Revelations about Stan Lee in Riesman's biography

[WebLurker]

I wonder what the general “fan” view of Stan is?

Not sure if the recent expose is exactly common knowledge, so I'd be surprised if the average person who just goes to the movies realizes that Lee followed in the footsteps of Bob Kane on a wider scale. Personally, I think seeing Lee's cameos in the films is going to be a little harder post-expose.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I don’t think we can reconcile what went on in the publishing business in the early days of Timely/Atlas /Marvel. Publishing rules dictated how to deal with staff, and ownership was assumed to be the company’s. Today, nobody likes that ownership rule. To me, Stan Lee was just the face of that ownership rule, so who am I to judge, when Stan couldn’t do anything about it, because the company had better lawyers, and, the judiciary backed the big companies.

Robert Caro, the guy who wrote the biography of Lyndon B. Johnson said, "We’re all taught the Lord Acton saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But the more time I spend looking into power, the less I feel that is always true. What I do feel is invariably correct—what power always does—is reveal. Power reveals. When a leader gets enough power, when he doesn’t need anybody anymore—when he’s president of the United States or CEO of a major corporation—then we can see how he always wanted to treat people, and we can also see—by watching what he does with his power—what he wanted to accomplish all along."

So to me this excuse that "oh the company made him do it" doesn't fly. Stan could have done plenty about it. He had countless opportunities to act, to be honest, to make amends and he walked away from it each and every time. By the late '60s and early '70s, Stan had ousted Martin Goodman and become the man in charge of comics, he could have reformed the system but he didn't. Jim Shooter is an example of someone who worked and followed the company line as Editor-in-Chief but reformed it to create something equitable, doing far more for the average Marvel employee and freelancer than anyone before or after him. Shooter still followed the company line in terms of shutting down unionization attempts and following its bidding when he took over but when he could he reformed how things were done and part of the reason why Shooter was removed from Marvel as EIC was because he was seen as too pro-employee for the corporate overlord's liking.

So if we go by the logic of power reveals, then Stan Lee acquired a great deal of personal power and institutional power over the decades and he did nothing with it except maintain his lifestyle and legend, and that reveals the kind of person he was. Someone who as Mark Evanier pointed out, never once in his entire life lived up to the idea that with great power comes great responsibility.

And another thing. Nobody thought the Marvel little characters that they produced would last 5 years, so who thought about litigation back then?

Okay here's the thing, if nobody thought the Marvel little characters they produced would last 5 years, why was it so important or necessary for the company to own the rights and IP of all the characters and creations? Hmm? This idea that we can excuse Marvel for its exploitation because they didn't know how successful these characters are ignores the obvious fact that they were possessive, proprietary, exploitative of IP long before they achieved success. In other words exploitation existed at the start, preceded success.

It was not until Marvel characters outlasted their predicted life, that people then thought about creator ownership.

False.

History is full of injustices.

Sure but we don't think injustice is something we excuse and patch in at the hall of fame now, do we? That's what people are trying to do with Stan Lee. They want to shrug about the skeletons in the closet and then go back to bask in the legend or iconography of Lee as if they didn't just listen or receive evidence that contradicted that.

[Brian B]

I don’t think we can reconcile what went on in the publishing business in the early days of Timely/Atlas /Marvel. Publishing rules dictated how to deal with staff, and ownership was assumed to be the company’s. Today, nobody likes that ownership rule. To me, Stan Lee was just the face of that ownership rule, so who am I to judge, when Stan couldn’t do anything about it, because the company had better lawyers, and, the judiciary backed the big companies. Justice was missing in those days. Employees lived with pay per page deals because that’s what it was. And another thing. Nobody thought the Marvel little characters that they produced would last 5 years, so who thought about litigation back then? It was not until Marvel characters outlasted their predicted life, that people then thought about creator ownership. History is full of injustices. Maybe Marvel should have done what Disney did after 2010 sooner, but not in 1961. That was a world full of neglect and brutalisation. I’ve been the recipient of bullying through my life, so I learnt to just get on with life, until life got better.

Stan’s deposition, or the last one we know of, in which he swore under oath that he was basically the sole creator of most of Marvel’s core intellectual property was 2010.

That’s why I said, at the very least, Stan hurt Jack’s estate. And Stan directly benefited financially from buttressing any claims Marvel made to intellectual property for decades by that point. Stan made tens of millions from claiming to create what we think of as Marvel Comics, giving no credit to Ditko, Kirby, etc. Jack did not and his estate did not make millions, not until after Disney settled, and we really don’t know how much the Kirbys received.

