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

[sfcityduck]

On 10/8/2024 at 11:58 AM, RockMyAmadeus said:

If you are going to keep on putting up posters at least learn the meaning and correct application of the slogans you put up.

Here, no claim was made that the book lacked value because only few are reading it. The opposite claim was made: That the book has value here because the topic is important to us and through debate and discussion as to what it says it will lead to better understanding of the issues. I just don't think that ultimately the prevailing understanding will end up being the narrative pushed by the author. But I do think that because author forces people to bring more and better information to the table we'll all get a better understanding of Marvel's process, co-creation credit, the adverse effect of hero worship or tribalism on portrayals of history and scholarship, and of the shortcomings of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. For some, that's going to hurt because it is always sad to find out that the people you put on a pedestal aren't the perfect person you thought they were.

But I'm not talking exclusively about Stan Lee here. Jack Kirby fans are already ignoring information which casts Kirby in a bad light because they apparently can't bring themselves to discuss it seriously.

[Aman619]

That’s what has been missing in this discussion and in the other threads in Silver Age forum by the author… those of us who disagree, or doubt the premise being put forward and hit with derision and a stone wall of monotone “I’m right, you are wrong”. 

oh given the points many of have gained insight into since the 60s about Stan’s comments and actions, think how different this entire thread could have gone.  How much more simple and persuadable the author could have been all along.    

I realize this may read like a copout.  Saying it’s his reactions to posts made against his thesis. Like an ex boyfriend or girlfriend who says “ I don’t care that he broke up with me (choke). It’s the WAY he did it that hurts”. But very few threads are as contentious as his have been. Black and white. Right and wrong!

[Mmehdy]

On 10/8/2024 at 12:12 PM, Wipple said:

Has he posted in this thread?

Add city in between SF and Duck!

[sfcityduck]

On 10/8/2024 at 10:51 AM, Mmehdy said:

 

It is a must read SFDuck....as a sixty year collector plus, as a person who grew up with these books and read Hulk #3 until it was worn out, .....Read the book If you dare!!

 and then come back and hit me with everything you got on this books inaccarcy.

You may have convinced me to buy it.

[Mmehdy]

On 10/8/2024 at 2:30 PM, sfcityduck said:

You may have convinced me to buy it.

Fantastic ...cannot wait for your review!

[Mmehdy]

On 10/8/2024 at 1:35 PM, Aman619 said:

That’s what has been missing in this discussion and in the other threads in Silver Age forum by the author… those of us who disagree, or doubt the premise being put forward and hit with derision and a stone wall of monotone “I’m right, you are wrong”. 

oh given the points many of have gained insight into since the 60s about Stan’s comments and actions, think how different this entire thread could have gone.  How much more simple and persuadable the author could have been all along.    

I realize this may read like a copout.  Saying it’s his reactions to posts made against his thesis. Like an ex boyfriend or girlfriend who says “ I don’t care that he broke up with me (choke). It’s the WAY he did it that hurts”. But very few threads are as contentious as his have been. Black and white. Right and wrong!

The truth is the truth...sometimes it is necessary to repeat itself.....this is a very controversial thead...some of the best back-and-forth arguments and of course my opinions have changed since reading this thread as opposed to the book alone on its own. I hope someday for a second  EXPANDED edition....with some of the questions raised addressed by the book—the book is a page-turner that needs to be digested slowly with so much information.

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 10/8/2024 at 1:35 PM, Aman619 said:

That’s what has been missing in this discussion and in the other threads in Silver Age forum by the author… those of us who disagree, or doubt the premise being put forward and hit with derision and a stone wall of monotone “I’m right, you are wrong”. 

oh given the points many of have gained insight into since the 60s about Stan’s comments and actions, think how different this entire thread could have gone.  How much more simple and persuadable the author could have been all along.    

I realize this may read like a copout.  Saying it’s his reactions to posts made against his thesis. Like an ex boyfriend or girlfriend who says “ I don’t care that he broke up with me (choke). It’s the WAY he did it that hurts”. But very few threads are as contentious as his have been. Black and white. Right and wrong!

The problem is that the OP of this thread accepts all observations or insights that condemn Lee or praise Kirby and rejects all insights or observations that defend Lee or condemn Kirby.  The OP cannot even hold himself back from insisting that Lee isn't even a real writer.  The bias began beyond the pale and has not waned one iota, regardless of all the pushback & despite all the advice, like yours, to keep the tone somewhere in the ballpark of reasonable and believable.        

[VintageComics]

On 10/8/2024 at 10:54 AM, Wipple said:

Coming soon. Part of my raffle and secret Santa offerings..

[VintageComics]

On 10/8/2024 at 11:39 AM, Albert Tatlock said:

On 10/8/2024 at 11:04 AM, AndyFish said:

Stan was prone to hyperbole.

If hyperbole did not exist, Stan would have felt it necessary to invent it.

And Kirby would have whined that he didn't get enough credit for it. 

[Aman619]

On 10/8/2024 at 5:45 PM, Mmehdy said:

The truth is the truth...sometimes it is necessary to repeat itself.....this is a very controversial thead...some of the best back-and-forth arguments and of course my opinions have changed since reading this thread as opposed to the book alone on its own. I hope someday for a second  EXPANDED edition....with some of the questions raised addressed by the book—the book is a page-turner that needs to be digested slowly with so much information.

youre always 120% for or against something, not a great example of moderation.  And sure the truth is the truth...  Which truth?  Everyone here agrees that Stan got and took too much credit for Marvel  Nuff Said.  The rest is character assassination plus, for good measure, deification on the other side.  Regardless of the eye openingly impressive amount of research done for the book -- which is a major feat -- the problem remains one of cherry-picking what works best.  It's delivered less like an "opinion" than Moses coming down with the Word of G-d.

I'd get defensive and snippy too if I were the author.  But after a while, the rest of us just roll our eyes at the stubborn and dismissive nature of the replies..exhaustingly slapping down all points made against it, and questions about details.    

But -- the "truth is the truth" right?   too bad its handled in such an off-putting manner.  

[VintageComics]

On 10/8/2024 at 4:35 PM, Aman619 said:

That’s what has been missing in this discussion and in the other threads in Silver Age forum by the author… those of us who disagree, or doubt the premise being put forward and hit with derision and a stone wall of monotone “I’m right, you are wrong”. 

oh given the points many of have gained insight into since the 60s about Stan’s comments and actions, think how different this entire thread could have gone.  How much more simple and persuadable the author could have been all along.    

I realize this may read like a copout.  Saying it’s his reactions to posts made against his thesis. Like an ex boyfriend or girlfriend who says “ I don’t care that he broke up with me (choke). It’s the WAY he did it that hurts”. But very few threads are as contentious as his have been. Black and white. Right and wrong!

Correct, and I pointed this out near the start of the thread.

The absence of any semblance of balance from the OP's side, and the venom and vitriol being spewn about Stan Lee and anyone else who would dare disagree with the author who get insults like:

1) LOL

2) "you're a Marvel Zombie"

3) "you were taught to hate New Gods"

4) "you're blind because of your hero worship"

...these accusations do NOTHING to advance the discussion and everything to show that the clip is empty and that there's nothing left in the chamber to debate with.

On 10/8/2024 at 5:48 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

The problem is that the OP of this thread accepts all observations or insights that condemn Lee or praise Kirby and rejects all insights or observations that defend Lee or condemn Kirby.  The OP cannot even hold himself back from insisting that Lee isn't even a real writer.  The bias began beyond the pale and has not waned one iota, regardless of all the pushback & despite all the advice, like yours, to keep the tone somewhere in the ballpark of reasonable and believable.        

Correct.

There is literally a media 'blackout' if anything positive might be said about Stan Lee. Any possible compliments disappear into a black hole in space.

He acknowledges that there's something Lee contributed, but will never say what it is. 

On 10/7/2024 at 8:43 PM, Prince Namor said:

Personal attack.

If you don't know, then I guess you don't know.

Opinion.

Some people say the Beatles are over rated. Are they right?

