Frank Rich on what's really going on with the Valerie Plame scandal.

They have a film program at this convention. This evening, they're showing Hook, Amazon Women on the Moon and This is Spinal Tap, among others. I suddenly find myself curious as to why. Not why they're showing them but why anyone would go to a comic or s-f convention and spend any length of time watching movies, especially movies that are by no means rare or hard to see.

I've never really done that. I've been going to conventions since 1970 and I can only think of one instance where I spent any real time in a film room. It was at the 1976 San Diego Con and they decided to have a late night (starting at 1 AM, as I recall) screening of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. That's a movie that's not so hot when you see it alone but it's wonderful — and I mean that in a genuine, non-camp way — when viewed with a hip crowd. Even then, I might not have gone if it had been earlier in the evening and certainly not during the day. A convention, even a bad convention, is filled with things to do, people to meet, items to look at…all of which are generally unavailable elsewhere. So I didn't go to film programs, even back when I couldn't waddle down to my nearby Blockbuster and rent the same movies for a buck or two, take them home and watch them in (probably) more comfortable surroundings…the way I could now do with Hook, Amazon Women on the Moon and This is Spinal Tap.

But I did go to that presentation of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. I wanted to see it with my friends and I had no better alternative at 1 AM, including sleep. I found myself sitting next to the great animation director, Bob Clampett. Bob was a pretty hip guy but he kept whispering questions to me about some of the film's more esoteric references and sexuality. He did that up until around 2:15 AM when a deafening fire alarm began to sound all over the hotel.

Interestingly, I didn't notice anyone being all that concerned that there might have been a fire…which at the El Cortez Hotel then, would have qualified as some form of Civic Improvement. As people poured out of hotel rooms — some, even from their own — the main emotion was annoyance at the loud noise which refused to stop. It went on and on for more than an hour, preventing the last reel or two of B.V.D. from being run. My recollection is that around 3:30 AM, it finally stopped. You could hear a loud cheer from all over the hotel, and then everyone went off to dreamland.

The next day, I found myself relating the last twenty minutes of the movie on a panel…and don't think that's easy. The conclusion is so twisted and full of clichés and coincidences that some people thought that I didn't really know; that I was just making stuff up. Heck, Clampett saw the first seventy minutes and thought I was making that up, too. Anyway, that's my one 'n' only filmgoing-at-a-con experience. I've seen no reason to go to movies at conventions, especially in the age of home video. I wonder why anyone does.

Did five panels today, all of which went well, at least from where I was sitting. Didn't go down to the main hall but did hear some folks liken it to being on a large conveyor belt which carries you along with it, whether you want to go or not. There's an odd, not unpleasant mood to the con but I think I'll have to give the matter more thought before I can put into words here what I think it is. Right now, I'm due at a cocktail party that's known to have good chicken skewers and tiny meatballs. So I'm outta here.

Friday seemed a little less crowded than Thursday, at least where I was. All my panels went well, though the annual Jack Kirby Tribute Panel turned a bit more emotional and dark than I'd intended. I'll write more about it when I'm not working on my laptop at an odd height on a hotel room desk, and due shortly downstairs for a breakfast meeting.

To those of you who've never attended one of these but see press coverage of it: Trust me. Most people are not dressed in silly costumes…or at least, no sillier than people wear when they go shopping at Costco. Reporters — especially reporters with camera crews — like to seek out the outrageous visuals and I suppose, if I were in their position, I'd do the same thing. But the overwhelming majority of con attendees are not geeks who wait all year for the chance to parade around in public in their Jedi finery. We may be geeks but we're, by and large, plainclothes geeks. Most of us dress normally and even most of those who do don costumes are being paid to do so out of some promotional budget. And actually, apart from when the "costume" is nearly non-existent and on a lady of awesome proportions, it doesn't seem to even attract much attention. Less than ten people yesterday wanted their picture with me in my Catwoman suit.

Let's see what else I can tell you about. Last night, I got on one of the shuttle buses that cart us around town. The sole other passenger was a young lady who did not seem to be affiliated with the convention and who asked me if I'd like to go on a "date" — and she even pronounced the word with quotation marks around it, which impressed me no end. I told her I was on my way to an award ceremony and she said, "It could be a quick date."

