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

[lordbyroncomics]

On 3/31/2021 at 5:36 PM, Randall Ries said:

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.

 

There's a component to this not often talked about in that, Stan became more insistent because his employers- the corporate owners of Marvel (first Perfect Film/Cadence, than New World, than Disney, etc. etc.) had it in their best interests that Stan claim "sole creator" status- it protected their investment. Stan was all too happy to go along with it and say he was a company man, he understood they owned it, blah blah blah- so long as he received status and a healthy guaranteed salary to be himself and push the narrative. 

[lordbyroncomics]

On 3/31/2021 at 9:27 AM, Randall Ries said:

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."

With respect, never read Albert Goldman's book "Elvis". The reason for this is simple: so much of it is sensationalized and fictionalized for often curious, unknown reasons, the same thing he did with his Lennon biography. Again, I have to stress- I don't down this book because I am a fan of Elvis and can't stand any mean or unflattering things said about him- far from it- but because it is made up.

Peter Guralnick's 2 volume comprehensive biography about Elvis is completely factual and extremely thorough. So much context you didn't know, about the Colonel, about the structure of Elvis's live arrangements, and so forth. Oddly enough. Roy Thomas and I spoke about this specific bio around the time an Elvis mini-series came on tv. All I remember about that was that Rose McGowan played Ann-Margaret. 

[lordbyroncomics]

On 3/31/2021 at 9:33 AM, Randall Ries said:

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.

I believe he hadn't "given up" insomuch as "stopped trying" and "settled". He had a young child still and was severely affected by longtime abuse of prescription drugs which clouded his judgment and gave him the rationale that he was invincible and could control his addictions. I've talked to James Burton, Cissy Houston and Joe Esposito who all told me Elvis wasn't giving up and letting himself die, he was just more undisciplined because the crowds didn't stop coming. (Even if they said the tabloids commenting on his appearance hurt him a lot)

 

Sorry to get into Elvis. Back to the Stan book. I believe Stan "dumbed down" Kirby's inventive and forward-pushing thoughts and he often diluted Jack's intentions for the Invisible Woman (for example) to make her less proactive and more "Oh Reed". I also realize it's all subjective and I still like a lot of stuff Stan did dialogue for and the general tone of the books from 1963-1967. I still think he stole credit for being an idea/creations guy instead of just being a really great editor and salesman and dialogue writer.

I also thought this statement was made well:

"The fact of the matter is that not only was Kirby a writer, he was a great writer in a medium where dreadful writing is common. One of the main reasons super hero comic book fans detest Kirby’s writing is because it isn’t anything like what they are used to reading. Kirby’s writing has been widely praised by novelists like Harlan Ellison, Glen David Gold, Jonathan Lethem, Michael Chabon, and Neil Gaiman. Comic book writer Grant Morrison has compared Kirby to William Blake, and commented comics fans who don’t appreciate Kirby’s writing simply don’t have Kirby’s “reading list.”—Patrick Ford, 15 August 2011.

 

[Randall Ries]

1 hour ago, wisbyron said:

I believe he hadn't "given up" insomuch as "stopped trying" and "settled". He had a young child still and was severely affected by longtime abuse of prescription drugs which clouded his judgment and gave him the rationale that he was invincible and could control his addictions. I've talked to James Burton, Cissy Houston and Joe Esposito who all told me Elvis wasn't giving up and letting himself die, he was just more undisciplined because the crowds didn't stop coming. (Even if they said the tabloids commenting on his appearance hurt him a lot)

 

Seems like I have read several accounts he questioned his very existence and couldn't understand why he was so "Christ-like". Sure. It's delusional but there are still people today who believe it. They are called "crack pots". He knew full well he couldn't control his addictions. How many times was he hospitalized? Wasn't for the flu. He even told Sonny West "I need 'em, man." I don't know. Maybe it's splitting hairs. "Giving Up" sounds a lot like "Stopped Trying". I think he struggled with his religious upbringing colliding with his various appetites. His mothers death cut all restraint.

