I'm told that after I left the Writers Guild meeting last night, there was at least one member who got up at a microphone and, in an effort to stop a ship that had long since sailed, argued that the deal was not good enough to accept. That case can always be made, of course, and everyone knew that there were areas in which the offer was flawed. We do not negotiate with philanthropists, after all. Our reps face off with huge conglomerates who send out their emissaries with orders to not yield a single cent more than absolutely necessary. At times, it gets insulting how maniacal they are; how men and women who boast of the billions that their companies gross can be so muleheaded about denying you every possible dime. But it should not be surprising in this day and age.

Those who expect something much, much better than what the WGA achieved are destined to always be at the mike, insisting that the deal should be better. They're not wrong, at least in theory. Where they're often wrong is in that pesky "real world" part of the equation. And really, what's significant and quite unprecedented is that there were so few of them in this strike. I never thought I'd witness such togetherness in the Writers Guild of America.

Long ago, I observed the following: That when an author gets that first copy of his new book (or comic book or any publication) from the printer or publisher, he or she can open it to any random page and find a typo. There may turn out to be only one in the entire volume but there'll be one on the first page you look at. Every time. What's more, your immediate reaction will be to stare stupidly at it and think, wrongly, "There's a way to fix that."

Guess why I bring this up. Yesterday, I received a finished, bound, printed copy of Kirby: King of Comics, a new book from Harry N. Abrams Publishing all about the great Jack Kirby and his artistry. I opened the FedEx box, removed a plastic wrapper, opened to a page in the middle and there it was…a word that should have been italicized but wasn't. If you purchase this book, you may never notice it. But as its author, it was my solemn duty to not only notice it but to spot it the second I opened the thing.

Anyway, the book finally exists and I'll play humble here and not tell you how proud I am of it. I wish I'd had more pages because Jack is such a vast and important subject, and I know I've already angered a few folks by telling them that their favorite Kirby creation got either short shrift or no shrift at all. A much longer, detailed biography of the man will follow in a couple of years and will probably err in the other direction, telling you more than you want to know.

Some of you have been asking me if there's going to be a special edition of some kind with fancier binding or more pages or anything of the sort that might make you want to hold off on purchasing this one. There was talk of that and there may still be, but at the moment, the answer is no. The only current reason you might have for waiting is because the Second Printing will probably fix that italicized word…and then I'll open a copy of that printing and find another typo. That's how it works, people.

Also, many of you have asked me when copies will be available. Amazon sent all pre-orders an e-mail saying it wouldn't be able to ship until mid-March. As far as I know, they'll have copies well before that. The page on which they sell the book currently says it came out February 1 and ships in 2-4 weeks. The February 1 is wrong but the 2-4 weeks is probably accurate and 2-3 would be more accurate. I've been assured there will be copies aplenty at the WonderCon in San Francisco, which commences February 22.

Hope you like it. Hope you buy it. If you haven't ordered yet and wish to, click on the banner above…or here, I'll save you scrolling back. You can also click here. We are nothing if not accommodating.

Several folks have e-mailed to tell me that the offending live-blogger was a gentleman who, along with being a WGA member (and therefore allowed into the meeting) is also an L.A. Times staffer who was posting to the paper's strike-themed weblog. I kinda figured as much. There were a number of reporters outside who were angry that they were not able to get inside and report from inside the event, and I'm sure it didn't seem fair to let one guy have a jump on everyone else. In any case, I apologize again for premature posting.

I keep being wrong about something with regard to the Writers Guild strike. Having lived through far too many of these, I keep expecting vitriol and anger and even loud and honest dissent. The dissent is fine, even healthy, though it has too often been exaggerated in the press and by the folks with whom we negotiate. Twenty outraged members have this odd way of looking to some like a sizeable percentage of a Guild whose membership numbers in the thousands.

Throughout this strike I have constantly expected it to start; for some meeting to devolve into a mud wrestling competition. And I have constantly been wrong…because this strike is just about over and at least as of the time I headed home from this evening's membership meeting, what I'd been expecting hadn't started. The mood in the hall was unified, respectful, grateful and even celebratory. No vote was taken. That will occur shortly. But the sense of the room suggested the deal will be accepted and not, as I hope with all deals of this sort, by a whisker. I must admit the terms sounded better to me there than when I read the summary, which perhaps is an important lesson. Several points needed some explaining and amplification before their value was apparent.

A feeling of victory seemed to be the prevailing mood. I lost count of the well-deserved standing ovations and when they opened the floor microphones for questions or arguments, they began getting only questions and minor suggestions about deal points. As of the moment I left, no one had suggested that the deal not be ratified…and it would have been very easy for someone to say that if they'd genuinely felt it was improvable.

