom Field as saying, “When Jim Shooter took over, for better or worse he decided to rein things in – he wanted stories told the way he wanted them told,” Thomas says. “It’s not a matter of whether Jim Shooter was right or wrong; it’s a matter of a different approach. He was editor in chief and he had a right to impose what he wanted to do. I thought it was kind of dumb, but I don’t think Jim was dumb. I think the approach was wrong and I don’t think it helped anything.”
|
|
|
Post by Commander Benson on Jun 15, 2009 10:12:49 GMT -5
With all due respect –since I think maintaining a career in any field for 30 years is impressive – I think many of us on this forum could claim to have X years experience in our fields that would give us insight into both managing and being managed by other people. I’ll stand by my belief that heavy-handed micro-managing is often detrimental to a group (particularly to group morale) because of my 20+ years in my career. In the same attitude of respect, I would point out that an authoritarian leadership style, or "heavy-handedness", does not equate to "micro-managing". Unless one views the boss putting out the standards he expects and doesn't accept less as "micro-managing". The authoritarian style is the most efficient form of leadership. Contrary to what some believe, the authoritarian style doesn't preclude input from others; the authoritarian leader will take intelligent recommendations under consideration. However, the final decision rests with the leader. No establishing of consensus or taking votes as to what to do. He weighs the alternatives---his own and what have been recommended to him---based on his own experience and capablility. It's the leader's experience and decisions which trump all because he's the one with the job, and the subordinates owe him their support. As Lieutenant Greenwald put it in the film The Caine Mutiny: " You don't work with a captain because you like the way he parts his hair; you work with him because he's got the job or you're no good!" Granted, I haven't read every comment on the subject by those who were there, but I read many. And most of the complainers' comments were like those of Roy Thomas that you cited: that it wasn't a matter of whether Shooter was right or wrong; it was that they didn't like his approach. They wanted their hands held and the freedom to indulge in their whims. I agree with you on the injurious consequences of micro-managing, but the only comments that Shooter micro-managed were the ones I cited from George Pérez; that the only time he accused Shooter of micro-managing was on the intended JLA/Avengers cross-over. I stipulate readily that Shooter mishandled that. In other words, Shooter was probably right in the the things he wanted, and he certainly accomplished a great deal to the good; it was just that he did it the wrong way. Which would be better? To accomplish the things he did---the rapid and massive explosion of Marvel's sales and profits; the raises and bonuses he obtained for his people; the then-unprecedented profit sharing he obtained for the talent---by being authoritarian? Or to be "one of the boys", go along to get along and make everybody happy, and not accomplish nearly as much? He wouldn't have been able to accomplish so much by being a buddy. You're also correct in stating that we, as outsiders, cannot be 100% sure of what really happened, in terms of the professional relationships between Shooter and his staff, during Shooter's tenure. But we have enough first-hand accounts to form educated opinions. For example, you insist that Shooter was not a very diplomatic fellow. I'm assuming that you're pretty sure of that in your own mind. But, unless you know Shooter personally, have worked for him, how can you be that sure? Because you have read enough credible information to form that educated opinion. And for the record, I don't think you're wrong. He didn't have that spark that makes a taskmaster beloved. But it didn't make him wrong, or his leadership style wrong. That's what I concluded from reading all the accounts. I don't feel that, because you weren't there or because I wasn't there, we aren't able to form valid opinions. Thank you for your cogent, intelligent response. This is the kind of thing I come to boards like this for.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 15, 2009 16:11:14 GMT -5
I think both sides of the argument are equally valid, and it's really difficult to say which is the closer to the truth given that none of us has ever been around there.
As C.B. says, creative people in most fields are among the hardest to reign in, and as society changed and workers' rights increased, it's possible that he kind of was at the wrong place, in the wrong role, at the wronge time. On the other hand, Marvel survived for decades before Shooter, so things couldn't have been that disastrous, and he has been fired from other companies too. It's hard to believe that ego hasn't been at least one of the factors involved, even Romita SR, who speaks well of pretty much everyone, mentioned that after Secret Wars' success Shooter started going overboard.
Something that comes across from almost every interview is the fact that working at Marvel or DC wasn't really the happy, fun experience that one may naively imagine. At times it sounds like a sharks pool...
