home
Thor without Lee
Michael Hill
11 September 2016
Chris Tolworthy posted this in a comment, but it really deserves a post of its own because his project to re-read Kirby's Thor is an indictment of the failure of the Marvel Method. Chris: "Lately I've been reading Lee-Kirby books but ignoring Lee's dialog. I think it improves the stories."
http://classiccomics.org/thread/3689/thor-lee-review-thread
Michael Hill: Chris: "I'm just really surprised how well this works, having read it before. Before I didn't see past Lee's dialog, which was written to be accessible to ten year olds who expected simplistic stories. It's funny, people sometimes suggest that a modern day Stan Lee should re-dialog Kirby's work. I would like to see a modern day writer replace Stan Lee's dialog with something more accessible to today's adult audience."
Patrick Ford: I like how someone on the forum mentions that two Thor stories were written full script by Larry Lieber. And we know this how?
There are no Larry Lieber full scripts. Zero.
Here's something to consider about the claim that Kirby was working from full scripts provided by Larry Lieber. Why would Kirby work full script with Lieber if the Marvel Method was such a creative revelation. Why would a person with zero writing experience be providing full scripts to Kirby when it was supposedly Kirby's breakdowns and graphic storytelling which were so important Lee had Kirby providing layouts for seasoned professionals to work from?
Patrick Ford: And why are Kirby's stories broken down into chapters while no other stories identified as Lieber scripts are broken down into chapters?
Patrick Ford:
Patrick Ford: It's difficult to talk about those Lieber full scripts because you have to end up calling Lieber and Lee liars. Of course if a person believes Lee and Lieber they are calling Kirby a liar. Which for some reason is generally perfectly acceptable in the world of comics.
Norris Burroughs: Glad to see a footnote hyperlink in there as I scrolled down that Thor without Lee page, which took me to my KIrby Kinetics blog about the rejected Hulk story that Lieber fished out of the trash.
https://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/kinetics/2013/03/18/margin-notes-part-2/
Michael Hill: Chris, this is extremely enlightening. We know the obvious cases chronicled by Mike Gartland, like Coccoon Man and the Galactus origin, but from your journals it's obvious that Kirby was writing good stories and Lee was opposing him tooth and nail in order to turn out kiddie fare (writing to his own level as we know from the Joan Lee story) FROM THE START.
Chris Tolworthy: Yes. That was the biggest surprise to me. I always bought the story that "early Thor was low quality, Kirby had not found his voice, etc" But that simply is not true. The most valuable thing about early Thor is that we have some non-Kirby issues for comparison. And what a comparison! Everything is identical except for Kirby, and those non-Kirby stories are dire. Just awful in every way. It's like Lee (and Lieber) were finally free of Kirby's influence and see what they do. Just horrible, horrible comics.
Take Cobra and Mr Hyde for example. Just atrocious. What are characters like Cobra and Hyde doing in a story about gods? Their origins are like a parody of bad comics. One is bitten by a radioactive cobra (yes, really) and the other reads "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" and decides to invent a potion to become Mr Hyde. Which is really easy apparently. Which gives him the strength of twelve men - which is enough to rip the doors off bank vaults. It's just dreadful stuff. Meanwhile Thor is casually seen in Asgard (despite every story around that showing he cannot get in), Odin's character is destroyed (he is just so pathetic in those stories), Thor suddenly reverses his behaviour and goes full on romance with Jane Foster (some low grade cliche story telling right there), it's like the moment Kirby steps out the door, all talent walks out as well. And it's a tribute to Kirby's skill that when he comes back, and is obviously forced to use those characters again (nobody would do so out of choice) he manages to craft a believable, interesting and exciting story.
That's just the clearest example, but it's everywhere. Every time we separate Kirby's influence from the others' influence we find that all the talent is with Kirby and the others are still writing the same low grade knock-off comics they always did.
I just wish I had more time to analyse those issues in depth. I have a lot on y plate right now, so those reviews are just skilling the surface: a single read, jotting down observations, and on to the next. But it's been really eye opening to me.
Michael Hill: It would be nice if Lee in one of his depositions was required to preface each answer with the repeating line from "Secrets Behind the Comics, " "And now, for the first time ever in the world, Stan Lee will give you the answer!"
