Stan, Jack, and Steve - The 1950's. (1957) Jack Kirby's Marvel Age has already begun! 2 2

[Prince Namor]

On 7/26/2022 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

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.

Nothing to verify that, but ok. 

On 7/26/2022 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

The revival was the most significant of any publisher in the 1950s. 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.

Fighting American lasted 7 issues and only ended when S&K's relationship with Crestwood ended.

On 7/26/2022 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

I'm not talking down Kirby. I called him, quote "Great."

NOW you are. So you can pretend to be even handed. You started off with calling his GA work 'overblown'. Which is nonsense. 

On 7/26/2022 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

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.

I get it StanFanDuck, you have to keep putting Kirby DOWN, so that it makes STAN look better. The work tells the TRUTH though. 

On 7/26/2022 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

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. 

Downplaying Kirby's work before AND after Stan.

On 7/26/2022 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

As I have pointed out repeatedly on this thread, Stan's 1950s work is not the basis for his reputation.

ALL the work someone does is the basis for their reputation. You can give some consideration for YOUTH and for OLD AGE, but Stan was in the prime of his life in the 50's. 

On 7/26/2022 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

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. 

Maneely didn't die until half way through 1958!!! Stan had the whole company to himself to do whatever he wanted for over a decade after the war! He could do whatever he wanted... And he DID.

Homer the Happy Ghost

Marvin the Mouse

Melvin the Monster

Dippy Duck

Dumb Blonde Comics....

He had almost the entire decade to do whatever he wanted with his supposed 'best friend', and what did he do? Hack work. 

It's not a slag, it's just the truth. 

 

What did Simon & Kirby do when they could do anything they wanted?

They kick started the Romance genre - and sold MILLIONS of copies per issue and ran that for NINE years.

On 7/26/2022 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

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. 

Is it "directly related" to the work he'd later at Marvel? A 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 was not.

It doesn't matter what YOU think. Your opinion means less than ZERO to me. 

You can't stand to see Stan's 'I created it all' BS called into question and it permeates into everything you say here. 

But I get it StanFanDuck, you have to keep saying they're great, so that it makes KIRBY look less important. The work tells the TRUTH though. 

On 7/26/2022 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

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. 

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. 

On 7/26/2022 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

For Stan, the 60s greatness was a reaction to the 1950s.

A reaction? Without Kirby it wouldn't have happened. 

On 7/26/2022 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

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.

Stan doesn't 'suck' because of the work he did in the 50's. I never said that. I WILL say his work in the 2nd half of the 50's SUCKED though.

But I get it StanFanDuck, you have to keep saying they're great, so that it makes KIRBY look less important. The work tells the TRUTH though. 

On 7/26/2022 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

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.

No proof other than what Simon says. Jack's romance work without Simon is far superior to any that... wait, did Simon DO any romance work without Jack?

What the hell did Simon DO without Jack? In comics?

Just another guy claiming Jack's work for his own.

I get it StanFanDuck, you have to keep putting Kirby DOWN, so that it makes STAN and JOE look better. The work tells the TRUTH though. 

On 7/26/2022 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

Simon and Kirby both had lucrative careers together in which they made well above most other comic artists because Joe negotiated good deals.

He did? He 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. 

I get it StanFanDuck, you have to keep putting Kirby DOWN, so that it makes STAN and JOE look better. The work tells the TRUTH though. 

On 7/26/2022 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

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.

He can sue me if he wants. I'd love to take it to a court of law. As for you, I couldn't' care less what you think. 

On 7/26/2022 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

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.

Never said he was a hack. Just stated the obvious with a question. What did he do in comics that was of any merit after Kirby?

Answer: Nothing. 

On 7/26/2022 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

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.

They are legends in the history of comics. My questioning doesn't change any of that.

If saying they built that off the back of Jack, bothers you... show me the examples to disprove that.

I get it StanFanDuck, you have to keep saying they're great, so that it makes KIRBY look less important. The work tells the TRUTH though. 

