sfcityduck

First, thanks for posting that Alter Ego article. Great stuff I'd never seen before! Second, why is it strange that Stan was making an effort to get into newspaper strips if he was burned out on comics? The newspaper strips were always viewed as more lucrative and less work. Foster, Raymond, Caniff were all famous cartoonists being written up national magazines and living very nice lifestyles. In this same time period, Kirby made his own foray into the strip world with Sky Master of the Space Force. It's a very logical move for a guy who was burned out on the comic book grind to want to move to the more relaxed world of a daily and/or Sunday strip. To me, Stan trying so desperately to get out of comic books is entirely consistent with him being burned out on comic book work.

Realtor's can make bank.

You state: "He [Joe] got them screwed over by Timely... he got them screwed over by Crestwood... and he made a bad deal that ended up killing Mainline... Hmmm... Meanwhile, Jack just went on creating and drawing, even without him, while Joe was off buying mansions.... Hmmm.... looks like he negotiated deals for SOMONE." Jack on Joe:

Yep. The implosion happened because Goodman switched to DC as his distributor, after his then distributor went out of business, and DC would ultimately only give him 8 monthly slots. That limitation began to take effect in June and hit with full force the next month of publication. I'd assume that DC gave Atlas some advance warning on how many slots they'd get, probably required under the agreement. The implosion had nothing to do with Stan's handling of the Atlas line. It was a DC move (DC was cutthroat, look what they did to Fawcett and Quality.) I'm glad to see you acknowledging that the implosion was due to a bad business decision. Ironically, when DC figured out that they were making money off of Marvel in the 60s, and the competition was not hurting their lines, they upped the number of slots.

Your post is more than a little unhinged. The attempt to belittle using nicknames (the second time you've tried this) seems like a poor imitation of a failed politician strategy. In any event: First, I'm not a Marvel Zombie or a Stan Lee (or Jack Kirby) fanatic. You will find many threads by me started on this site about comics and comic history. None concern Marvel that I can think of, and certainly none are about Stan Lee. Second, your hatred of Joe Simon is shocking. You state: "I've got PLENTY of material where Joe talks down Jack in PRINT. PLENTY. Seriously, having read it over the years, I have no respect for Joe Simon." Care to give examples of Simon quotes that offend you? Hint: Joe Simon's truthful statements about the creation of Captain America, about their partnership, about Joe coming up with the Romance idea, etc. are not "talking down Jack." They are just the truth. I believe that Jack acknowledged that the Romance comics idea, a great business move, was Joe's. Jack also acknowledged that he and Joe did very well off of comics. You doth protest too much. Third, when you say "Jack just went on creating and drawing, even without him, while Joe was off buying mansions.... Hmmm.... looks like he negotiated deals for SOMONE." Now you are implying that Joe Simon embezzled from their partnership. The reality is that Joe has gone back and forth on the partnership terms. There is agreement that the deal on CA was 25% from Goodman to be split 15% Joe and 10% Jack (a 60/40 split). I have also read that the 60/40 split continued for at least a while into their partnership (I believe that was the deal when at DC and maybe much longer). However, Simon also said in interviews later in his life that they were always partners and implied they had an even split. This may only be true for the later years. If so, then it is no surprise that Simon could afford a better house than Jack. If Joe was getting a third more in salary (60% is 1/3rd more than 40%) that really adds up (a whole extra year's pay over three years). I believe that's the true state of events, not the equal cuts line you are pushing and especially not the slander of accusing Joe of misaproppriating partnership assets (something Kirby never accused Joe of doing). Do you have any quotes from Jack to back up your over the top accusations? (P.S. Joe and his relatives can't sue you because there is no cause of action for defaming or slandering the dead). You state: "What the hell did Simon DO without Jack? In comics? Just another guy claiming Jack's work for his own." You clearly are ignorant of Joe's comic work. Joe created Blue Bolt and Silver Streak. He came up with the CA idea and costume. He invented the Romance Comic concept (do you have a quote where Jack claimed he did not?). He and Jack co-created a bunch of other ideas. But Joe did not have the success that Jack achieved with Lee at Marvel, the most fruitful period for any creators ever. Jack's greatness does not diminish Joe and Joe's accomplishments don't diminish Jack. You need to take a more mature view. Recognizing the gifts and accomplishments of others does not push Kirby down. But its very telling you think that. Because your threads are all about unjustly pushing Lee, Simon and others down because you think that is what will elevate Jack. You are wrong.

