HUBRIS AND
CHUTZPAH
How Li’l
Abner Kayo’d Joe Palooka and Both Their Creators Came to Grief
The story of Al Capp and Ham Fisher,
two cartooning geniuses, their rise to celebrity and their furious interaction
with each other, is the stuff of epic adventure fiction;
but here, it is fact.
At the peak of their careers in the
1950s, they were superstars:
Capp reached 90 million readers and
earned $500,000 a year ($4 million in today's dollars); Fisher, 100 million
readers and $550,000 (over $4.5 million in today's dollars).
Their creations were in movies and on
stage.
Shamed by his colleagues at the height
of his career, Fisher died by his own hand;
Capp died in obscurity, disgraced by
the sensational news of
his sexual escapades.
Preamble
HE WASN’T
LIMPING: HE WAS LURCHING. He swung his left leg out sideways, almost dragging
it forward for each step, and his stride had a practiced rhythm, a rolling gait
punctuated by a profound dip every time he transferred his weight to his left
leg, the wooden one. But it wasn’t the lurch that attracted the attention of
the man in the limousine so much as it was the sheaf of paper in a blue wrapper
that the tottering stroller had tucked under his arm. The man in the limousine
was a cartoonist, and he thought he recognized the blue wrapping paper: it was,
he believed, the paper his syndicate used to wrap rejected artwork in when
returning it to hapless supplicants.
“Pull
up alongside that fellow,” the man said to his chauffeur. And he turned to the
woman seated next to him and said: “I bet that guy is a cartoonist.”
The
subject of this wager, the young man rolling along the sidewalk on Eighth
Avenue near Columbus Circle, was a somewhat shabby specimen, who, despite the
chill of the spring day, was hatless and nearly coatless. But he didn’t need a
hat: he had a shaggy mop of thick black hair. He had been in New York only a
few weeks, and the six dollars he’d arrived with had long since evaporated. If
it hadn’t been for the kindness of his landlady, whose boundless faith in her
tenant’s artistic skill prompted her to stake him to his assault on the
citadels of the mass media, he would have been back in his native Boston. She let
him stay in her attic without paying and even gave him a little money every day
for food.
He
noticed the limousine slowing down as it pulled alongside him, and he watched
as the rear window rolled down, and he saw the man in the back, seated next to
a well-dressed woman. The man looked at him and said:
“I’ve
bet my sister that you’re a cartoonist. Are you?”
He
was. Or, rather, that’s what Alfred G. Caplin aspired to be that spring of
1933. And he had even sold a few cartoons from time to time, both in New York
and in Boston. The year before, he had been in New York drawing a syndicated
cartoon feature about a pompous young blowhard, but his heart hadn’t been in
it, so he gave it up and returned to Boston and his new wife. And now, six
months later, he was back in the Big Apple for another try at fame and fortune.
It wasn’t a good time to be looking. The nation was firmly in the grip of what
would later be called “the Great Depression.” Nationwide, fourteen million were
out of work. In New York, 82 breadlines filled a million jobless bellies, but
29 New Yorkers would die of starvation that year. So when the man in the
limousine offered him ten dollars to do some drawing for him, Caplin took him
up on it.
And
that’s how Al Capp, as he would later sign himself, met Ham Fisher, who, in the
spring of 1933, was the famed creator of Joe Palooka, a comic strip
about a somewhat simple-minded prize fighter who had, by accident, become the
heavyweight champion of the world. It was a fateful encounter, as fraught with
impending event as anything in the cliffhanging comic strips of the day’s
newspapers. Capp earned his ten bucks by finishing a Sunday Palooka, and
he performed well enough that Fisher hired him as his assistant at $22.50 a
week. Or thereabouts. Capp did the Sunday strips, and within a few months, he
was writing as well as drawing the them. But before the year was out, he would
leave Fisher to devote his energies to creating his own comic strip, and in the
summer of 1934, he, too, became a syndicated cartoonist with the debut of Li’l
Abner. He would become as famous and feted as Fisher.
Two
giants in their field, and yet when they came together, each was brought low,
undone, by the same lie. And then each would destroy himself. And in their
self-destruction, they would share a star-crossed fate as surely as if joined
at the hip on the day they met on Eighth Avenue near Columbus Circle.
Chapter
One
HAM FISHER IS
THE MOST CELEBRATED CARTOONIST ever to have been drummed out of the National
Cartoonists Society. He may not be the only cartoonist to be so defrocked.
But his is surely the most famous case in the annals of the Society. His exit
was noisy. For a brief while. And then, all fell silent.
Fisher
was dead. He committed suicide within a year of the disgrace of his
banishment. His name hasn’t been mentioned much since. And the silence is only
one of the strange elements in this ignoble episode.
It
was the notorious feud between Fisher and Capp that precipitated events
resulting in Fisher’s ouster from the ranks of the Society. The story of the
feud is juicy with the sort of morbid sensation that enlivens supermarket
tabloids— vicarious sex, scandalous accusation, denials and attempted
cover-ups, high dudgeon, and low humor. And the aforementioned disgrace and
death. But there is high drama in the tale, too, in the impulse to
self-destruction. And there are also contradictory aspects in the traditional
rehearsal of the story, puzzles never quite solved. So it seemed to me a story
worth exhumation, one of those legends that begs for careful inspection.
I
didn’t always hold this conviction. But several years ago, sometime in the
1990s, I met cartoonist Morris Weiss, and over dinner with Weiss and his wife
Blanche at a little place near his home in Florida, he started talking about
the various places the path of his career had crossed the path of Ham Fisher’s.
Weiss speaks with an admirable precision, clipping his words into a lilting
syntax as he goes. No, he said in answer to my question, he didn’t think of
himself as a particular friend of Fisher’s. Fisher was not a nice man, he said.
Not the sort of man you’d be the friend of. But Fisher hadn’t been treated
fairly, Weiss said.
My
curiosity piqued, I decided to look into the sordid tale of the feud between
Fisher and Capp. And when I did—when I picked up the puzzles that lay around
and looked at them closely—I found in the contradictions truths that, it seemed
to me, had long been overlooked.
Morris
Weiss’s connection with Fisher, an admittedly tangential one, began early and
ran late. Weiss spent most of his cartooning career with one or the other of
two newspaper comic strips, Mickey Finn and Joe Palooka. Joe Palooka was Ham Fisher’s creation, but Weiss didn’t work on the strip with Fisher. By
the time Weiss arrived at the strip, Fisher had been dead for years.
At
the age of nineteen, Weiss entered the profession by lettering Ed Wheelan’s Minute
Movies. After similar stints on with Pedro Llanuza on Joe Jinks and
with Harold Knerr on The Katzenjammer Kids, Weiss began assisting Lank
Leonard in 1936 just as the latter launched Mickey Finn, a strip about a
kindly young work-a-day policeman and his Irish family. Following service in
the Army in World War II, Weiss resumed his career by doing comic books for
Stan Lee at Timely. Then in 1960, Weiss rejoined Leonard, eventually taking
over Mickey Finn in 1968 and continuing the strip until it ceased in
1977. For about the same period, he also wrote Joe Palooka, which was
then being drawn by Tony DiPreta, who would draw the strip until it ended
November 4, 1984.
While
still a teenager attending the High School of Commerce in New York City, Weiss
visited many cartoonists in their studios, seeking advice about how to enter
the profession. Among those he visited was Ham Fisher. It was about 1932 or
1933, very early in the run of Joe Palooka, and Fisher had an apartment
in the Parc Vendome, a posh apartment building in Manhattan.
“Ham
had moved into the Parc Vendome to live in the same building with James
Montgomery Flagg,” Weiss told me. “Ham was very much conscious of celebrities;
he wanted to meet the celebrities and mingle with them. So he befriended Flagg
and moved into the same apartment house as he lived in. Ham was very nice when
I saw him back then. He gave me a drawing. And then I didn’t see him until
many years later.”
The
next time Weiss encountered Fisher was in 1944, when Weiss was in the Army and
home in New York on furlough. “I dropped in at the McNaught Syndicate [which
distributed Mickey Finn as well as Joe Palooka] for some reason
or other, and Ham was there, and we left together and shared a cab to where he
was going. I recall he was telling the cabbie stories of the things he was
doing for the soldiers through the comic strip and with chalktalks in hospitals
and things like that. And when the cabbie heard everything Ham had to
say—apparently the cabbie was already a veteran, and he started to tell Ham
stories about his army life, and at that point, Ham lost interest.”
Clearly,
Weiss implied, Fisher was too wrapped up in himself to listen to anyone else’s
life story. At this time in his career, Fisher was a national celebrity of
“Roman self-esteem,” as Time put it (November 6, 1950; 77), and around
New York City, he was a well-known denizen of fashionable night life. “He lived
like a lord,” writes Jay Maeder in “Fisher’s End,” published in Hogan’s
Alley no.8 (Fall 2000), “and he always had the best seats at the races and
the prizefights and the musicals, and he played golf with Bing Crosby and
boasted about it” (92).
Fisher
was widely-known and liked in the sporting world. He watched every notable
prize fight from the press box, and the fans were reportedly as eager to see
him as they were to see the fight. He was welcome in every training camp and
fight gym. He was a member of the Boxing Writers Association, and he spent much
of his time outside his studio at training camps, “picking up ring color and
even sparing with the fighters,” reported Newsweek (December 12, 1939;
clipping, n.p.).
Joe
Palooka was without
question one of the most popular comic strips of the period. Depicting the
adventures of a good-hearted if somewhat simple-minded prize fighter
(ostensibly, the world’s heavyweight champion), the strip consistently placed
among the top five comic strips in readership surveys in the forties and early
fifties. According to a 1950 report in Time, Fisher’s strip was right
up there with Blondie, Little Orphan Annie, Dick Tracy,
and Li’l Abner (clipping, n.d., n.p.).
Fisher
told action-oriented adventure stories, full of exotic incident as well as a
healthy dose of humor. And he was expert at prolonging the agonies he
inflicted upon his characters, creating suspense-filled storylines the equal of
any contrived by his cohorts in the cliffhanger game. His cast included Joe’s
long-suffering and voluble manager, Knobby Walsh, who loves Joe but has an eye
always on gate receipts, too. Reportedly a blend of the personalities of
several prominent fight personalities, notably Jack Bulger (once handler of
Mickey Walker) and Doc Kearns (Jack Dempsey’s manager) and Tom Quigley (a
Wilkes-Barre boxing promoter), Knobby is often supposed to be Fisher’s alter
ego in the strip, a supposition Fisher himself fostered. The other principal
character is Joe’s fiancé, the beauteous blonde Ann Howe, whom the champ
finally marries on June 24, 1949, after an eighteen-year engagement. (It was
in the air. Dick Tracy married Tess Trueheart on Christmas Eve, 1949; and Li’l
Abner married Daisy Mae on March 29, 1952.) To this group, Fisher added
redheaded Jerry Leemy, Joe’s excitable wartime Army buddy, and, later, the
hugely comic heavyweight, Humphrey Pennyworth, a 300-pound village blacksmith
with a heart of gold who is probably the only person who we are certain could
defeat Palooka in the ring, and, later still, the homeless waif Max, a
diminutive monument to unadulterated (which is to say cloying) sweetness,
always attired in cast-off shoes too large for him and wearing an out-sized
hat. The inspiration for Max, according to William C. Kashatus in Pennsylvania
Heritage (Spring 2000), was Max Bartikowsky, a kid who lived in Fisher’s
old Wilkes-Barre neighborhood who would sometimes dress up in his mother’s
floppy hats and his father’s big shoes and go running up and down the street.
Said Bartikowsky: “I guess that left an impression with Fisher” (28).
As
for Joe himself, it isn’t quite accurate to say he is simple-minded. But how
else do you describe such an uncomplicated character?
To
begin with, he’s big and strong. He is, after all, a professional boxer. His
shoulders are broader than anyone else’s in the strip. Except those of his
opponents in the ring. He’s also entirely, doggedly, wholesome. He’s
thoughtful, compassionate, and completely loyal. And humble, relentlessly
humble. He embodies clean living, clean talking, and clean thinking, not to
mention honesty, courage, tolerance, and devotion to duty, country, mother, and
apple pie. You see what I mean by “uncomplicated”?
Even
his face is uncomplicated: it’s absolutely plain, completely open and
unassuming. Manly lantern jaw, tiny nose, gigantic shock of forelock,
wide-open eyes. It’s the sort of face you expect on a man incapable of
dissembling. Or of compromise. Or of anything mean, small, or even remotely
unkind. With Joe Palooka, what you see is what you get. Simply stated, he is
an ideal. An American ideal of manhood. Or of knighthood, for that is what he
is—a kindly, gracious knight, righter of wrongs, defender of truth, beauty,
justice, and the American way.
While
the artwork in Palooka is distinctive and well done, it isn’t of the
caliber of Alex Raymond or Hal Foster or Milton Caniff in Flash Gordon, Prince
Valiant or Terry and the Pirates. It’s the stories rather than the
artwork that grip and hold the reader of Fisher’s strip. There are, for
example, plenty of boxing matches, and Fisher made engrossing stories out of
them. Fisher’s sequences in the boxing ring are enthralling to witness. They
are skillfully and realistically choreographed, every move carefully plotted.
And every move that is depicted is given significance in the story, too; no
wasted motions here. Every picture is accompanied by a “voice over”
narrative—the voice of a radio announcer describing to his audience what he
sees. In those golden days of yesteryear before television, we “watched” such
athletic contests as boxing matches through the eyes of a radio announcer. So
Fisher’s device enhanced the illusion of reality in the strip.
Here’s
the announcer in a sequence in 1938: “Everyone is expecting Palooka to come
out in the second [round] and kayo Red Rodney ... there’s the bell ... Palooka
jabbed but missed Rodney, who retaliated with a beautiful left hook to the side
of Palooka’s head ... Palooka danced away ... they’re sparring now. ...”
It’s
Joe’s first fight against a left-hander, and he’s baffled by what his opponent
does with his left hand. The announcer explains the problem as he describes
the action:
“Palooka
can’t seem to evade that terrible left of Rodney’s,” the announcer says, the
picture showing Rodney landing a left hook that staggers the champ. And
then—“Palooka has changed his stance ... he’s leading with his right, southpaw
style. Will it work?” Next caption: “It didn’t ... Red feinted Joe and then
whipped in a fierce left hook. Palooka has lost every round so far.”
The
fight goes on for two weeks. It was a typical Fisher performance: the fights
were always deliciously long, every pugilistic nuance lovingly attended to.
Finally, Joe figures out how to fight the left-hander: while in a clinch, he
notices that Rodney’s left isn’t any good at short range. Joe moves in close:
“Rodney
tried to spar him off but Palooka crowded him ... there’s a right to Rodney’s
breadbasket ... and a left ... wow! ... it caught Red on the cheek ... he’s
down ... Rodney’s on one knee ... the count is six—but there’s the bell—the
round’s over.”
In
Joe’s corner, his trainer marvels: “Dawggone—whut did yo’ do?”
“It’s
simple,” Joe says. “I foun’ out that crowdin’ ’im dint give ’im a chanct t’
use a left—then I started usin’ a straight right.”
Joe
talks like that. And his language reveals his humble nature. Fisher’s homely
locutions, the merciless contractions that infest his hero’s utterances,
suggest a soft-spoken manner of address. And that, in turn, reflects Joe’s
essential humility, his “just folks” origins, his redeeming lack of
sophistication, his wholly unpretentious personality.
There’s
nothing “elegunt” (as Fisher would have him say) about his speech. He says
things like: “Kin ya ’magine?” “Honist.” “I been insalted.” “I wish I could
go somewheres and jist be fergot.” And when he’s excited, “Tch, tch”—his most
fervent expletive. And, always a model of good manners, “Than-kyou.”
Throughout
his run on the strip, Fisher reflected the beliefs of his audience. Joe
Palooka was, above all else, a sentimental strip. But it was unabashed,
traditional American sentiment, born and bred in the custom and aspiration of
the American spirit. Its raw sentimentality may undermine our interest these
days; but during the years of World War II—and for a period both before and
after—the strip was in perfect step with the times. Coulton Waugh, whose
venerable 1947 work The Comics successfully shaped comics criticism for
decades, says this about Fisher’s strip:
The
great quality that lifts the strip to the very top is simply the heart in it,
the human love. All people ... know that it is love that makes men rank above
the brutes, but it is exceedingly difficult to write about or speak of this
precious business without assuming the righteous attitude, the smallest hint of
which sends the public scampering. ... In this respect, Ham Fisher resembles
Milton Caniff: neither spoils his work with preachiness.
Things
just happen in the life of Joe Palooka; he doesn’t go out of his way to be
good, it’s just in him. He reacts with greatness because he can’t help it. ...
Simple people [took] as an ideal the big, graceful guy with thunder in his fist
and with humility in his heart. ... He was one of them (283).
Year after
year, Fisher told a riveting story. And his stories gave his readers something
to admire, to emulate. And so why don’t we hear more about Ham Fisher and Joe
Palooka in these days of revived interest in the cultural artifacts of
newspaper comic strips in their Golden Age?
True,
the strip’s often cloying mawkishness makes it a little less than congenial
reading nowadays in the culturally sophisticated 21st Century. But
there’s more to it than that. There’s also Ham Fisher himself. And to
understand the near disappearance of Joe Palooka from the pantheon of comic
strip greats, we have to know something more about Ham Fisher.
Chapter
Two
HAMMOND
EDWARD FISHER BECAME A CARTOONIST against all odds. All the odds that swayed
fate anyway. Born September 24,1900 (or 1901) in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania,
the son of a Jewish scrapyard dealer, Fisher, to hear him tell it, surmounted
the most formidable obstacle any cartoonist could have faced:
I
was five years of age when I declared that I was going to do a comic strip and
no amount of frustrating circumstances ever deviated me from my course. My
course was set, and though I encountered many more than my share of storms, I
was determined to find a harbor one day: a drawing board, a bottle of India
ink, a goodly supply of Strathmore, plenty of 290 pens and—a deadline.
