There's a fascinating discussion on BD PARADISIO, which is to French comics what this forum is, and more.

Because the discussion is in French, I wouldn't expect folks here to get involved, but I find it of sufficient interest to try to see if I could get an American point of view on the whole topic.

It's about BLUEBERRY, a western series created in the early 60s by writer JM Charlier and artist Moebius.

Charlier passed away in 1989. Since then, Moebius has continued the series alone, i.e.: writing the stories himself. He has so far produced two books, with a third almost finished and a fourth in the planning stages.

So far, so good.

The heated discussion, which can be divided into an artistic issue and a legal issue, is about the current direction of the series.

Sometimes in the 1970s, JM Charlier had written a rough outline of Blueberry's life. (For those who are interested we translated & adapted it for the Graphitti and, later, Mojo Press editions.)

It is a fairly down-to-Earth, pulpish adventure hero-style outline, with Blueberry eventually dying of old age after many adventures in the Chicago of tye Prohibition era.

It has now become clear to all that Moebius does not intend to be bound by or to follow this outline, and being Moebius, he wants to bring elements of Indian magic and all sorts of weird stuff into the series.

Philippe Charlier, the son and sole heir of JM Charlier, vehemently objects to this change in direction, which he considers a travesty of his father's work, and a prejudice to his "Droit Moral" (which under French Law is transmissible to an Author's Heirs). He even threatens to use his legal rights to force the cancellation of the series.

Leaving aside the legal issues (which are too esoteric to be debated intelligently here), I'd like to know what folks here think.

In other words, should a surviving co-creator be able to take a character in a completely different direction? And do you think that the heir of the deceased creator has the right to stop him in this eventuality?

JM

I'd much rather see René Goscinny's daughter sue Albert Uderzo to keep him from cranking out any more abysmal ASTERIX books.

I'd side with Moebius on this one. I think Charlier's heirs are entitled to their money, but I'd say that the creative legacy should stay with the surviving creative person.

Is there an element of politics involved here? Charlier always struck me as fairly conservative-bordering-on-reactionary (those BUCK DANNY books are as right-wing as STEVE CANYON, as I recall), and it's easy to imagine that he and Giraud could meet peaceably on a western, but an equally conservative heir might look askance at some weird hippy-druggy Carlos Castaneda kind of trip, if that's what Moebius is planning.

I guess I'm also cynical enough to wonder how much is genuine indignation at the desecration of his dad's legacy, and how much is a calculated ploy toward regaining some increased control and/or financial benefits from the series on Charlier Jr.'s part.

If the writer has outlined in detail the character's life and death and had that outline published (whereby readers take it as official), then I would side with the writer's son (money and politics aside). Giraud, as artist, is obligated to stay true to the writer's vision of the character... within reason. If Blueberry was to pop off in Prohibition Chicago, then all stories must lead to that conclusion. I suppose it also depends on the working relationship between the two creators and how much input Giraud had in the writing of the older adventures. If he was co-writer as well as artist, then he has more of a leg to stand on when it comes to sending the character off on strange tangents. The devils in the details. IMHO.

Did Charlier and Moebius have a written agreement about ownership and direction of the series? Or failing that, did they have a verbal agreement that can still be established in sufficient unambiguous detail?

I'd say apparently not, or there would be no controversy. But some heirs don't regard their ancestors' freely-made agreements as binding, and the law often backs them up -- and of course, the same can be said of some collaborative partners. So there isn't any indication here, one way or the other.

Regardless of the vagaries of the law, any such agreement should be honored. But in the absence of one, I'd say Moebius can do as he pleases. The idea that it constitutes "travesty" on Charlier's work is absurd -- how can anything planned and executed after a person's death possibly reflect on that person's work?

Just my opinion, of course, but our opinions are what you asked for.

Quack, Don


------------------
GRAPHIC NOVEL REVIEW FOR LIBRARIES
P.O. Box 55148
Phoenix, AZ 85078

Let me answer the questions, then comment.

>> Kim: Anne Goscinny did sue Uderzo. (Uderzo won.) Fundamentally, the issues are the same. Only tastes differ. Does the surviving creator have the right to do whatever he wishes with the character?

There are *no* financial issues here. The sharing of the royalties, etc. are pretty much defined by the law and the contracts. So I can personally attest that we're not talking money at all.

While your analysis of Charlier & Giraud's respective political leanings is basically correct, this is not an issue here either, as far as I can tell.

