Friday, 18 May 2012


The new book.  Art by Neal Adams (based on
Kirby design)

What can one say about JACK KIRBY that hasn't already
been said by those far more proficient at bending words to their will
than I'll ever be?  I'm a huge fan of the man and his work - but without
the tendency to deify him in the way that some fans do.  You know the
sort of thing I mean - "Jack's art should have been printed directly
from his pencils""Jack should've been allowed to be his own
editor", "No one else should've been allowed to dialogue
his stories", etc.

The fact was however, that Jack - although he was a brilliant
storyteller when it came to laying out a comicbook - had a tin ear for
dialogue, making his scripting somewhat less than the dynamic, pulse-
pounding match for his pencilling that it should've been.  Also, Jack's
art in later years began to suffer from the accumulation of 'shorthand'
techniques he'd developed to allow him to draw so many pages
on a monthly basis throughout his long career and not miss
a deadline.

The original magazine

Over time, his rendition of musculature and anatomy departed
from any semblance of reality as his figures became squat, stocky
and far less fluid than had once been the case - while shadows cast on
any floor bore absolutely no discernible relation to whatever object was
supposedly responsible for them.  Say what you like, but the pinnacle of
Jack's career was the work he produced with STAN LEE at MARVEL
COMICS, when Stan was responsible for 'punching up' the stories with
his scripting, and capable hands like JOE SINNOTTVINCE COL-
LETTA and DICK AYERS (to name but three) added their not
inconsiderable talents to softening some of the harsher 'eccen-
tricities' of Jack's art while enhancing its strengths.

Which finally brings me to DC's release of Jack's SPIRIT
WORLD one-shot from 1971.  This was a companion mag to In
The DAYS Of The MOB (which I hope DC will also reissue in the
same deluxe format), both of which were attempts by Jack to venture
beyond the boundaries of mere comics-for-kids with proper, 'legitimate'
magazines that grown-ups would buy.  MARK EVANIER reveals the
details behind those attempts (and their failures) in his informative in-
troduction to the second portion of the book, so I won't spoil your
anticipation of reading it for yourself (if you're going to buy a
copy) by repeating them here.

Interior page from magazine.  Inked by Vince Colletta

I'm lucky enough to own both of Jack's DC/HAMPSHIRE
mags from the '70s, but the draw for me with the deluxe edition of
Spirit World was that it also contains material originally prepared
for what would've been the second issue of the mag (which was never
published).  These tales were later re-sized (on some pages), coloured,
and printed in some of DC's monthly supernatural/mystery themed
comicbooks.  It's not recorded whether Jack or MIKE ROYER
were responsible for the 'drawing up' which is evident on
various panels, but some of it is rather clumsy.

However, nice as it is to see these other tales, I have to
admit that they're somewhat underwhelming in both the art and
writing departments.  Mike Royer, while himself an accomplished
artist and inker, was under instruction to render Jack's pencils just
the way they were, with no changes or alterations - so it's hardly his
fault that the pages are very far from examples of Jack's art at its best.
The scripting is dull and leaden, and does nothing to lessen the com-
monly-held perception that Jack's strong points did not include dia-
logue and exposition.  One can't help but wonder what these
stories would have been like had Stan or ROY THOMAS
been in charge of the writing duties.

Please, DC - this one next

Having said all that however, the book is a nice little addition
to any Kirby fan's library (despite its somewhat distracting inability
to maintain the density of tone from page to page - especially on the
b&w ones), but sadly it doesn't represent Jack at the top of his game.
It has to be said 'though, that Jack not at "the top of his game"
usually still offered something worth looking at.

One final word - I'm surprised that DC chose to publish Spirit
World first, instead of In The Days Of The Mob, which is the
more interesting of the two magazines in my opinion.  (Although that
could be due to the nostalgia factor associated with me actually owning
the latter in the early '70s, whereas I didn't obtain the former 'til many
years later when I was an adult.)  Regardless, let's just hope that
sales are good enough to warrant DC releasing the companion
publication in the very near future. 


Anonymous said...

I see they chickened out of reprinting the words "The President Must Die" on the cover of the book. Wonder why?

Kid said...

It does seem a bit strange to have one illo without a caption, but perhaps they were worried about some nutter seeing it as a 'sign' - y'know, a 'command to be obeyed' sort of thing.

Anonymous said...

I remember seeing the ads for "Spirit World" and "In the days of the Mob" in the DC comics and being desperate to get them as a kid -I never saw them anywhere until about 7 years ago when I picked up Spirit World for £1 at a jumble sale (in great condition)- Mmmmmmmm not the greatest (imho)from Kirby but for a quid great value- I would still love to see "In the days of the Mob" McScotty

Kid said...

Stay tuned, McScotty - I'm planning on posting a story from that very mag sometime soon. (My copy of Spirit World isn't that great, but at least it had the poster.)

Anonymous said...

Dougie (not anonymous) said...

I remember being flung into gloom at the thought of the world ending by the time I was in my twenties.

Planning to get Spirit World for my birthday.

Nick Caputo said...


This comic scared the hell out of me as a 10 year old. I especially remember being chilled by the photo that read "Don't plan on visitnig Paris in 1990"..or words to that effect.

Kirby was certainly aiming for an older audience, likely trying to appeal to those who enjoyed Hammer films and supernatural phenomenon. While I have the original I've been re-reading the hardcover edition and a mumber of things struck me. Kirby's writing leaves a lot to be desired. For some reason I expected it to read a little better, but it doesn't. I also noticed how good Colletta's inks look here. Although many disagree, I thought the black and white (or blue ink) was suitable for the supernatural material.

Kid said...

I didn't get this issue 'til my 20s or 30s, but even then I thought the girl ghost draping herself over the doctor at his desk was quite effectively done. As you say 'though, Nick, Kirby's scripting let him down here. I agree with your other comments on this mag too.

Kid said...

Nick, I don't have your email address - if you send it through the comments section, I won't publish it, but then I can contact you.

Al said...

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, having said that, you're full of shit. Perhaps not all of Jack's dialogue was to your taste, but he didn't need Stan Lee's editing, trust me. No one edited Stan when his writing was excessive, or when he wrote the credits, for that matter.

Kid said...

As you say, everyone's entitled to their opinion. Doesn't mean they're entitled to express it in a rude or disrespectful way 'though - like you did.

And Jack certainly DID need Stan's editing and input. The fact that Jack never again had a success that came anywhere close to his Marvel work testifies to that.

In fact, some might say that Jack never again had a success...period. Of course, I'd be too polite to say that.

Henry R. Kujawa said...

Whyvare Stan Lee, Roy Thomas & Marvel Cpomics being mentioned AT ALL in a review of a JACK KIRBY book done for DC?

Jack was, first and foremost, a WRITER. The art existed to support it, not the other way round. Stan Lee tended to give everyone an "adolescent smartass" personality, while Roy Thomas's dialogue is simply the stiffest and most unnatural in comics history. He does have a talent for unusual characters, though (I'm thinking Dr. Strange and CONAN).

The more I look around, one thing has become increasingly clear to me. The ONLY people who have a problem with Jack Kirby's writing are STAN LEE fans.

Kid said...

It's obvious why they're being mentioned - by way of comparison as to how good Jack could be when collaborating with others, as opposed to when he did everything by himself.

And one thing that has become increasingly clear to me is that the only people who DON'T have a problem with Jack Kirby's writing AREN'T Stan Lee fans. Which is as redundant a point as the one you just made.

However, COMICBOOK fans tend to recognize that the combination of Lee & Kirby often led to a finished product far superior to anything that either could produce independently. The facts of history speak for themselves.