The Communist Bullpen

August 16th, 2011

So, it kind of started like this between he and me, yr ever-lovin’ Botswana Beast, the O-rriginal Eyeball, and there’s more but I’m fuctifano how to get all these trackbacks on the twtr, so look for yourselves, if you really want. Joel (that’s his tumblr) is a pwopa Marxist on the speed-dial and who knows; maybe he can diagnose and cure comics’ endemic corporate thievery better than a ragtag bunch of libertarians? My inclination’s to think this eminently likely.

The Communist Bullpen and the Sociology of Thrill-power

null
Journey Into Mystery #117 (1965)

First things first: boycott Marvel. While it is only halfway related to what I want to talk about here, the Kirby estate vs Marvel spells out that the historical battles over intellectual property, material and immaterial labour, and the real working conditions of the past are still part of what constitutes the Comics Present. In this post I want to look at the complex moments that make up the circuits of production, consumption, exploitation, and, sometimes, as Bissette rightly says, outright extortion in twentieth-century mass-produced art. If I had the time or space or ability, then I would take a detailed look at these moments from the point of view of each in turn. Instead, we will have to make do with establishing the importance of three concepts in order to reach a startling conclusion: the only thing that will save comics is the communist Bullpen.

1) The Bullpen

What I mean here is the concept of the Bullpen as something that entered the comics imagination with the 1960s Marvel Age, and continues to leave its historical trace in every comics Universe. The truncated history goes that, emerging from the Eisner & Iger independent sweatshop/studio, the Fordist assembly line and the 50s post-Comics Code audience exodus, the Bullpen formation was a way for publishers to ensure greater homogeneity and editorial control over their comics lines. In terms of Marvel’s history, it seems reasonable to suggest that the invocation of the Bullpen in the comics (through Stan’s columns, and the general tone of captions and narrative) as well as the real-life office was an attempt to keep that Stan & Jack/Stan & Steve Marvel Method Magic flowing beyond its original creative flush, and, of course, beyond the departures of the two artists. In actuality, it was also a way to ensure three things: vastly unequal profit shares (through those work-for-hire contracts Bissette mentions), a usually strict division of labour, and Marvel’s good old white male hegemony.


Diagram from Norcliffe and Rendace’s ‘New Geographies of Comic Book Production in North America’ (2003)

In a somewhat comparable situation at Disney Studios in the late 1930s it was said glowingly by historian Robert Field that “one of Walt’s great accomplishments … was to recover that great workshop tradition … in which the artist as worker is dedicated to the fulfilment of a purpose and is satisfied to remain anonymous.” This kind of gloss on artistic labour was an iteration of the Fordist dream, as well as the Modernist response to it—to posit people as machine parts in both work and leisure. By 1941, though, Disney’s cartoonists had gone on strike over low wages and the absence of credit for their work. Early 60s Marvel, while following the Disney/Ford schema as a path to profit, modelled itself knowingly as part of the Pop Art response of fatigue towards Fordist principles, and as such was compelled to represent its own production process in the comics themselves. What this meant at the time was big credits for the writers and artists, an audience who could identify with their roles, and endless jokey nods to the conditions in which they worked—on the cusp of the transition into post-Fordist flexibility, freelancing, and international labour. What it means now is that we might still link the Bullpen with collective effort and collaboration; in fact, Marvel’s thrill-powered output of the 60s and 70s insists that we do so.

2) Thrill-power

A few years ago, Tom Ewing repurposed 2000AD’s buzzword thrill-power to identify a particular intensity present in art forms made under quick-buck conditions in the cultural industries of the twentieth century. Not unreasonably, Ewing is largely interested in identifying which works might be described as thrill-powered, and pinpointing the sensational effects the term acts as an umbrella for. Here, I want to use the term in a sociological sense. I will also take it as a given that Ewing’s subjective take on the term is correct: thrill-power exists; since modernity’s inception it has been out there like dark matter or Kirby Krackle. As I will explain, it is a kind of negative energy that testifies to the conditions under which particular works were made and received. Ewing is helpful enough to list these conditions:

You have a vast demand for material and very little time to produce it. You have a system that rewards speed and quantity over craft and artistic expression. You have output that is being judged entirely on its commercial performance. You have an audience that demands more intense material than you’re actually able to give it. And you have all this market and time pressure being brought to bear on immensely creative, talented individuals, who are too overworked to really be individuals, and who just feed their ideas and talent into the robot bulldozer machine.

