ASK me: Joe Maneely

Joe Maneely was a superb comic book artist who was pretty much the "star" of the line of comics that Martin Goodman published and Stan Lee edited in the late fifties. This was the line that soon morphed into what we now know as the Marvel Comics Group. Maneely was not around to see it morph, however. On June 7, 1958, he stumbled or somehow fell to his death between the cars of a fast-moving commuter train. He was 32 years old. Here's a question about him that Johnny Achziger just sent me…

Here's a purely speculative question I've occasionally pondered over. Joe Maneely was a terrific artist and did a lot of stuff for Stan in the '50's. My question is, if Joe had lived through the '60's how do you think the Marvel Universe would have been different? I can certainly see him doing Thor, maybe something like Agents of SHIELD. Do you think he would have been a superstar like Kirby and Ditko?

Johnny did not originate this question. It's a discussion topic about once a year somewhere on Facebook or some comic forum. I even tackled it before on this blog back in 2007. But I've had some new thoughts about it so here's my new, improved answer, starting with the easy part of it…

The Easy Part of It: I think Maneely would have been a superstar in comics no matter where he worked or what he worked on. He was very good and very versatile.

Joe Maneely

Beyond that, it gets a bit tougher. At the time of his death, Maneely was drawing for Stan Lee, who loved his work…but Maneely was also beginning to get work from DC. Atlas/Marvel (whatever you want to call Stan's company) was then a very shaky enterprise. No one would have been too surprised if they'd just closed down as so many other companies did around then. Several folks I interviewed who were around then believed Goodman did decide to discontinue his comic book line — several times. He'd decide on Monday to get out and then change his mind on Wednesday.

He also paid low rates. DC paid way better and was on solid ground.

My speculation is that Maneely would have become a full-time freelancer for DC. He had a wife, young daughters and a lot of expenses due to a new house he'd just purchased. I also think he'd have fit in well at DC — way better than either Kirby or Ditko would have. The DC editors and production folks had some pretty firm ideas of how a DC book should look and some of them spent the sixties dismissing what Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko did for Marvel as quite inferior to anything seen in a DC title.

But Maneely drew the way DC liked its artists to draw. I think they would have found more and more work for him and soon, he would not be working for Stan anymore. Why would any man, who presumably wanted to do right by his family, have stuck with a company that paid less and which might be outta business any day? George Klein was doing some inking for Marvel up until the moment when he was able to get steady work inking Superman for DC, whereupon he fled.

So Maneely would not have been around Marvel during the years that Fantastic Four, Hulk, Thor, The Avengers, The X-Men (etc.) were launched. Later on, when Marvel was not on the verge of closure and was paying about the same as DC, he might have come back as John Romita Sr. and Gene Colan and a few others did. At that point, he might have been assigned to any book in the place. He could have drawn just about any one of them.

If he had for some reason been at Marvel in the early sixties when they started creating super-hero books, I'm sure he'd have been tapped for them. What he would have done is hard to say because I don't know the answer to this question: Was he one of those artists, like Kirby or Ditko, who could not only draw but contribute mightily to the writing? Some very fine comic artists couldn't do that.

If Maneely was really good at coming up with new ideas for stories and characters, and at fleshing out whatever plots and concepts Stan Lee came up with, then "Stan and Joe" might have created some of the early Marvel super-heroes. I've very certain though that he would not have worked on the first issues of the strips we know; he would not have been the co-creator of Fantastic Four or Thor or Spider-Man or any of those.

Why? Because he was not Jack Kirby, nor was he Steve Ditko. I don't believe Stan Lee came up with any of those wholly on his own and then selected an artist from his stable to draw his creations. Even Stan only claimed that some of the time.

If Maneely wasn't great at plotting and new concepts, he still would have had a place at Marvel but one more like Don Heck or Dick Ayers. I'm not talking here about quality of artwork — just his usefulness to Stan as an artist. In writing about those early days, one must keep in mind that Stan had a hard time finding good artists to work for the money that Goodman paid. He certainly wouldn't have not kept a guy who drew as well as Maneely around.

So that's my speculation. If you have your own, fine. No one can ever prove us right or wrong except, of course, that yours is wrong and mine is right. Or vice-versa.

