Category Archives: Odds & Ends

New York Comic Con, Joe Simon and Much More

The organizers of the New York Comic Con seemed to have learned some lessons from their previous shows which frankly had problems with crowd control. This year they had an indoor area for the waiting line and entry to the show was a lot quicker. I hope the organizers continue to make improvements but happily they seemed to have overcome the disasters of the earlier years. I was aiding Joe Simon on both Friday and Saturday; largely I just helping to get him to and from the show, others gave him a hand at his appearances. While I give the organizer’s praise for the improvements to the show in general, they are still sadly lacking in support for guests like Joe. Joe is healthy but at 94 not that strong. The distance between the VIP desk and the panel area was way too far. Joe is too proud to use a wheelchair so he did walk it but there really needs to be a better way to do it, perhaps some sort of go-cart. Leaving the show on the second day was difficult as well.

Joe was part of the amazing Legends Panel. What a roster; Murphy Anderson, Jerry Robinson, Stan Lee, Irwin Hansen, Ramona Fradon, the moderator and comic historian Michael Uslan, Dick Ayers, Joe Sinnott, Joe Simon and John Romita Sr. I took some pictures which I will include at the bottom of this post. Unfortunately it was mobbed and I was unable to get any of Ramona Fradon. With such a large panel there really were not a lot of questions that could be done in one hour. One question asked of each panelist was among the artists that they had worked with who were their own favorites. Of course with panelists such as these, Jack Kirby was brought up by a number of them. Jerry Robinson’s answer of Bill Finger got a good response from the audience, but what warmed my heart was his other choice, Mort Meskin. When the question got to John Romita he talked about how influential the first issue of Captain America was to him. After which Stan Lee took back the microphone and said how much that issue influenced him as well. Stan continued to say that he was there when Simon and Kirby were producing Captain America, he saw both Jack and Joe drawing Cap and he could not tell one’s art from the other. Further that Joe did not get the recognition that he deserved for all his contribution to the art and the writing.

On Saturday Joe spent an hour with Mark Evanier jointly signing Mark’s new book “Kirby the King of Comics”. I do not think I have mentioned that book previously on this list, largely because it had received such great publicity that I am sure most of my readers were already aware of it. It is an incredible book; the publisher Abrams did a great job reproducing the art and Mark’s biography nicely covers Jack’s long career. Of course all Kirby fans are really waiting for the more detailed biography that Mark has said should come out in a couple of years. Unfortunately he has been saying that for many years, we shall see. I only had about a minute at the end of the signing to tell him how great “Kirby the King of Comics” was and how much I enjoyed his other books like “Dr. Wertham Was Right”. Besides being the leading Kirby scholar, Mark is a wonderful writer. I was surprised that Mark recognized my name and that he had read my blog. He commented that he did not agree with everything I have said. My reply was something to the effect that it was to be expected. There was no time then to expand on that comment but I have written before in some of my posts that I do not expect everyone to concur with me. People will always disagree on methods and conclusions. But no matter how important the subject matter is to us, a different opinion is not a personal affront.

After the Abrams book signing arrangements were made to find a place in Artists Alley for Joe to do some more signings. Peter David agreed to make some room at his table for Joe. Peter David, how cool is that? Joe loves kids, so he gave Peter’s young daughter a signed copy of his letterhead (with all those characters that Joe has worked on over the years). Peter’s wife (sorry I forget her name) told her daughter that Joe was a real artist. I must admit chuckling over that comment. She explained that their daughter was aware that her father wrote comics but did not have occasion to see how the art came about. Since Joe’s appearance in Artists Alley had not been previously announced we were not crowded as badly as at the Abram’s booth. Joe still get a lot of attention anyway, it was just not as hectic and allowed more one on one.

Sunday included a Kirby panel moderated by Mark Evanier with Dick Ayers and Joe Sinnott. Attendance was a little low but it was very well received by those present. Great questions from Mark and great stories from the panelists. It was a moving experience just to be in a room with a bunch of Kirby fans. I wish it could be that start of a new tradition for the N.Y. Comic Con.

Also on Sunday was a showing of “The Legends Behind The Comic Books”, a documentary by Michael Uslan made in conjunction with an exhibition of comic art held last year at the Montclair Art Museum. The video opened up with various legendary artists saying that they never thought that comic book art would ever be considered important. They might not have thought so but that was not true of all comic artists. One artist (John Romita?) told a tale of a lunch at the Playboy Club in the ’60s where Jack Kirby predicted that comic book art would someday hang on the walls of museums. Nobody believed him.

On a personal note, I had my first opportunity to meet Jim Amash. Jim has done many great interviews over the years but his latest one of Joe Simon can be found in Alter Ego #76. Jim said that response generated by that interview was much greater then any of those he had done previously. I pointed out, as I have in this blog before, how well Jim managed to bring out the real Joe. Jim mused that perhaps that was because he and Joe were such good friends. Well I would not doubt that for a moment, but I think that Jim’s long time expertise on giving interviews had something to do with it as well.


