UNMASKING STAN LEE: FROM SUPERHEROES TO CULTURE IN 10 PIVOTAL MOMENTS -- GREAT LIVES LECTURE SERIES AT UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON

“Stan Lee: Spider-Man and Marvel Comics” — February 22, 2024

The Yuh Prosthodontics Lecture

William B. Crawley Great Lives Lecture Series

Biographical Approaches to History and Culture begins its third decade with a program on January 16, 2024. The schedule includes a total of 18 programs, running through March 28.

Bob Batchelor lecture on Stan Lee at University of Mary Washington

Join cultural historian Bob Batchelor on an exhilarating journey into the extraordinary life of Stan Lee, an icon whose legacy is as epic as the superheroes he co-created. Renowned for film cameos as the Marvel movie franchise conquered the world, Lee would have been 101 today, providing the perfect moment to delve into his profound impact on contemporary America and global culture.

Batchelor presents Lee’s life in 10 pivotal moments, each encapsulating an era of modern history. From the Roaring Twenties to the Great Depression, the American Century to the twenty-first century, his journey mirrors the sweeping narrative of the nation itself. Lee’s vision and creative genius revolutionized pop culture, introducing us to superheroes that were as complex and fallible as their creator (and all of us).

Experience the highs and lows, drama and humor of Lee’s life via a narrative that not only explores a cultural visionary, but also uncovers the heart of a man who dreamed of writing the Great American Novel and, in the process, rewrote the script of global pop culture. This is the story of Stan Lee, a true American icon, whose legacy continues to entertain and inspire generations around the world. Excelsior!

BRIEF BIO

A 3-time winner of the Independent Press Book Award, cultural historian Bob Batchelor has been hailed as “one of the greatest non-fiction writers and storytellers” by New York Times bestselling biographer Brian Jay Jones. His books examine modern popular culture icons, events, and topics, from comic books and music to literary figures and history’s outlaws.

By day, Bob is a diversity, equity, and inclusion advocate and ally at The Diversity Movement, a Raleigh DEI consultancy. By night, he is the author of 14 books, editor of 19 books, and has been published in a dozen languages. He is best known as biographer of Marvel icon Stan Lee, having written 3 books on him and numerous essays and chapters, one on Spider-Man appearing in Time.

An interdisciplinary writer, Bob has published books on Jim Morrison and the Doors, Bob Dylan, The Great Gatsby, Mad Men, and John Updike, among others. He wrote an award-winning illustrated history of Rookwood Pottery, the revolutionary company that became one of the great art potteries in the world, and The Bourbon King: The Life and Crimes of George Remus, Prohibition’s Evil Genius, a rollicking tale of the infamous bootleg baron, as widely known in the Roaring Twenties as Warren G. Harding and Babe Ruth.

Bob’s work has appeared or been featured in the New York Times, Cincinnati Enquirer, Los Angeles Times, and PopMatters. He created the podcast “John Updike: American Writer, American Life” and “Tales of the Bourbon King: The Life and True Crimes of George Remus.” He has appeared as an on-air commentator for The National Geographic Channel, PBS NewsHour, PBS, the BBC, and NPR. Bob hosted “TriState True Crime” on WCPO’s Cincy Lifestyle television show.

Bob earned his doctorate in American Literature from the University of South Florida and an M.A. in History from Kent State University after graduating from the University of Pittsburgh. He has taught at universities in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, as well as Vienna, Austria. Bob and his wife, antiques and vintage expert Suzette Percival live in North Carolina and have two wonderful teenage daughters.

STANLEY LIEBER BECOMES STAN LEE AND "MR. TIMELY COMICS"

How Does Stan Lee Get into Comic Books? A Stroke of Luck or Something Else?

Stanley Lieber uses the pseudonym “Stan Lee” in his first published story!

Rising up to his feet and towering over a messy desktop with drawings strewn haphazardly about and correspondence littering every square inch, Timely Comics head writer and editorial director Joe Simon reached out his hand to welcome his new young assistant. Cigar smoke is thick in the room as Simon’s big hand comes at the teenager sitting in front of him.

Still a little dizzy from getting the job, Stanley Leiber vigorously pumped the older man’s hand – A steady paycheck…He would make eight dollars a week! He had recently graduated from high school, the DeWitt Clinton Class of 1939.