On 7/26/2022 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

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 irrelevant to the 1960s. Lee's contributions in the 1960s were indisputably essential to the "greatness" of Marvel.

Haven't denied any of that.

On 7/26/2022 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

Simon had a bigger reputation and more important experience when S&K teamed up than Kirby.

In early 1940? Duh.

On 7/26/2022 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

As for Blue Bolt, I don't see much difference between Simon and Kirby's stories.

I get it StanFanDuck, you have to keep saying they're great, so that it makes KIRBY look less important. The work tells the TRUTH though. 

On 7/26/2022 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

Kirby in the 1940s put out cartoony and elastic art that often seemed rushed and included some weird anatomy.  He was not great at drawing beautiful women. 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.

I get it StanFanDuck, you have to keep putting Kirby DOWN, so that it makes STAN and Joe look better. The work tells the TRUTH though. 

[Prince Namor]

Right on cue!!!

ON NEWSSTANDS JUNE OF 1957!

Jack writes, pencils and inks a story in DC's Tales of the Unexpected #16 (Ruben Moreira cover)...

...that has some familiar elements to it! 

Like Thor and Loki and the way he draws Thor's hammer...

(I like that Moreira cover too... makes me want to read THAT story as well!)

Edited July 26, 2022 by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JUNE OF 1957!

Jack writes, pencils and inks a story (and cover) in DC's House of Mystery #65. 

Edited July 26, 2022 by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JUNE OF 1957!

Jack writes, pencils and inks a story in Atlas' Two Gun Western #12 (Bill Everett cover), which is most likely an inventory story. 

[Prince Namor]

Meanwhile...

ON NEWSSTANDS JUNE 1957

For June, Stan Lee wrote:

My Girl Pearl #6 with Dan DeCarlo art 

 

Atlas would publish only 13 titles for the month of June as the effects of Goodman's business decision prepare to seriously backfire....

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JUNE OF 1957!

Steve Ditko meanwhile does 3 stories and the cover in Strange Suspense Stories #33. Joe Gill is the writer on all three. 

Story ONE

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JUNE OF 1957!

Steve Ditko meanwhile does 3 stories and the cover in Strange Suspense Stories #33. Joe Gill is the writer on all three. 

Story TWO - There's that Norman Osborn hair style again!

Edited July 26, 2022 by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JUNE OF 1957!

Steve Ditko meanwhile does 3 stories and the cover in Strange Suspense Stories #33. Joe Gill is the writer on all three. 

Story THREE

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JUNE OF 1957!

Steve Ditko also does 4 stories and the cover in Tales of the Mysterious Traveler #4. Joe Gill is the writer on all four. 

Story ONE

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JUNE OF 1957!

Steve Ditko also does 4 stories and the cover in Tales of the Mysterious Traveler #4. Joe Gill is the writer on all four. 

Story TWO

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JUNE OF 1957!

Steve Ditko also does 4 stories and the cover in Tales of the Mysterious Traveler #4. Joe Gill is the writer on all four. 

Story THREE

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JUNE OF 1957!

Steve Ditko also does 4 stories and the cover in Tales of the Mysterious Traveler #4. Joe Gill is the writer on all four. 

Story FOUR

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JUNE OF 1957!

Steve Ditko also does 2 stories and the cover in Unusual Tales #8. Joe Gill is the writer on both. 

Story ONE

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JUNE OF 1957!

Steve Ditko also does 2 stories and the cover in Unusual Tales #8. Joe Gill is the writer on both. 

Story TWO

[sfcityduck]

On 7/26/2022 at 9:04 AM, Prince Namor said:

Nothing to verify that, but ok. 

Fighting American lasted 7 issues and only ended when S&K's relationship with Crestwood ended.

NOW you are. So you can pretend to be even handed. You started off with calling his GA work 'overblown'. Which is nonsense. 

I get it StanFanDuck, you have to keep putting Kirby DOWN, so that it makes STAN look better. The work tells the TRUTH though. 

