sfcityduck

And Leo O’Mealia:

Schomburg drew great covers. But cover art is illustration not art unique to comics, especially when airbrushed. Covers require no facility with panel continuity, pacing, etc. I am bit sad at the notion we would assess the greatness of a comic artist just on covers. If the focus is just covers then we might as well consider pulp and book cover artists, probably also movie poster artists, because they are all the same except for size. Did Schomburg draw great interior art? Nothing that leaps to my mind. I love his WWII Timely covers, some of the best ever, but that is not enough to beat out a guys like Everett and Eisner etc. who could did it ALL at a high level. For comics, interiors should be everything because that is the comics part of a comic book.

JR’s first comic book cover for Marvel: JR interior art from 1954:

JR had already proven himself to Stan as more than capable at producing superhero comics.

Completely agree. I'd rate Schomburg as the greatest cover artist. Greatest artist? No. He doesn't qualify. Similarly, I'd rate Krigstein as having done the greatest interior story. Greatest artist? No. He barely did any covers.

I once went through the Gardner Fox papers at U of Oregon. What he submitted as a -script was not a “full--script” in the sense Alan Moore would do. The artists still had to make a lot of choices. Which goes to the issue of the creative process and how much do you have to contribute to be a co-creator? if an artist is presented with a costume design and a plot and a writer does the dialogue is the artist a co-creator of the character who first appears in that story? What about if all the artist provides is a costume design? Or what about if all the writer provides is the dialogue? What is enough?

Well no one is giving Stan credit for art. So are you upset he got creator credit? Are there any creator credits he is presently given that you think Stan does not deserve? Which ones? What about Ditko?

My own view is that there are no ages, only years and decades (which are very helpful for ballparking general value and content) and comic history events (which are very helpful for guys like me that like to talk about what was happening in the "comic world" and how it related to the real world).

Yeah ... no, I'm not missing your assertion. I'm disagreeing with it - both your assertion that Kirby (and Ditko - by which I assume you mean by putting him a parenthetical that Ditko is subservient to Kirby especially as to Spiderman) did "all" the heavy lifting and that "nobody here is detracting from Stan's actual contributions." You got people here who are basically stating Stan made no worthwhile contributions. In my view, Stan's dialogue did as much to make Marvel successful as anything else. It wasn't the character designs (many of which were derivative), or costumes which could also be derivative or hokey, or even necessarily the stories, but the characterizations and dialogue which fleshed out those characterizations which to me always made Marvel special. Yes, I agree the art is very important and that nothing can ruin a comic faster than bad art except maybe bad dialogue and story. They all are important.

McCay, Foster, Raymond, Caniff/Sickles could be a tie. They all were hugely talented, produced work which puts comic book word to shame (pay and time made a difference), and were monumentally influential. However, I'd say that McCay had more influence on animation whereas Foster, Raymond, and Caniff/Sickles had the greater impact on comic book artists.

We all are entitled to our opinions and a diversity of opinions can lead to great conversation.

My position is that Stan and Jack each moved to extremes when talking about one another. Marvel was a product of collaboration, with the plotter, artist, writer (e.g. he who wrote the dialogue) all deserving creator credit. Because what made Marvel was a combination of a number of factors, of which story seriousness, look, and dialogue (charaterization and tone) were all key. The problem here is that while Kirby and Lee can be excused for their follies, it is very hard to find any justification for those of us who sit far away and with no personal axe to grind.

