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

[Prince Namor]

I liked Kirby's dialogue because it was to the point. I couldn't read a lot of those 70's Marvel writers and their exaggerated, hyperbolic, melodramatic dialogue. It's ironic that they make fun of Kirby's dialogue, when they wrote stuff like this.

 

[Prince Namor]

Most people who talk down New Gods - something taught to every True Believer - either haven't read it, haven't tried to read it, or just don't understand dialogue.

Lee's dialogue coddles the reader, Kirby's gives it credit for basic intelligence.

 

from Stephan Chaldjian

"I remember an episode of New Gods, (#8 in 1971) after a terrible battle over the roofs of New York(or a same big city), Lightray picks up the fallen helmet of Orion and gives it back to his friend. "You have seen my face" Orion says and Lightray just responds: " I have seen scars, old and new, received for the glory of New Genesis." I quote from memory but these words exchanged by the two heroic figures were like some Shakespeare writings with all the complexity of the characters and their destiny. Unforgettable emotion with the last words of Orion : " You' re a good friend, Lightray".

Edited October 7 by Prince Namor

[VintageComics]

On 10/6/2024 at 6:38 PM, Prince Namor said:

New Gods is still in print. Kamandi is still in print. 

Even Challengers of the Unknown gets a regular collection reprinting. 

But lets take it as what you say... what does it mean?

These days, everything is in print. Even amateur books. 

It means that Kirby's work with Simon and Lee is higher regarded than his solo work. You're hearing about it in this very thread from multiple people.

On 10/6/2024 at 6:38 PM, Prince Namor said:

Uh... he DID leave. 

A decade? Come on.

He stayed far too long in places he felt he wasn't being respected and just whined about it perpetually after - in both cases. 

On 10/6/2024 at 6:38 PM, Prince Namor said:

So why did you put up iwth it as long as you did?

I left within a year. 

I didn't put up with anything. 

On 10/6/2024 at 6:38 PM, Prince Namor said:

No, not the creation.

You're doing it again.

We're not talking about 50/50 credit for the success or creation. 

We're talking about personal accountability towards someone who doesn't treat you fairly.

It's always going to be 50% of what you do in that relationship, and 50% of what you allow. I don't think you understand the concept of personal accountability. 

On 10/6/2024 at 6:38 PM, Prince Namor said:

Michael J Vassollo, who I'll take in HIS lifetime of research vs you're Wikipedia study:

I didn't use Wikipedia. I used your own words, in this thread. 

You openly stated that you have no idea which parts of Thor's attributes he's responsible for. I quoted it twice for you. 

Every argument I've used has been using your own words, and showing you how your own quotes don't reach the conclusions you're trying to make. 

On 10/6/2024 at 6:38 PM, Prince Namor said:

YOU'RE only piece of evidence is Lee saying, "I created it all".

No. I came to a conclusion based on all the evidence we have been discussing for several pages. 

But I think that's enough discussing it because the truth is evident to everyone objective. 

[VintageComics]

On 10/6/2024 at 3:21 PM, Zonker said:

Not arguing against that, just trying to find a small point of general agreement after 82 pages here.  

I think MOST people agree on almost everything being discussed and concluded in this thread, with the except of 2 or 3 people who vehemently disagree with everything being discussed. 

 

[KCOComics]

I mean - this isn't really a discussion is it? 

What work is more highly regarded??? Kirby and Lee vs New Gods and Kamandi??? 

You can argue what you like better, that's preference. But when you look at Kirby's career,  the top of the tower is with Lee. A close second is with Simon. And 97% of everything else can be found in the $1 bin. 

 

Case in point,  6 years ago I walked into my local comic shop and bought the first 12 or so issues of New Gods, with 5 copies of #1 in VF to NM condition for $75.  Fantastic Four run fillers in low grade are more than that!  Because the market has spoken. FF is a 1000xs more desirable.

I did read the first 5 or 6 issues of New Gods... it's better than the first 5 issues of FF!  Have any of you read the first 5 issues of FF??? Making time machines to steal Black Beards Gold??? Really?? If I were the Kirby estate, I'd let Lee take the writing credit for that cr@p!  

But New Gods was pretty forgettable. The writing wasn't exactly Shakespeare. 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/6/2024 at 1:22 PM, sfcityduck said:

Here's how attorneys would approach that declaration if you insist on using the "lie" terminology:

Lie 1: "I met Joe at a place called Victor Fox just before I came here [Timely]."