ASK me

The Jack FAQ

jackfaq

I get a lot of questions in my e-mail about comics and movies and cartoons and other aberrant topics that folks think I know something about.  But I get more questions about Kirby than any five other topics combined.  Here's some of what gets asked and how it's answered.  If you have a query not covered below, send it in and we'll try to get to it, if not here then in the pages of The Jack Kirby Collector, a fine periodical to which you're already subscribed if you have any interest in the man.

kirbycovers01

Who did what on the Lee-Kirby collaborations?

Ooh…tough one to start with.  Well, it's safe to say Jack did all the penciling.  Beyond that, we run into all sorts of semantic arguments having to do with definitions of the word "writing" and with the fact that Mssrs. Lee and Kirby both have / had notoriously poor memories.  You also have the fact that when two creative talents get together and come up with an idea, each of them might honestly believe that he suggested at least the core of the concept if not the entire thing.  This happens in any collaboration anywhere and, ultimately, you usually have to just say that they both had the idea.  Ergo, I say that the Lee-Kirby creations are Lee-Kirby creations.

Some of the ideas sound more like Stan to me, some sound more like Jack and there's some documentation and other evidence that suggests that certain ideas flowed more from one gent than the other.  Even then, even where one person contributed 80% of the notion, they are still Lee-Kirby co-creations.  The plots came from both, though Stan has acknowledged that once Marvel started to grow and he became busier, Jack was largely on his own to figure out the details of each story, if not the basic plotline.  Stan's dialogue sometimes closely paraphrased marginal notes that Jack wrote while drawing, and sometimes deviated altogether.  I do think Stan has been unfairly maligned by those who've said that all he did was retype and polish Jack's notations.  I also think Jack was wronged by credits that gave him no credit for anything other than drawing because he certainly did more than that.

None of this is meant to suggest I view it as a 50/50 collaboration. Even looking just at the concepts and storylines, I think Jack contributed a lot more to them than Stan did.

Didn't Kirby contribute the cosmic concepts and Lee contribute the human elements?

You might think that.  Once upon a time, I did, as well.  But after talking extensively with both Stan and Jack, as well as some of their co-workers…and after examining a lot of Stan Lee plot outlines and Jack Kirby marginal notes, my conclusion is that that wasn't always the case.  Stan definitely contributed some of the more "cosmic" (for want of a better adjective) ideas and Jack certainly contributed some of the elements we might call "soap opera."  There are specific contributions that I believe can be attributed to one or the other, at least in that one of them was the primary source.  But, as stated above, there's a point beyond which one cannot tell who did what.

What was Jack Kirby like?

Jack was a very sweet man with a heart as large as his imagination — and if you read anything he ever did, you at least know how large his imagination could be.  He had a tendency to assume the best about everyone he met and to be angry later-on when, as occasionally happened, someone turned out to be undeserving of his trust and friendship.  There were a few folks who — in my opinion — exploited his generosity far beyond decency…in some cases, quite without malice or even awareness of their impact on his life.  In any case, he was an enormous supporter of New Talent.  If you showed Jack your work, he would not give you an art critique — he didn't do that kind of thing — but he would give you words of encouragement, along with pointers of a "spiritual" sense, discussing the mindset with which you should approach your work.  And he would never, no matter how poor your work was, tell you to give up.

Was Jack really as fast as they say?

Yes, but I think his pace gets exaggerated a bit for two reasons.  One was that Jack worked very hard.  During the late sixties and seventies, he did around fifteen pages per week of finished pencils (and, usually, script) and before that, he was even more prolific, occasionally managing 5-6 pages a day.  Now, that is very fast — someone like Curt Swan might do two a day — but Kirby's output was a function not just of drawing speed but of endurance and a willingness to sit at the drawing board 10-16 hours a day.  Some artists simply couldn't put in hours like that.  And the other thing that perhaps made Jack appear faster than he was was that he did almost no planning.  This is why you see very few Kirby rough sketches around.  If they called Jack and said, "We need a cover," he would just sit down and start drawing a cover.  Some of his best work was done with that kind of instant improvisation.  But, yes, he was fast.

What was Jack's favorite kind of comic to work on?

