Stan Lee Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko

[CTTT]

I was watching a documentary Robert Kirkman's Secret History of Comics and it was really great. My favorite section was the one on Marvel. What was interesting to me was the parts where basically Stan becomes a larger than life personality and Jack Kirby basically feels that he wasn't getting his due with the artwork while Stan was getting all the credit. With Ditko it was a little different. In this documentary it doesn't talk so much about SD other than to say he left suddenly. Same with Kirby. I'm not saying Stan was perfect, but it seems like it's popular to paint him as the villain who forced his artists out the door. Ditko obviously never said anything about why he left Marvel, but it's inferred that it was because of politics, a panel of Spider-Man swinging past some protestors and saying a comment about them and Lee putting a thought bubble saying "I'm with you guys." and with the reveal of Green Goblin's identity of who it should be. I think SL was right in having it be Norman Osborn as that created an interesting dynamic with Peter and Harry Osborn. I'm not sure if Ditko's idea would've worked. But anyway, Stan seemed to always go out of his way over the years to give equal credit to Ditko and Kirby for their work. He didn't come across like a villain to me. He even wrote Steve Ditko a letter saying he considered him to be the sole creator of Spider-Man and he still wasn't happy about it. So, it's interesting how complex the relationship was between these guys while at the same time, they created some great characters.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

What was interesting to me was the parts where basically Stan becomes a larger than life personality and Jack Kirby basically feels that he wasn't getting his due with the artwork while Stan was getting all the credit.

It's not "the artwork". Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were paid as artists and credited as artists when they actually were co-writers and artists.

As per the Marvel Method, Kirby and Ditko developed the plots, characters, scenes, props, ideas independently and then Stan Lee came in with word balloons and added in dialogues, often following the notes left in by Kirby and Ditko. In the words of Mark Evanier, "Unfortunately from Day 1, Jack was doing part of Stan's job, while Stan wasn't doing part of Jack's job".

This wasn't by any stretch an equal or proportionate collaboration. On any comic, Kirby and Ditko put more work and effort than Lee did.

With Ditko it was a little different.

Kirby was politically a liberal as opposed to Ditko and Lee (who was an apolitical centrist who was the one who introduced Ditko to Ayn Rand in fact), but he said that he would have left Marvel at the same time as Ditko if he didn't have a family to provide. He couldn't stand working with Lee any more than Ditko did.

Nobody knew Ditko was an Objectivist until 1970 or so, when Mr. A and the Question came out. Nobody at Marvel at that time recalled him having political views at the time.

In this documentary it doesn't talk so much about SD other than to say he left suddenly. Same with Kirby. I'm not saying Stan was perfect, but it seems like it's popular to paint him as the villain who forced his artists out the door.

Here's the thing. You can appreciate Stan Lee as an artist and creative and still acknowledge that he didn't treat Kirby and Ditko well. It can be both. A lot of great talents over the years have stolen credit and so on. Led Zeppelin are plagiarists but they are also talented musicians, Milton Berle stole material but he's a talented comic performer, Alfred Hitchcock is a great director but he d--ked over Saul Bass for his contributions to Psycho.

Stan Lee isn't the first talent to do so.

Ditko obviously never said anything about why he left Marvel, but it's inferred that it was because of politics, a panel of Spider-Man swinging past some protestors and saying a comment about them and Lee putting a thought bubble saying "I'm with you guys."

This never happened. Here's the panel in question in ASM#38 (Ditko's last issue)

Ditko ASM #38 - Protest.jpg

As you can see. First of all, the protest was some minor silly thing by a bunch of rich, white, kids. It's not by any stretch "punching down". It's at best a harmless gag, and stuff like this was made fun of by many people of the '60s and after that.

Secondly, the dialogue doesn't show Stan Lee saying Peter going I'm with you.

and with the reveal of Green Goblin's identity of who it should be.

One of the few things, Ditko is on record about, is that he always intended Norman Osborn to be the Green Goblin.

