Jim Shooter's Place in the Industry

You may have read CBR's recent interview with Jim Shooter regarding the end of the current Legion of Superheroes series. In it, he levels some criticisms at his artist Francis Manapul:

"As soon as Francis groks what business he’s in – storytelling – as soon as he realizes that conveying the story and information clearly, at a glance, is first priority, he’ll be a contender. It’s not just about making cool shots that vaguely relate to what was asked for in the script."

These comments apparently necessitated a follow-up from Shooter explaining that he still holds Manapul in high regard:

“I am, of course, famous for my lack of ‘people skills,’” Shooter said. “Things I say, apparently, are sometimes taken more harshly than intended. To me, it seems that I say ‘hello’ and people say, ‘What did he mean by that nasty remark?’ But, at this point in my life, I'm willing to believe that I sound upset when I’m not.

But it was his comments about why the book was ending that I found more interesting:

“I think it had more to do with their being pissed at me for complaining too much and too loudly – to DC people only, not to the media – about various glitches and screw-ups than anything else. DC has incentives for licensing of new characters. Super Lad could, potentially be the new Superxxx, and very licensable. Why reward a pain in the ass like me with extra money? They actually fired me at one point for complaining too enthusiastically about a really aggravating snafu. I groveled enough to get my gig back – I have child support to pay – but they took Super Lad away. Then they canceled the book.”

This reminded me of his previous falling out, when he was set to do a sequel to the Korvac Saga for Marvel in 2002. Very similar situation; industry legend Jim Shooter returns after decades to revisit a property he had a defining run on. From a 2004 interview at the old SilverBulletComicBooks.com:

Joe asked me to do a sequel to the Korvac saga. Though the money in comics these days isn't very good, he persisted, and finally I agreed. I figured it would be fun, and I'd fit in somehow. I wrote an 8,000 work overview of the eight-issue story. Joe and his editor, Tom Brevoort seemed to like it, but I found Brevoort to be a pain. Didn't get along with him, mostly because he kept insisting on lecturing me about introducing characters not doing "paper cut-out" characters in the action scenes and such…before I'd even started! I asked him if he lectured John Buscema about making sure to draw with proper perspective and correct anatomy, which only got him up onto a higher horse. I surmised that this wasn't going to be fun and I had plenty of other work, so I bailed.

You can read Shooter's Korvac sequel proposal here. Now, let's look at the contrast in his statements then and now. In the most recent incident with DC, he describes himself as having "groveled enough to get my gig back"--temporarily-- because he has "child support to pay." While obviously some of the wording of that statement is tongue-in-cheek, it's a far cry from the guy who just a few years ago turned his nose up at a Marvel gig, saying "the money in comics these days isn't very good" and he "had plenty of other work." So what's changed for Shooter? I suppose it's possible that whatever opportunities he had at the time have now dried up, thus changing his perspective. Does that mean he's open to working with Marvel again?

Perhaps the more important question is, would Marvel be willing to work with him again? One thing that didn't change between the two interviews is that certain sense of imperiousness. The harsh reality of the comic book business is that when you do work-for-hire, you are not in control. Your editors are. But Shooter should already know this, having been Editor-in-Chief of Marvel for nearly a decade, and having been no small proponent of "the editor is king" philosophy. There are numerous stories of creators and subordinate editors who either had falling-outs with Shooter, or else gritted their teeth and bore through decisions that they felt were unfair or unreasonable. One might think that given the position he took for all those years, he would be sympathetic to editors and defer to them when taking the role of a freelancer. But it's not really a matter of philosophy, it's a matter of ego.

When Shooter came into the role of EiC at Marvel in the late 1970s, the place was, most would admit, a mess. Quality control, shipping schedules, everything that it takes to run a publishing business effectively, were all over the place, and there was a collegial rather than professional atmosphere, as the place was naturally populated by long-haired creative types. Shooter transformed the place into a more business-like setting, and while many objected to the loss of the "family feeling", it's undeniable that Shooter made the place run more efficiently and this brought financial benefits to all involved. It takes a certain personality type to walk into an organization and transform it that way; you basically have to believe that you have a vision that is superior to everyone else's. And in some ways it was, as Marvel experienced an unprecedented period of creative and financial growth under Shooter.

But a person who believes that THEY know how to do things the right way cannot so easily drop that attitude, even when the situation calls for it. This is part of what led to Shooter's downfall at Marvel as well as his other comic book publishing endeavors. As he alludes to, he has pretty consistently rubbed people the wrong way with his attitude. Imagine the hubris it takes to essentially tell your editor to shove his criticism because you are the John Buscema of writing. That hubris is both responsible for Shooter's success and his failures.

He doesn't give specifics as to what he complained to DC about, but let's make an educated guess and suppose he complained about something in Manapul's art. Editors have deadlines on multiple books to worry about; should they put everything on hold and get Manapul to redraw a sequence because one of their freelancers didn't like it? Shooter also implies that he didn't simply make the gripe and then let it go; he was persistent and loud about it. Editors love that. It makes their job soooo much more pleasant. Ironically, Shooter seems to realize this is a problem, but he shows no signs of being able to control it. Given that, and the fact that his return to Legion showed that he isn't exactly in tremendous demand as a writer; if you were an editor at Marvel, would you take the risk of a professional and public relations headache in working with him?

My personal answer is; Maybe. But I'd lay down the law at the start before announcing anything to the public, and if he didn't like it, I'd show him the door. You're not EiC anymore Jim; you're no longer even an industry superstar. Many readers today have never even read anything you had a hand in. You might be able to write something interesting and compelling, but you shouldn't expect to be treated any better than any other freelancer coming in and pitching for work. If you can just adjust to that attitude, you might reestablish yourself in the industry for a new generation. If not, you'll be forgotten like many others.