Revelations about Stan Lee in Riesman's biography

[JackDaw]

I think we should maybe start a mini-movement to put the artists name first in seminal runs Stan the Man was involved in...so Kirby/ Lee Fantastic Four rather than Lee/ Kirby for example.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I think we should maybe start a mini-movement to put the artists name first in seminal runs Stan the Man was involved in...so Kirby/ Lee Fantastic Four rather than Lee/ Kirby for example.

Informally fans have already started doing that.

Legally though, the fact is that Marvel's entire claim on these characters rests on the fact that Stan Lee was a paid employee who created them on company dime. Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko and others were all, offically, "freelancers" that is to say not employees of Marvel. Legally there's a big gray area, an unresolved one, about whether companies can claim the intellectual property of work done by freelancers especially before 1976 (where a new law made the kind of open abuse practised by Marvel a lot harder but also didn't clarify the IP situation of rights before).

So that's why officially Disney/Marvel has a vested interest in the Stan Lee legend. Stan Lee is their trojan horse to claim rights on the works of his collaborators. They, and employees within the company (by that I mean editors and the publishers), and other Marvel senior honchos and so on, will always maintain either of the two
a) Stan Lee came up with the concepts and ideas (which again is super-vague) while Kirby and Ditko executed it to perfection,
b) Stan Lee and Kirby and Ditko had an equal 50-50 partnership.

Neither of the two is true in my opinion. The first one is something only the most credulous and misinformed will believe. The second one has actual consensus among a lot of reasonable people, so that one's worth arguing. If you go by the Marvel Method where by any reasonable standard, issue-per-issue Kirby and Ditko did more writing than Lee did, then they were putting north of 70% every single time. Calling it a collaboration, like John Lennon and Paul McCartney on The Beatles which was a true collaboration, is a mischaracterization. It's analogous to claiming that the script-doctor who punched up the third and fourth draft of the screenplay contributed as much as the director, the main screenwriter, the actors, the producers, the musician. Collaboration is important across media and we should honor collaborators but we need to do that fairly and proportionately.

Stan Lee isn't Bob Kane. Bob Kane came up with a name and nothing else. Bill Finger was the one who designed the Batman look, the Bruce Wayne identity, the name of Gotham City, the title "The Dark Knight", Robin and the rest. Kane was a hack artist who swiped and traced earlier work and then hired ghosts to do the work while claiming credit. It was Jerry Robinson who designed the Joker and other rogues. Issue-by-Issue Bob Kane didn't have much or anything to do with his character's success or creation. In the case of Lee, issue-per-issue he did contribute more than Bob Kane did, so that's the bare minimum, and he deserves credit for that. But as long as this distortion exists, this gap between actual work and outsize legend and contribution, what does it matter?

Ultimately the way I see it is these characters should enter public domain at the earliest. Only then we can say as in the end of Barry Lyndon (book and film), "they are all equal now"

[DanMad1977]

People, I did not read the book yet. But this thread is breaking my damn heart, you know that?

Its as if a believer of god now has the chance to see that there is no god.

I almost cried when I heard of Stans passing. He was my childhood hero in a way, because he invented everything I adored (or Kirby or Ditko etc.) I always knew he wasn't the one driving force behind it all, but that he contributed less then the artists is a real downer for me.

First you are telling me, that Bob Kane didnt really invented Batman and now this.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

People, I did not read the book yet. But this thread is breaking my damn heart, you know that?

"Kid, comics will break your heart."
-- JACK KIRBY

I usually avoid the "true fan" thing i.e. "you aren't a true fan untill you've <insert>" but I will say that I don't think you can be a real fan of comics until your heart breaks for what it took to put it in your hand.

Its as if a believer of god now has the chance to see that there is no god.

I'd say it's closer to mistaking a false prophet for a real one, or if we want to be Gnostic about it -- a demiurge for the aspects of the true god. The fact that Stan Lee didn't personally have a majority shaping role in the creation of great characters doesn't mean those characters aren't really great.

Whatever you liked about the comics, whatever positive stuff you valued about Stan Lee in the comics you read, that's all there. It's just that the conception we had about the people making it probably shouldn't be completely associated with Stan Lee. In other words, we might have mistaken a minor deity (say Hermes) for the true Olympian founders (Zeus, Posiedon, Hades).

I almost cried when I heard of Stans passing. He was my childhood hero in a way, because he invented everything I adored (or Kirby or Ditko etc.) I always knew he wasn't the one driving force behind it all, but that he contributed less then the artists is a real downer for me.

Obviously, this is personal to you and I'm not going to tell you how to feel. All I can say whatever you liked about these characters are still there and it's a matter of shfting or distributing those associations, that's all.

First you are telling me, that Bob Kane didnt really invented Batman and now this.