Downplaying Kirby's work before AND after Stan.

ALL the work someone does is the basis for their reputation. You can give some consideration for YOUTH and for OLD AGE, but Stan was in the prime of his life in the 50's. 

Maneely didn't die until half way through 1958!!! Stan had the whole company to himself to do whatever he wanted for over a decade after the war! He could do whatever he wanted... And he DID.

Homer the Happy Ghost

Marvin the Mouse

Melvin the Monster

Dippy Duck

Dumb Blonde Comics....

He had almost the entire decade to do whatever he wanted with his supposed 'best friend', and what did he do? Hack work. 

It's not a slag, it's just the truth. 

 

What did Simon & Kirby do when they could do anything they wanted?

They kick started the Romance genre - and sold MILLIONS of copies per issue and ran that for NINE years.

It doesn't matter what YOU think. Your opinion means less than ZERO to me. 

You can't stand to see Stan's 'I created it all' BS called into question and it permeates into everything you say here. 

But I get it StanFanDuck, you have to keep saying they're great, so that it makes KIRBY look less important. The work tells the TRUTH though. 

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. 

A reaction? Without Kirby it wouldn't have happened. 

Stan doesn't 'suck' because of the work he did in the 50's. I never said that. I WILL say his work in the 2nd half of the 50's SUCKED though.

But I get it StanFanDuck, you have to keep saying they're great, so that it makes KIRBY look less important. The work tells the TRUTH though. 

No proof other than what Simon says. Jack's romance work without Simon is far superior to any that... wait, did Simon DO any romance work without Jack?

What the hell did Simon DO without Jack? In comics?

Just another guy claiming Jack's work for his own.

I get it StanFanDuck, you have to keep putting Kirby DOWN, so that it makes STAN and JOE look better. The work tells the TRUTH though. 

He did? He 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. 

I get it StanFanDuck, you have to keep putting Kirby DOWN, so that it makes STAN and JOE look better. The work tells the TRUTH though. 

He can sue me if he wants. I'd love to take it to a court of law. As for you, I couldn't' care less what you think. 

Never said he was a hack. Just stated the obvious with a question. What did he do in comics that was of any merit after Kirby?

Answer: Nothing. 

They are legends in the history of comics. My questioning doesn't change any of that.

If saying they built that off the back of Jack, bothers you... show me the examples to disprove that.

I get it StanFanDuck, you have to keep saying they're great, so that it makes KIRBY look less important. The work tells the TRUTH though. 

Haven't denied any of that.

In early 1940? Duh.

I get it StanFanDuck, you have to keep saying they're great, so that it makes KIRBY look less important. The work tells the TRUTH though. 

I get it StanFanDuck, you have to keep putting Kirby DOWN, so that it makes STAN and Joe look better. The work tells the TRUTH though. 

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.

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by sfcityduck

[Ken Aldred]

On 7/26/2022 at 4:07 PM, sfcityduck said:

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.

Time, circumstances, experience, sometimes it just clicks and it all comes together.

[sfcityduck]

On 7/26/2022 at 9:24 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

Atlas would publish only 13 titles for the month of June as the effects of Goodman's business decision prepare to seriously backfire....

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.

Edited July 26, 2022 by sfcityduck

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JUNE OF 1957!

According to John Severin he left Atlas on his own*** (it looks like just before the implosion) as a salaried employee in the bullpen (who also got extra freelance work) and one of the last books he turned in was the final issue of Quick Trigger Western #19. He did the cover and the opening 5 page story. Severin came to Atlas as EC was winding down its comic line, in 1955. He'd go on to be a recognizable talent at Cracked Magazine after this, before returning to Marvel in 1967.

Some people wonder what Joe Maneely's place would've been in the Marvel Universe if he'd have lived... and (well, Kirby and Ditko would've still had to come back to Marvel), and I think we can see this in what John Severin did. Stan liked John a great deal and John always liked and spoke highly of Stan. In fact, in his last year with Atlas, Severin would do 100 covers (almost 8 1/2 a month!), including 7 of them for #1 issues! (Maneely would do a very impressive 60 in the same time span - including 2 of them #1's). 

