Z-File, Inc.

By 1984, Leonard Nimoy was doing very different and exciting work. Among other projects, he was the host of a Nickelodeon TV series called “Lights, Camera, Action!” The show took viewers behind the scenes on TV and movie productions, and showed the kids how it was done. The series ran from 1982 through 1987. Nimoy chose not to cover Star Trek at all in his show, and his contract contained language that gave him that choice.

And then, in 1984, he wrote and directed the third Trek movie, The Search for Spock. And so he made an exception, and devoted an episode of Lights! Camera! Action! to the film. To discuss it on-air, the show invited the movie’s publicist, Eddie Eagan, and the editor of the world’s bestselling sci-fi magazine, which happened to be me.

We did a brief run-through, chatting on set as Leonard gently probed for areas of interest to bring up once we began to record the show, which was done in a single take without a break. Little did I know that as we schmoozed, someone was writing down what I was saying. When we went “live,” I saw a person with cue cards standing next to the camera with the red light. My words were on them.

After introducing us, Nimoy proceeded to ask the very same questions on-air he had asked in the warm-up. He had long before mastered the art of reading from cue cards while making it appear that he was looking into the camera, as all good TV folks must. I had a problem, because if I looked at the camera, and therefore the cue cards, it meant I was looking away from Nimoy. So I eschewed the cue cards for the most part, because I knew what I wanted to say; what I had said earlier was pretty much what I had already written about in magazines and spoken about at conventions.

Artwork by Bob Larkin Printed with the artist’s permission

I explained that I found Star Trek to represent a new, more thoughtful and more mature look at science fiction. From its beginnings, with Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, and the wonderful space-opera novels of E.E. “Doc” Smith, sci-fi had its core tropes, which I called the Three R’s: rayguns, robots, and rocketships. And, indeed, in his trendsetting homage to the heyday of sci-fi, George Lucas’s Star Wars universe still had those three elements at its core.

But Star Trek’s rayguns were mostly set on “stun”; robots were uncommon; and instead of a rocketship we were given a starship that was powered by a “warp-core engine.” And the heroes weren’t members of an army, they were explorers. They weren’t looking for new conquests, they sought new friends, alliances, information.

At its center was the great yin-yang of science fiction: the bold (and often rash) testosterone-laden Captain Kirk, and the logical, brilliant and insightful Mr. Spock. Together, they represented the full spectrum of what it means to be human. Separately, they were erratic, unbalanced. Together, they helped shape the future.

R.I. P. LEONARD NIMOY

R.I. P. Leonard Nimoy

Leonard Nimoy passed away today—2/27/15. God rest his gentle soul. I am so sad.

My career as a full-time publishing professional—almost 40 years now—is due in no small measure to Leonard Nimoy and his outstanding portrayal of the rational humanoid alien, Mr. Spock. Spock was a Vulcan member of Star Fleet, and the starship Enterprise’s Science Officer, on the seminal sci-fi TVdrama, Star Trek.

Starlog #1 artwork by Jack Thurston

I became a de facto voice for sci-fi fandom in 1977, as editor of the nationally distributed monthly, Starlog magazine; it was not my intent, but an unexpected result of doing good work. Nothing beats being in the right place at the right time. When I became an assistant editor at Starlog in 1976, it was a sci-fi nostalgia magazine. In particular, it was a loving homage to early science fiction and, in particular, the sci-fi moves of the 1950s. What gave it commercial relevance was the Star Trek TV series. The first issue of the magazine was meant to be a one-shot, loving homage to the TV show. And it surely was. Enough so that I gave it a rave review in one of the pop-culture magazines I wrote freelance for at that time (while still teaching third grade in NYC). That review helped garner an interview with the publishers of Starlog when an editorial position opened up.

I got the job.

In 1977 Star Wars hit, and the entertainment world changed forever. But Star Trek was still the lens through which sci-fi was viewed, and reviewed, and its fan-base was dedicated, and still growing.

Star Trek, The Motion Picture premiered in 1979. It was a major event. The starship Enterprise had been redesigned; fans and reviewers took this very, very seriously. Spock was aging; Captain Kirk looked ageless—albeit with a wider girth and new toupee. The second Trek film reached into the TV-spawned mythos and successfully withdrew The Wrath of Khan, in 1982. A terrific movie that helped to create a new generation of Trek fans. Ironically, it took the death of Spock to make it a hit.

“Crazy” magazine cover artwork by Bob Larkin

To be continued . . .

The graphic adaptation of Amity Shlaes’s 2007 history of the Great Depression, The Forgotten Man, scripted by Chuck Dixon and illustrated by Paul Rivoche, has become a bestseller and a cause of some controversy, most notably due to Rivoche and Dixon’s letter to the Wall Street Journal decrying the left/liberal leaning of the comic-book industry in general and its monthly output.

