[JVJ]

Point taken. Desperately trying to access B.B. Probably should have looked before opening my mouth. I should point out that my first exposure to Rip Kirby, and to The Phantom, for that matter, was in comics form.  In Britain, Rip Kirby appeared in a series in Super Detective Library (pocket sized editions) and The Phantom in imported Australian Frew comics and L. Miller publications.  Only much later did I find newspaper reprints of these titles. My first exposure to Jack Kirby was Private Strong, which had a huge effect on me (American comics were almost impossible to find before 1959) and then there was the F.F. And,as I said previously, despite loving it at the time, I don't go back and re-read The F.F or much other early Marvel stuff -apart from Ditko's Spiderman.  I do re read and love stuff by all the others I mention and,  just to add a touch of  foreign to the discussion, also Hugo Pratt.  I don't want to confuse anyone so go and have a look at Pratt's work - not only Corto Maltese.  Pratt was a world class creator.
JVJ, you also confuse me slightly as comics and newspaper strips are very similar as far as I am concerned.  To a great extent, they are both balloon strips, as opposed to text strips which are and were very commom in Britain, Netherlands and Belgium (also at one time in U.S.A.) Is Jesse marsh's work in, say Carter of Mars, closer to a comic than a newspaper strip?  Not sure, personally, but keen to hear opinions.

I love Hugo Pratt, Paw,
although the European fetish in reprinting the material ad nauseum leaves my rather cold. My favorite current Euro-artist is Sergio Toppi who I actually MET last year at Gallery Daniel Maghen in Paris. What an honor!

Here's the difference, IMHO, between the two mediums: A comic book is meant to be read many pages at a time and the design of the page and the continuity BETWEEN pages is part of the art. The stories are complete within an issue or are in arcs that generally have a beginning, middle and an end. The story-telling, both textually and visually, is built (in the best of cases, obviously) around service to that arc.

A newspaper strip is meant to be read three or four panels at a time, the story is never-ending and, by its very nature, repetitious. When "compiled" into a comic book or a collection, the pacing of the daily strip is constantly getting in the way of the story-telling. The requirements of "mini" daily cliff-hangers, and either a separate Sunday continuity or the need to make the Sunday strips superfluous, do irreparable harm to the story-telling. Often it's necessary to drop or alter panels in compilations just to make the story appear to flow.

The requirements of reformatting Sunday pages and, occasionally, drawing daily panels that can be dropped by uncaring paper editors, makes the entire medium less in the control of the creator and more subject to the whims of format than the muses of art. The skills required to solve these essentially random (and meaningless) roadblocks are FAR different than the skills needed to tell a compelling comic book story.

Did you ever try to READ Scorchy Smith? The recent book by Dean Mullaney is a perfect case in point. No matter how good of an artist Sickles was, the strip is quite unreadable when compiled.

The European artform is a hybrid - combining the page design of the American comic book with the weekly publication of American Sunday newspaper strips. The MAIN difference, however, is that the European strip has a story arc that is meant to be collected into an album, so the continuity is present and the repetition is absent. The best of both worlds.

To bring this back to Jack Kirby, Joe Simon is and always was a second rate artist. I'm not trying to denigrate Mr. Simon, but Jack Kirby's artistic successes would have been possible with any such business partner. Commercial success is a different matter, and Joe Simon was certainly a first rate business man. And he developed an inking style that accentuated Kirby's artistic strong points.

When you finally get a chance to compare the Blue Bolts (1 & 2), you'll find the first to be a typical Golden Age character with competent but uninspired artwork - just one of many such characters. With #2, Kirby's genius transforms him into a singular and enduring character. You can watch it (well, at least I can watch it) happen.

And, as you can probably tell, I could go on and on about Jack Kirby. You can read my BIO of him on my website.
http://www.bpib.com/illustra2/kirby.htm

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[paw broon]

Gosh, where to start? I pondered long and hard as to whether I should continue this faced with such a depth of knowledge from some of you.  However, having thunk (how about that use of a comic book sound effect as a past participle?), I'll give it a go.  I have read Scorchy Smith, in landscape collections and thoroughly enjoyed it.  In fact I ended up scunnering the bloke who recommended it by keeping on about how good it was.  My collections are currently being read by a friend who is also waxing lyrical about it - art and storytelling. This ties in with something that occurred to me last night whole pondering your comments, Jim. In Britain , apart from Aussie imports and cheap British comics in b.&w, which tried to kid the reader they were American, most kids read weekly comics where the stories were 1,2 or 3 pages long and, for example, a Dan Dare story could go on for months.  So each week there was a reprise and a t.b.c box in 2 pages of story.  We also had newspaper strips and, when read every day, wonderful stuff such as Garth or Jeff Hawke didn't seem different from 2 or 3 page weekly episodes.  These strips often were reprinted in landscape format, 2 tiers to a page and I got used to and grew to love the format.  The point being that from childhood, I didn't see a lot of difference between Eagle, Lion, Victor, Girls Crystal, School Friend (the latter 2 jealously guarded by my sister) and what I read in papers.
Now this is where it becomes a bit difficult for some of you reading this ramble if you haven't experienced them, landscape comics - Australian, Spanish, French, Italian (I'll get to The Netherlands shortly) aren't that far removed from newspaper strip collections.  If you read a copy of El Capitan Trueno, you find a synopsis panel at the start and a next issue box at the end in 10 pages of story. And again, it feels no different to reading a Rip Kirby collection (not the cut up comic version I mentioned earlier)  2 tiers to a page, no messing about, get the job done.
Couldn't agree more re. the continual reprinting.  I bought a (at the time) brand new coloured edition of Le Celtiche only to discover that they'd left out L'ange a la fenetre d'orient or whatever the Italian title is.
Getting a bit like the continual repackaging of American titles.
While I understand your argument re. uncaring editors and the method differences - arguments I've heard before -  it doesn't seem to affect me.  Perhaps there is a background cultural difference? I'm used to different formats.
Back to Kirby.  Dug out and read B.B. Hmmm,  sort of yes but responders to my tongue in cheek question immediately suggested that it was because of his being a sole creator that made for some of the greatness.  My point was simply what about Joe Simon and Stan Lee. 2 people = a duo and lots of later work was very poor.  I conducted a very unscientific poll involving a few fellow comic buffs and all rated Kirby very highly, preferred other comic book artists, went on at length about how bad some of his later stuff was and also asked, when confronted with the point about being a sole creator, what happened to Simon and Lee?.  The small group included a comic shop owner and punters of considerable experience. It all probably proves nothing.
Finally Netherlands, where lots of comics were newspaper reprints compiled into landscape comics with 3 panels of art across the top and 2 columns of text below.  No word balloons.  These are text strips and some are quite excellent and I would humbly suggest you look up the following on your computers :- Kapitein Rob; Eric de Noorman; Pilot Storm.  There are lots more but that should keep any, who can be bothered and desire new experiences, busy for a while.  This really is good and it's making me think.

[Brainster]

I loved the Boy Commandos, especially the Invasion issue (#4). I also enjoyed the Newsboy Legion stories.

[JVJ]

Gosh, where to start? I pondered long and hard as to whether I should continue this faced with such a depth of knowledge from some of you.  However, having thunk (how about that use of a comic book sound effect as a past participle?), I'll give it a go.  I have read Scorchy Smith, in landscape collections and thoroughly enjoyed it.  In fact I ended up scunnering the bloke who recommended it by keeping on about how good it was.  My collections are currently being read by a friend who is also waxing lyrical about it - art and storytelling.

Perhaps I didn't stick to it long enough paw, but after the fourth time he landed to refuel enroute to some make believe destination for reasons that obviously had nothing to do with time and deadlines, and then ran into a girl in trouble and ... well, I simply gave up. Every script was contrived and coincidental and totally, well, pretty boring. Maybe they got better, but I didn't hang around to find out. Obviously, I'm in a minority here, but I don't really get enthralled by newspaper strips. Sorry.

This ties in with something that occurred to me last night whole pondering your comments, Jim. In Britain , apart from Aussie imports and cheap British comics in b.&w, which tried to kid the reader they were American, most kids read weekly comics where the stories were 1,2 or 3 pages long and, for example, a Dan Dare story could go on for months.  So each week there was a reprise and a t.b.c box in 2 pages of story.  We also had newspaper strips and, when read every day, wonderful stuff such as Garth or Jeff Hawke didn't seem different from 2 or 3 page weekly episodes.  These strips often were reprinted in landscape format, 2 tiers to a page and I got used to and grew to love the format.  The point being that from childhood, I didn't see a lot of difference between Eagle, Lion, Victor, Girls Crystal, School Friend (the latter 2 jealously guarded by my sister) and what I read in papers.

YES, that was precisely my point with regards to the European strips. They were DESIGNED as a page, not as a series of three or four panels. The page design is, IMHO, an inherent part of the art of comic books. It is NOT a part of the art comic strips.

And, you're also right that British newspaper strips somehow translate better to the compilation format. I don't know why, but perhaps it's also a function of the story arc that has a beginning, a middle and an end. You can read Modesty Blaise or Garth as individual stories rather than the unending episodic escapades of Scorchy Smith. Modesty Blaise even had story titles.

Now this is where it becomes a bit difficult for some of you reading this ramble if you haven't experienced them, landscape comics - Australian, Spanish, French, Italian (I'll get to The Netherlands shortly) aren't that far removed from newspaper strip collections.  If you read a copy of El Capitan Trueno, you find a synopsis panel at the start and a next issue box at the end in 10 pages of story. And again, it feels no different to reading a Rip Kirby collection (not the cut up comic version I mentioned earlier)  2 tiers to a page, no messing about, get the job done.

S'funny, but when I read a Blueberry album, there is absolutely NO indication of how many pages appeared together in an issue of Pilote. Perhaps one, maybe three, but you can't tell. Charlier and Giraud didn't rely on summaries, they just knew how to tell a story that fit into 48 pages. Perhaps some strips relied more on the summaries than others?

Couldn't agree more re. the continual reprinting.  I bought a (at the time) brand new coloured edition of Le Celtiche only to discover that they'd left out L'ange a la fenetre d'orient or whatever the Italian title is.
Getting a bit like the continual repackaging of American titles.
While I understand your argument re. uncaring editors and the method differences - arguments I've heard before -  it doesn't seem to affect me.  Perhaps there is a background cultural difference? I'm used to different formats.

