|
Post by tolworthy on Nov 8, 2017 20:57:17 GMT -5
It is such a relief to hear you say that! That means a lot. Thanks. And thanks for reading ot so quickly. I know I'm not the easiest writer, which brings us to the 64,000 dollar question: Marvel characters tended not only to use youth lingo but also to have more differentiation in their dialogue from character to character. Does Stan deserve any credit for that, as the guy writing the words, even if those words worked against Kirby's intended plots? Or was that somehow Jack also? I think you have really hit the crux of the matter here. Lee's language. If somebody told me to write the case FOR Stan lee, Stan's language would be at the heart. He made the stories easy and it worked. Which points out the two weakest parts of my theory: 1. Hypocrisy. As a child I preferred Lee. And now I say I don't need Lee. Such ingratitude! And it is perfectly true that I used to find New Gods unreadable (now I love it!). In my defense, I ALWAYS liked Kirby's monster stories. I think all of Kirby's pre-Marvel stuff is very accessible: I don't think that can ALL be due to his editors. According to his interviews he got really interested in Big Questions in the late 1950s, and that explains why his prose became denser and more poetic. So I think, yes, 1961 Kirby would still have been readable for children even without Lee. But if I was a lawyer defending Lee, I would argue that Kirby always needed editing for children. That argument could go both ways. 2. Rewriting history: My theory depends on 1956-1964 being special. I argue that Kirby would have started long running titles in that era even if his editor was totally hands off. Like, say, if he worked for Charlton. To prove it I give examples and a graph. It must be true if there's a graph. But any argument that relies on a Grand Theory of history is one a lawyer might profitably attack. Because if I am wrong then Lee must have added something special: his are the only Kirby titles that survive to this day. So yeah, if you all point your fingers accusingly at me and hammer at those two points, you might see me shuffle my feet nervously. I am aware that DC heroes were all basically the same person with different costumes and power sets, as is obvious when they interact in JLA etc. Now this is a topic that REALLY interests me. Because I would argue that being "the same person" is actually true for Kirby's work and that's a positive thing. Though not in the DC way. BTW, I didn't intend to write a Stan bashing tome. My initial plan was just to write a book about Kirby as a writer. But the first step was to decide exactly what he did write., That section grew too big, hence the current book. The angle was the catchiest one I could think of, so I ran with it, rather than making it a dry technical tome. Every book needs a villain. . But my real assign is in how Kirby wrote characters. As far as I can tell from his interviews, and I think it is amply backed up on his work, Kirby never planned and never edited. And I think he deliberately made his characters blank slates as far as possible: he was examining how you or I would react to events. I think every Kirby character is the reader. Every Kirby character is Kirby himself. They are different only because big, different things happen to them. Ben turned rocky, Sue got married, etc. And we would be that way too if those things happened to us. Sure, Dr Doom is vain, but he merely focuses on something we all have: which person does not but himself before others at some point? And the Hulk is angry, but wouldn't you or I be in those circumstances? I find Kirby's writing method to be brilliant and fascinating and unique. He doesn't contrive (he said he hated contrive situations), he just sees an interesting real life situation and asks "what would happen next?" This was the key to how I turned to the dark side. I always resisted being a full bore Kirby nut, because I love continuity. I love to see how things fit together. And Kirby was far too happy to keep starting again with new books. Once I am invested in characters I want to follow them forever, dammit! And that for me was Stan Lee's biggest card: Lee linked the stories (to sell more comics), therefore Lee created the continuity. That used to be the bottom line for me, why Lee always had to be up there in the pantheon. That's how I felt until last year. My road to Damascus experience was when I realised that contrived continuity always disappoints; No matter how good the writer is, sooner or later you find a plot hole, or the story simply ends. But the truly great writers, the Shakespeares and Tolstoys and Hugos and Chekovs, they create characters who are basically us. We inhabit them like mask. Their stories are "what ifs" about the real world we live in. Their stories can be endlessly re-read and re-interpreted because the real world can be. One character then merges into another. Nobody feels sad when a Jane Austen novel ends (or not sad for long anyway), because there is another Jane Austen novel around the corner, and we are not really reading about Elizabeth Bennett or Fanny Price, we are reading about Everywoman or Everyman, when placed in those situations. This is how Kirby is to me. All his characters are the same, but what makes them different is thst with Kirby stuff is constantly happening! If a Kirby character stood still they would disappear. They are a world away from standard superheroes, endlessly returning to the same villains: Kirby characters constantly change, reacting to the real world. Challengers become Fantastic Four become X-men, just as fast as Kirby could explore what's out there and then radiation. But they are all us. I'm rambling now. It's late. Must get to bed!
