Thanks for all the feedback, guys! The revised version is now up. The file name and links are the same, just in case anybody shared them (unlikely, but who knows?) but the title is now "The Case For Kirby".

PDF (recommended): zak-site.com/Case_Against_Stan_Lee.pdf
Web (if you have a slow connection): zak-site.com/CaseAgainstStanLee.html

There are lots of small changes, but the big ones are:

* Better intro. Less aggressive, and makes a simpler case that is easier to prove (about sales figures)

* New appendix 1: Kirby's writing pre 1961. Especially dialog. If you don't read any other part, I recommend this (he said, modestly). Because when people think of Kirby's writing they usually think of his post 1970 stuff, where he goes extreme Kirby! But his pre 1961 work is much more mainstream, and just a delight to read IMO.

* new appendix 10: how Lee's claim of being the writer evolved. This isn't a strong proof on its own: if the rest of the book doesn't convince you then this won't change your mind. But I think it's really interesting that Lee didn't actually say he was the solo writer for over a year, and before that point the evidence is consistent with the FF being a joint creation.

* more about the flare gun, the "valley of diamonds" and subsequent explosion, the history of Metallo, and various other bits and pieces.

If anything big turns up, then I'll make another revision, but hopefully this is the final one. Thanks again for all who made suggestions.

I wish I knew!

I just want to say thanks again for everyone who's made suggestions. Even the people who disagree with me and are therefore WRONG. I've made some edits that hopefully will fix the problems, and toned down the wild eyed hatred a little. If there are no other major issues to fix then I'll upload version 2 tomorrow afternoon.

You don't mean the Origins of Marvel Comics quote then? I'll try to find the one you mentioned when I get back from work. Thanks for pointing it out.

Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful reply. Much appreciated.



Fair point. I'll probably replace the Sky masters dialog with Frog Prince dialog, as that's definitely Kirby on his own.



Another fair point. But based on these recollections, and on the only firm records we have (the four issue synopses) it appears that Kirby used as little as possible from what Lee said. It also appears to me that lee's suggestions are as far from inspired as it is possible to get, e.g. "fight the surfer", or "Doom steals the surfer's board". I suspect that any casual reader could have done the same. Of course, for many readers Lee's input will be the best part. They want a fight, not a philosophical window onto the problems of the world! But the bottom line for me is the sales figures:



For individuals yes. And for other individuals the sum was less than the parts. In total, what is the evidence that Lee added a single extra sale?

As far s I can see, the final net sales by the late 1960s are simply the same sales that Kirby got with whoever he worked with. That's the part I can't get over. Lee's salesmanship made readers think he was adding something to sales, but I just don't see any evidence of that in the numbers. I suppose his post-Ditko Spider-man sales might be used as evidence, but the small bump coincide with the popular Spider-Man cartoon, and sales plummet when the cartoon ends.



Fair point. When I find the Frog Prince text then I'll use the Destroyer for comparison.

It is such a relief to hear you say that! That means a lot. Thanks. And thanks for reading ot so quickly. I know I'm not the easiest writer, which brings us to the 64,000 dollar question:




I think you have really hit the crux of the matter here. Lee's language. If somebody told me to write the case FOR Stan lee, Stan's language would be at the heart. He made the stories easy and it worked. Which points out the two weakest parts of my theory:

1. Hypocrisy. As a child I preferred Lee. And now I say I don't need Lee. Such ingratitude! And it is perfectly true that I used to find New Gods unreadable (now I love it!). In my defense, I ALWAYS liked Kirby's monster stories. I think all of Kirby's pre-Marvel stuff is very accessible: I don't think that can ALL be due to his editors. According to his interviews he got really interested in Big Questions in the late 1950s, and that explains why his prose became denser and more poetic. So I think, yes, 1961 Kirby would still have been readable for children even without Lee. But if I was a lawyer defending Lee, I would argue that Kirby always needed editing for children. That argument could go both ways.

2. Rewriting history: My theory depends on 1956-1964 being special. I argue that Kirby would have started long running titles in that era even if his editor was totally hands off. Like, say, if he worked for Charlton. To prove it I give examples and a graph. It must be true if there's a graph. But any argument that relies on a Grand Theory of history is one a lawyer might profitably attack. Because if I am wrong then Lee must have added something special: his are the only Kirby titles that survive to this day.

So yeah, if you all point your fingers accusingly at me and hammer at those two points, you might see me shuffle my feet nervously.




Now this is a topic that REALLY interests me. Because I would argue that being "the same person" is actually true for Kirby's work and that's a positive thing. Though not in the DC way.

BTW, I didn't intend to write a Stan bashing tome. My initial plan was just to write a book about Kirby as a writer. But the first step was to decide exactly what he did write., That section grew too big, hence the current book. The angle was the catchiest one I could think of, so I ran with it, rather than making it a dry technical tome. Every book needs a villain. . But my real assign is in how Kirby wrote characters.

As far as I can tell from his interviews, and I think it is amply backed up on his work, Kirby never planned and never edited. And I think he deliberately made his characters blank slates as far as possible: he was examining how you or I would react to events. I think every Kirby character is the reader. Every Kirby character is Kirby himself. They are different only because big, different things happen to them. Ben turned rocky, Sue got married, etc. And we would be that way too if those things happened to us. Sure, Dr Doom is vain, but he merely focuses on something we all have: which person does not but himself before others at some point? And the Hulk is angry, but wouldn't you or I be in those circumstances? I find Kirby's writing method to be brilliant and fascinating and unique. He doesn't contrive (he said he hated contrive situations), he just sees an interesting real life situation and asks "what would happen next?"

This was the key to how I turned to the dark side. I always resisted being a full bore Kirby nut, because I love continuity. I love to see how things fit together. And Kirby was far too happy to keep starting again with new books. Once I am invested in characters I want to follow them forever, dammit! And that for me was Stan Lee's biggest card: Lee linked the stories (to sell more comics), therefore Lee created the continuity. That used to be the bottom line for me, why Lee always had to be up there in the pantheon. That's how I felt until last year.

My road to Damascus experience was when I realised that contrived continuity always disappoints; No matter how good the writer is, sooner or later you find a plot hole, or the story simply ends. But the truly great writers, the Shakespeares and Tolstoys and Hugos and Chekovs, they create characters who are basically us. We inhabit them like mask. Their stories are "what ifs" about the real world we live in. Their stories can be endlessly re-read and re-interpreted because the real world can be. One character then merges into another. Nobody feels sad when a Jane Austen novel ends (or not sad for long anyway), because there is another Jane Austen novel around the corner, and we are not really reading about Elizabeth Bennett or Fanny Price, we are reading about Everywoman or Everyman, when placed in those situations. This is how Kirby is to me. All his characters are the same, but what makes them different is thst with Kirby stuff is constantly happening! If a Kirby character stood still they would disappear. They are a world away from standard superheroes, endlessly returning to the same villains: Kirby characters constantly change, reacting to the real world. Challengers become Fantastic Four become X-men, just as fast as Kirby could explore what's out there and then radiation. But they are all us.

I'm rambling now. It's late. Must get to bed!