Dan Adkins

[BobS]

ComicAttack.net includes full PDFs of Gary Groth's Fantastic Fanzine #10 and 12, Voice of Comicdom #17  (with original publication of Rich Corben's Rowlf - I highly recommend), and other mostly 1970s fanzines.

http://comicattack.net/category/cafeaturedcolumns/inkstains/

Thanks and a Hatlo's Tip of the Hat to JVJ who get me looking on the net for contents of Fantastic Fanzine. Only I'm Stump not Hatlo, and I rarely wear a hat.. (I should wear a hat geocaching and rockhounding.) Anyway thanks.

Bob

[JVJ (RIP)]

Always glad to help, Bob,
hat or no hat, it's wonderful the stuff you can find on the web if you look - well, at least I'm constantly amazed by it. Rudy Franke was a local guy (San Jose) and we used to run into each other at the shops. He sort of introduced us to Corben and that's how we got him involved in Promethean. Same with Jonny Chambers. Man, those were wonderful days.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[BobS]

It was "Modern Collector's Review", Bob,
and was actually published in 1969 - my memory is also not to be trusted, it seems.

John Giunta did "Crom the Barbarian", not Conan, in Avon's Out of this World Adventures.

I don't remember Modern Collector's Review but if your article was from 1969, that could be where I saw the Manning-Adkins comparisons.
Who published MCR?

"Crom" is Conan's god in Howard.
Sci-fi / heroic fantasy fans would have recognized / do recognize Giunt's Crom the Barbarian as Howard's Conan only with name changed because of copyright.
Giunta did pulp illos as well as comic art.

Since you mentioned "plagiarism" via email to me, I'll remind that EC / Feldstein plagiarized Ray Bradbury. Bradbury collected some $$ from EC and gave 'em permission to use more of his stories (for pay).

I doubt that Russ Manning was upset with Adkins copying his art. Mike Royer copied it as Manning's assistant.
& Wally Wood encouraged Adknis (his assistant) to keep a swipe file (like apparently most comic pros do) and to copy whenever appropriate.

No need to reinvent the wheel. <grin>

and ALL I "know" is how to use GCD, Bob. Just go to www.comics.org and click "Advanced Search" to get real answers to questions that you've been wondering about. No need to speculate or even try to remember. I sure as hell don't. Not when there's a definitive resource like GCD available.

You can stop guessing and look it up.

GCD isn't complete. For instance, I don't think it has artists for that From Here to Insanity we discussed.
Did you tell me GCD is a continuance of Jerry Bails' Who's Who (the original edition of which I do have and have accessible)?

Also, I'm VERY INTERESTED in Bob Kane ghosts, particularly the earliest ones.
Someone here claimed that from the 3rd Batman story (in Detective Comics #29?) Shelly Moldoff was a ghost artist.
I'd really like to see some documentation / corroboration of that claim.

I think I can tell the difference now between early Kane art and early Batman art inked by "Inky" Roussos.
Many if not most of the earliest Detective Comics Batman covers look to me like Roussos inked.

Remember that Warren (Creepy or Eerie) story about the supposed comic strip creator who ghosted out all the work to others to write, draw, and letter?

As for "significant" comic artists, I'll be happy to debate my choices any time you wish. All I ask is that things stay objective.

It's pointless to debate with you because you are so sure you know it all / obtain pure objectivity.
I don't believe anyone is totally objective -- this ain't pure science.
You'd be hard-pressed to PROVE that Bernie Krigstein is objectively a more significant/important/whatever comic book artist than R. Crumb, Art Spiegelman, Jean Giraud/Moebius, Rich Corben, etc.

I actually like Kim Deitch's comix better than Crumb's and Spiegelman's, but Crumb was the pacesetter. Yarrowstalks is probably where I first saw Crumb's stuff.

Or was Jack Jackson the original. His historical comix were significant and God Nose was supposedly maybe the first "underground comix".