I still can't quite believe it. It goes without saying that no one likes to be on strike and that they're always nasty, messy affairs where too many people — many of them innocent bystanders — are injured. Unfortunately, like some other things in life that we wish never occurred, strikes are sometimes necessary. There are times when those in power (the employers, the Powers That Be) go for the lowball and think they have the clout to maximize profits by bleeding those who work for them. They come up with an either-or proposition, one with only two options: Go on strike or accept a rotten deal. I'm always astonished at the number of folks who leap to blame the union for taking the only viable course of action in that situation.

Not only is a rotten deal unacceptable for us but if we take it, the other unions get rotten deals…rottener, even. And when the next negotiation rolls around, we get the rottenest one of them all. That's how it works. You have to say no and stop that. You want to know why there was a Writers Strike? Because they didn't offer us in November the contract that they offered us at 1:30 AM (or whenever) this morning.

And they could have. It's not that fabulous an offer. It won't hurt the profits at Disney, Paramount, Sony, et al, one bit. What it does mean is that the writers who don't make the Megabucks (and that's the vast majority of the WGA) have a better shot at making a basic living. That's all this has ever been about.

I'm feeling very good about this strike. Like I said, I've lived through several and am usually appalled by something done by "my side." Sometimes, it's been gross mismanagement by the leadership. Other times, the leadership has done the best job possible but has been undercut by the fracturing of our ranks. None of that happened this time. Our president Patric Verrone, our Executive Director David Young, WGA negotiating committee chair John Bowman and everyone on that committee, along with the staff and Board of Directors all handled a regrettable situation about as well as it could have been handled. And the membership was right there with them because the issues were so clear and the need to say "no" was so obvious.

Before I leave this topic, I should apologize for something. As I said in an earlier post, I had not planned to "live-blog" from the meeting but sitting there, taking notes on my BlackBerry of things I wanted to mention here later, I was suddenly struck by that odd obsession I have to blog from odd places and I put up a post. A few minutes after, Patric on the stage asked people not to live-blog and I quickly took it down. Or at least, I thought I did. It's easier to post via BlackBerry than it is to delete. Anyway, that post has been removed. I don't think I disclosed anything privileged…certainly nothing that exiting writers weren't telling reporters outside as I was leaving. But Patric Verrone and his associates have done the most amazing, commendable job I've ever seen of managing a strike…and if he thinks it's wrong, it probably is. So I apologize to him and the Guild and I'll never do it again.

Several folks this morning are writing to tell me that Jack Larson turned 80 yesterday, not 75. They base this on various online sources saying he was born in 1928. Ah, but in the first minute of the video interview of Mr. Larson that the Archive of American Television has now posted, he says he was born in 1933.

Here — go watch it for yourself. I haven't had time yet to view the whole thing but it's almost an hour of Jack Larson (who rarely does interviews and never for this long) talking about his life and his career. And if he says he was born in '33…well, maybe he's fibbing but I'd want a better source than Wikipedia before I said otherwise.

Another correspondent noted that I interviewed his Adventures of Superman co-star, Noel Neill at the Mid-Ohio Con last Thanksgiving and will be doing so again at the WonderCon in two weeks. "You should get the two of them down to San Diego this year for a joint appearance," the e-mailer suggested. Yes, that would be great but Larson seems to be pretty shy or maybe just uninterested in that kind of thing and has always declined such invites. Maybe someday he'll change his mind. For now, you'll have to be content with the online interview.

The Writers Guild has reached a tentative (meaning, the membership still has to vote to accept it) deal with the AMPTP. A summary of the terms may be read at this link.

It's late and I have to get to bed…but it seems to me like an acceptable but not great offer. I think the membership will go for it though, of course, there will be those who will feel that after however-many-days-it's-been, the terms should be better. They are not wrong about that but I suspect it's the best deal we're going to get at this time. It does seem better on several points than the Directors Guild deal and one wonders if the DGA has some kind of "favored nations" provision that will upgrade those deal points to match ours.

As rumored, the deal runs through May 1 of 2011. Wonder how they arrived at that date. If the DGA and SAG both renew for three years, that means that in '11, the three unions will all have their contracts expiring in a three month period…and again, we're stuck going first.

Reserving the right to modify my view after the meeting tonight, I feel both pleased and disappointed by this deal. I am pleased the WGA took the stand it did. I believe that if we hadn't struck in November — if we'd caved and accepted the kind of offers they were positioning us for then — we'd have gone a long way towards destroying our livelihoods and those of many others who work in this industry. I'm sure some clown somewhere is going to crunch the numbers wrong and say, "Well, the strike cost Writers an amount totalling X dollars and the gains in the contract only amount to Y over the next three years." But really, this strike was never about that kind of math. It was about a more long range variety that took into account the entire future of our participation in new ways in which the shows and films we write will be marketed. There's no way to calculate the worth of that, and you certainly can't only look at what we will make in the next three years.

