Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the 'Origins of Marvel Comics' 7 7

[Prince Namor]

On 9/14/2024 at 8:47 AM, CGC Mike said:

I inquired earlier today.  

Who are we to say who is right? This kind of stuff  is always up for debate. As long as everyone stays civil…

And by civil you mean dicuss the topic and not aim remarks at others personally, right?

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/14/2024 at 1:13 AM, VintageComics said:

the book sounds like a rant. 

[CGC Mike]

On 9/13/2024 at 11:42 PM, Prince Namor said:

And by civil you mean dicuss the topic and not aim remarks at others personally, right?

That is correct.  I would also like to add that posters can criticize the book.  You can defend your reasoning, and a healthy debate can take place.  If there are any personal attacks including name calling from either side, the person hurling them will be permanently banned from the thread at minimum.    

[KCOComics]

On 9/14/2024 at 7:48 AM, CGC Mike said:

That is correct.  I would also like to add that posters can criticize the book.  You can defend your reasoning, and a healthy debate can take place.  If there are any personal attacks including name calling from either side, the person hurling them will be permanently banned from the thread at minimum.    

It is kind of funny to think that years after his death and decades since he penned his last comic,  Stan is still polarizing enough to make a dozen adult men argue and name call. 

And I'm not above this.  I've argued my position in different threads.... I also argue with my brother about it at least every month and we do plenty of name calling! 

[AlterEgo2024]

On 9/13/2024 at 11:27 PM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

I'm not that invested. Mike's reply is good enough for me.  

"What I am genuinely interested in is this....where does the Company CGC stand on this issue?"

"I'd love to know what CGC feel about this given they have had a huge hand in perpetrating his legend."

  

 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/14/2024 at 3:41 PM, AlterEgo2024 said:

On 9/14/2024 at 4:27 AM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

I'm not that invested. Mike's reply is good enough for me.  

"What I am genuinely interested in is this....where does the Company CGC stand on this issue?"

"I'd love to know what CGC feel about this given they have had a huge hand in perpetrating his legend."

  

 

What's your problem?

Mike works for CGC, his handle is CGC Mike, he is their voice on here. That is good enough for me.

Let it go, whoever you are.  Stu????

Edited Saturday at 02:46 PM by Paul © ® ⚽️💙™

[Stefan_W]

On 9/11/2024 at 10:31 PM, Prince Namor said:

I'm proud to announce my latest book - Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the 'Origins of Marvel Comics', available now on Amazon!

Just in time for the 50th anniversary of this infamous book!

In 1974, Stan Lee released the ‘Origins of Marvel Comics', laying claim to the creation of some of the greatest superheroes in the history of comic books. For 50 years, the lies and inaccuracies of this book have been not only overlooked or outright ignored by the mainstream media (and even many comic journalists), but repeated as FACT.

For the first time, an in depth look at just how inaccurate Lee's story is - fact-checked with modern updated means of information collection and later interviews with the people who were there.

Stan Lee Lied. A LOT.

And that's a fact.

 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DGLQ6BXV

 

Congratulations on having your book published, that is a huge accomplishment!

[Stefan_W]

On 9/13/2024 at 8:13 PM, VintageComics said:

Based on the Bleeding Cool review, the book sounds like a rant. 

I got that from the title alone. But it still sounds like it could be a fun read just for the inclusion of comments and perspectives from people who were there when my favourite comics were being made. 

[Ken Aldred]

Not exactly a new experience for me, discovering that my childhood icons weren’t flawless, a naive outlook getting shattered.

It will be an interesting read and addition to the debate, at least.

Edited Saturday at 03:06 PM by Ken Aldred

[NoMan]

Congratulations! I applaud anybody's creative endeavours. Can you please give me a quick/short example of an instance where Stan lied in the Origins of Marvel Comics book?

Depending on your answer, I may pick up your book.

Regardless, congratulations are due. I'm sure producing this was not easy.

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/14/2024 at 4:04 PM, Ken Aldred said:

Not exactly a new experience for me, discovering that my childhood icons weren’t flawless,

I liked Rolf Harris as a kid....that did not turn out well.   

