Opinions on Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's Creative Efforts

[Wayne-Tec]

Hey guys,

 

I recently read an interview Jack Kirby did for The Comics Journal in February of 1990.

 

Kirby shared his recollection of history and his thoughts regarding Stan Lee's contributions to the creation of Marvel's impressive roster during the Silver Age. If you read some select quotes, you might think that he was using hyperbole, but if you read the entire interview, he doesn't seem to give Lee an inch of credit.

 

Some highlights include the following...

 

http://www.tcj.com/jack-kirby-interview/6/

 

It came about very simply. I came in [to the Marvel offices] and they were moving out the furniture, they were taking desks out — and I needed the work! I had a family and a house and all of a sudden Marvel is coming apart. Stan Lee is sitting on a chair crying. He didn’t know what to do, he’s sitting in a chair crying —he was just still out of his adolescence. I told him to stop crying. I says. “Go in to Martin and tell him to stop moving the furniture out, and I’ll see that the books make money.” And I came up with a raft of new books and all these books began to make money. Somehow they had faith in me. I knew 1 could do it, but I had to come up with fresh characters that nobody had seen before. I came up with The Fantastic Four. I came up with Thor. Whatever it took to sell a book I came up with. Stan Lee has never been editorial minded. It wasn’t possible for a man like Stan Lee to come up with new things — or old things for that matter. Stan Lee wasn’t a guy that read or that told stories. Stan Lee was a guy that knew where the papers were or who was coming to visit that day. Stan Lee is essentially an office worker, OK? I’m essentially something else: I’m a storyteller. My job is to sell my stories. When I saw this happening at Marvel I stopped the whole damned bunch. I stopped them from moving the furniture! Stan Lee was sitting on some kind of a stool, and he was crying.

 

I'm skeptical of Kirby's presentation of history for a number of seasons.

 

The first being that if Marvel was a step away from shutting down, and in the process of clearing out furniture, they would have already reached that point of failure with the aid of Kirby's artwork. Are we to believe that Kirby, who admitted earlier in the article that he was treated as someone at the bottom of the totem pole, would suddenly have the authority to order Stan Lee to march into Martin Goodman's office, and Martin Goodman would then, based on Kirby's proclamation, tell the movers to stop doing their job and go home?

 

Keep in mind that prior to 1961, Kirby's only notably super-successful creation was Captain America, and that title had already died out and was removed from publication in the mid 1950's. He simply didn't have the kind of track-record to reassure Goodman that he, single-handedly, could turn the company around from immediate shut down into profitable success. Not to mention that his depiction of Lee crying in chair seems to be a bit sensational, if not completely fabricated.

 

Kirby would then go on to claim full credit for the creation of Spider-Man.

 

I created Spider-Man. We decided to give it to Steve Ditko. I drew the first Spider-Man cover. I created the character. I created the costume. I created all those books, but I couldn’t do them all. We decided to give the book to Steve Ditko who was the right man for the job. He did a wonderful job on that.

 

I was a bit taken back by this. The general consensus seems to be that Ditko has been regularly short-changed of his just due. Kirby saying he was the "right man for the job" isn't exactly earth-shattering praise when it comes a few sentences after saying that he "created Spider-Man" and that he "created the costume."

 

Lee, who is often accused of taking too much credit, wrote an open letter to Ditko that proclaimed him to be the co-creator who created Spider-Man's iconic costume.

 

 

If Kirby created Spider-Man and if Kirby created Spider-Man's costume, why would Lee credit Ditko for creating it? It could be Lee's questionable memory, or it could be that Lee was honestly giving Ditko his just due.

 

Early in the Kirby interview, he claims to have never told a lie and goes out of his way to project how honest of a man he was. I can't claim for that not to be the case as I have no way of knowing for certain, but it does seem that a lot of his proclamations seem very questionable at best.