It wasn’t just comics publishing practices with Stan supporting such policies in the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s. Stan was still testifying against the Kirby estate’s claims a decade into the 21st century. Even after Marvel settled and it was official as part of the settlement that Kirby co-created the Marvel Universe, Stan never gave any real credit to Kirby, Ditko, Leiber, etc.

What I mean is, it was not just publishing practices from decades and decades ago. It was basically up to the present day that Stan refused to give credit where credit is due, and it earned Stan money while costing other comics creators.

[Holt]

I feel like the fans have known of the Kirby thing for quite some time. As for what, if any effect this would have on his legacy, I don't think much. This isn't the first book to be written that delves into the topic (Marvel: The Untold Story, Grudge Match and the Jack Kirby biography all deal at least to some extent with the allegations of credit theft, the price fixing scandal and the general poor treatment of the original Marvel creatives who weren't Lee). The myth of Stan Lee has long since eclipsed the reality, and I don't see that changing. Riesman just recently reacted angrily to the big MCU sizzle reel that used Lee's voiceover as an inspirational note but it didn't stop the video from getting millions of views.

As for the overall issue of creator credit and compensation, I feel this is a battle that should still be fought. It's crazy to me that in an era where Marvel's superheroes are the biggest thing in pop culture and we're seeing adaptations that are very clearly based on recent work by still living creators that they still aren't being compensated. The recent Brubaker interview where he talked about seeing nothing from The Falcon and the Winter Soldier or the other movies featuring Bucky was depressing.

[captchuck]

I don't think poorly of Stan, because I think he was as much a victim as any of them. He paid a price. He lived in fear. He needed to say whatever he thought he had to so that he could remain the face of Marvel. He got lots of great perks, but didn't become a hero. Both Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko became the heroes of the fandom. I think this could be the subject of an opera with Stan ending up as the tragic figure.

[jackolover]

Robert Caro, the guy who wrote the biography of Lyndon B. Johnson said, "We’re all taught the Lord Acton saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But the more time I spend looking into power, the less I feel that is always true. What I do feel is invariably correct—what power always does—is reveal. Power reveals. When a leader gets enough power, when he doesn’t need anybody anymore—when he’s president of the United States or CEO of a major corporation—then we can see how he always wanted to treat people, and we can also see—by watching what he does with his power—what he wanted to accomplish all along."

So to me this excuse that "oh the company made him do it" doesn't fly. Stan could have done plenty about it. He had countless opportunities to act, to be honest, to make amends and he walked away from it each and every time. By the late '60s and early '70s, Stan had ousted Martin Goodman and become the man in charge of comics, he could have reformed the system but he didn't. Jim Shooter is an example of someone who worked and followed the company line as Editor-in-Chief but reformed it to create something equitable, doing far more for the average Marvel employee and freelancer than anyone before or after him. Shooter still followed the company line in terms of shutting down unionization attempts and following its bidding when he took over but when he could he reformed how things were done and part of the reason why Shooter was removed from Marvel as EIC was because he was seen as too pro-employee for the corporate overlord's liking.

So if we go by the logic of power reveals, then Stan Lee acquired a great deal of personal power and institutional power over the decades and he did nothing with it except maintain his lifestyle and legend, and that reveals the kind of person he was. Someone who as Mark Evanier pointed out, never once in his entire life lived up to the idea that with great power comes great responsibility.



Okay here's the thing, if nobody thought the Marvel little characters they produced would last 5 years, why was it so important or necessary for the company to own the rights and IP of all the characters and creations? Hmm? This idea that we can excuse Marvel for its exploitation because they didn't know how successful these characters are ignores the obvious fact that they were possessive, proprietary, exploitative of IP long before they achieved success. In other words exploitation existed at the start, preceded success.



False.



Sure but we don't think injustice is something we excuse and patch in at the hall of fame now, do we? That's what people are trying to do with Stan Lee. They want to shrug about the skeletons in the closet and then go back to bask in the legend or iconography of Lee as if they didn't just listen or receive evidence that contradicted that.

