My understanding of this book is that it's highly biased in Kirby's favor, and that the writer had previously served as a witness for Kirby in a lawsuit. I'm sure the history is amazing, but I would prefer to read things that don't start from an agenda. I did enjoy the Marvel Comics book by Sean Howe.
You don't seem to understand the way Lee, Kirby and Ditko worked. Lee never created anything memorable by himself, but he was undoubtedly a great editor and superb dialogue/caption writer. Not a creator though.
And there we have the essence of the "Kirby-(or Ditko)-did-it-all-brigade" -- Stan Lee never created anything! When Stan Lee came up with the concept of a school-boy hero with personal problems getting spider powers, he didn't really come up with it! When Stan Lee talked, in person on the phone, to Kirby or Ditko about the next issue of F.F. or Spider-man and they together hashed out a concept for Dr. Doom, Galactus, Dr. Octopus, the Green Goblin, etc., etc., -- it was actually only Kirby or Ditko who did ALL the creating in these conversation because Stan Lee never created anything! The recent P.R./media over-statement of Kirby's contribution to Marvel history (after Stan Lee gave him a job when no one else would and promoted him -- and Ditko -- by name in every issue, when no other comic editor did) is rather similar to the Paul McCartney fan-boys' over-statement of his contribution to The Beatles' at the expense of John Lennon (which followed the mainstream media's "sainting" of Lennon in the 80s). This "one side did it all and the other did nothing creative" nonsense, sworn to by the legions of followers who weren't there but nevertheless push an impregnable agenda -- is disturbing.
After Ditko and Lee split, Ditko created Mr. A, the Creeper, the Hawk and the Dove, etc. After Kirby and Lee split, Kirby created the New Gods/Mr. Miracle/The Fourth World (although he had created many of the New Gods characters and concepts as early as 1968, but held them back from Marvel, because he was unhappy with the company), and also Kamandi, Omac, etc. for DC, then came back to Marvel and created the Eternals, who are about to be made into yet another Marvel movie. As late as the early 80s, Kirby was still creating Captain Victory for Pacific Comics. You can argue that the characters Ditko and Kirby created after they stopped working with Lee aren’t as iconic as Spider-Man or the Fantastic Four, and that’s fair to say, yet, after their split with Lee, they kept on creating new characters and new comic books. After his split with Ditko and Kirby, name one character or concept Stan Lee created. You can’t, because he didn’t. He was wholly dependent on them to “create” anything.
I don't perceive it to have a preconceived agenda. Whatever perspective emerges comes naturally from the evidence and direct quotations from both Lee and Kirby, as well as Ditko, Romita, Ayers, Wood, and others who talk about working at Marvel during the same time frame. It provides a trove of direct quotations from both men, and that provides a compelling picture of how they worked and who did what. I hope you can see that your earlier statement that Stan Lee would have been "an industry giant" without Ditko or Kirby was an example of that sort of argument. Each guy made unique contributions, and it seems safe to say none would have enjoyed the same level of commercial or popular success without the other.
You want to believe the Stan Lee mythos without understanding how the comics were made. That is truly disturbing. He simply did not "come up with" those concepts at all. They were devised by him and Jack and Steve. Stan may have had his name on the books as "writer" but it's no coincidence that he almost completely stopped "writing" comics in the years between Steve leaving in 1966 and Jack leaving in 1970 and it must be noticeable even to your genuflecting praising of him that he never created a single worthwhile, original concept or character or series idea afterwards. Your ignorance is a little too overbearingly deep rooted for me to try to convince you further, but you should be aware before you make yourself seem completely foolish under the Stan Lee spell, that it really was Kirby who first came up with Spiderman and Steve who made it into the angst-ridden schoolboy hero, not Stan, and that at least one early issue of Fantastic Four was written, drawn, dialogued and edited by Jack Kirby alone (while Stan was on vacation in England) and no one even noticed, because Jack was always the primary instigator of his stories. Again with The Beatles: There were four of them, get over it.
