“Must Be The Only Thing Written About Roy Thomas that Roy Never Read…” – On The Public and Prolific Bitterness of Roy Thomas

It had been brought up more than once, notably by Patrick Ford, how often a certain generation of Marvel employees referred to Jack Kirby in the press as “bitter“- and the irony in that considering that many of the employees guilty of that particular smear were, themselves, quite prolific in public venting, righteous indignation, fragile feelings at reviews that they argued misunderstood the work’s intent (or was simply a case of a mean journalist with an obvious agenda), or public spats with other professionals, all in view of a readership of “smart” nerds, eager to lap up all the drama and backstage turmoil. ‘

I’d known about this due to my frequent perusing of old fanzines since my middle school years but honestly took it for granted; when Ford verbalized it, I realized he was right and that the gulf between Kirby’s very understandable and likely cathartic interview with Gary Groth in 1990 (the main target of Kirby’s detractors and most prolific go-to device to paint Kirby as dishonest or confused) and the sheer amount of entitled bitching from Roy Thomas, Bill Mantlo, Marv Wolfman and several others in The Comics Journal, Comics Buyers Guide and various other related publications throughout the seventies to today, was pretty fuckin’ immense.

• “Jack… he liked to twist Stan… the bitterness was there.” – Roy Thomas

• “There was a lot of hostility in him, in general and toward Stan, and before that, toward Simon, all his partners.” – also Roy Thomas

• “It’s a shame that someone as talented as Jack became so bitter… ” – still Roy Thomas

• “This was vitriol coming out of Jack.”– Roy Thomas said that

As the comics community evolved to become as pretentious as the professionals whose work they followed, any fleeting self-awareness vanished in these guys who suddenly had an outlet and a perceived audience who, they presumed, really cared how these guys felt about bad reviews, mean editors and their failed novels. Now, Thomas isn’t the only guilty party here- I’ll eventually get to Mantlo and others- but, as Thomas is presently committing shameful behavior in the present, I’ll present a selection of excerpts from his glorious letter writing rants to The Comics Journal today.

Now I’d like to clarify- this is only a very small smattering of examples of Thomas’s prolific and ridiculous public outbursts- and this is just to one publication. Thomas’s comments predate the actual issue I chose to begin with, to the point that in this same issue I first cite, a reader writes in about Thomas’s endless whining. But we’ll begin with the Forever Boy first.

• “People ask me from time to time, foolishly, how I’d feel if my contributions were handled in the same fashion. Actually, they ARE. There’s been various addenda to Iron Fist’s origin, for instance, which was entirely Gil Kane’s and my creation… and certainly series such as “War of the Worlds“, “Man-Thing“, “Morbius“, and many another which I helped create (despite the fact that I didn’t always plaster my name over anything I touched, as some newcomers to the field wish to do) went off almost at once in wildly different directions from what I envisioned when I co-created those series.” – excerpt of letter from Roy Thomas, The Comics Journal #44, Jan 1979

Let’s remember that Iron Fist shares the same origin as Bill Everett’s Golden Age character Amazing-Man. But if I start going over each character Thomas claims to co-create, we’ll be here all night…

As I said, from the exact same issue, here’s a reader writing in regarding Thomas’s habit of letter whining from before this issue:

• “…we find more of the same: bruised egos. Roy Thomas leads off, grousing as usual about something someone has said about him. This is the last time, though… we won’t have Roy Thomas to kick around anymore. At least, he won’t kick back. From now on, he’s just going to ignore us. Good. Fine. Just one favor, Roy- don’t tell us you’re going to ignore us… just do it. I like to think that a pro should be somehow above all that… but once a fan, always a fan, I suppose.” – Bryan Uhlenbrock

• “I won’t bother commenting on the Dawson review of CONAN (Journal #50), since I’ve only read the first and last paragraphs (I prefer not to read reviews at this stage of my comics career, because as you know I feel the critics and I do not necessarily share a common perspective and I’d rather be influenced by letters and sales alone), except to say that his comparison of Belit with a piece of burnt meat, symbolically speaking, is cute as hell and has absolutely nothing to do with my or John Buscema’s thought processes- since when John drew the picture he had no idea I’d write that line, or when I decided more or less what I’d say on the splash I had no idea he’d draw Conan looking at a piece of meat.

