Steve Ditko

[Jim Kingman]

Thom,

Excellent beginning, and partial middle, to what promises to be an outstanding article. I hope Mr. Ditko reads this and is impressed enough to grant you an interview (we can always hope).

I wonder if Ditko contributed artwork to entries on any of his creations for Who's Who: The (Definitive?) Directory of the DC Universe, published in 1985-1986.

Unfortunately, I missed First Issue Special #7 when it was published in July of '75 (sandwiched between Kirby's The Dingbats of Danger Street and The Warlord's first appearance; ah, the things we remember), but did order it as a back issue about a year later. I believe the first Creeper story I ever read was his Showcase origin reprinted in Detective Comics #443 (1974). My first "new" Creeper story was probably Detective Comics #447 (his guest appearance in the "Bat-Murderer" series). Come to think of it, DC was really pushing The Creeper in 1975. All it got him was a brief back-up feature in Adventure Comics.

Thanks for igniting the memories, and for the learning experience. I look forward to the rest of your article!

Jim Kingman

[Thom Young]

Originally Posted by Jim Kingman

Thom,

Excellent beginning, and partial middle, to what promises to be an outstanding article. I hope Mr. Ditko reads this and is impressed enough to grant you an interview (we can always hope).

I wonder if Ditko contributed artwork to entries on any of his creations for Who's Who: The (Definitive?) Directory of the DC Universe, published in 1985-1986.

Unfortunately, I missed First Issue Special #7 when it was published in July of '75 (sandwiched between Kirby's The Dingbats of Danger Street and The Warlord's first appearance; ah, the things we remember), but did order it as a back issue about a year later. I believe the first Creeper story I ever read was his Showcase origin reprinted in Detective Comics #443 (1974). My first "new" Creeper story was probably Detective Comics #447 (his guest appearance in the "Bat-Murderer" series). Come to think of it, DC was really pushing The Creeper in 1975. All it got him was a brief back-up feature in Adventure Comics.

Thanks for igniting the memories, and for the learning experience. I look forward to the rest of your article!

Jim Kingman

Thanks, Jim.

By the way, the brief back-up series was in World's Finest.

I'm covering it in Part Four.

There were some problems in finishing Part Three (some of which will be touched upon at the end of the third part). However, it's now finished (though it needs to be proofread).

I believe Keith has decided to run parts three and four next week since it's about time for another Soapbox to focus on Countdown to Final Crisis.

[Dave Wallace]

Thom, this has been a great article so far. It's accessible enough that readers who aren't familiar with Objectivism (like me!) can get into it, but it's also dense, informative, and obviously well-researched. I already feel like I have a far greater understanding of Ditko and his work as a result of reading this, and I look forward to learning more in the final two instalments. Great job.

One question I do have, though: considering that comics are a fundamentally collaborative process (unless you write, pencil, ink, colour, and letter everything yourself), how can Ditko have worked in comics so long without feeling that the integrity of his work was being compromised by the contributions others? It seems difficult to reconcile the level of control and sense of ownership that Ditko had over his art with the fact that it was always going to be part of a more collaborative process. The accounts of Ditko's script problems in part 2 of the article in particular suggest that a man of Ditko's beliefs might not be suited to a collaborative artform. I wonder why he didn't leave comics sooner - or at least choose to work on comics over which he could have complete creative control.

[Thom Young]

Originally Posted by Dave Wallace

Thom, this has been a great article so far. It's accessible enough that readers who aren't familiar with Objectivism (like me!) can get into it, but it's also dense, informative, and obviously well-researched. I already feel like I have a far greater understanding of Ditko and his work as a result of reading this, and I look forward to learning more in the final two instalments. Great job.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Dave Wallace

One question I do have, though: considering that comics are a fundamentally collaborative process (unless you write, pencil, ink, colour, and letter everything yourself), how can Ditko have worked in comics so long without feeling that the integrity of his work was being compromised by the contributions others? It seems difficult to reconcile the level of control and sense of ownership that Ditko had over his art with the fact that it was always going to be part of a more collaborative process. The accounts of Ditko's script problems in part 2 of the article in particular suggest that a man of Ditko's beliefs might not be suited to a collaborative artform. I wonder why he didn't leave comics sooner - or at least choose to work on comics over which he could have complete creative control.

Ditko didn't become an adherent of Objectivism until about 1965 (give or take a year), and he didn't really become adamant about it in his art until 1967 to early 1968--which is when he started having trouble collaborating well with others (first with Stan Lee then with Giordano, O'Neil, and Skeates).