Stan's dialogue was always noun heavy: "bring me The Transglobulator-7 Device before the shimmering sands of Seth drive us to our doom". Jack's was always verb heavy: "Grab that Smasher Gun and we'll blast our way out" I like both styles. Same drawings, same plots, same characters, same pacing. Dialogue different.
This again? Lee co-created plenty of characters with John Romita in Spider-Man, and the reason he didn't create more characters after he split with Kirby is that he wasn't writing comics anymore. He moved to L.A. and became the media-mogul / face of Marvel. It's kind of hard to create comic characters when you're not writing comics.
Okay, but here are takes on the Amazon reviews: ...the author's attempts to claim objectivity are as transparent as Sue Storm: he says as much in the introduction, having been an expert witness for the Kirby clan in a seminal lawsuit. This is too bad; all of the Kirby enthusiasts enter this complex arena with a Skurge-size axe to grind. Good stuff. It's obviously slanted towards the Pro-Kirby argument,but ... Lee . . . is constantly maligned and questioned throughout this book with loaded language, while Kirby’s dubious and disappointing remarks are taken at face value. The latter is by some guy named Jon Abbott, who does a lengthy and fascinating review. I concede that I over-stated in saying Lee would have been an industry "giant" without Ditko or Kirby, but he likely still would have been the Editor-in-Chief of "Marvel" (if it ended up being Marvel) at some point anyway, and thus well remembered, whereas Ditko in particular would be obscure today, and Kirby probably well-remembered but far less iconic.
If you think I want to believe "the Stan Lee mythos", you haven't read what I've written, so this conversation is a no-go.
John Romita’s take on the Spider-Man villains he and Lee created: John Romita, Sr. Interview - Comic Book Artist #6 - TwoMorrows Publishing CBA: Did you actually co-plot on the Spider-Man books going into the '70s? There seems to be characters like the Kingpin and Black Widow who have a very strong Romita stamp. John: The only thing [Stan] used to do from 1966-72 was come in and leave a note on my drawing table saying "Next month, the Rhino." That's all; he wouldn't tell me anything; how to handle it. Then he would say "The Kingpin." I would then take it upon myself to put some kind of distinctive look to the guy. For instance, if it's the kingpin of crime, I don't want him to look like another guy in a suit who in silhouette looks like every other criminal. So I made him a 400-pound monster; that was my idea. I made him bald, I put the stickpin on him, I gave him that kind of tycoon look. From this account, it sounds as if Lee didn’t “create” much more than the names of the Rhino and the Kingpin. Ditko of course created the two most iconic Spider-Man villains: the Green Gobin and Doctor Octopus, not to mention the Lizard, Kraven, Electro, Sandman, Vulture, Mysterio, etc. Nearly all of the villains that the comic books and the movies have relied on for decades.
It's funny how Romita says he did all the plotting, but he also says he had never heard of Spider-Man as late as 1965. That must have been some job he did, from issue #39 (done in early 1966) t0 know the characters, the back-story of Norman Osborn, the 'reveal' of The Green Goblin's identity, etc., if Stan Lee wasn't doing any story stuff at all! By the way, you skipped the parts in the same interview where Romita says this: "Originally nobody thought about plotting credits, except Ditko. Ditko got plotting credits, then Jack Kirby got plotting credits immediately. I got no credits at all during the first run; I got them in retrospect. Later on, he would tell people we co-plotted. I never was offended by it, and I always assumed it was his right, because it was thought these characters really came from him. Even the ones Jack Kirby created with him, I felt were full of the Stan Lee stamp. "We would have a verbal plot together. First it was two or three hours, then it was an hour. Stan would tell me who he would like to be the villain, and personal life "threads" he would like carried on. Generally we would select the setting; sometimes we wouldn't even have time to select the settings, like "it takes place on a subway." He would give me that, and tell me where he wanted it to end. I would have to fill in all the blanks." So, clearly, Romita's first comment (which you quoted) was an exaggeration of the truth, and when he fills in the details we see that Lee actually had a big part in the plots, at least in the earlier issues with Romita. That same no doubt applies to the early Spider-Mans, during which the iconic characters and villains were co-created with Ditko.
