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

[CGC Mike]

On 10/11/2024 at 9:09 AM, grendel013 said:

On 10/11/2024 at 9:07 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

Does it ever feel like 120?

If it's anything like working for state government, then most definitely.

It's still my favorite hangout.  

[Albert Tatlock]

On 10/11/2024 at 12:59 PM, CGC Mike said:

You are all adults so please make sure you act like one.  

Not all, unfortunately, Mike.

Most, agreed, but there seems to be a minority whose level of invective has endangered the value of this thread.

It would be a great pity if any of them were prepared to sabotage this discussion and deliberately have it shut down simply because they cannot tolerate opposition to their point of view, whether mistaken or not.

If that point is ever reached, I hope that some way forward could be found which would not penalise the innocent along with the guilty.

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/11/2024 at 6:58 AM, Albert Tatlock said:

It would be a great pity if any of them were prepared to sabotage this discussion and deliberately have it shut down simply because they cannot tolerate opposition to their point of view, whether mistaken or not.

 

On 10/11/2024 at 6:58 AM, Albert Tatlock said:

If that point is ever reached, I hope that some way forward could be found which would not penalise the innocent along with the guilty.

 

[comicwiz]

UPDATE: for reasons uknown to me, before the thread got locked yesterday, one of the posts where I shared a link was using a malformed or incorrect hyperlink.

I wasn't able to edit it until now. The correct link in that post has been edited for anyone interested in reading more into that matter. 

Edited October 11 by comicwiz

[KingOfRulers]

On 10/10/2024 at 8:40 AM, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

In 2015, we sent a letter to Steve Ditko offering him $100,000 to appear at that year's Tampa Bay Comic Con.

He sent us this nice rejection letter:

[Albert Tatlock]

On 10/11/2024 at 4:59 PM, KingOfRulers said:

 

In 2015, we sent a letter to Steve Ditko offering him $100,000 to appear at that year's Tampa Bay Comic Con.

He sent us this nice rejection letter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwDnhMO8is

is always worth another viewing.

 

[KingOfRulers]

On 10/11/2024 at 12:20 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwDnhMO8is

is always worth another viewing.

 

Yeah, I watched that multiple times. It's excellent.

[Dr. Balls]

On 10/11/2024 at 6:07 AM, comicwiz said:

Thanks for reopening the thread @CGC Mike

Seconded. I am not really involved with much of the discussion, but this is a very entertaining, educational thread to read - I'm glad it continues on.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 6:58 AM, Albert Tatlock said:

Not all, unfortunately, Mike.

Most, agreed, but there seems to be a minority whose level of invective has endangered the value of this thread.

It would be a great pity if any of them were prepared to sabotage this discussion and deliberately have it shut down simply because they cannot tolerate opposition to their point of view, whether mistaken or not.

If that point is ever reached, I hope that some way forward could be found which would not penalise the innocent along with the guilty.

It is worth noting that the shut downs of this thread have been due to folks on both sides, including once myself and at least once by the author. I don't think either of us wants to see the thread shut down. So the notion that people are disagreeing with each other in an effort to get the thread shut down does not ring true to me.

I can certainly tolerate opposition to my views. Debate is how I test ideas and become convinced to change my views. Without opposition you have no debate -- which is fun in itself and the  clash of opposing viewpoints  leads to deeper better understandings. There is no cause to complain that a thread has resulted in debate. Anyone who wants everyone to chant the same thoughts like a Greek choir probably is not cut out for academic discourse, message boards, or informative conversation. Echo chambers don't reveal truth. Critical thinking does. So let's give this civil discussion thing a try! Realizing, of course, that if someone rebuts your argument or shows your evidence is fallacious that's not incivility, and someone saying your ideas or arguments are wrong is not a personal attack. We all are wrong at various times. The key question is whether you have the courage to recognize an error and change your views. 

 

 

 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 11:31 AM, sfcityduck said:

It is worth noting that the shut downs of this thread have been due to folks on both sides, including once myself and at least once by the author. I don't think either of us wants to see the thread shut down. So the notion that people are disagreeing with each other in an effort to get the thread shut down does not ring true to me.

I can certainly tolerate opposition to my views. Debate is how I test ideas and become convinced to change my views. Without opposition you have no debate -- which is fun in itself and the  clash of opposing viewpoints  leads to deeper better understandings. There is no cause to complain that a thread has resulted in debate. Anyone who wants everyone to chant the same thoughts like a Greek choir probably is not cut out for academic discourse, message boards, or informative conversation. Echo chambers don't reveal truth. Critical thinking does. So let's give this civil discussion thing a try! Realizing, of course, that if someone rebuts your argument or shows your evidence is fallacious that's not incivility, and someone saying your ideas or arguments are wrong is not a personal attack. We all are wrong at various times. The key question is whether you have the courage to recognize an error and change your views. 

 

 

 

 Iconic 1s.

If you think something in my post is funny or confusing, feel free to point out what it was and I'd be happy to respond to whatever your concern or point was.

 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 8:59 AM, KingOfRulers said:

 

In 2015, we sent a letter to Steve Ditko offering him $100,000 to appear at that year's Tampa Bay Comic Con.

