lordbyroncomics

My friend, you may be on to something..

send fan-fiction. it'll make you seem a lot more creative and tormented with girls

Men, all of this is leading to the inevitable here: are we going to form a Comics Club or not??!

This is very well said. By the same token, as extremely well written as it is it seems like anyone pointing out things is "all or nothing" or one or the other. I can see why it might seem like that as we have to keep sharing factual evidence and paper trails and a body of work, but... it's not like that on my posts, at least. I don't think Stan is the devil incarnate. I've said many times that Stan is really brilliant in his role and that we wouldn't have Marvel without him. But we wouldn't have Marvel without Kirby either. The best manager in the world couldn't make The Beatles a success if they didn't bring the talent and the ideas. The entire thing here is that Stan has been given too much credit- I don't know how to make it simpler.

I found this interesting- from the 'According to Kirby' blog of essays. I also don't completely agree- I don't think this dialogue is bad at all for an action story- but the authors quoted here are making a point that Stan has a formula of stating the obvious, for the most part. He didn't do that all the time of course. But he did it a lot. I'd love to do a same month comparison between Stan's dialogue and Jack's dialogue on his first New Gods books. Since Jack sucks so much. “Lee’s input.” Darrell Epp, The Marvel Method group, 20 May 2019: “ONE gene colan draws a road block. TWO lee forcibly inserts a caption box that says, “That is a road block!” Patrick Ford, same discussion: “Not only, ‘It’s a roadblock (sic).’ Also, ‘A barricade thrown across the road.’ Lee does this constantly. More often than any writer I can think of. This was described in the early ’60s by Jerry Bails who wrote that Lee’s Marvel Method writing consisted of Lee describing the action which was already evident to the reader, and making wisecracks. Perhaps the most succinct description of Lee’s writing ever. And done prior to Lee being canonized. Jerry Bails: Captions must be limited largely to describing the action in the box, and dialogue must consist mainly of wisecracks, both of which can be added directly to the pencilled drawings.

Yeah, some of the 'arguments' to facts here are really bizarre and sound emotional. "Kirby's comic strip wasn't a success! Wahh!" Uh, at least- as far as we know- Jack didn't start a fake phone call and letter writing campaign from his wife to boost interest in his comic strip like Stan did. (Helpfully documented in Alter Ego) It's like.. emotional people who get defensive when you do the horrible sin of bringing up Stan Lee facts always say stupid nonsense like "Kirby can't write dialogue!". Well- okay. But he's still doing FOUR ONGOING BOOKS with dozens of ongoing concepts and characters and imagination. They don't want to see that. They just want to do the dialogue thing. It gets predictable. No one is dissing Stan's talents. People are pointing out that Jack Kirby hasn't gotten the due credit. There is no way to argue it. We *could* do the 'comparison' game between Jack and Stan... but why? Again, it's just about Stan getting undue credit. Nothing more. Oh, and Bill Everett- who had a Blind daughter- is who brought the blind aspect to Daredevil. The origin of Iron Man- which was plotted by Jack- is very similar to Jack's Green Arrow origin retcon- which, interestingly, is the origin they've used since, even on the popular television series. Jack really does have a wide influence and people still don't realize and recognize it.

I buy every week from MCS and a couple online sellers and my perspective is informed by the fact that if I ever do plan to re-sell my collection, it's likely not gonna be for another decade or two. I only hear about some trends here, or what I see for specific books, and if anything seems too inflated I ignore it, conscious that it could be temporary, and find something else to buy. Plenty of Silver/Bronze age books that fit my budget to get in the meantime!

Again... I think we're talking about different subjects. I am not talking about if artists can visualize better than writers, what you personally think having an artist work from brings the best of their natural talent, and what superstars prefer to use that method. I'm not knocking those subjects btw or saying you're wrong! I'm just saying... none of that is relevant to what we're talking about. But.. seriously. You think Stan giving Kirby a NICKNAME means nothing we've shared is relevant? Shadroch, it isn't even about credit.. it's about stealing writer's pay and claiming you did something you did not. The credit stealing comes later, for different reasons. Does it 'seem' like Stan is trying to steal credit?! I don't know if it seems like that, but it WAS like that and that's what matters. I'm glad you dig Stan. I like him too. The fact remains that his actions and the recorded history states exactly what happened, no matter how it seems to either one of us. Not sure you're grasping that though. I'm not talking about if the Marvel Method was or wasn't innovative. That's subjective and an entirely different subject.

