Jim Mooney RIP

Jim Mooney passed away. A great tribute to the man and his life as well as looking a bit at his history in comics can be read here.
Makes me wish I had known more about him. I especially love the section about his interviewing with Stan Lee from Lee’s perspective.

When he was doing Supergirl and the LSH books for which he is well known and lauded, I wasn’t at an age I could read more than words like “cat”. So, I was exposed to a lot of his work via reprints and reading old comics from various sources. While the artwork was clear and crisp and the stories fun, I was at an age that most artists didn’t really register with me. I couldn’t tell you which of the stories I read was by him or by Curt Swan or any other of DC’s stable of artists at the time. Indeed, about the only work I probably was aware of was Omega the Unknown and that was some time later after that series had come and gone.

My appreciation for Jim’s contributions came a few years ago. AC Comics had been reprinting golden-age comics for awhile and various people on the internet were also getting in on the act. Through them I was gaining a deeper appreciation of artists that I recognized their names as being from the 70’s but turned out to be groundbreaking much earlier. Men like Dick Ayers, Irv Novick, and, of course, Jim Mooney. In one of AC’s reprint books, they focused on Quality Comics and interviewed Mooney. In the book Mooney talks about his work for Fox on the Moth and who was turned into the Lynx after threat of lawsuit from DC, his work on Wildfire, Phantom Lady, and the Spider Widow at Quality.

Now, I’ve seen a Moth story or two as well as the Lynx. Frankly, I don’t see the similarity between it and Batman. Even quality wise, I have to agree with Mooney’s own assessment of his talents as compared to others at that point in time. However, it’s like looking at Novick’s first stories for the Shield and then seeing his later work after being exposed to Simon & Kirby’s hyper-extended kinetic frenzied work and taking all those lessons to heart and applying them to his own work but with a more organic and softer feel. Mooney’s own talent explodes while working for Ace on strips like Magno for SUPER-MYSTERY COMICS and becoming a regular cover artist as well as interior work for them. He made the Magno stories a lot better than they had any right being considering the generic nature of the character. Again, taking a page from Batman, Magno would most often face a killer clown of a villain called the Clown though cannot really say who actually created the villain. The Magno strip would have several artists over time and have a decent run for a character that languishes in almost complete obscurity today. Mooney’s skill grew quickly by leaps and bounds.

Over at Quality, Mooney worked on the Wildfire strip. Wildfire is possibly most notable for NOT being in the All-Star Squadron. Roy Thomas apparently wanted to use her but the powers-that-be thought it might be confusing as a Wildfire was a member of the Legion of Superheroes. Keep in mind that All-Star Squadron as an Earth-2 WWII book already has similar but subtly different versions of Wonder Woman, Batman, Robin, Superman, Hawkman and Hawkgirl as well as very different versions of the Flash and Green Lantern in it. Would Wildfire be all that confusing? So, Roy created a new Firebrand instead. But, one only has to look at his work on Wildfire and see just how far he had come as an artist.

(SNIP) I cut a paragraph that was originally here. Mainly because I have a memory of an interview that Mooney did saying he worked on the Spider Widow and Phantom Lady and he introduced the character, the Raven to the strip. The Raven was originally meant to spin off into his own strip but never happened. The problem? I cannot verify this interview, all the online sources cite someone else as the creator and artist at the time of Phantom Lady, Spider Widow and the Raven. And, I haven't had the time to hunt up the actual comic with the interview all though I'm reasonably certain I've tracked it down to AC's MEN OF MYSTERY #20. Anyone else remember this?

In the late 40’s would have Mooney as one of the ghosts for Sprang working under Kane's byline on Batman, in many ways bringing Mooney’s work almost full circle. Only this time, he does a very passable Dick Sprang and there's no lawsuit.

So, I’ll miss Mooney, not so much because of his work on Supergirl or the Legion (but thank you for Streaky), but because I really enjoyed his work from decades earlier and seeing how his skill and style grew and changed over the years. I find Magno a lot of fun to read. And I enjoyed the Spider Widow and Raven stories quite a bit, whoever did them.

Who is Hugo Hercules?

It’s been a strange couple of weeks. Stuff I’ve been wanting to comment on, just kinda gotten forgotten or slipped by the wayside. Such as when I reviewed MEN OF MYSTERY back on March 6th. I mentioned that one of the stories concerned a character called Dr. Drew. As I was actually working on the D’s of my golden-age heroes encyclopedia, I made sure to include him. While doing research, I found another couple of stories of the character leading me to a better appreciation of him and the Eisner-style atmosphere of the stories. Then, lo and behold, Don Markstein includes him about the very same time on his Toonopedia site! So, Doctor Drew is getting a bit of exposure these days it seems. And Mr. Markstein and I must travel in some of the same circles in our research.

