• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

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

Started by Prince Namor,

2,603 posts in this topic

Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
On 10/1/2024 at 9:26 AM, VintageComics said:

This boardie has read it and has more or less come to the same conclusion the rest of many of us have come to without reading the book. 

I pretty much agree with his entire post.

 

You keep replying on this thread that you've "written" or "exposed" the truth, as though you have a monopoly on it. It seeps through every post you make.

There's nothing remotely neutral in anything you've written. If you can't see that by now after everyone pointing it out for 60 pages any more conversation is pointless.

Read bronze_rules' post above. That's how neutral looks.

Have fun. 

Yeah, except you haven't taken a single thing from the book and proven that I'm wrong have you Roy?

Have you Roy?

Edited by Prince Namor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Let's be clear:

No one has taken a point made from my book and proved me wrong.

NO ONE.

We spent 60+ pages debating what I DIDN'T say, so there was nothing I was shown to be wrong about.

NOTHING.

So it seems to me, the only 'complaint' here is that I WROTE the book and people feel I don't have the right to, or shouldn't have, or in the silly case of Roy, didn't do it like I should have.*

The pompousness of telling me that I CAN'T or like Roy, telling me HOW is just amazing, even for the CGC boards.

I've been accused of buying advertisement disguised as a news story, TWICE... of paying Mitch a commission to give my book a positive review... of 'White Knighting', of being a bully, of being too forceful in my opinions... WHAT????

Bookery wasn't forceful in his opinions? I went out of my way to try and be polite to him and he still treated me like I insulted him.

sfcityduck wasn't forceful in his opinions? Are you serious?

Paul hasn't been snide throughout this entire thread?

Absolute hypocrisy. 

My crime here isn't getting anything wrong. The people criticizing it haven't even read the book so they haven't been able to pick out one thing that I've been wrong about.

My crime here hasn't been to get things wrong in a narrative that they've created as a distraction from the actual topic. What is it that I've said that has been incorrect? Name one thing.

My crime here isn't that I've been forceful about my opinions. How is it that I am singled out for being forceful about my opinions?

Hypocrisy. 

My crime here is that I have written the book that they don't want to see in print. 

I spend 60 pages defending what I didn't say in the book and 0 pages defending anything IN the book. 

Because all the biggest critics of it haven't read it. 

It's not about the book. It's about my right to write it.

Well too bad. 

Riesman's book survived your bad-mouthing, and so will mine. 

I survived 60+ pages of you all proving nothing other than your butthurt about your boyhood hero.

You haven't deterred me, I'm more laser-focused than ever now.

 

 

*Roy has a habit of saying things and then pretending he didn't so, to save time:

"You basically brought a pail of gasoline to the bonfire."

"If you wanted your book to be well received, you would have written a different book."

Edited by Prince Namor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 10/1/2024 at 9:26 AM, VintageComics said:

Read bronze_rules' post above. That's how neutral looks.

That's not neutral. It's his opinion. Duh.

And he didn't prove a single point wrong in my book. He simply prefers someone like that hack (my opinion) John Morrow who printed that entire 'Stuff Said' book (which is great read incidentally) and at the end of it determined 'undecided'. That's HIS opinion.

That's not neutral, he took a side. "Tremendous information that ISN'T favorable to Lee.... Mmmmmm... undecided!"

LOL

And which review did YOU read? If anything, bronze_rules makes my case FOR me.

"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)."

So I correctly stated that Lee was stealing credit and pay. That WAS my point. He GOT it.

Then he goes on to agree with more:

 (Kirby) was the worker bee and was willing to put up with subpar compensation 

Like too many other underpaid contributors

there were those who did stand up to these perceived unfair schemes

How many contributors in this world made monumental contributions to money makers (movies, music, engineering feats, etc) and got shafted?

These sound like agreement to me.

