 |
| Copyright MARVEL COMICS |
Oh, you lucky peeps. Bashful BARRY PEARL's very latest guest post awaits your reading pleasure. That's it below, so don't delay - read right away. Over to you, BP.
For the most part when I wrote my book, which contains descriptions and notes for all 5,000 Marvel comics from 1961-1977, I did it in real time. That is, I wrote descriptions from the original comics, at the time the books were published. I could not look ahead and see what was coming.
But as time went on I was able to collect a great deal of information that was added to the stories by talking to creators and reading publications.
Marvel Premiere #14 (1974) featured Dr. Strange. Basically the story has Strange witness the birth of the Universe, side-by-side with "God".
But as time went on I was able to collect a great deal of information that was added to the stories by talking to creators and reading publications.
Marvel Premiere #14 (1974) featured Dr. Strange. Basically the story has Strange witness the birth of the Universe, side-by-side with "God".
Well, Stan Lee wasn't too happy about Strange meeting God. Lee, reading the issue after publication and concerned that this might have offended some readers, asked Steve Englehart and Frank Brunner to print a disclaimer saying this was not God but a god. Brunner was to say in Comic Book Resources (2008) "We cooked up this plot - we wrote a letter from a Reverend Billingsley in Texas, a fictional person, saying that one of the children in his parish brought him the comic book, and he was astounded and thrilled by it, and he said, 'Wow, this is the best comic book I've ever read.' And we signed it 'Reverend so-and-so, Austin Texas' - and when Steve was in Texas, he mailed the letter so it had the proper postmark. Then, we got a phone call from Roy, and he said, 'Hey, about that retraction, I'm going to send you a letter, and instead of the retraction, I want you to print this letter.' And it was our letter! We printed our letter!"
Here is the actual letter printed in Dr Strange #3.
And my thanks to Barry for supplying something for all you Crivs to read. If it weren't for him, this blog would be a lot more sporadic. Kindly convey your appreciation to him in the comments section if you'd be so good. Meanwhile, I'm off to slide another slice of toast under his door.
Update: Barry has supplied a new image (below) and left an interesting comment to explain it in the you-know-where.
Update: Barry has supplied a new image (below) and left an interesting comment to explain it in the you-know-where.
9 comments:
I've heard about this story for years but never actually saw the faked letter before- thanks for sharing, Barry!
And thanks for commenting, DS. It's the first time I remember hearing the story AND seeing the letter.
Hadn't heard that story either nice back story Barry. Its strange to think this would cause any issues AS its not exactly blasphemous. I seem to recall something similar with a Son Of Satan story where SoS met Jesus (or similar to that I can't quite recall the details)- saying that I was always amazed that Marvel got away with publishing a mainstream comic Son Of Satan.
Not blasphemous, McS, but it could've potentially been perceived as being partisan when it comes to the Judeo/Christian concept of God, which people of other faiths might object to. The other story you're thinking of is Ghost Rider, where Christ appeared as a character. The writer had planned (and received approval) for Ghost Rider to accept Christ as his Saviour and serve God instead of the Devil. Jim Shooter, an associate editor at the time, nixed the idea, presumably on the same grounds as I outlined above, and turned the character into a baddie who had been masquerading as a goodie. It was perhaps felt that Marvel shouldn't risk offending (and maybe losing) readers by playing favourites in the area of denominational religion.
Hi Guys, thanks for the comments. There are TWO stories here. Tony Isabella is a friend of mine and he explained to me the Ghost Rider thing. In fact, I put this story in my book.
