General Category > Comic Related Discussion
Holyoke is a Myth...
mmiichael:
--- Quote from: JVJ on April 17, 2010, 08:29:25 PM ---
Is Victor Fox one of the guys who was "set up" by the guys behind the scenes? If so, was he set up by the distributors? Berk's post says that Fox went bankrupt because the distributor went under. So is all that bogus? Financial under the table shenanigans? If the Berk Fox post can be trusted in this Down But Not Out section (never mind the other inaccuracies), can you shine some light on the what went on in the world that you've studied?
And did Bowles (Holyoke) have some connection with any of the creditors Berk names (Bulkley, Dunton & Co., Phelps Publishing, and Chemical Photo Engraving Inc.)? It would seem like he must have or why else did he end up with Blue Beetle?
I'm pretty sure that the statement that " Fox started a new line of comics and wrested Blue Beetle Comics back from Holyoke Publishing Co." is a gross oversimplification of a much more complex deal, but perhaps you can sort that out for us as well. We're trying to deal in the real world here, not in the maze of indicia.
--- End quote ---
Jim,
I always was in awe of the your efforts identifying so many great illustrators and comic artists.
If anyone is leery of what I say they can contact people like Steve Rowe or read what Gerry Jones says about my input to his MEN OF TOMORROW. I spent much time tracking comic industry personnel and their activities towards a book that has been delayed by my current work.
Most of what I am summarizing I can provide specifics from documents, conversations, etc. Feel free to contact me offlist.
Fox, who was indicted for securities fraud in the 30s, started in 1936 with an Astrology mag and branched out into other psychic stuff. His entry into comics was well-financed, but investors got leery after the DC lawsuit. Distributor Kable was dragged into the legal battle and dropped him, so a decision was made to start a dedicated Distribution op to carry the comics as well as Fox's girly mags and his ESQUIRE imitation. They were working on a soft drink distribution program when TSHTF. One reason was the partners owned a bottling plant - you can guess what their product line was.
Due to internal industry politics Fox wasn't supported by the regional wholesalers. This was the cause of the collapse of Fox publishing and their distribution network. Contrary to what many may think, the success of a comics line depended as much or more on wholesalers being behind a product as the content itself.
From what I have learned, Holyoke was Bowles using a Temerson front operation. Bowles Holyoke based newspaper had their own Sunday Comics press, engravers, paper sources. As a primary creditor he just assumed control of the Fox leftovers and it was decided to only continue with the BLUE BEETLE title.
Fox did petition to get back his assets in 1944. No one really cared much then as anything and everything was selling out. Fox was hooked up with the race horse set who had their reasons for dabbling in publishing. They did sleazy paperbacks and girlie gag mags too.
Before someone accuses me of making this stuff up, I'll quote a Al Feldstein remembrance from the ECCOMICS Yahoo list, Jan 9, 2003.
"I was warned by many people that Victor Fox was in big financial trouble, having invested in The San Juan Racetrack in Puerto Rico with (and this was only rumor!) the "Bent-Nose Guys"...that the project was in deep trouble...and that I should make sure that I was fully paid for each issue as I completed it and not get in too deep with Fox"
I'd say it's unlikely Fox ever had full control of any of his comic operations. The underbelly publishing end of things was endlessly interniecine and surreptitious.
When I dismiss attempts to quantify publishers and their lines it's because things just don't break down so simply. These fly-by-nite companies were controlled by gamblers, disbarred lawyers and numbers racketeers as a sideline. There was minimal formalism in terms of publishing infrastructure, management and staff. Interests were often bought and sold.
One has look at them as 'virtual' operations to fully grasp how the mechanics.
Mike
archiver_USA:
I'm sure there were investors and shady back-end mechanics running the industry back then, but what is the harm in organizing books based on the "front company" that ran the day to day operations? Someone was creating the artwork and someone from this "front company" was interfacing with those people (be it in-house staff or a third-party studio) and someone from this "company" was dealing with getting advertising (again either in-house or a third party agency) weren't they? I can't imagine a "broken-nose" guy had any interest in running the show as a daily job.