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Nov 8, 2017 22:37:31 GMT -5
I've been skimming through this monster read and I must say, I feel like I miss the point.
You are trying to prove that the creation of the Fantastic Four was purely Kirby based on his previous work. Yet, I see it as he used his previous monster work to bring the FF to life. He based the characters off of the monsters he drew. When Stan Lee takes credit, he is taking credit for saying " I want a superhero team. I want a stretchy guy, an invisible girl, a monster man and a fire guy! They get their powers in space and...". Imagine him saying that in his Stan Lee voice.
So Kirby starts drawing what he knows, bases some of the characters of his past monster drawings. And maybe Kirby did his drawings and drew the stories before Stan scripted them. Maybe Stan gave a lose script ("I want them fighting these aliens called Skrulls disguised as humans!) and Kirby did more of the work drawing. When Stan scripts it, it comes across lacking for some, especially if you get the impression from the art that a better story could have been told.
It comes down to the age questions...Does the artist create the character or the writer who makes him/her talk? It is neither. Stan Lee was the first to verbally describe this team, but Kirby was the first to bring them to visually life. It would be like me saying I want someone to create an iPhone case that glows in the dark. I don't know how to make it, but I have the idea. Someone else actually makes it and in my eyes, they should also be a creator, along with myself.
So with that said, I will vehemently say that Stan Lee and Kirby created the FF. But I will deny anyone saying that it was only Stan or only Jack. One without the other does not make the Fantastic Four exist the way they did.
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Nov 8, 2017 22:46:20 GMT -5
With regards to your missile comment, you cannot disprove that Stan said "I want a missile here on this page!". So Kirby draws one based on something accurate for the time period. Stan Lee doesn't care and makes it a nuclear missile for the story's sake. I don't think Stan's plan was to ever ground superheroes in realism. Kirby may have and hey, one can appreciate that but as a reader, that small detail seems trivial.
Also, the realism logic falls flat because Johnny is seen in a 30's model two door coupe on one page yet a car with a distinct split window on the passenger side on the next page. It's a totally different looking car. If Kirby is a realism stickler, why can't he draw that correctly?
As a car guy, I noticed that immediately. As someone who knows nothing about military stuff, I missed the missile detail. Perhaps Stan did too. Perhaps he did not care and in his mind, calling it a nuclear missile when it came time to script the issue was more fantastic even if it was inaccurate. Does not mean he did not create the story, just means there may have been more of a disconnect between Stan and Kirby. Which makes it a miracle they produced such a hit for so long if they were both trying to tell different stories (or their own variation of the same story). Actually, I guess that's what most writer/illustrator teams do. Writer describes it as best he can, illustrator draws his vision and writer writes. But maybe Stan and Lee were not as in touch with one another when it came to picking out the finer details.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 8, 2017 22:52:37 GMT -5
A few thoughts that come to mind here; bringing up Sky Master as Jack Kirby's writing is problematic, as Dick Wood did the scripting on the strip. It was most probably Kirby's plotting, which in Kirby's mind is writing (and you can't argue with that viewpoint, much, as it is writing much of the essential part of the story). Joe Simon did much of the scripting on their work, while both worked out the plot, though Kirby excelled more in particular types of stories. The idea that Stan dumbs down Kirby's plot is compelling but is really a matter of viewpoint, based on how you perceive his dialogue. Is he simplifying it for children or because he doesn't understand Kirby's plot? Quite possibly; but, you can hardly say definitely.
