Sunday, 31 March 2019

Bullpen Bulletins: Stan Gets Political

BACK IN THE MID 1960s, just as I was in the process of becoming the Marvel Fanboy I remain to this day, we didn't have comics websites, or YouTube videos or even mimeographed comics fanzines to tell us what was going on. All we had was Stan Lee's ingenious "Marvel Bullpen Bulletins", giving us glimpses inside the Marvel offices and snippets of information about what we could expect to see this and next month from Marvel.

The very first published Marvel Bullpen Bulletins page, from Journey into Mystery 122 (Nov 1965). At the time, Stan was making announcements about various Marvel Comics in text boxes, often yellow, on the various letters pages. This would be replaced by the Bullpen page, but the earliest examples appeared to be a mix of the two.
The Bullpen page made its debut in Journey into Mystery 122 (Nov 1965), which was on sale on 2 Sep 1965. This was a week before the December issues of Fantastic Four and Amazing Spider-Man, often cited (wrongly) as carrying the first Bullpen Bulletins page.

As with the other Bullpen pages of this early period, the Journey into Mystery page was customised for the title, showing an image of Thor where the other pages displayed different characters. For example, the Amazing Spider-Man Bullpen page in issue 31 gave us The Green Goblin. And, of course, it's a Thor tee-shirt in the merchandise section.

But more than that, the Thor Bullpen page appears to have been prepared so early that the corresponding letters page also carried a few announcements, boxed out in yellow, and not just about Thor. For example, they reveal that we can expect more Marvel merchandising in the wake of the tee-shirts and a "brand new gizmo that's sure to sweep the nation". I haven't managed to figure out what that is, yet. Stan also tells us that the last two Marvel bi-monthlies - X-Men and Daredevil - were moving up to monthly publication, and closes out the letters column with a lengthy teaser about the next issue of Journey into Mystery.

Meanwhile, in the adjacent Bullpen Bulletins, Stan reports that Joe Sinnott, whose inking work was last seen in Fantastic Four 5 (Jul 1962), has rejoined Marvel, working on "Agent of Shield", inking Fantastic Four (from 45 on) and "doing as many other features as we can straddle him with". I think you may have meant "saddle", Stan ... straddle is something else entirely.

Despite the Bullpen Bulletins page promise, Joe Sinnott managed few Marvel art assignments before becoming enmeshed in his regular inking work on the company's flagship title Fantastic Four.
As it turned out, Sinnott only contributed art to two issues of Strange Tales' Agent of SHIELD ... 139, where he provided finished art over Kirby's layouts, and 140, where he inked over Kirby layouts and Don Heck pencils. The other featured Sinnott was "straddled" with included just inks for the cover and interior art of X-Men 13 (Sep 1965), before embarking on his long run inking Fantastic Four from 44 (Nov 1965) onwards. What the Bullpen Bulletin story doesn't tell you is that Sinnott continued to pencil and ink for his long-term assignment Treasure Chest until issue 496 (Jul 1972), ending an 11½ year association with the title.

The second item in this first Bulletin reveals that Adam Austin, penciller on the Sub-Mariner feature in Tales to Astonish is not the artist's real name. This came as a shock to me when I retrospectively read this piece of news, as I had been comparing "Austin's" work with Gene Colan's and deciding that I like Colan's better. Of course, I was 12 at the time with little perception of how an inker can improve (or not) a penciller's work, so I was likely comparing the Vince Colletta inked Adam Austin work in Astonish with the Jack Abel inking of Gene Colan in Suspense.

Gene Colan "took over" from Adam Austin with Tales to Astonish 80 and Tales of Suspense 78 (both Jun 1966).

Compared to You Don't Say, the gags in Monsters to Laugh With/Unlimited were a bit lame. Stan was simply recycling one of his old ideas from the 1950s, but this time under Martin Goodman's shilling.
The fourth item plugs You Don't Say and Monsters Unlimited, both Stan Lee side-projects. I wasn't much interested at the time, but I did later pick up copies of both mags, probably during my early teens and, strangely, preferred You Don't Say to Monsters Unlimited (or Monsters to Laugh With, when I first read it). Both titles were a reworking of a Lee independent project during the 1950s, when he started up his own Madison Publishing company and put out two magazines of news and library photos with funny captions - Blushing Blurbs and Golfers Anonymous.

