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

[marvelcollector]

On 10/21/2024 at 4:00 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

He can afford it by this time.

And he's wearing a watch.

[sfcityduck]

On 10/19/2024 at 7:52 PM, Prince Namor said:

Enjoy your father's 85th B-Day, and when you get done and come back, let's pick a specific topic to discuss in this and show we can dissect in good faith and provide some entertainment and information for those who are interested. 

I pledge to be civil, and tolerant, and open-minded. 

Sure.

Here's my suggestions:

(1) Whether or not Stan Lee stole "writing" compensation from Steve Ditko because of the use of the Marvel method in connection with (to pick an issue that avoids the "creation" issue and keeps us focused on the "theft" accusation) ASM 1.

This discussion will probably span some discussion of time periods before and after ASM 1, and may very well bring other artists' experiences into the conversation, but the point is to keep it as focused as possible. I focus on the "theft" accusation instead of creation credit because it is the much more loaded accusation and also the issue that's not already settled. Whatever Stan published 50 years ago, the reality is that today Steve Ditko gets creation credit for Spider-Man (and many other characters) from Disney-Marvel and this year was named a Disney Legend for that collaboration with Stan Lee. 

(2) If you do want to focus on creation credit, a good question to explore the issue is: Whether or not Jack Kirby was the creator of The Hulk or not.

This discussion can go a lot of different directions. Worth noting that Jack gets co-creation credit for Hulk in his official 2017 Disney Legend write-up, but I'm not so sure that's right.

For either topic, I'm willing to put up the first post or to take a rebuttal position. However, since I'm busy for a few days, I'd suggest we start the discussion on Thursday. That also provides some time to think about the topic of discussion.

Edited Monday at 09:44 PM by sfcityduck

[Prince Namor]

On 10/22/2024 at 4:43 AM, sfcityduck said:

Sure.

Here's my suggestions:

(1) Whether or not Stan Lee stole "writing" compensation from Steve Ditko because of the use of the Marvel method in connection with (to pick an issue that avoids the "creation" issue and keeps us focused on the "theft" accusation) ASM 1.

This discussion will probably span some discussion of time periods before and after ASM 1, and may very well bring other artists' experiences into the conversation, but the point is to keep it as focused as possible. I focus on the "theft" accusation instead of creation credit because it is the much more loaded accusation and also the issue that's not already settled. Whatever Stan published 50 years ago, the reality is that today Steve Ditko gets creation credit for Spider-Man (and many other characters) from Disney-Marvel and this year was named a Disney Legend for that collaboration with Stan Lee. 

Ok. So we concentrate on the 'writing compensation' AT THE TIME of the book being put together.

On 10/22/2024 at 4:43 AM, sfcityduck said:

(2) If you do want to focus on creation credit, a good question to explore the issue is: Whether or not Jack Kirby was the creator of The Hulk or not.

This discussion can go a lot of different directions. Worth noting that Jack gets co-creation credit for Hulk in his official 2017 Disney Legend write-up, but I'm not so sure that's right.

For either topic, I'm willing to put up the first post or to take a rebuttal position. However, since I'm busy for a few days, I'd suggest we start the discussion on Thursday. That also provides some time to think about the topic of discussion.

Sounds good.

[VintageComics]

On 10/21/2024 at 8:42 AM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/21/2024 at 7:28 AM, VintageComics said:

We're talking about the experience for the reader. 

Everyone, EVERYONE agrees that Marvel's stories were different than their competitors. 

Even Marvel's competitors agree and in some ways changed their approach to creating comics, as Zonker showed. 

Who or what was responsible for Marvel's difference in your opinion? 

Depends on the book. Not all Marvel Comics were created equal.

As a whole, Lee used manipulation propaganda techniques he learned in the military. Telling people over and over and over again, "This is the greatest thing you've ever read" while telling them that they are true 'Culture lovers", obviously can and did have an effect.

Not on the same books though.

Some sold better than others. Why do you think that is?

On 10/21/2024 at 7:28 AM, VintageComics said:

Successful from the POV of the reader, obviously, as this is the only type of success that matters when it comes to putting out a publication for reading. 

Are you going to argue that Marvel wasn't successful?

Successful when? And by what gauge?

Marvel was successful in that they grew every year in the 60's. They never sold as many comics as DC or Archie during that time though. 

We're not discussing individual titles. We're discussing publishers.