No disagreement on 60s sales numbers. By then, DC's efforts had reinvigorated the superhero market. But, it cannot be disputed that Wonder Woman probably did not survive based on her sales numbers alone in the late 40s, when GL and Flash were cancelled, given that Sensation, Comic Calvacade, and All-Star were cancelled. The revival was the most significant of any publisher in the 1950s prior to DC. The work by, for example, Everett and Romita was high quality. But it failed. Which shows why DC's revival was a remarkable event in comic history. I'm not sure who is overlooking the 1950s. I own Archive style HCs of Kirby's Fighting American, Boy's Ranch, Challengers of the Unknown, and Atlas work (Monsters, War, and Westerns); HC Omni's of Kirby's Green Lantern; HC compilations of Sky Masters dailies and sundays; Slim Archive style HCs of Young Romance; and other relevant book on this era like the Ditko archives. So it is not like this material is unavailable or unknown or overlooked. I think it is actually quite popular. For me, the late 40s to mid-50s are a favorite era generally. I'm not talking down Kirby. I called him, quote, "Great." The problem is in your zeal to make him the "greatest" of all eras, you are doing a disservice to Joe Simon, Stan Lee and many others. So some context is necessary on this thread. Can you point me to the quote where I or anyone else on the thread make the strawman argument you claim to be refuting? My argument is that what made Marvel great was the synergy between Lee and Kirby. As I have pointed out repeatedly on this thread, Stan's 1950s work is not the basis for his reputation. He admittedly was depressed and burned out and later on in the timeline one of his best friends and collaborators dies. So it was a down time for Stan. But lots of creators have down times before periods of greatness (ever suffered through Van Gogh's potato eater paintings?). For Stan, the 60s greatness was a reaction to the 1950s. So claiming Stan sucks because of the work he did in the 1950s is entirely upside down and ignores the real arc that Stan traveled. Jack Kirby was a constantly active and prolific comic artist. Do I think his 50s work was the best of his career? Not even close. Do I think it was "great"? Mostly no. It made him money, but it was not his creative height. It was not in the top echelons of 1950s work either. Is it "directly related" to the work he'd later do at Marvel? A minor bit. Challengers showed an evolution in his style which was toward the more refined work he'd do for Marvel in the 1960s. I agree his 1960s style is much better than his style in the 1940s and 1950s generally. The 1960s were, IMHO, Kirby's peak. But aside from Challengers 3, which Kirby did not write (it was the Wood brothers) but he did swipe for a few minor elements of FF 1, I'm not sure I'd call anything he did a presaging of the genius that ultimately was the Marvel "formula" that led to the successes of the 1960s. Certainly Yellow Claw and Fighting American were not. And there you go again - trying to elevate Kirby by pushing others down. Joe Simon had a very successful career in newspapers, with Jacquet, at Fox, and at Timely before he met Kirby. Joe was a good GA artist who had the ability to mimic Lou Fine (which is not easy). He created Captain America - which ironically most Kirby fans would say was Kirby's greatest pre-1960s creation. Joe Simon is also the one who came up with the idea of doing romance comics, not Jack Kirby, an idea you have repeatedly touted as leading to massive sales. Simon and Kirby both had lucrative careers together in which they made well above most other comic artists because Joe generally negotiated good deals. They did get ripped off. That happens in business. I'm not sure why you want to slander Joe, doing so even to his grandchild at one point, but I don't think it is responsible or accurate. The fact that Kirby's 1960 period was one of the greatest of all time by a creator does not mean that Joe Simon was a hack. As I said above, that others are great does not diminish Kirby's greatness. You need to recognize that to avoid the trap of trying to disparage others in an attempt to elevate Kirby - an immature tactic. And there you go again and again, again. No one is contending that Stan Lee's 1940s or 1950s are evidence of his greatness or entitlement to HoF status. It is his 1960s that matter. Lee did put in his time, did have some interesting creations, and Atlas did produce very interesting work under Lee's watch prior to the 1960s, but his contribution was not HoF stuff. Again, though, that point is NOT relevant to the 1960s. Lee's contributions in the 1960s, a reaction to his 1950s, were indisputably essential to the "greatness" of Marvel. Ditko's 1950s output, which I've read in the Ditko archives and other books, are a pale shadow of the greatness of Spiderman in my opinion. Nothing that would merit Ditko in the HoF. He was not in the top echelon of pre-code artists. Ditko peaked in the 1960s. Since working at Marvel, he's done essentially nothing that moves the needle for me. If you are a fan of his DC work or a Mr. A fan, that's great, to each his own, but it is not HoF stuff either. My providing some context that Kirby and Ditko are not the two greatest artists in every era (for Kirby) or the 1950s through the 1970s (for Ditko and Kirby) is not "downplaying anyone." It is providing the relevant context that makes comic history accurate. Your myopic hype of Kirby and Ditko in all eras is intended to do one thing: Further your attack on Lee. I don't find it accurate or convincing. Simon had a bigger reputation and more important experience when S&K teamed up than Kirby. He had been an artist for newspapers and comics (with Jacquet) and an editor at Fox and Timely. He'd created successful characters without Jack. And when it came to Captain America, an idea and costume created by Simon, the 25% deal S&K negotiated with Goodman was to be split 15% to Simon and 10% to Kirby. So, yes, my statement was absolutely factually accurate that when they entered into their partnership Kirby was the junior partner financially and creatively. As for Blue Bolt, I don't see much difference between Simon and Kirby's stories. I actually prefer Simon's, but that may be because when it comes to that late 1930s and early 1940s era, I really like the stylings of Lou Fine, who Simon sometimes ghosted/imitated on Fox, and which that Blue Bolt story echoes. That's just a matter of taste. You probably don't like Fine. Kirby in the 1940s put out cartoony and elastic art that often seemed rushed, and included some weird anatomy. I am not a fan of his DC output compared to other art of that period. (I prefer more realistic and clean art like Raboy and later Adams for superheroes over cartoony superhero art). Kirby was not great at drawing beautiful women in the 1940s (for example, I prefer Baker and Toth and others for romance). He did 10 issues of Captain America, nothing that memorable at DC, and a lot of retreading of the kid gang concept. His romance work is not in the top echelon of that genre. He certainly did a LOT of work, much of it enjoyable, but he's not in my top 10 of GA artists. He certainly was NOT the king of the GA. So, yeah, the legend of Kirby that Stan Lee hyped up and 60s fandom grew up on is overblown and a disservice to other creators who really are overlooked. For example, it is amazing that it has taken so long for Everett to get attention for his 1930s-1950s work. He was overlooked because, unlike Kirby, he was not a major force in the 1960s and never worked at EC (another 60s fan favorite). So it took fandom a while to appreciate his full career. Nothing dumb about any of that.

