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

[bronze_rules]

The main argument from Prince Namor seems to be that 1) Stan took writing credits for others and 2) took the writing pay that those others essentially performed.

I would argue that any sr. manager's function is to maximize returns for the company first (notice I'm not saying that is somehow fair at all). And I would suspect that even if Goodman was aware of this, he really wouldn't care as it was making him money and achieving profits as was his foremost goal. Now Kirby, Ditko, and anyone else could have argued that it wasn't fair, and they weren't being compensated commensurately in pay or credit, and then Lee/Goodman could have responded by saying, that's how we run things - there's the door. Then they could hire the next sucker who came in looking for work. This is how it is in almost all creative endeavors. Does that mean that Kirby did not contribute monumentally to Marvel's success? No. It just means he was the worker bee and was willing to put up with subpar compensation rather than walk (we know this because Ditko also tried to get him to walk and he was afraid). Like too many other underpaid contributors, he simply put up with it while mumbling behind the boss's back (Gil Kane pointed this out about lunch trips with Jack). Now there were those who did stand up to these perceived unfair schemes like Neal Adams, Wally Wood, etc... But I tend to see all of this as more of a poor business arrangement (like sfcityduck posts) than a deserved in 'fairness' thing. How many contributors in this world made monumental contributions to money makers (movies, music, engineering feats, etc) and got shafted? plenty. I'd be the first to say, it sucks immensely, but he's just another cog in the wheel of capitalism.

Truly, looking back at all of this, I'm surprised creators like Seigel, Shuster, Kirby and any of them got large settlements years later. How many other creators of scientific achievements under hire by corporations get money later? I just see it as poor legal representation and agreements by these comic companies back then, which worked out well for the creators later. Even the fact, artists get to keep original art surprises me - again, how many inventors get to keep their patents, work, or ownership (hint, none that I know of) that were assigned to the company, years later?

So, to Namor, I simply see the pay issue as sour grapes (and rightly so of course) over gargantuan fortunes made on the backs of stars who could've simply walked like anyone else in creative business and went to another company (Kirby did go to DC, and like I pointed out, he was given a lot of leeway, but most of his work there wasn't the right time, right combo, etc.. and failed, unlike Marvel/Stan and I certainly wouldn't compare it equivalently to his success at Marvel with Stan).

After finishing the text from Namor, quite honestly, I feel that there's more to be gained by reading many of twomorrow's publishing works (like "Kirby&Lee Stuf Said") where interviewers went out and acquired new information to publish, rather than Namor's text, which was merely a single sided argument boosted and supported by aggregate second hand research and quotes gathered from such sources (that's how I interpreted it). I did like reading it, but I also read a ton of these types of books and wouldn't really put it first as it doesn't add that much new information from the other sources (at least from how I perceived it), and also because it is very tilted to one side.

Edited September 30 by bronze_rules

[sfcityduck]

On 9/29/2024 at 11:13 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.

 

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

No one is saying Stan did nothing. Misleading again.

 

Are you now admitting that Stan deserves co-creator credit? Because it sure looks like you think "Stan deserves no credit."

On 9/29/2024 at 11:13 AM, sfcityduck said:

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

Do you really seriously contend that in a book about how Stan Lee lied in the Origins of Marvel Comics about creator credit, the issue is not whether Stan deserves some creator credit? That goes directly to whether he lied and, if so, how badly.

On 9/29/2024 at 11:13 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? 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). 

 

 

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

 

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. 

 

And there we have it. Chaz isn't really interested in "who created what." He doesn't care if Stan Lee did co-create with Jack Kirby. He just wants to attack Stan Lee. But how can you honestly address the issue of whether Stan lied in Origins of Marvel Comics when Stan talked about creator credit when you don't care "who created what"? Answer you can't. Because when you say "Who created what isn't as important to me as showing that a) Lee stole credit" you are effectively stating that your agenda overrode any semblance of an academic search for truth. 

And that's why I have no interest in your book. Your own admissions make me realize that your top agenda was to perform a hit, not sift the many shifting tales that Kiby and Lee told and look for the truth of the matter. Bleeding Cool was right when they said its a "one sided" prosecution of Lee.

