Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the 'Origins of Marvel Comics' 8 8

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/14/2024 at 6:51 PM, Bookery said:

Now name another Big-Auto CEO off the top of your head.

Enzo Ferrari.  

[Hulksdaddy1]

Edited Saturday at 08:07 PM by Hulksdaddy1

[RockMyAmadeus]

[Bookery]

On 9/14/2024 at 2:05 PM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

Enzo Ferrari.  

It probably says more about me than anything else, but I wouldn't have been able to tell you Ferrari's first name if my life depended on it.

Though I'm guessing he may have been related to that Bob Maserati guy?

[MAY1979]

On 9/14/2024 at 2:05 PM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

Enzo Ferrari.  

Preston Tucker - still, Bookery's actual point is totally valid for Gen Pop

Edited Saturday at 08:56 PM by MAY1979

[KCOComics]

On 9/14/2024 at 12:20 PM, Bookery said:

Most people have no concept of an old term called "ballyhoo", which encompasses a style of marketing marked by exaggeration and flamboyance to promote one's self or company.  But it only works if the underlying product is solid and sustainably popular.  One of its progenitors was Buffalo Bill Cody.   Did he really do all of the heroic antics that he re-created in his Wild West Show?  Of course not.  But did he put together a hugely popular show, and build a stable of talent such as Annie Oakley, and promote the hell out of it all around the globe?  Yes.

P.T. Barnum built an empire out of "lies" and exaggerations.  Was Jumbo the largest elephant ever?  No.  But he was big.  Was Jenny Lind the greatest opera singer of all time?  Probably not.  But she was very good.  And did people mind when a mermaid turned out to be just some stitched-together animal carcasses?  No.  Because even though many of the boasts weren't true, when asked about was it nevertheless the "Greatest Show on Earth", most patrons responded "yes."

And when promoting at this level, it helps to build the brand around a single personality, rather than a faceless corporation.  Rockefeller didn't build his empire alone.  Edison didn't create most of his company's inventions... but he put together the teams that did.  Howard Hughes didn't invent the tricone drill bit... but he hired the engineers that did, and eventually scored nearly 100% of his market.  Hitchcock's talent is undisputed... but it doesn't operate in a vacuum... his films wouldn't be the same without others like cinematographer Robert Burks and composer Bernard Herrmann.  But in interviews, the audience doesn't want to hear about a roster of those that contributed... they want a single face for the product.

Stan Lee understood ballyhoo very well.  Whether he took it to extremes others can debate.  Not my point.  He wasn't much of a writer, and wasn't an artist at all.  But he knew hype, and he put together a stable of talent to provide the solid underlying product necessary to successful self promotion.  And if he stole a lot of credit, he also allowed creators to put their names to the stories and art... something almost unheard of with other publishers.  (Would anybody know Kirby's name today if he stayed at DC in the '50s and '60s?).  And having a single personal name to build the hype around can be essential, even if it means others unfortunately get slighted.  Mike Lindell isn't designing all of those products, and Elon Musk isn't in the labs calculating structural tolerances.  But they are in charge of who they hire to do it, and how they promote it.  I don't deal in sports cards, and yet I know what the name "Beckett" is.  (I wonder if, despite their success, a company like CGC or its competitors wouldn't have been better off starting with a solid recognizable moniker rather than something that looks like a stock symbol?  It's of note that their current owner is Blackstone... a bold simple name that is a translated amalgam of the original two partners' names).

In hindsight I'd wish I had been more comfortable with self-promotion.  "Bookery" sounds fairly generic.  Had I slapped my name in 10-foot letters across the top of my building, or in huge print on the price guides, I expect I'd have fared better over time.  I'd have certainly had more clout in my local community.  Another businessman in town has his name all over a bunch of small shops (many which are only open a few weeks per year).  But he is the darling of the city council and chamber, and can pretty much get whatever he wants done in town, even though I suspect my businesses do more per year than his.  In the end, ego and hype make the brand.  You probably can't be a fair or even nice person to pull off ballyhoo... but it will make you very successful, and inevitably it will make others in your company successful too, even though they may have to let their own egos take a hit to do so.

