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

[Forbush-Man]

And now for something completely different...

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

I wonder if 'ol Stan is watching down from the heavenly bullpen and enjoying all this...I bet he is 100%

Edited yesterday at 03:42 AM by Paul © ® ⚽️💙™

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

....and crikey I've just realised who Stan reminds me of....

 

[Prince Namor]

Both ruthless business people hiding behind a 'family man, good guy' facade while without moral conscience dealing and/or eliminating anyone or anything in their way to make as much money as possible?

 

 

[comicwiz]

On 9/17/2024 at 10:03 PM, Book Guy said:

My question to the more knowledgeable than me is: can anyone turn up interviews from writers/artists etc who worked for Stan where they state the opposite of what the Author maintains? i.e. "I worked with Stan and he provided me a full script"...Or "I got a three page outline for the story and then we talked back-and-forth over the phone at least a dozen times over the next week to hammer out the plot"... etc etc  Evidence from the horse's mouth that would be considered exculpatory or a refutation.

I'm hardly the most knowledgeable on this topic, however what I can say from simply observing some of the dynamics that have occurred over the years is that Steranko's testimonial (if you can even call it that) is perhaps the most well-known. This started with an epic retelling of how he "person_without_enough_empathy-slapped" Bob Kane in an elevator. As he's telling this over a multi-tweet thread on Twitter, someone asks him about Lee. For posterity, here are the main links to that exchange.

Jim Steranko
@iamsteranko @texaswingnut What do you mean by taking "Lee-like credit" away from someone?

Jim Steranko
@iamsteranko.@CarlShinyama @texaswingnut
You guys may know a lot more than I do about Stan swindling Jack--I was only THERE at the time!

Jim Steranko
@iamsteranko .@CarlShinyama @texaswingnut
and can unequivocally confirm that Stan diminished no one's contribution. I was there--and observing carefully!

The truth is he lived in Reading Pennsylvania. By the time he began selling work to Marvel, Ditko and Wood had already quit and all the major characters had been created. At the time (11 years ago), his tweets made him emerge as this bigger than life personality, who gave Kane his dues. The story as it was told was epic, especially for anyone who had come to learn how Kane treated Finger. As an artist himself, it would presumably be a way of righting a wrong, and he, the kind of person who would abhor any deceptive effort to conceal or obscure rightful acknowledgement and compensation, so I was totally good with knowing Steranko did what he did to Bob Kane. However I often wished it just remained as a singular event (the Bob Kane story), because when it was rightly brought up how Stan Lee liberally took creator rights (and pay) like some half-eaten lolipop, Steranko should have just kept out of it instead of spreading and perpetuating a lie. It invalidates the whole experience for me, and I can't trust the Kane story is even true anymore.

There are others who have also defended Lee, nearly all with ulterior motives. This is one that got a lot of traction and views, and figured most would recall. This blog post covers a few others.

Edited yesterday at 12:13 PM by comicwiz

[comicwiz]

On 9/17/2024 at 7:30 PM, VintageComics said:

Both you and Comicwiz have done the same thing, repeating this but not actually answering my questions.

You use the "truth is incontrovertible" quote in your sig, and you seem to either be a potent combination of panic or ignorance, maybe both, but all I've done is post the truth. Your inabiity to handle it is the issue here, don't characterize it as anything else. And if you prefer to tip toe around it, or back peddle, don't do it without at least acknolwedging people are taking time/effort to respond civily, and with references to real events, not made up observations unrelated to the industry. 

Edited yesterday at 01:21 PM by comicwiz

[Bookery]

On 9/17/2024 at 8:44 PM, BlowUpTheMoon said:

Short of doing a book tour, this these actions are normal and expected when releasing a book. 

I'll jump back in for this one.  Yes.  Exactly!  It was not a put-down.  I was dove-tailing back to my point that ballyhoo can be an effective means of marketing.  I most certainly did not condemn Prince Namor for employing it!  If you had included the full quote, and read my previous posts, this should have been obvious.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/18/2024 at 7:03 PM, comicwiz said:

I'm hardly the most knowledgeable on this topic, however what I can say from simply observing some of the dynamics that have occurred over the years is that Steranko's testimonial (if you can even call it that) is perhaps the most well-known. This started with an epic retelling of how he "person_without_enough_empathy-slapped" Bob Kane in an elevator. As he's telling this over a multi-tweet thread on Twitter, someone asks him about Lee. For posterity, here are the main links to that exchange.

