Julias Schwartz versus Stan Lee

[Tanrage]

what IS your point? I thought this thread was a question about who was more important: Lee or Schwartz? people get to debate the issue. they're also allowed to reasonably disagree on the central issue of who was more important.

the Shakespeare/Gutenberg analogy is flawed.

theatrical plays existed hundreds, if not thousands, of years before the printing press. the printing press didn't change how the plays were written prior to publication. what made the printing press so exceptional is that it eventually allowed people to make copies cheaper, faster, and more reliably than before.

maybe you're thinking of the typewriter... there's an invention that would have a big impact on the act of creating literature before publication.

Stan was a writer/editor/CEO for Marvel comics, right? perhaps a better path would be to compare Stan Lee to Jack Liebowitz and Harry Donnenfeld (the guys who basically started publishing superhero comics as we know them via DC).

And you don't think being able "to make copies cheaper, faster, and more reliably than before." didn't make a major impact on the development of English literature? for the first time books were available to the masses, previously even the slimmest volume took a year or more to produce, now a printer could knock off hundreds in a single day. Movable type changed *everything* about producing books and in turn this had a gigantic impact on English literature.

Their exact roles in their respective companies aren't going to line up exactly, in the 80's Jim Shooter who was editor-in-Chief closest counterpart was at DC was Dick Giordino who was Executive Editor, the companies were organized differently. Schwartz was the man who saved the Superhero genre which had withered away to Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman by the late fifties. The other ediitors at DC followed his lead and this led to the Silver Age and tremendous Sales success for DC, Marvel in turn directed Lee to create a team book to compete with the very successful JLA, point I've raised multiple times but no one has responded to. the Thread has already acknowledged Kirby's huge role in Lee's success and Jack freely admited he reused many elements from Challengers of the Unknown in the Fantastic Four.

[Totoro Man]

part of the problem with the internet is that there are things which would be crystal clear in face-to-face conversation that get "lost" in translation on the web-page. if I had heard you saying the words in person, I probably would have more readily grasped your intentions concerning Gutenberg and the printing press.

I assumed that the VAST majority of literature would continue to be hand-written long after the introduction of the printing press. I interpreted your statement to mean that you were saying that the printing press changed the way people -wrote- literature -prior- to publication. and that didn't really happen.

if you simply meant that more people got to read more books and this, in turn, changed the way people thought about literature than I would agree. you didn't really specify HOW the printing press influenced the development of English literature. and broad statements like that ARE open to some interpretation, LOL.

besides, the Bard represents a specific era and style of writing. the printing press is a technological breakthrough that transcends national and literary boundaries. it's like comparing the influence of Scott Joplin (which is huge) to that Equal Temperament (cross-cultural & international approach to tuning instruments). it's kinda unfair, LOL

I didn't address Marvel directing Stan Lee to compete with DC's successful titles because they would have to do that anyway. since I didn't disagree with your statement, there was no need for me to address it. The Dork Knight has pointed out that Marvel sold more copies as a way of proving Stan Lee's work was more important. I don't have an answer for that since I've never researched the sales figures for comics from that era.

obviously I misunderstood your point with mentioning Gutenberg and the printing press. but prior to that misunderstanding... what point of yours was I failing to comprehend? if you go back and read all of my posts-- I think you'll find that I DO understand the difference between fame and cultural impact. it's why I bothered to compare Eisenhower to Vasilevsky in my first post, after all. (although, to be fair, Vasilevsky is practically unknown in the West in spite of his extremely important contributions to Allied victory in WW2 and being one of the top Soviet strategists for the better part of a decade. probably should have picked somebody more likely to be known to non-military history nerds)

[Toreador]

I feel that Swartz is being a little short changed here by not mentioning the huge contribution he made to the sci-fi genre as well. He co-published one of the first fanzines of science fiction and represented a few of the top sci-fi writers (Bester, Bradbury, Weinbaum, Lovecraft) which most likely influenced many future comic book writers and artists given that there is usually a large cross-over of sci-fi/comic book fans.

I feel that Lee is probably as popular as he is from standing standing on the shoulders and accomplishments of Swartz.

