Stan, Jack, and Steve - The 1960's (1964) The Slow Build 5 5

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1964

Patsy & Hedy #93 - Stan makes sure he gets his pay for it though, signing all the Paper Doll and Hairstyle Pages!

Fans send in their ideas, complete with names, and Lee signs the page as the 'writer'!

It's also interesting to note, that there's no AD's for any of Marvel's other books in this issue...

 

[Dr. Haydn]

This one is quite interesting regarding division of labor. Stan Goldberg art (and plot, presumably, at least). Stan Lee's name appears as well, but not with his usual signature. Did Stan do anything in this story, other than light edits? It doesn't read like Lee's typical dialogue, to my eyes.

[Dr. Haydn]

On 8/16/2023 at 10:50 PM, Prince Namor said:

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1964

X-Men #6 - 'Sensational --script' by Stan Lee (uh, no) Dynamic Drawings by Jack Kirby Imaginative Inking by Paul Reinman Legible Lettering by Art Simek

Kirby only did the first 11 issues of X-Men, so of course that's where we get the most creative streak of their Silver Age adventures. Here we get the first appearances of Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch, as a part of Magneto's Brotherhood of Evil Mutants. 

Part ONE

If Stan had credited himself with "delightful dialogue" rather than "sensational -script," there would be far less pushback today, I think--plus it's a more accurate term for what his role was in these stories.

[sfcityduck]

On 8/22/2023 at 2:17 AM, Prince Namor said:

Patsy & Hedy #93 - There's no division of labor on Patsy & Hedy, even at the start of 1964, and by the dialogue it reads like Al Hartley is scripting it instead of Stan... which aligns with what Hartley would later say:

 

AL HARTLEY (Alter Ego #61) - JA: When did you start working that way, which is more identified with the 1960s and after, when it became known as the “Marvel method”?

HARTLEY: It’s hard to put a time frame on it, but I’d guess we started working that way in the mid-1950s. I didn’t work on staff; I always worked at home and would bring my stories in.

AL HARTLEY (Alter Ego #61) - Stan Lee didn’t come up with most of the ideas. He really gave me free rein. Actually, I’d just go ahead and write and draw the stories and then send them in.

 

I'm not sure where the last quote comes from. Perhaps you can paste the article. Because the parts of the article I can read show you have committed VERY selective quoting.  The full quote from Al Hartley states immediately before your extremely misleading excerpt:

HARTLEY: "When I started working with Stan, he wrote most of my stories, although I later wrote all of my own stories. We did all kinds of genres: war, westerns, detectives, science fiction ... you name it. But these things ran in cycles, and when sales started falling in one genre, we'd switch to another theme. We'd take a theme, and I'd illustrate the story. There were no typed scripts, just a very loose plot line. It was my job to draw the story with as much excitement, surprise, and suspense as I could. Then, Stan would write the dialogue. It was a very creative way to work."

I'm not shocked you left this part of the Alter Ego 61 interview of Al Hartley out because it completely blows up many of the assertions you make about Stan, including that Stan didn't write, plot, or dialogue. Al Hartley makes clear that when he worked with Stan, they used the "Marvel method" in its most pure form. Al also had a lot of other things to say in Alter Ego 61 which you leave out. Again, I'm not shocked you ignore them because that is consistent with the slanted presentation made on your threads. I don't know how you can justify such a slanted presentation. For example:

• "Stan wrote a lot of stories"
• "Jack was a very sweet guy and did a lot of story plotting with Stan. The creative juices really flowed. I never sat in on any of their discussions, but I was in ear shot and could hear them talking."
• "Steve would talk with Stan, but I didn't have much communication with him. He was a terrific artist, but rather shy" 

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1964

Rawhide Kid #93 - Written by Stan Lee (which we know isn't true) - Illustrated by Dick Ayers - Lettered by Art Simek (Jack Kirby cover)

Again we see the writing style, as well as the dialogue style change as it's Dick Ayers essentially writing the story for Stan, who'll take both credit and pay for it. Stan would also later spread rumors that Ayers was mentally unstable, when he left Marvel (after years of being a loyal go to guy), which prevented Ayers from getting work with other publishers. Sick. 

Part ONE:

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1964

Rawhide Kid #93 -

Part TWO:

Edited August 23, 2023 by Prince Namor

[sfcityduck]

On 8/22/2023 at 3:42 PM, sfcityduck said:

I'm not sure where the last quote comes from. Perhaps you can paste the article. Because the parts of the article I can read show you have committed VERY selective quoting.  The full quote from Al Hartley states immediately before your extremely misleading excerpt:

HARTLEY: "When I started working with Stan, he wrote most of my stories, although I later wrote all of my own stories. We did all kinds of genres: war, westerns, detectives, science fiction ... you name it. But these things ran in cycles, and when sales started falling in one genre, we'd switch to another theme. We'd take a theme, and I'd illustrate the story. There were no typed scripts, just a very loose plot line. It was my job to draw the story with as much excitement, surprise, and suspense as I could. Then, Stan would write the dialogue. It was a very creative way to work."

