True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee 6 6

[Prince Namor]

If you've ever wondered why Joe Orlando had such a short one issue stint with Marvel back in the early 60's....

 

Yet another classic creator, Joe Orlando, was recruited after him (Bill Everett) and chafed under what he identified as Stan’s desire to have art that looked like Kirby’s, so he quit… admitted Orlando, “was that I wasn’t Jack Kirby. Jack - or Ditko, or just a couple of others - could take a couple of sentences of plot and bring in 20 pages that Stan could dialogue in an afternoon or two. When I drew out the story my way, Stan would go over it and say, ‘this panel needs to be changed’ and ‘this whole page needs to be changed’ and on and on. I didn’t plot it out the way he wanted the story told, so I wound up drawing at least half of every story twice. They weren’t paying enough for that so I quit.”

-from True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee

[Prince Namor]

Reese is also quoted in the new Ditko biography (geez, wait'll I get to THAT one) and shares a similar story here:

“He despised Stan,” recalls Wood’s former assistant Ralph Reese. “He was always ‘on’, he was always being ‘Stan Lee’. He was just a relentless self-promoter. He was kind of a phony, in Wood’s opinion.”

Years later, according to Reese, Wood and Ditko would spend time together and kvetch about Stan. “They said that Stan’s a blowhard and took credit for a lot of stuff he didn’t really create,” Reese recalls. “Even more than that, they resented the fact that Stan was making millions of dollars and they were still struggling, living in rented apartments.

-True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee

[Prince Namor]

People who had worked at or currently worked at Marvel, including Conway, Ditko, and even Stan's own brother Larry, joined the Goodmans' enterprise. Larry had been deeply dissatisfied with Stan - it was around this time that he asked Stan for work and got that comment from an editor that Stan didn't consider Larry to be a part of his family. Larry recalls taking lunch with Goodman and getting a confidence boost. "Martin gets angry: 'That son of a person_without_enough_empathy, why doesn't he give you some work?'" Larry remembers.

So Larry went to Stan and said he was thinking about jumping ship. "He says to me, 'Well, I guess you've got to go over there and give [Goodman] the work, but I'd rather you didn't right for them. But I guess I can't ask you to do that', " Larry says. "The guys got millions! I can't pay my rent! And he's telling me bot to write for them!" Indignant, Larry made a rare stand against his brother and went to Atlas/Seaboard.

-from True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee

[Prince Namor]

Stan still didn’t seem to get what was bothering Kirby. Evanier tells me of a time near the end of the 1970s when he ran into Stan at the San Diego Comic Convention and got into a conversation with him about Kirby. The topic of the infamous 1966 Herald Tribune article came up and Stan started talking about how it wasn’t his fault that journalists and others gave him full credit instead of acknowledging Kirby - a refrain he would utter many times throughout his life. Evanier couldn’t take it anymore. He recalls the following dialogue, which referenced the entertainment duo of Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis:

I said, “At some point in every Martin and Lewis movie, Dean says to somebody, ‘Hey, you can’t do that to my pal.’” And I said, “Stan, no matter what they do to Jack, it’s always somebody else. You dive under the desk: ‘I’m not responsible for him being screwed, because I didn’t screw him personally.’ “ I said, “When I work with people and I get credit for their work, I go out and write a letter and I try and correct the record.” And I finally said, “I don’t understand how you can write superheroes and say, ‘With great power comes great responsibility.’” And he got furious at me and didn’t speak to me for a year and a half.

 

-True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee

[NoMan]

4 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

Reese is also quoted in the new Ditko biography (geez, wait'll I get to THAT one) and shares a similar story here:

“He despised Stan,” recalls Wood’s former assistant Ralph Reese. “He was always ‘on’, he was always being ‘Stan Lee’. He was just a relentless self-promoter. He was kind of a phony, in Wood’s opinion.”

Years later, according to Reese, Wood and Ditko would spend time together and kvetch about Stan. “They said that Stan’s a blowhard and took credit for a lot of stuff he didn’t really create,” Reese recalls. “Even more than that, they resented the fact that Stan was making millions of dollars and they were still struggling, living in rented apartments.

-True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee

A ditko bio?