John Severin says he was close friends with Joe Maneely. And...

SEVERIN: Burgos, Sol Brodsky, Danny...whatever. Yeah, a whole bunch of people. Joe Maneely and I used to swap artwork back and forth. He would draw a page with all this stuff and leave out the backgrounds. You know, towns and that sort of thing. Not people and stuff. And I would sit there and draw in the saloons and all this stuff in simple outlines. In the meantime, he's doing the same thing with one of my jobs. Sometimes we'd have the same story! He'd be doing one page and I'd be doing the other. He'd do the first; I'd do the second. He'd do the third, and so on and so forth.

GROTH: Was that true of all of these artists then? Everyone would work on everyone else's pages!

SEVERIN: No. This was just these two lunatics in there.

GROTH: Just you and Joe Maneely?

SEVERIN: I just adapted my style to his, which was reasonably easy. Not my artwork or his artwork, but the style.

-from The Comics Journal #216, Oct 1999

 

He says he was actually out with him the night he died:

GROTH: Maneely died tragically.

SEVERIN: Yeah. That's what I get for going out and drinking with the guy.

GROTH: Were you close to him?

SEVERIN: Yeah. I'd go down to the Jersey shore and visit his family, and they would come over to our house. We used to eat lunch together a lot. And when we'd get paid, we'd go out and drink a lot. And that's what he did that night. We all went out drinking, and he drank a little too much, and he stepped off the platform.

GROTH: Were you with him at the time?

SEVERIN: No. Thank God, no. I went in another direction. I didn't take the train at all.

GROTH: I see. But it was right after you guys had hung out for a while?

SEVERIN: Yes.

-from The Comics Journal #216, Oct 1999

And he tells a very funny story about Stan Lee:

SEVERIN: Well, this time it was me. I went out at lunchtime. Around the corner from the Empire State Building there was an antique gun place. I went in there to buy the Remington Cap and Bull. And the guy said, "OK, but I'll have to sell you half of it on this side, make out a bill. Half of it on the other side, make out a bill." Anyhow, I bought the two pieces, and he put them in separate bags. I went back to the offices after lunch and put the gun back together and everybody looked at it and so on and so forth.

I stuck it in my waist, and I went in to Stan Lee's office. He sat at the end or his office behind a bunch of windows, and there seemed to be row of girls on either side, secretaries doing different things. So I walked down the line there, went up to Stan Lee, pulled out the the gun and stuck it at him and I said. "Stan. I came in for a raise." And he looked up, put his finger in the barrel and said, "Severin, get the hell out of here." Easy-going? Yeah, that was an easy-going guy.

GROTH: Good sense of humor!

SEVERIN: Well, he also saw the same Douglas Fairbanks movie. Douglas Fairbanks was working with some German agent. One of them pulled out a Luger and he stuck his finger in the barrel. I didn't remember that until Stan did it.

-from The Comics Journal #216, Oct 1999

 

 

***SEVERIN: Yeah, I did. I left Atlas (I can't think of what name to call it any more)...that was because of the pinch. They were cutting back and drooping artists all around the place. In fact, they got rid of the whole bullpen. Everybody was going on freelance. Not knowing how much freelance [work] was handy, I figured the best thing to do was to go and get some from somebody else, too. 

 

[sfcityduck]

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:

Quote

 

GROTH: How did you hook up with Joe Simon?

KIRBY: Going up to these offices we’d meet up, a lot of us also going to do business with these people. I had never met a guy like Joe. I had never met a guy from Syracuse, New York. I’d never met a guy who wasn’t a New Yorker. Joe looked like a politician. I said, “Gee, isn’t that wonderful?” Joe was an impressive guy. He still is. He got square deals for us, where in the past to get a square deal was an unknown quantity. ....