I tend to see your endeavour to demonise Stan Lee as activism towards backing creator ownership. Me on the other hand, though I am naive, come from the generation that saw this type of protectionism in industry, so I am aware of the pressures involved and the scares it leaves on those who went through that grinder. I see Stan Lee as weak. I was weak as well, so as a fellow of Stan Lee, I can relate. Remember, Stan Lee started in comics in the early 1940’s, so he has a long history of backed up protectionism, and Jewish badgering from the conservative power brokers of industry. But he was brought up on the legal bullying that men like Martin Goodman hit people with, (Jewish as Goodman was, he also had to swim those waters of corporate survival, and used methods that got him through). Stan Lee sat at Goodman’s table and learnt all the lessons Goodman did, and adapted them, to his big houses and fancy cars. That was their generation. Blame Stan for being a product of his upbringing in big business. You can also blame Stan for not being able to adapt, and that’s fair too. But I feel he couldn’t adapt to later be a liberal because of his scares. Call him out on his weaknesses, yes, Stan was weak, and yes he was corrupt too as you’ve pointed out. But because I lived through that kind of manipulation, I see him in a different light. Others can criticise him for being corrupt. It’s hard to step out of the thing you’ve become.

I am aware of my own deficiencies, so I don’t turn around and easily beat on one of my own.

[jackolover]

Stan’s deposition, or the last one we know of, in which he swore under oath that he was basically the sole creator of most of Marvel’s core intellectual property was 2010.

That’s why I said, at the very least, Stan hurt Jack’s estate. And Stan directly benefited financially from buttressing any claims Marvel made to intellectual property for decades by that point. Stan made tens of millions from claiming to create what we think of as Marvel Comics, giving no credit to Ditko, Kirby, etc. Jack did not and his estate did not make millions, not until after Disney settled, and we really don’t know how much the Kirbys received.

It wasn’t just comics publishing practices with Stan supporting such policies in the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s. Stan was still testifying against the Kirby estate’s claims a decade into the 21st century. Even after Marvel settled and it was official as part of the settlement that Kirby co-created the Marvel Universe, Stan never gave any real credit to Kirby, Ditko, Leiber, etc.

What I mean is, it was not just publishing practices from decades and decades ago. It was basically up to the present day that Stan refused to give credit where credit is due, and it earned Stan money while costing other comics creators.

Like my answer to Revolutionary, I don’t think Stan Lee could become liberal again, after his whole career had been molded as a protector of corporate ownership. What’s he going to do? Suddenly divest himself of all he ever stood for?

[jackolover]

I feel like the fans have known of the Kirby thing for quite some time. As for what, if any effect this would have on his legacy, I don't think much. This isn't the first book to be written that delves into the topic (Marvel: The Untold Story, Grudge Match and the Jack Kirby biography all deal at least to some extent with the allegations of credit theft, the price fixing scandal and the general poor treatment of the original Marvel creatives who weren't Lee). The myth of Stan Lee has long since eclipsed the reality, and I don't see that changing. Riesman just recently reacted angrily to the big MCU sizzle reel that used Lee's voiceover as an inspirational note but it didn't stop the video from getting millions of views.

As for the overall issue of creator credit and compensation, I feel this is a battle that should still be fought. It's crazy to me that in an era where Marvel's superheroes are the biggest thing in pop culture and we're seeing adaptations that are very clearly based on recent work by still living creators that they still aren't being compensated. The recent Brubaker interview where he talked about seeing nothing from The Falcon and the Winter Soldier or the other movies featuring Bucky was depressing.

Yes, certainly the Brubaker issue opens up modern creator ownership is still lagging, and big corporations are slow to give credit where it is due. And you can see getting lawyers when your property is is being used isn’t as easy as it sounds. So back in Marvels and Stan Lee’s era, doubly so.

[jackolover]

I don't think poorly of Stan, because I think he was as much a victim as any of them. He paid a price. He lived in fear. He needed to say whatever he thought he had to so that he could remain the face of Marvel. He got lots of great perks, but didn't become a hero. Both Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko became the heroes of the fandom. I think this could be the subject of an opera with Stan ending up as the tragic figure.

I would wonder what history will describe the comic book industries actions regarding creator ownership? Sadly, most creators of the original Silver Age starting in 1961, can have no benefit. I do wonder if a recompense will ever be passed onto the families that survive them? I wonder what that could look like?

I see the comic book industry as this business that was in a pressure cooker from the very start. It was 4-colour pulp to be thrown away after reading. Then it became the subject of big-screen blockbusters. My breath has been taken away just imagining that what I read as a kid has reached these great heights. Why is that?

[Holt]

In a way Lee reminds me, ironically enough given the eventual purchase of Marvel, of Walt Disney. A similar case where unsavory details about the man's work environment and business practices are out in the open as public knowledge now, but that hasn't really done much to damage his legacy or reputation. Outside the occasional sitcom joke about him being a lunatic who wanted to be cryogenically frozen, of course.

