Bigger SA Key: Flash 105 or Justice League of America 1?

[ttfitz]

 

If I heard any compelling evidence, I might change my mind. As for hearsay, sure. But most of the history of anything we have is hearsay in one way or another. Except for the "playing golf with X" part, I haven't come across anyone who seems to take exception to Stan's statement about what Goodman told him, and many who believe it to be true. Mark Evanier - someone who I DO know and trust, particularly in something like this which involves Jack Kirby in some way, said in his testimony in the Kirby lawsuit:

 

Q: Go back. Do you agree with Mr. Lees statements that the Fantastic Four, at least in part, came about as a result of discussions that Mr. Lee had with Mr. Goodman in connection with the idea of coming up with a group of superheroes?

 

MARK EVANIER: My understanding is that Mr. Goodman said to Mr. Lee, I see DC Comics has some very decent sales on what is called the Justice League of America. We should try a comic like that.

 

Mr. Lee, in many interviews, said as I related, that Mr. Goodman had played golf with Jack Leibowitz, who was the head of DC Comics at the time, and that Leibowitz had bragged about the sales of Justice League, and that that prompted Mr. Goodman to come back from the golf game and say, We should we should create a comic like that.

 

Mr. Lee has told this story on many occasions. Mr. Leibowitz, when he was interviewed, said he never played golf with Goodman in his entire life. So based on that, I tend to disbelieve at least that part of Mr. Lees story.

 

Q: So you think Lee is just lying about it?

 

MARK EVANIER: No, I think he just is being casual about the record.

 

I am a bit surprised that you can say you find no problems with Stan's statement, and then present this Evanier quote to what, support it? If Evanier wouldn't be a historian with a knowledge of these events, who would qualify? If he doesn't believe this version of events, one that we already know doesn't really fit at all well with the timeline or sales data, how solid is this quote to base a case upon?

 

Evanier relates what "his understanding" of the events were, which is Goodman's statement to Lee. Because of the direct testimony of Leibowitz in regards to the playing golf story, he says "I tend to disbelieve at least that part of the story." He makes no such statement about whether Goodman made such a statement (about the Justice League) to Lee, and goes as far to say he doesn't think Lee is lying. Given Evanier's closeness to Jack Kirby, I would assume if he had a problem with the entire statement, he would have said so in Kirby's case.

 

It's an assumption that cannot be made. Just because he tends to disbelieve part of the story, it doesn't mean he's endorsing the Goodman/Lee comment. He could simply not know, and decline to comment on its veracity either way. Assuming he is endorsing the statement by silence is an error.

 

 

It would be odd for him to include the disclaimer "at least that part of the story" if he felt the whole thing was wrong, but maybe that's just me. And I don't assume he in endorsing the statement, just that he had no good reason to disbelieve it.

[MusterMark]

Sorry to interrupt,

but, er, so, ... :

 

Which one is the Bigger SA Key: Flash 105 or Justice League of America 1?

[ttfitz]

 

Good for you, son of Patrick. I'm glad you feel comfortable sharing that information so openly on the world wide web, accessible to anyone and everyone.

 

However...your willingness to share such information does not therefore mitigate your presumption.

 

What would I have to hide?

 

I don't know. What would you? Are you aware that information posted on the internet publicly is accessible by anyone with an internet connection?

 

Don't you think it prudent to be cautious about what information you post there?

 

I do.

 

Sure, but revealing who "ttfitz" is on a message board? Way down the list - if it is even ON the list - of things to worry about online.

 

And no presumption involved, you could be the foremost accepted comic book scholar and historian on the planet. But with nothing else to go on, you are just some guy who calls himself RockMyAmadeus who posts things on a comic book discussion forum.

 

You either truly don't understand the problem, or you are being purposely obtuse. Which is it? The issue isn't "with nothing else to go on, how can you know?" That's the point: YOU DON'T KNOW, and yet you still dismissed the entire board anyways, myself included. That is presumption.

 

You don't get that, right? Everything else is just the dance for the sake of the dance.

 

As you well know, I didn't "dismiss the entire board", I spoke of you. And I said given the choice of taking your statements - a person I know nothing about - or the statements of Michael Uslan, I chose to go with Uslan.

 

[ttfitz]

And, as I said, it's good that you owned up to your mistake, rather than entrenching and trying to backpedal.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

As can be seen from the above, I said there was 6 months between them, you corrected me that it was 7 - " The devil's in the details" - and I provided information that it was 6, including the mistake from the cover that you apparently were using as your source. You might want to refer back to your previous statement about preserving credibility.

 

Yes, indeed, the devil's in the details. In this case, we were both wrong. It was neither 6 months, nor 7, but somewhere in between. You were wrong. I was wrong. But, in referring to the cover date, I am correct. Referring to the indicia, you are correct. Referring to the information at USCO, we are both wrong. Referring to a date stamp, the USCO is wrong. Nobody's right, and everyone's wrong.

