Mike Martin sent me an e-mail with subject line "What would Jack think?" It's about a new storyline that Marvel has going with Captain America…

So, obviously the fan base is up in arms about Marvel's new "not a gimmick" that Captain America has been a deep cover Hydra agent all along (so deep that he has prevented their world conquering plans multiple times, apparently). At times, you have quoted Jack Kirby as saying (and I'm paraphrasing) that he didn't mind what later creators did with his characters because that was their take on the subject and it didn't invalidate his work. But I'm wondering if this storyline's claim that "he has been a Hydra agent all along" might be a bridge too far, since it essentially injects this new take on the character into his entire 75 year history. What are your thoughts?

I haven't seen the comics but I would say it is a "gimmick" the way I define that word, maybe not the way the comic's makers do. It's become very popular in comics — and to see why, you just have to look at the sales figures — to come up with these character-changing events. Some character dies. Some character marries. Some character gets a new costume, thereby abandoning an iconic one. Some character loses a limb or key power or otherwise undergoes a startling change. Some character gets a sex change. Whatever. Eventually, they all get undone, if not by the folks who made the particular issues then by their successors. It ain't good for the merchandising and the long-term health of the property to maul it for very long.

And of course, at some point, someone in the office says, "We've really lost the theme and concept of this comic." And then the jarring gimmick is to take it back to its roots.

I'm a little reticent to say how Jack would have felt about some things. I know his strong feelings on some topics. On others though, you have to remember that Jack was a vast thinker who didn't always view the world or some aspect of it as we (mere) mortals would. He sometimes surprised me with his "take" on some issue and when he did, it was usually because I was looking at a tree and he was looking at the entire forest.

That said, I feel safe to say that the first question Jack would probably ask would be "Is it a good story?" If it isn't, then it's a bad idea right there. If it is, then you go on to Question Two, which would be "Does it box the current and future writers in and damage their ability to create good stories?" If the answer is no, then fine. If it's yes…well, that's why these premise-altering storylines are usually reversed and the dead character is brought back to life or the marriage is forgotten or the whole thing turns out to be a dream or a clone or they just plain reboot the strip and start over.

I would guess that just of stories that continued Kirby characters after he'd departed and were issued during his lifetime, Jack probably never looked at 90% of them. Of the remainder, he rarely recognized anything but the characters' visuals — and sometimes not even that — though he was usually too polite to say so. I can think of a few times he objected to something if he found it personally offensive…and if this new series has Captain America spouting anti-Semitic slogans — yeah, probably. But then he would have objected if they had someone else's hero spouting anti-Semitism, too.

You're right. He didn't much mind what others did with his characters. If they could take what he left them and use it as the starting point to craft new, excellent issues, that was great. He just objected to anyone claiming that he and his successor were collaborating on a single body of work. To Jack, his issues were his issues and they were independent from that other guys' issues. It's kind of like "Build on the land I've left you but please don't strip-mine it." That's good advice in many aspects of life.