|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jan 18, 2024 11:59:13 GMT -5
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. This is key; the individuals and creative movements (the creation of the major Silver Age characters / titles) which would serve as very steady employment for Kirby, and thanks to Lee's approach in familiarizing the reading public with the staff, gave him recognition and gateways into other fields (licdnsing art, etc.) that most artists before the Silver Age could not conceive of as career benefits / possibilities. Agreed. Well before he returned to Marvel, fans knew Kirby. There were ads in the 1940s touting "The Next Simon and Kirby Comic!". Fans new his Challengers, including young Roy Thomas who wrote about it in his fanzine. His monster books already made him the most popular artist at Marvel before the FF. Kirby's work is what made Stan able to promote himself into the household name. Kirby was known, but in the 1950s, the artists who were gaining rapid recognition were the master talents at publishers such as E.C., which was not shy about crediting artists by name, which made them recognizable talents to the readers of their wave of innovative titles. Arguably, the E.C. artists--with or without external controversies--were the known "star" / breakout artists of the 1950s, shortly before the meteoric rise out of relative obscurity of Kane, Infantino, et al., tied to the dawn of the Silver Age. They too were credited in numerous books, and considering the game-changing creations / popularity of the updated Golden Age heroes (along with new space age characters), one can say a number of artists were as known / popular to readers as Kirby had been. What is "so right" about having someone else write a comic and then take the credit and writers pay? What is "so right" about taking sole credit for creating characters others did? Unless Lee had zero involvement in the creation of entire stories, arcs and long term plans (inc. story conferences, etc.) for characters and titles, its historically inaccurate to say Lee was taking credit for work he never contributed to in such a broad manner. No one ever said he was, but remove Lee (and people such as Julius Schwartz) from history, and there is no "comic book" industry today. Kirby was not going to keep an entire medium thriving. I see Lee in a similar position (though a more textbook creative talent in a hands-on manner) to the great (but not always the most pleasant) James Warren; the following Warren interview from Comic Book Artist was conducted (by Jon B. Cooke) between 1998-99, and there's valuable insight into how a publishing company--a successful publishing company--had been structured: CBA: It was mentioned in a Rolling Stone article that you had a wall plaque that read: "Someone has to make it happen." What's the significance of that phrase?Jim Warren: It means just what it says: Someone has to create the concept; someone has to see it through; someone has to get it into the hands of the public; someone has to make sure it's accepted. Someone has to do it. The deed becomes much more difficult when it involves working with a number of other people. If something simply has to be done—like filling up the bird-feeder—I can do it myself. If it involves two or three people, it comes a little harder because you have to coordinate efforts. If it involves 25, 50, or 100 people it gets a helluva lot harder but it still means one person has to direct those efforts—and if 25 or 50 of those people happen to be writers, artists, editors—creative people—oh boy! You must never lose control, because if you do, you're not going to make it happen. In this business (and it's a marriage of business and the arts, as is the motion picture industry), having to work with creative people is a blessing, a joy, fun. It's also a serious type of brutal torture—but no matter how bad the torture, one person has to see it through. It can't be done alone, and it requires a lot of people with different disciplines—from the magazine wholesaler to distributor to retailer to any one of the artists, writers or editors. The difference between the business people and the creative people is usually light years. One person has to see it through, and has to deal with all those people. Someone has to land on Omaha Beach on D-Day. Someone has to eventually take the high ground—and the others will follow. Things rarely happen by themselves (except with very few exceptions—the sun rises, and the moon comes out, and even God does that!). Whew! Were you expecting a simple answer to this question? Some might be quick to suggest Lee could not do it all alone, but that certainly applies to artists as well, and at the end of it all, someone has to provide the vision and structure--the goals and somehow make it work in the best possible manner (yes, in collaboration with, or guiding others) in order to achieve success. This latter day attempt to write Lee out of the story--deny he had anything to do with the mountain he carved out so others could climb it is simply revisionist history in the extreme. |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Jan 18, 2024 12:27:23 GMT -5
