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

[jimjum12]

On 9/29/2024 at 4:23 PM, VintageComics said:

I'm not saying you've come to an incorrect conclusion, I'm saying because there's so much emotion and nostalgia tied to it as this topic, it takes a lot of care to get people to want to listen and get to the same conclusion you've gotten to. 

This is kind of where I'm at. I will tell you one thing that Stan DID create, and that is the Marvel Zombie. GOD BLESS ... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

[Mmehdy]

On 9/29/2024 at 1:14 PM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

If you knew all this in the mid-90s as you say, then why didn't you write this book while Stan was alive?

the ability to communicate and self publishing and of the course the internet and the marvel Hollywood worldwide success came on a like a flash...every year seems to be getting faster and faster....Stan being alive has nothing to do with the evidence....

[Prince Namor]

On 9/30/2024 at 3:14 AM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

If you knew all this in the mid-90s as you say, then why didn't you write this book while Stan was alive?

That's not what I said. 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/30/2024 at 3:23 AM, VintageComics said:

I'll take that maybe as it's the first one I remember reading in this thread (I don't mean that in any negative way).

MOST of the people in this discussion (like me) won't know as much as you do on the topic, which is why how you approach the answers affects how readers hear them. 

And giving credit where credit is due (like Lee's formation of the Bullpen) is a very valuable way to build a common ground so that it doesn't all sound like condemnation, and negative points about people's heros are better received.

I'm not saying you've come to an incorrect conclusion, I'm saying because there's so much emotion and nostalgia tied to it as this topic, it takes a lot of care to get people to want to listen and get to the same conclusion you've gotten to. 

Again...

I wrote the book to present evidence. No one is discussing the book.

Instead they're trying to come into the conversation and, as you say, 'find common ground'.

Except that's NOT what most of them are doing. By ignoring what the book is about and focusing all of the attention away from it, they're simply creating a smoke screen so people won't look or pay attention. They can't stand the idea of Lee being exposed for the fraud he was. 

So instead they focus on, 'Why are you saying Lee did nothing?', when in fact, no one is saying that.

Stan Lee had 'ballyhoo!' Yeah, ok. What does that have to do with my book?

I've BEEN through this, time and time again. I know how it works.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 9/29/2024 at 2:01 PM, Prince Namor said:

They can't stand the idea of Lee being exposed for the fraud he was. 

 

[jimjum12]

On 9/29/2024 at 5:20 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 9/29/2024 at 1:23 PM, VintageComics said:

it takes a lot of care to get people to want to listen and get to the same conclusion you've gotten to. 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/29/2024 at 10:01 PM, Prince Namor said:

Again...

I wrote the book to present evidence. No one is discussing the book.

Instead they're trying to come into the conversation and, as you say, 'find common ground'.

Except that's NOT what most of them are doing. By ignoring what the book is about and focusing all of the attention away from it, they're simply creating a smoke screen so people won't look or pay attention. They can't stand the idea of Lee being exposed for the fraud he was. 

So instead they focus on, 'Why are you saying Lee did nothing?', when in fact, no one is saying that.

Stan Lee had 'ballyhoo!' Yeah, ok. What does that have to do with my book?

I've BEEN through this, time and time again. I know how it works.

 

 

I'll tell you where I am.

I am not disputing that SL told lies in terms of building his own reputation. I am aware that IMO he was somewhat of an egomaniac. I am not a Lee follower. I am not a Lee hater either.

I think that most hobbyists who know their stuff have always known Stan was a bit of a Jack the Lad.

However he is not the only one in the history and that's a given 

Stan towards the end of his life was exploited and manipulated while he clearly had dementia and that's what I think of, not all that shady double dealings he did. A frail old man who didn't know how to sign his own name.

Emotional response? Sure...but as someone who is very experienced in dealing with dementia, personally one has to let go of a person's failings when they were compis mentis and remember the human being and how we are all are very much flawed, but towards the end, we all need help.

Stan Lee was a man, a great man in some respects, not so in others but he didn't kill anyone, Kirby's family did not starve, Kirby's legacy is known and will not die, Ditko will be immortal.

Stan Lee lied. So what?

