All things Ditko.

[Drusilla lives!]

... In 1967, Ditko was about the only guy in comics using mainstream comics for personal expression. You wouldn't believe what a shock to the system that was, what doors in a lot of people's heads that opened up, whether they adhered to the specifics of Ditko's philosophy or not, but I can still look at The Question or Mr. A and feel the thrill of it. It wouldn't bear fruit until years later, and it's true that Ditko himself never prospered from it, but while Ditko's POV was in exact opposition to the cultural trends of his day he was the only person in comics of the time doing material that fit the underlying cultural spirit.

So his work, in style if not in content though it was awfully refreshing to see perspectives laid out purely in, uh, black and white terms, was a real kick in the head for an awful lot of us, and that's a huge debt we as individuals in the comics industry can never repay. Once Ditko pried that door open, a hell of a lot of us went through it. ...

Yes, if I recall correctly, Ditko felt that his later material was rejected for this very reason... his POV that heroes should be "black and white" in their moral reasoning. It appears he really did detest what "heroes" in comic books had come to be portrayed as...

"It is noticeably revealing, how many anti-Ditko types weren't resentful of me or my work when I worked at Charlton, DC, Marvel (my dependent work) even if they didn't care for the way I did it. I wasn't allow to become a 'defector' from the then accepted and enforced anti-hero, flawed hero premise or to be allowed to become a selector of my own best interests in ideas, stories and art from my own personal viewpoint for a better type, an unflawed hero." - Ditko (from Blake Bell's, Strange and Stranger: The World of Steve Ditko)

[Steven Grant]

It appears he really did detest what "heroes" in comic books had come to be portrayed as...

I don't doubt that he did. But not because they were anti-heroes, especially - when Ditko was drawing Spider-Man, the "anti-hero" was pretty much an unknown quantity. Even Stan's other heroes generally weren't anti-heroes, they just had to worry about little things like paying the phone bill and whether the magnet in their chest plate would crap out and let shrapnel finally rip their hearts apart. Ditko was the one who really created the anti-hero as he's thought of in comics by giving Peter Parker real quandries to work out that didn't have simple answers.

But what I suspect Ditko detested most about heroes of the day was that there was never any intentional decision to become a hero. The DC Silver Age characters, for instance, mostly got superpowers and immediately said "I shall now wear a costume and go fight crime, because that is what a hero does." He intended Spider-Man to first act ignobly, understand what the consequences of one's decisions meant, then actively decide to behave heroically, despite other temptations.

"It is noticeably revealing, how many anti-Ditko types weren't resentful of me or my work when I worked at Charlton, DC, Marvel (my dependent work) even if they didn't care for the way I did it. I wasn't allow to become a 'defector' from the then accepted and enforced anti-hero, flawed hero premise or to be allowed to become a selector of my own best interests in ideas, stories and art from my own personal viewpoint for a better type, an unflawed hero." - Ditko (from Blake Bell's, Strange and Stranger: The World of Steve Ditko)

Honestly, I don't think it was that at all, though I can see why he would think that.

First, in the '60s and for most comics through much of the '70s, the concept of the "hero" in comics was fairly static. The genuine anti-hero was scarce, and the "flaws" were mostly physical, or some condition the hero needed to overcome in order to behave heroically. (Matt Murdock's blindness, Don Blake's bad leg, etc.)

Second, I think Ditko misjudged the market, not on content, but on desire and availability. Nobody made money on subscriptions or mail order, and for new comics companies distribution was a tough nut to crack. Same as today. Ditko also made the assumption that a lot of us make that if he has an audience built via Spider-Man and Blue Beetle, he can carry it over to Mr. A and the Avenging World. (Which in my case was certainly true.) But most readers are fans of the characters, not of the talent producing them, as the continued success of Spider-Man following Ditko's departure indicates. If Mr. A had been available on every newsstand, in color, at the same price as other comics, who knows? Unless you were part of a very small segment of the readership, availability wasn't even there. My bet is that most readers of Dr. Strange and The Creeper didn't even know Mr. A existed.

