Real Stan Lee, but fake Kirby? 0

[kav]

On 5/30/2022 at 6:50 PM, wisbyron said:

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.

I remember when steve englehart tried branching into writing novels it was pretty much a flop.

[lordbyroncomics]

On 5/30/2022 at 8:52 PM, shadroch said:

Utter nonsense.  You throw around words like fraud and illegal far too lightly.  I'm not sure how ethical it is, but it is absolutely legal in the enertainment world. 

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.

Edited May 31, 2022 by wisbyron

[kav]

On 5/30/2022 at 6:57 PM, wisbyron said:

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. Give me the Kirbys over the Bob Kanes and all their ilk any day.

well technically it was "Stan Lee's guide to storytelling"-ie having others tell your story-

[lordbyroncomics]

On 5/30/2022 at 9:55 PM, kav said:

I remember when steve englehart tried branching into writing novels it was pretty much a flop.

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.

[kav]

On 5/30/2022 at 7:02 PM, wisbyron said:

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 only familiar with like his 70s avengers stuff

[lordbyroncomics]

On 5/30/2022 at 9:59 PM, kav said:

well technically it was "Stan Lee's guide to storytelling"-ie having others tell your story-

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! 

[lordbyroncomics]

On 5/30/2022 at 10:03 PM, kav said:

i'm only familiar with like his 70s avengers stuff

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

Edited May 31, 2022 by wisbyron

[shadroch]

On 5/30/2022 at 7:04 PM, wisbyron said:

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'm finding this highly entertaining.  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.

Stan was abused and misused by many people at the end. You seem to be justifying Jacks actions by pointing out the terrible crimes done ,not by Stan, but to Stan.

[jaybuck43]

On 5/30/2022 at 10:11 PM, shadroch said:

I'm finding this highly entertaining.  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.

Stan was abused and misused by many people at the end. You seem to be justifying Jacks actions by pointing out the terrible crimes done ,not by Stan, but to Stan.

110% this. You write the book, you split the royalties and you sell millions of copies based on his name. I’d rather get 20% royalties on a James Patterson novel then 100% royalties on my own work.

[shadroch]

I found a book on ebay a few years ago- Stan Lees weird facts or something like that. It was from the early 1960s and was cut and paste articals with little comments , supposedly written by Stan.   At the time it was published, I doubt the general public had any idea who Stan Lee was.  The humor is certainly 1960s era and much seems pretty corny these days.

[Cat]

On 5/31/2022 at 12:06 PM, wisbyron said:

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

Weren't you just going off about middle-age people? And you're older than that? 

[Prince Namor]

On 5/30/2022 at 8:44 PM, jaybuck43 said:

Tom Clancy built a gigantic estate off of putting his name on other peoples work. Same as James Patterson. Lots of authors have deals where they slap their name on someone elses work and they split proceeds. Using ghostwrited has never been illegal and isn’t unethical. 

It IS unethical.

They use Stan's name as the WRITER, in order to sell more copies. In order to fool people. THAT is unethical. He didn't write it. He didn't have anything to do with it. He simply put his name on it, as the WRITER, as a way to make more money. 

He didn't just put Stan Lee presents or some nonsense. He is listed very clearly as the author. He WASN'T. 

Tom Clancy gave credit to those writers on the COVER of the books. I'd always read that James Patterson was elaborately involved in the process of the story for his books. 

Stan just plain and simply got paid to do nothing, and his legion of followers just kept spending that money. 

You can believe it's not unethical all you want. I believe it is. 

[lordbyroncomics]

On 5/30/2022 at 10:11 PM, shadroch said:

I'm finding this highly entertaining.  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.

Stan was abused and misused by many people at the end. You seem to be justifying Jacks actions by pointing out the terrible crimes done ,not by Stan, but to Stan.

"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..??

[lordbyroncomics]

On 5/30/2022 at 10:29 PM, Cat said:

Weren't you just going off about middle-age people? And you're older than that? 

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. 

[lordbyroncomics]

On 5/30/2022 at 10:38 PM, Prince Namor said:

It IS unethical.

They use Stan's name as the WRITER, in order to sell more copies. In order to fool people. THAT is unethical. He didn't write it. He didn't have anything to do with it. He simply put his name on it, as the WRITER, as a way to make more money. 

He didn't just put Stan Lee presents or some nonsense. He is listed very clearly as the author. He WASN'T. 

Tom Clancy gave credit to those writers on the COVER of the books. I'd always read that James Patterson was elaborately involved in the process of the story for his books. 

Stan just plain and simply got paid to do nothing, and his legion of followers just kept spending that money. 

You can believe it's not unethical all you want. I believe it is. 

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! 

[lordbyroncomics]

On 5/30/2022 at 10:19 PM, shadroch said:

I found a book on ebay a few years ago- Stan Lees weird facts or something like that. It was from the early 1960s and was cut and paste articals with little comments , supposedly written by Stan.   At the time it was published, I doubt the general public had any idea who Stan Lee was.  The humor is certainly 1960s era and much seems pretty corny these days.

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. 

[Cat]

On 5/31/2022 at 12:48 PM, wisbyron said:

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. 

I thought it was 40. If not, that's good news, means I'm not there either. 

[lordbyroncomics]

On 5/30/2022 at 11:19 PM, Cat said:

I thought it was 40. If not, that's good news, means I'm not there either. 

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)

[Cat]

On 5/31/2022 at 1:26 PM, wisbyron said:

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)

That's indeed how I read it, which gave me a 'wait, huh?' moment. It's all good.

And I am stoked to know I'm not middle aged. That also explains the lack of a crisis. 

Edited May 31, 2022 by Cat

[kav]

On 5/30/2022 at 7:38 PM, Prince Namor said:

It IS unethical.

They use Stan's name as the WRITER, in order to sell more copies. In order to fool people. THAT is unethical. He didn't write it. He didn't have anything to do with it. He simply put his name on it, as the WRITER, as a way to make more money. 

He didn't just put Stan Lee presents or some nonsense. He is listed very clearly as the author. He WASN'T. 

Tom Clancy gave credit to those writers on the COVER of the books. I'd always read that James Patterson was elaborately involved in the process of the story for his books. 

Stan just plain and simply got paid to do nothing, and his legion of followers just kept spending that money. 

You can believe it's not unethical all you want. I believe it is. 

are you admitting you were wrong saying it was 'illegal', at least?