So the logic here is that Stan's job selling comics justifies claiming he's the writer or things he only dialogued and creating things he didn't create. Got it. And yeah, no decline in sales. Romita is more marketable than Ditko. So- I don't want to misrepresent you here and am not being sarcastic- you're saying this justified Ditko's treatment? I kind of don't understand. Or are you saying that sales would have dipped only if Kirby and Ditko were REALLY the plotters or something? None of this seems relevant. Again, you're given facts and quotes but it's always somehow people are being unfair to ol' Stan... for daring to quote his documented statements or looking at his documented body of work. It's interesting- in no way are the cases similar but I was reading how there's this new Hemingway documentary coming out tonight from Ken Burns and how people don't want to look at the things about Hemingway that they don't like and that they need to preserve the literary myth. It really made me think of this discussion.

I'm glad you brought this up. Because this is something I've spoken about before- it's not Stan's fault at ALL that journalists were taken with him. He is charismatic, articulate, a good interviewee and he provides snappy banter and quotes, therefore making the journalist's job easier. As you said, Jack wasn't as charismatic and Steve didn't WANT to be interviewed... So "stealing the spotlight" to you means Stan getting attention? And somehow this is what I was saying? Uh... No, that's not him stealing the spotlight AT ALL. I will say it to anybody. HERE is what is "stealing the spotlight"- allowing mistaken journalists to believe he's the sole creator and writer. Writing a book claiming he created things after his new corporate owners wanted to secure the IP. It's all stuff like that. You don't think Stan could have followed up with these writers when headlines came out calling him "The Creator" and 'The Father'?! He could have- he didn't. His claim to fame as this was his ticket out of New York and out of comics. I've seen a lot of comments on this thread of people saying "in my opinion" and "the way I see it" and I want to clarify that nothing I've stated is my opinion or how I see it. These are all factual things that Stan did and things that happened and are easily researched.

There really doesn't need to be any. The issue Prince Namor is making, and I'm also making, is that Stan is guilty of allowing people to presume he's the sole creator, and then Stan later claimed this credit rather than just take credit for all the genuinely good things he was super talented at. The entire thing gets diluted when one is for one and against the other, and vice versa. None of this is new. There's been evidence all along, but people didn't want to confront it and you see it with rationalizations and devil's advocate behavior and statements. Again: it isn't about attacking Stan. It's about proper credit and justice for Jack. There's a difference.

Prince Namor brings up so many excellent and sadly oft-ignored points. And yes, you can do all this without giving venom towards Stan. I'm still flabbergasted that any response to unavoidable facts always provokes guys still begrudgingly or defiantly saying things like "but without the Bullpen Bulletins", etc.!!- it's as if they simply are psychologically unable to give Jack Kirby ANY credit for being the catalyst and main plotter/concept creator. Whatever. The Merry Marvel Marching Society marches on. Interestingly to me, I only just read today from no less a source than Alex Ross that apparently Kirby also came up with the concept for Mar-Vell. Ross said, "Jack recalled telling Stan an idea he had for a Kree soldier (as Jack had come up with the Kree in FF) who defects from his post of observing Earth to defending it against his own world. Stan (Jack said) was encouraging that they should get started around this right away, Jack claimed he said he wanted to hold off until he was able to get in to negotiate a better deal with Goodman since so many of the properties he brought to them weren't getting him any additional money or control. When he (later) saw Marvel's Captain Marvel story, it was another nail in the coffin." Ross also adds: "It's an interesting thought that in addition to his drawing Captain Marvel Adventures #1 in 1941, Jack Kirby may have been instrumental in both revivals of the Captain Marvel legend with both Marvel and DC, without anyone knowing it."