 

He did get some stuff wrong:

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")

That's his opinion, ok, that's fine...

where interviewers went out and acquired new information to publish, rather than Namor's text, which was merely a single sided argument

How is it single sided? I quote Lee EXTENSIVELY from Origins, which is HIS side of the story.

boosted and supported by aggregate second hand research and quotes gathered from such sources (that's how I interpreted it).

Second hand? Steve Ditko (he was there) Al Hartley (he was there) Stan Goldberg (he was there) Jack Kirby (he was there) Dick Ayers (he was there) Don Heck (he was there) Stan Lee (he was there) (shrug) How much more THERE can you be?

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.

That's his opinion, which is ok. Still... how do you AGREE with my premise that Lee LIED and created a work environment that stole credit and pay form the employees, but then see the story as one sided. He's saying Lee DID do what I say he did!!! But that it's one-sided.

 

Let me get this straight....

I QUOTE Lee extensively, giving HIS side of the story.

I SHOW in quotes from people who were there, how his side of the story looks false.

He AGREES that is what Lee has done - create an environment that was stealing credit and pay from the artists, but...

It's One-Sided. (shrug)

 

Again, my only crime is I laid out the facts, and didn't blindly take Lee's side, and that makes people uncomfortable.

So be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Albert Tatlock

Albert Tatlock

Posted
Posted
On 10/1/2024 at 3:32 AM, jdandns said:

Ben Johnson, sure, but Flo-Jo was never caught using anything.

But her reputation is tarnished even so. She has records which still stand and athletes will breathe a sigh of relief on the day they are bettered.

Stan was never caught with fingers in the cash box, he never felt the hand of the law on his collar, but there's an awful lot of smoke for us not to suspect a fire.

Still reading the book, it makes sense so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicwiz

comicwiz

Posted
Posted
On 9/30/2024 at 3:06 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

Truth will out, but it may take time.

Some 60 years ago, Buffy Sainte-Marie claimed to have been born on a reservation in Saskatchewan, was orphaned and raised by relatives in the US.

The story served her well, as it singled her out from a host of other wannabees in the burgeoning folk/rock music scene.

Her widely recognised talent (no-one has ever doubted that she and usually she alone wrote her own songs) won her a place in the industry, and she was showered with awards and their associated financial prizes.

However, a recent journalistic probe outed her as not only not only not a First Nations woman, but as not even Canadian, having been born into an Italian-American family in a suburb of Boston.

Now, at the age of 83, she is retired. living in Hawaii, and facing demands to disown her awards, so that those who would rightfully have been entitled to them can be belatedly credited, in a similar fashion to how false Olympic champions (Ben Johnson and Flo-Jo, among others, come to mind) are justly dethroned.

It is a little off-thread, so I will not post a link, but a quick Google of Pretendian Buffy will lead to several cans of worms.

Stan Lee unmasked as having cut himself a larger slice of the cake than he was entitled to is no surprise, although his remaining acolytes can at least claim that he did strain every sinew to increase the overall size of the cake.

You can fool all of the people some of the time.................

Even if a little off-thread, it's important to disprove myths with the truth.

Some may not care for it to be uncovered. Others may think they already know everything, or may find it inconvenient for such revelations to expose the lies.

But there's nothing quite like uncovering the truth yourself, by using as much information, detail, sources and evidence.

There is no middle ground in such an excercise, no one-sided way of presenting, just the burden on those refuting to disprove, and that task may be too great for the apathetic or deeply invested, so it's much easier for them to deride the truth and continue to perpetuate the lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
namisgr

namisgr

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 10/1/2024 at 1:00 AM, Prince Namor said:

That's not neutral. It's his opinion. Duh.

This is the root of the problem, for me.  Opinions are derived both from those with pre-conceived notions and leanings, and from those completely balanced.  

Equipoise: a state of balance or equilibrium.  That's 'neutral'.  You're not on the topic at hand.  Your book isn't.  Your participation in this thread isn't.  Adding a 'duh' on top of that misunderstanding of neutrality adds the air of dismissiveness and close-mindedness that's been the icing on this cake.