[Mmehdy]

4/5 of the way though...The most controversial book every written about marvel comics history. Again, the best researched book on the marvel big bang creation theory ...every page something I have never realized on his take. Here is an interesting question?

WHY IS THIS BOOK SO IMPORTANT...for me I bought FF 1 off the news stand, I read as a kid FF4 more than any other comic book....they were so different at the time...nothing like them then Hulk and the rest came on, by the way Hulk#1 one the best written books ever and cover. I just had to know how they did it....it was like magic...waiting each month for your mind to be blown. I have met Stan and Jack many time and never got a straight or consistent answer, including the time Stan had finished a book signing in LA...just me and him I think at Borders in the 2000's with my mom was has since passed away after we had had lunch at the Apple Pan ( famous hamburger rest in LA 5/5 my rating)...this was not SDCC million people......and I hit him up one on one...how did you do it....well after reading this book.....having only the classic Pure Images issues from Greg....I can finally say I have the total information, in which I can make a decision....on how it happened.

 The comic book historical book of the year by a MIle.

As a board member, 60 plus year lifetime comic book collector...MY HIGHEST RECOMMENDATION......GAME CHANGER

 

I will give you my full review sometime tonight....after each chapter, I go back and reread some of it....doing it right and its that good.

 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 04:20 PM by Mmehdy

[Bookery]

Most people have no concept of an old term called "ballyhoo", which encompasses a style of marketing marked by exaggeration and flamboyance to promote one's self or company.  But it only works if the underlying product is solid and sustainably popular.  One of its progenitors was Buffalo Bill Cody.   Did he really do all of the heroic antics that he re-created in his Wild West Show?  Of course not.  But did he put together a hugely popular show, and build a stable of talent such as Annie Oakley, and promote the hell out of it all around the globe?  Yes.

P.T. Barnum built an empire out of "lies" and exaggerations.  Was Jumbo the largest elephant ever?  No.  But he was big.  Was Jenny Lind the greatest opera singer of all time?  Probably not.  But she was very good.  And did people mind when a mermaid turned out to be just some stitched-together animal carcasses?  No.  Because even though many of the boasts weren't true, when asked about was it nevertheless the "Greatest Show on Earth", most patrons responded "yes."

And when promoting at this level, it helps to build the brand around a single personality, rather than a faceless corporation.  Rockefeller didn't build his empire alone.  Edison didn't create most of his company's inventions... but he put together the teams that did.  Howard Hughes didn't invent the tricone drill bit... but he hired the engineers that did, and eventually scored nearly 100% of his market.  Hitchcock's talent is undisputed... but it doesn't operate in a vacuum... his films wouldn't be the same without others like cinematographer Robert Burks and composer Bernard Herrmann.  But in interviews, the audience doesn't want to hear about a roster of those that contributed... they want a single face for the product.

Stan Lee understood ballyhoo very well.  Whether he took it to extremes others can debate.  Not my point.  He wasn't much of a writer, and wasn't an artist at all.  But he knew hype, and he put together a stable of talent to provide the solid underlying product necessary to successful self promotion.  And if he stole a lot of credit, he also allowed creators to put their names to the stories and art... something almost unheard of with other publishers.  (Would anybody know Kirby's name today if he stayed at DC in the '50s and '60s?).  And having a single personal name to build the hype around can be essential, even if it means others unfortunately get slighted.  Mike Lindell isn't designing all of those products, and Elon Musk isn't in the labs calculating structural tolerances.  But they are in charge of who they hire to do it, and how they promote it.  I don't deal in sports cards, and yet I know what the name "Beckett" is.  (I wonder if, despite their success, a company like CGC or its competitors wouldn't have been better off starting with a solid recognizable moniker rather than something that looks like a stock symbol?  It's of note that their current owner is Blackstone... a bold simple name that is a translated amalgam of the original two partners' names).