I wouldn’t agree with referring to Stan Lee as a manager. I could say more, but tarkintino posted a final sentence that sums up my thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 18, 2024 13:28:44 GMT -5
I wouldn’t agree with referring to Stan Lee as a manager. I could say more, but tarkintino posted a final sentence that sums up my thoughts. That was literally Stan's job, as Editor-in Chief; to manage the publication of Marvel Comics. Stan was "management" since the 1940s. He also wrote stories; but, as the editor, he had full control over those stories, because he was the boss. Goodman had no involvement in the day-to-day running of Timely/Atlas/Marvel, nor in his magazine line. That's what the editors did. Management is a job, not necessarily a description. That is one of the factors in the disputes over who did what. Stan was the editor and he put in the credits. He made the final decisions for the stories, before they went to print. That gave him a lot of power over his collaborators. Not saying he abused it, though some of them felt that way; but, that situation and potential existed, which would certainly have a bearing on how far the artist my push a grievance with Stan. In my job, I am the assistant manager of my store. I do a ton of hands-on work, as does the store manager. Because of US Labor Laws, I am classified as an hourly worker, for pay and entitled to overtime pay, for work beyond 40 hours, in a calendar week. The store manager is salaried. We are both bonus eligible. Just as I do some of the actual physical work of the store, Stan engaged in the actual writing of the stories, as well as managing the line of comics. An editor is management. |
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Jan 18, 2024 13:29:59 GMT -5
Here's where I am: As it's become more and more evident that Stan was less involved in the plotting than fans of, say, the 1970's, were led to believe, there remains, among comics fans, a strongly conditioned and difficult-to-displace affection for him as the "father" of the Marvel Universe they love. Hence, we want to extend him all possible credit, the benefit of the doubt, justify the conviction we have that whatever role he actually had in producing a beloved comic, it must surely have been critical to its success, and that absent the "Stan Lee magic" this story would surely have fallen flat and impressed no one. So even if we bring ourselves to acknowledge that maybe Kirby and Ditko were developing the plots, rather than working to a detailed outline from Lee (as has been convincingly established, at least in the prime years of Silver Age Marvel), even if we grudgingly admit that most--or at least many--of the grand concepts originated with the artists (notice that Stan never seemed to come up with a Galactus or Silver Surfer or Black Panther or Inhumans or Dr. Doom or Magneto when he was working with folks like Don Heck, Gene Colan and Dick Ayers, on books that surely would have benefited greatly from that kind of big idea), we fall back on the one claim that can affirm our faith in Stan Lee's vital role in these stories: Stan's unique scripting, his sense of dialog, his dramatic narration, his engaging sense of humor, those were key ingredients, that was where Stan Lee was indisputably a master of the craft, a once-in-a-lifetime genius who could bring these characters to life in a way that no one could top! Right? Surely we can all agree on that? Right? OK, maybe so, maybe so... And so I embarked on re-reading some of those classic tales, trying to isolate the scripting, the one aspect where we can always be confident Stan was dominant, even if the artists were supplying rough dialog suggestions. And what I'm finding when I re-read is that...well, the scripting is not that great, after all. It's distinctive, but, being as objective as I can be, it's just not good writing. Dialog is bombastic, unconvincing, redundant, overblown. The wisecracks are not just "corny", they're just plain not funny (Spider-Man during the middle of a fight with the Rhino: "I can't understand why everyone wants to end my capricious career! I always thought of myself as the most loveable little hero in town!"). I don't think I've ever actually laughed at any of Stan's supposed jokes--and take a look at some of the "humor" comics he spent so much of his career on if you want to see some real bombs. Stan's lines, to me, have the impression of being humorous without actually being humorous. Marvel.com recently published an article highlighting the dynamic dialog of Stan Lee, the best of Stan's scintillating sound bytes they could round up, and there's not a whole lot beyond "With great power there must also come...great responsibility!" and "Face it tiger, you just hit the jackpot!" (Amusingly, I discover that the Thing's original, complete catch phrase was "Yay bo! It's clobberin' time!") His narration is