Out to Lunch

Doug:  Last month we spent quite a bit of time discussing Sean Howe's very fine Marvel Comics:  The Untold Story.  Since it's been a little while, let's revisit the idea of all of those creators and their various trials and tribulations.  Today's question is really quite simple, but maybe you might want to put a little thought into your comment before writing --

Doug:  Let's say you have the opportunity to go out with any comic book creator of your choice: any company, any era -- shoot, make it a tandem if you want.  If you've always idolized the Ross Andru/Mike Esposito or maybe the Curt Swan/Murphy Anderson teams, then take both creators out for a bite!

Doug:  So you've got this lunch date, and there are a bazillion thoughts burning in your head about this creator's career.  Try to come up with a list of two or three questions you'd like to ask them, and share it with the rest of us.  First, who would you love to have this sit-down with?  And second, what are you going to ask?

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

Marvel Comics: The Untold Story

Sean Howe

Harper, (c) 2012

Doug:  We're back with a look at the second half of Sean Howe's intimate examination of the history of Marvel Comics.  If you're somehow just landing here for the first time, or if you missed our first examination of this book last Friday, you might want to peruse the comments section.  Author Howe chimed in with some information in regard to some of the issues raised by our discussion. If it could be said that the first half of Howe's book is about heroes -- fallen and otherwise -- then it might be safe to say that (from this guy's perspective at least) the second half of this history is about villains.  And not of the super-powered variety.  Maybe the greedy type, but no one ends up "super" here for my money.  We'll be picking up the trail along about page 205 for those playing at home.

Jim Shooter, c. 1980's

Doug:  Last Friday you read this:  Karen: The second half really hammers home that comics is a business.  That actually gets rolling toward the end of the first half of the book, when Howe relates that James Galton was appointed to a VP position within Cadence Industries and placed in charge of the Marvel branch of operations.  Galton would go on to be a major player over most of the second half of Howe's story.  I think we can sum up the first pages of the recounting of Jim Shooter's tenure as EiC at Marvel in a few words:  restructuring, replacement, repercussions.  It seems, if we are to believe Howe's account, that Shooter came into the EiC position with a "take no prisoners" attitude.  One of the running themes throughout the remainder of this book is the up-and-down nature of the comic book market.  In the late 1970's Marvel was losing the steam they'd gained from the KISS Marvel Super Special and the Star Wars tie-in.  The Hulk and Spider-Man shows were still airing on CBS, but their advantage fell only to the respective comic books and not across the entire line.  As Shooter took the reins of the company, almost half of the titles were running late -- when that happened, there were fines to be paid to printers and distributors.  So from a business point-of-view, it really was unacceptable.  But I think a vignette told at the end of our last examination that perhaps springboards us to the Shooter era was the death of a Bullpen mainstay just before Shooter became EiC:  John Verpoorten.  The giant of a man who'd been Marvel's dictatorial production manager had died in his apartment, at the young age of 37.  From reading many of the accounts of the '70's Bullpen, it may have been the work that killed him -- the implication is certainly there.  As Shooter took over, he immediately changed the status quo of creators being hounded by the production manager.  Now numerous editors were hired, character duchies were handed over to the editors (a la the ages-old practice seen at DC Comics), and heads rolled.  Henceforth, the editors would direct the company, and not the production manager.  And creators grew angry.

Karen: Howe's recounting of John Verpoorten's death was shocking and depressing. The circumstances were part of it, but his age-37! - just stunned me. From the pictures I had seen of him, I always thought he was a much older man. He comes across as a true casualty of the business end of things. With Shooter's reign, while he might have made "the buses run on time" he also managed to drive away the most creative people and demand a more formulaic approach to comic book stories (story arcs no longer than two issues, the Shooter 'grid', etc.). You're not wrong to say that he took what he learned at DC and applied it to Marvel. And has any other comics figure ever been so reviled? I doubt if even Mort Weisinger was burned in effigy.

