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

[Zonker]

On 10/13/2024 at 3:08 PM, VintageComics said:

 

 

Note, the word "pantheon" that Zonker used in our back and forth discussion isn't used in Origins. I thought it was until actually reading the page with my own eyes. 

Now, with the Fantastic Four family, Mole-man, Subby and possibly Doom, Antman and Banner / Hulk is it really a stretch to believe that the radio host said "It was his feeling that we were creating an entire contemporary mythos, a family of legends that might be handed down to future generations"?

 

Yes, pantheon was my word.  But I don't think it was twisting the original text around, just a shorthand way for me to say it would have been a pretty sparse mythology if limited to Marvel stories published before JIM #83 was even being conceived.  And yeah, I do think it would be a stretch to call Marvel's 1961 output a mythology.  Your mileage may vary.

And you're correct, context is important. It'd be great if everyone would read Stan's Origins book in its entirety, then read Chuck Gower's Stan Lied book in its entirety.  Disclosure: I've not read Chuck's book, but I did read his year-by-year Marvel threads on here (and commented throughout), so I think I have the gist of his argument.

Edited October 13 by Zonker
"sparse"

[VintageComics]

On 10/13/2024 at 12:40 PM, jimjum12 said:

but Lee did synthesize Jacks considerable input into his claims of autonomy. II don't for a second believe that Kirby showed up in 1957 with the entire Marvel Age on a platter, or that he told Jack to do whatever he wanted, and Stan would get it out with zero creative advice or input.

This is how I understand it all as well.

Stan definitely stretched the 'truth' but to say that he had NO input, not even a 5 minute conversation to add something of value doesn't ring true to me not only of Jack and Stan's relationship, but ANY relationship. 

The "synthesis" of ideas happens in every interaction, no matter how small. 

In science, you can't even look at something without changing it. 

In real life, you can't interact with something, or someone in this case, without affecting them. 

On 10/13/2024 at 12:45 PM, Zonker said:

On 10/13/2024 at 12:08 PM, VintageComics said:

Note, the word "pantheon" that Zonker used in our back and forth discussion isn't used in Origins. I thought it was until actually reading the page with my own eyes. 

Now, with the Fantastic Four family, Mole-man, Subby and possibly Doom, Antman and Banner / Hulk is it really a stretch to believe that the radio host said "It was his feeling that we were creating an entire contemporary mythos, a family of legends that might be handed down to future generations"?

 

Yes, pantheon was my word.  But I don't think it was twisting the original text around, just a shorthand way for me to say it would have been a pretty sparce mythology if limited to Marvel stories published before JIM #83 was even being conceived.  And yeah, I do think it would be a stretch to call Marvel's 1961 output a mythology.  Your mileage may vary.

And you're correct, context is important. It'd be great if everyone would read Stan's Origins book in its entirety, then read Chuck Gower's Stan Lied book in its entirety.  Disclosure: I've not read Chuck's book, but I did read his year-by-year Marvel threads on here (and commented throughout), so I think I have the gist of his argument.

My interpretation of the radio announcer's words hang on his use of the word "creating". 

It invokes the feeling or sense that Stan is in the process of "creating" a mythos as a fledgling Sci Fi company. 

And that allows me to accept the entire paragraph at face value. 

Edited October 13 by VintageComics

[Albert Tatlock]

On 10/13/2024 at 8:20 PM, Mmehdy said:

1-Yes, and comics are better off thanks to Julies Schwartz whom I hold in higher that Stan Lee since he was a SF agent 1934-44, but marvel would never of happened after the 1956 comic codeAuthority was in full effect with Showcase 4 with a SF flavor, Showcase #22 GL also SF, Hawkman in Feb 61, Atom in Sept 61 As well as Adam Strange, JLA(Feb 1960) and the Batman changes in 1964....I do not see him saying he created those characters per se...not like Stan cannot walk in the his shadow. Stan Lee was a second act, but thanks to Kirby and Ditko they hit gold. Stan admits many time on his video's the golf game...JLA rip off theme....it is in his own words

No Julie Schwartz = Silver Age postponed or even cancelled.