[But]
my father objected strenuously and I could spell strenuously “s-t-r-a-p”! He
despised my ambition. He wanted me to be a businessman, hence his disgust at my
aesthetic taste. I wasn’t allowed to draw a picture in the house. I hid in the
attic behind boxes and trunks to copy the pen lines of James Montgomery Flagg
or study the composition of the great [Clare] Briggs or H.T Webster.
Young Ham was
saved by his mother, as he concludes the foregoing description of his
birthright in an autobiographical essay in Number 4 of a 1954 correspondence
course, Illustrating and Cartooning, from Art Instruction, Inc. of
Minneapolis, Minnesota:
My
mother was a very literate woman and our house was filled with fine books, good
paintings and the wonderful illustrations of Gustave Dore and Sir John Tenniel.
These were my Heaven (5).
Ham was
focused so exclusively on drawing that he “was thrown out of every class in
school for paying no attention.” Once Fisher was safely launched on his Joe
Palooka career and the accompanying speaking tours, he enlisted a friend,
Anne Parenteau, to write a biography to be used by newspapers in promoting his
appearances.She,
quoted by the Bridgeport (Connecticut) Post to publicize Fisher’s
talk there in August 1931, continues his life story:
He
graduated from high school in a class by himself. No one else came so close to
being left [behind] as he did, so they put him in a class by himself. ... After
graduation, Ham went to college for two weeks. They were two marvelous weeks
spent principally in cabarets (clipping, August 20, 1931; n.p.).
Then he
returned home to drive a truck for his father until the family business failed
soon thereafter. He worked as a salesman for a time and then embarked upon a
military career during the First World War, but, Parenteau noted, it was as
short-lived as his college career had been:
The
war and Ham’s first love affair both hit him at one swoop. He went to Camp Lee
in Virginia and arrived at the same time that the Armistice did. This was a
terrible disappointment because he had always wanted to be a hero and felt that
he had lost his great opportunity to “show” before his lady love. But he got
over the love affair and the disappointment and at the age of 20 got his first
newspaper job as cartoonist and roving reporter for the Wilkes-Barre Record.
In his own
account of his life, Fisher was profuse in thanking “a good and gracious God
for letting me be on my way at last.” He produced a daily column (“Cousin Ham’s
Corner”) with caricatures of local celebrities and drew a cartoon or two,
sports or political. After a year, he left the Record to join the staff
of the city’s other paper, the Times-Leader, he explained—:
because
they let me put my name bigger on the cartoon. That’s a fact. All we
cartoonists are hams and my name especially fits me. But boy, it was great. I
was a personage in our city. If I hadn’t been a cartoonist do you think that
judges, mayors, the governor—well, in fact everybody—would have
sought me out? I had a position of influence and power, but not too much
affluence. Soon I was toast-mastering at banquets, getting good money as an
after dinner speaker with nice little political plums thrown my way (6).
He confessed
that he even drew political cartoons for both the Democrat and Republican
parties. And then, he said, “came a mistake.” He joined a friend in launching a
new newspaper. It lasted only about a year, but its collapse (due to the
effects of a strike in the local industry, coal mining) was undoubtedly a
blessing in disguise for Fisher. A couple of years before, in about 1920, he
had been smitten with an idea for a comic strip, and if the newspaper had
succeeded, his comic strip might never have germinated, and the pugilistic
world would have been poorer.
In
his autobiographical essay, Fisher recounts the moment of inspiration that is
part of the Fisher legend:
One
day, while passing around the public square in Wilkes-Barre, I saw a chap whom
I knew well. He was a boxer with very light blond hair which persisted in
sticking straight up in the air—sort of a crew haircut without the haircut. His
name was Joe [Hardy], and I knew him as a very nice guy with a lethal right
hand; in other words, he was a hunk of TNT in the ring and as nice a gentleman
outside the squared circle as I have ever known.
As
I approached him, he noticed me and greeted me with “Hi, Ham! Hey, why don’ I
an’ youse have a game of golluf at the new Muneesippal Golluf Stadium?”
I
give you my word, a bolt of lightning stuck me. Within an infinitesimal part of
a second I knew I had what I had prayed for all my life: the idea for my comic
strip,
something
out of the ordinary, the saga of a real American boy whose life gave him an
opportunity for high adventure and uncommon experience. No humdrum existence,
his, and I knew what he would be—he would be all the things I wished I could
be, a fighter for the worthwhile things democracy teaches, a clean living
champion of democracy. He would be unbeatable in physical combat, the sport of
prize fighting to which fate had directed him through Knobby Walsh, his first
employer, and outside of the ring he would be a gentle knight, courteous and
kind, with a deep conviction of democratic principles (7).
Even Fisher
admitted in the next sentence that not all of Joe Palooka came to him in that
“infinitesimal part of a second.” He was writing in 1953 with the benefit of 23
years of the strip’s growth and development behind him. His description of his
“gentle knight” was of Joe Palooka in 1953, not at the moment of inspiration in
the early 1920s. At that moment, Fisher was envisioning a good if somewhat
stupid youth whom he called Joe Dumbelletski at first when he wrote and drew
the inaugural three weeks of the strip that day, back at the offices of the Times-Leader. But Fisher’s brain child didn’t see print until 1930, and by then Joe had a new
last name: “palooka,” a term often used to describe a less-than-distinguished
athlete, especially a prizefighter. In Joe’s case, it would be an ironic name
choice. The story of the launching of Joe Palooka is another of
cartooning’s legends.
Fisher
went to New York in the early 1920s to sell his strip but no syndicate was
interested. For the rest of the decade, Fisher kept trying, going back and
forth from Wilkes-Barre (where he’d rejoined the Times-Leader after the
demise of his newspaper venture) to New York. In 1927, he stayed in New York
working in the advertising department of the New York Daily News. All
the while, he kept peddling Palooka.
Finally,
he ran into Charles McAdam, general manager of McNaught Syndicate, who promised
to give Palooka a try the next year. Fisher insisted on going out
himself to sell his strip to newspaper editors. To prove his ability as a
salesman, he undertook to sell one of McNaught’s losers, Dixie Dugan, a
strip about a would-be show girl. It had been offered around before but only
two papers had bought it. Paying his own expenses, Fisher went on the road and
sold the strip to thirty-nine papers in forty days.
“It
was the biggest sales record in syndicate history,” Fisher claimed later in his
autobiographical essay, continuing—:
Boy,
I was in solid. I hadn’t cost the syndicate a dime of expense. My commissions
ran into huge figures, and I was flattered all over the lot. Charley and I
became great pals (he’s still my best friend), and he bragged that he had the
best salesman in the country. I hadn’t told him that every editor and publisher
I had seen had been given a promise by me that I’d bring back the greatest
feature they’d ever seen, and I’d give them first crack at it.
When
I told Charley I was now going to take Palooka out, he told me I was
crazy. Why do that, when I had a great future already assured as syndicate
salesman. McAdam went away on a long trip to the tropics, and I started out
with Palooka. Just as I started, the market crash rocked the country.
Business went to the dogs. Syndicates were swamped with cancellations. Editors
called me an idiot for daring to try to sell an new feature. But in spite of
the fact that this was the most terrible of all financial panics, I sold Palooka to twenty-four leading papers in as many cities in eighteen days (8).
Or maybe it
was just twenty papers in three weeks. Or eighteen in 22 days. Or maybe it was
22 papers in 18 days. Or 30 in three-and-a-half weeks. The numbers, as is their
wont in legends, change from one telling to the next. In any case, Fisher’s
strip was at last nationally syndicated. It was 1930; Joe Palooka had
been gestating for nearly ten years.
In The Adventurous Decade, Ron Goulart reveals something of the secret of
Fisher’s success as a salesman. He quotes from the autobiography of Emile
Gauvreau, editor of the New York Graphic before becoming editor of
William Randolph Hearst’s New York Mirror: “I bought my last comic
strip one New Year’s Eve when Ham Fisher ... befuddled me with a rare bottle of
bourbon during a hilarious celebration. When I woke the next day, I found I
was sponsor of Joe Palooka, an exemplary character who never drank or
smoked and was good to his mother” (166-67).
According
to Weiss, Fisher was a success as a salesman because his behavior was so
outrageously ingratiating that a customer would buy his product just to get him
out of the office.
Weiss told me
the story of how Fisher “got to” Charles McAdam:
Lank
Leonard told me this. He was with the George Matthew Adams Syndicate when he
was a sports cartoonist, and Ham Fisher went to the George Matthew Adams
Syndicate and he saw Frank Marky. Frank Marky was a top syndicate salesman.
He had been one of the top salesman for the Chicago Tribune Syndicate; and now
he was the top salesman for the George Matthew Adams Syndicate. And Ham went
and saw Marky and tried to sell him the Joe Palooka strip. And Fisher
was all over him, telling him how great he was and so on. Marky never saw any
human dynamo to equal Ham Fisher trying to sell him Joe Palooka.
So
Marky said, “I tell you what I want you to do: I want you to go over the
McNaught syndicate and see Charlie McAdam, and I’ll call McAdam and tell him to
see you.”
And
Ham said, “Not the great Charles V. McAdam?”
“Yes,
and he’ll see you”
And
Ham left.
When
he left, Marky called up McAdam and said, “I want you to see this character
who’s coming in with a comic strip, Ham Fisher. The comic strip is nothing but
you’ve never in your life seen a character like this; I want you to see him.”
Ham
went in and saw McAdam, and he was all over him— on the desk, over his
shoulder. And finally, McAdam said:
“Now
I want you to sit in that chair and stop jumping up and down. Look,” he said,
“this comic strip, this fighter, stinks. Nothing there. But I want you to go
out and sell some features for me. I’m giving you expense money. But don’t use
my expense money to sell this piece of garbage of yours.”
And
when Ham left, a couple of guys came in and said, “What was that tornado that
just blew in?”
And
McAdam said, “Listen, they’re going to buy his features just to get the guy the
hell out of the office.”
Joe first appeared
on April 21, 1930: he walks into a Wilkes-Barre haberdashery run by Knobby
Walsh, looking for work. Knobby hires him, but one afternoon when Knobby’s off
playing cards with his cronies, Joe permits a bunch of local toughs to loot the
store, believing they have charge accounts. Knobby is ruined, but he soon
finds a way for Joe to help him recoup. As it happens, the current heavyweight
champion comes to town, and his manager puts out the word that he’s looking for
someone to fight in an exhibition contest for $200. Knobby talks Joe into
doing it. Joe, who knows nothing about boxing, takes a drubbing for the first
four rounds, but then, when Knobby tells him that his opponent was the leader
of the looters, Joe is enraged. He charges out at the other fighter, yelling,
“You un-honist crook!” He floors him with a single blow and finds himself the
heavyweight champion.
Boxing
was a popular sport in the 1930s and 1940s, and Joe Palooka was popular
in consequence. Fisher soon found himself something of a celebrity. Before
long, he was hobnobbing with stellar figures in sports and in other arenas of
public life. As Robert H. Doyle notes in “A Champ for All Time” in Sports
Illustrated (April 19, 1965), these personages Fisher often drew into the
strip in cameo appearances ring-side during one of Joe’s fights—boxers Jack
Dempsey and Gene Tunney; politicos “Big Jim” Farley and New York’s one-time
“midnight mayor” of the jazz age, Jimmy Walker; Walker’s idiosyncratically
stalwart successor, Fiorello LaGuardia; movie stars like Clark Gable, Bing
Crosby, and Claudette Colbert. Occasionally, a regular character in the strip
would be modeled on someone in real life ... [such as] rotund Humphrey Pennyworth,
for whom Toots Shor is supposed to have served as inspiration” (126).
Among
the famous people Fisher cultivated was one of the most celebrated and
flamboyant illustrators of the age, James Montgomery Flagg. A neighbor in the
same apartment building, the cartoonist was Flagg’s frequent visitor and
companion. Why a man of Flagg’s sophistication and talent would tolerate—nay,
even enjoy—the company of a man of Fisher’s comparatively limited social and
artistic abilities is something of a puzzle. Perhaps, as Weiss suggested to
me, Flagg enjoyed having a herald, someone to precede him into restaurants and
announce his coming to maitre d’s and managers.
Capitalizing
on the public’s interest in boxing, Fisher imbued his stories with realistic
touches. He spent as much energy in the strip building up to a big fight as
real-life promoters did for real-life contests. And Joe’s training camp reeked
of authenticity. But all the realism created a problem. Fisher’s cartooning
ability was of the big-foot comedic school. His skill was on a par with many
of his contemporaries—Sidney Smith, for instance, Harold Gray; even some of the
early work of Chester Gould. But that kind of primitive realism couldn’t
create the aura that presumably Fisher was now seeking. So Fisher did what
many cartoonists did then (and still do): he hired an artist more talented
than he to do the drawing. The first of these (and the one with the longest
tenure on the strip) was another Wilkes-Barre refugee, Phil Boyle.
Because
so much of the run of the strip was ghosted by others, rumors persist in the
cartooning community (particularly, as Goulart reports, among older
cartoonists) that Fisher
never drew
the strip: even the sample strips that launched the feature, according to this
tradition, were drawn by a ghost (a highschool student, so the story goes). I
suspect not, but it is true—without cavil or question—that most of the years of Joe Palooka were drawn by others.
Moe
Leff was one of the ghosts. In the introduction to Clark’s Classic Comic
Strips Joe Palooka volume, “A Ticket to Palookaville,” Ron Goulart says
that Fisher hired Leff away from Al Capp in the mid-thirties, speculating that
this maneuver gave Capp “yet another reason to loathe Fisher” (12).
Leff
was the principal graphic force in Joe Palooka for about twenty years.
And Fisher was effusive in acknowledging his debt to Leff and Boyle. “It would
be impossible to do the job without the magnificent assistance of the two great
guys who help me, Phil Boyle and Moe Leff,” he wrote in his 1954
autobiographical essay. “Both of them are the very tops as artists, and Leff,
especially, is a bundle of TNT who is capable of doing as great a strip as any
man in the business. I’m a lucky guy to have found these two whizzes. We work
as a team on every phase of the many facets of what today is a vast enterprise.
And I’m ashamed to say,” he added in an earlier, much more widely circulated
article for Collier’s (October 16, 1948), “they usually sit in the
background while I take the bows” (28).
According
to the Fisher legend, Fisher always drew the faces of Joe and Knobby; Leff left
blank ovals on the illustration board, and Fisher deftly filled them in.
Considering that the faces of Joe and Knobby were rendered very simply compared
to the visages of other characters in the strip, this contention is probably
true.
Another
of Fisher’s assistants, for a short time in 1933, was, as we’ve said, Al Capp.
Chapter
Three
AL CAPP WAS
BORN ALFRED GERALD CAPLIN on September 28, 1909, in New Haven, Connecticut, of
East European Jewish heritage. His parents had come from Latvia to New Haven in
the 1880s. “My mother and father had been brought to this country from Russia
when they were infants,” Capp wrote in 1978 (quoted in Wikipedia). “Their
fathers had found that the great promise of America was true—that it was no
crime to be a Jew.” Alfred was the eldest son of Otto Caplin, a chronically
unsuccessful salesman, and Matilda Davidson, a woman with a fierce survivor
instinct who shepherded her family through a persistently penurious existence.
William Furlong explains how (in The Saturday Evening Post, Winter 1971):
“She tutored her children in the techniques of living on nothing at
all—wheedling stale bread from bakers, refusing to deal with grocers who
wouldn’t hire one of her sons, leading the children on rubbish raids that might
turn up a few usable items of clothing or even an unused piece of coal” (45).
Whenever she ran out of rent money, the family moved, first to Bridgeport and
then from one rented house to another in Boston.
As
a child, Capp (the pen name he adopted as his legal name in 1949) had been a
prodigious reader. He'd read Joseph Conrad, Anthony Trollope, Charles Dickens,
and all of Shakespeare. And he'd read all of Bem,rnard Shaw—at the age of
thirteen. He'd done a lot of reading during his youth because he couldn't be
physically active. He'd lost his left leg when he was almost nine. One hot
afternoon in August 1918, he'd hopped a horse-drawn ice wagon to pinch a shard
of ice. A trolley car was only a few feet behind the ice wagon when Capp jumped
off, stumbled, and fell under the streetcar's wheels. "When they took me
to the hospital," he recalled, "I had no identification and so they
roused me and I looked at the leg, and it was a mess—like scrambled eggs. There
was just nothing that you could call a 'leg' left of it." They amputated
above the knee.
After
that, Capp hobbled along on crutches until he was fitted with an artificial
leg. But his father, working mostly as a traveling salesman, couldn't afford to
replace the leg often enough to keep pace with his son's growth. For most of
his youth, Capp's wooden leg was too short, and he'd never learned to walk
properly. He limped more pronouncedly than many people with artificial limbs.
But he didn't complain; nor did he want sympathy.
When
he wasn't reading as a kid, Capp was drawing. His father, who had trained to be
a lawyer, was something of an artist, and his drawings for his family's
amusement inspired his son.
“My father’s
real talent was drawing,” Capp said in Furlong’s article. “He was a most
naturally gifted comic artist. I grew up watching my father do comic strips on
brown paper bags with my mother and himself as the two principal characters. He
always triumphed over her in those strips. But only in them. Never in real
life” (45).
When
he was twelve, Capp read about Bud Fisher making $4,000 a week drawing Mutt
and Jeff, and he decided forthwith to become a cartoonist. And in Brooklyn,
to which the family moved for six months about that time, he sold his first
drawings. In Cartoonist Profiles, no. 48 (December 1980), his brother
Elliott tells the story of Al’s career in school:
They
put him in a class of retarded children because he wasn’t normal—he was a
“cripple” in the school’s parlance; he had only one leg. Of course, it was a
brutal class with a bunch of real young criminals, and the only way he could
survive in this terrible, physically-threatening atmosphere, was through his
talent: he drew pictures. So instead of beating him up, they began to admire
him and request drawings. Mostly they wanted pictures of their teacher—nude! So he survived because he could draw Miss Mendelsohn nude (81).
