Stan, Jack, and Steve - The 1960's (1963) Butting Heads, Unexpected Success and Not Expected Failures! 3 3

[Prince Namor]

It's always amusing to me when people say they thought Kirby couldn't write dialogue... fact is it just goes way over their head. They then try and make Stan Lee sound 'literary', when in fact Stan wrote for the lowest common denominator. His references were very pedestrian. It's the same style he used for Millie the Model.

Jack was more well read than Stan, far more literary, and unfortunately for him, by the time he went solo in the 70's, just too literary for Stan Lee Marvel Zombies. 

Jack Kirby’s writing was “Opera” at DC and if you don’t understand what I mean, no amount of explaining will change your mind. Every Saturday morning in my early years assisting Russ Manning at his Mojeska Canyon studio we would listen to the Met Opera broadcasts on Radio. Russ told me to understand that opera was very similar to comic books: Larger than life happenings, plots, character reactions…on stage in song like the pen and ink going-on of comic books. Okay… I’ve oversimplified…but it made sense to me! Jack’s 4th world writing was operatic. If there are a lot of you who don’t “get” what Jack was doing I am sad for you.—Michael Royer

What a lot of people don’t get is Kirby’s level of SOPHISTICATION–his work is full of allusions to other literary works. Your reading is enriched if you already know who Isaiah or Daniel or Caliban were. If someone doesn’t get it, it’s a knock against them, not Kirby.—Darrell Epp

Kirby’s writing is rife with bizarre word play, clichéd and surreal dialogue, awkward appropriations of youth-culture lingo, and entirely invented slang and technological argot. While charged with giddy momentum, it is not humorous in the knowing “camp” way that typified so much of comic writing in the wake of his early sixties work (and its translation into TV dialogue on Batman ). Instead, Kirby’s writing is riddled with the kind of rollicking unconditional humor that animates the work of Charlie Chaplin or Ornette Coleman: lyrical, sentimental, and revolutionary… It was in his collaborative books with Lee, however, that Kirby’s dominance becomes clear, as Lee’s trademark coldwar huckster bombast falls increasingly short of the expansively democratic and accelerating mystic vision that possessed Kirby.—Doug Harvey

[Steven Valdez]

Stan Lee even stole his signature 'Excelsior' catch phrase.

[Larryw7]

One word: Stripperella. I rest my case.

[sfcityduck]

On 6/23/2023 at 7:18 PM, Prince Namor said:

Captain America was the best selling book Timely Comics ever had. Nothing else matched its numbers. After Burgos' Human Torch, Everett's Sub-Mariner, and then Kirby and Simon's Cap, Timely never really ever had anything else in superheroes that did anything. 

 

Lots wrong here about significance of Captain America to Jack Kirby's legacy, including:

• Captain America was a Joe Simon creation - Simon created the look of the character without Kirby's input and Simon scripted the origin.  Kirby was the penciller (Simon inked w/ some pencils). The first appearance of the Red Skull was scripted by Ed Herron. But having said that ...
• Captain America was a character entirely derivative of the Shield (the true first patriotic character).  So much so, that the shape of CA's shield had to be changed with issue 2 (not the Sentinel of Liberty badge which was a lasting homage to MLJ's Shield);
• S&K left Captain America after issue 10 in February 1942 (less than a year after starting the title). So if the print runs on the title peaked after that date (which I believe they did during the Schomburg years), then Kirby deserves no credit for those sales figures.  So when did the distribution numbers that you reference with the "best selling book Timely Comics ever had" peak?  

Worth noting that Bill Everett's Submariner was Timely's first superhero and its most enduring.  Key facts:

• Created pre-Timely, Everett's Submariner appeared in Timely's very first comic book cover date Oct. 1939 almost a year and a half before Captain America 1 cover date March 1941;
• Sub-Mariner Comics lasted about the same length of time as Captain America's solo title in the 1940s (which was converted to horror), BUT
• Everett's Sub-Mariner 1950s revival far outdid Captain America in the Atlas revival lasting 10 issues to CA's 3; and
• Sub-Mariner was reintroduced in Marvel years earlier (FF 4) than Captain America (Avengers 4).

