Kirby: King of Comics
Saturday, March 8th, 2008Kirby: King of Comics was clearly a labor of love to Mark Evanier. Most people who read this blog probably have a pretty good idea of who Jack Kirby was, they probably know of a half dozen comic characters he created from Captain America to the Incredible Hulk to Darkseid. I would wager most of the people reading this blog probably don’t know much about Mark Evanier despite the fact that he is something of a celebrity in the world of comics having been a prominent presence at he San Diego Comic Convention pretty much forever (not to mention being the co-creator of Groo, one of the longest running creator owned comics of all time). Mark Evanier broke into comics as Jack Kirby’s assistant right about the time that Kirby left Marvel Comics for DC Comics and was present for the creation of some of Jack Kirby’s most innovative and beautifully designed comics ever. Kirby: King of Comics is not an in-depth biography of Jack Kirby, it is not a tell all expose, it is not even a thorough critical analysis of Kirby’s work. Of course it wasn’t intended to be either; it was intended to be a gorgeous art book that celebrates what was best about Jack Kirby and provides a certain amount of context for the pages (the many, many pages) of Kirby art that appear here. In that it succeeds wonderfully. It does, however, leave me wanting desperately to read the full biography that Evanier has been working on for years now. I’m not the sort of person that is eager to read all about a celebrity’s dirty laundry, but I would like to read a somewhat more candid account of Kirby’s side of several major conflicts that had an impact on the entire comics industry. I would also like to know a little more about Kirby’s response to the absolute abuse to which he and his work were subjected in the late seventies and early eighties. To me those are the interesting things that were either glossed over or not mentioned at all. The discontent Kirby felt during the end of his partnership with Stan Lee is well documented elsewhere and probably does not warrant much more mention in a book of this type and the dispute over the ownership of his original art is the stuff of industry legend so I can also understand that it didn’t receive full treatment here. But his response to the scorn and abuse that were heaped upon him at Marvel Comics after his return to the company in ’75 is something that has never really been put before the public. To be sure it is a small period of his career, but to return to a company that was making monstrous profits off of characters and concepts that were his (at least 85% of the entire output of the company at the time was the continuation of series and characters he had originated in the sixties) and to have Xeroxes of his current work defaced and posted on bulletin boards in the editorial offices must have been bitter indeed. Mind you this isn’t really a criticism. I’m certain that the full biography that Evanier is working on will give full treatment to these items; he has just piqued my curiosity to an unbearable degree, that’s all.
I feel I should reiterate that this is a gorgeous art book. My only real complaint is the complaint that can’t be helped; I wish there were more art in the book. When you stop to think about how many pages of Kirby art there are (he reportedly drew around 25 pages of comic art per week for over 25 years) you could easily fill ten books this size with rare and wonderful art. And I’ve seen a lot of this art before, but never reproduced this well or this large. It looks as though even some of the black and white art has been reproduced in full color. There are several pages that have paste ups and printers notes on them that show how carelessly comic book art was treated at times. I was especially glad to see so much of his pencil art reproduced here. As well regarded as his work is now it may need to be pointed out that in the seventies, even his best work was often dismissed as crude and ugly. Almost all of the positive criticism dealt with it as a progenitor of the psychedelic art of the sixties. It was certainly that, but that was a tiny part of what it was. For all of the talk about Kirby not being much of an anatomist, his characters all had movement and in many cases possessed more anatomical correctness than the static flayed figures of his peers. The flesh of a body is fluid in motion and Kirby captured that perhaps more fully than any other artist in any medium. It is also easy to tell from these full page reproductions of his pencil art that there are many types of shading that would have been impossible to ink for reproduction with the state of technology in comics printing in the sixties. To see those pages so lovingly reproduced here makes you stop to think what his work would have looked like if his peak had only come a decade or so later.