We're specifically talking about Marvel's success as a company, and we were discussing the Marvel Method as it relates to the reader, and so I'm making the point as related to the string of discussion that the Marvel Method is the primary reason for Marvel's success, which is why (as Zonker pointed out) other's began to duplicate it. 

On 10/21/2024 at 8:42 AM, Prince Namor said:

If Marvel was so popular in the 60's, why did they not have the sales leaders EVER during that time period?

Because they were a new company breaking into new ground.

DC and MLJ had decades of history, readership and legacy behind them.

But you answer my question here:

On 10/21/2024 at 8:42 AM, Prince Namor said:

Marvel was successful in that they grew every year in the 60's.

Then based on this, we can agree that Marvel was successful. 

On 10/21/2024 at 8:42 AM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/21/2024 at 7:28 AM, VintageComics said:

Of course not.

I'm asking because this is the first time I've heard of this theory. 

So you're saying that the "Marvel Method" was always a planned theft scheme by Stan from the very beginning?

Yeah, pretty much. It's a bit more complicated than that. Probably something I should do an essay on.

But it starts with Goodman wanting to keep IP for the company. 

OK. I'm glad we got that established. 

So in your opinion the Marvel Method was always a planned theft scheme by Stan Lee. 

Got it.

On 10/21/2024 at 8:42 AM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/21/2024 at 7:28 AM, VintageComics said:

Can you point out what / where you give Stan credit for in regards to Marvel's success?

In 120 pages I don't recall you pointing it out once. 

I just said something AGAIN, a few posts back:

"Lee DID have input on Thor from #86 and up."

So the only thing you credit Stan Lee with towards Marvel's success is his input on Thor from JIM #86 up?

No credit for his input on Fantastic Four?

No credit for his co-creation of Spider-man?

No credit for his marketing techniques like the Bullpen stuff, Letter's page or Marvel's unique style of story telling?

[sfcityduck]

On 10/21/2024 at 2:54 PM, Prince Namor said:

Ok. So we concentrate on the 'writing compensation' AT THE TIME of the book being put together.

Sounds good.

Which do you prefer: (1) or (2)?

[VintageComics]

On 10/21/2024 at 8:48 AM, Prince Namor said:

You said:

Posted yesterday at 02:00 AM (edited)

The "Marvel Method" was inevitable. Stan just got there first. It allows for a more intricate relationship between script / visual therefore allowing for a better reading experience. 

Whether the monies were taken advantage of later or not is a completely different discussion. 

Saying the "Marvel Method" was a theft scheme from the start, as is the premise if this thread, you would have to dismiss how successful the comics were BECAUSE of the method...and this is exactly why the OP attacks and undermines the success of Marvel consistently with such zeal throughout the entire discussion. If the books actually WERE successful, and they were, then this would support the Marvel Method as a successful means of comic book production. 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like you are saying it's a valid method because it was successful. That discounts it's nature, which stole credit and pay from the people who did the actual work. 

What I meant was, that the "Marvel Method" as a form of storytelling was inevitable. Stan just made it happen in publishing before his competitors did and it's arguably one of the main reasons behind Marvel's success, delivering a different flavor to the reader than the traditional collaboration method that other publishers were using. 

You're the one asserting it was a premeditated theft scheme. I'm new to that facet of the discussion, it's not proven to me that it was a premeditated theft scheme and what I clearly said was that if you feel it's a premeditated theft scheme, it's a totally separate discussion from whether it was a successful form of story telling or not. 

Nowhere did I say immoral or unethical dealings were OK. Still waiting for you to produce a statement from me saying immoral or unethical dealings were OK. 

[Aman619]

On 10/21/2024 at 3:25 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

The meaning of it is that if you do the Lord's work on earth, you will get through the pearly gates, no matter how late you took up the task, and get the same reward as those who have endured a lifetime of self-denial.

The moral is obvious - live your life to the full, wine, women and song, or whatever else takes your fancy. Then repent on your deathbed, get in just under the wire.

Alternatively, as Thor's devotees would confirm, it is a worthy thing to spend your life bringing havoc and mayhem to your foes on the battlefield, and be taken into Valhalla by the shieldmaidens of Odin.

Jack's research would have delved deep into this, but Stan only latched onto it in, oh about August 1962 at a guess..

