What if ... Green Goblin was a nobody?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I do think you underrate Stan Lee's contribution if you think he's more like Mort Weisinger or Karen Berger.

Where's the evidence that he isn't? That's the point of it, there's no hard evidence that Stan Lee created/generated/originated any of the major creations, or that he and he alone created and developed the Marvel Universe. And certainly, issue-by-issue, beat by beat, Stan Lee wasn't the one who conceived and developed the stories as we know them. The Green Goblin mystery was entirely Ditko's baby.

There's no evidence aside from his word, and Stan Lee's credibility is severely damaged not least because he spread disinformation and spouts falsehoods like Ditko intended somebody else to be Green Goblin in his final decades.

[Mister Mets]

Where's the evidence that he isn't? That's the point of it, there's no hard evidence that Stan Lee created/generated/originated any of the major creations, or that he and he alone created and developed the Marvel Universe. And certainly, issue-by-issue, beat by beat, Stan Lee wasn't the one who conceived and developed the stories as we know them. The Green Goblin mystery was entirely Ditko's baby.

There's no evidence aside from his word, and Stan Lee's credibility is severely damaged not least because he spread disinformation and spouts falsehoods like Ditko intended somebody else to be Green Goblin in his final decades.

I would agree that in discussions of Marvel comics, people tend to overrate Stan Lee's contributions. I think you may be overcorrecting for that tendency.

Using your earlier standard of writers guild crediting rules, if he just wrote the dialogue, he would still contribute enough to be considered a cowriter. The dialogue would also be pivotal to the success of the characters, providing them with personalities that allowed them to stand out.

While Ditko noted his own contributions to the Spider-Man mythos, he did say that Stan Lee gave him a 1 to 2 page synopsis for the early stories, so that's a pretty big deal.

https://zak-site.com/MarvelMethodArchive/39.html

[Somecrazyaussie]

I would agree that in discussions of Marvel comics, people tend to overrate Stan Lee's contributions. I think you may be overcorrecting for that tendency.

Using your earlier standard of writers guild crediting rules, if he just wrote the dialogue, he would still contribute enough to be considered a cowriter. The dialogue would also be pivotal to the success of the characters, providing them with personalities that allowed them to stand out.

While Ditko noted his own contributions to the Spider-Man mythos, he did say that Stan Lee gave him a 1 to 2 page synopsis for the early stories, so that's a pretty big deal.

https://zak-site.com/MarvelMethodArchive/39.html

Exactly this.

People will believe what they want. But there is something off when this entire thread is making a point about how people are sheep for buying into Stan, yet does the exact opposite to almost fanatical levels. Hence why I stated Lee had a hand in it. Yes, the bulk of the lifting was the artists who guided the story, designed the characters, even contributed concepts.

However, Lee handled the dialogue and gave writers a synopsis of the basic issue that was sometimes detailed, sometimes it wasn't. We have evidence that he did do this - Ditko himself said it, Romita said that is how Stan worked with him, one writer (who escapes me at this moment) detailed how they got a lift home with Stan and Jack and those two were in the front seat thrashing out the plot of the next F.F issue extensively going back and forth until the thing was done by the end of the trip and Jack was going home to draw it that night.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I would agree that in discussions of Marvel comics, people tend to overrate Stan Lee's contributions. I think you may be overcorrecting for that tendency.

When people repeat dead rumors like Ditko not intending Norman being the Goblin...I don't think I am over-reacting when one considers the scale of deception.

Using your earlier standard of writers guild crediting rules, if he just wrote the dialogue, he would still contribute enough to be considered a cowriter.

Stan Lee generally followed guidelines for dialogues by Kirby and Ditko and in a few cases he hardly touched or changed the dialogue much.

Lee's more a script doctor of someone's dialogues than an actual writer of dialogue.

At best one can say that Stan Lee would deserve credit on an issue-by-issue basis, but overall one cannot coherently argue based on the empricial evidence, that he was enough of a co-writer.

While Ditko noted his own contributions to the Spider-Man mythos, he did say that Stan Lee gave him a 1 to 2 page synopsis for the early stories, so that's a pretty big deal.