 

Have we satisfyingly gotten down to the very nub of it? Since if offends you so greatly, my apologies that I used the cover dates to arrive at the 7 month figure. I'm sure that's a terrible crime, and utterly unforgiveable, that I would use cover dates...something that is recognized industry wide, and which CGC itself puts on their labels...as the source of my claim.

 

Is it....really...that important to make such a great issue of this non-trivial matter, when the real issue is your snide comment that "no one could possibly know sales data so soon!" was unnecessary, inaccurate, and mischaracterized what has been said?

 

That's the real issue, which you utterly refuse to acknowledge, at any point, choosing to focus on the "well, was it 6 months, or 7 months, or 14 months, or 57 years, or etc etc."

 

You are the one who began this quest, stating that I was wrong about the timeframe,

 

You were. Clearly. As you so paintstakingly pointed out, it wasn't 6 months, unless you go solely by indicias. If you go by cover dates, it's 7 months, if you go by USCO information, it's 6 months and about a week, and if you go by earliest date stamps, it's 6.5 months.

 

So, you were wrong about the time frame, in one sense, and right in another. I was wrong about the time frame, in one sense, and right in another.

 

Do you really want to do this dance forever...?

 

I just refuted that. And your reluctance to admit you got things wrong does not offend me,

 

I have stated that I was wrong, according to the indicias and USCO multiple times. Do you keep missing that on purpose? I was right, however, according to the cover dates. You were wrong according to the cover dates and the USCO, and right according to the indicias.

 

Do you really want to do this dance forever...? Are you really that bothered by the whole thing that you have to be absolutely 100% right, and me absolutely 100% wrong?

 

Get over it. We were both wrong, and we were both right.

 

nor do I find it important, I just find it amusing. Just as I find amusing your notion that being off by a few days makes my statement "wrong."

 

I find amusing your notion that "cover dates don't count", too.

 

I particularly liked the date-stamp pic to give you a few extra days towards your viewpoint. Pictures are fun!

 

Yes, because, as everyone knows, 6 months and 11 days is precisely 6 months... .right?

 

Apparently, in the early 60s, not every newsstand received their books on the exact same date.

 

True, but you do not account for the fact that some newsstands received books, but didn't put them out for immediate sale for one reason or another. Later dates doesn't change the fact that the book was clearly published earlier than the USCO date suggests.

 

[ And I would imagine that the Copyright Office probably wasn't interested in a range of dates, but that's just conjecture.

 

No, the Copyright Office goes with what is reported. That isn't the point, and neither is the fact that newsstands got books at different times. The point is simply that there was more than 6 months between publication of AF #15 and ASM #1. Less than 7. So, we were both wrong.

 

I used cover dates, which is a long accepted practice in this industry. In that respect, I am not wrong. If you want to Say "cover dates are invalid", you have that right....but I will simply respond thats"so are indicia dates, and so is the USCO dates."

 

Are we done with this yet? All of this verbal sparring because you were offended that I corrected you, and, in one sense (cover dates) did so accurately.

 

Amazing!

Especially in light of the far more inaccurate comment you made that "Batman and Superman don't even appear in Justice League until #6!" which you then tried to play off as a "typo"...?

 

 

In the interest of accuracy in quotations - which I know you hold dear - I made no use of exclamation marks in my statement.

 

 

That's funny. Others completely rewrite, changing the entire meaning of, Goodman's supposed quote, but you get after me for an exclamation point.

 

 

Also, my original error was indeed a typo, putting "6" when I meant "5". And I have acknowledged without hedging of any kind that the corrected statement was inaccurate, after going back to my source when challenged, and discovering my error.

 

It was still quite incorrect, Supes and Bats having appeared, as reported, since B&B #28.

 

Will you EVER acknowledge that FUNDAMENTAL point, around which you have artfully danced for several posts now...?

 

 

I haven't danced around anything, I have ignored it as I felt my position was clear. But since you won't let go of this bone, here you are:

 

"I haven't danced around anything, I have ignored it."

 

Right, you've ignored the real issue, which is your snide comment, because you don't have an answer for it. Unlike your willingness to admit an obvious mistake, you're completely unwilling to say "ok, you're right, that's not what you said, and I was just being snarky because I'm annoyed."

 

That's really what it comes down to.

 

The example of the timing of the release of Amazing Fantasy #15 and Amazing Spider-Man #1 shows that indications of how well a title has been received could be known in a matter of months.

 

That is correct, which is what I have said throughout this thread.

 

The only question, therefore, is whether someone like Goodman could have known that information in such a period (well, longer than that, by your timeline, but let's go with it). You maintain that he couldn't, I disagree.

 

Let's look at the timeline again:

 

August 1960: Justice League of America #1 is published, after a 3 issue tryout in B&B. The interval between tryout and new title was now only 4 months, but I suspect Schwartz wasn't taking that big a risk with JLA and knew it.

