Stan Lee has apparently fallen on hard times?

[huedell]

I have seen interviews with Stan where he said if Jack would have just once pipped up, things could have been different. ...If you aren't your own advocate, people will forget very quickly because they have their own thing going on. Jack wasn't about to rock the boat by pipping up, but he was entirely disappointed that people didn't instinctively see things his way.

And this notion is why I'll always have Lee's back. Even though I admit I may be backing the wrong horse, this just seems to be my reality... being outspoken is inherently going to make you a target through no fault of your own, and every fault of the introvert who clings to words like "common sense" and "politeness" as if those terms are unquestionably universal.

[Iron Mego]

Most of what I know, or think I know, of the Kirby stuff came from Evanier's book Kirby King of Comics. He definitely had an interesting life, one that many would probably envy, but he never had the financial security he so desperately wanted. Seems like he was constantly worried about how he would provide for his family.

[Hedji]

Good stuff and well articulated, Makernaut. Thanks.

[PNGwynne]

I enjoyed the Evanier link immensely--thanks, Makernaut.

[Makernaut]

There is some of this argument that suffers because we tend to want to apply what we know or what we assume to know NOW to how people should have behaved then. For instance, you NOW know this so Stan should have done X then and because he didn't, he's worthy of contempt. How do we know Stan knew that then? Did he have a crystal ball? You have to remember these were human beings, raised in the Depression. Their Worldview was completely different than ours. They rationalized and acted differently than what we consider to be reasonable in this day and age. Their work ethic was different and these were "funny books". And some of this is "if party A is good and was wronged, then party B was a complete tool", rather than all parties were rational human beings who might have been acting as best they could according to what they thought was reasonable.

I have seen interviews with Stan where he said if Jack would have just once pipped up, things could have been different. And I have read that Kirby was working in good faith and when he felt someone didn't come through for him, he could get angry and hold resentments. Heck, I know that feeling entirely. If you aren't your own advocate, people will forget very quickly because they have their own thing going on. Jack wasn't about to rock the boat by pipping up, but he was entirely disappointed that people didn't instinctively see things his way. This is a pretty basic workplace scenario really, although on a grander stage. And like all things, it's probably not a wild and interesting story unless you slap a black hat on one guy and a white hat on the other.

[Makernaut]

I must confess, I really don't know much about Kirby the man. What kind of temperament was he known for? Gentle? Combative? I just wonder what kind of personalities clashed or gelled to birth the alchemy that became the Marvel style.

That link in my post above your's could answer some of your questions in regards to that. As a teen, Mark Evanier worked as an assistant to Jack and was very close to Jack and his family for years. Short answer: Jack was a very sweet and hard working man.

[Hedji]

Thanks for the responses fellas. Sounds like sort of a Bill Finger thing.

I guess I've always admired the persona for so long. His was the voice inside my head reading all the yellow boxed narration. It's hard to hear that talent like Kirby was unappreciated or unfairly compensated. We will never know if Marvel would've come to be without Kirby or Ditko, but I'm reasonably certain it wouldn't have been the same without Stan Lee.

I think it's safe to assume Steve Ditko probably wasn't an easy person to work with. I must confess, I really don't know much about Kirby the man. What kind of temperament was he known for? Gentle? Combative? I just wonder what kind of personalities clashed or gelled to birth the alchemy that became the Marvel style.

[Makernaut]

I have read a lot from Mark Evanier on the subject over the years and he would know.... probably better than anyone on the planet (outside of Kirby/Ditko/Lee, of course). He's a guy that was around for a lot of it and has worked for both Kirby and Lee and corresponded with Ditko. Evanier has a pretty realistic take on it in my opinion, and it is consistently the middle road where it was always a collaboration, sometimes more Lee and sometimes more Kirby, but it was always a joint effort. As with all collaborations, the details as to who came up with what are always going to be murky. That's the way it works in all kinds of collaborative works: who really knows and when getting it straight from the horses' mouth...well, all of us like to be the hero of our own story so of course credit for who did EXACTLY what is going to be somewhat distorted. Also, Evanier has noted that in specific cases where one would be absolutely sure that it was Kirby (or Lee), there is concrete evidence that it was in fact, Lee (or Kirby). His bottom line is that both of them "have / had notoriously poor memories" and that "Lee-Kirby creations are Lee-Kirby creations".

