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

[marvelcollector]

On 10/14/2024 at 9:29 PM, sfcityduck said:

Poorly edited is another choice. But still ironic. 

Or he just conflated two disparate events and mis-recollected. 

 

Another possibilty, considering the stream of consciousness notion VC mentioned, is that he was in a 1961/62 frame of mind, remembering that time, and it was "recent" in that mindset.

[Zonker]

On 10/14/2024 at 9:14 PM, VintageComics said:

You know, the more I read this, the more I hear it in the tense that Stan is talking in the "present" time, closer to circa 1974 than 1961, and that Stan is referencing his 1967 interview.

His thoughts are very "stream of consciousness" and he could very well have been saying "And that was what grabbed me. That was the answer." in agreement with the 1967 interviewer, as to how he concluded the same thing in 1961 as the interviewer concluded in 1967, so in essence is saying "And that was what grabbed me [as well - that we were building a 20th century mythology]. That was the answer."

The section is not very well written, and this interpretation does make sense literally, and analytically. It is a realistic, possible interpretation. 

So, the reading you're proposing is that Stan in 1974 is stuck remembering how Thor came to be created, until he first remembers a 1967 interview that in turn jogs his memory to what actually happened in 1961/1962? And he feels compelled to tell us about his temporary memory block before getting on with his story?  I don't know, it seems a reach to me.

I really should have saved time and just mailed you my copy of Origins of Marvel Comics.  

Here are pictures of the first 3 pages of the Thor chapter so everyone here can get the full context.  For those not familiar with the structure of the book, Stan is giving us a series of recollections, 1 by 1, of the Marvel 1960s heroes in the order they first appeared, then includes a reprint of that character's origin sequence, and then reprints another example of more recent storytelling (as of 1974) for that same character.  The previous Origins chapter was on Spidey, so here comes Thor:

Edited October 15 by Zonker
context!

[VintageComics]

On 10/14/2024 at 6:35 PM, marvelcollector said:

Another possibilty, considering the stream of consciousness notion VC mentioned, is that he was in a 1961/62 frame of mind, remembering that time, and it was "recent" in that mindset.

Yes.

It is possible that Stan is typing this in 1974, recollecting his 1967 interview and is agreeing with the 1967 interviewer that this was how he saw his own characters as well (as 20th century mythology) in 1961.

"And that was it. That was the answer."

And like @sfcityduck said, poor editing is really making interpretation difficult. 

On 10/14/2024 at 6:35 PM, Zonker said:

So, the reading you're proposing is that Stan in 1974 is stuck remembering how Thor came to be created, until he first remembers a 1967 interview that in turn jogs his memory to what actually happened in 1961/1962? And he feels compelled to tell us about his temporary memory block before getting on with his story?  I don't know, it seems a reach to me.

I really should have saved time and just mailed you my copy of Origins of Marvel Comics.  

Hold on, I'll take pictures of the first 3 pages of the Thor chapter so everyone here can get the full context.  Come back to this post in a bit, I'll edit those pages into it.  

I posted a link to Origins online a few pages back. It's available for anyone to read.

Edited October 15 by VintageComics

[sfcityduck]

The post where I said this above is a little long and starts out on a different thought - but this really is the problem with Chaz Gower/Prince Namor's analysis of this whole Jack Kirby claiming he "wrote every story I ever did" claim. This is the elephant in the room that Chaz ignores:

When Kirby says "write" he doesn't mean write the words that appear in the comic. He means draws the action of a story that he came up with in his head one page at a time without any preconceived detailed "full script" or even a detailed "plot." Which is why Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's plotting sessions were pretty short. Shorter probably then what he had with Ditko until plotting was handed over to him. Because after a while, the plot was an agreed upon scenario which Jack Kirby would then take and flesh out as he drew it. Then he'd hand it over to Stan, and Stan would supply the words which defined the characterizations. Ditko got this right when he called him and Stan co-creators even when Ditko was plotting - because the story was a collaboration with three parts (1) plot, (2) art and (3) writing the words that appeared in the comic (dialogue/captions/sound effects).

