Just for fun — not that I expected to get anywhere with it — I phoned the offices of 60 Minutes this morning and attempted to talk to someone about last night's story on Stan Lee, the sole creator of Marvel Comics. The call went about as I expected: I was shunted over to a Viewer Relations department where a lady took my comments in a manner that suggested she was an intern who'd been handed a phone and told, "Be polite to anyone who calls and just make like we care." Given the probable number of nuts and outraged political extremists who must assail the program for not broadcasting their version of reality, I was not surprised. If I were running that operation, I'd probably set it up the same way.
My friends Heidi MacDonald and Tom Spurgeon, the latter a biographer of Mr. Lee, both weigh in with their comments, and I really don't disagree with anything either says, even when they seem to be disagreeing with me. Yes, I think the show may have omitted mention of Kirby or Ditko because they thought the viewers were too dense to comprehend a more complicated scenario. That's part of what I meant about them not wanting to muddy up the narrative with data that despoiled their tidy David/Goliath scenario. And, yes, we may be too quick to absolve Stan of all the blame. My point was that fans will be (and some have been, on last night's message boards) too quick to assume that what he said on the air was all he said in the interviews. From personal experience, I know Stan is sensitive to the charge that he has in any way trampled on the fame and/or fortune of his collaborators. He knows it's wrong and he also knows it makes him look bad. For what it's worth, back when the Biography program was doing its segment on him, he specifically asked its makers to interview me for it because he knew I'd talk at length about Jack Kirby and make the case for his importance. I thought that was both decent of Stan and wise from a strategic angle. If, as was possible, the producers had cut out all references to Kirby, I'd be able to tell the comic art community it was not his fault.
That said, I agree with Tom, who wishes Stan would be more aggressive in acknowledging his collaborators. Heck, I wish everyone in this world would be more aggressive in this regard. I think that when you work with someone, you have a moral obligation — to them, to history, even to yourself — to watch their backs and not usurp their due, even by accident. Credit, as they say, has its greatest value when you're giving it away. Trouble is, interviewers often like to elevate the importance of an interview by elevating the importance of the interviewee. Elayne Riggs made a good point in a comment over on Heidi's site, which was that the subtext of the story last night was 60 Minutes congratulating itself on Stan's victory. They did a story two years ago about how he'd been wronged. Right after that, he filed his lawsuit and now he seems to have been unwronged. The implication there is, "Look at the power of our program!" And of course, a mention of Kirby or Ditko would not advance that boast…might even make it seem like the show missed a key part of the story in their first broadcast. Which, of course, they did.
I would not expect 60 Minutes Wednesday to correct anything, especially not an error of omission. If they do, it'll be one of those quick, parenthetical "Oh, by the way, we should have also mentioned…" statements that have no impact other than to let the reporters claim they've acted in a responsible manner, clarifying the record. My experience over 30+ years of championing the cause of Kirby is that no one ever corrects such stories in a meaningful way. But maybe if we dump on them loud enough, it will cause someone else to not make the same mistake.