In Defense of Stan Lee

I'm sure all you nerds know the popular rap against Stan Lee: He's a parasite who took all the credit for Ditko and Kirby's brilliance while hoarding all the money for himself. I've never believed this version for two reasons:

First, there's the Ringo/Garfunkel rule: If the guy's just a no-talent along for the ride, how come his genius partners suck out loud whenever they're working solo?

Second: A survey of either Lee's struggle to get Marvel Enterprises to pay him or Marvel's ability to turn a silk purse into a sow's ear should put to rest any idea that he's an evil genius of finance.

Comments

[ed]

It's too bad Stan Lee was not referred to as Stan "The Man" Lee - he was the man. Does anyone even of the Ditko and Kirby fanbase really doubt Lee's contribution to the comic book world. Even if he did not directly invent any of the heroes he absolutely was "The Man" as the leader of Marvel Comics Group during the 60's and 70's and even in the 80's. Creation is one thing, leadership and entrepreneurship is another and Lee had those in spades. He was instrumental in the first Marvel Universe in the early 60's forging the characters we recognize in the movies today. He drove other ventures such as the fanclub, and cartoons of the 60's as well as the daily strip and TV shows of the 70's (Hulk, Spiderman on Electric Company, and Saturday morning cartoons). Like any good entrepreneur many of his ventures failed. The magazine format for comics in the 60's, the Spiderman movies during the 70's (look it up), and his recent interactive comics on the internet. Bless Stan Lee and his failures, that risk taking is what makes America great and is what gives an entire generation and generations to come the pleasures of his characters. Ditko and Kirby contributed greatly but they were not the motive force. They took few risks other than switching employers. Its funny, nobody in comic land can remember the 1930's publishers of DC (National Comics) when Siegal and Shuster, and Bob Kane created Superman and Batman. However, everyone knows Stan Lee. This is as it should be.

Excelsior

[Kevin Carson]

At the risk of angering some folks, I'd like to rename this the Ringo/Garfunkel/Gilmour rule. After Waters left Pink Floyd, the band sounded like a Dave Gilmour solo effort: not bad, just mediocre. Roger Waters' solo work, on the other hand, sounded like Pink Floyd (although he could have used a guitarist of D.G.'s caliber). Compare pros and cons of hitchhiking to Final Cut, and they're almost the same damn album.

OK, I'm a stoner rock geek instead of a comic geek. So sue me.

[Anonymous]

Wait a second? George, Paul and John had bad solo acts? What the hell is Tim smoking!? Granted Paul's had some bad albums, and he could've used without Linda, still you can't make a Ringo rule...that's absurd

[Warren]

Sorry Kevin but you lose on all counts here.
First off the rule is that the partner in question must "suck out loud whenever they're working solo". Your admission that Gilmore attains mediocrity shows that he didn't make the final cut (sorry couldn't resist). Secondly there is an entire cult of Floyd fans that claim the groups best work, indeed the only true Pink Floyd, was under the inspiration of the mad genius, psychedelic guru, quasi mystical, Syd Barret. I personally think that Syd, while clever, was too esoteric, and that Waters did indeed lead the band to monumental greatness. However, everything after The Wall was just rehash, you say as much yourself when you note the indistinguishablity between P&C and FC. Note further that FC was just another (superfluous) chapter to TW.

[Chris Puzak]

It?s true that Jack Kirby?s solo work was not as good as his work with Stan Lee, although there are some fans who believe his ?Fourth World? comics are a high point of his career. And I?m sure there are people who like Steve Ditko?s Objectivist comic books, I?m not one of them. However, it?s also true that without Jack and Steve, Stan Lee didn?t exactly do a lot of memorable work either. Ever read Ravage 2099 or the Just Imagine? series of one-shots for DC comics? If you haven?t, consider yourself lucky.

I agree that Stan Lee is not a financial mastermind (the whole StanLee.net debacle would not have happened if he were), and he may well be owed money from Marvel for the movie deals. But according to tonight?s episode of 60 Minutes, he?s getting a million dollars a year in the form of a stipend from Marvel. That?s considerably better treatment than any other creator from Marvel has received.

[Jimmy Antley]

Hey Anon.

You mean Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings? No way they could have been as good as Paul, Linda, and Denny Lane.