From the 1989 TCJ interview:

GROTH: I think you were drawing much of the time three books a month, and those books must have been about 24 pages — so you were turning out roughly 75 pages a month. Was that a strain?

KIRBY: No, I like working hard. Not only that, but if you look at some of my old pages, notice the expressions on the people — they’re very real expressions. I was totally immersed in the characters. I penciled fast, I wrote fast. Nobody could have written it for me because they couldn’t have understood the situation or what to do.

ROZ KIRBY: He never wrote the story ahead of time, he wrote while he was drawing.

KIRBY: In other words, I’d never planned a story —

GROTH: That’s my next question. When you were doing a story, say, the first Dragon Man story in Fantastic Four that took place on a campus — would you plot that out in your mind?

KIRBY: No, no, I’d take it from the beginning, then say, what would he do? Here he is, he’s a dragon — this guy is in a mess! He’s really a human being, but he’s a dragon— what would a human being trapped in those circumstances do? Then I’d come up with an answer. I didn’t plan out the entire story. I had to do it panel by panel because I had to think for each individual. Sometime even after I thought it out, the story would come out different because on the way something would happen and this guy would have to make other plans.

Edited October 16 by sfcityduck

[Zonker]

As predicted back on page 40

 

[VintageComics]

Here is the link to Origins online. This links you to the relevant page 162, but you can toggle left and right to turn the page.

https://readcomic.net/origins-of-marvel-comics/issue-TPB/162

When Stan says in a very 'stream of consciousness' manner: "A thought suddenly struck me." at the start of the relevant paragraph where he introduces the radio interview, I do believe what's striking him is that he's suddenly remembering his 1967 radio interview in the present (in 1974). 

That's the thought that struck him. He's recollecting the interview, on the fly, Stan Lee style. I can even hear it in his voice...

And at the end of the recollection of the interview, at end of that same paragraph, I interpret Stan saying: "And that was what grabbed me [as well]. That was the answer." as if he was agreeing with the radio interviewer in 1967 that they both came to the same conclusion. 

I think that is genuinely how I see it now.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/14/2024 at 7:08 PM, Zonker said:

As predicted back on page 40

 

And 40 pages ago, Chaz Gower/Prince Namor got it wrong:

On 9/24/2024 at 4:53 AM, Zonker said:

At least in this area, I think Mark Evanier was correct: inevitably this discussion converges towards a disagreement about what counts as “writing.”  I think Stan’s dialogue certainly counts as “writing.”  If I squint hard enough, I can even see that what Stan did could be interpreted as “scripting.”  Doing so requires us to use the term script similar to how a stage manager for a theatrical production would tell an actor to “Stick to the script!” i.e. the dialogue as-written, rather than ad-libbing something else.  Or a radio script being 90% dialogue and/or narration, and radio drama was certainly a medium all these guys during this period would have grown up with.  

On 9/24/2024 at 5:01 AM, Prince Namor said:

To me that's not writing. In Hollywood they call that a script doctor. They're not credited as 'the writer'. 

Every editor at DC Comics in the 60's suggested ideas to the writers. And every one of those Editors corrected dialogue, added and subtracted dialogue, put together covers and had word balloons moved around...

None of them took credit as the 'writer' and the 'scripter'.

A "script doctor" is someone brought in to rewrite a script. Kirby didn't write a script for Stan to doctor.

In Hollywood, there's two kinds of writing awards: For an original story and for an adaptation of an existing story. They are both writing, not script doctoring. In Hollywood, directors often work with artists who are called storyboarders. They don't get writing credits.

Kirby and Lee both came up with plot points in the comics they co-created and which are discussed in Origins. Kirby turned those into a visual story perhaps contributing additional plot points, and then, to quote Ditko, Stan "would provide the finished dialogue for the character, ideas and consistency.” Stan did the dialogue, the dialogue provided characterization, fleshed out ideas, and helped ensure consistency in portrayals.  

