An AMAZING FANTASY...



Spidey's 1st appearance.  Art by Kirby & Ditko

You all know the story.  Or at least, you should - it's been repeated often enough.

Once upon a time, there was a comic called AMAZING FANTASY.  From issue #7 it was rechristened AMAZING ADULT FANTASY, but it reverted back to its original title on its 15th and final appearance.  And in that last issue was a 'throwaway' character called SPIDER-MAN, in an 11-page origin tale.

Publisher MARTIN GOODMAN had reluctantly allowed writer/editor STAN LEE to get the character out of his system, because it didn't much matter what the contents were of a magazine whose demise had been ordained months before due to declining circulation.  When that issue's sales figures came in, it was realized that Spidey was a surprise hit, and he was resurrected in his own comic.

And they all lived happily ever after.

Yep, that's the story, which has now passed into legend.  So what's wrong with it - apart from the fact that the first six issues of Amazing Fantasy were actually called AMAZING ADVENTURES?  Almost everything, as it happens; it's not a legend - it's more of a myth!

The proof of this assertion?  Amazing Fantasy #15 itself!  Read the final caption (deleted from most reprints until recently) of Spider-Man's origin.  "Be sure to see the next issue of Amazing Fantasy - - - for the further amazing exploits of America's most different teenage idol - - Spiderman!"

Spidey's first issue.  Art by Kirby & Ditko

Not yet convinced?  Read the "important message" (proclaims the cover blurb) "from the editor" inside the magazine for the clincher.  "As you can see, we are introducing one of the most unusual fantasy characters of all time - The Spiderman, who will appear every month in Amazing.  Perhaps, if your letters request it, we will make his stories even longer, or have TWO Spiderman stories per issue."

This shows that Spidey was intended as an ongoing character from the off, and that AF #15 was meant to be a new direction for the title.  The message goes on to say that the word "adult" has been dropped from the masthead to spare the blushes of teeanagers who felt "awkward" buying the mag.  There may be some truth to this; with diminishing sales, Marvel would certainly have considered this as a possible factor.  I suspect, though, that the main reason was simply that it would seem ridiculous having the word "adult" on the cover of a "long-underwear" character aimed at juveniles.

The lettering in the final caption has clearly been altered from Amazing Adult Fantasy to Amazing Fantasy, indicating that not only was the name-change a last minute revision, but also that the decision to cancel the magazine wasn't made until after it had gone to press and maybe even hit the stands.  Final confirmation is supplied by the new logo - why go to the bother and expense of designing a new masthead for a mag you knew was going to be the last issue?  The word "adult'" could easily have been omitted from the old logo with no extra work required.

It's fairly obvious what happened.  Goodman must have become aware of just how poorly previous issues had performed and wielded the axe, regardless of Stan's plans for the title.  Then, months later, when the higher-than-usual sales figures and positive feedback from readers came in, Goodman gave permission for Stan to continue on course.

Besides, a big, bold AMAZING SPIDER-MAN logo screaming from the cover of his own mag would have more impact on the spinner-racks and greater appeal to readers wanting in on the ground floor.  At that time, a restrictive distribution deal meant Marvel could only produce around eight titles a month, so what had been intended as AF #16 metamorphosed into The AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #1, with a potentially sales-boosting assist from The FANTASTIC FOUR on the cover.  (The main story was no doubt prepared for AF #16.  The cover-featured back-up story - and therefore the cover itself - were probably later developments to hook FF readers in a cunningly conceived sales ploy.)  It's clear, however, that Spidey's own title was, in content if not in name, exactly what Amazing Fantasy was intended to become.

Ditko's unpublished cover

So why, in the letters page of ASM #4, did Stan Lee give the following account of how Spidey gained his own title?  "We planned to present him in the final issue of AMAZING ADULT FANTASY, just to satisfy ourselves.  But the rest is history!  His surprise appearance jolted readers everywhere, and we were deluged with letters demanding  that he be given his own magazine."  One explanation is that perhaps he simply meant "We planned to present him in [what became] the final issue..."

Or, given Stan's notoriously poor memory and the seven month gap between AF #15 and ASM # 1, he probably just forgot the precise details.  Years later, when he came to write ORIGINS Of MARVEL COMICS, he simply recounted the story as he (mis-)remembered it from ASM #4, even though it didn't quite match up with the facts presented in AF #15 itself.

There!  Another Marvel Mystery cleared up for posterity.

If only it was always so easy!

(Originally published in slightly different form in COMICS INTERNATIONAL #148, August 2002.)

WHOSOEVER HOLDS THIS HAMMER...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

Above is the original final caption box of THOR'S origin from JIM #83 before it was changed to how it appeared in print, below.  (With Thor's name misspelt as THORR.)  Interesting to see that perhaps Thor was intended as a try-out character to test reader reaction before launching him in a series.  I say "perhaps" because this may merely have been a gimmick to make readers think they had a say in what was published.  I'd imagine that it's more than likely the next few episodes were already lying in a drawer in STAN LEE's office.