inflated without being evocative: "Known to the outside world simply as Latveria..." C'mon, would we say "a bullring in the nation simply known as Spain", "on a mountain range in the country the world knows simply as Argentina"? I'm trying to find that Stan Lee magic, but it's not where I remember it being. It turns out my fondness for these stories really is rooted in the concepts, the plot, and the art. The scripting is getting a free ride on top of fun stories, but when I focus on the scripting, I'm not seeing anything I can really call "good". It's an ingredient that is inextricably entwined with my memory and nostalgia for the material, but I can't honestly say I like it, and I certainly can't say that no one could have done it better. When I see people pointing out admittedly bad Jack Kirby scripting ("...and me, young but cool Harvey Lockman!") I can point out equally bad lines committed to paper by Stan Lee. But for the weightiest, most evocative lines from Kirby, I can't seem to find the comparable qualities anywhere I look for it in Stan's work; I find padding, I find fluff, I find pretentious blather. I'd really love for someone to point me to one issue where they can honestly say "Just read the words, and tell me Stan wasn't a great scripter!" |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 18, 2024 13:32:33 GMT -5
ps I have never been clear about whether Stan was only paid as editor or if he also received a writer's page rate for individual stories. I know later editors did receive writing pay, in addition to editorial pay, which led to some criticisms about assignments, especially when royalties came into play. If Stan was receiving additional pay as writer, that definitely sets up a disparity with his collaborators. Granted, usually the artist's page rate was higher than the writer's.
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958 
|
Post by Crimebuster on Jan 18, 2024 13:34:30 GMT -5
This is an excerpt from Jonathan Ross' documentary about Steve Ditko, where he corners Stan about Ditko's role in the creation of the character and their contention over what constituted "creation." What I've always taken away from this interview is that it tells me Stan believes what he's saying. People have called him a liar, but in that case, he's mainly lying to himself, because you can tell that he believes what he is saying -- that the role of editor rather than artist or even writer is the driving creative force. He essentially says outright that choosing which artist to assign to a project determines whether it's good or bad, but where some would see this as evidence that the artist was the driving creative fore, he places the emphasis on the choice - casting the artists as tools in the hands of the editor. It's like instead of writing or drawing with a pen as his instrument, he's doing it with people. It's a fascinating insight into what he really thinks. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 18, 2024 13:45:57 GMT -5
Here's where I am: As it's become more and more evident that Stan was less involved in the plotting than fans of, say, the 1970's, were led to believe, there remains, among comics fans, a strongly conditioned and difficult-to-displace affection for him as the "father" of the Marvel Universe they love. Hence, we want to extend him all possible credit, the benefit of the doubt, justify the conviction we have that whatever role he actually had in producing a beloved comic, it must surely have been critical to its success, and that absent the "Stan Lee magic" this story would surely have fallen flat and impressed no one. So even if we bring ourselves to acknowledge that maybe Kirby and Ditko were developing the plots, rather than working to a detailed outline from Lee (as has been convincingly established, at least in the prime years of Silver Age Marvel), even if we grudgingly admit that most--or at least many--of the grand concepts originated with the artists (notice that Stan never seemed to come up with a Galactus or Silver Surfer or Black Panther or Inhumans or Dr. Doom or Magneto when he was working with folks like Don Heck, Gene Colan and Dick Ayers, on books that surely would have benefited greatly from that kind of big idea), we fall back on the one claim that can affirm our faith in Stan Lee's vital role in these stories: Stan's unique scripting, his sense of dialog, his dramatic narration, his engaging sense of humor, those were key ingredients, that was where Stan Lee was indisputably a master of the craft, a once-in-a-lifetime genius who could bring these characters to life in a way that no one could top! Right? Surely we can all agree on that? Right? OK, maybe so, maybe so... And so I embarked on re-reading some of those classic tales, trying to isolate the scripting, the one aspect where we can always be confident Stan was dominant, even if the artists were supplying rough dialog suggestions. And what I'm finding when I re-read is that...well, the scripting is not that great, after all. It's distinctive, but, being as