"Now digest this: I knew from Day One, from the first GG story, who the GG would be. I absolutely knew because I planted him in J. Jonah Jameson’s businessman's club, it was where JJJ and the GG could be seen together. I planted them together in other stories where the GG would not appear in costume, action. I wanted JJJ’s and the GG’s lives to mix for later story drama involving more than just the two characters. I planted the GG’s son [HARRY OSBORN] (same distinctive hair style) in the college issues for more dramatic involvement and storyline consequences. So how could there be any doubt, dispute, about who the GG had to turn out to be when unmasked?"
-- STEVE DITKO

But anyway, Stan seemed to always go out of his way over the years to give equal credit to Ditko and Kirby for their work.

No he didn't. The credits read written by Stan Lee, art by Kirby, or art by Ditko.

What the credits should read is Written by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, Pencils by Jack Kirby. And likewise with Ditko.

As it stands, Steve Ditko actually did negotiate a plotting credit from ASM#25 onwards. Every issue from ASM#25-38 credits Ditko for plotting the story (which Ditko felt was a sop that diverted the issue).

[CTTT]

Well, thanks for some of the clarification. The documentary in question, and can be found on youtube is "In Search of Steve Ditko." The things that I posted about were from the commentators so maybe their memory was a bit fuzzy. Ralph Macchio was the one who said that Ditko felt that GG's identity should be someone random and not Norman Osborn. Stan was on the doc as well and he said that the reason he and Ditko didn't talk was because it got to a point where Ditko was so good at story and plot. Lee would make a suggestion here and there but Ditko was pretty much allowed to do whatever he wanted. It got to a point where they didn't talk because Ditko could do well on the artwork and Stan could fill in the dialogue bubbles. If I remember correctly, in Spider-Man 2002 it does say created by Lee and Ditko. Lee did write a letter to Ditko in 1999 and it is in the doc, saying that he considers Steve ti be a cocreator on Spider-Man. Ditko took issue with the word consider. When I said Lee went out of his way to give credit to his artists, I was talking about verbal credit where he mentions on camera that it was a collaboration between him and his artists. Now if he's lying about that is anyone's guess.

[Cronus]

I tend to agree with RJ, I think we can appreciate Lee for his creativity but recognize at the same time, the guy was not perfect.

[Electricmastro]

Yeah, in retrospect, Stan shouldn't have made it as cut and dry as simply as him being credited as the writer while Jack and Steve were credited as artists even though they arguably had considerable input in the stories themselves and should have received co-writing credit.

[JackDaw]

The other question (other than plot credits) is credit for original character creation.

I think Stan tended to take the lions share of credit for that...but again I think his co-creators deserved at least equal credit for that.

Take Spider-man as an example...Stan’s original spec wasn’t ultra detailed. Steve Ditko came up with the look (of both Spider-man and Peter), drew him as a teenager, came up with distinctive way of fighting, etc, etc

Spider-man wouldn’t have been Spider-man without major contributions from both.

To be fair by standards of the time Stan was generous in his treatment of artists. But those standards were very low! And Stan has always had an healthy ego.

[Mike_Murdock]

Yeah, in retrospect, Stan shouldn't have made it has cut and dry as simply as him being credited as the writer while Jack Steve were credited as artists even though they arguably had considerable input in the stories themselves and should have received co-writing credit.

Except that isn't true. Look at most FF issues. They're just credited as "by Lee and Kirby." When they were together, Stan Lee always have them equal credit. Now I think there are two valid criticisms of this. First, the myth of Stan Lee grew in retrospect to inflate his importance. Second, maybe equal credit isn't giving Kirby enough credit as the driving creative force. But he was credited as a creative partner and not just an artist. Also, he was the first to credit people like inkers and letterers, which was groundbreaking at the time.

[Grapeweasel]

I think in the early years Stan thought that people who interviewed Stan Lee wanted to hear about Stan Lee, and he got better over time. I also think in order to get more credit Jack and Steve would have had to become walking billboards for Marvel, something I don't think would have interested them but something Stan reveled in.

[babyblob]

While I have always been a fan of comics I am only recently learning the history and behind the scenes stuff. I always thought that Stan Lee pretty much created the Marvel Universe. I didnt know what a big role Kirby and Ditko played in the early days. It really made me rethink some things that I thought i knew. I am starting to appreciate Kirby and Ditko a lot more.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The documentary in question, and can be found on youtube is "In Search of Steve Ditko." The things that I posted about were from the commentators so maybe their memory was a bit fuzzy. Ralph Macchio was the one who said that Ditko felt that GG's identity should be someone random and not Norman Osborn.