My point here was that even the content of American strips was malleable and that it was often beyond the control of the creator. How can you have an artform where the output varies from one outlet to the next? If one newspaper prints the strip half page, that audience gets a panel or two that don't appear in the paper that prints it 1/3 page. And the artist has to create those panels so that their absence doesn't hinder the storytelling. Bizzare, but true. Such stumbling blocks simply don't occur elsewhere (or in comic books).

Back to Kirby.  Dug out and read B.B. Hmmm,  sort of yes but responders to my tongue in cheek question immediately suggested that it was because of his being a sole creator that made for some of the greatness.  My point was simply what about Joe Simon and Stan Lee. 2 people = a duo and lots of later work was very poor.  I conducted a very unscientific poll involving a few fellow comic buffs and all rated Kirby very highly, preferred other comic book artists, went on at length about how bad some of his later stuff was and also asked, when confronted with the point about being a sole creator, what happened to Simon and Lee?.  The small group included a comic shop owner and punters of considerable experience. It all probably proves nothing.

Here I quite agree with you. Kirby NEEDED Simon almost as much as Simon needed Kirby. When they first teamed up, Simon was an entrepenurial nobody and Kirby was a seasoned pro with too many ideas and no one to channel them. Kirby WAS a "sole creator" and that was, indeed, his strength. Most of his "creations" (especially those with Simon) died shortly after he created them: Stuntman, Fighting American, Lockjaw the Alligator, Bullseye, etc. didn't live very long. Romance Comics, their biggest "idea" lasted about 8 years for Jack and perhaps 15 for Joe. Black Magic, their second biggest success, didn't even manage those numbers.

He CREATED the Silver Surfer, but it took Stan Lee to make Kirby's creation into something special that lasted (over 40 years and counting). Likewise The Hulk, The Fantastic Four, Thor, etc. (He didn't create Captain America, at least not by himself.) And his later DC stuff desperately NEEDED a writer/editor to make it palatable. It didn't last long, either.

No, Kirby's imagination was his greatest strength AND his greatest weakness. I don't think Kirby ever gave Stan Lee enough credit for his role in their success. Kirby had IDEAS, but Stan knew how to make those ideas commercially viable. Jack (and Joe) never figured that out.

Finally Netherlands, where lots of comics were newspaper reprints compiled into landscape comics with 3 panels of art across the top and 2 columns of text below.  No word balloons.  These are text strips and some are quite excellent and I would humbly suggest you look up the following on your computers :- Kapitein Rob; Eric de Noorman; Pilot Storm.  There are lots more but that should keep any, who can be bothered and desire new experiences, busy for a while.  This really is good and it's making me think.

We've had some strips like that here, too, but they are even LESS like comic books to me, and as I hope I've made it clear, I like comic books a lot more than I like comic strips - speaking PRIMARILY of American examples of both genre.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[narfstar]

Jim the Phantom stories were designed as quarterlies. The stories were daily and ended in thirteen weeks. I have not really read Mandrake so do not know about that. I think that Falk was a great story teller and the Phantom is one of the greatest characters in comics. I also find the Alley Oop strip to be very well written.

Here is one of the great things about our hobby, that there is something for everyone. Here and on GCD we are very accepting of each other's collecting preferences. I have an interest in the hobby in general but I like most those "crappy" odd comics from the SA that rekindle my childlike wonder. I like the new comics I read because of the story and only vaguely aware of the art unless it is extremely good or bad. JVJ has often expressed that he is not that interested in reading the story the art attracts him. There is room for us both and feel the other is perfectly justified in their preferences. Based on comments throughout there are many others here with fond memories of "The Fab Four" or Captain Marvel "split". While I do love MF's Captain Marvel I can not say the same for their other book Bob Powell's Henry Brewster comics. They are one of the last oddball comic for me to have discovered their existence. Once I found out it existed of course I had to get. I was surprised it did not take me long considering I had never heard of it before. It is not some of Powell's better work.

[Brainster]

I suppose it's age and things slip my mind but clocking the mention of Fighting American reminded me how much I enjoy those comics, despite all the commie bashing. However, time to annoy some of you.   Kirby - great comics, loads of excitement, new techniques and one of the greats -  but is he really in the top 5 of (American) comic book or strip artists?  I ask because the admittedly fast flash of a lot of his work really dazzles and can influence perceptions.  I feel that lots of work by Alex Toth, Joe Kubert, Lou Fine, Jack Cole, Milton Caniff, Alex Raymond, Noel Sickles and a few others, even Ditko at his best, is of a higher technical quality, in my opinion, not that it's worth much.  Still, it's very rarified company and we should all be grateful for the huge amount of entertainment Kirby provided.

Ignoring the comic strip artists for a moment, where Kirby excels is at page flow.  If you just look at panels individually, there are any number of artists I would prefer over him.  But if you look at the panels and how they fit together on the page, how they push the reader through the story, there's almost nobody in his class.  I might nominate Eisner and Sprang, but both of them were less consistent at it.  Every time you turned a page, Kirby demanded that you read it.

[paw broon]

I think you could add Jesse Marsh to the list and, in my opinion, Curt Swan.
Narfstar, I love C.M. "split".

[JVJ]

Ignoring the comic strip artists for a moment, where Kirby excels is at page flow.  If you just look at panels individually, there are any number of artists I would prefer over him.  But if you look at the panels and how they fit together on the page, how they push the reader through the story, there's almost nobody in his class.  I might nominate Eisner and Sprang, but both of them were less consistent at it.  Every time you turned a page, Kirby demanded that you read it.

I touched on this in my Kirby bio, http://www.bpib.com/illustra2/kirby.htm Brainster. Here's the example I used:

Nobody did it better. Toth at his very best, Krigstein when he tried, Eisner, of course, and Ditko just naturally. The page design of a comic book is a sophisticated aspect of the medium that is often overlooked. Just good or interesting drawing does not necessarily translate into great storytelling. While Dick Sprang often had interesting drawings, I've never considered him an innovative storyteller. Likewise, Curt Swan was the consummate professional and a wonderful artist, but IMHO his layouts and storytelling were rather pedestrian - totally competent and way above average, but not exceptional.

There's always only a couple of people at the top of a profession. Comic fans have, again IMHO, a tendency to want to cram the top with a pantheon of favorites without objective critical consideration. It's not objective to place Jesse Marsh and Curt Swan in the same top creative category as Will Eisner and Jack Kirby. It is NOT that Marsh and Swan aren't great, it's just that they are not AS great as Kirby and Eisner. That's not a subjective ranking, it's the ranking of history and accomplishment.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[paw broon]

Ah, Jim, I see it now.  Well, at any rate, I eventually found your lines demonstrating the route through the page.  I didn't pick them up at first. Didn't really need them though as the page flowed well anyway. Don't want to annoy, so I write this with some trepidation but I've seen Jesse Marsh pages where the same thing happened.  I've given a lot of thought to your points and I find I'm still marshalling my arguments.  In fact, I've asked a couple of folk to have a look at this excellent topic and let me know if their experience can shed any further light on the subject.  Hope you don't mind, cos it's got me thinking more than I have for a number of years on comics, in all their forms.  The last time I felt so positive about, and stimulated by, comics was having dinner and conversation with Will Eisner and Archie Goodwin in Glasgow in Cafe Gandolfi.  It seems now as if anyone who was anyone in comics came to Glasgow, and Scotland, at one time. Not quite true, of course.  Sometimes we had to go to them.

[JVJ]

Ah, Jim, I see it now.  Well, at any rate, I eventually found your lines demonstrating the route through the page.  I didn't pick them up at first. Didn't really need them though as the page flowed well anyway. Don't want to annoy, so I write this with some trepidation but I've seen Jesse Marsh pages where the same thing happened.  I've given a lot of thought to your points and I find I'm still marshalling my arguments.  In fact, I've asked a couple of folk to have a look at this excellent topic and let me know if their experience can shed any further light on the subject.  Hope you don't mind, cos it's got me thinking more than I have for a number of years on comics, in all their forms.  The last time I felt so positive about, and stimulated by, comics was having dinner and conversation with Will Eisner and Archie Goodwin in Glasgow in Cafe Gandolfi.  It seems now as if anyone who was anyone in comics came to Glasgow, and Scotland, at one time. Not quite true, of course.  Sometimes we had to go to them.

The point of the arrows/lines, paw,
was to demonstrate just HOW well it flowed. No one "needed" the arrows - that was what I was attempting to say. Jack Kirby figured all that out and he did it first.

I wasn't trying to say that Jesse Marsh didn't do it or understand it. He did. He just didn't invent it. All really good comic book artists who understood the medium picked up and understood what Kirby was doing. They adopted and adapted it. It demonstrates a. that they were serious about the medium and b. they understood the advantages of guiding the readers through their story. It became one of their tools. Every cave man may have used a club, but only one of them did it first (Stanley Kubrick taught me that). Jack Kirby invented that tool.

People like Goodwin, Eisner, Kurtzman, and Krigstein were serious about comic storytelling. They thought about it, refined it, stretched it, re-thought about it, re-tweaked it and honed it and taught it to others. The main difference, I believe, is that Jack Kirby just DID it. He did it instinctively, intuitively and he did it first. Jack Kirby worked in the Eisner/Iger Studio, and it is simply impossible for me to believe that a "sponge" (it the absolute best sense of that word meaning "one who absorbs information as a part of his nature") like Eisner didn't pick up on what Jack Kirby was doing there. And I don't think Eisner would have argued that point.

You should not be trepidatious about exchanging views. EVERYTHING I say is simply my opinion. I like Jesse Marsh and would do nothing to denigrate either his talent or his storytelling. But I liked it a WHOLE lot when Russ Manning took over Brothers of the Spear in the back of Tarzan. I've always been a sucker for what I guess one would call "the romantic artists" - Williamson over Davis, Raymond over Caniff, etc. But that doesn't mean that Davis and Caniff weren't great and I've not meant to imply that. Each has his strengths. Praising one does not put down the other.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[narfstar]

When I first say Manning's take over of Brothers I was blown away. He is one of my favorites. I did not like Marsh's Tarzan at all until I got older and learned to appreciate it. I still do not care for his faces but a scene with Tarzan sneaking around some rocks was so effective that I realized Marsh's great story telling. Manning is Silver Age and one of the greats in my book. I guess including him with your list of romantic artists JVJ I grasp your classification. I too am more a fan of the romantic artists and probably why I did not care for Toth's later work.