Jim Steranko
@iamsteranko @texaswingnut What do you mean by taking "Lee-like credit" away from someone?

Jim Steranko
@iamsteranko.@CarlShinyama @texaswingnut
You guys may know a lot more than I do about Stan swindling Jack--I was only THERE at the time!

Jim Steranko
@iamsteranko .@CarlShinyama @texaswingnut
and can unequivocally confirm that Stan diminished no one's contribution. I was there--and observing carefully!

The truth is he lived in Reading Pennsylvania. By the time he began selling work to Marvel, Ditko and Wood had already quit and all the major characters had been created. At the time (11 years ago), his tweets made him emerge as this bigger than life personality, who gave Kane his dues. The story as it was told was epic, especially for anyone who had come to learn how Kane treated Finger. As an artist himself, it would presumably be a way of righting a wrong, and he, the kind of person who would abhor any deceptive effort to conceal or obscure rightful acknowledgement and compensation, so I was totally good with knowing Steranko did what he did to Bob Kane. However I often wished it just remained as a singular event (the Bob Kane story), because when it was rightly brought up how Stan Lee liberally took creator rights (and pay) like some half-eaten lolipop, Steranko should have just kept out of it instead of spreading and perpetuating a lie. It invalidates the whole experience for me, and I can't trust the Kane story is even true anymore.

There are others who have also defended Lee, nearly all with ulterior motives. This is one that got a lot of traction and views, and figured most would recall. This blog post covers a few others.

I orginally answered that tweet with "Not in 1961 you weren't". He didn't like that. I've since deleted my Twitter account, so I have no idea if it's still there or not. 

Even without that hypocritical garabage, Steranko was a... MY opinion, an anoying character. He was the hero of every story, and he knew every one, and he's so great, blah blah blah. The dude has the smallest body of work of anyone with that much popularity in the history of comics. It was pretty cool stuff. But it ended fairly fast, because Lee ran HIM out of Marvel as well. 

Edited yesterday at 01:09 PM by Prince Namor

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/18/2024 at 6:42 AM, Prince Namor said:

Both ruthless business people hiding behind a 'family man, good guy' facade while without moral conscience dealing and/or eliminating anyone or anything in their way to make as much money as possible?

 

 

As far as I know Stan didn't murder anybody or deal drugs.

I just meant they looked similar.

It was of course meant to be ironic.

But yet again, for the umpteenth time, I will ask you this question and sincerely hope you will give me an answer.....

You have accused SL of stealing pay numerous times and doubled down on that assertion, correct?

Stealing is worse than lying, correct?

Why then did you not incorporate this into the title of your book?

[Get Marwood & I]

@Prince Namor I'll be ordering a copy to take on holiday Chuck - well done on getting this published.

For me, I think that good people do bad things, bad people do good things, and no one person can ever really be one or the other all of their lives. I believe in fairness though, and if Stan intentionally took credit and more from those who earned it then that is something that people should be able to read about and make their own minds up about. The thought of speaking ill of the dead doesn't appeal in general, but if he led his life largely free from these accusations, and yet they're true, fully or in part, then it's only right that they get their airing now so that those with an interest in the hobby can more fully understand what was going on. In that sense, you've done the hobby a service, I think. 

I'll let you know what I think. 

[Prince Namor]

The only one's who stayed at Marvel were the one's who didn't question the way things worked and didn't ask for plot credit.

How's THAT for great motivational management?

Stan always took the position of "Gee, I don't know WHY Steve left..." and "I had no idea Jack was even mad".

Some leader.

 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/18/2024 at 8:14 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

@Prince Namor I'll be ordering a copy to take on holiday Chuck - well done on getting this published.

For me, I think that good people do bad things, bad people do good things, and no one person can ever really be one or the other all of their lives. I believe in fairness though, and if Stan intentionally took credit and more from those who earned it then that is something that people should be able to read about and make their own minds up about. The thought of speaking ill of the dead doesn't appeal in general, but if he led his life largely free from these accusations, and yet they're true, fully or in part, then it's only right that they get their airing now so that those with an interest in the hobby can more fully understand what was going on. In that sense, you've done the hobby a service, I think. 

I'll let you know what I think. 

