home
Lee's claims regarding the Fantastic Four
Chris Tolworthy
8 September 2016
Stan Lee made a number of specific claims about how "he created" Fantastic Four 1. These claims can be tested. Here I investigate every claim.
Note that this argument is totally separate from the masses of evidence that the Fantastic Four has Kirby's fingerprints all over it. Both sets of evidence point in the same direction. This post is is only about the Stan Lee claims.
Summary:
The only claim that is true is that he "tossed the idea around" with Jack Kirby first. And even here it appears that Jack tossed it to Stan first, and Stan dropped the ball for a year or so before he picked it up.
Stan Lee's version of events:
"Martin [Goodman, the publisher, and Stan's uncle by marriage] mentioned that he had noticed one of the titles published by National Comics seemed to be selling better than most. It was a book called The [sic] Justice League of America and it was composed of a team of superheroes . . . 'if the Justice League is selling', spoke he, 'why don't we put out a comic book that features a team of superheroes?'" Joan [Stan's wife] was commenting about the fact that after 20 years of producing comics I was still writing television material, advertising copy, and newspaper features in my spare time. She wondered why I didn't put as much effort and creativity into the comics as I seemed to be putting into my other freelance endeavors. . . . [her] little dissertation made me suddenly realize that it was time to start concentrating on what I was doing — to carve a real career for myself in the nowhere world of comic books."
"For just this once, I would do the type of story I myself would enjoy reading.... And the characters would be the kind of characters I could personally relate to: they'd be flesh and blood, they'd have their faults and foibles, they'd be fallible and feisty, and — most important of all — inside their colorful, costumed booties they'd still have feet of clay."
"After kicking it around with Martin 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." (Stan Lee [1974], "Origins of Marvel Comics")
Stan often retold that story, with more details:
"It was now 1960. By now, I really wanted to leave, because one edict that my publisher had was that the stories had to be geared towards young readers; or unintelligent older readers. We weren't supposed to use words of more than two syllables, and we had to have simple plots; no continuing stories, because he felt our readers weren't smart enough to remember from month to month where they had left off. It was really boring.
"In either '60 or '61 I said to my wife, Joanie, "This time, I'm really going to leave." She said, "Well, if you're determined to leave, why don't you first do a book or two the way you wanted to, no matter what the publisher says? The worst that can happen is that he'll fire you. You won't care, because you want to leave, but at least you'll get it out of your system."
"It happened that; at that time; my publisher had been playing golf with Jack Liebowitz, who was one of the bosses at DC comics; which in those days was called National Comics. Jack Liebowitz had told him that he had a magazine called The Justice League, which was selling very well, and it was a group of super-heroes. So Martin came to me and he said, "Hey Stan... Why don't you do a group of super-heroes?" Again, this business of following the trend.
"I figured, "All right, but this time I'm going to do it my way." Instead of the typical heroes that have secret identities and nobody knows who they are, I did The Fantastic Four; where everybody knew who they were. And instead of the girlfriend who doesn't know that the hero is so-and-so, I had the girl in the series actually be engaged to the hero, and she was a heroine; she was part of the team. Instead of the typical junior sidekick, I had a teenager who was also the brother of the heroine; and the hero would soon marry the heroine, so they would be brothers-in-law. The fourth member of the team was a monstrous-looking guy, called The Thing, which was not a typical super-hero type in those days. I also tried to give them fairly realistic dialogue, and I didn't have them wear colorful costumes. I always felt that if I had super-power, I wouldn't immediately run out to the store and buy a costume.
"Somehow or other, the book caught on." (Stan Lee [2000], interview with Kenneth Plume)
Stan's version is an attractive story. It's repeated everywhere online and in print. It's popular to read. Stan writes enjoyable prose: I love reading it! It's easy to read and full of memorable images. I love the lines "quote he", and "colorful costumed booties", and the references to "Joanie" and golf. The story, that Stan was a TV writer who was too good for comics and wanted to quit, was itself like something from a comic! Stan as comic book hero. Stan's greatest creation is himself.
But is the story real? Readers with good memories will recall a similar claim by Stan, written back in 1947, called "Secrets behind the comics". In it, Stan claimed that Captain America was the result of Martin Goodman's foresight and genius. Even though Goodman simply bought a book that was already created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby. Readers may also recall Stan's claim (in the famous 1966 newspaper interview) that he won the Herald Tribune competition three times. That claim has been thoroughly investigated and found to be false. (See "Stan Lee and the Rise and Fall of the American Comic Book" p.6). Perhaps we should look again at Stan's claims:
Stan wanted to quit?