For a young man struggling to find full-time work, the pay meant that he might help the family regain its footing. They had been reeling since his father Jack couldn’t find work in the dressmaking industry throughout the tough years of the Great Depression. The job gave the teenager security and a shot to prove himself in writing and publishing. Words appealed to the boy—always had.

Stanley dreamed of one day writing the Great American Novel.

But in this new job, Stanley had to start at the bottom. He plied away as an office boy for Simon and the other full-time Timely Comics employee – artist and writer Jack Kirby. Little more than an assistant, some days he refilled Kirby and Simon’s inkwells. He had the mammoth task to get the two men sandwiches while the duo concocted new superhero stories.

Lieber worked with enthusiasm, even if he spent hours sweeping floors or erasing stray pencil marks on finished pages to prep them for publication. The youngster achieved his primary goal – simply finding a permanent position. He watched and learned from two of the industry’s budding stars.

More importantly, Stanley had a job! His father’s fate would not befall him. He set off on a career.

The Timely Job at Timely Comics…And a Mystery!

Many episodes in Stanley’s early life are shrouded in uncertainty. How the teenager bounded from Clinton High School to Simon and Kirby’s assistant at Timely involves both a bit of mystery and a touch of mythmaking.

There are several versions of his Timely Comics origin story. One account begins with his mother Celia. Clearly she put her hopes in her oldest son, particularly since her faith in her husband nearly led the family to ruin.

Here we have Celia telling Stanley about a job opening at a publishing company where her brother Robbie worked. Without delay, the young high school grad shows up at the McGraw-Hill building on West 42nd Street, but knows little about the company or comic books. With Robbie’s prodding, Simon explains the business and how comic books are made. He then offers the teen a job. Basically, he and Kirby are so frantic and overworked, particularly with their new hit Captain America, that they just need someone (anyone, really) to provide an extra set of hands.

Robbie Solomon is also at the center of a different account (here the main player), essentially a conduit between Simon and owner Martin Goodman. In addition to being Celia Lieber’s brother, Robbie married the publisher’s sister Sylvia. Goodman surrounded himself with family members, despite the imperious tone he took with everyone who worked for him. Receiving Robbie’s stamp of approval (and the familial tie) made the boy’s hire fait accompli. Simon, then, despite what he may or may not have thought of the boy, basically had to take Leiber on. “His entire publishing empire was a family business,” explained historians Blake Bell and Michael J. Vassallo. Solomon had a strange job – a kind of in-house spy who ratted out employees not working hard enough or playing fast and loose with company rules.

While the family connection tale is credible and plays into the general narrative of Goodman’s extensive nepotism, Lee offered a different perspective, making it more of a coincidence. “I was fresh out of high school,” he recalled, “I wanted to get into the publishing business, if I could.” Rather than being led by Robbie, Lee explained: “There was an ad in the paper that said, ‘Assistant Wanted in a Publishing House.’” This alternative version calls into question Lee’s early move into publishing – and throwing up for grabs the date as either 1940, which is usually listed as the year of his hiring, or 1939, as he later implied.

Lieber may have not known much about comic books, but he recognized publishing as a viable option for someone with his skills. He knew that he could write, but had no way of really gauging his creative talents. Although Goodman was a cousin by marriage, he did not have much interaction with his younger relative, so it wasn’t as if Goodman purposely brought Lieber into the firm. No one will ever really know how much of a wink and nod Solomon gave Simon or if Goodman even knew about the hiring, though the kid remembered the publisher being surprised the first time he saw him in the building.

The teen, though bright, talented, and hard working, needed a break. His early tenure at Timely Comics served as a kind of extended apprenticeship or on-the-job training at comic book university. Lieber was earnest in learning from Simon and Kirby as they scrambled to create content. Since they were known for working fast, the teen witnessed firsthand how two of the industry’s greatest talents functioned. The lessons he learned set the foundation for his own career as a writer and editor, as well as a manager of other highly talented individuals.

Stan Lee: A Life, by award-winning historian Bob Batchelor

WHY A BIOGRAPHY OF STAN LEE?

My Personal Journey: Marvel Comics, Electric Company, and Reading

Stan Lee: A Life by Bob Batchelor, celebrating the 100-year history of the iconic creative force!