[comicwiz]

[comicwiz]

Critics raved about True Believer, my 2021 biography of Lee, which was built on more than 150 interviews and thousands of pages of personal documents, among other materials. Its conclusions were written about everywhere, from The New Yorker to Spain’s El País. I foolishly thought it might change the narrative about him.

This documentary is proof that I was wrong. The venerable and highly lucrative Stan Lee Myth is safe. For now, at least.

                                                                                                                                                                         -Abraham Josephine Riesman

The Stan Lee Myth Is Safe — for Now
https://www.vulture.com/2023/06/disney-s-stan-lee-documentary-perpetuates-a-myth.html

Edited September 29 by comicwiz

[mrc]

On 9/29/2024 at 11:14 PM, comicwiz said:

Critics raved about True Believer, my 2021 biography of Lee, which was built on more than 150 interviews and thousands of pages of personal documents, among other materials. Its conclusions were written about everywhere, from The New Yorker to Spain’s El País. I foolishly thought it might change the narrative about him.

....................

"Even worse: this book doesn't just do Stan dirty by overly emphasizing his problems - it does him dirty by short-selling his strengths. I agree that he might not have been the creative powerhouse that he claimed to be... But he clearly was very talented in a lot of ways, almost none of which get discussed in this book."

"It is baffling why someone would spend so much time and effort writing a biography about a man he accuses of being a liar at the outset. Any pretense of objectivity was discarded very early on in this book."

"The term hit-job seems hyperbolic, but this entire biography seems determined to drip every speck and scrap of Stan Lee's life with malicious intent."

[VintageComics]

On 9/29/2024 at 5:01 PM, Prince Namor said:

Again...

I wrote the book to present evidence. No one is discussing the book.

Instead they're trying to come into the conversation and, as you say, 'find common ground'.

Except that's NOT what most of them are doing. By ignoring what the book is about and focusing all of the attention away from it, they're simply creating a smoke screen so people won't look or pay attention. They can't stand the idea of Lee being exposed for the fraud he was. 

So instead they focus on, 'Why are you saying Lee did nothing?', when in fact, no one is saying that.

Stan Lee had 'ballyhoo!' Yeah, ok. What does that have to do with my book?

I've BEEN through this, time and time again. I know how it works.

 

 

You must have known that your title was going to enrage people and that discussion was going to ensue on anything and everything peripheral to Stan Lee. It's the internet. You've been on the chat forums for how long?

If you don't want to discuss anything outside of the book then I would think that the only way to do that is not to engage in the discussion and promote your book in the dealer's section.

[aszumilo]

On 9/29/2024 at 4:51 PM, VintageComics said:

You must have known that your title was going to enrage people and that discussion was going to ensue on anything and everything peripheral to Stan Lee. It's the internet. You've been on the chat forums for how long?

If you don't want to discuss anything outside of the book then I would think that the only way to do that is not to engage in the discussion and promote your book in the dealer's section.

Maybe everyone should discuss what IS in the book.  That is what I think the thread was started for.  It seems to gone off the rails a bit.  Ok, a lot

[Mmehdy]

On 9/29/2024 at 5:04 PM, aszumilo said:

Maybe everyone should discuss what IS in the book.  That is what I think the thread was started for.  It seems to gone off the rails a bit.  Ok, a lot

Of course there is controversy and a natural reaction to this is going to be pushback.....but the facts speak for themselves....and point after point SM has broken the brick wall down (as in village of the dammed original)....and it lead to one conclusion......the books title....read it and see for yourself!

[Iconic1s]

On 9/29/2024 at 5:11 PM, comicwiz said:

Wow!!  Literally “looking over his Father’s shoulder as he created the Marvel Universe”… and then witnessing a self-promoting egomaniac claim all the credit for all those years!  Painful to read this!

I am loving the book AND this thread so much!  Lee should be scorned… there is no middle ground.  The guy was just a (good) salesman but he went too far and also stole all the credit for inventing and producing the widget.  He lived long enough to set things right but did not.  Despicable.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/30/2024 at 6:51 AM, VintageComics said:

You must have known that your title was going to enrage people and that discussion was going to ensue on anything and everything peripheral to Stan Lee. It's the internet. You've been on the chat forums for how long?

If you don't want to discuss anything outside of the book then I would think that the only way to do that is not to engage in the discussion and promote your book in the dealer's section.