 

I don't doubt that Marvel's artists, including Kirby and Ditko, were heavily involved in the creative process. I also don't doubt that they were responsible for a great deal of plotting. But it's one thing to feel that Lee got too much credit and they got too little, it's another to say that Lee never wrote a line in his life and that he contributed 0% to the creation of these characters.

 

So, I wanted to get other people's opinions on the subject.

[Chicago Boy]

Huge fan of Kirby;s work and have never even sniffed that information over the years. Don't believe it however. Wonder what some of the Marvel behind the scene books that were recently released have to say on the subject?

[Randall Dowling]

In the process of any creative endeavor that involves collaboration of multiple individuals, there is always a question of who contributed what. Too often after the success of a creation, one individual steps out and claims the majority of the credit in order to enjoy the accolades and recognition.

 

My understanding of the relationship between Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko and the rest of the staff at Marvel in the early 60s is based purely on anecdotal information. However, it has often looked and felt like Stan took the lion's share of the credit quickly and represented himself as the prime creator of Marvel's silver age. In my experience, this breeds a great deal of resentment in other team members that had equal or greater shares in the creative process. The usual response is an attempt to revise the history already set forth and minimize the value of the individual that claimed all of the recognition initially.

 

My guess is that they all worked closely together and had a hand in the creation of Spiderman, Fantastic Four and the rest. Kirby's interview seems like a reaction to Stan being given all of the recognition for 30 years. The truth is, most likely, some place in between.

 

[Bronx]

Great thread to start up some dialogue.

 

I am also a huge Kirby fan. The man was an extremely talented and prolific artist but I don't believe the bluster. There seems to have been several rifts between Lee and Kirby and the bullpen guys as well as a credit grab on who created which character and who was the true genius behind it all. My best guess is they had a great team of talented people and they each added something unique to create these iconic characters. Kirby, Ditko...were talented artists with great imaginations while Stan was a PT Barnum like visionary who developed a great bullpen system that allowed talented people to colaborate on emotionally powerful story lines and solid art.

 

As much as I respect Kirby, you could see how his work suffered when he did everything himself and did not have the strong teamwork of the Marvel way. As visually stunning as the 4th World was, it suffered in plot and dialogue and never gained the long term traction of FF, Thor, Spidey or any of the other Marvel icons.

[Wayne-Tec]

In the process of any creative endeavor that involves collaboration of multiple individuals, there is always a question of who contributed what. Too often after the success of a creation, one individual steps out and claims the majority of the credit in order to enjoy the accolades and recognition.

 

My understanding of the relationship between Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko and the rest of the staff at Marvel in the early 60s is based purely on anecdotal information. However, it has often looked and felt like Stan took the lion's share of the credit quickly and represented himself as the prime creator of Marvel's silver age. In my experience, this breeds a great deal of resentment in other team members that had equal or greater shares in the creative process. The usual response is an attempt to revise the history already set forth and minimize the value of the individual that claimed all of the recognition initially.

 

My guess is that they all worked closely together and had a hand in the creation of Spiderman, Fantastic Four and the rest. Kirby's interview seems like a reaction to Stan being given all of the recognition for 30 years. The truth is, most likely, some place in between.

 

 

Something to consider is that even if, or when, Stan took too much credit...the actual credits within the comics themselves went out of their way to promote both Kirby and Ditko. Now, I'm sure there were plots that Kirby or Ditko were partially responsible for, and the credits still said "-script by Stan Lee" where if they wanted to be technical, it could have said "-script by Stan Lee & Jack Kirby, art by Jack Kirby"...but that doesn't change the fact that Stan made efforts to promote their artistic contributions.

[Wayne-Tec]

As much as I respect Kirby, you could see how his work suffered when he did everything himself and did not have the strong teamwork of the Marvel way. As visually stunning as the 4th World was, it suffered in plot and dialogue and never gained the long term traction of FF, Thor, Spidey or any of the other Marvel icons.