I'm not shocked you left this part of the Alter Ego 61 interview of Al Hartley out because it completely blows up many of the assertions you make about Stan, including that Stan didn't write, plot, or dialogue. Al Hartley makes clear that when he worked with Stan, they used the "Marvel method" in its most pure form. Al also had a lot of other things to say in Alter Ego 61 which you leave out. Again, I'm not shocked you ignore them because that is consistent with the slanted presentation made on your threads. I don't know how you can justify such a slanted presentation. For example:

• "Stan wrote a lot of stories"
• "Jack was a very sweet guy and did a lot of story plotting with Stan. The creative juices really flowed. I never sat in on any of their discussions, but I was in ear shot and could hear them talking."
• "Steve would talk with Stan, but I didn't have much communication with him. He was a terrific artist, but rather shy" 

No response?

[Dr. Haydn]

Something seems a little off with this cover--the townspeople look huge compared to the buildings.

[Prince Namor]

On 8/23/2023 at 1:10 AM, Dr. Haydn said:

Something seems a little off with this cover--the townspeople look huge compared to the buildings.

Not his best at all. Again... 110 pages and 9 covers for the month...

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1964

Strange Tales #119 - Written by Stan Lee - Drawn by Dick Ayers - Lettered by S. Rosen (Jack Kirby cover)

I'm not sure who 'wrote' the story, but why any one would take credit for it is beyond me (well, for the pay obviously). Another good example of the difference between a Marvel Comic without the benefit of Kirby or Ditko. 

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1964

Strange Tales #119 - ADs

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1964

Strange Tales #119 - Story Conjured Up by Stan Lee - Illustrated by the Strange Sorcery of Steve Ditko - Lettered at Midnight by Art Simek 

Lee never much cared for this character, until later of course when he tried to take credit for it, so this is very likely a mostly Steve Ditko story. It's interesting to see that he took over these stories a full year before he took over Spider-man completely (though he'd heavily put his mark upon it before that).

[Prince Namor]

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1964

Strange Tales #119 - MORE Ads... four of them in this issue...

[Zonker]

On 8/22/2023 at 6:08 PM, Dr. Haydn said:

If Stan had credited himself with "delightful dialogue" rather than "sensational --script," there would be far less pushback today, I think--plus it's a more accurate term for what his role was in these stories.

Agreed.  In the movie and TV industry, where a lot more money has been at stake for a lot longer, they have had to get very precise in defining how multiple people collaborate in creating the storyline

Quote

According to current Writers Guild of America guidelines, a television -script consists of two distinct parts: "story" and "teleplay". The story comprises "basic narrative, idea, theme or outline indicating character development and action", while the teleplay consists of "individual scenes and full dialogue or monologue (including narration in connection therewith), and camera set-ups, if required".[2] Simply put, the -script distinguishes the contribution of ideas toward the story from the actual writing of the dialogue and stage directions present on the page in the finished product.

Accordingly, story and teleplay will appear as distinct credits on a television -script if different people played those roles in the -script's creation; if the same person or people performed both roles equally (unless they also worked on the concept with one or more people not directly involved in writing the -script or developing the story concept), then the story and teleplay credits will not be used and instead a merged "written by" credit will be given.[2] However, a "written by" credit may be given to at most only three people; if more than three people were involved, then the credits must distinguish those who were "story" contributors from those who were "teleplay" contributors.[2]

So looking back with 60 years of hindsight and applying TV-speak to comics, the credits might ought to read:

Story by: Jack Kirby (or Jack & Stan, on occasions when a conference actually happened)
Teleplay by: Stan Lee
Produced by: Stan Lee
Directed by: Jack Kirby (and costume design, and choreography, and cinematography, etc. etc. etc)

Without something like those WGA guidelines, the word "-script" can be ambiguous.  
For example Merriam Webster allows for the loosest interpretation i.e. "something written"
 

[Prince Namor]

Stan used the credit boxes at this point as a way to get additional payment for himself and keep credit for the characters under the company umbrella. Of course later on, he would screw over the man who'd kept him employed for 30 years, unseating his son to become publisher and eventually use 'ownership' of those characters to secure himself a lifetime contract.

As he'd build his Oz-like persona, for those credit boxes, he'd use the shield of, "See! I'm giving credit to the workers - something that's never been done before!", a double lie in that a) it had been done before (and there are plenty of examples of Marvel and Stan himself, eliminating credits over the years) and b) it was never about crediting the artists, inkers, and letterers, but rather limiting them in terms of credit and pay. 

At least Bob Kane repented his selfish deeds late in life.

[Math Teacher]

On 8/22/2023 at 8:53 PM, Prince Namor said:

ON NEWSSTANDS JANUARY 1964

I really like this cover, but it definitely has perspective issues.

[Math Teacher]

I read this quote by Stan Lee today on IG: "I always sympathized with the villains because I saw myself in them."

An appropriate quote, based on all the vitriol that's present in these threads.

Don't get me wrong - I think @Prince Namor is providing all of us with a lot of interesting facts and information. I have read through all of the threads he has created.

