Showing posts with label jack kirby. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jack kirby. Show all posts

Friday, August 28, 2026

Jack Kirby’s birthday on the Marvel Appendix!

It's the anniversary of Jack Kirby's birth and I celebrated by writing these profiles about some of his creations for the Marvel Appendix!

Number One (Secret Empire leader)

Agent C (Hydra operative)

Bazooka Drill (S.H.I.E.L.D. device)

John Bronson (agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

Senator Dudley (S.H.I.E.L.D. Executive Council)

Hover-Limousine (Hydra vehicle)

Metronome Unit (S.H.I.E.L.D. devices)

Morpheus Grenade (S.H.I.E.L.D. weapon)

N.A.P. (S.H.I.E.L.D. vehicle)

Porsche 904 (the original S.H.I.E.L.D. flying car)

S.H.I.E.L.D. Marine Division (sea-based S.H.I.E.L.D. squad)

Swamp Buggy (S.H.I.E.L.D. swamp vehicle)

Hydra Undersea Assault Force (Hydra frogman team)

Avengers Helicopter (Avengers aircraft)

Ben Clark (Korean War hero)

Delta Missile (King Arrkam's weapon)

Dreadnought Air-Yacht (Maximus' flagship)

Sea Sled (Inhumans vehicle)

Escape Sub (A.I.M. vehicle)

Hammer Hogan (Rawhide Kid foe)

Magneto's Giant Magnet (I can't wait to tell all my friends; they don't have a magnet this big)

X-Men Jetcopter (X-Men's aircraft)

M'Wabu (Wakandan servant)

The Phantom Whose Touch Means Death (Balder foe; have I mentioned his touch means death?)

Rhamu Rondi (Vision/Aarkus foe)

Shock-Roller (Avengers workout device)

Glenn Stuart (college football star, romance hero)

General von Ritzik (Howling Commandos foe)

X-13 (giant robot)

X-34 (intergalactic starship)

X-35 (X-Model robot)

X-29 (X-Model robot)

X-3 (X-Model robot)

Zarin (Polar Eternals)

Lifters (Makkari's device)

General Greshkov (Eternals character, Celestials foe)

Energy Bomb (Deviant anti-Celestial weapon)

The Delphan Brothers (Eternals, brawlers)

Brain-Mines (Deviant device/weapon)

Mr. Bradford (U.S. government, Eternals ally)

Air Shuttle (Deviant vehicle)

Aginar (Polar Eternal)

Thursday, March 6, 2025

Why Does Darkseid Lounge?

Over a decade ago on the blog, I looked at Action Comics #593 (1987), a team-up story starring Superman and Mister Miracle written and drawn by John Byrne. As I noted in that review, this was one of the earliest comic books that I read.

Here's an excerpt from my review:

Mr. Miracle enters his house with his diminuative aide Oberon at his side; however, instead of finding his wife Barda waiting for him, Mr. Miracle is greeted by Darkseid, sitting in an armchair sipping wine. Seriously, I wouldn't kid you. Even though Keith Giffen's Ambush Bug mocked the idea of Darkseid's ubiquity in DC Comics all the way back in 1985, it seems no one got the memo as Darkseid would continue to make appearances like this up to present times. Darkseid sipping wine in Mr. Miracle's living room is about as menacing as Darkseid serving Ambush Bug a hamburger in Ambush Bug#2. Ah well; in 1987, I knew of Darkseid through the Super Powers figures and Super Friends cartoon show, so at least he was a familiar face.

Above you can see the image of Darkseid calmly sipping wine while lounging in Mister Miracle's living room, and below is the final page of Ambush Bug #1 (1985) by Robert Loren Fleming and Keith Giffen. This was the start of a running gag in the four-issue Ambush Bug mini-series as each issue would conclude with Ambush Bug encountering Darkseid in some mundane locale, but the succeeding issue would completely ignore that scene. Finally, at the end of Ambush Bug #4, Ambush Bug reveals that the "Darkseid" in his stories was just an inflatable dummy. He says to the deflated dummy, "Thanks, pal. You bought me an extra fifty thousand sales in the comic shops!"

This trope of Darkseid lounging around in a mundane location instead of unleashing his power to destroy his enemies-- that's become a well-worn trope in DC comics. And I suppose my reaction in the above review came out that way because I was used to a post-Jack Kirby Darkseid. Post-Kirby, Darkseid was no longer the arch-enemy of the New Gods-- now he was basically everyone's arch-enemy, from Superman to the Suicide Squad, from Mary Marvel to the Legion of Super-Heroes. Writers still seemed to understand that he was a villain who needed to show restraint (or else he'd simply wipe most of Earth's heroes out of existence), and thus the many images of Darkseid lounging. This was particularly apparent in the 1987 Legends crossover, which resulted in Darkseid appearing in many, many comics within a six-month span, but mostly he appeared only to plot and scheme rather than take action.

What I didn't appreciate about Darkseid was that Kirby had pretty definite ideas about how to play his arch-villain; after a few cameos in Kirby's Superman's Pal, Jimmy Olsen stories, Darkseid made his big debut in New Gods #1 (1971), which also introduced Darkseid's true opponent, Orion. Orion spent the entirety of issue #1 battling his way through Darkseid's armies on Apokalips only to learn Darkseid was on Earth. The issue ends with Orion heading to Earth, where Darkseid promises on the last page, "I hear you, Orion! The battle begins!"

