Some thoughts after reading the past few days' flurry of posts (which I
finally finished reading just now).
* There was the matter of "The Future of the Comic Book." Would the
pamphlet format survive, or die out to be replaced by softcover or hardcover
books? I usually prefer the pamphlet (comicbook) format because of all the
little extras ya get. Some of Robin Snyder's & Ditko's own comics are
excellent examples. The Fly #5-8 is a particular favorite of mine. We get
a lead story by Ditko & Snyder, a backup serial starring another character
(The Jaguar) by different creators (Chas. Ward & Vicatan), the occasional
text page of information (indexing old comics), letters page, and finally a
Henry Boltinoff gag page (which was a common feature of DC comics in the
1950s-60s). Not to mention the ads. Remember that review of Charlton
Action Featuring Static which Robin reprinted in one of the Renegade comics
(I forget which series)? The funky Charlton ads were part of the visual
assault on the reviewer, contributing to the weird reading experience. Some
people may think this cheapens the material in the comic. Who knows, maybe
it does. I know that I was impressed when I first saw the format for
Watchmen (no ads, and inside covers designed to resemble a novel's). "The
Avenging World" would be rendered ridiculous if it was interrupted for
psychic-caller and "rub the Buddha for money" ads. But I like regular
comics that have the variety of old-time comics. I dislike that so many
current comics have a strict 22-page format that ends with a "Continued Next
Issue" tag, and usually no backup stories, no fun fact pages, no gag pages,
etc.
* Lee & Ditko's Amazing Spider-Man comics were listed on The Comics
Journal's list of the Top 100 Comics of the Century. Spidey was #35 on the
Top 100 list. And, to relate this to the above, the Journal notes that
readers can read these stories in the B&W Essentials reprints but that
"these editions obscure the carnival aspect of the original 12-cent comics."
So, that goes back to the debate about which is better: the book or the
comic. Personally I think there should be both -- the pamphlet to build a
relationship with the audience (letter pgs, costs less for the curious
reader to try, etc.) and the book for the stuff that stands the test of time
or which works well in a book format. Perhaps another debate-starter would
be, "Would you prefer to read multi-story Ditko books, like the 160-Page
Package, or one novel-length Ditko story contained in the same amount of
pages?"
* How about a Ditko Top 100? Or perhaps it would be easier to make it a Top
10, or top 5. I would probably put "The Avenging World" (1973) as my #1
Ditko comic because it is so different than any other comic I'd ever read
before, and in my opinion expanded the range of comics. After reading "The
Avenging World," I could imagine comicbooks tackling any subject under the
sun.
* Regarding the matter of whether Ditko was married or not, I think the
intent in saying "it's none of our business" was well-intentioned. Wasn't
there a huge flare-up some time back on this list when a poster wanted to
know Ditko's phone number? Ditko does not let much be known (I have yet to
read a documented quote from him, for example, explaining his position on
why he left Marvel in 1966 or whether he worked with Eric Stanton), but one
thing he has let it be known is that he prefers to let his work speak for
itself. When other pros were profiled in DC comics circa 1980, Ditko's
entry consisted of an illustration of his DC heroes instead. The earliest
indication I have come across of this Ditko aversion to his own biography is
in the text page of Showcase #73 (March/April, 1968) which introduced The
Creeper. The article is titled "Meet the Men Behind the Creeper." The
article spends most of its space on writer Don Segall, however. The article
does say about Ditko: "Pressed for personal information to fill out his
profile here, tall, blondish, bespectacled Steve was reluctant to reveal
anything about himself, just as he had resisted urging from editors of other
magazines. 'I never talk about myself,' he said. 'My work is me. I do my
best, and if I like it, I hope somebody else likes it, too.' "
Thus, Ditko-the-man is a mystery, and Ditko fans (myself included) would
love to learn more about him. In fact, I'm fascinated by and envious of
every anecdote I read about someone having met Ditko. I wondered whether he
was married, too, and whether he had kids (for the same reason -- a wish to
see a Ditko Jr. drawing comics). At the same time, I think we should always
respect Ditko's desire for privacy. Newer posters to the list may not know
about Ditko's desire to have his work speak for itself, may wonder why they
haven't seen his photo or read an interview with him, and want to see the
mystery that is Ditko revealed. While I'd like to see the same, I'd only
want to see the mysteries revealed if Ditko didn't mind them being revealed.
