King Kirby and the Bronze Age: A Period of Decline?

[tth2]

The purpose of this thread is to hopefully try to evaluate the Bronze Age works of Comicbookdom's greatest artist. I am not here to defend Kirby's Bronze Age works but rather, to see what Kirby was trying to accomplish during the 1970s. Was Kirby trying to create a new mythological basis for the American Comic Book? Is the Bronze Age "the Fall of King Kirby?" Was he just trying to hang on? Did his artistic powers simply decline or did the comic book change? Or did the tastes of comic book readers change? Did the new generation of 1970s comic book readers reject the "Kirby Way?"

 

BJ, taking your questions one by one:

 

Was Kirby trying to create a new mythological basis for the American Comic Book? No, he was just trying to create a new universe of characters that was loosely tied to the existing DC universe.

 

Is the Bronze Age "the Fall of King Kirby?" Yes it was. This is not a criticism of the man, per se. But the fact is all good things must end. All artists, and people in general, rise, peak, and then decline. Name any artist, writer, engineer, scientist, etc. who was doing better work in their 50s than in their younger years. BA just happened to be the comic era that coincided with Kirby's declining skills.

 

Was he just trying to hang on? During the 1970s? I don't think he was consciously "hanging on", but like an athlete who was past his prime, he just didn't know when to hang it up.

 

Did his artistic powers simply decline or did the comic book change? His artistic powers declined. See above. I wouldn't say comics in the mid-70s were noticeably different from late 60s comics. Certainly not the kind of massive change that would occur after the rise of the indies in the 1980s.

 

Or did the tastes of comic book readers change? Not noticeably. They still liked decent art and decent writing, and they were not getting either with Kirby.

 

Did the new generation of 1970s comic book readers reject the "Kirby Way?" I don't have a clue what you're talking about here. If this particular man had not been King Kirby, he would never have even received the opportunity to create the Fourth World or continue drawing as long as he did. The man's work was in decline, because he was getting old. Why can't you accept this?

 

In order to better understand and appreciate the Bronze Age, it is significant that Kirby's work be seriously looked at.

 

If we are going to criticize Kirby's Bronze Age work, then we had better back our positions up. We must be fair in our criticisms of the King's Bronze Age work.. Remember, Kirby was always ahead of his time and he is the one constant that spans through the Golden, Silver & Bronze Ages. It is not enough to say that his work was unreadable or as someone else said, his work was bad.

 

One real way to crtitique Kirby's Bronze Age work product is by comparing it to his earlier Golden and Silver Age works. Maybe then we better understand this comic book icon.

 

I for one resent the tone of your statements here, as if what we were saying in this post was not sufficiently scholarly or detailed and therefore not worth considering (i.e., we didn't reach the conclusion which you apparently wanted to hear). I thought most of the postings in this thread were pretty well reasoned, there were only a few jokesters.

 

First, we were fair in our criticism of Kirby's BA work. Clearly everyone responding here was familiar with his SA work, which most people would agree was his high-water mark, particularly his work with Joe Sinnott on mid-1960s Fantastic Four. And I think most people here have at least a passing familiarity with his GA and Atomic Age work. The clear consensus was that his BA work was not as good as his SA work. People like Kirby, but they don't feel there was that much to like in his BA work.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't know how to quantify this in the way that you seem to want. I guess I could describe the differences, but I couldn't explain why those differences result in a better or worse product. They just do. Similarly, I can't quantify why I prefer pre-1900 Monet to post-1900 Monet, I just do.

 

And why is it not enough to say his work was unreadable? That's a pretty legitimate criticism of any writer's work. Would you prefer that we reproduced passages of his "dialogue" and then explained in graphic detail why it was childish, laughable, amateurish, completely lacking in sophistication?

 

Finally, Kirby was NOT always ahead of his time, and he certainly wasn't by the BA. See my explanation above of the rise and fall of all artists' creative powers.

 

Let's see if we can get some Kirby experts to share some of their knowledge about the King.

