Years ago, when visiting the DC offices, the fabled E. Nelson Bridwell kindly allowed me to brouse my way through a flat file FULL of Sheldon Mayer SUGAR & SPIKE pages that had only been printed in Mexico! What a thrill...Mayer's final work was still solid and inspired.

Maybe someone from DC will read all of our comments here and finally publish some of that material. (Riiiiight...)

SCOTT "Sweet & Sour" SHAW!

P.S.: Anyone ever notice that during the late '60's, Mayer's inking style on S&S started resembling those of R. Crumb and Gilbert Shelton? Was he temporarily influenced by these countercultural cartoonists? (Or was I just enjoying the late '60's a bit too much?) -- SS!

I think the folks up at DC would love to put out volumes of SUGAR & SPIKE (reprints and leftovers) if they thought it wouldn't be an utter sales disaster -- the kind that would cause folks at Warners to say, "Don't ever try that kind of thing again."

I am reminded of a proposed reprint project that someone at Marvel once described as "the kind of thing that everyone who's on the comp list says ought to be done." I'd love to see it but if it were my money on the line, I think I'd suppress that love until market conditions change a bit.

Frankly, I think the future of classic reprints will not be on paper but on CD-Rom and other digital delivery. And once someone figures out the proper way to do it, we'll be deluged with hoary funnybooks in that format.

Two comments to my friend Jean-Marc...

1. I have no idea what the terms are of Mr. Watterson's will and -- who knows? -- before that becomes an issue, he could change his mind or revive C&H on his own. He may not care what happens to it after he dies or he may. I simply support the idea that a creator has the right to dictate the terms of how his creation and property will be handled.

2. I'm not saying that no one else could do a decent SUGAR & SPIKE strip. Perhaps someone could. (Remind me sometime to tell you the story of how a DC editor was trying to force me on Mayer as his successor in that regard.) The issue is that the creator didn't want to see that attempted and, while I don't think that's an absolute, I think it should be given considerable weight.

Y'know, I keep running into fans who are bothered by the whole notion of creator ownership. They think of it as an obstacle to things they might want to see. Their reaction to the BLUEBERRY controversy on the table here would be that no creator should own it because maybe Rob Liefeld could do a real neat BLUEBERRY story in which he's catapulted into another century and joins the Legion of Super-Heroes. I even run into professionals who resent that there are some characters they aren't allowed to do for publication.

I don't think every creative possibility has to exist. Do you think the public should have the right to see how others might do PEANUTS after Mr. Schulz retires? I don't. If "creator rights" have any meaning, they have to include the right to say, "You can't do that to my work."




[This message has been edited by Mark Evanier (edited 07-04-99).]

It's nice that DC is honoring Sheldon Mayer's wish for no one else to do SUGAR & SPIKE, but is there anyone on this entire board who believes that if DC sold S&S to Fox as a regular weekly animated series and it became a huge hit, DC would NOT immediately crank out a new monthly SUGAR & SPIKE comic, written and drawn by whoever happened to have an opening in his schedule that year?

DC's failure to commission and release new SUGAR & SPIKE comics may be honorable, but the motives aren't.

Thinking back to my favorites, I'm pleased that there will never be any non-Watterson CALVIN & HOBBES, any non-Schulz PEANUTS, any non-Franquin GASTON LAGAFFE, or any non-Hergé TINTIN. But I'm also pleased to have read Don Rosa UNCLE SCROOGEs, Bobby London POPEYEs, Van Hamme/Benoit BLAKE & MORTIMERs, and for that matter Alan Moore SWAMP THINGs. And I find I can easily ignore non-Cole PLASTIC MANs, non-Kurtzman LITTLE ANNIE FANNYs, non-Franquin SPIROUs and MARSUPILAMIs, non-Hermann BERNARD PRINCEs, and non-Walt-Kelly POGOs -- their existence is as irrelevant to me as I'm sure those rotten CASABLANCA and GONE WITH THE WIND sequels are to most fans of those original works.

PS: We'd be happy to run the unpublished SUGAR AND SPIKE stories in MEASLES, but DC is notoriously intractable about licensing out its comics work to other comics publishers, as we found out when we tried to publish a PLASTIC MAN collection some years back. Then again, that all worked out in the end for Plas, didn't it?

Kurt,
if you died and Brent Anderson decided to continue Astro City, writing it himself, would your ghost haunt his house?

