Romita first worked for Marvel from 1951 to 1957, drawing war, western, crime and horror genre stories, along with features Captain America, Western Kid, "Greg Knight" and "Jungle Boy". He was laid off in 1957 when publisher Martin Goodman drastically cut his comic book division - a result of his distributor going out of business (known by comic book aficionados as "The Atlas Implosion"). Romita found work at National/DC, drawing stories exclusively for the romance line. In 1965 Romita returned to Marvel, at first inking but soon taking over the art on Daredevil from the departing Wally Wood. At the time of this article Romita was working at Marvel for less than a year and was recently assigned the reigns of Amazing Spider-Man when Steve Ditko quit (judging by Romita's comments he was likely working on Amazing Spider-Man # 41 at the time). While hardly an in-depth discussion, this peek into a specific point in Romita's career by a teenage fan reveals a few surprises, which I'll discuss in greater depth below.
On page one of Bob Sheridan's article, "Rambling with Romita" the artist makes a revelation that I believe has heretofore been unknown. Bill Ward apparently pencilled a few pages of Amazing Spider-Man to help Romita out on a deadline. This was not an unusual occurrence in comics; assistants (or ghost artists) often did uncredited work in both comic books and comic strips.
Bill Ward was a comic book artist dating back to the early 1940s, working for Fawcett, ACG, Feature Comics and Quality, notably on Blackhawk. Ward is also noted for creating Torchy, a comic strip featuring a sexy blonde, produced while he served in the Fort Hamilton Army base in Brooklyn, New York during World War II. The strip was soon syndicated to Army papers throughout the world. Torchy later became a feature at Quality comics and received her own title for a period in the late 1940s. In the 1950s and beyond Ward began working for Abe Goodman at Magazine Management (the parent company of Timely/Atlas/Marvel) on digest mags such as Humorama, where he illustrated one panel gag cartoons focusing on his specialty, sexy women. His other major account was for Cracked magazine, where he drew humor features for many years.
Bill Ward's statuesque Torchy blended sex and humor, as seen on this splash page from Torchy # 4, May 1950. Image from http://comicbookplus.com/
Since Ward continued to work on Goodman's digest mags in the 1960s (including an episode of Pussycat, a Little Annie Fannie styled strip that appeared in Male Annual and Stag Annual and later reprinted in a one shot magazine in 1968), it's logical that he was available to assist Romita. From what I gather by Romita's comments Ward worked on Amazing Spider-Man # 41, dated October 1966. After closely examining the art I suspect Ward contributed to the five page fight sequence with the Rhino (pages 13-17). As Romita noted, he touched up some of Ward's art (and may have provided breakdowns). Below are examples of a few pages from that sequence, all with inking by Mike Esposito.
Page 13 is the beginning of the Rhino sequence, and may be where Ward started assisting Romita. Panels 1 and 6 look awkward by Romita's standards, although the other panels may have been revised by Romita.
Page 15 opens with a large panel that captures a sense of Jack Kirby inspired dynamics that Romita excelled in. The figures of the Rhino in panels 2-3 and Spider-Man in panel 3 are stiff and lack the smooth line that typified Romita's style.
The last three panels on page 16 employ cartoony figures, ala the "Jack Davis style" Romita refers to in the article.
In my estimation page 17 is a clear indication of another hand involved in the art. The awkward position of the figures (particularly panels one and two); the characters appearance and the linework differ from Romita's clean and stylish pencils. Again, Romita may have provided Ward with a rough pencil breakdown to work from, but the overall art is choppier than usual.
