Walt Kelly! Why didn`t the Walt Kelly market take off like Carl Barks? 0

[ComicConnoisseur]

I find Walt Kelly`s art to be up there like Carl Barks art.Walt Kelly is truly a great artist like Carl Barks. I find it interesting how Barks deservedly went on to be appreciated by the comic book and OA gurus, but Walt Kelly`s market seems to have lagged behind.

Any thought as to why Walt Kelly never took off like Carl Barks did?

 

Edited November 23, 2013 by ComicConnoisseur

[vaillant]

Because Walt Kelly’s primary work was not Disney’s, I guess.

 

Barks' stories are inserted in the larger scope of Disney’s vision, and thus have become known and loved on a popular level worldwide, while Kelly’s art and storytelling is appreciated more by those who have a little more specific knowledge of the comics' history.

[mrmyst]

Perhaps if Kelly had been the primary artist, over a long period of time like Barks was with the ducks, on a single Disney character or franchise, it might be different?

[Sqeggs]

Barks had the tremendous boost of working on Donald Duck, who was already an iconic character. Kelly is most closely associated with Pogo, who was never as popular, obviously, as DD and now is largely forgotten. I would guess that few people under 30 have even heard of him.

 

I'm not the best judge of artistic ability, but I would say that Kelly was at least as good an artist as Barks and probably a better one. The entertainment value of Barks's stories is much greater, though, in my view.

 

I think one of Barks's insights was to realize that the Donald of the cartoons and the relationship between Donald and his nephews as represented in the cartoons was not going to wear well in comic books over the long run. Barks's Donald is much less crazed than the cartoon Donald and there is less mayhem in his relations with his nephews. Note the difference between the Kelly WDC&S covers and Barks's covers (admittedly, mostly later). In the Kelly covers, the cartoon sensibility lives on with Donald and the boys doing things that would inflict serious injury. It's a dominant theme in Kelly's covers. Almost none of that in Barks's covers and little of it in his stories -- particularly post-1950.

 

Some ramblings on an interesting topic.

[adamstrange]

Barks and Kelly were both great artists but I have found Barks to be the superior comic book story teller and Kelly syndicated strip creator par excellence.

[jimbo_707]

I haven't read a pogo strip in a while. I seem to remember it being very political, so maybe it wasn't quite as enjoyable for kids to read. I own one Pogo book - maybe I'll go re-read it for the first time in over 25 years!

[adamstrange]

I haven't read a pogo strip in a while. I seem to remember it being very political, so maybe it wasn't quite as enjoyable for kids to read. I own one Pogo book - maybe I'll go re-read it for the first time in over 25 years!

I read the strip as a kid and loved it so I think it can be appreciated by kids at their level and as a political and social commentary for adults. This is probably less true of the latter years of the strip where they got a touch too cynical for my taste.

[vaillant]

Perhaps if Kelly had been the primary artist, over a long period of time like Barks was with the ducks, on a single Disney character or franchise, it might be different?

 

Please don’t use that horrible word "franchise", it’s a recent concept, at least in this acception, and has nothing to do with Walt Disney’s vision.

Commercial, OK, because of course he wished to sell what he did, but it’s not like it’s conceived now.

[vaillant]

Barks had the tremendous boost of working on Donald Duck, who was already an iconic character. Kelly is most closely associated with Pogo, who was never as popular, obviously, as DD and now is largely forgotten. I would guess that few people under 30 have even heard of him.

 

Not only that. Pogo and his "universe" represent a single-handed creation. Walt Disney’s vision informed generation of readers, and authors.

 

The majority of our first generation Disney writers and artists (born in the 1910s and 1920s) were influenced by Barks and Gottfredson’s foundational work on the Disney comics, as well as the feature films, and all that made up Walt’s vision, up to the point the italian Disney production de facto took up where Barks left.

 

We have had an inimaginable amount of classic stories since the 1950s which have been published in almost every country, but in the USA the Disney company realized too late that he neglected Disney comics for too long.

The leading Disney title here, Topolino, just reached #3000, and it’s still the best selling comic for kids (and almost the only one).

[Prince Namor]

Could it also be that Barks had some 'cheerleading' in the right places over the years that Kelly didn't? Just a thought...

 

[OtherEric]

I'm really not sure why Kelly is not as popular as Barks; I would say he is easily as respected but there aren't as many people trying to track down the books. Now that I made the "mistake" of sharing the Peter Wheat issues I've been able to get copies of, the price of the issues I'm missing have gotten pretty crazy on occasion...

[G.A.tor]

Maybe the teacher and student paradox?

[Sqeggs]

Could it also be that Barks had some 'cheerleading' in the right places over the years that Kelly didn't? Just a thought...

 

It's a good thought. The "discovery" of Carl Barks by fandom in the 1960s added to his appeal. The idea of his laboring in anonymity for years turning out these great stories probably did play a role in boosting interest in his books.

[vaillant]

Could it also be that Barks had some 'cheerleading' in the right places over the years that Kelly didn't? Just a thought...

 

I don’t know – I never realized Kelly had been a Disney artist until recently. Of course, I knew Kelly by fame, but never made the association, and now that I look at his Disney work, it’s graphically delicious, but Barks refined and defined the whole Duck part of the Disney band, a thing that Kelly can’t compare to.

