For the past couple of hours, I’ve been having a discussion over on Scott Shaw!’s Facebook page about the relative merits of Stan Lee, not as an influential cultural force, but as a person. It started with this wall post from Scott: “I’m beginning to perceive many similarities between Stan Lee and William Shatner.” People started enumerating the similarities:

1. toupee
2. did his best work with a partner
3. has become a media joke, but at least he’s in on the joke & has a sense of humor about it
4. gives great interview
5. is treated as a demi god, or royalty, by fans
6. still getting big projects in their 80s. (sic from Lee:  the Shat is only 79.)

And then we came to this one, from Scott: “Apparently unaware of former co-workers’ resentments of ’em.” This was after Scott had mentioned working with Stan. So here was my reply:

“Scott, did Stan later take your work, sign his name to it, and sell it? Just checking.”

Which elicited the thread I’m going to quote from, below. Note everyone’s discomfort. We all feel beholden to someone who was an essential force in giving us the Marvel universe we love — and at the same time we’re hoping he makes amends of some sort while he’s still here.

• 

  Scott Shaw Lee, no, Stan did not “take my work, sign his name to it and sell it”. And I don’t think he did that to anyone else, either. Stan is no angel, and I’m not in agreement with some of the things he’s done — or has failed to do — but he’s made plenty of valuable contributions to comics, that is a fact.

  
  

• 

  Lee Wochner Scott, specifically what I’m referring to are the prints by Kirby or Joe Simon, without their signature, that Stan is signing for money. I had heard about it — and then I saw them at the Con. It just doesn’t feel (or look) right.

• 

  Scott Shaw I was completely unaware of that, Lee. I’d like to learn more, if you could please direct me…

  
  

• 

  Lee Wochner Scott, I just sent you an example. It doesn’t feel good to criticize Stan Lee — one of the formative writers of my life (with Jack Kirby) — but the relentless profiteering and the diminished recognition of the contribution of others doesn’t feel very good either.

Here’s the image I sent to Scott. Note the “Official Certification” of Stan Lee’s signature. See anyone else’s name on there — like Jack Kirby’s?

• 

  Lou Mougin Stan may not be perfect…who is?…but by all standards, he seems to have been a heck of a good guy to work with, and when you compare him to guys like Mort Wienieburger, Jim Warren, and some of the others of that time, who would probably have had your b*lls for breakfast if you disagreed with them…he comes off pretty well.

  about an hour ago · LikeUnlike

• 

  Dean Griffith Stan Lee seems like a okay guy..I just don’t like the fact that he acts and gets treated like he is the only one that created EVERYTHING at Marvel

  about an hour ago · LikeUnlike

• 

  Thomas Shim He really should give more credit to less self-promoting talent, tho. Then again, history is rife with this kind of dichotomy: Disney & Iwerks, Ruth & Gehrig, Jobs & Wozniak, Gates & Allen. The list goes on (in various degrees of analogous appropriateness.)

  about an hour ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading…

• 

  Timothy Jonalbert Lynch

  I read an interview with John Romita Sr once, and he came off as a very honest & even-handed fellow. He said something like, in regards to Kirby/Lee creations, that it was impossible to overestimate the important contributions of both men, …that the one couldn’t have accomplished what he did without the other. Same goes for Ditko. And then when you think of the not-too-shabby work with Heck, Everett, Romita, Colan, Buscema, Severin, Kane, Trimpe, etc etc (names that were never hidden), I think it’s silly not to regard Lee as a great creative figure in comics or pop cultureSee More

  54 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

• 

  Scott Shaw

  I know this sounds weirdly ass-kissing, but I truly believe that Stan doesn’t realize the damage he’s contributed to in regards to his creative partners over the years. Maybe it’s living in the Depression, maybe it is unethical, but I find …it hard to believe that such a nice, talented guy would intentionally screw his partners. Yet I wince (or worse) every time I see he’s allowed someone to give him sole credit for a character or concept rather than correcting them. On the other hand, I’ve never seen Stan so pressed for a straight answer about the creation of Spider-Man in IN SEARCH OF STEVE DITKO, and he seems absolutely honest in his opinion…one I wouldn’t agree with, by the way. Stan is a real enigma, but I find it impossible to vilify him completely. I guess I just want Stan to become the TRULY good guy he thinks he is…because I know that deep inside he really IS a good guy who’s let his “survivor” instincts get out of control. I just can’t help but admire Stan Lee on creative and personal levels.

