Because of the recent posts covering the depositions in the Kirby vs Marvel affair, I thought it
might be interesting to post a few excerpts from "The Dirty Dozen," an article in Inside Comics
vol 1 #3 from 1974. The article was by Doug Murray, and he gets some opinions from Jim
Steranko, Roy Thomas, and others.

Jim Steranko:
"I guess the biggest problem in the field I could think of would be the incredibly avaricious
attitude of the publishers and, to a lesser extent, the editors.... None of them, with one or
two exceptions, care how their product looks or even how it is received, as long as it makes
money. They'll screw the creative people at every opportunity."

Jim mentions that previously he had gotten cash bonuses from Marvel and from Marty
Goodman (the publisher) personally, and then later on, he'd gotten some fruit or cheese
baskets. But, in 1973, when he was doing F.O.O.M. magazine for Marvel, he got nothing.

"... when the publishers have to pinch pennies, they don't give a cut to the printers... they
have a union; they don't cut the engravers, or the colorers, they have a union too. They
cut the creative people."

He feared that this trend would force the creators out of the market.

I don't imagine you'd need one now, but I'm surprised a funnybook union didn't spring up back in the day.

Roy Thomas:
"I guess my biggest gripe about the industry would concern the problems that we have with
distribution and sales.... Right now, comics are such a nickel and dime business in comparison
with other printing operations that many distributors don't even bother to get the books to the
stands. They feel their profit just isn't high enough for the effort."

He believed they were lucky if even 2/3rds of what they were printing made it to the stands.
This was costing them money, their fan support, and possible future contributors.

Howard Chaykin:
"My biggest gripe with the comic industry is the lack of freedom. An artist is expected to
curb any imagination he may have and work to a blueprint given him by an editor. He
has to try to bring life to a character [that] may seem dead to his own mind.... How can
an artist get involved with a character when no part of that character is his own?"

Chaykin feared that if "they ever invent a computer that can draw what it is told to
draw, the comic book artist will be out of business."

Al Williamson:
"I can't really say that I've had any great gripes about the comic business. It's my opinion
that a man creates his own gripes. In my case, I've always been careful not to get in a
situation where I would have problems that would cause me to gripe.... At E.C., there was
minimal editorial interference, and I was young and eager it wouldn't have made any
difference anyway."

Gray Morrow:
"... the biggest single problem in the industry is that people aren't getting paid enough for
the product they create. An artist spends his whole life learning to draw, to create life
from black lines and pieces of paper. A writer yearns to write, polishes his art, and
starves until he finally begins to work. Put these people in the comics and they find
they have to turn out huge volumes of work in order to make a decent living. Turning
out large volumes of work means that they cannot give the work their fullest attention.

This leads to a lack of self-respect, and eventually one of two things happen: either
disintegration into a hack turning out work on deadline with no spark, no real interest,
or drop out f the field and try to find a more rewarding market for their work."

As the then editor of Archie Comics Red Circle line, Morrow also realized that the
profit margin for the publisher was also quite low: "he cannot afford to raise rates
without losing profits and making his investment even less worthwhile. It's a vicious
cycle, and one that needs to be corrected before the comics will be the viable force
they should be."

It seems that most of the people in the articles (I didn't sum them all up) realized that there
was a lot of effort being put into the industry by the creators—for little money—and also that
there was a lot of risk and little profits being made by the publishers. Some artists felt that
they were being squeezed, and some authors complained about the exhausting deadlines,
but I think the general consensus was that there was no money to be made by anyone
in comics.

I'm not sure that a funny book union would have done much except drive publishers out of
the business entirely.

There were attempts over the years but they were pretty effectively squashed by the publishers. One of the most famous is the attempt by DC freelancers like Gardner Fox, Otto Binder, Bill Finger, Arnold Drake, and France Herron in the late 60's. All they got for their trouble was being blackballed by the company. The problem there was that they had reached the point where they were considered expendable, and there were lots of young guys ready to take their place.

Neal Adams tried to organize a guild in the late 70's around such issues as minimum page rates, royalties, and return of artwork, but that failed too. A column I read by Joe Brancatelli at the time suggested Adams' personality was part of the problem there.

Jason, can you elaborate a bit more on that Brancatelli comment about Adams? Thanks.

I wish Brancatelli's old columns were online somewhere... they were fascinating reading. He'd go into detail about the problems with distribution and the industry in general, and some of it was really prescient.

Anyway, regarding Adams and the guild, I typed up the complete item from his January 1979 The Comic Books column (published in all Warren magazines with that cover date). I'm curious what ever happened to this guild? Based on the item, I imagine it just sputtered out due to lack of interest.

Neal Adams, who does more crusading than drawing these days, has emerged as the key man in the membership drive for the fledgling Comic Book Creators Guild. The Guild, born after a rowdy spring meeting at Adams' studio, has signed up only 40 comic book artists, writers, and editors during more than three months of soliciting. While sympathetic to the Guild's goals, many of the industry's most influential and respected creators are refusing to sign up. They claim Adams will run the show and many feel the controversial artist is generally ignorant of comic-book realities, egotistical and unqualified for the industry's leadership post. The Guild, officially being run by an ad hoc committee chaired by young artist Marshall Rogers, has been attempting to downplay Adams' participation. The Guild admits Adams was one of the first to agitate for a society of comic art freelancers, but claims that's his only real participation so far. The Guild is working out of Adams' East Side studio, but group spokesmen say it's presently the only place the society can operate. A permanent headquarters and guild officers are scheduled to be chosen as soon as enough members kick in the $100 initial fee. The badly needed "big names" aren't convinced however. "It's going to be Adams' show and he's running it just the way he ran ACBA (an earlier creator's group) into the ground," moans one hold-out writer. "As long as he's on the top no one at Marvel, DC or Warren will pay attention to the group and there are a lot of prospective members who will simply ignore the Guild. They want to fight the publishers on copyrights, but they won't be led by Adams."

Thanks, Jason.

His inflated head seems to be the genesis of many of his theories.

Estaban Maroto:
"I feel that my biggest gripe about the American industry would have to concern the story-
telling policies. In the American comics, the story is told through lengthy pieces of prose,
either in dialogue or in captions. I feel that since comics are a visual medium, the story
should be told visually, in pictures alone. Any dialogue or cations should be secondary,
added just for clarification or to add flavor to a story."

Maroto then goes on to speak of Spanish comics where the dialogue is unimportant or
missing completely. He believed that the words distracted from the art.

I wonder how he would feel with today's talking-heads issues?