lordbyroncomics

Speaking of which, does anyone know what's happened with Tales of Wonder? It's the first time ever they've not responded to my e-mails and I have not gotten an order update from a February order.

designed by me and executed by Michael Neno, for a band compilation. purposely to invoke old romance comic vibes.

With respect, if you haven't read it how can you say it's "another" tell-all expose of Evil Stan? And was there another tell all expose published I am unaware of? Because the bios of Stan I've seen have ranging from the overly biased rationale of a fan (Danny Fingeroth's horrible bio: "Twas Steve's idea, Stan wrote regarding Doctor Strange. It is unclear what Stan meant by that.") to the laughable pro-corporate narrative graphic novel that Peter David wrote. Again, Stan is not above having his own words and statements and actions investigated and discussed. It's nice that fans are still protective but, you know- people are gonna disappoint you, whether you love them or not. It doesn't destroy all the good stuff they've done, right?

I do not understand the need for people to be so extremist and have it one or the other- they either hate Stan or they hate Kirby, or rather, are pro Stan or pro Kirby. While it's true that without Stan there was no Marvel as we knew it (as a genius editor and facilitator and figurehead), it is NOT fair to say they "created equally" because that's ridiculous. And that's what I liked about this book- Riesman points out, the things Stan was the BEST in comics at (as an Editor and Creative Chief) were not the things he inevitably took credit for- IDEAS and concepts were, which he was suspiciously not great at in between the very brief time that Kirby was his chief collaborator. And I think that's a valid point and deserves evaluation. Fans need the myth of the genial Geek Godfather and they need the myth of the Bullpen and as such, often wear blinders. You don't need to tear Stan down to recognize that Kirby was the creative force in that partnership and Stan was the finishing touch, the producer who would hone the rough edges and give it a distinct flair. Fans also need to recognize that the corporate owners of Marvel have always had a vested interest in continuing this myth even though evidence clearly destroys it when you look at the facts. I saw people making comments that this was slander on Stan, to which I replied- is it slander to use the man's own quotes and statements? Why is he above having a close evaluation done? Ger Aperdorn did an exhaustive article for Alter Ego about just how hard Stan had tried to break away from Goodman pre-1961 and during the 1960s with syndicated strips, self-published fumetti and golf books, etc. All failed. His wife had expensive tastes and he had a lifestyle to maintain. He was never going to quit Goodman, who provided a very comfortable life for him. Secondly, Stan wasn't into comics. No fault in that- recognizing that (based on over 50 documented statements from Stan himself) doesn't mean he didn't take his position seriously and didn't try to do good work. But it's the myth that people need, as comics themselves continue to be diluted and lose the magic that the real frantic ones once had when they were younger.

for some levity, I'd like to share this "Stan" interview that just entertained me greatly after not seeing it for a couple of years: ReedPop TV: Exclusive Sit-Down Interview with STAN LEE - YouTube

I actually really WOULD point the finger at Stan's fans. I was amazed at that now infamous video of Stan's last (?) convention appearance that video was widely distributed of, where Keya Morgan has to remind Stan to spell his name, since all an exhausted-looking Stan did was scribble. Now, Morgan (rightfully) got most of the heat for his conduct on that video, but what about the 'fans', like the woman complaining? There's no awareness or concern for Stan's obviously out-of-it condition. I increasingly believe Stan was slipping for a couple years before his wife died but he was so active, it could off-shoot any obvious signs. Michael Davis wrote on Bleeding Cool that he saw Stan and Stan didn't remember who he was, and one of Stan's assistants took him aside and said something like, he has good days and bad days and he's exhausted... and then there's a video on YouTube about the Captain Marvel film where a still genial Stan says "I can't remember why I made her a female!" (he had nothing to do with Carol Danvers as Captain Marvel)... I think there were many signs but people didn't want to "let go", which is human. For me, the sad thing is that every interview with Stan in his 80s' and early 90s', his lust for life and zeal is tangible and he goes on about it; he'll say he hopes he has another 20 years to stay busy, he says he doesn't understand why zombies would be popular... and, the last couple of interviews he says he has no ambition to live longer, he has nothing left to be excited about, etc. Whatever one feels about Stan Lee, his sense of urgency in needing to stay busy was really unavoidable. At the end, he was just waiting to go and people wouldn't let him.

