Steve Ditko actually wrote about Spider-man... A LOT 5 5

[Prince Namor]

1 hour ago, Unca Ben said:

I didn't say that anyone claimed Stan sat around doing nothing.  But with all the incendiary language being bandied about in this topic and the "stan stole FF 51" topic, it could lead one to view it that way.

Once again, I am referring to the timeframe when Stan, Jack and Steve were creating the marvel superhero universe.  More than 8 books a month, then.

 

My post was aimed at the way journalists and authors commonly use methods to elicit an emotional response in the reader.  One method by which journalists fool the general public is by using very broad assumptions and to slap incendiary labels on individuals whom they don’t agree with, rather than relay the information in a factual genuine way.

I can provide examples from both threads if needed.

I'm not sure what anyone THINKS I'm trying to say, or why they may feel the need to reflect their OWN agenda on what they think I'm trying to say, but let me be clear:

I believe, the Marvel Universe would've never been the same without Stan Lee. Fact. He made it a BIG DEAL. He made it seem like the greatest thing ever done. He's a LEGEND.

But without Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko, it would never have existed. 

Stan was a great promoter, great editor, great organizer, great final touch, great spokesman, great salesman - he MADE Marvel what they are today. Do I think he dreamed up the Marvel Universe and then doled out the work to whatever artist he thought would fit the project (as he said in court testimony)? Absolutely not. Nothing in his career suggests that he had that type of creativity.

Do I think he had a hand in the creation of these characters? Sure. With Kirby, early on, he had some real input, and of course always the final say, but as he got busier, Jack was mostly on his creative own. And you can see the amazing change and growth in Jack's work as the number of books Stan was juggling each month increased, putting more writing in Jack's hands. Both the FF and Thor hit their peak of greatness right around the time Stan had the least amount of time to devote to them. That still means Stan's a co-creator, just not in the way I BELIEVE some people think he was. 

Now with Ditko, I think he had less input from the very beginning. ASM early on, but less as time went on. Doctor Strange very little at all. That still means Stan's a co-creator, just not in the way I BELIEVE some people think he was. I don't care if people like that or not, it's what I believe. Uncover something that makes me think otherwise and I'll be happy to see it.

With the FF51 article that I posted in the other thread, I had hoped there were some people who understood Stan's need to change certain aspects of Jack's work - there are web pages devoted to going over Jack's panel notes/intentions and how Stan would reshape them and how it changes much of what Jack had in mind for the team - but... unfortunately it just turned in the Stan Lee Brigade trying to rescue his fading legacy (sarcasm).

Stan is a legend. His place is secure in the history of comic books and superheroes. I guess I need to type that out and sign a sworn affidavit on every post I make! The way people get so defensive about him, makes me even more suspicious. His work either stands on it's own or it doesn't.

I'm not one of those who has a tight death grip on my childhood memories that I refuse to let go of. Just the opposite - I'm an adult - I see things for what they are - or at the very least I WANT to see things for what they are - not because everyone TELLS me what I should believe - but from as much information as I can gather using real CRITICAL REASONING SKILLS to make my final judgement.

[Unca Ben]

1 hour ago, Ken Aldred said:

Silver Surfer 1 is a great origin story with superb art, but the constant one-note soapboxing of the character becomes tedious, as Lee repeats it issue after issue. Buscema's fantastic, but continuing reading through the short series all the way to the finish line quickly turns into a chore.

That is one downfall about reading through a series at once; kinda like binge-watching an old television series.
Reading a series issue after issue without a month (or two) wait between issues may magnify repetitious themes, dialogue, characterizations, etc.
Same with T.V. series.

M.A.S.H. is a good example for television.  There are plenty of others, I'm sure.

There's a big difference (IMO) between being exposed to something for the first time with week(s) or month(s) between successive installments, and binge watching or reading all the installments in short order - especially if it's been read or viewed before, and if the content has become familiarized by word-of-mouth accounts, articles & features on the subject, and subsequent imitations.