As for where you might be wrong on fact or detail, I'm reminded of the excellent video posted earlier focused on the Marvel Method, makes clear from some of Marvel's best known artists working in the Silver Age themselves that the notion that Stan did not write the books is an overstatement.  This in no way relates to whether Kirby, Ditko, and some other artists deserved plotting or co-plotting credit or pay.  But it makes clear from those who worked on the books with Stan that he provided dialog, box narration, plot sketches, and plot revisions on a number of titles. 

 

Edited by namisgr
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zonker

Zonker

Posted
Posted
On 9/29/2024 at 11:33 PM, bronze_rules said:

 

See?  Stan Lee actually should get more credit and pay as an artist, since his balloon placement was so important in improving the page design. :sumo:

Quote

If we had an area where you had a few panels that not much was going on and they weren't that interesting, I put in as much dialog as I could and sound effects, and I spaced... see, I laid out the balloons, too.  I would put the balloons in such a way that they seemed to be part of the design and they made the panel look more interesting than it was.  

Stansezs2.thumb.png.f49a6efd8c24a32df180370878c897fd.png

 

:jokealert:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
On 10/1/2024 at 7:24 PM, namisgr said:

This is the root of the problem, for me.  Opinions are derived both from those with pre-conceived notions and leanings, and from those completely balanced.  

Equipoise: a state of balance or equilibrium.  That's 'neutral'.  You're not on the topic at hand.  Your book isn't.  Your participation in this thread isn't.  Adding a 'duh' on top of that misunderstanding of neutrality adds the air of dismissiveness and close-mindedness that's been the icing on this cake.

Stan Lee Lied.

Prove me wrong.

It's not an opinion. 

As far as pre-conceived notions, most hypothesis are exactly that - an idea based upon some knowledge of what you're testing.

But whatever pre-conceived notions I had are irrelevant. Stan Lee Lied. That's a FACT.

On 10/1/2024 at 7:24 PM, namisgr said:

As for where you might be wrong on fact or detail, I'm reminded of the excellent video posted earlier focused on the Marvel Method, makes clear from some of Marvel's best known artists working in the Silver Age themselves that the notion that Stan did not write the books is an overstatement.  This in no way relates to whether Kirby, Ditko, and some other artists deserved plotting or co-plotting credit or pay.  But it makes clear from those who worked on the books with Stan that he provided dialog, box narration, plot sketches, and plot revisions on a number of titles. 

Again, no one is disputing 'he provided dialog, box narration, plot sketches, and plot revisions* on a number of titles'. 

YOUR pre-conceived notion that it counts as 'writing' the stories is just as questionable as me saying it isn't. 

Most of the rest of the comic book business called it editing. 

 

 

* Plot sketches? Who'd he provide plot sketches to? He worked over the phone with Colan, Buscema - Romita said he barely told him anything about the villains (just a note on his desk) and I hardly think Kirby needed Lee's input on a character sketch. Where are these sketches at?

Edited by Prince Namor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lostboys

lostboys

Posted
Posted
On 10/1/2024 at 10:17 AM, Prince Namor said:

Stan Lee Lied.

Prove me wrong.

It's not an opinion. 

As far as pre-conceived notions, most hypothesis are exactly that - an idea based upon some knowledge of what you're testing.

But whatever pre-conceived notions I had are irrelevant. Stan Lee Lied. That's a FACT.

Again, no one is disputing 'he provided dialog, box narration, plot sketches, and plot revisions* on a number of titles'. 

YOUR pre-conceived notion that it counts as 'writing' the stories is just as questionable as me saying it isn't. 

Most of the rest of the comic book business called it editing. 

 

 

* Plot sketches? Who'd he provide plot sketches to? He worked over the phone with Colan, Buscema - Romita said he barely told him anything about the villains (just a note on his desk) and I hardly think Kirby needed Lee's input on a character sketch. Where are these sketches at?

 

This thread should be put out of its misery now.

