stan lee: genius or thief

[el_caifan]

the other day i got into an arguement with a good friend who is a comic book collector as well. we argued about stan lee and whether he had created/co created most of the marvel characters he has claimed creatorship over. i must admit i know some on this subject from what i have read in books and the internet. what i argued was that stan lee basically has lied about his role in the creation of the characters he has claimed he created.
some of the points i made in my defense of my claim are:

1. stan lee received the books already plotted, penciled by artists like jack kirby and steve ditko. stan lee to my knowledge just wrote the dialogue and then was given credit in the book as writer. basically taking ownership of having plotted and been involved in a greater sense in the making of the book when i reality he just wrote the dialouge.

2. stan lee had the ability to do this since he was the publisher of marvel comics at the time.

3. stan lee has no record of being a 'genius' before and after working with jack kirby and to a lesser extent ditko and romita.
i argued that jack kirby had a track record of creating characters, prime example being captain america and countless other books. to my knowledge stan never created anything before fantastic four came out.
jack kirby also kept creating after leaving marvel and stan lee. he moved to DC and worked on books there and created the New Gods, etc.

the reason for posting this is that i know there are people on this site who have a greater knowledge than me. so if you would like to support my arguement or shoot it out of the water, go ahead. if im wrong, im wrong.

i must admit though, that i stand firm in my belief that Stan lee is a thieving jackal who took credit from the true genius, Jack 'the King' Kirby.

el_caifan

have a great new year!

[Sir Tim Drake]

Why must he have been either a phenomenal genius or a thieving jackal? It's a false binary opposition. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

I prefer a more balanced view: Stan Lee was an excellent writer of dialogue and a very talented, enthusiastic self-promoter. He deserves much of the credit for Marvel's success, although he doesn't deserve as much credit as Kirby, who was a greater talent.

Also, Stan Lee was not the publisher of Marvel Comics, he was the editor. Marvin Goodman was the publisher.

Welcome to CBR, by the way.

[Red Oak Kid]

Well the question you pose is certainly worthy of discussion.

I tend to agree with you that Jack Kirby does not get enough credit for his contributions to the Marvel Age of Comics. He certainly did more than draw.

But there is no need for name calling.

I note on Mark Evanier's site that he has a special place in his heart for the great Stan Lee. Mark is the keeper of the flame on all things Kirby related and if he can praise Stan the Man, that is good enough for me. Happy Stan Lee Day!

http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2006_12_28.html

[rick]

With his work with Kirby, it is pretty unclear who did what.

For some of the issues of the FFF, there are full scripts out there, but there are also plenty of issues that were just dialoged by Stan.

There is the same situation with the Stan & Ditko Spider-Man.

However, it is also completly clear that it was Stan and only Stan who plotted and wrote the now classic Romita run.

So, you can't really make the claim that Stan didn't write his books.

Also I must completly disagree with Tim about one thing, Kirby was an amazing artist, but as a writer I do not think for a minute that he was more talented then Stan.

[Alan2099]

Keep in mind, Stan also has a bad memory and for a long time he had to talk with people that just assumed he made things that he didn't and it was easier for him to just go along with it.

Still, Stan always seemed quick to give credit to Kirby when the topic is brought up and talk about how much fun it was workign with him.

Oh, and Stan didn't just get the stories already plotted out. he was often the one that created the original story, workign together with the artists to do so, and then let them draw it out. Of course, sometimes he'd do more of the story work than the artist and sometimes it was the opposite direction.

[Nate C.]

Also I must completly disagree with Tim about one thing, Kirby was an amazing artist, but as a writer I do not think for a minute that he was more talented then Stan.

I agree with Aaron on everything but this also.

Lee was an amazing talent. From his work in the field as a teenager to the time of the Silver Age Marvel explosion, he was hands on the whole way. In fact, just today, on CGC's website (I think), I was reading how Lee didn't use Kirby's ideas at all on Spider-Man and instead stayed true to his own unique vision of a teenager with everyman qualities. He said that when Kirby turned in his first five pages of Spider-Man, that it looked like "Captain America with webs". It was an odd series of coincidences that led to Kirby being the cover artist at all. As happy as Lee was with Ditko on art and co-creation, he liked Kirby's cover better.

Any theory out there that has to tear down Lee in order to build up Kirby is misguided, unneccessarry and wrong (and that's being polite).

[T GUy]

Sir Tim,

I prefer a more balanced view: Stan Lee was an excellent writer of dialogue and a very talented, enthusiastic self-promoter. He deserves much of the credit for Marvel's success, although he doesn't deserve as much credit as Kirby, who was a greater talent.

Exactly what I would have said. Or, possibly: talent rather than genius and 'thieving jackal' is an exageration.

