Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the 'Origins of Marvel Comics' 9 9

[VintageComics]

On 9/14/2024 at 7:31 PM, Mmehdy said:

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

I didn't think it would need to be clarified, but...

It's not that you can't criticize the dead. 

It's that the fact he can't speak for himself means more balance is needed to make sure you his side of the story correct than if he could still respond. 

Edited Sunday at 12:24 AM by VintageComics

[Prince Namor]

On 9/15/2024 at 7:16 AM, VintageComics said:

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

And yet you believe everything Lee has told you about the Origins of Marvel Comics. Somehow HIS eyewitness testimony has registered as 'truth'. 

Maybe YOU should read:

The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements 

https://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Perennial-ebook/dp/B003TO5838

 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/15/2024 at 7:21 AM, VintageComics said:

I didn't think it would need to be clarified, but...

It's not that you can't criticize the dead. 

It's that the fact he can't speak for himself means more balance is needed to make sure you his side of the story correct than if he could still respond. 

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

I would say... maybe no person in history took the time to present HIS side of the story more than Stan Lee did. 

[VintageComics]

On 9/14/2024 at 8:24 PM, Prince Namor said:

And yet you believe everything Lee has told you about the Origins of Marvel Comics. Somehow HIS eyewitness testimony has registered as 'truth'. 

Where did I say that? I haven't commented either way on what Lee said, only on how I believe these things should be handled. 

You're jumping to conclusions, as you always do.

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 9/14/2024 at 5:18 PM, Prince Namor said:

Because the truth is... with Lee's legacy... for many people, it's not about the TRUTH. It's about how they flet 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. 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/15/2024 at 7:29 AM, VintageComics said:

Where did I say that? I haven't commented either way on what Lee said, only on how I believe these things should be handled. 

You're jumping to conclusions, as you always do.

No. You made these statements:

   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. 

 

   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.

You think you know this information, because you've been indocrinated by Lee (and Thomas' propaganda magazine) for 50 years to believe this is what happened. It's Lee's eye witness account - which you're ok with enough to repeat it - that no one else who was there has verified.

In my book - numerous people HAVE verified that's not how it was - and information brought to light SHOWS us it didn't happen that way...

Yet... again, someone who hasn't read the book - yet who's been indocrinated with years of propaganda on the subject - wants to tell ME that I've handled it wrong.

Got it.

[grendel013]

When I was a 7 year old, I found WWF wrestling more believable than Stan Lee. He seemed like the nice Uncle who you always smiled with and laughed at his jokes and never believed a word he said...

[VintageComics]

On 9/14/2024 at 8:34 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 9/14/2024 at 8:29 PM, VintageComics said:

Where did I say that? I haven't commented either way on what Lee said, only on how I believe these things should be handled. 

You're jumping to conclusions, as you always do.

No. You made these statements:

 

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

   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. 

 

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

   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.

You think you know this information, because you've been indocrinated by Lee (and Thomas' propaganda magazine) for 50 years to believe this is what happened. It's Lee's eye witness account - which you're ok with enough to repeat it - that no one else who was there has verified.

In my book - numerous people HAVE verified that's not how it was - and information brought to light SHOWS us it didn't happen that way...

Yet... again, someone who hasn't read the book - yet who's been indocrinated with years of propaganda on the subject - wants to tell ME that I've handled it wrong.

Got it.

No.

We're not discussing the accuracy of what he said. 

I'm talking about unequivocal aspects of his career that don't need testimony or dissemination of indoctrination to prove or disprove. 

There is NO QUESTION that Stan Lee was the spokesperson. The irreplaceable lead singer. The COO. 

He was the face of every article and it was that way because Kirby wasn't a mouthpiece. He was a grunt...and that's not a dis. Kirby was great at his job and it's a statement of fact. 

If Kirby was more of a spokesperson he would have spoken out.

The two are forever tied together and greater than the sum of their separate parts and always will be but without the mouthpiece Marvel wouldn't have been as successful, just like Led Zeppelin would have been less successful without Robert Plant. 

I don't need any background info to see that. 

 

Edited Sunday at 12:48 AM by VintageComics

[Prince Namor]

On 9/15/2024 at 7:46 AM, VintageComics said:

No.

We're not discussing the accuracy of what he said. 

"eye witness accounts are generally very unreliable."

sends me a link to an article about eyewitness accounts.

Then tells me: "We're not discussing the accuracy of what he said."

Dude, do you have short term memory loss?

On 9/15/2024 at 7:46 AM, VintageComics said:

I'm talking about unequivocal aspects of his career that don't need testimony or dissemination of indoctrination to prove or disprove. 

There is NO QUESTION that Stan Lee was the spokesperson. The irreplaceable lead singer. The COO. 

He was the face of every article and it was that way because Kirby wasn't a mouthpiece. He was a grunt...and that's not a dis. Kirby was great at his job and it's a statement of fact. 

If Kirby was more of a spokesperson he would have spoken out.

The two are forever tied together and greater than the sum of their separate parts and always will be but without the mouthpiece Marvel wouldn't have been as successful, just like Led Zeppelin would have been less successful without Robert Plant. 

I don't need any background info to see that. 

 

Absolutely NO ONE here was discussing if Lee was or was not the spokesman for Marvel Comics.

This is insanity. 

I have to laugh. I can only laugh. 

One thing for sure, when it comes to maipulation, you're no Stan Lee. 

