A Defense of Kirby's 4th World Series

[Zonker]

I've long argued that one thing that sets the Bronze Age apart was the early desire to have super-hero comics self-consciously "grow up" by pointing to something larger. This was most obvious in the heart-on-its-sleave Green Lantern/Green Arrow series and the other DC relevant books than followed in its wake. But Marvel got into the act as well, with the Spidey drug books, an occasional dig in Conan the Barbarian against the then-current prosecution of the Vietnam war, and even the death of Gwen Stacy was an attempt for superhero comics to more closely reflect the real world. Then by the time Englehart took on the Nixon Administration in Captain America, this all became explicit.

 

So that's the backdrop for my defense of Kirby's Fourth World: it is intended as satire, not in the sense of satire/parody like MAD Magazine or SNL, but in the earlier Jonathan Swift or Voltaire sense: A story that is exaggerated and pointing to a larger reality. In this case, the larger reality is the totalitarian 20th century, from Nazism to Mao's Cultural Revolution to the Stalin-era USSR.

 

Also: people criticize the silly names like Scott Free or Granny Goodness, but that's Kirby's intentional borrowing from Charles Dickens' use of names like Artful Dodger.

 

And yes, I'll be the first to acknowledge that the Bronze Age was the beginning of super-hero comics putting on un-earned pretensions (like I'm comparing Kirby to Swift, Dickens or Voltaire? ) Maybe that's what led to the declining readership from the Silver Age days...

 

 

Anyway, let's take a look at Forever People 3...

 

Cover

Then the splash, with its quote from Hitler. Remember Kirby was both a WWII vet and a Jew:

And the double-page splash, with Godfrey ("God-Free") enciting the mob as a latter-day Joseph Goebbels. It is possible Glorious Godfrey was also a dig by Kirby at Billy Graham, who was then very publicly cozy to the Nixon Administration and very much pro-Vietnam War. But I'd rather not go there:

Yeah, the "Happiness Package" is an unfortunate Kirby-ism dialogue choice, but I'm choosing to believe this is Godfrey's attempt to translate an Apokolips phrase into English:

Pages 11,12-- cf. the brown shirts on the march, book-burning, etc.

Page 20--"Not the first of its kind seen on Earth." Indeed:

Page 21-- Here is Kirby's worry-- something in humanity seems to inevitably produce these Hitlers and Goebbels. As technology progresses, these monsters will have more and more powerful tools at their disposal. The "Anti-Life Equation" is the ultimate techo-solution for Darkseid as totalitarian. Rather than having to sell an ideology to work his will, he can simply shut down independent free will among his subjects:

Finally, by coincidence, the FP 3 lettercol has a letter from Harlan Ellison himself, praising the inaugural issue of Forever People, and making a reference ("Mountain of Judgement") to the earlier Kirby Jimmy Olsen series:

[awe4one]

Nice analysis Zonker!

 

I have two comments...

 

First, for the story to be effective as satire readers need to know what it's referencing. The story needs to be clear enough for the readers to figure out what event, situation, or person is being satirized. Kirby failed here. When you spell it out as you did here...it becomes clear. But a reader shouldn't have to be held by the hand and specifically guided through the story with explanations to get what the creator is trying to convey...

 

Also, Kirby's attempt at relevency pales in comparison to the other titles you suggested. Even though Kirby had the best intentions and direction for the story and title doesn't negate the fact it's execution was poor...

 

And I've already commented on Ellison's praise...

 

Jim

[Aman619]

Im not so sure it was hard to decipher who was being 'satirized'... especially with the Hitler quote right up front, even back then when we bought and read them. But, as you state, the execution left a lot to be desired.. Just to cause a little trouble, might I suggest the missing element was Stan's dialogue???

[awe4one]

Im not so sure it was hard to decipher who was being 'satirized'... especially with the Hitler quote right up front, even back then when we bought and read them.

 

I've read the comic before and didn't get the satire part until today with Zonker's post. I just considered the quote as another example of Kirby's wacky writing. I had read the first two issues before this one and thought Kirby was out of his mind. My reference in a prior thread about him taking the brown acid was in jest but his comics did seem as if they were written by someone under the influence. It's hard to tell where to take his writing seriously and where you just have to pound your head against a wall because of it's incoherency. It's frustrating reading all the Fourth World titles because it obvious Kirby was going for something big but for the life of me couldn't figure out what the hell it was...

