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

[Prince Namor]

Martin Luther King, Jr: "We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter."

[sfcityduck]

On 9/20/2024 at 5:45 PM, Prince Namor said:

Martin Luther King, Jr: "We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter."

A quote that MLK says would apply to all.

At least now I know why you disappeared from the SA forum. You might want to come back because the discussion was more on-point and civil.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/20/2024 at 10:47 AM, Mr Sneeze said:

The history of the medium deserves to be told regardless of the good and bad actors. 
 

I agree. But that's not what "Chaz" is trying to do. He's never had an academic tone on this site. He's never been concerned with presenting balanced facts. He's had a knife. And as Bleeding Cool noted, its a "one-sided" attack on Stan Lee.

 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/21/2024 at 8:09 AM, sfcityduck said:

I agree. But that's not what "Chaz" is trying to do. He's never had an academic tone on this site. He's never been concerned with presenting balanced facts. He's had a knife. And as Bleeding Cool noted, its a "one-sided" attack on Stan Lee.

 

Yep. Another comment aimed at me. Very civil. 

[sfcityduck]

On 9/20/2024 at 2:00 PM, justadude said:

I see this as "independently published" on Amazon, but interested if there was any form of peer review. I may have missed this already if covered.

The only "peer review" was the reactions to the author's threads on this site. It did not deter a repetition of questionable claims in what appears to be a self-published book. 

If I had to guess, I'd say the coverage on Bleeding Cool was compensated (they did that for the Heritage Promise Collection stories and it may have been a smart move for the author), but I have no way of knowing. The author has not chosen to comment on that as far as I've seen.

Edited 4 hours ago by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 9/20/2024 at 6:13 PM, Prince Namor said:

Yep. Another comment aimed at me. Very civil. 

You wrote a "one-sided" book. It's fair game to note that you did so despite having your blinders pointed out to you on your threads in the past. 

C'mon, you have to admit that your goal in the book was to "prosecute" a case, not present an objective view so that the reader could judge. 

Moreover, in my view, the comments on the SA thread are more civil than some I'm reading here.

[VintageComics]

On 9/20/2024 at 12:09 PM, Mmehdy said:

I read this book very carefully...probably twice.....

The book is only a week old and you're not sure if you've read it twice or not?

[VintageComics]

On 9/20/2024 at 12:28 PM, Prince Namor said:

The truth is, these people HATE the idea that this book exists and are just trying to turn this into an arguement and muddy the waters, and paint a negative picture of ME.

These are all subjective accusations that aren't relevant and either make you a mind reader or wrong. Making assumptions like that takes the focus off the discussion and onto the people and it has a negative effect on the overall point you're trying to make. 

If you did your 'research' work this way, putting the conclusion before the research it's not going to work out to well in the long run. 

Just because you did all the research and are convinced doesn't mean everyone is going to agree with you. Rather than push your conclusion to the forefront of the discussion, just having the discussion and letting people conclude for themselves would probably be more productive. 

[VintageComics]

On 9/20/2024 at 12:28 PM, Prince Namor said:

I see this everyday on Facebook over this same topic. Thread crappers. Besides me, the two biggest posters in this thread are Paul and Roy, neither of which have read the book, care for me, or have anything but destructive negativity that they think they're being sneaky in how they present.

Dozens of people have done this to me over the years, acting as agitators simply to get me banned. I wouldn't do it to anyone. It's not how I think or operate.

I'm not sure why you keep making it personal rather than just sticking to the discussion.

I have only stuck to the discussion at hand, discussing Lee and Kirby and the surrounding industry and have taken the highest road the entire time. My posts in this thread echo the same things I've posted about Lee and Kirby for years. 

FFS, I even listened to 2 hours of Kirby and Lee interviews last night to educate myself on the topic based on the discussion in this thread.

I've also offered genuine, constructive advice or support and you've told me to basically keep it to myself. 

You started a VERY controversial topic.

You can't just expect everyone to roll over and agree with you because you think your book is now the Bible on Lee's and Kirby's relationship.

Edited 4 hours ago by VintageComics

[sfcityduck]

On 9/20/2024 at 6:25 PM, VintageComics said:

These are all subjective accusations that aren't relevant and either make you a mind reader or wrong. Making assumptions like that takes the focus off the discussion and onto the people and it has a negative effect on the overall point you're trying to make. 

If you did your 'research' work this way, putting the conclusion before the research it's not going to work out to well in the long run. 

Just because you did all the research and are convinced doesn't mean everyone is going to agree with you. Rather than push your conclusion to the forefront of the discussion, just having the discussion and letting people conclude for themselves would probably be more productive. 

I much prefer works like Greg Sadowski's book on Wolverton. He dug through a huge amount of documents, including a huge quantity of Basil Wolverton's personal archive, and he quoted and cited the original documents which provided the factual support for the story he was telling. What the author here has done on his threads is rely on the opinions of others, many of whom carry a grudge, while disregarding the opinions of folks who have views contrary to the one he is pushing. When confronted with such contrary facts and opinions on the thread in which he announced his book in the SA forum, in a thread on which the book was based, his response to was lash out and call those who disagree with him (e.g. me) "Lee synchophants" (he meant sycophants) and to SCREAM grossly overblown claims in response to his adversaries' point that Kirby's claim to creation Spider-Man inaccurate, that "This is the ONLY thing you Lee syncophants bring up about what you call Kirby's 'inaccuracy', and you get it WRONG."

When it is pointed out that many of Kirby's (and his) other inaccuracies have been brought up on his threads over the years, he does not deign to respond. So, yeah, I think he's not seeking "the truth." If he truly was seeking the truth, he'd be open to listening and discussing inconvenient evidence which contradicts his opinions.

Which is why I have no interest in buying his book. 

I'm big into finding and sharing accurate information with other comic collectors, including admitting when I'm wrong. I think most of my threads evidence that quest for truth and an ability to follow the evidence. So I enjoy discussion and debate, and see the value in disagreement. If you are open to listening, you can learn.

As for Stan and Jack - Stan's greatest creation may well have been the notion of Jack "King" Kirby. Stan's greatest skill was his ability to hype Marvel, himself, and his colleagues. It was also arguably Stan's greatest failing. Because like other prominent hypsters in the world, his hype would depart from the literal truth at times. A common failing that Jack Kirby shared as he began to hype himself (at not only the expense of Stan, but also Joe Simon, Steve Ditko, and others).

As a result no one should take anything that Stan and Jack said about each other at face value. What is needed is an unbiased skeptical view that seeks objective truth. You won't necessarily get that from many of Stan and Jack's colleagues. So just quoting them is picking evidence.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

To bring the two threads together, here's what Prince Namor said in the SA Forum when confronted with information he did not like:

Quote

 

Talk about lacking accuracy. 

This is the ONLY thing you Lee syncophants bring up about what you call Kirby's 'inaccuracy', and you get it WRONG.

He brought the Fly to Joe Simon, based upon their Silver Spider idea. He brough Spider-man to Lee based upon their Silver Spider idea and somwwhat based upon the Fly. In other words he created it. 

ESPECIALY based on the conversation of how Lee was saying HE created everything as a 'first sayer'.

Despite that, argueable semantic, in the SAME Interview, Kirby says:

 

We decided to give it to Steve Ditko. I drew the first cover. I created the character. I created the costume. I created all those books, but I couldn’t do them all. We decided to give the book to Steve Ditko who was the right man for the job. He did a wonderful job on that….He (Ditko) was a wonderful artist, a wonderful conceptualist. It was Steve Ditko that made Spider-Man the well-known character that he is.”

- Jack Kirby, interviewed by Gary Groth, The Comics Journal #134, February 1990

And in an Interview about it just a few years earlier said:

But the credit for developing Spider-Man goes to Steve Ditko; he wrote it and he drew it and he refined it. Steve Ditko is a thorough professional. And he has an intellect. Personality wise, he’s a bit withdrawn, but there are lots of people like that. But Steve Ditko, despite the fact that he doesn’t disco– although he may now; I haven’t seen him for a long time– Steve developed Spider-Man and made a salable item out of it. There are many others who take credit for it, but Steve Ditko, it was entirely in his hands. I can tell you that Stan Lee had other duties besides writing Spider-Man or developing Spider-Man or even thinking about it.”

- Jack Kirby, Conversations with Comic Book Creators by Leonard Pitts Jr. 1986/87

But don't let the facts in get in the way of your 'academic' agenda.

 

And here is how I responded:

[Begin Quote]

Compare and contrast your two quotes from Kirby:

(1) We decided to give it to Steve Ditko. I drew the first cover. I created the character. I created the costume. I created all those books, but I couldn’t do them all.

vs.

(2) But the credit for developing Spider-Man goes to Steve Ditko; he wrote it and he drew it and he refined it.

This is not the kind of defense a defendant would appreciate from his lawyer. This defense just highlights Kirby's inconsistent and inaccurate claims regarding Spider-Man. You and I both know that Kirby addressed this issue more than twice. What you have cherry picked is what you view as the two most favorable quotes by Kirby ... and they make Kirby look horribly inconsistent and regretful about his earlier claim.

Other quotes make him look worse. In an interview taken and published in 1982 by Eisner, Kirby said:

Quote

 

EISNER: You mean Spider-Man was cooked up between you and Joe Simon, and you brought it to Stan.

KIRBY: That’s right. It was the last thing Joe and I had discussed. We had a strip called the, or a script called The Silver Spider. The Silver Spider was going into a magazine called Black Magic. Black Magic folded with Crestwood and we were left with the script. I believe I said this could become a thing called Spider-Man, see, a superhero character. I had a lot of faith in the superhero character, that they could be brought back, very, very vigorously. They weren’t being done at the time. I felt they could regenerate and I said Spider-Man would be a fine character to start with. But Joe had already moved on. So the idea was already there when I talked to Stan.

 

Joe Simon reacted to this story in The Comic Book Makers (1990) where he stated with specific reference to the creation of Spider-Man that "There were a few holes in Jack's never-dependable memory." Simon, who was familiar with the Silver Spider, the Fly, and Jack's version of a Spider-Man as a Captain America look alike, in the Comic Book Makers also credited Ditko "who ... ignored Kirby's pages, tossed the character's magic ring, web-pistol and goggles... and completely redesigned Spider-Man's costume and equipment. In this life, he became high-school student Peter Parker, who gets his spider powers after being bitten by a radioactive spider. ... Lastly, the Spider-Man logo was redone and a dashing hyphen added."

Even the so called "Kirby Museum" online advocacy group, despite its biases, has published an article acknowledging:

Quote

Jack Kirby has stated clearly time and again that he created Spider-Man, most adamantly in an interview conducted by Will Eisner, and printed in issue #39 of Will Eisner’s Spirit Magazine. (Kitchen Sink Pub. Feb.1982). Kirby maintained his claim even when close friends and assistants advised him not to pursue it. Can he be believed? Well, his memory was spotty, and he has made other claims that have clearly been shown to be wrong. So as a witness, he leaves room for doubt."

(But they, as you would expect, did their best to paste up an argument that Spider-Man was indeed Kirby's creation.) 

In any event, Ditko has never denied Stan credit for involvement in the creative process. Ditko has made clear that he did not rely on Kirby's character design or ideas. Ditko clearly views himself and Lee as the co-creators of the Spider-Man that appeared in AF 15 even though Kirby drew the cover (with the character in the costume Ditko designed).

So, as I said in the prior post, I think you always err in favor of Kirby. Another word for that: bias. Again, I'd prefer to read a history which can see the grey areas and not just black and white.

[End Quote]

Chaz's response? Crickets.

[sfcityduck]

I then further responded with regard to the accuracy of Kirby's memory by stating:

[BEGIN QUOTE]

Speaking of Kirby's reliability or lack thereof, can someone point me to the comic book story which Kirby is referencing in a 1990 interview wherein he states: 

Quote

 

 

KIRBY: Well, I presaged the atomic bomb two years before it was built because a fellow named Nicola Tesla was working on it in Hungary and he was experimenting with atomics. He was a physicist. And so, I forget what story I put it in, but there it was, I saw it in the paper, and I used it. I used it in my own way, and I got a good story out of it. Two years later, we had the real thing.

Host: Did anyone come and pay you a visit after that came out, because some writers…

KIRBY: Yes, they sent me a letter from the FBI!

Host: What happened?

KIRBY: Nothing!

Host: What did the letter say?

KIRBY: It was just an inquiry, you know. I had to explain that it was all fictional. That it was my version of the thing. There was no mention of an atomic bomb in any newspaper or anything, except that this fellow Nicola Tesla, it was in a magazine, some obscure magazine that I read it in, was experimenting with atomic physics.

Host: But when the FBI paid you a call did you think something’s up somewhere, they’re making one of these things?

KIRBY: No! I was just annoyed! You know?

 

I know of only two stories that appear to have presaged the A-Bomb in comics and I don't believe Kirby was involved with either. Always wondered if this recollection is accurate or just another story. I'd love for the comic book to actually exist because I love that kind of stuff.

As context I should add that Nicola Tesla was living in NYC when he died in 1943 (he had immigrated to the US in the 1880s). I don't believe he had any involvement with the Atomic Bomb. It is possible that Jack's memory had again failed him and he was confusing Tesla with Leo Slizard a Hungarian physicist who was instrumental in the development of the A-Bomb. That detail and Jack's recollection of it is not important to me. Whether the comic exists is.

[END QUOTE]

Chaz's response? Crickets. But maybe he was distracted by this thread. So I'm offering him the opportunity to respond here.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/21/2024 at 8:25 AM, VintageComics said:

These are all subjective accusations that aren't relevant and either make you a mind reader or wrong. Making assumptions like that takes the focus off the discussion and onto the people and it has a negative effect on the overall point you're trying to make. 

If you did your 'research' work this way, putting the conclusion before the research it's not going to work out to well in the long run. 

Just because you did all the research and are convinced doesn't mean everyone is going to agree with you. Rather than push your conclusion to the forefront of the discussion, just having the discussion and letting people conclude for themselves would probably be more productive. 

No one has commented on the actual research of the book.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/21/2024 at 8:52 AM, sfcityduck said:

I much prefer works like Greg Sadowski's book on Wolverton. He dug through a huge amount of documents, including a huge quantity of Basil Wolverton's personal archive, and he quoted and cited the original documents which provided the factual support for the story he was telling. What the author here has done on his threads is rely on the opinions of others, many of whom carry a grudge, while disregarding the opinions of folks who have views contrary to the one he is pushing. When confronted with such contrary facts and opinions on the thread in which he announced his book in the SA forum, in a thread on which the book was based, his response to was lash out and call those who disagree with him (e.g. me) "Lee synchophants" (he meant sycophants) and to SCREAM grossly overblown claims in response to his adversaries' point that Kirby's claim to creation Spider-Man inaccurate, that "This is the ONLY thing you Lee syncophants bring up about what you call Kirby's 'inaccuracy', and you get it WRONG."

It is all they bring up. And of course it's taken out of context, making them - wrong.

On 9/21/2024 at 8:52 AM, sfcityduck said:

When it is pointed out that many of Kirby's (and his) other inaccuracies have been brought up on his threads over the years, he does not deign to respond. So, yeah, I think he's not seeking "the truth." If he truly was seeking the truth, he'd be open to listening and discussing inconvenient evidence which contradicts his opinions.

Which inaccuracies are you talking about?

On 9/21/2024 at 8:52 AM, sfcityduck said:

Which is why I have no interest in buying his book. 

I'm big into finding and sharing accurate information with other comic collectors, including admitting when I'm wrong. I think most of my threads evidence that quest for truth and an ability to follow the evidence. So I enjoy discussion and debate, and see the value in disagreement. If you are open to listening, you can learn.

You once stated that Kirby's Golden Age contributions were overrated. LOL.

On 9/21/2024 at 8:52 AM, sfcityduck said:

As for Stan and Jack - Stan's greatest creation may well have been the notion of Jack "King" Kirby. Stan's greatest skill was his ability to hype Marvel, himself, and his colleagues. It was also arguably Stan's greatest failing. Because like other prominent hypsters in the world, his hype would depart from the literal truth at times. A common failing that Jack Kirby shared as he began to hype himself (at not only the expense of Stan, but also Joe Simon, Steve Ditko, and others).

As a result no one should take anything that Stan and Jack said about each other at face value. What is needed is an unbiased skeptical view that seeks objective truth. You won't necessarily get that from many of Stan and Jack's colleagues. So just quoting them is picking evidence.

You mean like every artist that worked with Lee in the Silver Age?

[Prince Namor]

On 9/21/2024 at 9:06 AM, sfcityduck said:

To bring the two threads together, here's what Prince Namor said in the SA Forum when confronted with information he did not like:

And here is how I responded:

[Begin Quote]

Compare and contrast your two quotes from Kirby:

(1) We decided to give it to Steve Ditko. I drew the first cover. I created the character. I created the costume. I created all those books, but I couldn’t do them all.

vs.

(2) But the credit for developing Spider-Man goes to Steve Ditko; he wrote it and he drew it and he refined it.

This is not the kind of defense a defendant would appreciate from his lawyer. This defense just highlights Kirby's inconsistent and inaccurate claims regarding Spider-Man. You and I both know that Kirby addressed this issue more than twice. What you have cherry picked is what you view as the two most favorable quotes by Kirby ... and they make Kirby look horribly inconsistent and regretful about his earlier claim.

Other quotes make him look worse. In an interview taken and published in 1982 by Eisner, Kirby said:

Joe Simon reacted to this story in The Comic Book Makers (1990) where he stated with specific reference to the creation of Spider-Man that "There were a few holes in Jack's never-dependable memory." Simon, who was familiar with the Silver Spider, the Fly, and Jack's version of a Spider-Man as a Captain America look alike, in the Comic Book Makers also credited Ditko "who ... ignored Kirby's pages, tossed the character's magic ring, web-pistol and goggles... and completely redesigned Spider-Man's costume and equipment. In this life, he became high-school student Peter Parker, who gets his spider powers after being bitten by a radioactive spider. ... Lastly, the Spider-Man logo was redone and a dashing hyphen added."

Even the so called "Kirby Museum" online advocacy group, despite its biases, has published an article acknowledging:

(But they, as you would expect, did their best to paste up an argument that Spider-Man was indeed Kirby's creation.) 

In any event, Ditko has never denied Stan credit for involvement in the creative process. Ditko has made clear that he did not rely on Kirby's character design or ideas. Ditko clearly views himself and Lee as the co-creators of the Spider-Man that appeared in AF 15 even though Kirby drew the cover (with the character in the costume Ditko designed).

So, as I said in the prior post, I think you always err in favor of Kirby. Another word for that: bias. Again, I'd prefer to read a history which can see the grey areas and not just black and white.

[End Quote]

Chaz's response? Crickets.

It wasn't a non-response because of what you said. I just don't consider you someone I generally want to have a conversation with so I blew it off. But since you brought it up again, here, as ANOTHER topic that isn't the point of the book...  

Kirby's statement regarding creating Spider-man is pretty easy to put together. In saying it about the Marvel version, he explains HOW he thinks that - how he BROUGHT a concept of it to Lee - and how Ditko took it and made it what was.

I just don't see how anyone can get that wrong.

You quote Joe Simon. Joe Simon claimed he created the Challengers of the Unknown. YOU have never commented on THAT, even though I've regularly brought it up. There's ZERO proof he had anything to do with it and when DC Comics investigated it, they found nothing that would lead them to think he desreved any creative credit (i.e. residual pay). He had ZERO pre-production work, sketches, etc. on the COTU, despite having such things almost everything he and Kirby ever did together. (And I'm not including that fake Captain America 'Golden Age' sketch that most art experts point out features his more modern signature and is... falsely attributed to being pre-Captain America #1)

And Joe Simon's comic book creating history without Kirby is even more pathetic than Lee's.

But I get it... HIS word pushes your agenda. And THAT is why I have no interest in continuing the conversation with you, generally. I know Jessie is on here and he, obviously, isn't happy when he reads things like this about his grandfather, and even though you may not think so, I actually DO have some empathy towards that.

So at the risk of encouraging the interaction with you, I'll quickly answer best I can your claim, and try and leave Joe out of it as much as I can:

"This defense just highlights Kirby's inconsistent and inaccurate claims regarding Spider-Man."

No. Kirby created a Spider-man. One of them he turned into the Fly. The other was rejected by Marvel after Ditko pointed out it resembled the Fly. Ditko then made it his own thing. That's pretty much what Kirby has said. None of it was from a deposition. It was a conversation. It wasn't always as detailed with specifics as it could have been. But Kirby has never denied Ditko's importance in the creation and success of the character. PERIOD.

And the bottom line is: If Kirby hadn't brought the idea to Lee in the FIRST PLACE, it never would've gotten made. Ditko didn't create a character named SPIDER-MAN from out of his own idea (or, LOL, Lee's). He took the character named Spider-man from KIRBY'S IDEA and made a BETTER one. And THAT is what Kirby said, and Ditko said, and even Lee had to admit and that is what Kirby MEANT.

For you to insinuate anything else is just... head shaking.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/20/2024 at 7:20 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

You once stated that Kirby's Golden Age contributions were overrated. LOL.

 

It's true. I did say that. Because truth matters.

In the GA, no one called Jack Kirby the "King." Stan named him that. In the GA, Jack Kirby was Joe Simon's junior partner. Their strength's did complement, but they were far from the dominant creative team of that era. Joe was the main creator of CA, a character they worked on for less than a year - and which was derivative of the original patriotic superhero: The Shield. So much so that they had to change the character design to make CA's shield less of a copy of The Shield. But, CA was well done and well timed. S&K's other creations at Timely were not significant other than the "kid gang" concept which they rode over and over again (Young Allies, Boy Commandos, Boy's Ranch, Newsboy Legion (with another Shield derivative character), and I'm probably missing another) during their partnership.

Aside from the kid gangs (Newsboy Legion and Boy Commandos) they did not do all that much other than a Sandman rehab that is largely forgettable and then Kirby entered the war. Kirby fans like to tout that DC spent a very few issues touting "Simon & Kirby" on the cover but that apparently did not move the needle on sales and the practice was quickly discontinued after a few issues. It's an over-hyped episode. They were no Bob Kane when it came to name recognition.

Many creators of the GA came up with bigger more significant and better selling superhero creations that S&K during the GA.

S&K were quick to spot trends. Simon recognized the market for romance comics (a few of which were already going) when they jumped on the extant trend in the pulps and started the first all romance comic title that unabashedly followed the pulp example. That made them money for a while, but their attempts to buck the big companies were not lasting. Their journey is somewhat like L.B. Coles when it comes to business success. They put out material I enjoy in the post-WWII to SA time period, but nothing that compares in my mind to the work by their peers at the time, including Baker or Toth in romance, Frazetta & Williams in science fiction, Kurtzman war, Bill Everett's level of artistry on both Atlas horror and superhero revival books, Toth and Severin in Westerns, and many others. 

No Jack Kirby did not become King until he returned to Marvel. Lee's hype and dialogue, Kirby's visuals, and the creative cooperation turned Kirby into Jack "King" Kirby. He was not the "King" before.

If Jack Kirby had not returned to Marvel, and all we had on him was his works from the 1930s to the start of the SA, the king of the GA would probably be Bill Everett ... or S&S, or Eisner, or any one of a number of other creators. 

Because, yeah, S&K did not rise above their colleagues in the GA to the degree the retconned hype of the 60s has many Marvelites believing. 

Jack Kirby worked at Marvel on superheros from what? 1940 to 1942 or so and then not again until SA? That's about 2 years Marvelites.

Bill Everett worked for Marvel on superheroes from 1939 to 1949, and then again from 1953-1955. That's 14 years Marvelites. Plus his PCH work sets a standard.

Yeah, Stan Lee was a genius hypester.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/21/2024 at 8:31 AM, VintageComics said:

Dozens of people have done this to me over the years, acting as agitators simply to get me banned. I wouldn't do it to anyone. It's not how I think or operate.

I'm not sure why you keep making it personal rather than just sticking to the discussion.

I have only stuck to the discussion at hand, discussing Lee and Kirby and the surrounding industry and have taken the highest road the entire time. My posts in this thread echo the same things I've posted about Lee and Kirby for years. 

FFS, I even listened to 2 hours of Kirby and Lee interviews last night to educate myself on the topic based on the discussion in this thread.

I've also offered genuine, constructive advice or support and you've told me to basically keep it to myself. 

You started a VERY controversial topic.

You can't just expect everyone to roll over and agree with you because you think your book is now the Bible on Lee's and Kirby's relationship.

My Point: DESPITE the actual TOPIC... people change it to what THEY want to talk about. As a way to circumvent the topic.

Example: Stan Lee Lied alot in The Origins of Marvel Comics.  Response: He created a Brand!

Again... you didn't discuss the book or the topic. You made it about the points YOU wanted to make to counteract what you see as a negative opinion of Lee. 

It's ok. You can post whatever you want on the subject. It's not my place to tell you otherwise. 

But when NO ONE does... it kind of looks like... a lot of people WANT to circumvent the topic.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/20/2024 at 7:20 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

Which inaccuracies are you talking about?

 

Re-read your thread. They were pointed out to you. One inaccuracy I found particularly amusing was the unfounded opinion you repeated that Stan Lee stole Kirby's "original" idea of the Living Eraser. That opinion originated not from you but someone at the Kirby Museum. Problem is, the idea wasn't "original" to Kirby and if Stan stole its much more likely he got it from the incredibly popular Captain Marvel superhero publication's cover not the cover of an obscure and failing Black Magic cover. Just an example we discussed somewhere in the depths of your, what?, five or six very lengthy threads on why Stan Lee lied here on this site?

[Prince Namor]

On 9/21/2024 at 9:50 AM, sfcityduck said:

It's true. I did say that. Because truth matters.

In the GA, no one called Jack Kirby the "King." Stan named him that. In the GA, Jack Kirby was Joe Simon's junior partner.

Yeah. What a comic book career Simon had without Kirby. LOL

On 9/21/2024 at 9:50 AM, sfcityduck said:

Their strength's did complement, but they were far from the dominant creative team of that era. Joe was the main creator of CA, a character they worked on for less than a year - and which was derivative of the original patriotic superhero: The Shield. So much so that they had to change the character design to make CA's shield less of a copy of The Shield. But, CA was well done and well timed. S&K's other creations at Timely were not significant other than the "kid gang" concept which they rode over and over again (Young Allies, Boy Commandos, Boy's Ranch, Newsboy Legion (with another Shield derivative character), and I'm probably missing another) during their partnership.

They changed the shape of his shield. 

On 9/21/2024 at 9:50 AM, sfcityduck said:

Aside from the kid gangs (Newsboy Legion and Boy Commandos) they did not do all that much other than a Sandman rehab that is largely forgettable and then Kirby entered the war. Kirby fans like to tout that DC spent a very few issues touting "Simon & Kirby" on the cover but that apparently did not move the needle on sales and the practice was quickly discontinued after a few issues. It's an over-hyped episode. They were no Bob Kane when it came to name recognition.

Many creators of the GA came up with bigger more significant and better selling superhero creations that S&K during the GA.

Name the artists in the Golden Age with the most multiple million copy selling comics.

I'll give you hint: Kirby and Simon. At FOUR different companies and in TWO different genre's. 

On 9/21/2024 at 9:50 AM, sfcityduck said:

S&K were quick to spot trends. Simon recognized the market for romance comics (a few of which were already going) when they jumped on the extant trend in the pulps and started the first all romance comic title that unabashedly followed the pulp example. That made them money for a while, but their attempts to buck the big companies were not lasting. Their journey is somewhat like L.B. Coles when it comes to business success. They put out material I enjoy in the post-WWII to SA time period, but nothing that compares in my mind to the work by their peers at the time, including Baker or Toth in romance, Frazetta & Williams in science fiction, Kurtzman war, Bill Everett's level of artistry on both Atlas horror and superhero revival books, Toth and Severin in Westerns, and many others. 

No Jack Kirby did not become King until he returned to Marvel. Lee's hype and dialogue, Kirby's visuals, and the creative cooperation turned Kirby into Jack "King" Kirby. He was not the "King" before.

And yet never once had a number one selling comic book in the 60's. Either of them. 

On 9/21/2024 at 9:50 AM, sfcityduck said:

If Jack Kirby had not returned to Marvel, and all we had on him was his works from the 1930s to the start of the SA, the king of the GA would probably be Bill Everett ... or S&S, or Eisner, or any one of a number of other creators. 

Because, yeah, S&K did not rise above their colleagues in the GA to the degree the retconned hype of the 60s has many Marvelites believing. 

If the Silver Age would've never happened Kirby would still be in the Comic Book Hall of Fame.

On 9/21/2024 at 9:50 AM, sfcityduck said:

Jack Kirby worked at Marvel on superheros from what? 1940 to 1942 or so and then not again until SA? That's about 2 years Marvelites.

Bill Everett worked for Marvel on superheroes from 1939 to 1949, and then again from 1953-1955. That's 14 years Marvelites. Plus his PCH work sets a standard.

Yeah, Stan Lee was a genius hypester.

LOL

[sfcityduck]

It is hard for me to take seriously a statement such as "every artist 

On 9/20/2024 at 7:20 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

You mean like every artist that worked with Lee in the Silver Age?

Hard for me to take seriously such an overbroad assertion. Ditko, for example, has sided with Lee against Kirby on the claim Kirby created Spider-Man.