This is kind of why it's usually a bad idea to quit a job before you have another job lined up...

- Grant

[Drusilla lives!]

... But what I suspect Ditko detested most about heroes of the day was that there was never any intentional decision to become a hero. The DC Silver Age characters, for instance, mostly got superpowers and immediately said "I shall now wear a costume and go fight crime, because that is what a hero does." He intended Spider-Man to first act ignobly, understand what the consequences of one's decisions meant, then actively decide to behave heroically, despite other temptations. ...

Honestly, I don't think it was that at all, though I can see why he would think that.

First, in the '60s and for most comics through much of the '70s, the concept of the "hero" in comics was fairly static. The genuine anti-hero was scarce, and the "flaws" were mostly physical, or some condition the hero needed to overcome in order to behave heroically. (Matt Murdock's blindness, Don Blake's bad leg, etc.) ...

I think it was more like knowing the temptations and not acting ignobly despite that knowledge... I don't recall Parker acting ignobly in my opinion... but that was long after Ditko's run on Spider-Man came to an end. For example, I recently was reading ASM 66 and 67. Here he was facing the menace of Mysterio, the jibes of Flash on leave from Nam, the rants of Mr. Jameson and financial problems that forced him to sell his motorcycle (cheap)... a motorcycle he desperately needed to get around in his fight with Mysterio (apparently he didn't have an endless supply of web fluid). Yet he never wavered in his goodness. He never thought (as I now realize he could have thought at any time) "gee, I don't think I got a good deal on that bike, I think I'll go back and pummel that guy" or "I'll just bust into that store and get my cycle back, it's for a good cause and I'll return it promptly." No way, not just because it wouldn't or couldn't fit, or be made to fit the story, it just wasn't in Parkers nature (nor in Stan's). BTW, the story ends by Spidey overcoming the illusions of Mysterio with a nice soliloquy about a "good man" going down fighting, even against insurmountable odds for the good... very much like the existential moment in AMS #33 (that must have really haunted Stan in that he always tried to recreate it's magic).

But I think you're right when it comes to his later work...

"Mr. A is based on Ayn Rand's theory of justice and on Aristotle's law or identity, his definition of man and his view of art... Aristotle said that art is philosophically more important than history. History tells how man did act --- art shows how man could and should act." - Ditko (from Blake Bell's, Strange and Stranger: The World of Steve Ditko)

and...

"... Ditko would stand as the first comic-book artist to introduce explicit philosophical ideology into his work. The 1967 unveilings of Mr. A and The Question paved the way for more than the generic 'bad guy-versus-good guy' narrative, encouraging the medium to deal with more mature themes -- even when most artist/writers chose to concentrate on the more sensational areas of violence, language and sex." - Bell

Also regarding a 1968 Mr. A story in witzend (fourth issue)...

"Merciless as Mr. A was, Ditko was determined to show that Mr. A was an idea-driven comic-book vigilante. In the story's climactic scene, a corrupt assistant DA presents no physical threat, so Mr. A pummels him with ideas until he confesses of his own free will to his evil deeds." - Bell

[Lord Destiny]

I don't recall Parker acting ignobly in my opinion...

Amazing Fantasy #15. Not stopping the thief when he clearly was able to do so, simply to get revenge, seems to qualify as "ignoble."

[Lord Destiny]

While Ditko made it obvious with Mr. A, he was far from the first hero to represent philosophical motivations.

Early Superman was extremely populist.

The very concept of superhero is built on New Deal politics. They share two basic principles...

1) There are problems that the official agencies cannot--or will not--resolve.

2) If you have the means to help solve those problems, you are morally obligated to do so.

These are present in every superhero story I've ever seen (and I've seen thousands, covering 70 years), from Superman to the Punisher.

[Drusilla lives!]

Amazing Fantasy #15. Not stopping the thief when he clearly was able to do so, simply to get revenge, seems to qualify as "ignoble."