I have read interviews with John Romita and Herb Trimpe, regarding Lee and Kirby plotting sessions (post-FF #1), which remark that Jack had his idea of the story and Stan had his, and they rarely agreed but acted like they did, as they were oblivious to the differences in what the other was saying. Jack crafted his story while laying out the art and Stan crafted his when he applied the dialogue. That as much explains the diversion between dialogue and art. Stan could be forced to alter his story based on what he saw in the finished pages, while he tried to steer it back to his story. Mark Evanier has also remarked about much of the story Jack improvised as he drew, even when he had already conceived the plot before drawing a single line. Evanier remarked that Jack would tell him the plot of the next issue of the New Gods, then produce something completely different.
To pare down Stan's previous writing to Willie Lumpkin ignores things like the Destroyer, which is credited to Stan, without Jack's involvement. It was hardly an A-Level strip; but, it did last for a while, before superheroes were falling out of vogue, at the end of the 40s. The question of why Stan would try to get into newspapers with Willie Lumpkin and not something else ignores trends in comic strips of the period. The days of the adventure strip were waning, as newspapers started squeezing the comics pages. The 50s saw a major increase in humor strips, particularly after the success of Peanuts. You see a plethora of humor strips, with simple gags and artwork, such as Beetle Bailey, The Wizard of Id, Hi and Lois and similar fare, from the 50s and 60s. Lee is following the trend, though without much originality. Nothing new there, in that time period.
In the Appendices, you state that Uncle Scrooge folded when a price jump to 15 cents killed it, while other comics were at 110 and 12 cents. Uncle Scrooge was published by Western from 1952-1984, under both the Dell name and the Gold Key and Whitman banners. Where it suddenly folded is a mystery, as it only ended in 1984, when Western pretty much gave up on comics, though it would reappear at Gladstone in 1986. I think you have some crossed wires in that paragraph, possibly meaning a different comic.
I whole-heartedly agree that FF #1 is mostly Kirby's story and was likely a continuation of Challengers. That much is self-evident, if only thematically. I tend to agree that the superhero angle seems to be added later, though I am not totally convinced that Ben is added after the fact. The monstrous Ben is; but, I still think Kirby was building around a quartet. I suspect the superpower angle created some redrawing, leading to the clumsier composition; but, elements like Reed piloting the plane at the end, when Ben is a pilot, is easily explained as Ben being unable to handle the controls, due to the loss of dexterity and control, because of his new, bulkier hands. Yes, he does later pilot craft; but, those vehicles were designed by Reed and adapted to Ben's proportions and limitations, like the "unstable molecules" of the costumes.
I'm a long-time supporter of Jack being the creative force in partnership with Stan, just as Ditko was in theirs. Stan's writing is strongest with artists who were great writers and plotters in their own right; but, that stands to reason. However, Stan worked with other artist who were not as strong on plot, like Don Heck, and was still successful, if not at the same levels as with Kirby and Ditko. Stan carried more of the writing weight there and the books didn't sell as well; but, that is likely no matter how skilled the artist is, when the fanbase is going ga-ga for Kirby and Ditko. Wally Wood was a fabulous artist and a great plotter; but, he wasn't exactly knocking sales out of the park. He had a strong fanbase; but, didn't seem to connect with readers of the 60s like Kirby and Ditko. He did in the 50s, in the EC titles, but, his demons (smoking and drinking) were affecting his work in the late 60s and were destroying his line in the 70s, though he still had great moments Most of the EC guys had problems with Stan; but, they also had problems with the editors at DC, in many cases. Kirby and Ditko are the artistic superstars of the 60s, with Kane and Infantino at DC (then, later, Neal Adams).
I tend to side with Mark Evanier that denying Stan any credit is ridiculous, just as Kirby did more than just draw pictures. You can examine work together and apart and see what each added to the other. Stan adds livelier personality to Kirby's characters, while Kirby adds maturity and inspiration to Stan's dialogue, even when they are at odds on plot. Jack gave Stan the meat to work with, that he couldn't quite conjure on his own (same with Ditko). When Stan was on his own, he tended to fall more into cliched villains and plots, and endless Commie villains. He wasn't alone in that. Stan was, first and foremost, an editor, through which he did much to shape the final comics, regardless of who conceived them. As such, he is doing a form of writing, as much as Kirby and Ditko in generating their own plots. The final result is not what Kirby and Ditko started out wit; so, Stan added something and it sold. You can't really say Stan sold the comic or Jack or Steve sold it, more than the other. Quite frankly, in many reader's eyes, it was always Stan & Jack or Stan & Steve, not Lee's writing or Kirby or Ditko's art. The sum was greater than the parts. Beyond that, you fall into personal bias.
