-001.jpg)
Much has been made over the last twenty-odd years in certain quarters about JACK 'KING' KIRBY not receiving either the credit or remuneration he deserved for his undoubted contribution to the success of MARVEL COMICS. In fact, Jack - along with JERRY SIEGEL and JOE SHUSTER - is almost a poster boy for the 'hard-done to creators' school of thought, and it would be all-too easy to believe that he indeed fell victim to the evil machinations of corporate big business.
I don't believe it's as simple as that, but on the matter of credit, Jack was every bit as shy as anyone else in sharing the glory of his accomplishments with those who fully deserved equal billing. I'm struck by the fact that, when later relating his career in the comicbook biz, Jack usually neglected to mention his long-time collaborator JOE SIMON, instead preferring to airbrush him from the history of the many titles they both worked on when he could get away with it.
In Kirby's one-page essays in some of his 1970s DC mags, I can't remember Joe Simon being mentioned once, and the backup tales (reprints from the '40s) were labelled 'A Kirby Classic' on every page. Also, in a summary of his comics career written in 1966 and printed in FOOM #8 in 1974, there is again no acknowledgement of his erstwhile art and business associate. I guess it's human nature to believe that, in any partnership, we bring more to the table than the other guy, and it seems that Jack was as prone to this as anyone else you care to name.
.jpg)
Take SPIDER-MAN for example. Jack claimed for years that he had created the idea of Spidey and even designed the costume - however, the facts (as I understand them) are different. Apparently, Joe Simon, JACK OLECK and C.C. BECK were responsible for producing a strip called The SILVER SPIDER, which had developed from an earlier idea by Simon for a character called SPIDERMAN (no hyphen). The idea languished in limbo until it was revised and appeared as The FLY for RED CIRCLE COMICS (ARCHIE) in 1959.
According to Jack's version of events, he showed a Spiderman logo (lettered by Joe when he first came up with the idea) to STAN LEE, and pitched to him Simon and Oleck's original concept before the character had been renamed and revised. However, Jack claimed the idea as his own and failed to mention his former partner's involvement, taking sole credit in the matter. Jack later recanted his claim about the costume when it was pointed out to him that STEVE DITKO's unused cover for AMAZING FANTASY #15 was drawn before his own (published) version, but not before perpetuating his mistaken account of events in numerous fanzine and convention interviews over a period of time.
Don't get the wrong idea - this isn't meant as an attack on Jack's honesty or integrity, but his memory was every bit as bad as Stan Lee's is reputed to be. And it seems that, on the matter of creators feeling deprived of credit or money, very often the determining factor seems to be "How rich did someone else get off an idea I worked on?" To me, this is akin to someone freely selling a silver teapot for £100 (and believing they got a good deal), and then seeing it on television in The ANTIQUES ROADSHOW five or ten years later valued at £1,000.
.jpg)
You can bet your boots that the seller will be kicking himself and cursing the other guy's luck - but feelings of bitterness or frustration (however understandable) from missing out on something hardly entitles anyone to a share of an increased value from something they underestimated the potential worth of at the point of sale. Regardless of whether it's property or ideas, the principle is surely the same.
When it comes to the matter of credit for who did what, it seems that more creators than you'd realise are in the exact same boat as those they point the finger at. Thus has it been, thus shall it ever be. As I said - it's human nature. So, to answer my own question - saint or sinner? Neither. Jack was just as human (though a lot more talented) as the rest of us.
Got any thoughts on the matter? Feel free to express them in the Comments Section. Go on - you know you want to.
15 comments:
Kirby did one long interview with COMICS JOURNAL back in the 80s, which I confess I haven't reread for years. It's my memory, though, that he said something to the effect that, "Back in those days (the Marvel years), nobody ever thought any of this stuff would be worth anything." Now, on one hand, this might be an oversimplification, since Kirby certainly knew that Superman had become a huge franchise. On the other hand, even in the sixties, he might've had had little faith in other franchises to become valuable over time; that maybe Superman was a special case, and therefore anything he co-created with Simon or with Lee was just going to be a passing fad. On the third hand (?), he also probably knew that Martin Goodman would never have made an equitable deal with him no matter what, so taking more than his fair share of credit was the only way he'd feel like he'd gotten back at Marvel's inequities-- even though it meant marginalizing the contributions of Simon and Lee.