You're right. I apologize if it seemed like I was just trying to argue. Thanks Kav

Spoken like a man who has never read dozens of Stan Lee interviews! But yeah, the feeling of fun in the Bullpen Bulletins is indeed contagious and who is to say that Stan didn't have palpable excitement when writing them? But I think you're mistaking the context of Stan's being excited at finally finding success and recognition for "indeed loved them"- that's a big difference. If Stan "loved" comics so much why does he try to get out of them as soon as Kirby leaves and go to California? Why does he convince the Goodmans to publish Celebrity Magazine in the late seventies which is really an excuse for him and his wife to be photographed with D-List celebrities? Why was he desperately trying to get out of them pre-1961 Marvel, with self publishing golf books and syndicated strips? (See Ger Aperdorn's exhaustive article in Alter Ego for more of this) Why does he say in literally every interview going forward that he never reads comics because he "doesn't have the time", etc. if he loves the medium so much? Stan was on a roll and WAS genuinely excited with the audience he was crafting. Of course, he couldn't craft that audience IF the product he was selling didn't deliver. Those Marvel Comics did deliver- if it wasn't Kirby producing most of the concepts and plots, would it have? Doubtful.

Very well said Randall. I'd have to say though that it doesn't even need to be your "personal opinion"- Stan is well documented with his feelings on comics in dozens of interviews. And again, I need to stress this for the easily offended real frantic ones- that's fine. It doesn't discount from his skill as an Editor and marketing whiz that he didn't have a passion for comics and little interest in the medium. We've all had jobs we didn't care about that we were great at, probably. Stan was a great Editor but unfortunately, that's not the role he chose to take credit for.

True, but it's not like his certainty about it was as strong and absolute all his life. As he continued to grow and evolve, his philosophies changed... so the Ditko of 1964 was still figuring out his standings as opposed to the Ditko in 1974 in regards to where his convictions stood. I again just feel thinking this one panel as proof of something seems kind of ridiculous in relation or response to the literal quotes from Stan Lee as well as him literally crediting the Spider-Man stories as plotted by Ditko. We have established that Stan did the dialogue, so what exactly is the argument here?

would Ditko be the final word on what went out? No he would not. After all, Ditko Spider-Man stories went out with Stan-directed redrawing of Ditko's art (by Carl Hubbell). Kirby's stuff would be changed by Romita. My point is, Stan was the final word as Editor on what went out. I don't think Ditko ever lied, but he would rationalize things just like when he denied working with Eric Stanton. The context of that story needs to be considered that Ditko is still trying to make a go of it and work and collaborate with Stan. Consider why Ditko left- it was a bunch of things piling up and building up, and the straw that broke the camel's back was Stan deciding to not talk to him after he (rightfully) asked for plotting credit. He got it- and affected Stan's paycheck- and Stan stopped speaking to him.

Kav brings up a valid point about one's own words. So, in the spirit of that here are exact quotes from the creator of Marvel Comics: "Some artists, of course, need a more detailed plot than others. Some artists, such as Jack Kirby, need no plot at all. I mean, I'll just say to Jack 'Let's let the next villain be Dr. Doom'.. or I may not even say that. He may tell me... he just about makes up the plots for these stories. All I do is a little editing." (1968) "...I merely gave a brief outline of each story (to Kirby and Ditko)... they would then draw the actual strip without any further instructions from me." (2008) It goes on and on.. and, notably, Stan's tone/story literally only changes AFTER THERE ARE NEW CORPORATE OWNERS. I also think that... the reason bringing up these facts and documented evidence seems to make many fans become defensive of Stan is because they think that by sharing them, your intent is somehow, to bring Stan down. (And that is likely true from some fans, sure) But again- that's not my intent, and I think you don't need to bring Stan down at all for the most part- the guy was witty and a clever dialogue writer and very keen with the bullpen bulletins, etc. That's just not the point. The point is- credit for creating, credit for writing. Nothing more and nothing less. The evidence is there and, as we've seen, no direct or compelling argument against it exists. It's always "well if Kirby is so clever", or "then Kirby stole the plot from the last publisher" or Kirby can't write dialogue... more steering away from the point they don't want to face which is that Stan Lee steered the ship but he didn't chart the course. And there's nothing wrong with that. We just gotta be honest.