MY opinion is my opinion, the same as yours is yours. 

You tell me.

Which one is that? All of them? Now THAT'S reaching. 

LOL. Show me where that's 'history' and 'the evolution of the movement'.

You haven't proven anything I've said to be wrong. Name one thing that isn't opinion.

Who are YOU to decide the undecidable?

I've done 30 years of research and put my information out there, you couldn't take the time to READ THE BOOK, before you come into a discussion and believe you're suddenly an expert. You DEMAND to be heard and state your case. You believe there's a definitive answer for questions where only a reasonable conclusion can be made. You point the finger at me and make assumptions based on nothing I've said.

Puh-leeze. 

 

 

On 10/7/2024 at 8:56 PM, Prince Namor said:

No one is disputing Lee having some involvement.

No one's disputing any of that. 

There's a whole generation of people growing up who don't 'get' Shakespeare. Are they right?

Bronze Age New Gods comics are in dollar bins?

He created better comics than Lee did for the rest of his life. 

Who?

Which word in my sentence confused you?

You've rebutted nothing I've said with any facts.

When it's obvious yes. Duh.

They were 50/50 partners.

Which selective facts are those? You talk in generalizations. Are you confused?

Which is not the same thing. You don't... understand that?

Who are you to tell ME what I should have to say?

The marketplace decides what's good?

So now you're saying Adams Green Lantern/Green Arrow WASN'T good?

You keep moving the goalposts.

 

On 10/7/2024 at 8:58 PM, Prince Namor said:

What is the overall point you're making here?

What is it you think you've asserted in this discussion?

The summary of the discussion between you and I can, I think, be summarized by these points. 

1) You state that 'nobody is disputing Lee had any involvement with the creation of the SA Marvel Universe', but in 85 pages of rebuttal, you have yet to comment on what involvement Stan Lee had, as though it's lost in a black hole, and whenever there is any doubt, Kirby gets the full benefit of the doubt against Lee, EVEN WHEN KIRBY HIMSELF gives LEE credit at times or when Kirby is found to be often contradicting himself. Bizarre. 

2) You believe Kirby's creation of New Gods proves that Kirby was capable of being highly successful compared to Stan Lee, or more successful than Stan Lee was alone and by extension, this proves Kirby deserves more credit than Lee in any grey areas of Marvel creation.

3) Several people have read your book and disagreed with your conclusions and the people who disagree with you seem to represent about the same ratio of people who have disagreed with you in years of forum debates, meaning your method seems to have the same results and the book is just an extension of your forum debates. Nothing new, just a different venue. 

In my opinion, you continue to move goal posts in the discussion.

For example, you pit quotes from Stan and Jack against each other, when they're not even talking about the same thing.

Or you shift the use of popularity depending on whether it supports your worship of Kirby

I think the entire conversation over the last few days can be distilled into two simple points:

If you took a popular vote from the community, which is probably representative of the greater community, we'd find and be able to conclude that NOBODY thinks New Gods or Kirby's GA output tops his SA Marvel output which was done with Stan Lee.

And if you took a vote, we'd find and be able to conclude that as great as Kirby is, NOBODY thinks that SA Marvel would be nearly as successful without Stan Lee.

And so, to me this entire discussion boils down you the OP trying to change the narrative of popular opinion and make the case that it was more the result of Kirby, less the result of Lee and every single 'fact' and 'proof' you bring (whether direct or circumstantial evidence) is slanted in that direction, and everything historic that might oppose the OP's premise (whether direct or circumstantial evidence) is ignored, because you've put the premise before the facts.. 

I think that is the conclusion that most will agree with throughout this entire thread. 

Yep, this is an appeal to numbers and popularity, but what else is the measure of the success of Marvel's collaborative greatness between Lee and Kirby than the fact that most people believe that it's their greatest achievement. 