He really didn't have one, at least in terms of subject matter.  He — of course — wanted to do comics that he felt would sell well and, at varying intervals, he felt that the time was right for a a specific genre or kind of story.  He also — of course — wanted to do work where he felt he was in control of the story and allowed to do his work with a minimum of interference and (relatively) fair compensation, and he generally didn't like doing strips that he felt were someone else's; where he was obliterating another creator's vision by imposing his.  But beyond all those caveats, he was just as happy drawing a monster comic as a super-hero adventure; just as contented to do a romance comic as a science-fiction or western title.  In fact, I think he took a special pride in being able to build something out of any kind of materials.

The one genre he probably enjoyed a little less than any other was the kind of "ghost" comics that dwell on death.  On the other hand, if he enjoyed any area a bit more than others, it would be the occasions when he had the chance to draw tales set in World War II and to tap into his limitless storehouse of anecdotes from his combat days.  His days writing and drawing "The Losers" for Our Fighting Forces were fun for him, marred only by the fact that the characters were not his, nor were they characters that particularly interested him.  I also believe that late in his career, Jack wished he'd had more opportunity to draw funny material in a broader style.

I've heard Jack modeled a lot of his characters on real people.  If so, who was Big Barda based on?

Jack based some of his characters (not all) on people in his life or in the news…though often, the connection would be lost as the character evolved.  That is to say, once the story was done, only Jack would be able to see any trace of the model…and sometimes, even he would lose track of how a character came about.  Nevertheless, Big Barda's roots are not in doubt.  The visual came about shortly after songstress Lainie Kazan posed for Playboy…and the characterization between Scott "Mr. Miracle" Free and Barda was based largely — though with tongue in cheek — on the interplay betwixt Jack and his wife Roz.  Of course, the whole "escape artist" theme was inspired by an earlier career of writer-artist Jim Steranko.

Apart from Sandman #1 in 1974, was The Fly (1959) the last Simon-Kirby collaboration?

The Fly was the last published work by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby, excepting that Sandman comic and some leftover material done before The Fly but published later.  However, The Fly was not a product of the Simon-Kirby shop in the same way comics like Black Magic and Boys' Ranch had been.  The Fly was a product of Joe Simon who, in turn, hired Jack to do some of the artwork.  (Jack claimed he did all his work for the first two issues over one weekend.  That's probably not true but he didn't spend a lot more time than that.  Some of what appears to be Kirby in those issues and #3 and #4 is, in fact, a case of Jack's work being imitated by someone else.)

What other comic book artists did Jack admire?

Practically all his contemporaries…but if you asked him, the first names out of his mouth were usually Bill Everett, Wally Wood, Steve Ditko, Joe Simon, Don Heck, Gil Kane, Gene Colan, Lou Fine, Jack Cole, Dick Briefer, Joe Kubert, Alex Toth, John Romita, Jim Steranko, C.C. Beck, George Tuska, Joe Shuster, Mort Meskin, Marie Severin, John Severin, Al Williamson, Dick Ayers, Joe Maneely, Jack Davis, Sergio Aragonés and many others I'm leaving out.  He also loved most of the great newspaper strip artists, including Milton Caniff, Alex Raymond, Hal Foster, Al Capp, Walt Kelly, Elzie Segar, Frank Robbins, Will Gould and Roy Crane.  Frankly, I can't think of too many artists of whom Jack ever spoke in negative terms.

What kind of pencil and paper did Jack use?

Pencils were your basic #2 drawing pencil, although he sometimes experimented with softer leads.  As for paper, Marvel and DC both supplied paper most of the time.  Jack found the Marvel paper easy to draw on and most of the DC paper impossible to draw on.  He got into a friendly argument once with Joe Kubert, who loved the DC paper.  Kubert told Jack it worked great if you pencilled in blue.  Jack said he hated working in blue pencil.  Kubert said it took a brush well.  Jack said, "I don't ink."  And so on.  Steve Sherman and I finally bought Jack a kind of two-ply kid-finish Bristol Board that he liked and that was fine until Mike Royer started inking the books, and Mike had enormous problems inking on the paper.  So a lot of time was spent trying different kinds before we found one that Jack could pencil on and Mike could ink on…and I don't recall the name of the brand.  But this explains why comic book companies usually furnish the paper for their artists to draw on.  It cuts down on arguments between pencillers and inkers.

What were Jack's politics like?

