Fantastic Four: TWGCM >> View Post
Post By
Count Dante

Location: Ad Pages in Old Comics
Member Since: Wed Aug 21, 2013
Posts: 3,215
In Reply To
Chris Tolworthy

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 3,423
Subj: A few points of contention....part 1
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 at 07:48:18 am EST (Viewed 159 times)
Reply Subj: 200 page analysis of Fantastic Four issue 1
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 at 07:46:25 am EST (Viewed 249 times)

Previous Post

You may not like the title. Sorry guys, but after writing the book this was the only thing I could possibly call it:

Since the late 1990s I've had a rather large FF web site. But I haven't added much over the past couple of years. The reason is, the more I focus on the things I love about the FF, the more I realise that what I REALLY like is Jack Kirby's FF. And I see the story continuing in his other work (the FF is the Challengers, and I think the characters continue in his later books, with changes just for legal reasons)

I love the FF stories where Kirby was involved. And I hated the changes that Lee made as soon as he was solo writer: immediately getting rid of Crystal; making Sue weaker; replacing change with the illusion of change so Franklin would never grow up, or do anything interesting; recycling old plots - Galactus, creature from the lost lagoon, etc... I admit that I am hopelessly biased, but for my tastes, everything that Kirby added made the team wonderful and exciting and ground breaking and just amazing. And for me, everything Lee added, for me, went the other way.

I feel like a real heel just writing that. A party pooper. After all, isn't Stan Lee at the heart of what makes comics silly fun? Maybe I'm just too serious. But I love Kirby's sense of humour, I love his dialog in his own comics (it's a real change of gears but when I "got it" I never wanted to go back to Lee's style). Lee just doesn't do it for me.

Anyway, click the link at your own risk! If you can get past my obvious negativity toward Lee, hopefully you'll find some interesting stuff. And if nothing else, maybe it's a warning to future generations, not to take comics too seriously.

PDF version (recommended):

web version (if you have a slow Internet connection):

Thanks for reading!

Page 33:

You state:

Strong, independent women are generally considered a sign of good writing. Or at least modern writing.

Being progressive or feminist has nothing to do with the quality of one's writing.  A sexist pig can be an excellent writer - but perhaps an awful person. 

I think you could say it is a sign of "modern thinking" in context to the era Kirby created it in. But that doesn't make Kirby or anyone else who thinks this way a good writer. 

The truth is, sex sells, and Lee, regardless of what we may think of him, was a talented marketer on some level.  Kirby portrayed women as strong, but Lee liked them feminine - and so did a lot of comic readers, who, at the time, were mostly male.  Together, Lee and Kirby eventually achieved a balance between both traits I believe.

Was Lee really a writer?  Perhaps.  I always thought of him as a clever editor. A polisher.  His super-power may have been his ability to tweak things to make them resonate with readers.  One would really need to analyze something he both created and wrote to get a sense of how good or not Lee was as a writer. To write is to create - and Kirby was a rich mine of creativity.  But Kirby could be a bit raw too - and Lee's diamond cutting and polishing skills certainly contributed to success in that time. 

Do we know which comics Lee wrote solo? That would be interesting to analyze.  Creating from scratch a far cry from modifying other's works.

"Deadliest Comic Book Reader Alive!"
Posted with Google Chrome 61.0.3163.100 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software