More things that Romita says in that interview: "You may have heard I used to drive home with them; whenever he was in for a story conference, Stan would drive Jack home. My house was on the way, so they'd drive me home, and then take Jack home. Sitting in the back seat of Stan's convertible with the top down, going up Queens Boulevard, listening to them plot stories, I felt like I was sitting behind Cecil B. DeMille's director's chair. It was the most wonderful thing; I felt like a kid back there." So, there goes the theory that Stan wasn't plotting the Fantastic Four from 1966, as Romita clearly remembers he and Kirby plotting together. (He also says, as previously quoted, that Jack Kirby was "kidding himself" that he wrote all the FF stories, since he and Lee basically ignored many of each other's ideas, but Lee had final say.) Also: "I had heard all of the inside stuff, like from the Herald-Tribune article that insulted Jack, that he thought Stan was a part of. Stan could not convince him of that, and certainly could not convince Roz that Stan hadn't encouraged the writer to make fun of Jack. I know for a fact that Stan would rather bite his tongue than say such a thing, because Jack's success would've been his success. There's no reason to run Jack down. Stan had the position; he didn't have to fight Jack for it. I don't think Jack ever wanted the editorial position; if he wanted credit, he deserved credit. Stan used to give him credit all the time; he used to say most of these ideas are more than half Jack's." And so there goes the theory that Lee didn't give Kirby or the artists credit.
The earlier stories weren't secret, Romita could read them all, they had been published. Romita was not there in 1961-4 when all the characters and scenarios were created. He can tell you nothing about who did what. That is all supposition, pure speculation on your part. You deny first hand accounts made by the actual participants to rely on guesswork extrapolated from hearsay. To maintain that a situation that pertained briefly with one artist must be the same over much longer periods with other artists is not a reasonable assertion to make.
While Romita, as you might expect, shows general deference to someone who had been his boss, his concrete personal recollections of working with Lee - “[Stan left me a note saying] ‘Next month, the Rhino.’ That's all; he wouldn't tell me anything; how to handle it” and “Generally we would select the setting; sometimes we wouldn't even have time to select the settings, like ‘it takes place on a subway.’ He would give me that, and tell me where he wanted it to end. I would have to fill in all the blanks” - clearly reflect Romita doing the lion’s share of the work in plotting the stories and getting from Point A to Point B to Point C. If I’m working on the Marvel movies, and I toss out the idea at a meeting that “Thanos gets all of the Infinity Stones, and uses them to kill half the living beings in the galaxy, and then, um, somehow, the Avengers reverse that and defeat him in the end, you guys figure out how that happens” and someone else, or a team of other people, turns that kernel of a plot idea into two scripted three-hour movies, have I “written” Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame? As I noted with regard to Lee’s collaboration with Kirby on the Fantastic Four, at best, Stan’s contribution to any book he worked on was 20% of the load, with the artist doing the lion’s share of the plotting and Stan filling in the dialog with his patented “Excelsior!” and “Welcome, true believers!” schtick.
Mr. Abbott strikes me as someone who is oversensitive on Stan's behalf, and is perhaps trying too hard to find offense/bias against him. At any rate, roughly 80% of the book consists of direct quotations from Stan, Jack, or other artists who worked with Stan. It provides the most thorough picture available of what it was like working at Marvel in the 60s, and is an invaluable resource in that sense. It's easy enough to avoid the surrounding text if one finds it biased. If you're really interested in this topic, I would suggest you judge for yourself rather than taking the word of a few amazon reviewers. My point is that Marvel would not have become the Marvel we know today if not for Kirby and Ditko. Prior to the publication of FF #1, Marvel was a second-rate comic company that was just slightly above Charlton in terms of reputation and pay scale. And I'm skeptical anything Stan would have created with say, Heck or Ayers or Reinman would have set the world on fire to the point that it would have changed that (based on Stan's track record of character creation with people whose names were not Kirby or Ditko). And before you point it out, I will say that I think the opposite is true also... Kirby and Ditko likely wouldn't have had huge commercial success with any of their creations either without the editorial guidance and commercial instincts of Lee.