Bob Kane being a fraud was long known in the industry, the difference is in the last ten years you have had a reckoning in favor of Bill Finger. So now if you look at Batman credits in comics and media it's "Created by Bob Kane with Bill Finger" which is still not exactly accurate but legally it's the best compromise we have for now and it's better than nothing. You have had biographies like "Bill the Boy Wonder" which settled the record and then few years back they named a street in the Bronx, "Bill Finger Way" and his granddaughter Athena Finger gets a cut of the royalties.

Superhero comics and licensed comics on the whole is the most exploitative business in the media industry, with maybe the video games coming close. The stuff people get away with it in comics would be unthinkable in music, in theater, in TV, in movies, and legitimate publishing. And superhero comics isn't even the worst offender. It's bad but the writers of the Disney Comics, the Donald Duck comics have it even worse. The way Disney treats Don Rosa for instance is appalling.

[JackDaw]

People, I did not read the book yet. But this thread is breaking my damn heart, you know that?

Its as if a believer of god now has the chance to see that there is no god.

I almost cried when I heard of Stans passing. He was my childhood hero in a way, because he invented everything I adored (or Kirby or Ditko etc.) I always knew he wasn't the one driving force behind it all, but that he contributed less then the artists is a real downer for me.

First you are telling me, that Bob Kane didnt really invented Batman and now this.

Reading comics as a kid I must admit I never thought about the writers and artists doing the graft, I sort of thought it was all a report of things that were happening on some world close to ours..I didn’t realise it was all down to some guys force of imagination.

So I never had to make any downward adjustments when I found out bits and pieces about working practices...I’d never hero worshipped guys like Stan Lee or Bob Kane in the first place.

But as I learnt more, I sort of moved in opposite direction to you...I came to become really fond of people like Jack Kirby and Bill Finger who slogged away for year after year...obviously gaining immense respect from their peers, but treated poorly by their employers, and not getting much public recognition.

[DanMad1977]

Yes, everything I liked about the characters is still there. You said it. In the end it doesn't matter who created what part of the character or whatever for liking or loving these characters. If I never knew the names of the creators, nothing would change to my love of Marvel or DC characters.

But it matters, just not for the character itself, because Spider-Man is what he is today.

[DanMad1977]

[QUOTE=JackDaw;5472076]Reading comics as a kid I must admit I never thought about the writers and artists doing the graft, I sort of thought it was all a report of things that were happening on some world close to ours..I didn’t realise it was all down to some guys force of imagination.

So I never had to make any downward adjustments when I found out bits and pieces about working pract

ices...I’d never hero worshipped guys like Stan Lee or Bob Kane in the first place

I started to care for the credits when I was around 6 years old, because my mom and father used to tell me who wrote or drew the books, so they were burning in my mind, so to speak. And I never thought that Kirby didnt get enough credit, because he was called the King and he was always there on the first page.

I even knew (later in my life) that the Marvel method meant freedom for the artist and a loose script (even no script at all), so I never gave Stan ALL the credit. What hit me was when I realized (the last few days so to speak) that Stan contributed even less than what I thought to begin with.........

[Thor-Ul]

"Kid, comics will break your heart."
-- JACK KIRBY

Superhero comics and licensed comics on the whole is the most exploitative business in the media industry, with maybe the video games coming close. The stuff people get away with it in comics would be unthinkable in music, in theater, in TV, in movies, and legitimate publishing. And superhero comics isn't even the worst offender. It's bad but the writers of the Disney Comics, the Donald Duck comics have it even worse. The way Disney treats Don Rosa for instance is appalling.

And what is our responsability as consumers of these products, to perpetuate or change this unjust system? Can we have some input on how artists are being treated , not in the past, but in today? Or are we, either indiferent or powerless to make something about that?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

And what is our responsability as consumers of these products, to perpetuate or change this unjust system?

Well for one thing, value creators more than creations and characters. Be skeptical of "the way things are". Support calls for unionization. My one suggestion...on a practical level, become a public domain activist and advocate and militate against all arguments in favor of corporate ownership because one and all, each and every last one of them is in bad faith -- false, and untrue -- zero exceptions. Be a Ditko-esque absolutist in favor of PD.

If anyone here is planning to get into comics' writing and publishing, I suggest you watch where you are going, be careful of contracts and remember favor professionalism over cronyism. Don't rely on oral contract or verbal agreement, anyone truly good on their word would be good with their fingers to sign a paper. Don't be ashamed of talking about money in any collaboration with anyone in the business.

Can we have some input on how artists are being treated , not in the past, but in today?

You can support creator owned work.

Or are we, either indiferent or powerless to make something about that?

