lordbyroncomics

On 11/23/2023 at 3:49 PM, LadyDeath said:

That's what they're most known for. People say it's because he doesn't actually want to sell his comics so he keeps them overpriced. It's more like a museum.

I've heard that too but this guy made a good point about some of these "museum" pieces:
 

On 11/24/2023 at 2:20 PM, RCheli said:

It's with my deepest sadness that I have to share that "bird" -- Sean Wasielewski -- passed away suddenly on Wednesday. He was a man with many opinions, and he and I had some great discussions about comics and life over the years both here and -- even better -- face-to-face. 

I spoke with his wife earlier today and she let me know that a service will take place soon, although they don't have the details yet. I suspect it will be near the shore in Jersey where he lived, and I'll post that information here when I get it. Along with his wife, he had two lovely daughters.

Thank you for this information. Sean took a lot of time in 2021 giving me advice when I was dealing with burnout and other stress from working in a pharmacy and the general tilt in the lower rungs of the medical industry in general. We had planned to meet up as we was up by Rutgers' quite a bit and now I'm sad we never found the time. A really patient and generous guy with me. R.I.P.

In regards to the Spider-Man costume, remember that no less than a Stan Lee defender than Jim Shooter claimed to have seen Kirby's original and rejected Spider-Man pages in the 70s' and that it wasn't like Ditko's Spider-Man at all. He described him as much more Captain America like, which supports Ditko's recollection where he did a rough sketch of Kirby's Spider-Man costume in one of his self-published pamphlets. Shooter also remembered that the setup was different which supports Stan just giving a name and basic concept to the artist and letting them flesh out the details/plot since, if he had given the artists a -script, Kirby and Ditko's Spider-Men wouldn't have deviated so much. 

On 8/7/2023 at 9:45 PM, Steven Valdez said:

No, Ditko was not subservient to Kirby... where do you get that from?! It's just that Kirby created way more characters and stories than Ditko or anybody else did. I haven't seen anyone here say that Stan did literally nothing.

Yeah, there's no Marvel as we know it without Stan- Bullpen Bulletins, the letter pages and so forth are utterly and completely significant to the rise of the Marvel, as well as his dialogue up until about 1967-1968. The issue is Stan getting credit for things he didn't do.

On 8/7/2023 at 9:12 PM, sfcityduck said:

Lordbyron says he reviewed every cover before it went out.  You said he ignored him. 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.

Once again, I apologize for my prior shortcomings.

On 8/7/2023 at 9:01 PM, sfcityduck said:

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?

Not fighting anyone*, least of all Prince Namor whom I respect tremendously. I apologize again for my prior passionate comments.

(*- However, if anyone here wants to meet at a convention and put on gloves for a charity match, let me know )

On 8/7/2023 at 8:32 PM, sfcityduck said:

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. 

I apologize. You're right.

"There's no evidence that Stan made anything up about his Uncle and Spiderman."

The evidence is Stan's contradictions in what he'd say about Goodman at various times.

"And given he was a family member, that's a bit far-fetched as there were plenty of people who could have disagreed if they felt Stan was treating Goodman unfairly at the time." 

Was Stan around Goodman relatives after he'd gotten Chip Goodman removed in 1971...? And why would Stan care if Goodman relatives disagreed?? "Hey, Goodman's nephew thinks you're a heel!" Uh, okay. Stan seemed pretty immune to being insulted. A bit far-fetched? Stan treating Goodman unfairly? You think Robbie Solomon was around when Lee was giving his interviews to the college press?? What garbage speculation!!! 

"This article took what could have been a nice factual look and immediately pivoted to garbage speculation devoid of factual support. Its too bad. Critical readers should be able to spot the many other flaws with the article."

Critical readers should know that documented and recorded evidence shared with the author by Goodman family members and discovery of contemporary newspaper reports that you can also seek out are not garbage speculation devoid of factual support. Its too bad you can't read, its too bad you can't grasp, it's not surprising your bias provokes these garbage statements devoid of factual support. Unless, you know, Goodman's family saved all that stuff that was forged I suppose.

On 7/26/2023 at 5:30 PM, The humble Watcher lurking said:

My vibe was she was introverted and shy for the camera, while he seems extroverted and liked the camera that`s why the shades.

I guess we'll never know, but kudos to @Prince Namor for starting one of the most interesting threads I ever read.

 

"I guess we'll never know..."

On the contrary- I'm guessing no one reads the article Prince Namor shared- Jean Goodman was exceedingly outgoing and outspoken and an early advocate for mental illness and a patron of the arts. She wrote a column and was a regular at society events regarding alternative education and at art galas. If your "vibe" is that someone is sad, that's fine but remember that your vibe might just be that.