Because here's the thing: Both Kirby and Lee lied at various points in their life on these topics. It's indisputable. Some of those "lies" were failures of memory. Others were ego or attempts at a money grab. And that's important history if you can trust that the person purveying the information is making an honest effort to find the truth.

But in the above statements that you "don't care" what the criteria for establishing an entitlement to creator credit and that "Who created what isn't as important to me as showing that a) Lee stole credit" you reveal a fatal bias that has purveyed all your work on this topic here on these Boards. With that background, why should I expect an honest investigation in your book?

 

[sfcityduck]

On 9/29/2024 at 11:13 AM, sfcityduck said:

 

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

 

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

 

The artist wrote the story. 

 

If there was a co-plotting conference, the artist was drawing a story that had been to one degree or another (and I'm sure it varied) plotted in the conference. Yes, the artist may have had considerable leeway in effectuating the action which fleshed out the plot in the drawings. But the artist did not write the dialogue for the story. That was done by the writer after the pages were submitted based on the art and some notes that artist might make to explain what action was being depicted.

It was a collaboration. Each cog had a place in the process.

Artists thought it was unfair that they didn't get paid more. One argument they made for more pay was that they were the real writers under the "Marvel method" because they came up with the details of the story. But the drawings weren't a "full script" and they didn't include the dialogue. They were certainly a greater contribution than those of an artist working under a full script. We can all agree on that. I'd have given all artists a plotting credit under the Marvel method. But if someone else wrote the dialogue, I'd give that person a writing credit for coming up with the actual words in the comic book. Plot and dialogue are two different things that serve different functions. Art (drawings) and writing (words) are obviously different. 

I agree that Marvel's artists probably should have been paid more for working under the "Marvel method," but they had every ability to leave, seek to renegotiate, or form a union. Kirby was anti-union because he made a lot more than most artists and didn't want them dragging him down. I can't blame him at all for that. I don't view comic book artists as the type of workers that should be unionized. But at the end of the day he worked under the deal he negotiated knowing the method under what he was working. But he still deserved credit for what he did. And he gets it.

Edited September 30 by sfcityduck

[bronze_rules]

On 9/29/2024 at 10:22 PM, sfcityduck said:

Kirby was anti-union because he made a lot more than most artists and didn't want them dragging him down. 

I was just reading Kirby didn't want to join or be associated with any union because it was strongly associated with 'commies' at the time. Testament to the power of propaganda.

Edited September 30 by bronze_rules

[sfcityduck]

On 9/29/2024 at 10:26 PM, bronze_rules said:

I was just reading Kirby didn't want to join or be associated with any union because it was strongly associated with 'commies' at the time. Testament to the power of propaganda.

As I quoted up thread, it was more than just whiff of communism:

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.

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 9/29/2024 at 9:37 PM, Prince Namor said:

"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)!"

[Aman619]

wow  this is still going on, in circles.  I have 2 comments.  1)  yes there was a Marvel Bullpen  There still is.  Actually they always have had 2 Marvel bullpens.  One is the actual area of their offices where the pasteup happens.  It's where the books are put together as pasted up pages, and slight correction get done.  Now on computers of course,  If you had a production Artist job at Marvel, you sat in the bullpen.  The other Marvel Bullpen was merely how Stan and other editors referred to the artists and writers, encouraging fans to imagine these talents all showing up to create the comics. (Just like the Marvel record they made early on, like it was just another day at the office only someone brought in a tape recorder to have fun with!  That was just an embellishment.  They art and writing was done at home by freelancers, then, and now. 

The other thing is I cant believe anyone is still trying to make a dent in Namor's argument because he never EVER budges an INCH.  It's his way or the highway.  LOL.  Many of you have tried to make this point repeatedly, so I can only conclude you like banging your head on walls...  good luck with that.

have fun. : ) 

[Pitboss]

On 9/30/2024 at 1:23 AM, Aman619 said:

wow  this is still going on, in circles.

You have no idea the struggles I've gone through not to post "The Wheels on the Bus" video 

[sfcityduck]

On 9/29/2024 at 9:37 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

"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)!"

 

Where's this quote from? I assume by "doc" you mean its MV. I certainly agree with him on what the debate is really about: The creator credit.

Which, again, begs the question what's good enough to get a co-creator credit? Plots? Synopsys? Only full scripts? Only full scripts with panel/page breakdowns and panel ideas like an Alan Moore? Or something else?

