lordbyroncomics

Listen, Roy is a villain. And he irked people considerably... MR. Ayers confided that to me, as well as someone else I can't name. Roy seemed to have lacked self-awareness. He himself said that when Ditko delivered Spider-Man art to the offices and said "tell Stan I'll bring the next one in in a couple weeks", Roy said "Oh, so there's going to BE a next one?" I was amazed at such a lack of tact. Ditko already felt uneasy coming in; why alienate him further? Per Thomas's own retelling, Sol Brodsky took him aside (!) and gave him a lecture about how Ditko could take that. Roy also said in another interview he went to Marie Severin, Gene Colan and Romita Sr and said "It takes all of you to do what Ditko did in a month!" and how he only "meant it as a joke". I can see Roy rubbing veterans the wrong way. He was a fan who hadn't paid his dues. And then he writes things like "Little Jack Kirby, sitting in his derby" and "come back! all is forgiven- carmine" in a comedy story and so forth- I mean, Houseroy isn't far off. And Roy has grown into Houseroy increasingly these last few years. Can you not see Jack's position at wondering why this intern is mentioning his business with DC? For me, the worst thing he did as a professional was when he was in a higher position and feels the need to write "Lousy Dialogue":on one of Kirby's stories- and then sends it back to Kirby to see it. Whatever your opinion of Kirby's dialogue, why would you handle it like that in 1978 or whatever? The guy is a massively overrated. He admitted that Thundra was taken from Big Barda. When Kirby did his white skinned science-based vampire in Jimmy Olsen, Colletta took the finished pages with him to the Marvel offices and admitted that Roy looked at them. A month later, Morbius the white skinned science-based vampire appears. The list goes on and on, even if it offends the fragile fanboys who will show real outrage if they think they've been screwed over a deal for slabbed books but could care less that someone who gave much of their life to the medium and the industry might just have had some credit taken from him.

I'm sorry, I find Roy Thomas's quotes to be questionable due to his bias. Let's consider that when Roy leaves Marvel in 1980, he has very different things to say about Stan, Stan's apparent pettiness and so forth. This carries through in various letters and other interviews up until about 1985 when things sour for him at DC. Roy admits that Marvel didn't prioritize him so he reached out to Stan in 2000 who told him he could ghost-write the Spider-Man strip. Okay. Roy said for years that he disagreed with the sole creator idea and brought up an example of he and Stan having lunch discussing the producer that created the show the "A-Team". Roy disagreed with this and also disagreed that he was a co-creator of Wolverine, Ghost Rider etc. though he had been an Editor who had suggested "a canadian character" or "an international X-Men", etc. Fast forward a few years later. Roy gets a sycophant "Manager" named John Cimino who now re-markets him to take the place that Stan did at conventions, literally billing himself as "Stan's chosen heir!". Roy also curiously now backtracks and contradicts earlier statements and literally bills himself as the co-creator of Storm, Wolverine, etc. Roy's changing narrative- which always changed due to his fluctuating fortunes- makes him a less than credible witness.

The cover was Kirby's pitch art. Stan was reading him Kirby's plot. Find the Green Arrow story four years earlier- "The War that Never Ended", by Kirby. In that story Green Arrow crashes on an island where a rebel army forces him to create advanced weapons using his arrow technology. He instead builds something to sabotage them and escape. Sort of familiar. Please if we're going to cite them as evidence, by all means, let's keep reading Don Heck quotes: "Jack Kirby created the costume, and he did the cover for the issue. In fact the second costume, the red and yellow one, was designed by Steve Ditko. I found it easier than drawing that bulky old thing. The earlier design, the robot- looking one, was more Kirbyish. But what happens with something like that is that the cover is due, like a month before, so Jack makes up a cover for Iron Man, and the character's design is right there on it. Then Stan calls me up and says, "You're doing a character called Iron Man." That's about it. Well, Jack Kirby is the one who created most of those characters. He's the one who was always in there, and he's the one who was developing all those characters. Stan and he would get together, and they'd start discussing it. I try not to brush the truth into the corner. It's what it is."

