Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Follow The Leader: Episode 3: Jim Shooter - Editor Extreme!

Martinex1:   Here it is Tuesday, and as we said earlier this week we need your help filling some gaps in our topic schedule.   So it is Follow The Leader time!   We will take any topic suggested and throw it out to the masses for consideration and conversation.   Most Tuesdays will be like this and we will be listening to our commenters and following their lead.   The challenge is to keep the conversation rolling and going, so keep in mind that sidebars, tangents, and non sequiturs are welcome!  Those only make the day more exciting.
So here are the general rules:

1) Whoever gets here first (or even second) post a topic starter in the comments that others can jump on and discuss for the day; supply as little or as much detail as necessary to get the ball rolling.

3) The range of possible subjects is broad - comics, movies, music, television, fiction, hobbies, queries, etc.  Try to have the topic touch some aspect of Bronze Age nostalgia if possible.

4) Keep it clean and family friendly.

5) All others...follow the Leader! Your job is to keep the conversation rolling.   (As I said - follow the topic wherever it takes you; a conversation started about comics may lead to comments on jazz for all we know)!

Note:  There is one caveat... if Redartz or I notice that the suggested topic is something we already have in the pipeline, we will let you know and inform you of the projected date for that subject for discussion.  That is just so we don't double up.   Hey - great minds think alike, right?

So get your big brains boiling -  it is your site for the day!

18 comments:

Rip Jagger said...

Did Jim Shooter save Marvel Comics?

My personal take is that Shooter (by many accounts a difficult personality) arrived in the nick of time to salvage Marvel Comics which was floundering after a cavalcade of editors had tried in vain to occupy the seat the Stan Lee had left a decade earlier. Admittedly many of Shooter's moves were unpopular and even possibly wrong, but they did have the effect (apparently) of righting a listing ship and putting the publisher back on track in terms of delivering product to the newsstands in a regular and reliable manner.

What do you all think?

Rip Off

ColinBray said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ColinBray said...

Great topic.

While I don't know what editorial alternatives were on the table when Shooter took the reins, he was massively important and quite possibly saved the Matvel brand. I put him in my top-tier Marvel Hall of Fame alongside Stan, Jack, Steve and Roy.

Yes, he got the trains to run on time. But he also gave the company back it's identity and promoted a cohesive universe that engaged with readers and fans.

Yes, he could be dictatorial and this probably eroded his effectiveness in later years, but he understood creators and did a lot to increase their pay and creative rights.

If you have a week spare his website is indispensable reading - www.JimShooter.com

I recognise that Shooter divides opinion so am looking forward to reading the various viewpoints.

david_b said...

Wow, starting off 2017 with a bang, eh...? I'll have to reread the 'Untold Story' book about Marvel again for reference.., but from this 'more-off-than-on' '80s Marvel reader, I'd give a couple of kudos.

First off, it's hard to say whether a pioneer in a changing industry is either the leader or just flexible enough to keep up with the already-tumultuous changes going on, but Shooters advocacy on artistic property rights was timely and effective. The scene changed since the '60s, folks, plain and simple. We're talking the reapment of great merchandising rewards and media here, especially with the first Superman movie, etc.., which put the 'distinquished competition' on a higher ground. The change was happening, and Shooter did well to keep his talent employed and happy.

Second, I didn't like much of his editorial decisions or writing (Yellowjacket for one..), but he made the trains run on time. If he had just stuck to that, he'd have been seen in a far better light. It was the age of changing distribution plans, more toylines, deluxe/glossier formats, etc. Sometimes you despise the young yuppies, but but guess what..? They keep the asset sheets in the black.

Great topic, everyone.

Edo Bosnar said...

