Who created Spider-Man?

Superman was created by writer Jerry Siegel and artist Joe Shuster.

Wonder Woman was created by writer William Moulton Marston.

(Although I note that recently the Wikipedia entry on her was also crediting H. G. Peter who drew her first story. That’s a sign of the problems to come.)

Batman was created by... well the credit given in the comics is “Created by Bob Kane” (the original artist). However many have argued that contribution of writer Bill Finger was such that both should have been credited. That’s a battle I’ll leave to others to slug it out over.

The above examples should give some idea of how different comics characters were created differently, and also how contentious the precise label of “creator” can be. There is also a strong tendency amongst comics fans (and a lot of comics historians are fans) to oversimplify things into clear cut heroes and villains (okay we are often talking about an era when the comics themselves did that), to take sides in “battles” between creators who may be long dead and to try to right perceived wrongs.

And so we come to the mess when applying this question to Spider-Man.

Spidey’s first appearance in Amazing Fantasy #15 has a simple credit at the bottom saying “Stan Lee & S. Ditko”. Stan Lee, usually credited as the writer/editor, is by far the best known of the two, having been the public face of Marvel Comics for several decades now. Steve Ditko, artist and later credited as a co-plotter then plotter, is a total recluse who almost never gives interviews, not even when Jonathan Ross made a brilliant documentary about him a few years ago (now available on YouTube – Jonathan Ross in Search of Steve Ditko). Nor does he allow his photo to be taken much, hence the use of a self-portrait from the 1960s.

For a long time it has been standard to credit Lee as the sole creator, especially outside of the comics world itself. As comics historian Peter Sanderson notes in passing this is probably because in most of the wider world there is normally a single creator or primary creative force for a particular work. However in comics in later years it has become commonplace to treat the writer and artist as coequal creative forces, coming up with ideas together. This is particularly true with the “Marvel Method” whereby many stories are created by a writer coming up with a rough outline of the plot, giving it to an artist to draw and then adding dialogue afterwards. Sometimes the plot and dialogue are done by separate writers, sometimes the writer and artist develop the outline together, sometimes the artist comes up with the plot all by themselves. All of these methods have been used on Spider-Man stories over the years.

To a very great extent this whole question of who created what hinges very heavily on the precise definition of “created”. It is not uncommon for talented people to have a meeting and each come away thinking they’ve come up with at least the primary components of an idea. It’s also the case that precise records are often not kept of who suggested what – after all in 1962 who knew that a cultural icon was being created? And the whole issue about creators’ rights in the comics industry didn’t really kick off until the 1970s. And just to compound things Stan Lee claims to have a notoriously bad memory, and has also said (part jokingly) he’ll take any credit that isn’t nailed down, whilst Steve Ditko’s lack of interviews means that it’s hard to evaluate his claim in depth. For what it’s worth Lee has said that he believes the creator is him as the person who came up with the initial idea, whereas the argument for Ditko as co-creator is that the initial idea on its own is not enough and it took the artist to flesh out the concept into what became successful even though he wasn’t the first artist given the assignment.

And those aren’t the only two names in this.

The original artist assigned to the strip was Jack Kirby, who had co-created Captain America back in 1941 and more recently had collaborated with Lee on the Fantastic Four, the Incredible Hulk, Thor and other strips. Kirby reportedly told Lee of an aborted proposal for a character called “Spiderman” by Joe Simon (the other co-creator of Captain America) who would have been a boy living with an old couple who got powers from a magic ring.

It’s all rather complicated! It’s probably fairest to say that Lee came up with the initial idea, inspired by either the 1930s pulp character the Spider and/or seeing a spider climb a wall (the story varies in interviews, perhaps also because many audiences will not remember the Spider), and then discussed picked up ideas from discussions with Kirby who drew some pages but they weren’t what Stan was looking for (although Kirby subsequently drew the famous cover after Steve Ditko’s take on the same concepts – reproduced on the right – was rejected). Then Lee finally gave the assignment to Ditko who brought the concept to life. The input from Simon and Kirby was sufficiently minimal that they don’t really rate on the same level as Lee and Ditko.

Perhaps to side-step the whole issue the Spider-Man movies have carried the credit “Based on the Marvel comic book by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko.” Note the precise wording focuses on the finished comic and does not make a definite statement about the creation of the character. (For what it’s the same wording is used on the Fantastic Four and Incredible Hulk movies in regards Lee & Kirby. I presume other Marvel movies have similar – I haven’t checked them all.)

However the 2008 animated series The Spectacular Spider-Man goes for "Created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko". So has Marvel's position on this matter shifted, or did they fail to send a memo or did the series producers have carte blanche on this matter?

