Options
An impassioned defense of Stan Lee
SolitaireRose
Posts: 1,445
I am a huge Jack Kirby fan. I’ve bought just about every Kirby hardcover I can, have worked to get people who haven’t read his stuff to give it a try, and known many young artists who ask me about drawing comics, and I will show them a Jack Kirby comic and say “This is how to do comics. Don’t copy his art style, copy his story flow and dynamics” and I don’t just show them the super-hero struff, I show them to Romance comics, the SF comics the crime comics….
But it seems that, in the Kirby fan community, there is a tendency to dismiss Stan. To claim he really is Funky Flashman (Kirby’s mean spirited parody of Stan from Mr. Miracle), a no talent who steals credit. They dismiss him by saying nothing he did before or after working with Jack was any good, etc…
Stan started work in comics in 1941 as a gopher. His uncle, Martin Goodman, owned the company, and a lot of people have pointed to this relationship as why Stan was given leadership positions and worked there so long, etc… According to Stan himself and books such as “The Secret History Of Marvel Comics”, just the opposite is the case. Goodman was not an easy person to work for, and in many ways treated Stan poorly because he WAS a relative and knew Stan couldn’t leave easily.
Stan was the Editor in Chief of Timely/Atlas/Marvel from about 1942 – 1972 when he was promoted to Publisher by the people who bought Marvel from Goodman. That’s 30 years, give or take some time during WWII. That ALONE should be enough to think he’s pretty damn important.
The “Marvel Style” where he would give an artist a plot, they would draw it and he would script it was born out of him being the editor, art direction, layout guy, etc… and it wasn’t really that much different than how other editors worked at the time. Julie Schwartz and other DC editors would pitch stories to writers by way of a plot, the writer would write up the scripts and so on, while Stan just did the scripting himself. With people he knew could do more, like Kirby and Ditko, he eventually would just say “Let’s do a story about this” and when the art would come in, he’d go off of the notes the artist provided and script the story. During the early days of Marvel (until 1967) he did this for 8 books a month. Then, as Roy Thomas came in, and Marvel could do more books, he still kept up a busy workload.
On top of his office duties. On top of getting work for artists. On top of recruiting new artists. And so on.
And the people who say Stan’s work wasn’t any good before Kirby, I strongly disagree. His teen humor books were better than Archie, his twist ending stories were a decent diversion for the intended audience and he had an excellent eye for talent.
He also was someone who made sure people had jobs. The famous “art closet” story highlights this: Back in the late 40’s, artist were turning in work faster than Timely was printing books, so Stan would put it aside to use when a book got behind. He wanted to make sure that there was work for the artists they had…and when Goodman found out about this stockpiled art, he ordered Stan to fire everyone and use up the inventory in order to save money, and then when the inventory was used up, they’d bring people back as freelancers.
Stan STILL has trouble talking about that Friday of letting people go, and how he worked hard to make sure everyone could find work elsewhere, or he’d find ways to get them freelance work on the Goodman mags until they were needed again.
He often found ways to help down-on-their-luck artists who he’d worked with before. How many sub-par jobs by Bill Everett did he have office folk fix just so Bill still had a paycheck?
It’s become fashionable to bash Stan, but I think it shows more about the person bashing him. Stan’s business successes at Timely/Atlas/Marvel speak for themselves, but add the fact that none of the great Silver Age Marvel artists did better work anywhere else, and you have to give Stan credit, at the very least as an editor who could get the best work out of people.
And I haven’t even gotten into his writing.
I love Stan. He’s comic books best friend, a living legend, and the guy who got us those beautiful Silver Age comics, as well as gems like Joe Maneely’s Black Knight, Kirby and Feldstein’s Yellow Claw, Benie Krigstein’s non-EC work, John Romita’s lush Spider-Man soap opera….
I love me some Stan Lee!