A couple of minor observations. First, Wonder Woman was not that popular, Sensation was cancelled, Comic Calvacade was cancelled, All-Star was cancelled. They had to keep printing WW. Second, Batman and Robin (who actually had more GA appearances than Batman) were really fun comics in the early to mid-1950s. They fell out of favor with the whole Batwoman, Batgirl, Batgrandparents, Batman II, etc. thing that played out in the late 50s and early 60s. The concepts didn't evolve with the times, which was why the Batman TV show worked as camp. Third, Superman's Pal started in 1954 and Superboy had graduated to his own title back in 1949 while still inhabiting Adventure. Ironically, Adventure was one of the most creative titles of all, debuting Legion of Superheroes, Krypto, Brianiac, and other interesting characters. Which is one reason why the Superman books stayed popular. They were also fun! But the success of Batman and Superman were sui generis. They were both in Serials and newspaper strips and, in Superman's case Movies and TV. They were heavy heavy hitters that no one else could touch. You couldn't copy them because DC would sue you out of existence (as it did to Fawcett and the Marvel family), so it was not reasonable for any publisher to view Superman and Batman as an indicator that superhero comics still had legs. BUT, you make a good point about the non-demise of superheroes in the 1950s. Aside from DC's two Superboy helmed titles (Adventure and Superboy), four Superman helmed titles (Action, Superman, Superman's Pal, and World's Finest), three Batman and Robin helmed titles (Detective, Batman, and World's Finest), there was also the short tryout for Phantom Stranger, the debut of the new Martian Manhunter, and backups like Green Arrow and Aquaman percolating along before Showcase 4 debuted Flash (Jonny Quick was the last GA DC hero to be retired from his backup all the way in October 1954). But no new non-Superman books with staying power. DC was the not the end all be all of superheroes in the 1950s. Quality kept Doll Man going into 1953 (with Doll Girl debuting in 1951) and Plastic Man going until November 1956 (all the way into the Silver Age!). Fawcett kept Captain Marvel, CM Jr., and the Marvel Family in print into 1953 and they finally disappeared with the last issue of Marvel Family in January 1954 (legally terminated). Harvey's Black Cat has an argument for being the first GA revival because while she dropped off the cover of Black Cat in August 1951, she was revived and back on the cover in August 1955 for a three issue run (and revived again in October 1962). But the reality is that the high quality Atlas superhero Revival which lasted from Dec. 1953 all the way to Oct. 1955 was the closest anyone came to reviving superheroes as a major genre outside of DC. But it ultimately failed. Just a year before Showcase 4. Aside from those mentioned above, other new superheroes of the 1950s included Timely's 1951 Marvel Boy, ME's 1955 The Avenger, Harvey's 1953 Captain 3-D, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some. The bottom line is that at no time between 1950 and Showcase 4 was there ever a time when DC was the only publisher of superheroes. Perhaps Fawcett and Quality could have sustained their superheroes, but DC intervened legally or financially, and those likely scared other publishers off. Still, publishers didn't succeed with new superheroes until DC proved non-Superman and Batman books could make a go of it, and the zeigeist began to change. We should all agree on this view that has been held since comic fandom began, but I'm pretty sure that on this thread it will turn out that Jack Kirby is responsible not Julius Schwartz, Gardner Fox (who created as impressive and array of GA superheroes and groups as anyone), Kanigher, Infantino, etc., and even Jerry Bails (whose cheerleading was instrumental). Jack Kirby deserves a lot of respect for what he did, and what he did makes him the king of the SA. So there's really no reason to use Kirby in an attempt to disminish others who also deserve a lot of respect for what they did. The world is big enough and we are mature enough to recognize the fact that just because others did great things (and at times were greater than Kirby) does not diminish Kirby's greatness. There's room enough in the world for many great creators.

