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

[Prince Namor]

On 9/30/2024 at 1:38 AM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

I will never have the energy or the desire to engage Chaz again, because I know what it will entail.  People in the comics industry, including most if not all the artists and co-workers he quotes, have made conflicting statements about Stan's work, just as Stan did himself.  So, it's not a problem for a person that obsessed to come up with quote after quote that looks bad.  It's possible to do that same, arguing the opposite. But that would require being as obsessively devoted to the issue as Chaz very apparently is, and dedicating as much of your life defending Lee as he spends trying to condemn him. 

All I hear is:

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

There is nothing remotely resembling objectivity in the core posts of this thread.  Everything starts from the premise that Stan Lee was a talentless lying devil and that Ditko and Kirby were saints with limitless talent who always told the truth (even when their truths contradicted each other).

Even if Kirby contradicted himself he was still telling the truth if the premise of the statement was the Lee did nothing and lied. 

If Kirby and Ditko contradicted each other (like they did about creating Spider-man) the contradictions must be ignored while retaining any statements (made by either one) that Lee did nothing.

Also, any credit that Ditko gave to Lee must be ignored in favor of the times Kirby said Stan Lee did nothing.

Same with any of the times Kirby gave credit or praise to Lee. 

Only the most damning statements, made in the most angry states of mind, tell the real truth.  

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 9/29/2024 at 11:51 AM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

Everything starts from the premise that Stan Lee was a talentless lying devil and that Ditko and Kirby were saints with limitless talent who always told the truth (even when their truths contradicted each other).

[Prince Namor]

On 9/30/2024 at 1:51 AM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

There is nothing remotely resembling objectivity in the core posts of this thread.

The truth is not objective.

On 9/30/2024 at 1:51 AM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

  Everything starts from the premise that Stan Lee was a talentless lying devil

No one said that.

On 9/30/2024 at 1:51 AM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

and that Ditko and Kirby were saints with limitless talent who always told the truth (even when their truths contradicted each other).

No one said that.

On 9/30/2024 at 1:51 AM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

Even if Kirby contradicted himself he was still telling the truth if the premise of the statement was the Lee did nothing and lied. 

Yeah, that statement about Spider-man that Lee fans have used over and over and over, that ignored what he said in the same interview moments later giving Ditko CREDIT is your ONE instance your hanging onto here.

You got NOTHING, dude.

On 9/30/2024 at 1:51 AM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

If Kirby and Ditko contradicted each other (like they did about creating Spider-man) the contradictions must be ignored while retaining any statements (made by either one) that Lee did nothing.

They aren't ignored. They're shown. It just doesn't work in Lee's favor.

On 9/30/2024 at 1:51 AM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

Also, any credit that Ditko gave to Lee must be ignored in favor of the times Kirby said Stan Lee did nothing.

Same with any of the times Kirby gave credit or praise to Lee. 

Only the most damning statements, made in the most angry states of mind, tell the real truth.  

All I hear is:

[Prince Namor]

On 9/30/2024 at 1:55 AM, RockMyAmadeus said:

That's all they have. 

[Jimmy Linguini]

On 9/28/2024 at 12:41 PM, PopKulture said:

 

These examples remind me of what’s unfolding currently regarding a prominent rap mogul: apparently these “open secrets” within a given industry aren’t as uncommon as we might think. 

The one that owns CGC? Yeah I agree. And Foxy Brown signed a NDA that has an expiry date? Very odd. Will that be the end of CGC?

[VintageComics]

On 9/17/2024 at 8:53 AM, Prince Namor said:

The 'bullpen' that Roy refers to is a perfect example. There was NO BULLPEN. Kirby, Ditko, Heck, Ayers.... they were all freelancers - they worked from home. Romita didn't move into an office (or had an office to move into) until around 1966. Marie Severin came on board, early 1965. Herb Trimpe didn't start until, either very late 1966/early 1967. There's your Bullpen of the 60's.

It's answers like this, which are very, VERY carefully staged, that give the perception that the answer is exhaustive and authoritative and then I find the other side of the story that makes me doubt anything you write. I'm coming back to this point because I managed to do some reading about the topic of the bullpen yesterday.