  

[Unca Ben]

2 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

I'm not sure what anyone THINKS I'm trying to say, or why they may feel the need to reflect their OWN agenda on what they think I'm trying to say, but let me be clear:

Spoiler

 

I believe, the Marvel Universe would've never been the same without Stan Lee. Fact. He made it a BIG DEAL. He made it seem like the greatest thing ever done. He's a LEGEND.

But without Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko, it would never have existed. 

Stan was a great promoter, great editor, great organizer, great final touch, great spokesman, great salesman - he MADE Marvel what they are today. Do I think he dreamed up the Marvel Universe and then doled out the work to whatever artist he thought would fit the project (as he said in court testimony)? Absolutely not. Nothing in his career suggests that he had that type of creativity.

Do I think he had a hand in the creation of these characters? Sure. With Kirby, early on, he had some real input, and of course always the final say, but as he got busier, Jack was mostly on his creative own. And you can see the amazing change and growth in Jack's work as the number of books Stan was juggling each month increased, putting more writing in Jack's hands. Both the FF and Thor hit their peak of greatness right around the time Stan had the least amount of time to devote to them. That still means Stan's a co-creator, just not in the way I BELIEVE some people think he was. 

Now with Ditko, I think he had less input from the very beginning. ASM early on, but less as time went on. Doctor Strange very little at all. That still means Stan's a co-creator, just not in the way I BELIEVE some people think he was. I don't care if people like that or not, it's what I believe. Uncover something that makes me think otherwise and I'll be happy to see it.

With the FF51 article that I posted in the other thread, I had hoped there were some people who understood Stan's need to change certain aspects of Jack's work - there are web pages devoted to going over Jack's panel notes/intentions and how Stan would reshape them and how it changes much of what Jack had in mind for the team - but... unfortunately it just turned in the Stan Lee Brigade trying to rescue his fading legacy (sarcasm).

Stan is a legend. His place is secure in the history of comic books and superheroes. I guess I need to type that out and sign a sworn affidavit on every post I make! The way people get so defensive about him, makes me even more suspicious. His work either stands on it's own or it doesn't.

I'm not one of those who has a tight death grip on my childhood memories that I refuse to let go of. Just the opposite - I'm an adult - I see things for what they are - or at the very least I WANT to see things for what they are - not because everyone TELLS me what I should believe - but from as much information as I can gather using real CRITICAL REASONING SKILLS to make my final judgement.

 

 

And I agree with this.
It is all the exaggerated and incendiary language that I can't help but notice.  And one-sided sources.

If a point can be made with critical reasoning, then there's no need to attempt to manipulate a readers emotional response.
And I couldn't help but notice that only the sourced quotes that supported the claim that Stan demanded that the artists come up with the stories were referenced; it took "Stan's defenders" to bring up the Romita and Steranko quotes that contradicted the narrative.

And here's an incendiary language example:
Martin Goodman reneged on his agreement about royalties for Captain America with Joe and Jack.  Joe later sued (twice?) over ownership of Captain America and settled out of court.  That's what happened.
To make the statement, "Goodwin straight out stole Captain America from Jack and Joe" elicits an emotional response from the reader and isn't completely accurate.
Why the need for this kind of inflammatory statement if logic and reasoning with a brief factual account of martin's behavior in this - but without the potential emotional manipulation- can make the same point.

Using this rhetoric, who did Joe and Jack "steal" Captain America from?

...so Martin "stole" from Joe & Jack, who had "stolen" from Shorten and Novick.
It seems everybody was playing fast-and-loose with intellectual properties back then.  Not just Martin.   (although he was more guilty of this than most)
If DC could successfully sue Fawcett over the similarities between The Big Red Cheese and Superman, then this could have been a no-brainer.

 

In the Patrick Ford blog about Ditko's Sore Spot article, Patrick injects his own remarks, that without careful reading, might be attributed to Ditko ( appending the following text [BECAUSE IT IS ACTUALLY THE PROPERTY OF THE ARTIST.] at the end of a Ditko quote).  Ditko wrote no such thing, in fact Ditko has stated the opposite.  But that didn't fit Patrick's narrative.

And mixing in opinions among historical narrative ... eg: "Stan's shallow writing".   -I think that was another of Patrick's.  I don't remember.
All this to manipulate the reader to a predetermined conclusion.

