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

[Prince Namor]

On 10/18/2024 at 7:58 PM, sfcityduck said:

Red Raven 1 and MMC 10 are both cover dated 8/9. You are comparing release dates to cover dates. You need to do apples to apples.

I'll admit I'm off by one month  -- it was 10 issues not 9.

No. They would have come to Marvel in February to begin work on the book. At that point only 6 issues had been released.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/17/2024 at 10:58 PM, sfcityduck said:

And yet, you've basically adopted what Kirby said below:

GROTH: Can you explain how you worked? I think according to Stan he would give you a plot, you would draw it, and he would write it. Now would you dispute —

ROZ KIRBY: [Stan] would say that he needs the story, and I think they talked two minutes on the phone, and then Jack would go off and write the story on the side of the art.

KIRBY: Stan didn’t know what the heck the stories were about.

With an attitude like that, are you really telling me that Kirby was feeding Stan plots for comics that Kirby didn't work on, in fact had been pulled off? That has zero plausibility. Stan and Kirby weren't hanging out talking plots for books that Jack didn't work on. Jack never claimed that, Stan never claimed that, and Ditko never claimed that. 

If you have some "proof," what it is? 

Because just making bald assertions is not "proof."

On 10/18/2024 at 1:22 AM, Prince Namor said:

Proof is in the result.

And 1961 was different than 1969 for their relationship.

You have offered no proof. To the contrary, you have decided to disregard Kirby and Ditko's statements that Kirby did not work on ASM in favor of what? Taylor's contention that Kirby repeatedly used the same repetitive ideas used in a lot of comics such as a "master of disguise"? That's not proof -- that's just an opinion and not a very convincing one at that.

And in the interview in TCJ, Kirby was discussing the creation of FF.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/18/2024 at 6:07 AM, Prince Namor said:

No. They would have come to Marvel in February to begin work on the book. At that point only 6 issues had been released.

But when they were working on Red Raven 1, others were working on MMC 10. They would have known that.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/18/2024 at 8:08 PM, sfcityduck said:

You have offered no proof. To the contrary, you have decided to disregard Kirby and Ditko's statements that Kirby did not work on ASM in favor of what? Taylor's contention that Kirby repeatedly used the same repetitive ideas used in a lot of comics such as a "master of disguise"? That's not proof -- that's just an opinion and not a very convincing one at that.

And in the interview in TCJ, Kirby was discussing the creation of FF.

Proof is the result. Too many similarities to dismiss. 

You're not going to change my mind.

And Lee and Kirby has a different relationship in 1961 than in 1969. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/18/2024 at 8:10 PM, sfcityduck said:

But when they were working on Red Raven 1, others were working on MMC 10. They would have known that.

Believe what you want. 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/18/2024 at 6:05 AM, Prince Namor said:

You make up something you claim I said that isn't true and I'M to blame? LOL

No. But your reaction is all on you.

And I'm still not sure you didn't make the claim I identified. You've been quoting materials from other, like this Taylor guy, adopting his statements - and at some point I'll have to go back and confirm you didn't assert what I recall. But for now, sure, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/18/2024 at 6:08 AM, sfcityduck said:

You have offered no proof. To the contrary, you have decided to disregard Kirby and Ditko's statements that Kirby did not work on ASM in favor of what? Taylor's contention that Kirby repeatedly used the same repetitive ideas used in a lot of comics such as a "master of disguise"? That's not proof -- that's just an opinion and not a very convincing one at that.

And in the interview in TCJ, Kirby was discussing the creation of FF.

On 10/18/2024 at 6:10 AM, Prince Namor said:

Proof is the result. Too many similarities to dismiss. 

You're not going to change my mind.

And Lee and Kirby has a different relationship in 1961 than in 1969. 

Again you are mis-equating an opinion with "proof." Your opinion is contrary to what Kirby and Ditko say actually occurred. No one claims Kirby contributed ideas to ASM. Your "proof" is rebutted and it the opinion on which you rely was very thinly reasoned.

But I don't expect you to admit that. You seem to largely want to ignore or brush off facts which don't confirm your pre-judgment. But readers of this conversation will still benefit from seeing what folks other than you have to say.

Lee and Kirby did have a different relationship in 1961 than 1969, but in the TCJ interview Kirby is not talking about 1969. He discusses the 60s starting with FF 1.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/18/2024 at 6:10 AM, sfcityduck said:

But when they were working on Red Raven 1, others were working on MMC 10. They would have known that.

On 10/18/2024 at 6:11 AM, Prince Namor said:

Believe what you want. 

That's not a "belief," it is an apples to apples comparison of comics with the same cover dates, as opposed to your comparison of Red Raven's release date with MMC 9 or 10's cover date.