But it seems that, in the Kirby fan community, there is a tendency to dismiss Stan. To claim he really is Funky Flashman (Kirby’s mean spirited parody of Stan from Mr. Miracle), a no talent who steals credit. They dismiss him by saying nothing he did before or after working with Jack was any good, etc…
Stan started work in comics in 1941 as a gopher. His uncle, Martin Goodman, owned the company, and a lot of people have pointed to this relationship as why Stan was given leadership positions and worked there so long, etc… According to Stan himself and books such as “The Secret History Of Marvel Comics”, just the opposite is the case. Goodman was not an easy person to work for, and in many ways treated Stan poorly because he WAS a relative and knew Stan couldn’t leave easily.
Stan was the Editor in Chief of Timely/Atlas/Marvel from about 1942 – 1972 when he was promoted to Publisher by the people who bought Marvel from Goodman. That’s 30 years, give or take some time during WWII. That ALONE should be enough to think he’s pretty damn important.
The “Marvel Style” where he would give an artist a plot, they would draw it and he would script it was born out of him being the editor, art direction, layout guy, etc… and it wasn’t really that much different than how other editors worked at the time. Julie Schwartz and other DC editors would pitch stories to writers by way of a plot, the writer would write up the scripts and so on, while Stan just did the scripting himself. With people he knew could do more, like Kirby and Ditko, he eventually would just say “Let’s do a story about this” and when the art would come in, he’d go off of the notes the artist provided and script the story. During the early days of Marvel (until 1967) he did this for 8 books a month. Then, as Roy Thomas came in, and Marvel could do more books, he still kept up a busy workload.
On top of his office duties. On top of getting work for artists. On top of recruiting new artists. And so on.
And the people who say Stan’s work wasn’t any good before Kirby, I strongly disagree. His teen humor books were better than Archie, his twist ending stories were a decent diversion for the intended audience and he had an excellent eye for talent.
He also was someone who made sure people had jobs. The famous “art closet” story highlights this: Back in the late 40’s, artist were turning in work faster than Timely was printing books, so Stan would put it aside to use when a book got behind. He wanted to make sure that there was work for the artists they had…and when Goodman found out about this stockpiled art, he ordered Stan to fire everyone and use up the inventory in order to save money, and then when the inventory was used up, they’d bring people back as freelancers.
Stan STILL has trouble talking about that Friday of letting people go, and how he worked hard to make sure everyone could find work elsewhere, or he’d find ways to get them freelance work on the Goodman mags until they were needed again.
He often found ways to help down-on-their-luck artists who he’d worked with before. How many sub-par jobs by Bill Everett did he have office folk fix just so Bill still had a paycheck?
It’s become fashionable to bash Stan, but I think it shows more about the person bashing him. Stan’s business successes at Timely/Atlas/Marvel speak for themselves, but add the fact that none of the great Silver Age Marvel artists did better work anywhere else, and you have to give Stan credit, at the very least as an editor who could get the best work out of people.
And I haven’t even gotten into his writing.
I love Stan. He’s comic books best friend, a living legend, and the guy who got us those beautiful Silver Age comics, as well as gems like Joe Maneely’s Black Knight, Kirby and Feldstein’s Yellow Claw, Benie Krigstein’s non-EC work, John Romita’s lush Spider-Man soap opera….
I love me some Stan Lee!
Comments
I also love Jack Kirby.
It's Peanut Butter and Jelly. Both are great and can be used in lots of ways making lots of things better (toast, chocolate, etc.), but when they come together you have a perfect blend that has been feeding children for a century. That's Stan and Jack.
I've read a good chunk of Jack's solo work (4th World, The Demon, The Eternals) and I also think Stan helped Jack stay focused better.
edit
or better focused, I don't know. Time to find me a bombastic editor.
(As the kids say)
I do believe Stan threw Jack under the bus when it came to creation of the characters though.
I think some of that sympathy for Kirby becomes misdirected antipathy toward Lee. We all need someone to blame because that's an easier narrative; we blame Yoko for breaking up the Beatles, because the real story is more complicated and its just easier to blame the artsy girlfriend than to admit that Paul was a control freak and John was itching to make music without the other guys and George felt unappreciated. Why don't the Jack-lovers take out their anger on Jim Shooter or the other Marvel editors and execs who steadfastly refused to return Jack's art? Jack worked in the decades when he could pioneer the look of American comics for later generations, and unfortunately those were the decades where creators were at the mercy of powerful and exploitive publishers. He gave more than he got, and so did a lot of other talented men and women. That's not Stan's fault.