But New Gods #2 opens up with Orion entering an apartment where he simply finds Darkseid lounging, waiting for him, as seen above (and it does look like Giffen drew directly from this image for the end of Ambush Bug #1). There is no physical confrontation with Darkseid in that issue; although Orion continues to oppose all of Darkseid's schemes, New Gods was cancelled before the promised showdown with Orion and Darkseid could occur. So, Fleming and Giffen weren't just making light of Darkseid's ability to add sales when they used him in Ambush Bug - they were also poking fun at how, from their perspective, the promised fight between Orion and Darkseid kept being put off.

I should note that Giffen was also the artist of a Legion of Super-Heroes story titled "the Great Darkness Saga," written by Paul Levitz (Legion of Super-Heroes #290-294, 1982). It was a lengthy storyline where the antagonist was ultimately revealed to be Darkseid, still alive in the 31st century; in the climax, Orion suddenly appears and they have the epic battle that fanboys had been asking for since 1971. It's basically fan-fiction, Levitz and Giffen trying to write their own ending to Kirby's New Gods. Many fans call it "the greatest Legion of Super-Heroes story!" That's how lame the Legion are, I guess... their best story is a stealth New Gods comic.

"The Great Darkness Saga" happened early enough in Darkseid's post-Kirby history that it seems to have been extremely influential. Yet I also wonder how much the version of Darkseid seen in that story - the cosmic powerhouse who goes fist-to-fist with the entire Legion of Super-Heroes - owes to Thanos. Thanos was, after all, created by Jim Starlin in 1973 as what he admitted to as a being directly inspired by Darkseid. For Thanos' early appearances, he was quite a bit like Darkseid - he employed a number of lieutenants to do his dirty work and mostly plotted and schemed. It wasn't until he obtained the Cosmic Cube during Starlin's Captain Marvel stories that he ceased being on the sidelines and instead directly engaged the heroes (I wrote a 10-part history of Starlin's Thanos; here's part 1, where I discussed those early comics). I'd say that Starlin's Thanos stepped out from Darkseid's shadow when he reappeared in Warlock as Warlock's ally against the Magus. Although Thanos' quest to win the love of Death could be compared to Darkseid's quest for the Anti-Life Equation, Thanos' subtlety and guile in those Warlock stories is very unlike Darkseid's single-minded approach.

Post-"Great Darkness Saga," DC reprinted Kirby's New Gods stories in 1984 as a prestige-format series. In the final issue, Kirby finally wrote and drew the conclusion to Orion and Darkseid's unresolved fight. To put it mildly, it's not what fans like Levitz and Giffen anticipated. In fact, there is once again, no fight. Orion pursues Darkseid, but Darkseid continually beats a strategic retreat rather than engage in combat. Finally, Darkseid leads Orion into an ambush; a squad of Parademons blast Orion's body full of bullets and he drops out of sight, seemingly dead; the end.

And this isn't a course-correction on Kirby's part, it's consistent with all of his Darkseid stories in the 1970s. Although Darkseid deployed plenty of lieutenants against his enemies, his own interest was simply the Anti-Life Equation. He would indulge his lieutenants if he thought their plans might bring him the equation (or at least inconvenience his enemies so they wouldn't interfere with him) but Darkseid didn't use power for power's sake. I think any of the confrontations Kirby wrote between Darkseid and Desaad would be instructive; Desaad would inflict pain on his enemies because he enjoyed the sensation; Darkseid, however, was not a sadist and expressed annoyance at Desaad for placing his sadism above his actual goal - the Anti-Life Equation. Outside of flashbacks, the only characters Darkseid killed with his own power in Kirby's stories were his lieutenants when he felt they'd gone too far off-track - and then Kirby gave him the power to resurrect his lieutenants in his graphic novel Hunger Dogs (1985), albeit the resurrected lieutenants were mere shades of their former selves.

I submit, then, it's possible that the Darkseid of "the Great Darkness Saga" is a combination of Levitz and Giffen's fanboyish wish for a Darkseid who fights, drawn from Starlin's Thanos. Kirby's Darkseid was not Starlin's Thanos; he had plenty of raw power, but next to no interest in unleashing it. Perhaps a true "final" New Gods story in which Darkseid obtained the Anti-Life Equation would bring the character to a point where he would unleash his full power. But that's not Kirby's Darkseid; without the Anti-Life Equation, what is there for Darkseid to do, but... lounge.

Wednesday, November 1, 2023

"That can't be true, John. I can't imagine saying that." I Am Stan (and Stuf' Said) review

A few years ago I read and enjoyed Jack Kirby: The Epic Life of the King of Comics, a graphic novel biography of Jack Kirby written and drawn by Tom Scioli. When I learned he had recently released I Am Stan: A Graphic Biography of the Legendary Stan Lee I was immediately intrigued and quickly read a copy. Unfortunately, I didn't enjoy this book as I had the earlier tome.

I Am Stan covers Stan Lee's life from childhood to death and as he lived a good 95 years that's a lot of ground to cover. Early on the book traces events from his life as a fairly linear biography but once Marvel Comics becomes a success in the 1960s the narrative gets a little snarled as Scioli moves events around chronologically for dramatic effect and frequently years pass between pages without notice.

If you're very well-versed in the life of Stan Lee then you should have no problem following Scioli's account of his life -- everything he represents has already been covered by other biographies. If you're not familiar with the other biographies you will probably find yourself at a loss to understand why Scioli dramatizes episodes from Stan's life without context.

For instance, early in Stan's life Scioli puts great effort into contextualizing and explaining what's going on; when Stan becomes editor at Marvel, Scioli takes the time to name check all the artists in the bullpen at the time. You would assume that it will important to know the names of all these men since Scioli took the time to name them, but that would be an incorrect assumption; Syd Shores makes one more brief appearance but knowing who was who in the 1940s bullpen matters not a whit to the rest of the book. Similarly, late in the book there's an episode where the police engage in a wellness check on Stan Lee and there are references to a business partner called "Keya." If you're up on your Stan Lee lore then you know why the police are talking to Stan and who "Keya" is but Scioli doesn't frame this.