This part is supported by the surrounding evidence, but not quite the way Stan tells it. Rather than Stan being a TV and newspaper writer who could choose other jobs, Stan was a desperate man. Stan had run his uncle's comics since he left school, with a business model of copying other people's ideas. When the comics business slumped in the 1950s (largely due to Fredric Wertham) his uncle's comics lost their distributor and almost collapsed. Dick Ayers recalls: "Things started to get really bad in 1958. One day when I went in Stan looked at me and said, “Gee whiz, my uncle goes by and he doesn’t even say hello to me.” He meant Martin Goodman. And he proceeds to tell me, “You know, it’s like a sinking ship and we’re the rats, and we’ve got to get off.” When I told Stan I was going to work for the post office, he said, “Before you do that let me send you something that you’ll ink.” (source) Stan was a nice guy. He wanted to help those around him who were losing their jobs. But he was in a very weak position himself.
"I was writing television material television material, advertising copy, and newspaper features"?
This quote implies that Stan was a successful writer. But when you look closer it tells the opposite story. . In danger of losing his job, Stan tried creating a newspaper strip, called Willie Lumpkin. That was for "Publishers Syndicate", "a relatively small outfit" and "1960 was the only year the syndicate advertised it to potential buyers".
https://handoffire.wordpress.com/kirby-v-marvel/
A few newspapers carried it for a while, but the last one stopped after 18 months. I can't find any other evidence of Stan Lee writing either "television material", "advertising copy", or "newspaper features". He probably sent off scripts, and no doubt did the odd job for his uncle's publications. But when in the 1970s he tried selling scripts he was generally unsuccessful, despite his fame from Marvel.
The golf game with Jack Liebowitz?
Comics historian Michael Uslan has researched this and it simply did not happen. Jack Liebowitz did not play golf. It was suggested that maybe Stan meant Irwin Donenfeld, but that didn't happen either. Could it be somebody else? Maybe, but why would you play golf with your direct competitor, and then give him your most valuable trade secrets, your sales figures? Goodman relied on copying trends, so he maybe had spies in the enemy camp, but it wasn't a friendly golf game.
The Justice League as motivation?
If the motivation was "create a superhero team" why didn't they do it? The early stories (FF 1 - 8, the first year, as it went monthly with FF 7-8) do not rely on powers: they are an afterthought. Those stories work better without powers, as that would have increased the tension.
Note that Kirby's definition of superheroes is this: "My idea of a superhero is a guy who engages in action". An analysis of Kirby's pre-Thor superheroes (e.g. Captain America, Fighting American, The Fly) shows that they have human abilities but pushed to the limit or marginally beyond. This contrasts with Lee's superheroes that are all about massively nonhuman abilities. but that is another topic. My point here is that FF 1-8 is about Kirby's approach, "guys engaging in action", and not about superheroes as lee and others envision them, characters who RELY on additional powers.
Here are the details:
FF 1 The Mole Man story originally had no super powers at all: it was basically a Challengers story. I present the evidence on my site, and it's pretty damning.
FF 2: the Skrull crisis is solved by Reed showing photos from FF 1 (This is one of many areas where the dialog creates problems that are not in the art. The team met monsters in FF1, and show pictures of monsters in FF 2. The idea that aliens advanced enough to create gigantic space shops would be tricked by a comic book is widely and justifiably mocked. And the idea makes no sense within the story: the team met REAL monsters in the previous issue, so could just show photographs of them.
FF 3: the Miracle Man crisis is solved by dazzling the enemy. A bright flash light would have done.
FF 4: the Namor crisis is solved by explosives. A hundred kilos of TNT would have done the job, if placed correctly (a single kilo, carefully placed, is enough to destroy a car). As an ex-Army man, Kirby would know that a single soldier could carry that. The oversized bomb was just because otherwise the super-powered Thing would look silly with a regular bomb.
FF 5: the Dr Doom crisis is solved by sneaking up on Doom when he was busy and looking the other way. So invisibility was not needed. (At this time Sue could not make other objects invisible, so Doom would have seen the ropes anyway.)
FF 6: the space crisis was solved by Namor's presence: the FF were bystanders.
FF 7: the alien crisis was solved by Reed's intelligence, not his stretching.