That documentary is pretty good but the part where Macchio blurts out this urban legend without any pushback, clarification, and counter is sad.

The rumor about Ditko intending the Goblin to be someone other than Norman started years after the fact. It was bolstered by the fact that Ditko was so silent and reclusive so you could make any rumor without expecting immediate pushback. In this case, Ditko pushbacked decades later in one of his zines that very few people read.

The bizarre thing about that rumor is that anyone who has read Lee-Ditko Spider-Man's run closely would know that there was never any ambiguity about Goblin's identity. Given the mechanics of the Marvel Method, the fact that Ditko got plotting credit from ASM#25 onwards. Here's the thing Norman Osborn and Harry Osborn were totally unsympathetic when Ditko was on the title. The idea that Ditko had issues with a respected businessman being a bad guy is ridiculous because why did he make the character so openly unsympathetic. In fact it's only when Ditko left and Lee took over that Norman Osborn and Harry became sympathetic, in fact immediately.

This is Norman Osborn in ASM #37, two issues before Ditko left.
ASM # 37 - Ditko-Osborn 1.jpg
ASM # 37 - Ditko-Osborn 2.jpg

Likewise, Ditko left a subtle visual clue that Goblin was Norman. In Ditko's run, every character of note and importance had a distinct hairstyle and silhouette. So in the same issue that Norman first has dialogues, we get a glimpse of Goblin face-covered-in-shadows, and just take a look at the silhouette...and compare the shape of the head with Norman's.

Silhouette Composite.jpg

People who say that Ditko didn't intend Norman to be Goblin have just not read the original run of Spider-Man closely, or at all.

Now if he's lying about that is anyone's guess.

Stan Lee was never a reliable narrator. Go back to the '60s and that whole "marvel bullpen" thing he promoted, i.e. writers and artists in an office reacting and bouncing off each other and so on. That never happened. Most of them worked at home. The general view among comics scholars is that the earlier the interview the more honest Stan Lee is.

I think in the early years Stan thought that people who interviewed Stan Lee wanted to hear about Stan Lee, and he got better over time. I also think in order to get more credit Jack and Steve would have had to become walking billboards for Marvel, something I don't think would have interested them but something Stan reveled in.

This actually was a major reason why Ditko and Kirby left.
-- In one interview Stan Lee discussed the fact that Ditko was plotting the stories, and he made a snarky comment about how Ditko's plotting was some pity "let's give him a shot" kind of thing. This reached Ditko's ears, and given the fact that he had plotted (and more) the stories for some time now, hearing Lee insult him publicly was just not to his liking. Ditko also didn't appreciate the fact that if and when Stan Lee occasionally asked him to redo panels, he would have to do the extra work without pay even if the situation isn't really Ditko's fault but because the writer (in this case Stan) didn't give him any detailed plan or instruction to follow, so any extra changes which Ditko did without pay is down to Stan's mistakes and not him.
-- In the case of Kirby, a writer from New York Times did a profile on Stan Lee, and he arrived at Marvel offices where Kirby came to drop in his art like he always did. Kirby met the reporter and the reporter basically formed a negative impression, saying he was some working-class guy who smelled and words to that effect, basically insulting Kirby for his class background. This was done in a profile lionizing Stan Lee as a madison avenue style "genius" and framed Kirby as some working drone just following Lee's commands. This comment hurt Jack Kirby emotionally, and psychologically. Roz Kirby called Lee the next day and shouted at him for that. Kirby still worked because again he had a family to provide...but that was when he started to make plans to leave Marvel. In Stan's defense, he didn't write that article, he didn't say negative stuff about Kirby, that was all that reporter's doing. But Stan never printed a retraction, he never cleared the air in public.