Respectfully, why are we thinking or speculating based on vague, collective memories of things said in passing over the years? How is it a misquote when several quotes exist that have Stan explaining that he was "too busy" and even "so it saved me a lot of time so I could look at other things like the cover" etc etc etc etc I continue to be surprised that so many guys are entering this conversation with speculative bullets instead of real ones. Your first sentence invalidates anything else you wrote since the quotes exist. Stan got his plots from Kirby. Which is why- careful, we've got more proof for the frantic ones- there exist stories in the 50s' that Kirby did alone that are repeated in Marvel books just a few years later. Jerry Bails asked Stan Lee for an example of one of his plots for a fanzine. Stan hurriedly sent him the FF plot which was a Puppet Master story. Stan made an unfortunate error in picking this plot and putting his name on it. Because it's the same story that Jack did in 1951 in Black Magic. So yeah- Stan isn't chatting up anyone on the phone. That's a myth. Stan Goldberg and MR. Ayers both said independently that Stan expected them to plot. Al Jaffee said the same. Romita Sr. said his "plot" would be: "next month- The Rhino" Come prepared with quotes, not "i think what they said was..."

With respect, Stan's first college speaking appearance is 1964 as a one-off that was not engineered by Stan himself and publicity for the events references "Martin Goodman's Marvel Comics" so it's a prototype of what would come. The next time was in 1966 and was again, not the full scale, ticket selling Q&A event that would later become the norm- it was not in an auditorium but more for a small group from Princeton that invited him. Sean Howe has audio of this on his YouTube channel. I find it telling that a fan asks how Greek and Norse Gods can co-exist in the Marvel Universe and Stan doesn't seem to understand or recognize what they refer to and instead responds with a joke that it's going on too long; I find this significant because Stan often didn't know where Kirby was going with the stories. It was only starting over a year later that Stan begun speaking in earnest; it's the 1970s' when he really begins doing this as a second vocation, even hiring a publicity agent to book him as "Speaker Man". The Marvel Method predates 1967 when he consciously began the speaking circuit. It saved him time... from what? How long does it take to dialogue stories that someone else plots and leaves you guide notes for? Stan was coming in three days a week and then two days a week. It's a lie, plain and simple. "Too busy"- too busy doing what? It just doesn't hold up.

I know the logistics have changed (as you said, it costs so much just to attend and Rozanski has blogged at length in the past of how uphill it is for comic sellers these past few years) but maybe, just maybe this will make a return to focus on comics actually. Fingers crossed.

Those DELLS are beautiful! I've been going to all the wrong Garage Sales apparently!

Who are you to need to believe Kirby or not? You're the same person who said you "can't forgive" Kirby for 70s' Captain America. You're a collector, you're in no position to need "a reason" to believe someone who has United States documentation of their service and injuries incurred in the line of duty. Seriously Billsy- let's never run into each other.

All this thread shows me is that no one here has ever read a book or magazine or an interview concerning this stuff. Wow! No wonder Twomorrows barely sells anything. But I digress... Here's a sample and a quote. I should stress here that I, personally, do not begrudge or take it as a bad sign of character if Stan or anyone else drives a Rolls Royce. I'm just providing this for context since apparently the guys chiming in all the time have never done any research and evidently still can't! If the context of bring up a Rolls Royce is just about Stan's salary versus anyone elses in the Sixties, it's worth noting there was a charming letter sent to the very pro-Stan Alter Ego magazine from an adult fan who told the story of him and his friends learning that Stan lived in Long Island as they did and then they looked up his address via the phone book and ventured, uninvited, to Stan's house. Per their telling, Stan had a Butler (!) at this time, who let them in. (It's worth adding that Stan was very friendly and awesome in this anecdote, inviting them back to the pool where he asked them about their favorite characters and input) The letter ended with the guy saying that when their parents found out they did this, they were horrified and wrote Stan a letter apologizing and inviting him and his family to their house in return. Unsure if he ever took them up on it! I like that story but I remember thinking, wow a Butler in 1965..? Here's a quote from Chuck Rozanski, talking about 1980: "While Stan helping me out is a story in and of itself, what happened after he arrived is far cooler. First of all, I had purchased a brand new Chevrolet Chevette just prior to Stan's arrival, so that was my obvious choice for the vehicle in which to drive him around to the four signings we had scheduled. On an exceptionally warm day I picked up Stan at his hotel in Boulder, and hit the highway for Denver. As we drove along on that sweltering heat, I noticed that Stan was sweating profusely in his impeccably tailored suit, but had yet to roll down his window. He finally turned to me and said "Chuck, I don't think that your air conditioning is working..." I then had to tell him that my car didn't HAVE air conditioning, which caused a look of complete disbelief in his eyes. He told me then, that as a driver exclusively of Rolls Royces for many years, that he had no idea that they still made cars without AC."