FF 8: the Puppet Master crisis is solved by Alicia, not the team.
In contrast, the powers become important from issue 9, when Jack changed to doing things Stan's way (as I discuss on my site)
FF 9: each member uses their powers to escape a danger designed to stop them. Jack is deliberately making the powers important to the plot for the first time.
FF 10: Sue defeats the pseudo-Doom with her powers, then the Torch tricks him with his powers, then the Thing stops him getting away by using his strength.
FF 11: stories designed to show off their powers.
FF 12: The Thing versus The Hulk! Nuff said.
FF 13: fighting another super powered team. And so on.
The early stories was about a team of adventurers, with super powers an unnecessary afterthought.
Stan discussed it with Jack first?
Stan wrote: "After kicking it around with Martin 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." This is the one part that agrees with all the evidence: Stan Lee discussed the possibilities with Jack Kirby "for a while" before deciding anything. See any detailed discussion of this "Marvel method", which can be traced back to 1947 if not earlier. Kicking it around for a while is the key. Then Stan wrote down his understanding of what they decided. Then Jack went away and created the story.
*** EDIT: the timeline
This is not an error, because Stan does not specifically mention a timeline for his supposed thoughts, nor can I prove this timeline. But the timeline is suggestive, so I discuss it here and let the reader judge.
Kirby said his motivation for trying superheroes was the success of his creation "The Fly". Kirby's last issue was cover dated Jan 1960, so this gives plenty of time to suggest the idea. Kirby's space based newspaper strip Sky Masters ended in early 1961, just the time when he started the space based Fantastic Four, so that timing fits neatly. April 1961 (when the FF would have to be planned) was also when the first man entered space, so this was the perfect time to push hard for a space based comic.
The success of Justice League then becomes not the motivation for the FF, but merely enough to persuade Martin Goodman to approve the new title. They were severely restricted in the titles they could distribute, so a new title was a major decision.
How long did Goodman normally take to respond to a new trend? He was restricted to eight or so titles a month, and could not take risks, and would be especially wary of offending his distributors (National) by treading on their superhero territory. So to see the first hint of JLA success, and immediately say "we should do a superhero title" seems rushed.
Wasn't Justice League's success enough of an excuse? Possibly, so I won't call that claim an error. But the timing is tight. Comics, especially new comics take several months to plan. Sales figures then took several months too come back (this was 1961, in the days of sale or return, and before computers automated the accounting for most businesses). Plus you don't want to make a major decision based on a blip: you need several months' sales to make sure. When the FF was planned, Justice League only had maybe three months of sales figures. This is maybe enough to make a choice, yes. If Goodman knew this it would influence him, sure. But it's still a gamble. The alternate timespan, with Kirby suggesting it for a year, and Justice League merely being the tipping point for the cautious Martin Goodman, is less of a gamble.
In short, Kirby may have been "tossing the idea" to Lee for a year before events changed to allow the new project to go ahead.
This year of persuasion also explains Kirby's lack of progress in this year. Normally Kirby's comics change constantly. A year is a very long time in the Kirby canon! yet between 1959 and 1961 he produced essentially similar monster comics. Why? Presumably he was being held back: suggesting new ideas but they were not taken up until April 1961.
As I said, I cannot prove that. But the year long "The Fly the JLA" hypothesis seems more plausible to me than the rushed "JLA-alone" hypothesis.
Sue was engaged?
Stan said, "I had the girl in the series actually be engaged to the hero". It is true that in FF 1 Stan's dialog calls her Reed's fiancée. But that is contradicted by both the art and the later story. The art shows her to be an active part of the planning team, and so joins the crew on her own merits: rather than Stan raising the profile of women he reduces her to going into space just because she is Reed's girlfriend, a story point that is justifiably mocked. Three issues later she has Namor's photo, not Reed's, and does not become engaged to Reed until issue 35. Rather than creating the FF, it looks like Stan is dialoging somebody else's story and changing it but not paying attention.
Stan disliked simple plots?
Stan said, "I really wanted to leave, because one edict that my publisher had was that the stories had to be geared towards young readers; or unintelligent older readers. We weren't supposed to use words of more than two syllables, and we had to have simple plots; no continuing stories, because he felt our readers weren't smart enough to remember from month to month where they had left off. It was really boring."
