Scans of original art are from the Kirby Museum's Original Art Digital Archive.
Scans of pencil art photocopies for the Kirby Museum's Pencil Art Photocopy Archive courtesy of the Kirby Family, with thanks to TwoMorrows Publishing.
Please do not copy any images or content from this site without permission.
Okay--I almost feel like I want to fix this for Jack. The foreground figure that's being carried is misproportioned. The arms of the victim are way too short. His arms should reach to the bottom of the page.
What I noticed first was the fingers on that arm. They're flat.
Yeah--don'tcha know?--that's "flat fingers Finnegan"
Here's hoping "In the Days of the Mob" is around the corner and that they publish the stuff that was unpublished in both publications. That would be sweet.
According Amazon pre-order, it'll be 108 pgs and it'll cost $26.
108 pages, eh? the original publication wasn't 108 pages was it? That has to be added material. Could it be the unpublished stuff finally getting printed?
"Amazon lists it as 108 pages long. Since it was a 52 page magazine, I'm guessing the stories that were prepared for later issues (and then used in DC's "mystery" books) will be included."
I don't have the original magazine, so it'll be a great opportunity to discover the published and unpublished stuff for first time...
Thanks for the heads up, Ferran.
This release is only Spirit World so no In the Days of the Mob. I hope they publish a similar book for the 2 issues of ITDOTM.
If the Spirit World book includes both issues and they are 52 pages this makes sense. DC published issue 1 inked by Colletta. Issue 2 was produced but never fully published. Some stories as you mentioned were in DC comics like Weird Mystery Tales and The Forbidden Tales of Dark Mansion. These were inked by Mike Royer and in the case of The Psychic Blood-Hound story, laid out by Kirby and penciled and inked by Royer. There were other stories that I don't think were ever published. Again I assume these would complete the second issue's 52 page count. Can't wait to see it and find out but a long wait...April of 2012! And I preordered :)
I recall Mark Evanier saying, a couple comicons backs, that eventually EVERYTHING Jack ever did for DC will see print. So, Mob, Dingbats, Divorce you name it! Only a matter of time.
And the sooner the better! Because even those unfinished books are pure gold!!
...but you guys are way off. The proportions and perspective are deliberately distorted in this picture to suit the composition. Even the hands holding the legs in the foreground are a little too big -- but it just doesn't matter. Jack is subverting EVERYTHING here to suit the composition and TELL THE STORY -- WITH MAXIMUM DRAMATIC IMPACT. And it works like crazy! Just look at the RAW POWER of this illo! What was your reaction when you first laid eyes on this page? I know what mine was: "WOW!" Well, I can pretty much guarantee that was the reaction Kirby was after! And he achieved that reaction without sacrificing his storytelling one iota! And Tom, you're being critical because Jack drew some flat fingers?! Come on, when did he NOT draw flat fingers?? Sorry guys, this page is friggin' amazing. FIVE STARS all the way!
That SPIRIT WORLD reprint should be awesome! Let's hope they do MOB as well, with both issues included. I'd also LOVE to see a romance edition with TRUE DIVORCE CASES and SOUL LOVE reprinted in their entirety. I know most of those stories aren't finished, but that doesn't matter. They could get someone to finish them in a style similar to the work that's already been done, or just print them as is. Jack's uninked pencils are so gorgeous, I think a lot of people would buy the stuff even if the stories weren't inked!
...they could get Tom Kraft to re-create the unfinished pages and have guys like Mike Royer and Frank Fosco finish 'em off!
Alright John. I have no problem with the foreshortening and perspective or the flat fingers--that's Jack.My first reaction when I saw this page was, those arms are wrong. Unless the guy was being lifted up by the crook of the elbows, which he's not, then I would go along with you. As is, the crook of the arm/elbow when dangling down like that should be at the top of the head. This guys elbows start at his shoulders, he has no biceps. And that same dynamic that is there still could have been achieved if the arms were done right. I could show you if you want me to? Simple as sending me an e-mail through this site and I would get back to you.
