As an occasional writer of poetry, I can tell you that only a very small proportion of them were about subjects I set out to write. Although I'd sometimes decide on a poem's theme beforehand, the majority of my writings resulted from a line popping into my head from nowhere, then following its own course with not much direction or assistance from me. My main contribution was to juggle some rhymes and then polish the finished poem into a composition that seemed to be the result of someone who'd had something specific to say and said it.
Thing is, someone will then ask what your inspiration or motivation was, and you find yourself relaying a perfectly convincing account of why you wrote what you did. A poem about a fear of the dark? Well, that was because you recognized that such a fear was common to a lot of people and you wanted to make a statement about it, and... blah, blah, blah! It's only much later (if at all) that you may recall it was a random line that jumped into your head, and that you merely followed in its wake. Honest, take my word for it - however ridiculous that may sound, that's often simply the way it is.
There's no conscious desire to deceive anyone over the origins of what you've written, but in being asked what your motivation was, your mind is misdirected into thinking that you had one, and it automatically produces a rationalization that seems entirely likely and reasonable. If it isn't what actually happened, it should've been. You even believe it yourself as you relate the creative genesis of your poem or story to your inquisitive enquirer. You simply accept it as fact and it may never occur to you to question or doubt it. Then, whenever you're asked about it in future, your mind goes into automatic mode and you trot out the same old story.
Which brings me to STAN LEE. Where did he get the idea for SPIDER-MAN? Did JACK KIRBY give him it, did he recall the '30s pulp hero The SPIDER, or was he inspired by watching an arachnid crawl up a wall and then decide to base a comic strip on a character with spider powers? I don't think even Stan remembers for sure. I think it's not unlikely that, when asked years later what had prompted the idea, his memory searched itself for a logical explanation and produced one which seemed the most probable. And you know what? It may even be the true one, with a little creative embellishment to make it more interesting.
I don't believe Stan has ever consciously lied in an attempt to steal credit for other folk's creations. I think that he genuinely believes his accounts of the origins of MARVEL COMICS and, like I say, they may well be true. If his version of events has occasionally strayed from historical fact, it's likely due only to the fickleness of memory and its ready capacity to construct order and reason for that which is often the result of sudden, random impulse and not the deliberate and controlled act of conscious creative endeavour.
What think the rest of you?
