lordbyroncomics

He was using a saying (but I know you know this), and this usual tactic of yours of maneuvering things in an argument this way is a tiresome approach- no one is saying he was "cash poor". YOU said he was a millionaire with a million dollar house. Being not-a-millionaire does not constitute poverty whatsoever. But shadroch! I know you know that. You're just pivoting, as we say in Boxing. Why don't you go to Bleedingcool or somewhere else where you can accuse Kirby in a more public, mainstream forum and we can genuinely get more eyes on this and maybe it'll lead to either exposing Kirby and his crooked wife and lead to reimbursement for the defrauded, or the people involved will shed light that exonerates Kirby and we can let it all rest? It's evident YOUR mind is made up, so why don't you report this?

Thank you in return for yours. It doesn't need to be conjecture; Jack was not rolling in the dough. Part of his motivation at getting his original art back from Marvel- the amount that hadn't been stolen and funneled out to Len and Marv to sell- was so that he had the security of being able to sell it so his widow and Grandchildren might have some extra money. I wasn't there but other people were who have written at length about this, documented it, and I've interacted with these people. I've had lunches with them, I've been consulted by them, these are subjects that are researchable. Any house is going to accrue in value by 1994 if you bought it in 1971. But it's the same thing as having a 9.8 Incredible Hulk #181- it may be worth something, but if you can't sell it, how are you rolling in profit? What Shadroch said (and then, a few posts later, discounted by admitting that he wasn't even sure/positive about it) was irresponsible and had a touch of snideness to it. Kirby had to leave comics to take a job at Ruby Spears because he needed medical benefits and a pension. Marvel wouldn't do it. Yeah, he was rolling in it. When John Byrne drew the big anniversary cover of the FF, Jim Shooter ordered Kirby whited out so that only Stan was standing there. Not Stan's fault at all before the Lee defenders start whining, but it's testimony of how he was treated. A millionaire. It's not just laughable, it destroys the credibility of the person who said it. James Romberger put out an acclaimed comic of Kirby's war experience a year or so ago and he's a close personal friend of mine. Rand Hoope is the director of the Jack Kirby Museum and the three of us went out to eat in NYC a few years ago and talked about these subjects; Evanier and Royer have also spoken at panels, in print, and in person about how Jack was trying to establish a security net for his family at the end of his life. Hence, licensing some creations to Topps comics. I also knew and Lindy Ayers and they were incredible people to me. I'd get birthday cards, I couldn't believe it. Mr. Ayers played one of my band's CDs just because he was impressed it had saxaphone on it. He talked at length about the challenges he went through not getting work and how Stan Lee had told DC he had a mental breakdown after Ayers demanded he be given reprint money as they reprinted his work on a regular basis. It took Neal Adams to put his foot down at DC to get Ayers regular work again. Ayers ain't gonna lie. I actually asked him more about that encounter as I was fascinated at him and Kirby hanging out at Kirby's house- again: he reiterated that they lounged by his pool; Kirby told him that when he came out again in a few months he was welcome to bring some of his Grandchildren; and THEN (though I didn't realize the significance of this aside then when he told me in 2004 of whenever it was); he and Kirby signed a "stack" of prints to promote the recreations they were planning to do. Was Ayers an accomplice in this one guy's hearsay accusation? I doubt it. Jack Kirby wasn't perfect as no man was. But he also refused to complain about inkers whose work he considered substandard because, as he explained it to Evanier, who was his assistant and who asked this, "I don't want to take work away from a man whose got a family to support". Jack Kirby was a literally a war hero who spoke in interviews about fairness and not screwing someone over to get ahead. I mean that, you can look them up. So I just find it questionable that Jack just sat back and had his wife forge his signature. Any of that stems from the fact that it was revealed that Roz helped ink backgrounds- shading in blacks- a handful of times in the 50s'. It is utter nonsense and I will say it to anyone's face any time, because quite frankly, there's a trollish agenda here and I doubt they'd have such conviction about it in person. Kirby could still write- albeit slowly- but his drawing had declined. (See his last Action Weekly covers from the late 80s) And Troy, I hope nothing inside of you ever dies and then you change your name to Lew Order. Okay, that was corny but I couldn't resist

"Roy Thomas was ghost writing The Spidey Strip for years that had Stan's name on it. this is well documented." - especially all the times we already documented it in this very thread "Roz signed for Jack, also well known. Royer and Theakston heavily finished art jack might have laid out, or they light-boxed it. Also well known." - define 'well known'- Royer disputes light boxing, etc. It's well known by whom? I know it's well disputed and it's well rejected. "Art collectors have known this stuff for over 30 years." - which generation of art collectors? I ask because the art collectors going back to the 70s' and such were buying stolen art so, you know, I'm less inclined to respect their views As for "mock outrage" this is again putting words in people's mouths. I guess Shadroch could be argued to have been outraged but I don't want to speak for Shadroch either