In hindsight I'd wish I had been more comfortable with self-promotion.  "Bookery" sounds fairly generic.  Had I slapped my name in 10-foot letters across the top of my building, or in huge print on the price guides, I expect I'd have fared better over time.  I'd have certainly had more clout in my local community.  Another businessman in town has his name all over a bunch of small shops (many which are only open a few weeks per year).  But he is the darling of the city council and chamber, and can pretty much get whatever he wants done in town, even though I suspect my businesses do more per year than his.  In the end, ego and hype make the brand.  You probably can't be a fair or even nice person to pull off ballyhoo... but it will make you very successful, and inevitably it will make others in your company successful too, even though they may have to let their own egos take a hit to do so.

 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/14/2024 at 5:20 PM, Bookery said:

Most people have no concept of an old term called "ballyhoo", which encompasses a style of marketing marked by exaggeration and flamboyance to promote one's self or company.  But it only works if the underlying product is solid and sustainably popular.  One of its progenitors was Buffalo Bill Cody.   Did he really do all of the heroic antics that he re-created in his Wild West Show?  Of course not.  But did he put together a hugely popular show, and build a stable of talent such as Annie Oakley, and promote the hell out of it all around the globe?  Yes.

P.T. Barnum built an empire out of "lies" and exaggerations.  Was Jumbo the largest elephant ever?  No.  But he was big.  Was Jenny Lind the greatest opera singer of all time?  Probably not.  But she was very good.  And did people mind when a mermaid turned out to be just some stitched-together animal carcasses?  No.  Because even though many of the boasts weren't true, when asked about was it nevertheless the "Greatest Show on Earth", most patrons responded "yes."

And when promoting at this level, it helps to build the brand around a single personality, rather than a faceless corporation.  Rockefeller didn't build his empire alone.  Edison didn't create most of his company's inventions... but he put together the teams that did.  Howard Hughes didn't invent the tricone drill bit... but he hired the engineers that did, and eventually scored nearly 100% of his market.  Hitchcock's talent is undisputed... but it doesn't operate in a vacuum... his films wouldn't be the same without others like cinematographer Robert Burks and composer Bernard Herrmann.  But in interviews, the audience doesn't want to hear about a roster of those that contributed... they want a single face for the product.

Stan Lee understood ballyhoo very well.  Whether he took it to extremes others can debate.  Not my point.  He wasn't much of a writer, and wasn't an artist at all.  But he knew hype, and he put together a stable of talent to provide the solid underlying product necessary to successful self promotion.  And if he stole a lot of credit, he also allowed creators to put their names to the stories and art... something almost unheard of with other publishers.  (Would anybody know Kirby's name today if he stayed at DC in the '50s and '60s?).  And having a single personal name to build the hype around can be essential, even if it means others unfortunately get slighted.  Mike Lindell isn't designing all of those products, and Elon Musk isn't in the labs calculating structural tolerances.  But they are in charge of who they hire to do it, and how they promote it.  I don't deal in sports cards, and yet I know what the name "Beckett" is.  (I wonder if, despite their success, a company like CGC or its competitors wouldn't have been better off starting with a solid recognizable moniker rather than something that looks like a stock symbol?  It's of note that their current owner is Blackstone... a bold simple name that is a translated amalgam of the original two partners' names).

In hindsight I'd wish I had been more comfortable with self-promotion.  "Bookery" sounds fairly generic.  Had I slapped my name in 10-foot letters across the top of my building, or in huge print on the price guides, I expect I'd have fared better over time.  I'd have certainly had more clout in my local community.  Another businessman in town has his name all over a bunch of small shops (many which are only open a few weeks per year).  But he is the darling of the city council and chamber, and can pretty much get whatever he wants done in town, even though I suspect my businesses do more per year than his.  In the end, ego and hype make the brand.  You probably can't be a fair or even nice person to pull off ballyhoo... but it will make you very successful, and inevitably it will make others in your company successful too, even though they may have to let their own egos take a hit to do so.

 

Great post!

[Hschwartz]

Great great post Bookery. While I disagree with your estimation of Stan Lee's writing talent everything else was spot on. Personally I feel he was one of the greats in comics history. It's rare to see such sustained logic in an internet post. Bravo!!!