 

Edited September 30 by sfcityduck

[Prince Namor]

On 9/30/2024 at 12:10 PM, sfcityduck said:

Are you now admitting that Stan deserves co-creator credit? Because it sure looks like you think "Stan deserves no credit."

There would be no issue if Stan would have simply said he was a co-creator. Instead, he said he created everything and then simply assigned an artist. Which is a Lie. Hence, the book.

On 9/30/2024 at 12:10 PM, sfcityduck said:

Do you really seriously contend that in a book about how Stan Lee lied in the Origins of Marvel Comics about creator credit, the issue is not whether Stan deserves some creator credit? That goes directly to whether he lied and, if so, how badly.

I'm not sure how much more slowly or repeatedly I can say it. He said he created everything and then simply assigned an artist. Which is a Lie. Hence, the book.

On 9/30/2024 at 12:10 PM, sfcityduck said:

And there we have it. Chaz isn't really interested in "who created what." He doesn't care if Stan Lee did co-create with Jack Kirby. He just wants to attack Stan Lee. But how can you honestly address the issue of whether Stan lied in Origins of Marvel Comics when Stan talked about creator credit when you don't care "who created what"? Answer you can't. Because when you say "Who created what isn't as important to me as showing that a) Lee stole credit" you are effectively stating that your agenda overrode any semblance of an academic search for truth. 

Don't put words in my mouth. 

The point ISN'T how much each contributed - THAT is already settled. Without Kirby, there's no Marvel Universe. Without Lee, it maybe doesn't become what it became. 

The point IS that Lee LIED and said HE CREATED IT ALL and then simply assigned an artist.

And then stole credit and pay from all of his artists for the decade. Which Bronze Rules thinks is ok, that's how business should work. 

On 9/30/2024 at 12:10 PM, sfcityduck said:

And that's why I have no interest in your book. Your own admissions make me realize that your top agenda was to perform a hit, not sift the many shifting tales that Kiby and Lee told and look for the truth of the matter. Bleeding Cool was right when they said its a "one sided" prosecution of Lee.

You had no interest in my book before it was ever written. Why would I care now?

It will exist and continue to grow, despite YOU.

On 9/30/2024 at 12:10 PM, sfcityduck said:

Because here's the thing: Both Kirby and Lee lied at various points in their life on these topics. It's indisputable. Some of those "lies" were failures of memory. Others were ego or attempts at a money grab. And that's important history if you can trust that the person purveying the information is making an honest effort to find the truth.

To compare Kirby to Lee as a liar show how intellectually dishonest you really are.

On 9/30/2024 at 12:10 PM, sfcityduck said:

But in the above statements that you "don't care" what the criteria for establishing an entitlement to creator credit and that "Who created what isn't as important to me as showing that a) Lee stole credit" you reveal a fatal bias that has purveyed all your work on this topic here on these Boards. With that background, why should I expect an honest investigation in your book?

Another misrepresentation. 

[Prince Namor]

On 9/30/2024 at 12:22 PM, sfcityduck said:

If there was a co-plotting conference, the artist was drawing a story that had been to one degree or another (and I'm sure it varied) plotted in the conference. Yes, the artist may have had considerable leeway in effectuating the action which fleshed out the plot in the drawings. But the artist did not write the dialogue for the story. That was done by the writer after the pages were submitted based on the art and some notes that artist might make to explain what action was being depicted.

It was a collaboration. Each cog had a place in the process.

Artists thought it was unfair that they didn't get paid more. One argument they made for more pay was that they were the real writers under the "Marvel method" because they came up with the details of the story. But the drawings weren't a "full script" and they didn't include the dialogue. They were certainly a greater contribution than those of an artist working under a full script. We can all agree on that. I'd have given all artists a plotting credit under the Marvel method. But if someone else wrote the dialogue, I'd give that person a writing credit for coming up with the actual words in the comic book. Plot and dialogue are two different things that serve different functions. Art (drawings) and writing (words) are obviously different. 

I agree that Marvel's artists probably should have been paid more for working under the "Marvel method," but they had every ability to leave, seek to renegotiate, or form a union. Kirby was anti-union because he made a lot more than most artists and didn't want them dragging him down. I can't blame him at all for that. I don't view comic book artists as the type of workers that should be unionized. But at the end of the day he worked under the deal he negotiated knowing the method under what he was working. But he still deserved credit for what he did. And he gets it.