There's all SORTS of things to know about the Goodmans. None of the facts shared in that article were speculative; they come from newspaper accounts and help from the surviving Goodman children.

On 7/26/2023 at 10:41 AM, Zonker said:

This strikes me as a bit of myth-making worthy of Funky Flashman himself!  

Luckily for Goodman, parts of his early travels were helpfully documented by photographs of him in various towns and certain receipts he saved for sentimental reasons. Sorry to have your emoji wasted!

There's this thing called research... it sorta beats a life where you strictly comment on message boards. 

On 7/26/2023 at 8:33 AM, Steven Valdez said:

Alter Ego #165 features a lengthy cover story on Goodman by Will Murray. I have it, been getting around to reading it for awhile.

I truly had excitement on that, believing it'd be a "life story" of sorts- it wasn't, it was speculative and facts around Timely/Atlas/Marvel releases, I'm amazed they even put Goodman on the cover. They didn't speak to his living children who have a wealth of things that fill out his fascinating life. Also, Goodman is mentioned in contemporary press for all sorts of stuff- social events, fundraisers, etc.- just not specifically for comics stuff.

On 7/25/2023 at 10:38 AM, The humble Watcher lurking said:

I find it amazing that between 1961 to 1990 no one in comics fandom interviewed Martin Goodman the publisher of Marvel Comics. It would have been so interesting to hear his thoughts on what Kirby, Ditko, and Lee were doing in the 1960s.

I would have thought Gary Groth of the Comics Journal or someone of that ilk would have sought out Martin Goodman for an interview back then. 

Very mysterious why there is not much information on Martin Goodman.

He was interviewed in 1968, 1969, and 1989. 

He also kept a day-to-day journal, which one of his children showed me a few pages of that largely covered his meetings.

On 8/7/2023 at 4:14 PM, sfcityduck said:

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. 

 

 

 

 

The article assets it is a lie because it was a lie. 

Goodman was not going to fire Stan for Amazing Fantasy #15. This is just another component of the stories that charmed journalists and comic fans for years. It sounds good; it's intoxicating.

The point of that article is that even the anecdotes about Goodman often contradict themselves if read together. Goodman is sometimes a penny pincher who goes over every cover with a fine tooth comb, or he's obtuse and oblivious and the comics don't mean anything. For the record, Stan is cited no less than 17 times in recorded interviews as saying that Goodman "looked at every single cover" before a comic went to the printer.

Amazing Fantasy #15 had two covers commissioned and paid for. Goodman knew Spider-Man was coming out in Amazing Fantasy #15.

Therefore, why would Stan be fired over it? It's a tall tale, plain and simple. There's nothing for you to argue about- all of this comes from Lee's own documented statements. Unless you'd like to take the approach that Lee just lied about everything?

On 7/21/2023 at 11:03 PM, Steven Valdez said:

Yes, John Morrow and co have done some amazing research on the true origins of Marvel Comics. Would be great if he/they make some comments here.

I spoke to Mr. Morrow about these very things last year in Baltimore.

He's a lovely man and while he didn't say this outright, he has his hands tied a bit with what he can speak about. One does not want to alienate Marvel at this point when so much of his publishing depends upon it's history. 

Also, there are certain things he cannot speak upon. I know this for a fact. At best, he will direct you to the printed magazines and what lies therein. 

On 1/23/2023 at 4:38 PM, Jesse-Lee said:

With all of the facsimile editions that keep coming out, it got me wondering, "why aren't there comic remakes" for some of the classic books? Like, why doesn't DC release a "reprint" of Detective 27 for example that is a basically a panel-by-panel remake of the original, but using artists and art styles from today? I'd be much more interested in that than a straight up reprint facsimile. Would anyone else be intrigued, or is that a step too far?

I mean.... they are a thing, unfortunately. All they do is re-tell the same origin stories every few years, just not in the panel by panel remake format you described. DC's 1980s Secret Origins had a few stories- not all- that did the remake of the original story, presumably that was a Roy Thomas thing.

The best and remaining "comic shop vibe" left in Manhattan at least is JHU Comics, formerly Jim Hanley's Universe- while I'm glad Forbidden Planet and Midtown apparently thrive, you're not going to find back issues and such there. At least there's a degree of that at JHU. I miss the days of when it was across from the Empire State Building and you'd find Golden Age Larry there. I dropped in a few months ago and guys were at the desk talking about Bill Mantlo's HULK run which warmed my heart considerably. The guy who owned St Marks Comics still does conventions; I see him set up at Big Apple every year.

http://jhucomicbooks.com/

In 2006 I took Stan some books from the late 20s' he'd always cited in interviews (Jerry Todd & Poppy Ott) and he was delighted and took the time to give me a special personalized kind of autograph, special I guess in the sense that Stan drew a word balloon around his name. A year or two ago I thought of selling it when I was getting rid of a lot of excess stuff but it would only work if I sold it to someone named William.. or Will.. or Bill.. or Billy.. or Liam.. or Willis.. or Guillermo... Anyway, I just put it with some other prints and such I'd gotten at early NYCCs. But something made me remember it last week so I wanted to dig up pics I'd had and did so thought to share them here. 