To me, sales figures are not the be-all end-all. I'd say that Bill Everett was the "King" of Timely given his much much lengthier tenure with Timely/Atlas Golden Age superhero comics than Jack Kirby's.  We are talking work from the 1930s to the into the mid-1950s compared to Kirby's few years in the early 1940s.  Sub-Mariner, Human Torch and Captain America are a "Big Three" and its highly debatable which was the most important character of the GA to Timely.  A strong case can be made for Human Torch also (after S&K's Red Raven failed, Human Torch's solo comic was very successful continuing on into 1949) who was featured in many back-up stories in Captain America Comics and was chosen to be the standard bearer of the early Atlas Revival (with Subby as the standard bearer at the tail end and CA a mere three issue cover feature).

You're right that, outside of the Big Three, Timely had only a few notable short superhero runs (Blonde Phantom, Namora, Venus, Marvel Boy) but it did have non-superhero long running titles.  Everett was arguably the greatest PCH cover artist based on his stellar work for Atlas. 

BUT Millie the Model ended up being Timely's longest running series running 207 issues starting in 1945 (and she appeared in a number of other spin-off titles and subsidiary titles). Who created Millie? Ruth Atkinson. She also co-created Patsy Walker. It may well be that the "King" of Timely was really a "Queen".  Either way, it wasn't Kirby. His tenure was a flash in the pan.  It's a crazy claim to make that Jack was "King" of Timely, especially if you appreciate Joe Simon's contributions to the partnership he led and pay attention to Everett (and Schomburg, etc.).  It's a SA perspective.

Edited June 24, 2023 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 6/23/2023 at 7:18 PM, Prince Namor said:

Boy Commandos was a million copy seller at DC, and so important to them they had Kirby do covers, splash pages and layouts for multiple stories before he went away to war. They appeared in 150 comics between 1942 and 1946. 

Besides that the Newsboy Legion ran for 5 years and 57 issues in Star Spangled Comics, and DC was even using the Kirby & Simon names on the cover to promote the two of them, which was pretty unheard of at the time.

After the war, Kirby and Simon had a blockbuster with Young Romance, and teamed with Young Love they sold two million copies a month, kickstarting the Romance Genre in Comics and bringing on endless copycats.

They did all of this before 1950 even began. 

If comics ended right then and there, they would've been in the Hall of Fame. 

Boy Commandos was not even close to DC's top seller. Batman and Robin, Superman, Flash, Wonder Woman, etc. all eclipsed that series.

Robin and Tomahawk both ran longer in Star Spangled than Newsboy Legion. DC used the S&K name on the cover of a very few comics and dropped it pretty quickly - presumably because it didn't boost sales.  Simon, a master marketer, probably convinced DC to do it and DC dropped it because did not prove out to have value.

The decision to enter romance was a Joe Simon decision. He admits it wasn't a creative decision, it was just astute marketing in deciding to go after the housewife audience. Kirby's work on romance comics is not that notable. He's no Matt Baker. Your continuing attempt to justify Kirby's significance with sales figures leads you astray.  Based on your analysis, we can pretty much stop the analysis of the hierarchy of comic creators with S&S's creation of Superman since the sales figure on superheros are going to blow away romance or with the inventor the teen genre (whoever that was) because that too blows away romance, etc.  It's just sloppy thinking. S&K hit the lottery in following the romance trend from magazines and importing it into comics, but if someone else had had the idea first we wouldn't be calling that person the "King" for winning that lottery, just as we don't for western, crime (Biro), horrror, jungle, etc.

If comics had ended in the 1950s, S&K would have been viewed as notable creators like many others who have ended up in the Hall of Fame (Beck, Biro, Binder, Burgos, Cole, Crandall, Eisner, Everett, Fine, Fox, etc. - do I really need to go on to make the point about the number of great GA creators with incredible resumes prior to 1950?) but Kirby wouldn't be on the Mt. Rushmore as of 1950.  Just like Simon isn't on the Mt. Rushmore as we look at it today. Because Kirby earned his place in the SA, not the 1940s. In the 1940s, S&K's accomplishments do not stand head and shoulders above others.  After the SA, Kirby's did.  Do you really disagree?  If so, where's the Joe "King" Simon argument?