But then "underground comix" arose out of college humor mags. (I wish I still had the paperback with college humor mag comics.)

Etc.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

Peace to you too, Jim.
Bob

[JVJ (RIP)]

I doubt that Russ Manning was upset with Adkins copying his art.

But you have no way of knowing that for a fact, so it's your opinion. I can accept that, but I don't happen to agree with it.

GCD isn't complete. For instance, I don't think it has artists for that From Here to Insanity we discussed.

The fact that it is incomplete in no way negates its usefulness for the data is DOES have.

Did you tell me GCD is a continuance of Jerry Bails' Who's Who (the original edition of which I do have and have accessible)?

No, I never said or implied that because they are in no way related that I know of.

It's pointless to debate with you because you are so sure you know it all / obtain pure objectivity.
I don't believe anyone is totally objective -- this ain't pure science.

If you say so, Bob.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[John C]

It's pointless to debate with you because you are so sure you know it all / obtain pure objectivity.
I don't believe anyone is totally objective -- this ain't pure science.

Ahem.  While I agree with your stance that nobody is objective, I'll point out two things and then wander off for a while.

First, a lack of objectivity doesn't mean that fact shouldn't be the goal, nor should the work of people before be discarded as a starting point.  Artists don't try to figure out anatomical proportions from scratch, and musicians don't invent their own scales, because it's a waste of time after (in their cases) many thousands of years of empirical experience accessible to them.  If you're trying to get to the facts behind decades of history, it's just as much of a waste to ignore the people who have come before to study those very things.

Second, this is not the place for personal attacks.  The forum wasn't put up for that purpose, I don't have the patience for that sort of garbage, and nobody else on staff here does, either.  You seem like a good guy, Bob, but this isn't open for negotiation or more than one warning.  If you don't like Jim or how he works, that's fine, but argue the work with evidence, not the person with insults.  If you can't manage that, don't feel obligated to expose yourself to such an unpleasant human being, if my meaning is clear.

[BobS]

Always glad to help, Bob,
hat or no hat, it's wonderful the stuff you can find on the web if you look - well, at least I'm constantly amazed by it. Rudy Franke was a local guy (San Jose) and we used to run into each other at the shops. He sort of introduced us to Corben and that's how we got him involved in Promethean. Same with Jonny Chambers. Man, those were wonderful days.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

I have original Biljo White art of the Eye, from Voice of Comicdom. It was done like a newspaper comic strip and VOC also had strips by Ron Foss, etc.par
The first Corben art I ever saw was "Monsters Rule" in VOC. That story attacks anti-miscegenation by having human - alien sex. I have always been amused by the bestiality aspect of Corben's Rowlf. (I'm poking Yoc and Narf now for partially gagging me.)

I still have multiple copies of Promethean Ent. #5, if mem. serves the one with R. Crumb interview and foldout Robert Williams cover painting. IMO Prometh. Ent. #5 was probably the best fanzine of all time.

Since I'm in a poking mood, Jim, do you think R. Crumb's Comics and Stories was autobiographical? Do you think that maybe Sandra Crumb's anger/hate of her brother R. arose from event like that in R. Crumb's Comics and Stories? Crumb was here in Richmond a few months ago,  but I didn't go because I didn't want to PAY to see him, and I wasn't happy with the format of the discussion -- one of his friends asking him questions. I wonder if anyone ever asked him my question above.

I saw Ken Kesey at VCU (Richmond) at no charge. He seemed to indicate regret that excessive pot (etc.) use might make folks lazy and stupid.
I saw Arthur C. Clarke (accused by some of having been a pedophile -- he was openly bisexual) at VPI (Blacksburg VA) back circa 1968. He had been invited by a fellow colleague, a physics prof at VPI / Va Tech. Clarke answered questions about his sf and was very congenial. At that talk I met Steve Rasnic Tem only then he was (if mem. serves) Steve Rasnick. Rasnic Tem showed me an original Vaughn Bode drawing someone in N3F had GIVEN him!

