Revelations about Stan Lee in Riesman's biography

[Chainsaw Vigilante]

One unauthorized biography and people believe everything it says and change their whole attitude about someone. It's just like how people will zombie like believe any news story (and then stick with it no matter if it gets proven wrong because the corrections are always buried and never as big of a story as the original misleading or false one). Roy Thomas already pointed out inaccuracies and falsehoods, other artists' stories have come to light about Stan's contributions. It saddens me that people will turn their back on someone at the drop of a dime these days (me too false stories already proved that because people never wait for enough info to come out).

[Amadeus Arkham]

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.

Thanks for pointing that out. I saw the video version of that, and while I get what Stan Lee meant. Doom is indeed by all legal definition a criminal, and while it’s true that merely verbalizing your sinister intentions for world domination out in public isn’t a arrest-table offense; how you go about those intentions definitely is. Doom in the comics has throughout his supervillain career is guilty of several crimes like attempted murder, murder, theft, and kidnapping. He’s most certainly a criminal but I can’t help but think Stan was kind of half-joking here than being totally sincere.

[Alan2099]

One unauthorized biography and people believe everything it says and change their whole attitude about someone. It's just like how people will zombie like believe any news story (and then stick with it no matter if it gets proven wrong because the corrections are always buried and never as big of a story as the original misleading or false one). Roy Thomas already pointed out inaccuracies and falsehoods, other artists' stories have come to light about Stan's contributions. It saddens me that people will turn their back on someone at the drop of a dime these days (me too false stories already proved that because people never wait for enough info to come out).

There have been people trying to paint Stan as a talent-less hack that never did anything but promote himself and steal other people's work for decades now. The book may have some interesting stories in it, but it feels like it's more interested in painting Stan as the bad guy than it is in telling any real objective truths.

[DanMad1977]

@revolutionary Jack

Thanks for the facts and opinions. I will read the book and participate in this discussion afterwards, if the thread is still going by then. I need a week or two for that.

We don't have Hulu here, so I will take a look if its on amazon, if not I will buy the book about Bill Finger.

I have to read about the Disney book first, to see if its worth my time, if you say that its highly controversial.

[Thor-Ul]

One unauthorized biography and people believe everything it says and change their whole attitude about someone. It's just like how people will zombie like believe any news story (and then stick with it no matter if it gets proven wrong because the corrections are always buried and never as big of a story as the original misleading or false one). Roy Thomas already pointed out inaccuracies and falsehoods, other artists' stories have come to light about Stan's contributions. It saddens me that people will turn their back on someone at the drop of a dime these days (me too false stories already proved that because people never wait for enough info to come out).

But several of them are not new stories. Those are tales than came from years, repeated once and again from different sources, from different authors. It seem than in this book the author put all those stories together in book.

[JackDaw]

There have been people trying to paint Stan as a talent-less hack that never did anything but promote himself and steal other people's work for decades now. The book may have some interesting stories in it, but it feels like it's more interested in painting Stan as the bad guy than it is in telling any real objective truths.

It is not the sort of thing I research seriously...but I have seen very, very few people seriously argue Stan was a talentless hack.

Certainly do not think any poster in this thread has argued along those lines (or appears to believe that)...general thrust has been Stan was a clever talented guy who undoubtedly made a enormous impact to comics, but that impact has been over-estimated. (Or maybe over-estimated in certain areas. I believe..for example..he had less impact on character creation than most people credit him with.)

It is complex...for me, Marvel comics needed both (Kirby, Lee) working together...they both made necessary contributions. But I do think any reasonably fair consideration of the evidence suggests Jack was the creative genius of the two, and Stan’s genius was in PR/ selling/ organising talent...rather than really exceptional writing/ character creation.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

One unauthorized biography and people believe everything it says and change their whole attitude about someone.

In the trade it's the "authorized biography" that usually has a problem with credibility. Not the unauthorized ones, lol. If you want to use "unauthorized" as an insult you are on wrong foot. And by the way this biography didn't change my whole attitude to Stan Lee. I was skeptical about Stan Lee for a fair bit before but the stuff in the book made me conclude that Stan was fundamentally an editor who passed his work as writer.

Roy Thomas already pointed out inaccuracies and falsehoods,...

Roy Thomas didn't point out anything. His article completely mischaracterized Riesman's argument.

