Contempt and Envy: Bill Maher on Stan Lee / Mark Jarret Chavous

Contempt and Envy:

Bill Maher on Stan Lee

Mark Jarret Chavous

Bill Maher recently wrote a short blurb (‘Adulting’) about comic-book creator and editor Stan Lee in the wake of his recent passing. Ordinarily, I like Bill Maher and I respect his ability to confront people in power and make them (somewhat) accountable. His humor can be a bit smug at times, but so can Jay Leno’s, or any other comedian’s, if you think about it. It’s a comedian’s job to point out the various flaws of the human character, and also the vicissitudes of life in general. Bill Maher is as skilled at that as anyone on talk-show TV these days, and society in general currently gives him plenty of material to come up with. Which is why I was more than a little puzzled to see Maher write, at best, such a condescending and disrespectful short essay on someone whose views on life probably matched his own more closely than he might think.

I read his short essay. Maher didn’t even try to hide his contempt for comic books, and certainly had a dim view of people who read them as adults today. The final line of his essay says it all:

“…we’re using our smarts on stupid stuff. I don’t think it’s a huge stretch to suggest that Donald Trump could only get elected in a country that thinks comic books are important.”

That’s about as gross an oversimplification as it gets. This quote is indicative of a mindset that, if it is true he read comics as a kid as he claims, he certainly hasn’t read one in some time. He clearly hasn’t a clue that, under Stan Lee’s vision and guidance, comic books grew up. He co-created heroes and characters that faced everyday problems and conflicts with other characters that were all too familiar in the world we live in today. That Peter Parker, when he wasn’t chasing villains as Spider-Man, had problems with self-esteem, and that his passion for science made him look like a nerd in spite of the fact that he was strong enough to throw a car at an antagonist. The point is that Lee gave his human characters humanity, and that made them more real and much easier to relate to than billionaire Bruce Wayne / Batman. Lee’s influence in this method stayed with the characters into cartoons, live-action TV shows, and the movies. Marvel, after struggling for many years just to get a look, has now exploded onto Hollywood, and the movies have stayed true to Lee’s vision. Where was Maher when this happened? Didn’t he see any of them? Maybe after he grew up, comics were just not his thing. It’s not for everyone. But why such a patronizing attitude toward Stan Lee?

The real problem here with Maher’s column is that it really wasn’t that interesting or well written. There are no real new ideas or discoveries in it, nor any insightful new perspectives within it. This was really little more than an extended catty remark made over Stan Lee’s still-warm body. The conclusion I came to after reading it is that Maher was more than a bit jealous that, of all things, a comic-book publisher’s having had much more of an impact on society and its culture than Maher himself. That’s too bad. Stan Lee, through Marvel Comics and collaborations with people such as Steve Ditko, John Romita Sr., John Buscema, Jim Steranko, Gene Colan, Gil Kane, countless other editors, writers and artists, and—most prominently of all—the late, great and ingenious Jack Kirby, elevated comics from literary isolation to not only social acceptance, but social significance. And so what if it was comics? As Lee has said, comics are just another form of literature, only done with equal parts of the written word and visuals. No less legitimate than any other form. It may have started out just for kids, but the kids were growing up, and nobody saw that better than what Lee did. He wrote for that group as they grew, and they stayed loyal to him as they went through high school and entered college. They welcomed him as he came to their schools and gave lectures to them, and stayed with him into eventual adulthood. Thanks to Lee’s variety of skills, such as being an excellent writer (his ear for street language is without peer), orator, editor, art director (he hired Jack Kirby!), and as a gifted marketer and promoter (Excelsior!), and working with Kirby, Ditko and the rest of the Bullpen, Lee managed to keep current with one generation after the next, through graphic novels, TV and movies—a talent he maintained to his last breath. Marvel under Lee’s watch dared to take on many social issues of the day such as racism and bigotry (Thank-you, X-Men, often thought of as an allegory for his commentary on social issues), and the Vietnam War. He integrated the comics like no one before him (The Black Panther, The Falcon, Luke Cage, more women characters such as the Wasp, Black Widow, and Wanda the Scarlet Witch). Lee also used his Soapbox column to confront these issues directly, which was unheard of at the time.

It’s not difficult to see why Maher would be jealous of that. But for him to dismiss this force of new cultural awareness is just sad. The arts are by no means a monolithic field of entertainment. Maher is not required to like comic books. But it is important to acknowledge greatness when it comes, and show proper respect. For every Kellyanne Conway that Maher disses (and rightly so), we should pay proper tribute to folks like Stan Lee.

November, 2018