None of these synopsis really survives (except for some sketchy Fantastic Four issues which is super-dubious) and we don't know how detailed or big they were.

In the case of AF#15 for instance, the evidence points to Ditko being the one who came up with the concept that the burglar Peter let go killed Uncle Ben. And I have to argue that if Ditko created that, and then created the costume, the gadgets, the poses of the webhead...I don't see how writing the dialogue counts as sufficient or equal to qualify as "co-writer" on equal footing.

People will believe what they want. But there is something off when this entire thread is making a point about how people are sheep for buying into Stan,

First and foremost.
-- I didn't start this thread.
-- The OP of this thread is a speculation based on an assumption that is totally dated and debunked information, and it's within my rights to call that out and anyone else who still buys it.

Hence why I stated Lee had a hand in it. Yes, the bulk of the lifting was the artists who guided the story, designed the characters, even contributed concepts.

The question is why do we assume that Stan Lee is the protagonist of reality. Which is to say why is it so important for us to center Stan Lee in this issue? People want to feel good about Lee and so cling to the idea that he contributed something to the comic. But if Stan Lee contributed 10% of the writing of the comic, that still doesn't change the fact that he led everyone to believe he did 100% of the writing.

And the truth is the latter has to define Stan Lee going forward.

However, Lee handled the dialogue and gave writers a synopsis of the basic issue that was sometimes detailed, sometimes it wasn't.

Lee didn't exactly "handle the dialogue". He often followed the directions and dialogues that the artists and others left on the script, and in a few instances Lee actually didn't touch the dialogue at all. Wally Wood actually left Marvel for this, because he turned in an issue and then on seeing the issue and comparing it to what he had sent, he found hardly any changes except a couple of phrases here and there and Lee still collected a check and credit for writing that issue.

In some cases, the dialogue by Kirby was often better than what Lee used (which certainly proves that the idea that Lee was a better writer than Kirby is flat out untrue).

[Alan2099]

I don't think I am over-reacting when one considers the scale of deception.

You don't think you're overreacting. Everybody else does.

I don't know what Stan Lee did to you personally, but your fanatical hate of him has reached disturbing levels.

On top of that, you seem more than eager to jump on the slightest hit of hearsay that Jack Kirby might have did something and hold it as absolute fact and brush off multiple statements people have made that Stan did something as lies.

Dude, relax. Seriously.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I don't know what Stan Lee did to you personally, but your fanatical hate of him has reached disturbing levels.

It's fanatical to point out we shouldn't be centering our understanding of comics as if he was the protagonist of reality?

[Ozymandias]

Lee didn't exactly "handle the dialogue". He often followed the directions and dialogues that the artists and others left on the script, and in a few instances Lee actually didn't touch the dialogue at all. Wally Wood actually left Marvel for this, because he turned in an issue and then on seeing the issue and comparing it to what he had sent, he found hardly any changes except a couple of phrases here and there and Lee still collected a check and credit for writing that issue.

Unfortunately, I think Lee had usually a bigger hand in the dialogues than that. But it's easy to understand why the artists wouldn't want to make his work even easier, if they weren't paid for it. The ones who ended paying the price were the readers, who had to suffer things like this.

[Somecrazyaussie]

When people repeat dead rumors like Ditko not intending Norman being the Goblin...I don't think I am over-reacting when one considers the scale of deception.



Stan Lee generally followed guidelines for dialogues by Kirby and Ditko and in a few cases he hardly touched or changed the dialogue much.

Lee's more a script doctor of someone's dialogues than an actual writer of dialogue.

At best one can say that Stan Lee would deserve credit on an issue-by-issue basis, but overall one cannot coherently argue based on the empricial evidence, that he was enough of a co-writer.



None of these synopsis really survives (except for some sketchy Fantastic Four issues which is super-dubious) and we don't know how detailed or big they were.

In the case of AF#15 for instance, the evidence points to Ditko being the one who came up with the concept that the burglar Peter let go killed Uncle Ben. And I have to argue that if Ditko created that, and then created the costume, the gadgets, the poses of the webhead...I don't see how writing the dialogue counts as sufficient or equal to qualify as "co-writer" on equal footing.