• Truth 1.a: There was no "place" called Victor Fox. Victor Fox was a person. The name of his publishing house was Fox Publications Inc. and Fox Feature Syndicate, Inc.
• Analysis 1.a: Kirby should have remembered that. Kirby's first work at Fox in 1940, according to the GCD, was on the below comic featuring a Joe Simon cover (cover date 5/40). Joe Simon was instrumental to Kirby's career. Joe Simon was drawing superhero stories and covers before he gave Jack his first break into the superhero genre, and got him his first cover assignment in comics. So these were memorable moments in an artists life. Yet Kirby can't remember the name of the publisher? I'd argue that misrecollection is reason enough to doubt Kirby's recollections of the 1940-1941 time period. A more vicious opinion would be to call Kirby a liar.

• Truth 1.b: Kirby didn't meet Joe "just before he came to" Timely. He didn't do any Timely work until three months after he met Simon - on Red Raven 1 (cover date 8/40). And he did not join Timely as a full time employee at that time. Accordingly to GCD he didn't start doing significant amounts of Marvel work on a steady basis until after Captain America 1 came out (cover date 3/41). For example, according to GCD for cover date 2/41 he did just one seven page story for Timely, while doing 27 pages of stories for other publishers, including Fox. For cover date 1/41, GCD says he did one seven page story and two one page ads for Timely, while doing 27 pages for other publishers, including Fox. GCD does not reflect him really becoming "full time" for Timely until cover date April 1940.
• Analysis 1.b: Why would Kirby get so wrong when he "came over to" Timely full time? Because in order to beat Joe Simon's claim to Captain America (a claim Kirby would not join in 1966 at his height with Marvel), it was real helpful to Marvel's attorney's case to establish S&K as "employees" of Timely. So Jack lied and said what the attorneys wanted him to say. Probably because, as Jack would later admit, he was a "coward" who did not stand up to Marvel because he wanted the money and comfort that working for Marvel brought him. From Groth's interview of Kirby talking about that Marvel heyday and why he didn't stand up for his own rights (which creation of Captain America was one of): "Actually, my own fears probably prodded me into an act of cowardice. It’s an act of cowardice. I should have told Stan to go to hell and found some other way to make a living, but I couldn’t do it. I had my family. I had an apartment. I just couldn’t give all that up."

Do you really want me to continue? I'm not out to destroy Kirby. I have no desire to write a book titled "Jack Kirby Lied!" 

But I could. I could certainly construct a case that Kirby had a lousy recollection, and if I were feeling vicious I also could certainly make the case that Kirby repeatedly lied about the scope of his creative endeavors. I'm a little shocked you didn't notice the problems in the excerpt of his declaration. But I assume you are not a GA guy because you don't post much if at all in that forum. But this comment by Kirby should have struck you as obviously untrue:

Lie 2: "There were no set comic characters as such at Timely at the time I was hired."

• Truth 2: It should be obvious to any serious comic collector.

• Analysis 2: This likely didn't come from the attorneys. That Sub-Mariner and Human Torch predated Captain America was either irrelevant to or helpful to their case. Irrelevant because what Timely was publishing before Captain America didn't bear on Joe Simon's claim or helpful because it would show that Timely was in superheroes long before S&K showed up on the scene - making it more likely that they were hired to continue a trend Marvel had joined very early. (Marvel was doing superheroes long before Jack was, and even before Joe was.) So this is a lie that Jack probably created. Did he know what he said was untrue? Yes. Because Jack must have known it was untrue. Jack knew his first work at Timely, Red Raven 1 was not popular, and was never followed by Red Raven 2 because Timely instead decided to give the book to one of their three original characters, Human Torch. Jack must have  known it was untrue because Jack had revived Human Torch in FF 1 and Sub-Mariner a few issues later also in FF.  Then why did he say it? Because Jack "King" Kirby had by 1966 probably let the fan fame and adulation or his bitterness with Marvel get to his head and was convincing himself that he really was the person who had made Marvel. He was devaluing the contributions of others to Marvel's success - Joe Simon, Bill Everett, Carl Burgos etc. - to make himself feel better about himself and probably about stabbing Joe in the declaration. He could say to himself - everything was my creation. We'd see that later when he claimed S&K created Spider-Man, something Joe Simon thought was absurd.

