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

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/11/2024 at 8:31 PM, sfcityduck said:

With all respect, I think your post falls prey to the fallacy of "false balance" or  "both sidesism" in which a false dichotomy is offered between two opposing viewpoints based on the assertion that the reader or viewer can pick between them to find the truth. The problem with that presentation is that it assumes that either Stan Lee in Origins or the response by Chaz or ("Chuck"  as folks are calling him here) Gower is somehow the truth and a "balanced view" can be discerned by reading one or both books. But that's clearly not the case. 

Why? Because Stan Lee's assertions in Origins are statements presented in a moment in time without the surrounding context. And "Stan Lee Lied," based on what's been stated by the author on this site, is not a "balanced" presentation. So you are asking the reader to make a judgment based on two flawed presentations. How can they?

The reality is that there is a "balanced" presentation that can be made, but "Stan Lee Lied" does not attempt to present it. If he's prosecuting a "one-sided" case, as reviewers have stated and you seem not to dispute, than how is a reader of the book supposed to arrive at the truth? They can't. And that's a valid criticism of the book. Far better that a book was written which actually looks at all of the evidence, not just the evidence supporting the conclusion the author has been pushing on message boards or blogs for over a decade.

I get what you are saying, but it seems to me that you are criticizing Chaz for writing the book that he wanted to write, and not the one that you wanted him to write. His title is clear enough. He's written it, his way, buy it or don't. Read it, or don't. If you think there is a vacancy in the middle of the two ends of the spectrum that tells a more rounded story, well, respectfully, pick up your pen and write it. Stan put a self serving version of the truth forward. Chaz has written a book to rebut its content with a clear (the clue is in the) title. It's not called "Did Stan Lee Lie?" 

None of us can ever know exactly what happened between individuals, and what was in their minds whilst doing it. That is the nature of human existence. I've read both books (nearly) and I have a clearer understanding of the type of man that Stan Lee likely was. It's unlikely that any additional book would put some of the things that he did in any better light. If you steal credit, you steal credit. If you steal another person's pay, you steal another person's pay. If you helped old ladies across the street whilst doing it, you're a thief who helped old ladies across the street. 

Chaz is one of our board regulars, and he's written a book. Good for him. If you read it and like it, I say great, let him know. If you read it and don't like it, I say great, let him know. If you're so incensed at it's existence (not you specifically Duck, in general), too late - its written. So go and write your own "Chaz Gower Lied" book. 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 1:16 PM, KingOfRulers said:

In life or in this letter?

At the very least it shows how meaningless money was to him.

Being offered $100,000 plus first-class travel accommodations for three day's work of signing funny books would be a dream come true to almost anyone. Most people make half that amount doing a full year of 8-hour per day toil, five days per week. Just think how much an opportunity like that would change the median American's life. The fact that Ditko was apparently not wealthy himself, but still turn down such a gig due to "not being interested" in fiction and fantasy is remarkable. The average American would instantly snatch up such an opportunity regardless of their interest in the subject matter.

I agree that Ditko turning down the money shows Ditko didn't care about money. His whole life shows that also. 

But I was asking about his written comment not his action in refusing to attend. The comment seems strange to me given that he's not a guy who hung out at a lot of conventions, right? I'm not sure if he's saying something favorable or unfavorable about comic cons and/or comic fans.

[Prince Namor]

As some, who haven't read it, will try to do here - is that they'll say it still isn't a fair and balanced view - and they'll use all sorts of creative wording to make it sound like my angle is simply biased.

Some might say that's an ad hominem attack - but rather than go that route - I'll simply give an example of how my approach is and why it's just plain HISTORICALLY ACCURATE and an clear example of how Lee was never called out on his straight out, blatant, mistruths about the history of comics. 

Lee wrote:

“Just for kicks, I wanted to try something different… for a while I’d been toying with the idea of doing a strip that would violate all the conventions - break all the rules. A strip that would actually feature a teenager as the star, instead of making him an (ugh!) adult hero’s sidekick.”

As anyone who has followed comics for long enough knows... it's complete nonsense to think that in 1962, a "strip that would actually feature a teenager as the star, instead of making him an (ugh!) adult hero’s sidekick.” was "something different" or hadn't been done before. Yet Lee was never called out on this, and people would use it as a way to say, "Wow what a visionary."