Very possibly, GP, what you say is true as far as the '80s go, but remember, it was back at the beginning of the '70s that he wrote his one page pieces for his DC mags, with absolutely no mention of Joe Simon. And his FOOM article was written in '66, yet still no acknowledgement of Simon. And his claim of creating Spider-Man would seem to have no validity at all in light of the known facts, even IF he did suggest the name to Stan Lee. It appears that Jack thought he was solely responsible for the success of anything he worked on, regardless of the input of his collaborators.
A wiser man than me, though that would not be hard, compared Lee and Kirby to Lennon and McCartney. Their collaboration certainly was around at roughly the same time(1959-1970) and when they split they never achieved the success of their time together.Lightening in a bottle I suppose and let's not forget that Joe Maneely, Stans artistic right hand man, would have had a huge input at 60s Marvel if he had not tragically died. I loved all the Marvel comics especially the Kirby ones, but Stans writing/editing linked the whole universe together and made it a club that we were all part of whether we lived in Belfast or Boston. I personally believe that the true golden age of comics was Marvel 1961 to 1970 and we have 2 saints to thank for that... Stan and Jack!
I'm sure you're pretty wise, Triple F. However, have to reluctantly disagree with you regarding Joe Maneely, even though Stan echoed your sentiments. Joe's art was good, but he had a far more 'sedate' style of composition and visual storytelling than Jack, and I don't think he would've infused the same creative input into the strips that Jack did. To borrow your Beatles comparison, had either Lennon or McCartney not been involved, the Beatles wouldn't have been the same - and it's doubtful, had that been the case, that the group would've scaled the heights they did. Finally, I agree that Stan & Jack had something special, even unique, but Jack would have spared himself a lot of grief and frustration if he'd had the confidence to negotiate a better deal for himself at the time, instead of accepting the situation as it was then complaining about it afterwards. Easy to say in hindsight of course.
Fair point kid. No doubt Kirby was an incredible ideas man and I have no idea if Joe Maneely was a functional artist or he could have blossomed in the 60s like Kirby, Ditko etc.Perhaps Jack could have taken the Art Director role and the salary that came with it. But that would have reduced his output and he would have had to work away from home which did not suit. Swings and roundabouts I suppose. Amazing we still want to discuss Marvel in the 60s but it shows the effect it had on all of us. Great topic, endlessly fascinating. Keep up the great work mate!
And you keep up the great thought-provoking comments, Triple F. My main reservation about Maneely, good as he was, is that he tended to go for more 'traditionally' composed panels, whereas Jack's compositions were always more varied and interesting (when he was at the top of his game), with characters seemingly jumping right out at the readers. I'd say that Maneely was more of an 'illustrator' who worked in comics, than a comics artist - if you catch my distinction.
I wrote a new post that's not so much a direct response to your blogpost as a consideration as to why Kirby probably thought that anything he worked on was "his," just because he often brought so much creativity to the table. It doesn't justify acing out people who make their own contributions, small or great, but I can see why he would tend to think of himself as the main creator.
Re: Maneely-- I didn't consider him "sedate," even though he wasn't as kinetic as Kirby. He was a cover artist for some years, so I assume his style grabbed readers in that time, as it did when a lot of his westerns were reprinted by Marvel in the seventies. He would not have been as much a font of ideas as Kirby, but he could've adapted to superheroes well enough. Look at Gene Colan in the fifties; there's nothing to suggest that he could be as good as he was on DAREDEVIL. Maneely died in his early thirties, so if he'd lived and continued working for Marvel,.he probably would have been at least as noteworthy as Colan, and much more so than Heck or Roth.
Yeah, but I don't see how he could have considered himself the main creator of Spiderman (the no hyphen one) as it was Joe Simon, Jack Oleck, and C.C. Beck who were responsible for what became the Silver Spider. Kirby later redrew it as The Fly, but it would seem that he had nothing to do with the original idea of the 'Spiderman' - who evolved into the Silver Spider and then The Fly.
From what I've seen of Maneely's work, it was solid, professional illustration, but his panel compositions were sort of 'samey' and all seemed to be 'shot' from a corner of the room (to think of it in cinematic terms for a moment). It simply wasn't varied or dynamic enough to compete with Kirby's compositions. Could he have adopted JK's style of storytelling and become more suited to superheroes? Perhaps, but the work we know of was just a bit too 'Curt Swan-ish' (before Carmine Infantino sometimes did his layouts and Murphy Anderson started inking him) to be a serious superhero artist contender. In comparison to Jack, Maneely's style was just a little too pedestrian.
