Holyoke is a Myth...

[Henry Andrews (fox_centaur)]

I see the same comics researchers running around on the same loop they were 20 years ago without much kn owledge of the bigger picture.  Expand your horizons and move beyond those indicias if you want deeper answers.

So basically what you're saying is "I know a lot of things you don't, but I'm not going to tell you."  I don't see anyone here fighting you on these concepts, or trying to tell you that you're wrong at all.  The only thing I see here is people who would like to benefit from your research.  Is there some reason you feel you must withhold your work from us?  Is there anything that would make you reconsider?  

Not all of us were around for previous rounds of discussions.  I've only become interested in these sorts of topics within the last year.  It's extremely frustrating to me for someone who seems to have more than the usual number of answers to specifically refuse to share them because someone else entirely disregarded those answers in the past.  I don't have a problem with being told to do my own research instead of trying to make other folks do it.  But having to *re-do* someone else's good, useful research seems like a waste of time for all of us in the comics community who are more interested in the truth than in past battles.

thanks,
-henry

[mmiichael]

I'm sorry if what I have said as been taken in an offensive way.

I am trying to be helpful in showing how one cannot apply the usual structure of a 'publisher' to the originators of many marginal publications.

In most cases there was no single company 'owner', nor offices, publishing plans or scheduling, etc.  It will be a source of permanent frustration to those trying to force a square peg into a round hole by deciphering the provided data from the comics themselves.

I stopped posting on message boards years ago because there were people who took this as an affront to their efforts.  Maybe this is a cue to continue my discussions offlist with those who can see the bigger picture.

Again sorry if this sounds disparaging.  But after decades of futile attempts being made to do nail down publishers using the wrong tools I'd say it's time to consider a fuller understanding of the realities of publishing world rather than trying to impose imaginary pubication structures which where not there.


M

[JVJ (RIP)]

One of the great hindrances of research has always been access to information. For most of the "history" of comics research, the people with access to the players didn't have full access to their product. People doing the interviews didn't know enough about the comics themselves. GAC/DCM and others have solved some of that, and folks like me are hoping that by providing more raw material, some deeper insight might be gained.

So, you seem to have some deeper insight and have asked some serious people some serious questions. All we're trying to do is to take your "bigger picture" and fill in some of the gaps in our own limited understanding. The more data you can (or are willing to) provide, the clearer the historic picture can be. No one is arguing with you. We're trying to get you to be less vague and to provide as many specifics as possible.

Like the limited access to the actual comics that used to be a reality, now we're faced with limited access to your knowledge - which we're unable to duplicate on our own because the people aren't around anymore. We just want the benefit of what you know and you seem to be chastising and marginalizing us for asking.

Kinda frustrating, actually.

(|:{>

[Henry Andrews (fox_centaur)]

I'm sorry if what I have said as been taken in an offensive way.

I am trying to be helpful in showing how one cannot apply the usual structure of a 'publisher' to the originators of many marginal publications.

In most cases there was no single company 'owner', nor offices, publishing plans or scheduling, etc.  It will be a source of permanent frustration to those trying to force a square peg into a round hole by deciphering the provided data from the comics themselves.

I stopped posting on message boards years ago because there were people who took this as an affront to their efforts.  Maybe this is a cue to continue my discussions offlist with those who can see the bigger picture.

Mike, I'm trying to say that I either accept or find reasonable all of your points.  I don't see anyone here saying that your ideas are an affront to our efforts.  We all just want to hear your ideas.  Not just hear you tell us we're looking at the wrong thing- OK, we're looking at the wrong thing, let's move on and discuss the right thing.  Will you help us?

Again sorry if this sounds disparaging.  But after decades of futile attempts being made to do nail down publishers using the wrong tools I'd say it's time to consider a fuller understanding of the realities of publishing world rather than trying to impose imaginary pubication structures which where not there.

Which we're all trying to do here.  Again, will you help us?  I can't deal with whatever problems you had with other people in the past.  I'm not arguing against any of your points.  Can you accept that we accept what you're saying and not keep hammering on past disagreements, which many of us were not a party to?  This whole thread is about dismantling the myths surrounding supposed "publishing groups" like Holyoke.  We've started by looking past Holyoke to figures like Temerson.  You've said that Temerson is just another smokescreen.  Great, that's progress!  What's next?

thanks,
-henry

[John C]

The interesting wrinkle in the Holyoke case, is that both Fox and Temerson somehow got their lines back from Holyoke (Bowles). The Fox stuff is documented in court filings.  Temerson, not so much.   