Also, Stan Lee was not the publisher of Marvel Comics, he was the editor. Marvin Goodman was the publisher.

Yeah, but Lee was Martin Goodman's nephew.

[Sir Tim Drake]

Martin Goodman, right. Duh. (I think Stan was Martin's wife's cousin, not his nephew, but that's really so nitpicky I shouldn't have mentioned it.)

When I said Kirby was more talented, I meant that he was more talented in general, and not specifically as a writer. I agree that Stan was a better writer.

[T GUy]

Sir Tim, When I said Kirby was more talented, I meant that he was more talented in general, and not specifically as a writer. I agree that Stan was a better writer.
Well, on this one we don't agree.

[Chris N]

Why must he have been either a phenomenal genius or a thieving jackal? It's a false binary opposition. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

I prefer a more balanced view: Stan Lee was an excellent writer of dialogue and a very talented, enthusiastic self-promoter. He deserves much of the credit for Marvel's success, although he doesn't deserve as much credit as Kirby, who was a greater talent.

Also, Stan Lee was not the publisher of Marvel Comics, he was the editor. Marvin Goodman was the publisher.

Welcome to CBR, by the way.

This was my understandin as well. Kirby and Ditko were both creative geniuses, possibly 'cuz the had the right amount of insanity.

Stan Lee knew how to appeal to readers, specifically children. How to take ideas and make them into something that people would enjoy.

Jack Kirby's Fourth World seems like evidence of this. Brilliant idea after brilliant idea, but far less honed and refined then his collaborative stuff with Lee.

I think together they made some of the greatest stories ever. Kirby and Ditko were creative geniuses. And Stan Lee was smart and knew what readers wanted.

[Alan2099]

Jack Kirby's Fourth World seems like evidence of this. Brilliant idea after brilliant idea, but far less honed and refined then his collaborative stuff with Lee.
I'd agree with this. He had tons of good ideas, but there was just something not right about it. It just didn't come together right and wasn't nearly as fun as his stuff with Stan.

[Sir Tim Drake]

Sir Tim,
Well, on this one we don't agree.

All right, now I'm going to backpedal even more... Stan had a superior, more natural-sounding prose style, whereas Kirby's prose is often a little raw and incoherent. Kirby's unnecessary quote marks and exclamation points are no help, although they're kind of charming. Also, Stan's his stories tended to be structured better. Kirby's plots-- I'm thinking mostly of the Fourth World here-- are often kind of crude, focusing more on emotional impact or high ideas than on careful construction.

[benday-dot]

This was my understandin as well. Kirby and Ditko were both creative geniuses, possibly 'cuz the had the right amount of insanity.

Stan Lee knew how to appeal to readers, specifically children. How to take ideas and make them into something that people would enjoy.

Jack Kirby's Fourth World seems like evidence of this. Brilliant idea after brilliant idea, but far less honed and refined then his collaborative stuff with Lee.

I think together they made some of the greatest stories ever. Kirby and Ditko were creative geniuses. And Stan Lee was smart and knew what readers wanted.

I think Coke and Comics has nailed it. Nobody read the prevailing mood of the early Silver Age like Stan Lee. Stan was able to steer Marvel Comics in just the right direction at just the right time to capture the comic buying sensiblity of the 60's. It really was the Marvel Age of comics, and Stan, no matter how many times he was accused of catching trends, and switching currents, always seemed to read the signposts right. Thus, as the turbulent 60's roled along it is important to acknowledge, in light of criticisms cast, he always seemed to catch the right trends and the right currents. Its no small thing to succeed marvelously in an editorial capacity. He had great talent working with him in his comic productions, and the Marvel style was truly collaborative.

A couple of examples...

Kirby is usually these days given proper and due credit for the creation of the Silver Surfer... a character which just seemed, as was often the case with the King, to spring inspirationally quickened out of his mind after initial storyboard discussions with Stan. Stan received the idea, and fell in love with it, but was himself inspired to develop it in a slightly different direction. Always a sucker for the alliterative I believe he added the descriptive "Silver" to JK's named Surfer. More significantly Lee added the more pronounced human dimension to the SS, restraining Jack from perhaps prematurely disposing of his own character, and thus establishing-- as the Silver Surfer, in his great initial act of nobility, decides that humanity is worth betraying his master over-- the lasting foundation of one of Marvel Comics most famous creations.

Also... as brilliant as Ditko is (and I rank him up there with Kirby) it was apparently the case that Ditko at the proper stage finally wanted to essentially scrap the Green Goblin character by revealing him at last to be a nobody, a crazed murderer indeed, but not someone out of Lee's burdgeoning soap opera. Ditko's vision I think is honest, and perhaps truer to a creative sense of verite, but if it had been followed, and Lee failed to curtail some of Ditko's darker inspirations, then Spider-Man might not have been nearly as successful. The romance angles, the emphasis on Peter Parker' daily social travails, and the whole shining humanism which Lee was ever so much a poponent of, and which became Marvel's signature might have failed to see the light of day.