This clip ends with the golf course story. Julie shrugs and exits. Class.

[Mmehdy]

On 10/13/2024 at 1:31 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

No Julie Schwartz = Silver Age postponed or even cancelled.

This clip ends with the golf course story. Julie shrugs and exits. Class.

I do not know about the golf story...but he did lay the silver age foundation which we have today...it is interesting living thru the SA you do not realize it...until it has passed......He is the birth father of the SA....interesting that he just redid the GA with upgrades..although Adam Strange was not captain comet and marvel did the same with 1/2 of the FF being the human torch and plastic man, and the hulk being a serious Frankenstein. Well everyone steals from everyone!!!! I thought Julie upped the game story wise to hit older persons...that was a great move on his part

Edited October 13 by Mmehdy

[jimjum12]

On 10/13/2024 at 5:14 PM, Mmehdy said:

Adam Strange

[PreHero]

On 10/13/2024 at 12:33 PM, VintageComics said:

I'm open to the discussion and having my mind changed, but when Stan says "And that was what grabbed me. That was the answer." at the end of the paragraph discussing the radio announcer, that immediately dates his conversation to pre JIM #83, as it was the radio host's "mythology" comment that gave rise to the idea to do Thor.

...

My earlier post just above yours was directly related to Zonker's assertion that it couldn't have been the correct timeline because the radio announcer referred to Marvel's limited canon in 1961 as "mythology" and I think on that particular front, the radio announcer could verily have used the words "twentieth-century mythology". To me, those radio announcers words are believable in that time and in that context. 

So, do you believe there's a radio interview with Stan in 1961 talking about Marvel?

On 10/13/2024 at 12:33 PM, VintageComics said:

But again, important to note that I wouldn't take Stan's words as Gospel as his entire Origins writeup is obvious carnival barkering and fluff. It literally reads as prose. 

 

Think this is the key - take what's written in Origins with a grain of salt!

[sfcityduck]

On 10/13/2024 at 4:23 AM, JollyComics said:

Sadly, Ditko humbly shallowed his pride and stayed out of the public while Stan Lee took money all the way until his death. Ditko’s choice to stay anonymous made me saddened. Stan is all about egoism.

Ditko will never be forgotten for his greatest works and his legacy will live on.

Steve Ditko never swallowed his pride.

He repeatedly made absolutely clear that he felt that he and Stan Lee were properly credited with the co-creation of Spider-Man (not Kirby or Simon). 

He also made clear that he had no desire to agree to a co-creation credit for his Spiderman work because Marvel had denied him "royalties" he felt he was owed. But Ditko's dedication to his own version of Ayn Rand's philosophical writings (which mainly supported largely unregulated capitalism) led him to make choices which may seem strange to many of us but were based on his principles. One of those apparently was to reject the option of suing to enforce his rights.

Ditko didn't seem to care too much about money except as a matter of principle. 

Calling him cowardly seems entirely unsupported by his life story. He was weird sure, but he lived by his principles not matter how strange that might seem to some of us.

[VintageComics]

On 10/13/2024 at 1:31 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

No Julie Schwartz = Silver Age postponed or even cancelled.

This clip ends with the golf course story. Julie shrugs and exits. Class.

That was a lot of great stuff, but what really caught my attention was his recollection in renumbering the Flash run, and that #1's weren't desirable to readers and #105 was more attractive. 

What an opposite perspective compared to today's "collectors" and it helps shed light on how some books became so valuable as well as how the grading system evolved for READERS and not collectors. 

On 10/13/2024 at 2:39 PM, PreHero said:

On 10/13/2024 at 12:33 PM, VintageComics said:

I'm open to the discussion and having my mind changed, but when Stan says "And that was what grabbed me. That was the answer." at the end of the paragraph discussing the radio announcer, that immediately dates his conversation to pre JIM #83, as it was the radio host's "mythology" comment that gave rise to the idea to do Thor.

...