Well, Shooter himself said at one point (when he was still blogging), that Roy Thomas saved Marvel when he landed the license for Star Wars comics. But yeah, I see where you're coming from, Rip.
This whole Shooter as savior vs. Shooter as Satan incarnate debate has been going on forever, and I doubt we'll resolve anything here. Like Colin implied, he's now become kind of a lightning rod for diametrically opposed viewpoints.
Personally, I tend to have more of a positive rather than negative view of Shooter, possibly because my absolute peak of reading and pure enjoyment of comics ran from late 1978/early 1979 to roughly 1984-ish, at the beginning and height of what could be called the Shooter era. It's been mentioned many times before, but this was the period of Claremont/Byrne/Austin's X-men, Miller's Daredevil, Michelinie/Layton's Iron Man, Byrne's Fantastic Four, Jones/Anderson's Ka-zar, Simonson's Thor, etc. It's also a time when one of my favorite comic-book writers, Roger Stern, was quite prolific on a number of titles, as was Bill Mantlo, and artists like Sal Buscema and Keith Pollard were producing a high quantity of nice work. Obviously, all of that can't be credited exclusively to Shooter, but it did occur under his editorial guidance.
Shooter also backed quality projects proposed by other editors, like Milgrom and Goodwin, i.e., Marvel Fanfare and Epic Illustrated, while I think the related Epic imprint was his idea.
Shooter also apparently deserves quite a bit of credit for introducing creator royalties at Marvel, which then became the standard industry practice.
And just so it doesn't seem like I'm trying to get the guy canonized, I'll say I really hated his second tenure as writer on Avengers, when we saw the unfortunate downfall of Hank Pym among other things, and I completely ignored Secret Wars and still haven't read that story to this day.

Anonymous said...

Edo,I was reaching the end of pure enjoyment about the same time you were starting. So, I have no reading history to call upon for most of his reign. But, I have read a lot of interesting stuff on jimshooter.com (thank you Colin Bray). Very interesting.

So, after weighing his side versus other internet babble, Ive come to form a slightly more favorable than unfavorable opinion of him.

So to answer the question Rip - "Yeah."

Happy New Year All!

Tom

Martinex1 said...

Without knowing directly any of the inner workings of Marvel at the time, here is my hypothesis based on repeated mirror occurrences in the business world. For me the situation with Jim Shooter and Marvel follows a relatively classic pattern in business. I would define the pattern in these steps.
1) King (role).
2) Chaos (situation).
3) Dictator (role).
4) Stability (situation).
5) Unrest (situation).
6) Freedom Fighter (role).
7) Stability (situation).
8) Repeat from point 2.
This may get long so I will stretch it into a couple of comments if need be - but let me explain my position a bit.
The King is typically a person that founds a company, is the initial leader, or the innovator. There is respect for the King (or Queen) and basically the people in the organization follow that leader. Most were hired by the King; most understand that the king built the business. The king understands the business because he built the model. I think Stan Lee falls into the role of king for Marvel. Remember everybody followed what Stan said even to the point of misunderstanding and putting a nose on Iron Man.
Following the king (if the king retires or leaves the business) there is a period of chaos. There is a huge vacuum where there used to be leadership. The folks left behind all have ideas (some good and some bad) and there is typically a struggle for control. A common question is, “Who is in charge”? The people in leadership roles during this period can misperceive the king’s power. The king did earn the right to direct the way he did – he built the organization; he earned the respect. That respect is not automatically passed down or inherited. Following a king is tough. And keeping the organization together is even tougher because people tend to judge every decision. I think Roy, Gerry, Len, and Marv all experienced this in rather rapid succession. Running a business is complex; they were mainly creative people that were thrown into all aspects of operation at the time of tremendous change where countless people want to run in countless directions. Chaos. I am sure they all recognized that relatively quickly and got out of the way of the bus.
Eventually a Dictator steps in. The term “dictator” obviously has negative connotations, but here I mean it in a slightly different way. The person clearly dictates what needs to be done to “right the ship”. It can be a “good” person but it is not a wishy-washy person. They emit strength and conviction. It just is a person who can clearly see what needs to be done and explains it well. The person has a good vision, is a chess player and can juggle many parts, stays firm to the plan, and outlines a path to execute. I think Jim Shooter fits this role to a tee. Keep in mind that in times of chaos, sometimes people just truly want clear direction and a defined path. The dictator typically says, “This is what we need to do to get back on track and here are the steps to do it. This is where I see us going.” For a period of time there is buy-in.

