COMICS FEBRUARY 7, 2013
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Stanley Martin Lieber, known to generations of Marvel Comics readers as Stan Lee, last weekend launched yet another creation: a line of comics for young kids. But he hasn’t actually written a comic in decades. Even when he did, his definition of “writing” probably wouldn’t have lined up with yours. Lee’s work, for the most part, involved unleashing a torrent of plot points at one of his artists and acting out fight scenes. The artist would then repair to his drafting table to attend to the work of shaping a given story’s layout, pacing, tone and—in many cases—even its characters and dialogue.
It’s largely because of this division of labor—which has since come to be called “The Marvel Method”—that Lee’s status as the Beloved All-Father of Modern Comics discomfits fans and comics historians like me. Lee’s grinning, mustachioed mug should, by all rights, share the Mount Rushmore of Comicdom with the aggrieved, scowling visages of artists Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko. It was Kirby and Ditko who established the trippy visual language that drove the “Marvel Revolution” of the early 1960s and the creative ascendancy that followed.

And as that decade wore on, Lee devoted less and less time to plotting comics, eagerly transforming himself from Marvel’s head spitballer to a role that can only be described as Flack-in-Chief. Ditko (who co-created Spider-Man and Dr. Strange), Kirby (who co-created the Fantastic Four, the Hulk and many of the other classic Marvel characters familiar to non-fans) shouldered more and more of the narrative load, alongside scripters and “co-plotters”—an ambiguous role that is to comics what “associate producer” is to film.
In comics, credit—the proper apportioning of it—matters hugely. That’s partly about remuneration: Many writers and artists who’ve created iconic characters have argued, correctly, that their work makes Marvel and archrival DC Comics millions in licensing alone. But they rarely see that money: Both publishers keep vast legal departments leashed like hounds, and set them loose with nigh-limitless resources to argue that any such creations represent work-for-hire. Despite temporary victories for the little guy, pretty much every battle between a beleaguered creator and a megacorporation like Marvel or Warner Bros (DC’s owner) ends the same way.
These legal wranglings are about rights and recompense, yes. But more deeply they are about reputation, about having your name forever attached to a character who will, thanks to fan devotion (and, in no small measure, to licensing deals and cross-platform synergy) outlive you. For the most part, today’s generation of mainstream comics writers and artists acknowledge this state of affairs with a resigned shrug. A lucky few, like The Walking Dead’s Robert Kirkman, can swear off working for The Big Two at all and still make money. Many others alternate between creator-owned projects at publishers like Image and work for DC or Marvel.

But when it comes to a character’s conceptual roots, old-school comics pros like Lee are unreliable narrators. These men, who churned out our contemporary myths like their Madison Avenue peers churned out floorwax slogans, are notoriously given to self-mythology. Over the years, for example, many of the particulars in Lee’s accounts of how he dreamed up the flagship characters of the Marvel Revolution have changed. Of late, he’s much more prone to acknowledge the prodigious conceptual and narrative contributions of his artists, but this has not always been the case.
The picture of Lee that emerges from Sean Howe’s hugely entertaining Marvel Comics: The Untold Story, published last fall, is that of an inveterate company man who grew besotted with his role as a hip, “with-it” spokespimp; a three-piece-suit executive who came to revel in his polyester-leisure-suit drag. Howe sifts through Lee’s conflicting accounts of, say, Spider-Man’s provenance with admirable skill. In the process, something else becomes quite clear: Despite what ardent fans will tell you, what made readers rabid for Marvel’s ham-fisted stories had less to do with how they were told, and much more to do with how they were sold.
Lee did what any skilled executive does when ordered to move more product: identify a new market—in this case, adolescents who’d previously dismissed comics as “kids stuff” once they turned 12—and devise a ruthlessly effective method for selling to them. Lee oversaw an initiative that took the childlike, often Freudian emotionalism that had been a staple of comics for decades (“B—Batman is kissing Batwoman! I g-guess he doesn’t need me anymore (*CHOKE*)!”) and dipped it in a pungent bath of adolescent hormones.

