lordbyroncomics

Roy Thomas's current grift is to literally bill himself on convention flyers as "Stan Lee's chosen heir and protege!", you can't make it up. Part of this is because his "manager" (whose name is literally mentioned numerous times in any article about Roy Thomas) realized they can make a profit by playing up this angle. And changing his tune- now Roy claims credit for being the "creator" of Wolverine, the "creator" of Storm, etc.- well, that makes Martin Goodman the "creator" of the Fantastic Four. Too many fans don't follow history and it's not hard. When Roy left Marvel in 1980 he had very critical things to say about Stan and so forth and said that he had been backstabbed. When CRISIS hit DC and Roy realized he didn't have the clout he'd had before, he went back to Marvel- and when that dried up, Stan saved him by making him his ghostwriter for 20 years. So it's in Roy's vested interest to adopt this protect-the-corporate-narrative tone.

Uh... NO. For one thing, EC Comics did this famously. More importantly, Charles Biro did everything Stan did before Stan. Notably, John Romita Sr. and Roy Thomas have both helpfully pointed out how inspired by Biro that Stan was. And Golden Age artist Bob Futijani said in several interviews an anecdote he observed when he was in Biro's office and Biro complained that Stan was on the line, begging him for ideas. (Futijani had no reason to make this up and repeated it several times) Biro did the message right to the reader on several of the covers with little messages like "we can't reveal the ending to this shock story, but you'll thank us when you reach it!", responded to letters in his letter pages with a loose, humorous style (a complimentary letter would get a response like, "you're getting my vote next time there's an election, pal"), and- I think- most importantly, Biro wrote right to the reader in his editorial style in the same manner Stan did. Keep in mind this dialogue, from a splash page, came out in the forties, not Stan's Silver Age sixties- read this in Stan's voice: "Tree ripened fruit is tastier than a hot-house quickie! Daredevil takes it's time but gets there just as fast and stays longer and will continue to do so long as we retain our close touch with the desires of American's comic audience! This is no simple thing for some publishers to do- it necessitates having to concede that the average reader is above a moronic I.Q.- that he is on the whole, logical and has a brain to think with. The mistake of some of our competitors, evidenced by your countless letters that we have carefully digested, is that they underestimate your intelligence! We don't bat 1,000, but our average is constantly climbing. That proves we're on the right track. This Daredevil story is Evidence #1! I'm sure after you've read it, you'll see my point- and you are responsible! It was your wish- therefore, my command! CHARLES BIRO" See some common traits of Stan, picked up from Biro... "concede that the average reader is above a moronic I.Q"- Stan constantly referenced the above average intelligence of the Marvel audience in dozens of interviews and would claim that "his Publisher" told him "moronic" adults and small children read comics so not to use big words. "the mistake of some of our competitors"- Stan also reinforced that the distinguished competition simply underestimated the sophisticated reader that wanted characters with real problems, and cited almost this same phrase more than once. "they underestimate your intelligence!"- This was something Stan also struck on, with Amazing Adult Fantasy even getting the tagline, "the Magazine that respects your intelligence!" "we don't bat 1,000 but our average is always climbing..." This pseudo-humility speak was something Biro used often and Stan also used, even on covers- "don't frustrate us, you've got to read it!" "and you are responsible!"- Biro was canny in making his customers feel they were part of an exclusive club of people who were smarter than the "usual" comic reader- another thing Stan wisely latched onto. I'm not saying Stan was wrong to be inspired or did these things badly. You simply said that, as far as you knew, Stan was the first person to do all of these things. He wasn't. And there's more than this but I'll stop here.

I'm curious how much an attendee is willing to barter with a dealer regarding price. I don't mean disrespectful and unrealistic bartering but- for example- offer $220 for a book marked at $250. It's been my experience that if you're running low on cash but negotiate a little, most dealers are willing to work with you.