Cribbed from Wikipedia:

Valkyrie, in Norse mythology, any of a group of maidens who served the god Odin and were sent by him to the battlefields to choose the slain who were worthy of a place in Valhalla. These foreboders of war rode to the battlefield on horses, wearing helmets and shields; in some accounts, they flew through the air and sea. Some Valkyries had the power to cause the death of the warriors they did not favour; others, especially heroine Valkyries, guarded the lives and ships of those dear to them. Old Norse literature made references to purely supernatural Valkyries and also to human Valkyries with certain supernatural powers. Both types of beings were associated with fairness, brightness, and gold, as well as bloodshed.

sure thats the basis of most religions, but whats it got to do with work?  mixing apples with oranges.  You hired me so pay me fairly.  If you want to chat about Heaven while Im working, or over a beer later, fine, just pay me for my efforts fairly..  

Also, theres no concept of heaven after life for Hebrews... to say anymore would be against the rules.

[VintageComics]

I have more to address but am very busy today.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/22/2024 at 4:54 AM, VintageComics said:

We're not discussing individual titles. We're discussing publishers.

We're specifically talking about Marvel's success as a company, and we were discussing the Marvel Method as it relates to the reader, and so I'm making the point as related to the string of discussion that the Marvel Method is the primary reason for Marvel's success,

That's absurd.

If that was the case then Millie the Model (or even Ant-Man) would've never been canceled.

On 10/22/2024 at 4:54 AM, VintageComics said:

which is why (as Zonker pointed out) other's began to duplicate it. 

Who duplicated it??? It was never successful ANYWHERE as a regular thing.

On 10/22/2024 at 4:54 AM, VintageComics said:

Because they were a new company breaking into new ground.

DC and MLJ had decades of history, readership and legacy behind them.

Marvel was NOT a new company. And they had a legacy as well - Captain America, the Human Torch, an editor who'd been there working for 20+ years - the stability of the same owner. They just fumbled their opportunities and were unable to create anything new and lasting until Jack Kirby showed back up.

On 10/22/2024 at 4:54 AM, VintageComics said:

But you answer my question here:

Then based on this, we can agree that Marvel was successful. 

OK. I'm glad we got that established. 

Ok. And?

On 10/22/2024 at 4:54 AM, VintageComics said:

So in your opinion the Marvel Method was always a planned theft scheme by Stan Lee. 

Got it.

His plan was to get paid for the writing while having the artists do the work. Yes.

On 10/22/2024 at 4:54 AM, VintageComics said:

So the only thing you credit Stan Lee with towards Marvel's success is his input on Thor from JIM #86 up?

No credit for his input on Fantastic Four?

No credit for his co-creation of Spider-man?

No credit for his marketing techniques like the Bullpen stuff, Letter's page or Marvel's unique style of story telling?

See, I try and have this conversation in good faith and then... here you go with something like this.

I'm not going to be snarky in my response - I'm just going to say - if you want to have a conversation about this, please stop projecting nonsense into it. I never said any of those things. IN FACT, on most of them I've said the opposite. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/22/2024 at 4:55 AM, sfcityduck said:

Which do you prefer: (1) or (2)?

 the 'writing compensation' AT THE TIME of the book being put together.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/22/2024 at 5:21 AM, VintageComics said:

What I meant was, that the "Marvel Method" as a form of storytelling was inevitable. Stan just made it happen in publishing before his competitors did and it's arguably one of the main reasons behind Marvel's success, delivering a different flavor to the reader than the traditional collaboration method that other publishers were using. 

You're the one asserting it was a premeditated theft scheme. I'm new to that facet of the discussion, it's not proven to me that it was a premeditated theft scheme and what I clearly said was that if you feel it's a premeditated theft scheme, it's a totally separate discussion from whether it was a successful form of story telling or not. 

Nowhere did I say immoral or unethical dealings were OK. Still waiting for you to produce a statement from me saying immoral or unethical dealings were OK. 

I took your statement: Saying the "Marvel Method" was a theft scheme from the start, as is the premise if this thread, you would have to dismiss how successful the comics were BECAUSE of the method

as you saying that made it ok.

If that's NOT what you meant, ok.

[Zonker]

On 10/21/2024 at 5:54 PM, VintageComics said:

 

So the only thing you credit Stan Lee with towards Marvel's success is his input on Thor from JIM #86 up?

No credit for his input on Fantastic Four?

No credit for his co-creation of Spider-man?

No credit for his marketing techniques like the Bullpen stuff, Letter's page or Marvel's unique style of story telling?