I'll have to take your word for it, to be honest I've never read AF #15, only reprinted parts of it in later issues. But from the issues I have read (and remember) I'd stand by my position on the matter.

[Black Vespa]

I'll have to take your word for it, to be honest I've never read AF #15, only reprinted parts of it in later issues. But from the issues I have read (and remember) I'd stand by my position on the matter.

It's the crisis in his origin that led him down the path he took as spider-man. The burden of guilt is a pretty heavy load when the consequence of your actions hasten the death of a loved one.

[Drusilla lives!]

Honestly, I completely forgot this aspect of Spidey's origin... yes it's been that long. But anyway here's an excerpt from the wiki entry on Spider-Man...

"After quickly becoming a minor celebrity, Peter appears on a television special, but afterward allows a thief to escape the TV station, asserting that it isn't his problem. He comes to regret his inaction when he finds out that the same burglar subsequently killed his Uncle Ben.

Realizing that he could have prevented his uncle's death, the guilt-ridden Peter commits to a life of crimefighting and lifesaving, driven by his uncle's words, "With great power there must also come great responsibility". (The phrase is often shortened to: "With great power comes great responsibility".) This disarming mix of selfless obligation and self-recrimination brought about by his uncle's death arguably makes up Spider-Man's moral core."

I still don't consider the act of letting the thief run off "ignoble"... just one of apathy on his part.

[Steven Grant]

I still don't consider the act of letting the thief run off "ignoble"... just one of apathy on his part.

The original presentation was pretty ignoble. Peter had just wrestled, masked, for prize money and was busy counting it as The Burglar runs by. Someone from the office that was just robbed calls to Peter to stop the running man, and Peter just watches the whole scene go by and does nothing. When the guy from the office asks him why he didn't do anything, he tells the guy to call a cop; it's none of Peter's business and he's too busy counting his money to give a rat's ass, because money is all he's there for and all that matters to him. He as close to gives the guy the finger as would've been allowed in comics in those days.

Years later, when I started hanging around at Marvel, I put forth the suggestion that Uncle Ben was The Burglar's fence, because the one thing about the story that really bothered me was why a burglar who'd robbed a building in midtown Manhattan would be out hanging around a quiet residential neighborhood in Queens and would choose to invade a random house and murder an old man. It's kind of a broad field of operation for a petty crook. If Ben's his fence, his presence and behavior makes sense; all you have to add is a tiff about money. Marvel, needless to say, didn't much care for this scenario. I gather the story was adjusted in later tellings to Ben being shot in his car somewhere in Manhattan rather than at his home in Queens, and to be fair the original story doesn't specific where Uncle Ben is murdered, it just implies it's at their house. (Marv Wolfman did a story during his Spider-Man run wherein the Burglar, finally released from jail, returns to the Parker house to retrieve something he'd stashed there that fateful night, so then, at least, the Queens house was the setting of violence.)

At any rate, Peter's pretty much a self-absorbed creep after he gets his superpowers, though he is earning money to help his aunt and uncle out financially.

- Grant

[Black Vespa]

Honestly, I completely forgot this aspect of Spidey's origin... yes it's been that long. But anyway here's an excerpt from the wiki entry on Spider-Man...

"After quickly becoming a minor celebrity, Peter appears on a television special, but afterward allows a thief to escape the TV station, asserting that it isn't his problem. He comes to regret his inaction when he finds out that the same burglar subsequently killed his Uncle Ben.

Realizing that he could have prevented his uncle's death, the guilt-ridden Peter commits to a life of crimefighting and lifesaving, driven by his uncle's words, "With great power there must also come great responsibility". (The phrase is often shortened to: "With great power comes great responsibility".) This disarming mix of selfless obligation and self-recrimination brought about by his uncle's death arguably makes up Spider-Man's moral core."

I still don't consider the act of letting the thief run off "ignoble"... just one of apathy on his part.

i could be mistaken, but , it was very much done out of spite to the promoter for not giving Peter his fair share.