I vaguely remember another fanzine associated(?) with Voice of Comicdom, if mem. serves published by Bill Dubay....

Peace and mischief!
Bob

[JVJ (RIP)]

Lots of memories, Bob,
and thanks for the compliment.

As for your questions, I can answer them all with "You actually READ comics?" and "I find that the less I know about the private lives of artists, usually the better off I remain." I just like to look at the pictures, man.

ps. I'm willing to bet that Bud Plant still has unopened BOXES of PE #5.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[BobS]

Lots of memories, Bob,
and thanks for the compliment.

As for your questions, I can answer them all with "You actually READ comics?" and "I find that the less I know about the private lives of artists, usually the better off I remain." I just like to look at the pictures, man.

ps. I'm willing to bet that Bud Plant still has unopened BOXES of PE #5.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

I've been reading 'em since 1958, and I probably read (or at least looked at the pictures) Sunday comic strips from earlier.

If comic books are to be accepted as (occasionally) art then questions of lives of artists need to be asked.
Also Crumb probably started the autobiographical comics thing, and has made public some of his dirty laundry.
Also dirty laundry of other members of his family, and probably hurt feelings very much of members of his family because of his thoughtless invasions of THEIR privacy.

Drug use likely released Crumb utterly from his inhibitions. Head Comix (1970) is a good anthology of Crumb's earlier more uninhibited stuff.

I think he's trying to be slightly more 'respectable' these days. The Genesis book is maybe an example of
the more 'mature' (IMO self-consciously serious) Crumb.

Peace and disgruntledness (poo on John C. -- there's no censor like a fundamentalist Christian censor, except maybe a fundamentalist Islamic censor),
Bob

[John C]

Peace and disgruntledness (poo on John C. -- there's no censor like a fundamentalist Christian censor, except maybe a fundamentalist Islamic censor),

Bob, if you want to invent a background or motive for me or if you have a problem with me, you take it up with me personally; my personal e-mail address is right there to the left where it always has been.  If you want to, pardon my language, bitch about people in public, take it to a forum where people might care.

We're here to talk about comics.  You want to talk about someplace else, open your own forum and you can talk about whatever you like.  Next time, you're banned from the system.  Call it censorship if you want, but if you know what the word means, you know you're a liar.  You have the right to publish, not to BE published.

I fully support your right to spew ignorant hate, and would go to bat for you if someone tries to close down your personal soapbox someday, but you won't be doing it in any private space where I have a responsibility to keep people comfortable.  Same goes for anybody posting porn, spam, television reviews, or math proofs, and if you don't understand that, you have my sympathies, but no apology.

[narfstar]

Dang Jon I'm teaching Geometry this year and thought you all would love me sharing some proofs.

[Yoc]

Bob,
You've gotten your official one and only warning.

You've been a good member in the past, let's not blow it.
This forum is free from this kind of polarizing postings. Nobody, no matter how long they've been a member, will be allowed to ruin the good thing we've got going here.

Please keep your posts polite, a-political and non-religious in nature.

-Yoc

[JVJ (RIP)]

[

I've been reading 'em since 1958, and I probably read (or at least looked at the pictures) Sunday comic strips from earlier.

If comic books are to be accepted as (occasionally) art then questions of lives of artists need to be asked.
Also Crumb probably started the autobiographical comics thing, and has made public some of his dirty laundry.
Also dirty laundry of other members of his family, and probably hurt feelings very much of members of his family because of his thoughtless invasions of THEIR privacy.

Drug use likely released Crumb utterly from his inhibitions. Head Comix (1970) is a good anthology of Crumb's earlier more uninhibited stuff.

I think he's trying to be slightly more 'respectable' these days. The Genesis book is maybe an example of
the more 'mature' (IMO self-consciously serious) Crumb.

