Revelations about Stan Lee in Riesman's biography

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I mean, the fact that we're using language like "it's more likely that", "I would say", and "that part we don't know", it does show how things can get messy and complicated.

Hence the reason, to quote Kirby the Great, "comics will break your heart".

This debate does pose interesting questions. Is the dialogue more important than the written scenario? Which counts for more? 'With great power...' or the situation of Peter letting the burglar go who ended up killing his uncle. "With great power..." existed as a quotation for more than a century before AF#15 and it never had the resonance it did or popular favor until Spider-Man, and I'd argue that it was the situation of the plot that gave that the meaning it has come to acquire. And it makes far more sense to assume that Ditko came up with that then Stan Lee did, it shows that writing good dialogue doesn't exist in a vaccum, not without strong material to react against.

If you read the stuff that Stan Lee wrote, he hardly ever mentions specifics. He would always say "I intended Peter to be troubled and so on" but he would never break it down in terms of characterisation of Peter or plot. There's no interview or article where Lee talks about how he came up with the twist of the Burglar being the killer of Peter's uncle and that's rather surprising. Gerry Conway in interviews for instance will walk you through specific scenes of The Night Gwen Stacy Died and specific moments in the stories where he talks about intentions and meaning behind some scenes, like the Epilogue of ASM#122. You see that with other comics writers. But with Lee you never get any of that. Whereas Ditko's published letters go much more into that, Ditko wanted more realism in Spider-Man and often reacted against Lee's outlandish ideas, but on occassion agreed with Stan when the latter's ideas made sense (such as Lee vetoing the idea to kill Betty in a common accident) and aligned with his sensibility for the story's tone and Ditko wanted Spider-Man to be somewhat realistic and individual and didn't care for Lee's ideas like the issue with the aliens at the start with Tinkerer. Ditko said that experience made him convinced that he should just ignore Lee's ideas for plotting. The Green Goblin was supposed to be some mummy in the desert that Ditko converted into a guy on a glider.

Compare Jack Kirby and Stan Lee's observations on Doctor Doom:

"I had a hand in creating Doctor Doom...Doom is a very tragic figure... I like Doom. Doom has got a lot of class, he's got a lot of cool. But Doom has one fallacy: he thinks he's ugly. He's afraid to take that mask off. Doom is an extremist; he's a paranoid. He thinks in extremes... if Doom had an enemy, he'd have to wipe him out. And if Doom thought that anybody was smarter than himself, he'd kill 'em, because Doom would have to be the smartest man in the world."
— Jack Kirby, Kirby & Lee: Stuf’ Said!: The complex genesis of the Marvel Universe, in its creators’ own words, by John Morrow.

"Everybody has Doctor Doom misunderstood. Everybody thinks he’s a criminal, but all he wants is to rule the world. Now, if you really think about it objectively, you could walk up to a policeman, and you could say, 'Excuse me, officer, I want to tell you something: I want to rule the world.' He can’t arrest you; it’s not a crime to want to rule the world."
— Stan Lee

Between the two of them which guy sounds like he has a grasp on the character of Doom and knows what they're talking about? And this is from somewhat contemporaneous interviews in the '60s to early '70s.

We desperately need a copy of the notes Ditko and Kirby left to Stan to know what the latter did/didn't contribute. Are there any surviving copies of those that are public? Did Riesman find any himself?

What we have is the original art. That's all you have. There are no other documents aside from the art. As the joke goes, while we have no evidence that Lee actually orginated or created any of these stories, we have definite evidence that the artists drew the stuff and actually did write in suggestions for scenes, plots and characters.

In the original art you have the pencils and sometimes you have comments by Ditko or Kirby to Lee about suggestions for what the dialogue and the scene should contain. Now the problem is that Marvel only ever returned a small sample of the original art to Kirby and Ditko and his heirs. Kirby drew more than 20,000 pages but he got back something like 1,900 pages. So you can't do step-by-step documentation issue-by-issue. In the case of Ditko, dude has clammed up and holed up. There are rumors and legends that he used his original art as a cutting board but that's been debunked by his nephew so if he had his original art he kept it to himself. There's also been rumors indicating that Stan Lee himself has hoarded garages full of Kirby and Ditko's original art in unopened boxes but so far this hasn't turned up yet (and considering the mess that Lee's estate has fallen into, it'll be a while before we solve the story).

