|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 14:59:26 GMT -5
Actually, I guess that's what most writer/illustrator teams do. Writer describes it as best he can, illustrator draws his vision and writer writes. But maybe Stan and Lee were not as in touch with one another when it came to picking out the finer details.
I think you nailed the problem of the dynamics of Stan and Lee working together and that's why they have all of these problems that toworthy is sharing with us. I was thinking of that too as I read this analysis from toworthy. I'm still not done with it. For a successful writer/illustrator must do is that they must edit the work they do and not doing the detail work is very inexcusable on part of Stan Lee who was the Editor of Chief of Marvel Comics. This is one impression that I got from reading this thing from toworthy. I think that Jack Kirby is being overworked here.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 9, 2017 20:18:50 GMT -5
Can you point me to any examples? I'd like to use the in a revised appendix. The only ones I've seen are Kirby's claim to have created Spider-man, and his claim that Lee was crying when they met. Both claims turn out to be true, or as true as a quick simplification can be: Spider-Man's creation takes multiple pages to unravel for example. What significant errors did Kirby make? I mean other than accidentally calling Captain America "Captain Marvel" that one time? I'd need to dig up that CJ interview; I have it as a digital scan, somewhere. I'm mainly going form memory and the biggest thing is Stan wrote nothing but the credits, which isn't exactly true. Now, that might have been said facetiously, but it reads seriously on the page. I'll have to go digging for that and re-read. I can't remember if I have a copy of the audio files from that interview or not. I traded some stuff with someone who had some audio recordings from Journal interviews, including that one; but don't remember if I got any of that. More digging.
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Nov 9, 2017 21:00:00 GMT -5
I just want to say thanks again for everyone who's made suggestions. Even the people who disagree with me and are therefore WRONG. I've made some edits that hopefully will fix the problems, and toned down the wild eyed hatred a little. If there are no other major issues to fix then I'll upload version 2 tomorrow afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Nov 9, 2017 22:21:50 GMT -5
I don't think you are wrong. I admire the time you put into it all. I just think your argument should not be that Kirby created the Fantastic Four solely. Your argument should be that Kirby's art was a more driving and intriguing storytelling force than Lee's writing and had Kirby been able to write it, perhaps it could have been an even richer story. That I have no problem disagreeing with.
My problem is someone solely getting credit. Kirby and Lee both deserve some and Lee does deserve some disdain for always taking the glory and credit a bit more than he should. That will always be my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Nov 10, 2017 11:31:29 GMT -5
I am aware that DC heroes were all basically the same person with different costumes and power sets, as is obvious when they interact in JLA etc. Now this is a topic that REALLY interests me. Because I would argue that being "the same person" is actually true for Kirby's work and that's a positive thing. Though not in the DC way... As far as I can tell from his interviews, and I think it is amply backed up on his work, Kirby never planned and never edited. And I think he deliberately made his characters blank slates as far as possible: he was examining how you or I would react to events. I think every Kirby character is the reader. Every Kirby character is Kirby himself. They are different only because big, different things happen to them. Ben turned rocky, Sue got married, etc. And we would be that way too if those things happened to us. Sure, Dr Doom is vain, but he merely focuses on something we all have: which person does not but himself before others at some point? And the Hulk is angry, but wouldn't you or I be in those circumstances? I find Kirby's writing method to be brilliant and fascinating and unique. He doesn't contrive (he said he hated contrive situations), he just sees an interesting real life situation and asks "what would happen next?" ... My road to Damascus experience was when I realised that contrived continuity always disappoints; No matter how good the writer is, sooner or later you find a plot hole, or the story simply ends. But the truly great writers, the Shakespeares and Tolstoys and Hugos and Chekovs, they create characters who are basically us. We inhabit them like mask. Their stories are "what ifs" about the real world we live in. Their stories can be endlessly re-read and re-interpreted because the real world can be. One character then merges into another. Nobody feels sad when a Jane Austen novel ends (or not sad for long anyway), because there is another Jane Austen novel around the corner, and we are not really reading about Elizabeth Bennett or Fanny