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

[comicwiz]

On 10/13/2024 at 7:00 PM, VintageComics said:

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.

It really isn't that difficult to grasp. When multiple people are saying the same thing happened, it happened.

This isn't UFO type testimony, because Lee has admitted this both candidly and publcly, as well as rather ackwardly in interviews. Throughout his entire lifetime.

One of the last was when he was describing his working relationship with Terry Dougas:  "No, he’s great to work with. He does all the work, I take the credit. You couldn’t have a better arrangement.”

I don't see this as some shtick, he's saying it because he's done it, and brazenly talks about it like he wears it as a badge of honour.

As I've said multiple times already, he brings this on himself, at the rate he's done this sort of thing, lamenting about presenting this to disparage is like crying about him taking more rope than he needs.

These are facts.

You are welcome to present evidence, examples, and proof of your own to counter anything I've posted, but I won't be waiting with baited breath.

[Zonker]

On 10/13/2024 at 6:53 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. 

 

A couple of people here have gotten hung up on Stan's use of the word "recent."  Take a look again at the page in question. (below).  The way I read it, these are nested memories Stan is describing.

Step 1: Stan in 1974 is remembering for the reader how Thor came to be created in late 1961 or early 1962.
Step 2: Stan-1974 remembers Stan-1962 being stuck, until Stan-1962 remembered a then-recent radio interview that occurred between the host and Stan-1961.

So, Stan-1974 is telling us a story about what was going through Stan-1962's head, including a then-recent radio interview he participated in as Stan-1961.  

If anyone has a different way of reading it, please enlighten me.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/13/2024 at 4:17 PM, Zonker said:

A couple of people here have gotten hung up on Stan's use of the word "recent."  Take a look again at the page in question. (below).  The way I read it, these are nested memories Stan is describing.

Step 1: Stan in 1974 is remembering for the reader how Thor came to be created in late 1961 or early 1962.
Step 2: Stan-1974 remembers Stan-1962 being stuck, until Stan-1962 remembered a then-recent radio interview that occurred between the host and Stan-1961.

So, Stan-1974 is telling us a story about what was going through Stan-1962's head, including a then-recent radio interview he participated in as Stan-1961.  

If anyone has a different way of reading it, please enlighten me.

 

I understand your interpretation. I agree its a reasonable interpretation. But there can be multiple reasonable interpretations of a document or event. Here, the use of the word recent, which is part of a bounce back and forth between the time the book was written and 1961, including a digression on undergrounds, is awkward. It's not a clear passage. Which causes me to question whether this is just bad editing. 

But I think the best answer is that Stan was conflating the 1967 interview with earlier events. The 1967 interview just matches up too well with what he wrote six or seven years later.

Is Stan's story likely (barring discovery of a 1961 interview) false? Yes, that seem likely. It is a lie? Not to me. Most people can lie better than this. This has the hallmarks of a misrecollection. A conflation. And lies and misrecollections are different things. Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. And so are Jack and Stan. The problem is that when people don't have great recall, they fill in details, and if they are bitter, they say things they wouldn't without the anger. The stories we tell ourselves may be believed, but that does not make them true. 

 

Edited October 13 by sfcityduck

[VintageComics]

On 10/13/2024 at 4:10 PM, comicwiz said:

soIt really isn't that difficult to grasp. When multiple people are saying the same thing happened, it happened.

This isn't UFO type testimony, because Lee has admitted this both candidly and publcly, as well as rather ackwardly in interviews. Throughout his entire lifetime.

One of the last was when he was describing his working relationship with Terry Dougas:  "No, he’s great to work with. He does all the work, I take the credit. You couldn’t have a better arrangement.”

I don't see this as some shtick, he's saying it because he's done it, and brazenly talks about it like he wears it as a badge of honour.

As I've said multiple times already, he brings this on himself, at the rate he's done this sort of thing, lamenting about presenting this to disparage is like crying about him taking more rope than he needs.

These are facts.

You are welcome to present evidence, examples, and proof of your own to counter anything I've posted, but I won't be waiting with baited breath.

So, to clarify, are you saying Stan created nothing?

Or are you saying Stan created less than most people realize?

Because your posts are framing it like Stan did nothing but took credit for everything, and that extreme position is just not how I view the body of evidence. Or at least, not yet. 

 

[sfcityduck]

Mike can correct me if I'm wrong, but my review of the thread suggests that he may have deleted some posts that clearly crossed the line, and the authors of those improper posts don't appear to be posting here anymore.

