Sick Magazine - Joe Simon's Stan Lee parody 0

[Prince Namor]

It's the Fall of 1966 - Earlier in the year, Steve Ditko had left Marvel. He had been unable to convince Jack Kirby it was the best thing to do for himself as well, and Kirby - still thinking his creative ability will be rewarded accordingly - has gone on an amazing run of inspiration, giving us the Silver Surfer, Galactus, 'This Man, This Monster', the Black Panther, etc. The first issue of witzend has hit the stands - Wally Wood's visionary publication that precedes Dark Horse, Fantagraphics, Image, etc. in giving creators complete control and ownership of their work. 

Behind the scenes there is a resentment by Joe Simon that he isn't recognized as the owner of Captain America - Jack Kirby and himself creating the character back in 1940. Marvel had begun to use the character again, reviving him 2 years earlier and now featuring him in two different monthly comics. 

Joe Simon's 'Sick' Magazine - a Mad Magazine-like humor publication, ran for almost two decades - though Simon would leave it around 1968. Much darker than Mad, it took it's inspiration from Lenny Bruce and the underground humor of the day. In the Fall of 1966, here's an example of what he had to say about Marvel:

 

[Prince Namor]

[Prince Namor]

[buttock]

Unflattering view of both Lee and Brodsky... 

I'm working my way through 'Stuf Said' from TwoMorrows, and my impression from it is that Lee wasn't quite the shameless huckster that he is sometimes painted to be.  Kirby was full of ideas, but a lot of them weren't great and needed some editorial guidance.  The greatness of much of SA Marvel came from the synergy of both.  Without Kirby, Marvel would still be chasing the trends of whatever was selling.  Without Lee Marvel would be more unsuccessful forays like Crestline/Prize, etc.   Ditko was singular minded and really drove Spider-Man's greatness more than Lee.  But it looks like his trajectory was to peak and then crash back to the ground.  Just my 

[JazzMan]

Dripko...I lol'd

 

[JazzMan]

This is pretty damning on the bullpen's perception of Stan.

[lordbyroncomics]

The problem in the ongoing credit discussion about Stan and the Marvel Method is that the different sides are simply so extreme and so black-and-white. Some in the industry have also said that "you weren't there" so therefore, we aren't able to ever properly access this or that.

So, here's what you do have: facts and statements. I say this as a huge fan of Stan Lee, who is extremely hard to dislike. Who is quick witted, self deprecating and a bundle of positive charisma. And I do think he was truly inspired dialoguing and directing Kirby's FF plots from 1962-1967 in a way he never was past that time as his "celebrity" began to rise...

That being said, the myth of Stan as "Geek Godfather" is a myth that people in comics desperately need. Read on beyond 'Stuf Said'. Get Stan Lee Interviews (or 'Stan Lee Conversations'), read anything you can and Stan's own comments from the 60s' onward are fairly clearly that he was not a fan of the medium and had no interest in reading comics. I'm not saying he had to be, and he did great work- but there's no doubt if you're unbiased that Kirby was the creative force.

TwoMorrows also put out a book called, I believe, 'The Wonder Years' about Stan and Jack's FF run and the author is especially harsh on Kirby for slumming on the plots towards the end of the book's run- great art still, but phoning it in, no new characters, etc. Well, wouldn't that also establish that Kirby was the driving creative force? When Kirby leaves, it's more Creature from the Lake stories, etc. etc. Stan worked best when he had a strong chaotic creative force- and then Stan's talents as an Editor (when he had his finger on the pulse of the reader), shone through. Stan was a very, very talented man. Let no one say otherwise. But he was not the creator. Too much evidence says otherwise. 

Stan's own comments about he and Kirby creating everything change abruptly. When? When Kirby leaves Marvel for DC. Then a narrative is put into effect- which, oddly enough, is when a new corporation purchases Marvel and therefore has a vested interest in guiding a narrative that Stan- a happy company man- is responsible for this, no one else. It's also notable that Disney needed to preserve this narrative too- and Stan was all too happy to go along with it.

Anyone who rushes out the tired argument about how bad a dialogue writer Kirby is on his Fourth World books- do a little experiment. Go read Kirby's solo stuff from the same month/year Stan is writing Fantastic Four. Tell me why Stan is so much superior. It's banal and Stan is going through the motions.