There's a wonderful tumblr site called "Kirby without Words" (https://kirbywithoutwords.tumblr.com/) that compares some of Kirby's original art with his suggestions to the finished issue to try and gauge what Kirby did and what Stan Lee did. And some of the results are interesting. It's generally observed that Kirby's original drawings often showed or indicated female characters far more capably than the dialogue actually indicates. In some cases, Stan Lee's dialogue essentially undercuts women. Like this one here (https://kirbywithoutwords.tumblr.com...e-are-some-who) where Kirby's original dialogue suggestion has Sue saying "You Barbarians" and Reed saying: "Easy, Sue" and below a panel that shows Susan Storm enraged and Reed holding her back. In the actual finished issue it's converted to Sue going, "Stop him Reed!, They can't defeat us again!" and Reed saying "They won't Sue! I swear it!"

That's why people saying that Kirby's dialogue was worse than Stan Lee's is essentially meaningless. Bad in comparison to what? In this instance, Kirby's dialogue was shorter (just four words divided to two characters) and indicated character much more boldly than what Stan did.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

And it makes far more sense to assume that Ditko came up with that then Stan Lee did, it shows that writing good dialogue doesn't exist in a vaccum, not without strong material to react against.

That's just the problem. We can't just assume if we're talking about removing Stan as a co-creator of these characters from history, which sounds like is what Riesman is trying to argue. We know for example that Bill Finger created Batman and not Bob Kane, but we know that based on the evidence and not just assumptions.

If we break it down, there are four traditional stances on this:

Stance 1: Kirby and Ditko created these characters and Stan didn't. It was more-or-less a Bob Kane situation.

Stance 2: All three created these characters, but Kirby and Ditko contributed more. Still, Stan was technically a co-creator.

Stance 3: Stan and Ditko/Kirby created these characters together and it was a 50/50 effort.

Stance 4: Stan created all of them and Kirby/Ditko were just the artists.

Generally the fourth and the first stances have always been considered to be ridiculous. The debate has always been mostly between the second and third. Riesman might have debunked the third one and proved the second (I haven't read the book but this sounds likely), but I still don't see much evidence for the first. We sadly need some of those original notes Kirby and Ditko left for Stan to know beyond reasonable doubt (moreso for characters like Spider-Man than for a character like Doctor Strange or The Thing, to be fair, but still).

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That's just the problem. We can't just assume if we're talking about removing Stan as a co-creator of these characters from history, which sounds like is what Riesman is trying to argue. We know for example that Bill Finger created Batman and not Bob Kane, but we know that based on the evidence and not just assumptions.

I would say myself that Stan Lee did contribute more to his creations than Bob Kane did to Batman. And that Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko did better and suffered less than Finger did. The comics were also far better and superior to the original Batman and Superman comics and most of DC's stuff in that time. But that's not much to boast or crow about and it's not something you can use to excuse Stan Lee and his actions.

Fundamentally the situation is different. It's a different kind of exploitation, maybe a kinder style of exploitation, but I don't think that's something to be proud of.

If we break it down, there are four traditional stances on this:

Stance 1: Kirby and Ditko created these characters and Stan didn't. It was more-or-less a Bob Kane situation.

Stance 2: All three created these characters, but Kirby and Ditko contributed more. Still, Stan was technically a co-creator.

Stance 3: Stan and Ditko/Kirby created these characters together and it was a 50/50 effort.

Stance 4: Stan created all of them and Kirby/Ditko were just the artists.

That sums it up elegantly. Where I disagree is that I think Stance 3 and Stance 4 are insupportable. Stance 2 has most consensus but Stance 1 isn't implausible.

Generally the fourth and the first stances have always been considered to be ridiculous.

Not really. Like I said if we look at modern editorial practises and crediting, you can draw some conclusions. In the case of Winter Soldier, Ed Brubaker came up with the idea to bring Bucky back from the dead years back as a fan. And then on joining Marvel, he found out Quesada was interested in that idea too. By Stan Lee Rules, Quesada would qualify as co-creator because he liked the idea and agreed Brubaker's pitch to reviving Bucky as Winter Soldier and he pitched Bucky having long hair, but the credits list Winter Soldier as the creation of Brubaker and Steve Epting.