 

Great post! 

[AlterEgo2024]

On 9/14/2024 at 10:44 AM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

What's your problem?

Mike works for CGC, his handle is CGC Mike, he is their voice on here. That is good enough for me.

Let it go, whoever you are.  Stu????

Lighten up, Paul. I guess you didn't see the smiley faces? I'm just joking around.

BTW you can ask Mike if I'm Stu. He knows exactly who I am.

Edited Saturday at 09:18 PM by AlterEgo2024
added a line

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/14/2024 at 10:06 PM, AlterEgo2024 said:

Lighten up, Paul. I guess you didn't see the smiley faces? I'm just joking around.

Sure you are.

[AlterEgo2024]

On 9/14/2024 at 5:16 PM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

Sure you are.

That's some powerful mind reading ability you have. Can you tell me what I'm thinking right now? 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/14/2024 at 10:34 PM, AlterEgo2024 said:

That's some powerful mind reading ability you have. Can you tell me what I'm thinking right now? 

Do walnuts think? 

[Dr. Balls]

On 9/14/2024 at 3:34 PM, AlterEgo2024 said:

Can you tell me what I'm thinking right now? 

I can't tell what you're thinking, but I'm thinking that Bob Maserati is a great porn actor name.

[VintageComics]

On 9/14/2024 at 7:48 AM, CGC Mike said:

On 9/13/2024 at 11:42 PM, Prince Namor said:

And by civil you mean dicuss the topic and not aim remarks at others personally, right?

That is correct.  I would also like to add that posters can criticize the book.  You can defend your reasoning, and a healthy debate can take place.  If there are any personal attacks including name calling from either side, the person hurling them will be permanently banned from the thread at minimum.    

As someone who has been mercilessly attacked on this forum 100s if not 1000s of times, this should have been in practice 4 years ago. In fact, I asked for it openly, multiple times and was ignored.

What changed?

I'm all in agreement for this. 

Having said that, from the small bits I've seen (and the general consensus here in this thread) the book goes on to attack Stan Lee openly with fervor and doesn't seem to take a balanced approach to criticizing his past. Even the title is an open attack.

The man is dead, and the book looks like it's written in a way that's makes it sound like it's supposed to sound divisive. Comic collectors are primarily emotional and not rational and you can understand why tensions are running hot on the topic. 

 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/14/2024 at 10:31 PM, NoMan said:

Congratulations! I applaud anybody's creative endeavours. Can you please give me a quick/short example of an instance where Stan lied in the Origins of Marvel Comics book?

Depending on your answer, I may pick up your book.

Regardless, congratulations are due. I'm sure producing this was not easy.

LIE #3.7

 

“Just for kicks, I wanted to try something different… for a while I’d been toying with the idea of doing a strip that would violate all the conventions - break all the rules. A strip that would actually feature a teenager as the star, instead of making him an (ugh!) adult hero’s sidekick.”

 

Wow! A teen age superhero who wasn’t a sidekick?

You mean like Superboy, who’d been one of the best selling comics since it first hit the stands 13 YEARS AGO (1949)? That currently outsold the JLA, who you say you based the FF on by DOUBLE the monthly sales (655,000 to 335,000)?

That kind of comic that featured a teenager who wasn’t a side kick?

Or what about Charlie Biro’s ‘Crimebuster’, in Boy Comics? He fights crime to avenge the death of his parents, dressed in a hockey uniform, and attending high school. He also has a pet monkey named Squeeks. His stories ran in Boy Comics for 14 years (1942-1956, over 100 issues)!

What about the Legion of Superheroes? That was a whole TEAM of Teenage Superheroes from throughout the entire universe! Created in 1958, the Legion had made at least 12 appearances by the time Spider-Man first appeared.

