• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

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

Started by Prince Namor,

2,600 posts in this topic

namisgr

namisgr

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/29/2024 at 6:50 PM, mrc said:

....................hm

"Even worse: this book doesn't just do Stan dirty by overly emphasizing his problems - it does him dirty by short-selling his strengths. I agree that he might not have been the creative powerhouse that he claimed to be... But he clearly was very talented in a lot of ways, almost none of which get discussed in this book."

"It is baffling why someone would spend so much time and effort writing a biography about a man he accuses of being a liar at the outset. Any pretense of objectivity was discarded very early on in this book."

"The term hit-job seems hyperbolic, but this entire biography seems determined to drip every speck and scrap of Stan Lee's life with malicious intent."

The reviews for the book could be applied to the book-sided thrust of the thread as well.

One often doesn't need to read much of a book to get a sense from explanatory cover blurbs and thoughtful, well-articulated reviews of others to decide to not read the book.  Happens all the time - there are thousands to millions more books to read than there is the time and inclination to read.

Edited by namisgr
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Mmehdy

Mmehdy

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
On 9/30/2024 at 12:42 PM, namisgr said:

The reviews for the book could be applied to the book-sided thrust of the thread as well.

One often doesn't need to read much of a book to get a sense from explanatory cover blurbs and thoughtful, well-articulated reviews of others to decide to not read the book.  Happens all the time - there are thousands to millions more books to read than there is the time and inclination to read.

It would be helpful...if you read the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mmehdy

Mmehdy

Posted
Posted
On 9/30/2024 at 12:16 PM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

You posted a review on BLEEDING COOL immediately the book appeared there, ergo you could not have read it. What you actually commented on is how you feel about the subject.

If of course you received a copy from the author in advance of sale and therefore read it some weeks ago, and then wrote the review, then of course I would retract my statement.

Did that happen?

I read the book, piece by piece real time...go back to the thread....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul © ® ⚽️💙™

Paul © ® ⚽️💙™

Posted
Posted
On 9/30/2024 at 10:16 PM, Mmehdy said:

I read the book, piece by piece real time...go back to the thread....

Ok Mitch, whatever man.

I have to say that I've said all I have to say and indeed need to say in this thread. Anything else would be overkill.

It's going round and round too much now for my taste.

All opinions are valid, some may be more valid than others....and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Happy debating.

Excelsior. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
namisgr

namisgr

Posted
Posted
On 9/30/2024 at 5:15 PM, Mmehdy said:

It would be helpful...if you read the book.

For who?  The author will be just fine without my having read it, trust me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sfcityduck

sfcityduck

Posted
Posted
On 9/30/2024 at 11:07 AM, Prince Namor said:

I don't idolize Kirby. I appreciate what he's done, and I greatly enjoy his work. But by no means do I idolize him. 

 

Kirby was the King. Plain and simple. 

 

Nope, no idolization shown by you ever.

Kirby was "the King" (Stan's words) of a decade - the 1960s - I'd agree. But before and after that? I think only a Kirby fanatic would ignore all of the many other great talents doing work in the comic industry to claim Kirby was the King of the 30s, 40s, 50s, 70s, or 80s.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marvelcollector

marvelcollector

Posted
Posted

True,

On 9/30/2024 at 7:21 PM, sfcityduck said:

Kirby was "the King" (Stan's words) of a decade - the 1960s - I'd agree. But before and after that? I think only a Kirby fanatic would ignore all of the many other great talents doing work in the comic industry to claim Kirby was the King of the 30s, 40s, 50s, 70s, or 80s.

 

Kirby was the King of the 60s...the decade the majority of the Marvel Universe was created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
On 10/1/2024 at 2:09 AM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

You keep banging on about the truth.....how you seek it, and that's what you are presenting.

You do not have a monopoly on the truth.

I stand by what I said above because it is the TRUTH.

Anyone reading the thread from a neutral perspective would easily reach that conclusion.

(shrug)

The truth is that the people who haven't even read it are the critical ones. (shrug)

Sort like:

THEY keep banging on about the truth.....how THEY seek it, and that's what THEY are presenting.

THEY do not have a monopoly on the truth.

THEY stand by what THEY said above because it is the TRUTH (to them).

Anyone reading the thread from a neutral perspective would easily reach that conclusion.

 

 

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

 

 

Edited by Prince Namor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul © ® ⚽️💙™

Paul © ® ⚽️💙™

Posted
Posted
On 10/1/2024 at 12:59 AM, Prince Namor said:

The truth is that the people who haven't even read it are the critical ones. (shrug)

Sort like:

THEY keep banging on about the truth.....how THEY seek it, and that's what THEY are presenting.

THEY do not have a monopoly on the truth.

THEY stand by what THEY said above because it is the TRUTH (to them).

Anyone reading the thread from a neutral perspective would easily reach that conclusion.

 

 

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

 

 

Hypocrisy? That's rich. You are denigrating Lee for being economical with the truth, but you are no different.

I was out but I have to address this.

You quoted me but conveniently edited this out.....

 

On 9/30/2024 at 8:06 PM, Paul © ® ⚽️💙™ said:

You keep banging on about the truth.....how you seek it, and that's what you are presenting.

You do not have a monopoly on the truth.

Mitch wrote a review on your book BEFORE he read it.  TRUTH

This is what I was referring to as you well know. The fact that a review was posted on BC before the book was read.

I'm not saying your book is a pack of lies, of course it's not. My complaint has been your attitude to allcomers who question you, and that has always been it.

So the truth I was referring to apart from Mitch's 'review' was that very attitude displayed by you in practically every page of this thread.

