I understand that making a statement like that is something that could seriously get me into trouble and earn a strong rebuke from the internet and Kevin Smith, but it’s true, and I intend to fully lay out the reasons behind that assertion. So without further ado, “Flame On!”*

I should probably set the record straight to begin with. I don’t contest that Stan Lee helped to change the face of comics. He was instrumental in a sea change in the process of comics, and helped to create some of the deepest characters and backstories that have ever existed. That being said, he is a horrible writer, a worse business man, and possibly a lime-light grabbing jerk. I would tend to liken him to George Lucas in many respects. The task then is to explain his god-like status among the slavering throngs of comic book fans.

Lee’s best work has always been with Kirby and Ditko, I challenge anyone to find evidence otherwise. The thing about this period is that it was when Lee was editor-in-chief of Marvel and had started using “The Marvel Method” extensively as part of the monthly production routine. Briefly, The Marvel Method involved the writer compiling a brief synopsis of the book after brainstorming with the artist, then the artist would draw it and directed the action, pacing, etc. Then it would go back to the writer for word bubbles and text. This style of writing had been used in the past, but Lee was one of the first to develop it as a company policy. So, how then do you describe any of the iconic characters that Lee created with either of these landmark artists as “his creations?” This ultra collaborative system was brilliant, but giving creation credit to just one part of that team is unfair and holding Stan Lee up as a paragon of comics creativity when his subsequent work has been pretty sub-par seems silly to me (see Stripperella and the entire “What If?” line for examples).

As for Lee’s writing it has always been bad. Sure, he tackles tough issues, and made a habit of using big words to encourage literacy, but the writing itself was always excessively corny. If you go back and read Spider-Man, the witty banter for which he is know seems pretty flat. That may be a product of the age, but it hardly makes up for all the other horrible writing Lee was responsible for. The Fantastic Four alone have been responsible for more wholesale slaughter of the english language than any other super hero team.

Another obvious issue that seems to be overlooked is his mediocre business sense. He has made some pretty terrible business decisions, leaving failed enterprises in his wake at a rate akin to that which Bruce Banner goes though pants. To be fair I don’t know that he’s really been relevant in comics since he left New York for L.A. to oversee Marvel Film interests, but regardless, his continued pontification is pretty ridiculous.

All that being said, I do respect Stan Lee’s accomplishments and have no problems with the man himself. I am just mystified that he is seen as some sort of god in a realm which contains so many creative geniuses. Either that or I am too much of an Alan Moore fan to give him a fair shake.

* I know that using “Flame on!” as an intro to a piece that is overtly critical of Stan Lee is hypocritical, but this piece is an examination, not meant to be taken entirely seriously.