Talk:Michael Fleisher

The Spectre

There should probably be some mention of Fleisher's Spectre run; I just can't think of what to say about it. It's not great comics, but it's quite memorable in a Struwwelpeter/Krampus way, where the villain's unusual punishment symbolically fits the crime. Compare this with Marvel's monster comics of the same period, (e.g. Man-Thing, who usually killed the bad guys the same old way every time), and are much less memorable on that iconic level. (Nothing against M-T of course, which is memorable for other reasons.) --AC 19:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed

I removed this link:

• A discussion on the controversies in his career

It could possibly come in useful for supplying leads to other sources but fails WP:EL. (Emperor (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

Controversy section too "in the moment"

I notice at some point or another the 'Controversy' section as I left it circa 3/07: -

Harlan Ellison, in a 1979 Comics Journal interview, described Fleisher and his comics work using emphatic terms such as "crazy", "certifiable", "twisted", "derange-o", "bugfuck", and "lunatic". Opinions varied as to whether Ellison's comments were entirely unflattering. For years Ellison and his friend Isaac Asimov had been comedically abusing each other in print and public in a similar style. Thick-skinned readers interpreted the comments as rhetorical backwards compliments and affectionately begrudging curses of Fleisher's singular talent for the macabre, similar to comments at a roast.

But a "devastated and appalled" Fleisher believed Ellison had been recklessly and falsely implying Fleisher himself was insane.

Fleisher sued Ellison, The Comics Journal, and interviewer Gary Groth, for libel, asking $2,000,000 in damages; the case came to court in 1986, and Fleisher lost.

Has morphed into something more impassioned and allusive:

Writer Harlan Ellison in a 1979 interview described Fleisher and his comics work as "crazy", "certifiable", "twisted", "derange-o", "bugfuck", and "lunatic". He also erroneously claimed that a Publishers Weekly review called Fleisher's novel Chasing Hairy "the product of a sick mind", and that Fleisher's Spectre series had been discontinued by DC Comics because the company "realized they had turned loose a lunatic on the world."[6] While some observers considered the diatribe humorous hyperbole,[7] Fleisher, saying his "business reputation has been destroyed" and believing he was falsely portrayed as insane, filed a $2 million libel suit against Ellison, publisher Gary Groth and the magazine in which the interview appeared, The Comics Journal.[8][9] The case came to court in 1986, and resulted in a verdict for the defendants.[8][10][11]

Where to begin? It's a bit of "All that meat and no potatoes." There are more quotes, seemingly more "objective" than before, but no overview stating the prevailing view of what apparently happened. Those present-tense quotes don't help the reader understand what happened 25 years ago, rather the quotes lead the reader to identify with Fleisher's feelings of victimization. --AC (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The earlier version, I'm afraid, violates some Wikipedia tenets. Saying, "Thick-skinned readers interpreted the comments as rhetorical backwards compliments" is both uncited and POV. "Thick-skinned readers"? Who are they? How do measure how metaphorically thick their skin is? That's a loaded, non-quantifiable phrase. It's much more WP:NPOV to say dispassionately, with a cite, "some observers considered the diatribe humorous hyperbole."

Impassioned? It's the earlier version that using the impassioned phrase "devastated and appalled" — which is redundant: He wouldn't be suing if he weren't. Saying "sued for libel" is general and vague -- giving a a sampling of reasons as listed in the lawsuit is specific and more explanatory. "Fleisher lost" is much less of an encyclopedic WP:TONE than the more straightforward, actual action of a judge or a jury: handing down "a verdict for the defendants."

You propose an "overview stating the prevailing view of what apparently happened" — the prevailing view in whose opinion? How is "a verdict for the defendants" not the prevailing view? We can't write our interpretation of what "apparently" happened — Wikipedia can only give the objective facts as neutrally as possible and let the reader determine. We cannot draw conclusions, if that's what you mean by an "overview stating the prevailing view of what apparently happened".

