Comparison Of Stan Lee And The Birth Of Spider-Man
Compare and Contrast: The Creation of Spider-Man
The two articles, “Stan Lee and Spider-Man, written by Simmi Patel, and “The Birth of Spider-Man, written by Max Bruno, contain information on the origin of Spiderman. The two articles contain knowledge, one on the emphasis and the other undermining Stan Lee. Authors Bruno and Patel give insightful ideas on the creation of Spider-Man by pointing out who lies behind the mask of the “true” creator. By the use of each author’s point of view, tones, and overall purpose, each author is able to give their perspective on the origin of Spiderman. Bruno and Patel’s viewpoints stem directly from the sources that they use which weigh heavily against and in support of Lee. In “The Birth of Spider-Man”, author Max Bruno structures his article based on “How did Spider-Man crawl into existence” (Bruno 2). Throughout …show more content…
Bruno’s article comparisons are made that Stan Lee claims to be the sole contributor to Jordan Raphael and Tom Spurgeon’s viewpoints, which suggest that Spider-Man was the product of a collaborative process.
Lee’s boss thought “Spider-Man was a terrible idea” (Bruno 3). After Goodman (Lee’s boss) comments on the idea of Spider-Man, Lee “reassigned the job to artist Steve Ditko” (Bruno 4), which supports that he was responsible for the creation of Spider-Man. However, Raphael and Spurgeon suggest “that the original Spider-Man was the result of the work of several artists and writers” (Bruno 5). Simmi Patel, author of “Stan Lee and Spider-Man”, focuses on only the claims made by Stan Lee in his autobiography, Excelsior! The Amazing Life of Stan Lee (Patel 1), as a result, Patel’s viewpoints are heavily weighted in favor of Lee’s self claims. Patel writes “But Lee
couldn’t give up on his idea of Spider-Man” (Patel 6), supporting that Lee claims to be the person responsible for Spider-Man’s existence. Patel continues to reinforce the significance of Stan Lee when he writes “they showed that the Spider-Man issue was a huge success. According to Lee, Goodman ran into Lee’s office to congratulate himself and Lee… ‘remember that Spider-Man idea of yours I liked so much?’ “ (Patel 6). Bruno’s views grasp a focus on the possibility of other’s contributions while, Patel’s sources only suggest that Lee was ultimately responsible for the creation of Spider-Man. The tone Bruno uses in “The Birth of Spider-Man” undermines Lee’s claims, as opposed to Patel who praises Lee for his effort. Bruno initially asks several questions to set the tone, “What do you think of when you hear the name Spider-Man?...” (Bruno 1). The opening questions allows for the author and readers to be on a more connected level. The tone in Bruno’s article is a more relaxed and relatable atmosphere, unlike Patel who has a more serious tone. Patel has no intentions on being on a personal level with his readers. Patel starts off with a bias statement, “Spider-Man is a popular comic book superhero…” (Patel 1). Then Patel continues to emphasize Lee overcoming rejection of his ideas. Both authors are able to provide a tone that supports their point. The two authors have an overall purpose to support and question Lee’s claims to who truly created Spider-Man. Bruno’s purpose in writing “The Birth of Spider-Man” was to call into question who contributed to the creation of Spider-Man. According to Bruno, “Lee often built on contributions from other artists” (Bruno 7). Bruno’s sources exclaimed Lee was ultimately responsibility for the creation of Spider-Man. However, Bruno writes “superhero comic books flourished through this collaborative process” (Bruno 7); which explains that Lee would not have developed Spider-Man without the help of other artist’s contributions. Patel’s purpose in writing “Stan Lee and Spider-Man” was to support Lee’s efforts and to praise him for the creation of Spider-Man. Patel writes “Stan Lee had been working in the comic book business for over twenty years” (Patel 2), supporting that Lee is experienced in the comic book industry. Fully capable of developing a superhero, Lee was able to produce a comic strip showing “that the Spider-Man issue was a huge success” (Patel 7). He supported the claim Lee created about Spider-Man through resiliency as opposed to stopping when Goodman “hated his idea” (Patel 5). Both authors had their own unique way of detailing the purpose of their ideas on who the true creator of Spider-Man really was. In conclusion, by the use of each author’s point of view, tones, and overall purpose, both were able to support their argument that Stan Lee should (Patel) or should not (Bruno) take complete responsibility for the creation of Spider-Man. Each author uses limited sources to provide evidence for their viewpoints so there is little counter argument for the opposing viewpoint. The tones that each author creates in their article is conducive to supporting their point. Finally, both author’s overall purpose is to praise or question who the accreditations should really be given to as who is the true creator behind the mask.