My criteria for who or what to write about as a biographer and cultural historian is a mix of a.) personal interest, and b.) impact the person or group has had on culture. Clearly, Stan Lee fits.

When thinking about possible topics, I wanted to find an iconic figure whose life and work had influenced countless millions of people. There are many people who fit this description, but back in 2014 and 2015 when I was thinking about who, the possibilities were not endless. Many figures had biographies written about them or had covered their own territory via autobiography or memoir. Others I didn’t find interesting enough — personally — to want to spend five or more years with: from research to writing to publication to marketing to more marketing, etc. Taking on a biography is a LONG process of essentially getting inside another human being’s skin (and letting them in yours in some strange way), so commitment is fundamental.

When Stephen Ryan, then editor at Rowman & Littlefield, suggested Stan, he seemed a natural subject to explore in a full-scale biography. And, of course, I am a lifelong Marvel and Lee fan, so I felt I had some insight into his life at the outset.

The popularity of the Marvel film universe had rekindled Lee’s global popularity. Ironically, though, when I interviewed self-professed Marvel and Lee fans, what I realized is that most didn’t know much about him (and much of what they thought they knew wasn’t the whole story).

What could I add to the body of knowledge about Lee? I figured my best bet would be to write a biography deeply steeped in archival research that provided an objective portrait that would give readers insight and analysis into Lee’s life and career. Multi-archival research had been the training I received as a historian, so I went to the Stan Lee Archives at the American Heritage Center at the University of Wyoming. I searched out information at the Billy Ireland Cartoon Library and Museum, a wonderful space at Ohio State University.

The research provided a deeply nuanced view of Lee’s work that I then conveyed to the reader. This commitment to the research and uncovering the “man behind the myth” became the driving force of the initial book, published in late 2017, titled Stan Lee: The Man Behind Marvel.

In looking at a person’s life, especially one as long as Lee’s, context and historical analysis provides the depth necessary to create a compelling picture. For example, Lee grew up during the Great Depression and his family struggled mightily. I saw strains of this experience at play throughout his life that I then emphasized and discussed. As a cultural historian, my career is built around analyzing context and nuance, so that drive to uncover a person’s life within their times is at the heart of the narrative.

Another important element in writing about Lee was to really give a thorough going-over of his life and experiences as an editor of comic books. Stripping away the film cameos, the fame, and the self-created “comic book man” persona, I felt it was Lee’s work as an editor, art director, production manager, writer, and boss that had not been fully explored.

Stan Lee greeting the adoring crowd at a comic book convention

What I Hoped to Accomplish

In the initial biography and the two that followed — Stan Lee: A Life and Stan Lee: The Man Behind Marvel, Young Adult Edition — what the reader gets is multi-archival research and deep engagement with contemporary American history. Basically, I wanted to write a biography that is based on archival research, but written for general fans and readers. The books explore Lee’s rise as a kind of fulfillment of the American dream, from near-poverty in Depression-era New York City to the comic book industry’s iconic visionary, a man who created (with talented artists) many of history’s most legendary characters.

The books look at how Lee capitalized on natural talent and hard work to become the editor of Marvel Comics as a teenager. After toiling in the industry for decades, Lee threw caution to the wind and went for broke, co-creating the Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, Hulk, Iron Man, the X-Men, the Avengers, and others in a creative flurry that revolutionized comic books for generations of readers. Marvel superheroes became a central part of pop culture, from people who began collecting comics to the company’s innovative merchandising, from superhero action figures to the ever-present Spider-Man lunchbox.

 My biographies of Lee examine many of his most beloved works, including the 1960s comics that transformed Marvel from a second-rate company to a legendary publisher. What I hoped to show is that Lee took risks to bring the characters to life. Of course, he didn’t do it alone, and the battle over who did what and when has led comic book historians and others to draw battle lines that are hard and fast. What I wanted to demonstrate, though, was that it took Lee’s tireless efforts to make comic books and superheroes part of mainstream culture.

The biographies not only reveal why Lee developed into such a central figure in American entertainment history, but explores the cultural significance of comic books and how the superhero genre reflects ideas central to the American experience.