Tony Isabella: "My run on Ghost Rider began with an issue plotted by Friedrich and already pencilled by Jim Mooney (in issue #6). No written plot came with the art, so I made it up as I scripted it. I even rearranged the page order just a mite. I got through scripting the issue, a far more intimidating process that I had anticipated and then had to think about what I would do next. Getting prior approval from Editor Roy Thomas, as I would from later editors Len Wein and Marv Wolfman, I introduced “The Friend” into the series. He looked sort of like a hippie Jesus Christ and that’s exactly who He was, though I never actually called Him that in my stories. The introduction of “The Friend” was creatively and personally satisfying. The readers loved the idea and, from then on, my Ghost Rider was about redemption and salvation. It allowed me to address a disparity that had long bothered me about the Marvel universe. Though we had no end of Hell(s) and Satan surrogates in our comics, we had nothing of Heaven, save for the mythology-based Asgard and Olympus. It was about time we heard from God. My “redemption/salvation” story ran two years, approved many times over by my editors. Alas, the issue that would have brought it to fruition was undone at the last moment. My last issue of Ghost Rider was not completely rewritten. In its original version, it was waiting to be sent to the printer when Jim Shooter pulled it back and defaced it. As I recall, he rewrote the key pages and had several panels redrawn. (Issue #19) The only explanation I was ever given was that Shooter didn’t like Jesus Christ appearing in a Marvel comic because of his own beliefs or lack thereof...and that he felt it would offend other readers. The first was arrogance as the storyline had been approved by three editors and he was, at the name, an assistant editor. The second was absurd as the storyline had been very well received by readers from the start. What made the situation even more absurd was...that issue was meant to write both Jesus and Satan out of the series. My intention was for Johnny Blaze to act on his beliefs in the future, but not make a big deal out of them. Help people, get married, have kids, go to church, but without the religious/supernatural overtones. I tried to explain this to Shooter, but he was determined to derail a story two years in the making."
Second was a Son of Satan page that was censored (this too is in the book). It showed a a character on the cross in issue #8. I sent this picture to Kid maybe he can put it up
Image now up, BP. I'm bound to say that I think Shooter was probably right in this instance - at least as far as his motivation goes. After all, if Stan was wary of having the Christian God in a Marvel comic, then it naturally follows that Jim Shooter would have the same reservations as regards Jesus. For my own thoughts on the matter, readers might be interested in my post, 'Ghost Rider - Servant Of God...?'
Tony had a major point that I agree with.
Comic books presented devils and demons all the time. They were endless. That had no hesitation to show us Satan, Pluto, Mephisto, Hela and s on. Yet, they almost never showed angels. Or the good guys. There was only evil and nothing to balance that.
Why is showing Satan okay and showing a godlike creature not okay? By the way, the creature helping Ghost Rider would have been seen as an angel, Christ would not have been named.
I can see his point too to a certain extent, BP, but here's what I think he (and you) were missing. Evil has always been a necessary component of drama and conflict when it comes to goodies versus baddies. And whenever the Devil, Satan, Ol' Nick, Mephistopheles, Mephisto, demons, etc., have been used in stories, they were merely a means to an end; no one was trying to promote evil as a way of life to be followed, so the seeming disparity to which you refer was not really as significant as it may at first appear. There's never been any shortage of good guys in comics.
Showing Satan is arguably okay (in a comic about Satan at least) because he is portrayed as the thoroughly evil, unlikeable, detestable, individual he's meant to be - he's not being shown in a good light. And comics have also shown 'godlike creatures' in their time, so nobody has ever said it's NOT okay to show them.
However, the difference between showing a 'godlike creature' and God Himself is immense, because unless it's a comic strip adaptation of the Bible, it treats God like a character in a story and attributes words, thoughts and motives to Him that He never said, thought, or was motivated by.
Although some religious people wouldn't have a problem with that as long as He was treated respectfully, others would be offended by seeing the God they worship being treated in what they would regard as a frivolous way. Whether they're right or wrong is another matter entirely, but Stan and Jim (on behalf of Marvel Comics) would have reservations about using religious figures in a fictional universe and perhaps offending people of other faiths outside of the Judeo/Christian traditions.
Although you say that 'The Friend' would never have been named as Christ, it seems obvious as to who He was meant to be (otherwise there wouldn't have been much point in including Him), but to do so could have been viewed as an implicit endorsement of the truth of the Christian religion, a bias that Marvel Comics couldn't afford to be seen to have in case it offended those of other faiths - and indeed those of the Christian faith who might be offended by seeing Jesus in a superhero comic. Although, as I said, not all of them would be.
Of course, it could be argued that using Satan himself could be viewed as an endorsement of the Christian faith, but I believe Marvel always tried to be ambiguous as to whether 'their' Satans, Mephistos, Devils, and Demons were the Biblical ones, and they also realised that many people who believe in God don't necessarily believe in a literal Devil or Hell, so they were on slightly safer ground in that area.
So while I believe that Isabella's motives came from a good place, I can see why it might be felt by the 'higher ups' (no, not angels - the 'boardroom') that it might not be such a good idea to give the impression that they favoured one religion over another.
So I can see both points of view, but I tend to think that Marvel were right (from their point of view) to be careful.
Oh, and in the case of Pluto and Hela, we also had Zeus and Odin, so it wasn't entirely one-sided.
Post a Comment