At Charlton, he wrote the Question (except for the one story that Skeates wrote), and he may have also wrote Blue Beetle since it was also by "D.C. Glanzman" (or maybe the real Glanzman actually wrote it). I haven't studied Ditko's Blue Beetle--yet.

When Charlton started publishing Captain Atom again in 1965, Joe Gill was the writer on it (as he had been in the late 1950s). However, Ditko quickly began plotting and "co-writing" the stories, and Gill soon quit (I assume there's a cause and effect relationship there).

Ditko kept plotting Captain Atom, and someone named David Kaler took over the scripting duties. I know nothing about him.

Eventually, when Ditko came back to work for the big two in the 1970s, he would work on characters created by others as long as the stories didn't go against his principles--such as Rom, Spaceknight. When he worked on his own characters (such as Shade, the Changing Man), he would interview the writer to determine whether he could work with him or not.

Supposedly, the first question Ditko would ask was, "What makes a man a hero?" If he didn't get the answer he wanted, the interview was over.

Michael Fleisher must have passed Ditko's interview--which is ironic considering Fleisher is best known for his work on Jonah Hex and on The Spectre in Adventure Comics (both of which were considered "anti-heroes" under Fleisher).

However, Ditko may have actually liked Fleisher's take on The Spectre.

[Dave Wallace]

Originally Posted by Thom Young

Thanks.

Ditko didn't become an adherent of Objectivism until about 1965 (give or take a year), and he didn't really become adamant about it in his art until 1967 to early 1968--which is when he started having trouble collaborating well with others (first with Stan Lee then with Giordano, O'Neil, and Skeates).

Ah, OK, that makes sense then.

Originally Posted by Thom Young

Eventually, when Ditko came back to work for the big two in the 1970s, he would work on characters created by others as long as the stories didn't go against his principles--such as Rom, Spaceknight. When he worked on his own characters (such as Shade, the Changing Man), he would interview the writer to determine whether he could work with him or not.

Supposedly, the first question Ditko would ask was, "What makes a man a hero?" If he didn't get the answer he wanted, the interview was over.

I don't suppose you know what the answer that he wanted was?

[Thom Young]

Originally Posted by Dave Wallace

I don't suppose you know what the answer that he wanted was?

Yeah, this is what he's looking for:

A hero is someone who upholds proper principles and the correctness of objective truths in all situations and no matter who he is dealing with. He is a defender of rational truth.

A hero is a man who faces up to life's problems by acting on them in a way that does credit to himself and to the proper principles that have been proven to be true.

(Paraphrased from Ditko's Mr. A and Question scripts that he wrote himself.)

[Thom Young]

He didn't want to hear anything about "helping others" or "defending the weak" or that type of stuff.

[Dave Wallace]

Interesting!

[Jim Kingman]

Thom,

In reading your article, I can see why Ditko would have no desire to be interviewed. Any interviewer, even one who agreed with his beliefs, would still chime in with some degree of “objectivity” and “subjectiveness.” Given that Ditko’s beliefs run a very firm straight line in a personally constructed insular tunnel, any uncomfortable light being cast on him would leave him exposed and vulnerable. Cornered in his tightly knit world-view. I could see him bailing the discussion entirely.

I wouldn’t want Ditko to come to my rescue if I was being mugged. I could see him asking me if I was on welfare first, or convicted of a crime in a court of law, and if my answer as my face was being pummeled was "yes" (it wouldn't be, it's just for the sake of argument) he’d just allow the mugging to continue. Or maybe he’d rescue me first and ask questions later and once he had the answer he didn’t want to hear he’d kick me in the shins. I don’t know.

I do respect Ditko’s right to adhere to any belief system he so chooses. Personally, I find him fascinating, an extremely gifted artistic talent, and selfish to a fault. It’s exactly how I feel about John Wayne.

Jim Kingman

[Thom Young]

Originally Posted by Jim Kingman

I wouldn’t want Ditko to come to my rescue if I was being mugged. I could see him asking me if I was on welfare first, or convicted of a crime in a court of law, and if my answer as my face was being pummeled was "yes" (it wouldn't be, it's just for the sake of argument) he’d just allow the mugging to continue. Or maybe he’d rescue me first and ask questions later and once he had the answer he didn’t want to hear he’d kick me in the shins. I don’t know.

Hurmm.