As an '80s baby, it took me a while to appreciate the greatness of Jack Kirby. Today I would say that he is on the shortlist of "most overall talented person who ever worked in comics". Really it's an argument for someone to disprove the claim that Kirby is #1 on the mountain, because he's a natural choice in terms of influence and groundbreaking material.
But that said, I think that these days, on the internet especially, Stan gets severely short-shrifted. He was the show-runner, the overall director, of Marvel Comics. He organized everything on the grand level, AND was known as the best dialoguer in the business at the time. He also came up with a lot of the Marvel concepts. Sure, on a lot of levels, Kirby did more. But Stan was the big picture guy who brought it all into focus on the macro-level AND not infrequently managed things on the micro level as well. That's not to take anything away from Kirby (or Ditko) in terms of actual plotting or storytelling. But Stan did a LOT; he was the straw that stirred the drink. The ingredients of the drink (Kirby & Ditko) might be more important in a lotta ways, but you need that straw to stir the ingredients together, and that's what Stan was. And he did provide MOST of the words on the actual comic pages. You can't take that away from him.
To be a bit controversial, as time wears on I have less and less sympathy for Kirby. I'm conflicted about this, but I can admit it. Maybe it's a byproduct of having read so many snarky anti-Stan articles in recent years. I dunno. I still DO have sympathy for the guy, and of course I wish Marvel had voluntarily just dropped two tons of money off at his house, out of the goodness of their corporate hearts or whatever, in 1980 or so, but the more I read about the guy... Kirby COULD be a meanspirited crank who shot himself in the foot. That tends to be the way MOST great creators are, and Kirby was no exception. Back in the '60s Stan repeatedly offered him a position as "artistic director of Marvel Comics" (or some such title), basically a similar position to Editor-in-Chief, but Kirby turned it down time and again, because Kirby just wanted to "do Kirby" and be himself. Which is great. But that kind of position would have gotten him up higher up the corporate ladder. Kirby was offered a better, more secure position, due specifically to Stan trying to look out for him, but he turned it down. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I understand it. You hardly ever hear about that kinda stuff; instead it's just, "Evil Stan took advantage of Perfect Jack, period."
Now, to be honest, he WAS scewed over. Not by Stan as much as Martin Goodman, who promised him royalties, sales incentives, a piece of the merchandising, etc... and then after he'd gotten what he wanted from Jack (testimony against Joe Simon in 1967-8) he pulled the "I don't know what you are talking about."
Jack was no saint. His "Funky Flashman" makes John Lennon's "How Do You Sleep" seem kind, and when Marvel refused to give him back his original art, when they gave art back to everyone else, he was hurt, angry and got pulled in to a log of negative stuff he later regretted. However, don't ALL of us have our dark moments and negative impulses?
Stan was a guy who had an office job, wanted to write the great American novel and when he figured out what he was good at, threw himself into it full force.
I think its possible, and good, to appreciate both creators for what they contributed to the industry. Like with any argument, there are 2 sides to the story. Objectively, they both benefitted & both had/have flaws. We all do.
And I always enjoy reading situations where the Yoko Factor can be applied.
M
GROTH: Can you shed any light on the hostility that Kirby had toward Lee? Do you remember if Kirby thought he wasn't getting enough credit?
KANE: Of course. First of all, overnight, Stan became the single most important figure in comics. And it never stopped. He just got bigger and bigger. I used to think when different guys I would work with were passing me by in terms of rates and assignments, I'd think, "Well, I'll catch up..." But the truth is, I never caught up. These guys got further and further away from me until finally we lived in different worlds. They were enormous successes, and I was just plodding along. And that's what Jack felt. While Jacks style was the core or the philosophy of the entire company, Stan's mock irreverence was the balancing element in the formula. College kids all over the country were where Marvel began to make an impact...All of a sudden reams of colleges were sending in fan letters and inviting Stan up to speak, and he became legendary overnight. And Jack wasn't part of that. I would assume Jack was human too, and he just resented all of it. It wouldn't have been possible without Jack.