There are many parts of this that feel read very much like evidence is being fit to a pre-conceived conclusion, rather than resulting from detailed study. Things which do not support the premise are downplayed or ignored. That is a common problem in analytical study, as objectivity is a hard thing to achieve, especially when you are studying something that doesn't fit into a fact-based framework. We are dealing with art, which is subjective, versus a scientific study of an event or series of tests, where theories are tested and retested and then reassessed to see how they measure up to quantifiable evidence. Here, we mostly deal with inference of the finished work. As you say, until we see the original artwork (if it still exists) we can never fully know Kirby's original plot, apart from what we infer from the finished product and from his recollections, 30+ years on. Family and friends have said that Jack's memory was hardly a reliable instrument on these things and human memory is shaped heavily by emotion and has been documented to change based on present emotion.
I do believe Stan did and still takes far too much credit, though it varies according to the knowledge and/or research of his audience. I do believe he cannot take sole credit for much of anything at Marvel, though he only seems to in discussion with fawning outside media; and, even then, he is quick to promote his collaborators. He doesn't correct misunderstandings that favor him and he does have a huge ego that loves the attention from mainstream press. However, he did have a hand in shaping these stories and building the success of both the individual titles and the Marvel brand. That was his real strength: promotion. Stan built the Marvel brand, so that the work of Kirby and Ditko and the rest was the work of Marvel, as a collective whole, not the individuals. In that, he was following the corporate mindset of similar empresarios, such as Walt Disney and Leon Schlessinger, or even Julie Schwartz or John Goldwater. Certainly, by the 1970s, he had f-all to do with the comics and was busy schmoozing in Hollywood. Evidence suggest he didn't sign deals; that his job was to be the face of Marvel, to promote the brand and the characters, as part of the pitch. He was the barker trying to draw in the rubes, while the real Hollywood types handled the negotiations. As such, they are the ones responsible for the bad deals, as their is little or no evidence that Stan ever cut a deal in Hollywood. This is why Marvel usually had no say in productions, until they started bankrolling their own films. DC at least had people involved and had some say in the treatment of characters; but, even then, it was limited to more the general nature of the character, as films like Superman 3 and 4 show they didn't have script approval and had no say in eliminating bad ideas, so long as Superman or Batman was recognizable within the film.
I do think that without Jack, Marvel would have never survived, though maybe Ditko could have kept them going a while longer. He couldn't keep Charlton strong, even with a smart and supportive boss like Dick Giordano. At the same time, Jack needed someone like Joe Simon or Stan Lee to handle the business side of things, for which he had neither the time nor inclination. Jack just needed to concentrate on stories and needed someone to give him the freedom from distraction to do that. In the case of Joe Simon, you had more of an equal partnership in the creation of the comics, compared to Stan, though Simon had less say in certain stories than others. Some things feel pure Jack, while others feel more Joe, particularly in the earlier days. I think some of that is the growing confidence of Kirby, as he learns what works and what doesn't. I think Simon pulls back more in their later work and Kirby is a far stronger voice, though I also think Joe better understood how to communicate with Kirby than Stan did, or anyone at DC. They could talk in terms of the visual element of storytelling, where Stan could only talk in terms of story structure or character, or publisher's whims.
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Nov 8, 2017 23:01:30 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I always read that Doc Ock "Super-Man" panel as Doc Ock being snide and using another heroes name because he cannot be bothered to recall Spider-Man's name. The fact that is has a hyphen when the actual Superman name does not lead me to this thinking. It also makes for a clever reference.