Ernie Colon, Sid Jacobson and Joe Simon while Joe was waiting for the panel. The three had previously worked together at Harvey Comics. Ernie and Sid are still active and their “The 9/11 Report: A Graphic Adaptation” was recently released.


Jerry Robinson and Joe Simon having a discussion before going to the panel.


Jerry Robinson and Irwin Hansen on the way to the panel.


Mark Evanier greeting Joe Simon just before the panel started.


Joe Simon and Stan Lee also just before the panel started. I suspect that the panel was delayed by all the greetings between panelists. I did not care because I was having too much fun snapping pictures.

Joe Simon, Joe Sinnott and John Romita Sr.
Joe Simon, Joe Sinnott and John Romita. Sinnott and Romita never worked with Simon but they exchanged warm greetings nonetheless.


Dick Ayers and Joe Simon. I believe Dick said that he never worked for Simon and Kirby but in a way he worked for each separately.

Joe Sinnott, Stan Lee and John Romita Sr.
Joe Sinnott, Stan Lee and John Romita Sr. after the panel was over.


Jerry Robinson relaxing after the panel.


Murphy Anderson looking like a million bucks. Not the stereotypic image of someone from the comic book industry but still a great artist.

“The Ten-Cent Plague” by David Hajdu

I have just finished reading David Hajdu’s new book “The Ten-Cent Plague: The Great Comic-Book Scare and How It Changed America”. Hajdu is not a comic book historian; most of his previous writings have concerned music. I have always meant to read his “Positively 4th Street: The Lives and Times of Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Mimi Baez Farina and Richard Farina” which as I remember got great reviews. I think I should correct myself, David may not have previously been a comic historian but he certainly is one now. This is a great book describing the rise and affect of the anti-comic book sentiment. Most comic fans awareness of this subject is limited to Dr. Wertham’s “Seduction of the Innocent” and the effect of the Comic Code but Hajdu probes much more deeply. I did notice a couple of small errors, for instance he mentions Bullseye and Western Scout as titles for Simon and Kirby’s Mainline Publications but Western Scout was used as a description for Bullseye and was never an independent title. As far as I can tell such errors are few and very minor, they never affect the subject of the book. The book has an appendix of comic artists who abandoned or were abandoned by the industry because of all the negative reaction and the drop in comic book sales that resulted. This list is impressively long and chilling in effect. In the serial post The Art of Romance I have already noted the presence in that list of some artists who had worked for Simon and Kirby.

I got a big kick out of some of the photographs in this book. One shows two young boys trading “bad” comics for “good” ones. The comic at the top of the pile held by one of the boys was “Justice Traps the Guilty”. Right next to that photo is another of a woman taping a small sign onto a store window identifying it as one that sells only “good” comics. You can see the comic book rack through the window and one of the titles being sold was “Fighting American”. Both titles were originally Simon and Kirby creations although they may not have been producing Justice Traps the Guilty at the time the photograph was taken. So Joe and Jack were both a corrupting and a beneficial influence on youngsters. Go figure.

I am sure that not only comic book fans will appreciate this book but certainly anyone interested in comics of the late ’40s and ’50s should read it. Is this book a one time entry by David Hajdu into the field of comic history? I hope not as he provides a great perspective on comics.

An Unexpected Simon and Kirby Ashcan


Supergirl (ashcan) (February, with 1944 copyright) (image from the GCD)

I was perusing a list of works attributed to Joe Simon in the GCD database when I spotted something very odd, a Supergirl ashcan by Simon and Kirby. Of course Simon and Kirby did not really do a Supergirl cover, DC staff just used a copy of the S&K art of the cover for Boy Commandos #1 (Winter 1942/1943) and added above it the Supergirl title. The DC staff produced ashcans so that they could copyright the title and so prevent any other publisher from using it. Ashcans can be produced quickly as they are not subject to the months required to publish an actual comic book. It would be unfortunate, to say the least, to published a new title only to have competitor come out earlier with a book with the same title. DC did something similar previously when they made an ashcan for Boy Commandos. I am bothered by some of the details in this particular case. Basically why Supergirl at this time and why use this particular piece of Simon and Kirby art?

Supergirl would not have a debut until Action Comics #252 (May 1959) that is not for about 15 years later. Granted the copyright would still be valid but it does seem an unreasonable long delay. The answer may not be when Supergirl would be first published but when Superboy was. Superboy first appeared in More Fun Comics #101 (January 1945). With Superman and now Superboy, it did not take much of a stretch in imagination DC’s part that perhaps they should protect other variations as well. Well a search of GCD reveals that an ashcan had already been made for Superwoman (copyright 1941 but with a January 1942 cover date). Therefore making one for Supergirl as well seems a reasonable precaution. Simon and Kirby later did something similar when they created Stuntman. Stuntman #2 has an inside cover advertising the coming of Stuntboy and Stuntgirl. Although unpublished Stuntman art still exists none of it includes either Stuntboy or Stuntgirl. Joe Simon has said that he does not remember creating these variations either. But the ad includes copyright and pending trademarks so in all probability Simon and Kirby were just trying to protect what they hoped would be a successful new title.