Actually, I can think of books like that. The point is to keep the prices down while you try to find a copy you love. And then you can sell the extras. It only works for the undiscovered cool books. Fortunately, those still exist. Which is why a fair number of old school collectors keep their cards close to their chest on the books they are seeking.

Read Krigstein’s “Master Race,” Kurtzman’s “Airburst” and “Corpse on The “Imjin”, Feldstein and Wood’s “Judgment Day,” all EC stories and they might change your mind. If that doesn’t work then Toth’s “Battle Flag of the Foreign Legion” for DC’s Danger Trail (the whole series is great) is worth checking out. A lot of high quality work in the late 40s to mid-50s that is just fun reads by guys like Frazetta, Williams, Baker, Barks, and many others since comics do not need to be meaningful to be enjoyable.

The comics I enjoy most are two distinct eras (1) late 70s to late 80s (Avengers by Byrne & Perez, Batman by Rogers and Austin, X-Men by Byrne, Miller DD, Perez JLA and NTT, Sinkz Moon Knight, Comico Grendel and Mage, Wildey Jonny Quest, Cerebus High Society, Usagi, Concrete, Dark Knight, Gaiman Sandman, Moore Swampthing and Watchmen, etc etc etc); and (2) late 40s to mid-50s (Barks high period, EC SF and War and Political and humor, especially Kurtzman and Krigstein, Frazetta & Williamson on their own and together, especially Shining Knight, Toth, Danger Trail, Atlas superhero revival, Batman and Superman fun period, Everett high period, Baker high period, Boys Ranch, etc etc). Honorable mention Silver Age.

The strip was launched in 1977. At the time, Stan was 55. As a 56 year old guy, I'm not why you'd expect his attitude at that point in his career, when he hadn't been regularly working on comics for half a decade, to be indicative of what he thought or how he acted 17 years earlier. The reality is that people change as their lives progress. If you want to make a point about 1960, get some evidence from 1960, not from 1976 or 1977.

