Slashdot Mirror
Stan Lee: The Rise and Fall of The American Comic Book
If you don't know who Stan Lee is, you will have little to no interest in this book. But who are we kidding? Any geek worth his or her metal knows Stan "The Man" Lee, the co-creator of Spider-man, The Hulk, The Fantastic Four and countless other beloved Marvel Comics characters. What most people don't really know is the real story behind the creation of these characters. Many have never heard of the artists Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko, who contributed a great deal to the creation and development of these superheroes. In the past years a bit of a rift has formed in comics fandom, the hard-core siding with the late Kirby, claiming that Lee and Marvel did the artist wrong. The other side blithely backs the amiable Lee. Through interviews with artists, family members and Stan Lee himself, Spurgeon and Raphael try to shed some light on the subject.
Anyone who's read Michael Chabon's The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay will notice a great deal of similarities between Stan Lee's origins and the fictionalized settings Chabon created for his book. Both stories start in the time of the pulps, when publishers cranked out fantastic publications by the truck-load. The parallels are fascinating. If you're a comic book fan and you haven't read Chabon's book, you need to read it.
Anyway, the book I'm supposed to be reviewing tracks Stan Lee's star from his position as a lowly writer at Timely Comics, to the editor behind the most famous run of comic books in history; Marvel's Silver Age comics. This is when the Fantastic Four, Spider-man and The Hulk were born. The book doesn't stop there. It follows Lee through the decades detailing his involvement with the Marvel titles all the way. It examines his rocky relationship with Hollywood and decades of attempts to bring Marvel characters to life on television or in the movies. Even more fascinating are the segments of the book that deal with Stan Lee Media and the enormous financial flame-out that occurred when the business went sour.
The book paints Lee in a very humanistic light. It brings his flaws into sharp contrast and at the same time gives him credit for his amazing accomplishments, unceasing drive and wild imagination. Most interesting is the way the book tells the story of all comics in the context of Marvel and Lee's story. As much as underground geniuses such as R. Crumb or Art Spiegelman must hate the association, it's hard to argue that the fates of all comics are influenced by Marvel's gravitational pull.
There's been a mild knee-jerk reaction in the comics community that the book is blatant attack on Lee, being that both Spurgeon and Raphael both worked at The Comics Journal, a publication that has publicly supported Jack Kirby's claims against Lee. To be fair, the authors put an exceptional amount of work into trying to tell the truth, which is reflected in the sheer number of annotated resources they've provided in the book's source notes.
In all seriousness, try to forget for a moment that I'm friends with the authors. As a lifelong comics reader I found the information presented in this book fascinating. It made me want to run to my comics shop and buy reprints of the old issues. Don't take my word for it, though.
There are several excerpts of the book available online. You can read the prologue at the book's official website. Part of Chapter 17, "Stan in Hollywood" is excerpted at The Comic's Journal's website."
You can purchase Stan Lee: The Rise and Fall of The American Comic Book from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Manga tend to last a certain amount of time and then end. They don't frequently switch writers and/or artists. Popular stories are not necessarily stretched and reinvented in order to increase sales. (This point is arguable. There were 37 volums of Ranma 1/2 IIRC.) Artists are treated as talents rather than commodities.
Who reads and sells more comic books than any other nation in the world?
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Now I know who I am.. hmm..
There are two kinds of egotists: 1) Those who admit it 2) The rest of us
Is the Things 'thing' made of rock as well?
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
I remember reading some potshots the two were taking at each other back in the mid-80s. It was stupid then and it's stupid now. It was a collaborative creation -Lee readily admits he just wrote outlines of the comics, let Kirby draw them and then added dialogue afterward. Lee will be dead soon and Kirby is already gone, so how about leaving it be?
Talk about your tempest in a teapot.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Between Diamond killing off independents by making them IMPOSSIBLE to get distributed and the basic stigma behind comics books, the only thing that wil truly re-invigorate comics is the internet and reinventing the distribution method.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
As Mark Evanier (once Jack Kirby's Assistant) said "Well, it's safe to say Jack did all the pencilling. Beyond that, we run into all sorts of semantic arguments having to do with definitions of the word "writing" and with the fact that Mssrs. Lee and Kirby both have/had notoriously poor memories. You also have the fact that, when two creative talents get together and come up with an idea, each of them might honestly believe that he suggested at least the core of the concept if not the entire thing. This happens in any collaboration anywhere and, ultimately, you usually have to just say that they both had the idea. Ergo, I say that the Lee-Kirby creations are Lee-Kirby creations."
I think that quote says it all--except for the fact that Stan Lee created/inspired a whole generation of HUMANISTIC superheroes--ones with flaws, foibles and problems that were not outweighed by ultra-human abilities. Peter Parker was still somewhat introverted and Geeky, Stephen Strange was still an alcoholic and somewhat arrogant, Ben Grimm had self-esteem problems relating to his appearance. The list is Endless.