First and foremost.
-- I didn't start this thread.
-- The OP of this thread is a speculation based on an assumption that is totally dated and debunked information, and it's within my rights to call that out and anyone else who still buys it.



The question is why do we assume that Stan Lee is the protagonist of reality. Which is to say why is it so important for us to center Stan Lee in this issue? People want to feel good about Lee and so cling to the idea that he contributed something to the comic. But if Stan Lee contributed 10% of the writing of the comic, that still doesn't change the fact that he led everyone to believe he did 100% of the writing.

And the truth is the latter has to define Stan Lee going forward.



Lee didn't exactly "handle the dialogue". He often followed the directions and dialogues that the artists and others left on the script, and in a few instances Lee actually didn't touch the dialogue at all. Wally Wood actually left Marvel for this, because he turned in an issue and then on seeing the issue and comparing it to what he had sent, he found hardly any changes except a couple of phrases here and there and Lee still collected a check and credit for writing that issue.

In some cases, the dialogue by Kirby was often better than what Lee used (which certainly proves that the idea that Lee was a better writer than Kirby is flat out untrue).

Yeah, but apart from the OP's comments about the clash over the identity thing, it was mostly just looking to have some fun with "what if" scenarios to what may have happened if Green Goblin just turned out to be a nobody or minor character (which was pretty much answered when someone said it would have ended up like the situation with Hobgoblin).

I don't think they were necessarily looking to offend. But it has devolved into a pure hate thread that Stan was the biggest liar next to the devil and that Ditko and Jack wrote their own stuff and Stan just came in, slapped his name on it, and rode high off the success. Which isn't entirely true. Not when you account for others opinion's who were actually there at the time and worked with him.

Not looking to offend, dude. But you need to be subjective on these things. We all know Stan told fibs and he didn't give credit where he should have. But there are multiple sources out there, read them, then look for the facts that correspond. That's where the truth lies.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I don't think they were necessarily looking to offend. But it has devolved into a pure hate thread that Stan was the biggest liar next to the devil and that Ditko and Jack wrote their own stuff and Stan just came in, slapped his name on it, and rode high off the success. Which isn't entirely true.

If on an issue by issue basis, and in terms of generating the project and idea, Stan Lee did less than 50% of what he was credited to doing, which definitely seems the case, then I would say that fact overwhelms whatever little percentage or benefit of doubt you want to extend to the person who is the recipient of that.

Not when you account for others opinion's who were actually there at the time and worked with him.

I have quoted Kirby, Ditko, Wally Wood among others who all worked with Lee and confirmed this.

We all know Stan told fibs...

Again there's this tendency to minimize the stuff Lee did. "Fibs" make it sound like he's some four year old who doesn't know what he's doing.

But there are multiple sources out there, read them, then look for the facts that correspond. That's where the truth lies.

If you mean the "truth lies in the middle" that's not how things works. A lot of the time you have narratives that don't cohere and aren't consistent, in that situation you have to choose and decide whether one person is lying and one person is telling the truth, and you have to choose and decide who is more credible and you also need to be honest if your reason for choosing is "I want to believe <so-and-so> did have something to do with it".

And I don't think accusing people of personally disliking Lee and making accusatory attacks on a poster for discussing stuff is good form.

Anyway, I guess I can wrap up my part in this thread. The title of this thread was always going to be loaded because it wasn't completely a fun "What If" thread but directly about a counterfactual about a falsehood about a Spider-Man story. I wouldn't mind if it was locked myself. There's already a copy of this on the Marvel Forums thread.

[Alan2099]

You seem quick to jump on the idea that Stan must be the one lying, when Jack was also bad about taking credit for stuff he never did.

He's claimed he designed Spider-man costume sometimes. Other time he's stated that he created the character entirly and then passed it off to Ditko. He's claimed he did the layouts from the first Ironman and Daredevils stories when they show no real signs of his art style and the artist who actually did them deny his involvement. He also seems to downplay or outright ignore Simon's contribution whenever the subject of Captain America comes up.

At various points, Jack has also claimed he created Wolverine, the Frank Castle Punisher, and even Superman. I don't think he'd ever even worked on Wolverine or Punisher.

