VintageComics

I didn't think it would need to be clarified, but...
It's not that you can't criticize the dead. 
It's that the fact he can't speak for himself means more balance is needed to make sure you his side of the story correct than if he could still respond. 

You should read a book on how accurate eyewitness testimony is but a small article is sufficient. 
Scientific American is a good publication, isn't it?
Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts
Eyewitness testimony is fickle and, all too often, shockingly inaccurate
 

Your eloquence, reason and metered balance in every discussion is a welcome breath of fresh air on the internet.
I've read many of Chuck's discussions about Stan Lee on the boards throughout my time here, but they had an ever increasing "anti Stan Lee" bent to them that was always one-sided and cult-like, with Stan being judged with a more harsh standard than anyone else as though there's a personal vendetta against him. 
Even if Stan did all of these things he's accused of, the way the discussion is presented makes it difficult to take seriously. Without balance in a topic, you're looking for a motive as to why there is no balance. 
Guys like Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were social misfits.
I mean, just look at Ditko's inability, or better put, refusal to communicate with the public.
Look at Kirby's ability to lock himself up and pump out pages of art with a few hours of sleep a night for decades.
These aren't well rounded, socially adaptable people. Their art and creativity was leading edge, but they weren't leaders of people themselves. They needed a leader. 
I have musician friends like this, who are world class but struggle to earn $100 a gig because they don't know how to think big enough to expand their reach or the synergy to create relationships that will create something greater than themselves.
Look at Michael Jordan. The greatest basketball player of all time, arguably one of the greatest athletes of all time, but can't manage or coach to save his life.
This is a common topic in psych and self help circles, where people don't realize their own value and then also don't know how to make their value known to the world. It's an entirely different animal than just creativity. 
Each successful talent has someone with vision and aggression that drives them to greater heights with business savvy that they couldn't be as successful without. Sometimes, they may even become enemies but they would never have been successful without each other. 
Stan Lee's role was basically the manager of the brand and what I see coming as the end result of Chuck's unbalanced points and rants, is that Marvel would have been just as successful without Stan Lee.
Good luck with that one. 

One of Marvel's hallmarks, if not their greatest Hallmark that made them so successful was how touching Marvel's stories were to common people.
The reason early Marvel was so successful was that their stories were humanly relatable. They took relatable human weaknesses (blindness, meekness, lameness, nerdiness, physical unattractiveness) and turned those qualities into strengths. 
Incidentally, and also slightly off topic, it's also why Captain Marvel outsold Superman in the GA.
Meanwhile, during the SA while Marvel was putting out this material with depth, DC was putting out mindless action, schlock and rainbow monsters that were so inferior I couldn't stand them. Not to mention how inferior the art was. DC was still doing stories in the style of Atlas pre-hero stuff (ony with superheroes) and hadn't caught onto Marvel's winning formula until later in the SA. 
These movements within Marvel stories were about human rights, respect, equality, goodness. It was an incredible strategic move of pure genius. These qualities were long term goals that drove all the stories, not just an afterthought and they were the fundamental difference between Marvel and everyone else at the time.
All the Kirby and Ditko art in the world couldn't manipulate people into loving the brand without that emotional factor of the underdog fighting for good.
So, who corralled together the world class talent AND cultivated that activist culture within the company, and drove those principles throughout Marvel's story telling?
Who motivated and drove the bullpen?
Who created that culture that was the brand that Marvel became?