Not that the lady on the bus seemed like a good alternative but I found the Eisner Awards (what I saw of them) interminable and impossible to sit through. I am not knocking the winners, although I see now why the televised award shows impose limits on acceptance speeches. I am also not knocking the wonderful anecdotes and remembrances of the late Will Eisner sprinkled throughout the event. And, in all honesty, a lot of folks didn't seem to mind sitting there for around three hours, applauding the presenters and then the nominees and then the winners and then the acceptance speeches of the winners and…well, maybe it's me. I even heard some folks say it was a lot better and swifter than previous years, none of which I was ever able to sit through, either. I couldn't even sit there when there was a decent chance that I was about to win one.

Gotta get to that breakfast meeting and then five (count 'em) panels today. I expect the hall to be crowded with people, most of whom will stop me and explain that Stan Lee is not really working as a mailman.

Three more people informed me that Stan Lee is not delivering mail for a living. I did three panels that all went well, I thought. Arnold Drake, God love him, closed the Golden/Silver Age panel with an original, a cappella song about the convention that brought down the house, as they say. This was after earlier bringing down the house with anecdotes about working for one of the less admirable editors in the business. The convention took the occasion of the panel to present its coveted Inkpot Award to Bob Fujitani, Lee Ames, Sy Barry, Dexter Taylor and Bob Bolling. Everyone seemed pleased.

The Sergio-Mark Panel was the Sergio-Mark Panel. The panel on Comic Book Weblogs seemed to satisfy its purpose and most attendees. No big news flashes from any of these but, hey, I had a good time. All in all, not a bad first day of the convention…though I sense a certain looming dread of the Saturday crowds.

Off to do more panels…

It strikes me, as I read all the news relating to Karl Rove and the Valerie Plame matter, that we know a lot less about this case than we think we do. The Special Prosecutor's office and the Grand Jury have leaked little, if at all. This, of course, hasn't stopped the partisans from making something out of nothing, building their cases in the press and on the 'net out of very few facts and any number of wishful assumptions. I am in receipt of a couple of mass-mailed messages that argue the case, some in each direction, and while some of the arguments will prove to be true, I think it'll be more a matter of dumb luck than because of any cogent analysis of what's known.

That said, I thought I'd offer up a smidgen of admitted guesswork here. All the pro-Rove e-mails I've received and much of the online spinners assert that Rove couldn't possibly be guilty of leaking the identity of an undercover C.I.A. agent because, they say, Ms. Plame was not undercover. Perhaps that will prove to be true but I have to wonder. Seems to me that if I'm the Prosecutor in this matter, the first thing I do is take the testimony of some high-level C.I.A. official and ask, "Was Valerie Plame undercover?" If he says no, then game's over and we can send the Grand Jury home with our thanks and some lovely parting gifts. If he says yes, then doesn't that become the operating assumption of the Grand Jury proceedings? They may or many not find enough evidence of a crime to return indictments against anyone in particular…but if this were, say, an inquiry into a possible murder, it wouldn't go on this long unless someone was willing to testify the first day that someone had been murdered.

At the same time, I think those eager to see Rove tumble downhill are leaping too quickly to the assumption that, since he's the evil genius who knows all, it's inarguable that he knew all. Already, this part of the story is turning from "Rove told reporters" to "Reporters told Rove." I think it's been established that Rove was more involved than his past statements on this matter indicated but so far, that's more of a political embarrassment than a certainty of indictment. I also see a lot of attempts to read things into each lawyer's statement that may not be there.

Still, all this is just me guessing. We may all be surprised…especially those of us who mistake all the blind speculation for solid info on what's going on. This happens with all these investigations but usually, we get a lot more leaks and facts so the spin isn't quite so far ahead of them.

What are the approval/disapproval ratings for the governor of your state? Here's the current rundown. As you can see, Governor Schwarzenegger is doing about as well as the guy who was so unpopular, we had to get rid of him and bring in Arnold. And this was taken before his latest mini-scandal.