Mark,
>Y'know, I keep running into fans who are bothered by the whole notion of creator ownership. They think of it as an obstacle to things they might want to see. Their reaction to the BLUEBERRY controversy on the table here would be that no creator should own it because maybe Rob Liefeld could do a real neat BLUEBERRY story in which he's catapulted into another century and joins the Legion of Super-Heroes. I even run into professionals who resent that there are some characters they aren't allowed to do for publication.>

I wonder why this kind of thing doesn't come up in prosaic fiction. You don't see other writers making a big fuss about not being able to write Hannible the Cannible stories, or stories with the lead character of Nueromancer, or how about someone else's take on Nabokov's Lolita, or Hal and the gang from Infinite Jest etc etc. I mean, can you imagine if Random House insisted that David Foster Wallace let someone else write the sequal to Infinite Jest? Or Stephen King's reaction if they insisted someone else write the sequal to one of his novels? Curious that comic book fans would resent this kind of ownership, when in other mediums the concept of not having this kind of ownership is unthinkable.

ER

You know, the odd thing about this argument is its almost metaphysical element: that is, the manner in which creators are "owned" ("possessed" might be a better word) by the characters they create or delineate. Given my own experiences with characters and concepts I have absolutely no rights to (such as SWAMP THING), those I have partial rights to (i.e., 1963), as well as those that are mine and mine alone (i.e., TYRANT, Cardinal Syn, etc.), this realm can get very bizarre: characters entering and moving through one's dreams, complete story concepts arriving unbidden to be written down, executed, ignored, or filed away for possible future use, etc.

(An aside: In the broadest cultural terms, this is the argument O'Neill and the Air Pirates embraced in their defense: their own childhoods and imaginations were so "owned" by the Disney creations, they felt an inherent human right to work with those characters and cultural icons to their own ends. We all know how that legal argument went, but the metaphysics of it are compelling.)

Beyond this, there is the wider interactive realm in which the creator is "owned" by the public's association of said creator with a given character, title, or concept.

All of this is, I believe, central to the issue, too. Whatever legal rights Charlier's son has, there is no doubt BLUEBERRY has played an active, at times all-consuming role in Giraud's personal, professional, and imaginative life. It is almost inhuman to expect him to terminate that relationship with his imaginative and creative life, or to ignore the impulses that may drive him to experiment with BLUEBERRY in ways that were closed to him by the nature of his collaborative efforts with Charlier.

Does anyone alive have a greater stake in BLUEBERRY than Giraud? As JM noted, Charlier's son would need "hired guns" to follow through with his father's plan for the character. This is inherently quite a different matter than it is for Giraud, who needs only his hands, the tools, and the vehicle.

(This thread further fascinates me for its relevance to my relations with my own children, who are teenagers already dabbling with their own comics works, and for its specific relevance to my legal proprietary rights over three of the 1963-spawned characters. Much as I wish to honor and stay true to what Alan and Rick had intended, there's no doubt that my plans for the characters will inevitably run contrary to their thoughts, hopes, or concerns.)

The revamps of corporate-owned characters has been raised numerous times here. While we were privileged in that we were working under the auspices of SWAMP THING cocreator Len Wein's editorship at the time Alan, John, and I "re-created" Swamp Thing, I have little doubt we'd have still tried our version given the chance. The moral and metaphysical dilemma that created later manifested itself when Len and Berni reunited to work on an aborted post-Moore era SWAMP THING graphic novel: Berni walked after completing almost half of the pencils on the project, feeling their was nothing left to do with the character. That made John and I feel pretty odd when Berni told us about it.

There are no answers, really. Whatever the weight given Charlier's son's argument (or Kurt's, or any who "side" with Charlier's son), there is no power on Earth that can force Giraud to bow to the dictates of a partner no longer living. If Giraud simply walks away in disgust, everyone everywhere loses.

I, for one, have to "side" with Jean, because he's alive, and I have no doubt there are forces beyond the legal and moral issues compelling him to follow the path he is on. He has lived with BLUEBERRY more than any other living being on this planet. The path began with a partner, and he must follow it one way or another alone, now that Charlier is no longer living.

That his solo version is described as being more reflective of the "Moebius" side of Giraud should come as no surprise -- continuing BLUEBERRY may indeed represent an integration of the seperation implicit in the "Giraud" and "Moebius" signatures and respective bodies of work. Beyond that, the BLUEBERRY work will undoubtably compell Jean to engage with the many emotions and issues relevant to Giraud's relationship with Charlier over the years, either directly or metaphorically. That is the function of art for an artist.

Either way, this makes for fascinating, important comics.

Lots of excellent food for thought on the last serving.

>> Re SUGAR & SPIKE. If DC feels that they can't afford to reprint S&S because of current market conditions, but a publisher like Fantagraphics offers them to do it under a real license, I think they then really ought to consider it seriously, if only for Mayer's memory's sake.