That would be too good to be true.
Printing these days is so good that to see the stuff in graphite would be pretty sweet. Jack's pencils are a treat to behold.
John, I completely agree that Kirby used composition not anatomy to do his incredible storytelling. My first reaction was WOW when I saw this page. The museum had a printout. While I was looking at the museum's printout someone mentioned the fingers and I say hmmm thats true but what a great splash!
Anyway if you want to contact anyone through this site the person to contact will need to have that option checked in their profile. Its turned off automatically for privacy reasons. Simple to do, go under edit and Contact Settings and click the Personal contact form option.
Just because the arms aren't right doesn't mean I don't like it. Jack wasn't one to do a lot of erasing. It looks to me he had an idea in mind but then went in a different direction. Like he was meaning to have this guy lifted by the crook of his arms, inside his elbows--then there would have to of been another guys legs drawn in lifting this guy by the arms. That would have blocked out the car with the open trunk compromising the storytelling. Looks like that hand to the left was put in there just so we know somebody else is lifting this guy.
I see what you're saying about the arms, Frank, but if his right arm was hanging down as far as you proposed, it would have blocked out an important storytelling element -- the open trunk of the car -- almost as much as if there were someone's legs in there. And as Tom mentioned, Kirby's storytelling relies on composition more than perfectly accurate drawing. Jack is showing us the entire dead, dangling form of the gangster because he wants us to feel the full impact of the situation with our emotions, not dissect it with our minds.
I said that about the composition and the storytelling. If the arms were done the way (I think) they were meant to be, the car with the open trunk could have slid left and the storytelling would have stayed intact. But Jack didn't like erasing so he left it as is. It wasn't a matter of dissecting as much as when something is wrong it can be jarring. And I dare to say, I wonder if this makes the cut before publishing time--or if it is rejected--even by Jack. He has been known to redraw a page a time or two.
Hmmm...I doubt if it would have been rejected. Jack was his own editor at DC and I think if he was gonna reject one of his own pages he did it in the pencil stage, not after it was inked, because he would have had to pay Mike for an unused page. The only times I'm aware of any inked pages getting rejected were for page-count reasons, like that single page from DEMON #1 or that OMAC double-page spread. And since this page achieved the storytelling and dramatic heights that Kirby always aimed for, it's very unlikely he would have cast it aside because of a few minor (in my opinion) problems with the drawing. Also, it's unlikely that DC would have rejected it, since Infantino didn't reject any of Jack's interior pages that I'm aware of -- only covers. Of course, he did reject the ENTIRE ISSUE of TRUE DIVORCE CASES, but that was because he had a religious objection to divorce, not because of any quality issues. Too bad, too, because judging from what I've seen of TRUE DIVORCE, it was phenomenally good material. If anyone was offended by THAT, just imagine what they'd say about the stuff that's coming out NOW--!
I've never understood the controversy with Kirby's abstracted anatomy. As his style progressed, his human figures were rendered progressively more and more like architecture - so what? He always said in interviews he was working on making the most powerful storytelling images possible. What's more powerful than the sweeps and curves of architecture? I was just reading Kick Ass 2 and noticed that JR Jr. is moving in the same direction with presumably the same purpose... squared off fingers and all.
What he did with the anatomy is dynamic--but he still worked within parameters. His forced perspectives and foreshortening were groundbreaking--but still within reason. I dig the square fingers, the blocky kneecaps, squiggles and all. Jack is my favorite comic book artist and my work is very much influenced by him.
Here's a link to show what I was talking about.
Feel free to pile on.
I completely agree with you on this one.
Under close scrutiny, Kirby's figure anatomy, and proportions don't hold-up.
But as whole, his composition and dynamism are unparallelled!
Friggin' amazing, indeed.