Personal Journey

As mentioned earlier, personal interest is critical for a biographer. If you believe eminent author Jerome Charyn, who exclaims, “Every book is really about me,” then you’ll understand the connection between subject and writer. Essentially, an author is asking, “From my lived experience and mental map, what can I add to this story that is uniquely from my perspective?” This thought is often discussed in the work of Carl Rollyson, in my opinion the “dean” of biography for his work as a biographer and biography theorist.

My personal experience certainly led to my interest in writing about Lee and Marvel — now stretching to more than nine years of research, writing, talking about, and thinking about the iconic figure. But, my personal interest dwarfs my professional interest.

At around four years-old, I taught myself to read so that I could “understand” Spider-Man comic books. I remember really needing to make sense of the words, which struck me so much more than the images and art. And, this later played a role in my thinking as I met and talked to artists and people who love art over text in comic books. I think that some people are “words” people and some are “art.” I am clearly about the words, so this ability to read comic books meant so much more to me than the pictures. I never thought twice about who drew comic books, but I did attempt to make a connection between the words and how they played out on the page.

Another perspective came from watching the Electric Company on PBS (back when there were literally only a handful of channels to choose from). “Spidey’s Super Stories” were live-action skits featuring the web-slinger and I lived for those spots. The vignettes debuted in 1974, so the timeline (when I look back on it now), fits with my Gen X youth.

This is the skeleton of my five decades-plus relationship with Stan Lee, Marvel, and particularly Spider-Man. I am so proud of the three Lee biographies and believe strongly that Stan himself would be happy to know they exist. And, who know…maybe there is another Lee biography or book with Stan as a central figure still left in me…as Rollyson says, “The answer to one biography is another biography.”

ANNIVERSARY OF JIM MORRION'S MYSTERIOUS DEATH IN PARIS

Jim Morrison Died on July 3, 1971 — 52 Years Later, We are Still Contemplating His Iconic Life

Roadhouse Blues by cultural historian Bob Batchelor, published by Hamilcar Publications

Below is an excerpt from Roadhouse Blues: Morrison, the Doors, and the Death Days of the Sixties that looks at Jim Morrison in the Twenty-First Century.

Jim Morrison in a thoughtful moment during the Isle of Wright concert

Jim Morrison in the Twenty-First Century

What can a singer dead for more than five decades tell us about twenty-first-century America? Well, if we’re searching for insight from the life and enduring legend of Jim Morrison, the answer is contained in an unending string of impulses that combine to create the contemporary world.

Morrison matters today because we can use his brief life and long afterlife to examine the issues and topics that still bedevil modern society. From women’s rights to our thinking about war and freedom, Morrison’s vantage offers context. He also helps us understand philosophical questions about history, nostalgia, fame, and celebrity as an industry.

Looking at Morrison’s life has another critical component—it demonstrates how our thinking transforms over time. The most straightforward example is how he was venerated in the 1980s by a generation who viewed him as the ultimate party animal. Following his lead, Gen Xers and others could give the middle finger to people in roles of authority while reveling in his booze-filled, hedonistic lifestyle.

While this perspective may always be a part of Morrison’s legacy based on how young people choose to exert their freedoms, examining his life from today’s viewpoint reveals a young man struggling with addiction and desperately in need of help. From Jim’s life, we can learn much about addiction, recovery, and treatment in hopes of saving lives.

While generations of observers have filled Morrison with any number of meanings, near the end of his own life, he realized that he was on a search for something more. Even though many people would have traded their lifestyles for his in an instant, he hoped for a deeper purpose:

I’m not denying that I’ve had a good time these last three or four years…met a lot of interesting people and seen a lot of things in a short space of time…I can’t say that I regret it, but if I had it to do over again, I would have gone more for the quiet, undemonstrative little artist plodding away in his own garden trip.

***

Perhaps the greatest debut album of all-time!

“I see myself as a huge fiery comet, a shooting star. Everyone stops, points up and gasps ‘Oh, look at that!’ Then whoosh, and I’m gone…and they’ll never see anything like it ever again…and they won’t be able to forget me—ever.”

—Jim Morrison

***

What we do not get from Morrison—as a person with a full range of human complexities—is a single perspective or fixed point on how to interpret him or his era. He is part of a larger puzzle for understanding the Sixties and early Seventies. What I argue, along with other historians, is that history is the craft of presenting information based on viewpoints, analysis, documentation, and other points of reference, but not what actually happened. Even if you were beside Jim as he lived his life, it would not be history but rather your interpretation of that time frame from your own perspective. Historians create the framework.