[JVJ]

When I first say Manning's take over of Brothers I was blown away. He is one of my favorites. I did not like Marsh's Tarzan at all until I got older and learned to appreciate it. I still do not care for his faces but a scene with Tarzan sneaking around some rocks was so effective that I realized Marsh's great story telling. Manning is Silver Age and one of the greats in my book. I guess including him with your list of romantic artists JVJ I grasp your classification. I too am more a fan of the romantic artists and probably why I did not care for Toth's later work.

Yeah, narf,
it was one of the most mind-boggling re-envisioning of a scene I'd ever experienced in comics - the last panel of the Marsh episode and the first of the Manning.

I'm of the opinion that Manning got started as an assistant to Marsh. If you examine the Tarzan Comics stories prior to the first Manning BotS, you can see him in the inks in places, I think.

Also, if you like Manning, check out his Dale Evans stories at Dell. Magnificent!

ps. narf, you can call me Jim, if you don't mind.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[BobS]

Likewise, Curt Swan was the consummate professional and a wonderful artist, but IMHO his layouts and storytelling were rather pedestrian - totally competent and way above average, but not exceptional.

There's always only a couple of people at the top of a profession. Comic fans have, again IMHO, a tendency to want to cram the top with a pantheon of favorites without objective critical consideration. It's not objective to place Jesse Marsh and Curt Swan in the same top creative category as Will Eisner and Jack Kirby. It is NOT that Marsh and Swan aren't great, it's just that they are not AS great as Kirby and Eisner. That's not a subjective ranking, it's the ranking of history and accomplishment.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

Wayne Boring, rather than Curt Swan, is my favorite Superman artist. IMO his art was much more imaginative than Curt Swan's.

Jesse Marsh wasn't a typical Marvel-and-DC muscle-man artist but I definitely put him up there with Eisner and Kirby. His Gene Autry is my all-time favorite western comic and his Tarzan is my favorite Tarzan. 

IMO, all such rankings are subjective. Moreover, Russ Manning did a historical article promoting Marsh's art in Batmania #1 and somebody else one in an issue of Graphic Story World (if memory serves). Marsh was an artist's artist.

I strongly suspect that Alex Toth got much of his style (blacks) from Marsh.
And I highly recommend the first Four Color John Carter of Mars issue for Marsh's art. Check out the Martian art as Marsh drew it!!!

Justice then Peace,
Bob

[BobS]

I have a couple pages of Jack Kirby original art, an early Marvel pre-hero page with museum caveman, and a Jimmy Olsen page with Double-X(?) and partly inked by Murphy Anderson.

My favorite Kirby includes Fighting American, Challengers of the Unknown (especially the later Wood inked issues), Boy's Ranch, New Gods, Forever People, Fantastic Four, etc.
Joe Sinnott was my favorite Fantastic Four inker and I got a page of Sinnott Thor original art at the same comic convention that I got the Marvel Kirby page.

I'd really like to see more (is there any?) Kirby Bullseye scans here.

Love and be free!
Bob

[JVJ]

Wayne Boring, rather than Curt Swan, is my favorite Superman artist. IMO his art was much more imaginative than Curt Swan's.

Jesse Marsh wasn't a typical Marvel-and-DC muscle-man artist but I definitely put him up there with Eisner and Kirby. His Gene Autry is my all-time favorite western comic and his Tarzan is my favorite Tarzan. 

IMO, all such rankings are subjective. Moreover, Russ Manning did a historical article promoting Marsh's art in Batmania #1 and somebody else one in an issue of Graphic Story World (if memory serves). Marsh was an artist's artist.

I strongly suspect that Alex Toth got much of his style (blacks) from Marsh.
And I highly recommend the first Four Color John Carter of Mars issue for Marsh's art. Check out the Martian art as Marsh drew it!!!

Justice then Peace,
Bob

I wasn't trying to make a list of favorites, Bob, I was trying to make a case for Kirby as one of the most important and influential comic book artists in history. I have, quite literally, hundreds of favorites (of whom Charles Voight is one), but my liking them doesn't place them into the top ten category of people who had the most influence on the medium.

Eisner, then the "K" guys: Kirby, Kurtzman, Krigstein, Kelly, then Barks, Wood, Infantino, Toth and Stanley. These are the guys who defined and created the comic BOOK medium. They all added new ideas, tools and approaches to comics that others drew from and used to codify the art of comic book storytelling.

I don't believe these rankings are subjective. Yes, you can suggest others. Like, what about Ditko, or Wolverton, or Kane, or Fine, or ? And, yes, all of these guys (and hundreds of others) were (and are) excellent and unique practitioners of that art. But the list above is historically pretty accurate in that the contributions TO THE MEDIUM of each can be clearly stated.