Like the police wellness check scene, many pages of I Am Stan feel weightless, without narrative. His Jack Kibry was guided by narration told in Kirby's voice but there is no one to guide Lee's life. If you haven't already read a recent biography of Stan Lee (such as my favourite, True Believer by Abraham Riesman) you won't understand the weight of certain scenes; as well, the story is told strictly from Stan Lee's perspective - so when Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby leave Marvel the reader doesn't really understand why they did so, only that Stan didn't understand.

If I understand Scioli's efforts, it seems like he just wanted to put the reader into Stan Lee's shoes and experience moments from his life, but the longer the book went on the less connected I felt to Stan as the narrative wandered from one moment to another on each page. Rather than a long-form narrative, I Am Stan reads like a webcomic that was meant to be enjoyed one page at a time rather than all at once - and as an addendum to a proper biography, not a biography in its own right.


Seeking out I Am Stan led me to Stuf' Said by John Morrow, a publication that was originally an issue of Morrow's Jack Kirby Collector magazine in 2019. A large part of why we comics fans have such complicated misgivings about Stan Lee have to do with the way he treated his collaborators, particularly Jack Kirby. In Stuf' Said, Morrow created a chronology from interviews and statements by Lee, Kirby and others close to them to track the sequence of events that led to Lee and Kirby's collaboration at Marvel and its dissolution.

Stuf' Said is definitely for the serious comics devotee - the one who really wants to know 'who said this and when.' For all that I know about these periods of history, there was a lot I didn't know such as the complete timeline on Kirby's involvement in the creation of Spider-Man; Kirby claiming a hand in creating Spider-Man was divisive to fans (although reading Morrow's book, Kirby's actual quotes are not as dismissive to Ditko as I saw others claim online) so discovering the earliest published mention of Kirby's involvement actually appeared in Marvel's own Foom magazine surprised me.

Riseman's True Believer had earlier made an impression on me with how passive-aggressive Stan seemed towards his collaborators and that not every artist was willing to put up with it (certainly not Steve Ditko or Wally Wood). Stuf' Said is particularly good at piecing all of those slights together; it's particularly instructive to note how many times Stan disparaged Dr. Strange while he was scripting that series - indeed he only seemed to consent that Ditko created Dr. Strange because he didn't want credit for those comics. But decades into his role as Marvel's perennial pitchman, he would repeatedly claim Dr. Strange was a favourite of his.

Stuf' Said is definitely not for the layman, it's for the dedicated comics fan who has a firm grasp on Lee and Kirby's careers. But I found it a fine book with a great deal of interesting discernments on the part of the author (particularly noting Kirby's satire of Stan Lee would have been invented at the same time Romita was satirizing Kirby in Captain America).

Both I Am Stan and Stuf' Said are best enjoyed by the experienced comics fan, but while I Am Stan is all very familiar and loosely-structured, Stuf' Said has excellent research and a very firm layout. It's obvious which I prefer.

Thursday, August 27, 2020

"It's All Lies." Jack Kirby: The Epic Life of the King of Comics review

I was fortunate enough to have a very good friend ship me a copy of Tom Scioli's Jack Kirby: The Epic Life of the King of Comics, a comic book biography of the man who was quite possibly the greatest man the comics medium has ever seen.

I've always thought of Tom Scioli as a Kirby-infused artist. Certainly that's what I understood based on his work on Godland and American Barbarian. But in Jack Kirby: The Epic Life of the King of Comics, Scioli doesn't mimic Kirby - only when he's recreating Kirby's own drawings. Instead, the main body of this story is told in a style more reminiscent of a Fantagraphics publication (I should mention this is published by Ten Speed Press, who have been quickly building up an impressive list of graphic novels in the last few years). Kirby is depicted with eyes so enormous, he looks almost like an anime figure! Almost every page is laid out in a six-panel grid.

The book begins before Kirby's birth by relating how his parents met and continues past his death, showing quick glimpses of his legacy and of the many films made about his creations. It's an amazing tome; I learned many things about Kirby I didn't know, such as his intent that the Fantastic Four story about the Enclave would be a commentary on objectivism, but Stan Lee nixed it.

Stan Lee certainly does not come off well in this book; it's hard for him to come off well, as Kirby's story is told primarily through Kirby's perspective, and when you get right down to it, although they collaborated for more than a decade, it was (no matter how Stan tried to frame it) a business association, not a friendship.

There are only two things I want to criticize: first, that the pacing of the book seems lopsided. Scioli goes into great detail about Kirby's work prior to Marvel in the 60s, but once he reaches Kirby's most popular era he speeds up the pace, breezing through much of it. All of Kirby's life and career are represented here, but the Marvel Comics era feels light.

Second, that for all the time Scioli spends on Kirby, I don't feel he gets across what made Kirby a great comic book creator. His focus is almost exclusively on the popular characters Kirby created. Okay, but was he any good as an artist? Heck, in their brief Kirby in Comic Book Comics, Fred Van Lente and Ryan Dunlavey put more effort into explaining how Kirby laid out his pages than anything in Scioli's near-200 pages.

But these are very minor quibbles. This is an excellent biography and it will hopefully inform people who are interested in Kirby about his life and work in an easy-to-digest narrative.

Saturday, March 23, 2019

Space-Born Super Hero Part 1: Introduction

The recent movie version of Captain Marvel got me thinking about the Marvel Comics hero - specifically, the character of Mar-Vell who was Marvel's first character to use the name.