This is important in examining and piecing together a contentious era like the Sixties. We are attempting to shine light into the dark night that brings together the lived experiences and lifetimes of people who valued the time for different reasons. For example, I contend that it is impossible to comprehend the Sixties without layering in Vietnam, whether economic, political, or cultural. However, I’ve interviewed people who have never mentioned the war or its consequences on their lives. It is not as if these individuals lived in an alternate reality; it’s just that they found a way to circumvent the topic in a way that makes sense to them in their recollections.

Even when examining the parts of the Sixties that seemed to flow logically into the next, for example, as if the self-help and meditation of the 1970s had to be the outcome of the free-love and activist 1960s, we understand this equation is never the straight line it might appear to be on paper, film, or video. In fact, when it does seem like a direct path, it’s most likely that someone has created that narrative.

For literary critic Morris Dickstein, who grew up in the 1960s, a multitude of influences melded to create the era’s foundation: “The cold war, the bomb, the draft, and the Vietnam War gave young people a premature look at the dark side of our national life, at the same time that it galvanized many older people already jaded in their pessimism.” The role the Doors played in exposing the dark side and bringing it to the mainstream is significant.

The depth of Morrison’s life called for writing this book. Few cultural icons have had a more lasting impact. But, as I have shown, the importance of the Doors includes the group too. It wasn’t strictly the Jim Morrison show, although his myth is of course a big factor in the band’s enduring fame.

This book is a reassessment of a significant era in American history and an example of how we might gain from that exercise. According to David Strutton and David G. Taylor: “The examination of history allows one to acquire experience by proxy; that is, learning from the harsh or redemptive experiences of others…Mythology is less reliable than history as narrative of actual experience; yet it may hold more power than history.”

By revisiting Morrison, the Doors, and the death days of the Sixties, we give the era meaning as it existed in its day and at the same time create a tool to use to navigate our lives and the future. For example, Vietnam has become synonymous with America’s intervention in overseas wars, particularly against enemies that appear doomed on paper. The wars in the Middle East over the last several decades have been examined via the Vietnam lens, but the comparison sadly did not lead to a different outcome. In this case—and concerning future warfare—we might ask ourselves the reasonable question: Where were the protesters who played such a pivotal role in illuminating what was happening in Southeast Asia in the Sixties and Seventies? For that matter, why were the journalists in the Middle East “embedded” rather than emboldened like their media forbearers? Perhaps the most significant difference was the draft, but the real emphasis is that reevaluating the decades gives a measure of what is happening today—and offers a potential lens for anticipating the future.

***

We all need tools to examine society’s larger questions, but Morrison’s life can also help us understand each other on a more intimate level. How did Jim view himself in the world?

One of the most striking aspects of Jim’s life versus the legend that grew after he died is the gap between what people thought of the public person versus the more private individual. After his death, the mythmaking and apocryphal aspects of his life seemed to eclipse who he really was.

For example, journalist Michael Cuscuna said, “The antithesis of his extroverted stage personality, the private Morrison speaks slowly and quietly with little evident emotion, reflectively collecting his thoughts before he talks. No ego, no pretensions.” For writer Dylan Jones, Jim stood as “the first rock’n’roll method actor” and “an intellectual in a snakeskin suit.” Ultimately, hinting at the singer’s true nature, he saw “a man who, when he revealed himself, was often to be found simply acting out his own fantasies.”

Jim embraced this notion of self-creation and wore different masks publicly and privately. In 1968, Morrison admitted that his image as the Lizard King was “all done tongue-in-cheek.” He explained, “It’s not to be taken seriously. It’s like if you play the villain in a Western that doesn’t mean that’s you.” But the singer cautioned, “I don’t think people realize that.” Were these really different masks for Morrison, or did the true Jim get lost (or stuck) in the alcoholic stupor?

Before the band hit the big time, there were some musicians and hippies in Los Angeles who saw Jim as little more than a poseur, as someone who wanted to become part of the scene and yearned for attention and approval. They saw him not as a poet but as just another lost angel longing for fame and fortune in the City of Lights.

