Unca Cheeks the Toy Wonder's Silver Age Comics Web Site!
Resolving the Question of the Marvel Universe's
Origins and Architecture. . . Once and For All (PART I) "I've seen people argue over this for hours, and neither one
of them understood the terminology that the other was using." -- comics writer Mark Evanier, on the subject of Jack Kirby's contributions to
the Marvel comics of the Silver Age (1)
Given that the estimable Mr. Evanier is doubtless correct in the aforementioned particular... let's start out with all of our verbal ducks in a row, shall we?
CREATOR -- n. a person who creates.
CREATE -- n. 1.) bring into existence; make; or cause. 2.) originate.
-- The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary
It is my contention that -- unless we are all resolved to begin assigning bizarre, "alternate" definitions to commonly used (and commonly understood) words, "Humpty Dumpty"-style -- the status of principal creator of the Silver Age Marvel Comics universe must (and should be) accorded to Jack "King" Kirby.
Said contention is (I believe) borne out -- and may be readily ascertained as a factual one -- by careful examination of the man's published canon; by the published statements of the man's artistic contemporaries and peers (including those of [then-]Marvel Editor Stan Lee); by the actions and statements of Marvel Comics, Inc., itself; and (last, but by no means least) the judicious, non-agenda driven application of a little straightforward, garden variety common sense.
The following questions and/or objections, pursuant to this contention, will be addressed, in turn:
1.) Has Marvel Comics, Inc. ever acknowledged Jack Kirby's status as the principal architect of the Silver Age Marvel Universe?
2.) Has Marvel Comics, Inc. ever attempted to falsify the record of Jack Kirby's creative contributions, and/or deny him his full artistic "due"?
3.) Who was it who actually created the overwhelming bulk of the "primary" Marvel Comics characters of that era, and plotted their published adventures?
4.) If it was, in fact, Jack Kirby who both created and plotted said comics... then where do such non-Kirby characters such as (say) SPIDER-MAN fit into the scheme of things, creation-wise?
5.) How does the published historical record inform us, re: the contributions of Stan Lee, in this regard?
6.) What are the assessments of those who were actually there at the time, re: Jack Kirby's creative primacy?
There will be (doubtless) those for whom the revelations which follow will come as unwelcome, or unpleasant. The commonly-held notion, amongst the fannish hoi poloi -- i.e., that Jack Kirby was little more (in essence) than a "hired pencil"; and that the Marvel Comics universe, entire, sprang forth from the fevered brow of Stan Lee, like Hera from the forehead of Zeus -- is about to undergo one serious historical drubbing.
Oh, well. 
Let us begin with a scandal... and then work our ways backwards, from there.
In the July, 1985 issue of THE COMICS JOURNAL, the following story appeared, under the headline: MARVEL WITHHOLD'S KIRBY'S ART.
"Marvel Comics is refusing to return to Jack Kirby the original art that he drew for the company in the '60's and '70's, unless he signs an agreement designated especially for him." [emphasis mine] (2)
The article continues:
"Many of the artists who worked alongside Kirby at Marvel in the '60's and '70's have begun to receive the artwork that Marvel has been holding in its vaults for years. Whereas those artists, such as Joe Sinnot and Don Heck, had to sign a one-page release form that relinquished all their rights to the work, Marvel drafted afour-page document especially for Kirby, who was the predominant creative force in the Marvel Comics renaissance during the early '60's. For the decade that followed, Kirby created in large part many of the characters and concepts that form the modern-day foundation of the Marvel Universe.
"Since Kirby has steadfastly refused to sign the agreement, he has not received one page of art that he did for the company during the period, although inkers such as Joe Sinnot, who have signed Marvel's agreement, have been receiving pages that Kirby himself penciled." [emphasis mine] (3)
The key facts to bear in mind, at this juncture:
1.) The four-page "agreement" sent to Jack Kirby was longer;
more onerous;
and infinitely more restrictive in nature than the one-page
"agreements" sent out to every other artist and inker who'd worked
for Marvel Comics during that period. (A copy of said "agreement"
-- in all of its mind-numbingly legalistic "glory" -- accompanies this
text, for those who've never seen it. It is -- to be sure -- quite
the little eye-opener.)
If (as some have argued) Jack Kirby could not plausibly advance the claim that he had, in fact, created so many of the baseline characters and concepts of the Marvel Comics universe... then (obviously) there would have been no compelling need whatsoever for the company to craft such a mind-bogglingly adamantine document in the first place. Nor would the company have willingly undergone (it should go without saying) the incredible firestorm of bad press and devastating public relations opprobrium which followed, in its ill-considered wake.
2.) Clearly, the penciled pages in question were being utilized by Marvel Comics as a sort of legal "bludgeon," re: Kirby's signing away any and all rights of creative primacy attendent to the Marvel Comics characters of the '60's and '70's.
That is to say: ownership of the artwork itself was not, de facto, Marvel's primary concern in Kirby's case. Otherwise, the company would not have willingly released said artwork to individuals such as Joe Sinnot and Vince Colletta, whose creative contributions were limited to the (comparatively) mere inking of same.
In support of this contention, we have the spoken assuranceof no less a personage than [then-] Marvel Comics Editor-In-Chief Jim Shooter. In the same story referenced above, the late Roz Kirby (Jack Kirby's lifelong wife and companion) is quoted as follows:
"Roz Kirby said she asked Shooter to send Jack a copy of the shorter contract that all the other Marvel artists are getting. 'He said, "With Jack, it's more complicated," she said.' " [emphasis mine] (4)
From Marvel Comics, Inc.'s principal mouthpiece:
"With Jack, it's more complicated."
