BAB Book Review: Marvel Comics - The Untold Story, part one

 

Marvel Comics: The Untold Story

Sean Howe

Harper, (c) 2012

Karen: First thing: Hi. We're back. After our semi-vacation, it seemed like a good idea to get back in the saddle with a review of this book, which has been the talk of the comics blogosphere for a few months now. I read it back in November (although I've done some flipping back through it to refresh my memory), and Doug read it over the Christmas holiday. I know several of you were also reading it the last couple of months. So it's probably time to discuss it now. We're going to split our review into two parts; this first part will cover the events prior to Jim Shooter becoming editor in chief, and the second part will cover Shooter's reign and after.  

Doug:  For those of you who've not read this book, I'd strongly recommend it.  It's an easy read, very accessible.  It's a big one at 400 pages, but it really breezed by for me.  

Karen: The book is well-written and Howe does an excellent job of providing attributions for all his quotes, something often sadly lacking in other comics-related books. While I was reading it, I couldn't put it down. However, after finishing the book, my foremost takeaway is that sometimes it's best not to know what's going on behind the scenes. It's that old adage about the sausage-making. Now admittedly I had heard many of the stories recounted here already. But there were a fair number of new accounts I hadn't heard, and all in all, I walk away from this perhaps a little sadder than before. 

Stan "The Man" Lee, 1960's

Doug:  I'll jump right on the citations bandwagon.  While Howe doesn't provide direct footnotes or references for many of his quotes, most are attributed as Karen said, and there are lengthy notes and resource sections at the conclusion of the book.  What was so painfully lacking in Ronin Ro's Tales to Astonish is fully on display here in Howe's book.  I'll also agree with Karen's assessment of this book sometimes bursting bubbles.  I think we've all known for quite some time that the Marvel Bullpen was a complete fabrication created by Stan to draw in readers and turn them into fans.  Many of the anecdotes that Howe relates show the Marvel offices to be small in space and staff, with freelancers happening by every so often.  While I've heard that there is some truth to the story conferences held between Stan and his artists, as seen in Daredevil Annual #1 for example, the image that many of us have of Stan leaping about on his desk and on coffee tables was much more the exception than the norm.  And while Karen mentions feeling sad after reading the book, I'll add that I agree with her assessment through the half of the book that we're covering today; but by the time I'd gotten through the current state of affairs at Marvel (the latter part of the book) I had a bit of a sense of depression.

Jack "King" Kirby, 1980's

Karen: The second half really hammers home that comics is a business. Howe's history is  quite complete, and while I found it somewhat interesting to learn about publisher Martin Goodman's past and the events that would lead to the birth of Marvel Comics, what I really wanted to read about were the things that happened from the creation of the Fantastic Four on, and this is the meat of the book. From Howe's descriptions of the situation at Marvel, I got the impression that there were problems between Stan Lee and his artists almost from the very start. I can't help but wonder if much of the frustration the artists seemed to feel stemmed from working in the 'Marvel Method', where the artists supplied much of the plot for an issue. In some cases, particularly with Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko, the artists frequently came up with nearly all of the story, with Lee chiefly coming in afterwards to write captions and dialog. Of course, the Marvel Method evolved because Lee was the only writer on staff at the beginning. It would have been impossible for the man to provide full scripts for every book they were producing at the time. But it's easy to see how it would have bred ill-feeling. Of course, as Marvel grew popular, Lee also became adept at self-promotion, and this didn't help matters.

Doug:  As far as the Martin Goodman stuff goes (and I'll go further to add the relationships between Joe Simon and Jack Kirby to Stan Lee), I think any of the Marvel histories (Ro's, Les Daniels' Marvel:  Five Fabulous Decades of the World's Greatest Comics), and the Stan Lee biographies by George Mair (Excelsior!  The Amazing Life of Stan Lee), and Jordan Raphael and Tom Spurgeon (Stan Lee and the Rise and Fall of the American Comic Book) do an equal job of detailing Timely Comics' Golden Age and metamorphosis into Atlas Comics -- and the demise of the industry post-Wertham.  