I like this understanding of thrill-power, as it seems to account for the ‘moments’, to use Marx’s terminology, of both production and consumption (as well as, of course, a mass distribution network already in place) as a single circuit. Not only are these moments complementary, they share an identity. Consumption produces the need for further production. Production creates the drive and the desire to consume. I want to extend the concept again in order to approach thrill-power from two different angles. Firstly, there is technology: the acceleration of ideas, of sensation and thrills, manic energy above execution, is necessary in a period in which the consumer’s drives and desires are far ahead of the technological capacity for them to be satiated by available products. In this sense, the thrill-powered work is a grotesque, beautiful or charming simulation of the technological not-yet, as we see most clearly in Ewing’s example of the early computer-games market. In terms of Marvel, superhero comics from the 60s onwards could therefore be viewed as the precursor of their final blossoming in terrible CGI-led movies— technology having caught up finally with the audience’s unconscious or inarticulable need would go some way towards explaining those films’ complete absence of thrill-power.


A thrill-powered Herb Trimpe-drawn Hulk #168, in which the cops trample on some flowers

Secondly, and most importantly, thrill-power is an aesthetic by-product of collectivity. Note that in Ewing’s list there is no way to isolate a specific individual as the single locus of thrill-power; while clearly we can look at a page of Kirby/Lee’s Fantastic Four and assign credit to Kirby for his astounding range of techniques, Herb Trimpe generated thrill-powered moments too, even Don Heck did! Furthermore, we can’t even limit thrill-power to a ‘Marvel’ or a ‘2000AD’, because, as Ewing makes clear, they found their meaning and their charge (and the present way they are regarded) only through the demand and the reflexive participation of their weekly/monthly mass audience as it gained greater sophistication. This is not to romanticize the consumer, or present a defence of ‘fan communities’—precisely the opposite in fact, since this is why thrill-power is negative energy, generated through the exploitation of the entire production-consumption circuit. It’s not just the artists’ creativity and time being fed into the “robot bulldozer machine,” but the audience’s attention too, performing their own kind of labour, both sides dependent on the unfreedom of the other. On this basis, thrill-power is the ghostly recognition of this state of affairs, when the demands culture-worker and audience make on each other exceed the usual limits and form the Sue Storm-like outline of an invisible collective, one that continues to leave its imprint in the historical charge of the material.

A general decline in levels of thrill-power is easily explained by the profoundly non-collective, non-social methods and organization of work in the contemporary comics industry. Furthermore, despite relying on the talents of craftspeople and technicians, thrill-power is unavailable to the individual artist, or indeed anyone, as Ewing says, whose creativity is attenuated solely towards artistic fulfilment. If we take a look at the work of someone like Paul Pope, for instance, it seems his style is a compound of various circuitous thrill-powered moments in the comics industries of Japan, Europe and North America—the echo of these moments filtered through the aesthetics of the talented and yet resolutely non-thrill-powered individual.

3) The Collective

You might reasonably link this notion of group creative activity and its mass audience to one of the great narratives of modern popular criticism: the like-being-a-member-of-the-coolest-gang-around tale, in which highly mediated membership of a band or group or scene alloys the insecure young person to a lifetime of pop-cult thrills, in the process concretizing their personal identity. Here, the gang is a multiform extension of everyone’s favourite construct: the hyper-talented individual, possessed by genius. However—beyond the fact that there was thankfully never anything cool about any comics creator at any time—it is necessary to create a distinction between the non-thrill-powered gang and the potentially-thrill-powered collective. The gang, as a unit of analysis in pop culture and criticism, is viewed as forming specifically in order to play. Whether this is waged or unwaged activity, the gang is usually identified (and identified with) on the basis that play and leisure can, for the lucky few, form the central activity in a person’s life. Like Dave Rowntree out of Blur or whoever, you too might be paid to live the dream of permanent leisure. Even as most of us give up the possibility of this dream for ourselves, it remains in our cultural field of vision as the standard of a life creatively rich because of its divorce from hard labour.

