[profh0011]

Here's a copy of my reaction to the article in ALTER EGO #115 about the brief history of the 3D comics fad of the early 50's.




Hi Roy,

I just read the main article on 3D.  (The sidebars will have to wait-- those things drive me crazy.)  It's a bit difficult, because I'm 4 years overdue on new reading glasses, and I'm having to use a magnifying glass. Not being able to fold the magazine open flat is also an added challenge.  Look at this, so many technical problems, and I didn't even put on the 3D glasses!

   
I find Bill Gaines' actions to be contemptable.  This is exactly the sort of "business" behavior that rubs me the wrong way.  Instead of beating his competition by producing and promoting superior product, he goes about it in some underhanded way.  It's like running a foot race and bumping into the other guy to knock him over instead of running faster.

   
What a surprise to learn that not only did he succeed in helping to drive Archer St. John out of business (and the poor guy died shortly after), but in some way I couldn't quite grasp, it also led to driving both Harvey Kurtzman & Bill Elder off of MAD magazine!  This is the first I've ever heard of this.

   
I suppose Gaines felt it was totally acceptable, in light of how EC was pretty much driven out of the comics industry by the misguided and contemptable actions of others.

   

   
St. John's attempts to expand and corner the market, of course, didn't help him at all.  AC Comics publisher Bill Black, in 2 separate interviews I've read, both spoke about how most of the smaller "independant" comics publishers in the 1980's went belly-up by the end of the decade, for a variety of reasons, but mostly tied with efforts to "compete" directly with Marvel & DC.  Black never did.  In his words, he "stayed small"-- and is STILL at it today, having been at it since around 1968!  What a guy.


Henry

[josemas]

Given how Gaines treated Shelly Moldoff when Shelly came to him with the idea of doing horror comics I can't say I'm really surprised at his "business" behavior during the 3-D craze.

Best

Joe

[Drusilla lives!]

I saw this thread and was going to make a comment concerning 3-D comics, but then I read the first post.

I'm not gonna defend Gaines here (or anywhere else for that matter)... too many people hate the guy, and I'm not up to the challenge... and besides, he might have been a creep anyway.  Nevertheless, I see no reason to think he was any worse then any one of these other publishers of the day.  None of them took the high ground imo, and if you think Mr. St. John's was any better you're very mistaken.

IMO one of the MOST morally questionable (if not downright despicable) things that's ever been done, that I've ever read about from this period in comics history regards poor Mr. St. John's company.  The use of a disturbed mans artwork for the cover of a horror comic... that to me is the absolute lowest point one can go as far as this business is concerned.  And furthermore, to think that it was initiated by an artist who's talents were, just a few years earlier, also used in a most distasteful manner is doubly appalling.

If there was ANY doubts for me as to the distasteful nature of the business side of comics, the above incident erased them forever.

And I doubt dear Roy would touch that one with a ten... no make that a hundred... foot pole. 

[jimmm kelly]

It's hard for me to find copies of ALTER-EGO magazine in Vancouver, although I used to get this mag on a regular basis, so I haven't seen this article. Now I'll have to see if I can get the online form, so I can get the context for all this.

Part of my blog is a look back at the week in previous comic history, so in my research for that I was looking at the sudden growth of 3D comics--but I don't know much about the behind the scenes reasons for all that.

For my next blog, I've been looking at St. John's THREE STOOGES--and I've ordered a copy of one of the 3D issues for that comic--which should arrive shortly in the mail. It took me awhile to decide on my purchase, because I was hoping to find a copy with the original glasses, but I couldn't justify the high shipping costs for the eBay sellers I found, so I've settled for a copy that doesn't come with the glasses.

Given A/E has addressed the whole 3-D phenomenon, it will be politic for me to avoid most of that in my blog.

Hopefully once I've read the A/E article I'll be able to understand a bit more about what you guys are talking about.

[Drusilla lives!]

To be quite honest, I don't know what the hell they're talking about either.  I just wanted to join the discussion on 3-D comics since I was interested in how they were made... from a technical perspective... and then I read all this rehashed and rehashed WE DO NOT USE POTTY WORDS HERE about Gaines.  Haven't read that AE article and probably never will... since I don't read AE... never have.   