My earlier post just above yours was directly related to Zonker's assertion that it couldn't have been the correct timeline because the radio announcer referred to Marvel's limited canon in 1961 as "mythology" and I think on that particular front, the radio announcer could verily have used the words "twentieth-century mythology". To me, those radio announcers words are believable in that time and in that context. 

So, do you believe there's a radio interview with Stan in 1961 talking about Marvel?

I don't have a reason to believe there wasn't.

Do I think a major national news chain sought out Stan Lee to interview him about his new brand?

No, most likely not. 

But I could easily see Stan seeking out some local station, or college station, trying to drum up awareness of this new brand and shoehorning himself into a talk show, maybe even offering an incentive, like tickets to a Sci Fi convention. 

 In fact, knowing what we know now about Stan, this is probably how it happened.

 

 

Edited October 13 by VintageComics

[jimjum12]

On 10/13/2024 at 5:45 PM, sfcityduck said:

Calling him cowardly seems entirely unsupported by his life story. He was weird sure, but he lived by his principles not matter how strange that might seem to some of us.

Coward he wasn't. If not for Steve Ditko, I wouldn't have even known about Ayn Rand. Let's face it, ultra conservative philosophy was not exactly in vogue back in the 60's and 70's. Ditko likely went over Stan's head about royalties to Goodman, nothing much else would cause Stan to turn suddenly ice cold toward Ditko. GOD BLESS... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

Edited October 13 by jimjum12

[PreHero]

On 10/13/2024 at 12:50 PM, VintageComics said:

My interpretation of the radio announcer's words hang on his use of the word "creating". 

It invokes the feeling or sense that Stan is in the process of "creating" a mythos as a fledgling Sci Fi company. 

And that allows me to accept the entire paragraph at face value. 

I've never read Origins till this thread was created (still haven't read whole book).  The bits I've read on-line, I find hard to follow at times - bit of a word salad.  I think what worked well in writing comics and bulletins for 8-12 yr olds, does not work in book form!  Probably best Stan didn't quit comics to write the great American novel!

This sounds suspiciously like Stan response in 1967 interview when asked about Hercules:  "Lee: These college kids, who are so hooked on these stories, and they like Thor also, and not long ago I was speaking at Princeton, and one of the questions that I was asked was, “How do we reconcile the idea of Norse gods and Greek gods in the same story?” Now, obviously, Zeus and Odin are really the same god, but, uh, in different mythologies. And it occurred to us, what we do is we create our own mythology and we create our own universes and in our minds, there is an Olympus and there is an Asgard and Odin is the boss of his little god- god-dom and Olympus is the chief of his and we may someday bring in the Roman gods or whoever else.".

I agree, in Origins, Stan appears to imply interview occurred during creation of Thor, not several years after.

Edited October 13 by PreHero

[VintageComics]

On 10/13/2024 at 2:53 PM, jimjum12 said:

On 10/13/2024 at 2:45 PM, sfcityduck said:

Calling him cowardly seems entirely unsupported by his life story. He was weird sure, but he lived by his principles not matter how strange that might seem to some of us.

Coward he wasn't. If not for Steve Ditko, I wouldn't have even known about Ayn Rand. Let's face it, ultra conservative philosophy was not exactly in vogue back in the 60's and 70's. Ditko likely went over Stan's head about royalties to Goodman, nothing much else would much cause Stan to turn suddenly ice cold to Ditko. GOD BLESS... 

Agreed. Ditko introduced me to Rand as well.

And I'll just add that most people find living by principles strange in this day and age, but in that way I can relate to Ditko's steadfastness. I was ostracized pretty strongly on this very forum for sticking to my principles over the last few years despite all the opposition, and frankly, I'd do it all over again if I had to. 

Living by strong principles is rare these days, but it's a necessary foundation for progress IMO.

[jimjum12]

On 10/13/2024 at 6:00 PM, VintageComics said:

Living by strong principles is rare these days, but it's a necessary foundation for progress IMO.