  50 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

• 

  Lee Wochner I don’t think that anyone here is minimizing the contribution of Stan Lee. The operant question is: Are the contributions of his collaborators being fully recognized? Kirby seems to have created an entire cosmos (or three) on his own, without any assistance from Stan Lee. Could Stan Lee have (co-)created the Silver Surfer, Galactus, the Inhumans, Asgard, Wakanda, etc. etc., without Jack Kirby?

  49 minutes ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading… ·
  

• 

  Lee Wochner And I agree with everything Scott just posted.

  48 minutes ago · LikeUnlike ·
  

• 

  Lee Wochner

  And would add: Just because someone truly, really, believes something to be so — that doesn’t mean it is so. Stan is in denial. The recurrent picture of Stan Lee in Dan Raviv’s book “The Comic Wars” is of someone blissfully ignorant of how he’s accepted credit he shouldn’t have — and even of how people sometimes act badly. Sample line: “Even though he was a master of heroes and villains, Stan Lee was reluctant to think of anyone in the bankruptcy fight as the bad guy. ‘I liked (Ron) Perelman and I liked Bill Bevins,’ he said. ‘I really wanted it to work out for them. … Bevins asked me, ‘How much money are you getting now?’ I told him, and right then and there he made it three times as much!'” Read between the lines: Bevins is a good guy — because he offered Stan three times as much right off the bat. No other consideration came into effect — including which owner would serve Marvel (and Stan Lee’s legacy) better. Does this make Stan Lee a bad person? No. Does it make him someone with an unknowingly self-serving point of view? You be the judge.

  40 minutes ago · LikeUnlike ·
  

• 

  Lee Wochner And now I guess I’m done. Because I’m really not having any fun coming off as trashing Stan. I love comics, and Marvel comics, and I personally feel I owe Stan Lee a great deal. It’s just some of his behavior that deeply saddens me. I still like Picasso’s work, and evidently he was a real SOB….

  39 minutes ago · LikeUnlike ·
  

• 

  Scott Shaw It’s even harder when you know and immensely like Stan, who is never less than generous whenever we’ve dealt with each other. He really is a friend!

  33 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

This isn’t the first time I’ve complained on this blog about Stan Lee’s blissful ignorance — here’s a representative post — and it probably won’t be the last. (And it’s well worth reading the comment on that post as well.) Why do I keep coming back to this? Because of my conflicted feelings. Since moving to the West Coast 22 years ago, I have run into Stan Lee probably a dozen times. Each time, even when, say, just passing by him at the Beverly Center, I feel a little twinge:  equal parts excitement and regret. Two weeks ago when I was down at the San Diego Comic-Con, I was hurrying into the Marriott for a taping. (I was a scheduled interviewee for Morgan Spurlock’s forthcoming documentary about the Comic-Con. We’ll see if I make the final edit.) There was a clutch of excitement and security downstairs in the lowest level. An excited boy who looked to be about 16 turned to me and said, “Stan Lee was down there! Right there! It was Stan Lee!” I looked at him and remembered sharing that level of excitement when I was that age… and said nothing.

I have 1172 Friends on Facebook. They’re all Friends, but they aren’t all friends. How could they be? Who could possibly have time to devote to 1172 friends? But they are all people (or groups) I know. So when I agree to Friend someone, it’s because I know them. That’s my personal rule.

With “liking” — which recently replaced becoming a “Fan” — my rule is this:  I click to Like if I do indeed like whatever it is. Danger Mouse, the Founding Fathers of the United States, the Duino Elegies, My Dinner with Andre — these are all things I am now publicly on record as Liking.

But now what I think I need is a Dislike button. And maybe also a Hate It button. I really want these. Why? Because United emailed me to ask me to Like them. And the thing is:  I hate them. Passionately.

Why?

• Always late. (I don’t care what their lying blurb says. I’ve been there for it. Waiting for it, to be precise.)Charging exorbitant fees to check bags.
• Canceling flights.
• Rude customer service.

