In Your Opinion: What Single Person Has Had the Greatest Impact on Comics?

Stan Lee. No fuckin' question.
EDIT: Smeagol here. Sorry.

Dr. Fredric Wertham. Who knows where the medium would be today if it hadn't been virtually sent into the Dark Ages in the mid-50s?

Martin Goodman. He knew when it paid to rip off DC.

Winner.

Yeah, Dickson's right.

Runner up would be Will Eisner.

Asking this question and not even bringing up Jack Kirby should be punishable by ball torture. People are still creating homages to Kirby to this day. Plus, a lot of rumor would have it that much of what you're crediting to Lee should actually be credited to Kirby. I've given up on ever knowing how much of it is true, but when you look at what Kirby went on to create without Lee, and what Lee went on to create without Kirby, Kirby certainly comes out on top.

Dickson gets the prize for the most original, and probably most true, answer, though.

Asking this question means you really haven't thought about the topic all that much.

That's like referring to Einstein as "Newton and his fellow scientists".

Stan Lee is such a terrible writer. I love the guy, but jeez.

Winsor McCay.

Lee deserves a certain amount of credit, but people see "written by Stan Lee, drawn by Jack Kirby" and assume it means Stan had all the ideas. Kirby not only did all the art, he had a very big hand in the writing--some would say he actually did the lion's share. Certainly he was the one who had to plot out and make the stories work (by Stan's own admission). Lee's contribution was mainly in the dialogue, and he had some hand in the basic ideas--but again, that's something that can never be settled. I tend to be of the opinion that Kiry created the Fantastic Four by himself and Lee put his stamp on them later, but that's just an educated guess.

More importantly, Lee's hot streak would never have happened without Kirby. Kirby did great work before Lee and afterwards. Lee was a hack who was coasting through the industry for years before Kirby ignited something in him. His real talent is self-pormotion.

Sorry, I just don't understand why someone who calls themselves a fan of a medium, any medium, would not have a basic understanding of the major names and figures in the history of that medium, of which Wertham is certainly one.

Does anyone remember when DC worked with Stan Lee to redo some of their major characters in a series called "Stan Lee Presents".

That shit was terrible writing. Character dictating their moves as if they were speaking in brail to blind kids. Some of that dialogue is as bad as Nic Cage's Wicker Man. "NOT THE BEESS!! AHH My EYES AHH " "OH GOD My LEGS MY LEGS!" It was like Vampire's Kiss up in that shit. "I'mma VAAAMPYYYRE!! I'mma VAAAMPYRE!! KEEEEELLL MEEEEE!!!"

However, Stan had some good ideas on how to make the characters different, particularly with Batman. So he's not a complete hack. I don't think we'll ever know what was all Jack Kirby and what was Stan Lee.

I find Wertham to be one of the greatest comic villains of all. However, the transition between funnybook to art medium would have to fall to Will Eisner. I agree that Jack Kirby and Stan Lee have made massive steps forward in their genre, but Eisner made comics into something more.

Caveman Ogg.

If by comics you also mean manga, then Osamu Tezuka would have to occupy a space on any list.

It gets tricky when you talk about "comics"...superhero comics? Comic strips? Political/editorial cartoons? Underground? Independant?

For each of those subcatagories I'd reply Jack Kirby, Windsor McKay, Rudolph Topffer, Robert Crumb, and...Will Eisner, perhaps.

Wertham's importance in the history of comics has been vastly overstated. The publishers at that time effected more change/damage to the U.S. comics market than Wertham ever did (they were the ones who voluntarily drew up the Comics Code with an eye towards destroying EC comics...which it effectively did).

Ditto. Putting Chris Claremont in the running was a red flag as well.

Mundt,
I think the argument is that Wertham gave the industry the perfect excuse to run Gaines and the Crypt Keeper out of town. Without his (ultimately fruitless) campaigning EC could have continued advancing the medium unfettered.
It's hard to pick a single guy. For every Eisner or Kirby there was a Harry Donenfeld and Jack Liebowitz getting the books out on the streets. Rath, I've pimped this book here before, but you should check out Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and The Birth of The Comic Book by Gerard Jones. It's a thorough look at the golden age publishers that actually (gasp!) portrays them as better than villainous fiends.