Martinex1 said...

My thoughts... part 2:

This is where it gets challenging because there is Stability for a while (ie the trains are running on time). Things are “good.” But that feeling eventually drifts to Unrest if the dictator does not change his ways and adjust. As time passes, the dictator cannot stay too tight to his path. He has to allow some flexibility for the followers to explore, experiment, and wander. Sometimes dictators tighten the reins and sometimes they loosen them – there is definitely a time to loosen the control and delegate. I don’t know Jim Shooter, but it may have been perceived that he doubled down rather than allowing some creativity amongst his team to enact his vision. I believe Shooter had great basic concepts in terms of a) always be ready for distribution, b) stories have beginnings, middles, and ends, and c) every book is a jumping on point for some reader. If (and I say “if” because I don’t know) he started micro-managing that approach it can get overwhelming for the team. If he instead delegates and says, “This is what I expect and I don’t care how you get there but this is what I want delivered,” he may have had more success. When a dictator starts being perceived as the pejorative “Dictator” with a capital “D,” the business can slide from stability to unrest. This typically happens after some years when personnel has changed a bit and newer people did not experience the chaos prior to the dictator’s heroic stabilization so there is a lack of respect. At the same time the older team has started to get tired of the oppressive style and wants some modicum of control. I believe Shooter did fight for creators’ rights and those benefits, but it may have been too private and not apparent to the team he was fighting for. I also believe as the business grew and expanded, Shooter may have benefitted from doing less and not more. Taking on writing chores for Secret Wars and the New Universe may have stretched him too thin. Delegation can be tricky.

In many cases, stability slips into unrest as I have described and the next role to stabilize the team is a “Freedom Fighter.” They have success by loosening the grip that the dictator had and giving people the freedom to use their knowledge and build in a different fashion. The freedom fighter is all about collaboration and team work and enthusiastic cheerleading rather than being a didactic director. This again leads to some stability and growth. Eventually this too can slip into unrest or chaos if it gets too loose. Collaboration is great but decisions do have to be made. It is a different kind of balancing act for the Freedom Fighter, but there is still a fine line for control. I don’t know who Marvel’s freedom fighter was or is – I dropped off somewhere around Shooter’s demise, but I suspect there was or is one.

So that is my theory and I am sticking to it. Again I know nothing about Jim Shooter the man, but I suspect his leadership fell into a typical pattern. In my opinion, he was definitely the right person at the right time with a lot of great goals and a sound action plan. I may have titled him “dictator” but I did so with all due respect. I do believe he saved the company because he did exactly what he should have at that specific time. He may have just tried to do it for too long. And also in his favor is the fact that he very apparently loves comics and the craft, he is talented in his own right, he wrote some of the best tales in comic history, and he was the editor during some iconic comic output.

ColinBray said...

Wow, very insightful observations Martinex1. I've heard some of these ideas in relation other organisations (Apple/Jobs comes to mind) but never in so much depth or applied to the world of comics.

Thank you!

PS I wonder how Joe Quesada fits in - perhaps as the 'dictator' after the chaos of the 90s?

Martinex1 said...

Colin - I am not sure how Joe Quesada fit in; I did not follow Marvel as much during those days (output, business, or otherwise). He may have been an amalgam of "roles," walking a balance between freedom and rules. He definitely had a long and I believe a relatively peaceful stay. Perhaps others have opinions.

I do have one more bit of praise for Jim Shooter and his tenure (I apologize for dominating the comments), but Shooter did a fantastic job of protecting the company's property and characters. I think he had a very firm grasp of who the fictional characters were and kept their situations, characteristics, and responses within clear boundaries. I believe some of what us Bronze Agers consider as nonsense in subsequent years (Gwen Stacy's affair for example) probably would not have occurred under Shooter. It was out of character. There were core values and characteristics and driving motivations that the key characters (heroes and villains) had - and I think Shooter governed those well. You could see the tarnishing beginning shortly after he left.