Roy Thomas says,

And he weights things toward Jack's viewpoint with statements like the foregoing despite the fact that, for instance, partial synopses written by Stan for two of the first eight issues of the crucial Marvel flagship title Fantastic Four (including No. 1) have been vouched for as existing since the 1960s. Riesman gives a lot more credence than is called for to "a rumor that [Stan's synopsis for the first half of FF No. 1] was created after the comic hit the stands" in August of 1961.

The sources of said rumor? The "significant reason to suspect the synopsis was written after Stan and Kirby spoke" in person about the FF concept? 1: A onetime teenage assistant of Kirby's, who only went to work for him circa 1979, says that Jack "told me that it was written way after FF #1 was published. I believe him." Fine. The guy believes his old boss. But that doesn't necessarily mean we should. And 2: Kirby is quoted as once saying of that synopsis: "I've never seen it, and of course I would say it's an outright lie." So on this occasion, Stan Lee is apparently lying by coming up with that synopsis — but Jack Kirby, who Riesman points out told a whopper or three himself, isn't lying when he says he never saw it? Or, giving both men the benefit of a doubt, couldn't it be that Jack, after several decades, had simply forgotten it?

- ROY THOMAS,
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/he...y-guest-column

Thomas makes it sound as if Riesman uses just one rumor as his support base for demolishing the synopsis, instead here's what Riesman did say:

However, a question haunts the comic, asked only by the curious few who read between the lines: Who came up with it and, in doing so, began the Marvel revolution? Traditionally, that honor has been reserved for Stan Lee. But outside Stan’s own oft-repeated words, there is currently no known evidence that he created the premise, plot, or characters that appeared in The Fantastic Four #1. No presentation boards, no contemporary legal documents, no correspondence, no diary entries. Nothing. There is, of course, a chance that something exists and is simply not publicly available at present, but given all the painstaking legal, historical, and journalistic searching to determine the issue’s creative origins, that seems highly unlikely. The closest thing to evidence that a pro-Stan argument can offer up is a curious document with a questionable backstory.

It’s a summary of that particular and consequential comic book, written on a typewriter, with a heading that reads (complete with a misspelling of “synopsis”) “SYNOPSES: THE FANTASTIC FOUR JULY ’61 SCHEDULE.” Stan’s protégé, Roy Thomas, claimed that Stan showed him this document in the late 1960s, years after it was supposedly written. It has since been reprinted by Thomas on multiple occasions as his way of identifying Stan as the prime mover. But the key question is whether the synopsis was composed before or after a discussion of the ideas between Stan and Kirby. If it was written before, that would make Stan the creator of the Fantastic Four. If it was written after, Jack may have been the creator. It’s near impossible to know for certain, but there is significant reason to suspect the synopsis was written after Stan and Kirby spoke.

Even Stan suggested this was the sequence of events in a 1974 essay about the comic: “After kicking it around with Martin [Goodman] and Jack for a while, I decided to call our quaint quartet the Fantastic Four. I wrote a detailed first synopsis for Jack to follow, and the rest is history.” In 1997, Thomas told an interviewer that he “saw Stan’s plot for Fantastic Four #1, but even Stan would never claim for sure that he and Jack hadn’t talked the idea over before he wrote this.” Stan would go on to change his story by telling Thomas, in personal correspondence about the synopsis from the late 1990s, “Incidentally, I didn’t discuss it with Jack first. I wrote it first, after telling Jack it was for him because I knew he was the best guy to draw it.” There is a rumor that the entire document was created after the comic hit stands: In 2009, Kirby’s assistant, Steve Sherman, recalled, “I asked Jack about that synopsis. He told me that it was written way after FF #1 was published. I believe him.” And what of Kirby’s direct words on the matter? In 1989, an interviewer said to Kirby, “Stan says he conceptualized virtually everything in The Fantastic Four—that he came up with all the characters. And then he said that he ‘wrote a detailed synopsis for Jack to follow.’ ” Kirby’s response was brief and to the point: “I’ve never seen it, and of course I would say that’s an outright lie.”

Welcome to the eternal debate over whether it was Stan or Kirby who created the superheroes that emerged in the heady days of the Marvel explosion.