Capp charged
twenty-five cents a piece for the pictures. But when he retold the story in his
memoirs, My Well Balanced Life on a Wooden Leg, he left out the part
about being in a class for retarded children. In his memory, the entire student
body of P.S. 62 in the Brownsville “(or Murder, Inc.)” section of Brooklyn
consisted of the retarded—“subnormals, petty thieves, rapists and thugs,” he
said (19). Miss Mendelsohn became Miss Mandelbaum, and because she taught
drawing, she recognized young Capp’s talent “and showed great interest in my
work, coming in every day, bending over my desk to watch me draw and coaching
me as I went along. My classmates showed a great interest in Miss Mandelbaum’s
coaching, mainly because of what happened to her neckline when she bent over to
coach me” (25).
One
day when Miss Mandelbaum realized what kinds of pictures her protégé was making
of her, Capp said, “she screamed a terrible scream of anguish and betrayal ...
and ran out of the room. She never came back. My father’s business [in Brooklyn]
failed, we moved back to Massachusetts, and my career as a professional artist
didn’t get going again for ten years” (28). In Capp’s retelling, he was drawing
Miss Mendelbaum in a one-piece bathing suit, not in the nude.
As
a teenager, Capp often absented himself from the family hearth to wander off
into unexplored climes. “At 13 or 14,” his brother Elliott wrote in the 1980 Cartoonist
Profiles article, “he’d take off with his friends for Atlantic City or for
Vermont” (81). One summer, after telling his mother he was going out to get a
pack of cigarettes, he disappeared for two weeks. Thumbing a ride to the store,
Al and a friend stopped a car the driver of which said he was going to Memphis,
Tennessee. The boys promptly changed their plans: they, too, they said, were
going to Memphis. And they did. By a less than direct route.
In
Memphis, they stayed with Al’s Uncle George Baccarat, an orthodox rabbi, for a
few days, until, as Elliott described it in his Al Capp Remembered, they
managed to outrage the relatives with “their quaint toilet habits and
relentless pursuit of the daughters of Uncle George’s parishioners” (63).
En
route to Memphis, the youths passed through the Cumberland Mountains, and Al
encountered his first hillbillies, an experience he later said inspired his
creation of Li’l Abner, exaggerating the simplicity of the hill folk
into a burlesque masterpiece. The hillbilly encounter, Elliott delicately
implied, was part of the Li’l Abner “mythology”: “After the strip had
become a success, Alfred felt that it needed a historian as the Trojan War
needed a historian. And Alfred become his own Homer.”
Following
an incomplete highschool career distinguished mostly by his truancy, Capp
entered a succession of art schools, including the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine
Arts, the Boston Museum School of Fine Arts, and the Designers Art School,
where he met Catherine Wingate Cameron, whom he married in 1932. Explaining the
litany of art schools, Capp joked that since he couldn't afford tuition, he left
them one after the other when the bills came due.
At
the end of this parade of art courses, Capp decided to assault the citadel of
professional cartooning: he went to New York, capital of cartooning in the U.S.
He eeked out a living for a while by selling advertising cartoons, but he also
prevailed upon another uncle, Harry Resnick, an agent of sorts, to help him
find something better. Resnick called the Associated Press and asked if someone
would look at his nephew's drawings. The editor of AP’s feature service, Wilson
Hicks, looked, and a short while later, he called Capp and gave him Colonel
Gilfeather, a panel cartoon continuity that had been staggering along under
the rather clumsy pen of Dick Dorgan. Dorgan was the younger brother of the
legendary "TAD," who had made comic capital from his "low life
connections."
Thomas
Aloysious Dorgan, who signed his cartoons with his initials and thereby
rechristened himself, had come to New York from San Francisco in 1907. He drew
sports cartoons for Hearst, but he prowled backstages, streets, alleys,
poolrooms, all-night beaneries, and gyms in his search for raw material. And
"raw" it was for much of proper society: anyone who engaged in
professional sports, from baseball players to boxers, jockeys to gamblers, sports
writers to cartoonists, was regarded with disdain. If the sports pages tainted
the comics—because so many of them originated in that section of the paper—TAD
helped remove the taint by making people flock to his banner, eagerly looking
for a chuckle. He turned aloof disdain into comradely laughter with his
cartoons.
He
also enriched the language by popularizing the slang of those who haunted his
haunts—even minting a few new coins of phrase himself whenever he sensed a
needy void in the lexicon. A drunk was a "barfly" to TAD; eggs were
"cackle berries"; eye glasses, "cheaters." A restaurant was
a "beanery" or a "one-arm joint," and by the same token,
waitressing was "dealing off the arm." In cartoons with titles like Indoor
Sports and Outdoor Sports, TAD perpetuated that breed of
conversational panel cartoon in which hangers-on in the background comment,
often derisively but always with comic results, on the foreground action, a
format started by Clare Briggs and H.T. Webster and subsequently perpetuated by
Jimmy Hatlo. And by Gene Ahern in Our Boarding House, which now TAD's
brother aped in Colonel Gilfeather, a reincarnation of Ahern’s blowhard
protagonist, Major Hoople. Dick Dorgan, however, did not have his brother's
gift, and Hicks felt Gilfeather was failing and needed new blood. Al
Capp would supply the transfusion.
Capp
came to New York in the early spring of 1932 and confronted Gilfeather. It
was not a felicitous encounter. His stewardship on the feature was, as it
proved, a doomed undertaking. Capp was struggling to master his craft, and he
had to start by imitating Dorgan. The idea was to make the shift gradually from
Dorgan's style to his own. But Capp, as yet, barely had a style. He admired the
pen-work of Phil May, a British cartoonist of the late nineteenth century whose
economy of line anticipated modern cartoon graphic technique by thirty years.
Capp had seen a book of his cartoons in the library. Capp scorned Dorgan's
work, and he hated Colonel Gilfeather. Nonetheless, he slaved over it.
In an attempt to whip up his interest in the feature, he shifted the focus from
Colonel Gilfeather to his younger brother and retitled the cartoon Mister
Gilfeather. Gilfeather the Younger was as much a blowhard as his brother,
but rather than inventing money-making schemes, he spent most of his energies
chasing girls, enjoying a somewhat happier prospect than the Colonel’s.
Capp
lived in a succession of what he called “airless rat-hole rooms” in Greenwich
Village and stalked the streets every day, reading menus in the windows of
restaurants until he found a place he could afford. He was paid $52 a week for Gilfeather, enough to live on in New York, but he sent part of it to his new bride,
Catherine. She was living with her parents in Amesbury, Massachusetts, because
he had too little money to afford an apartment for them both. Capp kept
irregular hours at the AP office, and when he came in, it was usually in the
afternoon, and he worked into the evening. That’s when he met Milton Caniff,
and the two formed a life-long friendship.
Caniff
had just arrived in New York from Columbus, Ohio, and he worked evenings, too,
and he got to know Capp very well. "He was a kind of sad sack in those
days," Caniff told me. "He could be very difficult if he didn't like
you. Not a charming person unless he chose to be." But Milton was charming
and sympathetic. He made a good listener.
"In
the daytime," Caniff reflected, "we would probably have never spoken
a word to each other, but at night we talked. In an empty office like that, you
talk about things you wouldn't talk about when other people were there. He and
I got along fine right off the bat. I realized he was struggling—to do Gilfeather, to make it.”
By
late summer, Capp had had enough. Faced with incompatible material, separated
from his new wife and struggling to subsist from day to day, Capp doubtless
felt the job wasn't worth the strain. Whatever the case, he quit the AP and
went back to Boston, where he studied at the Museum of Fine Arts for several
months before returning to give New York another try.
Chapter
Four
CAPP RETURNED
TO THE BIG APPLE with six bucks in his pocket and had no luck, so when Fisher
stopped him that spring day on Eighth Avenue near Columbus Circle (or maybe it
was on 42nd Street just outside the Daily News building;
legends differ) and offered him a job, Capp eagerly accepted. For several years
thereafter, both cartoonists told the same story about their initial meeting,
but by 1950 when the feud was bubbling to a boil, there were two versions of
that encounter—Fisher’s and Capp’s. Both versions were rehearsed in Maclean’s
Magazine (April 1, 1950; clipping, n.p.). Here’s Fisher’s version:
I
was driving with my sister Lois when I saw a fellow carrying a roll of paper
along the street. He looked unkempt and was limping. I pulled over and said,
“What kind of drawings have you in there, buddy?”
“How’d
you know they’re drawings?”
“I
work at the Mirror and see lots of comic strips come in wrapped in that
kind of paper,” I said.
“Nobody’ll
buy my drawings. I’m headed for the river,” he said.
I
said, “Hop in and we’ll go to my house for lunch.”
His
name was Al Capp. I didn’t tell him mine. I asked him, “What’s your favorite
strip?” To my delight, he said, “Joe Palooka.”
Capp
saw on my wall a portrait of me by James Montgomery Flagg, inscribed “To Ham.”
Capp said: “Why, it’s you. You’re Ham Fisher.”
He
begged me for a job. I had an assistant, and I couldn’t see how I could afford
another one. But I took pity on him and gave him a job lettering and inking-in.
Many months later, I was going on a week’s vacation. Capp came up just as I was
leaving and demanded a $50-a-week raise, and sneered that I wouldn’t be able to
go away if he refused to work. I blew up. I fired him and took the work with me.
When
I returned, Capp called incessantly, begging for his job back. I got him a job
with United Feature Syndicate where he started a hillbilly strip called Li’l
Abner. It was so similar to the hillbillies I had originated in Joe
Palooka that I protested to the syndicate. Capp apologized to me and
promised to change the characters. He has never fully done so. He now claims he
originated the cartoon hillbillies. Despite his present-day claim, Mr. Capp has
stated several times earlier in interviews that I taught him what he knows.”
Capp, to whom
James Edgar, the writer of the Maclean’s piece, showed Ham’s story, made
a few corrections:
Fisher’s
story about picking me up in his car, after accosting me in a New York street,
is true [Capp said]. Fisher’s wrong when he says I was hired to “letter” for
him. I was an artist—good enough the year before to do a syndicated cartoon for
the Associated Press. Fisher would have been a highly impractical man to
restrict a competent artist and writer to simple lettering.
Fisher
cannot draw at all, except for a few simple chalktalk tricks, so when he says
he “took the drawings with him,” it is a pathetic claim. I never told him Joe
Palooka was my favorite strip. It’s the kind of strip I deplore, a
glorification of punches and brutishness.
I
was making $19 a week, later $22, while working for Fisher. For the period I
was employed by Fisher, I drew in their entirety all his Sunday pages, created
all the characters therein, and wrote every line. The time he went away was for
six weeks, not one. He didn’t leave me any money when he went, and we had to
live on what my wife was making.
I
had time on my hands and whipped up Li’l Abner and sold the cartoon to
United Feature Syndicate. The part where he says he got me a job with United is
the part I am most bitter about. When he found out I was with United, he
threatened to sue. For three years, he tried everything to get me fired.
To which
Fisher responded:
I
never had six weeks’ vacation in my life. When Capp worked for me, I never had
more than a week. I’m amazed at Capp’s effrontery. His entire statement is
false. As for suing United—that’s a gross exaggeration of a complaint I made
when I learned he was spreading the lie that he had created some of the Palooka sequences. United Feature apologized to me.
Fisher’s
self-aggrandizing embroideries betray his version as somewhat fictional—his
generously offering lunch to an impoverished stranger, Capp’s naming Joe
Palooka his favorite strip, Fisher’s taking pity on the poor lad and
creating a job for him. Later in the article, Edgar quotes Fisher claiming to
have “started the trend of comic strips away from vaudeville skits toward
continuous adventure stories”; in fact, by 1930, Roy Crane at Wash Tubbs was well into telling adventure stories that continued from day to day. Fisher
also told Edgar that he
“innovated
the use of current events as story backgrounds”; I suspect Caniff was a little
ahead of Fisher with Terry and the Pirates set in China.
According
to the Capp clan’s version of the events of his employment on Joe Palooka, Fisher, after a few months, went off to London on a trip with Flagg—just
disappeared, Capp said. Interviewed by Carol Oppenheim at the Chicago
Tribune on the occasion of his retiring from Li’l Abner in November
1977, Capp said while Fisher was gone, the syndicate phoned and asked for four
more weeks of the Sunday strip.
“Out
of loyalty,” Capp said, “I didn’t mentioned Fisher’d vanished. I wrote the
strip myself. But I wasn’t going to have anything to do with that stupid
prizefighter; so I put in my own characters—the hillbillies. They were
hilarious. But when Fisher came back, he fired me” (n.d. but context indicates
November 1977; n.p.).
Capp
maintained that he’d conjured up the hillbillies from his memory of those he’d
seen in his youth on that fabled trip through the South; he took Joe Palooka
into the hills and staged a match between the champ and the meanest of the
hillbillies, a ribaldly uncouth character named
Big
Leviticus. This episode became the bone of contention between Fisher and Capp,
giving rise eventually to the most scandalous incident in the profession’s
short history.
In
the Fisher version of these events, Fisher had the idea for Big Leviticus and
wrote the story, leaving the illustration of it to Capp. In other words, he
followed his usual practice in producing the strip.
The
Big Leviticus story ran on Sundays in November 1933. Capp quit working for
Fisher soon thereafter. He’d been working up a comic strip idea at home in the
evenings, and by late winter, he was taking samples around to syndicates. In an
interview with Rick Marschall in Cartoonist Profiles no. 37 (March
1978), Capp related his selling adventure:
I
brought the Abner samples up to King Features, and they offered me 250
bucks a week, which is the equivalent of a thousand—even more—today. But the
big guy there—[Joe] Connolly—said, “Great strip, great art, yes sir. A couple
of things, though. That Abner’s an idiot. Make him a nice kid with some
saddle-stripe shoes on him. And Daisy Mae’s pretty, but how about some pretty
clothes? As a matter of fact, why not forget the mountain bit and move them all
to New Jersey; and that Mammy—she’s got to go. You need a sweet, white-haired
lady.”
Well,
I thought all about it, and I realized that [he was describing] Polly and
Her Pals. But I had 250 bucks a week, didn’t I? Well, I was pretty sick
about it. I walked up to United Feature—[Monte] Bourjaily was the head of it
then—and they looked at it, showed it to Colin Miller and the other salesmen,
were amazed by it and wanted to take it out just as it was. They offered me 50
bucks a week—which was the lowest—and I grabbed it and forgot King Features
because I was now able to do my own strip exactly as I wanted to. Later on, of
course, they paid me $5,000 a week because there was no way they could get out
of it (14).
Capp was ever
after unhappy with his relationship with United. He was continually fighting
for more editorial freedom. In 1947, he sued the syndicate for $14 million,
alleging breach of contract, but settled out of court for an undisclosed
amount. And in 1964, just after he acquired ownership of the strip, he took Li’l
Abner to another syndicate, the Chicago Tribune-Daily News, where he
negotiated a better deal.
Marschall
continues his recounting of the story of Li’l Abner’s sale, saying Capp
had told the story thousands of times. “Capp’s late Uncle Harry related to me
that the problem at King Features simply was that they took too long to
respond. I’m sure the truth is in both recollections. Capp’s brother Elliott
told me that Al’s straight biography and his embellished versions of it are
equally fascinating” (14).
Capp,
a professional storyteller, knew a good story when he heard one, and to such a
storyteller as he, a good story was a great improvement upon whatever mundane
facts might be lying around. He often laminated his autobiographical comments
with variations that improved the story or supplied a satisfying punchline.
As
a matter of documented history, in June 1934, Capp signed a contract with
United Feature, and Li’l Abner started in eight newspapers on August 13
(by Christmas, according to some accounts, it was in 400 papers; eventually,
900-1,000). Abner’s debut was less than a year after the Big Leviticus
episode in Joe Palooka. Judging from the sequence of events, Fisher
assumed that Capp had found his inspiration for a comic strip about hillbillies
in the Big Leviticus story.
Catherine
Capp, who had joined her husband in New York once he was on Fisher’s payroll,
wrote an introduction to Volume One of the Kitchen Sink Press Li’l Abner reprint series in which she remembers inspiration striking in another way:
One
night while Al was working for Fisher, we went to a vaudeville theater in
Columbus Circle. One of the performances was a hillbilly act. A group of four
or five singers/musicians/comedians were playing fiddles and Jews harps and
doing a little soft shoe up on stage. They stood in a very wooden way with
expressionless deadpan faces and talked in monotones, with Southern accents. We
thought they were just hilarious. We walked back to the apartment that evening,
becoming more and more excited with the idea of a hillbilly comic strip.
Something like it had always been in the back of Al’s mind, ever since he had
thumbed his way through the Southern hills as a teenager, but that vaudeville
act seemed to crystalize it for him. ...
Al
and I conferred about the characters while he was drawing his samples. I’ll
take credit for naming Daisy Mae and Pansy Yokum, although contrary to popular
belief, I was not the model for Daisy. The closest I came to being a
model in the strip happened later when Al used my hair for Moonbeam McSwine
(4).
It wasn’t
just her hair. Capp once said that Moonbeam was inspired by Catherine because
she, disliking big city life, spent her time on the Capp farm, out in the
country—among the cows and pigs, like Moonbeam who preferred livestock and hog
wallow to social high life. (Or maybe Capp was merely improving upon a good
story by giving it a fictional punchline.) Indirectly, Catherine also named the
strip’s protagonist: “‘Abner,’” she wrote, “was what we had nicknamed the baby
when I was pregnant; it’s what we called Julie before she was born.” For
Abner’s appearance, Capp claimed to be inspired by Henry Fonda, an unlikely
contention on the face of it: Fonda was scarcely a national figure at the time;
his first movie was in 1935, at least months after Li’l Abner was
launched. But it was Fonda’s character Dave Tollier in “The Trail of the
Lonesome Pine” in 1936, Capp said, that gave him the “right look” for Abner.
Although
it’s not clear from Catherine’s account whether the young couple witnessed the
vaudeville act before or after the creation of the Big Leviticus episode, the
hillbillies on stage undoubtedly excited Capp’s imagination, leading,
eventually, to a strip featuring hillbillies as the central characters.
