Stan, Jack, and Steve - The 1960's (1963) Butting Heads, Unexpected Success and Not Expected Failures! 3 3

[Steven Valdez]

On 8/7/2023 at 4:48 AM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

I read very quickly and I have scanned the posts out of curiosity but they get very extremely repetitive and as I noted, they accept any quote or factoid which can be used to say that Stan is the Devil even when the quote or factoid contradicts other quotes and factoids. 

There's a vast difference between

1) blindly accepting an easy narrative (which you allege) 

 

 

 

 

 

If you did more than just skim and cherry-pick what suits your narrative, you'd see that a hell of a lot of research has gone into forming the conclusions expressed here. And a massive body of evidence supports those conclusions. There's nothing "hate-filled" about supporting creators rights, their contributions and expecting fairness for them. Also, nobody wants to feel badly about Stan Lee.

Edited August 6, 2023 by Steven Valdez

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 8/6/2023 at 3:12 PM, Mmehdy said:

My response to you is if you had read this thead for its highlights , on one of times I was with Stan, a page from FF12 was presented from his signature and his reaction and comments his writing contribution and writing on  the side etc . I am not saying nor do I believe anyone on this thead is saying Stan did not write some or edit-writing which would be a more correct term. I was there and saw what he claimed to be his work...Nuff said. In my study of this subject, I would say Stan as editor and co-contributor writer was much greater early on say 62/63. This is not going to change my overall opinion in reading from other sources, but did open my eyes to the increased contribution of Jack and Steve. It was great stuff when I bought it from the drugstore and it is great stuff today......One indication I would check was when Jack took over with Cap on tales of suspense...especially from issue 63 on...it  is Kirby all the way. Issue 59 was dated Nov 1964...which probably means early summer 64 this took place. I await SM disection of #59 up especially 63 and up....just look at that writing style on that run.....FYI at SDCC I just bought the Cap omnibus with 59-113 and am in the middle of reading it....a great book

Directions and even dialogue in the margins do not always and by necessity mean there was no writer involved in the process prior to that.  The same sort of margin notes appear on pages that were drawn by Kirby and by others which we know were done from detailed outlines which included dialogue and/or following a verbal pitch session.  And, yes, an outline written by the writer and given to the artist also is not proof that the artist was not involved prior to that.  Lee himself said Ditko insisted on doing it by himself a couple years in.  And he said that Kirby and he reached a point where Kirby and he would talk out a story and Kirby would come back with something different.    Or that sometimes he'd give Kirby just an idea (or that Kirby would volunteer an idea and Stan would say go with it).  All of that, and endless variations on it, is a typical part of a collaboration process like they had in Marvel and which has become the norm in movies and TV where an idea floats around the room passing through multiple minds and morphing into all sorts of things before the person in charge says it's ready to be committed to paper (or to ones and zeroes in somebody's laptop).  All that said, I know you might get what I am saying but that the most persistent people posting here and elsewhere on the interwebs glossed over what I wrote (if they read it) and screamed invectives about Lee from begin to end.  

[Steven Valdez]

On 8/7/2023 at 12:28 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

Directions and even dialogue in the margins do not always and by necessity mean there was no writer involved in the process prior to that.  The same sort of margin notes appear on pages that were drawn by Kirby and by others which we know were done from detailed outlines which included dialogue and/or following a verbal pitch session.  And, yes, an outline written by the writer and given to the artist also is not proof that the artist was not involved prior to that.  Lee himself said Ditko insisted on doing it by himself a couple years in.  And he said that Kirby and he reached a point where Kirby and he would talk out a story and Kirby would come back with something different.    Or that sometimes he'd give Kirby just an idea (or that Kirby would volunteer an idea and Stan would say go with it).  All of that, and endless variations on it, is a typical part of a collaboration process like they had in Marvel and which has become the norm in movies and TV where an idea floats around the room passing through multiple minds and morphing into all sorts of things before the person in charge says it's ready to be committed to paper (or to ones and zeroes in somebody's laptop).  All that said, I know you might get what I am saying but that the most persistent people posting here and elsewhere on the interwebs glossed over what I wrote (if they read it) and screamed invectives about Lee from begin to end.  

You have a very superficial and flawed understanding of the processes that have been under examination here. If only you had an extra half hour or so to actually read what's been said here, including the evidence that backs it up.