The Supergirl ashcan cover date provides only the month (February) while the copyright notice gives only the year (1944). Now it may seem obvious to just combine the two for a February 1944 date as GCD has done in their listing. This is not unreasonable but it would indicate that planning for Superboy was done for quite a few months before it was actually release. However if we follow the example given by the Superwoman ashcan and provide a cover date for the Supergirl ashcan as February 1945 we have one very close in agreement with Superboy’s release (January 1945). The means of choosing between the two possibilities would be the actual contents of the ashcan as it would be expected that the most current stories would be used. Unfortunately the interior is not indexed in the GCD listing. Oddly the notes that I toke when I first came across the Supergirl ashcan listing was that there was an unconfirmed report that the contents were from Action #80 (January 1945). If that turns out to be true then the February 1945 would be the correct cover date for the Supergirl ashcan.

My second puzzle was why a cover for Boy Commandos #1 was used for the Supergirl ashcan. It is not that I expect Supergirl to appear on the cover. DC was insuring their copyrights and not planning to actually produce a Supergirl comic at that time. The ashcan for Superwoman had unrelated cover art as well. For me the question is why the cover art for the Supergirl ashcan was not something more current. The Boy Commandos #1 was cover dated Winter 1942/1943. Even if we accept the earlier February 1944 as the cover date for the Supergirl ashcan that still means the art used was about a year old. The only explanation I can hazard, with absolutely nothing to back it up, is that perhaps a foreign edition of Boys Commandos had more recently been prepared. DC did occasionally prepare foreign comics (to be printed in the country it would be released in) and these often were done some time after the initial U.S. release. However I have no idea if DC was doing this during the war or whether Boy Commandos had received that treatment.

One final note, in this blog I try to respect the copyrights of others. After all I am asking everyone to respect not only my rights, but most importantly those of Joe Simon who has generously allows me to include images from his personal collection. Joe’s collection and my own, augmented occasionally by helpful individuals, are generally sufficient to provide enough examples to use in the posts for this blog. But there are rare exceptions where the GCD has images that I otherwise do not have access to. So some time ago I contacted GCD and ask if it would be okay to occasionally use their images (giving them the proper credit). So I would like to thank the GCD (Grand Comic-Book Database) for giving me permission to do so.

Kirby Kolors, Revisited

My post “Kirby Kolor, A Kirby Myth” from a few weeks ago recently triggered a far too acrimonious debate on the Kirby-list. The only thing I got out of it was that Greg Theakston, the main proponent of Kirby Kolors, has added a number of claims. So far there are three claims that Theakston has made that I find particularly remarkable:

  1. Kirby colored every cover that he inked.
  2. Kirby was the colorist for some of his Atlas work in Black Rider and the Yellow Claw.
  3. Kirby was the colorist for some of the Bulls-Eye reprints published by Super Comics in the 60’s.

I believe Jack inked a lot of his covers and judging by some of the volumes of “The Complete Jack Kirby” Theakston believes that as well. I therefore find it hard to reconcile the first claim with Joe Simon’s comment in the recent interview with Jim Amash that “We didn’t do any coloring. Once in a while we’d make a color guide for cover art”. As for the second claim, this was from the period when Jack had started freelancing. Color guides were done on silverprints made from the original art. This was before Xerox and the other photocopiers provided cheap and quick copies. The logistics of Kirby bringing his art into the office, returning days later to pick up the silverprints, and then returning once again with the completed color guides, well it all seems too much effort for the lower rates offered to colorists as compared to pencils. The third claim is very puzzling. The Super Comics reprints of Bulls-eye were not colored the same as the originals. It seems absurd that Kirby would accept the very low rates Waldman had to offer to provide color guides at the time when Jack along with Stan Lee were creating the Marvel universe and he was getting much better page rates. That Theakston insists on these claims indicates that his methodology for determining Kirby Kolors is seriously flawed to say the least. How could it be possible to judge his other Kirby Kolor attributions where such independent evidence is not available?

As I remarked in my previous post I feel there is a case to be made that four of the Foxhole covers may have been Kirby Kolors. Unfortunately those cover are so different from any other comics that I do not see a way to use them to help recognize any other coloring that Kirby may have done. Simon’s interview statement suggests that like many myths there may be a core of truth to Kirby Kolors. However I do not believe there is enough evidence from the Simon and Kirby period to provide guidance to that effort to find that truth. Evidence that my previous post’s theme of the canals of Mars indicates is required. Perhaps someday an intrepid scholar will be able to found a way around this conundrum but at this time it escapes me.