Li’l
Abner Yokum is a red-blooded nineteen-year-old with the mature physique of a
body-builder and the mind of an infant who lives contentedly with his
diminutive mother, Pansy, the pipe-smoking matriarch of the family, and his
simpleton Pappy in poverty-stricken Dogpatch, a backwoods community perched
precariously on the side of Onnecessary Mountain (or, sometimes, languishing in
its shadow). “Yokum,” supposedly a combination of “yokel” and “hokum,” was
actually phonetic Hebrew, Capp once said—“joachim” means “God’s determination”;
it was “a fortunate coincidence that the word would also pack a backwoods
connotation” (Wikipedia).
The
only cloud in young Abner’s idyllic everyday blue sky is Daisy Mae Scragg, a
skimpily clad blonde mountain houri who is forever pursuing him with (“gulp”)
matrimony in mind; Li’l Abner, too stupid to realize even that he loves her,
shuns the nuptial bond as well as her embrace, imagining them as somehow
unmanly. Daisy Mae drags him before Marryin’ Sam at least once a year, but the
ceremony is invariably nullified by some groaning plot contrivance; when Capp
finally married them for good, he’d enjoyed eighteen years of dangling the
prospect before his readers. Li’l Abner’s shyness with women and his studied
reluctance to recognize sexuality at all is a satire on American puritanism:
if things were as puritans imagined, Abner wouldn’t be funny. But he is funny,
revealing that we all recognize at once how absurd the a-sexual repressiveness
is.
Capp’s
Candide, Li’l Abner is fated to wander often into a threatening outside world,
where he encounters civilization—politicians and plutocrats, mad scientists and
cunning swindlers, mountebanks, bunglers, and love-starved maidens. By this
device, Capp contrasts Li’l Abner’s country simplicity against society’s
sophistication—or, more symbolically, his innocence against its decadence, his
purity against its corruption. The comedy arises from this clash of cultures:
we laugh to see Abner’s simple-minded struggle against the forces of civilization
that seem to him so inexplicable, so utterly without practical foundation, and
we roar with satisfaction when he eventually triumphs over the twisted
insincerity of “high society,” his innocence, his ignorance, intact.
Throughout, the humor is circumstantial, arising from the preposterousness of
Abner’s predicament and his simplicity in dealing with it, rather than from
carefully structured jokes. Capp’s effort was not so much to end his daily
strips with punchlines as it was to finish with extravagant cliffhangers.
It
was man and his society that comprised Capp’s primary targets. As a satirist,
he ridiculed the pretensions and foibles of humanity—greed, bigotry, egotism,
selfishness, vaulting ambition. All of man’s baser instincts, which the cartoonist
saw manifest in many otherwise socially acceptable guises, were his targets.
Li’l Abner is the perfect foil in this enterprise: naive and unpretentious
(and, not to gloss the matter, just plain stupid), Li’l Abner believes in all
the idealistic preachments of his fellowman—and is therefore the ideal victim
for their practices (which invariably fall far short of their noble
utterances). He is both champion and fall guy.
Capp’s
vehicle was burlesque, a mode of satirical comment that allows no fine gray
shadings—only stark blacks and whites. Painted only in these hues, the world
he revealed was divided simply into the Good (the Yokums) and the Bad (almost
everybody else). And Capp’s tactic was the shotgun: a single blast that
obliterated his target without fuss or, usually, finesse.
His
criticism of American foreign aid, for instance, was contained in the creation
of Lower Slobbovia, a completely snowbound fifth-rate country whose
inhabitants, up to their chins in hostile environment, have no visible means of
support. Their favorite dish is “raw polar bear and vice versa.” Speaking in a
strange-sounding language fraught with not-so-faint echoes of Yiddish, the
natives survive entirely on the hope that the United States will provide
foreign aid. Beyond the joke of the Slobbovians’ helplessness and laziness and
their abject poverty and perpetual starvation, the satire goes nowhere. Having
taken his shot, Capp seemingly runs out of ammunition. The initial
conception—the Slobbovians and their impossible plight—is brilliant as a
criticism of American foreign policy; but Capp typically goes nowhere else with
the notion. His Slobbovian stories end but not with a sharply satirical barb
that turns on itself to sting.
In
his interview with Marschall, Capp admitted that he was “so embarrassed by his
endings that I try to forget them” (14). Many of his endings are thoroughly
forgettable, but sometimes, often enough, Capp excelled.
Abner’s
first adventure is a happily contrived satire ending with sting enough. In the
first sixteen months of his life, Li’l Abner, the quintessential country hick,
spends more time in New York City than in the hills of his home in Dogpatch.
And in that circumstance is the flywheel of the strip’s satirical dynamic.
At
the very point of our meeting Li’l Abner and his hillbilly entourage, Abner
gets a letter from his rich Aunt Bessie, who invites him to spend time with her
in New York society in order to acquire polish and to enjoy “the advantages of
wealth and luxury.” Abner goes to the big city and stays there for the next
four months.
In
one episode of that sojourn, a phony baron (actually, a penniless confidence
man) with an impressive beard goes after Aunt Bessie’s hand in marriage, his
eye firmly focused on her fortune. Li’l Abner finds out that the baron’s
intentions are less than honorable, but he’s helpless to do anything about it.
His first instinct is to “smack the baron aroun’ somewhat an’ throw him outa
th’ house,” but he recognizes that this behavior isn’t gentlemanly, and since
his Mammy has sent him to Aunt Bessie to learn to be a gentleman, he dutifully
refrains from taking this course of action.
And
when he decides simply to go to Aunt Bessie and tell her what a lout the baron
is, he learns that his aunt is in love. Rather than destroy her happiness, he
says nothing to her about the mercenary intentions of her lover and
soon-to-be-husband. It seems that Bessie is doomed to be duped.
At
the last moment—just before the wedding—Abner remembers a smattering of his
Mammy’s wisdom: “Anyone which is a skunk looks like one.” Putting this axiom
into practice, he gets a razor and forcibly gives the phony baron a shave.
Without his imposing chin whiskers, the con-man is revealed as a nearly
chinless simp. Bessie is no longer impressed, and she calls off the wedding.
The
story is an insightful template for Capp satire, a handy guide to his method.
Again and again over the next decades, he would perform this
operation—stripping the pretensions away, revealing society (all civilization
perhaps) as mostly artificial, often shallow and self-serving, usually
avaricious, and, ultimately, inhumane and therefore without meaning. We laughed,
but underneath the strip’s comedy, it wasn’t funny.
In
his book America’s Great Comic Strip Artists, Marschall found a
determinedly misanthropic subtext in the satire of Li’l Abner:
Capp
was calling society absurd, not just silly; human nature not simply miguided,
but irredeemably and irreducibly corrupt. Unlike any other strip, and indeed
unlike many other pieces of literature, Li’l Abner was more than a
satire of the human condition. It was a commentary on human nature itself
(246).
In
the story of the shmoo, Capp created what was probably the most sustained
satire in the strip: this sequence had a beginning and an end, and all along
the way, it supported and reinforced the satire. The shmoo, for those who
missed it, is a soft, squishy-looking bowling-pin of a cuddly critter with two
legs and feet but no arms, two eyes and one mouth but no nose, whose whole
purpose in life is to make others happy, which it does by magically producing
all sorts of foodstuffs and other useful items. They lay eggs “at the slightest
excuse” and give milk and cheesecake; as for meat—broiled they make the finest
steaks; fried, yummy chicken. They drop dead out of sheer ecstasy if you look
at them hungrily. And there’s no waste: their hide makes the finest leather or
cloth (depending upon how thick you slice it), their eyes make suspender
buttons, and their whiskers, toothpicks. Moreover, they are available in
endless supply because they breed more rapidly than fruit flies.
Li’l
Abner stumbles onto shmoos in August 1948 and the world is subsequently on the
brink of changing forever: once shmoos are loose in so-called civilization,
humanity loses the motivation to go to war and to engage in every sort of
capitalistic enterprise. Why bother? Shmoos provide everything one needs. And
for that very reason, in Capp’s satirically warped mind, they had to be
destroyed wholesale. Otherwise, they would “corrupt” society, demolishing the
very things upon which civilization is founded—namely, greed and need. The
character was such a happy satirical conception, so cute, and so popular (and
so successfully merchandised), that Capp brought it back briefly in 1959, but
without the merchandising success of its inaugural appearance.
Because
he attacked the conventions of modern civilized society and because the most
conspicuous upholders of those values were the wealthy and powerful members of
the establishment and because America’s establishment was mostly political
conservatives, most of the icons Capp smashed so exultantly were those of the
political Right. Consequently, Capp was extremely popular with liberals.
A
protean talent, Capp invented a host of memorable characters and introduced a
number of cultural epiphenomena. His cast is populated with Dickensian
eccentrics: the denizens of Dogpatch—Lonesome Polecat, the local Native
American, and his partner in brewing Kickapoo Joy Juice, a hirsute giant named
Hairless Joe; Earthquake McGoon, the neighborhood strongman; Barney Barnsmell,
the “outside man” at the Skonk Works (the only indigenous industry), and his
brother, Big Barnsmell, the “inside man”; the Wolf Gal, a rapacious wild girl;
Senator Jack S. Phogbound; the voluptuous Moonbeam McSwine, who likes pigs
better than people; and in the world beyond Dogpatch—Joe Btfsplk, a jinx whose
influence was symbolized by the small raincloud that hovered always over his
head; Evil-eye Fleegle, whose glance could fell an ox; Lena the Hyena, a woman
so ugly Capp wouldn’t draw her; and Appassionata van Climax, an outrageously
flagrant sex symbol (about which, Capp reported in surprise, no editor ever
objected). Perhaps the most famous of his secondary characters is the one that
threatened at times to take over the strip: introduced in August 1942,
Fearless Fosdick is a razor-jawed parody of another comic strip character, Dick
Tracy.
The
most notorious of Capp’s contributions to popular culture is Sadie Hawkins Day,
an annual November footrace (the precise date of which varies from source to
source—and, doubtless, from year to year in Capp’s own mind) in which the
unmarried women of Dogpatch pursue unmarried men across the countryside like so
many hounds after the hare, marrying those whom they catch.
WHEN FISHER
LATER CLAIMED that he created the first hillbillies on the funnies page, strenuously
suggesting that his one-time assistant had stolen the idea from him, Capp, at
first, treated Fisher’s claim with disdain. “I tried to ignore him,” he said in Newsweek (November 29, 1948). “I regard him like a leper; I feel sorry
for him, but I shun him” (clipping, n.p.). That only enraged Fisher. He was
determined to make his case. By 1954, in his autobiographical essay, Fisher had
even invented a trip through the South that paralleled Capp’s legendary
youthful trek. Wrote Fisher:
One
great adventure in meeting people was on a selling trip at the age of eighteen
when I spent several months among the hillbillies through the Great Smokey
region of the South. Later, when I took Joe Palooka on a barnstorming tour,
they came in mighty handy as the first hillbillies to appear in the comics. I
dropped the hillbillies after several months, but they had made a hit, for many
hillbilly comic strips sprung up the following year. Big
Leviticus,
whom I originally called Li’l David, was a wild paranoiac character, and my
great and good friend, the late John Custis, one of my publishers, tagged him
as an unsavory specimen. His objection was that Leviticus was no fit company
for a nice guy like Joe. You see, Leviticus had a bad habit of trying to kick
Joe in the jaw while boxing (6).
The rhetoric
of this contrivance is notable for its transparent argumentative ingenuity.
Although seemingly a casual narrative of a mildly interesting incident in
Fisher’s life, it is laced with attacks and defenses. He repeats his claim of
being the originator of hillbillies in comics, and he adds that Leviticus was
originally called Li’l David; from whence, clearly, Capp derived the “Li’l” of
his Abner. Leviticus is an unsavory specimen; hence, so is Li’l Abner. John
Custis, who could have verified this story, was conveniently dead.
That
Fisher’s obsession about Capp had become utterly shameless can be deduced from
the venue of the essay—an instruction booklet for a correspondence course in
illustration and cartooning. Coulton Waugh, the author of the course in which
Fisher’s essay is a part, asked Fisher to tell how he became successful rather
than to supply a drawing lesson: Waugh’s expectation was that Fisher’s story
would be inspirational to aspiring young illustrators and cartoonists. The
hillbilly origin tale is wholly extraneous to the essay’s ostensible
purpose—and to its running argument. But it is integral to what had, by this
time, become Fisher’s absorbing preoccupation: that the hillbillies who were
making Capp rich and famous appeared first in Joe Palooka.
And
Fisher was right. In Al Capp Remembered, published in 1994, 15 years
after Capp’s death, his brother Elliott wrote: “Alfred never quibbled about the
obvious relationship between Big Leviticus and Li’l Abner. He freely admitted
that his hillbilly was germinated in the Sunday pages of Joe Palooka” (72).
The
essential fact was never in dispute. At issue was who created Big Leviticus. If
Capp created Big Leviticus, he could scarcely be accused of “stealing” the
hillbilly idea; he could, therefore, readily admit to the connection between
Big Leviticus and Li’l Abner.
We’ll
probably never know, with certainty, the truth about who created the
hillbillies in Joe Palooka. But it is more than probable that each of
the participants in the dispute has a piece of the truth on his side. Take the
question of the “creation” of a comic strip character. In his mind, Fisher
could legitimately claim to have created Big Leviticus and his obnoxious family
even if all he actually did was to give Capp instructions to do a sequence
about Joe Palooka fighting a roughneck hillbilly. The concept, as they might
say these days in Hollywood and other suburbs in Lala Land, was Fisher’s. The
execution might have been left entirely to Capp. And if Capp fleshed out the
idea—gave personality to Big Leviticus and his entourage—he could legitimately
claim to have “created” the character, too.
Weiss
is certain that Fisher’s version of this episode is the truth. “I don’t know
how it could be documented,” he told me. “I can only go by knowing Ham
Fisher’s character—knowing what he was like—what he would do and what would be
foreign to him. As far as the Leviticus thing is concerned, it would have been
foreign to him to have let someone take over the strip at that time; it just
wouldn’t have been done. And also, Ham Fisher showed me a letter once. And I
don’t know what happened to it. But it was a letter that, during the feud, Al
Capp wrote to [George] Carlin, the head of United Feature Syndicate, in which
he said, he admitted, that Ham created Leviticus, and he’d like to put the
matter to rest, and he would admit that it was not his character, that it was
Ham’s. Well, what happened then was Ham got that letter and took it around to
nightclubs and showed it to different people, and when Capp got wind of it, the
feud was on all over again, hotter than ever.”
In
their new biography, Al Capp: A Life to the Contrary, Michael Schumacher
and Denis Kitchen allude to this mysterious note, but they didn’t find it
either. Despite unprecedented access to Capp’s papers and the cooperation of
his children and grandchildren, they are unable to be any more definitive than
Weiss. No surprise: not everything in such a long and energetic life as Capp’s
can be documented in writing (although the biographers found love letters to
document Capp’s long affair with a singer in southern California.)
In
their Big Leviticus scenario, Schumacher and Kitchen manage to favor both sides
of the debate by knitting a few known facts together with a few reasonable
speculations and adding some probably fictional connective tissue to create a
cohesive story. They suppose that Capp brought the idea of hillbillies to story
conferences with Fisher, but Fisher wrote the script for the Big Leviticus
adventure. In support of this contention, the biographers cite a long-standing
custom in the syndicate business that cartoonists submit scripts to their
syndicates for approval before drawing the strips. In their narrative, Fisher
did not go on vacation: he was present while Capp drew the sequence. Big
Leviticus shows up again in the strip a few months later while Capp was still
there, and it was during this time, they say, that Fisher went on vacation. In
short, Schumacher and Kitchen find it highly unlikely that Fisher’s “brand new
assistant” soloed on the Big Leviticus story so soon after joining Fisher
(62-68).
This
interpretation of events is as plausible as any other, and in its resolution,
it agrees with Weiss’s supposition based upon his long acquaintance with
Fisher. But the explanation is scarcely leak-proof. Not all syndicated comic
strip cartoonists were required by their syndicates to submit scripts for
advance approval. And by 1933, Fisher’s strip was roaringly successful; it’s at
least probable that he wouldn’t have been expected to get approval in advance
for his stories. Moreover, in support of Capp’s version of events, Big
Leviticus’ behavior is more akin to the sort of comedy Capp would later develop
in Li’l Abner than anything Fisher had done or would do. Still, Weiss’s
conclusion remains the most convincing version of this famous episode in Capp’s
life.
Fisher’s
persistence in claiming to have created the first hillbillies in the comics had
about it exactly the whining quality that doubtless rubbed Capp the wrong way,
stimulating his rambunctious satiric sensibility and prompting him to do
whatever he could to irritate Fisher. And as we shall see, he found
opportunities to do just that.
But
whether Capp was inspired by the vaudeville act, by his own experiences on a
trip into the South years before as a youth, or by Fisher’s Big Leviticus is
probably beside the point. Regardless of how hillbillies found their way into
the comics, their arrival scarcely represented an isolated act of divine
afflatus.
As
Dave Schreiner points out in Volume One of the Kitchen Sink series, hillbillies
were “in the air” in those days. Hillbillies were on stage and in songs (11).
And in books and movies. And on the radio. In the introduction to Volume 26 of
the Kitchen Sink reprints, M. Thomas Inge writes: “It is no exaggeration to say
that culture in the United States, high and low, had been obsessed with things
Southern and Appalachian since the turn of the century” (6). Between 1908 and
1928, Hollywood produced over 475 films about the backwoods South. “That is an
average of over twenty-two films a year, almost two a month,” Inge notes (13).
And with the advent of radio as the preeminent entertainment in American homes
in the 1920s, such programs as “The National Barn Dance” from Chicago and “The
Grand Ole Opry” from Nashville were heard everywhere. Hillbilly string bands,
banjo players, fiddlers, gospel singers, and comedy groups traveled across the
country, appearing on stages in most cities. It was one of these that the
Capps saw in New York in 1933.