Your eloquence, reason and metered balance in every discussion is a welcome breath of fresh air on the internet.
I've read many of Chuck's discussions about Stan Lee on the boards throughout my time here, but they had an ever increasing "anti Stan Lee" bent to them that was always one-sided and cult-like, with Stan being judged with a more harsh standard than anyone else as though there's a personal vendetta against him. 
Even if Stan did all of these things he's accused of, the way the discussion is presented makes it difficult to take seriously. Without balance in a topic, you're looking for a motive as to why there is no balance. 
Guys like Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were social misfits.
I mean, just look at Ditko's inability, or better put, refusal to communicate with the public.
Look at Kirby's ability to lock himself up and pump out pages of art with a few hours of sleep a night for decades.
These aren't well rounded, socially adaptable people. Their art and creativity was leading edge, but they weren't leaders of people themselves. They needed a leader. 
I have musician friends like this, who are world class but struggle to earn $100 a gig because they don't know how to think big enough to expand their reach or the synergy to create relationships that will create something greater than themselves.
Look at Michael Jordan. The greatest basketball player of all time, arguably one of the greatest athletes of all time, but can't manage or coach to save his life.
This is a common topic in psych and self help circles, where people don't realize their own value and then also don't know how to make their value known to the world. It's an entirely different animal than just creativity. 
Each successful talent has someone with vision and aggression that drives them to greater heights with business savvy that they couldn't be as successful without. Sometimes, they may even become enemies but they would never have been successful without each other. 
Stan Lee's role was basically the manager of the brand and what I see coming as the end result of Chuck's unbalanced points and rants, is that Marvel would have been just as successful without Stan Lee.
Good luck with that one. 

Ok

@Prince Namor Roy is right.  Please be less contentious in your replies towards others.

I think CGC should make a statement on whether they think OJ was guilty. The community needs to know.
Here's my rationale. 

 

Where did I say that? I haven't commented either way on what Lee said, only on how I believe these things should be handled. 
You're jumping to conclusions, as you always do.

What a wonderful, well written post, as most of your posts are.
Without putting the focus on Stan Lee, this post is an excellent insight into how a balanced look into Stan Lee's life should look as opposed to the inflammatory language the book uses.  
In the moment, working for a struggling, carpy comic book company, treading water to stay alive in a drowning swamp of a myriad of publication companies, it takes a ton of guts, effort and intuition to navigate that swamp and not drown in it. 
I don't think Stan was an outright fraud. I don't think he conspired to take people's ideas the way Bob Kane did. I do think Stan was an exaggerator. A masterful spin doctor. You can't take spin and make gospel or math out of it, which many have done. 
What I like about your post is that it looks at the entire economy of success, as a whole and not as a zero sum game. That sort of patience and perspective is rare. 
He quite literally did what it took to get the company to the top and succeeded. Without the spin, and with a little more precision in his wording, he likely wouldn't have been as successful, which means Jack Kirby wouldn't have been as successful, nor would any of the titles. 
And certainly, it's a very difficult thing to judge some 50 or 80 years ago by today's standards, in much the same way comparing Michael Jordan to Wilt Chamberlain would be.
I don't think anyone that was there 60 years ago cared what was said or done at the time, as long as they got a paycheck. 
Hindsight is very different and actually changes once a brand becomes successful. Then, all of a sudden everyone cares about things they didn't care about then. Memories change, feelings change and accomplishments change. 
This to me is the key way to look into the past and why balance is important. 
That's not to make an excuse for outright lying and unethical behavior. That's always wrong. But how much of a lie it was, and the intent of his words are just as important in a court of law, and those things are likely going to be a debate for the ages. 
With less "ballyhoo" Marvel would likely have been less successful and everyone from the readers to the creators and everyone in between would have suffered. 
Finally, eye witness accounts are generally very unreliable. That's unequivocal.
Somewhere between the intent of the book and Stan Lee's intent is the truth, and what the reader wants to see will color that story differently for each reader. 

What a wonderful, well written post, as most of your posts are.
Without putting the focus on Stan Lee, this post is an excellent insight into how a balanced look into Stan Lee's life should look as opposed to the inflammatory language the book uses.  
In the moment, working for a struggling, carpy comic book company, treading water to stay alive in a drowning swamp of a myriad of publication companies, it takes a ton of guts, effort and intuition to navigate that swamp and not drown in it. 
I don't think Stan was an outright fraud. I don't think he conspired to take people's ideas the way Bob Kane did. I do think Stan was an exaggerator. A masterful spin doctor. You can't take spin and make gospel or math out of it, which many have done. 
What I like about your post is that it looks at the entire economy of success, as a whole and not as a zero sum game. That sort of patience and perspective is rare. 
He quite literally did what it took to get the company to the top and succeeded. Without the spin, and with a little more precision in his wording, he likely wouldn't have been as successful, which means Jack Kirby wouldn't have been as successful, nor would any of the titles. 
And certainly, it's a very difficult thing to judge some 50 or 80 years ago by today's standards, in much the same way comparing Michael Jordan to Wilt Chamberlain would be.
I don't think anyone that was there 60 years ago cared what was said or done at the time, as long as they got a paycheck. 
Hindsight is very different and actually changes once a brand becomes successful. Then, all of a sudden everyone cares about things they didn't care about then. Memories change, feelings change and accomplishments change. 
This to me is the key way to look into the past and why balance is important. 
That's not to make an excuse for outright lying and unethical behavior. That's always wrong. But how much of a lie it was, and the intent of his words are just as important in a court of law, and those things are likely going to be a debate for the ages. 
With less "ballyhoo" Marvel would likely have been less successful and everyone from the readers to the creators and everyone in between would have suffered. 
Finally, eye witness accounts are generally very unreliable. That's unequivocal.
Somewhere between the intent of the book and Stan Lee's intent is the truth, and what the reader wants to see will color that story differently for each reader. 

