[go: up one dir, main page]

Showing posts with label Wikipedia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wikipedia. Show all posts

Thursday, August 23, 2018

The Wikipedia entry for "Bill Finger"…in 2006

In 2006, I began researching for what would become Bill the Boy Wonder: The Secret Co-Creator of Batman. I kept a running Word document of notes which eventually exceeded 700 pages. Periodically, I would copy the changing Wikipedia entry for "Bill Finger" and paste into those notes. Today it is a far cry from then.

Is Throwback Thursday still a thing? In any case, here is the (uncorrected/unedited) version of Bill's entry from 8/22/06 (which I saved because it included a new detail about how Bill was credited for Green Lantern):

Bill Finger (February 8, 1914 - January 18, 1974) was an American writer who is best remembered (though not officially credited) as the co-creator of the character Batman with Bob Kane as well as the co-architect of the series' development.

Batman

Finger joined Kane's makeshift studio in 1938. A year later, the success of Superman in Action Comics prompted editors at the comic book division of National Publications (later DC Comics) to request more superheroes for their titles. While Bob Kane is credited as the creator of Batman, controversy was stirred by the book "Men of Tomorrow", which claimed that Kane had created a "Birdman" while Finger suggested the name "Bat-Man".

Finger himself admitted on more than one occasion that Kane did indeed create a version of the character before Finger got involved with the project. Kane was inspired by the flying machine of Leonardo Da Vinci, a movie he had seen called "The Bat" and of course, Bela Lugosi's 1931 film Dracula which featured a "man-bat" in its opening credits. However, Finger did suggest a different costume direction for "The Bat-Man."

In an interview for Jim Steranko's "History of the Comics: Vol. One" Finger described in detail, the extent of his suggestions about the costume. He felt the original character (The Bat-Man) looked too much like Superman with a mask and bat-wings. He recommended replacing the Da Vinci-inspired wings for a cape, giving him gloves, and changing the character's bodysuit from red to grey. Perhaps most importantly, Finger found a book with a picture of a bat in it and encouraged Kane to replace the character's domino mask with a more bat-like hooded cowl, complete with "ears" which would make the character distinguishable even in silhouette. It's generally agreed that Finger encouraged Kane to leave out the character's eyes when he wore the mask. Although Kane would accept many of these suggestions, one cannot escape the direct influence of Lee Falk's character The Phantom, as Kane admitted that he studied newspaper strips on a routine basis.

Finger wrote the first Batman script, while Kane provided art. Because Kane had already submitted the proposal for a Batman character to his editors at DC Comics, Kane was the only person given official credit at the time for the creation of Batman. This was not unusual in the comic books of that time, where the artist would often sign his name to the first page of the story and the script would be uncredited, but it was in contrast to other features on which Finger worked where he was identified as scripter, such as Wildcat and Green Lantern, and in contrast to the credits on features by the same publisher such as Superman, where writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster both received credit during the time they were affiliated with the publisher, even on stories ghosted for them by other writers and artists.

According to Wizard Magazine, Bob Kane had Finger enter a work for hire contract. It is this contract that provided National and DC their strongest defense against later claims by Finger.

Batman was a success, and soon after, National suggested that character receive a youthful sidekick who the readers could use as an audience surrogate. Kane initially suggested an impish character like Puck, while Finger suggested a more down-to-earth character. The name Robin was suggested by Jerry Robinson who had arrived at the studio while Kane and Finger were kicking names around. Finger went on to write many of the early Batman stories, including making major contributions to the character of The Joker, as well as other major Batman villains.

Finger was a very meticulous writer and as such, a slow one, leading one editor to "suggest" that Kane replace him with someone else. During Finger's absence, Gardner Fox contributed scripts that introduced Batman's early "Bat-" arsenal (the utility belt, the Bat-Gyro/plane and the Batarang). Upon his return, Finger created or co-created items such as the Batmobile and Batcave, and is credited with providing a name for Gotham City. Among the things that made his stories particularly distinctive was a use of giant-sized props -- enlarged pennies, sewing machines, or typewriters.

Kane and Finger brought together such diverse influences as pulp magazines, comic strips, film noir and the slapstick comedy of teams like the Marx Brothers and the Three Stooges, creating a "Cartoon-Noir" that was widely imitated. Eventually, Finger left Kane's studio to work directly for DC Comics where he still supplied scripts for Batman as well as many other characters.

The Green Lantern

In 1940, Finger collaborated with artist Martin Nodell on a new superhero feature in All-American Comics #16 called The Green Lantern. Both writer and artist received a by-line on the strip, with Nodell in the earliest issues using the pseudonym "Matt Dellon". Nodell's name appeared first, before Finger's, on the stories that he drew, although when ghost artists such as Irwin Hasen were used, Bill Finger's name appeared first so that the credits instead read "by Bill Finger and Martin Nodell". While the Green Lantern was retired for a time, eventually returning as a completely different character with the same name, and was never as popular as Batman, the character remains an integral part of the history of DC Comics and has reappeared alongside the more contemporary version of the character recognised as his predecesstor. Today, Finger receives no credit for having co-created Green Lantern, the official position being that Nodell created the character and Finger simply supplied the early scripts.