...and I'm not a "Stan Lee sycophant' - not that you said I was, but why the need for more inflammatory rhetoric when other phrases that might further the conversation in a constructive manner might be used?

 

LASTLY - when I gave examples of what I thought were great Stan Lee stories (Sons of Serpent, first Titanium Man story arc, etc) you compared them to the Galactus Trilogy, arguably one of the greatest arcs in Marvel silver age history.  I submit that most of Jack's own FF stories aren't in the same category as the galactus Trilogy, either. 
I submit that the stories that I cited are in the same category (or better) as many of Jack's FF stories. 
Why use the galactus trilogy instead of the Infant Terrible - or the Impossible Man - or Tomazooma the Living Totem?
I would rate Sons of the Serpent up there with The Brutal Betrayal of Ben Grimm (FF 41-43) which to me is a great Kirby FF story arc.  Why the need to use such an (outstanding) outlier as FF48-50 instead of the body of work as a whole.  (which was what I based my statements on)

Anyways, it's great chatting with you on the subject.  And i've really enjoyed your latest Archie installments.  Your love of the medium is abundantly clear!

 

Edit: I realized that I've used this post to comment on two separate topics.  It was easier for me.  Mea Culpa

Edited February 21, 2020 by Unca Ben
mea culpa

[Prince Namor]

Joe and Jack made an agreement on what they should be paid for Captain America - they put that together when they brought it to Goodman to publish. Goodman reneged on the deal. He didn't pay them what was owed to them. They went behind his back and took work from other publishers. He fired them and continued to publish their creation.

Years later Goodman tried to use the two of them against each other as he took legal control of the character. How isn't that stealing?

[Prince Namor]

1 hour ago, Unca Ben said:

Using this rhetoric, who did Joe and Jack "steal" Captain America from?

No question they were HEAVILY influenced by the Shield, but they didn't steal it. Archie Comics (MLJ at the time) continued to publish it and make income from it. 

Quote

In the Patrick Ford blog about Ditko's Sore Spot article, Patrick injects his own remarks, that without careful reading, might be attributed to Ditko ( appending the following text [BECAUSE IT IS ACTUALLY THE PROPERTY OF THE ARTIST.] at the end of a Ditko quote).  Ditko wrote no such thing, in fact Ditko has stated the opposite.  But that didn't fit Patrick's narrative.

And mixing in opinions among historical narrative ... eg: "Stan's shallow writing".   -I think that was another of Patrick's.  I don't remember.
All this to manipulate the reader to a predetermined conclusion.

I'm not Patrick Ford, but I see your point. Most of it comes from the anger of the Stan Lee 'guys' and their need to attack anything that questions his legacy. Fighting back and all that.

Quote

...and I'm not a "Stan Lee sycophant' - not that you said I was, but why the need for more inflammatory rhetoric when other phrases that might further the conversation in a constructive manner might be used?

They come in attacking me, and rather than try and individually respond to them, I put them on ignore. In explaining it, I used the more colorful phrase because... it sounds funnier to me. And whereas the English side of me, could've said, "The Gentlemen who regularly disrupt my threads because of their undying love for Stan Lee", it just would've upset the flow of my sentence.

Quote

LASTLY - when I gave examples of what I thought were great Stan Lee stories (Sons of Serpent, first Titanium Man story arc, etc) you compared them to the Galactus Trilogy, arguably one of the greatest arcs in Marvel silver age history.  I submit that most of Jack's own FF stories aren't in the same category as the galactus Trilogy, either. 
I submit that the stories that I cited are in the same category (or better) as many of Jack's FF stories. 

That's subjective of course.

Quote

Why use the galactus trilogy instead of the Infant Terrible - or the Impossible Man - or Tomazooma the Living Totem?
I would rate Sons of the Serpent up there with The Brutal Betrayal of Ben Grimm (FF 41-43) which to me is a great Kirby FF story arc.  Why the need to use such an (outstanding) outlier as FF48-50 instead of the body of work as a whole.  (which was what I based my statements on)

Again, that's subjective. But I'd say the amount of books written on Kirby's Marvel work, far outweighs that of any other artists Marvel work - maybe combined.

