Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the 'Origins of Marvel Comics' 11 11

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 9/28/2024 at 9:36 PM, Prince Namor said:

All of the nonsense that tries to deviate from these points are just designed to confuse the topic and bring chaos and get it banned.

[Larryw7]

I finished the book this morning. I don’t know how Chaz had access to so many documents and eyewitnesses, but he clearly did his homework. The truth hurts, but the truth is that Stan was a fraud, a con artist, a cheat and would actually pan his own artists in print when they dared to ask for story credits (and pay), which were their due. With Stan, it was always someone else’s fault when things went wrong, but all of the good stuff was due to him alone. If this information was available on almost any other person, there wouldn’t even be an argument over this issue. I liked Stan when I was a kid and still find certain things about him fun. He was a great promoter, a fun speaker and a great voice for Marvel Comics. But a writer? No way. 

What I think is gonna have to eventually happen is that the evidence is so strong, people who love Stan in the same way they love a friend or relative, are gonna have to say “I know it’s all true, but I still like the guy”. Because pretending that the Marvel Age of Comics was due to the “creative talents” of Stan Lee is now a settled issue. This book, along with several others such as “True Believer” prove that Stan was coasting on other people’s work and pay while pretending to be a hot shot writer and genius. 

[mrc]

Danny Fingeroth, the author of “Superman on the Couch: What Superheroes Really Tell Us About Ourselves and Our Society” (2004), and a comic book veteran who worked at Marvel for 18 years............

"I think that in the ‘60s or even the ‘70s, the idea that two people had come up with something was thought by reporters, and some editors, to be too complicated for a general interest story. Stan would very often be credited as the creator of X, Y and Z, but he was pretty careful generally about crediting his artists, even at the times where he said that he himself had created the idea, he would still say “But I couldn’t have done it without Kirby or Ditko.” I think he was partly a victim of the oversimplification the media did. I think there were probably times when he also preempted that simplification and figured that this story would be too complicated, and so just regarded himself as the creator. There was no one way he talked about stuff. I think if he was talking to a comic audience convention that would be more knowledgeable, he readily acknowledged it. There’s the extreme view that Stan didn’t do anything, which I don’t think is true. And there’s the other extreme view that he did everything, which is also not true."

[lordbyroncomics]

 

Danny Fingeroth is hardly reliable, considering that he has a pathological bias for Stan Lee, somewhat understandable, due to childhood loyalty. Whether he worked at Marvel for 18 years or 38 years, he "wasn't there" to speak on what Lee did before he was, using the logic of Lee's defenders.

https://fourcolorsinners.com/2023/07/27/look-stans-relationship-to-the-truth-is-very-interesting-evaluating-the-exhausting-stan-lee-a-marvelous-life/

[comicwiz]

On 9/29/2024 at 7:06 AM, mrc said:

Danny Fingeroth, the author of “Superman on the Couch: What Superheroes Really Tell Us About Ourselves and Our Society” (2004), and a comic book veteran who worked at Marvel for 18 years............

"I think that in the ‘60s or even the ‘70s, the idea that two people had come up with something was thought by reporters, and some editors, to be too complicated for a general interest story. Stan would very often be credited as the creator of X, Y and Z, but he was pretty careful generally about crediting his artists, even at the times where he said that he himself had created the idea, he would still say “But I couldn’t have done it without Kirby or Ditko.” I think he was partly a victim of the oversimplification the media did. I think there were probably times when he also preempted that simplification and figured that this story would be too complicated, and so just regarded himself as the creator. There was no one way he talked about stuff. I think if he was talking to a comic audience convention that would be more knowledgeable, he readily acknowledged it. There’s the extreme view that Stan didn’t do anything, which I don’t think is true. And there’s the other extreme view that he did everything, which is also not true."

I don't mean to single you out by quoting this, but the content of the quote you shared reveals a significant point of departure for me in the narrative, and I feel it's important to describe the contextual dishonesty of trying to seek a middle ground, particularly within the last decade, at the very least (within a margin of a few years going further back, if we want to include the Kirby lawsuit into that timeframe).

It became apparent that it was no longer about playing two sides differently. As a "brand ambassador", claiming front-facing credit, and then playing the egalitarian collaborator in front of the informed.

This notion simply does not apply the moment the Marvel cinematic history begins to unfold. Why? Because of money. Plain and simple. Flashman can't help himself, and anyone that has any doubt, do the research, there's plenty of evidence revealing this.