If you want my reasoning for Kirby, Kurtzman, Krigstein, Kelly, Barks, Wood and Toth, you can read my biographies of them at http://www.bpib.com/illustra.htm. There I make the case more precisely and at greater length and depth.

Yes, you can make an argument that Marsh was an influence on Toth, and he was the first to admit it. But dozens of artists didn't suddenly start drawing like Jesse Marsh in 1950. Toth's maturing style in that year and the next changed the face of comic books. It wasn't just the spotting of the blacks, it was the whole approach to storytelling and the simplification he learned at the feet of Shelly Mayer - who indirectly influenced comics a heck of a lot.

Talking about "favorites" is a subjective thing and great fun, but the guys who created and honed the comic book format can be fairly objectively pinned down. If you want to argue the list above, I hope you'll be prepared to state objectively HOW they changed the medium.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[narfstar]

Also, if you like Manning, check out his Dale Evans stories at Dell. Magnificent!

ps. narf, you can call me Jim, if you don't mind.

Peace, Jim (|:{>
[/quote]

Yeah but I'm a Jim too. You are the one and only JVJ
Thanks for the Dale Evans recommendation I'll will have to check it out

[JVJ]

Yeah but I'm a Jim too. You are the one and only JVJ

But you're NOT. You're THE narf!

(|:{)>

[narfstar]

That is the good part of nicks. Jim is generic. We can each be recognized anywhere in comic circles as JVJ and narf.

[JVJ]

That is the good part of nicks. Jim is generic. We can each be recognized anywhere in comic circles as JVJ and narf.

Actually, narf,
I'd prefer to be recognized as Jim Vadeboncoeur, Jr. In fact, the primary reason I even used my initials as the name for my publishing company (and eventually as the user name here) is that I had been operating for SO long in the "shadow" of Bud Plant when I was running Bud Plant Illustrated Books. It go so bad that in a blurb on a cover quote for Gerard Jones' Men of Tomorrow Bud Plant was listed as the "publisher of Images Magazine." That made realize that I needed to establish a strong, permanent identity. JVJ was simply more memorable than Jim Vadeboncoeur, Jr., not to mention easier to spell. But, it's as the latter that I'd like to be known and remembered.

And what does any of this have to do with Jack Kirby?

(|:{>

[paw broon]

"The point of the arrows/lines, paw,
was to demonstrate just HOW well it flowed. No one "needed" the arrows - that was what I was attempting to say. Jack Kirby figured all that out and he did it first."   (JVJ)

Actually, I had worked that out. I really shouldn't try to be flippant.  While I continue to ponder this subject, I took the opportunity to speak to an acquaintance who is comics blind, i.e. she doesn't know how to read a comic.  (not that she's really interested in doing so anyway). I asked her to read my B.B reprint and have a look at your excellent sample page.  Even with your lines, which do illustrate to the uninitiated and inexperienced comics reader how well a page can be laid out, she still had trouble.  I've found this a lot with folk who are unaccustomed to comics and perhaps have only read The Gambols, Andy Capp or Giles cartoons and I wonder if it matters whether a page is laid out as well as your example. Apart from the treat of seeing a comics master at work.  Experienced readers will follow it through, others will not get it no matter how well it's done.  And don't take this too seriously, it's important to you, me and anyone else who participates but when it comes down to it, it's informative, fun and, I hope, relatively light hearted.
Narfstar, thank you for the very subtle steer re. names.  I was very unsure of protocol and slightly confused re. posting names and signatures.  Think I've got it now.  You're welcome to address me as whatever you like as long as it's not too rude - even then, it could be funny.
BobS,  you're so right to mention the Marsh Carter of Mars.

[JVJ]

And I think the example of your "comics blind" friend will always be the case, paw. I wasn't try to imply that Kirby was clarifying comics to the world. He wasn't. We fans have to understand that, in general, the masses don't care about comics (at least in America).

What I suggest is to compare the comics "language" Kirby used in that Blue Bolt story with the approach of every other artist in the same comic. I think Kirby's assumption was that if someone was reading the comic, they would like to have it be easy to read. I've seen enough GA comics where the artists put numbers on EVERY PANEL, as if the readers were all "comics blind". So, no, I don't think Kirby solved EVERYTHING for everyone who ever saw his comics, but I believe that he showed his comic book readers and the other comic book artists of the day a way to skip the arrows and to tell the story.

Please take my remarks in an historical context. I'm speaking about Jack Kirby in 1940, not comic books or comic readers 70 years later. Remember, in 1940, comic books were 5 years old and original comic books (non newspaper reprints) were 4 years old and super heroes were 2 year old. There wasn't an established and agreed upon way to do ANYTHING. My belief is that Kirby began the codification of the comic book language - separating it from the comic strip language that was the de facto norm - remember, even Superman started out wanting to be a newspaper strip. That's what was being emulated by the earliest comic book artists. Kirby found the new freedoms inherent in the comic book page and liberated the young medium.

