[UA] Cannibal Avatar?

[Tim Toner]

----- Original Message -----
From: Timothy Ferguson <ferguson at beyond.net.au>
To: <ua at lists.uchicago.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 1:27 AM
Subject: RE: [UA] Cannibal Avatar?


> > His name is almost synonymous
> > with super hero comics (just as the european kings were
> > synonymous with their kingdoms) and he performed various kingly
> > duties (guiding those lower, etc).
>
> Much of this is due to Stan Lee continually anointing himself as first
> acolyte of the great man, though, isn't it?

Not really.  There are people who don't give two toots about Stan "the Man"
Lee, and basically think everything that spouts from his lips is overhyped
garbage, and still think Jack Kirby is King.  Part of it is his position as
the martyr of the industry.  There's a lot of golden age creators who got
screwed, but the sheer volume of what Kirby created not only for Marvel but
for DC as well is enormous.  For one thing, he created a whole new superhero
mythology called The New Gods, which pitted New Genesis against Apokalips.
What's interesting is that the head baddie is a guy called Darkseid, and
both sides derive their power from the Source--further, Darkseid's greatest
threat is his son, Orion, raised in the home of his enemy.  I'm sure Frank
Herbert had a good case against Lucas for copyright infringement, but in
many ways, Kirby's is just as compelling.  I could go into a lot of detail
about how he created a new vocabulary of graphic storytelling, but you get
the idea.  Then there are the horror stories about his treatment.  Kirby
heard that some of the silver age artists successfully sued to get the
original pages back from the comic companies, so he started sniffing around.
After ignoring him for the longest time, the companies just went ahead and
destroyed the original artwork, rather than giving it back to him.  He
didn't work for years after that.  He, more than anyone, polarized the fan
base against the companies-as-producers-of-quality-comics and more towards
individual creators.

I, for one, don't care much for The King and his particular style.  It may
have been shocking and innovative, but to me, it seems overwrought.  That's
the problem I have with a lot of modern art, particularly minimalism.  It
requires knowledge of what came before to see what it was a reaction to.
WIthout that prior knowledge, it's a freaking black canvas with a single red
line across it.  Ooh. I do, however, acknowledge his influence on the
industry.  When writers like Alan Moore venerate at his altar, it tells me
that there's something there I'm just not seeing.

>
> >  I truly doubt he was the
> > greatest comic artist there was,
>
> Eisner...actually, Perez, but only after he gets the electronic advantage.

Eh to both.  What makes Kirby so great is that he was a double
threat--writer AND artist.  Eisner was, too, but until recently he really
only did The Spirit, and that didn't get a fraction of the market
penetration of Kirby's books.  Eisner's the Godfather of Comics, and Kirby's
king.

Y'know, the more I think about it, the more I realize that the comic
industry itself, stuck in a ghetto all its own, makes a not-bad model for
The Occult Underground.  You've got your slavering Marvel Fanboys, who can
chant the dogma on cue, and those devoted to the Ho'od win arguments that
get passed around comic conventions.  Obsession's pretty much a given, and
there are superstars who wouldn't get recognized on the street if they were
walking around, wearing a sandwich board that said, "Yes, I'm THAT Neil
Gaiman."


_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua