H.G Peters

[AmiMizuno]

How come Peter isn't credited? Is this another Bill Finger or something else?

[kjn]

How come Peter isn't credited? Is this another Bill Finger or something else?

Isn't credited where?

[Electricmastro]

How come Peter isn't credited? Is this another Bill Finger or something else?

What’s interesting is that in DC’s 1985 one-shot Fifty Who Made DC Great, they go so far as to list Bill Finger, but not H. G. Peter:



Peter isn’t even mentioned on William Marston’s page:

[Koriand'r]

That's probably because of all his racist caricatures. While Marston was progressive, Peters was standing on the wrong side of history.

[AmiMizuno]

I mean do we know for sure H,G Peter was a racist? There have been times where a comic creator wasn't a racist but drawn them due to it being acceptable. Like Many thought the Tin Tin crator was racist but he wasn't

[SiegePerilous02]

That's probably because of all his racist caricatures. While Marston was progressive, Peters was standing on the wrong side of history.

Peters was drawing Marston's (and Murchinson's) scripts though? They seemed to have been on the same page, and while there is a lot of great stuff in the Golden Age WW, none of that stuff is among it.

[Electricmastro]

Peters was drawing Marston's (and Murchinson's) scripts though? They seemed to have been on the same page, and while there is a lot of great stuff in the Golden Age WW, none of that stuff is among it.

One of Wonder Woman’s earliest adventures was Harry Peter drawing the story, written by Gardner Fox, in All-Star Comics #11 (June, 1942) in which she fights against Japanese soldiers. I’m not sure what Fox and Peter’s personal feelings and private lives were like over this sort of thing, but I suppose the main fact of the matter is that they collaborated in such a way that they presented the story like this, and seeing as how stories like went on for as long as they did in DC, and elsewhere, probably shows the sort of accountability comic companies had in basically thinking how they felt they could get away with stuff like this, no matter how wrong it got.

[Jim Kelly]

That's probably because of all his racist caricatures. While Marston was progressive, Peters was standing on the wrong side of history.

To be consistent we should then have a dragnet to deny the creative rights of every artist that was guilty of xenophobic stereotypes in the work they did for their publishers. That means Will Eisner, Jack Kirby, Wayne Boring, Reed Crandall, Gene Colan, C.C. Beck you all have no rights because the politically correct police have decided you don't get any.

A lot of the stereotypes were of the enemy in times of war. I'm not saying it's right, but it's something that happens with great regularity to this day. "The Hun" was made to look like an ugly beast during the First World War in propaganda posters. We still have horrible stereotypes of Middle-Eastern people, just to demonize the enemy of the American government.

Harry George Peter (PETER, no S) was working for William Moulton Marston, so his was work-for-hire, I'm guessing, while Marston made a deal with Maxwell Charles Gaines (the All-American publisher) for the Wonder Woman character. That's why stories were always credited to "Charles Moulton"--the combination of their two middle names. When M.C. Gaines left to start Educational Comics, he sold his half of All-American (Jack Liebowitz owned the other half) to the people at National Comics, which were Liebowitz and Harry Donenfeld. So now National (a.k.a. D.C.) owned half of Wonder Woman and the Marston estate owned the other half. Which I think is how it still stands.

However, I don't think Peter's case is all that different from the Bill Finger case. Finger was working for Bob Kane (on a handshake) when he created so much of what was the Batman. H.G. Peter was working for William Mouton Marston. And I would say that Peter's designs are just as important to Wonder Woman as what Finger contributed to Batman.

So, for the sake of historical accuracy, Peter should get credit.

Peter was already in his sixties when he did the art for Wonder Woman. He had a long career in the commercial arts. "Peter and his wife Adonica Fulton often drew editorial cartoons in supportive magazines, such as JUDGE, which featured 'The Modern Woman' page from 1912 to 1917" [Wikipedia].

But I doubt that Marston took advantage of Peter the way that Kane took advantage of Finger. Peter got his own studio--with many female artists working for him on Wonder Woman--and he ran that studio until his death. So it seems like he was well-compensated for his creative input.

Facts are facts and H.G. Peter did co-create Wonder Woman, even if the lawyers are preventing that from being stated in the comics.

[Electricmastro]

Peter was already in his sixties when he did the art for Wonder Woman. He had a long career in the commercial arts. "Peter and his wife Adonica Fulton often drew editorial cartoons in supportive magazines, such as JUDGE, which featured 'The Modern Woman' page from 1912 to 1917" [Wikipedia].

And developed a rather recognizable style after over half a century of his life, as he tended to draw men as older-looking with dimples and pronounced chins, while the women had plain and smooth faces.

[Hatut Zeraze]

Peters' art in those early Wonder Woman stories was just magic. I loved it.

Yeah, I saw some of those racist appearances, but they were right there alongside the words coming out of Diana's mouth, which included some pretty questionable descriptions of the Japanese. Peters' surely didn't write those words.

I'd argue that even if we can still appreciate the artistry and craft of writers and artists of that era, even when they fail in terms of modern social standards.

[Electricmastro]

Peters' art in those early Wonder Woman stories was just magic. I loved it.

Yeah, I saw some of those racist appearances, but they were right there alongside the words coming out of Diana's mouth, which included some pretty questionable descriptions of the Japanese. Peters' surely didn't write those words.

I'd argue that even if we can still appreciate the artistry and craft of writers and artists of that era, even when they fail in terms of modern social standards.

Yeah, I think it’s fair to say that it got more personal beyond Pearl Harbor and that the Japanese were made fun of more than how writers made fun of their Nazi Axis-associates. It definitely shouldn’t take away from the rest of the art though, I’m sure.

[Koriand'r]

The question was asked, I answered it. If it's not the answer you want, come up with your own.

racism-elephants-circus-burmese.jpg

RACISM.jpg

WW GA HULA.jpg

Explanations and justifications are falling on deaf ears.