It just hit me. "Secrets Behind the comics" is even more important than I thought. In it, Stan distinguishes between a script and a synopsis. This is crucial.

A script has panels on one side, and dialog "in the empty columns next to the proper panel": Stan is explicit about this. After receiving a script Stan would examine it and make changes. This is exactly what we see in Kirby's Fantastic Four, except that Kirby sketched the panels instead of describing them. The earliest pencils I can find are from FF issue 3, and on them we see Jack's dialog in the margins and Stan's changes written on the back. (Scroll up a little, and also to the top of the page, to see much clearer examples from later issues, and analysis.*)

in contrast, a synopsis, according to Stan, refers to the meeting between Stan and the writer. The famous document for FF issue 1 calls itself a synopsis. A couple of years ago I reached the conclusion that the synopsis must be the typed minutes of a meeting between Stan and Jack. Stan's 1947 book seems to support this.

BTW, Cei-U and Ish Kabbible, I hope you don't mind if I quote you on my site? The relevant part is here.

(I also have a page comparing Jack and Stan as writers. it is another way of approaching the "did Kirby write" question. That page is easier to read if you're in a hurry. Much like Stan's writing...  )

* Tolworthy's Fantastic Four site: putting the "anal" into "analysis" since 1996.

If the posters on CCF have the wrong guy/It's no secret they'll feel better if they cry...

Done! And I also credit you on my favourite anecdote of all: your comment about the Wizard looking like John Carradine. That fact has everything: it's fun, memorable, real world, draws attention to an underappreciated character, and best of all takes a weakness (apparently bad art) and turns it into a strength.

Neither am I! I reserve the right to be wrong, and I often cringe when I see my own older stuff. But my goal is not to say "I alone have unlocked the one truth!" Quite the opposite. I want to show that there is always more to discover. Good comics are a bottomless well of pleasure for the mind.


Back on topic, I did some more digging on Siegel and Shuster, and yes, it is probably no coincidence that Stan Lee chose to write his book when he did. Jamie Coville gives the Siegel and Shuster details. Siegel and Shuster just come back from the war, to find that not only was Superman making millions for DC, but DC was making money from a derivative character Superboy. Without giving them a dime. So in 1946 they lawyered up. In 1947 they lost their jobs over it. This was the year when Stan Lee chose to write a book saying that publishers love their artists and writers, but the publisher is the guy who matters. 

I entirely agree. I don't think this was conscious or malicious. I am mind reading, trying to guess the underlying causes. People do not spontaneously write random things (except perhaps on Facebook). Usually there are multiple causes. I suppose it's my old psychology professor whispering in my ear: "people are seldom aware of why they do things." "Most of our justifications are made up after our unconscious brain already makes the decision." And my old socialist history professor is whispering in my other ear, "always ask, who benefits from this?"

I am also extremely cynical, but hopefully in a good way (I love the ancient Greek cynics Crates, Diogenes, etc.). Yes, I think Stan was unconsciously motivated by ego, but we all are. So was Jack Kirby: he deserved better, dammit! And it's not like he was a saint. I remember how he said he won Roz away from her piano playing boyfriend: something along the lines of "it would be a shame if those nice fingers of yours got smashed up". And the harsh truth is that without Stan, Kirby would be almost forgotten today, but with Stan he had his swimming pool and his legions of fans (myself included). Heck, I am motivated by ego too. One day the world will discover my web sites and then they will see!!  

According to old Dale Carnegie the need to feel important is our number one motivator. But I think this is a healthy attitude. Because if we recognise that we are ALL guilty of this then we can cut others a lot of slack, as well as keeping our own ego in perspective. I have good will to all people, because I think we are all jerks together. 

Agree . They were both great and they made their legends working together. It makes me sick when people try to totally strip Stan Lee of credit.

Well, it was important enough for Stan to use several pages of his short book about that particular character and his purposely fabrication of who created it. I have no doubts in my mind that Stan knew the true story but chose to relate it the way he did to kiss up to his father-in-law/employer

I don't consider Stan as a malicious man. He certainly contributed much to the comics industry in his own right. However he was always a self-promoter. No one ever described him as a humble man. Many here grew up with Stan as the public face for Marvel, with his Presenting Banner adorning decades of comics he never looked at and they are willing to cut him as much slack as possible. Again, to me, Stan is not a "bad" guy. Not quite as bad as a Bob Kane for instance. But he certainly had his faults in his handling of Kirby and Ditko  and other bullpenners by not championing their creator rights and not giving them proper credit for far too many years.