We require only 49 additional Power Stone donors, only 7 more reviews, and 700 more collections and newly added Discord 47 more members to unlock the next bonus chapters.
Get those stones going boys and tomboys, we need to get those numbers up!
Join my Patreon
GodofPleasure
(dot)com/GodofPleasure
****
The widely circulated figure of roughly $300 million represented only the wealth that could be reasonably attributed to Marvin's readily identifiable personal earnings and liquid assets.
Fortune's analysts believed his economic net worth could already approach or exceed $900 million, once his private company interests, investment positions, intellectual-property holdings and unrealized gains were taken into account.
And there was another investment.
One so strange that the magazine initially treated it almost as a curiosity.
A tiny Internet search company.
Google.
Marvin had reportedly become an early angel investor and acquired a substantial private stake being the single largest private shareholder in the fledgling company while the company was still operating on a shoestring.
Fortune could not yet determine what that investment would ultimately become.
Its reporters could only point out that Marvin's record of identifying opportunities before they became obvious was becoming increasingly difficult to dismiss as luck.
> "For a teenager who has already made hundreds of millions of dollars from entertainment, Meyers displays a peculiar willingness to place serious capital on technologies most conventional investors still regard as speculative."
The article then returned to the number everyone had been discussing.
$300 million.
That was what Marvin was putting behind *The Lord of the Rings.*
But after Fortune's investigation, the figure suddenly looked different.
It was no longer necessarily the reckless act of a teenager risking everything he had earned.
The Fortune article detonated almost immediately.
Not because everyone believed it.
Quite the opposite. Most people thought it was insane.
The magazine had put Marvin Meyers' personal wealth at somewhere around $900 million—a number so large that ordinary readers had trouble even knowing what it meant.
Nine hundred million dollars. For a child. Fourteen years old.
People understood rich actors. They understood singers with platinum records. They understood successful authors making millions from bestsellers. Even a hundred-million-dollar movie star was no longer completely unimaginable in 1999.
But $900 million was different. That was billionaire territory.
It sounded like the kind of number attached to an oil magnate, a technology founder whose company had gone public, or an old industrial family—not a teenage entertainer who had only recently appeared on the world's cultural radar.
And Fortune hadn't produced a bank statement and laid it across the page.
There was no photograph of a $900 million brokerage account. No tax return. No private balance sheet stamped by an accountant.
No SEC filing declaring that Marvin Meyers possessed $900 million in personal assets.
Much of the information required to estimate his wealth simply wasn't presented.
That made the figure incredibly difficult for ordinary people to accept.
Readers knew what Marvin had earned from individual projects because newspapers reported those numbers. They knew his movies were successful. They knew his books were selling. They knew his singles were climbing the charts.
But most people naturally added those figures together as though that were how personal wealth worked.
Twenty million from one movie.
Another Thirty million from another.
A few million from a book.
A few million from music.
Add everything together and, surely, you eventually reached the answer.
Except that Marvin's financial structure wasn't that simple.
His compensation wasn't limited to acting salaries. He had negotiated backend participation, producing compensation, publishing rights, licensing arrangements and ownership interests. His businesses held assets of their own. Some of the most valuable interests weren't publicly traded and therefore didn't have a neat market price attached to them.
To estimate a private fortune like that, Fortune had to make assumptions.
How much had actually been paid? How much remained contractually owed? What were his private companies worth?
What percentage of those companies did Marvin personally control? What were his publishing and entertainment rights worth?
How much cash had already accumulated? How much had been reinvested?
And how much future income could legitimately be counted as an existing asset rather than speculation?
That last distinction was especially important.
A nine-hundred-million-dollar estimate didn't mean Marvin had nine hundred million dollars sitting in a bank account.
It meant Fortune believed the total value of the assets and interests attributable to Marvin could approach that figure.
To the average reader, the distinction was almost meaningless.
They saw $900 million. And they thought bullshit. Radio hosts mocked it. Callers insisted the magazine had simply wanted attention.
Some argued that Fortune had confused the Meyers family fortune with Marvin's personal wealth. Others assumed the magazine had counted the value of his companies as though every dollar of corporate value were sitting in Marvin's personal checking account.
That was a perfectly reasonable suspicion.
Even some people inside Hollywood were skeptical.
There was simply no precedent for a teenager accumulating a fortune on that scale in less than three years alone.
Then something else began to happen.
People started checking the pieces of the estimate.
The reported movie grosses were real. The publishing numbers were real. The music sales were real. The production deals were real.
The ownership of Meyers-controlled companies was real.
The money commitment to *The Lord of the Rings* was real.
And the more journalists pulled at individual threads, the harder it became to dismiss the entire story as something an editor had invented over lunch.
That didn't prove Fortune's $900 million estimate was correct.
It did something more uncomfortable.
It made the estimate plausible.
Wall Street analysts understood the distinction better than most newspaper readers did. Private wealth was often an exercise in valuation rather than arithmetic. If someone owned a large stake in a private company, controlled valuable intellectual property, held substantial contractual participation in successful entertainment properties and possessed significant liquid investments, there wasn't necessarily a single public document that revealed the complete number.
The analyst had to reconstruct it. And reconstruction produced ranges. Some estimates came in lower than Fortune. Some came surprisingly close.
A few were higher.
The argument was no longer How could a child possibly have $900 million?
It became: How much of that $900 million can actually be verified?
That was a very different question.And then people noticed something else.
Forbes wasn't saying much. That attracted almost as much attention as the Fortune article itself.
By 1999, Forbes had made a business out of tracking extraordinary fortunes. Its reporters were already spending enormous amounts of time trying to value technology entrepreneurs whose wealth could change by hundreds of millions of dollars between one quarter and the next.