 

Well there inlies the problem, when for whatever reason, someone like Kirby tries to even the balance of credit-taking by (if this was the case) lying via use of hyperbole that sounds very literal. His feelings were his to feel, but to describe in detail how these characters were created by knowingly exaggerating important details and dishonestly crediting yourself for more than you actually did...that's far from a stride to move forward in a productive direction.

 

His work was noticeably different without Lee's involvement. But he still claimed to have never created anything bad.

[Crimebuster]

By the time this interview happened, Kirby was pretty darn bitter about Lee taking and/or being given the credit for everything, and he overcompensated by basically doing the exact same thing. I think Kirby was the real genius behind a lot of Marvel's best creations, with Ditko close behind, but neither of them did anything after leaving Marvel that was the whole package despite all the great ideas the came up with after splitting with Lee. Reading Kirby and Ditko's output from the 1970's is basically all the proof you need of Lee's creative contributions..

[Randall Dowling]

In the process of any creative endeavor that involves collaboration of multiple individuals, there is always a question of who contributed what. Too often after the success of a creation, one individual steps out and claims the majority of the credit in order to enjoy the accolades and recognition.

 

My understanding of the relationship between Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko and the rest of the staff at Marvel in the early 60s is based purely on anecdotal information. However, it has often looked and felt like Stan took the lion's share of the credit quickly and represented himself as the prime creator of Marvel's silver age. In my experience, this breeds a great deal of resentment in other team members that had equal or greater shares in the creative process. The usual response is an attempt to revise the history already set forth and minimize the value of the individual that claimed all of the recognition initially.

 

My guess is that they all worked closely together and had a hand in the creation of Spiderman, Fantastic Four and the rest. Kirby's interview seems like a reaction to Stan being given all of the recognition for 30 years. The truth is, most likely, some place in between.

 

 

Something to consider is that even if, or when, Stan took too much credit...the actual credits within the comics themselves went out of their way to promote both Kirby and Ditko. Now, I'm sure there were plots that Kirby or Ditko were partially responsible for, and the credits still said "-script by Stan Lee" where if they wanted to be technical, it could have said "-script by Stan Lee & Jack Kirby, art by Jack Kirby"...but that doesn't change the fact that Stan made efforts to promote their artistic contributions.

That's actually a very good question. Who was it that laid out the credits on the first page (or splash page, as often happened)? And who made the decision to give what credit to whom. The way Kirby tells it, one wouldn't think that he would have written "-script by Stan Lee" if Stan had nothing to do with it. Leads one to think that somebody else filled in the credits after the pages left Kirby.

[ciorac]

By the time this interview happened, Kirby was pretty darn bitter about Lee taking and/or being given the credit for everything, and he overcompensated by basically doing the exact same thing. Reading Kirby and Ditko's output from the 1970's is basically all the proof you need of Lee's creative contributions..

 

agreed

[Wayne-Tec]

Whatever credit Stan Lee took decades ago that he didn't deserve and/or however much credit others gave Lee that he didn't deserve decades ago...Stan has very much changed his tone for many, many years now.

 

 

"It was a total collaborative affair and sometimes I feel a little guilty (when people say) Stan did this, Stan did that. I did it, but I did it with them and they really deserve as much credit as I can ever get." -Stan Lee

 

Compare that to Kirby's depiction of Stan's contributions:

 

"Stan Lee has never been editorial minded. It wasn’t possible for a man like Stan Lee to come up with new things — or old things for that matter. Stan Lee wasn’t a guy that read or that told stories. Stan Lee was a guy that knew where the papers were or who was coming to visit that day. Stan Lee is essentially an office worker, OK? I’m essentially something else: I’m a storyteller. My job is to sell my stories. When I saw this happening at Marvel I stopped the whole damned bunch. I stopped them from moving the furniture! Stan Lee was sitting on some kind of a stool, and he was crying." -Jack Kirby

[stanley1883]

By the time this interview happened, Kirby was pretty darn bitter about Lee taking and/or being given the credit for everything, and he overcompensated by basically doing the exact same thing. Reading Kirby and Ditko's output from the 1970's is basically all the proof you need of Lee's creative contributions..