Finally, we're not talking about doing something that could be construed as legally harmful: i.e.: a pornographic BLUEBERRY, or one endorsing drugs, terrorism, etc.

This "battle" is honestly and genuinely driven by a creative difference: Charlier saw the character evolving one way; now that he's alone, Giraud being a different person than Charlier, sees it going another way.

>> Chaloner: yes, there was a published outline of Blueberry's life written by Charlier. But this does not constitute a legal document. (In fact, let's leave legal issues out of this.) So, yes, Giraud is thumbing his nose at the late Charlier, in effect saying, "now that you're gone, it's my turn to do what I want with the character."

So you can see why this would drive Charlier's son batty.

But at the same time, doesn't Giraud has the *right* to do this, no matter how ill-conceived?

Would anyone here have objected to Kirby taking the FF or the SURFER in directions different from what Stan Lee would have done?

I'm inclined to agree with Don Markstein: Charlier's reputation (moral right) is defined by the books Charlier wrote. Giraud is not proposing to "rewrite" or otherwise tamper with a book written by Charlier. He's just continuing the character in a different direction than the one outlined by his late collaborator.

If he falls flat on his face, well, he'll have only himself to blame, no?

JM



[This message has been edited by JM Lofficier (edited 06-29-99).]

My question was going to be whether Giraud was a co-creator or hired help, until that was answered in the last paragraph. As hired help I'd have said he'd do best to leave the series alone. Moebius is certainly talented and creative enough to spend a lifetime on other projects without having to worry about Blueberry ever again. However, as a co-creator, I'd have to say it comes down to the last man standing wins, and to the victor go the spoils.

I know it may sound crass, but that's how it goes when you share a creation, you take the chance that someone else can do things with it's future that you would not approve. Would Walt Disney approve of everything that's been done with his creations? Doubtful.

To look at it in more severe terms, two people have a child. Together they raise the child with a combination of their strengths and desires. As parents often do, they dream of their child's future, always hoping for their happiness, but reflecting personal wishes as well. While the child is still growing, one parent suddenly dies. Just because the late parent came from a family of doctors, or firefighters, or artists and nurtured the child to follow in those footsteps, the surviving parent is under no obligation to pursue this. Or perhaps the surviving parent and child move to be closer to family and end up in a religion or denomination other than the late parent's. Such is life. This is the nature of sharing.

I look forward to seeing Blueberry go on a Giraudesque spirit journey!

This all kind of strikes me as Paul McCartney continuing the Beatles after the death of John Lennon - accept not even using the rough john lennon material that he did - just going on ahead and making Beatles albums without him. I would oppose this idea - in a collaboration it is the combined creative force of the collaborators that makes the creation what it is. If one of the collaborators dies, the creation should die with them. Moebius did not create this character by himself - he should not be working on the character by himself. He should have let the comic die with its writer.

IMHO

EricR
http://www.yankthechain.com

I side with Giruad.

Now get those new storys published in english....NOW!

Both MtPanic and EricR sum up the issue rather well, IMHO.

We seem to be running 50-50 so far, which I find surprising. American comics are after all based on the idea of change. A new creator comes in, and does a complete revamp of a character. At best, we get Frank Miller's DARK KNIGHT or Alan Moore & Dave Gibbons' WATCHMEN (which I still think of as the Charlton heroes); at worst... well, let's be kind.

So I would have expected more folks to come in on the side of change. As in, if Giraud wants to turn Blueberry into a shaman (or medicine man), why not?

The above notion is, of course, anathema to Charlier's son who, taking into account Giraud's non combative nature, will probably succed in shutting down the series in a few years, unless things change or the courts get involved.

We don't have that many creator-owned series here that are jointly-owned between a writer and an artist. I wonder if someday we'll have the same problems here?

JM

I think Moebius can do whatever he wants to with BLUEBERRY. If Moebius had died, and Charlier was continuing the series, Charlier could have done whatever he wanted with it. I don't think anyone blames Goscinny for the lousy Uderzo-solo ASTERIXes, I don't think anyone blames E.P. Jacobs for the new BLAKE & MORTIMERs, I don't think Hermann should have any say on what Greg wants to do with BERNARD PRINCE or COMANCHE. You quit the series, or die, you're out, creatively speaking. Yes, your widow and heirs get all the loot that was due you, but the surviving creator takes over.