Jim Shooter's blog

[Agenda]

Jim Shooter, who I consider to be the godfather of Marvel's glory years, has a great blog where he talks about all his experiences in comic books. You have to read through a lot of the old archived entries, but it's really interesting.

One of the most enjoyable moments is where he talks about the aborted JLA/Avengers crossover in the 80s. Also interesting is where he talks about how Marvel essentially created Gi-Joe and Transformers as we know them. Plus he describes how Warner Brothers wanted to license the writing of DC characters to Marvel, and they likely would have if not for an antitrust backlash.

http://www.jimshooter.com/

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'd take most of what he writes in that blog with a grain of salt. Other folks have different versions.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Jim Shooter is an interesting character. A very intelligent, creative and savvy idiot. I would definitely take what he says with a grain of salt, but I'm sure it makes for interesting reading. For all his faults, he did preside over one of the most creative periods in Marvel History-- very possibly the final one.

 

[A beaker full of death]

^ He certainly did. And as much as Byrne and others deride him now, what he has to say (about comic art generally, from an editor's perspective) shows that he does indeed know his business. See, e.g., http://www.jimshooter.com/2011/05/storytelling-lecture-strange-tales-part.html

 

[Agenda]

I'd take most of what he writes in that blog with a grain of salt. Other folks have different versions.

And other folks probably have their own versions of how things happened. It's wise to be skeptical whenever reading anything that's autobiographical. But there's no reason to think that he might be full of shit and no one else is. A lot of creators had nothing but good to say about him. Reading his blogs, I found him to be even-handed. He might have critical things to say about a writer or artist, like calling them tardy, sloppy or - at times - unethical, but he is also quick to praise them for their talent. He also spreads the credit around for projects that he was involved in.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'd take most of what he writes in that blog with a grain of salt. Other folks have different versions.

And other folks probably have their own versions of how things happened. It's wise to be skeptical whenever reading anything that's autobiographical. But there's no reason to think that he might be full of shit and no one else is. A lot of creators had nothing but good to say about him. Reading his blogs, I found him to be even-handed. He might have critical things to say about a writer or artist, like calling them tardy, sloppy or - at times - unethical, but he is also quick to praise them for their talent. He also spreads the credit around for projects that he was involved in.

I was refering more to the facts about the stories he tells, not his opinion of a creators work ethic. For example, his version of "Marvel publishing DC's books" contains a story were John Byrne hears about it at turns up at Shooters office with a mock "Superman! First Marvel Issue!" cover. Byrne says that never happened.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Ok, that said, why is Jim Shooter a liar and John Byrne is the one telling the truth?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Ok, that said, why is Jim Shooter a liar and John Byrne is the one telling the truth?

I think Byrne would remember if he drew a mock Marvel Superman cover. And would be more than happy to confirm it. Not saying Shooter is lying, just that he might not recall everything or might have "elaborated" to make the story more interesting. He is after all a storyteller. And stories often grow in the telling.

 

[the G-man]

Um, I think some of this might be my fault. Seriously.

About the time this was happening, and based on a comment Byrne had made at the time in one of the FF letter columns, I prepared a mock-up of a "First Marvel Issue" Superman cover and sent it to John Byrne at Marvel as a gift.

While not a pro (though I did do some filler art for Amazing Heroes and CBG now and then), I was proficient enough at the time with how covers were prepared to know how to mock up something that would look like an actual-publishable-cover design. I used a photostat of a fully inked Bryne/Austin Superman sketch (Clark ripping over the shirt to reveal the S) that had been printed in the "Art of John Byrne" TPB a few years earlier as the main cover image. I then pasted in the appropriate blurbs and lettering, etc., in much the same way that Marvel's production house would have at the time. I even put in a spot for the UPC box in the lower left corner.

A few months later I ran into Byrne at a convention and he remarked he liked it.

So...I'm thinking that Byrne (or someone else at Marvel) may have showed it to Shooter when it came in (I mailed it to Marvel, not Byrne directly, so it's entirely possible one of the editors first came upon it).

With all of us getting older and memories fading after 25-30 years, I could easily see Shooter remembering it but misremembering where it came from, and Byrne not remembering it at all (I'm sure he got a lot of fan stuff back then).

One of these days I ought to see if I still have it in storage somewhere and try to post it.

 

[Captain Mike]

Ok, that said, why is Jim Shooter a liar and John Byrne is the one telling the truth?

I think Byrne would remember if he drew a mock Marvel Superman cover. And would be more than happy to confirm it. Not saying Shooter is lying, just that he might not recall everything or might have "elaborated" to make the story more interesting. He is after all a storyteller. And stories often grow in the telling.

One own truth is who you undeniably believe...Growing up as strictly a DC buyer I hated Marvel. But back during his tenure they would always kick DC's ass.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'd take most of what he writes in that blog with a grain of salt. Other folks have different versions.

Exactamundo.