But compare Stan's dialog with Jack's art. Or if you don't find that convincing, compare Stan's then current newspaper strip (Willie Lumpkin) with Jack's much better selling Sky Masters. Stan had complete freedom with Willie Lumpkin, yet provided one of the simplest. least demanding strips out there. Or compare Stan and Jack's work once they parted in 1970. Who had the simpler plots and easy to read dialog? Maybe Stan was right. Maybe he did want more complex work, but just not as complex as Jack was supplying. but the evidence always shows him choosing to simplify stuff.
Stan disliked secret identities?
Stan said, "Instead of the typical heroes that have secret identities and nobody knows who they are, I did The Fantastic Four; where everybody knew who they were."
But Stan's dialog says otherwise. Issue 2 refers to "one of the Fantastic Four's many secret apartment hideouts". Perhaps this is due to that particular story? No, the cover to the next issue refers to their skyscraper "hide-out" and inside it is called "their secret headquarters". It quickly become obvious to Stan that a "secret skyscraper" was an oxymoron, especially when the art shows the team travelling there undisguised, in a flying car with bright searchlights, so Stan stopped referring to it as secret. But as late as issue 7, Stan's dialog said that Johnny Storm had a secret identity (in Strange Tales 101, published the same month). Again this contradicted the art and the idea was soon dropped.
Stan disliked costumes?
Stan said, "I didn't have them wear colorful costumes. I always felt that if I had super-power, I wouldn't immediately run out to the store and buy a costume."
Yet by issue 3 they had costumes.Why? Whose idea was this?
Jack's idea? The pencils show the costumes originally had masks to hide the identity, but these masks were later erased. But why would Jack Kirby draw masks? He had already drawn the team in public, in everyday life, including being singled out at the theater in FF 2. He drew the Thing, and knew full well that a secret identity would be impossible for him! He drew the Invisible Girl, and knew that she did not need one either, as she could just turn invisible if she wanted privacy. and he drew the Human Torch, who often hid his face by staying flamed on. So Jack knew that secret identities were absurd. It makes no sense for the mask idea to come from Jack.
The fans wanted it? The usual explanation for costumes is that fans demanded them. But this was too early for much fan feedback, due to the time lag in writing and printing comics. Yes, issue 3 had the first letters page, but one letter was from "S. Brodsky" (Sol Brodsky the production manager, who managed to list all the company's products in his letter) and another was "unsigned" and sounding suspiciously like something Stan Lee would write. Perhaps the other letters were genuine? But the letters page is added last of all, after the comic is plotted, pencilled, inked, etc. So there would be even fewer letters when the costume decision was made.
This leaves Stan. We already saw that Stan wanted their identity to be secret, so it follows that he would suggest masks. But this contradicted the other art, indicates that Stan only had a rough idea of what was going on.
For somebody who hates costumes Stan seemed to be in a great hurry to add them.
Stan did it his way?
The core of the matter is that Stan decided to suddenly write great stories. Which is something he had never done before or since. He spent his life copying whatever kind of comic was already popular, so he was very good at writing quickly and creating passable stories. He was good at easy to read dialog and over-selling. But he had zero track record of creating anything successful, either before or since. Stan's list of original creations before 1961 includes... well, Willie Lumpkin. A gentle humour that didn't sell particularly well or for very long. And that's about it. Meanwhile Jack Kirby had created or co-created Captain America, the entire romance genre, original titles about dreams, war, space, westerns, pretty much anything you can imagine.
OK, fine. But Stan admitted that he had not really tried until then. Perhaps he suddenly got good?
Then where is Stan's track record after he left Marvel? We have Stripperella, and... that's about the only memorable one. But Jack Kirby continued creating original characters that still sell today: Darkseid, OMAC, Mr Miracle, Kamandi, Eternals, and many many more. How likely is it that Stan Lee had a sudden and once-only flash of inspiration when he was around Jack Kirby (or Steve Ditko) and not at any other time?
*** Summary:
In summary, Stan seems to be looking back at what Jack Kirby brought to the Fantastic Four, and taking credit for it. The only part of Stan's explanation that can be backed up by the facts is that he discussed the idea with Jack Kirby first.
So we can confirm the origin of the FF in two different way: we can examine Jack's claim (checks out: he was doing exactly what he had done many times before), or we can simply examine Stan's claim (does not check out, except the part where he discussed ideas with Jack Kirby first).
Is there a single piece of evidence, anywhere, that Stan Lee invented the Fantastic Four in any way? If so then I would like to see it. Because pointing out the above is not making me any friends.