Steve Ditko, 1960's

Doug:  Concerning the "Marvel Method":  If there's one takeaway from this book, it may be the body count of bruised egos left strewn along the pages we've all cherished.  Let me offer this:  even once comics moved into the 1980's and creators with total control became more common, the term used to describe them is "writer/artist".  There seemed to be two really big issues for a lot of the pencilers.  One, that Stan Lee got top billing as the writer and as Karen said increasingly began to take all of the credit (much of which can be attributed to "silence is acceptance"; Stan had ample opportunity in many interviews to set the record straight on all of his co-creations and often chose not to do that).  The second major thorn-in-the-side was the lack of creator control, credits, or royalties for characters created.  I have to play devil's advocate here to some extent, and we can use the Superman legal suits as a case study:  By the time Kirby and Ditko were firing on all cylinders, Superman had been in movie serials, cartoons, radio programs, the George Reeves television series, and countless incarnations as toys, coloring books, etc.  That Kirby and Ditko wouldn't have had any knowledge of a) the empire that Superman had become or b) the fact that Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were working stiffs just like them, having sold the Man of Steel and all rights for a song is simply ludicrous.  They knew what work-for-hire was, and regardless of the moral shortcomings of the policy those were the rules they were playing under in those days.  Do I personally think it would have been a better, happier, story if Siegel & Schuster and Simon & Kirby, et al. had received a fair cut of the profits from the intellectual properties they'd created?  Duh -- of course I do!  But I still say that what gets lost in these tales is the fact that we're dealing with grown men who were trying to pay for their families' expenses -- they had somewhat unique talents and were compensated only at a going rate for those talents.  No one likes to be unemployed, and certainly wouldn't have wanted to have been blackballed for standing on principle. So they took what Marvel Comics offered and soldiered on -- knowing full well that everything they created was instantly the copyright and/or trademark of someone other than themselves.

Roy Thomas, early 1970's

Karen: Although Lee gets a lot of flak for his self-aggrandizement, and sometimes deservedly so, I often wonder if Marvel would ever have become as popular as it did without Lee there as the face of the company? I mean, you can't think about Marvel, at least Marvel of the 60s, without thinking of Lee. It's simply not possible. He represents that company and those characters in a way that no one at DC does. And yes,even though the whole idea of one big, happy bullpen was a fiction, that, and Lee's personal style, created a sense of camaraderie that drew fans in. The creators' rights issues are always tough. Certainly, if they were unhappy, they could have gone into another area of work, such as commercial art. As you say, they knew what they were signing. Although no one had a crystal ball -despite the enormous success of Superman, no one could be blamed for not foreseeing the eventual success of the Marvel characters. I do feel that later on though, there was not enough effort made to pay many of these people back for the enormous contributions they made to the company. The whole fiasco over returning Kirby's artwork is just appalling.

Doug:  Howe reported that many of the artists at Stan's disposal as Marvel was re-energizing in the early 1960's really eschewed the Marvel Method.  Stan went looking for artists who had been writers to help ease the creative blocks some of the guys were faced with when given the freedom to plot and pace on their own.  I thought this anecdote further elevated Kirby and Ditko as forces of nature at early Marvel, and perhaps served to inflate their egos (maybe even justifiably so). And the episode you mention about Kirby's original art?  That's one of the accounts in the book that both saddened and maddened me.

Gerry Conway, c. 1973

Karen: Over time it has become more obvious, at least to me, what those two contributed to the comics they worked on. There's no denying the creative genius of the guys. But again, it's all a synthesis. Without Lee's dialog and characterization, indeed, humanizing of the super-heroes, would the books have been successful? So they deserve respect, and more credit than they typically get, certainly. It does bother me when I hear people talk about the Marvel films and ascribe all the characters to Lee, for example.

Doug:  Did you notice that Howe stuck in an editorial comment here and there?  One I recall specifically was his line, "The concept for the new Daredevil was not remarkable".  Personally, I thought Daredevil as a concept was pretty unique and enjoyed many issues of the title through the years (yes, yes, I know there were some definite lulls along the way). 

Karen: I don't mind a few editorial remarks -the writer has to have a bit of a voice-and in this case, I tend to agree with him! I don't think Howe went overboard though. For that, you'd have to see the Marvel Comics in the 1970s tome by Pierre Comtois. 

Doug:  Yes, I have both of the Comtois volumes (available from TwoMorrows), and to be honest you scared me away from reading them. For the most part you and I see eye-to-eye, and I didn't feel like taking the punishment.  One of these days I probably will, and we can do another BAB Book Review for our readers' benefits.

Karen: I certainly didn't mean to drive you away from those books, but the second one in particular was a frustrating read. But you should judge for yourself. But back in the bullpen, Lee was bringing in other writers, like Gary Friedrich and notably Roy Thomas.  But the writers were trying to emulate Lee, just as the artists had been told to emulate Kirby. I was surprised to hear that even in the late 60s, Thomas had decided to not truly invest himself in creating new characters, as he could never actually own them or make a profit from them. More writers, like Gerry Conway, came aboard, but the period around 1968-1970 seems like a bit of a rut, as Kirby was pulling back, Lee was starting to move on to other things, and the new guys were trying to find their way, all the while trying to maintain the status quo. It was only with  the arrival of an influx of new blood that Marvel really began to experiment and flower again.

