Print

[JVJ]

You have remarkably good taste, Jim, as your top five are nearly the same as mine. (by the way, the link to the Krigstein bio actually leads to Kurtzman's).

The only changes I'd make to your list would be to put Eisner and Ditko in the place of Krigstein and Frazetta. While both B.K. and F.F. would fall just outside my top five (along with Wood and Cole), I think Ditko and Eisner's contributions to the comic book medium were more significant.

And to extend my list a bit more, I'd also add Matt Baker and Doug Wildey (yeah, I know--he had an affinity to use a lot of photographic sources, but I like his work just the same).

--Ken Q

I like Eisner and Ditko and think that WE contributed quite a bit to the medium in terms of storytelling. I'm not sure that Ditko did. He is a great artist and I LOVE his stuff and he told a GREAT story, but I don't think of him when I think of innovators. Krigstein, well, read the bio http://www.bpib.com/illustrat/krigstei.htm and save me for restating it all.. Thanks for pointing out the bad link. I fixed it.

I'm curious as to what you think are Ditko's great contributions. Spider-Man? Capt. Atom? The wonderful post-Atlas mystery stories? Those are all great art and wonderful comics, but I don't see how they moved the medium forward in any significant manner. Don't get me wrong, I can't tell you how much I like Ditko. I have almost everything he ever did, and I've gone out of my way over the years to obtain it, but they are simply great comics to me, not great moments in the development of comics. Krigstein, though a lesser stylist than Ditko, was much more intellectually innovative and tried to deconstruct the medium and rebuild it according to his aesthetics. I think the greatest crime in comics history (worse, even, than Wertham and the Comics Code) is that he was ignored by people like Feldstein and Gaines and his peers at EC - who should have known better. MY dream of a time machine involves giving Krigstein a chance to save the New Direction titles with a REAL new direction in comic art.

Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are these "It might have been."

And Frazetta, well, starting with his Giunta inks, his Snowman story, his Standard text illoes, and onward, he was simply SO facile and SO magnificent. It became obvious too quickly that the medium was unable to contain him and that we have never had such a talented artist working for comic books - not Lou Fine, not Kirby, not Eisner, not anyone has had the sheer talent of Frazetta and every time I view his comics, I'm thrilled. Eisner had a shop and Ditko has a style, but FF had the magic. By the way, the Eisner "shop" is one of the reasons that he doesn't make my top five list. Had he done it all alone, he might have knocked Krigstein off.

Wood's inability to work consistently and solo have always diminished him in my opinion. When he was on, he was better than anybody, but he seldom managed to stay "on" for very long. And the litany of "assistants" goes on for some length. I'm splitting hairs here, of course. For my full thoughts on Wood, see http://www.bpib.com/illustrat/wood.htm. These are ALL great artists and treasures of the comic book medium. But when you try to narrow it down to five, the criteria has to include those "hairs."

Enough nattering. We can agree to disagree. Besides, ALL of these artists are crowded at the top of the comics heap. Depending on the stories you're thinking of or looking at, the ranking can shift at any moment.

I do disagree with you only on Doug Wildey. Much as I enjoy the man's art (hell, I published a book on him), he's not even in my top 25. He was a pro and totally competent, but never pushed the medium nor stretched himself artistically in the comics. And I think he would have agreed with that statement.

(|:{>

[kquattro]

I'm curious as to what you think are Ditko's great contributions. Spider-Man? Capt. Atom? The wonderful post-Atlas mystery stories? Those are all great art and wonderful comics, but I don't see how they moved the medium forward in any significant manner.

Well, yes, actually I do think Spider-Man and Dr. Strange and the post-Atlas mystery/fantasy stories were great contributions to the medium. (leave aside his other work for a second)

Ditko may not have possessed the intellectual curiosity or experimental flair of Krigstein, but his style was a mighty part of Marvel's success. At his best, Ditko provided an atmosphere to the post-Atlas/early Marvel books--claustrophobic, a looming feeling of dread--that suited that genre perfectly. His 'common man' take on Spider-Man, a human super-hero, came in the same period as his Dr. Strange, the most otherworldly character of its time. If he did nothing else, this decade (more or less) of work had a great impact on Marvel and consequently, on the lasting success of the medium.

To a lesser extent, his work on The Question led to his very personal Mr. A, which led the way for many independent comics to follow. That's significant, I believe.

And Frazetta...It became obvious too quickly that the medium was unable to contain him and that we have never had such a talented artist working for comic books...