Film work

As a screenwriter, he wrote or co-wrote the films Death Comes to Planet Aytin, The Green Slime, and Track of the Moon Beast. He also wrote a Clock King episode of the live-action Batman TV series.

Credit

Business-savvy Bob Kane negotiated a contract with National, signing away any ownership that he might have in the character in exchange for, among other compensations, a mandatory byline on all Batman comics. Although Finger did receive credit for other work done for the same publisher in the 1940s (as examples, the first Wildcat story has the by-line "by Irwin Hasen and Bill Finger" - Sensation Comics no. 1, July 1942 - and the first Green Lantern story said that it was "by Mart Dellon and Bill Finger" - All-American Comics no. 16, July, 1942) Finger began to receive limited acknowledgement for his work on Batman in the pages of the comic book only in the 1960s, as a script-writer (for example, "Letters to the Batcave", Batman no. 169, Feb. 1965, where editor Julius Schwartz names him as the creator of The Riddler, one of Batman's recurring villains). Finger's working arrangement, by comparison to Kane's, left him only with the fees he earned for the scripts that he continued to write, and no credit on the Batman stories that he wrote without Kane. Finger, like Joe Shuster, Jerry Siegel, and many other creators during and after the Golden Age of Comic Books, would resent National for "cheating" him of the money and dignity that he felt that he was owed for his contributions.

Like his contemporaries including Siegel, Otto Binder, and Gardner Fox, Finger wrote a number of uncredited stories for DC. His 1950s work on Batman with artist Dick Sprang was known for putting the Caped Crusader and the Boy Wonder through elaborate death traps. These would lead some to suggest that without Kane, the series grew increasingly silly as it moved away from its "gothic" roots; others would contend it was actually the editors who changed the tone to soften Batman's image, due to the increasing criticism of comics during the early 1950s. Finger later wrote for television and radio but writing comics was his main profession. By the time he died in 1974, he had almost never been officially credited for his work. He died poor and without any official heirs to continue his fight for credit.

Posthumously, Finger has been named to the Will Eisner Award Hall of Fame and Jack Kirby Hall of Fame. He is also the namesake of the Bill Finger Award, founded by Jerry Robinson, an early collaborator with Kane and Finger, who shares credit with them for creating Robin according to many sources. The award honors lifetime achievements by comic book writers. In 2005, the award honored Arnold Drake (creator of the Doom Patrol and fellow uncredited Batman writer), as well as Jerry Siegel who was given a posthumous award.

Monday, August 3, 2015

The Bill Finger/George Roussos issue

As of this writing, the Wikipedia entry for Bill Finger includes this quotation from George Roussos, a comic book inker and colorist who began working in the Golden Age: “Bob Kane had ideas while Bill sort of organized them” (source cited: “Interviews with George Roussos,” Batman: The Dark Knight Archives, Volume 2, DC Comics, 1997).

I am confident that Roussos was well-intentioned. But it does not sound like he was as familiar with the reality of the working relationship between Bill and Bob as one might think.

Bizarrely, Roussos’s statement contradicts the accounts of nearly every other comics industry professional who also knew Bill and Bob personally as well as some DC-sanctioned statements and published accounts by writers including Jim Steranko, Les Daniels, Jim McLauchlin, and Jerry Bails.

I interviewed every key Batman-related creator who was still alive as of 2006. None claimed Bob was the idea man (in fact some vehemently claimed the opposite), none had a thing to gain by defending Bill, and at least two had something to lose (
Jerry Robinson was still a DC Comics consultant at the time, Arnold Drake had been negotiating terms over characters he had created). Even Bob admitted that Bill was a “boy wonder” of ideas (Bob’s 1989 autobiography Batman & Me, page 119)—but by then, Bill was already safely dead.

Bill not only wrote 1,500 stories over 25 years but also designed Batman’s costume, wrote the first appearances of Robin/Joker/Catwoman/many more, built the bat-motif, named “Gotham City” and “Bruce Wayne,” and nicknamed Batman “the Dark Knight.” Bob did not write a single Batman story in his lifetime, and the only major villain more than just Bob credits Bob with creating is Two-Face.

How is this Bill organizing Bob’s ideas?

Even the rest of Bill’s Wikipedia entry undermines the notion that Bill merely “sort of organized” Bob’s ideas.