:tonofbricks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
On 10/1/2024 at 12:38 AM, Prince Namor said:

Let's be clear:

No one has taken a point made from my book and proved me wrong.

NO ONE.

We spent 60+ pages debating what I DIDN'T say, so there was nothing I was shown to be wrong about.

NOTHING.

So it seems to me, the only 'complaint' here is that I WROTE the book and people feel I don't have the right to, or shouldn't have, or in the silly case of Roy, didn't do it like I should have.*

The pompousness of telling me that I CAN'T or like Roy, telling me HOW is just amazing, even for the CGC boards.

I've been accused of buying advertisement disguised as a news story, TWICE... of paying Mitch a commission to give my book a positive review... of 'White Knighting', of being a bully, of being too forceful in my opinions... WHAT????

Bookery wasn't forceful in his opinions? I went out of my way to try and be polite to him and he still treated me like I insulted him.

sfcityduck wasn't forceful in his opinions? Are you serious?

Paul hasn't been snide throughout this entire thread?

Absolute hypocrisy. 

My crime here isn't getting anything wrong. The people criticizing it haven't even read the book so they haven't been able to pick out one thing that I've been wrong about.

My crime here hasn't been to get things wrong in a narrative that they've created as a distraction from the actual topic. What is it that I've said that has been incorrect? Name one thing.

My crime here isn't that I've been forceful about my opinions. How is it that I am singled out for being forceful about my opinions?

Hypocrisy. 

My crime here is that I have written the book that they don't want to see in print. 

I spend 60 pages defending what I didn't say in the book and 0 pages defending anything IN the book. 

Because all the biggest critics of it haven't read it. 

It's not about the book. It's about my right to write it.

Well too bad. 

Riesman's book survived your bad-mouthing, and so will mine. 

I survived 60+ pages of you all proving nothing other than your butthurt about your boyhood hero.

You haven't deterred me, I'm more laser-focused than ever now.

 

 

*Roy has a habit of saying things and then pretending he didn't so, to save time:

"You basically brought a pail of gasoline to the bonfire."

"If you wanted your book to be well received, you would have written a different book."

I've had discussions with you for years on a variety of topics and the result is always the same. 

You've mischaracterized what people have said, moved goal posts in the discussion, addressed things nobody is talking (see the Bullpen discussion) and to objective outsiders it seems as though it's an attempt to constantly veer the discussion towards not being wrong rather than figuring out what's actually objectively true. 

And I'm not alone in feeling this way. It's more than half the people in the discussion (not that there's strength in numbers alone but the rebuttals have been well formed and reasonable).

There's a reason why so many people think you're tearing down Joe Simon and Stan Lee and making it sound like they didn't bring much to the table when in fact they're probably the main reason Kirby was so successful in the GA and SA, but instead of reconsidering it, you double down and put more focus on Kirby and take away from the others. 

So if you're being misunderstood it may have something to do with the way you choose your words and not the facts you're presenting. 

------------------------------------------------------------

What I meant by my last few posts was that IF your goal was to help people change their minds, you would have written a different book, rather than use a very controversial title with controversial language. Hard language and force doesn't convert people.

It's just an opinion on the best way to convert people to what you believe.

And to top it off, you're openly, continually insulting everyone who doesn't agree fully and blaming it on hero worship and having a blindspot. As if you don't have one. lol

I don't worship Stan Lee. I don't think anyone here does. We're just trying to reconcile things we believed to be true our entire lives with your version and the only way to do that is through discourse. 

The fact that you're alienating people who have been in the hobby for decades, who are reasonable and KNOWLEDGEABLE and influential people to have discussions with, and who have offered an opportunity to actually set the record straight in a public forum, on the record is actually proving counterproductive to what you're trying to accomplish.  That's not just my opinion again, but also the opinion of several people who have been in the discussion. 

Let's hope justice is served and the truth is fully understood one day. 

I'm genuinely out now. :smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
11 11
Go to topic listing