And I don't take it too seriously. After all, they are only comic books, as I'm said many times. But I take the PEOPLE very seriously. They are/were very real and, IMHO, very unappreciated for themselves. Look at how much fuss is made here about the characters in comic books. It's like that throughout fandom - the focus is on and artists idolized for what they drew and wrote. My focus has always been who they were and what they brought to the medium and where they contributed. People are always to be taken seriously. Even you and me. And HISTORY is also, IMHO, to be taken very seriously.

Here's something that may help you understand my posts: when I think about comic book history, I actually think in terms of two or three month periods, not in terms of "Ages." So it I start pontificating about Jack Kirby in December of 1940, it will be a completely different rant than if I talked about Jack Kirby in July of 1941. I know this is difficult to grasp, but I simply know TOO MUCH to view things any other way. Taking facts in the context of their time makes for more insight into the history - and as I said, I take the history very seriously.

I wonder how much the "training" you received in England in "how to read a comic strip" has influenced your approach to comic books. We all get "indoctrinated" as we grow up and learn to read by the material to which we're first exposed. Some of us move from comic strips to comic books and others, as you point out, never care to go there. That initial exposure probably makes a difference as to how we relate to a comic book story. And the European tradition of full-page weekly installments of strips and their eventual collation into albums may set up a different set of experiences and expectations in the comic book reader. Not sure if that's germane to the topic here, but it crossed my mind...

Good talking with you.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[narfstar]

When I think about how underapreciated comic book artists are look at what they do in a single page or even a single panel. Even more so a comic book cover or splash. I think that there are pages and covers that are as good as and better than many paintings hanging in museums. Getting tagged as an "artist" means recognized by self "over evaluated" elitist group that has been proven defective. When given a "blind" test between children's art and a "artist's" art they were fooled. It is a self deception they willing participate in to justify what they pay for trash. Comic book artist are true artists in the panel and even more so in the flow of the story. My rant

[BobS]

I wasn't trying to make a list of favorites, Bob, I was trying to make a case for Kirby as one of the most important and influential comic book artists in history. I have, quite literally, hundreds of favorites (of whom Charles Voight is one), but my liking them doesn't place them into the top ten category of people who had the most influence on the medium.

Jim,
I agree that Kirby was one of the most prolific and influential comic artists in history.
Also he was one helluva storyteller.
If Marvel was "the House of Ideas", then Kirby was its Fount of Ideas.

Moreover I agreed with your assessment of Curt Swan:

Likewise, Curt Swan was the consummate professional and a wonderful artist, but IMHO his layouts and storytelling were rather pedestrian - totally competent and way above average, but not exceptional.

IMO, Wayne Boring was a much more imaginative artist than Curt Swan.

Re "important", I am loath to claim any artist unimportant or important (but probably do use that subjective term sometimes.) I'm a Myers-Briggs Promethean - Introversive iNtuitive Thinking Perceiving. That Perceiving (vs Judging) trait manifests in my wavering perceptions and reluctance to make final judgements / stick with judgements. I prefer to keep open / uncommitted as much as I can.

I even preferred John Forte to Curt Swan on Legion of Super-Heroes. (No accounting for taste.)

Eisner, then the "K" guys: Kirby, Kurtzman, Krigstein, Kelly, then Barks, Wood, Infantino, Toth and Stanley. These are the guys who defined and created the comic BOOK medium. They all added new ideas, tools and approaches to comics that others drew from and used to codify the art of comic book storytelling.

I'd put Kirby first.
And as much as I like Kurtzman's EC war comics and Mad, I wouldn't put him in my Top 10.
Krigstein did interesting panel breakdowns in what, maybe a dozen or so stories?

I put Marsh up there with the other Dell artists you mention: Kelly, Barks, and Stanley.
Barks is a hero to me because he did such great work, working mostly anonymously.
Too bad Kelly quit doing kid's comics when he took Pogo to the newspapers - his stuff is beautiful.
I'm not sure how much Little Lulu and Tubby art Stanley did and how much Irving Tripp did, but Little Lulu is my #1 favorite humorous ADULT (and children) comic.
IMO, Marsh is a more influentual and interesting comic book artist than many of those on your list.
Again, please take a look at the first FC John Carter of Mars!

Toth's most BOLD art reminds me of the way one of my uncles watched TV back in the B&W 1950s -- with contrast WAY too high.
With contrast so high that much detail is lost.  Granted I do (partially) agree with C.C. Beck re good comic art eliminates extraneous detail to better tell the story.
Also, I admit that I love much of Toth's Dell art and have his Dell Zorro in hardback. Still, some of even his Dell Zorro art looks rushed to me.
Toth's 1960s art is IMPACTFUL but IMO maybe too stylized. Really like his GA Green Lantern....

I LOVE Wally Wood art, especially from the 1950s. I subscribed to Witzend. I've got some Woody girlie art from a 1950s girlie mag that I need to scan and share.
Still I don't think Woody's art for DC and Marvel is very special.

I'm surprise that you put Infantino on your Top 10 list. I loved his Flash and Adam Strange, but don't consider him all-time Top 10.
My all-time favorite Infantino Flash story is "The Day the Flash Weighed 1,000 Pounds" in Flash #115. the one where he becomes super-fat and sits in a dehydrating building (among potatoes) untill he loses his excess weight. <grin> Or maybe I will consider Infantino Top 10 -- see, I'm indecisive.