Edited October 8 by VintageComics

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/8/2024 at 2:48 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

The problem is that the OP of this thread accepts all observations or insights that condemn Lee or praise Kirby and rejects all insights or observations that defend Lee or condemn Kirby.  The OP cannot even hold himself back from insisting that Lee isn't even a real writer.  The bias began beyond the pale and has not waned one iota, regardless of all the pushback & despite all the advice, like yours, to keep the tone somewhere in the ballpark of reasonable and believable.        

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/8/2024 at 2:48 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

regardless of all the pushback

[mrc]

On 10/8/2024 at 11:54 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

..........or, it's because his interpretation of his points is wrong?   

Edited October 8 by mrc
edit

[comicwiz]

 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/9/2024 at 5:26 AM, VintageComics said:

Correct, and I pointed this out near the start of the thread.

The absence of any semblance of balance from the OP's side, and the venom and vitriol being spewn about Stan Lee and anyone else who would dare disagree with the author who get insults like:

1) LOL

2) "you're a Marvel Zombie"

3) "you were taught to hate New Gods"

4) "you're blind because of your hero worship"

...these accusations do NOTHING to advance the discussion and everything to show that the clip is empty and that there's nothing left in the chamber to debate with.

You're misquoting me. VERY disingenous. 

Those comments were made as a generalization - not toward anyone specifically.

Compared to what's been aimed PERSONALLY AT ME (most of which Mike has had to scrub), it doesn't even compare.

On 10/9/2024 at 5:26 AM, VintageComics said:

Correct.

There is literally a media 'blackout' if anything positive might be said about Stan Lee. Any possible compliments disappear into a black hole in space.

He acknowledges that there's something Lee contributed, but will never say what it is. 

'blackout'?

No one's censoring you.

And I'm under no obligation to give you ANY information or make any statement I don't want to.

How is that a BAD on my part?

On 10/9/2024 at 5:26 AM, VintageComics said:

The summary of the discussion between you and I can, I think, be summarized by these points. 

1) You state that 'nobody is disputing Lee had any involvement with the creation of the SA Marvel Universe', but in 85 pages of rebuttal, you have yet to comment on what involvement Stan Lee had, as though it's lost in a black hole, and whenever there is any doubt, Kirby gets the full benefit of the doubt against Lee, EVEN WHEN KIRBY HIMSELF gives LEE credit at times or when Kirby is found to be often contradicting himself. Bizarre. 

You're conflating.

You've lost the Thor flying debate and now you're moving the goalposts and conflating.

I'll say it again: It is UNLIKELY Lee had anything to do with the creation of Thor, based on the information and evidence we have.

You've been unable to prove me wrong.

Until you either conceed or show me some other proof, I see no need to continue down the path of that conversation.

On 10/9/2024 at 5:26 AM, VintageComics said:

2) You believe Kirby's creation of New Gods proves that Kirby was capable of being highly successful compared to Stan Lee, or more successful than Stan Lee was alone and by extension, this proves Kirby deserves more credit than Lee in any grey areas of Marvel creation.

No.

Just that HE was a creator and Lee was an editor. And doing what you love for a living, your entire life, IS success.

On 10/9/2024 at 5:26 AM, VintageComics said:

3) Several people have read your book and disagreed with your conclusions and the people who disagree with you seem to represent about the same ratio of people who have disagreed with you in years of forum debates, meaning your method seems to have the same results and the book is just an extension of your forum debates. Nothing new, just a different venue. 

LOL. There's so much wrong with this, it's almost comical.

Go read KCO and Bronze's reviews again.

On 10/9/2024 at 5:26 AM, VintageComics said:

In my opinion, you continue to move goal posts in the discussion.

I'm still on the Thor 'flying' topic - YOU are the one moving all over the place.

On 10/9/2024 at 5:26 AM, VintageComics said:

For example, you pit quotes from Stan and Jack against each other, when they're not even talking about the same thing.

They were talking about the creation of Thor.

On 10/9/2024 at 5:26 AM, VintageComics said:

Or you shift the use of popularity depending on whether it supports your worship of Kirby

YOU are the one shifting it. I've even pointed it out to you!

Green Lantern/Green Arrow is the perfect example.

I've ASKED you which way you want to measure success because you keep switching it.