Abraham Riesman, True Believer, Page 105-106

As Riesman points out the main reason for doubting the synopsis as proof is that Stan's own words implies that he wrote it after discussing it with Martin Goodman and Jack Kirby. The belief that his synopsis might have been cooked up well after the fact is simply a supplement. And whether or not per Roy Thomas' claim that Kirby could've forgotten it or not is irrelevant at that point. As is the fact that Kirby made mistakes with his recollection and occassionally blurred some of the stuff he said. One does not have to be perfectly credible, simply more than credible than the other guy.

Thomas and others at Marvel have used this synopsis as proof that Lee created the FF by himself before meeting Martin and Jack but ignore Stan's own comments that indicate otherwise. In Thomas' defense, Riesman indeed doesn't cover the second synopsis but Riesman is focused on an overall throughline, and Fantastic Four #1 counts for more than FF#6 and unless Thomas and others can find more than 1 or 2 synopsis there's not much, because 2 synopsis is nothing compared to 1900 publicly made and released Jack Kirby art, many of which have his notes and ideas, and some of them reveal that the finished dialogue was altered barely or not at all.

Thanks for pointing that out. I saw the video version of that, and while I get what Stan Lee meant. Doom is indeed by all legal definition a criminal, and while it’s true that merely verbalizing your sinister intentions for world domination out in public isn’t a arrest-table offense; how you go about those intentions definitely is. Doom in the comics has throughout his supervillain career is guilty of several crimes like attempted murder, murder, theft, and kidnapping. He’s most certainly a criminal but I can’t help but think Stan was kind of half-joking here than being totally sincere.

The thing is Stan talked about everything in that fashion. He never breaks anything down to specifics or mention and highlight certain scenes in the comics. He never talks like someone who had actually written the thing. If you want to understand the appeal of Dr. Doom, Kirby's own thoughts are your guide. Kirby intended Doom to be a tragic figure, someone whose virtues you could admire but ultimately pity because of his paranoia and his self-loathing.

It is not the sort of thing I research seriously...but I have seen very, very few people seriously argue Stan was a talentless hack.

Certainly do not think any poster in this thread has argued along those lines (or appears to believe that)...general thrust has been Stan was a clever talented guy who undoubtedly made a enormous impact to comics, but that impact has been over-estimated. (Or maybe over-estimated in certain areas. I believe..for example..he had less impact on character creation than most people credit him with.)

It is complex...for me, Marvel comics needed both (Kirby, Lee) working together...they both made necessary contributions. But I do think any reasonably fair consideration of the evidence suggests Jack was the creative genius of the two, and Stan’s genius was in PR/ selling/ organising talent...rather than really exceptional writing/ character creation.

Right. The issue isn't that Stan Lee contributed nothing, or that he wasn't important to Marvel's success. That's irrelevant. The argument is a great editor passed himself off as a great writer and conflated his editing with his writing.

[krazijoe]

I may be in the minority but I always looked at Stan Lee as the face and everyone else the talent. So Stan Lee is David Lee Roth and Kirby and the rest are Eddie Van Halen.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I may be in the minority but I always looked at Stan Lee as the face and everyone else the talent. So Stan Lee is David Lee Roth and Kirby and the rest are Eddie Van Halen.

Stan Lee is more the manager or producer of Van Halen's records. He's Col. Tom Parker or Brian Epstein to Kirby and Ditko's Elvis and the Beatles. The most specific analogy is Malcom McLaren and the Sex Pistols.

David Lee Roth was the lead vocalist of the band whereas in the comics, the equivalent to the lead vocalist would be the character-designs and powers and abilities, which Kirby and Ditko did by themselves. They also designed the art which is the rhythm, bass, drum sections all by themselves. In addition to that they also came up with most of the plots and stories and Lee worked as a script doctor punching up the dialogues in their boxes, had a say in choosing the cover of the comics and maybe the lettering and types. So at best Lee would get a co-credit for songwriting, still sticking with the band analogy. About the only thing he is guaranteed to have contributed to Spider-Man is the hyphen, the name comes from Kirby and Joe Simon, the concept of the hero staying with his Aunt and Uncle from Kirby, the everything else from Ditko.

Andy Warhol produced the first album of The Velvet Underground and Nico. He insisted Nico be the "chanteuse" on the first album even if she didn't contribute anything else. He designed the cover of the first album but otherwise didn't have anything to do with the music and lyrics or content. He lent his celebrity to promote a band and then got out of the way and never took credit for the songs or lyrics.