 

You make it sound above like there was no bullpen at all, and yet you qualify it at the end with the qualifier that there was "no bullpen of the 60's" making people believe there was no bullpen at all.

In fact, there was a physical bullpen.

This is the bullpen Floorplan Marvel Comics Editorial Offices — 6th Floor 575 Madison Ave, NYC from 1979

 

Now, I don't pretend to be very knowledgeable on these things, because I'm not, but there was obviously a bullpen and how far back it's physical existence goes though, is actually irrelevant to the point we were trying to make.

Whether there was anyone at their Empire State building offices, or at 635 Madison Ave before their move to 575 Madison Ave really wasn't the point of the discussion.

The point of the discussion that you were supposed to rebut was that the creation of a "Bullpen" concept by Stan Lee was something that was intrinsic to the success of Marvel, and the value it brought to the brand as a point of camaraderie among readers, and common ground among Marvel fans, and you countered that point by making people believe there was no bullpen at all.

 

The Bullpen Bulletins evolved out of the Letters page in 1964-65.

What became "Bullpen Bulletins" started out as part of the letters section of Marvel's flagship title Fantastic Four.[6] This two-page section often concluded with a "Special Announcements Section" where Lee responded to general letters and promoted other Marvel titles. "The Mighty Marvel Checklist" appeared for the first time — embedded in the Special Announcements Section — in Fantastic Four #33 (Dec. 1964).[6]  A separate "The Merry Marvel Bullpen Page" appeared in comics cover-dated July and August 1965, but the checklist and special announcements were still on the letters pages. Finally, the first stand-alone "Marvel Bullpen Bulletins" page, complete with checklist and special announcements, debuted in the issue's cover-dated December 1965.[6]

 

A proper, balanced answer would have stated that there wasn't much of a bullpen in the 60's, would have explained when a physical bullpen actually came into existence, and it's this sort of exclusionary language and posting style that shines through in every answer. Every answer, without exception, is couched, or tilted in your favor as though there's a fear that giving an inch will result in giving someone too much credit that they don't deserve, and in couching every answer this way, it takes away from the credibility that would normally be given at face value in a discussion. Instead, it serves as a deflection from the actual point - the creation of the Bullpen mythos, which was a unifying theme within the company until 1981 and quashes the discussion. 

 

So, now that we know there was an actual bullpen, even though it's now totally irrelevant to the actual discussion but for the sake of filling out the picture, was there a physical bullpen in the Empire State Building, at 635 Madison Ave or was the 1st one actually at 575 Madison Ave?

Edited September 29 by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

On 9/29/2024 at 2:51 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

There is nothing remotely resembling objectivity in the core posts of this thread.  Everything starts from the premise that Stan Lee was a talentless lying devil and that Ditko and Kirby were saints with limitless talent who always told the truth (even when their truths contradicted each other).

Even if Kirby contradicted himself he was still telling the truth if the premise of the statement was the Lee did nothing and lied. 

If Kirby and Ditko contradicted each other (like they did about creating Spider-man) the contradictions must be ignored while retaining any statements (made by either one) that Lee did nothing.

Also, any credit that Ditko gave to Lee must be ignored in favor of the times Kirby said Stan Lee did nothing.

Same with any of the times Kirby gave credit or praise to Lee. 

Only the most damning statements, made in the most angry states of mind, tell the real truth.  

Agree. I hadn't refreshed this page since yesterday, so I had no idea there was a parallel discussion going on about objectivity of the information being used as "proof" until I hit send on my last post, but the central theme that anyone disagreeing with Chuck has is the lack of objectivity, and so having a proper discussion is near impossible. 

A subjective alignment of "facts" is not the truth. 

For those who don't see the whole picture, the truth comes through a journey, at the end of an objective discussion.