Sergio and I drove down to San Diego this afternoon, stopping off in Solana Beach at one of my favorite places to eat Japanese cuisine. If you're ever passing through Solana Beach and crave something that's been dipped in tempura batter and fried into a work of art, you want the Samurai Restaurant. Take the Lomas Santa Fe exit from the 5. It's located just east of the freeway in a big shopping center.

Tonight was Preview Night at the convention which is supposed to be a "less crowded" opportunity for attendees (with full passes) to browse the hall. If tonight is what's going to pass for modest attendance, the packed days will just be piles of bodies — many of them in embarrassing costumes — stacked atop each other in endless rows. When people ask me why I'm hosting 14 panels at this thing, I'm starting to answer, "So I'll always have an unsquashed place to be," and it's starting to make sense to them.

Not much to report, mood-wise. I think I wound up chatting more about Karl Rove than I did about comics. Matter of fact, I think I saw Karl. He was walking past a Star Trek exhibit dressed in a Klingon suit. Not everyone can pull that off but on him, it looked good.

By the way: A few days ago here, I posted a photo of Stan Lee dressed as a letter carrier and I announced that poor Stan had been reduced from being the most powerful individual in comics to delivering mail. This prompted a surprising number of e-mails — about fifty, so far — from folks politely (and one, not so politely) informing me that, duh, that's a still from the Fantastic Four movie and Stan is just playing a role, that of postal servant Willie Lumpkin. I also received one complaint from a mail carrier saying, in effect, "What do you mean, it's a comedown?"

This evening as I wandered the convention floor, taking one last look at the carpeting before the aisles get so flooded we never see it again, three different people approached me to make sure I was kidding; that I really didn't think Stan is working as a mailman. I told them no, it was just a joke. I'm well aware that he's actually wearing one of those striped shirts and selling sneakers at a local Foot Locker. I'm going to see him tomorrow and I may see if he can get me a discount on some New Balance 580s. Great shoe.

In the morning: The games begin! Good night.

Beck has a new video up that's inspired by Al Jaffee's popular MAD Fold-In feature. Go to this page and look for the link to "Girl." [Thanks to Brian Spence for the tip.]

Not that this is a big deal but there seems to be some question as to whether Angela Lansbury's knee replacement surgery is a result of her accident last Friday night or if it was something already scheduled. Earlier, I linked to a piece on Playbill Online which said it was. Apparently, they later amended the story to say it was not because of the fall, then later put back the earlier version. Right now, that's what's up at this link…

Angela Lansbury will undergo knee-replacement surgery on July 14 as a result of having tripped and fell at a July 8 salute composer Stephen Sondheim at the Hollywood Bowl, Variety reported.

In the meantime, her daughter told the Associated Press that…

Lansbury's daughter Deirdre Battarra says her mother has a lot of pain from years of dancing. Lansbury tripped over an electrical cord Friday night while joining celebrities onstage for Stephen Sondheim's 75th-birthday concert at the Hollywood Bowl. But Battarra says the slip had nothing to do with her mother's surgery plans.

Like I said, not a big deal. But the stories are at least as consistent as any two you'll find on the Internet tonight about Karl Rove.

Angela Lansbury is going to have knee replacement surgery. It's a result of that fall she took on stage at the Sondheim gala at the Hollywood Bowl.

You almost have to feel sorry for Presidential Press Secretaries. At some point, every one of them has to go out and face the press corps and steadfastly not answer direct questions about something that would be embarrassing to their administration…and might even help get someone indicted. Scott McClellan, who fields queries for G.W. Bush, has had a relatively easy time of it since the White House reporters all sound like they're on the Fox payroll, even when they're not. But on the current matter of Karl Rove and all the inoperative, contradictory statements and denials, the press corps has suddenly shown a wee bit of fang. Take a moment and read today's exchange, at least the first part.

Note that in Mr. McClellan's language, the phrase "I appreciate the question" can be roughly translated as "Watch me try to tap-dance my way around this one."

And don't you wish the press had been half this vigorous pursuing questions relating to…oh, maybe yellow cake uranium or Weapons of Mass Destruction or people being tortured at Gitmo or something that results in human beings, many of them Americans, dying?

