home
Lee did not know what was in the comics he claimed to write
13 March 2017
(In Patrick Ford's thread about Roy Thomas)
Chris Tolworthy: As I always point out when the Freedland interview comes up, it shows the opposite of what most people think it shows. This is old news, but it is worth repeating. On the surface, it appears to show that Stan wrote the comic. But READ THE DAMN COMICS and see for yourself. The interview shows the opposite.
1. Stan did not know the basics about the characters.
Stan says "The Silver Surfer has been somewhere out in space since he helped the FF stop Galactus from destroying Earth." But the whole point is that the surfer **can't** go out in space because he was exiled to Earth.
2. Stan did not know the story.
The story in question, FF 55, interrupts the flow of the previous issues, which by this point are all continuous stories. At this point the story was in the middle of the Black Panther and Klaw. Even as a child I could see that this stand-alone fight did not fit. Not only did it interrupt the flow, but it's dumb and simplistic: a cliched misunderstanding turns slug fest. The following issues carry on with the richer and more original Panther-Klaw saga.
3. Stan did not understand character development.
Stan says "Doctor Doom has caught them again" as a sub plot to the surfer story. Doom is NEVER a sub-plot. Doom is never even a single issue at this point, but every appearance is bigger and grander than the last. Stan does not give any reason for Doom appearing (unless that was edited out, and I doubt it given the shallowness of Stan's solo work). But Kirby's Doom is always part of the bigger Doom story, with each event caused by the sum of the previous stories. Kirby cannot add Doom in FF 55 because it makes no sense. Here is why:
In FF annual 2 we saw Doom finally defeat Reed (he thought), enabling Doom to devote his time to becoming ruler of Latveria, and that occupies all Doom's time. Next, in FF 38 we saw Doom enjoying his life as ruler, but he became enraged when he realised his greatest triumph (disposing of Reed so he could concentrate on ruling) was actually Reed tricking HIM. In a rash act of passion, Doom immediately sets off on a very ill judged attack, without any preparation. This leads to Doom's greatest ever humiliation: Ben crushing his hands. That humiliation is the direct reason for the events of annual 3, which ends with the Watcher resetting these events as if they never happened. That humiliation is again the background to the four issue "Cosmic Doom" story (look at the art, where Doom is still nursing his hands). But Doom knows better than to attack the FF now: he only does so because the surfer is defeated, so Doom can claim his power. DOOM COULD NOT ATTACK WHILE THE SURFER WAS ACTIVE. Stan's story contradicts Doom's story. After being defeated again, Doom never again risks attacking the team (in Kirby's stories), and only traps them when they choose to enter Latveria, and this epic takes FOUR ISSUES to develop. For Stan to just say "Doctor Doom has caught them again" as a subplot to a single issue shows that Stan does not understand Dr Doom, or what makes Doom great.
So the interview shows that Stan cannot have been the normal writer because (1) he did not know the basic facts about the characters, (2) he did not know what was in the book, and (3) he did not know what made the characters work.
And of course, Stan's story is about the Silver Surfer, the one character where even Stan admits that Jack created on his own.
And finally, Stan makes his claim to have won the Herald Tribune competition three times, which others have checked and it's yet another lie.
tl;dr the interview is proof that Stan Lee did not write the FF.
Patrick Ford: All good points Chris. Here's another thing fans and historians fail to notice. Lee is frequently credited with a plot when by the admission of Lee a plot amounted to "just a few words." I don't doubt that on occasion Lee ordered Kirby to bring back Dr. Doom or have the FF fight the Avengers. Those are the sort of "plots" Steve Ditko describes Lee ordering. Lee frequently took published plot credits in the Marvel comics.
Fans like to talk about Kirby plotting or co-plotting but Kirby never received a published plot credit at Marvel. Since it is generally accepted that Kirby plotted let's consider what a Kirby "plot" consisted of compared to just a few words.
Kirby (as well as Ditko and others) gave Lee a complete story. Everything was written with the exception of the final dialogue.
And yet Lee took plot credits which he published in the magazines. And Kirby got no writing credit at all.
