Prince Namor

That is AWESOME!

ON NEWSSTANDS JULY 1964 Amazing Spider-man #17 - Letters page Stan's starts out by asking the fans what THEY want - ugh. Most likely, Ditko gave in to the demands to get rid of that broomstick though, and the result IS much better. Sturdy Steve to the rescue. A letter from future Marvel writer Doug Moench (from an era of many Marvel writers who I despise, because of their disrespect for Kirby - and mediocre stories they try and prop up as more than they are - regurgitated Kirby/Ditko ideas - Doug actually wrote a great piece on Jack in Amazing Heroes #100, also included below). It ends with Stan admitting 'next ish is gonna be real different! The whole plot was dreamed up by Sunny Steve and it was just nutty enough for Stan to okay it!' Mmmhmmm.

ON NEWSSTANDS JULY 1964 Amazing Spider-man #17 - In so many ways, the perfect Spider-man story... Part TWO

ON NEWSSTANDS JULY 1964 Amazing Spider-man #17 - Dialogued by Lee, Written, Drawn and Inked by Steve Ditko, Lettered by Sam Rosen This is the story I read that really made me fall in love with Ditko's story/art. I read this in a coverless, beat up copy of Marvel Tales #12 (I thought the other stories sucked) in 1974-1975. It's still a fun, great story. Ditko was really picking up steam with his ideas for this character. Part ONE

ON NEWSSTANDS JUNE 1964 Kid Colt Outlaw #118 And then there's the creative genius, Larry Lieber, who 'wrote all of Kirby's monster stories' (lol) (from Stan's 'story/plots', natch!), and created Iron Man (lol) and created Thor (lol), from Stan's 'story/plots', natch!, and a year later is... Relegated to one 5 page back up story in Kid Colt? The clues and proof are so overwhelming, you'd have to be a brain washed, boot licker to not see the truth.

ON NEWSSTANDS JUNE 1964 Patsy Walker #116, Millie the Model #122, and Kid Colt Outlaw #118 And of course Stan's 'my wife told me to do what I wanted, so I changed to writing stories MY way' is clearly debunked in his work outside these Kirby/Ditko books in both his 'dumb blonde' titles and his 'Western genre' work which remained exactly the same as they always had been. Including signing his name to Paper Doll pages to get paid for it. And then of course... AL HARTLEY (Alter Ego #61) - There was one point in the early 1960s when I was Stan’s assistant for about two months. I didn’t feel comfortable in that position, so I went back to freelancing. As Stan’s assistant, frankly, I did everything I normally did, and did some of the things that Stan did. I edited and wrote stories. AL HARTLEY (Alter Ego #61) - Stan Lee didn’t come up with most of the ideas. He really gave me free rein. Actually, I’d just go ahead and write and draw the stories and then send them in. But because Stan would write blurbs like: "One of the most Gripping, Most unusual of all Kid Colt's adventures' on basic genre stories, people see that as 'genius'. When I began reading comics in the 70's, Marvel did that crud, and it's what made me sour on them. That IS a great AD though, showing the growth of Marvel's stable of books...

Of course. Stan was an editor, not a writer. But some people will refuse to see it. The quotes aren't cherry picked. Every artist Stan regularly worked with downplayed his part in the creation process. Ditko DID get a synopsis from Stan early on. AFTER their discussion about story ideas. We can SEE the difference in a Kirby or Ditko story vs a Heck or an Ayers story. If Stan was actually writing or spearheading all of these stories, we could see certain similarities. But we don't. Because he didn't.

We don't know that because, Joe Simon would've had zero involvement. Kirby was hired as someone brought on to the Fly and even though he gave his ideas, it was Joe's project. And he didn't want to work that way. So we don't know what direction it would've gone. It wouldn't have been the same without Stan, I agree. But without Kirby it wouldn't have existed at all.

Both are examples of affirmation. You just used it to try and put legitimacy to Stan's appeal (which isn't even in question) and I used it to show that a REAL writer, knows and understands real WRITING when he sees it, better than... a Stan Lee apologist.