A foundational aspect of human life is the need to create meaning. People engage in this activity from birth, investigating and examining the world in relation to other people and things around them. This type of exploration is called semiotics, which in plain terms means asking what something means in relation to ourselves and others. From this vantage point, Morrison’s public persona was cast in symbolic terms, like how a celebrity/star acted and what they could get away with versus noncelebrities. When he yelled out, “I am the Lizard King…I can do anything!” it seemed he believed it—at least the version of Jim who had assumed that symbolic role.

People use symbols, then, to adapt to a complex world that contains an enormous amount of abstraction. Krieger pinned Morrison’s worldview on his antiauthority nature. “You couldn’t tell Jim Morrison what to do. And if you tried he would make you regret it,” the guitarist recalled. “He was forever rebelling against his navy officer father. Anyone who attempted to step into a role of authority over him became the target of his unresolved rage.” What he learned to lash out at was not his powerful father but those in authority who attempted to control him.

Psychotherapist Jeannine Vegh saw the lasting effects of growing up in a military family. “Jim suffered from a crisis in his mind. His words seem destined for a prophet, but, instead, he succumbed to drink and drugs. I assumed that he had been exposed to some form of family trauma.” She believes it may have been that his parents preferred “dressing down” to other forms of punishment. “When a child is berated and humiliated in front of others, it takes a toll on them spiritually, physically, and mentally.” The turmoil from this kind of upbringing is a clear factor in Jim basically disowning his parents even before he became famous. When his father told him that joining a band was stupid, he never forgave him and never spoke to him again.

Morrison, by studying film, literature, and sociology, understood more deeply and theoretically what his contemporaries like Jagger, McCartney, Lennon, and Joplin knew—fame served as one of many disguises he had to wear as a rock star. For Jim, there was the hyperindividual aspect of fronting a band and presenting himself to an audience and then there was the other piece of it, the communal vibe from the collective experience. That high from being on stage—the rush of emotion, the intensity, the energy—was likely another form of addiction for him.

When in his rock star guise, Jim could also turn into the hideous performer, especially when drunk. If Morrison didn’t feel or perceive what he wanted from the audience, he turned against them, essentially doing what he did in one-on-one relationships: goad and aggressively provoke a reaction—any reaction. “I don’t feel I’ve really done a complete thing unless we’ve gotten everyone in the theater on kind of a common ground,” he said. “Sometimes I just stop the song and just let out a long silence, let out all the latent hostilities and uneasiness and tensions before we get everyone together.”

Yet whether the show went well frequently depended on the other principal ingredient—alcohol. The booze distorted his perceptions, which the singer believed helped him reach new horizons, but the mixed-up sensitivities of an alcohol-addled mind washed out of him in ways that neither he nor the band completely understood. Misperception led to the attempted riot and arrest in New Haven and the beginning-of-the-end Miami incident.

Morrison realized and manipulated the power he possessed as rock star and purposely baited the crowd in ways that were new to them. A person going to a concert has expectations and understands (roughly) how they should act as a part of the community. The Doors, however, constantly messed with that pact because it titillated Jim’s worldview and allowed him to see both his true self and his growing authority after a lifetime of poking at the figures and institutions of power in his life. Morrison told a reporter: “I like to see how long they can stand it, and just when they’re about to crack, I let ’em go.”

Once questioned about what might happen to him if the crowd turned, even threatening his own safety, Jim responded in typical narcissistic fashion, claiming, “I always know exactly when to do it.” Rather than fear them or what they might do to him, he craved control over the masses. “That excites people…They get frightened, and fear is very exciting. People like to get scared.” Intensifying his controversial comments, he used sex as an analogy: “It’s exactly like the moment before you have an orgasm. Everybody wants that. It’s a peaking experience.” The domination over the crowd and its collective retort fascinated and mesmerized Morrison. He could directly influence their experience or lead the band into a frenzy—with Ray and Robby urging the emotional response while John pounded out a driving beat.

Examining Bob Dylan’s career, you can see similar uses of the mask metaphor as a way to make sense of complexity and abstraction. In the early 1970s, Dylan faced a period of agitation as he coped with the decline of his marriage to his wife Sara. Looking back on the period, he spoke about the many sides of himself that existed and kind of threw him off-kilter. Dylan explained: “I was constantly being intermingled with myself, and all the different selves that were in there, until this one left, then that one left, and I finally got down to the one that I was familiar with.”