My theory is his wife was the first person to tell him "no" and made it stick. She refused to take him back and was sleeping with a real karate expert who could have cleaned EP's plow and EP knew it. EP was a southern boy. Losing your woman to another virile man in front of your friends is not something they are prepared to tolerate. My theory is Priscilla said "no" and he had a tantrum about it until it finally killed him. The real slide began in 1972. From there - with the exception of his last challenge, the "Aloha" satellite broadcast - it was straight downhill into a copper lined coffin.

The people you mentioned with the exception of Esposito had no insight into EP's personal life. Even Ron Tutt said that. "I have no idea what happened to him."

I like Jack Kirby's artwork more than his writing. Like Neal Adams. Great artist. Iffy writing skills.

[lordbyroncomics]

11 minutes ago, Randall Ries said:

Seems like I have read several accounts he questioned his very existence and couldn't understand why he was so "Christ-like". Sure. It's delusional but there are still people today who believe it. They are called "crack pots". He knew full well he couldn't control his addictions. How many times was he hospitalized? Wasn't for the flu. He even told Sonny West "I need 'em, man." I don't know. Maybe it's splitting hairs. "Giving Up" sounds a lot like "Stopped Trying". I think he struggled with his religious upbringing colliding with his various appetites. His mothers death cut all restraint.

My theory is his wife was the first person to tell him "no" and made it stick. She refused to take him back and was sleeping with a real karate expert who could have cleaned EP's plow and EP knew it. EP was a southern boy. Losing your woman to another virile man in front of your friends is not something they are prepared to tolerate. My theory is Priscilla said "no" and he had a tantrum about it until it finally killed him. The real slide began in 1972. From there - with the exception of his last challenge, the "Aloha" satellite broadcast - it was straight downhill into a copper lined coffin.

The people you mentioned with the exception of Esposito had no insight into EP's personal life. Even Ron Tutt said that. "I have no idea what happened to him."

I like Jack Kirby's artwork more than his writing. Like Neal Adams. Great artist. Iffy writing skills.

Thank you for the response. To clarify, the people I spoke with were on stage with Elvis and the context in that was the decline of his show quality over the years which I believe is related, perhaps not massively, to his overall unhappiness with life. Yes, Priscilla dating Mike Stone was a blow to Elvis's ego and Elvis was very protected and sheltered which likely also worked against him.

No one seems to like Kirby's writing skills which, for me, is a separate discussion from the one about Stan Lee claiming things were his ideas when evidence exists that they were not.

[Randall Ries]

2 minutes ago, wisbyron said:

Thank you for the response. To clarify, the people I spoke with were on stage with Elvis and the context in that was the decline of his show quality over the years which I believe is related, perhaps not massively, to his overall unhappiness with life. Yes, Priscilla dating Mike Stone was a blow to Elvis's ego and Elvis was very protected and sheltered which likely also worked against him.

No one seems to like Kirby's writing skills which, for me, is a separate discussion from the one about Stan Lee claiming things were his ideas when evidence exists that they were not.

Oh, I KNOW! Every Marvel slab has "Story: Stan Lee" on it. Really? EVERY SINGLE ISSUE? No. NOPE! When I used to sequential draw as a kid, I was writing as I drew. There is little to convince me this was not at LEAST collaborative between Lee and Kirby, Ditko everyone else under the sun.

Oh yes. From around 1975 on, he was either monologuing or dead silent except for the singing. Later, he got giggly. Then, started slurring. The 1977 shows are devastating to watch. I remember watching the "CBS Special" in 1977 right after he died. He was clearly sick and it was a shocking thing to see. I am STILL not clear WHY they chose to show that film other than it must have brought in a TON of postmortem 1977 dollars.