This implies having this discussion is enjoyable So long as the same false narrative continues however, people will respond to it. It's also a huge and obvious tactic for Stan defenders to preface things with "They say Stan didn't do anything, wahhh" which is something people educated over history would never do. It's the same lack of comprehension about what this topic is about that's amazing and makes grown aging men look increasingly obtuse as the years go on. For the record, this is a very specific thing we're discussing. So, it has nothing to do with: - Jack's dialogue without Stan on the Fourth World books isn't as snappy - Jack's ideas wouldn't have gone anywhere without Stan's hucksterism And if this is weary, y'know the benefit of a message board is that you can see what you're about to read. Ignore this thread- it's as easy as that. This is about someone who took credit for things he didn't do. I see the community here rightfully outraged when a dealer has their books stolen at a show- if you can have empathy for that, what's different about this? It's theft on a far grander scale. Why, because you liked the narration to Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends? "for me, Stan WAS Marvel" blah blah blah- again, this is irrelevant to Stan being a liar.

Has that ever been an angle that people have pursued? Damn. Anyone who says that simply hasn't put the time in and doesn't know what they're speaking of. Stan certainly had a huge voice in press release and promotion. But don't worry about any rumors of Stan locking himself in his office all day every day... it's already been documented time and time again that Stan only went into the office three days a week, later turning into two. So he could "get writing done" at home, you know. So just remind those people apparently pushing that angle that any claim of Stan going to work five days a week is literally untrue.

"Showing a hard-core Marvel fan evidence that Stan Lee lied, cheated, and stole gets you about as far as if you were to show an Evangelical evidence that Christ ever existed. They'll either be furious with you or cheerfully ignore you, but they won't believe you." https://www.vulture.com/2023/06/disney-s-stan-lee-documentary-perpetuates-a-myth.html

This. There's literally no Marvel without Kirby going back. As much as I genuinely like Patsy Walker, etc., Marvel would have continued with genre stuff if Kirby wasn't there to rehash his Challengers of the Unknown, Thor, mutation ideas that he had been doing throughout the fifties. Kirby generated the bulk of all of the concepts, characters, storytelling. Try looking at the Strange Tales starring the Torch when Lee relied on MR. Ayers to generate and plot things. Why are the stories so vastly different than the stories that Jack is drawing? There you are. Never forget: one guy goes off to create the FOURTH WORLD. One guy goes off to "create" NHL Hockey Heroes that literally bankrupted a company. Jim Shooter said in his Comic Book Historians interview that he plotted one of Stan's 60s' SILVER SURFER issues. Roy Thomas said he ghost wrote Stan's Spider-Man strip for over twenty years- Salicrup ghost wrote it before that- Shooter ghost wrote it before that. Alan Kupperberg said Danny Fingeroth ghost wrote Ravage 2099. Ed Piskor said someone ghost wrote all of Stan Lee's introductions to your beloved Marvel Masterworks collections. Sorry frantic ones. I include all that just to stress- that if someone is the "Shakespeare" of comics and a natural idea generator, a natural story man, a CREATOR... ... why did he need so much help?

So wait! Repeating the ACTUAL WORDS OF PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE is another guy's "take"? Wow!

No one is saying you shouldn't or there isn't truth to that (though we won't talk about Kirby's sales in the Golden Age or the Romance genre as it would disrupt that narrative), and it's too often that someone chimes in with a variant of that. No one is saying this. Stan Lee did was a great Editor, Dialogue Writer, Spokesman, etc.- the issue is that he took credit for things he didn't do, not what he did do.

In 1957, Kirby does a Challengers story where one of them tests a rocket into space and gets flame and invisibility powers. Coincidence, of course. Neal's frustration is understandable. That entire documentary was to preserve the creator myth because Disney+, like all of Marvel's owners since Goodman initially sold it, needs to make sure that freelancers have had no claim on the intellectual property that they bought. It's as simple as that. They promised Stan a lifetime gig if he took the creator credit, with barely any of the creator money- and, as Stan was mainly interested in being notable he went for it. The truth is, the evidence shows that most of everything was generated by Kirby. I don't see how that takes away from Stan's talents. It takes away from false claims, which seems to greatly upset fanboys who desperately need nostalgia and the myths of their childhood preserved. Never got it. If someone is really great and someone trashes it, just shrug it off if they're great. If someone said Michael Jordan wasn't really good at basketball, you'll never see people taking the time and energy to argue that he was the way people feel the need to bury Kirby. The documentary was ridiculous; from the animated set ups of a full-head-of-hair Stan after opening it with bald Stan to the ongoing fable of beloved Joan Lee saying this "do it your way" blah blah blah (Stan's first recorded statements on that btw have Joan being exasperated and saying "When are you going to realize this is permanent!" before storming off) And I almost wonder if it was unconsciously planted when they played dialogue of Stan explaining that his wife had expensive tastes so he'd say, buy whatever and I'll just write so many stories to justify it this week- Stan was getting paid for the writer's plot to add to his income which was the main source of Kirby, Wood, Ayer's etc. frustrations- the Marvel Method was a kickback scheme. This helped substantiate that even more.

