tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611875170009784219.post6397280674452133518..comments2024-03-28T22:41:33.502-04:00Comments on Noblemania: Finger Tip #5: “Fifty Who Made DC Great”Marc Tyler Noblemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10732005290440645718noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611875170009784219.post-48287665158667898972010-06-04T21:31:49.677-04:002010-06-04T21:31:49.677-04:00Perhaps, RAB, and interesting thought. I don't...Perhaps, RAB, and interesting thought. I don't know enough about the 1980s corporate side of DC to speculate.<br /><br />I do know that this language is consistent with other Kane quotations which we can be nearly 100% sure WERE Kane himself, i.e. the scalding 1965 open letter to "Batmania," his autobiography, and even his gravestone. And quotations in other profiles, such as Siegel and Finger, are more or less intact from original sources we can identify.<br /><br />Joey is still around. We should ask him. :)Marc Tyler Noblemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10732005290440645718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6611875170009784219.post-79277634548910044802010-06-04T19:13:10.645-04:002010-06-04T19:13:10.645-04:00One tiny quibble: when you say "Kane says thi...One tiny quibble: when you say "Kane says this" or "Kane employs dodgy wordplay here" it's worth bearing in mind that this is nothing but corporate promotional material, presumably written by Joey Cavalieri, Thomas Hill, or special projects editor Barry Marx. They may well have culled Kane's words from previous remarks, but even then, the finished bios would have been rewritten and edited to match the official corporate history. <br /><br />That said, I've always heard that Kane was one of the most brazenly and cheerfully dishonest people in comics history, and it's clear that he employed dodgy wordplay all the time. He told multiple false versions of the Batman story, and I'm not trying to let him off the hook here. I'm just saying, this case in particular can't be counted as a proper quotation.<br /><br />(I've never known what that book was actually for -- maybe it was originally intended as something to educate Time Warner shareholders about their comics division, and someone decided they could sell it to fans as well? Just a guess.)Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01714171897239398438noreply@blogger.com