If you look at the overall career of these three men. When Ditko and Kirby left Marvel, they still produced stuff of note after they left. Ditko went to Warren Publications and collaborated with Archie Goodwin on a series of great horror comics and then at Charlton he worked on Ted Kord, The Question, and later he did Creeper. These characters have had an afterlife and impact. When he came back to Marvel in the 80s, he developed Speedball and Squirrel Girl. Jack Kirby likewise when he left Marvel, at DC he created the New Gods, Kamandi, Etrigan and a host of stuff.

Whereas Lee without Kirby and Ditko is distinctly less impressive. And Ditko and Kirby's departure definitely had consequences. Kirby's departure at the start of the 70s was followed by a decline in sales of Marvel titles across the board, which coupled with editorial mismanagement and overall amateurism on admin level led to a downturn in sales. What kept Marvel afloat at that time was Roy Thomas latching on to licensing Star Wars comics whose high sales saved them and kept them afloat. Things didn't improve until Jim Shooter arrived.

That could definitely be blamed on Stan Lee driving the goose that laid the golden eggs away.

While I have always been a fan of comics I am only recently learning the history and behind the scenes stuff. I always thought that Stan Lee pretty much created the Marvel Universe. I didnt know what a big role Kirby and Ditko played in the early days. It really made me rethink some things that I thought i knew. I am starting to appreciate Kirby and Ditko a lot more.

That's great. To be honest, if you factor in the role that Kirby and Ditko played, you can actually start to appreciate Stan Lee's real value as a writer. Lee definitely wrote the dialogues and you can appreciate stuff like how all these different characters sound different from each other and have their speech patterns. A character like J. Jonah Jameson for instance has a great design by Ditko, but his voice, his speech patterns, and so on...that's all Stan.

[gurkle]

Stan Lee in the '60s was pretty open about the fact that Kirby was doing most of the plotting:

Some artists, such as Jack Kirby, need no plot at all. I mean I'll just say to Jack, "Let's let the next villain be Dr. Doom" ... or I may not even say that. He may tell me. And then he goes home and does it. He's so good at plots, I'm sure he's a thousand times better than I. He just makes up the plots for these stories. All I do is a little editing ... I may tell him that he's gone too far in one direction or another. Of course, occasionally I'll give him a plot, but we're practically both the writers on the things.

This is presumably also why starting in Fantastic Four #56 they dropped the separate writer and penciller credits, though Kirby's involvement in the plotting long predated that (just like Ditko had been doing his own plots long before he asked for, and got, plot credit).

After Kirby left, or maybe a bit before, he began to inflate his own role, maybe a combination of believing his own publicity and also needing to downplay Kirby's importance so people wouldn't stop buying the books he had left.

I don't think there's any doubt that Stan had an influence on the stories, if only because we can look at the comics Kirby scripted/edited himself and notice that there are differences not only in the dialogue, but in the types of stories being told. But I don't think even he would have questioned that he was less creative than Kirby.

[Alan2099]

Part of the problem with these arguments is that Kirby never wanted the same kind of attention Stan got. Stan LOVED the spotlight and Kirby was usually just content to sit in the corner and draw.

Stan pushed Kirby to the people. He's the reason we know him as "The King," but Jack simply wasn't the showman Stan was and never tried to be.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Part of the problem with these arguments is that Kirby never wanted the same kind of attention Stan got. Stan LOVED the spotlight and Kirby was usually just content to sit in the corner and draw.

I am confused by this. Apparently it's a flaw if people want to be known by their work and let it speak for itself?

Kirby wasn't a recluse. He was available to interviews, he interacted with co-workers and so on, and likewise Kirby did push himself and made cameos in the Hulk TV show and so on. But yeah he wanted to be known for his work and respected for that, why is that not enough?

Stan pushed Kirby to the people.

He pushed Kirby out of Marvel to DC.

He's the reason we know him as "The King,"

Even without Lee, Kirby would still be a major figure in comics' history. Had Kirby not made comics after 1960 he would still be known as the co-creator of Captain America, the Newsboy Legion, and the founder of Romance Comics as a genre, and numerous other contributions he made before then.

Whereas without Kirby, and without Ditko, nobody would have any interest in Lee.

And the reason for Kirby's fame today is because he pushed himself forward, and made some noise. When he marched to DC and left Marvel and created the New Gods, when he became a figurehead of the creators' rights movements. Kirby's fame today is largely for his own efforts and initiatives, whereas without that, he would have been unknown and obscure and overshadowed by Lee.