Doug:  The pages running from around 200-230 not only deal with creators becoming increasingly disgusted, but begin to discuss the descension (my word) into the business side of Marvel.  We get tons of anecdotes about Stan in Hollywood, licensing deals, toy tie-ins, cartoons in production, ads taken out in Variety "pimping" (Howe's word) Marvel's stable of characters, etc.  But two men stand out among all of this -- Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.  According to Howe, Stan still wielded some influence among the staff and freelancers, and many a'time Howe reveals that this angry creator was placated or that brewing situation was smoothed over by a call from or meeting with Stan.  Jack Kirby left Marvel quite unceremoniously.  For a guy who arguably built the company, it was a sad send-off.  He was not respected, and we're given the impression that he may even have been reviled.  He had developed real animosity toward Stan Lee and Roy Thomas, and found himself soon again working with them -- but not by his choice.  When the Fantastic Four cartoon was set to air in the late '70's, Kirby had found a place as a "concepts guy" and storyboard artist at Hanna-Barbera -- working under scripts written by Stan and/or Roy.  Stan's other claim to fame as the 1970's closed?  Derivative characters.  Worried that the very studios to whom he'd catered Marvel's characters all these years would somehow spin-off similar characters and retain their rights as new creations, Stan ordered up a heaping dose of She-Hulk, Ms. Marvel, and Spider-Woman.  Lee had long derided DC for their stable of Superman and Batman knock-offs, but found this to be a necessary side of the business.

Karen: I thought it was interesting that in a 1979 interview to the New York Times one writer anonymously stated that they thought Lee wanted to be another Walt Disney -branching out beyond comics into other media. That actually makes sense, except for the fact that Stan really didn't have the power. He was just another lackey when it comes down to it, a figurehead more than anything. But certainly his focus left comics and shifted to movies and TV, where it really wasn't successful.

Doug:  As I'm framing this week's concluding review, I've already become conscious that I've been pretty wordy.  I'm not going to lie -- this is a tough post to write!  The text is so anecdotal and thoroughly researched, that breaking out topics without ignoring the labor that Sean Howe put into the production seems a disservice.  But for the sake of space, I think we'd better make a lane change.  So rather than rehashing a bunch of the stories you've either a) already read or b) we're hopefully prompting you to read, I think I'll take this down to some break-outs that we can latch on to -- you're now going to get a series of Open Forum-worthy topics, each of them a day's discussion in their own right!

Doug:  So, here's the first one:  The ascension of the writer-artists, specifically in the persons of Frank Miller and John Byrne (later, Walter Simonson), given carte blanche on their respective books which included the ability to ignore chunks of continuity that had gone before.  Would Jack Kirby, in his third tenure at Marvel, have been the first to have such control?

Doug:  Creator rights.  One of Shooter's first moves as the new EiC was to retool the work-for-hire contracts, specifically stating within that any and all characters or plotlines created would be the sole property of Marvel Comics.  This created a furor among creators and led to a major exodus of talent.  Contrast that response, however, with two thoughts:  Stan Lee had rushed the above-mentioned derivative characters into production to protect Marvel's interests.  He'd co-created almost all of the foundational elements of the Marvel Universe anyway -- and never owned any of them.  And secondly, at this time none other than John Byrne stated on more than one occasion that he was a "company man" through and through and had no interest in any burgeoning guild or union movements.  Yet for Steve Gerber, David Anthony Kraft, Dave Cockrum, and others mentioned in the latter half of the book, there were certainly inherent economic and moral considerations in this line of thinking.

Doug:  Jim Shooter's alleged "Big Bang", whereby the Marvel Universe as we know it would have ceased to exist.  The characters of Thor, Spider-Man, etc. would have returned, but with new secret identities and re-tooled origins.  It was seen as taboo to even think about and was shelved.  Instead, Shooter won approval, and a dreadfully low promotional budget, for what would become known as the "New Universe".  Decades later, both Marvel and DC would be able to pull off new characters in established super-hero identities (John Stewart, James Rhodes, and the "feminization" of established male good guys and bad guys would be examples).

Karen: Although I've read about Shooter's proposed "Big Bang" in a couple of different places, I've never really understood the whys behind it other than what -pure ego? It's not as if all of those characters were doing poorly and needed a reboot. Certainly as the book goes on it portrays Shooter as getting further and further out there in terms of his grip on reality.

