Monday, February 22, 2021

BOOK REVIEW—TRUE BELIEVER: THE RISE AND FALL OF STAN LEE

 

BOOK REVIEW

TRUE BELIEVER: THE RISE AND FALL OF STAN LEE

By Abraham Riesman

Publisher : Crown (February 16, 2021)

Language : English

Hardcover : 416 pages

ISBN-10 : 0593135717

ISBN-13 : 978-0593135716

 

“Let your motto then always be 'Excelsior', for by living up to it there is no such word as fail.”

― P T Barnum, The Art of Money Getting

 

"What was [Stan] like?" . . . It depends on who you talk to at what moment."

— Larry Lieber

 

“. . . I know my father's creativity versus Mr. Lee's creativity, and Mr. Lee was an excellent marketer, he was an excellent manager, excellent self-promoter. I honestly don't believe he had any creative ability."

— Neal Kirby (son of Jack Kirby)

 

Abraham Riesman, the author of TRUE BELIEVER: THE RISE AND FALL OF STAN LEE, sidebars his writing to inform us readers of both the mission and the difficulties of being a biographer.  The mission being one that sifts through the faulty memories, missing evidence, and tries to slice through it all with an Occam’s razor to find the truth—and in lieu of truth, at least some semblance of a reasonable viewpoint.  I don’t know if Riesman has been to law school, but he makes sure to drive this point home to the reader:  There is no more unreliable source for a biographer than the subject of the biography himself.  This is reminiscent of one of the first things mentioned in both Trial Practice and Professional Ethics classes in law school:  Your client will lie to you.

This seems counterintuitive, but it is a truism.  The client has a vested interest in telling their lawyer whatever they think will help their case and avoiding those facts that might hurt their case.  Likewise, when people talk about themselves, the stories they tell tend to morph to fit the audience they are being told to and how the storyteller wants the listeners to think about him or her.  Psychologically, this can make the job of an objective biographer quite difficult.  Autobiographies can never be objective, because the authors are writing about themselves; likewise the usual celebrity biography that springs forth with the cooperation of the celebrity.  These can be well-written and entertaining, but they are basically just opening statements in a case that cannot be challenged or rebutted.  It is a narrative crafted by someone who has a vested interest in controlling what is said and how it is said.

I am someone who was born about 5 years into the Marvel Age of comics, which is recognized as starting in 1961 with the publication of FANTASTIC FOUR #1 by writer/editor Stan Lee and artist Jack Kirby.  So, my childhood on into adulthood was one that tracked along with the ups and downs of Marvel Comics and was aware of Stan Lee many years before I ever took note of who Jack Kirby or (fellow artist and co-creator of Spider-Man) Steve Ditko were.  I would wager that I first came to know who Kirby and Ditko were because of repeatedly checking out from the local library a 1974 paperback collection from Fireside Books called ORIGINS OF MARVEL COMICS that reprinted the first appearances of Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, Thor, Hulk, and Doctor Strange.  Stan Lee was credited as the author and he wrote introductions to the stories in his well-established hyperbolic purple prose.  And as was Stan’s pattern over the years, he told the stories of what inspired the characters’ creations, took pretty much all the credit for their conception, then heaped much praise on Kirby and Ditko for bringing his concepts to life on the printed page.  And this is the narrative that most people who aware of Stan Lee and Marvel Comics know.  Then there are those who, like myself, have always enjoyed a higher level of curiosity about the inner workings of the business and, so, enjoy seeking out and reading a lot of these “inside baseball” type of books and articles about comics history.  We are the ones who will go into a book like this with a pretty good knowledge of the many conflicting stories and claims about the creator credits Gordian Knot at Marvel Comics.  Even with a pretty thorough collection of information in my own head from decades of exposure to this stuff, I encountered new facts and new information to add to the complicated image of Stan “The Man” Lee.

Riesman’s book does a professional job weaving together a comprehensive narrative that spans chronologically from Stan’s grandparents through to Stan’s own death and beyond.  He provides no less than 30 pages of extensive citations and notes at the end of the book, which is not anything I’ve yet seen in a Stan bio, and there’ve been plenty.  This is a key distinction for Reisman’s book that also helps absolve it of baseless assertions that the author has an “anti-Stan” agenda or is a “hit piece.”

