Back to Kirby -- he encouraged people to find their own "voice". He understood that characters he had created but did not own would be continued beyond his involvement, but he questioned why any writer or artist would want to do so. Why they would not want to find their own, new territory to explore. It leaves little doubt as to what he would think of artists who deliberately mimicked his distinctive style. One can picture him chomping his cigar and asking "What's the point?"

To answer your question, when asked whether someone should continue writing Nero Wolfe novels after his death, Stout responded with "They should roll their own." So, no; in his view, his characters would die with him.

As far as what I have read goes, I agree with your assessment of Kirby and how he felt other artists should proceed. However, he was thinking creatively and professionally. What Kirby failed to recognized, as did Stout, was that his creations would acquire a life of their own and would garner a fair amount of affection from the public.

Stout's creations, for whatever reasons, are very close to my heart. Having someone continue their existence (albeit in a superficial way) was a salve. I guess it was a bit like what a holodeck would provide in the Star Trek universe: hollow copies of the orignals which are in some minds better than nothing.

This is what Scioli does for me. Sure, it's hollow new Kirby material, but it's better than no new Kirby material.

Where a "pastiche" of this sort would infuriate me is if it took things in a direction that violated the creator's line of thinking for the creations. Doing Kirby porn, for example.

Question for John:

Would YOU welcome the advent of someone continuing the adventures of your creations beyond your existence? If so, would you leave a roadmap behind?

I'm asking because I wanna see how Next Men turn out before I kick ... and neither one of us is getting any younger.

Mark Haslett wrote: How many people draw in the 70s Kirby style?  Two? It wouldn't matter if there are a thousand, that wouldn't make him a genre.

Then does it take to make something a genre?  Or a sub-genre?  I figure if there's a lot of people writing and drawing in Kirby's 70s style, then we've got a new sub-genre on our hands.  What better than to name this new sub-genre after the guy who started it?

That a lot of people with their own styles and identities adapt that style when they want to tell Kirby style stories - wll, that just lends credence to Kirby as a genre.

QUOTE: Kirby is a Titan in comics and no one compares to him.  Genre is simply a different thing.  You wouldn't file Kirby superhero comics on a separate shelf to avoid confusing people.  He always worked within clear genres.  His work epitomized genres, blended genres, stretched genres, advanced genres-- but it did not invent new genres and it cannot possibly be considered a genre unto itself (Rawhide Kid, Hulk, The Demon and the Eternals are all the same genre?).

I have absolutely no problem calling Eternals, New Gods, Kamandi, Demon, Devil Dinosaur, 2001, Captain Victory, Mr. Miracle and Forever People the same genre:  Kirby Fantasy.  These books aren't much like anything that came before, and there are people out there now trying to do work in that style (again with both writing and artwork). 

Once more I ask, what does it take to become a genre, or at least a sub-genre? Can you refuse that it's out there just because you think it is a bad idea?

The industry needs more individuals and fewer clones.

Excellent comment! It seems that every popular artist suddenly generates a wave of 'followers'.

Oops, off topic, sorry <g>.

And it needs more people writing and drawing new creations instead of continuing the adventures of Batman and the X-Men and the like.  I'm extremely excited for Citizen Zero.

It also needs more people buying that stuff.

QUOTE: "Saying Kirby-imitator sounds as if we are guessing his intent. " I'm saying there's no reason to consider him anything but a Kirby-imitator. His style is too close to Kirby to be completely accidental, it falls into line with the art of people who admit to imitating Kirby intentionally, and even if he didn't cop to imitating Kirby intentionally (which I thought he did, but I may be wrong) our presumption should be that he is intentionally imitating Kirby.

It's hard to explain the appeal of something that you find appealing. The world he depicts in his art is alive. It's 3-d. It moves. No one else's art does for me what Kirby's does. Everything else looks limp and flat by comparison. He found a new way of doing things. I want to follow his lead. I think he found a way of drawing that is the optimal way of drawing for sci-fi comic book epic storytelling. There isn't one aspect of his style that I'd want to ignore.

Judging from that quote it seems to me he's admitting he's drawing in Kirby's style or trying to.  In his view, there is no other (or better) way to draw si-fi and superheroes.

Once more I ask, what does it take to become a genre, or at least a sub-genre? Can you refuse that it's out there just because you think it is a bad idea?

****

If you want to use the word "genre" in a new way to create the "Kirby genre" then have at it.  Genre can be used to describe artistic style (although that isn't how it's used in comics).  We might invent the "Kirby sub-genre: work done in the style of Jack Kirby".  Doesn't that basically slap a label on something which already has a label: imitation?  Suddenly anybody's a genre?  What's the point?

If, on the other hand, you mean what does it take to become a genre that stands as a new category alongside the others which exist, that's a whole 'nother thing.  Rawhide Kid is a western.  2001 was sci-fi.  Calling them the same genre is simply wrong.  For the sake of argument, if you wanted to put that stuff all under one "Kirby" umbrella, then what makes someone who wants to draw/write like Kirby automatically worthy of being in the same genre?  Is the desire to imitate enough or does it have to be somewhere near as good?  Again, what's the point? 

Must the Kirby imitations have a fancy label in order for one to enjoy them?  They are what they are without the label and giving one to them simply washes away the tricky issues that should be front-and-center when one artist chooses to adopt the stylings of someone as accomplished and revered as Jack Kirby.

Creator owned, no. Stuff done for somebody else, sure. Roadmap -- maybe. Tho I found they have been largely ignored when I have offered them.

Said "affection" not extending to respect for the author's wishes?