J David Spurlock: Chris Tolworthy please list the issue numbers you are referring to
Patrick Ford: My thought is from the start Kirby was always the primary writer. I mean that in the sense that Kirby came up with the plots and characters himself and presented them to Lee.
From late1958-late 1961 I believe this often meant Kirby submitted completely written and penciled stories to Lee without any input from Lee aside from Kirby's understanding that he had been assigned 6 to 14 pages to fill. We know for a fact Steve Ditko did that very thing with the first Dr. Strange story, so why not Kirby?
Beginning around the time of FF #1 Lee because much more involved. My conclusion is his involvement came in two stages. Lee would approve a verbal plot and character presentation from Kirby, and might make suggestions or demands at that time. Lee would also demand/order changes to Kirby's stories after Kirby had brought the pages to the office. I think that explains the choppy/disjointed nature of FF #1. It also would explain the heated meeting between Kirby and Lee which resulted in Kirby destroying several pages intended for HULK #6.
The reason Kirby's stories from 1958 through 1965 (or thereabout) are not at the same level as the stories which Kirby produced from 1966-1968 is most likely explained by looking at the number of pages Kirby was producing. As late as 1963 Kirby was producing at times over 100 pages per month. From 1966 onward his production was around 60 pages a month.
The end of 1965 also marks the big blow-ups with Wood and Ditko. Kirby was ready to leave along with them and he stayed in part because he received a substantial increase in page rate. So Kirby had more time to work on his art and story. The results are evident in the comic books.
Patrick Ford: The other side of the coin with these periods is the common knowledge history which says that during the early years Lee was more involved and after 1965 Kirby was in near complete control of the plots. I just don't disagree with that at all.
Why is Lee thought to have had more influence/input during the years prior to 1966?
1. The absence of Kirby's story notes in the margins is seen a a tidal shift in method.
2. The earlier stories are no where near up to the level of 1966-1968 in the opinion of most observes.
Patrick Ford: Dealing with #1. It does not seem to me the written story notes indicate anything terribly different from what Kirby says was the case prior to their introduction.
Kirby says he was writing the story on the pages. Most pages prior to late 1961 show that Kirby was penciling in captions and dialogue.
Kirby says he would meet with Lee and explain the story to Lee as they reviewed the pages. This matches the method described by Orlando and Ditko. Kirby, Orlando and Ditko would bring in the penciled pages and go over them with Lee. Lee would often demand changes which required additional work without additional pay.
Kirby most likely began leaving border story notes because Kirby was too busy to waste half a day traveling to and from the Marvel office. Kirby may also have been eager to avoid as many meetings with Lee as possible. Meetings with Lee were often heated (torn Hulk pages, redraws, plot changes) and Lee is known to have hit-up freelancers for unpaid art corrections and in the case of Kirby it is very possible Lee milked Kirby for plot and character ideas.
Patrick Ford: The second part I dealt with earlier. The '66-'68 stories are better because (to quote Kirby) he had "time to read a newspaper."
Kirby described the 1958-1965 years as "backbreaking." The pressure to produce 100 or more pages a month was immense. Kirby was on auto-pilot using his Rolodex of science fiction chestnuts to grind out work in an almost stream of consciousness way. I guess you could call it "Automatic Comics." or "Psychographix"
Patrick Ford: It was when Kirby was able to slow down and think about things more deeply that his work took a quantum leap.
I think there is an apt comparison between Kirby's meat-grinder comics of the late '50s and early '60s and the Comix R. Crumb produced while using LSD.
Crumb pointed out he felt his work during that period was unfocused and his art and story suffered. He also pointed out there were a large number of characters which he created at that time which were right out of his Id.
There is a comparison there with Kirby. Kirby was not high except that he may have been sleep deprived. There was not time for digestion or even eating. The creations were a starving man burning fat and then muscle while running a marathon.
Later Kirby (like Crumb) was able to go back and make considered use of the raw materials washed up on the beach after the storm.
Patrick Ford: Chris makes a lot of good points in that thread. One of the most important concerns Kirby being on and off the title over the course of 18 issues with Kirby not playing a part in nine of them. This makes the Thor stories as well as the Human Torch and Antman stories particularly good places to look for evidence of Kirby's role.
There are also the first few Ironman stories although the body of work is the smallest.
home