Joe Simon Interview and Captain America

As many of my readers probably already know, there is a lengthy interview of Joe Simon conducted by Jim Amash in the latest issue of Alter Ego (#76). I am sure it is the longest Simon interview ever published and it is filled with information that Joe has never previously revealed. In short it is the best Joe Simon interview ever, by a long shot. What I particularly appreciate is how Amash has managed to reveal the real Joe Simon, at least as I know him. Joe is a natural and entertaining story teller and that is a side no other interviewer has ever managed to bring out. My hat is off to Jim Amash, great job!

Captain America Comics #1
Captain America Comics #1 (March 1941) “The Riddle of the Red Skull” page 13, art by Jack Kirby

The interview is accompanied by lots of great art, although on that subject I am certainly biased. Long time readers of this blog will already have been familiar with some of it but it is nice to see even those in print. There is an image I would like to comment on, one from the Captain America #1 described as “a photocopy of the original art”. Technically that is a completely accurate description, but nonetheless I fear that it might be misleading. I wish I could say that Joe still had any original art from Cap #1; it would be quite valuable today. I am pretty confident that all the actual art from Captain America #1 has been forever lost. The source of the Alter Ego image was a flat that Joe did save. The term flat may confuse some because Joe uses it in the interview as a name for magazines printed on non-glossy paper. In the context that I am using it now, a flat is a proof made during the construction of a comic. It is an image of four pages of the comic book arranged as they will be printed on a single sheet of paper. The images of each of the four pages were made from the original art without any colors. As such, flats are the next best thing to the long perished original art. Obviously both Joe and Jack must have known that there was something special about Captain America #1 because they both saved flats from that issue and that issue alone. Joe’s collection does not contain any other flats until some of those published in making Mainline comics (from 1954). In the sixties Jack sold his Cap #1 flats to Marvel for use in their reprint “Captain America, the Classic Years.” Those flats have been the basis for all the reprints Marvel has made since of the first issue of Captain America. Since modern printing technology is much superior to that used at the time for publishing Captain America #1, you can see better reproductions of the line art by purchasing one of Marvel’s reprint today then you would get by spending thousands of dollars for an original issue.

Kirby Kolor, A Kirby Myth

Foxhole #2
Foxhole #2 (December 1954), art by Jack Kirby

Giovanni Virginio Schiaparelli, an Italian astronomer and a careful observer, drew maps of Mars in the early 20th century. Surprisingly they showed straight lines crossing the surface. Later the American Percival Lowell repeated and improved on Schiaparelli’s observations. These linear lines were called canals. Some used the term just as a convenience while others felt that they really were artificial water conduits. The maps these scientists drew would be used in textbooks until the robotic probes arrived to provide high resolution photographs. These photographs showed that not only were there no artificial canals on Mars, the linear features mapped by Schiaparelli and Lowell could not be found at all.

When prehistoric cave wall paintings were discovered in France and Spain they posed a significant dating problem. Because they existed on walls, the usual dating techniques of archeologists could not be applied. After much study, some scientists proposed a relative chronology based on the art style. Basically crude paintings and engravings were considered the oldest remains, paintings only using black followed, and then color art with more complicate perspectives were considered as done in the final period. Not everyone agreed with the proposal, but to most scientists it seemed very reasonable. However in the 1990’s some new caves were discovered which could be dated accurately. The art made use of color and perspective that by the old scheme would have put it in the final period. Surprising the dating showed the art was created from a very early period instead.

I could provide further examples where reputable experts have made observations that in the end were shown to be completely false. You would think that experts would dispel false claims, not generate them. What gives? Humans, and that includes experts, have an amazing ability to recognize patterns. No computer has ever been able to match man in this capability. Unfortunately there is one important flaw in our skill; we find patterns even when none exist. This has been scientifically demonstrated over and over. People will find patterns in randomly generated numbers, or even flips of a coin. People are particularly susceptible to false patterns when they already suspect they are there. This is why Percival Lowell was able to “confirm” Giovanni Schiaparelli’s Martian canals. Experts are as prone to this difficulty as anyone else. But how can one distinguish between valid patterns and false ones? What is needed is independent evidence. Without such evidence, all “observed” patterns should be treated with skepticism.

Foxhole #3
Foxhole #3 (February 1955), art by Jack Kirby

It is just that sort of skepticism that is called for on the subject of Kirby Kolors. This is a belief, shared by a surprising number of experts, that they can identify those stories and covers where Jack Kirby was the colorist. To date none of these experts have ever offered anything to back up their claims. The only justification advanced was the numerous works by Kirby they had studied. The only explanation as to what they looked for was vague talk of some colors such as salmon that Jack is said to have preferred.