In June, the last time I flew United — and I hope indeed it was the last time — a long-time gate agent actually took me aside and apologized for the way company policy forced him to treat me. “I hate the way we have to treat customers now,” he said. “I think we’re ruining our business. I’m sorry.” I appreciated hearing that — but it did nothing to help me. Two months prior, I was almost stranded over night in Tucson (not a happy prospect) because they canceled my flight with no backup plan. (I booked onto another airline.)

Have I let United know about these things? You bet. Emails. Phone calls. I even sent something called a letter. I’ve gotten form replies or silence. Nobody cares.

So, when I got this lame inducement to Like United, I emailed them again. Here’s what I said:  “But I HATE United. I wouldn’t Friend you if you flat-out GAVE me two tickets.”

That felt good, but it didn’t last long. I still want my Dislike button.

Economists are fretting that we’re heading into a double-dip recession. Why? Because people aren’t spending enough.

If that’s the case, we need to head down to Texas and get a certain brush-cutter off his ranch and back into the thick of things. Because as Slate points out, George W. Bush is one of the biggest spenders in history — increasing spending more than any of the six presidents before him, and more than doubling the cost of government while he was in office. All while, of course, propounding the idea of smaller government. (Hey — maybe he could handle messaging for BP, too.)

Someone just shot the very last roll of Kodachrome film. What’s on it?  The Brooklyn Bridge, Grand Central Terminal, a nomadic tribe in India, a taxicab, Robert De Niro, and other subjects. What is not on the last roll of Kodachrome? Paul Simon.

Like you, I haven’t shot any Kodachrome film in ages. I haven’t shot any film in ages.  What was the last time I took a non-digital photo? Um… seven years ago? Something else that happened seven years ago:  Polaroid declared bankruptcy, rendering my 700 shares of stock worthless. Those of us who grew up watching the “Planet of the Apes” movies always expected things to end, just not this way, and not to us.

Now that I just had to walk halfway around the block, I know why there’s no one outside in Miami. Whoever invented the indoors is a genius.

(On a side note, my brother told me last night that he was “keeping the house cool” for me. Which means he turned on the air and set it for 84. Which, granted, is about 10,000 degrees cooler than outside, so he was true to his word.)

The New York Times lets us in on what Alan Moore’s up to at the moment. Perhaps the most promising development: “I can conclusively prove that death is a perspective illusion of the third dimension and that none of us have anything to worry about.” Phew! Major sigh of relief there.

Thanks to Joe Stafford for letting me know about this.

Twenty years ago, few would have predicted that Disney would become a major force in American theatre, especially in employing the avant garde. In retrospect, it’s not as strange a development as it may seem; after all, Walt & Co. did found California Institute of the Arts expressly to turn out avant garde animation (and, later, performance) as a research-and-development lab for the Mouse. (And where have so many of those Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network shows come from? You guessed correctly.)

This piece examines the secret behind Disney’s success on stage:  hiring the most creative people. (Something the company has always done.)

I’ve got a backlog of things I want to write about on this blog (or, perhaps, a “backblog”), but first an explanation of my recent absence, which is not the norm. (An astonishing two weeks of being MIA is shocking in extremis.) My absence can be tied to, well, absence:  Yes, I travel frequently, but lately it seems I’ve been out of town constantly.

First, I went to San Jose for three days.

Then I was back in Burbank for two days, and left for San Diego.

When I got back from San Diego, I had to get ready to head off for Miami. (I’m en route now, writing this from the airport in Las Vegas. Where I just won seventy bucks on an airport slot machine, thank you very much.)

Yes, we live in an age of Wifi, and yes, it’s available just about everywhere. But here’s what’s really changed:  The incredible draining inconvenience of air travel. Thank you, terrorists, for all these changes to airport security. It gladdens my hear to have my car stopped at airport drive-ons and cursorily checked, and you know how much I enjoy the near strip-search at every airport. And the commute to the airport, whichever airport it may be, and the commute back from the airport, and, often, the connecting flights to other airports. I’d also like to thank the number-cruncher who figured out that it was in airlines’ best interests to overbook every single flight because it’s economically advantageous to piss off your customers rather than leave some seats unsold. The long and the short of all this is this:  In this country at least, it’s far more draining and time-consuming to be a frequent air traveler than ever before in my lifetime, a situation that is exacerbated by the termination of so many routes and the overloading of so many flights that I can’t recall the last time I took a trip wherein some leg of it the flight wasn’t late or canceled, and sometimes with even worse results because I’ve now missed a connection, a situation that sadly we’ve now all grown accustomed to and accepting of.