Edited June 24, 2023 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 6/23/2023 at 7:55 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

Credit AND pay. Stan stole both.

 

And yet, the FIRST time that Jack was called the "King" was by Stan Lee in FF 63.  The reverence for Jack grew immensely because of his 1960s work. 

[sfcityduck]

On 6/23/2023 at 8:23 PM, Prince Namor said:

It's always amusing to me when people say they thought Kirby couldn't write dialogue... fact is it just goes way over their head. They then try and make Stan Lee sound 'literary', when in fact Stan wrote for the lowest common denominator. His references were very pedestrian. It's the same style he used for Millie the Model.

 

Dude, we're talking about comic books.  Nothing Kirby did was particularly "literary." At best it was great soap opera. Marvel was and still is entertainment for the masses. No need to go all Frasier (think Kelsey Grammer). Archie and Millie are also great entertainment. 

[Mmehdy]

On 6/24/2023 at 9:15 AM, sfcityduck said:

Dude, we're talking about comic books.  Nothing Kirby did was particularly "literary." At best it was great soap opera. Marvel was and still is entertainment for the masses. No need to go all Frasier (think Kelsey Grammer). Archie and Millie are also great entertainment. 

I got to disagree with you, given the format limitations the books can rise much higher that soap opera....FF48, 49 and 51 come to mind, as well as FF5, Ann#1( possibly the best here),etc and that is just Kirby...let along Ditko...do not get me wrong, Stan did his job and did it well...promotional stick at its best, but that only goes so far....it was the great material created both artwork and story which kept you there, Stan opened the door- Sfcityduck...but that was about it....

[Mmehdy]

On 6/24/2023 at 8:34 AM, sfcityduck said:

Lots wrong here about significance of Captain America to Jack Kirby's legacy, including:

• Captain America was a Joe Simon creation - Simon created the look of the character without Kirby's input and Simon scripted the origin.  Kirby was the penciller (Simon inked w/ some pencils). The first appearance of the Red Skull was scripted by Ed Herron. But having said that ...
• Captain America was a character entirely derivative of the Shield (the true first patriotic character).  So much so, that the shape of CA's shield had to be changed with issue 2 (not the Sentinel of Liberty badge which was a lasting homage to MLJ's Shield);
• S&K left Captain America after issue 10 in February 1942 (less than a year after starting the title). So if the print runs on the title peaked after that date (which I believe they did during the Schomburg years), then Kirby deserves no credit for those sales figures.  So when did the distribution numbers that you reference with the "best selling book Timely Comics ever had" peak?  

Worth noting that Bill Everett's Submariner was Timely's first superhero and its most enduring.  Key facts:

• Created pre-Timely, Everett's Submariner appeared in Timely's very first comic book cover date Oct. 1939 almost a year and a half before Captain America 1 cover date March 1941;
• Sub-Mariner Comics lasted about the same length of time as Captain America's solo title in the 1940s (which was converted to horror), BUT
• Everett's Sub-Mariner 1950s revival far outdid Captain America in the Atlas revival lasting 10 issues to CA's 3; and
• Sub-Mariner was reintroduced in Marvel years earlier (FF 4) than Captain America (Avengers 4).

To me, sales figures are not the be-all end-all. I'd say that Bill Everett was the "King" of Timely given his much much lengthier tenure with Timely/Atlas Golden Age superhero comics than Jack Kirby's.  We are talking work from the 1930s to the into the mid-1950s compared to Kirby's few years in the early 1940s.  Sub-Mariner, Human Torch and Captain America are a "Big Three" and its highly debatable which was the most important character of the GA to Timely.  A strong case can be made for Human Torch also (after S&K's Red Raven failed, Human Torch's solo comic was very successful continuing on into 1949) who was featured in many back-up stories in Captain America Comics and was chosen to be the standard bearer of the early Atlas Revival (with Subby as the standard bearer at the tail end and CA a mere three issue cover feature).