You're conflating something I said earlier (eye witness accounts by specific individuals from the past, about specific instances between said individuals) with what everyone readily accepts and is indisputable.
I am not discussing details or aspects of what he said about himself. 
I'm solely, in these last few posts, discussing the fact that he was the face of Marvel, and Marvel wouldn't have been as successful a Marvel without him being the face of it. 
This is indisputable. Even his worst enemies would have to admit this. 
 
Aren't these the exact types of attacks that you and Mike below said SHOULDN'T happen in this thread?

 
 

No.
We're not discussing the accuracy of what he said. 
I'm talking about unequivocal aspects of his career that don't need testimony or dissemination of indoctrination to prove or disprove. 
There is NO QUESTION that Stan Lee was the spokesperson. The irreplaceable lead singer. The COO. 
He was the face of every article and it was that way because Kirby wasn't a mouthpiece. He was a grunt...and that's not a dis. Kirby was great at his job and it's a statement of fact. 
If Kirby was more of a spokesperson he would have spoken out.
The two are forever tied together and greater than the sum of their separate parts and always will be but without the mouthpiece Marvel wouldn't have been as successful, just like Led Zeppelin would have been less successful without Robert Plant. 
I don't need any background info to see that. 
 

Where did I say that? I haven't commented either way on what Lee said, only on how I believe these things should be handled. 
You're jumping to conclusions, as you always do.

I didn't think it would need to be clarified, but...
It's not that you can't criticize the dead. 
It's that the fact he can't speak for himself means more balance is needed to make sure you his side of the story correct than if he could still respond. 

You should read a book on how accurate eyewitness testimony is but a small article is sufficient. 
Scientific American is a good publication, isn't it?
Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts
Eyewitness testimony is fickle and, all too often, shockingly inaccurate
 

As someone who has been mercilessly attacked on this forum 100s if not 1000s of times, this should have been in practice 4 years ago. In fact, I asked for it openly, multiple times and was ignored.
What changed?
I'm all in agreement for this. 
Having said that, from the small bits I've seen (and the general consensus here in this thread) the book goes on to attack Stan Lee openly with fervor and doesn't seem to take a balanced approach to criticizing his past. Even the title is an open attack.
The man is dead, and the book looks like it's written in a way that's makes it sound like it's supposed to sound divisive. Comic collectors are primarily emotional and not rational and you can understand why tensions are running hot on the topic. 
 

