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 II)
Because I don't want that anyone should lose sight of our "ground rules" for this discussion:
CREATOR -- n. a person who creates.
>CREATE -- n. 1.) bring into existence;; make; or cause. 2.) originate.
-- The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary
Okay. On to Question #2, then:
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"?
The question is a relevant one, inasmuch as one of the obfuscations of choice for the "Stan-Lee-Did-It-All" partisans adheres to the following rote party line:
"Marvel Comics accorded Jack Kirby all the credit he was due from the very
beginning. Many of the Marvel comics of the day, for instance,
were credited as 'Lee and Kirby Productions' -- meaning that Stan Lee
was the principal author, with [maybe] a few bits and pieces suggested
by Kirby." (And, oh, how grudgingly even those so-called "bits
and pieces" are ceded, in debate -- !) 
Very well, then. The question is a fair and reasonable one, nonetheless. Just how willing was Marvel Comics to grant the fullest nature and extent of Jack Kirby's creative contribution(s) to the canon, over the years...?
In an interview granted to THE COMICS JOURNAL (published in issue #105; 1986), Jack Kirby informs us of the following duplicity on Marvel's part:
"Marvel came out with an ad in Variety about the Captain America movie, saying that Stan Lee created the character. If I had signed that Agreement, I couldn't have sued them, and they could have gone through with the movie, and the lie claiming that [...] Stan Lee created Captain America. Marvel [also] gave a statement to TIME years ago, saying that Stan Lee created the entire line." (12)
Well.
Pretty damning evidence of Marvel's predilection towards wholesale historical revisionism... if it's true.
Let's take a quick gander at the aforementioned Variety advertisement,
shall we...?
The sharp-eyed reader will readily note that the line directly beneath the words "Marvel Entertainment" clearly reads:
"Based on Stan Lee's Marvel Comic Strip Character."
[I'll reproduce the line, itself, in slightly larger size, directly below.]
Marvel Comics attempted this particularly noxious bit of creative claim-jumping in 1985.
For the record: Captain America was created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby.
Stan Lee's first comics scripting work didn't appear until CAPTAIN AMERICA COMICS #3.
Oh, yeah. Swell conservatorship of a creator's primacy, that.
The following year (1986), ABC's 20/20 television show broadcast a segment observing the 25th anniversary of Marvel Comics. (The segment first aired on July 24th.)
In the course of said episode [as detailed in THE COMICS JOURNAL #111, Marvel Comics allows sole credit for the creation of The Fantastic Four; Spider-Man; the Incredible Hulk; the Silver Surfer; Thor; and Doctor Strange to be publicly assigned to...
... Stan Lee. (13)
No mention was made of other artists' contributions in creating these (or any other) characters instrumental in Marvel's success; nor of Marvel's [then-] ongoing dispute with Jack Kirby. ("Renounce all claims that you created any of these characters, or you'll never see your artwork again.")
"Okay. Okay!" (I can hear the plainchant swelling all the way up here, from the seats farthest back in the auditorium.) "But... but: doesn't the fact that those Silver Age issues of (say) THE FANTASTIC FOUR bear those "Lee/Kirby Productions" credits imply -- at the very least -- that Marvel used to grant the legitimacy of Kirby's claims, re: writing and/or character creation"...?
Answer: not so far as Marvel Comics is concerned, they didn't.
On November 10th of 1986, Marvel Comics Editor-In-Chief James Shooter gave the following sworn testimony (in the case of Fleisher v. The Comics Journal), regarding the disparity between what Marvel Comics "says" in the published "credits" for their comics... and Marvel's actual view regarding same, throughout the company's history:
NORWICK: "Wouldn't you agree that it is Michael Fleisher [the writer "credited" with authorship of the story under discussion] and not the editor who is associated with that particular story? Wouldn't you agree with that?"
SHOOTER: That's a mistake that a fan would make. Anyone in the profession would know better." [emphasis mine]
NORWICK: Do you think it's unfair for people to associate the writer with the product that is published under that writer's name?"
SHOOTER: "I think that the fact that the writer's name is on the material is a courtesy. It's something that Stan Lee started doing in the '60's." [emphasis mine] (14)
In other words -- and not to belabor the point unduly -- no. Marvel Comics was not granting Jack Kirby his full creative "due" in promoting their various best-selling comics of the day as "Lee/Kirby Productions."
According to Marvel Comics' Editor-In-Chief -- the official "voice" of Marvel Comics, Inc., and its policies -- the company was just being "nice" about the whole thing.
Just as a "courtesy."
The official, STATED policy of Marvel Comics is: It Is the Editor -- and Only the Editor -- Who Is the True "Author" of Any Work Published By That Company.
Quick, now: who was the Editor-In-Chief of Marvel Comics during Jack Kirby's tenure with the company...?
Here's a helpful little "hint":
It starts with an "S."
Finally: we have the blunt, dismissive words of Stan Lee himself.
During the 1986 San Diego Comic Con -- while making one of his trademarked "stump speeches" from the stage, before a live audience -- a fan asked Lee, point-blank, for his estimation of Jack Kirby's claims, re: character conceptualization.
Sandwiched between some effusive (and, no doubt in my mind whatsoever, sincere) gushings of praise for Jack Kirby AS A PERSON... Mr. Lee's answer, in brief, was:
"As far as I can remember these things happening, I was the editor and head writer at Marvel, and Jack was an artist who worked for us." (15)
The modern-day fanboy catechism is this: "Marvel Comics has never, EVER argued the extent of Jack Kirby's creative contributions to said company."
Who's kidding whom, for chrissakes...?
The question was: "Has Marvel Comics, Inc. ever attempted to falsify the record of Jack Kirby's creative contributions, and/or deny him his full artistic "due"?"
The answer is, manifestly: in trade advertisements; convention speeches; glowing televised "histories" and "retrospectives"; and even sworn courtroom testimony... YES.
Any other interpretation is -- plainly; simply -- blinkered fanboy obduracy in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
So far, however: it's all still a case of Jack-Said-This-and-Stan-Said- That... right?
I mean: no one else honestly believes that Jack Kirby actually created
(CREATE -- n. 1.) bring into existence;; make; or cause. 2.) originate.)
-- all of those characters, and wrote all of those comics. Particularly no one else who was actually there at the time; OR anyone who's actually examined copies of the "scripts" for said comics...
... right?
Wrong.
Turn your attentions to the following page of this entry... and see for yourselves.
"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