You're right that, outside of the Big Three, Timely had only a few notable short superhero runs (Blonde Phantom, Namora, Venus, Marvel Boy) but it did have non-superhero long running titles.  Everett was arguably the greatest PCH cover artist based on his stellar work for Atlas. 

BUT Millie the Model ended up being Timely's longest running series running 207 issues starting in 1945 (and she appeared in a number of other spin-off titles and subsidiary titles). Who created Millie? Ruth Atkinson. She also co-created Patsy Walker. It may well be that the "King" of Timely was really a "Queen".  Either way, it wasn't Kirby. His tenure was a flash in the pan.  It's a crazy claim to make that Jack was "King" of Timely, especially if you appreciate Joe Simon's contributions to the partnership he led and pay attention to Everett (and Schomburg, etc.).  It's a SA perspective.

The flaw in your comparison is this...Stan Lee is no Joe Simon...not even close. But lets give Cap#1 credit...it was a game changer in 1941 and the run of 1-10 holds up today in 2023. That is why Taschen's next marvel comics library is Cap 1-10 That was a legit joint effort, but Joe Simon did not take credit for every -script written on 5/8 different titles per month...Stan did not do it all, and his writing credit is worthless...however, I would agree a great editior. One book I would recommend you purchase The Golden age of Simon and Kirby hardcover...it is simply  fantastic and I have read it 3 times...Besides the Vision which appeared in MM, a number of new characters and believe me, they have some solo Joe Simon covers which are great. A fantastic body of work...quality over more material....

[sfcityduck]

On 6/24/2023 at 10:58 AM, Mmehdy said:

The flaw in your comparison is this...Stan Lee is no Joe Simon...not even close. But lets give Cap#1 credit...it was a game changer in 1941 and the run of 1-10 holds up today in 2023. That is why Taschen's next marvel comics library is Cap 1-10 That was a legit joint effort, but Joe Simon did not take credit for every --script written on 5/8 different titles per month...Stan did not do it all, and his writing credit is worthless...however, I would agree a great editior. One book I would recommend you purchase The Golden age of Simon and Kirby hardcover...it is simply  fantastic and I have read it 3 times...Besides the Vision which appeared in MM, a number of new characters and believe me, they have some solo Joe Simon covers which are great. A fantastic body of work...quality over more material....

I'm very familiar with S&K GA work.  I think I have everything that's been collected so far, including the two volumes of romance.  No one is saying S&K work isn't quality GA work.  Is the writing amazingly original?  Not really. Is Kirby's art as good as it would become in the SA?  Not IMHO.  Is it profoundly better than other GA artists? That's a matter of taste, but not in my book. I love Eisner, Fine, Crandall, Cole, Frazetta, Baker, Williamson, Shuster, Kurtzman, Barry, so many others as much and more than I enjoy GA Kirby. Frankly, I enjoy GA Superman and Batman quite a bit more than anything S&K did for DC (a fair bit of which seems rushed). For me, Kirby SA is light years better that Kirby GA DC and most other GA work he did.  

Joe Simon was a very talented guy who was a skilled artist with his own style and who could also pass for Fine or Kirby. He was a solid GA writer. He had a great head for business. If anyone gets slighted in these Kirby debates it is him.

 

[Prince Namor]

On 6/24/2023 at 11:34 AM, sfcityduck said:

Lots wrong here about significance of Captain America to Jack Kirby's legacy, including:

• Captain America was a Joe Simon creation - Simon created the look of the character without Kirby's input and Simon scripted the origin.  Kirby was the penciller (Simon inked w/ some pencils). The first appearance of the Red Skull was scripted by Ed Herron. But having said that ...

So says Joe Simon. He created it all and then added Kirby's name to it, and gave him a percentage of the deal? yeah, ok.

You know he's changed his story on that as time went on right? Here he is in The Comics Journal, July 19, 2011. 

GROTH: Now, you and Kirby created Captain America, I think, in 1941.