• So, like I said: amusing, but meaningless criticism. I figure what’s in between is more of the same.

• And gee, won’t it be wonderful when all the fans and lapsed pros can do characters “right” or in “the definitive version.” Well, interesting, anyway. It’ll probably even influence the professional magazines in some ways, I’ve no doubt. And rightly so, I suppose. But I look forward with horror to the next several years of self-proclamations by 15 different fan-scribes that each of them has done the “definitive” version of a hero, now that Steve Englehart (who at least has a reasonable chance of pulling the trick off) has unleashed that term upon us.

• For myself, I’m glad Gerry Conway and I have sold a movie script, with several others in the works, so we’ll have an income to support us in our declining years.” – The Comics Journal #54, March 1980

Thomas’s final words on Marvel and the people working at the company were not kind ones. He stated that he had “professionally despised” Jim Shooter even before he took over the position of Editor-in-Chief at the company and called Jim Galton “a total cold fish who wouldn’t know a good comic book if he wiped his ass with it.” Of the two he said, “(they) have no personality at all: they’re just like machines- but they work very well together.”

And as for the rest of Marvel, Thomas summarily declared, “There’s only two or three people up at Marvel that I’d even care to be in the same county with. There was something about the whole thrust of the company once (Shooter) took over which I just did not like. And I don’t know how much of it is him, how much of it is Galton, and how much of it is Stan’s relative abdication of things.”

Thomas, however, said he refused to be “bullied into” signing the Marvel contract: “I’ll always respond to a threat by telling the person to fuck off- unless he’s got a knife pointed at my throat… but they didn’t have a knife.” He commented wryly on Marvel’s insistence on severing all dealings with him in the future: “They decided that if I don’t work for them, they’re going to take all the marbles.”

Thomas added that he had deliberately not created anything new for Marvel in several years, knowing full well that he would not receive any merchandising rights to anything he came up with.” – ‘Roy Thomas Leaves Marvel for DC’, The Comics Journal #56, June 1980

Also in 1980, The Comics Journal published a comprehensive and controversial interview with author Harlan Ellison from the previous year that provoked great discussion within the community and fanbase alike. Before the fallout became litigious, several comic professionals wrote in with their feelings. I found Thomas’s letter especially notable because- and this can’t be stressed enough- his rambling response is all about HIM and details about HIS career, it’s just unbelievable! I didn’t even want to transcribe them or count the number of times he writes “I”, “me”, etc. so I basically just screenshot a chunk of the page that gives you the basic idea. The letter begins mildly enough…

• “A week and more after I read your interview with Harlan Ellison, whom I’ve known on and off for more than a decade now, I find that the bad taste it left in my mouth upon first persual has stayed with me. So much so, that I decided to break the silence I generally keep these days concerning interviews or reviews that do not mention me by name…” – Thomas letter to TCJ #57, August 1980

And here’s a solid sample that’s representative of Thomas’s general tone. Remember, this is supposed to be a reactionary letter about Harlan Ellison and his interview:

Thomas’s departure from Marvel was something of a solid story and I wonder if Thomas genuinely thought an outpouring of reader’s feelings would flood into the Journal’s mailbox. I actually think that’d be understandable but, while some readers do write in, it’s likely not what Thomas hoped for. Also worth noting is that- and this was, and is, a surprise to me- as busy as Thomas is with his letter writing, basically no one ever writes in about those. They write about R. Fiore, they write in about Jim Shooter, they really don’t write in about Roy. Didn’t these people realize the living legend he would become some thirty-four years later, on the convention circuit?

• “It was not, as Shooter suggests, merely a ‘bad assumption’ on my part. I will leave it to other people, reading the above and knowing my previously stated views as many of them do, as to whether this is lying, misrepresentation, or whatever- but as I said before, it was that conversation that made me decide to spend the money on a lawyer. Without Jim’s verbal assurance to me, as stated above, I would simply have left the company $300 richer, since that’s what my attorney charged for the rewrite.

• Accordingly, I have billed Marvel $300 for my attorney’s fee (which I have, of course, had to pay in the meantime). No, I don’t expect them to pay it despite the fact that Jim Shooter bargained in bad faith with me, because I do not feel I am dealing with honorable people here.” – letter to TCJ #58 from Thomas, Sept 1980

• “I shall be unrelentingly trying to get it made full 25-page stories, because I HATE 17-page stories and I’ll drop ’em like a hot potato the minute I can.” – comment from Thomas to TCJ #59, Oct 1980. Nothing entitled to see here.