Very well put. I agree.

I was also curious about Keya Morgan and Stan's faltering state in his last days. For one thing, I think the video of Stan forgetting how to sign his name and looking at exhausted at one of his last convention appearances says as much about his supposed "fans" as it does Keya Morgan, whose 'co-creator with Stan Lee' status on his twitter during that time was very bemusing and, of course, very telling. I stumbled upon Keya uploading stuff, probably misguidedly, a few weeks ago and there's this long video with Stan and his lawyer and Keya here and I do feel Stan himself is a little overwhelmed, 'pixilated' as Groth once described Kirby. And yeah, some of it is his own unintentional undoing. But I have to say. a small part of the young me marked out as soon as Stan suddenly came to life and began to recite the Rubaiyat poem, which I'd long seen him mention in interviews as an inspiration. The video is here:

That's a way to simplify it, so you're referring to Joe Simon who wrote the Sick story that Prince Namor posted? I wasn't aware there was any Bob Kane comparisons from the 'they', just the 'those' who responded. Again, there's a difference with the Stan discussion and the Bob Kane discussion. Bob Kane's story is fairly documented; he operated like a shop and had a lawyer set up his deal in 1939. It's a different situation from Kirby, Ditko etc. being the plotting and designing force and then Stan saying post 1970 that he was the sole creator, etc.

Not sure who they are or who is doing that but anyone who is is (again) very limited and didn't do their research so they shouldn't comment. Stan Lee is genuinely creatively brilliant and Bob Kane was shrewd and lucky with marginal talent and what Bob Kane did- which, technically, was legal and protected if immoral- are so so so different that it'd be ridiculous to compare the two. The only thing they have in common is that they both did crave a level of celebrity.

Does Stan deserve credit for his dialogue and did it make the Marvel Characters be what they are today? Yes. But what your argument totally misses is that a lyricist- even the best lyricist- is rendered invalid if the COMPOSER NEVER WROTE THE MUSIC. For me, it's like saying one band member who wrote a great solo is solely responsible for the song when the other band member wrote the music to it. As for Stan saying the wrong thing, this is my point- he didn't *always* say that. He said it after Cadence bought Marvel and Jack left for DC and Joe Simon was (at that time) trying to sue Martin Goodman. I mean, there's a documented narrative to this that can't be argued against- it's not opinion, it's fact. Stan said one thing. Then this legal thing happened and Stan's position changed, so he started saying something else. It doesn't matter what any of our "two cents" is or if we like one or the other better. I personally don't see why it's so uncomfortable to state this; I am in no way diminishing Stan or saying Stan is untalented or something by pointing out, you know, factual stuff that STAN said. Ger Aperdorn did an entire study in an issue of Alter Ego documenting Stan's many many attempts at breaking away from Atlas/Marvel and failing at all of them. Not because Stan was untalented mind you, but because of the state of the industry- it just shows Stan did not care for comic books and also, pokes holes at the famous myth that he was going to quit until Joan Lee told him to do it "his way". But comic fans treat this like sports teams or something when they don't need to. Without Stan's voice, there was no Marvel success as we know it- no doubt! But there'd be no Marvel for Stan to give a voice to if Kirby and others hadn't built it. As much as I enjoy pre-hero Marvel monster stories about Fin Fang Foom, they weren't going to launch Marvel as we know it. If Kirby didn't generate what he did... Stan would have toiled for Martin Goodman for much, much longer. Also, if Stan creates Spider-Man then why does he reject Kirby's unfinished story about a kid with a magic necklace/talisman who turns into an adult Spider-Man? That question right there states how much the contribution of Ditko can't be understated. But yes, Stan was a great dialogue writer who could pull and reign in the unfiltered imaginations of his artists- no doubt, and he deserves all the credit for that! But Brian Epstein can't book the Beatles on Ed Sullivan if, you know, the Beatles never ever formed.