(Should be noted here that the pop culture version of the gang plays on its negative real-life counterpart: historically when working-class people form a group to ‘play’ it is because of an exclusion from work/school and thus remains a provocative act.)


The impeccably thrill-powered Hookjaw from ACTION (1976)

The gang comes together for the sake of leisure. The collective, on the other hand, comes together to work. While it may indeed have been someone’s dream to work there, no one ever confused the activities of the Marvel Bullpen with mere play, even during Assistant Editor’s Month. In Will Eisner’s autobiographical sweatshop lament The Dreamer, what is dreamed of is essentially the possibility of an unalienated life through the circuit of mass culture, a reunification of financial security with creativity, craft, and the warmth of family life. But by the 1960s, this unity was barely even part of the social imaginary; instead, it was expelled into the nascent post-industrialization of everyday life, far away from work. The end of the dream hardly means, though, that creativity (productivity) declines or falters; as Ewing makes clear, the idea-factory intensifies, as concepts must be exploited and turned over in a forever speeded-up timeframe. The hustle-ish, huckster-ish enthusiasm of Stan’s Marvel, his Bullpen Bulletins as well as the editorial voice in the comics themselves derive their peculiar jovial tone precisely from this contradiction: the Bullpen may be a place where creativity rattles along like one of Gene Colan’s suspension-defying car chases, but it is simultaneously built on the deprecating awareness that no one is living any kind of dream, not even Stan himself. As John Buscema, ultimate company man, says in a talk given to the Bullpen staff during the 1980s, “don’t feel like you’re cheating! You’re not—you’re earning a living!”


The Marvel Bullpen, from way back when

Social acknowledgement of one’s utopian daydreams is usually only granted to those in power; just look at Steve Hilton’s degenerate imaginings for a good example. The point is that someone’s utopia is busy being articulated, and this is surely partly what China Mieville means when he says there is always some connection between dreams and life.” The gang, as outlined above, is one of late capital’s own daydreams, a micro-formation that never quite spills over into solidarity. The thrill-powered collective, comprising both culture-workers and audience, is no less utopian an idea. But crucially it is the thrill-powered work’s recognition of mutual labouring that admits the possibility that things could be different; work could be different. The tragedy of the Bullpen is that it existed as both the locus of vast exploitation and also the necessary engine-room of thrill-powered work full of utopian possibility. It’s like Ewing says: “no doubt it’s a bloody horrible way to make a living– but what it can produce is magnificent.”

My argument is that the work’s magnificence—and I do predictably love much of both 60s and 70s Marvel and 70s and 80s 2000AD—is based on its collective production, the very Fordist division of labour instituted in the 1930s sweatshops. The only way to tease out thrill-power now is therefore to rescue the Bullpen from both its association with capitalist exploitation and the sad-solo-genius-guy-makes-sad-solo-comics paradigm that often appears as its opposite. The solution, then, is a communist Bullpen, a co-operative where the work of craftsmen and women, technicians and artists as a collective is not exploited; where a Herb Trimpe and a Marie Severin are as valued as anyone; where a Jack Kirby is, among others, the owner of the means of production. Boycott Marvel!

26 Responses to “The Communist Bullpen”

  1. bobsy Says:

    Thank the New Gods for this post.

  2. Botswana Beast Says:

    Seems like, faced with some proper larnin’, everybody is too scared to comment here?

  3. Zom Says:

    Some thunks:

    When I weigh up the output of collective production processes of the 60s and 70s and early 2000AD vs the lone geniuses of the 90s I’m not sure which I prefer.

    I don’t like worker exploitation, but many of the comics that I love, very much including 2000AD, were reactions to a political context that wouldn’t have existed without bastards. That’s not an argument for bastards, obvs, but if we’re talking about the conditions necessary to make good comics it’s a salient point.

    Not sure about the links between collective production and non-exploitation. Certainly doesn’t seem like a necessary connection, but rather an idealised one.

    I’m also slightly suspicious of some of the definitions lurking up there, but I say that as someone with zero knowledge of, for example, the history of the comic book production.

    I’m not being quiet because I’m cowed, I’m being quiet because I’m ignorant.