Michael Hill: Before Lee "kicked it around" with Kirby, Kirby drew up the concept art in his basement and showed it to his daughter. It contained a character named after her. "Kicking it around" was Lee's euphemism for "Jack showed me what he had in mind."
Chris Tolworthy: As a rabid FF fan this is super interesting to me. Can you remember the reference? (Apologies if you posted it earlier and I missed it)
Michael Hill: Chris, here's the part I quoted. I saved the PDF from the Justia site... Patrick probably has the link.
https://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/effect/2015/07/25/according-to-kirby-1/#ref35
Michael Hill: Or I could simply interpolate it from the page containing the other references I saw earlier...
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2010cv00141/356975/102/8.html
Michael Hill: The comments here refer to a similar story about Wendy Everett and her father's hand in the creation of Daredevil.
http://http://www.tcj.com/marvel-vs-jack-kirby-legal-rights-and-ethical-might/
Chris Tolworthy: Michael Hill whoops! Thanks, yes, I skimmed this article when you posted it yesterday (?) and missed the most important part. :)
Michael Hill: Interesting observation about Sue Storm. Clearly she was meant to be a character/hero in her own right (and younger) but was re-purposed by Lee to suit his gender expectations. She could have been another Barda.
Chris Tolworthy: Indeed. Kirby's art for Sue in the early days showed she was just as active as the boys, and arguably more so.
I have lately taken to reading the comics without the dialog, as Kirby's work generally speaks for itself. What surprises me about the early FF (issue 1-8) is how quickly Kirby is progressing: he is already at his cosmic phase before (if my conclusion about the FF 8 synopsis is correct) Lee smacks him down.
So what we got is Kirby at full throttle in 1961-2, then Stan takes a more active input 1963-65, then Stan becomes too busy so Kirby is again at full throttle 1966-67, then The infamous "Him" issue and other events that caused Kirby to hold back his best ideas. So, we had three years, maybe four, of full-on Kirby between 1958 and 1970. The rest, while still excellent, was Kirby holding restrained or holding back.
So, had.Kirby been free to continue at his natural speed, we would have got Galactus in 1963, and Big Barda in 1965.
Michael Hill: Chris, I like to run the sayings of Lee through the filter of The Way Kirby Tells It. In Lee's 2010 depositions (two of them) he said he created and wrote everything. Instinctively we know this not to be true, but what if we treat all of his claims as false? Kirby says Lee filled in the balloons, and I'm willing to concede that (although there are cases we know when it wasn't true, like FF #6).
Stan Lee says he found a synopsis for Jerry Bails that he had given Kirby prior to the drawing of FF #8? I believe in the secret code of Stan Lee, he's trying to tell us that this claim is false. It didn't happen.
What are we left with? Kirby brought in the finished pages for the story conference, Lee filled in the balloons. Somewhere along the way, maybe just after the story conference, maybe just before the letter to Bails, Lee types up a "synopsis."
The FF #1 "synopsis" has even more leeway, since it either happened in the late '70s, in time to be discovered in Lee's old desk by an editor, or it happened in 1998 in time to be printed in Alter Ego. (Tolworthy20160908LeeWriting.jpg">
Michael Hill: All that to say that Lee didn't ever have a more active role before the stories were written and drawn. His role was always after the pages were turned in.
Aaron Noble: Susan Kirby testifies that Jack created three of the four, including one named Sue. Presumably, that would be the three original characters. Do we credit Stan or Goodman with the inclusion of the Human Torch? Then the sibling relationship is Jack scrambling to adapt to the new member? Or, since a trio team would be unusual for Jack, did he already know the Torch had to be in the book, and created the rest of the group around that publisher-dictated element?
Aaron Noble: Or maybe"re-created/ tweaked/ revised" would be more accurate... (Tolworthy20160908Challs.jpg">
Patrick Ford: The Torch would seem to fit Goodman. However, Kirby said in the Leonard Pitts interview he used the Torch for "visual interest."
It's not unlikely that since Sue was based on Susan that Johnny was based on Neal.
I agree with the fairly common sentiment that the first FF story is patched together. That idea has been discussed in depth. To my eye Reed's affection for Sue in the first story is fatherly and that is one reason why I suspect that Sue and Johnny were first intended by Kirby to be Reed's children.