[James Merritt]

Well, it's not true that nobody remembers National Periodical Publications, Bob Kane, SiegEl and Shuster, Julius Schwartz, and a large cast and crew that later became just DC Comics (eventually a division of Time-Warner, and finally a small fiefdom of AOL TW). This is, however, despite the relatively low-key DC approach, which was to let the characters be the stars, except in a very few, exceptional circumstances. Now and again an Alan Moore or a Neal Adams or a Berni Wrightson -- or a job-hopping Jack Kirby or Steve Dikto, for that matter -- would come along and get prominent mention on the cover. But for the most part, you had to read the very fine print on the letters page to get a glimpse of the people behind the scenes, much less any cheerleading for them.

Stan Lee may have been a unique motive force, and his legendary collaborations may have been more potent than any solo efforts of the individual collaborators before or since; give the man his props. On the other hand, he has a special genius for self-promotion, which is why people remember HIM as much as the characters he and his collaborators brought to the comic pages.

I don't think that Lee was a bad guy for tooting his own horn. I also remember his many editorials, in which he freely gave credit to all at Marvel, including not just artists, writers, inkers, and editors, but also secretaries, gofers, business managers, etc. I don't know anything about the money, but I do know that he nearly ran out of adjectives in praise of the various members of the Marvel gang. So good on Stan.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Jesus, don't you people know that "The Wall" sucked too? God, it sucked.

And anonymous poster, you have the Ringo/Art rule backwards.

[Kevin Carson]

"The Wall" did not suck. You'll smoke a turd in hell for that, Doug. (Although the album left out the best song, "The Day the Tigers Broke Free")

[tim]

To clarify the Ringo/Garfunkel principle: The RG Principle describes situations in which one part of a duo or group (not necessarily musical) is popularly dismissed as an along-for-the-ride schmo, but in the absence of said schmo, the rest of the group or the remaining partner is never as good.

This emphatically does not mean that the schmo will produce great stuff on his own, as some of you have implied. I do think Ringo's 1973 eponymous album is the best work done by any of the former Beatles, but obviously there's no case for Ringo's being a great genius, or even a particularly competent drummer. And Garfunkel, other than eliciting one of Jack Nicholson's greatest performances in Carnal Knowledge, did squat on his own. Again, the argument is not that the unsung schmo is the real genius, but that he was obviously contributing something we can't quite define. I suspect the science behind the RG Principle may be that what we think of as great talent or genius is more a matter of a particular situation than we realize.

There are other examples: I forget who's who between Jeunet and Caro, but one of them went on to make Amelie and a couple other highly regarded pictures, and has encouraged scuttlebutt that he was the real genius of the two. I would argue that none of those movies approaches Delicatessan or City of Lost Children, so there must have been something going on with the pair that isn't carried on in the individual. For that matter, George Michael solo is, in my opinion, a mere shade of Wham! Also, the Beatles themselves must at some level have grasped the RG Principle: When Ringo, feeling unappreciated, briefly quit the band, all work stopped on the White Album until he could be coaxed back.

I apologize for any feelings I may have hurt with my "sucked out loud" description; I just think it's a funny phrase. I do find Paul Simon's solo work unbearable, and not in a good way. (I'm excepting his great supporting role as Tony Lacy in Annie Hall.) I'm not a big fan of S&G either, but I think it's pretty clear their stuff was important and meant something to a lot of people. Anyway, I come here not to bury Paul Simon but to praise Stan Lee. The Ringo/Garfunkel Principle is submitted for your approval. Apply it, or not, as you see fit.

[HH]

If you think Stan Lee's still got it, just tune into TNN (or whatever it's called this second) tonight and hang your head in shame.

[Dirk Deppey]

I'm with Chris Puzak on this one. Before their runs on Marvel, Jack Kirby created Captain America, the Newsboy Legion and some of the first romance comics ever published, while Steve Ditko was doing his wild-ass horror and crime comics. After Marvel, Kirby went on to the Fourth World series, and Ditko's Objectivist comics, while more than a little unhinged, nonetheless display more skill and creativity than Stan Lee has ever been able to muster. Lee, by contrast, has produced nothing but crap since his creative betters abandoned Marvel.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Look, I was around when "The Wall" came out. It sucked. It was the end. It hasn't gotten better over the years.