So, I may be among Kirby's biggest fans... but all those who spoke about false dichotomies in this thread really should be listened to. I think they are absolutely correct.

[Agentum]

Well. Lee had a lot of things to do at Marvel in the 60s, it was not only the plotting of the books.

And he has a big ego himself as Ditko, Kirby and Wood had so it didn't work in the long run with those artist.

They didn't like that Lee got his name on thing when they did most of the work, but then again Lee was probaly more important for the books than they thought, he hold the whole show on it's tracks.

I think calling him a thief is to much, thief of what? do you really think Marvel would have been as good without him?
I can understand why someone thinks he got to much credits for the whole thing but i think there is a lot of worse cases out there, DC comics has done what they could to cheat their creators in older days.

No i think it's unfair to call him a thief, but it also unfair to say that he was the only important person in making Marvel what it is.

But Ditkos cover for SM is better than the Kirby one:D
Must have been a bit upsetting to get your cover turned down and then have to ink Kirbys.

But as always with this things, we can only guess about much things behind it all, i think a lot of those things we see as important in the comic history has been enlaged in importance today.
But an intresting subject.

[el_caifan]

ive enjoyed reading your responses to my post. im really liking the cbr board.

i may have been too worked up when i wrote the post and i should apologize for the name calling. its childish.

some of the points posted by others, which i agree with are that Marvel comics as a whole would not have been better Without Stan lee. as a promoter for marvel comics and comics in general, there is nobody on par with Lee.

i just think he takes credit which is undue, but in reality we wont really know how much credit Stan should take.

i do agree that creators have gotten the shaft by DC and Marvel, and that is a real shame. it seems that if you are an artist and dont have the ability or need to promote yourself like Stan lee and others have done, you loose.

el_caifan

[spoon_jenkins]

1. stan lee received the books already plotted, penciled by artists like jack kirby and steve ditko. stan lee to my knowledge just wrote the dialogue and then was given credit in the book as writer. basically taking ownership of having plotted and been involved in a greater sense in the making of the book when i reality he just wrote the dialouge.
I don't think this is within the mainstream of opinion. I think this is literally the first time I've heard the account you've given. To be sure, I've heard it said that Kirby and Ditko had significant roles in plotting. I've heard that at times Lee provided very brief plots. Supposedly, at least once, Lee gave Kirby a one-line plot and Kirby created the whole story from that. But I've never heard that claim that the standard order of business was that Lee had nothing to do with the stories until he dialogued them.

This seems like a game of telephone. Solely crediting Lee as the writer is shown to be inaccurate, because Kirby and Ditko were co-plots. Evidence even shows that at times the artist rather than Lee was the dominant plotter and Lee sometimes only wrote a brief synopsis rather than a full plot. Somehow, that gets transformed to the claim that Lee didn't do any plotting at all and was merely a scripter.

[Chris N]

I don't think this is within the mainstream of opinion. I think this is literally the first time I've heard the account you've given. To be sure, I've heard it said that Kirby and Ditko had significant roles in plotting. I've heard that at times Lee provided very brief plots. Supposedly, at least once, Lee gave Kirby a one-line plot and Kirby created the whole story from that. But I've never heard that claim that the standard order of business was that Lee had nothing to do with the stories until he dialogued them.

This seems like a game of telephone. Solely crediting Lee as the writer is shown to be inaccurate, because Kirby and Ditko were co-plots. Evidence even shows that at times the artist rather than Lee was the dominant plotter and Lee sometimes only wrote a brief synopsis rather than a full plot. Somehow, that gets transformed to the claim that Lee didn't do any plotting at all and was merely a scripter.

That's more my understanding too, cobbled from various things I've read over the years.

Basic ideas, often name for character would be Stan's; Kirby would give full design, powers, etc. Personality was collaborative. They would collaborate on basic idea for a story, which Stan would make a coherent plot out of, Kirby would draw, filling in the details, and then Stan would script. Becoming the Marvel method.

While I assume there was lots of variation from issue to issue and character to character, that's the rough sense I've garnered of the way the world worked for them. Making it hard 40 years later to decide who to give credit for what. The simple answer is to praise them both equally; at best try to recognise where each creator's strengths lay.

[spoon_jenkins]

However, it is also completly clear that it was Stan and only Stan who plotted and wrote the now classic Romita run.
This is a big reason that I'm not as negative about Stan Lee as some other fans are. IMO, Spider-Man actually got better during the Romita run than it was during the Ditko run, so I think Lee contributed a lot to the series.