The best reproduction of Golfers Anonymous I could find was from the Stan Lee biography, Excelsior. My apologies for the poor scan quality.
According to Stan's biography, Excelsior, both titles sold out and made thousands of dollars for Lee, but as he was "not the shrewdest guy in town", by his own admission, he never reprinted to capitalise on further profits.

During the 1950s, Kirby would regularly ink his own pencils as this Dec 1959 issue of Young Romance demonstrates. As Marvel's chief penciller during the 1960s, Kirby would seldom be afforded the luxury of inking his own work, as Stan wanted to stretch Kirby as far across the line as possible.
The last item in the inaugural Bulletin page was the promise that Jack Kirby would ink some of his own pencils sometime. Of course, Kirby had very often inked his own pencils in the past, most notably during his late 1950s run at DC Comics, inking many fantasy shorts for Tales of the Unexpected and My Greatest Adventure and most of the Green Arrow adventures. Plus Kirby was also inking many of the romance stories he was still pencilling for Prize around this time. So hardly unprecedented. When Kirby became Stan Lee's go-to artist as the Marvel line of comics mushroomed, Kirby's time became to valuable to squander on inking. But to satisfy the Bulletin promise, Lee had Kirby ink the front cover art for Fantasy Masterpieces 4 (Aug 1966). I can't find any other examples, though maybe someone knows different.

The second Marvel Bullpen Bulletin page addresses more vital issues affecting Marvel fans across the spectrum. We also get the Mighty Marvel Checklist - a very important resource for Marvel readers in those pre-fanzine days - as well as the chance to buy Marvel merchandise.
The second Bullpen page addressed a landmark - to me anyway - decision that Stan had taken a few months earlier. Under the sub-heading "We Goofed Again Department" Stan admitted that the change in name from Marvel Comics Group to Marvel Pop Art Productions had been a mistake. As Marvelites everywhere were quick to point out, they didn't like it. So, the company's name was reverting once more. There follows some news about Artist Musical Chairs as Don Heck and "Adam Austin" switch around, and a plug for Marvel Collectors' Item Classics.

Far more interesting are the mini-items under "Didja Know? Department", which reveals the fact that Sol Brodsky is a "crackerjack penciller and inker" (no, I didn't know that at the time), that Flo Steinberg was winning popularity contest at colleges all over the country and that Martin Goodman was a top-ranked amateur golfer. Nope and nope.

Stan finishes off by telling us that every one of Marvel's titles are hitting the sales jackpot. This might just sound like bragging, but it's important to remember that - as I've mentioned many times here - Marvel's success was Stan's, not Martin Goodman's. For years Goodman had just been copying what other publishers put out. Stan somehow managed to convince Goodman to take a different approach in 1961 with Fantastic Four and the results paid off. Literally. So I am more than happy to allow Stan his "I told you so" moment. 

Matters covered in the Bullpen page for February 1966 included and explanation of why the year's Marvel annuals contained reprints, the arrival of newcomer Roy Thomas at the bullpen and the fact that Joe Sinnott would be the permanent inker on Fantastic Four.
I'm not going to go through the Bulletin pages month-by-month, but I do just want to highlight something in the third Bullpen page which appeared in the February 1966 dated Marvel comics (Fantastic Four 47, containing this Bulletin, would have been on sale 11 Nov 1965).

In the third item, titled "Strictly Personal", Stan addresses the question of his tongue-in-cheek credits in the comics, specifically why he always insults inkers Artie Simek and Sam Rosen with comedy credits. Stan stresses that these jibes are "strictly in fun" and goes on to say "we want to state here and now that we LOVE those two talented, hard-working, dependable letterers of ours". And I'm guessing that Sam and Artie always took that joshing just fine - after all, they lettered the gags into the comics themselves.

But in the final piece on the page, Stan mentions that most of the artists work at home (dispelling the fantasy that they all sit together in one big office swapping practical jokes and  ribald stories). The piece goes on to say that Jack Kirby "drops in, loaded down with a new mess of masterpieces, once a week. Poor Jack! He's so absent-minded that he usually goes home with someone else's hat, portfolio or train ticket. Stan wanted to put a label around his neck reading: 'If found, please return to the marry Marvel bullpen!' but he couldn't - Jack lost the label."