Edited September 29 by VintageComics

[Mmehdy]

On 9/29/2024 at 3:47 AM, Larryw7 said:

I finished the book this morning. I don’t know how Chaz had access to so many documents and eyewitnesses, but he clearly did his homework. The truth hurts, but the truth is that Stan was a fraud, a con artist, a cheat and would actually pan his own artists in print when they dared to ask for story credits (and pay), which were their due. With Stan, it was always someone else’s fault when things went wrong, but all of the good stuff was due to him alone. If this information was available on almost any other person, there wouldn’t even be an argument over this issue. I liked Stan when I was a kid and still find certain things about him fun. He was a great promoter, a fun speaker and a great voice for Marvel Comics. But a writer? No way. 

What I think is gonna have to eventually happen is that the evidence is so strong, people who love Stan in the same way they love a friend or relative, are gonna have to say “I know it’s all true, but I still like the guy”. Because pretending that the Marvel Age of Comics was due to the “creative talents” of Stan Lee is now a settled issue. This book, along with several others such as “True Believer” prove that Stan was coasting on other people’s work and pay while pretending to be a hot shot writer and genius. 

SPOT ON....yea be he was a nice guy.....to the public...great post

[Prince Namor]

On 9/30/2024 at 2:21 AM, VintageComics said:

It's answers like this, which are very, VERY carefully staged, that give the perception that the answer is exhaustive and authoritative and then I find the other side of the story that makes me doubt anything you write. I'm going back to this point because I managed to do some reading about the topic of the bullpen.

 

You make it sound above like there was no bullpen at all, and yet you qualify it at the end with the qualifier that there was "no bullpen of the 60's" making people believe there was no bullpen at all.

In fact, there was a physical bullpen. This is the bullpen from 1979 at their 575 Madison Ave location, which they moved to in 1972 along with a photo guide.

Floorplan Marvel Comics Editorial Offices — 6th Floor 575 Madison Ave, NYC 1979

 

Now, I don't pretend to be very knowledgeable on these things, because I'm not, but there was obviously a bullpen...how far back it's physical existence goes though, is actually irrelevant to the point we were trying to make.

Whether there was anyone at their Empire State building offices, or at 635 Madison Ave before their move to 575 Madison Ave really wasn't the point of the discussion.

The point of the discussion, and the point you were supposed to rebut was, that the creation of a "Bullpen" concept by Stan Lee was something that was intrinsic in the success of Marvel, and the value it brought to the brand as a point of camaraderie among readers, and common ground among Marvel fans, and you countered that point by making people believe there was no bullpen at all.

 

The Bullpen Bulletins evolved out of the Letters page in 1964-65.

What became "Bullpen Bulletins" started out as part of the letters section of Marvel's flagship title Fantastic Four.[6] This two-page section often concluded with a "Special Announcements Section" where Lee responded to general letters and promoted other Marvel titles. "The Mighty Marvel Checklist" appeared for the first time — embedded in the Special Announcements Section — in Fantastic Four #33 (Dec. 1964).[6]  A separate "The Merry Marvel Bullpen Page" appeared in comics cover-dated July and August 1965, but the checklist and special announcements were still on the letters pages. Finally, the first stand-alone "Marvel Bullpen Bulletins" page, complete with checklist and special announcements, debuted in the issue's cover-dated December 1965.[6]

 

A proper, balanced answer would have stated that there wasn't much of a bullpen in the 60's, would have explained when a physical bullpen actually came into existence, and it's this sort of exclusionary language and posting style that shines through in every answer. Every answer, without exception, is couched, or tilted in your favor as though there's a fear that giving an inch will result in giving someone too much credit that they don't deserve, and in couching every answer this way, it takes away from the credibility that would normally be given at face value in a discussion. Instead, it serves as a deflection from the actual point - the creation of the Bullpen mythos, which was a unifying theme within the company until 1981 and quashes the discussion. 

 

So, that we know there was an actual bullpen, even though it's now totally irrelevant to the actual discussion but for the sake of filling out the picture, was there a physical bullpen in the Empire State Building, at 635 Madison Ave or was the 1st one actually at 575 Madison Ave?

