Allow me to introduce myself to new readers. My name is Philip Schweier, and I’ve been a comic book fan since September of 1972. While 30+ years may count for something in terms of knowledge, it hardly makes me an expert. I’ve been writing for Comic Book Bin for about three years. I regard myself as an informed fan. I read, I interview, I research. But I hardly know everything, and appreciate being taught by people who may know more about a subject matter than I.
Today I feel the need to a bit of teaching myself. I saddens me that sometimes, smart people need to be told the obvious. But blame it on the dummies of the world that don’t know any better. Perhaps if people are corrected early enough, it will prevent them from being a bigger embarrassment later.
Regular readers of this column (you both know who you are) are aware that I invite commentary, both good and bad. While the merits of positive feedback are obvious, one might question why I would want anything negative. But how do I know if I’ve done something wrong if nobody tells me?
A few weeks back I made a claim regarding The Shadow. As I said, I do my research, and in Jim Steranko’s History of Comics, Vol I, he makes a reasonable case that a story published in a 1929 issue of Fame & Fortune may have featured a seminal version of the character. He quotes from the story liberally, and it's hard to deny a number of similarities, so I feel his case has some merit. He is also most likely one of the leading experts on the character and pulps in general.
Perhaps I failed to make this point, but it's not as if this story features THE Shadow. Dare I say it's a "shadow" of The Shadow. Kind of like Clint Eastwood's role in The Gauntlet is reminiscent of Dirty Harry. Maybe "The Shadow of Wall Street" laid some sort of subconcious template, later to be used by Street & Smith, publisher of The Shadow, and Walter Gibson, The Shadow's official chronicler.
But then I received an email from someone (let's call him John), which I share with you, along with initial reaction to it:
Dude, Great, this guy has the vocabulary of a 22-year old slacker stop doing all your research on the internet,I don’t do ALL my research on the ‘net; I have many books on the subject of comics and related materialThis “Fame & Fortune magazine” origin of The Shadow is wrong, wrong wrong. Jeez, calm down, you’ve made your point.It has been thoroughly debunked a long time ago You don’t say. When? By whom? Really, you don’t say.and the only people who still subscribe to the notion are all trying to drive up the selling price of the one copy of Fame & Fortune that has potential resale value. Well, selling magazines aint my business, so I don’t know anything about that.
That’s the whole email; no signature. Maybe it’s my own fault for asking for “scorn and ridicule,” because that’s certianly what I got. Or maybe some people have no manners beyond those of an eight-year old.
So I fired off a response, perhaps a bit too hastily, but about as aggressive as the one I received. In fairness, I made an assumption about this person’s age, just as he made one about my research. But when you behave rudely, don’t be surprised to be treated equally so.
As to the accuracy of my story, I knew my source, in which I had great faith. “John” failed to mention his. Am I to take his anonymous word over that of documented statement? Unless he's Walter Gibson himself, I don't see how I could.
In his response to my response, I was informed he pre-dated Steranko’s History of Comics by ten years (fine, then act like it), and that a history of comics might not have been the best source for information on the pulps. Maybe, maybe not, but it was included because my other pulp sources did not include the information I cited. Perhaps others dispute the claim, but Steranko’s a hard hand to beat.
Well, my new pen-pal saw my Steranko, and raised me one Anthony Tollin, probably the leading master on the Master of Darkness other than Shadow author Walter Gibson, God rest.
Tollin says, “"I've always believed that the claims that The Shadow first debuted in Street & Smith's FAME AND FORTUNE (which are regularly perpetuated in the OVERSTREET COMIC BOOK PRICE GUIDE) were introduced by the American Comic Book Company as an excuse to sell that particular issue of FAME AND FORTUNE at a price approaching that of THE SHADOW MAGAZINE #1. Don't believe it. Other than the name, there is no direct connection between the character in FAME AND FORTUNE and the famous radio character developed in 1930 by executives of the Ruthrauff & Ryan advertising agency that was later fleshed out by Walter Gibson in the pages of THE SHADOW MAGAZINE. ”
His statement was further supported by Ed Hulse, publisher of the pulp fanzine Blood 'n' Thunder: “"That claim has been pretty thoroughly debunked. Both Walter Gibson and his long-time SHADOW MAGAZINE editor, John Nanovic, denied that their Shadow was inspired by, or was a continuation of, the character in that FAME AND FORTUNE story. In fact, both stated unequivocally that they hadn't even known of the story's existence at the time the Shadow pulp got underway.”
I stand corredted. But these sources should have been brought to my attention in the first e-mail. I made a revision to the article, not because I was shouted down, but because it’s about conveying the most accurate information to the reader. When conflict arises, the proper thing to do is submit both versions, and let others judge for themselves.
While I can’t argue Tollin’s position, his statement begins with the words, “I’ve always believed...” suggesting a statement of opinion rather than fact. But neither can I argue with Steranko, who offers quotes from the Fame & Fortune story in question. Perhaps the resemblance to The Shadow character as he became known in the pulps of the 1930s is thin, but no less so than that of the radio version, or the stories written by Bruce Elliott and published during the final years of the pulp.
But my point to all this is that there is a right way and a wrong way to offer criticism. There’s no need to go for the throat straight away. Be polite; show a little courtesy to the person you’re about to correct. Otherwise you come across as a pompous know-it-all, and run the risk of alienating the person you’re speaking to.
Allow me to leave you with my critic’s correction as I would have preffered it:
Philip, See, I got a name. Is it too much to ask to be treated like a person? I don’t know where you come by your information, but your statement regarding the “Fame & Fortune magazine” origin of The Shadow is wrong. I’m free to read that last word three times if I want. Or not. Shadow expert Anthony Tollin has this to say: yadda yadda yadda; and Ed Hulse says etc. Evidence to support your claim. Good. Now I’m listening with both ears. Hopefully this clarifies any misconceptions in your article. Yes, it does. Thanks for correcting me. •
Praise and adulation? Scorn and ridicule? Email me at pschweier@hotmail.com.
Celluloid Heroes
There's always a lot of gritting of teeth when translating comics to film, from the original creator on down the line.
That '70s Super-hero
The 1970s was a time of rampant super-heroes on the small screen, some say paving the way for Star Wars. Let's take a look.
The Joy of Collecting
Rebuilding a collection better than before takes time and technology, but above all it takes passion.
Timeless Heroes
Comic books have the advantage of being set in any time period. But are mainstream super-heroes limited to the here-and-now? Or is that Elseworlds?
Long Live the Legion!
With the Legion Crisis series winding down, and the Legion of Super-Heroes poised for new greatness, here's a quick rundown of its history in the DC Universe.
Retro Review: Dick Tracy (1990)
Dick Tracy was just the kind of hero America needed during the gangster era. While our heroes have become more super, there's still some life in the old boy yet.