Also: a) they probably could have put out such a book in the mid- to late-80s when the market was much better. Anyone knows why they didn't do it then?

And b) didn't they license the reprinting of the BATMAN comic strips to Kitchen Sink? So why not S&S to Fantagraphics?

>> Mark: We have no disagreement. I too agree that a creator's rights are absolute. What he or she says goes. End of discussion there.

That said, Kim eloquently made the point that the inferior works of successors can easily be dismissed & does not detract from the enjoyment of the original. To me, there is no other FLASH GORDON than Alex Raymond's. But I'm not mad that Kurtzman & Barry got to do some either.

>> Kim, how you can list that ghastly travesty that is Van Hamme & Benoit's BLAKE & MORTIMER along with Don Rosa's UNCLE SCROOGE, etc. astonishes me. It's bad, bad, bad. Hell, even the Jabobs' heirs asked for the name (Jacobs) to be taken off the book. And won. This is sad. You've gone to the Dark Side of the Force. :-)

>> EricR. This passing on of characters happens in literature too, not just in comics. SHERLOCK HOLMES springs to mind, of course. The Philip Jose Farmer novels featuring TARZAN and DOC SAVAGE. The continuations of Frank Herbert's DUNE, Isaac Asimov's FOUNDATION or even GONE WITH THE WIND... Without sounding pedantic, Dickens' EDWIN DROOD has been "completed" at last 4 or 5 times. And French writers of the 17th century wrote sequels to Homer and the classics. So let me reassure you: this is a phenomenon as old as man's imagination.

>> Steve: it is true that if SWAMP THING had been owned by its creators, like ASTRO CITY is owned by Kurt and Brent (is this correct?), then you and Alan likely could not have done what you did. I am reminded of a French fable whose moral ends with "from even a great evil shall an even greater good come" (or something to that effect). Food for thought.

The heated debate on BDParadisio (French comic forum on the Web) about the future of BLUEBERRY appears to have abated, leaving Philippe Charlier to state that,in effect, he would refuse to sign a publishing agreement for a book that he disapproved of.

While I am of the opinion that, legally, a publisher could publish the book nevertheless, with Giraud's signature alone, and were Charlier's son to then sue, he would lose, knowing both Giraud's non-confrontational nature and French publishers' lack of spine, I doubt that will come to pass.

What will most likely happen is what already happened with the projected BLUEBERRY 1900 story that Giraud had written for artist Francois Boucq (BILLY BUDD KGB, MAGICIAN'S WIFE), and which did contain elements of Indian magic. Philippe Charlier refused to give his consent to that project and, as a result, it has not been made.

While I hope that future events will prove me wrong, I fear that such a fate is a very likely probability for BLUEBERRY. Giraud will quietly put down his pencil and that will be it.

While some like Kurt would argue that it may be better this way, indeed that this is the only way, I can't help feel sad. As a French fan pointed out on BDParadisio, after all we have *seen* Charlier's BLUEBERRY for nearly thirty years. Why can't we get to see Giraud's BLUEBERRY?

JM

Mark: I guess that was what I was trying to get at in my earlier post regarding the Lee/Buscema Silver Surfer. Fans tend to want what they want and let the ethical considerations be damned.

They supported Jack's position regarding his getting his art back, but would have been none too happy if Jack won all rights to his creations back if said change in ownership resulted in an end to the versions they liked.

I should point out that I grew up on Weisinger Superman comics that probably wouldn't have existed if Siegel & Shuster won the lawsuit in the late forties. I'm in favor of creators rights, buy don't take those comics away from me!

Eric: Interestingly, there is a Lolita re-working by an Italian author done from Lolita's point of view. There was a major legal dabate instigated by the Nabokov heirs, but it was recently settled by the US publisher. The book will see print here in the fall, if I'm not mistaken.

This is to Jim...

I think we're in agreement that fans (and even some pros) sometimes don't like the notion of ethics or legalities preventing them from getting what they want. I do think though it's important to point up that it's only one side of the "What if?"

Had Siegel and Shuster won ownership of Superman in the 40's, I don't know that the Weisinger books would never have existed. Jerry and Joe might have licensed the character to DC. (A more likely scenario would have had them settling outta court on some sort of partnership arrangement.) It's also possible that Jerry would have wound up being editor, or taking the property to a publisher where the result would have been better comics than what Weisinger edited. We'll never know.

And, of course, there's another level of speculation here. What great comics were never done -- at DC or elsewhere -- because of the example that was made of Siegel and Shuster? An awful lot of creators didn't want to create new comics or characters because of the environment whereby you could create it and then immediately lose it, both financially and creatively. And often, that creative control is more important than the money.