Private fortunes were nothing new to them.
Neither was uncertainty.
Forbes routinely had to estimate the value of privately held companies, closely held investments and complicated ownership structures. Its billionaire rankings were built around precisely that problem: determining what somebody was actually worth when no public balance sheet existed.
This silence was loud, especially this specific year, when Forbes was already obsessively tracking the sudden creation of massive Internet fortunes. Its highly sold July 1999 Billionaire Issue exhaustively discussed how tech founders were becoming billionaires extraordinarily quickly, tracking every new Silicon Valley king. Forbes stated it had successfully identified about 465 billionaires worldwide, and it explicitly acknowledged that valuing private, hidden fortunes involved continuous investigation and estimation.
So when Fortune suddenly put Marvin Meyers at roughly $900 million, people expected Forbes to respond in some way.
If the number was obviously ridiculous, why not tear it apart?
If the magazine had confused family wealth with personal wealth, why not say so?
If Marvin was nowhere near the figure, why not publish a competing estimate?
But no immediate public takedown came.
That wasn't proof.
Financial journalists knew better than to treat silence as confirmation.
The public didn't.
To them, the silence became its own story.
Perhaps Forbes was investigating.
Perhaps its researchers were running the numbers.
Perhaps they simply didn't have enough information to publish a defensible figure.
Or perhaps—this was the interpretation that spread fastest—Fortune had gotten much closer to the truth than anyone wanted to admit.
The irony was that the absence of confirmation made the rumor stronger.
Within weeks, Marvin's wealth had become a subject of fascination far beyond entertainment.
People who had never read one of his books and couldn't name one of his songs were suddenly talking about him.
His face was everywhere. His movies. His music. His books. His companies. And now his money.
The image of Marvin changed with it.
He wasn't merely the extraordinarily talented Meyers heir anymore.
He was becoming something Americans found almost impossible to look away from: a child who appeared to have achieved, before reaching adulthood, what most people spent their entire lives trying to build.
Parents talked about him. Business magazines talked about him. Television hosts talked about him. And plenty of parents began using him as the ultimate example of what their own children could become.
He was young, handsome, disciplined, apparently healthy, exceptionally talented and now—if the financial estimates were even remotely accurate—absurdly wealthy.
The myth was becoming bigger than the person.
It was around this point that Marvin's image began to cross from celebrity into something closer to a national symbol.
Even the White House eventually noticed.
During a highly publicized prime-time television interview focused on education, President Bill Clinton brought Marvin's name into the conversation.
Sitting in the Oval Office, Clinton turned toward the camera with the easy smile that had become one of his trademarks.
"Young Marvin Meyers is a remarkable example of what an American education can help produce," he said. "He's demonstrated extraordinary achievement at a very young age, particularly in literature, the arts and business. We ought to be encouraging that kind of creativity in our children."
It was an effective political line. It was also remarkably convenient.
Because there was one rather important detail Clinton didn't mention.
Marvin's school was technically a public school.
But it was hardly representative of the average American public school.
It sat in one of Los Angeles' wealthiest communities, surrounded by families whose resources were measured in millions and, in some cases, billions of dollars. The children attending it included heirs, entertainment-industry families and members of some of the city's most affluent households.
The advantages didn't end when the final bell rang.
Many students went home to private tutors, specialized instructors and carefully structured academic programs. Their parents could afford to fill whatever gaps the school couldn't.
And the school itself benefited from the wealth surrounding it.
Affluent families donated heavily. Foundations connected to parents and alumni provided money for programs that ordinary public schools could never dream of maintaining.
The result was an institution with laboratories, athletic facilities and teaching resources far beyond what most Americans would associate with the phrase "public school."
Of course, the reality behind the image was considerably less convenient.
Marvin's school was an excellent one. But it was also located in an exceptionally wealthy part of Los Angeles, surrounded by families who could afford resources most schools simply couldn't provide.
That wasn't uniquely American.
Wealthy communities everywhere had better schools, better facilities, better teachers, smaller classes and parents with the money to hire tutors when the school wasn't enough. The name above the entrance mattered less than the resources behind it.
And Marvin had grown up with plenty of those resources.
His school could offer a demanding academic environment, but his education didn't begin and end when the final bell rang. He had access to people, books, tutors, technology and opportunities that most children could only dream about.
Calling that the product of a simple, universally available "happy education" was therefore a convenient simplification.
Clinton wasn't really trying to explain Marvin.
He was using Marvin.
That was what politicians did when a cultural phenomenon became too large to ignore. They found something everyone recognized, attached it to a message they wanted to sell and held it up as evidence that their own ideas were working.
There was nothing particularly unusual about it.
Marvin Meyers was simply too perfect an example to resist.
A child prodigy. A bestselling author. A successful filmmaker. A rising music star.
A young businessman supposedly worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
If the President wanted to talk about American opportunity, American Dream, creativity and education, Marvin was almost tailor-made for the speech.
The inconvenient part was that Marvin's success couldn't be reduced to a school system.
Education had helped.
So had talent. So had extraordinary ambition.
So had money, family connections, private resources and circumstances that very few children on Earth would ever experience.
Clinton's sound bite didn't need to acknowledge all of that. It only needed to sound good on television. And it did.
---
While America was busy discovering just how much money Marvin Meyers actually had, Kate Beckinsale was worrying about something much more immediate.
A contract.
It was July 1999, and Kate was twenty-six years old.
She wasn't an unknown. She wasn't a failed actress either.
Kate had been working for years.
****
Join my Discord...
(Discord dot gg slash 2MfM9J7dBj)
Join my Patreon
GodofPleasure
(dot)com slash GodofPleasure