As such, I feel Roussos’s statement does not belong in that entry. But my request to remove it was overruled. Some have presumed I attempted this because I am unconditionally pro-Bill and anti-Kane. No, I did it because I am a researcher of exacting standards. No matter the subject, I would not give this kind of weight to a single account of one truth over numerous other accounts of a different truth when all accounts are created equal (i.e. all were firsthand witnesses to Bill and Bob).

Like anyone, Roussos is entitled to an opinion. But I do not interpret Roussos’s recollection as a thought-out statement For The Record. I believe it was instead a quick, casual comment that he would probably rephrase if given the chance.

I realize Roussos’s quotation does not state that Bob had all the ideas. And I am not disputing Bob had the better business advice to lock in rights for himself. But I don’t define the legacy of a fictional character in terms of the commerce behind it. I define it on artistic merit.

I feel it is irresponsible to include a quotation as misleading as Roussos’s in the only source many people read to learn about Bill.

Monday, December 2, 2013

"Boys of Steel" has a Wikipedia entry...

...and has since 2008.





screenshots taken July 2013

I am happy about this...and at the same time surprised that Bill the Boy Wonder: The Secret Co-Creator of Batman does not, as of now, have an entry.

I would ordinarily not expect either book—most any nonfiction picture book, frankly—to get an entry, but because Bill the Boy Wonder reveals even more significant, never-published information than Boys of Steel, it would make that sense that if only one of the two were to be on Wikipedia, it would be Bill.

Granted, whoever posted the Boys entry did so before Bill existed, and may not be aware of it now, if he or she is even still contributing to Wikipedia.

Luckily, Wikipeditors (is that a word?) have consulted Bill for his Wikipedia entry.

Monday, July 8, 2013

The “Dark Knight” Edits

To my recollection, I’ve made only a small handful of edits to Wikipedia—a couple at least five years ago, two the summer of 2012, and one or two more recently. Not surprisingly, most (if not all) were related to Bill Finger.

The summer 2012 edits were to the entries for The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, the second and final films in Christopher Nolan’s groundbreaking Batman trilogy.


I added that the first Batman story to include the phrase “the Dark Knight” was one written by Bill Finger (in Batman #1, 1940). The fact that neither film needed the word “Batman” in the title shows how iconic not only the character but this nickname are.

Note that I did not write “Bill Finger was the first to call Batman ‘the Dark Knight’” nor did I claim that Finger coined the phrase.” I think both were the case, but we may never know for sure. Therefore, to defend my objectivity, I inserted the info in a way that is indisputable.

I feel it is a travesty that Bill’s name is not in the credits of those (or any) Batman movies, but am somehow comforted by the fact that at least Wikipedia has the truth. More people have access to Wikipedia than to the movie…

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Wikipedia fossils

Recently I gave my "professional" assessment of Wikipedia. Here's a brief tangent on Wikipedia, more of an archeological observation.

As I research, I copy any online articles I reference and paste them into a single Word document (along with interview transcriptions, notes from books, and notes from print articles). It creates one long but easily searchable file to account for my facts.

All of those articles remain static, constant, inert, unchanging, frozen...all except Wikipedia. When I look back at any given Wikipedia article I screen corralled and compare it to the article as it currently appears online, they are, of course, never the same.

What I kept is a fossil, a trace of a subject that has evolved. Often the changes are in the name of encyclopedic approach, but that tends to make the revised article less quirky. The small details or seemingly isolated facts are the first (along with typos) to be cut.

On writing projects that go on long enough for a Wikipedia article I've used to be more than just superficially updated, I end up copying and pasting multiple versions of it. And I date each one, too. If only real archeology were so easy.

Friday, September 18, 2009

Wikipediagilisticexpialidocious, part 2 of 2

As a writer, I’ve found Wikipedia to be invaluable in research, despite some editorial backlash and if used in a certain way. Reasons 1 through 3 are here, and reasons 4 through 6½ are here:

Contributor motivation

Writers and editors who contribute to Wikipedia don't earn money or widespread recognition. Unmotivated by these corruptible catalysts, their output shoots up the integrity scale. They’re wikifying out of love for whatever subject they’re writing about, and people are often experts on what they love.

Immediate sourcing

Given longstanding industry protocol, not to mention space limitation, print articles almost never cite sources. Wikipedia articles do, or if they don’t, they’re flagged so researchers know to proceed with caution.

If a fact on Wikipedia lacks citation, I don’t use it unless I can back (front?) it up with a reliable source elsewhere. Weaker Wikipedia articles may not help in and of themselves, but they can set you down multiple paths to better info. And that's a strength—Wikipedia has become the essential orientation point on most any topic.

Detail magnet—but especially “modern” details

I couldn’t resist titling this post the way I did (though I did first try “Supercalifragilisticexwikipedia”). However, Wikipedia is actually not “supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.” According to the film Mary Poppins, that word is all you can say when there’s nothing to say.