If you're referring to what I've mentioned in my post, I'm not sure you'll find it in AE.  And out of respect for the dead (whom I never knew personally) and those still living (who might be hurt further by the careless comments of a fool such as myself), I feel I should defer from further discussion on the matter.  People who have frequented these forums (and the others at DCM) know what I'm referring to anyway (I think?).

All I'll add is some people seem to make a good living at muckraking... like good old Roy.

[josemas]

IMO one of the MOST morally questionable (if not downright despicable) things that's ever been done, that I've ever read about from this period in comics history regards poor Mr. St. John's company.  The use of a disturbed mans artwork for the cover of a horror comic... that to me is the absolute lowest point one can go as far as this business is concerned.  And furthermore, to think that it was initiated by an African American artist who's talents were, just a few years earlier, used in a most distasteful manner is doubly appalling.

Dru,

Are you referring to William Ekgren and Matt Baker here?

Curious

Joe

[jimmm kelly]

I thought it could be Ekgren, but there's a blog on Ekgren that gives his full back story and there's no hint of that with him--so it must be someone else.

[Drusilla lives!]

Nah, it wasn't Ekgren or Baker... I was mistaken. 

Besides it doesn't matter anyway... good, effective artwork can come from anywhere and anyone... and I'd like to think that was what was intended to be shown by those actually involved in the incident I cited.  And if that was indeed the case (we'll never know really) then Archer St. John perhaps wasn't all that bad after all.

Still think Roy should take up golf.

[jimmm kelly]

I bought the PDF version of A/E 115 so I could read it for myself. One of these days I will have to place an order for all those issues of A/E that I haven't been able to find in Vancouver. What has put me off getting the mag by mail is the unfair exchange rate and high shipping and handling charges on Canadian orders.

While history helps to explain why we got the comics we got--if a person wants to still love their comics, I think it's best to separate the history from the art itself.

I don't know if anyone was a real bad guy in the whole history with the 3D comics--but even if there were bad guys, it's better to hold two independent lines of thought on comics, even if one line of thought contradicts the other.

[narfstar]

I get the paper AE and the digital. Digital is easier to store and access and research

[paw broon]

Re. A/E, I get the paper copy on standing order from my lcs.  I'd prefer the digital, for the same reasons narfstar quotes, but, not wanting to pay for both, I can't take business away from a good, wee, comic shop.
When I got the 3D issue, I was reading it more to find out how the 3D effect was created, as, having difficulty with colours, I don't see the effect well.  In fact much of the 3D in that A/E looked "fuzzy", although I noticed that a later issue mentioned some of the panels weren't done properly.  3D I can easily do without, but the suggestion that there is a distasteful side to (comics) business appeared to me as being slightly naive.  Who'd a thunk it?  Most business has a distasteful, if not, at times, ugly side and what would surprise me is the comics business being any different.
I'm happy to put it to the back of my mind when reading comics in the same way as I set aside the stuff that goes on in the film, music, retailing sectors when I watch a film, listen to a c.d. or buy from a supermarket.
Once again, jimmm has come up with a worthwhile thought:-
"I don't know if anyone was a real bad guy in the whole history with the 3D comics--but even if there were bad guys, it's better to hold two independent lines of thought on comics, even if one line of thought contradicts the other."

[Drusilla lives!]

Well if you're referring to me as naive, then yeah, I am naive. 

Naive, or perhaps more like "self delusional," in still thinking after all these WE DO NOT USE POTTY WORDS HERE!!  of a planet that perhaps somewhere, at sometime, things might have been different.  But since I now know they weren't... and despite my constant self delusion, deep down I know they never will be... it no longer interests me in hearing about it. 

In other words, I DO want to focus on "comics as an art form," not as a business.

But I know you're not referring to me here.  After all, who's more naive?  Me?  Or someone who is so "rubbed the wrong way" by what he's read that in a single bound (yeah, sorta like Superman, but not so much with the strength, good looks and intelligence) he's suggesting that Gaines was also responsible for another man's unfortunate demise.  In effect, suggesting that he was a murderer. 

