“It Became Increasingly Stylish to Bash Stan…”- What Critics of Stan Lee Should Actually STOP Doing in Order to Be Successful

• “In the ’80s and ’90s, it became increasingly stylish to bash Stan, to accuse him of hogging attention for his creations from the artists.” – Peter David, now cursed by the Romanians he once insulted, back in Nov. 2018

Stan Lee. The Myth. “The Man”. The legend. And one that is, apparently, bashed. The term ‘Stan Bashers’ refers to the sort of Lee critic that has become a sort of subculture within comics history nerdom, with those for and against the career and deeds of the man born Stanley Martin Lieber over a century ago.

While I think it is safe to assume that anyone reading this site is up to speed on the whys of Lee being criticized, I’ll give a very brief and condensed summary for those that aren’t: Stan Lee is criticized for a multitude of reasons, some more than warranted, others less so. It stems from- and I must stress this for people that are pathologically attuned towards rationalizing Lee’s documented deeds (see: Waid, Mark)- Lee getting credit for things he didn’t do, not attacking him for things that he did.

But alas…! It’s not always that easy to explain, to educate, to share. For, like many other debates throughout history, there are bad actors, bad apples, bad eggs who make it hard- not only to correct the repeated myths and misinterpretations but also to plant a seed in others who are woefully unaware of these things, so that they might go and start researching for themselves.

It’s these fucks we’re going to discuss today.

You see, as difficult as it may be for some of you to believe- I myself have been known to criticize the empire and antics of the Old Master. In Four Color Sinners’ case, it’s more to illustrate the blatant and shameless corruption of Lee enablers to fleece as much as they can from his name and public image than it is to attack Lee over any personal bias. You may read this for yourself in some of our earlier columns regarding POW! Entertainment and Lee’s activities with various late-in-life “creations”.

No, the truth of it is that I have very strong feelings in presentation and arguing the case- and I believe too many people allow their own misplaced sense of outrage and personal dislike fuel their statements and comments, which then clog up the entire river.

This makes it difficult to even begin to tilt the scales of awareness, to nudge the unaware into the true and colossal imbalance between Lee’s public perception (still cultivated by Disney/Marvel and nearly the entire comics industry) and the actual facts.

I’m about the facts and believe if people are presented with the entire picture- which does take time- the facts alone are enough to show that Lee was not a creative force and that the perception of him curated by Marvel is solely motivated to protect their corporate ownership and not because anyone there believes Lee was a creative powerhouse.

So! Here are the top things I have observed over the years that critics of Stan Lee continue to do that I personally believe aren’t helping and should be avoided.

You should stop saying these things in your arguments not to please me, the most affable of comic critics, but for the reason of not diluting the point you want to make. I’m not sure how to stress this enough. But let’s get to it, frantic ones:

1. Calling Stan Lee a “Nepo Baby”

Let’s first consider that the term Nepo Baby was popularized around 2009, so using it against a nonagenarian is weird to begin with, though I understand the point. This refers to Lee being hired due to Timely publisher Martin Goodman being his maternal Aunt’s husband.

While this can be argued logically to be nepotism, I believe it’s misguided and is a clear case of applying a modern outlook to a specific time period’s sensibility.

We must realize that Lee was hired at Timely literally when The Great Depression was ending. The Depression had brought unprecedented economic hardship to the vast majority of Americans and widespread unemployment.

Through those times, many immigrant families (and especially Jewish ones) relied on their family networks for assist and support. Also, minority owned businesses would often hire their relatives simply in the sense that they’d be able to conceivably trust those closest to them, especially when our financial institutions did not seem trustworthy.

This has been written about far more academically than myself by historians and scholars and is easily looked up. Also, think about this: if you suddenly became a millionaire and began a business that had a promising start- would you not hire some people close to you?

We can criticize Goodman for nursing a viper that would later betray him and show no gratitude towards his lifelong nurturing, but that isn’t the point here: the point is displaying a palpable ignorance for how the world worked nearly a century ago and using pop culture terms routinely used for young entertainers of today towards that time.

(And, come to think of it- Martin Goodman is criticized for hiring Lee, sure- would he not be equally or more criticized for being a successful and wealthy publisher who did not hire the son of his young wife’s sister when they could not find work? Goodman would absolutely be criticized for that and his poor character, except modern critics are again projecting their modern awareness of Lee towards this logic.)

And while there were anti-nepotism policies enacted in the thirties, these were largely directed at married couples holding dual employment, especially within the federal government.

