Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
13 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
A "King" Deserves a Better Bio, December 6, 2004
While Ronin Ro's book also provides a history of Stan Lee and Timely/Marvel Comics (among others), its main thrust and chief attribute is a biography of comics legend Jack "King" Kirby. This is certainly not the worst volume I've ever read, but I have to place myself in the camp of the (so far) two Amazon.com members who have posted negative reviews regarding this book.
From a personal taste standpoint, I really don't appreciate Ro's writing style. As other reviewers noted, it is overly simplistic at times in addition to being awkward. Another already mentioned critique is the lack of ANY illustrations or photos save for the Kirby cover drawing. Granted, there's a lot of Jack Kirby art reproduced within many other resources, but some key art reproductions would have been a nice touch. Even more appreciated would have been photographs of Kirby, his family, and other celebrities from the Golden/Silver Age of Comics that are mentioned in the chapters. Such photographs might not have been easily attainable, but a modicum of effort would have dug up some pictorial history.
I don't think I'm imagining this, but it appears that many of Ro's quotations by comics celibrities (including Kirby, Stan Lee and Joe Simon) are simply taken from already published interviews and biographies (e.g., "Excelsior! : The Amazing Life of Stan Lee" by Stan Lee and George Mair, and "The Comic Book Makers" by Joe Simon and Jim Simon). Not exactly the coolest thing to pay money for a book that regurgitates information I've already read.
What's even worse is that the book does contain some inaccuracies, and these could have been prevented by simple fact-checking and basic editing. Some of Ro's subjective observations also go against the generally accepted opinions of comics historians. For example, Ro refers to Timely/Marvel artist Bill Everett as an "old hack," the first time in over 40 years that I have ever heard of Everett described in that vein. Although he may have had a tremendous alcohol problem, Everett has generally been widely respected as a comics artist, and especially so as an inker in his later years. But since I'd hardly consider Ro an expert regarding comics art, I consider the source concerning that and other opinions he's promulgated.
There is information contained in the book of which I was (perhaps surprisingly) unaware. However, considering the other definite inaccuracies in the book, this information is certainly somewhat suspect. Considering the suggested list price of this volume, its overall packaging should have been improved with more material, greater accuracy and more revelations for comics historians. This book is worth a read (although not necessarily a buy), but more for casual or new comics fans.
|
|
|
15 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Strange that a Kirby bio doesn't even have a photo ...., February 6, 2005
As a 9 year old comic fanatic, I immediately latched on to the Fantastic Four and the progression of other Marvel heroes as they were invented -- and maintained my interest for several decades after. I still occasionally pick up a comic.
I found Ro's book to be pretty poorly written and edited, and I think there are many errors in it. For one thing, it is impossible to keep the chronology straight. Dozens of pages go by without mention of the year. There are flashbacks, but it is not clear when they end. Dozens of repetitions of the same phrases, and people who appear out of nowhere, indicate minimal editing.
Despite the fact that Kirby was King, Ro seems to spend most of the center of the book talking about how Kirby's work was criticized and rejected, how Kirby couldn't write, and when he did, it was unreadable.
How strange is it, though, that a book about the comics industry as it centered around Jack Kirby doesn't as much as have a single photo of the guy, or any examples of his work aside from the dust cover art?
Save your money and give this one a pass.
|
|
|
17 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Poorly Written, Unorganized, and Suspect, April 13, 2005
I'm in no position to vouch for or judge the accuracy of the information presented in this book. Not only because I'm not personally knowledgeable, but because there are no annotations and very few attributions. The author acknowledges a list of sources, but there is no way to know which facts came from what sources. Various people are quoted now and then, but never with context or attribution; you never know whether the quote came from a new interview or from some other author's work.
That's just the beginning of the shoddy nature of the book. The information is not organized at all; it's just a straight-ahead narrative, roughly chronological. I say "roughly" because very few actual dates are given, and often the temporal relationships between various events are very unclear.
There is no index. No table of contents. Chapters are simply numbered. If you ever want to refer to anything in this book, you will have to search for it line by line.
The writing is pedestrian, verging on amateurish. Convoluted sentences, odd word choices, and an apparent unfamiliarity with the use of the pronoun all contribute to a general lack of clarity. The tone is monotonous, and the author seems to lack much enthusiasm for the subject.
Worst, as has been mentioned by other reviewers, is that there are no images of any kind. No comics, no photographs, no documents, nothing.
As I said, I have no personal familiarity with the Lee/Kirby story. But I find it hard to trust information found in a book that appears to be the product of a lazy writer who was unable to focus on the topic well enough to clearly tell the tale.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|