The Real Heroes and Villains in Comic Books

Good versus Evil will always be the stock and trade of storytelling, especially in comic books. The skill of separating good guys from bad comes early to readers, with the occasional antihero appearing as an interesting change of pace. Behind scenes of these imaginative creations, however, many of their flesh and blood creators fight a never-ending, just slightly less Manichean battle for truth, justice, and an equitable share of the profits denied to them by the corporate comic publishers. In Comic Book Babylon, Clifford Meth chronicles the struggles of comic book creators of the past fighting against Marvel Comics and DC Comics for royalties and, just as importantly, recognition. In the midst of this often life-and-death struggle for aging artists, Meth separates the angels from the demons and uncovers the dirty realities behind the comics’ fantasy industry. Meth’s raucous, passionate, no-holds-barred style will leave you looking at comics and the corporate giants they’ve spawned with new eyes. Forget Superman. Forget Doctor Doom. Here are the real heroes and villains in comic books.


As most comic fans know, the story of the first comic superhero is also the story of the first comics creators getting ripped off. In 1938, artist Joe Shuster and author Jerry Siegel, fresh out of high school, signed away the rights to the multi-million dollar property Superman for $130 and set the stage for decades of corporate profits and their own slow decline into poverty. Not until the 1970s did an organized movement win them recognition and long overdue financial compensation. (Brad Ricca’s Super Boys: The Amazing Adventures of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster—The Creators of Superman, which I reviewed here, tells their story in precise, troubling detail.) Comic artist Neal Adams spearheaded the campaign for Siegel and Shuster’s rights by using his considerable influence in the industry. When Meth found that his friend, comic artist Dave Cockrum, faced mounting medical bills and few prospects for new work, he called on Adams, a true comics hero, for advice and support.

Cockrum broke into the comic business writing fan letters, sending cover suggestions, and publishing in fanzines even while serving in the Vietnam War. Cockrum’s greatest claim to fame rests in his X-Men characters Nightcrawler, Storm, and Colossus. When those characters began to hit the big screen and make the big bucks, Cockrum received nothing as his diabetes took its toll on his health and finances. In rushed Meth, Adams, and others from the comics community heroically not just to help Cockrum, but also to set a precedent for other struggling comic creators to follow in fighting for their rights.

“Neal and I agreed that the first approach was gathering as many comics creators as possible for a fundraiser,” Meth writes. “[W]hile the Cockrums could certainly use the money, we’d be simultaneously spreading the word and gathering support for what would, of necessity, become a publicity war. We could never beat Marvel in a courtroom—that was their domain.” Facing down the corporate colossus, Meth and his cohorts decided to put Dave Cockrum’s face (reproduced in the book in Michael Netzer’s portrait that gracefully captures the artist’s kindness and gentleness) on the problem for all the world to see and judge.

Meth manages to put a face on the faceless corporation as well by slyly shining a spotlight on Marvel artist and editor Joe Quesada. Quesada’s dismissal of Dave Cockrum’s work as too old fashioned to run today initially raised Meth’s ire. But Quesada’s stonewalling over Cockrum’s rights really brought out Meth’s sharpest rhetorical knives. He faintly praises Quesada as “probably a very nice man” who “doesn’t spit in the soup,” as the old Yiddish expression goes, before striking a different tone with “But Joe Quesada is an honorable man” after Quesada tells Neal Adams he was doing everything he could for Cockrum.  Like Shakespeare’s Marc Anthony coming not to praise the slain Caesar, but to bury him, all while harping on how Brutus is “an honorable man” until the mob turns the statement into a question, Meth buries Quesada and those siding with corporate interests over basic humanity under a landslide of snark. Maybe Quesada’s not the villain, but he’s surely not the hero.

Against the backdrop of this sad struggle, Meth presents the pantheon of modern comic book creators from an insider’s point of view.  Stan Lee, the long-time face and voice of Marvel Comics as well as the co-creator of Spider-Man, the Hulk, the Fantastic Four, Iron Man, Thor, and X-Men, seems like the ultimate company man, but even he’s sued (and lost to) Marvel. In an extended interview with Lee, Meth gets at the creative mind and soul beneath the beaming, “Excelsior!” exuberance (captured, again, perfectly by Netzer’s portrait, shown above). Asked to name his favorite Marvel characters, Lee answers with the obvious Spider-Man but also with the more interesting Silver Surfer.  “I got more philosophy into the Silver Surfer than anything I ever wrote,” Lee confesses. “He was always giving his opinions about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness… I think those 17 issues of Silver Surfer that I wrote and that John Buscema drew are the best 17 comics that have ever been done. They’re classics.” Likewise, Alan Moore (drawn by Netzer above), the mysterious mage behind Watchmen, V for Vendetta, and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comes off in his interview as less mysterious but far more interesting and intellectual than comic books, their fans, and their creators are usually given credit for.