[Blackid]

I feel that Swartz is being a little short changed here by not mentioning the huge contribution he made to the sci-fi genre as well. He co-published one of the first fanzines of science fiction and represented a few of the top sci-fi writers (Bester, Bradbury, Weinbaum, Lovecraft) which most likely influenced many future comic book writers and artists given that there is usually a large cross-over of sci-fi/comic book fans.

I feel that Lee is probably as popular as he is from standing standing on the shoulders and accomplishments of Swartz.

And here seems to be the issue of asking a question of who's ****-er than who with an implied decision already in your head. You try to state your case so hard for Swartz and haven't really tried to keep them at the same level and see what the consensus says.

Here's another way to look at it, between the two, who do you think overall came up with the most replicated versions of their iconic characters throughout the years? I'm not saying that gives you the answer. Just saying this is another way of looking at it.

[Shellhead]

I have a great deal of respect for both Schwartz and Lee, but Lee did one very important things that had a major impact on comics:

Before the Fantastic Four, the overwhelming majority of comics were aimed at kids. As a result, most heroes lacked personality, and continuity was often irrelevant. Stan changed things by giving readers more flawed and realistic personalities who had ongoing stories instead of a series of isolated adventures.

Schwartz did some great things, but without Lee, comics would still be aimed at kids. We probably wouldn't have gotten the really great comics from guys like Alan Moore and Grant Morrison, and we might not even be here talking about comics at a site like CBR.

[Tanrage]

Well as I mentioned earlier the whole bickering teammates led by a brilliant but emotionally distant leader thing was done by DC over a year earlier with The Metal Men, yes lee took it a step further with Fantastic Four but he basically was using the blue print of two DC properties here; Challengers Of the Unknown(Kirby freely admitted to reusing ideas from this series with FF) and The aforementioned Metal Men. Lee was influenced Schwartz far more than Schwartz was influenced by Lee. Beating a dead horse here but something nobody has commented on no matter how many times I've mentioned it is this, Marvel decided to get back into the Superhero game when they heard about the success DC was having, success that was directly the result of Schwartz's decision to reimagine Golden Age characters for a new era. A decision that directly ed to the Silver Age which the "Marvel Age" is just a subset of.

[The Dork Knight]

People have come into this thread with their minds made and no ones changing their opinions . It's futile to point out that as editor+writer Lee had at least as much importance as merely the editor Schwartz . Editors mean everything apparently and for those stories where good writers wrote er...good stories without the same editor , well "I just didn't read them , I don't care"


It's futile to point out that for all the talk of re-energising waning sales, Lee ALSO did the same, went past DC and built/turned a company that had nowhere near DC's sales into its direct rival , surpassing it in sales for decades to come

It's futile talking about Lee bringing realism and an adult audience to comics , that's apparently just an opinion , and not the way just about all comics are written today, as pointed out , probably the reason we even have this site while Scwartz' JLA and Superman stories are dated , and no longer the preferred method of writing comics , indeed haven't been for decades, because that neither sells nor makes for an engaging story that appeals to all ages

It's useless to talk about Lee's classic stories , considered among the greatest comic stories even today , while very few of any of the pre crisis stories under Scwartz ( except some of the Batman stories ) quality wise make any top 10 or heck top 100 lists today

It's probably meaningless to point out that his biggest contribution , Flash of two worlds and the multiverse idea , was altogether abandoned by DC for 20 odd years , strangely coinciding with the only period in which they have consistently outsold marvel ( late 90s) and ahem ...Vertigo , their widely acclaimed series of super adult series

Yes , Schwartz was important no doubt . No doubt he influenced Lee ( and probably vice versa too ) just like Alan Moore inspired Morrison . Everyone has inspired someone else at some point or the other . But to talk about "importance " and to claim he was more *important* ...well I dunno . Is this a hipster thing ?

Are you going to do one about Siegel and Schuster being more important than Moore because they basically invented the American superhero comic ? Are you going to do one about Kane and Finger being more important than Miller because they basically invented the one street leveller to end all street levellers,the non powered hero who got there with training and Vengence alone ?

Is this going to be an actual thing ?

[The Dork Knight]

Actually sorry forget those Siegel/ Schuster and Kane/Finger references . What I actually meant was nietzsche and Gibson ( creator of the Shadow) . That should be hipster enough. I think.