The newspaper changed the link to the photos of the Sondheim gala. Try this one. (And I changed it on the previous message, too.)

The above is an unpublished drawing by the late Jack Kirby. There are a lot of unpublished Kirby originals floating around these days, many of which were even drawn by Jack. But a number of them were not.

In a few cases, there are innocent (or perhaps, wishful) misidentifications. A drawing looks something like Kirby did it…and since it would be worth more if he did than if he didn't, the possessor says, "Boy, that sure looks like Kirby to me." Or sometimes, they hedge the i.d. by saying, "Oh, this is a Kirby layout that someone else finished." With a very few exceptions, this is not the case. After about 1960, which is when most of the surviving art dates from, Jack did almost no layouts for other artists that weren't finished, published and properly credited. The exceptions are few, far between and not likely to turn up in the original art market.

Increasingly, I am seeing what I believe are outright forgeries showing up there. I'm talking about pages that Mr. Kirby never actually did but which are being marketed as if they're off his drawing board. Usually, they are tracings of things he did do, or sometimes composite tracings — the head from one sketch traced onto a tracing of the body of another sketch. Often, they are represented as preliminary roughs or cases where Jack drew a cover, decided something was amiss, and then redrew the same scene for what became the published version. This is also something Jack almost never did. Last year, a devout Kirby fan paid more than two grand for what was represented as Jack's first, still-in-pencil attempt at the cover of Captain America #100. No, it wasn't. It was just someone's tracing — and not a very good one — of the one drawing Jack did for the front of that issue.

I believe I know the source of a few of these fakes. There's a gentleman (I'm using that noun loosely) who worked briefly in the comic book industry back in the seventies — and when I say "briefly," I mean briefly. I think he got around three actual credits, though he occasionally worked as an assistant to other, more established artists. Most comic fans reading this would not know his name. Around '76, seeking ghost/assistant work, he mailed Jack a portfolio of sample pages…and every panel in them was traced from published Kirby art. Jack had no interest in having anyone assist him and if he had, a swiper of his earlier drawings was the last guy he'd have hired, so the offer was politely declined. But I did see the samples and noticed a certain odd misreading of Kirby technique and a very different pencil texture. I think I'm seeing that same misreading and texture in some of the fake Kirby drawings currently making the rounds, at least one of which I know the buyer purchased directly from this artist.

I see a lot of fakes because people keep coming to me with alleged Kirby art that they wish to have authenticated…and I'm thinking of adopting a "no comment" policy and refusing to get involved. It's always a pain, especially when someone e-mails a blurry, low-res scan and says, "If I don't hear from you in 12 hours, I'm going to assume it's real and buy it." Yes, someone actually did that and no, I didn't get back to him in time. (What I would have told him was that I couldn't be certain based on what he'd sent.)

Worse, a gent in Europe recently purchased — for about thrice the money it would have been worth if authentic — a "Kirby" drawing that blind aborigines could spot as bogus. He mailed me a stat and asked me to sign a Certificate of Authenticity stating that I, as Jack's one-time assistant, swore that the attached drawing was Kosher and Kirby. I broke it to him gently that he'd been had and received in return, a flurry of angry accusations: I'm lying, I'm too stupid to recognize real Jack Kirby artwork, I'm in cahoots with some guy I've never heard of who's offered to buy the putative drawing cheap since it cannot be authenticated, etc.

Like I said, I may stop answering such questions but in the meantime, I'm putting out the word: There are fake Kirby drawings out there and their number is increasing. Actually, there are a lot of fake drawings and autographs attributed to all the "high ticket" comic artists. There's a gent on eBay who, though I've e-mailed him to stop, insists on selling Groo promotional cards with phony Sergio Aragonés autographs — this, despite the fact that real Sergio signatures are about as rare as hydrogen molecules. Counterfeit Charles Schulz sketches are especially becoming a booming cottage industry.

