Here are two scenarios. Stan sees a fly on the wall and decides to create an insect themed superhero. Goodman says that's disgusting, but Stan perseveres and asks Kirby to design one. He rejects Kirby's ideas and goes to Ditko, telling him to make him a teenager with problems. This is Stan's story.
This is what the evidence points to in all probability. Kirby shows Stan his concept for a Spiderman based somewhat on a character he did with Joe Simon for Archie. Stan likes the idea but rejects Kirby's concept, which Kirby has drawn story pages for. He goes to Ditko and asks for a teenager who has a ring that turns the boy into Spiderman. Similar to Captain Marvel. Ditko thinks the superhero should also be a teenager and together they flesh it out. With Ditko designing Spider-Man and his webbing.

In this scenerio Stan is an absolute partner in the creative process that resulted in Spider-Man. BUT he is not the one who came up with the idea all on his own and had an artist draw his vision. His oft told tale of creation is pure bullshit. And has so many red flags that it is a wonder people still believe it.

Sure is, so take a seat and discuss with us. No one is trying to create strawmen nor distort your argument. We all seem to see this situation in much the same way.

I think we have resolved that. And I see my using the same language as I did when we were dealing with that makes it look like I am rehashing it with you. I wasn't trying to.

I'd say there not much of a dividing line, since a "mood-changing arrangement" can be the reason a song moves to completion and actually resonates with listeners (the same can be said of other creative ventures...like comic books). Take the lie-battered history of the 1960s version of The Rolling Stones: Bill Wyman and various engineers from that period have said over and over again that Brian Jones and Wyman created the melody and rhythm of "Paint it Black", which turned it into a full, finished song (arguably one of their 10 best), yet they were never credited as writers. Wyman has said the same about a number of 60s Stones songs, including his assertion that he created the main riff of "Jumping Jack Flash". That riff is the song, as far as i'm concerned, and without it, what--if anything--remains of note, at least as an alternate, complete song that's listenable? Some have said as much about Jones's haunting slide on 1968's "No Expectations", which simply lacks much sans the emotional power and statement of Jones' work.

Even their early remakes were substantially bolstered by the invention of say, Jones, as on his slide guitar solo he created / added to their recording of McCartney/Lennon's "I Wanna Be Your Man", or the same to the Stones' remake of Willie Dixon's "Little Red Rooster". "Mood-changing", as far as i'm concerned, is more than a "texture" or "embellishment", but creating / contributing to the structure, functionality and ultimately its readiness for public consumption / enjoyment.

So, Jagger and Richards can argue that they did everything, or minimize the significant contributions of others with "touches" descriptions, but if one removed the other members from the group from the start (beginning with an alternate history where Jones did not start the group in the first place), I'd argue any other assemblage of musicians would never have survived the 1960s as a major group, which greatly benefited from the talents and musical perceptions of those not named Jagger or Richards. One can say the same with the back and forth about Lee in his impact on Kirby and Ditko's Marvel work, imagining where the FF and Spider-Man were not going to go if Lee never had much to do with their creation and development.





Well put. I've said the same, and again, if one looks at an undeniably more seasoned Kirby by the time he left Marvel, one can see he did not just pick up where he left off, achieving new heights that left his Marvel work--and Lee's contributions--in the dust. As much I love his Fourth World work for DC, that's just a blip in an otherwise silent post-Marvel career at DC (and that cannot be blamed on Infantino, considering how many books Kirby was allowed to launch while at DC). What was the cause of his rapid decline as a creator? Surely if he was the creative engine behind Marvel books such as the FF, he would have been able to show more of that attributed creative energy to that book shelf's load of titles he created at DC, or beyond?

Process of elimination in determining creative contribution works both ways, and while it is a matter of record that as a writer, Lee--post Ditko--took Spider-Man to phenomenal heights never achieved in the Ditko years, what did Ditko achieve post-Marvel? At DC, he co-created the Creeper with Segall, and Hawk and Dove with Skeates, but both creations failed to lead to an industry sensation. That must be considered when anyone attempts to sell Ditko as the true creative force / reason Spider-Man took off in the way he did in the 60s.





Not much. I'd say only "deep-dive" comic fans, or fans of Kirby specifically--would care about any of his pre-Marvel Comics work outside of Captain America, or maybe his Archie work.





Interesting take from Kirby on that.

I have actually HEARD two interviews with him, in the years since, where he reiterates the wizard/magician thing, and the snake god in the toilet thing.  I remember also being struck with him saying there was a dark corner in his living room that has always terrified him, Lovecraft-style.

I hear stuff that's just as crazy as that from most Americans on a regular basis.