SIMON: Yeah, that means we did it in late 1939 or the early ’40s, because if it came out in ’41, it takes a while to prepare, and do the engravings, and to ship, and everything else. Then they dated it three months in advance. I'd say we must've started in 1939.

 

He also says he created the Red Skull. From a cherry on top of a sundae. 

He also say Kirby didn't immediately follow him to Timely but that is only true in the sense that Kirby continued to sell work to Fox. Kirby was doing work for Timely months before Captain America #1. 

On 6/24/2023 at 11:34 AM, sfcityduck said:

• Captain America was a character entirely derivative of the Shield (the true first patriotic character).  So much so, that the shape of CA's shield had to be changed with issue 2 (not the Sentinel of Liberty badge which was a lasting homage to MLJ's Shield);

Entirely derivative? The ONLY thing changed was the shield. THAT is not entirely derivative. 

On 6/24/2023 at 11:34 AM, sfcityduck said:

• S&K left Captain America after issue 10 in February 1942 (less than a year after starting the title). So if the print runs on the title peaked after that date (which I believe they did during the Schomburg years), then Kirby deserves no credit for those sales figures.  So when did the distribution numbers that you reference with the "best selling book Timely Comics ever had" peak?  

Like most comics, with the first couple of issues. 

On 6/24/2023 at 11:34 AM, sfcityduck said:

To me, sales figures are not the be-all end-all. I'd say that Bill Everett was the "King" of Timely given his much much lengthier tenure with Timely/Atlas Golden Age superhero comics than Jack Kirby's.  We are talking work from the 1930s to the into the mid-1950s compared to Kirby's few years in the early 1940s.  Sub-Mariner, Human Torch and Captain America are a "Big Three" and its highly debatable which was the most important character of the GA to Timely.  A strong case can be made for Human Torch also (after S&K's Red Raven failed, Human Torch's solo comic was very successful continuing on into 1949) who was featured in many back-up stories in Captain America Comics and was chosen to be the standard bearer of the early Atlas Revival (with Subby as the standard bearer at the tail end and CA a mere three issue cover feature).

You're right that, outside of the Big Three, Timely had only a few notable short superhero runs (Blonde Phantom, Namora, Venus, Marvel Boy) but it did have non-superhero long running titles.  Everett was arguably the greatest PCH cover artist based on his stellar work for Atlas. 

BUT Millie the Model ended up being Timely's longest running series running 207 issues starting in 1945 (and she appeared in a number of other spin-off titles and subsidiary titles). Who created Millie? Ruth Atkinson. She also co-created Patsy Walker. It may well be that the "King" of Timely was really a "Queen".  Either way, it wasn't Kirby. His tenure was a flash in the pan.  It's a crazy claim to make that Jack was "King" of Timely, especially if you appreciate Joe Simon's contributions to the partnership he led and pay attention to Everett (and Schomburg, etc.).  It's a SA perspective.

Which has been reprinted the most? Captain America. 

Cap #1 - 20 times (WINNER)

Subby #1 - 5 times

Human Torch (Marvel's FIRST Superhero comic) - 12 times

 

[Prince Namor]

On 6/24/2023 at 12:02 PM, sfcityduck said:

Boy Commandos was not even close to DC's top seller. Batman and Robin, Superman, Flash, Wonder Woman, etc. all eclipsed that series.

DC's position is that Superman, Batman and Boy Commandos were their 'Top Three' in 1943. Take it up with them.

And here's someone you seem to believe on the subject, Joe Simon:

[Prince Namor]

On 6/24/2023 at 12:02 PM, sfcityduck said:

Kirby's work on romance comics is not that notable.

LOL. Yeah, all it did was change the newsstand from having ZERO Romance comics each month to 30+ Romance comics each month.

And Kirby's writing on the romance work was FAR SUPERIOR to a lot of the junk that was out there. 

On 6/24/2023 at 12:02 PM, sfcityduck said:

He's no Matt Baker.

Few were. 

