Issue(s): Amazing Spider-Man #39, Amazing Spider-Man #40
Cover Date: Aug-Sep 66
Title: "How green was my Goblin!" / "Spidey saves the day!"
Credits:
Stan Lee - Writer
John Romita Sr. - Penciler
Mike Esposito - Inker

Review/plot:
Wow. I mean really, wow. This is John Romita Sr.'s first issue, and it is really like a breath of fresh air. Ditko was awesome in the beginning but there was definitely something going wrong towards the end of his run and when JRSR comes in it is an amazing contrast. The change in art style can also symbolize Peter growing up as he is now in college. Just some random scans:

        

The Green Goblin's hirelings attack Spidey...

...and after the fight the Goblin trails him to an alley and watches him change back into Peter Parker's clothes.

He then follows him home...

...and attacks him...

...and after easily capturing him (since Peter doesn't have his web shooters and since he is worried about Aunt May being right inside the house), he reveals that he is Norman Osborn.

After a long rant explaining his backstory (goaded on by Peter, and it is slightly incongruous that the characters only 'remember' things that happened in ASM, and not Untold Tales)...

...Spidey breaks free and they fight.

Green Goblin is zapped by an electro-chemical charge that gives him amnesia.

Quality Rating: B-

Historical Significance Rating: 8 - first JRSR Spidey art, official reveal that Green Goblin is Norman Osborn.

Chronological Placement Considerations: N/A

References:

• Stromm was assassinated in Amazing Spider-Man #37 (actually, he had a heart attack after the Green Goblin shot at him and missed).
  
• The Green Goblin first fought Spider-Man with the help of the Enforcers in Amazing Spider-Man #14.
  
• In ASM #17, the Human Torch helped Spidey with the Goblin.
  
• The Goblin allied himself with Lucky Lobo in Amazing Spider-Man #23 and then fought against Lucky Lewis in his guise as the Crime-Master in Amazing Spider-Man #27.

Crossover: N/A

Continuity Insert? N

My Reprint: Marvel Tales #178, Marvel Tales #179

Stromm wasn't actually assassinated by the Green Goblin, it was more of an attempted assassination. The Goblin was about to shoot him when he had a heart attack. It seems like Stan planned it this way, so that Spidey could let Norman off the hook since hadn't committed any "real" crimes.

Thanks. Someone corrected me on that and i added a clarification on ASM #37 but i missed the Reference to it here. I've updated it now.

Total agree on your views on Romita. He was a gigantic step over Ditko. I found these 2 issues in clear plastic at the old comic shop in downtown Honolulu when I was a kid. I think they cost me about $3.50 each! I still have them. Great art, story and dialogue. The Goblin was one of my favorite villains and Romita sure new how to capture him. Then again, so did Spider-man!

In the Roy Thomas interview in Comics Interview #66, reference is made to a John Romita article where he claims that Stan Lee wanted Ned Leeds to be the Goblin, but Ditko disagreed and started drawing a guy that became Norman Osborn instead. Roy also states that at one point Ditko wanted the Goblin to be a nondescript nobody.

Yeah, the art here is really fresh and great. These two issues are widely acknowledged classics. I remember reading the second issue on Bring on the Bad Guys as a kid.

Mark Drummond - in terms of that interview, it's nice to see these same arguments would crop up 20 years later with the Hobgoblin.

According to John Romita in Comics Interview #89, at the time he took over, Stan Lee told him that Spider-Man was already Marvel's 2nd-bestselling book right behind Fantastic Four(and that Daredevil sales jumped way up during Romita's time there).

i remember picking up the reprints of 39 and getting shocked at the huge upswing in quality in the art. that panel where Pete dodges the blast is awesome.

I've never been comfortable with Ditko's version of the GG identity, that he wanted Osborn and Stan wanted somebody else. Why then would Stan instantly reveal GG as Norman as soon as Ditko leaves?

But clearly Ditko liked the idea of making a background character in the crowd the main villain since he did the same thing with Nathan Boder in the Speedball series.