He sent us this nice rejection letter:

What do you think Ditko's point was? 

Edited October 11 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 10/10/2024 at 6:15 AM, comicwiz said:

I tried responding to this, but for some reason my post vaporized when I hit submit reply. I won't retype that out again, but I would highly recommend doing some reading on the Martin Garbus led lawsuit, lots of pertinent details worth devling into. The Wiki news link I provided is just a starting point, lots more where that came from, if you choose to go down that rabbit hole. And one final point, anyone that tries to diminish Kirby, by bringing-up work after he left Marvel, should do themselves a favour and research how abborhent that entire sham that was SLM, but particularly the 7th Portal. There's no way anyone can come out of that crash course EVER thinking Lee was capable of doing things on his own, or without the talents of Kirby or Ditko.

It's worth noting that Martin Garbus v. Stan Lee Media was dismissed by the trial court at the motion to dismiss stage, meaning the mere allegations of the Complaint was fatally deficient such that the case was deemed not worthy of  being allowed to proceed to a motion for summary judgment (which is based on evidence generated during discovery), let alone trial. 

An earlier securities class action settled for a pittance (compared to securities actions generally) with no admissions of fault by Stan Lee or the other defendants, and payment was made by an insurer.

Edited October 11 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 5:48 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

I've been working through the book and it does exactly what it says on the cover. It's not a biography, so I'm not sure why many are criticising it for being - for want of a better phrase - 'one sided'. As I see it, the starting point is Stan's book. That doesn't include any self criticism. It is a one sided attempt to present history as Stan would want the reader to see it. Chuck's book simply rebuts the content of Stan's book, citing sources. The reader can get the balanced view by reading both books and then making their minds up.

With all respect, I think your post falls prey to the fallacy of "false balance" or  "both sidesism" in which a false dichotomy is offered between two opposing viewpoints based on the assertion that the reader or viewer can pick between them to find the truth. The problem with that presentation is that it assumes that either Stan Lee in Origins or the response by Chaz or ("Chuck"  as folks are calling him here) Gower is somehow the truth and a "balanced view" can be discerned by reading one or both books. But that's clearly not the case. 

Why? Because Stan Lee's assertions in Origins are statements presented in a moment in time without the surrounding context. And "Stan Lee Lied," based on what's been stated by the author on this site, is not a "balanced" presentation. So you are asking the reader to make a judgment based on two flawed presentations. How can they?

The reality is that there is a "balanced" presentation that can be made, but "Stan Lee Lied" does not attempt to present it. If he's prosecuting a "one-sided" case, as reviewers have stated and you seem not to dispute, than how is a reader of the book supposed to arrive at the truth? They can't. And that's a valid criticism of the book. Far better that a book was written which actually looks at all of the evidence, not just the evidence supporting the conclusion the author has been pushing on message boards or blogs for over a decade.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 12:37 PM, D'oh! said:

He's gone by Chuck for years on this board, so I'm not sure why you put his name in quotes. I'd guess it's for the same reason Joe VH does it 🤔

He's gone by "Prince Namor" on these boards and he goes by "Chaz" on his book cover. 

Also, Mike is sensitive to "doxing" (an attitude I agree with) and I'm being respectful of his strict feelings on that. I want it clear that others on this thread are calling "Prince Namor"/"Chaz" by the name "Chuck," I'm not trying to "dox" him. I don't even know if "Gower" is his real name. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/11/2024 at 7:48 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

I've been working through the book and it does exactly what it says on the cover. It's not a biography, so I'm not sure why many are criticising it for being - for want of a better phrase - 'one sided'. As I see it, the starting point is Stan's book. That doesn't include any self criticism. It is a one sided attempt to present history as Stan would want the reader to see it. Chuck's book simply rebuts the content of Stan's book, citing sources. The reader can get the balanced view by reading both books and then making their minds up. That's what I'm doing. I knew Stan wasn't whiter than white, but I wasn't quite prepared for learning the extent to which that was the case.

Chuck, I'm secretly jealous of anyone who gets a comic related book into print. It remains one of my own goals, and when I finally get around to it, it will be based on facts and only facts. Well done for getting your book out there, and giving readers the opportunity to see Stan in a different, likely far more realistic light.  

Thank you!

[sfcityduck]

On 10/7/2024 at 6:39 AM, comicwiz said:

Agreed.

Declaring a "mistatement" for Kirby describing it as "Victor Fox" is ridiculous. He owned multiple publications, including one not mentioned which is Bruns, and there was another Fox Publications in Colorado that existed at the time. Stating the name of the owner, whose family name was used as a convention of naming companies he owned, was the most efficient and concise way, particularly in the case of another company using the same name, there was no decietful or dishonest reason for him choosing to describe it the way he did.

It could also be argued that he was addressing him respectfully as the titan of publishers in his time - there's a reason he was described as "The King of Comics."

Nope. Kirby just couldn't remember the name of the publisher. The interview was conducted at a time (1989) that Kirby's memory was sufficiently untrustworthy that Roz was present for the stated reason of aiding Kirby's recollection. The reason why I made this point is that Kirby's supporters have a tendency to bend over backward with the most convoluted explanations to attempt to make everything Kirby says "the truth" even when its clear he got a basic fact wrong. As comicwiz does in his post I address here. Sure its not material to anything ... other than establishing that Kirby's memory was not perfect despite what Kirby supporters want to contend.

I'd agree with comicwiz that Kirby was not being deceitful or dishonest in his failure of recollection that he worked for Fox Publications -- that was my point. The author of "Stan Lied" takes the position that all misstatements by Stan Lee are "lies." That's an extreme view, not one taken by me with regard to Jack Kirby.

Finally, anything can be argued. But anyone who wants to argue that Jack Kirby was "addressing him [Victor Fox] respectfully as the titan of publishers in his time - there's a reason he was described as 'The King of Comics'" is making a big mistake. Victor Fox is the one person who described himself as the "King of Comics." His artists/writers made fun of Victor Fox for calling himself by that moniker. 

[Iconic1s]

On 10/11/2024 at 1:45 PM, sfcityduck said:

 Iconic 1s.

If you think something in my post is funny or confusing, feel free to point out what it was and I'd be happy to respond to whatever your concern or point was.

 

Sure thing!  Will only say this and then stop because I don’t want to be the reason this gets locked.

I’ve been following this discussion… you’ve been nothing but combative and now swing back in acting holier than thou telling everyone how to react and debate.

You did the same to my reaction, which indeed IS hilarious. 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 12:51 PM, D'oh! said:

I see. I read it more as a lame dig, like "Ok Chuck, if that's even your real name, I'm going to..."

You'd know the answers to your questions if you ever hung out in CG, but the only time you show up here is to argue.

There's not a lot of threads on CG regarding comic/fandom history or the other topics that I enjoy. The topics covered by the GA forum are the most interesting to me, and that's where I start most of my threads. There's a lot of knowledge on the GA threads about topics I find interesting.

But, you're right, I do post on this forum when something is posted that seems so wrong it needs some perspective. 

[KingOfRulers]

On 10/11/2024 at 2:47 PM, sfcityduck said:

What do you think Ditko's point was? 

In life or in this letter?

At the very least it shows how meaningless money was to him.

Being offered $100,000 plus first-class travel accommodations for three day's work of signing funny books would be a dream come true to almost anyone. Most people make half that amount doing a full year of 8-hour per day toil, five days per week. Just think how much an opportunity like that would change the median American's life. The fact that Ditko was apparently not wealthy himself, but still turn down such a gig due to "not being interested" in fiction and fantasy is remarkable. The average American would instantly snatch up such an opportunity regardless of their interest in the subject matter.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 11:31 AM, sfcityduck said:

It is worth noting that the shut downs of this thread have been due to folks on both sides, including once myself and at least once by the author. I don't think either of us wants to see the thread shut down. So the notion that people are disagreeing with each other in an effort to get the thread shut down does not ring true to me.

I can certainly tolerate opposition to my views. Debate is how I test ideas and become convinced to change my views. Without opposition you have no debate -- which is fun in itself and the  clash of opposing viewpoints  leads to deeper better understandings. There is no cause to complain that a thread has resulted in debate. Anyone who wants everyone to chant the same thoughts like a Greek choir probably is not cut out for academic discourse, message boards, or informative conversation. Echo chambers don't reveal truth. Critical thinking does. So let's give this civil discussion thing a try! Realizing, of course, that if someone rebuts your argument or shows your evidence is fallacious that's not incivility, and someone saying your ideas or arguments are wrong is not a personal attack. We all are wrong at various times. The key question is whether you have the courage to recognize an error and change your views. 

 

 

 

On 10/11/2024 at 12:59 PM, Iconic1s said:

Sure thing!  Will only say this and then stop because I don’t want to be the reason this gets locked.

I’ve been following this discussion… you’ve been nothing but combative and now swing back in acting holier than thou telling everyone how to react and debate.

You did the same to my reaction, which indeed IS hilarious. 

Well, I'd disagree that I acted "holier than thou." I said two things about myself (1) I was responsible for getting this thread shut down once and (2) I've been wrong in the past. Something anyone familiar with some of my attempts to identify certain OO for a prominent pedigree are familiar with (second or third time was the charm).

As for being "combative": I am certainly voicing opinions and bringing forth evidence that Kirby fanatics don't want to confront, but that's what happens when you have a "discussion" of diverse viewpoints instead of a "rah rah" Greek chorus. That's not combative, it's informative. If I tear apart an argument or offer contrary evidence I'm not engaging in a personal attack. When an author writes a book they know they will get both positive and critical reactions. So there's nothing wrong with being critical of the book or having a back and forth on those criticisms. 

A personal attack is calling someone "combative" and "holier than thou." That you do this knowing Mike asked us not to engage in incivility does not bode well for this thread. I'd ask you to rethink your strategy here as I'd hope we'd all want the thread to continue.

A "reaction" emote is just a short hand comment. If you choose to respond to a post with an ambiguous "reaction" emote, then you should expect that someone may ask you what you are trying to communicate. I appreciate you offered your explanation. I don't see anything funny that I asked for you to explain the ambiguity. Turns out the explanation was informative.