Quote

Anyways, it's great chatting with you on the subject.  And i've really enjoyed your latest Archie installments.  Your love of the medium is abundantly clear!

Thanks! I wish I could keep up on it better!

Edited February 21, 2020 by Chuck Gower

[wilbil]

2 hours ago, Unca Ben said:

M.A.S.H. is a good example for television. 

The repetition of a medium that invades enthusiasm and reverses it into boredom is a good point. I agree with this.

I don't agree that M.A.S.H. falls into that category. I would have used Car 54 where are you, or Archie Bunker, but definitely not M.A.S.H. 

[Ken Aldred]

3 hours ago, Unca Ben said:

That is one downfall about reading through a series at once; kinda like binge-watching an old television series.
Reading a series issue after issue without a month (or two) wait between issues may magnify repetitious themes, dialogue, characterizations, etc.
Same with T.V. series.

M.A.S.H. is a good example for television.  There are plenty of others, I'm sure.

There's a big difference (IMO) between being exposed to something for the first time with week(s) or month(s) between successive installments, and binge watching or reading all the installments in short order - especially if it's been read or viewed before, and if the content has become familiarized by word-of-mouth accounts, articles & features on the subject, and subsequent imitations.

  

The binge-watching analogy certainly works in my case.  I never read the original issues, and the first time I had the opportunity to read Lee's Surfer run was as reprints in a weekly 70s Marvel UK title called 'The Super-Heroes'. Then, it wasn't until the 90s that I read them again in the Essential Silver Surfer collection.

[Unca Ben]

59 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

 

I do like all the articles written by Ditko that you've posted.  Seen a few of 'em before, but they're always interesting.
Ditko seems... intense.  And there's nothing wrong with that.

[Prince Namor]

14 minutes ago, Ken Aldred said:

The binge-watching analogy certainly works in my case.  I never read the original issues, and the first time I had the opportunity to read Lee's Surfer run was as reprints in a weekly 70s Marvel UK title called 'The Super-Heroes'. Then, it wasn't until the 90s that I read them again in the Essential Silver Surfer collection.

I have some of those Marvel UK ‘The Super-Heroes’!

Many of the American Comics that were made in that time period were written month to month (obviously) and rarely planned out over a, say, six issue arc to neatly fit into a tpb like today - so back to back to back to back with each issue devoting a page two to catch you up can get aggravating. 
 

Doesn’t change the fact that the Silver Surfer whines continuously throughout that entire series and it’s (in my opinion) an incredibly tedious read either with one issue or many. 

[Prince Namor]

4 minutes ago, Unca Ben said:

I do like all the articles written by Ditko that you've posted.  Seen a few of 'em before, but they're always interesting.
Ditko seems... intense.  And there's nothing wrong with that.

Read a Gil Kane TCJ Interview where he said that the first time he met Ditko they argued about Politics (naturally) for 3 hours!

He said Ditko never lost his temper regardless of how heated the topic became and just stayed even keel and calm through the entire thing - meticulous making his points. 
 

LOL. I can see that...

Gil went on to say they remained very cordial and friendly whenever they ran into each other but never again brought up politics in their conversations!

[Prince Namor]

1 hour ago, wilbil said:

The repetition of a medium that invades enthusiasm and reverses it into boredom is a good point. I agree with this.

I don't agree that M.A.S.H. falls into that category. I would have used Car 54 where are you, or Archie Bunker, but definitely not M.A.S.H. 

Agreed. With M.A.S.H. I used to sit and watch 4 episodes back to back of that on a regular basis - but I also get his point. 

[Mr Sneeze]

3 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

Do I think he had a hand in the creation of these characters? Sure. With Kirby, early on, he had some real input, and of course always the final say, but as he got busier, Jack was mostly on his creative own. And you can see the amazing change and growth in Jack's work as the number of books Stan was juggling each month increased, putting more writing in Jack's hands. Both the FF and Thor hit their peak of greatness right around the time Stan had the least amount of time to devote to them. That still means Stan's a co-creator, just not in the way I BELIEVE some people think he was.

Thanks for bringing that up.