Again, this is an accusation. Evanier spoke about Kirby signing things with a shaky hand, sometimes having his hand guided, but it was always his hand on the pencil (or pen)- he stated this years ago before this topic came up, so what is his incentive to make that up as he was referring to signed comics for QVC? But I will answer your question: it would be both illegal in some capacity (false advertising) as well as misleading for the same reasons. We can assume QVC and Dynamic Forces were unaware, if the accusation against Kirby is correct. But this then implies Jack was so hard up for money he would willingly submit to a scheme (which would then invalidate shadroch's dismissive and contempt-dripping remarks about Jack being a multi millionaire), wouldn't it? Ayers stated that he went out to Jack's place in California a few months before Jack died and he lamented that they didn't take any photos together. He also said Jack and he signed some stuff that day as they were planning on doing some recreations together before Jack passed. Is Ayers lying?

What "artist friends" were ghosting for Kirby? What did I miss?

Careful, Shadroch and Bird may launch into another dozen posts of bemused "did you REALLY think the same guy wrote all those 'The Three Investigators' books throughout the 60s and 70s?! Ha ha ha haaa" ad nauseum

I thought maybe you'd read what I'd wrote as I was 7 when Englehart's 70s' Avengers came out. No, I wasn't born yet! That being said, I think a guy who is 19 or a guy who is 65 shouldn't be arguing in a snarky tone about comic stuff on messageboards. We can all respectfully disagree without being jerks and/or putting words in each other's mouth. (P.S.- I did google search middle age and the result I got was 45-65! google can be wrong, just don't tell Kav)

It's called "The Best of the Worst". Stan also did some fumenti humor magazines and golf humor stuff, all in attempts to find a publishing fad.

I really wish we could all have this conversation in person after a convention or something because I think it'd be interesting and we'd have a better chance of either finding *some* common ground or agreeing to disagree without a lot of unnecessary nonsense!

I'm older than what? Yeah I will always go off about guys of any adult age trying to be instigative and argumentative for the sake of arguing about comic books rather than just, you know, discuss it like actual adults without being such a way. But I'm older than what?? Isn't middle age 45-65? (I may be wrong) I'm not quite there yet Cat, but I'll expect a birthday card from you when I am.

"You seem to be justifying Jacks actions by pointing out the terrible crimes done ,not by Stan, but to Stan." I am doing no such thing whatsoever. You are essentially trying to manipulate it as so for reasons which escape me. I hope I have that much energy when I'm your age to try some maneuvers like that. For one thing, "Jack's actions" are an accusation on your part, which also mean your verdict on him is unwarranted. "Most writers work for royalties and I would think Jon Doe probably made out far better ghost writing for a Stan Lee novelty book than publishing under their own." I don't know how to simplify this or put it into layman's terms for you, but this aspect of this discussion is irrelevant to me. I am not arguing the merits or benefits of ghost-writing, perhaps Prince Namor was but I don't want to speak for him. I completely understand the beneficial aspects of being a ghost-writer for a "name", absolutely. "Stan was abused and misused by many people at the end" I believe he still is, by Gil Champion and POW!, etc. However, I don't see how this is relevant as I didn't mention it. Stan being abused after the things I'm citing somehow makes the things he did before them invalid....? What..??

yeah; my feeling is if you grew up with that era you are sentimental for that era, same as I am sentimental for, for example, Al Milgrom's Hulk run or something like that. Other people of different ages will be like, what? but I was 7 and remember where I was and where I got those specific issues. I think Englehart is kinda bland and, again, those issues with Mockingbird and then Sharon (can't remember her full name- she was another Ms. Marvel who became the She-Thing) just creep me out somewhat

There were a few of them actually, all that sort of thing and that's fine except Stan did press for them and I was at two of those events (I worked for Reed Exhibitions at the time so dealt with POW! Entertainment on a handful events) and Stan took 100% credit and told the audience that these books were "the next best thing" to having him sitting beside them at the typewriter or something like that. I shudder to think of the stain on Stan's credibility that shadroch is gonna feel now!

I think his comics writing is a flop too; too many sexual assault scenes in his work (Mockingbird, Sharon from the FF) that I found troublesome with how he dealt with it.

