Category Archives: Ghosting

All the Harvey content with introduction stories that I have posted on so far have been drawn by Jack Kirby with Joe Simon’s involvement limited to supplying a splash panel. But that was not the only formula used for creating Harvey content pages.

Hi-School Romance #56 (October 1956) “Rage of Night” page 1, art by Bob Powell

Jean’s parents did not approve of her boyfriend Biff. Biff convinces Jean to have a party at her house. Her parents will not be home and would not permit a party that included Biff without their supervision. Jean tells Biff that he cannot come to the party. Nick was a friend who went away to college but is back in town. Biff arrives at the party despite not being invited. Trouble begins which Nick helps to stop. Jean then realizes her true feeling for Nick.

Generally when I discuss Harvey romance stories I write about Bill Draut or John Prentice. After all these two artists did a lot of work for Simon and Kirby and that in turn is the subject of this blog. The truth of the matter is that most of the Harvey romance artists are not worth writing much about anyway. However Bob Powell does not deserve the same neglect. Bob was a talented artist with, at least during his earlier career, his own unique style. Unfortunately I believe he was one of the artists whose stay at Marvel had deleterious affect. Stan Lee asked his artists to use Kirby as a model of what Marvel wanted. These were not young artists just starting their careers. Rather they, like Bob Powell, had a proven track record and their own style. In trying to please Stan, Powell and others ended up surrendering too much of their own uniqueness while not gaining sufficiently from their attempts to apply Kirby’s methods.

Hi-School Romance #56 (October 1956) content page, art by Joe Simon

Often it is not easy to make attributions for the Harvey content pages. That is with the exception that it is pretty easy to see that that the artist for the feature story did not do the introduction story. This introduction has a number of layouts very similar to Kirby’s. In particular the second panel with Jean and Biff in the foreground and Nick forlornly looking on in the background. But the drawing itself just does not seem Kirby to me. Now why that is may be hard to explain. It requires you to mentally delete traits that are imitations of Bob Powell. When I do this what I am left with does not look as much as Kirby’s work then the examples I previously provided for Harvey contents. What I see, once I look past the Powell imitations, remind me of Joe Simon. In this particular case there really is no reason to expect that Joe was trying to copy Kirby since Powell was really the artist to imitate. But I suspect that Simon had so often imitated or inked Jack that he just adopted some of Jack’s mannerisms. I believe the Kirby layouts we see in this contents are all second hand via Joe Simon.

Hi-School Romance #56 (October 1956) “Rage of Night” panel 7 of page 3, art by Bob Powell

But not all the layouts look like Kirby’s. The last panel in particular would be unusual for Jack, or Joe for that matter. Jean is shown in a close profile with her chin and the back of her head cut off by the panel border. Despite Biff being behind Jean he is still brought forward. The pair of heads take up almost all of the panel. I do not think I have ever seen Jack or Joe do anything like this. But a search through the rest of Powell’s story shows that it was clearly swiped from panel 7 of page 3. Now we have already seen a Kirby swipe in a Harvey introduction story, still this sort of thing is more characteristic of Joe.

• 

I got more of a response from my query about whether to continue posting on Kirby’s “ghosting” then I expected. Let me be frank, these are probably the poorest examples of Kirby art that you are likely to find. Because Kirby was imitating another artist he would give up much of what we admire about his artistry. At the same time Jack just was not very successful at adopting the other artist’s style. The shortness of the pieces and their marginal nature does not help much either. Although they are not great works of art, I still find them fascinating. It is interesting to see what Jack would keep, what he would let go, and what he would try to adapt.

Anyway my game plan is to do a couple posts each of Kirby imitating two other artists. Also an example which I believe is Joe Simon doing the ghosting. Then perhaps a more casual examination of some other content pages.

True Bride-To-Be #20 (October 1956) “Homecoming” page 1, pencils and inks by John Prentice

Newlyweds start their life in a small town. Originally the wife as a city girl and she finds life in a small town difficult. She struggles as best she can but the feeling of isolation takes its toll. Just as she decides to return to her family in the city things make a turn for the better. People, including her husband, begin to realize how difficult it has been for her and start to provide support.

A very different splash by John Prentice then the last one I reviewed (First Love #70). But still a real nice design and a great segue into the story. Once again Prentice leaves out a normal panel boarder. But this time he also leaves out some of the background as well, in particular the walls. Not all of it is eliminated, we can still see a view of the outside through the open door. Not much there, just a picket fence, a small house and some trees. (And this time picket fence does not refer to an inking technique). Just this simple view is all what we need to place the story in some small town. The man carrying the woman over the threshold is pretty much completes the visual introduction.

True Bride-To-Be #20 (October 1956) Contents page, pencils by Jack Kirby and Joe Simon

This content pages follows the most common pattern, a splash panel (in this case not much bigger then the rest of the panels) and a short introduction for the feature story.

The splash panel is a close copy of from the third panel of the first page. Well in this case close means without much change in the posture. That hardly means that it is a good enough copy to really look like a Prentice. Still the woman is closer to John’s version then found in the introduction story. The splash does not provide much to go on but it does not look like Kirby’s work. The inking does not look like Jack’s either but it could be by Joe Simon. Because of that and in view of previous examples of contents, I am going to attribute the splash to Joe.