[Shellhead]

It's probably meaningless to point out that his biggest contribution , Flash of two worlds and the multiverse idea , was altogether abandoned by DC for 20 odd years , strangely coinciding with the only period in which they have consistently outsold marvel ( late 90s) and ahem ...Vertigo , their widely acclaimed series of super adult series

The Flash of Two Worlds thing was actually the idea of Gardner Fox. And DC didn't abandon the concept of the multiverse for 20-odd years, they had annual team-ups between the JLA and JSA, which were later expanded to include other teams from other realities.

[The Dork Knight]

I'm talking about 1985-2006 ish

Edit : I actually have a huge collection of all those team ups right up to the crisis. Fun stuff .

[Shellhead]

I'm talking about 1985-2006 ish

Edit : I actually have a huge collection of all those team ups right up to the crisis. Fun stuff .

I see what you mean. I was thinking of a different time frame.

As to your other point, it's true that DC experienced a strong increase in sales post-Crisis. I think that had more to do with the quality of the writing than the non-existence of the Multiverse. Moore, Morrison, Ellis, Ennis, Ostrander, etc. Plus there were more than a few high-level defections from Marvel in the '80s, courtesy of Jim Shooter's autocratic style. 1985 was a game-changer for me. That was the year that I lost interest in Marvel and got much more interested in DC.

[Powerboy]

I have a great deal of respect for both Schwartz and Lee, but Lee did one very important things that had a major impact on comics:

Before the Fantastic Four, the overwhelming majority of comics were aimed at kids. As a result, most heroes lacked personality, and continuity was often irrelevant. Stan changed things by giving readers more flawed and realistic personalities who had ongoing stories instead of a series of isolated adventures.

Schwartz did some great things, but without Lee, comics would still be aimed at kids. We probably wouldn't have gotten the really great comics from guys like Alan Moore and Grant Morrison, and we might not even be here talking about comics at a site like CBR.

On that note, I remember that in his book, "Danse Macabre", Stephen King made a comment about Stan Lee. It's been decades since I read it but what it amounted to was: I know people make fun of Stan Lee for some things but he probably deserves more credit than any other single individual for bringing comic books out of the eight year old market and making the characters seem more real and to have some real depth.

Now, I (Powerboy) readily admit that this is meaningless in itself. There is nothing at all wrong with comic books being written for children. But what Lee did has had massive impact that has grown and grown as others have continued along that path and I think part of why he did it was because he saw where the market was going and had to go to survive.

On the other hand, Schwartz helped comics survive and thrive in the Silver Age and kept them alive for what Lee did. So it's very hard to judge something like this.

[Powerboy]

People have come into this thread with their minds made and no ones changing their opinions . It's futile to point out that as editor+writer Lee had at least as much importance as merely the editor Schwartz . Editors mean everything apparently and for those stories where good writers wrote er...good stories without the same editor , well "I just didn't read them , I don't care"
Is this going to be an actual thing ?

I know. Once you get into the, "Man builds on the shoulders of Man" argument, there's just nowhere to go with it.

No superhero character can be better than Superman because he's the original.

Nobody in a field can be more significant than those who went before him because they paved the way.

Those sorts of arguments are more a desire to see the earlier people being given due credit which they deserve and not forgotten.

It would help some if this was editor versus editor or writer versus writer rather than two people who were mostly in different aspects of the business.

[Totoro Man]

People have come into this thread with their minds made and no ones changing their opinions . It's futile to point out that as editor+writer Lee had at least as much importance as merely the editor Schwartz . Editors mean everything apparently and for those stories where good writers wrote er...good stories without the same editor , well "I just didn't read them , I don't care"


It's futile to point out that for all the talk of re-energising waning sales, Lee ALSO did the same, went past DC and built/turned a company that had nowhere near DC's sales into its direct rival , surpassing it in sales for decades to come

It's futile talking about Lee bringing realism and an adult audience to comics , that's apparently just an opinion , and not the way just about all comics are written today, as pointed out , probably the reason we even have this site while Scwartz' JLA and Superman stories are dated , and no longer the preferred method of writing comics , indeed haven't been for decades, because that neither sells nor makes for an engaging story that appeals to all ages

It's useless to talk about Lee's classic stories , considered among the greatest comic stories even today , while very few of any of the pre crisis stories under Scwartz ( except some of the Batman stories ) quality wise make any top 10 or heck top 100 lists today

It's probably meaningless to point out that his biggest contribution , Flash of two worlds and the multiverse idea , was altogether abandoned by DC for 20 odd years , strangely coinciding with the only period in which they have consistently outsold marvel ( late 90s) and ahem ...Vertigo , their widely acclaimed series of super adult series

Yes , Schwartz was important no doubt . No doubt he influenced Lee ( and probably vice versa too ) just like Alan Moore inspired Morrison . Everyone has inspired someone else at some point or the other . But to talk about "importance " and to claim he was more *important* ...well I dunno . Is this a hipster thing ?