There are certainly quite a bit of difficult and dark aspects to the book, but the author makes it very clear that he includes these with personal trepidation.  That is, he is not going to avoid including these things simply because he doesn’t like them or because a reader might see Stan painted in a negative light.  He lets the reader choose how to weigh the (cited) evidence he is presenting.  The writing is engaging precisely because Riesman infuses his narrative with personal feeling and acknowledgment of his own discomfort.  As such, he reflects the same feelings that many readers might have.  By doing so, he makes it okay by affirming those feelings but also not backing off simply because it gets uncomfortable.

To me, the most fascinating voice in the book is from Stan’s younger brother, Larry Lieber, who offers up a lot in both what he says but also in what he intentionally avoids saying.  The picture I came away with from this book was a humanized Stan Lee.  This is not at all the Stan that Stan himself would want us to know, but it is probably the closest we will get to the true Stan.

What becomes clear by tracking along with Stan chronologically through the years is that we begin to see a very clear picture, at least to me, of a competent writer who was a good editor but was Barnum level bullshit pedaler with a severe inferiority complex masked by an over-confident and gregarious character he presented to the world.  He was a man who wanted to be famous but was never talented enough to get out of the low-rent world of the comic book business, so he made himself the most famous comic book guy in the world to see where that could take him.  You see this throughout the book, that even while working in comics and presenting the face of Stan “The Man” to readers, he was incessantly trying side hustles to get himself the hell out of there.  Were it not for the expensive habits of his wife and daughter, he very well may have stepped out and tried something else.  Unfortunately, so many of his choices (and life is nothing but cumulative choices) were driven by the need to keep his wife and daughter in the expensive lifestyle that had grown accustomed to.

Part of the incongruity in Stan as a human being is that fame and fortune were such massive driving forces in his life choices but at the same time, he was someone who would give you the shirt off his back if he liked you and you needed it.  At the same time, he treated his own family (except his wife and daughter) like detached acquaintances at best.  Larry seems the most sad about this in that Stan would toss Larry work here and there, but in his own sunset years, Larry seems not very grateful and more resentful that his older brother kind of kept him on a meager fishing line professionally over the years and now Larry recognizes that he lost so many opportunities because of that.  And now, in his 80s, he lives alone and is writing his own stories for himself.

Stan and his wife, Joan, lived a public lifestyle of excess and she was especially known in their circles for drinking too much and then embarrassing herself and Stan by her drunken behavior.  Stan was devoted to her but that inferiority complex in him probably contributed to his submissive support for her outlandish activities and spending.  Had they lived in more of a moderate sense, they could have gone into a retirement quite rich and comfortable.  Instead, he had to keep working on into his nineties just to keep up with his wife’s needs until her death, and his daughter JC’s even more absurd demands afterwards.

The vast success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, especially after Disney purchased Marvel for 4 billion dollars, was a two-edged sword for Stan.  It was the realization of the hype he had been spinning about Marvel since the beginning coming true finally, but beyond his funny little cameos on-screen, he had signed away the profit margins he could have had for a yearly stipend instead.  Moreso, he had to bristle a little knowing that back in the ‘90s when Marvel was in bankruptcy, he passed up a chance to actually purchase the company which would have finally made Marvel truly his.  Sure, he put on his well-practiced smile for the red carpets, but by all accounts, he never even bothered to watch the actual movies.  He liked the attention, but he had little to no interest in the characters or the movies themselves.   But that sort of fact doesn’t fit the narrative that people want to read about.

Watching the “Rise” of Stan in this book is so fascinating because of reading those years and seeing it in my head alongside my own experience as a child reading the comics and what my perception was.  I’m not sure how someone who did not have my own life experience will feel reading those sections, but it’s a bit like reading the diary of someone you thought you knew and discovering that their self-perception and life was nothing like you realized.  So much of Stan’s “Rise” was reliant upon artists and writers with much more skill and creativity than Stan himself possessed.  But one thing he did possess was the power to spot talent and to hitch his creative wagon to their horse.  He also benefited from a natural but well-practiced charisma that served him well while putting his extraverted personality out into public speaking engagements around the country.  He was laying the foundation for a particular persona and self-serving narrative that exists to this day.  And the book does not present this as particularly malicious or intentionally harmful.  This is Stan being Stan and charging through life without introspection and with blinders on so that he doesn’t necessarily see how his words or behavior might be construed (or misconstrued) by others.  Stan was incapable of declining credit (there’s that pesky low self-esteem again) and found it difficult even when pressed about it, to acknowledge the other artists as even CO-creators.  The one time he gave Ditko co-creator credit for Spider-Man, he could not help himself from saying it in such a way that Ditko could tell he didn’t really believe it.  When pressed, Stan said “I have always considered Steve Ditko to be Spider-Man's co-creator.” Of course, Ditko was quick to point out that Stan still did not say Steve Ditko was factually Spider-Man’s creator but that he had always “considered” him to be.  The use of that weasel word was enough for Ditko to dismiss it.  And this is indicative of Stan throughout his life.  He may not be the world’s best writer, but he would give Clarence Darrow a run for his money in choosing his words very carefully when he is speaking on the record.

