|
|
Post by humanbelly on Oct 6, 2012 14:20:13 GMT -5
Y'know, I picked up Mark Evanier's charming biography on Jack K this spring, then set it aside, and have just now picked it back up and finished it. Got it at Barnes & Noble for $13-- which is about right, I'd say, compared to the $45 original tag.
I will say straight up that, while Jack was probably my favorite artist when I was a child (because he was ubiquitous, really), by the time I was 13 or 14, his appeal had diminished markedly. And his second stint at Marvel turned me off completely. That being said, this bio-- a deeply heartfelt biographical valentine from a young protoge'/assistant that loved and respected him unflinchingly & unfailingly (warts & all)- makes Jack a real person for me for pretty much the first time. My admiration and respect for him has probably trebled as well.
Has anyone else read it? (Shar, pretty sure you have, right?)
Any thoughts or reflections?
Feelings about the book itself?
HB (on my way to HBGirl's dance class. . . )
|
|
pym
Reservist Avenger
"About 20 yards to my right…"
Posts: 200
|
Post by pym on Oct 6, 2012 15:15:51 GMT -5
Hello HB, Thank you for the heads up on this book. I am definitely going to look for it. Jack Kirby is one of the pillars of comics, to be sure. Aside from his DC work on New Gods and The Forever People, I will always think of the King in terms of The Fantastic Four. His creations are the stuff from which legends are made.  |
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Oct 6, 2012 21:27:44 GMT -5
Good to hear, Pym-!
It's a fairly enjoyable read, although it definitely errs on being too brief overall. In spite of that, Mark Evanier does an excellent job presenting a very personal portrait of a man who, in his particular corner of the artistic universe, might be compared Da Vinci or Picasso without it being hyperbolic. It also gives you a lot to glean between the lines as well. Jack was clearly quite flaky in just about as nice a way one can be, and although brilliant and extremely intelligent, was not a fellow who had an abundant presence of mind whatsoever (almost the cliche' of the distracted, driven, hapless artistic personality).
Stan does not come off well in this book, either, I must add.
Mark E. knew Jack very, very well for many years, and shares a brief anecdote at the end of the book that reveals to a large degree why Jack meant so much to him personally. It's very heartwarming.
Also, a TON of cool artistic artifacts dating clear back to Jack's teenage years. Many, many masterpieces that made me re-think any previous opinions I had of his work. One particular breath-taker was an unused splash panel from an issue of Destroyer Duck, of all things.
HB
|
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Oct 7, 2012 11:25:19 GMT -5
Stan does not come off well in this book, either, I must add. Does he ever? Joe Simon's book was also quite critical of him, in its own subtle way. I'm always on the fence on this matter. From my own personal experience, I can guarantee that artists in general tend to consider themselves as more fundamental than writers for the success of a comic book (which often is indeed the case, in a visual medium) and harbour a belief that they could be good writers too (which is almost never the case. The absolutely worst writers I've ever come across are all talented, professional artists. They have good ideas but lack any form of structure.) With Stan having been and still being the face of Marvel, some resentment is likely to cloud judgements too. But then, on the other hand, when a lot of different people say the same things, chances are there is some truth behind them. |
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Oct 7, 2012 12:20:31 GMT -5
I will say straight up that, while Jack was probably my favorite artist when I was a child (because he was ubiquitous, really), by the time I was 13 or 14, his appeal had diminished markedly. And his second stint at Marvel turned me off completely. When I was a little kid my three least favourite comics artists would've been Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko and Carmine Infantino. That's fairly alarming considering that a lot of people who grew up in the sixties would probably pick them as their three favourites. Bill Sienkiewicz got onto that list too. Pretty much everyone I knew who was into comics would've agreeed - we saw those names as the kiss of death on a comic. Sienkiewicz went on to become a personal favourite, the others I have come to admire and respect a great deal but will never be real personal favourites. I can appreciate them far more than I did. Obviously their achievements are immense creatively. The weirdness of Ditko probably has the most appeal to me. I guess by the late seventies and early eighties their styles were very dated (Sienkiewicz was just very challenging). Infantino's perhaps less so, his later work is heavily stylized though which also made it challenging. Kirby's seventies stuff was quite alarming and he seems to've been heavily influenced by primitive arts. His figures seem solid, as if carved out of stone. Graven idols indeed! It's certainly fascinating and weird, but I can't say I really enjoy it. Compared to the stuff that was popular during this era it was a strange throwback (as was his writing) that I think had little appeal to younger fans at that time. On the personal side -most people do seem to've had a positive response to the King. Nonetheless he did have that episode where he tried to claim that he created everything and tried to write Stan and even Ditko out of history. In fairness it was possibly provoked by paranoia and bitterness over the fight to get his artwork from Marvel. He was also known for making outrageous statements that 'embellished' the truth and inflated his 'legend'. I take all this stuff with a pinch of salt. Where creative egos are concerned and a big pile of money there's always likely to be backbiting, paranoia and jealousy. Stan was always likely to get the most flak as he ended up getting the most out of it financially. I've never seen any really serious allegations of wrongdoing against Stan, just a bit of sniping. |