Some reader feedback had arrived in regard to the news about Thomas’s departing Marvel and the drama surrounding it and I found this one especially astute:

• “I also find it a bit ironic that Thomas comments he hasn’t created any new strips of characters for Marvel recently because of his disenchantment with the Marvel management. He never DID create very many new series lead characters for them; about the only ones I can think of offhand are Iron Fist and the 3-D Man, neither of whom exactly set the world on fire. His high reputation was always based on successful handling of characters created by other comics writers or adapted from other media.”– letter by Bill Henley Jr, TCJ #59 Oct 1980

Thomas has an interview in The Comics Journal #61 which we won’t transcribe here, though some of the reactions to it are worth covering. A few times, readers touch upon Thomas sharing too much of his personal life which I found interesting if only because Jim Shooter once wrote that one of his issues with Thomas was that Thomas would share too much about his private affairs in the letter pages of the titles he (Thomas) edited.

• ‘Alas, he told me little about his work and much I had rather not learned about his life.’ –Dr. Phillip S. Kot

• “My own perspective would be certainly to put my own position as less pivotal to Marvel’s history than, say, Kirby- maybe even of Steve Ditko, if only because of Spider-Man- but maybe just a wee bit higher on the list of the defection from DC of J.M.. DeMatteis or David Micheline. If that be ego, make the best of it.” – excerpt of Roy’s own letter to TCJ about his own Interview, TCJ #63, Spring 1981

• ‘Bill Sherman’s chat with Jack Jackson was inspiring, in contrast to another in the same issue with Roy Thomas, which left a bad taste in my mouth about comics. It’s profoundly unfortunate that Jack hasn’t had the exposure that Roy’s enjoyed for so many years.” – Letter from Brian Mattys, TCJ #63

• “I couldnt help but notice Roy Thomas’s naive surprise at his barbaric treatment by Marvel. This is even more surprising as Roy was there when the same thing was done to Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby. How could ROY expect better?!

• Jack Kirby even wrote a comics story about Stan Lee and Roy Thomas which predicted this outcome. And, he did it almost 10 years ago! The story was “Funky Flashman”, which appeared in Mister Miracle #6. Stan was Funky Flashman and Roy was his loyal, fawning houseboy, Houseroy. In any case, the character was also Stan Lee and fit perfectly (at least from what I’ve heard about Stan Lee).

• In the end, Funky, a cowardly braggadocio, sacrifices loyal and not-so-bright Houseroy to save himself so that he may continue brightening up the world.

• I guess that must be the only thing written about Roy Thomas that Roy never read.” – Letter from William Hansen, TCJ #65 August 1981

• “Steve (Englehart), however, is given to delusions of grandeur which have long been a disappointment to those of us given a more realistic assessment of the field and even its major practitioners.

• Comics, like politics, is the art of the possible. I, and others in the same job, did what they had to do. Jim Shooter obviously feels he did the same refusing to guarantee me editorship in writing of the Conan books; I obviously feel I was misled for long months by Jim’s inability to answer a straight question with a straight answer. You pays your money, and you takes your choice.

• I like to think I won’t still be singing the same songs in fanzines five years from now that I have recently. Time should heal wounds, not make them fester.” – excerpts from very long letter from Roy Thomas, TCJ #68 Nov 1981

Could that be the first example of Thomas’s “delusions of grandeur” slur in print? This time for Sturdy Steve Englehart, who takes the time to respond, albeit in a much shorter manner (note that this is still just an excerpt from Englehart’s entire reply):

• “Somehow, this doesn’t add up to my continually beating a dead horse. In fact, there is only one person I know who compulsively responds to every mention of his name and position in society, filling fanzines with his lengthy letters justifying his every action for the last 15 years- and that’s you.

• Wouldn’t you rather be something other than a sitting duck?” – excerpts from Steve Englehart’s response

• “…I object very strongly to the relaxation of journalistic standards at The Comics Journal by which interviewees such as Ellison and Englehart are privileged, unlike others (including myself but far from limited to me), to respond in the very same issues to letters regarding their statements. Such responses should have been saved for a future issue- or else the Journal’s policy should ast least be consistent so that those who write letters concerning interviewees’ statements will know what to expect.