Mar-Vell is kind of interesting in so far as how uninteresting he was. The popular opinion in comics fandom is that the best story starring Mar-Vell was The Death of Captain Marvel - that is, the one where he died. Generally speaking, most people's favourite interpretation of the character is the one by Jim Starlin. Even though Mar-Vell had been around about 7 years before Starlin started drawing the series with issue #25 and he ultimately only worked on the book for about 11 issues (plus the graphic novel), Starlin was the one who gave Mar-Vell his blond hair and Cosmic Awareness powers, to say nothing of pitting him against Thanos. Starlin is pretty much the only reason Mar-Vell is remembered favorably today.

This is despite the fact that the Captain Marvel comic book series had a lot of talented hands toiling on it. He was created by Stan Lee and Gene Colan and other contributors prior to Starlin included Roy Thomas, Arnold Drake, Don Heck and Gil Kane - not exactly a bunch of Joe Schmoes.

However, prior to Starlin, Captain Marvel had a pretty lousy reputation. If you look at the nascent comics fandom of the late 60s and early 70s, you'll notice a number of fan publications which seriously pooh-poohed this series. Some of this was simply due to the character's name; the original Captain Marvel (published by Fawcett) had been the single most widely-read super hero of the 1940s. Aging fans mythologized the then-defunct Fawcett hero to the point that seeing another hero assume his name was taken as a personal affront. In that sense, comic book fandom has not changed much in the last 50 years...

But beyond fandom's antipathy regarding the hero's moniker, there was also a great deal of scorn directed at the comics themselves. Marvel had been producing one hit after another in the 1960s but Captain Marvel was the first hero who did not impress audiences right out of the gate. Heck, even the much-mocked Ant-Man had his early adventures illustrated by Jack Kirby. But while most Marvel heroes were introduced with either Kirby or Ditko participating in the character creation, Captain Marvel proved unfortunate. Gene Colan is no slouch, to be sure, but it was Kirby and Ditko who established the Marvel look and at a time when Kirby was designing almost all of the Marvel heroes' visuals, his lack of participation seemed to mark Captain Marvel as an also-ran. Beneath the King.

True. the Kree had been created by Kirby in the pages of Fantastic Four, but they hadn't yet been codified into one of Marvel's great extraterrestrial races. Further, Colan took very little from Kirby's own designs and when he did attempt to draw the same Kree whom Kirby had created, it appeared off-brand. Even fans who weren't incensed at Mar-Vell for bearing the name Billy Batson once held considered Captain Marvel to be possibly the single worst Marvel super hero comic of the 1960s.

So! Why then am I blogging about this series? Despite having been an author of the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe for eight years, I didn't delve too deeply into Mar-Vell, reading only those issues which I needed to. Therefore, the pre-Starlin stories are mostly unknown to me and what I did read wasn't in sequential order. Thus, I'm going to read the saga of Mar-Vell in original publication order and blog about what I find until I reach issue #24. Will I find Captain Marvel to be as bad as its reputation holds? Dunno. I have an open mind and I enjoy finding something interesting within neglected works. Let's see what I find...

Tomorrow: We begin with Marvel Super-Heroes #12, the first appearance of Captain Marvel!

Wednesday, November 14, 2018

Stan Lee: "It's complicated."

As I indicated when I wrote about Stan Lee's death, there are certain criticisms I have about him, but it didn't seem right to bring them up when his life really does deserve to be celebrated.

Stan Lee's most obvious failing was his knack for putting his name on all kinds of terrible products. As more and more time elapsed, he would put his name on an increasingly-large market of subpar products, not only in comics but in film, television and cologne.

But the aspect of Stan Lee's character which I found problematic was his approach to credits. As I noted before, he did a great thing by standardizing creator credits at Marvel Comics - he frequently would talk up the artists who collaborated with him. Virtually all of his collaborators found him a very fine guy.

The way in Stan wrote comic books was to provide artists with a rough idea of what the plot could be, then he would dialogue the pages as they came in. It became called the "Marvel Method" but it was primarily a means to an end - Stan didn't have the time to type up full plots/scripts. Fortunately, artists like Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko & Don Heck didn't require any hand-holding, they could throw together the pages on their own. Kirby in particular would offer suggestions for dialogue and we know from existing samples that Stan would often take Kirby's suggestions.

The problems began as Marvel Comics became famous and the media started approaching Stan. Stan eagerly adopted the role of spokesman for comics, but because journalists didn't understand much about how comics were made, they tended to assume Stan was the person most responsible for the comics - heck, they'd even assume he drew the comics unless expressly told otherwise. What Stan was doing was a collaboration and the media didn't quite get it - and they definitely didn't get how heavily skewed the collaboration was towards the artists' strength.

The problem deepened as Stan would, as he often said, "take any credit that wasn't nailed down." He would shrug off his credit-stealing by blaming his faulty memory, but there was a definite change in how he spoke about his creations over time; in the 1960s, he readily admitted Dr. Strange was 100% Steve Ditko and the Silver Surfer was 100% Jack Kirby - but more and more, he would refer to himself as "the" creator of the Marvel Comics super heroes. It's understandable why he thought this, because the concepts frequently originated in his mind, then he would ask an artist to develop the idea. But those characters did not really exist until the artists visualized Stan's idea and plotted out their adventures.

Detractors of Jack KIrby & Steve Ditko have often pointed to their post-Marvel work as being inferior. I recall several people complaining to me about Kirby's scripting on The Eternals back when I ran an Eternals fan page. But heck, the Eternals, Devil Dinosaur, New Gods, the Question, the Creeper - those characters may not be as good as the 1960s Marvel super heroes, but they're a thousand times better than anything Stan Lee created after 1972.