Now, I think it's time to move on and stop beating a dead horse. Based on what I have read in Prince Namor's thread, my view of Stan Lee has changed, and not for the better. It's clear that Stan took credit for things that he didn't do, and he short-changed his artists in the process. 

I'm more than happy to agree with my previous statement: Stan Lee took credit for things that he didn't do, and he short-changed his artists in the process.

Before anyone believes that I think is the comic book equivalent of the <former dictator of Germany during World War II>, there is no way anyone is going to be able to convince me that Timely/Atlas Comics would have turned into Marvel Comics without the contributions of Stan Lee. It's painfully clear that Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, John Romita, et. al., were wonderful and creative storytellers. To me, what elevated Marvel Comics over DC and other companies was Stan's dialogue. Also, through his non-stop hype, Stan served as a "cheerleader" for Marvel Comics. I can't remember if I ever saw anything like that in DC comics.

I, for one, have gotten the point of these threads, which I summarized in my above statement. I don't believe that it is appropriate to portray Stan as someone who sat around and did nothing but cash checks. Stan's dialogue and never-ending hype elevated Marvel above the other Silver Age companies. To me, this seems to be ignored amongst all the Stan Lee-bashing that occurs in these threads.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Math Teacher

[sfcityduck]

On 8/23/2023 at 7:11 AM, Prince Namor said:

Stan used the credit boxes at this point as a way to get additional payment for himself and keep credit for the characters under the company umbrella. Of course later on, he would screw over the man who'd kept him employed for 30 years, unseating his son to become publisher and eventually use 'ownership' of those characters to secure himself a lifetime contract.

...

At least Bob Kane repented his selfish deeds late in life.

I get it you want to slant everything as far as possible against Stan. But that really doesn't help comic scholarship in any way. This thread just comes across as bitter beyond belief.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Martin Goodman sold out to Martin Ackerman in 1968. Ackerman sold out around 1969/1970 and Sheldon Feinberg became the CEO of the entity then renamed as Cadence. Stan wasn't promoted to editorial director and publisher until 1972. So how did Stan "unseat" Goodman's son? It must have been a very shaky seat if he was still around in 1972.  

Also, upthread you convincingly document that Martin Goodman treated Stan Lee horribly -- trying to force him out and demeaning him in that effort. And now you assert Stan "would screw over the man who'd kept him employed for 30 years"? Massive cognitive dissonance. Goodman got good work from Stan, that's all Stan owed his employer - especially if that employer was as abusive as you state.

[sfcityduck]

On 8/23/2023 at 10:20 AM, Math Teacher said:

 

I'm more than happy to agree with my previous statement: Stan Lee took credit for things that he didn't do, and he short-changed his artists in the process.

 

I'm not convinced he "short-changed" his artists.  They knew the drill under Stan.  They got paid more than they would have at other publishers. They also appear to have believed that the "Marvel method" was a personally more satisfying way of working than some of the others.

Kirby told Groth in the CJ interview his attitude towards full scripts:

KIRBY: I’d try to be innovative. I’d give them my version of it. They’d pass my version along to be completed. Somehow it always worked. ... 

GROTH: Would the companies give your studio scripts, which you would then illustrate? 

KIRBY: I never took their scripts. DC would send me scripts, I’d throw them out the window. 

GROTH: Why was that? 

KIRBY: I don’t like anything that’s contrived. I conceive, they contrive. OK? 

Kirby was a Marvel method guy before it even existed. He didn't want a -script and he wasn't trying to claim a writer credit.

As for copyright issues, if that's what you are referring to, well the courts have spoken on that.

Edited August 23, 2023 by sfcityduck

[Zonker]

On 8/23/2023 at 1:20 PM, Math Teacher said:

It's painfully clear that Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, John Romita, et. al., were wonderful and creative storytellers. To me, what elevated Marvel Comics over DC and other companies was Stan's dialogue. Also, through his non-stop hype, Stan served as a "cheerleader" for Marvel Comics. I can't remember if I ever saw anything like that in DC comics.

Silver Age Marvel was before my time, and the comics that really made an impression on me as a youngster were the late 60s / early 70s DC's that I'm convinced were done in response to what Stan, Jack, Steve, John & company were producing at Marvel.  Stuff like Aquaman by Skeates & Aparo, anything Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams did together or separately, Wein & Wrightson's Swamp Thing, the Goodwin/Simonson Manhunter, and of course Kirby's Fourth World.

I'm as big a fan of the Fourth World as you'll find on these boards.  I wrote a long analysis of Forever People #3 here years ago digging into what Jack was getting at in that issue.

But I have to acknowledge that at least the second tier of Kirby's Fourth World characters were quite underdeveloped as characters.  Can anyone say what exactly was distinctive about the personality of say Serifan versus Mark Moonrider versus Vykin the Black versus Lightray?  Does it matter?  To me, not so much, given the great concepts Kirby was exploring.  And if the series had been allowed to continue, I bet Jack would eventually have given us a memorable solo story about for example Big Bear that would have better fleshed him out.  But to other readers no doubt the lack of characterization meant the books were under-written, or "poorly" written, depending on one's taste.  And without a Stan Lee there to tell us how great they were...