If I can butt in here, people who haven't read the book, and also haven't read the threads in question, risk getting hyper-focused on tiny bits of the argument, and assume that is the entire argument.  I confessed pages ago I haven't read the book, but that's because I followed the various threads and participated along the way, so I feel like maybe I did read an early draft version of the book. 

Similarly, anyone who wants the full blow-by-blow account, please check out these threads in the Silver Age forum here.  There are more, but the 1961 and 1962 threads are probably the most meaningful for the questions regarding the first appearances of these characters. 

 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/22/2024 at 7:23 AM, Zonker said:

If I can butt in here, people who haven't read the book, and also haven't read the threads in question, risk getting hyper-focused on tiny bits of the argument, and assume that is the entire argument.  I confessed pages ago I haven't read the book, but that's because I followed the various threads and participated along the way, so I feel like maybe I did read an early draft version of the book. 

Similarly, anyone who wants the full blow-by-blow account, please check out these threads in the Silver Age forum here.  There are more, but the 1961 and 1962 threads are probably the most meaningful for the questions regarding the first appearances of these characters. 

Thank you.

And it's easy to see, when you read those books back to back - that it wasn't the Marvel Method driving the success of those comics - Lee with Heck or Ayers is SOMETIMES... well, most of the time, painfully lacking in characterization, unique creativity and storytelling. It makes it easy to see how important the REAL storyteller was to the process. 

[Dr. Haydn]

On 10/21/2024 at 7:23 PM, Zonker said:

If I can butt in here, people who haven't read the book, and also haven't read the threads in question, risk getting hyper-focused on tiny bits of the argument, and assume that is the entire argument.  I confessed pages ago I haven't read the book, but that's because I followed the various threads and participated along the way, so I feel like maybe I did read an early draft version of the book. 

Similarly, anyone who wants the full blow-by-blow account, please check out these threads in the Silver Age forum here.  There are more, but the 1961 and 1962 threads are probably the most meaningful for the questions regarding the first appearances of these characters. 

 

I haven't said anything about the book for the same reason. I followed the Stan, Jack, and Steve thread regularly and with great interest. It demonstrates that the book didn't come out of the blue. It was a culmination of a couple of years of detailed, issue-by-issue analysis of everything Lee, Kirby, and Ditko did, both together and separately, over a period of nearly a decade. As I recall, once we got to 1961 and 1962, where the Marvel brand that we know today got its start, there was a lot of (sometimes heated) discussion as we proceeded month by month. I must admit, it's nice to have the book as a handy summary of all that was discussed on literally hundreds of pages on this site. I had a real sense of deja vu as I read through it!

[mrc]

On 10/22/2024 at 1:40 AM, Prince Namor said:

Thank you.

And it's easy to see, when you read those books back to back - that it wasn't the Marvel Method driving the success of those comics - Lee with Heck or Ayers is SOMETIMES... well, most of the time, painfully lacking in characterization, unique creativity and storytelling. It makes it easy to see how important the REAL storyteller was to the process. 

What's 'easy to see' is that the success of Marvel in the 60's was due to collaboration. What's 'easy to see' is the success was down to Stan's dialogue over the storytelling. How do I know? Because I bought all those books off the newsstand when they came out. But, 127 pages later, here we are...................with possibly the longest advert for a book, in history! 

Edited 23 hours ago by mrc
edit

[Prince Namor]

On 10/22/2024 at 1:40 PM, mrc said:

What's 'easy to see' is that the success of Marvel in the 60's was due to collaboration.

It certainly had something to do with it. Lee's 'collaborations' in the 40's and 50's didn't seem to work out, but it did with Kirby and Ditko in the 60's. 

On 10/22/2024 at 1:40 PM, mrc said:

What's 'easy to see' is the success was down to Stan's dialogue over the storytelling.

Then why didn't Ant-Man survive? Why'd Silver Surfer get canceled - one of the most popular characters they ever created?

On 10/22/2024 at 1:40 PM, mrc said:

How do I know? Because I bought all those books off the newsstand when they came out.

Anecdotal fallacy

The anecdotal fallacy is when someone uses personal experience or an isolated example as a means of proving a point (or of discrediting a related point). One reason people are vulnerable to the anecdotal fallacy is that narratives and personal experiences can feel more “real” than numbers or statistics.

On 10/22/2024 at 1:40 PM, mrc said:

But, 127 pages later, here we are...................with possibly the longest advert for a book, in history! 

No one is forcing anyone to be here. 

