True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee 6 6

[bluechip]

5 hours ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

@bluechipand @Prince Namor you both are very knowledgeable and I’ve enjoyed the lively discussion. Thank you @Prince Namorfor starting this topic

I like lively discussions, too, but sometimes these things devolve into a question about who is more willing to ignore their family and work obligations to post all day long, and it begins to feel like it does when you're walking away from a barking dog and you know the dog is convinced that you're walking away because, although you wanted to stay and try to out bark him, you just knew you weren't able to.  

[lordbyroncomics]

1 minute ago, piper said:

Well I've read Fourth World, Kamandi, Demon, Eternals, 70's CA and Black Panther... Kirby couldn't right a --script to save his life.

Yeah, again- that's not the point. You're probably right- Kirby didn't write as good of dialogue as Lee. Okay. This is not "who wrote better dialogue", it's "who obviously had the more creative imagination and created more concepts". The usual argument from Stan rationalizers is how bad Kirby's dialogue is. Place that aside because it's not the discussion. I will give Stan credit all day that, for a certain period, he was a great dialogue writer before settling in and never challenging himself again. Also, in the 'Stuf' Said' book by TwoMorrows, they point out that a couple months after Kirby left, Stan publicly in the Bullpen Bulletins solicits plot ideas from readers. I again just think the evidence is overwhelming that without people to give the basic idea, Stan didn't prosper. I love Stan. I wish he was still around. I just think saying he's an equal creator is wrong and immoral. 

[Prince Namor]

A while back someone brought up the 'Roz signing for Kirby' situation that occurred near the end of his life, as people were trying to milk him for all it was worth in his dying days... and I mentioned that Stan had much of the same thing. It was met with hostility of course, because for some - Stan can never be questioned. Most of what I had to go on was the whispers I'd heard from doing major conventions - roughly 5-6 a year for 4 years - and hearing people behind the scenes tell me things like, "Don't buy anything from Stan that you don't personally see him sign". 

When I questioned one of them what he meant by that, his response was, "You can figure it out."

That's not really proof, though I'm not sure how much less reliable it is than the same rumors started about Roz signing, but certainly the LEVEL of vulture that surrounded Stan over the last 20 years of his life is certainly much more sinister and... shady than anything close to what Jack experienced. There was certainly more opportunity to exploit his name and take advantage of fans and their need to relive the glory.

And then I read this in Reisman's book:

[Prince Namor]

2 hours ago, Ken Aldred said:

Orlando's style was more closely aligned with Wally Wood's than Kirby's, both of them being great EC science-fiction artists.  Both worked briefly on Daredevil, and I also wonder if Wood quickly lost patience with Lee for similar reasons?

Dick Ayers is another one whose work Stan signed his name too in the late 50's and this is what HE had to say: 

(with Roy Thomas in Alter-Ego Magazine): “Stan said, ‘I can’t think of a story for Sgt. Fury. We won’t have an issue unless you think of something.”

When Ayers requested a plot credit Stan told him, “Since when did you develop an ego? Get out of here!”

Ayers wrote a wordless story (And not a Word was Spoken) for Two-Gun Kid #61.

Ayers submitted a payment requisition to Stan for the plot feeling he should be paid more for writing the wordless story. Stan and Ayers argued, and Stan agreed to pay Ayers for five pages of lettering.

[porcupine48]

Marking to read after

[Ken Aldred]

2 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

Dick Ayers is another one whose work Stan signed his name too in the late 50's and this is what HE had to say: 

(with Roy Thomas in Alter-Ego Magazine): “Stan said, ‘I can’t think of a story for Sgt. Fury. We won’t have an issue unless you think of something.”

When Ayers requested a plot credit Stan told him, “Since when did you develop an ego? Get out of here!”

Ayers wrote a wordless story (And not a Word was Spoken) for Two-Gun Kid #61.

Ayers submitted a payment requisition to Stan for the plot feeling he should be paid more for writing the wordless story. Stan and Ayers argued, and Stan agreed to pay Ayers for five pages of lettering.