[VintageComics]

On 9/14/2024 at 9:04 PM, Prince Namor said:

Then tells me: "We're not discussing the accuracy of what he said."

You're conflating something I said earlier (eye witness accounts by specific individuals from the past, about specific instances between said individuals) with what everyone readily accepts and is indisputable.

I am not discussing details or aspects of what he said about himself. 

I'm solely, in these last few posts, discussing the fact that he was the face of Marvel, and Marvel wouldn't have been as successful a Marvel without him being the face of it. 

This is indisputable. Even his worst enemies would have to admit this. 

On 9/14/2024 at 9:04 PM, Prince Namor said:

Dude, do you have short term memory loss?

 

On 9/14/2024 at 9:04 PM, Prince Namor said:

I have to laugh. I can only laugh. 

One thing for sure, when it comes to maipulation, you're no Stan Lee. 

Aren't these the exact types of attacks that you and Mike below said SHOULDN'T happen in this thread?

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?

 

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

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.    

 

[CGC Mike]

@Prince Namor Roy is right.  Please be less contentious in your replies towards others.

[grendel013]

[AlterEgo2024]

On 9/14/2024 at 6:19 PM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

Do walnuts think? 

Oh Paul, why are you soooooo cranky? I've tried to have a nice chat with you and all you want to do is throw silly insults. Do you remember what Mike said a few pages ago?

"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." 

You don't want me to hump that button, do you? 

Have a good night and I hope you feel better tomorrow. 

 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/15/2024 at 8:17 AM, VintageComics said:

You're conflating something I said earlier (eye witness accounts by specific individuals from the past, about specific instances between said individuals) with what everyone readily accepts and is indisputable.

I am not discussing details or aspects of what he said about himself. 

I'm solely, in these last few posts, discussing the fact that he was the face of Marvel, and Marvel wouldn't have been as successful a Marvel without him being the face of it. 

I wasn't 'conflating' anything. You specifically made those points in the discussion. 

I didn't realized you had changed the topic to 'Stan Lee was the face of Marvel'. 

Again, no one was debating that point. No one, anywhere in this discussion brought that up until you did. If anyone wants to debate that with you, I welcome them. But big hint: No one will because its a straw man arguement. 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/15/2024 at 8:19 AM, CGC Mike said:

@Prince Namor Roy is right.  Please be less contentious in your replies towards others.

Ok

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/15/2024 at 3:12 AM, AlterEgo2024 said:

Oh Paul, why are you soooooo cranky? I've tried to have a nice chat with you and all you want to do is throw silly insults. Do you remember what Mike said a few pages ago?

"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." 

You don't want me to hump that button, do you? 

Have a good night and I hope you feel better tomorrow. 

 

I don't know who you are, but I'm getting sick of you trolling me throughout this thread. So, desist please.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/15/2024 at 12:05 AM, VintageComics said:

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.

This

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

I very rarely agree with Roy if ever. Hell we can't stand each other BUT his posts on this subject are measured, considered and impartial. However he is clearly talking against a tsunami of anti-Lee hatred, which has been evident from the same quarter on these boards for years. This is a book I would be interested to read but have absolutely no interest in doing so, mainly because of the conduct of the author who persistently tries to bully, browbeat and corral his audience to his way of thinking, at any cost.

Not the way to plug a book.

1. I've just written a book, why don't you guys read it and tell me what you think?

No, the author goes for  

2. I've just written a book and what I say goes, and if you disagree or challenge me, you are all brainwashed sheep.

That is exactly what is coming across.

You have a lot to learn about marketing Chaz.  

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/15/2024 at 1:09 AM, Prince Namor said:

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. 

I said this, but this is where you twist things to suit your narrative.

I didn't say Lee wrote all the Atlas PCH, what I said was I LIKED the stories he did write for Atlas. I could care less what his output was, I liked the stuff he wrote personally in that period.

We clear?

[Prince Namor]

Oh, you were finished? Well, allow me to retort.

The book isn't a biography. It's a... as it says on the cover, a Handy Guide to Every Lie in the Origins of Marvel Comics'.

Let's look at how many of these lies someone has brought up to try and counter me on...... uh.... ZERO!

Instead, the main complaints have been a) that the book shouldn't be done... which, I mean truthfully for the usual suspects gathered here IS a veiled personal attack on me... and b) that I'm not telling the whole story or giving Lee his due.

I'm QUOTING HIS POSITION FROM the book HE wrote. 

How am I NOT giving his side of the story??? I'm quoting him DIRECTLY.

I go into NO discussion of what I think he meant - that would be speculative. I let the liar lay his own trap. It's HIS words. 

So those of you who are saying this - You're misinformed. Lee is quoted quite liberally, and leads off every point WITH a quote from his book that was written BY him.

As with most misinformation... it hasn't come from the source, but rather ONE person - Rich Johnston's claim that "there is no attempt to be even-handed, and anything that doesn't challenge the tenet that Stan Lee didn't co-create or write the comic books he claimed to have and was credited for is either not included or dismissed with a hand wave.", is incorrect. 

(NOTE: Which incidently, I don't care... Rich obviously KNEW it would cause controversy and bring clicks to his site, etc. and I was just happy he chose to jump on the story)

But, he's wrong. I QUOTE Lee throughout the entire book. I DO show Lee's side.

That's the whole POINT. To contrast it with the OTHER SIDE. 

Edited Sunday at 07:45 AM by Prince Namor