There is that outburst of creativity from say FF 35-66 and Thor 115-140ish where Marvel hits it's peak in my opinion. After that, Kirby starts to hold back his ideas - some trickle out here and there - and the strips, while still serviceable are basically in rerun mode. Stan is a big part of those runs but it's interesting to note the difference or rather the decline after Kirby's input is muted. Kirby and Lee as a marvel creative force are never the same after and it's left to others to ignite and innovate marvels growth.

Kirby of course explodes with the Fourth World - for me the pinnacle of the silver age - and it's interesting to think had the' Dec 66 interview gone differently or Goodman had cut a deal with Kirby that all that stuff would have ended up in Thor most likely, years earlier. I'm glad things worked out the way they did as I think the Fourth World was the high point of Kirby's long and esteemed career.

Does anyone know if all the photstat's still exist such that we could see the pencils and margin notes of those classic runs in their entirety?

[VintageComics]

10 hours ago, Mr Sneeze said:

Kirby of course explodes with the Fourth World - for me the pinnacle of the silver age - and it's interesting to think had the' Dec 66 interview gone differently or Goodman had cut a deal with Kirby that all that stuff would have ended up in Thor most likely, years earlier. I'm glad things worked out the way they did as I think the Fourth World was the high point of Kirby's long and esteemed career.

Boom.

10 hours ago, Mr Sneeze said:

Does anyone know if all the photstat's still exist such that we could see the pencils and margin notes of those classic runs in their entirety?

That's a great question.

[Aman619]

I haven’t read all the way thru.  Just the first few pages, but we’ve been down this road many times before.  One new thought jumped out at me this time.

There’s an underlying reality we have ignored in these Stan vs Jack and Stan vs Steve arguments.  It’s the 800 pound gorilla in the room but we look right through it due to our fantasy that the Marvel comics we loved were lovingly created as collaborations.  They were not.  They were assignments from the editor to freelancers.  Only Stan was the “Company” in all these dealings.  As fans and outsiders we make the mistake of forgetting this overarching fact.

Stan assigned each comic, selected the artists, told them what he wanted, whether it was full -script or essentially no direction at all.  He was the “Company” making decisions to make product and keep the line moving.  He also was involved creatively too to whatever extent made sense to Stan, or was deemed necessary by him.

he and Jack and Steve etc created these comics together... but it was NEVER a partnership!  It was never a freelance writer/artist package turning in an assignment to the publisher.  It was never the same as Siegel and Shuster, or Simon and Kirby.  Stan had the final final say in everything. That was his job as editor, or publisher, or boss  

reading Ditkos articles and Woods recollection that after telling Stan he wanted to be paid for writing drove this home to me.  Wood was taken off Daredevil after that discussion.  That’s not the act of a writing partner, that’s the Company making a hiring change. That takes a coldness that a partner wouldn’t do.  But in his capacity of Editor, Stan made these decision constantly.  He was the Constant at Marvel. Everyone else orbited around him and his decisions.  Of course Marvel was very lucky that Stan was surrounded by outrageoulsy talented artists etc.  but, it’s was Marvel that was to thrive at all costs. That was Stan’s directive. The artists directive was to keep getting assignments to pay the rent. Stan’s was to get the books out! And keep moving, and sell the process and the comics as he went along.

as for all the Bullpen Bulletins, and comments by Stan about creating things or co creating them, and the asides etc that Ditko correctly describes as backhanded swipes and compliments out of anger at the slights... that was simultaneously true and awkwardly insulting to the talent, but unavoidable to the Editor of the line. This was the Editor always creating this fun silly aw shucks atmosphere of a happy family toiling away for you, our dear reader. ( in other words, US). It didn’t matter that it was never true.  I mean, we’re we really supposed to believe it was true? Are we surprised to read the other side as the talent experienced it?

and —— as we all know, it really worked! We are still talking about it now 60 years later!   However successful it was,  it was unavoidable what the effect would be on all the talent that did the heavy lifting in the Marvel Method, .... 

just my two cents..

[slym2none]

14 hours ago, wilbil said:

The repetition of a medium that invades enthusiasm and reverses it into boredom is a good point. I agree with this.