On 6/24/2023 at 12:02 PM, sfcityduck said:

Your continuing attempt to justify Kirby's significance with sales figures leads you astray.  Based on your analysis, we can pretty much stop the analysis of the hierarchy of comic creators with S&S's creation of Superman since the sales figure on superheros are going to blow away romance or with the inventor the teen genre (whoever that was) because that too blows away romance, etc.  It's just sloppy thinking. S&K hit the lottery in following the romance trend from magazines and importing it into comics, but if someone else had had the idea first we wouldn't be calling that person the "King" for winning that lottery, just as we don't for western, crime (Biro), horrror, jungle, etc.

That's like saying if S&S hadn't created Superman, someone else would have and blah blah blah... just silly.

And sales ARE one way to justify significance, but not the only one.

Just the fact that much of Kirby's Golden Age work is reprinted more than others is another way. Young Romance #1 - 4 times in the last 23 years. People are still interested in it...

On 6/24/2023 at 12:02 PM, sfcityduck said:

If comics had ended in the 1950s, S&K would have been viewed as notable creators like many others who have ended up in the Hall of Fame (Beck, Biro, Binder, Burgos, Cole, Crandall, Eisner, Everett, Fine, Fox, etc. - do I really need to go on to make the point about the number of great GA creators with incredible resumes prior to 1950?) but Kirby wouldn't be on the Mt. Rushmore as of 1950.  Just like Simon isn't on the Mt. Rushmore as we look at it today. Because Kirby earned his place in the SA, not the 1940s. In the 1940s, S&K's accomplishments do not stand head and shoulders above others.  After the SA, Kirby's did.  Do you really disagree?  If so, where's the Joe "King" Simon argument?

So NOW he's in the Hall of Fame for his Golden Age work?

Well of course he is. That's all I was saying. 

Not sure where you get this Mount Rushmore stuff...

[Prince Namor]

On 6/24/2023 at 3:42 PM, sfcityduck said:

I'm very familiar with S&K GA work.  I think I have everything that's been collected so far, including the two volumes of romance.  No one is saying S&K work isn't quality GA work.  Is the writing amazingly original?  Not really. Is Kirby's art as good as it would become in the SA?  Not IMHO. 

Who's was???

On 6/24/2023 at 3:42 PM, sfcityduck said:

Is it profoundly better than other GA artists? That's a matter of taste, but not in my book. I love Eisner, Fine, Crandall, Cole, Frazetta, Baker, Williamson, Shuster, Kurtzman, Barry, so many others as much and more than I enjoy GA Kirby. Frankly, I enjoy GA Superman and Batman quite a bit more than anything S&K did for DC (a fair bit of which seems rushed). For me, Kirby SA is light years better that Kirby GA DC and most other GA work he did.  

Straw man argument. No one is claiming any of these things. 

You said and HAVE said, Kirby's impact on the GA is overrated.

And that is nonsense. That is what's being debated. 

On 6/24/2023 at 3:42 PM, sfcityduck said:

Joe Simon was a very talented guy who was a skilled artist with his own style and who could also pass for Fine or Kirby. He was a solid GA writer. He had a great head for business. If anyone gets slighted in these Kirby debates it is him.

Joe Simon's deal with Goodman went astray. Joe Simon's deal with DC wasn't continued because he farmed them out to Harvey Comics. Joe Simon's deal with Prize ended up a bust and Joe Simon's deal with Mainline went belly up. You sure he had a great head for business?

What did he ever write without Kirby? The Fly? Prez? Brother Power the Geek? Hmmm...

Joe Simon's art from Blue Bolt #1 (a comic that hasn't been reprinted since 1950 for some reason) and then Jack Kirby's impact on the very next issue...

Edited June 24, 2023 by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

The Joe Simon swipe file:

https://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/simonandkirby/archives/4198

[sfcityduck]

 

On 6/24/2023 at 1:52 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

Joe Simon's art from Blue Bolt #1 (a comic that hasn't been reprinted since 1950 for some reason) and then Jack Kirby's impact on the very next issue...

You entirely lost me with this one.  I like Simon's art in the first example, but it is hurt by the bad registration.