So you're saying the fact that he LIED in order to steal credit and pay from the artist isn't as important as determining the level of credit each should have gotten?

So as a lawyer, you're saying that stealing is ok? Everyone should do it? It's the American way and business' should be given the freedom to do that?

That seems sad, to think someone who represents the law, would see stealing as acceptable behavior. 

This is why I have no interest in you having an interest in my book.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/30/2024 at 1:23 PM, Aman619 said:

wow  this is still going on, in circles.  I have 2 comments.  1)  yes there was a Marvel Bullpen  

There was no physical Bullpen in late 1957 through around 1966. Sorry, but you're wrong. Kirby, Ditko, Heck, Goldberg, Ayers, Hartley, etc were all freelance. Even Brodsky didn't work there for a while after the implosion.

But believe what you want if it'll make you feel safe and warm.

On 9/30/2024 at 1:23 PM, Aman619 said:

There still is.  Actually they always have had 2 Marvel bullpens.  One is the actual area of their offices where the pasteup happens.  It's where the books are put together as pasted up pages, and slight correction get done.  Now on computers of course,  If you had a production Artist job at Marvel, you sat in the bullpen.  The other Marvel Bullpen was merely how Stan and other editors referred to the artists and writers, encouraging fans to imagine these talents all showing up to create the comics. (Just like the Marvel record they made early on, like it was just another day at the office only someone brought in a tape recorder to have fun with!  That was just an embellishment.  They art and writing was done at home by freelancers, then, and now. 

Ok. Sol Brodsky was the bullpen. LOL.

Lee didn't even have a secretary again until 1964.

On 9/30/2024 at 1:23 PM, Aman619 said:

The other thing is I cant believe anyone is still trying to make a dent in Namor's argument because he never EVER budges an INCH.  It's his way or the highway.  LOL.  Many of you have tried to make this point repeatedly, so I can only conclude you like banging your head on walls...  good luck with that.

have fun. : ) 

None of my points have been challenged. Everyone keeps making up new ones.

[comicwiz]

On 9/30/2024 at 12:13 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. 

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.

Thanks for this, and fwiw, everything I have posted thus far should be seen as supporting evidence, views and/or opinions, as you describe. The review of the book will come, unfortunately it may take me some time for me to be able to set aside time to read the book, as this is a very busy time of year for me with my son's sports, and weekend are busier than work weeks. The things I've posted are what have come to mind as I'm reading through the book, and it reminds me of connective ties to exacty how you phrase it.

[sfcityduck]

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

 

I'm not sure how much more slowly or repeatedly I can say it. He said he created everything and then simply assigned an artist. Which is a Lie. Hence, the book.

if your thesis truly is that Stan Lee was a co-creator of most of the classic MU characters such as Spider-Man, etc but at a point in time he over claimed his role, then I don’t disagree. Then this is much ado about nothing. No one on this thread is denying that did happen.

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

The point ISN'T how much each contributed - THAT is already settled. Without Kirby, there's no Marvel Universe. Without Lee, it maybe doesn't become what it became. 

The point IS that Lee LIED and said HE CREATED IT ALL and then simply assigned an artist.

 

If this is also your thesis, a peeve about a position taken by Lee at a distinct point in time in which he failed to give adequate credit to his co-creators, not that Stan Lee did nothing, then this could have been a much shorter discussion. 

Is that really your position?

Edited September 30 by sfcityduck

[Prince Namor]

On 9/30/2024 at 7:08 PM, sfcityduck said:

if your thesis truly is that Stan Lee was.a co-creator of most of the classic MU characters such as Spider-Man, etc but at a point in time he over claimed his role, then I don’t disagree. Then this is much ado about nothing. No one on this thread is denying that did happen.

If this is also your thesis, a peeve about a position taken by Lee at a distinct point in time in which he failed to give adequate credit to his co-creators, not that Stan Lee did nothing, then this could have been a much shorter discussion. 

Is that really your position?

When it comes to the creation of the Marvel Universe, I'm not saying Stan Lee did nothing. That's something YOU have tried to pin on ME. Never said it.

Co-creator? Not sure if he deserves that, but no one will ever get to take it away or prove he didn't make an editorial choice to horn in on someone's idea.

Do I think he was creative? No, not really. He had a handful of go to ideas - 1. Guest star, 2. Kirby villain from a different book, 3. Hero quits, etc.

But no, I've never said, when it comes to the creation of the Marvel Universe, Stan Lee did nothing.

He was the Publisher's Realtive by Law. One way or the other his name was going to go on it. 

[sfcityduck]

Speaking of your attacks on intellectual honesty, how you can reconcile these statements?:

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

There would be no issue if Stan would have simply said he was a co-creator.

On 9/30/2024 at 6:09 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

Co-creator? Not sure if he deserves that....

Do I think he was creative? No, not really.

Seems like you are being fast and loose in this argument when asked a very simple question: Did Stan Lee deserve co-creator credit for the various key characters that founded the MU or not?

You are flip flopping. Which is one reason why this thread is the mess it is.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/29/2024 at 10:22 PM, sfcityduck said:

 

I agree that Marvel's artists probably should have been paid more for working under the "Marvel method," but they had every ability to leave, seek to renegotiate, or form a union. Kirby was anti-union because he made a lot more than most artists and didn't want them dragging him down. I can't blame him at all for that. I don't view comic book artists as the type of workers that should be unionized. But at the end of the day he worked under the deal he negotiated knowing the method under what he was working. But he still deserved credit for what he did. And he gets it.

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

So you're saying the fact that he [Stan Lee] LIED in order to steal credit and pay from the artist isn't as important as determining the level of credit each should have gotten?

So as a lawyer, you're saying that stealing is ok? Everyone should do it? It's the American way and business' should be given the freedom to do that?

That seems sad, to think someone who represents the law, would see stealing as acceptable behavior. 

This is why I have no interest in you having an interest in my book.

As anyone can see from my post to which you are responding: NO. I AM NOT SAYING (AND NEVER SAID) "STEALING IS OK" OR "EVERYONE SHOULD DO IT" OR "IT'S THE AMERICAN WAY AND BUSINESS' SHOULD BE GIVEN THE FREEDOM TO DO THAT" OR THAT I SEE STEALING AS "ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR." 

You are again backsliding into the behavior that got you a timeout. I'd suggest you get more serious in your responses and ditch the personal attacks again. 

My actual position is this: Each artist working with Stan Lee agreed to a contract with Marvel and kept working at Marvel knowing that they would be working under the "Marvel method." Some, like Kirby, made more than others. That is how negotiating contracts works. And there is a big difference between a person "stealing" someone's paycheck and a person paying them in accord with the contract. If Marvel had breached the contract they had with Kirby or Ditko, for example, they could have sued Marvel on the day they left and gotten any pay owed back six years in time (for Ditko that would be his entire time at Marvel during the creation of the MU). Ditko and Kirby didn't file that suit, right? If so, I assume because while they may have been pissed at the contract they had agreed to to, they were not of the opinion that the contract had been broken by Marvel or that Marvel had really "stolen" anything.

[chaddesden33]

Chaz - just wondering, with the publication of your book and the continuing debate in this thread, do you have a particular desired outcome or endgame in mind?

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/30/2024 at 3:21 PM, chaddesden33 said:

Chaz - just wondering, with the publication of your book and the continuing debate in this thread, do you have a particular desired outcome or endgame in mind?

[sfcityduck]

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

 

To compare Kirby to Lee as a liar show how intellectually dishonest you really are.

 

More backsliding into ad hominems.

But here's a substantive response. Jack Kirby said:

"I created Spider-Man. We decided to give it to Steve Ditko. I drew the first Spider-Man cover. I created the character. I created the costume. I created all those books, but I couldn't do them all."

All of those statements are false but one. Kirby did not create Spider-Man. Lee reassigned the book from Kirby to Ditko. Ditko drew the first AF 15 cover, but Stan wanted a more classic "heroic" cover and had Kirby do a new cover. Again, Kirby did not create the Spider-Man in AF 15. He did not create the costume according to Ditko. He wasn't the sole person to create "all those books." But he is right he couldn't do them all.

Steve Ditko stated that he and Stan Lee created Spider-Man. 

Kirby's behavior here is an intellectually honest comparison to what Lee is accused of doing by you. 

Edited September 30 by sfcityduck