Best sleep-aid I know of, as well.  GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[VintageComics]

On 10/13/2024 at 2:57 PM, PreHero said:

This sounds suspiciously like Stan response in 1967 interview when asked about Hercules:  "Lee: These college kids, who are so hooked on these stories, and they like Thor also, and not long ago I was speaking at Princeton, and one of the questions that I was asked was, “How do we reconcile the idea of Norse gods and Greek gods in the same story?” Now, obviously, Zeus and Odin are really the same god, but, uh, in different mythologies. And it occurred to us, what we do is we create our own mythology and we create our own universes and in our minds, there is an Olympus and there is an Asgard and Odin is the boss of his little god- god-dom and Olympus is the chief of his and we may someday bring in the Roman gods or whoever else.".

It certainly sounds close, as though his "interview" in Origins is a lesser 'motif' of this more prominent one. 

It's just as possible that Stan shoehorned himself into some radio interview in 1961-62, as it is that in 1974 he conflated his 1967 experience into his 1961-62 story (purposefully or not) making his account in Origins fictional or at best, mistaken. 

Edited October 13 by VintageComics

[comicwiz]

On 10/13/2024 at 3:50 PM, VintageComics said:

The "synthesis" of ideas happens in every interaction, no matter how small. 

Get a grip.

Stan Lee has been quoted as saying it was "boring" for a guy that was supposedly too busy.

Multiple artists have described the exact same scenario - Goldberg (I've shown an example of this in this very thread), Orlando, Wood, and Ayers - all not only nearly, but the exact same situation.

They are sitting across Stan, staring at each other. He says nothing, contributes nothing.

In the case of Goldberg, he stands up, Stan Lee walks over to him, and says "I never want to hear you say you can't come up with a story" after Goldberg tells him  he has nothing. I"m sure you remember this, because you began ranting about how you had to work in unfair working conditions and quit. 

In one instance (Sgt Fury #23) Dick Ayers stayed up all night once because he'd given up with the staring contest, and with the help of his wife, comes up with a story while they are in bed, restless, and unable to sleep. When he takes the story to Lee, he asks if he could get writers credit, Lee told him:

"Since when did you develop an ego? Get out of here!”

Ayers then submitted a payment requisition to Lee feeling he should be paid. 

Lee agreed to pay Ayers for lettering.

In another instance is this Two Gun Kid #61 (see below)

What's interesting about this example is that story was called "And Not A Word Was Spoken." 

The story was designed to be nearly wordless and contained no dialogue.

There was only lettering only on the first page and last page. 

Lee took the script credit and the page rate for a story written by Ayers and it's a story with no dialogue and one caption. 

Artists like Howard Chaykin describe him as a "hack."  For Stan, it was about the smallest to no contribution, with big pay.

Edited October 14 by comicwiz

[VintageComics]

On 10/13/2024 at 3:27 PM, comicwiz said:

Get a grip.

Stan Lee has been quoted as saying it was "boring" for a guy that was so busy, doing nothing.

Multiple artists have described the exact same scenario - Goldberg (I've shown an example of this in this very thread), Orlando, Wood, and Ayers - all not only nearly, but the exact same situation.

They are sitting across Stan, staring at each other. He says nothing, contributes nothing.

In the case of Goldberg, he stands up, Stan Lee walks over to him, and says "I never want to hear you say you can't come up with a story" after Goldberg tells him  he has nothing. I"m sure you remember this, because you began ranting about how you had to work in unfair working conditions and quit. 

Dick Ayers stayed up all night once because he'd given up with the staring contest, and with the help of his wife, comes up with a story for Two Gun Kid #61 while they are in bed, restless, and unable to sleep. When he takes the story to Lee, he asks if he could get writers credit, Lee told him:

"Since when did you develop an ego? Get out of here!”

Ayers then submitted a payment requisition to Lee feeling he should be paid. 

Lee agreed to pay Ayers for lettering.

What's interesting about this example is that story was called "And Not A Word Was Spoken." 

The story was designed to be nearly wordless and contained no dialogue.

There was only lettering only on the first page and last page. 

Lee took the script credit and the page rate for a story written by Ayers and it's a story with no dialogue and one caption. 