If Stan Lee said "I want a teenage superhero" and Kirby and Ditko gave him two different pitches and Ditko's pitch was approved, does that make Stan Lee the co-creator or does that make him an editor masquerading as a creator. Editorial input exists for everything. Even Bob Kane's claim about Batman that he created the name of the character and so he deserves to be credited as creator doesn't fly. I mean take The Punisher, credited to Gerry Conway, Ross Andru and Romita Sr. It was Stan Lee who suggested the title and name of "The Punisher" but he never took credit for the character and he isn't considered the creator of that, it's Gerry Conway not him.Editors throughout history have created titles (often at author's distaste) and never claimed credit as creators just on that basis.

Riesman might have debunked the third one and proved the second (I haven't read the book but this sounds likely), but I still don't see much evidence for the first. We sadly need some of those original notes Kirby and Ditko left for Stan to know beyond reasonable doubt (moreso for characters like Spider-Man than for a character like Doctor Strange or The Thing, to be fair, but still).

Ultimately we don't have evidence, not until we get full access to the original art. Or when Marvel unveils and reveals its corporate records for all to see (which yeah, lol). I am sure that Marvel Corporate have at different times done internal investigations and private investigations on this matter...and considering that their response has been to compromise and throw money to Kirby's estate rather than have the case come up at the Supreme Court, it suggests that Stan Lee's case isn't good.

Ultimately the burden of proof rests on the people who make the claim. Stan Lee claimed he created the Marvel Universe and all its characters. Over time he modified and altered and qualified that and uhm'd and ah'd his way to still imply the same thing without saying outright. The fact that's there's no documentary evidence at all for his claims reveals that he doesn't bear the burden of proof. For anybody else, for a non-celebrity, that would be enough to nullify their claim.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Fundamentally the situation is different. It's a different kind of exploitation, maybe a kinder style of exploitation, but I don't think that's something to be proud of.

Whether or not Stan is a co-creator is a question of technicality and not of ethics/morals or of whether or not anyone should be proud of him. As an example, let's suppose we found out tomorrow that Stan added or changed a lot of parts of these characters in the writing process solely to get to be a co-creator and to spite Kirby and Ditko. Suppose that the specific changes/additions he made were purely done for that reason too. Even under that scenario, which I'm sure most recent people would call exploitative and inhumane, Stan would technically still be a co-creator.

Not really. Like I said if we look at modern editorial practises and crediting, you can draw some conclusions. In the case of Winter Soldier, Ed Brubaker came up with the idea to bring Bucky back from the dead years back as a fan. And then on joining Marvel, he found out Quesada was interested in that idea too. By Stan Lee Rules, Quesada would qualify as co-creator because he liked the idea and agreed Brubaker's pitch to reviving Bucky as Winter Soldier and he pitched Bucky having long hair, but the credits list Winter Soldier as the creation of Brubaker and Steve Epting.

If Stan Lee said "I want a teenage superhero" and Kirby and Ditko gave him two different pitches and Ditko's pitch was approved, does that make Stan Lee the co-creator or does that make him an editor masquerading as a creator. Editorial input exists for everything. Even Bob Kane's claim about Batman that he created the name of the character and so he deserves to be credited as creator doesn't fly. I mean take The Punisher, credited to Gerry Conway, Ross Andru and Romita Sr. It was Stan Lee who suggested the title and name of "The Punisher" but he never took credit for the character and he isn't considered the creator of that, it's Gerry Conway not him.Editors throughout history have created titles (often at author's distaste) and never claimed credit as creators just on that basis.

The story goes that Stan rejected Kirby's Spider-Man design because he thought it didn't reflect the kind of values and appeal that Spider-Man became beloved for. That is why Stan then went to Ditko. That sounds more like a writer with a vision looking for an artist that can best bring that vision to life, and also suggests that the core spirit of who Spider-Man is maybe came from Stan. This sounds like a fundamentally different story from the one about Quesada and Winter Soldier, the latter who only thought it would be cool to bring Bucky back and give him long hair.