objective as I can be, it's just not good writing. Dialog is bombastic, unconvincing, redundant, overblown. The wisecracks are not just "corny", they're just plain not funny (Spider-Man during the middle of a fight with the Rhino: "I can't understand why everyone wants to end my capricious career! I always thought of myself as the most loveable little hero in town!"). I don't think I've ever actually laughed at any of Stan's supposed jokes--and take a look at some of the "humor" comics he spent so much of his career on if you want to see some real bombs. Stan's lines, to me, have the impression of being humorous without actually being humorous. Marvel.com recently published an article highlighting the dynamic dialog of Stan Lee, the best of Stan's scintillating sound bytes they could round up, and there's not a whole lot beyond "With great power there must also come...great responsibility!" and "Face it tiger, you just hit the jackpot!" (Amusingly, I discover that the Thing's original, complete catch phrase was "Yay bo! It's clobberin' time!") His narration is inflated without being evocative: "Known to the outside world simply as Latveria..." C'mon, would we say "a bullring in the nation simply known as Spain", "on a mountain range in the country the world knows simply as Argentina"? I'm trying to find that Stan Lee magic, but it's not where I remember it being. It turns out my fondness for these stories really is rooted in the concepts, the plot, and the art. The scripting is getting a free ride on top of fun stories, but when I focus on the scripting, I'm not seeing anything I can really call "good". It's an ingredient that is inextricably entwined with my memory and nostalgia for the material, but I can't honestly say I like it, and I certainly can't say that no one could have done it better. When I see people pointing out admittedly bad Jack Kirby scripting ("...and me, young but cool Harvey Lockman!") I can point out equally bad lines committed to paper by Stan Lee. But for the weightiest, most evocative lines from Kirby, I can't seem to find the comparable qualities anywhere I look for it in Stan's work; I find padding, I find fluff, I find pretentious blather. I'd really love for someone to point me to one issue where they can honestly say "Just read the words, and tell me Stan wasn't a great scripter!" I think that speaks a bit to the reading experience of comics; it isn't purely text and it isn't purely art. It's a synthesis of the two, working in conjunction, in the best examples. How much of Stan's contribution is pure text and how much is in characterization, which was then embellished by the artist, via body language? How much of that came from the artist, in the drawing of the plot, inspiring Stan to reflect it in speech patterns? To me, that is the whole point of collaboration; everyone contributes and those contributions spark other ideas in fellow collaborators and they build upon it, again and again, until you lose the individual contributions and emerge with a greater whole work, that evolves out of that collaboration. Same with films. A writer conceives a scene, but an actor interprets emotions, physicality and inflection, while the director crafts shots and gives feedback to the actor, leading them to alter their performance. The cinematographer adds lighting elements, which might inspire a change in the director's shot, leading the actor to alter their performance to suit the shot. By the end of the production and the editing, the finished film is such a mix of everyone's input, you can't say it was just Steven Spielberg or even Stanley Kubrick. You can recognize their technical elements, but is A Clockwork Orange no different is Malcolm McDowell isn't playing Alex? It would still be visually exciting, but would another actor bring the same psychological elements to it, which leads Kubrick to shoot his scenes in the same way? I sometimes think that we fans, in our quest to see proper credit be given, try to reduce things down to exact divisions of labor and lose sight of the whole team of collaborators. You can say that is Jack Kirby art, but can you say this specific panel is 1/3 Kirby, 1/3 Joe Sinnott and 1/3 Stan Lee? What crafts those stories we love is a combination of all of their work, in sync, creating emotions and thoughts within ourselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jan 18, 2024 13:51:27 GMT -5
I've always liked this caption from X-Men #16:
"Beware the fanatic! Too often his cure is deadlier by far than the evil he denounces!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jan 18, 2024 13:52:34 GMT -5
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. Becoming a bad guy has nothing to do with your deeds and everything with what people will hear about you. On the "universe" he sold, if you mean he promoted it, OK. If you mean he envisioned it, that was Ditko. As for credit were its due, that's already been addressed.
His actions weren't limited to 1961, he kept well within his role up to his last cameo in a MCU film.