There are two elements of the book that are going to be particularly polarizing to many readers.  The first is the inclusion of the crazy stories about Stan’s daughter JC, and the second is the conflict with Jack Kirby over who created the characters in those early days of Marvel.

The thing about including the stories about JC is that they are absolutely necessary to any objective biography that deals with the final decade or so of Stan’s life.  That last 10 to 15 years of Stan’s life is a minefield of fraud, mismanagement, theft, and abuse.  Where Stan’s “Rise” is a fascinating view into how he somehow succeeded in the 80s and onward at making himself the patron god of a business that he had no real involvement in or use for other than as a propellant for his rocket to Hollywood fame and fortune.  Stan’s “Fall” is a heartbreaking tale of somebody desperate enough to involve himself with shady and criminal types in scheme after scheme defrauding investors and consumers for years and years.  It is a tale of a man who is tired and broken and taken advantage of by those same people, then others, and always his daughter who allegedly was both physically and verbally abusive to him as she would swing from one bipolar episode to another.  Stan is even on the record near the end of his life incapable of even confidently saying that his own daughter loves him.  If that makes you sick to your stomach to hear, it should.  Stan was a human being and by the end of his life, he had been drained of every last drop of life by a circle of vampires, including his own daughter who took him to court to get the controlled trust Stan set up for her broken up so that when he died she could get everything and not have to go through a third-party trustee.  Riesman makes very sure that anything he says about JC has sources cited, even if the source is not publicly available (such as the private audio recordings of the two of them that were shared with the author).  In any objective biography, the relationship with JC is a necessary component of understanding Stan, so she and their relationship is absolutely essential to this work.

The conflict with Jack Kirby, that in and of itself, is a subject worthy of a book.  And there have been those as well.  In comics fandom circles, there are those who take the position that Jack created everything, those who say Stan created everything, and then there are those who say it was something in the middle.  Riesman says that none of those are very helpful to a biographer.  A biographer is not comfortable speculating that it must be something in the middle simply because he can’t make the case one way or the other.  It is a question that can never truly be answered precisely because at the time those original comics were being cranked out by a hack writer and his stable of fast-drawing freelance artists, they were considered throw-away children’s entertainment.  Nobody was keeping records of meetings or notes about plots and very few, if any, scripts.  There’s not even a lot of the art around because it was not seen as valuable.  They stored the pages away in warehouses where, over the years, much of it was destroyed by water, fire, rodents, or stolen by the occasional employee.  It was not until the late ‘80s and early ‘90s that Marvel finally got around to cataloging and returning what art they still had to the artists from the ‘60s.  It is notable that Ditko, according to first-hand reports from people who visited Ditko in his office after that, used those returned Spider-Man pages as cutting boards for himself.  As horrifying as that sounds, it does indicate the mindset of the ‘60s work-for-hire freelancer.  The art was done for that month’s paycheck and never thought about again.  There was no after-market for the art yet.

