CSBG Archive
Writer/Artist Authorship Conflicts in Dickensian England
- by Brian Cronin
- in General
- 19 Comments
As many comic book fans know, both Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby took major umbrage at the way that Stan Lee was given practically all the credit for Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, etc. Even today, artists chafe under the popular notion that the story is the writer’s domain, as they feel that they are just as much part of the storytelling of the comic as the writer. These are standard discussions nowadays.
However, amusingly enough, while doing the Stars of Political Cartooning piece on George Cruikshank, I discovered that even in the 19th Century, artists were taking issue with writers getting all the credit!
In this particular instance, Cruikshank felt he should be considered the co-author of Oliver Twist!
When Charles Dickens was just starting out as a writer, George Cruikshank was already a known commodity, and therefore, when Dickens began producing the short story collection “Sketches by Boz” in 1834, the stories were partnered with etchings by Cruikshank, which attracted attention to the work when it was published in 1836.
In the same year, Dickens began a serialized story called The Pickwick Papers, which soon turned into a serialized novel. The artist Richard Seymour (who perhaps came up with the idea) contributed four drawings for each serialized issue, while Dickens produced 24 pages of story. When Seymour killed himself soon into the collaboration, Cruikshank was considered to fill in for Seymour, but he was thought to be too expensive, so other artists filled in for the remaining parts of the story.
The series became a massive success.
Upon the success of his self-published novel, Dickens was hired by Richard Bentley to be the editor of Bentley’s new literary magazine, Bentley’s Miscellany. It was here that Dickens also was hired to begin a new serialized story, this time with the full intention of turning the work into a novel.
With Dickens now established as a bona fide draw, Cruikshank was no longer considered a waste of money producing the art for the series, and in fact, by this point in time, Dickens was pretty much a bigger name than Cruikshank (in a year or so there would be no doubt that Dickens was the bigger name).
The way the series worked was that in each issue, Cruikshank would produce one etching and Dickens would write one chapter of the story.
In the early days of the collaboration, Dickens and Cruikshank would confer before Cruikshank did the etchings. That was the case for probably the most famous etching in the book, the famous “Please, sir, I want some more” scene…
but as time went by (and Dickens became more and more famous and therefore more and more busy with extra-curricular matters), the conferences between the two went from discussions to fairly detailed descriptions by Dickens to ultimately just general descriptions by Dickens.
In many ways, this is the same thing that happened between Stan Lee and Jack Kirby on Fantastic Four. At first, they were detailed discussions making way to less detailed discussions making way to Kirby basically being allowed to draw what he wanted, with Lee having the prerogative to change what he liked – that also occurred here, where Dickens would take issue with how Cruikshank drew certain scenes, but Dickens would also sometimes revise his work to fit to Cruikshank’s drawings.
Here are a few scenes from the book…
Cruikshank first made claims as to the authorship of the book about ten years after the book came out, suggesting that Cruikshank came up with the ideas for Bill Sykes, Fagin and, I believe, the Artful Dodger.
However, in 1871, a year after Dickens was dead and couldn’t defend the charge, Cruikshank argued that he came up with much of the plot for Oliver Twist.
Now, on the whole, most of Cruikshank’s claims are pretty much bogus, and almost certainly driven by the change in each man’s fortunes since the release of Oliver Twist. Dickens became like unto a god in England, while Cruikshank toiled in relative obscurity (especially compared to his heyday of the 1810s-1830s).
That said, I believe the complete and absolute dismissal of Cruikshank’s authorship claims are driven less by the facts of the case and more by the cult of personality that grew around Dickens, that any acknowledgment of Cruikshank’s contributions would be seen as a shot at Dickens, and therefore must be completely dismissed.
Cruikshank was producing these drawings concurrently with Dickens producing the accompanying text. The drawings clearly were a major part of the telling of the story, hence their inclusion in every chapter (Dickens was not even a fan of having to use drawings to accompany his work, he simply acknowledged that it WAS necessary for the success of the book). Cruikshank DID design pretty much every character in the novel, visually (although, early on, using cues from Dickens). And Dickens DID occasionally revise his text to better fit Cruikshank’s drawings.