He was a rather liberal democrat — not uncommon among Jewish folks of his generation — but he had a general suspicion of most leaders of all stripes.  He admired Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy, but not many prominent politicians of any party beyond those two.  He was especially distrustful of public figures about whom there was a "cult of personality," and he used those feelings when he wrote about Glorious Godfrey in the Fourth World series.  Godfrey was inspired by the then-current pronouncements of the Reverend Billy Graham (and a wee bit by TV pitchman Arthur Godfrey).  Mr. Graham's speeches now seem more subdued but, at the time, he was coming under criticism from all sides for what some felt were excessive, apocalyptic speeches predicting the end of the world.  Jack saw a few of Graham's fire-and-brimstone lectures on TV and felt that the reverend was abusing his position by taking the "fear" in "fear of God" to unhealthy extremes.

And he really, really didn't like Richard Nixon.

kirbycovers02

Cover Stories

Over on Marvel's website, editor Tom Brevoort (Hi, Tom!) picks a whole batch of his favorite Jack Kirby covers. I would have picked some of those and wouldn't have picked others but, hey, it's Tom's list and he has pretty good taste in comics.

Then over in his column, Steven Grant (Hi, Steven!) takes off from Tom's list and discusses Jack's approach to covers. I think it's a perceptive discussion. Grant's right that Jack could be repetitive with designs like that, and that the overriding concern was sales. Back when comics were sold on newsstands, as opposed to the current-day comic shops, a "grabber" cover was much more important than it is today. In fact, there were those in the biz who thought the cover was just about all that mattered; that if you got a good one, the insides were of little importance. Grant's piece is well worth your attention if this kind of thing interests you.

I should also clarify something. Steven writes…

I'd heard on several occasions that Joe Maneely, who drew many '50s Atlas Comics titles (for those who came in late, Atlas is the after-the-fact collective name for Marvel publisher Martin Goodman's publications of the 1950s), was Stan Lee's favorite artist, so I've occasionally wondered what would have happened if Maneely had lived (he died in a freak subway accident in the late '50s) to see the dawn of the Marvel age. Would Stan have recruited him instead of Jack to draw Fantastic Four? (Or however it happened.) I've always though it a good bet but my friend and Kirby acolyte (and that's not hyperbole either) Mark Evanier has pointed out that what kept Atlas from bellying up before they could even get to the Marvel age was Kirby's return to the company and the subsequent upswing of sales of Atlas comics, particularly the "monster" books (like Tales of Suspense and Journey Into Mystery sporting Kirby covers. For Mark, this suggests that Goodman, ever cognizant of sales, would have insisted Stan go with Kirby for the fairly experimental (for Goodman) F.F. book, even if Maneely were available. Certainly Maneely's more restrained and obsessive style would have had trouble drawing in anywhere near the number of readers Kirby's in your face, balls to the wall style did.

Me again. There's a limit to how productive these "What If?" exercises can be but I'll take this one this far…

First off, if Maneely had lived, Atlas/Marvel would have been a very different company. Actually, between him and Kirby and Ditko (Stan's other favorite artist), there would have been little room for anyone else to draw for the firm. It's apparently true that rising sales on Kirby-drawn comics — the ones Steven mentions but especially the western, Rawhide Kid — encouraged Goodman to keep publishing comics at a time when he was considering the abandonment of that marketplace. As I wrote in a recent Jack Kirby Collector, "Would it [Rawhide Kid] have gained readers if Stan had put Maneely on the book? Who knows? Sometimes, it's not a matter of having a good artist but of having the right good artist and the right chemistry."

But then, you get to the moment when Goodman reportedly said to Stan something like, "Hey, DC's getting some good numbers on this Justice League of America thing. I want to try a book like that…a bunch of super-heroes." And at that point, a lot of different things could have happened if Stan had done the illogical thing of trying to develop such a book with Maneely. (It was illogical because Maneely had almost no track record for super-heroes, whereas Kirby was an acknowledged master of the genre.) What I can't imagine them doing is coming up with Fantastic Four without Jack. It's a lot like asking what you'd be like if your mother had married someone else. The first difference is that you would have been a completely different person.

The Lee-Maneely team would have come up with a completely different comic. Would it have sold as well and spawned a new Renaissance in super-hero funnybooks? Again, who knows? Maybe it would have bombed, Goodman would have shut down his comic line, Stan would have gone into politics and by 1968, been in a position to be elected President of the United States…while Jack decided to become a doctor, got his medical license in six months and then found a cure for The Common Cold. I wouldn't have been surprised by any of this.

