Holyoke is a Myth...

[mmiichael]

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.

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]

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. 

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.

[archiver_USA]

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.

If he's spent time and money into researching this topic for a book, why shouldn't he get paid for it? I don't think its greedy to try and recoup your expenses and generate some profit for the time and effort invested. I'm willing to wait for and purchase a book if one is coming.

But if he's going to come in here and say we've got it all wrong I do expect some level of proof. I'm perfectly willing to accept that the research we have is just "front company" level material. I'm more interested in the day-to-day operations of these companies anyways. I'm looking at Comic Book Marketplace #30 at the moment and I'm staring at an office picture of the staff of Et-Es-Go/Continental from 1944 showing Chris Shaare, Mark Bogardo, Frank Temerson, George Harrison, Jack Alderman, L.B. Cole, Jack Grogan, Charles Quinlan, Lucy Feller and Rae Herman.  These are real people doing real work in a real office producing comics.

I'm willing to accept there are "back company" guys acting as investors and making the deals on where to buy the paper, dictating who would be the printer, and who would control the distribution, but I don't think these "broken nose" guys had any input into the editorial or art of what would appear on that paper that I'm collecting and reading.

I think the "front company" aspect is just as important, if not more so, than the "back company" guys running the shady part of the business.

[JVJ (RIP)]

No, bchat,
it's good business sense and I can live with it. Mike's information didn't come free and the chance to write a book and be acknowledged as the author is certainly a valid reason. I'm with archiver_USA that we should know that's what going on. I'm with John C. here, too:

Just tell us and we'll put things on hold.

Bob is also correct is that there is history to be documented using the content of the comics, and it's just as valid as that which achieved using publishing addresses which is also just as valid as what Mike says was going to in the background behind the scenes. These are all subsets or pieces of a bigger history. None of it is bogus or wrong. It's just looking a bunch of blind men looking at a mighty big elephant...

Mike, you needn't be in awe of anything I ever did or might do. I'm just looking at my piece of the elephant. It's all any of us can really do. Thank you for the offer of "offlist" but at the moment that simply can't happen. I'm caught three ways to Sunday in real life - in a cast that keeps me for accessing my comics and data cards, preparing for a 6-week vacation in Paris (leaving Thursday if the Iceland volcano gives up) and several other ongoing projects with Hames Ware.

DCM is my window into the elephant room. If you can't post the details here, I'll simply have to pass for now. It would be extremely helpful if you could explain WHY you are reluctant to post specifics and sources here. As I said before, I think most of us here are receptive to your data, but we are searching for the source material that will allow us to view it and come to our own (perhaps different) conclusions based on what each of us know. In science, this is "peer review" and it's used to prove a theory. It is what differentiates the dilettantes from the professionals.

Here's just one point from your most recent post:

From what I have learned, Holyoke was Bowles using a Temerson front operation.

seems to be in direct contradiction of

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.

Was Temerson put in charge OF a consortium or BY a consortium? Big difference to my ears.

And Feldstein was talking about post war Fox, not the 1944 Fox that was connected with Holyoke. And what mechanism did Fox use with the consortium to reacquire his books? So many questions...


(|:{>

[bchat]

If he's spent time and money into researching this topic for a book, why shouldn't he get paid for it? I don't think its greedy to try and recoup your expenses and generate some profit for the time and effort invested. I'm willing to wait for and purchase a book if one is coming.

But if he's going to come in here and say we've got it all wrong I do expect some level of proof.

If he's writing a book that tells the history of a company or comics in general, yeah sure, he should get paid for that.  If he's weaving an interesting story drawn from interviews or drawing conclusions from facts he's gathered & wants money for those thoughts, that's fine.  What I have a problem with is people sitting on facts and not sharing them, then doing nothing more than saying "you're all wrong, I know the facts and I expect $24.95 from each of you to learn the truth!"  I don't think it's right to hold-up somebody else's research (in this case, untangling the mess that is "Holyoke") because someone wants money for their "time and effort".  People may disagree with me on this point, and that's fine too.  I just feel that it's better to work together, especially when it comes to the history of Golden Age comics, and that starts with sharing the facts, not clinging to them like precious stones.

[John C]

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.

Hey, freelance writing is researching and writing for profit.  If that's a chunk of your income, it's very hard to part with information (in a public forum among people who will quickly and widely disseminate it) for free.  Selfishness is what gets the bills paid, after all.