The two articles, “Stan Lee and Spider-Man, written by Simmi Patel, and “The Birth of Spider-Man, written by Max Bruno, contain information on the origin of Spiderman. The two articles contain knowledge, one on the emphasis and the other undermining Stan Lee. Authors Bruno and Patel give insightful ideas on the creation of Spider-Man by pointing out who lies behind the mask of the “true” creator. By the use of each author’s point of view, tones, and overall purpose, each author is able to give their perspective on the origin of Spiderman. Bruno and Patel’s viewpoints stem directly from the sources that they use which weigh heavily against and in support of Lee. In “The Birth of Spider-Man”, author Max Bruno structures his article based on “How did Spider-Man crawl into existence” (Bruno 2). Throughout …show more content…
Bruno’s article comparisons are made that Stan Lee claims to be the sole contributor to Jordan Raphael and Tom Spurgeon’s viewpoints, which suggest that Spider-Man was the product of a collaborative process.
Lee’s boss thought “Spider-Man was a terrible idea” (Bruno 3). After Goodman (Lee’s boss) comments on the idea of Spider-Man, Lee “reassigned the job to artist Steve Ditko” (Bruno 4), which supports that he was responsible for the creation of Spider-Man. However, Raphael and Spurgeon suggest “that the original Spider-Man was the result of the work of several artists and writers” (Bruno 5). Simmi Patel, author of “Stan Lee and Spider-Man”, focuses on only the claims made by Stan Lee in his autobiography, Excelsior! The Amazing Life of Stan Lee (Patel 1), as a result, Patel’s viewpoints are heavily weighted in favor of Lee’s self claims. Patel writes “But Lee
couldn’t give up on his idea of Spider-Man” (Patel 6), supporting that Lee claims to be the person responsible for Spider-Man’s existence. Patel continues to reinforce the significance of Stan Lee when he writes “they showed that the Spider-Man issue was a huge success. According to Lee, Goodman ran into Lee’s office to congratulate himself and Lee… ‘remember that Spider-Man idea of yours I liked so much?’ “ (Patel 6). Bruno’s views grasp a focus on the possibility of other’s contributions while, Patel’s sources only suggest that Lee was ultimately responsible for the creation of Spider-Man. The tone Bruno uses in “The Birth of Spider-Man” undermines Lee’s claims, as opposed to Patel who praises Lee for his effort. Bruno initially asks several questions to set the tone, “What do you think of when you hear the name Spider-Man?...” (Bruno 1). The opening questions allows for the author and readers to be on a more connected level. The tone in Bruno’s article is a more relaxed and relatable atmosphere, unlike Patel who has a more serious tone. Patel has no intentions on being on a personal level with his readers. Patel starts off with a bias statement, “Spider-Man is a popular comic book superhero…” (Patel 1). Then Patel continues to emphasize Lee overcoming rejection of his ideas. Both authors are able to provide a tone that supports their point. The two authors have an overall purpose to support and question Lee’s claims to who truly created Spider-Man. Bruno’s purpose in writing “The Birth of Spider-Man” was to call into question who contributed to the creation of Spider-Man. According to Bruno, “Lee often built on contributions from other artists” (Bruno 7). Bruno’s sources exclaimed Lee was ultimately responsibility for the creation of Spider-Man. However, Bruno writes “superhero comic books flourished through this collaborative process” (Bruno 7); which explains that Lee would not have developed Spider-Man without the help of other artist’s contributions. Patel’s purpose in writing “Stan Lee and Spider-Man” was to support Lee’s efforts and to praise him for the creation of Spider-Man. Patel writes “Stan Lee had been working in the comic book business for over twenty years” (Patel 2), supporting that Lee is experienced in the comic book industry. Fully capable of developing a superhero, Lee was able to produce a comic strip showing “that the Spider-Man issue was a huge success” (Patel 7). He supported the claim Lee created about Spider-Man through resiliency as opposed to stopping when Goodman “hated his idea” (Patel 5). Both authors had their own unique way of detailing the purpose of their ideas on who the true creator of Spider-Man really was. In conclusion, by the use of each author’s point of view, tones, and overall purpose, both were able to support their argument that Stan Lee should (Patel) or should not (Bruno) take complete responsibility for the creation of Spider-Man. Each author uses limited sources to provide evidence for their viewpoints so there is little counter argument for the opposing viewpoint. The tones that each author creates in their article is conducive to supporting their point. Finally, both author’s overall purpose is to praise or question who the accreditations should really be given to as who is the true creator behind the mask.