 

Oct 1960: JLA #2 is published.

 

Dec 1960: JLA #3 is published

 

Feb 1961: JLA #4 is published.

 

April 1961: JLA #5 is published.

 

April-May: DC gets finalized sales results for JLA #3.

 

June 1961: JLA #6 is published.

 

June-July: DC gets finalized sales results for JL #4.

 

June-July 1961: Stan and Jack create FF #1.

 

What would Goodman, if he had access to the information at precisely the same time as DC circulation?

 

Nov 1960, JLA #1 is taken off sale, and the returns process is begun.

 

Jan, 1961 - JLA #1 sales results finalized, JLA #2 goes off sale, and the returns process begun.

 

Mar, 1961 - JLA #2 sales results finalized, JLA #3 goes off sale, and the returns process begun.

 

May 1961 - JLA #3 sales results finalized, JLA #4 goes off sale, and the returns process begun.

 

June-July 1961 - Stan and Jack create FF #1.

 

July 1961, JLA #4 sales results finalized.

 

August 8, 1961 (approx.): FF #1 hits the newsstands.

 

So...where in all of that would Goodman have had a chance to find out...even if he had been inside DC's circulation office....that JLA was "selling better than most"..?

 

And, since we know Goodman wasn't sitting inside DC's circulation office, but would have potentially heard it from someone at IND., how, between Jan and July of 1961, with 3 issues sold, would anyone

 

Who makes decisions about how well a title is doing, in 1961, based on three issues, unless they are horrifyingly awful? We know they weren't exceptionally phenomenal OR exceptionally awful.

 

Where does the comment fit? May? June? April?

[BarryAllen]

YMMV, but if you find the Lee story more plausible then to me that demonstrates a willingness to disregard the evidence from the timeline and sales figures (which are researched facts, not opinions) to put all your stock in a single statement from Lee that has been called into question by sworn testimony from a well-known historian of comics.

 

Sales figures can be facts, so let's assume every bit of data provided is accurate (no reason to believe they're not).

 

However, any good business person knows that the data itself proves nothing, it is the interpretation and presentation of the data that tells the story.

 

All that has happened so far has been static presentation of data. What happens if you look at the trends of data over a linear time period? What percentage of sales did JLA 1 make-up of total sales at the time? What does the growth curve tell us with issues 2, 3, 4, etc.? How about if you compare that to Challengers? Did JLA take-off faster or slower than Challengers? Did JLA become a much faster and larger piece of the pie or did it come on slower? What about JLA's growth curve relative to all other titles at the time? These are all questions (and many many many more) you would have to examine in detail to have a full picture of what they "could" have seen at the time. Of course we will never know what they actually looked at, so the exercise itself would be futile as every view of the data would start with an assumption.

 

Ignoring the quote itself, the going provided argument is that the "Marvel group" were looking at data a certain way and because of the way the data is presented: JLA couldn't have influenced FF. However, the way the data is being presented is an assumption in of itself. There is no way to know how the data was being viewed or if they were even looking at data at all. For all we know they could have been working from hearsay on the success of the book and a few newsstands they walked by themselves. There is no way to really know.

 

:shrug:

 

I get that RMA and you tell a compelling story, the point is that it is one interpretation among thousands of others if anyone else had the time to dedicate to creation of a story. However, it is still just a story. Maybe it is the right one, but I personally don't think it is.

 

 

So yes, I and a few select others in this thread are putting confidence in a quote versus the crafted history (yes, built on some solid data points, but interpretation of the data nonetheless) being presented as an alternative. We are questioning it because of the assumptions that have to be made when literally hundreds of others could be made to tell a slightly or completely different story.

 

 

This is silly. We will never know and frankly I don't really care. What gets me is the arrogance of some of the people who craft these tales and then push them as the only plausible answer when realistically they are no more than a well crafted folktale.

[mysterio]

 

If I heard any compelling evidence, I might change my mind. As for hearsay, sure. But most of the history of anything we have is hearsay in one way or another. Except for the "playing golf with X" part, I haven't come across anyone who seems to take exception to Stan's statement about what Goodman told him, and many who believe it to be true. Mark Evanier - someone who I DO know and trust, particularly in something like this which involves Jack Kirby in some way, said in his testimony in the Kirby lawsuit:

 

Q: Go back. Do you agree with Mr. Lees statements that the Fantastic Four, at least in part, came about as a result of discussions that Mr. Lee had with Mr. Goodman in connection with the idea of coming up with a group of superheroes?

 

MARK EVANIER: My understanding is that Mr. Goodman said to Mr. Lee, I see DC Comics has some very decent sales on what is called the Justice League of America. We should try a comic like that.

