Stan Lee

[cormano]

What does everyone think of Stan Lee? As a creator, writer, spokesman for comics, etc. I've gone through a few different phases with him. When I was a kid, I got a hold of a copy of Origins of the Marvel Super Heroes and read it over and over. I was convinced that Stan Lee was the greatest comic book writer ever. This was around age 7… then I got into Image.

I didn't read any of his stuff again for many years and when I finally did… I hated it. It was so simple and yet over written. That was a few years ago in the form of a couple various Essential trades.

Then, about a year ago, I gave the Essential trades another shot and this time, I fell back in love. Yeah, they're simple, goofy and antiquated, but they have a certain charm. The continuity he created, the influence the stories have had… it's all stuff that to a new reader would be meaningless, but at this point in my comic book reading career, I can really appreciate it.

I've also discovered that he improved a lot as time went on. I've read about 60 issues each of his Spider-Man and Thor runs and the later stories are leaps and bounds above the early ones.

I wasn't familiar with the controversy about him not giving credit and/or payment to artists until recently and am still not certain of the details, honestly. Anyone who knows more, I'd love hear it. I have a hard time believing he is really the one to blame as far as payment goes, though.

Now, with all that said, I think he's a terrible spokesman for comics at this point. All the things I said about his charm and goofiness that I love… are really misleading and harmful to comics' mainstream acceptance. Plus, that Who Wants To Be A Super Hero show is really lame…

[luthor]

I love Stan. I don't think his writing really got better, so much as he started caring less about who read his material and stopped aiming it at children. Stan is the perfect face for comics. He's kooky and slightly left of center but extremely intelligent, incredibly well spoken and can be deadly serious on the drop of a dime(not to mention cool in a different kind of way). I'd love to see the Ditkos and Kirbys get their fair share and credit but that doesn't diminish what Stan did.

[comhcinc]

Now, with all that said, I think he's a terrible spokesman for comics at this point. All the things I said about his charm and goofiness that I love… are really misleading and harmful to comics' mainstream acceptance. Plus, that Who Wants To Be A Super Hero show is really lame…

i couldn't disagree more. stan is an awesome showman. comcis shouldn't be worried about "mainstream acceptance" any more than it hads to. his show was the only reality show i ever like. it had a postive message unlike ever other show.

[xyzzy]

Honestly, I don't think that he is or ever was a very good writer.

He's an idea man who was in the right place at the right time, and he had the personality to sell those ideas.

[ryan79]

If I was given the chance to hang out with one person for a day, Stan Lee would be the first person on that list.

No matter what one thinks of his writing prowess, you have to admit that he genuinely loves comic books and his enthusiasm is infectious. He has a charm and charisma that makes you want to listen to him. After hearing a Stan Lee interview, I WANT to read comics. Sure, I'm probably not going to reach for some super-serious indie book, but that's ok. Sometimes a superhero foiling the nefarious evil-doer is just what I need.

And I never feel patronized when he calls fans "true believers", because when he says it, by God, I AM a true-believer. The guys an institution. A living piece of pop culture. A living piece of OUR culture.

Excelsior!

[cormano]

If I was given the chance to hang out with one person for a day, Stan Lee would be the first person on that list.

No matter what one thinks of his writing prowess, you have to admit that he genuinely loves comic books and his enthusiasm is infectious. He has a charm and charisma that makes you want to listen to him. After hearing a Stan Lee interview, I WANT to read comics. Sure, I'm probably not going to reach for some super-serious indie book, but that's ok. Sometimes a superhero foiling the nefarious evil-doer is just what I need.

And I never feel patronized when he calls fans "true believers", because when he says it, by God, I AM a true-believer. The guys an institution. A living piece of pop culture. A living piece of OUR culture.

Excelsior!
I totally agree with this. All I mean in saying that he's not a good spokesman is that he doesn't represent what comics are today. I love the 60's Batman tv show, too but I wouldn't want someone to base their opinions on DC comics on that. That isn't really a fair comparison, Stan really did have a lot to do with what comics have become but to an outsider he probably just seems like a goofy old man.