The personal life accounts I have read are much more telling. He didn't hang out with the band or its members off road. After reading 15-20 books about the subject, one can see a definite problem. The accounts may vary, depending on the teller, but when they are averaged out, we start to see a man who has run out of breath, faith and inspiration. In fact, if the story is to be believed, Stan Lee's life ended in much the same circumstances. Confused, befuddled and relying on the good will of his entourage to do right by him and having those structures utterly fail in that. The rumors say he DIDN'T die on that day and there is some evidence to back that up. Maybe so maybe not. If it were me, I wouldn't want to be remembered for lying face down in puke covered shag rug with my pajama bottoms around my ankles.

There was never another entertainer before or since that influenced pop culture so thoroughly and completely. His story is both enigmatic and ordinary at the same time.

[Prince Namor]

It's very evident that Stan wasn't really a writer. He didn't write these stories.

Did he come up with ideas? Some. But that isn't the same as writing.

Just because some editor tells Truman Capote to write a story about two criminals that kill a family in cold blood, doesn't mean he gets to take credit for the 'story'.

Ditko and Kirby's books didn't have Stan's zippy verbiage to them - but they were still WRITTEN STORIES. They plotted the pace, they organized how it was told, they created the drama and the interaction and the PACE. Marvel fans usually have the hardest time with this because they're used to Marvel's way of holding your hands through a story and explaining everything to you. For anyone with an understanding of sequential art, this isn't necessary.

The Marvel Method is the EASIEST way to write dialogue. Tell the artist, "Let's have Doctor Doom return!" The artist then figures out the concept of HOW, figures out the way the story will be told, breaks in down into story parts and paces and measures it all out for the number of pages. They actually WRITE the dialogue in the margins. They actually WRITE most of the dialogue in the margins!

The 'writer' (or what everyone else would call an 'editor') then just works from a 95% done comic book to spruce up the dialogue. They get salary from editing it and an additional rate for 'writing'. 

The 'artist', who began everything with a blank piece of paper and a minimal concept, very literally wrote the entire thing and doesn't get writing credit (mostly) and for sure doesn't get paid for that work. The artist does far more of the actual writing of the story.

 

So how can I say 'Stan wasn't really a writer'?

Easy. He went to Hollywood and he couldn't get a deal, because he couldn't write anything. Hollywood has a MILLION idea men. What they ALWAYS need is actual writers. Stan couldn't write. He'd come up with IDEAS, and occasionally have someone else write them as a -script - but mostly he just gave synopsis', and that just doesn't cut it. Your ideas had better be revolutionary if all can write is a synopsis. ANYONE creative can do THAT.

You know who DOES make it in Hollywood? Actual WRITERS. Have for decades. 

Agatha Christie to George R.R. Martin - Mario Puzo to Michael Crichton - F. Scott Fitzgerald - William Faulkner - John Steinbeck- Truman Capote - Ray Bradbury - JK Rowling - Steven King .... if you can WRITE and create stories - you WILL get noticed in Hollywood. And they will make movies BASED on your stories - NOT, decades later just based upon the characters - where someone ELSE, again, actually writes the story.

 

"But comics were considered low brow, no one would give it a chance..."

So were pulps and dime store crime novels, yet Mickey Spillane, Raymond Chandler, James Ellroy, Dashiell Hammmett, James M. Cain, Jim Thompson... PLENTY of them went from books to screenwriting credit.

If you can actually WRITE great stories, you can get work in Hollywood as a WRITER.

Stan couldn't write a novel to save his life.

What he DID, was be the greatest comic book editor in the history of comics - BEYOND anything ever done before (especially after they put EC out of business) and create a shared universe the likes of which most could only dream.

But actually write stories? He just didn't do that.

We KNOW, because of his own words, that the two greatest Silver Age stories of the 60's - in the two greatest comic books of the 60's - he had very little to do with. Kirby WROTE the story for the Galactus saga over the weekend based upon Stan saying, "Let's have the FF meet God!" (Stan's own words) and Ditko was doing Amazing Spider-man on his own when he did the Master Planner Trilogy (#31-33).

Could either of these artists have EVER gotten to that point in their careers to do those classics without having worked with Stan Lee? Almost 100% certainly NOT. 