[Zonker]

On 10/22/2024 at 3:23 AM, Prince Namor said:

Why'd Silver Surfer get canceled - one of the most popular characters they ever created?

Silver Surfer might be worth its own book some day!

For the early 1960s Marvel comics, Stan's wisecracking dialogue certainly was part of the appeal.  Spider-Man's quips in the middle of tackling his latest bad guy were a lot of fun for many readers (as Ditko mentioned in one of his quotes we saw earlier).  And as the Fantastic Four were traveling through the worlds of Kirby's imagination, you could always count on the Thing to have some kind of a quip to keep the mood from remaining overly-serious.  So, when Stan launches the Silver Surfer solo book, he abandons this trademarked light touch, and instead makes the proceedings oh-so-solemn.  There wasn't a regular counterpoint in the comic like a Ben Grimm or a Johnny Storm to act as the Surfer's foil and lighten up the mood.   Apparently, the older fans loved it, as it won best story of the year in  fandom's Alley Awards during each of the two years it was eligible. But the comic seemed to not find a wide enough audience to keep it going beyond those couple of years.  Did it fail partly because it was missing that winking, in-on-the-joke aspect of many of the more successful Marvel comics? 

Or was it just a case of the higher 25 cent cover price during its first year pricing it out of the reach of its potential mass audience? 

[Ken Aldred]

On 10/22/2024 at 1:04 PM, Zonker said:

  Did it fail partly because it was missing that winking, in-on-the-joke aspect of many of the more successful Marvel comics? 

I always felt that the Silver Age book ended up sounding one-note and repetitive quite quickly, and had run its course anyway past those 25c issues.

It descended into mediocrity quite quickly, despite some nice artwork. And, Norrin was incessantly whiny, under the pretence of being philosophical and intellectually insightful.

Edited 16 hours ago by Ken Aldred

[Zonker]

On 10/22/2024 at 9:53 AM, Ken Aldred said:

I always felt that the Silver Age book ended up sounding one-note and repetitive quite quickly, and had run its course anyway past those 25c issues.

It descended into mediocrity quite quickly, despite some nice artwork. And, Norrin was incessantly whiny, under the pretence of being philosophical and intellectually insightful.

Could be Stan had spent too much time on 1960s college campuses, and catered this series to where he thought his audience was by then.  Forgetting about his core demographic perhaps.  Alley-awarding winning material as it turned out, but a snoozefest for the mainstream?

[VintageComics]

On 10/21/2024 at 10:54 AM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/21/2024 at 10:13 AM, VintageComics said:

This quote of yours above is the one in question.

The point of your post, as you explain, is to help people understand who "REALLY (most likely) influenced Kirby's look for Thor." [all your words]

You provide a Kirby quote where Kirby says this:

“I got a kick out of doing the Thor legend, which I researched.
I kind of did my version of it. They thought that Thor should have red hair and a beard, and that’s not my Thor. So I just went my own way.”

 

Then, as a counterpoint to Kirby's quote, to 'prove' that Stan was "stealing" from Kirby, you offer this edited quote of Stan's from Origins:

“As all true devotees know, every superhero needs a special quality, a special weapon of some sort… and then I realized I could solve both problems (weapon and flying) at once - with a hammer!”

Then, you go on to state with your own words:

"Thor having a hammer was certainly not Lee's idea. It was a part of the original Norse Mythology."

So you're clearly stating that Stan is taking credit for adding Thor's hammer as a part of Thor's look.

Is that correct?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there any other way to understand or conclude what you stated here in your last sentence?

If I'm misunderstanding, please help me understand what you meant with that concluding sentence. 

Again... NOT the overall POINT, but I'll still bite.

Yes, it sounds like Lee was trying to make it vague as if HE came up with the idea. It's not out of the question, considering he's writing a book that claims he created ALL of the characters and stories and simply assigned a writer. That's a WHOPPER of a Lie. Understand how that plays into it?

And you're building your camp on this one little insignificant quote?

And IS IT what he really meant?

Neither of us can truly 100% know what his intention was in that sentence. My opinion is, that he was being vague on purpose. It's what liars do. Just because you disagree and see it differently, doesn't mean you're right.

Again: Neither of us can truly 100% know what his intention was in that sentence.

It's a small, small, small, detail of information within the overall theme:

Stan Lee most likely had nothing to do with the creation of Marvel's Thor.

I'm not sure how you can tell me what the point of MY post is. 