Page two of the article is worth a close examination, as Romita speaks of his predecessor on Spider-Man, Steve Ditko. It's important to note that his observations on Ditko are second-hand, likely based on conversations with either office staff (Sol Brodsky; Marie Severin; Roy Thomas) or directly from Stan Lee, who, like many that collaborate in creative fields, often view their situations through entirely different prisms. What is most revealing is Romita's statement that it was Ditko's idea to make Norman Osborn the Green Goblin, explaining that he "drew the mags so that Osborn HAD to be the Goblin". This corresponds with Ditko's later accounts that appeared in issues of Robin Snyder's newsletter:
“I even used an earlier, planted character associated with J. Jonah Jameson, he became the Green Goblin.” Steve Ditko, the Green Goblin, Robin Snyder’s the Comics, July 2001
Stan Lee's account differed greatly:
“The ultimate bone of contention was a recurring villain called the Green Goblin, whose identity had always been hidden. When it became time for the long awaited unmasking Lee recalls that Ditko said ‘it should be somebody they’ve never seen before, just some person’. Lee, on the other hand, felt that a startling revelation had been promised. ‘Every reader in
In numerous interviews over the years Lee's declaration about an "argument" with Ditko over the Goblin prevailed, but its possible his memory scrambled together other disagreements with Ditko (the artist had earlier villains such as Electro turn out to be "somebody they've never seen before") or he may have made up a colorful, melodramatic story that was often reported as official comic book history.
Amazing Spider-Man # 37, June 1966
Ditko's penultimate issue of Amazing Spider-Man pointed suspicion directly to a man who had been appearing as a background character in Jameson's men's club for many issues, often in stories that also featured the Goblin,who Lee named Norman Osborn. His son Harry, a fellow student at Peter Parker's college, is seen in panel two.
"I planted the GG’s son (same distinctive hair) in the college issues for more dramatic involvement and story line consequences" Steve Ditko, The Ever Unwilling, Robin Snyder’s the Comics, Mar 2009.
The importance of Romita's quote from 1966 is that it corresponds with Ditko's later pronouncement that he had plotted the stories from the beginning with a specific character in mind, using the ongoing mystery as a motif that would eventually come to a crescendo. Ditko left before he completed those plans, leaving Lee to unmask the Goblin and devise a backstory in Romita's first two issues (Amazing Spider-Man #'s 39-40). While the characters identity would have been the same under Ditko, the plotline would undoubtedly have differed dramatically.
In later years Romita often parroted Lee’s statements; understandable given that he was not directly involved in the situation and had likely long forgotten the original circumstances. But in the pages of an obscure fanzine produced by young, enthusiastic fans we are privy to an off the cuff, unassuming and revealing conversation at a time when creators were still taken aback that anyone cared. As comic book conventions grew in the mid-1960s and beyond that all changed; by 1975 Marvel ran their own convention and interviews may have been more reserved and tempered by company policies. Whatever the case the Web Spinner article is a look into an unpretentious, charming and historically important period of comic book history.
On the last two pages Romita discusses many topics, including the upcoming Marvel Super-Heroes cartoon, the Batman TV show (which he could finally watch in color - a big event in that period - note the new set that the author helped him carry in), his former employers, National/DC and Jack Kirby. His admiration for Kirby is obvious, as is his disgust for editors who didn't appreciate his monumental talent.
The Marvel Super-Heroes cartoon Romita discusses arrived on television screens in September of 1966. The animation was crude and barely animated, but it did utilize the art and (truncated) stories from Marvel comics. I still have a soft spot for the series, perhaps because I was at just the right age to be enthralled by these characters coming to life in my living room each night. Ad from Amazing Spider-Man # 43, December 1966. Art by Jack Kirby, Gene Colan and Marie Severin; inks by Chic Stone, Vince Colletta, Jack Abel and Don Heck.
As a boy John Romita was inspired by Jack Kirby's artistry. In the 1950s he drew Kirby's co-creation, Captain America, molding together two of his greatest influences; the lush brushwork of master cartoonist Milton Caniff with Kirby's powerful imagery. In 1965 Romita had the opportunity to work with the master on a number of occasions. Here Romita provides finished art over Kirby layouts on a Hulk story. The work speaks for itself. Tales To Astonish # 77, March 1966.
John Romita worked at Marvel for decades, as artist, art director and "go-to" guy. His clean, distinctive line, superb sense of storytelling and exceptional, poster like cover art drew readers in and sold comics month after month. On a personal level Mr. Romita is a true gentleman who loves talking about the business and celebrating the work of his peers. Now retired, Romita's work continues to be studied, respected and, most importantly - enjoyed.
