Creem was an irreverent rock magazine founded in 1969 and flourishing in the seventies…and I think it even made it into the eighties. It has been revived in online form at this site.

Currently featured is this article about Marvel's Conan the Barbarian comic book. In it, writer Jeffrey Morgan says that Jack Kirby left the company in 1970 because they didn't assign the art job on that comic to him. This is nonsense. I was working for Jack a month before he left Marvel and he couldn't have cared less about Conan. Jack never liked handling other folks' characters and I doubt he'd ever read a Conan novel. Also, the Conan comic book was always going to be written by Roy Thomas, and as Roy has noted in several different articles, Jack didn't want to work with any writers but Stan Lee. (That was not a criticism of Roy. Jack had simply decided he didn't want to work "Marvel method" any longer, drawing a comic from a plot instead of a full script. Roy did not write full scripts. Neither did Stan but he was the boss so Jack didn't have a lot of choice there.) Roy has also pointed out that it was out of the question then for someone like Kirby or even John Buscema to draw Conan. Kirby and Buscema were receiving Marvel's top page rate and since the publisher had no confidence in Conan, and also had to pay a licensing fee for the rights, the book had to be drawn by someone receiving a low rate.

Morgan also describes a visit to the Marvel editorial offices in August of 1970 and says that the walls were covered with F.O.O.M. (Friends of Ol' Marvel) posters by Kirby that had been slashed to demonstrate how someone felt about his defection to DC. Actually, F.O.O.M. wasn't invented until 1973. If there were Kirby posters up, they were Marvelmania posters. And if they were slashed, I can't imagine why since when I visited those offices in July of 1970, everyone there wished Jack well, gave me warm notes to take back to him, etc. They were probably not as warm to the topic of Kirby over in the business offices but they sure loved him in the editorial division.

Apart from all that, you might want to take a look at the piece, which is a review of the new Dark Horse reprint of the early Marvel Conan comics. I haven't seen that volume yet but I hope someone notes that Roy Thomas deserves praise for suggesting a book that challenged all the established notions then of what would sell. He stuck with it despite predictions from everywhere that it would bomb big, and he built it into one of big successes — financial and creative — of its day. I don't think he's received enough credit for that little feat.

Several folks have sent me various links to online videos of last night's verbal scuffle on Hardball between Chris Matthews and Zell Miller. (It's tough to link to some of these online videos. Your best bet is to go to the Hardblogger page and see if there's a link there.) Before I viewed it late last night, I'd read a dozen accounts on websites that made it seem like a World Wrestling Smackdown. It isn't that big a deal. Some said that Miller embarrassed himself while others said he effectively bitch-slapped Matthews. I think both views are wrong, though the first is closer to the truth. Either way, you can decide for yourself. It did seem to me that a lot of the problem was that Miller couldn't hear Matthews very well and misunderstood a couple of the questions. And of course, there was also Matthews' annoying habit of asking a question, rephrasing it and asking it again, repeating it one more time, then asking a follow-up question…all without leaving air for the interviewee to respond to any of it. It all made for a nice seven minutes of two grown men in suits and ties making a lot of noise while saying nothing.

Even more embarrassing for Miller, I thought, was his exchange on CNN where he didn't seem able to defend certain points in the speech he'd given not half an hour earlier. He'd attacked Kerry for voting against certain weapons but couldn't respond to the fact that Dick Cheney had opposed a lot of the same expenditures. (Actually, I think the whole Talking Point that Kerry voted that way is a case of his opponents misrepresenting the actual vote…as Fred Kaplan explains here.)

Then, after Miller faulted Kerry's priorities on national defense, we were treated to this sad exchange…

GREENFIELD: Then why did you say in 2001 that he strengthened the military? You said that three years ago.

MILLER: Because that was the biographical sketch that they gave me.

In other words: "I'm not responsible for what I said then. I just said what someone told me to say." It sounds like things haven't changed.

Interesting to see John McCain on with Letterman the other night. Michael Moore preceded him in a remote segment, complaining that McCain had slammed his movie without seeing it, which is a perfectly valid point. Fahrenheit 9/11 has been criticized by a lot of people who, like McCain, have only seen excerpts. One suspects some, like McCain, have avoided seeing the entire movie (or perhaps avoided admitting they've seen the entire movie) because this way, they can criticize certain scenes without being asked about ones they might be hard-pressed to defend. Anyway, McCain praised Moore's filmmaking skills and congratulated him on his success, and seemed a bit embarrassed by the whole thing. He said he had not been aware Moore was in the hall…but really, what difference should that have made? It was one of those moments when I felt that John "Straight Talk" McCain was playing it like any normal, weasely politician. Either you think Moore's excesses are severe enough for him to deserve a public scolding as a "disingenuous filmmaker" (that was the term he used in the speech) or you don't…and of course, it helps if you've actually seen the film you think was disingenuous.