Sliding slightly off-topic, I realize, but does anyone know if there's a summary (or the original documents, for that matter) available for the Fox filings?  I'm rather curious about that process, myself.

[archiver_USA]

DOWN BUT NOT OUT
(section at the bottom of the this article by Jon Berk, he didn't mention his sources but you probably could e-mail and ask him).

[Henry Andrews (fox_centaur)]

DOWN BUT NOT OUT
(section at the bottom of the this article by Jon Berk, he didn't mention his sources but you probably could e-mail and ask him).

This does have the scan of the little notice for the Fox bankruptcy proceedings and Fox's purchase of a paper mill.  However, it also has a number of the common folklore inaccuracies, so reader beware (for instance, the persistent assertion that Captain Aero's numbering followed from Fox's Samson, already discussed and debunked in this thread).

[JVJ (RIP)]

DOWN BUT NOT OUT
(section at the bottom of the this article by Jon Berk, he didn't mention his sources but you probably could e-mail and ask him).

This is an excellent example of where you could help straighten us out, M.
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.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[mmiichael]

I respect the pioneer comic historians  like Jerry Bails, Jim V, Hames Ware - who accumulated data and tracked down so many veterans.

But copyrights information, past media sources, shared fan researches are now online and deeper investigation is possible.  John Berk did a great piece on Fox for one of the fanzines and it is now online at Comicartville.

Quoting:

"Fox was forced into involuntary bankruptcy on March 6, 1942 by a number of his creditors including, Bulkley, Dunton & Co., Phelps Publishing, and Chemical Photo Engraving Inc. with monies owed in excess of $100,000. (This was due in no small part to the fact its distributor, Colonial News, Inc. went under, owing Fox Publishing $173,551.)"

These are the entities positioned to assume control of Fox's assets, inventory and 2nd class mailing rights deposits especially.  (Note in 1944 Fox successfully petitioned for the return of these giving is unpaid creditors a 33% stake in the proceeds)

Bukley, Dunton was a paper supplier, Phelps was a Bowles subsidiary, and Chemical Photo Engraving was a service used by most Manhattan comic publishers.

Based on accumulated circumstantial evidence, I am pretty certain Temerson, originally a crooked attorney from Alabama was put in charge of a consortium of the a couple of the above interests, primarily Bowles, operating as Holyoke.  A somewhat suspicious operation according to those who interfaced with them,  with fancy offices in Lower Manhattan. A constant stream of low end mags, racy humour digests, cheap pulps,  exploitational sheets.  PDC and Kable were the main distributors and very likely silent partners.

In the day Massachussets, New Jersey and Connecticut mailing addresses were used to discourage visitors but also because securing mailing rights was easier out of New York State.  Publishing entities were often incorporated in Delaware as it has especially lenient laws regarding culpability in the event of bankruptcies and legal transgressions.

When the information inside a publication instructs readers to send subscription money to a printer’s address, it is usually an indication the nominal publisher is just a front.

Holyoke looks to me like a catch-all umbrella for a number of small lines and the entity TIME magazine referred to in a contemporary report on Bowles’s activities.  Very likely a benign secondary mob operation that couldn’t help but do well in the 1943-5 period when everything in print was selling full runs.

The Holyoke operation is still around into the 60s, assembling publications on site for cheap magazines mostly, but pretty much out of comics by 1947.  A series of labour disputes that year put Bowles’s newspapers out of action for a while and he sold off many of his assets.  The also took control of much of the periodical distribution lines that year.   

They had their own dedicated publication lines like the new Fox, and Leader News product like the Trojan line of comics and pulps, companies like Youthful, Master, etc.

[Henry Andrews (fox_centaur)]

When the information inside a publication instructs readers to send subscription money to a printer’s address, it is usually an indication the nominal publisher is just a front.