No argument from me here, Jim, Frazetta is in my top 6 or 7. But I believe his impact on the comic book medium is less than the five I put ahead of him. He is/was a magnificent artist, maybe too good for comics. And while there have been imitators, none made it look so effortless, so easy. However, was he a great story-teller? What, to use your phrase, "...great moments in the development of comics.." did he provide, besides beautiful illustrations? Again, I'm not knocking Frazetta at all, just explaining why he ranks just a bit lower on my list.

...the Eisner "shop" is one of the reasons that he doesn't make my top five list. Had he done it all alone, he might have knocked Krigstein off.

Here we disagree. Eisner was experimenting with panel layouts and cinematic effects years before Krigstein. And he was a brilliant story-teller, perhaps the best ever in comics. Yeah, he had a shop and yeah, he didn't do a lot of the actual drawing (or scripting) on The Spirit. But just as a great director heads up a film crew, The Spirit was his creation. And much of what eventually came to maturity in The Spirit originated in Eisner's early, totally his, comic work. And how many comic artists (and writers!) name him as an influence? Krigstein's not even close to Eisner, IMHO.

Wood's inability to work consistently and solo have always diminished him in my opinion.

Agreed, that's why he falls out of my top five.

I do disagree with you only on Doug Wildey. Much as I enjoy the man's art (hell, I published a book on him), he's not even in my top 25. He was a pro and totally competent, but never pushed the medium nor stretched himself artistically in the comics. And I think he would have agreed with that statement.

Wildey would count as my "guilty pleasure" I suppose. I totally understand why you (and most others) don't rate him as highly as I do, but I'm sitting here in my office with several of his originals on my walls (a gorgeous "Rio" page among them) and they make me smile. Always.

Personal taste. I guess that's what it all comes to eventually.

--Ken Q

[darkmark]

One of the probs I have with Eisner is this:  how much of the "classic" Spirit was his, and how much was Jerry Grandenetti?  Observe the bits Jerry did on his Dr. Drew and Senorita Rio stories in RANGERS COMICS...very Spirit-like, and Eisner never touched them.  Later on, that faded from both The Spirit and Grandenetti (it's possible, as someone else suggested, that Eisner ordered him NOT to draw other strips in the Spirit style), and Eisner, though a great storyteller, was never able to pull off the effects of the postwar classic Spirit.  And Grandenetti's work for CREEPY, EERIE, and FOR MONSTERS ONLY was definitely off-the-wall and experimental, though not Spirit-like.  There's more there than is being told.

[narfstar]

Makes sense to me as Eisner's later work never grabbed me like the classic Spirit

[JVJ]

Well, yes, actually I do think Spider-Man and Dr. Strange and the post-Atlas mystery/fantasy stories were great contributions to the medium. (leave aside his other work for a second)

Ditko may not have possessed the intellectual curiosity or experimental flair of Krigstein, but his style was a mighty part of Marvel's success. At his best, Ditko provided an atmosphere to the post-Atlas/early Marvel books--claustrophobic, a looming feeling of dread--that suited that genre perfectly. His 'common man' take on Spider-Man, a human super-hero, came in the same period as his Dr. Strange, the most otherworldly character of its time. If he did nothing else, this decade (more or less) of work had a great impact on Marvel and consequently, on the lasting success of the medium.

The first comic book I EVER bought, Ken, was Spider-Man #33, so Mr. Ditko had a PROFOUND effect on me, but the commercial success of the medium, which he most definitely did effect, is not part of my criteria for inclusion in my top five.

To a lesser extent, his work on The Question led to his very personal Mr. A, which led the way for many independent comics to follow. That's significant, I believe.

I'm more inclined to give the nod for leading the way to independents to Mr. Wood. Ditko persevered in his personal ideology and, coincidentally, lost ME on the way. I bow to few on my appreciation for Ditko's art, but I don't find them as a profound influence. YMMV.

Frazetta is in my top 6 or 7. But I believe his impact on the comic book medium is less than the five I put ahead of him. He is/was a magnificent artist, maybe too good for comics. And while there have been imitators, none made it look so effortless, so easy. However, was he a great story-teller? What, to use your phrase, "...great moments in the development of comics.." did he provide, besides beautiful illustrations? Again, I'm not knocking Frazetta at all, just explaining why he ranks just a bit lower on my list.