[lordbyroncomics]

I do not understand the need for people to be so extremist and have it one or the other- they either hate Stan or they hate Kirby, or rather, are pro Stan or pro Kirby. While it's true that without Stan there was no Marvel as we knew it (as a genius editor and facilitator and figurehead), it is NOT fair to say they "created equally" because that's ridiculous. And that's what I liked about this book- Riesman points out, the things Stan was the BEST in comics at (as an Editor and Creative Chief) were not the things he inevitably took credit for- IDEAS and concepts were, which he was suspiciously not great at in between the very brief time that Kirby was his chief collaborator. And I think that's a valid point and deserves evaluation.

Fans need the myth of the genial Geek Godfather and they need the myth of the Bullpen and as such, often wear blinders. You don't need to tear Stan down to recognize that Kirby was the creative force in that partnership and Stan was the finishing touch, the producer who would hone the rough edges and give it a distinct flair. Fans also need to recognize that the corporate owners of Marvel have always had a vested interest in continuing this myth even though evidence clearly destroys it when you look at the facts. I saw people making comments that this was slander on Stan, to which I replied- is it slander to use the man's own quotes and statements? Why is he above having a close evaluation done?

Ger Aperdorn did an exhaustive article for Alter Ego about just how hard Stan had tried to break away from Goodman pre-1961 and during the 1960s with syndicated strips, self-published fumetti and golf books, etc. All failed. His wife had expensive tastes and he had a lifestyle to maintain. He was never going to quit Goodman, who provided a very comfortable life for him. Secondly, Stan wasn't into comics. No fault in that- recognizing that (based on over 50 documented statements from Stan himself) doesn't mean he didn't take his position seriously and didn't try to do good work. But it's the myth that people need, as comics themselves continue to be diluted and lose the magic that the real frantic ones once had when they were younger. 

[lordbyroncomics]

On 3/10/2021 at 10:51 PM, Aman619 said:

apparently, Reisman was assigned to do a review of "Excelsior."  He misunderstood the assignment as one on Stan Lee, and did a lot of research, and found the pieces that told a very different story about Stan than the usual commonly held ideas that Stan "drew all the comics", and was a master storyteller who created everything at Marvel.  He had a shocking realization, and smelled a best seller.  Most of us have known all the stories, and Stan's exaggerations of his input, and how the Marvel method was basically unfair to the artists, but have long since put it all into perspective.  

So this book is an eye opener to a generation of people who only know Stan as that nice old guy in the cameos, you know, the "Walt Disney" of Marvel.  Frankly I haven't read it, nor most of the other Marvel books. But Im told Reisman is a respected writer...and didnt write a true "hatchet job". I just wish he'd never heard of Stan Lee!  Cause do we need another tell-all expose of Evil Stan?

With respect, if you haven't read it how can you say it's "another" tell-all expose of Evil Stan? And was there another tell all expose published I am unaware of? Because the bios of Stan I've seen have ranging from the overly biased rationale of a fan (Danny Fingeroth's horrible bio: "Twas Steve's idea, Stan wrote regarding Doctor Strange. It is unclear what Stan meant by that.") to the laughable pro-corporate narrative graphic novel that Peter David wrote.

Again, Stan is not above having his own words and statements and actions investigated and discussed. It's nice that fans are still protective but, you know- people are gonna disappoint you, whether you love them or not. It doesn't destroy all the good stuff they've done, right?

[shadroch]

9 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

If you've ever wondered why Joe Orlando had such a short one issue stint with Marvel back in the early 60's....

 

Yet another classic creator, Joe Orlando, was recruited after him (Bill Everett) and chafed under what he identified as Stan’s desire to have art that looked like Kirby’s, so he quit… admitted Orlando, “was that I wasn’t Jack Kirby. Jack - or Ditko, or just a couple of others - could take a couple of sentences of plot and bring in 20 pages that Stan could dialogue in an afternoon or two. When I drew out the story my way, Stan would go over it and say, ‘this panel needs to be changed’ and ‘this whole page needs to be changed’ and on and on. I didn’t plot it out the way he wanted the story told, so I wound up drawing at least half of every story twice. They weren’t paying enough for that so I quit.”

-from True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee

Compare this to how the DC editors acted.   I thought Stan was getting bashed for being an editor and not a writer, but here he gets bashed for editing.