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Nov 8, 2017 23:08:31 GMT -5
I also find your interview snippets analyzing what Stan and Kirby said about the FF to be poorly selected. Stan's is from a 2009 interview, at which point I feel he was (and still is) not quite there in terms of his memory. He is in his "character" and is 86 when he says this . Meanwhile, the 1986 interview with Kirby is much older and Kirby, although 68, is still much younger saying those words compared to Stan. If you can find interview evidence from a similar time period showing this lack of character analysis when talking about their creations, then your arguments have even more validity
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 8, 2017 23:36:47 GMT -5
I also find your interview snippets analyzing what Stan and Kirby said about the FF to be poorly selected. Stan's is from a 2009 interview, at which point I feel he was (and still is) not quite there in terms of his memory. He is in his "character" and is 86 when he says this . Meanwhile, the 1986 interview with Kirby is much older and Kirby, although 68, is still much younger saying those words compared to Stan. If you can find interview evidence from a similar time period showing this lack of character analysis when talking about their creations, then your arguments have even more validity Well, that part can be a bit problematic. Stan is interviewed quite a bit in the late 60s and 70s; and in certain corners in the 80s; but, Jack really isn't (comparatively) until the artwork fight in the 80s. The longest interview, and source for many of Jack's claims to sole creation, is a problematic interview from the Comics Journal. Jack makes statement that are demonstrably incorrect, many of which people like Mark Evanier have corrected. Jack has a definite axe to grind in the interview and Gary Groth has an agenda which shapes that interview and pretty much eggs Kirby on, even when he knows the facts don't support Kirby's recollection of things. Stan was especially vilified in the Kirby battle with Marvel (nearly as much as Jim Shooter), especially in the pages of the Journal. As such, he wasn't the subject of the same kind of long form interview, with facts challenging his memory. There is some anecdotal evidence that Stan pushed for a favorable resolution for Kirby, behind the scenes, even if he didn't do so publicly. In that period, the biggest challenge to Stan I saw came from Will Eisner, in their video, which was part of the series Stan did for Stabur Video (along with people like Todd McFarlane, Rob Liefeld and Jim Lee, as well as veterans like Eisner, Kurtzman, Jack Davis, the Romitas and Chris Claremont, as the sole writer featured). They have a bit of a difference of opinion over the maturity of Stan's superhero works, vs Eisner's aspirations with his graphic novels. Eisner is dismissive of superheroes as adolescent power fantasies, while Stan tries to defend the Marvel flawed heroes as being a more mature take on the concept.
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Nov 9, 2017 11:05:02 GMT -5
When Stan Lee takes credit, he is taking credit for saying " I want a superhero team. I want a stretchy guy, an invisible girl, a monster man and a fire guy! They get their powers in space and..." IS there any evidence that Lee said that? There is plenty of evidence that Kirby was creating superheroes just before this time. But the only evidence I can find for Lee suggesting it all comes from Lee's famous account about the golf game that never happened. Lee has a long history of making claims that are investigated but turn out to be false, so I'm interested in finding any evidence that does not trace back to him. the realism logic falls flat because Johnny is seen in a 30's model two door coupe on one page yet a car with a distinct split window on the passenger side on the next page. Good catch! I'd missed that. it's not just a different car, his friend is at the back of this car, not the front. if we remove the dialog (and ignore the colourists choices) this implies that page 6 takes place a few minutes after page 5. But the dialog contradicts that, and suggests it's happening within the space of a few seconds. However, I accept that on balance it's probably more likely that Kirby just didn't check back. The plot only required Johnny to be busy on something he loved. But the plot specifically required a sidewinder missile because of its heat seeking capability. I think this is another example of Kirby's realism that I discussed in my previous reply: I think Kirby's realism is his connection with the real world. I don't think he would consider comic book continuity to matter much.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 11:21:43 GMT -5
I'm been reading this monster read of the thing and haven't made my conclusion yet; but to the point that I want to make here both codystarbuck & pinkfloydsound17 comments hit a nerve to me. Right now, for what I understand ... I felt that Stan Lee never really gave much credit to Jack Kirby. I feel that it was Stan had an idea and Jack made it work for the first major Superteam in Marvel's history. I feel that the credit slightly move to Jack's favor ... more like 55% Jack and 45% Stan. For the record, I've admire Jack Kirby more than Stan Lee. This is my first impression and I haven't made any valid conclusion yet and what Cody and PinkFloyd are saying here in this thread is valid and I'm a Fantastic Four Fan and this really open my eyes and may requires me a week or more to think things over so that these thoughts that I'm having now could change.