When I first encountered Toonopedia site a few years back, I thought his name sounded familiar. Yet, it wasn’t until last week that I realized where I had heard it before. He’s the editor of COMICS REVIEW, a magazine I’ve been getting for close to 10 years! For those not in the know, COMICS REVIEW reprints comic strips such as the Phantom, Gasoline Alley, Buzz Sawyer, Ally Oop, Krazy Kat, Modesty Blaise, etc. Sadly, when I first started getting it, it reprinted a bunch of current adventure strips as well as various classic story strips and the odd spattering of classic humor strips. These days, it’s almost all old strips and I would love to be seeing the Phantom dailies since my paper dropped that strip a long time ago.

Yesterday, my brother wanted me to find comic strips that had to do with muscles (something for his student teaching, I didn’t ask). It’s always interesting how sometimes you cannot find what you are looking for but also the esoteric things you find you weren’t looking for.

In this case, it’s a little known strip from 1902 of a fella by the name of Hugo Hercules. Hugo predates not only Superman but also various other incredibly strong characters such as that other more famous Hugo, Hugo Danner of Phillip Wylie’s GLADIATOR (1930) and comic strips’ Mandrake (created in 1924, first saw print in 1934), the Phantom (1936), and the Phantom Magician (1935), as well as the other supermen that pre-dated comics such as Tarzan (1912), John Carter of Mars (1912), the Night Wind (1913). Heck, he even beats out the Scarlet Pimpernel (1903)!

Hugo is a big burly but amiable chap who talks in a blue-collar type slang and seems to wander around looking to aid people with his great strength such as lifting automobiles, a porch as an umbrella, or even wrestling various animals (a horse, elephant and a bear, all of which talk) into submission. His response to his incredible displays of strength that astounds others is invariably “Just as easy.” In one strip and possibly the earliest crossover of its type, a building catches on fire and Hugo rescues several of the inhabitants, four other comic strip characters: Alice and the Duchess of “Alice in Funnyland” and Archie and Boggs from “Archie and Boggs”, all of whom seem aware of their comic strip status. The strip only ran for a few months. Samples of those and all of Hugo’s strip can be found at: http://www.barnaclepress.com/

Hugo is the creation of William H.D. Koerner, a German immigrant who was on staff for the Chicago Tribune. He eventually left to study painting and became an accomplished illustrator/painter for Harper’s Magazine among others. One of his paintings, “A Charge to Keep” was a favorite of George W. Bush. The President’s account of the painting, its name and what it symbolized was very different from the story it was used to actually illustrate and became a source of ridicule among various pundits and critics of the President. Especially as Bush even used the “name” as the title for his memoirs.


While the name Hugo is an interesting similarity with Hugo Danner, it should be noted that Phillip Wylie was only 6 months old when the strip ran. Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster wouldn't be born for another decade. Hugo Hercules may very well be a proto-superhero, but he is reminiscent of the American Folk Tale or Tall Tale, though he predates some of those as well. He serves as an illustration in that the idea of a Superman wasn't really all that new, these ideas and archetypes were already part of the American culture from the tall-tales, the dime novels (there had been various "super-villains" for Nick Carter and his kin to face), the dime novels, and even in the comics. Siegel and Shuster had even already paved the way with Dr. Occult, Superman was just applying even more of the Tall Tale mentality and a science fiction veneer as opposed to a magic one.

The Secret Secret Origin of Superman?

We got letters! If you wish to read them in full, just scroll down to the past blogs, specifically the Stardust and Green Lama focused ones. However, I do want to call attention to them and a couple of links they provided. Paul Karasik reminds me that the name of his Fletcher Hanks book is “I Shall Destroy All the Civilized Planets!” and is currently on its third printing! Way to go Paul! Also, there’s a link provided to a Fantomah story not found in the book if you cannot just get enough of Hanks’ oddball style to:

http://www.fletcherhanks.com

Writer/artist of the Green Lama mini coming from AC Comics has a preview of the first issue up at his site (there are a few more pages in the printed book, he promises). So, if you a bit more of a sample than the cover image:

http://www.comicspace.com/james_ritchey_iii/

The Secret Secret Origin of Superman

In talking about his upcoming book “Our Gods Wear Spandex”, Chris Knowles compares Joe Shuster’s iconic cover of Action Comics #1 to the renaissance painting “Heracles and the Hydra” by Antonio Pollauoio. By comparing angles and such he scores a few hits in making an objective and informed argument, even if to do so, he must in one instance have Superman be the same size as the Heracles figure and in another, change the size of the figure so as the Hydra and car line up properly.