UPDATE:  (See "Can anyone kindly explain this mystery to me?" post.)

For those who are interested, here's the inferior, re-lettered version from the first printing of the THOR MASTERWORKS book, and subsequent re-printings up to the softcover release.

When I first saw the above abomination, I re-lettered a new one (by hand) with amended spelling from the original - and sent it to TOM BREVOORT for use in future reprintings.  It was never needed though, as superior stats of the original proofs were eventually discovered.

Below is the original and my re-lettered version, side-by-side.  There are some slight differences, but I feel safe in saying that no one would've twigged it was completely new unless they'd compared it with the original - which, of course, they'd have had no need to 'cos it was so much like it.

SPIDER-MAN SPLASH PAGE PROTOTYPE FOUND IN ARCHIVES!

Image copyright Me

Nah!  I'm only kiddin'.  (Gotcha!)  It's just a little something I cooked up for my own amusement, presented here purely for the purpose of entertainment value - if any.  Click on the image to enlarge it and read the margin notes.

This and next image copyright MARVEL COMICS

And above is the original art for the splash page of Spidey's origin.  The logo - which was pasted over STEVE DITKO's own attempt - is a stat taken from his rejected version of the cover of AF #15.  Below is the page in colour - doesn't it look pretty?

AND SPEAKING OF THOR...

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

I just had to print this cover of the very first FANTASTIC ANNUAL from 1967 (for '68), which features a stunning painted version of the splash page for JIM #83 (see previous post).  I could be wrong, but it looks like the artist (anyone know who he is?) has traced (or merely painted over) a stat of the page, because the style of JACK KIRBY still manages to shine through.  (Compare it with Jack and Joe Sinnot's version below.)  Anyone else as impressed as I am?

The annual has some great strips - 'I USED TO BE... HUMAN!' being but one - and is well-worth having in your collection.  There were three Fantastic annuals in all, and they shouldn't be too hard to track down on eBay for those who are interested in acquiring them.

CAN ANYONE KINDLY EXPLAIN THIS MYSTERY TO ME?

Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

When MARVEL COMICS first printed the THOR MASTERWORKS volume back in the early '90s, they couldn't find the original proofs of Thor's origin from JOURNEY Into MYSTERY #83.  Therefore, they did the next best thing - they used the proofs from a reprint of his debut which appeared in THOR #158.  However, they had to 're-create' the splash page and re-letter the final panel so that they matched their first printing.

Trouble is - they didn't!  There are slight differences in the two versions of the splash page, and the re-lettering on the final panel is extremely sub-standard.  Also, the bold lettering throughout the story is blurred, and has had some process white clumsily applied to it in an effort to make it readable.

Interestingly, when they published the first volume of THOR ESSENTIALS back around 2000 (or thereabouts), they seem to have recovered good proofs of the origin story as it first appeared in 1962.  Why, then, from subsequent printings onwards*, did they resort to using proofs of the inferior Masterworks version when the original is clearly available to them?  I just can't work it out.  Even the beautiful, newly-coloured presentation of this story which appeared in a recent Thor One-Shot and the new TALES Of ASGARD hardback volume utilizes the same disappointing b&w line artwork source as the Masterworks edition.

(* The most recent printing has now reverted  to superior proofs for the origin tale.)

Let's hope that when they get around to producing a THOR OMNIBUS volume, they do what they've done with most of the others - use high-quality proofs of the origin as it was originally published, without the clumsy 'restoration' work that a lot of the early Masterworks volumes suffered from.  (Though they've vastly improved over recent years.)  If they do, I faithfully promise to buy two copies.  (Funds permitting.)

UPDATE: (See "Whosever holds this hammer..." and "Ours is a drama decreed by the fates..." elsewhere on this bombastic blog.)

ART FOR ART'S SAKE...



Art by Kid Robson after John Romita Jr. & Bob Layton

 

There's an old saying that I'm sure you'll all be familiar with: "If you don't use it, you lose it."  With that in mind, I thought I'd try having a go at drawing something, and the cover of IRON MAN #150 seemed ideal.  Note that the above artwork is not a tracing, nor the result of a projector; I merely sat the comic in front of me and drew it freehand as I saw it - much as I would if I had a model posing for me.  (I used a ruler to 'finish' the logo, of course - after sketching it out freehand.)  I didn't strive to make it an exact copy down to the last line; I allowed for a little personal interpretation, which is why it looks more like a pin-up than a cover.  When I sign it, I'll also acknowledge the original cover artists.  I'm quite proud of it, but I could be persuaded to part with it for the right offer, I suppose.

This is actually a photograph of the original art - not a scan.

AND THE MORAL OF THIS STORY IS...



An artist's life can sometimes be a disappointing one.  I happen to be slightly colour-blind and therefore don't work with colour very often.  However, a few years back, an acquaintance badgered me to do a portrait of her.  At first I declined, but she kept harping on about it until I relented and agreed.  My heart wasn't really in it, and - truth to tell - because I was a little rusty, the finished painting (done in acrylic inks) ended up looking like something a fairly talented 3rd-year school pupil might produce.