Riesman does a good job of giving the reader Jack’s side of the story and Stan’s side of the story.  (Sidebar: If anyone wants an exhaustive resource for Jack and Stan’s own words on the topic, I recommend the ‘STUF SAID oral history book from TwoMorrows publishing.) He does interject as the author to point out how unhelpful both men’s memories are on this topic.  Both Jack and Stan could contradict themselves in the same breath while telling us their “absolute truth” about who did what.  But there are indicators that help present a bit of the picture that lets us know that Jack maybe contributed a bit more than Stan wanted to admit, but also that Stan contributed a bit more than Jack wanted to admit.  The most obvious indicator is that once Jack left Marvel to write and draw his own comics at DC, back at Marvel, and other publishers, his own writing style is demonstrably distinct from Stan’s and even his own pacing and plotting is notably different.  Jack’s FOURTH WORLD books, or THE DEMON, or OMAC; for example, do not track with the types of plots and storytelling that we were used to seeing on, say, FANTASTIC FOUR for 100 issues in collaboration with Stan.  Likewise, Stan fairly quickly transitioned out of writing and onto the editing only side after Jack bolted for DC.  It’s not like Stan only collaborated with Jack up till then, but from the way Riesman tells it, it does appear like Stan had become quite reliant upon Jack even if it was just to bounce ideas off of him—or get some.  Jack bolted sometime in 1970.  Stan stopped writing by 1972 and his creative output after that was particularly telling—especially his unyielding commitment to try and make putting funny word balloons onto photos into something people want or his penchant, when riffing creatively, of going into rather racy and sexually immature directions.  In the end, we are left with a writer who was not particularly creative but had a knack for exuberant and outlandish self-promotion and an artist who was very creative but was very uncomfortable tooting his own horn.  Together they tapped into a magical synergy that formed the foundation for a new way of telling stories within the constraints of corporate owned properties and without which the multi-billion dollar Disney/Marvel monster would not exist.

If your only experience with Stan Lee is his public persona, then this book should be eye-opening.  This is not a book that presents Stan as a bad person.  It presents Stan as full person.  Someone who could be funny and charming and gregarious (sometimes to a fault) but also someone who could be moody, spiteful, mean, duplicitous, and selfish.  Much like you and I, he was complicated, and Riesman has written a fairly definitive biography of Stan Lee that will stand the test of time.

 

Also, before I wrap this review, I want to say that this book should be made into a movie promptly by the writer and director behind the Oscar nominated THE BIG SHORT, Adam McKay.  And they should hire Sam Rockwell to play Stan.

 

That’s my free Hollywood advice.

 

Excelsior!

Thursday, July 23, 2020

THE MYTHS OF RALTARNEE by Philip José Farmer

The late, great Philip José Farmer has prolific library of books and other writings available.  Farmer passed away in 2009 and his devoted fan base (of which I am one) continue to seek out his work.  These include posthumous publications, collaborations, and original works by other authors that are connected to the fantastic worlds he created over the many decades of writing.  One of the more interesting aspects, to me, of Farmer's writing is how often he was involved in projects where he was not the marquee name.  His ego was such that he was willing to be the partner, part of a round-robin style project, or as in the focus of this blog post—providing evocative phantasmagorical commentary accompaniment to the fantasy art of painter Boris Vallejo.

From 1995 through 1999, Farmer wrote the accompanying commentaries for Vallejo's Fantasy Calendar series from Workman Publishing.   The Philip José Farmer International Bibliography website does have listings for all the calendars, but does not really give you a fair taste of how cool they really are.  Any Farmer completist really needs to seek these out and add them to your collection.  It seems pretty clear that the process was that the paintings from Vallejo were selected for the calendar and then they were presented to Farmer who let the visual imagery guide his imagination into whatever creative tangent or imaginary world they birthed within his author's mind.  Fans of Farmer's World of Tiers books will find a lot within these calendar commentaries that could easily slide into the parallel worlds mythology of the World of Tiers if they want them to.

I'm going to use this blog to reproduce the text from the 1996 calendar along with their corresponding picture for the month just to give the reader a taste but also for a representative historical example of an obscure writing of Farmer's that has been unavailable anywhere else for 25 years as of 2020.

Enjoy...The Myths of Raltarnee and Other Character Profiles by Philip José Farmer inspired by artwork created by Boris Vallejo! 
 
All image descriptions copyright © 1996, 2020, by the P J Farmer Family Trust.


Sunday, December 22, 2019

THE BEST OF CHRISTMAS 2019


Here's your official BEST OF CHRISTMAS list of the Top 10 Holiday Specials and Top 5 Movies, Specials, and Songs!