The whole "promoter" value is maybe important for American audiences, but I must say that as a foreign fan, I never got to see his public appearances, watch his interviews or read the articles. The comics stood on their own merits for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 18, 2024 14:07:29 GMT -5
This is an excerpt from Jonathan Ross' documentary about Steve Ditko, where he corners Stan about Ditko's role in the creation of the character and their contention over what constituted "creation." What I've always taken away from this interview is that it tells me Stan believes what he's saying. People have called him a liar, but in that case, he's mainly lying to himself, because you can tell that he believes what he is saying -- that the role of editor rather than artist or even writer is the driving creative force. He essentially says outright that choosing which artist to assign to a project determines whether it's good or bad, but where some would see this as evidence that the artist was the driving creative fore, he places the emphasis on the choice - casting the artists as tools in the hands of the editor. It's like instead of writing or drawing with a pen as his instrument, he's doing it with people. It's a fascinating insight into what he really thinks. I don't believe he is lying; but, I do believe he has been coached by Marvel's lawyers not to say certain phrases because of potential legal implications. As Moore says, assuming he isn't embellishing, Stan was traveling with a Marvel lawyer, to participate in the interview with Ross; but, they traveled to the studio separately and Ross pushed Stan to do the interview, because of limited time and he proceeded without the lawyer present. He does hesitate over phrasing things the way Ross wants, suggesting he is aware that there are legal implications. I'm not saying he is trying to screw Ditko out of money; but, he also knows his bread is buttered by marvel and staying in their good graces made him rich and famous and that if they severed ties, he would be more at sea than they would, though a lawsuit between them could have gotten pretty ugly, especially for Marvel. I think that is some of why fans and some collaborators look negatively on Stan. As a collaborator, they might expect him to side with them in a financial dispute with the company; but, he stuck with the company and was rewarded. It isn't necessarily wrong to do that; but, it isn't exactly courageous either. As I said before, there are stories that he went to bat with martin Goodman and with later bosses, but was turned down and just gave up trying. There is the story that his pushing Shooter and Marvel to settle with Kirby, over the return of the art indicates, if true, that he did try to go to bat for them and did have some positive impact, in certain cases and at least tried, in others. By the same token, Stan had a family to support, just as Kirby did and he was also a child of the Depression and did what he had to do to keep his job secure. Could he have gone elsewhere? He didn't seem to think so. So, being a Company Man provided for his family and gave them comfortable lives. Mark Evanier described Stan as too liberal for Ditko and too conservative for Kirby. I think that kind of sums him up: middle of the road. Stan wasn't a crusader, though he did take up causes in stories, like drug abuse and even defied the Comics Code to Do it. So, he stood up for things, but he also didn't rock the boat in other situations. He stayed the middle course. People on either side of the fence tend not like those who fit in the middle, as they aren't completely supporting their position, nor are they clearly in the opposite camp and they can swing the balance. I think certain individuals felt that Stan wasn't swinging things their way. The artists had egos, too, and their faults. You can't really accuse Stan of being a conniving SOB, as he kept buying stories in the 50s, until Goodman discovered a whole closet full of unpublished work and promptly fired everyone because he already had enough material to publish for quite a while. Stan also employed people like Bill Everett, who was an alcoholic and kept him working, when others might have cut him off. He took chances on young talent, when several DC editors treated them like peasants begging for a handout. When he was having issues with communicating with Ditko, he could of said "My way or the highway;" but, he let Ditko pretty much have his way in crafting his stories and then maybe made slight alterations to certain aspects in the dialogue (like Ditko attacking student protesters but Stan's dialog makes Peter sympathetic). Schwartz or Kanigher would have fired him. Even Kirby would admit he had more leeway from Stan than Carmine Infantino, at DC, after a while. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 18, 2024 14:20:14 GMT -5