[Mmehdy]

On 8/6/2023 at 7:28 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

Directions and even dialogue in the margins do not always and by necessity mean there was no writer involved in the process prior to that.  The same sort of margin notes appear on pages that were drawn by Kirby and by others which we know were done from detailed outlines which included dialogue and/or following a verbal pitch session.  And, yes, an outline written by the writer and given to the artist also is not proof that the artist was not involved prior to that.  Lee himself said Ditko insisted on doing it by himself a couple years in.  And he said that Kirby and he reached a point where Kirby and he would talk out a story and Kirby would come back with something different.    Or that sometimes he'd give Kirby just an idea (or that Kirby would volunteer an idea and Stan would say go with it).  All of that, and endless variations on it, is a typical part of a collaboration process like they had in Marvel and which has become the norm in movies and TV where an idea floats around the room passing through multiple minds and morphing into all sorts of things before the person in charge says it's ready to be committed to paper (or to ones and zeroes in somebody's laptop).  All that said, I know you might get what I am saying but that the most persistent people posting here and elsewhere on the interwebs glossed over what I wrote (if they read it) and screamed invectives about Lee from begin to end.  

interesting comment...but if you had read the prior post..Stan was commenting  on HIS writing on the side of the panel.....he said a lot of what he wrote just does not exist. I will never forget the look on his face to say that is my writing..FYI

and the  point is valid but again this issue is much more complex. The buzz as a on ground collector at that time 61-UP  was simply amazing things were being done and on ground collectors were abuzz. I know that everyone here is in agreement that something very special, even generational occurred during that time.

[Prince Namor]

From one of Stan's biggest supporters:

John Romita: "The only thing he used to do from 1966-72 was come in and leave a note on my drawing table saying “Next month, the Rhino.” That’s all; he wouldn’t tell me anything; how to handle it."

 

It's not MY opinion or MY editorial, that's from someone who was there. 

 

[sfcityduck]

On 8/5/2023 at 4:51 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

 

Artist Drew Friedman: "My dad actually worked at Magazine Management, which was the company that owned Marvel Comics in the fifties and sixties, so he knew Stan Lee pretty well. He knew him before the superhero revival in the early sixties, when Stan Lee had one office, one secretary and that was it. The story was that Martin Goodman who ran the company was trying to phase him out because the comics weren't selling too well."

 

I asked Drew about this when I did an e-mail interview with him earlier this year. This is my exact question and what he wrote in response:

 

6. Speaking of Bullpen’s, your dad shared an adjoining office with Stan between 1954-66. He would’ve seen it go from the old Bullpen days to mostly just Stan in a lone desk to right about the time it started to pick up again. What were his memories of Stan?

I can’t really speak for my dad who died two years ago, but he always told me he liked Stan very much, Stan’s office was right next to my dads so they saw each other all day, and he did feel bad for him during those lean years for Atlas comics because he felt the company’s owner Martin Goodman was trying his best to humiliate Stan by constantly downsizing his office and his assistants, attempting to phase out the comics line altogether without actually going as far as firing him, probably because he was the cousin of Goodman’s wife. My dad said he really admired how Stan held on, held his ground, even when he was down to the lone desk in a cubicle, one secretary, and hardly anyone else around him. Of course Stan would later have the last laugh when Marvel exploded in the sixties.

I don’t think my dad and Stan socialized out of the office but they might have gone out for drinks a few times after office hours.

 

(Drew LIKED Stan Lee, and made sure in this interview that I was aware of that. As he put it, as a young boy when he'd go in to see his dad, Stan was always nice to him and handed out comics to him and his brother like candy.)

 

And then, artist Dick Ayers who, like Drew Friedman's father Bruce Jay Friedman, was actually THERE:

"Things started to get really bad in 1958. One day when I went in Stan looked at me and said, 'Gee whiz, my uncle goes by and he doesn't even say hello to me.' He meant Martin Goodman. And he proceeds to tell me, 'You know, it's like a sinking ship and we're the rats, and we've got to get off.' "

 

Considering there were very few people there at the time, and of those who were, we have very little information from on, the two who were there and actually speak about it, presented it pretty much the same... it paints a certain picture. 

Goodman during this time didn't seem to have much faith in Stan.

