Bill Finger/Bob Kane Discourse

[Slash Man]

Let me start by saying that it's pretty common knowledge nowadays that Bill Finger co-created Batman. But what is it about this that makes normies vigilant about proclaiming this, or tearing down Bob Kane to make their point?

Firstly, the facts: the prerequisites for being a comic book creator weren't as well established before the silver age. It seems like there was this belief that if you conceived of the character, you were the sole creator (as Stan Lee maintained before Steve Ditko protested). The common understanding nowadays is that there's a conceptual and visual element that goes into creating a comic book character; usually assigned to a writer and artist.

As this became more established, Bill Finger was willfully neglected from the conversation when it came to Batman's creation, even subject to some false claims by Bob Kane before he eventually softened his stance and gave Finger more credit later in life. This became officially recognized in 2015.

The point? I felt compelled to make this point because we've reached a ridiculous point where there's abundant vitriol and misinformation whenever Bob Kane is so much as mentioned.

Michael Uslan, one of the leading champions of giving Bill Finger his credit, simply shared a comic panel from Superman: Zero Hour that showed different Batmen sharing the scene, inspired by the art of Kane, Frank Miller, and Neal Adams (crediting the influences as such).

So a guy comments that it should be Bill Finger. Thinking he made an honest mistake, I just correct him that Bill did not draw that Detective Comics #27 Batman, and that it should rightfully be credited to only Bill Finger because he had the idea to revise the infamous "red with domino mask" Batman prototype. So this guy was willfully being an idiot and it became popular to accept this as fact, calling me incorrect.

So is it right to give Bill Finger credit where it isn't due because of the transgressions against him in the past? Is it productive to only celebrate Bill Finger in the context of tearing down Bob Kane? People honestly made the argument that Kane being callous to Finger, or using ghost artists made it okay to miscredit them. Also, taking this genius's claim to its logical conclusion, the Neal Adams and Frank Miller Batman should also be credited solely to Bill Finger, since he had the idea for the batsuit.

As someone who's well-read on comic history, and especially golden age Batman, it's a little annoying to see the influx of assholes with a surface level knowledge confidently spew disinformation. There was an immediate, positive impact of internet exposés bringing  Bill Finger's contributions to light to a wider audience, but far too many people try to condense this story and parrot their own conclusions. It's only when you're in a forum of serious Bat-fans that you can actually have a serious and objective conversation or debate about the history, and that's a shame.

[thecolorsblend]

It's the appeal of esoterica. "Herpa derpa derp, did you know Bob Kane didn't ackchyually create Batman?"

As you say, the issue of credit was VERY hazy back then. Especially since comics were regarded as a fly by night industry that would probably be extinct by 1945 at the latest. That was conventional wisdom in the industry even at the time. Nobody was too worried with who got credit for what since comic book characters were not understood to be gigantic franchise in those days.

Bob Kane negotiated a deal with Vincent Sullivan to create "another Superman", he named and made an initial design for Batman (or Bat-Man, if that works better for anyone), he presented the beginning of his idea to Bill Finger, Bill Finger redesigned the character, Bob Kane then sold the character/concept to Sullivan and Kane then used Bill Finger in what history would probably consider a work for hire capacity.

I'm not trying to minimize Finger's massive contributions. I'm simply saying that Kane did a lot more than collect a paycheck.

Still, if we're going to take a warts and all look at Batman's history, can we start by acknowledging that Bill Finger was hardly a saint (or a victim) (or a martyr) in his own right? The Case Of The Chemical Syndicate was virtually plagiarized from The Shadow pulp 'Partners In Peril'. Bill Finger wrote that. But how much crap does he take for swiping someone else's work?

My point is that crediting solely Bob Kane for Batman's creation had considerable legal accuracy behind it. It might not have been "fair" by modern standards. But by legal standards, it made a lot of sense to give Kane sole credit. I have no problem with crediting Finger as co-creator. By all means, do it.

All I'm saying is we need to let go of the idea of Kane being a dastardly villain and Finger being a helpless victim.

Back in 2015, I started wondering what floodgates would be opened if Finger received co-creator credit. And sure enough, it looks like the floodgates have been coming open. Roy Thomas has been jockeying for co-creator credit for Wolverine now that Wolverine's other co-creators are dead and can't set the record straight. I'm sure there will be plenty more of this to come in the future.

[Slash Man]

All I'm saying is we need to let go of the idea of Kane being a dastardly villain and Finger being a helpless victim.

You'd think that's a simple, relatively inoffensive statement that everyone could agree on. But you'd sadly be wrong.

Back in 2015, I started wondering what floodgates would be opened if Finger received co-creator credit. And sure enough, it looks like the floodgates have been coming open. Roy Thomas has been jockeying for co-creator credit for Wolverine now that Wolverine's other co-creators are dead and can't set the record straight. I'm sure there will be plenty more of this to come in the future.

I've been loosely following that case. At what point do contributions turn into creation credit? It becomes especially problematic when at least one of the parties is deceased and can't respond to claims.

Kane and Finger being dead means that fans can project whatever conflict and drama they want onto a complex and foreign scenario.