I don't agree that M.A.S.H. falls into that category. I would have used Car 54 where are you, or Archie Bunker, but definitely not M.A.S.H. 

Do you mind? DO YOU MIND???



-slym

[Aman619]

Ooo....ooo

[Coverless 9.8]

On 2/20/2020 at 1:20 PM, sfcityduck said:

U2 and Led Zeppelin and a number of other bands did that.  

I don't think Zep did that.  Most songs were Page/Plant compositions and credited as such.  By In Through The Out Door when Jimmy was mired in substance abuse John Paul Jones became the dominant writer with Plant and it was the first time Zep songs didn't have a Page credit in them.  Sabbath and The Doors were bands that actually did that across the board with writing credits, at least until The Soft Parade with the latter. 

[Prince Namor]

5 hours ago, Aman619 said:

I haven’t read all the way thru.  Just the first few pages,

It's always disappointing when someone says this... a lot of great information in this thread. From both sides once some of the silliness got wiped. 

5 hours ago, Aman619 said:

but we’ve been down this road many times before.  

Which road is that? These are essays that haven't been posted here before. All but one, I had never seen in 50 years of reading comics.

5 hours ago, Aman619 said:

One new thought jumped out at me this time.

There’s an underlying reality we have ignored in these Stan vs Jack and Stan vs Steve arguments.  It’s the 800 pound gorilla in the room but we look right through it due to our fantasy that the Marvel comics we loved were lovingly created as collaborations.  They were not.  They were assignments from the editor to freelancers.  Only Stan was the “Company” in all these dealings.  As fans and outsiders we make the mistake of forgetting this overarching fact.

I don't think anyone is forgetting that. It's well known that Martin Goodman was married to Stan's cousin, making them 'family' and that Stan was in charge of Martin's Comic Book line. He ran Atlas and then Marvel Comics. He was the face of the company. He made the final decisions (after Martin's approval for major changes). He was the Editor. I think most everyone discussing this is well aware of that. 

5 hours ago, Aman619 said:

Stan assigned each comic, selected the artists, told them what he wanted, whether it was full --script

There were no full Stan Lee scripts.

5 hours ago, Aman619 said:

or essentially no direction at all.  He was the “Company” making decisions to make product and keep the line moving.  He also was involved creatively too to whatever extent made sense to Stan, or was deemed necessary by him.

The notion that Stan came up with the ideas and simply assigned an artist to each one is just not true.  From the day Jack came back he brought ideas to Stan. Marvel looked as though they were going to close their doors at the end of the summer 1958 (they released ZERO books on the newsstand in August of 1958). Jack came up with new books to kick start things and brought monsters and sci-fi stories that sold and got things going. 

Prior to August of 1961 (and interestingly enough the month FF #1 came out), Stan wasn't signing his name to any of the stories being done - and we know Stan signed his name to EVERYTHING he had a hand in (including pin-ups and even covers) - so it stands to reason these stories were being brought in by Kirby and Ditko. The exact same kind of work they'd been doing prior to coming to Marvel.

5 hours ago, Aman619 said:

he and Jack and Steve etc created these comics together... but it was NEVER a partnership!  It was never a freelance writer/artist package turning in an assignment to the publisher.  It was never the same as Siegel and Shuster, or Simon and Kirby.  Stan had the final final say in everything. That was his job as editor, or publisher, or boss

Correct. That's not the same as creating it. Which Ditko rather humorously satirizes in one of his essays. 

5 hours ago, Aman619 said:

reading Ditkos articles and Woods recollection that after telling Stan he wanted to be paid for writing drove this home to me.  Wood was taken off Daredevil after that discussion.  That’s not the act of a writing partner, that’s the Company making a hiring change. That takes a coldness that a partner wouldn’t do.  

Yes. He was the boss, not a partner. This is clearly: creators creating and an editor getting mad because they wanted to get paid for the actual work they did - taking credit away from the editor (Stan).

Julius Schwartz said he re-wrote parts of many, many scripts for his writers because of errors, inconsistencies, etc. - he didn't take the credit or the PAY for it. 

