Abraham Riesman's Biography of Stan Lee - True Believer

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I have noticed that on CBR Forums there hasn't been much discussion about Abraham Riesman's biography of Stan Lee. I think there was a thread about Roy Thomas' defense of Lee against the book in his article for Hollywood Reporter (which is emotionally understandable but not really a proper response in my view). On the whole this is the best book ever written about Marvel comics, and possibly the best biography of any comics figure. It does what I've long insisted comics scholarship do, look at documentary evidence as much as possible, trawl through archives and reconstruct the narrative and find the version that makes the best sense. Riesman's book has finally brought a good level of professionalism to comics history which otherwise has been lacking. The comics business has too long been too incestuous, comics sites depend on the industry for interviews and access, and in turn the industry gives comics journos a platform for internships and working in the comics business directly.

Are there issues with it? Yeah there are, all books of scholarship are written with the aim that they will be overcome down the line. Riesman's book has weaknesses in his lack of critical interest in the comics and stories themselves, likewise his perpetuation of the black legend on Jim Shooter, and also for his tunnel-view on the issue of credit over everything else. I guess Riesman wrote this book with the idea of mainstreaming stuff known more among comics aficionados to a wider audience, hence he wrote a book that's fairly short for a biography (some 335 pages) and doesn't discuss comics continuity stuff and comics stories that most people wouldn't get.

In terms of what Riesman's biography has to say or do with Spider-Man specifically, there's nothing directly tied to it (because again Riesman tries to avoid stuff happening in-continuity and stories, so for instance if you want to know about stuff like the Spider-Marriage or so on, that's not covered here) but anecdotally and biographically there's some interesting stuff:
-- Riesman generally treats Steve Ditko respectfully in this book. Usually Lee biographies and so on use Ditko's Randian turn (which Riesman acknowdledges came later) as a way to justify and insist on Stan Lee as the main creator or imply that he was right to screw him later. There's no repetition of the spurious and false notion that Ditko didn't want Norman to be the Green Goblin, which is probably a first. Riesman even acknowledges that the usual idea that "Stan wanted character depth and realism and Ditko wanted action" is false because evidence suggests that Ditko wanted realism more than Stan Lee.
-- Blake Bell's biography of Steve Ditko revealed that Stan Lee was the one interested in Ayn Rand and that he was the one who introduced Ditko to Rand's books when the latter asked for book recommendations. Here we get more corroborating evidence. I honestly don't know if this was ever covered or suggested but Jack Kirby wanted to do a Fantastic Four comic that parodied Ayn Rand's ideas and Stan Lee rejected the idea and censored it (Page 157). So essentially the Randian elements in Spider-Man that so many people have spilled ink over, it turns out it was "Stan Lee All Along" (cue that song from Wanda Vision).
-- To add to that, Riesman presents Stan Lee as a union-buster, someone who repeatedly refused to be involved in unionizing, at one point almost engaging in a criminal action of financial collusion with DC to stop employees from organizing.
-- Riesman quotes Steve Ditko at one point in the '90s interacting with Stan in a somewhat friendly light and when Lee suggests working on Spider-Man again, Ditko says, "I can't care about Spider-Man as much as I did back then" which is both realistic but also somewhat sad at the same time (Page 234).
-- When Stan Lee was making his cameo in Spider-Man 1, Sam Raimi was against the idea saying "I know Stan. He can't act" (Page 279).

The "Ditko Estate" also provided Riesman a brand new photo of Ditko (from the 1950s) where he looks more Peter Parker-esque than before, seriously the body language is totally Peter:

Ditko in '50s .jpg

Biographical details that maybe sheds some light on Spider-Man.
-- In terms of Stan Lee's Jewishness, which is central to arguments about Spider-Man being Jewish or not, Riesman pours cold water on it all. Stan Lee was never a practitioner of his faith, nor an obsever of it, and never identified as Jewish across his entire life. In fact, Stan Lee agreed that his daughter should be baptized as a Christian in accordance with her mother's religious identity and her wishes. Stan Lee himself said multiple times he was non-religious and secular (maybe an atheist but he never argues for that either).
-- One neat detail. Stan Lee and his wife Joan had a whirlwind romance that began when Stan knocked on the door and Joan opened it and Stan instantly felt floored. At the time she was married so she had to arrange a quickie divorce and Stan desperate to prove that he was committed insisted on a quick marriage, so the two of them got married before a judge in Reno (and later had a more traditional wedding). Riesman doesn't point this out but this does echo Peter and Mary Jane's first meeting at the doorstep, and of course more directly, Stan Lee's decision to have Peter and MJ get married before a judge in a civil ceremony.
-- The intense family drama in Stan Lee's life...his difficult relationship with his father (unlike Stan he was defiantly Jewish and religiously observant and saw his sons as disappointments, had no respect for their success in comics), and his daughter does highlight the stuff in the Lee-Romita era, namely Harry's issues with his father, Gwen's intense relationship with her dad George and so on. Gerry Conway said multiple times that Gwen Stacy as redesigned by Romita was a spitting image of Stan Lee's wife and daughter and seeing the photos printed here bears that out.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

How much later did Dikto's Randian turn come according to Riesman? Ditko published Mr. A only a year after leaving Spider-Man.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

How much later did Dikto's Randian turn come according to Riesman? Ditko published Mr. A only a year after leaving Spider-Man.

He doesn't mention that, because his focus is on Lee.

What was interesting is that Riesman didn't do what previous writers of Lee have done by talking about Ditko as some weirdo whose viewpoints shouldn't be listened to at all. The reason Ditko left Marvel was because of pay dispute, lack of credit and general bad treatment.

That's why I mentioned it, and it also suggests that there was an element of Randian ideas in Lee (most obviously in the case of Iron Man/Tony Stark) especially the bit about censoring Kirby's satire on Rand.

Blake Bell's biography quotes Flo Steinberg saying that Ditko never talked about politics while he was at Marvel, and Ditko becoming a Randian was a big surprise because right before he was a hero for counter-cultural people because of Dr. Strange (genuinely popular among hippies) and Spider-Man (hip in Greenwich Village).

My own personal feeling reading Blake Bell's book is that Ditko radicalized over time. That while working at Marvel slowly bit by bit he became hardened and his entire later career is a bitter traumatic acting out of his feelings of powerlessness while working there.

But what's interesting to me is the see-saw relationship between Ditko and Lee and how Rand is a key. Ditko and Lee were friendly at first, Lee introduced him to Rand but then when Lee and Ditko stopped being friendly, Ditko clung to Rand more fiercely than Lee ever would (Lee was into fads and fashions, when Rand was popular and mainstream he read her, when she wasn't, he moved on but Ditko didn't).

[Frontier]

I remember the visual biography of Stan that Peter David helped with depicted Stan and Joan's first meeting as basically the "Face it Tiger..." moment.

""I know Stan. He can't act" Well, yeah, we all know he's playing himself .

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I remember the visual biography of Stan that Peter David helped with depicted Stan and Joan's first meeting as basically the "Face it Tiger..." moment.

""I know Stan. He can't act" Well, yeah, we all know he's playing himself .

There's some stuff about that PAD visual biography in this comic notably Stan insisting that Peter avoid talking about the financial scams that the companies he started in the 90s got involved in.

[Frontier]

There's some stuff about that PAD visual biography in this comic notably Stan insisting that Peter avoid talking about the financial scams that the companies he started in the 90s got involved in.

Can't say I'm surprised...