You know the SnyderCut advocates and devotees are a big laughing stock, and a number of them did awful stuff like death threats and harassment. Nothing I can condone. At the same time a core bunch of those SnyderCut were genuinely sincere fans of Zack Snyder who argued that he as a director ought to have completed his film per his vision and that Warner Bros. were wrong to use his removal as an excuse to radically botch his film. And while I don't think Zack Snyder is a good director nor do I think ZSJL is any great film, fundamentally they were right to insist that Snyder's Cut was better than Whedon's and fundamentally they were right to argue that as a director, Zack Snyder had a right to a final cut.

So that shows the power of fans, why is that you can't generate a similar hashtag movement in favor of Kirby and Ditko on social media? #ReleaseTheirArtwork or #ReleaseTheKirbyPages or #SupportTheComicsGuild and so on. That's one example. The other example or thing you can do is make the argument and debate stick. Whenever anyone starts repeating a tired or dated rumor and idea, take a stand against it.

Apparently there's a script being shopped around in Hollywood about a Stan Lee biopic called "Excelsior!" that's supposed to be about the 'friendship' and differences between Jack Kirby and Stan Lee (these two were never friends so that's a major red flag). And in all likelihood that will probably be a feelgood Hollywood botch in the mould of Saving Mr. Banks (which basically is Pro-Walt Disney propaganda that actively lies and mischaracterizes how P. L. Travers felt about the adaptation of Mary Poppins). One commenter (https://accordingtokirby.wordpress.c...rby-biography/) on this Jack Kirby fansite said he's read the script and basically says it's going to endorse Stan Lee's claim that he came up with the characters and have a happy ending of a fake reconciliation between Lee and Kirby when he died at the end. So basically if and when that movie comes out, be skeptical of it, and also boycott it if possible.

[DanMad1977]

I know this is not the right thread for it, but can anyone tell me the best book about Bill fingers story? Is it Billy the boy wonder? Or should I watch the amazon documentary about it? What do you recommend?

Is there a book about the Walt Disney story that you can recommend? I mean one where everything is put into question?

I am eager to get into the subject a bit more, thanks to this thread.

And what do you think about the story that Stan wanted to do Spider-Man but his brother rejected it first because he thought Spidey was too scary for children, but Stan didnt let up and got his chance for Amazing Fantasy? Can we say, that Stan is at least responsible for creating Spider-Man in the first place, and also the Marvel Universe even if he did not contribute that much afterwards. He had the general idea for all or at least most of the characters and without him there wouldn't be a Marvel universe as we know it today?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I know this is not the right thread for it, but can anyone tell me the best book about Bill fingers story? Is it Billy the boy wonder? Or should I watch the amazon documentary about it? What do you recommend?

I recommend both. Bill the Boy Wonder is shorter, while the Hulu Documentary has some new material, so whichever suits you. There might be another big biography of Bill Finger but there doesn't seem a lot of material to cover it.

Is there a book about the Walt Disney story that you can recommend? I mean one where everything is put into question?

Neal Gabler's Disney book is the one that addresses that but it's also been controversial in some circles, but it's about the best you can get. A whole chunk of Disney's life is under lock and key.

And what do you think about the story that Stan wanted to do Spider-Man but his brother rejected it first because he thought Spidey was too scary for children, but Stan didnt let up and got his chance for Amazing Fantasy? Can we say, that Stan is at least responsible for creating Spider-Man in the first place, and also the Marvel Universe even if he did not contribute that much afterwards. He had the general idea for all or at least most of the characters and without him there wouldn't be a Marvel universe as we know it today?

These and other questions are all addressed in Riesman's biography so I recommend reading it. To answer it briefly one-by-one:

As far as Spider-Man goes, there's an entire can of worms about the origin of the character with multiple stories.
-- Stan Lee himself changed his tale multiple times. Riesman covers it. The facts are that at some point someone had the idea of a "teenage superhero" it might be Martin Goodman himself (Stan's Uncle not his Brother), it might be Stan himself or it might be Jack Kirby offering it on his own as a new hero or title.
-- We know with some certainty that Kirby created the original concept with some 3-4 pages (Ditko saw one page and Jim Shooter said he saw the while concept in the '80s) which had the hero living with his Uncle and Aunt. Did Jack Kirby create the name "Spiderman"? There is good reason to believe that Kirby created the name which, by Bob Kane Rules, Kirby would qualify as creator. Kirby and Simon had developed a concept for a character called at various times "The Fly" and "Silver Spider" with CC Beck in their studio in the 1950s and there was a character called "The Fly" who shot webs with a gun that existed before. Kirby said that he created the name "Fantastic Four" and it's been pointed out that Ben Grimm and Susan Storm share names with Kirby's father and his first daughter respectively and Kirby was a father of 4 at the time of FF#1 so the number must have had a resonance for him.
-- Steve Ditko created the costume by himself without consultation and input from Lee. Ditko also plotted out AF#15, so it seems that he was the one who came up with the idea that Peter let the burglar go who killed his Uncle. to me those two elements amounts to more than 80% of Amazing Fantasy #15. All we know definitively about Stan Lee's creation to AF#15 and Spider-Man is the hyphen. That's him 100%.

