Wednesday, September 1, 2004

Today's Political Rant

Watched some of the Republican Convention. Boy, Zell Miller seemed angry, especially for a guy who, not that long ago, spoke so fervently for most of the opposite viewpoints. I can accept and even respect that a man might change his mind but not that he should show so much contempt for people who are only believing what he believed six years ago.

Aside from that, I thought most of the speeches were pretty awful. I thought most were pretty awful at the Democratic Convention, too. At both, I felt an overriding sense that the texts were written with a precise list of Talking Points...like someone told the authors, "Don't mention these six things, and mention these five as many times as you can." Maybe I'm expecting too much from something delivered from the rostrum of a political convention but it would be nice if someone felt their message was so strong that it won't hurt to fairly acknowledge some of the opposing viewpoints...or to even for the major speakers to admit where they differ from the candidate. I keep hearing people praise John McCain for "straight talk" and saying what's on his mind. Now, I don't think he does that all the time...just often enough to maintain the image of one who does that. Still, even if he's Mr. Candor, isn't it sad for an elected official to be commended for honesty? Isn't that like praising a doctor because his patients don't always die?

In the meantime, I've received a lot of nice e-mails from readers of this site who wrote things like Jason King did in this message...

I hope you don't mind the familiarity, but I feel like I've known you a long time. I first read your writing in early issues of Kamandi, picked up from my local drugstore. But enough nostalgia. I don't agree with your politics. I, however, don't think you're irresponsible or out-of-line in your opinions. Keep saying what you believe is true. You're unlikely to persuade me to your POV, but I will pay attention to it. People who are willing to say my side is wrong (as opposed to evil) get my considered attention. Like you, I don't believe my preferred candidate is perfect, but he comes closer to my views than the other guy. I get the impression from your posts that you are paying attention and giving both sides a listen. That's all I ask from people writing opinion pieces.

Thanks — to you and all who wrote similar messages. I wince at the use of the word "evil" for some of the trivial offenses to which it is applied. I think it should be saved for important things like Satanic possession, mass murder, and eating cole slaw. I've never felt one political party had a monopoly on either integrity or common sense, nor do I have much respect for such sentiments.

One minor point: I helped (sans credit) with the plotting of the first issue of Kamandi. Despite somehow getting my name on one later story, I never worked on another after #1. Didn't even read subsequent issues until years later when I was assigned to pen a Superman-Kamandi team-up for DC Comics Presents. I understand your confusion but I'm so fierce about not getting credit for Jack Kirby's work that I had to mention this. And I should also clarify that I was just kidding in the above paragraph. Eating cole slaw is not evil. Making it, however, is. Same thing with three-bean salad.

• Posted at 10:26 PM · LINK

Important Stuff

Since Garfield and Friends is now emerging on DVD, I'm getting a lot of questions about the series. One that turns up often is, "What's the deal with the Klopman Diamond?" For a year or three on the show, it seemed like we couldn't go a week without someone mentioning the Klopman Diamond and folks wonder what it was and why we kept talking about it. So here's the deal with the Klopman Diamond. It's from an old joke. If you Google "Klopman Diamond," you'll find dozens of sites that repeat the joke and...well, here. I saved you the trouble of Googling. This is the joke, freshly cut-and-pasted from the first site I just hit...

A businessman boarded a plane to find, sitting next to him, an elegant woman wearing the largest, most stunning diamond ring he had ever seen.

He asked her about it.

"This is the Klopman Diamond," she said, "It is beautiful, but there is a terrible curse that goes with it."

"What's the curse?" the man asked.

"Mr. Klopman."

That's the joke the way I first heard it on (I think) Johnny Carson's show. But I then heard it in a lot of places and it always intrigued me that the name "Klopman" stayed with it. As jokes get handed around and told and retold, they're often changed or embellished. Somehow though, those who tell this one seem to sense that they can't improve on the name of Klopman.