The
emergence of hillbillies in popular culture in the thirties may have been a
consequence of the disruption of rural life during the Depression. Many
country dwellers—hillbillies as well as dirt farmers everywhere—left the
country for the city, where they hoped to find a livelihood. Their advent
raised the consciousness of big city residents about these colorful characters,
and because they were colorful, they were ripe subjects for comic strips. In
1934, cartoonist Billy DeBeck, responding undoubtedly to the currents of
interest he detected in popular culture at the time, took his horse-racing
hero, Barney Google, into the hills where he met a scruffy distiller of illegal
brew named Snuffy Smith, who eventually took the strip away from Google.
Fisher never accused DeBeck of stealing hillbillies from him. But DeBeck had
never been Fisher’s assistant.
But
all that, as I said, is beside the point. Whatever the actualities of the
matter, Fisher was aggrieved. And his grievance would fester for years until
it erupted in the profession’s most notorious scandal.
Chapter
Five
BY THE END OF
THE THIRTIES, Fisher’s strip was secure among the top five strips in the
country. Then he did an unprecedented thing. He enlisted his hero and his strip
in the cause of democracy on the eve of the Second World War. It was not only
unprecedented: in many corners of the country, it was unpopular.
Isolationists,
wary of European intrigues because of the unsatisfactory resolution of World
War I, vociferously resisted any inclination President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt might occasionally voice about support for Britain, which, by the
summer of 1940, was the only European nation not under the tread of Adolf Hitler’s
war machine. By way of preparing for emergencies, however, FDR had succeeded
in launching universal military conscription late that summer. And Fisher
helped FDR put over the idea of the draft by having Joe Palooka enlist. Joe
went in as a private even though he was offered a commission. (Another
heavyweight champ, Joe Louis, would soon do exactly the same; and by so doing,
Louis increased the respect and regard in which he was held by his fellow
Americans.)
Fisher
carefully researched Army camp life and depicted it with meticulous attention
to detail. And Joe became the voice of patriotism—not strident and shrill or
loud and bombastic but soft-spoken and sure, confident. T. Wayne Waters,
writing in American History magazine (December 2002), reports that
Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson gave Fisher a letter of introduction
that allowed the cartoonist to tour army training camps to gather information
that would enhance the strip’s authenticity. Joe’s enlistment and his
subsequent conduct helped convince young Americans to put on uniforms in the
year before the U.S. was officially in the War. Roosevelt was grateful and
said so, inviting the cartoonist to lunch at the White House. And so, as Martin
Sheridan records in Comics and Their Creators, Ham Fisher had become the
Friend of Presidents (132-33).
In
the strip, Fisher courageously advocated more than ordinary patriotism. He was
an outspoken proponent of racial tolerance, too, in an age when even the
military services were segregated. Said Joe: “Anybuddy back home who’s
spreadin’ intolerance against any person b’cuz of his race, creed or color is
spreadin’ Nazi principles.” Oddly, as boxing champion while still a civilian,
Joe has a black valet named Smokey, who is drawn as a liver-lipped racist
caricature. Over the years, Smokey undergoes a transformation, losing some of
the stereotypical shuffling subservient characteristics and becoming Joe’s
sparring partner and companion when the two join the Foreign Legion. But
visually, he was still a nasty caricature; he disappears from the strip in the
early 1940s, and we never see him again.
Joe
had many combat adventures throughout the War. Starting right after Pearl
Harbor, Palooka captures a German submarine while en route to Europe, then
foils the attempts of parachuting saboteurs, invades Europe with a unit of
commandoes, blows up a German gasoline plant thereby enabling an observation
plane to escape enemy artillery, steals a radio and sets up an underground
radio station to guide Allied bombing missions, and participates in two
exhibition boxing matches. All that during the first nine months of his
enlistment. Our hero is captured and escapes but is reported missing in action;
his friends and comrades are wounded but survive. Joe was wounded, too,
parachuting into partisan Yugoslavia where he joined a guerrilla force (led by
a beautiful patriot, who nurses Joe back to health; Joe, of course, resists the
woman’s romantic blandishments because for him there is only one woman, Ann
Howe).
During
an adventure in North Africa, Joe is shown shooting an escaping Nazi prisoner
in the back. It was a simple default option in depicting the action: the guy is
running away, right? But many readers were upset seeing this morally
questionable act committed by a champion of clean-cut American fair play, and
they wrote newspapers expressing dismay. Joe never fouled an opponent in the
ring; why now? Joe Palooka was so popular that the incident was reported
in Time. The magazine even offered an explanation: “Joe, like any other
U.S. soldier, is up against unsporting enemies, and he must learn to kill or be
killed. Says Palooka’s creator, jovial cartoonist Ham Fisher: ‘No good soldier
is going to be polite in real war. Why should Joe?’”
With
similar dedication to authenticity, Fisher managed to conduct his comic strip
version of the battle of Tunisia concurrently with the real campaign. Both
finished at about the same time. Knowing that supply was vital to British Field
Marshall Bernard Montgomery’s movement, Fisher timed the progress of his
fictional battle by watching the movement of supplies to North Africa,
information he obtained through an obliging British liaison officer. Fisher was
so favored by the British because he had been a vocal interventionist during
the dark days early in the European conflict when England most needed U.S.
help.
Joe
Palooka was among the few civilian productions published in Stars and
Strips, and Palooka appeared also in training manuals, recruitment
materials, guides to invaded countries, and hygiene and safety booklets. Back
home, Knobby found work in a defense plant, and Ann became a Red Cross worker.
Once, when the Army needed candidates for Officer Candidate School, Fisher considered
sending Joe to OCS but decided against it after he got a letter from Major
General A.D. Surles, War Department Public Relations Chief, who argued that a
greater morale purpose would be served if Joe remained an enlisted man. When
the War is over and Joe returns to the U.S., Fisher did a special comic book
that shows his hero confronting the psychological problems of readjusting to
civilian life.
The
strip was a decided morale-booster among those in uniform. Fisher had given
his creation a social purpose beyond entertainment, and he had also enhanced
its already considerable popularity.
During
the War, many comic strip heroes went into military service to help build
morale. But Li’l Abner didn’t. At least, not in the civilian press. Capp no
doubt felt his loutish protagonist was too quintessentially hillbilly for his
readers to believe that he could serve in the military. He was no Sergeant
York. Besides, as Caniff pointed out in his postwar contribution to the book While
You Were Gone, a collection of essays aimed at reacquainting vets with the
home front, “the mail from the foxholes, I am told, added up to a spontaneous
Gallup poll of the inducted ten million. In one voice, homesick American youth
begged Capp to keep Dogpatch and the Yokum clan intact, beyond the reach of the
draft board” (502).
It
may have been Capp himself who most forcefully enunciated this sentiment. In a
letter addressed to the reader in Li’l Abner for July 4, 1942, Capp
explained why Li’l Abner would not be going into the army:
Perhaps
Li’l Abner and his friends, living through these terrible days in a peaceful,
happy, free world will do their part by reminding us that this is what we are
fighting for—to have that world again. ... a world where a fella is free to be
as wise or foolish as he pleases—but mainly—a world where a fella is free! That
world has disappeared—until we win this war. Perhaps this small section of our
daily newspaper can do its part best by helping us to remember that a free
world once did exist—and will again!
It
was by far a more patriotic reason than Abner’s abject unmilitary stupidity.
But Capp did a special Pfc. Li’l Abner strip for military training
manuals and contributed pictures of his hero to other causes within the ranks.
And that wasn’t all.
Capp
may have been “smarting at the public attentions showered upon his hated
onetime employer Ham Fisher” for volunteering Joe Palooka a couple years
before, Jay Maeder speculates in Hogan’s Alley no.12 (2004), so he
“offered his professional services as a highly visible home front propagandist”
for the Treasury Department’s war bond sales program (106). And for domestic
consumption, starting in 1942, Capp produced an unsigned (but obviously in the
stylistic manner of Li’l Abner) biweekly Sunday strip called Small
Fry (later changed to Small Change). Intended to promote the sale of
war bonds, the feature retailed the adventures of its bulb-nosed eponymous
protagonist as he concocted schemes to raise the money to buy a bond in order
to win the favors of his luscious leggy girlfriend, Tallulah, a dark-haired,
Bettie Page-bangs version of Daisy Mae (albeit in skimpy cutoffs rather than a
tattered skirt).
Said
Tallulah: “So what ef all th’ Yew-nited States armed services has rejected yo’,
Small Fry. Yo’ kin still fight by buyin’ U.S. war bonds. They is $18.75 an’ up,
an’ fo’ each one yo’ buys, Ah will bend yo’ nose back an’ give yo’ a big, juicy
kiss.”
Who
could resist? One look at the bangs and the cutoffs would be inducement enough.
Capp
also performed a special personal mission: in military hospitals, he visited
amputees. The theme of his conversations, Caniff reported later (in my
biography, Meanwhile), was always the same: “What will the girls think?
Al invariably underscored the answer: it will make you twice as interesting”
(428).
Cartoonists
generally did their bit. In the New York vicinity, cartoonists frequently
banded together to entertain recuperating soldiers in military hospitals.
After the War, the cartoonists decided to perpetuate the fellowship they had
all enjoyed while doing chalktalks for the troops: they formed the National
Cartoonists Society. (For that story, see my “Tales of the Founding of the
National Cartoonists Society” in Cartoonist Profiles nos.109, pp. 46-53,
and 110, pp. 62-71; or in the NCS Album for 2005.)
Among
the key players in the formation of NCS was Rube Goldberg. At the time, he was
the Grand Old Man of cartooning. He had stature, the kind that inspired reverence
not jealousy. Although he hated the formalities and rituals of organizational
enterprises, he was persuaded to espouse the cause, and he became the first
president of the Society. Fisher was among the first to join the group. And
his behavior among his peers was telling.
NCS
met most often at the clubhouse of the Society of Illustrators on East 63rd
Street. The meetings tended to be short: the purposes of the group were, at
the time, chiefly social, and those purposes were achieved in the clubhouse bar
after the official meetings were adjourned.
In
the bar, Weiss told me, Fisher kept himself nearly as busy as the bartender.
All evening, he ran back and forth between the bar and the various tables at
which cartoonists sat in groups, talking and laughing. Fisher took their
orders and brought the drinks to the tables. Why would Fisher, one of the
world’s most successful cartoonists, spend his evenings among his peers running
drinks to them?
Fisher
certainly regarded himself as a celebrity. His strip was one of the most
widely circulated strips in the world. He referred to Joe Palooka as
“the world’s greatest comic strip.” Despite all this—despite his undeniable
success and fame—Ham Fisher was essentially an insecure individual. He
bolstered his sense of worth by making himself necessary to the famous
cartoonists in the room.
Weiss
discovered Fisher’s insecurity very early. One evening at the clubhouse bar
watching Fisher run drinks, Weiss decided to play a trick on him: “I stopped
him and said, ‘Ham, when you have a minute, there’s something you should know
about what an editor said about your comic strip.’ And he said, ‘What is it?’
And he dropped everything. And I said, ‘Well, I’ll tell you later; right now,
I’m talking to someone else.’ I did it just to annoy him and irk him. Well,
every five minutes, he was at me again to tell him what the editor said. But
it was nothing; I made up the story. Just for the hell of it. Because I had
him tagged.”
The
incident revealed how vulnerable Fisher was, Weiss told me. And thereafter, he
no longer felt like playing pranks on the man. “We seemed to have a sort of
rapport after that,” Weiss said. “I would see him at the Society’s monthly
dinners, and he would tell me stories. And then he would come over and visit
me at our apartment in New Jersey.” Although Weiss never regarded himself as a
particular friend of Fisher’s, he realized later that he had become Fisher’s
confidante.
Fisher’s
actions speak volumes about how unsure of himself he was. He sought the company
of famous people. He went to great lengths to associate himself with them. He
courted
celebrities by depicting them in the strip. He recognized consciously that he,
too, was a famous person. But unconsciously, he wasn’t sure. He had to be
convinced. To shore up his own opinion of himself he needed the reassurance he
could feel if he were in the company of the people he regarded as
famous. If he associated with famous people, surely he too was famous. His
vanity—not to mention the very vitality of his self-esteem—was fed by his
proximity to the famous.
And
Fisher was unquestionably vain. He tooted his own horn. He carried around
lists of all the newspapers that subscribed to his strip and would proudly
produce them at the slightest provocation. Few major figures in cartooning
ever make an exhibition of themselves like Ham Fisher did—proclaiming his own
greatness to his peers, who all knew, as no other assembly of persons could,
just how great he was.
They
didn’t need Fisher to tell them about Fisher. They knew and appreciated his
achievement. But they were turned off by his loud and boorish displays of
self-adulation. And they saw through his obsequious servitude in the bar of
the Illustrators clubhouse: they knew he was courting the favor of those whom
he regarded as great. The rest of the company—the cartoonists whom Fisher did
not see as very famous—Fisher ignored. And those cartoonists resented it.
Resenting it, they were receptive to tales that revealed Fisher as they saw
him. The story of Fisher’s treatment of Rube Goldberg, for instance.
At
one of the early meetings of the Society, Weiss said, Fisher button-holed
Goldberg, telling him how much he, Fisher, admired his work, how great Goldberg
was, and so on. Later, Fisher confided to another cartoonist that it was “too
bad” about Goldberg: the man was a has-been, he opined, over the hill. Goldberg
heard about this. And it galled him. And it irked others who learned of it. The
episode confirmed them in their low opinion of Fisher. Fisher, they could see,
was a self-serving blow-hard, willing to advance himself at everyone else’s
expense whenever the opportunity presented itself.
The
situation was ripe for an incident to consolidate the feeling against Fisher.
And Fisher, poor soul—vain, attention-starved, insecure and envious
Fisher—precipitated the incident.
On
the Sunday Joe Palooka page for October 31, 1948, Ham Fisher scratched
an itch. In the opening panel, he lettered his message for the world to see:
“First hillbillies ever to appear in a comic strip were Big Leviticus and his
family [in Joe Palooka]. Any resemblance to our original hillbillies is
certainly NOT coincidental.”
This
was not the first time Fisher had made his accusation in public, veiled though
it was. When he was interviewed by Martin Sheridan for Comics
and Their Creators (published in 1944), Fisher said that other comic strips
had adopted the prize fighter theme since he introduced it, and “many comics
are based on hillbillies since I first used Big Leviticus in my strip” (132).
Fisher had proffered similar assertions in his strip over the years. And among
his colleagues in NCS, Fisher made no secret of his conviction that Capp had
stolen from him the idea of hillbilly characters while assisting on Palooka in 1933. But in the fall of 1948, Fisher’s innuendo had the cutting edge of an
indictment.
What
prompted the October 1948 assault? Probably envy. Simple if not pure. Fisher
had watched Capp’s climb to fame jealously. By the fifth year of Li’l Abner,
Capp’s strip rivaled Joe Palooka in fame and popularity. And in the
spring of 1948, Capp had won the Billy DeBeck Award, the NCS trophy for Best
Cartoonist of the Year (now called the Reuben). It was only the second year of
the Award, and it carried great status. (Milton Caniff had won the first
year.) Despite Joe Palooka’s high standing in many readership
popularity polls, Fisher would never be so honored by his peers. And with his
insecurity, Fisher undoubtedly knew it, felt it in his bones: he would never
win the DeBeck Award. With that realization gnawing at him, it must have
rankled that his former assistant should win it. In any event, Fisher’s claim
was just another refrain in the same old chorus as far as his brethren in the
inky-fingered fraternity were concerned. What caused the outburst in the fall
of 1948 is less significant than what Fisher’s action provoked. This time,
Capp reacted.
Until
then, Capp had behaved towards Fisher in the usual gentlemanly manner adopted
by those of the profession. In public, he had only nice things to say about
Fisher. In Sheridan’s book, for instance, Capp recounted the story of Fisher’s
rescuing him from his poverty-stricken safari through the streets of New York.
“I worked with Fisher for several months,” Capp said, “and owe most of my
success to him for I learned many tricks of the trade while working alongside
him” (136). Even then, Capp may not have believed what he said, but he knew
that’s what ought to be said under the circumstances, so he played the game,
sowing credit for another professional. Fisher, as we’ve noted, couldn’t play
that game: he was too insecure to allow the spotlight on him to waver in its
focus. And in the fall of 1948, Capp decided he would no longer play.
Capp
announced that he was going to file a complaint with NCS. Maybe he hadn’t
complained before because there had been no National Cartoonists Society to
referee. Writing to the NCS Board of Governors and reported in Newsweek (November 29, 1948), Capp urged the group to call Fisher on the carpet for
“reflecting discredit upon the Society. ... For a cartoonist to use his space
to libel and slander another cartoonist is unethical, very bad for the
profession” (58). But nothing came of Capp’s complaint.
Later,
Capp decided to twit Fisher in public. Learning that Fisher would undergo
plastic surgery to have his nose remodeled, Capp celebrated the event by
introducing into his strip a horse named Ham’s Nose-bob. Still later, as their
feud developed, Capp produced a Sunday sequence in which Li’l Abner draws a
successful comic strip for a cheap scoundrel named Happy Vermin, who keeps
Abner locked in a dimly lit closet while taking all the credit for the strip’s
success himself, a success due entirely to Abner’s having discarded Vermin’s
boring cast and replaced it with hillbilly characters.
Says
Happy Vermin: “I’m proud of having created these hillbilly characters! They’ll
make millions for me!! And if they do, I’ll get you a new light bulb!”
Retaliating
to Capp’s frontal assaults, Fisher stepped up his campaign. He spread
salacious gossip about Capp, and in whatever company he found himself, he
proclaimed the Fisher gospel (that he, Fisher, had invented comic strip
hillbillies that Capp then stole from him). Visiting Weiss at his apartment,
he often carried on a tirade. Said Weiss: “He went on about how Al Capp had
stolen his characters, and how he was defaming him. And he raved about Capp’s
being a sex maniac and the vulgar things he was putting into his comic strip,
and he went on and on and on. I remember so many things about that. It
consumed him completely. One time he said, ‘Great things are happening to me
now. The detective that Al Capp had following me to get dirt on me, that
detective is now working for me, that private detective.’”