Ditko's version isn't that he wanted Osborn and Stan wanted somebody else. Ditko's version is that he wanted Osborn, and so that's not "why he left".

This link is probably the best resource I've found regarding Stan, Steve, Norman and the Goblin:

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2013/01/04/comic-book-legends-revealed-400-part-1/

Steve said at one point that when he left, Stan wouldn't talk to him. In response to that, Stan brought up his own terrible memory, but then said he doesn't see why he wouldn't have talked to Steve: "'I wouldn't talk to him?' Can you believe that? I talk to everybody. Most people wish I would shut the hell up!"

The Harry Osborn reveal must have been a bummer to readers at the time. What a letdown. A character revealed two issues before (ok he had been hanging out "in the background" but who would guess a nameless background character.)

Imagine how much more dramatic impact it would have had if say JJ Jameson had been the face revealed when GG takes off his mask. Or even Ned Leeds, Peter's rival. Now it wouldnt have helped the characters in the long term, but im sure they didnt imagine we'd still be talking about it years later.

I dont really buy the "distinctive hairstyle" idea. That Osborn hair was a pretty common style for Ditko to use. Sandman, for example. He used it with a number of his 50s characters.

kveto: If the Green Goblin was Ned Leeds, maybe that could have worked. Maybe.

If JJJ was behind the mask, I think that would have been an unmitigated disaster.

JJJ was an ideal foil for Spider-Man; someone who openly criticized the masked vigilante in public. Plus, it was cool how Peter exploited Jameson by selling him the Spider-Man photos, which Jameson might not have been as keen to buy if he wasn't so anti-Spidey.

GG being JJJ would have ruined JJJ beyond repair. Suddenly, JJJ is an enemy Spider-Man can punch. Also, Spidey's income goes out the window. What happens to the Daily Bugle once the secret is out?

Yeah, Norman Osborn's reveal isn't without its faults, but I think he was the best choice (as of #39; if the reveal was delayed to some issues later, they could have set up another character). It wasn't so much that he was a background character as much as that he was Harry Osborn's father, who by this point was a much more established character. This way, he has some connection to Peter, but not too much.

While the idea that "every comic is someone's first" is a good thing in general, as we know it can lead to some awfully contrived exposition, and Peter's comment upon learning the Green Goblin's identity is a good example of that. "Of course -- You're related to my own classmate! You're Harry Osborn's father!" simply doesn't sound like something a person would say in situation like that... The "related to my classmate" bit in particular sounds okay when put to writing, but feels completely unnatural for someone to shout out in spoken language, especially in a state of shock. In a more modern comic, Peter would simply say, "you're Harry's dad!", or, "you're Norman Osborn!". But here of course the Stan Lee had to make sure that even a reader whose first Spider-Man comic this was would understand what the revelation meant, hence the artificial language.

I'm a big fan of the "every comic is someone's first" rule. I prefer the extraneous, clunky exposition. Especially nowadays, when artists switch do often, I'm sometimes scratching my head saying, "that kinda looks like so-and-so, but I'm not sure". I guess I prefer the certainty and clarity to brevity too. I think otherwise I tend to just flip through the pages at the speed of the reading. "No more dialogue; flip page". But with the expository explosion, my eyes stay glued on the page longer. Having my eyes locked on the page longer seems to help me comprehend what happens better, perhaps through osmosis even.

I don't mind exposition when it's in narration boxes, or footnotes, because that's their primary function. But when the clunky exposition is spoken by the characters, it always feels like the writer speaking, not the character, and that tends to break the immersion for me.

milkrolik, I'm not saying JJJ would have been a good idea long term (or even short term), but it would have at least had a dramatic impact on the reader. Revealing GG as a character only named a few issues earlier must have been a huge letdown. I mean, Pete and Norman hadn't even had any interaction before. Ned Leeds at least was a supporting charactyer and knew Pete. As pointed out above, the fact that Pete and Norman hadn't met led to some awful expository dialouge.