What a wonderful, well written post, as most of your posts are.
Without putting the focus on Stan Lee, this post is an excellent insight into how a balanced look into Stan Lee's life should look as opposed to the inflammatory language the book uses.  
In the moment, working for a struggling, carpy comic book company, treading water to stay alive in a drowning swamp of a myriad of publication companies, it takes a ton of guts, effort and intuition to navigate that swamp and not drown in it. 
I don't think Stan was an outright fraud. I don't think he conspired to take people's ideas the way Bob Kane did. I do think Stan was an exaggerator. A masterful spin doctor. You can't take spin and make gospel or math out of it, which many have done. 
What I like about your post is that it looks at the entire economy of success, as a whole and not as a zero sum game. That sort of patience and perspective is rare. 
He quite literally did what it took to get the company to the top and succeeded. Without the spin, and with a little more precision in his wording, he likely wouldn't have been as successful, which means Jack Kirby wouldn't have been as successful, nor would any of the titles. 
And certainly, it's a very difficult thing to judge some 50 or 80 years ago by today's standards, in much the same way comparing Michael Jordan to Wilt Chamberlain would be.
I don't think anyone that was there 60 years ago cared what was said or done at the time, as long as they got a paycheck. 
Hindsight is very different and actually changes once a brand becomes successful. Then, all of a sudden everyone cares about things they didn't care about then. Memories change, feelings change and accomplishments change. 
This to me is the key way to look into the past and why balance is important. 
That's not to make an excuse for outright lying and unethical behavior. That's always wrong. But how much of a lie it was, and the intent of his words are just as important in a court of law, and those things are likely going to be a debate for the ages. 
With less "ballyhoo" Marvel would likely have been less successful and everyone from the readers to the creators and everyone in between would have suffered. 
Finally, eye witness accounts are generally very unreliable. That's unequivocal.
Somewhere between the intent of the book and Stan Lee's intent is the truth, and what the reader wants to see will color that story differently for each reader. 

You should read a book on how accurate eyewitness testimony is but a small article is sufficient. 
Scientific American is a good publication, isn't it?
Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts
Eyewitness testimony is fickle and, all too often, shockingly inaccurate
 

No.
We're not discussing the accuracy of what he said. 
I'm talking about unequivocal aspects of his career that don't need testimony or dissemination of indoctrination to prove or disprove. 
There is NO QUESTION that Stan Lee was the spokesperson. The irreplaceable lead singer. The COO. 
He was the face of every article and it was that way because Kirby wasn't a mouthpiece. He was a grunt...and that's not a dis. Kirby was great at his job and it's a statement of fact. 
If Kirby was more of a spokesperson he would have spoken out.
The two are forever tied together and greater than the sum of their separate parts and always will be but without the mouthpiece Marvel wouldn't have been as successful, just like Led Zeppelin would have been less successful without Robert Plant. 
I don't need any background info to see that. 
 

It's absolutely appropriate! 

What a wonderful, well written post, as most of your posts are.
Without putting the focus on Stan Lee, this post is an excellent insight into how a balanced look into Stan Lee's life should look as opposed to the inflammatory language the book uses.  
In the moment, working for a struggling, carpy comic book company, treading water to stay alive in a drowning swamp of a myriad of publication companies, it takes a ton of guts, effort and intuition to navigate that swamp and not drown in it. 
I don't think Stan was an outright fraud. I don't think he conspired to take people's ideas the way Bob Kane did. I do think Stan was an exaggerator. A masterful spin doctor. You can't take spin and make gospel or math out of it, which many have done. 
What I like about your post is that it looks at the entire economy of success, as a whole and not as a zero sum game. That sort of patience and perspective is rare. 
He quite literally did what it took to get the company to the top and succeeded. Without the spin, and with a little more precision in his wording, he likely wouldn't have been as successful, which means Jack Kirby wouldn't have been as successful, nor would any of the titles. 
And certainly, it's a very difficult thing to judge some 50 or 80 years ago by today's standards, in much the same way comparing Michael Jordan to Wilt Chamberlain would be.
I don't think anyone that was there 60 years ago cared what was said or done at the time, as long as they got a paycheck. 
Hindsight is very different and actually changes once a brand becomes successful. Then, all of a sudden everyone cares about things they didn't care about then. Memories change, feelings change and accomplishments change. 
This to me is the key way to look into the past and why balance is important. 
That's not to make an excuse for outright lying and unethical behavior. That's always wrong. But how much of a lie it was, and the intent of his words are just as important in a court of law, and those things are likely going to be a debate for the ages. 
With less "ballyhoo" Marvel would likely have been less successful and everyone from the readers to the creators and everyone in between would have suffered. 
Finally, eye witness accounts are generally very unreliable. That's unequivocal.
Somewhere between the intent of the book and Stan Lee's intent is the truth, and what the reader wants to see will color that story differently for each reader. 