There was NO BULLPEN. Kirby, Ditko, Heck, Ayers.... they were all freelancers - they worked from home. Romita didn't move into an office (or had an office to move into) until around 1966. Marie Severin came on board, early 1965. Herb Trimpe didn't start until, either very late 1966/early 1967. There's your Bullpen of the 60's.\

First I clearly state the artists we're talking about: Kirby, Ditko, Heck, Ayers - That's early 60's EXCLUSIVELY.

Then I show how it came to be - Romita moved into an office around 1966, followed by Trimpe and Severin in late 1966/early 1967. THERE IS YOUR BULLPEN.

THAT was the first Bullpen. 

Lee talking about it - and I'm sorry you missed the specfics - but in the early 60's, there was no Bullpen. They were all freelancers. That was the point. I never said, or claimed or never WOULD have claimed there never was a Bullpen in the history of Marvel Comics. There was a Bullpen in the 40's. There was a Bullpen around 1967. Bt when Lee first started CLAIMING there was - there wasn't.

[Prince Namor]

On 9/30/2024 at 2:35 AM, VintageComics said:

Agree. I hadn't refreshed this page since yesterday, so I had no idea there was a parallel discussion going on about objectivity of the information being used as "proof" until I hit send on my last post, but the central theme that anyone disagreeing with Chuck has is the lack of objectivity, and so having a proper discussion is near impossible. 

Give me an example of my lack of objectivity - a SINGLE example - and we'll address it. 

[Mmehdy]

On 9/29/2024 at 11:26 AM, sfcityduck said:

I can see why folks might want to disagree whether Chaz did not did not do what's described in this quote. But I can't see why anyone would laugh at or be confused by the sentiment. It's correct. Which is why Chaz's posts on this thread, and Bleeding Cool's affirmation his book is a "one-sided prosecution" have deterred me from wanting to read it. I'll wait for the upcoming book he mentioned because it sounds like it might have more academic grounding given that the author elected to go visit Stan Lee's archives (which Chaz apparently did not do). 

Read the book, its free on Kindle...do not bury your head in the sand...come on! You lose credibility here.....

[Mmehdy]

On 9/29/2024 at 11:33 AM, Prince Namor said:

Another clueless review of my book by someone who hasn't read it.

I quote Lee's view EXTENSIVELY throughout my book. DIRECTLY quoting him from the ORIGINS of MARVEL COMICS as well as MANY other sources.

As a BIG LIAR, Lee was quite good at outing himself, so I GLEEFULLY printed what he said.

You gotta read the book...hello out there!

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/29/2024 at 7:13 PM, sfcityduck said:

Here's where I think that ignoring the middle ground is a major mistake and conflating diverse concepts leads to polarization. NO ONE on this thread thinks Stan deserve all credit. But a lot of contentions are being made here that Stan deserves no credit. And the arguments being made are neither consistent nor entirely cogent. Chaz tends to just pick facts and construct a smear. That's an emotional appeal.

 

This.

On 9/29/2024 at 7:14 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

There is a difference between researching and "doing your homework" to reach an unbiased conclusion, and doing one's homework to support a conclusion you made, and want others to make, before you researched a single fact or quote, then excluding or deligitamizing any facts or statements that conflict with your preset conclusion 

 

 

and this

On 9/29/2024 at 7:17 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

 

And not the guy who seems to spend every waking moment digging for dirt against Lee while not just ignoring but refusing to acknowledge the existence of any evidence to the contrary?

also this

On 9/29/2024 at 7:26 PM, sfcityduck said:

Which is why Chaz's posts on this thread, and Bleeding Cool's affirmation his book is a "one-sided prosecution" have deterred me from wanting to read it. 

and furthermore this

On 9/29/2024 at 7:33 PM, Prince Namor said:

As a BIG LIAR, Lee was quite good at outing himself, so I GLEEFULLY printed what he said.

and this.....GLEEFULLY???     

On 9/29/2024 at 7:37 PM, Prince Namor said:

All of you experts who haven't read the freakin' book sure think you know something. 

and this sarcastic scorn of any opposing viewpoint.....quite unusual from someone promoting their work for monetary gain 

 

On 9/29/2024 at 7:51 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

There is nothing remotely resembling objectivity in the core posts of this thread.  Everything starts from the premise that Stan Lee was a talentless lying devil and that Ditko and Kirby were saints with limitless talent who always told the truth (even when their truths contradicted each other).