This is absolutely disgusting. Par for the course from a bitter and swarmy old instigator who is old enough to know better. I know you want to get a rise out of people Bill and, how did you put it? When people can't argue law or facts they attack the person? So you just attacked a combat veteran who literally killed Nazis. Congrats. You've already been corrected and exposed for purposely presenting things out of context. So I'll say this. I'm a proud member of the DVNF which is the Disabled Veterans National Foundation. I volunteer every month at the Veteran's Hospital. One thing that goes is, regardless of one's opinion on military and war you do not insult people that fought for this country. And if you really want to keep comparing your idol- Stan Lee bragged and laughed in an interview about how he stayed in NJ during the War and "used the Sergeant's car every weekend" to take girls out. He bragged and laughed about a mail scheme he developed to keep getting -script assignments from Timely. You can look these things up, I didn't invent them. While Stan Lee is in NJ taking someone's car every weekend to go to nightclubs, Jack Kirby is risking his life and developing frostbite in his feet. Strange what you prioritize. What people here are gonna defend warping a combat veteran's story? Forget that he's Kirby. If it were Vince Colletta or someone else less respected, I'd say the same thing. Sick s*#t and uncalled for. I hope we're never at the same convention.

Wait until some of us continue this subject in person. You're gonna like hearing about it even more.

jimbo, how can you continue to be so consistently wrong yet continue to pepper your comments with things like "ignorance is bliss" and "you can choose to be wrong, it's a free country"- you can't make this stuff up! (I know you do know and are just playing a character, though) The thing you are misremembering is that an artist threatened to toss Weisinger off a rooftop for not giving him his check! I realize there's decades and decades of comics lore in that ol' brain of yours, so some mix ups are bound to happen here and there. Glad I can clear it up for ya. -LB (a friend of jimjum12)

I'm going to ask you respectfully not to put words in my mouth, rope me in with TCJ supporters of an interview I haven't referenced, or outright lie and say that I have "attacked" Stan (I haven't- once), or belittle. I've done none of those things but I suspect you know this. You also claimed Prince Namor said Stan did nothing. I can't make it clearer. You guys are off discussing Peter Paul and all this other stuff- I'm not concerned with that. Again- all I'm saying is Stan gets too much credit. Stan deserves credit. Whether I think so or not. That has never been my point- I'm not speaking for other people. The fact that one man can say "Stan got too much credit, got credit for things he didn't do" makes so many other grown men fragile and triggered to the point where they'll get sassy and insulting from behind a computer screen... wow. At least Jimbo is willing to meet face to face and discuss these things. (And even offered me dinner- thanks Jim!) I could care less about these other discussions. My point is simple and doesn't require passive aggressive barbs or personal comments. If you want to say Kirby had no talent for dialogue or Hunger Dogs sucks or Peter Paul did this- that's not what I've been commenting on. I've said that Stan gets too much credit for being the sole creator and he isn't the sole creator. Saying he's not the sole creator does not diminish Stan's significant contributions, skills or talent. Don't put words in someone's mouth or bunch them in a group because fans in the past were either for or against and couldn't not take sides. I'm not taking sides. I liked Stan. As I said, I got to spend a little time with him albeit via my job and POW! at the time and there was nothing phony about his enthusiasm. But that's not what I've commented on. All I've said is that he's getting too much credit. And this documentary was not valid or fair to his collaborators- not his selected artists- which, apparently, many of you agree with. I'd have said this regardless of whether Neal Kirby spoke up or not. Neal Kirby has an understandable bias that I can't share.

