KIRBY'S GHOST - PLANKS AND MOTES (A MORALITY TALE)...

A while back, over on DANIEL BEST's blog, he reported the fact that GREG THEAKSTON had claimed in the second volume of his JACK KIRBY biography that Kirby did not draw his recreations of MARVEL covers in the early '90s and that they were ghosted by other hands. This naturally has raised some interesting questions. For example, would Jack and Roz have allowed pages to be attributed to him and sold for high prices if he hadn't produced them? For that matter, would Marvel or SOTHEBY'S?

Theakston's claim has naturally set tongues wagging as to who may have been involved in creating these pages if, as he asserts, it wasn't Kirby. (And that's important to remember - if.) As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence to support the participation of any particular individual, but I'm not in full possession of the facts (or what passes as facts) in the matter.

Naturally, when such rumours take root (and there seems just no way to stop them), there is always rabid speculation amongst groups of fans, and, even if no one is publicly named, people tend to form their own ideas as to who might have been involved. There is only a relatively select group of people who would even be considered capable of such work, and doubtless all of them were regarded at some stage as potential candidates amongst those given to conjecture on the matter. It is in that context we must now consider what comes next.

  

On Dan's post, he related the relevant facts and indulged in a bit of speculation. He considered the different possibilities and concluded that, if (remember that word?) the pages were ghosted, he had been led to believe that MIKE ROYER may have been responsible. He made it clear, 'though, that his personal belief was unconfirmed - and at no time did he state that Royer, if he had actually drawn the covers, would have known they would be be passed off as being exclusively pencilled by Kirby.

In short, all Dan may have meant was that he regarded Royer as the best qualified to produce the work, without necessarily ascribing to him any fraudulent intent or design. That is an important aspect to remember. 

HARRY MENDRYK from the JACK KIRBY MUSEUM Blog immediately went on the attack, accusing Best of not only slandering Royer, but of also charging Royer with fraud. Now, while deliberately misrepresenting the work of one artist as that of another undoubtedly gives rise to legal and ethical implications, that doesn't necessarily mean that the one who produced the work knew it was going to be sold on that basis.

If something is advertised as an original piece of a particular artist's work without the actual artist's prior knowledge or consent, then he's hardly guilty of any wrongdoing in those circumstances. And, at the risk of labouring the point, I can see nothing in Dan Best's post to the contrary.

Mr. Mendryk is not prepared to allow for any such possibility, or to give Best the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, such subtleties as I have expounded here seem lost on him. Did Mendryk investigate the matter? Did he ask Best to elaborate, or to say precisely what he meant? No, he immediately accused Best of smearing Royer's reputation, and attributed to Best's words meanings and motivations that are certainly open to a different interpretation. Why didn't he check first? In this regard, he seems at least equally as guilty of what he accuses Best of.

As far as I can see, all Dan has done is report a pre-existing story and add his thoughts on the topic. In so doing, he has gener-

ated comment which has made people aware that Mike Royer rejects any suggestion of having been involved. (There are links to this in the comments section.) In reporting the already well-known rumour, Best has effectively put an end to one speculative aspect of it. Mike Royer says he was not involved, and I'm perfectly happy, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to accept his word. I doubt I'm alone.

As I said on Harry Mendryk's blog, although it's far better if unsubstantiated rumours never start in the first place, once they're doing the rounds, it's often advisable to subject them to the spotlight of truth and let them wither under its glare, rather than allow them to fester in secret. Mr. Mendryk has recently deleted our discussion - I leave it to individuals to draw their own conclusions as to why. However, I consider my observations worthy of consideration, which is why I publish them here. 

I should add that I do not presume to speak on Dan Best's behalf - my only purpose (which springs from a desire for fairness and impartiality) is to show that people who live in glass houses should perhaps think twice before throwing stones.