Joe Fields wrote:

> I've known Stan Lee for something close to 20 years. As a comics'
> fan/retailer, I've known his work for more than 35 years. Stan was a
> creative force in comics for years. The fact that both Ditko and Kirby
> did their best work with Stan says something very powerful about his
> abilities as a writer, as an editor and a creative force. That Kirby's
> and Ditko's work without Stan's involvement were not up to the 
> standards
> of what they did with Stan should be instructive to anyone who cares to
> learn the history.
>
I think you mean "most commercially successful". I might be in the 
minority, but I find Kirby's Fourth World and Challengers of the 
Unknown, to name but two examples, to be far superior to any of his 
Marvel Work. Kirby was creative for close to 20 years before teaming up 
with Lee. Lee's main contribution to comics, aside from the 
hucksterism, is the Marvel Method, which basically lets the artist do 
all the work, from a very, very loose outline. Stan sez to Jack: "The 
Fantastic Four fight God!" Jack goes home, comes back with Galactus and 
the Silver Surfer. Trust me, Joe, I know my history.

And as far as "history" goes, you mean what, "history" as Stan tells it 
to you? There's plenty of dissenting views. You mean books by Stan on 
how he single-handedly revolutionized comics? Or books like Ronin Ro's 
Tales to Astonish, or Tom Spurgeon and Jordan Raphael's Stan Lee and 
the Rise and Fall of the American Comic Book,to name but two recent 
examples? I'm sure you'd take exception to what *they* have to say.

> That's not to denigrate the work of either Ditko or Kirby, two artists 
> I
> greatly admire (I own originals from both). But this isn't an  
> either/or
> situation. Stan had his creative years, so did Ditko and Kirby.  We
> expect waaaaay too much of our creators--whether we're talking music or
> comics, etc. At the top levels of any creativity, each artist probably
> has 10-15 really great years----but so many of us expect them to keep 
> it
> all on the same creative high for 35, 40, 50, 60 years. That's just
> unreasonable (unless you're Will Eisner, which is an exceptional,
> different story altogether).

That's a bit of a side issue, frankly. I'm talking about the "peak 
years" of these artists, not their long, slow decline. And Will, to be 
technical, basically took 35 years off to do commercial, largely unseen 
work for the army, and some pretty bad joke books in the seventies. 
Then came A contract with God.
>
> Lee/Kirby and Lee/Ditko were more akin to Lennon/McCartney. Both
> geniuses in their own right---and never quite as good on their own.

I think Lee, like Mike Love, made the more personal, darker visions of 
their creative better halves more palatable and accessible to the 
Public. I'm not entirely dismissing your McCartney comparison here, 
since he's been accused by some of being an artistic lightweight 
compared to Lennon, but I'm not taking sides in *that* never-ending 
debate.

> On top of that, on a personal level, Stan has ALWAYS done right by me.
> The guy is aces in my book.
>
Stan is known to be just about the ultimate shmoozer. It's always 
cringeworthy to see and hear Kevin Smith embarrass himself and 
spreading misinformation about "Marvel Age" and Stan's role in it, 
while bending over backwards to kiss Stan's ass. Stan does right by 
anyone who worships him, clearly.

>> Actually, Mike Love is a fine bass singer. I wonder what Stan's 
>> singing  voice sounds like...>
>
> Stan is a Howard Keel kinda guy. Big, loud manly showtunes are his 
> forte.
>
Standing on a chair, too, I'm told. He's one showstopper, than Man.

Sorry about the off-topicness, folks.

Rick