On 10/9/2024 at 5:26 AM, VintageComics said:

I think the entire conversation over the last few days can be distilled into two simple points:

If you took a popular vote from the community, which is probably representative of the greater community, we'd find and be able to conclude that NOBODY thinks New Gods or Kirby's GA output tops his SA Marvel output which was done with Stan Lee.

Who cares? Straw man argument to make yourself feel better because you lost the Thor flying debate?

See how you just proved YOU are the one changing topics and moving goalposts.

I'm still waiting back here at the Thor is flying debate.

On 10/9/2024 at 5:26 AM, VintageComics said:

And if you took a vote, we'd find and be able to conclude that as great as Kirby is, NOBODY thinks that SA Marvel would be nearly as successful without Stan Lee.

Yawn. No one is debating that.

On 10/9/2024 at 5:26 AM, VintageComics said:

And so, to me this entire discussion boils down you the OP trying to change the narrative of popular opinion and make the case that it was more the result of Kirby, less the result of Lee and every single 'fact' and 'proof' you bring (whether direct or circumstantial evidence) is slanted in that direction, and everything historic that might oppose the OP's premise (whether direct or circumstantial evidence) is ignored, because you've put the premise before the facts.. 

What evidence have you proposed?

On 10/9/2024 at 5:26 AM, VintageComics said:

I think that is the conclusion that most will agree with throughout this entire thread. 

If that is your goal.

On 10/9/2024 at 5:26 AM, VintageComics said:

Yep, this is an appeal to numbers and popularity, but what else is the measure of the success of Marvel's collaborative greatness between Lee and Kirby than the fact that most people believe that it's their greatest achievement. 

Proven with a CGC Poll. LOL.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/9/2024 at 3:35 AM, Aman619 said:

That’s what has been missing in this discussion and in the other threads in Silver Age forum by the author… those of us who disagree, or doubt the premise being put forward and hit with derision and a stone wall of monotone “I’m right, you are wrong”. 

 That's called debate.

On 10/9/2024 at 3:35 AM, Aman619 said:

oh given the points many of have gained insight into since the 60s about Stan’s comments and actions, think how different this entire thread could have gone.  How much more simple and persuadable the author could have been all along.

That's right. It's all about ME.

On 10/9/2024 at 3:35 AM, Aman619 said:

   I realize this may read like a copout.  Saying it’s his reactions to posts made against his thesis. Like an ex boyfriend or girlfriend who says “ I don’t care that he broke up with me (choke). It’s the WAY he did it that hurts”. But very few threads are as contentious as his have been. Black and white. Right and wrong!

More personal attacks. Classy.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/9/2024 at 4:48 AM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

The problem is that the OP of this thread accepts all observations or insights that condemn Lee or praise Kirby and rejects all insights or observations that defend Lee or condemn Kirby.  The OP cannot even hold himself back from insisting that Lee isn't even a real writer.  The bias began beyond the pale and has not waned one iota, regardless of all the pushback & despite all the advice, like yours, to keep the tone somewhere in the ballpark of reasonable and believable.        

Personal attack.

Please use specifics and nesting, so I can fairly respond.

You won't of course, your goal, as it always has been, is simply to aim your butthurt at me. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/9/2024 at 5:01 AM, VintageComics said:

Personal attack.

[Prince Namor]

"Jack Kirby was the William Blake of comics and New Gods was his masterpiece, an epic cosmic war between evil gods and good gods. The story opens with the cosmic seeker Metron, an amoral science god, who travels about the universe in a Mobius chair, which is like a comfy version of the Tardis. He's able to go anywhere he likes just by sitting, so he's very much the god of couch potatoes, and in this one Metron is travelling to the very edge of the universe. There are three pages of giants who are miles across – very reminiscent of Blake – with suffering Gnostic presences chained to gigantic rocks. Kirby's descriptions are really great: he talks about one man whose heart takes a billion years to beat once. It was the first time that comics came with a cosmic dimension. They actually started to feel biblical in scale; that was a breakthrough for the type of stories they were able to tell."

- Grant Morrison, The Guardian, July 22, 2011