Early Marvel was almost a mash-up of the nutty monsters they had been doing and super powers... The Thing, The Hulk, Mole Man, Dr. Doom in his grey mask, Sandman... even really early Iron Man looked like a heavy lumbering monster type guy initially... and Ditko had done horror comics at Charlton before Atlas/Marvel... Spider-Man; spiders are common in Halloween and horror imagery. Doctor Strange in his big old mansion had more of a horror movie vibe too. Spider-Man baddies The Lizard, The Green Goblin, and The Vulture were pretty monster-ish, and the already mentioned Sandman who first appeared in one of the monster comics before being recycled as a villain (there was also a Thing and two different Hulks back with Fin Fang Fooms, Tim-Boo-Ba and Groot). Thor battled a lot of giants and monsters, as did Iron Man in his second appearance. The choice of colors on early Marvel covers tended toward browns, greys, pale green and dark purple.
First "Marvel"s I ever saw over here in England were "The Man in the Ant Hill" (Astonish) which I found repulsive, sludgey brown cover with all those insects, and Amazing Fantasy 15 with some weird figure swinging across a purple sky. Creeped out, I put them back and picked up a National (DC) instead. I would learn soon enough.
The only thing I can't accept as remotely believable here is that Kirby or Ditko are mainly responsible ("80%", as someone said) for the success of Marvel in the sixties. Even from the purely creative part, I find an 80% estimate to be absurd. Given that we're dealing with comic books here -- an essentially art-driven, visual medium -- it's quite obvious that ANY COMIC BOOK IN HISTORY has a huge contribution from the artist, since the art is the thing. So, it's a given that it's going to be significant, sure. And no doubt the art in Ditko and Kirby's most famous work was fabulous for its day, and made enormous contribution to the iconography of those characters. There is also no doubt that at certain times (if not most of the time, though we'll never know the details) Lee and Kirby contributed a great deal to the plots and stories of Spider-Man and Fantastic Four (and others). But what I personally think elevated the early Marvel comics above the rest of the pack was the characters, the human drama, and -- yes -- the dialog. In other words, I think the main 'X'-factor in pushing early Marvel to huge success was the Stan Lee-part of the contribution. This, to me, is what made Marvel different from the other kids/superhero comics of that era. Now, if you want to argue that the Marvel artists (and certainly Kirby/Ditko) were responsible for 50% (or even, on a good day, 60%) of the creative thrust of these comics, we could have a discussion and you might convince me. I am certainly NOT trying to lessen the credits to artists like Kirby and Ditko. Rather, it's the quite exaggerated dismissal of Stan Lee's enormous contribution, not only to the Marvel company (which is obvious), but also to the purely creative work of the comics, by some (esp. in recent years), that I find unwarranted.
Stan Lee definitely gave the comics a personality, across the entire line really. A great promoter and sales person! A lot of the blurbs on covers and ads were a sales come-on with a bit of a wink that you knew you were being sold a line, and that was fun! DC usually had to resort to some preposterous situation, or a character turning on another in some extreme fashion, to spur a sale... or else more Gorillas!