Anonymous said...

Martinex1, I was gonna say all that but you beat me to it! But seriously, I think Shooter helped Marvel a lot, at least businesswise. On the creative side ... I'm not sure; half the creators at Marvel ended up leaving because of Shooter (according to them, anyway), and some of his creative ideas (e.g. New universe) weren't winners (and if you believe the stories, there were even stranger ideas that never saw the light of day).

Mike Wilson

J.A. Morris said...

I don't that he "saved" Marvel, but I think he was generally more of a positive than a negative presence during his tenure as EIC. I believe Shooter hung around longer than he should have, if he'd left earlier he would be much more fondly remembered by fans and creators.

Anonymous said...

Hegel's Dialectic, I guess.
But he chased away Gene Colan, and that's unforgivable.

M.P.

Charlie Horse 47 said...

Martinex1 - That was quite a dissertation! (I am guessing you are a strategy consultant in your spare time?)

I was starting college when Shooter took over and my preference in literature became such treats as Thermodynamics and Electromagnetic Theory.

All I can say is that, when I eventually came back to comics occasionally, I discovered Mr. Shooters' Legion of Superheroes from the 60s. And, in my world, that negates his perceived sins at Marvel.

Good day all!

pfgavigan said...

Hiya,

Has anybody here ever had to be the adult in the room?

You know, the hall monitor, the RA, the supervisor?

The Kill Joy, in other words.

Here's a link to RS Martins blog, check out 'Jim Shooter, A Different Opinion.'

http://rsmwriter.blogspot.com/

I'm trying really hard not to go into a rant about fanish tendencies to assume that our favorite creators are somehow different from the rest of humanity. That they don't elaborate or embroider or out and out lie about people they didn't care for.

People like your boss, people who can say 'no' to your idea.

That's why I'm not going to get into this. I wasn't there. Anything I 'know' is second or third hand. Stuff like that isn't allowed in court, just ask Mark Evanier or the Two Morrows.

Shooter admits to having some personal issues with people, everybody does. He also has a great means of reining in some of the more personal attacks against him.

Shooter saved his correspondence. Personal and professional from both before and after his time at Marvel. Boxes and Boxes of the stuff. Indexed. Some of it is rather benign, some of it were personal attacks on him and others employed by Marvel. People Shooter could have legitimately canned in retaliation for what they did. He didn't.

Once at his site he showed alleged photos of the files relating to the subject at hand. One of the 'creators he had chased from Marvel.' One who had been negotiating his renewal of contract in bad faith while preparing to sign one with the Distinguished Competitors and then tried to go around Shooter to Galton in an attempt to continue writing a character that he was attached to.

Said individual had used the chased out of Marvel story for years. I haven't read anything of him relating it since that blog posting.

Sorry, I guess I got into rant mode after all.

Didn't mean to do this. . .

Seeya

pfgavigan

Redartz said...

Great discussion today, everyone! And a big tip of the cap to my partner Martinex1- an excellent analysis.

I really don't have much to add. I have fair respect for Jim Shooter, based solely on my appreciation of his work. I feel Marvel was better off for his having been EOC, but can't argue with those who feel he stayed a bit long.
I had the pleasure of meeting him at a convention last year; he was very friendly and kind. Generous with his time and patient with my questions. I've met others who were, shall we say, not so...

Anonymous said...

After thirty years, everybody's a great guy.
Well, except for Hitler, I guess.
It's a rule!

M.P.

Unknown said...

He seemed quite reasonable and erudite when he was regularly blogging a few years ago. He even used a couple of my ideas as themes, which I was duly chuffed about.
He sure did/does have a lot of enemies, but then -- so do I!

You Might Also Like --

Here are some related posts: