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

[Prince Namor]

On 9/18/2024 at 9:24 PM, Bookery said:

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. 

It's mostly a diversion tactic. Lee fans don't want his faults discussed, so they always try to steer the conversation elsewhere.

On 9/18/2024 at 9:24 PM, Bookery said:

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?

Trust me. You DON'T. I touch on it in one of my essays, "What did Stan Lee actually do?"

Over the year's his 'Bullpen" - in particular Romita and Marie Severin (and even Roy Thomas) would occasionally let slip or outright expose inside information of the real workings of the Marvel offices. (Remember: Marie was the one who said Funky Flashman didn't 'go as far as it could have'.) That's why I just had to chuckle at Roy's idealized version of Lee motivating and running a tight ship. 

As one of the less juicy examples, Thomas revealed that both he and Lee only came into the office 2 days a week (by around 1968 - Lee was only coming in 3 days a week by 1966). It's hard to motivate and run the office from home. Lee wanted Thomas there on his days IN the office, so he could dictate to him what he needed done and make small changes and have everyone running around like a chicken with their head cut off. According to those there, Lee was holed up in his office almost exclusively. Again, hard to motivate and and run the office when you're not around your people. 

So who did everything? Well, Sol Brodsky was talked about behind the scenes for years as the one who actually managed the writing/artist schedules, made sure people got paid, handled production schedules... HE did all those things that people somehow had the idea Lee did. Brodsky had been doing it the whole decade. As more interviews came out in the 90's and 2000's and especially after he passed away - so much was revealed about the guy - even by Lee - that showed us that it was Sol who really ran the office/production side of Marvel Comics. 

On 9/18/2024 at 9:24 PM, Bookery said:

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. 

How so? 

As an example, again, we know for a fact Ditko and Lee did not talk during the production of Amazing Spider-man #25-38 and. the Doctor Strange stories in Strange Tales #133-142. (Lee took away Ditko's TTA Hulk assignment when this whole 'asking for plot credit, no longer talking to him thing started) Ditko wrote those stories with ZERO input from Lee. Yet he wasn't credited as the writer and he wasn't paid as the writer. Lee was. 

He stole that credit by claiming it for himself. He stole the pay for it by falsely claiming it for himself. 

On 9/18/2024 at 9:24 PM, Bookery said:

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!".  

Yeah... I'm not giving Lee a pass on what others have done. 

[comicwiz]

On 9/18/2024 at 11:31 AM, KCOComics said:

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. 

 

I think I'd rather see it as the whole "I was there" thing being something no one should claim if they really weren't. It makes people suspicious of their motives when it's determined they weren't. That was really more of the point I was trying to make with the Steranko example, although I do understand your point as well.

[miraclemet]

On 9/11/2024 at 10:31 PM, Prince Namor said:

I'm proud to announce my latest book - Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the 'Origins of Marvel Comics', available now on Amazon!

Just in time for the 50th anniversary of this infamous book!

In 1974, Stan Lee released the ‘Origins of Marvel Comics', laying claim to the creation of some of the greatest superheroes in the history of comic books. For 50 years, the lies and inaccuracies of this book have been not only overlooked or outright ignored by the mainstream media (and even many comic journalists), but repeated as FACT.

For the first time, an in depth look at just how inaccurate Lee's story is - fact-checked with modern updated means of information collection and later interviews with the people who were there.

Stan Lee Lied. A LOT.

And that's a fact.

 

So here's my question. What do you want to see? He's dead, so apologies or statements are out the door. Do you want some official statement from Marvel? Disney? Do you want everyone to burn any comic that lauds Stan Lee or his place in comics? Since his death, and the fact that he doesn't pop up in Marvel movies or at red carpets or at conventions now I do find his place in the hobby receding little by little. Do you just need that sped up? 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/18/2024 at 9:30 PM, Aman619 said:

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!

Oy vey.

