|
CEREBUS continues to stagger me in many ways, but one of the most profound is its sheer size and the duration of its production. You did it. Like you said you would from the very beginning. Twenty-six years. Three hundred monthly issues. Like clockwork. All of those issues fit into the larger narrative framework, the characters are consistent (and if they change, it’s a sense of evolution, not an arbitrary left turn – It’s all motivated), and I never have the sense that you “took an issue off” here and there.
Your work on CEREBUS strikes me as a pretty unbelievable act of commitment, conviction, determination, sheer will, imagination and love. I work on a contract-to-contract basis. I write a script for this show as a freelancer, and then I move to that show and write a script for it. If I’m under contract to produce or story-edit a series, it’s for a limited period of a couple years at the absolute most. All of which suits me fine – I enjoy playing in other creators’ sandboxes. And I respond well to deadlines placed upon me, much better than I do to self-imposed deadlines. But after a few years on the same series, I can itch for new material on which to work.
Of course, I’ve never sold a series I created, and I might feel otherwise if that were the case. I hope I get to find out. Even so, I’d like to tell so many different kinds of stories over the course of my career, featuring many different kinds of characters. I don’t know that I could come up with a “vessel” of a framework story that could encompass all of them, the way CEREBUS encompassed multiple stories of a range of styles (illustrative and textual), all the while maintaining the central thread of Cerebus’ journey. If I did, there would probably still be times when I wondered if the narrative grass wasn’t greener somewhere else.
So, my question(s) to you becomes this (these):
Do you have a sense of where that drive, that commitment, within you comes from? And how hard or easy was it to maintain over the course of the 26 years?
Was there ever a time when you wanted to just walk away entirely before reaching 300? If so, how did you overcome it? Did you have mornings when you sat down at the drawing table and just said, “Ugh. I am just not in the mood for this.” If so, how did you fight through that?
Was there a time when you thought, “No one’s forcing me to do this every day, every month, every year. I’ll just take a couple months off. Just a couple. I’ll come back rejuvenated and get right back into it.” If so, what kept you from heading down that path?
Were you ever seriously tempted to step away from CEREBUS, temporarily or purposely, to pursue other projects that you’d either create or that someone else had created?
In short, how did you cope with CEREBUS fatigue and outside distraction?
If these are questions you’ve answered a hundred times before elsewhere, I apologize – I haven’t seen or heard those interviews – and I hope the way I’ve asked them here might give you a different approach or angle to answering them than you’ve had previously.
Adam is the one who ISN'T straining every muscle in his body |
Adam Beechen's Hench is available from Amazon. (Which is were his website sends you.) Most recently, Adam wrote an eight-page story featured in the 'ROBIN 80th Anniversary Special' for DC.
[I read it, it's a good story -Matt]
Dave Sim's answer to Adam Beechen's
fourfold question above is being serialized this week on AMOC. Link to PART ONE. Link to PART TWO. This is PART THREE.
PART THREE THE NOEL SICKLES "SPARRING
MATCH"
This was, for me, a defining
"accidental merit" to SPARRING WITH GIL KANE. But, in order to get
the merit of it, you need to know a lot more information than you will get in
the book. Starting with the fact that Noel Sickles was, for Gil Kane, The Real
Olympus Deal For Whom Gil Kane Would Cheerfully Have Become The Humblest
Spear-carrier. That is, Gil Kane who, in his own mind, looked down on all of
his peers in the comic-book field looked up -- WAAAY up -- to Noel Sickles.
A great deal of Noel Sickles' cachet in the
comic-book field comes from Howard Chaykin by way of Gil Kane (Chaykin
was Gil's assistant for less than a year but it was a TRANSFORMATIVE year).
Chaykin adopted Gil Kane's progressive intelligentsia One Right Way To Think
m.o. in spades. Batter the opposition into submission. Take no prisoners. You
have to tear down to build up. One of which was that Scorchy Smith is
the ne plus ultra of comic-strip art and comic-art generally. Even as an
18-year-old, which is how old I was when I interviewed Howard, when Howard
Chaykin spoke reverently of Scorchy Smith you listened because he spoke
so seldom of anyone's work with reverence.
I was the same age interviewing Howard that Howard had been as Gil's
assistant. Same deal. Gil would dismiss everyone in the 18-year-old Chaykin's
pantheon with a withering cruel-but-fair bon mot.
[I really wish I had written them down at
the time: Howard reenacting the assistant-to-artist conversation with his
pitch-perfect imitation of Gil. I had already interviewed Gil so
"pitch-perfect" doesn't overstate the case. The assessments were
cruel but also funny. Darrell Epp sends me Howard Chaykin interviews and
observations whenever he finds them online. I'm always hoping they'll be in
there somewhere as I hoped they would be in Howard's introduction to SPARRING
WITH GIL KANE. No such luck.]
For me, Sickles' Scorchy Smith and
the early Milt Caniff Terry and the Pirates (Milt Caniff and Sickles
were lifelong friends and one-time studio mates) are interesting but minor
works. Their long-term impact, I would say, was "understated-ness".