I know its hard to look at it through the lens of time, as we've all grown up after the reveal. For us, Norman always was the goblin. But what a huge letdown it would have been for readers in real time. It would be interesting to get the opinion of someone who read it real time.

kveto: I guess I can see your point about immediate dramatic impact vs. long term ramifications. To that end, JJJ or Ned probably would have been more shocking than Norman.

But I still think long term, Norman was the best choice, as far as if you HAD to make the reveal as of issue #39. If I wanted to make Ned the Green Goblin, I would have delayed the reveal to later after having Ned make a few more appearances; sure Ned and Pete have met and interacted, but Ned (at this point) doesn't have much of a character beyond "competing love interest for Betty Brant". Even though Norman wasn't formally introduced to readers until #37 (unless you count his appearances as JJJ's co-club member in 23, 25, 26-27), he had a lot of character development in 37 and 38. Plus, I still maintain the real impact of his reveal was that he was the father of Harry Osborn, Peter's classmate, who appeared in 31, and a handful of times since then.

I won't argue with anyone about their opinions regarding the expository dialogue, but it never bothered me too much personally; it's just Stan's writing style as far as I'm concerned.

Sure, that's what I was trying to get at. I think Norman BECAME the best choice but that was due to what was done with his character after the reveal. That the GG still managed to be a viable character after the reveal is proof of this. It helped make a Parker/Osborn dynamic go further.

But I was trying to put myself in the place of a real time reader. Hard to do, as the GG has always been Norman to me. Its hard to fathom him being anyone else.

@mikrolik- regarding the expository dialogue- it wasn't just Stan- that was a recurring problem until recap pages were invented. Look at some examples from the '80s (I'm paraphrasing):
Defenders 100: Daimon: How could you say we will find a way out of this, Surfer? My father has entranced Nighthawk and turned Hellcat into a demon?
Avengers 250: Vision: Maelstrom is so powerful, I could almost believe he had an Inhuman for a father and a Deviant for a mother.
X-Men 201: Maddie: You know how tough I am, Ororo. I walked out of a crashed and burning 747.
One of the most ridiculous examples has to be Spectacular Spider-Man 150, where MJ basically says "Robbie's in jail. How can this be happening?" and Peter answers her by recapping the events of the past few issues, most of which she was there for, like she was developing early Alzheimer's instead of asking a rhetorical question.

Michael, two points. One nit-picking, the other actually relevant.

1: Madelyne's plane crash hadn't really been mentioned for quite a while. Maybe in "X-Men/Alpha Flight" or something, but Claremont was trying to reclaim his character in the aftermath of Jean Grey's return. Which leads me to

2: At his best, Stan could do expository dialogue which didn't feel expository. But now he's suddenly in complete control of Spider-Man in a way he hasn't been for years, if ever, while bringing a long-running storyline to a very abrupt halt, as he continues running the Bullpen, arguing with Jolly Jack, etc.

You're right that it's not entirely Stan's fault that he didn't surpass the limitations of the genre and/or medium as of 1966 with this story [almost exactly fifty years ago, in case you don't feel old enough already] but he was not at his best here. Script and plot suffer quite a bit, and I honestly don't see any improvement over the last several issues beyond John Romita's art, as well as whatever payoff you (not you personally) get from a resolution to the Green Goblin storyline. Spidey fighting on his front lawn while worrying that Aunt May might look out the window? Really? I could say something similar about the Goblin going a long way to describe his origin to his helpless prisoner, and then being defeated by a random burst of chemicals.

And do people actually recognize others as being related on the spot? I can't think of a single parent-child or sibling couple I've ever known that I would automatically assume they were related just by looking at them. Even if (perhaps especially if) they were holding me hostage at the time. It's not like Peter saw any similarity between Liz and the Molten Man.

Well, Norman does reveal his full name to Spidey there. It doesn't seem like huge stretch for him to conclude Norman is Harry's dad, considering the name and the rather distinctive hairstyle they share. Also, Harry might've already told Peter who his dad is. Isn't Norman a rather well-known businessman at this point?