[shadroch]

9 hours ago, Prince Namor said:

People who had worked at or currently worked at Marvel, including Conway, Ditko, and even Stan's own brother Larry, joined the Goodmans' enterprise. Larry had been deeply dissatisfied with Stan - it was around this time that he asked Stan for work and got that comment from an editor that Stan didn't consider Larry to be a part of his family. Larry recalls taking lunch with Goodman and getting a confidence boost. "Martin gets angry: 'That son of a person_without_enough_empathy, why doesn't he give you some work?'" Larry remembers.

So Larry went to Stan and said he was thinking about jumping ship. "He says to me, 'Well, I guess you've got to go over there and give [Goodman] the work, but I'd rather you didn't right for them. But I guess I can't ask you to do that', " Larry says. "The guys got millions! I can't pay my rent! And he's telling me bot to write for them!" Indignant, Larry made a rare stand against his brother and went to Atlas/Seaboard.

-from True Believer: The Rise and Fall of Stan Lee

Atlas attracted top talent by paying higher page rates and offered benefits Marvel didn't.  Marvel was a cog in a much bigger machine and I'm surprised anyone would think Stan could make different deals with different artists.

Wally Wood died in 1981, and the last time Wood and Ditko worked together seems to have been several years earlier.   I doubt Stan was a millionaire in that time period.

[the blob]

23 minutes ago, shadroch said:

Compare this to how the DC editors acted.   I thought Stan was getting bashed for being an editor and not a writer, but here he gets bashed for editing.

yeah, DC produced a lot of garbage up until the late 60s

[bluechip]

On 3/10/2021 at 3:40 AM, Prince Namor said:

For the hardcore Stan Lee fan, anything that questions his legacy as the Comic Book Svengali, is met with a complete dismissal. So for those people, they should probably go to the next thread, or pick up a different book then. Not that True Believer isn't fair to Stan - it gives him the benefit of the doubt on many occasions, but for those in their 50's who still have a white knuckle grip on their 13 year old memories, that still won't be enough. And the sad last years of his life are something they REALLY don't want to read about.

See, the purpose of this book, was to try and tell the real story... not the candy coated, BSful, face front of one of Stan's ghost written biographies - but what we really know. And as such, there's no definitive determination on who wrote what - it just goes into detail about the Marvel method and who SAID what and when. Don't get me wrong - it calls out Stan on many of his life story 'embellishments', it just makes no hard fast pronouncements that Jack created all of this or Ditko created all of that.

Which is a good thing actually - because when taken as a whole - Stan Lee's story pretty much TELLS us the truth anyway. Because as much as Jordan Raphael and Tom Spurgeon's 'Stan Lee and the Rise and Fall of the American Comic Book' peeled back some of the layers of Lee's story - in the end, we needed the complete tale to see the whole story. Summed up... Stan was drifting through life, when he met the woman of his dreams, and used some questionable means to give her the Boujee lifestyle she wanted and set their family up for life. But like the stories that he used to do with Steve Ditko in the 50's, there ended up a dark side to that lifestyle, and the questionable means he would use to get there, ended up being used by others to take advantage of him for the few last decades of his life.

As much as I have a certain level of resentment towards Stan, because of how Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko were treated, I couldn't help but feel incredibly sad in reading about the last years of Stan's life. Beyond being someone who made comic books more fun, more interesting, more culturally investing and helped create a universe unlike any before or since, he was just a man - and seeing just a man, taken advantage of as badly as he was, was really sad to read about in detail. And his daughter... oy vey!

Fame was a drug for Stan - and the money he made from it was necessary to make sure his wife Joan and his daughter JC had a luxurious life that never left any desire out of reach. But it came back to haunt him in many ways, and this book details it, taken from the people who were there and later on from Stan's own archives and audio recordings, and in the case of some of Stan's former 'friends', even video recordings. It's as complete a story as we'll probably ever get, from Stan's upbringing, through to his passing away. 

Some will see this as a travesty (who wants to read about the TRUTH?), but for me, it puts Stan in a human perspective that makes him more relatable. He was a man. He did good things, he did bad things. But he created an unmatched legacy, that unfortunately fed him and tortured him at the same time. He was propped up and had his carcass picked at by vultures for the ten years of his life. How can you not feel empathy for that? 