Stan insisted on being listed as 'scripter' and many artists (not just Joe Simon and Ditko) were upset about it, but what comic fans seldom realize is.. it wasn't about CREDIT at this time so much as it was about PLOT PAYMENT. Stan was literally getting paid more for THEIR work. I'd be annoyed too.

Jack Kirby leaves Marvel and continues to create. Your judgment of the value of those creations may vary, but no one can say he wasn't an active creative imagination. Stan creates nothing. Not that it was a contest, it's just valid in this whole 'Stan gets a bad rap' debate. One can argue that Kirby's imagination inspires Star Wars (Mark Moonrider/Luke Skywalker, The Source/The Force, Darkseid's son being raised by a benevolent and wise warrior king, etc.) and continues to influence the DCU. Stan created She-Hulk to secure a copyright. Just give credit properly without the goggles of nostalgia. This is the same guy who told people Sgt. Fury was launched on a "bet" with Martin Goodman- and the same people who continue to push the story are the same comic fans who know that DC had limited Marvel's distribution and how rigid Martin Goodman was. Please. 

[buttock]

8 minutes ago, wisbyron said:

The problem in the ongoing credit discussion about Stan and the Marvel Method is that the different sides are simply so extreme and so black-and-white. Some in the industry have also said that "you weren't there" so therefore, we aren't able to ever properly access this or that.

So, here's what you do have: facts and statements. I say this as a huge fan of Stan Lee, who is extremely hard to dislike. Who is quick witted, self deprecating and a bundle of positive charisma. And I do think he was truly inspired dialoguing and directing Kirby's FF plots from 1962-1967 in a way he never was past that time as his "celebrity" began to rise...

That being said, the myth of Stan as "Geek Godfather" is a myth that people in comics desperately need. Read on beyond 'Stuf Said'. Get Stan Lee Interviews (or 'Stan Lee Conversations'), read anything you can and Stan's own comments from the 60s' onward are fairly clearly that he was not a fan of the medium and had no interest in reading comics. I'm not saying he had to be, and he did great work- but there's no doubt if you're unbiased that Kirby was the creative force.

TwoMorrows also put out a book called, I believe, 'The Wonder Years' about Stan and Jack's FF run and the author is especially harsh on Kirby for slumming on the plots towards the end of the book's run- great art still, but phoning it in, no new characters, etc. Well, wouldn't that also establish that Kirby was the driving creative force? When Kirby leaves, it's more Creature from the Lake stories, etc. etc. Stan worked best when he had a strong chaotic creative force- and then Stan's talents as an Editor (when he had his finger on the pulse of the reader), shone through. Stan was a very, very talented man. Let no one say otherwise. But he was not the creator. Too much evidence says otherwise. 

Stan's own comments about he and Kirby creating everything change abruptly. When? When Kirby leaves Marvel for DC. Then a narrative is put into effect- which, oddly enough, is when a new corporation purchases Marvel and therefore has a vested interest in guiding a narrative that Stan- a happy company man- is responsible for this, no one else. It's also notable that Disney needed to preserve this narrative too- and Stan was all too happy to go along with it.

Anyone who rushes out the tired argument about how bad a dialogue writer Kirby is on his Fourth World books- do a little experiment. Go read Kirby's solo stuff from the same month/year Stan is writing Fantastic Four. Tell me why Stan is so much superior. It's banal and Stan is going through the motions.

Stan insisted on being listed as 'scripter' and many artists (not just Joe Simon and Ditko) were upset about it, but what comic fans seldom realize is.. it wasn't about CREDIT at this time so much as it was about PLOT PAYMENT. Stan was literally getting paid more for THEIR work. I'd be annoyed too.