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Jun 15, 2009 20:01:09 GMT -5
In the same attitude of respect, I would point out that an authoritarian leadership style, or "heavy-handedness", does not equate to "micro-managing". Unless one views the boss putting out the standards he expects and doesn't accept less as "micro-managing". The authoritarian style is the most efficient form of leadership. Contrary to what some believe, the authoritarian style doesn't preclude input from others; the authoritarian leader will take intelligent recommendations under consideration. However, the final decision rests with the leader. No establishing of consensus or taking votes as to what to do. He weighs the alternatives---his own and what have been recommended to him---based on his own experience and capablility. We’ll just have to agree to disagree when it comes to managing styles, CB. I don’t believe there is any one perfect style. In other words, Shooter was probably right in the the things he wanted, and he certainly accomplished a great deal to the good; it was just that he did it the wrong way. Which would be better? To accomplish the things he did---the rapid and massive explosion of Marvel's sales and profits; the raises and bonuses he obtained for his people; the then-unprecedented profit sharing he obtained for the talent---by being authoritarian? Or to be "one of the boys", go along to get along and make everybody happy, and not accomplish nearly as much? He wouldn't have been able to accomplish so much by being a buddy. Actually, I think there is a middle way between the two methods you posit. The manager doesn’t have to be a pushover or a tyrant; by dealing with people with respect and reason, I think a good leader can assert their goals with the group most of the time. Respect is a two-way street though, and I think the major issue with Shooter for many of the people who have had difficulty with him is that they’ve felt some lack of respect. To put it more broadly, Shooter has poor people skills. I have to admit that I’m also not that impressed by Shooter’s tenure as EIC. I realize that he was financially successful, but I feel that Marvel also became far less creative under his hand. In the early to mid-70s, Marvel was producing highly creative and diverse titles. During Shooter’s reign Marvel seemed primarily focused on doing books about toys, cartoons, and movies. There were still some good titles, but (again, IMO) not nearly as many as before. As C.B. says, creative people in most fields are among the hardest to reign in, and as society changed and workers' rights increased, it's possible that he kind of was at the wrong place, in the wrong role, at the wronge time. On the other hand, Marvel survived for decades before Shooter, so things couldn't have been that disastrous, and he has been fired from other companies too. It's hard to believe that ego hasn't been at least one of the factors involved, even Romita SR, who speaks well of pretty much everyone, mentioned that after Secret Wars' success Shooter started going overboard. Yes, it was not just people who worked for him doing the complaining. You only have to look at how his career has proceeded since his stint as EIC to see a pattern here. Perhaps working for Mort Weisinger gave him some bad habits when dealing with co-workers! It really is sort of tragic. I would hate to be in his shoes – the object of so many of his peers’ scorn for 20 years. That must be a terrible burden.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 15, 2009 23:27:15 GMT -5
I seem to recall reading at some point in my research about how many guys have not wanted to be Editor In Chief because it tends to carry a pallor with it after leaving the job. Most of the people who did it with any real sense of responsibility either tended not to last long or are somewhat disliked. Shooter did it and did it for a while and was very outspoken. Makes me wonder what Joe Q's reign will look like in the rearview mirror...
Also while Shooter did indeed usher in a bunch of tie in stuff, he did a lot of experimental stuff. The aforementioned Epic Comics, The Death Of Captain Marvel, the Marvel Talent Search. I think in fairness he was handling a new beast, one that moved out of the funny book business and into the storytelling business. I think it was a rough transition for a lot of folks. Anyway, having worked at three indie comics companies during the eighties I can safely say I worked for some very nice publishers and made so much money I had to work in a shoe store during the summers...
Does that mean that Shooter's way is/was the only way? No but people were making a good living doing an interesting job, and believe me plenty of people have horror stories about Jenette Kahn, Paul Levitz and other big bosses in the industry at the time. I know someone who worked for Martin Goodman, the fellow who pretty much ushered in the Marvel age of comics as a publisher and my friend still speaks about the man and his family (who I guess ran the magazines after his retirement or death) with a venom unrivaled.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Jun 16, 2009 13:06:59 GMT -5
On the other hand, Marvel survived for decades before Shooter, so things couldn't have been that disastrous, and he has been fired from other companies too. I don´t think Marvel (and comics) could have survived without some of the decisions Shooter implemented. Before Shooter became EiC comics weren´t selling very well at all, there were many (and I mean many) crappy books - and look at what happened at DC during the same time period, even with iconic characters like Superman, Batman, Aquaman and Wonder Woman...