The author says he was objective and I believe that he believes he was objective, but by journalistic standards he just isn't

He editorializes often, based in large part on his personal opinion about the quality of Stan's work versus Jack's work sans each other and post Marvel's silver age.  One can easily and reasonably disagree, but he treats his opinion as an objective fact, and fails to recognize that he's comparing apples versus oranges when you're talking about non-comic projects (TV, movies, etc).   

The core of his assertion that Jack did it all starts with period quotes from Stan himself saying Jack was a "co-writer" (or "practically the co-writer).  After using that as proof of Jack's dominance, he points out that Stan later soft-pedaled Jack's contribution, which he did.  But Reisman's response to those quotes, and others, follows the same logic time and again.  Stan is presumed to have been lying 100% whenever he bragged or said other things Reisman liked, and presumed to be telling the truth 100% whenever he praised Jack or said other things he liked). 

He picks apart inconsistences in Stan's stories, no matter how small, but glosses over the inconsistences in Jack's accounts (and Jack's accounts were not just occasionally big lies but sometimes even bizarre, such as claiming that Stan "never wrote anything" or even "read books" or "knew anything" about history or mythology.  Anyone who knew Stan or even saw him on TV could easily tell you that Stan was very well read and could quote many long passages from books, and had an impressive knowledge of history and theology and mythology. 

Jack, and the book's author, claim Stan never wrote "any" complete scripts from scratch, completely ignoring the two decades Stan spent writing literally thousands of scripts prior to the implementation of the "Marvel method". 

He reluctantly admits that both Stan and Jack misrepresented things and then says, at one point, we should not discount the possibility that "one of them" might be lying 100% (and you can practically hear the author saying: "hint, hint, wink, wink, I mean Stan, in case you couldn't tell").  How can both men be lying, by his own account, and yet one of them is lying totally, while the other is telling the truth, totally?

In discussing the creation of the FF, he discusses the treatment/outline/whatever you wanna call it and also recounts that Stan and Jack and Martin Goodman met and discussed the plot and characters at some point.  Reisman says, try and follow this... that if Jack was not part of the discussion before Stan wrote the outline, that Jack is entitled to at least 50% of the credit (and probably more).  IF, on the other hand, Jack did attend a meeting with Lee and Goodman, prior to the writing of the outline, then Jack is entitled to 100% of the credit for the creation of the FF.  Read that again, and read it in the book.  If Stan and Martin Goodman discussed the FF prior to the writing of the outline, and Jack was in the room, then, Reisman concludes that Jack was and is entitled to 100% of the credit.  Not half the credit, with Stan.  And not 1/3 of the credit, split between Jack, Stan and Goodman.  Jack is presumed to have made 100% of all the creative things said in that room.  Reisman presents it is an unassailable fact that the other men simply could not, would not and did not contribute anything.  Any. Thing.   

I could go on about how that conversation may have followed one solely between Stan and Goodman, or about how there's all kinds of reasons to believe Goodman wanted a "Human Torch" character because Marvel already owned one.  And how all those men were aware of Plastic Man and Invisible Scarlet O'Neill, and how Timely had been doing stories about men being turned into monsters by accidents or exposure to chemicals, spores, rays and everything else (and how that was being done before Jack rejoined the company in 1958).  And I could go on about many other examples where Reisman strayed far over the line to editorialize and cherry-pick facts in such a way that it's clear he began the book with his conclusions in mind, and was swayed by that conclusion every step of the way.  As I said, I truly believe he thinks he was truly objective.  But in the end... he just wasn't.

The author says he was objective and I believe that he believes he was objective, but by journalistic standards he just isn't.  He editorializes often, based in large part on his personal opinion about the quality of Stan's work versus Jack's work sans each other and post Marvel's silver age.  One can easily and reasonably disagree, but he treats his opinion as an objective fact, and fails to recognize that he's comparing apples versus oranges when you're talking about non-comic projects (TV, movies, etc).   He quotes Stan as being the first and most prominent person to say Jack was a "co-writer" and, after using that as proof of Jack's dominance, says that Stan lied when he later soft-pedaled Jack's contribution (in other words, Stan is presumed to have bee lying whenever he said things the author liked, and presumed to be telling the truth whenever he said things the author liked). 