We've heard, for example, that Ditko pulled out of cooperating with The Art
of Steve Ditko book because he learned that Cat Yronwode had interviewed a
relative of his. This would suggest that Ditko does not appreciate people
researching his private life. We should bear that in mind when we discuss
Ditko-the-person. We are, after all, fans of his work (not fans of him as
a person, unless we may have met him), so Ditko is basically right: to us,
Steve Ditko IS Showcase #73, etc. And as fans I think we should tread
carefully when talking about the man behind the comic. If there was a FAQ
page for this list (is there one?) I'd wish that something like that was in
the page, explaining to people that Ditko does not want to give interviews,
and wants his work to speak for him. So that asking listers for Ditko's
phone number, even if it is public information, is not a good idea.
*Whew!* OK, after all that I'm ready to get knocked down to size by
dissenting listers.
* Regarding whether Ditko's art is asexual or not -- I don't think it's
asexual. As I wrote in my ghost comics article for Ditkomania some issues
ago, I think Ditko's ability to draw an attractive female form is
underrated. (Of course, maybe not as great as his rendering of the male
figure. Whether it's asexual or not, I wouldn't want to say.) As I said
in my article, Ditko's women in those 1970s ghost comics often wore
mini-skirts (the fashion of the times) which enhanced their attractiveness.
Ditko does seem to turn the camera away sometimes, like O. Henry guiding the
reader to examine the furniture while the characters kiss in "Gift of the
Magi." The daughter of a wealthy materialist is raped in a 1989 Recovery
Agent story in The Ditko Package (so that she finally realizes the value of
materialism), but Ditko does not show graphic details. We see the beginning
of the assault and then the aftermath, but I don't think the idea that she
was raped is ever explicitly stated in the story. I assume she was raped
or, if not, at least molested, given what Ditko does tell/show us. But no
nudity. Ditko began his career as the Comics Code was being created, so
perhaps that explains his tastefulness. I haven't seen his pre-Code stuff
other than "Stretching Things," though....
* On the Kazan thing, I thought the Objectivist position (at the webpage
Rodney provided) to be a little flawed to me. For example, one of the
articles justified the committee asking the actors' party affiliation,
saying: "By joining the [Communist] Party (an undisputed fact), the
filmmakers were not merely making an ideological statement but were agreeing
to take orders to commit actions — criminal and treasonable actions, since
the Party, and the Soviet government it served, was openly dedicated to the
overthrow of the U.S. government." Is this true? How many of those who
joined really wanted to overthrow the U.S. government when they joined the
Communist Party? More likely they were hoping for America to be more
equitable and fair, or perhaps in light of the 1930s Depression, felt that
Communism was more stable than Capitalism. Did they really vow to commit
unlawful acts, or did they hope to achieve their ends by working within the
system like any other Party? If they had committed unlawful acts, were they
charged with doing so -- or instead charged simply for not revealing their
party affiliation or those of others? I don't know much about it, so I'm
honestly asking. But from what I do know, despite the context of the times,
I don't think the Congress had any business hauling them before their
UnAmerican committee. Another quote from the article: "(T)here is an
obscene irony in the Communist writers complaining that their right to
freedom of speech was violated, since that right was precisely what the
Communist Party was out to destroy." But is there any evidence that
Hollywood Communists wanted to destroy free speech like Stalin? I doubt it.
"Mr. Kazan showed great moral courage in testifying about the influence, in
the American film and theatre industry, of those who wished to replace
freedom with totalitarianism." Or did they wish to legitimately (thru the
ballot-box, which is fair & square) replace capitalism with something they
believed to be more equitable and sane? I doubt they intended to set up a
dictatorship. In the 1930s, some people saw the Soviet Union as an ideal
society. During the early years of the Depression, one could find travel
ads to the Soviet Union in U.S. magazines. Perhaps the Hollywood Communists
were well-intentioned, wishing to bring some of that presumed prosperity and
equality to the U.S.
Another thing I found intriguing on the webpage was the idea that
Objectivists were holding a demonstration in favor of Kazan. I wonder how
Ditko reacts to this, because whenever we see a demonstration or protest in
a Ditko comic, it is usually put on by the people Ditko doesn't agree with.
I think it's safe to say that it's a given: protest marchers in Ditko comics
are the bad guys or portrayed unflatteringly. Does anyone recall ever
seeing a positive portrayal of protest marchers in a Ditko comic? Now here
we have a pro-Kazan protest by Objectivists. Come to think of it, I also
now recall when Objectivists protested & marched during the National
Volunteer Week thing a year or two ago. I wonder if they look anything like
the grungy wild men that Ditko draws demonstrators looking like...! :P
I seem to recall that Robert Kennedy was involved in HUAC, as Joe McCarthy's
assistant or something. I could have sworn I'd heard his voice badgering a
witness to step away from the chair and calling for the guards after seeing
the witness was going to give a longer answer than "yes" or "no." So, even
the actions at that time of a future liberal icon like RFK can be hard to
defend.