TOP 5 CHRISTMAS SONGS

5. Wrapped in Red by Kelly Clarkson

4. You Make It Feel Like Christmas by Gwen Stefani & Blake Shelton



3. Christmas Canon by The Trans-Siberian Orchestra

2. One Last Sleep by Leona Lewis

1. A Christmas Twist by Si Cranstoun


TOP 5 CHRISTMAS COMEDIES

5. Daddy's Home 2     4. Four Christmases     3. Elf     2. A Christmas Story

1. National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation

TOP 5 WORST CHRISTMAS COMEDIES
5. Christmas With the Kranks     4. Mixed Nuts     3. Fred Clause     2. Santa Claus: The Movie

1. A Merry Friggin' Christmas


TOP 5 UNDERRATED CHRISTMAS MOVIES

5. The Munsters' Scary Little Christmas     4. Surviving Christmas     3. Rise of the Guardians     2. Ernest Saves Christmas



1. Arthur Christmas


TOP 5 NON-COMEDIES

5. Klaus     4. Krampus     3. It's A Wonderful Life     2. Love, The Coopers


1. Love, Actually


TOP 5 CHRISTMAS...TERTIARY

5. Gremlins     4. Krampus     3. Lethal Weapon     2. Die Hard


1. Trading Places




TOP 10 BEST TV SPECIALS

10. The Night the Animals Talked     9.  The Year Without A Santa Claus     8. Frosty the Snowman     7. How the Grinch Stole Christmas     6.  A Very Murray Christmas


5. A Claymation Christmas Celebration     4.  A Colbert Christmas: The Greatest Gift of All 3. A Charlie Brown Christmas     2.  Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer


1. Santa Claus is Coming to Town



Thursday, June 6, 2019

Flashback Art Gallery (1977-1988)


About 8 years ago, I published a "High School Art Flashback" blog post where I scanned in some old art of mine and shared it here.  At the time, I planned to post some more but...life happens.  Well, this past week my aunt mailed me a package returning to me a bunch of drawings I had given her back in 1980.  This got me reflecting on my past again and I grabbed some of those drawings and dug out a few more from the garage and this is the result:  a smorgasbord of quirky and nerdy things I drew ranging from about age 12  (middle school) through to about age 21 (college).  I don't know if anyone but me finds this sort of thing interesting, but I like having these preserved digitally.  I had a bad habit back when I was a child of throwing away any drawing I did that I did not perceive as "perfect."  So, I actually have but a small percentage of all the sketching and drawing that I did during those years.  Most of these survived because other people (mother, grandmother, aunt, etc.) held onto them.

I drew this Dr. Strange piece in 1977.  At the time, I did not really know what I was doing or much about art supplies.  I knew that I liked drawing on "boards" so I tended to scavenge large gift boxes from my mother and cut the bottom out of the boxes and used those as art boards.  This particularly drawing was done with black and colored sharpies and the figure of Dr. Strange was based on a Gene Colan drawing in a comic book.

In 1978, I was pretty well obsessed with Star Trek, Star Wars, Space: 1999, and whatever else I could find that was science-fiction-ey.  These are my attempts at drawing The Enterprise (Star Trek) and the Eagle 1 (Space: 1999).  I'm pleased to see I was attempting to figure out the shading on the Enterprise and I can see that the intricacy of the Eagle 1 design had me completely flummoxed.  I'm not much better even now at visualizing that sort of mechanical design in drawings.

The next piece is a little comic book I drew using a 7/11 Slurpee mascot named "Chuckle Cherry."  I have no memory of drawing this so I cannot explain its existence.  I can barely find anything online that even verifies the existence of "Chuckle Cherry" except I did finally come across this vintage photo someone posted online of an inflatable version of him that was apparently a part of the marketing at that time.


All I can really say in my defense is I must have really loved Cherry Slurpees that year.



Jump to circa 1980 and the above pencil drawing of a cat is one I did of our cat, "Darth Vader," while he slept on my pillow on my bed.  The Donald Duck drawing is one I'm pretty sure I traced using carbon paper, but I cannot remember actually drawing this so I cannot say for certain.  It's a mish-mash of sharpies and water-based markers though.  This is the cover I was copying (or maybe tracing).


I basically spent a lot of my time just drawing characters who had a look that I liked.  Baron Karza, the villain of the Micronauts toy line and the comic book, was one such character.  I'm pretty sure this drawing is my attempt at copying a panel by Micronauts artist Michael Golden.