O-o-o-hh, only Kirby "experts" were supposed to respond to this thread!

[shadroch]

I'm not really sure what qualifications one needs to be considered a "Kirby expert",but having read 95% or more of his post-Atomic work,I consider myself familiar enough with his stuff to render an informed opinion.

 

BTW-I'm fairly sure that Gene Colan,Curt Swan and Joe Kubert span the ages you mentioned,as well as a guy named Stanley Lieber.Both Schomburg and Bill Everett did work in the Golden Age and the Bronze Age,as did Al williamson and Will Eisner.

 

Off topic-Overstreet lists COLE #1 as Curt Swans first published work,yet Mr Swan has often mentioned doing Boy Commandos as early as 1945.

[tth2]

BTW-I'm fairly sure that Gene Colan,Curt Swan and Joe Kubert span the ages you mentioned,as well as a guy named Stanley Lieber.Both Schomburg and Bill Everett did work in the Golden Age and the Bronze Age,as did Al williamson and Will Eisner.

 

Thanks Shad, I forgot to comment on this point. I would add Gil Kane to the list too.

[shadroch]

I was going to mention Gil Kane but am not really sure just when he started.Alex Toth and Carmine Infatino come to mind as well,but I'm not really up on GA DC.Guess we do need some "experts" to join in.

[king_felix-migration]

BTW-I'm fairly sure that Gene Colan,Curt Swan and Joe Kubert span the ages you mentioned,as well as a guy named Stanley Lieber.Both Schomburg and Bill Everett did work in the Golden Age and the Bronze Age,as did Al williamson and Will Eisner.

 

Thanks Shad, I forgot to comment on this point. I would add Gil Kane to the list too.

 

Did any of those creators maintain their quality in later life? Most people decline and Colan certainly had his brillo pad phase, probably due to his eyes. I always thought Kane's 70's Marvel work sucked big time, although funnily enough he considered it his best work. How many decent comics has Mr Lieber written in the last 30 years? Kubert never became awful, but his 60's work was at an incredibly high standard, his benchmark period.

 

Eisner did some great stuff later on, but he also produced the odd bit of dreck that he probably wouldn't have in his heyday. Anybody actually read Life On Another Planet? I'm not familiar with Schomburg, Everett or Williamson in the Bronze Age, but I've never been a big fan of Everett from what I've seen.

 

I guess Swan was quite consistent, but whilst he was always a good solid pro, I'm not sure you could compare him to some of the other names mentioned. I'd tend to put Toth in the same bracket, even though I know he's raved about.

 

For the greatest evidence of decline so far unmentioned, compare 50's/60's Infantino with his 70's Marvel work.

[Zonker]

I was going to mention Gil Kane but am not really sure just when he started.Alex Toth and Carmine Infatino come to mind as well,but I'm not really up on GA DC.Guess we do need some "experts" to join in.

 

 

Gil Kane did some Newsboy Legion stories for Star-Spangled Comics after Simon & Kirby left the strip in the mid-1940s. He also did the Wildcat strip for Sensation Comics for a while. One of the pen names he used was Gil Stack, if I remember correctly the note on one of his 1970s reprints.

 

Toth and Infantino appeared in the later All-Star Comics (from about #35). Toth did a handful of Golden Age Green Lantern strips (beginning in GL #28, and All-American and Comic Cavalcade of the same time). Infantino did a few Johnny Thunder and Ghost Patrol strips in Flash Comics before originating Black Canary there in #86.

[Zonker]

First, we were fair in our criticism of Kirby's BA work. Clearly everyone responding here was familiar with his SA work, which most people would agree was his high-water mark, particularly his work with Joe Sinnott on mid-1960s Fantastic Four. And I think most people here have at least a passing familiarity with his GA and Atomic Age work. The clear consensus was that his BA work was not as good as his SA work. People like Kirby, but they don't feel there was that much to like in his BA work.