In order to dispel these mysteries and arrive at an understanding of the true nature of Kirby Kolors, it is best to begin with a review of how comic book colors were created in those days. Comics, just like almost all color publications, were printed using CMYK inks. CMYK stands for the colors used; Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and blacK. Combining different amounts of these inks can provide a very wide range of colors. Inks are actually printed as pure colors but the perception of gradients is created by printing small dots that cover varying amounts of the paper. At that time comic books were printed on rather primitive presses where the low printing costs were more important then color accuracy. Therefore most coloring was done using fixed measures for each of the CMY inks; 0%, 25%, 50% and 100%. Theoretically it would be possible to include 75% as well but that measure was rarely used for comic book publication, I suspect that with the crude printing presses it would frequently fill in and become indistinguishable from 100%. Note that I indicated the comic color palette was formed by three inks (CMY) and I did not include K. Black is theoretically redundant; it can be made by using 100% of the three other inks (CMY). However inks are not perfect; mixing CMY inks does not usually create a rich black so a separate black ink is generally used instead. The black ink could also be used in the three different gradients but doing so does not actually generate any new colors since the various grays that are formed can also made with gradients of CMY inks. With three basic inks (CMY) and four gradients (0%, 25%, 50%, 100%) it is possible to create at most 48 distinct colors. Actually colorists usually did not use the entire palette, some would be considered too muddy. Ted Klein has a blog entry showing what he used to use for his coloring work. What is important is that the comic book colorist had a very limited set of colors to choose from. With all the comics that the abundant colorists worked on, there is can be no doubt that every color in the comic palette would have been used by numerous colorists. Pick any color from an old comics and a careful search through enough comics will show that a single artist would not likely be responsible for all of that color’s use. The idea that Kirby’s color guides can be identified by the use of salmon (50% Magenta) makes no sense. Salmon color can be found in a number of comics that Jack Kirby had no involvement with.

Chess has a small number of pieces yet they can be used to produce an incredible number of possible games. It is not a perfect analogy, but it does suggest that rather then trying to use a single color to identify a colorist you might be able to do so by identifying how different combinations of colors are employed. The more combinations that are used the more likely you could uniquely identify a colorist. The trick then becomes attaching certain color patterns to a particular artist. Unfortunately throughout the period of the Simon and Kirby collaboration comics did not provide credits identifying any of the colorist. Even afterwards when credits became more common, Jack Kirby was never identified as the colorist for any published comic book work. For such a prolific artist, there are surprisingly small numbers of colored works by Kirby. Most of the coloring Kirby did was for proposals and not actual comics and came after better printing methods were adopted and the older limited comic palette was abandoned. Joe Simon did do a lot of color work for the covers of Sick, however those covers were printed with the better printing presses used for standard magazines and therefore were not based on color guides nor did they use the limited comic book color palette.

Foxhole #4
Foxhole #4 (April 1955), art by Jack Kirby

Since there are no comic credits or color guides examples that can provide support of the Kirby Kolor notion, what about evidence provided by people who worked with Jack? Well there is such evidence but it is not supportive of this myth. Joe Simon has stated that in the deal Simon and Kirby struck with Prize Comics, they were responsible for putting together all the art of a comic and it was up to Prize to do handling the publication aspect. When asked about who did the color guides, Joe would always answer that was the publisher’s job. This means that all the financial burdens of producing the comic art fell on Joe and Jack. Simon and Kirby would only recover their expenses by their share of the profits when the issue was released. Under this arrangement the idea that Jack would proceed to create color guides without getting paid for it seems a bit ludicrous.

Foxhole #5
Foxhole #5 (July 1955), art by Jack Kirby

Most of what Simon and Kirby did after the war was for Prize comics, but not all of the it. Of particular interest for Kirby Kolors are the comics published by Mainline. Mainline was Joe and Jack’s own comic company and therefore at some level they were responsible for having color guides made. That is not to say Joe or Jack personally created the color guides, if Joe’s attitude about coloring is any example they probably handed this task to someone else. Simon’s collection still has a few color guides for some stories from a later period. When I asked him if he had done the coloring Joe replied that although he might at times color a cover he would never do so for a story. This remark has particular interest because of four extraordinary covers for Foxhole, a title started by Mainline and finished by Charlton. The coloring used on these four covers are very unusual, I do not recall every seeing anything like them elsewhere. Although the line art is incredible, the coloring plays an important part of what makes these four covers so successful. The Foxhole cover coloring is so good that one could suspect that they were not done by any ordinary colorist but could be the work of either Jack or Joe. These are the only examples where the myth of Kirby Kolors may have some validity, even then only if the bias is adopted that if it was artistically good Jack must have done it. Considering how much color work Joe has done later in his career and how little Jack did, this does not seem like a reasonable assumption. Even so, acceptance of the Foxhole covers as Kirby Kolors would not form the foundation for finding other examples, the dramatic coloring of the covers are not found anywhere else in the Simon and Kirby oeuvre, including the Foxhole interior stories.