Holyoke looks to me like a catch-all umbrella for a number of small lines and the entity TIME magazine referred to in a contemporary report on Bowles’s activities.  Very likely a benign secondary mob operation that couldn’t help but do well in the 1943-5 period when everything in print was selling full runs.

The Holyoke operation is still around into the 60s, assembling publications on site for cheap magazines mostly, but pretty much out of comics by 1947.  A series of labour disputes that year put Bowles’s newspapers out of action for a while and he sold off many of his assets.  The also took control of much of the periodical distribution lines that year.   

They had their own dedicated publication lines like the new Fox, and Leader News product like the Trojan line of comics and pulps, companies like Youthful, Master, etc.

Hi Mike,
  I think something that would be really helpful is some guidance on what should be recorded about these "publishers" and how it should be specified and linked together.  There's lots of information in your post, but it's rather hard to get a handle on it.  If I had to cite it in another thread somewhere, I'd be reduced to saying something like "Mike Feldman thinks..." which is likely to end up implying the wrong thing and is how we got into this in the first place.

I've advocated in the past a system of recording known entities (corporations, legal owners, addresses, credited publishers/editors/art directors, etc.) and both documented and speculative associations.  For instance, the Fox bankruptcy and "Holyoke"s acquisition of Blue Beetle has some documentation behind it, per the Berk article.  Sometimes shared addresses are significant (for instance, your observation about subscription addresses being the same as printer addresses, and what that means).  Sometimes they are not, and in some cases we can document that as well.

What should be documented here?  Which companies (Brookwood, Tem, Nita, Helnit, Et-Es-Go, Continental, Worth, Bilbara, Hit, Holyoke) were tied to which other entities (distributors, creditors, shadowy mafia "entities", etc.?)  I don't think anyone here disputes that the system of "Master Publishers" perpetuated in various places completely fails to capture what was actually going on.  We're trying to figure out what *does* capture *useful* information.  And figure out how to record that (well, at least that's my agenda here).

If you have a system, we would love to hear it.  But it's hard to make a useful fact out of a general assertion that Holyoke was a catch-all umbrella for something shady.  We pretty much figured that out.  When exactly does Temerson get pulled in?  Were his earlier companies part of a different shady activity, or was it the thing we're dubbing "Holyoke" (not to be confused with Holyoke Publishing Co., Inc., the indicia publisher) that was behind it all including things like Brookwood, Tem and Nita?  These details are key.

[narfstar]

If this ever gets put in a coherent form I would bet Roy would love to publish it in Alter Ego. Would make a great article and be preserved for posterity.

[JVJ (RIP)]

Mike,
I keep hearing "vagueness" and "generalities". I sense that you don't mean them as such and I'm not trying to be difficult, but

Based on accumulated circumstantial evidence, I am pretty certain Temerson, originally a crooked attorney from Alabama was put in charge of a consortium of the a couple of the above interests, primarily Bowles, operating as Holyoke.  A somewhat suspicious operation according to those who interfaced with them,  with fancy offices in Lower Manhattan.

really leaves me with more questions than it answers.
1. WHAT evidence (circumstantial or otherwise)?
2. Are you saying that Temerson was in charge of Bowles?
3. WHO interfaced with Temerson?
4. WHEN?
5. WHO put him "in charge"?

I could go on, but it's maddening. You have a receptive audience here for your research and feels like we have to PULL every FACT out of you. I agree with Henry that all we end up with is "Mike Feldman seems to say..."

---
(|:{>

[bchat]

Ex-porn guys like Greenwald and Carnahan were out and a new crop of comics professionals were sought. Greenwald initially oversaw an operation from which content for both Centaur and Ace were generated.  He was moved elsewhere if I recall, maybe to girly mags.

I, personally, would like to hear more about the Greenwald & Centaur connection, although I do realize it's off-topic in regards to "Holyoke, etc".  Perhaps a new thread, if it's not too much trouble?

[Henry Andrews (fox_centaur)]

If this ever gets put in a coherent form I would bet Roy would love to publish it in Alter Ego. Would make a great article and be preserved for posterity.

While I would defer to anyone with a deeper knowledge of the topic and history, if none of those folks have the time or inclination I'd be happy to take a shot at a write-up of the current state of knowledge and its sources.  Hopefully including the stuff Mike's bringing up.

[fett]

Fascinating discussion.