The problem in the ongoing credit discussion about Stan and the Marvel Method is that the different sides are simply so extreme and so black-and-white. Some in the industry have also said that "you weren't there" so therefore, we aren't able to ever properly access this or that. So, here's what you do have: facts and statements. I say this as a huge fan of Stan Lee, who is extremely hard to dislike. Who is quick witted, self deprecating and a bundle of positive charisma. And I do think he was truly inspired dialoguing and directing Kirby's FF plots from 1962-1967 in a way he never was past that time as his "celebrity" began to rise... That being said, the myth of Stan as "Geek Godfather" is a myth that people in comics desperately need. Read on beyond 'Stuf Said'. Get Stan Lee Interviews (or 'Stan Lee Conversations'), read anything you can and Stan's own comments from the 60s' onward are fairly clearly that he was not a fan of the medium and had no interest in reading comics. I'm not saying he had to be, and he did great work- but there's no doubt if you're unbiased that Kirby was the creative force. TwoMorrows also put out a book called, I believe, 'The Wonder Years' about Stan and Jack's FF run and the author is especially harsh on Kirby for slumming on the plots towards the end of the book's run- great art still, but phoning it in, no new characters, etc. Well, wouldn't that also establish that Kirby was the driving creative force? When Kirby leaves, it's more Creature from the Lake stories, etc. etc. Stan worked best when he had a strong chaotic creative force- and then Stan's talents as an Editor (when he had his finger on the pulse of the reader), shone through. Stan was a very, very talented man. Let no one say otherwise. But he was not the creator. Too much evidence says otherwise. Stan's own comments about he and Kirby creating everything change abruptly. When? When Kirby leaves Marvel for DC. Then a narrative is put into effect- which, oddly enough, is when a new corporation purchases Marvel and therefore has a vested interest in guiding a narrative that Stan- a happy company man- is responsible for this, no one else. It's also notable that Disney needed to preserve this narrative too- and Stan was all too happy to go along with it. Anyone who rushes out the tired argument about how bad a dialogue writer Kirby is on his Fourth World books- do a little experiment. Go read Kirby's solo stuff from the same month/year Stan is writing Fantastic Four. Tell me why Stan is so much superior. It's banal and Stan is going through the motions. Stan insisted on being listed as 'scripter' and many artists (not just Joe Simon and Ditko) were upset about it, but what comic fans seldom realize is.. it wasn't about CREDIT at this time so much as it was about PLOT PAYMENT. Stan was literally getting paid more for THEIR work. I'd be annoyed too. Jack Kirby leaves Marvel and continues to create. Your judgment of the value of those creations may vary, but no one can say he wasn't an active creative imagination. Stan creates nothing. Not that it was a contest, it's just valid in this whole 'Stan gets a bad rap' debate. One can argue that Kirby's imagination inspires Star Wars (Mark Moonrider/Luke Skywalker, The Source/The Force, Darkseid's son being raised by a benevolent and wise warrior king, etc.) and continues to influence the DCU. Stan created She-Hulk to secure a copyright. Just give credit properly without the goggles of nostalgia. This is the same guy who told people Sgt. Fury was launched on a "bet" with Martin Goodman- and the same people who continue to push the story are the same comic fans who know that DC had limited Marvel's distribution and how rigid Martin Goodman was. Please.

I haven't bought from Reece's online but have bought from them twice at Baltimore Comic Con and was all the better for it; completely genuine and sincerely friendly. I've got to look at their website now. I personally like MyComicShop for quick Bronze Age fill-ins, I haven't dealt with the consignment component of it that I'm aware of. MCS always seems cheap and graded well (again, just in my own experience).

Yeah, I agree it's very well done and a quality product. I like Jim Rugg's art. A bit of it is too hipster-ish for me but I'm not knocking it, it's just a subjective thing. It's a very well done show done with passion from those guys and I want it to succeed, I just personally don't get into it too much. But they're doing well and don't need me! :P

I tried to like Kayfabe but couldn't get into it, although I was fascinated to hear Ed Piskor claim that Stan Lee had a ghost writer for his "Marvel Masterworks" introductions. I also try to get into a lot of comics history channels but I find they mostly just re-articulate stuff already printed in various TwoMorrows mags. I've been curious about any official groups/clubs based around comics; I did see the Comic Book Fiend Club at Baltimore and was impressed at how proactive and organized they are (but don't want to join that club due to a mandatory rule to wear patches or something; I also don't think co-opting the mascot for punk band The Misfits is the best idea), but was wondering if there's anything more catering to older eras and newspaper strips as well.