Lie 2 should have leapt out at you, PN. It's exactly the type of lie which has caused your 11 year campaign (at least) against Stan. Instead, you've got blinders about Kirby even when he acts the way you accuse Stan of acting.

Do I really need to go through the whole declaration to make the point? I don't think so. Feel free to explain why you think the above two statements by Kirby are true.

 

On 10/6/2024 at 3:44 PM, Prince Namor said:

Joe's the one who owns the LOGO that was created for it, DUH.

With a hyphen!

He worked at Fox. He went with Joe to work at Timely.

Lawyers, lol.

So you got nothing. No surprise.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/7/2024 at 8:00 AM, VintageComics said:

These days, everything is in print. Even amateur books. 

It means that Kirby's work with Simon and Lee is higher regarded than his solo work. You're hearing about it in this very thread from multiple people.

MULTIPLE printings. It's been in print for YEARS.

On 10/7/2024 at 8:00 AM, VintageComics said:

A decade? Come on.

He stayed far too long in places he felt he wasn't being respected and just whined about it perpetually after - in both cases. 

I left within a year. 

Why within a year? If you were so smart, why didnt you leave immediately.

Within a year? Come on.

On 10/7/2024 at 8:00 AM, VintageComics said:

I didn't put up with anything. 

You're doing it again.

We're not talking about 50/50 credit for the success or creation. 

We're talking about personal accountability towards someone who doesn't treat you fairly.

It's always going to be 50% of what you do in that relationship, and 50% of what you allow. I don't think you understand the concept of personal accountability. 

I didn't use Wikipedia. I used your own words, in this thread. 

You openly stated that you have no idea which parts of Thor's attributes he's responsible for. I quoted it twice for you. 

Every argument I've used has been using your own words, and showing you how your own quotes don't reach the conclusions you're trying to make. 

No. I came to a conclusion based on all the evidence we have been discussing for several pages. 

But I think that's enough discussing it because the truth is evident to everyone objective. 

No. You have no evidence other than 'stan said so' and 'he was the editor'.

THAT'S IT.

In comparative literature it wouldn't even be a contest. With the examples I've given you, it's most likely Lee didn't have anything to do with the creation of Thor.

No ONE knows for sure. In ANY comparative literature. But within a reasonable guess, he didn't.

Your examples would be laughed at.

You argue in bad faith. The bottom line is you can't disprove any of my examples.

Edited October 7 by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

On 10/7/2024 at 8:04 AM, VintageComics said:

I think MOST people agree on almost everything being discussed and concluded in this thread, with the except of 2 or 3 people who vehemently disagree with everything being discussed. 

Oh my gosh I'm not as popular as you! Again, argueing in bad faith.

At one time most of the world thought the earth was flat. Did that make them right?

[Prince Namor]

On 10/7/2024 at 8:28 AM, KCOComics said:

I mean - this isn't really a discussion is it? 

What work is more highly regarded??? Kirby and Lee vs New Gods and Kamandi??? 

It's not MY arguement.

On 10/7/2024 at 8:28 AM, KCOComics said:

You can argue what you like better, that's preference. But when you look at Kirby's career,  the top of the tower is with Lee. A close second is with Simon. And 97% of everything else can be found in the $1 bin. 

So... it's YOUR arguement? Opinion.

On 10/7/2024 at 8:28 AM, KCOComics said:

Case in point,  6 years ago I walked into my local comic shop and bought the first 12 or so issues of New Gods, with 5 copies of #1 in VF to NM condition for $75.  Fantastic Four run fillers in low grade are more than that!  Because the market has spoken. FF is a 1000xs more desirable.

Now? Try ten years ago before there was a FF movie on the table. 

On 10/7/2024 at 8:28 AM, KCOComics said:

I did read the first 5 or 6 issues of New Gods... it's better than the first 5 issues of FF!  Have any of you read the first 5 issues of FF??? Making time machines to steal Black Beards Gold??? Really?? If I were the Kirby estate, I'd let Lee take the writing credit for that cr@p!  

Uh... he did.

On 10/7/2024 at 8:28 AM, KCOComics said:

But New Gods was pretty forgettable. The writing wasn't exactly Shakespeare. 

Opinion. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/7/2024 at 9:30 AM, sfcityduck said:

So you got nothing. No surprise.

I have everything. You're a lawyer. Lawyers serve their client, not the truth or the law. 