Shifting gears though, when they moved on to other topics, McCain made an impassioned pitch for four more years of Bush and then did something you don't hear often these days. He said nice things about the opponent. He called John Kerry a good man and I think he even said the guy would make a good president.

Wait, I just remembered I still have it on my TiVo. His words were, "John Kerry is a friend of mine. He would be a good president of the United States. He's a decent American. He served honorably. He has served this nation honorably and I resent very much these attacks on his service. I believe George Bush served honorably and I believe John Kerry served honorably." And then he went on to say that he felt Bush had proven to be a good leader.

But then Letterman asked him something, referring to the primary campaign of 2000 where Bush and his guys were said to have smeared McCain with whole and half-truths. Here's that exchange, again transcribed right off Ye Olde TiVo…

LETTERMAN: If it were me and if I were expected later in my political future to support the president, irrespective of the causes and the demands of that office…and something like that had happened to me…at some point along the way, I would have picked up the phone or cornered him someplace and said, "Hey, Pepe. What was that crap you were running on me in North Carolina?"

McCAIN: I did that at the time.

LETTERMAN: You confronted him…

McCAIN: I did that at the time in South Carolina. In fact, the Kerry ads were…it's interesting. I get in both candidates' ads. Shows that I'm a uniter and not a divider.

So I really don't know what to make of McCain. That all sounded quite honest and refreshing to me, but I could certainly build a case that McCain is trying to position himself as the one guy who can run in 2008 as the candidate for people who are sick of partisan sniping. Which by then should be just about everyone. I could also theorize in many different directions as to why he is not either more outraged at the 2000 mud-hurling or, conversely, not saying "I don't blame Bush for it." For the time being, I intend to stow the cynicism and believe that McCain is not saying any of these things — including the part about how he thinks Bush has proven his leadership capabilities — just for effect. But there are those other statements, plus I've been disappointed before by politicians who seemed sincere. So I don't intend to believe it too firmly.

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.

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.

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.

Here's a message I received that I think is worth answering at length…

Let me start by saying that I am a big fan of your writing. I loved POV when it was in CBG and try to check your site everyday. I also have every issue of Groo. But…come on now with your anti-Bush campaign. Do you really like John Kerry? I don't think so. Do you really think he would be a great president? No, I doubt it. I think you just HATE Bush.

I wish that entertainers such as yourself, Peter David (whose site lately has been very similar to yours, anti-Bush) Michael Moore, Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam, etc. would simply try to entertain us. I don't think you should try to use your "fame" to try to falsely influence others. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are Republican Stooges? Over two hundred men who served with Kerry are trying to smear Kerry. Why? What is the truth about what happened? John Kerry has told three different stories about what had happened. His own report contradicts his story today.

And if the demonstrators are any example of the kind of people who support Kerry, God bless the Democratic party and good luck in November. Still a fan, but not of your politics…

This is kind of interesting…first off, because of the definition of "fame" here. Peter David and I are less than .01% as famous as Springsteen so if Improper Use of Fame is the alleged crime, what we do is barely a misdemeanor. Secondly, anyone in the world can set up a weblog like the ones Peter and I have. Apparently, the argument here is that because we're a smidgen better known than some people, we oughta have less right to express ourselves. I can't say I understand that attitude. In the past, I've seen folks complain when celebs sprinkle their TV, movie and concert appearances with their political beliefs but I now have here the suggestion that a personal journal should also be free of them. Odd. Hey, just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the actor, Ron Silver, making a speech at the Republican convention? Is he using his "fame" to falsely influence others? Or is this only a principle that applies to those with whom you disagree?

On to your other points: No, I don't hate Bush. I don't really hate anyone in this world but I certainly don't hate anyone I've never met, and I've never met George W. Bush. I think he's been a very bad president who has harmed this country in many ways, only a few of which I've mentioned on this site. Perhaps there has been some elected official you felt did their job so poorly that they did not deserve re-election. If so, maybe you can tell me some way to express that viewpoint without that person's supporters trying to dismiss you as a "hater."

Do I think John Kerry would be a great president? No, though I probably have more respect for him than a lot of people who are going to vote for Bush have for Bush. As I look around at people who stand a chance of getting into the White House this year or maybe even next time, I don't see anyone who I'm confident would make a great president. That's how it usually is for me. I vote for the guy or gal I think represents the best chance of doing right by his or her office. At the moment, for the presidency, I believe that's Kerry. Show me a better candidate who has a real chance of winning and I'll vote for that person.