Not impressed by that attitude, as visual storytelling ability is just as important to comics as writing.  A paradigm of that would be Richard Corben, whose breakdown of the plot was so good that you could basically follow the story just by looking at the art, with the text giving extra detail, sure, but, even without using words, a talented comic artist can be just as much of a storyteller.  A shame to learn that Lee had no consideration for that.

[shadroch]

7 hours ago, BuscemasAvengers said:

This article is a must read in light of the book in question. Had no idea about how Maneely had died, and then (of course) the ensuing insinuations made by Kirby (as Riseman alleges, but Thomas questions and claims as a weak analysis on Riseman's part) that the overload of work Stan tossed toward Joe may have been a contributing factor!

Didn't Manleey die when he fell off a train following a night of drinking?  The story I heard was he went in between cars, perhaps to urinate, and he slipped and fell to his death. 

[BuscemasAvengers]

1 hour ago, shadroch said:

Didn't Manleey die when he fell off a train following a night of drinking?  The story I heard was he went in between cars, perhaps to urinate, and he slipped and fell to his death. 

The Wiki version (likely not too reliable) suggests that he did not have his glasses and that may have contributed to the slip.

[shadroch]

41 minutes ago, BuscemasAvengers said:

The Wiki version (likely not too reliable) suggests that he did not have his glasses and that may have contributed to the slip.

Did Stan steal his glasses?

[Lazyboy]

19 hours ago, bluechip said:

The author says he was objective and I believe that he believes he was objective, but by journalistic standards he just isn't

He editorializes often, based in large part on his personal opinion about the quality of Stan's work versus Jack's work sans each other and post Marvel's silver age.  One can easily and reasonably disagree, but he treats his opinion as an objective fact, and fails to recognize that he's comparing apples versus oranges when you're talking about non-comic projects (TV, movies, etc).   

The core of his assertion that Jack did it all starts with period quotes from Stan himself saying Jack was a "co-writer" (or "practically the co-writer).  After using that as proof of Jack's dominance, he points out that Stan later soft-pedaled Jack's contribution, which he did.  But Reisman's response to those quotes, and others, follows the same logic time and again.  Stan is presumed to have been lying 100% whenever he bragged or said other things Reisman liked, and presumed to be telling the truth 100% whenever he praised Jack or said other things he liked). 

He picks apart inconsistences in Stan's stories, no matter how small, but glosses over the inconsistences in Jack's accounts (and Jack's accounts were not just occasionally big lies but sometimes even bizarre, such as claiming that Stan "never wrote anything" or even "read books" or "knew anything" about history or mythology.  Anyone who knew Stan or even saw him on TV could easily tell you that Stan was very well read and could quote many long passages from books, and had an impressive knowledge of history and theology and mythology. 

Jack, and the book's author, claim Stan never wrote "any" complete scripts from scratch, completely ignoring the two decades Stan spent writing literally thousands of scripts prior to the implementation of the "Marvel method". 

He reluctantly admits that both Stan and Jack misrepresented things and then says, at one point, we should not discount the possibility that "one of them" might be lying 100% (and you can practically hear the author saying: "hint, hint, wink, wink, I mean Stan, in case you couldn't tell").  How can both men be lying, by his own account, and yet one of them is lying totally, while the other is telling the truth, totally?

In discussing the creation of the FF, he discusses the treatment/outline/whatever you wanna call it and also recounts that Stan and Jack and Martin Goodman met and discussed the plot and characters at some point.  Reisman says, try and follow this... that if Jack was not part of the discussion before Stan wrote the outline, that Jack is entitled to at least 50% of the credit (and probably more).  IF, on the other hand, Jack did attend a meeting with Lee and Goodman, prior to the writing of the outline, then Jack is entitled to 100% of the credit for the creation of the FF.  Read that again, and read it in the book.  If Stan and Martin Goodman discussed the FF prior to the writing of the outline, and Jack was in the room, then, Reisman concludes that Jack was and is entitled to 100% of the credit.  Not half the credit, with Stan.  And not 1/3 of the credit, split between Jack, Stan and Goodman.  Jack is presumed to have made 100% of all the creative things said in that room.  Reisman presents it is an unassailable fact that the other men simply could not, would not and did not contribute anything.  Any. Thing.   