Thats not what I said. 

[bronze_rules]

 

[Dr. Haydn]

On 9/26/2024 at 7:39 PM, Prince Namor said:

Said no one about Bob Kane.

Sorry Doc, had to point that out!

About correcting the historical record without being mean about it: I think Michael Vassallo (the other Doc around these parts) has done a great job. To paraphrase his 2018 Stan Lee memorial post on Timely-Atlas Comics: he looked at Lee's pre-1961 work and all of Kirby's to find common themes and stylistic tics. After laying out the evidence, he suggests we look at their joint efforts from Fantastic Four onward and draw our own conclusions. 

To my eyes, based on this evidence, Kirby's considerable influence on how Marvel developed in the Silver Age is hard to miss. I think the ongoing Stan, Jack and Steve thread on these boards (a lot of which formed the basis for "Stan Lee Lied") supports this view.

Your mileage may vary. That's probably why this thread is up to 61 pages and counting.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/30/2024 at 11:13 AM, Dr. Haydn said:

About correcting the historical record without being mean about it: I think Michael Vassallo (the other Doc around these parts) has done a great job. To paraphrase his 2018 Stan Lee memorial post on Timely-Atlas Comics: he looked at Lee's pre-1961 work and all of Kirby's to find common themes and stylistic tics. After laying out the evidence, he suggests we look at their joint efforts from Fantastic Four onward and draw our own conclusions. 

Yeah, Doc has many views that have influenced me. He's talked face to face with more Golden Age pros than many of us would even KNOW. And plenty of Silver Age guys as well!

"No Maneely death, no Kirby at Marvel, no Marvel universe. That's the way I see it. Maneely's death brought Jack in and it was Jack, I'm positive, who pushed the new science-fantasy direction in a genre Goodman disliked and never sold for him. Then again it was Jack who pushed superheroes. That is the damn linchpin, the dichotomy of belief in "who" exactly pushed superheroes. Stan's "Origins" stories and the ridiculous "my wife told me to do superheroes 'my' way" narrative, for a person who had exactly no interest or experience with real heroic scientific fantasy, versus someone who had been doing it all his professional life, and would continue to do so well after leaving the company. The Marvel Comics of the 1960's were launched and created/plotted by Jack Kirby (and to a slightly lesser extent, Steve Ditko), with the editor grafting dialogue after the fact. Yes, that did produce a product different than it would have been if either Kirby or Ditko did it alone, and no one is arguing that it wasn't successful. It's always just been about the creator credit. Who likes or dislikes the finished product is not the issue. "It's the credit, (censored)!"

On 9/30/2024 at 11:13 AM, Dr. Haydn said:

To my eyes, based on this evidence, Kirby's considerable influence on how Marvel developed in the Silver Age is hard to miss. I think the ongoing Stan, Jack and Steve thread on these boards (a lot of which formed the basis for "Stan Lee Lied") supports this view.

Your mileage may vary. That's probably why this thread is up to 61 pages and counting.

Interestingly though... none of what the book focuses' on is actually being debated.

Lee fans accept that Kirby brought the original ideas, artists wrote the stories, Lee could 'sometimes exaggerate' (Oy vey!), and even that he stole credit and pay! Unlike 30 years ago, they can no longer argue AGAINST those claims because the evidence is overwhelming. They have accepted it.

So instead they argue about 'ballyhoo' and how he could move a mean word balloon in arranging a cover, or make the straw man claim, "It's wrong to say that Stan did nothing!" that no one is making.

Realistically it's 61 pages of NO debate. LOL. It's all misdirection to confuse people who might be interested in the truth.

"You think Neal Adams is terrible!" No, I don't.

"You think Kirby can do no wrong!" No, I didn't say that."

"You have a bias against Lee!" I had no bias in 1990, when I read that Comics Journal article and began looking at things, and using basic critical reasoning skills. 34 years later, it's all been a part of what put the book together. I didn't START with a bias and write a book, as one person said. It's a culmination of years of looking at facts and information and statistics and interviews to put it together.

The truth is objective. 

[sfcityduck]

On 9/29/2024 at 11:29 AM, Prince Namor said:

No one is saying Stan did nothing. Misleading again.

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

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.

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.

The artist wrote the story. 

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

I don't care. 

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.