I am not naive enough to believe that this post means the end of Kirby Kolors. Kirby fans are so enthusiastic that some want to credit Jack with whatever successes they can. Fans find support for these efforts from comic book experts. The experts in turn are so absorbed in finding connections and patterns in comic books that they fail to recognize the lesson of the canals of Mars.

Fletcher Hanks, Forgotten Genius?

I will be right up front about it, this post is about a comic book artist who has at best a tenuous connection to the subject matter of this blog, which is Simon and Kirby. There is a link to Simon and Kirby because some of the Fletcher’s work was published by Fox Comics from December 1939 to March 1941, which overlaps the period when Joe Simon was Fox’s editor (May to July 1940). As I am sure the reader will see, there really is little to suggest that there was any influence in either direction between Fletcher Hanks and Joe Simon or Jack Kirby.

Unless my readers have seen the recent book “I Shall Destroy All the Civilized Planets!” edited by Paul Karasik, I suspect they will be wondering who the heck is Fletcher Hanks? That certainly was my reaction when I first saw Karasik’s book. As mentioned above, Hanks worked during the early years of the comic book industry, and he did so only on backup stories for smaller publishers. None of the features he created and worked on every achieved anything close to prominence. That explains the forgotten from the title for this post, but the genius part? Well Paul Karasik has described Hanks as “utter, utter genius”, a “visionary genius” and “one of the greatest cartoonists of the 20th century”. High praise indeed, but is it justified?

Fantastic #6
Fantastic Comics #6 (May 1940) The Super Wizard Stardust page 2, by Fletcher Hanks

At a glance, Fletcher’s work might be overlooked as just another of the numerous artists who plied their trade during the earlier part of the golden age of comic. Like many of these artists, Hanks drawing is crude with minimal background detailing. This is a misleading impression, a more careful examination reveals with startling and haunting imagery. A giant spider attaching an elephant, the human race rocketing into space as earth’s gravity has been disabled, a superheroine’s beautiful face transforming into one with hideous skull like features. Again and again Hanks shows a vision that is startling and unique. Some of his other forgotten peers have their moments, but none of them as consistent as Fletcher Hanks.

Fantastic #7
Fantastic Comics #7 (June 1940) The Super Wizard Stardust page 2, by Fletcher Hanks

Even the stories Hanks presents are different form others of the period. The standard hero plot could be summarized as bad guys start executing some diabolical plot, the good guy arrives to save the day and the hero leaves the defeated bad guys for the authorities to handle. Fletcher’s plot summary would be: the hero detects the bad guys plotting, the bad guys unleashed plans have devastating results until the hero arrives to save the day and personally submit the bad guys to some unusual punishment. Hanks’ plotting is therefore refreshingly different, but unfortunately his repetitious use dulls its effectiveness. Fletcher rigid adherence to this plot line sometimes becomes perplexingly illogical. In the Stardust feature the hero resides on a distant star so while his unique monitoring allows him detect the nefarious plots as they are being planned he must still travel great distances to reach earth. This explains why the evil plans are initiated before Stardust can arrive to set things right. Another of his features was Fantomah, Mystery Woman of the Jungle. She also seems able to detect the plans of evil doers, yet despite her great powers and more local presence never seems to stop those plans before they begin. Hanks’ commitment to his standard plot seems so steadfast that he is unable to avoid such illogical story lines. The only way Fletcher seems to be able to break out of his standard plot is when certain elements are simply not appropriate for his hero. One story in the book is about a lumberjack, for such a more human hero there can be no possibility of using special devices to overhear the villain’s planning, it would not be appropriate for the hero to use fantastic powers to overcome the enemy, nor should an unusual retribution play a part, and so Hanks’ lumberman story becomes the more standard hero plot.

Fantastic #8
Fantastic Comics #8 (July 1940) The Super Wizard Stardust page 2, by Fletcher Hanks

The features that constitute most of Fletcher Hanks’ oeuvre are the Stardust and Fantomah stories that were mentioned above. These heroes have such great powers that the defeat of the enemy is never in question. This was a problem with Superman as well, and once people see these superheroes can do, one wonders why any bad guy would even consider risking crossing their path. Stardust and Fantomah are so powerful that they are not really human but demigods instead. With such a godlike nature it is small wonder that they deal out punishment themselves. And what punishment, it would seem that Fletcher spent as much time devising the punishment as he did on the crime itself. The punishment becomes one of the most rewarding aspects of Hanks’ story telling.