My immediate thought was to check current sales results and, having done that, I can declare their strategy to have been successful. Chuck and Paul found a perfect venue for promoting their work while appearing to totally diss the format and forum into which they have released it.

There is a potent and thoughtful response on the Comics Alliance site, here:

http://comicsalliance.com/chuck-dixon-paul-rivoche-conservative-politics-comic-industry-response-superman/

But beyond that, there is the question the two have raised, however disingenuously, about the “liberal leaning” of mainstream comic books. They asked: Are comics too biased toward liberal thoughts and ideals? This is a total bulls*it question.

They are not talking about comics as a whole. In fact, they are ignoring about 2/3’s of all products that are published in the realm of graphic storytelling. What they are really asking, rhetorically, is: “Are superhero comics too liberal-oriented and left-leaning?”

Well, the original, iconic superheroes, those who created the genre and have had everlasting staying power and a vast impact on American culture and society, those which de facto define the genre, were created by Jews, either first-generation Americans or the scions of them. Their families had fled from Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, either in advance of National Socialism (Nazi-ism) or from its ever-threatening, ever-expanding, bloodthirsty reach.

Superman was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster; Captain America was created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby—all Jews. What made their characters SUPER heroes? The fact that they championed the inherent rights and freedoms of the little guy, the average citizen—which, in America, included the freedom to pursue your own religion, whatever that might be. Superheroes, and superhero comics, were created by Jews as wish-fulfillment.  The wish being to be left the hell alone to pursue their own lives as they saw fit and to value and honor their own culture and heritage.

Does that sound like leftist, liberal-minded thinking? By all of today’s definitions, I would say, “Yes.” And I would also say, “So what?”

Superheroes had to take up for the common man, the poor work-a-day shlubs. These were the folks who needed the most protection from prejudice and mob hysteria. These were the targets of cruel and deadly prejudice in the world. If America’s superheroes could not stand up and be counted as saviors of the common, decent, hard-working man, what would make them superheroic? Of course superheroes were created by liberals. Of course the original characters have left a legacy of protecting “the little guy.”

Aside from the superhero comics, the rest of the field—certainly graphic novels—is remarkably balanced. So Dixon’s and Rivoche’s lament castigating the entire industry of graphic continuity is totally disingenuous.

They are not stupid. They know the heritage of their chosen field. Superheroes are, by nature, apt to take up the cause of the “little man” against a company, a corporation, a faceless political system, the personifications of prejudice.

No, Dixon’s and Rivoche’s screed is a marketing gambit. Plain and simple. Their book is now a bestseller, and the “hubbub” they have created around it has served sales very, very well.

In this case, it is not I who is the cynic.

Now I had my creative team, artist Ernie Colón and author Ruth Ashby, under contract. But before we even got started on the project, our publisher, Thomas LeBien, told me he was leaving Hill & Wang and going to Simon & Schuster.  Without getting too deep into the details, the book went through a series of hands at H&W, none of which had prior experience with graphic continuities.

No one there saw this as much of a liability, because, after all, a graphic novel is still a book. Well . . . yes it is; but no, not really. English and American contain many of the same words, but they are not the same language. Graphic novels are in book format, but they are visual continuity storytelling, which print books are not.

But I digress.

The challenge for us on Great American Documents was that we needed specific information included in each document story, but we also needed to fit 20 stories into a 160-page volume. For the most part, I think we met this challenge well. Some pages are denser than others; some have more text than I would have liked. But the canny type design and beautiful artwork keep the stories from looking cluttered and keep the narrative moving. The pages are richly layered, with Sam’s narration interspersed with characters engaging in conversation and sometimes in heated disagreements.

Collectively, the 20 stories weave together important parts of the rich tapestry that is our history and our heritage. It begins with “The Mayflower Compact,” which answers such questions as: Who were the Pilgrims and the other passengers on the Mayflower? Why did they come here? Why is their Compact important? How did it contribute to the birth of democracy?

Uncle Sam takes you on a guided tour through the founding of the colonies and the growing colonial resentment toward the British crown; the abuses of the crown; the call for self-governance; the coming together of American’s finest minds in a time of extreme crisis; our break from England.

He explores the meaning and impact of Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” and “The Crisis.” He dives into the Declaration of Independence; the Constitution; the Federalist Papers; and the Bill of Rights. We treat these as “living documents” in America, and bringing them to life on these pages was a challenge well met. It is important that we understand and learn from history. It explains so much of what is going on right now. An informed public can make informed decisions about its present and its future. Discover the “what” and “why” of America’s great triumphs and failures.

Buy this book.