That's not to imply that this is the situation, which none of us knows but Mike.  I'm just saying that, if it is, it's a valid reason for being vague.  And I don't appreciate the implication that anybody here is holding any information for ransom.

[mmiichael]

I've shared a lot of my accumulated data, testimony and insights online and with serious researchers like Steve Rowe, Bob Hughes, and Jerry Bails in the past.

I have worked in the publishing industry, more recently as a consultant, and a few times peripherally in the comics industry, I  stopped collecting old comic books after the prices became absurd.  Mucho good literature and fine art that can be bought for the same prices.  But was always interested in the evolution of the medium and the business side fo things.

I'm not judgemental in any way but anyone who knows anything about 20th Century American periodical distribution in the aware of the increasing mob involvement to the level of near full control by the 80s.

As Bob rightly notes, after the Gold Rush Days of 1939-42 comics increasingly became fodder to keep Teamster trucks filled and moving product.  Small companies like Hoyoke were structural expediencies to put something colourful onto those blank pages.  These kind of operations don’t break down easily to the cataloguing and quantification that some feel compelled to impose on them.

I doubt Sherman Bowles would have ever been able to name any of the comic book titles he financed.  It was a matter of so many tons of paper acquired, the conversation to marketable product, and the net profits.

I expect Temerson had minimal input into the actual editorial content as well.  His function would have been more along the lines of making sure the printing and distributing arms were providing reliable numbers and that product was going to where it was needed in a timely fashion.

There is something called “cash-skimming” that is endemic to businesses like publishing-distribution that makes it attractive to racketeers.  And my guess is Temerson knew a lot about that side of things.

But I’m rambling now.


Mike

[JVJ (RIP)]

If he's writing a book that tells the history of a company or comics in general, yeah sure, he should get paid for that.  If he's weaving an interesting story drawn from interviews or drawing conclusions from facts he's gathered & wants money for those thoughts, that's fine.  What I have a problem with is people sitting on facts and not sharing them, then doing nothing more than saying "you're all wrong, I know the facts and I expect $24.95 from each of you to learn the truth!"  I don't think it's right to hold-up somebody else's research (in this case, untangling the mess that is "Holyoke") because someone wants money for their "time and effort".  People may disagree with me on this point, and that's fine too.  I just feel that it's better to work together, especially when it comes to the history of Golden Age comics, and that starts with sharing the facts, not clinging to them like precious stones.

I think this attitude is a little extreme, bchat.
It's you putting words and intentions into Mike's actions for which you have no basis. You seem too often to impugn people's motives. We should back off and let Mike speak for himself rather than interpreting his actions in the worst possible light. It's not conducive to nor encouraging of sharing.

His reasons are his reasons and you and I have got to respect them. And he's not holding up anything. You and I are free to duplicate his efforts and his research. That's one of the beauties of facts - they remain out there to be found, again and again. Hames just turned up an article by Mark Carlson from 20+ years ago that documented MOST of what we have RE-discovered in this thread.

Perhaps it's best if we all calm down a bit. If you feel that your research is being held up, then you should set about recreating whatever Mike has managed to discover over the years. Just like I'm not obliged to share my comics for scanning, Mike is not obliged to share anything with any of us. He may do it, but it's his choice, not his responsibility. And I don't think your attitude is encouraging him to do so.

PEACE, Jim (|:{>

[bchat]

And I don't appreciate the implication that anybody here is holding any information for ransom.

I didn't say specifically that anyone was, only that I would find it objectional IF anyone did withhold facts that would benefit other people's research.  That's my opinion, I'm entitled to feel that way and I won't apologize for it.

[bchat]

I think this attitude is a little extreme, bchat.

You read WAY too much into what I posted.

It's you putting words and intentions into Mike's actions for which you have no basis.  You seem too often to impugn people's motives.

I did no such thing.  I did not aim my comments towards Mike personally and I'm offended that this is even suggested.

[narfstar]

Reading an old K-a fanzine it was postulated that Nation-Wide and M.F. Enterprises might be the same company because they had the same address. What a tangled web comics are.

[JVJ (RIP)]

I think this attitude is a little extreme, bchat.

You read WAY too much into what I posted.

It's you putting words and intentions into Mike's actions for which you have no basis.  You seem too often to impugn people's motives.

I did no such thing.  I did not aim my comments towards Mike personally and I'm offended that this is even suggested.

or perhaps our communication skills aren't quite as keen as we believe they are... It's not just what we say that matters, it's what people hear.

(|:{>