What about Captain Marvel Jr., who appeared solo in his own comic book from 1942 to 1953 (11 years)? (With some of those early Mac Raboy covers!!

Kid Eternity for Quality Comics had his own series for 3 years - the Star Spangled Kid appeared in Star Spangled Comics from 1941 to 1948 - along with Jack Kirby and Joe Simon’s Newsboy Legion from 1942 to 1946.

This is yet another instance of Stan Lee claiming something and no one in the media knowing enough about comics to call him out on it. And we’d see it year after year and decade after decade - Lee throwing around unchecked claims that even comic fans knew weren’t true, and the media completely allowed to pass.

They had no clue.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/14/2024 at 11:09 PM, Mmehdy said:

4/5 of the way though...The most controversial book every written about marvel comics history. Again, the best researched book on the marvel big bang creation theory ...every page something I have never realized on his take. Here is an interesting question?

WHY IS THIS BOOK SO IMPORTANT...for me I bought FF 1 off the news stand, I read as a kid FF4 more than any other comic book....they were so different at the time...nothing like them then Hulk and the rest came on, by the way Hulk#1 one the best written books ever and cover. I just had to know how they did it....it was like magic...waiting each month for your mind to be blown. I have met Stan and Jack many time and never got a straight or consistent answer, including the time Stan had finished a book signing in LA...just me and him I think at Borders in the 2000's with my mom was has since passed away after we had had lunch at the Apple Pan ( famous hamburger rest in LA 5/5 my rating)...this was not SDCC million people......and I hit him up one on one...how did you do it....well after reading this book.....having only the classic Pure Images issues from Greg....I can finally say I have the total information, in which I can make a decision....on how it happened.

 The comic book historical book of the year by a MIle.

As a board member, 60 plus year lifetime comic book collector...MY HIGHEST RECOMMENDATION......GAME CHANGER

 

I will give you my full review sometime tonight....after each chapter, I go back and reread some of it....doing it right and its that good.

 

 

 

Thanks Mitch!

[Mmehdy]

On 9/14/2024 at 4:05 PM, VintageComics said:

As someone who has been mercilessly attacked on this forum 100s if not 1000s of times, this should have been in practice 4 years ago. In fact, I asked for it openly, multiple times and was ignored.

What changed?

I'm all in agreement for this. 

Having said that, from the small bits I've seen (and the general consensus here in this thread) the book goes on to attack Stan Lee openly with fervor and doesn't seem to take a balanced approach to criticizing his past. Even the title is an open attack.

The man is dead, and the book looks like it's written in a way that's makes it sound like it's supposed to sound divisive. Comic collectors are primarily emotional and not rational and you can understand why tensions are running hot on the topic. 

 

Using  the fact that Stan Lee is passed adoes not change the facts presented by this book...Jack and Steve are passed away there is no defending Stan on that basis that he cannot defend himself. He does not have to....the shocking facts are laid out in plain sight..7/8 done and it takes awhile to sink in based upon what spin was out there and let me say this....the title is perfect for the book. It is short, sweet and to the point. Full review coming. There is a preview of the book on Amazon....those who say I will buy....I have a challenge to you...LOOK at it...its free then you will understand.

Edited Saturday at 11:32 PM by Mmehdy

[VintageComics]

On 9/14/2024 at 12:20 PM, Bookery said:

Most people have no concept of an old term called "ballyhoo", which encompasses a style of marketing marked by exaggeration and flamboyance to promote one's self or company.  But it only works if the underlying product is solid and sustainably popular.  One of its progenitors was Buffalo Bill Cody.   Did he really do all of the heroic antics that he re-created in his Wild West Show?  Of course not.  But did he put together a hugely popular show, and build a stable of talent such as Annie Oakley, and promote the hell out of it all around the globe?  Yes.

