While all of us at Multiversity are fans of a wide spectrum of comics, there are a few of us that tend to self-identify as “DC guys.” We’ve cried for justice; we’ve been through the blackest nights and the brightest days. And now, we’ve been culled together for a new column to focus on some of the bigger goings on in the world of Detective Comics Comics. If you’re wondering who is going to stand up and discuss what is happening at DC – don’t worry:
With the release of “Infinity Man and the Forever People” this month, we thought this would be a good time to look back on Kirby’s DC work, and try to answer a simple question: where does his work fit?
Zachary Wilkerson: Between the New Gods characters popping up in books like “Justice League,” “Wonder Woman,” and “Earth 2,” O.M.A.C. featuring in “Futures End,” and the freshly launched “Infinity Man and the Forever People,” Jack Kirby’s presence is still heavily felt in DC comics. The King of Comics has a fabled and storied history as both a writer and artist, both with DC and Marvel, as well as his myriad of creator owned works that are still being explored. I, a latecomer to comics, first fell in love with Kirby’s worlds and works after reading Grant Morrison’s “Final Crisis.” What about you guys? What was your first introduction to Kirby, and what exactly do his contributions to the medium mean to you?
Brian Salvatore: I was first introduced to Kirby in a really unusual place: The Super Powers Team: Galactic Guardians. As I’m a bit older than you guys, and when I was 3 and 4, this was the Superfriends cartoon that was on the air. The main villains of the show were Darkseid and his cohorts, so I had Kalibak and Dessad toys before I was in grade school.
Vince, what about you?
Vince Ostrowski: It sounds like my introduction to Kirby was a little more traditional (read: boring) than either of yours, as I started with the Lee & Kirby “Fantastic Four” run. I’ve since come to appreciate Kirby’s contributions on a more individual level, but I was relatively young at the time and I only knew that Marvel Comics was “Lee & Kirby.” The two were synergistic to me, and I had no idea that there was even such a thing as Kirby comics at DC, because I so rarely heard about them. But his art made an impression on me even then, as I vividly remember pouring over a reprinted version of what is one of the most famed and imitated covers of all time (issue #1).
From there, I at least dabbled in most of the comic run that Kirby had a major hand in over at Marvel. I’m currently trying to read through the Thor chronology and it struck me how much his designs from that book carry over into his future work at DC. He and Lee’s “Tales of Asgard” backup stories were among the best things I’ve read from the duo and I’d highly recommend them.
But this is the DC3, so what I want to know is how much of Kirby’s DC work have you read, especially in comparison to his more historically lauded work with Lee at Marvel?
Brian: Well, I’m sure Zach and I were aware of Thor, the X-Men, etc, before we knew Kirby’s DC work, but so much of that is simply thought of as “Marvel” not as “Kirby.” In fact, Kirby is basically a synonym for most of Marvel in the ’60s.
As for his DC work, I have read far from everything, but I have read at least a little of almost all of his DC work. I, personally, love his New Gods/Fourth World stuff, but also have an affection for Kamandi and the Demon as well. Also, the aforementioned animation tie in stuff, including the “Super Powers” miniseries (which I got to discuss a bit with his editor, Paul Kupperberg, about this recently on the Hour Cosmic, which was a huge thrill), was big in my house growing up.
Continued belowHere’s the thing for me, though: I know these characters far more intimately after Kirby stopped working on them. Being the age I am (32), Kirby both wasn’t active during my youth, nor had his legend/respect grown to the current state. It appears if I were two or three years older or younger, I’d have had a better chance at “getting” Kirby earlier than I did.
Zach: Most of my experience with Kirby’s DC creations comes secondhand, through stories like “Final Crisis” and “Cosmic Odyssey.” I’ve read through a portion of Kirby’s four “Fourth World” books, but I’ve never delved into the deeper cuts like “Demon” or “Kamandi.”
Vince: I’ve not read the Fourth World stuff either, but I can tell you that “Kamandi, the Last Boy on Earth” is one of my favorite things ever. On my desert island comics list, it would be pretty darn high up the ladder. Near the very top. My knowledge of DC Comics’ Kirby stuff comes, as Zach said, through its inclusion in modern works.
I think that’s the point we’re trying to explore with this discussion, isn’t it? While Jack Kirby is known as possibly the greatest, most prolific artist in comics history – his DC Comics work doesn’t have the name recognition that his Marvel co-creations had. A lot of that had to do with the Stan Lee Merry Marvel Marketing Society, but I think there’s something to be said for the concepts being less appealing for the mainstream, as well.
While his concepts are constantly being re-utilized by writers like Morrison, Johns, Azzarello, and DiDio – none of them have had much success as ongoing series or titles. I think there are a variety of reasons why that is, but first I want you guys to tell me what you think. Am I off-base on this? What do you think of the way that Kirby’s DC work as aged and been integrated?
Brian: Well, I think that part of the problem is that the ideas are all so Kirby-specific. With all of his Marvel creations, there was another cook in the kitchen – whether a sous chef or a line cook is debatable – to help smooth out some ideas, make them more palpable for general consumption, and to add another voice. With the “New Gods” in particular, you’ve got an entire universe created by one man, and no one, outside of that one man, really has ever been able to get the alchemy quite right.
And because of that singular voice, I think people are reluctant to embrace the Fourth World whole hog. Instead, you get small pieces picked up (like Orion in “Wonder Woman”), or general concepts co-opted. That isn’t to say those characters haven’t been used well (“Cosmic Odyssey” is one of my favorite DC books ever), but no one has, for more than an event or a miniseries, ever really been able to get that Kirby mojo going.
Am I wrong?