It's a difficult thing to talk about, even now - the weird alchemy of time and place and of writer and artist (colorist too, for that matter); what makes a Stan Lee/Jack Kirby super-villain instantly memorable and a Stan Lee/Don Heck super-villain instantly forgettable?

Because Stan Lee was such a wonderfully friendly person and because journalists weren't usually educated on how the comics were made, it was difficult to discuss these matters throughout Stan's life. I recall being amazed at Jonathan Ross' documentary In Search of Steve Ditko because Ross actually tried to pin down Stan during an interview - it's the only time I've ever seen footage of Stan Lee with a camera on him and uncomfortable about it.

Some people try to turn these questions into "are you pro-Stan or anti-Kirby" etc. I have no interest in that. I definitely agree they did their best work together, and I likewise adore Lee/Ditko. (Lee/Romita, Lee/Maneely & Lee/Colan were pretty good too) But now that Stan has passed away and I've taken this off my chest, I don't think it will bother me too much... except for all the times in the future where I'll see the phrase "Marvel Universe credited by Stan Lee" and sigh a little. There are so many more creators to talk about. So many.

Monday, September 25, 2017

Happy National Comic Book Day!

As today is National Comic Book Day it seems appropriate to pause and consider one's thoughts towards that medium. Comic books have been frequently disparaged in our society but the recent huge appeal super hero films have obtained in Hollywood motion pictures have granted the super hero genre - and thereby, comic books - a familiarity and prestige they have often lacked, to the point that the super hero film's 'cinematic universe' style is what every Hollywood studio now seeks to exploit.

Comic books have used every possible genre type in their pages, but super heroes are the one genre which comic books themselves gave birth to; for virtually every other genre represented in comic books there is a clear source of adaptation from another medium, be it prose, film or dance. When Superman debuted in Action Comics #1 he was essentially the first super hero - or at least the first character whose attributes fit those we came to associate with super heroes: he was powerful, wore brightly-coloured tights and used his power to help the defenseless. As the super hero genre came from comic books it makes sense that they dominate the medium...

...To the extent that the medium persists, that is. Super hero comic books hit a peak thanks to World War II as many of them (such as Captain America) were created specifically to combat Hitler. With the war's conclusion, the heroes struggled to define their goals and audiences lost interest. The genre picked up some steam in the 1960s and finally broke out in a big way due to the hit 1989 film Batman, but within a decade of that picture the industry nearly slit its own throat as a speculator-based comic book economy crashed; comics retreated to their familiar niches.

Today, sales of super hero comic books are in a state of constant decline as the corporate owners try desperately to reignite interest in the characters by changing their powers/origins/genders/ethnicities, only to eventually succumb to the inherent entropy of the audience. The arrival of a Captain Marvel motion picture has a large number of fans stoked; meanwhile, the character's comic book has been on life support for years.

Perhaps the super hero comic book business has become too insular, too repetitive, the same ideas played out over and over by increasingly jaded creative teams to an increasingly jaded audience. Perhaps it could be instructive to look back to where the genre began, to the creators who originated the super hero tropes which are now being subverted, deconstructed or taken for granted. The early super hero comic books were crudely made and would happily cannibalize each other's ideas even as today's arguably do. But for Captain America's creators Joe Simon & Jack Kirby you see a hero designed to face a real threat - not a metaphorical/allegorical stand-in for that threat either - Captain America was created as a response to Adolf Hitler.

This is true as well of Joe Shuster & Jerry Siegel when they originated Superman. Look to the first appearance of Superman and you find a hero very concerned in the issues of the time for the prewar US. In Action Comics #1, Superman has four separate unconnected adventures in a mere 12 pages! First, he prevents an innocent person from being executed; second, he rescues a woman from her abusive husband; third, he battles organized crime; finally, he combats war profiteers.

The concerns of the USA in the late stages of the Great Depression are not the same as those which we have today. In some ways, super hero comic books of today are still grappling with issues of late 1930s USA, such as their conception of organized crime or foreign wars. But even there in Action Comics #1, Superman was concerned with upholding legal justice (preventing an innocent woman from being executed) and social justice (turning the tables on an abusive husband).

At times I wonder if super hero comic book creators can see the trees from the forest. In the past, there was certain content which super hero comics could not (nor should have) addressed directly, but today there is no particular subject matter which ought to be avoided, particularly as the super hero genre is read overwhelmingly by adults, not children. At one time, it made sense to discuss racial troubles through the metaphor of mutants, as the X-Men did; but today's issues surrounding race would be better served by telling stories about those races and their difficulties.

If you want to write a super hero comic book but don't want your voice to be lost in the throng of a hundred other voices, this is my advice to you: Write about the time and culture which you live in. Do not think that the problems of today cannot be overcome because, after all, Simon & Kirby witnessed the fall of Hitler. In spite of it all super heroes have a capacity to inspire audiences, even the jaded Wednesday warriors at your local comic book shop.

My sincere thanks to Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster for granting comic books a character, a genre and a whole system of tropes which have kept this lovely medium afloat over the last 80 years.

Saturday, April 30, 2016

The History of Captain America vs. Iron Man (Part 1 of 5)

The motion picture Captain America: Civil War will soon be upon us and will treat viewers to a cinematic tale in which Captain America and Iron Man are pit against each other. It may be known to some film fans that this story is partially based upon the series Civil War, but perhaps some might benefit from learning more about the past conflicts of Captain America and Iron Man. In this quick series, I'll lead you through the history of Iron Man & Captain America's friendship.