  4. Zom Says:

    Point 2 above isn’t a very good one. Please to ignore.

  5. Aaron Says:

    I admit to being both cowed and ignorant. But the discussion of thrill-power made me think about Joe Casey’s Butcher Baker, the Righteous Maker series. It wants very much to access that same weird energy that makes 60s/70s Marvel fun, but through almost exact opposite means.

    It is the work of a collective of sorts (writer Casey, artist Mike Huddleston, letterer Rus Wooton, and logo/graphic designer Sonia Harris*) but since its an Image comic I’m guessing there’s not much in the way of editorial presence. And as with most creator-owned work there’s no real pre-existing demand for this material outside of the creators’ need to produce it, and the technology involved is pretty sophisticated, maybe even ahead of its time. It’s gorgeous to look at, for sure.

    It’s an exciting comic, but when reading it I’m never removed from the individuals who created it. The statement Casey and Co. are trying to make, or at least the statement I think they’re trying to make, is always there, and it seems like that’s not how thrill-power works.

    Is anyone else reading Butcher Baker?

  6. Joel Says:

    Zom: fair dos, I was trying to mix some very speculative stuff with historical material.

    I should say I like lots of non-thrill-powered stuff and lots of lone geniuses, but I found it interesting to think about a particular aesthetic charge that could only come from certain historical working conditions, and why that might be.

    (Thanks to you lot for putting it up!)

  7. Zom Says:

    For sure, I was playing Devil’s advocate a bit. I mean, I’m really interested in the possibility that different work conditions could produce better work, and I’m open to the idea that more collective spaces lend themselves more readily to certain sorts of outcomes. My questions come when it gets down to the facts, in what way was x truly different to y, etc… and those are questions that I’m ill equipped to answer.

  8. RetroWarbird Says:

    It’s difficult to find like-minded (or nearly enough) individuals to cooperate with in any artistic endeavor. (Especially with artists almost wanting to be the solo-genius type of mad loner). So being assigned in some corporately formed group for that purpose and a mercenary paycheck is rather reasonable, I’d think. Even for learning purposes – you work in a factory, it pays to become skilled at every step and function. That way you’re not only a “high value em-PLOY-ee”, but you the artist have the know-how to replicate those functions should you decide you’d sold your soul and you’d rather single-handedly create your own thing on your own time with 100% control of your own intellectual concepts.

    Meanwhile, back on that “hard to find people to work with” kick, it really is, and some of their work ethic and craft might be contagious.

    That sort of thing could be a valuable step or a tool, particularly for an up-and-coming artist fresh out of art school and looking to “break in” or whatever the hell one does.

  9. bryan Says:

    Quite liked this. Fairly sound analysis of the political/economic nature of the bullpen but Thrill Power still needs some fleshing out. Not sure if it is an actual new entity, like Benjamin’s “aura” or something that we could more simply call “the experience of quality mass-produced serialized genre material.”

  10. Joel Says:

    The other thing to say here would be that the communist bullpen – along the lines of Alain Badiou’s communist hypothesis or DSG’s ‘full communism with lulz as a transitional demand’ – is meant to suggest not only a radically set of different working conditions, but implicitly, arising from that, a whole load of other *unrealistic* demands that run counter to marketized neoliberal reason. Once we estrange work, then – in thought at least – the whole edifice tumbles house of cards-like, and it becomes impossible to limit things to the discussion of comics.

    So, ultimately I am privileging the political point over the aesthetic point, while attempting to keep them both relevant to each other.

  11. Thrills Says:

    I know myself that when I’ve made comics (just photocopied £1 zines, really, so not really comparable), I have probably learned more when I’ve worked with other people than when I’ve worked alone – I’ve also perhaps tried harder as there’s more responsibility to get it right so as not to let the collaborator down.

    I’ve found I’ll develop more of an artistic shorthand, as well, in order to maintain consistency and get the work done on time, which did have some interesting results, for me, personally.

  12. Alicia Quiche Says:

    As Bryan suggests, Ewing’s definition doesn’t need to shoulder in on thrill-power’s lexical pew, it already has terminology.
    “Pulp,” I would say is fairly well established and fitting.
    “Pop,” also works, in contexts that aren’t completely supplicant to Pop.
    Ephemeral, industrial, mass-produced entertainment (a la Tin Pan Alley) is not the same thing as the mysterious energy that only Tharg has the secret to and is coveted by the evil Dictators of Zrag.
    I suspect that this “journalist” is in fact a rubbery outer form concealing a precarious stack of sweating thrill-suckers at work.
    I’m just saying.

  13. Ken Quichey Says:

    “Thrill-power” (allowing the broader definition) functions in a parasitic relationship with commercial art.
    The reproductive processes, e.g. Atlas/Marvel and IPC Magazines, can comfortably exist using tried-and-tested routines, and as such they have aquired stability and a surfeit of rewards.
    As long as thrillesis occurs without causing a rash, e.g. public outrage, its creators can peacefully co-exist with the host entity for as long as its useful life.

    Commercial art, with its various organs, does not care two hoots for thrill-power per se, it’s not part of the overall strategy, but, as long as no sickness is caused by its generation, blind eyes can be turned.
    The ideology of the carrier is not likely to influence the efficacy of thrill-power creation at all, unless it involves weird beliefs involving thrill-power itself.
    Such a compulsion, being irrelevant to the pursuit of survival, would not be substantially advantageous, thus diminishing the host’s appeal to parasites that depend on it being hale and robust.

    Of course, thrill-power is constantly being generated in private, but only that which is attached to a carrier makes it to the park.
    So, in the spirit of ‘pataphysics, I’m going to spunk on a pigeon.

  14. Ken Quichey Says:

    Gangs get together to make money and win fights.
    Groups-of-friends get together to play.
    Playgroups?

  15. Ken Quichey Says:

    “sad-solo-genius-guy-makes-sad-solo-comics”

    That is really terrible.
    Poor schmuck manages to express only 2 of his 3 defining attributes.
    How tragic.
    What’s his name?

    Oh well, that is how it “often appears,” apparently.
    I wouldn’t know, cos I only like stuff that makes big mega dollars. That’s the seal of approval I’ve always been most comfortable with.

  16. plok Says:

    Jeez, how did I miss this one? Beautiful stuff, truly. Anyone who’s ever worked in a group that seems poised to become something really special you guys probably knows that some deep modern instinct will suface briefly to torpedo that utopian possibility…even if it’s just the instinct of the organization man (“I’m no radical! I’m no nut!”), or maybe the instinct of his opposite number the Independent Economic Actor, who is always and only in it ’til his own objectives have been accomplished, and then he’s suddenly WAY OUT. But “thrill-power” as the pre-technological thing that’s made before it all becomes fully controllable and perfectible, in contrast to some others here I’d agree that yeah…it does seem like that’s where it comes from, and what it is. And, that it’s something of a particular moment because it’s wedded to a particular means: the shock jocks now ascendent at Marvel and DC are surely trying to dish out the stuff for which there’s a mad appetite, and forever just unable to quite do it…don’t you think? But “thrill-power” it probably ain’t. To make thrill-power in comics again, you’d need a time machine. You’d have to somehow be able to ignore everything you’ve learned about what’s okay and what’s not okay in a workplace…and is it even possible for boutiques to blossom into world-beaters, anymore? In comics, anyway…

    But man that old Bullpen photo makes me wonder if it was a good time or not. Thrill-power being marvellous for the reader, and maybe the bigwigs, but how exciting is it really to meet someone and explain that you do the Planet Of The Apes comic book? My mother used to work on Madison Avenue in the Fifties, by the way, right down from Don Draper, and she says the work environment was very enjoyable, the secretaries would take three-hour lunches so the art director could teach them how to do the cha-cha-cha, everyone else was soused all the time but the girls in the steno pool weren’t, and couldn’t tell, and didn’t really care. For them, it was wonderful…but it was not the work that was wonderful, only the job. If that makes sense? The work probably sucked. Which is why in my occasional occupation in collectives I always feel somewhat avuncular towards the younger types: encouraging of lies about what’s really going on, so at least I can bask in the reflected glow of their delight. “This is so much fun!” “Actually we’re all going to be fired next month ’cause we’re constantly shitfaced at work, and the company’s hemorrhaging money…but, yeah, it is, isn’t it?”