But, where he falls is when he tries to take the arguments further and what he actually ignores. A problem I had in my younger days with English teachers and criticisms. They become so concerned with intellectualizing a story, with dissecting and codifying it into themes, metaphors, and symbolisms that would put Dan Brown to shame, they forget the actual story and confuse it all with actual intent and fact. Many times, the symbols and themes that one sees in a story inform us more about the readers than the authors, it’s what they bring to the book not necessarily what’s really there or intended. Ask Roy Thomas about the sexuality of Union Jack and Dynamite in THE INVADERS sometime, something many readers and some creators thought was very obvious. Until someone actually thought to ask Thomas what he intended.

Despite his objective hits, in his subjective arguments Chris Knowles shows many holes in his reasoning. First, we’ll look at the painting. 1) While Kane is known for using swipes, Joe Shuster used models and tons of assistants. But no one before has really shown a link to any swipes. 2) While swipes was indeed a common practice, most of these artists were pulp and comic strip fans and indeed aspired to working for them and as such, swipes tended to be from those and other illustrator sources. Not museum pieces. (And for a painting that he claims is famous, as someone who read a lot of mythology and was an art major for 3 years in college, I cannot say if I ever saw this painting before). 3) I’ve never seen in the history of swipes or homages or what you want to call it, where the energy and direction of the two pieces would be so dissimilar resulting in a completely different effect.

The last part is where I really have trouble with it. He argues that the anatomy of the Shuster figure seems off, yet I don’t see any inconsistencies in it especially compared to his other drawings. What it does show is a very different style and approach to drawing, more akin to the pulp and comic strip illustrations. Whereas the painting Heracles does look stiff and awkward and suggests impending action. He’s rearing back, preparing to strike, all the energy and the viewer’s attention is being pulled into the Heracles figure. Shuster’s cover instead is action personified, a violent explosion emanating from the Superman figure as he is shoving the car forward while in full run, the dashing against the rock with parts flying and people fleeing outward. The two works are almost complete polar opposites in the way they actually read which is not something one aims for when choosing to actually reference an earlier work. You use the reference to gain a similar effect, to help get it right. Not to do it differently (unless you are purposely parodying or critiquing the reference).



In looking at pulp covers, I came across a cover from 1935 that is very simlar to the running pose of of Superman on that cover. In fact, other than the position of the arm, I think it has more in common with the Superman figure than the Heracles does. For one thing, much of the energy, the suggestion of forward movement is the same. And, then there’s this 1936 issue of MORE FUN COMICS, a title Siegel and Shuster were doing Doctor Occult. Look closely, and you’ll see the same triangle frame-work that ACTION COMICS #1 and the Heracles painting share though reversed. But, noting the similarity and actually arguing the intent are two different things.

As Knowles goes on, it becomes obvious that he’s over-intellectualizing in his approach to Superman and other early comics. He sees similarities and relationships without taking into account contexts, without actually looking at the creators or the time period they and their works exist in. From his interviews:

This all started with a nagging question: Why would Superman wear a cape? It would be a liability in a battle; it could blow in your face and block your vision at the worst damn times. And what about the Spandex? Superheroes like the Shadow and Doc Savage were around before Superman and most of them didn’t run around in skintight clothing, right? Well, perhaps it’s because the guy who created Superman had his sights set on an earlier role model.

… Well, I got to thinking that it reminded me of Hercules and his lion skin, which was always flapping around in the breeze. Of course, I thought this until I saw "Heracles and the Nemean Lion" by the Renaissance relief sculptor Antico, which pictures Hercules almost exactly as Superman is today: short, wavy hair, long, flowing cape and naked, muscular body. Well, OK, add the Spandex and the underpants and it’s Superman.

Except for a few other nagging details. Because, instead of looking to the sources, to the accounts by Siegel & Shuster, to the context of the times and the types of works that they and other creators stated as serving as inspirations for the characters, he runs with what the character reminds him of. Right away, he's judging the work through his own eyes and perceptions instead of actually being objective.