Jack Kirby leaves Marvel and continues to create. Your judgment of the value of those creations may vary, but no one can say he wasn't an active creative imagination. Stan creates nothing. Not that it was a contest, it's just valid in this whole 'Stan gets a bad rap' debate. One can argue that Kirby's imagination inspires Star Wars (Mark Moonrider/Luke Skywalker, The Source/The Force, Darkseid's son being raised by a benevolent and wise warrior king, etc.) and continues to influence the DCU. Stan created She-Hulk to secure a copyright. Just give credit properly without the goggles of nostalgia. This is the same guy who told people Sgt. Fury was launched on a "bet" with Martin Goodman- and the same people who continue to push the story are the same comic fans who know that DC had limited Marvel's distribution and how rigid Martin Goodman was. Please. 

This sounds like a pretty fair assessment of things.  One bit you touched on that has colored everything since is the narrative that Stan put out.  That was pretty clearly disingenuous, but everyone can see that.  When confronted about it over the next 15+ years he dug his heels in which just made things worse.  Had he conceded at that time that both he and Kirby were vital to the process, we'd all probably agree.  As it is, after years of grudges culminating in a lawsuit, it's all a little tainted.  

[jjonahjameson11]

I dunno.  To those who argue that Stan created nothing, I say that it was his dialogue that created the unique personalities of so many Marvel characters we came to empathize, sympathize, and identify with.  Kirby didn’t do that...it was all Stan, and it was a major component of Marvel’s success over the stuffy, perfect DC heroes, ground out monthly, never showing discourse or growth.  Yawn!  I’m getting bored and sleepy even thinking about Silver Age DC’s

[Namtak]

23 minutes ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

I dunno.  To those who argue that Stan created nothing, I say that it was his dialogue that created the unique personalities of so many Marvel characters we came to empathize, sympathize, and identify with.  Kirby didn’t do that...it was all Stan, and it was a major component of Marvel’s success over the stuffy, perfect DC heroes, ground out monthly, never showing discourse or growth.  Yawn!  I’m getting bored and sleepy even thinking about Silver Age DC’s

Yes and Roy Thomas continue on with the wit and sentences of stan,wich stan was annoyed of .so the hi true believer!! And nuff said,reprised by Roy Thomas pushed stan to create his exelsior!!! Wich i never liked as much as the two other!so stan didnt liked to be copied but he took credit for other workers!

[THE_BEYONDER]

28 minutes ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

I dunno.  To those who argue that Stan created nothing, I say that it was his dialogue that created the unique personalities of so many Marvel characters we came to empathize, sympathize, and identify with.  Kirby didn’t do that...it was all Stan, and it was a major component of Marvel’s success over the stuffy, perfect DC heroes, ground out monthly, never showing discourse or growth.  Yawn!  I’m getting bored and sleepy even thinking about Silver Age DC’s

Yup

 

Without Stan, MARVEL would have been.... well....DC

[Unca Ben]

When some folks are bored they go fishing, using the same bait over and over.

I bet Stan had more imagination than that.

[Prince Namor]

24 minutes ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

I dunno.  To those who argue that Stan created nothing,

Stan's a writer. Comics are a visual art. Without an artist, it's just words on a piece of paper. And Stan spent 80 years of his life NOT writing the great American Novel. 

He was a great editor - a great salesman - a great huckster - he knew what sold - and having the creative forces to work with like Ditko and Kirby, he was able to focus them in a way that no did before or since. 

But previous to them - Stan created nothing really - and after them, Stan created nothing really. Those guys kept on grinding until the day they died. Stan spent the rest of his life being a celebrity. 

24 minutes ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

I say that it was his dialogue that created the unique personalities of so many Marvel characters we came to empathize, sympathize, and identify with.  Kirby didn’t do that...it was all Stan, and it was a major component of Marvel’s success over the stuffy, perfect DC heroes, ground out monthly, never showing discourse or growth.  Yawn!  I’m getting bored and sleepy even thinking about Silver Age DC’s

Actually... and there's a whole website devoted to studying Jack's margin notes vs what Stan wrote - Jack had all kinds of ideas about what characters should do and we can see how Stan had ideas he DIDN'T want to go with. As an example - he regularly made Sue a passive voice, whereas Jack tried to write her as a more outspoken, fiery person.

This isn't an anti-Stan page - it just is a well researched ongoing look at the margin notes and how they were taken and used/not used - it's fascinating reading, especially into Jack AND Stan's creative process.

https://kirbywithoutwords.tumblr.com

[jjonahjameson11]

7 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

Stan's a writer. Comics are a visual art. Without an artist, it's just words on a piece of paper. And Stan spent 80 years of his life NOT writing the great American Novel. 