P.T. Barnum built an empire out of "lies" and exaggerations.  Was Jumbo the largest elephant ever?  No.  But he was big.  Was Jenny Lind the greatest opera singer of all time?  Probably not.  But she was very good.  And did people mind when a mermaid turned out to be just some stitched-together animal carcasses?  No.  Because even though many of the boasts weren't true, when asked about was it nevertheless the "Greatest Show on Earth", most patrons responded "yes."

And when promoting at this level, it helps to build the brand around a single personality, rather than a faceless corporation.  Rockefeller didn't build his empire alone.  Edison didn't create most of his company's inventions... but he put together the teams that did.  Howard Hughes didn't invent the tricone drill bit... but he hired the engineers that did, and eventually scored nearly 100% of his market.  Hitchcock's talent is undisputed... but it doesn't operate in a vacuum... his films wouldn't be the same without others like cinematographer Robert Burks and composer Bernard Herrmann.  But in interviews, the audience doesn't want to hear about a roster of those that contributed... they want a single face for the product.

Stan Lee understood ballyhoo very well.  Whether he took it to extremes others can debate.  Not my point.  He wasn't much of a writer, and wasn't an artist at all.  But he knew hype, and he put together a stable of talent to provide the solid underlying product necessary to successful self promotion.  And if he stole a lot of credit, he also allowed creators to put their names to the stories and art... something almost unheard of with other publishers.  (Would anybody know Kirby's name today if he stayed at DC in the '50s and '60s?).  And having a single personal name to build the hype around can be essential, even if it means others unfortunately get slighted.  Mike Lindell isn't designing all of those products, and Elon Musk isn't in the labs calculating structural tolerances.  But they are in charge of who they hire to do it, and how they promote it.  I don't deal in sports cards, and yet I know what the name "Beckett" is.  (I wonder if, despite their success, a company like CGC or its competitors wouldn't have been better off starting with a solid recognizable moniker rather than something that looks like a stock symbol?  It's of note that their current owner is Blackstone... a bold simple name that is a translated amalgam of the original two partners' names).

In hindsight I'd wish I had been more comfortable with self-promotion.  "Bookery" sounds fairly generic.  Had I slapped my name in 10-foot letters across the top of my building, or in huge print on the price guides, I expect I'd have fared better over time.  I'd have certainly had more clout in my local community.  Another businessman in town has his name all over a bunch of small shops (many which are only open a few weeks per year).  But he is the darling of the city council and chamber, and can pretty much get whatever he wants done in town, even though I suspect my businesses do more per year than his.  In the end, ego and hype make the brand.  You probably can't be a fair or even nice person to pull off ballyhoo... but it will make you very successful, and inevitably it will make others in your company successful too, even though they may have to let their own egos take a hit to do so.

 

What a wonderful, well written post, as most of your posts are.

Without putting the focus on Stan Lee, this post is an excellent insight into how a balanced look into Stan Lee's life should look as opposed to the inflammatory language the book uses.  

In the moment, working for a struggling, carpy comic book company, treading water to stay alive in a drowning swamp of a myriad of publication companies, it takes a ton of guts, effort and intuition to navigate that swamp and not drown in it. 

I don't think Stan was an outright fraud. I don't think he conspired to take people's ideas the way Bob Kane did. I do think Stan was an exaggerator. A masterful spin doctor. You can't take spin and make gospel or math out of it, which many have done. 

What I like about your post is that it looks at the entire economy of success, as a whole and not as a zero sum game. That sort of patience and perspective is rare. 

He quite literally did what it took to get the company to the top and succeeded. Without the spin, and with a little more precision in his wording, he likely wouldn't have been as successful, which means Jack Kirby wouldn't have been as successful, nor would any of the titles. 

And certainly, it's a very difficult thing to judge some 50 or 80 years ago by today's standards, in much the same way comparing Michael Jordan to Wilt Chamberlain would be.

I don't think anyone that was there 60 years ago cared what was said or done at the time, as long as they got a paycheck. 