The second example looks like a Greg Threakston special. The lines look too thin, the color is not dots or is an oversaturated scan.  Where's it from? Why not do apples to apples and give me an actual page from Blue Bolt 2.

Edited June 24, 2023 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 6/24/2023 at 1:56 PM, Prince Namor said:

The Joe Simon swipe file:

https://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/simonandkirby/archives/4198

The list of artists who swiped Raymond and Foster is endless.  This is petty.

[sfcityduck]

You cannot reconcile this:

KIRBY: "I created Spider-Man. We decided to give it to Steve Ditko. I drew the first Spider-Mancover. I created the character. I created the costume. I created all those books, but I couldn’t do them all. We decided to give the book to Steve Ditko who was the right man for the job. He did a wonderful job on that."

With this:

DITKO: "What if I never said anything about the Simon Fly and Kirby had completed pencilling that magic ring-teenager-into-an-adult-SM-legend story? I would just be inking Jack's pencilled and Stan's dialogued pages. SM would have Jack's adult SM in a costume resembling Captain America's costume with the same type open-face mask and a belt with a holster for a web gun (like the Tarantula). There would be lots of nots: Not my web-designed costume, not a full mask, web-shooters, no spider-senses, no spider-like action, poses, fighting style and page breakdowns, etc."

Or this:

YOU: "I'm just looking for the truth."

[Prince Namor]

On 6/24/2023 at 5:55 PM, sfcityduck said:

You cannot reconcile this:

KIRBY: "I created Spider-Man. We decided to give it to Steve Ditko. I drew the first Spider-Mancover. I created the character. I created the costume. I created all those books, but I couldn’t do them all. We decided to give the book to Steve Ditko who was the right man for the job. He did a wonderful job on that."

With this:

DITKO: "What if I never said anything about the Simon Fly and Kirby had completed pencilling that magic ring-teenager-into-an-adult-SM-legend story? I would just be inking Jack's pencilled and Stan's dialogued pages. SM would have Jack's adult SM in a costume resembling Captain America's costume with the same type open-face mask and a belt with a holster for a web gun (like the Tarantula). There would be lots of nots: Not my web-designed costume, not a full mask, web-shooters, no spider-senses, no spider-like action, poses, fighting style and page breakdowns, etc."

Or this:

YOU: "I'm just looking for the truth."

Ditko said the truth. It's not a smack down. It's the truth. Kirby misspoke when he said 'created' - he was in battle for his original artwork at the time and in a heated moment - but Jack BROUGHT the idea to Marvel. Ditko just reworked it. 

It's all the truth.

And as I showed, previous Kirby had elaborated further:

"My initial concept was practically the same. But the credit for developing Spider-Man goes to Steve Ditko; he wrote it and he drew it and he refined it. Steve Ditko is a thorough professional. And he has an intellect. Personality wise, he’s a bit withdrawn, but there are lots of people like that. But Steve Ditko, despite the fact that he doesn’t disco– although he may now; I haven’t seen him for a long time– Steve developed Spider-Man and made a salable item out of it."

"There are many others who take credit for it, but Steve Ditko, it was entirely in his hands. I can tell you that Stan Lee had other duties besides writing Spider-Man or developing Spider-Man or even thinking about it."

FROM Conversations with Comic Book Creators by Leonard Pitts Jr. 1986/87

Edited June 24, 2023 by Prince Namor

[mrc]

On 6/24/2023 at 10:56 PM, Prince Namor said:

"There are many others who take credit for it, but Steve Ditko, it was entirely in his hands. I can tell you that Stan Lee had other duties besides writing Spider-Man or developing Spider-Man or even thinking about it."

................on the issue of the initial creation, Ditko stated, "I still don't know whose idea was Spider-Man". Ditko did, however, view the published version of Spider-Man as a separate creation to the one he saw in the five pencilled pages that Kirby had completed. To support this Ditko used the analogy of the Kirby/Marvel Thor, which was based on a name/idea of a character in Norse mythology: "If Marvel's Thor is a valid created work by Jack, his creation, then why isn't Spider-Man by Stan and me valid created work, our creation?"