I don't believe these rankings are subjective. Yes, you can suggest others. Like, what about Ditko, or Wolverton, or Kane, or Fine, or ? And, yes, all of these guys (and hundreds of others) were (and are) excellent and unique practitioners of that art. But the list above is historically pretty accurate in that the contributions TO THE MEDIUM of each can be clearly stated.

My ranking would be / are subjective and I believe yours are too.

Ditko is DEFINITELY on my Top 10 list. I discovered Ditko back in the CDC (Charton) days and still LOVE his weird Charlton and Marvel stories. I still have a Charton comic with Ditko cover showing a man trapped in a lightbulb with moth attracted to the lightbulb.  I bought Space Adventures with Captain Atom from the beginning and the story with the kid riding a space bird in his dreams / in reality remains one of my all-time favorite stories. Moreover Ditko DEFINED that 60s phenomena Spider Man. I still prefer Dikto's nerdy Spider Man to Lee's post-Dikto remaking of Spider Man as more cool dude. And Ditko's Dr. Strange is my all-time favorite magical hero series. I'll forgive Ditko his Ayn Rand objectivist comic book propaganda. I'm sorry that he didn't continue to develop his new Blue Beetle -- I liked that one a lot too.

Maybe Wolverton for his Powerhouse Pepper but there is just too little of that for all-time Top 10.

Kane, nope. Loved his Green Lantern and prefer his art inked by Joe Giella or Murphy Anderson.

Fine did incredible early-GA art but didn't remain in comic books long term. I used to have a couple of his Fox Flame comics....

Two more top greats you neglect to mention are Sheldon Mayer and Joe Kubert.

Wasn't Mayer editor of Gaines' DC / All American comics, including All-Star Comics, Flash Comics, and All-American Comics?
Plus Scribbly is in some of the earliest comics, and everybody seems to love Sugar and Spike.
(Also didn't Mayer create Black Orchid?)

Joe Kubert was one of my early favorites. Among my all-time favorite comic books are the 2 issues of Showcase Rip Hunter Kubert did -- the one with dinosaurs in Medieval Europe and the next issue with aliens in Ancient Egypt. The latter one was before Chariots of the Gods if mem. serves. Kubert did beautiful impactful art, the 1950s - mid-1960s IMO being his best years. He also did GA DC heroes including Hawkman. Much of his St. John art is great! IMO he overused blacks starting sometime in the 1960s, probably to cut drawing time. And amazingly Kubert remains an active graphic novel creator and comic art teacher.

If you want my reasoning for Kirby, Kurtzman, Krigstein, Kelly, Barks, Wood and Toth, you can read my biographies of them at http://www.bpib.com/illustra.htm. There I make the case more precisely and at greater length and depth.

Thanks, Jim. Eventually I'll check your site out. Probably soon rather than later.

Yes, you can make an argument that Marsh was an influence on Toth, and he was the first to admit it. But dozens of artists didn't suddenly start drawing like Jesse Marsh in 1950. Toth's maturing style in that year and the next changed the face of comic books. It wasn't just the spotting of the blacks, it was the whole approach to storytelling and the simplification he learned at the feet of Shelly Mayer - who indirectly influenced comics a heck of a lot.

I'm not sure that Toth didn't assist Marsh on some of the John Carter of Mars.

Caniff influenced lotsa comic book artists including Toth, Lee Elias, Ray Bailey, etc.

Talking about "favorites" is a subjective thing and great fun, but the guys who created and honed the comic book format can be fairly objectively pinned down. If you want to argue the list above, I hope you'll be prepared to state objectively HOW they changed the medium.

I don't much want to argue but I still think your list is subjective.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

Don't worry, be happy!
Bob

[JVJ]

Bob,
My personal tastes run to Al Williamson, Frank Frazetta, John Buscema, Harry Anderson, Reed Crandall, Gene Colan, John Severin, etc. As I attempted to make clear, I haven't been talking about who I like. I'm actually not a big fan of Kurtzman, or much of Krigstein, either. But as an historian, I think a case can easily be made for their place in history.

I'm not trying to examine who likes who, or who did what that was better than this or that, but which artists (in no particular order, mind you) were the main contributors to defining and developing the medium of comic books - both art and storytelling.

Your line about Toth perhaps helping Jesse Marsh on John Carter of Mars made me laugh. It absolutely made my point for me. Toth influenced the medium and even Marsh wasn't immune to what he brought to comic books. If it's easier for you to believe that Toth was actually working on the story, that's your choice.

I'm glad you are familiar with and have such great examples of all the artists you name. Me, too. And your're examples are subjective. I don't think mine are. As I said, read my bios of the guys I wrote about wherein I explain why they belong in the list.
http://www.bpib.com/illustra.htm

There are also illustrated biographies of George Carlson, Basil Wolverton, Frank Frazetta, Roy Krenkel, Milt Gross, Everett Raymond Kinstler and others. Great artists all, but not seminal in their contributions to the medium. I hope I am making a clear distinction here. I like to be clear.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

[narfstar]

Understand where you are coming from Jim. Not good better best but historical perspective of influence