Honestly, I made this thread expecting to see more bashing than praise for Stan, I'm pleasantly surprised to see most people sticking up for him. It seems to have become far too popular to bash him. Yeah, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko are great, but read their later work and try to tell me that they could have created the Marvel Universe without The Man. The collaborators deserve equal credit as far as I'm concerned. I think in the past, maybe Stan got all the credit and in recent years there are people trying to say the artists deserve all the credit but it seems that neither is really fair.

[esophagus]

Whether you like Stan's writing or not, it's undeniable that he is a visionary, with a huge passion for his industry. He is responsible for the creation of the greater part of the Marvel Universe. That is something that you have to appreciate. I admire his creativity and enthusiasm, and wouldn't get rid of him for the world. Everyone who has ever accomplished anything was in the "right place at the right time", but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be happy they were there. Stan has done some great things.

[luthor]

Yeah, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko are great, but read their later work and try to tell me that they could have created the Marvel Universe without The Man. The collaborators deserve equal credit as far as I'm concerned.

In all fairness, Stan has had his share of shit too. Ravage 2099 was horrible. I've heard the Stan Lee/DC stuff was bad but I never read it. A lot of people would fight you to the death saying Kirby never did anything without Stan.

[comhcinc]

lets not forget that Stan changed the writing style of comics.

[cormano]

In all fairness, Stan has had his share of shit too. Ravage 2099 was horrible. I've heard the Stan Lee/DC stuff was bad but I never read it. A lot of people would fight you to the death saying Kirby never did anything without Stan.

Yeah, I haven't read Ravage 2099 but I skimmed that DC stuff at the shop and it looked awful. Kirby did some incredible stuff without Stan… as far as art but I haven't read anything that he's written that held up at all for me. I'd like to check out more stuff if anyone has suggestions but the stuff I've read from Fourth World was tough to get through.

[tad]

Kirby, Ditko, Heck, Ayers and the rest deserve lots of credit in working out the stories with Stan. My guess is that the cosmic slant of the FF largely came from Kirby because it's throughout his later ideas too.

But I agree that Kirby and Ditko were less fun without Stan. I enjoyed the craziness of the the Fourth World books when they came out but they lacked the humor of early Marvel.

But you can argue that the artists deserve "co-creator" credits on the characters but one thing that Stan created was Marvel Comics. It was Stan's relationship with the readers, in the letter columns, on the Bullpen Pages and in Stan's Soapbox that the Marvel Maniac mentality was forged. Stan gets 100% credit for that and it was no small accomplishment.

[moneytime]

ok, ok, ok.
Stan Lee has gotten some bad press and for all I know it could be accurate, but there is no denying the enormous impact he has had in the comic book industry. I mean that's an obvious statement, but I guess what I'm trying to say is there seems to be no forgiveness for hugely influential people when they do something negative in the eye of the media. As soon as there is any kind of negative buzz or accusation, all of the iconic greatness seems to be instantly forgotten.

People have a hard time seeing the "just human" factor so much of the time. Lest we forget Lee was the man who gave the world heroes with flaws and was brave enough to express a social commentary on issues that were relevent and important. I'm not saying Kirby, Ditko, Everett and others were not key players in all of this but Lee never said that either, actually.

As far as the actual quality of his work and writing, I do think it improved over time. Maybe evolved with the times would be a better description. It was very styleized and explanitory in the beginning because that's how comics were. It wasn't that he lacked talent.
If you think about how old movies looked and sounded, it's a world of difference between then and now, but it doesn't mean the actors and directors were bad back then, that's just how it was. It's a similar concept.

Bottom line, I will always look up to and be amazed at greatness that is Stan Lee.

[cormano]

You can say he just evolved with the times, but I think he was a big part of the reason that things were evolving and the later stories were better, in my opinion, so I'd still say he was improving.