And his comics smell like Oreos!

Everyone gets to make their own decisions, but while I love Winsor McCay there is no way I'd display jungle imp racial caricatures on my wall. They are offensive and I why would I want to make people feel uncomfortable in my home? I remember Mitch Mehdy talking about how he sold the original art of Master Race because it was not the kind of thing you display on a wall. I'm not sure I agree with him, but he's older than me and maybe he knew Holocaust survivors, but I can't imagine anyone wanting to have pro-Nazi propagranda posters on their wall. There's just things that are distasteful. While I agree we can't forget history, and there are lessons to be learned from objects, I can see how a father would decide that his children's concerns about racially offensive comic books deserve consideration - especially if the alternative to selling them now is leaving them for the kids to sell. So I really don't think the reaction that you will never take into account the feelings of others with regard to things like collectibles is as nuanced as real life is. You might change your mind if your kids or grandkids began to think that your displaying certain items was creepy and offensive. I say this being one of the people in SF who was very critical of the school board, in fact voted in the successful recall, for going crazy about hypersensitivity to offending people due to a mural which acknowledged the historic truth Washington owned slaves and heavy handed decisions to rename about 30 schools out of overblown fears the names were offensive. So I get your point, I just don't think it is for all seasons or necessarily plays out that way in real life.

The criteria for the HoF is different than what I am talking about - the greatest artists of the Golden Age. For one, a lot of guys get into the HoF primarily, if not exclusively, based on their Silver Age output. For another, the HoF is really about "fame," not quality. Bob Kane gets in for his partial contribution towards Batman. Not many folks rate him a top 10 GA artist, which is the bar we have been discussing. Here are five artists I rate higher than Kirby based exclusively on the quality of their GA work: * Alex Schomburg (Timely's best cover artist bar none, and an innovative cover artist throughout his career for many companies) * Bernie Krigstein (his visual innovations took comics to a height rarely achieved): * Bill Everett (great at covers and interiors - he started strong in the 1930s and by the 1950s he was untouchable): * Harvey Kurtzman (the best at war - despite like Kirby having a cartoony style - and humor!): * Matt Baker (the best at Romance): And if you don't think those guys are good enough, there are plenty of others waiting to come to bat. Profoundly talented illustrators (Frazetta, Williamson, Raboy, etc.), storytellers (Eisner, Toth, Jack Cole, etc.), cover artists (L.B. Cole, Wood, etc.), and, of course, writer-artists (Barks, etc.). When it comes to quality, I don't think Kirby stands above them in the GA. SA, yes, he was the King. GA he was not.

These are the kind of factual mistakes that destroy credibility. Joe joined Jacquet in 1940 doing work for Centaur, Lev Gleason, Curtis, Fox, Timely and other publishers before he became an editor for Timely. Before that he did illustrations and cartoons for newspapers starting in 1932. And even before that his very first comic work appeared in Dell's Funnies weekly issue 34 according to the GCD, which came out in 1930 when Simon was still in High School.

You have a very open mind ... not. Look, I get you can't stand disagreement with your pet views, but that is not the way to find the truth. So enjoy burying your head in the sand.

Great post! But when I was 10 reading Silver Surfer 1 as reprinted in Son of Origins, I thought I'd discovered the greatest insights and philosophical musings ever. The dialogue made the story for me.