When I think of the greatest romance comics ever drawn, I think of Frank Frazetta and Matt Baker. When I think of the best sf work, I think of Wally Wood and Al Williamson/Frank Frazetta. When I think of my favorite funny animal artists, I think of Carl Barks and Frank Frazetta. He's near the top of too many of my favorites lists and, as you said, he made it all look so darned EASY. And his influences still ripple beneath the surface of comics.

Here we disagree. Eisner was experimenting with panel layouts and cinematic effects years before Krigstein. And he was a brilliant story-teller, perhaps the best ever in comics. Yeah, he had a shop and yeah, he didn't do a lot of the actual drawing (or scripting) on The Spirit. But just as a great director heads up a film crew, The Spirit was his creation. And much of what eventually came to maturity in The Spirit originated in Eisner's early, totally his, comic work. And how many comic artists (and writers!) name him as an influence? Krigstein's not even close to Eisner, IMHO.

We're really splitting hairs here, Ken, and we're using different criteria. By your definition above, Stan Lee rates higher than just about ANYbody. Eisner was great. His early work is head and shoulders above his contemporaries, and The Spirit was brilliant, but... How much was Eisner? How much was Feiffer? How much was ...? Great director, no argument. Great artist, absolutely. Great innovator, sort of. He did interesting panel layouts with wonderful use of shadow and perspective, especially in the splash panels. Those were innovative NEWSPAPER techniques that were occasionally mimicked in the comic books, but they didn't really spill over until the guys who cite him as an influence grew up and discovered The Spirit a generation later.

Again, this is REALLY hair-splitting. The above almost sounds like I'm down on Eisner, which is anything but the truth. It's just the kind of "fine-tuning" that my brain went through to whittle my list down to five. Tiny differences seem to get magnified under that kind of scrutiny.

And, you are 100% right that Krigstein has had nowhere near the influence that Eisner had. But that doesn't mean that his work isn't more groundbreaking and meaningful. It simply means that most people STILL don't get it. And more's the pity, IMHO.

I do disagree with you only on Doug Wildey. Much as I enjoy the man's art (hell, I published a book on him), he's not even in my top 25. He was a pro and totally competent, but never pushed the medium nor stretched himself artistically in the comics. And I think he would have agreed with that statement.

Wildey would count as my "guilty pleasure" I suppose. I totally understand why you (and most others) don't rate him as highly as I do, but I'm sitting here in my office with several of his originals on my walls (a gorgeous "Rio" page among them) and they make me smile. Always.

Ken, directly above this chair is ALSO a Doug Wildey original. He was a wonderful man and a fantastic artist. Comic books were his meat and potatoes but they weren't his passion. He did them very well, and, like I said, I liked his art enough to publish his Movie Cowboy. It's possible to like an artist and still be analytical and objective about his abilities. Doug would have told you the exact same thing. I know because that's what he told me.

Personal taste. I guess that's what it all comes to eventually.

--Ken Q

Of COURSE that's what it's all about, when it comes to what we like and buy and read and enjoy.

[Yoc]

I'm really enjoying this topic, thanks to bminor for starting it and everyone else for their thoughts.  Especially Jim and Ken. 

-Yoc

[JVJ]

One of the probs I have with Eisner is this:  how much of the "classic" Spirit was his, and how much was Jerry Grandenetti?  Observe the bits Jerry did on his Dr. Drew and Senorita Rio stories in RANGERS COMICS...very Spirit-like, and Eisner never touched them.  Later on, that faded from both The Spirit and Grandenetti (it's possible, as someone else suggested, that Eisner ordered him NOT to draw other strips in the Spirit style), and Eisner, though a great storyteller, was never able to pull off the effects of the postwar classic Spirit.  And Grandenetti's work for CREEPY, EERIE, and FOR MONSTERS ONLY was definitely off-the-wall and experimental, though not Spirit-like.  There's more there than is being told.

Funny thing, DM, I was going over those Dr. Drew strips just the other day with Greg Sadowski and the ones that look like Eisner are, Greg and I believe, actually Eisner! What they are NOT is pure Grandenetti (signature notwithstanding). If you examine the sequence of the Dr. Drew episodes, there comes a point between #56 and #57 where SOMEBODY bows out and leaves Grandenetti to his own devices.