At the time (1962), Superboy had been in print for 13 years and was selling 655,000 copies a month (a number that the Amazing Spider-man or ANY Marvel Comic Book would NEVER reach under Stan Lee - or the company in general under the late 80's)*

Charlie Biro’s ‘Crimebuster’ ran in Boy Comics for 14 years (1942-1956, over 100 issues)!

The Legion of Superheroes from 1958 had 12 appearances by that time, Captain Marvel Jr. had his own solo comic book from 1942-1953 (11 years)... Kid Eternity. the Star Spangled Kid, Kirby & Simon's Newsboy Legion...

It's just absurd that the history of comic books is completely overlooked and treated as inconsequential by Lee, compared to his quest for money and fame. If Bob Kane had written such a thing, the comics community would've birthed a cow on the spot. 

I'm pointing it out. 

There's a whole book full of Lee's 'side of the story'. It all just happens to be lies. 

What could Lee's defense be?

“I’m not noted for always telling the truth,

but at least people don’t usually catch me at it.”

- Stan Lee from the 1975 SDCC Stan Lee Panel

 

Those who are on the fence about reading this, don't be FOOLED by the nay-sayers who can't stand to see their hero scrutinized - There's no "false balance" or  "both sidesism" - it's BLACK & WHITE as you can read above. There's no "presented in a moment in time without the surrounding context" - that's LAWYER talk - MY POINT is just as true NOW as it would've been when Lee's BS tome came out in 1974.

Again and again - it's the people who HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK - who continue to make claims against it - and the people who HAVE read it - who seem to clearly see it for what it is.  

 

*that's not in the book.  I just added that. 

[Iconic1s]

On 10/11/2024 at 3:17 PM, sfcityduck said:

Well, I'd disagree that I acted "holier than thou." I said two things about myself (1) I was responsible for getting this thread shut down once and (2) I've been wrong in the past. Something anyone familiar with some of my attempts to identify certain OO for a prominent pedigree are familiar with (second or third time was the charm).

As for being "combative": I am certainly voicing opinions and bringing forth evidence that Kirby fanatics don't want to confront, but that's what happens when you have a "discussion" of diverse viewpoints instead of a "rah rah" Greek chorus. That's not combative, it's informative. If I tear apart an argument or offer contrary evidence I'm not engaging in a personal attack. When an author writes a book they know they will get both positive and critical reactions. So there's nothing wrong with being critical of the book or having a back and forth on those criticisms. 

A personal attack is calling someone "combative" and "holier than thou." That you do this knowing Mike asked us not to engage in incivility does not bode well for this thread. I'd ask you to rethink your strategy here as I'd hope we'd all want the thread to continue.

A "reaction" emote is just a short hand comment. If you choose to respond to a post with an ambiguous "reaction" emote, then you should expect that someone may ask you what you are trying to communicate. I appreciate you offered your explanation. I don't see anything funny that I asked for you to explain the ambiguity. Turns out the explanation was informative.

Great book!

[Prince Namor]

On 10/12/2024 at 3:20 AM, Get Marwood & I said:

I get what you are saying, but it seems to me that you are criticizing Chaz for writing the book that he wanted to write, and not the one that you wanted him to write. His title is clear enough. He's written it, his way, buy it or don't. Read it, or don't. If you think there is a vacancy in the middle of the two ends of the spectrum that tells a more rounded story, well, respectfully, pick up your pen and write it. Stan put a self serving version of the truth forward. Chaz has written a book to rebut its content with a clear (the clue is in the) title. It's not called "Did Stan Lee Lie?" 

None of us can ever know exactly what happened between individuals, and what was in their minds whilst doing it. That is the nature of human existence. I've read both books (nearly) and I have a clearer understanding of the type of man that Stan Lee likely was. It's unlikely that any additional book would put some of the things that he did in any better light. If you steal credit, you steal credit. If you steal another person's pay, you steal another person's pay. If you helped old ladies across the street whilst doing it, you're a thief who helped old ladies across the street. 

Chaz is one of our board regulars, and he's written a book. Good for him. If you read it and like it, I say great, let him know. If you read it and don't like it, I say great, let him know. If you're so incensed at it's existence (not you specifically Duck, in general), too late - its written. So go and write your own "Chaz Gower Lied" book. 

Thank you!

[Buzzetta]

On 10/11/2024 at 3:37 PM, D'oh! said:

He's gone by Chuck for years on this board, so I'm not sure why you put his name in quotes. I'd guess it's for the same reason JVH does it 🤔

 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/12/2024 at 3:23 AM, Iconic1s said:

Great book!

