Byrne Robotics: Q for JB about Kirby & 70’s Marvel

""Kirby, King of Comics" by Evanier, page 159. There's no reference to the source of the story that I can find. Since its related as one of the "last straws" before Kirby left Marvel I assume its an anecdote from Kirby."

I read this in the same book along a few other indignities done to the King.

Jason, the particular passage in Evanier's book is vague on this point and mentions that someone at Marvel ordered the poster changed.... and that Kirby was subsequently not paid. It makes sense that Marvelmania is the company that owed Kirby money...though it sounds like Marvel might have acted as a wrench in the works.

I seem to recall an interview with him where he said he didn't like drawing Spider-Man. Didn't like all the webbing or something. I think he said he could never remember just how the web design was supposed to look, especially on the mask.

��

Must predate when he started claiming to have created Spider-Man! Which, of course, Kirby fans would support by pointing out that the costume is "pure Kirby".

Uh huh.

For some reason this is irritating me to no end. This comment, which I've heard before by you, JB, seems directed toward anyone who thinks Kirby did, well, pretty much create most of the Marvel U and plot probably 75-80% of every FF and Thor comic he worked on (probably more, in this bulk of his Silver Age work.) A "Kirby Fan." Someone who comes from the Image school of heralding Kirby while exploiting Kirby.

I'm going to say that whatever Kirby is pointing out, in the "Kirby created Spider-Man" comment, which I can't say I've heard elsewhere, is that Kirby took the first swipe at the character, as he essentially did every single character for Marvel at the time. Kirby wasn't taking credit for creating Ditko's Spider-Man, but Kirby DID create A Spider-Man. An unused and rare flop, probably from an idea Kirby came up with before Stan Lee.

I'm not such a rabid Kirby Fan as to believe Kirby didn't get his facts shaken and stirred, but I get pretty fed up with the idea that one of his biggest proponents, yourself, seems to believe Stan Lee has some kind of defensible position as a creative trickster at best and an outright despicable thief at worst. And on top of it, Kirby was correct in receiving his just desserts because "Kirby did it to others when he ran his own company" and "Kirby didn't deserve any more than any other creator" and "Kirby signed the contracts." Or "Marvel's not responsible for Kirby" any more than Stan was personally responsible for Kirby, or his heirs. Which didn't stop Stan from soaking every ounce of creativity from Kirby's brow and allowing the world to believe these pencil-pushers had no input.

Not all of these quotes are verbatim and certainly not all from the mouth of John Byrne, but some variation has been more than inferred over the years.

If the idea is that Kirby cannot be compensated for his unparalleled work for Marvel and DC--being as he is forever dead and gone--and that his heirs deserve nothing (which, frankly, I agree with, since Kirby blood money is meaningless to the family, doesn't bring back Kirby or his creative force), then what the hell is the point in reiterating that Kirby claimed to have created Spider-Man? *Snicker!* Because that's all it is, that's what it sounds like, mocking yet another utterance of Kirby's frustration, behind which was a lifetime of creative genius disguised as a working stiff, a girder instead of the goddamned architect. Kirby deserved better, as many have (Bill Finger, notably.) But the cosmic gods know, nobody deserved more lionizing than Kirby, when he was alive.

Eternals, Fourth World, Devil Dinosaur, Machine Man, etc.

Spider-Man, Doctor Strange!

ALL of Jack's concepts are cool but comparing the two is just ridiculous. I realize that Stan worked on "his" two above entries with another phenomenally ground breaking collaborator but Blue Beetle Captain Atom, the Creeper, the Question, and Hawk And Dove, (while again, all also great) don't live up to DITKO'S collaborations with Stan either. To me, that's irrefutable proof that there was a LOT more to Stan's contributions than just "filling in the word balloons." Like many great teams, working together brought the best out of each individual.

Another point is Kirby fans like to point out that Kirby created the Silver Surfer "whole cloth", with no input or even suggestion from Stan. However what they fail to know, mention, or consider is that Stan gave the character his ENTIRE personality, pathos, origin, and EVERYTHING with the exception of his appearance, (rather silly TBH) mode of transportation, and very loosely defined powers. Given his way, Kirby would have had him talking in 60's "surfer speak" like Michelangelo from the TMNT and when we think of the Surfer now, we think just as much of his humanity/personality as of his appearance.

/end rant :)

Just when people get upset about Marvelmania not paying Kirby and blame it on Marvel we have this tendency to look back at the facts and twist them to suit our worldview.

Kirby deserves a huge amount of credit for the characters he helped create with Stan (and those without him). However, giving Kirby all the accolades is just as disingenuous as giving Stan all the credit. Look at the Avengers movie and thank Don Heck for Hawkeye, Black Widow, Pepper Potts and his contribution for co-creating Iron Man. Instead all we hear is Kirby did it all. It isn't an all or nothing proposition in saying Kirby was mistreated.

He shouldn't be credited for things he had little or nothing to do with. That is the same kind of mistreatment towards Ditko and Don Heck that we are defending Kirby from.

<< Prev Page of 7 Next >>

Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum		<< Prev Page of 7 Next >>