.jpg) |
| Copyright DC COMICS |
Nowadays, DC Comics' Fourth World saga is sometimes hyperbolically (surely) described as 'Jack Kirby's Masterpiece', usually on the dust-jackets of books reprinting (yet again) his '70s series, and/or by rabid JK fans who think the 'King' could do no wrong. However, not only isn't it a masterpiece by today's standards, it wasn't one back in the day either. Some readers are prone to imbue things with a depth that simply doesn't exist, solely because there are aspects of the subject matter they don't fully understand and therefore assume must be profound, but vagueness doesn't necessarily equate with value.
.jpg)
Add to that, if they first read the various series back in their youth, the stories inevitably become entwined with memories of their lives at the time, and it's difficult to view things objectively if one's childhood or teenage years are involved - it's almost impossible to separate one from the other. However, facts are facts! Many of those who followed Jack from Marvel to DC soon returned to Marvel because Forever People, New Gods, and Mister Miracle failed to capture their interest. In my view, only Jimmy Olsen's mag had any merit, and it was probably Superman's inclusion that swung things in its favour.
.jpg)
As for the other three - convoluted plots, uninteresting and uncharismatic characters, clunky dialogue and dry exposition, well, they didn't exactly make for a satisfying read guaranteed to bring readers back for the next issue. Nowadays it's asserted in certain quarters that the sales figures weren't actually as bad as was later claimed, but why would DC cancel mags that were making money? Remember, Kirby was being paid slightly more than the usual rate and he had two assistants to pay (out of his own pocket), so one inarguable fact is that DC wouldn't have 'suspended' the Fourth World comics if they were selling well and making a profit.
.jpg)
Did DC hope that by employing Kirby, Marvel would flounder without him? It must've occurred to them if they believed the rumours that Jack was behind every good thing at Marvel and Stan Lee was merely a hitch-hiker, but the one thing Jack proved with his DC mags was just how essential an ingredient Stan was to the recipe. One thing to remember is that comics were regarded as ephemeral entertainment for kids and teens, not classic literature. Has there ever been a superhero series of comics that could legitimately be described as a 'masterpiece'? Well, I suppose that's debatable, but Kirby's Fourth World definitely wasn't it.
18 comments:
I'd say John Byrne's run on Uncanny X-Men could be considered a masterpiece, especially the Hellfire Club and Dark Phoenix issues but then Marvel ruined it by bringing back Jean Grey.
They were certainly entertaining, CJ, but a masterpiece? M'm. Not convinced.
Off to my bed, Crivs, will answer any comments when I arise.
I'm wasn't a fan of Jack Kirby's Fourth World series ( especially New Gods and Forever People)but I was only 10/11 years old when it came out and a lot of this went over my head back then. However, like you I did enjoy Jimmy Olsen ( I've just noted that on my blog a few days ago). I also liked the Demon and Kamandi . I think DC just thought having an obvious talent like Kirby working for them would sell comics, and on the face of it his ideas for an interconnected galaxy spanning series would have sounded great, sadly it didn't work on paper or in sales. I can understand why many folk loved this series as it was different ( not necessarily great) in 1970 and there are some cool concepts in it but the writing was at times poor . I agree it's not a masterpiece for me either .
Oh, and don't get me started on Hunger Dogs, McS. As regards The Demon and Kamandi, I thought they were competently and professionally-told tales, but I don't consider them 'masterpieces' either. A twenty minutes per issue's entertaining read for sure, but Kirby's DC output seemed mainly out-of-sync to everything else they were publishing. If only he'd been a more accomplished wordsmith, how different might things have been.
So is there any comics series that YOU consider to be a masterpiece, Kid?
As I get older, perhaps I'm becoming more jaded, CJ, but I'm all too aware that a comic is a comic and not really that important in the scheme of things. I think that Frank Miller's Daredevil: Born Again series is an excellent piece of storytelling, but a masterpiece? Not sure. Perhaps art in a comic can be a (relative) masterpiece, but I'm unsure as to whether a story can be. Doesn't mean that comics can't be immensely entertaining and enjoyable though.
Even allowing for the possibility of the concept of The Fourth World being a masterpiece, it's execution certainly wasn't.