This is from Amazing Spider-Man 22 (Mar 1965), typical of the sort of joshing Stan regularly subjected Artie Simek and Sam Rosen to, the above gag would actually have been lettered by Artie. I'm sure Artie found it as funny as the readers did.
Now even as a kid, I took that to be just a bit of good-natured messing around. It's certainly no more insulting that a lettering credit that reads, "We'll try to pin the blame on poor innocent Artie Simek". Yet, for some reason, Jack wasn't taking this sort of heckling very well. Just a few weeks later, on 9 January 1966, the notorious profile in the New York Herald by Ned Freeland that made out Jack to resemble "an assistant foreman in a girdle factory" came out and Jack took if very much to heart and blamed Stan for the whole thing. This indicates, to me at least, that - for whatever reason - Jack didn't have much patience with Stan's informal tone, even at this early stage.

Also mentioned in this fourth Bullpen page is the real reason Stan took the A-listers out of Avengers, a mild rebuke to the Marvel copycats out there and a plug for the new reprint title Fantasy Masterpieces.
Yet despite that, amidst all the subsequent talk about Kirby and his colleague being robbed of their credit for the contributions they made to the formative Marvel Comics the fourth Bullpen Bulletin page gives lie to that assertion. Right there in black and white, is Stan telling us that the artists make up most of the stories themselves. "All Stan has to do with pro's [sic] like Jack 'King' Kirby, dazzlin' Don Heck and darlin' Dick Ayers is give them a germ of an idea and they make up all the details as they go along, drawing and plotting out the story." It's not like it was a dark Marvel secret, or anything.

The Bullpen Bulletin page would continue in this format for the next year or so. Highlights would be Stan revealing the true identity of Adam Austin in the June 1966 page, announcing the departure of Steve Ditko in the July 1966 titles and telling us that though the Bullpen page is typed on 14th July it won't be published until October 1967.

Amid the plugs for the Marvel Annuals and the mention of the MMMS newsletter "The Merry Marvel Messenger", was a new feature. Titled "Stan's Soapbox" - a reference to the wooden crate favoured by street-corner orators around that time - this first editorial column explained the "Marvel philosophy".
Then, in the June 1967 titles, the Bullpen page welcomed an important format change. The first Stan's Soapbox appeared. In it, Stan claimed that the "message" behind Marvel's stories was nothing more than an attempt to entertain. "And If we can do our bit to advance the cause of intellectualism, humanitarianism, and mutual understanding ... and toss in a little swingin' satire at to in the process ... that won't break our collective heart one tiny bit!"

In the Soapbox for the October 1967 Bullpen page, Stan tries to avoid the calls for a more defined political stance by throwing the matter open to reader opinion. Should Marvel comment on current affairs or not? Other items include a plug for the Fantastic Four cartoon show on ABC-TV, a plug for the Marvel Annuals and Marvel's new humour title Not Brand Echh.
There wouldn't be effort, at least for a few months, for Stan to move his Soapbox editorials beyond thanking Marvel fans for their support and debating wither Marvel should continue mocking the mags published by "Brand Echh". But then, in the October 1967 Bullpen page, Stan addressed head-on the calls for Marvel to make more of a stance on political issues of the day. "Many Keepers of the Faith," Stan wrote, "have demanded that we take a more definitive stand on current problems such as Viet Nam, civil rights and the increase in crime, to name a few." It's then left to readers to decide on whether Marvel should promote their opinions on these matters. "Should we editorialize more - or less - of keep things in their present fouled up form?"

The Bullpen page for October 1968 gave us Stan first stab at a political editorial. It's a bit vague but you can see he's trying to put across his mildly liberal viewpoint without making it political. Other items announce Arnold Drake joining the Bullpen and a plea for pen-pals for serving soldiers in Viet Nam. By this time, the Marvel Checklist is now talking up almost half the page!
Stan wouldn't return to the subject until October 1968, more than a year later. In his Soapbox, Stan writes, "Over the years we've received about a zillion letters asking for the Bullpen's opinion about such diverse subjects as Viet Nam, civil rights, the war on poverty, and the upcoming election". He goes on to say that there isn't one unanimous Bullpen opinion, but "we'd like to go on record about one vital issue - we believe Man has a divine destiny, and an awesome responsibility - the responsibility of treating all who share this wondrous world of ours with tolerance and respect - judging each fellow human on his own merit, regardless of race, creed or colour. That we agree on - and we'll never rest until it becomes a fact, rather than just a cherished dream."