Lordbyron says Goodman reviewed every cover before it went out. You said Goodman ignored Stan. Those aren't compatible. You say that that Stan's closest co-worker was witness to horrid treatment as follows: "My dad actually worked at Magazine Management, which was the company that owned Marvel Comics in the fifties and sixties, so he knew Stan Lee pretty well. He knew him before the superhero revival in the early sixties, when Stan Lee had one office, one secretary and that was it. The story was that Martin Goodman who ran the company was trying to phase him out because the comics weren't selling too well. ... Stan’s office was right next to my dads so they saw each other all day, and he did feel bad for him during those lean years for Atlas comics because he felt the company’s owner Martin Goodman was trying his best to humiliate Stan by constantly downsizing his office and his assistants, attempting to phase out the comics line altogether without actually going as far as firing him, probably because he was the cousin of Goodman’s wife. My dad said he really admired how Stan held on, held his ground, even when he was down to the lone desk in a cubicle, one secretary, and hardly anyone else around him. Of course Stan would later have the last laugh when Marvel exploded in the sixties." LordByroncomics and the ill-reasoned article you both cite argue that Goodman was a "good boss." Again, not compatible. These are entirely inconsistent positions that no amount of pro-Kirby cognitive dissonance can explain away. Stan says he feared that Goodman would fire him. Stan's and his close co-workers views are entirely consistent.

You and Lordbyroncomics need to fight this out. He's asserting that Goodman reviewed every cover and was a micromanager. While also arguing that Goodman was a good boss. You're arguing that Goodman was simultaneously horrid to Stan while ignoring him. Which is it?

Yeah ... no. I gotta disagree. GA was used by Lupoff in 1960. It quickly was adopted to refer to the first heroic age of, really, DC Comics and extends until the start of the second heroic age of DC Comics when we get the first reboot of a GA DC hero. That's the way the term was originally used in fandom and it is the way most of us understand it today. Michael Uslan explained how Silver Age started: "Fans immediately glommed onto this, refining it more directly into a Silver Age version of the Golden Age. Very soon, it was in our vernacular, replacing such expressions as ... 'Second Heroic Age of Comics' or 'The Modern Age' of comics. It wasn't long before dealers were ... specifying it was a Golden Age comic for sale or a Silver Age comic for sale." Obviously, the GA of strip reprints started much earlier and the GA of PCH much later. So we could certainly have a lot of GA definitions, but I'd suggest we go with the traditional one. P.S. Here's the first usage of the term Golden Age by a comic fan writing about comics that I've ever seen. He used it to refer to 1938-1942. From his perspective of 1948 the WWII years weren't the GA: However, this fan loved EC Comics and from today's perspective I'm sure he'd say they were GA.

None of the key statements in that article are supported by any evidence cited. They are the very definition of speculation or outright falsehoods ("regularly published teen superheros"). The anecdotes about Goodman being a good boss date to a time period after he'd left Marvel and founded Atlas-Seaboard or concerned isolated instances which do not touch on his relationship with Stan at all. Prince Namor has brought you the testimony of a man who was at Marvel sitting next to Stan during the years in question. Stan offered his own opinions when Goodman was still alive. Silence was Goodman's response. Perhaps Goodman became a better man as he aged, but there's no facts or testimony which support the speculation in that article. You keep referring to contemporaneous newspapers accounts. So what do they prove of consequence? The fact he was progressive or supported gay rights does not mean he was a good boss to Stan. Nor does his support for psychotherapy. On the other hand, his comment about Stan in the NYT is far from nice.

Stan being afraid of being fired by Goodman is consistent with what Stan said about Goodman and what Stan's next door office neighbor said about Goodman. What that article portrays is a Goodman who is contrary to the evidence Prince Namor has brought to our attention. You should take that up with him. I like what he's brought to the table. Stan's story is not contrary to the notion that Goodman looked at every cover because the Spiderman on the cover that Stan elected to send to the printer is of a Spider-man who is clearly a fully grown man with a strong heroic physique: Not Ditko's skinny teenager:

For me, Schomburg has a strong argument for greatest cover artist. But you are going to have to show me some strong interiors to get my vote in this poll.

Realistically, I think you have to have Bill Everett very high on the list. He was there very early. He was prominent and significant early. And he evolved his style in a way very few did such that he was still top tier while doing PCH in the 50s. He didn't fall off until the SA.