Hindsight is very different and actually changes once a brand becomes successful. Then, all of a sudden everyone cares about things they didn't care about then. Memories change, feelings change and accomplishments change. 

This to me is the key way to look into the past and why balance is important. 

That's not to make an excuse for outright lying and unethical behavior. That's always wrong. But how much of a lie it was, and the intent of his words are just as important in a court of law, and those things are likely going to be a debate for the ages. 

With less "ballyhoo" Marvel would likely have been less successful and everyone from the readers to the creators and everyone in between would have suffered. 

Finally, eye witness accounts are generally very unreliable. That's unequivocal.

Somewhere between the intent of the book and Stan Lee's intent is the truth, and what the reader wants to see will color that story differently for each reader. 

Edited Saturday at 11:46 PM by VintageComics

[Prince Namor]

On 9/14/2024 at 11:20 PM, Bookery said:

Most people have no concept of an old term called "ballyhoo", which encompasses a style of marketing marked by exaggeration and flamboyance to promote one's self or company.  But it only works if the underlying product is solid and sustainably popular.  One of its progenitors was Buffalo Bill Cody.   Did he really do all of the heroic antics that he re-created in his Wild West Show?  Of course not.  But did he put together a hugely popular show, and build a stable of talent such as Annie Oakley, and promote the hell out of it all around the globe?  Yes.

P.T. Barnum built an empire out of "lies" and exaggerations.  Was Jumbo the largest elephant ever?  No.  But he was big.  Was Jenny Lind the greatest opera singer of all time?  Probably not.  But she was very good.  And did people mind when a mermaid turned out to be just some stitched-together animal carcasses?  No.  Because even though many of the boasts weren't true, when asked about was it nevertheless the "Greatest Show on Earth", most patrons responded "yes."

Thank you for your insightful post.

The first line in the whole book is "Let's get one thing clear: I’m not saying Stan Lee didn’t do anything."

Because I knew... the first line of defense for Lee fans would be to start telling me all the things he was/did.

No one is questioning Lee's PT Barnum abilities. 

On 9/14/2024 at 11:20 PM, Bookery said:

And when promoting at this level, it helps to build the brand around a single personality, rather than a faceless corporation.  Rockefeller didn't build his empire alone.  Edison didn't create most of his company's inventions... but he put together the teams that did.  Howard Hughes didn't invent the tricone drill bit... but he hired the engineers that did, and eventually scored nearly 100% of his market.  Hitchcock's talent is undisputed... but it doesn't operate in a vacuum... his films wouldn't be the same without others like cinematographer Robert Burks and composer Bernard Herrmann.  But in interviews, the audience doesn't want to hear about a roster of those that contributed... they want a single face for the product.

Rockefeller didn't claim to actually build the Rockefeller Center.

On 9/14/2024 at 11:20 PM, Bookery said:

Stan Lee understood ballyhoo very well.  Whether he took it to extremes others can debate.  Not my point.  He wasn't much of a writer, and wasn't an artist at all.  But he knew hype, and he put together a stable of talent to provide the solid underlying product necessary to successful self promotion. 

Debateable. He accepted whoever was willing to take one of the lowest page rates in the business at the time. He was more fortunate to get the creators he did during the early 60's. Later, his choices in bringing back Romita, Buscema, Colan, etc. was a good one, but much of it relied upon artists who were willing to accept not getting credit or pay for writing the stories he dialogued. 

Guys like Joe Orlando, Jack Davis, Harvey Kurtzman, Johnny Craig, Al Feldstein, and even after a short time Wally Wood and then Steve Ditko... some pretty darn good creators there - decided they DIDN'T like the idea.

On 9/14/2024 at 11:20 PM, Bookery said:

And if he stole a lot of credit,

He stole a lot of PAY as well. The artists wrote the stories. As an example we KNOW, for a FACT, that Lee didn't even talk to Steve Ditko from around ASM #25 thru #38, and that Ditko wrote those stories with no imput from anyone. Yet, he's not listed as writer on any of them, nor did he receive pay for that job.