Uh.. we're taking that literally? We're taking that without the context? We're taking that without any consideration of the time and place? Okay.

It's time for the truth to come out. It was Irving Forbush. Or Artie Simek. One of those guys.

Kirby's margin notes on his delivered art: "Chemicals cause him to freeze- sand mixed with liquid nitrogen- when flame hits it- it gives off poison vapors" Stan's dialogue for this: "Knowing I'd have to face your flaming attack sooner or later, the Wizard gave me the perfect means to stop you.. by releasing a quantity of liquid nitrogen, my sandy molecules immediately freeze! Then, as soon as your now-useless flame contacts me, the chemical combination gives off a powerful, poisonous vapor..!" Now, is Stan's dialogue better than Kirby's margin notes? OF COURSE THEY ARE. That isn't in dispute. But saying things like "Kirby may have contributed to a plot" and "Stan wrote everything, The End"- shows a bias and an obvious unwillingness to read more into this and look at the documented evidence. Some of the members here are artists, right? Okay. Let's say Kav (for example), whose art I have seen and really like, gives me a completely drawn story. And, in one of the panels, he shows a guy leaping out of a window and Kav's notes say "got to jump out now- before room explodes- thinks, if i roll, can absorb hitting the grass" and gives it to me for dialogue. And then, I write "I've got to make my jump now! The room's gonna explode any minute- if I time the leap and roll just right, I'll absorb most of the shock before I hit the grass!" And then I credit myself as the writer of the story and Kav as the artist. You think Kav wouldn't be like "well.. wait a sec." All I did was better articulate Kav's initial story notes about what his plot was.

Again: is that the point of what I'm saying? Maybe he had no imagination at all. That's fine! The point is that HE WAS THE DRIVING PLOTTING FORCE. Attacking his apparent lack of imagination is a way for someone to sidestep the acceptance of that fact. Kirby was doing so many books and creating concepts and plotting as well as layouts for other artists- I'm sure he recycled old plots, concepts. Does that make him less imaginative? I don't know. Bowie put out an album in 1980 that people thought was very cutting edge and it's highly regarded. Did the people that liked it know that a couple of the songs were re-tooled and re-written versions of a song he did pre-Space Oddity, back in the late sixties? I don't know; doesn't make him less imaginative. Still, it's always slightly funny to see how, even when given proof that you can't dispute, people will be psychologically unable to face it and just pivot to something else. Kirby's dialogue sucks, wahhh! Etc. Not once did I say "he had the greatest imagination". As I said, maybe he had zero imagination- that's not the point of my post. My point is that the body of evidence is there. Thank you.

Never hated Kirby. My first exposure to him was in an issue of 'Marvel Saga' when I was 6 years old and I was mesmerized; it reprinted the Hulk/Thing battle from FF #12 and the thick Ayers ink line and everything was just so captivating and unlike the Hulk I was seeing in present time by Sal Buscema.

I didn't realize anyone was disagreeing with this? However, adding dialogue to a finished plot isn't the same as "creating" or "writing the story". I agree it's absolutely collaborating on the story, but not in any 'conceived by' sense. Sorry Kav, I know you're a loyal merry marvel marching society member of high standing!

There is evidence that Kirby was the primary creative force as well as plotting and laying out the stories. I take nothing away from Stan's dialogue skills- but dialogue on a fully plotted story is "dialogue by" NOT "story by". Here's the ending of FF #8, which Stan actually created a "written plot" to give to Jerry Bails, after Bails requested such a thing after DC gave him one. Stan typed one up for FF #8, recently released. Except... Kirby did a story in the fifties for Black Magic that Stan had nothing to do with. Why is it impossible for people desperate to hold to a myth from their youth instead of looking at the most obvious, common sense proof? Why does it have to bring down Stan to say he was a great editor and sometimes great dialogue writer? Why must he be righteously defended for pointing out accurate things?