Ultimately we don't have evidence, not until we get full access to the original art. Or when Marvel unveils and reveals its corporate records for all to see (which yeah, lol). I am sure that Marvel Corporate have at different times done internal investigations and private investigations on this matter...and considering that their response has been to compromise and throw money to Kirby's estate rather than have the case come up at the Supreme Court, it suggests that Stan Lee's case isn't good.

This is a good reason why corporate documents should be declassified and open to the public.

Ultimately the burden of proof rests on the people who make the claim. Stan Lee claimed he created the Marvel Universe and all its characters. Over time he modified and altered and qualified that and uhm'd and ah'd his way to still imply the same thing without saying outright. The fact that's there's no documentary evidence at all for his claims reveals that he doesn't bear the burden of proof. For anybody else, for a non-celebrity, that would be enough to nullify their claim.

I would argue the burden of proof lies on those claiming that either the First of Fourth stance are true, since currently all evidence we currently have suggests these characters originated out of some sort of collab between two guys. The further we get from that stance, the more vague things look due to so much information that we are missing. We still don't know enough about the specific details of the "Marvel Method" or what it looked like to be able to draw the line between Stan and Ditko. We would sadly need some of the artists' original notes for that, which Marvel may or may not have.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

This is a good reason why corporate documents should be declassified and open to the public.

Agreed. Like I said only a small handful of the original artwork (which includes the notes and marginalia) are accessible to researchers, mostly because Kirby got a section of them back (but he didn't get the whole thing not even close).

I would argue the burden of proof lies on those claiming that either the First of Fourth stance are true, since currently all evidence we currently have suggests these characters originated out of some sort of collab between two guys. The further we get from that stance, the more vague things look due to so much information that we are missing.

The point is that the only reason there's a mystery is because of Stan Lee and Stan alone. Only one person has worked repeatedly time and time again to obscure the details, to muddy the waters, to repeatedly contradict himself multiple times. It's not the case that Kirby and Ditko and Wally Wood and others stirred up some s--t for giggles, the fact is Lee blurred the lines and used the lack of record-keeping and note-taking at Marvel as arguments in his favor and defense. Lee said multiple times at the start that he created and dreamed it all up, it's only when he faced pushback from the writer/artists that he took one foot off the cloud (but never fully).

I would argue that Stan Lee was an editor more than a creator/writer, and that he passed off editorial suggestions and feedback (which again every editor across the field has done) as if that was actually writing the thing. If there was anything like the WGA arbitration process in the comics (and there should be), Lee would likely qualify for a secondary credit with a smaller title font at best. In the WGA arbitration process questions of "Who came up with Peter letting the burglar go and that guy killing his Uncle?" would be a lot more consequential than "Who came up with 'with great power...'?" The former is the shaping that gives the latter a context.

A lot of the examples listed does suggest that Lee was more editor and writer.

We still don't know enough about the specific details of the "Marvel Method" or what it looked like to be able to draw the line between Stan and Ditko. We would sadly need some of the artists' original notes for that, which Marvel may or may not have.

We have enough in the case of Kirby to prove that he was the main writer of a lot of the comics, the notes he left on the margins of his artwork are quite indicative and clear and some of Kirby's dialogue suggestions was better and more economical than what Lee ended up doing. Sometimes Stan Lee's dialogue did recontextualize Kirby's original intentions such as making it more patriarchal than Kirby's original vision (I wouldn't say Kirby's a total feminist but he was a lot better at developing female characters than Stan Lee was, and for that matter Ditko) and as editor he would veto and censor and bowdlerize his original idea like converting a satire on Rand into a more typical story. And again, Jim Shooter told Claremont he can't use the original plan for The Dark Phoenix Saga after he had Jean Grey kill a planet, but even with that Shooter never took writing credit simply because he set the stage for the finale of that comic.

As for the 'Marvel Method', I will say that the Method was different when it was with Lee-and-Kirby and Lee-and-Ditko and Lee-and-Wood. After Lee, you had writers like Conway and Roy Thomas who actually wrote detailed script-synopsis without dialogue for the artist, and then added in the dialogues and sound effects after the art came in. In that sense you had a more authentic collaboration between writer and artist, and the writers had a bigger say on the final story. Eventually Marvel moved to full scripts, partly because of the influence of Alan Moore who repeatedly castigated the 'Marvel-Method' as a con and exploitation of artists.

[chicago_bastard]

Had to think about an anecdote from James Gunn who revealed that he spoke to Stan Lee after the first GOTG movie and had to remind him that he actually created Groot. Gunn attributed it to Lee having created so many characters that he simply forgot about some of them, but one could easily interpret it the way that Lee didn't remember it because it wasn't his creation in the first place.

[Iron Maiden]

It's not surprising that he wouldn't remember. Groot had a one shot appearance in Tales To Astonish #13 (1960), which was still an anthology comic with 3 separate stories. Marvel would not be using the credits box... that would come along later. The title page of the Groot story has Kirby & Ayers written in the corner in the same printing style seen on Fantastic Four #1 . The second story "I Found the Abominable Snowman" hasn't got anyone's name written on the title page but is Kirby and Steve Ditko as the inker. The third story "My Friend is Not Quite Human" has S. Ditko written in the corner. The Grand Comics Database has question marks for the writing credits....possibly Stan plotting and script by Larry Lieber.

The pre-Fantastic Four comics were mostly one shot monster stories with assorted names like Moomba, Grogilla, Rombuu. Fin Fang Foom also started out in a Strange Tales monster story and was later brought in the the MU. But Hank Pym/Ant man did get his debut appearance in #27 "The Man in the Ant Hill"

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Had to think about an anecdote from James Gunn who revealed that he spoke to Stan Lee after the first GOTG movie and had to remind him that he actually created Groot. Gunn attributed it to Lee having created so many characters that he simply forgot about some of them, but one could easily interpret it the way that Lee didn't remember it because it wasn't his creation in the first place.

This myth that Stan Lee had a poor memory is another thing that doesn't seem to be true. Right until his death, his memory was generally sharp and clear.

It's not surprising that he wouldn't remember. Groot had a one shot appearance in Tales To Astonish #13 (1960), which was still an anthology comic with 3 separate stories. Marvel would not be using the credits box... that would come along later. The title page of the Groot story has Kirby & Ayers written in the corner in the same printing style seen on Fantastic Four #1 . The second story "I Found the Abominable Snowman" hasn't got anyone's name written on the title page but is Kirby and Steve Ditko as the inker. The third story "My Friend is Not Quite Human" has S. Ditko written in the corner. The Grand Comics Database has question marks for the writing credits....possibly Stan plotting and script by Larry Lieber.

The pre-Fantastic Four comics were mostly one shot monster stories with assorted names like Moomba, Grogilla, Rombuu. Fin Fang Foom also started out in a Strange Tales monster story and was later brought in the the MU. But Hank Pym/Ant man did get his debut appearance in #27 "The Man in the Ant Hill"

Thanks for pointing this out.

Groot was one of several Pre-Marvel monster characters and creations, and it seems that the reason Stan Lee didn't remember he created Groot is because...well he didn't do it, did he?

[Iron Maiden]

Exactly. Probably if you had asked Kirby, he wouldn't remember either It was really sausage factor stuff that they would just grind out. I think they must have just tossed some Scrabble tiles in bag and drew letters out! (joking)

On a side note, here is a little example of the evolution of the Marvel credits I made, starting from Fantastic Four #1. As you can see about half way through they run they were like co-stars and got equal billing. I happen to stumble upon the Kirby writing credit while looking through the Amazing Adventures run with Black Widow. The other half of the title had the Inhumans. This was back when Marvel was limited to the number of titles they were allowed to produce by some Draconian restriction issues with National Periodicals, also the parent company of DC. Atlas as it was known at the time went down from from 40 or more titles a month to 8 or 12 according to Stan. That's why some titles were bi-monthy and shared. For example, Doctor Doom's first solo series was in Astonishing Tales, a shared title with Ka-Zar that was a bi-monthly.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Exactly. Probably if you had asked Kirby, he wouldn't remember either

I doubt it. Kirby had he been asked would have said "Oh yeah that was one of several monsters I was knocking out at that time". Groot was part of the monster stories that Kirby often talked about doing right until the launch of FF#1.