All of us in this conversation know that a publisher used the same cover dates on all comics being released at the same time. 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/18/2024 at 1:13 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

PN takes inconsistent positions on this issue. On the one hand, he notes that Goodman was not really Stan's Uncle and didn't really view Stan as close family.

Where'd I say THIS??? Why are you making up statements that you're not even sure I've made? Just to strengthen your own argument? That's a bit dishonest.

Up thread, I believe you quoted materials which pointed out, correctly, that Stan was not hired by Goodman -- he was hired by an actual uncle (his mother's brother?) that worked at Marvel. Goodman was a more distant relative who, the story goes, was surprised to see Stan working there.

But, in the interests of saving us both the trouble of looking, I'm happy to instead point out that whether you said it or not, any assertion that Goodman favored Stan over Kirby when it came to compensation (e.g. allowing Stan to "steal" money from Kirby) versus Goodman was going to shut down Marvel until Kirby came back because he held Kirby in such high regard is facially inconsistent.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/18/2024 at 8:11 PM, sfcityduck said:

No. But your reaction is all on you.

And I'm still not sure you didn't make the claim I identified. You've been quoting materials from other, like this Taylor guy, adopting his statements - and at some point I'll have to go back and confirm you didn't assert what I recall. But for now, sure, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Very slick. You keep trying to pin this on ME.

YOU claimed I said something I didn't. You MADE UP something that you claimed I said.

You keep trying to put the blame back on ME???

I said I didn't say it. How is that out of line?

I can't continue to interact with someone like this... very sus.

[CGC Mike]

Easy guys.  Maybe it's time to agree to disagree...

[sfcityduck]

On 10/18/2024 at 1:20 AM, Prince Namor said:

Ditko says it was 5 pages, where do you get 9?

Re-reading Ditko, I stand corrected. (See how easy that is -- no need to dig in your heels, because everyone makes errors.) I misread Ditko talking about "five pages" and then talking about "the other four pages" as a total of nine pages when it was really one page and then the "other four pages." Nothing nefarious. Errors happen.

Does not change the analysis. Ditko based his statements on Stan's comments on the plot Kirby was working under and Ditko's review of the OA. 

And, to be clear, you are not contesting that Ditko designed the costume, Ditko designed the webshooters, Ditko did the story for AF 15, Ditko created the Spider-Man that appeared in AF 15 and ASM, etc., right? So we can agree that Kirby's assertions in the TCJ interview were an overclaim, right?

Edited Friday at 06:43 PM by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 10/18/2024 at 6:28 AM, Prince Namor said:

Very slick. You keep trying to pin this on ME.

YOU claimed I said something I didn't. You MADE UP something that you claimed I said.

You keep trying to put the blame back on ME???

I said I didn't say it. How is that out of line?

I can't continue to interact with someone like this... very sus.

No. I agreed to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept your denial that you said it.

I held you responsible for your repeated accusations of dishonesty as opposed to error. Which are on you. 

I held open the possibility that you quoted someone who said it, but acknowledged I don't have time to go read 100+ pages to confirm whether or not that's true.

And as you should note from my above posts, I admit when I make an error. I have no need to dig in my heels and claim perfect recall when it appears my recall was incorrect.

So nothing here is "sus."

Edited Friday at 01:48 PM by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 10/18/2024 at 6:20 AM, sfcityduck said:

That's not a "belief," it is an apples to apples comparison of comics with the same cover dates, as opposed to your comparison of Red Raven's release date with MMC 9 or 10's cover date.

All of us in this conversation know that a publisher used the same cover dates on all comics being released at the same time. 

Quote

 Prince Namor

A very strange response to indisputable facts. Care to elaborate on what you find funny? When Kirby was working on Red Raven 1 other artists were working on MMC 10. When Red Raven 1 was worked on (and when it came out), Timely artists had already been in the business of superhero comics for nine months -- not counting Everett who had done more months because of Sub-Mariner in MPFW (and those nine issues were out before Red Raven 1 hit the stands). So what is wrong with my apples to apples math? Much more accurate than your claim it was only six months.

Edited Friday at 02:24 PM by sfcityduck

[SpineTic]

[sfcityduck]

Enough said for now.

[Sauce Dog]

On 10/18/2024 at 9:31 AM, CGC Mike said:

Easy guys.  Maybe it's time to agree to disagree...

[VintageComics]

I would just like to point out that I haven't received any strikes or warnings from this thread and that makes me happy. 

[JollyComics]

Dear Chaz

I bought it today.

Actually, I used up my Amazon credit.  It's on the way.

[Dr. Haydn]

On 10/18/2024 at 7:25 AM, comicwiz said:

 

 

So, let's see what Lee added in the final, published version:

--An extra exclamation point after "dream,"

--An unnecessary comma after "diamond."

--Combining two paragraphs into one, which meant removing the fancy "H" from the beginning of Paragraph 2.

 

Edited Friday at 03:41 PM by Dr. Haydn
added third bullet point