[Warren]

"George Michael solo is, in my opinion, a mere shade of Wham!" Eewww! Even without the "sucks out loud" reference, that is just not something a grown man should even have an opinion of. But it explains why you wouldn't appreciate the introspective and nuanced verse of Simon and Garfunkel.

Sorry, but I must declare the Ringo/Garfunkel principal to be (mostly) without merit. As stated above the description "sucks out lout" simply isn't apt. Furthermore, conventional wisdom holds that it was the Lennon/McCartney pairing that spawned the fruits of greatness. Starr may very well be deserving of the schmo lable. Still I understand what you are getting at and it is a useful concept.

As for Mr. Lee, well when I was in Jr. High I thought Marvel was way better than DC. I remember reading something by Lee about how all Marvel comics needed to have the "Marvel look". Well apparently a lot of people agreed that that was the look every comic needed because the DC heros started look like that too. Seems to me, I remember a bit of a backlash some time ago about comics getting 'Marvelized'. Anybody remember ElfQuest?

[Anonymous]

Um, Mallrats? Hello?

[Anonymous]

Fred App:

The Ringo/Garfunkel rule refers to the fact that Art Garfunkel's solo efforts sucked out loud. Not Paul Simon.

[Russ]

I'd equate Stan Lee to Col. Tom Parker more than I'd equate him to Ringo.

[Warren]

Fred,
Are you nuts? I can say without having to resort to hyperbole that S&G was a hundred million times better than PS on his own.

Tim,
We need clarification on the Ringo/Garfunkel rule. I first thought that the "sucks out loud" (obviously) referred to Ringo and Art, but the context you use it seems to indicate that you are referring to their partners, but in that case SOL is too harsh.

[Tom Parmenter]

DC was led in the 30s by Max Gaines, who not only fathered the entire idea of comic books, but also fathered William Gaines, founder of MAD.

[Tom Parmenter]

DC was run in the 1930s by Max Gaines, who not only fathered the entire idea of comic books, but also fathered William Gaines, publisher of the best comic books of all time, MAD, Panic, Tales from the Crypt, Two-Fisted Tales, and many others.

/s/ E.C. Fan-Addict 22336

[tim]

Warren, I would say the balance had slipped back into DC's favor in the eighties and early nineties. Watchmen, The Dark Knight, Sandman, etc: Everything good in non-alternative comics was coming out of DC then. I chalked it up then to their being number two, and thus trying harder. Since then, like everybody else on the planet, I've stopped caring. I agree mostly with the judgment that direct distribution destroyed the comics economy, though it's churlish to make that complaint and not also note that that trend went hand-in-hand with a vast improvement in subject matter and artistic quality. Now, however, I think it's past time to get comics back in drugstores, or computer stores, or anywhere that kids can get them at a decent price without having to deal with creepy men in their twenties and thirties.

[Anonymous]

testing

[Kevin Carson]

Warren,

Obviously, the picture changes when you bring Barrett into it. I've worn out two tapes of "Piper at the Gates of Dawn."

[Fred App]

Are you saying, according to the Ringo/Garfunkel Rule, that Paul Simon's solo career sucks out loud? I think that's a pretty hard position to offend. Whether you like him or not, I think it's pretty clear that his solo stuff beats the pants off his S&G stuff.

A better example is Michael Jordan/Scottie Pippen. Jordan never won squat without Scottie, and vice versa. That seems to mirror the Lee/Kirby relationship pretty well.

[HH]

I refuse to buy that Jack Kirby "sucked out loud" at any time...

[Jesse Walker]

"Jordan never won squat without Scottie"

Uh ... there was that little NCAA title back in '82.

[CowboyDan]

Tim C.'s Ringo/Garfunkel rule clearly implies that the "genius partners" (John, Paul, George & Mr. Simon) sucked out loud, not the other way around. It's a crappy analogy (a) because it would follow that Stan Lee's career mimics the quality Ringo's or Garfunkel's solo careers, which Mr. Cavanaugh surely didn't mean. (Has anyone watched Caveman lately?) and (b) because Lennon, McCartney and Simon have all produced worthy solo material.

[Smith Whitney]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 82.146.43.155
URL: http://www.americanpaydayloans.net
DATE: 02/27/2004 02:38:25
Gratitude is born in hearts that take time to count up past mercies.