Special thanks to Fearless Frank Mastropaolo for his insight - and for keeping me on my toes!
Superb article, Nick. John Romita is one of those artists whose pages are easy to see what's happening at a glance, even without the lettering. A superb visual storyteller, his titanic talents are sorely needed in many of today's current crop of comicbooks.ReplyDelete
Thank you kindly, and I couldn't agree more about Romita's extraordinary talents.
Great revelation about Bill Ward, Nick!Who've thought??? And since he was around the Magazine offices all the time delivering his Humorama material, it makes sense that someone collared him for help!ReplyDelete
Always love to see articles about silver-age Marvel and the Marvel Super-Heroes cartoon. As stated I also, had a soft spot for the cartoons myself and can still remember a great friend of mine showing me his FF Annual 3 in his backyard in 1966 that coincides with the Sub-mariner story "Dr. Doom's Day". He's gone now, but I'll always remember him and thank him for getting me involved in Marvel Comics back then. Thanks.ReplyDelete
Thanks. Something I'd never have thought about, either. Many of the early fanzines are a treasure trove and I'll continue to delve into them and share info here.
Glad you enjoyed this entry. At six years old I was already familiar with the Marvel heroes thanks to older brother John, but to see them on TV was a thrill. I wish they would be collected on DVD and have commentary and background that the fans would appreciate and certainly purchase.
Thanks for sharing your memories here.
Nick, they are available on DVD, but not with commentary or background info. (I suspect you know that, but just to be sure.)ReplyDelete
Romita's comments about Steve Ditko are very insulting. Also, the entire business concerning The Green Goblin, Stan Lee's "intentions" and their working relationsbhip was a LIE.ReplyDelete
Ditko was writing the stories with Lee doing the dialogue) from the beginning. At one piint (in the mid-#20s) Ditko insisted he be PAID for the work he was already doing. As this money came right out of Lee's wallet (he'd been stealing it all that time), Lee got VERY pissed, and REFUSED to speak with Ditko for the rest of the time Ditko worked for Marvel.
Over the last year Ditko worked on ASM, Lee increasingly sabotaged his efforts, in the book, and in the letters & Bupllpen pages. According to Robby Reed's "Dial B For Blog" article about Ditko's ASM, Ditko left Marvel mainly because he felt his editor was "working against him".
Nick, you make good points... "His observations are likely based on discussions with Stan Lee," and "Romita’s later testimony parroted Lee’s, which is understandable since Romita would not recall events he was not directly involved in." (Roy Thomas was in the same position. The two Lee underlings continued in this vein throughout their careers, ultimately taking it to the Kirby family in their 2010 depositions, representing themselves as knowledgeable regarding the situation before they were employed by Marvel. Clearly they were repeating information fed to them by Lee beginning in the mid '60s.)ReplyDelete
When Lee decided his relationship with Ditko had, or needed to, come to a bad end, he even took to smearing Ditko in the press. In December 1965, Lee told Nat Freedland, "I don't plot Spider-Man any more. Steve Ditko, the artist, has been doing the stories. I guess I'll leave him alone until sales start to slip. Since Spidey got so popular, Ditko thinks he's the genius of the world." Ditko was already gone, having quit in November.
Romita takes Lee's smear campaign to the young readers of The Web-Spinner: "when he started out, Ditko was basically an amateur," "when he didn't feel like doing the story the way Stan wanted it, he did it his way... often making the task of writing an intelligible story a real task for Lee," "Ditko obviously thought himself a better writer than Lee." Then, "An offer to be top man at Charlton with CAPTAIN ATOM sort of severed the final bond. Romita is pretty certain that Ditko has already gotten a Charlton writer fired over a story dispute." Where does Romita's Ditko-bashing information all come from? You guessed it.
I eagerly await Steve Ditko's upcoming essay, "Why I quit."