Artists like Howard Chaykin describe him as a "hack."  For Stan, it was about the smallest to no contribution, with big pay.

None of your post addresses what I said.

I said The "synthesis" of ideas happens in every interaction, no matter how small. 

That means, that ideas change during interaction. Even if Stan, or any editor, says "no" to an idea, this is an interaction, and the idea changes upon that interaction.

And what I meant by that is obvious from the previous statement you didn't quote:

"In science, you can't even look at something without changing it. "

The end implication of your line of thinking, is that Stan NEVER influenced a concept and deserves no credit for anything. 

The end implication of my line of thinking is that Stan MUST have influenced concepts in some way. 

The truth is somewhere in between. 

Edited October 13 by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

This point can't be stressed enough, IMO, and yet in every discussion it is the single most overlooked point there is, bar none. With emphasis.

I think a lot of people assume every person thinks the way they do and so they assess another person's actions or words by their own internal values or code, or way of processing info, but frankly how people think and process information varies greatly. 

I'm very scatterbrained (likely undiagnosed ADHD and possibly even somewhat autistic or on a spectrum) and so I tend to pull single thoughts out of a mess of thoughts, and start to align those pulled thoughts to form a line of communication. For me, it's sort of like pulling small pixels out of a jumble and aligning them to form a picture. I have a mind's eye that is just exploding with images all the time. It's so distracting, that I actually have to concentrate hard to stay focused. I'm what's called "hyper-phantasic". My mind is constantly forming pictures and thoughts of everything, non-stop.

My ex on the other hand, was "a-phantasic". She literally could not even picture what her own children looked like when she closed her eyes. She has no 'mind's eye' whatsoever. 

Here is a great Vox article that opened my world to understanding this:

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11683274/aphantasia

We found this out in 2016 when I read that article, and it floored me because it explained to us why we would always have these strange disagreements when talking about the exact same thing. 

She, quite literally couldn't picture in her mind what I was talking about and needed it explained in a linear manner, using black and white words or her mind emphasized different things than mine did and we formed different conclusions. 

And those two different processes led to a mountain of misunderstandings until we started to adjust our discourse to accomodate these differences in perception. 

She was very LITERAL in the way she interpreted everything. I wasn't. I interpreted in images with my mind filling in blanks of what wasn't said. With her, if it wasn't said, it wasn't there. 

The point being, that you can be talking to someone about the exact same thing and understanding it in an entirely different way.

And the internet only makes things worse, because it speeds things up, heightens reactions and emotions and reduce understanding even more than one on one communication. 

Edited October 13 by VintageComics

[comicwiz]

Word salad for I don't have anything to share, no receipts, just words that allow me to minimize the contributions of others. 

And pontificate, including suggesting they are angry when posting facts. 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/12/2024 at 8:28 PM, Prince Namor said:

Exactly.

Lee may have even sought some free radio time, but... no one was talking about a Marvel 'mythology' after 4 issues of the FF. 

Yep.

Liars always tangle their stories up the more they speak.

Here's the problem with a "one-sided prosecution." If you are demonizing the person you are prosecuting, as you demonize Lee, it causes you to push the most sinister motives instead of recognizing the role of human frailty.

I agree based on the line of posts involving Zonker and Pre-Hero that Stan Lee was not interviewed about the Marvel "mythology" in 1961. Which, when read in the context of the somewhat awkwardly worded passage in Origins about that alleged radio interview dictates two reasonably possible conclusions you choose not to consider: (1) Stan Lee was misrecollecting what transpired in 1961 because he was conflating an event in 1967, the actual date of the radio interview, with earlier events or (2) that passage was edited or mistyped because the word "recent" makes no sense if the intent was to refer to a 1961 interview. Either way, I don't think there is strong evidence for an intentional and knowing lie. 

The reality is that people tell stories based on what they can recollect and its not at all uncommon for false facts to be injected and for timing to change. Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Stan and Jack are notoriously unreliable.