[Agent Helix]

i could be mistaken, but , it was very much done out of spite to the promoter for not giving Peter his fair share.

That's only in the movie, I believe. In the original comic, he's just an asshole.

[Steven Grant]

That's only in the movie, I believe. In the original comic, he's just an asshole.

Yes, I reread it to make sure. It's not even the promoter who gets robbed, the robbery just takes place in the same building. And it's not "some guy" who tells Spider-Man to stop the burglar; it's a cop who's giving chase.

Cop: What's with you, mister? All you hadda do was trip him, or hold him just for a minute!

Spider-Man: Sorry, pal! That's your job! I'm thru [sic] being pushed around - by anyone! From now on I just look out for number one - that means - me!

Cop: I oughta run you in -

Spider-Man (waving bye-bye): Save your breath, buddy. I've got things to do.

Total asshole.

- Grant

[Drusilla lives!]

Yes, I reread it to make sure. It's not even the promoter who gets robbed, the robbery just takes place in the same building. And it's not "some guy" who tells Spider-Man to stop the burglar; it's a cop who's giving chase.

Cop: What's with you, mister? All you hadda do was trip him, or hold him just for a minute!

Spider-Man: Sorry, pal! That's your job! I'm thru [sic] being pushed around - by anyone! From now on I just look out for number one - that means - me!

Cop: I oughta run you in -

Spider-Man (waving bye-bye): Save your breath, buddy. I've got things to do.

Total asshole.

- Grant

Oh yeah, right! Now I remember. All he really had to do was trip him up. Yeah... he was an asshole.

But was he ignoble? One would have to establish that he was aware of the difference. That he had always consciously acted with high moral principles... but as far as one could tell he was just a self absorbed teenager prior to his acquiring his powers and never thought in those terms. What Ditko intended in my opinion was that Parker was flawed from the start. That his self absorption and apathy was responsible for his uncles death and from his realization of this he was changed and henceforth acted in a responsible (noble) manner.

Ditko wanted us to know that we're all ignoble if we're indifferent or apathetic to the problems around us. As Mr. A would say, it's either one or the other... white or black.

BTW, this ethos sounds very familiar, I wonder if Ditko had a hand in the creation of the "Death Wish" movies? :)

[Drusilla lives!]

... 1) There are problems that the official agencies cannot--or will not--resolve. ...

The distinction between a superhero and a vigilante is (or should be) that a superhero acts with the sanction of agencies (agencies dually appointed and approved by the populace at large) where agencies cannot. When a superhero acts where an agency will not, then there is always the possibility that that superhero is really acting in the role of vigilante. Democracy is (or should be) rule by law, law which ultimately has it's power in the collective will of the people.

... 2) If you have the means to help solve those problems, you are morally obligated to do so. ...

In the day to day living of ones life yes... on a larger scale maybe, it would depend on the problem and the nature of the solution. On a larger scale even the best of intentions have unforeseen consequences.

[Steven Grant]

The distinction between a superhero and a vigilante is (or should be) that a superhero acts with the sanction of agencies (agencies dually appointed and approved by the populace at large) where agencies cannot. When a superhero acts where an agency will not, then there is always the possibility that that superhero is really acting in the role of vigilante. Democracy is (or should be) rule by law, law which ultimately has it's power in the collective will of the people.

But the law under democracy is only just law if equally applicable to all people, so giving someone special authority to bypass the laws that theoretically bind (in both senses of the word: restrain, and tie together) everyone in society is defeating democracy.

Even the members of that democracy cannot by mutual consent give anyone special dispensation without voiding the democracy, so even putting it to a vote is moot. Law not applied equally to all is undemocratic.

In the day to day living of ones life yes... on a larger scale maybe, it would depend on the problem and the nature of the solution. On a larger scale even the best of intentions have unforeseen consequences.

Here's the thing about unforeseen consequences: they happen. The true test is whether you're willing to make the effort to rectify or at least alleviate the negative consequences, or just shrug it off as the luck of the draw.

- Grant