 

Kirby and Simon worked for Victor Fox. They went to work at Timely. Fact.

You can carve it up and number of ways how it was said, but that's the meaning of it. 

 

It's funny how you can see the evil intent behind simple words like that, but... Joe Simon owning multiple mansions while Kirby lived in a modest home at the end of their working relationship glosses right past you.

Blinders.

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/6/2024 at 6:04 PM, VintageComics said:

I think MOST people agree on almost everything being discussed and concluded in this thread, with the except of 2 or 3 people who vehemently disagree with everything being discussed. 

 

[Prince Namor]

And just to be clear. That's not EVERY lawyer. 

But you can pretty easily tell in how they approach a debate. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 10/6/2024 at 6:00 PM, VintageComics said:

You're doing it again.

 

On 10/6/2024 at 6:04 PM, VintageComics said:

I think MOST people agree on almost everything being discussed and concluded in this thread, with the except of 2 or 3 people who vehemently disagree with everything being discussed. 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/6/2024 at 8:36 PM, Prince Namor said:

I have everything. You're a lawyer. Lawyers serve their client, not the truth or the law. 

True. A lawyer serves their client. However, they aren't supposed to enable perjury. Looks like Marvel may have had someone unethical or incompetent lawyers working with Kirby and, to use his own words, he was too "cowardly" to stand up for Joe Simon (and, ironically, himself) when it came to Captain America in 1966 because he just enjoyed his Marvel sponsored lifestyle too much.

On 10/6/2024 at 8:36 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

Kirby and Simon worked for Victor Fox. They went to work at Timely. Fact.

You can carve it up and number of ways how it was said, but that's the meaning of it. 

Simon and Kirby did not work at a "place called Victor Fox." 

Kirby did not work at Fox Publications, Inc. "just before I [Kirby] came here [Timely]." See Truth 1.b and Analysis 1.b below.

On 10/6/2024 at 8:36 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

It's funny how you can see the evil intent behind simple words like that, but... Joe Simon owning multiple mansions while Kirby lived in a modest home at the end of their working relationship glosses right past you.

Blinders.

No. Squirrels. Stay on topic. Stop running from the topic of Kirby's declaration under oath.

The only one ignoring the facts at issue here, Kirby's 1966 declaration, is you. You asked a question about when Kirby lied under oath, you got a detailed answer, and now to quote a line from a movie you can't handle the truth. The clear evidence is your inability to respond to the detailed answer with anything but fluff.

No one is missing that you have not responded to 80% of the post. 

No one is missing that you are not able to (1) admit Jack Kirby makes misstatements when he clearly does or (2) won't admit it because you don't want folks noticing that the statements by Stan wherein he overclaims creator credit are "lies" but the same type of statements by Kirby wherein he overclaims creator credit are no big deal to you as a fan of Kirby.

No one is missing that you don't want this discussion to include analysis of Jack Kirby's lies under oath despite the challenge you threw down. So now you are running as fast as you can from the statements in the declaration. You threw down a gauntlet, and now you are running from the debate.

Sometimes what you ignore is more telling than what you say. True here. Here's what you ignore from the declaration ... so far (I can keep on this declaration for days - it is absurd). Feel free to take another shot at it:

Lie 1: "I met Joe at a place called Victor Fox just before I came here [Timely]."

• Truth 1.a: There was no "place" called Victor Fox. Victor Fox was a person. The name of his publishing house was Fox Publications Inc. and Fox Feature Syndicate, Inc.
• Analysis 1.a: Kirby should have remembered that. Kirby's first work at Fox in 1940, according to the GCD, was on the below comic featuring a Joe Simon cover ([Mystery Men] cover date 5/40). Joe Simon was instrumental to Kirby's career. Joe Simon was drawing superhero stories and covers before he gave Jack his first break into the superhero genre, and got Jack his first cover assignment in comics. So these were memorable moments in an artists life. Yet Kirby can't remember the name of the publisher? I'd argue that misrecollection is reason enough to doubt Kirby's recollections of the 1940-1941 time period. A more vicious opinion would be to call Kirby a liar. [Edited to add: as you call Stan.]