Captain America joined the proper Marvel Universe in the pages of Avengers #4 (1964), in which the Avengers (Thor, Iron Man, Giant-Man & Wasp) found him frozen in ice and revived him. By the end of the issue, Captain America had become a member of the team. At the time, the other four all appeared in titles of their own, but Captain America's home series was the Avengers for awhile. The five heroes would comprise the Avengers cast until issue #16 (1965), when Iron Man, Giant-Man, Wasp & Thor would depart, leaving Cap to lead three reformed villains (Hawkeye, Quicksilver & Scarlet Witch) as the new team.

Although Iron Man was right there in the midst of Cap's revival, the two characters didn't have a dynamic at the time. In fact, the Avengers as a team didn't have a dynamic. Although they would occasionally make reference to their rotating leadership, there was no lasting conflict between the ranks (not since the Hulk left in issue #2). Even though Marvel's Fantastic Four had made great hay out of the cast having interpersonal dynamics, that element was lacking in the Avengers. It was only after #16 that the team finally became interesting as real conflict emerged (mainly because of Hawkeye's belligerence). Likewise, Captain America was no longer amongst his peers (the four who had revived him in issue #4) and so became the senior member of the Avengers and obvious team leader. Although Cap would come and go from the Avengers over the years, he became almost the "default" leader of the team.

One unusual thing about the Avengers for several years (through writers Stan Lee & Roy Thomas) is that when characters left the team, they nearly always remained gone. Giant-Man & Wasp did return as regular members, but only because their own series had ended. Thor, Iron Man and (by issue #47, 1967) Captain America left the team and mostly stayed away, returning on special occasions such as inducting a new member to the team or battling an exceptionally powerful villain. This was how Captain America, Thor & Iron Man would become known as the Avengers' "Big Three" - not because of their personal interactions, but because any time they entered a story (such as "the Kree-Skrull War") it meant the team were up against something bigger than usual. Thus, it was a long time before Iron Man and Captain America had a chance to appear side-by-side.

After losing his faith in the "American Dream," Captain America was confronted by several Avengers - including Iron Man - in Captain America #176 (1974) as they attempted to persuade him to avoid giving up on his costumed identity. However, Iron Man didn't really speak to Cap on a personal level, simply recalling their past adventures as an ally. The Avengers failed to re-inspire him and Steve Rogers gave up being Captain America for a time.

And there came a day...

It began in an unassuming way. In Avengers #164 (1977), the Avengers made a poor showing against their old foe Whirlwind. Captain America was quick to comment, "this whole team's been falling short of its rep, lately." It sounds like a small matter, but it wasn't; you see, Cap wasn't the Avengers leader at the time: Iron Man was.

Tomorrow! Who threw the first punch?

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

"But the world needs us -- we six can't think of ourselves anymore --" Showcase Presents the Great Disaster Featuring the Atomic Knights

My father owned a single issue of DC's Strange Adventures featuring the Atomic Knights. The visual of the characters - men in medieval knight armour riding upon giant dalmatians in a post-apocalyptic world - struck my fancy. DC has collected the Atomic Knights into one of their massive black and white Showcase Presents tomes, but because there weren't actually that many Atomic Knights stories, they loaded up the book with various other stories set in the same continuity. How is the book as a whole? In short: it's too much and too little. Let's examine Showcase Presents the Great Disaster Featuring the Atomic Knights!

The series is divided into six sections in the table of contents, sections which are mostly bound together by theme. Part of the problem of this book - something which becomes evident the more you read - is that these stories were not originally conceived as sharing a continuity with each other. It's something the fanboys and the editors threw together after the fact, out of a strange desire to link DC's future timelines together. "Pre-Disaster Warnings" opens the book with a few time travel stories set in then-contemporary times. The first is a three-parter about a man from the post-apocalyptic future journeying to present times and telling people about the world to come. After that, the section contains a Superman story in which Superman is manipulated into creating a divergence in his timeline's future so that the Legion of Super-Heroes continuity and Great Disaster continuity exist in separate timelines. It's the kind of fanboy continuity obsession I understand all too well, given my own history with the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe. Someone thought it was important to explain how DC could have two very different futures - ignoring the fact that truly neither of them will ever become the DC Universe's present. The inclusion of this Superman story seems very ill-judged to me as it's deeply entwined with Jack Kirby's Kamandi #29, a story which revealed what had become of Superman's indestructible costume in that future world. Continuity mavens claim Kamandi and OMAC's futures belong to the same timeline as the other stories reprinted here, but, notably, this is not a Kamandi or OMAC collection. The book would be improved if this Superman story were eliminated and it published in a Kamandi volume instead, it's strictly for the continuity dorks (no offense, fellow dorks).

The "Day After Doomsday" section features a series of short (1-2 page) stories which appeared in odd ducks like Weird War Tales through the 70s and early 80s, but are not presented in print order because... I think some continuity nerd figured out a chronological sequence for them? Anyway, these were conceived of by Len Wein and are essentially cruel tales about the post-apocalyptic world, often riffing on abused tropes from the sub-genre. For instance, the last man on Earth is named Adam; he meets the last woman who is named... Gertrude. In another, a man finds a vending machine but he has no dimes - what a tragic twist! - but then he breaks it opens and finds - nothing but dimes! - what a doubly tragic twist! Steve Ditko drew a few of these, including one where a man is killed by radioactive hippies. I'm making that one sound more entertaining than it is. Anyway, there's also some very early Frank Miller and overall, you do get a few good dark chuckles out of this series.