EDIT: Well, perhaps it's not the planet... it's the people on it.
   

[jimmm kelly]

*The problem with downloading the PDF on my airbook is that I either have to keep that screen up all the time or if I get rid of it, then I have to go to my account and download it again. For some reason the Mac doesn't hold that copy in the downloads file. Probably if I accessed it on my desktop, my PC would hold the file--but I do more reading on my airbook.   For something like the 3-D mag it would be better to have the paper copy so I could try out the 3-D, but like others I have problems seeing 3-D with my eyesight.

The thing that dominated my attention in the article(s) is how these guys could so easily figure out how to do 3-D. Trying to follow the science and the practical applications took so much thought, that I was less concerned about the legal problems. I'm still trying to work out how they did it. And yet to their minds it was so easy.

I remember reading years ago that Jack Adler had not only worked out the 3-D thing for comics, but he had come up with his own 3-D system that rivalled the Viewmaster but there was some legal problem that prevented him from making money off of it--even though, it was a different system and according to him a better one.

I think that a lot of people are like me. They just look at it as magic--so it's hard to believe that so many minds could each individually solve the problem on their own. It's a lot easier to believe that they all got it from the same source and that that source was a genius scientist who had worked on the problem for years. Not something that could be easily figured out overnight.

That's the problem when most of us are mediocre--it's hard for us to understand these geniuses. Trying to explain some complex concepts in a court of law is probably not easily done.

I'm sorry that Mr. St. John died--but it seems like he would have died no matter what had happened.

---
*edit: Ah, okay, I figured out how to manually save the file to the desktop on the airbook. Not being a genius, it takes me a little longer to work these things out.

[paw broon]

Please excuse me, Drusilla lives!, I don't mean to insult you - and I hope I haven't. 
Watching the news and reading the newspaper makes it clear that there are many distasteful goings-on, not only in business but also in our world.  Unfortunately, cursing it isn't going to make it better.  Despite my interest in and love of comics, I really don't want to know the minutiae of who did what to whom, rather, I prefer the artform, or hobby (however each of us considers it) as it appears on the page.  I had enough of the "he said....; there's a rumour that guy did.....; someone told me that......." when I was in the comics business as a dealer with a shop.  Leaves a bad taste. 
None of this changes the problem I have with 3D and the fact I can't resolve the illustrations properly. So, I leave it alone.  Now, obscure, masked cowboys (as some of us are talking about elsewhere on CB+), that gets me interested.  Feel free to chip in, even to tell me I'm a bit sad.

[Drusilla lives!]

No, I'm not insulted... I was just getting a little agitated over nothing.

Ya know, I just have to realize two things.  That although much of this stuff regarding Gaines, EC, and this whole period in comic book history seems "rehashed" to me, it may not be to others... including profh0011 here.  And the other is that no matter how much I, or anyone else would like to just speak of comic books as an "art form," any such discussion would be incomplete without some discussion of the history of the medium, and ultimately this would require discussing the business side of comic book making.  Comics weren't created as pure art, they are what they are today in no small part because of (or perhaps in spite of) the decisions of men in pursuit of profit. 

So when someone comes across what they feel is an interesting article regarding the history of whatever... it happens to be 3-D comics here... it will probably have to touch on some of the business reasoning behind them.  And people have a right to discuss it, and express their opinions... to a point.  To the point that opinion becomes conjecture... and that point is a hard one to determine with a topic as opaque as the one in question (the business of early comics and who did what to whom).  I know for certain that I'm no expert on the matter... and I should realize this of others as well.  Particularly in this forum setting, where so many people come to discuss and share their enthusiasm for the medium, but nevertheless might not all be on the same page... or perhaps better put, as just not being as jaded as the rest of us. 

I have my personal bias on Gaines and company... others have theirs... and they certainly don't have to be the same.  That's life.  But I do think all this "who stabbed who in the back" business is just so much conjecture... no one knows.  And perhaps no one will ever know because most of what is knowable is already out there... it seems more of a case of the history of the business as being a business for our "historians."  And nothing sells better then sex then scandal... and that IS the truth.