 

Mr. Lee, in many interviews, said as I related, that Mr. Goodman had played golf with Jack Leibowitz, who was the head of DC Comics at the time, and that Leibowitz had bragged about the sales of Justice League, and that that prompted Mr. Goodman to come back from the golf game and say, We should we should create a comic like that.

 

Mr. Lee has told this story on many occasions. Mr. Leibowitz, when he was interviewed, said he never played golf with Goodman in his entire life. So based on that, I tend to disbelieve at least that part of Mr. Lees story.

 

Q: So you think Lee is just lying about it?

 

MARK EVANIER: No, I think he just is being casual about the record.

 

I am a bit surprised that you can say you find no problems with Stan's statement, and then present this Evanier quote to what, support it? If Evanier wouldn't be a historian with a knowledge of these events, who would qualify? If he doesn't believe this version of events, one that we already know doesn't really fit at all well with the timeline or sales data, how solid is this quote to base a case upon?

 

Evanier relates what "his understanding" of the events were, which is Goodman's statement to Lee. Because of the direct testimony of Leibowitz in regards to the playing golf story, he says "I tend to disbelieve at least that part of the story." He makes no such statement about whether Goodman made such a statement (about the Justice League) to Lee, and goes as far to say he doesn't think Lee is lying. Given Evanier's closeness to Jack Kirby, I would assume if he had a problem with the entire statement, he would have said so in Kirby's case.

 

It's an assumption that cannot be made. Just because he tends to disbelieve part of the story, it doesn't mean he's endorsing the Goodman/Lee comment. He could simply not know, and decline to comment on its veracity either way. Assuming he is endorsing the statement by silence is an error.

 

 

It would be odd for him to include the disclaimer "at least that part of the story" if he felt the whole thing was wrong, but maybe that's just me. And I don't assume he in endorsing the statement, just that he had no good reason to disbelieve it.

 

To me, it seems like if I said I wanted to have one cookie, I would have one. If I said I would have "at least" one cookie, that could mean that I could have one, or I could have more than one. I'm leaving my options open. In other words, if Evanier thought that "at least that part of Mr. Lee's story" was not plausible, it leaves the door open to doubting other parts of the story as well without openly throwing Lee under the bus. After reading that passage of testimony I'm not inclined to think that Evanier would bet his house on the rest of the story being accurate.

[mysterio]

YMMV, but if you find the Lee story more plausible then to me that demonstrates a willingness to disregard the evidence from the timeline and sales figures (which are researched facts, not opinions) to put all your stock in a single statement from Lee that has been called into question by sworn testimony from a well-known historian of comics.

 

Sales figures can be facts, so let's assume every bit of data provided is accurate (no reason to believe they're not).

 

However, any good business person knows that the data itself proves nothing, it is the interpretation and presentation of the data that tells the story.

 

All that has happened so far has been static presentation of data. What happens if you look at the trends of data over a linear time period? What percentage of sales did JLA 1 make-up of total sales at the time? What does the growth curve tell us with issues 2, 3, 4, etc.? How about if you compare that to Challengers? Did JLA take-off faster or slower than Challengers? Did JLA become a much faster and larger piece of the pie or did it come on slower? What about JLA's growth curve relative to all other titles at the time? These are all questions (and many many many more) you would have to examine in detail to have a full picture of what they "could" have seen at the time. Of course we will never know what they actually looked at, so the exercise itself would be futile as every view of the data would start with an assumption.

 

Ignoring the quote itself, the going provided argument is that the "Marvel group" were looking at data a certain way and because of the way the data is presented: JLA couldn't have influenced FF. However, the way the data is being presented is an assumption in of itself. There is no way to know how the data was being viewed or if they were even looking at data at all. For all we know they could have been working from hearsay on the success of the book and a few newsstands they walked by themselves. There is no way to really know.

 

:shrug:

 

I get that RMA and you tell a compelling story, the point is that it is one interpretation among thousands of others if anyone else had the time to dedicate to creation of a story. However, it is still just a story. Maybe it is the right one, but I personally don't think it is.

 

 

So yes, I and a few select others in this thread are putting confidence in a quote versus the crafted history (yes, built on some solid data points, but interpretation of the data nonetheless) being presented as an alternative. We are questioning it because of the assumptions that have to be made when literally hundreds of others could be made to tell a slightly or completely different story.

 

 

This is silly. We will never know and frankly I don't really care. What gets me is the arrogance of some of the people who craft these tales and then push them as the only plausible answer when realistically they are no more than a well crafted folktale.

 

Fair enough, but there is a difference between "only plausible" and "most plausible" here. I think that this version of events is the most plausible and most supportable version based on the information that has been collated and presented here. This doesn't make it the only one, but it is the version that takes the shortest leap of faith to accept as most likely to be accurate.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Good for you, son of Patrick. I'm glad you feel comfortable sharing that information so openly on the world wide web, accessible to anyone and everyone.

 

However...your willingness to share such information does not therefore mitigate your presumption.

 

What would I have to hide?