As you'll recall, when I was put on time out, I had Mike tell everyone I was banned so it was clear why I was not responding to the posts. Sometimes Mike gives secret time-outs. Other times, such as when he stopped the thread due to PN's conduct, Mike says so. Which was only fair because PN should have had the opportunity to respond to posts on his thread. My guess is other posters put on a time out might want to hide that fact.

It's notable to me that this thread has gone a number of pages with pretty good discussion and no attacks. The discussion of the "radio interview" is a good example. Zonker and Pre-Hero especially, Vintage, maybe even me, and others are bringing to bear some very relevant facts. E.g., the actual text from Origins, the article about the 1967 interview, Kirby's statements in the 1989 interview. 

This is the value of discussion and debate. Better information is developed than just one person can usually come up with.

I'd ask that if you want to keep the thread open, you listen to Mike's guidelines and keep it civil. Some other recent exchanges seem below Mike's standards. Mike's asking us to be adults. We should at least try.

[VintageComics]

On 10/13/2024 at 4:10 PM, comicwiz said:

One of the last was when he was describing his working relationship with Terry Dougas:  "No, he’s great to work with. He does all the work, I take the credit. You couldn’t have a better arrangement.”

To comment on this quote of Stan's specifically, Stan is OBVIOUSLY self-deprecating. 

It's the end of a paragraph, where the entire discussion is Stan joking around about his products. 

You taking that phrase out of the discussion as a standalone statement makes it sound like he's confessing or an admittance of guilt, when in fact, it was part of a larger monologue, all of which was humor to a live audience, and the author of that article took it as a convenient place to start his attack on Stan.

Edited October 13 by VintageComics

[comicwiz]

On 10/13/2024 at 7:28 PM, VintageComics said:

So, to clarify, are you saying Stan created nothing?

Or are you saying Stan created less than most people realize?

Because your posts are framing it like Stan did nothing but took credit for everything, and that extreme position is just not how I view the body of evidence. Or at least, not yet. 

 

I posted examples and facts for readers to decide for themselves.

I used the specificifity in the context of saying "no matter how small" because it is preposterous as a statement where the tide of evidence overwhelmingly shows he took pay for things he didn't do. 

Small isn't easily measured, but in the examples I've shown, and because this thread centers around a book about the many ways Stan Lee lied, that staring, and getting nothing out of the EIC is exactly what it seems. 

Staring at the artist for 5. 10, 15, 20 minutes. Does it matter how long the staring goes on if nothing is coming out of Stan Lee's mouth?

You might think it's enough for him to get pay for something he didn't do. In the Dick Ayers and Goldberg examples, I think it's pretty self-explanatory who did the work, and who didn't.

I know who took pay for contributing zilch.

Edited October 13 by comicwiz

[VintageComics]

On 10/13/2024 at 4:39 PM, comicwiz said:

I know who took pay for contributing zilch.

So your position is that Stan contributed nothing, then. 

Well, that explains why you disagree with EVERYTHING that might give him ANY credit about ANYTHING. 

Thanks for finally putting it into words (genuinely). 

On 10/13/2024 at 4:39 PM, comicwiz said:

Staring at the artist for 5. 10, 15, 20 minutes. Does it matter how long the staring goes on if nothing is coming out of Stan Lee's mouth?

So you're concluding that Stan never contributed anything verbally to these meetings or discussions? And that one meeting like that is representative of all of his meetings with artists. Because that's how it sounds. 

Edited October 13 by VintageComics

[comicwiz]

On 10/13/2024 at 7:44 PM, VintageComics said:

So your position is that Stan contributed nothing, then. 

Again, for the examples shown. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

You don't even seem to acknowledge those specific instances are in line with both the context of my post, and statements. 

It's like you have to broadside every comment and juxtapose it to everything else happening in this thread.

I specifically show those examples to align with what this thread is about, and contextually to a book you haven't read. The latter is rather apparent.

[comicwiz]

On 10/13/2024 at 7:44 PM, VintageComics said:

So you're concluding that Stan never contributed anything verbally to these meetings or discussions? Because that's how it sounds. 

For the second time, if multiple artists say the same thing - ie. nothing comes out of his mouth throughout the entire length of the time the two people are staring at each other - I'm going to go with what those people said happened.

Might I suggest putting aside some time and doing some reading on these artists, what they have said (it's not that difficult to find their statements, in fact some of that is already done for you by the information already posted in this thread, even if you object to buying the book), then maybe return to this thread with less word salad, and more substance.

Edited October 13 by comicwiz

[VintageComics]

On 10/13/2024 at 4:51 PM, comicwiz said:

On 10/13/2024 at 4:44 PM, VintageComics said:

So you're concluding that Stan never contributed anything verbally to these meetings or discussions? Because that's how it sounds. 

For the second time, if multiple artists say the same thing - ie. nothing comes out of his mouth throughout the entire length of the time the two people are staring at each other - I'm going to go with what those people said happened.

 

On 10/13/2024 at 4:49 PM, comicwiz said:

On 10/13/2024 at 4:44 PM, VintageComics said:

So your position is that Stan contributed nothing, then. 

Again, for the examples shown. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

It's really simple.

You're taking the examples of what "multiple" artists said, as though it's representative of what ALL artists said.

From what I understand from @sfcityduck's posts, Ditko has openly admitted that Stan collaborated with him even when they weren't speaking to each other, so in light of that comment alone, it's impossible that Stan did "nothing".

So, how do you reconcile the Ditko's account, which conflicts with your conclusion which is based on "multiple" artists?

The only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that what "multiple" artists said isn't the unabashed or full truth. 

[sfcityduck]

Can anyone here post the details of how Stan got paid by Marvel at the various times under discussion here?

E.g. did he have a contract for a salary? Did he get a page rate? Was it a hybrid deal? The Marvel method was never a secret -- is the contention being made that his employe was ignorant of the Marvel method? What happened when they found out?  

I'm not seeing any evidence on this and I'm curious how you can assert Stan Lee was "stealing" other people's pay without providing such basic 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.

I wish that was true. The reality is that good liars keep it simple. And good people telling the truth get tangled up. Eye witness testimony isn't the best. If there's a document, its usually best to defer to that.

[comicwiz]

On 10/13/2024 at 7:56 PM, VintageComics said:

So, how do you reconcile the Ditko's account, which conflicts with your conclusion which is based on "multiple" artists?

Actually, if you read my post showing why Ditko quit Marvel, this evolves into Ditko doing all of it. Stan is even quoted in Nat Freeland's article bellyaching that Ditko thinks he's some genius, and he'll let him keep doing it (basically an admission he begrudgingly let Ditko do it all) until sales slip. So Ditko's account actually lines up with how the "multiple artists" I mentioned describe it

Maybe take up my earlier suggestion, at the very least, and read through what's already been posted in this thread

On 10/13/2024 at 7:56 PM, VintageComics said:

The only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that what "multiple" artists said isn't the unabashed or full truth. 

You're the only one saying this.

I've already stated I posted what I did to let others decide for themselves what they think.

Edited October 14 by comicwiz

[VintageComics]

On 10/13/2024 at 5:17 PM, comicwiz said:

Actually, if you read my post showing why Ditko quit Marvel, this evolves into Ditko doing all of it. Stan is even quoted in Nat Freeland's article bellyaching that Ditko thinks he's some genius, and he'll let him keep doing it (basically an admission he begrudgingly let Ditko do it all) until sales slip.

So, Stan was sharing the chores at some point with Ditko, until it "evolves" into Ditko doing it all?

Those are your words. 

So if that's the case, it's impossible to also state that Stan did nothing. 

[VintageComics]

On 10/13/2024 at 4:57 PM, sfcityduck said:

Can anyone here post the details of how Stan got paid by Marvel at the various times under discussion here?

E.g. did he have a contract for a salary? Did he get a page rate? Was it a hybrid deal? The Marvel method was never a secret -- is the contention being made that his employe was ignorant of the Marvel method? What happened when they found out?  

I'm not seeing any evidence on this and I'm curious how you can assert Stan Lee was "stealing" other people's pay without providing such basic facts.

 

 

I brought something similar up 30 or 40 pages ago. 

[PreHero]

On 10/13/2024 at 3:17 PM, VintageComics said:

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. 

It is possible that a 1961/2 interview exists.  I find it unlikely, given Marvel was producing mostly teen (Kathy), romance (Love Romances), western (Rawhide Kid) and fantasy/monster (Strange Tales).  This was several years before Marvel had a college audience, so not sure who'd want to listen to an editor from a 3rd rate comic book company.