He was a great editor - a great salesman - a great huckster - he knew what sold - and having the creative forces to work with like Ditko and Kirby, he was able to focus them in a way that no did before or since. 

But previous to them - Stan created nothing really - and after them, Stan created nothing really. Those guys kept on grinding until the day they died. Stan spent the rest of his life being a celebrity. 

Actually... and there's a whole website devoted to studying Jack's margin notes vs what Stan wrote - Jack had all kinds of ideas about what characters should do and we can see how Stan had ideas he DIDN'T want to go with. As an example - he regularly made Sue a passive voice, whereas Jack tried to write her as a more outspoken, fiery person.

This isn't an anti-Stan page - it just is a well researched ongoing look at the margin notes and how they were taken and used/not used - it's fascinating reading, especially into Jack AND Stan's creative process.

https://kirbywithoutwords.tumblr.com

Cave paintings are a visual art.

comics are words and pictures.

It’s wonderful that folks have the time to make a study of Kirby’s margin notes, but I read the published comics without Jack’s notes so I can’t really comment as to whether Stan’s decision were more or less valid than Jacks proposals

[lordbyroncomics]

Does Stan deserve credit for his dialogue and did it make the Marvel Characters be what they are today? Yes. But what your argument totally misses is that a lyricist- even the best lyricist- is rendered invalid if the COMPOSER NEVER WROTE THE MUSIC.

For me, it's like saying one band member who wrote a great solo is solely responsible for the song when the other band member wrote the music to it. 

As for Stan saying the wrong thing, this is my point- he didn't *always* say that. He said it after Cadence bought Marvel and Jack left for DC and Joe Simon was (at that time) trying to sue Martin Goodman. I mean, there's a documented narrative to this that can't be argued against- it's not opinion, it's fact. Stan said one thing. Then this legal thing happened and Stan's position changed, so he started saying something else. It doesn't matter what any of our "two cents" is or if we like one or the other better.

I personally don't see why it's so uncomfortable to state this; I am in no way diminishing Stan or saying Stan is untalented or something by pointing out, you know, factual stuff that STAN said. Ger Aperdorn did an entire study in an issue of Alter Ego documenting Stan's many many attempts at breaking away from Atlas/Marvel and failing at all of them. Not because Stan was untalented mind you, but because of the state of the industry- it just shows Stan did not care for comic books and also, pokes holes at the famous myth that he was going to quit until Joan Lee told him to do it "his way". But comic fans treat this like sports teams or something when they don't need to. Without Stan's voice, there was no Marvel success as we know it- no doubt! But there'd be no Marvel for Stan to give a voice to if Kirby and others hadn't built it. As much as I enjoy pre-hero Marvel monster stories about Fin Fang Foom, they weren't going to launch Marvel as we know it. If Kirby didn't generate what he did... Stan would have toiled for Martin Goodman for much, much longer.

 

Also, if Stan creates Spider-Man then why does he reject Kirby's unfinished story about a kid with a magic necklace/talisman who turns into an adult Spider-Man? That question right there states how much the contribution of Ditko can't be understated. But yes, Stan was a great dialogue writer who could pull and reign in the unfiltered imaginations of his artists- no doubt, and he deserves all the credit for that! But Brian Epstein can't book the Beatles on Ed Sullivan if, you know, the Beatles never ever formed. 

[Ghastly542454]

5 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

What is the exact issue # of Sick that this story appeared in?

[Prince Namor]

40 minutes ago, Ghastly542454 said:

What is the exact issue # of Sick that this story appeared in?

#48

[greggy]

@Buzzetta

@kav

[JazzMan]

28 minutes ago, greggy said:

@Buzzetta

@kav

No.

[Buzzetta]

 

2 hours ago, greggy said:

@Buzzetta

@kav

Only thing I have for this thread is a spoiler alert since I feel like I have seen this thread before.   So for the newer members here we go. 

Spoiler

Arguments ensue, thread eventually gets locked, pernts, pernts, pernts, until Arch comes home. 

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Buzzetta