The unfortunate reality is, your average consumer really does not care how the sausage is made. We've had variations of this for decades now, whether it be athletes and entertainers getting a free pass on being abusive (or in some case outright sexual predators) or millions of people knowing that their shoes and smartphones were likely made by underpaid child labor in sweatshop environments and buying them anyway. I myself am certainly guilty of this. So I don't really know what, if any, answer there is to all this. Shitty treatment of the creators is kind of the original sin the superhero industry (starting in comics but now having long since grown beyond that) was built on.

[JackDaw]

In a way Lee reminds me, ironically enough given the eventual purchase of Marvel, of Walt Disney. A similar case where unsavory details about the man's work environment and business practices are out in the open as public knowledge now, but that hasn't really done much to damage his legacy or reputation. Outside the occasional sitcom joke about him being a lunatic who wanted to be cryogenically frozen, of course.

The unfortunate reality is, your average consumer really does not care how the sausage is made. We've had variations of this for decades now, whether it be athletes and entertainers getting a free pass on being abusive (or in some case outright sexual predators) or millions of people knowing that their shoes and smartphones were likely made by underpaid child labor in sweatshop environments and buying them anyway. I myself am certainly guilty of this. So I don't really know what, if any, answer there is to all this. Shitty treatment of the creators is kind of the original sin the superhero industry (starting in comics but now having long since grown beyond that) was built on.

Putting it into a wider context: Don’t 99 percent of people in work effectively do work for hire rather than take a share of the profits?

Often on comic discussion boards it seems like we believe “creators” have a uniquely bad deal...where as I feel the reality is they probably get a better deal than most people worldwide.

I’m certainly not arguing that comic book creators get a fair deal! But rather that the overall system throughout society, throughout the world is manifestly unfair...and most people in most places are getting an even worse deal.

[Holt]

Putting it into a wider context: Don’t 99 percent of people in work effectively do work for hire rather than take a share of the profits?

Often on comic discussion boards it seems like we believe “creators” have a uniquely bad deal...where as I feel the reality is they probably get a better deal than most people worldwide.

I’m certainly not arguing that comic book creators get a fair deal! But rather that the overall system throughout society, throughout the world is manifestly unfair...and most people in most places are getting an even worse deal.

Oh, I definitely don't think they're unique in that regard. I was more talking about the idea in this thread stated previously that work should be done to make sure all Stan is remembered for is being a liar and a thief. Regardless of how one feels about it, the general public has just been conditioned to either ignore the shitty situation behind the creation of the things they like, or blow it off if they even acknowledge it.

There was a writer back in 2012, who wrote a very impassioned essay about Jack's history at Marvel on the eve of the Avengers movie. There was a whole movement at the time to boycott the film among some creators, and it got covered on places like Comicsalliance and even some mainstream outlets. Near the end he made a point to say he was not calling for a boycott of the film, because he was not an idiot and realized that it was gonna be a huge hit regardless of how much of Marvel's shady history was known by the public. There was another piece done by a pro-boycott writer who also admitted that while he refused to give Marvel his cash, he was well aware it wasn't gonna make much of a difference and that the movie would still most likely be a massive success. And he wound up being 100 percent correct. The movie made over a billion dollars, a string of further hits based on Kirby creations were subsequently made, and now we've got a high profile TV show starring one of his creations coming next month and a movie based on another later in the year.

So I guess I'm saying that I get the mission statement of the thread and that I see what some are saying when they talk about how Lee's true legacy should be his shady dealings, but I'm not confident such a thing would happen. To your average person he's likely to remain the smiling grandfather who used to pop up in the Marvel movies.

[Iron Maiden]

Putting it into a wider context: Don’t 99 percent of people in work effectively do work for hire rather than take a share of the profits?

Often on comic discussion boards it seems like we believe “creators” have a uniquely bad deal...where as I feel the reality is they probably get a better deal than most people worldwide.

I’m certainly not arguing that comic book creators get a fair deal! But rather that the overall system throughout society, throughout the world is manifestly unfair...and most people in most places are getting an even worse deal.

I know in the IT when I used to work for a steel producing company you had to sign off when you were hired that whatever programs you created was owned by the company.

[JackDaw]

Oh, I definitely don't think they're unique in that regard. I was more talking about the idea in this thread stated previously that work should be done to make sure all Stan is remembered for is being a liar and a thief.

So I guess I'm saying that I get the mission statement of the thread and that I see what some are saying when they talk about how Lee's true legacy should be his shady dealings, but I'm not confident such a thing would happen. To your average person he's likely to remain the smiling grandfather who used to pop up in the Marvel movies.

I agree with you that Stan will probably be remembered by most as “dear old Stan who was Marvels main creator”.