Patrick Ford: Lee reminds me of the sort of person who says, "I built this addition to the house." Where in fact they didn't build anything. Other people did the work. However, in the case of Kirby and Lee I believe that it was only rarely that Lee even suggested building an addition. Kirby would suggest building an addition. Lee would approve and Kirby would design and build the addition he suggested.
Lee would then come along and redecorate the interior with tacky gold painted furniture which clashed with the design but impressed the sort of person who likes glitz.
Chris Tolworthy: The topic of "suggesting plots" is what bugs me the most about the relationship. Yes, Lee said "do Dr Doom again" or whatever. Goodman and Lee simply said "X sold, do X again". That is the intelligence of a single celled organism: merely react, react, react. But they show no understanding of WHY the original story sold well. No understanding of why one story is better than another. For plotting, Lee reacts to the sales figures. For scripts. Lee reacts to the art. It is all reaction, no creativity at all. He sells himself as a creative person when his role was that of an amoeba.
Or, at best, Lee had the role of a ten year old child who reads a story, does not understand it, and creates his own simplified version. Which is what he continued to do on the Fantastic Four after Kirby left: issue after issue was just a rehash of Kirby's old stories.
Chris Tolworthy: BTW, on a tangent, but it's relevant to the Marvel Method, does anyone else see a strong similarity between FF 105 and 108?
I ask because I just said that all of Stan's post Kirby FF stories were just repeats of Kirby's ideas. The one exception appears to be the first completely non-Kirby story, FF 105, "The Monster's Secret", about a mystery monster rampaging the streets of New York. I was going to give Stan credit for an original idea. But then I noticed that he had reused a similar idea in FF 108. And then I remembered that FF 108 is Kirby's FF 102 that was famously butchered and held back for when Kirby's DC work began.
FF 105 and 108 both deal with a mystery bad guy rampaging the streets of New York, shooting energy bolts and surrounded by Kirby dots. In both, the mystery guy is actually a close family member (son or clone) to a sympathetic scientist. In both, the scientist was experimenting with some weird new energy source, but the experiment went wrong.
As a child I always got the two stories mixed up. Does anyone else see the similarity? If so, this suggests an additional reason why Stan held that story back. Because it would be really obvious that when Kirby left, Stan just copied Kirby. But by holding Kirby's story back, Stan makes his first non-Kirby story look creative and original, and Kirby's story now look like the copy. Any thoughts?
Michael Hill: I've never read FF 105 but of *course* Kirby ripped off Lee's first ever original story. Same thing happened in FF Annual #1 where Kirby ripped off Lee/Ditko's ASM #1 story. (Jean Depelley credibly shows it was the other way around in his TJKC 66 article.)
Patrick Ford: My thought has always been that Marvel and Lee were actively trying to drive Kirby off. Why else would Lee reject several complete stories in a very short period of time?
I mentioned this theory to Mark Evanier and Mark said that it couldn't be true because "Stan was horrified" by the thought of Kirby leaving. How would Mark know that Lee was horrified? Well clearly Lee told him that and other Marvel employees told Mark that. But what were they supposed to say? Would it fit Marvel's agenda if they said, "Martin Ackerman viewed comments by Kirby and his attorney as a threat. Ackerman had just purchased the Marvel copyrights and Kirby was asking for a contract which gave him the credit he had been demanding from Lee. Ackerman demanded legal language which Kirby would not agree to and so Marvel decided the best course of action was to drive Kirby away from the company."
Patrick Ford: Of course Marvel could have just quit giving Kirby assignments. But then Kirby would not have been the unfaithful spouse who broke up the happy home of many a small child by abandoning them.
Michael Hill: But, but, but... to this day, Lee expresses mystification at why the best and brightest of the interchangeable "artists" who could execute his brilliant ideas all left him! Surely if he'd known the reason, he could have magnanimously brokered some kind of truce!
Patrick Ford: Kirby said Marvel made no attempt to keep him. He said they didn't care at all because they had a bunch of Kirby clones ready to step in.
home