2. “Lee the “Home-Wrecker”

This one is admittedly a more recent criticism leveled at Lee, mostly online and relatively recently at that, and refers to Stan Lee’s marriage to Joan Lee when she was already wed when they met.

This is one of those things that I believe should be left out of criticism, in that it’s a private thing and it is evident that the Lees had genuine love for each other. But again, this is also a case of modern minds applying their limited knowledge towards a very specific time in history.

During the Nineteen Forties and World War II, wartime marriages boomed. This was largely due to a fear of missing out and (understandable) uncertainty for the future. It’s important to keep in mind that people were sacrificing every day for the war effort and our country was in a very different place. What seems like impulsive or selfish decisions have their roots in a great number of things.

“Wartime Brides” were an established part of the war; some women married GIs headed off to an almost certain death, some sweethearts just wanted that bond. I don’t think it’s fair or just- and I am always just in my no mercy criticisms, dear readers- to criticize Lee as a “homewrecker” because Joan Lee had previously married a man she had barely spent any time with. It is truly reaching and really petty stuff. Like- Lee did more than enough shit to criticize, but this??

You’ve got a lot of couples married in the Forties to start bitching about then.

3. Calling Stan Lee “Lieber”, “Funky”, “Stanley”, “Flashman”

This is always something I looked at with bemusement. Ostensibly a means to point out Lee’s legitimate fake persona and numerous lies, it really screams to me a sign of hardcore fans wanting to smugly show their “inside baseball” knowledge to other people who already know the same shit.

It comes off as smug, dorky, and blatantly unhelpful. We get it. ‘Stan Lee’ wasn’t his real name.

The use of ‘Stanley’ could be a reference to Kirby’s lifelong routine as referring to Lee as this- and we know that Lee didn’t like it- but I would argue that if Kirby was doing it purposely to annoy Lee- and I think he didn’t (but didn’t mind that it did), and simply did it because that was what he called Lee when he met him- well, Kirby (of all people) CAN call Lee that. He can call Lee whatever the fuck he wants!

There’s simply no reason to refer to Lee as anything other than the name we all know him as. Why? Because displaying this corny manifestation of your contempt and disapproval- again, it HURTS THE EFFORTS TO REALLY EXPOSE THE TRUTH.

I’ll also point out- again– that many, many Jewish creators that started out in the Golden Age of comics altered and ‘Americanized’ their names.

Bob Kane was Robert Kahn. Joe Simon was Hymie Simon. Gil Kane was Eli Katz. Jack Kirby was Jacob Kurtzberg. Need I go on? Singling out Stan Lee for his admittedly simplistic name alteration is not necessary and puts you at a disadvantage, should a Lee defender ever points out what I just did, above.

You might be asking: why do you care? After all, you took the time to create this (much beloved) site, you yourself criticize dead senior citizens- how dare you, Sir??

Let me tell you why: because, as any practicing Lawyer can tell you: Attacks are not authority.

Personal attacks and asides will detract, diminish and/or take away from a competent prosecutor’s arguments. When you show blatant contempt, you are undermining the greater message at hand.

It makes you appear fannish rather than authoritative, it can alienate readers when they associate you with having a personal bias (which then makes your argument appear potentially exaggerated due to said bias), and it can prevent both productive discussion of the issues at hand, as well as- and I find this as important, if not more- it can be a barrier to people new to the issue deciding to go forward and read more on the topic for themselves.

That’s why. Because the same people scream in a vacuum to the converted and accomplish nothing. I mean, shit- I’m trying to accomplish something here, for Christ’s sake.

When you criticize, do it where it’s warranted. When you go for the attack, make sure you’re prepared. It’s honestly shameful that, in this era of increased outreach and accessibility to information, Lee propaganda is as strong as ever. If you care enough to bitch about it in a group, why not put a further degree of effort into it and try to teach?

That’s what Michael Hill did. That’s what Josephine Riesman did. I’m not saying you need to write a book, mind you- just stop repeating these weak ass tropes about Stan Lee being a nepo, being a homewrecker, etc. It’s unwarranted. If you want to go for the kill, you should know- there’s more than enough shame in Lee’s lifetime of actions (and inactions) to make anybody pause and then rush to find a way to defend/rationalize it.

Make it so that they can’t.

By the way, you can have this advice for free.

Dedicated to Joan Lee’s ex-husband who never got over it and tragically committed suicide in 1949. No, I just made that up- I have no idea what happened to that guy. Also, please donate to your local rescue mission/soup kitchen during these chaotic times- that sort of outreach is so much more important than comic book talk! Thanks.