I liken Kirby to a director not a writer. Like the director, he was providing the visuals. By doing so he was integral to the story telling. Directors often don't get writing credits either despite their control over the visuals of the film. 

What Stan did was writing - written storytelling. He wrote the words in the comic books.

What Kirby did was visual storytelling. 

They are both part of the creative process of a comic. And that's why we have the concept of co-creation which Steve Ditko better than anyone has explained.

 

[MattTheDuck]

On 10/14/2024 at 5:34 PM, sfcityduck said:

Why do you think there were redactions? A party can't force a redaction just because it views the testimony as damaging. There has to be a valid reasons. And Toberoff had no reason to agree to redactions to save Stan's reputation. Quite the opposite.

I'm no lawyer, but this strikes me as odd.  Wouldn't each Party to the suit (or the Parties jointly) have to petition the trial Judge to redact parts of the trial transcript to be released publicly, and the Judge agree?  If that were the case, it seems like you could at least find the filings on the redacting matter.

[thehumantorch]

On 10/14/2024 at 8:38 PM, sfcityduck said:

And 40 pages ago, Chaz Gower/Prince Namor got it wrong:

A "script doctor" is someone brought in to rewrite a script. Kirby didn't write a script for Stan to doctor.

In Hollywood, there's two kinds of writing awards: For an original story and for an adaptation of an existing story. They are both writing, not script doctoring. In Hollywood, directors often work with artists who are called storyboarders. They don't get writing credits.

Kirby and Lee both came up with plot points in the comics they co-created and which are discussed in Origins. Kirby turned those into a visual story perhaps contributing additional plot points, and then, to quote Ditko, Stan "would provide the finished dialogue for the character, ideas and consistency.” Stan did the dialogue, the dialogue provided characterization, fleshed out ideas, and helped ensure consistency in portrayals.  

I liken Kirby to a director not a writer. Like the director, he was providing the visuals. By doing so he was integral to the story telling. Directors often don't get writing credits either despite their control over the visuals of the film. 

What Stan did was writing - written storytelling. He wrote the words in the comic books.

What Kirby did was visual storytelling. 

They are both part of the creative process of a comic. And that's why we have the concept of co-creation which Steve Ditko better than anyone has explained.

 

I've done my best to stay out of this thread because it's toxic but

The Marvel method depended on the artists to draw and create a story and then Stan would come in and add the dialog. There's more to it than just that as Stan sometimes discussed some ideas or characters or plot with the artists.  To me it's clear that the artists are responsible fo the art and should share credit for the writing/plotting and Stan should get credit for some of the writing - writing dialog is writing and I loved Stan's dialog - and the editing.

I agree with Prince Namor that Stan should have shared the writing credits with the artists and shame on him but I disagree with Prince Namor on the contributions of Stan Lee.  It's clear to me that the hack that was Stan Lee found some magic in the early 60s and was instrumental in creating the characters I've loved for the past 50 years.  Without Stan Lee the Marvel Universe wouldn't have existed and without Kirby and Ditko the Marvel Universe wouldn't have existed.

 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/14/2024 at 7:49 PM, MattTheDuck said:

I'm no lawyer, but this strikes me as odd.  Wouldn't each Party to the suit (or the Parties jointly) have to petition the trial Judge to redact parts of the trial transcript to be released publicly, and the Judge agree?  If that were the case, it seems like you could at least find the filings on the redacting matter.

No. It's the opposite. You have to petition the court to redact information from the public record (e.g. if you have exhibits you attach to a summary judgment motion). Of course, there's a difference between a "redaction" and just not putting a whole transcript into the record. The courts don't want us putting into evidence a 300 page transcript when only 10 pages of testimony are relevant to the motion at issue.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/14/2024 at 7:51 PM, thehumantorch said:

I've done my best to stay out of this thread because it's toxic but

The Marvel method depended on the artists to draw and create a story and then Stan would come in and add the dialog. There's more to it than just that as Stan sometimes discussed some ideas or characters or plot with the artists.  To me it's clear that the artists are responsible fo the art and should share credit for the writing/plotting and Stan should get credit for some of the writing - writing dialog is writing and I loved Stan's dialog - and the editing.