This idea that "faulty memory" is inevitably something that happens in old age just doesn't work, nor does it entirely justify or explain issues of credit. And it's too often used as a way to excuse Lee.

Alan Moore especially makes fun of it here (Around 02:10). He notes that he has faulty memory sometimes but he would never say "This was when I created X-Men with Dave Cockrum" and he is forthright in saying that from watching Kirby's original art, it was Jack who was the main creator:



Besides if Lee's memory was truly that bad, his lawyer and others around him would never have let him make legal deposition on behalf of Marvel which he did on a few occassions in the 2010s.

On a side note, here is a little example of the evolution of the Marvel credits I made, starting from Fantastic Four #1. As you can see about half way through they run they were like co-stars and got equal billing. I happen to stumble upon the Kirby writing credit while looking through the Amazing Adventures run with Black Widow. The other half of the title had the Inhumans. This was back when Marvel was limited to the number of titles they were allowed to produce by some Draconian restriction issues with National Periodicals, also the parent company of DC. Atlas as it was known at the time went down from from 40 or more titles a month to 8 or 12 according to Stan. That's why some titles were bi-monthy and shared. For example, Doctor Doom's first solo series was in Astonishing Tales, a shared title with Ka-Zar that was a bi-monthly.

As your image shows two of that is plucked from 1961 and 1966. In the interim you had the notorious New York Herald Tribune article which destroyed any lingering shred of Lee's credibility with either Ditko and Kirby. Then after that Lee tries to make nice and salvage stuff. Then in 1971 you had a series where Marvel tries to cajole Kirby by giving him his own series but at that point it was too late and Kirby had plotted moving to DC (and had moved out of NY to CA...keeping a full continent between him and Lee). So again plucking it out and seeing an evolution without taking into account the stuff that happened is just not telling a story.

The story goes that Stan rejected Kirby's Spider-Man design because he thought it didn't reflect the kind of values and appeal that Spider-Man became beloved for. That is why Stan then went to Ditko. That sounds more like a writer with a vision looking for an artist that can best bring that vision to life, and also suggests that the core spirit of who Spider-Man is maybe came from Stan.

By the way, I dug around and found something of interest.

The original artwork for Amazing Fantasy #15 is actually in the Library of Congress of DC. So anyone who can visit DC and visit the LOC can gain access and look at it for themselves:
- https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0805/spiderman.html
- http://www.tcj.com/a-holy-grail-in-t...ginal-artwork/
- https://the-comic-book-forum.boards....5-original-art
- https://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com/2013...n-amazing.html
- http://karlwiebe.blogspot.com/2015/0...asy-15-at.html

I had come across this before but sorta put it out of mind, but sometime in the early 2010s, the original artwork of AF#15 ended up in the Library of Congress as a donation.

The thing to note is that this is the artwork just before it hit the printers and there are changes and stuff made to the comic and artwork. You actually have notes from Stan Lee back to Steve Ditko commenting on the art (i.e. this isn't the artwork where Ditko wrote his original notes to Stan Lee). And the funny thing is that Ditko consistently ignored Stan Lee's comments and went ahead anyway.

In one of the blogs (ohdannyboy), there's a comment by Ger Apeldoorn (a comics historian who's a Pro-Stan Lee guy and cited in Riesman):
"Ditko went on and cocreated Spider-Man, including the costume, the school characters and the'morality' play set-up which lead Lee to wite the imortal line: with great power comes great responsibillity"

So Apeldoorn credits Ditko with the 'morality play set-up'. Which means that Ditko came up with the concept that the burglar Peter let go actually killed his uncle. If that's the case and it certainly seems that way, then Ditko plain and simple created Spider-Man. Without that twist, "with great power..." is just an empty phrase, certainly not an original phrase.