• Truth 1.b: Kirby didn't meet Joe "just before he came to" Timely. He didn't do any Timely work until three months after he met Simon - on Red Raven 1 (cover date 8/40). And he did not join Timely as a full time employee at that time. Accordingly to GCD he didn't start doing significant amounts of Marvel work on a steady basis until after Captain America 1 came out (cover date 3/41). For example, according to GCD for cover date 2/41 he did just one seven page story for Timely, while doing 27 pages of stories for other publishers, including Fox. For cover date 1/41, GCD says he did one seven page story and two one page ads for Timely, while doing 27 pages for other publishers, including Fox. GCD does not reflect him really becoming "full time" for Timely until cover date April 1940. [Edited to add: after Captain America 1 was published!]
• Analysis 1.b: Why would Kirby get so wrong when he "came over to" Timely full time? Because in order to beat Joe Simon's claim to Captain America (a claim Kirby would not join in 1966 at his height with Marvel), it was real helpful to Marvel's attorney's case to establish S&K as "employees" of Timely. So Jack lied and said what the attorneys wanted him to say. Probably because, as Jack would later admit, he was a "coward" who did not stand up to Marvel because he wanted the money and comfort that working for Marvel brought him. From Groth's interview of Kirby talking about that Marvel heyday and why he didn't stand up for his own rights (which creation of Captain America was one of): "Actually, my own fears probably prodded me into an act of cowardice. It’s an act of cowardice. I should have told Stan to go to hell and found some other way to make a living, but I couldn’t do it. I had my family. I had an apartment. I just couldn’t give all that up."

Lie 2: "There were no set comic characters as such at Timely at the time I was hired."

• Truth 2: It should be obvious to any serious comic collector. [Pics of Marvel Comics 1 (cover Human Torch), 2 (cover The Angel), and 4 Sub-Mariner.]

• Analysis 2: This likely didn't come from the attorneys. That Sub-Mariner and Human Torch predated Captain America was either irrelevant to or helpful to their case. Irrelevant because what Timely was publishing before Captain America didn't bear on Joe Simon's claim or helpful because it would show that Timely was in superheroes long before S&K showed up on the scene - making it more likely that they were hired to continue a trend Marvel had joined very early. (Marvel was doing superheroes long before Jack was, and even before Joe was.) So this is a lie that Jack probably created. Did he know what he said was untrue? Yes. Because Jack must have known it was untrue. Jack knew his first work at Timely, Red Raven 1 was not popular, and was never followed by Red Raven 2 because Timely instead decided to give the book to one of their three original characters, Human Torch. Jack must have  known it was untrue because Jack had revived Human Torch in FF 1 and Sub-Mariner a few issues later also in FF.  [Edited to add: I should have mentioned Kirby also knew of The Angel because he worked on Marvel Mystery and he revived that character name as one of the X-Men.] Then why did he say it? Because Jack "King" Kirby had by 1966 probably let the fan fame and adulation or his bitterness with Marvel get to his head and was convincing himself that he really was the person who had made Marvel. He was devaluing the contributions of others to Marvel's success - Joe Simon, Bill Everett, Carl Burgos etc. - to make himself feel better about himself and probably about stabbing Joe in the declaration. He could say to himself - everything was my creation. We'd see that later when he claimed S&K created Spider-Man, something Joe Simon thought was absurd.

 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/7/2024 at 1:45 PM, sfcityduck said:

True. A lawyer serves their client. However, they aren't supposed to enable perjury. Looks like Marvel may have had someone unethical or incompetent lawyers working with Kirby and, to use his own words, he was too "cowardly" to stand up for Joe Simon (and, ironically, himself) when it came to Captain America in 1966 because he just enjoyed his Marvel sponsored lifestyle too much.

Simon and Kirby did not work at a "place called Victor Fox." 

Kirby did not work at Fox Publications, Inc. "just before I [Kirby] came here [Timely]." See Truth 1.b and Analysis 1.b below.

No. Squirrels. Stay on topic. Stop running from the topic of Kirby's declaration under oath.

The only one ignoring the facts at issue here, Kirby's 1966 declaration, is you. You asked a question about when Kirby lied under oath, you got a detailed answer, and now to quote a line from a movie you can't handle the truth. The clear evidence is your inability to respond to the detailed answer with anything but fluff.

No one is missing that you have not responded to 80% of the post. 

No one is missing that you are not able to (1) admit Jack Kirby makes misstatements when he clearly does or (2) won't admit it because you don't want folks noticing that the statements by Stan wherein he overclaims creator credit are "lies" but the same type of statements by Kirby wherein he overclaims creator credit are no big deal to you as a fan of Kirby.