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Oct 8, 2012 18:33:04 GMT -5
Stan does not come off well in this book, either, I must add. Does he ever? Joe Simon's book was also quite critical of him, in its own subtle way. I'm always on the fence on this matter. From my own personal experience, I can guarantee that artists in general tend to consider themselves as more fundamental than writers for the success of a comic book (which often is indeed the case, in a visual medium) and harbour a belief that they could be good writers too (which is almost never the case. The absolutely worst writers I've ever come across are all talented, professional artists. They have good ideas but lack any form of structure.) With Stan having been and still being the face of Marvel, some resentment is likely to cloud judgements too. But then, on the other hand, when a lot of different people say the same things, chances are there is some truth behind them. Stan reminds me so much of several Artistic Directors I've known (there's a definite "type" that is drawn, moth-like, to the title), that I feel like I must somehow know him already. Brilliant, extremely energetic, incredibly personable and articulate and outgoing, visionary, able to inspire a team to work above their own abilities, highly creative. . . but I daresay this also comes with a surprisingly unsavory willingness to sacrifice friends and colleagues for the perceived good of the company, a lack of personal loyalty, and an unshakable tendency towards self-promotion and self-protection. And I don't think those are conscious, chosen traits-- I think it's just part of the personality package. Really, the hardest direct knock I've heard against Stan was that he simply never went out on a limb for any of his staff when times were tough-- he made sure he was covered and employed, and headed for the sidelines (and again, this is stuff you read. . .so veracity is hard to judge). The self-promotion resentments seem to be largely from acts of omission rather co-mission. Boy, as evidence of "don't let this artist write. . . EVER!", just look at McFarlane's title, SPIDERMAN. Dialog was excruciatingly bad. I could have written better in 8th grade, I think. HB-- the hardest of critics PS- OMG! Shiryu, great to hear your voice again. Literally, yesterday I was checking back in the logs to see when you'd last posted, 'cause it had been quite awhile. Don't go, lad! You're our captain-! ;D ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Oct 9, 2012 12:19:52 GMT -5
Stan reminds me so much of several Artistic Directors I've known (there's a definite "type" that is drawn, moth-like, to the title), that I feel like I must somehow know him already. Brilliant, extremely energetic, incredibly personable and articulate and outgoing, visionary, able to inspire a team to work above their own abilities, highly creative. . . but I daresay this also comes with a surprisingly unsavory willingness to sacrifice friends and colleagues for the perceived good of the company, a lack of personal loyalty, and an unshakable tendency towards self-promotion and self-protection. And I don't think those are conscious, chosen traits-- I think it's just part of the personality package. Really, the hardest direct knock I've heard against Stan was that he simply never went out on a limb for any of his staff when times were tough-- he made sure he was covered and employed, and headed for the sidelines (and again, this is stuff you read. . .so veracity is hard to judge). The self-promotion resentments seem to be largely from acts of omission rather co-mission. Yep, that's probably the case. To be fair, just by watching The Apprentice, it sadly seems to be a common trait in particularly succesfull people. Even John Romita Sr, who's probably one of Stan closest friends in the business, in his biography mentions having had a fall-out with him for a while before the Marvel Era. Essentially, Stan kept promising him more work, and then suddenly had to let him go, resulting in Romita being without job and with very little openings left, as everybody else had already taken the other positions available elsewhere. On his part, in his autobiography Stan said he wasn't given any choice by Goodman, and that was the hardest thing he had to do. Oh, there's so many. There are exceptions, of course: Byrne, Perez, Adams, Davies are all accomplished at both. But your average artist isn't really suited for writing, and often they can't even see it. Thank you! I have been lurking regularly, but didn't really have much to contribute, or much time to. Hopefully it'll be a little better now |
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Oct 11, 2012 22:43:40 GMT -5
Boy, as evidence of "don't let this artist write. . . EVER!", just look at McFarlane's title, SPIDERMAN. Dialog was excruciatingly bad. I could have written better in 8th grade, I think. I remember reading somewhere about how McFarlane wrote those early scripts for Spider-Man. Basically, he used no plot outline, no script, just thumbnails and sketches of broad scenes laid out on his floor and playing it by ear. I would rank Miller, Byrne, and Perez among the best of artists-writers. My own experience with the King starts in the 80s with the campaign to get Marvel to return most, if not all, of his original art back to him. Those petition letters were everywhere. Back then, I think I kinda took him and his work for granted. Yeah, he helped Lee, Ditko, and others build the Marvel Universe and I was reaping the rewards of their hard labor. But other than a few scattered issues of different titles found in friends' collections, I never really read any of his actual work. That's changed since the arrival of this new Golden Age of Reprints. Being able to read his run of FF, Thor, Avengers, Cap have really helped me appreciate the power of his work. In reading his New Gods material, it is rough in some places, notably the dialogue, but there's no denying the intent, the commitment, the passion Kirby put into it. I know Busiek and Ross have been working on the Kirby Genesis line over at Dynamite and have been thinking about checking some of it out. Thanks for reminding me about Evanier's bio too. I'll have to hunt down a copy now. |
|