Interlude
LONG BEFORE
PRODUCING the comic strips Miss Peach and Momma, cartoonist Mell
Lazarus was an editor at Toby Press, the publishing entity set up by Al Capp to
publish Li’l Abner comic books and the ancillary products of Al Capp
Enterprises. Toby Press was run, more-or-less, by Al’s brothers Jerome
(“Bence”) and Elliott. In September 2012, I interviewed Lazarus on an array of
comics-related topics, and during our conversation, he told me about an encounter
he had while the Capp-Fisher feud was transpiring. Lazarus and his then-wife
used to finish up the week by having a drink together in a bar on Fifth Avenue.
And for a couple of weeks, they noticed a man at a nearby table who seemed to
be eavesdropping on their conversation. Finally, one Friday, the man got up and
came over to their table.
“Pardon
me,” he said, “but I couldn’t help overhearing you mention Al Capp.”
“Yes?”
said Mell.
“Do
you know Al Capp?” asked the man. “Do you see him often?”
“Yes”
“Well,”
said the stranger, “my name is Ham Fisher, and I wonder if you’d give him a
message from me. Tell him I’d like to be friends again. Tell him he’s won. All
I want is that we should be friends again.”
The
next time he saw Al Capp, Lazarus reported the incident—“to Al’s giddy delight.
He seemed pleased,” Mell told me, “and amused. But he didn’t dwell on it with
me, nor did we ever discuss it again.”
FISHER’S
QUARREL WITH HIS ONE-TIME ASSISTANT continued and became an obsession, and
that, coupled to his own oft-trumpeted self-importance, made Fisher a colossal
boor. It also made him the perfect target for any number of practical jokes
staged by other cartoonists, most of whom by this time had little regard for
him.
Once,
as reported by Bob Dunn in Cartoonist Profiles no. 40 (December 1978),
when Fisher threatened to derail a charity luncheon at “21” from its purpose by
usurping the agenda to attack Capp, one of the group slipped out and recruited
a comely young woman to deliver Fisher’s comeuppance.
Unannounced,
she walked into the third floor private room and made straight for Fisher. She
was good-looking enough to stop conversation: everyone watched her progress in
silence. Giving Fisher a brilliant smile, she handed him a piece of blank
paper and asked for his autograph. Dazzled by her beauty and flattered by the
obvious adoration of such a gorgeous creature and gratified by thoughts of the
envy her admiration must inspire in those around him, Fisher drew the face of
his famous character and signed it “with all good wishes from Joe Palooka and
Ham Fisher.”
The
girl took the paper and stared at it in frowning perplexity. Then, tearing the
paper twice and dropping the pieces on the floor, she exclaimed, “You’re not Al
Capp? I wanted Al Capp’s autograph!” She turned on her heels and strode
away.
The
room exploded. Fisher turned white in rage and embarrassment. No man can take
a joke about his obsession (35).
Knowing
Fisher employed assistants to draw Joe Palooka, cartoonists circulated
the rumor that Fisher couldn’t draw at all. Ironically, Capp’s practice in
producing Li’l Abner was very similar to Fisher’s with Palooka.
Capp
had help drawing the strip from the start. His wife Catherine did the
backgrounds—landscapes and trees—and some inking. Capp soon acquired Moe Leff
for a time, and then Andy Amato; then Walter Johnson, and Harvey Curtis. Amato
was with Capp the longest—from near the beginning until the end. Amato penciled
the strip—or, perhaps in the early years, tightened Capp’s pencils for as long
as Capp roughed out the panels; Johnson did a lot of the inking, and Curtis did
the lettering and filled in the blacks. Like Fisher, Capp drew the faces of his
principals, but no one spread about Capp the rumor that he couldn’t draw.
Other
assistants came and went over the years, coming from or going to a fame of
their own—Bob Lubbers for the longest (reportedly 1958-1977); Frank Frazetta on
Sundays (1953-1961); and for shorter periods, Stan Drake, Creig Flessel, Tex
Blaisdell, Larry May. And others. But Amato, Johnson and Curtis also helped
write the strip. Capp concocted plots in conference with them.
Describing
what he called “the ensemble effort” of writing the strip in Al Capp
Remembered, Elliott Caplin said: “The story sessions were often romps
through the wildest fantasies of the four men. Each bought to the studio his
own prodigal dreams and tried to flesh
out his
urges, prejudices and hang-ups in an Abner continuity. ‘How about’ was
the kick-off for a story conference. ‘How about this guy who’s never been to a
city bigger than like a couple of hundred people ... and looking for a girl
whose picture he’s seen on the cover of—no, maybe not a magazine, but a poster.
...’
“The
four men would explore and dissect the story line,” Elliott continued. “A
hundred variations were discussed and discarded. Time would pass, and
eventually a continuity was fashioned that could be a hundred years away from
the initial concept. Alfred appreciated and rewarded his staff. He especially valued
Andy Amato for his unorthodox and undisciplined flights into absolute insanity.
Andy felt free to soar, knowing that Alfred would exercise his superb story
sense in fashioning the final drawn version of Andy’s frequent bouts with
paranoia” (81-82).
In
a 1950 cover story on Capp (November 6), Time reported that Amato and
Johnson were paid 10% of Capp’s profits, about $30,000 a year apiece (78). A
few years before, E.J. Kahn, Jr. in his profile of Capp in The New Yorker (December
6, 1947) claimed the assistants’ percentage was 15% and that it amounted to
“around $35,000 a year between them,” high pay but Capp said it made his life
easier: “I don’t like to have to spend a lot of time in the company of people
who can’t sympathize with me when I complain about my income taxes,” he said
(57). Although in these later years, the assistants were named in articles
about Li’l Abner, I have only once encountered Capp speaking highly of
them without at the same time lacing his comments with humorous jibes or satirical
asides.
Rick
Marschall’s interview with Capp in Cartoonist Profiles no. 37 was
conducted shortly after the cartoonist’s retirement from the strip in 1977, and
Capp said about his assistants: “When I say ‘I,’ I mean these other guys
equally with me. I’m the guy who signed the strip, and I made up our minds
about what we would do, but they had just as much effect on the strip as I”
(14). Generous applause but a little late in coming compared to Fisher’s
effusive published comments about his assistants as early as 1948.
In
1950, the Fisher-Capp feud boiled over. In the April issue of Atlantic
Monthly was an article by Al Capp, purporting to explain the inspiration
for the more villainous characters in Li’l Abner—“those unsanitary,
uncouth, unregenerate, unspeakable apes, fiends, and human horrors whose
lechery, treachery, and skulduggery make the golden goodness of the Yokums
shine even more brightly by contrast.” Capp called it “I Remember Monster,”
and although he never mentioned Ham Fisher by name, it was clear to anyone
familiar with his well-publicized professional history that the monster was
Fisher, his one-time employer. With his customary high-flying hyperbole, Capp
claimed he didn’t have to invent any of those unsavory varmints that so invigorated
his strip:
The
truth is I don’t think ’em up. I was lucky enough to know them—all of them—and
what was even luckier, all in the person of one man. One veritable gold mine
of human swinishness. It was my privilege, as a boy, to be associated with a certain
treasure-trove of lousiness, who, in the normal course of each day of his life,
managed to be, in dazzling succession, every conceivable kind of heel. It was
an advantage few young cartoonists
have
enjoyed—or could survive. I owe all my success to him. From my study of this
one li’l man, I have been able to create an entire gallery of horrors. For
instance, when I must create a character who is the ultimate in cheapness, I
don’t, like less fortunate cartoonists, have to rack my brain wondering what
real bottom-of-the-barrel cheapness is like. I saw the classic of ’em all.
Better than that, I was the victim of it (54).
Capp went on
for the rest of his four-page essay to retail extremely unflattering anecdotes
about the man he referred to only as his “Benefactor.”
Goaded
on, doubtless, by such humiliations and by his continued failure to get anyone
to take him seriously on either hillbillies or Capp’s theft of them, Fisher
resorted to a peculiarly unsavory way of striking back at his nemesis. In its
1950 cover story on Capp, Time said that Fisher had certain panels of Li’l
Abner enlarged and reprinted, then, circling selected graphic details in
red, he distributed them to the editors of newspapers carrying the strip.
Alleging that the highlighted details were subliminal pornography designed to
undermine the youth of the nation, he urged editors to drop Capp’s strip (77).
Capp’s
article in the Atlantic Monthly and Fisher’s smear campaign brought
matters to a head. The feud had become too public. It was unseemly and
disgraceful that the creators of two of the most popular comic strips in the
country should be so viciously tearing away at each other. Their respective
syndicates, fearing they’d lose papers as a result of the fight, called for a
truce, and a peace treaty was negotiated by proxies in August 1950. Unhappily,
the story did not end then.
Chapter
Six
A FEW MONTHS
LATER, blow-ups of Li’l Abner panels taken from their reprinted version
in comic books, were submitted anonymously to the New York State Joint
Legislative Committee for the Study of the Publication of Comics, a body
charged with determining whether or not comics should be censored. The
Committee’s subsequent report included the Abner artwork. In several
panels, the prominent nose of one citizen of Dogpatch had been extended to
approximate the shape of a penis, and when he encounters a pretty girl, his
nose stiffens. In one panel, another Dogpatcher and a female character are
shown in a position approximating copulation. Written in the margin of this
drawing was this proclamation: “This insane, perverted pornography is from Li’l
Abner, yes!!! This is what Al Capp has perpetrated for 15 years on
unsuspecting editors of American newspapers!!!”
This
was the incident that would seal poor Fisher’s fate.
It
was assumed immediately that Fisher had given the pictures to the Joint
Committee: they were, after all, of the same ilk as those he had been
circulating to newspaper editors. A good deal of lore has accumulated about
this episode in the history of the profession. The biggest pile
of it is
heaped up around the “doctored” drawings. It was claimed that they could not
have been Capp’s work. Indeed, Fisher’s evidence itself seems to render his
argument outlandish. The drawings are so blatantly suggestive as to trumpet
their sexual double entendre: none of them, it must be supposed, could
have slipped by an “unsuspecting” editor into print. Clearly, the drawings in
possession of the Joint Committee were not Capp’s. Clearly, the panels from the
initial
newspaper appearance of Li’l Abner had been tampered with on their way
to their comic book reincarnation in evidence before the Joint Committee. Or so
it would seem to any reasonable observer.
But
whether the drawings were Capp’s or not, placing them before the Joint
Committee created a crisis. Given the temper of the times (the McCarthy era
had just dawned) and the growing criticism of the comic books (as being a cause
of the post-war wave of juvenile delinquency that was sweeping the country) and
the task assigned to the Joint Committee on Comics (to decide whether to censor
comics), the situation was suddenly grave in the extreme. It was no longer a
simple matter of someone’s having attacked Al Capp: this act of intemperate
zealotry could result in the restriction of creative freedom for an entire
profession.
Alex
Raymond, who was then President of the Cartoonists Society, appeared before the
Joint Committee and defended Capp, believing that the pornographic aspects of
the strips could not have been Capp’s work. Several years later, on January 6,
1955, Raymond would write to Capp about this incident, saying:
I
am convinced, after seeing the photostats reproduced in the Report of the Joint
Committee compared with the original drawings of Li’l Abner from which
the photostats were made, that someone distorted, cropped, faked, wrongfully
emphasized and twisted your material during the process of reproduction to make
it appear pornographic. Such machinations could cause the work of any
contemporary artist to appear erotic.
Back in June
1951, Raymond had summoned Fisher to appear before the Board of Governors of
NCS for questioning. Weiss said he talked to Raymond beforehand. “Raymond
said, ‘Look, if he just comes and apologizes and says he did it, that’s all I
want. I don’t want to have him thrown out of the Society.’ That’s what he
told me at the time. And then of course, I told Ham: ‘You’re going to come
down with me, and you’ll do this.’”
But
when Fisher appeared, he vehemently denied having anything to do with the
pornographic Li’l Abner panels. “I don’t think he ever admitted having
doctored them,” Weiss told me.
Although
the Joint Committee proposed legislation intended to impose “prepublication
review” on the comic book industry, none of the measures made it into law: in
the spring of 1952, Governor Thomas E. Dewey vetoed the proposals as
unconstitutional. But the potential for tragedy lingered on, even though
Fisher and Capp now curbed their animosities.
Then
in the fall of 1954, the affair erupted anew. A Boston communications company
in which Capp had a small interest (reportedly less than 2%) applied to the
Federal Communications Commission for a license to operate a television
station. Reviewing the ensuing events in a February 26, 1955 article, Editor
& Publisher reported that when the FCC held a hearing on the
application, the 1951 report of the New York State Joint Committee Studying the
Comics was anonymously introduced. The report, which contained the alleged
pornographic drawings from Li’l Abner, was clearly intended to discredit
the applicant’s fitness to operate a tv station because of Capp’s participation
(13).
Capp
denied that he had drawn the offending pictures, but he was nonetheless forced
to withdraw his interest in the Massachusetts Bay Telecasters, Inc., in order
to expedite the
proceedings
and to ensure the firm’s success in obtaining a license. Then Capp appealed
again to the Cartoonists Society to do something about Fisher.
The
matter was referred to the Ethics Committee, then chaired by Milton Caniff.
Caniff’s friendship with Capp was deeply rooted in their fellowship during long
evenings together in the AP bullpen. When Caniff saw the panels purporting to
be from Li’l Abner, he wrote to Capp in high dudgeon on December 4, 1954
(a letter Raymond had clearly seen when, a month later, he wrote his; see
above):
Dear
Al:
I
was amazed yesterday when I had my first look at the photostats reproduced in
the Report on the New York State Joint Legislative Committee to Study the
Publication of the Comics (1951) placed beside the original drawings of Li’l
Abner which the stats purported to represent.
There
has been such obvious distortion, contraction and withdrawing from context that
someone (clearly not connected with the Committee) has altered the material in
an effort to cause mischief or worse.
Any
cartoon strip can be done unto the way yours has been. Enough twisting,
turning, photostating in black and white from color printing and the like
machinations could reduce the work of any contemporary artist to what could
seem a parade of eroticism.
In
my opinion, this emasculation of your work hurts our entire profession and the
client newspapers which publish our product.
In due
course, the Ethics Committee voted to call Fisher to account for his conduct.
Although there was no hard evidence to link Fisher to the alleged forgeries,
the cartoonists decided after examining the drawings that Fisher had indeed
been the person who had circulated them. Weiss said it was Fisher’s
handwritten comments in the borders of the pictures that gave him away: “They
saw that this was Ham’s handwriting.” Moreover, all the other surrounding
circumstances led to a conclusion that Fisher had in fact done the dirty
deed—the long-running feud, Fisher’s almost irrational animosity towards Capp,
the episode of the annotated Li’l Abner strips that were circulated to
editors a few years before, Fisher’s preoccupation with the alleged pornography
in Capp’s work.
On
January 24, 1955, Fisher was summoned to a special meeting of the Society’s
Board of Governors to hear the charges presented by the Ethics Committee. The
Committee charged Fisher with doctoring the drawings and circulating the
forgeries to discredit Capp—acts which had the effect of endangering the
creative well-being of every other cartoonist. In submitting the drawings to
the New York State Joint Committee on the Comics, Fisher had subjected the profession
undeservedly to scrutiny by a body that was actively considering measures that
would restrict every cartoonist’s freedom to express himself in his work.
Fisher’s conduct, the Ethics Committee concluded, was “in violation of the
entire spirit of the Society and the purposes for which it was established,”
reflected “discredit upon the Society and the entire profession of cartooning,”
and was “unbecoming a member of the Society.”
Fisher,
who had come with counsel, took the advice of his lawyer: he said absolutely
nothing as the charges were presented. Finally, Fisher’s lawyer said that
they’d have to see the
charges in
writing before attempting to answer them. He and Fisher left, and the meeting
broke up.
A
letter setting forth the charges was composed forthwith. (It appears in the
Cappendix). Fisher was accused of conducting himself in a manner that
reflected discredit upon the Society by lying to the Board of Governors in June
1951, by circulating forged material, and by attempting to destroy the reputation
of a fellow cartoonist, all of which risked governmental control of the
profession. Fisher was ordered to appear to defend himself on February 1. On
that date, Fisher asked for a postponement, saying he was ill. But when he
failed to appear at the rescheduled meeting, the Society acted on the basis of
the Ethics Committee’s findings. On February 9, 1955, NCS President Walt Kelly
wrote Fisher with the news :
We
have the unhappy duty to inform you that after due deliberation, the Board of
Governors of the National Cartoonists Society has unanimously ruled that you
are suspended from membership for conduct unbecoming a member. This suspension
will remain in effect until such time as you appear to offer evidence which may
change our minds. You have been given three opportunities and many hours of
hearings to justify yourself. We are sorry that you have failed to do so.
Regretfully,
The
Board of Governors
Unhappily,
the news of Fisher’s suspension was leaked (probably by Capp) to Editor
& Publisher, which announced it in its February 26 issue, quoting from
a letter Fisher had fired off in his own defense. He protested the “unseemly
haste” of the Society’s action, saying that he was not given a chance to defend
himself. “The Board of Governors ignored my request for a postponement of its
hearing. At the time, I was seriously ill, under doctors’ care” (13).
He
fulminated against Capp, defending the authenticity of the drawings that
established Capp as a pornographer and charging that his suspension was “part
of a scheme to whitewash Al Capp in behalf of his tv venture.” He claimed that
it was “unmistakable” that the accusations against him were “completely
fraudulent,” and he said that he had “new material which has just become
available” that would vindicate him. He was confident, he concluded, that in
the light of this new evidence, the Society would “reconsider its hasty and
intemperate action.”
Fisher
would never produce the new evidence. Perhaps there was no new evidence.
Perhaps he intended to introduce an article that had run in Confidential magazine
over a year before. In the November 1953 issue, Brad Shortell had written a
cover story about “The Secret Sex Life of Li’l Abner” in which Capp’s “droll
incursions into ruttishness” were described and illustrated with materials
obtained from the Joint Committee’s 1951 report (12-15). Relying also upon
Kahn’s two-part Profile of Capp in The New Yorker (November 29 and
December 6, 1947), Shortell claimed that Capp drew some of his strips for a
“secret audience,” introducing into the panels images that verged upon the
subliminal but that could be deciphered by Capp’s “inner circle,” which saw in
the pictures the sexual allusions Capp intended.