Sure, I can see that. I'm sure Wertham would be in the "Legion of Real Life Comic-Related Villains", along with, I dunno, Jim Shooter and some other people.

And agreed on Donnenfeld, Goodman, etc--while you can say that Kirby's influence on (at the very least) the superhero genre is colossal, it was the publishers who kept the market flowing.

I second the Gerard Jones book very much. Judging by the stories in it, Donnenfeld would probably be in the Legion as well.

But Wertham's work gave them a) the impetus, and b) the leverage to do what they did.

"Without me, things would have been different ... Am I to blame, then? ... Who makes the world? Perhaps the world is not made. ... Perhaps it simply is, has been, will always be there ..."
-Dr. Manhattan

Maybe because it's far before our time? Maybe because his name isn't so much household as the fucking book he wrote? It's condescending dickheads like you that help make comics such a self-contained little culture.


Judging Stan Lee by his output in the past 10-20 years isn't fair. Also, the way they were written, while annoying, was in the style Lee wrote all his characters back in the day. Most comics I've read from earlier than the eighties would have a character having something happen to them clearly within the image, and yet in the text they would still be saying exactly what was happening like we were blind. It makes sense Stan reintroducing these characters and using the same technique.

Precisely why I don't bother with American history before 1970.

I was fully expecting something 'clever' like that. The point is, when you go to a fuckin' comic store you don't get a history lesson. You're comparing apples and oranges. For a lot of people, an understanding of what went on with 'Seduction of the Innocent' is in the periphery of their knowledge of comics, hence the name of the guy who wrote it is a big blank in their minds. Is that such a fuckin' crime? Apparently so, and it's comparable to not knowing the history of your country before you were born (which, suspiciously enough, is taught in schools, whereas comic book history isn't).

I didn't start following football until 1978, but I can tell you about the NFL/AFL merger, the Heidi Game, the Ice Bowl, and the Canton Bulldogs, and that's not taught in school either. When you become truly interested in something, you become interested in the entire thing, its history and background, not just the immediate gratification of it.

Besides, it's not like we're talking about some obscure editorial that appeared in Good Housekeeping or something. This was a seismic event in the history of the medium. It's the Hollywood Ten of comics.

Although I suppose you'll tell me not knowing about that little bit of history isn't important either.

Did I say knowing such a thing wasn't important? I was criticizing the attitude that if somebody didn't know it, they clearly cannot have anything valid or interesting to say about comics, as they are not a true fan according to an arbitrary guideline set up by people who would rather be smug pricks than inform the uninformed.

EDIT: I'd also like to add that a far worse trend than the dumbing down of the world around us is the supposed intellectuals smacking down anybody who shows even a hint of interest in something just because they don't know xyz piece of information regarding it. Pure scumbag elitism, plain and simple. All Iggy did(and I would have done, if I didn't wiki him myself) was confirm who Dr. Wertham was and he got shit on. Real fucking nice.

All Rath was wondering was how someone who is a fan of a medium can not know a major name in its history, and despite your protestations to the contrary, Wortham IS a major name in the history of comics, regardless of how he discourteously managed to live and die before you were born.

Then you leaping in with the "dickhead" name-calling didn't do you any favors either.

Jesus CHRIST. I did not say he wasn't a major name. I was saying his name isn't as commonly known as the book he wrote. Simple reading comprehension.

And yeah, all he did was wonder how someone who is a fan of the medium cannot know such a thing, and it smacked of arrogant posturing. Iggy was offended too, and rightly so.

EDIT: Oh, and acting like a dickhead gets you called a dickhead. If that's such a scary concept for you and apparently so offensive, don't be a dickhead or commune with dickheads.

I don't think it's dickhead behavior to want the fandom of something you enjoy to aspire to something a little more lofty than "Wolverine roxxors!!!111"

That'd be a fair point if Rath had chosen to make his own point in a way that didn't make him come across as an elitist. A simple "Yeah, that's the guy." would have done, and helped Iggy and I and possibly others aspire to more than "Wolverine roxxors."