Speaking of Marvel Sucks, I was just reading last night an interview with the owners of NY's JHU Comics store, and I found this both interesting and sad, though none of it should be surprising to us, the short-sightedness of the apparent House of Old Ideas: Do you think comics is a less profitable business now than it was a decade ago? Hill: Absolutely. The major publishers, Marvel in particular, used the pandemic as a way of getting our discounts cut to lower levels than they had been. The move to [Penguin] Random House caused us to lose six points of discount. Which, when Marvel’s your number one comic book publisher in sales, and you get six points cut off in the wake of a pandemic when you were closed for three months, suddenly creates all kinds of new challenges - because you have to go find a way to pay the electric bill and the rent every month. Has Marvel been responsive when you or other shops have brought that up? Hill: Not particularly. The general consensus is, as always, Marvel kind of doesn't care. They sell whatever they can, and they move on. The falseness of believing anyone is “partners” here-- they could give a mess, is what I’m going to say. They did what was best for Marvel. Marvel always does what’s best for Marvel. And it’s a shame that they dominate not just our business, but the media cultural landscape. And it’s hard, because obviously there are lots of things about Marvel we love, like Jack Kirby, and Steve Ditko, and mess like that. But as a corporate entity, it's very painful sometimes, because they don't seem particularly interested in expanding their readership base. They seem interested in making $100 books to sell to 2,000 people, as opposed to making $4 comic books to sell to 500,000 people. I don’t think Marvel’s #1 comic book sells 100,000 copies. They just don't seem interested in selling comic books. It seems like the corporate mindset over there is: stay below the radar. Make the margin. As a publishing company, I don’t think they are trying very hard to grow readership. I mean, Scholastic and VIZ sell more books than them. They put out the world's biggest movie, and they can't sell 100,000 copies of any comic book. Let’s probe into that a little. Why is that? Why is Marvel’s market not expanding, when younger readers of manga and YA graphic novels certainly are? Hill: Here’s the problem - I think that some of the best cartoonists out there see greener pastures in other places. So maybe [Marvel isn’t] getting the same caliber of creator that they used to. You get the [Jonathan] Hickmans and the Brian K. Vaughans that start over there, Mark Millar - all these guys start over there, do some fine work, and then they go, “I’m going to go over here and do my own properties where I’ll get my payday; I’ll get all the rights; I’ll get paid twice the money for selling a third of the copies.” I feel like Marvel, as it exists now, is still operating as if [former chairman and CEO Ike] Perlmutter was the boss. They’re still operating under the policies that his regime instituted. And I think there's plenty of wonderful editors and creative people who work there who want to try to do things, but they're probably stymied by the corporate leadership, and all the other things that go on behind the scenes of a major entertainment company. And there's occasionally a miracle comic that comes out that's good, but anything that comes out that's good, they'll reprint as a trade once, and then it will go away for five years. They don’t have a book department. DC Comics spent 20 years actively reprinting all their work, and creating a graphic novel market and a readership base for their collected stories. And Marvel treats their trade paperbacks as an extension of their comics. They print to order; maybe they’ll reprint it, maybe they won’t. It makes it very hard for new, young readers to come in and go, “Let me get all those Spider-Man comics.” And all the graphic novel publishers out there - Fantagraphics, and Scholastic, and Random House itself, and Pantheon. You want to talk about graphic novels, over at Abrams, Charlie Kochman is paying attention to what’s working for them, and making sure it’s getting out. And as a result, we can have success. One of the problems with periodical comics now is that so many come out that it’s hard to pick a title and put money and time behind it. Whereas a great graphic novel, we can sell every week: we can have this in our store permanently as something we can push on people as long as it stays in print. And Marvel gave up on this stuff a long time ago.