By the way, it's probably a small point but Jack Kirby did not create or co-create the Silver Surfer under a "back-of-the-check" contract. There was nothing on the backs of the checks then, and Jack's contract only specified how much work he'd do and how much he'd get per page.

And I don't think the Lee/Kirby SILVER SURFER graphic novel -- though an interesting curiosity -- represents any sort of reconciliation of their disparate views. Nor is it, possibly for that reason, the best work of either gent.

EricR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Kurt, if you died and Brent Anderson decided to continue Astro City, writing it himself, would your ghost haunt his house?>>

My ghost wouldn't need to. Brent doesn't have the right to write ASTRO CITY stories.

My wife could make the decision to license out that right, but she knows I wouldn't want that to happen, so my hope is that I can leave her (or my kids, should she predecease me) well enough off so as not to feel it financially necessary to do so.

Stephen R Bissette
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Whatever legal rights Charlier's son has, there is no doubt BLUEBERRY has played an active, at times all-consuming role in Giraud's personal, professional, and imaginative life. It is almost inhuman to expect him to terminate that relationship with his imaginative and creative life, or to ignore the impulses that may drive him to experiment with BLUEBERRY in ways that were closed to him by the nature of his collaborative efforts with Charlier.>>

Call me Black Bolt, then, but I've got to admit, I'm unconvinced by arguments like this. Annie Wilkes was invested in Misery Chastain, and the all-consuming role it played in her life didn't give her an iota of rights. I realize that comparing an obsessed fan (and a fictional one to boot) with a collaborator isn't an even match, but it points up the heart of the matter, I think. Emotional investment and ownership don't affect one another. Had you become as deeply invested in SWAMP THING as Giraud is in BLUEBERRY, or had I become as deeply attached to THUNDERBOLTS, it wouldn't mean a thing. We don't own those properties at all, no matter how much of ourselves we poured into them. I sympathize with creators who were blindsided by after-the-fact seizures of their work, and would agree that anyone who didn't sign a work for hire agreement (like, say, Marv Wolfman on BLADE) didn't sell all his rights. But you and I knew the rules when we walked in the door, and accepted them. We can't plead ignorance, and we did sign the deal. If we expect people to respect the rights we keep, we must also respect the rights we sign away, or the rights we share.

Maybe I seem cold here, but I don't mean to. "I really want to" just doesn't confer control, no matter how intense that "really" is. If Giraud wants complete control, with nobody sharing, then he needs to do what you did: Create his own property that nobody else has a piece of.

JM Lofficier
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Steve: it is true that if SWAMP THING had been owned by its creators, like ASTRO CITY is owned by Kurt and Brent (is this correct?)>>

Nope. As noted before, I knew going into ASTRO CITY that I would want to retain control of it under any circumstances, so the deal I made with Alex and Brent preserves that right. If they quit, I get to replace them -- they'll continue to earn income based on their equity in the property and their work on the actual stories and covers, but they can't keep me from continuing the series as I see fit, and they can't take it with them. And lest anyone think this mean of me, they were both quite understanding of it, and feel they're getting a fair deal.

I don't want to end up in exactly the situation we're discussing here, so I took steps to prevent it, before the first word was written or the first line drawn.

>>While I am of the opinion that, legally, a publisher could publish the book nevertheless, with Giraud's signature alone, and were Charlier's son to then sue, he would lose, knowing both Giraud's non-confrontational nature and French publishers' lack of spine, I doubt that will come to pass.>>

I understand your sadness, Jean-Marc, but I think that if this is the course Giraud takes, he's doing the right thing.

I also hope he'll create his own stories about mysticism and the American West, in a venue that he has complete control over. I'd love to read them.

>>As a French fan pointed out on BDParadisio, after all we have *seen* Charlier's BLUEBERRY for nearly thirty years. Why can't we get to see Giraud's BLUEBERRY?>>

We didn't see Charlier's BLUEBERRY. We saw Charlier & Giraud's BLUEBERRY -- unless Giraud is being considered inconsequential to the BLUEBERRY oeuvre to date, and I can't imagine that's the case. And it's still Charlier & Giraud's BLUEBERRY, and should be.

Mark E. spoke to this very subject just a few messages up: There are some fans who want to see certain things (like that hypothetical Liefeld BLUEBERRY), and to them, any situation that prevents that is wrong. But it's not -- it's creator ownership. We the fans simply don't get to choose. Charlier and Giraud together got to choose when Charlier was alive, and Charlier passed his portion of that ability to choose to his son, not to Giraud. That's creator ownership, too.

kurt