Earlier in issue 39, Harry and Peter had a conversation about how his father had suddenly become more cruel a few years ago. Even if Harry didn't mention his dad's name, it's not surprising Peter made the connection.

I wish people would speak in exposition more in real life. I have a terrible memory and a lot of casual aquaintances. Imagine how much awkwardness could be avoided if everyone I met introduced themselves by referring to themself in the third person and recapping our personal history!

Regarding the reasons for Ditko's views on the Goblin's identity, this site is pretty useful for Ditko's standpoint: http://unitedfanzineorganization.weebly.com/ditkofaq.html#011

Note question 11 has a link to a John Romita interview from 1966 which claims (in the interviewer's interpretation rather than Romita's own words): "By the way, the choice of Norman Osborn as the Green Goblin was Ditko's. Lee was going to have GG revealed to be Ned Leeds, but Ditko was too fond of Ned, so he drew the mags so that Osborn HAD to be the Goblin."

Also see Ditko's 2009 quote: "I knew from Day One, from the first GG story, who the GG would be. I absolutely knew because I planted him in J. Jonah Jameson's businessman's club. .... I planted the GG's son (same distinct hair style) in the college issues for more dramatic involvement and storyline consequences. So how could there be any doubt, dispute, about who the GG had to turn out to be when unmasked?"

Makes sense that Lee would reveal the Goblin's identity when Ditko left just so readers didn't leave the book with Ditko (the fact that Romita was told to draw as much like Ditko as he could manage is proof that was a concern). As to why Lee didn't reveal Ned as the Goblin anyway, I guess at this point Ned had gone in a different directipn & it made more sense for it to be Norman, who had already been seen to be somewhat suspicious. Also, GG being Harry's father would be just as good for Lee's dramatic purposes as GG being Peter's rival.

Also, the book "Strange and Stranger - The World of Steve Ditko" gives a quite convincing argument that Ditko's disputes were not to do with the Goblin's identity and instead due to his belief that Goodman owed him royalties, including that it had been promised that if the characters were a success they would get extra royalties, and also concerns about Ditko not being compensated for the upcoming cartoons being based on his artwork. It also claims that Ditko tried to persuade Kirby to leave with him, but Kirby at the time demurred due to having family to pay for.

I'll still never buy the "distinctive hairstyle" quote from Ditko. He used that hairstyle on loads of characters (Sandman for instance). It makes me think the whole argument that he made Norman a "background character" as sour grapes and him making apocryphal stories.

However, the idea that he left over royalties makes a ton of sense. Much more logical reason to leave.

Thanks for the Ditko-link, Johnathan Kevinson. I think I knew Ditko created the box at the top left of Marvel covers, but I didn't know he did the first Dr. Strange story on his own and then brought the penciled pages to Stan. Neat.

I think Norman Osbourne's behavior is the single greatest piece of evidence that Ditko always intended him to be the Goblin. Ditko wasn't Rob Liefeld, throwing in whatever nonsense crossed his mind just to complicate things. He had a plan. Even Stan said [blanking on where at the moment] that the point to the Goblin was that his secret identity would be a mystery to everybody. Makes perfect sense that Ditko would start providing clues to that mystery right off the bat [Jonah's friend at the club, for instance.]

Stan used the first post-Ditko issues to end that storyline, because he didn't see any further use for it. He also ended Peter and Betty's relationship, and set up the reveal of Mary Jane, to end that subplot. And Gwen totally loves Peter instead of slowly coming around to see him for what he is. Stan was clearing the decks entirely as he saw fit.

As for royalties, your link set me looking up a bunch of other stuff about Ditko, and he says at some point that he never met Martin Goodman, unless it was basically passing him on the production floor. Nothing he'd remember, especially if it involved a discussion about royalties. Did Stan make a promise, or at least hint at one? Possible, but at the beginning of the Marvel Age, Stan gave an interview that said if someone asked him for advice about getting into comics, he'd ask "Why?" There's no reward, there's no ownership or money; if you're talented enough to do comics you're talented enough to work elsewhere.

