In 1956 Kirby began writing and drawing stories which were published by Atlas. Kirby's first sales to Atlas came shortly before he began selling material to DC that same year. As Kirby got more work from DC he stopped selling art and stories to Atlas.
There were at least two reasons for this. The most significant was Marvel went through most of 1957 purchasing very little new material due to Martin Goodman's distribution misadventures.
While Atlas wasn't buying much, Goodman also slashed page rates to the point where Atlas page rates were only about half of what DC was paying. Clearly DC was a better option for Kirby as long as he was getting work from them.
The thought, "If Jack had not returned to Atlas in 1958 there never would have been a Fantastic Four," is a happy thought for me. Aside from Kirby's great art, and the scattered bones of the plots he intended, I'm not a fan of Silver Age Marvel comic books. If Kirby had gone to work for Charlton or Harvey I have no doubt Kirby would have created something other than Thor or the Fantastic Four, and no doubt I would have enjoyed those comic books more than the Marvel material which was heavily rewritten by Stan Lee.
Based on everything I've read Kirby would have been wise to quit Marvel about the same time Ditko did and go to work for Charlton. That is assuming he wouldn't have been welcome back at DC prior to Infantino taking over as publisher.
One reason Kirby and Ditko stayed at Marvel is Goodman used a carrot and stick approach which lead Kirby and Ditko to believe they would eventually see a bigger piece of the pie. I doubt Ditko figured out Goodman's promises were empty any sooner than Kirby, but Ditko being a lifelong bachelor with no children had responsibility only to himself, and was able to take chances Kirby felt he couldn't afford.
It's true Charlton paid very poor page rates, but Kirby would have been paid for writing, and one of the attractions at Charlton is artists weren't asked for numerous redraws.
People will often say Kirby derived a great benefit from his work at Marvel in the '60s, but I see no evidence of that.
Consider that in 1970 when Kirby came over to DC from Marvel he was making the same page rate as John Romita, and John Buscema at Marvel, and the same rate Neal Adams, Curt Swan, and Joe Kubert were at DC. So KIrby was well paid on par with other top pros, and if Kirby was the equal of Romita, Buscema, Adams, Kubert, and Swan then I don't see how Kirby working for Marvel gained him anything.
Another bit of comics lore is the contention Kirby would not have been given the same "freedom" at DC as he was given at Marvel. This is a dubious theory not supported by the facts. In the first place this supposed "freedom" Kirby was given was more like "writing for free" rather than being paid and credited for writing. Then consider Kirby's writing from the start was heavily rewritten by Lee. We have a very early example of Kirby so frustrated he rips six pages of a Hulk story in half and throws them in a trash can, later Kirby saw characters and plots changed so extensively by Lee's rewrites the characters and stories were often turned on their heads. Major examples were detailed by MIke Gartland, but this continued to the very last stories Kirby did for Marvel (FF #108), even down to Lee asking for a complete rewrite of Kirby's "Morgan's Monster" story a short horror story in a minor anthology comic book.
By no means was Kirby able to write the stories he intended without editorial interference, and worse than what might have happened at DC, the rewrites were often taking place at Kirby's expense forcing him to redraw or set aside whole pages, even whole sequences of pages, and to scuttle plots he had carefully worked out, only to discover after he had finished or begun work that Lee wanted changes.
One of the best examples of this was Kirby's origin of Galactus intended for a multi-issue story arc in Thor. Kirby had to rework most of one issue, and the story he intended never saw print.
Another supposed benefit Kirby is supposed to have gained by working at Marvel is the very fact DC hired him in 1970. This doesn't make much sense unless Kirby was a lesser talent than a whole raft of new blood DC infused at just about the same time.
People like Jim Apparo, Dick Giordano, and Sam Glanzman, hadn't been working for Marvel, they came over from Charlton. Howie Post came from Harvey, Frank Robbins had been working on newspaper strips.
The whole "Marvel made Kirby" idea assumes Kirby was not the equal of Joe Kubert, Alex Toth, Wally Wood, or even Joe Orlando.
Do people remember Kubert, and Toth today, because of Kubert's run on Thor, and Toth's long run on Iron-Man.
Interesting commentary, Patrick. In terms of publicity, and exposure, Jack benefitted from being at Marvel, but someone of his talent would have gotten the same amount of attention at other companies as well. I mean, other companies at the beginning of the Marvel era were selling as many comics, and readers of those companies' books would have seen Kirby's art and realized that he was the real deal. And he still undoubtedly had an excellent reputation from being very successful at the beginning of the fifties and even earlier. So, the question is, did the presence of Kirby enhance Marvel to the point where Marvel became popular, or did Marvel enhance Kirby's reputation? A little bit of both, but leaning toward the first.