Childish response. Here's the answer to your question: Stan Lee was not a major figure in the Golden Age. I can't think of any particularly profound or important work he did. I can think of work I enjoyed. Same for Kirby. The Golden Age was before his full powers blossomed. Kirby was a hard worker in the Golden Age. But he and Simon mainly followed trends, borrowed ideas, and rehashed their successes over and over. Kirby's art in the Golden Age is not near the quality of his Silver Age output. It was not until the 1960s that he truly became the "King" of an era. Working on big selling books is not the same as quality. If it were, we'd all be looking at C.C. Beck and a host of Batman and Superman pencillers as the greatest artists of the Golden Age. A lot of comics were top sellers at one time or another. We generally don't look to sales. Instead, we look to the work of artists who were not huge sellers because of the quality of their work. Do any of the S&K creations really matter? Simon created Captain America, and it sold, but it was just a Shield rip-off that caused MLJ to threaten Timely with suit twice. S&K had to redesign CA's shield because the swipe of Shield was too obvious. It was trend following that hit the stands with perfect timing. None of the S&K GA creations stayed in continuous publication throughout the 40s and 50s like Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, Plastic Man, Blackhawk, etc. or had the staying power of Marvel. S&K did make bank with the kid gang concept - Young Allies, Boy Commandos, Newsboy Legion, Boy Explorers, and Boy's Ranch but talk about milking a concept. The original kid sidekick superhero was, of course, Robin. And Robin clearly was the inspiration for Human Torch's Toro (by Burgos) and the subsequent Bucky, S&K's first foray into kid heroes. Later in their careers, S&K ripped off told the story of the circus aerialist who is the only survivor of a sabotaged highwire act that left his two parents partners dead -- Robin Stuntman - so they clearly took Robin's influence deeply to heart. Unfortunately, there is a definite formula and sameness to S&K's kid gang stories (Boy's Ranch is in my view the best) and some of the racist characters like the watermelon loving caricature "Whitewash Jones" don't help. It takes an effort to read a Newsboy Legion or Boy Commandos archive. These are not stories that will be taught in comic history classes except for the wrong reasons. Similarly, S&K's work at DC on Manhunter and Sandman is also far from classic, and really not as good as the original Sandman stories or the later rework of Manhunter in the 70s. Yes S&K made bank on Simon's idea of doing romance comics, which already had been done as one offs, but not in the style of the romance magazines that "inspired" Simon. Again, Simon knew how to spot a trend and exploit it. He was a smart businessman. Kirby's romance work, however, was far from his best work. It was far from the best romance work in comics. I seriously doubt that Kirby enjoyed telling those stories which did not play to his strength in depicting action. He did however like the big sales figures. S&K also did genre work. Kirby did enjoy westerns. Bulls Eye and Boys Ranch are both on the upper end of the spectrum in that work. Not the master classes that, for example, some of Toth's stories were, but very enjoyable. Kirby was a solid craftsman who excelled at action. And that description pretty much sums up his GA. It is a far lesser accolade than he deserves for the 60s. If Marvel had not happened, Kirby would likely not make a top 10 list of GA artists. Kirby's GA art was far from the New Gods style you like and far from his Marvel work. Look at these covers - the anatomy looks like an anorexic version of Rob Liefield level fidelity to the proportions of the human body. What's up with those legs? Kirby's art was far more cartoony in the GA than it would become later. I can think of a host of GA artists I rate higher than Kirby for their GA output. I'm sure you can too.

The margin notes seem vague and the article appears to mainly be about how Stan did not follow them.

Agree. But it did come from the dialogue. And probably from the conversations that did take place to require that dialogue. There are lots of stories about Stan talking to artists about story ideas. He just didn't write them down. People tend to exaggerate. The multi-issue romantic arcs must have been discussed even if the set up for the fight of the month were not.

We can only speculate. I've seen the original art for AF 15. I don't recall seeing dialogue in the margins. Frankly, I don't think there was room for all of the dialogue in the margins SA art sheets. As a comparison, I bought this page of original art back when I first started collecting comics for $75 and I remember carefully scraping off white out to see the margin notes: The margin note from Byrne to Austin could barely contain enough letters to get a single balloon of dialogue. (Too bad I sold it.) Do have an example of the margin dialogue for ASM?

Spiderman 1-23 had romantic melodrama. Remember Betty Brant and Liz Allen? If it did not come from Ditko, where did it come from?

Really? Because the guy who comes up with the plot of a story is generally called the plotter and the guy who writes the actual words said by the characters generally gets a -script or writer credit.

I'm not sure why you are obsessed with reprints. X-Men 137 has been reprinted around 20 times since 1984, and I'm sure it is not the most reprinted Marvel story. And I'm more than a little surprised about your comment about "Marvel Zombies," given the artwork they would be reading in the 1960s was mostly Kirby and those he influenced. Me, I like pages with no words and I view Master Race as the seminal story with Miller's early DD as a great iteration of that style. Kurtzman's Corpse on the Imjin isn't a bad story either.

I know the stories. Jack didn't create the Spiderman which won Marvel readers' hearts. The Fly was not Spiderman precursor, at least not in any meaningful way.