 

I like your research here and I agree with your conclusions.  But, you do realize this research and your conclusion entirely refutes the point you quote (and support) up thread from the article by "fourcolorsinners," right? A main point of that argument is that Lee lied about how much of a threat Goodman was to his job. Lee is quoted as saying about Spiderman: “I snuck him in the last issue… I thought, well that might be the end of my job!” – Stan Lee

The article asserts its a lie that Lee bucking Goodman might have cost him his job:

"I’m willing to concede that some of what Lee said was intended with a tongue-in-cheek tone but the point remains that journalists have taken him literally in regard to the potential loss of his job due to defying Goodman. This therefore becomes a significant part of the narrative and also is unfair to Goodman."

Surely, you realize you cannot have it both ways, right? The notion that Stan Lee was exaggerating and unfair to Goodman by stating that he believed that Goodman might fire him over sneaking in a teen Spiderman into AF 15 is entirely at odds with the point you are making here that Goodman was generally horrid to Stan.

What other posters are incisively pointing out is that the incompatible arguments about Stan, such as the difficulty of his relationship with Goodman, are painted by pro-Kirby posters one way when it hurts Stan and the opposite way when it helps him.  Accordingly, I appreciate your willingness to admit that Goodman was hard on Stan, so hard that there's little reason to disbelieve Stan's statement that Goodman might have fired him for doing something without his approval. Consistency is a key indicia of credibility. 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 8/7/2023 at 12:47 PM, Prince Namor said:

From one of Stan's biggest supporters:

John Romita: "The only thing he used to do from 1966-72 was come in and leave a note on my drawing table saying “Next month, the Rhino.” That’s all; he wouldn’t tell me anything; how to handle it."

 

It's not MY opinion or MY editorial, that's from someone who was there. 

 

Who does JR say was doing the dialogue in 1966? A key part scholarship is assessing a witnesses statements and being able to separate exaggeration and jokes from serious history. 

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 8/6/2023 at 4:17 PM, Steven Valdez said:

If you did more than just skim and cherry-pick what suits your narrative, you'd see that a hell of a lot of research has gone into forming the conclusions expressed here. And a massive body of evidence supports those conclusions. There's nothing "hate-filled" about supporting creators rights, their contributions and expecting fairness for them. Also, nobody wants to feel badly about Stan Lee.

I did not say I "cherry-pick" anything.  That is an invented characterization and is contradictory.  A person is not "cherry picking" only the parts they agree with if they are actively countering the arguments they disagree with.  You can do one or the other but not both.  I have heard and read the arguments from others including some who were a lot closer to Lee and Kirby.  And I have seen enough flat-out name-calling in these posts to justify that some people here are, indeed, hate filled.   The only narrative I have put forth here is that people who work creatively very often disagree about how much they contributed, and that people here are not just doing exhaustive research but also doing a fair bit of cherry-picking in that they ignore written anecdotes which indicate Kirby or Ditko may have contradicted themselves or exaggerated or misspoke or lied or borrowed or stole ideas that came before them.   Not once have I ever said that Lee did none of those things, just that some people employ double standards and mind-reading and embrace contradictions if they suit a narrative that Kirby did no wrong, and that makes everybody look silly

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 8/7/2023 at 1:16 PM, sfcityduck said:

Who does JR say was doing the dialogue in 1966? A key part scholarship is assessing a witnesses statements and being able to separate exaggeration and jokes from serious history. 

JR also described pitching out stories with Stan leaping on tables and doing voices, and I recall him talking about pitching out a story with Stan during a car ride.  So which is true.  To some degree, both and neither.  Unless you're "cherry picking" exclusively the most exaggerated claims.  

[lordbyroncomics]

On 7/21/2023 at 11:03 PM, Steven Valdez said:

Yes, John Morrow and co have done some amazing research on the true origins of Marvel Comics. Would be great if he/they make some comments here.

I spoke to Mr. Morrow about these very things last year in Baltimore.

He's a lovely man and while he didn't say this outright, he has his hands tied a bit with what he can speak about. One does not want to alienate Marvel at this point when so much of his publishing depends upon it's history. 

Also, there are certain things he cannot speak upon. I know this for a fact. At best, he will direct you to the printed magazines and what lies therein. 

[lordbyroncomics]

On 8/7/2023 at 4:14 PM, sfcityduck said:

I like your research here and I agree with your conclusions.  But, you do realize this research and your conclusion entirely refutes the point you quote (and support) up thread from the article by "fourcolorsinners," right? A main point of that argument is that Lee lied about how much of a threat Goodman was to his job. Lee is quoted as saying about Spiderman: “I snuck him in the last issue… I thought, well that might be the end of my job!” – Stan Lee

The article asserts its a lie that Lee bucking Goodman might have cost him his job:

"I’m willing to concede that some of what Lee said was intended with a tongue-in-cheek tone but the point remains that journalists have taken him literally in regard to the potential loss of his job due to defying Goodman. This therefore becomes a significant part of the narrative and also is unfair to Goodman."