Stan Lee and Marvel Comics brought us some of the greatest comics and heroes. Thanks Stan!!
In America today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the c
The "most important book ever to be written about the subject of comic books" is Understanding Comics.
It's in comic book (more accurately, a graphic novel (even more accurately, graphic nonfiction)) form, which is the right medium to actually describe the craft.
Holy crap! I suggest you immediately step away from the computer screen, pack a bag, and move out of your parents' basement.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
<comic-book-guy> I believe the name you're looking for is "Spider-Man". </comic-book-guy>
Sheesh... =)
Paul Lenhart writes words!
When you've been raised reading belgo-french heavy-metal comics, and as you grow-up, see the same character take on adult stories (and I mean with explicit, graphic sex), it's no wonder that american comics don't look too exiting.
I really wish comics were more popular than they are in America. The reasons why have been hashed out ad nauseum but I think it boils down to a bad stereotyped image ... that comics are for kids and mostly center around superheroes in spandex, muscles, with a hugely breasted babe on each arm. It's because companies like Marvel and DC saturate the market with their corny superhero escapades, leading people to assume that's all comics can be and all they're about.
There's a lot of great stuff there, but in order to truly break through the aformentioned kiddie / funny / superhero / alienated loser stereotype something more mainstream and substantial needs to come out of the comics world. My primary gripe is not about the art. The art is great and wonderful things are being done every day. It's the subject matter and the writing.
The handful of comics folks I really admire these days are Chris Ware, Posy Simmonds and Dan Clowes. Chris Ware's stuff transcends narrative and writing. Posy Simmonds' "Gemma Bovery" is a re-telling of Madame Bovery with a really complex merging of novel and art. It doesn't look that great at first but there's subtle patterns to when it lapses into comic and back to novel. Dan Clowes I mention because he's done comics that read more like films and his latest 8ball, frankly, blew me away with it's genere hopping and Altmanesque interweaving story lines.
I've been hopeful as of late as finally we got to see Ghost World, American Splendor, heck even Road To Perdition which are great examples of films based on comics that do not have the aforementioned superhero complex. For better or worse, it's hard to tell they in fact were comics to begin with. Now don't get me wrong, I still enjoy X-Men and Hulk, but I don't think these films are doing anything to break down the stereotypes of what comics are.
Frankly, we need more boundry-breaking artists than Stan Lee, who keeps rehashing the same old archetypes. Otherwise we'll just continue with the situation we have now, where comic book stores go under, fewer people can make a living at it, and the comics section is delegated to some far corner of the bookstore near the porno mags...
Something I observe with comics is the constant looking back on the characters creation. To the general public (at least), the story of the characters creation is the most important, definitive dimension of the character.
Spider man was bitten by a radioactive spider. The Hulk was shot with Gamma rays. These are all examples of the basic knowledge most individuals have about comic book characters.
I know it is proper story-telling to introduce characters and dramatize again and again their beginnings or history, but with comics it seems to be a big thing to recreate the character (even if in the same vein) every so often (usually in another medium I guess).
While this brings new readers and maybe reminds current readers of why they enjoy the comic, I wonder if it discourages the developement of the character (i.e. a change that redefines the character and is generally unreversable or undefiable, even in the comic book world).
I'm not saying characters don't change, but it seems when it comes down to it, the characters are always in the shadow of their original creation. I don't if this mirrors real life or not (though one could suppose so in most cases).
The proper use of the phrase is worth your "mettle" not "metal."
Revemnge of the English Majors . . .
Let's not overgeneralize the geeks & comic books thing, okay? I read a few when I was a kid, but have no interest at all now.
Scott McCloud's books, Understanding Comics, tries to answer your question. One big historical situation was back in the 40's and 50's when there was a genre of comics dealing with crime ... they would depict sex, drugs, grisly murders. There was a huge backlash and the "comics code" was created which basically censored the crap out of comic books in America. So, along the way, comics couldn't talk about "adult" subject matter, and due to all the media coverage, a lot of people were told that comic books were evil, brain washing, exploitative, etc.
Frankly you could see some parallels there and with what some people say about videogames today. Just imagine what would happen if the government decided to crack down on video games ... and all we were left with were Mario and Dance Dance Revolution etc....
Anyhow during the 60's a whole underground movement started which did a lot to revitalize the "adult" nature of comics ... starting with Crumb ... Spiegleman is a direct offshoot of what Crumb started with his autobiographical comics style.
But I would dare say the underground comics movement at least in it's inception, over compensated for all the censorship. They went far left, delving into drugs, nudity, sexual hangups, racism. So you get comics that are all about superheroes on one hand and alienated losers on the other, and not a whole lot inbetween.