If you look at Siegel and Shuster’s own accounts and such, we know they read pulps. In fact, the pulp that inspired both of them, the one that contained the first Buck Rogers story, but whose cover of a flying man (not Buck) seemed to be a watershed moment for many early science fiction fans and wannabe writers, I’ll be danged if it doesn’t look too different from a superhero type costume. Tights were already being worn by the Phantom in the comic strip pages. An early drawing of Doctor Occult in superhero costume shows him in cape, tight shorts and boots, looking very much like covers and the St. John drawings of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ John Carter. And you have Tarzan himself flexing his muscles fighting lions and such. There were covers of Doc Savage where he wore just shorts, looking very much like a superhero. Keep in mind that Carter’s abilities and all were Superman in reverse, an Earthman on a warlike planet with lesser gravity giving him vast powers and able to bring about justice through that greater strength. Circus performers, weight lifters and other professional strongmen (http://www.bernarrmacfadden.com and www.redboots.net/comics/powers_costume.htm) had been sporting similar outfits for years whereas Lee Falk credited portrayals of Robin Hood in tights inspired the costume of the Phantom. Either way, there’s plenty of direct popular sources for adopting such a look that don’t require a trip to the library or museum. The precedent is in place without them re-inventing the wheel. And Knowles doesn't provide a logical reason as to why his Heracles theory should carry more weight.

No one is arguing that Hercules, Samson, Gilgamesh and Beowulf aren’t the grand-daddies of them all. But, Knowles wants us to believe that they are the direct sources, the direct links. Because it makes the comics sound more intellectual and cleverer than they in reality were, drawing inspirations not from classical literature but the pop culture of the time. It sounds better that they are using renaissance paintings and classical sources for their inspiration instead of some decades old pop culture source a couple of times removed that the general public will never have heard of.

Just as he also suggests that Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster seemed to be into the occult and that Lex Luthor bears a strong resemblance to Aleister Crowley. Forgetting that Luthor wasn’t bald to begin with, the argument is spurious at best. Shuster’s drawings were primitive and cartoony in likenesses for all the energy and luster they could have. To say any one character bore a strong resemblance to a living person would be hard to prove. Why not say that it was the actor Lionel Barrymore that fueled the likenesses of Luthor, especially in the post “It’s a Wonderful Life” years? Why would anyone base a mad scientist on Crowley anyways?

And again, to say that early comics were interested in occultism… where’s the charge that Siegel and Shuster were interested in law enforcement and spies since they did strips starring such characters? The real truth is messier and more mundane. First off, both were Jewish just as I’m a Christian. With that comes a bit mythos in upbringing and heritage. One doesn’t have to look any further than the Old Testament to see where the likes of the Spectre comes from. It’s not a question of some esoterical and exotic interest that makes the creation and artform more glamorous, but one of simply heritage and religious background. An everyday humdrum background and heritage that millions share. A lot of comics did deal with ghosts, vampires, magicians and sorcerers, things a little bit out of the purview of that background.

You want an explanation for the ghosts, ghouls and other nightly creatures? Just look again to the pulps. Even by the time of the creation of Doctor Occult, the extremely popular WEIRD TALES had been around for over a decade with tales of Atlantis, heroes on other planets, and ungodly creatures. A steady diet of the likes of Lovecraft William Hodgson’s Carnacki, Seabury Quinn, Manly Wade Wellman and Robert E. Howard will give you enough inspiration to last a lifetime without doing any kind of formal research. You also have the Universal Horror mo vies Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy; the popularity of magician characters such as Chandu and Mandrake, and so on. You don’t need a deliberate interest in the occult more than a general liking and reading of such tales, gaining information second hand from the gestalt of the popular culture of the time any more than Jerry Siegel needed an interest in Entomology to make the comparison of Superman’s leaping ability to a human sized flea. And, the truth is, these comics weren’t all that intellectual. I’ve recently read several werewolf comic book stories, one where the creatures could turn others into creatures like themselves just by their howls and could be killed by bombs and another that stated the preferred method of killing such a creature was a stake through the heart! There's very little indication of any serious research beyond one of today's youth writing a vampire story based on knowledge solely gleaned from watching Buffy and Angel and never reading Dracula or even more obscure tales.

These are people making it up as they go along, pulling bits and pieces from all these different sources that are part of their individual make-ups, from what movies they’ve seen, what books they’ve read and just from what they see in their culture every day. It’s messy and inexact and inaccurate so the method to kill a werewolf is taken from how to kill a Hollywood vampire. It’s not pretty. It’s not people going to the museum or the library to do hours of research as much as it is pulling from various sources just laying around and looking at what succeeds on the next rung up. It’s not glamorous and offends our ideas as we think artists and creators should be all about creation and being Artists. And, too often, comic book fans want to legitimize their hobby and hold it up as high Art by denying the true fact that it is a craft and trade as much as art, meant to tell stories and to entertain and excite. Read some golden-age comics. They are fun and full of potential, rawness and creativity. And many are poorly drawn, stories badly structured and full of latent racism. But, they ain’t intellectual.