I could go on about how that conversation may have followed one solely between Stan and Goodman, or about how there's all kinds of reasons to believe Goodman wanted a "Human Torch" character because Marvel already owned one.  And how all those men were aware of Plastic Man and Invisible Scarlet O'Neill, and how Timely had been doing stories about men being turned into monsters by accidents or exposure to chemicals, spores, rays and everything else (and how that was being done before Jack rejoined the company in 1958).  And I could go on about many other examples where Reisman strayed far over the line to editorialize and cherry-pick facts in such a way that it's clear he began the book with his conclusions in mind, and was swayed by that conclusion every step of the way.  As I said, I truly believe he thinks he was truly objective.  But in the end... he just wasn't.

The author says he was objective and I believe that he believes he was objective, but by journalistic standards he just isn't.  He editorializes often, based in large part on his personal opinion about the quality of Stan's work versus Jack's work sans each other and post Marvel's silver age.  One can easily and reasonably disagree, but he treats his opinion as an objective fact, and fails to recognize that he's comparing apples versus oranges when you're talking about non-comic projects (TV, movies, etc).   He quotes Stan as being the first and most prominent person to say Jack was a "co-writer" and, after using that as proof of Jack's dominance, says that Stan lied when he later soft-pedaled Jack's contribution (in other words, Stan is presumed to have bee lying whenever he said things the author liked, and presumed to be telling the truth whenever he said things the author liked). 

He picks apart inconsistences in Stan's stories, no matter how small, but glosses over the inconsistences in Jack's accounts (and Jack's accounts were not just occasionally big lies but sometimes even bizarre, such as claiming that Stan "never wrote anything" or even "read books" or "knew anything" about history or mythology.  Anyone who knew Stan or even saw him on TV could easily tell you that Stan was very well read and could quote many long passages from books, and had an impressive knowledge of history and theology and mythology. 

Jack, and the book's author, claim Stan never wrote "any" complete scripts from scratch, completely ignoring the two decades Stan spent writing literally thousands of scripts prior to the implementation of the "Marvel method". 

He reluctantly admits that both Stan and Jack misrepresented things and then says, at one point, we should not discount the possibility that "one of them" might be lying 100& (as the subtext screams: "hint, hint, wink, wink, I mean Stan, in case you couldn't tell").  How can both men be lying, by your own account, and yet one of them is lying totally, while the other is telling the truth, totally?

In discussing the creation of the FF, he discusses the treatment/outline/whatever you wanna call it and also recounts that Stan and Jack and Martin Goodman met and discussed the plot and characters at some point.  Reisman says, try and follow this... that if Jack was not part of the discussion before Stan wrote the outline, that Jack is entitled to at least 50% of the credit (and probably more).  IF, on the other hand, Jack did attend a meeting with Lee and Goodman, prior to the writing of the outline, then Jack is entitled to 100% of the credit for the creation of the FF.  Read that again, and read it in the book.  If Stan and Martin Goodman discussed the FF prior to the writing of the outline, and Jack was in the room, then, Reisman concludes that Jack was and is entitled to 100% of the credit.  Half half the credit, with Stan.  Not 1/3 of the credit, split between Jack, Stan and Goodman.  100%.  He presumes, unabashedly (and editorializing to the moon and back) that the other men simply could not, would not and did not contribute anything.  Any. Thing.   

I could go on about how that conversation may have followed one solely between Stan and Goodman, or about how there's all kinds of reasons to believe Goodman wanted a "Human Torch" character because Marvel already owned one.  And how all those men were aware of Plastic Man and Invisible Scarlet O'Neill, and how Timely had been doing stories about men being turned into monsters by accidents or exposure to chemicals, spores, rays and everything else (and how that was being done before Jack rejoined the company in 1958).  And I could go on about many other examples where Reisman strayed far over the line to editorialize and cherry-pick facts in such a way that it's clear he began the book with his conclusions in mind, and was swayed by that conclusion every step of the way.  And I could lay out how his conclusion was foregone and apparently made well before he started researching the book, because he'd made that conclusion in an article for Vulture which provided the origin story for this book.  I could point out how he references that article, with obvious pride, as something that he'd heard Stan was irked by.  I could point out how he says repeatedly he wasn't looking to do a takedown, then would say a short time later that it was goal to point out "there are no superheroes" and, more importantly, to get people to reassess Stan's legacy.   