JACK KIRBY - Now you're talking about someone that helped shape my life! I am very very passionate about Kirby, he is responsible for me being a professional cartoonist today! When I first saw his absolutely mind blowing artwork, that instant I knew I wanted to be a cartoonist! I won't get into how absolutely great he is, he's the king NUFF SAID! Being passionate about Kirby, I am really upset about the way Marvel and DC are handling his work and characters! I've wanted a NEW GODS movie forever, and they say one is on the way, great right? Absolutely not, they have totally hired the wrong director who doesn't really know the source material?! I have absolutely nothing against female directors, but these are JACK KIRBY CHARACTERS, some of the most hardcore testosterone filled characters ever! They need the male perspective, these are warriors and soldiers! JACK KIRBY was all man! This director says MISTER MIRACLE AND BIG BARDA will be the stars of the movie, WHAT?? Those two characters weren't even in the NEW GODS COMIC? If she wants to do a MISTER MIRACLE movie or a KIRBY'S FOURTH WORLD movie fine, but this movie is titled THE NEW GODS, shouldn't it star the actual NEW GODS?? ORION, LIGHTRAY, HIGHFATHER, KALIBAK, TERRIBLE TURPIN, DARKSEID should be the stars! She says the movie will be about the love between MISTER MIRACLE AND BIG BARDA, again WHAT? The NEW GODS should be about the COSMIC WAR BETWEEN NEW GENESIS AND APOKOLIPS! This is why I say these characters need the male perspective! The NEW GODS isn't a love story?! These are my opinions, MARVEL is totally disrespecting KIRBY'S LEGACY by totally changing his characters?! Totally changing genders in some cases, KIRBY was old school, there was absolutely nothing PC about his characters, absolutely none of them would be gay!!!! If he was alive he would be absolutely ticked off! So this ETERNALS movie, is The ETERNALS in name only, they've totally went away from what KIRBY actually created?! So my initial excitement went from elation to total disappointment! Oh Well. Another example, I had been waiting forever for KIRBY'S IN THE DAYS OF THE MOB! When they announced it was being released in a hardback edition, again elation. I put in a very early order, when I received the book to my absolute horror, instead of a crisp clean black and white reproduction, they had chosen to color the first volume with this horrid muted brown tint?? I couldn't believe it, they had found a way to absolutely ruin KIRBY's art?! Just inexcusable! Now speaking of KIRBY'S ART, I started drawing when I was 4 years old, at the age of 10 is when I saw KIRBY'S ART for the very first time! It sent me into overdrive, I looked for everything I could get my hands on that he drew! He is my major artistic influence to this very day! I can't believe that DC hasn't featured his characters in their very own major motion picture! They are sitting on a gold mine!! Done right, The NEW GODS SAGA could be one of the most awesome, thrilling, action packed movies of all time! Imagine if PIXAR did the adventures of KAMANDI THE LAST BOY ON EARTH, like they did the INCREDIBLES! I want MARVEL to bring some of those KIRBY WESTERN CHARACTERS to the big screen! THE RAWHIDE KID would be great! This TWO PAGE SPREAD is one of my favorites, the detail, perspective, movement, characters and craftsmanship shows why JACK KIRBY is THE KING! I'm a MACCAFAN, but I'm also a major, major KIRBYFAN!
I find some of the arguments the past few pages regarding Lee/Kirby/Ditko to be a little too far one side or the other. Objectively imo, the early 60's creative glory days of Marvel was the result of collaboration between Marvels top few creative talents. Like any great band with at least a couple key individuals, you may have one guy who really is the creative genius or maybe does the lion's share of the work behind their best songs, but there's another member who's input pushes the finished product into a whole 'nother realm. Think Daltry/Townsend, Eddie Van Halen/David Lee Roth, Jagger/Richards, etc ..... you don't get to the finish line with just Townsend/Eddie/Keith/Kirby on his own or just Daltry/Roth/Jagger/Lee... it's pairing two uniquely individual talents together to get what is iconic, lasting art. Like the pairings I mention, there's one artist that does a lot of the heavy lifting and it's really inarguable that Kirby did so - all you have to do is look at some of his original classic era Marvel art pages and the pencil border notes between Lee and Kirby to understand who did what. And as well, drawing a page is always going to physically be more work then plotting and scripting. But innovative as Kirby's art could be, the dialog sells the characters and stories. I think a lot of some fans resentment on this subject comes from the fact Stan Lee parlayed his position and status into an extraordinary fortune with Hollywood while Kirby basically labored on drawing comics and eventually dying after at least a decade of fighting court battles against Marvel. Marvel held literally thousands of pages of his art in exchange for trying to cajole Kirby into signing away any further rights to the concepts and characters he had a major hand in creating and developing despite changes in the Copyright act in the late 70's giving (artists) more rights to their original work.