If Stan Lee had behaved the way Warhol did on that album, he'd be far more respected and held in greater esteem and we would have none of this controversy and most likely Jack Kirby and even Steve Ditko would have continued to stay in Marvel.

[Iron Maiden]

Having read the Roy Thomas interview, I have to question why it is acceptable for Riesman to dismiss the FF document outright? Roy Thomas says that he saw this synopsis in the late 1960s at a time when no controversy existed. I have seen this document reprinted in an issue of the Fantastic Four and I will look that up. I believe it was #358. As the article states, Thomas was already becoming a historian on the side and he had asked Stan some of the details about how the comics evolved and Stan fished out the document. The fact that he produced it quite readily shows that it had existed and wasn't just whipped up later to give to Roy Thomas

Yet Riesman says it's "maybe even probable" that the Fantastic Four (and much else at Marvel) came solely from Kirby's admittedly fertile brain. Why is it "maybe even probable"? No supportable reason is given.

As support for the likelihood that Stan wrote that FF No. 1 synopsis at a very early stage in the creative process in 1961, dare I suggest one extended proposition: If he had decided to "forge" such a document in the latter 1960s, to bolster his role as creator, it's highly unlikely that he would've included in it a number of directions/suggestions to Jack that failed to make it into the published comic.

Among them: Susan Storm being an "actress" (there was never any mention of this in the series); Reed Richards' intention of flying his completed rocket "to Mars" (in FF No. 1, they're trying vaguely to make it to "outer space" or "to the stars"); Ben Grimm being listed as a newly hired pilot (he acts more like a longtime colleague in the synopsis); Susan's inability to become visible again (with Stan writing that later she'd have to wear a face-like mask in order to be seen, adding, "Talk to me about that, Jack — maybe we'll change the gimmick somewhat"); and that Grimm "has a crush on Susan" (there was just one passing reference to this — and then never again for the rest of the series.)

I think Thomas makes a valid point here. Stan's synopsis has elements that were never used/dropped from the final product, much like we have scenes edited out of movies.

[kcekada]

I don't think he was a great writer of female characters but I don't think he was a bad one, which is not to deny the sexism and his dislike for having women actively involved in fighting.

... But I also like some of his writing of Crystal ...

I was impressed by her showing in FF #100 by Lee/Kirby. I read the story in the reprint title of the 1970s. Prior to that, I had no ideal Crystal had that level of ability. Clearly, she was most powerful female that existed at that time -- and Lee didn't downplay in that issue. Later writers focused more on her relationships with Johnny and Pietro -- so for most of the 1970s -- she was just a supporting character -- sadly.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Having read the Roy Thomas interview, I have to question why it is acceptable for Riesman to dismiss the FF document outright?

Again, as I mentioned above, in quoting directly from the text Riesman doesn't dismiss it. He merely points out that there's no conclusive answer whether this Synopsis was created before the meeting with Goodman and Kirby, and in consultation with Kirby. Stan Lee at different times gave different accounts about the making of FF and only on some occassions did he mention the synopsis and even then he always frames that it came after the discussion with Kirby and Goodman, and only in the late-90s did he let Roy Thomas think (in private that too) that he created the synopsis before talking with Jack. Roy Thomas who Riesman quotes in that section (which Thomas conveniently neglects to mention in the article, cherry-picking for his argument) himself said that he believed that Jack, Martin, and Stan discussed it first before the synopsis in the '90s only to change his tune when Lee altered his story again.

Now if there's new evidence that comes up that reveals and confirms that Lee created the synopsis first, that would make him the creator and generator of the Fantastic Four, it wouldn't resolve all issues of course but it would bolster his claim. Right now there isn't any evidence to prove 100% when it originated. If as Kirby claimed, he came up with the name of Fantastic Four (and there's good reason to think that, especially since even Tom Brevoort himself concludes that Kirby came up with th name of Spiderman from the proposals between him and Joe Simon in the '50s) and related that to Stan then that would make him the originator and primary creator of the story. The fact that two of the Fantastic are named after Kirby's father and his first child provides more evidence to Kirby's claim than Stan's.

If you still have doubts, worth pointing out that CBR.com themselves didn't buy this bill of goods:
https://www.cbr.com/comic-book-legends-revealed-222/2/

Roy Thomas says that he saw this synopsis in the late 1960s at a time when no controversy existed.