It's really the name that fits best and don't take my word for it. Do some scientific research. Rent a lab and a clipboard and some white lab coats. Pay people to come in for testing after first pre-screening them to make sure they haven't heard any jokes about diamonds. Then divide them into three groups. Tell the joke to Group A but make it the Fazzblatt Diamond. Tell it to Group B as the Lipsitz Diamond. Then tell it to Group C as the Klopman Diamond. You will get the biggest laughs from Group C...by far. Whoever devised the joke with the name Klopman really knew what he or she was doing.

The specificity of the name Klopman amused me so I stuck it into an episode of Garfield and Friends. Everyone in the recording session recognized the reference and laughed so I added it to another episode we were recording the same day. Everyone laughed again so it became a running gag for a while. I even did a whole episode about the Klopman Diamond. I don't know why it's funny but it is. If you rent the lab and run the test, see if you can figure it out.

• Posted at 11:52 AM · LINK

Kirby Kwestion

Four or five times a week, I get an e-mail asking me my opinion of Tales to Astonish, a recently-issued biography of Jack Kirby by "Ronin Ro." I've avoided answering because I've been having a hard time figuring out how to phrase my response, and because every so often, I pick up my copy, re-read a section and find myself more conflicted. There is no doubt in my mind that the book has an awful lot of inaccuracies and that the over-all portrait it draws of Jack is not the Jack I knew...and you'd think that since I feel that way, reviewing it oughta be easy. But I also think its author is undeserving of that kind of curt dismissal because, first of all, he did uncover a lot of facts about Jack's life that have previously gone unreported. Also, a few of his errors come from believing things Jack himself was quoted as saying.

Kirby had many talents but giving clear, accurate interviews was not among them. It wasn't so much that he got things wrong but that he got them confused and a diligent researcher needs to look at certain statements and say, "Oh, I get it...here where Jack was talking about Captain America, he actually meant Captain Marvel. Then it makes perfect sense." Having struggled with this problem myself for decades, I cannot bring myself to fault "Ronin Ro" too much for taking some statements at face value. Or for not knowing a lot of things about Jack that have simply never been recounted anywhere.

I was interviewed for the book by a gent who (I guess) is the person who wrote it under the pen name. The interview, done by phone with some e-mail follow-ups, surprised me in its brevity. If I'd been him and I had a chance to ask me questions, I'd have asked a lot more than he did. As I page through the finished volume, I find myself impressed by him knowing a couple of things that I know I didn't tell him...but also annoyed about a number of things that I could have corrected if he'd run them by me.

So here is my problem and why I've declined several offers to do formal reviews. I don't want to dump on the book because I think the author made a sincere effort and because I think he did a better job than I'd have imagined from a guy who was so far removed from Jack. At the same time, I don't want to endorse everything in it, nor do I want to go page by page and cite things that I think are wrong...and I mean "wrong" either on a factual basis or just in conveying the sense of what was transpiring at a given time. I also believe that in the latter category — the interpretation of Jack and his life as opposed to the cold, hard data — there's room for other views than mine...and I do agree with a number of conclusions. I finally decided just to say I have mixed feelings about Tales to Astonish and that I don't discourage anyone from purchasing it. I'd just discourage them from, if they do read it, believing everything they read.

Those who write to ask me what I think of this book also ask me how my biography of Kirby is coming. Answer: It's coming. I've written over 250,000 words (the chapter on Sky Masters alone is 23,000) and I haven't even put in any storylines. Like, I write about the creation of Fantastic Four and then I insert a little note to myself that says "insert plot of F.F. #1 here" because I can go back and do that later, after I finish the stuff that involves interviews and plowing through crates of files and Kirby's personal papers and such. Over the next year, I hope to fill in those notes and to circulate a draft manuscript to a couple of already-selected (please don't volunteer) Kirby friends and historians for comments. I also still have at least a dozen folks on my "to be interviewed" list.

So the book will come out. I just don't know when. I just know that once it is published, everyone will understand why it took so long.

• Posted at 1:20 AM · LINK