I've read over an awful lot of the Swift Boat Vets stuff, including plenty of their side. I don't see that Kerry has contradicted anything except — and you have to really stretch to view this as a contradiction — his reported Cambodian excursion. And I'm not sure they've even proven that's wrong. I think there are two elements to the claims against him. One is the question of whether he earned his medals. The other is the propriety of his later anti-war activities. On the first question, the views of most of the "over two hundred" are hearsay. Most weren't there…or at least, weren't close enough to the events that their testimony trumps that of the men who were present, and whose accounts correspond to every surviving bit of documentation. The propriety of the medals is disputed not by 200+ but by a small group of guys whose stories are full of holes and who can't, in some cases, even rebut charges that they were not present at the events they describe.

Perhaps you're confused because the 200+ are mad at Kerry for his anti-war efforts and they seem to have decided that since they are, they'll endorse the accounts of the small group of alleged witnesses. I think they're wrong in how they view Kerry's campaign against the war (and in some cases, how they excerpt his remarks before Congress) but they certainly have a right to their opinions. What bothers me is the attempt to blur the facts and make it seem like all 200+ were present for the incidents when Kerry earned his ribbons…or even that all 200+ knew him that well back in Vietnam.

Getting back to your main topic: If you believe I'm using my prestigious position as author of the Groo the Wanderer comic book to swing the election, maybe you'd be happier not reading this site. I could also direct you to a few hundred sites that like Bush a lot less than I do. If you think I'm a Bush-hater, I wonder what you'd call some of them.

Over at Slate, William Saletan is reporting from the Republican convention and making some pretty sound (I think) observations about the empty rhetoric of some of the speeches. I suggest everyone read this piece and also his weblog.

I've received a number of messages not unlike this one from a reader who signs himself "Jim"…

I imagine the goal is to provide an alternative voice to the around-the-clock Republican love-fest that will otherwise dominate mainstream coverage during this convention. If the protests remain peaceful, and if the networks cover them, it will remind undecided voters that everything is not quite as wonderful as Bush and his newscasting toadies would have you believe.

Sure, there could be violence and that wouldn't be good, but the alternative is to do nothing until November 2nd, while Bush's minions produce more "Swift Boat" lies for you to present both sides of.

Bush's boys are using every dirty trick in the book, and they've been hugely successful with them in the past. The protesters are just trying to do something about it…anything.

If you have an effective alternative to peacefully protesting, let's hear it. We're all ears.

Well, as I've said here previously, I think the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" are a bunch of Republican stooges who are out to smear John Kerry with claims that are, at best, questionable. And the more I read their assertions since then, including the chapters of the O'Neill book excerpted on the Washington Times site, the more I think they're full of Bandini. The testimony that supports Kerry's version is of eyewitnesses who were definitely present for the events they describe. They have never wavered in their stories and their accounts match all of the available documentation. The testimony that questions Kerry's version is of guys who may not have been there, or been as close as they now claim, and whose accounts are contradicted by the documents and in many instances, even by their own past statements.

The one area where I'm not convinced they're wrong is on this statement by Kerry about spending Christmas Eve in Cambodia…but even if the Democratic nominee has exaggerated there, I think it's a trivial matter. If someone wants to convince me that Kerry is lying and that it's an example of a deep character flaw, they're going to have to also explain George W. Bush's statement that on 9/11, he saw the first plane hit the World Trade Center on live TV or the line about the majority of his tax cuts going to the "bottom end of the spectrum."

Jim may be right that the protests are reminding undecided voters — assuming there are any — that Bush's rosy portraits of the war and the economy are a bit far from reality. On the other hand, I worry about the idea that the protesters are "trying to do something about it…anything." That's the Bush plan to combat terrorism, isn't it? Let's just do something…it doesn't even have to be the right action just as long as it's decisive.

I don't have a good feeling about the protest demonstrations that have already commenced in the avenues of New York. I think people have the right to protest, and there are times when they almost have the obligation…but I'm not sure I understand the goal here. Is the idea that the folks massing in the streets will cause either George W. Bush or the leaders of the Republican party to change policies? That ain't gonna happen. Or maybe the idea is that as Bush and Co. are inside Madison Square Garden, the protesters will be reminding America that a lot of G.O.P. claims — that they have the Iraq situation in hand or that we've "turned the corner" on the economy, to name two — are unsupported by the facts. That might make sense except that the Republicans will have little trouble arguing back that the marchers are a bunch of unAmerican lowlifes. (Five points to the first Fox News commentator who comments on their hair length, sexuality, drug use or personal hygiene.)