Wikipedia is about saying it all. Sort of.

It’s the first major fact repository to incorporate information in real-time. Yet this creates an imbalance, giving a texture to “current” subjects that past subjects don’t have.

Take the Kanye West/Taylor Swift incident during the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards. It was promptly added to both of their Wikipedia entries, plus the entry for the VMAs. Will it end up being a defining moment for either artist? It’s too early to tell, but probably not. A Hollywood “controversy” like it happens several times each week, making many previous ones insignificant.

To contrast, the people who wrote the Wikipedia entry on pre-Wikipedia subject Huey Lewis and the News did not (according to the references cited) go back through period articles from Rolling Stone, People, Musician, Seventeen, and other magazines (whether extant or defunct) that covered the band during their 1980s heyday. Most of those articles are not online, and therefore understandably beyond the reach—or at least the commitment level—of the average Wikipedia researcher.

Yet if someone were to dig up such articles, they would surely provide the kind of nuances that a Wikipedia contributor documenting a contemporary topic often includes.

In other words, the entry for Kanye West will have lots more anecdotal info than the one for Huey Lewis and the News.

I do long for a Wikipedia that more deeply mines the recent past for “forgotten” facts, but that’s an immense expectation. Hopefully, as more publications digitize their archives, that will enhance Wikipedia's scope. Yet what about the magazines like Musician that don’t exist anymore? Who owns that content? Will it ever be digitized? What irresistible HLATN factoid is there and only there and will be lost to most of us for all time unless some enterprising Wikipedian unearths and shares it?

In the end, this imbalance between current and past topics is not a negative. To criticize Wikipedia for being more thorough about certain contemporary subjects than certain past subjects misses the point. The fact that it’s detailed about any subjects is a good thing.

The half-reason

A year ago, some kind soul gave my book Boys of Steel: The Creators of Superman the Wikipedia treatment. You don’t need to investigate the IP addresses to learn that it was not me. The proof is simpler. Just look at my name within the article: not hyperlinked. Though I write about myself here, I, like most writers, know it’s bad form to do so on Wikipedia.

I’ve never written a Wikipedia article about anyone or anything else, either. Several years ago, I did lightly edit a couple. (One was on Bill Finger, the uncredited co-creator of Batman. I don’t remember the other but do remember that my tweak was only grammatical.)

And though I don’t plan to write or edit other Wikipedia articles, this is one writer who is grateful for the people who do.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Wikipediagilisticexpialidocious, part 1 of 2

As a writer, I am on Wikipedia daily. If an article is properly cited, it can be as—if not more—useful than many books. At times, I trust it more than brand name encyclopedias.

One study found Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica.

Yet some editors and writers’ guidelines ask writers to avoid using Wikipedia as a source because it is “user-written.”

But users are people, too. To expand, here are six-and-a-half weasons why Wikipedia is worthwhile.

Amateur doesn’t mean unprofessional

We all know good cooks who don’t work in high-end restaurants. And many of us have been crushed by good tennis players who’ve never appeared in the US Open, or even a town tournament.

Likewise, there are plenty of good writers (and researchers) who don’t do it for a living, yet luckily, plenty of them volunteer their time and minds for Wikipedia.

Books get it wrong, too

Conversely, a published book is not always a polished book. Despite best efforts, books still go to print with mistakes. I’ve read them. And written one or two. (But only one or two.) Writers have to doublecheck all facts, whether from a book or a site or the inside of a Snapple bottle cap.

Multiple brains for the price of none

A typical book has one editor (and a copy editor, but here I’m talking about mistakes in content, not grammar). An article on Wikipedia can have any number of editors. While that may indeed mean more chance for errors, at the same time it suggests a greater chance that more errors will be fixed.

Say a magazine writer turns in a 1,000-word article with 10 mistakes and his editor catches 8. The scale with a Wikipedia article is almost always greater—say 10 writers build a 1,000-word article with a total of 28 (initial) mistakes. Yet it may attract as many—if not more—editors as writers. Through group effort, all mistakes may be weeded out. While the “amateur” article had more than twice as many initial mistakes, it ends up with none; meanwhile, the “professional” article still has two. And once published, print mistakes can’t be changed as quickly as Wikipedia mistakes.

A Wikipedia article is like a piece of bread on the ground. You can always count on not one but many ants to show up fast and go to work on it. Same with a Wikipedia article, subbing in editors for ants. (Not an insult. Ants are hard workers. Not to mention freakishly strong for their size.)

Consider this experiment. Writer A.J. Jacobs tested Wikipedia by posting an article on it with numerous deliberate errors. He felt the article had reached healthy condition two days and 373 edits later. Here’s the link (from Wikipedia itself).

Tomorrow: reasons 4 through 6½, including the scoop on the title of this post.