 

But then again...maybe I'm an isolated incident and everyone else knew it was a satire.

 

Jim

[Tango 'n Cash]

But then again...maybe I'm an isolated incident and everyone else knew it was a satire.

 

I think you are giving Kirby way too much credit and are probably putting 10X the effort into the story than Kirby ever did. The guy was a terrible writer, virtually uneducated, and just take a look at his subsequent Bronze work to see he had absolutely no idea what he was doing.

 

Or is Zonker going to come on here telling us that King Solomon's Frog was really a rip-roaring Grim Fairy Tales satire, the Captain America Mad Bomb was actually about Jimmy Carter and Billy Beer, and that Devil Dinosaur was the precursor of Jurassic Park?

 

Sometime [#@$%!!!] is just [#@$%!!!], no matter how long you look at it.

[Aman619]

Im not agreeing that the Fourth Worls was high level "Satire"!! Just that by quoting Hitler and writing fascistic characters that he was channelling WWII history into his stories. Im with you that he never really put it together in an entertaining or readable manner.

[Zonker]

are probably putting 10X the effort into the story than Kirby ever did.

 

That's likely true, but also likely true of most any fannish project, including you and your Byrne/Claremont X-Men, eh?

 

Look, I'm not expecting anyone to agree with me, I get it that mine is the minority view. I just got tired of the relentless negativity on the other thread, and thought I'd offer another way to read what Kirby was after.

 

And, no I'm not going to praise Kirby's work past 1973 or so (believe me, I've tried to find something to like there). I think he had this 4th World storyline bottled up for years at Marvel, and when it didn't take off at DC for whatever reason (including Kirby's limitations as a storyteller), then there really wasn't much left.

 

It does make you wonder what would've happened if he and Stan had rolled the concepts out together as another of their collaborations under the Marvel banner...

[awe4one]

Something just occurred to me while reading this thread. Jack Kirby's legacy is in danger with future collectors because of his 70s output. Let me explain...

 

I grew up with Kirby's 70s work and didn't much care for him. In fact, I considered him extremely overrated. His writing was cr@p, his characters blocky, and his women unattractive. This includes the 60s FF reprints. After seeing his mediocre new work, his 60s work seemed just more of the same. Not a fair analogy but as a kid there were many comics, to include my much loved Buscema FF run every month, that having to wade through Kirby's stuff wasn't really something I had to do to get my comics fix. It wasn't until I re-entered comics in the mid-80s, almost a decade removed from Kirby and with cash in hand to buy back issues of my favorite FF comics, that I learned to appreciate what Kirby brought to the Marvel Age of comics. Regardless, Kirby's art is an acquired taste and not quickly accessable.

 

Now we are two decades later...HG 60s Marvels are priced outside the normal collector's pocketbook. Their main access to Kirby is his 70s work. And it's a large body of work as well. When Kirby went to DC it was the "Kirby Age of Comics!" When he went back to Marvel it was "Kirby Returns!". And all these hyped comics are generally awful. Collectors are going to look at these and base his whole career on this work. Again, it's the volume of work that'll be his undoing. It not just a title or two, it's near 100+ comics.

 

Think of it this way...Cole, Baker, Kamen, and other GA artists are considered the greats of their age. Generally most comics collectors accept this but have never really sat down and looked at these artist's work. They either don't collect the genre, the age, or the comics are priced outside their budgets. And these artists didn't have a prolonged down period that collectors can latch on to.

 

Kirby's 70s output on the otherhand will be out there for decades and affordable to the common collector. This is what collectors will base Kirby's legacy on and sadly will do so without seeing his best work...

 

Jim

[ComicBookGuy]

Guys, if you don't like Kirby's work, that's fine. But don't forget that he has legions of fans. Zonker and me to name just two. Give the guy a break. His legacy is in NO danger of being hurt any more than Adams' reputation is in danger as a result of TOY BOY or SKATEMAN. Kirby's runs of FF, Thor, and Captain America are amazing, although admitedly silver age, and will ALWAYS be considered some of the classic comics of all time. Last time I checked, THE JACK KIRBY COLLECTOR was doing just fine. The Comic Buyer's Guide millennium poll, which TONS of people participated in, showed him to be THE NUMBER ONE MOST LOVED comic artist of the twentieth century. Agree to disagree! I think Zonker was starting this thread to APPRECIATE Kirby, not to have him raked across the coals the way he was in the other thread.