The whole battle was also about the way in which we negotiate…or, in most past cases, don't get to negotiate. It all invokes the old analogy of the schoolyard bully who demands a nickel from you one week, a dime from you the next, then a quarter, then fifty cents, etc. At some point, preferably early on, you have to put an end to that because even if at some point your losses seem trivial, they won't stay that way. The AMPTP has an almost inalterable rule: When you accept a bad deal from them, they come back the next time and try and force you to take an even worse one. I shudder to think how terrible the contract would have been in 2011 if we'd taken the kind of thing they were dangling at us last November.

I'm very pleased and proud of the solidarity that the WGA has shown to date. It may get contentious at the meeting tonight because now we can better afford to be contentious. But before the strike I had a lot of dire expectations of members threatening to split the Guild and of far more vituperative attacks on our leadership. With a few exceptions — and only a few — I think this was a very well-run strike. Admittedly, in some cases, the manuevering of the studios did not leave us with a lot of choices…but where we had choices, I think our leadership made the right ones.

Like I said, I'll write more after the meeting. I gotta get some sleep. Good night, Internet!

I have a lot of comic book conventions to attend this year. Usually, I don't make it to as many but I have this book coming out so it seems like a fine time to make the rounds. My whole schedule, if anyone cares, is over on this page.

Two weeks from today, my companion Carolyn and I will be in San Francisco for the annual WonderCon, where we always have a fine time. I, of course, will be hosting some panels and you can find a list of them on this page. You can find the entire programming schedule for the con on this page but why you'd want to go to any events other than mine is beyond me.

I'm nineteen minutes late with this. Yesterday was the 75th birthday of Jack Larson, who was so perfect in the role of Jimmy Olsen in the Superman TV series of the fifties. Those shows were done for about a buck and a quarter, with scenes shot wildly out of sequence to the point where the cast often wasn't sure which episode a given scene was even for. Still, the sheer personality of several fine actors made it all work, and Larson was a key reason.

I only met Jack Larson once and he seemed shy and a bit embarrassed by my telling him how much I admired his acting. He gave that up long ago and has had a fine, successful career as a writer and producer, which I assume makes him happier, which is all that should matter. Not long ago, he sat for a lengthy video interview for the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences Foundation's Archive of American Television project. It should be available on Google Video in the next day or so and when it is, I'll link you to it.

At this very moment, lawyers are madly trying to finalize the language of a proposed deal 'twixt the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers and the Writers Guild of America. As we've been telling you here for some time, a key concern in this negotiation has to be the precise wording so that there's no wiggle room…so that the strike doesn't end and then the studios say, "No, we never agreed to that." This weblog post over at United Hollywood tells what's going on, and it matches what I'm hearing from other sources.

Assuming there's a deal to announce tomorrow night, it will be presented to the membership and discussed and debated. If our leadership recommends it, it will almost certainly be accepted. I mean, it's not like our negotiators can tell is it's an acceptable deal and then go back to the other side and say, "It's not an acceptable deal." My hope would be that when we vote, it doesn't pass overwhelmingly. If the number is 80%, the boys over at the AMPTP are going to say, "We could have got them cheaper." If it passes with 51%, they're less likely to lowball us the next time we meet at the table. (The mere fact that we sustained this strike for so long and didn't fold has already probably convinced them but a little more learning wouldn't hurt.)

I'll have more to say about all this after the meeting.

The reviewer for the L.A. Times liked the new production of Li'l Abner as much as I did. So did the reviewer for Variety.

I'm hearing all sorts of things that may happen at the Writers Guild meeting tomorrow night. Yes, I will be there. No, I won't be live-blogging from it and that's because I want to pay attention and also not violate the sanctity of what obviously will be an important gathering. Rumors abound about what's in the offer that will be discussed and I'm trying to not formulate an opinion until I actually know what I'm formulating an opinion about. I think it's fair to say though that the offer will be good enough for some and not good enough for others.

I will pass along one rumor, though. It's that the current proposal is for a deal that would expire in May of 2011. That sounds odd to me because the Screen Actors Guild traditionally makes contracts that expire at the end of July and if they make a new three year deal without a strike, that one would probably expire in July of '11 and the AMPTP could again be in the position of facing both unions with linked arms. One of the Big Stories of this Writers Strike, and the reason it's been so effective, has been the unbreakable solidarity with SAG. I don't know why the studios would risk having that happen again. Perhaps they think they can move SAG's expiration month to December.

The above, I should underscore, may not be true. None of the rumors may be true, including the one that has all the lawyers on both sides still scurrying to commit to paper some terms that can be discussed tomorrow evening. About the only thing I'll predict for sure about the meeting is that there will be a lot of arguing and that the parking at the Shrine Auditorium is going to suck. If you're getting there, get there early.