Oh — and I should also mention one other category of misrepresented Kirby art. Sometimes, an artist — primarily one who worked with Jack like Joe Sinnott, Dick Ayers or Mike Royer — will be engaged to do a "re-creation," taking an old Kirby drawing, tracing it and inking it. That is legitimate, and they usually sign the piece in some way to indicate that Jack never actually touched that piece of paper. Once in a while, owners will erase the line that denotes re-creation or somehow suggest the artwork started with a Kirby pencil drawing actually pencilled by Kirby. There is one former Kirby inker who has been known to find a published Kirby drawing (usually something obscure), trace and ink it, sign the drawing with both their names and tell the buyer, "Years ago, Jack gave me this sketch to ink." An acknowledged re-creation is okay but this is not.

So the moral of this story is to be careful. The supply of Jack Kirby art is finite but there's no end to how many forgeries can be produced.

Many of us will be trekking down to S.D. this week for the Comic-Con International. There will probably be in excess of 100,000 people flocking into that convention center, all of them determined to see my panels and to stand ahead of me in any line. Here are a few random thoughts you might want to roll around…

• The current weather forecast calls for clouds in the morning each day with mostly sunny conditions to follow. Lows will be around 60 to 66 while the highs could get up to 75 or thereabouts. Pack accordingly.
• Speaking of weather: We are happy to hear that Hurricane Dennis did much less damage than predicted. Still, a weather event like that has the capacity to screw up a lot of airline schedules, and it sometimes takes a few days for them to get back to normal.
• Paul Dini reminds me that next Sunday, July 17, is the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of Disneyland. If you're thinking of going there then — or just coming back from San Diego on the 5 Freeway — you might want to keep in mind that the Disney people are expecting record attendance. Hey, if you think the Comic-Con is crowded, go get in line for the Indiana Jones ride that day.
• Parking at the convention center is always a nightmare. You would do well to consult the convention website for Parking and Shuttle Bus Information and also for data on the Trolley Stops. Every year, I hear of people who just drive to the con and think, "I'll just find a place to park when I get there." This is not a smart way to approach the problem. Some of those people have never been heard from again.
• And lastly for now, here's another link to my list of convention tips. You can never have enough convention tips.

I'll probably think of something else to post before the big event commences. Check back.

I'm still a little blurry on exactly how I feel about the Valerie Plame, Judith Miller and maybe Karl Rove matter. I believe legitimate leakers — folks who disclose wrongdoing in powerful places — should be protected, but that protection should not extend to some of the excesses that are, alas, becoming the norm.

After I wrote my earlier post, I read a column by Michael Kinsley who, though a Liberal and a newspaperman, has come to some of the same conclusions. I also read a piece by Frank Rich, who makes some good points for the opposite view.

Also this weekend, I read The Secret Man, the new book by Bob Woodward on his relationship with Mark "Deep Throat" Felt. It's a quick read, more like a long article, and it leaves me (no surprise) with a generally favorable view of Felt. A lot of this is because Woodward reminds us of some of the slimy things the Nixon Administration was trying to do, making it quite credible that Felt believed they were trying to manipulate the FBI for political purposes, much as they were doing with the Internal Revenue Service. I can easily accept that Felt believed something had to be done to stop them, and that it's wrong to dismiss him, as some have attempted to do, as a guy who just ratted on his associates because he was mad he didn't get a promotion. There are plenty of moments in the book when I don't like Felt for things he says and does as Mark Felt, but I think what he did as Deep Throat was important and vital and heroic.

One of the more intriguing but sad parts of the book is how Woodward details his conversations with Felt after dementia had robbed the latter of most of his memory. Woodward is almost desperate, grasping at anything, to get Felt to recall his role as informant and to say something positive about their relationship. Eventually, the memories never resurface but the old man is friendly enough to give Woodward some satisfaction. It was also interesting to read about Woodward's struggle to keep the secret for so many years, including deciding to lie in a few instances.

Turning back to the Plame/Miller/Rove matter: Though the lack of leaks from the prosecutor's office is a good thing, and a welcome change from the way Judge Starr slimed those he could not indict, there's one downside. It's too much speculation by people who really don't know the details. At the moment, folks seem to be arguing that Rove might not be guilty of naming Valerie Plame as a C.I.A. agent because he didn't know her name and could only say, "Joseph Wilson's wife." I can't believe the actual case, if there is one, will turn on that distinction.