Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 68 Next >>
Topic: What constitutes a swipe? (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133560
Posted: 22 February 2008 at 7:10am | IP Logged | 1  

As a big Nero Wolfe fan, I welcomed Robert Goldsborough's pastiches because they furthered the adventure's of Wolfe and Goodwin. In some of the novels, Goldsborough actually wrote in Rex Stout's "voice" which is what I wanted him to do and I suspect most other fans would agree. Did Goldsborough swipe Stout?

••

Here's a question, tho -- did Rex Stout intend that the Nero Wolfe stories be continued beyond his direct involvement with them? Arthur Conan Doyle gave his blessings (albeit in a backhanded way) to those who continued the adventures of Sherlock Holmes, but many authors make the assumption -- so implicit as to not even be conscious -- that their characters would "die" with them.

This is not to say there is any kind of hard and fast rule. I have buzzing around the back of my mind, my own sequel to H.G. Wells' "War of the Worlds", for instance, and maybe I will even get it onto paper some day. (It includes none of Wells' characters, except the Martians, and those in a general way.) But often the "pastiches", especially of public domain characters, go deep into regions we know the original authors did not intend -- S&M versions of "The Wizard of Oz" for instance. Pornography with characters from "Alice in Wonderland" and "Peter Pan".

It seems there is a great gulf between a continuation of something that attempts to capture the original author's "voice", and "continuations" that are exercises in self-indulgence by the modern interpreters. In the end, are either truly desirable?

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?"

Back to Top profile | search
 
Jesus Garcia
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 April 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 2414
Posted: 22 February 2008 at 7:44am | IP Logged | 2  

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.



Edited by Jesus Garcia on 22 February 2008 at 7:48am
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jesus Garcia
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 April 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 2414
Posted: 22 February 2008 at 7:54am | IP Logged | 3  

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.



Edited by Jesus Garcia on 22 February 2008 at 7:55am
Back to Top profile | search
 
Trevor Giberson
Byrne Robotics Chronology
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 1888
Posted: 22 February 2008 at 9:15am | IP Logged | 4  

 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?

 

Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Woronchak
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 04 September 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1631
Posted: 22 February 2008 at 9:25am | IP Logged | 5  

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>.

Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
Posted: 22 February 2008 at 9:28am | IP Logged | 6  

alot of artist drew in the Kirby style. But if i recall correctly it was because they were told to do so because Kirby sells.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Trevor Giberson
Byrne Robotics Chronology
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 1888
Posted: 22 February 2008 at 9:39am | IP Logged | 7  


 QUOTE:

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.



Edited by Trevor Giberson on 22 February 2008 at 10:10am
Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Nickel
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 July 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 132
Posted: 22 February 2008 at 10:29am | IP Logged | 8  

Can't wait for Citizen Zero!
Back to Top profile | search
 
Paulo Pereira
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 April 2006
Posts: 15539
Posted: 22 February 2008 at 10:42am | IP Logged | 9  


 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.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6509
Posted: 22 February 2008 at 10:45am | IP Logged | 10  

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? 

Whether I think it's a good idea or not doesn't enter into it.  This "genre" is not happening.  There aren't a thousand guys writing/drawing like Kirby from the '70s.  That Erik lists Trimpe and Smith, pencilers who were drawing in their own distinctive styles before 1971, shows the dearth of such work. 

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.

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133560
Posted: 22 February 2008 at 10:53am | IP Logged | 11  

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

••

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

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133560
Posted: 22 February 2008 at 10:54am | IP Logged | 12  

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.

••

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

Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 68 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login