What I'd like to know is where-in lies the harm of GODLAND and the notion of Kirby's world, not his art, as a genre?

Definition of genre: –noun

1.	a class or category of artistic endeavor having a particular form, content, technique, or the like: the genre of epic poetry; the genre of symphonic music.

dictionary.com...

I don't think it's horseshit to point to Kirby's post-Silver Age work as a genre, since nothing else like it existed. So specific and unique to Kirby was this brand of story-telling.

Does GODLAND sell on its own merits, or the merits of Kirby's art?

Frankly, the comparisons of Scioli's work to Kirby's art don't hold water, for me...the art isn't the issue, the style of the story-telling IS the issue. It's right there in your hands. Casey's whimsical scripts combine with art that looks like Kirby if Kirby was a classic car welded together and unpainted; slightly misshapen and definitely culled together. You can call it Kirby, or you can call it GODLAND and leave it at that. I haven't seen one...not ONE instance of a direct panel swipe (body posture homages from well-known panels from Kirby) in ANY of Scioli's art in the whole series. I attribute this to Scioli being more interested in the dynamics of Kirby art than the Kirby art itself.

When I "returned" to comics in the early part of the new century, it was through HELLBOY, and the very very VERY specific nature of the Kirby design of the titular character and supporting characters. Mike Mignola revealed, sub-textually, that Kirby's Ben Grimm, the Demon, and Orion of the New Gods had substance beyond the panel walls separating them. Fused together, they become Hellboy, a hero dipped in Gene Colan's shadow-world. Mignola doesn't have to speak of the genesis...his work speaks for itself. But without Kirby, Hellboy does not exist. The Goon does not exist. The Moth does not exist. Adam Archer does not exist. At least, not as they exist...

I don't see how anyone gets "offended" by GODLAND...worse, how people can't see that GODLAND is criticized or lauded for its Kirby content, when it's a thematic problem; GODLAND decided that the Kirby output of the 1970s, Cosmic Kirby, was a genre that could incorporate all kinds of stories. I'd be really offended if Joe Casey had decided that, indeed, GODLAND is in direct accordance with Kirby's intellectual properties, "aping" his story style, his dialogue, in order to "reflect" it and in so doing parrot it. GODLAND's whimsy, decidedly "modern", eschews those comparisons; if GODLAND was drawn by Eric Powell or Steve Rude, the Kirby style would still be commented on, but no one would be enraged with indignation over the very particular, specific genre of GODLAND as it's connected to Kirby's 1970s Eternals/New Gods/2001/Cap and the Falcon output.

If Tom Scioli does Kirby "badly", I can only say I see an artist whose youth and inexperience might not stand up to scrutiny. An inker more appropriate for him might help immensely, a real inker, a Joe Rubinstein, a Joe Sinnott (I'd like to get Sinnott's opinion on Scioli's output, both critical of the thematic drive and the actual art itself). But everything I've read from the guy indicates he's a humble cat, not some puffed-up pretender with delusions of artistic triumph. And GODLAND itself, at its very least, is a book that deserves to be evaluated before the next suck-fest of DC's weekly crap or X-Men or ALL-STAR blab.

To me genres are abstractions of the real world. Murder-mystery stories reflect (or distort) what goes on with real murders. Even fantasy has to draw from real history. Kirby as a genre is sort of like an abstraction of an abstraction, and we already have too much of that going on in superhero comics.

John Byrne said:

Source?

And -- most curious here. If you take offense over what you apparently
see as Marvel's misuse of a character they own, where is your like, or
perhaps even greater offense, at this post-mortem usurping of Kirby's
distinctive style. A use, we can deduce, of which Kirby would most
definitely not approve?

Most likely the Jack Kirby collector which is soon to publish his 50th issue. Or again several other trade articles. I'd like to have the source myself but will not spend the time at it. If I do come across the reference and it comes from a source that will pass what I believe is your acid test I will be delighted to pass it along.

And I am not taking offense. But let's be clear about what we are discussing here: ownership is a legal concept not a moral concept.

If GM had a formula for running their cars on water they don't have to release this to the public legally but they should morally. Medical specialitst have the legal right to treat whoever can pay their bills but should really treat anyone who suffers from ills they could cure.

The Stout estate is in the legal position to continue the adventures of Nero Wolfe, but do they owe a moral right to the author?

I don't see where I said that Marvel misused the Silver Surfer. What I said is that Stan leveraged his position as editor to impose his vision on a character that Kirby had created. It was his legal right but not his moral right. While I applaud the results of the Lee-Kirby co-plotting team I'm not always impressed by the results of the Lee-editing-Kirby combo.

Imagine how much more damage Claremont would have done had he been writer and editor when you two collaborated on X-Men. I doubt you would have stood that for very long.

I grant you that Kirby would not approve of people aping his distinctive style ... unless his family would somehow benefit from it. So, Kirby would be irritated in the moral sense but pleased in the financial sense.

Personally, I've learned not to put too much philosophical effort dissecting matters that revolve around the almighty dollar. Money is a tool like a hammer or a computer, but it is too often indulged in as a fetish.

And, for all the love I have for Jack's work, he started laying claim for the return of his artwork when he finally perceived its monetary value ... not because he felt the artwork morally belonged to him. When he was running his own company with Joe Simon in the 50's, he didn't return artwork either.

Kirby telling other, lesser creators "why don't you create your own characters?" is like the rich guy telling the poor guy "why don't you make your own money?". In terms of his ability to whip out characters and concepts Kirby had a Dickensian ability which he failed to recognize. He must have figured that anyone could do it with enough elbow grease thrown in.

Which is something you fail to realize as well, John. Your ability to visualize a page in your mind before it starts to leak out on the page is something you just toss off, as if the rest of us could do the same thing by working hard at it.

Wrong.

Chad is absolutely right - there is no harm in Tom Scioli's work. Nor is there any harm in enjoying his work. He's certainly not hurting Jack Kirby's legacy in any way -- in fact, his entire audience probably consists entirely of die-hard Kirby fans.

Some folks love nostalgia. There are plenty of 1980s cover bands that recreate classic pop songs in exact detail. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. Heck, I'm a pretty nostalgic guy myself.

I find the description of Kirby as a "genre" to be clumsy and impractial. 
I think it's better descirbed as a specific and significant stylistic direction or artistic "school" in comics. But mostly it's the essential, underlying characteristics of Kirby's work that are worth emulating. The way he makes his work so dynamic and powerful, his way of framing the action and composing an action scene etc. Many artists manage to learn those aspects of his work without superficially copying his exact style. Kirby is a great place to start, but you have to bring yourself into it, transform the artistic principles to express your own artistic sensibilities.

The issues of Godland I read were straining to emulate the creative genius of Kirby. And I felt that they were losing a bit because I didn't feel the core, visceral  idea that always seemed apparent even in Kirby's most outlandish concepts.

Kirby was bursting at the seams because the world could not contain him. Scioli, it seemed to me, was running all over the place trying to occupy as much space as Kirby did when standing still. (bit of a strained metaphor there.)

Not saying it was bad, but the closer you try to get to Kirby, the more obvious the failures become.