As for whether Stan Lee created the Marvel Universe? ​Depends again on what you mean by "the Marvel Universe".
-- Riesman gives Lee credit for coming up with the idea of an interconnected continuity where characters in one would spread to another title and so on. So as editor, Stan Lee deserves credit for maintaining editorial flow and continuity between different titles and stories, and also as main art director in choosing and vetoing covers, promotional materials and so on. So yeah, Lee deserves some credit for 616 Continuity and managing it.
-- However if by Marvel Universe you mean the characters -- the Fantastic Four, the Hulk, Spider-Man, Iron Man, and others -- then Lee wasn't personally generative. Without Kirby/Ditko and his brother Larry Leiber (who came up with the names of a lot of characters -- Anthony Stark, Henry Pym -- that was all him), you wouldn't have any Marvel Universe.

Without Stan Lee would there be a Marvel Universe? A hard question but mostly irrelevant.
-- The name Marvel existed before Lee and the decision to call it Marvel Comics wasn't made by him.
-- Fundamentally until Fantastic Four#1, Timely/Atlas/Marvel was a completely mediocre company with basically one major great comic (Captain America) that was vastly overshadowed in quality and sales by all its competitors and peers (DC, Fawcett, Quality, EC, Dell). Stan Lee was editor for 16 years between the mid-40s to 1961, and in that time he oversaw and generated nothing of real value. It was Jack Kirby coming back to work at Timely in the late-50s that led to the gears turning for the company.
-- As editor, Lee was important and valuable so in the same way his publisher Martin Goodman was important, and other people like distributors were important, he was important for the success of the company, but in terms of a creator...well make of that what you will.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I read the first two chapters today, and I was surprised to learn that Kirby's initial dislike of Stan had nothing to do with any of the Stan controversies we're thinking of and was arguably even unfair (which isn't to say the issues Kirby would later have with Stan aren't valid.)

Also, I'm beginning to think that a young teenaged Stan was maybe the inspiration for Johnny Storm. The way Riesman describes how Stan would always mischievously get on Kirby's nerves during their work hours, it sounds a lot like how a young Johnny would always get on The Thing's nerves. And since The Thing was always a stand-in for Kirby...

[JackDaw]

And since The Thing was always a stand-in for Kirby...

Is he?

The more I hear about Jack, the more I love him.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Is he?

The more I hear about Jack, the more I love him.

Yep. The Thing's personality and attitude, his background as a Yancy Street scrapper, and his Jewish upbringing all came from Kirby and his lived experience.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Is he?

The more I hear about Jack, the more I love him.

Yep. The Thing's personality and attitude, his background as a Yancy Street scrapper, and his Jewish upbringing all came from Kirby and his lived experience.

"Everybody seemed to associate me with the Thing because he acted like a regular guy. No matter what he looked like the Thing never changed his personality — he was always a human being despite his physical change. Ben Grimm always remained Ben Grimm. I think that’s why the reader liked him — that touch of reality."
-- JACK KIRBY, The Comics Journal Interview

Both of y'all need to read Tom Scioli's graphic novel Jack Kirby: The Epic Life of the King of Comics. It's a biography as graphic novel and gives you a great deal of insight into Kirby and his life. My attitude to Kirby is that of Nick Carraway to Jay Gatsby, "They're a rotten crowd. You're worth the whole damn bunch put together."

In the case of The Thing, he's part Kirby but he's also named after Kirby's father, Benjamin Kurtzberg. Kirby's dad worked in the garment district in essentially sweat-shop conditions and he grew up seeing his father worn down and affected by poor workplace conditions. He noted that his father grew prematurely old as a result of work and more and more ugly, so that explains Ben Grimm becoming a thing, because that's what society made his Dad before his eyes. Kirby's entire aesthetic if you see his art is that monsters and unattractive characters have unique designs while conventionally attractive characters have only a small number of faces, because Kirby believed in the beauty of ugliness and messiness, and his entire work was all about the inner beauty triumphing against what society made of them. You see this across his work. Across his work there's a poetic theme of the oppressed reclaiming their dignity and letting their inner truth shine against all the stuff society did against it.

Kirby and his wife welcomed their fourth child in 1960 and a few months down the line, Kirby created the Fantastic Four which is about a family of 4 and it's essentially a metaphor for his children, one of whom is named after his father, and another (Susan) is named after his first child and eldest daughter.