[gurkle]

Exactly. Probably if you had asked Kirby, he wouldn't remember either It was really sausage factor stuff that they would just grind out. I think they must have just tossed some Scrabble tiles in bag and drew letters out! (joking)

On a side note, here is a little example of the evolution of the Marvel credits I made, starting from Fantastic Four #1. As you can see about half way through they run they were like co-stars and got equal billing. I happen to stumble upon the Kirby writing credit while looking through the Amazing Adventures run with Black Widow. The other half of the title had the Inhumans. This was back when Marvel was limited to the number of titles they were allowed to produce by some Draconian restriction issues with National Periodicals, also the parent company of DC. Atlas as it was known at the time went down from from 40 or more titles a month to 8 or 12 according to Stan. That's why some titles were bi-monthy and shared. For example, Doctor Doom's first solo series was in Astonishing Tales, a shared title with Ka-Zar that was a bi-monthly.

Mark Evanier said (in his introduction to the first Marvel Masterworks Inhumans volume) that the Inhumans stories were originally planned as the first two issues of an Inhumans comic, that Kirby would write and draw. Then Martin Goodman decided he didn't want to expand the line, so the planned Inhumans and Black Widow comics wound up as a double feature, and presumably Doom and Ka-Zar were also originally supposed to have their own comics. Kirby retooled his two issue into four 10-page stories just before he left Marvel.

The writing in those stories feels very imitative of Stan Lee, though I don't know if that was Kirby's choice or if he was rewritten -- some of his early DC dialogue has a bit of Stan-ish writing before he found his own voice as a dialogue writer.

That whole introduction (from 2009) is really interesting in talking about the various attempts to give the Inhumans their own comic; they were one of a number of ideas for comics that Lee and Kirby came up with when Goodman planned to expand the line a few years earlier... then when he didn't, all those characters wound up being added to Fantastic Four: Inhumans, Black Bolt (who was originally conceived separately) Wyatt Wingfoot and of course Black Panther.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Mark Evanier said (in his introduction to the first Marvel Masterworks Inhumans volume) that the Inhumans stories were originally planned as the first two issues of an Inhumans comic, that Kirby would write and draw. Then Martin Goodman decided he didn't want to expand the line, so the planned Inhumans and Black Widow comics wound up as a double feature, and presumably Doom and Ka-Zar were also originally supposed to have their own comics. Kirby retooled his two issue into four 10-page stories just before he left Marvel.

The writing in those stories feels very imitative of Stan Lee, though I don't know if that was Kirby's choice or if he was rewritten -- some of his early DC dialogue has a bit of Stan-ish writing before he found his own voice as a dialogue writer.

That whole introduction (from 2009) is really interesting in talking about the various attempts to give the Inhumans their own comic; they were one of a number of ideas for comics that Lee and Kirby came up with when Goodman planned to expand the line a few years earlier... then when he didn't, all those characters wound up being added to Fantastic Four: Inhumans, Black Bolt (who was originally conceived separately) Wyatt Wingfoot and of course Black Panther.

The Inhumans are obviously a dry run for the concepts Kirby elaborated and refined with the New Gods and especially The Eternals.

You have Kirby's interest in Mayan and Aztec motifs all around the place in the design of those costumes and characters.

But for whatever reason those ideas are just premature and the Inhumans generally aren't compelling creations either as heroes or villains.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

Well I'll be damned, Jack. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck... it's probably not a chimera. :/

I still want to read the book and come to my own conclusions, but if everything suggested is true... If it's not proof beyond reasonable doubt, at the very least it doesn't look good for Stan.

Speaking of things not looking good... it's gonna be extra-annoying when all the Randians and prude leftists double down on the idea of Spider-Man being some low-key Objectivist if you just squint your eyes. But hey, if it's for truth and for the greater good, I can live with that. Typical Parker Luck.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Well I'll be damned, Jack. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck... it's probably not a chimera. :/

Hah, probably not!

I still want to read the book and come to my own conclusions, but if everything suggested is true... If it's not proof beyond reasonable doubt, at the very least it doesn't look good for Stan.

Seeing the case made by Riesman totally changed whatever benefit of the doubt I previously had about Stan Lee. After reading about the Marvel Method and Moore's comments about it (which really laid out clearly what it implied that the artists were in fact writing the thing) my impression was it was a collaboration and that issue-by-issue Ditko and Kirby were doing more heavy lifting. The majority of the creative work was done by Kirby and Ditko, and not Lee. But I still thought that he came up with the dialogue and provided some direction that he still contributed to the thing.