The inbetween is what I think needs to be filled out.
In Japan they've got everything covered. There are comics for kids, adults, women, jocks, pervs, working class people. It is socially acceptable to read a comic. Nobody thinks you're a deviant, a perv or a stunted adolescent as they seem to in the States. And a lot of this stereotype has to do with the history, and the inability of the comics makers to breach the social walls with some truly mainstream material.
I'm thinking, American comics needs a "Harry Potter" or "Sims" equivalent.
While it is always dangerous to assume that a Slashdot reviewer actually knows what they're talking about, the review does present me with several reasons I might not want to read the book:
1. Calling Marvel's Silver Age comics "the most famous run of comic books in history" is a highly subjective and arguably mistaken statement. More famous than the early years of DC, with Batman and Superman? I don't think so.
2. While I have no objection to a book about Stan Lee per se, calling it The Rise and Fall of The American Comic Book suggests a rather serious overreach. The fact is that the decline in the quality of Stan Lee's Marvel stable happened at the same time of perhaps the most impressive ferment in comics and graphic novels in history, i.e. the mid-to-late 1980s, a renaissance lead by a handful of exceptionally influential DC titles (especially Alan Moore's Watchman, Frank Miller's Dark Knight, and Neil Gaiman's Sandman), together with a number of important independent comics (Dave Sims' Cerebus, etc.).
3. The review does not mention it, but the true "Fall of the American Comic Book" occured in the mid-1990s due to largely economic circumstances, i.e. the collapse of the speculator market and a disasterous consolidation of comic distribution companies set in motion by Marvel's decision to make Heroes World their sole distributor. (I published an article by Paul T. Riddell on this very subject in the Fall/Winter 2000 isssue of Nova Express, but there are also several online summaries of those events you can Google.) The fact that the book focuses on Stan Lee, and that the review makes no mention of this (an event quite apart from the Dotcom-like collapse of Stan Lee Media) makes me fear that this book either gives a very distorted view of this economic cataclysm, or no view at all.
That is not to say that it might not be interesting to Stan Lee fans. But Stan Lee != American Comic Books, no matter emblamatic his work may have been in the 1960s.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Such as Bone, Cerebus, Ghost in the Shell, and so forth, you'll see that Marvel is the AOL of comics.
I think I will wait for the movie adaption of this book. We will see what CGI can do with Stan.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Does the book explain how Iceman travelled? As far as I can tell a stream of water shot out of his hand and froze instantly in what just happened to be a perfectly smooth track that was strong enough to support him no matter how long it got. And he always managed to have enough momentum to slide along it, was this momentum an undocumented feature of his power?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
"Oh, Beneficent Deities Who smile down upon our bandwidth and HTML, please don't make the posting of completely counter-productive and useful-to-no-one "non-affiliate links" assume the same popularity with the /. High School set as "registration free" links, "Soviet Russia" Jokes, "Obligatory" anything, and Subject lines consisting solely of the words "One Word." Let us grow together into maturity, with the realization that even a site catering to the rants and tirades of pseudo-socialist geeks still has to make a buck somehow. Give us the discipline not to try and undermine every commerce-oriented Internet endeavor we stumble across, and the wisdom to find where our energies might be directed to stimulate Growth rather than Anarchy."
Amen.
Do you mean the old X-Force with Cable, Shatterstar, etc? Fuck that noise. The new X-Force, now X-Statix, beats the old X-Force like a red headed stepchild.
They can run all the banners they want, give premium members the right to see duplicate stories early, etc. I don't even mind the massive square ad they started putting in the middle of stories.
But the stories themselves should not be ads. Unless they want to make "Slashvertizements" a new category, so I can filter them out.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
You should check out the the Sandman Companion. It came out a few years ago, and covers the entire run of the Sandman, offering interviews with Neil Gaiman and others, and provides an excellent analysis of the BEST comic book series ever. Anywho, there is section in the book where Gaiman discusses the stigma attached to comic books. He recounted the story of when he was introduced to a person at a party. When the person asked him what he did for a living, he replied that he wrote comic books. Ther person acted like he just cut a fart in an elevator, but out of politeness, asked if he wrote anything that he might have read. When he told the gentleman that he wrote the Sandman, the guy became excited and said something like "Good lord! you're Neil Gaiman!. You don't write comic books, you write graphc novels." Gaiman compared it to being called a lady of the evening instead of a prostitute.
Everything "used to be better" or "is better over there". The reason is that the crappy stuff made in the past or overseas never makes it to us; we only see the cream of the crop that has stood the test of time or been judged worthy for export.
I'm sure there is plenty of crappy manga, but only the good stuff gets exported because there is limited shelf space and marketing dollars for this genre here in the States.