Furthermore, there was already an understanding of termination rights, copyright, and the value the orignal art held back in the heyday of Marvel (60\s/70;s), otherwise Marvel never would have employed some of the tactics they did even back then, trying to force the artist, but particularly Kirby, to transfer or have their rights, and ownership to their art, illegally confiscated. If he ever wanted to exonerate himself from these troubling perceptions, he had plenty of opportunity by simply returning Kiryb's art when he asked for it. Instead he doubled and tripled down.

Flashman stealing credit AND pay are one thing, but to have continued this in a manner where he could profit from "co-creator" pay, main billing in movie credits,profiteering from the art - and if that wasn't already heinous enough, this playbook is continuing to play out after his death, by those who embraced his tactics. Those who continue to perpetuate these lies, and who are seemingly not ony doing his bidding, but are emboldened by the pattern of there being zero consequences. If anyone still has any doubts on this, watch what will unfold when Star Wars turns 50, and pay particular attention to who will be swooping-in for the credit, and the opportunism that comes with this, from monetizing such things as convention appearances. The conscious few who not only see it, but are already anticipating it before it happens again, are well beyond the point of playing this down to any middle ground. 

Like an an athelete who is stripped of their medal after the truth is revealed of their deceptive ways to attain victory, he gets nothing from my point of view from this point forward, because he's not only undeserving of the accolades, but he's taken way more than he ever deserved in the first place. That it's had a generational impact on the families of these creators is perhaps as great, or even a greater injustice, to what he got away with, and what the creators themselves had to endure during their time working at Marvel. 

It's time for the truth to settle this once and for all. The middle ground is lip service to anyone accepting fakers, frauds and decievers. PED and doping scandals have no place in the HOF, unless you believe glory trumps integrity. Disney may not like the ugly truth, warts and all, but there is no excuse for the middle ground. Not anymore. It's the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That truth is the only way I can still make mine Marvel.

Edited September 29 by comicwiz

[Prince Namor]

On 9/29/2024 at 6:59 PM, lordbyroncomics said:

Danny Fingeroth is hardly reliable, considering that he has a pathological bias for Stan Lee, somewhat understandable, due to childhood loyalty. Whether he worked at Marvel for 18 years or 38 years, he "wasn't there" to speak on what Lee did before he was, using the logic of Lee's defenders.

https://fourcolorsinners.com/2023/07/27/look-stans-relationship-to-the-truth-is-very-interesting-evaluating-the-exhausting-stan-lee-a-marvelous-life/

Yep. Hagiography.

Great article, Will! (Your whole collection of articles are great!) Fingeroth had such a zero impact on the world of comics he had to make a name for himself off his hero somehow!

I give you a huge amount of credit for reading that hatchet job, and based on the above quote from it, I'm glad I saved myself the pain of vomiting through it.

[Prince Namor]

"I think that in the ‘60s or even the ‘70s, the idea that two people had come up with something was thought by reporters, and some editors, to be too complicated for a general interest story."

LOL! In the 60's and 70's?

Uh...Lennon and McCartney? Jagger and Richards? Simon and Garfunkel? Sonny and Cher? Ike and Tina Turner?

The idea that the media created Lee's persona as the creator of everything is ridiculous and I can show you just how untrue it is. 

From my book - Lee in 1963 claiming he created almost every character that Marvel published in his 20 years at the company:

From the Fanzine, Masquerade #5 (May-June 1963), Stan Lee sends a letter of thanks for the praise of Marvel in the previous issue. He also claims to have created almost every character that Marvel has published over the 20 years he's been there.

What???

This may be one of the first instances of Lee overstating his creative abilities as a do-all, be-all creator…

 

That what's called PROOF.

[comicwiz]

On 9/29/2024 at 9:14 AM, Prince Namor said:

The idea that the media created Lee's persona as the creator of everything is ridiculous and I can show you just how untrue it is. 

I took the weak reasoning slight differently, where he may be suggesting the irrational and many times, inaccurate ways, the media portrays a quote or remark made. This still happens to this day, and even back then, they may have have run with whatever he told them because they didn't know better, the already slow news day aspects of covering the comic beat, or if the journalist was worth their salt, had heard differing views/opinions from others, and still ran with the words uttered for the controversy. Because, controversy sells!

On 9/29/2024 at 9:14 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

I hadn't seen this before I began reading the book, I appreciate you including it in there. Definitely one of the many receipts the book contains to help connect the dots. 

Edited September 29 by comicwiz

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 9/29/2024 at 4:59 AM, lordbyroncomics said:

considering that he has a pathological bias for Stan Lee, somewhat understandable, due to childhood loyalty.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/29/2024 at 3:47 AM, Larryw7 said:

If this information was available on almost any other person, there wouldn’t even be an argument over this issue. I liked Stan when I was a kid and still find certain things about him fun. He was a great promoter, a fun speaker and a great voice for Marvel Comics. But a writer? No way. 

 

Here's where I think that ignoring the middle ground is a major mistake and conflating diverse concepts leads to polarization. NO ONE on this thread thinks Stan deserve all credit. But a lot of contentions are being made here that Stan deserves no credit. And the arguments being made are neither consistent nor entirely cogent. Chaz tends to just pick facts and construct a smear. That's an emotional appeal. I prefer a more reasoned approach.

The issue of who owns a character and is entitled to profit off of the movie rights, etc., is decided by statute and well-established case law. And it does not really hinge on who did what with regard to starting a comic book -- it hinges on what their legal employment role was when they were doing it. And, sadly, for all comic creators of the 1960s, Stan Lee included, the law held that they were not in the right legal role to own the copyrights. This has been litigated over and over. Jack Kirby understood that in 1966 when he declared in opposition to Joe Simon's lawsuit: "I felt that whatever I did for Timely belonged to Timely as was the practice in those days. When I left Timely, all of my work was left with them."[FN see below.] 

So let's be clear: The debate over co-creator credit is not a debate over who owns the characters. The publishers own the characters (and Stan was never the publisher in the sense of being the company), and Goodman sold Marvel in the late-1960s early 1970s.  That debate is a legal debate which has been resolved against the actual creators. The statute says what it says and the courts have interpreted the statute in a long line of cases. Nothing said here has any bearing on whether Jack Kirby or Joe Simon or Stan Lee or Ditko's or Heck's etc. families get ownership.

HERE, the debate over is an entirely different issue: Who deserves creation or co-creation credit. To me, it's an artistic and ethical question that turns on what you think a person must have done to deserve co-creation credit, what constitutes a final creation, etc. And this is the big dispute on this thread. Chaz hides the ball on this issue. He won't define what he thinks someone must do to achieve co-creator credit. Instead, he hides behind something Stan once said and makes quips. 

It's not a black or white issue. The right answer can be a hodgepodge of people. And that's how I think Marvel worked. 

The so-called Marvel method was really a thing. It generally entailed (1) a plotting discussion (maybe in rare occasions a brief write up of the plot) with no full scripts, (2) the writer then drew images that the writer felt tracked the plot and offered notes on what the action was if it was not apparent (but did not dialogue the art), the art was then dialogued, edited, then it was inked, lettered (including sound effects), and colored. Arguably, anyone who performed those functions on a comic book with the initial appearance of a character might be deserving some portion of the co-creation credit. But most people tend to disregard the role played by inkers, letterers, and colorists (although I think they play significant roles) and focus only on the plotters, artists, and dialoguer.

The "Kirby created everything group" are not all consistent in their views. Kirby gets credit for Spider-Man because he thought Marvel should do a book called Spiderman - but his other ideas largely were ignored. Stan gets no credit even for works where he came up with the dialogue and speaking styles - even though that is a huge part of the characterization.

Which begs the question that Chaz won't answer: What is the criteria that must be met for someone to get a co-creator credit for a work? My answer: They must have made a material contribution that is essential to the nature of the character and/or story (because a creator can co-create a character and co-create a story featuring a character created by others - both of which are important creations that deserve credit). 

FN. And he still knew it when Gary Groth interviewed him in 1990.

Quote

 

GROTH: Were you aware that the companies were making a lot of money on these, and you were just getting a page rate, just a fixed rate?

KIRBY: Yes. I accepted that fact because I was bringing in more money. Don’t get me wrong — the more money the books made, the more money I received, and I was feeling great. My purpose was what my father’s purpose was — to make a living and to have a family. I was going to do the right thing. My dream to me was to have money to support it and to live in the kind of house I liked.

GROTH: Did it dawn on you that the publishers you were working for were making a whole lot more money than you were off your work?

KIRBY: I didn’t care. I couldn’t conceive what they were doing in those offices. I couldn’t conceive of working with accountants. I couldn’t conceive of working with sales people. I couldn’t conceive of distribution. I couldn’t conceive of it because I couldn’t envision it. I’ve never run a business, I’ve never run a big business, and comics were growing fast. Superman had that kind of a business. They had every kind of accoutrement you could use for a big business.

GROTH: Did you resent the publishers?

KIRBY: No, I didn’t resent them. In fact, I got along well with them. When I wanted a little more money, they gave me a little more money.

ROZ KIRBY: They threw you bones.

KIRBY: Yeah, they threw me bones, and the publishers liked me.

GROTH: I bet.

KIRBY: I got along well with them.

....

GROTH: Did you assume when you did a book — any one of the many books you’ve done — did you assume that the publisher owned it? Or did you think about it a little later and think, wait a minute, I did this and I didn’t have a contract, and I don’t see why he should own it 100 percent.

KIRBY: No, I was growing up and becoming aware of those things. Joe Simon knew about those things.

GROTH: At the time you just assumed that the publisher owned it?

KIRBY: Yes. I assumed that he took it, OK? [Laughter.] I assumed that he took it, and I didn’t have the means to get it back. In other words, I didn’t save my money for a lawyer. I was a very young man, and saved my money for having a good time.

GROTH: I understand that sometime in the mid-’50s Bernie Krigstein tried to start a union among comic book creators. Were you aware of that?

KIRBY: I was aware of it. It was something that I knew would fail.

GROTH: But you didn’t go to any meetings?

KIRBY: No, no. Unions almost had the connotation of communism.

GROTH: You were wary?

KIRBY: Everybody was wary. Remember, this was a time when communists marched through the streets, waving flags and shouting. The unions did the same thing so you began to associate them. I’m speaking now as a human being, not as a businessman — the unions are great. The unions are great for the working people because they protect you, but I didn’t see them that way as a young man. First of all, the papers would connect them with thee communists — labor unions were communists.

GROTH: Of course, the papers had a vested interest in doing that.

KIRBY: Yes.

ROZ KIRBY: Also at that time each artist was making his own deal. Jack said, “Well, I make more money than them.” Everybody can’t make the same.

KIRBY: I was doing very well — my books were selling. Whatever I drew sold.

GROTH: When you say you were doing very well, what does that mean? What was your page rate in the ’50s?

KIRBY: Thirty-five to 50 dollars for a complete page. It depended on who you worked for. Some paid less. Some paid more.

GROTH: Would that include the writing?

KIRBY: Yes, I gave them a complete page. Joe would ink it or someone else would ink it. I’d get somebody to ink it, or I’d ink it myself, and I’d get a certain amount from the publishers. 

 

 

Edited September 29 by sfcityduck

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 9/29/2024 at 3:47 AM, Larryw7 said:

I finished the book this morning. I don’t know how Chaz had access to so many documents and eyewitnesses, but he clearly did his homework. The truth hurts, but the truth is that Stan was a fraud, a con artist, a cheat and would actually pan his own artists in print when they dared to ask for story credits (and pay), which were their due. With Stan, it was always someone else’s fault when things went wrong, but all of the good stuff was due to him alone. If this information was available on almost any other person, there wouldn’t even be an argument over this issue. I liked Stan when I was a kid and still find certain things about him fun. He was a great promoter, a fun speaker and a great voice for Marvel Comics. But a writer? No way. 

What I think is gonna have to eventually happen is that the evidence is so strong, people who love Stan in the same way they love a friend or relative, are gonna have to say “I know it’s all true, but I still like the guy”. Because pretending that the Marvel Age of Comics was due to the “creative talents” of Stan Lee is now a settled issue. This book, along with several others such as “True Believer” prove that Stan was coasting on other people’s work and pay while pretending to be a hot shot writer and genius. 

There is a difference between researching and "doing your homework" to reach an unbiased conclusion, and doing one's homework to support a conclusion you made, and want others to make, before you researched a single fact or quote, then excluding or deligitamizing any facts or statements that conflict with your preset conclusion 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 9/29/2024 at 6:14 AM, Prince Namor said:

Uh...Lennon and McCartney? Jagger and Richards? Simon and Garfunkel? Sonny and Cher? Ike and Tina Turner?

 

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 9/29/2024 at 4:59 AM, lordbyroncomics said:

 

Danny Fingeroth is hardly reliable, considering that he has a pathological bias for Stan Lee, somewhat understandable, due to childhood loyalty. Whether he worked at Marvel for 18 years or 38 years, he "wasn't there" to speak on what Lee did before he was, using the logic of Lee's defenders.

https://fourcolorsinners.com/2023/07/27/look-stans-relationship-to-the-truth-is-very-interesting-evaluating-the-exhausting-stan-lee-a-marvelous-life/

So a guy who says simply that while he acknowledges it's extreme to say Lee did everything, maybe it's also extreme to say he did nothing --

--That guy has a "pathological bias"?

And not the guy who seems to spend every waking moment digging for dirt against Lee while not just ignoring but refusing to acknowledge the existence of any evidence to the contrary?

Is that you, Ahab?

Peter Paul?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 29 by BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES

[FlyingDonut]

On 9/20/2024 at 6:22 PM, Lazyboy said:

Another? Who was the first?

Henry Luce

[sfcityduck]

On 9/29/2024 at 11:14 AM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

There is a difference between researching and "doing your homework" to reach an unbiased conclusion, and doing one's homework to support a conclusion you made, and want others to make, before you researched a single fact or quote, then excluding or deligitamizing any facts or statements that conflict with your preset conclusion 

 

 

I can see why folks might want to disagree whether Chaz did not did not do what's described in this quote. But I can't see why anyone would laugh at or be confused by the sentiment. It's correct. Which is why Chaz's posts on this thread, and Bleeding Cool's affirmation his book is a "one-sided prosecution" have deterred me from wanting to read it. I'll wait for the upcoming book he mentioned because it sounds like it might have more academic grounding given that the author elected to go visit Stan Lee's archives (which Chaz apparently did not do). 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/30/2024 at 1:13 AM, sfcityduck said:

Here's where I think that ignoring the middle ground is a major mistake and conflating diverse concepts leads to polarization. NO ONE on this thread thinks Stan deserve all credit. But a lot of contentions are being made here that Stan deserves no credit. And the arguments being made are neither consistent nor entirely cogent. Chaz tends to just pick facts and construct a smear. That's an emotional appeal. I prefer a more reasoned approach.

No one is saying Stan did nothing. Misleading again.

On 9/30/2024 at 1:13 AM, sfcityduck said:

The issue of who owns a character and is entitled to profit off of the movie rights, etc., is decided by statute and well-established case law. And it does not really hinge on who did what with regard to starting a comic book -- it hinges on what their legal employment role was when they were doing it. And, sadly, for all comic creators of the 1960s, Stan Lee included, the law held that they were not in the right legal role to own the copyrights. This has been litigated over and over. Jack Kirby understood that in 1966 when he declared in opposition to Joe Simon's lawsuit: "I felt that whatever I did for Timely belonged to Timely as was the practice in those days. When I left Timely, all of my work was left with them."[FN see below.] 

So let's be clear: The debate over co-creator credit is not a debate over who owns the characters.

No one is debating any of this. This is not about who owns the characters. Not my book or this discussion. Misleading again.

On 9/30/2024 at 1:13 AM, sfcityduck said:

HERE, the debate over is an entirely different issue: Who deserves creation or co-creation credit. To me, it's an artistic and ethical question that turns on what you think a person must have done to deserve co-creation credit, what constitutes a final creation, etc. And this is the big dispute on this thread. Chaz hides the ball on this issue. He won't define what he thinks someone must do to achieve co-creator credit. Instead, he hides behind something Stan once said and makes quips.

Again misleading. The debate is about showing what has been hidden in regards to what STAN LEE CLAIMS, and how it proves he's a Liar.

On 9/30/2024 at 1:13 AM, sfcityduck said:

It's not a black or white issue. The right answer can be a hodgepodge of people. And that's how I think Marvel worked. 

The so-called Marvel method was really a thing. It generally entailed (1) a plotting discussion (maybe in rare occasions a brief write up of the plot) with no full scripts

Except you have many of the artist who said Lee gave them nothing: Kirby, Ditko, Goldberg, Hartley, Wood, even Romita said he'd at times just get a name.

On 9/30/2024 at 1:13 AM, sfcityduck said:

(2) the writer then drew images that the writer felt tracked the plot and offered notes on what the action was if it was not apparent (but did not dialogue the art),

The artist wrote the story. 

On 9/30/2024 at 1:13 AM, sfcityduck said:

the art was then dialogued, edited, then it was inked, lettered (including sound effects), and colored. Arguably, anyone who performed those functions on a comic book with the initial appearance of a character might be deserving some portion of the co-creation credit. But most people tend to disregard the role played by inkers, letterers, and colorists (although I think they play significant roles) and focus only on the plotters, artists, and dialoguer.

You think the colorist and letterer deserve co-creator credit?

On 9/30/2024 at 1:13 AM, sfcityduck said:

Which begs the question that Chaz won't answer: What is the criteria that must be met for someone to get a co-creator credit for a work?

I don't care. 

On 9/30/2024 at 1:13 AM, sfcityduck said:

My answer: They must have made a material contribution that is essential to the nature of the character and/or story (because a creator can co-create a character and co-create a story featuring a character created by others - both of which are important creations that deserve credit). 

Don't care. Who created what isn't as important to me as showing that a) Lee stole credit and pay from his artists for a decade (at least) and b) that he LIED about his role in the creation of the Marvel Universe. 

Neither of which YOU can prove otherwise, so you just jam things up with debate about points I don't really find important. 

Marvel owns the characters. Lee gave that up in 1998 when he got his million dollar a year contract after threatening to take them to Stan Lee Media.

Marvel has paid the estates a sum they seem happy with, thus proving that Lee did NOT create everything and then just assign an artist.

They continue to repeat the Stan Lee BS story, and I find that disgusting. 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/30/2024 at 1:14 AM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

There is a difference between researching and "doing your homework" to reach an unbiased conclusion, and doing one's homework to support a conclusion you made, and want others to make, before you researched a single fact or quote, then excluding or deligitamizing any facts or statements that conflict with your preset conclusion 

Another clueless review of my book by someone who hasn't read it.

I quote Lee's view EXTENSIVELY throughout my book. DIRECTLY quoting him from the ORIGINS of MARVEL COMICS as well as MANY other sources.

As a BIG LIAR, Lee was quite good at outing himself, so I GLEEFULLY printed what he said.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/30/2024 at 1:17 AM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

So a guy who says simply that while he acknowledges it's extreme to say Lee did everything, maybe it's also extreme to say he did nothing --

--That guy has a "pathological bias"?

And not the guy who seems to spend every waking moment digging for dirt against Lee while not just ignoring but refusing to acknowledge the existence of any evidence to the contrary?

Is that you, Ahab?

Peter Paul?

No one's claiming Lee did nothing.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/30/2024 at 1:26 AM, sfcityduck said:

I can see why folks might want to disagree whether Chaz did not did not do what's described in this quote. But I can't see why anyone would laugh at or be confused by the sentiment. It's correct. Which is why Chaz's posts on this thread, and Bleeding Cool's affirmation his book is a "one-sided prosecution" have deterred me from wanting to read it. I'll wait for the upcoming book he mentioned because it sounds like it might have more academic grounding given that the author elected to go visit Stan Lee's archives (which Chaz apparently did not do). 

Rich Johnston hadn't read it. If he had, he'd have seen that, again, I quote Lee EXTENSIVELY. His VIEWPOINT in what happened is the basis for the BOOK. 

DUH.

Stan Lee LIED. To show Stan Lee LIED, I have to show what he SAID.

All of you experts who haven't read the freakin' book sure think you know something. 

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 9/29/2024 at 11:26 AM, sfcityduck said:

I can see why folks might want to disagree whether Chaz did not did not do what's described in this quote. But I can't see why anyone would laugh at or be confused by the sentiment. It's correct. Which is why Chaz's posts on this thread, and Bleeding Cool's affirmation his book is a "one-sided prosecution" have deterred me from wanting to read it. I'll wait for the upcoming book he mentioned because it sounds like it might have more academic grounding given that the author elected to go visit Stan Lee's archives (which Chaz apparently did not do). 

I will never have the energy or the desire to engage Chaz again, because I know what it will entail.  People in the comics industry, including most if not all the artists and co-workers he quotes, have made conflicting statements about Stan's work, just as Stan did himself.  So, it's not a problem for a person that obsessed to come up with quote after quote that looks bad.  It's possible to do that same, arguing the opposite. But that would require being as obsessively devoted to the issue as Chaz very apparently is, and dedicating as much of your life defending Lee as he spends trying to condemn him.