Surely, you realize you cannot have it both ways, right? The notion that Stan Lee was exaggerating and unfair to Goodman by stating that he believed that Goodman might fire him over sneaking in a teen Spiderman into AF 15 is entirely at odds with the point you are making here that Goodman was generally horrid to Stan.

What other posters are incisively pointing out is that the incompatible arguments about Stan, such as the difficulty of his relationship with Goodman, are painted by pro-Kirby posters one way when it hurts Stan and the opposite way when it helps him.  Accordingly, I appreciate your willingness to admit that Goodman was hard on Stan, so hard that there's little reason to disbelieve Stan's statement that Goodman might have fired him for doing something without his approval. Consistency is a key indicia of credibility. 

 

 

 

 

The article assets it is a lie because it was a lie. 

Goodman was not going to fire Stan for Amazing Fantasy #15. This is just another component of the stories that charmed journalists and comic fans for years. It sounds good; it's intoxicating.

The point of that article is that even the anecdotes about Goodman often contradict themselves if read together. Goodman is sometimes a penny pincher who goes over every cover with a fine tooth comb, or he's obtuse and oblivious and the comics don't mean anything. For the record, Stan is cited no less than 17 times in recorded interviews as saying that Goodman "looked at every single cover" before a comic went to the printer.

Amazing Fantasy #15 had two covers commissioned and paid for. Goodman knew Spider-Man was coming out in Amazing Fantasy #15.

Therefore, why would Stan be fired over it? It's a tall tale, plain and simple. There's nothing for you to argue about- all of this comes from Lee's own documented statements. Unless you'd like to take the approach that Lee just lied about everything?

[lordbyroncomics]

On 7/25/2023 at 10:38 AM, The humble Watcher lurking said:

I find it amazing that between 1961 to 1990 no one in comics fandom interviewed Martin Goodman the publisher of Marvel Comics. It would have been so interesting to hear his thoughts on what Kirby, Ditko, and Lee were doing in the 1960s.

I would have thought Gary Groth of the Comics Journal or someone of that ilk would have sought out Martin Goodman for an interview back then. 

Very mysterious why there is not much information on Martin Goodman.

He was interviewed in 1968, 1969, and 1989. 

He also kept a day-to-day journal, which one of his children showed me a few pages of that largely covered his meetings.

[lordbyroncomics]

On 7/26/2023 at 8:33 AM, Steven Valdez said:

Alter Ego #165 features a lengthy cover story on Goodman by Will Murray. I have it, been getting around to reading it for awhile.

I truly had excitement on that, believing it'd be a "life story" of sorts- it wasn't, it was speculative and facts around Timely/Atlas/Marvel releases, I'm amazed they even put Goodman on the cover. They didn't speak to his living children who have a wealth of things that fill out his fascinating life. Also, Goodman is mentioned in contemporary press for all sorts of stuff- social events, fundraisers, etc.- just not specifically for comics stuff.

[lordbyroncomics]

On 7/26/2023 at 10:41 AM, Zonker said:

This strikes me as a bit of myth-making worthy of Funky Flashman himself!  

Luckily for Goodman, parts of his early travels were helpfully documented by photographs of him in various towns and certain receipts he saved for sentimental reasons. Sorry to have your emoji wasted!

There's this thing called research... it sorta beats a life where you strictly comment on message boards. 

[lordbyroncomics]

On 7/26/2023 at 5:30 PM, The humble Watcher lurking said:

My vibe was she was introverted and shy for the camera, while he seems extroverted and liked the camera that`s why the shades.

I guess we'll never know, but kudos to @Prince Namor for starting one of the most interesting threads I ever read.

 

"I guess we'll never know..."

On the contrary- I'm guessing no one reads the article Prince Namor shared- Jean Goodman was exceedingly outgoing and outspoken and an early advocate for mental illness and a patron of the arts. She wrote a column and was a regular at society events regarding alternative education and at art galas. If your "vibe" is that someone is sad, that's fine but remember that your vibe might just be that.

