Young Romance #52 December1952) “Soldier on the Train” by Bill Draut
Once again the original Checklist gave this as Kirby/Simon and the update as Kirby/Draut. But again it is clearly both drawn and inked by Bill Draut. Unfortunately at this point in his career Bill has stopped signing his work, but his style is quite unique and easy to spot. Bill had a distinct way of drawing woman, wide eye and simple long eyebrows.
Young Romance #51 (November 1952) “The Way They Met” by Jack Kirby
Well I guess I misnamed this series because now I want to provide a Kirby work that the Checklist missed. Even though it is a one page work it has all the signs of Kirby penciling. The inking is typical S&K studio style. Generally I am unwilling to hazard a guess, but in this case I believe the spot inking was done by Jack himself.
Young Romance #47 July1952) “A Man For My Birthday” by Bill Draut
Originally the Checklist indicated this was penciled by Kirby and inked by Simon. In the update (JKC #32) the inker was listed as Draut. Well the update is correct about the inker being Bill Draut, but he was also the penciler. In fact the entire store is done in a style so similar to other Bill Draut stories I am not at all sure why this one was singled out. I have no doubts that Draut not Kirby drew this piece.
Young Love #55 (March 1954) “Love War” by Jack Kirby
The Jack Kirby Checklist lists “The Baby Dolls” (Young Love #55) as penciled by Jack Kirby. But in fact there is no story by that name in that comic. Young Love #55 has the story “Love War” that is not listed in the Checklist. There is a “Baby Doll” story in Young Love #31 (March 1952) but it was not done by Kirby. I think we can be pretty certain that some clerical error has occurred and the wrong title was listed for YL #55.
Young Love #12 (August 1950) “Problem Clinic” by Mort Meskin
The Jack Kirby Checklist lists “Problem Clinic” (Young Love #12) as Kirby pencils and Simon inks. Not signed but clearly Mort Meskin pencils and inks. No Jack Kirby.
Mort did a lot of work for Simon and Kirby but so did Bill Draut and John Prentice as well as a host of other artists. Yet Mort has been mistaken for Jack Kirby more then any of the others.
Young Love #12 (August 1950) “Smooth Operator” by Mort Meskin
The Jack Kirby Checklist lists “Smooth Operator” (Young Love #12) as Kirby pencils and Simon inks. Once again it is signed as Mort, although it is hard to see because it is in an brown area on the lower right of the splash. And once again typical Meskin pencils and inks. I cannot see any sign of Kirby.
Young Love #9 (May 1950) “A Man In Her Room” by Mort Meskin
The Jack Kirby Checklist lists “A Man In Her Room” (Young Love #9) as Kirby pencils and Simon inks. This is another story with a splash panel signed as Mort. In a way I am more surprised with attributing the inking to Joe then I am the pencils to Jack. The inking is done in a manner seen on all Meskin’s work of this period. It is not at all similar to the S&K shop style. Meskin also had his own unique drawing style and this shows up throughout the story.
I am not sure why one of the most common errors found in the Checklist appears to be attributing work to Kirby that was actually done by Mort Meskin. His style is very different from Kirby’s. Actually I am a little surprised that I do not find more of Kirby’s influence in Mort’s work at this time. After all both were working together in the small S&K studio.
Young Love #8 (April 1950) “Which Is Your Dream Man” by Mort Meskin
The Jack Kirby Checklist lists “Which Is Your Dream Man” (Young Love #8) as Kirby pencils and Simon inks. This a one page work and it is not signed. But frankly it clearly has Mort Meskin as both penciler and inker. I just do not get a Kirby attribution at all.
There is always a mild cultural shock when reading old romance comics. But it is particularly striking in this short feature. “I like a man who shows me who’s boss” or “I like a possessive man”. Do you think these really represent the beliefs of the readers or those of the men who wrote, drew and produced the comic?
Captain America #6 (September 1941) “Who Killed Doctor Vardoff”
Larger Image
I do not think Simon and Kirby invented the double page splash. I seem to remember an earlier example in a Kazar story in Marvel Mystery Comics and I make no claim that was the earliest either. Using the centerfold for such a purpose would seem natural for anyone aware of how a comic was made. Because of the vagaries that occur in the folding and stapling of a comic only in the centerfold could a publisher be sure to get a good double spread without registration problems. No I doubt that S&K were the first to do a double splash, but I do not think anyone else at that time did as many or as well.