Yet, you've shown no critical inclinations towards Jack Kirby's story that he "researched" Norse mythology despite the contrary evidence put in front of you in this thread - such as the Kirby interview excerpts I quoted to you. You just ignore it - no response has been made. Which strongly suggests a lack of proper scrutiny of the story you're telling or a desire to bury contrary evidence which challenges your ideas.

In the same 1967 radio interview Jack Kirby was asked if he'd done any "homework" on Norse mythology for the creation of Thor. Kirby admitted in 1967 that "Well, uh- uh, not homework in the sense that I- I went home one night and I really concentrated on it. All through the years, certainly I’ve had uh- uh, a kind of affection for any mythological type of character and, uh, my conception of what they should look like and, uh, here Stan gave me the opportunity to draw one and I wasn’t gonna draw back from really letting myself go, so I did." Yet, you persist in contending that Jack Kirby did do some kind of "research" on Norse mythology that gave him superior knowledge to that of Lee. But, you have no evidence for that except an inconsistent statement by Kirby. Again, the notion Kirby did "research" on Norse mythology and knew more than the average schoolboy taking classes that covered that subject is rebutted by Jack himself. To repeat my post from a few pages back:

Here's Jack clarifying what his "research" was in the 1989 interview by Groth:

KIRBY: Yes. I loved Thor because I loved legends. I’ve always loved legends. Stan Lee was the type of guy who would never know about Balder and who would never know about the rest of the characters. I had to build up that legend of Thor in the comics.

GROTH: The whole Asgardian...

KIRBY: Yes. The whole Asgardian company, see? I built up Loki. I simply read Loki was the classic villain and, of course, all the rest of them. I even threw in the Three Musketeers. I drew them from Shakespearean figures. I combined Shakespearean figures with the Three Musketeers and came up with these three friends who supplemented Thor and his company, and this is the way I kept these strips going by creative little steps like that.

[End Quote]

He also stated in the Groth interview:

GROTH: Who came up with the name “Fantastic Four”?

KIRBY: I did. All right? I came up with all those names. I came up with Thor because I’ve always been a history buff. I know all about Thor and Balder and Mjolnir, the hammer. Nobody ever bothered with that stuff except me. I loved it in high school and I loved it in my pre-high school days. It was the thing that kept my mind off the general poverty in the area. When I went to school that’s what kept me in school — it wasn’t mathematics and it wasn’t geography; it was history.

[End Quote]

As you can see, Jack's "research" was just reading adventure stories when he was a kid ... just like, although he tries to spin himself as special, a lot of kids. Jack tries to spin himself as having special knowledge, but his source was just reading books commonly read back then in schools. 

So is Jack a liar? No. Like Stan, he's a storyteller and like Stan he doesn't have perfect recall and fills in details. Taking what either of them said as the gospel is a mistake.

 

Edited October 13 by sfcityduck

[VintageComics]

On 10/13/2024 at 3:53 PM, comicwiz said:

Word salad for I don't have anything to share, no receipts, just words that allow me to minimize the contributions of others. 

And pontificate, including suggesting they are angry when posting facts. 

No. Your "facts" didn't address my point, which was very clear.

I'm showing that in principle, according to reasonable rules of reality, it's IMPOSSIBLE that Stan had no contribution, so rather than begin every point with the premise that Stan contributed nothing, which is what your side seems to do, you MUST start with the premise that Stan contributed something and work from there. 

Of course, if someone has devoted their life to disparaging Stan it's going to be anathema to do so and they can't allow themselves to.  

Nearly every post of yours contains color commentary about the people involved. It's wholly unnecessary. Just stick to the points of the discussion.

[VintageComics]

On 10/13/2024 at 3:53 PM, sfcityduck said:

Here's the problem with a "one-sided prosecution." If you are demonizing the person you are prosecuting, as you demonize Lee it causes you to push the most sinister motives instead of recognizing the role of human frailty.