Present-tense? I see, in order, these past-tense and similar tense verbs: "described," "claimed," "called," "had been discontinued," "had turned," "considered," "filed," "came," and "resulted in." I'm not sure what you mean by "Those present-tense quotes."

The current version is more neutral, detailed, cited and in keeping with Wikipedia WP:TONE. What do you see in there that "lead(s) the reader to identify with Fleisher's feelings of victimization." --Tenebrae (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt and detailed reply, Tenebrae.

By present-tense I figuratively meant the journalistic style of overeliance on lively quotes without editorial perspective or interpretation, whilst removing the interpretive guard rails (more on which later, lest the above comment seem to be begging the question).

Re "devastated and appalled" is redundant, and MF wouldn't {have sued} if he weren't. Not necessarily, in libel suits one or both of the opposing parties may be sincere, but often enough one is not, and sometimes both are not. A dishonest and unjust plaintiff might file suit only in order to gain what might be won. I've never seen anyone claim MF was insincere, but we shouldn't expect general readers to understand that without being told so, especially since the suit failed. Which again begs for interpretation, for if MF was sincere, the reader naturally wonders, was he right, and therefore was he wronged in losing.

NB: the phrase "devastated and appalled" is IIRC MF's own words, if perhaps you were suggesting the expression itself might be redundant. (Not so: one can be D'd without being A'd & A'd without being D'd.)

Impassioned indeed. I'll give an example from the first sentence, but not go much further. The first sentence in 3/07 had a qualified (so as to be less exciting) phrasing: "...described Fleisher and his comics work using emphatic terms such as...", that's now reduced to a vague and inaccurate: "...described Fleisher and his comics work as..."

The vagueness lies in not introducting the ensuing eccentric epithets as part and parcel of HE's sometimes insult comic-like stylings. Any term is essentially meaningless unless we more or less know what language and vocabulary a term belongs to. The drama of the suit was that authors HE and MF spoke two different languages, and MF either didn't (and may still not) know it, or perhaps that MF believed HE's style of language itself was intrinsically uncivilized and unjust, (as with many language codes of the past, qv Obscenity).

The innacuracy comes from the lossy and noisy compression of replacing "using ... terms such as" with "as". What's lost is a clear implication that the list of words is decontextualized and not intended to be either a complete vocabulary or wholly representative of HE's general opinion, and also that the terms aren't necessarily standard English. What's "gained" in noise is that "as" without a preceding "such" implies a relatively complete set. A weaselly worst case example: Smith says of Jones, "Jones is A, B, C, D, not-X, not-Y, and half-Z." Doe says of Smith's comments "Smith described Jones using unpopular terms such as X, Y, and Z." Butler's revision of Doe: "Smith described Jones as X, Y, and Z." Butler when challenged replies "Tough call, Smith might be prone to Apophasis."

Re cites and NPOV. Cites are nice where possible, e.g.: HE's insult comicry is eminently citable, and entirely relevant. I'm still not sure what gets your satire up about the term "thick skinned", it belongs somewhere in the spectrum between 'sensitive' and 'insensitive'.

"We can't write our interpretation", seems poorly phrased. If our interpretation happens to be accurate and reasonably verifiable, we certainly can, and should.

Re "We cannot draw conclusions" more or less, unless the conclusion are logically sound and appropriate for a summary. Writing up a summary from a heap of facts is in a sense nothing but drawing conclusions. Which facts are signficant, which are redundant, which accounts contradict, etc. We sift, we sort, we reorder to some agreeable form or format. Currently machines can't do it, human judgment is needed.

Of course I'd wholeheartedly agree that unwarranted conclusions should not be drawn, nor insinuated, nor should be easily inferred due to editorial error, neglect, or carelessness. For instance, the current revision tends to suggest victimization. It now reads as though MF is buffeted by cruel descriptions, erroneous and dangerous claims, suffers personally, worries, fights back, then hits a Kafka-like brick wall.

Apart from the above stylistic and methodological differences, if you can spot any factual error in the earlier revision I'll gladly acknowledge the correction. And I'm all for appropriate cites, though somewhat lazy about that. --AC (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, AC,and it's good to be discussing this with you. I have to admit, I'm not following a lot of what you say.

