JACK KIRBY'S DC MAGS - FANTASTIC OR FLOPS?

Images copyright DC COMICS

Back in the early 1970s, I initially wasn't too impressed with

JACK KIRBY's FOURTH WORLD output at DC COMICS.  It took

me a while to warm to it, and even after I did, I still preferred Jack's stuff

at MARVEL.  To be honest, if it hadn't been for the fact that one of his

books was JIMMY OLSEN and therefore included SUPERMAN, I

may never have bothered taking a second look at his other DC

titles and somewhat revising my opinion of them.

Despite the rewriting of history that some people are prone to these

days, Jack's DC books were, in the main, flops.  Which is not to say that

they were completely without merit (or entertainment value), but looked

at in the context of the times (and measured against the expectations of

their commercial performance), they failed to hit the bullseye.

Look at the facts:  Jimmy Olsen, 15 issues;  NEW GODS, 11 issues;

FOREVER PEOPLE, 11 issues;  MISTER MIRACLE, 18 issues.  His

other mags didn't fare much better, with The DEMON lasting 16 issues,

and OMAC a mere 8.  The one exception was KAMANDI, which lasted

for 40 issues before Kirby left, although #38-40 were scripted by

GERRY CONWAY.  (The series ended with #59.)

What were the reasons for the lacklustre reception of Kirby's DC

books then?  Part of the problem, I believe, is that there was a popular

misconception being promulgated at the time that the 'King' was solely

responsible for everything good at Marvel.  Forget STAN LEE appeared

to be the cry in some circles - Jack was 'the man'.  Deprive Marvel of Jack

and it would inevitably crumble, employ him at DC and sales would surely

soar.  I'm reminded of the proverb about building one's house on sand.

If that was the motivation for DC luring Jack over to their ranks, it

was doomed to failure from the start, being based on nothing

more than an illusion, spread by a few Kirby sycophants.

Some people point to the fact that Jack's DC creations are still

around today in some form, either in reprints or 'reimaginations', but

the present situation doesn't necessarily contradict the realities of the

past.  None of his DC characters under other hands have attained any

kind of longevity in their various revivals, and seem to spring more from

a nostalgic affection on the part of people who want to play with Kirby's

toys (and relive their own youth in the process) than any patent appeal.

There's also a voracious appetite for collected editions nowadays that

needs to be fed, and hey - Jack's stuff was bought and paid for

years ago, so one assumes it's a cost-effective enterprise.

Don't take me the wrong way 'though.  Jack Kirby was one of

the most important creative forces in comicbook history, and when

he was at the top of his game, there was no one who could touch him.

However, he didn't remain at the top of his game for his entire career,

and much of his later work - measured against the standard of his

own earlier accomplishments - didn't really cut the mustard and

was hardly the finest examples of the medium.

Rabid Jack Kirby fans will disagree with me of course, as the

object of their deification could do no wrong in their eyes, but to

those who are more discerning in their evaluations, the King's reign

was chiefly during the '60s, when, along with Stan Lee, he ruled a

comicbook kingdom containing magic without measure. 

Posted in: Cartoons