    But no, I believe a Communist Bullpen’s probably the only kind to have, if you’re going to have one. Co-op ownership’s an effective brake on that antisocial ambition that torpedoes dreams, I firmly believe. Just as I believe that mainstream American comics would be far healthier today, if they’d ever gotten hold of such a system. But maybe that’s the problem…if you are a person who just wants their private goals met and nothing more, you are not going to look too kindly on the idea of a collective enterprise even if you (temporarily) have no choice but to avail yourself of its benefits, and you’re going to feel moved to wreck it where you can?

    I’m not the only person who knows people like that, am I?

    Anyway my own experience with collective enterprises is that it is possible to have that ridiculous “workshop” thing going on even at this late date…so long as there aren’t any serious inequalities being enforced by the anonymity. Because it’s like fighting with your roommate about the cleaning, right? Battles over the state of the bathroom are just externalizations of personal issues: when everybody’s happy, the cleaning just gets done, that’s all. Where inequalities are absent, credit isn’t that important, because participation itself creates a form of prestige. Unfortunately, where inequalities are present, the thing just can’t last, because it can’t be fixed. But maybe that’s part of “thrill-power” too? The advancing tide, the doom lurking just around the corner?

    I don’t know, but I liked this post.

  17. plok Says:

    And everybody else was talking, so I thought I would too.

    Eep. It went on a bit, though, I guess.

  18. Tabin Jacobs Says:

    This post absolutely destroys. I’ve often been at a loss to understand how the Bullpen process could have created anything other than dross, or anything like what it did, because of how dehumanizing it appears even when reading Marvel’s contemporary 1960s gloss. They weren’t building toasters, after all – but this has given me a fresh approach to the problem.

  19. Mindless Ones » Blog Archive » Aggregator aggravator Says:

    [...] and consumer boycotts on The Comics Internet lately, it’s probably worth pointing out that Joel’s essay on Thrill-Power and The Communist Bullpen was our attempt to both contribute to and expand the parameters of this discussion.  I like it a [...]

  20. Mindless Ones » Blog Archive » Rogue’s Review: Thunderwing Says:

    [...] another recent guest post, this one started with a tweet from Bostwana [...]

  21. Mindless Ones » Blog Archive » Rogue’s Review: Darkseid Says:

    [...] I’m fucked if I know, big man. Fuctifano. [...]

  22. Mindless Ones » Blog Archive » The Theatre of the Direct Market Says:

    [...] I want to once again look at comics history through the industry’s material processes. Last time, if you recall, we looked at the conditions and hypothetical emancipation of the 1960s comic book industry worker. [...]

  23. Mindless Ones » Blog Archive » Whatever Happened to the Mentallium Man of Tomorrow? Says:

    [...] All of this is visible in the gorgeous flat colours of Kane’s art, which burn with the uncompromising clarity of an indoctrinated child, and a similar sort of tainted playtime is developed throughout Flex Mentallo. Despite Wally Sage’s description of how “pure” the comics he created as a boy were, it’s obvious that his understanding of comics has got mixed up with his understanding of the world to the point that they’re indistinguishable from each other. For Sage, and thus for the reader, comics are both frustrated sexual fantasy and pre-sexual fun, punitive adventure stories and glimpses of a better world, nothing and everything all wrapped up in a series of tiny package, printed on cheap paper and held together by a couple of staples and a little bit of exploitation. [...]

  24. My Blog Saw Something « A Trout In The Milk Says:

    [...] let me boost another Mindless thing, the wonderful article on THRILL-POWER that’s every bit as much essential reading as the classic Prismatic Age or Candyfloss [...]

  25. Mindless Ones » Blog Archive » Action Comics #9, or “The Drones of Metropolis” Says:

    [...] moments I like to imagine that contemplation of this microcosm might lead to some sort of broader structural thinking. It won’t, but hey – winter is coming, and I need nice thoughts to keep me warm, so please [...]

  26. Universe Part Eight: Bonfire Of The Novelties « A Trout In The Milk Says:

    [...] rambling about art as pedagogy must eventually find its other half (its secret identity?) in a clever Marxist analysis of art as industrial relations…and then together wind their way back to the Lawrentian root [...]

Leave a Reply