He picks apart inconsistences in Stan's stories, no matter how small, but glosses over the inconsistences in Jack's accounts (and Jack's accounts were not just occasionally big lies but sometimes even bizarre, such as claiming that Stan "never wrote anything" or even "read books" or "knew anything" about history or mythology.  Anyone who knew Stan or even saw him on TV could easily tell you that Stan was very well read and could quote many long passages from books, and had an impressive knowledge of history and theology and mythology. 

Jack, and the book's author, claim Stan never wrote "any" complete scripts from scratch, completely ignoring the two decades Stan spent writing literally thousands of scripts prior to the implementation of the "Marvel method". 

He reluctantly admits that both Stan and Jack misrepresented things and then says, at one point, we should not discount the possibility that "one of them" might be lying 100& (as the subtext screams: "hint, hint, wink, wink, I mean Stan, in case you couldn't tell").  How can both men be lying, by your own account, and yet one of them is lying totally, while the other is telling the truth, totally?

In discussing the creation of the FF, he discusses the treatment/outline/whatever you wanna call it and also recounts that Stan and Jack and Martin Goodman met and discussed the plot and characters at some point.  Reisman says, try and follow this... that if Jack was not part of the discussion before Stan wrote the outline, that Jack is entitled to at least 50% of the credit (and probably more).  IF, on the other hand, Jack did attend a meeting with Lee and Goodman, prior to the writing of the outline, then Jack is entitled to 100% of the credit for the creation of the FF.  Read that again, and read it in the book.  If Stan and Martin Goodman discussed the FF prior to the writing of the outline, and Jack was in the room, then, Reisman concludes that Jack was and is entitled to 100% of the credit.  Half half the credit, with Stan.  Not 1/3 of the credit, split between Jack, Stan and Goodman.  100%.  He presumes, unabashedly (and editorializing to the moon and back) that the other men simply could not, would not and did not contribute anything.  Any. Thing.   

I could go on about how that conversation may have followed one solely between Stan and Goodman, or about how there's all kinds of reasons to believe Goodman wanted a "Human Torch" character because Marvel already owned one.  And how all those men were aware of Plastic Man and Invisible Scarlet O'Neill, and how Timely had been doing stories about men being turned into monsters by accidents or exposure to chemicals, spores, rays and everything else (and how that was being done before Jack rejoined the company in 1958).  And I could go on about many other examples where Reisman strayed far over the line to editorialize and cherry-pick facts in such a way that it's clear he began the book with his conclusions in mind, and was swayed by that conclusion every step of the way.  And I could lay out how his conclusion was foregone and apparently made well before he started researching the book, because he'd made that conclusion in an article for Vulture which provided the origin story for this book.  I could point out how he references that article, with obvious pride, as something that he'd heard Stan was irked by.  I could point out how he says repeatedly he wasn't looking to do a takedown, then would say a short time later that it was goal to point out "there are no superheroes" and, more importantly, to get people to reassess Stan's legacy.   

Much of the journalistic work is well researched and sourced, and well written.  And, to repeat, I truly believe he thinks he and the book are truly objective.  But in the final analysis... they just aren't.  

Edited March 13, 2021 by bluechip

[Rip]

I have yet to read the book. And I hope to.

A friend of mine had sent me this a while ago and I have only skimmed some of the Roy Thomas "pushes back article" article. Hoping to catch up on this whole thing soon.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/roy-thomas-former-marvel-editor-pushes-back-on-new-stan-lee-biography-guest-column

Over the years I've felt like I've been kind of neutral on the topic. Kirby should have been treated better, but at the same time I've also felt like I've seen an over correct against Stan Lee. But I never worked with him either.

Also I'm often skeptical of some of these posthumous books about celebrities as I've all to often seen complete fiction passed as fact. 

I'll try to save my next 2 cents after I read the book. I'm curious how being a graphic designer myself who has worked for larger studios will weigh my opinions. Puts on diving suit,.... gets reading glasses.

[Prince Namor]

55 minutes ago, bluechip said:

The author says he was objective and I believe that he believes he was objective, but by journalistic standards he just isn't

He editorializes often, based in large part on his personal opinion about the quality of Stan's work versus Jack's work sans each other and post Marvel's silver age.  One can easily and reasonably disagree, but he treats his opinion as an objective fact, and fails to recognize that he's comparing apples versus oranges when you're talking about non-comic projects (TV, movies, etc).