[mikegraham6]

In all fairness, Stan has had his share of shit too. Ravage 2099 was horrible. I've heard the Stan Lee/DC stuff was bad but I never read it. A lot of people would fight you to the death saying Kirby never did anything without Stan.

i love stan to death but i can't go back and read any of his stuff, it's just not why i came back to comics. I like the new style far too much. if i ever go back to older books it's mainly for the art rather than story. His style just doesn't hold up nowadays (ever read The Last Fantastic Four Story he did with JRJR? pure garbage)
that being said, i appreciate his work immensely i can appreciate it for what it was at the time, entertainment for children. in that regard, Stan was the best, ever compare his stuff to the DC stuff that came out at the same time? The DC stuff basically talks down to the readers, while stan's is simple yet complex at the same time. the best stuff for it's time, it's just not for me...

[quentin]

(ever read The Last Fantastic Four Story he did with JRJR? pure garbage)

It was a bit unnecessary, but I can't lie, I enjoy the experience of reading a Stan Lee story. He was such a public face & voice for Marvel, when ever I read one of his books, I can imagine him narrating the entire thing. I agree when people say that he doesn't represent modern comic books, but he certainly did for a 2-3 decades.

I found myself starting to not like Stan, when everything article or interview I had read were nearly identical, I thought he came off as kind of a robot. There were a few things I caught this year though, that have restored my fondness. The latest issue of Alter Ego is dedicated to Stan Lee to celebrate his 85th birthday. Roy Thomas address' the issue of those same old interviews, putting it on the interviewers for not asking new questions, and reminding people that the things they are asking about are typically monumental events, and they only happened one way.

I also got Stan Lee Mutants & Monsters off of Netflix, and while it didn't blow my mind, I think Kevin Smith did ask some original and intriguing questions. The episode of Dinner for Five I caught on YouTube, where Smith guest-hosted for Jon Favreau, showed a nice side of Stan as well though it was brief. Smith sets up a panel with Jason Lee, Stan Lee, Mark Hamill, & JJ Abrams. It was the warmth, and appreciation for the other guests Stan showed that really got me.

[drwally]

I've gone back and forth on this for the past several years, and I think I may have settled on my view, especially after hearing Denny O'Neil talk about his relationship as a writer with his editor, Julius Schwartz. In the early 90s, I met Jack Kirby in person, and he said in effect: "None of that was Stan Lee. That was either Steve Ditko or me." However, I think in hindsight that bitterness was an inevitable and regrettable byproduct of the ownership issues with regard to characters, which essentially resulted in the emmergence of creator owned titles and the Big Two then establishing lines like Vertigo to give the creators more of a stake and more creative freedom. You just cannot take the Lee/Kirby/Ditko controversy out of context - that was the time, that was the era, that was what shaped it, leading to what we have now.

The Denny O'Neil interview (on Around Comics) made me see Stan Lee in a new light - not as a writer, but as an editor, way beyond what the term "editor" means in the narrow sense of the word. O'Neil makes the comparison of Lee to Schwartz, and says this was their strength - They would says something like, "Here is the general idea of a book either not selling well or something we want to try selling, what can you do with it? I trust you, make something good." At a time when Marvel/Timely/Atlas whatever was about to go out of business, rather than cling to or rework old cliches, Stan Lee hired two men - Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko (and later Roy Thomas), and gave them the kind of range and creative freedom they would never find anywhere else at that time. So really his eye for talent, then setting that talent free to do what they wanted, was really what birthed Marvel and caused an incredible thing - a viable competitor to DC that made DC look incredibly old hat at the time. We'll never know for sure, but I'm thinking Stan got plenty of his own "bull" into the "bullpen" sessions that shaped and formed the FF, Spider-Man and all the rest. That was his greatest achievement - hire the talent that needed hiring, then set them free. His greatest fault? Writing too much overwritten text where it wasn't needed, and claiming lots of credit - but as Tad says, Stan Lee using his own persona to make a direct conduit to the readers so thereby boosting fan loyalty is a 100% Stan Lee innovation in comics, undeniable.

As for giving credit where credit is due - let's not forget it was Stan Lee that started the practice of giving credit to the artist, inker, letterer, etc., at a time when not even the artists and writers were frequently not given credit at all. Sure it was a selling gimmick - make superstars out of the artists - but it also gave them credit, and encouraged the artists to develop an original style that distinguished them.