Given the nature of this discussion (argument), I think it's best to stick to verified info/quotes.  If the 1961/2 interview is uncovered, then we'll add that to knowledge base.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/12/2024 at 8:53 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

SEVEN: The ORIGINAL ART from Journey Into Mystery #83 is currently being scanned by writer Michael Hill (‘According to Kirby’ and ‘Kirby at Marvel’) and what we see is Kirby’s handwriting in the word balloons. He was writing the script in for the letterer. There is absolutely no reason - if he was writing from a script, for him to dialogue the word balloons. That was the letterer’s job.

In later books - we see Lee’s writing - notes for Sol - or make the arm smaller or whatever. These pages are sorely lacking Stan Lee notes (i.e. Kirby, as he’d done for the last 2+ years, turned his work in needing almost no editing). This artwork has been tucked away in a collection for decades… because it was STOLEN… but now we can see it. Kirby wrote that story from on his own, using his own dialogue.

 

 

This is the first truly fact based argument you've made in this post. I look forward to seeing the original art. Dr. V's opinions are his opinions. Your suppositions from reading comics stories are just that. Your views on how much experience you need to do a story ignores that Jack Kirby never touched a superhero comic until Joe Simon gave him that opportunity. And he picked up the knack fine without having done any previously. Stan Lee worked for Timely from 1941 onward. He had a working exposure and knowledge of superheroes. And one of the notable things about Marvel superheroes is that they were teen melodrama as much as adventure. Stan Lee has a distinctive voice, but its just opinion from reading the words whether Stan wrote them.

But looking at the OA does get us to concrete facts. The claim has been made before that Kirby dialogued comics with margin notes. The margin notes in Kirby's handwriting revealed that they weren't dialogue just a few words to clarify ambiguities in the art. That OA has been posted on this thread and commented on. I believe you ignored it. You are going to have to confront contrary evidence if you want to be taken seriously.

I look forward to seeing this OA. I'd agree with you that if Kirby's handwriting dialogued the art and the letter just inked over that, that is a strong point in favor of Kirby's sole creation. That's the first such evidence I've heard of. So I assume that this is not in your book. When will you be posting the pics of the OA?

Edited October 14 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 10/13/2024 at 5:23 PM, VintageComics said:

So, Stan was sharing the chores at some point with Ditko, until it "evolves" into Ditko doing it all?

Those are your words. 

So if that's the case, it's impossible to also state that Stan did nothing. 

No need to guess. Ditko wrote about this. Stan was involved all the way through but his involvement diminished to just doing the dialogue/sound effects/captions (no plotting) for about half of the Lee/Ditko run. As for crediting, Ditko stated “A more honest crediting could have been ‘A co-creation by writer, Stan Lee and artist Steve Ditko’ (where neither one is oxygen or hydrogen ‘creating’ water).” Here's the quotes by Ditko: 

• “For Marvel’s Spider-Man, Dr Strange and Hulk stories Stan wrote a synopsis, a one or two page brief story outline. His synopsis contained no panel/page breakdown, no specific panel ideas, no captions or panel dialogue, so there was no full story.” (Steve Ditko, A Mini-History “The Green Goblin”, The Comics Vol 12 No 7 (July 2001)).

•   “I gave Stan typewriting paper showing my rough ideas of what was being said in the story broken down into panels. Stan never wanted me to write any actual dialogue or names. That goes back to our 5 -page days. Writing, editing, dialogue, sound effects, captions, were all Stan’s division of labor at Marvel.” (Steve Ditko, #45: Why I Quit S-M, Marvel, The Four-Page Series 9 (September 2015).

• “Stan’s dialogue style of hero/villain wisecracking, undercut the conflict of hero, villain – but it worked with readers who just wanted to be entertained. I believe Stan loved writing those corny captions. It added to reading appeal but undercut a more serious growth of a teenager in an heroic role.” (Steve Ditko, July 2016 letter to David Currie, Ditko Shrugged, David Currie (2020  p 74).

• [As of 1965], "Stan was willing to go along with my not using his usual monthly plots – like having Spider-Man battle Attuma or introduce a Spider-Girl, a purely monthly episode.” (Steve Ditko, May 2015 letter to David Currie May 2015, Ditko Shrugged (2020. p 75)).

• [Overall] "About half of the Spider-Man stories were mostly mine.” (Steve Ditko, April 2018 Correspondence, An Exchange of Ideas, 32 Page Series Vol. V. Curtain, p. 222).