 

GROTH: How did the public backlash against comics in the early ’50s affect you?

KIRBY: It didn’t affect me at all. I was a poor boy making money.

GROTH: What were your feelings about that at the time?

KIRBY: I ignored them. I knew the stuff I was doing was done well and that I could write as well as any other guy. And I did. I knew that Joe was a good businessman.

 

[Prince Namor]

I get that you want to BELIEVE Joe Simon’s BS… I mean, without it, he REALLY looks like someone who just rode Jack’s creative coat tails. So let’s do some critical reasoning. Are you familiar with that? Instead of just believing what some glory hound says, let’s actually THINK about what is SAID and what is SEEN.

Example: “I was in place with Captain America before Jack came over to Timely. Without Jack it might not have been so successful. I give him all the credit in the world. But I can’t say he was there at the beginning when he wasn’t.” - TCJ

See the back handed compliment? I give Jack all the credit in the world, except I’m giving him NO actual credit for the creation or the right to it. Very slick. This is what Stan Lee did for years. There’s more….

Example: “Jack had a thing about working on payroll, but I didn’t,” Simon told the Journal. “He really relied on a weekly paycheck, even though it was only $15 a week, and it took him a long time to pull him out of Fox.”

Simon says he was negotiating with Martin Goodman for Captain America before Kirby even showed up at Timely, if that’s true…then why would Simon cut Kirby in for a percentage of the profits, when he claims Kirby was happy just getting a weekly paycheck?

See and here’s where Simon REALLY stumbles, because we now HAVE the timelines… Kirby was ALREADY doing work for Timely for over a HALF a YEAR before Cap came out.

 

He had work at Timely: Red Raven #1 came out in May of 1940. Daring Mystery Comics #6 came out June of 1940. The cover for Marvel Mystery Comics #12 came out August 1940. Marvel Mystery Comics #15 came out November of 1940, featuring the first Vision. They were already DOING work for Timely.

The first Blue Bolt Simon & Kirby credit was from issue #5 released in August 1940.

Captain America came out in December 1940.

 

AND… Kirby’s Fox work finished with Science Comics #4 in March 1940, with only Fantastic Comics #12 in between in September. He was doing freelance work for Novelty, Eastern Color, Worth Carnahan, Prize… If what Simon says is TRUE, why would he offer Kirby a percentage of the profits when he could’ve gotten him to easily work freelance?

He wouldn’t.

UNLESS JACK HAD MORE TO DO WITH THE CREATION THAN WHAT JOE CLAIMS.

UNLESS WHAT SIMON’s SAYING IS FALSE.

It’s just common sense.

AND If Kirby's involvement was as minimal as Simon claims - why was the Simon & Kirby credit used???

If you go by what Joe Simon says - all Kirby did was tighten up his penciled layouts… then why was the Simon & Kirby credit used?During that era there were close to a dozen hands working on those stories, why was the Simon & Kirby credit used, if Kirby's sole contribution was just tightening up Simon's pencils?

IT DOESN’T ADD UP.

And…

Author and Kirby expert Chris Tolworthy says it best:

“I wish more people would read the damn comics. There is the evidence, right there. Kirby was busy changing Blue Bolt into Captain America: Simon wanted a Flash Gordon knock-off, and Kirby wanted Captain America.

When Kirby came onto Blue Bolt with issue 2, the difference in writing was night and day. Blue Bolt from issue 2 was clearly all Kirby. He inherited a fantasy story about an underground empire, and he gradually morphed it into something completely different: defending America against gangsters and Nazis alongside his partner Bucky. The last month of Blue Bolt was the first month of Captain America. You can see Kirby's thought processes evolve month by month. There is no mystery about what Simon wanted and what Kirby wanted, and who did what: it is all right there on the page.”

 

What’s funny is - how Joe’s story changed. Read Simon’s intro to the Fighting American collection in 1989 or the other places Joe spoke about it before his book.