Now let's look at 1958: January - 8 titles February - 8 titles March - 8 titles April - 8 titles May - 8 titles June - 8 titles July - 8 titles August - 0 titles September - 8 titles October - 8 titles November - 8 titles December - 8 titles 1958 Average - 7.33 per month (exactly 8 titles short of the alleged contract amount) So what happens in 1959? January to June - 8 titles a month. July - 16 titles August - 0 titles (exactly like in 1958) September - 8 titles October - 16 titles November to December - 8 titles 1959 Average - 8.66 per month (exactly 8 titles over the alleged contract amount) Lessons: (1) Looks like Goodman's contract wasn't per month, or even per year, but was a monthly average over the life of the contract. From 1958-1960 the average was exactly 8 months a title. (2) Maybe Goodman or his printer liked to take August as a holiday from publishing for a few years. Zero titles published in 1958 and 1959? Does not seem likely. More likely, Goodman was trying to keep his monthly average down. (3) Prince Namor's argument that "in August of 1958, they published zero, which lines up exactly when Kirby says he walked back in the door to save Marvel from shutting down" is a classic example of correlation not causation because they published zero in 1959 also. Sorry Namor. By 1961, it looks like the contract amount had been stepped up, but was still in place as short month occurred in March (6 titles) and a skip month in October (0 titles). After all, why would a publisher have short and skip months unless he was trying stay under a quota? A question that Namor does not ask. The 1961 average is about 10 titles per month, which seems a pretty obvious step up amount. For 1962 the average is 11 titles per month. Again an obvious step up. And in 1963 the average is about 12 titles per month - looks like another step up. Seems pretty obvious to me what was happening here.

According to Mike's Amazing World this is 1960: January - 8 titles February - 8 titles March - 8 titles April - 8 titles May - 10 titles June - 10 titles July - 10 titles August - 10 titles September - 10 titles October - 10 titles November - 0 titles December - 4 titles 1960 Average - 8 titles per month. The clear implication is that there's a misinterpretation as to what the deal was. It appears that the deal was a average of 8 titles a month. Occam's razor. That interpretation is consistent with the witness testimony, which is evidence that provides context for the numbers.

Who does JR say was doing the dialogue in 1966? A key part scholarship is assessing a witnesses statements and being able to separate exaggeration and jokes from serious history.

I like your research here and I agree with your conclusions. But, you do realize this research and your conclusion entirely refutes the point you quote (and support) up thread from the article by "fourcolorsinners," right? A main point of that argument is that Lee lied about how much of a threat Goodman was to his job. Lee is quoted as saying about Spiderman: “I snuck him in the last issue… I thought, well that might be the end of my job!” – Stan Lee The article asserts its a lie that Lee bucking Goodman might have cost him his job: "I’m willing to concede that some of what Lee said was intended with a tongue-in-cheek tone but the point remains that journalists have taken him literally in regard to the potential loss of his job due to defying Goodman. This therefore becomes a significant part of the narrative and also is unfair to Goodman." Surely, you realize you cannot have it both ways, right? The notion that Stan Lee was exaggerating and unfair to Goodman by stating that he believed that Goodman might fire him over sneaking in a teen Spiderman into AF 15 is entirely at odds with the point you are making here that Goodman was generally horrid to Stan. What other posters are incisively pointing out is that the incompatible arguments about Stan, such as the difficulty of his relationship with Goodman, are painted by pro-Kirby posters one way when it hurts Stan and the opposite way when it helps him. Accordingly, I appreciate your willingness to admit that Goodman was hard on Stan, so hard that there's little reason to disbelieve Stan's statement that Goodman might have fired him for doing something without his approval. Consistency is a key indicia of credibility.

Great little show! Some legendary OGs were there. Picked up a few cool comics, bought a stack of books from Bud Plant, and got some CBMs I needed from Gary Carter. Saw some surprising books and some real nice Baker and Frazetta. A cool show. Kudos to the organizer! It's like traveling back in time.

See you bright and early!