Regarding how Communists were viewed in the 1940s, I was surprised several
years back when hearing a pre-Pearl Harbor broadcast of Walter Winchell's.
He really tore into the Communists as bad as he did the Nazis, it seemed.
(And Winchell was apparently the first person on American radio to call
Hitler a "madman," circa 1939. I read that he got in trouble from the
network for that one.) Anyway, just for historical fun, here's a transcript
(written out by me from the broadcast, so some things may be spelled wrong)
of a Walter Winchell broadcast which originally aired on May 18, 1941:
"- The Walter Winchell War-Monger Department. For the edification of Mr &
Mrs Rip Van Winkle, from border to border and coast to coast. Los Angeles.
Attention Toledo, Ohio. A few weeks ago I reported that one Kenneth Eggart
of Toledo was allegedly one of the agitators of a strike against a defense
plant on the West coast. And that this very same Eggart was a Communist
troublemaker. Eggart demanded a copy of Winchell's remarks and threatened
to sue me for my so-called malicious lie about him, etc etc. The Dies
Congressional Committee sends me the following information -- that Kenneth
Eggart alias Eggarts or Ekert was issued a passport to go to Russia on Nov
3, 1932, and that the files of the State Dept also reveal that the passage
to Russia of this Communist-inspired strike agitator was paid for by the
Communist Party.
End of Winchell quote. I've also heard a late 1940s Louella Parsons
broadcast where she says that every day she gets hundreds of letters
insisting that Humphrey Bogart is a Communist. There was also the Red Scare
in the U.S. in the late teens/early twenties, following the Russian
Revolution. The Bolshevik scare. So, even though we associate the fear of
the Communists taking over with the era of Joe McCarthy in the early 1950s,
the fear existed in previous decades, too.
Also in the late 1940s, many Hollywood stars appeared in at least two radio
broadcasts defending movies against those saying they were Communist
propaganda. Edward G. Robinson pointed out that people would criticize
William S. Hart westerns in the silent days because they showed banks
getting robbed, or with crooked bankers. Therefore, the movie must be
anti-banks. Critics today like Michael Medved continue this line of
criticism, claiming that negative cinematic portrayals of capitalists are
proof of Hollywood attacking American values. Rather than simply a
storytelling cliche with no more philosophical intention than a hula hoop.
I completely agree with Medved on popular-film treatment of sex, violence,
and religion, but when such critics try to show how some recent movies are
really anti-capitalistic propaganda, they lose me.
* Regarding Ron Frantz's comment about Louis L'amour and Hopalong Cassidy:
I'd noticed those L'amour paperbacks about Hoppy at bookstores and simply
assumed that he wrote them because he liked the character. I had no idea
they were written under the circumstances you describe, with L'amour not
even wanting them in his sight. It makes one wonder if L'amour would be
furious to know that those Hoppy novels are now in his "canon" (or whatever
the term is) as real L'amour novels (in the same format as his other
paperbacks) or whether he'd be understanding about his family doing it for
the money (or whatever reason they did it). Thanks for sharing the
anecdote. I also want to add that I've enjoyed your Ace Comics very much.
Also liked your post (probably on another list) where you mentioned seeing
Tim Holt (my favorite cowboy star) and Lum & Abner (my favorite comedy team)
at a convention in the early 1970s!
* Well, that about covers it. Thanks for listening, all.
- Washington, D.C. On Wednesday next week, the Dies Committee will start
hearings on Communistic activities in Washington, D.C. Mr Dies says he will
thoroughly discredit the American Peace Mobilization outfit which has been
picketing the White House. Mr Dies says he will expose that group as being
a Communist Party line, not a picket line. Washington. Last Sunday night,
ladies and gentlemen, I reported exclusively that government agents would
arrest a certain rabble-rouser who had allegedly sent threatening letters to
prominent Americans. His initials for the time being are D.S. a,b,c,D. S.
He really does the dirty laundry for many big-name Nazi-lovers in the United
States. He and his files containing many letters from his supporters and
backers has been seized. Congratulations, Mr Government Man!
- Jersey City, New Jersey. A few months ago I reported the PECULIAR
activities of a Major in the United States Army Intelligence Service. His
name is Major John E. Kelly of 14 Brinkerhopp Street, Jersey City. I said
at the time that he was associating with some very STRANGE people for a
member of Army Intelligence because I knew he was not spying on them in the
interests of his America. This is to report further, ladies and gentlemen,
on Major John E. Kelly, U.S.A., and a dear, dear pal of the Nazis! On May
16th, 1941, the United States Army dropped Major John E. Kelly of Jersey
City."