 

I don't know. What would you? Are you aware that information posted on the internet publicly is accessible by anyone with an internet connection?

 

Don't you think it prudent to be cautious about what information you post there?

 

I do.

 

Sure, but revealing who "ttfitz" is on a message board? Way down the list - if it is even ON the list - of things to worry about online.

 

You have more faith in mankind than you should. If you say things that anger other people, having personal information about you makes it that much easier for the unstable among us to potentially cause problems for you.

 

If you say things that people don't agree with, it could also affect your employment, ability to get insurance, admission to college....all sorts of ramifications that you don't see or think about.

 

Welcome to the 21st Century.

 

And no presumption involved, you could be the foremost accepted comic book scholar and historian on the planet. But with nothing else to go on, you are just some guy who calls himself RockMyAmadeus who posts things on a comic book discussion forum.

 

You either truly don't understand the problem, or you are being purposely obtuse. Which is it? The issue isn't "with nothing else to go on, how can you know?" That's the point: YOU DON'T KNOW, and yet you still dismissed the entire board anyways, myself included. That is presumption.

 

You don't get that, right? Everything else is just the dance for the sake of the dance.

 

As you well know, I didn't "dismiss the entire board", I spoke of you.

 

As I well know...? You presume. You did, in fact, dismiss the entire board. You said, and I quote:

 

"I would take such a bit of research by a historian who looked into the question over the suppositions made by someone on a comic collecting forum, sure."

 

I'm sure most intelligent folks will understand that the "someone" is referring to me...but do you just not understand that, in the process of qualifying that "someone", you took a backhanded swipe at "comic collecting forums"?

 

Otherwise, you would have simply said "someone I don't know" or other such language. That you included "on a comic collecting forum", as if being on a comic collecting forum necessarily excludes "real historians" or other such qualified people, is where the insult lies. What does being "on a comic collecting forum" have to do with anything, if it wasn't intended to slight comic collecting forums? It was a backhanded insult.

 

You said it. You know you said it. And now you're trying to backpedal away from it, because you know what it meant.

 

And I said given the choice of taking your statements - a person I know nothing about - or the statements of Michael Uslan, I chose to go with Uslan.

 

Yes, and now you change your qualification to "a person I know nothing about", because you recognize that "on a comic collecting forum" was an insult to the entire forum.

[BarryAllen]

YMMV, but if you find the Lee story more plausible then to me that demonstrates a willingness to disregard the evidence from the timeline and sales figures (which are researched facts, not opinions) to put all your stock in a single statement from Lee that has been called into question by sworn testimony from a well-known historian of comics.

 

Sales figures can be facts, so let's assume every bit of data provided is accurate (no reason to believe they're not).

 

However, any good business person knows that the data itself proves nothing, it is the interpretation and presentation of the data that tells the story.

 

All that has happened so far has been static presentation of data. What happens if you look at the trends of data over a linear time period? What percentage of sales did JLA 1 make-up of total sales at the time? What does the growth curve tell us with issues 2, 3, 4, etc.? How about if you compare that to Challengers? Did JLA take-off faster or slower than Challengers? Did JLA become a much faster and larger piece of the pie or did it come on slower? What about JLA's growth curve relative to all other titles at the time? These are all questions (and many many many more) you would have to examine in detail to have a full picture of what they "could" have seen at the time. Of course we will never know what they actually looked at, so the exercise itself would be futile as every view of the data would start with an assumption.

 

Ignoring the quote itself, the going provided argument is that the "Marvel group" were looking at data a certain way and because of the way the data is presented: JLA couldn't have influenced FF. However, the way the data is being presented is an assumption in of itself. There is no way to know how the data was being viewed or if they were even looking at data at all. For all we know they could have been working from hearsay on the success of the book and a few newsstands they walked by themselves. There is no way to really know.

 

:shrug:

 

I get that RMA and you tell a compelling story, the point is that it is one interpretation among thousands of others if anyone else had the time to dedicate to creation of a story. However, it is still just a story. Maybe it is the right one, but I personally don't think it is.

 

 

So yes, I and a few select others in this thread are putting confidence in a quote versus the crafted history (yes, built on some solid data points, but interpretation of the data nonetheless) being presented as an alternative. We are questioning it because of the assumptions that have to be made when literally hundreds of others could be made to tell a slightly or completely different story.

 

 

This is silly. We will never know and frankly I don't really care. What gets me is the arrogance of some of the people who craft these tales and then push them as the only plausible answer when realistically they are no more than a well crafted folktale.

 

Fair enough, but there is a difference between "only plausible" and "most plausible" here. I think that this version of events is the most plausible and most supportable version based on the information that has been collated and presented here. This doesn't make it the only one, but it is the version that takes the shortest leap of faith to accept as most likely to be accurate.

 

To be fair your presentation of the argument has not been absolutionist; therefore, in return I really shouldn't be to you either.