Much of the journalistic work is well researched and sourced, and well written.  And, to repeat, I truly believe he thinks he and the book are truly objective.  But in the final analysis... they just aren't.  

Stan's dead. The smell must be terrible... and how did you manage to get your nose in there?

[NoMan]

I just bought this book. I have about 4 stacks of books before I get to it. In several years I will give you all a book report!

[littlebull]

Does this book or any book for that matter cover the Jack Kirby Original Art drama from the 80's?

[Prince Namor]

16 hours ago, littlebull said:

Does this book or any book for that matter cover the Jack Kirby Original Art drama from the 80's?

It doesn't really address it, but it's another example of where Stan could've used his power to help Jack and didn't.

Not sure, right off hand if any book covers it in complete detail, but these two articles should give you a pretty clear guide:

http://www.tcj.com/kirby-and-goliath-the-fight-for-jack-kirbys-marvel-artwork/

https://twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/19stolen.html

[Prince Namor]

And the Comics Journal review of the book:

“…Into Some Loathsome Pit!” Notes on True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee."

http://www.tcj.com/into-some-loathsome-pit-notes-on-true-believer-the-rise-and-fall-of-stan-lee/

Opening summary: "In his attempts to appear fair to his subject, Abraham Riesman often skews toward being overly kind to Stan Lee in True Believer: The Rise And Fall Of Stan Lee, his mostly well-researched, cumulatively nauseating biography of the late Marvel figurehead. To be sure, Riesman does not erect a shiny tent for worship as most of Lee's previous biographers have. Instead, he digs a grimy evidential sinkhole as he details how Lee abused his most productive artist partners Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko, as well as all of the other artists who worked by the Marvel Method, by making it so he and Marvel's other copywriters took not only full writing credit, but also full writing pay, for years--for stories that the artists were the primary writers of."

 

"Now that Ditko and Lee are pushing up daisies and the Kirbys have money to burn, the truth might seem moot to some who don't want their child-brains bruised...."

Lol

 

[Prince Namor]

"Some of Lee's contributions to Marvel's success are indisputably significant, and Riesman does not discount those: he details Lee's skills as a promoter; as an editor and art director with a grasp of what makes for clear, exciting comics storytelling; as an office manager with a talent for gladhandling artists; and as a copywriter and blurbist with a knack for punchy titles, clichéd soap operatics, glib humor and sly catchphrases. And Riesman offers some unique insights in that area: for example, he points to Lee's service during World War 2 as a stateside writer of propaganda films as being the major inspiration for the style of his editorial voice at Marvel in Bullpen Bulletins pronouncements, letters pages, and captioned asides throughout Marvel's stories in the 1960s. These and Lee's more unique bits of wordsmithing like the campy archaic-ish dialogue in Thor were part of why Marvel Comics were such fun and made us all feel part of something cool."

[Randall Ries]

On 3/10/2021 at 4:05 PM, mrc said:

I don't think that's true, certainly not by me anyway. However, after looking at several reviews for this book the one comment that seemed to sum up the consensus was, "There is a nasty tone throughout the book which will become glaringly obvious to objective readers, but appeal to, and reinforce the views of those who want to believe the worst."........

Read Albert Goldman's book "Elvis". There was an entertainer who remains the most recognizable and influential icon in American music. Everything is likely true in Goldman's book give or take. It's the way it was told that bothered me. While mocking EP for being a human, he also mocked the fans for supporting him. It was clear Goldman hated BOTH subjects he wrote about, Jon Lennon and Elvis Presley. So, although informative, I had to wade through and try to set aside the harsh judgments he was laying down in both books. Even Elvis had said during his lifetime "The image is one thing and the human being is another. It's very hard to live up to an image, put it that way."