No one is missing that you don't want this discussion to include analysis of Jack Kirby's lies under oath despite the challenge you threw down. So now you are running as fast as you can from the statements in the declaration. You threw down a gauntlet, and now you are running from the debate.

Sometimes what you ignore is more telling than what you say. True here. Here's what you ignore from the declaration ... so far (I can keep on this declaration for days - it is absurd). Feel free to take another shot at it:

Lie 1: "I met Joe at a place called Victor Fox just before I came here [Timely]."

• Truth 1.a: There was no "place" called Victor Fox. Victor Fox was a person. The name of his publishing house was Fox Publications Inc. and Fox Feature Syndicate, Inc.
• Analysis 1.a: Kirby should have remembered that. Kirby's first work at Fox in 1940, according to the GCD, was on the below comic featuring a Joe Simon cover ([Mystery Men] cover date 5/40). Joe Simon was instrumental to Kirby's career. Joe Simon was drawing superhero stories and covers before he gave Jack his first break into the superhero genre, and got Jack his first cover assignment in comics. So these were memorable moments in an artists life. Yet Kirby can't remember the name of the publisher? I'd argue that misrecollection is reason enough to doubt Kirby's recollections of the 1940-1941 time period. A more vicious opinion would be to call Kirby a liar. [Edited to add: as you call Stan.]

• Truth 1.b: Kirby didn't meet Joe "just before he came to" Timely. He didn't do any Timely work until three months after he met Simon - on Red Raven 1 (cover date 8/40). And he did not join Timely as a full time employee at that time. Accordingly to GCD he didn't start doing significant amounts of Marvel work on a steady basis until after Captain America 1 came out (cover date 3/41). For example, according to GCD for cover date 2/41 he did just one seven page story for Timely, while doing 27 pages of stories for other publishers, including Fox. For cover date 1/41, GCD says he did one seven page story and two one page ads for Timely, while doing 27 pages for other publishers, including Fox. GCD does not reflect him really becoming "full time" for Timely until cover date April 1940. [Edited to add: after Captain America 1 was published!]
• Analysis 1.b: Why would Kirby get so wrong when he "came over to" Timely full time? Because in order to beat Joe Simon's claim to Captain America (a claim Kirby would not join in 1966 at his height with Marvel), it was real helpful to Marvel's attorney's case to establish S&K as "employees" of Timely. So Jack lied and said what the attorneys wanted him to say. Probably because, as Jack would later admit, he was a "coward" who did not stand up to Marvel because he wanted the money and comfort that working for Marvel brought him. From Groth's interview of Kirby talking about that Marvel heyday and why he didn't stand up for his own rights (which creation of Captain America was one of): "Actually, my own fears probably prodded me into an act of cowardice. It’s an act of cowardice. I should have told Stan to go to hell and found some other way to make a living, but I couldn’t do it. I had my family. I had an apartment. I just couldn’t give all that up."

Lie 2: "There were no set comic characters as such at Timely at the time I was hired."

• Truth 2: It should be obvious to any serious comic collector. [Pics of Marvel Comics 1 (cover Human Torch), 2 (cover The Angel), and 4 Sub-Mariner.]

• Analysis 2: This likely didn't come from the attorneys. That Sub-Mariner and Human Torch predated Captain America was either irrelevant to or helpful to their case. Irrelevant because what Timely was publishing before Captain America didn't bear on Joe Simon's claim or helpful because it would show that Timely was in superheroes long before S&K showed up on the scene - making it more likely that they were hired to continue a trend Marvel had joined very early. (Marvel was doing superheroes long before Jack was, and even before Joe was.) So this is a lie that Jack probably created. Did he know what he said was untrue? Yes. Because Jack must have known it was untrue. Jack knew his first work at Timely, Red Raven 1 was not popular, and was never followed by Red Raven 2 because Timely instead decided to give the book to one of their three original characters, Human Torch. Jack must have  known it was untrue because Jack had revived Human Torch in FF 1 and Sub-Mariner a few issues later also in FF.  [Edited to add: I should have mentioned Kirby also knew of The Angel because he worked on Marvel Mystery and he revived that character name as one of the X-Men.] Then why did he say it? Because Jack "King" Kirby had by 1966 probably let the fan fame and adulation or his bitterness with Marvel get to his head and was convincing himself that he really was the person who had made Marvel. He was devaluing the contributions of others to Marvel's success - Joe Simon, Bill Everett, Carl Burgos etc. - to make himself feel better about himself and probably about stabbing Joe in the declaration. He could say to himself - everything was my creation. We'd see that later when he claimed S&K created Spider-Man, something Joe Simon thought was absurd.