It's pretty obvious from the rest of his career that the Grandenetti of Rangers #57 is the real Grandenetti. He never again approached the creativity of those Dr. Drews up to issue #56. Since he was working in the Eisner Shop during the time he worked on Dr. Drew (June 1949 to June 1951) AND the Eisner-ish episodes lasted for a year and a half, it seems improbable that Eisner didn't know about them. My guess is that they are Eisner Shop jobs with Eisner himself breaking down the stories. Even the layouts change drastically between #56 and #57. I've been thinking that perhaps Eisner should be added to the credits in the WW and in the GCD. Do you, or anyone else, have any thoughts on this?

ps. Senorita Rio was in Fight Comics, not Rangers and I don't remember Grandenetti ever doing any SR stories. Hames, Henry and I just went through all of them for the GCD and they don't show up there. Were you thinking of some other Fiction House strip? We're not finished with FH, but Grandenetti doesn't turn up for any other FH credit. Did we miss something?

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[narfstar]

What I like is that while we not agree on who is the best or worst no one looks down upon the tastes of others. At the GCD which is often one of the most contentious places, no says "you read THAT are you crazy it's awful." They may fight tooth and nail over the placement of a comma but never an unkind word about someones taste in comics. They may not like the comic but never condemn the one who does. This group is more congenial in general and we accept matters of taste. In another group there were some who spoke up and admitted to liking Tallarico. No one made fun of them. It shows that these groups all really appreciate the guilty pleasures we get out of our "funny books." We have that one thing in common that allows us to all get along. Maybe we can make the wold better through comics.

[JVJ]

What I like is that while we not agree on who is the best or worst no one looks down upon the tastes of others. At the GCD which is often one of the most contentious places, no says "you read THAT are you crazy it's awful."

Only because I am such a master of self-restraint, narf.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[JVJ]

One of the probs I have with Eisner is this:  how much of the "classic" Spirit was his, and how much was Jerry Grandenetti?  Observe the bits Jerry did on his Dr. Drew and Senorita Rio stories in RANGERS COMICS...very Spirit-like, and Eisner never touched them.  Later on, that faded from both The Spirit and Grandenetti (it's possible, as someone else suggested, that Eisner ordered him NOT to draw other strips in the Spirit style), and Eisner, though a great storyteller, was never able to pull off the effects of the postwar classic Spirit.  And Grandenetti's work for CREEPY, EERIE, and FOR MONSTERS ONLY was definitely off-the-wall and experimental, though not Spirit-like.  There's more there than is being told.

ps. I just revisited those issues of Rangers, DM, and not only does the style change drastically between Rangers #56 and #57, so does the lettering and even the panel borders. Makes me even more convinced that the pure Grandenetti is #57 and beyond. Maybe Eisner was helping Jerry, who was certainly talented but had no cb credits, to get started? After all, Grandenetti's first non-Dr. Drew/Eisner/Fiction House work (according to the GCD) was in July of 1951 - basically the month before Dr. Drew stopped, so perhaps Eisner jumpstarted his career with Dr. Drew?

Could have happened... (|:{>

[OtherEric]

Jim, who do you think did Fight Comics #65 if not Grandenetti?  At least when I saw it, he was my first guess at artist; it looks (to my eye) a lot like the Spirit sections I've seen him credited as working on.

[narfstar]

What I like is that while we not agree on who is the best or worst no one looks down upon the tastes of others. At the GCD which is often one of the most contentious places, no says "you read THAT are you crazy it's awful."

Only because I am such a master of self-restraint, narf.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

Peace, Love and Comic Books

[JVJ]

Jim, who do you think did Fight Comics #65 if not Grandenetti?  At least when I saw it, he was my first guess at artist; it looks (to my eye) a lot like the Spirit sections I've seen him credited as working on.

Here's my "indexer's note" in the GCD, Eric:
"Drawn in a quasi-Eisner-SPIRIT style. This has traditionally been attributed to Jerry Grandenetti, but it simply doesn't conform to what we know of his style - either pencils or inks. Possibly another foreign artist? "

I have nothing to add to that.

ps. Thank you for reminding me which Senorita Rio's that Darkmark was talking about. My memory just isn't what it used to be.

pps. Based on JG's post-Spirit style, I believe that it's wishful thinking to assign him too much of the credit for the post-war Spirit style. Despite my comments to Ken Quattro, I think Eisner is the primary creative force there.

(|:{>

[John C]

What I like is that while we not agree on who is the best or worst no one looks down upon the tastes of others.