Price, we are reading about Everywoman or Everyman, when placed in those situations. This is how Kirby is to me. All his characters are the same, but what makes them different is thst with Kirby stuff is constantly happening! If a Kirby character stood still they would disappear. They are a world away from standard superheroes, endlessly returning to the same villains: Kirby characters constantly change, reacting to the real world. Challengers become Fantastic Four become X-men, just as fast as Kirby could explore what's out there and then radiation. But they are all us. It's worth noting that the "everyman vs specific man" dichotomy you mention here reflects a more general change in American culture during the 1960s. For instance, pop music of the crooner era intentionally spoke in general terms that probably applied to everybody in some sense: The very thought of you and I forget to do The little ordinary things that everyone ought to do I'm living in a kind of daydream, I'm happy as a king And foolish though it may seem to me that's everything (Ray Noble, 1934) Whereas from the 1960s onward, singer/songwriters often wrote specifically (yet often obliquely) about their own lives, giving a rich picture, but one required the listener to back-generalize how the song applied to their own circumstances. Suzanne takes you down to her place near the river You can hear the boats go by, you can spend the night forever And you know that she's half-crazy but that's why you want to be there And she feeds you tea and oranges that come all the way from China (Leonard Cohen, 1966) And so on with Dylan, Paul Simon, the Beatles (after meeting Dylan), Lou Reed, James Taylor, and lots of others up through Bono, Taylor Swift, and Ed Sheeran today. Similarly, popular literature from the likes of Jack Kerouac and Hunter S. Thompson had a strong roman a clef component that was very non-everyman in characterization.
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Nov 10, 2017 11:40:13 GMT -5
I don't think you are wrong. I admire the time you put into it all. I just think your argument should not be that Kirby created the Fantastic Four solely. Your argument should be that Kirby's art was a more driving and intriguing storytelling force than Lee's writing and had Kirby been able to write it, perhaps it could have been an even richer story. That I have no problem disagreeing with. My problem is someone solely getting credit. Kirby and Lee both deserve some and Lee does deserve some disdain for always taking the glory and credit a bit more than he should. That will always be my opinion. You are right. The second edition (isn't technology wonderful? A second edition within a week?) is retitled "The Case For Kirby". I have completely replaced the introduction, and changed the whole logic of the argument. Previously I was basically saying "look at all the evil things that scumbag Lee did". But if a person likes what he did - and millions do - then that logic fails completely. It's like a political argument where we say "candidate X is evil because he did Z", but half the country thinks "Z" is a very good thing and he should have done more of it. Similarly, my arguing "look how little he added" is irrelevant if the part he added is the seasoning that turned a tough meal into a pleasure. So version 2 will try a different approach. Focus more on Lee's effect on sales (the only part we can hope to objectively measure), and then say why I, personally, preferred the parts we can trace to Kirby. hopefully less inflammatory. Plus my wife is afraid that one day I'll go too far and offend Marvel's lawyers. She remembers that british Aspergers kid who thought he was doing a service for mankind, but seriously annoyed somebody. he does not know how, because they won't tell him what he did. He got getting extradited to America and might spend the rest of his life in prison. As somebody who once spent an afternoon in a cell for "doing the right thing" (clearly the other side did not think so) I'm a bit paranoid.
|
|
|
Post by String on Nov 10, 2017 12:46:33 GMT -5
So far, I'm about a third of the way through this missive and it's been very engaging and thought-provoking. FF is a title that's always been near and dear to me ever since my youth and learning of discrepancies and errors and such of this early classic run is always fascinating. (This was also the time of Kirby's suit against Marvel in the 80s of which I had seen the various petitions proclaiming in other comics but being young, had little notion of what was actually involved at that time).
Early on, you mention the differences between Lee and Kirby's dialogue and where you as a fan may fall on that measure. I've always been in the Lee camp, liking his work while generally finding Kirby's dialogue 'clunky'. Of course, with age and hindsight, this opinion can change as with a recent re-reading of New Gods, I can better appreciate the raw passion and emotion of Kirby's dialogue and narration. But in this instance, I think Lee serves a better purpose with his writing in that, Lee, being the salesman and promoter, helps make the material more accessible to their target audience.