Even if Kirby contradicted himself he was still telling the truth if the premise of the statement was the Lee did nothing and lied. 

If Kirby and Ditko contradicted each other (like they did about creating Spider-man) the contradictions must be ignored while retaining any statements (made by either one) that Lee did nothing.

Also, any credit that Ditko gave to Lee must be ignored in favor of the times Kirby said Stan Lee did nothing.

Same with any of the times Kirby gave credit or praise to Lee. 

Only the most damning statements, made in the most angry states of mind, tell the real truth.  

THIS

On 9/29/2024 at 8:21 PM, VintageComics said:

It's answers like this, which are very, VERY carefully staged, that give the perception that the answer is exhaustive and authoritative and then I find the other side of the story that makes me doubt anything you write.

 

and this

On 9/29/2024 at 8:35 PM, VintageComics said:

Agree. I hadn't refreshed this page since yesterday, so I had no idea there was a parallel discussion going on about objectivity of the information being used as "proof" until I hit send on my last post, but the central theme that anyone disagreeing with Chuck has is the lack of objectivity, and so having a proper discussion is near impossible. 

Yep.

[Mmehdy]

On 9/29/2024 at 11:51 AM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

There is nothing remotely resembling objectivity in the core posts of this thread.  Everything starts from the premise that Stan Lee was a talentless lying devil and that Ditko and Kirby were saints with limitless talent who always told the truth (even when their truths contradicted each other).

Even if Kirby contradicted himself he was still telling the truth if the premise of the statement was the Lee did nothing and lied. 

If Kirby and Ditko contradicted each other (like they did about creating Spider-man) the contradictions must be ignored while retaining any statements (made by either one) that Lee did nothing.

Also, any credit that Ditko gave to Lee must be ignored in favor of the times Kirby said Stan Lee did nothing.

Same with any of the times Kirby gave credit or praise to Lee. 

Only the most damning statements, made in the most angry states of mind, tell the real truth.  

The real truth is...Stan started created a balloon of exaggeration and it kept getting bigger and bigger and he went for it in the origin of marvel comics...probably to increase his value to the company...after getting paid for editing and writing and the artist getting shortchanged in the pocket book and credit...that is a fact even you have to admit...reading the book or not...if you do read the book , then you would understand the outrage of Stan Lee...the brand.....You want the real truth, read the book with open eyes...I did and it changed my opinion...as it will yours!!

Edited September 29 by Mmehdy

[VintageComics]

On 9/29/2024 at 3:37 PM, Prince Namor said:

There was NO BULLPEN. Kirby, Ditko, Heck, Ayers.... they were all freelancers - they worked from home. Romita didn't move into an office (or had an office to move into) until around 1966. Marie Severin came on board, early 1965. Herb Trimpe didn't start until, either very late 1966/early 1967. There's your Bullpen of the 60's.\

First I clearly state the artists we're talking about: Kirby, Ditko, Heck, Ayers - That's early 60's EXCLUSIVELY.

Then I show how it came to be - Romita moved into an office around 1966, followed by Trimpe and Severin in late 1966/early 1967. THERE IS YOUR BULLPEN.

THAT was the first Bullpen. 

Lee talking about it - and I'm sorry you missed the specfics - but in the early 60's, there was no Bullpen. They were all freelancers. That was the point. I never said, or claimed or never WOULD have claimed there never was a Bullpen in the history of Marvel Comics. There was a Bullpen in the 40's. There was a Bullpen around 1967. Bt when Lee first started CLAIMING there was - there wasn't.

What was germane to the discussion at that point, was that Stan Lee was responsible for "corralling the Bullpen" and creating a culture that was only present to readers at Marvel.

The point wasn't the actual physical bullpen. Even if the Bullpen was "remote" in the 1st 5 or 6 years, the creation of a virtual "Bullpen" as a concept was intrinsic to the Marvel brand.