[vaillant]

Could it also be that Barks had some 'cheerleading' in the right places over the years that Kelly didn't? Just a thought...

 

It's a good thought. The "discovery" of Carl Barks by fandom in the 1960s added to his appeal. The idea of his laboring in anonymity for years turning out these great stories probably did play a role in boosting interest in his books.

 

This would go for the US alone, mostly (and the english language Disney fandom in general, maybe). But if I tell you the most important italian Disney writers and artists grew up literally absorbing Barks' and Gottfredson's (and his writers) contribution to the Disney world, we are talking of people which grew up between 1930s and 1950s, and ended up collecting the heritage of these masters.

It’s clear that Kelly’s contribution to Disney is very important, but it did not represent the core of his work, while for Barks it did.

[Bronty]

Barks was simply the far better writer.

[HouseofComics.Com]

Of course, I knew Kelly by fame, but never made the association, and now that I look at his Disney work, it’s graphically delicious, but Barks refined and defined the whole Duck part of the Disney band, a thing that Kelly can’t compare to.

 

Perfect phrase for his art--it is graphically delicious.

[HouseofComics.Com]

Barks was simply the far better writer.

 

Kind of an interesting concept really, to think that the writer of Pogo could be far outshone. Ie, everyone would agree that Kelly was an excellent writer, so it's hard to fault his writing skills.

 

I think Barks wins out by his longevity, by the fact that his long adventure stories are so classic and so beloved, and the fact that Kelly left comics for the newspapers. That's the thing about this hobby--you sort of have to be of the medium to get all the success. The hobby doesn't value comic strips or magazines much and it doesn't seem to warm to the comic adventures of say Bugs Bunny the way it did to the Barks ducks, which were sort of in their own comic universe.

 

I'm sure the fandom discovery helped the love affair with Barks, but what probably helped was that Barks took such pains in his work. I'm sure he put more work into writing each page than Kelly did. Add in the longevity and the fact that he sort of came upon the long, classic adventure stories that had terrific twists or hooks, and he's just the man, the genius among geniuses.

 

I had a postman deliver 30 long boxes of comics to me once and he recognized the shape of the boxes and told me about a long summer trip to Alaska that was helped by his rereading the "square eggs" comic his parents bought him along the way. The Kelly comics work just doesn't seem to have that resonance.

[OtherEric]

Barks was simply the far better writer.

 

I would take great issue with that; even if it's true that Barks is better (and I dislike absolutist statements like that in general) there's nothing simple about it.

 

I think much of the issue is Kelly's best work was either not in comic books or rather scarcer. Pogo never hit its peak in the comic books; the earlier stuff mostly in Animal Comics is clearly him working though a rough draft of sorts that let him explode fully onto the wider stage of the Comic strip. Whereas the later Pogo Possum comic books running concurrently with the newspaper strip was always clearly secondary to the strip. Our Gang, while wonderful in its own way, didn't let Kelly bring in the fantastic elements that were in many ways his greatest strength. His Mother Goose stuff for the most part wasn't actually comics as we normally think of them. Which leaves what I consider Kelly's two greatest comic book works- Fairy Tale Parade and Peter Wheat. Fairy Tale Parade was relatively early, and only ran 14 issues with Kelly stories; it's absolutely beautiful and well written. Peter Wheat is absolutely extraordinary; I cannot praise it enough and issue 26 in particular is one of the best comic books I've ever seen. But it always had low distribution through bakeries and is mind-bogglingly rare.

 

With all that said, I will give you this: when comparing their best known works in comic books (deliberately excluding the Pogo strips), Barks writing was on average better. Although I would say both of them were so far ahead of the average writers of 40's comics as to be nearly in another category altogether.

[samfromcalifornia]

Kind of apples and oranges. Barks worked on an established character backed by a large(and basically immortal) corporation. Kelly created his own character and it was distributed by a fairly small syndicate to a relatively small number of papers.

 

I believe that, without the existence of early comics fandom, nobody would know Carl Barks today. He worked in the enforced anonymity of the Disney shop. His identity was tracked down by fans who recognized his ability. They in turn celebrated him in publications and at conventions. This led to wider public knowledge of his accomplishments. The corporate decision makers of a generation ago were either part of that celebration or were aware of it. They used that knowledge to advance their own projects by associating them with Barks. Public awareness of Barks and his undoubted ability equaled strong markets.

 

There has never been a large and organized fandom for strips. Kelly's comic work is, well there is no other way to put it, cute. Cute sells to younger readers. Barks work always had an edginess that appeals to older readers. Cute is about the last word you'd apply to Barks. Arguably, Dell thought Kelly was more marketable than Barks. Note that Kelly did the covers for WDC&S until he left.

 

Also a key point: Pogo was very topical. Someone without specific knowledge of the events of the time misses almost all of the satire that is the key element of the strip.

 

So, apples and oranges. My personal opinion is that I can read almost anything Barks produced and enjoy it for its story and art. If I want something to make me think(and perhaps appreciate how far we've come as a society), I'd read Kelly's Pogo.