The "Tales of the Atomic Knights" section is the main event, the John Broome/Murphy Anderson Atomic Knights adventures which appeared in Strange Adventures from time-to-time in 1960-1964. The series is set in 1992, following an atomic war in 1986 which has decimated humanity and destroyed most crops and animals around the world. The lead character is a former soldier, Gardner Grayle; he teams up with teacher Douglas Herald, Herald's sister Marene, twin brothers Hollis and Wayne Hobard and scientist Bryndon Smith. Discovering a set of armours which have developed tremendous resistance to radiation, the six put on the armours to defend a town of survivors from the people preying upon them, then set out to explore the worldwide devastation, battling giant monsters, mole men and Atlanteans (Atlanteans are the recurring enemies, believe it or not). Along the way they find a pair of dalmations which have been mutated to a tremendous size and they become the heroes' steeds (with a litter of pups promising more giant dogs to come). The stories are fairly typical of DC's adventure hero team books and, settting aside, are much like Challengers of the Unknown. The best thing about the series is Anderson's luscious artwork; he made the post-apocalyptic world look like a storybook.

The "Gods Return" section has a few problems. It opens with Jack Kirby's Atlas story from First Issue Special #1. I don't know who decided this was a post-apocalyptic tale, because it strikes me as a story set in the distant past as it is basically Kirby doing a Conan adventure. It never connects to the continuity of the other tales in this book and ends on a cliffhanger to boot; I love Kirby, but it doesn't really belong here. The remainder of the section is devoted to the 12-issue run of Hercules Unbound from 1975-1977. It opens with World War III causing Hercules to be set free from an island where he'd been chained up for several thousand years. Hercules ventures into a world of mutants and battles Ares, who lords over the mayhem. The first six issues are by Gerry Conway and Jose Luis Garcia-Lopez and it's a decent enough series (though the World War III timeline in Hercules doesn't actually fit the Atomic Knights', despite what continuity nerds have established).

Conway & Garcia-Lopez left after #6 and in came David Michelinie as writer for #7-9, then Cary Bates for #10-12 with Walter Simsonson on art for the remainder. Initially, Simonson was inked by Wally Wood who seriously overpowered Simonson's pencils. It's notable particularly in Wood's ever cleavage-happy females, who don't look remotely like Simonson's women. Layton inked one issue but finally Simonson took over full art for the last two issues and they look pretty much as you'd expect; it's big, glorious Simonson art with gods at war. These latter issues are also where the continuity tie-ins come in - issue #10 guest stars the Atomic Knights (providing the cover for this Showcase collection) and picks up a dangling contintuity matter from OMAC.

The "More Tales of the Post-Apocalyptic World" section has a bunch of man-animals back-up strips from Kamandi - no idea why they're here when Kamandi is otherwise absent. There's also a stray "Day After Doomsday" tale.

Finally, the "Alternate Endings" section. This opens with a Superman/Atomic Knights team-up story from a 1983 issue of DC Comics Presents. Like the earlier Superman story, it's a bit problematic. In this, Superman meets the Gardner Grayle of his own reality, who turns out to be a soldier in a virtual reality machine. The story claims that all of the Atomic Knights stories (and Hercules Unbound) were merely delusions of Gardner's atomic war-obsessed brain. Superman enters this virtual reality and makes various cutting remarks at how unbelieveable the Atomic Knights' world is (as if believability ever stood for anything in the DC Universe; your rogue's gallery includes a giant ape with Kryptonite eyebeams, Supes!). Heck, part of Superman's case against the Atomic Knights is that their Hercules has the wrong hair colour (horrors! I hope someone was arrested over it!). The story is, ultimately, an attempted deconstruction of the Atomic Knights. In the climax, Gardner sums up what appears to be the authors' view of the Atomic Knights:

"This whole project was misguided from the start -- trying to figure out how to live in a post-holocaust world... how to keep making war in it! To believe that civilization can continue in the face of that cataclysm is a fantasy... a fantasy as monumentally false as the one you helped me to give up here today! The task before mankind isn't to survive an atomic war! It's to work in this world we're living in to make certain such a war can never begin!"

Yeah! In your face, speculative fiction authors! Hang your heads, Broome and Anderson! You have been scorched by the creators of Blue Devil! Of course, the weird thing is that Kamandi still existed in the DC Universe after this story. And OMAC. More amusingly, the true holocaust of 1986 at DC Comics would be the event Crisis on Infinite Earths, another attempt by DC continuity geeks to force the entirety of DC Comics to "make sense," but instead created problems which persist to this day. Forget about learning how to stop atomic war - DC needed to learn how to survive publishing ennui.

The book concludes with a text piece written by continuity chairman Paul Levitz for the Amazing World of DC Comics at a time when Hercules Unbound was still being published. In it, Levitz tries to make sense of the "Great Disaster" continuity, using various notes from Kirby and Conway about where their series fit in, but it includes details which never made it to the comics (Levitz claims World War III in Hercules Unbound was started by Darkseid; Cary Bates would later make it the "anti-gods").

As a whole, this is a decent enough collection; the Atomic Knights were fun and Hercules Unbound is interesting, especially when Simonson enters. "The Day After Doomsday" stories were good - but the other continuity detritus surrounding this book would've been better excised. There is ultimately something very sad about reading pre-Crisis stories which were so, so obsessed with continuity matters which Crisis would ultimately render moot. To this day, DC seems determined to seek out stories which have their own continuity or personality and stamp it out until those stories conform to the line-wide narrative.

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Wonder of Wonders: Ross Saakel's Captain Wonder

In the last two years I've had a great opportunity to expand my knowledge of World War II Canadian comic books - the so-called "Canadian whites." Among those characters I've discovered is Captain Wonder, a super hero who appeared in Triumph Comics stories created by Ross Saakel.
I most certainly will not!

