With Stan I think there was a certain insecurity in the knowledge that family connections got him the job, in the first place (as a gopher at timely) and kept him there when Martin Goodman fired everyone else. Then there is the desire to be the Great American Novelist and a complete dearth of published novels or even talk of unpublished manuscripts. The only prose work I have heard of was that book about making money writing comics. By contrast, guys like Edmond Hamilton, Gardner Fox and Arnold Drake had published prose work or screenplays. I don't know if Stan never applied himself, lacked the confidence to try or just wasn't good enough to write and sell a novel. There were many writers who were better at the short form, like Harlan Ellison, whose work was predominantly in short stories and essays, rather than full novels. Others excelled in screenwriting or with plays, but struggled with novels or other prose.

When Stan did that Comic Book Greats video series, in the early 90s, one of the volumes was with Will Eisner and I think the discussion brings up some of that insecurity of working in comics and the criticisms of the field. It also features a point were Stan gets a little defensive when Eisner talks about the industry being dominated by "adolescent male power fantasies."



There is another volume, with Harvey Kurtzman and Jack Davis, which unfortunately reveals how poor Kurtzman's health was, as he doesn't contribute as much to the discussion and seems very weak. Kurtzman and Stan seem to understand each other and Kurtzman doesn't engage in a debate about the differing audience of their work, probably because of his health, though maybe he isn't interested. In some ways, I think Stan was a bit jealous of those two, and some others, striking out on their own and gaining a certain level of respect outside comics, while he stayed working for Martin Goodman and his successors.

Supposedly, and I have no reason to doubt the premise, Stan chimed in, behind the scenes, during the battle over returning Kirby's art and pushed Marvel to settle the thing as it was reflecting badly on the company. They did eventually give in and return Kirby's art, without conditions, revealing how much of it had been pilfered by marvel employees and others. Prior to that, Marvel demanded that Kirby sign a release which was not a condition of releasing artwork to other artists.

I don't think Stan was alone in that insecurity, as a lot of people working in comic books were embarrassed by it and wanted to draw newspaper strips or work for the slick magazines, as did the writers (as well as in prose of film and theater), especially in the early decades of comics. Until you get the first generation of fans-turned-pro, you don't find many excited about working in comics, except those who started young, like Joe Kubert, and even they had aspirations outside comic books.

It is interesting that the book that Stan wrote about comics was about drawing them, not writing them or about storytelling, while Eisner wrote one of the definitive texts about graphic storytelling. To me, that kind of speaks to Stan's strengths being more as the editor than writer or conceptualist, rather than a pure storyteller, like Eisner. Of course, Eisner was also a businessman, handling his own affairs, while Stan was a Company Man. Both successful in their endeavors, but with different approaches and strengths.

Seems to me that Stan did things so right that it was inevitable he became the bad guy. Back when the company was struggling to keep the lights on, he sold the world on a universe so compelling that it got big enough and drew enough attention to get painstakingly scrutinized in hindsight. He gave credit to and promoted his artists in a way that no one else did, encouraging his fans to care about and celebrate these artists enough to ultimately argue that he'd short-changed them.

If there was a fire and I could only save Lee or Kirby, I'd go for Kirby for sure, but I still think Stan gets a bad wrap. Judging him by 2024 standards, he was an absolute villain. But 1961 was a different world, and arguably so were 1971 and 1981.

Much as I adore Jack, I seriously doubt he'd be as well-known a name as he is without Stan and likely wouldn't have had the opportunity to create the memorable characters and properties that he did without Stan either. Even with decades of expertise in the field prior to FF #1, Stan is the one who made fans know Jack's name. In that context, he did more good for Jack's reputation than harm, even while taking credit that clearly belonged to Jack.

"So right" in that he transformed the publisher he worked for from being on the verge of closing shop to becoming a household name while also encouraging fans to care about the people who made the books. Say whatever else you will about Stan, but he was an outstanding promoter/hype man who transformed casual readers into cult-like followers. At no point did I attempt to argue that taking credit was "so right".




Nothing. You're putting words in my mouth, my good man.

Martin Goodman was the entrepreneur. Stan was a manager.