I agree based on the line of posts involving Zonker and Pre-Hero that Stan Lee was not interviewed about the Marvel "mythology" in 1961. Which, when read in the context of the somewhat awkwardly worded passage in Origins about that alleged radio interview dictates two reasonably possible conclusions you choose not to consider: (1) Stan Lee was misrecollecting what transpired in 1961 because he was conflating an event in 1967, the actual date of the radio interview, with earlier events or (2) that passage was edited or mistyped because the word "recent" makes no sense if the intent was to refer to a 1961 interview. Either way, I don't think there is strong evidence for an intentional and knowing lie. 

The reality is that people tell stories based on what they can recollect and its not at all uncommon for false facts to be injected and for timing to change. Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Stan and Jack are notoriously unreliable.

Yet, you've shown no critical inclinations towards Jack Kirby's story that he "researched" Norse mythology despite the contrary evidence put in front of you in this thread - such as the Kirby interview excerpts I quoted to you. You just ignore it - no response has been made. Which strongly suggests a lack of proper scrutiny of the story you're telling or a desire to bury contrary evidence which challenges your ideas.

In the same 1967 radio interview Jack Kirby was asked if he'd done any "homework" on Norse mythology for the creation of Thor. Kirby admitted in 1967 that "Well, uh- uh, not homework in the sense that I- I went home one night and I really concentrated on it. All through the years, certainly I’ve had uh- uh, a kind of affection for any mythological type of character and, uh, my conception of what they should look like and, uh, here Stan gave me the opportunity to draw one and I wasn’t gonna draw back from really letting myself go, so I did." Yet, you persist in contending that Jack Kirby did do some kind of "research" on Norse mythology that gave him superior knowledge to that of Lee. But, you have no evidence for that except an inconsistent statement by Kirby. Again, the notion Kirby did "research" on Norse mythology and knew more than the average schoolboy taking classes that covered that subject is rebutted by Jack himself. To repeat my post from a few pages back:

Here's Jack clarifying what his "research" was in the 1989 interview by Groth:

KIRBY: Yes. I loved Thor because I loved legends. I’ve always loved legends. Stan Lee was the type of guy who would never know about Balder and who would never know about the rest of the characters. I had to build up that legend of Thor in the comics.

GROTH: The whole Asgardian...

KIRBY: Yes. The whole Asgardian company, see? I built up Loki. I simply read Loki was the classic villain and, of course, all the rest of them. I even threw in the Three Musketeers. I drew them from Shakespearean figures. I combined Shakespearean figures with the Three Musketeers and came up with these three friends who supplemented Thor and his company, and this is the way I kept these strips going by creative little steps like that.

[End Quote]

He also stated in the Groth interview:

GROTH: Who came up with the name “Fantastic Four”?

KIRBY: I did. All right? I came up with all those names. I came up with Thor because I’ve always been a history buff. I know all about Thor and Balder and Mjolnir, the hammer. Nobody ever bothered with that stuff except me. I loved it in high school and I loved it in my pre-high school days. It was the thing that kept my mind off the general poverty in the area. When I went to school that’s what kept me in school — it wasn’t mathematics and it wasn’t geography; it was history.

[End Quote]

As you can see, Jack's "research" was just reading adventure stories when he was a kid ... just like, although he tries to spin himself as special, a lot of kids. Jack tries to spin himself as having special knowledge, but his source was just reading books commonly read back then in schools. 

So is Jack a liar? No. Like Stan, he's a storyteller and like Stan he doesn't have perfect recall and fills in details. Taking what either of them said as the gospel is a mistake.

 

I'm friends with a zillion artists. 

Most artists tend to lean towards thinking in circular terms and imagery, and not in binary "go, no go" thinking.

They're the "agreeable" types, psychologically, remember? They're the YES types, saying yes to everything, even things that aren't necessarily true.

They can even conflate ideas and not realize they're doing it, because the details aren't as important as conveying the overall concept. 

Cue a SNL skit where some artist is recollecting something, is constantly getting corrected on the details, and it doesn't even faze them. They're so focused on getting the emotion of the story across. 

On 10/13/2024 at 3:53 PM, sfcityduck said:

Here's the problem with a "one-sided prosecution." If you are demonizing the person you are prosecuting, as you demonize Lee it causes you to push the most sinister motives instead of recognizing the role of human frailty.

Yes!