Likewise, Ditko became individually famous or notorious thanks to his Objectivist turn, and his influence on Watchmen (even if to deconstruct his ideas) which led many people to look back at his run on Spider-Man and Doctor Strange to wonder what was going on there.

[Iron Maiden]

Let's not get too overboard in the Stan Lee bashing. Stan Lee, for better of worse, was the best PR man that Marvel had in that era. You had to read the original comics to appreciate them. Usually the TPBs and so forth don't have that extra something that Stan added in the letters pages answers and the Stan's soapbox feature. Heck, he brainwashed me into thinking DC was Branch Ecchh! Stan made you feel like you were part of some cool club. You also have to remember that Stan was managing the whole show for a while, giving out art and inking assignments and was the art editor until he asked John Romita Sr. to take over. I love Jack Kirby's work but you can tell that Stan was the better wordsmith. And as was pointed out, at a certain point the credits just became Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.

Let's also not forget that Stan didn't have the power of the checkbook. That was publisher Martin Goodman, who did promise Kirby a contract and reneged on that. It was Martin Goodman that had that part printed on the back of their paychecks that all work was the property of the company. Not Stan

Think about all the young talent that Stan hired. I think you can give him credit for having an eye for talent. He hired Gerry Conway, Roy Thomas and Jim Steranko, who were barely out of their teens. Conway was a teenager in fact when he wrote he first stories. Over the years, Stan would think of Steranko like a son and for his part Steranko is always affectionate in his memories of Stan, contentious as they could be at times.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Let's not get too overboard in the Stan Lee bashing.

With Lee there's always an extreme in being too hagiographic and too demonizing. But I don't think him sidelining Kirby and Ditko can be seen as anything other than what it is.

Stan Lee, for better of worse, was the best PR man that Marvel had in that era. You had to read the original comics to appreciate them. Usually the TPBs and so forth don't have that extra something that Stan added in the letters pages answers and the Stan's soapbox feature. Heck, he brainwashed me into thinking DC was Branch Ecchh! Stan made you feel like you were part of some cool club.

That's certainly important in its time for how readers remembered and engaged with the material but it doesn't have much or anything to do with the stories, and one can see that promotion as being part of the problem. You can even read it as personal propaganda.

Let's also not forget that Stan didn't have the power of the checkbook. That was publisher Martin Goodman, who did promise Kirby a contract and reneged on that. It was Martin Goodman that had that part printed on the back of their paychecks that all work was the property of the company. Not Stan

Yeah. That's important to consider. Stan Lee was never the owner of Marvel Comics. He had no more rights to any of the characters than Kirby or Ditko did.

Think about all the young talent that Stan hired. I think you can give him credit for having an eye for talent. He hired Gerry Conway, Roy Thomas and Jim Steranko, who were barely out of their teens. Conway was a teenager in fact when he wrote he first stories. Over the years, Stan would think of Steranko like a son and for his part Steranko is always affectionate in his memories of Stan, contentious as they could be at times.

He also hired Ditko fresh out of art school where the two worked on anthology titles throughout the 50s. The two were friends at the time.

But again, Lee also drove away Ditko and Kirby from Marvel. One can say Lee had an eye for talent but he didn't have much in the way of tact in terms of holding on to them.

And Conway is an object case of Lee putting his personal brand over loyalty to employees. Lee approved of Gwen Stacy's death and knew about it. Then when the controversy happened and he got harassed by teenagers at his college lecture tours, he threw Conway under the bus and said he knew nothing. Conway was getting death threats at the time, and it was so egregious that Roy Thomas (who is often accused of being Lee's booster) had to put out a full page letter saying Stan Lee knew about it, which shamed Stan into admitting it.

Lee was also casual about appropriating credit for developments by later writers. Like he said at times that he never saw Magneto as a villain but as a flawed driven man...except that wasn't the character he or Kirby wrote. That was Chris Claremont, who took their least successful title and made it Marvel's biggest.

I respect Stan Lee and I think his writing was crucial to the success of Marvel, but ultimately that isn't proportionate to the greater role Kirby and Ditko played in that time.