I think what we are doing here is identifying and categorizing things based on the people running the day to day operations of these "front companies" and it in no way contradicts the reality that may exist behind the day-to-day operations. Even if the same group of investors/mobsters were the money men behind Temerson, Fox and Bowles, we can still organize things at the "front company" level where Temerson, Fox and Bowles are three separate companies. Sure, someday someone will publish something to explain the industry, but until then I say we continue with our "front company" research.
Bob Hughes:
Mike's explanations of the who, what and why behind the comics helps to fill in the gaps and make sense of what appears to be senseless meanderings from a comics only point of view. These men behind the comics are not primarily interested in the contents of the books, or in licensing or toys or moving the product into other media. They're interested in keeping presses rolling, trucks running and newsstands operating. To do that you need product- and that's all it is to them. If the product doesn't sell you get rid of the staff and get new people to make new product. Hence the sudden ups and downs and re-shufflings of the pre-war period.
Most of the contents in this period, unless you're DC, are provided by shops. The shops service multiple accounts which may or may not have common owners. And the shops often retain copyrights on the material they produce because the publishers didn't care. (This is what got Siegel in trouble- he didn't realize what a greedy bastard Liebowitz was. He thought he was a standard run-of-the-mill crook.) Following the shop employees around and linking them together may be good from the standpoint of creative history, but it's not economic history. Which is why lumping all these little companies together as if they would inevitably turn into a big company is clouding the picture.
There were a lot of companies that went under in the early forties, but we don't think of them like that- we think of them as "pre-cursors" or we string a series of unrelated failures together and call it a "master publisher".
Probably the funniest parts of the "Statements of ownership" published in comics and other magazines is the part we they say there are no creditors, bond holders or mortgage holders.
The idea that Temerson was the guy who packaged and put together magazines for various backers who had money makes sense. Sometimes he was the nominal owner, sometimes somebody else was. When Bowles took over Temerson's books and brought them directly under Holyoke, it makes sense that Temerson would go with them to supply the contents. And that Temerson's staff would also supply contents for Blue Beetle. When Temerson took his titles back and went off to World Color, Bowles needed a new packager to continue supplying Blue Beetle product. (Ferstadt?). That supplier continued to supply product for Sparkling Stars after Fox took Blue Beetle back. (Not sure who printed BB for Fox the second time). Bolwes's labor troubles certainly affected his comics production, although I'm not sure whether it was positive or negative. Depends on who was on strike I suppose.)
Fox went bankrupt, what, 5 times? Of course, that's a standard business practice still in use today. Doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't making money. Just that he didn't want to pay his bills.
Losing focus here. Better stop.
John C:
If nobody minds me taking a quick step to try clearing the air for a sec'...
Mike, nobody's accusing you of anything. And nobody will without hearing it from me. That's not what we do around here.
However, just like in science, research is useless without anybody being able to validate it. You're asking the group here to disregard authentic documents as bad in favor of your unattributed paraphrasing.
We all agree that you're probably right (since what you say has the ring of truth), but without the details leading to your generalizations, you're passing this along in the same way as the folks who periodically "discover" perpetual motion machines.
If experiments can't be duplicated, they're useless to other researchers in the field. If historical details can't be traced or sourced, they're no less useless. Nobody here wants your information to go unused, which is (I think) where the pressure is coming from.
Is there a reason you're reluctant to share the details? I mean, if you're planning to publish all this, then I think everybody here'll understand and wait (im)patiently for the book. Likewise if you've been asked to keep the details a secret. All fine. But I hope you're not simply condemning the people here based on what some other group may have done in the past.
bchat:
--- Quote from: John C on April 18, 2010, 07:50:54 AM ---Is there a reason you're reluctant to share the details? I mean, if you're planning to publish all this, then I think everybody here'll understand and wait (im)patiently for the book.
--- End quote ---
Wait, if there are facts to be shared, why should anyone have to wait & then spend money to get the information they need which can help them conduct their own line of research? "I know something but I won't share it until I get paid for it" seems incredibly greedy & selfish to me.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version