There is much that I have praised about Fletcher Hanks in what I have written above, so do I consider him a genius? Not at all, not even close. I reserve my greatest praise for those who wield their art to provide things that amaze me and yet always seem to remain in control of their talent. For instance, Jack Kirby’s art seems fueled with a wild creative force that drives him to excellence. But no matter how close to the surface that wild urge comes, I always feel it is Jack in control of his creative force and not the other way around. This is not the case for Fletcher Hanks. Although some aspects of his art are very imaginative, for other things, such as his plotting, Hanks seems unable to break out of the most obvious constraints. Some of the impact his most startling illustrations is derived from the repeated use of certain elements. The minimalist artists have shown that such repetition can be visually very powerful. But such repetition also reminds me of the work of Charles Crumb, Robert’s brother. Charles’ work is disturbing, when viewed it is quickly apparent that it is the work of a disturbed mind. Charles Crumb’s use of repeating elements seem more the result of a compelling obsession rather then something that he had any control over. I find a similar effect, although to a lesser extent, in Fletcher Hanks’ art as well. Paul Karasik’s research has provided the clue to help with the explanation, Fletcher Hanks was an abusive alcoholic. I once knew a man with what I judge to have been a similar personality. The man’s abuse was never directed at me, almost certainly because my father was one of the few individuals he feared. The man I am recalling was not an artist but he had an amazing mind. When he was not in a mean mode he was a fascinating person to talk to. Some of his concepts were quite brilliant although perhaps not always true. Like Hanks, certain of his thinking seemed trapped in ways that I think were clear to others but I am sure he never truly understood. He could no more escape them then he could the alcohol that lead to so much misery for the people around him. Would I have made the association between Fletcher Hanks’ alcoholism and his art if Karasik had not revealed it? I do not know, but now that the link has been made I cannot banish it.

There is one aspect of Karasik’s comments about Hanks that really bothers me. Karasik puts much emphasis on the fact that Hanks’ did all the work himself; the writing, drawing, inking and lettering. He is critical of the “assembly line” method he ascribes to most of comic book work where these different jobs were executed by different individuals. This concept that all the truly great artists are those who create the work by themselves can be found in the fine arts as well, but it is by no means a universal opinion. Although I recognize the importance an artist own hand may bring to a work of art, I am unwilling to limit my esteem to such art. To do so would mean rejecting things such as Japanese wood block prints or even Renaissance painting. What bothers me is not so much as the difference of opinion about this subject between Karasik and myself, as much as how it demonstrates Karasik’s ignorance of comic book history. The fact is during the time Hanks worked on comics it was not at all unusual for the creator to perform all creative aspects. At the start of the boom that followed the release of Superman with Action Comics #1, it was the norm for an artist to write, draw, ink and letters a story himself. The earliest work by Jack Kirby or Joe Simon was done this way as well. The only difference for Fletcher was that he was not working in comics afterwards when the single writer/artist became the exception not the rule.

I may not consider Fetcher Hanks a genius, but I agree with Karasik that his work should not be enjoyed as some sort of campy entertainment. It is powerful stuff and quite worthy of being read. Karasik has done a great service in raising Fletcher Hanks from forgotten obscurity, I fully recommend “I Shall Destroy All the Civilized Planets”. At $20 it is a steal, the original comics are so rare that I doubt you could find a single one of them, no matter how beat up, at that price. The contents are not at all cheap. The stories are nicely restored scans from original comics using a technique to clean them up that is similar (if not identical) to the one I use. The results are printed on flat paper and are absolutely gorgeous. I think they are better done then the “Terry and the Pirates” reprint that I recently positively commented on. I have long felt that this was the way to reprint old comic material. I wonder if Marvel and DC will ever wake up abandon their method of bleaching and recoloring.

There is a special bonus found in this book, Paul Karasik provides an afterword about Fletcher Hanks. Not your ordinary afterword, but a graphic story instead about Karasik’s research of Fletcher Hanks and what he learns. It is a well written and drawn short story that is almost worth the price of the book by itself. Karasik has admitted to not being very productive but this afterword indicates that is not due to a lack of talent. I intend to try to locate some of his earlier efforts and hope he exerts himself more as a graphic storyteller in the future.

Really Bad Clowns

20th Century Danny Boy has been on a roll lately providing a series of interviews with assorted comic book artists. His latest is Alan Kupperberg. I have to admit there is a rather large period from when I stopped reading comics as a young man until I started with them once again. Some of what happened in between I have since picked up on, some of it I am still ignorant about. I have heard of Evil Clown comics but have no first hand experience with them. Frankly I find some of the art that Danny provides somewhat offensive (so be forewarned) but there is no denying Kupperberg’s talent.

The idea of a (morally) bad clown was not new, others have used it as well. There is something about the juxtaposition of a funny costume and an evil nature. It was not a big part of the Simon and Kirby repertoire, but Joe and Jack did use it. And of course anything that Simon and Kirby did, they did very well indeed.