You must've read a different book than me. 

55 minutes ago, bluechip said:

   The core of his assertion that Jack did it all

You clearly read a different book than me. Nowhere does he make the assertion that Jack did it all.

55 minutes ago, bluechip said:

starts with period quotes from Stan himself saying Jack was a "co-writer" (or "practically the co-writer).  After using that as proof of Jack's dominance, he points out that Stan later soft-pedaled Jack's contribution, which he did.  But Reisman's response to those quotes, and others, follows the same logic time and again.  Stan is presumed to have been lying 100% whenever he bragged or said other things Reisman liked, and presumed to be telling the truth 100% whenever he praised Jack or said other things he liked). 

That just isn't true. 

55 minutes ago, bluechip said:

He picks apart inconsistences in Stan's stories, no matter how small, but glosses over the inconsistences in Jack's accounts (and Jack's accounts were not just occasionally big lies but sometimes even bizarre, such as claiming that Stan "never wrote anything" or even "read books" or "knew anything" about history or mythology. 

He did?

Example of him picking apart Jack's accounts:

[Prince Namor]

1 hour ago, bluechip said:

Anyone who knew Stan or even saw him on TV could easily tell you that Stan was very well read and could quote many long passages from books, and had an impressive knowledge of history and theology and mythology. 

Example? I've never seen or heard Stan do any such thing.

1 hour ago, bluechip said:

Jack, and the book's author, claim Stan never wrote "any" complete scripts from scratch, completely ignoring the two decades Stan spent writing literally thousands of scripts prior to the implementation of the "Marvel method". 

a) That's false

b) Stan did NOT write thousands of scripts prior to the Marvel Method. He mainly wrote rehashed jokes for humor comics. And its his brother Larry who describes how the Marvel Method first got started: 

[Prince Namor]

1 hour ago, bluechip said:

He reluctantly admits that both Stan and Jack misrepresented things and then says, at one point, we should not discount the possibility that "one of them" might be lying 100& (as the subtext screams: "hint, hint, wink, wink, I mean Stan, in case you couldn't tell").  How can both men be lying, by your own account, and yet one of them is lying totally, while the other is telling the truth, totally?

I didn't get the same thing from any subtext here.

[Prince Namor]

1 hour ago, bluechip said:

In discussing the creation of the FF, he discusses the treatment/outline/whatever you wanna call it and also recounts that Stan and Jack and Martin Goodman met and discussed the plot and characters at some point.  Reisman says, try and follow this... that if Jack was not part of the discussion before Stan wrote the outline, that Jack is entitled to at least 50% of the credit (and probably more).  IF, on the other hand, Jack did attend a meeting with Lee and Goodman, prior to the writing of the outline, then Jack is entitled to 100% of the credit for the creation of the FF.  Read that again, and read it in the book.  If Stan and Martin Goodman discussed the FF prior to the writing of the outline, and Jack was in the room, then, Reisman concludes that Jack was and is entitled to 100% of the credit.  Half half the credit, with Stan.  Not 1/3 of the credit, split between Jack, Stan and Goodman.  100%.  He presumes, unabashedly (and editorializing to the moon and back) that the other men simply could not, would not and did not contribute anything.  Any. Thing.   

I just reread that chapter and have absolutely no idea where you got this. 

[bluechip]

10 minutes ago, Prince Namor said:

Example? I've never seen or heard Stan do any such thing.

a) That's false

b) Stan did NOT write thousands of scripts prior to the Marvel Method. He mainly wrote rehashed jokes for humor comics. And its his brother Larry who describes how the Marvel Method first got started: 

 

Reisman was paid for his takedown-that's-"not-a-takedown" and you are clearly willing to spend far more of your life bolstering the takedown than I will ever be willing to spend of my going back and forth and jumping through textual hoops like a circus dog giving you examples of this or that.  Or responding to statements that make no sense about kind of comics Stan worked on from 1941 to 1961, when Timely/Atlas did everything from the continuing super hero comics to crime and detective comics, westerns, horror, science fiction, romance, true stories, Bible stories, and many others, as Stan himself was quoted describing how they copied every trend that came along.  You seem unwilling to give Stan credit for his work in those genres even as you want, in another breath, to can label him a hack for copying the latest trends).