They DID however - WRITE stories for the rest of their lives. You can say they're good or they're not, that's your preference, but they actually WROTE them. Stan, after Jack left, turned his back on comics and did what he always did - try and come up with ideas for other people to actually turn into a story. What he didn't do is WRITE stories. 

 

[kav]

None of that explains who wrote the dialogue then for the SA books.  If it wasnt stan it certainly wasnt ditko or kirby-their writing skills were atrocious as can be seen from the books they wrote.  So who was it?
Have you written comics?  I have.  And drawn them-I state that filling in caption and dialogue in already drawn pages is far harder than writing up a ---script.  I know this from actual experience and working with other writers and artists.  It's like solving a difficult puzzle-Stan was a savant at this.  The idea that Stan did not write the plots is ludicrous-pages of his plotting still exist:
https://www.comicsbeat.com/marvel-style-marvel-method-comics/

Edited April 2, 2021 by kav

[dupont2005]

I wouldn’t say he was a savant at writing dialogue

[kav]

2 minutes ago, dupont2005 said:

I wouldn’t say he was a savant at writing dialogue

You dont like SA spiderman, FF, Thor, avengers?

[Buzzetta]

Edited April 2, 2021 by Buzzetta

[kav]

Stan plotted and wrote the books.  Sometimes kirby or ditko would have some plot ideas which were used but they didnt write the actual words.
The end.

[Randall Ries]

I'm Stan Lee-er than thou!"

[dupont2005]

37 minutes ago, kav said:

You dont like SA spiderman, FF, Thor, avengers?

Nope. Can’t say I much care for any of Stan Lee’s writing. Let’s just say if it was prose and didn’t feature popular super hero IP nobody would be reading it

[kav]

1 minute ago, dupont2005 said:

Nope. Can’t say I much care for any of Stan Lee’s writing. Let’s just say if it was prose and didn’t feature popular super hero IP nobody would be reading it

If it wasnt prose then it was poetry.
-Elements of Style

[Randall Ries]

1 hour ago, Prince Namor said:

It's very evident that Stan wasn't really a writer. He didn't write these stories.

Did he come up with ideas? Some. But that isn't the same as writing.

Just because some editor tells Truman Capote to write a story about two criminals that kill a family in cold blood, doesn't mean he gets to take credit for the 'story'.

Ditko and Kirby's books didn't have Stan's zippy verbiage to them - but they were still WRITTEN STORIES. They plotted the pace, they organized how it was told, they created the drama and the interaction and the PACE. Marvel fans usually have the hardest time with this because they're used to Marvel's way of holding your hands through a story and explaining everything to you. For anyone with an understanding of sequential art, this isn't necessary.

The Marvel Method is the EASIEST way to write dialogue. Tell the artist, "Let's have Doctor Doom return!" The artist then figures out the concept of HOW, figures out the way the story will be told, breaks in down into story parts and paces and measures it all out for the number of pages. They actually WRITE the dialogue in the margins. They actually WRITE most of the dialogue in the margins!

The 'writer' (or what everyone else would call an 'editor') then just works from a 95% done comic book to spruce up the dialogue. They get salary from editing it and an additional rate for 'writing'. 

The 'artist', who began everything with a blank piece of paper and a minimal concept, very literally wrote the entire thing and doesn't get writing credit (mostly) and for sure doesn't get paid for that work. The artist does far more of the actual writing of the story.

 

So how can I say 'Stan wasn't really a writer'?

Easy. He went to Hollywood and he couldn't get a deal, because he couldn't write anything. Hollywood has a MILLION idea men. What they ALWAYS need is actual writers. Stan couldn't write. He'd come up with IDEAS, and occasionally have someone else write them as a --script - but mostly he just gave synopsis', and that just doesn't cut it. Your ideas had better be revolutionary if all can write is a synopsis. ANYONE creative can do THAT.

You know who DOES make it in Hollywood? Actual WRITERS. Have for decades. 