 

My only counter-point would be that because it is only one of a small few versions provided it is hard to say what you or "we" would really find most it plausible if presented in the context of other accounts. These accounts are clearly possible to create but I don't have the time and since you accept the one presented it is unlikely another will come from us.

 

Either way (thumbs u

[rjpb]

Sorry to interrupt,

but, er, so, ... :

 

Which one is the Bigger SA Key: Flash 105 or Justice League of America 1?

 

Stop interrupting, we're going around in circles here!

[mysterio]

Sorry to interrupt,

but, er, so, ... :

 

Which one is the Bigger SA Key: Flash 105 or Justice League of America 1?

 

Stop interrupting, we're going around in circles here!

 

Yep, that is what it has turned into.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

So yes, I and a few select others in this thread are putting confidence in a quote versus the crafted history (yes, built on some solid data points, but interpretation of the data nonetheless)

 

You still have not answered what, specifically, you believe is "interpretation" as opposed to data.

 

When are you ever going to do that, instead of just merely saying "you're wrong, I know you're wrong, and that's that!"...?

 

This is silly. We will never know and frankly I don't really care. What gets me is the arrogance of some of the people who craft these tales and then push them as the only plausible answer when realistically they are no more than a well crafted folktale.

 

Arrogance...? You mean, like the people who insist that a comment that Martin Goodman told to Stan Lee, which Stan Lee reported over a decade later, is the foundation for the entire Marvel universe, and anyone who disagrees with you is "calling Stan a liar", "looking for bigfoot", "has no evidence", is "conning people", and other such nonsense, while simultaneously adding not one single shred of evidence to the entire discussion?

 

Not ONE?

 

The irony is STIFLING.

 

I'm going to repeat this, not for your sake, because you cannot be bothered to give a flying mess about anything but your own games, but for those who may be reading this: Those on "this side" of the argument have never, in any way, "pushed" any sort of "only plausible answer" about ANYTHING.

 

THIS side of the argument is only saying what probably did NOT happen, not what DID.

 

You, and those with you, are the only ones who have said "THIS is what happened." The "other side" has said "well, no, that really can't be true, because A, B, and C."

 

That's HARDLY "pushing" a "plausible answer" because...pay attention now: THIS side hasn't ADVANCED any answer.

 

We don't KNOW what Goodman told Lee that led to the creation of FF #1. The only thing we DO know is that the accepted story PROBABLY DIDN'T HAPPEN, and offered compelling evidence for why that isn't so.

 

THAT'S.

 

IT.

 

So no "story", no "only plausible answer", none of it. YOU are the one "pushing" the "only plausible answer" and then, when Mark tells you that we should be challenging things that Stan and others have said, in direct contradiction to your own statements, you say "I agree with this!"

 

Unbelievable. You are UNBELIEVABLE.

 

There aren't enough facepalms to describe you.

 

[BarryAllen]

 

So yes, I and a few select others in this thread are putting confidence in a quote versus the crafted history (yes, built on some solid data points, but interpretation of the data nonetheless)

 

You still have not answered what, specifically, you believe is "interpretation" as opposed to data.

 

When are you ever going to do that, instead of just merely saying "you're wrong, I know you're wrong, and that's that!"...?

 

This is silly. We will never know and frankly I don't really care. What gets me is the arrogance of some of the people who craft these tales and then push them as the only plausible answer when realistically they are no more than a well crafted folktale.

 

Arrogance...? You mean, like the people who insist that a comment that Martin Goodman told to Stan Lee, which Stan Lee reported over a decade later, is the foundation for the entire Marvel universe, and anyone who disagrees with you is "calling Stan a liar", "looking for bigfoot", "has no evidence", is "conning people", and other such nonsense, while simultaneously adding not one single shred of evidence to the entire discussion?

 

Not ONE?

 

The irony is STIFLING.

 

I'm going to repeat this, not for your sake, because you cannot be bothered to give a flying mess about anything but your own games, but for those who may be reading this: Those on "this side" of the argument have never, in any way, "pushed" any sort of "only plausible answer" about ANYTHING.

 

THIS side of the argument is only saying what probably did NOT happen, not what DID.

 

You, and those with you, are the only ones who have said "THIS is what happened." The "other side" has said "well, no, that really can't be true, because A, B, and C."

 

That's HARDLY "pushing" a "plausible answer" because...pay attention now: THIS side hasn't ADVANCED any answer.

 

We don't KNOW what Goodman told Lee that led to the creation of FF #1. The only thing we DO know is that the accepted story PROBABLY DIDN'T HAPPEN, and offered compelling evidence for why that isn't so.

 

THAT'S.

 

IT.

 

So no "story", no "only plausible answer", none of it. YOU are the one "pushing" the "only plausible answer" and then, when Mark tells you that we should be challenging things that Stan and others have said, in direct contradiction to your own statements, you say "I agree with this!"