So while I think most people would ultimately come down on the side of Charles Dickens as the sole author of Oliver Twist, I don’t believe it as absurd as one might think to possibly consider Cruikshank (and all of the illustrators who worked with Dickens) as co-authors of the work, or more specifically, that Oliver Twist is a collaborative work (heck, you could probably include the editor of the work in there, too).
Remember, this is not the case of a fellow writing a book then having an artist draw illustrations to go with it – the drawing and the writing was going on at the same time, as it was a serialized work.
Writing in 1842, Samuel Warren wrote of Twist, “thus the writer follows the caricaturist, instead of the caricaturist following the writer.” And yet, by the 1880s, even Cruikshank’s own biographer referred to Twist as “In all the range of Dickens’s work, there is nothing more essentially his own than ‘Oliver Twist.’”
I posit that the ensuing years of popularity for Dickens (as well as Dickens own statements that he was the sole author of all his work) changed people’s perspectives to the point where something that would have been seen as reasonable enough (Twist as a collaborative work) to something that is seen as an outrage (Twist as anything but Dickens’ sole work).
A great many thanks to Robert L. Patten, for his excellent scholarship on this topic.
19 Comments
Chris McAree
October 16, 2008 at 2:20 pm
You should be on BBC2′s QI Brian!
Brian Cronin
October 16, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Thanks for the kind words, Chris!
Ford MF
October 16, 2008 at 2:45 pm
If nothing else, this anecdote only highlights that most artists are full of balls and don’t understand what stories are.
Dalarsco
October 16, 2008 at 3:14 pm
It depends on the method. Kirby and Ditko were actually co-writers due to the “Marvel Method”, and therefore deserve equal credit to Lee. But modern comics are almost always done with a full script method, lessening the artist’s contribution.
In this case, if Dickens wrote it all and then Cruikshanks drew something to accompany each chapter then Dickens does indeed deserve sole credit for the story itself. Had Dickens and Cruikshanks hashed out the plot together, or had Dickens written a synopsis, had Cruikshanks do the art, and then written the full text with the art as a muse (essentially the Marvel Method applied to illustrated prose) then he would be justified in claiming authorship.
Paul O'Brien
October 16, 2008 at 3:33 pm
“The drawings clearly were a major part of the telling of the story, hence their inclusion in every chapter.”
Well, that doesn’t follow. Look at Vanity Fair: it was originally published with illustrations by William Makepeace Thackeray himself. Thackeray was a mediocre artist, but the contract said he had to provide two drawings per issue, so he did. He had them all removed from the collected edition, which is a pretty clear indication of how important he thought they were.
Fortress Keeper
October 16, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Fascinating stuff! The Dickens/Cruikshanks does indeed sound like an early go at the Marvel Method.
Who knew that Charles Dickens was the Stan Lee of his era?
Brian Cronin
October 16, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Sure, Paul, but Thackeray was different from Dickens – they both disliked the drawings, but Thackeray did not think they were important to the work, so had them removed when he could. Dickens, however, knew they were important so did not have them removed, and in fact, solicited additional artwork for the finished novels.
He didn’t like them, but he knew/thought they helped sell books.
Tristan Elwell
October 16, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Just a minor point of correction, Cruikshank’s illustrations aren’t etchings, they’re drawings that were reproduced as wood engravings. Totally different printmaking process.
Tristan Elwell
October 16, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Actually, I may be wrong about that. Nevermind.
McK
October 17, 2008 at 7:35 am
So did Charles Dickens wear a bad toupee, claim not to remember the details of his collaborations, and make cameo appearances in all the movie versions of his books?
…okay, nevermind
Libaax
October 17, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I think comparing Cruikshank’s case to Ditko,Kirby’s case belittle’s their importance to their famous works.
Sure Cruikshank drawing might have sold Dickens books in series form but he never wrote the story,characters or anything. Creating the appearence of a character in a book doesnt mean anything since its the authors word that paints everything up in your mind. Unless Cruikshank came up with the character,who he is,the story or anything which there is no record he doesnt have anything to do with Dickens work but selling them as an artist sells books with a cover…..
Comics are very different, an artist is essential unlike in any book or short story. Since he draws every panel and scene he is a storyteller too. You cant tell a comics story as writer without the art of the artist moving things and making them come alive in every panel.
So i think they deserve more respect than this this artist who doesnt have any real claim to any real.