Thanks! Hope you enjoy it! There's a great deal of seldom seen quotes in it from a lot of sources, including my Interview with artist Drew Friedman. His dad, writer Bruce Jay Freidman, worked in Goodman's Magazine Management for years right next to Stan. 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/18/2024 at 8:08 PM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

As far as I know Stan didn't murder anybody or deal drugs.

I just meant they looked similar.

It was of course meant to be ironic.

But yet again, for the umpteenth time, I will ask you this question and sincerely hope you will give me an answer.....

You have accused SL of stealing pay numerous times and doubled down on that assertion, correct?

Stealing is worse than lying, correct?

Why then did you not incorporate this into the title of your book?

The BOOK is about him LYING all through 'The Origins of Marvel Comics'.

Not about him STEALING the pay or STEALING the credit from the artists who wrote the stories. 

It's IN there. Because that's a part of his history.

But the whole PURPOSE of the book is THIS:

Marvel CONCEEDED that Kirby (and Ditko, and Heck, etc.) did more than they were paid for and weren't credited enough toward the creation of the characters, by surrending in the lawsuits and PAYING the estates of those families. 

DESPITE this, Marvel have continued to push the obnoxiously BS story that Stan created everything and then just assigned an artist to do the job.

That 2023 Disney documentary on Lee was a grotesque abomination. 

When I heard they were releasing a new edition of The Origins of Marvel Comics, I wanted to tell the REAL story. I wanted to show how much that book is a LIE. It's time the truth was told. 

And what better way to start than by showing just HOW MUCH Lee could lie in his first attempt at stating his case in 1974.

Edited yesterday at 01:39 PM by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

I have a plan for how I'm going to lay this out. This is just the FIRST book. I may do a book a year for the next ten years. My research has grown and grown and grown. There's a book coming out next year by JL Mast where he's going to show documents that prove Goodman was going to shut down Marvel (just before we know Kirby walked in)  - again showing Lee lied - he always denied they were shutting down - PLUS, proof that Lee used Ghostwriters to dialogue some of the comics as early as the late 60's. 

There's SO MUCH documentation out there that people hadn't realized they could sort through and read - Stan Lee Archves at the University of Wyoming - (Stan had Golden Age scripts from writers at Timely and Atlas, but none of his own or Larry his brother...Hmmmm), Public Records of New York City.... it's like every year more information becomes available just by looking at what's in plain sight.

It's exciting to me. I'm one of the people on the front end of correcting the history of Comic Books in America.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/18/2024 at 2:38 PM, Prince Namor said:

The BOOK is about him LYING all through 'The Origins of Marvel Comics'.

Not about him STEALING the pay or STEALING the credit from the artists who wrote the stories. 

It's IN there. Because that's a part of his history.

But the whole PURPOSE of the book is THIS:

Marvel CONCEEDED that Kirby (and Ditko, and Heck, etc.) did more than they were paid for and weren't credited enough toward the creation of the characters, by surrending in the lawsuits and PAYING the estates of those families. 

DESPITE this, Marvel have continued to push the obnoxiously BS story that Stan created everything and then just assigned an artist to do the job.

That 2023 Disney documentary on Lee was a grotesque abomination. 

When I heard they were releasing a new edition of The Origins of Marvel Comics, I wanted to tell the REAL story. I wanted to show how much that book is a LIE. It's time the truth was told. 

And what better way to start than by showing just HOW MUCH Lee could lie in his first attempt at stating his case in 1974.

Well, thank you at least for answering the question.

I have to say in all seriousness that the title STAN LEE WAS A THIEF is pure dynamite as far as I can see. I'm not encouraging besmirching his name even though everything you assert may indeed be true but THAT title would seem to be the headline in my view.  

[Bookery]

On 9/17/2024 at 8:28 PM, Prince Namor said:

What Lee did... stealing credit and pay from the artists who wrote the story... was WRONG. No one else was doing that. They were taking kickbacks, sure. But stealing credit and pay both? 

We'll get back to this quote in a moment.

And I wasn't going to post on this again, because at some point I feel I'm derailing Namor's thread, which, to be fair, is about announcing his new book.  So this is a mea culpa, of sorts, but more accurately, a clarification.