Were they rejected pages? Did Stan decide Ditko was the right guy for the job? (Even though he clearly WAS). Or did Stan see Kirby's involvement in both the Spider-man idea with Joe Simon, as well as his involvement with Joe Simon on the Fly at Archie as a possible legal issue and THAT was the reason he gave it to Ditko... From Ditko: Stan never told me who came up with the idea for SM or for the SM story Kirby was penciling. Stan did tell me SM was a teenager who had a magic ring that transformed him into an adult hero: SM. I told Stan it sounded like Joe Simon's character, The Fly (1959), that Kirby had some hand in, for Archie Comics. Now here is a Fly/Spider connection. Not in any seeing a fly on a wall but in being told, in hearing, of the connection. And to paraphrase Stan, this connection "may even be the true one" and the other, of seeing a fly on a wall and of someone being transformed from an adult SM (Kirby/? version) into a teenage SM (Lee/Ditko version) and without any magic ring, a falsehood. Stan called Jack about The Fly. I don't know what was said in that call. Day(s) later, Stan told me we would be doing SM. I would be pencilling the story panel breakdowns from Stan's synopsis and doing the inking. Kirby's five pencilled SM story/art pages were rejected. Out went the magic ring, adult SM and whatever legend ideas that SM story would have contained.

as opposed to the 'Village Voice'? Yes.

Not true. And I have plenty of his writings to back it up.

I quote one of the most famous sci-fi writers and you quote 'an actor' to defend Stan. Sums it up.

Which part isn't true? Are you saying 1953 in the Comic Book world was the same as 1955 after the Wertham hearings? Let's be clear on what facts you think I got wrong here, because I DIDN'T.

Ditko clearly stated he was doing work he wasn't credited for. That the working arrangement had changed. And that, with Annual #2, was when he decided to quit. He did not specifically mention pay. But when you're doing the other person's work, you're NOT getting paid for it. Stan WAS getting paid for writing the ASM and Dr. Strange. $15 a page ($142 per page adjusted for inflation), to take a completed story and add dialogue.

I know Stan Lee Marvel readers need their hands held through the puzzling idea (to them) of sequential art, to be told exactly what is happening in pictures that clearly explain it, but this is a pretty easy 'written word' mystery to figure out: "Dear Editor:"

As far as I know, he didn't STEAL credit or PAY from anyone for his writing, in this or any other known alternate universes. But he IS considered a great writer and knows a thing or two about it.

i.e. an excuse for Stan stealing is to say "the other guy might've done it too!" Sorry... I don't think that way... STEALING is having my moral compass wound too tightly?

"One hopes Kirby will be given total free rein, that he will be allowed to ride his dreams wherever they take him, for the journey is a special one, and we get visionaries like Kirby only once in a generation, if we’re terribly lucky." High praise from someone like Harlan Ellison... unfortunately Kirby didn't get free reign.

Yes, at this point in the conversation, it's best that you steer clear of the 'creativity' discussion, but it seems weird you'd instead angle it to try and focus on Stan's nepotism employment. See, Lee didn't keep Atlas afloat. It was a boom time in comics. And during the Atlas success, Stan did less than ever. If you want to learn the real history, read more here: http://timely-atlas-comics.blogspot.com Dr. Michael J. Vassallo's blog is most even handed and fair document of those years. Alan Sulman actually RAN the bullpen. Stan was an overseer who was the go to between Goodman and everyone else. Hank Chapman, Paul S. Newman, Don Rico, Carl Wessler, Al Jaffee, Daniel Keyes, Robert Bernstein... They had a bullpen of writers who did 95% of those stories. Stan focused on his repeated storylines in his dumb blonde books mainly and farmed out writing talent from 'Writer's Digest' to come up with ideas. Less than a year. Post-Wertham was a tough time in comics. What does that have to do with anything? Joe Simon, like Stan Lee didn't exactly set the world on fire in comics outside of what they did in their Kirby years, yet Jack was a fountain of creativity whoever he worked with. Again. Pivot away from 'creativity'. Smart. Has nothing to do with Stan Lee stole CREDIT and PAY from those artists. Fandom existed and was growing before the 'Marvel Age of Comics'. Fact. And again, has nothing to do with any of this. Here's someone's opinion on it that I respect more than yours: HARLAN ELLISON MUSING ON FORVER PEOPLE #1 released Dec 1, 1970. "Great writers respect great writing" :: Dear Editor: Just to add a few words to the already awesome mound of praise (one might term it a “mountain of judgment,” had one a way with clever nomenclature) surely deluging you, my compliments on the first issue of Jack Kirby’s The Forever People. In recent memory only Deadman, Enemy Ace and Bat Lash seem to match this strip for innovation and success. Which probably means — if we are use as yardstick, the commercial failures of these high-water marks of quality continuity — The Forever People is too good for the average comic audience. Its power and inventiveness display the Kirby charisma at its peak. Every panel is a stunner. Potentially, it appears to be the richest vein of story material National has unearthed in years. One hopes Kirby will be given total free rein, that he will be allowed to ride his dreams wherever they take him, for the journey is a special one, and we get visionaries like Kirby only once in a generation, if we’re terribly lucky. To constrain him, force him to fetter himself with the rules and rags of previous comics experience, would be to dull the edge of his imagination. After the many false starts of National efforts in the past five years, at last it seems you’ve struck the main route. That it should be Kirby — at the top of his form — that worked point-scout, is not surprising. He has long been master of the form, and in The Forever People, it seems he’s found his métier. Best wishes and prayers for a long, long life for The Forever People. Till now, all the flack bushwack about this being the Golden Age of Comics has fallen tinnily on us; but with Kirby in the saddle and The Forever People casting its wondrous glow, you now have leave to bang the drums. — Harlan Ellison Sherman Oaks, Calif.