There's all SORTS of things to know about the Goodmans. None of the facts shared in that article were speculative; they come from newspaper accounts and help from the surviving Goodman children.

[sfcityduck]

On 8/7/2023 at 4:57 PM, lordbyroncomics said:

The article assets it is a lie because it was a lie. 

Goodman was not going to fire Stan for Amazing Fantasy #15. This is just another component of the stories that charmed journalists and comic fans for years. It sounds good; it's intoxicating.

The point of that article is that even the anecdotes about Goodman often contradict themselves if read together. Goodman is sometimes a penny pincher who goes over every cover with a fine tooth comb, or he's obtuse and oblivious and the comics don't mean anything. For the record, Stan is cited no less than 17 times in recorded interviews as saying that Goodman "looked at every single cover" before a comic went to the printer.

Amazing Fantasy #15 had two covers commissioned and paid for. Goodman knew Spider-Man was coming out in Amazing Fantasy #15.

Therefore, why would Stan be fired over it? It's a tall tale, plain and simple. There's nothing for you to argue about- all of this comes from Lee's own documented statements. Unless you'd like to take the approach that Lee just lied about everything?

Stan being afraid of being fired by Goodman is consistent with what Stan said about Goodman and what Stan's next door office neighbor said about Goodman. What that article portrays is a Goodman who is contrary to the evidence Prince Namor has brought to our attention.  You should take that up with him. I like what he's brought to the table. 

Stan's story is not contrary to the notion that Goodman looked at every cover because the Spiderman on the cover that Stan elected to send to the printer is of a Spider-man who is clearly a fully grown man with a strong heroic physique:

Not Ditko's skinny teenager:

 

[lordbyroncomics]

"There's no evidence that Stan made anything up about his Uncle and Spiderman."

The evidence is Stan's contradictions in what he'd say about Goodman at various times.

"And given he was a family member, that's a bit far-fetched as there were plenty of people who could have disagreed if they felt Stan was treating Goodman unfairly at the time." 

Was Stan around Goodman relatives after he'd gotten Chip Goodman removed in 1971...? And why would Stan care if Goodman relatives disagreed?? "Hey, Goodman's nephew thinks you're a heel!" Uh, okay. Stan seemed pretty immune to being insulted. A bit far-fetched? Stan treating Goodman unfairly? You think Robbie Solomon was around when Lee was giving his interviews to the college press?? What garbage speculation!!! 

"This article took what could have been a nice factual look and immediately pivoted to garbage speculation devoid of factual support. Its too bad. Critical readers should be able to spot the many other flaws with the article."

Critical readers should know that documented and recorded evidence shared with the author by Goodman family members and discovery of contemporary newspaper reports that you can also seek out are not garbage speculation devoid of factual support. Its too bad you can't read, its too bad you can't grasp, it's not surprising your bias provokes these garbage statements devoid of factual support. Unless, you know, Goodman's family saved all that stuff that was forged I suppose.

[Zonker]

On 8/7/2023 at 8:06 PM, lordbyroncomics said:

Luckily for Goodman, parts of his early travels were helpfully documented by photographs of him in various towns and certain receipts he saved for sentimental reasons. Sorry to have your emoji wasted!

There's this thing called research... it sorta beats a life where you strictly comment on message boards. 

Care to share the fruits of your research?  The reason it sounded screwy to me was because I cannot see how there was time for him actually to live the hobo life given the timeline laid out the Wikipedia page for Goodman.  Was he just slumming on the weekends?  Cause it sounds like he had a job in late 1929, was able to afford an ownership stake in Mutual Magazine Distributors around 1932, and he could afford to honeymoon in Europe in 1937?   

Quote

Circa late 1929, future Archie Comics co-founder Louis Silberkleit, then circulation manager at the magazine distribution company Eastern Distributing Corp., hired Goodman for his department, assigning him clients that included publisher Hugo Gernsback.[5] Goodman later became circulation manager himself,[3] but the company went bankrupt in October 1932.[6] Goodman then joined Silberkleit and other investors as part owner of Mutual Magazine Distributors, and was named editor of Silberkleit's new sister company, the publisher Newsstand Publications Inc., at 53 Park Place, also known as 60 Murray Street, in Manhattan.[7][a]
Goodman's first publication was the Newsstand Publications pulp magazine Western Supernovel Magazine, premiering with cover-date May 1933.[9] After the first issue he renamed it Complete Western Book Magazine, beginning with cover-date July 1933.[10] Goodman's pulp magazines included All Star Adventure Fiction, Complete Western Book, Mystery Tales, Real Sports, Star Detective, the science fiction magazine Marvel Science Stories and the jungle-adventure title Ka-Zar, starring its Tarzan-like namesake. These were published under a variety of names, all owned by Goodman and sometimes marked as "Red Circle".