Thats why they are remembered by most fans of those comics today. Stan Lee might the only famous of them in mainstream media fans as the creator of thos comics by people who know only the movies but comics fans know the truth.
Rob Peters
October 18, 2008 at 7:31 pm
While I’ve noticed some similarities between Dicken’s Novels and modern comics, I think this particular one is a bit of a stretch. The thing to remember is that unlike the comics, where Stan Lee wrote dialogue after Kirby finished the art, Dickens and Cruikshank were working simultaneously. Cruikshank didn’t have the finished chapter before he began drawing, but Dickens wasn’t writing to fit finished artwork either. And, unlike Kirby, Cruikshank was only producing one image per chapter. Even if Dickens wrote scenes to fit the picutres, there would still be a substantial part of each chapter that was NOT inspired by a picture.
On a related note, I’ve heard that Dickens was inspired by the comments of his readers as he wrote, and would feed off his fans’ excitement for certain characters or storylines. I believe Jeff Smith made similar comments when he explained his decision to publish RASL as comic books rather than going straight to the graphic novel.
When his readers didn’t like the ending of Great Expectations, Dickens wrote an entirely different last chapter for the novel. For some reason, this reminds me of the Infinite Crisis TPB, but maybe that’s an unfair comparison…
Garth
October 19, 2008 at 11:51 am
“He didn’t like them, but he knew/thought they helped sell books.”
That doesn’t mean he thought they were an important part of “telling the story”, as you say, but an important part of SELLING the story.
It’s an interesting article, and it would be interesting to know just how much input Cruickshank had, but to compare doing one or two drawings per chapter with actually telling the story is somewhat irresponsible, I think. Until there is some concrete confirmation that Cruickshank helped write the story, there’s a big difference between Stan Lee giving Jack Kirby a short outline and having Kirby turn that into a sequential story and the idea that Dickens gave Cruickshank an outline and Cruickshank did ONE representative drawing and maybe said “Hey, have him say ‘Please sir, I want some more’”.
Brian Cronin
October 19, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I specifically did not say that Dickens thought they were important to telling the story.
Only that he knew they were important to the success of the books.
This is what I said…
Anyone arguing that Dickens’ works were collaborative authorships would never look to Dickens for agreement on the point, as he had a specific interest in the OPPOSITE side of the argument, that he, and only he, was the author of the book.
fanboy d
October 19, 2008 at 1:32 pm
anything that likens stan lee to dickens is okay in my book, and probably in stan’s too
Random News Table for October 19th | UncleBear
October 19, 2008 at 4:03 pm
[...] Comics Should Be Good! » Writer/Artist Authorship Conflicts in Dickensian England As many comic book fans know, both Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby took major umbrage at the way that Stan Lee was given practically all the credit for Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, etc. Even today, artists chafe under the popular notion that the story is the writer’s domain, as they feel that they are just as much part of the storytelling of the comic as the writer. These are standard discussions nowadays.However, amusingly enough, while doing the Stars of Political Cartooning piece on George Cruikshank, I discovered that even in the 19th Century, artists were taking issue with writers getting all the credit! [...]
STWALLSKULL » INTERESTING LINKS: King Features Syndicate’s 1949 Famous Artists and Writers: October 22nd, 2008
October 22, 2008 at 8:31 am
[...] Writer/Artist Authorship Conflicts in Dickensian England from Comics Should Be Good! [...]
STWALLSKULL » INTERESTING LINKS: King Features Syndicate’s 1949 Famous Artists and Writers: October 22nd, 2008
October 22, 2008 at 10:15 am
[...] Writer/Artist Authorship Conflicts in Dickensian England from Comics Should Be Good! [...]
Frank Murdock
May 27, 2009 at 2:26 am
An Artist IS as important to a comic as any writer…. a particular issue of G.I.Joe during the Marvel years inwhich Snakeeyes is fighting Stormshadow in the subway is probably one of the best examples I can provide. And if I am remembering right on a video called Countdown to Wednesday, someone or another states an artist should be good enough so that were there no word bubbles the reader should be able to follow the story and understand what is happening. (Not that all artists can pull this off of coarse, but Perez, Kirby, Ditko, and a few others have demonstrated that they are fully capable…)