Zach: I definitely think you’re onto something here. I don’t think DC has every quite known how to handle the Fourth World, even when it was originally being created. It seems like most every incarnation since Kirby has tried to bring the concept in line with the greater DCU, whether through mixing in other characters or completely rehauling things with an abstract “Fifth World.” While this has resulted in some great stories, it’s still never grown out from that Kirby influence in the way that Superman and Batman outgrew their creators.
Vince: I’m going to stick my neck out here a little. Don’t get me wrong – I love Jack Kirby. He’s the king, and I recognize him as such.
Is there something to be said for the idea that maybe his “Fourth World” stuff is a little too Kirby? You can’t do DC Comics’ Kirby stuff without immediate comparisons to Kirby, and the style or design sensibilities are just so signature that there is no “updating” or “improving” upon them. Even the things that are dated have too much Kirby in them to be messed with.
Continued belowI’ll go a step further and say that, without having read much of the “Fourth World” material, Kirby’s DC Comics stuff seems to play better by itself. It was quite clearly influential to so many people – Geoff Johns and Grant Morrison chief among them. But no one can quite figure out how to integrate it all whole hog. In my opinion, comics as a whole have moved in a different direction from where Kirby was going, design-wise, narrative-wise, what have you. Not saying that either direction is inherently better or worse. Just that the scope of what Kirby was doing seems very hard to modernize. I’m amazed that it appears in such a pure and fun form in Azzarello’s “Wonder Woman.”
Brian: I agree with much of what you guys said, but all of this begs a question: to truly use the Kirby creations in the modern DCU, do we need to, as Zach suggests, grow them past the Kirby influence?
Anyone with a brain and an internet connection knows that it is a good thing that Batman is quite different than he was seventy years ago – are we clinging too tight to what Kirby intended for these characters? I know this seems like blasphemy, but I think this is an interesting angle. Because creator’s rights are such an important topic in today’s comics landscape, and through the rise of creator owned books, the very idea of fundamentally changing something so personally tied to one (especially beloved) person is a radical one.
Or, is the opposite end of the spectrum true: are they best left alone? Did Kirby tell the best version of these stories possible, and therefore we should just leave them be?
I don’t know if I totally subscribe to either camp, but I do know that the middle ground hasn’t exactly been kind to Kirby’s creations.
Vince: Those are some interesting questions, Brian. Let’s look at Alan Moore’s “Watchmen” – even though I am sympathetic to creator-owned comics, I never had a morality problem with “Before Watchmen.” My problem with “Before Watchmen” was that, beyond some magnificent art, the stories just stunk. They weren’t “Watchmen.”
I kind of feel the same way about Kirby’s creations. I personally see no moral quandary with mining all of his concepts – I just think it so rarely is going to turn out. You can’t replicate what was going on in Kirby’s head and pencils when he created all that stuff. Keith Giffen, master of replication, had come closest with “OMAC”, but even that I can only say was a fun diversion from the rest of ‘The New 52’, rather than a epic work on the scale of Jack Kirby’s “Fourth World.” Grant Morrison has had luck with Kirby’s creations, but he applied his usual brand of deep referential subversion to them, rather than told a true story within or about that world.
May I suggest that Kirby’s “Fourth World” doesn’t hold a lot of bankable aspects to it to begin with? Nostalgic long-time comic readers will look fondly on it. Newer readers who “get” and respect what makes older comics influential should revere “Fourth World” too. Beyond that, these just aren’t universal and enduring concepts that will sell well these days. New readers seem to find them kind of corny. I look at this as the same thing that keeps “Legion of Super-Heroes” from selling well. Aside from Kirby’s art, “Fourth World” could easily be seen as a goofy ’70s sci-fi world that new readers aren’t attracted to. It’s a shame, because I’m fascinated with what Kirby was doing in the ’60s-’70s, but if you don’t enjoy it on that level, you might not find a reason to go deeper. Perhaps this is a case of not being able to go home again?
Moreover, what is one of the biggest things keeping new readers out of comics? Complications of continuity. Has anyone else noticed that, regardless of their attempt at rebooting and simplifying the DCU, no one in “The New 52” has explained what these “New Gods” are or where the Kirby stuff came from yet? “Fourth World” never had the mainstream recognition that the Justice League and its members did, and yet I think that they integrated this stuff right at the start of the relaunch and never explained anything. I guess my point is that why expect anything other than Green Lantern, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, and The Flash to sell well, when you don’t explain where anything else came from? As a longtime reader, I can accept the idea of New Genesis and understand it. When a first time reader opens up “Infinity Man and the Forever People”, what are they going to think? Where did all of this come from, and how does it fit into everything else?
Zach: I do think the inner workings of the Fourth World in the New 52 is something that’s forthcoming, just not as quickly as it should have. This is a bit of a tangent, but I think DC squandered one of the best opportunities for the Fourth World in “Final Crisis.” That event saw the death and subsequent resurrection of the New Gods on a separate world, one made up entirely of Kirby creations. That series, along with a lot of Morrison’s works, also pointed towards a successor to the Fourth World, a “Fifth World.” Unfortunately, both of these ideas were ignored after “Final Crisis.” DC essentially had the opportunity to tell classic Kirby stories, unconnected to current continuity, while also morphing the Fourth World mythos into a more DC friendly entity. I don’t know about you guys, but that seems like a major opportunity wasted.
Brian: It does, and it seems like one that won’t be resolved anytime soon. DC’s handling of Kirby creations, until a time when they are made to feel essential and important, will always just be a weird corner of the DCU that isn’t in the spotlight, is lamented by fans, and ignored by consumers.