*smashes head into desk* So you've been commenting on comments about a documentary you didn't even watch. I stand corrected Jimbo. That is very Groucho Marx. I hereby throw in the towel. Be good real frantic ones.

I think you are reading statements I made jokingly as "passive aggressive". I am not passive aggressive and am known for being quite direct. I responded with some humor in response to the tones and implications I got after just writing factually. If guys are gonna get snarky with me first, then they'd better be Groucho Marx because I've got no problem being snarky back. If you have specific examples of passive aggressiveness on my part, please feel free to send me a private message and we can discuss them as I don't want to turn this thread into a joust. I'll be at Baltimore, let me know if you indeed want to meet up in person. Don't worry, I don't go to Steakhouses. If I'm wrong about Stan not being the total creator and the artists just drew his creations- by all means, make the case. I'll listen objectively. I've been studying this- even unintentionally- for over two decades. As far as I know, I'm the only one here with direct involvement and interaction with Stan and Gil Champion at POW! Entertainment and as far as I know I'm the only one here who almost beat the s#*t out of Max Anderson during one of his bullying tirades. I procured Poppy Ott & Jerry Todd books from the twenties for Stan and spent significant time with D. Ayers, Joe Sinnott and Steve Ditko about the Marvel Method practice. I've put the effort in to go through Stan's papers in Wyoming. What I say is based on being properly educated on the subject; there's no intention to assassinate someone. The intention is to battle against the wildly_fanciful_statement in this recent Disney+ Documentary. Sorry that me doing that makes me enemies instead of pals! Not the intent.

Sure, much of that is fair. So, here is a question for you asked with respect: what does the work for hire agreement in the sixties have to do with Stan lying later on? We are talking about one of the creators changing their story, contradicting earlier statements and outright lying when it aligns with corporate purchasing and job security. It has nothing to do with Jack disagreeing with work for hire. That's another argument that might be more relevant to the "Marvel didn't return his art in the Eighties" conversation. We're talking about Stan saying "I think the guy who has the idea is the creator" and then saying- in print, no less!- that Doctor Strange "Twas Steve's idea"- and then, in 1974, saying it was his idea and, quote, "And Steve Ditko was the artist I selected to draw the story." (but why say in print years earlier it was Steve's idea?) Work for hire ensures that colleagues can suddenly lie? Shadroch, does work for hire ensure that you can take credit away from someone else? Yes or no please.

To anyone reading this: I don't know how I can be more articulate about this, but I will stress this one more time: - I believe that Stan Lee wrongfully gets more credit than he is warranted. I have stated Stan was talented and obviously crucial... but I believe the evidence exists that shows he was not the sole creator. That's it. That's the entire argument. Stan is not the sole creator. Saying that constitutes "character assassination"- digest that a bit. Jimbo also infers I'm the reason he's swarmy even though he's aging rapidly and should know better than be influenced by strangers! Okay- Jesus would tell you "two wrongs do not make a right, my son." As for a WHOLE LOT of people not agreeing- well, no s#*t! More than half aren't educated and didn't know the majority of the entire story and still think Sgt Fury exists because of a "bet" with Martin Goodman. What does it matter if the WHOLE LOT of people don't agree? Where's their argument against what the point was? The point is not if Kirby's "Super Powers" series of the Eighties is as good as Alan Moore (lol)! This is again, more guys who can't address the issue and find other things to spin and deflect from.