Roy Thomas joined Marvel about 1965. By that time Lee and Ditko weren't speaking to each other and Ditko already fought and got plotting credit for Spider-Man. Roy Thomas himself was an eyewitness to Ditko and Lee communicating via intermediaries (which again Riesman cites him for and which Thomas fails to mention in his article). Thomas says that he found the document in the "latter-half of the '60s" giving no specific year. 1966 was the year of the infamous New York Herald Tribune article that totally destroyed any friendship between Lee and Kirby (and also Ditko). That article as Riesman points out sent Lee in salvage mode and he made several half-assed gestures to make up to Kirby, and that's when you had many attempts to balance the credits in pages and Lee boosting his collaborators more and more.

So I would say that controversy definitely existed in the late-60s, internally at Marvel between the key players (Ditko, Kirby, Lee) if not among the fandom and other Marvel staff.

As the article states, Thomas was already becoming a historian on the side and he had asked Stan some of the details about how the comics evolved and Stan fished out the document.

Stan Lee had a proven reputation for dolling up and playacting stunts for the press. The 1965 New York Herald Tribune botch-job is one example of that, where he staged for the news an entire "plotting session" for the public. So he was practiced in the art of deception. Who knows if Roy Thomas was even the first person to ask him for this synopsis, and after being caught off-guard he decided to type it out (there's no date on the typed pages after all) in case the next person asked him about it? Just to be clear, I am not certain about this synopsis being a forgery, I think the most plausible account is that Lee typed it down as a kind of memo for Kirby or for his office messengers to send to Kirby, but only after the dicussion between him, Kirby and Goodman. The fact that this memo wasn't in Kirby's possession but found lying around in the office suggests that Kirby himself nor anyone else gave it much importance. At the same time, Stan Lee was more than capable of creating this kind of deception for his own benefit.

I think Thomas makes a valid point here. Stan's synopsis has elements that were never used/dropped from the final product, much like we have scenes edited out of movies.

Assuming that Stan wrote this synopsis after talking about it with Kirby and Goodman and he jotted it down to ask Kirby for his feedback and so on, obviously Kirby would read this and find nothing he either didn't already know and likewise he wouldn't find it helpful to him in plotting out the first issue. Because there aren't the specifics you have in FF#1...the Flare Gun with the "4", each of them being in civilian guises of various stripes before meeting Reed, and then the flashback to the rocket flight, and then the monster attack and so on (all of which would still make Kirby the writer of the first issue regardless). And even then Roy Thomas is misrepresenting because Ben Grimm/Thing remains gruff and unlikable well past the first issue (actually for most of the first 10 issues) and Thing's interest in Susan Storm continued after the first issue, only ebbing when Alicia Masters comes in, and it was Alicia's introduction that started making Ben Grimm more likable and sympathetic.

So yeah, I don't think Roy Thomas' response actually addresses Riesman's argument, it is certainly not any kind of slam dunk diss that people in some corners think it is. That synopsis is definitely not very credible or detailed or representative of the first issue. And I think Kirby was truthful when he said, "I never saw it" because he likely thought the memo was Stan trying to assume that Kirby couldn't remember a recent conference (in the same way we ignore some emails reminding us about office stuff a day or two before) and even if he did he wouldn't find anything that actually helps him plot out the first issue.

[Iron Maiden]

I think you are, much like Riesman, dubious of everything that is in Stan's side of this controversy.

I don't think there was sinister purpose in that New York Herald article. Please tell me you don't think that Stan planned the whole thing? I think it was a gesture that backfired on him. He brought Kirby into the interview to demonstrate that he played a role in the creation of the comic book, that they were collaborating, etc. But Kirby was probably caught by surprise and didn't say much during the interview. Stan didn't write the article and when the insults are pointed out to the writer he was mortified to know how foolish and insulting his remarks about Kirby came out.

And what about the synopsis of Fantastic Four #8 that Thomas brings up?

[Iron Maiden]

Here's a screen cap from Fantastic Four #358 recreating the document for printing. It isn't an actual photostat of the document




Here is an image of Stan's notes about Marvel characters, showing which ones he feels are important. This is probably how the Fantastic Four Synopsis looks.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I think you are, much like Riesman, are dubious of everything that is in Stan's side of this controversy.