So, from an old Jack Kirby partisan, that's my view, or at least what I'm thinking now.... There are plenty of things Stan should be embarrassed about -- even in the late 60s and 70s Roy Thomas had to argue with Stan to bring in some of Marvel's best talent because Stan was already starting to become a bit out of touch. But, as someone said, it's part of being "all too human," and that is the touch that came out of a LOT of books that had Stan Lee's name on it, at a time when that was missing in comics in a really big way.

[gungadin]

I dunno... I can't really read him... The ideas are all there and they're brilliant... But the actual writing is just... I can't take it very seriously. It doesn't sound how people talk or people think... You could say that, to me, it's all lost in translation. I prefer the more modern vernacular of popular culture... So I can't ever really go and read it (and I didn't start with him... so...)

[drwally]

I dunno... I can't really read him... The ideas are all there and they're brilliant... But the actual writing is just... I can't take it very seriously. It doesn't sound how people talk or people think... You could say that, to me, it's all lost in translation. I prefer the more modern vernacular of popular culture... So I can't ever really go and read it (and I didn't start with him... so...)

Yeah, that's the thing, you really hit it. When I was growing up, books written by Stan Law was the best their was, almost. A lot of the affection, or maybe understanding the affection, comes from living during that time. I love Golden Age and Silver Age stuff, I love the characters, I love to spend hours gazing at the art, but I can't actually really read it now. When I do find something that is very readable still today, like the Sandman from about 1940 (guy in the suit and gas mask), it is really remarkable.

[esophagus]

The Denny O'Neil interview (on Around Comics) made me see Stan Lee in a new light - not as a writer, but as an editor, way beyond what the term "editor" means in the narrow sense of the word.That's the way I've always thought of Stan. He isn't even close to the worst writer around, but his writing also isn't the reason we have the universe we do today. We have that because of Stan Lee's creative mind and editting skills. He came form a very different time in comics, where they were a very different thing. I don't think I enjoy any writing from that time frame, but Stan's is at the top of the bottom. A large part of that is because of his editting rather than any actual writing skill.

[comhcinc]

i like Stan's writing, but i am also a fan of the golden age and silver age stuff in general. i understand why people don't still read stan's stuff, but i think it is important to understand that without stan lee, comics would not be what they are today.

think of all the writers who grew up on stan's stuff. he influranced everything that came after him.

every seen a '57 chevy? it is one hell of a car. every drove one? even the cheapest thing made today drives better than that ol' belair. my point is you can still respect the art without having to enjoy it.

[gungadin]

i like Stan's writing, but i am also a fan of the golden age and silver age stuff in general. i understand why people don't still read stan's stuff, but i think it is important to understand that without stan lee, comics would not be what they are today.

think of all the writers who grew up on stan's stuff. he influranced everything that came after him.

every seen a '57 chevy? it is one hell of a car. every drove one? even the cheapest thing made today drives better than that ol' belair. my point is you can still respect the art without having to enjoy it.

I get that. I said before I respect the genius and ingenuity of his work... Fantastic Four, Spider-man, Hulk, Daredevil... All that. He did come up with these and these are all great ideas and great stories... But that doesn't mean that he is necessarily a good dialoguer...

My friend who writes has the same problem. His characters talk speeches to one another (not unlike Stan's purple proseness) and it's not very realistic. That's why I like Joss Whedon or Brian K. Vaughan... They have such great dialogue for their characters while making it snappy or lengthy... Stan Lee's work I look at and just see huge blocks of text... and it's not for me...

I respect his genius and what he did for the comic industry as a whole... We should be paying him weekly... But that doesn't mean I'm going to write him...

It's like kid's shows like Sesame Street. I love Sesame Street and I did used to watch it, but I don't now because, quite frankly, it doesn't appeal to me for a variety of reasons... But I can still recognize quality in thought and idea and goal.

Also good example is The Hulk. I've never really been a huge fan of the Hulk at all. I've thought about reading Planet Hulk and I read World War Hulk... But it just isn't my bag... I recognize quality there... But it's not for me... (Much like the Silver Age... but that's another topic)

[chris-neseman]

Comics to Baseball comparisons.
Because it all comes back to baseball...