Hold that thought. We'll be getting back to it, soon enough.
In the following issue of THE COMICS JOURNAL (#101), Editor Gary Groth underscores the message implicit in Marvel's actions:
"The Agreement Marvel demands Kirby sign is a degrading document. In addition to strengthening their rights to own material he created -- rights about which they are obviously concerned -- the Agreement revokes his constitutional right to seek redress in court of law if he so chooses; it denies himthe right to help other artists dispute 'Marvel's complete, exclusive and unrestricted worldwide right to ownership of the copyright' to [their] work; denies Kirby the right to exhibit his own artwork without first notifying Marvel; allows Marvel access to make copies of the original artwork they returned; states that Kirby cannot sell his own artwork unless the buyer signs a copy of the same Agreement; and so on." [emphasis mine] (5)
Groth continues, in the same article:
"In fact [...] one of the paragraphs in the Agreement implicitly acknowledges the legitimacy of Kirby's claim and addresses itself to that issue." [emphasis mine] (6)
Groth then quotes, in full, article #4 of the four-page Agreement (the one which begins with: "To the extent, if any, that all copyrights and all related rights [...] are not owned by Marvel..."), and then adds, logically:
"... Marvel is trying to nail down their copyright to characters that they're not entirely sure they would own if challenged in a court of law." [emphasis mine] (7)
For especial elucidation of this very same point, Groth points out yet again, in THE COMICS JOURNAL #105:
" [It has been asked], rhetorically, why Kirby won't sign an Agreement acknowledging Marvel's ownership and trademark of characters he created. The question should be inverted: if Marvel already has such a legally binding Agreement between itself and Kirby, why are they trying to extort from Kirby another copy of an Agreement they already have? And if Marvel does not have such an Agreement, the ownership is open to dispute [...] If Marvel does not have such a signed Agreement assigning all rights to Kirby's creations to themselves, then they are trying to force Kirby to sign an ex post facto Agreement, by holding his property for ransom." [emphasis mine] (8)
In other words: "With Jack, it's more complicated."
No foolin'.
Lest anyone attempt to posit, at this juncture, that Marvel's chiefest concern in all of this was something other than the legitimacy of Kirby's claim to having c-r-e-a-t-e-d most (if not all) of the Marvel Universe's conceptual bedrock, we have the following affirmation from none other than Roz Kirby herself, while in conversation with Jim Shooter, during the 1985 San Diego Comic Con:
"Roz Kirby again stood up to face Shooter, and to quash [...] an irrelevant point of discussion as it related to her husband's artwork. 'I hate to interrupt you, but during the entire thing, we've never tried to get the copyrights back from Marvel,' she said. ' It's you people who keep bringing it up." [emphasis mine] (9)
Long-time personal assistant to Jack Kirby Mark Evanier concurs with this recounting. During the course of an interview published in THE COMICS JOURNAL #112, he informs us:
"For a time when I worked with him, Jack Kirby would periodically get these forms that asked him to sign away rights they said he didn't have. [...] The offers were like, "Mr. Kirby, you have absolutely no rights to this material, but -- if you sign this paper, affirming you have no rights to this material -- we will pay you one thousand dollars. Jack has a whole file folder of those goodies." (10)
... which should be, God wot, all the nailing required for the assembly of that particular coffin. (i.e., the pale "Marvel-never-conceded-Kirby's- creation-of those-characters" dodge.]
Writer/artist Frank Miller summed up the situation best, in a blistering broadside published in THE COMICS JOURNAL #104, wherein he states the matter so plainly and forcibly that only the most willingly myopic of Marvel Comics apologists could fail to discern the obvious:
"In an Agreement which has been presented to no other Marvel artist, Kirby is expected to, with his signature, declare himself less than an artist; perhaps, even, less than a human being. Kirby is to renounce any contribution he has made to Marvel Comics beyond that of drawing the pictures on the pages in question. Kirby is to guarantee that he will never describe himself as more than a pair of skilled hands, hired by Marvel. Kirby is required to never claim, in any way, that he was anything approaching a creative force, beyond the peculiarities of his drawing style." [emphasis mine] (11)
... to which, one could only add, in awestruck admiration: "God bless
you, Frank Miller."
If it seems to some, at this juncture, as if I've been sledgehammering at this particular point with metronomic persistence... well. My apologies for that, of course...
... but the point cannot be rendered too plainly, or too manifest: Marvel Comics, Inc. embarked on what amounted to a two year blackmail campaign ("Deny that you ever had anything to do with the creation of these characters, or you will never see your artwork again.") against a (at the time) seventy-year-old man.
The company flailed about for two long YEARS under as scalding a rainbath of public disapproval for this action as anything the industry has ever witnessed, before or since.
The company employed the services of the most well-heeled and expensive attorneys available, in order to force Jack Kirby to RENOUNCE all creative claim to THE VERY SAME CHARACTERS which said company's most ferocious apologists insist he had no hand in birthing in the first place.
The question was asked, earlier: "Has Marvel Comics, Inc. ever acknowledged Jack Kirby's status as the principal architect of the Silver Age Marvel Universe?"
The answer: "To the extent, if any, that all copyrights and all related rights [...] are not owned by Marvel..."
... or, in human speech: "With Jack... it's more complicated."
We'll be dealing with the remaining questions, on the following pages.
"MORE COMIC BOOKS," YOU SAY...?
The DC Comics Sub-Directory
The Marvel Comics Sub-Directory
The Miscellaneous Comics Sub-Directory
The "Gotta Find That DC Character" Menu
The "Gotta Find That Marvel/Miscellaneous
Character" Menu