Kirby, Kirby, Kirby, Kirby!

I've been writing a lot lately about one of my favorite topics, Jack Kirby. In the last month, four separate pieces about the man some call the greatest comic book creator of all time have made their way through my copy of Microsoft Word…and for four separate publishers. Here's a rundown of them in no particular order…

DC Comics is bringing out a complete, hardcover, fancy, lovely (I expect) series of four volumes that will reprint all of Jack's "Fourth World" material in a format that would have made him very happy, indeed. When Jack launched The Forever People, The New Gods and Mister Miracle, it was on the premise that someday, the series would be collected in real — as opposed to comic — books. This was then a radical, almost inconceivable idea. Of course, he imagined a much longer storyline with a more developed ending but he'd still be delighted. I know I am.

Anyway, I'm consulting on these and writing Afterwords, which means that I turn up in the rear of each volume to tell you what you just read. This fine article by Ian Brill in Publishers Weekly will tell you more. It comes out early next month and if you can't wait, you can order a copy of Volume 1 by clicking here. You can also pre-order Volume 2 while you're at it. Amazon is offering another one of their exciting package deals where you can purchase two books at once for exactly the same price you'd pay to order them separately, thereby saving yourself one mouse click.

Neil Gaiman — despite the fact that I took him to a mediocre Chinese restaurant a few years ago or perhaps because of it — asked that I pen the foreword to Marvel's forthcoming collection of his (and John Romita's) take on Mr. Kirby's 70's series, The Eternals. I was delighted to do so because Jack's brainstorm was in fine hands and I got to write a little about him and the history of that comic along with blessing the Gaiman/Romita extension. This book comes out the same time as the one above and you can snag your copy by clicking here.

I just wrote yet another installment of my ongoing column on J.K. for The Jack Kirby Collector. I don't have to tout this publication to anyone with the slightest interest in Kirby so I'll just mention that you can order the latest issue here. My piece in this one is about Jack's speed in producing comics and about his relationship with a young artist named Joe Maneely who was killed in a tragic train accident in 1958.

Lastly, but hopefully not leastly, I'm putting the finishing touches on Kirby: King of Comics, a very fancy book by Yours Truly which comes out before the end of the year from Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Here's a page on that company's website with not much more information than I've given you here. And here's some exciting news: There's a place there you can pre-order at the full price if you have a yearning to pre-order and can't wait until you can pre-order from Amazon for less. I'm very pleased with how this book is coming out and I won't say any more now because I expect to become a bore and a nag (both at the same time) about this project.

So there you have them: Four times lately when I've written about Kirby…five, if you count this item. And now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go finish my income taxes. Maybe I can sneak a mention of Jack in there, too.

Atlas Without a Shrug

Before Marvel Comics was Marvel Comics, it was a company of many monikers. A man named Martin Goodman owned it, though he had some of its components in his wife's name. In the early forties, most of its publications were the output of Timely Publications. Eventually, for some obscure legal reason, Goodman's comics were published by an array of at least 59 front companies ranging from Animirth Comics to Zenith Publications, Inc. The distribution company he owned was named Atlas and since its logo appeared on all his covers, fans took to referring to the company as Atlas Comics. Even after he changed distributors and the Atlas seal disappeared, readers referred to the line as "Atlas" until such time as the Marvel logotype was established on his covers. (Within the industry, almost no one used the Atlas name, by the way. Artists and writers would say they were working for "Timely" — a name that remained on the office door, long after it was off the comics — or they'd say, "I'm doing a story for Goodman" or "I'm doing a job for Stan Lee.")

Atlas published thousands of comics of all kinds: ghost comics, westerns, war, funny animals, etc. For the most part, Goodman's modus operandi was to see what was selling for his competitors, then to clutter the stands with like product, crowding others off the newsracks. Most of his comics were concocted under the editorial supervision of Stan Lee but, generally speaking, and with occasional exceptions, the stories in them were of minimal interest — never very bad but rarely very good. That may have been less because of the competence of the writers than the restrictions of format, which called for short, non-connected tales with simple premises and, wherever possible, gimmicky endings where the punishment fits the crime.