If Goodman had asked for The Human Torch a person might think Goodman would get the Human Torch. So why in the first issue does the Torch look more like one of Kirby's "Lava Men" (TALES OF THE UNEXPECTED #22) than the Burgos Torch? And doesn't the fact that by the second (or third) issue Goodman (or Lee?) has Sol Brodsky (it's not Kirby) redraw the Torch, Kirby had drawn, to look like the Burgos Torch suggest that the Torch was Kirby's idea?
So why did Susan Kirby say she saw three of the four? One of the chracters may have already been off Kirby's board when she saw the presentations? Or perhaps Kirby had not yet added the fourth character?
Lastly. I suspect that the pin-ups in the early issues of the FF are Kirby's original presentation art which he submitted to Lee. If they ever turn up it would be interesting to see if there are erased pencil notations on them. We know via comments by Jim Shooter that Kirby was pitching his ideas by submitting presentations which contained art and text. Shooter says he "held in my hands" Kirby's Spider-Man presentation.
Patrick Ford: Chris Tolworthy breaks Kirby's Silver Age Marvel work down into three periods. I see maybe four periods and have a somewhat different view of them.
1. Late 1958 through late 1961. Chris and other might want to have a look at this post for back ground.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1758159214462637/permalink/1807335616211663/
Patrick: Ford Based on my reading I've come to the conclusion that from late 1958 to late 1961 Kirby was often writing not only stories, but captions and dialogue. And then something happened. Kirby described this in his interview with Gary Groth. Notice here that when Kirby makes his "infamous" comment about writing the dialogue, Groth is asking about the Monster books. Stories which Lee never signed until Oct. of 1961 one month prior to FF #1.
GROTH: On all the monster stories it says “Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.” What did he do to warrant his name being on them?
KIRBY: Nothing! OK?
GROTH: Did he dialogue them?
KIRBY: No, I dialogued them. If Stan Lee ever got a thing dialogued, he would get it from someone working in the office. I would write out the whole story on the back of every page. I would write the dialogue on the back or a description of what was going on. Then Stan Lee would hand them to some guy and he would write in the dialogue. In this way Stan Lee made more pay than he did as an editor. This is the way Stan Lee became the writer. Besides collecting the editor’s pay, he collected writer’s pay. I’m not saying Stan Lee had a bad business head on. I think he took advantage of whoever was working for him.
Patrick Ford: And then note Kirby's follow up comment which seems to suggest that from 1958 to 1961 Kirby was perhaps being paid for writing.
KIRBY: Of course it was fulfilling. It was a happy time of life. But. But, slowly management suddenly realized I was making money. I say “management, ” but I mean an individual. I was making more money than he was, OK? It’s an individual. And so he says, “Well, you know…” And the old phrase is born. “Screw you. I get mine.” OK? And so I had to render to Caesar what he considered Caesar’s. And there was a man who never wrote a line in his life — he could hardly spell — you know, taking credit for the writing.
Patrick Ford: More later. I have to get to period #2.
Patrick Ford: Chris Tolworthy mentions Kirby's disinterest in secret identities as seen in the stories artwork v. Lee's attempt to patch them on after the fact.
Patrick Ford: Chris mentions Lee's claim that he was thinking of quitting comics and created the FF as a last hurrah. Lee has claimed he was writing for television. There is no evidence of Lee even attempting to write for television. Some advocates for Lee have claimed that because he was loosely related to Martin Goodman, Goodman would have found a place for Lee. This theory is disputed by Bruce Jay Friedman an editor for Goodman's Men's Adventure magazines. Friedman.
Drew Friedman: My dad (Bruce Jay Freidman) actually worked at Magazine Management, which was the company that owned Marvel Comics in the fifties and sixties, so he knew Stan Lee pretty well. He knew him before the superhero revival in the early sixties, when Stan Lee had one office, one secretary and that was it. The story was that Martin Goodman who ran the company was trying to phase him out because the comics weren’t selling too well.
There is also the story told by Dick Ayers which depicts an anxious sounding Lee.
Dick Ayers: Things started to get really bad in 1958. One day when I went in Stan looked at me and said, “Gee whiz, my uncle goes by and he doesn’t even say hello to me.” He meant Martin Goodman. And he proceeds to tell me, “You know, it’s like a sinking ship and we’re the rats, and we’ve got to get off.”
Patrick Ford: Here's something else to consider. Was it the success of the JLA or the success of the Challengers which motivated Goodman to give in to Kirby's "harping?"
Let's go back to Kirby's arrival at Atlas in the late '50s. Simon and Kirby's publishing company MAINLINE had failed. The Simon & Kirby partnership had dissolved.