https://www.newsfromme.com/writings/the-jack-faq/

[Earth 2 Chris]

It's definitely the Kirby angle more than anything. Kirby's importance was marginalized, all the while Stan still called him "King" and basically had him set the style of the books. But they wouldn't pay him, or give him a salaried job. And just shortly after Kirby left, they did the same things for guys like John Romita, who got that life-long position and stability Kirby so desperately wanted. Kirby even sided against fellow Golden Age creator Carl Burgos' claim on the Human Torch for Marvel, thinking they'd repay the favor. They didn't. And Stan apparently never went to bat for him with his relative Martin Goodman, who owned the company.

The Marvel method itself comes into play too, as to who did what. Was Stan heavily plotting the books with guys like Kirby and Ditko, or did he just give them a rough idea like "The FF fight Doctor Doom", leaving the artists to write and pace the story, for him to dialog later. This did indeed happen more frequently toward the end of his collaborations with Kirby and Ditko, but the question is when did this method REALLY start? When did Stan get so busy he was only really scripting other's stories? This all ties back into how much credit he took, or had applied to him, as he campaigned for comics-as-artform.

Chris

[palitoy]

That's it, by and large, Stan's campaigning to have comics be an art form and listing himself as the creator of _______ (even though he never shied from crediting the artists) are viewed by many as an ego trip.

Not to mention that his twilight years saw him happy, famous and wealthy while Kirby died without the true recognition or compensation he deserved.

I've actually had some decent conversations with people about why they love/loathe the man. Most of the time, it's totally civil and it can be an interesting debate. However lately, like everything else, it's turned into a politicized minefield of two sides unwilling to hear the other viewpoint.

[Iron Mego]

Because folks like Jack Kirby didn't get compensated or credited the way they should have.

Many complain that Stan took sole credit for the creation of many characters, and artists got paid day or page rates for the work they did.

From the little I've read about Kirby he had to fight to even be able to sell originals at conventions to make some extra money.

This is a very basic, and probably inaccurate, summary of the very convoluted history of Marvel comics.

[Hedji]

Would this be an appropriate place to ask (because I truly don't know), in a few sentences, what precisely are peoples' beef with Stan about? I guess I'm naive and always pictured him as a kindly comic book father figure who is enthusiastic about the heroes he wrote about. Can anyone distill down why he is hated?

[huedell]

Is Stan Lee despised by some because of jealousy? Yeah probably.

This has always been a sore spot for me... I think people like Stan Lee put out efforts that or may not be equal to those of a Kirby/Ditko, but inarguably a guy like Lee takes on most of the risk, and is inevitably eternally crucified for that no matter HOW true his intentions are.

Believe me when I say I happily default my final judgement to include the takes of those like certain individuals posting here who have followed Lee's/Marvel's exploits in real time since the 70's, but my gut says Lee couldn't win in the hearts of many no matter WHAT tact he took.

[palitoy]

It's sad that some of Lee's detractors can't be more humane, but I've also seen dyed-in-the-wool Lee fans resort to saying horrifying things about people. Seems like there's no debate online that can't instantly devolve into a tasteless mess.

I haven't actually witnessed any of that but I'm certain it exists. I think the thing that hung in my mind about the recent exchange was this particular individual was marketing himself as an authority but couldn't throw anything but homophobic slurs and insults into the debate.

[hedrap]

I understand it and it's certainly a topic for debate but it has taken this weird, almost dark turn it seems...


...This guy would dance on Lee's grave given the chance, I found that kind of horrifying considering that pop culture is supposed to be our escape, our happy place.

That's sad, pathetic and disturbed all in one shot.