Has Stan Lee unfairly stolen Steve Ditko’s credit? No, I think Lee and Ditko are both right by their respective definitions of what constitutes “creating” Spider-Man and it’s certainly not Lee’s fault that Ditko has not taken the opportunity to tell his version of the story more widely.

But does it precisely matter? At the end of the day the Spider-Man strip and character was successful because of both the writing and the art, and it’s silly to get too wound up over how to precisely word a creator credit.

Besides there’s never been a creator credit on Spider-Man anyway (unlike Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman.)

Marvel's Essential series – an introduction

If you're already familiar with Marvel's Essential reprint trade paperbacks then this post is probably best skipped. However if not, here's the low-down on the main points about the series in so far as they apply to the Spider-Man titles I'll be reviewing. For those who want even more information about the series in general I'd advise reading the Wikipedia article: Essential Marvel.

The books reprint a large number of classic comics, nearly always in the original order, in black and white on cheap paper. (I believe the format originated in Japan for manga.) With about five hundred pages in each volume they represent some of the best value for classic comics – providing you don't mind black & white which in my opinion doesn't affect readability. The series began in 1996 and Marvel have since published about eighty different volumes, ranging from mainstream series such as the Fantastic Four and the X-Men to obscure ones such as Killraven and Tales of the Zombie. (DC have since followed the lead and produced an equivalent series entitled Showcase Presents.)

In general each volume reprints some twenty or so issues (the precise number depends on the original page counts) from a Marvel comic series, including relevant annuals and some of the short-lived companion series (such as the Giant-Size series that briefly ran in the mid-1970s). In order to maintain story cohesion the volumes sometimes include additional material such as the issues of other comics that set-up a character and/or team before they got their own title. Furthermore over the years there have been many crossovers between different Marvel titles and sometimes you need to read issues of two titles to understand what's going on. Often the direct crossover issues are included in both titles' Essential volumes.

As the series has been around for sixteen years there have been a number of modifications over the years. The cover design has changed at least twice, with many earlier volumes reprinted with the new designs. Also some original editions of earlier volumes either omitted material (such as the short-lived Spectacular Spider-Man magazine from 1968) or placed annuals and specials in an awkward place in the run. Later editions of these volumes have sought to correct the earlier mistakes by adding and re-ordering; however sometimes this means particular issues are moved from one volume to another. In general I'll be reviewing from the original volumes but will point out where modifications have subsequently been made. A more minor point of confusion can be the volume titles. The series initially titled "Essential Spider-Man" reprints Amazing Spider-Man, not the series launched in 1990 with just "Spider-Man" as the title (until #75). The later volumes and subsequent editions have modified this a little by using the full series name. (And this is far less confusing than the names used for the various X-Men volumes but fortunately that’s beyond the scope of this post.)

The Essential volumes don't come out at a strict frequency and sometimes readers have had to wait a few years before the next volume for a particular title. Spider-Man has been quite lucky in this regard with on average at least one volume from any of his titles coming out each year. A minor problem with the multiple titles is that sometimes the volumes covering one title can get ahead of others. At the time of writing the Amazing volumes (including the next scheduled to be out soon) are up to issue #248. However Marvel Team-Up is lagging behind, having only reached #75 which came out the same month as Amazing #186. Spectacular Spider-Man has reached #114, parallel to Amazing #276. Web of Spider-Man (which actually replaced Marvel Team-Up after 150 issues) is up to #32, the contemporary of Amazing #294 & Spectacular #132.

Marvel doesn't always own the rights to reprint absolutely all of its old comics. Over the years it has licensed many characters from novels, television, toys and other media, with time limits on how long it can print comics featuring them for. Once the contracts expire it is no longer possible to reprint their appearances without fresh negotiations (which can be too expensive for a series like this) and sometimes the characters are now licensed to other comic companies and so completely off limits. This only affects a handful of Spider-Man comics, mainly odd issues of Marvel Team-Up and Giant-Size Spider-Man. However where possible I may take a brief side-step to look at omitted material.

Finally there have been problems with the source material. Marvel has unfortunately not retained all the original film separations for all its comics. Back in the early 1990s many classic 1960s stories had separations recreated for the more expensive Masterworks series of reprints and these often mean good quality black & white prints are available. However there are many issues that have neither original separations not later recreations on file, and some others where the only available separations are from reprints that edited out pages, and consequently the missing material has had to be reproduced from the finished comics themselves, including the colour overlays now rendered as intrusive greys. Fortunately nearly all the Spider-Man issues reprinted so far have been lucky to have either original or recreation separations available and it's not as noticeable as in some other Essential runs.

Despite all the above factors, the Essential series are one of the best & most affordable ways to enjoy many Marvel series. Which is why I like them so much.