On that note, could some kind soul explain the draw of Kirby to me beyond his historical significance.  When I look at his work, I see poor composition, unimpressive to poor rendering of details, a certain sameness in design, and implausible figure posing.  And yet, I hear the consistent drum-beat that the man was an artistic genius.

Since I find it hard to believe that people prefer reading about rock-monsters dressed as Mexican wrestlers randomly posturing in space (which is what just about every piece of Kirby art looks like to my eyes), I have to assume that I'm missing some key factor that I would otherwise appreciate.

Again, I can appreciate his historical significance, but nobody's into, say, Joe Shuster (who'd be on a similar scale of industry importance) in the same way, and certainly nobody refers to him as a "favorite."  So...what am I not seeing that I should?

As to the rest, I probably agree with the Dick Sprang mention, most of all.  With Carmine Infantino's Silver Age Flash work, they make doing the laundry an epic story.  It's not always pretty, but it's always compelling work.  I'm also a fan of Ditko for the opposite reason, composing scenes so that everything is, well, human.  Both skills have been horribly lost to talking heads and static group shots that might be prettier, but don't tell any story; Jerry Ordway and Joe Rubenstein seem to be among the very few modern artists who have carried on that tradition.

[JonTheScanner]

With Carmine Infantino's Silver Age Flash work, they make doing the laundry an epic story.  It's not always pretty, but it's always compelling work.

I absolutely loved Infantino's early Silver Age work.  Flash in particular had an airy openness to it.  The stories clearly took place not only in the Midwest (and if you've never lived there, I'm not sure you will ever quite appreciate this claim), but also always in open plazas in the Midwest.  Adam Strange was very different in feel and when Infantino inked his own work like on Elongated Man it was again a completely different experience.

[JVJ]

Jim, who do you think did Fight Comics #65 if not Grandenetti?  At least when I saw it, he was my first guess at artist; it looks (to my eye) a lot like the Spirit sections I've seen him credited as working on.

Another interesting facet of Senorita Rio in Fight #65 and 66 is that they come in the middle of an Iger Shop run on the feature. On issue #64, we put " Edmund Good? (Pencils), Jack Kamen?; Ray Osrin? (Iger Shop) (Inks)" and on issue #67 we listed "David Heames? (Iger Shop) (Pencils), David Heames?; ? (Iger Shop) (Inks)". So it seems more likely that in Dec. 49 and Jan. 50 Jerry Iger would have employed a foreign artist than a current member of the Eisner Shop, don't you think? Even if Fiction House took the editorial reins on that strip back from Iger for two issues, the style of the two strips in issues 65 and 66, while certainly influenced by Eisner, does not really resemble the Dr. Drew Eisner style signed by Grandenetti.

I find this an interesting little mystery, because Fiction House was already using Italian and German artists (Enrico Bagnoli and Kurt Kaisar) in their comics. However, Alberto Becattini, the Italian comics historian, does not recognize the artist on these two Senorita Rio strips as being European. I'm not familiar enough with South American artists to pursue that avenue, but perhaps some foreign members of GAC can download Fight #65 and review the Senorita Rio strip for clues. And someone can request Fight #66 in their next batch of comics to scan so we could have both examples.

The only other possibility that I can conjure up is that these are also by the Eisner shop and might be primarily by someone like Andre Le Blanc. Two tiny short episodes of a long-running feature with such an abiding mystery attached. Isn't comic research FUN?

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[JVJ]

What I like is that while we not agree on who is the best or worst no one looks down upon the tastes of others.

On that note, could some kind soul explain the draw of Kirby to me beyond his historical significance.  When I look at his work, I see poor composition, unimpressive to poor rendering of details, a certain sameness in design, and implausible figure posing.  And yet, I hear the consistent drum-beat that the man was an artistic genius.

Since I find it hard to believe that people prefer reading about rock-monsters dressed as Mexican wrestlers randomly posturing in space (which is what just about every piece of Kirby art looks like to my eyes), I have to assume that I'm missing some key factor that I would otherwise appreciate.

Again, I can appreciate his historical significance, but nobody's into, say, Joe Shuster (who'd be on a similar scale of industry importance) in the same way, and certainly nobody refers to him as a "favorite."  So...what am I not seeing that I should?

As to the rest, I probably agree with the Dick Sprang mention, most of all.  With Carmine Infantino's Silver Age Flash work, they make doing the laundry an epic story.  It's not always pretty, but it's always compelling work.  I'm also a fan of Ditko for the opposite reason, composing scenes so that everything is, well, human.  Both skills have been horribly lost to talking heads and static group shots that might be prettier, but don't tell any story; Jerry Ordway and Joe Rubenstein seem to be among the very few modern artists who have carried on that tradition.