The tragedy of the slow, senseless decline of this league of extraordinary gentlemen (and gentlewomen, as Meth includes the stories of women comic artists Paty Cockrum, Dave’s wife, and Marie Severin) often overpowers the victories won for these artists. If you’re a fan of comic books and their history, this book opens a door into a world quickly disappearing (which includes the occasional party neatly summarized as “three kegs, two girls, and one fat lip”). In a final, “tribunal” section, Meth renders his final verdict on comic books. After remarking that “that ship has sailed” on the future of comics, Meth reveals why he wrote Comic Book Babylon. “Eventually, you hope the kid reading Batman pulls aside the curtain and sees the guys pulling the levers,” Meth writes. “This book commemorates the people I interviewed over the years. It’s a time capsule.” Unfortunately, it’s a time capsule with still living, breathing people trapped inside.

Dig deep into Comic Book Babylon’s darkness, however, and you’ll find a glimmer of hope. Just as Meth’s dark, often disturbing fiction (which I once reviewed here) can strike a humanist note if you listen closely enough, his advice to true believers will restore your faith in comics, heroes, and people. “Want me to share a lesson?” Meth offers. “Try this: When you admire someone’s work, tell them. A letter, a Facebook message, a beer if you see them slumped at the bar at a convention… People appreciate being appreciated.” Secondly, “Don’t cheat people… And buy art. Art is nice. Buying art supports artists, especially if you buy it from them.” Do unto others, especially if you like their work. Support the creators who made you believe that a man could fly, that the underdog had a fighting chance, that the good guys and gals win in the end, even if everyday truth says differently. Hope, as Emily Dickinson once wrote, is “the thing with feathers,” but it’s also the character in the cape racing to save the day. Comic Book Babylon by Clifford Meth will have you believe again that good people can fly in the face of corporate evil and win the day.

[Image: Michael Netzer. (Left) Portrait of Stan Lee. (Right) Portrait of Alan Moore. © Michael Netzer.]

[Many thanks to Aardwolf Publishing for providing me with the images above and a review copy of Comic Book Babylon by Clifford Meth.]

[If you’re interested in joining the fight for comics creators rights, consider contributing to Hero Initiative: Helping Comic Creators in Need, The Dave and Paty Cockrum Scholarship, or any other way of saying thanks to these talented men and women.]

'Upstreamism': Your zip code affects your health as much as genetics

Upstreamism advocate Rishi Manchanda calls us to understand health not as a "personal responsibility" but a "common good."

Sponsored by Northwell Health
  • Upstreamism tasks health care professionals to combat unhealthy social and cultural influences that exist outside — or upstream — of medical facilities.
  • Patients from low-income neighborhoods are most at risk of negative health impacts.
  • Thankfully, health care professionals are not alone. Upstreamism is increasingly part of our cultural consciousness.
Keep reading Show less

Elizabeth Warren's plan to forgive student loan debt could lead to an economic boom

A plan to forgive almost a trillion dollars in debt would solve the student loan debt crisis, but can it work?

Photo credit: Drew Angerer / Getty Images
Politics & Current Affairs
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren has just proposed a bold education reform plan that would forgive billions in student debt.
  • The plan would forgive the debt held by more than 30 million Americans.
  • The debt forgiveness program is one part of a larger program to make higher education more accessible.
Keep reading Show less

Yale scientists restore brain function to 32 clinically dead pigs

Researchers hope the technology will further our understanding of the brain, but lawmakers may not be ready for the ethical challenges.

Still from John Stephenson's 1999 rendition of Animal Farm.
Surprising Science
  • Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine successfully restored some functions to pig brains that had been dead for hours.
  • They hope the technology will advance our understanding of the brain, potentially developing new treatments for debilitating diseases and disorders.
  • The research raises many ethical questions and puts to the test our current understanding of death.

The image of an undead brain coming back to live again is the stuff of science fiction. Not just any science fiction, specifically B-grade sci fi. What instantly springs to mind is the black-and-white horrors of films like Fiend Without a Face. Bad acting. Plastic monstrosities. Visible strings. And a spinal cord that, for some reason, is also a tentacle?

But like any good science fiction, it's only a matter of time before some manner of it seeps into our reality. This week's Nature published the findings of researchers who managed to restore function to pigs' brains that were clinically dead. At least, what we once thought of as dead.