However, had he lived, perhaps he would have surprised me. I don't think he'd ever have usurped Kirby's position at the top of the tree though.
The interesting thing about Ditko's claim about Spider-Man is that he didn't repeat it with Captain Atom. In fact, he denied being a co-creator in that case, though he surely came up with the costume.
In terms of line-drawing and anatomy, just about any artist was better than Kirby, but that wasn't what Jack was about. His panel and page composition was far more dynamic than Maneely (and other artists). And, had Joe lived, he wasn't really in the same league as Jack when it came to superhero comics, so I suspect the FF gig would still have gone to Jack, who had a much more 'cinematic' way of drawing a story. I just don't see that in Maneely's art, nice as it is.
Failing that, Joe would've given it a try, Stan wouldn't have been entirely satisfied, and would then have probably handed it over to Jack anyway. I just can't imagine liking the FF as much if Jack hadn't drawn it from the start - not to mention his other contributions to the strip.
I think that Ditko addressed the Spider-Man matter because he had an issue with Stan claiming he (Stan) created him.
Stan wasn't trying to steal sole credit, rather Stan felt the person who came up with the idea is the "creator" (he's not wrong, it works that way in other industries I believe).
I believe Ditko acknowledges Stan came up with the idea, just that that's not enough for "creation", rather that both he and Stan are both the "creators" (I bought some of his essay comics a while ago).
Funny enough, Ditko seems to have, back then, asked Stan to write a letter to Martin Goodman acknowledging him (Ditko) as the guy who came up with Dr. Strange. So coming up with the idea was important to him then.
No one knows who originally came up with the idea for Captain Atom, right?
Joe Gill and Steve Ditko are usually credited with being the co-creators of Captain Atom (with Ditko being called 'co-writer), but in an interview, Ditko actually made a point of saying that he wasn't a co-creator, saying that he'd just designed the costume. However, surely the same principles he applied to Spider-Man when it came to his claim of co-creator status should also apply to Captain Atom? If not, why not?
As for Dr. Strange, see my post called Who Created Doctor Strange? Stan Lee, Steve Ditko - Or Both? (Just type the title into my blog's search box.)
And I'd say you do Stan an injustice. Most times, Stan went to great lengths to play to an artist's strengths, not just his speed. That's why Al Hartley only ever drew one Thor story - and he only got that one because it was an emergency.
Eric Stanton claimed to have supplied the idea for the web-shooters to Ditko, and the spider-sense idea, though interesting, was hardly a make-or-break for the character. And is Steve's memory reliable? He readily admitted he couldn't remember doing some strips years after the fact.
You're overlooking the fact that Kirby had a proven track record with superheroes, and was even then regarded as Marvel's top artist, which is why Stan would've given it to him. Also, Jack claims to have supplied the name to Stan (without a hyphen), which, if true, would be another reason for him to draw it. Unfortunately, however, neither Stan or Jack's memories can be regarded as totally reliable.
And that's a big assumption about Daredevil. It's more likely that Jack didn't draw Daredevil (though it's possible he designed the costume as it's a drawing by him that adorns the cover and splash page) simply because he was busy drawing just about everything else. So - no!
I think you've got the cart before the horse. Stan wouldn't know that Jack wasn't suited to Spider-Man until he saw the results. And remember too, that later negative reaction to Jack's version of Spidey was based on comparison to Steve Ditko's incarnation - and he hadn't drawn it yet.
To say Jack didn't draw teens very well is a massive overstatement. What about Johnny Storm and his teenage cohorts? And Jack had no problem drawing Daredevil in the FF (though Wood inked it), and he did the layouts for Romita's version of Daredevil, so again, saying his art approach isn't suited to Daredevil is way off-beam.
Maneely's art, good as it was, just didn't have the impact that Kirby's had. Stan was smart enough to know that. True, he did later say that had Maneely lived, he might've drawn the FF first, but without Jack's pulse-pounding style and cinematic composition, it would've been a short-lived experiment. Maneely drew pretty pictures, but Kirby injected 'oomph' into his pages.
And yet, when Timely tried to revive their trio of superheroes in the mid-'50s, Maneely only drew three covers for Sub-Mariner Comics. No first dibs on the contents it would seem.
In case you're wondering why there are several comments by me, one after the other, Commenter Yby deleted most of his comments, leaving my responses to them isolated out of their context. Blame him, not me.
Post a Comment