• But really, if Steve wants to consider me as a sitting duck, he’s welcome to do so. I’ve borne such outrageous slings and arrows before, without appreciable harm.

• But, what the hell. Maybe I SHOULD stop explaining my or other professionals’ side of things to the fan press. Maybe I should, as I’ve certainly done far more often than Steve would give me credit for, let the spurious statements or ignorant remarks of the fan press stand unopposed, reserving my ink for those remarks by professionals like Steve who lend the weight of their own considerable talents to the ravings of the ill-informed.

• Tell you what, Gary (Groth), old buddy. You can solve my problem for me. Print this letter, let Englehart answer it on the same page just like last time, and you probably won’t hear from me again for quite a while. Then other people will have more room to have their say, I’ll have more time to write comics and movies, and everybody’ll be happy.” – letter from Thomas, The Comics Journal #72, May 1982

Gosh, you can just see Thomas hunched over, writing this letter by candlelight, imagining a raft of teary eyes and collective concern from the comics community over his impending departure. I can see Thomas now, a bandana filled with some raisins and a pair of socks tied to a stick over his shoulder, walking glumly towards the railroad tracks. He spies a bridge, in the distance and thinks. “That’ll show ’em… then they’ll be sorry.” *sobs*

• “Namely, though I love comics and comics fans, I am simply not beloved of the kind of reviewer who, these days, is measuring comics and comics creators by a different yardstick than mine. It’s really yawn-producing after a time, both for myself and for others, to see Roy defend his position, or even explain it…

• So, while defending their right to say what they wish (and my own right not to bother finishing their reviews), I’ll simply retreat once more to my comics, film, and occasional TV scripting… and not respond.

• It’s not that the critics can’t have Roy Thomas to kick around any more. They still have me… or rather, the comics I write and/or edit. They can kick all they want. I just won’t feel it anymore.

• I think it’ll feel good. It has in the past. From here on, I’ll confine my comments to the letters page in the comics themselves. – Thomas letter to TCJ #78, Dec 1982

For the record, Thomas did not stick to his apparent 1983 New Years resolution. He would continue to complain about his treatment from editors, from reviewers, from fans, from distributors, you name it- in the books he edited, in letters to the fan press, to Bleeding Cool and the Hollywood Reporter in the present day, sometimes abetted by his loyal manager. Thomas is an entitled man who has benefitted from degrees of privilege all of his life and much of his career, whether he could recognize it or not.

In fact, Gary Groth himself wrote a small editorial sidebar about Thomas’s self-serving contributions, under the header ‘C’mon Roy, Make it an Even Dozen!‘:

‘From the Journal’s inception through #78, Roy Thomas had been one of the Journal’s most voluminous correspondents. Roy has had letters published in Journal #s 30, 39, 42, 44, 54, 57, 58, 63, 68, 72, and 78. (Whew!) The last two sentences in #78 held true, by the way. He wrote, “From here on in, I’ll confine my comments to the letters pages in the comics themselves. If you don’t believe me, try watching for a year or two.” Roy had said in his letter in issue #72 that that would be the last one, but ’twas not meant to be.’

He is owed more pages, more freedom, more control, more credit and it can never be enough. Anyone else who dared to speak against unfair treatment is written off, painted as enraged and irrational. Because the rules don’t apply to the entitled; they alone are afforded the luxury of outrage, the advantage of a forum to use for their ceaseless complaining. But I really only shared this in relation to Thomas’s ongoing citations of Jack Kirby as a bitter, volatile man. It really is slander and shouldn’t be tolerated, whether you’re a fake YouTube historian with a book to peddle or a middling comic professional with a case of arrested development for the Silver Age.

Jack Kirby had every reason to be righteously pissed and still was able to restrain that anger for literal decades with an almost superhuman restraint. Thomas isn’t fit to speak on him or his moods.

Roy Thomas remains bitter, entitled and outspoken. Here’s his direct e-mail:  roydann@ntinet.com should you want to drop him a line.

If you do? Tell him Four Color Sinners said to stop fuckin’ whining.

with thanks to Patrick Ford for giving me the idea, Carr D’Angelo, Michael Hill for writing the Jack Kirby books worth reading, and the staff of Fantagraphics circa 1980