Joe

[awe4one]

A defense needs a counter-defense to be effective. I wasn't aware this thread was supposed to be a Kirby lovefest with all Kirby detractors, and I have said I liked and appreciate his 60s work, not welcomed...

 

The guy's 70s work had serious problems...if you don't want to hear that, and there are great number of collectors who feel this way, I'd suggest you start a separate "I Love Kirby" thread to insulate yourself...

 

Jim

[ComicBookGuy]

A defense needs a counter-defense to be effective. I wasn't aware this thread was supposed to be a Kirby lovefest with all Kirby detractors, and I have said I liked and appreciate his 60s work, not welcomed...

 

The guy's 70s work had serious problems...if you don't want to hear that, and there are great number of collectors that feel this way, I'd suggest you start a separate "I Love Kirby" thread to insulate yourself...

 

Jim

 

I give your post a 10/10 on the hostility meter.

I don't think it was my intention to make your thoughts "not welcomed" on the thread cause I always enjoy reading your posts, and I actually agree that Kirby's 1970s work was in decline as I wrote in the other thread. And I was not responding to you specifically except in regard to Kirby's legacy. I think it is alive and well as I stated before with evidence. Again, agree to disagree! Bottom line is that if you state a counter-defense to a defense, then someone is entitled to counter that, correct?

Joe

[awe4one]

A defense needs a counter-defense to be effective. I wasn't aware this thread was supposed to be a Kirby lovefest with all Kirby detractors, and I have said I liked and appreciate his 60s work, not welcomed...

 

The guy's 70s work had serious problems...if you don't want to hear that, and there are great number of collectors that feel this way, I'd suggest you start a separate "I Love Kirby" thread to insulate yourself...

 

Jim

 

I give your post a 10/10 on the hostility meter.

I don't think it was my intention to make your thoughts "not welcomed" on the thread cause I always enjoy reading your posts, and I actually agree that Kirby's 1970s work was in decline as I wrote in the other thread. And I was not responding to you specifically except in regard to Kirby's legacy. I think it is alive and well as I stated before with evidence. Again, agree to disagree! Bottom line is that if you state a counter-defense to a defense, then someone is entitled to counter that, correct?

Joe

 

Agreed...sounded in your previous post like all detractors were unwelcomed...

 

And I think today his legacy is fine...it's the future I'm worried about. As we get farther away from his great work with his inferior stage representing the most recent and accessable work to collectors, I fear people will look at these comics as the example and base his total output on them...

 

Not saying it's right...just how I see the future hashing out...

 

Jim

[shadroch]

I think that Jack felt slighted by not recieving equal billing with Stan,so he was determined to do as much alone as he could.Imagine how the Fourth World series would have gone if Jack had Denny O'Neil polishing the scripts for him,like Stan did on the FF.

Sometimes I wonder if Mr Kirbys later work is his way of punishing fans for rejecting his magnus.As if he dumbed down his books since the fans were obviously not smart enough to appreciate his genius.What could he have been thinking ,putting out books like Atlas,The Green Team,Devil Dinosaur,Batle for a 3-D Planet,ect,ect. Did he truly expect these books to reverberate with the fans and add to his legacy? Or did he come to realize that there was a large group of fans that would buy anything he put out there,and he just mailed it in.

 

In the end,I'm guessing Jack could write better than Stan could draw,but Stan recognized his limitations.

[ComicBookGuy]

Good points. Devil Dinosaur is a very baffling comic to me cause it doesn't really seem to fit in anywhere else and seems to be far and away worse than anything else he did conceptually, artistically, and especially it had the worst writing he did in my opinion. Maybe it was just purposefully aimed at a younger audience? Pure speculation on my part, but maybe after seeing his attempts to reach a higher level audience fail, he resigned himself to writing for the younger audiences that he had been so successful with. In a sense, then, this would be an example of Kirby seeing his own limitations.

That being said, remember, I am a Kirby fan, but I really can't say anything good about that comic...