But laying out the information that was new and all the other stuff, the image I now have of Stan Lee is that he's a talented editor who passed himself off as a great writer who acted as if being the editor was the same thing as writing. If you apply Stan Lee Rules:
-- Tom Brevoort who suggested Spider-Man unmasking to Mark Millar, is the true author of CIVIL WAR.
-- Jim Shooter should be credited for writing THE DARK PHOENIX SAGA because he vetoed Claremont's ideas and forced him to kill of Jean Grey.
-- Dick Giordano is the true creator of WATCHMEN because he suggested Alan Moore use original creations rather than the Charlton characters.

Literally any other example of Stan Lee's actions in the industry carried out after the early '60s wouldn't be treated as writing and wasn't seen at that time. The fact that editors play a major role in shaping a creative work and their feedback and ideas are important isn't new or unknown. The argument that Jack Kirby without Stan Lee wasn't as good as Kirby-with-Stan (which I don't agree with but it's valid) has been applied to many writers and creatives who depended on producers/agents and others in various mediums. The Beatles weren't good without Brian Epstein and so on. But that doesn't mean that those supporters and patrons actually created the thing.

And however we wish to celebrate Stan Lee as an editor and give him his due for that, the fact is that's not what he wanted to be known as, and it's not what he went out of his way trying to prove. And ultimately him obscuring the credit and contributions of the creators has to overshadow and define him, over and above everything else.

Sure Lee wrote good dialogue and the polished dialogue at the end of the issue is good and individual but again dialogue without material and context isn't much. Like without Peter letting the burglar go, "with great power..." means nothing.

Speaking of things not looking good... it's gonna be extra-annoying when all the Randians and prude leftists double down on the idea of Spider-Man being some low-key Objectivist if you just squint your eyes. But hey, if it's for truth and for the greater good, I can live with that. Typical Parker Luck.

Ditko wasn't an out-and-out Objectivist when he started working on Spider-Man. So you can still enjoy Spider-Man and Dr. Strange and his other creations without the political baggage. And besides Stan Lee was a small-r Randian himself and he was the one who got Ditko hooked on to Rand, so the objectivist elements of Spider-Man aren't down to Ditko. The most outright objectivist character of Marvel is Iron Man himself and largely overseen by Lee more than Ditko and Kirby (and not coincidentally a character that wasn't successful compared to others in the '60s).

[Iron Maiden]

Mark Evanier said (in his introduction to the first Marvel Masterworks Inhumans volume) that the Inhumans stories were originally planned as the first two issues of an Inhumans comic, that Kirby would write and draw. Then Martin Goodman decided he didn't want to expand the line, so the planned Inhumans and Black Widow comics wound up as a double feature, and presumably Doom and Ka-Zar were also originally supposed to have their own comics. Kirby retooled his two issue into four 10-page stories just before he left Marvel.

The writing in those stories feels very imitative of Stan Lee, though I don't know if that was Kirby's choice or if he was rewritten -- some of his early DC dialogue has a bit of Stan-ish writing before he found his own voice as a dialogue writer.

That whole introduction (from 2009) is really interesting in talking about the various attempts to give the Inhumans their own comic; they were one of a number of ideas for comics that Lee and Kirby came up with when Goodman planned to expand the line a few years earlier... then when he didn't, all those characters wound up being added to Fantastic Four: Inhumans, Black Bolt (who was originally conceived separately) Wyatt Wingfoot and of course Black Panther.

I suppose they could have had 4 new comics added to the output if Stan decided to cancel 4 comics. You have to remember as I pointed out that Marvel was under a very restricted number of comics that they could put out due to the limitations forced on them by National Periodicals. With issue #9, the comic would become Astonishing Tales featuring Ka-Zar, then there were a few issues of Astonishing Tales Featuring It and finally Astonishing Tales featuring Deathlok the Demolisher until it was ended with issue #36. Amazing Adventures ran for 39 issues with the Inhumans taking over with issue #9 but Kirby would not be working on it. It would only last 2 more issues with Gerry Conway writing with Mike Sekowsky as the artist. Then it was Amazing Adventures Featuring the Beast from 11-17 and finished up with War of the Worlds with a few issue titled as Killraven until it was cancelled with #39