Well, that's the key question, isn't it? Siegel was there, Steranko wasn't. On the other hand, Steranko did tell me (ages ago) that he based his account on first hand conversations he had with Siegel and he considered Siegel a friend.
History tells us that Siegel wasn't entirely forthcoming when it came to the creation and early years of Superman. We know that he jettisoned Shuster early on when they couldn't sell the project and replaced him with Russell Keaton. he then dumped Keaton when that didn't work out and brought back Shuster. He never mentioned that. But then he never mentioned a lot, such as the deals he made with DC to cut Shuster out of money, the side deals he made and how angry he got when he believed that Shuster held out on him.
Taking The Phantom as one example. In 1939, during the Detective Comics, Inc., v Bruns Publications, Inc trial, Siegel denied seeing the Phantom before he created Superman and suggested that someone at King Features saw Superman via a submission and based the Phantom's costume on Superman and not vice-versa. The memory would have been very fresh back then, and he was under oath.
In another letter to Kyle (January 1974), Siegel again attacks Phantom/Superman comparisons, this time from Jim Harman's Nostalgia Catalogue, which he says was first mooted in a 1940s Saturday Evening Post article.
History. It's a funny thing, littered with landmines, especially comic book history as you and I know all too well, having stepped on a few over the decades and had a few explosives lobbed our way.
When it comes to Superman, the history is packed with red herrings. I'll have to do some more with the Jerry Siegel Project soon. There wasn't a great response to it, which is why I stopped, but now might be a good time.
Thank you for the thoughtful response and, moreso, for your original article. Siegel clearly lost perspective (at Ieast in my opinion) when he would become enraged. He surely had reasons to be angry but I'm not certain he was fully accurate at those times from some of the other letters I've seen. It sure would be a fascinating piece to have you explore the many red herrings. I'll look forward to that one for sure!
That was fascinating there's something about seeing their own words written down even, perhaps especially because, of the self editorialising.
How do you think about the difference between what Siegel says and Steranko’s book? They can’t both be accurate, can the?
Well, that's the key question, isn't it? Siegel was there, Steranko wasn't. On the other hand, Steranko did tell me (ages ago) that he based his account on first hand conversations he had with Siegel and he considered Siegel a friend.
History tells us that Siegel wasn't entirely forthcoming when it came to the creation and early years of Superman. We know that he jettisoned Shuster early on when they couldn't sell the project and replaced him with Russell Keaton. he then dumped Keaton when that didn't work out and brought back Shuster. He never mentioned that. But then he never mentioned a lot, such as the deals he made with DC to cut Shuster out of money, the side deals he made and how angry he got when he believed that Shuster held out on him.
Taking The Phantom as one example. In 1939, during the Detective Comics, Inc., v Bruns Publications, Inc trial, Siegel denied seeing the Phantom before he created Superman and suggested that someone at King Features saw Superman via a submission and based the Phantom's costume on Superman and not vice-versa. The memory would have been very fresh back then, and he was under oath.
In another letter to Kyle (January 1974), Siegel again attacks Phantom/Superman comparisons, this time from Jim Harman's Nostalgia Catalogue, which he says was first mooted in a 1940s Saturday Evening Post article.
History. It's a funny thing, littered with landmines, especially comic book history as you and I know all too well, having stepped on a few over the decades and had a few explosives lobbed our way.
When it comes to Superman, the history is packed with red herrings. I'll have to do some more with the Jerry Siegel Project soon. There wasn't a great response to it, which is why I stopped, but now might be a good time.
Thank you for the thoughtful response and, moreso, for your original article. Siegel clearly lost perspective (at Ieast in my opinion) when he would become enraged. He surely had reasons to be angry but I'm not certain he was fully accurate at those times from some of the other letters I've seen. It sure would be a fascinating piece to have you explore the many red herrings. I'll look forward to that one for sure!