 

Thank you!

[Buzzetta]

On 10/10/2024 at 4:14 AM, Prince Namor said:

No, not Marvel Value Stamps. 

Yes, Lee DID promise in the mid-70s, that if you cut those stamps out of your comics and collected them in your Marvel Value Stamp book (which you had to purchase through the mail for 50 cents), you could win… well you weren’t SURE what you won… you had to send a self-addressed stamped envelope to Phil Seuling to see what the discount was to get into his New York Comic Art Convention Show.

If you bought 100 Marvel Comics in 1975, at 25 cents each, that would be $25.50 you spent, in order to get a discount to a comic book show that probably cost less than $5 to get into in 1975… Hmmm. Lee and Marvel of course promised more prizes and surprises later, but… the surprise for some was that nothing ever was actually given.

I mean, I don't have anything against him for doing this.  This was a typical business tactic to get people to buy slower moving product to get "points" or "credits" to purchase new things.  GI Joe Flag Points for example or Kenner Star Wars figures were a great example of this.  Cut out some proofs of purchase and be the first to get the new figure or in the case of GI Joe, have the opportunity to pay for the new figure. 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 1:20 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

I get what you are saying, but it seems to me that you are criticizing Chaz for writing the book that he wanted to write, and not the one that you wanted him to write. His title is clear enough. He's written it, his way, buy it or don't. Read it, or don't. If you think there is a vacancy in the middle of the two ends of the spectrum that tells a more rounded story, well, respectfully, pick up your pen and write it. Stan put a self serving version of the truth forward. Chaz has written a book to rebut its content with a clear (the clue is in the) title.

As I said around 40 pages ago, I have no problem with Chaz writing the book he wanted to write and putting it out in the world.

But having done so, he's not entitled to immunity from criticism for choosing to write the book he did. That Chaz wanted to "prosecute" a case does not mean that we have to accept his case without comment. To the contrary, every prosecution invites a defense. And if you really do care about things like "the truth," you'll attempt to balance out a flawed presentation by pointing out its flaws. That's why we have book reviews and ... message boards that provide critical commentary on a book. 

On 10/11/2024 at 1:20 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

 

...

Chaz is one of our board regulars, and he's written a book. Good for him. If you read it and like it, I say great, let him know. If you read it and don't like it, I say great, let him know. If you're so incensed at it's existence, too late - its written. So go and write your own "Chaz Gower Lied" book. 

Chaz is a board regular. So am I. So is just about everyone commenting on this thread. Chaz doesn't get a pass from criticism because he wrote a book. And we aren't limited to writing a book review or, as you seem to be implying, a responsive book. Because unlike with a book review, because Chaz is a regular on this board, we have Chaz's history on this board and his comments on this thread to inform the discussion. So its inevitable that this discussion is going to go beyond just the words in his book. 

So, no, there's no need or requirement for me to write my own "Chaz Gower Lied" book. I can make my arguments to his face on this thread and give him the chance of an instant response. That's what's more in keeping with free speech for both authors and their critics.

Edited October 11 by sfcityduck

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 1:21 PM, Prince Namor said:

As some, who haven't read it, will try to do here

Mitch has convinced me to read it. You can expect my thoughts in the future. For now, I'm just responding to thoughts expressed in posts on this thread.

[Buzzetta]

On 10/11/2024 at 4:34 PM, D'oh! said:

We will be at Billy Joel this New Year's Eve and not Phish.  She wins again. 

You have been around comics since they were carved on Egyptian walls.   What is your take on Stan Lee? 

Edited October 11 by Buzzetta

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 1:21 PM, Prince Namor said:

As some, who haven't read it, will try to do here - is that they'll say it still isn't a fair and balanced view - and they'll use all sorts of creative wording to make it sound like my angle is simply biased.

Some might say that's an ad hominem attack

If some said that, they'd be wrong. Saying that someone's arguments are not fair or balanced is comment about that person's arguments/work product/book. It's not a comment about the person themselves. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/12/2024 at 3:32 AM, Buzzetta said:

I mean, I don't have anything against him for doing this.  This was a typical business tactic to get people to buy slower moving product to get "points" or "credits" to purchase new things.  GI Joe Flag Points for example or Kenner Star Wars figures were a great example of this.  Cut out some proofs of purchase and be the first to get the new figure or in the case of GI Joe, have the opportunity to pay for the new figure. 

Except... they didn't actually follow through on the 'prizes'. 