Why does Jack get a pass from you?

As for Ditko and Kirby leaving Stan notes, even a casual reader can notices that often times Lee seemed to have no idea what they were doing and just made up new stuff. If there were notes, he didn't read them (at least not all the time.)

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Some people just don't want the hint to delope, it seems.

You seem quick to jump on the idea that Stan must be the one lying, when Jack was also bad about taking credit for stuff he never did.

He's claimed he designed Spider-man costume sometimes.

Kirby never said he designed the costume that Ditko drew. Only that he came up with the first concept for Spider-Man, which is true.

Other time he's stated that he created the character entirly and then passed it off to Ditko.

The concept of Spider-Man and even the name Spiderman (sans hyphen, which was Stan Lee's input) was originated by Kirby and Joe Simon before Marvel. It had different passes and takes, but Jack Kirby certainly isn't wrong when he says he was the one who brought to Stan Lee's attention the rejected concept of Spiderman. Even Tom Brevoort, a Lee defender, points that out:
https://tombrevoort.com/2020/10/24/l...r-and-the-fly/
-- "It’s impossible to say for certain which man hit on the notion of doing a series called SPIDERMAN, but it seems more likely that Kirby was the one who pitched the idea to Lee."

The name Peter Parker likewise has precedent with a golf comic that Jack Kirby did, "On the Green with Peter Parr".
https://www.comics.org/issue/770866/
The names of Uncle Ben and Aunt May come from a Timely era comic credited to Lee and Ditko, and it entered when Ditko arrived.
https://bleedingcool.com/comics/aunt...ange-tales-97/

Kirby came up with the concept of the hero staying with his Aunt and Uncle. That was him. He also designed Daredevil's billy club.

To be honest, Kirby has a strong case for deserving co-credit on Spiderman. He brought the concept to Marvel and the name, he came up with the hero staying with his aunt and uncle. While Ditko of course developed all the other details and made essential changes to Kirby's ideas to make it closer to the story we have. Ditko came up with the idea that the burglar who Peter let escape killed Uncle Ben.

All Stan Lee contributed was the hyphen...which is again a marketing and editing suggestion and not one of a writer. Kirby's original idea of the Uncle being a Police Captain also seems to have been revived by Lee when he introduced Captain Stacy years later.

At various points, Jack has also claimed he created Wolverine, the Frank Castle Punisher, and even Superman.

Never heard this before. What's your source?

Why does Jack get a pass from you?

Because
a) "whataboutism" is a sh-tty sh-tty dodge, first and foremost.
b) Jack Kirby and/or Ditko don't have to be perfect men or perfectly credible, simply more credible than Lee.

If there were notes, he didn't read them (at least not all the time.)

Actually he did read them. How else can you explain the fact that Steve Ditko made Norman unsympathetic while Lee made him sympathetic?

The fact that the minute Ditko left, and you had a jarring shift rather than continuity proves that Ditko and not Lee was the main writer and creator of those comics.

[Alan2099]

Kirby never said he designed the costume that Ditko drew. Only that he came up with the first concept for Spider-Man, which is true.

You're wrong or you're lying.

Here's a rather fascinating read, and the claims of who created what seem to vary wildly even when told by the same person.
https://comicbookhistorians.com/marv...-created-what/

Here's another good one to read.
https://ohdannyboy.blogspot.com/2012...s-even-if.html

[Revolutionary_Jack]

You're wrong or you're lying.

Neither. This interview has been thoroughly processed since it's a legendary one. Kirby created the original costume design for Spider-Man, and Ditko overturned that with his own costume design, so that's what is being referred to here by Jack.

Here's a rather fascinating read, and the claims of who created what seem to vary wildly even when told by the same person.

Those aren't the only sources in the world, there are still others that count. Namely physical documents and others.
-- The fact that Spiderman, the name of the hero, preceded Marvel Comics is a hard indisputable fact.
-- The fact that Jack Kirby developed the first concept of the character, including the hero having an Aunt and Uncle, is another hard indisputable fact.

