I Am Stan covers Stan Lee's life from childhood to death and as he lived a good 95 years that's a lot of ground to cover. Early on the book traces events from his life as a fairly linear biography but once Marvel Comics becomes a success in the 1960s the narrative gets a little snarled as Scioli moves events around chronologically for dramatic effect and frequently years pass between pages without notice.
If you're very well-versed in the life of Stan Lee then you should have no problem following Scioli's account of his life -- everything he represents has already been covered by other biographies. If you're not familiar with the other biographies you will probably find yourself at a loss to understand why Scioli dramatizes episodes from Stan's life without context.
For instance, early in Stan's life Scioli puts great effort into contextualizing and explaining what's going on; when Stan becomes editor at Marvel, Scioli takes the time to name check all the artists in the bullpen at the time. You would assume that it will important to know the names of all these men since Scioli took the time to name them, but that would be an incorrect assumption; Syd Shores makes one more brief appearance but knowing who was who in the 1940s bullpen matters not a whit to the rest of the book. Similarly, late in the book there's an episode where the police engage in a wellness check on Stan Lee and there are references to a business partner called "Keya." If you're up on your Stan Lee lore then you know why the police are talking to Stan and who "Keya" is but Scioli doesn't frame this.
Like the police wellness check scene, many pages of I Am Stan feel weightless, without narrative. His Jack Kibry was guided by narration told in Kirby's voice but there is no one to guide Lee's life. If you haven't already read a recent biography of Stan Lee (such as my favourite, True Believer by Abraham Riesman) you won't understand the weight of certain scenes; as well, the story is told strictly from Stan Lee's perspective - so when Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby leave Marvel the reader doesn't really understand why they did so, only that Stan didn't understand.
If I understand Scioli's efforts, it seems like he just wanted to put the reader into Stan Lee's shoes and experience moments from his life, but the longer the book went on the less connected I felt to Stan as the narrative wandered from one moment to another on each page. Rather than a long-form narrative, I Am Stan reads like a webcomic that was meant to be enjoyed one page at a time rather than all at once - and as an addendum to a proper biography, not a biography in its own right.
Seeking out I Am Stan led me to Stuf' Said by John Morrow, a publication that was originally an issue of Morrow's Jack Kirby Collector magazine in 2019. A large part of why we comics fans have such complicated misgivings about Stan Lee have to do with the way he treated his collaborators, particularly Jack Kirby. In Stuf' Said, Morrow created a chronology from interviews and statements by Lee, Kirby and others close to them to track the sequence of events that led to Lee and Kirby's collaboration at Marvel and its dissolution.
Stuf' Said is definitely for the serious comics devotee - the one who really wants to know 'who said this and when.' For all that I know about these periods of history, there was a lot I didn't know such as the complete timeline on Kirby's involvement in the creation of Spider-Man; Kirby claiming a hand in creating Spider-Man was divisive to fans (although reading Morrow's book, Kirby's actual quotes are not as dismissive to Ditko as I saw others claim online) so discovering the earliest published mention of Kirby's involvement actually appeared in Marvel's own Foom magazine surprised me.
Riseman's True Believer had earlier made an impression on me with how passive-aggressive Stan seemed towards his collaborators and that not every artist was willing to put up with it (certainly not Steve Ditko or Wally Wood). Stuf' Said is particularly good at piecing all of those slights together; it's particularly instructive to note how many times Stan disparaged Dr. Strange while he was scripting that series - indeed he only seemed to consent that Ditko created Dr. Strange because he didn't want credit for those comics. But decades into his role as Marvel's perennial pitchman, he would repeatedly claim Dr. Strange was a favourite of his.
Stuf' Said is definitely not for the layman, it's for the dedicated comics fan who has a firm grasp on Lee and Kirby's careers. But I found it a fine book with a great deal of interesting discernments on the part of the author (particularly noting Kirby's satire of Stan Lee would have been invented at the same time Romita was satirizing Kirby in Captain America).
Both I Am Stan and Stuf' Said are best enjoyed by the experienced comics fan, but while I Am Stan is all very familiar and loosely-structured, Stuf' Said has excellent research and a very firm layout. It's obvious which I prefer.
No comments:
Post a Comment