Eh, my theory since the 4th world books dropped was that Kirby needed an editor. Had he done the Fourth World stuff as a single monthly at Marvel edited by Lee, scripted by anyone else, it would have been much better than what we got IMO.
Anyway.
A few years ago, I reread the New Gods book and it was something of a mess. Kirby's scripting shifted over the years from a pre-Marvel style to a post-Marvel echoes of Lee style. In both cases, the scripting was serviceable, artless. Weirder (to me) the issue to issue pacing was off. It all read as a monthly but as published, wouldn't have worked as a bimonthly.
As a for a Kirby masterpiece: Fantastic Four from the issues of the late 30s to early 60s when we got pretty much all Kirby plots and minimal involvement from Lee. (Not a dis of Lee meant to open up any discussion about Lee's contribution to anything.) I should say that the shaggy dog plotting -- things happened, no issue was a true standalone -- should have warned Infantino of the need to have an editor for Kirby. At that point in Kirby's life, an editor wouldn't have been a deal breaker when Kirby wanted to leave Marvel.
Interesting. I think the trouble with the Fourth World stuff is that Kirby was basically making it up as he went along and, as you say, he needed an editor to steer him. I very much enjoyed the FF, but I think the word 'masterpiece' for any set of issues is overstating the case. It's one of those words like 'genius' which is all too often overused. They certainly were excellent though.
Actually, there was an “if” implicit or should have been. The other qualification should be that it’s a subjective judgment—but definitely peak Kirby, again better than anything he did at DC in the early 70s. A lot better.
I should my ancient opinion is that Simon did a lot to edit (small e) Kirby.
No argument about peak Kirby, but peak is not quite the same thing as masterpiece. However, you're free to regard whatever you want as a masterpiece, as is anyone. I just think we should be cautious when it comes to using words like genius and masterpiece, especially when it comes to comicbooks and their creators.
The Fourth World stuff more or less went over my head.....I was 8 or 9. To be honest, it's still sort of hard to follow. I wonder if the DC heads felt the same way. Now, I think I understand what Kirby was trying to do, but I think with a bit of assistance and editing from others who weren't in awe of the King, it might have come off a little better. There are some good stories within, but as a whole, it's still pretty hard to absorb.
I preferred The Demon and Kamandi, but I think Kamandi was written more for my age group.
It's always been interesting to me that DC didn't want Kirby's Fourth World, but they certainly snatched it up and reused it once he was out the door and still use it.
Regarding your last sentence, G, it sort of gave the impression that DC didn't think much of Kirby's version of the Fourth World and thought others could do it better. And maybe I was a thicko when younger, but I have the distinct impression I didn't quite understanding exactly what the 'anti-life equation' was at the time. If it was ever spelled out, maybe I missed that particular issue back then.
I was about 17 when the Fourth World stuff reached our shores. I bought a few because, you know, KIRBY ... but pretty quickly gave up on it because it was - as you and others have pointed out above - a mess. So I'm not quite sure if I didn't like it at the time because it was a collection of underwritten characters wandering through a sprawling, unstructured series of incidents, or I was just too old to be part of Kirby's intended audience (in the same way you really have to read "Catcher in the Rye" when you're 17, because it's a tedious read when you get past 20). These days I lean towards the former ...
Interesting, Al, because those who like it tend to say it was too 'mature' for the readers of the time and was meant for an older audience, though I doubt that's true. I think you're spot on with your assessment of 'underwritten characters' and 'unstructured series of incidents', and demonstrates just why Stan Lee was so necessary to their Marvel collaborations. Jack's Jimmy Olsen issues were entertaining (in the main) though.
Kid, re anti-life, my feeble recollection is that it was a storytelling gimmick. Even Kirby didn’t know what it was.
In that case, I don't feel so bad about not knowing what it was, M. However, isn't it supposed to be about 'mind control' in some way. Y'know, if you're not in control of your own mind, you cease to live (anti-life) to all intents and purposes? That might've been a later development though.
Regarding the 'didn't quite understanding...' line in one of my above responses, that should obviously be 'didn't quite understand...' - my brain must've gone walkabout as I was typing.
Post a Comment