Divisive manipulation to suit your narrative.

At the very best disingenuous, but you know that of course.

Change the narrative to suit your narrative.

You can have that quote on me, no royalties required.  (thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
On 9/30/2024 at 7:21 PM, sfcityduck said:
On 9/30/2024 at 2:07 PM, Prince Namor said:

I don't idolize Kirby. I appreciate what he's done, and I greatly enjoy his work. But by no means do I idolize him. 

 

Kirby was the King. Plain and simple. 

 

Nope, no idolization shown by you ever.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed it. lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
Posted
On 9/30/2024 at 7:59 PM, Prince Namor said:

The truth is that the people who haven't even read it are the critical ones. (shrug)

This boardie has read it and has more or less come to the same conclusion the rest of many of us have come to without reading the book. 

I pretty much agree with his entire post.

On 9/30/2024 at 1:07 AM, bronze_rules said:

The main argument from Prince Namor seems to be that 1) Stan took writing credits for others and 2) took the writing pay that those others essentially performed.

I would argue that any sr. manager's function is to maximize returns for the company first (notice I'm not saying that is somehow fair at all). And I would suspect that even if Goodman was aware of this, he really wouldn't care as it was making him money and achieving profits as was his foremost goal. Now Kirby, Ditko, and anyone else could have argued that it wasn't fair, and they weren't being compensated commensurately in pay or credit, and then Lee/Goodman could have responded by saying, that's how we run things - there's the door. Then they could hire the next sucker who came in looking for work. This is how it is in almost all creative endeavors. Does that mean that Kirby did not contribute monumentally to Marvel's success? No. It just means he was the worker bee and was willing to put up with subpar compensation rather than walk (we know this because Ditko also tried to get him to walk and he was afraid). Like too many other underpaid contributors, he simply put up with it while mumbling behind the boss's back (Gil Kane pointed this out about lunch trips with Jack). Now there were those who did stand up to these perceived unfair schemes like Neal Adams, Wally Wood, etc... But I tend to see all of this as more of a poor business arrangement (like sfcityduck posts) than a deserved in 'fairness' thing. How many contributors in this world made monumental contributions to money makers (movies, music, engineering feats, etc) and got shafted? plenty. I'd be the first to say, it sucks immensely, but he's just another cog in the wheel of capitalism.

Truly, looking back at all of this, I'm surprised creators like Seigel, Shuster, Kirby and any of them got large settlements years later. How many other creators of scientific achievements under hire by corporations get money later? I just see it as poor legal representation and agreements by these comic companies back then, which worked out well for the creators later. Even the fact, artists get to keep original art surprises me - again, how many inventors get to keep their patents, work, or ownership (hint, none that I know of) that were assigned to the company, years later?

So, to Namor, I simply see the pay issue as sour grapes (and rightly so of course) over gargantuan fortunes made on the backs of stars who could've simply walked like anyone else in creative business and went to another company (Kirby did go to DC, and like I pointed out, he was given a lot of leeway, but most of his work there wasn't the right time, right combo, etc.. and failed, unlike Marvel/Stan and I certainly wouldn't compare it equivalently to his success at Marvel with Stan).

After finishing the text from Namor, quite honestly, I feel that there's more to be gained by reading many of twomorrow's publishing works (like "Kirby&Lee Stuf Said") where interviewers went out and acquired new information to publish, rather than Namor's text, which was merely a single sided argument boosted and supported by aggregate second hand research and quotes gathered from such sources (that's how I interpreted it). I did like reading it, but I also read a ton of these types of books and wouldn't really put it first as it doesn't add that much new information from the other sources (at least from how I perceived it), and also because it is very tilted to one side.

 

On 9/30/2024 at 7:59 PM, Prince Namor said:

THEY do not have a monopoly on the truth.

THEY stand by what THEY said above because it is the TRUTH (to them).

Anyone reading the thread from a neutral perspective would easily reach that conclusion.

You keep replying on this thread that you've "written" or "exposed" the truth, as though you have a monopoly on it. It seeps through every post you make.

There's nothing remotely neutral in anything you've written. If you can't see that by now after everyone pointing it out for 60 pages any more conversation is pointless.

Read bronze_rules' post above. That's how neutral looks.

Have fun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jdandns

jdandns

Posted
Posted
On 9/30/2024 at 12:06 PM, Albert Tatlock said:

Truth will out, but it may take time.

Some 60 years ago, Buffy Sainte-Marie claimed to have been born on a reservation in Saskatchewan, was orphaned and raised by relatives in the US.

The story served her well, as it singled her out from a host of other wannabees in the burgeoning folk/rock music scene.

Her widely recognised talent (no-one has ever doubted that she and usually she alone wrote her own songs) won her a place in the industry, and she was showered with awards and their associated financial prizes.

However, a recent journalistic probe outed her as not only not only not a First Nations woman, but as not even Canadian, having been born into an Italian-American family in a suburb of Boston.

Now, at the age of 83, she is retired. living in Hawaii, and facing demands to disown her awards, so that those who would rightfully have been entitled to them can be belatedly credited, in a similar fashion to how false Olympic champions (Ben Johnson and Flo-Jo, among others, come to mind) are justly dethroned.

It is a little off-thread, so I will not post a link, but a quick Google of Pretendian Buffy will lead to several cans of worms.

Stan Lee unmasked as having cut himself a larger slice of the cake than he was entitled to is no surprise, although his remaining acolytes can at least claim that he did strain every sinew to increase the overall size of the cake.

You can fool all of the people some of the time.................

Ben Johnson, sure, but Flo-Jo was never caught using anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
11 11
Go to topic listing