Thanks for the blessings, Jim! - probably would have been driving a taxi is speculative, so I hope you won't be hurt if I don't explore the possibilities of that. - because you haven't seen any records doesn't mean records don't exist. See above for existing inner memos for a business meeting in June 1958. Also, since Kirby was such a struggling artist do you think- since we're speculating and all- that he'd leave Long Island for Manhattan without knowing Stan would be there? - the absence of information about Kirby's failed publishing ventures isn't "curious", Jim is just doing a passive-aggressive spin here which aligns with much of his swarmy, disrespectful tone. I swear, these guys would never speak to a man in person the way they do on these boards so let's let them enjoy it. Yes, Kirby had some failed ventures like the Sky Masters strip. It isn't brought up because it's not relevant to the discussion (why quote "debate" when this isn't a debate? man, such obvious tactics to try to instigate- aren't you like 60?), it's worth noting that Stan's failed ventures (since you wanna bring it up) DWARF Kirby's significantly. Again, see Alter Ego #150 in which ALL of Stan's ventures fail painfully, to the point where he enlists his wife Joan to call various distributors to pretend to be an excited reader (I'm unsure that Kirby ever got his wife to resort to such tactics) and then forges multiple letters of support from Pete Morsi and Artie Simek's daughter. None of this is relevant to Stan getting credit for complete creation. Again, this is the issue. Stan was very talented and an incredible Editor and spokesman for comics. No one disputes that. Let's say that Kirby didn't sell millions in the Golden Age and got his byline on covers back then and didn't invent the Romance Genre with Joe Simon and so forth. Let's say EVERYTHING failed. Let's say Jimbo, a friend of the Messiah himself, is right and Kirby was about to become a CAB DRIVER- not a shameful profession, I might add- let's say that was all true. .... does it excuse Stan Lee's theft of credit?? Hmm.. there's a Jesus parable in there somewhere, ain't there?

Again, that's all subjective and according to personal taste. The issue with The Marvel Method as a system is that it also operated as a kickback scheme of sorts as the Artist plotted and drove the stories completely yet didn't get paid for the plotting. I like those Silver Age stories too, but I'm not talking about it as a creative device but in how it harmed the artists. For a community here as concerned with profits and sales as it is, I'm amazed there's so little empathy for working artists not getting paid for all their work. I was just reading how Princeton invited Stan to speak at their campus in 1966. They'd written him in 1965, excitedly asking why he'd included their campus in an issue of FF. Stan literally responds he had no idea and it's how Jack delivered the finished story to him. There are literally dozens of examples of this- Stan not knowing where the story he was going. Did he do some great work in capturing a tone and a line-wide flavor? Absolutely. It's not the case.

It is indeed and is worth pursuing. I'd suggest looking at The Marvel Method group on Facebook and the sites Timely-Atlas-Comics, AccordingtoKirby as well as various articles and interviews from over the years involving Golden and Silver Age creators. Ger Aperdorn also did an exhaustive report of Stan's attempts and failures to break away from Martin Goodman in Alter Ego #150, and 'Stan Lee Conversations' and various interviews with The Man over the decades. A compelling and often neglected thread in the overall Stan story is how much he changed his tune after Goodman sold Marvel and Stan finally became corporate. Suddenly, he had stability and he changed his tune on so many things- notably, that Kirby and Ditko were just "the artists I selected to draw my story"- he does not say this before then. And, in 1971, one year before that career change occurs, Stan Lee said this: "I would say that the comic book market is the worst market that there is on the face of the earth for creative talent, and the reasons are numberless and legion. I have had many talented people ask me how to get into the comic book business. If they were talented enough, the first answer I would give them is, why would you want to get into the comic book business? Because even if you succeed, even if you reach what might be considered the pinnacle of success in comics, you will be less successful, less secure, and less effective than if you are just an average practitioner of your art in television, radio, movies, or what have you. It is a business in which the creator, as was mentioned before, owns nothing of his creation. The publisher owns it… … Unfortunately, in the comic field, the artist, the writer, and the editor, if you will, are the most helpless people in the world."

Again, that's fine... that isn't the point of the argument here, the issue we are discussing is that Stan gets credit for things he didn't do. Maybe there's a thread about Fourth World dialogue or Stan and Jack working without each other we could talk about this on.