I'm sure Robin Snyder isn't reading this, but if he is, please give us a more user-friendly way to read Ditko's recent works. Ditko has actually gone into detail about his work on "Spider-Man" for about fifteen years now, in a series of essays, but they get absolutely no attention from anybody. Ditko and Snyder don't sell his work in a user-friendly manner. I'd be giving them all the money in my wallet and looking for an ATM if they needed more. And major kudos to the Ditko-fans who will not violate his privacy or copyrights by putting them on the internet, even if it leaves us fanboys unhappy. As Neil Gaiman said at the end of that documentary, "You don't talk about Ditko."

Yeah I noticed the Goodman contradiction too… there are quotes (including a contemporary quote from Stan himself) specifically saying that at the time Ditko said “Goodman” owed him royalties, but Ditko now says he never met Goodman. Could be him misremembering, or could be he was saying “Goodman” because he knew Stan was the go-between from Goodman to the creatives, and he knew it was Goodman who was really in control of the money. Maybe he said “Goodman” instead of “Marvel” as a sort of name-and-shame. If a conversation took place where Ditko felt Goodman had promised to pay him more money, but Goodman never spoke to Ditko, then Stan would be my guess as to who that might have come from, but obviously I wasn’t there & know nothing about working there, so perhaps there was someone else it could've been.

In the “Stranger and Stranger” book (which is great, by the way) it claims that shortly before Ditko left, Goodman via an “underling” made it known to Ditko of some editorial changes he wanted made on Spider-Man. It doesn’t say who the underling was or exactly what the changes were, though it says Lee & Romita then actioned the changes after Ditko left, & suggests the changes were in some way to do with Goodman wanting to target the college audience. (Maybe it was “stop drawing student protesters as idiots”, for a start... there was a well known Ayn Rand essay from 1964 called “The Cashing In: The Student Rebellion" which may be where Ditko got some of his views)

@ChrisW - I'll have to stop by Jim Hanley's Universe (now known as JHU Comics) again sometime soon, as they have in stock much of Steve Ditko's work from the past two decades.

I agree, Ditko has definitely related his experiences working at Marvel in the 1960s, but it has been via long, detailed essays which are heavy with Objectivist ideology. He consistently refuses to be interviewed. As I understand it, in addition to being a *very* private individual, Ditko is wary of having his words being manipulated or taken out of context by interviewers. I can certainly understand the sentiment. Often the "sound bites" that magazines, TV news, and websites quote *are* taken out of context in order to sensationalize a topic and generate controversy. Ditko prefers to write his eassays, where he has complete control over what information is released to the public.

So, if you have the stamina to seek out his self-published works and to then wade through his distinctive prose, the information *is* out there.

Would Goodman necessarily know who Ditko even was, though? As hard as it may be to believe these days, back then Marvel Comics was only a small part of Goodman's publishing empire. Most of Goodman's attention was devoted to the Magazine Management section, which published such things like Stag, Male, True, Real Balls, etc.

Who else would have been getting royalties from comic books back then? Bob Kane, I suppose, but he got his arrangement from a calculated threatened lawsuit when Siegel & Shuster were taking legal action concerning Superman/boy in the 1940s. I can't imagine who else would be.

Mark, I don't think Goodman would have had a clue who Ditko was. He might have been aware about Bob Kane, he definitely would have known about Simon/Kirby's problem with Captain America, and would have no doubt been against royalties on a general basis. I do think it's basically impossible to believe that he ever had any actual contact with Ditko - unless it was in the most unlikely 'run into him in the elevator' example - and contract negotiations would be the last things on either of their minds in such a situation. Ditko would have wanted to get back to his office and start drawing the next issue, Goodman would have wanted to get back to his office and do whatever he was doing.