Agatha Christie to George R.R. Martin - Mario Puzo to Michael Crichton - F. Scott Fitzgerald - William Faulkner - John Steinbeck- Truman Capote - Ray Bradbury - JK Rowling - Steven King .... if you can WRITE and create stories - you WILL get noticed in Hollywood. And they will make movies BASED on your stories - NOT, decades later just based upon the characters - where someone ELSE, again, actually writes the story.

 

"But comics were considered low brow, no one would give it a chance..."

So were pulps and dime store crime novels, yet Mickey Spillane, Raymond Chandler, James Ellroy, Dashiell Hammmett, James M. Cain, Jim Thompson... PLENTY of them went from books to screenwriting credit.

If you can actually WRITE great stories, you can get work in Hollywood as a WRITER.

Stan couldn't write a novel to save his life.

What he DID, was be the greatest comic book editor in the history of comics - BEYOND anything ever done before (especially after they put EC out of business) and create a shared universe the likes of which most could only dream.

But actually write stories? He just didn't do that.

We KNOW, because of his own words, that the two greatest Silver Age stories of the 60's - in the two greatest comic books of the 60's - he had very little to do with. Kirby WROTE the story for the Galactus saga over the weekend based upon Stan saying, "Let's have the FF meet God!" (Stan's own words) and Ditko was doing Amazing Spider-man on his own when he did the Master Planner Trilogy (#31-33).

Could either of these artists have EVER gotten to that point in their careers to do those classics without having worked with Stan Lee? Almost 100% certainly NOT. 

They DID however - WRITE stories for the rest of their lives. You can say they're good or they're not, that's your preference, but they actually WROTE them. Stan, after Jack left, turned his back on comics and did what he always did - try and come up with ideas for other people to actually turn into a story. What he didn't do is WRITE stories. 

 

I think you are correct. One would naturally have to wonder why someone who had such allegedly vast writing skills would be satisfied to spend their life writing for comic books when the money, recognition and prestige of writing best selling novels is far more desirable and frankly dignified. Stan had a penchant for self promotion, we know this. Someone with that sort of ego would never be content to remain an editor. If he had massive writing skills and the editing technique, he could choose to do whatever he wanted to do in the written word medium. THAT would be a savant.

I still can't get past the idea of how I used to draw sequential art as a kid and make up the dialogue and story line at the same time. It isn't impossible. I just did it in my head. I didn't write the dialogue out as I was "In The Zone". The stories did have a beginning middle and end. I don't know if they teach budding artists in art school to leave the writing to the writers or if the budding artists mainly concentrated on the craft of drawing and didn't have a knack for writing out sequential art with their own story ideas behind them.

I think the most logical thing seems to be Ditko and Kirby likely had a lot to do with pushing the stories forward and they got shoved back into their place as artists and weren't given a lot of credit for their own creations. Lee must have been adding his two cents as well but I think he probably riffed a loose idea and the artists - the ones with actual vision - fleshed out the details.

If you have ever heard Pink Floyd's "The Wall", one would have to say that "Yeah. It's pretty well written. Regardless of subject matter." Says it was written by Roger Waters and Bob Ezrin, producer extraordinaire. However, I got a copy of the demos of "The Wall" that Waters turned in to Ezrin and while they are recognizable as the songs we know, They are no where NEAR what they became because of Ezrin's input and rewriting. I think Kirby and Ditko were the Ezrin to Lee's Roger Waters.

[Randall Ries]

5 hours ago, wisbyron said:

With respect, never read Albert Goldman's book "Elvis". The reason for this is simple: so much of it is sensationalized and fictionalized for often curious, unknown reasons, the same thing he did with his Lennon biography. Again, I have to stress- I don't down this book because I am a fan of Elvis and can't stand any mean or unflattering things said about him- far from it- but because it is made up.

Peter Guralnick's 2 volume comprehensive biography about Elvis is completely factual and extremely thorough. So much context you didn't know, about the Colonel, about the structure of Elvis's live arrangements, and so forth. Oddly enough. Roy Thomas and I spoke about this specific bio around the time an Elvis mini-series came on tv. All I remember about that was that Rose McGowan played Ann-Margaret. 