At a time when this country is appallingly polarized — what was that about being "a uniter, not a divider"? — I fear the protests will ratchet up the angry rhetoric, and maybe not in a constructive manner. A certain amount of America wants to believe in the institution of government over mob rule in the streets. If the choice is "Bush versus Kerry," they can get behind the idea that Kerry might be more competent because swapping a Republican for a Democrat does not threaten the very structure of our nation. But if it comes down to "Bush versus those rioting in the streets," emotions and sympathy can easily go to the guy in power. During the Vietnam War and its protests, I saw an awful lot of people gravitate to Johnson and then Nixon…and not because they really thought those men where leading the country in the right direction.

This was especially the case when protests turned violent. Even if the current ones don't, somewhere, someone's gonna take a swing at someone else. Somewhere, there will be blood to photograph. The press is dying to cover a riot because that makes for gripping television. And the G.O.P. is dying to portray the protesters as the kind of radical scum that Middle America abhors and to make the election be about that. I hope I'm wrong but my gut is telling me we're about to go back to '72 and the silly argument that a vote for the Republican incumbent is a vote against anarchy.

I enjoyed watching Frazetta: Painting With Fire, a documentary on the great illustrator, Frank Frazetta, which is now turning up on the Indepedent Film Channel. (Next airings: September 7) The 105-minute film features interviews with a couple dozen artists and Frazetta friends and families, including Neal Adams, Dave Stevens, John Buscema, Bill Stout, Al Williamson and Ralph Bakshi. They all talk at length about how great Frazetta is. There are a lot of chats with Frazetta himself. He talks at length about how great Frazetta is. I've always been a bit dubious at the suggestion that painting barbarians, even as well as Frazetta has, represents some high water mark of 20th century art…but once the film gets past that, it's an engrossing, sometimes touching portrait of an amazing artist. Of particular interest is the segment on Frazetta's struggle to keep creating art after a series of strokes robbed him of motor control in his right hand. He switched to his left and went on being Frazetta…and he's still better at it than all the others who've tried being Frazetta.

Last Friday evening, police in Toronto swooped down on a comic book convention, closed down one booth and arrested its operators…and not, like you might imagine, for selling Groo. Here are the details.

Comic book Superheroes can survive all sorts of attempts on their lives when in magazines and graphic novels but they often don't fare so well when someone tries to adapt them into animation. One notable exception — maybe the best attempt ever in television — has been the several (six, I think) shows from Warner Animation featuring Batman. Many folks deserve a hunk of the credit for this excellent conversion but high on the list would be my pal, writer-producer Paul Dini. Tonight, a new episode of Justice League Unlimited airs on Cartoon Network. The script by Paul spotlights the Caped Crusader and his relationship with the lovely Zatanna. More importantly, it represents Paul's last work on that incarnation of Batman, at least for now. After twelve years of fine work, I thought this was worth noting.

It won't do you a bit of good to know this since there are zero tickets left for the last few performances this weekend…but I had a wonderful time last night visiting Brigadoon. This is the Reprise! revival up at the Freud Playhouse up at U.C.L.A., which like all Reprise! revivals, re-creates some great musical with minimal sets and rehearsal but maximum talent. The show in this case is the 1947 Broadway offering by Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe all about a mysterious city in Scotland that pops into existence every hundred years. A glorious cast (including Jason Danieley, Marin Mazzie, Larry Cedar, Deborah Gibson and Orson Bean) more than did justice to the wonderful Lerner-Loewe score. Danieley and Mazzie stopped the show with "Almost Like Being in Love" and it was one of those thrilling moments when the audience is clapping its fool head off, thanking the actors for an unexpected tingle. If this production ran a few more weeks, I'd probably go back to see it again, if only for that one number.

'Twas especially nice to see Orson Bean trodding the boards again. He played Ben Franklin a year or three ago in the Reprise! version of 1776 but this time, he actually looked like Orson Bean. If you get past the silly stage name, Orson Bean is one of the great treasures of show business — an extremely witty man who's had a long, successful career. It would have been even more successful if not for the Blacklist but he overcame that by merely surviving and continuing to do fine work. (It just this moment dawned on me that maybe there was a subtle joke to them casting him as Franklin. That role in 1776 was originated by Howard da Silva, one of the more notoriously blacklisted actors. Funny I never made that connection until just now.)

Everyone else in the show was good, too. Wish you could see it. Heck, I wish I could see it again.

A fine comic artist named Stuart Immonen offers 50 Reasons To Stop Sketching At Conventions.