Some people like Bob Dylan, too, jc.
And others like Garth Brooks and still more think that the Jonas Brothers are the best band ever. I said my piece on Kirby at http://www.bpib.com/illustra2/kirby.htm and I don't have anything to add to that. As always, YMMV.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[OtherEric]

I'll take the Fight 66 in my next batch if nobody beats me to it.  Heck, I'll take several if there are other issues you have we need. 

I think what suggested Grandenetti was the two Spirit sections he did mostly on his own in mid-1948; I wish I had my reprints here instead of in storage.  Since I'm working from memory, I could be making a bad guess.  I do remember that Eisner said they were done to give Grandenetti a chance to do something of his own, more or less.  (I love the Kitchen Sink Spirit reprints; for all that Eisner's memory may be imperfect his commentary on the Spirit makes it one of the best documented runs of a classic comic book ever.  I need to pull them out and re-read them.)

[JVJ]

I'll take the Fight 66 in my next batch if nobody beats me to it.  Heck, I'll take several if there are other issues you have we need. 

I think what suggested Grandenetti was the two Spirit sections he did mostly on his own in mid-1948; I wish I had my reprints here instead of in storage.  Since I'm working from memory, I could be making a bad guess.  I do remember that Eisner said they were done to give Grandenetti a chance to do something of his own, more or less.  (I love the Kitchen Sink Spirit reprints; for all that Eisner's memory may be imperfect his commentary on the Spirit makes it one of the best documented runs of a classic comic book ever.  I need to pull them out and re-read them.)

Do you know where they were reprinted, Eric? I have all of the Warren and Kitchen Sink Spirit mags, and I'd love to look them up and reacquaint myself with those two stories. Like too many things in my collection, I haven't looked at them since they were published. Every little bit of data is valuable and I'd forgotten totally about those solo sections. Point me to 'em, SVP.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[John C]

Some people like Bob Dylan, too, jc.
And others like Garth Brooks and still more think that the Jonas Brothers are the best band ever. I said my piece on Kirby at http://www.bpib.com/illustra2/kirby.htm and I don't have anything to add to that. As always, YMMV.

Oh, I get that, but I think it's a somewhat closed mind that ends the story there.  I may not like Dylan, to use your example, but I can definitely see what his fans see, even if it doesn't float my particular boat.

And it's not that I don't respect his work.  He's responsible for, what, something like a tenth of the comics out there?  Probably closer to a third, if you include his creations as an extension?  As you point out, he developed the language, had a phenomenal output, and was successful.  Even if he drew stick figures, that'd be grounds for respect, or to paraphrase your article, elder statesmanship.

However, none of that explains what people see when they prefer to look at or praise his work over anybody else's.  If it were a minority, I'd chalk it up to differing taste (the Four Seasons, to continue the music analogy).  If his popularity was a momentary fad, I could write it off as publicity (just about any boy band).  But we're talking about the equivalent of the Beatles, here.  And in that case, if you don't like them (and I'm not fond, myself), you can still appreciate the structure and quality of the work, once someone tells you what the heck you're actually listening to.

Heh.  So I'm being selfish, basically, and trying to prove to myself that I'm not a closed-minded snot...

And I should point out that I enjoyed your article (and have been reading others, over the last few days, since you posted the links) probably more than I've enjoyed any of the man's work.  I'll also be looking for the panel-wise layouts, which is something I don't think I had previously considered.

[JVJ]

Some people like Bob Dylan, too, jc.
And others like Garth Brooks and still more think that the Jonas Brothers are the best band ever. I said my piece on Kirby at http://www.bpib.com/illustra2/kirby.htm and I don't have anything to add to that. As always, YMMV.

Oh, I get that, but I think it's a somewhat closed mind that ends the story there.  I may not like Dylan, to use your example, but I can definitely see what his fans see, even if it doesn't float my particular boat.

And it's not that I don't respect his work.  He's responsible for, what, something like a tenth of the comics out there?  Probably closer to a third, if you include his creations as an extension?  As you point out, he developed the language, had a phenomenal output, and was successful.  Even if he drew stick figures, that'd be grounds for respect, or to paraphrase your article, elder statesmanship.