"Funny, Hitler and I being born on the same day!"

Here's a photo I took of Herb Trimpe and Ron Wilson back in 2008 at Baltimore Comic Con. I saw them standing to the side, chatting, and thought it was such a cool moment that I asked them for a photo. Mr. Trimpe was such a giving, gregarious guy, I'm so grateful for my brief interactions with him. (and Ron Wilson, too!)

I don't own this, just always loved this little-seen Golden Age Harvey cover.

I'd say you make some very good points.

I do not want or require 'some kind of movie justice', with respect. I am also completely aware of why Monica was created- none of that was my point. It was that specific way of removing her that I think is kind of ridiculous, complete with going out of the way to have various Avengers thinking to themselves how inept she was, for reasons that had to do with Captain America sales and nothing to do with the Kree-based logic you speak of. I'm not talking about in-story reasons, I'm talking about the politics with the editors, etc. You are completely correct that Carol was connected to the Mar-Vell mythos early on, and I don't think the movie version is a bad character whatsoever, as I clarified.

I don't dislike Bree Larson but I can't get fully into the Carol Danvers Captain Marvel simply because I grew up reading Roger Stern's excellent Monica Rambeau version of Captain Marvel and what Grunewald and Macchio did to her after firing Stern really still irks me and I think it's an injustice to the character. I'm actually surprise it isn't more of a bigger deal among comic fans. http://www.supermegamonkey.net/chronocomic/entries/avengers_286-287.shtml

I'm not sure that would be possible as I'd read that Chris Hemsworth brought that idea and really fought for it. They apparently wanted Thor to revert to his muscular body and Hemsworth insisted.

Yeah, meeting up how they describe is just red flag central. Let's say for a second that they're actually LEGIT... even though we know they're not... wouldn't they *realize* this looks shady? If anything, meet in a neutral area like a hotel lobby or something.

I'd like to think that also, but the truth is- *we* wouldn't fall for it, but that doesn't mean other people wouldn't. My girlfriend lives for antique shopping in various states where there are multiple antique stores all within a few minutes distance of each other and I can't tell you how many 80s'-90s' comics are marked up there. I asked one of the guys (as the comics weren't his, they were another seller's stall) if people ever bought those and he said yeah, and shook his head. His shaking of his head allowed me to inquire what he thought about the prices and he went on to tell me that the majority of people they get only have a vague realization of comics being "collectable" so sometimes will buy something for a nephew or a grandson or something, thinking it's worthwhile. There are people with limited exposure to the ins and outs who go off of vague mainstream coverage that was fleeting when it was contemporary, so they could indeed be tricked into thinking replica editions are the real deal. Of course that also depends on the seller here. How good of a conman are they? I'm serious. Do they have touches that make it seem plausible? Did they take the time to print 5 x 10 photos of some old guy with Golden Age books so they can pull it up and claim it's their Grandfather or something? You never know. They might ask for a grand per comic and give a Laurence Olivier-esque performance about how they really DON'T want to sell their Granddad's comics at such a LOW cost, but the PANDEMIC, and their KIDS are starving... if they've got acting chops and the buyer is naive, perhaps this is what they're counting on. Obviously this is all speculation. Even if the buyer is naive and uneducated that doesn't justify them being ripped off, obviously! When I was a teenager there was a LCS and the owner was a terrible and horrible human being; he never did anything to me but there were multiple stories about this guy ripping people off and taking advantage of people and stealing from another store when they were loading in for a convention. We knew he was a mark for people who somehow ended up with collections who didn't know anything about it and he'd dream about sweeping in and ripping them off and he'd go on at length to an employee (who then told us) about how it was bound to happen and how he'd trick them. My buddy and I eventually prank called him, taking our time and saying our Uncle had died and was a serious collector and the lawyer handling the estate advised us to seek out an expert because "we don't know what to do with all these old things, they're all in bags and stuff". Then, after he enthusiastically responded, we proceeded to tell him we had Darkhawk and Secret Defenders #1 then argued with him, being like "but it says 'Collector's Item' on the cover! Is this just, like, negotiating? Okay, give us ten thousand for all of them." He just got so flustered but kept trying to see if we had any key books! I wish I'd recorded that.