 

Unbelievable. You are UNBELIEVABLE.

 

There aren't enough facepalms to describe you.

 

Are you actually yelling when you type in caps or only thinking loudly?

 

Either way it must be giving you a headache.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

If I heard any compelling evidence, I might change my mind. As for hearsay, sure. But most of the history of anything we have is hearsay in one way or another. Except for the "playing golf with X" part, I haven't come across anyone who seems to take exception to Stan's statement about what Goodman told him, and many who believe it to be true. Mark Evanier - someone who I DO know and trust, particularly in something like this which involves Jack Kirby in some way, said in his testimony in the Kirby lawsuit:

 

Q: Go back. Do you agree with Mr. Lees statements that the Fantastic Four, at least in part, came about as a result of discussions that Mr. Lee had with Mr. Goodman in connection with the idea of coming up with a group of superheroes?

 

MARK EVANIER: My understanding is that Mr. Goodman said to Mr. Lee, I see DC Comics has some very decent sales on what is called the Justice League of America. We should try a comic like that.

 

Mr. Lee, in many interviews, said as I related, that Mr. Goodman had played golf with Jack Leibowitz, who was the head of DC Comics at the time, and that Leibowitz had bragged about the sales of Justice League, and that that prompted Mr. Goodman to come back from the golf game and say, We should we should create a comic like that.

 

Mr. Lee has told this story on many occasions. Mr. Leibowitz, when he was interviewed, said he never played golf with Goodman in his entire life. So based on that, I tend to disbelieve at least that part of Mr. Lees story.

 

Q: So you think Lee is just lying about it?

 

MARK EVANIER: No, I think he just is being casual about the record.

 

I am a bit surprised that you can say you find no problems with Stan's statement, and then present this Evanier quote to what, support it? If Evanier wouldn't be a historian with a knowledge of these events, who would qualify? If he doesn't believe this version of events, one that we already know doesn't really fit at all well with the timeline or sales data, how solid is this quote to base a case upon?

 

Evanier relates what "his understanding" of the events were, which is Goodman's statement to Lee. Because of the direct testimony of Leibowitz in regards to the playing golf story, he says "I tend to disbelieve at least that part of the story." He makes no such statement about whether Goodman made such a statement (about the Justice League) to Lee, and goes as far to say he doesn't think Lee is lying. Given Evanier's closeness to Jack Kirby, I would assume if he had a problem with the entire statement, he would have said so in Kirby's case.

 

It's an assumption that cannot be made. Just because he tends to disbelieve part of the story, it doesn't mean he's endorsing the Goodman/Lee comment. He could simply not know, and decline to comment on its veracity either way. Assuming he is endorsing the statement by silence is an error.

 

I don't think anyone thinks Lee is lying.

 

But as I said before....eye witness testimony to an event, taken minutes after the event happened, can and does often conflict.

 

Why, then, should any credibility be given to a statement printed 13-14 years after it was claimed to have been made, from a person who is known for not having a completely accurate view of events, when the chain of events that we know doesn't support that statement?

 

 

I agree, I don't think that anyone thinks that Lee is lying. I do think it is quite possible he firmly believes he remembers events a certain way, and that that way could be wrong.

 

It is very difficult to prove something is not true, and the more complex the series of moving parts, the more difficult it becomes. I'm reminded of the old example of claiming that a room is full of 1000 tiny and invisible unicorns. It is very difficult to go about proving that this isn't true. But the burden, in that case, is on those who think that the room does in fact have 1000 tiny and invisible unicorns to demonstrate that their case is true, or at least more likely than unlikely.

 

In this case, in my opinion, the lack of similarities between the JLA and FF, the timeline of the release of those publications (and the delay in retrieving the necessary data on sales in the late 1950s, and if/when those data would have been available to someone who felt like sharing them with the competition), and the unremarkable sales of the JLA book, make it unlikely that the story that Lee relayed, as he remembered it, is likely to be accurate. Add to this Evanier's testimony (under oath) that the events could not have transpired the way Lee said they did, and you have a further hole in that (already thin and anecdotal) chain of events.

 

I find it more plausible that the similarities between the COTU and the FF, coupled with the fact that Lee's collaborator actually worked on the COTU, coupled with the demonstrated sales figures on the COTU solo book (again, the first solo title launched off one of those try-outs in Showcase), and the longer timeline for COTU stories and sales to influence the direction of Marvel, make a stronger case for COTU as being the much more significant influence on the development of the FF.

 

YMMV, but if you find the Lee story more plausible then to me that demonstrates a willingness to disregard the evidence from the timeline and sales figures (which are researched facts, not opinions) to put all your stock in a single statement from Lee that has been called into question by sworn testimony from a well-known historian of comics. And while Evanier did not call Lee a liar, his statement does take Lee's "memory" that much further away from being a piece of solid and eyewitness testimony (which it never was to begin with).