Joe

[bronze johnny]

There appears to be a great deal of animosity towards Kirby on both threads.

 

Zonker's analysis of the Fourth World demonstrates how Kirby's work can be looked at on several different levels, which is itself a strong indication of Kirby's genius at work. It's always interesting to see works of art create so much controversy. And the Fourth World is one of those works of art that stirs the pot. I rarely hear someone say that Kirby's 1970s work was not on a par with his earlier works. Instead, I hear that his 70s work stunk or sucked or was unreadable. I must say that Devil Dinosaur is a good example of Kirby at his lowest point of artistic expression. But even Kirby at his worst is still something to look at simply because it is Kirby.

[awe4one]

I rarely hear someone say that Kirby's 1970s work was not on a par with his earlier works.

 

Then you aren't reading closely...his 70s art is inferior to his 60s art and I'm not the first one in this thread to point that out. Hard to gauge his writing as Stan did that chore in the 60s. But I will even go so far to say his art set-up the story better in the 60s than his work in the 70s. At times it looked as if the art and story was incoherent...

 

You just need to get over the fact that there are a bunch of collectors out there that do not care for Kirby's 70s work. You can spin it as you like but some of his work ranks among the worst of the 70s. That includes some of the Fourth World stories...

 

I don't believe we should laud mediocrity no matter who the creator. It discredits them and makes collectors look like brainless fanboys...

 

Jim

[bronze johnny]

I rarely hear someone say that Kirby's 1970s work was not on a par with his earlier works.

 

Then you aren't reading closely...his 70s art is inferior to his 60s art and I'm not the first one in this thread to point that out.

 

-Believe me, I'm reading closely. Your criticisms of Kirby are reasonable and fair. And I should have clarified myself by indicating on this thread that "rarely hear someone" was not exclusive to persons on both threads. I can't tell you how many times a person who dislikes Kirby's 70s art work merely says it sucks w/o elaborating any further. But I respectfully disagree with you when its come to Kirby's early Bronze Age work, particularly the Fourth World.

 

Hard to gauge his writing as Stan did that chore in the 60s. But I will even go so far to say his art set-up the story better in the 60s than his work in the 70s. At times it looked as if the art and story was incoherent...

 

Let's not forget Kirby's genius was not merely limited to his ability to draw, tell stories and create remarkable characters, but more significantly...his ability to create new concepts. And the Fourth World is his the result of his genius at work during the Early Bronze Age.

 

You just need to get over the fact that there are a bunch of collectors out there that do not care for Kirby's 70s work. You can spin it as you like but some of his work ranks among the worst of the 70s. That includes some of the Fourth World stories...

 

I am willing to bet that the bunch of collectors you seem to represent are in the minority. And the Fourth World ranks with some of the best of the Bronze Age.

 

 

I don't believe we should laud mediocrity no matter who the creator. It discredits them and makes collectors look like brainless fanboys...

 

It's not about lauding mediocrity, but rather about the life and works of the greatest comic book artist who ever lived...Jack Kirby.

 

Picasso did some stuff that was not considered brilliant, but it's still Picasso.

 

 

 

Jim

[verygoodplus]

You just need to get over the fact that there are a bunch of collectors out there that do not care for Kirby's 70s work. You can spin it as you like but some of his work ranks among the worst of the 70s.

 

 

So when someone expresses admiration for Kirby's 70's work it's "spin," whereas your dismissive opinion of the work should be taken as Gospel?

 

You are welcome to your opinion, but, please, get over yourself.

[Tango 'n Cash]

I don't believe we should laud mediocrity no matter who the creator. It discredits them and makes collectors look like brainless fanboys...

 

[Tango 'n Cash]

I am willing to bet that the bunch of collectors you seem to represent are in the minority.

 

I doubt this, unless you are talking about those who grew up in the Silver Age and view Kirby through rose-colored glasses. For anyone else who bought their first comic after Kirby left Marvel, I can assure you that we're in the majority. Everyone I knew thought "Kirby Sucked" due to his horrible 1970's output.

 

I also remember hearing a story about how the DC and Marvel offices used to paste up the latest Kirby work on the bulletin board, and sit around laughing at it. He was a joke in the 1970's, even among his contemporaries.