Continuing my obsession with favorite characters, I was also beginning to get into specific artists.  The Wolverine drawing is copied from an issue of The Uncanny X-Men set in the Savage Land and drawn by John Byrne and Terry Austin.  If I remember right, it was Wolvie being thrown into the air by Colossus?  The Thing and the Hulk was me just copying the little faces that Marvel used in the corner boxes of their comics at that time.  I'm fairly certain that my drawing of The Wasp was riffing on her pose on this Avengers cover but wearing a costume she had on in a different issue that I liked.  It's funny looking back on it because the elements of this very basic costume are all stylistic design elements (wizard collar, puffy sleeves, sash, buccaneer boots) I continue to like to this day and have used in my own super-hero costume designs.



My first exposure to The Doom Patrol was with their 1970s version.  Above is my drawing based on artist Joe Staton's redesigned/updated character design for Robotman.  The other drawing is my attempt at a dramatic image of Bruce Banner turning into the Hulk.


Some cartooning from that time period.  A drawing of Harvey Comics' Hot Stuff, the Little Devil, cartoonist Dik Browne's Hagar the Horrible, and a gag I thought up of poor Mickey Mouse running for his life from a hungry eagle.


In 1982, DC Comics' Swamp Thing was turned into a movie and they relaunched his comic book as Saga of the Swamp Thing.  I was into all things Swamp Thing so, of course, I did a drawing of the character in an attempt to imagine him in my own unsettled "style."


Another odd compulsion in me my whole life is getting on these kicks where I would do exhaustive series of character drawings based on a gag.  For example, in elementary school on into early middle school I would obsessively draw sharks and dolphins dressed out in Marvel super-hero costumes.  In my young mind, the "men" were the sharks and the "women" were the dolphins.  Well, the next phase in that type of compulsive drawing behavior was this desire to play around with the simplistic image of Pac-Man and re-imagine a world of stock characters who were essentially human except they had Pac-Man faces and I would give them names that were some sort of Pac-Man puns.  Yes, it makes no sense, but it became some sort of creative challenge to see how many variations I could come up with.  I drew way too many of them to share them all.  But here's a few samples to laugh at.  Note that I was experimenting on cartooning with a "big foot" sort of style and using different line-art texturing techniques.
First off is just a basic Pac-Man followed by the Saturday morning cartoon version and then "Mr. Spac" (Mr. Spock).
From left to right are President Richard Paxon, the Hunchpac of Notre Dame, and Indiana Pac.
The Empire Strikes Pac
A couple of years later, in 1984, I drew this cartoon playing with the Marvel Comics' What If? series showing what would have happened if the very UN-bullet-proof Captain America had not equipped himself with a bulletproof shield.  I notice that the cartoon figures are still a bit stiff but much improved over the Pac-Man cartoons 2 years before.  I'm still using the same sort of "big foot" on the characters.


1985 starts to showcase a nice jump in drawing technique and experimentation that I credit to my college art classes at Temple College.

Mike Grell's Warlord (DC Comics) character meeting Grell's Star Slayer (Pacific Comics) character 
Sergio Aragones' Groo the Wanderer
 Playing with high contrast black and white ink drawings and female forms.  Shadowcat from The X-Men (note once again my fondness for puffy sleeves and sash).  The other 2 drawings are from a photoshoot in a Penthouse magazine.  I wish I could remember the photographer's name.  At the time, I know the joke was that you only read Playboy of Penthouse for the articles, but I was picking up an occasional issue specifically for the photo pictorials by this one photographer because the artistic design really connected with me back then.

    

The last 2 years of college I knocked out a few interesting pieces.  The first is The Joker as The Devil and my attempt at drawing Watchmen (which I don't believe had even concluded at the point I drew this).  The Joker drawing was an attempt at mixing my pencil technique with markers.  I notice some stylistic elements here that are reflective of stuff I draw even today.  The Watchmen piece is a total disaster in retrospect in terms of anatomy and physics.  I cannot at all figure out what I thought Nite-Owl was doing being dropped down on a rope from his ship but yet he's just floating there above it.  It makes no sense.  But I am impressed that I at least tried some perspective tricks and badly envisioning the anatomical features of Bubastis there in the back.  It was a nice effort for a teenager maybe.

 

Below is short poem/story written by a friend in my dorm that I illustrated.  I think I had some good ideas here and not the absolute worst in execution but there's some real need for a better understanding of how to do certain effects using ink.

The last piece is a watercolor painting I did for my painting class.