I won't use the phrase 'dumbed-down' but I think we can all basically agree that Kirby was a creator ahead of his time. His concepts, ideas, characters, and such, they were all about too large for the page to contain. Lee helped this through his descriptive writing of the art. I've always thought that Lee's dialogue had a better flow, rhythm to it than Kirby's. This could have possibly helped the young audience in enjoying the vast stories that Kirby was illustrating.
Case in point - the Sidewinder missile panel. I appreciate Kirby's attempt to inject more realism into these type of stories. But I have to ask, how many 8-10 year old kids in 1961 would know what a Sidewinder missile is? Or any difference between various missiles and their capabilities? But if you make it a nuclear missile, then the reader instantly grasps the notion and Lee likewise raises the drama and excitement of the moment. So it may not have been what Kirby originally intended, but the resultant change as I see it, enhances the story however minutely.
Another example- Sue Storm. One could successfully argue that Sue is the most powerful member of the team yet is generally shown as being the weakest and/or subservient. That's blatant sexism on display but given the social and cultural norms of that time, I really can't fault Lee for depicting her in such a fashion. The readers of that time, whether through other cultural influences or even perhaps in their very home life, would potentially be exposed to similar examples of sexism and thus may understand and accept this depiction more so than Kirby's original intention. I'm not saying it's right, only that given the social norms of that era, it was more acceptable.
So in some ways, I view Kirby as being far more progressive while Lee was merely making the material more accessible and thus hopefully boosting it's sales appeal and their profits. Again, as others have said, I think the two together crafted something far more better than each may have done on their singular own.
However, entertaining as this missive has been so far (kudos to you for the effort and examination, thank you), to me, this strengthens my opinion that discussions and arguments such as these (who created what, who did what?) are essentially moot. Time moves on, memories fade or alter, money is involved as well as ego and emotion leading to bitter recriminations. But I think, as you point out early on, that if these actions of misleading credit or lack of acknowledging proper credit by Lee and Goodman were considered general standards of practice by the industry (to one degree or another), then by accepting those standards and producing work under those standards, then one must also accept the consequences of those standards.
Is that right? Is that fair? No, but being a seasoned professional even by this point in his career, I would have to believe that Kirby knew how the game was played. And so he did it regardless. So any attempt to cry foul 40 years after the fact just rings hollow to me due to the notion that he had to have known that what he produced was for Marvel not for himself. Lee, by being the writer, the editor, heck the boss' nephew, may have taken more than his fair share of credit, but from what I've seen, Lee has always been one to quickly praise his collaborators for their contributions. And while the industry has struggled with changing these Golden Age practices, they've come quite far in recent years. Check out any title splash page of a current Marvel comic and you'll see some proper credits for these characters, from Kirby to Ditko to Leiber to Heck and more.
But I hate to see such potential acrimony taint these works. Whatever the motive, for right or wrong, such action and reactions shouldn't tarnish the brilliance and creativity that both of these creators brought to their respective works.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2017 13:56:46 GMT -5
String ... Thanks for sharing your points on Sue Storm, Sidewinder Missile, and Kirby being the progressive one - all of those thoughts are clearly understandable and I felt that your comments about Sue Storm hit me like a "tons of bricks" and I just don't understand why both Lee and Stan made her the most powerful member of the Fantastic Four? ... Your argument hold it's own. Questions for tolworthy ... On page 274 in your massive review you stated that both Susan and Johnny looks like "teenagers" and knowing that who is older? ... Possibly twins? ... That picture that you shared to us make me believe that they could be twins! I learning something new everyday.
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Nov 10, 2017 14:24:34 GMT -5
String ... Thanks for sharing your points on Sue Storm, Sidewinder Missile, and Kirby being the progressive one - all of those thoughts are clearly understandable and I felt that your comments about Sue Storm hit me like a "tons of bricks" and I just don't understand why both Lee and Stan made her the most powerful member of the Fantastic Four? ... Your argument hold it's own. Questions for tolworthy ... On page 274 in your massive review you stated that both Susan and Johnny looks like "teenagers" and knowing that who is older? ... Possibly twins? ... That picture that you shared to us make me believe that they could be twins! I learning something new everyday. I wish I knew!