In 1937, returning from his honeymoon in Europe, Goodman and his wife had tickets on the Hindenburg, but were unable to secure seats together, so they took alternative transportation instead, avoiding the Hindenburg disaster.

 

[sfcityduck]

On 8/7/2023 at 5:17 PM, lordbyroncomics said:

"There's no evidence that Stan made anything up about his Uncle and Spiderman."

The evidence is Stan's contradictions in what he'd say about Goodman at various times.

"And given he was a family member, that's a bit far-fetched as there were plenty of people who could have disagreed if they felt Stan was treating Goodman unfairly at the time." 

Was Stan around Goodman relatives after he'd gotten Chip Goodman removed in 1971...? And why would Stan care if Goodman relatives disagreed?? "Hey, Goodman's nephew thinks you're a heel!" Uh, okay. Stan seemed pretty immune to being insulted. A bit far-fetched? Stan treating Goodman unfairly? You think Robbie Solomon was around when Lee was giving his interviews to the college press?? What garbage speculation!!! 

"This article took what could have been a nice factual look and immediately pivoted to garbage speculation devoid of factual support. Its too bad. Critical readers should be able to spot the many other flaws with the article."

Critical readers should know that documented and recorded evidence shared with the author by Goodman family members and discovery of contemporary newspaper reports that you can also seek out are not garbage speculation devoid of factual support. Its too bad you can't read, its too bad you can't grasp, it's not surprising your bias provokes these garbage statements devoid of factual support. Unless, you know, Goodman's family saved all that stuff that was forged I suppose.

None of the key statements in that article are supported by any evidence cited.  They are the very definition of speculation or outright falsehoods ("regularly published teen superheros"). The anecdotes about Goodman being a good boss date to a time period after he'd left Marvel and founded Atlas-Seaboard or concerned isolated instances which do not touch on his relationship with Stan at all. Prince Namor has brought you the testimony of a man who was at Marvel sitting next to Stan during the years in question. Stan offered his own opinions when Goodman was still alive. Silence was Goodman's response. Perhaps Goodman became a better man as he aged, but there's no facts or testimony which support the speculation in that article.

You keep referring to contemporaneous newspapers accounts.  So what do they prove of consequence? The fact he was progressive or supported gay rights does not mean he was a good boss to Stan.  Nor does his support for psychotherapy. On the other hand, his comment about Stan in the NYT is far from nice. 

[Prince Namor]

On 8/8/2023 at 3:14 AM, sfcityduck said:

I like your research here and I agree with your conclusions.  But, you do realize this research and your conclusion entirely refutes the point you quote (and support) up thread from the article by "fourcolorsinners," right? A main point of that argument is that Lee lied about how much of a threat Goodman was to his job. Lee is quoted as saying about Spiderman: “I snuck him in the last issue… I thought, well that might be the end of my job!” – Stan Lee

The article asserts its a lie that Lee bucking Goodman might have cost him his job:

"I’m willing to concede that some of what Lee said was intended with a tongue-in-cheek tone but the point remains that journalists have taken him literally in regard to the potential loss of his job due to defying Goodman. This therefore becomes a significant part of the narrative and also is unfair to Goodman."

Surely, you realize you cannot have it both ways, right? The notion that Stan Lee was exaggerating and unfair to Goodman by stating that he believed that Goodman might fire him over sneaking in a teen Spiderman into AF 15 is entirely at odds with the point you are making here that Goodman was generally horrid to Stan.

What other posters are incisively pointing out is that the incompatible arguments about Stan, such as the difficulty of his relationship with Goodman, are painted by pro-Kirby posters one way when it hurts Stan and the opposite way when it helps him.  Accordingly, I appreciate your willingness to admit that Goodman was hard on Stan, so hard that there's little reason to disbelieve Stan's statement that Goodman might have fired him for doing something without his approval. Consistency is a key indicia of credibility. 

 

 

 

 

Nonsense.

By Goodman ignoring him it made it easy for Stan to do Spider-man. 

At that point Goodman didn't much care either way. He was ready to shut it down. 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Prince Namor