Bob Kane was villianized his whole life for the CREDIT he stole from Bill Finger and Jerry Robinson. At least he paid those guys for the work they did. And near the end of his life he even had remorse.

"Now that my long-time friend and collaborator is gone, I must admit that Bill never received the fame and recognition he deserved. He was an unsung hero ... I often tell my wife, if I could go back fifteen years, before he died, I would like to say. 'I'll put your name on it now. You deserve it.’"

- Bob Kane, from Batman & Me, Eclipse Books (1989)

Lee for the last 20 years of his life - even testified under oath - that he created everything and simply assigned an artits to do it.

Wow.

And NO ONE ever says, "Hey Steranko, you telling that Bob Kane b-tch slap story again? Leave the guy alone he's been dead for years! He was a great promoter for the character of Batman! A real PT Barnum!"

On 9/14/2024 at 11:20 PM, Bookery said:

he also allowed creators to put their names to the stories and art... something almost unheard of with other publishers.  (Would anybody know Kirby's name today if he stayed at DC in the '50s and '60s?). 

Kirby would've been in the Comic Book Hall of Fame even if the Marvel Silver Age never happened. 

On 9/14/2024 at 11:20 PM, Bookery said:

And having a single personal name to build the hype around can be essential, even if it means others unfortunately get slighted.  Mike Lindell isn't designing all of those products, and Elon Musk isn't in the labs calculating structural tolerances.  But they are in charge of who they hire to do it, and how they promote it.  I don't deal in sports cards, and yet I know what the name "Beckett" is.  (I wonder if, despite their success, a company like CGC or its competitors wouldn't have been better off starting with a solid recognizable moniker rather than something that looks like a stock symbol?  It's of note that their current owner is Blackstone... a bold simple name that is a translated amalgam of the original two partners' names).

What about the Triplets for the Dallas Cowboys in the 90's? Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith and Michael Irvin? Really any successful sports team...

What about the Beatles? John, Paul, George, and Ringo? The Stones? Mick and Keith? Most any BAND...

The Three Stooges? The Seinfeld Cast? The Big Bang Theory Cast? The Cohen Brothers? A LOT of entertainment productions...

The Wright Brothers? Ben & Jerry? Hewlett-Packard? Proctor & Gamble? 

On 9/14/2024 at 11:20 PM, Bookery said:

In hindsight I'd wish I had been more comfortable with self-promotion.  "Bookery" sounds fairly generic.  Had I slapped my name in 10-foot letters across the top of my building, or in huge print on the price guides, I expect I'd have fared better over time.  I'd have certainly had more clout in my local community.  Another businessman in town has his name all over a bunch of small shops (many which are only open a few weeks per year).  But he is the darling of the city council and chamber, and can pretty much get whatever he wants done in town, even though I suspect my businesses do more per year than his.  In the end, ego and hype make the brand.  You probably can't be a fair or even nice person to pull off ballyhoo... but it will make you very successful, and inevitably it will make others in your company successful too, even though they may have to let their own egos take a hit to do so.

You just said it... "though I suspect my businesses do more per year than his". You ARE successful. And with probably a lot less hassle of being a household name. You'd rather have added the hassle of stroking your ego to the success?

Morrissey once sang, "I'd rather be famous, than righteous or holy."

I'll take financial success WITHOUT having to glad hand people ANY DAY. I couldn't begin to imagine being THAT person.

(Morrissey did also continue you with, in the same song: "Sometimes I feel more fulfilled, making Christmas Cards for the mentally ill." )

 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/15/2024 at 6:36 AM, VintageComics said:

In the moment, working for a struggling, carpy comic book company, treading water to stay alive in a drowning swamp of a myriad of publication companies, it takes a ton of guts, effort and intuition to navigate that swamp and not drown in it. 