Green Hornet #7
Green Hornet #7 (June 1942), art by Jack Kirby and Joe Simon

I am thinking particularly about the cover for Green Hornet #7 (June 1942) that Joe and Jack did for Harvey Comics. I have already posted on this cover but Danny’s blog has brought it back to mind. This was a joint effort, Jack did most of the pencils but Joe drew the large floating head. The signature says Jon Henri, but do not let that fool you. Henry is Joe Simon’s middle name and Joe was so fond of the name Jon that he gave it, with that unusual spelling, to his first son. I am still uncertain about who did the inking, but my suspicions are that it was done by Al Avison. I like my original description of this piece of art so I am just going to repeat it.

I love the way Simon and Kirby make a cover tell a story. The Green Hornet is rushing to attach a killer clown. If the clown carrying a wicked knife wasn’t enough, the lady on the lower level carries a newspaper with headlines that are hard to make out completely but clearly includes “CLOWN … CRIMINAL …”. Behind her is a fallen policeman, his gun laying at his side, clearly the Green Hornet will be taking on one tough clown. The press above is printing the front page for the latest edition declaring “DIES IN ELECTRIC CHAIR” with a picture of the clown, obviously printed ahead of time because the clown escaped before facing his execution. The Green Hornet had better be careful because this clown has nothing to loose.

Poking Fun at Adolf

Captain America #2
Captain America #2 (April 1941) “Trapped in the Nazi Stronghold”, art by Jack Kirby

Simon and Kirby really hit it big with Captain America. I am sure an important reason about why it became such a large selling comic was the cover. The U.S. was not yet in the war but there were still many who could appreciate a depiction of Captain America slugging Adolp Hitler. What fictional villain could compare with the evil of the all too real Hitler? But brute force was not the only means that Simon and Kirby would use to take Hitler down a peg or two, humor was used as well. It should be obvious from the image above that S&K portrayed Hitler as somewhat of a buffoon.

Speed Comics #16
Speed #16 (January 1942), art by Al Avison

Of course once Hitler graced the pages of Simon and Kirby comics, other artists would use Adolf as well. Al Avison had a special advantage, he was one of the crew working for Joe at Timely. Al even drew some Captain America stories. Avison’s efforts never made it into Cap comics, they were recycled as the Patriot in USA #1. (Other then Kirby, the only artist to draw Captain America in the early issues was Simon.) Avison also did some work for Harvey Comics and you tell he learned a lot from Jack. For the cover of Speed #16 Al provides Hitler leading an attack on the White House. Armed with a gun, four rifles and four swords, Avison has also makes Hitler out to be a buffoon. But Avison has overplayed his hand, Adolf and his army are so ridiculous that they hardly seem a threat to Captain Freedom.

Adventure #83
Adventure #83 (February 1943) house ad at the end of a Sandman story, by Jack Kirby

Just because Joe and Jack left Timely and Captain America does not mean that they stopped making fun of Adolf Hitler. Far from it. The original Axis of Evil was jokingly portrayed in a house ad for the Boy Commandos. Only four panels but that is all S&K need. I guess the Axis leaders were the original Three Stooges.

Joe Simon
Sketch for George Roussos by Joe Simon (1942)

The above sketch is one of the reasons I have been thinking of Adolf Hitler lately. It is undated but it was from the same George Roussos sketch book that included a drawing by Jack Kirby dated as 1942. Further Joe would shortly be joining the Coast Guard during which I doubt that Roussos would have the opportunity to have Joe add something to his sketch book.

George Roussos was not only a talented artist, he was also an early fanboy. He had some of the greatest talents of the day provide drawings for his book. What a treasure it was. I say was because it recently has been disassembled and the individual pages auctioned off. It is a shame that it was not published before it was taken apart. If you are willing to register with Heritage Auction Galleries you can see the work by searching their Auction Results Archives under original art for George Roussos. Joe’s entry is not dated, but it must have been done about the same time as Jack’s, 1942.

Joe Simon has his own particular brand of visual humor of which this is a very early example. What could be more incongruous then Adolf Hitler in a Zoot suit? Where did he every come up with that? I have no idea. But this sort of irreverent humor would show up again when Joe produced the Mad-close magazine called Sick. In fact it still shows up in the art that he produces today.

I remember years ago someone criticizing Mel Brooks for his movie The Producers. They asked me how anyone could find something funny in Adolf Hitler. Make no mistake about it, Hitler was a monster, the most evil person of our century. We should never forgive or forget the horrible things he did. That however is not enough. There are people who will try to praise Hitler for some of those very awful things. So we must add ridicule on top of our scorn. That is something Joe Simon still understands very well.

Joe Simon’s Correct Age

Mark Evanier wrote a nice post about Joe Simon’s birthday. But Mark got it wrong when he gave Joe’s age as 92. Well let me set the story straight, Joe is now 94 years young. When I last talked to Joe he commented:

I’m telling everybody that I am 95. I mean what kind of number is 94? No, 95 is a much better number. I’m going to say I’m 95.

Is it any wonder that people get confused about Joe’s age? I love Joe, but I always try to remember he favorite piece of advice:

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.