Kirby was known, but in the 1950s, the artists who were gaining rapid recognition were the master talents at publishers such as E.C., which was not shy about crediting artists by name, which made them recognizable talents to the readers of their wave of innovative titles. Arguably, the E.C. artists--with or without external controversies--were the known "star" / breakout artists of the 1950s, shortly before the meteoric rise out of relative obscurity of Kane, Infantino, et al., tied to the dawn if the Silver Age. They too were credited in numerous books, and considering the game-changing creations / popularity of the updated Golden Age heroes (along with new space age characters), one can say a number of artists were as known / popular to readers as Kirby had been. Which doesn't negate what I said about him being "one of" the biggest names. Not an unknown artist before Stan. As was claimed. What is "so right" about having someone else write a comic and then take the credit and writers pay? What is "so right" about taking sole credit for creating characters others did? I think my statement wasn't as clear as I thought. Lee took the pay for writing, and usually the "written by" credit on books he did not plot, or gave a one sentence idea to the artist. In the case of Ditko, Kirby and especially Wood, he had no input on many books before the pages were drawn. He took the pay and credit that should have gone to the artist. At least split the money with them. I said he took sole credit for creating things that were not his idea. He did help develop many of these, but his claim is he thought them up and tasked this artist or that to draw it. That is a flat out falsehood. I did not say he didn't contribute. This again goes to the two different debates. One is did he come up with ALL the concepts of the Marvel Universe as he claimed for decades, and the other is what was the extent of his work on these books. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 18, 2024 14:25:10 GMT -5
ps I have never been clear about whether Stan was only paid as editor or if he also received a writer's page rate for individual stories. I know later editors did receive writing pay, in addition to editorial pay, which led to some criticisms about assignments, especially when royalties came into play. If Stan was receiving additional pay as writer, that definitely sets up a disparity with his collaborators. Granted, usually the artist's page rate was higher than the writer's. Stan had a salaried job as an editor and also paid as the writer. He arranged to only come to the office two or three days a week so he could write. The bulk of the day to day operations were done by Sol Brodsky. And what many don't know is that in the early days, Stan used ghost writers to come up with plot ideas and even script some books. He still got the writing credit and pay, but gave some to the ghost writers. His brother Larry Leiber was on such. And you don't want to hear what Larry thinks of Stan now.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jan 18, 2024 14:45:11 GMT -5
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.... Without trying to psychoanalyze Stan from time and distance, I wouldn't be surprised if this was a piece of it. As an editor-in-chief/marketer/cheerleader, it's pretty amazing what Stan did with Marvel. And he seemed a lot more directly involved in some of the creative end than folks like Gaines, Feldstein, or Warren (thanks for that quote, tarkintino). But it seems like he couldn't recognize that aspect of his job as enough. He had to be responsible for it all. But their work both in and out of Marvel throughout their careers showed that Kirby and Ditko were natural comic book storytellers. They were both singular talents in an industry that didn't always appreciate them.
I'm don't think that without the triumvirate of Kirby and Ditko and Lee all being in that place at that time Marvel would've happened. The lackluster starts of Daredevil, Hulk, Ant-Man and others--characters that weren't Kirby or Ditko's "babys"--kind've leads to their importance to the creative process. I don't think that Wood's stint on Daredevil was a stellar as others do, but he could handle the plotting/storytelling part near as well and Kirby and Ditko, and was shown the door when he insisted on being compensated for it.
Like Bob Kane, after a while Stan Lee decided to make "Stan Lee" his greatest creation.
But I think it can be boiled down mathematically:
(Kirby-Lee) > (Lee - Kirby) (Ditko - Lee) > (Lee - Kirby)
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jan 18, 2024 14:59:35 GMT -5
I generally try to steer clear of this topic but I will make a couple of observations. First, none of us were there and everything we know (or, rather, think we know) about it we learned second- third- or more-hand. Second, everyone is the hero of their own story, so of course Lee and Kirby and Ditko are going to slant their accounts, consciously or otherwise, to paint themselves in the best possible light. The truth, then, will forever be unclear and the smartest thing we can do is assume that it lies more-or-less in the middle... and that's good enough for me.
Cei-U!
Nuff said!
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 18, 2024 15:56:06 GMT -5
I get the idea that it is hard to know what happened. But isn't all of history told second, third and fourth hand. But there is scholarship and the voices of others who were there that leads me to believe that it wasn't somewhere in the middle, but heavily weighted towards the artists.
|
|