I think some of the seeming contention here (and frankly, compared to some threads, it's not really all that contentious, aside from a brief flare-up here and there)... for much of the thread people are arguing at cross-purposes.  I don't see a lot of Stan Lee apologists here as I think has been insinuated.  I do see some arguing that maybe an accurate and broader historical context would show the pendulum at some point other than its extreme amplitudes.  "Origins" and "Lies" certainly appear to be amplitudes.  However... I think what some are arguing for, and I am probably guilty of this [see even the two previous sentences!] ... is for a different book altogether from what the author wanted to write.  And that's not entirely fair.

As a one-time film major, I see this a lot (and again, do it myself) where a critic postulates how much better the movie would have been if they'd handled a character this way, or changed the ending, or cast it a different way.  I guess those can be valid criticisms as as far as they  go... but the reality is... that isn't the film that was made, nor was it one the filmmaker wanted to make.  More apt criticisms might encompass outright errors made in the film, discrepancies (the script establishes these rules at point "A", but then goes and ignores them by point "B" -- I'm looking at you Shyamalan!), or character motives that are inconsistent, etc. 

So I think what some here are arguing for, probably not even consciously, is a broad-spectrum account of Marvel's publishing and editorial structure.  That would be fascinating for sure, and probably some books have addressed it to varying degrees already.  But Namor has stated his goal is much narrower... he wants to address, point by point, statements made in another book published 50 years ago.   That is the book he is putting forth.  And it is fair game to call out errors, if any, or to even haggle over his opinions (no matter how many facts one lays out, how those facts are interpreted is usually going to involve opinion).  But it's probably not fair to ask that it be a different book... I'm not sure if I've done that... I've asked for perspective or simply asked questions about perspective as it applies to comments in this thread... but again, is that taking the thread too far from its purpose?

Now... as for the quote above... you could probably nitpick the exact wording you laid out... "stealing credit and pay"... but I think in any broad context your statement is not accurate.  Which brings me back to my continuing point that what was going on at Marvel wasn't all that different from what went on almost everywhere at the time.  I'm not going into it here, but look up Victor Fox for someone who makes Stan Lee look like an amateur.  And, though not comics, still in publishing... A.A. Wynn at Ace paperbacks probably tops both of them.  He not only robbed his authors relentlessly, he often edited their manuscripts without permission to save money on page counts (this is worse than stealing credit, this is mangling an author's creativity while still slapping their name on the resultant mess to the public), he even changed endings entirely... often to keep the books short, and he then lied to the public itself by declaring on the book that it was complete and unexpurgated.  Those are just two examples, but I'm guessing you would find more in the publishing world of the '40s, '50s and '60s.  And we won't even get into the whole ghost-writing arena in which the real authors were never given credit at all.  

So anyway... I'm just giving you some ideas for a thriving franchise (a la Bill O'Reilly's "Killing" series).  You might consider future works down the road such as Victor Fox Cheated! , A.A. Wynn Stole!, Al Capp Took Credit! (Frazetta and other artists who did much of the work later on never got mentioned by the syndicate), and per the Tom Swift books... WTF*!  Victor Appleton Doesn't Even Exist!   

* for the censors... this stands for "What Total Fiction!".  

 

[Aman619]

I havent read the book, and Im working my way thru this thread.  SO far it's running along the lines one on the Boards for many years might expect.  I do have a question that keeps popping into my head though.  For years the author had stressed repeatedly in his writing that Stan never/hardly ever/mostly or only sometimes wrote things that he signed. He allowed others to do his work and just took the credit, (and the paychecks) right?  Now however, one piece he "wrote", the introduction to a reprint book by an unaffiliated (to Marvel) book publisher, published in 1974, a decade after the period at Marvel when we are told Stan never wrote any of the stories he put his name on -- is the taking off point for a summarization of the author's entire thesis, or perhaps life's work.  Are we missing the forest for the trees? Seems to be on shaky ground unless we KNOW for a fact that Stan wrote his introduction himself.  

As the years went on, Stan would increasingly "allow" others to write for him, first drafts that would approve or make tweaks. Thats delegating.  How can we be absolutely sure Fireside/Simon and Shuster's PR department didnt cobble together the intro from all the things Stan had said about the origins of Marvel characters already in interviews?  It would have been easy, and conversely, hard for Stan to sit there and retrace his steps and tell the tale by himself (in 1974 he doesn't write! remember?) Stan would be perfectly happy with tweaking a suggested intro from anyone if he liked it.  And in the end, the Intro is just a regurgitation of all that he had been saying for years when asked (as promotion of the One Big Brain theory of creativity in business that has always ben a part of marketing).