Two people walking along talking. For days on end. For me, Sickles didn't come
into his own until he left comics and became a full-time illustrator. This
makes me a Blithering Idiot and Fool in the Gil Kane and Howard Chaykin Mount
Olympus.
Which is "of a piece" with what
I'm talking about here: the progressive's -- and these are all progressives --
compulsion toward The One Right Way To Think instead of "Here's my opinion
and here's why I think this way. What's your opinion and why do you think that
way?" My case would be that Scorchy Smith is largely -- apart from Gil and Howard Chaykin --
forgotten and was, certainly, eclipsed by Terry and the Pirates: and, by
that I mean, the later Terry and the Pirates. Caniff went out on an apex high note when
he left Terry and started Steve Canyon.
Whereas, when LIFE magazine published
Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea -- at a time when Hemingway was the
Ne Plus Ultra of American authors and LIFE magazine was the Ne Plus Ultra of
slick newsstand magazines -- Noel Sickles was tapped to illustrate it.
To me, that's QED: If there is some kind of
objective comic-art Mount Olympus in this vale of tears, the re-fashioner of Scorchy
Smith --
[Sickles didn't create the strip, it was
created by John Terry, the brother of Paul Terry, of Terrytoons animation.
Sickles was delegated to take the strip over in 1933 when John Terry had been
dying of tuberculosis and Sickles had been directed to make it look like the
original. Which for Sickles had been a stifling creative yoke. After Terry
died, Sickles was allowed to sign his name to the strip and gradually began to
make it more interesting while staying understated. Arguably, that's where the
brilliance comes from that Gil and Howard see:
Sickles had to keep himself reined in under editorial fiat -- Colonel
Parker imposed on Elvis Presley -- and then was "set loose". But he chose to rein himself in, at
that point, so he became what I would describe as "the understated Milt
Caniff"]
--
rising to that level of National Prominence makes whatever Noel Sickles did in
comics, at best, "humble beginnings".
That doesn't mean I think mine is the One
Right Way To Think, that means that I think it's the more persuasive way of
viewing Noel Sickles and his work. Gil and Howard aren't WRONG to think Scorchy
Smith is a critically important seminal work. There's a good case to be
made for how they view it. If you think, as an example, that Milt Caniff's
style ultimately became a caricature of itself, then Sickles' intentional
"understated-ness" on Scorchy Smith becomes the preferred Road
Less Travelled -- the cartoon comic-art fork-in-the-road where the less
brilliant trajectory was, regrettably, opted for.
An equally persuasive argument can be
mounted that what Noel Sickles and Milt Caniff were doing as studio-mates
between 1933 and 1936 -- creating the Cartoon Comic Art School -- is really the
subject under discussion. Sickles' work on Scorchy Smith shaped Caniff's
work on Terry and the Pirates and vice versa and it's hard to tell who
got what from who. Sickles quit Scorchy Smith in an Elvis vs. Colonel
Parker dispute over compensation with the Associated Press Syndicate in 1936...
(he was getting $125 a week when the strip
was bringing in -- by his calculation -- $2,500 a week. I think that's a
lowball figure. The Associated Press was EVERYWHERE. Those were only the North
American papers and only the North American papers of which Sickles was aware.
STRANGE DEATH OF ALEX RAYMOND TEASER: Ward Greene's long-term plan had been to
jump from King Features to the Associated Press with a Margaret Mitchell/Alex
Raymond GONE WITH THE WIND adaptation which he pictured being the first
million-dollar grossing comic strip)
...so the cross-pollination between the two
of them came to an abrupt end.
As comics historian Ron Goulart (who
theorizes that he had been gathering material for his book The Adventurous
Decade) writes in his introduction to the Kane vs. Sickles
"match", "I had brought along some Terry and the Pirates tear
sheets that I was sure he had had a hand in (Alex Toth had pointed them out to
me when I was living in Southern California)." Toth was another Scorchy Smith devotee.
Had IDW's Library of American Comics TERRY
AND THE PIRATES volumes existed at the time, that would have been the thing to
have Sickles look at. Alas, that was all
way off in the future and all we have is glimmerings of information. Alex
Toth's opinions filtered through Goulart and partly refuted and partly affirmed
by Sickles.
Dave's the one who ISN'T going "Beep beep" (I think...) |
Next Time: HOBBS! Cerebus! Hell?!?
2 comments:
I am someone who doesn't mind these digressions at all.
Matt, this is fookin' AWESOME. I, being a not-very-creative person, absolutely love listening in on creative people talking about doing what they love. The passion, the dedication. It's why I enjoy Jerry Seinfeld's "Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee" so much. (And that's saying a lot - I do not enjoy watching TV, as a rule. Not my medium of choice.)
For example, I never knew Gil Kane - absolutely one of my all time favorites - had such a high opinion of himself. Deserved, sure, but...unseemly.
Please keep these coming as long as the correspondents, and you, are not yet sick of/bored with it. Priceless stuff.
Post a Comment