Lee didn't navigate anything. He sat and whimpered for a year as the company was preparing to fold. It was Kirby coming to Marvel to write and draw that helped them to enough business to stay afloat. Goodman made that decision. 

On 9/15/2024 at 6:36 AM, VintageComics said:

He quite literally did what it took to get the company to the top and succeeded. Without the spin, and with a little more precision in his wording, he likely wouldn't have been as successful, which means Jack Kirby wouldn't have been as successful, nor would any of the titles.

No. He didn't. Goodman ultimately made the decision on superheroes as well. Kirby had a 'blitz' as he called it, of ideas he presented to Goodman, including FF, Hulk, Thor, etc. that in a last ditch effort he allowed one to be tried. 

If none of this happens - none of Lee's 'spin' would've made any difference at all. Lee never 'spun' Millie the Model and Dextor the Demon to the top. His career had been nothing up to that point. Someone mentioned Lee's Atlas writing... Stan Lee wrote about 2% or less of the Atlas output. 98% was written by others, yet this is another fib put together to try and bolster Lee's legend. 

On 9/15/2024 at 6:36 AM, VintageComics said:

That's not to make an excuse for outright lying and unethical behavior. That's always wrong. But how much of a lie it was, and the intent of his words are just as important in a court of law, and those things are likely going to be a debate for the ages. 

Mmm... actually it is. But not surprising...

On 9/15/2024 at 6:36 AM, VintageComics said:

Finally, eye witness accounts are generally very unreliable. That's unequivocal.

This is hilarious.

"You weren't there in the room so you don't know!"

Ok here's some quotes from people who WERE in the room...

"Well... uh.... eye witness accounts are generally very unreliable!"

LOL. Classic.

On 9/15/2024 at 6:36 AM, VintageComics said:

Somewhere between the intent of the book and Stan Lee's intent is the truth, and what the reader wants to see will color that story differently for each reader. 

Hey there's a TON of Lee hagiography books out there. Have at 'em.

Lee's 'intent' I never touch upon because it'd just be my own interpretation. I HAVE my thoughts on it. But that'll be for another book...

[VintageComics]

On 9/14/2024 at 8:09 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 9/14/2024 at 7:36 PM, VintageComics said:

Finally, eye witness accounts are generally very unreliable. That's unequivocal.

This is hilarious.

"You weren't there in the room so you don't know!"

Ok here's some quotes from people who WERE in the room...

"Well... uh.... eye witness accounts are generally very unreliable!"

LOL. Classic.

You should read a book on how accurate eyewitness testimony is but a small article is sufficient. 

Scientific American is a good publication, isn't it?

Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts

Eyewitness testimony is fickle and, all too often, shockingly inaccurate

 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/15/2024 at 6:31 AM, Mmehdy said:

Using  the fact that Stan Lee is passed does not change the facts presented by this book...

Yep. 

And as I said, NO ONE defends Bob Kane this way. Perfectly acceptable to still villianize the guy, even though HE actually showed remorse later in life for what he did.

Every day, books about historical figures are published with new information - uncovered facts - that update us on the real history of people. 

No one bats an eye with any kind of, "They're dead! Why can't you just let it be!"

Because the truth is... with Lee's legacy... for many people, it's not about the TRUTH. It's about how they felt when they were 8 years old or whatever and the need to whiteknuckle grip that nostalgia. They can't let go of it for anything. 

This book isn't for them.

They'll still try and give their negative opinion of it, without ever having read it - besides Mitch, who HAS read it - all of the people here with the most to say HAVEN'T. They have made up their minds without needing to. 

Cult-like behavior. 

So for anyone, who HASN'T made up their minds, remember.... most of the negativity here is from people who, for better or for worse, have decided that the idealized version of this man that they've been brainwashed to believe is the truth is more important than anything that, at the very least tries to resemble the truth. 

'Nuff said.

Edited Sunday at 12:29 AM by Prince Namor