One could still argue that having "spread the Big Lie" for years, it doesn't matter if he wrote the actual Intro.  But doesn't it? if it's the source of all the books content to say here was Stan claiming things I have now proven to be LIES, if he never wrote it?  Isn't the book a painstaking series of "here Stan says this" but THIS is what really happened.  "HE LIED" when he said that!

 

as a final note, I will say if only to mitigate SOME of the lashing I will receive from the author here in response, that following Namor's grand efforts to separate Stan from the works he signed, I too (as many here have) have moved off my initial take on Marvel's origin story.  Stan actually typed or even discussed a lot less than it appeared from reading Marvel in the 60s.  And to never relinquish the writers fee for things he did not "write", that he only shaped or molded after the fact (after pages were drawn) even with uniquely effective banter and dialogue, is a serious charge of stealing from other's efforts, and an effective approach to the frustrations of those who want to elevate the artists efforts and in credits higher. Even if (as we are aware) thats how all the plantations were operated back then ever since the comics business started.  You could criticize Stan for NOT being so saintly and one day waking up and demanding that the financial dept END his paid status as writer "effective immediately".  Id say "but who does that?" but thats too easy to deflect , like saying "Joey did it too!"  

 

ok.  Im hitting Submit.  Have at me.

[lostboys]

 

Those guys were grown men and shouldve left Marvel if they didnt like the way Stan Lee was running it.

There were laws, lawyers and courts back then.

Those guys werent helpless victims.

Edited yesterday at 03:14 PM by lostboys

[Mmehdy]

On 9/18/2024 at 8:07 AM, lostboys said:

 

Those guys were grown men and shouldve left Marvel if they didnt like the way Stan Lee was running it.

There were laws, lawyers and courts back then.

Those guys werent helpless victims.

disagree.....the legal system of the early 60's was a whole lot different than today, nor did they have the necessity resources...whole different world back then....

[KCOComics]

On 9/18/2024 at 8:03 AM, comicwiz said:

I'm hardly the most knowledgeable on this topic, however what I can say from simply observing some of the dynamics that have occurred over the years is that Steranko's testimonial (if you can even call it that) is perhaps the most well-known. This started with an epic retelling of how he "person_without_enough_empathy-slapped" Bob Kane in an elevator. As he's telling this over a multi-tweet thread on Twitter, someone asks him about Lee. For posterity, here are the main links to that exchange.

Jim Steranko
@iamsteranko @texaswingnut What do you mean by taking "Lee-like credit" away from someone?

Jim Steranko
@iamsteranko.@CarlShinyama @texaswingnut
You guys may know a lot more than I do about Stan swindling Jack--I was only THERE at the time!

Jim Steranko
@iamsteranko .@CarlShinyama @texaswingnut
and can unequivocally confirm that Stan diminished no one's contribution. I was there--and observing carefully!

The truth is he lived in Reading Pennsylvania. By the time he began selling work to Marvel, Ditko and Wood had already quit and all the major characters had been created. At the time (11 years ago), his tweets made him emerge as this bigger than life personality, who gave Kane his dues. The story as it was told was epic, especially for anyone who had come to learn how Kane treated Finger. As an artist himself, it would presumably be a way of righting a wrong, and he, the kind of person who would abhor any deceptive effort to conceal or obscure rightful acknowledgement and compensation, so I was totally good with knowing Steranko did what he did to Bob Kane. However I often wished it just remained as a singular event (the Bob Kane story), because when it was rightly brought up how Stan Lee liberally took creator rights (and pay) like some half-eaten lolipop, Steranko should have just kept out of it instead of spreading and perpetuating a lie. It invalidates the whole experience for me, and I can't trust the Kane story is even true anymore.

There are others who have also defended Lee, nearly all with ulterior motives. This is one that got a lot of traction and views, and figured most would recall. This blog post covers a few others.

But there are others who have defended Lee...  and others who have bashed him. 

I've read accounts from Romita and Ayers that were positive, though I'm not sure they directly dabbled into stealing credit. 

I've also read the stories about Everett and Burgos who were decidedly unhappy with Lee and his use of their charters in the 60s.  

And I think that's the real story and the balanced levity that is needed.  He did an awful lot of good. He also did some bad.  History is rarely black and white and it's unfair to try to paint it that way.