The industry altering comics code took effect in early 1955. It was well over a year before the publication of Showcase #4 featuring The Flash in 1956. By no means did super heroes sky rocket right away after the publication of Showcase #4.
Kirby was at DC in 1957 (after a brief time at Atlas), and launched the CHALLENGERS OF THE UNKNOWN (early 1957, four years prior to FF #1) only a few months after DC revived The Flash in late 1956. Note there were two appearances of the Challengers published prior to the second appearance of The Flash, and two more appearances by the Challengers before the third appearance of The Flash. And while The Flash was still appearing in Showcase, Kirby's Challengers had been given a title of their own.
Showcase:
4 The Flash (Barry Allen)
5 Manhunters
6 Challengers of the Unknown
7 Challengers of the Unknown
8 The Flash (Barry Allen)
9 Lois Lane
10 Lois Lane
11 Challengers of the Unknown
12 Challengers of the Unknown
The Challengers (costumed heroes in stories featuring super powers in every issue) could be seen as a super hero book. If it had been published by Marvel dealers would have long been calling it a FF prototype.
DC was in no rush to introduce a flood of super heroes, the steps were incremental. In several later interviews Kirby said that based on his experience at DC 1956-58 he began urging Lee and Goodman to give costumed heroes a chance as soon as he returned to Martin Goodman's nearly moribund company in late 1958. Kirby told Gary Groth he felt super heroes were coming back, and he suggested Lee look at DC's success with superheroes. Despite Kirby's urging it wasn't until 1961 that Goodman decided to give super heroes a shot.
Kirby's story of urging super heroes on Marvel is logical based on his experience at DC. And we know Lee's Jack Leibowitz/Goodman golf game story is a fabrication.
When interviewed DC's Harry Donenfeld said there was no golf game and he never socialized with Goodman. Liebowitz was not a golfer. Goodman himself never commented on what brought about the FF. The story that Goodman wanted a book similar to the Justice League of America is simply another part of Stan Lee's fabricated golf game story.
Many people place a great deal of emphasis on the Stan Lee FF#1 synopsis. Kirby said straight out in TCJ that any suggestion he had ever seen the Lee synopsis for FF#1 was (exact quote) "An outright lie." Marvel editor Roger Stern said another Marvel editor David Anthony Kraft found the synopsis in Lee's old desk at the Marvel offices. David Anthony Kraft is the same person Jim Shooter said was responsible for loading Kirby's mid-late-'70s LOCs with negative letters and urging from the editor to discuss the controversy over Kirby's writing. Shooter says he replaced Kraft because of this.
When Roy Thomas was asked about the synopsis in TJKC #18 he said,
"Even Stan would never claim for sure he wrote it before speaking to Jack."
Not long after that Lee began saying in precise terms he had written the synopsis before ever speaking to Kirby. As a matter of fact it is almost as if Lee has been coached by an attorney, (likely his friend and personal attorney Arthur Lieberman an IP attorney who had represented the Robert E. Howard estate). When the synopsis was published in Alter-Ego, not very long after Roy Thomas' interview in TJKC #18, Lee saw fit to include a sidebar note very specifically mentioning the synopsis was written before ever speaking to Kirby.
Thomas also says in TJKC #18 that Lee "didn't remember" if he'd spoken to Kirby before writing the synopsis or not. Since the synopsis had only recently come to light that suggests Thomas had questioned Lee about the synopsis when it first showed up, and Lee told him he could not remember.
Again TJKC #18 page 21. Roy Thomas :
"Later I saw Stan's plot for FF #1, but EVEN STAN (my caps) would never claim for sure he and Jack hadn't talked the idea over before he wrote it."
When Mark Evanier was asked about FF #1 at the ASK MARK EVANIER forum he said.
"Jack and Sol Brodsky both claimed (though Stan said it was not so) that Stan's initial idea, when Goodman asked for a hero book, was to revive Captain America, Sub-Mariner, Human Torch, etc., and that Jack suggested that new characters would be preferable."
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/marvelmasterworksfansite/ask-mark-evanier-t4954-s900.html#p286304
Dave Rawlins: In addition to the Challengers, Kirby also launched The Fly and Private Strong way before Goodman and Lee decided to begin publishing costumed heroes.
Dave Rawlins: Even Charlton tried them before Atlas! Captain Atom, anyone?