I agree with Prince Namor that Stan should have shared the writing credits with the artists and shame on him but I disagree with Prince Namor on the contributions of Stan Lee.  It's clear to me that the hack that was Stan Lee found some magic in the early 60s and was instrumental in creating the characters I've loved for the past 50 years.  Without Stan Lee the Marvel Universe wouldn't have existed and without Kirby and Ditko the Marvel Universe wouldn't have existed.

 

I agree 100%. That's the "balanced" view which I've been pushing. The idea its black versus white - all Kirby versus all Lee -  is childish. 

 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/14/2024 at 7:38 PM, VintageComics said:

Here is the link to Origins online. This links you to the relevant page 162, but you can toggle left and right to turn the page.

https://readcomic.net/origins-of-marvel-comics/issue-TPB/162

When Stan says in a very 'stream of consciousness' manner: "A thought suddenly struck me." at the start of the relevant paragraph where he introduces the radio interview, I do believe what's striking him is that he's suddenly remembering his 1967 radio interview in the present (in 1974). 

That's the thought that struck him. He's recollecting the interview, on the fly, Stan Lee style. I can even hear it in his voice...

And at the end of the recollection of the interview, at end of that same paragraph, I interpret Stan saying: "And that was what grabbed me [as well]. That was the answer." as if he was agreeing with the radio interviewer in 1967 that they both came to the same conclusion. 

I think that is genuinely how I see it now.

 

I think he was mis-recollecting when the interview occurred. Conflating 1967 with 1961. But, to me, its really pretty immaterial. We're talking about Thor -- a public domain character.

[MattTheDuck]

On 10/14/2024 at 7:49 PM, MattTheDuck said:

Wouldn't each Party to the suit (or the Parties jointly) have to petition the trial Judge to redact parts of the trial transcript to be released publicly, and the Judge agree?

On 10/14/2024 at 7:54 PM, sfcityduck said:

You have to petition the court to redact information from the public record

 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/15/2024 at 8:27 AM, marvelcollector said:

I really don't have an axe to grind for or against Stan, but if he was explaining in 1974 how he agreed with a previous interviewer that they were creating a mythology and that that was how he first came up with the idea of Thor in 1961/62, it's poorly writtten.

Which, considering the question of his writing ability, is kind of ironic.

LOL. Yep.

To me, I think it sounds more like excuses being made for Stan.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/15/2024 at 8:35 AM, Zonker said:

So, the reading you're proposing is that Stan in 1974 is stuck remembering how Thor came to be created, until he first remembers a 1967 interview that in turn jogs his memory to what actually happened in 1961/1962? And he feels compelled to tell us about his temporary memory block before getting on with his story?  I don't know, it seems a reach to me.

LOL. A reach is right. Stiltman at full height might have trouble reaching it. 

On 10/15/2024 at 8:35 AM, Zonker said:

Here are pictures of the first 3 pages of the Thor chapter so everyone here can get the full context.  For those not familiar with the structure of the book, Stan is giving us a series of recollections, 1 by 1, of the Marvel 1960s heroes in the order they first appeared, then includes a reprint of that character's origin sequence, and then reprints another example of more recent storytelling (as of 1974) for that same character.  The previous Origins chapter was on Spidey, so here comes Thor:

Yep. This is most important: The whole book starts each chapter with his recollection of how he came to 'create' these characters, on his own, with no input from anyone else... he is remembering back to those days. Thor's 'tale' is no different. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

[sfcityduck]

On 10/14/2024 at 7:49 PM, MattTheDuck said:

I'm no lawyer, but this strikes me as odd.  Wouldn't each Party to the suit (or the Parties jointly) have to petition the trial Judge to redact parts of the trial transcript to be released publicly, and the Judge agree?  If that were the case, it seems like you could at least find the filings on the redacting matter.