Or face the facts in reality, that Stan Lee stole CREDIT and PAY from those artists.

The point is, the original idea to do a 'Spider-man' character at Marvel was Jack bringing it to Stan. Without that, it doesn't happen. Kirby's not trying to claim ownership of the character, he's trying to show that Stan had nothing to do with the ideas that were created at the time. Stan didn't see a spider on the wall and say, "That's a superhero idea!" and go to Ditko and make a comic book. Jack brought the idea in, as he did all of his other ideas. Did he overstate his involvement? Maybe. But it's hard to overstate how much Jack DID for Marvel during this period, by anyone other than Stan Lee and his Marvel Zombies. And he certainly wasn't trying to show Ditko up. He even says in BOTH interviews - the one you fixate on: "He was a... wonderful conceptualist. It was Steve Ditko that made Spider-Man the well-known character that he is." as well as in the other, "The credit for developing Spider-Man goes to Steve Ditko; he wrote it and he drew it and he refined it." In the other interview he even makes a point to specify, for himself and especially for STAN, because this is his WHOLE POINT, "There are many others who take credit for it, but Steve Ditko, it was entirely in his hands." You can try hard to take Stan's horrible treatment of his artists in stealing CREDIT and PAY from them and somehow show Kirby's claim, which cost NO ONE any credit or pay, as somehow equal, but it's... laughable. Ditko deserves credit for making Spider-man what it was. Stan spent years denying this. Kirby makes it the point of all of this. Marvel Zombies gloss right over it and try and paint Kirby as the villain. It's an endless cycle.

In reality, I question what Stan Lee really did for comics as an artform AND even as a viable sales IP. They made a big budget Superman movie in 1978. Stan Lee couldn't GET a big budget superhero movie made. It didn't really happen for Marvel until Avi Arad and Kevin Feige put Iron Man together in 2008. (Though Blade from 1998, realistically counts. It's still 20 years later, and not a superhero though). DC was superior to Marvel in seeing the comic book as an artistic and creative artform. DC outsold them in the 60's and created better comics in the 70's, 80's, and 90's. New Gods is better than anything Marvel did in that time period 1971-73 and maybe even until Starlin basically did his homage to it with Thanos. Kamandi- the Demon... just those two books surpass most of what Marvel did in the same time period. Adams and O'Neil's Green Lantern Green Arrow is much more realistic and 'hip' than the silly drug story in Spider-man. Wein and Wrightson's Swamp Thing, the Jim Aparo Spectre's, Grell's Warlord (man, I wish Cockrum would've stayed on the LoSH)... Alan Moore's Swamp Thing, Grant Morrison's Doom Patrol... DC gave us Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, Sandman and all the Vertigo Comics, Batman Year One, Preacher, Y the Last Man... Elseworlds... Marvel just followed the same Stan Lee method... repackage someone else's idea - call it your own - and convince the Marvel Zombies that it's the greatest thing they'll ever read! Marvel sold more, which makes no difference to me. DC had better comics, stories, and variety. I don't need a cheerleader to tell me what's good. I was able to do that on my own.

Fact: Stan Lee stole CREDIT and PAY from those artists.

Note: Showcase #4 with Flash comes out July 5th, 1956. Flash wouldn't get his own title released until December of 1958! It would be 2 and 1/2 years until DC felt it was popular enough to carry its own title! By that time - Challengers of the Unknown was on issue #6 of its own title!! Lois Lane was already on issue #7! Both of those titles came AFTER Flash in Showcase... Challengers of the Unknown would appear in a DC title 10 times (6 in its own title) before Flash would get his own book. Lois Lane would appear in Showcase and her own title 9 times before Flash would get his own book. If Lois Lane was selling 458,000 copies in 1960, and Challengers had the same power to get it's own title as quickly as Lois Lane... those Kirby numbers must have been upwards of 400,000 a month as well. Selling more than ANY Marvel Comic during the 1960's.