I'd argue that he's not original- he's basically Mack Bolan, The Executioner. Romita Sr. confirmed that he was just a comics rip-off of the popular pulp character. Not knocking The Punisher, btw- he was certainly hot in the 90s'- I'd argue as to how important he is. An aged Vietnam veteran who operates as a street level vigilante of gangsters occupies his own little niche in the overall Marvel tapestry, but he's not important in the way other characters are.

I also ran into a guy with a homemade Stan Lee mask who did a credible voice impression. He'd just been going up to people, some of them baffled, shouting "Excelsior!" and I was told went up to harass an unbemused Joe Quesada, which I wish I would have photographed.

I took this because a guy standing near me was complaining to whomever he was with about graded concert posters. (I had been oblivious that some were graded and just wanted to see the James Brown poster) He was ranting, "now it's concert posters getting graded! when I sold all of mine a few years ago! of course!!"

Didn't get too many photos but there were some great dealers there and I was pleasantly surprised by the comic component of the show.

I have nothing bad to say about NYCC, but simply based on the enormity of that event and some of the hopes you mentioned in your post, might I humbly suggest checking out the Big Apple Comic Con taking place in NY in December I believe. I don't think John Carpenter will be there but it's going to be more accessible AND there's a very good amount of dealers.

I can't find a list of retailers on the site but I'm happy to hear this from ya, only going 1 day so will make the best of it

Thanks @RCheli I'm looking forward to hitting you up.

I don't think you'll be disappointed by Baltimore. It's very much a strong, comics-centric show with an old show feel and so many great dealers. I go every year just to buy Golden, Silver and Bronze and great dealers. Very nice show.

sorry, 60% off of $65.00 for Iceman #2 is not worth the trouble of entering codes.

What makes you think I forgot? ;) Doesn't mean I didn't want to add my two cents!

Not that they need my input, but I think the Fantastic Four would work best if: - it's set in the 1960s'. It would allow them to establish the FF as having status without contradicting the current timeline in the MCU, along with adding to the storytelling and origin motivations. Post-credit scene shows them ending up in the present. Done. - Take the 'Spider-Man: Homecoming' approach and just start with the team established. No origin story. Have them be well known entities, the origin can be alluded to and briefly retold in passing, like on a television presentation or something.

I was intrigued to see a reboot of the Golden Age Biro Crimebuster character, though I know he's in the public domain. I'm curious to see I Am Stan, but mostly I'll get what I'm allowed to get and donate it to Comics 4 Kids.

So, I think a crucial step towards planning the best convention experience might sound like the obvious one but is oft overlooked (especially by experienced attendees): look at the convention website. - The convention website will most likely have a Floor Plan you can study. This gives you a rudiment idea of where things are, including ATM, rest rooms, etc. - On the website, check out the Dealers/Exhibitors list- sometimes (not always), they'll have links to their respective sites, so you'll get a feel for which dealers specialize in what, etc. - You can also check out the Artist's Alley list and get a feel for any prospective creators you want to check out to get a print, etc. Next, look at the Convention you're attending- if it's not the first installment of said Con, it's highly probably that there's YouTube Footage of past installments that you can watch to get a feel and a visual impression of the set up, the layout of the convention center itself, etc. - Sadly, a majority of these are shaky phone videos where the person making the video isn't taking into consideration of the potential audience and how THEY are seeing it, but there are often good videos that give you some kind of idea of what you're walking into.

I'm... horrified to know this is even a thing that exists. How can they stomach it?? I'd think of all the bacteria, and- uh, are they doing this at work or in public restrooms? There's a body horror screenplay waiting to be written that takes place in a public restroom where a guy has a full plate of rice or something.