However, none of that explains what people see when they prefer to look at or praise his work over anybody else's.  If it were a minority, I'd chalk it up to differing taste (the Four Seasons, to continue the music analogy).  If his popularity was a momentary fad, I could write it off as publicity (just about any boy band).  But we're talking about the equivalent of the Beatles, here.  And in that case, if you don't like them (and I'm not fond, myself), you can still appreciate the structure and quality of the work, once someone tells you what the heck you're actually listening to.

Heh.  So I'm being selfish, basically, and trying to prove to myself that I'm not a closed-minded snot...

And I should point out that I enjoyed your article (and have been reading others, over the last few days, since you posted the links) probably more than I've enjoyed any of the man's work.  I'll also be looking for the panel-wise layouts, which is something I don't think I had previously considered.

There's an ENERGY, to use an overworked clich

[narfstar]

I need to look at some Kirby with the flow you mention Jim. I think the dislike for Kirby comes from his post 1967 stuff. The fourth world stuff for DC was interesting and even innovative for its time. I liked it at first but grew weary of some of Kirby's worst art (all of his women looked like body builders) until he went back to Marvel and turned out even worse stuff. I especially hated his writing at Marvel during his return. Making characters like Black Panther and Captain America cosmic was a very bad move.

[kquattro]

...I liked his art enough to publish his Movie Cowboy.

Speaking of which: do you ever plan on re-printing THE MOVIE COWBOY, Jim? I know I treasure my copy!

And after posting my list yesterday, I realized I'd left some off that definitely would make my Top 10.

How could I forget Joe Kubert and Bill Everett? I don't know. But they're among my favorites.

And just so you know, Jim, you're on my top 5 Most Knowledgeable People In Comic Fandom list!

--Ken Q

[JVJ]

I need to look at some Kirby with the flow you mention Jim. I think the dislike for Kirby comes from his post 1967 stuff. The fourth world stuff for DC was interesting and even innovative for its time. I liked it at first but grew weary of some of Kirby's worst art (all of his women looked like body builders) until he went back to Marvel and turned out even worse stuff. I especially hated his writing at Marvel during his return. Making characters like Black Panther and Captain America cosmic was a very bad move.

I agree with you, narf.
When Kirby became "independent" and "the king", he abandoned the editorial control that made him great. Just like Lennon needed McCartney and Co. to rein in his natural excesses, so did Kirby. To modify for historic accuracy my claim that Kirby "created" some genres, I have to include Joe Simon and Stan Lee in that statement. On his own, Kirby suffered from a severe lack of focus. He was a victim of his own exuberance.

Regarding the "flow", check the upper right panel for a face or action that "points" back towards panel one of row two. The last panel of many pages draws the readers eye up and to the right - "pointing" to the next page. Of course this isn't true 100% of the time, but usually half or more of the pages in a Kirby story display these features.

I won't comment on Kirby as a writer. I was often embarrassed for him in the 70s. He needed the focus that an editor brought to the job, just as Stan Lee needed the creativity that folks like Kirby and Ditko brought to the story.

My love of Kirby is primarily for his work from 1941 to 1954.

(|:{>

[JVJ]

...I liked his art enough to publish his Movie Cowboy.

Speaking of which: do you ever plan on re-printing THE MOVIE COWBOY, Jim? I know I treasure my copy!

And after posting my list yesterday, I realized I'd left some off that definitely would make my Top 10.

How could I forget Joe Kubert and Bill Everett? I don't know. But they're among my favorites.

And just so you know, Jim, you're on my top 5 Most Knowledgeable People In Comic Fandom list!

--Ken Q

No, Ken,
TMC will never be reprinted. I still have the printing negatives and plates, but I don't know of any printer who could make use of either of them AND I don't think that there's much of a market for it. The last copy I sold on eBay didn't go for very much.

Oh, yes, there are dozens of other wonderful artists out there: Kubert, Colan, Everett, Willner, Crandall, Williamson, Munson Paddock, Orestes Calpini, Kelly, Wood, Baker, Harry Anderson and John Buscema, to name just a baker's dozen. It's why paring the list down to only five involved some microscopic hair-splitting.

I WISH I were so knowledgeable. I am painfully aware of just how much I DON'T know, and I fear that I never WILL know. To think I was too busy making a living when the guys who could have provided some of the answers were still alive. Now, I think it's almost too late. Sigh... Still, thank you for the compliment. I do what I can and I'm always striving to learn more.

Peace, Jim (|:{>