[Buzz Dixon]

Stan is responsible for 20-33% of any particular Silver Age Marvel character or title, but 70-80% responsible for the wonderful gestalt that fans and pros felt at the time.

[rick]

ive enjoyed reading your responses to my post. im really liking the cbr board.

i may have been too worked up when i wrote the post and i should apologize for the name calling. its childish.

some of the points posted by others, which i agree with are that Marvel comics as a whole would not have been better Without Stan lee. as a promoter for marvel comics and comics in general, there is nobody on par with Lee.

i just think he takes credit which is undue, but in reality we wont really know how much credit Stan should take.

i do agree that creators have gotten the shaft by DC and Marvel, and that is a real shame. it seems that if you are an artist and dont have the ability or need to promote yourself like Stan lee and others have done, you loose.

el_caifan


By the way, I wanted to go ahead and welcome el_caifan to the board.

It is always good to have another comic fan join in.

So it's good to meet you. :)

[Alan2099]

i do agree that creators have gotten the shaft by DC and Marvel, and that is a real shame. it seems that if you are an artist and dont have the ability or need to promote yourself like Stan lee and others have done, you loose.
NOBODY can promote themselves like Stan does.

[Reptisaurus!]

However, it is also completly clear that it was Stan and only Stan who plotted and wrote the now classic Romita run.

Nope. From the John Romita Interview in the Comics Journal 252:


I felt like a contributor, but I didn't plot the story from scratch. Stan would always come up with a thought. There were times when I got very little, and then built on it. There were times when we would have a 15-minute conference and we would be interrupted, and I would never get back to Stan and I would be stuck with a very skimpy concept that I would have to flesh out. Those are the ones the family did when we were in the car traveling, because I would have a beginning and an end but nothing in the middle. When Stan started to give Jack Kirby plotting credit -- the ultimate was when it became a Stan Lee and Jack Kirby production. When you were saying it was produced, that was the ultimate comment. "Produced by Stan Lee and John Romita," that said I was the co-producer of this story and these characters and this product. It was a very, very good feeling.


So Stan had a hand in plotting all of them, but certainly can't be credited as sole plotter.

[rick]

This is a big reason that I'm not as negative about Stan Lee as some other fans are. IMO, Spider-Man actually got better during the Romita run than it was during the Ditko run, so I think Lee contributed a lot to the series.


I’m the same way.

The way I see it, is that while it is true that the Ditko run is just some wonderful stuff, it is still hard to miss just how much from the later Romita era has lasted as basis for the whole Spider-Man understory.

Mary Jane, Norman Osborn as the Goblin, Gwen Stacy, every body goring up and heading off to college, all of that came out of that era.

Certainly the movies have been far more influenced by the Romita era then the Ditko one.

And of course, all of that plotline is 100% pure Stan Lee.

I met Lee, and I met Kirby and while I certainly did not know either man well, I did know them well enough to decide that both of them were pretty nice guys who did some really good work.

And I have to say, that the time I had dinner with Kirby, and this was during the height of his battle with Marvel over his artwork, Kirby didn’t say much about Stan, but when he did he seemed fond of him and did not say anything bad about the man.


On that same note, the one time I had dinner with Lee, and this was actually a couple of years before the dinner with Kirby, he actually said quite a bit about Jack, and again, everything he said was not only positive, but also very clear that Kirby and Ditko were his full collaborators.

[rick]

Nope. From the John Romita Interview in the Comics Journal 252:



So Stan had a hand in plotting all of them, but certainly can't be credited as sole plotter.

Okay, considering the Marvel method, that actually seems pretty fair.

Still, I am certain that more then just about any other book during that era, Spider-Man was Lee's baby and it shows.

[el_caifan]

good stuff guys.

i stated in the original post that i wanted to post this topic here because
i didnt know enough, and i guessed correctly, that there would be people on this board who know more than i did. thanks for the info, comments and open dialouge.

el_caifan

[Gothos]

While we are discussing Stan Lee's contributions, I would argue that he almost certainly masterminded the notion of treating a group of superheroes as a batch of reasonably-consistent characters, complete with soap operatic subplots. Based on my reading of the works of Kirby and Ditko both before and after their collaborations with Lee, I don't think either gentleman had much interest in the storytelling devices and tropes of soap opera. Both men probably provided much more raw creative material than did Stan, but Stan was, IMO, the guy who provided a new way of "refining" that raw material.

[Citizen V]

Ive heard rumors about Stan Lee`s success also.But what i want to say is that those who worked with him,mainly Jack Kirby should recive more credit.

[parrish]

I think Kirby deserves more credit than he gets, but it could be a lot worse, like with Bill Finger.