If you lived in Huntsville, Alabama and collected the whole set, you weren't going to have your parents drive you to New York City to go to a comic convention where your full book of Marvel value Stamps got you a 10% discount off a $5 admission to get in.

Marvel never made any other prizes available. You got nothing for it. 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 10/11/2024 at 9:33 PM, sfcityduck said:

Chaz doesn't get a pass from criticism because he wrote a book.

I never said he should. I said "If you read it and don't like it, I say great, let him know." I see now that you're going to read it. 

[Ken Aldred]

Just saw this on Cracked.com ...

 

 

 

Edited October 11 by Ken Aldred

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 1:42 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

I never said he should. I said "If you read it and don't like it, I say great, let him know." I see now that you're going to read it. 

I am going to read it. But even if I weren't, it is still valid to comment on what Chaz says here and the very notion that anyone should be writing a prosecution instead of a balanced presentation. 

[comicwiz]

On 10/11/2024 at 3:57 PM, sfcityduck said:

Nope. Kirby just couldn't remember the name of the publisher. The interview was conducted at a time (1989) that Kirby's memory was sufficiently untrustworthy that Roz was present for the stated reason of aiding Kirby's recollection. The reason why I made this point is that Kirby's supporters have a tendency to bend over backward with the most convoluted explanations to attempt to make everything Kirby says "the truth" even when its clear he got a basic fact wrong. As comicwiz does in his post I address here. Sure its not material to anything ... other than establishing that Kirby's memory was not perfect despite what Kirby supporters want to contend.

I'd agree with comicwiz that Kirby was not being deceitful or dishonest in his failure of recollection that he worked for Fox Publications -- that was my point. The author of "Stan Lied" takes the position that all misstatements by Stan Lee are "lies." That's an extreme view, not one taken by me with regard to Jack Kirby.

Finally, anything can be argued. But anyone who wants to argue that Jack Kirby was "addressing him [Victor Fox] respectfully as the titan of publishers in his time - there's a reason he was described as 'The King of Comics'" is making a big mistake. Victor Fox is the one person who described himself as the "King of Comics." His artists/writers made fun of Victor Fox for calling himself by that moniker. 

You already responded to this - argumentative at this point, unless it's spotty memory to blame.

On 10/7/2024 at 11:40 AM, sfcityduck said:

The reason Kirby couldn't come up with the name of Fox Publishing is he's always had a spotty memory

Pot, meet kettle.

Edited October 11 by comicwiz

[VintageComics]

On 10/10/2024 at 5:35 AM, comicwiz said:

On 10/10/2024 at 1:11 AM, Prince Namor said:

If RMA was fact checking you the way he fact checked everyone else's debate tactics, the length of this thread would double.

I saw this as being contentious. Drawing multiple people into an attack for the sake of an undue instigation.

Just an apology to the boards in general, in case my comment was misunderstood.

My intent was genuinely to be factual and not contentious as RMA hasn't really address the germane points in the actual discussion (unless I missed it) and instead has been posting (indirectly) entirely about the messengers involved, and not the actual message of the discussion and so if he'd fact checked "the other side" every time they did the same, it would have increased the length of the thread. My point wasn't tongue in cheek shade. It was literal with the point that both sides are using poor debate tactics to make their points.

We've come a LONG way as a forum when it was the wild West, and outright attacks went on for days and pages. This thread is many times better than it used to be on here.

With that said, I'm thrilled that Mike is allowing the thread to stay open as this sort of discussion was the lifeblood of the old boards and I'll personally make a concerted effort to stay on track. 

[sfcityduck]

On 10/11/2024 at 1:59 PM, comicwiz said:

You already responded to this - argumentative at this point, unless it's spotty memory to blame.

Pot, meet kettle.

Partially repetitive is different than argumentative. And who made the rule you can't respond to the same post twice? You aren't Mike. 

But, I don't claim a perfect memory. I'm not a pot or a kettle. Instead, like Jack and Stan, I'm human. Kirby fanatics would be wise to remember that Kirby is human and fallible.

[Prince Namor]

On 10/12/2024 at 4:06 AM, sfcityduck said:

Kirby fanatics would be wise to remember that Kirby is human and fallible.

No one made the claim that Kirby wasn't human or fallible.

Others have created it simply because Lee has been called out on his LIES, to go along with stealing credit and pay from his artists for over a decade, and some fans feel the only way they can defend Lee's lies is to say, "Kirby lied too!"