• [Up until around ASM 25] "Normally when I took in a pencilled S-M or D-S job, Stan and I would go over every panel; he’d note anything he didn’t understand or something needed, wanted, more detail etc. I’d mark any needed, wanted changes, correction, addition, to fix on the pencilled page I was to ink. Plus, I gave Stan typewriting paper showing my rough idea of what was being said in the story broken down into panels, Stan never wanted me to write any actual dialogue or names. That goes back to our 5-page days. Writing, editing, dialogue, sound-effects, captions, were all Stan’s division of labour at Marvel.” (Steve Ditko “#45: Why I Quit S-M, Marvel”, The Four-Page Series no. 9 (2015)).

• [After ASM 25] "I inked the pages, took them in, Sol again took the pages from me and into Stan’s office – came out saying nothing – and I left. ... So, back at my office, I decided on my own to do the next, follow-up S-M with some new villain. When done and there was still no word from Stan or Sol about the next S-M issue. I took my S-M story/issue and went through the same Sol/Stan routine. When doing S-M, D-S, I always wrote down my ideas that came to me about the supporting characters, any possible, usable story idea. At some point after they had been dialogued and lettered, I got my original, pencilled pages back and inked them. That became our working method on S-M and DS.” (same as above).

[VintageComics]

On 10/13/2024 at 6:03 PM, sfcityduck said:

No need to guess. Ditko wrote about this. Stan was involved all the way through but his involvement diminished to just doing the dialogue/sound effects/captions (no plotting) for about half of the Lee/Ditko run. As for crediting, Ditko stated “A more honest crediting could have been ‘A co-creation by writer, Stan Lee and artist Steve Ditko’ (where neither one is oxygen or hydrogen ‘creating’ water).” Here's the quotes by Ditko: 

• “For Marvel’s Spider-Man, Dr Strange and Hulk stories Stan wrote a synopsis, a one or two page brief story outline. His synopsis contained no panel/page breakdown, no specific panel ideas, no captions or panel dialogue, so there was no full story.” (Steve Ditko, A Mini-History “The Green Goblin”, The Comics Vol 12 No 7 (July 2001)).

•   “I gave Stan typewriting paper showing my rough ideas of what was being said in the story broken down into panels. Stan never wanted me to write any actual dialogue or names. That goes back to our 5 -page days. Writing, editing, dialogue, sound effects, captions, were all Stan’s division of labor at Marvel.” (Steve Ditko, #45: Why I Quit S-M, Marvel, The Four-Page Series 9 (September 2015).

• “Stan’s dialogue style of hero/villain wisecracking, undercut the conflict of hero, villain – but it worked with readers who just wanted to be entertained. I believe Stan loved writing those corny captions. It added to reading appeal but undercut a more serious growth of a teenager in an heroic role.” (Steve Ditko, July 2016 letter to David Currie, Ditko Shrugged, David Currie (2020  p 74).

• [As of 1965], "Stan was willing to go along with my not using his usual monthly plots – like having Spider-Man battle Attuma or introduce a Spider-Girl, a purely monthly episode.” (Steve Ditko, May 2015 letter to David Currie May 2015, Ditko Shrugged (2020. p 75)).

• [Overall] "About half of the Spider-Man stories were mostly mine.” (Steve Ditko, April 2018 Correspondence, An Exchange of Ideas, 32 Page Series Vol. V. Curtain, p. 222).

• [Up until around ASM 25] "Normally when I took in a pencilled S-M or D-S job, Stan and I would go over every panel; he’d note anything he didn’t understand or something needed, wanted, more detail etc. I’d mark any needed, wanted changes, correction, addition, to fix on the pencilled page I was to ink. Plus, I gave Stan typewriting paper showing my rough idea of what was being said in the story broken down into panels, Stan never wanted me to write any actual dialogue or names. That goes back to our 5-page days. Writing, editing, dialogue, sound-effects, captions, were all Stan’s division of labour at Marvel.” (Steve Ditko “#45: Why I Quit S-M, Marvel”, The Four-Page Series no. 9 (2015)).

• [After ASM 25] "I inked the pages, took them in, Sol again took the pages from me and into Stan’s office – came out saying nothing – and I left. ... So, back at my office, I decided on my own to do the next, follow-up S-M with some new villain. When done and there was still no word from Stan or Sol about the next S-M issue. I took my S-M story/issue and went through the same Sol/Stan routine. When doing S-M, D-S, I always wrote down my ideas that came to me about the supporting characters, any possible, usable story idea. At some point after they had been dialogued and lettered, I got my original, pencilled pages back and inked them. That became our working method on S-M and DS.” (same as above).

Obviously, Stan Lee did nothing and Ditko was lying.