Hand of Fire: The Comics Art of Jack Kirby by Charles Hatfield

Hatfield devotes a chapter to discussing Kirby’s art and in particular his style. This section was of particular interest to me because it is by using aspects of an artist’s style, particularly seemingly insignificant ones, that an artist’s work can be identified. Much of the books’ discussion concerns applying, or rather attempting to apply, the theories of Charles Sander Peirce to Kirby’s work. I believe that Hatfield does a good job of describing Peirce’s theories, but then again since I was completely unfamiliar with them I cannot say how accurately they are presented. By his own admission applying Peirce’s theories on Kirby’s art is a difficult match but Hatfield feels that there is much to be learned from the attempt. It certainly provided me with an alternate way of looking at things which is the chief value in a book like “Hand of Fire”.

Hatfield also makes use of a definition of Will Eisner that “style results from the failure and frustration, from grappling with one’s own weaknesses as an artist and turning them to advantage”. While there is some truth in this, I feel it is only partial explanation of how an artist’s style is accomplished. Some aspects of an artist’s style may originate from his deficiencies, particularly earlier in a career. Kirby’s penchant for big ears during his first DC period comes to mind. But an artist style usually evolves over time and this generally is not due to any deterioration of his capabilities. Rather artist often go through a process of refining their work by filtering out what they consider unimportant aspects and emphasizing those of greater personal significance. Kirby’s style while working on the Fourth World books was, in my opinion, his best graphical efforts and this certainly not due to his failure to grapple with his weaknesses.

There is a chapter on the history and authorship of the Marvel Universe. It is a balance view which while emphasizing Kirby’s importance does not diminish or discredit Stan Lee’s contributions. I suspect Kirby Cultists will not be pleased but I was. Hatfield’s discussion of two common misapprehensions (that Marvel made superhero stories realistic and that the comics were created with a pre-planned continuity).

Included in the book is a lengthy analysis of Kirby’s work for DC, that what is commonly called the Fourth World. Hatfield obviously feels that this was the most important point of Kirby’s career. I admit that is an opinion that I do not share. But I still find his discussion about this work to be insightful and interesting. In fact the best that I have ever read.

“Hand of Fire” is not the type of book one would pick up to see great art. There is a small color section and some black and white illustrations scattered through the text. All the work shown was selected to match discussions in the text. So this is not a book to pick up just to see great Kirby art. But it is a great book if you want to enter into a discussion about Jack Kirby and his art. You may not agree with everything Hatfield writes, but you will understand why he takes the positions that he does and you may his ideas challenging.

2 thoughts on “Hand of Fire: The Comics Art of Jack Kirby by Charles Hatfield

  1. Charles Hatfield

    …it is a great book if you want to enter into a discussion about Jack Kirby and his art. You may not agree with everything Hatfield writes, but you will understand why he takes the positions that he does and you may his ideas challenging.

    Harry, thank you for these encouraging words. I’m glad you’ve found claims in the book to think about and joust with. That’s just what I hoped for! Indeed the whole point of monographs like these, as I see it, is not only to compile and focus the vast amount of information out there but also provoke meaningful discussion.

    Kirby’s style while working on the Fourth World books was, in my opinion, his best graphical efforts and this certainly not due to his failure to grapple with his weaknesses.

    Well, there’s nothing “weak” about the results! When I said, paraphrasing Eisner, that “style results from…grappling with one’s own weaknesses as an artist and turning them to advantage,” what I had in mind was the way Kirby’s nonstop, breakneck work forced him to focus on, not small details, but rather the aspects of narrative drawing that, to him, were most meaningful, most urgent. What some readers regard as weaknesses in Kirby—he “couldn’t draw hands,” that sort of thing—I regard as signs of Kirby’s determination, focus, and interests. But I’m not the first to suggest that Kirby’s style was pressurized and transformed by the relentless production demand, the sheer speed and urgency, of the comics industry. I believe Steranko makes this same observation re: early Simon & Kirby work, e.g. Captain America Comics. What happens in the work from that era is that Kirby loses a lot of the Raymond-like elegance and liquid line—the Lou Fine-like qualities, let’s say—and his departures from textbook anatomy start to amount to a strange syntax of his own (to paraphrase what Burne Hogarth once said about a “syntax” of the figure).

    I should clarify that I don’t regard these “failures” or “weaknesses” (in the textbook sense) as genuine weaknesses, but rather signs of Kirby’s peculiar strength. My sense, though, is that Kirby’s style developed in ways he could not have articulated or analyzed, due to the tremendous pressure under which he worked. By the time of the Fourth World of course, or even much, much earlier, Kirby’s syntax of the figure, and his rendering tics and shortcuts, had blossomed into a confidently personal style, purposeful, forceful, and unique.

    What I wanted to get across was a sense of inward struggle and ferocious energy in Kirby’s cartooning. I continue to learn from what you have to say about his development and style!

    Thanks for the kind words.

  2. Pingback: HAND OF FIRE

Comments are closed.