On 10/14/2024 at 7:54 PM, sfcityduck said:

No. It's the opposite. You have to petition the court to redact information from the public record (e.g. if you have exhibits you attach to a summary judgment motion). Of course, there's a difference between a "redaction" and just not putting a whole transcript into the record. The courts don't want us putting into evidence a 300 page transcript when only 10 pages of testimony are relevant to the motion at issue.

We are saying the opposite. You don't petition to release information to the public. You petition to keep information from the public. Big difference. The presumption is that the public is entitled to see everything. So you have to have a justification for redaction.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/15/2024 at 9:51 AM, thehumantorch said:

I've done my best to stay out of this thread because it's toxic but

The Marvel method depended on the artists to draw and create a story and then Stan would come in and add the dialog. There's more to it than just that as Stan sometimes discussed some ideas or characters or plot with the artists.  To me it's clear that the artists are responsible fo the art and should share credit for the writing/plotting and Stan should get credit for some of the writing - writing dialog is writing and I loved Stan's dialog - and the editing.

Ok. Right on. No one is arguing against that.

On 10/15/2024 at 9:51 AM, thehumantorch said:

I agree with Prince Namor that Stan should have shared the writing credits with the artists and shame on him

and the pay (IMO).

On 10/15/2024 at 9:51 AM, thehumantorch said:

but I disagree with Prince Namor on the contributions of Stan Lee.  It's clear to me that the hack that was Stan Lee found some magic in the early 60s and was instrumental in creating the characters I've loved for the past 50 years.  Without Stan Lee the Marvel Universe wouldn't have existed and without Kirby and Ditko the Marvel Universe wouldn't have existed.

Never said he wasn't. 

I'll say it AGAIN:

Without Stan Lee the Marvel Universe would not be what it became. 

Without Jack Kirby (and then Steve Ditko) it wouldn't have existed at all.

 

How many times do I have to say it. YEAH, Stan Lee made a difference in how it turned out. You can LIKE it or NOT like it - that's subjective - but OBJECTIVELY he had a hand in what was done.

Do I have an obligation to tell THAT side of the story? 

Somewhat.

And I DID. I quoted Lee DIRECTLY from his book the Origins of Marvel Comics throughout MY book. How much MORE do I need to do?

Give him the benefit of the doubt on some things?

LOL. He's had people like Roy Thomas and Danny Fingeroth and Peter David and Mark Evanier to do that for him over the last 50 years.

Stan was DUE to be taken to task.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/15/2024 at 9:51 AM, thehumantorch said:

I've done my best to stay out of this thread because it's toxic but

It doesn't have to be.

On 10/15/2024 at 9:51 AM, thehumantorch said:

The Marvel method depended on the artists...

And let me just say... if this is in regards to Thor and my comments on it... let me clatify for you.

I believe, based on the evidence, that Lee had nothing to do with the first three issues of Journey Into Mystery, featuring Thor.

That's not to say he didn't have anything to do with who Thor BECAME.

He wanted LESS Sci-Fi and Asgardian adventure and more Jane Foster on earth and he steered Kirby in that direction until later in the series when he just let Jack do his thing (and the book produced it's best work - IMO).

But the time he was putting Jane Foster as more important is PART of the Thor Universe and part of the history of the character, and most likely more due to Lee's involvement than what Kirby would have done on his own. 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/14/2024 at 8:52 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

LOL. He's had people like Roy Thomas and Danny Fingeroth and Peter David and Mark Evanier to do that for him over the last 50 years.

Stan was DUE to be taken to task.

Why on earth do Kirby fanatics attack Mark Evanier of all people? I assume because he does not subscribe to the present orthodoxy that "Kirby wrote everything he ever did." Which is strange, because Mark Evanier worked with Kirby, had a relationship with Kirby and his family, wrote a flattering book about Kirby, chairs panels in tribute to Kirby, and was hired as an expert witness by Kirby's own family to testify for Kirby's heirs (but the purported expert testimony was tossed for both sides because the matters for which the testimony was offered were not a proper subject for true expert testimony). Yet, for the most fanatical Kirby fans he's an enemy. Why? Because he is honest enough to give Stan some credit for what he did and he is realistic about what Kirby did not do.