In Charles Hatfield’s Hand of Fire: The Comic Art of Jack Kirby, Chapter 2 titled “Kirby, Stan Lee and the Creation of Marvel Comics” focuses on how Kirby didn't get the credit he deserved as well as his relationship with Marvel. Beginning with the feud between Marvel and Jack Kirby on ownership of his artwork, it's clear to see Kirby was wronged by a company he helped create and thrive. As well as the struggle between Kirby and Marvel continued, Kirby and Stan Lee also struggled with creative recognition, Professor Hatfield states, “Moreover, Kirby disputed Lee’s share of creative contribution to the early Marvels, claiming sole authorship: “Stan Lee and I never collaborated on anything!” It turned out that Kirby worked at home—no hectic bullpen for him—and he preferred it that way, outside of Lee’s orbit. ‘I used to write the stories just like I always did,’ he said. Lee, in his view, was simply ‘an editor . . . Stan Lee wasn’t a guy that read or told stories’ (Interview with Groth 37–38)” (79). I was under the impression that everything they did was a collaboration and was shocked at this realization. Professor Hatfield emphasizes the importance Kirby had to Marvel and how Stan Lee took credit for products he didn’t contribute to. Professor Hatfield says, “Kirby worked harder but, commercially, Lee made things happen” (95). Kirby produced most of the work yet Lee was the one who seemingly took the credit and was the face of the product. Kirby was more of the behind the scenes person which resulted in the huge conflict of creative recognition not being given to Kirby.
Kirby seemingly was the soul and heart of Marvel comics and as Professor Hatfield describes, “the company’s style was built squarely on Kirby, and the characters he helped create typically suffered as soon as he stepped away” (105). Kirby’s passion was seen through his characters and without him, they were never quite the same. In Professor Hatfield’s eyes, “The “Marvel” point of view, then, was the Kirby point of view—he was Marvel’s blueprint. His relationship with the company animated it and kept it going” (106). Kirby’s position at Marvel built the foundation for what Marvel is today. His works and contributions provided Marvel with the basis of what all their comics are about. Without Kirby, Marvel would fail to thrive and live up to DC Comics.
In Charles Hatfield’s Hand of Fire: The Comic Art of Jack Kirby, Chapter 3 titled, “How Kirby Changed the Superhero,” Professor Hatfield illuminates how Kirby's contribution to Marvel ultimately created the foundation for a new type of superhero genre. A superhero genre that reflected his unique ideas such as monsters as superheroes, unresolved conflicts between superheroes and villains as well as continuous storylines, and ultimately superheroes with more depth and the ability to progress with their stories. Through these means, Kirby reshaped the superhero genre by changing how superheroes are perceived and created. Professor Hatfield states, “Marvel’s characterization stood out: under Stan Lee, the byword became “superheroes with super problems” (Lee recognized the formula for what it was and ran with it), while, thanks to Kirby’s vital artistic input, the protagonists became increasingly monstrous, pitiable, and alienated, their superpowers often implicitly linked to the Cold War through such tropes as genetic mutation, accidental exposure to radioactivity, and the Space Race. Crystallized by Lee in concert with Kirby and Steve Ditko, both of whom had a yen for the grotesque, the Marvel ethos demanded heroes whose superpowers were counterbalanced by deformities, disabilities, or social stigmas” (116). Kirby and Lee produced a different type of superhero, one that had problems due to exposure to chemicals, mutations, etc. By bringing this concept into the superhero genre, Marvel set themselves apart from DC’s superheroes which lacked problems. By creating the Thing and the Hulk, it was “one of Kirby and Lee’s freshest moves, in the context of superheroes, was to test that boundary, turning subhuman monsters into heroes, a move anticipated by few characters during the genre’s 1940s heyday…” (116). By testing the boundaries of monsters posing as superheroes, Kirby and Lee developed a new kind of superhero. One that was similar to a Jekyll/Hyde figure that struggled with his appearance and aggression yet proved to still remain a superhero. As Professor Hatfield says, “Marvel, in short, empathized with the freaks” (119).
Something I found quite interesting was Kirby’s idea of superheroes and villains being pantheonic. Professor Hatfield explains, “Marvel’s heroes and villains came to counterbalance each other, in a sort of rough-hewn grand design defined by symbolic symmetry. All of them, heroes and villains, belonged to a great, sprawling, superhuman family whose interweaving, often violent relationships were tangled and confusing, but also compelling. Good and evil forces were paired in a Manichean struggle in which the victory of the good, though expected and hoped for at the end of each tale, turned out to be temporary, provisory, and fragile. Conflict reigned. The heroes’ omnipotence was not guaranteed (though the coddling moralism of the Comics Code did ensure that heroes almost always won the battle if not the war)” (125). As we’ve seen in the past recurring villains are very common within comics yet a connection between villains and superheroes wasn’t that common. With heroes and villains being connected, Kirby was also able to introduce the idea of continued storylines and unresolved conflicts which greatly separated Marvel from DC comics. In DC comics, we often saw the bad guy going to prison or being captured only to escape and reconnect the conflict started between him and the superhero. Yet with Marvel, we see the conflict continue over to the next comic issue as well as the villain never really going away or dying leaving room for writers to bring back a villain without confusing readers. By doing so, his idea brought up the image of a saga which can be described as a series that doesn't end but continues and allows characters to grow and change. Overall I found this week’s readings to be very informative and I learned a lot. Specifically about Kirby’s contribution to Marvel and just how important his presence was to Marvel. Without him Marvel would not be anywhere near what we’ve seen. Thanks for reading!