That's neither here nor there. As for Riesman, I'm not speaking for himself, I suggest reading the book (and indeed as the case with Roy Thomas shows, people can quote it selectively).

If the argument is -- that if you are skeptical or dubious about Stan Lee's claims and if you point out that there's no hard evidence to prove that Stan Lee originated or developed any idea or theme independently -- then it must mean you dislike Stan Lee, then that just implies that, "if you like Stan Lee you must not be the slightest bit skeptical of any evidence". I don't think the latter is intellectually fair. Ultimately when you have credit disputes and you are looking for evidence you do need to take the extreme skeptical position...discount everything anything has said and look and what can be known for certain in and around the time the event happened. If the hard evidence doesn't vindicate Stan Lee then that's a problem, especially if you are a big fan of Stan Lee.

I can accept dark truths about artists and people I admire and still accept it warts and all. I am a big fan of the films of Alfred Hitchcock and his movie PSYCHO, and yet it's a fact that Hitchcock publicly denied the fact that Saul Bass, the artist who developed the titles for many of his famous films, drew storyboards for the famous shower sequence. Saul Bass got credits in the film as "Pictorial Consultant" and contributed storyboards for the shower scene and the Arbogast staircase murder and Hitchcock in his interviews with Truffaut, when the latter (a guy with a photographic memory for movie credits) brought up Bass' contributions and Hitchcock said he contributed storyboards he rejected. In response, Bass claimed that he directed the shower sequence and produced the storyboards as proof. Now Bass' response may have been to get a rise or raise attention and it's an exaggeration (Hitchcock did direct the scene) but the fact is that Hitchcock used storyboards Bass created as a reference. I like Hitchcock but I can admit that the latter occasionally took credit for stuff he didn't do and that was wrong of him. And yeah it's entirely possible for a talented artist, a great artist even, to occasionally take credit for more than their impressive contributions. That's sad and that's wrong.

So it's not a hard concept to grasp that Stan Lee might have taken credit for things he didn't do. Unlike Hitchcock, where before Psycho and before he met Saul Bass, he made many great films and didn't have a record for doing this kind before (not that it excuses that action), in the case of Stan Lee, the fact is you have a repeated record of him taking credit for stuff he didn't do and you don't have any record of him creating anything of value independently.

I don't think there was sinister purpose in that New York Herald article. Please tell me you don't think that Stan planned the whole thing?

Stan Lee staged the entire interview with the reporter. Riesman interviewed the guy and the reporter's outright apologetic and regretful about what it did to Kirby. That guy said that he did that in the hope of getting a chance to write for Marvel (aka the comic fan incestuous thing where people make nice with the industry for a shot at working there) and he noted that Lee turned on the charm up to 11. The entire plotting session mentioned in that article was staged by Lee. Lee definitely wanted to be seen as the main creator of Marvel and he said so multiple times over the years. If Jack Kirby hadn't found out about that article or had such an open negative reaction to it, Stan Lee wouldn't have clammed up. The fact is that all Lee would have had to do was write a notice to the Herald Tribune saying the article should be retracted and give them a notice of clarification in full. He didn't do that.

And what about the synopsis of Fantastic Four #8 that Thomas brings up?

It doesn't prove anything either way. The FF#8 synopsis doesn't prove that Stan wrote that before discussing it with Kirby or anything. And considering that the synopsis was a request for a fan asking by mail, it's possible that Stan asked some secretary to summarize any issue of Fantastic Four #8 that was available and send it by mail.

Here's a screen cap from Fantastic Four #358 recreating the document for printing. It isn't an actual photostat of the document

CBR legends talked about this.
https://www.cbr.com/comic-book-legends-revealed-222/2/

That specific page you list was originally printed alongside Fantastic Four #358 for the 30th Anniversary issue in 1991 and was printed as part of the ongoing credit dispute between Lee and Kirby and CBR themselves pointed out that this didn't prove or answer any claim.

Here is an image of Stan's notes about Marvel characters, showing which ones he feels are important. This is probably how the Fantastic Four Synopsis looks.

These aren't Stan's notes. They were an internal company memo from around 1970 based on the entire office chatter about characters they rank from important to least. It was printed in Sean Howe's book on Marvel.
https://www.cbr.com/marvel-avengers-...not-important/

It's meant more as a joke.