I'm glad this is directed at my esteemed colleague because I again reiterate for the record that I am well versed in ghost authors and artists, especially in the history of pulps and comics and never once have I said it's illegal or anything else. My specific point was that when a book comes out (as it did a decade ago) which claims to be Stan Lee's tips on storytelling, an instructional book, it's misleading and unethical for it to be written by Danny Fingeroth (when in actuality it was). So it's not a broad argument on "GHOST ARTISTS HAVE BEEN AROUND FOREVER, *SLOBBER*" which is what you guys playing devil's advocate what to keep turning it back to- at least, this isn't what I'm saying. Let ghost artists and writers keep getting gigs- I'm all for it. But to specifically be cited as "the modern Shakespeare" (!!) and as some brilliant fountain of endless ideas and creativity and then have so much of your credited work be ghost written- I'm using this to bolster other points, not discussing the usage of ghosts as an argument against them. I'm saying: this guy didn't even write introductions. He was canny and wanted to be a personality. He's much more "fake" than Jack Kirby and that's not me choosing one over the other- Stan is Stan and Stan is very likeable and entertaining. But it's very different to suggest that having ghost writer for a series of Nancy Drew books is no different than Stan allowing books like "Stan Lee's Guide to Storytelling" or whatever boasting that Stan himself is sharing writing secrets with the prospective reader (and apparently budding comics professional hopeful) when not a word of it was written by him. Use all the ghosts you want; but to write an introduction... that's laughable. People might not have paid as much as they did for Kirby's autographed comic on Home Shopping Network or whatever it was but they paid for those books thinking Stan wrote them. And he did press claiming he did. Does your disgust for the apparent millionaire Kirby extend to this behavior as well? I figure not.

Ger Aperdorn did a comprehensive essay about Stan's attempts to break out of comics and each time how it ended in failure. Much of that is not Stan's fault and more the publishing industry of the late fifties/early sixties but it's evident that Stan was dependent on Martin Goodman for stability and to maintain the way of life he was accustomed to. The "fellow publisher bragging about his hot new property" isn't guaranteed since there's documentation that Martin Goodman playing golf with National's publisher is a myth or urban legend so this might not have happened. Stan Goldberg jumped to Archie even when Marvel was doing well so I don't see why he wouldn't have in your what if scenario here. And Wally Wood's opinion on Stan taking the writer's pay from the artist after the artist essentially wrote the story is well documented so we can imagine Wood's response to this hypothetical reaching out. When Wally Wood demanded credit for writing Stan passive-aggressively knocked him in the letters pages and insulted him; similar to how he treated Ditko except, in Ditko's case, when he demanded plotting credit Stan literally stopped talking to him. Why? Because Stan could no longer also collect the writer's pay so Ditko had hurt his finances. We don't need to speculate though because the actual history is so misrepresented by people with agendas.

Thank you Sir and I am not trying to have the stronger argument per se (and I respect your awareness of considering you may be wrong, which is also my guiding principle in my overall philosophy), I'm just- the things said don't add up to the years and years of involvement and experience and research I've had in said subjects, so of course I'm going to respond. But like I said a few posts back, however it comes off I don't take this personally, we're all just comic guys talking about comics and my issues are that it's new fans to the medium that are misled and *that* is dangerous.

I swear I've seen a male figure skater do that same exact stance during a performance don't ask me why I was watching figure skating

You don't have to say I'm right, especially if you don't think I am. I retract the deadpool comment! I hate that character too, so we agree on something!

There are no tragedies here in the slightest. Grown men talking about comics publishing is what it is. If you can dish it out, you can take it and I can take it. We're just going over s**t about comic books at our age. I'm happy to have these discussions in person too and it's a luxury to talk about these things; life could always be worse. I still stand by what I say, but I have no pretentious illusions this is heavy, serious sh*t when people on a message board get tense with each other. I ain't tense. I might disagree and I may be baffled at the willingness of people to engage in subjects they seemingly don't know much about, but it's not the end of the world, I am happy to discuss stuff about comics just like the rest of you.

I won't do that; I'd hate to get beat up by a guy with Deadpool statues in his living room! In all seriousness, I'd never ask you that. For one thing it has nothing to do with what we're talking about and I've only said things in regards to specific statements about this specific subject!

That's more tragic then that you know about that but don't know about comics history on a... you know, comics board.

I asked you before to stop bringing up my sister

I sincerely apologize for doing that. I guess the number of times you've written "I don't know much about that" or declared you were unaware of other things in comics history in past threads gave me the wrong impression I suppose. Well that and all the wrong stuff you say about said documented history. And all the misspelling of names, etc. I guess I got the wrong idea, carry on!

Kav has anyone told you about the Dunning-Kruger effect yet