Chris Tolworthy: Do you have any idea of how quickly Goodman would normally react to trends? The JLA timeline has always bothered me. I calculate that Goodman could only have maybe three months of sales data since the JLA debuted. And as you point out, the proposed mechanism for him getting that data (the golf game) did not happen. And getting data from your competitor is a dubious idea to start with. Is a three month window realistic?
Now back when thy were publishing 75 titles a month I can see them taking risks, But with only 8 titles a month, wouldn't that suggest caution? Three months' data seems a bit reckless to me, considering the normal volatility of sales.
Patrick Ford: I think the whole JLA bit is just part of the lie. The JLA was mentioned to distract attention away from the very obvious connection to the Challengers. I suspect that Goodman actually looked at the success of the CHALLENGERS. I mean since it was Kirby who was pushing to try the costumed hero genre.
Patrick Ford: Ever notice this cover of the CHALLENGERS? (Tolworthy20160908Challs1.jpg">
Patrick Ford: And the cover of the first JLA appearance? (Tolworthy20160908JLA.jpg">
Patrick Ford: And yet the claim is that the FF #1 cover design was ordered by Goodman to mimic the JLA cover.
The whole "Golf Story" should be thrown out. Where else do you find a story discredited and then people cling to bits and pieces of it which have not been debunked? (Tolworthy20160908FFcover.jpg">
Chris Tolworthy: Good point. Here I am, still giving him the benefit of the doubt. it is time that I faced facts.
You know, I really should write an essay on the cult topic. All of this is so familiar. I was raised as a Mormon, a very cult-like religion. Joseph Smith was our Stan Lee. As children we were trained to see him as this nice guy, this clever, creative, honest, salt of the earth person. Even when I learned that Smith lied about every important claim, I still found myself defending him as basically a nice guy. It took another ten years before I could finally admit that people who lie, cheat, steal, murder, and force children to sleep with them are NOT nice people and I have to just admit it. But Smith had raised a whole generation to worship him.
I'm not saying Lee is as bad as Smith, but its the same principle: I was raised as a child to believe that he was a nice guy. All his efforts have been to persuade people that he is a nice guy. That's what liars do. They rely on the fact that most people are NOT liars (or at least are not good at lying) so we keep on defaulting to the position that "surely there must be a grain of truth in that". I mean, what had he got to gain by lying? Oh yeah, now I remember. Fame, wealth, adoring fans, the celebrity lifestyle, god-like status...
the parallels between Smith and Lee and generic cult leaders is uncanny. Of course, Lee is still alive so he can still sue, but I wonder what will come to light after he's gone? But maybe outliving all his contemporary critics was his smartest move of all.
Patrick Ford: Chris, See here for some background.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1758159214462637/permalink/1807720892839802/
Robert Beerbohm: Patrick Ford Jeez, after all these decades I never put the image of that Showcase Challs cover juxtaposed against JLA B&B 28 - Wowza! Learned some thing new today which is something I try to accomplish every day.
Patrick Ford: Yeah it suggests to me that DC may have launched the JLA based on the success of the CHALLENGERS. It makes more sense than the FF being given the go ahead due to the sale of the JLA.
Patrick Ford: To me this is obvious. The whole golf match JLA bit was concocted as a smoke screen designed to hide the obvious connection to the Challengers.
Robert Beerbohm: I would love to go one on one with Stan Lee on stage at a major comicon NYC SDCC Chicago etc. I would bury the guy's bogus claims. He would be too chicken though and now he is too old as I would be branded a beater up of ancient relics.
Michael Hill: Robert, hurry, he's on his farewell tour!
Robert Beerbohm: Oh, this would have to be a formal interview like when I talked Irwin Donenfeld to do a two hour interview San Diego 2000. For Lee to claim such a bad bad memory he sure got focused on he created it all for the corporate owners.
Michael Hill: Chris, Robert Beerbohm has written/is writing about the distribution fraud that killed the Fourth World titles.
Robert Beerbohm: When Ford and Beerbohm Cosmic Space Time Line Continuum Worlds Collide in thought process I tend to not "see" each individual thread at ay given moment. Becomes a bee hive of energy :)
Robert Beerbohm: Comic Book Artist #6 and #7 1999 edited laid out by Jon B. Cooke published by TwoMorrows has 25, 000+ words beginning some initial "Secret Origins of The Direct Market!"
Tim Bateman: I remember it... and the third installment, never seen.
I hope it's on its way, Robert.
home