 

Yawn.

[namisgr]

On 10/6/2024 at 8:24 PM, Prince Namor said:

Most people who talk down New Gods - something taught to every True Believer - either haven't read it, haven't tried to read it, or just don't understand dialogue.

As you would surely reply if the shoe were on the other foot: opinion.

I read all three Fourth World titles.  I did not enjoy the scripting and thought that overall the dialog was clumsy.  Your mileage may vary, but one of the many reasons why there are so many hobbyists who love Marvel is that Stan's writing was, for the most part, enjoyable.

I don't disagree with you that by the middle of the Bronze Age, the general quality of the writing had declined.  So much so that I stopped a four and a half year run of buying nearly every Marvel off the rack, and didn't restart for another five years.

[lostboys]

On 10/6/2024 at 8:13 PM, Prince Namor said:

I liked Kirby's dialogue because it was to the point. I couldn't read a lot of those 70's Marvel writers and their exaggerated, hyperbolic, melodramatic dialogue. It's ironic that they make fun of Kirby's dialogue, when they wrote stuff like this.

 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/7/2024 at 6:13 PM, namisgr said:

As you would surely reply if the shoe were on the other foot: opinion.

That is correct. It is my opinion.

On 10/7/2024 at 6:13 PM, namisgr said:

I read all three Fourth World titles.  I did not enjoy the scripting and thought that overall the dialog was clumsy.  

Also opinion, of course.

On 10/7/2024 at 6:13 PM, namisgr said:

Your mileage may vary, but one of the many reasons why there are so many hobbyists who love Marvel is that Stan's writing dialogue was, for the most part, enjoyable.

FTFY. You know, as kid... reading it after the fact, I certainly liked it better than some of the other titles I tried reading in the Bronze Age.

As an Adult, I find it embarrassing. I remember reading it to my son in the 90's, I'd just think, "This is really d@mb." All just opinions, of course.

And even the stories... I loved those Silver Age Amazing Spider-man's and some of the FF's, but I just couldn't understand how the same guy was writing those terrible Avengers and Daredevil and Iron Man stories... I just thought they were lame. I didn't find the 'characterization' in it that everyone talks about. Again, just my opinions. I found them boring.

On 10/7/2024 at 6:13 PM, namisgr said:

I don't disagree with you that by the middle of the Bronze Age, the general quality of the writing had declined.  So much so that I stopped a four and a half year run of buying nearly every Marvel off the rack, and didn't restart for another five years.

Yeah, I never understood people's love for those guys. Engelhart, Gerber, etc.. Overwritten, self-important drivel. Again, my opinion.

I enjoyed Gerry Conway and Ross Andru's run on ASM (though some dislike Andru), and anything Starlin did. I quit Spidey at the end of that Clone storyline. Ugh.

And other than that... I think... it wasn't until Miller was doing DD and Byrne went to FF that I thought to even try again. 

And, as much as I liked that Byrne run when it came out... I'm tried to read that again a few years ago and... nope. Miller's DD still was good for me.

[lostboys]

On 10/6/2024 at 8:24 PM, Prince Namor said:

Most people who talk down New Gods - something taught to every True Believer - either haven't read it, haven't tried to read it, or just don't understand dialogue.

Lee's dialogue coddles the reader, Kirby's gives it credit for basic intelligence.

 

from Stephan Chaldjian

"I remember an episode of New Gods, (#8 in 1971) after a terrible battle over the roofs of New York(or a same big city), Lightray picks up the fallen helmet of Orion and gives it back to his friend. "You have seen my face" Orion says and Lightray just responds: " I have seen scars, old and new, received for the glory of New Genesis." I quote from memory but these words exchanged by the two heroic figures were like some Shakespeare writings with all the complexity of the characters and their destiny. Unforgettable emotion with the last words of Orion : " You' re a good friend, Lightray".

Lily-livered New Genesis cowards!

You've torn victory from my grasp!!

 

 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/7/2024 at 12:15 AM, Prince Namor said:

Yawn.

White flag noted.