Doug:  One of the interesting habits Howe exhibited in the book was informing the reader of the ages of many of the creators discussed.  I think most of our readers know that Stan Lee and Gerry Conway both started with Marvel when they were 19-year olds, but I didn't know just how young several other pros were.  One has to wonder if the immaturity brought on by a lack of life and/or work experiences may have contributed a bit to the discord that seemed to dominate the freelancers and editorial staff in the 1970's.  Personally, I don't think Jack Kirby ever got past the fact that Stan had begun as an office boy.  Late in the book (and we'll address this in greater detail next Tuesday when we conclude our discussion of this history), Kirby repeatedly refers to Lee as "Stanley".  While that's obviously his real name, it seemed condescending.

Karen: It was definitely condescending, and I think you're right, he always looked down upon Lee. The same with Roy Thomas ('Houseroy').

Len Wein, 1970's

Doug:  It's interesting that you say the 1968-1970 period was a bit of a rut, as that was sort of Marvel's explosion.  Once freed from the terrible distribution deal Marvel had had with DC, where the Marvel books were limited to only a handful a month, the House of Ideas exploded.  The Silver Surfer, Cap, Iron Man, Subby, and the Hulk all went solo that year -- and really, the creative teams were solid.  But I think I understand what you mean.  The best days of the Fantastic Four were dwindling rapidly as '68 gave way to '69, and for my money the Surfer's book would begin to play like a broken record pretty quickly.  The X-Men was about to be cancelled, and Daredevil was middling.  So yeah, perhaps the expansion was only an illusion.  We can certainly draw a line between the twilight of the Silver Age and the coming Bronze Age.

Karen: I think it was a rut if you look at the mainstream titles. There was just no real movement, no real excitement, in some of the bigger titles, like the FF. I think Marvel was transitioning. People had to find their own voice, their own style, and move away from just staying with the same old thing.

Steve Englehart, c. 1982

Karen: Howe depicts the early to mid 70s at Marvel as both exciting and chaotic, a sort of the 'inmates running the asylum' scene.I was not surprised by the amount of drug use by certain artists and writers, as I had heard about this before. What was more interesting to read about was how there were divisions among the second generation of talent, with people like Conway, Len Wein, and Marv Wolfman falling into the more mainstream camp, and Steve Englehart, Jim Starlin, Steve Gerber and others falling into the more counter-culture group. Also, the constant struggle by some for the editor in chief hat was something I'd only heard mention of before, but here, Howe lays it out in detail. Most of the 'mainstream' guys were all, at one time or another, editor in chief, no matter how brief. After Roy Thomas' hands-off policy, all of the EIC's to follow tried to be more involved, but wrangling the free spirits at Marvel proved to be a daunting task. Ultimately Jim Shooter would be the one to impose order over the Marvel staff, but some might ask at what cost?

Doug:  The period leading up to our personal halfway mark was just one big dysfunctional mess.  Again, as I said above, I think the fact that many of these guys were young 20-somethings had quite a bit to do with it -- none of these newer guys had much if any college (I am, in some cases, making assumptions), nor any real-world work experience.  Suddenly thrust into positions of either authority or as care-takers of the creations of their boyhood idols, these young Turks didn't always handle it (or themselves) well.  You're exactly right about the EiC merry-go-round.  We could probably sum it up just by mentioning that Conway held the position for less than a month before resigning.  And before he'd taken it, Thomas had been offered it for a second time, and had turned it down.

Karen: Despite the utter chaos behind the scenes, I still feel that the period of 1972 to about 1976 produced some of the very best material to come out of Marvel. All that freedom was certainly a double-edged sword, but without Thomas letting guys like Englehart and Starlin cut loose, we might never have had the Celestial Madonna, or Thanos getting the Cosmic Cube, or the Secret Empire saga, and so many other great stories and characters. 

Doug:  Another bit of luster that was lost for me was the manner in which economics drove seemingly every decision, personnel-wise and creatively.  I'm not so naive as to fail to grasp that Marvel Comics was an enterprise in itself, and even more so a small piece of a larger company.  But to hear some of the creators tell how they were encouraged to do this, or do that, often with not a thought toward cogent storylines was disheartening.  I'll tell you, there are a lot of books that we've enjoyed sharing together on the BAB through the years that may have more of a backstory than I ever cared to know.  Some of the scripting had teeth in it, and other times the ways and angles stories moved weren't necessarily organic.  This is probably my takeaway from the first part of the book; that, and the way Kirby was perceived and treated upon his "The King is Back!" third stint for the company in the mid-'70's.  I felt blue...