Will Eisner = Abner Doubleday
Stan Lee = Babe Ruth
Jack Kirby = Lou Gehrig
Julius Schwartz = Stan Musial
Mort Weisinger = Ty Cobb

[cormano]

I've gone back and forth on this for the past several years, and I think I may have settled on my view, especially after hearing Denny O'Neil talk about his relationship as a writer with his editor, Julius Schwartz. In the early 90s, I met Jack Kirby in person, and he said in effect: "None of that was Stan Lee. That was either Steve Ditko or me." However, I think in hindsight that bitterness was an inevitable and regrettable byproduct of the ownership issues with regard to characters, which essentially resulted in the emmergence of creator owned titles and the Big Two then establishing lines like Vertigo to give the creators more of a stake and more creative freedom. You just cannot take the Lee/Kirby/Ditko controversy out of context - that was the time, that was the era, that was what shaped it, leading to what we have now.

The Denny O'Neil interview (on Around Comics) made me see Stan Lee in a new light - not as a writer, but as an editor, way beyond what the term "editor" means in the narrow sense of the word. O'Neil makes the comparison of Lee to Schwartz, and says this was their strength - They would says something like, "Here is the general idea of a book either not selling well or something we want to try selling, what can you do with it? I trust you, make something good." At a time when Marvel/Timely/Atlas whatever was about to go out of business, rather than cling to or rework old cliches, Stan Lee hired two men - Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko (and later Roy Thomas), and gave them the kind of range and creative freedom they would never find anywhere else at that time. So really his eye for talent, then setting that talent free to do what they wanted, was really what birthed Marvel and caused an incredible thing - a viable competitor to DC that made DC look incredibly old hat at the time. We'll never know for sure, but I'm thinking Stan got plenty of his own "bull" into the "bullpen" sessions that shaped and formed the FF, Spider-Man and all the rest. That was his greatest achievement - hire the talent that needed hiring, then set them free. His greatest fault? Writing too much overwritten text where it wasn't needed, and claiming lots of credit - but as Tad says, Stan Lee using his own persona to make a direct conduit to the readers so thereby boosting fan loyalty is a 100% Stan Lee innovation in comics, undeniable.

As for giving credit where credit is due - let's not forget it was Stan Lee that started the practice of giving credit to the artist, inker, letterer, etc., at a time when not even the artists and writers were frequently not given credit at all. Sure it was a selling gimmick - make superstars out of the artists - but it also gave them credit, and encouraged the artists to develop an original style that distinguished them.

So, from an old Jack Kirby partisan, that's my view, or at least what I'm thinking now.... There are plenty of things Stan should be embarrassed about -- even in the late 60s and 70s Roy Thomas had to argue with Stan to bring in some of Marvel's best talent because Stan was already starting to become a bit out of touch. But, as someone said, it's part of being "all too human," and that is the touch that came out of a LOT of books that had Stan Lee's name on it, at a time when that was missing in comics in a really big way.
Awesome post.

Comics to Baseball comparisons.
Because it all comes back to baseball...

Will Eisner = Abner Doubleday
Stan Lee = Babe Ruth
Jack Kirby = Lou Gehrig
Julius Schwartz = Stan Musial
Mort Weisinger = Ty Cobb
I wish I knew enough about baseball to get this.

[briangilmore]

I agree with everyone who disses Stan Lee.

Also:

Fuck Thomas Edison for not inventing the computer!

Einstein was an idiot with no vision for consequences

Thomas Jefferson should have just pre-thought of all the amendments we've made to our constitution and what the Declaration of Independence would mean in the long run.

Oh, and fuck the discovery of fire. We should've started with lasers.

*ends sarcasm*

Meeting Stan was like meeting a grandfather I had never met, but always known. He is a living icon of the medium we all love the most and his contributions to that, to science fiction, to fantasy and to the world of stories we never dreamed imaginable in the tone they currently exist are key, important, and absolutely amazing.

Also, The Last Fantastic Four story was absolutely great and a nice breath of fresh air from the crossovers, the continuity heavy bullshit, the intricacies of comic continuity, and was a simpler, GREAT story told in a concise and beautifully structured manner.

Love it and when that man dies I will cry.