The existence of these facts severely compromises if not completely weakens the extent of Stan Lee's authorial input on the character we have. If Kirby brought to Marvel the concept of Spiderman, including the name (which Tom Brevoort, a Lee defender, agreed is likely) and if Steve Ditko taking over the title and altered it to the character we have, then that doesn't suggest that Stan Lee had much or anything to do with developing Marvel's most famous hero. He didn't even come up with the name of the character. All his involvement amounted to was the hyphen...which well okay whatever, it's not nothing but it's so far below what he claimed and led everyone to believe that it's funny.

Of the sources you present, I rather like the final paragraph of this one:
https://comicbookhistorians.com/marv...-created-what/

"What really happened back then is up to interpretation, but common sense tends to guide many on who they feel is correct. Try getting into an online debate and both sides will vehemently defend their point of view. Where do you stand on this issue? That’s up to you. A lot of it depends on what and who you value."

I agree with this. My common sense is simply "cui bono" [Who benefits?]: "Why is there a mystery about the credit?"? "To whose benefit does this mystery exist?"

And the answer is that the mystery about the credits exist because of Stan Lee. It was in Stan Lee's power, and Lee's power alone, for clarity to exist and he instead obfuscated, denied, and spread misinformation about it because the mystery or the answer "we'll never know" will always bail him out. Since it is was to his benefit, it seems to me that he cannot be regarded as the protagonist or center of the generation of these stories.

[Alan2099]

Neither. This interview has been thoroughly processed since it's a legendary one. Kirby created the original costume design for Spider-Man, and Ditko overturned that with his own costume design, so that's what is being referred to here by Jack.

That is not even close to what he said, not even remotely.

What he said is "I created the character," you're telling me he said "I had some ideas for a character, but they weren't used." His own words contradict what you're saying he meant. If his costume wasn't used, then he didn't create the costume.

If you're going to take what people have said, and say that they meant something else entirely, what's the point in even asking for sources. You might as well be making stuff up at that point, which, quite frankly, doesn't seem that far from what you're already doing.

"What really happened back then is up to interpretation, but common sense tends to guide many on who they feel is correct. Try getting into an online debate and both sides will vehemently defend their point of view. Where do you stand on this issue? That’s up to you. A lot of it depends on what and who you value."

I agree with this. My common sense is simply "cui bono" [Who benefits?]: "Why is there a mystery about the credit?"? "To whose benefit does this mystery exist?"

And the answer is that the mystery about the credits exist because of Stan Lee. It was in Stan Lee's power, and Lee's power alone, for clarity to exist and he instead obfuscated, denied, and spread misinformation about it because the mystery or the answer "we'll never know" will always bail him out. Since it is was to his benefit, it seems to me that he cannot be regarded as the protagonist or center of the generation of these stories.

It's funny that you take "a lot of what's happened is open to interpretation" and add "but I'm right anyway" to the end of it.

But since you're ignoring evidence and making up your own facts at this point, it becomes clear you aren't looking for any actual answer, you just want to confirm your own bias. I see no reason to continue with conversation with you.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

What he said is "I created the character," you're telling me he said "I had some ideas for a character, but they weren't used."

The idea of the hero staying with his Uncle and Aunt which was Kirby, was in fact used.

When Kirby said "I created Spider-Man", he's referring to his long history, more than a decade of trying/failing/trying again to get the character off the ground from the '50s to the early '60s. He lived with an arachnid theme superhero far longer than either Lee or Ditko did at the outset of the story.

If you're going to take what people have said, and say that they meant something else entirely, what's the point in even asking for sources. You might as well be making stuff up at that point, which, quite frankly, doesn't seem that far from what you're already doing.

First of all, it's an academic fact that all sources need and require interpretation. And it's a psychological truth and a common-sense truth that there's often a gap between what people say and what is actually meant.

As I mentioned before, Kirby (and for that matter Ditko) don't have to be perfectly credible. Just more credible than Lee. Documentary evidence exists for most of the things he's said, even if the evidence doesn't exactly lay out quite in the order of the statements. So that establishes Kirby's basic credibility. Pointing out instances where Kirby is summarizing a lot of back-and-forth for brevity doesn't mean [a]Stan Lee's off the hook, [b] that Kirby's distortions are similar in substance to Lee's.