To keep it simple,let's go sentence by sentence — there are only five in the former, four in the latter. Will that work? Otherwise I'm afraid we're getting into tangential theoretical rambling. (We're smart people; it's an occupational hazard!)

Here are the earlier and later versions of the first sentence:

Harlan Ellison, in a 1979 Comics Journal interview, described Fleisher and his comics work using emphatic terms such as "crazy", "certifiable", "twisted", "derange-o", "bugfuck", and "lunatic".

Writer Harlan Ellison in a 1979 interview described Fleisher and his comics work as "crazy", "certifiable", "twisted", "derange-o", "bugfuck", and "lunatic".

I see three differences. First, we ID Harlan Ellison; for non-fan readers, I think that's important. Second, while I think that the specific magazine in which the interview appeared isn't a critical point for this topic sentence, the magazine was indeed named in the suit, so perhaps you're right and "The Comics Journal" should be reinstated in that sentence.

The other difference I see is that the older version says Ellison described Fleisher & his work "using emphatic terms such as [such and such]". The second version says more neutrally, that Ellison described Fleisher & his work "as [such and such]".

The second version is more compact and less wordy, which is one hallmark of good writing. More significantly, it doesn't give a POV characterization to Ellison's terminology. "Emphatic" is one interpretation. Others might call it, "Over-the-top," "gratuitous," "strongly worded," "precisely stated" or any number of things. Giving it an uncited adjective is POV. The only thing we can state neutrally and concretely is that "Ellison said such-and-such." That much is strongly established by evidence and inarguable: Ellison called Fleischer and his work these specific terms.

What do you think? "The Comics Journal" back in, the adjective remains out. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The adjective "emphatic" when applied to terms is descriptively neutral: "Uttered with emphasis; made prominent and impressive by a peculiar stress of voice; laying stress; deserving of stress or emphasis; forcible; impressive; strong; as, to remonstrate in an emphatic manner; emphatic denials; an emphatic word; an emphatic tone; emphatic reasoning. [1913 Webster]"

'Others might call it, "Over-the-top," "gratuitous," "strongly worded," "precisely stated"', all of those are straw men, except maybe the first. HE's words were not gratuitous; s. worded (which would an imply an unlikely and uncharacteristic deliberation); p.s. ditto. Over-the-top might be offered as a popularization of 'hyperbolic', but that too borders on opinion, as it would presume there _was_ a top to fly over.

On 'these specific terms', why 'specific'? HE's roasting epithets seem to have been aimed using more of a shotgun style. --AC (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

other Fleisher Encyclopedias?

This wikipedia article currently lists three "Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes", but preface of 2007 reprint of volume two says "as the years passed, my original one-volume project expanded to encompass eight volumes". I'm failing to find any documentation on volumes four to eight (perhaps they have elusive titles like the third encyclopedia that is titled "The Great Superman Book: ..." on the spine. Only clue I can find so far is DC Profiles #3 image at comics.org, but it says "is readying the third tome, featuring Captain Marvel (Shazam!), Plastic Man and the Spirit." ... which I assume is incorrect ... because I thought the third volume was Superman encyclopedia. That jpg at comics.org also says "In Michael's Encyclopedia, everything ou always wanted to know about eighteen super-heroes ... is approached in mind-staggering detail." --EarthFurst (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Only three volumes were published. Fleisher may have planned additional volumes but that never happened. See his obit. in The Comics Journal:

Lortie, Arthur; Catron, Michael (March 21, 2018). "Michael Fleisher: Comic Book Writer, 1942-2018". The Comics Journal. Seattle, Washington: Fantagraphics Books. Archived from the original on June 16, 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Mtminchi08 (talk)

Death

This article says he's dead. Where's the citation? I see no source online for this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulujannings (talk • contribs) 05:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

A couple IPs have added the information. I've removed it, twice.—Chowbok ☠ 09:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Why? He's dead. This is why volunteer "moderators" is a terrible way to run anything. 84.67.116.161 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)