Of course Stan signed so much stuff ranging from Silver Age comics he'd worked on to modern mutant titles he absolutely did not; this started in the 90s' as I remember being in Middle School and seeing Stan as a guest on QVC or Home Shopping Network, it's evident the most value his signature is gonna have is on key and vintage stuff but mostly it's going to be sentimental value for whomever got their signature(s) in person.

 

No, he didn't steal his ideas. That'd be a different thread. He stole credit. And payment for plots that he didn't write.

It's entirely different. You could say every comic creator stole ideas and that's fair and you're right, you can riff off of it and make something new. This is about Stan getting credit for things and not crediting others. I know it's hard to grasp and some of the stirrers on here want to change it into a "poor Stan, he's not praised enough" kind of thing because they enjoy it- it really is just about stealing credit, not ideas. Stealing ideas makes it seem as if you have ideas of your own.

Stan Lee in 1974:  "The Living Eraser might've been my nuttiest idea yet!"

Below:  Jack Kirby's Harvey sci-fi story a few years before the Living Eraser

To be fair it could be just a coincidence. But the coincidences are legion and, if nothing else, are worthy of a conversation.

On 7/1/2023 at 11:15 AM, jimjum12 said:

I was talking about the selective bias involved in choosing who's quotes are lies and who's aren't ... and if it's not Stan bashing what is it ? His praise is certainly not being shouted from the rooftops.  Why would quotes from artists who could very well be angling for a nice slice of that "hush money" that Kirby got not be suspect? GOD BLESS ....

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

... no I wasn't on the debate team, I didn't want to send those other kids home crying every day 

That's good of you, ol' pal. I can speak from experience how emotional I get seeing your age related mental decline on this very thread!

Kirby got "hush money"? Please explain. What hush money did he get- why was it hush money- what source do you have for your usual instigative dishonest nonsense?

So now all of those artists are all in cahoots and dishonest. Got it! 

- lbc (a friend of old crooks)

On 7/1/2023 at 10:56 AM, jimjum12 said:

... we do have to be careful picking and choosing quotes that ONLY SUPPORT OUR NARRATIVE. It's especially troublesome if the actual truth lies between two polar extremes. I see a lot of this selective sampling with the Stan Bashers. There's almost always a couple of different ways to look at things, for example, the Jimmy Olsen vampire .... to me, that is just another example of some of the half baked spoon that Jack was producing by himself at DC. I didn't even bother buying that junk, but Marvel turned their "Vampire" into something that I did. Hey, I can't blame Jack for his anger... the well was running dry and he was in danger of becoming just another hack. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

But that's SUBJECTIVE and a matter of your OPINION. 

Who are the Stan Bashers, dare I ask? Could I bash a guy by saying he didn't do all the things he's credited for? Does this make you a Kirby basher? After all, Stan's well ran WAY dry as soon as Kirby stopped giving him stories. Is it bashing to point out facts? One guy stopped creating. Does pointing that out constitute "bashing"?

On 7/1/2023 at 10:17 AM, Zonker said:

Not sure why you think you're in a better position to tell me what I meant than I am?  

What I said was.

which seems consistent with the minimal input Don Heck says he received from Stan over the phone to get started with the first Iron Man story.  

Solely because you entered the discussion with 'I think what they meant' etc.- speculative more than having the actual information next to you which would validate or invalidate what you were offering. I don't mean it personally, you're obviously very intelligent. I think in conversations like this we need to have some point of reference to where we read it or heard it and what was said. Obviously you're free to ignore me but it won't change me being honest with you. I'd tell my best friends the same thing if they were wading into such a thread and weren't precise about what they knew. 

On 7/1/2023 at 10:08 AM, Zonker said:

I'm sorry, I can't help you further.  I was asked if Stan chatted up creators by phone, so I found an example where he did so with Don Heck. I was asked to provide some quotes about Stan/Roy's justification for the Marvel Method, so I did so. 

I'm not at all surprised that the quotes are not found to be credible, so we'll have to just leave it there.  

Literally calling an artist on the phone- which I am positive Stan Lee did thousands of times over four decades- is decidedly not what you meant. You meant the narrative of Stan calling up artists to give them a PLOT to work from. The latter is what I am saying didn't happen. But please, see yourself out. You keep offering things when you don't even know the points of reference. 

"I'd say to the artists, look, you know how the stories go"

Yep.