In short, not too bad, but nothing brilliant.  I forked out £70 of my own money to have it framed and mounted, and presented it to her for her birthday.  The last I knew, it was gathering dust in her attic, never having been hung on any of her walls.

However, despite its faults, the pic (which is better than the photo-scan above) surely deserves a nicer fate than the 'Dorian Gray' treatment inflicted upon it not long after completion.

The next time anyone asks, the answer is definitely going to  be no.  (Unless they're paying me for my trouble, that is.)

LITTLE-KNOWN "THIRD" FANTASTIC FOUR #1 COVER...

Published cover.  Images copyright MARVEL COMICS

As most readers will know, there are two FF #1 covers; the cover that was published in 1961 (above) and the cover as it was originally drawn (below - known as the "missing man" cover - though that should really be in the plural), which was the version most often utilized in MARVEL reprints right up until the recent MASTERWORKS, OMNIBUS and Trade Paperback editions.

The published version featured the addition of a policeman at the end of the street - and some alterations and additions to the passers-by on the right-hand side of the cover.  Exactly who was responsible for the amendments is, at present, unknown.

Stat of original art by Jack Kirby & George Klein

Was it JACK KIRBY or DICK AYERS who drew them?  Perhaps Ayers inked over Kirby pencils, which would explain why he was credited as inker of the complete cover for many years, until GEORGE KLEIN came to be regarded as the man behind the embellishment duties. Perhaps one day we'll find out for certain.

 

What most fans don't realize however, is that there is also a third, hybrid, version (below).  This was the reprint of FF #1 used for the GOLDEN BOOK & RECORD Set in the mid or late '60s. This cover had the original, unaltered passers-by as originally drawn by Kirby, but the policeman (a redrawn version) had been added to make it look like the original printed version from 1961. (The price, number and date had been removed though.)  Interestingly, considering the debate about who inked the first issue, Dick Ayers is credited as inker on the back of the record sleeve - although his surname is misspelled as "Ayres".)

Golden Book & Record FF #1 reprint

Side-by-side comparison

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT!

Copyright MARVEL COMICS

I don't think it's an ideal situation for comicbook contributors to air their "dirty laundry" in public - and it's with a certain reluctance that I do so now.  As some of you will already know, a certain person and myself had a disagreement over on the pages of his blog, which became quite heated.  I feel that my participation in the uglier aspects of this argument were in direct response to needlessly sarcastic and impertinent remarks by him.  My present comments are only prompted by his insistence on entering into legend (on the guidelines of his blog and various posts) his prejudiced, provocative and inaccurate interpretation of the nature of - and the motivation behind - my responses to him.

Anyone who follows his blog will be aware that our disagreement was over a newspaper article about the negative influence (if any) that some comics may have on some readers.  Things were probably hotter than they should've been - on both sides.  He felt I was being "aggressive" and "abusive" - I felt I was being "assertive" and "defensive" in the face of my viewpoint being misrepresented, and scorn being heaped upon my intellect and intelligence for daring to have an opinion different to his own.  (And perhaps that's exactly how he felt.)

Anyone reading the discussion on his blog should be aware that my initial comments weren't prompted solely by his most recent airing of the subject, but also on comments he made in a previous entry pertaining to the matter.  Did we merely misunderstand the tone the other was adopting, not seeing the intended good humour behind each "verbal" joust?  And did this lead to both of us becoming too defensive in the face of what we imagined to be barbed attacks on ourselves?  Perhaps.

The irony is that, on the particular subject under discussion, we're not too far removed on the matter.  Perhaps we both need to brush up on our communication skills - but it would be a great start if he learned to respond to what someone is actually saying - not what he thinks they're saying.  (Or what he wants them to be saying.)

Also, in dismissing his own disdain for those he presumptuously assumes to hold a different opinion to him (2,900,000 newspaper readers for a start) as a mere "silly generalization" - while emotively describing my assertive replies to his supercilious remarks as "aggressive", "abusive", "disproportionate" and "relentless", "ad hominem attacks" - he hardly reveals a balanced or objective mindset on his part.  Bagging and tagging my comments in this way will no doubt influence some into viewing them as exactly that, and to interpret them detached from the context of a spirited discussion of which he set the tone and could have ended at any time.

Unfortunately, I have been left with an extremely low opinion of this individual after our 'discussion'.  However, you live and learn, eh?

THERE'S A NEW KID IN TOWN!

A ruthless, emotionless, deadly lifeform - and a Dalek

Hi, I'm Kid Robson - I used to contribute to loads of comics between 1985 and 2000.  The purpose of this blog is to talk about all things relating to the wonderful world of comicbooks - and beyond!  Feel free to leave a comment.  And look below - my very first follower.  (Or is it the other way around?)