Anyway, now that I got that out of my system (can you tell that my first flight was delayed?).

NEWS FLASH — while I was writing that message, an alert came over the loudspeaker. Guess what? It seems that my flight to Ft. Lauderdale is “overbooked,” and they’re offering a hotel stay here and a roundtrip ticket anywhere in the U.S. to anyone willing to take a later flight, i.e., a flight tomorrow.  If  I didn’t have plans for tomorrow in Florida, I might consider it. But it just proves my point, doesn’t it?

It’s not just the frequent travel that’s kept me off the blog, because, well, all those hotels obviously have Wifi too. It’s that I’ve been busy. Really busy. Jammed. Like, “How can I get all this done?” jammed. I’m writing a book, I’ve got lots of client work (always reassuring), and, well, I did go to this thing called Comic-Con. (!) But now I’m back and although posts may be relatively light the next few days as I finish playing catch-up, please know that I never intend to be AWOL for two weeks again. And, to the readers who sent kind little inquiries, yes, I’m alive and well.

Meanwhile, over on Slate, somebody who didn’t get invited to the press conference is P.O.’d because Jobs didn’t snivel. Jeez.

Harvey Pekar died a few days ago. I started reading his comic book, “American Splendor,” when he started publishing it in the late 1970’s. Why did I buy those early issues? Two words:  R. Crumb. It was an interesting time for comics — undergrounds had already died, but now we had graphic realism, in the form of Pekar’s work, and what Crumb’s comics were evolving into, and what is generally recognized as the graphic novel, Will Eisner’s “A Contract with God.” I bought and appreciated all these things.

I also met Mr. Pekar a few times. While I admired his work, I  never enjoyed meeting him. His curmudgeonly appearances on David Letterman’s show weren’t an act; if anything, speaking with him in person was worse. Whenever I told him that I bought his comics and books and enjoyed his work, his response was a glare and a snarl. I’ve hung out with movie stars and sideshow freaks who treated their fans better. The last time I saw Pekar, a couple of years ago at the legendarily jam-packed Comic-Con in San Diego, he was the only person anywhere near his table. In the middle of 135,000 bodies in motion, his table was the doughnut hole of activity. Everyone gave him a wide berth, and I understood why.

Although I faithfully bought all his comics and books, I found much of the writing slack. It isn’t compelling to observe the dailiness of life if you have no observations to make, and in general, Pekar didn’t. His novelty was that he was among the first to put this sort of unwashed realism into comics form. Absent the work of some of his artists — Crumb, but also Frank Stack, and especially Budgett and Dumm — many of the stories wouldn’t hold any interest.  I’m not alone in this opinion.

What was the best of Harvey Pekar’s work? Moreso than the comics, or his books, or his newspaper and magazine writing, or the movie adaptation, the best Harvey Pekar work I ever came across was the stage adaptation I saw around 1990 at Theatre/Theater in Los Angeles. The show was deceptively simple — Dan Castellaneta (of “The Simpsons”) and an ensemble of supporting actors, and some theatre cubes. The cubes got restacked at times to form filing cabinets (Pekar was a file clerk) or to serve as a table and chairs, or to stand in for the front seats in a car. The writing was fast and funny and loose. The actors did a great job of fleshing out the characters from the comics; even the man who played Mr. Boats, who was clearly not an actor per se, but someone they found because of his physical similarity to the actual person, did fine. I went to see the play three times, then saw it again when the producers took it to the Comic-Con and did it again. Twenty years later, I’m still lifting ideas from that show. I was  glad to be in LA and able to see such things (and it felt lousy when the movie mocked what had been a terrific, sold-out, award-winning show).

I’ve always wished I could see that show again. I can’t — but tonight, in tribute to Harvey Pekar, we can listen to a shortened radio version of it once last time, at 7:30, Pacific Time, on Santa Monica’s KCRW. It won’t be available on demand or podcast. So if you’d like to hear it, here’s your one (and only?) chance.