The introduction is once more a prelude to the feature story. Showing how the couple met and fell in love. Yeah it really is superfluous but at least it does not spoil the story much.

Ignore superficial traits such as eyebrows we can see some typical Kirby poses and layouts. Also some typical Kirby rendition of architecture. Jack even uses a similar architectural drawing style for penciling the interiors. I feel confident that this is Kirby “ghosting” for Prentice. But it is another not so good imitation. This time Jack does the best job on the man’s eyes. Eyebrows are not so well copied but at least they are closer to art by Prentice then they are to that by Bill Draut. The woman still has Jack’s preference for a triangular face with widely separated eyes. Not at all the longer, more oval face and closer eyes that Prentice preferred.

• 

First Love #70 (November 1956) “Paid In Full” page 1, pencils and inks by John Prentice

It is a dark and stormy night that we find our heroine. Alone and unsure as to what to do or where to go, she still is determine not return home. Looking out from a bridge (no mention of suicide but you got to wonder if that was the suggestion) a policeman confronts her. Rather then taking her in (as a vagrant?) he takes her to a boarding house run by an elderly lady. With the help of the cop and the landlady, our heroine begins a new life. A romance begins with the policeman. The lady is unsure about revealing her past to her love. However the cop has such high standards that she decides to keep it a secret. What this secret actual consists of is finally revealed when her brother suddenly appears. The brother is a criminal and is on the lam from the law. It was the discovery of that fact that originally led our heroine to leave home. The lady finally reveals her past to the policeman, but not about the actual presence of her brother. He is outraged because she is not the good person he thought she was. He breaks off there relationship. Later he has second thoughts and goes to her home. The brother pulls a gun but the lady prevents its use. A fight ensues between the criminal and the cop, which of course the cop wins. Afterwards the cop expresses his regrets and asks forgiveness, which the lady gives.

As usual, Prentice did an outstanding job on the art for this story. Particularly nice is his handling of the start of the story. The woman is alone, at the mercy of her inhospitable environment. A good visual presentation of her inner turmoil and despair as describe by the writer. The splash panel starts it off just right by rejecting a normal panel border and instead providing an rough edge to the art. John had a more realistic approach then most comic book artists. As seen in this example, John did not depend on that naturalism alone. He had a good sense of design and story telling as well.

First Love #70 (November 1956) Content page, art by Jack Kirby and Joe Simon

The content page for FL #70 follows the same sort of pattern I posted about for FL #68 and FL #69. That is Jack Kirby providing a short story introduction to the comic’s feature story. As before Kirby is purposely imitating the feature artist. For FL #70 the introduction story is quite short, only three panels. Therefore there is less to go on for the correct attribution. Forearmed with previous examples of Kirby “ghosting” we know to ignore some superficial traits such as the eyebrows. So even with what little we have it looks like Jack was the actual penciler.

The Prentice imitation really does not come off that well. Actually the previous Draut imitations were not that close either. Draut’s very stylized eyebrows stand out in his art. Do a good imitation of the eyebrows and other inaccuracies get unnoticed. Prentice, on the other hand, did not have any single outstanding trait. All of his style’s traits must be mastered in order to make a good pseudo-Prentice. Jack succeeds most in the brother in panel 3, and to a lesser extend the father in panel 2. Kirby completely misses with the woman. This best seen in panel 3. Prentice’s females have a sophisticated beauty. This is due in part to the eyes being closer together and the face being longer and more oval. Jack’s version still has the more widely separated eyes and triangular face that he favors. Surprisingly all the eyebrows are closer to Bill Draut’s art then they are to Prentice’s manner.

Not all failure to provide a good imitation of Prentice can be laid on Jack. It seems to me that the inker has to take some of the “credit”. In FL #68 and #69 there was not enough of the inking for me to be certain who did it, although it clearly was not Draut. In FL #70 there is more then enough spotting to say that Jack did not do this inking. I am not certain, but some of it looks like Joe Simon’s work. Perhaps someday I should do an analysis of Simon’s spotting techniques. (I can see my readership dropping to even greater depths).

Before I leave the topic of the introductory story I would like to add a short comment on its use. Frankly in this case I think this was a really bad idea. A lot of the impact of the actual feature story rests on not providing the reason for the lady’s plight for most of the story. This effect is completely destroyed by the introduction which provides the explanation. This not only ruins the start of the story but makes story’s explanation repetitious.

First Love #70 (November 1956) “Paid In Full”, panel 3 of page 4, pencils and inks by John Prentice

The splash panel of the contents page was clearly not done by Jack. At a glance it would seem to have been done by John Prentice. Since previously we have seen Simon do close copies from the story art I went looking to see if that were true here as well. Sure enough the woman is from panel 3 of page 4. In this case the copy is so close that I really cannot see any distinctive Simon traits. There is a significant deviation in the exaggeration done in the lady’s eyebrows, but that cannot be considered characteristic of Simon. Because this sort of copying was previously Joe’s modus operandi for the First Love content page, I am going to attribute this swiping to him as well. Besides some of the inking looks like Joe’s.

•