Before Lee stepped into the executive suite, strong emotions cropped up in comics all the time, but only as a function of plot (“*SOB*! My beloved Super-Horse is flying away!”). Lee and his artists, meanwhile, created characters who came factory-installed with enough behavioral disorders to fill the DSM-I. The Human Torch was pathologically touchy. The Hulk literally personified pure rage. Spider-Man wallowed in guilt and sulked around like a moody, self-obsessed teen—who just so happened to look, and act, and think, a hell of a lot like his readers. This wasn’t coincidence. It was marketing.
Lee dosed every page of the comics with his propriety brand of sizzle, especially in the column “Bullpen Bulletins,” which introduced readers to Lee’s comic avatar “Smilin’ Stan Lee.” In his trademark tinted aviators, medallions, and a pinkie ring, Smilin’ Stan stoked fierce brand loyalty by exhorting his readers to “Keep readin’!” and to “Make Mine Marvel!” This cornball brio of Lee’s became the Marvel brand, more than Spidey’s mask or The Ever-Lovin’ Blue-Eyed Thing’s ever-lovin’ blue eyes. He soaked up the resulting attention like a sponge in bell bottoms and a bad toupee, happily granting interviews, lecturing on the college circuit and, before long, moving out to the coast for a life of L.A. power lunches. Excelsior, indeed.
He’s still out there, going strong. Last December, Stanley Martin Lieber celebrated his 90th birthday. The old guy’s settlin’ happily into his golden years, thank you very much, engagin’ in some pulse-poundin’ legal tussles of his own, lendin’ his name to various projects, including the new Stan Lee’s Kid’s Universe—a venture which, let’s note, effectively reverses the formula that originally brought him fame and fortune.
And in between meetings, he continues to regale rapt interviewers with terrifyin’ true tales of the Marvel Revolution.
Well. “True.” ‘Nuff said.
Glen Weldon is a freelance writer and panelist on NPR’s Pop Culture Happy Hour. His book, Superman: The Unauthorized Biography, will be published in April.
5 comments
I don't care if one can look back and be cynical about it. Lee, Kirby, Ditko et alii filled a hole in my adolescent life, and I loved it. I'm still grateful.
- timteeter
February 7, 2013 at 7:52am
Interestingly enough, I grew up reading and buying comic books at the mid 80s to early 90s when the more "adult" versions of comics were being released by owner-imprints and alternative presses like Dark Horse, Eclipse, Epic, Image, Mirage, Malibu and Kitchen Sink were bringing comics like Sin City, Hellboy, Dreadstar, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Spawn, etc were providing darker more engaging titles than the re-treads and re-boots of DC and Marvel - Alan Moore's contributions to DC notwithstanding. While I was never a fan of most of the Marvel universe (never read any Spiderman or Hulk) I can appreciate the nostalgia that many have for those growing up on those characters in the 60s and 70s. I think of Stan Lee as the twin brother to Hugh Hefner in that they both were purveyors of pop-culture and young male prurience. Except Lee's repackaging of comics as young male adult fodder fed of the sexuality in a fantasy world relegated to the comic renderings of scantily clad femme fetales, heroines and anti-heroines while Hefner peddled the photographic reality of the same female image. While the young man transitioned from hormone-inflicted awkward teenage boy reading comics about Catwoman or Batgirl and went on to college where reading Playboy became necessary to affect a "mature" attitude. Either way, comics is still a misunderstood medium and an underappreciated medium because folks like Stan Lee still can't move past the 14yr old version of themselves.
- singlspeed
February 7, 2013 at 1:03pm
Apologies for the typos.
- singlspeed
February 7, 2013 at 1:05pm
SHOW 1 RESPONSE
The stories of how classic comics got made, how great companies and characters rose and fell, and how the creators of those characters got consistently shafted to one degree or another, is certainly worth telling. The concern I have with a brief overview like this one is that it tends to be as reductionist as the "official history" it aims to refute. That Stan Lee made himself the face of Marvel (for egotistical reasons or smart business ones, or both) is undeniable, as is the fact that Jack Kirby in turn felt undervalued. And when Kirby asserted his creative importance by saying things like "I wrote those stories," there was definitely a lot of truth there. But the Lee and Kirby stories read *very differently* from the Kirby solo or Kirby-and-anyone-else stories. And that was because of Lee's words, preposterously showy and high-octane as they were; what made Marvel was the synthesis of what each man brought. As a kid I was more attracted to the comparatively staid DC books, and was at least somewhat averse to the Lee brand of constant showmanship; but in the case of the early "Marvel age of comics," I don't believe you really can distinguish how they were sold from how they were told. That's another misguided attempt at simplification, I think. But back to the question of "who wrote it," which is in part a question about what comics writing is. I should say at this point that I've written comic books professionally for over thirty years, off and on. (I don't have a real personal acquaintance with the early Marvel creators; I've been introduced to Stan Lee a couple of times, got seated next to Jack Kirby at a dinner once, had my first story at DC Comics drawn by Steve Ditko, and worked with Don Heck for a couple of years on Wonder Woman, though our communication was mostly through an editor). My experience tells me that while it's true that Lee's definition of "writing" wouldn't line up with the average person's expectations, the average person doesn't understand how *any* comics are written, and certainly not that there are many ways to write them. One thing I can say for sure about making comics is that anyone who wasn't involved in a particular comic's creation has no idea who contributed what; in fact, it doesn't take long before even the people who *did* create the comic can't sort it out anymore. One reason for that is an aspect of the business part of comics the author of the article doesn't touch on: not marketing, but publishing schedules. Relentless monthly deadlines, especially when scrupulously attended to as they were in the sixties, mean an endless churn of pages and, if you're producing a lot of work (or trying to), a lot of anxiety. There's really a lot less time to *think* about how you're going to do it, or what your master plan should be, or even how you're going to sell it (if, like Lee, you're wearing both the writer and the editor hat); it's mostly about getting the damn work out! And if some of it seems to succeed, and to strike a chord, then wow--give yourself a quick pat on the back before looking at your calendar to see when the next plot or dialogue job is due, or sitting down to figure out how to take the very exciting pages an artist has turned in based on a brief story conference and trying to figure out how it fits with what went before and what the characters might say so they can seem to grow and change (without actually doing so, because your readers want the characters to be the same month after month). "Plot-style" comics writing starts to look like a kind of salvation. And the truth is that comics stories can originate in all sorts of ways and then come together almost miraculously. (BTW, I don't really see any ambiguity in the term "co-plotter"; it's an artist or writer who substantially contributed to the direction and/or details of a story, but in the case of a writer wasn't involved in blocking out the action, and in the case of a writer *or* an artist did not write the dialogue.) Yes, it's hard to believe all of Stan Lee's stories. I'm sure that in many cases he doesn't know anymore if they're true. And I say that without ill will. He's a storyteller, and he'll tell the story that seems to work in the moment -- which may just mean that he's never stopped writing, however you want to define the term. I'll close with the recommendation to look at Michael Chabon's short story "Citizen Conn," published last year in The New Yorker. It's unlikely to represent the "true story" of the Lee/Kirby relationship, but it richly imagines what might be at the core of such a partnership. Anything but reductionist.
- dmishkin
February 8, 2013 at 1:41am
Say, TNR, it would be great if you'd keep the paragraph breaks users type in their comments when the comments gets posted!
- dmishkin
February 8, 2013 at 1:44am
SHOW 1 RESPONSE