S&K already had produced a number of comics before their first double splash. In those previous comics are really terrific examples of single page splashes. So it should be no surprise that their first attempt at a wide splash (Captain America #6) would be so successfully done. In it Joe and Jack integrate a scene as well as a caste of characters. The scene occupies only a relatively small portion of the splash, but it is in the center and so commands attention. We find Captain America and Bucky over the victim of a hanging. Although the victim is now on the ground, the noose is still around his neck and the rest of the rope goes up to the top of the splash and then the end drops back down. But the heads of the characters, even the deceased, are turned to our right where the masked hangman stands holding another noose in both hands. Oddly the shadow that he castes also holds a noose but in just one hand.
The noose’s rope that the hangman holds trails along the lower part of the splash visually connecting the various characters arrayed in a broad ‘U’ shape. Besides Bucky and Cap we find a scientist (the victim), a lab assistant, a mob moll (with her cigarette in her mouth as she speaks, a sure sign that she is not respectable), and a mysterious man (whose monocle and cigarette holder indicate that he is a nefarious foreigner). As the eye follows the rope to our left side in ascends until it is covered by a large question mark. But where the rope disappears is well placed because the eye follows the upper part of the question mark until the rope reappears and the victim is portrayed hanging.
Below the splash are a row of story panels. The splash was used to catch the browser’s eye, while the story panels would get him interested in the story. That way when the newsstand owner called “you buying or what? this ain’t no library” hopefully the reader would have become involved enough to purchase the comic. S&K extend the splash panel’s edges to enclose the story panels also. This attempt to integrate the splash and the story panels is the greatest weakness of this double page. In the future Simon and Kirby would use other means to overcome this defect.
The first double page splash already has some features that we will see in others. Often these wide splashes do not just provide a scene but something more complex. It is not just that this sort of thing takes advantage of the greater width, it actually could not be done effectively on a single page. What is presented in the splash is a well integrated “story”. However like some the Harvey covers that I have written about previously, there are logical inconsistencies in what is presented. The Hangman and his shadow holding the noose differently. The victim shown three times, once on the ground surrounded by Captain America and Bucky, also still hanging on the left side and finally as one of the characters describing himself. But like those Harvey covers I really do not consider these true defects. The splash is not meant to be a snap shot, instead variously timed events are represented together. Everything is well placed to provide a sort of condensed story, without the ending of course!
Captain America #197 (May 1976) by Jack Kirby (original art)
Jack Kirby did some goofy things from time to time. I always got a chuckle out of the cover for Captain America #197. Cap faces the viewer in a hail of bullets and exclaims “I’ve found an army of underground killers! .. and I’ve got to stop them alone!”. Well of course if he is alone, who is he yelling to? This was done in 1976 and Jack was artist, writer and editor. So you would expect that this was Jack’s doing.
Recently The Jack Kirby Museum has made available to members xeroxes of the pencils for some Captain America art done by Jack. If you are not a member maybe you should consider joining. I say this not really because of the chance to see some great Kirby pencils. Nor because the Kirby Museum hosts my blog. Those are good reasons I guess but I feel you should support the museum as they are one of the few organizations out there actively promoting the study of Jack Kirby. With member support they have done great things but with continuing support I am sure that is only the beginning.
Anyway because it is a member’s only viewing I cannot link to the pencil version of Cap #197 that they have. But I hope it is alright if I were to quote what Cap says on the pencils which is “This way for action!! I’ve found an underground army of desperate killers”. Not as punchy as the final version but not at all goofy.
All the blurbs on the cover are paste ups on the original art. The pencils had been completely inked, even in places that later were covered by the blurbs. Jack’s penciled word balloon was not inked and the space it had occupied was inked with the same wreck that is found along all the edges. I guess it is possible that Jack changed his mind in the last minute about what should be in the blurbs. But I really suspect that someone at Marvel decided to make changes even though Kirby was supposed to be editor. “This way for action” was removed from Cap’s speech and placed in an arrow and Cap’s exclamation was rewritten somewhat. Just one more example of the lack of respect by some at Marvel at that time for Jack’s efforts.
Even though I now feel that Cap’s speech was not Kirby’s fault, I have to admit I like it. It is good for comic art to be goofy at times.