 

Yes.

 

And the problem we've had here is that people don't like to be challenged, and the more effectively they've been challenged, the more personally they've taken it...and the results are as you see here.

 

What should have been a healthy, vigorous intellectual debate is peppered with schoolyard antics.

 

That's a real shame.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Are you actually yelling when you type in caps or only thinking loudly?

 

Either way it must be giving you a headache.

 

It's called "EM-PHA-SIS". and no, no headache here. The headache is trying to reason with the willfully unreasoning.

[RockMyAmadeus]

And, as I said, it's good that you owned up to your mistake, rather than entrenching and trying to backpedal.

 

 

Indeed.

[BarryAllen]

 

Are you actually yelling when you type in caps or only thinking loudly?

 

Either way it must be giving you a headache.

 

It's called "EM-PHA-SIS". and no, no headache here. The headache is trying to reason with the willfully unreasoning.

 

:shrug:

 

Well I think you are arbitrary and capricious.

 

You could have just said "I refuse to listen to or use reason." So complicated even in your short responses.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

If I heard any compelling evidence, I might change my mind. As for hearsay, sure. But most of the history of anything we have is hearsay in one way or another. Except for the "playing golf with X" part, I haven't come across anyone who seems to take exception to Stan's statement about what Goodman told him, and many who believe it to be true. Mark Evanier - someone who I DO know and trust, particularly in something like this which involves Jack Kirby in some way, said in his testimony in the Kirby lawsuit:

 

Q: Go back. Do you agree with Mr. Lees statements that the Fantastic Four, at least in part, came about as a result of discussions that Mr. Lee had with Mr. Goodman in connection with the idea of coming up with a group of superheroes?

 

MARK EVANIER: My understanding is that Mr. Goodman said to Mr. Lee, I see DC Comics has some very decent sales on what is called the Justice League of America. We should try a comic like that.

 

Mr. Lee, in many interviews, said as I related, that Mr. Goodman had played golf with Jack Leibowitz, who was the head of DC Comics at the time, and that Leibowitz had bragged about the sales of Justice League, and that that prompted Mr. Goodman to come back from the golf game and say, We should we should create a comic like that.

 

Mr. Lee has told this story on many occasions. Mr. Leibowitz, when he was interviewed, said he never played golf with Goodman in his entire life. So based on that, I tend to disbelieve at least that part of Mr. Lees story.

 

Q: So you think Lee is just lying about it?

 

MARK EVANIER: No, I think he just is being casual about the record.

 

I am a bit surprised that you can say you find no problems with Stan's statement, and then present this Evanier quote to what, support it? If Evanier wouldn't be a historian with a knowledge of these events, who would qualify? If he doesn't believe this version of events, one that we already know doesn't really fit at all well with the timeline or sales data, how solid is this quote to base a case upon?

 

Evanier relates what "his understanding" of the events were, which is Goodman's statement to Lee. Because of the direct testimony of Leibowitz in regards to the playing golf story, he says "I tend to disbelieve at least that part of the story." He makes no such statement about whether Goodman made such a statement (about the Justice League) to Lee, and goes as far to say he doesn't think Lee is lying. Given Evanier's closeness to Jack Kirby, I would assume if he had a problem with the entire statement, he would have said so in Kirby's case.

 

It's an assumption that cannot be made. Just because he tends to disbelieve part of the story, it doesn't mean he's endorsing the Goodman/Lee comment. He could simply not know, and decline to comment on its veracity either way. Assuming he is endorsing the statement by silence is an error.

 

 

It would be odd for him to include the disclaimer "at least that part of the story" if he felt the whole thing was wrong, but maybe that's just me. And I don't assume he in endorsing the statement, just that he had no good reason to disbelieve it.

 

Your assumption is that he had no problem with the rest of the statement, which is a de facto endorsement (endorsing the statement by silence.)

 

It wouldn't be odd to include the disclaimer "at least that part of the story" if that was the only part he knew with certainty wasn't correct.

 

That doesn't then mean that he believes the rest of it is, either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Are you actually yelling when you type in caps or only thinking loudly?

 

Either way it must be giving you a headache.

 

It's called "EM-PHA-SIS". and no, no headache here. The headache is trying to reason with the willfully unreasoning.

 

:shrug:

 

Well I think you are arbitrary and capricious.

 

And...one more time....what do you base this estimation on?

 

You could have just said "I refuse to listen to or use reason." So complicated even in your short responses.

 

See, you are offended by something as arbitrary as sentence structure. You don't like that someone writes "in a certain way", because you deem that manner to be "elitist", "snobbish", etc.

 

Could there be a sillier, more capricious reason to dislike what someone writes?

 

No, there couldn't. And I have no doubt you object to "could there be", as well.

 

Because, you're an elitist, who thinks everyone should express themselves the way YOU imagine is proper.

 

Is that not so...?