Are you going to do one about Siegel and Schuster being more important than Moore because they basically invented the American superhero comic ? Are you going to do one about Kane and Finger being more important than Miller because they basically invented the one street leveller to end all street levellers,the non powered hero who got there with training and Vengence alone ?

Is this going to be an actual thing ?

well, you and Tanrage are perfectly good examples of two guys who have already made up their minds and won't back down. that's fine. it makes the debate more interesting to read if both sides genuinely believe they're right.

if you're merely using superhero comics as a point of reference then I would agree with much of what you've written here. however, superheroes are only a small portion of my total comics collection and experience-- so naturally I will disagree with Stan Lee's overall importance to the comics medium overall.

I don't think of Stan Lee as introducing "realism" to comics medium as whole. he simply brought it to the superhero genre. while that IA important-- it's misleading to suppose that he did this for the entire medium of comics. there were a lot of historical, romance, and western comics prior to Stan working in comics that showed elements of realism (both in terms of narrative and psychology).

it's just that Stan brought that same sort of psychological realism and naturalistic characterization to the superhero genre and used it on a larger scale; basically, he combined the superhero comic genre with the soap opera. he helped forge a shared world all these fun characters co-existed. and it was great. it wasn't really possible for that sort of sustained narrative to happen in romance and historical comics at the time.

it's not useless to talk about how great Stan Lee is... but different people are allowed to have differing opinions on just HOW great he really was. you appear to think Stan Lee is personally responsible for Marvel's ultimate success. you also seem to think of him as some sort of singular genius/auteur behind the Marvel comics revolution-- and I don't. never thought of him that way. I never will. I think of it more like the Beatles (you had three or four fantastic artists working on something together that transcended anything they could do by themselves)

actually, if you hadn't opened up with "no, just no" and declared that Stan Lee is a "household name" things might have turned out differently. you made some perfectly good points that would get overlooked because you opened up with a condescending attitude and conflated fame for importance. (while fame and importance can be related properties, they're not the same)

yeah, I nit-picked you quite a bit-- but I did the same thing to Tanrage as well. (I may have argued with him more)

everybody here agrees that Stan Lee is important. everybody here agrees that Julius Schwartz is important. it's just a question of how important do we consider them to be relative to each other and to the comics medium as a whole.

P.S. my bad for thinking it was Schwartz, and not Gardner Fox, that brought in the multi-verse idea. from introducing Batarangs, co-creating the Flash, and coming up with the Multi-verse, I guess Gardner Fox should get some more credit! (if I could just reach my Utility Belt!)

(am I the only one that has found this debate to be both fun and educational? STILL think this should have been an appreciation thread on the DC forum and not a rumble, though.)

[The Dork Knight]

I see what you mean. I was thinking of a different time frame.

As to your other point, it's true that DC experienced a strong increase in sales post-Crisis. I think that had more to do with the quality of the writing than the non-existence of the Multiverse. Moore, Morrison, Ellis, Ennis, Ostrander, etc. Plus there were more than a few high-level defections from Marvel in the '80s, courtesy of Jim Shooter's autocratic style. 1985 was a game-changer for me. That was the year that I lost interest in Marvel and got much more interested in DC.

While true , that could similarly be attributed to the writers not having to deal with the clutter of the multiverse and continuity issues , with the more streamlined " one important universe" Marvel format

What is undeniable is that Morrison et all wrote the kind of stories they did because they could inject realism in comics and tackle adult themes aimed at an adult audience ( especially the likes of Ennis with Vertigo ) . That the quality of their storytelling was so great is undeniably because they had stories with far more than one dimensional , continuity less , newspaper strip-esque heroes .....something again , Lee pioneered