To cope with fame, Dylan constantly created new personas and masks. He could alternatively exist as a singer, writer, musician, revolutionary, poet, degenerate, or any of the other labels that might be thrust at him. Dylan even spoke about himself in the third person to underscore the difference between him and the character named “Bob Dylan.”

Obviously, while there is ultimately a person there—waking each day, eating, working, daydreaming, bathing—there is another aspect of Dylan that defies simple definition. Dylan, a member of an elite category of iconic figures, exists outside his physical form and represents numerous meanings that give people a tool to interpret the world around them. As a result, the artist isn’t only a member of society but a set of interpretations and symbols that help others generate meaning. As fans and onlookers, people are familiar with this tradeoff. They accept it with each side gaining something in the exchange. A regular human being could never have handled the pressure of being called the spokesperson of a generation. Instead, Dylan used different personas to compartmentalize and make sense of it—until he snapped under the weight of drugs and booze and used a motorcycle accident in 1966 as an excuse to drop out. Some would call Dylan’s breakdown a natural result of a burden too heavy to carry.

The difference between Dylan and Morrison is that the latter died before he had to confront these many roles. In death, these roles are assigned to Morrison by fans, critics, historians, and observers. Both icons might ask—if possible—that we define them by the songs they created or the lyrics they wrote, but the larger culture wants so much more. There is an image that must be created, managed, and maintained. Once someone becomes famous or iconic, they hold two identities—symbol and person.

Yet according to Evan Palazzo of the Hot Sardines, the power of the music is the real testament to the Doors. “Imagine if you were a concert buff in 1968, 1969, 1970, the bands you could see live, it was unparalleled. We don’t have anything like that today,” he explains. “But if they were a new band, the Doors would blow everyone out of the water—it would be seismic.”

“Imagine if you were a concert buff in 1968, 1969, 1970, the bands you could see live, it was unparalleled. We don’t have anything like that today. But if they were a new band, the Doors would blow everyone out of the water—it would be seismic.”

— Evan Palazzo, Band Leader & Pianist, The Hot Sardines

For today’s listeners—no longer enslaved to vinyl, CD, or cassette because of the transformation to streaming music services—the Doors are just part of the Classic Rock genre. For younger listeners, the band is on a playlist or “decontextualized as a fifty-year-old band,” according to literary critic and writer Jesse Kavadlo. “My college students don’t experience music like we did pre-Internet. It’s just playlist stuff. All the music is available instantly, so they relate to it differently.”

It doesn’t even really matter that Jim is dead. For so many people, his spirit is as real as a brick wall, the latest Doors release on Spotify, or a video on YouTube.

***

“I tell you this man, I tell you this…I don’t know what’s gonna happen, man, but I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames.”

—Jim Morrison

A new look at Jim Morrison, the Doors, and the chaotic, turbulent 1960s!

BAT-MANIA IN 1966! THE SUMMER OF THE BAT!

Batman Roared Across Pop Culture with Television Series, Film, and Soundtrack

Batman Soundtrack, 1966

Bat-mania in 1966 with the TV series, a soundtrack, and summer film! I recently found the vinyl at an antique mall and it spurred many great memories.

How crazed were people for Batman in 1966? If you were in Dallas/Fort Worth, you could meet the dynamic duo. There was also the the Jan and Dean album, an homage to the Batman show and its high camp worldview. Next came a soundtrack to the TV show and then a film, starring most of the cast from the show.

[One of the notable exceptions was Julie Newmar, who played Catwoman. For the movie, she was replaced by Lee Meriwether.]

Check out this list of hit records from mid-1966!

The movie basically broke even at the box office and I've read reports that the album didn't sell well, though (clearly) there is evidence to better sales than reported. The combination across media had a more important consequence than any of the individual pieces.

Get a copy of the album and meet Batman and Robin in Dallas/Fort Worth!

The Batman TV series was an obsession for this Gen Xer in the 1970s. Such great memories of watching at my grandparent's house on Saturdays. I think my grandmother put up with my brother and I and hoped the show would just keep us quiet for a little while. The “camp” aspects didn’t mean much to her.

A screenshot of the Batman film, when Penguin (Burgess Meredith) infiltrates the Batcave!