I can't believe this much defense is being given to a superiority complex. It's not like Iggy was even being simple-minded in the vein of 'Wolverine roxxors' and in fact, was clearly trying to attain a higher level of comic book discussion.

Well, tossing Ditko and Kirby in with "Stan Lee and his cohorts" didn't help him get off to the best of starts on that point.

And "a higher level of comic book discussion" would seem to require knowledge beyond Claremont X-Men, Dark Knight, and Watchmen.

Fucking elitist garbage.

Yeah, that was a bad move, but does that make him a sniveling fucking shit that should be disregarded and/or mocked? He actually started an interesting thread. It was a bit misguided, yeah, but still his heart was in the right place and he knows enough so that people who know more can contribute and perhaps add more to the discussion than insulting criticisms of a few oversights he and others have made.

Once again, the intelligentsia are really pitching in around here. Good fucking job.

You're right. Let's just let people go on thinking that Stan Lee did everything by himself, we wouldn't want to hurt anybody's feelings.

Funny how somebody who can't fucking read is able to continue to be such a condescending prick. While he did lump in Ditko, Kirby, and others in with Lee, he still acknowledged their contributions at least vaguely.

I guess you missed the part where he said he didn't want to post a comprehensive list in the interest of having people post their own without prompting, but that would have required actually reading what he said instead of freaking out at him like he's a some sort of plebeian scumbag because he didn't know Dr. Wertham by name and didn't go into a 5-page missive on the importance of Ditko and Kirby in Stan Lee's legacy.

And before anybody attacks me for derailing the thread, the thread was fucked the second attacking oversights (and alleged oversights) others made became more important than sharing your opinion and discussing it.

I agree with you on most of this post, but I don't think that's quite an accurate criticism of their worth saying that Kirby did better work without Lee and Lee did worse without Kirby. It's like judging Frank Miller by All-Star Batman instead of Dark Knight Returns.

EDIT: Oh bitter, cruel irony. I intended to quote THIS
At least my inability to read was a result of skimming for the post I wanted to find, and didn't result in an attack on somebody I thought was worthless when compared to my all-mighty knowledge of comics.

If someone is going to start a thread on people who had an impact on comics and can only be bothered to mention JACK FUCKING KIRBY "vaguely," then we have every right to call him on it. You wouldn't tolerate someone in a film thread talking about "Citizen Kane by, oh, what's his name, that War of the Worlds guy"; well, Kirby and Ditko deserve better than "Stan Lee and his cohorts."

I get it. You're fucking outraged and he must be some kind of special swamp-bred creature that dares strive to get involved in human discourse.

Once again, he specified why he didn't mention Kirby by name. Disagree on why he did or didn't, he still had a reason. Reading, people. It really helps your hysteric case in favour of exclusionary intellectualism.

And, call me crazy, but I think I would be a fuckload more tolerant of somebody who forgot Oson Welles' name. It would be shocking, but not worth major derision. Naturally, a correction would be in order, but not one of the ilk you guys like to give. I suppose anything to make you feel better in your world of isolated genius, misunderstood and surrounded by people who shouldn't even both trying to learn anything more than they already know.

EDIT: Added the qualifier 'exclusionary' to intellectualism, as I'm all for intellectualism, just not if it involves willingly helping to hold down those who aren't on the same level as I am, no matter how much promise they show.

NOBODY DID THIS. No one called him any names.
Yes, he explained why he didn't mention Kirby -- I CAN read -- it just didn't sound like a very good reason to me.
Again, no one said, "You inbred cretin, you didn't mention Kirby, stop posting and die." The question was simply posed as to how you can not mention Kirby and have no knowledge of Wertham if you're a fan of the comics medium. Then Iggy called Rath a prick. But somehow Rath and I are the mean ones. Okay.

Once again, apparently you CANNOT read, as Rath did not ask that question first. Read this.

He then backpedaled slightly when called on the prickishness of putting it that way, with the question you fail to see as condescending.

Clearly I was using hyperbole in my case, which I actually do regret, however the entrenchment of arrogance here was so oppressive, I felt the need to make mocking light of your opinions. Read in-between the lines of how you guys choose to correct people, and you can easily infer the sentiment I was illustrating.