 

agreed

 

I think this is a very valid point. If it wasn't for Lee, I don't think Spidey and the other characters would have gotten the attention and acclaim they did. It's also important to acknowledge other forms of contribution. So even IF Ditko and Kirby CREATED Spidey and even IF Stan had nothing to add to the character development and his inception, Lee's contributions to Spidey and Marvel cannot be overlooked nor overstated.

 

Granted I haven't followed this "war" between the creators, but this rant by Kirby makes him come across as a jerk

[Ronnylama]

this is Alan Moore's opinion......

 

[ttfitz]

this is Alan Moore's opinion......

 

 

It is my understanding that at least part of that, where Alan Moore says that Stan Lee claims to have been involved with the creation of Captain America (when Stan would have been a pre-teen at the time) in Son of Origins or somesuch, is completely wrong, that such a statement has never been made in print.

 

[Ronnylama]

Perhaps then I might say that Stanley did not create Captain America, Human Torch or Sub Mariner but might have possibly helped in REDEFINING them. I can agree with this (even Captain marvel for that matter)

[Crimebuster]

Well, I don't think Carl Burgos was particularly happy with the Human Torch being redefined.

 

But Alan Moore, you know, whatever, man. Last time this came up I happened to have a copy of the Origins of Marvel Comics on hand and I looked through the whole thing and there was nothing remotely like that in it. I think he spoke some about working at Timely for Joe Simon and Jack Kirby, but henever took credit for Cap in that book.

 

I'm sure Moore has really good source, though, given that he was probably told this by the ectoplasmic spirit of John Dee during the last meeting of his warlock coven.

 

 

 

[DEATHLOK9147]

It's pretty sad if you ask me, but hey were all humans with sometimes messed up train of thoughts. Power of the dollar can make your own family disown you tear loved ones apart make best friend bitter enemies.. Unfortunatley thats the beauty of living, we just got to move on regardless of the situation.. But that said i do like stan lee, but afyer what i heard he is a human like us..

[Comic Book Guy]

I thought it was pretty well accepted that Stan had the idea for Spider-man and it was his wife Joan who later talked him into actually moving forward with it and putting the story in Amazing Fantasy #15 since it was failing and would be the last issue of the series. So if that is true then in my opinion Stan Lee is the creator of Spider-man, doesn't matter who drew him first or came up with the costume/back story. If Stan came up with the idea then Stan is the creator despite how important the contributions of others may have been.

 

If I come here and say I have an idea for a spider-boy who gets bit by a spider and gets powers then I feel that I am the creator even if that's all I did and someone else takes over, changes it to spider-man, designs the costume and writes all the back story, since it was my idea to start with.

 

Why is Jack also saying that he created Marvel's Thor character? I thought Stan's brother Larry Lieber had always been credited as one of the co-creators of Thor?

 

 

[seredynskib]

is a first hand account by Stan Lee summing up how the Marvel comics of the 1960s were completed.

 

I just watched a one hour special on Jack Kirby & another one hour special on Steve Ditko and both documentaries agreed on what Stan Lee says in the youtube clip.

 

Stan Lee would come up with a general idea or plot, give it to Jack or Steve and let them run with it. Next time Stan would see it, all of the panels were completed and he would fill in the dialog bubbles. He also credits Jack and Steve for plotting stories on their own.

 

The conclusion is simple: Stan/Jack & Stan/Steve were co-creators who worked brilliantly together.

[ft88]

Pretty decent blog postings on the whole.

 

http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com/2013/06/in-their-own-words-who-created-avengers.html

http://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com/2013/09/in-their-own-words-when-jack-kirby-left.html

[Comicopolis]

By the time this interview happened, Kirby was pretty darn bitter about Lee taking and/or being given the credit for everything, and he overcompensated by basically doing the exact same thing. Reading Kirby and Ditko's output from the 1970's is basically all the proof you need of Lee's creative contributions..

 

agreed

 

Double agreed.