The point was that the culture that people came to identify with Marvel through the 'bullpen' was a creation of Stan Lee. 

Putting the emphasis on whether there was an actual physical bullpen or not sidestepped the germane part of the discussion, and it happens whenever something may give credit to Stan Lee or (someone else) as though it reduces Kirby's contributions. 

In fact, every time someone offers something that may offer credit towards Stan Lee or someone else, it's qualified with "Oh, he was just kissing Stan Lee's butt" or "well, he's just saying this because of that" and yet when any quote is produced in the opposite direction, that discredits Stan (or Simon) and glorifies Kirby, well that quote is taken as Gospel at face value. 

That's the sort of thing that people are talking about when they state a lack of objectivity. 

You don't offer both sides of the discussion due diligence. You only scrutinize one side of the discussion. At least, that's how you do it when you discuss it publicly. 

On 9/29/2024 at 3:39 PM, Prince Namor said:

Give me an example of my lack of objectivity - a SINGLE example - and we'll address it. 

See above.

It's not like me, sfcityduck, Jimjum12, bluechipcollectibles, bookery or anyone else disagreeing with you are conspiring. Outside of Jimbo, I've only met the other guys once passing and none of us ever even talk to each other outside of this thread, so it's not like we even know we agree on these things we agree on.

It's just that we all are processing the conversation the same way and agree with each other on these things independently.

If you can't see it and others are discussing it, it could possibly be because you're too close to the source material emotionally and can't be objective. 

And I actually say that from experience, having been through it with the "great Covid wars" as I like to call them, when people were accusing me of the same thing. I took a very similar tone with my own arguments and points.  

Edited September 29 by VintageComics

[jimjum12]

On 9/29/2024 at 2:13 PM, sfcityduck said:

then it was inked, lettered (including sound effects),

Actually, the lettering occurred before the inking, in the days of physical pages. With the advent of more computerized work, that can vary. Often, dialogue still present in pencil form belonged to a letterer or editor. mainly for positioning and to avoid too much copy for the space. The actual lettering is then applied using an Ames lettering guide to establish uniform spacing. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

Ed King taught me how to letter. He was an assistant to Al Williamson. 

Edited September 29 by jimjum12

[Prince Namor]

On 9/30/2024 at 2:54 AM, VintageComics said:

What was germane to the discussion at that point, was that Stan Lee was responsible for "corralling the Bullpen" and creating a culture that was only present to readers at Marvel.

The point wasn't the actual physical bullpen. Even if the Bullpen was "remote" in the 1st 5 or 6 years, the creation of a virtual "Bullpen" as a concept was intrinsic to the Marvel brand.

The point was that the culture that people came to identify with Marvel through the 'bullpen' was a creation of Stan Lee. 

Putting the emphasis on whether there was an actual physical bullpen or not sidestepped the germane part of the discussion, and it happens whenever something may give credit to Stan Lee or (someone else) as though it reduces Kirby's contributions. 

In fact, every time someone offers something that may offer credit towards Stan Lee or someone else, it's qualified with "Oh, he was just kissing Stan Lee's butt" or "well, he's just saying this because of that" and yet when any quote is produced in the opposite direction, that discredits Stan (or Simon) and glorifies Kirby, well that quote is taken as Gospel at face value. 

That's the sort of thing that people are talking about when they state a lack of objectivity. 

Well here you go.

Did Stan Lee create an Imaginary Bullpen in the EARLY 1960's BEFORE Romita came on board, that made fanboys overjoyed and feel a part of something special going on?

Yeah, sure. Yes. He did. Ok?

That changes nothing about my book.

On 9/30/2024 at 2:54 AM, VintageComics said:

See above.

It's not like me, sfcityduck, Jimjum12, bluechipcollectibles, bookery or anyone else disagreeing with you are conspiring. Outside of Jimbo, I've only met the other guys once passing and none of us ever even talk to each other outside of this thread, so it's not like we even know we agree on these things we agree on.

It's just that we all are processing the conversation the same way and agree with each other on these things objectively.