Which leads me to Ben. I think it's entirely possible that Ditko brought up the question of royalties - and considering the hit that Spider-Man has been for the last fifty years, we can probably all agree he would be right to do - it's just weird that nobody takes Ditko's public statements seriously. Even in an internet age where work is quickly stolen, it just flat-out boggles the mind that nobody is willing to steal Ditko's essays and put them online. Not that I support that, it's just that this is the world we're living in, and I'd be the first to admit, given the choice of paying for Ditko's own words and getting them for free? There's no conflict there. Free Ditko? I could spend the next few months dining out on that. Paying Ditko the way he wants? It's not really user-friendly.

[stupid word/character limitations] Paying Ditko what he deserves? There's not enough money in the world to account for that. Spider-Man alone would bankrupt Western Civilization as far as giving Ditko what he deserves.

Which leads me to Johnathan. Goodman didn't have very many underlings left at that point, especially in the comic-book division. There's no way to read that quote and not think that Stan was the one promising royalties, even though Stan knew full well that royalties didn't exist unless you were lucky enough to be Bob Kane. I do think that Ditko was upfront about expecting more pay for his enormously-successful work (Spider-Man.) We'll never know what actually happened, but Ditko did move towards more creator-friendly options {"Witzend"} or more blatant work-for-hire options {Charlton.}

Please, Robin Snyder, give us a more user-friendly approach to Ditko's work. Even if it doesn't pay in the long-term, it would give the old man a huge influx of cash that he's earned. Make it easier for Ditko fans to support Ditko, and give Ditko's words a wider audience. And again, kudos to the Ditko-fans who have been reading this for fifteen years and never ever broken his copyright.

On the one hand, I would like to show my appreciation for his co-creation of Spider-Man and Dr. Strange, but on the other hand, I don't want to give financial support to someone who holds political and philosophical views I find odious, bordering on vile.

I'm not fan of objectivism, and in rich businesspeople I see it as essentially a way of justifying selfishness and egocentrism, but Ditko can't really be included in that group. He seems more to be attached to the idea that the best thing to do in life is to follow your own path and create the art that you want to.

He left Marvel for Charlton and Witzend, where he had more creative freedom but was paid less than the money he was apparently complaining about getting at Marvel.

Obviously little is known about Ditko, other than that he keeps to a code of ethics and keeps his life within certain boundaries, but once his work & the black-and-white philosophy is put aside, there are anecdotes that indicate he is not a selfish or unfriendly person.

It is said that he was sent payment for the Spider-Man films but refused to accept it. These days Marvel do send him (small) cheques for reprints but I believe it is unconfirmed whether he cashes them. I could understand this more if he was not accepting payment because he intended to sue for the rights, but since that does not seem to be happening, it does show that whatever his views are, he holds them strongly. This isn't a rich guy sitting on a big pile of money and not caring what happens to everyone else.

Fwiw, this is from Ronin Ro's 2004 Tales to Astonish:

Page 98:
"Goodman had promised to cut [Kirby] in on all the merchandizing money, a good incentive. Goodman had also made similar promises to Steve Ditko, placing an arm around his shoulder, leading him down a corridor and saying, "Don't worry, we'll take care of you once the book begins showing a profit." With college students ordering every product [posters, T-shirts, etc.] and forming chapters of the MMMS...and young producer Steve Krantz preparing a cartoon series that would feature Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Sub-Mariner, and the Hulk...Kirby and Ditko stood to gain a lot once the money came in."

Page 108 (after writing about all the plot/character changes Goodman and Lee wanted for Spider-Man):
"Believing that Goodman had reneged on a promise to give him and Jack some of the merchandising profits, Ditko entered the cramped office shared by Roy Thhomas, Flo Steinberg, and Sol Brodsky and handed Brodsky his lastest work and said, 'I'll finish the jobs I'm working on now, and that's it.' "

Unfortunately Ro doesn't cite any sources but his book does include "thanks" to a long list of interviewees (does not include Ditko of course) and books/articles from TwoMorrows, The Comics Journal, Les Daniels books, etc.