 

There is an unfortunate apples-to-oranges aspect to this type of criticism. It wasn't until Kirby left Marvel that he started dialoguing his own stuff, and even Kirby partisans like myself acknowledge that as his weak point. If you want to compare & contrast 1960s Kirby with 1970s Kirby, then it seems you have to limit yourself to the pencilling, plotting, and panel breakdowns. I agree Kirby/Sinnott is probably the slickest combination this side of Kirby/Wood, but I'd put the early 1970s Kirby/Royer head & shoulders above the early 1960s Kirby/Ayers or Kirby/Stone. For the clearest apples-to-apples comparison of the artwork, you're probably looking at Kirby/Colletta on Thor vs the first few New Gods, Mr. Miracle, Forever People, Jimmy Olsen. I've only seen the Thors in reprint, but I don't find anything artisticly superior there to that team's later work for DC.

 

Now as I mentioned above, after DC cancelled New Gods I do note a decline in the artwork, only made worse by the addition of D. Bruce Perry as Kirby's inker in the later days. But I attribute that to the fact that Kirby put his all into the Fourth World, and for whatever reason it did not succeed commercially.

 

Final point-- Despite all the criticisms of the Fourth World stuff, it nevertheless seems to have captured the imagination of comics creators from Walt Simonson to John Byrne to Jerry Ordway to Keith Giffen to Jim Starlin, given the number of times the concepts have been revived and reworked over the years. I can't think of another example of a series so often (unsuccessfully ) revived...

[shadroch]

The concept of The Fourth World epic was top notch. It was the execution that lagged.

Names like Darkside,Granny Goodness,Desade,Vikon,and Beautiful Dreamer reduced a tale for the ages to an almost juvenile level.

The Mad Bomb arc in Cap was almost incomprehensible,as was most of the Pacfic

output.Battle for The Three -D World,anybody?

Jack Kirby was a fantastic artist,who had some great concepts but couldn't plot or write by the time he tried to go solo.In fact,I'd say that the product he put out in the late 70s to his death is rather irrelevant to his body of work.Think Elvis after he went Vegas.Kirbys earlier body of work was so imporant that I'm more than willing to forgive and forget his latter work.

[awe4one]

I always thought Kane's 70's Marvel work sucked big time

 

I disagree. Gil Kane did some of his best work in the 70s. His work on What If? #3 contains some of the best interior art of the 70s. Period. He drew wonderful covers during this time as well as superb runs on Spider-Man. Marvel Team-Up, and even a short stint on John Carter...

 

Gil Kane is one of Marvel greats of the period. But that's my opinion of course. Your mileage may vary...

 

Jim

[rjpb]

Having just come from the pre-hero cover thread in the Silver section, I'd have to say the answer is yes. I'm not really familiar with late Bronze/Copper age Kirby, but the covers I've seen don't really impress me. I have fond memories of the 4th World books, as well as early Kamandi and Demon. I think initially Kirby had alot of ideas he had bottled up and had had some time to think out, resulting in entertaining stories, but starting with the later issues of Mr. Miracle, and especially by the time he was doing books like Omac and his First Issue Special one-shots, it was clear that he was starting to run out of ideas and the writing did seem increasingly aimed at a younger audience ( of course I was getting older as well). Artistically, Kirby definetely still had it in the early 70s, and I recall reading that he was happier with Royer's inking than he had been with most of his inkers in a long time. Personally I prefer Joe Sinnot, but Kirby's early Bronze work certainly still had alot of power.

 

As for the Kirby/Lee debate - It's like arguing about Lennon & McCartney or Jagger & Richards. The collaboration results in work often far superior to the individual efforts of either man.

[king_felix-migration]

I always thought Kane's 70's Marvel work sucked big time

 

I disagree. Gil Kane did some of his best work in the 70s. His work on What If? #3 contains some of the best interior art of the 70s. Period. He drew wonderful covers during this time as well as superb runs on Spider-Man. Marvel Team-Up, and even a short stint on John Carter...

 

Gil Kane is one of Marvel greats of the period. But that's my opinion of course. Your mileage may vary...