Again... this is not the point. Maybe in a thread about personal opinions it would be. I am not saying the Marvel Universe wouldn't have worked without all of those guys. Of course it wouldn't have. Add MARTIN GOODMAN to the top of the list or we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't know why people keep doing this simplifying thing, unless it's a deflection... also, adding "In my opinion..." is irrelevant to a factual discussion. Is it our opinion that the sun comes up in the morning, or does it just do that regardless? This is not what some of us are trying to get across. It's not that Stan doesn't deserve credit. He deserves a lot! It's that Stan gets credit for stuff he didn't do, and it's because of corporate ip laws that this continues. That's all. It's about specific credit. If Joe Sinnott got credit for Artie Simek's lettering, it'd be just as worthy to point out that no, that's not true. This is a diversionary tactic that people that don't want to face the truth about Stan's career often go to- add also "the Fourth World dialogue was clunky! wahh!" etc. etc.- that's not the point. Subjective taste doesn't matter. People getting undue credit does.

I thought you were made of sturdier stuff Shad, I meant the autographed comics stuff as light hearted ribbing. I'll be more sensitive next time, my apologies. JL Mask has a business letter from Atlas from June 16th, 1958. It indicates that Martin Goodman called a meeting on June 13th, 1958 to shut down the comics line. Michael Vassallo used MR. Ayer's extensive and by-the-date work ledger to pinpoint Jack Kirby coming back the week after June 8th. Joe Maneely died on June 8th. The facts exist, the evidence exists. I could care less what Neal Kirby says or doesn't say- his comments actually have nothing to do with what happened or didn't happen, so aren't needed. Again, ignoring the truth out of nostalgia is ridiculous. I didn't attack anyone. You respond to my posts with sarcasm first, expect the receipt. See you at the cons.

It isn't a coincidence whatsoever once you realize that Kirby wouldn't "just happen to show up". Stan called him. The vouchers and scheduling sheets (much of which have survived, frantic ones! Which paint a different trajectory than the one you clutch onto) which have been closely documented and archived by Dr. Vassallo, show that Kirby's first story back is on the schedule literally almost the following week after Maneely's death. Maneely dying was not going to make Goodman stop the presses. Stan Goldberg reiterated Kirby's almost immediate arrival at a live event at the Society of Illustrators ("Jack showed up very shortly thereafter, and thank goodness") and- hey, Shad... maybe Dr. Vassallo doesn't know what he's talking about with his research. It's possible! But, if so, it's very odd that Marvel themselves commission him to not only write most of the introductions for their Atlas Age Masterwork Editions but *also* have him in charge of selection and editing and packaging the upcoming Atlas Era collections from Fantagraphics! Maybe they're hiring this guy for years now because he really IS the most certified scholar and historian of early Marvel?? Gosh. Just a coincidence. I understand this is all psychologically troubling for someone who both needs to preserve their youthful nostalgia in old age and as someone who likely is selling those exclusive Stan signed books for triple the price! But fear not, pilgrim- the Merry Marvel Marching Society continues onward! Facts and literal documented evidence be damned! Dare... dare I say it?? (in a voice choked with emotion): Excelsior!

To clarify, Kirby went back a couple years before 1961. 1961 is just when the Fantastic Four launches. I bring that up also because the noted historian Dr. Michael Vassalo, who has intensely researched the day to day goings of Atlas/Marvel and gone through every existing report, log, voucher, etc. made an incredible discovery a couple years ago: the week that Kirby goes back in to Marvel coincides with the week after Joe Manleey tragically died. So it's completely valid that Kirby would have found Stan a little weepy and teary-eyed- his friend and collaborator was just killed in a horrific subway accident. This all lined up and is documented (there are so many time stamped documents from all of Goodman's companies it's amazing that fans don't know about them and how they help prove Kirby's case while proving nothing for Stan's), it's just the kind of history and research you don't find in "Son of Origins" or Wizard Magazine.