5 hours ago, Aman619 said:

But in his capacity of Editor, Stan made these decision constantly.  He was the Constant at Marvel. Everyone else orbited around him and his decisions.  Of course Marvel was very lucky that Stan was surrounded by outrageoulsy talented artists etc.  but, it’s was Marvel that was to thrive at all costs. That was Stan’s directive. The artists directive was to keep getting assignments to pay the rent. Stan’s was to get the books out! And keep moving, and sell the process and the comics as he went along.

As if the artists were just replaceable (but talented) cogs in the machine that Stan built? That's the way Stan has tried to portray it.

Strange how Stan wasn't successful at this same Editor juggling prior to Kirby and Ditko. Atlas was a rip off and duplicate publisher for almost 20 years. 

Meanwhile Kirby, with Joe Simon were making successful comics all throughout that time. After leaving Marvel (where they BROUGHT Captain America - a million copy seller for the publisher), they went to DC and had hits with Boy Commandos (another million seller) along with Sandman and Manhunter.

After the War they brought the Romance genre to comics and had ANOTHER million selling book!

What was Stan Lee and Atlas doing? They relaunched Simon & Kirby's Captain America character (which failed) so they copied the romance genre. Or the horror genre. Or whatever seemed to be selling elsewhere. (In response to Atlas' Cap revival, S&K creating Fighting American, one of the more under rated of the books they ever did).

So Jack was a part of partnerships that were successful throughout the Golden Age - playing a part in the creation and success of numerous books, while Stan Lee... wasn't. I mean, he just WASN'T. Jack comes to Atlas and creates the monster line of books - which kick start the whole line of comics and... yet, when they start working on superheroes together, people believe that... Stan Lee was the one who orchestrated the success?

This is what I'm talking about with using Critical Reasoning Skills... there is nothing in the history of those two, leading up to them working together, nor in their time AFTER they worked together, that could make an impartial observer see it as Stan was the catalyst for the creativity.

5 hours ago, Aman619 said:

as for all the Bullpen Bulletins, and comments by Stan about creating things or co creating them, and the asides etc that Ditko correctly describes as backhanded swipes and compliments out of anger at the slights... that was simultaneously true and awkwardly insulting to the talent, but unavoidable to the Editor of the line. This was the Editor always creating this fun silly aw shucks atmosphere of a happy family toiling away for you, our dear reader. ( in other words, US). It didn’t matter that it was never true.  I mean, we’re we really supposed to believe it was true? Are we surprised to read the other side as the talent experienced it?

I agree with how it was taken, and Stan's act was highly successful and made Marvel the #1 publisher. The backhanded swipes are different. If he had did it to one of US, we wouldn't have seen it the same way. Yes, as kids, we had no idea what was going on behind the scenes - Stan created this image of everyone having fun all while reminding us HE was the fearless leader. Textbook conditioning.

5 hours ago, Aman619 said:

and —— as we all know, it really worked! We are still talking about it now 60 years later!   However successful it was,  it was unavoidable what the effect would be on all the talent that did the heavy lifting in the Marvel Method, .... 

just my two cents..

It was amazingly successful thanks to Stan. But it never would have happened without Kirby and Ditko.

[mrc]

1 hour ago, Chuck Gower said:

It was amazingly successful thanks to Stan. But it never would have happened without Kirby and Ditko.

........without Kirby, definitely. Without Ditko, maybe.

[VintageComics]

5 hours ago, Coverless 9.8 said:

On 2/20/2020 at 1:20 PM, sfcityduck said:

U2 and Led Zeppelin and a number of other bands did that.  

I don't think Zep did that.  Most songs were Page/Plant compositions and credited as such.  By In Through The Out Door when Jimmy was mired in substance abuse John Paul Jones became the dominant writer with Plant and it was the first time Zep songs didn't have a Page credit in them.  Sabbath and The Doors were bands that actually did that across the board with writing credits, at least until The Soft Parade with the latter. 

Zep is one of my favorite bands but they didn't credit all the old blues artists they stole their music from. 

When I first heard about it I thought people were exaggerating about them lifting the music but they lifted a LOT of music from their predecessors.

In this day and age, that wouldn't have flown.