To say that it’s an obsessive analysis which is full of mind-reading, personal biases, and wild suppositions is...putting it mildly.

Well, I just discovered a 300-page e-book (in PDF form) which has been added to the site: THE CASE FOR KIRBY. I started skimming through the book out of morbid curiosity, and ending up skimming all the way to the end. Almost couldn’t believe what I was reading.

It’s full of the typical “Kirby was a genius whose credit was stolen by that greedy hack, Stan Lee” type of rhetoric. The author goes so far as to say that Stan’s main “contribution” to Kirby’s stories was vandalizing them by dumbing them down for kids, and that he so often wrote against Kirby’s brilliant, adult-themed art because he didn’t understand the complex stories Kirby was telling. Even things like lettering errors (such as the “Thorr” at the end of the very first Thor story) are also blamed on Stan.

Ordinarily, I wouldn’t be inclined to give such a deeply-biased and crackpot-type manifesto like this publicity. In terms of my own take of the Lee-Kirby-credit debate, I still believe that both men played their role in the success of the FF and the other classic Marvel books. Lee’s dialogue and captions were crucial to giving the characters their personalities and the books their respective tones. He didn’t just slap corny jokes atop Kirby’s brilliant art. It’s not a black-and-white case. Take away one man or the other, and you don’t have the Fantastic Four. At least, not as we know and love them.

However—however—there are certain elements of the e-book which are strangely, frustratingly, provocative, and even have a certain tinge of truth to them. Such as the surprisingly reasonable observation that Kirby was actually referencing then-current sci-fi films like THEM! in his art at the end of FANTASTIC FOUR # 2, with Stan misunderstanding the art (or ignoring Kirby’s intent for the sake of a meta-joke) and instead calling them clippings from Marvel’s monster comics in the dialogue.

The thing which got my jaw to drop, though, is the rather shocking assertion that the second story in FANTASTIC FOUR # 1 actually began as a Kirby-created CHALLENGERS OF THE UNKNOWN riff, with the superpowers (and the Thing) being added into the artwork after the fact so as to turn it into a FF story. Of course, the author of the e-book also claims that Lee took Kirby’s brilliant story, misunderstood it, then dumbed it down for kids. The “original” story being that the Mole Man went underground after being rejected by the surface world, was blinded by an underground atomic test explosion, then used an army of irradiated/mutant monsters to strike out against facilities conducting other such atomic tests as an act of revenge. The pseudo-Challengers/FF proceed to track the atomic explosions on Reed’s seismograph to determine the site of the next monster attack. As they investigate Monster Isle and fall below the surface, Reed and Johnny are given radiation suits by the Mole Man to protect them from underground radiation (rather than to protect them from the Valley of Diamonds). The Mole Man then destroys the island by triggering an atomic device stolen from one of the wrecked installations.

That’s quite a claim.

There’s also a reiteration of the oft-repeated claim that the FF # 1 story synopsis document, said to have been discovered in Stan’s old desk during the late-80s, is actually a forgery. The central conceit of the e-book is that Kirby was the sole creator and writer of the Fantastic Four (and, by extension, most of the other classic Marvel heroes), and that Lee vandalized his work and took all the credit.

Again, I hesitate to give this sort of thing publicity that it probably doesn’t deserve, but I am strangely curious to see what the learned members of this forum think, especially in regards the idea that the published version of FF # 1 was actually a modified version of an existing story that Kirby had done as a CHALLENGERS riff. 

Yes, that's some Jigsaw-style foresight (SAW movies for anyone who may not have seen them) required there! 

The covers he used as examples did not include the countless early FF stories that showed Sue as a captive, "helpless female" or prize for Namor and Reed Richards to fight over.

This was just one of the typical themes that ran through comics in the 1960's also used in Avengers stories (with the Scarlet Witch and Wasp), X-Men Stories (with Marvel Girl) and with just about every female supporting character in most other titles at some point.

I think most neutral fans would agree that Lee has some input in the creation of most of the early Marvel characters (with the exception of Doctor Strange), but as time went by more and more of the creative process fell on the artists (be it Kirby, Romita, Ditko, or whoever).  Kirby in particular chafed under this arrangement and slowly started contributing fewer characters and ideas beginning around 1967 or 1968.

Is Kirby's involvement in the Challengers of the Unknown and the vague similarities with the Fantastic Four evidence that he created the FF?  No, I think it indicated that he had a lot of input (which I don't think anyone would deny), but this article takes it and runs with it as though it's a fact beyond any questioning.

The article also repeatedly claims that Lee "vandalized" the Kirby's "brilliant" stories in order to dumb them down for children, ignoring the fact that Lee was the editor of Marvel's entire line and the main purpose in creating the stories was selling a product, not creating an art portfolio.

The tearing down of Stan Lee's contribution in order to elevate Kirby needs to stop.  I think most informed fans know how important Kirby was to the process and Marvel did reach a settlement with the Kirby estate.  That should pretty much be the end of it.  "By Stan Lee and Jack Kirby" should be enough for everybody.

As if Spider-Man's costume looks like anything Kirby would've created. I'll admit that I don't know how much Spider-Man was "mainly Ditko" or "mainly Lee."

+++++++

Exactly. There are elements in that outline which are far too specific for an after-the-fact forgery, such as Ben being in love with Sue (an idea played with early on, but quickly dropped).