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Nov 10, 2017 17:08:50 GMT -5
Let's hope Johnny and Sue aren't twins, because 40-something Reed dating a high schooler is super-creepy.
Cei-U! I summon the pliable pederast!
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Nov 10, 2017 22:50:48 GMT -5
At the risk of people yelling at me, could one argue that the The Thing, from Kirby's artistic perspective, is actually modified from a previous monster story? Thus, any "originality" or "creativity" Kirby may have contributed was recycled material, at best?
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Nov 11, 2017 4:59:26 GMT -5
At the risk of people yelling at me, could one argue that the The Thing, from Kirby's artistic perspective, is actually modified from a previous monster story? Thus, any "originality" or "creativity" Kirby may have contributed was recycled material, at best? I will yell "definitely agree!" I think all creativity is simply mashing up old ideas. There is nothing new under the sun! I think the difference between a good writer and a bad one is that the good one is new to the reader. And in a way that the reader finds interesting, obviously! I counted five different Thing-type characters just in the same month that Fantastic Four 1 came out, so that was not new at all. The idea that the hero is a thing is sort of new, but not really: a lot of stories have twist endings like "I was the monster!". Then continuing and saying "now what happens after the twist ending, how does it feel?" That's pretty new. But even there, it's just the old tragedy trope. It's just like Les Miserables: Jean Valjean realises he is a horrible person (when he steals the candlesticks and then steals the child's money), and he also realises he is trapped and can't do anything about it (society hates him and will not see past the outside layer to the good man underneath). So even that isn't new. but I think that particular combination was relatively unusual in comics, so new readers thought "this is cool!" I suppose this is me defending richness again. I was re-reading some of Kirby's old stories yesterday (and looking at the topic of how we know it's him and not somebody else: Martin O’Hearne examines this in his blog, “ Who Created the Comic Books”, with numerous examples.) It isn't that Kirby had completely new ideas, but just the richness of those ideas. In fact, one f the way we know a Kirby story is that he re-uses so many old ithemes. But he has such a large bag of themes to choose from that every combination is unique and interesting. To me, anyway. If I had to choose between Kirby's art and his writing I would choose his writing every time.
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Nov 11, 2017 9:23:04 GMT -5
I admit I have read very few of his monster stories. I think you may very well be correct in believing that Kirby should have written FF and it may have been a much deeper and meaningful comic. Again I like this analysis a lot. I have always wanted to devote the time and knowledge to dissect a comic/series the way you did. It's very impressive and should be used in some way to teach the new comicngeneration about the importance Jack Kirby had in Marvel's success.
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Nov 13, 2017 15:17:39 GMT -5
Thanks for all the feedback, guys! The revised version is now up. The file name and links are the same, just in case anybody shared them (unlikely, but who knows?) but the title is now "The Case For Kirby". PDF (recommended): zak-site.com/Case_Against_Stan_Lee.pdfWeb (if you have a slow connection): zak-site.com/CaseAgainstStanLee.htmlThere are lots of small changes, but the big ones are: * Better intro. Less aggressive, and makes a simpler case that is easier to prove (about sales figures) * New appendix 1: Kirby's writing pre 1961. Especially dialog. If you don't read any other part, I recommend this (he said, modestly). Because when people think of Kirby's writing they usually think of his post 1970 stuff, where he goes extreme Kirby! But his pre 1961 work is much more mainstream, and just a delight to read IMO. * new appendix 10: how Lee's claim of being the writer evolved. This isn't a strong proof on its own: if the rest of the book doesn't convince you then this won't change your mind. But I think it's really interesting that Lee didn't actually say he was the solo writer for over a year, and before that point the evidence is consistent with the FF being a joint creation. * more about the flare gun, the "valley of diamonds" and subsequent explosion, the history of Metallo, and various other bits and pieces. If anything big turns up, then I'll make another revision, but hopefully this is the final one. Thanks again for all who made suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2017 17:08:43 GMT -5
I downloaded your 2nd review and thanks for providing it so quickly.
|
|