What's dead may never die, it seems

The researchers did not hail from House Greyjoy — "What is dead may never die" — but came largely from the Yale School of Medicine. They connected 32 pig brains to a system called BrainEx. BrainEx is an artificial perfusion system — that is, a system that takes over the functions normally regulated by the organ. The pigs had been killed four hours earlier at a U.S. Department of Agriculture slaughterhouse; their brains completely removed from the skulls.

BrainEx pumped an experiment solution into the brain that essentially mimic blood flow. It brought oxygen and nutrients to the tissues, giving brain cells the resources to begin many normal functions. The cells began consuming and metabolizing sugars. The brains' immune systems kicked in. Neuron samples could carry an electrical signal. Some brain cells even responded to drugs.

The researchers have managed to keep some brains alive for up to 36 hours, and currently do not know if BrainEx can have sustained the brains longer. "It is conceivable we are just preventing the inevitable, and the brain won't be able to recover," said Nenad Sestan, Yale neuroscientist and the lead researcher.

As a control, other brains received either a fake solution or no solution at all. None revived brain activity and deteriorated as normal.

The researchers hope the technology can enhance our ability to study the brain and its cellular functions. One of the main avenues of such studies would be brain disorders and diseases. This could point the way to developing new of treatments for the likes of brain injuries, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and neurodegenerative conditions.

"This is an extraordinary and very promising breakthrough for neuroscience. It immediately offers a much better model for studying the human brain, which is extraordinarily important, given the vast amount of human suffering from diseases of the mind [and] brain," Nita Farahany, the bioethicists at the Duke University School of Law who wrote the study's commentary, told National Geographic.

An ethical gray matter

Before anyone gets an Island of Dr. Moreau vibe, it's worth noting that the brains did not approach neural activity anywhere near consciousness.

The BrainEx solution contained chemicals that prevented neurons from firing. To be extra cautious, the researchers also monitored the brains for any such activity and were prepared to administer an anesthetic should they have seen signs of consciousness.

Even so, the research signals a massive debate to come regarding medical ethics and our definition of death.

Most countries define death, clinically speaking, as the irreversible loss of brain or circulatory function. This definition was already at odds with some folk- and value-centric understandings, but where do we go if it becomes possible to reverse clinical death with artificial perfusion?

"This is wild," Jonathan Moreno, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times. "If ever there was an issue that merited big public deliberation on the ethics of science and medicine, this is one."

One possible consequence involves organ donations. Some European countries require emergency responders to use a process that preserves organs when they cannot resuscitate a person. They continue to pump blood throughout the body, but use a "thoracic aortic occlusion balloon" to prevent that blood from reaching the brain.

The system is already controversial because it raises concerns about what caused the patient's death. But what happens when brain death becomes readily reversible? Stuart Younger, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University, told Nature that if BrainEx were to become widely available, it could shrink the pool of eligible donors.

"There's a potential conflict here between the interests of potential donors — who might not even be donors — and people who are waiting for organs," he said.

It will be a while before such experiments go anywhere near human subjects. A more immediate ethical question relates to how such experiments harm animal subjects.

Ethical review boards evaluate research protocols and can reject any that causes undue pain, suffering, or distress. Since dead animals feel no pain, suffer no trauma, they are typically approved as subjects. But how do such boards make a judgement regarding the suffering of a "cellularly active" brain? The distress of a partially alive brain?

The dilemma is unprecedented.

Setting new boundaries

Another science fiction story that comes to mind when discussing this story is, of course, Frankenstein. As Farahany told National Geographic: "It is definitely has [sic] a good science-fiction element to it, and it is restoring cellular function where we previously thought impossible. But to have Frankenstein, you need some degree of consciousness, some 'there' there. [The researchers] did not recover any form of consciousness in this study, and it is still unclear if we ever could. But we are one step closer to that possibility."

She's right. The researchers undertook their research for the betterment of humanity, and we may one day reap some unimaginable medical benefits from it. The ethical questions, however, remain as unsettling as the stories they remind us of.

Supreme Court to hear 3 cases on LGBT workplace discrimination

In most states, LGBTQ Americans have no legal protections against discrimination in the workplace.

(Photo by Andres Pantoja/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Politics & Current Affairs
  • The Supreme Court will decide whether the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also applies to gay and transgender people.
  • The court, which currently has a probable conservative majority, will likely decide on the cases in 2020.
  • Only 21 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws effectively extending the Civil Rights of 1964 to gay and transgender people.
Keep reading Show less