What a wonderful, well written post, as most of your posts are.
Without putting the focus on Stan Lee, this post is an excellent insight into how a balanced look into Stan Lee's life should look as opposed to the inflammatory language the book uses.  
In the moment, working for a struggling, carpy comic book company, treading water to stay alive in a drowning swamp of a myriad of publication companies, it takes a ton of guts, effort and intuition to navigate that swamp and not drown in it. 
I don't think Stan was an outright fraud. I don't think he conspired to take people's ideas the way Bob Kane did. I do think Stan was an exaggerator. A masterful spin doctor. You can't take spin and make gospel or math out of it, which many have done. 
What I like about your post is that it looks at the entire economy of success, as a whole and not as a zero sum game. That sort of patience and perspective is rare. 
He quite literally did what it took to get the company to the top and succeeded. Without the spin, and with a little more precision in his wording, he likely wouldn't have been as successful, which means Jack Kirby wouldn't have been as successful, nor would any of the titles. 
And certainly, it's a very difficult thing to judge some 50 or 80 years ago by today's standards, in much the same way comparing Michael Jordan to Wilt Chamberlain would be.
I don't think anyone that was there 60 years ago cared what was said or done at the time, as long as they got a paycheck. 
Hindsight is very different and actually changes once a brand becomes successful. Then, all of a sudden everyone cares about things they didn't care about then. Memories change, feelings change and accomplishments change. 
This to me is the key way to look into the past and why balance is important. 
That's not to make an excuse for outright lying and unethical behavior. That's always wrong. But how much of a lie it was, and the intent of his words are just as important in a court of law, and those things are likely going to be a debate for the ages. 
With less "ballyhoo" Marvel would likely have been less successful and everyone from the readers to the creators and everyone in between would have suffered. 
Finally, eye witness accounts are generally very unreliable. That's unequivocal.
Somewhere between the intent of the book and Stan Lee's intent is the truth, and what the reader wants to see will color that story differently for each reader. 

As someone who has been mercilessly attacked on this forum 100s if not 1000s of times, this should have been in practice 4 years ago. In fact, I asked for it openly, multiple times and was ignored.
What changed?
I'm all in agreement for this. 
Having said that, from the small bits I've seen (and the general consensus here in this thread) the book goes on to attack Stan Lee openly with fervor and doesn't seem to take a balanced approach to criticizing his past. Even the title is an open attack.
The man is dead, and the book looks like it's written in a way that's makes it sound like it's supposed to sound divisive. Comic collectors are primarily emotional and not rational and you can understand why tensions are running hot on the topic. 
 

What a wonderful, well written post, as most of your posts are.
Without putting the focus on Stan Lee, this post is an excellent insight into how a balanced look into Stan Lee's life should look as opposed to the inflammatory language the book uses.  
In the moment, working for a struggling, carpy comic book company, treading water to stay alive in a drowning swamp of a myriad of publication companies, it takes a ton of guts, effort and intuition to navigate that swamp and not drown in it. 
I don't think Stan was an outright fraud. I don't think he conspired to take people's ideas the way Bob Kane did. I do think Stan was an exaggerator. A masterful spin doctor. You can't take spin and make gospel or math out of it, which many have done. 
What I like about your post is that it looks at the entire economy of success, as a whole and not as a zero sum game. That sort of patience and perspective is rare. 
He quite literally did what it took to get the company to the top and succeeded. Without the spin, and with a little more precision in his wording, he likely wouldn't have been as successful, which means Jack Kirby wouldn't have been as successful, nor would any of the titles. 
And certainly, it's a very difficult thing to judge some 50 or 80 years ago by today's standards, in much the same way comparing Michael Jordan to Wilt Chamberlain would be.
I don't think anyone that was there 60 years ago cared what was said or done at the time, as long as they got a paycheck. 
Hindsight is very different and actually changes once a brand becomes successful. Then, all of a sudden everyone cares about things they didn't care about then. Memories change, feelings change and accomplishments change. 
This to me is the key way to look into the past and why balance is important. 
That's not to make an excuse for outright lying and unethical behavior. That's always wrong. But how much of a lie it was, and the intent of his words are just as important in a court of law, and those things are likely going to be a debate for the ages. 
With less "ballyhoo" Marvel would likely have been less successful and everyone from the readers to the creators and everyone in between would have suffered. 
Finally, eye witness accounts are generally very unreliable. That's unequivocal.
Somewhere between the intent of the book and Stan Lee's intent is the truth, and what the reader wants to see will color that story differently for each reader.