 

 

As I said, the man himself agrees with you. I love his Silver Age DC material but can't get a handle on the 70's work. The figures seem somehow awkward and overly angular to me, there is a huge stylistic difference. I was young when those books came out and I hated them at the time and only later realised the fantastic work he did previously.

 

Horses for courses maybe.

[tth2]

I always thought Kane's 70's Marvel work sucked big time

 

I disagree. Gil Kane did some of his best work in the 70s. His work on What If? #3 contains some of the best interior art of the 70s. Period. He drew wonderful covers during this time as well as superb runs on Spider-Man. Marvel Team-Up, and even a short stint on John Carter...

 

Gil Kane is one of Marvel greats of the period. But that's my opinion of course. Your mileage may vary...

 

 

As I said, the man himself agrees with you. I love his Silver Age DC material but can't get a handle on the 70's work. The figures seem somehow awkward and overly angular to me, there is a huge stylistic difference. I was young when those books came out and I hated them at the time and only later realised the fantastic work he did previously.

 

Horses for courses maybe.

 

I'm with you, KF. Growing up in the 70s reading Marvels, I hated Gil Kane's covers, precisely because they were so angular, and I hated how he always showed people's faces as if you were looking up at them. The guy definitely had a fixation on showing the underside of people's noses!

 

But as I got into DC and started seeing his work there, particularly from the early 60s in GL and Atom, I gained a whole new appreciation. His work was definitely smoother and less angular, but his figures were still more dynamic than any other artist from that era, with the possible exception of Joe Kubert.

[Zonker]

I'm working on a 'defense of Kirby's 4th World' thread.

 

In the meantime, here is the star witness for the defense!

 

[awe4one]

"Star Witness"? You're kidding....right?

 

Ellison is a fine writer in his own right but he's also known for over the top bias for his buddies...faint praise isn't in his vocabulary I suspect...

 

Jim

[Rip]

Was he just trying to hang on? During the 1970s? I don't think he was consciously "hanging on", but like an athlete who was past his prime, he just didn't know when to hang it up.

I have to say Kirby was the number one artist that we (meaning many of the local comic collectors),... well, laughed at. We respected the guy and knew what he had done for comics, but his work was so damn horrible (artwork style was laughable) he'd become a running joke of himself. Without doubt one of the worst artists in the 70's. Sorry

[Zonker]

"Star Witness"? You're kidding....right?

No... not really...

 

Ellison is a fine writer in his own right but he's also known for over the top bias for his buddies...faint praise isn't in his vocabulary I suspect...

 

Roger that over-the-top-ness. But apparently Michael Fleischer thought Ellison's "praise" sufficiently faint that he sued him over it!

 

web page

[Aman619]

if you 'youngins' want to see Kirbys 70s work in context of hi scareer to judge if he was "over the hill" at that point, I suggest looking at recent John Byrne stuff as a comparison. Im assuming many of you admired his work as the best of his generation. I look at his sloppier rushed looking pencilling similarly to how I viewed Kirbys 70s work when it was coming out.

 

as an aside, unfortunastely its very hard to compare pencillers' work because their inkers chaneg it so much.

[bronze johnny]

Kudos Zonker!!

 

What I think some collectors/comic lovers are missing here is that Kirby's Fourth World is one of the great events of the Bronze Age. The King was a visionary and the Fourth World demonstrates his remarkable ability to take comicbookdom and the Bronze Age to new heights.

[shadroch]

Kirby was a visionary.Had he taken his time and had the desire to work with a competent writer,The Fourth World line would have been an all-time classic.But he didn't and its not.

Creators look at a book like OMAC or The Demon

and see its potential,so when given a chance they love to revamp the series.

Sid Barret was a visionary.Great ideas with super potential,just not the desire nor ability to deliver the finished product.Others took the creative seeds both these men sowed and in the end reaped a better product.

[Red Hook]

Syd Barret......founding member of Pink Floyd and the band's artistic spirit at the start. Lost it later on to schizophrenia/drugs.

 

Some of these guys don't know who he is Shad.