Spider-Man’s Not So Well Thought Out Theory (Retconning History) 0

[N e r V]

So this caught my attention in the current ComicLink auction.

As mentioned above, there is a well thought out theory that the six-page story for which this title splash was created with Kirby's pencils and Ditko's inks was actually produced prior to the two-page version of this first meeting of Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four illustrated by Ditko and published six months before Fantastic Four Annual #1 in Amazing Spider-Man #1. The theory postulates that the Kirby story was initially intended for Amazing Fantasy #17 (before the title was cancelled), which would have housed the third appearance of Spider-Man. As all Marvel collectors know, Amazing Fantasy ended with #15, which appeared on newsstands on June 5, 1962. Amazing Spider-Man #1 didn't come out until six months later on December 10, 1962. During that long gap, the decision was made to use Ditko as the dedicated Spider-Man artist instead of Kirby. The panels used in Amazing Spider-Man #1 are strikingly similar to those used in the Fantastic Four Annual #1 story, and it is likely that Ditko redrew the Kirby story, condensing it down to two pages in order to fit it into Amazing Spider-Man #1. Fantastic Four Annual #1 came out seven months after Amazing Spider-Man #1 in July of 1963. The Annual had 72 pages, which was a lot to fill up. In addition to the main story featuring the Sub-Mariner, a story recapping the FF's origin and a pin-up gallery showcasing the FF's villains, Stan Lee likely made the decision to publish the original six-page version of the first meeting of Spider-Man and the FF, "The Fabulous Fantastic Four Meet Spider-Man". The copy on this title page makes it sound like the two-page sequence in Amazing Spider-Man #1 was created first, but as Stan was concerned about the published chronology, it makes sense that he would tell that to the readers rather than explain what was really going on behind the scenes.  
 

So having grown up collecting comics in the 1970’s and having heard Stan go on and on over the years about how the creation of Spider-Man came about in printed form, panels and live interviews this “well thought out theory” sounds more like “not thought out BS”. 

If you don’t know the backstory here’s the repeated version from a wiki entry:

At that time Lee had to get only the consent of Marvel publisher Martin Goodman for the character's approval. In a 1986 interview, Lee described in detail his arguments to overcome Goodman's objections.[note 2] Goodman eventually agreed to a Spider-Man tryout in what Lee in numerous interviews recalled as what would be the final issue of the science-fiction and supernatural anthology series Amazing Adult Fantasy, which was renamed Amazing Fantasy for that single issue, #15 (cover-datedAugust 1962, on sale June 5, 1962). In particular, Lee stated that the fact that it had already been decided that Amazing Fantasy would be canceled after issue #15 was the only reason Goodman allowed him to use Spider-Man. While this was indeed the final issue, its editorial page anticipated the comic continuing and that "The Spiderman [sic] ... will appear every month in Amazing."

Virtually every interview I had ever seen by Stan and others who were around at the time had the story that Spider-Man wasn’t thought that well by Goodman and no one really cared about a character being slotted into a book that was already done for which is how he got Spider-Man finally out. Cancelled before, not after the character was scheduled in #15. Also both Lee and Ditko had Kirby exiting very early in the characters development so having him do work on his third appearance of his continuing series makes little sense either. Ditko actually did the original cover to Amazing Fantasy #15 before the Kirby/Ditko version. Kirby was called back to do a better cover because that’s what Kirby did back then when needed. Lee had already gone with Ditko though on Spider-Man according to both their versions before AF #15 even got published.

Now that the creators are dead is retconning in actual comics history something we have forward to look to? 

 

[KirbyJack]

The rumor is that the Human Torch vs. Spider-Man story in Strange Tales annual 2 was intended for Amazing Fantasy 16. This fits with the FF annual story being AF 17, but the Strange Tales story is Kirby pencils, too.

It is curious that there is so much early  Spider-Man work done by Kirby. Maybe he didn’t know he was off the feature and just knocked out pages?

[bc]

There's actually quite a bit of evidence to support Amazing Fantasy 16 and 17 were on the table.

Have to credit this site for doing some very detailed investigative work:

https://zak-site.com/MarvelMethodArchive/205.html

From the last page of AF15:

Notice the white out...

Patrick Ford: Likely "ADULT FANTASY" was painted over. I don't doubt Kirby's Spiderman pages were intended to AMAZING FANTASY and the change from AMAZING ADULT FANTASY (which was entirely Lee/Ditko) to AMAZING FANTASY intended to feature a Kirby story would seem to indicate AMAZING ADULT FANTASY was not selling particularly well.

Dave Rawlins: Maybe. It could also be covering up Spiderman or Spider-Man, the spacing fits. If it is then that would contradict the story that Stan Lee sneaked the story into a title that was going to be canceled. Perhaps instead the title was slated to be changed to Amazing Spider-Man.

Patrick Ford: Dave, That's a possibility. Lee's claim that Goodman hated Spider-Man and Lee had to sneak it into a title slated for cancellation does not hold up to scrutiny. Steve Ditko has pointed out the flaws in Lee's scenario. Off the top of my head I can list.

1. Ditko describes a conversation with Lee as Lee was giving Ditko the Kirby pages to take and ink. According to Ditko Goodman was planning on a whole line of insect based super heroes.

2. Ditko mentions how frequently Lee claims that he did something which Goodman hated. And how unlikely it is that a publisher would back an idea he hated.

3. The fact is that rather than abandon the Spider-Man idea all together when Kirby's pages were rejected, Lee had Ditko work on a different version and when it came to to supposedly sneak Spider-Man into AMAZING FANTASY not only was Spider-Man on the cover, Lee rejected Ditko's cover and had Kirby create another one.

Mark Evanier: AMAZING ADULT FANTASY was not selling well but there's some evidence -- not entirely conclusive -- that when Kirby drew his SPIDERMAN pages, that strip was going to go into TALES OF SUSPENSE.

Patrick Ford: I think Will Murry wrote about that in COMIC BOOK MARKETPLACE. I forget exactly what he said, but he made a good case. I'll dig out that issue when I have a moment.

Patrick Ford: The Will Murry article is in COMIC BOOK MARKETPLACE #5 (2002). Jean Depelley has also written on the earliest Spider-Man stories recently.

 

Michael Hill: Jean Depelley speculates that Lee commissioned four stories from Ditko (3) and Kirby (1) for successive issues of Amazing Fantasy. The Kirby story ultimately appeared in FF Annual #1, but its cover was used on the second-ever Spider-Man book, ASM #1. Inside, Ditko (or Brodsky) swiped Kirby's fight scene but shortened it, answering the question Kirby's "greatest fans" like to ask, why did Kirby have to swipe Ditko's fight scene for the FF Annual story?

The other question that arises is whose ASM #1 cover was drawn first? (It's generally assumed that Kirby's was a redraw.) I posed the question to Steve Ditko in a letter. He in no way owes me an answer to anything I ask him, and although he wrote me back, he declined to address the question.

Jean Depelley: Concerning the FF Annual pages, the best way would be to have a look at Ditko's original pages from ASM#1, these representing the fight scene of Spider-Man with the FF. To me, they are clearly Ditko (and not Brodsky). Do they have paste-ups on them? Were they modified by Brodsky to concentrate the panels in less pages? Only the original pages could tell and they were stolen (even if everybody knows where they are today).

-bc