[Randall Ries]

On 3/13/2021 at 2:19 PM, Prince Namor said:

A while back someone brought up the 'Roz signing for Kirby' situation that occurred near the end of his life, as people were trying to milk him for all it was worth in his dying days... and I mentioned that Stan had much of the same thing. It was met with hostility of course, because for some - Stan can never be questioned. Most of what I had to go on was the whispers I'd heard from doing major conventions - roughly 5-6 a year for 4 years - and hearing people behind the scenes tell me things like, "Don't buy anything from Stan that you don't personally see him sign". 

When I questioned one of them what he meant by that, his response was, "You can figure it out."

That's not really proof, though I'm not sure how much less reliable it is than the same rumors started about Roz signing, but certainly the LEVEL of vulture that surrounded Stan over the last 20 years of his life is certainly much more sinister and... shady than anything close to what Jack experienced. There was certainly more opportunity to exploit his name and take advantage of fans and their need to relive the glory.

And then I read this in Reisman's book:

Again I bring up Elvis Presley. It was clear to most around him he had given up. The end was close. So, the vultures go into overdrive. Milk it out. Get in as many shows as possible. Ask the "boss" for as much loot as possible. Gravy train nearing the end of the line. In fact, Presley was worth more dead than alive as it turned out.

[mrc]

On 3/30/2021 at 2:40 PM, Prince Namor said:

And the Comics Journal review of the book:

“…Into Some Loathsome Pit!” Notes on True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee."

http://www.tcj.com/into-some-loathsome-pit-notes-on-true-believer-the-rise-and-fall-of-stan-lee/

Opening summary: "In his attempts to appear fair to his subject, Abraham Riesman often skews toward being overly kind to Stan Lee in True Believer: The Rise And Fall Of Stan Lee, his mostly well-researched, cumulatively nauseating biography of the late Marvel figurehead. To be sure, Riesman does not erect a shiny tent for worship as most of Lee's previous biographers have. Instead, he digs a grimy evidential sinkhole as he details how Lee abused his most productive artist partners Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko, as well as all of the other artists who worked by the Marvel Method, by making it so he and Marvel's other copywriters took not only full writing credit, but also full writing pay, for years--for stories that the artists were the primary writers of."

 

"Now that Ditko and Lee are pushing up daisies and the Kirbys have money to burn, the truth might seem moot to some who don't want their child-brains bruised...."

Lol

 

A hatchet job review of a hatchet job book........pitiful. 

[Randall Ries]

3 hours ago, mrc said:

A hatchet job review of a hatchet job book........pitiful. 

Perhaps. I haven't read the book. I can't say one way or the other. What I DO know is Lee became much more insistent he was the creator of everything in the Marvel Universe as he aged. He didn't correct people very often and seemed content to let the reviewers and interviewers what they wanted to believe: That he was the creative driving force of all of those characters. If it were otherwise, we would have a slew of taped interviewers with Lee defending the artists as creators and every bit as important as an editor. Moreso. We don't see too many of those. I haven't, anyway.

And the review isn't out of line with much of what we know about the comic book industry at large. Was Neal Adams wrong for demanding Siegel and Shuster be paid? And for adding the byline "Created By" in every issue of Superman comics? I don't think so. They created a character that made a lot of people extremely wealthy. Even resisting the idea they should be well compensated, legalities or not, is poor form. Calling it "business" doesn't make it right. Heck. I'M still sore about the whole Wolverine thing. That man would actually created Wolverine could probably make a decent case for royalties if he chose to. And that was just an example of how the comic book industry isn't that much different than any other huge business.

So, sure. I can believe the artists were shafted. How they kept hanging on for a piece of the pie that never really got served outside of lawsuits and bickering. I can see favoritism probably existed in the ranks. And I can certainly see Stan Lee as a total manipulator. Even as a kid reading comics it was obvious. It may not have been karma per se, but what comes around sometimes indeed comes around. Stan may have gotten a taste of payback for whatever devil he made a deal with.

[kav]

Whatever you can say about Stan Lee it was obvious he wrote the books.  Proof of this is the books Kirby and Ditko wrote-they were nothing like the snappy punchy writing of the SA Marvel books.  The Marvel Method is in my mind the hardest way to write-filling in caption boxes and word balloons to create a story that made sense working on already drawn panels.