Peace and disgruntledness (poo on John C. -- there's no censor like a fundamentalist Christian censor, except maybe a fundamentalist Islamic censor),
Bob

I disagree, Bob,
I see no connection between the examination of the personal life and the definition of Art. Such a comparison/exploration may give insights into the meaning of a particular piece, but it shouldn't be part of the criteria in deciding whether or not it IS art.

Again, I find READING Crumb to be much less enjoyable than looking at the pictures.

Speculating on the REASONS for an artist's path/direction is as fraught with misunderstandings as trying to ascertain an actor's true nature by the roles they play. They are artists and it is there JOB to entertain you. How and why Crumb arrived at his particular "role" is less important than the quality of the material.

I don't think Crumb is "trying to slightly more 'respectable' nowadays" That implies an attribute to his actions that he's never demonstrated before - i.e. that he cares what other people think of him. I think he has less to prove now and more freedom to tackle projects that appeal to him. I don't believe that he SUDDENLY developed an interest in Genesis or that he "matured" into it or that someone offered him a bunch of money to produce the book. I think that the Bible is part and parcel of who Crumb is and always was. See, you have factor that aspect of his psyche into "Dirty Laundry" as well. Like any complex and artistic mind, fitting ALL of the pieces together is not a simple process.

And remember, Genesis probably turned off as many existing Crumb fans for its content as it brought new ones to his work. I don't think he cares one way or the other. He draws what he likes and is always grateful that it pays him a living wage .

My 2¢. and remember...

... Peace, Jim (|:{>

[John C]

There's plenty of room for both approaches to art, of course, and most critics/analysts/historians I know tend to specialize in one form or the other.  The artist-centric view, of course, plays better in the media, since it presumes that every piece of art is, by definition, about something personal.

It's worth pointing out, though, that factoring in the artist requires actually knowing the artist to be done right.  What the artist says about himself, or what others say about him, is just more art, and so doesn't really count, after all.

[Yoc]

I can't say I'm a fan of Crumb's artwork but I did watch the 1994 'Crumb' documentary.
http://former.imdb.com/title/tt0109508/
It was like driving by a traffic accident. Fascinating in a creepy sorta way.

-Yoc

[JVJ (RIP)]

There's plenty of room for both approaches to art, of course, and most critics/analysts/historians I know tend to specialize in one form or the other.  The artist-centric view, of course, plays better in the media, since it presumes that every piece of art is, by definition, about something personal.

It's worth pointing out, though, that factoring in the artist requires actually knowing the artist to be done right.  What the artist says about himself, or what others say about him, is just more art, and so doesn't really count, after all.

I'm not quite sure I know what you mean by "both approaches to art" John. Do you mean interpreting the art based on the mores and history of the artist vs just evaluating it as art unencumbered by the personal baggage?

I think it's kind of presumptuous of critics to think that they can glean a deeper insight into a work because they know some dark secret in the artist's past. I've been around enough artists to know that most often it is, as Crumb pointed out, "just lines on paper, folks" or simply the sheer pleasure derived from the creative act. However, most "Art" that we encounter is created to make a living and it's the lucky artist who reaches the point in his or her career where selling it is not a problem and their whims and wishes and inner muses can be catered to.

Crumb certainly has his emotional and psychological aspects to his work, but if you have ever examined his sketchbooks, there is an incredible array and variety of work there. What he chooses to publish is probably what he thinks will sell, which, based on the other material that he enjoys drawing, is only a tiny percentage of his psyche.

Or not. But you're absolutely right when you state that what an artist says (or draws) about himself is just "more art" and should not be taken as the truth. It's what sells or perhaps what the artist wants to remember or, perhaps, it's total fantasy that the artist wishes had happened.

Reading or factoring in the artist into the art requires more knowledge than most critics and certainly most casual observers will ever possess. Take all the hype and hysteria with a grain of salt and just look at the pictures - that's my suggestion.

Peace, Jim (|:{>