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Nov 9, 2017 11:36:36 GMT -5
Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful reply. Much appreciated. bringing up Sky Master as Jack Kirby's writing is problematic, as Dick Wood did the scripting on the strip. It was most probably Kirby's plotting Fair point. I'll probably replace the Sky masters dialog with Frog Prince dialog, as that's definitely Kirby on his own. Stan could be forced to alter his story based on what he saw in the finished pages, while he tried to steer it back to his story. Another fair point. But based on these recollections, and on the only firm records we have (the four issue synopses) it appears that Kirby used as little as possible from what Lee said. It also appears to me that lee's suggestions are as far from inspired as it is possible to get, e.g. "fight the surfer", or "Doom steals the surfer's board". I suspect that any casual reader could have done the same. Of course, for many readers Lee's input will be the best part. They want a fight, not a philosophical window onto the problems of the world! But the bottom line for me is the sales figures: The sum was greater than the parts. For individuals yes. And for other individuals the sum was less than the parts. In total, what is the evidence that Lee added a single extra sale? As far s I can see, the final net sales by the late 1960s are simply the same sales that Kirby got with whoever he worked with. That's the part I can't get over. Lee's salesmanship made readers think he was adding something to sales, but I just don't see any evidence of that in the numbers. I suppose his post-Ditko Spider-man sales might be used as evidence, but the small bump coincide with the popular Spider-Man cartoon, and sales plummet when the cartoon ends. To pare down Stan's previous writing to Willie Lumpkin ignores things like the Destroyer Fair point. When I find the Frog Prince text then I'll use the Destroyer for comparison.
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Nov 9, 2017 11:41:33 GMT -5
Can you point me to any examples? I'd like to use the in a revised appendix. The only ones I've seen are Kirby's claim to have created Spider-man, and his claim that Lee was crying when they met. Both claims turn out to be true, or as true as a quick simplification can be: Spider-Man's creation takes multiple pages to unravel for example. What significant errors did Kirby make? I mean other than accidentally calling Captain America "Captain Marvel" that one time?
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Nov 9, 2017 11:44:05 GMT -5
I also find your interview snippets analyzing what Stan and Kirby said about the FF to be poorly selected. Stan's is from a 2009 interview, at which point I feel he was (and still is) not quite there in terms of his memory. He is in his "character" and is 86 when he says this . Meanwhile, the 1986 interview with Kirby is much older and Kirby, although 68, is still much younger saying those words compared to Stan. If you can find interview evidence from a similar time period showing this lack of character analysis when talking about their creations, then your arguments have even more validity You don't mean the Origins of Marvel Comics quote then? I'll try to find the one you mentioned when I get back from work. Thanks for pointing it out.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 9, 2017 13:03:02 GMT -5
When Stan Lee takes credit, he is taking credit for saying " I want a superhero team. I want a stretchy guy, an invisible girl, a monster man and a fire guy! They get their powers in space and..." IS there any evidence that Lee said that? There is plenty of evidence that Kirby was creating superheroes just before this time. But the only evidence I can find for Lee suggesting it all comes from Lee's famous account about the golf game that never happened. Lee has a long history of making claims that are investigated but turn out to be false, so I'm interested in finding any evidence that does not trace back to him. You realize that there is an existing script for at least the early part of Fantastic Four #1. It wasn't done Marvel-style. Which is at least some evidence that Lee had a significant hand in creating the FF.
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Nov 9, 2017 14:27:49 GMT -5
You realize that there is an existing script for at least the early part of Fantastic Four #1; You mean the document that basically describes the Challengers origin, and adds the powers from Challengers 3? Yes, I'm sure that was all Lee's idea 😁
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 14:48:00 GMT -5
You realize that there is an existing script for at least the early part of Fantastic Four #1; You mean the document that basically describes the Challengers origin, and adds the powers from Challengers 3? Yes, I'm sure that was all Lee's idea 😁 I just scan that part and what you said here is painfully true and I just stomach that Stan get all the credits and it's bothers me. Your analysis of the Challengers and the Fantastic Four is a revelation that I didn't expect. I've learned a lot from you and your analysis on the history of the Fantastic Four is something to behold. This is unbelievable piece of work.
|
|