Bill Jemas

Doug:  The advent of the mini-series.  Secret Wars began as a toy tie-in (there's that licensing thing again), but spawned an avalanche of possibilities for test-marketing, cross-marketing, X-marketing, and #1's flying around all over the place.  My opinion?  Today's habit of constantly re-numbering titles got it's start in the marketing ploys of the 1980's.

Karen: I believe I can point to Secret Wars as my own personal point at which comics changed for me and started to become less fun. It was such an obvious marketing ploy, such a poor quality product, that it was apparent even then that the business side of things had trumped the creative side. It only got worse as time went on, what with the gimmick covers, the endless number 1 issues, and so on.

Doug:  The maturity of the direct market, where retailers got a voice in what would sell, and how many copies of a given book that they could move.  See previous point.
Doug:  I think that, again as Karen said last week, the overall takeaway of the second half of the book is the business aspect of it.  The truly maddening aspect of that?  The people who owned and ran Marvel Comics didn't read comics, they didn't even like comics.  And they wanted only a return on their investment.  Integrity of product?  Secondary.  Gimmicks?  Bring 'em on!  I was somewhat reminded of a line said in the first half of the story.  One of the creators, feeling handcuffed creatively toward the end of the Bronze Age, had complained that editorial wasn't really interested in the avant garde anymore; rather, they wanted to know "what's it like?"  Egos like that of Bill Jemas brought Marvel down to porn-like levels with his "I'll show you what we can do/sell!" attitude in the creation of his Marville mini-series in 2002.

Karen: I think one of the best examples of how disengaged the business guys were was at one point in the book, when some group buys Marvel and one of the idiots runs around saying, "We just bought Superman!"

Tom DeFalco, c. late 1980's

Doug:  The "Image guys".  Have at it -- both rounds -- the rise, keys to the kingdom, loud departure, and return (given the keys to the kingdom again).  Let's just say that these guys -- particularly Todd McFarlane and Rob Liefeld -- don't come off looking the least bit good.

Karen: I think this little excerpt from an interview with McFarlane after he'd been given the penciling AND writing reigns on Spidey says it all: "Uh...I don't really consider myself a writer, so I don't pay attention to writing. Now I'm sure the people at Marvel won't be too impressed with that statement, but by the time they read it, it'll be too late." Too late, indeed.

Doug:  The ongoing feud between Jack Kirby and Stan Lee.  To the day Kirby died, they never did completely reconcile.  Kirby began to say that he'd created everything by himself, including Spider-Man.  There's an anecdote about Kirby being on a radio show and Stan calling in and confronting Kirby on some of the issues at hand.  It was awkward, and ultimately ended somewhat amicably -- but they never again had anything close to a working relationship or even an "agree to disagree" relationship.  They had basically created Marvel Comics -- but fell far, far apart as the years passed.  So much hurt...

Ronald Perelman

Karen: It truly is tragic and that radio interview transcript was just painful to read. 

Doug:  The X-plosion.  Just... bah.

Doug:  Spending money like they got it -- Fleer, Skybox, ToyBiz, etc.  Good lord, it's no wonder they went bankrupt!  But guys like Ron Perelman, who basically drove the company into the ground, came out smelling like a rose.

Karen: Oh yeah, the Revlon guy. There were so many businessmen in the second half of the book that I could not keep them all straight. I had to constantly flip back to remember who was who. They all basically stunk.

Joe Quesada

Doug:  Wizard magazine, and the power they wielded for a decade in shaping not only the comic book industry, but the back issue market as well with their inflated price guide.  One would be safe in assuming that much of the marketing ploys we reviled in the 1990's were closely tied to the speculator market partially created by Wizard and its competitors.  Remember when Wizard and Previews would polybag their books with preview trading cards?  Ashamed to say I may still have a few of those stashed somewhere downstairs.

Karen: Ugh, Wizard. They might as well have been holding up paychecks from Marvel and DC on their covers.

Doug:  Finally, the Marvel Comics of today, as headed by Joe Quesada.  Constant crossovers, the Ultimate Universe, renumberings, "irreversible" deaths each quarter, reboots, "events"...  But, also the long-awaited presence of Marvel at the cinema and back on the small screen in various animated programs.  Toys we could only dream of when we were kids, and quality reprints of material we thought we'd never again get our mitts on.  Is Marvel today an evil empire, or benevolent toward comic book lovers?

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...