I get that. Guralnicks books were second to none. However, a lot of Goldman's assertions were correct. They just went too deep and yes got into "sensationalism". It was obvious he hated EP and Lennon and had a lot of contempt for EP  and Lennon fans. Guralnicks books did indeed parallel with some of Goldman's findings although not as harshly. The two way mirrors in Presley houses. While visiting Perugia Way with her husband Scotty Moore, Scotty's wife thought twice about using the bathroom there because of "What she had heard about EP's predilection for two way mirrors and decided to "hold it" instead. She knew. A lot of people knew. The video tapes that eventually escaped into the public's hands of EP's frolics with "white cotton panties groupies" and Las Vegas showgirls performing lesbian acts for EP. EP was never a direct participant in these frolics only in a self abusing sort of way. Probably convinced himself it wasn't "cheating" if he wasn't touching them. Simply voyeurism.

I have to imagine much of what Goldman said wasn't false but was written in vitriol and contempt. (How can sane human beings WORSHIP such a flawed human being while seeing him as perfect???) A lot of other books - while not as detailed as Goldman - pretty much corroborate what Goldman put in his book. Just not with such vehemence and judgment. I would encourage you to read the book. It's over the top, but I don't dismiss it as sensationalism. He hated his subject matters so much he ended up judging the Heck out of them in the process. It's a good read. All the books written put together a story of a complex person who was given a LOT all at once and experienced pressures probably none of us have ever felt.

[Aman619]

writers are a joke and a necessary nuisance in Hollywood!  Never heard the joke about the starlet who tried to sleep her way to the top with a screenwriter?  (I think it was a polish joke from years ago).  

Movie scriptwriting is done in waves. Original -script that picked up by producers or studios.. Then the notes and rewrites galore begin until shooting is wrapped... Total rewrites by special screenwriters are called in in a pinch to "save the picture! to the extent that little of the original screenplay survives.   By contrast given the low stakes and cheapness of SA comics, Kirby et al had a LOT more control over their work.  Only the dialogue was added or changes from the suggestions i the margins. 

[bronze_rules]

1 hour ago, kav said:

None of that explains who wrote the dialogue then for the SA books.  If it wasnt stan it certainly wasnt ditko or kirby-their writing skills were atrocious as can be seen from the books they wrote.  So who was it?
Have you written comics?  I have.  And drawn them-I state that filling in caption and dialogue in already drawn pages is far harder than writing up a -----script.  I know this from actual experience and working with other writers and artists.  It's like solving a difficult puzzle-Stan was a savant at this.  The idea that Stan did not write the plots is ludicrous-pages of his plotting still exist:
https://www.comicsbeat.com/marvel-style-marvel-method-comics/

Completely agree. Anyone that's ever tried to write any storyline has experienced that empty page waiting for inspiration. It's like squeezing blood from a turnip.

Stan made long running dramas, turning points, and engaging characters look easy to the rest of us. That was genius, indeed.

I've found that being a more technically oriented person is a hinderance to writing (myself included). But it really helps me appreciate those like Stan, that can just do it (almost effortlessly).

Edited April 2, 2021 by bronze_rules

[Prince Namor]

Legendary Editor Julius Schwartz said it works like this: The editor, writer and artist have a story meeting. All of them add ideas on what the issue will be about. 
 

The writer then goes and writes the -script - pacing the story - creating the scenes - WRITING it. 
 

The artist then draws it. 
 

The editor then goes over it, adds sound effects, changes dialogue, checks for mistakes, etc. 

What Stan did, was take the writers job - WRITING the actual story - and give that work to the artist. Without paying them anything more for the work or giving them credit. 
 

HE then took the credit and the pay for it. He did an editors job. 
 

Coming up with an idea isn’t the same as writing a story. Changing someone else’s dialogue isn’t the same as writing a story. 
 

Stan did an editors job, but took full credit for the writing. HE himself told us that Ditko wrote ASM (from about #24 up) and he never even knew what it was until he got the pages in. He told us himself that Jack wrote many of the stories himself.