My point is that you took Stan's words out of their context, edited them to create a hybrid quote which changes meaning of Stan's words and then you proceeded to build a case for a "Stan Lee lie" based on that new meaning. 

---------------------------------------------------------

This is why I'm saying that:

Again, for clarity, this was your version of Stan's quote:

“As all true devotees know, every superhero needs a special quality, a special weapon of some sort… and then I realized I could solve both problems (weapon and flying) at once - with a hammer!”

The problem with your version of Stan's 'quote', is that it's a hybrid quote made up of 2 DIFFERENT, selective parts, with the 1st part of the quote found on page 162 and the 2nd part of the quote found on page 165.

THE TWO PARTS YOU USE ARE FOUR PAGES APART!!!

 

Here's a link to the Origins intro for Thor (page 162) where PART of your hybrid quote comes from.

You can 'arrow' left and right to flip pages and everyone will see that the entire discussion focuses on mythology. 

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

Within those 4 pages ensues a detailed discussion about mythology (including Greek and Norse), even discussing some distinct attributes of those mythological characters. 

Stan says "As far as I can remember, Norse mythology turned me on." on page 162.

It's important to state that almost EVERYONE knows a little about Norse mythology, so it's not unreasonable in any way to believe that Stan would have KNOWN about it. Even the radio announcer knew about it and he's not a fantasy magazine creator. 

And so it becomes clear that by page 165, if you're reading the context properly, after discussing Norse mythology in detail, that Stan was specifically talking about finding an already established, historic 'mythological' character to use as a new hero on page 162 when he says

“As all true devotees know, every superhero needs a special quality, a special weapon of some sort"

but when it comes to the 2nd half of the statement, 4 pages later, after discussing mythological characters, Stan was looking for a solution to flying on page 165:

"and then I realized I could solve both problems (weapon and flying) at once - with a hammer!”

 

So 1st, your edited quote by Stan makes it sound as though Stan was taking credit for giving Thor a hammer(literally), when it's clear from the full context of the Origins text that everyone had a grasp of mythology and everyone would have known Thor had a hammer.

In fact, you doubled down on it in this post 60 pages ago when you said this:

"Yeah except Lee writes 

“As all true devotees know, every superhero needs a special quality, a special weapon of some sort… and then I realized I could solve both problems (weapon and flying) at once - with a hammer!”

LOL. He IS literally saying he SOLVED the problem by giving him a special weapon - a HAMMER.

He IS saying it."

That's not what Stan was saying at all, which becomes clear once the proper context is established. 

 

 

 

2nd, Stan was specifically talking about giving Thor the power of flight through his hammer...which is the point people like @namisgr @jimjum12 myself and others were trying to point out to you. 

So when you say this:

On 10/21/2024 at 10:54 AM, Prince Namor said:

And you're building your camp on this one little insignificant quote?

The 'camp' I'm building, is that by using two separate quotes from a larger context, changing their meaning and combining them to build your "facts" or "evidence" you are being intellectually dishonest. 

And frankly, this is just one instance, but in the larger scope of discussions, this a hallmark of your debate / discussion style. It's a perpetual pattern. 

This is the CONFLATION of facts I constantly point out that you use. You are conflating several discussions into one in an intellectually dishonest manner. 

Yes we CAN know what Stan said and meant if we read the entire context properly, and it's clear that you built your hybrid quote to weaponize Stan's words against him by mischaracterizing what he said than letting them speak for themselves. 

 

More evidence:

No Stan's quote DOES NOT contradict the Kirby quote you provided by about his "research" on mythology and so there is no lie prove be those two "facts". In fact, they complement each other in their proper context. 

Yes, Kirby had done Thor 2 times previously. NEITHER of which Kirby's 2 previous Thor iterations had the power of flight, so there's no reason to believe that Kirby gave Thor flight a 3rd time, and there's no reason to doubt Stan's claim that he felt he needed a character of flight because in Stan's editorial role, overseeing the greater universe, it's very likely that he saw the need for flight based on his assertion in those 4 pages that other characters in the Marvel canon already had that power and it made the story telling more interesting and dynamic.

So there really is no "Stan Lee lie" in that specific post. It's fabricated using intellectual dishonesty. This is how "fake news" works. 

And frankly, again, because you don't seem to be able to connect dots using logic and reason, if you took a poll I think MOST people would see it my way over your way. There is a logic chain running through my dissemination of the information. There is NOT one when interpreted your way. 

Edited 10 hours ago by VintageComics