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/14/2024 at 6:17 PM, Hschwartz said:

Great great post Bookery. While I disagree with your estimation of Stan Lee's writing talent everything else was spot on. Personally I feel he was one of the greats in comics history. It's rare to see such sustained logic in an internet post. Bravo!!!

I like the stuff Stan wrote for the PCH age era myself. Some of the ATLAS stories were very decent.

[Bookery]

On 9/14/2024 at 1:17 PM, Hschwartz said:

Great great post Bookery. While I disagree with your estimation of Stan Lee's writing talent everything else was spot on. Personally I feel he was one of the greats in comics history. It's rare to see such sustained logic in an internet post. Bravo!!!

Valid point.  Re-reading that part didn't come across as intended.  I wasn't trying to be qualitative in my remarks.  I think I was trying to say he wasn't as much a writer (quantity-wise) as indicated by the hype.  Especially in the 60s, he couldn't have time to do all of that.  He eventually tossed out ideas and others fleshed them out.  Very important, but I was trying to emphasize that Stan Lee, and all other famous purveyors of ballyhoo, operate very much the same.  We can like it or not like it... but it's a time-proven method to promote self and corporation.  It's the public, in the end, that demands a symbolic figurehead to encompass all of the work that in deed many others performed.  Nobody wants to watch a CEO give a sit-down interview in which he rattles off the names of 20 others that contributed to the final product, even if that's the case.  It's like the Oscars where they thank a bunch of people we don't know.  It's supposed to make them look humble... but it comes across as insincere and tiresome.  

Example:  Lee Iacocca.  Now name another Big-Auto CEO off the top of your head.

[vheflin]

On 9/14/2024 at 1:51 PM, Bookery said:

Valid point.  Re-reading that part didn't come across as intended.  I wasn't trying to be qualitative in my remarks.  I think I was trying to say he wasn't as much a writer (quantity-wise) as indicated by the hype.  Especially in the 60s, he couldn't have time to do all of that.  He eventually tossed out ideas and others fleshed them out.  Very important, but I was trying to emphasize that Stan Lee, and all other famous purveyors of ballyhoo, operate very much the same.  We can like it or not like it... but it's a time-proven method to promote self and corporation.  It's the public, in the end, that demands a symbolic figurehead to encompass all of the work that in deed many others performed.  Nobody wants to watch a CEO give a sit-down interview in which he rattles off the names of 20 others that contributed to the final product, even if that's the case.  It's like the Oscars where they thank a bunch of people we don't know.  It's supposed to make them look humble... but it comes across as insincere and tiresome.  

Example:  Lee Iacocca.  Now name another Big-Auto CEO off the top of your head.

uh ummm Henry Ford?

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/14/2024 at 6:51 PM, Bookery said:

Valid point.  Re-reading that part didn't come across as intended.  I wasn't trying to be qualitative in my remarks.  I think I was trying to say he wasn't as much a writer (quantity-wise) as indicated by the hype.  Especially in the 60s, he couldn't have time to do all of that.  He eventually tossed out ideas and others fleshed them out.  Very important, but I was trying to emphasize that Stan Lee, and all other famous purveyors of ballyhoo, operate very much the same.  We can like it or not like it... but it's a time-proven method to promote self and corporation.  It's the public, in the end, that demands a symbolic figurehead to encompass all of the work that in deed many others performed.  Nobody wants to watch a CEO give a sit-down interview in which he rattles off the names of 20 others that contributed to the final product, even if that's the case.  It's like the Oscars where they thank a bunch of people we don't know.  It's supposed to make them look humble... but it comes across as insincere and tiresome.  

Example:  Lee Iacocca.  Now name another Big-Auto CEO off the top of your head.

Personally, I agree with you.

I would add this:

Despite Lee obviously at times hogging the limelight and taking credit perhaps where it was not merited, all Organizations striving to succeed need someone with some charisma and as you say 'ballyhoo'

Would Comic books and the industry today stand where it is were it not for the likes of Lee?

I think honestly it would not. I say that objectively because I have no real feelings about Stan one way or the other in terms of who he was.

[Ken Aldred]

On 9/14/2024 at 4:35 PM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

I liked Rolf Harris as a kid....that did not turn out well.   

That goes without saying.