As I've mentioned here before — to little apparent interest — I was a big fan of the cuisine at the old Love's Barbecue Restaurants. Alas, there are no more Love's except (according to the company website) for an alleged one in Jakarta, Indonesia. I'm dubious it's there and when I get a moment, I'm going to run over and check. In the meantime, all of the ones in this country have definitely closed. The only place that I believe still serves what is essentially the Love's menu is a former Love's situated in Brea, California. It's called Riley's.

My favorite thing on the Love's menu was their barbecued beans. When it became apparent to me that all the Love's were going away, I began searching for their recipe to see if it was possible for me to replicate these beans in my home kitchen. It doesn't take a lot of Googling to find two different recipes, both of which are presented as The Love's Recipe, sometimes with a little tale about how a friend who worked in one broke the Barbecue Code and divulged the secret. Here's one of these recipes…

• 5 pounds canned pork and beans
• 1 pound brown sugar
• 1 (14 oz.) bottle ketchup
• 2 bell peppers, chopped
• 1 teaspoon liquid smoke, to taste
• 8 slices bacon

Combine all ingredients except bacon in a large casserole or baking pan. Top with bacon strips. Bake at 325 degrees for 2 1/4 hours.

You'll find that recipe on at least a hundred websites and it may even yield a great pot of beans…but there's no way that's the Love's recipe. Love's beans did not contain bell peppers (I hate bell peppers) and were not topped with slices of bacon…and what's this about starting out with some arbitrary brand of canned pork and beans? Wouldn't the output of this recipe vary a lot depending on which brand of canned pork and beans you started with? Also, Love's beans tasted an awful lot like Love's barbecue sauce, and there's nothing in the above about adding in Love's sauce or any of the same spices. So phooey on this recipe.

A little more Googling and you may come up with the following putative recipe for Love's beans. This one is usually represented as having been exposed by an article in the L.A. Times…

• 3 (1 pound) cans pork n' beans
• 1 cup packed brown sugar
• 2 tablespoons Worcestershire sauce
• 2 teaspoons chili powder
• 1/4 cup dark molasses
• 1/2 cup bottled chile sauce
• 2 tablespoons vinegar

Combine all ingredients in bean pot or crockpot with lid, mix well. Cover and bake at 400 degrees F for 1 hour for thin bean mixture, or 1 1/2 to 2 hours for thicker bean mixture. Sprinkle with crumbled bacon bits to serve.

That sounds a little more like it but even without testing, I know that's not it. Again, we're starting with some random brand of canned beans, which means we have some arbtitrary sauce going into our concoction. Again, we have those bacon bits. I don't believe Love's beans had much, if any chili flavoring in them (I hate chili) and again, I don't see the elements in there that would convey or approximate the taste of Love's sauce.

It's still possible, by the way, to purchase Love's sauce via their website. It's a sweet BBQ sauce and usually I don't like sweet sauces…but I like this one and I sometimes use it in cooking. In case you're interested, the label on the bottle says it contains water, tomato paste, brown sugar, corn syrup, vinegar, salt, modified food starch, sucrose, spices, natural flavorings and a couple of chemicals.

One night recently, I actually had the following dream. It is rare that I remember dreams after I awaken and maybe the reason I recalled this one was that it came with a decent punchline.

A restaurant opened nearby that advertised itself as featuring the best dishes from now-defunct restaurant chains. Not a bad idea when you think about it. The proprietors, they said, had tracked down the owners of the extinct eateries and made deals to use their recipes and also their logos, so you could go in and get a simulation of some meal that you used to love at a chain no longer in business.

On the slim chance that they had included Love's in their repertoire, I raced to the restaurant and on the outside saw a display of the logos and names of the long-gone dining establishments whose menus were involved. As happens in dreams, the specifics were fuzzy…but I saw all these famous logos and in the middle of them was the one for Love's.

Ecstatic, I raced inside and took a seat at the counter. A waitress offered me a menu but for some reason, I declined. "Just bring me one of everything from the Love's section," I told her. "We only have one item from Love's," she said. "Whatever it is, bring me five of them," I said. Again, I have no idea why I did this in my dream but, you know, you do things in dreams that don't make a lot of sense. Some of us do things when we're awake that don't make a lot of sense, too.

So I sat there in this dreamed-up restaurant, drooling and anticipating and wondering which of the wonderful Love's entrees would soon be placed before me in quintuple helpings. Their ribs? Their chicken? Their ribs-chicken combo? Whatever it was, it surely came with a side of Love's beans and that's what I was really there for…to eat Love's beans. I waited and waited and waited for what seemed like months…and finally, just when I was beginning to give up hope, the serving lady came over and placed my order on the counter…

It was five vanilla milk shakes.

I'm not making this up. I really dreamed this, punchline and all.