Kirby seemingly was the soul and heart of Marvel comics and as Professor Hatfield describes, “the company’s style was built squarely on Kirby, and the characters he helped create typically suffered as soon as he stepped away” (105). Kirby’s passion was seen through his characters and without him, they were never quite the same. In Professor Hatfield’s eyes, “The “Marvel” point of view, then, was the Kirby point of view—he was Marvel’s blueprint. His relationship with the company animated it and kept it going” (106). Kirby’s position at Marvel built the foundation for what Marvel is today. His works and contributions provided Marvel with the basis of what all their comics are about. Without Kirby, Marvel would fail to thrive and live up to DC Comics.
In Charles Hatfield’s Hand of Fire: The Comic Art of Jack Kirby, Chapter 3 titled, “How Kirby Changed the Superhero,” Professor Hatfield illuminates how Kirby's contribution to Marvel ultimately created the foundation for a new type of superhero genre. A superhero genre that reflected his unique ideas such as monsters as superheroes, unresolved conflicts between superheroes and villains as well as continuous storylines, and ultimately superheroes with more depth and the ability to progress with their stories. Through these means, Kirby reshaped the superhero genre by changing how superheroes are perceived and created. Professor Hatfield states, “Marvel’s characterization stood out: under Stan Lee, the byword became “superheroes with super problems” (Lee recognized the formula for what it was and ran with it), while, thanks to Kirby’s vital artistic input, the protagonists became increasingly monstrous, pitiable, and alienated, their superpowers often implicitly linked to the Cold War through such tropes as genetic mutation, accidental exposure to radioactivity, and the Space Race. Crystallized by Lee in concert with Kirby and Steve Ditko, both of whom had a yen for the grotesque, the Marvel ethos demanded heroes whose superpowers were counterbalanced by deformities, disabilities, or social stigmas” (116). Kirby and Lee produced a different type of superhero, one that had problems due to exposure to chemicals, mutations, etc. By bringing this concept into the superhero genre, Marvel set themselves apart from DC’s superheroes which lacked problems. By creating the Thing and the Hulk, it was “one of Kirby and Lee’s freshest moves, in the context of superheroes, was to test that boundary, turning subhuman monsters into heroes, a move anticipated by few characters during the genre’s 1940s heyday…” (116). By testing the boundaries of monsters posing as superheroes, Kirby and Lee developed a new kind of superhero. One that was similar to a Jekyll/Hyde figure that struggled with his appearance and aggression yet proved to still remain a superhero. As Professor Hatfield says, “Marvel, in short, empathized with the freaks” (119).
Something I found quite interesting was Kirby’s idea of superheroes and villains being pantheonic. Professor Hatfield explains, “Marvel’s heroes and villains came to counterbalance each other, in a sort of rough-hewn grand design defined by symbolic symmetry. All of them, heroes and villains, belonged to a great, sprawling, superhuman family whose interweaving, often violent relationships were tangled and confusing, but also compelling. Good and evil forces were paired in a Manichean struggle in which the victory of the good, though expected and hoped for at the end of each tale, turned out to be temporary, provisory, and fragile. Conflict reigned. The heroes’ omnipotence was not guaranteed (though the coddling moralism of the Comics Code did ensure that heroes almost always won the battle if not the war)” (125). As we’ve seen in the past recurring villains are very common within comics yet a connection between villains and superheroes wasn’t that common. With heroes and villains being connected, Kirby was also able to introduce the idea of continued storylines and unresolved conflicts which greatly separated Marvel from DC comics. In DC comics, we often saw the bad guy going to prison or being captured only to escape and reconnect the conflict started between him and the superhero. Yet with Marvel, we see the conflict continue over to the next comic issue as well as the villain never really going away or dying leaving room for writers to bring back a villain without confusing readers. By doing so, his idea brought up the image of a saga which can be described as a series that doesn't end but continues and allows characters to grow and change. Overall I found this week’s readings to be very informative and I learned a lot. Specifically about Kirby’s contribution to Marvel and just how important his presence was to Marvel. Without him Marvel would not be anywhere near what we’ve seen. Thanks for reading!