On 9/18/2024 at 9:30 PM, Aman619 said:

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.

DC had kick backs, but it wasn't like what Lee did. And they paid (at least) twice as much for the work. 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/18/2024 at 10:31 PM, KCOComics said:

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. 

 

Telling the truth about Stan Lee is always called 'bashing'.

Making the same claims about Bob Kane is always seen as ok.

What ISN'T getting told about Lee that's unbalanced? What was 'awful lot of good' he did?

Make comics that people loved? Again - nice that he did that but... he stole credit and pay from people as he did it.

What did Lee do that we could consider an 'awful lot of good'?

Tell me what I'm missing.

[comicwiz]

On 9/18/2024 at 11:24 AM, Mmehdy said:

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....

I agree with you, that whole excusing of the way their rights were trampled on is so tiring to have to reason with people who feel they had any chance of the little guy advocating or self-representing themselves in a court of law.

However from a legal standpoint, I feel a bigger part of is the obscurity of the matter to average folks. This still happens today. 

Case in point, and I see no issue presenting this as an example, because it's happening within our segment, and with people who have a history tied directly either to CGC and/or using their services.

There is currently a lawsuit in the District Court of Collins County, Texas, claiming several things. One is that the grading company (cards and comics) had two employees that jumped ship. They allege that prior to them jumping ship, they claim to have sent confidential/propietary information on their system of grading comics to themselves. Those emails were later tracked to have been sent to these former employees personal email addresses after they left and went to work for the competitor.

Tied to this claim is that they mention having invented subgrades. And that they are the only company that uses them, and that they intended to use them in comics, and will go to "great efforts to protects this system." 

So, I can tell you that in their claims, they may have started using subgrades in 1999, but I know for a fact that there are a handful of companies I can think of that have been using subgrades at least as long, perhaps even longer than 1999. 

It's a bold claim because even in this day and age, if you ask ChatGPT, it lists at least 5 graders that use subgrades. I can think of at least another three, maybe as many as 5 more that are using them, either notated right on the label of the graded toy, or would provide that informaton if requested, either in the form of grader or item notes.

It's an example showing that making such a claim in one jurisdiction is likely not to be investigated thoroughly to denounce it against the reality or universality of such a claim.

And so, talking about work for hire situations in the 60's, where there's no such thing as the internet, no AI, and a low brow culture that is associated to comics, where it's main "brand ambassador" if you want to call him that, even hid the fact he worked in comics when he was at a social function or party with people he thought were of higher class or distinction in society than himself.

Marvel could have said anything, and it would come down to the court to fact check those claims within the jurisdiction of that claim being made, and that's not necessarily a burden of proof obstacle that could have only taken place 60 years ago, but it can happen today as well.

Edited yesterday at 03:54 PM by comicwiz

[Prince Namor]

On 9/18/2024 at 10:37 PM, miraclemet said:

 

So here's my question. What do you want to see? He's dead, so apologies or statements are out the door. Do you want some official statement from Marvel? Disney? Do you want everyone to burn any comic that lauds Stan Lee or his place in comics?

This is what really scares the Lee fans I think. That somehow their childhood nostalgia will be ruined.

I remember when I first read that John Lennon was physically abusive to his first wife Cynthia. I thought, "that's really freakin' terrible."

It didn't stop me from loving his music. He was a human being, warts and all, who wrote amazing music.

As an adult, it's easy for me to make that distinction.

I have no idea why it's so hard for (some) others.

On 9/18/2024 at 10:37 PM, miraclemet said:

Since his death, and the fact that he doesn't pop up in Marvel movies or at red carpets or at conventions now I do find his place in the hobby receding little by little. Do you just need that sped up? 

No, they're going to use AI to put him in the movies. They're already discussing it. Which... really I could care less. Good for them. I see maybe one out of every... four or so Marvel movies. Usually on an International Flight.

They just made a documentary at Disney last year about his... life. (Good god it was nauseating).

 

Personally, I just want the truth. 

It's been a LIE told by Marvel for over 50 years. I just want the truth. 

I could care less how that impacts any one else.

Except for maybe Neal and Jillian Kirby. I really hope it makes them happy.

If I could do that for them... That'd really make me happy.

 

[Dr. Balls]

On 9/17/2024 at 11:42 PM, 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?

 

 

You have to admit, Walter White probably had a mean 'Pimp Hand'.

[VintageComics]

On 9/18/2024 at 8:11 AM, comicwiz said:

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.

I have you no idea why you're making this personal and turning this on me saying I'm in "panic" when your reply has nothing to do with my question.

What do I have to panic about?

I genuinely have no vested interest in the outcome of the conversation. Stan Lee could have been Jacob Liebowitz in a rubber mask and it wouldn't matter to me except that it would be interesting to explore the twists and turns. 

You still haven't answer my questions so I'll stop asking because obviously nobody wants to.

Edited yesterday at 04:39 PM by VintageComics

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

I'm strictly a GA man, but what happens or rather what do those people feel who are sitting on very expensive 'yellow label' CGC slabs of Stan?

If this book starts some kind of domino, snowball, anti-Lee revelatory tsunami, what will happen to the value of those books.

Anyone any insight?

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/18/2024 at 5:26 PM, Dr. Balls said:

You have to admit, Walter White probably had a mean 'Pimp Hand'.

[Bookery]

On 9/18/2024 at 11:32 AM, Prince Namor said:

How so? 

As an example, again, we know for a fact Ditko and Lee did not talk during the production of Amazing Spider-man #25-38 and. the Doctor Strange stories in Strange Tales #133-142. (Lee took away Ditko's TTA Hulk assignment when this whole 'asking for plot credit, no longer talking to him thing started) Ditko wrote those stories with ZERO input from Lee. Yet he wasn't credited as the writer and he wasn't paid as the writer. Lee was. 

He stole that credit by claiming it for himself. He stole the pay for it by falsely claiming it for himself. 

Yeah... I'm not giving Lee a pass on what others have done. 

  You aren't following my comment.  In quoting you at the top of the post, I specifically highlighted the words "Nobody else was doing that."  Those are the five words all of the rest of my comment refers to.  If that is in your book, you will be called out for it by others, because it just isn't true.  If it's just something you said here, fine.... then I am calling you out on it here, and gave examples why.  Nobody is giving anybody a pass.  I'm saying the statement is not accurate.  Period.

[Dr. Balls]

On 9/18/2024 at 10:38 AM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

I'm strictly a GA man, but what happens or rather what do those people feel who are sitting on very expensive 'yellow label' CGC slabs of Stan?

If this book starts some kind of domino, snowball, anti-Lee revelatory tsunami, what will happen to the value of those books.

Anyone any insight?

I don't think the anti-Lee sentiment would affect that as much as the sheer volume of autographs in general out there. So many people have them out of nostalgia, I think in 10 years or so when the notion that Stan Lee isn't as ubiquitous as he once was starts taking hold, the massive quantities of his autographs on the open market is going to really erode the value. At that point, it's probably going to be a matter of *what* Stan Lee signed, rather than just having a Stan Lee signed book.

[Bookery]

On 9/18/2024 at 12:58 PM, Dr. Balls said:

I don't think the anti-Lee sentiment would affect that as much as the sheer volume of autographs in general out there. So many people have them out of nostalgia, I think in 10 years or so when the notion that Stan Lee isn't as ubiquitous as he once was starts taking hold, the massive quantities of his autographs on the open market is going to really erode the value. At that point, it's probably going to be a matter of *what* Stan Lee signed, rather than just having a Stan Lee signed book.

I'm amazed his signature adds any more than $5 - $10 for a book.  It quite seriously might be the single most abundant autograph in all of history.  Before he was charging for them, Lee toured numerous universities and would stay for hours signing items... hundreds of them at each venue.  He lived such a long life, and spent much of it  signing autographs at shows.  There are hundreds of them floating around my hometown area alone.  Presidents signed a lot of stuff... but I'm not sure that much stuff.  Old Hollywood stars seldom signed their own fan mail requests... that was usually secretaries of studio hires.  Modern stars certainly don't sign that much.  No author that I know of, even with book tours, would approach Lee's numbers.  I would not be surprised if there aren't 100,000 legit autographs floating around out there!

[royaluglydudes]

On 9/18/2024 at 12:58 PM, Dr. Balls said:

I don't think the anti-Lee sentiment would affect that as much as the sheer volume of autographs in general out there. So many people have them out of nostalgia, I think in 10 years or so when the notion that Stan Lee isn't as ubiquitous as he once was starts taking hold, the massive quantities of his autographs on the open market is going to really erode the value. At that point, it's probably going to be a matter of *what* Stan Lee signed, rather than just having a Stan Lee signed book.

Very true, but I also don't think most people will ever really get the full picture of the things that Lee did or didn't create, not to mention some of the dishonest things he did.  He's the Marvel mascot, for lack of a better term, and the vast majority of comic buyers will have no idea, beyond the established myths, of how these characters and worlds were created and will continue to see him as the be all end all in terms of The Marvel Universe.

Edited yesterday at 07:16 PM by royaluglydudes
Typo

[JC25427N]

On 9/18/2024 at 12:01 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

 

Personally, I just want the truth. 

It's been a LIE told by Marvel for over 50 years. I just want the truth. 

I could care less how that impacts any one else.

 

But you have the truth already, and apparently you've known the truth for a long time, so haven't you already gotten what you want? If you didn't care about impacting anyone else then why care enough to publish a book about it and post about it on these boards so eagerly? You must want to effect some change somewhere to some people. There must be something more you want that made you take up the spear and join "the front-lines of correcting the history of Comics in America". If this isn't to impact people or effect some change, Is this for some sort of glory or prestige? 

Edited yesterday at 05:49 PM by JC25427N

[lostboys]

On 9/18/2024 at 11:24 AM, Mmehdy said:

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....

How about the 70s?...80s?

Im not a Stan Lee fan but dragging his name through the mud in 2024 for what may have been standard operating procedure for Marvel Comics 50+ years ago stinks on ice.

Those guys should have done something about it if they didnt like it.

Even if that means quitting, walking away...they couldve done it.

Im guessing they were making enough money that they were happy to work at Marvel.

Could they have made more money somewhere else?

 

[miraclemet]

On 9/18/2024 at 12:01 PM, Prince Namor said:

Personally, I just want the truth. 

It's been a LIE told by Marvel for over 50 years. I just want the truth. 

I could care less how that impacts any one else.

Except for maybe Neal and Jillian Kirby. I really hope it makes them happy.

If I could do that for them... That'd really make me happy.

 

what does "want the truth" mean? What concrete action do you want to see taken? 
 

[chrisco37]

 

 

[mrc]

On 9/18/2024 at 6:16 PM, royaluglydudes said:

Very true, but I also don't think most people will never really get the full picture of the things that Lee did or didn't create, not to mention some of the dishonest things he did.  He's the Marvel mascot, for lack of a better term, and the vast majority of comic buyers will have no idea, beyond the established myths, of how these characters and worlds were created and will continue to see him as the be all end all in terms of The Marvel Universe.

Nonsense.............even as a 10 yr old when I first started reading ASM & FF it was obvious (to me) how the books were created and, to his credit Lee facilitated that by promoting the fandom/convention side of things. The 'witty dialogue' that Stan created was probably the only reason I religiously purchased at least the first fifty of the aforementioned titles.

Jack Kirby - Stan Lee = New Gods

Now, New Gods is good, but it's not exactly a 'bunch of laughs!'  is it?