...I dunno, Frank. No offense, but I'm still not convinced. In Jack's picture, it looks like the guy's arms are being pulled up by his jacket and shirt, towards the viewer, before bending downward at the elbows -- hence the shorter-looking arms. That also accounts for the somewhat oversized hands -- because they're closer to the viewer in such a radically foreshortened shot. In yours, where the arms just hang straight down--with the upper arms not coming forward to move the forearms closer to the viewer--the hands look too big for the rest of the figure. And that's really the whole problem with making these kinds of adjustments on Kirby's stuff. Once you start changing things that drastically, it throws other stuff out of whack. So then you have to make more changes...which throws something else out of whack. And then you have to make more changes...and where does it stop, you see what I mean? So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, 'cause I honestly think Royer had the best idea here: just ink it as is.
No offense taken, Johnny. I'm not convinced Jack pulled off the arms properly. I think it's more about fudging something so another part of the pic doesn't get blocked out. Jack didn't like erasing so he manipulated the picture. The way you describe the arms positioning still doesn't work. The way the arms are portrayed here, this guy doesn't have a top part of the arm. The whole length of his arm is from his elbow to his wrist.
What I did to the pic was lengthen the arms to make it look more natural and move the car with the open trunk to keep the storytelling intact. And where the right hand is in front of the gangster to the left, I think actually gives more depth of field. Hand size and all because of the point of view of the reader is okay. Nothing else needs to be altered whacky or not. Let's face it, the pic is whacky with all it's distortion and perspective. Don't get me wrong, I do like it.
...at least we can both agree that it's a powerful image...!
I agree that the left arm should be where Mr. Fosco moved it. Looks the right length now and I like the negative space in his version more. The right arm, however, I think should be shorter. Maybe not where Kirby drew it but half way between these two.
Sorry I been taking so long to respond John. I've been caught up in the Wizard World Chicago Comic Con. So I haven't been ignoring you.
I gotta school you John G. So you're saying on the right arm instead of the way it was, the length in Jack's being no top part of the arm, just elbow to wrist, it should be bicep to elbow to wrist, but no shoulder now? That's what you propose by saying half way between both. The length of both arms seeing how their dangling down like that should be comparable in length. They are in Jack's version and by me making the adjustment are also in my version.
...I hope you're enjoying the convention. Wish I could be there myself!
I'm a bit worried about ol' Krackles, though. Ever since I chided him for not spelling "Yancy Street" correctly, we haven't seen hide nor hair of him -- even though Tom has been posting some great F.F. pages lately. Come on back, Krackles, I was only joking!
You're both wrong then!!
Kirby's is too short. With the twist of the body I think it would look better in the middle. Maybe not best proportions, but foreshortening has to play in there a little--the right arm is on the other side of the body so the whole thing would be slightly smaller in every proportion--the arms would be the same if they were hanging off the same side of the guy's body.
Dang, you're having problems with all the Johns on here, huh? It was nice chatting with you while I looked at your stacks of comics pages at the Chicago Comic convention. Every page was great, and I liked your new and upcoming projects a lot. I hear there is a C2E2 (hope I have the right droid there) in April or so. You go to that, too? I think I was talked into showing up for that one.
I don't have any problem with all you Johns--(there's only two of you, and we're friends here) it's fine by me if you both want to be wrong. Lol.
It was nice seeing and talking with you John G. at the convention. Thanks for the nice comments about my work.
That's a killer page (no pun intended, I swear!)! Jack did things like that all the time. It's funny, the more you actually know about correct anatomy and perspective the harder it is to draw like him. Being too realistic just holds you back. That's why Neal Adams, who Jack called an "illustrator" couldn't do what Jack (a self-professed "cartoonist") could. Somehow in Kirby's world it all just works. It's hard to explain how he gets away with it, but he does. Not to be contentious, though; I do see your point about the arms, and you make a good, valid one. I guess I just let it all wash over me and dig the intent of the page, what the images tell me as a story, and how Jack pushes reality all over the place in order to make his dramatic points as powerfully as possible. What a guy!