Henry and Michael,ReplyDelete
If you've read my blog for any length of time you know it focuses on the positive; a celebration of the many creators who have produced comics and given me and others countless hours of entertainment.
There are numerous outlets online and elsewhere that categorize Stan Lee as a scheming mastermind who spent his life stealing from creators without producing anything. This is not the place for such fare. You're free to speak your piece as long as you're respectful, but I've talked to countless people who have worked with Lee, from the 1940s onward, and its clear that he was instrumental to the success of Marvel in terms of editing, promotion and, at the very least (and I don't think its unimportant) writing the dialogue.
I don't agree with all his public statements or his concept of a creator, especially in terms of comic books when it is often a collaborative field, but that doesn't mean I can eliminate his name from the equation. Lee, along with Kirby, Ditko, Ayers, Heck, Wood, Lieber, Romita, Buscema, Steranko, Thomas, Colan and his staff of letterers and colorists brought a unique look, feel and personality to Marvel for a brief period of time. That, despite the issues and controversies that will continue to be debated, should not be ignored.
I'll continue to report what I discover in the pages of old fanzines and interviews and hope you'll find something worth reading.
Great post, Nick!ReplyDelete
I actually randomly met Bill Ward's granddaughter at a wedding in Milwaukee a few years back. Small world!
Glad you enjoyed the post, Jacque. Quite a story! Was his grandaughter aware of Ward's career?ReplyDelete
She was, but I think she'd be amazed by how much cool stuff people like you have dug up!ReplyDelete
She was, but I think she'd be amazed by how much cool stuff people like you have dug up!ReplyDelete
With regard to Michael Hill's comments. Mr. Hill has laid out a fairly extensive argument about Mr. Lee that is all but impossible to repudiate. It is your party of course any environment, web or otherwise demands that we respect the host. It would be far easier to lay they praise at Stan Lee's feet that he deserves had he not stolen much undeserved credit with it for more than half a century. Stan has reaped the rewards both in notoriety and financial while robbing others who should have gotten their due. Marvel and/or Disney have been happy to make Stan their Col Sanders, in order to hold tight to the franchise and secret recipe. So its hard to keep it positive because the strength in this imbalance is the robbery that continues of poor creators everywhere so long as copyright law sides not with real creators but rather with corporations and publishers who create nothing. Like Darkseid they want to own the universe.ReplyDelete
For myself, I think the most honest thing Roy Thomas ever said, maybe the only honest thing he ever said was "Whatever he might say or others might believe, Stan, I think, always knew that he was dependent on having the right people around him," Roy Thomas once said. "Jack, however, though in many ways more the type of creative artist deserving of the overused 'genius' label, never really analyzed these things, and so he ended up merely resenting Stan and thinking that Stan had ridden to glory totally on his [Jack's] shoulders. Which was only half true. No, there wouldn't have been a successful company called Marvel Comics without Jack Kirby ... but there wouldn't have been one without Stan, either."
I will agree with this. If Stan and Jack's collaboration was a forced one and I believe it was it is still the only version we know, and the books we all know and hold fondly in our hearts were born of that imperfect union that include the stamp of both Mr. Lee and Mr. Kirby, but I don't think it is Stan bashing to set a record straight and tell the truth. Truth liberates and there is nothing more positive than that.
I greatly appreciate your respectful manner in discussing this subject, minus the name-calling and vitriol I often see posted online.
One point I disagree with is the notion that Lee's accomplishments should somehow be diminished because he has garnered too big a share in the public eye and received too much credit. Lee, like Kirby or Ditko (or anyone else) is entitled to credit for the work they produced. Ditko has stated such in print, despite his sharp criticism with Lee on credits.
My blog often concentrates on artists and their very real contributions to the comic art field. That doesn't mean I'll eliminate Stan Lee (or other editors and publishers)from the discussion if the article warrants it. Whatever the percentage of his contributions, at Marvel Lee was involved in the process and brought something unique to the table. I will (and have) pointed out disagreements between the participants when I believe it is warranted, but to erase Lee's name from the credits would be revising history - not righting it.