Of more interest today is the artwork in these comics. Goodman did not pay well but in a time when the comic book industry was wildly unstable and included some less-than-honest publishers, he usually had work available and his checks always cleared. As a result, just about everyone who worked in the New York comic book talent pool passed through his titles and some of the better artists — men like Bill Everett, Joe Maneely, Russ Heath and Dan DeCarlo — did an awful lot of pages. This makes a lot of their comics fun to collect and study…and if you can't afford to collect, you can at least study covers at two online galleries. Nearly 3000 cover images can be viewed at the Atlas Tales site and another 600 (including much overlap) are at The Timely-Atlas Cover Gallery. The scans don't always do justice to the material but they may give you some idea of how good some of the artistry was on some of their books…and you'll get a sense of Goodman's "flood the stands" style of publishing.

And there's a large point of irony to be noted: Goodman sold Marvel in the late sixties, though he planned to stay on and run it with his son, Charles Goodman. Both Goodmans were squeezed out and in the mid-seventies, they launched a new company and called it Atlas Comics. DC and Marvel promptly increased the number of titles they published and neatly crowded the new Atlas off the newsstands, just as efficiently as the old one had smothered many of its smaller competitors. It was another of those gimmicky endings where the punishment fits the crime.

Another Recommendation

Before I forget, I wanted to recommend…well, any issue of Roy Thomas's magazine of comic book history, Alter Ego, but especially the one I just received. Dr. Michael J. Vassallo is a dentist by day, and the world's foremost authority on Atlas Comics by night. (For the uninformed: Before Marvel Comics was Marvel Comics, the company went by many names but most folks referred to it as Timely Comics in the forties and Atlas in the fifties.) For this issue of Alter Ego, Dr. Michael has assembled an outstanding history of the career of Joe Maneely, a great and amazingly-prolific artist who worked tirelessly for Atlas for many years, much to the delight of editor Stan Lee. Stan has called Maneely his favorite illustrator of the time and cited him, rightly, as a guy who could draw anything: super-heroes, war, westerns, funny duck comics, you-name-it. Maneely was very fast and very good, and comic historians have been known to speculate — as Vassallo does in this article — on what might have happened, had Maneely not perished in a grisly train accident in 1958 at age 32.

Had that not happened, he would presumably have been working for Stan in the early sixties when Jack Kirby was also there and they began reintroducing and reinventing the super-hero comic with The Fantastic Four. In an upcoming issue of The Jack Kirby Collector, I'll add in my speculations for whatever they're worth. But right now, I want to commend this Alter Ego to you. It's really a terrific, well-researched article — one of many that have turned up in that magazine.

Gay Caballero

Marvel Comics is bringing out a new mini-series of their old western comic, The Rawhide Kid…only in this version, the Kid is depicted as a gay gunslinger.  This revelation seems to come out of left field, and surely comes as a surprise to anyone who read (or even wrote) the character's earlier exploits.  In fact, it sounds like someone knew there was zero interest in the property and figured they'd have to come up with something really outrageous in order to get any attention for a revival.  This is not to say it's impossible that the writer has come up with an interesting, worthwhile "take" on the premise; only that it's being marketed as a gimmick, the point of which is to generate publicity like this story.

Some longtime Marvel fans appear to be outraged, not at the notion of a gay cowboy but at the fact that they didn't just create a new character, instead of hijacking the heritage of The Rawhide Kid.  Frankly, I don't care much.  I have long since resigned myself to the notion that, in search of sales and/or some way to "modernize" that which seems out-of-date, comic book companies will do just about anything to a character I liked when I was a kid — kill him, cut off a limb, have him go crazy, whatever.  Making a hero gay is probably one of the gentler things they've done in search of a hook.  And besides, very few of us cared about the Rawhide Kid when his comic was being published, anyway.

In any case, someone seems to have the history wrong.  The above-linked news story says that, "The new series pairs the original artist, John Severin, now 86, with Ron Zimmerman, a writer for The Howard Stern Show."  Actually, the first issue of The Rawhide Kid was drawn by Bob Brown, with a cover by Joe Maneely.  Severin did a handful of covers later on but in no way could he be considered the strip's "original artist."  Also, every bit of biographical material I've seen on John Severin says he was born in 1921, which would make him 81 now, not 86.  Either way, I think it's great that Marvel is bucking the tide of rampant ageism in the industry and employing an 80+ year old artist on a high-profile project.