13:25
Unknown
Hooray! Another guest post from the man James Bond wishes he could be - Bashful Barry Pearl! This time around, Barry's looking at Jack 'King' Kirby's writing style. (Hey, do you think JK was related to Nat Cole? They had the same middle name!)
******
I love Jack Kirby, it was his comics that created a comic book fan out of me.
But Kirby seemed to have a problem when, in the 1960s, he wrote without a collaborator. It was as if he forgot what he'd written at the beginning of his continued stories (Fourth World, Eternals, Black Panther.) Instead of elaborating on already introduced plot points, he developed new ones, leaving me, the reader, hanging. He also “jumped” around in the same issue, presenting concepts, but not developing them as he went on to the next.
Kirby also emulated the 1940s writing style of Joe Simon, where his dialogue basically discussed the action or the plot of the stories. He wasn't successful in emulating Stan Lee's style, where characterization and personal development were necessary, especially when relationships needed to be developed.
Kirby succeeded as a writer with the DC war comic The Losers because it was all about the action, and didn't really have any developing relationships.
Many devoted Kirby fans insult me when I mention these points. Be kind, but I'd like to read your opinion, whether you agree with me or not. Kirby was a fantastic storyteller, but I felt he needed a partner to keep him on track and write better dialogue. Sadly, the comics that he also supplied the dialogue for were not big sellers.
Below are a selection of Kirby pages to remind you of his writing style.
What do you think, Crivs, is Barry spot on with his assessment, or do you think he's way-off beam? Let's hear your thoughts, theories, and observations in our ever-lovin' comments section. And whether you agree with him or not, I'm sure you'd like to express your appreciation for BP taking the time to compose this guest post.
Posted in: Cartoons
0 comments:
Post a Comment