In
the first part of his Profile, Kahn had described three audiences for Li’l
Abner “corresponding to the three levels upon which [the strip] is
constructed.” The first level is simple narrative; readers in this audience
enjoy the story. The second level is satirical; readers delight in seeing Capp
skewer social ills and political posturing.
The
third level, sometimes of microscopic dimensions, consists of bits of
Rabelaisian humor, often so adroitly covered up that, like rare archeological
treasures, they are less likely to be spotted by children at play than by
people who set out looking for them. These mischievous escapades in print
amuse Capp more than anything else about his work, and the thought that few of
his readers share this enjoyment with him depresses him. If, however, he were
to make these touches more obvious, it is possible that his strip might be
banned not only in Boston but in Springfield, Charlotte, and San Antonio as
well (47).
While
testifying during the FCC hearings, Capp had been asked about the “bits of
Rabelaisian humor” that he had allegedly insinuated into his comic strip. In Time’s report on the hearings (February 14, 1955), Capp was “unruffled”: he said that
both he and Kahn “were professional ‘humorists’ who used ‘exaggerated humor.
The method of The New Yorker,’ he added, ‘is different from other
magazines. Mr. Kahn simply listens; he does not take notes.’” Questioned on the
matter, Kahn snapped: “Of course I took notes, and I still have them”
(clipping, n.p.), implying that Capp was fudging. For his part, Capp vehemently
insisted that the pictures of “semi-hidden pornography” were forgeries.
In
the aftermath of his explosion in Editor & Publisher, Fisher didn’t
produce the Confidential article. He didn’t unearth the Kahn’s New
Yorker Profile. Nor did he find a transcript of the FCC hearing. He didn’t
produce anything in his defense. That Fisher could have defended himself at
least against the charge of doctoring Capp’s work is entirely possible.
Assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, it is highly probable—indeed,
likely to the point of certainty—that the so-called pornographic panels from Li’l Abner are, as Fisher claimed, Capp’s work. Certainly most of them
are. With the reprint volumes from Kitchen Sink Press at hand, I compared
panels reproduced in the Joint Committee’s report with the panels in the strips
as they had been first published (see Cappendix). Wherever I found corresponding
panels, they were identical. Clearly, Capp had drawn them.
I
didn’t find corresponding panels for everything in the report. A few of the
panels are probably from Sunday strips. The Kitchen Sink Press volumes do not
include Sundays, so without a convenient way of discovering the “originals” of
those panels, I could not compare the two. But it doesn’t matter: I found the
originally published versions of most of the dubious pictures, and those that
remain are in the same style and manner. Even if these had been tampered with,
none of the others had not been. Fisher had evidence enough to support his
accusations without having to forge any.
In
their Capp biography, Schumacher and Kitchen agree that Capp drew the offending
pictures albeit their assertion is considerably more circumspect than mine:
“For discerning readers, including Fisher, Capp’s frequent visual and verbal double
entendres were indisputable, but they were always clever enough to be
ambiguous and thus fly below the radar of the vast majority of unassuming
readers” (177). In support of this view, they reprint a couple of the tamer
specimens, both of which I’ve included in the Cappendix.
The
Ethics Committee almost certainly did not make the kind of comparison I did. By
the time it met to consider the case, the strips at issue were not readily
available for comparison
purposes: it
had been five-to-nine years since they had been published in newspapers, and
there was no ready access to strips that had been published so long ago.
Besides, making such a comparison would have been pointless: most of the
cartoonists doubtless recognized in the visual contrivances of the strips in
question a kind of prankster spirit on the loose. They would scarcely be blind
to what Capp was doing. Kahn wasn’t. And what Capp was doing—out there in the
open—was hardly a secret. Not after Confidential. Not after The New
Yorker Profile.
A
few years ago, I talked with Beetle Bailey’s Mort Walker, who was on the
Ethics Committee at the time of this incident. He confirmed my view that the
Capp drawings had not been doctored—not in the usual sense. Fisher did not do
his tampering with a pencil or pen; he did it with a pair of scissors. What he
did, and it is readily apparent in a comparison of the strip’s published panels
to those supplied to the Joint Committee, was to crop the panels in ways that
focused attention on the lascivious parts of the drawings. The way Figure P in
the Cappendix is cropped, for example, makes it appear that the woman is
straddling the man in a posture of sexual intercourse. In many instances,
Fisher did no cropping at all: isolating the panel was itself enough to draw
attention to a nose that looked like a penis or a keychain (Figure H) that
seemed to outline a penis. Fisher was undoubtedly innocent of any actual
drawing; but Capp wasn’t.
Writing
in The Comics Journal no. 147 (December 1991), comics scholar Martin
Williams described in some detail the imagery with which Capp had infested his
strip. Saying Capp was indulging “an obsession with what might be called visual
double entendres,” Williams cited his evidence:
There
were knotholes in his trees. By 1940 they were becoming more and more prevalent
and more and more vaginal. Then there were abundant penis shapes. Once
Available Jones and his erect dicknose had made its appearance, Capp seemed to
go all out. Jones’ clef chin could be a scrotum from certain angles, and Capp
became more and more fond of clef chins. He even gave occasional dicknoses to
some of the more aggressive female characters, particularly around Sadie
Hawkins Day.
Then
there were the occasional droopydong noses of some of his aged males. And I
have said nothing about the rectal mouths of Jeeter Blugg and his daughter,
which go all the way back to 1938. Or the many, many times the number 69 came
up in Li’l Abner. In my generation, all of us teenage boys knew what was
going on at the time, and so did some of our girlfriends.
No,
I didn’t say “phallic symbols.” These were phalluses, penises—dicks. The
simplest Indian peasant woman, psychologist Carl Jung once remarked, knows the
difference between a penis and a phallic symbol (even if Freud did not) (76).
But none of
Capp’s playful porn was any longer at issue. By the time the Ethics Committee
was deliberating in early 1955, the question of forgery was scarcely
paramount. The important question was whether or not Fisher had circulated the
strips, drawing attention to their salacious content. And his handwriting on
the margins of the strips established to the Committee’s satisfaction that he
had, indeed, distributed the incriminating material. In so doing, Fisher had
delivered his colleagues into the hands of their enemies, the censorship forces
then converging upon cartooning.
Fredric
Wertham’s indictment of the comic book industry, Seduction of the Innocent,
had been published the previous winter. An early missionary effort at
indicting mass entertainment media as the source of most social ills, this
incendiary diatribe claimed that reading comic books seduced young people into
imitating the criminal behavior often depicted in the four-color pulp
narratives, thus making comic books responsible for juvenile delinquency. In
April 1954, the U.S. Senate Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency
held hearings in New York to take testimony about the possible evil influence
of comic books.
While
the government eventually undertook no action against the comic book industry,
the publishers themselves did. In September 1954, they formed the Comics
Magazine Association of America, a watch-dog operation charged with seeing that
its member publishers followed a code to which they all voluntarily
subscribed. In addition to prohibiting such obvious affronts as using
profanity in comic books, the Code forbade pictures of scantily clad women,
excessive violence, anti-social behavior of all kinds, and even the use of the
words “crime” and “horror” in comic book titles.
In
this climate, syndicated newspaper cartoonists could be forgiven a certain
measure of paranoia about their future. All of them already endured two levels
of “prepublication review” for editorial approval with everything they
did—first from their syndicate editors and then from the client newspaper
editors—and they were understandably anxious about what additional restrictions
might be imposed upon their creative efforts. In defending Capp by saying that
the sexual content in his drawings was the work of a forger, Caniff and Raymond
were defending themselves and their colleagues from the threat of additional “prepublication
review,” a much larger issue than Capp’s perpetrating risque pranks. As
representatives of their profession—and of the NCS—they would be expected to do
no less, however much it may have strained their ethics.
Did
they lie to protect their colleagues? At first blush, it would seem so. But
careful inspection of their letters absolves them of that sin. Almost. The
language of Caniff’s letter, which Raymond pretty obviously copied in his, is
carefully contrived to be both condemnatory and accurate: he writes about
distorting, contracting, and “withdrawing from context,” which is exactly what
Fisher did. And Raymond, using some of the same expressions, added a few of his
own, saying the Capp drawings had been “cropped, faked, wrongfully emphasized
and twisted” to make them appear pornographic. In saying some of the pictures
had been “faked,” Raymond may be crossing the line (although I suppose
something could be “faked” without being “forged,” somehow), but neither Caniff
nor Raymond asserted unequivocally that Fisher had redrawn or doctored the
actual drawings. Not in so many words. A quibble of sophistry, no doubt; they
came close enough to cast the necessary aspersions on Fisher. And their
implications, without being outright falsehoods, effectively tainted Fisher’s
reputation in the history of the medium. Despicably, Fisher had tried to
destroy Capp’s professional standing and his livelihood; but he didn’t forge Li’l
Abner drawings to do it.
Fisher’s
effort to smear Capp amounted to a betrayal of his profession, and it was more
for that than for the alleged forgeries that he was condemned and cast out of
the Society. Considering that feeling among the cartoonists ran relentlessly
against Fisher as a personality, the Society had been remarkably restrained in
merely suspending him—and in giving him an indefinite period in which to
respond and reclaim his standing in the membership. Whether
Fisher could
eventually have done something to redeem himself is moot. At the end of the
year, he was dead. By his own hand.
Weiss
found the body.
Anyone
with any psychological acumen might have seen it coming. In spite of his brave
words, Fisher was devastated by the suspension. He had been publicly
humiliated. He could no longer go about in society among the celebrities whose
company was so vital to his sense of well-being. He disappeared from New
York’s cafe society. He stayed to himself. He brooded.
Weiss
recalled this period when we talked: “What happened was, he was coming over to
the house to spend time with me—regularly—to tell me all his problems as well
as his troubles because I think, most of the people didn’t want to listen to
that anymore. We had a couple of kids, and I was doing the drawing, and he’d
come over. And Blanche said to him one time, ‘Look, Ham, you’ve got to let
Morris work.’ So that was it. Later, my neighbor across the street said he
saw Ham’s Cadillac driving by. And later Ham said to me, ‘You know, I used to
drive by your house and say, My friend lives there.’ So he had become a martyr
now in the last part of his life.”
Weiss
felt that the ouster from NCS was extreme. “There were highly regarded
cartoonists then—like Bob Dunn, Ernie Bushmiller and so many of them—Otto
Soglow—who wanted no part of Ham being expelled,” he told me. “They felt it
was a feud between Ham and Capp and it should rest at that. And Capp was no
knight in shining armor. But the Board of Governors made the decision; they
decided to expel him. That I thought was pretty crumby. They should have
consulted other people—Russell Patterson, Bushmiller, Dunn, and others who were
very active in the Society—before taking such a drastic measure against a
famous cartoonist. They could have said, ‘Look, if he broke the law and Capp
wants to sue him, let him sue him. See if he wins.’ But Capp never sued him.”
Weiss
related the sad final sequence of events to New York Daily News writer
Jay Maeder, who rehearsed it in Hogan’s Alley no. 8 (Fall 2000). Fisher
visited Weiss at his New Jersey home the Friday before Christmas in 1955,
distraught as usual. He often phoned Weiss, begging him “to drop everything and
immediately join him for dinner because he was terrified to be alone with
himself,” Maeder wrote (89). Weiss was a patient listener most of the time, and
Fisher needed someone to pour out his troubles to.
Soon
enough over coffee and cake Fisher lapsed into the old familiar self-pity,
wailing again that his new young wife is leaving him, that his studio assistant
Moe Leff is openly sneering at him, plotting against him, making him crazy ...
and ... and ... oh, God, Weiss has heard it all before so many times.
As he left
Weiss’s home, Fisher pleaded: “Please come to work for me,” he said.
“No,”
Weiss said. But he knew that wouldn’t be the end of it.
Fisher
phoned three days later, on Monday after Christmas. Again, he begged Weiss to
come and work for him. But Weiss’s drawingboard was piled with satisfying
bread-and-butter jobs, and he had no time for another of Fisher’s self-pitying
tirades.
“Help
me,” Fisher entreats Weiss.
“No,”
Weiss says firmly.
Fisher
is blubbering now.
“Look,
I can get you an artist,” Weiss snaps. “But do something. Fire Moe, get a
divorce, give up the strip, sell it. Ham, I don’t want to hear anything else
from you until you do something concrete.”
After
all these years, Morris Weiss is at last at the end of his rope.
“Do
something!” he shouts into the phone.
“Help
me,” Fisher begs.
“Help
yourself,” Weiss says.
There
is a moment of silence.
“I
will,” Fisher whispers. “I will tomorrow. God love you,” he finishes, and the
line goes dead (89).
The next
day—on the afternoon of December 27—Weiss received a phone call from Fisher’s
young wife, Marilyn (nee Franklin). Married to Fisher only a year, she was
alarmed because she couldn’t raise her husband at the studio. She called Weiss
several times that afternoon. Finally, Weiss sighed and set out for Manhattan.
He went to Moe Leff’s studio. Fisher had been using the studio while Leff was
out-of-town. Persuading a janitor to let him in, Weiss saw Fisher prone on the
daybed, an empty bottle of pills nearby. Fisher was dead. In two notes Weiss
found near the body, Fisher had written that he was despondent about his health
(he had diabetes and his eyesight was beginning to fail) and that he intended
to take an overdose of some pills he had been using. “God will forgive me,” he
wrote, “for I have provided for my family.” (Chiefly, in addition to Marilyn,
his daughter, Wendy, the product of his first marriage to Carolyn Graham.)
Weiss
cursed softly and phoned the Daily Mirror, the New York newspaper that
had carried Joe Palooka from the beginning. He felt Fisher would want
his flagship client to get the news first. Then he phoned the police. Then he
phoned his wife to say he’d be late getting back home. And finally, he phoned
Marilyn.
As
soon as Milton Caniff heard the news of Fisher’s suicide, he thought of Capp.
“I called his house in Boston,” he told me. “His kids were still at home then,
and his daughter answered the phone. Al was out. And she said, ‘Any
message?’ So I said, ‘Ham Fisher is
dead.’ And
she said, ‘Who did it?’ Didn’t ask how he died—she said, ‘Who did it?’ He was
that cordially disliked.”
And
Capp was no prince either. Maeder describes a bizarre incident in the
aftermath. Lee Falk, who wrote The Phantom and Mandrake the Magician,
told Maeder that he ran into Capp at the bar in Sardi’s shortly after Fisher’s
funeral.
The
two comics men talked shop for a while, and eventually the conversation turned
to the recent sorry demise of the man who had created Joe Palooka.
Capp
laughed the harsh laugh of the victor. “Ennobled it,” he said. “He has
ennobled our feud.”
Capp
turned to address the entire room. “He ennobled it,” he brayed. “It is a
noble thing he did.”
Falk
stared into his glass. My God, he said to himself—the man thinks
this is Tristan and Isolde.
Chapter
Seven
BUT CAPP WAS
NOT FINISHED. In the fall of 1956, eight months after Fisher’s suicide, Al Capp
took up the question that the Fisher episode had left hanging over his head. He
wrote to Caniff, who was still chair of the Ethics Committee:
Coming
back from Alex Raymond’s funeral the other day [Raymond died September 6,
1956], I thought that most of us, as he did, leave so many questions in our
lives unresolved from day to day, never knowing when the last day will come,
and the chance forever gone.
Fisher’s
suicide left the most important issue of my career unresolved. It prevented the
National Cartoonists Society from performing its final honorable act—the
expulsion of that poor criminal for the criminal forgeries of my work, an act
that brought dishonor for a while on my career (and on all of us, actually).
With
the FCC business ended and Fisher gone, the final act of the Society—to say
plainly what its findings were and to say plainly that the stigma attached to
my work by one of its members was a crime against the Society and against
me—has one value and that is that my kids, and my grandchildren, will know that
I was an honorable man and no discredit to my profession.
Can
I ask you, as a member of the Board, to propose that a final finding be written
on this matter. It means a lot to me, as every one of you will understand
(undated copy of letter).
Caniff
promised to bring the matter to the Board: “I will be glad to propose that a
final finding be written on this matter and do all I can to bring it about,” he
wrote Capp on September 19, 1956. Caniff approached Walt Kelly, still NCS
president, and Kelly consulted the Board, which decided that Kelly should
respond by saying that the Board considered the matter closed and would take no
further action on the issue.
Capp
moved on.
Not
content with the outlet Li’l Abner afforded him, Capp had branched out
into other venues all through his career. In 1937, he had launched another
comic strip, a somewhat more serious narrative about a crusty old spinster and
her manly nephew called Abbie and Slats, which he wrote and Raeburn Van
Buren drew; after nine years, Capp’s brother Elliott took over the
scripting,
continuing until the strip ceased in 1971. And in 1954, Capp started writing
yet another strip, Long Sam, starring a female version of Li’l Abner;
drawn by Bob Lubbers, it ran until 1962.
Capp’s
creations ventured beyond newsprint, too. An RKO movie adaptation, “Li’l
Abner,” had appeared in 1940, but Li’l Abner was a bigger success on stage in
live theater with a Broadway musical that ran for 693 performances, starting in
November 1956; it was turned into a motion picture at Paramount in 1959. And
there was an amusement park, Dogpatch U.S.A., and a fast-food chain.
A
master at creating publicity about himself and his strip, Capp enjoyed a second
albeit simultaneous career as an after-dinner speaker and newspaper columnist,
leaving most of the drawing on the strip to his assistants while he
concentrated on writing the scripts. Capp was also a frequent guest on radio
and television talk shows, regaling his audiences with his analyses of
contemporary
events, outrageous commentaries which he punctuated with his characteristic
jubilant hoots of self-appreciative laughter.
In
the 1960s, his target was often student protest against the Vietnam War: in the
strip, college youths were all members of S.W.I.N.E., “Students Wildly
Indignant about Nearly Everything.” Touring college campuses as a speaker, Capp
was on a crusade against what he saw as morally bankrupt youth. He seemingly
delighted at the outrage he provoked among the students in his audience with
such pronouncements as:
“Colleges
today are filled with Fagin professors who don’t teach; they just corrupt.”
“President
Nixon showed angelic restraint when he called college students bums.”
“Princeton,”
he told the student body at Princeton, “has sunk to a moral level that a
chimpanzee can live with, but only a chimpanzee. It has become a combination
playpen and pigpen because it disregards the inferiority of the college student
to every other class.”
Capp
was having great fun, but he was roundly criticized by his traditional
constituency of liberals for the unyielding rigor of his attacks on the New
Left. It was assumed that Capp had defected and gone over to the Right. But
Capp’s objective as a satirist remained constant: the fanaticism of the New
Left was no less a human folly in his eyes than the rigidity of the Old Right
in seeking to preserve the venerated conventions of its social order. Capp
took folly where he found it and unceremoniously ripped the veils of
self-righteousness away, roaring with Rabelaisian laughter all the while.
“The
strip was about the way the powerful use power—and abuse the powerless,” Capp
told William Furlong (148). “The possession of power must never be accepted as
deserved or unarguable,” he continued, “—you must always remain skeptical.”And
in the 1960s, the power changed hands, passing from the establishment to the
shriekingly vocal anti-establishment. So Capp changed targets, telling Rick
Marschall:
“My
politics didn’t change. I’ve always been for those who are being shamed,
disgraced, and ignored by other people,” Capp said. “Now it’s the poor bastard
who works who is being denounced by the liberals. For chrissakes, these working
stiffs are keeping the country afloat. They were denounced, and it got me damn
mad” (15).
On
another occasion, Capp said: “A satirist has only one gift: he sees where the
fraud and fakery are. I turned around and let the other side have it.”
In
a letter to Time published in the April 18, 1969 issue, Capp said: “The
students I blast are not the dissenters but the destroyers—the less than 4% who
lock up deans in washrooms, who burn manuscripts of unpublished books, who make
combination pigpens and playpens of their universities. The remaining 96%
detest them as heartily as I do.”
As
Capp saw the New “Student” Left—the 4%—they were making a cult of their
dissatisfaction, Furlong said, quoting Capp:
“There’s
an ugliness in American life today—you see it in the way some of the kids
dress, the way some of them act. Somehow in the effort to atone for the ghetto,
they’ve turned the whole world into a ghetto. I think this generation has made
everything as ugly as the ghettos I lived in—not out of sympathy but as a form
of punishment.”
He
suggests that the cultists preach love but act out hate—that they “are using
the people trapped in the ghetto to build hate for other people. They’re
telling us, they’re telling them, ‘Hate and despise your neighbor and you’ll
elevate yourself.’ But I grew up in a ghetto, a poorer one than most of these
kids have ever seen, and I know the people in the ghetto aren’t as much
interested in hating those who live better lives as in joining them” (149).
And Capp did
more than rail at these malcontents, Furlong says: he used some of the money he
got from lecturing on campuses to send ghetto kids to college—as he had his own
brothers.
Then
in April 1971, the merry-go-round stopped. On the campus of the University of
Wisconsin - Eau Claire, a young married co-ed blew the whistle on Capp,
accusing him of sexually assaulting to her in his motel room. The co-ed’s story
was that she’d gone to Capp’s room at his request to talk with him about the
political climate on campus as preparation for his talk. Then he exposed
himself to her, made suggestive comments and attacked her. Caniff believed that
the co-ed and her radical friends had set a trap for Capp, hoping to disgrace
the despised but articulate foe of the New Student Left.
That
may have been the case in Eau Claire, but after that incident, others surfaced.
In 1968, Capp had been asked to leave town by University of Alabama officials,
acting on the complaints of four co-eds. By 1971, the cartoonist was under
investigation on similar charges at other colleges.
Although
out of loyalty and friendship, Caniff contended that Capp had been the victim
in the incident, at the very same time, he strongly suspected that Capp was
guilty as charged. His mistake, Caniff believed, had been in approaching
“amateurs.”
“Al
was down in New York every week and sometimes for weeks at a time, having his
fun,” he told me. “He had some good lookin’ broads, believe me. They all
flocked to him, thinking that he could do them some good in their careers. He
seldom got caught because he didn’t have anything to do with amateurs: the
women he squired around town here were obviously gals on the make—showgirl
types, gals who wanted to be seen with celebrities. The old badger game he fell
into in Wisconsin could have happened only in a place like Wisconsin—not around
New York City.”
As
soon as he heard of the Wisconsin co-ed’s charges, Caniff fired off a telegram
to his old friend. Just four words: “Who do we slug?”
“It
was just what he needed,” Caniff remembered. “He wrote me a long letter about
that little telegram, about the impact the incident had on him and everybody
around him. It rocked him much more so than he ever would have admitted. Al had
a strangely naive attitude about himself: he thought he could come down here to
New York and play around with these babes and no one would say anything. Once
when a gossip column mentioned his being seen with Miss Hootenanny or some
such, he was shocked. He thought the ‘boys’ would protect him. He thought the
Winchells and all the others would—out of professional courtesy—not mention
anything. But those guys would turn on their own mothers. So it got to be
sticky: Catherine also read the papers. Everyone just kind of avoided the
subject.”
But
there was no avoiding the fallout from Eau Claire. Syndicated columnist Jack
Anderson published a column on April 22, about three weeks after the Eau Claire
affair, that detailed the episode at the University of Alabama. Writing later
about Capp’s campus peccadilloes in his book Inside Story, Brit Hume
said he did all the legwork on the Anderson piece not knowing about the
Wisconsin incident. A conservative of the religious right persuasion, Hume was
enraged by Capp’s reported conduct in Alabama. He also recognized the
deliciously scandalous irony in the situation: all the time Capp was rampaging
against the lax morality of the Student Left, he was “a goddam sex criminal,”
attempting rape (75). Hume was gratified that the April 22 column persuaded the
Eau Claire co-ed that she was not alone, so she pressed charges.
The
Eau Claire district attorney charged Capp with indecent exposure, attempted
adultery and attempted sodomy (oral sex). Formal charges of indecent exposure
and attempted sodomy were subsequently dropped when Capp agreed to plead guilty
to attempted adultery. The D.A. subsequently amended Capp’s guilty plea to nolo
contendre (no contest) when Capp said that he would end his lecture tours
and never again appear on a college campus.
Eventually,
it emerged that Capp’s behavior in Eau Claire and Tuscaloosa was typical of him
rather than unusual. Hume reports getting several letters and phone calls from
young women who had experienced Capp’s crude advances as early as 1967. In the
January 1985 issue of Playboy, Goldie Hawn told about Capp’s
propositioning her in his hotel room in New York when she was an unknown
actress looking for a career.
Newspapers
began canceling Li’l Abner, and Capp was no longer invited to appear on
tv talk shows. Capp was also ill, suffering from emphysema, which was getting
worse as he continued his daily cigarette consumption. “I enjoy smoking more
than breathing,” he quipped to Marschall (11). By the fall of 1977, he knew he
was no longer up to the task for doing a daily comic strip. And he knew the
quality of Li’l Abner had slipped.
“If
you have any sense of humor about your strip,” he said, quoted in Time’s obituary,
“and I had a sense of humor about Abner, you knew that for three or four
years Abner was wrong. Oh, hell—it’s like a fighter retiring. I stayed
on longer than I should have.”
He
toyed, briefly, with the idea of passing his burlesque bumpkin on to another, younger,
cartoonist. “I thought about ghosts,” he said to Marschall, “but I said—screw
it: I’m not going to give Abner to some kid to change. Let him do his
own stuff while we bury Abner honorably” (15).
He
discontinued the strip that fall: the dailies with the November 5 release;
Sundays, a week later on November 13. Li’l Abner was then being
published in fewer than 400 newspapers, less than half its peak circulation
“It
would have been nice,” Capp said, with a sentimental flourish, “to include a
final note on the last strip: on Monday, this space will be occupied by a fresh
new cartoonist.”
Exactly
two years later, on November 5, 1979, Capp died after a long illness
complicated by emphysema. It was sad, Caniff said; but he and his wife Bunny
had also felt a sense of relief, he told me: the ordeal for Capp’s wife
Catherine was now over.
Chapter
Eight
BUT IT WAS
FISHER’S REPUTATION THAT WAS OBLITERATED. It is still bruited about among
cartoonists, for instance, that he couldn’t draw. And I’ve seen evidence to
the contrary—including photographs of him doing chalktalks at which it would be
impossible to fake drawing ability.
Even
if my bald-faced assertion is suspect—since I didn’t actually see Fisher draw
the pictures attributed to him—the logic of the contention that he couldn’t
draw is internally flawed. And the flaws reveal the falsity of the
allegation. If he couldn’t draw, how could his colleagues determine he had doctored
the panels from Li’l Abner? And if he couldn’t draw, the anecdote about
the beautiful blonde wanting his autograph and being disappointed when she
realized he wasn’t Al Capp is a fabrication: a key aspect of the story is
Fisher drawing a picture of Joe Palooka right there, on the spot.
But
Fisher simply disappeared, faded into the dimly recalled corridors of
cartooning lore, his achievements becoming faint as they retreated into the
darkening distant hallways of the past until, like Lewis Carroll’s famous
grinning cat, only a shadow remains behind, albeit a substantial shadow—a
ten-ton statue of Joe Palooka in Bedford, Indiana, carved in 1948 as part of
the Indiana Limestone Centennial—but a completely irrelevant remnant.
No
one decided to deny Ham Fisher a place in the history of cartooning. The
profession’s odd silence on the subject is not the result of deliberation and
design. It is instead an accident, an unforeseen constellation of
circumstances, a happenstance of personality and event, which, invested with
pride and ego and jealousy and vaulting aspiration, turned ugly. The tragic
end of the Fisher-Capp feud could well promote vague feelings of shame and
guilt among those who stood by, feelings that were suppressed by keeping
silent. Fisher’s suicide was a blot on the escutcheon of the National
Cartoonists Society. And it is therefore understandable if many cartoonists
fell into the habit of not mentioning it. And by avoiding the subject of
Fisher’s death, the subject of his attainments is likewise shunted out of view.
And
while I’m delving into unconscious motivations, let me toy with one more
fanciful speculation. This time, on the matter of Fisher’s motives.
Fisher’s
behavior strikes me as more than a little extreme. Capp’s appropriation of
hillbilly characters for a comic strip doesn’t seem to me sufficient
provocation for Fisher’s subsequent actions—the tirades, the smear campaign.
Psychologically speaking, when someone’s behavior is excessive for the
provocation, it suggests that the presumed motivation is not, in fact, the real
reason for the reaction we see. And when this happens, it’s because the real
reason must not be consciously acknowledged. It must remain a secret, buried
in the subconsious.
And
exactly that, I think, is what lies beneath the famous feud.
Fisher
accused Capp of stealing his hillbilly idea, but there is virtually no
substantial similarity between Capp’s Yokums and the family of Big Leviticus in
Fisher’s strip. Both families are hillbillies, and both are, by sophisticated
big city standards, stupid; but there the resemblance ends. The Yokums are
absolutely good; Big Leviticus and his relatives are mean.
Fisher
could scarcely claim Li’l Abner is Big Leviticus.
We
could make the case that Big Leviticus and his family are reincarnated in Li’l
Abner as the infamously depraved Scragg family. But with the Scraggs, Capp
exceeded anything Fisher could have imagined. The Scraggs are absolutely
a-moral monsters, killing and maiming their way to their objectives, whatever
they may be. Big Leviticus was mean, an all-purpose bully; but he wasn’t
monstrous. Besides, Big Leviticus made only occasional appearances in Joe
Palooka; and likewise, the Scraggs in Li’l Abner. Neither Leviticus
nor the Scraggs were so conspicuous as to constitute the reason for either
strip’s success. Both sets of characters were, in fact, minor figures in the
casts of the two strips. In short, the Scraggs could not have been so constant
a reminder as to be an ever-present irritant to Fisher. And Fisher’s behavior
is that of a man constantly plagued with an annoyance that wouldn’t go away.
The
explanation for his behavior, it seems to me, is this: on the unconscious
level, Fisher didn’t believe Capp stole hillbillies from him; he believed Capp
stole Joe Palooka.
The
heroes of both comic strips are big strong hulks and a little slow witted. I
don’t mean that Joe Palooka was ever as stupid as Li’l Abner. But the early
Joe was so naive, so innocent of the world, that he seemed stupid. Like Li’l
Abner, Joe came from a small town environment in rural America. As in Capp’s
strip, some of Joe’s earliest predicaments were caused by his innocent
inability to understand the more sophisticated world in which he found
himself. (Palooka’s first fight is a perfect example of exactly this aspect of
his character.) Joe usually wins in these situations: his essential goodness
triumphs, an affirmation of virtue.
In
Li’l Abner, we have pure stupidity firmly ensconced in place of naive
innocence. But the flywheel of the strip’s dynamic is the same: stupidity and
innocence are interchangeable as plot devices. For all his stupidity, Li’l
Abner is as fundamentally good as Joe Palooka; in fact, Abner could be seen as
a parody of Palooka.
Capp’s
satire unquestionably ridiculed everything that Fisher believed in—the triumph
of virtue, goodness, purity, and wholesomeness. The good characters in Li’l
Abner do not so much win as they simply survive. Mammy Yokum is the
exception. When she becomes engaged, she wins. But the other Yokums are
perpetual victims. They are resilient rather than victorious. They are good
people, but they don’t survive by being virtuous as Joe Palooka does. They
survive because the forces opposing them destroy themselves with conflicting
venal motives.
The
lesson of Fisher’s strip is that virtue will prevail. The lesson of Capp’s
strip is that evil will prevail but that goodness will somehow survive. His
strip was the cynical response to Fisher’s strip. Li’l Abner was almost
a lampoon of Joe Palooka, as I said. But I don’t think Capp had gentle
Joe in mind as a specific target. The target of Capp’s parody is all of
misguided human kind, the people who believed in what Fisher believed in. No
wonder Fisher was so continually enraged by Capp.
So
why didn’t Fisher say that Capp stole Joe? Partly because on the conscious
level, Fisher didn’t fully comprehend what he perceived on the unconscious
level.
Partly
because asserting the theft would proclaim the parody, making Fisher’s
achievement overtly the butt of the joke. But there is more to it than that.
Eventually,
Joe Palooka got smarter. By the end of the 1930s, he was an inspirational
figure. He became more sophisticated. He lost his innocence. And in place of
innocence, Fisher substituted goodness, pure and simple.
If Fisher were to have claimed that
Capp copied Joe Palooka in creating Li’l Abner, he would have reminded everyone
that his Kindly Gracious Knight was once as naive as Li’l Abner was stupid. In
fact, to all intents and purposes, Fisher would have been confessing that Joe
Palooka was once a stupid hick. And that admission would have sullied the
image Fisher had so carefully constructed for his champion.
Consciously,
Fisher undoubtedly did not realize any of this. But on the unconscious level,
Fisher knew it with certainty. And rather than risk undermining Joe’s image,
Fisher shifted attention away from Joe and Li’l Abner to hillbillies in
general. But he could not divert the vehemence of his outrage at Capp’s having
stolen his hero in order to ridicule everything he believed in. And so the
accusation about the theft of the hillbilly motif became unconsciously invested
with psychic energy drawn from the real cause of Fisher’s anger, Capp’s parodic
ridicule of Joe Palooka’s triumphant goodness.
That
source of energy fueled Fisher’s rage until it became fuming hatred. And Fisher
could incorporate into his personal motivation a larger, social mission. To
the superpatriot Fisher, champion of traditional American values, Capp’s
satirical crusade (not to mention his subliminal sexual innuendoes) seemed bent
on corrupting conventional morality; Fisher had to stop it. And so, desperate,
he resorted to the smear tactics that eventually led to his ouster from NCS
and, perhaps, to his own death.
Fisher
had demonstrated jealousy about rival characters before, very early in the run
of Joe Palooka. Weiss told me of Fisher’s concern about Mickey Finn:
“When I started working with Lank Leonard in 1936, it was the same syndicate as Joe Palooka, and Ham was rather upset at the syndicate’s taking on
another character whose personality was similar to Palooka. Mickey Finn was a
nice Irish cop but very naive. Lank Leonard had to go in to get together in a
conference with Ham and Charlie McAdam to make sure where he was going with
Mickey Finn. Mickey Finn was going to be a wrestler at one time.”
Here
Fisher revealed a conscious concern with roots in the competitive nature of the
marketplace for comic strips; with Li’l Abner, if my speculation is
accurate, his preoccupation had a much more insidious origin.
There
was nothing furtive, however, about the attitudes of the two feuding
cartoonists towards their creations. Capp always spoke disparagingly about Li’l
Abner, habitually calling him a stupid lout. He seemed to have a very low
opinion of his protagonist. On the other hand, Fisher admired Joe Palooka. He
loved him. But Fisher had no friends.
--oo0oo–
CAPPENDIX
HERE ARE THE
IMAGES taken from the report of the New York State Legislative Joint Committee
on the Comics compared to the same panels as they appeared in the Kitchen Sink
reprints of Li’l Abner. The blurriest images are from the report; they
are blurred because the report copied in black-and-white panels from color
comics, not the best way to produce clear images. The clear images are
photocopied from the black-and-white Kitchen Sink reprint volumes, which
reproduce the strips as they were published in newspapers throughout the
country. Corresponding images are identified by letter, A through P. The object
of the comparison is to establish beyond doubt that the offensive images that
had been sent to the Joint Committee were the same as the images in the
published strips, images drawn by Capp or his assistants (with Capp’s approval,
surely). After the images comes the three-age letter detailing NCS’s charges
against Fisher.
CAPP - FISHER SCRAPBOOK
IN ADDITION
TO A COUPLE OF SCRAPS from the works of the two cartoonists, this scrapbook
offers autobiographical comic strips by each of the cartoonists and summaries
of the continuities of the two comic strips. First Fisher; then Capp.
Return to Harv's Hindsights
|