And this is an enlightening observation on Stan Lee's working methods.
KANE: Stan...would give you very little. I remember in this particular sequence that I think had to do with Gwen Stacey, he told me, "I'd like you to draw a character like Broderick Crawford as the villain." But that was about it. So I put together what I could from the material we had done before...I'd build it up and bring it in, and he'd take a look at it: "Yeah, yeah, yeah...Oh geez, I don't like this at all." And although I wouldn't say it to him, I'd think in my mind, " Well, why the fuck don't you write it yourself?! You're getting paid for it!" But we all went through that, Including Jack.
The interview is an amazing read by the way, you all should check it out. http://www.tcj.com/the-comics-journal-no-186-april-1996/
I don't know about when he lived in NYC, but when he lived in California, Jack often had fans by the house, and his wife would have snacks and drinks available for them as they would sit by the pool and talk comics with him.
Stan was and IS a great public speaker. Hew has a nice speech he's honed over the years, is very good at telling stories and is a master at making the millionth time he's asked a question seem like the first.
I got to meet Stan once, when he was here in MN for the filming of Mallrats. I was an extra on the movie (the nights he was here in town and a local shop tipped me off as to when he'd be here and how to be an extra) and he was great at answering questions, telling stories and just gladhanding. He also "broke character" when I asked him about Joe Maneeley and talked for a while about how good Joe was and how much his death shook him.
Don't get me wrong, I don’t begrudge Lee for that at all. (Except for that one year at the New York Comic Con when his second ticket line stood right in front of my booth, blocking me from sight for an hour and a half. But I blame the con organizers for that, not Lee.) That’s how his handlers control the crowds. But I don’t think Kirby would ever have charged people for a photograph. Of course, Kirby could always sell art, whereas Lee can’t, so I’ll never begrudge him that either. Lee himself stated in an interview that he put those stories in the closet simply because they just weren’t very good. And according to Allen Bellman and another Marvel staffer at the time whose name escapes me, the artists were let go because of poor sales. And rather than everyone being fired in one fell swoop, the staff and freelancers were let go at the rate of about one a week over the course of several weeks. I know Allen, and I trust his memory more than I do Lee’s. Of course, Allen might have been thinking of the time Goodman fired everybody in 1957. Regardless, there very likely was a closet of inventory stories. But then, pretty much every publisher kept a stack of inventory stories.
For example: The only reason John Romita left DC in the late ’60s to come back to Marvel—taking a $20 page rate cut—was because someone in DC’s upper management found a closet full of inventory romance stories, so he shut down the romance department and they began running inventory stories. It wasn't until Romita had already accepted an assignment from Lee that someone at DC offered him another book to draw.
I do believe that Lee tried to look out for the artists when it came to divvying out work. I really do. But I think there was a healthy dose of pragmatism that came along with it. Marvel’s page rates in the late ’50s were about $20 per page, pencils and inks. DC, meanwhile, paid about $38 per page, pencils and inks, and according to Romita, Marvel’s rates were still $20 lower than DC’s in the ’60s. Lee couldn’t offer competitive rates, so he tried to make up for it by offering steady work. It was the only benefit he could provide.
Lee wasn’t the first, nor was he the last editor to try to keep his artists busy. He was probably better to work for than many, if not most, editors of his era, but he was far from the only one to be sympathetic towards his staff.
@kiwijase, it’s funny that you posted that TCJ excerpt, because in large part, that’s where the Stan Lee backlash began—not that interview in particular, but in the magazine. Fantagraphics sold a lot of magazines stoking the flames of that fire. But like most of you who have posted here, I fall somewhere in the middle of the debate. Lee deserves most of the praise he gets, and he doesn't deserve all the disparagement he gets either. But he could have done more to ensure that his collaborators got more of what they deserved as well.
http://www.amazon.com/Marvel-Comics-The-Untold-Story/dp/0061992119
Sean was also featured on CGS episode #1290. Lots of good stuff here:
http://www.comicgeekspeak.com/episodes/comic_geek_speak-1596.php