Didn't help that you felt the need to staunchly defend such conceited behaviour, and even continue it, thus confirming my suspicions.

What Rath said wasn't nearly as insulting or derrogatory as you make it out to be.

But enough, we've derailed this enough and we're talking in circles.

Fine.

It's obviously impossible to really quantify who impacted the world of comics the most, but if you had to try, Stan Lee would probably be one of the easiest. The sheer number of creators who cite him as an influence speaks volumes, and his enduring creations do the same. The debate (aside from simply disagreeing on his level of impact), as we've mentioned above, is in to what extent he was responsible for what he is credited with. I don't know where to weigh in on this considering my knowledge on the nitty-gritty of his career is spotty at best. Are there any books or anything about this stuff? Maybe something like "Stan Lee Is Just A Huckster and *I* Did All The Work" by Jack Kirby and/or Steve Ditko?

Putting aside who you were responding to, I'm not sure I get the comparison. My point is that Stan got his job via nepotism (he was Martin Goodman's wife's sister's son, if I'm not mistaken) and tended to produce generic, functional writing until the Marvel era began. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, Stan Lee wrote what is believed to be the wordiest comic cover ever. So while it may not be fair to judge him based on his work of the past 20 years, his pre-Kirby work wasn't exactly stellar either. Whereas Kirby clearly contributed some great work even if you take the Marvel Universe out of the equation.

There's an interview with Alan Moore floating around the net where he basically accuses Stan of doing absolutely NOTHING, that he didn't even do the writing he claims to have done (that, for instance, he simply made vague notes in word balloons and let the letterers script the actual dialogue). That seems a bit extreme--I definitely think Lee was the one who, for instance, gave the Fantastic Four their distinctive personalities.

(Which is also why I think Kirby came up with them himself originally. If you read the first chapter of the first issue of FF, you'll notice that the characters don't have the personalities we associate with them. In particular, the Thing doesn't have his classic New York mannerisms, and tends to be a bit more Hulk-like, "It cannot hold me! Foolish citizens!" and so on. Given the circumstances under which the FF were created, it's likely Kirby ground out those first 8-10 pages himself--over his lunch break, he claimed--Stan saw them and started throwing in his own ideas, and the rest of the issue was born. But that gives Kirby the bulk of the credit in my book.)

By the way, speaking of Wertham and the comic code, Lee was on the board that came up with those ridiculous rules as well--"No details of any crime," "no continuity", "the good guys always win", etc. And there are even more sordid rumours about his behaviour once Marvel started to take off. So it's not hard to see why Stan isn't well-liked among serious comics fans. But even if the only thing he ever contributed was showmanship and promotional talent, that's still a pretty big reason to give him credit. I mean, crazy as it is to believe, he was one of the first people to really promote or even give credit to the various artists and writers working under him (including himself, of course). There was a bit of hype among the EC crew ("My name...is WOOD") but Marvel comics seem to be pretty much the first to list the names of the writers, artists and editors. That's a pretty big contribution right there.

If there's one thing Stan does deserve the lion's share of the credit for, though, it's shaping comic culture. Without the "Bullpen" pages I think the essence of comics fandom would be pretty different than it is today.

Whether that's a positive or a negative I'll leave to the reader.

I was simply responding to the way someone pointed out how Stan's later work was lackluster, but Kirby's was better. I think that's a bit off considering it's probable he just doesn't have as he did before. Of course, it's equally possible he lost hold of Kirby's coattails, as you and others have posited.

That's some interesting stuff. I don't know what to make of all that. Personally, I can see a lot of what you're talking about. In the earlier X-Men comics, for example Beast isn't anything like he is now (personality-wise) until about 3 issues in. It isn't until around issue 7 the whole mutant/human relations issue gets introduced. Do you think it's possible a similar thing happened with the X-Men as did the Fantastic Four where Jack basically did the first bit and then Stan tossed his ideas in? If so, that is a point for Lee, although some of that other stuff sounds quite shady.

Anybody have anything else on all of this?

Richard Outcault definitely deserves some mention here for his work with Mickey Dugan, AKA The Yellow Kid, the first ever recurring character in comics. Outcault is one of the pioneers in using multiple panels and word balloons in comics as well.