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Jun 16, 2009 15:51:58 GMT -5
I have to admit that I’m also not that impressed by Shooter’s tenure as EIC. I realize that he was financially successful, but I feel that Marvel also became far less creative under his hand. In the early to mid-70s, Marvel was producing highly creative and diverse titles. During Shooter’s reign Marvel seemed primarily focused on doing books about toys, cartoons, and movies. There were still some good titles, but (again, IMO) not nearly as many as before. It's interesting to see these two statements together. On one hand, Marvel pre-Shooter was more creativity driven, on the other it wasn't selling wall. Then post-Shooter came the more market-oriented comics, and sales improved. Can we hypothesize that, since with and after Shooter ideas needed to be approved by more people, the more "creativity eccentric" ones were banned as silly and stopped dead in their tracks? Perhaps Marvel started to go for the more solid and secure way, instead of attempting to expand in all new directions like it had (successfully) done in the 'sixties. I remember one column once saying "The Wasp and Hank Pym relationship could make sense in the naive 'sixties, but couldn't survive the Beautiful-dominated 'eighties". Perhaps Shooter was simply the first one to realize that tastes had changed and readers preferred more solid explanations. But on the other hand, how many publishing houses originally refused to print Harry Potter saying that it could never have worked? And now they are all biting their hands off. Perhaps some of the ideas that were turned down would have been as genial as Galactus or Spider-Man. It's always hard to tell in these cases.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 16, 2009 22:14:01 GMT -5
funny, I came across this- Steve Ditko writes about 10,000 words on why he doesn't like Joe Quesada and his handling of Marvel. I don't think Ditko has taken the time to slam another e-i-c, so it just goes to show, people really tend to have a problem with the head cheese. Oh and by the way if you don't have at least a minor in Philosophy, you'll probably have to read it at least twice bighollywood.breitbart.com/blash/2009/04/06/steve-ditkos-toyland/
|
|
|
Post by scottharris on Jun 16, 2009 23:22:33 GMT -5
I sort of wish I hadn't read it once, much less twice. I know lots of people worship Ditko as some sort of visionary, but personally I think he's totally crackers. I respect the cutting edge art he turned out forty years ago, but I think what was cut by that edge was Steve's tenuous tether to reality. Trying to wade through all that obtuse "A is A" crap is a real trial. I feel like I should get a medal for even trying. Memo to Steve: just say what you mean, geez. Spit it out already. What a total load of ********. And this, I think, is Marvel's perfect response to Steve's criticisms:
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Jun 17, 2009 6:59:57 GMT -5
Ditko is pretty much my least favorite all time artist (strictly in terms of artwork). I rank him right down there with Carmine Infantino. I'm not saying he didn't have a significant imapt on comic history, I'm just saying I'm not a fan.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Jun 17, 2009 8:36:46 GMT -5
I have to admit that I’m also not that impressed by Shooter’s tenure as EIC. I realize that he was financially successful, but I feel that Marvel also became far less creative under his hand. In the early to mid-70s, Marvel was producing highly creative and diverse titles. During Shooter’s reign Marvel seemed primarily focused on doing books about toys, cartoons, and movies. There were still some good titles, but (again, IMO) not nearly as many as before. Well, the books about cartoons and toys were very good, at least in my opinion. ROM and The Micronauts for example were very good reads, with great art. I liked them back in the 80´s without even knowing of the existence of the toys. And many of the early to mid 70´s books were also inspired in movies (blaxploitation and monster movies for example) and cartoons too, but weren´t nearly as good as the ones from the Shooter era. The creativity was already there, but without guidance it was getting lost in the ocean of not-so-good comics that were comming out. And let´s be honest, people like Roy Thomas weren´t producing good work anymore. Look at his DC work from the 80´s.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 17, 2009 10:05:13 GMT -5
I sort of wish I hadn't read it once, much less twice. I know lots of people worship Ditko as some sort of visionary, but personally I think he's totally crackers. I respect the cutting edge art he turned out forty years ago, but I think what was cut by that edge was Steve's tenuous tether to reality. Trying to wade through all that obtuse "A is A" crap is a real trial. I feel like I should get a medal for even trying. Memo to Steve: just say what you mean, geez. Spit it out already. What a total load of ********. And this, I think, is Marvel's perfect response to Steve's criticisms: Yeah it's a bit dense, but I was a dual major in English and Philosophy so it's old home week to me. I do find it amusing though, that editor in chief always gets the blame and talent always seems to get off the hook (I think Bendis and Brubaker and Millar are much more responsible for the current Marvel trend- Joe Q is just printing what sells best- but they get almost none of the blame from other creators). That's part of why I think the whole Shooter thing with talent blaming him for their exodus from Marvel is really nothing new. People always hate the man in charge... And is it just me or do the Punisher's hands look dainty, like he could be pouring tea if they'd drawn kettles in his hands instead of guns...?