It's difficult to get too outraged at Ditko's eccentric advocacy of Objectivism when you have Frank Miller calling for the reintroduction of the draft and war with Iran, or Dave Sim using 'Cerebus' as a soapbox to argue that women wreck societies and don't have souls. Priorities, people.

Well, I'm not a fan of them either. :)

"I know its hard to look at it through the lens of time, as we've all grown up after the reveal. For us, Norman always was the goblin. But what a huge letdown it would have been for readers in real time. It would be interesting to get the opinion of someone who read it real time."

I was 10 at the time and very disappointed that the Goblin's identity had ever been revealed. I knew 4 friends and 2 cousins who also read comics and they were also disappointed. At the time however we were even more preoccupied with disappointment that Ditko had left Marvel.

I wonder if Lee had ever intended to reveal the Goblin's identity. I can't recall particulars, maybe things that were said in letters columns, that sort of made us feel like Marvel had promised not to reveal his identity. That was the consensus reality at least between my comic reading comrades and me. Similarly we felt Marvel had also sort of promised not to reveal what Doctor Doom looked like under the mask. One of the things that set Marvel apart at that time was that they had real mysteries. Not like DC.

The Norman reveal ruined the Goblin as a character IMO. They drove the Norman-Goblin into the ground, he later got his memory back, he was killed, came back, etc., etc. He knew Spidey's ID and that made him hard to write, which was part of why Roger Stern introduced Hobgoblin if I remember right... because Norman the character was just so unworkable at the time.

Ditko was at the pinnacle of his popularity. ...

... Lee, Kirby, and Ditko were by far the most talked-about comic book creators of 1966. They were getting covered in magazines like Time, Life, and Playboy. In the before-time of the internet these magazines had huge audiences and likewise newsstand comic books had many times more readers than they have nowadays. Marvel-based TV cartoons and posters were being sold or were on the verge of being sold. TV coverage was likewise huge, in a wider way than today. Ditko was immeasurably more popular than he is now. These guys were sensational in a way that you might compare with how sensational McFarlane, Lee, and crew would become in the 90s.

Fans accepted Romita reluctantly at first. It's a real tribute to his talent that he was accepted at all. You can bet he and Lee were both sweating it. They knew how popular Ditko was at that time.

thanks, James. I've heard from others who read it in real time and shared your disappointment.

I remember reading this when it first came out. I was surprised by the difference in the art but the story was still really good so I had no problem accepting Romita as the new artist. I love all the great comic artists but for me it has always been about the stories. IMHO, a good story can save bad art but good art can't save a bad story. I don't believe that Roy Thomas was there when Ditko quit because I remember him saying that when he first arrived at Marvel he saw where there were three artists working on what Ditko had done and he commented that it took three people to do what Ditko had.

Thanks Bobby. I'd say you had a much more mature attitude about it than I did at the time. As a 10 year old kid I was definitely more concerned about the art, and probably wouldn't have known really good storytelling if it bit me in the ass. Having learned to read on DC comics, I was resistant to changes in the status quo and thought I knew everything, a common failing of 10 year olds, and also of most of the males in my family ha. Maybe I have a more mature attitude now, or maybe not. My nostalgic love for Ditko's early 60s work still borders on hero worship, but my appreciation of John Romita grew as I grew, such that now I see these two artists as more or less equal in terms of storytelling, pacing, and pencil linework. I prefer Romita's inking and respect his ability to play well with others, but I still prefer Ditko in terms of style, creativity, and originality. Ditko also might be more accessible to 10 year old kids IMO, an audience from which Marvel was already starting to drift away.

I agree that Ditko was more original and I still love his vivid imagination. As far as hero worship, since I'm more on the writerly (If that's a word) side, Stan is still one of my heroes in the comic biz.

I feel part of the dissappointment wasnt the reveal, but how psycho norman acted after the reveal.

Good point Roy. On reflection I realize that was a big part of my disappointment too. The Goblin was like a whole different character after that. In addition, letting him learn Spider-Man's secret identity may have made for a great shock ending and cliffhanger at the time, but it made subsequent use of the Goblin character extremely difficult and complicated.