The Captain Wonder series began in Triumph Comics #7 (1942) and you can read the early stories for yourself at the Digital Comic Museum. Our hero's origin is fairly typical for a comic book of the day: a yogi in the Himalayas calls upon the gods of Valhalla to grant their powers to a young Canadian man whom the yogi raised after his parents were killed. Kind of a Mulligan stew of super hero origins. With his newfound powers and the identity of Captain Wonder, the young man returned to Canada to fight crime!

Even they're being sarcastic about these tropes!

Captain Wonder's first adventure pit him against a mad scientist called Frank N. Stein, which may give you some conception of how much care and originality went into crafting those tales. However, that's not exactly what I want to talk about. I'd like to talk to you today about swiping. Perhaps it's not too surprising to begin with Bob Kane - he is, after all, notorious for signing his name to the work of other artists and tracing much of his own work. And yet here, in Triumph Comics#8, Kane was himself swiped by Saakel!

Top: Bob Kane, Detective Comics #33 (1939); Bottom: Ross Saakel, Triumph Comics #8 (1942)

Now this isn't such a terrible swipe - the Batman pose has proven to be a popular one for artists to swipe over the years and considering the conditions artists had to labour under in the 40s, you can't blame them for the occasional tracing.

The thing about Saakel, however, is that he didn't trace occasionally - he traced frequently!

Top: Jack Kirby, cover, Daring Mystery Comics #6 (1940); Bottom: Ross Saakel, Triumph Comics #13 (1943)

I think Ross Saakel really enjoyed Marvel's Daring Mystery Comics #6, an early Marvel offering with some of Jack Kirby's earliest art for the company. Saakel loved that issue so much that he - well - traced the ever-lovin' almighty out of it! He must have pressed his pencil over the pages so many times they turned back into pulp! Not only did he lift his layouts from Kirby & Joe Simon's cover and interior pages but he also made liberal use of the dialogue!

Top: Jack Kirby, Marvel Boy story, Daring Mystery Comics #6 (1940); Bottom: Ross Saakel, Triumph Comics #8 (1942)

He did, at least swap some names, such as the Nazi spy Stohl being changed to Storhm, while the submarine commander Strohm was renamed Stohl by Saakel.

Top: Jack Kirby, Marvel Boy story, Daring Mystery Comics #6 (1940); Bottom: Ross Saakel, Triumph Comics #8 (1942)

But then he lifted most of the dialogue too! "Still the old destroyer dodger, eh Strohm?" became "Still the old destroyer dodger, eh Stohl?" And likewise with the submarine commander's response.

Top: Jack Kirby, Marvel Boy story, Daring Mystery Comics #6 (1940); Bottom: Ross Saakel, Triumph Comics #8 (1942)

These panels I'm posting constitute only a minority of the Captain Wonder art from Triumph Comics #8, but it's possible there are other swipes I haven't yet identified - another sequence where Captain Wonder attacks a submarine could have easily been traced from a Sub-Mariner comic - not an accusation I'd normally lob at an artist, but with Saakel, the more I see of his work, the more I wonder how much of it was his own work.

Top: Jack Kirby, Fiery Mask story, Daring Mystery Comics #6 (1940); Bottom: Ross Saakel, Triumph Comics #9 (1942)

Saakel went on to pen a multi-part story where Captain Wonder battled the Devil himself. However, as you can see by comparing the introductory text above, he again lifted his layouts from Daring Mystery Comics #6 - this time from Joe Simon & Jack Kirby's Fiery Mask story.

Top: Jack Kirby, Fiery Mask story, Daring Mystery Comics #6 (1940); Bottom: Ross Saakel, Triumph Comics #9 (1942)

Most of the swipes are found in part one of the story, leaving me again to wonder where Saakel might have swiped the rest of the battle with the Devil from (a Spectre story?). The sheer amount of swipes in this one story is staggering.

Top two: Jack Kirby, Fiery Mask story, Daring Mystery Comics #6 (1940); Bottom: Ross Saakel, Triumph Comics #9 (1942)

At some point you have to think Bell Features should have cut Joe Simon & Jack Kirby a cheque! Bell Features came into existence in 1941 to fill the gap caused by restrictions on importing comic books from the USA. That means Canadians would have already had a chance to see Daring Mystery Comics #6 for themselves in 1940. Then again, in those days reprints were frequent and not normally identified as such. Is a swipe really that much worse than a reprint?

Top: Jack Kirby, Fiery Mask story, Daring Mystery Comics #6 (1940); Bottom: Ross Saakel, Triumph Comics #9 (1942)

Yes, a thousand times yes! To lift one's plot, layouts and dialogue from another comic book without crediting them was unfair of Saakel to his US counterparts, even if they were much better reimbursed for their work.

Top: Jack Kirby, Fiery Mask story, Daring Mystery Comics #6 (1940); Bottom: Ross Saakel, Triumph Comics #9 (1942)

And yet, I'm more bemused than outraged. Saakel lifted so liberally from his copy of Daring Mystery Comics #6 that I half-expected to see a tracing of Stuporman somewhere in Triumph Comics!

Top: Jack Kirby, Fiery Mask story, Daring Mystery Comics #6 (1940); Bottom: Ross Saakel, Triumph Comics #10 (1942)

Hey, not every Canadian comic could be as good as Nelvana (Captain Wonder's stablemate at Triumph). Saakel churned out some cheap super hero fare for very little pay and expected his work to be almost instantly forgotten. Between you and I, we've now spent more time considering Saakel's work than probably anyone else in the last few decades. As the history of Canadian super heroes continues to be unearthed and archived, Saakel is perhaps destined to a form of immortality and while he was no Adrian Dingle, he was (probably) not malicious about tracing other people's work. And what better artist to be rediscovered in this age of reboots and relaunches than a tracer? He was into retellings before it was cool!