|
|
|
Post by thunderstrike78 on Oct 23, 2009 11:53:29 GMT -5
I just discovered this thread. I don't usually lurk in the DC area, but the Jim Shooter discussion is fascinating.
I have mixed feelings about the reports of his "hard-ass-ness" and whether or not he was an unreasonable boss.
Creative talent is always hard to reign in. It's their creativity that keeps them thinking outside of the box, that keeps them exploring new and exciting things, and that makes them (sometimes) want to operate outside the rules. Any good boss needs to be a mixture of stern and understanding. It's inevitably going to be a difficult balance.
I've heard it said that Marvel's current EIC, Joe Quesada, is "the best boss you could ever work for". Certainly, it seems that he is extremely understanding and permissive with his talent, often allowing them to run wildly behind schedule and to veer off in unusual directions. There's some strength in that--and also some weakness.
Shooter, from all reports, was the exact opposite of Quesada--very hard-nosed, very insistent on imposing structure on the creative talent and staff. He had a very clear idea of how he wanted the company to run, and how the product should be put together. I don't think that's necessarily bad.
I think the ideal EIC would be a mixture of both approaches. I do agree with Quesada in the sense that I'd rather wait an extra month or two and get an issue from the talented creators that I want to see, rather than getting a fill-in issue from sub-par talent. On the other hand, Quesada can often be TOO permissive (in my opinion), allowing books to run many months or even years behind schedule (Ultimate Hulk vs. Wolverine, anyone?). He's got the right idea, but he lets it go too far. I think he also is a little too permissive with letting creators do absolutely anything they want--there does need to be SOME structure to these things.
Shooter's insistence on a clear beginning, middle and end to stories was, in my opinion, a very good thing. One thing I don't like about modern comics is how we often get sprawling stories that stretch on for months and months without any clear ending--one thread just rambles on and on, leads into another which rambles on and on, etc. I miss the days when I could get a complete story, like an episode of a television drama, in one or two issues.
I also liked Shooter's insistence that writers cannot edit themselves. I'm sure they hated that idea, because now they'd have an actual boss to report to, but it makes good sense to me. Sure, Stan could write and edit everything all by himself, but Marvel has just grown too complex for that approach (and probably had done so by Shooter's time). You need to have at least a small staff to oversee the creators and make sure everything clicks correctly.
I could go on, but overall, I think Shooter's tenure at Marvel was a good one. He probably could have stood be a little more permissive than he was, but I don't really fault him because it sounds like he was the first editor to try to impose some structure at the company, and he probably felt like he had to be really tough on his creators just to maintain any semblance of discipline.
|
|
|
Post by goldenfist on Oct 28, 2009 14:19:14 GMT -5
I was told that Shooter drove off alot of writers, Frank Miller said when he presented the story where Bullseye kills Elektra Frank said that Jim sighed and looked like he had a headache.
I heard that Shooter felt that Jean Grey got off to easy in the original ending of the Dark Phoenix Saga so he said kill her off and X-MEN fans weren't happy about it.
|
|