It’s an image he deliberately cultivated..knowing it benefitted himself and dis-benefitted others.

Having a good number of human failings myself..I certainly don’t despise him...but I’d love to see a greater understanding of the contributions others made to creation of Marvel. In practice can that be done without making some of Stans undesirable behaviours more widely known?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I don't think poorly of Stan, because I think he was as much a victim as any of them.

People who walk out of dealings with a Rolls-Royce (which Lee owned) and so on, aren't victims. We call them collaborators.

He paid a price. He lived in fear.

Let's not use hyberbole, Stan Lee wasn't some guy working in totalitarian USSR or China where you can up-to-a-point make allowances and excuses. Stan Lee had great power and so great responsibility and he never once accepted responsibility.

He needed to say whatever he thought he had to so that he could remain the face of Marvel.

The face of Marvel, a company whose rebranding wasn't done by him (done by Martin Goodman), wasn't owned by him, whose most famous characters, in all likelihood had fairly meager input by him? I don't think Stan Lee deserved to be the "Face of Marvel" nor was that a worthy ideal a) to strive towards b) to excuse his actions over.

He got lots of great perks, but didn't become a hero. Both Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko became the heroes of the fandom. I think this could be the subject of an opera with Stan ending up as the tragic figure.

Tragedy requires recognition, reflection, and acknowledgement. We don't have that with Stan Lee, we have someone live a lifetime of denial and passing the buck.

I tend to see your endeavour to demonise Stan Lee as activism towards backing creator ownership.

You talk about "activism towards backing creator ownership" as a bad thing, I honestly don't get.

Me on the other hand, though I am naive, come from the generation that saw this type of protectionism in industry,

When did this type of "protectionism" as you call it ever exist in the comics business? What do you mean by "protectionism"?

Call him out on his weaknesses, yes, Stan was weak, and yes he was corrupt too as you’ve pointed out. But because I lived through that kind of manipulation, I see him in a different light.

I would recommend one approach this subject without identifying with Stan Lee (or for that matter Kirby or Ditko) as if they are characters in a work of fiction. People who lived in history aren't to be treated as fictional characters someone identifies with..

In a way Lee reminds me, ironically enough given the eventual purchase of Marvel, of Walt Disney.

Walt Disney is closer to Martin Goodman-Ike Perlmutter-David Maisel-Kevin Feige combined. Imagine a businessman who personally oversaw 20s animation becoming an empire with themepark rides, feature films, and more or less the form in which Disney exists today, and you have Disney. Disney was corrupt yes and certainly didn't individually create the cartoons and characters but Disney was an entrepreneur and businessman in a way Stan Lee wasn't.

Often on comic discussion boards it seems like we believe “creators” have a uniquely bad deal...where as I feel the reality is they probably get a better deal than most people worldwide.

In the creative field, authors of genuine fiction get square deals and ownership. In the movie business, while only a very few get to outright own the work, actors, screenwriters, directors and other above-the-line personnel get royalty checks for their work years down the line. In TV, you have something similar. So in the entertainment field, comics is far behind and far worse than the other entertainment industries, rivalled only by the videogame industry. And in a way the current blockbuster of superheroes is a bit like an underunionized industry being leeched off by a unionized one. Ed Brubaker has to worry about leaving behind a legacy for his family, while Winter Soldier stuff lines the pockets of the people involved in that miniseries.

So yeah, comics creators do have a uniquely bad deal. And any attempts to use "whataboutism" becomes a sleazy exercise where you justify one status-quo by using other industries which exploit stuff to make things better. If IT businesses exploit people shouldn't the debate go, "why don't people in the IT sector get huffed up about exploitation there the way comics fans are"?

Having a good number of human failings myself..I certainly don’t despise him...but I’d love to see a greater understanding of the contributions others made to creation of Marvel. In practice can that be done without making some of Stans undesirable behaviours more widely known?

Everyone having human failings and so on, doesn't mean you cannot hold other people to account. That's essentially a form of moral equivocation. Nobody here has ever been in a position of power even close to Stan Lee. Assuredly if any of us had been we would (most likely) not be posting here. So none of us here are remotely in any position to identify with Stan Lee on any believable level. And furthermore, if anyone of us had done something in their lives even close to what Lee did, I would argue that they (and I'm including myself here) ought to be held accountable too.

Human failings to excuse and identify with are on a milder level, like say telling a few lies here and there, and occasionally exaggerating as a mode of hustling. It's not on the level of decades of denial and propaganda, and using industry clout and interpersonal "kindly grandpa or kindly uncle" charm to get fans and others to excuse you, or worse make excuses for you.