... then this Stan's Soapbox, just a month later.
But that's not the end of it. The very next Soapbox reversed the position completely. "That sinks it," commented Stan. "From now on, whenever we have something to get off our chest, we'll assume we have a magniloquent mandate to sock it to ya, and let the chips fall where they may."

Preachy, perhaps, but this editorial from Stan was very much a product of its times, especially American times. And certainly no other comics publisher was printing  opinions like this during the late 1960s.
From there on, there was no stopping Stan, as the above Soapbox shows. It had never really occurred to me at this point (I would have been 14 at the time) that bigotry was a thing. At the time I was surrounded by casual racism. My family, my schoolmates. And like everyone else, I'd laugh at racist stereotype jokes. But I'd never have dreamed of actually hating someone because of their race or religion. That Soapbox would crystalise the concept for me and probably played a key part in focussing the liberal - and, I hope, tolerant - views I hold to this day.

More importantly, this tone would attract other like-minded comics professionals to Marvel ... Denny O'Neill had already joined Marvel a couple of years earlier. And in the future would come writers like Tony Isabella, Chris Claremont and later Larry Hama, who would also do their bit to instil Stan's liberal values into the stories they wrote.

And now, with the global reach of Marvel Production movies, we're seeing Stan's message reach an unprecedented audience - literally of millions - around the world.

Comicsgate is a tragic collection of comics "fans" who have singled out women, left-leaning liberals and people of colour in the professional comic community for attack, presumably because they simply don't like women and people of colour. It's a far cry from what Stan Lee wanted for the future of society, isn't it?
So the comicsgaters can have their sad rants about the recent Captain Marvel movie and the fact that some Marvel characters have been re-imagined as women or ethnic minorities, but I'm glad to say, they will be on the losing side of that argument and on the wrong side of history. Certainly as far as those of us who have grown up with Stan Lee as our guide are concerned ...

Next: Marvel's Women


  1. That part about Comicsgaters is interesting, Al. I'd assumed that the people complaining about Captain Marvel being a woman were more irked by the fact that comics continuity was being ignored, along with Mar-Vell not being given his full due, rather than them having anything against women per se. (Haven't read their stuff though.) On the matter of racism, I didn't like the fact that in the last FF movie, Johnny Storm was black - but not because I have anything against black people, only because it's not the character I grew up with. I'd be equally against T'Challa or Luke Cage being turned white, so I don't consider myself a racist. I just want the creators' original vision being preserved. That's why I don't think that Idris Elba should be Bond, because Bond isn't black and his history and continuity should be observed and maintained. In like manner, if it were announced that Daniel Craig was going to play Shaft, I'd be equally disappointed, as Shaft isn't white. Sometimes, calling people bigots or racists or homophobes is going a bit too far in my estimation. (Not that I'm saying that you were doing that.)

  2. I included a link to an online article about the comicsgaters in the last para, Kid, in case you want to understand where all that nonsense came from ... and I've known you long enough to understand your concerns about needlessly retro-fitting characters come from a purist viewpoint and certainly not a racist one. My point was that the comicsgaters call themselves Marvel fans, but seem to miss the point of the Marvel (and Stan's) philosophy entirely. Ironic, eh?

  3. I can tell from the last few paragraphs of your article that you dismiss Comicsgate out-of-hand as the bigots and mysoginists they are smeared as in the media, and now by you. I can assume you don't actually read modern Marvel comics... go ahead and pick up a copy of Captain Marvel, Iceman, Spider-Man, Ms. Marvel... pretty much any of them. You will see that the complaints of CG-ers are justified, and go far beyond those of females replacing males on books.

    1. When the thought leader of the Comicsgate movement, Richard Meyer, refers to a female Marvel Comics editor as a "cum dumpster", accuses various female professionals of "sucking their way into the industry", and describes a transgender female writer as a "man in a wig" and the "movement" attacks and urges blacklisting of comics professionals like Larry Hama, Mark Waid, Alex de Campi, Kelly Sue DeConnick, Matt Fraction, Ta-Nehisi Coates ... then I think you're defending the indefensible.