I'll venture a guess that you are one of those who will eagerly accept every assertion made by Ditko and Kirby, including the claims both make that they created Spider-man.   

To the never-Stans of fandom, neither Ditko nor Kirby are lying, because the important part, the only part that apparently matters, is that they both say Stan didn't do it. 

In the words of the rabbi in Fidder on the Roof, "they can't both be right." 

So, I will not engage.  You can, and most likely will, bury what I wrote under a mountain of additional posts, which, if the usual pattern of the never-Stans takes its usual shape, will increasingly contradict the assertion in your original post that you didn't set out to read that book, or comment on here, with a predetermined agenda.  

Life is short.  So, I won't try to dig out from under that mountain and, to paraphrase Forest Gump, that will probably be all I have to say about that.   

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

@bluechipand @Prince Namor you both are very knowledgeable and I’ve enjoyed the lively discussion. Thank you @Prince Namorfor starting this topic

[Prince Namor]

6 hours ago, bluechip said:

Reisman was paid for his takedown-that's-"not-a-takedown" and you are clearly willing to spend far more of your life bolstering the takedown than I will ever be willing to spend of my going back and forth and jumping through textual hoops like a circus dog giving you examples of this or that. 

In other words, you can't.

6 hours ago, bluechip said:

Or responding to statements that make no sense about kind of comics Stan worked on from 1941 to 1961, when Timely/Atlas did everything from the continuing super hero comics to crime and detective comics, westerns, horror, science fiction, romance, true stories, Bible stories, and many others, as Stan himself was quoted describing how they copied every trend that came along.  You seem unwilling to give Stan credit for his work in those genres even as you want, in another breath, to can label him a hack for copying the latest trends).

The evidence is there. It shows exactly what Stan worked on. The work orders have been documented, and Stan himself signed most of his work during that period. Based upon that evidence - a very large percentage of what he wrote was that joke book text for romance/humor stories.

Let's use 1952 as an example - Atlas was pumping out plenty of Horror/Suspense/Crime books, but Stan's focus was hugely doing Millie the Model, My Friend Irma, Hedy of Hollywood, etc. ALL are in that joke book format - he seems to be completely skipping the True Romance format.

If we count the actual STORY PAGES that he either signed, or a work order showing him as the writer is available - he did 1166 pages in 1952. 

854 were in the Humor/Romace genre - a whopping 74% . It goes on like that for the whole decade. You can add it up yourself. It gets higher, especially after Wertham starts his crusade:

https://www.comics.org/writer/name/Stan Lee/sort/chrono/?method=icontains&logic=True&target=sequence&-script=Stan+Lee&page=8

6 hours ago, bluechip said:

I'll venture a guess that you are one of those who will eagerly accept every assertion made by Ditko and Kirby, including the claims both make that they created Spider-man.

Nope. And neither does Reisman, as I showed above. But don't let the truth get in the way of what you want to believe.

6 hours ago, bluechip said:

To the never-Stans of fandom, neither Ditko nor Kirby are lying, because the important part, the only part that apparently matters, is that they both say Stan didn't do it.

Actually they all three say THEY did it. 

6 hours ago, bluechip said:

So, I will not engage. 

You already have.

6 hours ago, bluechip said:

You can, and most likely will, bury what I wrote under a mountain of additional posts, which, if the usual pattern of the never-Stans takes its usual shape, will increasingly contradict the assertion in your original post that you didn't set out to read that book, or comment on here, with a predetermined agenda.

Here's what I originally wrote in my opening synopsis: "And as such, there's no definitive determination on who wrote what - it just goes into detail about the Marvel method and who SAID what and when. Don't get me wrong - it calls out Stan on many of his life story 'embellishments', it just makes no hard fast pronouncements that Jack created all of this or Ditko created all of that."

But then again I also wrote: "For the hardcore Stan Lee fan, anything that questions his legacy as the Comic Book Svengali, is met with a complete dismissal."

What was your agenda?

6 hours ago, bluechip said:

  Life is short.  So, I won't try to dig out from under that mountain and, to paraphrase Forest Gump, that will probably be all I have to say about that.   

Ok.

[Prince Namor]

Even more information and study about the Atlas years is here: https://www.atlastales.com