If you can't see it and others are discussing it, it could possibly be because you're too close to the source material emotionally and can't being objective. 

And I actually say that from experience, having been through it through the "great Covid wars" as I like to call them, and people accusing me of the same thing. I took a very similar tone with my own arguments and points.  

Maybe. Then again you are coming to this conversation in 2024. I've been having this conversation since the days of AOL and Compuserve. 

So if I'm not as detailed as you'd like in some of my answers, keep in mind that I'm answering mostly the same rebuts as I did in the mid-90's, so I generally assume you may know more about the subject than you do. 

I have no clue if anyone is conspiring or not - don't really care. My book has the evidence I need - the truth is on my side - and there is MORE evidence to be revealed. People can spiel their butthurt all they want. The two main points I've made are irrefutable. 

1. Lee Lied ALOT about his part in the creation of the Marvel Universe.

2. Lee stole credit and pay from his artists. 

What the specific history of Bullpen was, is something I've been aware of for 20+ years, and I'm not really concerned with. If you wanted a complete breakdown on it's history, just ask - I'll tell you what I know. (example: Goodman fired the entire Bullpen in late 1949, I believe around Christmas time, and MOST everyone became freelance. That was the last of it for a long time.)

It's also just a side flare to 'give Stan credit!' from people who can't get over the 1. and 2. above and feel the need to defend a guy who made millions and millions of dollars in his life and was treated as one of the biggest celebrities in the world. His legacy will be ok. He won't be around to see the truth come out. 

 

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

On 9/29/2024 at 9:10 PM, Prince Namor said:

Well here you go.

Did Stan Lee create an Imaginary Bullpen in the EARLY 1960's BEFORE Romita came on board, that made fanboys overjoyed and feel a part of something special going on?

Yeah, sure. Yes. He did. Ok?

That changes nothing about my book.

Maybe. Then again you are coming to this conversation in 2024. I've been having this conversation since the days of AOL and Compuserve. 

So if I'm not as detailed as you'd like in some of my answers, keep in mind that I'm answering mostly the same rebuts as I did in the mid-90's, so I generally assume you may know more about the subject than you do. 

I have no clue if anyone is conspiring or not - don't really care. My book has the evidence I need - the truth is on my side - and there is MORE evidence to be revealed. People can spiel their butthurt all they want. The two main points I've made are irrefutable. 

1. Lee Lied ALOT about his part in the creation of the Marvel Universe.

2. Lee stole credit and pay from his artists. 

What the specific history of Bullpen was, is something I've been aware of for 20+ years, and I'm not really concerned with. If you wanted a complete breakdown on it's history, just ask - I'll tell you what I know. (example: Goodman fired the entire Bullpen in late 1949, I believe around Christmas time, and MOST everyone became freelance. That was the last of it for a long time.)

It's also just a side flare to 'give Stan credit!' from people who can't get over the 1. and 2. above and feel the need to defend a guy who made millions and millions of dollars in his life and was treated as one of the biggest celebrities in the world. His legacy will be ok. He won't be around to see the truth come out. 

 

If you knew all this in the mid-90s as you say, then why didn't you write this book while Stan was alive?

[VintageComics]

On 9/29/2024 at 4:10 PM, Prince Namor said:

Maybe. Then again you are coming to this conversation in 2024. I've been having this conversation since the days of AOL and Compuserve. 

So if I'm not as detailed as you'd like in some of my answers, keep in mind that I'm answering mostly the same rebuts as I did in the mid-90's, so I generally assume you may know more about the subject than you do. 

I'll take that maybe as it's the first one I remember reading in this thread (I don't mean that in any negative way).

MOST of the people in this discussion (like me) won't know as much as you do on the topic, which is why how you approach the answers affects how readers hear them. 

And giving credit where credit is due (like Lee's formation of the Bullpen) is a very valuable way to build a common ground so that it doesn't all sound like condemnation, and negative points about people's heros are better received.

I'm not saying you've come to an incorrect conclusion, I'm saying because there's so much emotion and nostalgia tied to it as this topic, it takes a lot of care to get people to want to listen and get to the same conclusion you've gotten to.